[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 2:21 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 06:17:36 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:



British islands - adjective and noun; islands that are British. That
includes all of Great Britain, many small islands and part of the
island of Ireland.

British Isles - geographic name of an archipelago off the coast of
Europe, comprising Great Britain, Ireland and many small islands.

Try and understand the difference.

Try to understand the similarity, more like. Try also to understand
that if most people in a country don't want to have their country
labeled one of the 'British Isles', don't do it.

I am not labelling a country. I am labelling an island, which in case
it had escaped your attention has two countries on it - one of which
is very happy to accept the label.

No, it didn't escape my attention. I live here. It's recent history
seems to have spectacularly escaped your attention though - anyone who
thinks it an accurate description of reality to say that the people of
Northern Ireland are 'very happy' to be in the British Isles is some
clown indeed. About sixty percent of them are, but the other forty
percent sure aren't. They couldn't agree on the colour of the sky, so
'very happy' hardly ever enters into any discussion up there.

But get back to the fact that the vast majority of people in Ireland
(the country, which is what I have been talking about all along) don't
accept this term 'British Isles', and you're still the guy trying to
foist a geographic term on people who don't want it. Think up a new
name of these islands.


Your politics has clouded your reason.

Politics and reason aren't mututally exclusive. My politics is that
I'm an Irish person. And like most Irish people, I'm of the view that
the term 'British Isles' should not be used to include the country I
live in. For that reason, I think people who use the term in that way
should cease.


d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 12, 7:11 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:04:03 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:





On Apr 12, 11:11 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 02:45:32 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 9:36 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 01:31:01 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 7:19 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 11 Apr 2007 15:02:58 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

Maybe they'll leave Ireland alone, but the rest of theBritishIsles
will be parking lots and condominiums.

The rest of theBritishIsles? You seem to be implying that Ireland is
in theBritishIsles. This is not the case, as most Irish person would
be quick to remind you.

When did they move it? Last time I was there it was still firmly
attached.

Was it? How so?

Geology seemed to be doing a fine job.

Geology didn't invent the term "British Isles", people did.

That's right - and it happened a long time before anybody had dreamed
up Ireland - it was Hibernia back then. But you can't arbitrarily
decide that a piece of land is not a part of an island group through a
piece of petty parochial politics.

I'm deciding it's not part of the island group. It is. What I am
objecting to is that using the term 'British Isles' to describe that
islan group. I think you've completely misunderstood what I said and I
hope this clarifies it.

No, it doesn't. It is not within your power to decide that Ireland is
not part of the British Isles group. You are in disagreement with
geology, and I'm afraid geology wins. If you want to change it, you
must find a way to detach Ireland from the group and float it away
somewhere else.

Ireland is geologically a part of
the British Isles (Insulas Brittanicas if you insist) and that is
that.

No, it's not. 'British Isles' is the term you use to denote that
island group. It's not a term the vast majority of people who live in
Ireland would use, and on that basis it should not be used. Seeing as
neither the Irish government uses it to include Ireland, nor at this
stage the British government, it's time you caught up with reality.

Please understand; you can't vote for geology - it isn't a democracy.
It is a physical fact. Maybe many people in Southern Ireland don't
much like the fact that they live in the British Isles, but that is
tough, I'm afraid. Their only option is to move elsewhere. They can
call it something else all they like, but just doing so cannot change
the simple fact. The island of Ireland is the second largest island in
the group called the British Isles.

d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fly poop to the right, pepper to the left.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 4:17 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Cavellowrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Try and understand the difference.

Try to understand the similarity, more like. Try also to understand
that if most people in a country don't want to have their country
labeled one of the 'British Isles', don't do it.

So what group of island is Nothern Ireland part of ?

I couldn't care less. That's not part of my country. It is legally
part of the 'British Islands' so if you want to also include it in the
British Isles, go ahead. Just don't include Ireland.


Graham

[Don Pearce]

On 12 Apr 2007 11:17:14 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 2:21 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 06:17:36 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:



British islands - adjective and noun; islands that are British. That
includes all of Great Britain, many small islands and part of the
island of Ireland.

British Isles - geographic name of an archipelago off the coast of
Europe, comprising Great Britain, Ireland and many small islands.

Try and understand the difference.

Try to understand the similarity, more like. Try also to understand
that if most people in a country don't want to have their country
labeled one of the 'British Isles', don't do it.

I am not labelling a country. I am labelling an island, which in case
it had escaped your attention has two countries on it - one of which
is very happy to accept the label.

No, it didn't escape my attention. I live here. It's recent history
seems to have spectacularly escaped your attention though - anyone who
thinks it an accurate description of reality to say that the people of
Northern Ireland are 'very happy' to be in the British Isles is some
clown indeed. About sixty percent of them are, but the other forty
percent sure aren't. They couldn't agree on the colour of the sky, so
'very happy' hardly ever enters into any discussion up there.

But get back to the fact that the vast majority of people in Ireland
(the country, which is what I have been talking about all along) don't
accept this term 'British Isles', and you're still the guy trying to
foist a geographic term on people who don't want it. Think up a new
name of these islands.


********. They have a perfectly good name that has stood since long
before you arrived from north Africa, Scotland or Norway.


Your politics has clouded your reason.

Politics and reason aren't mututally exclusive.

They are in Ireland - have been for a hundred years.

My politics is that
I'm an Irish person. And like most Irish people, I'm of the view that
the term 'British Isles' should not be used to include the country I
live in. For that reason, I think people who use the term in that way
should cease.

Sorry old chap - that simply isn't your choice, you'll just have to
keep wishing. But saying a thing is so doesn't make it so, I'm afraid.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Don Pearce]

On 12 Apr 2007 11:17:52 -0700, "Peter Wieck" wrote:

Fly poop to the right, pepper to the left.


Anyone got a clue?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 4:16 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
British islands - adjective and noun; islands that are British. That
includes all of Great Britain, many small islands and part of the
island of Ireland.

I suppose this means that the name of the island changes as you cross the border from
the North to the South.

Well, you're on the island of Ireland regardless of which side of the
border you're on - no-one disputes that. You're also in Ulster on both
sides of the border depending on where you cross the border (along
some of the border, you actually leave Ulster when you walk out of
Northern Ireland into Ireland), and under British law, you're in 'the
British Islands' if you walk across the border into Northern Ireland
but obviously you're not in the 'British Islands' if you're in
Ireland, i.e. on the southern side of the border. To add to the
confusion, the northern most point in Ireland is north of the northern
most point in Northern Ireland. Couldn't be simpler


Graham

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 4:15 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Cavellowrote:
That's not what I'm saying either. I don't care if the group of
islands has a name or not. I'm simply pointing out that the British
Isles doesn't include Ireland. The term does exist, but it doesn't
include Ireland.

LOL !

I believe this is what's often called 'having a paddy' !

I'm not familiar with the expression. But I detect a racial slur
coming on.


Graham

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 4:12 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Cavellowrote:
I'm not objecting to Ireland being in this group of islands.

I'm pleased to hear that. You'd have some serious problems otherwise.

I'm from the Isle of Man btw. An independent country. We have no trouble with being
part of the British Isles. What's yours ?

We're not British. Neither is our country. So the term 'British Isles'
is inaccurate. Like I said, I could just as legitimately call Britain
an 'Irish Isle'.

I'm interested in the status of the Isle of Mann. Is it really an
'independent country'? I mean, does it have it's own foreign minister
and diplomats or does it leave the task of external relations up to
London? Is it a member of the UN? Does it have its own soccer team
that plays in international competitions? I'm not saying it must have
these in order to be a country, I'm just asking.


Graham

[Don Pearce]

On 12 Apr 2007 11:30:55 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 4:12 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Cavellowrote:
I'm not objecting to Ireland being in this group of islands.

I'm pleased to hear that. You'd have some serious problems otherwise.

I'm from the Isle of Man btw. An independent country. We have no trouble with being
part of the British Isles. What's yours ?

We're not British. Neither is our country. So the term 'British Isles'
is inaccurate. Like I said, I could just as legitimately call Britain
an 'Irish Isle'.

I'm interested in the status of the Isle of Mann. Is it really an
'independent country'? I mean, does it have it's own foreign minister
and diplomats or does it leave the task of external relations up to
London? Is it a member of the UN? Does it have its own soccer team
that plays in international competitions? I'm not saying it must have
these in order to be a country, I'm just asking.


It certainly has its own government, raises its own taxes and isn't a
member of the EU. I think that must qualify it as being its own
country.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 4:14 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Cavellowrote:
I'm merely pointing out to you that *calling*
this group of islands "the British Isles" is objectionable to most
Irish people. It's also a term not used by the Irish government.

So what do they call it ?

They don't call it anything, instead referring to 'Ireland and
Britain', or else they use the term 'These islands' or 'the Isles' or
'IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic)', but none of these terms has
really taken hold yet. These are some of the terms mostly used in
joint statements by the British and Irish governments any time they
meet to discuss Northern Ireland. The British Government tends to
steer well clear of using the term, at least when Northern Ireland is
the topic of discussion.


The British Governments legal definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't
include Ireland.

Yes it does unless Northern Irelanders get a different passport to a standard UK
one.

I'm referring to Ireland the country, not Ireland the island. The term
'British Islands' does include Northern Ireland. Northern Irelanders
get the same UK passport as anyone else in Britain so far as I know,
but of course they're also entitled to an Irish passport.


Graham

[Don Pearce]

On 12 Apr 2007 11:36:07 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 4:14 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Cavellowrote:
I'm merely pointing out to you that *calling*
this group of islands "the British Isles" is objectionable to most
Irish people. It's also a term not used by the Irish government.

So what do they call it ?

They don't call it anything, instead referring to 'Ireland and
Britain', or else they use the term 'These islands' or 'the Isles' or
'IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic)', but none of these terms has
really taken hold yet. These are some of the terms mostly used in
joint statements by the British and Irish governments any time they
meet to discuss Northern Ireland. The British Government tends to
steer well clear of using the term, at least when Northern Ireland is
the topic of discussion.

Iona? Perfect. That is already a British island, just off the larger
island of Mull.

And of course there are plenty of other Islands of the North Atlantic.
I am from the Faroe Islands, which I believe would have a far better
claim on the term as they are surrounded by the North Atlantic -
unlike the British Isles.


The British Governments legal definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't
include Ireland.

Yes it does unless Northern Irelanders get a different passport to a standard UK
one.

I'm referring to Ireland the country, not Ireland the island. The term
'British Islands' does include Northern Ireland. Northern Irelanders
get the same UK passport as anyone else in Britain so far as I know,
but of course they're also entitled to an Irish passport.


So what's the problem? It seems that you have everything you could
possibly want.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 4:10 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
"Cavello" wrote:

I'm deciding it's not part of the island group. It is. What I am
objecting to is that using the term 'British Isles' to describe that
islan group. I think you've completely misunderstood what I said and I
hope this clarifies it.

No, it doesn't. It is not within your power to decide that Ireland is
not part of the British Isles group. You are in disagreement with
geology, and I'm afraid geology wins. If you want to change it, you
must find a way to detach Ireland from the group and float it away
somewhere else.

What amuses me aboutCavello's'argument' is that, should at some time in the
future The Republic of Ireland choose to re-establish Union with the UK, would the
island of Ireland now once again become a British Isle ?

Despite Bertie Ahern making some comment about rejoining the
Commonwealth, but there was almost zero appetite for it, so the
possibility of rejoining the Union is even more remote. So the issue
doesn't arise. If it ever did, becoming part of Britain wouldn't leave
much room for not being a British Isle. By the same token of course,
not being part of Britain makes the notion that Ireland is part of the
British Isles a daft one.


This shows his argument to be purely a political one.

In any case Nothern Ireland is part of Britain, so maybe the Republicans would
like to saw off their bit at the frontier and float it further into the Atlantic ?

I don't know what you mean by 'Republicans'. In Ireland, and indeed in
Northern Ireland, the term denotes the IRA. They'd like to saw off
every British flagpole in Northern Ireland and every red pillar box,
and probably a few Unionist heads while they're at it. Those of us in
the Republic who respect the right of the population of Northern
Ireland to remain in Britain and are generally sick of the IRA have
often thought how nice it'd be to saw Northern Ireland off, put a few
outboard motors on it, and send it out into the Atlantic.


Graham

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 3:54 pm, Rob wrote:
Cavellowrote:
On Apr 12, 1:42 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:35:23 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 1:18 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:15:48 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:00 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On 11 Apr 2007 15:02:58 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:
Maybe they'll leave Ireland alone, but the rest of theBritishIsles
will be parking lots and condominiums.
The rest of the British Isles? You seem to be implying that Ireland is
in the British Isles. This is not the case, as most Irish person would
be quick to remind you.
Sure it is. Look at a map.
It isn't part of the political grouping "United Kingdom of Great
Britan and Northern Ireland". But that's quite another matter.
The Irish government doesn't recognise the term. The British
government's definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't include
Ireland, and most Irish people object to the use of the term. So no
amount of maps you could show me make any difference. It should be
clear that calling places by names that the people who live there
doesn't approve of should not be done.
Now you are simply demonstrating ignorance. Go do some reading -
particularly find a decent atlas.
In what way am I demonstrating ignorence? Look up what the Minister
for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, Dermot Ahern, has said on the matter.
Look up what the British Goverment defines 'British Islands' as under
British law. Ask a few Irish people what they think most Irish people
would have to say on the matter. No atlas overturns any of these. You
demonstrated ignorence in another post about something as easily
verifiable as the name of Ireland, so I won't be lectured by you.
I think you will find that the rantings of a Jackanapes politician can
be safely ignored.

Well, he was asked a question about Irish government policy and he
answered it. As for the 'Jackanapes' politicians who passed the law
that says Ireland isn't considered part of the British Islands, you
can't ignore them either.

Bizarre thread!

Not that bizarre. Do a search of past usenet discussions. This same
argument has been had a thousand times. The Irish always win it of
course, cos we're usually up against Brits that never even considered
the possibility that Irish people didn't like this 'British Isles'
carry-on.

Ireland is not a 'British island'. It's a European
island. Ireland is an island split into two parts in 1921. Ironically,
the north ended up/remained as part of the UK. It's carried on that way
by dint of British military occupation, English political will and
Unionist majority activity. As these three things slide, a united and
autonomous Ireland is on the cards, I feel.

You're forgetting the fourth ingredient necessary for a United Ireland
- the agreement of a majority in the Republic. We don't want it. We've
spent too long building our economy to become the fifth richest in
terms of GDP per head (several places ahead of Britain as it happens)
to have it destroyed by replaying the Troubles.

Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are about to go into government. It's
almost impossible to believe what we are seeing. The last thing we
need is a United Ireland to upset the apple cart all over again.


Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 4:00 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Rob wrote:
Bizarre thread! Ireland is not a 'British island'. It's a European
island.

It's an island far off the European coastline.

There is simply no accepted meaning of 'European islands', so your description is
meaningless.

So is the term 'British Isles' used to include Ireland. It's not an
accepted meaning here either. European Islands would be acceptable to
me, what's your objection to it?


Graham

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 2:07 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 06:04:05 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

And it isn't "British Islands", it is "British Isles".

The 'British Islands' is the term used by the British Government in
law, and doesn't include Ireland.

Which is precisely why this conversation is about the British Isles,
which does.

Not according to most Irish people. And as I said, it's pretty
offensive to use terms to describe places with the permission of the
people who live there.

I do live there (the British Isles), and I give myself permission.

You don't have the permission of the Irish people to include Ireland
in that. Otherwise, I can just declare your back garden part of
Ireland and levy you with a mandatory fine of a million quid for not
being ten feet tall. Nonsense has a way of never ending once you
start.


d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On 12 Apr 2007 12:02:28 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 2:07 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 06:04:05 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

And it isn't "British Islands", it is "British Isles".

The 'British Islands' is the term used by the British Government in
law, and doesn't include Ireland.

Which is precisely why this conversation is about the British Isles,
which does.

Not according to most Irish people. And as I said, it's pretty
offensive to use terms to describe places with the permission of the
people who live there.

I do live there (the British Isles), and I give myself permission.

You don't have the permission of the Irish people to include Ireland
in that. Otherwise, I can just declare your back garden part of
Ireland and levy you with a mandatory fine of a million quid for not
being ten feet tall. Nonsense has a way of never ending once you
start.


So you continue to demonstrate.

d


--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Don Pearce]

On 12 Apr 2007 11:56:31 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

You're forgetting the fourth ingredient necessary for a United Ireland
- the agreement of a majority in the Republic. We don't want it. We've
spent too long building our economy to become the fifth richest in
terms of GDP per head (several places ahead of Britain as it happens)
to have it destroyed by replaying the Troubles.

Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are about to go into government. It's
almost impossible to believe what we are seeing. The last thing we
need is a United Ireland to upset the apple cart all over again.

A united Ireland would indeed be a nightmare. I mean where would we
find room to house another hundred MPs in Westminster? I feel that is
exactly what you are going to end up with, though. The direction is
inexorable.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

So what group of island is Nothern Ireland part of ?

I couldn't care less. That's not part of my country.

It's the same island !


It is legally part of the 'British Islands' so if you want to also include it
in the
British Isles, go ahead. Just don't include Ireland.

Both countries are in Ireland. You're referring to the Republic, a purely
political distinction.

I've never come across an island whose definition changed when crossing a border
before !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Cavellowrote:
That's not what I'm saying either. I don't care if the group of
islands has a name or not. I'm simply pointing out that the British
Isles doesn't include Ireland. The term does exist, but it doesn't
include Ireland.

LOL !

I believe this is what's often called 'having a paddy' !

I'm not familiar with the expression. But I detect a racial slur
coming on.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_b...ages/1245.html

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Cavellowrote:
I'm not objecting to Ireland being in this group of islands.

I'm pleased to hear that. You'd have some serious problems otherwise.

I'm from the Isle of Man btw. An independent country. We have no trouble with being
part of the British Isles. What's yours ?

We're not British. Neither is our country. So the term 'British Isles'
is inaccurate. Like I said, I could just as legitimately call Britain
an 'Irish Isle'.

But you couldn't. Groups of islands are not named after the 2nd largest !


I'm interested in the status of the Isle of Mann.

Man.


Is it really an 'independent country'?

http://gov.im/
the official website of the Isle of Man Government
Note that .im is the 'country code' on the internet.


I mean, does it have it's own foreign minister and diplomats or does it leave the task
of external relations up to London?

Tricky. I know that defence is handled by the UK but since the Isle of Man isn't a member
of the EU it looks like they do handle foreign affairs themselves.


Is it a member of the UN?

Not AFAIK.


Does it have its own soccer team that plays in international competitions?

It may simply be too small for that. The population is roughly on a par at 80,000 with the
town in England where I live.


I'm not saying it must have these in order to be a country, I'm just asking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_man
http://gov.im/isleofman/

Graham

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

"Cavello" wrote:

When did they move it? Last time I was there it was still firmly
attached.

Was it? How so?

Southern Ireland is the independent state. It is firmly attached to
Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom.

I've known it as any of these.....

The Irish Free State
The South
Southern Ireland
The Republic (of Ireland)
Eire.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:
"Cavello" wrote:

When did they move it? Last time I was there it was still firmly
attached.

Was it? How so?

Southern Ireland is the independent state.

It's called "Ireland or "Eire", or if you want to use the official
description "Republic of Ireland".

It is firmly attached to Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom.

This doesn't make it part of the British Isles. It merely makes it
part of the island of Ireland.

How does that affect whether the island of Ireland is a British Isle or not
though ?

Your distinctions above are purely political ones, not geographic.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

It is the island of Ireland that is part of the British Isles. That is
a matter of geography, not politics. Because it is part of the island
of Ireland, Eire is part of the British Isles.

Why is it so important to you to pretend it is otherwise?

They're still cross about William of Orange and Cromwell.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

And it isn't "British Islands", it is "British Isles".

Absolutely correct.

British Islands is the political term, British Isles is the geographic one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands

The term "British Islands" should not be confused with "British Isles".

The term British Islands is used in the law of the United Kingdom to refer
collectively to the following four states:
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
the Bailiwick of Jersey;
the Bailiwick of Guernsey (including Alderney, Herm, and Sark); and
the Isle of Man.

Note that the Channel Islands are part of the British Islands even though they
are not part of the British Isles.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

The 'British Islands' is the term used by the British Government in
law, and doesn't include Ireland.

Just part of it.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
"Cavello" wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

And it isn't "British Islands", it is "British Isles".

The 'British Islands' is the term used by the British Government in
law, and doesn't include Ireland.

Which is precisely why this conversation is about the British Isles,
which does.

Not according to most Irish people. And as I said, it's pretty
offensive to use terms to describe places with the permission of the
people who live there.

I only wish we could get rid of the equally crazy and argumentative Irish in the
North and let you lot take care of the resulting problems !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:
"Cavello" wrote:

The rest of the British Isles? You seem to be implying that Ireland is
in the British Isles. This is not the case, as most Irish person would
be quick to remind you.

Sure it is. Look at a map.

It isn't part of the political grouping "United Kingdom of Great
Britan and Northern Ireland". But that's quite another matter.

The Irish government doesn't recognise the term. The British
government's definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't include
Ireland, and most Irish people object to the use of the term.

No-one is saying that The Republic of Ireland is part of the British Islands. It
is however part of the British Isles. A geographical fact.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

"Cavello" wrote:

The Irish government doesn't recognise the term. The British
government's definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't include
Ireland, and most Irish people object to the use of the term. So no
amount of maps you could show me make any difference. It should be
clear that calling places by names that the people who live there
doesn't approve of should not be done.

Now you are simply demonstrating ignorance. Go do some reading -
particularly find a decent atlas.

I wonder if they have Irish Atlases with different names ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

Look up what the British Goverment defines 'British Islands' as under
British law.

British Islands =/= British Isles.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
Bizarre thread! Ireland is not a 'British island'. It's a European
island.

It's an island far off the European coastline.

There is simply no accepted meaning of 'European islands', so your description is
meaningless.

So is the term 'British Isles' used to include Ireland.

It's a fact that Ireland is geographically part of the British Isles. It's also a fact
that part of Ireland is British.


It's not an accepted meaning here either. European Islands would be acceptable to
me, what's your objection to it?

It's meaningless. It has no geographic value. There are European islands all over the
place and it gives no idea of location. In any case for most of all history the
British Isles were considered distinct from Europe (the Continent).

Graham

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

"Cavello" wrote:

You're forgetting the fourth ingredient necessary for a United Ireland
- the agreement of a majority in the Republic. We don't want it. We've
spent too long building our economy to become the fifth richest in
terms of GDP per head (several places ahead of Britain as it happens)
to have it destroyed by replaying the Troubles.

Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are about to go into government. It's
almost impossible to believe what we are seeing. The last thing we
need is a United Ireland to upset the apple cart all over again.

A united Ireland would indeed be a nightmare. I mean where would we
find room to house another hundred MPs in Westminster? I feel that is
exactly what you are going to end up with, though. The direction is
inexorable.

The ultimate irony here is had the Republicans had a little more patience in the
early 20th century they'd have had an independent United Ireland anyway ! Home
Rule and all that.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:40:37 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:

It is the island of Ireland that is part of the British Isles. That is
a matter of geography, not politics. Because it is part of the island
of Ireland, Eire is part of the British Isles.

Why is it so important to you to pretend it is otherwise?

They're still cross about William of Orange and Cromwell.

Graham

Well, as for Cromwell he ****ed us up far worse than he did Ireland.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

"Cavello" wrote:

Well, you learn something new every day, don't you? The reason it's
not widely objected to in Ireland is that we hardly ever come across
it in Ireland. When we hear 'British Isles', we assume it to mean the
UK (Isle of Mann etc), and the nearby islands that belong to the UK.
In fact, that's how the British government defines the term 'British
Islands'.

I've never heard the term "British Islands" beford today. Did you
just make it up?

It does exist but it's a political term not a geographic one. Clearly an attempt
to obfuscate.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On 12 Apr 2007 10:55:35 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 4:21 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:
Ireland isn't part of the British Isles rather like Tasmania isn't part of
Australia.

I didn't say Ireland is part of Britain did I ? That would be incorrect. Your
comparison is inappropriate

The British Isles refers to the many (hundreds) of islands around the island of Great
Britain which is the largest of the group.

It is a geographical fact that Ireland is one of this group.

No-one is disputing that fact. What I am objecting to is the use of
the term 'British Isles' to refer to that group. Use the term 'British
Isles' to refer to something else, use some other term to refer to the
group, but don't use a term that so many Irish people object to and
have a pet peeve about. Simple enough point.


Now I am going to call you out and show that you are just a liar. In
another post, which I have copied and pasted, the conversation went
thus:

___________

"Correction. I meant to say "I'm not deciding it's not part of the
island group".

Why all the grandiloquent nonsense? If what you meant was "I would
like the British Isles to have some other name",

That's not what I'm saying either. I don't care if the group of
islands has a name or not. I'm simply pointing out that the British
Isles doesn't include Ireland. The term does exist, but it doesn't
include Ireland."

____________

Which is of course the exact opposite of what you say above. You
actually have no argument; all you are doing is taking the opposite
position to that occupied by anyone from England. You really are a
rather pathetic little character, aren't you?

You prove yourself unworthy of notice, and enter my killfile.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Laurence Payne]

On 12 Apr 2007 10:52:35 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

I wasn't aware of that, and if I'm wrong I do apologise. But two
points come to mind:

(1) This is what wikipedia has to say on the matter:

Can we have YOUR knowledge please, not just what you've dredged up on
the notoriously unreliable Wikipedia?

[Andre Jute]

Hmm, I'm Irish and I live in Ireland. I have also lived in Britain and
have much cause to be grateful to the British, who offered me a place
to stay when I was a political exile, and education and wealth and
much besides. I do actually know the meanings of all these
descriptions of the islands, geographic and political. But I don't
care enough to explain to anyone.

What I do care about is the appalling manners exhibited by Pearce and
Payne and the rest of the Britscum in forcing, in what must now be a
hundred messages, down the throat of the unwilling Cavello the notion
that they, the British, are the master race. The British are
surprisingly well regarded by the minority of thoughtful people around
the world, but it is triumphalist trash like you who make the majority
of the world hate the British as a class of much poorer ugly
Americans.

What have you ever done, yourself, to earn the right to such a
patronizing attitude?

The number of those messages and their repetive, mindless, dull,
thugging insistence is a form of bullying. The number of those
messages also demonstrates that the British are exceedingly sensitive
indeed about their lost Empire. It's jumped-up, overage school bullies
like you who caused it to be lost. The public problem with your type
of Brit is that you are the most graceless losers in the world; it is
just as well your government (of either persausion) doesn't pay any
attention to your Gibraltarian chattering.

Andre Jute
Zero tolerance for overripe school bullies

Don Pearce wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 10:52:35 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 4:05 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Cavellowrote:
Laurence Payne wrote

I've never known Irish people object seriously to the geographical
name. They make it clear they aren't part of the United Kingdom, of
course.

Well, you learn something new every day, don't you? The reason it's
not widely objected to in Ireland is that we hardly ever come across
it in Ireland. When we hear 'British Isles', we assume it to mean the
UK (Isle of Mann etc), and the nearby islands that belong to the UK.

The Isle of Man (note correct spelling) is not part of the UK.

I wasn't aware of that, and if I'm wrong I do apologise. But two
points come to mind:

(1) This is what wikipedia has to say on the matter: "The Crown
Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, formally
possessions of the Crown, form a federacy with the United Kingdom
collectively known as the British Islands." I have no idea what that
means so I'm not saying it's right, but you've caused me to become
interested in its precise status. What is its relationship with the UK
then? Is it an independent country?

(2) It's ironic that you're quick to point out that the Isle of Mann
isn't in the UK but insist that Ireland is in the 'British Isles' when
few people in Ireland wish it to be termed as such. Quid pro quo?


Graham


Please try and understand.

British Islands is a political description. It does not include your
bit.

British Isles is a geographic description. It does include your bit.

There is no irony in point (2). It really is quite simple. Knock that
plank-sized chip off your shoulder and you may yet be able to see it.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Cavellowrote:
Laurence Payne wrote

I've never known Irish people object seriously to the geographical
name. They make it clear they aren't part of the United Kingdom, of
course.

Well, you learn something new every day, don't you? The reason it's
not widely objected to in Ireland is that we hardly ever come across
it in Ireland. When we hear 'British Isles', we assume it to mean the
UK (Isle of Mann etc), and the nearby islands that belong to the UK.

The Isle of Man (note correct spelling) is not part of the UK.

I wasn't aware of that, and if I'm wrong I do apologise. But two
points come to mind:

(1) This is what wikipedia has to say on the matter: "The Crown
Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, formally
possessions of the Crown, form a federacy with the United Kingdom
collectively known as the British Islands." I have no idea what that
means so I'm not saying it's right, but you've caused me to become
interested in its precise status. What is its relationship with the UK
then? Is it an independent country?

It's a crown dependency IIRC. Like Guernsey and Jersey for example. Inasmuch as
it has its own government, taxes and the like it is indeed effectively
independent although the Queen is still head of state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_dependency

(2) It's ironic that you're quick to point out that the Isle of Mann
isn't in the UK but insist that Ireland is in the 'British Isles' when
few people in Ireland wish it to be termed as such. Quid pro quo?

There is a difference between the UK which the the Isle of Man is indeed not a
part of and the geographical term 'British Isles'.

Graham

[Eeyore]

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Cavello wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
"Cavello" wrote:

When did they move it? Last time I was there it was still firmly
attached.

Was it? How so?

Southern Ireland is the independent state.

It's called "Ireland or "Eire", or if you want to use the official
description "Republic of Ireland".

It is firmly attached to Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom.

This doesn't make it part of the British Isles. It merely makes it
part of the island of Ireland.

How does that affect whether the island of Ireland is a British Isle or not
though ?

Your distinctions above are purely political ones, not geographic.

It's an interesting discussion but you're trying to make a distinction
without a difference by claiming a political name assigned to a
geographic location is one vs the other. By that I mean, neither
'goddess earth' nor the 'island' itself named the 'geography', humans
did. And they did so based on the perceived population and 'politic'.

And that's where the 'dispute' arises, not from the 'geography' but
the name attached to it as your Irish friends, at least some of them,
do not wish to be associated with the term 'British'.

The naming of the British Isles is no different in concept to say the Hawaiian
Islands or the Shetland Islands.

Groups of islands are normally named after the largest or most central / most
populated of them.

Graham

[Rob[_2_]]

Cavello wrote:
On Apr 12, 3:54 pm, Rob wrote:
snip
Bizarre thread!

Not that bizarre. Do a search of past usenet discussions. This same
argument has been had a thousand times. The Irish always win it of
course, cos we're usually up against Brits that never even considered
the possibility that Irish people didn't like this 'British Isles'
carry-on.


Bizarre in two senses - within an audio newsgroup, and the curious
certainties.

Ireland is not a 'British island'. It's a European
island. Ireland is an island split into two parts in 1921. Ironically,
the north ended up/remained as part of the UK. It's carried on that way
by dint of British military occupation, English political will and
Unionist majority activity. As these three things slide, a united and
autonomous Ireland is on the cards, I feel.

You're forgetting the fourth ingredient necessary for a United Ireland
- the agreement of a majority in the Republic. We don't want it.

Interesting point - but I don't agree. Insofar as anyone can tell
support for a united Ireland runs stronger in the Republic than the
north (40%/20% respectively). Anecdotally I'd say the Irish vary between
ambivalent and 'soft' nationalist/pro-united. From your experience, are
there particular social groups in the Republic that tend to favour
separate states?


We've spent too long building our economy to become the fifth richest in
terms of GDP per head (several places ahead of Britain as it happens)
to have it destroyed by replaying the Troubles.


Distribution of wealth is not too clever, and housing is a major problem
for those (many) on low incomes.

Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are about to go into government. It's
almost impossible to believe what we are seeing. The last thing we
need is a United Ireland to upset the apple cart all over again.


I think you can meander into a self-fulfilling prophecy, but yes, there
will be trouble ahead (more small 't'). The nature of any tensions
should hopefully become clearer through politicians (who are now at
least) talking.

I was in Barcelona when the Adams/Paisley meeting took place - it was
interesting to see the profound significance they attached to the event.

Rob

[Eeyore]

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Cavello wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
"Cavello" wrote:

When did they move it? Last time I was there it was still firmly
attached.

Was it? How so?

Southern Ireland is the independent state.

It's called "Ireland or "Eire", or if you want to use the official
description "Republic of Ireland".

It is firmly attached to Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom.

This doesn't make it part of the British Isles. It merely makes it
part of the island of Ireland.

How does that affect whether the island of Ireland is a British Isle or not
though ?

Your distinctions above are purely political ones, not geographic.

It's an interesting discussion but you're trying to make a distinction
without a difference by claiming a political name assigned to a
geographic location is one vs the other. By that I mean, neither
'goddess earth' nor the 'island' itself named the 'geography', humans
did. And they did so based on the perceived population and 'politic'.

And that's where the 'dispute' arises, not from the 'geography' but
the name attached to it as your Irish friends, at least some of them,
do not wish to be associated with the term 'British'.

The naming of the British Isles is no different in concept to say the Hawaiian
Islands or the Shetland Islands.

The Shetland that has, through history, been called Inse Catt,
Hjaltland, and Zetland? Tell me which of those is the 'geographic'
name. Depends on whether the Picts, Norse, or Scotts controlled it at
the time.

What you mean is that the language changed not the principle. The French call The
Channel La Manche too.


Groups of islands are normally named after the largest or most central / most
populated of them.

Because they, or whoever controls them, tend to lay political claim
to the rest. Precisely why the independent minded Irish object to it.

Hey, it's convention. If someone wants to start giving things new names for
political reasons there's a decent chance ppl will cease understanding what they
refer to.

I'm always amused to see that the Bombay Times never changed its name to the Mumbai
Times for instance.


To them it's a bit like calling Europe the "German Continent"

Never happened.


and claiming that's just a 'geographical' name.

It's a generic term. You do know what a continent is don't you ?


You suppose the French,
Italians, Belgians, Dutch, Austrians, and the rest, might object to
that? Or the same in reverse?

It's the European Continent. Or the continent of Europe. Germany has no special
status geographically in it whereas the largest of the British Isles is Britain,
hence the name. Obvious really.

Graham