[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:18:58 GMT, (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.


Make a start here

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

d

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

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 11:04 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 01:26:12 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

You're making the mistake of assuming that geograhic terms are neutral
and agreed upon even if political ones are not. It's the geographic
term that I am telling you is incorrect. If you - or anyone else - has
a right to claim that Ireland is one of the "British" Isles, even
though the vast majority of the people who live there will laugh at
you for saying such a thing, then I have every right to say that
Britain is one of the "Irish Isles". It's pretty offensive to use such
a term without even bothering to consult the people who live there.

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.
In fact, that's how the British government defines the term 'British
Islands'. However, whenever someone does use the term here and implies
that they're including Ireland, they're quickly corrected.

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 11:02 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:06:15 GMT, Patrick Turner

wrote:
Ireland isn't part of the British Isles rather like
Tasmania isn't part of Australia.
Ask any Taswegian, and they'll tell you, right enough to be sure.

Has Tasmania got a separate government?

It might have some kind of federal government but it is still part of
Australia the country.

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 1:17 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:06:50 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 11:06 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 01:31:01 -0700, "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".

No, Ireland describes the entire thing. Eire or the Irish Republic
describes the southern part. Ulster or Northern Ireland describes the
Northern part.

Look up the Irish Constitution. The name of the country is "Ireland or
"Eire". Those are the two official names. "Republic of Ireland" is
merely an 'official description' under the Republic of Ireland Act,
and does have the status of being the name of the country.


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.

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.

The fact that you use it as a geographic term doesn't make the problem
go away. As I said, most Irish people object to its use when it
implies that Ireland is part of the British Isles.It would be nice to
ask countries for permission before you start attaching labels to
their territory and expecting them to go along with it. Particularly
when the Irish government does not recognise the term to include
Ireland, and for that matter, the British government doesn't include
Ireland under its definition of the 'British Islands' either.


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

I'm not pretending. I'm simply stating the facts. If you want to go
around calling Ireland part of the 'British Islands' you're in the
same league as the Amish people who refer to other Americans as
'English'. Everyone could do that if they want to, but it's obviously
more polite to consult people first. This country is not British and
people here do not like being refered to as part of the 'British'
Isles, whether you think that term is merely geographic or whether you
don't.


d

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

[Cavello]

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.


d

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

- Show quoted text -

[Don Pearce]

On 12 Apr 2007 05:32:17 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:



I'm not pretending. I'm simply stating the facts. If you want to go
around calling Ireland part of the 'British Islands' you're in the
same league as the Amish people who refer to other Americans as
'English'. Everyone could do that if they want to, but it's obviously
more polite to consult people first. This country is not British and
people here do not like being refered to as part of the 'British'
Isles, whether you think that term is merely geographic or whether you
don't.


d

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


OK, here's the thing. The population of the United Kingdom is 61
million - we live on both Great Britain and Ireland, and we are all
very happy with the name. The Republic has a population of 4.1
million, and even if everybody there was bothered (which I promise
they aren't), that means you only get 6% of the vote. You lose. Deal
with it.

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

d

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

[Don Pearce]

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.

d

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

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 1:11 pm, (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.

It's within the power of the Irish government and the Irish people to
decide what their country can be referred to as.


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.

As I just explained, I'm not talking here about geology. Ireland is
still part of the exact same group of islands you keep telling me it's
part of. I'm not in disagreement with that. I'm simply in dsagreement
with the *name* you are using to describe that island group. Do you
understand?


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.

Again, you completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not objecting
to Ireland being in this group of islands, or trying to remove it from
it, or trying to change geology at all. As I already said, it is in
this group of islands. 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. The
British Governments legal definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't
include Ireland. So if anyone should call it something else, *you*
should.


d

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

- Show quoted text -

[Don Pearce]

On 12 Apr 2007 05:43:20 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 1:11 pm, (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.

It's within the power of the Irish government and the Irish people to
decide what their country can be referred to as.


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.

As I just explained, I'm not talking here about geology. Ireland is
still part of the exact same group of islands you keep telling me it's
part of. I'm not in disagreement with that. I'm simply in dsagreement
with the *name* you are using to describe that island group. Do you
understand?


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.

Again, you completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not objecting
to Ireland being in this group of islands, or trying to remove it from
it, or trying to change geology at all. As I already said, it is in
this group of islands. 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. The
British Governments legal definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't
include Ireland. So if anyone should call it something else, *you*
should.


So why did you say above (and I copy and paste) "I'm 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", what was all that crap about Ireland not being part of the
British Isles about? Just Blarney, I presume.

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

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 1:38 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:32:17 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:







I'm not pretending. I'm simply stating the facts. If you want to go
around calling Ireland part of the 'British Islands' you're in the
same league as the Amish people who refer to other Americans as
'English'. Everyone could do that if they want to, but it's obviously
more polite to consult people first. This country is not British and
people here do not like being refered to as part of the 'British'
Isles, whether you think that term is merely geographic or whether you
don't.

d

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

OK, here's the thing. The population of the United Kingdom is 61
million - we live on both Great Britain and Ireland, and we are all
very happy with the name. The Republic has a population of 4.1
million, and even if everybody there was bothered (which I promise
they aren't), that means you only get 6% of the vote. You lose. Deal
with it.

The only problem with that idea is that Ireland is an independent
country, and gets to decide these things for itself, and cannot be
overruled regardless of how many people in Britain were to vote
otherwise. Simply because most British people think Ireland is in the
British Isles doesn't magically make it so. However, the fact that
most Irish people think it isn't means that it isn't. Deal with that.
As for your opinion that Irish people wouldn't be bothered, try asking
a few of them.


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.


d

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

- Show quoted text -

[Cavello]

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.


d

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

- Show quoted text -

[Don Pearce]

On 12 Apr 2007 05:48:47 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 1:38 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:32:17 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:







I'm not pretending. I'm simply stating the facts. If you want to go
around calling Ireland part of the 'British Islands' you're in the
same league as the Amish people who refer to other Americans as
'English'. Everyone could do that if they want to, but it's obviously
more polite to consult people first. This country is not British and
people here do not like being refered to as part of the 'British'
Isles, whether you think that term is merely geographic or whether you
don't.

d

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

OK, here's the thing. The population of the United Kingdom is 61
million - we live on both Great Britain and Ireland, and we are all
very happy with the name. The Republic has a population of 4.1
million, and even if everybody there was bothered (which I promise
they aren't), that means you only get 6% of the vote. You lose. Deal
with it.

The only problem with that idea is that Ireland is an independent
country, and gets to decide these things for itself, and cannot be
overruled regardless of how many people in Britain were to vote
otherwise. Simply because most British people think Ireland is in the
British Isles doesn't magically make it so. However, the fact that
most Irish people think it isn't means that it isn't. Deal with that.
As for your opinion that Irish people wouldn't be bothered, try asking
a few of them.


Your logic is puddled. May I turn it around for you? Just because a
tiny proportion of a group of islands decides that one of those
islands sin't part of the group doesn't magically make it so.


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.

d

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

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 1:48 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:43:20 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:





On Apr 12, 1:11 pm, (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.

It's within the power of the Irish government and the Irish people to
decide what their country can be referred to as.

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.

As I just explained, I'm not talking here about geology. Ireland is
still part of the exact same group of islands you keep telling me it's
part of. I'm not in disagreement with that. I'm simply in dsagreement
with the *name* you are using to describe that island group. Do you
understand?

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.

Again, you completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not objecting
to Ireland being in this group of islands, or trying to remove it from
it, or trying to change geology at all. As I already said, it is in
this group of islands. 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. The
British Governments legal definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't
include Ireland. So if anyone should call it something else, *you*
should.

So why did you say above (and I copy and paste) "I'm deciding it's not
part of the island group."

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.

what was all that crap about Ireland not being part of the
British Isles about? Just Blarney, I presume.

Ireland is not part of the British Isles. Under Irish law or British
law. Geographers don't get to decide these things either.


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

- Show quoted text -

[Patrick Turner]

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 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.

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


No, you are quite in error. Ireland has been regularly towed around for
political reasons.

Neddy Seagoon and Eckles visited in 1962, and the place hasn't recovered
its disposition since.

Someone once walked backwards across the Irish Sea to get there,
surprising Spanish fishermen
and French pink pantie smugglers nearby,
and just where Ireland was moored for that event is unknown.

Patrick Turner.


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

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 1:53 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:48:47 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:





On Apr 12, 1:38 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:32:17 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

I'm not pretending. I'm simply stating the facts. If you want to go
around calling Ireland part of the 'British Islands' you're in the
same league as the Amish people who refer to other Americans as
'English'. Everyone could do that if they want to, but it's obviously
more polite to consult people first. This country is not British and
people here do not like being refered to as part of the 'British'
Isles, whether you think that term is merely geographic or whether you
don't.

d

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

OK, here's the thing. The population of the United Kingdom is 61
million - we live on both Great Britain and Ireland, and we are all
very happy with the name. The Republic has a population of 4.1
million, and even if everybody there was bothered (which I promise
they aren't), that means you only get 6% of the vote. You lose. Deal
with it.

The only problem with that idea is that Ireland is an independent
country, and gets to decide these things for itself, and cannot be
overruled regardless of how many people in Britain were to vote
otherwise. Simply because most British people think Ireland is in the
British Isles doesn't magically make it so. However, the fact that
most Irish people think it isn't means that it isn't. Deal with that.
As for your opinion that Irish people wouldn't be bothered, try asking
a few of them.

Your logic is puddled. May I turn it around for you? Just because a
tiny proportion of a group of islands decides that one of those
islands sin't part of the group doesn't magically make it so.

That's quite true, but that's not what's under discussion. The issue
is not whether Ireland is part of this group of islands. It is, and no
vote can change that, nor would anyone want to. It's the *name* your
using to describe that group of islands that's at issue. In that
context, Ireland is in this group of islands, but not in the 'British
Isles'. Use the term British Isles any way you want, but don't use it
to include my country. And that is a point that a 'tiny proportion of
a group of islands' does have a right to decide. Because we're an
independent country.




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.


d

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

- Show quoted text -

[Don Pearce]

On 12 Apr 2007 05:57:47 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 1:48 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:43:20 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:





On Apr 12, 1:11 pm, (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.

It's within the power of the Irish government and the Irish people to
decide what their country can be referred to as.

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.

As I just explained, I'm not talking here about geology. Ireland is
still part of the exact same group of islands you keep telling me it's
part of. I'm not in disagreement with that. I'm simply in dsagreement
with the *name* you are using to describe that island group. Do you
understand?

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.

Again, you completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not objecting
to Ireland being in this group of islands, or trying to remove it from
it, or trying to change geology at all. As I already said, it is in
this group of islands. 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. The
British Governments legal definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't
include Ireland. So if anyone should call it something else, *you*
should.

So why did you say above (and I copy and paste) "I'm deciding it's not
part of the island group."

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.

what was all that crap about Ireland not being part of the
British Isles about? Just Blarney, I presume.

Ireland is not part of the British Isles. Under Irish law or British
law. Geographers don't get to decide these things either.


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

- Show quoted text -



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.

d

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

[Don Pearce]

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.

d

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

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:02:46 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



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 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.

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


No, you are quite in error. Ireland has been regularly towed around for
political reasons.

Neddy Seagoon and Eckles visited in 1962, and the place hasn't recovered
its disposition since.

Someone once walked backwards across the Irish Sea to get there,
surprising Spanish fishermen
and French pink pantie smugglers nearby,
and just where Ireland was moored for that event is unknown.

Patrick Turner.


Wasn't he walking backwards to Christmas? Tell me more about the
French pink pantie smugglers - did they find a roaring trade among the
colleens?

d

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

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 2:05 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:57:47 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:





On Apr 12, 1:48 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:43:20 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 1:11 pm, (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.

It's within the power of the Irish government and the Irish people to
decide what their country can be referred to as.

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.

As I just explained, I'm not talking here about geology. Ireland is
still part of the exact same group of islands you keep telling me it's
part of. I'm not in disagreement with that. I'm simply in dsagreement
with the *name* you are using to describe that island group. Do you
understand?

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.

Again, you completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not objecting
to Ireland being in this group of islands, or trying to remove it from
it, or trying to change geology at all. As I already said, it is in
this group of islands. 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. The
British Governments legal definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't
include Ireland. So if anyone should call it something else, *you*
should.

So why did you say above (and I copy and paste) "I'm deciding it's not
part of the island group."

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.

what was all that crap about Ireland not being part of the
British Isles about? Just Blarney, I presume.

Ireland is not part of the British Isles. Under Irish law or British
law. Geographers don't get to decide these things either.

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

- Show quoted text -

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.


d

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

- Show quoted text -

[Don Pearce]

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.

Your politics has clouded your reason.

d

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

[Rob[_2_]]

Cavello wrote:
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! 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.

Rob

[Eeyore]

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.


Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

I have every right to say that Britain is one of the "Irish Isles".

That would be kind of silly since any group of islands conventionally takes its
name from the largest one. E.g. the Hawaiian islands.

Until such time as the island of Ireland exceeds Great Britain in size, expect it
to be referred to as one of the British Isles.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

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.

Graham

[Eeyore]

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 about Cavello'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 ?

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 ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

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 ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

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 ?


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.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

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' !

Graham

[Eeyore]

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.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Cavello wrote:

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 ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

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. It Ireland were say 100
miles further away it would most likely not be so considered.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:16:59 +0100, 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.

Graham

No - when you cross the border you go into another part of the island
of Ireland; just not a British part.

d

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

[Patrick Turner]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:02:46 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



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 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.

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


No, you are quite in error. Ireland has been regularly towed around for
political reasons.

Neddy Seagoon and Eckles visited in 1962, and the place hasn't recovered
its disposition since.

Someone once walked backwards across the Irish Sea to get there,
surprising Spanish fishermen
and French pink pantie smugglers nearby,
and just where Ireland was moored for that event is unknown.

Patrick Turner.


Wasn't he walking backwards to Christmas? Tell me more about the
French pink pantie smugglers - did they find a roaring trade among the
colleens?

Well it was Xmas when the song was rehursed.

Xmas is severly sellibrated in Ireland, and dere's nuthin like puttin a
bitta religion
into a song now eh?

Dey sold millyuns of copies in Dublin.

Surely you seen all the Irish bairns skylarking around country
after the pantie tradres left 9 munths before.

The paddies couldna keep their minds off sex for weaks, even in winter.

Not one noticed their Ireland had been towed around the pond by the
Brutish Navy.

MI5 later confirmed the Brutish Guvermant had subsidised the French
pantie smugglers.


Patrick Turner.





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

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:23:38 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Wasn't he walking backwards to Christmas? Tell me more about the
French pink pantie smugglers - did they find a roaring trade among the
colleens?

Well it was Xmas when the song was rehursed.

Xmas is severly sellibrated in Ireland, and dere's nuthin like puttin a
bitta religion
into a song now eh?

Dey sold millyuns of copies in Dublin.

Surely you seen all the Irish bairns skylarking around country
after the pantie tradres left 9 munths before.

The paddies couldna keep their minds off sex for weaks, even in winter.

Not one noticed their Ireland had been towed around the pond by the
Brutish Navy.

MI5 later confirmed the Brutish Guvermant had subsidised the French
pantie smugglers.


Patrick Turner.


Well, I should have guessed it would be something like that. I can't
keep my mind off sex for weeks either - minutes more like.

d

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

[Rob[_2_]]

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 replied many a good Tory :-)

[Laurence Payne]

On 12 Apr 2007 05:21:20 -0700, "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?

[Cavello]

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

[Cavello]

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.

It Ireland were say 100
miles further away it would most likely not be so considered.

Graham

[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 4:04 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Cavellowrote:
I have every right to say that Britain is one of the "Irish Isles".

That would be kind of silly since any group of islands conventionally takes its
name from the largest one. E.g. the Hawaiian islands.

Until such time as the island of Ireland exceeds Great Britain in size, expect it
to be referred to as one of the British Isles.

It might be conventional, but when most people in Ireland object to
it, it's time to stop it. Should we also have your flag and your pound
and your 'Queen' as well? You still seem to be under the impression
that Irish people don't have a view on this, or that their view
doesn't count.


Graham

[Don Pearce]

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