---
No, the madness that he pooh-poohed was the shenanigans in Iraq. Nobody is
I learned physics at university not psychology so I am in no place to answer
Not true. British interests have been the subject of Islamic extremist
Again, I dont think this matters. You may think Policy X is fair, as long as
Who get to make that judgement call? International policy will always be
Personally, I would suggest that if the policy _is_ fundamentally wrong than
"Bashing heads together" (even in its non-metaphorical use) is not the same
Sadly, you are a drooling sycophant and do more harm for the people you
---
---
---
A philosophical judgement call.
They dont know you are a soldier until after they have arrested you and
---
---
---
fhVg.11609$6S3.346@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...It wasn't just the Jews either. Lots of minority groups got persecuted."T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:FbOdnVmGg9Q_E7jYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:OMydnTZT299zHLjYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@pipex.net...
Before Hitler - no holocaust.
After Hitler - no holocaust.
Wow. Before [Insert anyone who lived between 1930 - 1945] no holocaust.
After [same person] no holocaust.
So you see no connection between Hitler and the holocaust.
I see a connection but the same connection can be said about many people.
Your example was meant to imply that Hitler was the sole driving force
for the Holocaust. This is not the case.
Sure, there were other forces. Yes, there was plenty of anti-Jewish
sentiment in Germany around then. The economy was still in the toilet
from the Great Depression, but it's not clear to me that the average
German blamed the Jews--even if so, I suspect not anywhere near the way
Hitler did.
Most of Hitler's inner-circle we pretty much in that mould. Hitler made use
---lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote
I see terrorist attack doesn't make the top twenty then
tobacco really needs to get started soon.
It has, thankfully. Most major cities in the US ban tobacco use in public
places, and several states are considering state-wide bans. Still perfectly
legal at home and in most places outdoors, but at least I can eat dinner in
a restaurant without smoke making me physically ill.
I can barely wait for the UK law banning smoking in public places to come into
effect. It'll be so much nicer.
---
Assumption. Granted it is about 99.9% probable that without American
Nice one. When are you doing a tour of comedy clubs?
I feel like I am stuck in a time warp here.
Ok, free at the point of sale.
LOL, I can imagine. I still get that feeling when I read physics"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:ZN2dnYGSaZz1DrjYnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@pipex.net...
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7mgVg.7738$TV3.4969@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:r3fVg.8959$GR.3051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Not sure about spelling, but I've read some very well-researched
serious scholarly linguistic articles that say that the British
English accent at the time of the American colonies was very much
closer to the current New England accent than to the current variety
of British accents. It seems speech in the "colonies" was and is much
more conservative than speech in the mother land. I don't remember
what their evidence was, there are obviously no audio tapes to
compare.
It has the potential (and that dreaded "ring of truth") however the
reality is possibly very, very far from the case.
Both sets of languages have had an equal time to "evolve" into their
current form. The US has been much more influenced by immigrant
linguistics over that period than England has, so I am inclined to
doubt the validity of the claim.
I suspect both languages are equally distant from the English spoken in
(say) 1775.
Yeah, I know, those were all *exactly* the same response I had when I
first heard the thesis. But I do remember that the evidence was
convincing. Dammit all, I wish I could remember where I read/saw that.
I don't expect you to take my word for it, but to me, it really was more
convincing than I've managed to convey.
It would be interesting to see it.
Some linguists even interpret the shifts in England as related to
blueblood Londoners putting on airs, and that accent subsequently
catching on in other parts of the country. I suspect this last part
is a bit of a stretch, but the whole thing is an interesting thesis.
I find it fascinating to think about how people spoke in the past, and
how language has evolved. Puts a whole new perspective in the various
new inner-city lexicons and pronunciations that have developed, even
in my lifetime.
Languages evolve all the time. Welsh is a good example.
Yep, that's what I find so fascinating. So, did Welsh get all the extra
consonants that would otherwise have gone with the vowels ("u") you
English stole? :^)
Yes. It is even funnier listening to their conversation because all the
modern words are in English. So you get "bable bable Television bable
bable microwave cooker bable bable" and so on.
Kind of like reading a Korean/Japanese/Chinese chemistry patent. A lot of
stuff that looks like Martian (for all I know), interspersed with chemical
names.