Re: Wales, the new England?
- From: Charles <cps@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:26:35 +0100
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:58:59 +0100, Sean Byrne
<byrne_sean_spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Charles wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:44:07 +0100, Sean Byrne
>> <byrne_sean_spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Contributors who intend relying upon Sean Byrne's dictionary need not
>>>>apply. ;o)
>>>
>>>Yes, those boys at Oxford really have no idea don't they Charles?
>>
>>
>> That's rather clumsily put Sean. ;o)
>
>Grammar flames?
It was hardly a "flame" Sean, more of a gentle tease.
>
>>
>> We are having to accept all sorts of things that are at variance with
>> common sense Sean, and if it's in an on-line dictionary then it has to
>> be true,
>
>The Oxford Dictionary is an online one?
Yes.
But I don't believe you used the OED, as the definition you provided
is word for word from the on-line American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language. My office copy of the OED gives nothing like the
definition you provided.
>
>as I have already conceded (who is prepared to go to the
>> lengths required to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced,
>> that dictionaries and encyclopedia are fertile territory for the
>> politically correct?)
>
>Oh I believe that alright. However your definition is also a dictionary
>definition is it not?
I didn't post a dictionary definition Sean, I posted a number of
definitions from the on-line dictionary, including the one that you
cherry-picked because it was in opposition to that which I had
suggested, which I have reproduced below.
You said (without informing that it was a dictionary definition):
**** "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
common history, nationality, or geographic distribution" ******
Seems to suggest they are."
I said:
"Only if you cherry-pick your definition from the dictionary:
race n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a
more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical
characteristics.
*****************************************************************************
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German
race.
(Identical to your defintion)
*****************************************************************************
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated
population of organisms differing from other populations of the same
species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been
given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor
of a wine.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.)
Are you suggesting that the race of people who are black, oriental,
Asian etc., who become New Zealand citizens, are therefore ethnically
of a New Zealand race?
>
>One based on ideas of racial superiority that were *politically correct*
>in the 17th century.
Which haven't materially changed apart from the last 20 years when the
PC crackpots got at them, as there was no such thing as political
correctness until very recent times.
>
>>
>> I am perplexed however that the British race (or is it separate
>> English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish races?), in our new-found
>> unification under one race description, is already looking distinctly
>> fractured.
>>
>> Why? Here's just one silly yet insidious example:
>>
>> Apparently Porky the Pig has not only got to lose the stutter, but if
>> Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council have their way, then the pig will
>> have to go completely.
>>
>> Dudley have just banned all "knick-knacks" and other items depicting
>> "novelty pigs", following a complaint by a Muslim employee, given that
>> Muslims regard pigs as unclean. This includes boxes of tissues
>> depicting Winnie the Pooh and Piglet (wearing a scarf and a bright
>> colourful singlet).
>>
>> It's time to make a stand soon if we are not to be subsumed by a
>> culture that may be alien to the vast majority of us, and if we are to
>> be defeated not by the bomb, but by our own woolly-minded liberal PC
>> social engineering crackpots.
>
>People like those 17th century social anthropologists from whom you draw
>your definition of race.
Those definitions were based on fact and have stood the test of time
until very recently. They are not based on some idiotic contemporary
PC premise that we are all the same.
What did you put on your last census form when it asked that very
pertinent question about race.
>
>>
>> Those "boys at Oxford" and their ilk may be some of the real enemies
>> of freedom and democracy Sean.
>
>They may very well be. But they're also a great deal more authoritative
>on the English language than either of us.
That may or may not be the case, but in addition to whatever language
skills they may possess, they also have an unofficial agenda which has
the effect of stifling common sense and free speech - eventually
officially, just because they say so.
It's the same with all PC, we don't know who is responsible for it
other than an amorphous 'they', but it ends up controlling our lives.
That is effectively introducing laws by unelected people and bodies.
>
>> Food for thought dear boy as you
>> attempt to ram home your dubious and temporary advantage on the back
>> of rampant PC.
>>
>> Do you *really* believe that citizenship of a country also confers a
>> national racial identity on its citizens? Or that race is only in the
>> mind and can be what people want it to be?
>
>Where have I claimed that?
You said quite clearly:
"A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
common history, nationality, or geographic distribution"
Seems to suggest they are."
>
>I'm still wondering what the 9 races are that you claim exist...
According to your definition:
New Zealand, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Icelandic, Norwegian,
Dutch, French et al. ;o)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Wales, the new England?
- From: Sean Byrne
- Re: Wales, the new England?
- References:
- Re: Wales, the new England?
- From: Charles
- Re: Wales, the new England?
- From: pete devlin
- Re: Wales, the new England?
- From: Charles
- Re: Wales, the new England?
- From: Charles
- Re: Wales, the new England?
- Prev by Date: Re: Wales, the new England?
- Next by Date: Re: Wales, the new England?
- Previous by thread: Re: Wales, the new England?
- Next by thread: Re: Wales, the new England?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
