Re: Wales, the new England?

Charles wrote: 
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:46:42 +0100, Sean Byrne
<byrne_sean_spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Charles wrote:

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.



Which I note you didn't deny, despite having inferred that your
definition was from the OED.


Compact Oxford has this:






And what does that say then Charlie boy? 


It says this Shawney lad:

race /reis/ n 

1.   Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct
physical characteristics.

2.   A tribe, nation, etc., regarded as of a distinct ethnic stock.

3.   The fact or concept of division into races.

4.   A genus, species, breed, or variety of animals, plants, or
micro-organisms.

5.   A group of persons, animals, or plants connected by a common
descent.

6.   Any great division of living creatures.






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.)


Sigh. As explained previously all I had to do is provide *one* definition that was at odds to yours 


<long sigh> I hadn't provided a definition at that stage Shawney, you
opted in with your cherry-picked definition first.


to prove my assertion that whether New Zealanders are a race depends upon what definition you use. 


No you didn't, you presented it as a fait accompli, and opted not to
mention that there were many other definitions.


Is that really that difficult to comprehend? 


No, I understood precisely what you were attempting to do. It's what
you always do; I believe Frank Bruno used to describe it as: "duckin'
and divin' 'arry". ;o)


You do understand that if I say 'All cars are black' all you have to do is find one white one to disprove my theory? 


I'm not getting into a racist argument about cars. ;o)


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?


I'm suggesting that definition is used. 


Is it your definitive definition and the one you would use to explain
to your children if they asked you the same question?


<snip story about Muslims and pigs> 


Does the truth trouble you Shawney, or are you too PC to acknowledge
the problem or are you a Muslim who has taken offence?


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.

Appeal to tradition is a common fallacious argument, I'm surprised you keep using it. 


What's wrong with tradition Shawney? The UK is a nation with a
magnificent history, of which some may disapprove but most of which
many of us are very proud.


They are not based on some idiotic contemporary
PC premise that we are all the same.

No, they were based on the premise of racial superiority. 


Only in the minds of the woolly-minded liberal PC brigade, who look
always for reasons to be offended when there are none.


What did you put on your last census form when it asked that very
pertinent question about race.



I note you skip those parts for which you have no answer.


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.

Yes Charles, your views on PC and the threat these nameless, faceless people pose is well documented here. 


I'm delighted to hear it, some of us have got to stand up and be
counted.


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."

Yes I did; I provided a definition that supported my hypothesis, nothing more. 


You didn't present a "hypothesis", you simply presented a single
cherry-picked dictionary definition from a block of six, and have
developed your burgeoning treatise as the thread has developed, having
I suspect relied heavily on Google.


Why don't you provide us with *your* definition of "race"? 


I can do no better than quote the OED:

race /reis/ n 

1.   Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct
physical characteristics.

2.   A tribe, nation, etc., regarded as of a distinct ethnic stock.

3.   The fact or concept of division into races.

4.   A genus, species, breed, or variety of animals, plants, or
micro-organisms.

5.   A group of persons, animals, or plants connected by a common
descent.

6. Any great division of living creatures. 
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wales, the new England?
    ... That's rather clumsily put Sean. ... A group of persons, animals, or plants connected by a common ... that dictionaries and encyclopedia are fertile territory for the politically correct?) ... A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: Wales, the new England?
    ... It was hardly a "flame" Sean, ... >> that dictionaries and encyclopedia are fertile territory for the ... race n. ... Dictionary of the English Language.) ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: Wales, the new England?
    ... That's rather clumsily put Sean. ... common sense Sean, and if it's in an on-line dictionary then it has to ... that dictionaries and encyclopedia are fertile territory for the ... A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: Wales, the new England?
    ... That's rather clumsily put Sean. ... that dictionaries and encyclopedia are fertile territory for the ... I am perplexed however that the British race (or is it separate ... Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council have their way, then the pig will ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: So it is true...
    ... >>> So you're adopting the American usage! ... is one of the entries for race. ... Fair point on the bookshops. ... one bookshop in the downtown area and it only had pocket dictionaries. ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading