|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 10:28 am: Edit|
The French too have a noble and beautiful language with a history going back well over a millenium. When one has something of value and quality one doesn't like to see it cheapened or adulerated.
It's not a case of aspiring to be it's a case of BEING.
|By Baz on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 09:22 am: Edit|
I have never heard anybody make so many idiotic comments like "you don't speak the language properly." Well, acually I've heard those types of things before, only in Paris. Never realized that the English would aspire to be as snobby about their language as the French. Now, can any of our Canadian friends give me an "aboot?"
|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 12:44 am: Edit|
It's not 'que', it's QUEUE for God's sake!!!!!!
May I suggest that you set your spellchecker on your PC to the correct English version. Such a move will result in a lessening of the frequency of your spelling errors.
As to the Australians' good level of education and understanding, I thought it was beacuse most of them (quite sensibly) pack their bags in their early 20's and spend a few years visting Europe, hence soaking up some of the excess culture and intellect that oozes everywhere across Europe. A very wise and sensible people, the Australians.
|By Destiny on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 09:57 pm: Edit|
Knobgobbler? That was hilarious, I almost fell off my chair!!!
I must agree with Lord Goblin on many of his points. What I like about European mentality in general is the acknowledgement that there are actually different languages and cultures outside their own borders. Being such an isolated nation had given us an intolerant and inbred view of life.
P.S. The reason that Australians are more educated is because there are so many Chinese there forcing them to study!
|By Sicboy13 on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 08:49 pm: Edit|
I'll beat your Limey ass in chess, any time, any day. The fish -n-chips will be on your "cheque" when you cry your ass up to the"que" to "fetch" them.
P.S. One cannot edit greatness, if my spelling is incorrect, cut, paste & fuckin spellcheck it yourself,
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 09:30 am: Edit|
Tony Blair is in the pay of the Soviets. There is a KGB file that has all the details on this. I'm sure Arj will back me up on that one.
Could I respectfully suggest that even the use of the inferior Webster's dictionary of pseudo-English-colonial-lingo would have helped you construct a more fluent post than your last one.
(By the way cheque is spelt CHEQUE and not 'check', unless of course your are playing a game of chess)
|By Sicboy13 on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 09:23 am: Edit|
Here is my "two pence"
First of all, America is Great Britain's bastard red-headed stepchild.
Anything we learned, as in the anti-drug commercials of the late Eighties, we learned from watching you.
Then we realized you all are slaves to the Monarchy. Paying millions upon millions to keep the Queen mum drunk, as well as making sure the Prince is comfortable while he writes the checks out to the hitmen who off'd you know who, etc.
We here have soap operas. I do not watch them, as I don't look up to everyone in pretty clothes and assume that because General Hospital has been the longest running "monarchy"(see, we call them paid actors over here), that I should overlook Susan Lucci for the Daytime Emmy.
I don't think it unfair to compare British Prime Minister Tony Blair to the aforementioned underdog Susan Lucci. Prime Minister Blair has my unwavering respect & trust. He is an honorable man, a devoted official, and a true friend to the United States. Why must you British keep up the nonsensical charade of the "Monarchy"? Obviously the money could be better spent, like on some descent cameras in which to film your 2 "tele" programs with. They all look like they are from the late `70's. They make me want to cough up a bucket of "sick".
Before I actually start to become serious and mean any of this ABSOLUTE SHIT I am spewing, let me just say, Thanks for the hot ass UK nudimag-chick Claire Cass.
GET OVER IT, WE WON!...now, time to stand in a LINE, with my SWEATER on while I wait for the PHONE.
The Julia Child, Martha Stewart thing...that's a draw. I'll give you Mr. Bean.
|By _Blackjack on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 07:56 am: Edit|
Anyway, remove those Yorkshire and Cornwall beams from your eye before complaining about the mote in ours...
|By _Blackjack on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 07:44 am: Edit|
A small price to pay for the ability to speak correctly.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 07:22 am: Edit|
Then stop hijacking the term 'English' for your Websterian lingo. Call it 'American' (or call it an 'orange' or a 'steering wheel' for that matter) and be done with it. Of course continuing to refer to your colonial lingo as 'English' gives it an air of respectability it doesn't deserve.
|By Etienne on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 07:04 am: Edit|
I have an OED, and I have always called my sweaters steering wheels.
Is something wrong?
|By Anatomist on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 05:32 am: Edit|
Correctly my ass. Webster set out to change and distinguish American English a long time ago, through public argument, handing out manuals to printers all over the country, and eventually writing his own dictionary. He had to battle a bunch of British snobs and wannabe British snobs to do it, and apparently the fight isn't over. The reason he set out to dignify, distinguish, and standardize an American version of English was,
a) Fuck the British Empire
b) He knew America was going to be a huge country, and he wanted people to be able to understand each other. He wanted to prevent linguistic balkanization.
Guess what? It worked. Someone from Alaska can understand someone from Florida or New York or Hawaii, and everything in between. There is a range of accents in the US, but, in general, two Americans from anywhere in the country can understand each other better than, say, people who live 10 miles away from each other in London.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 03:32 am: Edit|
A small price to pay for the ability to speak correctly.
|By _Blackjack on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 02:45 am: Edit|
Man, if I could afford an OED, I would. The CD-ROM version is $300 and the print edition is $1000....
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 02:21 am: Edit|
I think maybe you Americans refer to a jumper as a sweater or a pullover or Christ knows what. Maybe you refer to it as a banana or a steering wheel or something?
I keep telling you lot over there BUY YOURSELVES PROPER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARIES!!!!!!!
Or even better still, COMPULSORY EVENING CLASSES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSES FOR YOUR ENTIRE NATION!!!
I don't know what schools in England (or Ireland) your founding fathers hailed from when they landed in the Americas but judging by the legacy of vocabulary they left I have my doubts about whether they received much schooling at all before making the journey across the Atlantic. (Even the Australian vocabulary is better and they have the excuse that the quality of schooling in prisons is not exactly top notch).
|By Marccampbell on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 12:36 am: Edit|
then in that case, it wasn't his aunt that gave him the jumper, it was his mother.
|By Destiny on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 11:16 pm: Edit|
I think a "jumper" is what they call a blowjob in the UK. Isn't that right, Lord Goblin?
|By Crosby on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 03:35 pm: Edit|
Sorry to interrupt the direction of this thread, but what is a jumper?
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 11:11 am: Edit|
In answer to you question. The original "thankyou" does not inflict injury but to recieve the gift in good grace without criticism and then years later turn round and say publicly that it was shit does inflict injury, whereas if at the time you had said you didn't like it at the time, a later attack would not be as wounding. And you did mean to inflit injury by saying so. Would you turn round to your Aunt who gave you a jumper which at the time you said "thanks for your kindness" and then years later say "actually that jumper you gave me years ago was shit and everyone who saw it thought it was shit also".
Anyway Marc, I'm in no position to tell you what to do or say, what you do and say is up to you and what I do and say is up to me. Lets just leave it at that.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 10:56 am: Edit|
|By Marccampbell on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 03:06 am: Edit|
I received the gift in the mail. A pleasent surprise. My only response was a thankyou.
Please demonstrate how "thankyou" can be employed to inflict injury.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 02:37 am: Edit|
I understand your motives for not criticising gifts since the motive of the giver is generosity. I understand why you acted as you did recently but in doing so you end up using your kind response to the giver of a gift as a weapon to attack him with later. If you had been honest at the time you wouldn't have had such a weapon at your disposal. I'm not saying you were at all wrong to be silent when you received the gift but I do think it is wrong to then use this silence as an attack at a later date.
I'm not expecting you to agree with me but do you get my drift?
Now let's get back to fart jokes and arse probing!
|By Marccampbell on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 02:35 am: Edit|
be clear on this: I never praised ordinaire's absinthe and then switched my position. I simply kept my trap shut about how shitty the stuff is until I could not keep it shut any longer.
And with that, I am finished with the whole fucking subject.
Have you heard the Andrew W.K. cd? It rocks hard, extremely hard. Its some liberating shit.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 02:28 am: Edit|
My point was that if someone gives a positive response to something they have tasted etc. at the time then it is dishonest to turn round at a later date and change their opinion when an argument occurs. Which version is the truth? Were they being unduly kind the first time around or being unduly critical the second time around? How do we know?
I tasted 3 of Jade absinthes, I have always said I liked 2 of them but not 1 of them. I said as much in my comments on the forum just after tasting them and I will continue to be consistent in this view. The next time we have a bitter argument (and this will probably occur again some time) I will not turn round and say "actually Don, I thought all of your Jade absinthes were shit and I was just being kind at the time".
I am a great believer in people being honest and up front in what they think or feel and sticking by their guns on this come what may. When people start saying one thing then saying something else when different circumstances occur then we don't know what to believe. All we can conclude is that they are modelling their response according to the prevailing circumstances.
My comments on wanted to belong to an 'in-crowd' was not aimed at the people you state because these people (and also Dr O) are as you know independant beings who know their own mind. The same cannot be said for some others here. My comment was a general comment about what I see as one of the negative aspects of this forum. It has always been like this since I've been here. I suppose it's the sheepish, herd side of human nature coming through where people want to belong to what they see as a strong 'team', a sort of security blanket for them. I've always been an independant loner with no time for this. People should say what you think, stand their ground and don't give a shit whether anyone stands with them or not.
|By Admin on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 07:33 pm: Edit|
and here I thought Hob was talking about all the ass probing and fart jokes that have gone on here this week.
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation