Today I'm angry about.....

[Lord Kangana]

I don't suppose you've ever considered the idea that independence wouldn't have lead to massacres if, and I'm grasping here, they were independent in the first place?

yep ... but they weren't.

You can't wish facts away.

Well quite. So your solution would have been?

I have no idea.

However, it wouldn't be a one-eyed solution with no view of the second & third phases of it & with a 'hang the consequences' attitude, as arranged by a raging paedophile who's solution could only have benefited one side of the 'new nation'.

You mean the man who said:

My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.

I think you've a very myopic view of this. Without the British presence in India, there would have been no partition movement. Without the impending bankcruptcy of the British state, there would have been no rush to give India (and by proxy Pakistan) her independence. Its very nice to wash our hands of the immediate consequences of Partition but, you know, we've got form for this, and on balance our hands are dipped just as much in the blood as anyone else. We played a big part in it. It wasn't all somebody else's doing.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The IMB is a specialised division of the International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC). The IMB is a non-profit making organisation, established in 1981 to act as a focal point in the fight against all types of maritime crime and malpractice.

so - I thought that their definition might carry some weight.

it's your right to dismiss it - I was only supplying some examples of something you said didn't exist.

You can't just be pedantically precise when it suits you! I didn't claim that you couldn't find some NGO that defined in a way that accommodated your understanding of the word...

(Still waiting on the Roget's source, incidentally.)

[bobo the clown]

You mean the man who said:

My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.

I think you've a very myopic view of this. Without the British presence in India, there would have been no partition movement. Without the impending bankcruptcy of the British state, there would have been no rush to give India (and by proxy Pakistan) her independence. Its very nice to wash our hands of the immediate consequences of Partition but, you know, we've got form for this, and on balance our hands are dipped just as much in the blood as anyone else. We played a big part in it. It wasn't all somebody else's doing.

I said I'd stop, so this is my last reply. That's no bad thing as it's again proving the fact that arguement & counterarguement on matters of politics never, ever achieve anything. You have your views & I have mine.

I suppose the point I was really making is that I get a bit pissed at the lionisation of a guy who was firstly a raging paedophile, secondly a fckg idiot.

Your point that he is a great man .... and you then identify this greatnesss by quoting him saying that he rejected the suggestion that Hinduism & Islam were antagonistic ... and then you accuse ME of being myopic ... is, franky, astonishing. Fact, as I said earlier, cannot be wished away.

The British were forced out of India ... whether or not they should have been there in the first plaace .. without any time to prepare for the outcome. An outcome which, despite him apparently not liking it, was bound to lead to enormous suffering & bloodshed. Which it did.

I'm happy for him that he rejected this ,,, but it fckg happenned.

Maybe he was too bust shagging 11yr old girls to notice ... orcare.

Anyway, that will not have changed your view one bit .... nor will your view change mine.

That's it from me on this matter .... sorry again, Vicar.

[thebish]

The IMB is a specialised division of the International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC). The IMB is a non-profit making organisation, established in 1981 to act as a focal point in the fight against all types of maritime crime and malpractice.

so - I thought that their definition might carry some weight.

it's your right to dismiss it - I was only supplying some examples of something you said didn't exist.

You can't just be pedantically precise when it suits you! I didn't claim that you couldn't find some NGO that defined in a way that accommodated your understanding of the word!

(Still waiting on the Roget's source, incidentally.)

if you look back at my post you will find that I included the IMB seperately, as an aside - not in the list of dictionary definitions. I did not claim the IMB is a dictionary. You confessed a lack of knowledge over international shipping law - as this is their speciality, I thought it might help you. (clearly I was mistaken - so, my bad.)

I'm sure you have enough google nouse to find Roget's!

(I thought we were putting this to bed as "sterile"?)

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The IMB is a specialised division of the International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC). The IMB is a non-profit making organisation, established in 1981 to act as a focal point in the fight against all types of maritime crime and malpractice.

so - I thought that their definition might carry some weight.

it's your right to dismiss it - I was only supplying some examples of something you said didn't exist.

You can't just be pedantically precise when it suits you! I didn't claim that you couldn't find some NGO that defined in a way that accommodated your understanding of the word!

(Still waiting on the Roget's source, incidentally.)

if you look back at my post you will find that I included the IMB seperately, as an aside - not in the list of dictionary definitions. I did not claim the IMB is a dictionary. You confessed a lack of knowledge over international shipping law - as this is their speciality, I thought it might help you. (clearly I was mistaken - so, my bad.)

I'm sure you have enough google nouse to find Roget's!

(I thought we were putting this to bed as "sterile"?)

Ah I see, I didn't realise it was a Bishy Bonus. Comments like this made me think me think it was part of your refutation of my claim:

it's your right to dismiss it - I was only supplying some examples of something you said didn't exist.

I'll just quickly repeat my view that they are in no way an authority on the law of the sea.

And no, I can't find a Roget's online.


And, and - I said the debate was sterile, not that I was putting it to bed!

[thebish]

And, and - I said the debate was sterile, not that I was putting it to bed!

ahh - good luck with that then.

for my part, I already agreed not to call Israel "Pirates" anymore. Good luck with everyone else!

[Lord Kangana]

You mean the man who said:

My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.

I think you've a very myopic view of this. Without the British presence in India, there would have been no partition movement. Without the impending bankcruptcy of the British state, there would have been no rush to give India (and by proxy Pakistan) her independence. Its very nice to wash our hands of the immediate consequences of Partition but, you know, we've got form for this, and on balance our hands are dipped just as much in the blood as anyone else. We played a big part in it. It wasn't all somebody else's doing.

I said I'd stop, so this is my last reply. That's no bad thing as it's again proving the fact that arguement & counterarguement on matters of politics never, ever achieve anything. You have your views & I have mine.

I suppose the point I was really making is that I get a bit pissed at the lionisation of a guy who was firstly a raging paedophile, secondly a fckg idiot.

Your point that he is a great man .... and you then identify this greatnesss by quoting him saying that he rejected the suggestion that Hinduism & Islam were antagonistic ... and then you accuse ME of being myopic ... is, franky, astonishing. Fact, as I said earlier, cannot be wished away.

The British were forced out of India ... whether or not they should have been there in the first plaace .. without any time to prepare for the outcome. An outcome which, despite him apparently not liking it, was bound to lead to enormous suffering & bloodshed. Which it did.

I'm happy for him that he rejected this ,,, but it fckg happenned.

Maybe he was too bust shagging 11yr old girls to notice ... orcare.

Anyway, that will not have changed your view one bit .... nor will your view change mine.

That's it from me on this matter .... sorry again, Vicar.

Its not that I can't change your mind, its that you're just plain wrong on this one. The British were not forced out of India (and even if they were, how could you possibly build an argument against it???), but hastily gave the Indians an ill-conceived, ill thought through, frankly purposefully shoddy remapping of the subcontinent to save face and to save us from bankruptcy. We (thats us) put the line where it is. If we're in to charachter assasination, then Churchill was in the main a w*nker of the first water. On great matters, sometimes the personality must be subjugated to the action.

[William the White]

And, and - I said the debate was sterile, not that I was putting it to bed!

ahh - good luck with that then.

for my part, I already agreed not to call Israel "Pirates" anymore. Good luck with everyone else!

Interesting that Jews for Justice for Palestinians in their statement on the flotilla raid condemns it as 'an act of piracy'...

Perhaps mummy could put them right on it... There is a 'contact us' section on their website...

http://jfjfp.com/?p=13408

[Worthy4England]

And, and - I said the debate was sterile, not that I was putting it to bed!

ahh - good luck with that then.

for my part, I already agreed not to call Israel "Pirates" anymore. Good luck with everyone else!

Interesting that Jews for Justice for Palestinians in their statement on the flotilla raid condemns it as 'an act of piracy'...

Perhaps mummy could put them right on it... There is a 'contact us' section on their website...

http://jfjfp.com/?p=13408

Perhaps objective reporting isn't dead....


Man without a cause is obviously not a man.

[William the White]

And, and - I said the debate was sterile, not that I was putting it to bed!

ahh - good luck with that then.

for my part, I already agreed not to call Israel "Pirates" anymore. Good luck with everyone else!

Interesting that Jews for Justice for Palestinians in their statement on the flotilla raid condemns it as 'an act of piracy'...

Perhaps mummy could put them right on it... There is a 'contact us' section on their website...

http://jfjfp.com/?p=13408

Perhaps objective reporting isn't dead....


Man without a cause is obviously not a man.

I'd normally reply to you, worthy, as you know - just this time I can't work out what you mean...

[Worthy4England]

And, and - I said the debate was sterile, not that I was putting it to bed!

ahh - good luck with that then.

for my part, I already agreed not to call Israel "Pirates" anymore. Good luck with everyone else!

Interesting that Jews for Justice for Palestinians in their statement on the flotilla raid condemns it as 'an act of piracy'...

Perhaps mummy could put them right on it... There is a 'contact us' section on their website...

http://jfjfp.com/?p=13408

Perhaps objective reporting isn't dead....


Man without a cause is obviously not a man.

I'd normally reply to you, worthy, as you know - just this time I can't work out what you mean...

Got me beat too

But should probably be quoted as great philosophy in a Century or so.....

I was making the point that the statement from JFJP was hardly without a particular slant...

[William the White]

^^^

Of course - in all the stuff I've posted as a link on this issue I've tried, where I know, to indicate the stance of the authors - i guess I felt I didn't need to on this one - the clue being in the website being that of Jews for Justice for Palestinians...

Which i think is a heartening thing to be possible...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And, and - I said the debate was sterile, not that I was putting it to bed!

ahh - good luck with that then.

for my part, I already agreed not to call Israel "Pirates" anymore. Good luck with everyone else!

Interesting that Jews for Justice for Palestinians in their statement on the flotilla raid condemns it as 'an act of piracy'...

Perhaps mummy could put them right on it... There is a 'contact us' section on their website...

http://jfjfp.com/?p=13408

It seems the 'analysis' they have posted on their website since has beaten me to it.

http://jfjfp.com/?p=13818

This is not an act of piracy.

[William the White]

And, and - I said the debate was sterile, not that I was putting it to bed!

ahh - good luck with that then.

for my part, I already agreed not to call Israel "Pirates" anymore. Good luck with everyone else!

Interesting that Jews for Justice for Palestinians in their statement on the flotilla raid condemns it as 'an act of piracy'...

Perhaps mummy could put them right on it... There is a 'contact us' section on their website...

http://jfjfp.com/?p=13408

It seems the 'analysis' they have posted on their website since has beaten me to it.

http://jfjfp.com/?p=13818

This is not an act of piracy.

I join the bish in conceding on the piracy question... were you impressed with the other arguments in that article about the illegality of Israel's actions?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I join the bish in conceding on the piracy question... were you impressed with the other arguments in that article about the illegality of Israel's actions?

Well, no - because she dismissed the blockade as being irrelevant, which it isn't.

Incidentally, I agree with Nick Cohen's take on the undesirable nature of the blockade. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... a-blockade

[Dujon]

In my copy of "Roget's Thesaurus of Synonyms and Antonyms" Pirate has three references - 'Non-observance', 'Stealing' and 'Theft'. It is of little help.

The book in my hand was printed in 1972 (well, the attributed copyright is marked as that date) and, ironically, was produced in Israel. It was published by, and I quote, The Number One Publishing Company, London, England.

Golly-gosh, who should I trust? The imperialist might of England or the defensive/aggressive (take your pick) Jew and Islamic? What about the Egyptians? A coalition with Israel in enforcing a blockade for Pete's sake - who would have contemplated such a thing a couple of decades ago?

Sorry, I won't go on.

[bobo the clown]

Returning to more mundane irritations & my apologies if this has been covered before in this long & entertaining thread .... supermarket checkouts.

Rather, a specific element therein.

No, not the increasing use of self checking, which probably deserves a thread of its own, but a very bizarre way of acting by the customers. It may be me, but it does seem to be confined to women.

After pushing the trolley round the shop >> filling it up >> getting to a 'manned' checkout >> putting the goods on the conveyor belt >> filling the bags with said items, once scanned ..... the sudden realisation, as though it was unexpected, that they have to fecking pay !!!

It's as if the actions of buying and of paying are seperate and unrelated.

" .... that'll be £489.27 please madam ...... yes, isn't butter expensive at the moment ...."

At this they rummage in newly re-filled trolley for their handbag .... eventually get the handbag out & then rummage through that .... eventually locating the purse .... then take some while to decide whether to pay by cash or card, & if so, which card .... eventually handing over a card to check-out person .... then act as if it's the first time they've ever used it.

It adds maybe 30 seconds to queuing time, so it's hardly ruining lives. But why ? I thought women were the multi-taskers ??

Maybe it's just me ?

[TANGODANCER]

In my copy of "Roget's Thesaurus of Synonyms and Antonyms" Pirate has three references - 'Non-observance', 'Stealing' and 'Theft'. It is of little help.

The book in my hand was printed in 1972 (well, the attributed copyright is marked as that date) and, ironically, was produced in Israel. It was published by, and I quote, The Number One Publishing Company, London, England.

Golly-gosh, who should I trust? The imperialist might of England or the defensive/aggressive (take your pick) Jew and Islamic? What about the Egyptians? A coalition with Israel in enforcing a blockade for Pete's sake - who would have contemplated such a thing a couple of decades ago?

Sorry, I won't go on.

What Dujon, you haven't got a copy of The Torrah?

[Bruce Rioja]

All of what Bobo said, but with the added minute spent searching through a bundle of papers for a '3p off Cup-a-Soup' voucher.

Here you go, here's 5p - now feck off!

[Worthy4England]

All of what Bobo said, but with the added minute spent searching through a bundle of papers for a '3p off Cup-a-Soup' voucher.

Here you go, here's 5p - now feck off!

All of what Bobo and Brucie said, but with the added "£5.97 please madam" and they go searching for the 97p, moving quids out of the way, for a few minutes, before coming to the conclusion that they can only get to 93p in loose change.

At this point, they inform the disinterested tillbint, that they've only been able to get to the 93p, somehow (seemingly) hoping that said person will say "that's fine madam - just give me the 93p and we'll call it quits"

A further pause for a short while for both parties to consider the "4p stand-off" (by which time I've usually readied a quid to hand over myself, just to get 'em out of the way), and they eventually resort to one of the numerous quids that they'd shifted in the first place to get to the small change.

"PULL!"

BANG!