America?

[Spec]

Yes america should be in civ...so I can wipe them out.

Spec.

[padillah]

Originally posted by dregor
Yet the mockery still remains.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Strudo


If they didn't keep the coffee under 140F, doesn't that mean they were making it too hot?

If you ask me over 100F is too hot but I'm a pansy when it comes to hot drinks.

The only thing the "magic number" 140F means is that's in the Health Department Regulations for Hot Drinks. By not keeping it under that number (or, as you put it, making it too hot) they were violating Health Department Regulations.

It's like stealing something for less than $100, over $500, and over $1500. Those are all stealing it's just a question of severity - civil, misdemeanor (small claims), and Larceny (criminal court). Just because some guy stole a $50 watch and no one wants to press charges doesn't mean he didn't really steal it, it's just nobody cares.

The opposite for the McD's case: They finally burned enough people that they were taken to court for violating Health codes. It's not a question of "too hot" it's a question of "who cares". "Too hot" is customer preference (actually this was McD's argument, "the customers asked us to make it hotter"), but health codes are written to be followed, not just "if you want to" (which is what the judge told McD's).

It's one of those fine legal points that only lawyers and the pedantic really care enough about to understand.

Since I'm not smart enough to be a lawyer, guess which one I am.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by molly bloom

There's a surprise. Whether you are or are not a 'nationalist', an Irish nationalist, a Republican or just the common or garden Irish American with a chip on their shoulder, is irrelevant as to the accuracy of your statements about the United Kingdom and Eire having been at war when they joined the E.E.C. or whether they have been at war for over 100 years.

Ah, start right off with an ad hominem attack. It's not possible for me to have a valid point of view, I must have a chip on my shoulder. I can't possibly know anything about what I'm talking about and simply have a differeing view than you. I must be uninformed and have a chip on my shoulder. Face it, other people than you have different outlooks than you. I didn't mean to offend anyone, I simply meant to put forward the notion that not everybody is as happy with the supposed peace bewteen the United Kingdom and Eire. If that's not a notion you can stomach then I'm sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities.

I speak as the offspring of two Roman Catholic Irish citizens, brought up in the Republican tradition with a grandfather who witnessed the Easter Rising, just in case you think I'm some kind of Little Englander with an axe to grind.

These two negate each other because...? You just got done telling me that my background has nothing to do with the veracity of my statements and then launch into an ad homenim chest thumping of your "credentials". Pick one: either they matter or they don't.

I'm not being petty, but thanks for the implicit insult.

Well, first off it seems rather difficult not to insult you. It seems to be your favorite way of interpreting my statements.

Second, I didn't mean to insult you I simply meant that "the representation that war can only be waged by nations and can only be engaged in by formal decaration after ruling bodies discuss..." is rather formal and limited in it's outlook. You are free to define war that way, I have a broader deffinition that encompasses armed conflict in it's many forms.

If you assert that the states of Eire and the United Kingdom are or have been at war, then that does actually have a meaning, in international law as well as in Standard English.

You may choose to be mercurial or inconsistent with your personal definitions of war, but that really doesn't interest me.

As with the other examples I brought up war is more than just a declaration. You speak of definitions well here's the dictionary.com definition of war. I'm pretty sure there was struggle between peoples of Eire and the United Kingdom. I think if we look back at the news paper articles there were conflict carried on by force of arms between parties within a nation.

Now maybe that's too mercurial for you but it's the standard English definition and it's the only one I have. My whole point is that just because a government says it's at peace doesn't mean it's really at peace. Reality has a say in these matters.

What a pile of crap. I don't feel, nor have I stated, anything of the sort.

That's why it was stated as an assertion rather than a quote from you. Are you deliberatly trying to be insulted by me? What have I done, other than put forward a differing view of the Irish-United Kingdom conflict, that has made you this angry?

Oh my, but if the government of the Irish Free State says it too, does that count ?

No. That is my entire argument. Reality dictates that open armed conflict between two opponents is war. The government can say all it wants, if your citizens are openly rebelling - you're at war. Hence the references to Korea, Vietnam, and the standing offensive in Iraq. Just because our President said "Mission Accomplished" three years ago doesn't mean we are not currently at war in Iraq (not with Iraq mind you).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/history/64206.stm

Thank you for that. A perfect example of "history is written by the victor".

I'm not going to have to do anything of the sort. You're the one with the convincing to do. Convince me that you're not just recycling mouldy old uninformed rhetoric. you're starting with a big deficit so far.

I would have to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about first. You claim in the begining of your post that I don't know what I'm talking about but now you claim I'm just spouting the same old stuff that's been spouted for ages. Again, I have to ask you to pick a rule; either I know what I'm talking about or I don't. If I know enough to recycle old arguments then I must know what I'm talking about. If I don't know what I'm talking about then how do I know all the old arguments?

Or just understand that our outlooks regarding this conflict are different. This is not an argument of facts. I'm not disputing any of these treaties were signed. I'm saying that the outlook of some people may differ greatly from the rhetoric of the government.

Hilarious! Who exactly ?

Which inhabitants of Eire elected the Irish Republican Army to fight for reunification on their behalf after the Treaty establishing the Free State ?

Really, you shouldn't spout inflammatory uninformed nonsense.

Nice restructuring of my statement. I never said the Irish Republican Army was elected nor did I insinuate they were elected to engage in armed conflict to gain reunification. Is this another misunderstood insult that I never offered? Please understand, I am not saying this to annoy you personaly, it's simply a different outlook than yours.

But, since it was the Sinn Fein that ran I can only assume it was a platform of reunification. And since they ran unopposed and won I can only assume ALL of the inhabitants elected them.

No it doesn't. If you use terror to intimidate civilians you are a terrorist.

Only to the opposing side. Which has been my argument the entire time.

You might do well to read and learn an awful lot more about the creation of the Irish Free State and the ensuing Irish Civil War before commenting inaccurately on recent Anglo-Irish relations.

Wait, I thought you said the war was over 100 years ago? How is that recent? (Unless you are older than I thought). I was corrected, and appreciate the correction, regarding the state of Eire and the United Kingdom upon entering into the EU recently, your diatribe against me was concerning a war you insist has been over for almost 100 years. Again, I have to ask that you maintain one set of rules. Are we arguing about the current situation or the past preceived war?

I apologise if I have offended you in some way, that was never my intention. My great-grandparents and others in my family (mostly "grand"-somethings) are from Ireland and speaking with them as a boy has given me a certain stilted outlook. I'm sorry if my representing that outlook here has offended you or anybody else. I was born here and raised here so I do not have first-hand knowlege of some of the events but I do have anecdotal evidence of the feelings of my great-grandparents and those around them. I have a few newspapers but mostly because they're in Gealic, not because they have anything topical in them.

Again, I'm sorry if I have offended you.

Tom P.

[LordShiva]

:Popcorn:

[Dis]

I'm sure there was some deep meaning to that post.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by padillah


Ah, start right off with an ad hominem attack.

Oh I'm sorry. I had thought someone who could put this:

Are you high?

in reply to another poster would hardly mind being informed that I didn't care what self-imposed label he attached to himself to attempt to justify his historical and terminological inaccuracies.

Let's start again with this huge error:

Well, don't tell England and Ireland. They've been at war for over 100 years and we don't want to spoil it for them

England is not at war with Ireland. Ireland is not at war with England. The Republic of Eire is not at war with the United Kingdom, nor is the United Kingdom at war with the Republic of Eire.

So simple anyone with a command of Standard English and a passing acquaintance with the events of the 20th Century could comprehend it. Or so one might have thought....

It's not possible for me to have a valid point of view, I must have a chip on my shoulder. I can't possibly know anything about what I'm talking about and simply have a differeing view than you. I must be uninformed and have a chip on my shoulder.

I couldn't care less how 'valid' you think your point of view is.

You're asserting AS AN HISTORICAL FACT that two member states of the European Union were at war when they joined the E.E.C. , and furthermore, had been at war for over 100 years.

You can hold that as an opinion, but you'd have to back it up with more than just your peculiar 'reinterpretation' of selected English words and 20th Century history.


Let's look at other 'facts' you supposedly know:

I'm still looking for an objective site for learning about the EU. Even it's own site is old enough it doesn't list Switzerland as a member (which it is, from what you said).

Switzerland is not a member of the European Union, nor was it a member of the E.E.C. . A quick check on the website of the Swiss government or indeed acquaintance with European history could have told you that.

And England/Ireland were fighting even after they had both joined the EU. But, if I remember correctly, it's in large part to the EU that the situation is resolved. So... good on ya.

Oh look, more of the same alternate history....

No, I'm not confusing anybody. I'm just not that picayune with my definition of "war".

Yes, you are. First and most grievously of all, you're confusing yourself.

England is a distinct entity, separate from the United Kingdom. Neither it, nor the United Kingdom of which it is a part, is currently at war with the Republic of Eire.

As I stated, peace was declared on December 6th 1921, just after 02.00, for those with a fondness for historical exactitude.

The Treaty was ratified by the Dail Eireann by 64 votes to 57, on January 7th 1922.


Really, astonishingly easy facts to look up or read or discover.

Now who was it who complained about ad hominem attacks at the beginning of his post ?

The same person who wrote this nonsense:

I'm sure you feel the U.S.A. was never at war in Vietnam or Korea... and the war in Iraq is years over.

You have no idea of my views on the Viet Nam War, nor the Korean War, nor on the wars against Iraq.

Nah, in my book bunches of people killing other bunches of people while innocents get caught in the middle is war. You are free to define it however you feel you need to. This is not a court of law, we won't hold your feet to the fire.

How nice for you. However, when you start liberally asserting that Nation A is and has been at war with Nation B for X number of years, unfortunately you're straying into the realms of history and facts and can be expected to back up your statements with more than just idiosyncratic and inaccurate reinterpretations of history.

I'm sorry. The "nationalist" in me can't let this pass.

There's that self-imposed label I couldn't care less about. Except of course, when it makes you print nonsense like this as undeniable fact :

OK, just because England says it's over doesn't mean it's over.

What was that I said about the Dail Eireann ratifying the Treaty ? And what is the Dail Eireann when it's at home, anyway ?

Well the constitution of Eire (Bunreacht na hÉireann) says that the Irish government is responsible to the Dail Eireann.

Do you think that means that the Irish government, the elected representatives of the people of the Irish Free State, had the temerity to agree to a treaty establishing peace with the United Kingdom in 1922 and they didn't let you know ?

For shame it is.

Is that why England signed the Northern Ireland Act in 1998?

I'm not sure what this question was meant to mean. I don't think you were either.

IIRC Englands treatment of Irealnd was a condition of being accepted into the EU - steps toward the unification of Ireland.

If that's what you 'recall', then I'm sure given your extensive knowledge of the history and membership of the E.E.C. and the E.U. , you'll be able to back it up, won't you ?

I shan't hold my breath though.

These two negate each other because...? You just got done telling me that my background has nothing to do with the veracity of my statements and then launch into an ad homenim chest thumping of your "credentials". Pick one: either they matter or they don't.

One never knows who might mistake the appearance of a Union Jack in one's profile as being a symbol of some unpleasant chauvinistic outlook- it was after all (mis)appropriated by the National Front.

You might also look at what the meaning of 'ad hominem' is.

You seem to be under the impression that as a 'nationalist' (a nationalist what, exactly ?) you have some special gift for interpreting what has happened in history, presumably from some particularly advantaged 'nationalist' viewpoint, which grants you an overview that we humble people with an Irish Nationalist background and dual nationality of Eire and the United Kingdom lack.

What you call terrorists some called the legitimate Parliment of Southern Ireland.

This is really farcical. Who, exactly, calls the I.R.A. , I.N.L.A., Continuity I.R.A. or any of the other terrorist groups the 'legitimate Parliament of Southern Ireland' ?


Not the elected government of the Republic of Eire, nor the people of Eire.

All but 4 of the 128 MP's elected were Sinn Fein. How is that a terrorist organisation? And, again outlawed by whom? Since Southern Ireland never took seat in Parliment (as a means of protest) who dubbed these organisations terrorist and who made them illegal?

My my. Don't bother with any kind of timeline, or historical accuracy, just mash up everything together, past and present into one big ball of error.

Incoherent ranting is not a substitute for reasoned argument or debate.

Would you consider the Home Rule movement in India terrorist?

How many bombs did Mohandas K Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru plant ?


How many civilians did they kneecap, tar and feather, extort protection money from ?

Seems to me that 20th Century Indian history might be another area where you could carry out some useful research.

I'm saying to just accept one side of the story without question is dangerous in century-long geo-political debates.

Oh, if only this weren't so unwittingly ironic.

I simply meant to put forward the notion that not everybody is as happy with the supposed peace bewteen the United Kingdom and Eire.

What you did and what you 'meant' are two vastly different things. I can't mind read, and have to go by what you write.

Which by the way, doesn't begin to accord with what you allege you meant.

Well, first off it seems rather difficult not to insult you. It seems to be your favorite way of interpreting my statements

Oh what rot. 'Picayune' can hardly be described as a word in everyday use (except perhaps in the title of an American newspaper) so it's hardly unreasonable to imagine that you deliberately chose it.

You therefore state that my definition of 'war' is petty.

Had you demonstrated anywhere near the level of care and exactitude with the contents of your posts as I did with the mine I could have let this pass as the feeble comment it was.

Well, your penchant for overexageration and simplification at the same time has me giggling as well.

Still your gift for unintentional irony progressed in this thread.

You are free to define war that way, I have a broader deffinition that encompasses armed conflict in it's many forms.

Good for you. As I've pointed out however, when you write something like :

Well, don't tell England and Ireland. They've been at war for over 100 years and we don't want to spoil it for them

you're being quite specific. You mention two states, and a period of war , and an implied date from which the war began.

My apologies. I will try and be more precise in the future.

Oh super.

As with the other examples I brought up war is more than just a declaration. You speak of definitions well here's the dictionary.com definition of war. I'm pretty sure there was struggle between peoples of Eire and the United Kingdom.

Ah well. Hope deferred....

Yes, indeed, I do speak of definitions, as surprisingly words and symbols and signs mean things.

The Republic of Eire came into existence in 1937, when its constitution replaced that of the Irish Free State's of 1922.

Fully one year after De Valera's government had proscribed the I.R.A. .

Yes, that's the government of the Irish Free State outlawing the Irish Republican Army. Not the 'English' government, not the government of the United Kingdom.


Would you care to tell me which wars the peoples of Eire and the peoples of England/the United Kingdom (whatever you're calling it) then fought against each other from 1937 onwards ?

I think if we look back at the news paper articles there were conflict carried on by force of arms between parties within a nation.

There was indeed an Irish Civil War from 1922-1923.

Is this what you have in mind with your 'parties within a nation' ?


More unintentional irony (and an ad hominem):

And if that's the best "U.S. did wrong" stuff you've got... your patriotism is blind.

No wonder that James Joyce made the chauvinist 'patriot' in 'Ulysses' one-eyed based on the Cyclops.

Now maybe that's too mercurial for you but it's the standard English definition and it's the only one I have.

Standard English refers to the kind of English language itself, not to the definitions given in the various dictionaries of the English language.

In any case, you have indeed shown quite an astonishing degree of flexibility in deciding who was at war with whom, for how long, and when.

My whole point is that just because a government says it's at peace doesn't mean it's really at peace.

Oh right ! So up means down, blue means orange, et cetera. Very nice for abstruse philosophical discussions of Berkeleian perceptions of reality, but I have the governments of the United Kingdom and Eire, the treaties their representatives signed, and a Johnsonian approach to history on my side.

Reality has a say in these matters.

As the old r'n'b classic has it, 'take me to heart....'

Reality dictates that open armed conflict between two opponents is war. The government can say all it wants, if your citizens are openly rebelling - you're at war.

Terrorists do not engage in open, armed conflict. That is why terrorism is distinct from the conflicts seen between the armed forces of states.

The citizens of the Irish Free State could not rebel against the United Kingdom, because they were not citizens or inhabitants of the United Kingdom.

That's why it was stated as an assertion rather than a quote from you. Are you deliberatly trying to be insulted by me?

No, you seem to be managing that all on your own.

Look, shall I explain ?

If you assert that person holds x point of view to be true, then it might be wise to check and see if there's the remotest chance your statement might offend, especially given that you know diddly squat about my opinions on the wars in Viet Nam, Korea and Iraq, or my political stance in general for that matter.


Funny how delicate some self-described 'nationalists' can be, and yet accuse others of being oversensitive.

Just because our President said "Mission Accomplished" three years ago doesn't mean we are not currently at war in Iraq (not with Iraq mind you).

I'll explain. A treaty signed between two governments is a legal binding document, with rather more weight and power and substance than the soundbite opinion of someone who didn't take part in armed combat.

Thank you for that.

Goodness knows you needed something approaching an objective fact.

A perfect example of "history is written by the victor".

The B.B.C. was at war with the Irish Free State, or Eire or 'the peoples of Ireland' or the 'Parliament of Southern Ireland' or whatever entity you're currently channeling from an alternate history at the moment ?

I must have missed that. Oddly enough, the same kind of framework of dates appears in works on Irish history written by Irish scholars.

You could have a look at the back of the Anvil edition of Ernie O'Malley's 'The Singing Flame' . It was described as:

"...as exciting and gripping as his first book...the first major work from the point of view of a person who was so highly placed on the Republican side. "

Nollaig O Gadhra, Mayo News.

Its framework of dates has this:

11 July 1921 Truce to hostilities between the British and Irish forces takes effect

6 December 1921

Treaty (Articles of Agreement) signed in London shortly after 2 a.m.

14 December 1921 Dail Eireann commences the treaty debates

7 January 1922 Dail agrees to Treaty by 64 votes to 57

January-February 1922 2nd Southern Division (I.R.A.) breaks away from the G.H.Q. Dublin and from the authority of Dail Eireann

26 March The banned I.R.A. convention opens in Dublin

et cetera....

This isn't arcane or secret knowledge. It's easily accessible.

I would have to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about first.

Presumably because I can refer to facts, figures and actual historical treaties and events. Something notably lacking from your posts with regards Irish history.

You claim in the begining of your post that I don't know what I'm talking about but now you claim I'm just spouting the same old stuff that's been spouted for ages.

I'd say I've proved the first, and that the latter part does not contradict the former.

Again, I have to ask you to pick a rule; either I know what I'm talking about or I don't.

On the 'evidence' you've supplied, okay, you don't.

If I don't know what I'm talking about then how do I know all the old arguments?

Several species of birds can repeat words- there's no evidence they understand what they mean.

I'm saying that the outlook of some people may differ greatly from the rhetoric of the government.

No, you're saying as fact is that two well-known states were at war when they joined a well-known organisation. That cannot be interpreted to mean:

" Oh, what I really meant to say was that selected people with a distinctive take on history believe that State A is at war with State B and has been for X number of years."


Say what you mean, mean what you say.

Nice restructuring of my statement. I never said the Irish Republican Army was elected nor did I insinuate they were elected to engage in armed conflict to gain reunification. Please understand, I am not saying this to annoy you personaly, it's simply a different outlook than yours.

I'm not restructuring your statement, I'm looking for facts to back up your bizarre assertions.

But, since it was the Sinn Fein that ran I can only assume it was a platform of reunification. And since they ran unopposed and won I can only assume ALL of the inhabitants elected them.

Don't make assumptions. Trust but verify.

Only to the opposing side. Which has been my argument the entire time.

The I.R.A. fought a civil war in the Irish Free State, and has carried out extortion and punishment actions in its own community. Ergo, it has 'terrorised' its own side.

Wait, I thought you said the war was over 100 years ago? How is that recent?

I'm sorry, can you not remember all of what you've written ?

I'll refresh your memory:

Well, don't tell England and Ireland. They've been at war for over 100 years and we don't want to spoil it for them

There we go, there's the '100 years' bandied about so casually.

Now here's just one instance where you commented on recent Anglo-Irish relations:

And England/Ireland were fighting even after they had both joined the EU. But, if I remember correctly, it's in large part to the EU that the situation is resolved.

Is that a bit clearer for you ?

I was corrected, and appreciate the correction, regarding the state of Eire and the United Kingdom upon entering into the EU recently, your diatribe against me was concerning a war you insist has been over for almost 100 years. Again, I have to ask that you maintain one set of rules. Are we arguing about the current situation or the past preceived war?

So short of relevant dates and facts were your posts (not even the date of accession of the U.K. and Eire to the E.E.C.) and so vague and mutable your terminology, that I'm afraid it really isn't that clear what struggles (the Easter Rebellion, Irish Independence, the Irish Civil War) you were referring to.

I apologise if I have offended you in some way, that was never my intention.

I accept your apology.

I just find simplistic takes and wayward reinterpretations of what was a part of my family's history and the history of both my countries, extremely irritating.

[padillah]

Excuse me, but were you at any point in your ravings going to make a point or produce an argument? I was just wondering if I'm wasting my time with someone with a chip on their shoulder or if you had any actual arguments to make. For what it’s worth, no, I didn’t read most of it. I got to the fourth insult and simply stopped for lack of any substantive information.

You have done nothing but insult me. If you want to correct me, fine, correct me but to simply lash out for lack of any better response is nothing short of ignorant.

How about some common courtesy? You complain that I am wrong yet you fail to address any point of my argument (primarily acknowledging what my argument is in the first place). I can’t waste my time arguing with someone that shows no inclination to educate or inform but merely berate and insult.

I have no problem with being wrong. I've been wrong before and will be wrong again. I have been corrected earlier in this very thread as well as elsewhere in these forums. "Wrong" doesn't bug me a bit. Insults are worthless to me however.

I wish this could have ended differently but from your response that is impossible.

Good day.

Tom P.

[rah]

Yes, Please, this is past being a discussion. Let's move on.

I'll get the ball rolling again.

How could one of the greatest countries in all of history not be included in CIV IV?
Without america there wouldn't be a civ IV.

[DrSpike]

Damn, I really wanted to see the response.

Not to read it you understand - I just wanted to see if an ever bigger post with more quotes could feasibly be constructed.

[Dis]

, that has to be the longest post I have ever seen.

and in response to rah, I'm sure if we hadn't invented computers, the eurocons would have. Though they'd still be busy killing each other if it wasn't for us. . I think the cold war has done wonders for Europe.

So the real question is, where there ever be a european union civ. .

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by rah
Yes, Please, this is past being a discussion. Let's move on.

I'll get the ball rolling again.

How could one of the greatest countries in all of history not be included in CIV IV?
Without america there wouldn't be a civ IV.

I'm sorry, this post makes too much sense for this thread. That's worse than posting off topic. As a mod, you should be ashamed of yourself

[padillah]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I just wanted to see if an ever bigger post with more quotes could feasibly be constructed.

I was beginning to wonder myself.

Note to self: when you think you have something smart to say - SHUT UP!

Sorry about all that up there you guys. I didn't want to read it and it was directed at me, I'm sure it was doubly boring for you guys.

Tom P.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by rah
Yes, Please, this is past being a discussion. Let's move on.

I'll get the ball rolling again.

How could one of the greatest countries in all of history not be included in CIV IV?
Without america there wouldn't be a civ IV.

America can never be considered the world's greatest country as long as out-of-control megacorporations are allowed to irresponsibly serve beverages that exceed 140 degrees F.

[Virdrago]

Without Canadian Sid Meier, there would not be any Civ. But when your next door neighbor has ten times the population and 4000 times the armed forces, how could he not put America in Civ?