..Or something.
This thread is gonna get hot, steamy, and a bit sexual. 'Cause I'm horny.
Do me a favour - don't contribute if you can't take a bit of heat (*cough* mirdorr *cough*). This one has it all: religion, politics, culture, ethnicity, a barrel of laughs, you might say.
Sit tight, and let's have us some fun (and tears, damnit).


www.freep.com/news/locway/npray14_20040414.htm (http://www.freep.com/news/locway/npray14_20040414.htm)

I stumbled across this article. It's friggin juicy.
Aparantly this place in Bloody Colonial Land - Hamtramck, Detroit, has the largest Muslim population outside of the Middle East (bloody hell.. thought London did). If you were too lazy to click on the link, or are retarded (see: Akipt), it pretty much says that the Islamic population of Hamtramck are requesting that they be allowed the use of Call to Prayer via speakers about the city. The Call to Prayer is a (personal opinion) beautifully sung prayer that echoes out to remind Islam-followers that it's time for their prayer.

Now there's a problemo. Infact, there are a few problems.
The Christian population are strongly opposed to it, obviously.
The reasons, they say, is that initially the first of five prayers starts at 6am. Thus they say it would disrupt their rest. They also say they would find it offensive, reasons ranging from "Their god isn't my god, my god is Jesus Christ" (jesus is a god? 0.o) and "as a citizen of the United States I don't want to hear it."

The argument for it is the fact that Bloody Colonial constitution supports the freedom to practice religion. There's also the argument that church bells ring loud enough every day, so how is this any difference?

Personally? I can understand both sides. It would be silly to neglect the fact that America is, largely, Christian. But then, to be Christian isn't to be American. And the law supports the freedom for religious practice and belief. Why then should Muslims be denied the use of Call to Prayer? Specifically when Western landscapes are dominated by Christian symbols and structures. Can't go a mile in my town, anywho, without a Cross gracing the skyline or a church board stuck to a wall. Couple that with the stricly contrasting church bells. I mean.. they're loud. Very loud. I used to be constantly woken up by the 10am ringing while at University.
But then that isn't necessarily grounds for allowing Call to Prayer, is it? If Call to Prayer is deemed to disturbing, then surely church bells should be banned as well.

Whatchya think? I mean, let the games begin!

IMO, both would piss me off. 6am...too early for either.

But if they allow church bells they need to allow the call to prayer.

If it disrupts my peace at 6 in the morning, fuck it. I don't care what it is-it can be the voice of Jesus himself telling me to give praise-but it can wait till 10.

In America you have the right to practice your own religion.

HOWEVER you cannot, by use of public/state/federal equipment broadcast it in such a way it would infringe on others beliefs. It's a factor of seperation of church and state.

So no, they don't have the right...

Recently they made a Alabama state house remove their publicly displayed artistic stone copy of the 10 commandments.

Easy to understand if you live here instead of view everything through a left leaning biased bullshit media site boyo.

Oh, and after living in the Middle East and being forced to hear that Call to prayer more than 2 times in as many days you'd understand it's hardly....beautiful at oooofucking too early in the morning.

Fandros

Most places have noise ordinances prohibiting that kind of racket before 8-9am and after a certain time in the evening.

And yes, no matter how beautiful it may be, at 6am it's considered racket. :)

On to the topic at hand, I think that if churchbells can be rang throughout the day, than a call to prayer can be announced over a loudspeaker. But, not over the entire town. Put a loudspeaker on the mosque... that way they both have noisy annoyances, but at the same level.

There is a muslim school down the street near where i usually eat lunch and they have the loudspeaker thing. It's never made the damn news though. I guess as long as you don't fuck with cheese, harley-davidson, or beer, people in milwaukee are pretty content.

I live right next to a church and city hall, both have bells that calls every hour/half hour. It's not very loud, just a couple of dings and dongs. A few years ago I spent some time in Turkey on vacation.. I woke up from the prayer every time, the tower that was emitting the noise was a 30 min walk away.. but it could as well have been in our livingroom.

The differense in length and noise between the two is immense, I can really understand where the rest of the population is coming from there.

450 X 150 sorry Izzy

Recently they are going after churches to tone down their bells as well. They piss off a lot of people who live near them. Personally none of it bothers me (same with what the Muslims would like) but then again I would like to have AC/DC "Hells Bells" ringing out loud as I walk out to my truck in the morning to go to work. I would suspect my neighbors would frown.


Ibudin

Ive never heard the call to prayer but I'd bet it would irritate the fuck out of me. Kind of like the few times I've heard church bells in the morning - Fuck em both.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

So no, they don't have the right...

Then you include the Church Bells in this?

Recently they made a Alabama state house remove their publicly displayed artistic stone copy of the 10 commandments

I don't see the relationship...this is private property....the state house is public property. This isn't something the Government wants to do.

Easy to understand if you live here instead of view everything through a left leaning biased bullshit media site boyo.

WTF are you talking about?

Oh, and after living in the Middle East and being forced to hear that Call to prayer more than 2 times in as many days you'd understand it's hardly....beautiful at oooofucking too early in the morning.

No idea...but I'm betting it is to Muslims. I don't find any sound above a certain db level nice before 7am (I'm old...don't sleep in much anymore :')

Frankly I don't give a shit what it is. 6am is too early in the morning to have some loud ass noise, regardless of religion.

If they get to do that shit, then I need my helicopter outfitted with loudspeakers, so I can fly all over los angeles blasting Wagners Ride of the Valkeryes at the crack of dawn.

'Easy to understand if you live here instead of view everything through a left leaning biased bullshit media site boyo.
------------------------------------------------------------
WTF are you talking about?'

- Indeed. What the fuck *are* you talking about, Fandros?

Anyway, in hindsight, perhaps the French are on the right tracks? Ban it all - avoid this sort of confrontation.
But I have to agree that 6am is too early, even if religion dictates it to be so.
One has to wonder, however, if the roles of religion were reversed and Christianity dictated the 6am prayer, accompanied with loud hyms.. how many people would complain? I guess that is how Muslims must see it.
But of course you have to look at it that they *are* in America.. although.. isn't an American, by definition, multi-cultured?
Argh. Can 'o Worms.

I don't think you are getting the big picture here Halo. No church in my near vicinity( there is one across the street from my house) or any I have visted in the States..blares out any sort of religious music, christian or not, other than a Bell for the hour..Ding 1'oclock Ding Ding 2'oclock..not "you all should sit down and say a prayer to the god old mighty." In fact people are complaining in some areas they dont want to hear the bells period. There is nothing to ban but enforce noise ordinaces. If the muslims put a boom box out in there parking lot playing what ever they want people to hear with in the restricted noise levels ..they can.

<edit> I guess after re-reading that article let the muslims do as the christians are at the same noise level but for what its worth they both can stfu. I don't near to hear any of it.


Ibudin

I don't near to hear any of it.

My thoughts exactly.

Though an hourly "Praise be to overlord Marz" announcement sounds interesting. :lol

As long as it doesn't exceed the noise levels for that time, and as long as they aren't using goverment systems for the broadcast they have every right. Its the decibel level that will probably get them in trouble. As for the 6 am thing, Jezusss anything that early should be banned.

I think the churchbells, and the call to prayer should not be allowed before 10am, and not after 10pm if they don't like it, too fucking bad.

Now to put it on the flip side, lets say some Christian church said they wanted to put up loud speakers and broadcast a call to prayer, I'd bet money they'd bitch to high heaven about how their freedom of religeon was being oppressed.

They want the speaker, it needs to be a quiet one, and the bells need to be muffled too. (To be fair)

'As for the 6 am thing, Jezusss anything that early should be banned. '

- The Holy Alarm Clock of Satan, especially.

If they permit the call to prayer to be sounded in the same manner church bells are sounded, then nothing is to stop another resident from broadcasting his "yodel to Spinoza" at 4am. Slippery slope argument, but a realistic one outside of the example.

Someone should just market nightstand clocks in the area that sound the call to prayer as their alarm.

Eh, first chance I've had to reply....

Sorry, was a shameful attempt to piss off Halo earlier.

I stand abashed ;(

Fandros

Oh you can't piss me off cutie pie.

While we're talking about fighting...

All that pissing and moaning about patriotism, then you whip out your little signature detailing the mandate from heaven for British supremecy.

What gives Halo?

Sarcastic?

It's pretty much all been said.

Personally, I think the noise ordinance should be enforced 24/7. I work the graveyard shift. I want to sleep during the day, damnit!

Ok, I'm bored and did a quick google.

Athan, the Call to Prayer (http://www.ohiou.edu/~muslimst/av/athan.wav)

Translation:

God is most Great. God is most Great.
God is most Great. God is most Great.
I testify that there is no god except God.
I testify that there is no god except God.
I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God.
I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God.
Come to prayer! Come to prayer!
Come to success (in this life and the Here after)! Come to success!
God is most Great. God is most Great.
There is no god except God.

There seems to be more than one version and the quality of the above one kinda sucks, but it's all I'm gonna do.

Enjoy!

Source: Facts about Islam (http://www.ohiou.edu/~muslimst/islam/islam5.html)

'All that pissing and moaning about patriotism, then you whip out your little signature detailing the mandate from heaven for British supremecy.

What gives Halo? '

- I think I've said it before, I'm a closet patriot. Patriotism is OK, but the way people "enforce" it around here sucks arse.
IE I don't go around saying we're the best country, everyone else sucks, yadayadayada.

And the signature isn't about supremecy.

Isn't it?

There are other people on the "waves" are there not?

So ruling "the waves" would mean ruling them as well, no?

Are you a closet Christian too?

Urging a country to control a particular theatre of war doesn't advocate said country's supremacy.
It was a national chant that stemmed from the Anglo-French conflict of the early 1700's, when ultimate-control of the English Channel was being fought (English Channel...guess who won?).

'Are you a closet Christian too?'

- Sure, why not. Yey jesus, etc.

I see where you are coming from, saying Britain rules is obviously different from saying the US does.

I can certainly understand why you'd get your panties in a bunch over one while using the other in all of your posts.

'I see where you are coming from, saying Britain rules is obviously different from saying the US does.'

- I'm sorry, who is saying Britain rules?
It's not "Brtannia rules the waves", it's "Britannia rule the waves" ie "Try and rule the waves".

I know a basic grasp of the English language is lost upon you Crist0, but please *think* before bothering to speak to me. Makes my day a lot less painful.

Well, its official. Hamsammich can now play the call to prayer 5 times a day for two minutes each. Wonder how long the loudspeakers will last...... <kids around here are pretty good shots>

Hamek

Personally, I think the noise ordinance should be enforced 24/7.
That is the law in Nevada. There is no imaginary cut off time for noise disturbance. 24/7 is the law. A lot of people think there is one but here there isnt.

It's the same idea Halo.


It was a national chant


Sort of like a pledge of allegiance?

'It's the same idea Halo.'

- Uhm, no. It's the complete opposite idea.
Read above, revel in your humiliation.

'Sort of like a pledge of allegiance? '

- Sort of.. not?

Nice little thread-jack goin' on here. In that spirit, this is what I get from Halo's sig:

"When Britain first, at heaven's command,
Arose from out of the azure main,

When Britain rose into power as commanded by God,

This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sung this strain:

This was their call to battle and was sung by the Angels,

Rule Britannia, rule the waves;

Control your lands, control the seas

Britons never will be slaves"

If you control your lands and your seas, you will never be under another's command.

Seems to me like this is a charter/statement that tells Britons to be self sufficient, control their destiny and be free as a result. As this is what God commanded when they first came into power.

It's not really a pledge of allegiance, as I see it. It’s more of a motivational poem. Sort of like a "Rah rah rah! Kick'em in the jaw!" deal.

For the record, I'm American. I know very little about the UK (only what I've learned from school and teh History Channel :D ).

'It's not really a pledge of allegiance, as I see it. It’s more of a motivational poem. Sort of like a "Rah rah rah! Kick'em in the jaw!" deal.'

- Bingo.
As I said, it arose from an Anglo-French conflict. Hardly premise for a pledge of allegience.
But then, this is Crist0 we're dealing with. The guy who defined cockblocking.
You must be ready to educate him in almost everything.

Control your lands, control the seas


Ah, but see there's the rub. It's not control your seas, it's control the seas.

Now Halo, kindly tell me the large difference in mindset between saying we rule and saying go out and make it so we rule?


It's a nationalistic chant, strewn with references to organized religion, by your own words - things you've pissed and moaned about other posters talking about, but you like it so much you put it in every post.

What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

Is it just different when you do it?

Halo's blind patriotism is making me want to puke. I can't believe you actually have that in your sig. It's very disturbing:(

'Is it just different when you do it?'

- Yes, what with it being an entirely different concept.

'Now Halo, kindly tell me the large difference in mindset between saying we rule and saying go out and make it so we rule?'

- There's a difference between the "TEH AMERICA RULES MAN" ie rules the world, is a better nation than others, than saying "Rule the English Channel to stop the French".

'strewn with references to organized religion',

- Aye, what with Britain being a largely Christian nation.

'by your own words - things you've pissed and moaned about other posters talking about'

- I have? Or you mean, religious fanatics?
Unless..I missed the post about me attacking Chrstianity as a religion, or religion as an idea.

'but you like it so much you put it in every post.'

- Unless, I like the history and tradition behind the verse and the period from which it stemmed?
Good lord.. couldn't be anything but that, could it.
I'm actually preaching Christianity, boasting about Britain's superiority over every nation, and singing my prayers, ignoring other opinions in the face of my own, nationalistic supremacy.

THAT's it, I'm sure.

/yawn Anything else you need educating in?

Halo-

Do you think the decline of the English empire had more to do with:

a- Lacking the manpower to control fractious colonies (due to losses in the war)?

b- The reduced economic return of holding and controling a far flung empire?

c- Some other reason

I vote "c". It was all that damn tea they were drinking. Too much caffeine makes for jittery leaders.

Personally?
A myriad of reasons.
No single one.

As most colonial powers were European powers, the mood in the late 19th, 20th centuries toward colonizing and supressing global communities contributed to the "Hmm.. perhaps settling down someone, kicking the locals around, and then exploiting them, ISN'T a good idea".
Because, let's face it, to maintain international colonies, an empire works with a certain slavery element, even beyond the abolishment of slavery. You are, in effect, exploiting the colony to its most full.
There were, of course, some peaceful colonizing. India, for example, was colonized through peaceful trading - until the Anglo-French conflicts. Yet still not much blood was spent (The Black Hole of Calcutta, for example, wasn't really "hurrendous" in terms of deaths and deeds). In some circumstances, the empire helped local peoples.
But by and large, colonizing a place was an imperialistic notion, an oppressive act.
And with the large wave of independent states, breaking away from Mother Countries (largely due to the American Revolution) the mood was heightened.
So I think the change in opinion of colonial empires did much to help dismantle the Empire.
And then there is one of your options. The World Wars were utterly devastating. They brought Europe itself, on to the brink of complete exhaustion. Almost every country was depleted and displaced from its previous state. Even if they tried to remain neutral. But did British dedication hinder the man power needed to run a colonial empire? No, I don't think so. Colonies weren't largely run by Britain, more so established, maintained, and then used the local populous to keep it running. I'll take the example of India again.. the British forces in the French conflicts before the British Rhaj would usually be composed of 500 British troops and several thousand Indians.
The Empire wasn't a militaristic notion, it didn't reflect the Roman or Mongolian frame of empires, it was an economic force, something created through exploration and science, trade and growth. Cook didn't discover New Zealand or Australia to enslave its locals and conquer its lands. He was sent that way to find a suitable and easily accesible route to the South Americas in order to expand trade.
You have to keep in mind, Britain has always been a relatively middle-line, if not quite small, country. It had no more than about 8 million people during the Empire's height of power.
So my answer to that is simply: no, I don't think so.
But in other ways? Definately. Cost, for one. Focus, another. dependency, third. There are many things the wars contributed to the Empires demise.
Maintaining a colonial empire is a delicate, delicate operation. And when a local threat, the likes that means invasion of the mother country is imminent, resources and attention shift from global places to right at home. Everything is thrown at it.. There are several key moments that, if Nazi Germany would have siezed them, could easily have meant the fall of Britain. Dunkirk, for one.
The international politics and maintainence of an Empire is, obviously, thrown in to turmoil when you reach the point of almost being at the feet of an enemy.
Take the scenario of an intelligence agency. Now imagine you're conducting hundreds of global operations, and then someone blows up your Washington HQ, your nerve centre, the place where it's all ran. Now imagine, while you're rebuilding it, some years later, it's blown up again.
The mood changes. If you pull through two world wars, having lost millions in the process, and the Mother Country has been shattered by bombs and grief... you just don't feel like maintaining an Empire. After WW1, Britain took less of an imperialistic approach to international situations, we took our Superpower status that had been long in the making, and threw it in to rebuilding, not expanding. Colonies weren't drawn on to bring in mass resources as they had been to beat the French, the Spanish, the Germans. They weren't priority anymore, they were neglected.
WW2, by and large, was an attrocity. An act of human malice. I think the cruelty in the deeds committed was a final blow to any imperialistic and colonial attitude possessed by my country. Britain had, with the help of others, toppled a country attempting to expand its borders and "take over" others.
How could Britain emerge from such a hurrendous task of being the heroic slayer of such a concept, but BE one itself?

So I think the wars had less of a resource/man-power role of declining the empire, and more of a mental, shift-in-focus role.
But there's also another important factor, America.
To maintain an Empire, to secure your superpower status, you have to be the *only* player. Britain's complete reduction in the aftermath of WW1, it's pre-occupation of rebuilding, and then being overwhelmed and broken later, secured America's industrial, economical, and global presence. On one side you had a broken, battered country, with a string of colonies, trying to rebuild itself. No longer annexing countries, but neglecting them. And then you have a country revelling in supremacy, containing the threat of multiple enemies in multiple theatres, emerging victorious. Securing conditions on their terms, monopolizing the international stage, and turning in to a force to be reckoned with, no longer British America, but America. An "entity". Not a "part". America had finished its rebuilding and regrouping, but Britain was now entering hers.
America fought in both world wars, but (and I don't mean this ungratefully or cynically) they didn't carry the brunt of the slaughter. They entered, both times, after a some years had passed, and had the leisure (if that's the right term to use for such a concept) of entering the fray from a distance. France fought the enemy on her fields, America could drop her troops off and fight on someone elses.
So unlike the previous world powers, those Western European countries that had dominated the world for thousands of years, America could finally emerge when we were weak, torn apart, and broken. And you've achieved it remarkably well.

And finally,

'b- The reduced economic return of holding and controling a far flung empire?'

- You're absolutely right when you suggest this. Britain surpassed other nations in becoming the Superpower it was, simply because it could draw staggering resources from its colonies. Colonial trade and domination was *the* economical force of the 17th - 19th centuries. But science and technology reduced it. More obvious today is the concept of globalization, but back then, the increase in geographical knowledge, access, and diplomacy meant that colonizing a place wasn't the only way to gain trade from it. Trade was indeed becoming international, more accessible. A world power could no longer grip trade with an iron fist, and deny it to others. Trade was less and less an act to be controlled.
And trade wasn't also the most effective way to gain wealth. We may have invented the industrial revolution, but the prospects of monstrous and mighty economy was changing.. science and technology assured it. Look at Ireland, you won't see a potato for 50 miles, but they are a revolutionary computer-chip manufacturer. As time moved further in to the 1900's, countries who didn't monopolize international waters and lands, could still build a good economy. This didn't lessen Britain, it merely gave them more to compete with. It scathed the idea of a ruling power.

So as I said, a myriad of reasons. But it's of course personal opinion from what I've read.
And you obviously do suffer in manpower and physical strength when you emerge from wars on the scale they were during the early 20th century. Naturally events like Jutland, while amazing naval victories for Britain, helped to reduce the Royal Navy to the point where it struggled to be the leading seapower in the world. When you emerge from the war, you don't seek to rebuild the 30 battleships you lost, you concentrate on rebuilding the country.
But even so, I think there were more important contributing factors to the demise.
And yes, contemporary thought is definately the most important. The British Empire, while perhaps the largest in history, was definately one of the shortest. Perhaps if it had happened earlier last millenium, then it might have been a bigger, larger, longer power. But it panned out on the eve of revolutionary thinking. Science, freedom, tragedy, technology, literature.. democracy. When people remove from conservative society towards liberal thinking and freedom of thought, it's hard to justify being a colonial power.
And thus you have the fact that the Empire - while perhaps pioneered by the likes of Pitt and Walpole - were powered and built by the divine powers of the Monarch, the idea that Britain rules for King and Country. How can such a notion maintain itself when Britain is changed to a constitutional monarch, and the King is nothing more than a man of state? Frederick of Prussia, Hannoverian dynasty.. none of it was important anymore.

Sorry if I rambled, but you asked for it if you start me with history!
Anywho, just my opinion. Take it as ya will. Correct me if you can :P

Good post Halo..

I had another observation... why is it that some former colonies of England have done so much better economically than former colonies of other European powers? Look at America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia for example and compare them to all of the former colonies of Spain, France or Portugal? Any thoughts about why that might be?

That one's easy, Gulor. Britain had the distinction of being a Protestant nation. Thus its influence on the colonies was focused on economic development to a large extent, whereas the Catholic nations put forth far more energy toward converting the natives in their colonies.

I think Willgatus hit it on the head.
As I previously said, the British Empire was, by and large, one of a economical nature. Colonies were established for trade, to trade. Spain, for example, colonised not only in the pretense of exploration, but also religion. France, of course, merely colonised to keep up with the growing British power, and lost. Which is why you don't see too many economy-driven international french powers, but mostly poor, African/Indo-chinease nations. Simply a product to counter the British expansion.
The only colonial empire you couldn't use with this reasoning would be the Dutch one, seen as that was both a movement of exploration, but also trade. Dutch colonies were chosen mainly for their strategic positioning and advantage.
Of course, we can explain that with the fact that the international Dutch expansion didn't last long simply due to the Anglo-Dutch wars, which was a naval one, and almost eradicated the Dutch competition, if you like.

So yeah, mainly because, as opposed to the other colonial powers of the time, we were driven by the purpose of trade and economic opportunities. And the others, well, mainly weren't.
Latin America, anyone?

Latin America, anyone?

Got a lot of good Catholics down there...

Makes sense...though I wonder if the time period of colonization might make a difference as well. Some later English colonies did less well (most African ones and India for example). They seem to have been colonized a bit later and possibly spent less time under English rule than the more successful ones.

Another possibility is that in the case of Canada, US, NZ and Australia, the imported European population more or less supplanted the indigenous people rather than remaining a power holding minority. That may have made for a more seemless integration with the rest of the empire and allowed a jump start on development.

There's a difference between the "TEH AMERICA RULES MAN" ie rules the world, is a better nation than others, than saying "Rule the English Channel to stop the French".


It doesn't say "Rule the English Channel to stop the French", it says "Rule the waves".

Considering the mindset of the British and their empire building at that point in time, or to use your own words:


settling down someone, kicking the locals around, and then exploiting them


I doubt that the motive behind the chant was just about stopping the French.

'It doesn't say "Rule the English Channel to stop the French", it says "Rule the waves". '

- No, because that would make for a rather poor chant, wouldn't it?

"When Britain first, at heaven's command,
Arose from out of the azure main,
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sung this strain:
Rule Britannia, rule the English Channel to stop the French;
Britons never will be slaves"

'Considering the mindset of the British and their empire building at that point in time, or to use your own words'

- /sigh It was a hundred odd years before the Empire.

You're painfully out of your depth, grabbing at concepts beyond you.
Just.. be quiet, go back to your little shit hole, and I'll call you if Akipt or Mirdorr need their balls sucked.

Watching Halo squirm while you nail his nut sack to the wall is funny.

Keep it up Crist0.

(This message was left blank)

Of course, the lyrics go on to talk about becoming dreaded and envied by the rest of the world, and how Britain will strike down all who oppose her.




/sigh It was a hundred odd years before the Empire.


It was written in 1740.

Depending on who you talk to, the Empire had its start at various times during the 17th centruy...but one thing they all agree on is that it was around for at least 50 years before that was written.

You could look at these sites to get a better idea of the timeframe for it:

pages.britishlibrary.net/...istory.htm (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/empirehist/history.htm)

www.britannia.com/history/emptime.html (http://www.britannia.com/history/emptime.html)

Aren't you usually saying we're the uneducated ones?

Couldn't find our own country on a map?

Must really sting to be corrected on your country's history by an American after all of that talk.

I guess you have to speculate about when the "Empire" actually came in to its own, other than a set of colonies (ie Dutch, Porteguese). You're right though, I exeggerated when I said 100, Perhaps 50, however. The "empire" never emerged, in my opinion, until the 1800's. Hell, Cook hadn't even discovered New Zealand and Australia yet, two extremely important parts of the Empire. Hell, rule in India, and I mean *rule*, not economical dominance, didn't happen for some 50, 60 years, and India was, perhaps, the most important part of the British Empire. The Anglo-Dutch wars had yet to come, as did the ultimate French conflicts, which, finally, Britain would emerge from as the Superpower it would be.
British Empire in the early 1700's? Perhaps the beginnings, but not THE Empire.

Alfred {the Great), which is the name of the masque in my quote, was about the founding of the British navy, which Alfred rose to defend the English channel from French and Scandinavian threat (hence "When Britain first...").
It was, obviously, made to fit the circumstance of the current Naval situation against the French.

What are you attempting to accomplish here Crist0? You tried to accuse me of ignorant patriotic bellowing, then religious preaching, then contradiction, THEN the definition of the masuq, and now, what? That it meant "Britain, rule the world" instead of what it was actually created for, and used in conjunction with?

If you fancy tearing apart British patriotic rubbish, have a go at the National Anthem. That was actually based on a Jacobite song. Irony at its best.

English channel from French and Scandinavian threat

We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow.
The hammer of the gods... will drive our ships to new lands.
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
On we sweep with threshing oar, Our only goal will be the western shore!

We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
How soft your fields so green, can whisper tales of gore,
Of how we calmed the tides of war. We are your overlords.
On we sweep with threshing oar, Our only goal will be the western shore!

So now you'd better stop and rebuild all your ruins,
For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing.

It's a shame the best Viking "poem" was written by a bunch of frickin' brits.

guess you have to speculate about when the "Empire" actually came in to its own, other than a set of colonies (ie Dutch, Porteguese). You're right though, I exeggerated when I said 100, Perhaps 50, however. The "empire" never emerged, in my opinion, until the 1800's.


I don't have to speculate about a thing, in case you missed my source look again...and it wasn't 100 or even 50 years after that was written, it was 50-140 years before it was written.

I suppose if you want to argue that you know the history of the British Empire better than a society that is dedicated to its study(and has been for longer than you've been alive) more power to you.


You tried to accuse me of ignorant patriotic bellowing, then religious preaching, then contradiction, THEN the definition of the masuq, and now, what?


Nope, I was poking fun at your constant badgering of American patriotism and religion while you use for your signature a verse about the divine British right to rule the world and crush all who oppose it.


If you fancy tearing apart British patriotic rubbish, have a go at the National Anthem. That was actually based on a Jacobite song.


Your national anthem was based on a Jacobite song?

That can't be, as your national anthem is controversially traced back to 1619 and John Bull, while the Jacobites were the result of William and Mary taking the throne in the revolution of 1688-1689.

'I don't have to speculate about a thing, in case you missed my source look again...and it wasn't 100 or even 50 years after that was written, it was 50-140 years before it was written.'

- Oh, so by your logic, ANY country that has an over-seas territory, has an empire? I mean - a bloodthirsty, "rule the world", "crush everyone else".. empire? Funny, I don't hear many references to the Dutch Empire. The Portuguese Empire. The French empire. The Italian Empire.
See where I'm going with this, sparky?

'I suppose if you want to argue that you know the history of the British Empire better than a society that is dedicated to its study(and has been for longer than you've been alive) more power to you.'

- Sure, I'll have a go arguing with anyone. Especially when I read, and understand it, differently.

'Your national anthem was based on a Jacobite song?

That can't be, as your national anthem is controversially traced back to 1619 and John Bull, while the Jacobites were the result of William and Mary taking the throne in the revolution of 1688-1689. '

- /sigh Stop googling this shit and coming up with retarded answers.
The Jacobite movement was the result of James II, you know, what with Jacobite being Latin for James! They were the supporters of the exiled heir, who took refuge and support in France.
The revolution was merely a rebellion, with most of the Ministers and Barons inviting William of Orange over to claim the throne.
Any twat with a basic grasp of British history, and who doesn't quickly enter "Jacobite" in to a search engine, knows about the Jacobite movement. The exiling of James would have happened with or without William of Orange. No monarch of Britain could get away with attempting to convert the entire Protestant nation in to Catholics.
I suppose you're gonna tell me the Jacobite movement was Irish, simply because it managed to conquer most of it? And neglect that it was, infact, Scottish, where the British first heard a very different version of the future National Anthem, a Jacobite song sung by Scottish clans. Eh?

Oh, so by your logic


Not just by my logic.

You are arguing with information from your own country's national library.


And neglect that it was, infact, Scottish, where the British first heard a very different version of the future National Anthem, a Jacobite song sung by Scottish clans. Eh?


That would be odd, as it was first sung in its current version in support of George II after he defeated a Jacobite claimant to the throne.

Again, the credit for the song is generally given to John Bull(1619, an organist in the Chapel Royal..he even wrote a song with different music called God Save the King) and Henry Carey(1740). One was about 70 years to early to be a Jacobite, and the other's work was done in support of the Jacobite's enemies.

The Scots claimed it came about from a 1611 carol called "Remember O thou man" or "Franklyn is fled away" from 1669, however that claim is widely discounted.

Even if it were accepted, both of those songs date from before there were any Jacobites, and so it still could not possibly be of Jacobite origin.

Stop. Copy. And. Pasting. From. Google. You. Fucking. Moron.
You sound like a text book, and it's painfully obvious.

When and by whom the initial version of the song was written, you could well be right.
But it was adopted from, and used after, the Jacobites. It wasn't written by Bull in the early 1600's and then used as the National Anthem. It was heard by the Jacobites in Scotland, twisted to reflect National Pride, and used primarily in London before it spread, and was thereafter our National Anthem.

"Incidentally, it was at this point [1745] that the words of a rousing, patriotic song began to be sung in London:
God Save our noble King,
God Save great George our King,
God Save the King.
Send him victorious...
etc cetera
The Irony is that other versions had been used for years by the Jacobites. But now the Hanoverians had commandeered the song which, one day, would be called the national anthem.' (Lee's "This Spectred Isle") - and he's one of the top authorities on British history.

OMGOSH, QUICK TO GOOGLEZ MY ANSWER & C WHUT U CAN COMEZ UP WITH LOELZ.

My information was taken from(if i had just copied it would be in quotes)official website of the British Monarchy, and from a site run by the Canadian Department of Heritage(since it was their anthem before O Canada).

Please keep arguing with sites such as those, and your national library, it's amusing.

Incidently, I -did- google it..because oddly enough when you want to discuss something it usually pays to research what you are talking about. You might try it sometime, instead of talking out of your ass so much.

Ps. The only book titled "This Spectred Isle" I have come across is a book about haunted places in the UK. Link it or link him.

'Please keep arguing with sites such as those, and your national library, it's amusing.'

- ie Oh shit.. I've ran out of things to reply to from your last post.

'Incidently, I -did- google it..because oddly enough when you want to discuss something it usually pays to research what you are talking about. You might try it sometime, instead of talking out of your ass so much.'

- ie I don't actually know about any of this stuff, so I'm just spending 10min on a googled site, and then acting as if I have enough information to argue with you.

'Ps. The only book titled "This Spectred Isle" I have come across is a book about haunted places in the UK. Link it or link him. '

- It's sitting on my History shelf, above my Porn shelf. Look for it your fucking self, lazy shit.

I don't actually know about any of this stuff, so I'm just spending 10min on a googled site


Which would be more time than you spent looking into it, no?

I love your sources, by the way.

I offer you the British Library, the official website of the British Monarchy, the website for the Canadian Department of Heritage...

You give me "No, he's an expert, really..I have this book he wrote, it's on a shelf above my porn".

www.reviewcentre.com/reviews15197.html (http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews15197.html)

Oops?

I'm actually from near this area....

Hamtramck is like a little city in the middle of Detroit. As far as I knew, it was like "Little Poland", containing the 2nd largest Polish community in the US behind Chicago.

I always though Dearborn had the largest Arabic community in the US.

Well, in any event, Michigan is a cultural hotbed. LOTS of different ethnic groups here, especially in Detroit.

As to the thread subject...seems like religion just causes problems, in my opinion. I won't hold anyone back from believing in whatever and doing what you have to do. But personally, I could do without it all.

So, it's a book by a noted scholar with a rating of 1 star out of 5, that is part of some radio collection. Somehow I should have known that with Halo it would be an audio book.

Not only that but Halo is so familiar with it that he couldn't even get its name right.

'So, it's a book by a noted scholar with a rating of 1 star out of 5, that is part of some radio collection. Somehow I should have known that with Halo it would be an audio book.
Not only that but Halo is so familiar with it that he couldn't even get its name right.'

- It was actually from an award winning BBC radio broadcast, and Lee is actually how you spell "Lee". It is, perhaps, the best book on the subject of the past 1000 years of British history. Beside Churchill's "A History of the English Speaking Peoples" (of which this draws an enormous amount of resource on, though more coherently), if you know of any better, just let us know (I'll pay you ten quid if you can answer me without using google).

'Which would be more time than you spent looking into it, no?'

- Not only did I study history at college, but it's also a favourite past time of mine. Specifically British and early European history.
Not spent more than 10minutes looking at google? Yes. You're probably right.
I don't fucking need too.

'I love your sources, by the way.
I offer you the British Library, the official website of the British Monarchy, the website for the Canadian Department of Heritage...'

- Well you'd have a point in the War of Sources, if you had actually proved me wrong about anything. First, you argued about the definition of a song that was written as an Ode to Alfred the Great (who lived about 700 years before the Empire), though you claimed it was about Imperialistic world domination (when in actual fact it was fitting in regards to the defence of the English Channel from invaders, which is exactly how Alfred created the navy).
Then you tried to argue about the masque, ignoring the fact that I wasn't disputing its creation, merely it's origin as our National Anthem.

Now, you're just rambling about your sources.

You are the worst fucking debator I've seen since Yhogurtballs and Wayfarer.
Although, this coming from the retard who defined cockblocking to the Aro community's amusement...I'm hardly shocked.

Stop wasting my time. Come back when you're even remotely educated, or slightly enlightened. Cretin.

'As to the thread subject...seems like religion just causes problems, in my opinion. I won't hold anyone back from believing in whatever and doing what you have to do. But personally, I could do without it all. '

- Anyway, back to the subject for a bit.
Can I ask, does the wide range of ethnicity cause many problems? Or does it all seem... well, fairly integrated?

and Lee is actually how you spell "Lee"


Is "spectred" how you spell "sceptered"?

Hey Halo, guess what..I was a history major for a few years(In fact, I was taking a 300s level history class on Europe in the Middle Ages at the state college my senior year in high school, if you want to start the dick measuring), believe it or not I don't -have- to use google to argue points with you, however considering the fact that we are on an internet message board, it seems logical to use a search engine to locate the online sources we know are there back up our point.

Does that make sense to you?

It sure makes more sense to me than talking about an audio book above your porn collection to solidify your points.


First, you argued about the definition of a song that was written as an Ode to Alfred the Great


Indeed, it may have been, however(and this is another place where you get lost) it was written at a time when you Brits were starting to stick your fingers into every little corner you could. That belief in the divine right to rule ..well..every little corner they could get their fingers into.. was really starting to come into its own and it bleeds through into it.

Do you not understand the difference between the subject and the influence of the writer themselves and/or general attitudes and ways of thinking at the time it was written?

If I were smoking weed and writing a song about trees, do you think it would be possible my song would sound like Xanaron could have written it(just as an example)? Can you follow along well enough to understand I wasn't arguing about its subject, but the obvious influence of the attitude/beliefs of the populace in time it was written?

Which of course is the entire point(that you missed, again):

Here you are, Whine Incarnate when someone says something even semi-patriotic about the US, using for your signature this verse that is just dripping with the very thing(things actually, because you've ranted about as evenly against religion) you claim to hate.


Then you tried to argue about the masque, ignoring the fact that I wasn't disputing its creation, merely it's origin as our National Anthem


Well, you tried to claim it originated from "Jacobite" songs as I recall, however the songs you are referring to were decades old before the Jacobites even existed. It's like calling a Michael Bolton song original material.

You know what the absolute best thing in this whole bit is for me?

I was just making a jab that it was an audio book, and it turned out not only to be one(psst, it really isn't a book), but is actually a series that was made especially for radio.

'Do you not understand the difference between the subject and the influence of the writer themselves and/or general attitudes and ways of thinking at the time it was written?'

- How are you not grasping this? How is this not getting through your thick skull?
Alfred invented the Navy to secure the English Channel. This song is about Alfred... raising the navy to defend the Channel.
At the time it came about, the English were.. guess what... defending the Channel.
Now, I'd be more inclinded to listen to your pathetic, google answer, if the verse was "Rule Britannia, Britannia ruleS the waves". Because that's imperialistic, isn't it? Something a country who's beginning to rule the world would say, right?
But, golly gosh, it's "Britannia rulE the waves".
ie struggle, ie win struggle, ie secure Channel

'Here you are, Whine Incarnate when someone says something even semi-patriotic about the US, using for your signature this verse that is just dripping with the very thing(things actually, because you've ranted about as evenly against religion) you claim to hate.'

- It kills me. It kills me completely.
Semi-patriotic? ON THIS FORUM?! Hardly. All you get here is "America rules" "We're the best country in the world" "We kick arse!!111" Yes.. I see how it's identical to a masque about a King who defended the English Channel from invasion.
I'm RIGHT there with ya - skippy.
Perhaps you should go back to smoking pot and writing your song?

'Well, you tried to claim it originated from "Jacobite" songs as I recall, however the songs you are referring to were decades old before the Jacobites even existed. It's like calling a Michael Bolton song original material.'

- *sigh* It DID. Whither their songs originated, who the hell knows. Google, apparantly.
The English heard it from the Scottish Jacobite Clans, they took it to London, changed it, and sung it.

These arguments boil down to your definition of events..
It's just that, I have a hard time seeing your definitions, given your past attempt at defining things.

Cockblocking, anyone?

'I was just making a jab that it was an audio book, and it turned out not only to be one(psst, it really isn't a book), but is actually a series that was made especially for radio.'

- Uhhu, what's the point? Some of the best written contemporary books are adapted from Radio. I'm not plugging a little cassette in to a tape-player and listening along to the pretty words. It was a critically acclaimed series on BBC's Radio 4 (hmm, could have been 3), that was put from the mouth, to the page.
I'm finding it hard seeing a problem here.
If you had perhaps read the book (today's most ideal refference to these Isles) then I could understand.

Oh, by the way, studying at Mental Institutions do not really qualify in the theatre of educational success.

Edit:
Hmm, I think this is why we've got our opinions on this book wrapped up. This is my edition:

www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140261338/202-5889892-1898265 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140261338/202-5889892-1898265)

I think you're picturing me listening to a tape-book, or something.

I was a history major for a few years(In fact, I was taking a 300s level history class on Europe in the Middle Ages at the state college my senior year in high school,

OoOOOoo Check out the big brain on Brad. (http://pages.tca.net/nathan/pulp/bigbrain.wav)

if the verse was "Rule Britannia, Britannia ruleS the waves". Because that's imperialistic, isn't it?


I see you are keeping with the selective reading bit. What about the other verses that back up the imperialistic influences I am suggesting the writer put into it? You remember, the ones talking about striking down any who oppose Britain and urging Britain to become the dread and envy of the world?


It DID. Whither their songs originated, who the hell knows.


Well, I showed you where they originated, and who the hell knew where they originated. Being the history buff you claim you are, I would expect you to have known before I told you, or perhaps be glad that you found something out in a favorite past time of yours..instead of crying because the sources I showed you were on the internet.

I also showed you that the pre-Jacobite Scottish songs you claimed were the source are widely discounted, and repeatedly showed you that the two people I gave you are acknowledged as being the source by..well just about everyone but you.

Ahhh, selective reading.


Cockblocking, anyone?


You have me there, although that would be because the events as they were related to me were not correct. You'll note in that thread you mention that I dropped the cockblocking and just started attacking you and Taino(and even Palimax and Beo for good measure) as per usual once I found out the real situation.

As for the rest of it, what can I say?

I like to argue.

Bogus secondhand info is not quite the same as your own blunders in that thread(if we are going to reminisce about it), such as claiming you never did eashen with 50+ people, or supporting Taino saying he was the only one with a leadership role in your old guild.


Oh, by the way, studying at Mental Institutions do not really qualify in the theatre of educational success.

Where did you study, again?

The State U here is pretty decent(KSU). If we compared it to say LLeauaric's alma mater(since he decided to chime in), you would see that it had 13 times the amount of Rhodes Scholars RIU has had(just as an example).

Since I'm already talking on the topic, I might point out that I was merely responding to Halo bringing up schooling and his experience, not bragging.

Nice try at a zing though LLeauaric.

Oh, it just keeps getting better.

'You remember, the ones talking about striking down any who oppose Britain and urging Britain to become the dread and envy of the world?'

- Refresh me where it said that, please. The ode to Alfred.. entertain me by quoting me the lines of dread and envy.
You are such a fucking moron. Unable to accept what the Masque was about, and why it was written.

'Well, I showed you where they originated, and who the hell knew where they originated.'

- But we weren't arguing where the original version of the song came from, did we? We were arguing where the British version of the National Anthem came from. The Jacobites.

Being the history buff you claim you are, I would expect you to have known before I told you, or perhaps be glad that you found something out in a favorite past time of yours..'

- Ok, thank you Google for teaching me that the English people said to Bull "We like that, let's make it our National Anthem!"

'instead of crying because the sources I showed you were on the internet.''

- It was a cry of pitty, because it was so patheticly obvious that you had no previous knowledge of anything you had copied from your Googled site (shown by your complete lack of understand, both of context and intent). I bet you never heard of the word Jacobite before you Googled it.

'I also showed you that the pre-Jacobite Scottish songs you claimed were the source are widely discounted'

- Uhhh.. you did what? You mean, when you said... "The Scots claimed it came about from a 1611 carol called "Remember O thou man" or "Franklyn is fled away" from 1669, however that claim is widely discounted."???
Obviously, again, a copy and pasted Google answer. But it would sure be nice to get some, oh I dunno, argumentative ground on that statement, eh? Check in your "internet history" to see what Google site you copied it from, come back, post Google's reasons why it is, aparantly, widely disclaimed, and then me and Google can debate it.

'and repeatedly showed you that the two people I gave you are acknowledged as being the source by..well just about everyone but you.'

- Mhm, where have I said otherwise that Bull didn't write the first version of the song that the Jacobites adopted? Once again, you just fail to grasp the point: The modern National Anthem was taken from the Jacobites, who sung *a* version, which was then used in London. The English people didn't hear it in the early 1600's and then adopt it as a nationalistic chant.

'Ahhh, selective reading.'

- No fucking shit.

'You have me there, although that would be because the events as they were related to me were not correct.'

- Oh have some fucking balls. You fucked up, and spent 25 pages trying to worm yourself out of it, while in the process getting owned by the entire community.

'You'll note in that thread you mention that I dropped the cockblocking and just started attacking you and Taino(and even Palimax and Beo for good measure) as per usual once I found out the real situation. '

- You do realise you're actually making yourself look like a bigger idiot, yes? So, you bring up posts that are wrong, and then end up trolling for a laugh?

You're on fire.

'Bogus secondhand info is not quite the same as your own blunders in that thread(if we are going to reminisce about it)'

- Hahahahaha. You actually wanna remember your biggest forum fuck up? Oh, this is gold dust.

'such as claiming you never did eashen with 50+ people,'

- Well, we couldn't even muster 50 people until we did Bertox roughly 1.5years later. But if you want to assume we did, well, hey, you must know. What with being in the guild and everything. Right?.

'or supporting Taino saying he was the only one with a leadership role in your old guild.'

- /sigh You mean when you said I was an officer, and then I told you I wasn't, so then you begun spouting about something else?

Crist0, I feel very sad for you. You have this magnificent gift of getting yourself in to situations of complete and utter self-ownage. It makes me.. cringe. You do more harm to yourself than, admittedly, I could do to you.
And the thing is, you can actually look at this argument objectively, but you're still so fucking stupid as to realise you're looking incredibly lost right about now.

'Where did you study, again?'

- The School of Hard Knocks, motherfucker.

Just to try and waste a fast five minutes, I'm going to apply some language deconstruction to a segment of Halo's post.

"... Rule Britannia, Britannia ruleS the waves".

That would be the present tense- Britannia currently rules the waves. The opening line simply admonishes them to continue to rule in the future.

Because that's imperialistic, isn't it? Something a country who's beginning to rule the world would say, right?

No, it would be a country who already rules the waves and plans on continuing to do so in the future that would say that.

But, golly gosh, it's "Britannia rulE the waves". ie struggle, ie win struggle, ie secure Channel

Or, that they aspire to rule the waves- they have not done so yet, but it is certainly on their plate to do so. The opening phrase of "Rule Britannia" is merely the command to rule.

In fact, the command is implicit- there is no choice BUT to go forth and rule the waves- anything else is against the command implicit (from HEAVEN, no less) <editor's note: insert "We are on a mission from God" soundbyte from the Blues Brothers here> issued when they first came into being. Indeed, as the angels sung to them, it was their destiny and their duty to rule the waves at some future point in time.

Refresh me where it said that, please. The ode to Alfred.. entertain me by quoting me the lines of dread and envy.


Maybe you should actually read it?

More than just the first few lines?


Whilst thou shalt flourish great and free
The dread and envy of them all


OH MY!

Did that just say the dread and envy of them all?


But we weren't arguing where the original version of the song came from, did we? We were arguing where the British version of the National Anthem came from.


Hello?

McFly?

WTF do you think I was referring to?

Is your national anthem not "God Save the King/Queen"?

What did you think I was referring to as I explained how John Bull even had another song with different music by that name?


Obviously, again, a copy and pasted Google answer. But it would sure be nice to get some, oh I dunno, argumentative ground on that statement, eh? Check in your "internet history" to see what Google site you copied it from, come back, post Google's reasons why it is, aparantly, widely disclaimed, and then me and Google can debate it.


Hey, I have a better idea. Why don't you check out the sources( I know, the concept of "sources" is totally alien and frightens/confuses you.)?

You are literate right? You know how to use the internet? You can find the Canadian Department of Heritage website, your Monarchy's official website, your national library's website without someone holding your hand?

Then you can keep arguing with those sites(I'll mention them again because you keep forgetting: Monarchy's official website, the Canadian Department of Heritage, and your country's national library) just as I explained you were doing.


Mhm, where have I said otherwise that Bull didn't write the first version of the song that the Jacobites adopted?


Again, Clueless...pay attention.

Bull didn't write the first versions of those songs.

His melodies and the Scottish ones that you are claiming it came from are two different things. Did you see the difference when I posted about this earlier?

I mean you clearly copy and pasted it(haha).

Would it be fair to say that since you copied and pasted and still didn't grasp what was being said, it would be "patheticly obvious that you had no previous knowledge of anything you had copied"?


The modern National Anthem was taken from the Jacobites, who sung *a* version, which was then used in London. The English people didn't hear it in the early 1600's and then adopt it as a nationalistic chant.


Again, if you would bother to check up on it you would see that in 1736-1740 Henry Carey used John Bull's 1619 melodies and added the lyrics to create the modern version, hence they are given shared credit. It was first performed in public at a dinner in 1740 to celebrate the taking of Portobello by Admiral Vernon, where Carey sang it as his own composition.

You'll forgive me if that seems a little more substantial than "The modern National Anthem was taken from the Jacobites, who sung *a* version, which was then used in London" because I bothered to know what I was talking about.


You fucked up, and spent 25 pages trying to worm yourself out of it, while in the process getting owned by the entire community


I already said I was given bad info and made an incorrect post. I said it then too, and you know what you said?


So Crist0, you base an entire thread and flame on stuff that even you suggest isn't even valid


That was you Halo! More importantly that was you talking about how I was saying I had bad info. Now if I were trying to worm out of something it seems to me that I wouldn't come forward and say that.

Just doesn't make sense, now does it?

So, I did not spend 25 pages trying to "worm out of it".

I did spend 15 pages arguing with Beo and others who claimed I was lying about my raiding time and telling me why I retired my character...and if you recall the actual DKP logs were posted and I was proven right on that account. I could hardly be "getting owned" when the actual logs proved me right, now could I? I also spent about 10 more pages poking fun at you, and Taino, with your statements about how you never ever wiped on a raid etc.


we couldn't even muster 50 people until we did Bertox roughly 1.5years later


Oh God, not this again. You guys need to make up your minds, because you've denied/admitted to it too often to keep track.


/sigh You mean when you said I was an officer, and then I told you I wasn't, so then you begun spouting about something else


Actually I was referring to Taino saying no one else plays any sort of a leadership role in his guild, then 2 posts later you come in to back him up about that and start off talking about when you were a raidleader in LoTJ...


The School of Hard Knocks, motherfucker


Ahh, so in other words you didn't go to college and take history courses?

Was it ALL on audio cassette Halo?

WAS IT?

In fact, the command is implicit- there is no choice BUT to go forth and rule the waves- anything else is against the command implicit (from HEAVEN, no less) <editor's note: insert "We are on a mission from God" soundbyte from the Blues Brothers here> issued when they first came into being. Indeed, as the angels sung to them, it was their destiny and their duty to rule the waves at some future point in time.


THE END IS HERE!

Amhorach agreeing with me has to be one of the signs of the apocalypse.

Aha, boards are back up.
Just when we had a nice flow going and everything.
Im tired, so this might not sound as abusive as usual. Just imagine some crude swear words, and apply them to yourself.

"Maybe you should actually read it?
More than just the first few lines?"

- You mean.. THE LINES THAT ARE IN MY SIG?!

"The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall:
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
10 The dread and envy of them all.
"Rule, Britannia, rule the waves;
Britons never will be slaves." '

- Read dread and envy in context, my old cutie pie. Keeping in mind the figure and time this masque was based upon.

Now here's something you'll secretly masturbate over: google was right about the National Anthem. Deciding to read about it further, I bought a copy of N.Davies "Europe" (which I had pre-ordered anywho) and had a good old read. Davies makes it more clear when he states:

"It may be coincidence but the melody by Thomas Arne we call the national anthem had its first public performance at the Drury Lane Theatre in London on 28 September, 1745 when Bonny Prince Charlie and an army of Highlanders were heading towards Derby."

Meaning I took "Jacobite cause" to mean "for the Jacobites", rather than "the cause against the Jacobites". And "twisting the words" from being in favour to the anti-Jacobite movement to moderating the anti-Jacobite movement.
So Google is very much correct. 2 points for him. *bends over*
On a side-note, Davies' "Europe" kicks a lot of arse. It's a big book, and I'm halfway through reading A history of Byzantium, but it's more fun than any serious reading, like a lot of historical accounts. There are tons of inter-woven tales and facts.

'Hey, I have a better idea. Why don't you check out the sources( I know, the concept of "sources" is totally alien and frightens/confuses you.)? '

- Hold on, so you present me an argument, and then you tell me to find out your sources? Once again: Do your own fucking work.

"You are literate right? You know how to use the internet? You can find the Canadian Department of Heritage website, your Monarchy's official website, your national library's website without someone holding your hand?"

- And you can do any of those things without someone holding you hand? Right? I hope.

'I already said I was given bad info and made an incorrect post. I said it then too, and you know what you said?
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------
So Crist0, you base an entire thread and flame on stuff that even you suggest isn't even valid
-------------------------------------------------------
That was you Halo!'

- Uhm no, that was you. When you found out how embarassingly wrong you were, you went off on everyone in the thread. For a few weeks.

More importantly that was you talking about how I was saying I had bad info. Now if I were trying to worm out of something it seems to me that I wouldn't come forward and say that. '

- Well only for a while, then you just spent page after page telling everyone to fuck off.

'Just doesn't make sense, now does it?'

- No, you don't.

'So, I did not spend 25 pages trying to "worm out of it". '

- Ok, 15 pages worming your way out of it. 10 telling everyone to fuck off.

'I also spent about 10 more pages poking fun at you, and Taino, with your statements about how you never ever wiped on a raid etc.'

- Oh yes. We of course never wiped on a raid *sigh* Here you go again.. making shit up. Maybe you wanna tell us how we said we aren't even Euro? Or perhaps how we claimed we killed Quarm with 12ppl? Aye?

'Oh God, not this again. You guys need to make up your minds, because you've denied/admitted to it too often to keep track.'

- /sigh No end to your bullshit, is there?

'Actually I was referring to Taino saying no one else plays any sort of a leadership role in his guild, then 2 posts later you come in to back him up about that and start off talking about when you were a raidleader in LoTJ...'

- Despite having, always, a raid leader (at one point, two), 5+ officers, tactical officers... you actually think we claimed no one else had a leadership role?
Or are you actually confusing your 11yr old mind with how we said *I* didn't have a leadership role at the time you thought we (rofl) cockblocked? Fragile mind Crist0. Fragile mind.

'Ahh, so in other words you didn't go to college and take history courses? '

- If I didn't go to college.. How am I at University?
As for History, sure. Park College: Law, English, History, Sociology.
University of Surrey, currently failing Sociology as I haven't attended a lecture since Feburary.
It's cool to go experience a subject, and then wish to expand it by studying it in depth, only to realise.. it doesn't have any. There's only so many times you can learn about Marxism, y'know.

Hmm..so we went from


Refresh me where it said that, please. The ode to Alfred.. entertain me by quoting me the lines of dread and envy.


to


Read dread and envy in context, my old cutie pie.


First you said that it wasn't even in it, now you're saying it is in it but out of context.

Does it change any of the meaning? Being the dread and envy of the world sounds worse than being the dread and envy of the world while weaker nations are enslaved?


Hold on, so you present me an argument, and then you tell me to find out your sources?


No genius, I presented an argument, told you the sources, then told you to look at those sources yourself.


Uhm no, that was you.


Really?

I haven't noticed that I use that style of posting, talking to myself and using my board id while I do.


bought a copy of N.Davies "Europe"


It is a good generalized book, I've had it for several years.

For a better book on Byzantium you might try checking out Norwich's though.

'First you said that it wasn't even in it, now you're saying it is in it but out of context. '

- It aint out of context, the way you are using it, is.

N.Davies' "A History of Europe" is a good book. It's hard *not* to generalize European history because, as he says in the introduction, it's too much. Endless "multi-volume" books, that still only deal with a small portion of Western Europe. I think he's done a top notch job of recognizing the somewhat minority outlook on East Europe's role in history. And at 1200 pages, I think he's done very well with what he's got (let's face it, it's not a pocket book). He doesn't get too tangled up in politics and the West vs East, though he does well in highlghting the differences. I'm enjoying it, very much.

'For a better book on Byzantium you might try checking out Norwich's though.'

- /laugh it's what I am reading. Julius Norwich's "A Short History of Byzantium" - the compressed edition. Didn't fancy reading three volumes of what would only be overlapping Roman history.
This one is.. nicely done. Gives a good account of the decline and fall.