Both the Left and the Right think the other side is being 'duped'

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They [India] were a part of the British Empire.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got something right in this thread. It was a part of the empire -- read imperialism, hegemony, etc.

The rest of the exchange has been very amusing. Worth reading Cyrus' posts again if you want to get history right. Otherwise, carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. So, is someone else going on record agreeing with Cyrus' idiocy?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I quite enjoyed your sweaty attempts to wiggle out of the "Great India controversy" by telling me that the colors of the map which you linked to, are irrelevant! Very nice. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO. Yet, you ignore it. You ignore the fact that it means what I said it meant and not what you ignorantly claimed. Dude, seriously, you are wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about. I cannot believe I am still arguing with you when I am now convinced that you are too ignorant to see the truth.

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, part of the empire, Brighton boy. Not of the country that was Great Britain/the United Kingdom. There is a (huge) difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, again, you show your lack of sophistication. I never claimed that India was part of Britain. Britain is an island, composed mainly of Wales, Scotland, and England. India was a part of the British Empire, just the same as England was part of the British Empire. Certainly the citizens of Britain were held in higher regard than those of India, but it is irrelevant. India was a part of the British Empire and (as a colony) part of the United Kingdom.

[ QUOTE ]
Asserting that India (or the New England colonies) were "part of" Britain only shows an apoplectically confused mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said they were. Britain is an island, but I don't expect you to understand what that means.

[ QUOTE ]
In your case, moreover, you dare to appear as giving lessons too! How charmingly pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need them from me, that much is clear.

[ QUOTE ]

Oh yes you did! You stated most clearly, very stubbornly and oh-too-repeatedly that "India is part of the United Kingdom". Can't get out of that one, baby!

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I will reassert that India was a part of the United Kingdom. That statement is 100% accurate and only an idiot would say otherwise.

I don't think your use of the word metropolis is appropriate either. It is usually reserved for talking about a city or about Greece when referring to it as the mother country of its colonies.

[ QUOTE ]
I know the phrase reads back moronic even to you, its illustrious author [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img], but you wrote it -- so you either admit that it was simply crap -- or you can keep on keeping us amused! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It is endlessly entertaining seeing you write in such condescending ways yet being so totally and completely ignorant of the truth.

[ QUOTE ]
Ar you perhaps afflicted with a Memento-like desease) In such a case, you have my sympathies.

..Which I will pass on to you again tomorrow. And the day after. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I was just laughing that you could mispell a 3 letter word.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it means, in this context, the original country from which the colonists came, e.g. Britain was the metropolis for the colony of India. (It's a Greek word, don't bother with it too much, you will only get more confused. Stick to the Readers Digest.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It is usually only used in conjunction with Greece being the mother country.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never said that UK is part of GB!

[/ QUOTE ] You did through association. In your claim that the terms are TOTALLY interchangable, you did. Do you not see how?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see you are an expert in Linguistics as well. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Once more: "Great Britain" and "the UK" have become terms which are, in practice, totally equal and totally interchangeable. And while the official term (rarely used outside diplomatic or otherwise official language) is "the UK of GB and N. Ireland", the terms "Great Britain" and "the UK" do mean now the exact same thing :They denote the country whose PM is Tony Blair and whose capital is London. End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I think here is where you are missing my point. I never once wrote, or meant to imply, that you could not use the term UK or GB to refer to the nation whose capital is London. They are usually interchangeable, but not always. The UK is less exclusive than GB is.

[ QUOTE ]
This, of course, does not mean that "also the UK can be part of GB"! That would be using the premise of the official use to draw conclusions about the practical use.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, not always. But you said always. Which is it. Because if it's not always then you are right and I am wrong. Which is it troll?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you see why this is an indicator of a confused mind ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, this is funny given your demonstrated stupidity in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong but you will not admit it on account of being stubborn.

[/ QUOTE ]No, I am not.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You and anyone who thinks you are right are, well, MMMMMM asked me not to.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh. So, is someone else going on record agreeing with Cyrus' idiocy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I will agree with part of it.

India was not part of the UK, not the nation proper. The monarch after the Mutiny came to be represented by a Viceroy who held actual administrative power. This person was appointed by the government of the UK but had very broad powers and I think was only responsible to the SOS for India. India had its own army, navy and civil service within the Empire. Prior to the division of the subcontinent there were also still several native princedoms which owed allegiance to the crown but had limited sovereign powers. These were eliminated after independence. Prior to the Mutiny there was a governor general who ran things for the BEIC, many of his powers were absorbed by the appointed G-G/Viceroy. When India gained independence in the Empire the title of this position became that of Governor General which was used while India was dominion. When India became a republic in 1950 the position in India was abolished (Pakistan became a republic later so I suppose it had a G-G for a longer period).

As far as the interchangabilty of "United Kingdom" and "Great Britian" I do not agree. UK is a political entity and GB is a geographical entity. Those ignorant of the differences use the terms interchangably to refer to the political entity, but UKer's do NOT.

[jaxmike]

When I said that India was part of the UK, I merely meant, and have never changed my position on this, that it was under the direct political control of the United Kingdom. I never, at any time, inferred that it was a "state" or "province". However, it "belonged" to the United Kingdom, they were the ones in ultimate control. India fell under the jurisdiction of the Crown.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
When I said that India was part of the UK, I merely meant, and have never changed my position on this, that it was under the direct political control of the United Kingdom. I never, at any time, inferred that it was a "state" or "province". However, it "belonged" to the United Kingdom, they were the ones in ultimate control. India fell under the jurisdiction of the Crown.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems reasonable to me. I haven't read the whole thread and don't really have the motivation to do so. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] It seems inconsistent for cyrus to be ultra-nitpicky about this and ultra-laidback about the difference between GB and UK, IMO.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems inconsistent for cyrus to be ultra-nitpicky about [India and the UK] and ultra-laidback about the difference between GB and UK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please understand that I treat my li'l repartees with Jaxmike as something of a diversion, in this forum, (seom would call it a sorbet) and not as something of substance. Treating Jaxmike seriously means lowering the IQ and rising the blood pressure.

As to the matters at hand, the simple facts are these:

1. India was never "part" of the UK -- but it certainly was in the British Empire.

2. "Great Britain" and "the United Kingdom" have become totally interchangeable in their meaning. They both have come to signify the country whose capital is London. (One is used more in the geographical sense and the other in the political but that's not significant.) The speeches of British PMs and foreign diplomats (eg Bush, Rice) are quite explicit in this.

3. The former Eastern Bloc countries were not monolithically "part of the USSR" - whether literally or metaphorically. The examples of Romania and Yugoslavia suffice to refute any claim to the contrary.

Did I mention that mules and asses are among my favorite animals ?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You ignore the fact that it means what I said it meant.

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

...You still talking about your map?? The one that had each of the two countries painted with a different color? Whereas no serious map shows in different colors two regions that are part of the same country? Is that what you're talking about?

Have you been practicing in front of a mirror for this? (Hold your map a little higher. A little more. There! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]
India was a part of the British Empire and (as a colony) part of the United Kingdom.

[/ QUOTE ]
Glad to see you understood there is a difference between "empire" and "country". Yet you are still not being accurate! (I know, you can't help it [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])

Copy this down :

India belonged to the British Empire. India was never a part of the United Kingdom. The metropolis, the mother country, ruling over the British Empire, including India, was the United Kingdom.

That's all there is to it and you have no business correcting that other poster. You are one of the most inarticulate posters here, whose text reads like garbled William Burroughs after a night of cold turkey.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think your use of the word metropolis is appropriate either. It is usually only used in conjunction with Greece being the mother country.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only because you have no idea what it means, how it was used, how it is still been used and what is its etymology. (That last word is not a Vegas show ! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Here are some quickly-googled examples of modern use of the word which has you confused :
Clink on the link with your finger

Lick the link with your tongue

...There's no harm in not knowing something. What's (tragi)comic is pretending to know everything - as you do. And trying to teach on matter for which you are patently not qualified to even talk about, i.e. Geography, History, etc.

...I hope you don't mind I'm addressing you as "Brighton boy". It's not a term that signifies anything more sinister than a slangish term for the opposite of bright.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
2. "Great Britain" and "the United Kingdom" have become totally interchangeable in their meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

To WHO?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Great Britain" and "the United Kingdom" have become totally interchangeable in their meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

To WHO?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I never mentioned Pete Townsend. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

But check out the Rice 'n Bush links in this post, if you are interested for examples of the terms' use.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Only a few people have voiced dismay over MMMMMM's moderation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it breaks up the natural rhythm. It's like telling your opponent to take five just as they're going on tilt. Maybe you could just drop some symbol on the post informing the poster they're approaching the limits ...