|
|
#71
09-01-2005, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jaxmike Director\'s Cut
[ QUOTE ]
...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 ] Dude, seriously, did you even read what the colors meant? Obviously your answer is no, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a total ass out of yourself here. 
|
|
#72
09-01-2005, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Diversionary tactics
[ QUOTE ]
1. India was never "part" of the UK -- but it certainly was in the British Empire. [/ QUOTE ] What did the British Empire come to be known as??? What was it known as while India was part of the British Empire in 1945? You are an idiot if you believe what you are writing. There is no other answer, you are stupid if you actually think what you are writing. [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] If this idiotic assertion is true than saying the United Kingdom is part of Great Britian. If the terms are "totally interchangalbe" then this would be the case. You have no clue what you are talking about. You are a joke. [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] Sigh. We have been over this. I was correct in what I said whether you like it or not. Are you really this stupid? [ QUOTE ] Did I mention that mules and asses are among my favorite animals ? [/ QUOTE ] You sure have made yourself out to look like one.
|
|
#73
09-01-2005, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stupendous stupidity
[ QUOTE ]
What did the British Empire come to be known as??? [/ QUOTE ] As ...the British Empire. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] It may grieve you to learn that "the United Kingdom" and "British Empire" are not synonyms, nor have they ever been. For example, we say "The United Kingdom rules over India" and "India belongs to the British Empure". We do not say that "India is part of the United Kingdom" because this shows advanced Alzeihmers. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Whilst, on the other hand, "Great Britain" and "the United Kingdom" have become synonyms -- which is why respected world diplomats, such as George W Bush (... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) or Condi Rice, use the two terms precisely as I am informing you that they are used. Did you even check the links with Dubya's and Condi's speeches, my little chickadee? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Like I already pointed out, your mind gets easily confused with the facts. [ QUOTE ] If this idiotic assertion is true than saying the United Kingdom is part of Great Britian. [/ QUOTE ] (Yes, that was a complete quote!) Anyway, guessing at what you're struggling to say, I will inform you of a li'l somethin' and then you really have to get back to class : If A is "interchangeable" with B, that does NOT mean that A ir "part of" B, nor that B is "part of" A. This should not be too tough to understand, even for toddlers. Now, when we switch from the everyday, practical mode of language (where, as I said, "UK" has become almost totally synonymous with "GB") to the official, rarely-encountered mode, then, as no one disputed, the territories denoted by "GB" are geographically part of the country denoted as "UK". (But not the other way around! Although this concept is for kids above the age of seven. Gotta wait, son.) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] I was correct in what I said whether you like it or not. [/ QUOTE ] About the Eastern bloc? No, you were wrong on account of being ignorant of modern history (e.g. you showed ignorance of the cases of Yugoslavia --you claimed they were in the Soviet camp!-- and Romania --which was to the Warwaw Pact what France was to NATO--), incapable of expressing your thoughts clearly (fumbling all over the English language, eg "basically" instead of "virtually", etc) and generally clueless about most things. That's about it. In other words, you have no business "correcting" anyone on this forum because you are not qualified to do so. Just buckle down and read the posts, in order to learn something.
|
|
#74
09-01-2005, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Man With The Map
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, seriously, did you even read what the colors meant? [/ QUOTE ] Dude, seriously, you gotta learn a little more about maps and map colors before you bring forth another map as ...evidence of what you're claiming. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] That last piece of "evidence" exploded like a cherry bomb on yer mug. Funny as hell for me, but, I guess, a little painful for you. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#75
09-02-2005, 03:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Man With The Map
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Dude, seriously, did you even read what the colors meant? [/ QUOTE ] Dude, seriously, you gotta learn a little more about maps and map colors before you bring forth another map as ...evidence of what you're claiming. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] That last piece of "evidence" exploded like a cherry bomb on yer mug. Funny as hell for me, but, I guess, a little painful for you. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Funny only because of your ignorance of the map. Did you read it?? If you did, you should realize just how wrong you are.
|
|
#76
09-02-2005, 03:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stupendous stupidity
[ QUOTE ]
It may grieve you to learn that "the United Kingdom" and "British Empire" are not synonyms, nor have they ever been. For example, we say "The United Kingdom rules over India" and "India belongs to the British Empure". We do not say that "India is part of the United Kingdom" because this shows advanced Alzeihmers. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] -- which is why respected world diplomats, such as George W Bush (... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) or Condi Rice, use the two terms precisely as I am informing you that they are used. Did you even check the links with Dubya's and Condi's speeches, my little chickadee? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Yes I did, my ignorant little clown, and you know what, that don't prove your point. I NEVER said that it's not OK to refer to the nation that calls its capital London the UK of Great Britain. Do you still cling to your ignorant and unsupported belief? Wouldn't suprise me. You would support Bush for a third term (even amending the Constitution to allow it) before you would admit that I was right (which is usually the case, like it is here). [ QUOTE ] Like I already pointed out, your mind gets easily confused with the facts. [/ QUOTE ] Coming from someone as ignorant as you, this gave me a chuckle. [ QUOTE ] Anyway, guessing at what you're struggling to say, I will inform you of a li'l somethin' and then you really have to get back to class : If A is "interchangeable" with B, that does NOT mean that A ir "part of" B, nor that B is "part of" A. This should not be too tough to understand, even for toddlers. [/ QUOTE ] You said they were "totally interchangeable". If they are, then the statement I meant to finish writing (If this idiotic assertion is true than saying the United Kingdom is part of Great Britian would be true) shows you are wrong. Which is it? ARE they "totally interchangeable" as you incredibly ignorantly claim, or not? I wrote that at work. What school do you go to? You should get your money back. You are [censored] stupid. [ QUOTE ] Now, when we switch from the everyday, practical mode of language (where, as I said, "UK" has become almost totally synonymous with "GB") to the official, rarely-encountered mode, then, as no one disputed, the territories denoted by "GB" are geographically part of the country denoted as "UK". (But not the other way around! Although this concept is for kids above the age of seven. Gotta wait, son.) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] More [censored] ignorant comments. My point is that you are wrong (which is clear to everyone but you), the two terms are not "totally interchangeable". There is a difference. I am done arguing this. I can't believe I am trying to teach a mentally challenged person something that is apparently too complex for their feeble little mind to comprehend. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I was correct in what I said whether you like it or not. [/ QUOTE ] About the Eastern bloc? [/ QUOTE ] About everything. [ QUOTE ] No, you were wrong on account of being ignorant of modern history [/ QUOTE ] No, you are ignorant. You don't even know how to read a map!!! Who are you to call someone over 3 ignorant? [ QUOTE ] (e.g. you showed ignorance of the cases of Yugoslavia --you claimed they were in the Soviet camp!-- and Romania --which was to the Warwaw Pact what France was to NATO--), incapable of expressing your thoughts clearly (fumbling all over the English language, eg "basically" instead of "virtually", etc) and generally clueless about most things. That's about it. [/ QUOTE ] What a rambling, incoherent, and factually incorrect statement. I think everyone that read this is dumber for having done so. You live life with your head up your ass apparently. That's about it. [ QUOTE ] In other words, you have no business "correcting" anyone on this forum because you are not qualified to do so. Just buckle down and read the posts, in order to learn something. [/ QUOTE ] Funny coming from someone so stupid he/she cannot even read a map. Sad what little education little kids are given these days. I am sure you could teach me a thing or two. You are too stupid to realize that I have a lot I can teach you. I am done with you, you are a waste of my time. You are clearly mentally challenged. There is no point discussing things with someone who is clearly incapable of understanding even the most basic ideas. I suggest you get some tutoring or something, possibly some counseling as well, medicine might even be in order. First things first though, learn how to read. It will help you with that map that you still cannot grasp. Perhaps if it wasn't colored you wouldn't get so confused.
|
|
#77
09-02-2005, 04:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gone but not verboten
[ QUOTE ]
I am done arguing this. [/ QUOTE ] Good. Because you have no clue about the subject. Check out the two links and read how Dubya and Rice use the two terms : as if they have one and the same meaning! (Which they do.) Usually I do not recommend to people to read Dubya's speeches. It kinda lowers their IQ a bit. But I see no problem in your case... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] I NEVER said that it's not OK to refer to the nation that calls its capital London the UK of Great Britain. [/ QUOTE ] "of" or "or", chum? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Anyway, if you meant "UK or GB", you seem to have come around to understanding that the two terms are interchangeable. (And I'm sorry you had to type that word so many times!) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] If it wasn't colored you wouldn't get so confused. [/ QUOTE ] I knew it, you are a racist too. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Seriously, that was a good map. It shows every territory that belongs to a different country in a different color. The only exception is India which is "part of" the UK but has been painted with a different color! At the insistence of Ghandi and Jaxmike, presumably. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] I'm typing this from work. [/ QUOTE ] So you're taking a break from your work? The GDP just ticked up a bit. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#78
09-02-2005, 09:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gone but not verboten
Thread summary:
"Your Retarded!" "NO, YOUR RETARDED!!!!!" etc.
|
|
#79
09-03-2005, 02:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gone but not verboten
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, that was a good map. It shows every territory that belongs to a different country in a different color. The only exception is India which is "part of" the UK but has been painted with a different color! [/ QUOTE ] No, it didn't you idiot. READ THE MAP YOU FOOL!
|
|
#80
09-03-2005, 03:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Feeble wiggle!
To continue to state that India was part of the UK is feeble and to wiggle by saying that by this you mean it was under political control of Great Britain is a feeble wiggle. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
The only correct statement about India is that it was a part of the British Empire. It was never a PART of Great Britain or the United Kingdom by any definition of those two proper nouns. They are separate political and geographical entities but India was under the control of England. Here are some definitions to help you along: United Kingdom Great Britain British Empire
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
