Time for what I think will be quite a fun thread, all about urban myths about our various countries.
And this is how it is going to go down. First of all, post up something you consider to be either a stereotype or negative view of a country, and then posters from said country can put forward the truth. Although a potentially hot potato, I think we are all mature enough to take this in the spirit it is intended in. Here is an example to kick things off....
In some States/Counties in the US, it is illegal to teach Evolution. Is this true or false?
Remember, this is a intended as a light hearted discussion. Please do not take anything personally, and have fun!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Time for what I think will be quite a fun thread, all about urban myths about our various countries.
And this is how it is going to go down. First of all, post up something you consider to be either a stereotype or negative view of a country, and then posters from said country can put forward the truth. Although a potentially hot potato, I think we are all mature enough to take this in the spirit it is intended in. Here is an example to kick things off....
In some States/Counties in the US, it is illegal to teach Evolution. Is this true or false?
Remember, this is a intended as a light hearted discussion. Please do not take anything personally, and have fun!
I dont know about it being illegal, but i had a (ironically, biology) teacher in NM that got VERY upset when you asked him about dinosaurs and such. He would always have a quote from the bible handy explaining everything. I thought it was rather awkward. Besides that, he was great tho.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In some States/Counties in the US, it is illegal to teach Evolution. Is this true or false?
Remember, this is a intended as a light hearted discussion. Please do not take anything personally, and have fun!
Here we go, how long until this train crashes....
Anyhow, no, to the best of my knowledge teaching evolution, by which I presume you mean darwinian biological evolution, it is not illegal to teach it anywhere here. It would be impossible to enforce anyhow.
Mixed with Oats and Spices. It is *fantastic* food!
So, is it like really inexpensive or something? Like the British equivilent of Ramen noodles that only college students eat because that's all they can afford? Or is it one of those acquired tastes?
Bacon, Sausages, Beans, Grilled Tomato, Fried or Scrambled Egg, Fried Bread, Black Pudding, Mushrooms.
Sets you up for the day! It's a throw back, ala Haggis, to when *nothing* of an animal was wasted. I guess one could argue it's a very humane, very civilised dish.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I guess one could argue it's a very humane, very civilised dish.
Or one could consider it the exclamation point on the generally held opinion of British food... I mean, you see Chinese, Mexican, Indian, Italian, and so forth on the "menu" of places to eat, but never a place offering "authentic British cuisine".
And you have not had a roast until you've had Roast Beef with yorkshire pudding. Hmmmmm !
Question : Heard the other day the US police/highway patrol ( one or t'other) carry at least 2 litres of coca cola/equivalent in their " trunks" ( .. can't just say boot like everyone else grumble moan) for the express purpose of washing blood away after crashes.
reds8n wrote: Is a traditional part of the full English experience though.
So it's like buggery!
reds8n wrote: Question : Heard the other day the US police/highway patrol ( one or t'other) carry at least 2 litres of coca cola/equivalent in their " trunks" ( .. can't just say boot like everyone else grumble moan) for the express purpose of washing blood away after crashes.
No no no. It's sodomy and that's only at public schools.
which are private.. go figure.
Doubted that coke one.
Okay : long standing tale we hear is that if you are in an accident/similar in America and require hospital treatment the first things that will happen is they will check your wallet to see if you have insurance. If you don't... tough !
Kilkrazy wrote:
Have you really never heard of black pudding?
I really hadn't ever heard of it before. Like lord_sutekh pointed out, I've never seen British food at any restaurant I've been too here in the states, and I never travel abroad if I can help it.
reds8n: If you are taken to the emergency care part of a hospital and have some kind of immediately threatening condition like a gunshot wound or heart attack they will treat you immediately with out asking for insurance, however, only publicly funded hospitals are required to treat a person regardless of the ability to pay. Private hospitals are required only to determine if the person has an emergency condition and if that person does, stabilize them until they can be transferred someplace else. Most hospitals in the US aren't public.
A common conception people in the US have about health care in the UK and other countries that have universal health care is that there are long waits and lines for treatment. Any validity?
PistolWraithCaine wrote:
A common conception people in the US have about health care in the UK and other countries that have universal health care is that there are long waits and lines for treatment. Any validity?
I need this cleared up to. I've had friends tell me that they have some form of socialized medicine in Mexico but it's terrible and it would explain all the Mexicans that walk/roll into the hospital where I used to work thinking we 'had' to do everything we could and more. I've also heard in Canada that the care is very minimal and your more likely to do from a very minor preventable condition then be able to wade through the bureaucracy, paper work and bills. You might as well go to the U.S. and get treated.
Can't comment about elsewhere, but in the Uk... no and yes.
You can book a doctor's appointment, generally pretty easily-- work permitting etc of course. And then they'll give you a prescription and off you toddle to the alchemists.
For hospitals it's a bit more complicated. Obviously in an emergency -- flashing nee-naa etc etc-- you're seen straight away.
For other treatment the average wait is between 40-50 days, but that can vary from region to region.
personally I've never had to wait longer than a day or two for anything, and these figures are also heavily distorted by waiting times for organ donations etc.
Generally it can be a bit of a "postcode lottery"-- think zipcode-- certain areas have longer waiting lists than others for treatments, sadly as is often the case, the poorer areas tend to have more ill people which causes longer waits etc etc.
Just to clarify there are also plenty of private hospitals etc as well, big change in the last few years is the NHS subcontracting some of their operations out to the private sector. The problem here was the private hospitals were/are cherrypicking low cost/risk procedures which also tend to be the quickest to solve, thus leaving the more awkward cases which also take longer to treat for the NHS to pick up.
So... yeah, some truth and you do of course hear some real horror stories but of course " man doesn't wait for appointment" is not a story so.....
...but... The NHS works. It's a bit creaky in parts but it does it's job.
Oh, and we get loads of stories about "health tourists" and illegal immigrants getting treatment too.
See ... our nations are so similar.
From what I hear/read the situation is generally portrayed as better on the continent, but from talking to people at the uni i think it's much the same really.
Except in Germany where it's very fast. past few years the right wing press routinely trot out tales about "honest hard working" individuals who were tired of the wait and went to Country X and was seen in .4 pico seconds and they regrew his missing left leg.
The British, especially our media, have a real tendency to denigrate our achievements and actions.
I believe we're the only empire in history ever to apologise whilst invading and ruling foreign countries.
If you want to understand the English at least, John Cleese summed it up best " The goal of every Englishman is to go to his grave unembarrassed".
Is all beer in the UK served at room temperature? What about soft drinks?
I like the way the French did it, or at least the place I went to. Order a coke and they'll bring it out in an ice cold GLASS bottle, open it at the table, and pour you a coke ( no ice ). Best one I've ever had.
reds8n wrote: Can't comment about elsewhere, but in the Uk... no and yes.
You can book a doctor's appointment, generally pretty easily-- work permitting etc of course. And then they'll give you a prescription and off you toddle to the alchemists.
For hospitals it's a bit more complicated. Obviously in an emergency -- flashing nee-naa etc etc-- you're seen straight away.
For other treatment the average wait is between 40-50 days, but that can vary from region to region.
personally I've never had to wait longer than a day or two for anything, and these figures are also heavily distorted by waiting times for organ donations etc.
Generally it can be a bit of a "postcode lottery"-- think zipcode-- certain areas have longer waiting lists than others for treatments, sadly as is often the case, the poorer areas tend to have more ill people which causes longer waits etc etc.
Just to clarify there are also plenty of private hospitals etc as well, big change in the last few years is the NHS subcontracting some of their operations out to the private sector. The problem here was the private hospitals were/are cherrypicking low cost/risk procedures which also tend to be the quickest to solve, thus leaving the more awkward cases which also take longer to treat for the NHS to pick up.
So... yeah, some truth and you do of course hear some real horror stories but of course " man doesn't wait for appointment" is not a story so.....
...but... The NHS works. It's a bit creaky in parts but it does it's job.
Oh, and we get loads of stories about "health tourists" and illegal immigrants getting treatment too.
See ... our nations are so similar.
I'm normally no fan of socialism, but I have to point out that there are plenty of long lines in most ERs here in the States. They'll treat you immediately if something is truly life threatening, but you can have some pretty bad, and painful, problems and have to wait in line.
My father practiced medicine for many years, and I can tell you that many of the "horror stories" about socialized medicine, at least from the practitioner's perspective, can happen here, it is just the insurance and managed care companies in charge, not the government.
Grignard wrote:Is all beer in the UK served at room temperature? What about soft drinks?
I like the way the French did it, or at least the place I went to. Order a coke and they'll bring it out in an ice cold GLASS bottle, open it at the table, and pour you a coke ( no ice ). Best one I've ever had.
No, the misconception here is we serve a lot of "real ales" -- I think you might call them cask conditioned possibly ? -- which if done right sould be served at cellar -- not room !-- temperature
Ideally you should be along the lines of
Very cold (0-4C/32-39F): Any beer you don’t actually want to taste. Pale Lager, Malt Liquor, Canadian-style Golden Ale and Cream Ale, Low Alcohol, Canadian, American or Scandinavian-style Cider.
Cold (4-7C/39-45F): Hefeweizen, Kristalweizen, Kölsch, Premium Lager, Pilsner, Classic German Pilsner, Fruit Beer, brewpub-style Golden Ale, European Strong Lager, Berliner Weisse, Belgian White, American Dark Lager, sweetened Fruit Lambics and Gueuzes, Duvel-types
Cool (8-12C/45-54F): American Pale Ale, Amber Ale, California Common, Dunkelweizen, Sweet Stout, Stout, Dry Stout, Porter, English-style Golden Ale, unsweetened Fruit Lambics and Gueuzes, Faro, Belgian Ale, Bohemian Pilsner, Dunkel, Dortmunder/Helles, Vienna, Schwarzbier, Smoked, Altbier, Tripel, Irish Ale, French or Spanish-style Cider
Cellar (12-14C/54-57F): Bitter, Premium Bitter, Brown Ale, India Pale Ale, English Pale Ale, English Strong Ale, Old Ale, Saison, Unblended Lambic, Flemish Sour Ale, Bière de Garde, Baltic Porter, Abbey Dubbel, Belgian Strong Ale, Weizen Bock, Bock, Foreign Stout, Zwickel/Keller/Landbier, Scottish Ale, Scotch Ale, American Strong Ale, Mild, English-style Cider
Hot (70C/158F): Quelque Chose, Liefmans Glühkriek, dark, spiced winter ales like Daleside Morocco Ale.
Soft drinks are also served cold, if their from the spraygun thingy then you'll get the "ice and slice" question. Some pubs do serve coke in the glass bottles, don't know about septic side of the pond but the Uk manufacturers treat glass bottled coke as a more premium product and the water in it is distilled more times.
Most people, I'm relieved to say, just drink cold pissy cheap lager.
Grignard wrote:Is all beer in the UK served at room temperature? What about soft drinks?
I like the way the French did it, or at least the place I went to. Order a coke and they'll bring it out in an ice cold GLASS bottle, open it at the table, and pour you a coke ( no ice ). Best one I've ever had.
No, not at all. Some ales are served at room temperature and are largely flat, but lagers and such are served cold and fizzy. Soft drinks also cold, but the method of serving will vary from place to place. You can get a glass pretty much everywhere, my favourite hangover cure is a Goldsmiths Cafe 'heavy breakfast' (eggs, bacon, sausage, mushroom, beans and toast) with lucozade, in a glass with ice. Yum.
Grignard wrote:
reds8n wrote: Can't comment about elsewhere, but in the Uk... no and yes.
You can book a doctor's appointment, generally pretty easily-- work permitting etc of course. And then they'll give you a prescription and off you toddle to the alchemists.
For hospitals it's a bit more complicated. Obviously in an emergency -- flashing nee-naa etc etc-- you're seen straight away.
For other treatment the average wait is between 40-50 days, but that can vary from region to region.
personally I've never had to wait longer than a day or two for anything, and these figures are also heavily distorted by waiting times for organ donations etc.
Generally it can be a bit of a "postcode lottery"-- think zipcode-- certain areas have longer waiting lists than others for treatments, sadly as is often the case, the poorer areas tend to have more ill people which causes longer waits etc etc.
Just to clarify there are also plenty of private hospitals etc as well, big change in the last few years is the NHS subcontracting some of their operations out to the private sector. The problem here was the private hospitals were/are cherrypicking low cost/risk procedures which also tend to be the quickest to solve, thus leaving the more awkward cases which also take longer to treat for the NHS to pick up.
So... yeah, some truth and you do of course hear some real horror stories but of course " man doesn't wait for appointment" is not a story so.....
...but... The NHS works. It's a bit creaky in parts but it does it's job.
Oh, and we get loads of stories about "health tourists" and illegal immigrants getting treatment too.
See ... our nations are so similar.
I'm normally no fan of socialism, but I have to point out that there are plenty of long lines in most ERs here in the States. They'll treat you immediately if something is truly life threatening, but you can have some pretty bad, and painful, problems and have to wait in line.
My father practiced medicine for many years, and I can tell you that many of the "horror stories" about socialized medicine, at least from the practitioner's perspective, can happen here, it is just the insurance and managed care companies in charge, not the government.
Support of the NHS is bipartisan in the UK, it's not even considered socialistic here, if it was dismantled the right wing would be the first to complain. The NHS is one of the greatest things about Blighty, I myself have recieved a lot of wonderful care thanks to it, that I could have never afforded in the US.
It does tickle me/us no end with your national obsession with "socialism".
We're not a socialist country by any stretching of the terms, when, especially during elections etc, you hurl the word around as an accusation it at times comes across as baffling. In general politicians we hear described as "leftists" would generally still be centre right at least in Europe.
I want someone to explain to me what the function of the British Royal Family is. Do they have any authority in the government, or are they just celebrities? Does the government give them money to live off of, or do they have their own sources of wealth? Do they hold ranks within the church of england?
Doctor Thunder wrote:I want someone to explain to me what the function of the British Royal Family is. Do they have any authority in the government, or are they just celebrities? Does the government give them money to live off of, or do they have their own sources of wealth? Do they hold ranks within the church of england?
Thanks.
Lifted from various sources:
Payment to them.
Funding
Monies to support the Queen in the exercise of her duties as head of state of the United Kingdom (the Head of State Expenditure) come from the Civil List. This is a return of a small portion of the revenue from the Crown Lands that are surrendered by the monarch to parliament at the beginning of each reign; all Crown Land being administered by The Crown Estates, an institution that is answerable to parliament. In the 2003-04 fiscal year, the amount surrendered was £176.9 million, where the Head of State Expenditure was £36 million. The Head of State Expenditure does not include the cost of security.
Only the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List. The Duke receives £359,000 per year.
Only some members of the Royal Family carry out public duties; these individuals receive an annual payment known as a Parliamentary Annuity, the funds being supplied to cover office costs.
The Duke of York: £249,000 per annum
The Earl and Countess of Wessex: £141,000 per annum
The Princess Royal: £228,000 per annum
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester: £175,000 per annum
The Duke and Duchess of Kent: £236,000 per annum
Princess Alexandra £225,000 per annum
These amounts are repaid by The Queen from her private funds.
Though always voluntarily subject to the Value Added Tax and other indirect taxes, the Queen agreed to pay taxes on income and capital gains from 1992, although the details of this arrangement are both voluntary and secret. At the same time it was announced that only the Queen and Prince Philip would receive civil list payments. Since 1993 the Queen's personal income has been taxed as any other Briton. The Queen's private estate (eg shareholdings, personal jewellery, Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle) will be subject to Inheritance Tax, however bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt. [3]
So they give over their crown lands to the government and in return are given between 1/5 and 1/6 of the income back (which they pay tax on) and people still whinge. Imagine if that was your pay deal...
Only the monarch has a role in constitutional affairs. the rest of the royal family attend functions, raise awareness for issues (charity patronage), Do their own work (Prince Edward and his wife most notably), and most are ranked within the military.
Role in constitutional affairs:
, the monarch's role is constitutional, and limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours. Despite this, the ultimate executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still, by and through, the monarch's royal prerogative. Such powers include the dissolution of parliament, and the making of the rules for the government and regulation of the civil service and the armed forces. But these powers are only used according to the policies and procedures set down by laws enacted in Parliament and; where the laws be silent, within the constraints of convention and precedent.
The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister and regular audiences with other members of the Cabinet. The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the Prime Minister's and Cabinet's decisions (subject to the Crown's authority to appoint a new Prime Minister and ministers,[25] itself limited by convention).
It should also be noted that several countries around the world have the Queen as the head of thier government (Australia included). We have a governeor general who acts in consultation with her to enact laws in her name, and back in the 70's the governor general here sacked the governmant as it didn't have the numbers to get anything done.
The last Monarch to dismiss a Prime Minister was William IV in 1834..
She is the top of the Church Of England
The British monarch, at present Queen Elizabeth II, has the constitutional title of "Supreme Governor of the Church of England". The Canons of the Church of England state, "We acknowledge that the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil."
Essentially its the monarch (or the regent in the case of a monarch under 18) who has the power, the rest are just close relatives with titles and their own structured jobs to do...
youbedead wrote:just curios but do you guys across the pond learn about the american revolution, and if so do they say that loyalists are heroes
my social studies teacher was also wondering
We do learn about the American revolution, but history teaching in Britain (in my experience) is a lot more about facts than 'heroes and villains', with the obvious exception of WW2. When I learnt about it, no mention was made of one side being 'correct' in their actions, IIRC.
I have often wondered about where the (percieved) American love for the constitution comes from, as over here we have no equivalent, and no document or legislation is held with such reverance. Is it really considered an acceptable argument for something that the constitution allows it? I see this a lot in pro-gun arguments. Has no-one pointed out that it's just what some old dead blokes wrote down on a bit of parchment?
youbedead wrote:just curios but do you guys across the pond learn about the american revolution, and if so do they say that loyalists are heroes
my social studies teacher was also wondering
No, we learned nothing about it in school beyond the occasional mention in the context of other historical events. The UK has such a long history that it really is not that significant compared to all the other stuff they need to cram in to a schoolkid's history course. We didnt have too much on the empire in general either. Here is the current syllabus for mandatory history (optional history covers things like specific wars and major events in detail):
Unit 1. Introductory unit what's it all about?
Unit 2. How did medieval monarchs keep control?
Unit 3. How hard was life for medieval people in town and country?
Unit 4. How did the medieval church affect people's lives?
Unit 5. Elizabeth I how successfully did she tackle the problems of her reign?
Unit 6. What were the achievements of the Islamic states 600-1600?
Unit 7. Images of an age what can we learn from portraits 1500-1750?
Unit 8. The civil wars was England 'turned upside down' in the seventeenth century?
Unit 9. From Glorious Revolution to the '45 how united was the kingdom?
Unit 10. France 1789-94 why was there a revolution?
Unit 11. Industrial changes action and reaction
Unit 12. Snapshot 1900 what was British middle-class life like?
Unit 13. Mughal India and the coming of the British, 1526-1857 how did the Mughal Empire rise and fall?
Unit 14. The British Empire how was it that, by 1900, Britain controlled nearly a quarter of the world?
Unit 15. Black peoples of America from slavery to equality?
Unit 16. The franchise why did it take so much longer for British women to get the vote?
Unit 17. Divided Ireland why has it been so hard to achieve peace in Ireland?
Unit 18. Hot war, cold war why did the major twentieth-century conflicts affect so many people?
Unit 19. How and why did the Holocaust happen?
Unit 20. Twentieth-century medicine how has it changed the lives of people?
Unit 21. From Aristotle to the atom scientific discoveries that changed the world?
Unit 22. The role of the individual for good or ill?
The only real exposure to older US stuff was the industrial revolution which covered some of the US inventions, though most of the emphasis was on the industrial revolution in the UK as that is where it truly began with the invention of the steam engine. The slavery aspect was covered from a US perspective as slavery was a much bigger issue in the US and still moulds world culture today, the US being the last major power to abolish slavery. The more modern units cover the US a lot more though as the US got more significant in the late 19th century.
damn you greebynog Contradictory too. I am assuming that it was specific to your region or that you are talking about an elective like GCSE rather than mandatory KS3?
For me it was one lesson in a day when some re-enactors came to my school for a demonstration, including firing a cannon. I got to be the drummer, it was top fun. It certainly wasn't dwelled upon, and it was more a case of saying 'this is what happened' than anything else. I think people from over the seas looking for an answer will find Legoburner's far more representative.
Greebynog wrote:
I have often wondered about where the (percieved) American love for the constitution comes from, as over here we have no equivalent, and no document or legislation is held with such reverance. Is it really considered an acceptable argument for something that the constitution allows it? I see this a lot in pro-gun arguments. Has no-one pointed out that it's just what some old dead blokes wrote down on a bit of parchment?
We probably revere the Magna Carta more than you all do. A great deal of our secondary education centers around the constitution ( and the Magna Carta for that matter). Throughout high school ( I don't know what you call the different education levels over there, I'm talking about the school that most people attend through the ages of, say, 13 and 18) I would guess I got a total of three or four months of it, most of which I do not remember. Same thing with the declaration of independence, I believe we had to have that one memorized. Its pretty much the foundation of our laws, and I can't imagine that the UK doesn't have something similar. The constitution can be amended. In fact, there is an amendment prohibiting alcohol, and then a later amendment ending said prohibition.
Greebynog wrote:For me it was one lesson in a day when some re-enactors came to my school for a demonstration, including firing a cannon. I got to be the drummer, it was top fun. It certainly wasn't dwelled upon, and it was more a case of saying 'this is what happened' than anything else. I think people from over the seas looking for an answer will find Legoburner's far more representative.
I imagine the all important nature of the Revolution is an American perspective. For the UK, it is just another colonial issue out of many, albeit one with enormous repercussions for the history of the world, and of course, of the United States.
That brings me to a question I've always wanted to ask a Brit who was knowledgeable about history. That question is, why did the British lose their empire? From my, admittedly limited, study of history, it looks like they just gave up a great deal of the territory, pretty much allowing them to rule themselves.
Greebynog wrote:
I have often wondered about where the (percieved) American love for the constitution comes from, as over here we have no equivalent, and no document or legislation is held with such reverance. Is it really considered an acceptable argument for something that the constitution allows it? I see this a lot in pro-gun arguments. Has no-one pointed out that it's just what some old dead blokes wrote down on a bit of parchment?
We probably revere the Magna Carta more than you all do. A great deal of our secondary education centers around the constitution ( and the Magna Carta for that matter). Throughout high school ( I don't know what you call the different education levels over there, I'm talking about the school that most people attend through the ages of, say, 13 and 18) I would guess I got a total of three or four months of it, most of which I do not remember. Same thing with the declaration of independence, I believe we had to have that one memorized. Its pretty much the foundation of our laws, and I can't imagine that the UK doesn't have something similar. The constitution can be amended. In fact, there is an amendment prohibiting alcohol, and then a later amendment ending said prohibition.
Tony Hancock wrote:Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?
The UK doesn't have a direct equivalent to the constitution, New Labour briefly tried to introduce one, but were crushed under a wave of cynicism and apathy. I was aware that the constitution can be ammended, but it's a fairly arduous process to do so is it not?
We call high school secondary school BTW, but after growing up with a lot of American teen sitcoms, we're all pretty much aware of those sort of semantic differences! We are two countries seperated by a common language after all...
reds8n wrote: It does tickle me/us no end with your national obsession with "socialism".
That is because generally socialism = communism in the US. Lots of cold war feelings about. This also means that to some people that Socialism = Atheism, or anti-Christian.
I imagine the all important nature of the Revolution is an American perspective. For the UK, it is just another colonial issue out of many, albeit one with enormous repercussions for the history of the world, and of course, of the United States.
That brings me to a question I've always wanted to ask a Brit who was knowledgeable about history. That question is, why did the British lose their empire? From my, admittedly limited, study of history, it looks like they just gave up a great deal of the territory, pretty much allowing them to rule themselves.
You pretty much nailed it with regards to the American revolution. I'm 32 and when i was at school we did a small project about it. One of the things we covered-- and doesn't really seem to be brought up by anyone else very often-- during this project was that there was a sizable swell of support for the Americans in Britain at the time. Some people did indeed think it unfair that you were taxed with no representation. There's been arguments put forward that this was encouraged by rivals who stood to gain from the ruination of business etc rivals who would lose out i this regard, but the British always have this strong trend to empathise with the underdogs in a situation and a fairly strong sense of social justice.
And I think most people felt this would blow over, there'd be a compromise and we'd carry on. I think people felt it odd almost that you wouldn't want to be part of the empire. Too much to lose compared to gains so to speak.
With regards to the end of the empire....
You're right we pretty much gave it away. It's pretty much the only self disassembled Empire in the history of the world. Most benevolent one too I'd say, you'll note that the countries we left have generally prospered and been stable countries, a legacy of the institutions we established.
To a large extent we probably had no choice. WW II despite our victory the country was pretty much dead on its knees, and we had no real chance of defending or resisting any attempts to break it up.
There was (is ?) an argument put forward that the USA was (at least partially) to blame with the 1945 end of the land lease programme. Whilst I think it fair to say there will no doubt be a germ of truth in that-- no decision is made purely for 1 reason-- I don't think that's fair. America had far more to gain from a strong ally in Europe-- and we were the only country that could realistically offer any help if the ruskies made a move in the region, and quite possibly the only country that would have helped as well.
America was viewed very favourably at the time by the majority of the British, the support they gave and the lives they laid down were noticed by the average man far more so than the politicians I think. Hell, even today, I'd take America as an ally over any other country in the world as I think we ultimately share a largely common heritage and have more in common than not. The most compelling argument for me for us going into Iraq was the fact that America has been the nest ally... friend even we've had and when push comes to shove or all else is in doubt you stick with your mates. For me anyway.
Wow, this rambled, sorry it's early !
EDIT :
Just whilst I'm here I would just like to point out that all debts are paid back BTW
After the cost of not just the 2nd World War, but the 1st as well, we simply no longer had the manpower or clout to hold on any longer.
American Revolution? Well, we know we let you win because you threatened to cry if we didn't (Thank you Little Britain! Gem that one!).
The one thing that surprised me when I was on a school exchange programme in the States, was how differently the US Students were taught History. It very much was American History (event X cause result Y, in America) whereas in Britain, we were more about the overall affect on the world. Still, each to their own, as both have their merits.
Oooh! Oooh! Is it true, that in Texas, Trespass Laws allow you to shoot (though not necessarily kill I guess) *anyone* who steps on your property without permission, hence those quaint little post boxes at the end of driveways?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The Empire ended much as Reds8n said.
Oooh! Oooh! Is it true, that in Texas, Trespass Laws allow you to shoot (though not necessarily kill I guess) *anyone* who steps on your property without permission, hence those quaint little post boxes at the end of driveways?
I imagine that the post boxes at the end of driveways has more to do with America's passion for the automobile than texas law. Everywhere I've lived, they drop the mail in the mailbox from the road. For what it is worth, I've never lived in a house or apartment that has the little slot in the door that the postman inserts the mail through. My current apartment complex has a cluster of mailboxes for the entire apartment in the office parking lot. The office is at the bottom of a steep hill, and I have seen people drive their car to the bottom of the hill to get their mail, then drive back up. I like the walk myself; I've had my complaints, but there are really nice grounds here at least. Anyhow, it's very wasteful.
I don't keep up with new laws, or old ones for that matter, as much as I should, but I haven't heard of a law that would allow you to use deadly force for someone who simply steps on your property, though you can ask them to leave certainly. I can't speak for texas, but in Tennessee I know it is not the case. We had an incident 10 or 15 years ago involving just that sort of thing, in fact, it was an episode on Unsolved Mysteries. A man just outside of Chattanooga had had issues with some young men who would ride ( after opening fence gates with no trespassing signs) their ATVs on his property....their families said it was to go swimming in the swimming hole up there. My uncle knew the owner, and the owner's story was that he had told them multiple times to keep off his property, and that he had been threatened by them and that they had torn up his fence gate. The last time they tried it he said he'd kill them if they came back, and when they came back, he did. I don't know the exact law, but I imagine the guy would have been ok ( especially as he was threatened ) if he didn't hide the bodies, and apparently one of them was shot in the back while he was trying to run away. Things had gotten exceptionally ugly, as people knew what had happened before the police could prove it. I think the owner ended up with many years in prison, which probably means life as I believe he was in his 60s at the time. IIRC a daughter or cousin or something ended up in trouble because she helped ditch the ATVs.
Right or wrong, the take home lesson is that you shouldn't trespass. I have a friend who has some hunting property, and several times he's had deer poached, and some pretty strange stuff done. One of the bucks had been decapitated and basically left there to rot, which really isn't cool. He just called TWRA ( Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency ) and they drive by every so often now. Apparently whoever had been doing it got spooked by that, and hasn't been causing trouble since. Probably a better way to handle it.
Oooh! Oooh! Is it true, that in Texas, Trespass Laws allow you to shoot (though not necessarily kill I guess) *anyone* who steps on your property without permission, hence those quaint little post boxes at the end of driveways?
Not property. House yes.
Of course a wife who blows away a cheating husband may use the "he needed killin' your honor" defense. I can't find it in the law, but She Who Must Be Obeyed keeps telling me its in there...
reds8n wrote: In your diners etc do you really get these bottomless/free refills cups of coffee ?
And in your Mcdonalds etc can you realy get free refills for your soft drinks ?
Almost all places have free refills on coffee and soda except higher scale restaurants. Tea is also usually free refills as well.
If you had free tea refills in English cafes there'd be a national crisis as everyone stopped working. The main reason for an Englishman to be employed is to procure more tea.
jfrazell wrote:Of course a wife who blows away a cheating husband may use the "he needed killin' your honor" defense. I can't find it in the law, but She Who Must Be Obeyed keeps telling me its in there...
I'd get a second opinion on that... and a bulletproof vest, just in case.
Hahaha, no that's not what the post office boxes are for...they're for mail. Being from Texas I get a lot of stuff about if we all carry guns or wear cowboy boots even from people from my own country.
The American revolution is pretty romanticized in our grade school history classes. Especially in elementary and middle school. This leads to a bunch of misconceptions among our populace. Most wouldn't even be able to tell you that in addition to France, Spain and the Dutch also joined the war on our side.
Whats the balance of 40k and fantasy players like in the UK? In the US, in my experience at least, 40k is overwhelmingly more popular than fantasy.
In more country areas they are out on the edge of the road so the postman doesn't have to get out of his car/van.
However in suburbs they are set back at the edge of the property so the walking/motorbike riding postie doesn't have to spend their entire time on the road.
In inner city they usually are front door slots or stacked up together.
LOTR is played in secret by people who love to buy the minis and supplements but never/rarely play a game at a tourney, games club or even a GW store.
Tourney wise WHFB is roping in huge numbers. But the average age seems late twenties/early thirties with a good smattering of older players (50+). Many WHFB players used to play 40k but moved onto the better ruleset.
40k is wildly popular amongst the kids.
All are horrendously expensive (LOTR the least bad). :(
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:In Australia 40k players outnumbers WHFB.
LOTR is played in secret by people who love to buy the minis and supplements but never/rarely play a game at a tourney, games club or even a GW store.
Tourney wise WHFB is roping in huge numbers. But the average age seems late twenties/early thirties with a good smattering of older players (50+). Many WHFB players used to play 40k but moved onto the better ruleset.
40k is wildly popular amongst the kids.
All are horrendously expensive (LOTR the least bad). :(
Exactly how I find the UK scene. Most start on 40k, and it's the most popular game, but a lot move on to fantasy, it's seen as more of a vet's game (in my personal experience). I certainly followed that path.
youbedead wrote:just curios but do you guys across the pond learn about the american revolution, and if so do they say that loyalists are heroes
my social studies teacher was also wondering
Most British homes feature a Benedict Arnold shrine and every year we celebrate Benedict Arnold day. I would count Benedict Arnold amongst my personal heros and a guiding force in my life.
Whilst we're here : thing that surprised me the most when I ventured online is how religious the majority of Americans seem to be. I live in a ( you could say the ) Cathedral city of the Uk and there's no-one in my social circle who goes to church at all-- ball and chain attachment and deaths aside I guess and less and less of the former. I only know a few people who have any active form of faith at all. Generally in the UK if you go to church then-- and I'm not flaming or attacking those here who do I hasten to add-- you're viewed as odd at least or even a bit backwards.
More questions : exactly what is "biscuits and gravy", "grits" and ( not sure of this ) key/qui lime pie ?
Whilst we're here : thing that surprised me the most when I ventured online is how religious the majority of Americans seem to be. I live in a ( you could say the ) Cathedral city of the Uk and there's no-one in my social circle who goes to church at all-- ball and chain attachment and deaths aside I guess and less and less of the former. I only know a few people who have any active form of faith at all. Generally in the UK if you go to church then-- and I'm not flaming or attacking those here who do I hasten to add-- you're viewed as odd at least or even a bit backwards.
More questions : exactly what is "biscuits and gravy", "grits" and ( not sure of this ) key/qui lime pie ?
40k is by far the more popular game.
Biscuits and gravy aka One of the Proofs of the Existence of God, is what it says. To be correct they have to be fluffy buttermilk biscuits, preferably large (or more preferably made by your grandmother). The gravy is thick white gravy, often with a little bit of kick, and again often with bits of sausage in it, or served with sausage/bacon. Its a country dish. Jeez now I'm hungry.
Key lime pie is a lemon like pie if a rememebr correctly. Quite good but I am not partial to pies.
Grits, also known as craklin' grits is ground corn served for breakfast. I believe fried. Its a southern thing but you don't see it much in Texas (unlike breakfast tacos, oh man I'm hungry again)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grits
" My cousin Vinnie" suddenly makes a whole lot more sense.
Key Lime pie is just Lime pie eh ? Kind of disappointing.
I am confused still as to "white gravy" and "biscuits". What are the biscuits made of-- over here biscuits is the term for what ( I believe) you guys call cookies, with cookie being a specific type of biscuit. Are these southern biscuits more akin to rusks then ?
A biscuit here is a fluffy concoction. how to describe. I guess more like a soft pastry. Kind of like a croissant I'd say. here this should be helpful.
Ahhh... so it's like a kind of savoury scone or a type of dumpling. Thanks for that, been wondering after innumerable westerns and a scene in Preacher.
Whilst we're learning then : Why the big deal over halloween ? Just a big marketing hype/scam or is it actually indicative of something else about about american culture ?
Children get candy, adults go to parties and teenagers vandalize. Everyone wears costumes what's not to like?
I don't know if it's really that commercial, they do make a ton a money off candy, costumes and decorations but people still prefer homemade decorations and costumes (assuming it doesn't look bad) over store bought.
There are some people who follow religious ideology that recognizes the time period as important, but generally it ia all in good fun. Groups like some Native American tribes and Wiccans. We have a lot of very fervent Christians and so anything that smacks of non-Christian celebration, especially if it is tied to pre-Christianity makes them want to be jerks and ruin it for everyone else. This includes for the majority of Christians that just want to have a laugh with friends and eat some candy.
Nah, all the Christians I know go berserk on Halloween. Its a time of fun. We make a haunted house in the garage complete with corridors and rooms O Terror! muahahah
Halloween was never that big over here-- too close to Guy Fawkes night which is much cooler in my opinion-- but in the last decade or so it's exploded hugely-- largely ( according to the magic of common consensus) due to influence from the USA. Which has in turn led to the predictable outcry from the same sort of religious nutjobs who want to ban Harry Potter/LOTR/ whatever it is that kids are enjoying as it is "satanic" 1111 !! Oh NOES ! Realistically it's not so much the influence of America-- although all your shows we see go nuts over it-- but more the marketing people seeing a good idea and going for it.
What British sitcoms or shows do you guys watch ? I gather the USA version of Little Britain got fairly mixed reviews ( I find the show very tiresome after about 3.8 seconds generally, "jokes" go on far too long) and I do wonder what you guys make of British humour. I was amazed that The Office went down as well as it has, and there's some fairly funny/horrific tales to do with Fawlty Towers and Red Dwarf that we all hear about that makes me wonder. There's a brilliant show over here called " Peep Show" which is going to be remade over the pond, and I just don't see Americans getting it to be honest. I know 2 septics over here who've seen it-- one doesn't get it at all ( but he thinks Friends is hilarious so we know he's a twunt) whilst the other can't watch it as he finds it too embarrassing rather than funny.
The alternative community will take any excuse to dress up. This year, I'm going as a Dead Scotsman. Got my Poet Shirt already, got my Kilt already, all I need to is gory up my face over some daub, and jobs a good'un!
And your so-called Biscuits are still nothing of the sort!
Biscuit is a word we got from the French as recompense for not being British once, and it's literal translation is 'twice cooked (bis cuit).
Ergo, your so-called Biscuits are in fact, Cakes. Scones to be precise. And I highly doubt that white stuff is in fact Gravy, which to qualify has to be a sauce or jus (yeah, we just pinched that one to see what the French would do) made from the juices of a piece of meat. That, is just a plain sauce.
White gravy is in fact gravy. Any further disparagement of the metric ton of awesome that is biscuits and gravy will result in approximately ten million rednecks driving their pickup trucks to England with their shotguns to deal with this offense to our honor. And if you think pick up trucks can't float you haven't seen the tires on a redneck pickup truck
jfrazell wrote:White gravy is in fact gravy. Any further disparagement of the metric ton of awesome that is biscuits and gravy will result in approximately ten million rednecks driving their pickup trucks to England with their shotguns to deal with this offense to our honor. And if you think pick up trucks can't float you haven't seen the tires on a redneck pickup truck
So, your sending your Rednecks huh? With girly shotguns?
I shall rally our Geordies.
Geordies, master of How Ye, the ancient, secret North Eatern Martial Art of Unprovoked Agression.
We're not scared of your namby pamby, Nancy Rednecks!
Besides, you're threatening to send them to another country. Another country which they will refuse to believe exists, and will probably shoot you for being a witch! HA! Britain shall Triumph!
No, one to many of you will eat eggs with..baked beans and the island will implode into a little baked bean black hole. The French will sip dwine and declaim that they could have imploded into a black hole even better if they had wanted to ...
reds8n wrote:" My cousin Vinnie" suddenly makes a whole lot more sense.
Key Lime pie is just Lime pie eh ? Kind of disappointing.
I am confused still as to "white gravy" and "biscuits". What are the biscuits made of-- over here biscuits is the term for what ( I believe) you guys call cookies, with cookie being a specific type of biscuit. Are these southern biscuits more akin to rusks then ?
A real Key Lime pie is made with Key Limes, not regular limes.
As in Florida Keys one assumes yes ? I'm assuming there is some flavour difference too ? You don't mean something completely different when you say "Lime" like you do with "fanny" do you ?
jfrazell wrote:White gravy is in fact gravy. Any further disparagement of the metric ton of awesome that is biscuits and gravy will result in approximately ten million rednecks driving their pickup trucks to England with their shotguns to deal with this offense to our honor.
If I remember the latest "sorry state of education" statistics, something like 65% of Red Necks wouldn't be able to find the UK even if given a map. That and driving their pickups there should they be able to find it will simply result in the Ford content of the Atlantic Ocean going up considerably.
I heard something about a depressingly high percentage of Americans thinking Britain, or the United Kingdom, to be more precise, was somewhere in the middle east!
Very few people ship in their own key limes to squeeze them in house. There is only one other pie-maker in the country that does it that I am aware of."
Executive director of the American Pie Council
You have a national Pie council ? You wacky wacky people, I love you more everyday. BOO to the lack of shipping of said tasty sounding goodness though, I am now determined to sample this delight.
To the Brits: Does anyone actually believe the gak written in those tabloids?
Are people from liverpool actually human, or are they some sort of boozefueled yeti crossbreeds who cannot be killed?
To the Scots: Do ye really think independance from Britain would be that beneficial?
To the Welsh: How come ye can't hold yer booze? The English and the Scots can, but get a welshman 3 pints in and it's all singing and hilarity. (I love the Welsh)
To the Yanks: Seriously, do the attack adds and stuff not absolutely disgust you? That gak would never fly over here.
And how come religion is such a big deal in politics over there?
Da Boss wrote:To the Brits: Does anyone actually believe the gak written in those tabloids?
Are people from liverpool actually human, or are they some sort of boozefueled yeti crossbreeds who cannot be killed?
1. Only with regards to sport and "celebrity" gossip. They sell generally due to either A: Tits B: Special offers etc . They're like the UK version of those loud shock jocks the septics get I think. I think the amount of attention they garner from the politicians is disproportionate to their actual sway these days I think. they were powerful in the past though, hence why Labour courted The Scum newspaper so vigourusly.
2. Well... many of them are of Irish descent so.....
City has the lowest selling circulation of the Sun of any British city or town incidentally, sales never recovered after their disgraceful coverage of the Hillsborough tragedy.
I went drinking in liverpool. And I'm 100% Irish. Those people could down the entire guiness brewery in a blizzard, wearing nothing but shorts and a tee shirt, and then go out for some "real drinking".
Crazy bastards! Good craic though.
The tabloids are a bloody pain over here. We get slightly reprinted versions (like 10% ireland specific content added in) and it's what most people read. So people are waaaay too overinformed on the right wing british veiws on things (hence the upsurge of euroskepticism) and underinformed about irish issues.
I always find that if you get collared on the 4th July by an American, harping on about beating us... just ask them why the Whitehouse is called the Whitehouse
Well, we burnt it down. Must have been quite funny.
Legend has it that the Septics were about to sit down to a nice dinner, saw the Redcoats coming, and stegged it. So the Redcoats helped themselves, burnt it down, and then went back to Canadia.
Thats ok, my relatives gave the redcoats a warm reception on some earthen levies just outside New Orleans. A good time was had by all...oh wait by us anyway.
Moral of the story: never mess with crazy Louisiana gator people
Whats the difference again? Which one has the secret alien landing pad-thats what I want to know. Also, which one would stand up better to Godzilla. These things are important bits of information
Wolfstan wrote:I always find that if you get collared on the 4th July by an American, harping on about beating us... just ask them why the Whitehouse is called the Whitehouse
We have references to it being called the White House before the burning. It may have been because the White sandstone made it appear white before the burning ever occurred. MYTH BUSTED
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, we burnt it down. Must have been quite funny.
Legend has it that the Septics were about to sit down to a nice dinner, saw the Redcoats coming, and stegged it. So the Redcoats helped themselves, burnt it down, and then went back to Canadia.
Septics?
Word was sent to Dolly Madison to bugger on out because soldiers were headed that way. There was a reception planned and a full table laid out for 30~40 some guests. The British soldiers arrived to a nice dinner waiting for them, ate, and then torched it.
We don't have a constitution (the British, not the Geordies I mean). Well, not a codified one like America's. Ours is the sum of our laws and institutions, it is constantly evolving. Plus it's superceded by the EU now anway.
The treaty hasn't been ratified by all member states, and therefore can't be finalised unless some can persuade the Irish to vote again and "get it right" the next time.
Just why do the British believe we are superior to every other nation on the planet, yet fool ourselves that the evidence to the contrary is simply because we're too cool to try, or because we didn't have the right weather / nuclear weapons / nobby parents?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah yes. The EU Consitution.
So dangerous, so perilous to our sovereignty that neither side, for or against, is willing to actually bother explaining it to the masses.
It's been defeated twice now. First by the Frogs, then by the Bog Irish. Surely it's time to give up and just accept it's just another daft idea?
(Not adressed to Doc)
The thing that pisses me off about the EU constitution debacle is the constant calls for a referendum on it. Not one single person calling for a referendum has read the damn thing or even a summarised version of it, all they're going on is tabloid fear-mongering and backwards xenophobia perpetuated by people with craniums packed with mud and gummi bears. I have no clue on the fine detail of the document, so I don't want a vote on it cheers, I have no sodding clue if it's a good idea, that's why I elected someone else to read the thing for me in the first place. People who despise Eastern Europeans coming to this country to find work, but simultaneously employ them to build their kitchen deserve to be hung upside down from a lampost by their testes and made to sing 'I'm a little teapot' untill they go so mad they piss out of their eyeballs. Tossers.
And I've read the thing too. Didn't get all of it-- a lot of it is just procedural or admin changes but there's steps in there I don't want taking and Europe isn't ready for at all.
Combined European army ? Err.... no thanks, not like this anyway. For example we got £$%^ all support from out European "friends" when the Falklands were invaded-- the Belgains who were were buying opur bullet from went on strike in protest. Yeah thanks ! And frankly the support in current military actions is pisspoor you'll note.
The concept of the euro state is a sensible and marvellous idea. The hegemony we're being given makes me wonder why more people are screaming that this is wrong.
I don't want an Inquisitorial legal system thanks. I don't want political leaders immune to prosecution
-- you'll note France already has such a system set up, one of the reasons Chirac hung on for so long. have a dig around at all the powers and immunities the commissioners have. Terrifying. Unelected and unaccountable.
Did you see what Cresson got away with ?
" While a European Commissioner she was the main target in the fraud allegations that led to the resignation of the Santer Commission in 1999. Subsequent to a fraud inquiry the European Commission said that Cresson in her capacity as the Research Commissioner "failed to act in response to known, serious and continuing irregularities over several years". Cresson was found guilty of not reporting failures in a youth training programme from which vast sums went missing.
[edit] Appointing a friend
Prime Minister CressonWhen Cresson took up her functions, she wished to appoint one of her close acquaintances, Philippe Berthelot, a dental surgeon, as a "personal adviser". Because he was 66 years old, Berthelot could not be appointed as a member of a Commissioner’s Cabinet, and Cresson was advised accordingly. Moreover, when Cresson took up office, her Cabinet was already fully staffed, as far as personal advisers were concerned. She asked the administration to consider how it might be possible to appoint him. Berthelot was then engaged as a "visiting scientist" from September 1995 until the end of February 1997.
Although appointment as a visiting scientist implies that the person concerned is mainly to work either in the JRC or the services dealing with research, Berthelot worked exclusively as a personal adviser to Cresson. On the expiry of his contract on 1 March 1997, Berthelot was offered another visiting scientist’s contract, for a period of one year expiring at the end of February 1998. His appointment as a visiting scientist thus lasted for a total period of two and a half years, whereas the rules specify a maximum duration of 24 months.
On 31 December 1997, Mr Berthelot requested the termination of his contract from that date, on medical grounds. His application was accepted. Following a complaint by a Member of Parliament, a criminal investigation concerning Berthelot’s file was opened in Belgium in 1999. In June 2004, the Chambre du conseil of the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brussels) decided that no further action should be taken in the case, taking the view that there was no ground for continuing the criminal procedure.
[edit] European Commission vs. Édith Cresson
On 11 July 2006, in a judgment by the European Court of Justice on Case C-432/04 (Commission of the European Communities versus Édith Cresson), the Court declared that Édith Cresson acted in breach of her obligations as a European commissioner. While the breach of the obligations arising from the office of Member of the Commission calls, in principle, for the imposition of a penalty, the Court held that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the finding of breach constituted, of itself, an appropriate penalty and, accordingly, decided not to impose on Cresson a penalty in the form of a deprivation of her right to a pension or other benefits.
Cresson claimed that where the conduct complained of in criminal and disciplinary proceedings was the same, the findings of the criminal court were binding on the disciplinary authorities. However, the Court held that it was not bound by the legal characterisation of facts made in the context of the criminal proceedings and that it was for the Court, exercising its discretion to the full, to investigate whether the conduct complained of in proceedings brought under Article 213(2) EC constituted a breach of the obligations arising from the office of Commissioner. Accordingly, the decision of the Chambre du conseil of the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles that there was no evidence of criminal conduct on Cresson’s part could not bind the Court."
So.... getting foound out or caught.... is sufficient punishment ! What ? Seriously ?
Frankly I'm amazed the USA wants anything to do with us/europe, we're about to make Soviet Russia look like a free society.
reds8n wrote:So the American music charts : these are based on airplay right ? Do you have a national number single/album or is it all regional/genre defined ?
Sorta. There is an airplay chart but what gets played is usually controlled by the corporate masters. Something like 99% the Radio stations in the country are owned by like 4 companies. Many of these companies are owned/own or in collusion with the RIAA. That makes it sound more sinister than what it is, but it you do generally get a limited representation of available music. Satellite radio and now "HD" Radio may have an impact.
There are different charts for sales of records with an overall, then genre. Whichever makes an album look best will be the one that is mentioned. If R. Kelly releases an album, oh, lets call it "Hot Water Pedophile" and it doesn't crack the overall top 10 but is number 1 on the R&B charts it will be advertised as the #1 R&B album. It's mostly marketing from RIAA.
reds8n wrote:The concept of the euro state is a sensible and marvellous idea. The hegemony we're being given makes me wonder why more people are screaming that this is wrong.
Well it hasn't been a collective group for much much longer then the idea of an Euro state. You aren't going to change hundreds of years, if not a longer, of cultural bickering and stone throwing in just a few decades. Give it time.
reds8n wrote:Frankly I'm amazed the USA wants anything to do with us/europe, we're about to make Soviet Russia look like a free society.
We have to have someone to tell our stories about how awesome we were in WWII. Plus a lot of ancestors from the area. Even so, you are still getting on our nerves.
We have to have someone to tell our stories about how awesome we were in WWII
Actually we usually just joke about your cute insistence that it started in 1941. Timekeeping isn't a national strong-point we gather.
But, hey ! You got here. Much appreciated. You might win a war without our help one day now too ! Where there's life etc etc eh ?
So... we sent you Mr. Beckham and a few other washed up looking for a pay... I mean talented sportsmen at the peak of their careers to try and get you lot to play real football. We hear reports that it almost seems to take off and then dies away. Is this true or do you think this is perhaps mainly due to the increasingly dominant Southern American influence upon your culture-- "soccer" as you so embarrassingly (but understandably I hasten to add) call it being bigger down there than in the Northern part of the continent.
Or do you think that your own homegrown sports ( stolen as they might be.. mutter grumble) will always be more popular ?
reds8n wrote: Actually we usually just joke about your cute insistence that it started in 1941. Timekeeping isn't a national strong-point we gather.
I don't know what you are talking about. :S
reds8n wrote:Or do you think that your own homegrown sports ( stolen as they might be.. mutter grumble) will always be more popular ?
It does rise and fall (soccer) but I don't see it ever reaching NFL/NBA/MLB levels. Women's soccer has a better chance because of their success and not having MLB/NFL equivalents to contend with and can set it's own path. In the end with the "homegrown" sports being so popular and American Exceptionalism being what it is I doubt Soccer will ever be as popular here as it is, well, everywhere else. Same with F-1. We like Rednecks in sorta fancy cars, not Europeans in marvels of engineering. Also Rally is not as popular as it should be. We love offroad, but we don't love offroad racing. Ok we do, but since it is timed (skill) instead of all the cars going at once to create massive accidents, it limits the fanbase.
Damn this internet and it's lack of blatantly obvious sarcasm!
Although the key point I was getting at is contained in that link: "However, as a result of other events, many belligerents entered the war before or after this date, during a period which spanned from 1937 to 1941"
To quote Obi-Wan "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
Me too. To vote against it and make them come back with something the man in the street can understand.
Argh. That's pretty much the sort of thing I had a little pissy fit against earlier, why should everyone be able to understand a huge and comlex piece of international law making? I'm afraid the man on the street buys the Sun, likes Robbie Williams and wants to bring back hanging.
Reds8n, you get a vote then! I shouldn't have generalised so, in my experience everyone calling for a referendum hasn't actually read the thing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Is even cuter when they claim they won it!
Well, they won the Eastern Front at the cost of millions and millions of lives, so I'll cut them some slack. They also know it wasn't that simple. Bonus internets for knowing what Russia calls the war, without looking it up. Hint: It ain't WWII.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Russians got there first I'm afraid, and pretty much stomped all over the Nazi Warmachine in doing so.
This part is just crap. Russia was first to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany and sit back and wait for them to break it, but that is about it.
Agreed there. When us Western Allies were struggling ashore in June '44, the Russians were (later that month) headed back to Eastern Poland with operation Bagration, wiping 50 German divisions from their order of battle.
US obliterated the Japanese. We won WWII. We even helped the Rooskies and Brits finish up their side with the other opponent...
Actually we should really credit the Italians, Hungarians etc. guarding the flanks of Sixth Army. Without them, the victory of the Allies couldn't have been possible...
jfrazell wrote:US obliterated the Japanese. We won WWII. We even helped the Rooskies and Brits finish up their side with the other opponent...
Actually we should really credit the Italians, Hungarians etc. guarding the flanks of Sixth Army. Without them, the victory of the Allies couldn't have been possible...
Don't shatter all my childhood dreams of America ! I so wanted to read GRit magazine, buy a BB gun, get those boots that OJ advertised-even thoiugh I had no idea who OJ was- and breed sea monkeys .
Here' summat I'm interested in from those across the pond; how much do you guys know about the north of England? It seems to me that all american impressions of Britain are either cockney or home-counties poshos. Just something I've wondered about for a while.
Edit: I've thought of another one; are there no entrapment laws in the US? It seems like 'To Catch a Predator' laughs in the face of the very notion of such measures on police actions.
Greebynog wrote:Here' summat I'm interested in from those across the pond; how much do you guys know about the north of England? It seems to me that all american impressions of Britain are either cockney or home-counties poshos. Just something I've wondered about for a while.
That's the thing with having so many states with so many different laws: some states do have entrapment, while others do not. It comes of leaving most things as state rights... even if a lot of states get it wrong.
Australia is poisonous. Have you seen the creatures that live there?
Honestly, if I took a Shark, and dumped it in the outback, it would evolve in a split second to fly, be highly toxic, and shoot beavers from it's teeth!
One thing I have wondered about oz, is how much the average aussie thinks about, and comes into contact with, the deadly creatures of their nation. When even a duck billed platypus is poisonous does it get to the point where nobody pays attention anymore, or is it on your mind everytime you walk into long grass or unkept natural areas?
Meh. The majority of Oz' population lives in the cities (because they're safer), but the geezers up in Darwin are always surrounded by crocodiles. You go camping, mosquitoes will eat you alive on warm nights.
Most of our dangerous animals live far from civilisation, and they aren't too common either. Mind you, tiger snakes and copperheads are the reason you DON'T go into the bush in summer.
I feel safe in Tas though. We don't have as many poisonous things. We're like a downgraded Ireland.
You have copperheads? Oh man, its a home away from home. Next thing you'll tell me is some Lost Tribe from Mexico has settled there and brought with them something called "Tex Mex."
reds8n wrote: So did people stateside realy make good pocket money and earn great prizes from selling "Grit" magazine like the ads in the comics said ?
And is it true that the secret to life the universe and everything was printed in one issue but no-one read it ?
LOL.
Grant Morrison was almost right. I read Grit. And I'm not telling. I also owned a Red Ryder BB gun and Sea Monkeys. All three were glorious...the Holy Trinity, really.
Frazzled wrote:You have copperheads? Oh man, its a home away from home. Next thing you'll tell me is some Lost Tribe from Mexico has settled there and brought with them something called "Tex Mex."
Shoot, we have copperheads in PA. Nothing special there, cowboy.
reds8n wrote: So did people stateside realy make good pocket money and earn great prizes from selling "Grit" magazine like the ads in the comics said ?
And is it true that the secret to life the universe and everything was printed in one issue but no-one read it ?
LOL.
Grant Morrison was almost right. I read Grit. And I'm not telling. I also owned a Red Ryder BB gun and Sea Monkeys. All three were glorious...the Holy Trinity, really.
Anyone who gets a Doom Patrol reference is alright in my book !
Next you'll be telling me you bought one of those muscle books and kicked sand back in that guys face !
And those hostess fruit pies were as good they looked right ?
Is it also true that no one really understands all the rules of Baseball ?
And could I get some explanation of the "Draft system" (? I think ..? ) that determines the way football teams get new players. Seems very... unamerican from what I think I know.
Frazzled wrote:Yes, but do your copperheads know how to make a good margarita? Didn't think so...
More Cointreau or Grand Marnier (depending on taste) than actual Tequila (and that has to be gold), about a 2 to 0.75 mix. Personally, I prefer Grand Marnier, or both.
The only trouble I have here is getting a good lime mixer. You can buy margarita mix but it comes with triple sec, and I don't think a proper Margarita has that. A nice lemon and lime high juice tends to do the trick. After a couple or 3 I tend not to notice anyway.
I always found Aussies to be very patriotic. like, more patriotic than the average american. But alright other than that.
Man, if you got the downgraded version of ireland it must be pretty grim.
We only have like one poisonous animal though. It's a tiny freshwater fish.
Awesome, awesome thread. I'm just sad I'm so late to the party.
reds8n wrote:Or do you think that your own homegrown sports ( stolen as they might be.. mutter grumble) will always be more popular ?
Probably, I honestly can't begin to understand why Soccer is so popular everywhere except the US. I know I couldn't stand playing it in gym while I was in high school. Football/Basketball/Baseball are imminently more entertaining to me, but then again that's what I grew up with.
As far as my view of the Aussies...well I'm actually working for them indirectly now. I'm hoping to get a few trips over there in the next few years to really see what it's like. The guys I've met from there in our meetings here in the US were nice competent people, but that's like most of our customers.
Overall they seem like nice people, but it's hard to make any judgments since all I can ever get are the blatantly outrageous stereotypes portrayed by Crocodile Dundee, Outback Steakhouse, and the Fosters beer commercials. Also I'm going to assume that the *real* beer drunk by normal folks in Australia is a whole lot better than Fosters, so I'll agree not to judge you folks by that if you agree not to judge us Americans by Bud/Coors/Miller.
With regard to Football not taking off in the States, I think it's because it can be terribly elitist, and forging a group of competent players into an all conquering team is pretty hard work. Look at the English National side. Utterly ruined, despite the skills it's component parts hold by being comprised of nothing but spoilt little brats who all want the limelight. This prevents them utterly from punching their weight.
Whereas American Football is arguably more tactical, you *have* to play as a Team to get anywhere.
Da Boss wrote:I always found Aussies to be very patriotic. like, more patriotic than the average american. But alright other than that.
Man, if you got the downgraded version of ireland it must be pretty grim.
We only have like one poisonous animal though. It's a tiny freshwater fish.
Should have worded that better... I mean that, in terms of geographics, Tas is very similar to Ireland. It's also very empty. I mean, once you leave the capital, you can drive for three hours through the midlands and not see a sign of humanity.
And we aren't as safe as Ireland from the environment. I guess you guys have terriorists though, so we're even.
Voodoo Boyz wrote:Awesome, awesome thread. I'm just sad I'm so late to the party.
reds8n wrote:Or do you think that your own homegrown sports ( stolen as they might be.. mutter grumble) will always be more popular ?
Probably, I honestly can't begin to understand why Soccer is so popular everywhere except the US. I know I couldn't stand playing it in gym while I was in high school. Football/Basketball/Baseball are imminently more entertaining to me, but then again that's what I grew up with.
Football isn't called 'the beautiful game' for nothing, watching a great game of football is almost balletic, amazing skills and tricks, deft flicks and blistering shots. You can't beat the feeling of being part of 30,000 fans singing 'Marching on together' (my club's anthem) on the stands. I LOVE FOOTBALL. I think the reason it's not popular in the US is because it's not immediate, or always action packed. It's a game of subtleties not big knocks (disregarding the thunderous shots of Matt Le Tissier of course!). Also, the MLS has about the same quality of football as the English third tier, which doesn't help get people all that excited. If you were watching your local teams play Premier League quality games every week it might be different. As for football being elitist...I'm supposing you haven't been to many league 1/2/conference/ryman league/Johnstone's paint trophy games?
You forget to mention temper tantrums, strops, faces like slapped arses and appaling behaviour in our top flight games.
Yes Rooney, your vicious, thick little thug, I'm looking at you. And no Wayne, you were not sent off in the World Cup because someone winked. You got the Red Card because you stamped on someones Pods....
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:That and your far too delicate to play Rugby.
I think one thing hurting soccer here is the sight of players taking dives in order to draw penalties. That's pretty distasteful stuff in American football or hockey. Especially hockey. Good lord, in hockey, players that wear face protection (from sticks, skates and 90 mph pucks) are considered to be wusses...
reds8n wrote:Anyone who gets a Doom Patrol reference is alright in my book !
Next you'll be telling me you bought one of those muscle books and kicked sand back in that guys face !
And those hostess fruit pies were as good they looked right ?
Is it also true that no one really understands all the rules of Baseball ?
And could I get some explanation of the "Draft system" (? I think ..? ) that determines the way football teams get new players. Seems very... unamerican from what I think I know.
1) Likewise. Grant's run on DP might represent my favorite comic of all time.
2) Nope. Those X-ray glasses, though? They WORK.
3) Tastycake (a competing brand) are kind of the big thing around here, to tell you the truth. But most of those fruit pies are delicious as far as non-homemade, factory-produced pastries made god knows how long ago go. Erm.
4) If you've ever seen our umpires at work...you'd know this to be true.
5) Each of our leagues does it a little differently, but the basic idea is that the worst team gets the first pick of all the new professional players. After their rookie contract expires, they can become free agents. Yeah, it's kind of un-American, but it helps keep our leagues from being dominated by the teams with the deepest pockets. Which means it's kind of capitalistic in the end because that (in theory) means more teams are competitive and therefore attractive to watch.
So do you Brits find American accents to be lovely, just kind of quaint or simply grating (note this could be multipart considering the different American accents)?
I can't watch more then thirty seconds of soccer without wishing I was dead. I would become a huge fan, however, if they implemented any or all of the following changes:
1) Multi-Ball. For the first five minutes of the game, there is no limit to the number of balls you can have on the field.
2) Foul Free. Each team can, once per game, call a five minute free-for-all in which no fouls may be called by the referees.
3) Multi-Player. For the last five minutes of the game, there is no limit to the number of players you can have on the field.
Doctor Thunder wrote:I can't watch more then thirty seconds of soccer without wishing I was dead. I would become a huge fan, however, if they implemented any or all of the following changes:
1) Multi-Ball. For the first five minutes of the game, there is no limit to the number of balls you can have on the field.
2) Foul Free. Each team can, once per game, call a five minute free-for-all in which no fouls may be called by the referees.
3) Multi-Player. For the last five minutes of the game, there is no limit to the number of players you can have on the field.
Add legal high sticking in that five minute period and you would have an awesome game. Yes, I said hockey sticks in a soccer game...
Doctor Thunder wrote:I can't watch more then thirty seconds of soccer without wishing I was dead. I would become a huge fan, however, if they implemented any or all of the following changes:
1) Multi-Ball. For the first five minutes of the game, there is no limit to the number of balls you can have on the field.
2) Foul Free. Each team can, once per game, call a five minute free-for-all in which no fouls may be called by the referees.
3) Multi-Player. For the last five minutes of the game, there is no limit to the number of players you can have on the field.
Add legal high sticking in that five minute period and you would have an awesome game. Yes, I said hockey sticks in a soccer game...
You guys crack me up.
BTW, every football fan hates diving, it's the worst thing in the game. I'm of the opinion that anyone who dives in a game should get at least a 3 match ban (same as a straight red card) or more, and this should be judged after the games by the FA by looking at videos. Only way to stop this horrible blight. It can be quite funny though, as this downright hillarious video proves. The music is awesome.
To be fair, the dangerous aussie animals aren't everywhere.
It's mainly crocs and jellyfish up the top end.
It's mainly sharks down south.
It's mainly snakes out in the middle bit.
The rest has a mix of the above + spiders that'll bite your face off.
The "Sydney" Funnel Web can be found from Melbourne up to Townsville (Maybe further. We don't know. The team we sent didn't report back.), but the Melbourne variety is less aggressive (docile is not an adjective applied to any of them), and the warmer the general climate, the more aggressive the little buggers are. Townsville Funnel-webs are complete psychos. Colonies of these were found in mainland china.
We have spiders that look like small, cuter versions of the seppo "Black widow" - don't let this lull you into a false sense of security. Although their fangs be small, they tend to hang around underneath outback toilet seats (where biting through multiple layers of clothing isn't an issue). They can also cross-breed with their yank cousins. The offspring are brown, are sized like their aussie parent, and bite like their yank parent. Oh, we're exporting them now, btw.
We have two kinds of snakes. Dangerous ones and deadly ones. Deadly ones tend to chase you.
The drop bear is mostly a myth. They're extinct in the coastal areas.
All this talk of dangerous aussie animals reminds me of this:
Kilkrazy wrote:Soccer is popular because it can be played nearly anywhere by nearly any number of people using nearly any equipment.
Two kids can play soccer in the street with a tin can and goalposts chalked up on the wall.
I've heard that argument many times. And it's quite true. I still don't see the appeal of the game, at all.
Still has next to no appeal to me. Oddly enough I grew up in Brooklyn & and then Staten Island NY, where we didn't have a whole lot of space to do stuff, at least where I lived - but we managed to play Baseball in the nearby parking lot.
One thing I did learn about Soccer when I was on business in the EU, is that when your in a bar with a game going on, just cheer for whoever gets a goal, even if you're not watching the game. It's safer that way.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't really see the appeal of soccer either, however the evidence shows it is hugely popular almost everywhere in the world.
If it ain't popular in America, it doesn't count! /sarcasm
Honestly I think it has more to do with a sports existing momentum in society. Or something along those lines.
My guess is that once a culture has an existing sport gain some semblance of popularity, it grows as a result of that and then continues from there. Which can have an impact on other sports having a hard time to start or catch up.
Soccer is also a game you need relatively little skill to start off with. Take Baseball, Cricket etc. Any 'ball and stick' game requires a certain level of hand to eye coordination to be much cop at. Football does not.
Rugby, American Football etc, require a certain robustness of physique. Football does not.
Essentially, anyone, anywhere, barring those with one or no legs, can have a kick around. Jumpers for goal posts and all that. Hell, at my Primary School, our Football patch used trees as Goals, side by side, sharing a common tree between the two. Did it matter the pitch was too small? Nope. Everyone could join in, as long as you could run and kick. The skills needed to be *good* at Football then eventually come, but certainly aren't needed to start!
The only sports I'd consider watching are hurling and gaelic football. Maybe rugby. If the players aren't coated in mud and risking hypothermia by the end, can it really be called a sport?
That diving video was hilarious though, especially the bit at the end.
I reckon most sports get ruined once they become professional. That's what I like about hurling and gaelic- all the lads playing have day jobs.
Well, they're games aren't they? Grown men playing kid's games and getting paid to do it... talk about arrested development. Kind of sucks the fun out of it if you take it too seriously.
Where there's life etc etc eh ?
