Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.
They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+
UKIP ran on a hard brexit platform, how many seats did they get ?
Also, the Lib Dems got 7.4% of the total vote but only got 1.8% of the seats. Using number of seats as opposed to % vote share to support the idea that the UK population is anti-remain is not a very good measure of the actual numbers of people who voted for the party which supported remaining. If the results were proportionate then the LDs would have got 48 seats, a not insignificant chunk of Parliament.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/07 14:02:03
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.
They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+
UKIP ran on a hard brexit platform, how many seats did they get ?
They got zero.
I don't deny that the extremists of both sides of the argument were run out of town in the last election, but the general consensus from the British public is that Brexit is happening.
I'm not blaming anybody on dakka, but it frustrates me to see people in the media bang on about staying in the EU, when they've had 12 months to get their vision across for Britain's future.
There is a Left-wing, post-Brexit future for Britain if people put across a credible plan for it. Brexit doesn't have to be a right-wing future.
Remain input, in a constructive way, is always welcome in my book, but we have too much sniping from the sidelines.
. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.
They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+
UKIP ran on a hard brexit platform, how many seats did they get ?
Also, the Lib Dems got 7.4% of the total vote but only got 1.8% of the seats. Using number of seats as opposed to % vote share to support the idea that the UK population is anti-remain is not a very good measure of the actual numbers of people who voted for the party which supported remaining.
If the results were proportionate then the LDs would have got 48 seats, a not insignificant chunk of Parliament.
You're forgetting that the British people were asked in a referendum about voting reform. Their decision was to send it packing.
Brexit won. So rather than the remainers trying to stop it from happening, they should embrace it and make sure that we get the best deal from it.
That's exactly the problem. Now that Brexit "won", all counter arguments are unwelcome.
Why should we embrace it and make sure we get the best deal? "Brexit" and "best deal" are completely at odds with each other; any "good deal" is "as far away from Brexit as possible".
Normally, if we made a bad decision, it's still valid to discuss it and potentially undo it. Just because Brexit "won", doesn't mean the other half of us need to suddenly start thinking it's a good idea.
Half of us thought it was a good idea, why aren't that trying to make it work?
In my book there's nothing wrong with input from the 48%
But there's a big difference between constructive criticism and blatant attempt to keep us in the EU by the back door.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/07 14:26:38
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
If you don't want to be kept in the EU by the back door, then you're likely to disregard almost everything coming from Remain.
It's like asking us for advice on the best way to shoot yourself in the foot. "don't" obviously not being a suitable answer. Using a BB gun looks a lot like "don't" by the back door.
I'd also disagree that we decided to send the EU packing. We don't know what we decided (question was too vague) and we also didn't get any statistically significant decision. But we've wasted dozens of pages on that already.
Herzlos wrote: If you don't want to be kept in the EU by the back door, then you're likely to disregard almost everything coming from Remain.
It's like asking us for advice on the best way to shoot yourself in the foot. "don't" obviously not being a suitable answer. Using a BB gun looks a lot like "don't" by the back door.
I'd also disagree that we decided to send the EU packing. We don't know what we decided (question was too vague) and we also didn't get any statistically significant decision. But we've wasted dozens of pages on that already.
To be fair to the EU, and I don't like being fair to the EU, they have been pretty consistent on the 4 freedoms.
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement. Never going to happen, and any continuation of freedom of movement is likely to result in Farage coming out of retirement.
A clean break is probably best for all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This video pretty much sums up the public mood to immigration these days:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/07 14:39:38
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement.
No, we don't. That particular argument is rooted firmly in the Leave side and came about during the referendum as part of the "have cake and eat it, too" narrative.
What people still arguing for remaining in the single market think is that membership of the single market is extremely important for the UK economy and worth the "price" of freedom of movement.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement.
No, we don't. That particular argument is rooted firmly in the Leave side and came about during the referendum as part of the "have cake and eat it, too" narrative.
What people still arguing for remaining in the single market think is that membership of the single market is extremely important for the UK economy and worth the "price" of freedom of movement.
The political cost and the economic cost are miles apart from each other.
IMO, we can only have one, not both.
Economy or immigration - it's as simple as that.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement.
No, we don't. That particular argument is rooted firmly in the Leave side and came about during the referendum as part of the "have cake and eat it, too" narrative.
What people still arguing for remaining in the single market think is that membership of the single market is extremely important for the UK economy and worth the "price" of freedom of movement.
The political cost and the economic cost are miles apart from each other.
IMO, we can only have one, not both.
Economy or immigration - it's as simple as that.
Immigration is irrevocably tied to the economy. Our economy relies on immigration.
All that will happen if we leave the single market is loss of trade income whilst still having to take in immigrants to fuel our now weaker economy.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement. Never going to happen, and any continuation of freedom of movement is likely to result in Farage coming out of retirement.
I think you've got that backwards - all of the Leavers seem to think we can have the single market access without the movement (or membership fees), and all the Remainers are pointing out that that's just not going to happen. The Remainer view (in as much as there is one) is that we need single market access much more than we need to get rid of freedom of movement, because...
Immigration is holding up the economy. We need them to bring in money and offset the aging population leaving the workforce.
Even the Leave side seem to have accepted in the most part that we still need immigration but just want to control it somehow.
If we don't get a good trade deal (ideally tariff and customs free), we're screwed. If we can't get immigrants in, we're screwed.
There's already proposals for 2-year work VISA for (IIRC) under 30's, to encourage exactly what everyone claims the problem with migrants is (people coming here temporarily, taking a job, saving all their money and taking it home, rather than investing it back in the economy). If they've only got 2 year VISAs there's no point buying anything they can't take home with them in 24 months (house, nice furniture, nice car, etc), minimal point getting to know the locals or culture or language. Even if they can renew, they're always going to be wary about having to leave again.
What we actually want is to bring over talented young people, and turn them British, so that they join the economy properly and contribute (economically and culturally).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/07 17:06:49
There's nothing wrong with short term immigrants. For example, the soft fruit part of the UK's agricultural sector is fairly dependent on mobile European labour for seasonal planting and picking. UK agriculture is already suffering recruitment problems because the weakness of the GBP makes working here less attractive to the eastern European mobile workforce. This is before the visa related problems that will occur after Brexit.
As for the idea that these people take money out of the country, that's not possible because they are paid in GBP and can only spend that on British stuff or else buying a foreign currency. The UK being (at the moment, though this is likely to change after Brexit) one of the world's leading providers of foreign exchange services, even this is to our benefit. The City of London is particularly strong in the Euro trade, for now.
It's yet another example of the obvious possible multiple disadvantages of Leave, where there isn't anything substantial to offset it if things really do go down the tubes.
Herzlos, you're forgetting that robots and automation is on the way.
An old population? Cheap labour for industry?
Will soon be a distant memory, consigned to the history books like the musket, fax machines, and black and white TV, as robots take on more and more work.
We can steal a march on the EU by investing in the future, and plan ahead for the social problems of people having no jobs e.g citizens' income.
You're talking about yesterday's problems. I'm talking about tomorrow's opportunities.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement. Never going to happen, and any continuation of freedom of movement is likely to result in Farage coming out of retirement.
I think you've got that backwards - all of the Leavers seem to think we can have the single market access without the movement (or membership fees), and all the Remainers are pointing out that that's just not going to happen. The Remainer view (in as much as there is one) is that we need single market access much more than we need to get rid of freedom of movement, because...
I went over some of the Leave camp claims for seamless and easy single market access in case Leave won. Meanwhile this is what the official remain campaign was saying:
The original leaflet even bolded the relevant parts for this discussion.
Will soon be a distant memory, consigned to the history books like the musket, fax machines, and black and white TV, as robots take on more and more work.
We can steal a march on the EU by investing in the future, and plan ahead for the social problems of people having no jobs e.g citizens' income.
You're talking about yesterday's problems. I'm talking about tomorrow's opportunities.
Yesterdays problems are still todays problems if you didn't fix them yesterday.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall, as though I'm the only person here with a bit common sense, and dare I say, vision
Everybody is banging on about electric cars being the future. Some people are banging on about lack of charging points in the UK.
Am I the only person here to see the common sense solution that is needed?
Get bloody building!
Replace our current petrol stations with the new tech that's needed, and build a network of charging points from Land's End to John O'Groats.
That is the kind of infastructure building that will reboot the UK's economy
Seriously, I feel like launching a one man invasion of 10 Downing street and banging some heads together.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Future War Cultist wrote: You'll need to look at our power supply first. I doubt it could handle a massive increase in use of electrical vehicles in its current state.
But then we can't build new power plants without expertise from other countries because we let our industries wither away as the power distribution and generation was privatised.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.
They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+
UKIP ran on a hard brexit platform, how many seats did they get ?
Also, the Lib Dems got 7.4% of the total vote but only got 1.8% of the seats. Using number of seats as opposed to % vote share to support the idea that the UK population is anti-remain is not a very good measure of the actual numbers of people who voted for the party which supported remaining.
If the results were proportionate then the LDs would have got 48 seats, a not insignificant chunk of Parliament.
The surveys also show that the people supporting remain voted in the majority for Labour and the Leave for Conservative. This wasn't because they suddenly switched to supporting Leave but more that they wanted to curb May's and the Tories excesses. I did this. I am firmly in the Remain camp but I voted Labour as they had the best chance of removing the incumbent Tory. I would in a PR system vote for LD or Greens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall, as though I'm the only person here with a bit common sense, and dare I say, vision
Everybody is banging on about electric cars being the future. Some people are banging on about lack of charging points in the UK.
Am I the only person here to see the common sense solution that is needed?
Get bloody building!
Replace our current petrol stations with the new tech that's needed, and build a network of charging points from Land's End to John O'Groats.
That is the kind of infastructure building that will reboot the UK's economy
Really how? How is replacing one set of cars with another going to reboot the economy?
Also the we are leaving the organisation need to do this is also being left, Euratom. Here's a insight into the impacts.
It's more likely that we will have a booming industry in horses and carts....
It's all very well saying we push forward to a new era, but that's just the same as any other slogan. All words and no substance. This isn't the steam age when we can operate in isolation by inventing relatively simple industries. Those that want to do this and close doors are likely going to be rapidly left behind not be at the forefront of anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/07 18:51:38
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Whirlwind, you're forgetting that this nation invented most inventions and most of the modern world.
Did you ever watch that BBC4 documentary about Concorde? Yeah, the French were there, but pre-EU, you had people inventing one of the greatest all time inventions of aviation.
And they did it with slide rules and pen and paper.
That's the calibre of men and women this country breeds.
Sure, they'll be problems and detail, but if we roll up our sleeves and get stuck in, then history shows we can overcome nearly anything.
I refuse to believe that the British people are incapable of building a better future for this great nation.
The naysayers may nay, but history shall prove me right.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Britain doesn't have a monopoly on inventions anymore. There are universities and research labs round the world making advances every day. We've largely moved on from rich men in sheds being able to invent something using domestic tools. The world has moved on a lot since Darwin, Brunel and Babbage.
I suspect the UK bias in inventing is overstated as well. There's lots of major inventions or inventors that weren't British and have may been more important to civilisation. Calculus & numeracy came from Greece / Middle East, Periodic is Russian. Edison & Tesla were American, Einstein was German. Marie Curie was Polish. Pythagoras, Aristotle, Archimedes, and so on.
I'm not saying that the UK is a barren wasteground when it comes to inventions, but the rest of the world has caught up and I think a lot of Brexiteers overestimate our position on the world stage.
Will soon be a distant memory, consigned to the history books like the musket, fax machines, and black and white TV, as robots take on more and more work.
There are only so many jobs robots will be able to do for practical / physiological reasons, and that could still take a while. Self driving taxi fleets will be a thing in maybe 30+ years, but will we have robot hairdressers? Nurses? Cops? Plumbers? Robot repairmen?
These huge fleets of robots are still going to need maintenance and people will resist until they have no option.
Anyway, we're still a long way away from much more automation - a lot of the easy stuff has been done and the hard stuff isn't quite solvable yet.
We're just entering a new industrial revolution, but that's largely based in and around factories as well.
We can steal a march on the EU by investing in the future, and plan ahead for the social problems of people having no jobs e.g citizens' income.
But will we? One of the Scandinavian countries is already trialing universal basic income. What are we doing?
You're talking about yesterday's problems. I'm talking about tomorrow's opportunities.
Yesterdays problems are still going to be affecting us for decades, so we really need to sort them. Tomorrow will come with a whole new set of problems.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/08/07 20:05:03
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whirlwind, you're forgetting that this nation invented most inventions and most of the modern world.
I've been wondering what's going on lately but I think I get it now; you've decided to become a full time parody account.
Parody?
From the top of my head, 6 of the most famous inventions in human history came from Britain:
1. TV
2.RADAR
3.The Industrial Revolution (which changed the world forever)
4. Association football (soccer) the world's most popular sport.
5. The telephone
6. and finally, the world wide web...
Is there a man or woman on dakkadakka, who will step forward, and argue, with a straight face, that none of these inventions changed human history?
They wouldn't dare, because they'd be laughed out of town.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Will soon be a distant memory, consigned to the history books like the musket, fax machines, and black and white TV, as robots take on more and more work.
There are only so many jobs robots will be able to do for practical / physiological reasons, and that could still take a while. Self driving taxi fleets will be a thing in maybe 30+ years, but will we have robot hairdressers? Nurses? Cops? Plumbers? Robot repairmen?
These huge fleets of robots are still going to need maintenance and people will resist until they have no option.
Anyway, we're still a long way away from much more automation - a lot of the easy stuff has been done and the hard stuff isn't quite solvable yet.
We're just entering a new industrial revolution, but that's largely based in and around factories as well.
Actually we are on the cusp of a revolution in automation. AI and automation of decision making is just about to make a lot of people redundant. Over the next 20 years we can expect to see a lot of clerical, admin and service delivery roles (including things like driving) disappear. Vocational services jobs like plumbers and hairdressers will remain, but the march towards more automation is going to speed up as companies realise the potential and start investing.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Important yes, world changing, yes. Most significant? No.
They aren't radiation, electricity, or most of the fundamental understandings that lead us there.
I'm not saying we don't invent anything, but the world doesn't rely on us anymore.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whirlwind, you're forgetting that this nation invented most inventions and most of the modern world.
I've been wondering what's going on lately but I think I get it now; you've decided to become a full time parody account.
Parody?
From the top of my head, 6 of the most famous inventions in human history came from Britain:
1. TV
2.RADAR
3.The Industrial Revolution (which changed the world forever)
4. Association football (soccer) the world's most popular sport.
5. The telephone
6. and finally, the world wide web...
Is there a man or woman on dakkadakka, who will step forward, and argue, with a straight face, that none of these inventions changed human history?
They wouldn't dare, because they'd be laughed out of town.
But then lots of others changed the face of history too. Just picking and choosing a random selection of what we did in the past does in no way imply that the future we will be anywhere near the forefront of inventions. Most these days are not designed by tinkerers in the backyard but from multinational organisations working towards a common goal. You have a strange perception about how things are invented for the most part these days.
You last example is a case in point. It was first thought up by an English scientist, whilst working in Switzerland, for CERN managed by the European Organization for Nuclear Research...This is not just one persons invention.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
The boom in automation concerns me, I know what parts of the country look like when your industry is wound up, it destroys livlihoods and communities, and nothing has replaced them. Unemployment resulting from automation will be a big problem, and we have a growing population. My job will be among the last to be automated, if ever, many are in danger of disappearing in the next 20 years.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whirlwind, you're forgetting that this nation invented most inventions and most of the modern world.
I've been wondering what's going on lately but I think I get it now; you've decided to become a full time parody account.
Parody?
From the top of my head, 6 of the most famous inventions in human history came from Britain:
1. TV
2.RADAR
3.The Industrial Revolution (which changed the world forever)
4. Association football (soccer) the world's most popular sport.
5. The telephone
6. and finally, the world wide web...
Is there a man or woman on dakkadakka, who will step forward, and argue, with a straight face, that none of these inventions changed human history?
They wouldn't dare, because they'd be laughed out of town.
1. Invented in multiple places and depend on what you count as "inventing TV". The first commercial TV station was in the USA, the first practical demonstration that something like TV was possible was in Paris, and Baird's demonstrations were in the UK.
2. Hertz showed that radio waves could be reflected from solid objects in the lave 19th century. A German inventor got both a German and British patent for a working radar in 1904.
3. The Industrial Revolution is not an invention. Seriously, I shouldn't have to tell you this.
4. China had you beat mate.
5. Bell was American, and even then who actually invented the telephone first might as well be flamebait at this point considering how hotly contested it is.
6. ARPANET says hi.
In conclusion, you got one out of six right, and that's the one that isn't actually an invention. So yes, parody.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Herzlos wrote: There are only so many jobs robots will be able to do for practical / physiological reasons, and that could still take a while. Self driving taxi fleets will be a thing in maybe 30+ years, but will we have robot hairdressers? Nurses? Cops? Plumbers? Robot repairmen?
1. Invented in multiple places and depend on what you count as "inventing TV". The first commercial TV station was in the USA, the first practical demonstration that something like TV was possible was in Paris, and Baird's demonstrations were in the UK.
2. Hertz showed that radio waves could be reflected from solid objects in the lave 19th century. A German inventor got both a German and British patent for a working radar in 1904.
3. The Industrial Revolution is not an invention. Seriously, I shouldn't have to tell you this.
4. China had you beat mate.
5. Bell was American, and even then who actually invented the telephone first might as well be flamebait at this point considering how hotly contested it is.
6. ARPANET says hi.
In conclusion, you got one out of six right, and that's the one that isn't actually an invention. So yes, parody.
1.
2.
3. Seriously??? I suppose the French revolution was a minor scuffle.
4. China? Utter hogwash. Did the Chinese codify the rules of soccer? Host the world's first international football game, and create the first modern football leagues?
5. You contest, we've confirmed.
6. I surrender!
I need to lie down.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Look, the industrial revolution isn't a specific invention. It's a transitional time period. But it started in the U.K., and it permanently changed the world. So DINLT has a point, even if he didn't express it correct exactly.
EDIT: Not having a go at you DINLT. I'm actually trying to back you up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/07 23:19:34
1. Invented in multiple places and depend on what you count as "inventing TV". The first commercial TV station was in the USA, the first practical demonstration that something like TV was possible was in Paris, and Baird's demonstrations were in the UK.
2. Hertz showed that radio waves could be reflected from solid objects in the lave 19th century. A German inventor got both a German and British patent for a working radar in 1904.
3. The Industrial Revolution is not an invention. Seriously, I shouldn't have to tell you this.
4. China had you beat mate.
5. Bell was American, and even then who actually invented the telephone first might as well be flamebait at this point considering how hotly contested it is.
6. ARPANET says hi.
In conclusion, you got one out of six right, and that's the one that isn't actually an invention. So yes, parody.
1.
2.
3. Seriously??? I suppose the French revolution was a minor scuffle.
4. China? Utter hogwash. Did the Chinese codify the rules of soccer? Host the world's first international football game, and create the first modern football leagues?
5. You contest, we've confirmed.
6. I surrender!
I need to lie down.
So you concede that you were wrong then, seeing as you're not even trying to defend your statements?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
