>>>>Why don't >>>>you try taking on the American army with a pea-shooter; >>>>you'd have better success.
>>>Your army are a bunch of wankers.
>>They work for a living
> So do male hairstylists: poofs. And besides, your uniform > is shite and your drill is sloppy. You have no discipline.
You keep telling yourself that, if it provides any consolation for the fact that the Brits can't defend themselves.
>>you sit at home after waddling down to the chip >>and betting shops.
> I'm really not that fat, considering my weight,
You fucking dummy: it's a consideration of your weight, 18 stone and climbing, that leads to your classification as a lardball. Your twin brother is only about 12 and a half stone.
> > Nope. You had it right the first time. Being an electrician, > > I know fuck-all about life.
> You said it.
You unethically edited out my analogy to Kirchoffs laws and edited in "I know fuck all about life." What was that you earlier said about your ability to debate, Jon?
>>>>>Not so. I rebuilt the carburetor on my Honda Civic >>>>>once,
>>>>You can't even spell one right, let alone service >>>>one.
>>>We spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-O-R,
>> And that's the wrong way to spell it.
>>>you spell C-A-R-B-U-R-E-T-T-O-R.
>> And that's the right way to spell it.
>The Germans spell it 'Vergaser', and that's the right >way to spell it...in German.
>Face it, yobbo: English spelling is increasingly >controlled by America. Britain is a flea on the tail >of the dog. Thanks for the help in Iraq, though.
>>>Your lot have mastered the art of extra letters in >>>words: color, neighbor, etc.
>> Are you sure about that? My 'guess' is that you lazy >> Yanks dropped the vowel instead.
>It wasn't out of laziness. It was out of a rational >recognition that the letters are completely superfluous.
>>>You can't pronounce "tomato" properly, putz.
>> ~toemartoe~ What's wrong with that?
>>><snip>
>>>>>Why don't >>>>>you try taking on the American army with a pea-shooter; >>>>>you'd have better success.
>>>>Your army are a bunch of wankers.
>>>They work for a living
>> So do male hairstylists: poofs. And besides, your uniform >> is shite and your drill is sloppy. You have no discipline.
>You keep telling yourself that, if it provides any >consolation for the fact that the Brits can't defend >themselves.
>>>you sit at home after waddling down to the chip >>>and betting shops.
>> I'm really not that fat, considering my weight,
>You fucking dummy: it's a consideration of your >weight, 18 stone and climbing, that leads to your >classification as a lardball. Your twin brother is >only about 12 and a half stone.
>You are butter.
I bet he doesn't have an ample bosom and a very small, almost ridiculous looking penis, you do!
Strange how love works, why don't you just ask him out, you never know he might say yes!
You're good for nothing else, may as well get a free blow job out of you.
--
So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate?
Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum", my father had honour and didn't shirk his responsibility to his family. He was honest and cared enough about his responsibility as a father to remain with us.
What's it like growing up with a mother who was discarded by her husband like used goods, Jon, and what was it like to be abandoned by that piece of shit just before your teens? Was it a good compromise from the constant arguments you undoubtedly listened in to every night prior to them eventually splitting up, or did you ask him to stay?
> > No. Both were > > 1.. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. > > 2.. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction > > 3.. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise > > or occurrence. > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reasons
> Excuse: a real or pretend reason or explanation.
>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute. >>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British >>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking >>and cheating the employer.
> Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with > that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
> my father had honour
We can snip all the rest, because anything that follows this blatant lie gets lost in the laughter.
>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute. >>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British >>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking >>>and cheating the employer.
>> Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with >> that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
Your mother wasn't even married to your father, or rather fathers, I think even I may have dipped my wick there at some stage, everyone else had.
--
So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate?
>>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute. >>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British >>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking >>>>and cheating the employer.
>>>Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with >>>that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
>>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
> Your mother wasn't even married to your father,
She was.
Your mother wasn't married to her brother, though. Interesting: your mum is also your aunt, and your dead drunk dad was also your uncle.
> >>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute. > >>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British > >>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking > >>>>and cheating the employer.
> >>>Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with > >>>that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
> >>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
> > Your mother wasn't even married to your father,
> She was.
But not for long, and the reason for that was because he must've been a particularly nasty piece of work and totally unfit as a parent. Either that or your mother was the nasty piece of work instead and took in a new bloke who you had to then call, "Dad". Which is nearer the truth?
>>>>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute. >>>>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British >>>>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking >>>>>>and cheating the employer.
>>>>>Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with >>>>>that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
>>>>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
>>>Your mother wasn't even married to your father,
>>She was.
> But not for long,
14 years. I was 9 when they split.
Your father/uncle and mother/aunt were never married. The state will not sanction incestuous relationships like that.
>>>>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute. >>>>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British >>>>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking >>>>>>and cheating the employer.
>>>>>Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with >>>>>that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
>>>>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
>>>Your mother wasn't even married to your father,
>>She was.
> But not for long, and the reason for that was because > he must've been a particularly nasty piece of work and > totally unfit as a parent. Either that or your mother was > the nasty piece of work instead and took in a new bloke > who you had to then call, "Dad". Which is nearer the truth?
How sure are you that Mr Nash was your biological father? Ask your mum if she ever went out with any of those virile American soldiers and airmen who were defending your muddy island from foreign invasion.
Wow, that's bad. In seriousness, it must've been an utterly shattering experience, so I shouldn't be using it to get back at you for anything really. Sorry Jon.
> >>>>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute. > >>>>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British > >>>>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking > >>>>>>and cheating the employer.
> >>>>>Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with > >>>>>that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
> >>>>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
> >>>Your mother wasn't even married to your father,
> >>She was.
> > But not for long, and the reason for that was because > > he must've been a particularly nasty piece of work and > > totally unfit as a parent. Either that or your mother was > > the nasty piece of work instead and took in a new bloke > > who you had to then call, "Dad". Which is nearer the truth?
> How sure are you that Mr Nash was your biological father? Ask your mum > if she ever went out with any of those virile American soldiers and > airmen who were defending your muddy island from foreign invasion.
Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
Still, that is all history, something you lot have to come over here to experience. None of your own. Eh?
> Wow, that's bad. In seriousness, it must've been > an utterly shattering experience, so I shouldn't be > using it to get back at you for anything really. > Sorry Jon.
I grew up thinking my siblings and I were not seriously affected by it. Only in relatively recent years have I seen how wrong I was.
My older brother and younger brother both have led thoroughly unproductive and unhappy lives. Neither has had any career success at all. My younger brother bounces from one job to another, all of them ending in a firing. He hardly has a pot to piss in. My older brother hasn't worked in at least 15 years. Younger has been married and divorced twice; older has been married, unhappily, for over 25 years (lucky for him). My sister has had ups and downs, but has been doing okay for the last 10 years; married and divorced, once. I think she's done relatively better than my brothers in part because she was too young (4) to have any idea what was going on at the time.
I have had far, far better career success than any of them, but not getting married until late 40s tells you - and me - something.
Divorce is terrible. It's far too easy. If there are kids, divorce should be enormously difficult to obtain. Unless there is hard evidence that one parent is a menace to the health and safety of the kids, the parents should stay together for the kids' sake.
BTW, your subject line is wrong. I have never felt that the world rejected me. I think that's the biggest single difference between me and my two brothers, particularly the younger. He has a definite attitude that the world owed him and didn't pay.
>>>>>>>>Your lout of a father was an uneducated, churlish brute. >>>>>>>>He embodied all the shitty qualities for which the British >>>>>>>>working class is notorious, one of the biggest being shirking >>>>>>>>and cheating the employer.
>>>>>>>Unlike your father who pissed off leaving you with >>>>>>>that harridan of a woman you called, "Mum",
>>>>>>My mother divorced my father, not the other way around.
>>>>>Your mother wasn't even married to your father,
>>>>She was.
>>>But not for long, and the reason for that was because >>>he must've been a particularly nasty piece of work and >>>totally unfit as a parent. Either that or your mother was >>>the nasty piece of work instead and took in a new bloke >>>who you had to then call, "Dad". Which is nearer the truth?
>>How sure are you that Mr Nash was your biological father? Ask your mum >>if she ever went out with any of those virile American soldiers and >>airmen who were defending your muddy island from foreign invasion.
> Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
> Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would > still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
Impossible to say for certain, but doubtlessly false. As it was, prior to our rescue of your shithole island, you were fighting them the whole time with huge helpings of our war matériel, for which you never repaid the loans. I suppose your meager assistance in the two wars against Iraq made a small dent in the accumulated interest.
Ray wrote: > Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
Yes. You should've asked for help sooner.
> Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would > still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
No, *you* would be speaking German now.
> Still, that is all history, something you lot have to come over here to > experience. None of your own. Eh?
We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate instantaneously.
> > Wow, that's bad. In seriousness, it must've been > > an utterly shattering experience, so I shouldn't be > > using it to get back at you for anything really. > > Sorry Jon.
> I grew up thinking my siblings and I were not seriously > affected by it. Only in relatively recent years have I > seen how wrong I was.
> My older brother and younger brother both have led > thoroughly unproductive and unhappy lives. Neither has > had any career success at all. My younger brother > bounces from one job to another, all of them ending in > a firing. He hardly has a pot to piss in. My older > brother hasn't worked in at least 15 years. Younger > has been married and divorced twice; older has been > married, unhappily, for over 25 years (lucky for him). > My sister has had ups and downs, but has been doing > okay for the last 10 years; married and divorced, once. > I think she's done relatively better than my brothers > in part because she was too young (4) to have any idea > what was going on at the time.
I'm quite surprised, because even though I knew you had all those brothers and a sister it never occured to me that any of them were less fortunate than yourself in some ways. In fact, I've thought for a long time that maybe you were left behind by at least one of them in academia, and I was hoping to prize it out of you to make some use of it later on.
> I have had far, far better career success than any of > them, but not getting married until late 40s tells you > - and me - something.
You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being what they are and not very fussy nevertheless probably gave you ample opportunity to marry long before you finally agreed to, so from that I can only assume you made a conscious effort to remain a bachelor. Whether this helped your studies and career is hard to confirm seeing as there are so many examples which show married men to be successful, but there's no doubt it suited you, and would probably have suited your siblings just as well too if I'm reading you correctly. It doesn't suit everyone.
> Divorce is terrible. It's far too easy. If there are > kids, divorce should be enormously difficult to obtain. > Unless there is hard evidence that one parent is a > menace to the health and safety of the kids, the > parents should stay together for the kids' sake.
If I can take you back to something I once wrote to Swamp, I think it shows I agree with you here, even though the discussion was mainly to explain my ideas on personal responsibilty. "Oh come off it, swamp. No fault divorce is a sham because it doesn't differentiate between a woman who wants to leave an abusive husband and a man who wants to leave his wife for a younger woman. The law makes no distinctions at all. No fault's primary purpose is to empower whichever party wants out, with the least possible fuss and the greatest possible speed with no questions asked. It simply isn't a fair and just law at all if it always empowers the guilty party. I'm not against divorce per se, but I'm very much against this no fault nonsense."
> BTW, your subject line is wrong. I have never felt > that the world rejected me. I think that's the biggest > single difference between me and my two brothers, > particularly the younger. He has a definite attitude > that the world owed him and didn't pay.
I don't see much wrong in that thinking if it's justified. Some people DO get a raw deal. They never get the breaks others do, and it isn't entirely their fault if they don't recognise them when they come either. Have you ever considered the odds against being born healthy in a rich country with fine universities where your rights are respected at birth? Surely, you feel you owe society something, so what's wrong when people believe society owes them?
> > Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would > > still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
> No, *you* would be speaking German now.
> > Still, that is all history, something you lot have to come over here to > > experience. None of your own. Eh?
> We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most > of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate > instantaneously.
>> >>>"Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:_Z6%a.2465$f15.249339@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>14 years. I was 9 when they split. >>> >>>Wow, that's bad. In seriousness, it must've been >>>an utterly shattering experience, so I shouldn't be >>>using it to get back at you for anything really. >>>Sorry Jon. >> >>I grew up thinking my siblings and I were not seriously >>affected by it. Only in relatively recent years have I >>seen how wrong I was. >> >>My older brother and younger brother both have led >>thoroughly unproductive and unhappy lives. Neither has >>had any career success at all. My younger brother >>bounces from one job to another, all of them ending in >>a firing. He hardly has a pot to piss in. My older >>brother hasn't worked in at least 15 years. Younger >>has been married and divorced twice; older has been >>married, unhappily, for over 25 years (lucky for him). >> My sister has had ups and downs, but has been doing >>okay for the last 10 years; married and divorced, once. >> I think she's done relatively better than my brothers >>in part because she was too young (4) to have any idea >>what was going on at the time. >> > > I'm quite surprised, because even though I knew > you had all those brothers and a sister it never > occured to me that any of them were less fortunate > than yourself in some ways. In fact, I've thought for > a long time that maybe you were left behind by at > least one of them in academia, and I was hoping to > prize it out of you to make some use of it later on.
It's exactly the other way around. I'm the only one who completed university. My older brother probably could have done, but began to skid. I doubt my younger brother ever had the right mental makeup for it. My sister never was interested.
> > >>I have had far, far better career success than any of >>them, but not getting married until late 40s tells you >>- and me - something. >> > > You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being > what they are and not very fussy nevertheless probably > gave you ample opportunity to marry long before you > finally agreed to, so from that I can only assume you > made a conscious effort to remain a bachelor.
No; that's not it.
> Whether this helped your studies and career is hard to > confirm seeing as there are so many examples which show > married men to be successful, but there's no doubt it > suited you, and would probably have suited your > siblings just as well too if I'm reading you correctly. > It doesn't suit everyone. > > >>Divorce is terrible. It's far too easy. If there are >>kids, divorce should be enormously difficult to obtain. >> Unless there is hard evidence that one parent is a >>menace to the health and safety of the kids, the >>parents should stay together for the kids' sake. >> > > If I can take you back to something I once wrote to > Swamp, I think it shows I agree with you here, even > though the discussion was mainly to explain my ideas > on personal responsibilty. > "Oh come off it, swamp. No fault divorce is a sham > because it doesn't differentiate between a woman who > wants to leave an abusive husband and a man who > wants to leave his wife for a younger woman. The law > makes no distinctions at all. No fault's primary purpose > is to empower whichever party wants out, with the least > possible fuss and the greatest possible speed with no > questions asked. It simply isn't a fair and just law at all > if it always empowers the guilty party. I'm not against > divorce per se, but I'm very much against this no fault > nonsense." > > >>BTW, your subject line is wrong. I have never felt >>that the world rejected me. I think that's the biggest >>single difference between me and my two brothers, >>particularly the younger. He has a definite attitude >>that the world owed him and didn't pay. >> > > I don't see much wrong in that thinking if it's justified.
It isn't. It probably never is, but certainly not in his case. He had an emotionally hard time of it due to the divorce, but that's hardly the *world's* fault. In terms of material advantages and disadvantages, he had exactly the same as I had.
> Some people DO get a raw deal. They never get the > breaks others do, and it isn't entirely their fault if they > don't recognise them when they come either.
Sounds as if you're making the case for "accident".
> Have you > ever considered the odds against being born healthy in > a rich country with fine universities where your rights > are respected at birth?
Yes.
> Surely, you feel you owe society something,
Why? The people who worked hard and did the right thing weren't doing it for others, they were doing it for themselves (and families). It's Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. You really ought to read about Smith, even if you can't read Smith himself.
> so what's wrong when people believe society owes them?
1. They're wrong, usually. 2. Society usually has already provided them with something, and they pissed it away.
>>>Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
>>Yes. You should've asked for help sooner.
>>>Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would >>>still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
>>No, *you* would be speaking German now.
>>>Still, that is all history, something you lot have to come over here to >>>experience. None of your own. Eh?
>>We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most >>of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate >>instantaneously.
> Bell was born in Scotland, dolt.
That's *one* technological innovation, which has been improved upon by real Americans (do you even launch your own communications satellites?). Now who's responsible for technologies related to the personal computer? Popular software? TC/PIP? Arpanet and internet? Satellites? Wireless? Etc.
>>>> Would that be the 1939-45 World War? or in your case the 1941-45 War.
>>> Yes. You should've asked for help sooner.
>>>> Had the 'Nips' not made the mistake of bombing 'Pearl Harbour' we would >>>> still have been fighting the 'Krouts' single handed.
>>> No, *you* would be speaking German now.
>>>> Still, that is all history, something you lot have to come over here to >>>> experience. None of your own. Eh?
>>> We have enough of our own history: 1776, 1812, etc., not to mention most >>> of the technological innovations which allow you and me to communicate >>> instantaneously.
>> Bell was born in Scotland, dolt.
> That's *one* technological innovation, which has been improved upon by > real Americans (do you even launch your own communications satellites?).
Bell did his work in America, where individual initiative and effort traditionally have been rewarded rather than ridiculed. The brain drain has been going on a long time.
> Now who's responsible for technologies related to the personal computer? > Popular software? TC/PIP? Arpanet and internet?
Careful. The WWW was invented in Switzerland. Not by anyone named Gore.
|
