Looking for a friend?

Fred J. McCall wrote:

gibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
[snip]

:The USA made a big mistake when it supported the Viet Cong communist
:terrorists against the French, that much is certain.
:

What are you smoking? Put down the crack pipe and pick up a history
book.

That's where I got it from - didn't you know that your nation funded the
Viet Cong communist terrorists against your French allies? It's common
knowledge - not at all hidden, but I don't suppose they teach you that
side of your nation's history in US schools, do they?

And then the USA ended up involved in that very same war in SE Asia that
it had started, and found that it had to fight the communist terrrorists
that it had been funding some years previously. And lost.

I think the person who needs to find himself a history book is you.

The USA funded an awful lot of left-wing terrorists after WWII,
including the Provisional IRA (revolutionary socialists as it happens)
who were targetting me, sort of - well, I lived in London from the late
60s (I was born about when the recent `troubles' started) to the mid
1980s.

I note that you've ignored all my other points and made no comment aside
from `you're wrong', coupled with some witless insults.

You really do need to get some education, you know?

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address:
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Fred J. McCall wrote:

gibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: gibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
: :
: :P.S. The anti-American comments only appear when there are arrogant
: :ignorant Yanks around who need it explained to them that their country
: :is a despicable despoiler that's been making the world a worse place for
: :everyone over the last 60 years at least.
: :
:
: How's your German?
:
:Thanks to British manpower[1] and British money[2] and British industry,
:the German threat of British invasion was seen off a long time before
:the USA got involved in the Second World War. We didn't need any help
:in stopping the Germans invading us...
:

Of course you didn't.

snicker

Britain had no help. Britain did in fact stand alone. Britain did in
fact prevail.

Just read the history books.

And all you can do is snicker at the brave men who fought and died to
achieve this. You do deserve a punch in the face for that lack of
respect for the heros who saved us.

:
:Thanks to us, the Germans never got round to invading the USA (they were
:working on the tech), as they would have done if they'd got Britain (and
:hence all of Europe and the USSR), thus sparing you from the fate of
:speaking that language. We saw them off without the help of the USA.
:

Of course you did.

Britain did - all alone, despite your snickers. It's all in the history
books. All you have to do is read the facts - but all you can do is...

snicker

....snicker. You're snickering at the war dead, and at the war heros who
didn't die in action.

A lack of respect like that is very dangerous to express around people
like me. I'm not violent, but you're likely to get punched by someone
if you express disrespectful notions like that in person.

Let me get this straight. You think a bankrupted, disarmed, and
demoralized Britain put paid to a German invasion across the Channel
but think they could have made it across the Atlantic and invaded
HERE?

Erm, what? Britain put paid to a German invasion across the channel -
that is a historical fact. Britain was not demoralised at any point
during that war. Britain was heavily armed all through the war.
Britain was - by 1945 - nearly bankrupt, but was not in that state
during 1939-1941.

So I've no idea what you're on about.

Of course they could.

snicker

I see you're a typical ignorant arrogant Yank who isn't interested in
understanding anything but just wants to belittle and mock others to
make yourself feel big and strong. But I'm going to explain things
anyway on the off chance that you're capable of reading and
understanding words grouped into paragraphs - although on the evidence
so far, that is beyond your educational attainments.

If Germany had taken Britain, then it would have succceeding in taking
the USSR - no real question about that. Then *NOTHING* could have
stopped the Nazis taking the USA. Nothing at all. Look at the map:
think about Germany with all the resources of Europe, the USSR, and the
British empire behind it. The USA would have stood no chance at all.
Comparatively speaking, the USA would have had no naval force to compare
to what would have been ranged against it, no air force, and no
soldiers. Your nation simply couldn't possibly have stood against what
would have been ranged against it: it didn't have the required armament,
and didn't have the production ability to create it. Yes, I do mean the
USA - you don't seem to understand quite how industrialised Europe and
the USSR were back then.

It was part of the plan, you know. The Germans and Japs had agreed to
divide the world into two: Germany running half, the Japs the other
half.

:
:You seem to forget that back then, Britain was a very serious military
ower:
:

That's why you got your asses kicked so badly in France and were
reduced to drilling Home Defense with wooden rifles, right?

Oh yes - and then we saw off the invasion threat. That's how much of a
serious military power we we we could suffer a colossal defeat like
that, and *still prevail in the end* - without any outside help.

History shows that is what in fact happened - that's how deadly we were!

Britain lost very few men in France. Very few indeed. We `got our
asses kicked' in France because our allies, the French, had decided not
to bother fighting very hard to defend their own nation against foreign
aggression (can you say `cheese eating surrender monkeys'?). So because
they weren't fighting hard to defend their own nation, and since
Britain's never been one for maintaining much in the way of a standing
army, our people had to leave.

The RAF and the RN made sure that the people got home (along with
hundreds of civilian boats and ships). The weapons didn't get home -
aside from rifles. That was a problem, but they got almost all the men
home. British industry then went ape-**** to replace all the lost
weaponry - we had a lot of industrial production back then, you see.

Germany took all of Europe pretty much including France, and then
prepared to invade Britain. What happened was that the all-powereful
Luftwaffe and the rather silly Regia Aeronautica threw their might at
the RAF to crush it utterly as they had crushed all other European air
forces. They hit the RAF and bounced. British technology (radar,
Merlin engines, all that), British engineering, British manufacturing
proved more than a match for the best Germany and Italy had to offer -
we had unquestionably the best warplanes in the world at the time, not
to mention the largest and best equipped navy and the most technically
advanced military electronics. Not to mention lots of very very clever
people coming up with all sorts of clever dirty tricks to scupper any
cunning plans the Germans were trying - oh, the Germans *really* hated
that sort of stuff, they really did! `Not fair!' seemed to be the
general attitude.

Stuka dive bombers had terrorised Europe and carved a fearsome
reputation for themselves with their pin-point accurate destructive
abilities. They came to England and were slaughtered. The Bf110
twin-engined fighter that had given Polish armed Poles such a hard time
found that when the Poles were flying Hurricanes, the boot was on the
other foot. Quite a lot of the Luftwaffe was simply incapable of
surviving over Britain.

The Luftwaffe wasn't up to it, and the German navy was a joke compared
to the RN. The Germans tried to Blitzkrieg Britain as they had done
everywhere else - and we beat 'em without any help at all. Standing
alone against Nazi Germany - no help from the USA, none from the USSR:
we stood firm and stood alone and we prevailed. Possibly the nation's
finest hour - we won! Who deserves the thanks? Well, I expect you've
heard Churchill's famous speech on the subject (although the famous
recording that's played was acually done by an actor).

And when the Battle of Britain had been won, Britain took the fight to
Europe with commando raids that never let up, bombing raids that ended
up turning entire cities into rubble, and so on. Britain fought and
held them back - but couldn't have invaded Europe without assistance.
All Britain could have done was bomb it to rubble - which is what would
have happened without US assistance. Germany would have lost in the
long run without US assistance given the USSR coming in from the East,
but Europe would most likely have ended up as all part of the USSR and
in a much worse state than what we actually had in 1945.

snicker

[Remaining lunacy elided]

Lunacy, eh?

I see that you've got no responses to most of my points beyond mindless
insults - see, I'm right about all of it, aren't I? Most of what I
write, you have no answer to at all: you know I'm right. And where you
do try to counter what I say, you get everything completely wrong and
can do nothing but snicker over your own ignorance.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address:
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

slunky wrote:

_/ Rowland McDonnell wrote \_
sigh Thank the *nation* - I have thanked the nation of the USA for
its efforts - you lot seem to be touchy about that; how about some
acknowledgement from you bleedin' Yanks of what my nation did for your
nation?

So why should anyone thank your "*nation*" to you?

Not to me: but you should acknowledge the sacrifice that was made. We
honour our war dead from all wars. 11am on 11/11 - we remember them,
every year. All those who fought - not just the British war dead, but
all those who fought on our side.

And if you mock *that* - well, I'm a peaceful man. I have no ability in
applied violence *at all*. But if you should dare mock Remembrance Day,
I shall break your nose if I ever see you.

And if anyone reading that wants to point out that it's a criminal act
to make such threats that renders me liable to arrest and prosecution,
I'll say `Yeah? So what?'.

You demand thanks for the efforts made by your nation - so how about
returning the favour and thanking those who helped your nation?

You're nothing but a hypocrite, aren't you? A hypocrite with no respect
for anything. You disgust me - and if the brave men who came from the
USA to help us in 1917 and 1941 heard you, they'd be disgusted by you
too.

You are a revolting specimen.

Again, you didn't
fight in any war. So why are you so bent out of shape over it?

The reason I say that you should thank my nation is that you lot insist
that I thank your nation for what your ancestors did many decades ago,
despite the fact that the USA has spent the last 60 years ****ing over
the rest of the world instead of helping it.

Riddle me this, if you can: how come Yanks get really upset when they
don't get thanked for what their nation did during the two world wars,
but won't give thanks to anyone else for help rendered to the USA?

You should thank my nation beacuse your lot insist that everyone else
thanks your nation.

It's just a matter of common courtesy, really.

[1] One was in the army *before* the war started - he saw the whole
thing from start to finish. The other joined the navy and worked with
the midget subs. Brave, decent men, like millions of others. Like the
Yanks who helped us out then too. Not like you. You're scum.

and you don't know what it means to "get over it", and that the past is
the past and nobody has to thank you for anything because you haven't
done jack **** for anybody yourself except give me a few laughs. So
stick with your nationalist mindset, but your great nation doesn't help
the fact that you're a worthless individual.

Mmm!

And have you looked in a mirror lately?

Rowland.
(who has maintained his sense of humour throughout this[1])

[1] Except that I'm deadly serious about honouring the war dead. I
don't joke about that.

--
Remove the animal for email address:
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

jordy wrote:

(Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

I'm not aware that anyone's objected to the Isle of Wight on such
grounds.

that was a very good concert...

Which one?

Leonard Cohen, Kris Kristofferson,
Janis Joplin, Joni Mitchell, Jimi Hendrix, Emerson Lake and Palmer,
the Doors, Donovan, Joan Baez etc... all were there... It's a shame
there wasn't more footage included in the movie...

Hawkwind was outside the gates.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address:
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Rhiannon wrote:

"BoredToTears" wrote;

[=snip]

Just remember, it's "leaves".

Laugh! That one was a laugh out loud-er.

Hardly anyone outside Canada and Russia cares or knows about ice hockey,
surely? The standard English word for `leaf' in the plural form is
`leaves'. If there is an ice hockey team calling itself `Maple Leafs',
one has to ask the question `How did that happen?'

It is of course ludicrous to expect anyone from outside Canada to know
that there is this one correct use of `leafs' like that - any normal
English speaker identifies that as a mistake. And since this is the
case, it is rude and boorish to mock someone for being unaware of that
spelling.

I find it hard to believe that all that many Canadians are as rude as
you - but who knows? Maybe the country is going to the dogs.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address:
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

_/ Rowland McDonnell wrote \_
And if you mock *that* - well, I'm a peaceful man. I have no ability in
applied violence *at all*. But if you should dare mock Remembrance Day,
I shall break your nose if I ever see you.

And if anyone reading that wants to point out that it's a criminal act
to make such threats that renders me liable to arrest and prosecution,
I'll say `Yeah? So what?'.

Yea, I'd like to see you try and break my nose.

You demand thanks for the efforts made by your nation - so how about
returning the favour and thanking those who helped your nation?

When have I demanded anything like that? Oh yea, you're generalizing
about Americans again. How pathetic.

You're nothing but a hypocrite, aren't you? A hypocrite with no respect
for anything. You disgust me - and if the brave men who came from the
USA to help us in 1917 and 1941 heard you, they'd be disgusted by you
too.

You are a revolting specimen.

How am I a hypocrite? Give me an example of MY hypocricy? I predict
you'll rant about something somebody else may have done or something
that may have just imagined again.

The reason I say that you should thank my nation is that you lot insist
that I thank your nation for what your ancestors did many decades ago,
despite the fact that the USA has spent the last 60 years ****ing over
the rest of the world instead of helping it.

When have I insisted that? You really are confused aren't you? You can't
tell one individual from another!

Riddle me this, if you can: how come Yanks get really upset when they
don't get thanked for what their nation did during the two world wars,
but won't give thanks to anyone else for help rendered to the USA?

Who says they don't? Oh I see, now you're assuming things to keep you
****ed off. You must really enjoy anger and bickering to have to make
stuff up to keep it going.

You should thank my nation beacuse your lot insist that everyone else
thanks your nation.

It's just a matter of common courtesy, really.

Who's my "lot", and why should I be their spokesman? I met a limey once
who spilled his drink on me in a bar. I demand you apoligize for your
nation!

and you don't know what it means to "get over it", and that the past is
the past and nobody has to thank you for anything because you haven't
done jack **** for anybody yourself except give me a few laughs. So
stick with your nationalist mindset, but your great nation doesn't help
the fact that you're a worthless individual.

Mmm!

And have you looked in a mirror lately?

and now you're just disregarding what I said. What a sad little man. No
accomplishments for himself so he tries to piggyback on grandpa and
company to feed his self-inflated ego. You really are pathetic.

--
-slunky

_/ Rowland McDonnell wrote \_
I find it hard to believe that all that many Canadians are as rude as
you - but who knows? Maybe the country is going to the dogs.

You sure do love lumping people together based on what part of the
world they live in.

--
-slunky

"Rowland McDonnell" wrote in message
...
Rhiannon wrote:

"BoredToTears" wrote;

[=snip]

Just remember, it's "leaves".

Laugh! That one was a laugh out loud-er.

Hardly anyone outside Canada and Russia cares or knows about ice hockey,
surely?

To quote you, "Ah reckin you know **** about the world."

The standard English word for `leaf' in the plural form is
`leaves'.

No **** Sherlock.

If there is an ice hockey team calling itself `Maple Leafs',
one has to ask the question `How did that happen?'

Uh, no, interestingly enough, only *you* asked the question.

It is of course ludicrous to expect anyone from outside Canada to know
that there is this one correct use of `leafs' like that

How convenient for you.

- any normal
English speaker identifies that as a mistake. And since this is the
case, it is rude and boorish to mock someone for being unaware of that
spelling.

Whether one cares about ice hockey or not is irrelevant. For someone with
such a vast knowledge of all things, and a penchant for telling everyone
else to "pick up a book and learn something" and your contention that no one
but you has any idea of how the world works, your failure to know something
as simple as the name of a globally known hockey team goes directly to the
heart of your credibility.

I find it hard to believe that all that many Canadians are as rude as
you - but who knows? Maybe the country is going to the dogs.

Interesting. Most of us are saying the exact same thing about you and your
representation of the English. Physican heal thyself.

--
Rhi

slunky wrote:

:_/ Rowland McDonnell wrote \_
: How about some acknowlegement and thanks for all that, given that I've
: had the good manners to thank the USA for the late parts it played in
: both world wars?
:
:Why would anyone acknowledge or thank you for "all that" given that you
:didn't personally fight in World War II?
:

Why would anyone acknowledge or thank him for "all that" given that
"all that" wouldn't have even happened if not for their inept handling
of the whole situation in the first place?


--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.

gibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: gibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
:[snip]
:
: :The USA made a big mistake when it supported the Viet Cong communist
: :terrorists against the French, that much is certain.
: :
:
: What are you smoking? Put down the crack pipe and pick up a history
: book.
:
:That's where I got it from - didn't you know that your nation funded the
:Viet Cong communist terrorists against your French allies? It's common
:knowledge - not at all hidden, but I don't suppose they teach you that
:side of your nation's history in US schools, do they?
:

Cite? Thought not.

:
:And then the USA ended up involved in that very same war in SE Asia that
:it had started, and found that it had to fight the communist terrrorists
:that it had been funding some years previously. And lost.
:
:I think the person who needs to find himself a history book is you.
:
:The USA funded an awful lot of left-wing terrorists after WWII,
:including the Provisional IRA (revolutionary socialists as it happens)
:who were targetting me, sort of - well, I lived in London from the late
:60s (I was born about when the recent `troubles' started) to the mid
:1980s.
:

False. Some very small minority in the United States provided some
relatively minor funding to the IRA through fund drives.

Again you're a liar. It is, however, what I expect from you.

:
:I note that you've ignored all my other points and made no comment aside
:from `you're wrong', coupled with some witless insults.
:

You don't make "points"; you whinge idiocy.

:
:You really do need to get some education, you know?
:

You really do need to see if your lobotomy is reversible, you know?


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates