From: Mark Foster on
In article <w9ydndFzbrEZfnXZRVnyrw(a)bt.com>,
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> Mark Foster wrote:
> > In article <z_SdnSGCHIJlQnXZRVny2w(a)bt.com>,
> > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Foster wrote:
> >>> In article <tNadnRQpTshcI3XZRVnyjw(a)bt.com>,
> >>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Mark Foster wrote:
> >>>>> In article <fNydnVKWru_wMnXZnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d(a)bt.com>,
> >>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ivor Jones wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:14mdnavQzPrDNXXZnZ2dnUVZ8tednZ2d(a)bt.com
> >>>>>>>> Ivor Jones wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> How..? Let's say that two white males are walking along
> >>>>>>>>> the street in front of you. Brown hair, blue or brown
> >>>>>>>>> eyes, say 6ft tall. Both dressed in the usual
> >>>>>>>>> jeans/t-shirt or whatever. Neither speak or do anything
> >>>>>>>>> at all. How can you tell their origin..?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> They're both European.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why might they not be American or Australian..? I personally
> >>>>>>> know two Americans that fit that description.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However, their lineage is European, the same as yours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong! If you're going to start down that road then their lineage
> >>>>> is ultimately African, the same as all of us.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just for the record, like Ivor, I am not European either.
> >>>>> Personally, I consider myself to be English.
> >>>>
> >>>> I also also consider myself English, but I'm still British and
> >>>> European.
> >>>
> >>> Why don't you consider yourself African?
> >>
> >> Because there is nothing about my physical or cultural make up to
> >> suggest that I am African.
> >
> > However, your lineage is African. Or are you now suggesting that
> > lineage is irrelevant?
>
> My lineage etec is not the topic of this sub-thread.

Yes it is. You introduced lineage into the argument (see above) and now
you don't like where it has taken you. Using your own argument, if
Americans and Australians are European by virtue of their lineage then
you are African by virtue of yours. So now explain why you consider
yourself English, British and European but not African?

--
"There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'"
[Driving, HMSO]
From: Alex Heney on
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:52:21 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote:

>"Richard Brookman"
><THErichard.brookmanOBVIOUS(a)btinternet.com> wrote in
>message news:4kqv2oFd7h8iU1(a)individual.net
>
>[snip]
>
>> OK, Ivor - in one sentence, how would you define the word
>> "European"? That it is a word, and that it has a
>> meaning, there is no doubt. Your understanding of what
>> it means might help to clarify things somewhat.
>
>It means relating to the continent known as Europe.

Definitely.

> I do not relate to the
>continent known as Europe, therefore I cannot be a European.
>

Of course you "relate" to it.

You were born in that continent (unless you consider the continent of
Europe to only be the main land mass, and not to include the outlying
islands such as Great Britain).

And you live in that continent.

So that is two ways at least in which you relate to it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The hangman let us down.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:15:37 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote:

>"Alex Heney" <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:vqefe2hc0mm661kq3uscc1sb5h4m6q834v(a)4ax.com
>
>[snip]
>
>> Your *country* is England, but your *nationality* is
>> British.
>>
>> Nationality is based on your *nation* not your *country*
>> (although with many of the nations in the world, they are
>> the same thing).
>
>They are the same thing.
>

No they aren't.

There are counties of England and Scotland.

There is a Nation of the "united Kingdom" - which also includes the
Principality of Wales and Northern Ireland (I'm not sure what type of
entity that is).

The *nationality* of any citizen of the United Kingdom is British.


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I will defend to your death my right to my opinion.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:30:45 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm
<cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>In uk.rec.cycling Richard Brookman <richard.brookmanpants(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
>> || In uk.rec.cycling Paul {Hamilton Rooney} <craig(a)oil.com> wrote:
>> ||
>> ||||| It has become accepted usage. That is how languages evolve.
>> ||||
>> |||| So?
>> ||
>> ||| Usage is king. There's no other criterion of right and wrong where
>> ||| language is concerned. How could there be?
>> ||
>> || It couldn't be. Were usage the only criterion, there would be no
>> || change.
>
>> You're wrong, Paul's right. All languages (except dead ones like Latin and
>> Ancient Greek) change all the time, and it's the usage that's changing. How
>> could it be any other way? We don't wait for the OED to "officially" change
>> the meaning of a word and then all fall into line and start using it. It's
>> the other way round.
>
>If usage is what makes a usage right, and usage changes, then there
>must have been a period where some users were using a wrong usage
>which hadn't yet been sanctioned by enough usage to become a right
>usage. Those users must therefore have been using some other criterion
>of appropriate usage than rightness as defined by enough
>usage. Whatever that criterion was that pushed them into what was to
>begin with a wrong usage must therefore have influenced what later
>became correct usage. Therefore what is currently correct usage as
>defined by enough usage must in turn have originally derived from
>other criterion.

Of course.

Did you have a point?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm not opinionated, I'm just always right!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: mattic on

"Ivor Jones" <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4kro5eFdgiubU3(a)individual.net...
>
>
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:14mdnavQzPrDNXXZnZ2dnUVZ8tednZ2d(a)bt.com
>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> > How..? Let's say that two white males are walking along
>> > the street in front of you. Brown hair, blue or brown
>> > eyes, say 6ft tall. Both dressed in the usual
>> > jeans/t-shirt or whatever. Neither speak or do anything
>> > at all. How can you tell their origin..?
>>
>> They're both European.
>
> Why might they not be American or Australian..? I personally know two
> Americans that fit that description.
>
> Ivor

You obviously are confused about ethnicity as opposed to nationality. Any
race may be any nationality, but one may tell, at a glance one's general
ethnicity. Black, white, asian, oriental, it's very easy and forms the most
basic description of a person. Geez, don't you ever watch "The Bill"?