Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: America

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: America

 
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2010
Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>news:(E-Mail Removed) m:
>>
>>>
>>>

>>They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
>>before pearl harbour.

>
> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.



Probably the only way the bi-praty system in the US could get the arms
to you.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Anthony R. Gold
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2010
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:56:30 +0100, iardo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 08/09/2010 14:03, chuckcar wrote:
>> Alex Heney<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alex Heney<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
>>>> before pearl harbour.
>>>
>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.

>>
>>
>> Probably the only way the bi-praty system in the US could get the arms
>> to you.
>>
>> --
>> (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

>
> Well, it was "cash on demand" prior to the "lease-lend" coming into play.


The prior regime of "cash and carry" was gold bullion on demand.

Tony
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alex Heney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2010
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:32:03 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've just got yet another chainmail blaming America for the deaths of
>>>>> British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not an historian, but I have never of the American people
>>>>> slagging off Britain for the deaths of American soldiers whilst they
>>>>> were fighting for Britain in WW2.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You certainly would have done if the internet had existed then.
>>>>
>>>> Even though they never were fighting for Britain, of course.
>>>>
>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
>>> before pearl harbour.

>>
>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.

>
>Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one of
>"insufficiently generous"?


No.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Boy: A noise with dirt on it.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anthony R. Gold
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2010
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
>>>> before pearl harbour.
>>>
>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.

>>
>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one of
>> "insufficiently generous"?

>
> No.


You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word, where
truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wrd) wins out over truth.

Tony
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alex Heney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2010
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
>>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
>>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
>>>>> before pearl harbour.
>>>>
>>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
>>>
>>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one of
>>> "insufficiently generous"?

>>
>> No.

>
>You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word, where
>truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wrd) wins out over truth.
>


I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
to the previous poster.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Earth is 98% full... please delete anyone you can.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr Pounder
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2010

"Anthony R. Gold" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:52:59 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
>>>>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
>>>>>>> before pearl harbour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one
>>>>> of
>>>>> "insufficiently generous"?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word,
>>> where
>>> truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wrd) wins out over
>>> truth.
>>>

>>
>> I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
>> to the previous poster.

>
> You quoted that word back with the implication that you were going to
> provide
> the poster with accurate history instead of the erroneous view that you
> did
> offer and that you continue to cling to even after having been pointed to
> the
> factual background which contradicts your prejudices.
>
> Tony


He's has always been a plonker and has always disliked me.
I have forgotten more about WW2 than he will ever know.
Pearl Harbour ffs.
My OP could have been phased better, I did correct it in a later posting.
My point was the apparent lack of bad feeling from America whilst they were
fighting *with* this country.
This point has not been addressed.

Mr Pounder


>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Alex Heney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2010
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:15:06 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Anthony R. Gold" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:52:59 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
>>>>>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they
>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
>>>>>>>> before pearl harbour.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> "insufficiently generous"?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word,
>>>> where
>>>> truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wrd) wins out over
>>>> truth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
>>> to the previous poster.

>>
>> You quoted that word back with the implication that you were going to
>> provide
>> the poster with accurate history instead of the erroneous view that you
>> did
>> offer and that you continue to cling to even after having been pointed to
>> the
>> factual background which contradicts your prejudices.
>>
>> Tony

>
>He's has always been a plonker and has always disliked me.
>I have forgotten more about WW2 than he will ever know.


So why did you say you are "no historian"?

>Pearl Harbour ffs.
>My OP could have been phased better, I did correct it in a later posting.
>My point was the apparent lack of bad feeling from America whilst they were
>fighting *with* this country.
>This point has not been addressed.
>


A lot of that was down to different times, I think.

People just didn't criticise authority to anything like the extent
they do now, and tended to assume hat their government were at least
trying to do the best thing for the population.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not so sure.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alex Heney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2010
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:26:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:52:59 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
>>>>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
>>>>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
>>>>>>> before pearl harbour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one of
>>>>> "insufficiently generous"?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word, where
>>> truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wrd) wins out over truth.
>>>

>>
>> I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
>> to the previous poster.

>
>You quoted that word back with the implication that you were going to provide
>the poster with accurate history instead of the erroneous view that you did
>offer and that you continue to cling to even after having been pointed to the
>factual background which contradicts your prejudices.
>


There is hardly anything in that paragraph which is correct.

You may have read that implication into what I wrote, but I didn't
particularly intend it.

I certainly did not give any "erroneous view", nor has anybody shown
anything to contradict it.

They have shown that there may be some argument as to what constitutes
"neutrality", and that for some definitions of it, the USA could not
be described as being neutral.

For other definitions, they certainly were.

Now if you want to point me to anything showing they were taking an
active part in the war prior to "officially" entering it, I am open to
persuasion.

But lending/selling supplies at fairly high interest rates does not
count as taking an active part to me.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Computer - A device designed to speed and automate errors.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr Pounder
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2010

"Alex Heney" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:15:06 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Anthony R. Gold" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:52:59 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
>>>>>>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they
>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for
>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>> before pearl harbour.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> "insufficiently generous"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word,
>>>>> where
>>>>> truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wrd) wins out over
>>>>> truth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
>>>> to the previous poster.
>>>
>>> You quoted that word back with the implication that you were going to
>>> provide
>>> the poster with accurate history instead of the erroneous view that you
>>> did
>>> offer and that you continue to cling to even after having been pointed
>>> to
>>> the
>>> factual background which contradicts your prejudices.
>>>
>>> Tony

>>
>>He's has always been a plonker and has always disliked me.
>>I have forgotten more about WW2 than he will ever know.

>
> So why did you say you are "no historian"?


Because I am not one.
>
>>Pearl Harbour ffs.
>>My OP could have been phased better, I did correct it in a later posting.
>>My point was the apparent lack of bad feeling from America whilst they
>>were
>>fighting *with* this country.
>>This point has not been addressed.
>>

>
> A lot of that was down to different times, I think.


Viet Nam was not a hundred years later.
Australia did not slag of the USA for fighting with them; America had a lot
to say though.
>
> People just didn't criticise authority to anything like the extent
> they do now, and tended to assume hat their government were at least
> trying to do the best thing for the population.


My old man was there, he criticised a lot.

Mr Pounder
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr Pounder
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2010

"Alex Heney" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:26:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:52:59 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
>>>>>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they
>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
>>>>>>>> before pearl harbour.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> "insufficiently generous"?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word,
>>>> where
>>>> truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wrd) wins out over
>>>> truth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
>>> to the previous poster.

>>
>>You quoted that word back with the implication that you were going to
>>provide
>>the poster with accurate history instead of the erroneous view that you
>>did
>>offer and that you continue to cling to even after having been pointed to
>>the
>>factual background which contradicts your prejudices.
>>

>
> There is hardly anything in that paragraph which is correct.
>
> You may have read that implication into what I wrote, but I didn't
> particularly intend it.
>
> I certainly did not give any "erroneous view", nor has anybody shown
> anything to contradict it.
>
> They have shown that there may be some argument as to what constitutes
> "neutrality", and that for some definitions of it, the USA could not
> be described as being neutral.
>
> For other definitions, they certainly were.
>
> Now if you want to point me to anything showing they were taking an
> active part in the war prior to "officially" entering it, I am open to
> persuasion.
>
> But lending/selling supplies at fairly high interest rates does not
> count as taking an active part to me.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
> Computer - A device designed to speed and automate errors.
> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom


Fair comment.
But:
Let us not forget that it was pants down as always Britain that declared war
on Germany.
Then the mercenaries moved in. We would have done it to them.

Mr Pounder


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Animals in America Consultant MCSE 0 02-02-2006 04:11 PM
Yet Another Perl Conference, North America, 2005 Gerard Lim Perl 0 04-14-2005 02:27 AM
Exportability of EDA industry from North America? EDA wannabe VHDL 25 02-06-2005 04:59 PM
Can't Confirm Banking Transfers- Online Banking Bank of America (Firefox1.0) totsob Firefox 1 10-22-2004 10:19 PM
America, Sweet America - I want to be there ! Zogby MCSE 188 08-15-2004 03:42 AM



Advertisments