Canny lass

On 2015-12-25 at 14:04, threegee said:

The present influx is about cultural replacement, not about integration and enrichment. The Islamic leaders have only one goal: total world domination!

Did you ever use the word replaced? You used a derivitive - replacement (December 26 2015, page 2 of this topic). Nominalization of the verb replace to produce a noun replacement, in no way detracts from the intrinsic meaning of the root. It's similar to your verbalization of ghetto to produce ghettoize. 

"The present influx is about cultural replacement" has exactly the same semantic content as 'The present influx is about culture being replaced*.

You are circumventing the obstacle to avoid answering.

QUOTE:

On 2016-04-18 at 10.09, threegee said:

" Please provide the source of your definition of a "true refugee"

"Why don't you define it too?  Then, any reader of this thread can determine for themselves if my understanding is more in accord with what they consider fair and reasonable than yours".

REPLY:

Again, 3g, I can only repeat what I've already said. OALD defines a refugee as "a person who has been forced to leave their country, home etc. and seel refuge, esp. from political or religious persecution".

Another source, the good old Oxford Concise, also encompasses the notions of forced leaving in order to seek refuge and escape persecution.

I can't in any way disagree with that. To do so would be subjective. More on that later.

QUOTE:

On 2016-04-18 at 10.09, threegee said:

"What do you understand by the word ghetto?

I used the word ghettoise.  That's the process of proceeding toward ghetto conditions.  I suspect you want me to point to an outdated formal definition in order to "surprise" me with the inconsistency.  I didn't say we had ghettos - yet; so going there is a diversion.  Trevor Philips has recently said "A Nation within a Nation", and he's very right - except it won't stop there.  I bet you didn't even look at that Burnley video!"

REPLY:

• You used the word ghettoise, meaning "the process of proceeding toward  ghetto conditions". I gave you two differing but very credit-worthy definitions of the word. If I am to understand the point you are so obviously trying to make It would help if I knew what you are referring to so, I'll ask you again: what do you understand by the word ghetto? 
• I do not wish you to point to any outdated formal definition. The etymology of the word would serve no useful purpose as we are talking about the here and now.
• Correct I did not look at the Burnley video. It was of no relevance to know how two people, not involved in this dicussion, would define the word ghetto. It's you I'm trying to understand, not two people in Burnley.

On 2016-04-18 at 10:09, threegee said:

Oh dear CL, you mean I haven't given you the answers you want, and those answers don't suit your myopic view of the world?  You certainly seem to be in the right place for self-delusion there!

No. I mean that you haven't answered my questions. You have merely skirted around them.

.... and me! better late than never as the saying goes.

On 2016-04-18 at 20:56, HIGH PIT WILMA said:

By the way,as Vic said,these were jobs you did,as you worked your way up to be a coalface worker....Shaft bottom,pulling chummings oot thi cage wi thi Onsetter,and shoving  full-uns in.......dish,or kip,loader-end,timber-leading,heavy transport,then face-training.....and onto the face as coal-filler or stoneman on the caunches...etc

 

chummings, onsetters, dish, kip, timber-leading, caunches"! I thought you'd taken to writing in greek for a minute!

On 2016-04-17 at 01:55, HIGH PIT WILMA said:

The reference to a "Spragger",would refer to a young kid,just started the pit,who worked at the shaft top,on the Heapstead,dregging "chummings"..[empty tubs]

as they approached the shaft flatsheets.or at the shaft bottom,either working in the "Dish",dregging the chummings ready to send inbye in "Sets" on the haulage

rope,or on the "Kip",dregging full'uns [full tubs],as they came free-fall to the shaft bottom,ready to send to bank..[the surface],after being filled at the "Loader-end",

which was usually a canny distance inbye from the shaft bottom.

More kids than enough had badly crushed hands doing these jobs,[including my older Brother,AND Myself,cos you had to couple and uncouple the sets of tubs as they were moving..[no H&S them days!]

Thanks for this detailed description, HPW.

Using the quote system worked fine until I tried to post a quote and got a repeat of my first quote. That's why I wrote "Sorry! I don't know how this happened! Move on to the next post to follow the discussion". Unfortunately, after that,  the same thing happened on every quote I tried to make using 'the system'. The 'system  only repeated the same qoute and post every time. I solved the problem by painstakingly writing out every quote. Look again. My replies are ALL outside of the quoted text. The quoted text is that text inside the quotation marks - you know those double inverted commas that mark the beginning and end of just a quote. Just saying.

19 hours ago, threegee said:

So, a quick recap of those questions you haven't answered and a couple of new ones:

1. What do you understand by the word ghetto?
2. Please provide the source of your definition of a "true refugee"
3. provide ONE example of how British CULTURE (look it up) has been replaced by a group of refugees
4. Has Sharia law been imposed in Britain. A simple yes or a no will suffice.
5. If the answer to question 4 is yes, then please direct me to the relevant sections of the relevant laws
6. And then there was the question of how to recognise a male muslim soley from his appearance. You appear to have missed/avoided it.
7. Have you ever considered a career in politics? Your talent for avoiding answering simple questions is second to none. It certainly puts the efforts of Cameron, Farage, Mileband in the shade.

No rush for the answers, Sicily is beckoning as I write.

18 hours ago, threegee said:

"Here's a more picturesque oldie from back in lowish-immigration, pre-Merkel-madness, 2012.  Great place you hadthere!"

This picture is 11 years old. It was published in the Express, Sweden's answer to the Sun or the Mirror, 26th March 2005. The 'alleged' rape hade, allegedley, taken place on New years Eve three months earlier. I find that strange. The picture has been doing the rounds on social media ever since with varying reports of who did what. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it ever came to court. No other newspaper published the story. Exclusive rights to the picture were sold to the Express. There were, allegedley, two victims - Malin and Amanda. Only one of them appears to have been willing to talk to the reporter. You can see the front page picture of the Express, together with the date of publication here:

https:/majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/muslim_rape_wave_in_Sweden

In 2014 there were 6 700 rapes reported to the polis. Tha number of rapes and convictions has remained relatively unchanged since 2005. Of those convicted, 53% have an immigrant background, while 47% do not have an immigrant background. By far the biggest problem here is the number of Muslim women who are being raped by non immigrants.

18 hours ago, threegee said:

 "a clarification as to whether Sharia law has, or has not already been imposed in Britain. With any answer inthe affirmative, a wink in the direction of the appropriate paragraphs would be very much apreciated."

"There are 85 Islamic courts to operating across the UK, and those are only the ones a blind government wants to know about".

Again, you appear to have misunderstood my request. A simple yes or no would suffice to clarify the situation. I'll make this easy for you too. 

Question: Has Sharia law been imposed in Britain? Answer yes or no. If the answer is yes please support your statement by referring me to the relevant judicial paragraphs - and not the Mirror. I would like to read them for myself.

18 hours ago, threegee said:

a source of the given definition for "true refugee"

The common sense definition: someone who comes for temporary refuge from a natural disaster or political persecution, and who is minded to return from whence they came at the earliest possible moment.  It most certainly doesn't include people of a mindset so screwed up that it has messed up their own country to the point of horror, and then come to impose that same lunacy on the people they beg shelter from.  It also doesn't include people who take their annual holidays back in the country they "fled" from!

I think you misunderstood my question. I asked that you give me the SOURCE of the definition. I did not ask that you expound, once again, another of your home-spun philosophies. A refugee is: a person who has 

Sorry! I don't know how this happened! Move on to the next post to follow the discussion.

17 hours ago, threegee said:

a source of the given definition for "true refugee"

The common sense definition: someone who comes for temporary refuge from a natural disaster or political persecution, and who is minded to return from whence they came at the earliest possible moment.  It most certainly doesn't include people of a mindset so screwed up that it has messed up their own country to the point of horror, and then come to impose that same lunacy on the people they beg shelter from.  It also doesn't include people who take their annual holidays back in the country they "fled" from!

I think you misunderstood my question. I asked that you give me the SOURCE of the definition. I did not ask that you expound, once again, another of your home-spun philosophies. A refugee is:  a person who has been forced to leave his country, home etc and seek refuge, esp from political or religious persecution". The source for that definition, in this instance, is the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. The attrubute 'true' according to the same source means "agreeing with correct principles or accepted standards". No mention anywhere of temporary, minded to return from whence they came, peoples mind set, imposing of lunacy or taking holidays in the home country - or anywhere else for that matter. So, I'm asking you once again for the SOURCE of the definition you gave. I see nothing of common sense in the definition.

5 hours ago, threegee said:

Thank you for that, but a stickler for semantic correctness like you shouldn't quote words that were never said.  I think the two Burnley ladies filmed above would recognise most definitions of ghetto, and also agree that they now lived in pretty close to one.  As the DM article puts it, the definition is closer to a "Nation within a nation".  In terminally-PC Sweden they skirt around this and call them "exclusion areas". These "exclusion areas" multiply by the week.  Tell us exactly what is "excluded" from them please?

I am not commenting on semantic correctness. Neither am I a "stickler" for it. My speciality is syntax. It reveals far more about the way a person thinks than does semantics. I am not a jot interested in which definitions of ghetto two Burnley ladies would recognise. Two Burnley ladies are not involved in this discussion. You and I are. I would still like an answer to the question. Have you taken the trouble to inflect the word ghetto to produce ghettoise then you clearly have an understanding of what the word means. I am politely asking you to share your understanding of the word with me. Let me make it easy for you. Most dictionaries give two descriptions of the semantic content of the word ghetto. Here they are:

1. Historically, the Jewish quarter of a city.

2. A part of a city lived in by any minority national social group, typically crowded and with poor housing conditions.

Which one best fits the picture you have?

16 hours ago, threegee said:

one (1) example of how any aspect of the British Culture has been replaced by a Group of refugees

Have you actually looked at the skyline of one of our major cities lately?   http://mosques.muslimsinbritain.org/maps.php#/town/London

...and how about not worrying about the safety of your child, or good old British tolerance?

I have looked at most of them. I don't see any great differences: High rise offices, -hotels, -housing and -places of worship (bell towers, minnarets and the likes). Places of worship have long been part of the British culture. Take Stonehenge, just as an example. Worship is an integral part of religion and in Britain we - and everybody else - has a legal right to practice their own religion so it stands to reason there will be different places of worship. Therefore, no part of British culture has  been replaced.

Worrying about the safety of your children does not belong to culture. It belongs to parenthood. The majority of parents, regardless of their religious persuasion, have concerns about their children's safety - from all sorts of things.

British tolerance? Is that really part of British culture and if so has it been replaced?

10 hours ago, threegee said:

Because the Ugandan Asians numbered only 27,200, and they were all genuine refugees.  Many of them were already British citizens of high educational standard, spoke good English, and were familiar with the British way of life.  They didn't have a belief-set which required the elimination of all other belief-sets either!
The current immigration figures are being suppressed by Cameron, and when they are eventually produced they won't tell the truth for several reasons; it's very likely that the real figure is way over double that every single month of the year.  I'd guess that including illegals and not counting out ex-pats (who practically all retain British citizenship and will return at some point anyway) that might be the figure for ten quiet days.

You are imposing your own incapabilities on the entire British nation!

"Many of them were already british citizens". HELLO! A british citizen can NOT seek asylum in his own country which makes the term "genuine refugee" sound just a tad comical.

Many Syriens are better educated than some of us British and speaking good English on arrival has never been a condition of entry to Britain. 

As for the "belief set" - If it's Islam you are referring to it doesn't require the elimination of all other belief sets either.

"Supressed figures"? If you know they are being supressed you clearly have inside info on the real figures. Let's see them - with their source, please. 

9 hours ago, threegee said:

The word ghetto is yours - I believe I used the word ghettoisation.

The word you used was "ghettoise" (25 Dec 2015) but let's not split hairs. My argument now, as was then , is that the root of 'ghettoise' is 'ghetto' and therefore your understanding of the word ghetto was relevant to the discussion. It still is, so that question stands waiting to be answered. I look forward to it.

We've had a 'Sharia court' in England as long as I can remember. In my younger days it was called Marriage Guidance Council. You know the place where would-be divorcees were sent to try and come to some agreement about who gets what. It's no different today.

I could probably help you with that Eggy.

Have another beer Brian! You're gears need more oil!

No apology needed 3g. My own theory on the use of palari by the likes of Williams in the 60's was that it was a testing of the waters, a guaging of reactions. Let's not forget that palari was the language not only of actors but also of other sub cultures, mostly prostitutes and homosexuals, as a 'secret' language was necessary to avoid being 'found out.'

 At the beginning of the 60's discussion of a bill to decriminalize homosexuality was in full swing in parliament. It was a hot topic but homosexuality was still very much illegal and under cover. That lasted until 1967 when  it became legal - to a degree. 'Coming out of the closet'  was a big step for many who had been born with a condition which was deemed  not to adhere to  the 'norm'. Missing toes and big noses didn't either adhere to the norm. The difference, however,  was that missing toes and big noses were, for some reason, never made illegal.

Williams et al went a long way in allowing homosexuals to judge the reactions of those around them before making the decision to step out of the closet.  Williams et al did this in a way that was humorous and using the now famous double entendre.This made talking about a taboo subject much easier. It also gave them a 'way out' when the opposition was screaming abuse. It was, after all, up to each and everyone to read into the word 'gay' exactly what they wished.  

I think you may just have missed the point of Williams' humour. He was a master of the 'double entendre'. Williams played with the word in several of its meanings - including - often - the meaning of homosexuality, 

Already in the 17th century the Oxford Dictionary gives a secondary meaning with sexual connotations "licentious and wanton". In the 19th century it was the term of preference for female prostitutes and by 1935 the English language had the term 'gay cat' for a homosexual boy. Around 1950, 'gay' starts to turn up with the meaning homosexual male although long before that it was being widely used by the gay community when referring to themselves.

10 hours ago, threegee said:

Ah for the "gay" old days, when everyone had a right to know what an record was called; when words meant what words had always meant;

If it's the meaning of "gay" you are referring to then you'd have to go back to long before your lifetime to find it with the meaning 'mirthful or merry' - to the 13th century in fact. Later, in the 14th century it came to mean 'bright coloured or showy' and  in the 17th century it took on yet another meaning - 'dissipated'. At that time, 'dissipated meant 'to distract the mind' or 'to divert frivolously'. Need I say more?

Eggy, Nr. 13 on the school photo could be Kenneth MacDonald, my brother-in-law (now dead) but I'm not 100% on it. Run it past Joan, as she is in the same class, the name might ring a bell.

Thanks ex.Bed. I loved The Godfather! I'll try and find out where it is.