Canny lass

You fear my answers are too straight for me. Which answers? I haven't had any! I don't recall making any ad-hominem attacks on any person or thing. I try to be objective in all my remarks. I make statements, sometimes provacative, but I try, especially when challenged, to support those statements with information from credit-worthy sources - experts if you like, the type of opinion that would be acceptable in a British court of law. I find that it usually makes for a good debate. I understand that you may feel threatened by this and in that case I'm truly sorry. Perhaps you could quote me on some of my ad hominem attacks so that we can discuss them? That offer is open to anyone who may feel they have been attacked in personal or subjective manner by me.

You were certainly interested in the appearance of a male Muslim on December 20th 2015, 12.30am, topic: Sunni side of the street. Indeed you thought that I should be quaking in my boots on seeing one thus inferring that they were instantly recognisable.

Sharia law is no more British' law' than are the 10 commandments as dictated in the Christian bible (Exodus 20: 2-17 and, just in case we didn't get the message first time round, repeated in Deuteronomy 5:4-21). Both are codes of conduct for a religious group and in no way judiciary. I'm sure you are familiar with the decalogue - that text that starts with something like 'you shall have no other gods before me' (that rings a bell from somewhere else). It's not legally binding. Should we perhaps start to persecute christians as well? They didn't ask to have these commandments imposed upon them. To judge by the number of divorces granted on grounds of adultery, I doesn't appear that too many people feel bound to follow them. Neither are they legally obliged to do so.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.