Canny lass

That you can't start a sentence with a conjunction is just a myth! Some of our greatest writers have done it frequently and correctly. There are two types of coordinating conjunction. When junior school pupils learn that coordinating conjunctions can only be used within a sentence they are learning the rules of grammar. When university students learn that a coordinating conjunction can be placed at the beginning of a sentence to create emphatic effect they are learning the rules of literary style. You are using it quite correctly, Merguryg. I never criticise anybody's use of language. Language changes all the time. One of the reasons for this is that the more a user diverges from a grammatical rule the quicker that divergance will be accepted into the language as the correct form. These users are all helping in their own way to diversify and keep the language alive. Grammatical rules are there only to facilitate communication. Communication is easier if we all speak/read in the same way but we can break as many rules as we like so long as effective communication is maintained. It's only when communication breaks down because of divergence that we can talk of 'bad' grammar. And, who am I to criticize ! I have English as my mother tongue but it's without doubt the worst of my languages because it's the language I use least. It now has many grammatical and lexical elements of Swedish, because that's the language I use most in my daily life. It also has many traces of Icelandic, Norwegian, Danish (to a lesser degree, and particularly in speech as I can't get my throat muscles around the 'hockling' sound) and Spanish, beacause they are the languages I most worked with. It's called transferance and there's not a lot that can be done about it. There are very few second language speakers who do not have it to some degree.

3g, One last question for today, When you say "It's there in the Quaran, 97 times if I remember correctly, and it's world domination." I'm not sure what you mean. What is in the Quaran 97 times? Does it say 97 times that the purpose of Islam is world domination?

Because it's about human life, Maggie! It's a question that should be brought out into the open and discussed. The only problem here is that some people seem to have forgotten - assuming that they have ever known - the basic principles of debate. Principles such as making a statement and supporting it with evidence or expert opinion, - instead of illogical reasoning. Principles such as asking questions and even answering questions from the opposition - even if it means being put on the spot sometimes.. Principles such as accepting that there are other opinions than your own which also have the right to be supported with evidence or expert opinion. These all help to keep the discussion going. Lying down and pretending to be dead, when put into a corner by an awkward question and hoping your opponent will go away, have never been conducive to good argumentation technique. I don't consider this to be a fight. Just a poor discussion of an n interesting topic, worthy of debate.

“I will skip the first question because you've worn me down, and I'm not prepared to wade through the above to examine the possibility of my quoting you out of context. BUT - in true Paxo fashion - I'm going to try again on:” I’m not really sure to which of my many previous, as yet unanswered, questions you refer. Please repeat the question. However, I’m quite happy to accommodate your trying again with the following. I agree, the answers are important and I’ve already responded to this part of your enquiry (see above). As for the second paragraph: “ You mention the IRA, though the IRA were not suicide bombers … and they certainly didn’t machine gun innocent people” No they were not suicide bombers and perhaps they didn’t use machine guns (I personally don’t know) but they did have other methods of killing and torturing innocent people (this I do personally know). So let’s call a spade a spade shall we. It is killing we are talking about not the methods used. “ and generally warned about bombs in order to create maximum disruption and reduce casualties,.: Go tell that to anybody working in the casualty departments of the major hospitals at the time! Believe me, it was the not knowing that it was about to happen which caused the most disruption. Though I do remember one warning about a planned attack in London and when all resources were nicely concentrated in London they detonated a bomb in … Manchester, I believe it was. Didn’t greatly reduce the number of casualties that warning! And another warning issued 90 minutes before the bomb detonated. What good was that? How long do you think it takes to get a bomb squad in place? Once in place, how long does it take to find and defuse the bomb? That warning didn’t reduce the number of casualties either. “The IRA had a clearly stated purpose to their bombing (a point at which they were pledged to stop) and were operating on “home territory”; what is the clearly stated purpose of Islamic terrorism on “away” territory? The IRA, as far as my memory serves me, had one purpose – the reunification of Ireland. IS, to whom I think you refer when speaking of Islamic terrorism, would also appear to have only one purpose – the reunification of Islam, by establishing a new Islamic caliphate across the middle east. At least that’s how I’ve understood it. Perhaps you have understood something else? “Behind every IRA terrorist stood thousands on republicans from whom the terrorists were drawn, most of these people made no bones about their support- they sheltered the terrorists. Are you saying that this is an entirely different phenomenon here??” I’m not really sure what you mean here. I think that behind the IS terrorists there are supporters, maybe not thousands behind each one but supporters never the less. I haven’t seen anything in news reports or media which would make me believe that IS terrorists are not sheltered by their supporters. If you could clarify your question maybe I can give you a more substantial answer. “Now, the answers to these questions are actually important, so let’s skip the obfuscation this time. And, if I’ve failed to answer any of your questions on other threads, then simply link me to the thread and I will answer there – no more waiting.” You may have missed my point when I apologized for my earlier “obfuscation”. When I said that it wasn’t “my intention to either stupefy or bewilder you” I was being sarcastic. Obfuscation embraces the notion of deliberate action. I was not deliberately attempting to confuse you, quite the opposite. Any incurred confusion must have been of your own making. You have most certainly failed to answer to several of my questions – and those of others, I’ve noticed. I thought I was being helpful in copying and pasting some of those questions from the thread I mentioned. However, if you prefer a link then I’m only too happy to oblige: first post, page 3 Naturally, I’m still interested in the answers, not only to these to these but even to the questions posed on this thread. Would you like me to compile a list or would you prefer a lnk?

I blame the Italians, Mercuryg, with all that agnello here and cacciatore there. There must be millions of the poor blighters hobbling around the hills of Rome - 3-legged lambs, not Italians.

Goodnight!

Your welcome! I just knew you were one of those 11 year olds who sat at the back of the class paying no attention during grammar lessons. I've answered two of your questions already jut 18 hours after being asked. How about answering some of mine, I've been waiting 3 months. I'm pleased there are only 10s of thousands on the list. It proves my point that the greater majority are not radicalised - 10s of thousands must be a minimal percentage of all the millions of muslims in the world! I'll get hubby on to work out the actual percentage and I'll get back to you. It should do a lot to ease your worried mind. I'm afraid I don't have classes. I work with only one or two at a time. So i was it you who sent the USB stick to Sky? How else would you know who wasn't on it? Maybe the authorities were concerned about right wing activists making mountains out of mole-hills as they usually do? Sky really does come up with a lot of rubbish sometimes! Sorry about the obfuscating. It was not my intention to either stupefy or bewilder you.

And, on the subject of questions …. You have a few outstanding yourself … For instance from... December 27 2015 Topic title: Petition to call a temporary halt to all immigration. Page 3 “So, just to recap, what I'm asking for is, apart from an explanation as to how I recognise a muslim soley by his appearance (perhaps you missed the question?): a clarification of what is your understanding of the Word ghetto a clarification as to why we British can't succeed with the present wave of refugees just as we did with the Ugandan Asians or the boat-people one (1) example of how any aspect of the British Culture has been replaced by a Group of refugees a source of the given definition for "true refugee" a clarification as to whether Sharia law has, or has not, already been imposed in Britain. With any possible answer in the affirmative, a wink in the direction of the appropriate paragraphs would be very much appreciated.” Still waiting. Oh, I can add one more: How many muslims do you actually know? Really know - name, adress, job where they came from, are their parents still alive, how many children, which schools they go to, husband's/wife's job, hobbies, furnishing tastes ... that sort of thing.

“Why did your harmless Muslim friends choose to come to a (nominally Christian) Europe? What is so special about Europe to them that they had to go to such trouble and expense compared with settling in one of the many Muslim countries closer to where they came and with a similar climate/culture?” Most of my harmless muslim friends didn’t choose to come to a (nominally Christian) Europe. They were born in Europe as were most of their harmless parents. Some of my muslim colleagues, also harmless, did choose to come to a (nominally Christian) Europe. They’d heard that Britain was a democracy that there were equal rights for men and women and that the Brits were a friendly race. What was so special about Europe that they had to go to such trouble and expense compared with settling in one of the many muslim countries closer to where they came from and with a similar climate/ culture? For some of those who did come to Europe it was a case of any port in a storm. They fled from war and oppression and were placed in Europe as refugees. They didn’t ask to come to Europe. They only asked to be taken to a place of safety. Some of them were fleeing from Islamic fundamentalists who were deemed, by the majority of harmless muslims, to be anything but harmless. They couldn’t, and still don’t, accept the fundamentalist interpretation of the holy book. Much the same way as I (and I suspect you) don't accept the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of the Christian holy book. A couple of them came because they were invited by the British Government in 1947. Now there’s a surprise! In all cases they, like me, couldn’t give a jot about what religion other people have. They, like me, know that everybody in Britain has the right to choose and follow their own belief. The law says so. Of those who weren’t born in Europe, all say that they didn’t need to go to any trouble or great expense. They had money enough because they’d worked and saved and, after experiencing the horrors of war or fundamentalism, a plane, train or boat journey was no trouble at all. Even culture hasn’t been a problem. They accept us as we are – warts and all. They respect our culture and, like me and most other immigrants, they adopt those bits of it which suit and stay away from those bits that don’t. Supplementary questions: Why did you choose to go to a (predominantly) Catholic Italy? What is so special about Italy to you that you had to go to such trouble and expense compared with settling in one of the other countries who share your religious beliefs, closer to where you come from and with a similar climate/culture? (I’m thinking first and foremost of Northern Ireland but I could stretch it to Byker or Blagdon).

3g. If you are looking to have your knuckles rapped AGAIN then you are going in the right direction. I do not claim that clothing and religion are silly and subjective. I claim that their being percieved as a common denominator in the context of terrorists and their distinguishing characteristics is silly and subjective. Let's have another look at those sentences you quote - this time from a syntactical point of view. It's quite normal in text or speech to manifest coherence by means of repeated reference to the same thing or person. To make such a reference we use grammatical devices such as, but not only, pronouns. Instead of repeating words or phrases we substitute a pronoun. Despite its name, a pronoun can replace not only a noun but even a noun phrase (you may know that better by the older term, nominal phrase). Very typical for pronouns is that they refer to something in the preceding text and therefore known, at least in context, to the reader. Because of this, the use of a pronoun is very closely related to the definite article - 'the'. The word 'the' can only be used with something that is known to the reader. Let me try to demonstrate this with a typical noun phrase - a little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs. Now' I'll put that noun phrase into a sentence Mary had a little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs. The little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs followed Mary to school one day. Note in the first sentence the absence of 'the'. The reader has never heard of this lamb before. Note the presence of 'the' in the second sentence. The reader has already been told about this lamb. Leaving aside the definite article, you have to agree that it's a repetitive. Because of this it's also boring but it's simple to understand. Fortunately, we can do something about the repetition and thereby prevent the boredom. We do this, however, at the cost of simplicity and we do it by removing the repetitive noun prase and inserting a pronoun in its place: Mary had a little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs. It followed her to school one day. By using the pronouns it and her we are assuming that the reader has at least two grey cells functioning to know just what it and her are referring to. It's here that context, and possibly access to a third functioning grey cell, can help. We've only just mentioned Mary and her little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs so in this context it can only be those we are referring to. And - hold on to the edge of your seat, this is riveting stuff - we can prove that the reader knows what it means by replacing the noun phrase. We can't replace it without using the definite article the which we've already learned can only be used with something known to the reader! So, as a general rule of thumb a pronoun is preferable when a unique referent, such as a little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs or, for that matter, a common denominator, is recoverable from the preceding context. One of the interesting things about the use of pronouns is that the relevant theory can be applied in reverse. Believe me, having that knowledge can quell riots and save lives! We can, should we wish - when talking to functionally challenged patients for instance - reverse the process. We can make a sentence simple. The down side is that it becomes repetitive and boring but it has the advantage of reinforcing the message. Let's go back to my sentence: In this case it needn't be racism or terrorism that's the common denominator. In fact, it's usually not. It's more usually something as silly and subjective as clothing, religion or even [ … ] sexual habits. Here's the same sentence with pronouns replaced by their referents (underlined): In this case the common denominator needn't be racism or terrorism. In fact, the common denominator is usually not.The common denominator is more usually something as silly and subjective as clothing, religion or even [ … ] sexual habits. Were it not for the context and the fact that clothing, with its inherent lack of affect, lacks the ability to be subjective, I may just have been inclined to concede a minor degree of lexical ambiguity. However, the context is quite clear as is the referent to the pronoun it.

My point exactly Moe! It's all too easy to give someone a label - like 'terrorist or 'racist'' for instance - and then transfer that label to everybody else who has anything at all in common with them. In this case it needn't be racism or terrorism that's the common denominater. In fact, it's usually not. It's more ususlly something as silly and subjective as clothing, religion or even, God forbid, sexual habits! It happens all over the world. We've all done it. How many of us have opinions about the basic characteristics of a nation, as a whole, that are based on our subjective experience of a few examples we've met whilst on holiday (and usually under the influence of alcohol)? You don't need to be a racist just because you happen to be open, up front and speak your mind. Neither do you need to be a terrorist just because you happen to be of the muslim persuasion. I don't remember any of the IRA gang as being muslim.

We certainly do need to, Maggie. I can understand hate for people who commit acts of violence/terror but it's beyond comprehension - for the majority of people - how that hate can be transferred to innocent people simply because they have the same religion.I believe It's all down to ignorance and laziness - ignorance because they are too lazy to make the effort to find out what Islamism is about. They are ignorant of the fact that it is a divided religion, where the greater majority are peace loving individuals and a small fraction are extremely fundamental in their views of how the Koran should be interpreted. Among the latter mentioned minority we find that SOME - but by no means all - are terrorists.

I couldn't agree more about the sadness at seeing people tarring everybody with the same dirty brush. However, I don't find it hard to understand. I just put it down to plain old fashioned ignorance garnished with a dollop of laziness on the part of the, thankfully, small minority who spout such rubbish. I would be tarring myself and my fellow countrymen with an even dirtier brush if I thought for one minute that this lot represented the whole of Britain.

I'm definitely getting old! Today is Sunday - not Saturday. That was one gigantic senior moment!

That should have said 'floors', roofs or wheels

Thanks again Vic! The spragger in question, 1911, was a lad of 15. So, basically it means someone who places pieces of wood so as to stop movement, whether it be in fllos, roofs or wheels. Why don't they just say that in dictionaries!

Definitely looking forward to reading this - and on a Saturday night! I must be getting old! Have you got a date for this article, Maggie?

Thanks Vic! Is the term 'sprag' still used in mining today or has it been totally replaced by pit prop? I mean, when you say HPW set them only" when he first started working" do you mean that it's an old mining term or that this is/was a job for an inexperienced young man or an apprentice? Also, can it have any other meaning? The explanation I found went on at length about wheels and inclines but I didn't understand a word of it.

Here's one for you HPW - or anyone else who feels able to match the knowledge of our resident coalmining expert. What is/was a 'spragger'? Also, what is a 'sprag'? And, do we still 'sprag' in coal mines today? I found the word 'spragger' on a census form from 1911. It's clearly a piece of mining terminology. I´ve looked it up but I'm non the wiser for having done so. If you know what it is please explain - in simple terms.

That goes for me too - even if you are upside down!

Any information for us ex-pats on the plans for the market place?

Thanks Malcolm!

Did you say 'he'? Male cats with three colours are extremely rare. This one's called Prussiluskan but usually answers to' Missan', 'sausage', 'food' and 'get off that chair'!

Me neither!

Tell that to my cat, Malcolm! We've still got a few inches and it's still snowing a bit almost every day but it doesn't stay long.