Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Gosh | |
Author: Ed Harris (London) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 01:13:55 11/13/04 Sat In reply to: Jim (Canada) 's message, "Paddy, I could not agree with you more" on 16:51:40 11/12/04 Fri You have flags in your classrooms? I'm genuinely surprised, although I don't know why. Actually, yes I do. This perfectly natural statement of patriotism and pride makes perfect sense, and indeed I agree with it; it's just that in the UK "patriotism" and "pride" have become dirty words, and the idea of having the Jack in classrooms would be considered tantamount to giving children a copy of Mein Kampf as social policy textbook. Only the poshest schools in the country fly the flag in the school grounds, and even those would never even contemplate hanging the Bloomin' Old Rag in the classrooms. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Flags in classrooms | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 03:01:51 11/13/04 Sat When I was growing up in Toronto in the late 1960's, we had a Maple Leaf flag and a Union Jack hanging in our classroom with a picture of the Queen between them. These were in every classroom. In today's Ontario schools, they usually display the Maple Leaf flag only or the Maple Leaf Flag and the Ontario Red Ensign in the classroom and have only one picture of the Queen hanging in the front foyer or in the school office. These are government-funded primary and secondary schools. Private schools usually have them just in the front office. They would not do any of this in Quebec, ofcourse. I am glad that posh private schools fly the Union Jack on their school grounds in Britain. You should have a Union Jack in the classroom like we do. A friend of mine is a Scout leader over in Britain, in Yorkshire, and he still raises the Union Jack in all of his meetings. The Scouts still do that at all meetings throughout the UK as they are required to do. Canadian Scouts apparently never raised the Canadian Red Ensign at meetings, they always used the Union Jack until the flag change in 1965 when they began raising the Maple Leaf flag. When I was a wolf cub scout in the late 1960's, we raised the Maple Leaf flag at meetings. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Flags in schools | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 07:30:45 11/13/04 Sat In Australia, the federal government has recently passed legislation requiring all schools to fly the Australian flag. If they do not fly the flag, they do not recieve federal funding. The government is also providing schools without flags with free ones. I strongly support this legislation. When I was at school (before this legislation was introduced) my school always used to fly the Australian and New South Wales flag. The New South Wales flag is also a great flag.  [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Flags at school | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:31:01 11/13/04 Sat I've never once seen a flag in a British school, I presume it is because it would offend..well everyone, at least thats the 'thinking' if you can call it that of unthinking bureaucrats. Even worse I've seen the flag of the European Union, flying next to the Royal Standard. And at the Borough Council Office of all places. THAT FLAG (as Churchill refered to Hitler as'THAT MAN') was taken down a few months ago, probably because of mass complaints. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Amusing... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:10:13 11/14/04 Sun You know, in Europe, where I spend most of my time (I think that I committed some awful sin in my last life) the EEC flag is flown alongside and at the same level as the national flag on all public buildings... and, as they are all rampant socialists by our standards, this means really quite a lot of buildings. And, technically, they are quite right. According to our treaty obligations (signed, of course, without the knowledge of the British people), we are supposed to display the EEC flag wherever the 'member state' (yuk!) flag is flown. The fact that we hardly ever do so amazes quite a lot of Europeans, who wander round London and maybe see a few on hotels and on the town halls of our more left-wing London boroughs, such as the Soviet Socialist Republics of Harringey, Camden and Islington. But, as a general rule, it is invisible, since people jsut won't stand for it. Indeed, I would suggest that the utter horror which we experience when some local authority decides to fly one indicates just how rare it is to see the damned things. I count, sometimes, because I lead a dull life; and in my part of Town, bordered by Euston Road in the north, Oxford Street in the South, Tottenham Court Road in the East and Great Portland Street in the West, there is one. It is on a cheap hotel. There is also an old woman who walks up Charlotte Street with an EEC flag umbrella, but she looks quite senile and I imagine that she was probably given it for free when she went to the Council to complain about an unjustified parking ticket... suspicions which are given plausiblity since she arrives at the Fitzroy Tavern for opening time in the morning and is seen staggering out of it at closing time. There is hope for us yet, you know! Resistance needn't be violent. Never accept the EEC flag, never give the temperature in celcigrade rather than proper Fahrenheit, always say "our European neighbours" rather than "our European partners", never EVER let an American hear you say, "here in Europe" when you are in the UK, and always let Europeans hear you say, "I often visit Europe" when you are in the UK... little things like this will keep us sane, enrage Europeans and educate Americans. Well, it works for me anyway... I am defintely no madder than I always was, my European friends live in a state of perpetual rage anyway because they are all communists and read somewhere that you can't be For the People and in a good mood at the same time, and my pet Americans have, though I say so myself, learnt a lot! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: No-one uses fahrenheit... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:54:29 11/14/04 Sun No-one uses Fahrenheit any more. You're taking this Euro-thing too far. Calcius is a fine measure and that's all I'll use - and so will the weather man, for the most part. Farenheit was probably invented somewhere down the line by a European anyway. I don't talk to Americans much anyway, I can't stand their accents or 'spellings'. You don't need to change your life to be anti-EU. Just say 'No'. BTW: The Queen did not sign the EU treaty and nor has Parliament has ratified it, so as far as I'm concerned, it holds the same value as a demented, somewhat squashed kangeroo on anti-depressants posing for the new Australian flag signing that book. Next you'll be claiming that we need to remove all words with Latin and Greek in them. (Random Jock: RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO RESPOND HERE.) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Degrees | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:07:00 11/14/04 Sun Fahrenheit was invented by a European, but I have no problem with it because we chose to adopt it ourselves. Celcigrade or centius or whatever you call it was introduced along with decimal currency in the 1970s to "standardise" European measurements. That is also why the blighters are trying to make us use the metric system. They have failed dismally. Our road-signs are all in miles, people give their heights in feet and inches and their weights in stones and pounds, and order pints of beer in pubs. And even these are under attack. Anyway, I was brought up using Fahrenheit by my parents, who were taught it by their parents, and I'm damned if I'm changing just because some bureaucrat tells me to. Had there not been a decision to teach people at school only the metric temperature system, no-one would have the faintest idea what it meant. And you're right about "just saying No". Indeed, the AntiMetric Society's slogan is "Metric Measurements - Just say No"! And I'm sorry, but I can't separate the changing of our weights and measures from the subversion of our independence. They are trying to turn our pints into liters, our yards into meters, have abolished our threpenny bits and tuppences sixpences and all the rest of it... not because the metric system works better (since it is plainly absurd: what's a sixth of a decilitre?), but because it is not what They use. It is all part of the same thing. I'm 5'11", 12 st 2 oz, it's 38 degrees outside, I've got 706 surface miles to travel tomorrow evening, and I'm bloody proud of it! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I believe you mean 'statue miles' | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:28:18 11/14/04 Sun I don't have a problem with whichever measurement system you use. Personally, I'm happy as long as no-one tries to simplify our language *cough*Americans*cough*. But please don't regard me as a lower life form because I prefer litres, centimetres, and degrees Celcius - I'll still be using miles, both statue and nautical for a while though. ;) Of course they may try to ban Nautical Miles because some Europeans may be confused between nm (nanometres) and nm (nautical miles) :-P. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Obvious the Federation will have to ensure that powers to set measurements are devolved to local assemblies. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:43:47 11/14/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: we went metric in Australia in the 70s | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:38:30 11/14/04 Sun And it is very hard to imagine going back now. There are whole generations that wouldn't have a clue how tall they are in feet and inches or what they weigh in stone and pounds. I got stuck part way through the changeover. I can never get used to the idea that my height can be expressed in centimetres and that I should remember a silly number – somewhere in the 170s, if I remember rightly – instead of my nice simple 5'8". I have got used to measuring my weight in kilograms, partly because it changes more often and I do in fact measure it. Temperatures in Celsius now make more sense to me than ones in Fahrenheit. I couldn’t guess at what temperature water is supposed to boil at in Fahrenheit. Other things only exist for me in metric units, because I had no concept of before I learned about them that way. I would hate to have to do science in Imperial measurements. My problem with the metric system is that it is fine for practical things but entirely devoid of poetry. Let’s imagine the Who performing “I can see for kilometres and kilometres”. Oops. Shylock demanding his 400-odd grams of flesh? Oops. A detective centimetring his way along a darkened corridor? Oops. Give them two and a half centimetres and they’ll take a little over a kilometre and a half? I think not. A friend of mine – a computer programming type – once declared that we ought to make poetry out of metric units, that it is just the transitional generation that would have a problem with it, that the old units will not be missed. Rot. He never came up with a single convincing example, and my wife, who grew up in an entirely metric country, points out that even here in Brazil the old terms – “milhas”, and so on – are still used in songs and literature. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: There's a reason for that... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:07:13 11/14/04 Sun The metric system is based on something abstract: scientific purity. A metre is the exact wavelength of light bouncing of a lump of sodium at a certain temperature (or something like that - I don't pretend to understand), whereas, before we could make such accurate measurements, we had to do with likening a distance to real, tangible things... an inch, the width of a thumb; a foot, obviously; a yard, the distance between nose and finger-tips of a horizontally-held arm; a furlong, previously a 'farrow', the distance which an ox could pull a plough before needing a rest; etc. etc. They are all things to which the mind can readily relate, and so they are much better for use as imagery, and, consequently, in every-day life. I defy anyone to use a gramme (the weight of one cubic centimetre of water) to describe something ordinary. "God, that thing weighs half a ton!" is vague and approximate... ...But, metric is precise, unarguable, and thus better for science. "Mon dieu, that thing weighs four and a half thousand grammes!" necessarily is more specific but less useful in conversation. Perhaps, then, I should withdraw my objection to using the two systems side-by-side, and instead suggest that we confine one to science and the other to ordinary situations. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That's what we do already in the UK... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:55:42 11/14/04 Sun No scientist has used Imperial Measures since the 19th Century. As I said before, if measurement powers are devolved, then each region can decide for itself. Australians can stick with what they use, we can stick with what we use. Obviously, on food products and so forth, we'll need a standard - but that's already metric here anyway. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Argh! | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:51:43 11/14/04 Sun Despite my thoughts on metric, I agree that we should all make an effort to resist the insidious introduction of European political symbols in our country. I’ve noticed that a dreaded circle of thorns flag has appeared in my home town, flying from a piece of public sculpture. I shall however, make it a top priority to relieve the said monument of this free, uninvited, inappropriate and offensive propaganda - after a night on alcoholic beverages which will give me the climbing skills necessary. After the trophy has been claimed, I suspect it may partake in a vexillological ceremony analogous to those which occur frequently on the streets of the West Bank. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Bravo! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:19:22 11/14/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Also... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:54:32 11/14/04 Sun In another small gesture, I also prevented the EU from getting free advertising space on my car. I binned the standard Euro-plate, and replaced it with one like the following:  [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Very nice! | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:53:11 11/14/04 Sun What the hell is GB anyway? Hello? Bit behind in the news? You know, 1801 Act of Union? 1923 Irish Free State Agreement? Ring a bell? And why is it that British English is refered to in Computer terms as 'en-GB'? It should be 'en-EN', 'en-UK', or preferably, 'en-Br'. But anyway, back to cars. Very nice. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Country Codes | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:44:05 11/14/04 Sun I don't know why the ISO 3166 code for the United Kingdom is GB or GBR. Similarly the international currency code is GBP, rather than UKP. It’s just one of the many anomalies that result in the composition of our nation being one of the most misunderstood amongst foreigners. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Have you noticed... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:18:22 11/14/04 Sun ... that so many cars which were sold with the EEC flag on the number plates already have covered them up with the stickers which the Daily Mail gave away free for the purpose? I don't know whether to be encouraged by people's rejection of the EEC or discouraged by the fact that so many people seem to read the Mail! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject:  Ridiculous
|
|
|
Author: Chaz [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:07:25 11/14/04 Sun It's a common myth that adopting the metric system in the UK is all the EU's idea - in fact, the UK government established the Metrication Board in 1969, four years before joining the EEC, and the first British government report recommending metrication was written at the end of the nineteenth century. Do not give me any of this sentimental pap about the imperial system being part of our heritage. So was corporal punishment in schools, and we got rid of that. The metric system is just simpler: it makes sense, and that's more than can be said about fluid ounces and cubic yards. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: All right... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:20:50 11/14/04 Sun ... but if you can tell me you height, weight, and the distance from you home to place of work in metric measurements without any mental calculations, then you are the exception rather than the rule. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Metric system | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:24:42 11/14/04 Sun Australia, New Zealand and Canada all use the metric system. We all accepted a long time ago that it is a much better system. It is time that everyone in Britain does the same. It is a much better system for science and industry and is also far easier for children to learn at school. Try not to associate the metric system with the EU. We adopted it before Britain was a member of the EEC. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Metric | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:38:13 11/14/04 Sun As much as I am troubled by using weight measurements invented by Napoleon, I do feel that the metric system is far superior. We should preserve all that is good about our heritage, but sometimes we have to acknowledge that sentimentality cannot stand in the way of progress. I would certainly never like to re-introduce the non-decimal currency system for example. Decimalisation of our weights and measures makes sense from a mathematical and logical point of view. I’m afraid I’m also one of those computer-programmer types, although I think writing metric poetry is absurd. Having said that, no-one should ever try and sell me a half-litre of beer, or a 113.4 gramer with cheese. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: If I'm honest... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:58:13 11/14/04 Sun To be completely honest (something which causes me some spasms), my real problem with the metric/imperial situation in Britain is that we try to use both simultaneously. For example, all cars are quoted as performing to a certain number of miles per gallon when we buy them; so, we pay our money, and take them off the the petrol station to fill them up, and can only buy petrol in litres. So, we have to do the most absurd mental arithmetic whilst standing at the pumps... e.g., I have to go 100 miles and my car does 35 miles per gallon, so how many litres do I need? You need a calculator and a conversion table for that! Another example... whenever we buy a pair of bathroom scales they it measures stones and pounds and ounces; and when we buy any clothes we have to know our height, chest, inside leg etc. in inches; but then when we register with a doctor we have to fill out a form with our physical details with grammes for weight and metres for height, which of course we don't know off the top of our heads because we never use the 'new' system, so we have to (a) work it out by dividing six by 2.234723897, or (b) getting re-measured by the doctor, which wastes time. I would be truly happy if we just chose one or the other bloody system. I would prefer the imperial simply because it comes naturally to me, but even the metric, I acknowledge, would be better than our idiotic and self-defeating attempt to try to use two completely incompatible systems at once. Just decide, people! and let me know which you've all chosen! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The science community, inc doctors, will never go back to Imperial | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:57:07 11/14/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Apart from NASA, who used both and caused the failure of a Mars probe... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:10:16 11/14/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Decimalisation | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:30:42 11/15/04 Mon The British government spent the 1960s trying to get into the EEC, and only began to turn metric in order to impress the French in 1967. This was therefore the last year imperial coinage was minted, with the 5 and 10p pieces being introduced in 1968, followed by the 50p piece replacing the 10s note in 1969. But it is true that moves to decimalisation were begun in the C19th. The first florin ('one-tenth-of-a-pound') was issued in 1849 as a first step to decimalisation after a decimalisation bill was introduced in 1847. However, the florin (originally destined to be called a 'centum'), which was a compromise experiment to guage public opinion, was as far as decimalisation got for 120 years. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Money | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:48:34 11/15/04 Mon Florins, of course, were named after Florentine currency units which were of course decimal. Similarly, 'ducats', also decimal and in use throughout much of southern and eastern Europe, were named after the Venetian currency units, since Venice was officially called the "Ducato" or 'dukedom' of Venice. The only currency to be counted in twelves was the 'libra', also Italian and the origin of the modern word 'lira' and also the origin of the 'L' sign for our own pounds (the £-sign was also used in Italy for lire until they adopted the Eurodollar). To what do these fascinating remarks tend, then? Perhaps I am trying to say that neither the decimal nor the dodecimal systems originate here in Britain, and that they are all imports anyway. On the other hand, I just find it easier to count in twelves, since they divide by everything. A third of a pound was six shillings and eight pence and a sixth of a pound was three shillings and fourpence; but there can be no third or sixth of a pound now. Moreover, I like the fact that British currency was somehow distinct and different, having three divisions and none of them related to the number ten. The simple joy which children get out of the 'weird' tripartite and non-decimal system of money in the Harry Potter books is proof, I think, that there would not be much opposition to re-introducing the old way of doing things. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Imports | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:30:46 11/17/04 Wed I do concur - though I must admit I was under the impression that L stood for 'libri', as in sesterces and denarii (L,s,d) - a somewhat early import which has been with us since 50-100 years before the Romans' second landing.... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:51:22 11/17/04 Wed Librus or libra (hence the plurals libri or librae) are just the separate masculine and feminine versions of the same word. I'm afraid that I can't remember whether the word was originally masc or fem, but since it is fem in modern Italian, that almost without exception means that it was fem in Latin too, so I'm sticking with that! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: My point was that you referred to the Italian Lira, which is obviously different to the Latin Libra, if only by one letter! | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:01:06 11/17/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: In order not to appear incurably pedantic.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:28:26 11/17/04 Wed ....I should stress that I am contending that the Pound is essentially a direct descendant of the Roman Librum, whereas the Italian Lira in its last incarnation, whilst named after earlier currencies, was only introduced about 140 years ago, and as such its pedigree, like its purchasing power, was somewhat less robust, and our use of Lsd predated it! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh, you're dead right there. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:34:52 11/17/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |