Media wankers.
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Sat Navs for Cars
Next: Google wave invites
From: Beav on 28 Dec 2009 07:34 "Lozzo" <lozzo(a)lozzo.org.uk> wrote in message news:7pne07Fhb5U1(a)mid.individual.net... > Beav wrote: > > >> And despite what you've read, it's still >> perfectly acceptable to call the flag the Union Jack. > > It most certainly is not! Have it your way, but it is. -- Beav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19
From: Beav on 28 Dec 2009 07:36 "Colin Irvine" <look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote in message news:svcej59ur4kt0l72taung211mkg1buc5vs(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:48:19 +0100, Ace squeezed out the following: > >>On 26 Dec 2009 23:34:56 GMT, "Lozzo" <lozzo(a)lozzo.org.uk> wrote: >> >>>Colin Irvine wrote: >>> >>>> On 26 Dec 2009 21:37:12 GMT, Lozzo squeezed out the following: >>>> >>>> > Beav wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> And despite what you've read, it's still >>>> >> perfectly acceptable to call the flag the Union Jack. >>>> > >>>> > It most certainly is not! >>>> >>>> It is when it's flying on the ships of the Royal Navy - otherwise >>>> Union Flag. >>> >>>Exactly, and how often does anyone refer to flags flying from the ships >>>of the Royal Navy in everyday conversation. >> >>I'm afraid Beav has the right of it here. See wikipedia for >>references: >> >>>: "The Flag Institute, the vexillological organisation for the United >>>Kingdom, >>>: stated that the term Union Flag is a "relatively recent idea". Jack was >>>a word >>>: previously used to denote any flag.[4] It also noted that "From early >>>in its >>>: life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union >>>Jack, >>>: whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that >>>Their >>>: Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. Such >>>use >>>: was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that "the >>>Union >>>: Jack should be regarded as the National flag". > > "it is now sanctioned by use, has appeared in official use, and > remains the popular term". That's happened to many words in the > English language. Doesn't make them correct. It's a pretty good reason not to call it incorrect. -- Beav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19
From: Beav on 28 Dec 2009 07:44 "Colin Irvine" <look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote in message news:cogfj51tl9q2guoft8k0kpr71juv1ltvtc(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:30 +0000, Champ squeezed out the following: > >>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:11:36 +0000, Colin Irvine >><look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote: >> >>>>OK, so in what way is the discussed usage of "Union Jack" ambiguous or >>>>inelegant? >>> >>>It's neither. It just doesn't feel right. A bit like passing port >>>anticlockwise. >> >>Hello, good evening, and welcome to the 1950s. > > Arguably my most formative decade. I doubt you were passing port in the 50's or gave even a second's thought to what the correct term was for the flag. -- Beav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19
From: frag on 28 Dec 2009 15:18 des(a)des.com took a blunt brush and copied... > Exactly the same response he's made in reply to me for the past 10+ years. Is there a known medical condition for this? Apart from "sad loser" or "fuckwitted"? > Anyway, I rather feel that Richard's reposting my words, was more an > attempt to let you see that you'd fucked up No. It was so I could comment on the fact you were frothing at the mouth yet again, at the slightest, slightest provocation. Des - the anti-sanite. -- frag MicroPlanet Gravity Newsreader V2.9 http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/
From: des hanging around for a while on 29 Dec 2009 01:47
On 2009-12-28, frag <news4(a)ukrm.co.uk> wrote: > des(a)des.com took a blunt brush and copied... { snip tantrum } Get help, mate. PS managed to get a shag yet? |