French block airlift of British troops to Basra

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Peter McLelland wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

From your side of the Atlantic, I suppose everybody over the
horizon seems to be 'Euro', but to me, a Briton, the idea that
there'' some kind of "Euro spin" over the rebellion of some British
colonists funded by the French Kingdom in the furtherance of a
republic is laughable. I know it's probalby hard to examine the

I understand there are "Europeans" and there are "Britons". I've
become quite anti-European as I age and carelessly lumped the UK with
Europe. I think most Americans consider the Brits "different" from
the "Continentals" even though technically (I think), you're all Euros.

That perhaps is the source of the American problem with Europe. Europe

No. The American problem with Europe is largely one of divergent interests.
Europeans don't understand, or simply don't care to consider American
interests, assuming the US is basically another European country across
a very wide channel.

At one time, that characterization was pretty much true. That is no longer
the case, and becomes less so each year.

I think this comment actually emp[hasised my point, I and many others
in the UK do not always agree or support hte views of others in
Europe, and often the reverse is true also, but in general we do try
to understand why these differences of opion exist and live with them
in a practical way. The world is not ablack and white place, but
exists in many colours and shades and there is aneed to interpret
these if one is to understand it.

is complex, it is dynamic, and it is often just as perverse as the
USA. We cannot all be lumped together in one pot, but our difference

Yes, the normal "perverse" USA. I think you'll find the USA just, if
not more dynamic and complex than Europe. Perhaps you have your own
characterizations and stereotypes to re-examine?

I was not suggesting that the USA was in any way uniquely perverse,
rather bthat all countries have a perverse side to their nature and
culture, in the eyes of others. This is just a fact of life.

are different to US internal differences, so you tend to ignore them,
a mistake I fear. Just as an example, I am British, but I am a Scot
also, I also hold and am proud to do so the Queens commision. My
allegances are complex, but we can cope with this, and it helps
sometimes when we are faced with situations like the Balkans, because
we understand that there are layers of what matters. Life is complex.

Yet you seem to believe there is one "American" character. That is not
the situation. Any cultural, ethnic or religious division or "layer"
you want to point to in Europe will more than likely be easily matched
with one comparable in the US.

As some one who spends much of my working time on a UK/US project with
several UK and US companies and a number of different government
bodies on both sides I am reasonably aware of the diversity in both
countries. To this I can add the experience of workin g with most EU
countries and many oithers around the world, so I would suggest thta I
have reasonable experience of cultural differences in much of the
world.

Peter

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:24:23 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

For a long time, American colonists made the assumptions that good
King George III would straighten out his ministers and policies once
the American colonial displeasure at their perceived loss of rights
was made known to him.

When you talk about "American colonists", you're not talking about all
of them; not even a majority. The converse applies, by the post-facto
binary divisions are inaccurate. There was a wide spectrum of loyalty
to principle, greed, crown, parliament, country, colony and family on
display, and which is eliminated by the excessive simplification
involved in lumping all factions into two clear camps.

The fact that these policies did not change, and in fact grew more
dominating is what eventually led to the change in attitude about
being part of the British Empire. Not a small group of bandito
types manipulating the public for their own financial gain.

Who had the most to gain from ending vie-admiralty courts in Boston?
Face it, the vast majority of ordinary Bostonians were not ship or
cargo owners engaged in smuggling. Look at what happened after the
revolution at Worcester and in Shay's Rebellion: the things which had
antagonised local people and which they had rebelled against did not
end after British rule ended. In fact Sam Adams in power backed a
vigourous anti-sedition policy way beyond General Gage was prepared to
tolerate, at the same time as raising the property qualification for
the vote. There really was a sizeable amount of political cant and
hypocrisy involved in the guld between the revolutionaries claimed
ideals and how many of them behaved.

Of course they then got to write the history and control the
curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
possessions ....
and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".

"The Patriot" was actually based on a lot of historical fact in the
fighting in the southern states during the later stages of the war.

"The Patriot" was an inaccurate load of xenophobic crap, and can only
be considered appropriate if Hollywood is required to make
propagandistic war movies for the home front more than two centuries
after that war actually ended. I strongly doubt any other historical
conflict in American history could be displayed with such prejudicial
demonology in any movie, but the British are a safe target.
Especially when regurgitating "Braveheart" with different costumes. I
doubt anybody could get away with such an offensively one-dimensional
and inaccurate portrayal of blacks or American indians in a
contemporary American movie: the howls of outrage from the domestic
pressure groups would, quite rightfully, hinder such a project.

No such problems when you want to peddle offensive myths and
distortions about the British, however. All Americans are familiar
with their satanic position as puppets in the pantomime they've known
as the war of independence since childhood.

Of course liberties were taken as is typical in Hollywood.

But what is the sum of those "liberties": an All-American hero who
uniquely refuses to own slaves on a Carolinan estate*, British forces
performing atrocities like the Waffen SS under a leader modelled more
on Heydrich than Tarleton, the invincible American woodsman slaying
the redcoats with impunity, etc, etc.

What these "liberties" amount to is a distinct and discernable agenda,
and is just as ideologically driven as a Communist-controlled film
about revolts in the Imperial Russian Navy.

[* The slaves issue is a prime example. There is no way a
contemporary American film can offend the African-American audience as
cavalierly as it can the British, so the historical role of the hero
in regard to them and their role in the period is distorted so
blatantly as to make it comic. Nonetheless, compare his positioning
towards the blacks on his estate and their role and contrast it to the
British. So much for historical accuracy.]

Instead
of the British Army doing all the "war crimes" depicted in the movie,
it would actually have been loyalist bands doing the deeds.

It would be a mixture of _all_ combatants committing war crimes,
including "patriot" guerilla bands and state and continental troops if
historical reality was actually a matter of concern. This immunity
from looting, rape and crime allocated according to uniform colour is
infantile.

But in fairness to the movie, it did show that British soldiers under
the ruthless antagonist didn't like his vicious orders, and the high
command didn't like it either.

That's a transparent fig-leave of consideration in the torrent of
national prejudice being poured out in that movie.

Thus the need to be given Ohio
territory after the war, since he could never return to Britain with
honor.

Given that this would contravene Royal Proclaimations on colonial
expansion, this is just another neo-feudalistic fantasy, impugning
feudal motives to senior aristorcratic and class-ridden British
officers. This has nothing to do with the historical reality and
everything to do with American self-image and national stereotyping.

There is a very good movie to be made on the reality of the experience
of the American revolution, from corrupt and hypocritical Boston
agitators, to loyal and selfless farmers suffering stoically at Valley
Forge, from colonial milita looting and destroying "traitors" property
on both sides, to colonial militia facing a regular army and beating
them face-to-face after severe fighting at Saratoga, to the mass of
ordinary people seeking to evade the worst consequences of a war being
fought in their locality regardless of their private sympathies.

But that kind of movie will never be made. It just doesn't hit the
right buttons in an audience that has been simply brainwashed on the
subject since their earliest history lessons in school.

Gavin Bailey


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:24:23 -0400, Stephen Harding

The fact that these policies did not change, and in fact grew more
dominating is what eventually led to the change in attitude about
being part of the British Empire. Not a small group of bandito
types manipulating the public for their own financial gain.

the vote. There really was a sizeable amount of political cant and
hypocrisy involved in the guld between the revolutionaries claimed
ideals and how many of them behaved.

We don't have a true to ideals, working democracy in this country yet
either. Doesn't mean everyone in government is hypocritical in their
promotion of democratic values. It just means imperfect people are
implementing a pure ideal.

"The Patriot" was actually based on a lot of historical fact in the
fighting in the southern states during the later stages of the war.

"The Patriot" was an inaccurate load of xenophobic crap, and can only
be considered appropriate if Hollywood is required to make
propagandistic war movies for the home front more than two centuries
after that war actually ended. I strongly doubt any other historical
conflict in American history could be displayed with such prejudicial
demonology in any movie, but the British are a safe target.
Especially when regurgitating "Braveheart" with different costumes. I
doubt anybody could get away with such an offensively one-dimensional
and inaccurate portrayal of blacks or American indians in a
contemporary American movie: the howls of outrage from the domestic
pressure groups would, quite rightfully, hinder such a project.

It was a *movie* not a documentary.

No such problems when you want to peddle offensive myths and
distortions about the British, however. All Americans are familiar
with their satanic position as puppets in the pantomime they've known
as the war of independence since childhood.

It wasn't "offensive myths". It represented a composite character in a
war with a full range of good/bad elements.

It was a *MOVIE*!!!

Of course liberties were taken as is typical in Hollywood.

But what is the sum of those "liberties": an All-American hero who
uniquely refuses to own slaves on a Carolinan estate*, British forces

Not so unique, or even if it was, so what?

It was unique but not unheard of for Blacks to own slaves as well. Again,
so what? I suspect a movie about such individuals would not be well
received by the political Black community here, although I think it would
be an interesting study.

performing atrocities like the Waffen SS under a leader modelled more
on Heydrich than Tarleton, the invincible American woodsman slaying
the redcoats with impunity, etc, etc.

IT WAS A MOVIE!!!

Road runners don't blow up coyotes. Police don't regularly flip and
flame automobiles in chases. Most cops don't even draw their guns on
the job through most of their entire careers, CIA agents largely don't
kill people, and even during the height of abuse by J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI, agents were not regularly breaking in to peoples homes or
politically harassing them, investigative reporters usually don't break
Presidents and corporate executives, etc., etc., etc.

Not so on TV or movies.

What these "liberties" amount to is a distinct and discernable agenda,
and is just as ideologically driven as a Communist-controlled film
about revolts in the Imperial Russian Navy.

So I take it you're giving the movie a three thumbs down?

[* The slaves issue is a prime example. There is no way a
contemporary American film can offend the African-American audience as
cavalierly as it can the British, so the historical role of the hero
in regard to them and their role in the period is distorted so
blatantly as to make it comic. Nonetheless, compare his positioning
towards the blacks on his estate and their role and contrast it to the
British. So much for historical accuracy.]

Contemporary films do their share of simplification of issues in the other
direction as well. Although there aren't many projects involving Indian
characters, is there any such thing as a "bad" Indian in a movie any more?

Instead
of the British Army doing all the "war crimes" depicted in the movie,
it would actually have been loyalist bands doing the deeds.

It would be a mixture of _all_ combatants committing war crimes,
including "patriot" guerilla bands and state and continental troops if
historical reality was actually a matter of concern. This immunity
from looting, rape and crime allocated according to uniform colour is
infantile.

It was a *MOVIE*!!!

But in fairness to the movie, it did show that British soldiers under
the ruthless antagonist didn't like his vicious orders, and the high
command didn't like it either.

That's a transparent fig-leave of consideration in the torrent of
national prejudice being poured out in that movie.

You're not going to give it any points whatsoever are you.

Thus the need to be given Ohio
territory after the war, since he could never return to Britain with
honor.

Given that this would contravene Royal Proclaimations on colonial
expansion, this is just another neo-feudalistic fantasy, impugning
feudal motives to senior aristorcratic and class-ridden British
officers. This has nothing to do with the historical reality and
everything to do with American self-image and national stereotyping.

Oh dear. Mel missed the Royal Proclamations against westward expansion
in the colonies. There goes any shred of believability anyone would have
had!

I'd have to wonder if you've ever found a military aviation movie to your
liking, given the vast majority of them are so blatantly wrong in the
technical depiction of the subject.

There is a very good movie to be made on the reality of the experience
of the American revolution, from corrupt and hypocritical Boston
agitators, to loyal and selfless farmers suffering stoically at Valley
Forge, from colonial milita looting and destroying "traitors" property
on both sides, to colonial militia facing a regular army and beating
them face-to-face after severe fighting at Saratoga, to the mass of
ordinary people seeking to evade the worst consequences of a war being
fought in their locality regardless of their private sympathies.

But that kind of movie will never be made. It just doesn't hit the
right buttons in an audience that has been simply brainwashed on the
subject since their earliest history lessons in school.

There are lots of great subjects, with complex interactions, that
could be made into great movies, that aren't. Doesn't mean there is any
"guarding of myths" political agenda being carried out to suppress such
enterprises.

People go to the movies to be entertained, not educated. If you want
to brush up on the intricacies of Revolutionary War history, even Ken
Burns isn't going to do it fully right. You need to read a lot of books.

If you stay true to your demands on pure historical and technical
accuracy in movie making, you're probably not going to like *any*
movie that makes *any* reference to historical record.

The "Patriot" was simply a *movie*. It wasn't the gumint preparing for
war against the UK by initiating a brainwashing campaign on its citizens,
who will now riot if war is not declared.


SMH

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 05:27:32 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

["The Patriot" being a pack of xenophobic rubbish]

It was a *movie* not a documentary.

So was "The Eternal Jew".

It wasn't "offensive myths".

I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
of the mythology concerned. I'll let an American judge how offensive
or otherwise a Vietnamese movie portraying Americans as effette,
murderous war criminals might be. If you find the demonisation of
American which passes for popular analysis in Arab and European
culture to be offensive, I can tell you right now I wouldn't be
appearing to patronisingly lecture you about why you shouldn't feel
offended about the inaccuracies and lies this involves, in fact I
would be agreeing with you.

But what is the sum of those "liberties": an All-American hero who
uniquely refuses to own slaves on a Carolinan estate*, British forces

Not so unique, or even if it was, so what?

So much for the historical factual background you attribute to it.
When the level of accurate representation involved means that the hero
happens to employ a sizeable percentage of the entire free black
population in the Carolinas at the time, you should question the
validity of the historical representation involved. And if the
validity of the historical representation doesn't matter, just give
them all automatic weapons and make the British invading Space Aliens
instead. Somehow, I suspect you'd agree in those cases that
historical accuracy can become significant.

It was unique but not unheard of for Blacks to own slaves as well. Again,
so what? I suspect a movie about such individuals would not be well
received by the political Black community here, although I think it would
be an interesting study.

It would indeed, and it would serve a more valid pupose than yet
another outing for the hackneyed Anglophobic rebels vesus effete
aristocratic British tyrants hero myth.

Road runners don't blow up coyotes.

The road runner cartoons aren't specifically and deliberately located
in a particular historical framework. "The Patriot" was.

What these "liberties" amount to is a distinct and discernable agenda,
and is just as ideologically driven as a Communist-controlled film
about revolts in the Imperial Russian Navy.

So I take it you're giving the movie a three thumbs down?

As I stated, it's a pile of ****, relying on the exploitation of
prejudice to entertain. Strangely enough, being on the sharp end of
that prejudice isn't particularly entertaining for some people.

Contemporary films do their share of simplification of issues in the other
direction as well.

All films simplify. The point is that the simplifications and
distortions in this case are specifically designed to demonise one
specific agency in an ahistorical manner.

Although there aren't many projects involving Indian
characters, is there any such thing as a "bad" Indian in a movie any more?

Indeed, precisely my point. For whatever reasons (political
opposition, political correctness, even genuine fatigue with the
cliches involved) Hollywood has moved, or been forced to move, from
the prejudicial portrayal of American Indians and blacks. No such
sensitivity or ability to cast aside historical prejudice exists when
it comes to staging a drama based on the American revolution. Even
the Germans in WW2 get a more diverse approach these days.

It was a *MOVIE*!!!

So you keep saying. As I said, "The Eternal Jew" is also a movie. Do
you find *it* entertaining? Or are you aware of the prejudice and
antagonism that particular production exploits, and do you find it
subtracts from the entertainment value somewhat?

That's a transparent fig-leave of consideration in the torrent of
national prejudice being poured out in that movie.

You're not going to give it any points whatsoever are you.

Not after "Braveheart", but then I actually have to live in the
country that Randall Wallace and Mel Gibson liked to inflame
nationalist prejudice in. I am aware of the consequences of it. They
can fly back to Hollywood.

I'd have to wonder if you've ever found a military aviation movie to your
liking, given the vast majority of them are so blatantly wrong in the
technical depiction of the subject.

I've enjoyed several. I'll willing to suspend my disbelief if the
simplifications, generalisations and compromises inevitable in any
film production aren't grossly offensive. In "Angels One Five", for
example, there is plenty of stock cliche which was dictated by the
contemporary context, including a rather patronising portrayal of a
pilot from northern Scotland (i.e., where I come from) which relied on
blanket stereotyping. That could very easily have been gratuitously
offensive, but it was written and acted in a subtle and shaded enough
fashion to be believeable.

But that kind of movie will never be made. It just doesn't hit the
right buttons in an audience that has been simply brainwashed on the
subject since their earliest history lessons in school.

There are lots of great subjects, with complex interactions, that
could be made into great movies, that aren't.

Indeed, but "The Patriot", with a little less graphic violence could
have been made in 1956 or 1936 or written as a stage play in 1876.
Charles Laughton reprising his role as Captain Bligh as Tavington,
Clark Gable as Gibson's character, etc, etc. If it had been made then
I wouldn't have the same problems with it to any extent. It wasn't.

Doesn't mean there is any
"guarding of myths" political agenda being carried out to suppress such
enterprises.

I don't believe anybody is suppressing such movies. I believe Randall
Wallace and Mel Gibson knew very well that a movie celebrating the
traditional cliches of the murderous, aristoctatic British and the
rough-hewn, down-home, heroic American guerillas would hit the right
requirements to capitalise on existing American prejudices.

People go to the movies to be entertained, not educated.

It's not a question of education. There's no reason a film which
avoids such gratuitous stereotypes and ahistorical distortions has to
be worthy, dull and boring.

If you want
to brush up on the intricacies of Revolutionary War history, even Ken
Burns isn't going to do it fully right. You need to read a lot of books.

It's not a question of the minutae, it's a question about the most
basic and fundamental approach taken. Why did Mel Gibson make a
propaganda movie about a conflict when ended two centuries ago?

If you stay true to your demands on pure historical and technical
accuracy in movie making, you're probably not going to like *any*
movie that makes *any* reference to historical record.

It's not a question of moving to a ridiculous extreme to discredit any
attempt to make better movies. In the case of "The Patriot", it's a
question of moving it away from a ridiculous extreme that it inhabits
_already_.

The "Patriot" was simply a *movie*. It wasn't the gumint preparing for
war against the UK by initiating a brainwashing campaign on its citizens,
who will now riot if war is not declared.

It was a movie which was designed to reinforce existing popular
historical mythology about the very origin and definition of the
American state, and what defines you as an American. I'm sick and
tired of that depending upon the demonisation of the other nationality
involved.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

:On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 05:27:32 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:
:
:["The Patriot" being a pack of xenophobic rubbish]
:
:It was a *movie* not a documentary.
:
:So was "The Eternal Jew".
:
:It wasn't "offensive myths".
:
:I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
f the mythology concerned.

No, you won't.

The world will judge, and that opinion has been reinforced by hundreds
of years of history which you would no doubt steadfastly deny.

Now start your little motor and troll away home....


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message ...
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

snip
.

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.

Which was _precisely_ the point the "OP" (me) was making
in responding to a posting that claimed 'the Loyalists sided
with the British'. As you, quite rightly comment "most all
Americans at the time considered themselves British,with
British rights"

For the most part, in the beginning, this was so. However,
simulataneous with that feeling, most felt themselves Americans as
well. I suppose much like the Welsh saw themselves as British and
still Welsh.

and it was a _minority_ of rebels that started
an armed insurrection for their own purposes.

This is egregiously wrong. The war started mostly by "accident" or
happenstance if you will. When Jonas Parker and seventy-six of his
neighbors stood on Lexington Green (well away from and not obstructing
the British line of march), he, and they, had no desire to start a
war. Parker was even in the process of dispersing his men when the
first British volley was fired. However, one may make the case that
the North Ministry had made the concious decision for the use of force
against the Massachusetts Bay Colony at least one to two months prior
to Lexington. It was his orders to Gage stating that the province was
already in a state of rebellion that finally prompted Gage to march on
Concord, though he knew that it very well may lead to fighting.

Of course they then got to write the history and control the
curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
possessions ....

A well worn myth. At best its true only for totalitarian regimes.
You have obviously not read much on the American Revolution, its
causes, or the occurrences of its outbreak. It is quite obvious that,
as I mentioned previously, you are merely parroting what the British
of the day thought and claimed where the "rebellion" "started" by a
small minority of influencial men, and that most "Americans" actually
thought themselves "British" and so were loyal. That was the single
greatest misconception made on the part of the British, and derived
most other British misconceptions. Such as the rebellion was centered
in New England, and so all one had to do was conquer New England and
the rebellion would be crushed. This was the thinking that drove
British strategic planning for the first half of the war. The never
understood it, and worse yet, never even thought of altering those
preceptions though all evidence pointed to the contrary. It could
never be that the loyalists were fewer than the British thought, but
just that they were simply unpatriotic and undesirous to sacrafice
themselves and their comfort. It permiates throughout British writings
of the war. That, more than any other cause, was the reason the
British lost the war, and that misguided thinking has persisted ever
since. Much easier (and more "respectible?") to over credit French
assistance, and blame loyalist indifference.

and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".

Or Horatio Hornblower? The Sharpe series? Puh-lease, Mr Sharrock,
nobody but the producers claimed much in the way of historical
accuracy to that movie, which was a box office disappointment
(overall) in a large part because of the liberties (no pun intended)
taken with historical fact and the subsequent controversy with
(American) historians who panned it (and, in no small part its plot
being to obviously derived from "Braveheart"). That said, just what
do you think caused the South to become the center of post-war
American anglo-phobia? Because a few "rich and greedy" men proclaimed
it as such? Problem with much of your, and other posters from your
side of the Pond, is that it is not accurate. American resistance to
the British went through all layers of society for reasons that had
nothing to do with the obtaining of (more) wealth as I've already
previously explained.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:28:43 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

:["The Patriot" being a pack of xenophobic rubbish]
:
:It was a *movie* not a documentary.
:
:So was "The Eternal Jew".
:
:It wasn't "offensive myths".
:
:I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
f the mythology concerned.

No, you won't.

So good of you to dictate what I can and can't do, Fred. As it
happens, I can and I will.

The world will judge, and that opinion has been reinforced by hundreds
of years of history which you would no doubt steadfastly deny.

Shock news for you: "The Patriot" was fictional.

Gavin Bailey


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

On 10 Oct 2003 08:47:32 -0700, (Michael P. Reed)
wrote:

A well worn myth. At best its true only for totalitarian regimes.
You have obviously not read much on the American Revolution, its
causes, or the occurrences of its outbreak. It is quite obvious that,
as I mentioned previously, you are merely parroting what the British
of the day thought and claimed where the "rebellion" "started" by a
small minority of influencial men, and that most "Americans" actually
thought themselves "British" and so were loyal. That was the single
greatest misconception made on the part of the British, and derived
most other British misconceptions. Such as the rebellion was centered
in New England, and so all one had to do was conquer New England and
the rebellion would be crushed. This was the thinking that drove
British strategic planning for the first half of the war.

Strange how after they evacuated Boston in March 1776 (less than a
year after Lexington & Concord) they never came back, and how Howe and
Burgoyne's operations thereafter concentrated on New York, then
Philadelphia. For one who likes to cast aspersions on the knowledge
of others, you don't seem too clued-up yourself.

[snip the usual Painesque cobblers]

Gavin Bailey
--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

:On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:28:43 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
::["The Patriot" being a pack of xenophobic rubbish]
::
::It was a *movie* not a documentary.
::
::So was "The Eternal Jew".
::
::It wasn't "offensive myths".
::
::I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
:f the mythology concerned.
:
:No, you won't.
:
:So good of you to dictate what I can and can't do, Fred. As it
:happens, I can and I will.

Well, no, you can't and you won't, no matter what you think, any more
than we get to be the judge of American actions. See below.

:The world will judge, and that opinion has been reinforced by hundreds
:of years of history which you would no doubt steadfastly deny.
:
:Shock news for you: "The Patriot" was fictional.

Hell, *I* knew that. From the way you're ranting on, though, I would
have thought that YOU didn't.

Of course, much of what you claim seems to be fantasy, as well, but,
by all means, troll on, Gavin.

Troll on.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 01:13:49 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

::I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
:f the mythology concerned.
:
:No, you won't.
:
:So good of you to dictate what I can and can't do, Fred. As it
:happens, I can and I will.

Well, no, you can't and you won't, no matter what you think,

Sorry Fred, I can, I will, and I in fact do, no matter how
objectionable you find that process.

any more
than we get to be the judge of American actions.

One of the outcomes of the American revolution (although not a
principle and immediate one, despite the propaganda) is that you have
the right to judge American actions and select your own government.
Fortunately most Americans don't share your flippant refusal to judge
actions at a national level, and actually apply a measure of judgement
to local, state and national governmental behaviour. I shall resist
any temptation to comment on the California recall to observe that, in
general, Americans exercise this judgement fairly responsibly.

:The world will judge, and that opinion has been reinforced by hundreds
:of years of history which you would no doubt steadfastly deny.
:
:Shock news for you: "The Patriot" was fictional.

Hell, *I* knew that.

The argument was about the value of it's historical basis. If you can
contribute, go ahead. If not, stop wasting your own time by following
up this thread.

Of course, much of what you claim seems to be fantasy, as well, but,
by all means, troll on, Gavin.

If I am a troll (which in this instance I am not, although I'm
enjoying a heated response), why are you feeding me?

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell