Refusing to screen the final Frozen Planet? I would have thought it was not only interesting but essential viewing.

But then I've never understood how people like my brother can live in San Francisco.

it's certainly an odd place were everything and anything goes which is why I love it.

i would have thought any show could be shown on cable.

Locked Out wrote:
e or that Europe's economic woes are a direct result of American greed.


You don't think the idiots who invented the Euro as a 'one size fits all' currency for vastly differing economies had anything to do with it?

It's not that I agree or disagree with either side on global warming (I don't know enough about it and frankly don't care - it's not as though we can do anything about it and we certainly won't). It's just fascinating to watch and learn.

JK2006 wrote:
it's not as though we can do anything about it


So wrong.

Innocent Accused wrote:You don't think the idiots who invented the Euro as a 'one size fits all' currency for vastly differing economies had anything to do with it?

You mean like the "idiots" who invented the Dollar as a "one size fits all" for the vastly differing economies of the United States of America?

The only real differences are in:

1. The numbers of States involved in the two trading areas. The Eurozone has 17 States, projected to rise to 27 {or 28 if I had anything to do with it}, while the US has 50 who manage, somehow, to deal with and in one currency.

2. The minds of those who for whatever reason have been waiting eagerly for the Euro to hit problems so they can bleat about what a rotten idea
it was all along. Tell that to those idiots on the Continental Conference who thought that economies as widely differing as Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations could possibly all have the same currency. And, if you count carefully, you'll see that there are only 13 names there, which isn't so vastly different from 17. The scantest of research will reveal that the economies varied from reliance on slave trading to fishing, from tobacco growing to fur trapping.

Had these relatively simple trades been adhered to we perhaps would live in less volatile times. As it is the money markets of New York collectively decided it would be a good idea to invest massively in toxic loans. That's why we have the situation we have. You may wish to push the blame to this side of the Atlantic. But you're fooling yourself if you wish to blame the either the Euro or the Eurozone.

Carl wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
it's not as though we can do anything about it


So wrong.



Agreed, Carl. We recycle nearly everything, our rubbish bin contains an almost empty binbag at the end of every week. We now actually only put that bag out when it is much fuller... unless it really smells, which it does rarely because we recycle most food scraps. We turn everything off at the mains when not in use. Our carbon footprint is just about as small as we can make it but we're still trying to push the envelope even further. My trusty old diesel Bora is being replaced with a hybrid early in the new year and that will reduce things even further. So we are trying to do more. And will continue to do so. We can do something about it. We must.

Locked Out wrote:
Innocent Accused wrote:You don't think the idiots who invented the Euro as a 'one size fits all' currency for vastly differing economies had anything to do with it?

You mean like the "idiots" who invented the Dollar as a "one size fits all" for the vastly differing economies of the United States of America?

The only real differences are in:

1. The numbers of States involved in the two trading areas. The Eurozone has 17 States, projected to rise to 27 {or 28 if I had anything to do with it}, while the US has 50 who manage, somehow, to deal with and in one currency.

2. The minds of those who for whatever reason have been waiting eagerly for the Euro to hit problems so they can bleat about what a rotten idea
it was all along. Tell that to those idiots on the Continental Conference who thought that economies as widely differing as Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations could possibly all have the same currency. And, if you count carefully, you'll see that there are only 13 names there, which isn't so vastly different from 17. The scantest of research will reveal that the economies varied from reliance on slave trading to fishing, from tobacco growing to fur trapping.

Had these relatively simple trades been adhered to we perhaps would live in less volatile times. As it is the money markets of New York collectively decided it would be a good idea to invest massively in toxic loans. That's why we have the situation we have. You may wish to push the blame to this side of the Atlantic. But you're fooling yourself if you wish to blame the either the Euro or the Eurozone.

The dollar started in 1776,and evolved through ties of language and culture.Even the civil war was about slavery and state's rights,not about central economic policy.
The dollar is not about to fall apart because the people of Delaware were allowed to borrow heavily by a lax central bank in New York.
Really LO this post does show a complete lack of reality,and the creation of a 'dream world' philosophy on the subject.
The euro is in a mess of its own making,and will survive so long as Germany is prepared to pay for it.
Even France and Germany have been put on credit watch by a ratings agency,will the current panic to get any form of treaty fix be enough to cover over the chasms?

Be prepared to see up to half of the countries of the eurozone leave,of course watch carefully and see how many American states do likewise. As of course it will if we're to believe your logic is sound.

Locked Out wrote:
What is, of course, most worrying is that we constantly shrink from telling Americans the truth.

hear, hear !

Locked Out wrote:
Innocent Accused wrote:You don't think the idiots who invented the Euro as a 'one size fits all' currency for vastly differing economies had anything to do with it?

You mean like the "idiots" who invented the Dollar as a "one size fits all" for the vastly differing economies of the United States of America?

The only real differences are in:

1. The numbers of States involved in the two trading areas. The Eurozone has 17 States, projected to rise to 27 {or 28 if I had anything to do with it}, while the US has 50 who manage, somehow, to deal with and in one currency.

2. The minds of those who for whatever reason have been waiting eagerly for the Euro to hit problems so they can bleat about what a rotten idea
it was all along. Tell that to those idiots on the Continental Conference who thought that economies as widely differing as Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations could possibly all have the same currency. And, if you count carefully, you'll see that there are only 13 names there, which isn't so vastly different from 17. The scantest of research will reveal that the economies varied from reliance on slave trading to fishing, from tobacco growing to fur trapping.

Had these relatively simple trades been adhered to we perhaps would live in less volatile times. As it is the money markets of New York collectively decided it would be a good idea to invest massively in toxic loans. That's why we have the situation we have. You may wish to push the blame to this side of the Atlantic. But you're fooling yourself if you wish to blame the either the Euro or the Eurozone.

The Eurozone is falling to pieces because it was badly designed,and badly run.You can't shift the blame on the Americans because the ECB didn't keep control of member's debts.
I doubt even the Krauts have the money to bail out the Greeks and others.
As for your historical comparisons,sorry buddy,but you really do not know anything about economics,or history,or politics.Some countries have split recently,like Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia/Sudan,but that has never even been considered for The USA.The EU tried to buck the trend,and has been exposed.Let us hope the world's financial systems do not break up as a result of their folly.

Locked Out wrote:
Agreed, Carl. We recycle nearly everything, our rubbish bin contains an almost empty binbag at the end of every week. We now actually only put that bag out when it is much fuller... unless it really smells, which it does rarely because we recycle most food scraps. We turn everything off at the mains when not in use. Our carbon footprint is just about as small as we can make it but we're still trying to push the envelope even further. My trusty old diesel Bora is being replaced with a hybrid early in the new year and that will reduce things even further. So we are trying to do more. And will continue to do so. We can do something about it. We must.
Bravo (sincerely), but it's business & industry who need to sort themselves out, too... late one evening a few years ago there was a programme on TV advising us all to switch lights off in empty rooms, even if it was only for a few minutes. As it happened I then had to drive into central London via Canary Wharf, and what did I see but entire empty skyscrapers, all lit up like Christmas trees, every room on every floor, each building probably the (lightbulb) equivalent of a whole postcode, maybe even a whole village. It's great to have all of us doing our individual bits, but it would only take one boss to sign one memo in each of these buildings to make "lights out after hours" a policy that would really make a difference...

And back to the OP, how scary that "climate change denial" has taken hold so much in the US, that it's apparently "unamerican" to even express the notion...

Well I'm probably mad and I believe in global warming because I think the sun is cooling down and has done for millions of years - slowly Pluto froze, then Neptune... last to go? Mars. Next? The earth. Venus will cool and eventually become habitable. Finally Mercury and then the Sun goes out.

Turn off your lights if you like but you won't stop the inevitable.

To all the people who think they are doing their bit for the environment by selling their gas guzzling cars and replacing them with greener than green low emission eco friendly models.

Do you not realise that the people who you sell them to will maybe start driving them around after buying them from you?

This is not solving anything. just passing the buck.

If you really want to help, scrap them off then buy the greener than green cars!

Locked Out wrote:
Innocent Accused wrote:You don't think the idiots who invented the Euro as a 'one size fits all' currency for vastly differing economies had anything to do with it?

You mean like the "idiots" who invented the Dollar as a "one size fits all" for the vastly differing economies of the United States of America?

The only real differences are in:

1. The numbers of States involved in the two trading areas. The Eurozone has 17 States, projected to rise to 27 {or 28 if I had anything to do with it}, while the US has 50 who manage, somehow, to deal with and in one currency.

2. The minds of those who for whatever reason have been waiting eagerly for the Euro to hit problems so they can bleat about what a rotten idea
it was all along. Tell that to those idiots on the Continental Conference who thought that economies as widely differing as Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations could possibly all have the same currency. And, if you count carefully, you'll see that there are only 13 names there, which isn't so vastly different from 17. The scantest of research will reveal that the economies varied from reliance on slave trading to fishing, from tobacco growing to fur trapping.

Had these relatively simple trades been adhered to we perhaps would live in less volatile times. As it is the money markets of New York collectively decided it would be a good idea to invest massively in toxic loans. That's why we have the situation we have. You may wish to push the blame to this side of the Atlantic. But you're fooling yourself if you wish to blame the either the Euro or the Eurozone.

Most Asian countries are doing fine,trading in the EU,and don't need to be in it to do that.
The problem with you is that you're a defeatist,get over it,move on.

Yes, that's right. I should have known better than to place any faith the Euro. And my continued faith in it, rather than my running screaming from the room and embracing graciously and gratefully a currency which is itself shot and has been for years, proves me to be a defeatist and moral coward of the worst kind. What's best, d'you think? For being perverted enough to feel more ties to Europe than I do to England should I drown myself in shame, lock myself in a room with a loaded revolver and do the decent thing? Or should I throw myself on the mercy of my fellow countrymen and beg for forgiveness for being such a gutless wanker? Maybe I could sing "Rule Britannia" loudly and repeatedly until I actually start to believe some of it? Whatever it is that you'd like me to do I'll do it. That's the nature of we defeatists. No backbone, you see. Plenty of "fizz" but no "bang". As for any advice regarding my movements... well, I'll move at my own pace, thank you.

I'd also like to apologise for my unpardonable lack of historical understanding. I'd always believed that the American Civil War -triggered not by slavery {see, I'm such a fool that I even got that wrong} but by the secession of no less than 11 of the "united" States - qualified as a "split" that had "been considered for {sic - you should have said "in"} The USA". Or, rather, it wasn't so much "considered" as it was "declared intention". And not only was it "declared intention", it was intention carried through to action. From 1861 to 1865 those 11 States were governed independently from Virginia. So, it had always been my stupid, mistaken, wilful and almost wantonly ill-educated belief, it was pretty much the settled view of those 11 States that that - as far as their membership of the Union was concerned - was that. I can probably be forgiven for this {but why should I be when it's so obviously erroneous?}, but when people start setting up alternative governments then they're in all likelihood quite set on an alternative and independent future. How utterly pan-headed and stupid of me. The Confederate Government clearly meant something else by;

"We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government {my italics}, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."


Maybe "Dear Bram, we'd quite like to still be governed from Washington, you mustn't take any of this seriously, I mean it's not like we want to rock the boat or anything. We only used the word "Confederate" because no one in the office knows how to spell Unytid Unytied Untidied
Unedited... see what I mean, Bram?". Perhaps you can tell me what they really meant. Clearly you know much more about it than I do. I mean it looks like a "split". Or at least the "consideration" of one. But there I go again. Me and my stupid misunderstanding of what are, on the face of it, clear and easy-to-read statements and documents. And it's now crystal clear to me that firing on Fort Sumter was the strongest signal the South could send that they intended to stay in the Union as long as there was breath in their bodies. The so-called "Rebel" Yell was the greatest misnomer in the history of the English language. Those guys were, I'm now convinced, simply shouting "let us back in..." I'm ever so glad you're here to put me straight. Buddy.

Likewise, I'd always just sort of assumed that Lincoln's policy with regard to slavery was to contain rather than abolish it, at least for the foreseeable future. But now I see the light. And because, unlike you, I know nothing about history, once again I'm grateful to have that stupid canard crushed before my very eyes.

I'd like to thank you for setting me straight.

However, there's just one little thing that's kinda bugging me.

There were something like 646,392 {Yeah, I know that's a curiously precise figure for "something like" but what the hell, I'm no historian, just a political and economic idiot. An obviously a really clever person like you who really knows his stuff will probably be able to tell me how they arrive at these figures} dead or wounded in what appears, after all, to be not, despite my previous completely ignorant beliefs, something to do with a country either threatening to "split" or actually "splitting". That's something approximating 2% of the entire population of the U.S. at the time. That's one hell of a lot of people. The U.S, has never lost anything like that in percentage terms in any of its {many} conflicts since. Clearly, though, this was nothing to do with the potential breaking up of the United States Of America. I know that because you've told me quite plainly and knowledgeably that such an event has never happened, even in terms of intention. As you have told me "Some countries have split recently,like Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia/Sudan,but that has never even been considered for The USA". So just what did all those people get killed or wounded for? Surely it can't have been for the reasons Lincoln himself gave in the Gettysburg Address, a section of which I reproduce here -

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live {my italics again}

- because that would suggest that he was just as much an idiot as I am when it comes to spotting whether or not a country {in this case he was probably an even bigger idiot than me because that country was his own, the poor demented sap} has "considered" "splitting".

Thank you once again for pointing out the deficiencies in my education and understanding of history. It's certainly given me pause for thought.

On the other hand, it's just possible that your grasp of history is even worse than mine. Your patent lack of understanding of what "a civil war" is {and especially what lay at the heart of the American Civil War - the very existence of the "Union"} might just suggest that this is the case. In which case you may wish to be just a little more careful in future.

The EU is the only hope for Europe & the UK.

The USA is a busted flush with the inevitable coming. It has outsourced almost everything because Wall Street now controls decisions. It's decline is just a trickle that will become a deluge.

China, Russia, India are the new coming power where the US has outsourced it's future to.

The Roman Empire in decline was probably quite a thrilling ride.

fasten your seat belts.

Locked Out wrote:
Yes, that's right. I should have known better than to place any faith the Euro. And my continued faith in it, rather than my running screaming from the room and embracing graciously and gratefully a currency which is itself shot and has been for years, proves me to be a defeatist and moral coward of the worst kind. What's best, d'you think? For being perverted enough to feel more ties to Europe than I do to England should I drown myself in shame, lock myself in a room with a loaded revolver and do the decent thing? Or should I throw myself on the mercy of my fellow countrymen and beg for forgiveness for being such a gutless wanker? Maybe I could sing "Rule Britannia" loudly and repeatedly until I actually start to believe some of it? Whatever it is that you'd like me to do I'll do it. That's the nature of we defeatists. No backbone, you see. Plenty of "fizz" but no "bang". As for any advice regarding my movements... well, I'll move at my own pace, thank you.

I'd also like to apologise for my unpardonable lack of historical understanding. I'd always believed that the American Civil War -triggered not by slavery {see, I'm such a fool that I even got that wrong} but by the secession of no less than 11 of the "united" States - qualified as a "split" that had "been considered for {sic - you should have said "in"} The USA". Or, rather, it wasn't so much "considered" as it was "declared intention". And not only was it "declared intention", it was intention carried through to action. From 1861 to 1865 those 11 States were governed independently from Virginia. So, it had always been my stupid, mistaken, wilful and almost wantonly ill-educated belief, it was pretty much the settled view of those 11 States that that - as far as their membership of the Union was concerned - was that. I can probably be forgiven for this {but why should I be when it's so obviously erroneous?}, but when people start setting up alternative governments then they're in all likelihood quite set on an alternative and independent future. How utterly pan-headed and stupid of me. The Confederate Government clearly meant something else by;

"We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government {my italics}, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."


Maybe "Dear Bram, we'd quite like to still be governed from Washington, you mustn't take any of this seriously, I mean it's not like we want to rock the boat or anything. We only used the word "Confederate" because no one in the office knows how to spell Unytid Unytied Untidied
Unedited... see what I mean, Bram?". Perhaps you can tell me what they really meant. Clearly you know much more about it than I do. I mean it looks like a "split". Or at least the "consideration" of one. But there I go again. Me and my stupid misunderstanding of what are, on the face of it, clear and easy-to-read statements and documents. And it's now crystal clear to me that firing on Fort Sumter was the strongest signal the South could send that they intended to stay in the Union as long as there was breath in their bodies. The so-called "Rebel" Yell was the greatest misnomer in the history of the English language. Those guys were, I'm now convinced, simply shouting "let us back in..." I'm ever so glad you're here to put me straight. Buddy.

Likewise, I'd always just sort of assumed that Lincoln's policy with regard to slavery was to contain rather than abolish it, at least for the foreseeable future. But now I see the light. And because, unlike you, I know nothing about history, once again I'm grateful to have that stupid canard crushed before my very eyes.

I'd like to thank you for setting me straight.

However, there's just one little thing that's kinda bugging me.

There were something like 646,392 {Yeah, I know that's a curiously precise figure for "something like" but what the hell, I'm no historian, just a political and economic idiot. An obviously a really clever person like you who really knows his stuff will probably be able to tell me how they arrive at these figures} dead or wounded in what appears, after all, to be not, despite my previous completely ignorant beliefs, something to do with a country either threatening to "split" or actually "splitting". That's something approximating 2% of the entire population of the U.S. at the time. That's one hell of a lot of people. The U.S, has never lost anything like that in percentage terms in any of its {many} conflicts since. Clearly, though, this was nothing to do with the potential breaking up of the United States Of America. I know that because you've told me quite plainly and knowledgeably that such an event has never happened, even in terms of intention. As you have told me "Some countries have split recently,like Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia/Sudan,but that has never even been considered for The USA". So just what did all those people get killed or wounded for? Surely it can't have been for the reasons Lincoln himself gave in the Gettysburg Address, a section of which I reproduce here -

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live {my italics again}

- because that would suggest that he was just as much an idiot as I am when it comes to spotting whether or not a country {in this case he was probably an even bigger idiot than me because that country was his own, the poor demented sap} has "considered" "splitting".

Thank you once again for pointing out the deficiencies in my education and understanding of history. It's certainly given me pause for thought.

On the other hand, it's just possible that your grasp of history is even worse than mine. Your patent lack of understanding of what "a civil war" is {and especially what lay at the heart of the American Civil War - the very existence of the "Union"} might just suggest that this is the case. In which case you may wish to be just a little more careful in future.


Made no sense at all!
The eurozone is dying,accept it and stop waffling please.

Pattaya wrote:
Locked Out wrote:
Yes, that's right. I should have known better than to place any faith the Euro. And my continued faith in it, rather than my running screaming from the room and embracing graciously and gratefully a currency which is itself shot and has been for years, proves me to be a defeatist and moral coward of the worst kind. What's best, d'you think? For being perverted enough to feel more ties to Europe than I do to England should I drown myself in shame, lock myself in a room with a loaded revolver and do the decent thing? Or should I throw myself on the mercy of my fellow countrymen and beg for forgiveness for being such a gutless wanker? Maybe I could sing "Rule Britannia" loudly and repeatedly until I actually start to believe some of it? Whatever it is that you'd like me to do I'll do it. That's the nature of we defeatists. No backbone, you see. Plenty of "fizz" but no "bang". As for any advice regarding my movements... well, I'll move at my own pace, thank you.

I'd also like to apologise for my unpardonable lack of historical understanding. I'd always believed that the American Civil War -triggered not by slavery {see, I'm such a fool that I even got that wrong} but by the secession of no less than 11 of the "united" States - qualified as a "split" that had "been considered for {sic - you should have said "in"} The USA". Or, rather, it wasn't so much "considered" as it was "declared intention". And not only was it "declared intention", it was intention carried through to action. From 1861 to 1865 those 11 States were governed independently from Virginia. So, it had always been my stupid, mistaken, wilful and almost wantonly ill-educated belief, it was pretty much the settled view of those 11 States that that - as far as their membership of the Union was concerned - was that. I can probably be forgiven for this {but why should I be when it's so obviously erroneous?}, but when people start setting up alternative governments then they're in all likelihood quite set on an alternative and independent future. How utterly pan-headed and stupid of me. The Confederate Government clearly meant something else by;

"We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government {my italics}, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."


Maybe "Dear Bram, we'd quite like to still be governed from Washington, you mustn't take any of this seriously, I mean it's not like we want to rock the boat or anything. We only used the word "Confederate" because no one in the office knows how to spell Unytid Unytied Untidied
Unedited... see what I mean, Bram?". Perhaps you can tell me what they really meant. Clearly you know much more about it than I do. I mean it looks like a "split". Or at least the "consideration" of one. But there I go again. Me and my stupid misunderstanding of what are, on the face of it, clear and easy-to-read statements and documents. And it's now crystal clear to me that firing on Fort Sumter was the strongest signal the South could send that they intended to stay in the Union as long as there was breath in their bodies. The so-called "Rebel" Yell was the greatest misnomer in the history of the English language. Those guys were, I'm now convinced, simply shouting "let us back in..." I'm ever so glad you're here to put me straight. Buddy.

Likewise, I'd always just sort of assumed that Lincoln's policy with regard to slavery was to contain rather than abolish it, at least for the foreseeable future. But now I see the light. And because, unlike you, I know nothing about history, once again I'm grateful to have that stupid canard crushed before my very eyes.

I'd like to thank you for setting me straight.

However, there's just one little thing that's kinda bugging me.

There were something like 646,392 {Yeah, I know that's a curiously precise figure for "something like" but what the hell, I'm no historian, just a political and economic idiot. An obviously a really clever person like you who really knows his stuff will probably be able to tell me how they arrive at these figures} dead or wounded in what appears, after all, to be not, despite my previous completely ignorant beliefs, something to do with a country either threatening to "split" or actually "splitting". That's something approximating 2% of the entire population of the U.S. at the time. That's one hell of a lot of people. The U.S, has never lost anything like that in percentage terms in any of its {many} conflicts since. Clearly, though, this was nothing to do with the potential breaking up of the United States Of America. I know that because you've told me quite plainly and knowledgeably that such an event has never happened, even in terms of intention. As you have told me "Some countries have split recently,like Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia/Sudan,but that has never even been considered for The USA". So just what did all those people get killed or wounded for? Surely it can't have been for the reasons Lincoln himself gave in the Gettysburg Address, a section of which I reproduce here -

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live {my italics again}

- because that would suggest that he was just as much an idiot as I am when it comes to spotting whether or not a country {in this case he was probably an even bigger idiot than me because that country was his own, the poor demented sap} has "considered" "splitting".

Thank you once again for pointing out the deficiencies in my education and understanding of history. It's certainly given me pause for thought.

On the other hand, it's just possible that your grasp of history is even worse than mine. Your patent lack of understanding of what "a civil war" is {and especially what lay at the heart of the American Civil War - the very existence of the "Union"} might just suggest that this is the case. In which case you may wish to be just a little more careful in future.


Made no sense at all!
The eurozone is dying,accept it and stop waffling please.

I have to agree,even BR's reptile people made more sense.