Sun Feb 10 23:01:30 2002

Just like we pay for their very existence, the leeches.  

The whole Royalty thing just irritates the hell ouf of me: "You're massivly inbred, so we're going to treat you as superior and put you on an elaborate form of welfare for the rest of your lives!"

Sun Feb 10 23:21:25 2002

Sun Feb 10 23:23:02 2002

Mon Feb 11 01:43:13 2002

Just like we pay for their very existence, the leeches.

Or if we do currently, it's going to be phased out very shortly.

They're financially self-sufficient, and valuable to the commerce of London.  They make a net profit, and for that reason (and that reason alone) are a good thing.

Mon Feb 11 03:14:51 2002

Mon Feb 11 03:24:54 2002

how are the royal's making a net profit? and how are they a valuable commerce to the english?

Investments?  Tourism for things like Buckingham palace and the Crown Jewels perhaps?

Mon Feb 11 03:31:07 2002

how are the royal's making a net profit?

and how are they a valuable commerce to the english?

Mon Feb 11 03:45:28 2002

what do the royal invest in?

and you mean as a tourist i can go to the palace and see prince charles sitting next to the queen mother?
:eek:
:rolleyes:

While I was on holiday in Paris I visited the Palace of Versai (sp?) and I suppose one could say that the 'royals' bring in money from tourism.

OHH!!! The changing of those stuffy palace guards! oh yeah.. england's pride for making men into machine!

w00t!

go England!

:tongue:
:cheesy:

Mon Feb 11 03:47:47 2002

what do the royal invest in?

Tea to Boston.

go England!

...And take the French with you! :cheesy:

Mon Feb 11 03:52:26 2002

Maybe not the scots and the irish but i don't know since i haven't been there.

gosh the english can be soooo boring! ack! granted beautiful women with brit accents turn me on for some odd reason.. or maybe it has nothing to do with the accent and more to do with their beauty... so many questions unanswered...

Mon Feb 11 03:56:46 2002

After all, they have developed a lot of culturaly significant things from music to art to literature.

They tend to be rather innovative at times.

Plus, they speak a charming, yet primative form of 'American' :cheesy:

Mon Feb 11 04:22:05 2002

Granted I don't think any one country can be singled out as the greatest contributor but its unfair to think that we own anything to british either.

Each country has their peak and thus the contribution to the world's culture.

The Greeks. The Romans. The Arabians. The Egyptians. All have HAD massive influence in the western world, from culture to art, from law to govt. and the economy.

Mon Feb 11 04:34:15 2002

And you forgot to mention whatever country(ies) that form the ancestry of Katie Holmes. :)

Mon Feb 11 06:26:06 2002

Mon Feb 11 11:58:39 2002

from OscarWilde posted at 3:45 am on Feb. 11, 2002

wouldn't that be the same for a govt.?

what do the royal invest in?

and you mean as a tourist i can go to the palace and see prince charles sitting next to the queen mother?
:eek:
:rolleyes:

The brits have not contributed any more then the other countries in the things you have suggested, infact I doubt that the Brits have that much influence at all except for a few.

Granted I don't think any one country can be singled out as the greatest contributor but its unfair to think that we own anything to british either.

Mon Feb 11 15:13:36 2002

1)The roots of Democracy
2)The Industrial Revolution
3)Capitalism
4)Modern Pop Music (but not that rap crap)
5)Art-Literature: Shakespeare, Handel, OscarWilde :) , Monty Python.

Great Britain has had one of the largest impacts on Western Civilazation methinks.  

Mon Feb 11 17:38:37 2002

Mon Feb 11 18:11:36 2002

wouldn't that be the same for a govt.?
No.  People don't buy mugs and tea-towels with President Blair's face on them, or flock each summer to 10 Downing Street for a guided tour, or gaze on in awe at the changing of the policeman who stands outside his house.

In America they have people buy mugs and tea-towels with Elvis on it. They buy t-shirts with malcom-x on it. Fuck they even go to the houses of these famous people/celebrities... your point?

what do the royal invest in?
The same stuff anyone else invests in.

And this validates the existence of the royals? So that they can invest in the same thing that other people do?

and you mean as a tourist i can go to the palace and see prince charles sitting next to the queen mother?

No.  But during a few months in the summer you can go on a guided tour of Buckingham Palace.

What part of "I visited the Palace of Versaille" did you miss? Granted I don't remember how to spell the name properly but none the less you don't need living royals to have people visit a place. And i believe you can visit the White house too.

So whats your fucking point?

The brits have not contributed any more then the other countries in the things you have suggested, infact I doubt that the Brits have that much influence at all except for a few.
Yeah, just minor things like the language we're speaking.  Not much influence at all.

Yeah really fucking single minded of you cunt. English is a mish mash of german, french, greek and latin. So what? I don't fucking owe the brits for english as much as you owe the French, Germans, Greeks and Latins anything.

Granted I don't think any one country can be singled out as the greatest contributor but its unfair to think that we own anything to british either.
Only if you're a complete boneheaded fuckhole, which apparently you are.

Go fuck your self bitch and spare me your bullshit nationalistic pride. What the fuck did I say that was wrong? The brits have not contributed anything more significant then the other countries. All countries have their influence. To think that one country should be singled as the greatest is just shallow nationalism which i detest.
So go fuck off cunt.

AYB: What the hell are you on?...

1)The roots of Democracy

2)The Industrial Revolution

3)Capitalism

4)Modern Pop Music (but not that rap crap)

5)Art-Literature: Shakespeare, Handel, OscarWilde  , Monty Python.

So what? Again, what part of, England is not the most significant contributor to western culture? It is one of them yes but not the only one.

Shakespere most famous piece: Romeo and Juliet is based on an true story that apparently occured in Italy. Although my sister tells me its in a city some where in Austria or Germany.
Oscar Wilde (Irish) criticised the brit culture of the time. He was very anti-aristocratic and also very anti brit because they chastised the irish folk at the time.

Handel? Are you forgetting Bethoveen? Mozart? Bach? With no Bethoveen you would not have the begining of the Romantic period. Without Mozart the classical period would not have been as big. Bach made Barouqe what it is, granted Handel had a part in it too. And both are German. Bach's music has a much bigger influence on neo-classical music which also has an inlfuence of heavy metal.

whoa! AYB... if you're gonna stand up for the brits at least do it right.

Mon Feb 11 18:15:29 2002

AND ALSO: WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU GUYS TRYING SO HARD TO CONVINCE ME THAT WE OWE ONE COUNTRY ANYTHING?
HAVE YOU GUYS EVER STUDIED HISTORY? EACH COUNTRY HAS THEIR INFLUENCE. MORE SO THE OLDER CULTURES HAVE A MUCH LARGER INFLUENCE BECAUSE THATS WHERE WE CAN TRACE IT BACK TO.

Mon Feb 11 18:17:33 2002

NOT EVEN EUROPE

:mad:
:tongue:

Mon Feb 11 18:27:10 2002

England has had an influence but again not enough to give it the award for most influential country ever.

Consider this:

The last few decades have really been influenced by the Americans. heh, if weren't for them we would not be sitting here typing on this computer over the internet which was both developed there. :tongue:

Mon Feb 11 18:28:48 2002

- Abolition of slavery (cf William Wilberforce)
- Advent of free, compulsory public education
- Tea.

The slavery and public education thing are okay, but the last one is probably the most important.  :)

Mon Feb 11 18:34:23 2002

When you want to be like a super power, first you emulate. Thats what the Japanesse did during world war ii. They studied the brits because, like Japan, England was an island close to a continent and yet it became a super power.

Did the English really start free education? I thought it was the Swedes or the Norwegiens that were a major influence on a socialsitic society? Did ya know that Christian Anderson (the writer of The Matchstick Girl) had a really big influence on the aristocratic and royals in nothern europe? its because of his stories that spark the call for socialism in that region.

Mon Feb 11 18:36:27 2002

well no one can forget the boston tea party. off course tea came from India so how england had a role in that beats the hey out of me.

Americans made Coffee big. What do Canadians drink? I might visit Canada this summer. Go stay with Biege since he offered me a place. yay!

Mon Feb 11 18:52:09 2002

It wasn't entirely altruistic-- one of the goals of compulsory free public education was in order to prevent a situation where the mass of uneducated peasants rose up in revolt, as in the French Revolution, which scared all the other European monarchies shitless at the time.  The goal was "maximum benefit for the maximum number" and the arguments given in the English Parliament were quite intelligent and convincing.

Note that private education was still encouraged for the upper, ruling classes-- we still have this dichotomy today, and it will probably never really go away.

The other thing that the English did that no other Imperial power had done was extend their public education imperatives through the empire-- also allowing for the upper class in subject nations to study at elite private schools like Eton.  Although the goal of this was entirely imperialistic in nature (in order to maintain the empire, you need subjects educated in British ways) it turned out to be beneficial for the subject nations.  Compare countries that used to be part of the British empire and those that were part of the French, and see which ones are better off today.

But the English weren't perfect and did a lot of nasty things as imperialists.  And the contribution of the United States to the world is also quite significant-- they were rarely imperialists in the classical sense, but they exported culture and technology on a global scale.

Man, I could go on all day, but I have to get back to work :biggrin:

Mon Feb 11 18:57:10 2002

Mon Feb 11 18:58:46 2002

Maybe i should read a history book... yeah right... history is fun but history books are boooorrrinnng....

Mon Feb 11 19:02:47 2002

had to do a search on google...

me also enjoyed the lesson on the tennis court oath... hmmm i might have something to do this holiday after all. i should catch up on my history.

cool!

Mon Feb 11 19:33:58 2002

Well to be fair to AYB, Britain was a bit ahead of everyone else on the Industrial Revolution, but I dont think that could really be considered a contribution.

Also the Parlimentary system is emulated in one way or annother by many countries, so they did contribute to democracy in a significant way.

Mon Feb 11 20:03:17 2002

"You're massivly inbred, so we're going to treat you as superior and put you on an elaborate form of welfare for the rest of your lives!"

Sounds like you're describing Kentucky. :tongue:

WRT England, I think it's safe to say that without them, we'd likely be speaking Spanish. ;)

Mon Feb 11 21:06:48 2002

I got ripped a new one by da poopy one. :(

Quote: 1)The roots of Democracy  

No thats the Greeks where democracy has its roots in and apparently Roman's according to this
When did any democratic nation have royals in 'power'

I would tend to classify the ancient greeks as a Republic, which is close to a Democracy, but not quite there.  Who are you going to believe, AYB or Microsoft ;)The conditions in Britain contributed to modern day Democracy far more than Ancient Greece, by simple virtue of temporal locality.

The Ruling Monarchy in Britain was fairly weak during the time of Colonial America.  Other nobels had more power than in many other European nations, plus the Middle class was much larger and influential than in other nations.  These two aspects were crucial to the development of the industrial revolution and the breaking of the Soveriegn authority towards a more representive form of government.  Plus, England was first to get a working rail system in place for such things as coal mining.  Also, The English Channel provided a safe barrier from the rest of the continent of Europe so that England wasn't constantly under assault like was France, Prussia, or the Ukraine.  That was important.

First of, Adam Smith was scottish.

Which was controlled by Britain. I think that England was at the forefront of the Industrial revolution, and therefore, capitalism. :)

Handel? Are you forgetting Bethoveen? Mozart? Bach? With no Bethoveen you would not have the begining of the Romantic period. Without Mozart the classical period would not have been as big. Bach made Barouqe what it is, granted Handel had a part in it too. And both are German. Bach's music has a much bigger influence on neo-classical music which also has an inlfuence of heavy metal.

Indeed!  I never said England was the only player in the game.  AYB loves ancient European Music (especially Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi)

The romantic age would have existed without Beethoven
(not trying to detract from him at all).  There has been a social cycle occilating between tenents of Romanticism and Classisism for hundreds of years.  The Baroque was a Romantic age, the classical was a classical age.  I am more of a romantic myself but that is neither here nor there.

whoa! AYB... if you're gonna stand up for the brits at least do it right.

I am not really standing up for England, rather I have made an honest assesment of it's contributions.  i could go on about some English negativities if I wished. I owe no loyalty to the crown myself ;)

Mon Feb 11 21:09:49 2002

The main thing about the French revolution (late 1700s) that surprised the hell out of everyone was that it came out of nowhere.  The peasants would often have little uprisings that the king could then put down with military force and for hundreds of years this system worked just fine.  But what was different about this revolution was that a single idea (storming the Bastille, an old prison for political prisoners that was hardly a fortress and had almost nobody in it at the time) took the populace by storm.  All of a sudden you had everyone from the peasants to the academics all fixated on revolution-- not just deposing the king, but destroying the entire concept of a monarchy.  It had other far-reaching effects as well-- the United States was originally going to be a monarchy or an empire, but events in France prompted the change to a democratic system.

Damn, I wanted to type more, but now I've been given another enormous task to complete by the end of the day.  This sucks.  Oh well I'll get back to it later.

Mon Feb 11 21:19:34 2002

the United States was originally going to be a monarchy or an empire, but events in France prompted the change to a democratic system.

I remember differently, originally there were supporters for George Washington to be the King of the USA, or whatever they would have called it, but Washington himself thought that was wrong and was probably the single most deciding factor in shaping the broad decisions of the new American Government.  Most historians feel he could have been King if he would have desired it.

Tue Feb 12 02:20:47 2002

In America they have people buy mugs and tea-towels with Elvis on it. They buy t-shirts with malcom-x on it. Fuck they even go to the houses of these famous people/celebrities... your point?

You said "wouldn't that be the same for a govt.?", and the answer quite obviously is no, it wouldn't.

And this validates the existence of the royals? So that they can invest in the same thing that other people do?

What part of "I visited the Palace of Versaille" did you miss? Granted I don't remember how to spell the name properly but none the less you don't need living royals to have people visit a place. And i believe you can visit the White house too.

I didn't say you couldn't.

I said that people come to this country *because* of the royal family.  It's true.  They do.  They spend a lot of money on crappy tea towels and mugs and visits to castles and all that shit.

So whats your fucking point?

Yeah really fucking single minded of you cunt. English is a mish mash of german, french, greek and latin. So what? I don't fucking owe the brits for english as much as you owe the French, Germans, Greeks and Latins anything.

Go fuck your self bitch and spare me your bullshit nationalistic pride.

What the fuck did I say that was wrong? The brits have not contributed anything more significant then the other countries. All countries have their influence. To think that one country should be singled as the greatest is just shallow nationalism which i detest.

So go fuck off cunt.

1)The roots of Democracy

No thats the Greeks where democracy has its roots in and apparently Roman's according to [url=http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761575112]this[/url]

No on that either. Its a whole host of countries in Europe that had different impacts on the revolution.

So what? Again, what part of, England is not the most significant contributor to western culture? It is one of them yes but not the only one.

The main thing about the French revolution (late 1700s) that surprised the hell out of everyone was that it came out of nowhere.

Tue Feb 12 15:26:17 2002

/me rubs eyes

:tongue:

Tue Feb 12 15:45:44 2002

Wow, this place is starting to sound like The Bad Place!

Yes, and AYB no like! :(

Mon Feb 18 10:43:00 2002

I would tend to classify the ancient greeks as a Republic, which is close to a Democracy, but not quite there.  Who are you going to believe, AYB or Microsoft. The conditions in Britain contributed to modern day Democracy far more than Ancient Greece, by simple virtue of temporal locality.

First you stated the roots of democracy but never said modern or early democratic instituitions. So don't back peddle with me! I'm on ya like Katie Holmes is on your brain! :cheesy:

The other is if you really want to talk about modern democracy, it is teh french and especially teh americans that brought you the democracy the way it is today. Not the brits. The brits were looking to keep you yanks in service to her majesty and never an independant nation. Taxation without representation no?

Which was controlled by Britain. I think that England was at the forefront of the Industrial revolution, and therefore, capitalism.

A revolution in the industries does not dictate a change in the economies other then maybe a move torwards socialism because the industrial revolution caused more people to go out of work. An up rising in the down trodden would scare the upper class and so as Jeremy pointed out, social reforms were put in place.

The romantic age would have existed without Beethoven

(not trying to detract from him at all).  There has been a social cycle occilating between tenents of Romanticism and Classisism for hundreds of years.  The Baroque was a Romantic age, the classical was a classical age.  I am more of a romantic myself but that is neither here nor there

I am not really standing up for England, rather I have made an honest assesment of it's contributions.  i could go on about some English negativities if I wished. I owe no loyalty to the crown myself

Well i don't care if you're standing up for them or not, its better if you did so that way we could argue from different standpoints, but my point from the begining was that we can't pinpoint one country alone for the major development of the world. What comes first? The rooster or the egg?
;)

Since when has Elvis been government?

You said "wouldn't that be the same for a govt.?", and the answer quite obviously is no, it wouldn't.

I didn't say it validated their existance.  I said that they're self-sufficient.  Can you read?

Ah i concede, i missed that point from your first post. I agree with you then.

Boy, you're being dense today.

No i missed a point earlier that sparked a debate that went off the mark. Plus I did not like that you started cussing at me just because I said we did not owe England alone for the development of the western world. You got upset for no apparent reason other then what seems to be an inherent nationalistic pride towards your country.

Except you quite plainly do, because you're not speaking French, German, Greek, or Latin.

You need to learn to read, and then go fuck yourself.

Why oh why must you resort to cussing in so many of your posts. I'm no better in my maturity since i resorted to the same style, but none the less your choice of words can spark a downward spiral in the quality of the debate.
However as i'm much more calmer now then i was before I am not going to cuss.

Pity their "democratic" system didn't have such minor features as universal suffrage.

Er, yes on that, as there was the small matter of inventing the machinery and manufacturing techniques that made the industrial revolution possible.

True. For some reason prior to my last post I was thinking the water wheel was invented in Holland and then the use of steam to power the wheel to generate electricity originated from there too. So I concede on this point too. England did play a key role in the industrial revolution.

So what? Again, what part of, England is not the most significant contributor to western culture? It is one of them yes but not the only one.

Again, no-one ever said that it was, so stop fighting a battle that exists only inside your head.

No you did start it with your extremely rude and unwarranted comment earlier:

Granted I don't think any one country can be singled out as the greatest contributor but its unfair to think that we own anything to british either.

Only if you're a complete boneheaded fuckhole, which apparently you are.

Where did that come from? Why am i apparently a complete 'bonehead fuckhole' then? The only way one could take that was if you were saying that i'm a 'fuckhole' for not agreeing that England is the sole contributor in the development of the western world?

okay i must go.

Mon Feb 18 15:56:13 2002

Romanticism and Romantic ages show the social tendency towards expression, emotion, and relative inhabition.  The 60's were a generation of romanisism IMO.  Art and Music during these times tend to be more expressive.

Classicism and Classic ages tend towards restraint, controll, and "Class".  Look at the 50's and the Victorian age for an example.

This is how my Music History Prof explained it (sort of)

AYB doesn't remember all teh details though. ;)

Mon Feb 18 16:25:16 2002

Romanticism versus Classicism:

I need to go to bed hence why i don't want to spend to much time posting details, suffice to say you're kinda of mark. Not wrong but not right either.

As for ummm, musical classes and what not and don't take this the wrong way, but i don't think ANYONE on OSY has more experience then i have in teh musical dept.

Mon Feb 18 16:38:42 2002

but i don't think ANYONE on OSY has more experience then i have in teh musical dept.

OW is teh Cultural Expert.

indeed! :)

Mon Feb 18 19:16:42 2002

As for ummm, musical classes and what not and don't take this the wrong way, but i don't think ANYONE on OSY has more experience then i have in teh musical dept.

Timecube.

Tue Feb 19 05:30:13 2002

Tue Feb 19 05:35:21 2002

[size=1]whatever that means[/size]

Wed Feb 20 04:40:39 2002