BBC2 Scotland (available in other areas on satellite, probably also on
BBC iPlayer)
Tues 3 Nov 2100
http://feeds.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nq9ss
From bank machines to the Bank of England, from telephones to
television, the inventions and innovations of Scots have, for better
or worse, defined globalisation and changed the way we communicate.
  From the forgotten 18th-century Scottish banker whose financial
experiments caused the first credit crunch, to the eccentric genius
behind the first television transmission, the programme examines the
extraodrinary stories of Scottish pioneers of commerce and
communication and their phenomenal legacy.
  With contributions from Professor Tom Devine and John Logie Baird's
grandson.

Owain

Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:42:30 -0700, Owain wrote:
> 
>> BBC2 Scotland (available in other areas on satellite, probably also on
>> BBC iPlayer)
>> Tues 3 Nov 2100
>> http://feeds.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nq9ss From bank machines to the
>> Bank of England, from telephones to television, the inventions and
>> innovations of Scots have, for better or worse, defined globalisation
>> and changed the way we communicate.
>>   From the forgotten 18th-century Scottish banker whose financial
>> experiments caused the first credit crunch, to the eccentric genius
>> behind the first television transmission, the programme examines the
>> extraodrinary stories of Scottish pioneers of commerce and communication
>> and their phenomenal legacy.
>>   With contributions from Professor Tom Devine and John Logie Baird's
>> grandson.
> 
> Except that Alexander Graham Bell apparently nicked it all from an 
> Italian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
And Baird used a system developed by Paul Nipkow.  His system worked but 
stood absolutely no chance of becoming a standard

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:11:55 +0000, jamie powell wrote:

> "Bob Eager"  wrote in message
> news:7l3c35F3a4r6dU3@mid.individual.net...
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:42:30 -0700, Owain wrote:
>>
>>> BBC2 Scotland (available in other areas on satellite, probably also on
>>> BBC iPlayer)
>>> Tues 3 Nov 2100
>>> http://feeds.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nq9ss From bank machines to the
>>> Bank of England, from telephones to television, the inventions and
>>> innovations of Scots have, for better or worse, defined globalisation
>>> and changed the way we communicate.
>>>   From the forgotten 18th-century Scottish banker whose financial
>>> experiments caused the first credit crunch, to the eccentric genius
>>> behind the first television transmission, the programme examines the
>>> extraodrinary stories of Scottish pioneers of commerce and
>>> communication and their phenomenal legacy.
>>>   With contributions from Professor Tom Devine and John Logie Baird's
>>> grandson.
>>
>> Except that Alexander Graham Bell apparently nicked it all from an
>> Italian.
>>
>>
> And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude mechanical
> system, made up of technology developed by others.

Yes, I meant to say that too! Not to mention Gordon Brown's new invention 
of a way to run the economy...

-- 
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:42:30 -0700, Owain wrote:

> BBC2 Scotland (available in other areas on satellite, probably also on
> BBC iPlayer)
> Tues 3 Nov 2100
> http://feeds.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nq9ss From bank machines to the
> Bank of England, from telephones to television, the inventions and
> innovations of Scots have, for better or worse, defined globalisation
> and changed the way we communicate.
>   From the forgotten 18th-century Scottish banker whose financial
> experiments caused the first credit crunch, to the eccentric genius
> behind the first television transmission, the programme examines the
> extraodrinary stories of Scottish pioneers of commerce and communication
> and their phenomenal legacy.
>   With contributions from Professor Tom Devine and John Logie Baird's
> grandson.

Except that Alexander Graham Bell apparently nicked it all from an 
Italian.




-- 
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

"Bob Eager"  wrote in message 
news:7l3c35F3a4r6dU3@mid.individual.net...
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:42:30 -0700, Owain wrote:
>
>> BBC2 Scotland (available in other areas on satellite, probably also on
>> BBC iPlayer)
>> Tues 3 Nov 2100
>> http://feeds.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nq9ss From bank machines to the
>> Bank of England, from telephones to television, the inventions and
>> innovations of Scots have, for better or worse, defined globalisation
>> and changed the way we communicate.
>>   From the forgotten 18th-century Scottish banker whose financial
>> experiments caused the first credit crunch, to the eccentric genius
>> behind the first television transmission, the programme examines the
>> extraodrinary stories of Scottish pioneers of commerce and communication
>> and their phenomenal legacy.
>>   With contributions from Professor Tom Devine and John Logie Baird's
>> grandson.
>
> Except that Alexander Graham Bell apparently nicked it all from an
> Italian.
>

And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude mechanical system, 
made up of technology developed by others.

On 31 Oct, 20:08, Bob Eager  wrote:
> >> Except that Alexander Graham Bell apparently nicked it all from an
> >> Italian.
> > And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude mechanical
> > system, made up of technology developed by others.
> Yes, I meant to say that too! Not to mention Gordon Brown's new invention
> of a way to run the economy...

They never invented haggis either...

Owain

"Noggin"  wrote in message 
news:bD0Hm.342784$gS2.167936@en-nntp-08.am2.easynews.com...
> Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:42:30 -0700, Owain wrote:
>>
>>> BBC2 Scotland (available in other areas on satellite, probably also on
>>> BBC iPlayer)
>>> Tues 3 Nov 2100
>>> http://feeds.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nq9ss From bank machines to the
>>> Bank of England, from telephones to television, the inventions and
>>> innovations of Scots have, for better or worse, defined globalisation
>>> and changed the way we communicate.
>>>   From the forgotten 18th-century Scottish banker whose financial
>>> experiments caused the first credit crunch, to the eccentric genius
>>> behind the first television transmission, the programme examines the
>>> extraodrinary stories of Scottish pioneers of commerce and communication
>>> and their phenomenal legacy.
>>>   With contributions from Professor Tom Devine and John Logie Baird's
>>> grandson.
>>
>> Except that Alexander Graham Bell apparently nicked it all from an 
>> Italian.

Did he? His device (with an inductive transmitter) would never have caught 
on. The practical telephone (that would reach more than a few yards) 
required the carbon transmitter invented (or nicked) by Edison.

-- 
Max Demian

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:11:55 -0000, "jamie powell"
 wrote:

>And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude mechanical system, 
>made up of technology developed by others.

However with LCD screens and digital transmission of pictures recorded
with CCD cameras there isn't much of the EMI-Marconi system in "TV as
we know it" either.

In article <hchukf$iep$1@aioe.org>, Jamie powell wrote:
> And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude mechanical system, 
> made up of technology developed by others.

Oh dear, Not again. The Wright brothers didn't invent flight as we know it 
either, but nobody ever seems to want to deny them their place in history for 
what they did achieve. Whatever you think of the meaning of the word "invent", 
there is no doubt at all that Baird demonstrated the first *working* television 
system of any sort in the world, ever. Of course others have developed it 
further since then, but that always happens.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:17:30 +0000, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> In article <hchukf$iep$1@aioe.org>, Jamie powell wrote:
>> And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude mechanical
>> system, made up of technology developed by others.
> 
> Oh dear, Not again. The Wright brothers didn't invent flight as we know
> it either, but nobody ever seems to want to deny them their place in
> history for what they did achieve. Whatever you think of the meaning of
> the word "invent", there is no doubt at all that Baird demonstrated the
> first *working* television system of any sort in the world, ever. Of
> course others have developed it further since then, but that always
> happens.

But Philo Farnsworth developed the electronic version independently - and 
demonstrated it only a few months after the mechanical Televisor.




-- 
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 31 Oct, 22:24, "Max Demian"  wrote:
> >> Except that Alexander Graham Bell apparently nicked it all from an
> >> Italian.
> Did he? His device (with an inductive transmitter) would never have caught
> on. The practical telephone (that would reach more than a few yards)
> required the carbon transmitter invented (or nicked) by Edison.

And subsequently greatly improved by Revd Hunnings - is that the most
useful thing given to humanity by a clergyman?

Owain

In message , 
Roderick Stewart  writes
>In article <hchukf$iep$1@aioe.org>, Jamie powell wrote:
>> And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude mechanical system,
>> made up of technology developed by others.
>
>Oh dear, Not again. The Wright brothers didn't invent flight as we know it
>either, but nobody ever seems to want to deny them their place in history for
>what they did achieve. Whatever you think of the meaning of the word "invent",
>there is no doubt at all that Baird demonstrated the first *working* 
>television
>system of any sort in the world, ever. Of course others have developed it
>further since then, but that always happens.
>
>Rod.

The answer depends on the question. The Wright brothers certainly didn't 
invent  the aeroplane as such, but they built on the work of 
Stringfellow, Cayley, Lilienthal and others to build a craft that was 
the first to demonstrate controlled powered flight.

Lindbergh wasn't the first to fly the Atlantic, Edison didn't invent the 
incandescent lamp, etc.
-- 
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

No, surely it has to be unintended humour of the Spoonerism?  How
about the French newscaster trying to say "La population du Cap" ("The
population of the Cape") but actually saying "La copulation du Pap"
("The copulation of the Pope") 

"Friar Tuck"

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 02:19:50 -0800 (PST), Owain
 wrote:
> 
> is that the most
> useful thing given to humanity by a clergyman?
-- 
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist.  Or use a contact addresses at:
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

The message 
from Roderick Stewart 
contains these words:

> In article <hchukf$iep$1@aioe.org>, Jamie powell wrote:
> > And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude mechanical
> > system, 
> > made up of technology developed by others.

> Oh dear, Not again. The Wright brothers didn't invent flight as we know it 
> either, but nobody ever seems to want to deny them their place in
> history for 
> what they did achieve. Whatever you think of the meaning of the word
> "invent", 
> there is no doubt at all that Baird demonstrated the first *working*
> television 
> system of any sort in the world, ever. Of course others have developed it 
> further since then, but that always happens.


The difference is that flight developed from the original Wright
aircraft whereas Baird's experiments were a dead-end.  Also Baird has a
big group of supporters who exaggerate the importance of his first
experiments and claim that he was responsible for a whole range of
inventions including radar.

Very few inventions were made by one person with no rivals anywhere
working independently.

In uk.telecom Owain  wrote:
> BBC2 Scotland (available in other areas on satellite, probably also on
> BBC iPlayer)
> Tues 3 Nov 2100

Isn't it a bit keen to be advertising something which won't be broadcast
for over 91 years?

On 1 Nov, 13:10, Mark Evans  wrote:
> > BBC2 Scotland (available in other areas on satellite, probably also on
> > BBC iPlayer)
> > Tues 3 Nov 2100
> Isn't it a bit keen to be advertising something which won't be broadcast
> for over 91 years?

Just a heads-up in case your box doesn't have the 100-year EPG

Anyway, it'll probably be broadcast earlier in England.

Owain

In article , Bob Eager wrote:
> >> And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude mechanical
> >> system, made up of technology developed by others.
> > 
> > Oh dear, Not again. The Wright brothers didn't invent flight as we know
> > it either, but nobody ever seems to want to deny them their place in
> > history for what they did achieve. Whatever you think of the meaning of
> > the word "invent", there is no doubt at all that Baird demonstrated the
> > first *working* television system of any sort in the world, ever. Of
> > course others have developed it further since then, but that always
> > happens.
> 
> But Philo Farnsworth developed the electronic version independently - and 
> demonstrated it only a few months after the mechanical Televisor.

Exactly. Farnsworth demonstrated his system *after* Baird's, so he wasn't 
the first to do so. Baird was first, as I stated.

I didn't say Baird "invented" television (whatever that means), simply that 
he was the first person in the world to demonstrate a working system. I 
don't suppose the Wright brothers "invented" flight either, in the sense of 
having the idea that it might be possible for people to fly, but they were 
the first people to show - by doing it - that it could be done. We usually 
honour people who are the first to do notable things, but for some reason 
many are happy to write Baird off as not really having been a significant 
part of the development of television, which is nonsense.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 
message news:VA.000007fc.0163e65f@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
> In article , Bob Eager wrote:
>> >> And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude mechanical
>> >> system, made up of technology developed by others.
>> >
>> > Oh dear, Not again. The Wright brothers didn't invent flight as we know
>> > it either, but nobody ever seems to want to deny them their place in
>> > history for what they did achieve. Whatever you think of the meaning of
>> > the word "invent", there is no doubt at all that Baird demonstrated the
>> > first *working* television system of any sort in the world, ever. Of
>> > course others have developed it further since then, but that always
>> > happens.
>>
>> But Philo Farnsworth developed the electronic version independently - and
>> demonstrated it only a few months after the mechanical Televisor.
>
> Exactly. Farnsworth demonstrated his system *after* Baird's, so he wasn't
> the first to do so. Baird was first, as I stated.
>
> I didn't say Baird "invented" television (whatever that means), simply 
> that
> he was the first person in the world to demonstrate a working system. I
> don't suppose the Wright brothers "invented" flight either, in the sense 
> of
> having the idea that it might be possible for people to fly, but they were
> the first people to show - by doing it - that it could be done. We usually
> honour people who are the first to do notable things, but for some reason
> many are happy to write Baird off as not really having been a significant
> part of the development of television, which is nonsense.

Hence the need for inventors to protect their intellectual property *before* 
"going public" by registering their designs and trade-marks, copyrighting 
and patenting their idea/process/product.

George

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:33:02 +0000, George Weston wrote:

> "Roderick Stewart"  wrote in
> message
> news:VA.000007fc.0163e65f@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
>> In article , Bob Eager wrote:
>>> >> And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude
>>> >> mechanical system, made up of technology developed by others.
>>> >
>>> > Oh dear, Not again. The Wright brothers didn't invent flight as we
>>> > know it either, but nobody ever seems to want to deny them their
>>> > place in history for what they did achieve. Whatever you think of
>>> > the meaning of the word "invent", there is no doubt at all that
>>> > Baird demonstrated the first *working* television system of any sort
>>> > in the world, ever. Of course others have developed it further since
>>> > then, but that always happens.
>>>
>>> But Philo Farnsworth developed the electronic version independently -
>>> and demonstrated it only a few months after the mechanical Televisor.
>>
>> Exactly. Farnsworth demonstrated his system *after* Baird's, so he
>> wasn't the first to do so. Baird was first, as I stated.
>>
>> I didn't say Baird "invented" television (whatever that means), simply
>> that
>> he was the first person in the world to demonstrate a working system. I
>> don't suppose the Wright brothers "invented" flight either, in the
>> sense of
>> having the idea that it might be possible for people to fly, but they
>> were the first people to show - by doing it - that it could be done. We
>> usually honour people who are the first to do notable things, but for
>> some reason many are happy to write Baird off as not really having been
>> a significant part of the development of television, which is nonsense.
> 
> Hence the need for inventors to protect their intellectual property
> *before* "going public" by registering their designs and trade-marks,
> copyrighting and patenting their idea/process/product.

The litmus test is whether Farnsworth would have done his demonstration 
of TV "as we know it" if Baird had never existed. He clearly would have 
done....he'd been working on it for years. Baird just managed to pip him 
to the post with a dead-end system. Farnsworth's development owed nothing 
to Baird.

-- 
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

"Bob Eager"  wrote in message 
news:7l5oc2F3cao27U6@mid.individual.net...
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:33:02 +0000, George Weston wrote:
>
>> "Roderick Stewart"  wrote in
>> message
>> news:VA.000007fc.0163e65f@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
>>> In article , Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> >> And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude
>>>> >> mechanical system, made up of technology developed by others.
>>>> >
>>>> > Oh dear, Not again. The Wright brothers didn't invent flight as we
>>>> > know it either, but nobody ever seems to want to deny them their
>>>> > place in history for what they did achieve. Whatever you think of
>>>> > the meaning of the word "invent", there is no doubt at all that
>>>> > Baird demonstrated the first *working* television system of any sort
>>>> > in the world, ever. Of course others have developed it further since
>>>> > then, but that always happens.
>>>>
>>>> But Philo Farnsworth developed the electronic version independently -
>>>> and demonstrated it only a few months after the mechanical Televisor.
>>>
>>> Exactly. Farnsworth demonstrated his system *after* Baird's, so he
>>> wasn't the first to do so. Baird was first, as I stated.
>>>
>>> I didn't say Baird "invented" television (whatever that means), simply
>>> that
>>> he was the first person in the world to demonstrate a working system. I
>>> don't suppose the Wright brothers "invented" flight either, in the
>>> sense of
>>> having the idea that it might be possible for people to fly, but they
>>> were the first people to show - by doing it - that it could be done. We
>>> usually honour people who are the first to do notable things, but for
>>> some reason many are happy to write Baird off as not really having been
>>> a significant part of the development of television, which is nonsense.
>>
>> Hence the need for inventors to protect their intellectual property
>> *before* "going public" by registering their designs and trade-marks,
>> copyrighting and patenting their idea/process/product.
>
> The litmus test is whether Farnsworth would have done his demonstration
> of TV "as we know it" if Baird had never existed. He clearly would have
> done....he'd been working on it for years. Baird just managed to pip him
> to the post with a dead-end system. Farnsworth's development owed nothing
> to Baird.

I wonder what would have happened if either of them had filed a patent for 
"a system of sending and receiving moving pictures, together with 
synchronous sound, by means of radio waves" or something similar?
Or did they?
I recall BT quite recently trying to claim in the courts (unsuccessfully, as 
it turns out) that they invented hyperlinks!

George

In article , Bob Eager wrote:
> >> I didn't say Baird "invented" television (whatever that means), simply
> >> that
> >> he was the first person in the world to demonstrate a working system. I
> >> don't suppose the Wright brothers "invented" flight either, in the
> >> sense of
> >> having the idea that it might be possible for people to fly, but they
> >> were the first people to show - by doing it - that it could be done. We
> >> usually honour people who are the first to do notable things, but for
> >> some reason many are happy to write Baird off as not really having been
> >> a significant part of the development of television, which is nonsense.
> > 
> > Hence the need for inventors to protect their intellectual property
> > *before* "going public" by registering their designs and trade-marks,
> > copyrighting and patenting their idea/process/product.
> 
> The litmus test is whether Farnsworth would have done his demonstration 
> of TV "as we know it" if Baird had never existed. He clearly would have 
> done....he'd been working on it for years. Baird just managed to pip him 
> to the post with a dead-end system. Farnsworth's development owed nothing 
> to Baird.

The litmus test of what exactly? It certainly isn't a test of who was 
historically first with a working system. I've never said that either of 
these gentlemen owed anything to the other, simply that one of them was 
first, an achievement of the sort that is usually honoured in the history 
books. If Roald Amundsen had never existed, Captain Scott would have been 
first to the south pole, but so what? There must be lots of examples like 
this, but whoever was first was first, because that's the way it was.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:27:18 -0000, Roderick Stewart
 wrote:

>In article , Bob Eager wrote:
>> >> I didn't say Baird "invented" television (whatever that means), simply
>> >> that
>> >> he was the first person in the world to demonstrate a working system. I
>> >> don't suppose the Wright brothers "invented" flight either, in the
>> >> sense of
>> >> having the idea that it might be possible for people to fly, but they
>> >> were the first people to show - by doing it - that it could be done. We
>> >> usually honour people who are the first to do notable things, but for
>> >> some reason many are happy to write Baird off as not really having been
>> >> a significant part of the development of television, which is nonsense.
>> > 
>> > Hence the need for inventors to protect their intellectual property
>> > *before* "going public" by registering their designs and trade-marks,
>> > copyrighting and patenting their idea/process/product.
>> 
>> The litmus test is whether Farnsworth would have done his demonstration 
>> of TV "as we know it" if Baird had never existed. He clearly would have 
>> done....he'd been working on it for years. Baird just managed to pip him 
>> to the post with a dead-end system. Farnsworth's development owed nothing 
>> to Baird.
>
>The litmus test of what exactly? It certainly isn't a test of who was 
>historically first with a working system. I've never said that either of 
>these gentlemen owed anything to the other, simply that one of them was 
>first, an achievement of the sort that is usually honoured in the history 
>books. If Roald Amundsen had never existed, Captain Scott would have been 
>first to the south pole, but so what? There must be lots of examples like 
>this, but whoever was first was first, because that's the way it was.
>
>Rod.

The problem here is what is meant by "Television". What is usually
understood to be television bears no relationship to what Baird did.
Indeed Bairds contribution had no effect on what subsequently
developed into  the modern TV system.

This doesn't mean the Baird didn't acheive something but it cerainly
isn't what is understood to be Television.

Jim

The message 
from Roderick Stewart 
contains these words:

> In article , Bob Eager wrote:
> > >> And Baird didn't invent TV as we know it; his was a crude mechanical
> > >> system, made up of technology developed by others.
> > > 
> > > Oh dear, Not again. The Wright brothers didn't invent flight as we know
> > > it either, but nobody ever seems to want to deny them their place in
> > > history for what they did achieve. Whatever you think of the meaning of
> > > the word "invent", there is no doubt at all that Baird demonstrated the
> > > first *working* television system of any sort in the world, ever. Of
> > > course others have developed it further since then, but that always
> > > happens.
> > 
> > But Philo Farnsworth developed the electronic version independently - and 
> > demonstrated it only a few months after the mechanical Televisor.

> Exactly. Farnsworth demonstrated his system *after* Baird's, so he wasn't 
> the first to do so. Baird was first, as I stated.

> I didn't say Baird "invented" television (whatever that means), simply that 
> he was the first person in the world to demonstrate a working system. I 
> don't suppose the Wright brothers "invented" flight either, in the sense of 
> having the idea that it might be possible for people to fly, but they were 
> the first people to show - by doing it - that it could be done. We usually 
> honour people who are the first to do notable things, but for some reason 
> many are happy to write Baird off as not really having been a significant 
> part of the development of television, which is nonsense.

Perhaps the equivalent to Baird in the history of flight would be one of
the people who jump off the end of a pier with a pair of crude wings. 
They "fly" a few yards before hitting the water.  If someone did that
before the Wright Brothers then some might say they "invented" flight.

In article , Jim Lacey 
wrote:
> The problem here is what is meant by "Television". What is usually
> understood to be television bears no relationship to what Baird did.
> Indeed Bairds contribution had no effect on what subsequently
> developed into  the modern TV system.
> 
> This doesn't mean the Baird didn't acheive something but it cerainly
> isn't what is understood to be Television.

I've always understood "television" to mean the distant viewing of 
images by electrical signals, or in other words pretty much what the 
Oxford English Dictionary says. This would certainly include all of 
Baird's systems.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit' for 
British. We even use 'Yank' for American.

Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for someone 
from Pakistan?

Any suggestions as November is 'White Achievement Month'.

"Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message 
news:4aef2a59$0$2481$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit' for
> British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
>
> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for someone
> from Pakistan?

Actually, Pak is the accepted term (noun as well as adjective I think).

-- 
Max Demian

The message <4aef2a59$0$2481$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>
from Dave Devnull <dev.null@invalid.local> contains these words:

> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit' for 
> British. We even use 'Yank' for American.

> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for someone 
> from Pakistan?

 There already exists such an abbreviation. Unfortunately, the PC
brigade (sadly, with some justification) say it can't be used since it
has come to represent a derogatory term (in much the same way that I use
the word "Yank" for the intellectually challenged sector of american
society).

-- 
Regards, John.

 Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

"Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message 
news:4aef2a59$0$2481$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit' for
> British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
>
> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for someone
> from Pakistan?

You got me there but I could perhaps suggest "Nazi" for people who celebrate 
White Achievement Month"?

George

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:10:57 +0000, George Weston waxed with flowery words
of wisdom:

> "Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message
> news:4aef2a59$0$2481$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit' for
>> British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
>>
>> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for someone
>> from Pakistan?
> 
> You got me there but I could perhaps suggest "Nazi" for people who
> celebrate White Achievement Month"?
> 
> George

So what would that make people who celebrate Black Achievement Month?

On 3 Nov, 06:08, Dave Devnull wrote:
> > You got me there but I could perhaps suggest "Nazi" for people who
> > celebrate White Achievement Month"?
> So what would that make people who celebrate Black Achievement Month?

Bams, obviously.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bam

Owain

"Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message 
news:4aefc8fb$0$2534$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:10:57 +0000, George Weston waxed with flowery words
> of wisdom:
>
>> "Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message
>> news:4aef2a59$0$2481$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit' for
>>> British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for someone
>>> from Pakistan?
>>
>> You got me there but I could perhaps suggest "Nazi" for people who
>> celebrate White Achievement Month"?
>>
>> George
>
> So what would that make people who celebrate Black Achievement Month?

Erm... black?

George

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:56:53 -0000
"George Weston"  wrote:
>>> You got me there but I could perhaps suggest "Nazi" for people who
>>> celebrate White Achievement Month"?
>>>
>>> George
>>
>> So what would that make people who celebrate Black Achievement Month?
>
>Erm... black?
>
>George 

Interesting double standards you have there. No doubt you're yet another
middle class guilt ridden liberal.

B2003

wrote in message news:hcpoee$t45$1@aioe.org...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:56:53 -0000
> "George Weston"  wrote:
>>>> You got me there but I could perhaps suggest "Nazi" for people who
>>>> celebrate White Achievement Month"?
>>>>
>>>> George
>>>
>>> So what would that make people who celebrate Black Achievement Month?
>>
>>Erm... black?
>>
>>George
>
> Interesting double standards you have there. No doubt you're yet another
> middle class guilt ridden liberal.

Not even close.
I just have a wry sense of humour and like winding up people with narrow 
minds.
I seem to have succeeded...
;-)

George

Dave Devnull said the following on 02/11/2009 18:52:
> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit' for 
> British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
> 
> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for someone 
> from Pakistan?
> 
> Any suggestions as November is 'White Achievement Month'.
> 

You're switching from national groupings to a racial type which is not 
the same thing.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:44:46 +0000, Richard Brooks waxed with flowery
words of wisdom:

> Dave Devnull said the following on 02/11/2009 18:52:
>> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit' for
>> British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
>> 
>> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for someone
>> from Pakistan?
>> 
>> Any suggestions as November is 'White Achievement Month'.
>> 
>> 
> You're switching from national groupings to a racial type which is not
> the same thing.

Is that so? So there is no such race as the Scots, Brits or Yanks and the 
People of Pakistan don't belong to a National group. Thanks for clearing 
that up.

"Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message 
news:4af077c4$0$2487$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:44:46 +0000, Richard Brooks waxed with flowery
> words of wisdom:
>
>> Dave Devnull said the following on 02/11/2009 18:52:
>>> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit' for
>>> British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for someone
>>> from Pakistan?
>>>
>>> Any suggestions as November is 'White Achievement Month'.
>>>
>>>
>> You're switching from national groupings to a racial type which is not
>> the same thing.
>
> Is that so? So there is no such race as the Scots, Brits or Yanks and the
> People of Pakistan don't belong to a National group. Thanks for clearing
> that up.

The Yanks are a "race"? Take a history lesson, Dave.
Apart from the Native Americans (you'd probably call them Red Indians), who 
are pretty well still "racially pure", the vast majority of them are either 
direct immigrants or descendants of immigrants from every country in the 
world.

George

In article , George Weston
 wrote:

> "Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message
> news:4af077c4$0$2487$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:44:46 +0000, Richard Brooks waxed with flowery
> > words of wisdom:
> >
> >> Dave Devnull said the following on 02/11/2009 18:52:
> >>> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit'
> >>> for British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for
> >>> someone from Pakistan?
> >>>
> >>> Any suggestions as November is 'White Achievement Month'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> You're switching from national groupings to a racial type which is not
> >> the same thing.
> >
> > Is that so? So there is no such race as the Scots, Brits or Yanks and
> > the People of Pakistan don't belong to a National group. Thanks for
> > clearing that up.

> The Yanks are a "race"? Take a history lesson, Dave. Apart from the
> Native Americans (you'd probably call them Red Indians), who are pretty
> well still "racially pure", the vast majority of them are either direct
> immigrants or descendants of immigrants from every country in the world.

and even some, or all, of the "native americans" probably came from asia.

-- 
From KT24 

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:50:34 +0000, charles waxed with flowery words of
wisdom:

> In article , George Weston
>  wrote:
> 
>> "Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message
>> news:4af077c4$0$2487$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:44:46 +0000, Richard Brooks waxed with flowery
>> > words of wisdom:
>> >
>> >> Dave Devnull said the following on 02/11/2009 18:52:
>> >>> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit'
>> >>> for British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
>> >>>
>> >>> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for
>> >>> someone from Pakistan?
>> >>>
>> >>> Any suggestions as November is 'White Achievement Month'.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> You're switching from national groupings to a racial type which is
>> >> not the same thing.
>> >
>> > Is that so? So there is no such race as the Scots, Brits or Yanks and
>> > the People of Pakistan don't belong to a National group. Thanks for
>> > clearing that up.
> 
>> The Yanks are a "race"? Take a history lesson, Dave. Apart from the
>> Native Americans (you'd probably call them Red Indians), who are pretty
>> well still "racially pure", the vast majority of them are either direct
>> immigrants or descendants of immigrants from every country in the
>> world.
> 
> and even some, or all, of the "native americans" probably came from
> asia.
But does coming from Asia, make them Asians? <is that a race?> or does it 
make them part of a National Grouping? I'm more confused then when I 
started? All I know is thusfar I've been called a Nazi for asking.

"Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message 
news:4af08d99$0$2481$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:50:34 +0000, charles waxed with flowery words of
> wisdom:
>
>> In article , George Weston
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> "Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message
>>> news:4af077c4$0$2487$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:44:46 +0000, Richard Brooks waxed with flowery
>>> > words of wisdom:
>>> >
>>> >> Dave Devnull said the following on 02/11/2009 18:52:
>>> >>> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use 'Brit'
>>> >>> for British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for
>>> >>> someone from Pakistan?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Any suggestions as November is 'White Achievement Month'.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >> You're switching from national groupings to a racial type which is
>>> >> not the same thing.
>>> >
>>> > Is that so? So there is no such race as the Scots, Brits or Yanks and
>>> > the People of Pakistan don't belong to a National group. Thanks for
>>> > clearing that up.
>>
>>> The Yanks are a "race"? Take a history lesson, Dave. Apart from the
>>> Native Americans (you'd probably call them Red Indians), who are pretty
>>> well still "racially pure", the vast majority of them are either direct
>>> immigrants or descendants of immigrants from every country in the
>>> world.
>>
>> and even some, or all, of the "native americans" probably came from
>> asia.
> But does coming from Asia, make them Asians? <is that a race?> or does it
> make them part of a National Grouping? I'm more confused then when I
> started? All I know is thusfar I've been called a Nazi for asking.

Not for asking - it was the bit about white achievement that got me going on 
that score.

George

The message 
from "George Weston"  contains these words:

> The Yanks are a "race"? Take a history lesson, Dave.
> Apart from the Native Americans (you'd probably call them Red Indians), who 
> are pretty well still "racially pure", the vast majority of them are either 
> direct immigrants or descendants of immigrants from every country in the 
> world.


One group of Indians can trace ancestry back to Somerled.  They were
asked whether they objected to being called Indians and replied that
with all their other problems the last thing to get worried about was an
Italian who got lost.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:42:46 +0000, George Weston waxed with flowery words
of wisdom:

> "Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message
> news:4af08d99$0$2481$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:50:34 +0000, charles waxed with flowery words of
>> wisdom:
>>
>>> In article , George Weston
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message
>>>> news:4af077c4$0$2487$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>> > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:44:46 +0000, Richard Brooks waxed with
>>>> > flowery words of wisdom:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Dave Devnull said the following on 02/11/2009 18:52:
>>>> >>> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use
>>>> >>> 'Brit' for British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for
>>>> >>> someone from Pakistan?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Any suggestions as November is 'White Achievement Month'.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> You're switching from national groupings to a racial type which is
>>>> >> not the same thing.
>>>> >
>>>> > Is that so? So there is no such race as the Scots, Brits or Yanks
>>>> > and the People of Pakistan don't belong to a National group. Thanks
>>>> > for clearing that up.
>>>
>>>> The Yanks are a "race"? Take a history lesson, Dave. Apart from the
>>>> Native Americans (you'd probably call them Red Indians), who are
>>>> pretty well still "racially pure", the vast majority of them are
>>>> either direct immigrants or descendants of immigrants from every
>>>> country in the world.
>>>
>>> and even some, or all, of the "native americans" probably came from
>>> asia.
>> But does coming from Asia, make them Asians? <is that a race?> or does
>> it make them part of a National Grouping? I'm more confused then when I
>> started? All I know is thusfar I've been called a Nazi for asking.
> 
> Not for asking - it was the bit about white achievement that got me
> going on that score.
> 
> George

So does that make blacks Nazi's if they celebrate 'Black Achievement 
Month'? Is there such a thing as a black Nazi? Can blacks be Nazi's or is 
that also an area where they are under represented?

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:20:22 -0000
"George Weston"  wrote:
> wrote in message news:hcpoee$t45$1@aioe.org...
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:56:53 -0000
>> "George Weston"  wrote:
>>>>> You got me there but I could perhaps suggest "Nazi" for people who
>>>>> celebrate White Achievement Month"?
>>>>>
>>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> So what would that make people who celebrate Black Achievement Month?
>>>
>>>Erm... black?
>>>
>>>George
>>
>> Interesting double standards you have there. No doubt you're yet another
>> middle class guilt ridden liberal.
>
>Not even close.
>I just have a wry sense of humour and like winding up people with narrow 
>minds.

If you think that believing that everyone should be treated equally is
narrow minded then fair enough, you can't help being a moron. 

As for humour - remind us where the joke was?

B2003

"Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message 
news:4af11ee9$0$2493$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:42:46 +0000, George Weston waxed with flowery words
> of wisdom:
>
>> "Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message
>> news:4af08d99$0$2481$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:50:34 +0000, charles waxed with flowery words of
>>> wisdom:
>>>
>>>> In article , George Weston
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dave Devnull" <dev.null@invalid.local> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4af077c4$0$2487$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>>> > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:44:46 +0000, Richard Brooks waxed with
>>>>> > flowery words of wisdom:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Dave Devnull said the following on 02/11/2009 18:52:
>>>>> >>> What gets me is we can use Scot, for a Scottish. We can use
>>>>> >>> 'Brit' for British. We even use 'Yank' for American.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Perhaps someone can come up with a four letter abbreviation for
>>>>> >>> someone from Pakistan?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Any suggestions as November is 'White Achievement Month'.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >> You're switching from national groupings to a racial type which is
>>>>> >> not the same thing.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Is that so? So there is no such race as the Scots, Brits or Yanks
>>>>> > and the People of Pakistan don't belong to a National group. Thanks
>>>>> > for clearing that up.
>>>>
>>>>> The Yanks are a "race"? Take a history lesson, Dave. Apart from the
>>>>> Native Americans (you'd probably call them Red Indians), who are
>>>>> pretty well still "racially pure", the vast majority of them are
>>>>> either direct immigrants or descendants of immigrants from every
>>>>> country in the world.
>>>>
>>>> and even some, or all, of the "native americans" probably came from
>>>> asia.
>>> But does coming from Asia, make them Asians? <is that a race?> or does
>>> it make them part of a National Grouping? I'm more confused then when I
>>> started? All I know is thusfar I've been called a Nazi for asking.
>>
>> Not for asking - it was the bit about white achievement that got me
>> going on that score.
>>
>> George
>
> So does that make blacks Nazi's if they celebrate 'Black Achievement
> Month'? Is there such a thing as a black Nazi? Can blacks be Nazi's or is
> that also an area where they are under represented?

I'd answer that if it was worth it

wrote in message news:hcrj6g$utc$1@aioe.org...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:20:22 -0000
> "George Weston"  wrote:
>> wrote in message news:hcpoee$t45$1@aioe.org...
>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:56:53 -0000
>>> "George Weston"  wrote:
>>>>>> You got me there but I could perhaps suggest "Nazi" for people who
>>>>>> celebrate White Achievement Month"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George
>>>>>
>>>>> So what would that make people who celebrate Black Achievement Month?
>>>>
>>>>Erm... black?
>>>>
>>>>George
>>>
>>> Interesting double standards you have there. No doubt you're yet another
>>> middle class guilt ridden liberal.
>>
>>Not even close.
>>I just have a wry sense of humour and like winding up people with narrow
>>minds.
>
> If you think that believing that everyone should be treated equally is
> narrow minded then fair enough

Did I say that? I don't think so.

> you can't help being a moron.

No, I have to work at it.

> As for humour - remind us where the joke was?

I't's becoming a running one - and you're the major contributor.