Do most americans dislike the british??

reply to post by stewalters1


The only ones around here who may dislike the British are the devoted followers of our President Obama. He has laid the groundwork for this attitude towards our nation's strongest ally.

Personally, I think most Americans are very fond of our British friends across the pond. I have friends here in the US from Scotland, Wales and England. Some of the friendliest people I have ever met!

I would never sell out our friends in the UK for the French as claimed by our president who bestowed an Ipod on the Queen. Obama is attempting to dismantle this relationship with the UK. Why? I have no idea yet.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Rule number one, for those who have to resort to mocking and ridiculing another person's grammar and spelling, is to make sure that you proofread your own posts first !

Originally posted by blah yada
ROFLMAO!

F-........ Go back to school, child.

Originally posted by blah yada
Well, let's have it then.

While my spelling and grammar isn't perfect - you will probably comb through my post, searching for errors in these departments, as that seems to be your 'thing' - I don't have the need to rudely mock someone else for their 'deficiencies' in this department - unless the person is being a hypocrite about it !


The truth of the matter is that we all make errors in these departments, and while the poster's spelling and grammar may be a bit off in some places, his posts and points were perfectly understandable ( to me, at least ).


Grammar nazism is a cheap shot, and usually indicates that the person who is being persnickety or pedantic about the other person's spelling, lacks a relevant or telling argument.

I stand corrected.You got me on the apostrophe.I'll endeavour to work harder on my posts and even proof read them.Congratulations on your colossal victory.Hypocrisy is a bold charge though.The poster's grammar ,spelling and punctuation were more than a 'bit off'.

I resorted to criticising it because his argument was so lame.He responds with remarks like "i don't care" and pathetic insults.This warrants nothing more than an indictment of his shortcomings.

Don't worry I'm not going to nitpick your post.You have an acceptable standard of literacy.If you look at my other posts on ATS you will see I rarely pull individuals up on their standard of English.But if it is as bad as his and is the vessel for a flawed argument then I feel fully entitled to point out his ineptitude to him, in no uncertain terms.

Literacy aside,do you agree with him, as far as his claim that the monarchy supplements the national coffers rather than draw from them,based on no other evidence than the Crown says so?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Wh00pS
The term Great Britain to me just smacks of colonialism and is outdated.

The term Great Britain has nothing to do with ''greatness'', in regards to being wonderful or powerful.

It is the historic term for the island, due to its geographical size in comparison to all the other smaller islands, and also Brittany.

I know where the term comes from but that doesn't mean i have to like it. I don't like being refered to as "British" but dont mind being known as a resident of the UK, go figure

reply to post by blah yada


Regardless of the genetics at the very least the language of England does not reflect this. However from what i have just read this is a very interesting subject that it would appear is challengeing a lot of history on how invasion and population migrations effected the peoples of the Isles.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by blah yada

 

Oh, and for one who has adopted such a supercilious attitude to English grammar I am sure you are aware there should be a space after a full stop at the end of a sentence and the capital letter denoting the start of another sentence.
I normally wouldn't be so pedantic but, well, you know.

You are not being pedantic. You are indeed correct. I hold my hand up and admit that not putting a space between a full stop and the next sentence is one of my bad habits when typing. I will try to address it even though it is hardly the worst error to make. I never claimed to be perfect. However I don't mind you highlighting my imperfections. It only helps me. Failure to capitalise the first letter of a sentence was the result of my striking of the shift key incorrectly, due, most probably to typing too fast and not proof reading.

Rocketman does not like to be corrected and sees nothing wrong with his English. His argument is childish and leaves me little option other than to make an exhibit of his ignorance. I'm confident that an educated impartial observer would rate me higher for my posts than they would Rocketman, for his utter drivel. Or do you reckon otherwise?

There is no such thing as 'statute of limitations' in UK law.

Interesting but not relevant outside Britain

Originally posted by blah yada

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by blah yada

 

Oh, and for one who has adopted such a supercilious attitude to English grammar I am sure you are aware there should be a space after a full stop at the end of a sentence and the capital letter denoting the start of another sentence.
I normally wouldn't be so pedantic but, well, you know.

You are not being pedantic. You are indeed correct. I hold my hand up and admit that not putting a space between a full stop and the next sentence is one of my bad habits when typing. I will try to address it even though it is hardly the worst error to make. I never claimed to be perfect. However I don't mind you highlighting my imperfections. It only helps me. Failure to capitalise the first letter of a sentence was the result of my striking of the shift key incorrectly, due, most probably to typing too fast and not proof reading.

Rocketman does not like to be corrected and sees nothing wrong with his English. His argument is childish and leaves me little option other than to make an exhibit of his ignorance. I'm confident that an educated impartial observer would rate me higher for my posts than they would Rocketman, for his utter drivel. Or do you reckon otherwise.

There is no such thing as 'statute of limitations' in UK law.

I have already conceded my Grammer and punctuation are not of the best. But to say remarks of mine such as "i dont care" are childish when i am alluding to the fact that your points are just not relevant to the current question, do the monarchy contribute the state coffers, is silly. I do not need to argue the morals of past actions by Crown or State if the are not relevant to the current incarnation.

Originally posted by NadaCambia
American politics effect the whole world. When your business directly effects the business of others then people are gonna take an interest in yours.

That's just simple common sense.

Bickering about the credibility of American politicians does not constitute as your business. As far as the war, and other issues go; I totally agree with you.

reply to post by blah yada


You introduce what other's have described 'gramatical nazism' into the thread in an effort to intellectually bully someone whom you disagree with and then when found to be errant yourself you arrogantly dismiss it as due to laziness.
I think that is pretty cheap and certainly displays and element of disdainful hypocrisy.

Unfortunately I can not comment on your assertion that an impartial educated observer would rate your posts 'higher' than Rocketman 1's because, whilst I may be impartial, I am by no means educated having been forcibly ejected from the education system without a single qualification.
If I was to venture an opinion then it would be to say that Rocketman 1's posts appear sincere and worthy of consideration whilst your's could be construed as arrogantly dismissive of opposing opinions and in this instance most definately supercilious.

You are clearly an intelligent person with much to offer, maybe you would have more success if you came out of your ivory tower, be it real of imaginary, and inter-acted with us mere mortals as an equal.

CHILDREN!! Play nice or you WILL sit in the corner facing the wall for the rest of the class!

I was quite impressed how, given the nature of the thread, everyone was pulling together and having a good laugh.......don't spoil it with pointless bickering! Corporal punishment may be banned in the UK, but I still got me birch by me side, don't make me get it out on you chaps!

Lifes too short for silly squabbling.............

Now lets proceed in a calm and friendly manner.

Originally posted by blah yada
I stand corrected.You got me on the apostrophe.I'll endeavour to work harder on my posts and even proof read them.Congratulations on your colossal victory.Hypocrisy is a bold charge though.The poster's grammar ,spelling and punctuation were more than a 'bit off'.

As I say, nobody's perfect when it comes to spelling and grammar, so we all have lapses and make mistakes.

You will just as likely find an error in this post, or one of my subsequent posts, as I did in yours.

Ultimately, spelling and grammar aren't of the utmost importance, just so long as the message is intelligible.


I only brought up the absence of an apostrophe and comma in your post, because you were the one who was making a big issue of another poster's spelling and grammar.

Hypocrisy may be a bit strong, but, in the end, that is what it was.

Originally posted by blah yada
I resorted to criticising it because his argument was so lame.He responds with remarks like "i don't care" and pathetic insults.This warrants nothing more than an indictment of his shortcomings.

Don't worry I'm not going to nitpick your post.You have an acceptable standard of literacy.If you look at my other posts on ATS you will see I rarely pull individuals up on their standard of English.But if it is as bad as his and is the vessel for a flawed argument then I feel fully entitled to point out his ineptitude to him, in no uncertain terms.

Someone who mocks another's spelling, and attempts to ridicule their intellect based upon this supposed ''shortcoming'', just happens to be one of my pet peeves.

I think it's below the belt, not very constructive, and is often indicative of someone who feels that they have lost the argument, or at least, are losing ground in the debate.

Anyway, that's by the by, and I don't mean to detract from the overall debate.

Originally posted by blah yada
Literacy aside,do you agree with him, as far as his claim that the monarchy supplements the national coffers rather than draw from them,based on no other evidence than the Crown says so?

I wouldn't claim to know all of the facts and figures surrounding the financial pros and cons of the Royal Family, but I know that they certainly do bring in a lot revenue from tourists, especially some of those from the USA, who may profess the following words ( or similar ): ''OMG ! I just soooo saw the Queen of England at, like, BuckingHAM Palace !''

As the saying goes: ''A fool and his money are soon parted'', and many foreign visitors will pay through their nose when visiting London and our ''quaint'' Royal Family is a big contributory factor in these visitors parting with their tourist dollars.

Whether this revenue outweighs the money that they cost the British taxpayer, I don't know. Like I say, I have not studied the facts and figures surrounding this in any kind of detail.


Personally speaking, I am not a fan of the Royal Family as it stands, but I am not particularly keen on Britain becoming a presidential republic, either.

I object to someone becoming Head of State because of an accident of birth, yet I really don't like the idea of having a ''British president'' ( no matter how much of a figurehead position that role may be ).


My personal solution - although I've never met anyone who agrees with me - is to have an elected Head of State, yet give them King or Queen status.

They can reside in Buck house, go to Balmoral and Sandringham ( obviously recompense the current owner ), yet would not receive those privileges because of what family they happened to be born into.

That way, you'd still get tourists from all over the world flocking into Britain and seeing the ''Royal Family'', and all the pomp and circumstance that goes with it, without one particular family leaching off tax-payers' money to perform these tasks.


Added to this, there is the much more human aspect of people like Prince William and Prince Harry being forced to live an artificial and claustrophobic life, purely because of the circumstances that they were born into, despite the fact that both lads must yearn to live a normal life.

Originally posted by Wh00pS
I know where the term comes from but that doesn't mean i have to like it. I don't like being refered to as "British" but dont mind being known as a resident of the UK, go figure

It's just when you said that the term reminded you of British colonialism, that I thought you might have misinterpreted the original meaning of the term.

I wouldn't blame you if you had; after all, that silly woman Mrs. Thatcher once said: ''We need to put the ''Great'' back into Great Britain''.

Someone should've had advised her on what's what, or told her to get back in that kitchen.


''British'' is the official denonym for someone who is a citizen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If you don't like the term, then you should write to the Home Office to attempt to get the officially recognised term for nationals of this country, changed...

reply to post by woogleuk


You are right. I apologise to Rocketman1 and everyone else for derailing the thread. I am obviously vehemently anti-royalist and did not control my anger in the face of what I felt was a dismissive response to one of my posts.

As for the grammar/literacy issue, I'm truly not raising it to laud myself in any way, but I do feel that people could try a little harder with it. It's just that I worry about how ATS is perceived by viewers who are new to it, or are on a mission to disparage it. I don't want detractors to have any ammunition for ridiculing it as it really is one of the few sites I can find that offer a forum for open intelligent debate on a broad range of important topics. Anyway I've made my point so I won't nag at anyone again.

Sorry folks.

My personal solution - although I've never met anyone who agrees with me - is to have an elected Head of State, yet give them King or Queen status.

That would be a lot more democratic

Originally posted by woogleuk
CHILDREN!! Play nice or you WILL sit in the corner facing the wall for the rest of the class!

Right, we'll turn this thread around and go right back home!



And for the record AGAIN Britts are ok in my book.

I found some of your SAS to be rather likeable, and we took some delight in talking about our differences.

I do with you guys could learn how to spell some words properly "color," for one. I mean, it's silly having these minor grammatical differences since we all speak American.

reply to post by FarArcher


We invented the bloody language!!! (sort of)

reply to post by stewalters1


From a country that gave us Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Jeff Beck, and a host of other kick-ass bands, how could I ever dislike?? Like any other country, the government has its dark open secrets; but for the culture and people, I'm hip.

Originally posted by blah yada
reply to post by woogleuk

 

You are right. I apologise to Rocketman1 and everyone else for derailing the thread. I am obviously vehemently anti-royalist and did not control my anger in the face of what I felt was a dismissive response to one of my posts.

As for the grammar/literacy issue, I'm truly not raising it to laud myself in any way, but I do feel that people could try a little harder with it. It's just that I worry about how ATS is perceived by viewers who are new to it, or are on a mission to disparage it. I don't want detractors to have any ammunition for ridiculing it as it really is one of the few sites I can find that offer a forum for open intelligent debate on a broad range of important topics. Anyway I've made my point so I won't nag at anyone again.

Sorry folks.

I know this is going back off topic, for which i apologise. But i thank Blah Yada for his apology and in return i am sorry if he felt i was overly dismissive of his opinions. I understand it is a emotive subject to a lot of people myself included and perhaps a thread should be opened on the future direction of the British Monarchy. I myslef would but am a noob. As for the grammar/literacy issue, i will try harder to improve it. I certainly would not lioke to detract from what is a excellant source of debate and free speech.

On topic UK/US rock in equal measure, we may not be right all the time but the people's work together as much as is possible for the good of humanity. And that is what counts.

reply to post by stewalters1


I actually love the British...1st) Where I live in Northern Upstate NY we have alot for British culture, due to the French and Indian War. 2) You gave us Gordon Ramsay 3) British Womens Accents 4) Nuff Said

reply to post by stewalters1


i have no more dislike for British citizens, than i do Iraqi citizens....one buddy of mine was raised in the london, but american. the product of an US Air Force dad and British mom. he's a riot, we met in navy boot camp and 14yrs later he still is my lil bro....he doesnt call me a wanker anymore....lol!
But no, i as an american, do not dislike any nations PEOPLE...and it would only be coincidence if i were to dislike a PERSON of any particular nation.


hell, being that i am american, all my "negative" life issues have been with americans, if you wanna get technical......been robbed 3 times by americans, nearly killed by a drunk american driver, umm...oh, got conned by an american business partner....hmmm.....maybe i'll see how it is on the other side of the pond. id rather be Bs'd by a woman who sounds/looks like Corrine Bailey Rae shes yummy! or lindsey dawn....lolz!