Attention Rod Speed: Your head is firmly implanted in your (well-used) rectum. Please seek medical a

[Bilky White]

So you have a problem with the H in chav, .

There is no H in "chav" else it would be "cHav", which it is not. Perhaps
you have a problem with the "wrong" in "Rod Speed".

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit pom desperately cowering behind
Bilky White desperately attempted to bullshit its way out of
its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

 

[John Turco]

John Turco wrote



Sure, thats where the word Normans comes from, its a contraction of Norse
Men.

Hello, Rod:

And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.

Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.

Well, then, I guess that blonds >did< have more fun, after all!

 

[John Turco]

John Turco wrote




Thats a bit cruel, what are you going to do when he bursts into tears ?

Hello, Rod:

You're so right...I'm an utterly wicked person. <g>

Fark, this turns up with the new google auto completion now

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=chavs+means

One hell of a ****ing resource.

Thanks, for the link. It enabled me to learn that "Bilky White" fits
the decription of a "chav" to such an incredible degree, that he might
be the genuine prototype of this grubby beast. ;-)

 

[John Turco]

Oooo, I missed that bit. More redundant comas and I'm fairly sure there
must be other true questions but FWIW at least you now know what a chav is.
Who knows, you may even be one!

It's now painfully evident that you're >not< willing to offer anything of
value, to this newsgroup.

 

[John Turco]

David Brown wrote:

Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other places)
were for trade and/or settlement, not for raids or other violence. They
got their historical reputation because many of their raids were against
churches and monasteries, since these had all the gold. And since
virtually the only people who could write at the time were churchmen and
monks, the written history is severely biased.

I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely that
they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm good land,
make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and poor
defences).

Hello, David:

Going soft on those naughty Norsemen, eh? You've been living in Norway,
far too long! <g>

Seriously, the Vikings were a relatively small Scandanavian subgroup,
as the vast majority of the Nordic countries' inhabitants were either
(mostly peaceful) farmers or fisherman.

The Vikings, themselves, were a violent people, living in a turbulent
time. They've had their counterparts throughout human history, with
the German Nazis being the most notorious of the modern age.

Coincidentally or not, Adolf Hitler and his henchmen idolized the
Vikings.

 

[John Turco]

Arno wrote



Plenty do the mongols.

For good reasons too, there are STILL massive great piles of skulls
in stone cairns left from some of their most gung ho operations.

The reason the romans dont get called that is because they were quite
happy to absorb those who werent stupid enough to try resisting them.

<edited>

Hello, Rod:

Arno Wagner is Swiss -- and thus, he should remain neutral, within this
international debate.

Besides, there's no real comparison between the Vikings and the Romans.
The former were a virtual blip on the radar screen, whereas the latter
built one the greatest civilizations in history.

 

[David Brown]

David Brown wrote:




Hello, David:

Going soft on those naughty Norsemen, eh? You've been living in Norway,
far too long! <g>

Seriously, the Vikings were a relatively small Scandanavian subgroup,
as the vast majority of the Nordic countries' inhabitants were either
(mostly peaceful) farmers or fisherman.

When people refer to "the Vikings", especially in the context of raids,
they are thinking of the warriors from the aristocracy who went off in
search of adventure, glory and profit (including raiding, conquering,
exploring, trading, and settling new lands). As you say, most of
Scandinavia's inhabitants - like most people in any country at the time
- were mostly peaceful, and had enough trouble scraping a living from
the land and sea without having to waste money, energy and lives in war.

While they obviously did not have the same level of cultural influence
as the Romans, the Vikings were still very significant in the history of
many parts of north west Europe. Their kings ruled parts of Britain for
a while, and their cultural and genetic heritage is seen in many places,
especially in Scotland. And of course the Normans (descended from
Danish Vikings) were the last invaders to conquer England.

Their explorations also contributed to general European geographical
knowledge - I think it is likely (though this is speculation) that
Columbus had strong hopes of finding land roughly were he did find it,
because he knew of Viking expeditions to Newfoundland.

Viking culture (especially in their homeland, but also exported to other
countries) had some significant "modern" traits that may have influenced
later societies, especially in Scandinavia. They had a much more
democratic judicial system than many of their contemporaries, with feuds
or disagreements being resolved in courts with a judge, lawyers, and
peers. Women had far more influence and power - when a woman's husband
was away on a Viking expedition, she had full legal authority over their
estate which was owned jointly. And if she caught him cheating on her
with another woman (foreign women and slaves don't count, of course) she
could demand his arrest and execution. Perhaps this explains why modern
Scandinavian societies are less misogynist than other European countries.


I snipped the next bit of your post, before someone invokes Godwin's law...

 

[David Brown]

Well, then, I guess that blonds >did< have more fun, after all!

At one stage at least, when a Viking died his fortune was split in
three. One third went to the state in death taxes, one third went to
his inheritors, and the remaining third was used to pay for the funeral
feast.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Turco wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Obviously. <g>

Well, then, I guess that blonds >did< have more fun, after all!

Depends on whether your idea of fun involves going up in flames on hubby's funeral pyre, alive.

 

[Jim Jones]

Arno Wagner is Swiss -- and thus, he should remain neutral, within this international debate.

He's a kraut swiss, seig heil.

Besides, there's no real comparison between the Vikings and the
Romans. The former were a virtual blip on the radar screen, whereas
the latter built one the greatest civilizations in history.

Sure, but that isnt the reason why they arent called bloody.

 

[Rod Speed]

David Brown wrote

John Turco wrote

When people refer to "the Vikings", especially in the context of raids, they are thinking of the warriors from the
aristocracy

Wrong on that last.

who went off in search of adventure, glory and profit (including raiding, conquering, exploring, trading, and settling
new lands). As you say, most of Scandinavia's inhabitants - like most people in any country at the time - were mostly
peaceful, and had enough trouble scraping a living from the land and sea without having to waste money, energy and
lives in war.

There's a reason that the viking raids happened, and didnt with other similar groups.

While they obviously did not have the same level of cultural influence as the Romans, the Vikings were still very
significant in the history of many parts of north west Europe. Their kings ruled parts of Britain for a while,

And essentially did forever with the Norman invasion.

and their cultural and genetic heritage is seen in many places, especially in Scotland. And of course the Normans
(descended
from Danish Vikings) were the last invaders to conquer England.

And those Normans certainly were not just the aristocracy of Danemark.

Their explorations also contributed to general European geographical
knowledge - I think it is likely (though this is speculation) that
Columbus had strong hopes of finding land roughly were he did find it, because he knew of Viking expeditions to
Newfoundland.

That is just plain wrong. He hoped to find asia and was stupid
enough to believe the wrong version of the size of the earth.

Viking culture (especially in their homeland, but also exported to
other countries) had some significant "modern" traits that may have
influenced later societies, especially in Scandinavia. They had a
much more democratic judicial system than many of their
contemporaries, with feuds or disagreements being resolved in courts
with a judge, lawyers, and peers. Women had far more influence and
power - when a woman's husband was away on a Viking expedition, she
had full legal authority over their estate which was owned jointly. And if she caught him cheating on her with another
woman (foreign
women and slaves don't count, of course) she could demand his arrest
and execution. Perhaps this explains why modern Scandinavian
societies are less misogynist than other European countries.

Or perhaps not.

 

[David Brown]

David Brown wrote


Wrong on that last.

Scandinavian society at the time was divided into three main layers. At
the bottom were the "trells" - basically slaves, many of whom were
captive foreigners. In the middle were the peasants - free people, but
owning no land (though possibly owning a house or workshop). This group
included artisans and craftsmen as well as tenant farmers, fishermen,
etc. At the top were the "aristocracy", who owned the land. The term
"aristocracy" here does not correspond directly to its use in other
cultures - it does not imply a title, for example (though titled nobles
were from this layer of society). I can't think of an exact equivalent
term - perhaps "upper class" would be better. Farming was often
organised around large farmsteads - the owning family would be part of
this upper social layer, although a similar farm owner in Britain would
not be considered an aristocrat.

And when Vikings settled in other countries, they obviously took lots of
non-Vikings with them.

There's a reason that the viking raids happened, and didnt with other
similar groups.

There's a few reasons. One is that the land was relatively poor in
Scandinavia, meaning that they had more to gain by foreign trade and
foreign raids. The other is that they were excellent shipbuilders and
sailors. You don't hear much about Germanic peoples of the time who
raided or traded with their neighbours on foot or horseback - you hear
about the Vikings partly because it was over longer distances and with a
wider range of targets. It is also because of the sea travel that the
exchanges were so one-sided - no one (except other Vikings) came to
Scandinavia.

And essentially did forever with the Norman invasion.

In a sense, yes - although the Normans were Viking descendants rather
than Vikings, and were aligned with France.

And those Normans certainly were not just the aristocracy of
Danemark.

Correct.


That is just plain wrong. He hoped to find asia and was stupid enough
to believe the wrong version of the size of the earth.

He certainly /told/ people he was looking for an alternative sea route
to China and the far east - that's how he got the money for the
expedition. It's extremely difficult to be sure of anything like this,
but a lot of knowledge passed around within expert groups like
navigators. It is reasonable to expect that Columbus would have been
aware of the Viking settlements in "Vinland" (and certainly aware of the
existence of Iceland), and also to have had a fairly accurate idea of
the size of the earth (rough estimates had been around since Greek
times, though they were not part of "mainstream" knowledge at the time,
mostly due to church influence). It is, as I say, speculation to
suppose Columbus had hopes of finding land where America exists - at
best he only knew of land at that longitude but further north. But I've
read convincing and well-reasoned historical theories giving exactly
that speculation.

 

[Rod Speed]

David Brown wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Scandinavian society at the time was divided into three main layers. At the bottom were the "trells" - basically
slaves, many of whom were
captive foreigners. In the middle were the peasants - free people,
but owning no land (though possibly owning a house or workshop). This group included artisans and craftsmen as well as
tenant farmers,
fishermen, etc. At the top were the "aristocracy", who owned the land.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim of yours.

The term "aristocracy" here does not correspond directly to
its use in other cultures - it does not imply a title, for example
(though titled nobles were from this layer of society). I can't
think of an exact equivalent term - perhaps "upper class" would be
better. Farming was often organised around large farmsteads - the
owning family would be part of this upper social layer, although a
similar farm owner in Britain would not be considered an aristocrat.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim of yours.

And when Vikings settled in other countries, they obviously took lots of non-Vikings with them.

Mindlessly silly use of that word. The viking werent just the aristocracy.

There's a few reasons. One is that the land was relatively poor in Scandinavia,

Like hell it was.

meaning that they had more to gain by foreign trade and foreign raids.

The vikings werent primarily about trade.

The other is that they were excellent shipbuilders and sailors. You don't hear much about Germanic peoples of the
time who
raided or traded with their neighbours on foot or horseback - you hear about the Vikings partly because it was over
longer distances and with a wider range of targets.

Have fun explaining the Normans.

It is also because of the sea travel that the exchanges were so one-sided - no one (except other Vikings) came to
Scandinavia.

Utterly mangled all over again.

In a sense, yes

In reality too.

- although the Normans were Viking descendants rather than Vikings,

True in spades of those you waffled on about above.

and were aligned with France.

Like hell they were.

Correct.

So your original is just plain wrong.

He certainly /told/ people he was looking for an alternative sea route to China and the far east

And he certainly /told/ them about his silly idea about the size of the earth too.

- that's how he got the money for the expedition.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ?

It's extremely difficult to be sure of anything like this,

But you spew your mindlessly silly claims anyway.

but a lot of knowledge passed around within expert groups like navigators. It is reasonable to expect that Columbus
would have been aware of the Viking settlements in "Vinland"

Like hell it is when he didnt even mention that and
no one else knew anything about that at that time.

(and certainly aware of the existence of Iceland), and also to have had a fairly accurate idea of the size of the
earth

Like hell he did. He was out by about a third.

(rough estimates had been around since Greek times,

And accurate estimates had been around since that time too.

though they were not part of "mainstream" knowledge at the time, mostly due to church influence).

Wrong, as always.

It is, as I say, speculation to suppose Columbus had hopes of finding land where America exists

And not a shred of evidence to support it either.

In spades with the lattitudes he chose to move at.

- at best he only knew of land at that longitude but further north.

You dont know that either.

But I've read convincing and well-reasoned historical theories giving exactly that speculation.

Pity it flys in the face of the evidence.

 

[David Brown]

Rod Speed wrote:
<snip>

I seem to have triggered rodbot mode on that post...

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote:
<snip>

I seem to have triggered rodbot mode on that post...

Corse that is all your own work too, eh ?

 

[John Turco]

John Turco wrote:

While they obviously did not have the same level of cultural influence
as the Romans, the Vikings were still very significant in the history of
many parts of north west Europe. Their kings ruled parts of Britain for
a while, and their cultural and genetic heritage is seen in many places,
especially in Scotland. And of course the Normans (descended from
Danish Vikings) were the last invaders to conquer England.

Hello, David:

The Vikings' "cultural and genetic heritage" is comparatively sparse, in
my view. The Normans became thoroughly "Frenchified" and the peoples of
Britain and Ireland are still of Celtic stock, overwhelmingly.

Regarding language, English has an Anglo-Saxon base, which was largely
modified by the French-speaking Norman subjugators.

Their explorations also contributed to general European geographical
knowledge - I think it is likely (though this is speculation) that
Columbus had strong hopes of finding land roughly were he did find it,
because he knew of Viking expeditions to Newfoundland.

Unlikely. Contrary to popular belief, Christopher Columbus never even
set foot on the North American continent!

Viking culture (especially in their homeland, but also exported to other
countries) had some significant "modern" traits that may have influenced
later societies, especially in Scandinavia. They had a much more
democratic judicial system than many of their contemporaries, with feuds
or disagreements being resolved in courts with a judge, lawyers, and
peers.

Are you sure that "kangaroo courts" didn't predominate, though? (Rod
Speed might appreciate my subtle reference to the famous Australian

Women had far more influence and power - when a woman's husband was
away on a Viking expedition, she had full legal authority over their
estate which was owned jointly. And if she caught him cheating on
her with another woman (foreign women and slaves don't count, of
course) she could demand his arrest and execution.

"Demands" are easily made, but, how often are they fulfulled? Besides,
this simply fits the prevailing stereotype of vengeful, bloodthirsty
Vikings.

Perhaps this explains why modern Scandinavian societies are less
misogynist than other European countries.

Really? Not according to a Wikipedia article on Sweden, I'd seen, a few
months ago. It claimed that, during the late 19th century and early 20th
century, Swedish emigrants to the United States found American society
to be much more democratic (and far less authoritarian) than their "old
country" ever was.

I snipped the next bit of your post, before someone invokes Godwin's
law...

Yes...I should've written, "Herr Schicklgruber and his cronies," rather
than using the dreaded "H word." :-J

 

[John Turco]

At one stage at least, when a Viking died his fortune was split in
three. One third went to the state in death taxes, one third went to
his inheritors, and the remaining third was used to pay for the funeral
feast.

Hello, David:

Those cynics among us, could logically assume that his greedy cohorts
grabbed the entire "pot" for themselves. <g>

 

[John Turco]

John Turco wrote



Depends on whether your idea of fun involves going up in flames on
hubby's funeral pyre, alive.

Hello, Rod:

I said "blonds," not "blondes" -- viva la difference! <G>

 

[John Turco]

David Brown wrote

<heavily edited>

Hello, Rod:

Hey, if ol' Chris was truly such a disoriented dimwit, "USA" may have stood for "United States of Australia!"