The Cigar Lounge: General conversation.

First topic message reminder :

Due to some requests we are opening a General Conversation thread for the rugby posters.

Here you are welcome to talk about world affairs, current news and general jibber jabba you want to discuss with your fellow rugbynites.

It is however imperitave that you respect all other opinions and views. This thread will be strictly monitored for any personal attacks and/or disrespectful and unacceptable behaviour.

Because of some of the subject matter that may come up from time to time, please think before you post. Debate the point of vew and don't attack the poster.

No Anglo-Welsh bickering, no my dad is bigger than your dad (mine is the biggest and that's the end of it. )
No who can spit further than who (I can show you it is me, but then you'll all just become envious. )

Admin has approved this for a trial period, so it is up to you guys whether it stays or not.

So pull up a chair, Geeves will bring your Newspaper, a cigar of your choice and a tumbler of you favourite single malt whiskey or the cognac of our choice.

I'll have a martini please, Hound

Awesome. Another "general conversation thread" which will end up with pages full of people asking for and getting little drink icons

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'll have a martini please, Hound

It's a Lounge mate, tea and crumpets only.

Time to get the hip flasks out, folks

Point of order; Surely Scotland is already it's own country? Independence would mean Scotland can become an independent nation.

Am I wrong in saying that;

Eire (Ireland) is a nation-state and country.
Britain is a nation-state but not a country.
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries but not nation-states.

I don't know- surely Britain is a catch all term for a coalition of four countries? All of whom have their own regional parliaments. Except England, of course, because they are poor and oppressed.

As you could probably tell even before this post the issue of British and Irish cultural identity leaves me somewhat confused

Notch wrote:Point of order; Surely Scotland is already it's own country? Independence would mean Scotland can become an independent nation.

Am I wrong in saying that;

Eire (Ireland) is a nation-state and country.
Britain is a nation-state but not a country.
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries but not nation-states.

I don't know- surely Britain is a catch all term for a coalition of four countries? All of whom have their own regional parliaments. Except England, of course, because they are poor and oppressed.

As you could probably tell even before this post the issue of British and Irish cultural identity leaves me somewhat confused

Isn't Wales just a principality?

Ahhh not more complications!

We have dual status, apparently so

Notch wrote:Ahhh not more complications!

Britain is neither a country nor a nation-state (not even when prefixed 'Great'). Ii is a geographical soubriquet as in 'British Isles' which includes the nation-states of UK and Ireland.

And yet that term is disputed by some in Ireland. Wheels within wheels Portnoys! Wheels within wheels...

Blame the Romans Notch. Whatever did they ever do for us?

Great Britain is a geographical term referring to the largest Island in the British Isles.

The Kingdom of Great Britain was a sovereign state from 1707 to 1801

The United Kingdom of GB and Ireland was a sovereign state from 1801 until 1922 before being superceded by the UK of GB and NI and consists of four countries- England, Scotland, Wales and NI.

Come on lads this is what wikipedia is for....

"Underground: the Julian Assange Story" - just saw the promo.
Looks funny. Rachel Griffiths is his Mum, young actor who looks like a surfie plays Jules.

Nice lounge you set up Biltong.

Did you make those tiny cakes with your big hands? Such delicacy and detail in the icing there, my friend.

Where does New Britain and New Ireland fit into the scheme of things, rodders?
Quite big islands... although too many active volcanoes for my liking. Lucky wouldn't have a problem with that though.

Biltong wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'll have a martini please, Hound

It's a Lounge mate, tea and crumpets only.

Right. I'll have a coffee. But only if one of the Irish lads makes it

Portnoy wrote:Blame the Romans Notch. Whatever did they ever do for us?

You cant blame them for Bath, they just tarted the place up.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Biltong wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'll have a martini please, Hound

It's a Lounge mate, tea and crumpets only.

Right. I'll have a coffee. But only if one of the Irish lads makes it

Maybe we should make it "The Cigar Lounge" with photo's of Mandela, the Pope and other dignatories on the walls and the later Businessday Newspaper on the tables?

with stiff lipped waitors serving Cognac and Whiskey.

Notch wrote:

I don't know- surely Britain is a catch all term for a coalition of four countries? All of whom have their own regional parliaments. Except England, of course, because they are poor and oppressed.

The English are poor and oppressed?????????????????????? Well, why didn't they say so! Poor divils. They can have Rory, and with our blessing too. Down with the pitchforks, lads - we'll invade Britain another day...after the tea.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Blame the Romans Notch. Whatever did they ever do for us?

You cant blame them for Bath, they just tarted the place up.

Bath's a lovely place, why'd you want to blame anyone for it? It's the rugby team that are the problem!

Linebreaker wrote: "Underground: the Julian Assange Story" - just saw the promo.
Looks funny. Rachel Griffiths is his Mum, young actor who looks like a surfie plays Jules.

So, close to reality then.

However how marketable is the sweet tale of a spotty little geek so desperate for fame and attention, but lacking even the required talent to appear on "Australia's Got Talent", so manipulated a vulberable young man into committing treason before using said fame and glory to seduce sexually assault get friendly with young women.

In other news, George Galloway lines up George Clooney to play him on celluloid

LondonTiger wrote:

In other news, George Galloway lines up George Clooney to play him on celluloid

Well Clooney can purr of course, we all know he's a devil for the purring at the ladies...but miaowing??? I'm not so sure - I don't think his acting range extends quite that far.

Notch wrote:Except England, of course, because they are poor and oppressed.

Yep. For the last 946 years.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Notch wrote:Except England, of course, because they are poor and oppressed.

Yep. For the last 946 years.

Damned frenchies

Mind you they only oppressed the the Anglo-Saxons - who of course had evicted the original Englishmen (the Celts).

LondonTiger wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Notch wrote:Except England, of course, because they are poor and oppressed.

Yep. For the last 946 years.

Damned frenchies

Mind you they only oppressed the the Anglo-Saxons - who of course had evicted the original Englishmen (the Celts).

Ah ah! Careful.... this is where it gets really interesting. That should have read: "who of course had evicted the original Englishmen (the British). So in a weird way - Rory McILroy in claiming to be British is actually claiming to be just what we always thought he was - a Celt. The British were a Celtic population originally - nothing to do with Anglo-Saxons.

History, who'd buy it?

LondonTiger wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Notch wrote:Except England, of course, because they are poor and oppressed.

Yep. For the last 946 years.

Damned frenchies

Mind you they only oppressed the the Anglo-Saxons - who of course had evicted the original Englishmen (the Celts).

Last thing I read suggested the majority of the 'English' were here before the Angles and the Saxons (and Jutes). Originally the lack of 'celtic' place names in England suggested a mass extermination and replacement program. But the English and Celtic tend to have similar genetics (not Germanic) which doesn't back up this theory. The latest theory I heard is that the people living in 'England' were already Germanic speaking, which is why the place names are Germanic. This is backup up by the fact Old English has more in common with Old Scandinavian languages than the mainland German at the time. This suggests it split off from the mainland Germanic languages not long after Scandinavian did (way before the Angles came over). The suggestion is that although genetically the people in Britain and Ireland were similar genetically the west of Britain and Ireland had more in common with each other and the west of France, north of Spain. And the English had more in common with north-eastern France/Belgium, Germany, Scandinavia, etc. Easier to travel across the North Sea/Channel by boat than cross the country.

Of course we'll never know, but it's a good source of arguments.

HammerofThunor wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Notch wrote:Except England, of course, because they are poor and oppressed.

Yep. For the last 946 years.

Damned frenchies

Mind you they only oppressed the the Anglo-Saxons - who of course had evicted the original Englishmen (the Celts).

Last thing I read suggested the majority of the 'English' were here before the Angles and the Saxons (and Jutes). Originally the lack of 'celtic' place names in England suggested a mass extermination and replacement program. But the English and Celtic tend to have similar genetics (not Germanic) which doesn't back up this theory. The latest theory I heard is that the people living in 'England' were already Germanic speaking, which is why the place names are Germanic. This is backup up by the fact Old English has more in common with Old Scandinavian languages than the mainland German at the time. This suggests it split off from the mainland Germanic languages not long after Scandinavian did (way before the Angles came over). The suggestion is that although genetically the people in Britain and Ireland were similar genetically the west of Britain and Ireland had more in common with each other and the west of France, north of Spain. And the English had more in common with north-eastern France/Belgium, Germany, Scandinavia, etc. Easier to travel across the North Sea/Channel by boat than cross the country.

Of course we'll never know, but it's a good source of arguments.

Indeed. And I've read theories that most of the invasions tended to mostly displace the aristocracy, with the peasants gaining some new lords at the top, plus a sprinkling of new migrant neighbours.

Well as one side of my family arrived in England with the Dutch in the late 17th century, and the other side from Ireland post potato famine, I am easily confused

Any way, lets get this straight:

The original English were British Celts who were driven of their land by Romans, who were rarely from Rome.
The next group of english were really germans who were conquered by some french, who were not really french.
A period of internecine rivalry and upheaval followed along with all sorts of inter-family weddings.
Ownership of the English passed to the scots, until they were over-run by the dutch.
Yet more incestuous marriages and immigration until we reach today - where frankly we are all a bunch of mongrels?

Ah so thats where my taste for San miguel and estrella comes from.

But where did the Celts come from?
Through central Europe from Asia or via Scandinavia? Some of the ones taking the northern route trickled down (from north to south) further west into Europe through Denmark, Germany, etc and crossed the Channel from Holland, Belgium and France (Normans,etc) whilst the northern ones got to the coast of Norway and sailed to and around Scotland and eventually island hopped to Ireland, no?

OK thats where my taste for Heineken comes from then.

The people who inhabit the furthest westerly points of Ireland (and if you've ever travelled out that way, you'd know them - rooted to where they've come from written in their faces) they've the most ancient genes in Europe - ie, they've been longest where they now are - no migration or emigration or immigration - just there for a very long time indeed. The further east you go across Europe from there, that's when the melting of genes starts and the relatively recent Europeans live... ie, the French, the Germans, the Easter Europeans, even the "Celts" - (as much a tribe as any of the others by the way when the revisionists try to suggest they never really existed. Hmmm, and did a pure Saxon ever exist? Nope...it was Europe, people mixed).

Anyway, I guess those guys way out on the western fringes of Ireland with the purest European genome - well, they must think everyone to the east of the Shannon is a blow-in!

Good job the mongols never got this far

We all have it, that's the point rodders. It's built into our way of life and consciousness...

<-- note the increased activity just at the sight of that icon... it sort of triggers some pre-medieval urge to quench yourself with a tasty looking drink.

When I discovered my ancestors had come over from Dinan in Brittany (before settling in Devon) I went there to see if I could feel any connection to the people - it turned out to be an unusual experience.

The place was known for pancakes and they were definitely the best I've ever had. I felt really proud of being 'associated' with such a place. The world capital of the Crêpe. I recommend the apple and almond with cinnamon. Also has small crunchy nuts which give off that really nice roasted nut smell. A dash of brandy and then they set it alight.

As I was sitting in the square minding my own business this group walked past and it hit me that I bore a similarity to the bloke.
Then this gorgeous looking dark haired girl... the guy's sister or GF i wondered... then I thought... feck... she looks like me too!

Linebreaker wrote:But where did the Celts come from?
Through central Europe from Asia or via Scandinavia? Some of the ones taking the northern route trickled down (from north to south) further west into Europe through Denmark, Germany, etc and crossed the Channel from Holland, Belgium and France (Normans,etc) whilst the northern ones got to the coast of Norway and sailed to and around Scotland and eventually island hopped to Ireland, no?

Ireland was actually populated first. It certainly did the migration thing the other way round ..that is to say, they pushed into western Scotland (Scotti was an Irish tribe)..and they also invaded areas all down the western coast of what is now Gr. Britain. Our strand of Celt weren't impervious to a little invasion themselves.

It's why I sometimes smile when I hear the term Scotch Irish..I think oh yeah, maybe Irish Scotch Irish might be a more historically accurate term for many of them...and when they 'planted' Ulster as "British tenant" invaders..they maybe forgot that they were just coming home.

You go far enough back we are all African anyway

ChequeredJersey wrote:You go far enough back we are all African anyway

I thought we were all fish

East African or Aral Sea... take your pick.

Or is that part of an upside down triangle with the other corner going up through Egypt into Europe?

ChequeredJersey wrote:You go far enough back we are all African anyway

We might even be cousins, very far removed though.

LondonTiger wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:You go far enough back we are all African anyway

I thought we were all fish

LondonTiger wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:You go far enough back we are all African anyway

I thought we were all fish

Explains why we all drink like them

Okay smartazzes. So what's with the Pyramids? Theories on how the idea of pyramid building seems to have been part of quite a few cultures throughout the ancient world that allegedly never collided with each other during the periods of the building.

It kinda suggests to me that pyramids were either part of the culture of man before he even spread out to the widest corners of the earth that he eventually reached....or it's an instinctive drive in man to build in the pyramid shape?

I know a neighbour of mine lives in one - but that might be because he tried to build his own house and didn't know how to get the blocks to go vertical! There are so many iff vertical walls in his house that I'm glad I'm not a friend of his. I'd fear going in.

It's the strongest shape in nature- it's only logical if you are an early architect making a large impressive looking building for mostly ceremonial purpose that you would go for pyramid as it will be easiest to make as large as possible

SecretFly wrote:Okay smartazzes. So what's with the Pyramids?.

Ooh I kno wthat one.

It was the spacemen who came travelling on his ship from afar.


Or was that Stargate?

ChequeredJersey wrote:It's the strongest shape in nature- it's only logical if you are an early architect making a large impressive looking building for mostly ceremonial purpose that you would go for pyramid as it will be easiest to make as large as possible

I wonder why nature (biological nature anyway) has very few triangular structures. I think that although they have rigid properties if they have rigid sides, they are actually inefficient as a use of space. Hexagons are ideal for that.

Pass me a cigar...

ChequeredJersey wrote:It's the strongest shape in nature- it's only logical if you are an early architect making a large impressive looking building for mostly ceremonial purpose that you would go for pyramid as it will be easiest to make as large as possible

Yeah, that's probably it, just an instinct for most robust shape.... not great for hanging family portaits on though which is why it probably mostly died out now.

Mountains have a triangular or pyramidic shape to them...I guess that's as much nature as you're likely to see on the planet.

Most mountains are not triangular and in any case when they are it's frequently due to volcanic/tectonic upthrusts which cause it. Not something that lasts the test of time though as erosion tends to bugger them up into rounds and mounds.

Portnoy wrote:Most mountains are not triangular and in any case when they are it's frequently due to volcanic/tectonic upthrusts which cause it. Not something that lasts the test of time though as erosion tends to bugger them up into rounds and mounds.

Em............... most mountains don't have geometrically perfect sides making perfectly architectural pyramid shapes (actually none of them do, ...but yep, if we're talking nature with its bumbs and non linear configuration, mountains are roughly pyramid in shape... big area at the bottom working up to less and less area at the top....faces too North face, South face etc.

They have a name for mountains which stand out due to their square pyramid shapes and also the amount of mountain above surrounding peaks - prominence. Everest is the most but then you get ones like that volcano in Mexico, the big peaks of South America and the Matterhorn is pretty high up on the list there too.

However, we live in an age which has gone from the flat pyramid to the shard or needle in the sky. Think of Dubai, Shanghai, London, etc. More super tall building projects have been planned for UAE, Middle East, India, Russia, China but most have been put on hold until the market recovers.

I hate skyscrapers

SecretFly wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Most mountains are not triangular and in any case when they are it's frequently due to volcanic/tectonic upthrusts which cause it. Not something that lasts the test of time though as erosion tends to bugger them up into rounds and mounds.

Em............... most mountains don't have geometrically perfect sides making perfectly architectural pyramid shapes (actually none of them do, ...but yep, if we're talking nature with its bumbs and non linear configuration, mountains are roughly pyramid in shape... big area at the bottom working up to less and less area at the top....faces too North face, South face etc.

If you consider that mountains are formed over millions of years and exposed to wind and water erosion as well as shifts in tectonic plates they could well have had a lot of similarity with Pyramids.