View Full Version : Joan Of Arc

tony draper
11th Nov 2001, 04:50
Just watching that new Joan of Arc movie on cable,
not bad, good battle scenes, plenty of blood and snot, passible acting.
Its the basic plot Draper has a problem with,
Ha!!, the very idea that god would send someone to help the French, now thats stretching credability too far. ;)

[ 10 November 2001: Message edited by: tony draper ]

Send Clowns
11th Nov 2001, 06:43
Apparently it's all crap - a French historian looked into it and the story is as realistic as the Robin Hood myths i.e. people and context correct not the stories. WHat I didn't realise though is that it was the Frensh that burned her, I always thought it was the English.

tony draper
11th Nov 2001, 07:52
Well yeh, they always claim they're better cooks than us anyway. :(

Feeton Terrafirma
11th Nov 2001, 13:44
Yeah, if you ask the French, they are better at everything. I have noticed that everyone else agrees that they excel at arrogance thou


11th Nov 2001, 13:54

Well yeh, they always claim they're better cooks than us anyway

Perhaps they learned this trade on that particular day...

The Guvnor
11th Nov 2001, 15:31
OzExpat - have you sampled some 'long pig' then? :D :eek: :D I understand it's still popular in your neck of the woods...

tony draper
11th Nov 2001, 16:41
Don't understand why there's such a taboo against canabalism.
I think Swift advocated it as a means of population control.
Theres a awful lot of excess people on this planet,all made from protein, and a awfull lot of hungry people. :eek:

11th Nov 2001, 17:30

The taboo is gradually eroding. Human meat is now available and gaining in popularity.
Check out the website.
Have a friend for Dinner! (http://www.manbeef.com/)
Goes really well with a sharp sauce like lemon or orange. :D :eek: :eek: :D

tony draper
11th Nov 2001, 17:41
Heh heh, Interesting site. ;) ;)

The Guvnor
11th Nov 2001, 19:54
Remember that SciFi film Soylent Green? Seems like a good idea to me - half the world is starving and we're running out of land to bury all that excess protein!

Yum yum! :D :D :D

11th Nov 2001, 20:42
If the world were 100 people

There would be:
57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from North and South America
8 Africans
52 would be female
48 would be male
70 would be nonwhite, 30 white
59% of the entire world's wealth would belong to only 6 people
and all 6 would be citizens of the United States
80 would live in substandard housing
70 would be unable to read
50 would suffer from malnutrition
1 would be near death
1 would be near birth
Only 1 would have a college education
99 of them will not see this message,
because only 1 would have a computer.


I have a better idea than the Guv's. Let's eat the rich. Redistribute the wealth, solve unemployment (or carry on until we do) and cure world hunger at a stroke.

tony draper
11th Nov 2001, 20:53
I have a sneaky feeling that if all the wealth land ect, was evenly distributed among the whole population, if you came back twenty years later, it would all be back in the hands of about 2% of us,and the rest of us would be walking around with our arses hanging out our kecks like they are now. ;)

[ 11 November 2001: Message edited by: tony draper ]

11th Nov 2001, 21:20
^Lets look at the above quoted stats.

57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south
8 Africans

According to the United Nations World Population Prospects document, the world population in the year 2000 was about 6.1 billion, with this geographic distribution:
 Africa: 794,000,000
 Asia: 3,672,000,000
 Latin America and Caribbean: 519,000,000
 Europe: 727,000,000
 North America: 314,000,000
 Oceania: 51,000,000
If we calculate the corresponding percentages (and lump North America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Oceania into the "western hemisphere" category), we get the following ratios for our population of 100:
 Asians: 60
 Europeans: 12
 Western Hemisphereans: 15
(9 Latin Americans/Caribbeans, 5 North Americans, 1 Oceanian)
 Africans: 13

52 would be female
48 would be male

According to that same United Nations document, the world population in the year 2000 consisted of 3,051,099,000 men and 3,005,616,000 women, which (with a little rounding) breaks down to 50 men and 50 women in a population of 100.

70 would be non-white
30 would be white

Here we run into definitional problems trying to lump entire continents' worth of people into one class based on some nebulous concept of color. What makes a person "white" or "black"? If we say that Africans are considered "black," does that categorization apply equally to Nigerians, Egyptians, and South Africans? (Is the Middle East part of Africa or Asia?) Should the classification of Asians as "white" or "non-white" be based solely upon skin tone, or upon geographical and cultural factors as well?
The numbers given here seem to be based upon the classification of Europeans and Western Hemisphereans as "white" and Africans and Asians as "non-white" (and the assumption that those continents are homogeneous in racial composition). With those qualfications, a population of 100 (based on year 2000 numbers) would include 27 whites and 73 non-whites.

6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth, and all 6 would be from the United States.

This claim demontrates the precariousness of trying to summarize a very large, diverse population in a few simple statistics. For starters, our miniature world of 100 people only includes 5 people from all of North America, so any statement involving 6 people from the United States just doesn't compute!
"Wealth" is a concept difficult to measure with any precision, but we can use Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a reasonable approximation. If we take some figures from the CIA's World Factbook 2000, we find that the estimated GDP of the United States in 1999 was $9.255 trillion, out of a world total of $40.7 trillion. In other words, in 1999 the United States possessed about 23% of the world's wealth. If we assume that all 5 North Americans in our miniature world are from the United States, and that they have inherited an amount of wealth proportional to that held by the United States in the "real" world, together they'd still have only 23% of the world's wealth, not 59%. Even if you could find some combination of 6 people in our putative population of 100 who held 59% of the total wealth, they wouldn't all be from the United States.

80 would live in substandard housing

This statement can't be assessed without knowing the definition of "substandard" being employed here. "Substandard" by whose standards? And if a full 80% of the world's population truly lives in "substandard" housing, doesn't that indicate whatever standard is being used must be too high?
Estimates for this figure are all over the map as well (some United Nations housing statistics are informative but don't really answer the question), but a 1999 article in International Wildlife puts the estimate at 33%, not the 80% figure offered here.

70 would be unable to read

A 1998 UNICEF study put the world illiteracy rate at 16%, well short of the 70% claimed here.

50 would suffer from malnutrition

The World Health Organization puts the malnutrition figure at about 33%.

1 would be near death
1 would be near birth

This statement is simply too vague to evaluate. At any given time, one person in a hundred is near death? Just how "near"? Is age a factor in this statistic?

1 would have a college education

Again, we have to know whether our miniature world's inhabitants represent current population trends in age as well as other factors. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects document, the median age of the world's population was 26.5 in 2000, with that figure being lower in less developed (and more populous) areas of the world. (The median age of Africans, for example, was only 18.4 in 2000.) So, this statistic could be true simply because much of our miniature population would be too young to have finished college yet (assuming that "having a college education" means "graduated with the equivalent of a bachelor's degree"). However, if we assume everyone in our miniature world is of sufficient age and apply the current graduation rates of the USA (33%) to its share of the population (5), we'd have almost two college graduates from America alone. And other parts of the world (e.g., New Zealand, Netherlands, Britain, and Norway) have graduation rates equal to or higher than the USA's.

1 would own a computer

Computer ownership rates in the USA now indicate that over 50% of American households have computers, so if we assume that "households" can be equated with "people" in our miniature world, our 5 Americans alone would have at least two computers between them.

On the other hand, if this is the kind of material having a computer gives one access to, the inhabitants of our miniature world just might opt to do without them.

How about we eat the people who misquote stats.

[ 11 November 2001: Message edited by: Axerock ]

tony draper
12th Nov 2001, 01:16
If you stick your head in the microwave and your feet in the freezer, statisticly your body temperature would be correct. ;)

Send Clowns
12th Nov 2001, 01:26
Thanks Axerock, was gonna post similar. Huggy knows his silly list is wrong, as I have already pointed out a couple of the more obvious flaws, but I had less precise information. It seems a very anti-American list. Where did you acquire it Huggy?

12th Nov 2001, 04:11
I was emailed it by an American friend.

Thanks for the corrections, Axerock. I make no claim at all for the accuracy of the statistics. Yours appear much better researched than those of whoever compiled the list. The general theme, though, remains obvious.

Draper, that's been tried. It doesn't work, because you can't switch a microwave on with the door still open! :D

SC, you are really beginning to have a problem with me, aren't you?

[ 11 November 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]

12th Nov 2001, 05:12
St. Joan of Arc was born at Domrémy circa January 6, 1412. Citing a mandate from God to drive the English out of France, she was eventually given an escort to bring her before Charles of Ponthieu (later known as King Charles VII). After gaining the approval of the Church scholars at Poitiers in March of 1429, she was granted titular command of an army which quickly lifted the siege of Orléans on May 8, 1429, captured Jargeau, Meung-sur-Loire, and Beaugency in mid-June, and defeated an English army at Patay on June 18. After accepting the surrender of the city of Troyes and other towns, the army escorted Charles to the city of Rheims for his coronation on July 17. An unsuccessful attack was made on Paris on September 8, followed by the successful capture of St-Pierre-le-Moutier on November 4. As a reward for her service, Charles VII granted her noble status along with her family on December 29, 1429. She returned to the field the following year, despite predicting her own defeat. Captured at Compiègne on May 23, 1430 and sold to the English for 10,000 livres, she was placed on trial in Rouen by a selected group of pro-English clergy, many of whom nevertheless had to be coerced into voting for a guilty verdict. Convicted and executed on May 30, 1431, she was subsequently declared innocent by the Inquisition on July 7, 1456 after a lengthy re-trial process which was initiated shortly after the English were finally driven from Rouen, thereby allowing access to the documents and witnesses associated with her trial; the presiding Inquisitor, Jean Bréhal, ruled that the original trial had been tainted by fraud, illegal procedures, and intimidation of both the defendant and many of the clergy who had taken part in the trial, and she was therefore described as a martyr by the Inquisitor. After the usual lengthy delay associated with the sluggish process of canonization, she was beatified on April 11, 1909 and canonized as a saint on May 16, 1920.

tony draper
12th Nov 2001, 05:24
Well in this movie she was called Jan and spoke with a American accent. ;)
Our own Saint, St George was decannonised recently wasn't he?.
bloody Vatican ;)

12th Nov 2001, 05:37
They probably were calling her "Jeanne" - her real (French) name.

As for St. George, he makes a good story. Don't buy the dragon bit, though.

12th Nov 2001, 06:51
You mean St. George and the dragonet was a myth? :confused: :eek:

12th Nov 2001, 08:06
No. St George and the d. were fully reported by Stan Freberg in 1953. He got the d. on a 1054 -- devouring maidens, outta season. Little Blue Riding Hood was on the other side. Tail Gunner Joe was somewhere in the background.

Also available at the time was Yokohama Mama by Hari Kari and his Six Sake Sippers. That was Eastern Rite, of course. Probably Ukrainian.


Pig! Pig! Just located a copy of Mama on the internet! Gotta get my bid in. Last heard it at RAF Ballykelly, 1953.

[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: Davaar ]

Tricky Woo
12th Nov 2001, 13:55
I wonder if Jeanne d'Arc was really as gorgeous as that Milly, Millia, Myl... that supermodel girl what plays her in the movie?

Probably was, 'cos no French king would hand over control of even a small army to some ugly bird. Very particular about beauty, were the French royalty in those times.

Better not inform the Vatican of this, as they prefer their totty ugly as sin (no pun intended). The poor girl might become de-sainted if word got out.


12th Nov 2001, 17:27

Just re-read my posting. Jeez. Must have accidently pressed my "arrogant pratt" key when entered it.

Sorry about that.

All the details came from the wonderful source www.snopes2.com. (http://www.snopes2.com.)

Anyway, I recently heard that 80% of the people who quote statistics make them up.

12th Nov 2001, 18:04
Axe, no worries! :)

My point about it not being entirely necessary for the statistics to be totally correct is, I think, a valid one, when you consider that 16% illiteracy still equates to roughly 1 billion people. 33% malnutrition is appalling...

tony draper
12th Nov 2001, 18:20
We never hear much of Hereward the Wake, now he was a bit of a lad, something like Robin Hood only heterosexual. :)

12th Nov 2001, 18:38
Wasn't there a kids' TV series (fictionalised) about him years ago?

Tricky Woo
12th Nov 2001, 18:59
I always thought that John Cleese made a likely portrayal of Robin Hood in the movie 'Time Bandits': ruthless gangster robbing rich and poor alike. Much more likely than Lawrence Olivier et al hurrahing about in green tights.

I reckon that the whole Robin Hood thing was cooked up by Sir Thomas Mallory. "Fresh from his critical success with 'Mort d'Arthur', Sir Thomas launches his latest blockbuster 'Robin Hood'. Copies handwritten at all good Monasteries near you".

I always found the whole colour thing (greeen, red, blue, black, etc) a bit suspicious too: were they a band of philanthropic thieves, or characters out of a game of Cluedo?

"I reckon that the Sheriff of Nottingham murdered Will Scarlett in the library with the lead-pipe".


"Sh it, I thought it might have been the dagger".

Who was this Hereward chap? Was he very, very naughty? Ooooh, I do hope so.


12th Nov 2001, 19:15
Hereward the Wake was a Saxon who, in the aftermath of the Norman Invasion, in protest at the appointment of a Norman Bishop to the Abbey at Peterborough, sacked the Abbey. In revenge the Normans killed his brother, putting his head on a stake. He didn't take this well, and carried out a few minor acts of murder in retaliation. He was then for a while a real PITA for the Normans (hurrah, hurrah! :D) until he was besieged on the Isle of Ely. He was betrayed by one of the monks, and the town fell to William the Bastard Duke of Normandy. Hereward escaped, and many myths grew up around his name thereafter.

tony draper
12th Nov 2001, 19:24
We got our own St George up these parts,
see below.

One Sunday morn young Lambton
Went a-fishin' in the Wear;
An' catched a fish upon his huek,
He thowt leuk't varry queer,
But whatt'n a kind a fish it was
Young Lambton couldn't tell.
He couldn't be boshed for to carry it hyem,
So he hoyed it in a well.

Whisht! lads, haad yor gobs,
Aa'll tell yer aall and aaful story,
Whisht! lads, haad yor gobs,
An' Aal tell yer 'bout the woorm.

Noo Lambton felt inclined to gan
For ta fight in foreign wars.
So he joined a troop o' Knights that cared
For neither wounds nor scars,
An' off he went to Palestine
Where queer things him befel,
An' varry seun forgot aboot
The funny worm i' the well.


But the woorm it growed an' growed an' growed,
An' growed an aaful size;
He'd geet big heed, a geet big gob,
An' geet big goggley eyes.
An' when at neets he craaled aboot
For ta' pick up bits o'news,
If he felt thoorsty upon the road,
He milked a dozen coos.


This feorful woorm wad often feed
On calves an' lambs an' sheep,
An' swally little bairns alive
When they laid doon to sleep.
An' when he'd eaten aal he cud
An' he had has he's fill,
Away he went an' lapped his tail
Ten times roond Pensher Hill.


The news of this geet funny woorm
An' his queer gannins on
Seun crossed the seas, and reached the lugs
Of brave an' bowld Sir John.
So hyem he cam an' catched the beast
An' cut 'im in three halves,
An' stopped it eatin' aall bairns,
An' sheep an' lambs and calves.


So noo ye knaa hoo aall the folks
On byeth sides of the Wear
Lost lots o' sheep an' lots o' sleep
An' lived in mortal feor.
So let's hev one to brave Sir John
That kept the bairns frae harm
Saved coos an' calves by myekin' haalves
O' the famis Lambton Woorm

Noo lads, Aa'll haad me gob,
That's aall Aa knaa aboot the story
Of Sir John's clivvor job
Wi' the aaful Lambton Woorm!

PS, You can see Penshaw hill as you drive north on the A1 toward Newcastle, it has a strange monument on top of it now, and the marks where the worm wrapped itself can still be seen. :eek:

[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: tony draper ]

Tricky Woo
12th Nov 2001, 19:40
Sad to hear that the Slayer of the Lambton Worm had such a terrible speech impediment. Or was that the bloke that wrote his chronical?

Poor chap, either way.

Also, I bet Sir John was well p!ssed off with having to nip all the way back to Geordieland from Jerusalem, just because the folks at home couldn't deal with the local wild-life. You couldn't fly Air2000 in those days, you know.

Sorry to hear about Hereward's brother. I might have lost a bit of my composure over that, myself.


12th Nov 2001, 19:50
Never seen "The Lair of the White Worm"? The story of the Lambton Worm, with Amanda Donohue in the buff just for added realism! ;)

12th Nov 2001, 23:03
For the True Story of St George and the Dragonet see: <http://www.summer.com.br/~pfilho/html/lyrics/s/st_george_and_the_dragonet.txt>.

tony draper
12th Nov 2001, 23:45
Can't see anything there Mr D,as I understand it the chap was a bloody foreigner,
We have plenty of home grown hero's we could have ordered the pope to Knight.
Its supprising how many of them have promised to come back to Englands aid should the need arise.
king Aurthur and Francis Drake spring to mind
although I believe Drake stipulated he will only return if the Dons get stroppy again.
Harry Hotspur, Edward Longshanks,that Wallace the Bruce, our list of hero's is endless. ;)

13th Nov 2001, 00:44
Ah, signor Draper I've heard it mentioned that King Arthur did indeed return to help old Blighty in its hour of need by sending the mighty Merlin engine to us in 1940.

Maybe just ever so slightly contrived...


Send Clowns
13th Nov 2001, 05:17
No, have no problem at all with you Huggy (as long as you don't have me run over :eek: ). However, I attacked your post (as you did one of mine) not you personally. Did you not see this when it was posted before, and I pointed out the more obvious flaws? (if not, please accept my apology for implying you had) It is very obviously flawed, and also anti-American, anti-western-capitalist, which leads anyone knowing your political leanings to the thought that you may be being deliberately deceitful, though I would certainly not accuse you of this.

However you must consider that pushing out blatantly made up statistics does disguise the problems indicated by the genuine statistics.

[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Send Clowns ]

Tricky Woo
13th Nov 2001, 13:24
Christ, Send Clowns and HugMonster will be holding hands next.

Come on chaps, a good old fashioned flame-war is what Jet Blast is all about.


13th Nov 2001, 14:03
Wasn't Lord Lambton a 70s Tory Minister?

Read somewhere that he was fired coz he was caught with prozzies & weed.... :eek:

...usual good judgement....NOT!!! :D :D

tony draper
13th Nov 2001, 16:25
Yeh, unusual for our aristocracy, he had no liking for little boys.
That Lucinda Lampton makes some interesting TV prog's, I like her.

13th Nov 2001, 16:44
SC, I'm not sure I follow you. You say you've pointed out flaws in that list. I can't see anywhere that you've done so. I've not seen that list posted before, and I have certainly not done so myself.

You state that it's "Anti-American". That I was emailed it by an American friend doesn't change your opinion? You think that my American friends are anti-American? Or you think that I am? Would it change your opinion to know that my last 2 g/f's have both been American?

You also claim that it's anti-Western Capitalist. I disagree. It points out in fairly stark relief (perhaps rather starker than the true figures which Axerock was good enough to post, but which figures are still perfectly valid for the point to be made) that there is a severe problem with the way resources are divided in the World.

If you are going to dismiss such facts as being "Anti-Western Capitalist" then not a lot will ever get done, will it? If people just sit back with smug grins on their faces, an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude, thumbs up bums and brains in neutral, then people will continue to starve, living short lives in which they are subject to completely curable diseases, unable to read and write.

The total fallacy of your post lies, of course, in the fact that an awful lot of Third-World countries are "Western Capitalist" in their economic systems.

If you want to argue with me, do so from a basis of logical thought, not simply out of a desire to argue.

13th Nov 2001, 18:26
Ding Ding

Round Three :D :D

Tricky Woo
13th Nov 2001, 20:59
Send Clowns,

Are you just going to sit there and take this? Fight, man, fight!

It's been yonks since there's been a decent flame-war on this site. Makes me all nostalgic for the good ole days...

TW (evil laugh)

Send Clowns
14th Nov 2001, 04:35
It was posted on JB before Huggy, so I assumed as a regular visitor you had seen it. As I said in my last post, I would appreciate if you accept my apology as you had not.

However this is clearly anti-American and anti-western-capitalist as it presents false statistics that are really not to the credit of America or of western capitalism in the value system of those that are opposed to America or the capitalist philosophy. Therefore it appears to be propoganda for those groups. The fact that the statistics are badly flawed discredits them and by asociation would tend to reduce the impact of other more important statistics, such as the true figures. The fact that it was passed on by an American or that you have had previous girlfriends does not in anyway affect this.

14th Nov 2001, 04:51
...And this from the man who thinks that if you happen to have a minority view you are therefore opposed to democracy...

Well, SC old chap, I never saw it before, and I've been on PPRuNe for quite some time. Nor did I post it, so you made no remarks to me about it in the past, as you claim.

You also say "Where did I acquire it?" Had you assumed I had seen it on here, I don't think you would have asked that, would you?

But let's consider the figures amended to those as quoted by Axerock, the true figures, if you wish to so term them. Do you still claim it's anti-western capitalist, anti-American?

Moreover, you didn't answer the questions regarding whether you think I an anti-American, or my friends are, merely restated your previous post, which doesn't really further the argument, does it?

[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]

Send Clowns
15th Nov 2001, 01:38
No, Huggy, it was you that said as I hold a minority view I oppose democracy. I said that that the PIRA stated aim to bring about union despite majority opposition was undemocratic. Again you jump to unjustified inferences and assumptions, so you cannot complain that I make assumptions.

You clearly don't accept my apology for that assumption. Well it was offered.

How many items have you seen here then received independently? I assumed you had not stored the list from here, so that either you were the original poster or had received it again, so decided to post it.

I have no idea whether you are anti-America. I know you express left-wing views at times, and that you posted anti-American anti-capitalist "statistics". As Velvet has mentioned several times, we cannot tell from here what people are like, and I have only met you once. Apart from taste in shirts I thought you a decent person, but that does not mean you are not anti-American.

[edited cos I can't spell]

[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: Send Clowns ]

15th Nov 2001, 05:11
SC. This is beginning to get tiresome.

In another thread I said:- Since the stated aims of the IRA always have been an end to British occupation of Ireland and a unified, independent state, I am in full accord with that.Your reply was:- So we have established that you support PIRA's stated aim of reversing democracy in Northern Ireland by uniting with the Republic against the expressed will of the majority of the population.

Examine that, if you would. Nowhere did I say that I supported a reverse of democracy. I did not state that I would like to see a united Ireland imposed against the will of the majority. In fact, I stated in the same thread that, in my opinion, it would come about by democratic means. I also stated that, despite supporting the IRA's ends, I did not support their means.

However, you then accuse me of being anti-democratic. I later merely turned that accusation against you.

You have apologised for making an unjustifiable assumption, and then go on to make more. How do you suggest I should accept your apology? And what inferences and assumptions do you consider I have made?

Let's get his back on track, since you still persist in avoiding the uncomfortable questions. Let me refresh your memory. But let's consider the figures amended to those as quoted by Axerock, the true figures, if you wish to so term them. Do you still claim it's anti-western capitalist, anti-American?

Tricky Woo
15th Nov 2001, 14:52
Who would have thought Joan of Arc would be so contentious. I was going to bring up Saint Sebastian, but I'm too scared now. Might end up like him.


The Nr Fairy
15th Nov 2001, 16:23
And for the Rotorheads fans, which of SC and HugMonster do you think is REALLY Lu ?

Send Clowns
16th Nov 2001, 00:59
Ineed Huggy dear boy you just ignored that part of PIRA's stated aim. You still said you greed with their stated aim, and that has never included waiting for democratic consent.

I don't claim those figures to be pro- or anti-anything. It was the disortion of the original figures that was,in the value system of whoever distorted them, anti-American and anti-capitalist.

16th Nov 2001, 01:29
Send Clowns, dear boy, you are confusing ends with means, objectives with methods.

The IRA's objectives, their aims, include a united Ireland.

Their means, their methods included until recently bombings and general acts of terrorism, and disregarding the general democratic process.

Had it been possible that they could have achieved their end of a united Ireland by strolling up to the door of the NIO and asking "Please, sir, can we unite with the rest of Ireland" and the SoSNI said "Hmmmm - don't see why not - I'll do it first thing tomorrow" I don't think they would have said to themselves "Ahh - but our aim is a united Ireland by disregarding the democratic process, so that's what we'll have to do."

Because ignoring the democratic process was not their objective, but part of their method, which, as I have said time and time again, I do not support.

The SDLP is also a Nationalist organisation, whose aims are also a united Ireland. Do you claim that they are also therefore opposed to democracy?

I support the IRA's ends, I do not support their means. Can you understand that? Or shall I put it in still simpler terms for you?

[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]

Send Clowns
16th Nov 2001, 03:18
Huggy, old boy, no I'm not. I was stating a condition, I never mentioned means or method. That makes the rest of your post meaningless to this discussion. Of course the conditions in Northern Ireland are that the majority will is against a united Ireland. IRA's stated aim is unity despite this.

[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: Send Clowns ]

16th Nov 2001, 03:50
SC, this will be my last post on the subject. You clearly are too interested in trying to have a poke at me to be able to see your arguments straight for the total nonsense that they are.

The aims of the IRA are a united Ireland. If they thought they could achieve that by methods other than terrorism, I think they would have tried them by now. Or you disagree? You think that subjecting themselves to the danger of arrest, imprisonment or death is part of their aims? Bollox. If they thought they could achieve it without doing so, they would.

At present, a slim majority of Northern Ireland is still in favour of remaining part of the UK. That majority has been declining fairly constantly over recent years, and I predict it will turn to a majority in favour of a united Ireland within a few more.

To oppose the will of the majority in a democracy is not to oppose democracy itself. I have tried again and again to get you to see this, and it appears that this is beyond your comprehension. The only people who maintain that to disagree with the policy of the state is to oppose the state itself are despots, dictators and fascists.

If you cannot see the difference between ends and means, then I despair for your capacity for logical thought and reasoning.

Both the IRA and SDLP share one aim - a united Ireland. Yet, by your reasoning, they are all terrorists. That the means employed by each organisation are substantially different is irrelevant to you.

Send Clowns
16th Nov 2001, 04:22
So you have a fundamental right to define my reasoned arguments as being "...total nonsense..."? Since you are clearly too enamoured of your own brilliance to even read my posts thoroughly, I don't see how you could reasonably come to this conclusion.

You introduced method or means, dear boy, and are still banging on about it. I was talking about conditions. So again most of your post is at right angles to our discussion (seems a common problem).

I didn't mention terrorism either, you pulled that one out of of your own head. I said the aim of united Ireland against the stated will of the majority was undemocratic, not that it was terrorism.

What has this got to do with Joan of Arc?

tony draper
16th Nov 2001, 05:27
Where the hell is Arc anyway. :confused:

16th Nov 2001, 21:16
...getting back to Joan of Arc:

Q: What's the difference between Noah's Ark and Joan of Arc?

A: One's made of wood and the other's Maid of Orleans!

(Radio 4 Joke, several years ago...)

16th Nov 2001, 21:55
Speaking of population statistics, what I can't understand is this:

If each of us has two parents, and four grandparents, and eight great-grandparents and so on backward through antiquity, and if there are some billions of us on earth at present, and if we only consider a few dozen generations exponentially expanding into the past, and even if we ignore local linear distractions like siblings and test tube babies, then, where in all of the universe was there room to bury everybody?


17th Nov 2001, 00:32
Is it safe to come out now ;)

I have never understood why those who claim to be liberal both in political and personal belief are so intolerant of anyone who even mildly disagrees with their point of view.

I understand that arch-meddler Captain Universe is now known as Tone of Arc, since he has a new vision each day.

On the subject of sharing out the wealth - It has been estimated that there is approximately $30,000 trillion in the world - even allowing for this to be an American trillion, which is somewhat less than the standard English trillion - it is still in the region of $5million per person. So someone, somewhere has my $5m and I want it back now.

[ 16 November 2001: Message edited by: ANGELONE ]

tony draper
17th Nov 2001, 04:11
I know we have some nursies on these forums, What would the medical profession make of this Joan lassie,seeing visions, hearing voices,?, sounds right dodgy to me, more like candidate for the lollypop farm.
Pity we lost OCB, this could have been a spectacular thread ;)

17th Nov 2001, 04:48
Angelone, the government probably has yours.

I am perfectly tolerant of the views of others. I don't tolerate liars. I have big difficulty tolerating stupidity, and I don't tolerate misrepresentation of my views by people too stupid to know even what I'm talking about. I hope that answers your question.

[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]

17th Nov 2001, 05:20

17th Nov 2001, 06:30
To get back to the point...

draper, there are several places in France called Arc or various permutations thereof. Her family could have originated in almost any of these, but by the time she was born, it was simply her family name. Her home town was Domrémy-la-Pucelle on the Meuse river.

There's a map here:-

Dunno why the [url] tag isn't working...

Darn it - the link isn't working either. Anyway, it's east of Paris, near Nancy.

URL is too bleedin' long! Use a shorter URL

[ 18 November 2001: Message edited by: Capt PPRuNe ]

17th Nov 2001, 11:58
Alright pay attention, there will be a test...

Jehane was born in Domrémy (the -la-Pucelle suffix was added much later in her honour). Her family name was Darc with no apostrophe, although there is no record of her using it. She styled herself Jehane la Pucelle (maid) and indeed at her trial could not remember or would not say what her surname was.
Contrary to various celluloid versions the Darcs were not peasants, but rather were fairly well-to-do landowners. The family was later granted nobility as Darc-du-Lys. She had a younger sister not an older one.
The concept of the d'Arc name having a geographical connotation (and thus enhanced stature) is suggested as arising from the relative proximity of Domrémy/Nancy area to the Arc Jurassien, the area containing the Juras mountains on the Franco-Swiss border.
Joan of Arc is an English misnomer for Jehane la Pucelle d'Orléans.

[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: PaperTiger ]

Send Clowns
17th Nov 2001, 16:38
So it's perfectly OK for you to misrepresent the views of other people, is it Huggy? You are clearly not too stupid to understand what people are saying to you, are you? Do you have difficulty demonstrating stupidity?

17th Nov 2001, 18:07
SC, you are not worth bothering with. I have therefore put you on my ignore list - something I have never done before with any other poster. I have no time for liars.

17th Nov 2001, 18:47
Hmmm, so Paper Tiger, as I see it this babe Joan was trying to unite Ireland.. oops sorry France, by violent means.

She apparently pissed off the English, the Dauphin, and some French clergy just for good measure. Obviously had hacked off, and probably hacked up at least one or two other chaps, and got right up the noses of enough of the rest around her, to have been tied to a stake put on a big bundle of wood and set alight. As men are won't to do after throwing a fit of pique. They then felt a bit bad about over reacting and in a fit of manly remorse had her declared a saint for having put up with it so bravely, not that she had had any choice in the matter.

Seems to me like she was obviously a terrorist and had suffered the old adage those who live by the sword shall die by the faggot, or words to that effect. In the picture I saw she looked very pretty but was probably a bit of an old bat. When all is said and done she made her mark on history and will be rembered long after most of us have sunk into oblivion so more power to the Maid.

tony draper
17th Nov 2001, 19:05
Sounds like she was just a nice little CIA girl.
We seem to have had endless problems with them Frenchies,Draper is not happy with them having real aircraft carriers when we just got them toy things. ;)
And, that Rafale is a much better looking piece of kit than that flying shoebox the Typhoon, a real race horse built by commitee design job, that Rafale is sort of rounded, much sexier somehow, thats just ones opinion of course.

[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: tony draper ]

18th Nov 2001, 07:29
I doubt there are any contemporary pictures, and those done posthumously are glamourized fantasies most likely. Certainly wouldn't have looked like any of the Hollywood totty who have portrayed her.
To remain une pucelle while cavorting about with horny French infantry she would had to have been a two-bagger I'd say.

Charlie Foxtrot India
19th Nov 2001, 20:20
Who remembers that classic Young Ones episode (Answer the phone, Neil) when they go onto University Challenge, and one of the questions is:

Bambi (Griff Rhys-Jones):"Who said 'Lawks-a-Lordy, my bottom's on fire'?"
Kendall Mintcake (Ben Elton): "Lennin!"
Bambi: "No, the correct answer is in fact Joan of Arc"


"ra,ra,ra, we're going to smash the oiks!"

20th Nov 2001, 01:09
You tolerant, HM, now that's funny - what is not was the mean-spirited comment you aimed at Send Clowns regarding wishing that
someone would run him down, after learning that he'd just been in a serious road accident. There is no justification for this type of attack. Added to this are the increasingly irrational and unjustified personal insults, especially as Clowns claims you've only met briefly, and therefore have virtually no knowledge of his character, honesty or background, beyond
what you have read here.

Surely, it is not beyond a person of your obvious intelligence and wit to refrain
from childish name-calling; used merely to score points or bully opposing views into submission or silence. If you cannot defend your position, without this, then you have already lost the argument, if not the plot.

I was in Hamley's the other day, and immediately thought of you when I saw a lovely new teddy. I'm sure yours must need replacement after the amount of pram-tossing you've been indulging in.