lol
Can you point to bias in anything I've said in here?
History of Scotland
- Thread starter Twirlywoos
- Start date
Can you point to bias in anything I've said in here?
Ah,reverting to personal attack,well done.
Your posting style reminds me a lot of Castiel with his entrance and early day style for some strange reason, anyway could I remind you calling someone a tube is comparable to a numpty, muppet rocket or whatever takes your fancy; and that you insulted first.
I thought you were a Scotsman?
Wipe that chip off your shoulder and have a good weekend. Funny how some people were anticipating exactly this kind of behaviour from you.
Not quite poppet. What is biased, or behavioural, about picking you up on - entirely politely I may add - your use of a derogatory term?
Yes,I am,and you missed the
,didn't you? You come back with a full-on numpty. That's the difference.Poppet.... how cute.
Quite how polite you picked me up on it is up for debate.I've explained to you multiple times now why I used that term.It was self-deprecating,to an extent.There was no insult in that or intent of derogation. Why you would feel so strongly about how I refer to myself and Scots in general (being a Scot myself!) I don't really know. Taking the mick out of ourselves is a birth-right.
Anyway,I don't know you and don't have a problem with you. Always glad to see a felloe Jo.. sorry Scot.Be it in real life or on here.
A wink doesn't remove calling someone a name or insult, and I like how numpty is regarded worse than a tube considering they mean the same thing. There is no difference.
I don't feel strongly about it, that's why my response was subtle, if you want to fire up over it be my guest. I simply made the point I think the language should be avoided when you enquired.
Anything to say on the topic itself?
I don't feel strongly about it, that's why my response was subtle, if you want to fire up over it be my guest. I simply made the point I think the language should be avoided when you enquired.
Anything to say on the topic itself?
My oh my....
I'm not the one firing up over it,you are.Wether the language should be avoided or not is your opinion.You obviously can't take a joke.
Take care.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,860
- Location
- Auckland
A history of Scotland:
1. Let's get the bevvies in.
2. Gonnae no try and fight us?
3. Aw right? Come on then! Right, you wee radge! Bottle that wee bass, ken?
4. Let's get the bevvies in.
5. Scotland.
I would watch this film.
1. Let's get the bevvies in.
2. Gonnae no try and fight us?
3. Aw right? Come on then! Right, you wee radge! Bottle that wee bass, ken?
4. Let's get the bevvies in.
5. Scotland.
I would watch this film.
My Grandpa was a Scotsman from the Gorbals and a right old tough @&£% to boot.
When he came in from the pub we had to suck our crisps lest we annoy him.
Sorry for being off topic Just thought Id throw that onto the table.
Have to disagree on Tom Devine his books may be factually correct but they are as dry as white dog poo.
Always find it strange how we group ourselves into countries regions and even areas of the same town then try to defend these places where we were born although we didn't have any say in our birth in these countries.
Scottish history is fascinating but so is European history in general and British history.
Always find it strange how we group ourselves into countries regions and even areas of the same town then try to defend these places where we were born although we didn't have any say in our birth in these countries.
Scottish history is fascinating but so is European history in general and British history.
If you want to learn facts I'd stick with Devine. Most history books are dry as dog poo, as you put it, unless you are interested dry or otherwise in the subject matter. It's rare to have a writter with flare when it comes to recalling and analysing history especially with a subject matter of such depth.
Do you mean historically or just now, in this thread? Defence of your way of life is natural to many, and certainly in ages past. Discussing and recommending books on Scottish history here, now, is not 'trying to defend' anything.
All history is fascinating, but this is a thread about Scottish History or it was meant to be. I always find it strange why people seem to get all shirty about discussing it..
Last edited:
My Grandpa was a Scotsman from the Gorbals and a right old tough @&£% to boot.
When he came in from the pub we had to suck our crisps lest we annoy him.
Sorry for being off topic Just thought Id throw that onto the table.
I'm sure he's earned his place in history..
[FnG]magnolia;23322374 said:
Nah, that's just your little one man band outcrop expat colony that you've got on the go over there..
There was an interesting discussion on one of the radio stations the other evening, about the sort of Trainspotting culture come cult that has come through the arts in many ways since the 90's. One gadge on the piece was saying that when the book was stocked on Princes Street for launch someone or persons smashed their way into the shop and stole a 100 copies of the book from the stands at the door and windows and touched nothing else..
So I would give your average wee druggie alchy a little bit of culture and literacy in your list. Perhaps smash and raid too...
just watch braveheart. im sure its historically correct...
It got the names of the countries right and...no, there's nothing else in that film that's historically accurate
Fictional. It's propaganda, either for nationalism or just to sell tickets (or both).
It starts off with Scottish noblemen being invited to a peace conference, where the cowardly dishonourable English murder them all because that's what the English are like.
In reality, there wasn't a peace conference at all, let alone a murder-filled one. England and Scotland weren't at war and hadn't been for quite a while - why would there have been a peace conference?
It ends with The Noble Scottish Hero, Brave And Wonderful, having sex with the queen of England. It's implied that he's the father of the queen's first child, who becomes the next king of England.
In reality, she was a small child when he was killed. A small child who wasn't even here anyway.
Braveheart is anti-English propaganda, made with total contempt for the truth.
Sort of. Some of the tribes on the island had that custom, some didn't. Although it could be argued that those tribes that the Romans particularly noted as doing it weren't Britons because, strictly speaking, Britannia was the Roman province and those tribes weren't part of it.