How boring are those curling stones matches at the winter olympic ?

[redgunamo]

As Sollozzo says, blood is a big expense. He may have been useful with a knife but only in matters of business, and with a legitimate grievance. Old school.

That's why no-one cried for Santino; he enjoyed the bloodshed too much. A truly depraved degenerate, he needed to go.

[Peter]

That's why no-one cried for Santino; he enjoyed the bloodshed too much. A truly depraved degenerate, he needed to go.

Absolutely. A bad Don. Careless.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The French ruthlessly plagiarised the Americans, who effectively paraphrased Locke. But with considerable style and flourish.

It stands today as the measure of American society, and a measure of their failures. It may borrow from Enlightenment philosophy but there is NOTHING more romantic than failure....

Maybe i spent too much time watching Woody Allen films as a youth

Please don't confuse romantic and Romanticism. Romeo and Juliet was Romantic. It was not part of Romanticism.

As I say, don't ask me when I'm 2-3 cans of tramp cider in on a midweek night, but my whole course made clear US Rev = Enlightenment, Fr Rev = start of move to Romanticism. {Franklin is an Enlightenment figure par excellence. But there is not an ounce of romanticism in his slave owning body.}

It all made sense when I did the course. It all made sense when i watched Scharma half a decade later. It all made sense every other book I've read.

Email Scharma or some other boffin.

I could answer you tomorrow, but only if I spend all day researching it and you're prepared to spend your Tuesday night reading a 1-2k word essay by a crusty, Hindu mad-man.

The difference, and this is the essence of the change over 1780-1830, is the Yank revolution just took power for their own elite. Paupers and slaves stayed where they were.

The Fr Rev saw the elites of the 1st and 2nd estates {clergy and aristos} replaced by the third estate middle classes, with power for the sans-coulottes plebs, and freedom for slaves in the colonies.

Trust me on this.

Or if you don't, argue with the experts cos I'm too pissed atm.

But the whole academic consensus is that it's the 1780s with Wilberforce and the French rev, not the 1770s with the US Rev.

It's just the way it is.

[Peter]

Please don't confuse romantic and Romanticism. Romeo and Juliet was Romantic. It was not part of Romanticism.

As I say, don't ask me when I'm 2-3 cans of tramp cider in on a midweek night, but my whole course made clear US Rev = Enlightenment, Fr Rev = start of move to Romanticism. {Franklin is an Enlightenment figure par excellence. But there is not an ounce of romanticism in his slave owning body.}

It all made sense when I did the course. It all made sense when i watched Scharma half a decade later. It all made sense every other book I've read.

Email Scharma or some other boffin.

I could answer you tomorrow, but only if I spend all day researching it and you're prepared to spend your Tuesday night reading a 1-2k word essay by a crusty, Hindu mad-man.

The difference, and this is the essence of the change over 1780-1830, is the Yank revolution just took power for their own elite. Paupers and slaves stayed where they were.

The Fr Rev saw the elites of the 1st and 2nd estates {clergy and aristos} replaced by the third estate middle classes, with power for the sans-coulottes plebs, and freedom for slaves in the colonies.

Trust me on this.

Or if you don't, argue with the experts cos I'm too pissed atm.

But the whole academic consensus is that it's the 1780s with Wilberforce and the French rev, not the 1770s with the US Rev.

It's just the way it is.

I was deliberately confusing romantic with romanticism. Sorry, thought that was obvious

Hence the Woody Allen reference.....

[redgunamo]

Please don't confuse romantic and Romanticism. Romeo and Juliet was Romantic. It was not part of Romanticism.

As I say, don't ask me when I'm 2-3 cans of tramp cider in on a midweek night, but my whole course made clear US Rev = Enlightenment, Fr Rev = start of move to Romanticism. {Franklin is an Enlightenment figure par excellence. But there is not an ounce of romanticism in his slave owning body.}

It all made sense when I did the course. It all made sense when i watched Scharma half a decade later. It all made sense every other book I've read.

Email Scharma or some other boffin.

I could answer you tomorrow, but only if I spend all day researching it and you're prepared to spend your Tuesday night reading a 1-2k word essay by a crusty, Hindu mad-man.

The difference, and this is the essence of the change over 1780-1830, is the Yank revolution just took power for their own elite. Paupers and slaves stayed where they were.

The Fr Rev saw the elites of the 1st and 2nd estates {clergy and aristos} replaced by the third estate middle classes, with power for the sans-coulottes plebs, and freedom for slaves in the colonies.

Trust me on this.

Or if you don't, argue with the experts cos I'm too pissed atm.

But the whole academic consensus is that it's the 1780s with Wilberforce and the French rev, not the 1770s with the US Rev.

It's just the way it is.

Nobody trusts academia anymore; it's too obviously for sale to the highest bidder.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but they swear blind they're not when they rather obviously are.

Cider is an excellent call actually, haven't had any in years.

[Peter]

Nobody trusts academia anymore; it's too obviously for sale to the highest bidder.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but they swear blind they're not when they rather obviously are.

Cider is an excellent call actually, haven't had any in years.

Very few people ever trusted academia. It is worse now, people dont even trust 'experts'

Until they get ill.....

[redgunamo]

Very few people ever trusted academia. It is worse now, people dont even trust 'experts'

Until they get ill.....

My (female) in-laws is all witches, the sort "experts" used to drown or burn or both.

I trust them