Looking forward

kangaroo16 wrote:

Yanks who fancy themselves drinkers should try a
popular drink in Queensland. A glass with a tot
or two of O.P. Bundaburg rum, remainder filled
with draught "XXXX" beer.

Pouring alcohol down one's throat is not drinking.
It's called 'getting plastered' and is the favorite
avocation of street urchins. I will not drink with
a street urchin unless I'm broke and he is buying.

IMRHO putting rum into beer is a waste of good rum,
BTW: The 'R' is for 'Rarely'.

I understand that Castlemaine Special Brew comes in
at 6.5% ABV, but BeerAdvocate.com classifies it as
an American Macro Lager. Even if I grant you that
CSB XXXX is at the top of the class, the class is
still swill.

Nail Ale in Perth is an English Bitter which means
it is a far, far better brew than a lager. While
in Adelaide, I'll sample Southwark's brews. What
I'm really hoping is we have the time to get to
Jindabyne where the beer is made from fresh water.

I am NOT a beer snob - just a condescending afficiando.

Dick

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:32:38 +0000 (UTC),
(Dick Adams) wrote:

Alan S wrote:
Dick Adams wrote:

Alas to suggest "damnyankee" is ambiguous is something only
a "damnyankee" would argue.

I'm afraid you guys miss the point. The rest of the world is
well aware of the Mason-Dixon line, of the civil war, and of
your internal differences of definition and contempt for
misuse of words like yanks, rednecks etc.

It was 'The War of Northern Aggression'!

And the rest of the world will continue to call every single
tourist from the You Ess of Ay Yanks whether they are male
or female, black or white or chocolate, and whether they
come from Maine or Mississippi:-)

Are you opposed to correcting ignorance?

Dick

I thought I just did:-)


Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:32:38 +0000 (UTC), (Dick
Adams) wrote in :

Alan S wrote:
Dick Adams wrote:

Alas to suggest "damnyankee" is ambiguous is something only
a "damnyankee" would argue.

I'm afraid you guys miss the point. The rest of the world is
well aware of the Mason-Dixon line, of the civil war, and of
your internal differences of definition and contempt for
misuse of words like yanks, rednecks etc.

It was 'The War of Northern Aggression'!

Izzat so? How do you define "Northern Aggression"? I don't
claim to be an expert on the finer points of war [if indeed there
are "finer points"] but I think that most would consider the
side that fired the first shots in a war would usually be
considered the aggressor.

In the case of the Civil War, the unprovoked attack on Fort
Sumter in Charleston Harbor in 1861 is generally regarded as
the start of the war. I don't remember the actual date offhand,
and some readers would demand confirmation anyway, & easy enough
to check.

For a start:

The Attack on Fort Sumter
(April 12-13, 1861)

"On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of
the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina,
demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Submitter in
Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April
12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was
unable to reply effectively. . ." [ more, including, but not
limited to, an essay on the ownership of the fort] at:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftsumter.htm

I also had a quick look at the Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter

If readers want to Google the string
fort Sumter
they will get ~ 1,860,000 sites
.....So you and others who wish to offer an opposing
view, there is plenty of opportunity to explore. If you do,
please give us a break up on how many support your view and
how many support the accepted historical view.

Most readers will probably take your word for a numerical
comparison, and won't ask that you list the actual sites for
each. :-)

And the rest of the world will continue to call every single
tourist from the You Ess of Ay Yanks whether they are male
or female, black or white or chocolate, and whether they
come from Maine or Mississippi:-)

Are you opposed to correcting ignorance?

Dick

On the contrary, AFIK, Alan tries to correct ignorance.
From my experience, I can only say that the average
Australian seems to have been taught far more about the
USA than Americans have been taught about Australia.

As to geographic illiteracy revealed in the 2006 Roper report,
The full report can be downloaded from the following site and is
well worth reading.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ro...gLitsurvey.pdf

Sample quote:
"Pinpointing North America on a Map Is a Breeze
Nearly all (94%) young Americans can find the United States on
the world map, and Canada (92%) and Mexico (88%) are nearly as
familiar. Wide majorities can find bordering bodies of water
including the Pacific Ocean (79%) and the Gulf of Mexico (75%).

Trends from 2002 suggest that more young adults can pick out
Canada and Mexico (with few signs of change for
other countries). However, it is concerning that one in ten of
those with up to a high school education cannot identify the
U.S., and one in five cannot find the Pacific Ocean.
Places Beyond North America are Less Often Identified
Moving further abroad, three-quarters of young Americans can spot
the distinctive landmass of Australia (74%), and over half (56%)
identify Brazil, the largest country by far in South America.
However, majorities cannot find the U.S..s closest ally, the
United Kingdom (36% correct, 65% incorrect), nor can they find
Egypt (30% vs. 70%) or Indonesia (25% vs. 75%)."
[This from page 24, the map used on page 25.]

As mentioned in earlier posts, I wondered how American
tourists could go to Austria and expect to see wild kangaroos.

After reading this report, I find it easier to understand.

Question for Alan: What percentage of Australians could we find
who couldn't locate Australia on a world map? Or how many
Australians wanting to travel to the USA would arrive in some
other country by mistake? Perhaps the Australian Tourist bureau
should provide all U.S. travel agents with wall posters and
handout cards showing an image of a kangaroo and a koala,
a labeled outline of Australia, and a labeled outline of Austria
with images of the animals, and a large diagonal red line across
it? :-)

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

kangaroo16 wrote in
:

but I think that most would consider the
side that fired the first shots in a war would usually be
considered the aggressor.

You might look at it that way, but an independant state invaded by an
occupying and unfriendly force cannot help but defend itself from such
invaders.

Of course the victors write the history.
Now back to OZ S.V.P.
--
Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacations
www.josephcoulter.com

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:17:21 -0600, Joseph Coulter
wrote in
36 :

kangaroo16 wrote in
:

but I think that most would consider the
side that fired the first shots in a war would usually be
considered the aggressor.

You might look at it that way, but an independant state invaded by an
occupying and unfriendly force cannot help but defend itself from such
invaders.

Ah, but was it a truly "independent" state according to the
Constitution? From memory, it wasn't, but easy to check.


South Carolina
Statehood, Civil War, and aftermath

"In 1788 South Carolina became the eighth state to ratify
the U.S. Constitution..."

The Constitution, from memory, didn't allow any state to secede
from the Union, and the U.S. Federal Gov't had the right
to install Facilities in any state, such as Fort Sumter in S.C.

The Union obviously thought it had the right to put down the
rebellion or it wouldn't have done so. After all, there was
always a chance that the U.K or some other country would
come on the side of the Confederacy, and the U.K. was the
predominant world power at the time.

When slavery became a main issue, the UK could hardly
come in on the side of slavery, as it had outlawed slavery some
time earlier.

When Texas joined the Union it insisted on the right to secede at
any time in the future. Am not sure if this right still exists.]

Even if it does, I doubt that they would choose to secede today.
As the area originally belonged to Mexico, they might try to
reclaim it. :-)


Of course the victors write the history.

I would agree that this is almost always true,
since the development of civilization.

As historians have said, the South had little
chance of winning the war from the start, at least
without outside help. It didn't have enough of an industrial
base to even provide basic necessities for the population,
let alone win a war.

Still, humans tend to operate on emotions, not reason, or
there would be far fewer wars.

Australia didn't need a revolution to gain independence from the
U.K. Has had no civil wars. No assassinations of Government
leaders, one possible major terrorist incident in Australia, and
even that might have not have been one.

See:

" Hilton Bombing

Broadcast 6.30pm on 20/09/2004

"In the early hours of February 13, 1978 a bomb exploded outside
Sydney’s Hilton Hotel. Three people were killed and seven more
wounded. At the time, the Australian Prime Minister and eleven
visiting heads of state were resident in the building. Was it
terrorism? Was it a conspiracy, as one of the injured policeman
Terry Griffiths later claimed? Documentary maker Daryl Dellora
was intrigued. He spent eighteen months researching ‘Conspiracy’
Daryl says the resulting film is the most thorough investigation
of the bombing to date." [more at]

http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Tr...s/s1202891.htm

This is not to say that there have not been terrorist attacks on
Australian tourists. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombing

However, a casual look at a map, or a check on the
net, will show that Bali isn't all that close to the
international boundaries of Australia, let alone the mainland.

Nearest Australian city would be Darwin. Air distance
from Darwin to Bali is 1745 km [1084 miles]

All of the above should back my earlier assertion that
Australia is a safer tourist destination than the USA. :-)


Now back to OZ S.V.P.

"OZ" means Australia to me, but there are 13 other
possibilities.

"SVP" can have many meanings. A quick search
reveals 40 definitions, with another 130 available.

http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-quer...act&s=r&page=3

This is an international forum, and not all abbreviations are
understood worldwide. Not even all slang words are. I suspect
that Alan and other Australians could compose a post consisting
entirely of Australian slang that I wouldn't entirely comprehend.

Most Americans and other nationals who have never been here would
be lucky to manage to understand 10% without looking up the
information.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...
gerrit wrote:
"Dick Adams" wrote:

I will arrive in Perth on the 30th. Then my mate and I
will make a fes stops in WA and cross the Nullarbor to
Adelaide, ...

How long in WA? And where will you be stopping off?

A day or two. Having Friday dinner at an Indian Restaurant
not far from Rolleystone. You are most welcome to join us.
E-mail me at and I'll have me mate Charlie
tell you when and where.

Bartholomews Meadery in Denmark is a major stopping point.

Dick

Good to see you will be going down to Denmark.
If you travel via the Margaret River area and you wish to see something
there (worth it!) then on to Denmark via Pemberton (a few reasonable size
trees there - climb the Gloucester Tree or the Centennial Tree) and thence
to Albany (brilliant coastal scenery - I used to live there) and Esperance
on the way to the Nullarbor, then you will need more than just a couple of
days.
BTW I live close to Roleystone but can't stand Indian.

Anyway, have a good one!

Gerrit

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:03:57 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

Snip SNip

True, and applies to Yank immigrants as well. Being called a
Yank doesn't bother me. I don't even mind "Septo".

When I was working up in Darwin around '70 ~ '71, some of the not so
bright, brash yanks had another name......

"Crayfish".... Just think along the lines of ......

Arms, legs and heads full of sh_t......

I even met one who managed to be persuaded to part with some "Dollars"
for kangaroo feathers, which actually belonged to some Galahs...

Just as a personal observation, the average Australian
strikes me as more tolerant than the average Yank, and Australia
is, in general, a much more tolerant society than the U.S.A.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

kangaroo16 wrote:
Joseph Coulter wrote:
kangaroo16 wrote:

but I think that most would consider the side that fired the
first shots in a war would usually be considered the aggressor.

Fort Sumter is a classic example of the victor rewriting
history to justify their actions. The Gunnery officer at
the Fort that day was Abner Doubleday who was later credited
with inventing the game of baseball - which he did not.

You might look at it that way, but an independant state invaded
by an occupying and unfriendly force cannot help but defend itself
from such invaders.

Ah, but was it a truly "independent" state according to the
Constitution? From memory, it wasn't, but easy to check.
...
The Constitution, from memory, didn't allow any state to secede
from the Union, and the U.S. Federal Gov't had the right
to install Facilities in any state, such as Fort Sumter in S.C.

Read the 10th Amendment which says any power not specifically
given to the federal government belonged to the States and
that is the logic for secession.

...
When Texas joined the Union it insisted on the right to
secede at any time in the future. Am not sure if this
right still exists.]

Obviously not, since the Union Army ignored Texas' right to
seceed.

Texas does have the right to slit into as many as five States,
or so I have been told.

....
As historians have said, the South had little chance of winning
the war from the start, at least without outside help. It didn't
have enough of an industrial base to even provide basic necessities
for the population, let alone win a war.

The South did not expect there to be a war. They had taken over
all of the Union forts in the South without firing a shot. Only
Sumter remained.

Snip
in Adelaide, I'll sample Southwark's brews. What
I'm really hoping is we have the time to get to
Jindabyne where the beer is made from fresh water.

I am NOT a beer snob - just a condescending afficiando.

Dick

Why would you want to try drinks even the locals don't like?
Go for a Coopers or three!!
You can do a tour of the Brewery as well see
http://www.coopers.com.au/home.php?flash=1

Waz in Adelaide

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:26:11 +1030, "Warren"
wrote in :

Snip
in Adelaide, I'll sample Southwark's brews. What
I'm really hoping is we have the time to get to
Jindabyne where the beer is made from fresh water.

I am NOT a beer snob - just a condescending afficiando.

Dick

Why would you want to try drinks even the locals don't like?
Go for a Coopers or three!!
You can do a tour of the Brewery as well see
http://www.coopers.com.au/home.php?flash=1

Waz in Adelaide

Really, Waz, you don't really have to reveal all Australian
secrets, do you?

I, as a mere Yank immigrant, have carefully avoided telling my
fellow Yanks about Coopers.

Don't you realize that they might buy the company, seize control
and export all available supplies, making the excellent product
unavailable here?

Or if it remains available, it will be sold at a grossly
inflated price? :-)

Worse yet, they may actually filter it and take the visible
yeast out of the bottle!

One forlorn hope remains: Many Yanks have an obsession about
"purity" and expect their "beer to be clear".

Free of any traces of the yeast strain that converts the
carbohydrates to alcohol.

So there is a chance that they won't buy Coopers, or if they do,
will sell it back, for our enjoyment.

Still, it is a big chance for you to take. The next thing you
might do is to reveal the gem and mineral wealth of Oz.

Do you really want to try to go fishing in your local stream or
river and be crowded out by prospectors? :-(

Oh well, it might take years to happen, though.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16