TheCat

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > With the possible exception of beer measures, > > TheCat? > > Well they use Schooner and Pot from what I can > remember (which are confusingly different sizes > between States). Yes...good spot legal....schooner, pot, middy, pint, jug, schmiddy....much dependent on which state you are in when are ordering said beer.... As alex_b mentions, the crazy South Australians actually don't even have the decency to call their measures by a different name...the SA "schooner" (285 ml) is the same size as other States' pot / middy / half pint. The SA "pint" (425 ml) is the same size as other States' schooner, which is three-quarters of an imperial pint. Also, the emergence of the schmidy was a total rort...it evolved from slick bars in the late 90's/early 2000's selling a measure between a schooner (425ml) and a midi/pot (285ml)...but charging the same as a traditional schooner..... Of course, the best system is in my home state of Queensland, where you just order a jug (1.14L) and a few pot glasses for the table.... Pints and schooners are more popular the more south you go. With pots/middies being standard in the northern states. All related to temperature....a pint will be totally warm before you're halfway through it up north. So...I appear to have gone off on a tangent there, but, to conclude, I will retract my earlier statement, and rephrase..... Australia is totally and completely metric...except for beer, where it's thunderdome rules....

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damn. Australia being more progressive than the > UK. Damn. And adopting decimalisation earlier. > Damn. You will be becoming a republic next. Well > that I do approve of. I bet you have also adopted > metric units. Not really sure what I am going on > about, perhaps somebody could help. Australia is totally and completely metric, I'm sorry to break it to you mal. But to be fair to the British system, those two twins from scotland wouldnt have been anywhere near as successful if they had to sing about walking 804.67kms.....

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are filming in Peckham near to the station > and one of the bargain shops is having a makeover. > Advertising products in the window in pennies, > circa early 70s, but a big historical mistake as > they have forgotten the 1/2 penny. > > Which reminds me of how backward we are in getting > rid of unwanted denominations. The pre-decimal > ha'penny dropped in 1970 would now be worth about > 8 pence. So forget the emotional attachment, > ditch the copper. I'd say it was again about > Island mentality, but the US cent is even more > worthless, and ditto the Euro countries (although > in Ireland I understand they round up and down to > the closest five cents.) Australia got rid of 1 and 2 cent coins in the early 1990's....so 5c is the smallest coin now over there.... I recall the biggest complaints at the time came from retailers....who either had to choose re-pricing their $9.99 products to over $10 (obviously visually unappealing for the bargain hunting customer) or had to reduce prices down to $9.95.....perhaps surprisingly to some....nearly all of them chose the latter....

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't give her any credence at all. I thought > her interview yesterday was totally stage managed > when she talked about her 'experience' which I do > not believe. She was trying to be empathetic but > it was just so so so so insincere. Playing either > the race card or the gender card. Now see what > you have done JohnL, I was all calm and relaxed > and now you have got me started! I thought that I had stumbled on to the wrong thread....this comment could very easily be someone's view on another famous interview from the past week or two.....

It's an intentionally OTT article...the brazzeness of it, is sort of the point. But thanks for your 'insight' that its anti-American..... It's amusing that you find me so puzzling, I'm flaterred...I really don't think about you at all.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cat loves the oneils and liddles of this world. > Always posting them with cringey ?possibly a bit > OTT but..? caveats > > Any sane person can read an o Neil or Liddle > column and think them deeply troubled and strange > men, with a track record of being wrong about > pretty much everything Oh, sorry I made you cringe. One day, I'm sure, you'll comment on what's said, instead of who said it....

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do the Spectator's terms of the "SHARE" require > you to copy in all the wordage before and after > the article No. But that wasn't really the point as you know....

I'm told the link above is behind a paywall....so... Home Today Topics Writers Podcasts Magazine More Account Magazine: 13 March 2021 Rod Liddle ?My? truth about Meghan and Harry From magazine issue: 13 March 2021 ?My? truth about Meghan and Harry Getty Images Text Comments Caroline Rose Giuliani, the daughter of the former mayor of New York, Rudy, has been talking to the press about one of her hobbies. Apparently she likes nothing more than playing the role of a ?unicorn? ? the third partner in a sexual liaison. She explained: ?Finding the strength to explore these more complicated, passionate aspects of my personality became the key to harnessing my voice and creative spark, which in turn helped me better cope with depression, anxiety, and the lingering cognitive effects of adolescent anorexia.? This is a fascinating approach to curing eating disorders, I think. Caroline?s dad, if you remember, is unable to tuck his shirt into his trousers without lying down on a bed and obtaining assistance from a young lady. They are a very interesting family. Incidentally, I had often wondered why the Scottish national animal is a unicorn, seeing as it has even less basis in reality than their aspirations for an independent currency. But having learned via Caroline the other meaning of the word, and watched the various SNP scandals unfold, I now understand. They are all at it like knives, up there ? every hour that God sends. If it?s Harry I?m in a meeting ?If it?s Harry I?m in a meeting.? Reading Caroline?s explanation for why she likes to go out shagging strangers, you are immediately beckoned into the modern American psyche. Such epic, almost heroic, self-obsession and narcissism, plus pretentiousness and a healthy side order of acquired victimhood. And the overriding message: I will do what I want and you will not judge me. Au contraire, Caroline ? over here, in the UK, we will, because we?re like that and come at the story from a different perspective. The USA is the least communalistic and most individualistic nation of any on Earth. It is written into their Declaration of Independence that an individual?s right to the pursuit of happiness trumps, if I can use the word, every other consideration. It is all a little alien to us over here, which is one reason why we tend to find Meghan Markle a repulsive creature. What the ghastly Oprah Winfrey and indeed Hillary Clinton do not understand is that if there was any resentment towards Meghan in the UK, it was not because she is of mixed race, but because she is American and behaves like a caricature of a particularly stupid American. The colour of her skin matters not a jot: it is the noisome ordure which spews out of her mouth on a daily basis that grates. Again, the narcissism and self-obsession and the acquired victimhood, the vapid and banal attempts at self-justification. The American insistence on the primacy of the individual also explains Meghan?s different interpretation of two words which we, over here, think we understand clearly: ?duty? and ?truth?. When her idiot husband was told he would not be getting back his honorary military ranks, the two of them (i.e. Meghan) released an emetic statement to the press suggesting that there were many ways one might perform one?s duties. No. Duty is something imposed and involves self-sacrifice, discipline and obedience. It does not mean doing what the hell you like, which is what the two of them have done. But if you are a country which doubts the validity of a communal ethos of ?duty?, then Meghan?s standpoint is one you may well arrive at, especially if you are not terribly bright. Similarly, Markle was asked about ?her? truth. People don?t have their own truth. There is truth and there is falsehood, and there?s an end to it. But once more, the native ideology devolves the concept of truth down to the individual level, regardless of whether it is truth at all. It is from America that we have imported the morally and rationally bereft progressive ideology that insists that if people feel they have been victimised, then they have been. And that everybody can be whatever they want to be, regardless of the facts. Elevate the individual ? beyond reason, beyond government, beyond God ? and this is what you get: a D-list sleb who married well thinking she has been victimised and is in possession of a ?truth? which runs counter to the truth. The cultural divide broadens still further when we consider Oprah Winfrey, one of America?s greatest mysteries. But boy, does she have hauteur and dominion. It is very difficult for us to understand why the Yanks so revere the woman. She is an appalling interviewer, seemingly utterly incurious, every question submitted for approval and the answers rehearsed over and over again. Ill-informed, incapable of asking an interesting question, always slightly more regal than whoever it is she is interviewing. There is no intellect on display, just a perpetual desire to paddle about in the shallows, or indeed barely skim the surface, of the subjects before her. But then she subscribes to the same inane ideology ? that Meghan Markle has a truth that is equally valid to the truth, and who is she to question that validity? Anti-journalism. It was rumoured she might one day run for office. I think she?d be perfect for the east and west coast voters, a conduit of witless acceptance of every meaningless liberal shibboleth to which those deluded people subscribe. So ? who asked about Archie?s skin colour, then? Not naming the supposed miscreant was another act of self-indulgence and cowardice from Meghan and Harry. Besmirch the entire royal family by not providing a name. My suspicion is that most of the royals were just anxious to know if Archie was going to be a ginger. That?s ?my? truth, and I?m sticking to it. Please, America ? do one thing for your old ally. Shepherd these two grasping halfwits into total obscurity. WRITTEN BY Rod Liddle Rod Liddle is associate editor of The Spectator. SHARE TOPICSSocietyAmericaMeghan MarkleOprah WinfreyRoyal Family Read next TRENDING The Spectator The Oxbridge files: which schools get the most offers? From Spectator Life BECAUSE YOU READ ABOUT AMERICA Tanya Gold Prince Harry is right about the Royals ALSO BY ROD LIDDLE Rod Liddle The age of de-enlightenment From the magazine LATEST Nick Tyrone The left?s illiberal turn Most popular 1 Freddy Gray Battle royal: Harry and Meghan?s modern brand of revenge 2 Rod Liddle ?My? truth about Meghan and Harry 3 The Spectator The Oxbridge files: which schools get the most offers? 4 Tom Slater No, Nish Kumar?s Mash Report hasn?t been ?cancelled? 5 Nick Tyrone The left?s illiberal turn Comments Advertise with us Sponsor an event Submit a story Cookie preferences Spectator Australia Apollo Magazine The Spectator Shop About The Spectator Contact & FAQs Privacy & cookies Terms and conditions Jobs and vacancies Site map Subscribe today Sign up to our emails The Spectator Club

Perhaps a little over the top in parts....but a rollicking fun read.....and arguably reflective of how a good many people feel when normal graces are removed.... https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-truth-about-meghan-and-harry

Perhaps that's true.....unfort though its just not very funny (surely even if one is a 'tories are all that is evil' type of guy, one has to acknowledge that the enjoyment probably comes more from having your position reaffirmed, than anything that's truly comedic).....anyway...I'm not willing to watch for another 20 years though until Labour get thier act together to test the theory! Although I suppose, given Trump was a regualr taregt, a good test will be how much they start taking Joe Biden down...of course the cynic in me says, not likely....

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They should have cancelled him for not being > remotely funny, which I thought is a prime > requirement of a comedian. He, like that awful lot > on the Last Leg, seem to think that shouting about > how awful the tories are is somehow comedy gold. > Beats me. Geoff Norcott, although not that funny > himself, is the best bit of The Mash Report > because he's not a 'progressive' lefty. Totally agree on the Last Leg...I really liked the show when it was all about the Paralympics, and the interplay between the three hosts was funny.....this carried on in its early days as a standalone comedy show.....then slowly it morphed to just be largely unsophisticated, self-adulating, one-sided rants, masquerading as comedy. I dont mind a few jokes at the expense of either sides of politics, and hopefully most people can have a laugh about the stereotypes....but when it just becomes 'I've just ranted against something a tory minister did or said, please give me whoops and cheers' it was time to switch off..... There's a reason why on these shows the audience now react with cheers and applause instead of actual laughter....

binkylilyput Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > White, non female people think they can > legitimately challenge the existence of a daily > occurrence that they have zero experience of. That > is the world we live in. White males know best and > rocking this boat isn't welcome. > So you want to police what people can and cant 'challenge' (another word for 'question') on the basis of their gender and colour...... They have words to describe someone that does that, dont they? Talk about draining indeed....I've tried multiple times to get someone to actually justify the 'obvious' reason for poor treatment of MM as racism....but (I say again) just repeating your position over and over again is not an argument. Your link with James O'Bien quoting an 'insightful' social media post is no better...I listened in the faint hope that I might learn something 'insightful', but for all its profound sounding phrasing, the quote glosses over the key point right at the start - by saying that 'because she is mixed-race' she wasn't accepted at the top of the pyramid...so we need to accept that throwaway line as gospel before we even begin! The rest of the waffle is largely perfectly fair analysis of someone who has had trouble integrating into the royal family....but I ask again, why such certainty that that lack of acceptance is due to her 'mixed race heritage'? Its clear that she hasn't fitted in to the royal family, I don't imagine that's an easy thing to do, and I dont envy her trying to do so...but neither did diana, neither did fergie, neither did wallis simpson...is there the slight possibility that not fitting into royal life/family (and that being picked up by the press) could possibly be influenced by anything else? or no? just rascism?

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2020/01/9198703/p > riti-patel-meghan-markle-comments > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > KidKruger Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > ...it seems entirely predictable to me that > > > criticism is driven by just one (race) or two > > > (gender) of those many characteristics that > > make > > > up an individual... > > > It?s the British gutter press after all, > > playing > > > to a largely prejudiced and sexist base. > > > > So are you saying its this? > > > > "Accordingly, it seems like many people get to > > that answer, because it suits their > pre-existing > > worldview, rather than on strength of evidence > on > > this particular issue?" Ummm...okay....this is the second time you've now provided a link to someone who believes that the treatment of MM is racist....but once again....there's no explanation for why that's the 'obvious' conclusion, and I have to return to questions I originally posed in my first post this morning above. The author of your article here makes sweeping judgment statements with absolutely nothing to back them up..... "There can be no doubt that the vitriol aimed at Markle since her relationship with Prince Harry went public has stunk of anti-blackness" "the sort of insidious racism to which the Duchess of Sussex has undeniably been subjected" ...just because the words 'no doubt' and 'undeniably' are used doesn't a rationale make.....you have referenced previoulsy being exhausted and drained trying to discuss this with people.....but just saying 'its obvious' isn't an argument!. I've openly asked people here to persuade me, and all i've got in response is pithy one-line responses which are the digital equivalent of an 'eye-roll'... But back to your article.....Leaving aside the elephant in the room (that this author willingly trumpets the importance of 'lived experience' while denying Patel's own lived experience, because it doesn't suit the argument)...there is clearly a massive disconnect in different people's perception here (recollections may vary of course:))) given that this author also says "The idea that you must 'show and prove racism' or it doesn?t exist has long been a mainstay for white people on the right"...well yeah..otherwise I just cant get on board with conceptually....so if you/the author/megan/the bloke down the street says something, therefore it must be true?...sorry...no dice. And in saying that, that's not doing as the author has said and 'denying racism exists', of course it exists, but does it exist (undeniably?) in these examples which are being discussed on this thread? Saying it 'definitely' is the reason behind all this bad press coverage isnt wildly different from Patel saying it doesn't exist at all...

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...it seems entirely predictable to me that > criticism is driven by just one (race) or two > (gender) of those many characteristics that make > up an individual... > It?s the British gutter press after all, playing > to a largely prejudiced and sexist base. So are you saying its this? "Accordingly, it seems like many people get to that answer, because it suits their pre-existing worldview, rather than on strength of evidence on this particular issue?"

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 70 MPs came out in support and stood up against > the overt racism Meghan endured. Enough said. > https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-n > ews/a29636162/more-than-70-female-british-politici > ans-have-signed-a-supporting-letter-for-meghan/ Enough Said? No. Not really..... Evidence that people think something is in no way justification for why they think it.

Picking up on some comments from yesterday...I'm keen to understand how it is that many people conclude 'racism' or 'misogyny' when they see criticism or negative comments on certain public figures? There seems to be an accepted view in some quarters that Meghan suffered horrendous racial bias from the British press. And stories often referenced as evidence are stories where Kate Middleton got more positive coverage on a similar topic (namely avocadoes and touching the baby bump). No doubt it does indeed seem a little unfair the difference in the coverage when looking at those two different issues...but I genuinely don't understand why 'racism' is pointed to by many as the 'obvious' reason...it 'might' be a reason, but that is far from clear to me. Accordingly, it seems like many people get to that answer, because it suits their pre-existing worldview, rather than on strength of evidence on this particular issue? (I should point out....Im not suggested that there is nothing racist published by the British press from time to time on various issues - i.e. The Daily Mail cartoon on Tom Jones's ancestry in 2015 was pretty unacceptable. And that should be rightly 'called out' when it occurs) More broadly it does seem to me that claims of racism seem to get louder when the potential 'victim' has certain political or world-views....i.e. Diane Abbott is often cast as a victim of horrendous racial and misogynistic abuse even when the specific criticism in question in no way references race or gender; but Priti Patel gets lambasted from all sides over a good many issues and I dont see her being cast as a victim of identity driven abuse? Similarly, much of the progressive/identarian/woke/left (choose whatever label you wish) seems to see Meaghan as sharing in many of their values, so perhaps is seen as one of 'us' by that group....therefore when its suggested that she bullied staff in palace....well, that's is a racially motivated smear; whereas when Patel is accused of bullying Home Office staff, and no one seems to be calling her detractors racially motivated. My overall point is that when there are so very many differences between two individual people, it seems very odd to me that criticism should be assumed to be driven by just one (race) or two (gender) of those many characteristics that make up an individual... As was pointed out earlier in the thread, when Meghan first was announced as Harry's partner, seems to me that there was a huge amount of goodwill towards her; and as time went by public opinion started to turn somewhat for whatever reason...now her race and gender have never changed....so perhaps that change in opinion was driven by something else?

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > ............. To then claim that I take > > this view because racsism and misogyny is > > exemplifying the very laziness that you have > > bemoaned. > > I didn't have your posts in mind when referring > this afternoon to the casual misogyny in this > thread. > See what happens when you carry prejudicial > thoughts...;-) Ha....touche:)

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No one is as anonymous as they like to think they > are Cat. > > Have you heard about the middle-aged Australian > bloke who holds an EU passport due to his Italian > heritage, also a UK passport holder after marrying > a Brit, has kids, lives near the Plough, and > recently changed jobs?...;-) Well I guess keeping a running tab on people's identity is more important so some than others....:) But seriously...I would hope that short of doing a concerted search through my posting history to remind yourself of these tidbits to make your point above.....this isnt front of mind when you respond to my posts? I can only speak for myself of course (my truth?)...but much like Data protection requirements, I genuinely dont really retain anyone's personal circumstances/identity info when making comments. I quite like it that way, as theoretically this forum should allow all comments to be taken in good faith and at face value. Of course the theory and practice rarely align, with this thread being a good example.... More specifically on this H&M stuff.....we once again have this extreme reaction in that if someone questions something M has said, then people assume you are questioning EVERYTHING she said (who am to question if she was suicidal?....that's her comment to make, only she can attest to how she felt, I have nothing to say on that). Just becuase people 'ask the question' about the context of 'the baby colour' discussion, doesn't mean they're denying racisms exists in the monarchy, its not making a judgment call either way, its simply asking if there is perhaps more to it in this specific incident. If we cant question a serious accusation where only one side of the story has been heard to date, then we truly are fooked. Some things she said are more than reasonable and fair, others she said (in my opinion) are not....overall I took a negative view of what I saw as a highly subjective and unbalanced performance. To then claim that I take this view because racsism and misogyny is exemplifying the very laziness that you have bemoaned.

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly. It?s tiresome and seems like a losing > battle. For my own sanity I have to avoid getting > involved in things like this as I?m constantly > dismissed. > 1) Im not quite certain what you're implying, but given this is an anonymous internet forum, then one would think that your comments being dismissed have absolutely nothing to do with your race and gender - I for one have no idea (or care) about what they actually are. 2) People's comments get dimissed/belittled/ignored all the time on almost every issue you can name (not that this makes it okay of course). Unfort it sort of comes with the territory of an internet forum, no? As an active/vocal forum Leave voter, in what is close to most Remain heavy constituency in the country....I can attset to the fact that the Lounge is no place for the thin skinned (regardless of the colour of that skin!)

binkylilyput Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Misogyny > > Racism > > Insidious, pernicious, thinly veiled, > institutional and systemic. > > The message being when will women and people of > colour learn to be pipe down and be quiet? They > bring it on themselves. > > So it continues...?..and it saddens me that much > of this thread stinks of it. Honestly. What a complete load of sh!t. Sounds like we're all 'saddended' then, as it saddens me that you feel comfortable just 'assuming' you know what drives other people's comments, becuase its suits your pre-existing beleifs to do so. Tell me....can any criticism of someone's behaviour always be boiled down to their race and gender?

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The truth is so slow and boring to get to... > > Politicians have caught on that you can tell a lie > and it firmly becomes embedded in their base, as > well as going half way round the world, by the > time it gets fact-checked, and as with Trump, the > viewings of the lie far outnumber the fact > checking... very true.... ...or it is?:)

> > We are becoming a society where we judge via > social media based on what Karen put on facebook > without examining the truth to draw our own > conclusions. The Truth, Your Truth, My Truth, Meaghans Truth, Seabag's Mate's Crazy Nanobot Truth.... Of course how much weight is placed on different truths depends on how oppressed/virtuous/prejudiced the person who said it is percieved to be by the person making the judgment on level of truth. Using this method, we as social media users (and as the broader public) can apportion 'truth quotients' in the appropriate amount to suit our own views. ' Unfort as you say Spartacus, no one gives a sh!t about 'the' truth anymore. The truth is so slow and boring to get to....instant indignation and kneejerk judgement provide much more instant gratification....

EDguy89 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > "let me tell you how this > black person misunderstood racism" > How she herself feels/felt on hearing relayed news of someone else's conversation is one thing. Implying very unempathetically (in a public forum) what someone else 'meant' by a comment heard secondhand is quite another. But the likely (my opinion) aim of manipulating the press and the public has been achieved...you've already labelled it as 'racism' without question....upon hearing it now 3rd-hand....

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ''I didn't watch it but I'm going to comment > anyway despite not knowing the full context of > what was said, and instead will form my opinion > from the comments of assorted cultural keyboard > warriors'' > > What a fooking bunch of gossiping fishwives...:) you're right. I am rather ashamed at myself. I blame intrusive social media and the institution that is the EDF (aka 'The Forum').

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Didn?t see it but I?m wondering why many are > assuming the question of the colour of the baby?s > skin was racist. Haven't we been told for the past year that to be 'anti-racist', one cannot be colorblind. You must acknowledge skin colour. To be colourblind in this matter, is to tacitly support racism. Oh look....here's an article from Ms Winfrey's very own magazine saying exactly that.... https://www.oprahmag.com/life/relationships-love/a32824297/color-blind-myth-racism/ I'd like to think the royal family was just being Anti-rascist.