My Mistake

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Because, my dear...integration is a two way street (actually it isnt ...but I'm being "nice". In reality...if you want to live here then you live as we do, and either accept it or sod off somewhere more to your liking)

I dont care what you wear from the neck down....hell wear a tin suit if thats what floats yer boat, you can even cover your hair (cos it can get a bit damp here now and again, and we know what women and wet hair are like together)  BUT show your face...or sod off...I aint having owt to do with you  UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES

Right, then all anti-social old sods should be deported shouldn't they?

sassy wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:



Agreed and then it cannot be the hotter climate that has made her skin deficient in vitamin D.
She would have already had a deficiency in the first place and a far sunnier climate would have thus helped this deficiency. Hence why i do not buy the claim

I'll have to recommend you to the BMA, they'll love to have you to lecture to them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

I think he is absolutely right, the day we started wearing clothes is the day we stopped getting enough Vit D.

I also think your endocrinologist is wrong.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

sassy wrote:


Right, then all anti-social old sods should be deported shouldn't they?

Yet when we go to Muslims countries we respect their traditions, and women will wear the headscarf, where it is needed. It shows they do not care about western custums, of which being able to look at them when we speak is fundemental because again body language makes up the biggest part of our communication.
Without facial expressions, it can be like sending a text or an email

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I also think your endocrinologist is wrong.

Ah classic raggs No training ,No medical degree,No examination and thinks she is qualified to contradict the experts  lol

priceless

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:



Yet when we go to Muslims countries we respect their traditions, and women will wear the headscarf, where it is needed. It shows they do not care about western custums, of which being able to look at them when we speak is fundemental because again body language makes up the biggest part of our communication.
Without facial expressions, it can be like sending a text or an email

women wore headscarf's all the time in this country at one point my mum would not go without wearing one back in the day

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Because, my dear...integration is a two way street (actually it isnt ...but I'm being "nice". In reality...if you want to live here then you live as we do, and either accept it or sod off somewhere more to your liking)

I dont care what you wear from the neck down....hell wear a tin suit if thats what floats yer boat, you can even cover your hair (cos it can get a bit damp here now and again, and we know what women and wet hair are like together)  BUT show your face...or sod off...I aint having owt to do with you  UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES

Right, then all anti-social old sods should be deported shouldn't they?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
women wore headscarf's all the time in this country at one point my mum would not go without wearing one back in the day

And now they generally do not which is far removed from covering the whole face.

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Because, my dear...integration is a two way street (actually it isnt ...but I'm being "nice". In reality...if you want to live here then you live as we do, and either accept it or sod off somewhere more to your liking)

I dont care what you wear from the neck down....hell wear a tin suit if thats what floats yer boat, you can even cover your hair (cos it can get a bit damp here now and again, and we know what women and wet hair are like together)  BUT show your face...or sod off...I aint having owt to do with you  UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES

Right, then all anti-social old sods should be deported shouldn't they?

Lord Foul wrote:

sassy wrote:


Right, then all anti-social old sods should be deported shouldn't they?

you can always tell whan the lefties are running out of arguments...

they start spouting crap like the above...

completely irrelevant, making snidey side swipes and actually saying something based upon nothing but their narrow and pointless view of the world.

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:



And now they generally do not which is far removed from covering the whole face.

yet covering the face/head is just as much a part of our society with the various religions covering different parts of there head, face, ect after all why do bride`s generally wear a veil ? to show that they are "innocent virgins " pfffft

should they be forced to wear it NO but if they choose to wear it and its a true choice then i really could`t give a crap

ironically it was i believe to stop the lustful gazes of other men yet the wearing of it attracts more attention from both men and women ....seems some what counter productive in such a densely populated western world  

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:



And now they generally do not which is far removed from covering the whole face.

yet covering the face/head is just as much a part of our society with the various religions covering different parts of there head, face, ect after all why do bride`s generally wear a veil ?

should they be forced to wear it NO but if they choose to wear it and its a true choice then i really could`t give a crap

ironically it was i believe to stop the lustful gazes of other men yet the wearing of it attracts more attention from both men and women ....seems some what counter productive in such a densely populated western world  

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

you can always tell whan the lefties are running out of arguments...

they start spouting crap like the above...

completely irrelevant, making snidey side swipes and actually saying something based upon nothing but their narrow and pointless view of the world.

That's exactly what you are doing.

Lord Foul wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
yet covering the face/head is just as much a part of our society with the various religions covering different parts of there head, face, ect after all why do bride`s generally wear a veil ?  to show that they are "innocent virgins "  pfffft    

should they be forced to wear it NO but if they choose to wear it and its a true choice then i really could`t give a crap

ironically it was i believe to stop the lustful gazes of other men yet the wearing of it attracts more attention from both men and women ....seems some what counter productive in such a densely populated western world  

Lord Foul wrote:

sassy wrote:

That's exactly what you are doing.

notice here how you wish to subjugate ME to islam?

notice how once AGAIN you expect ME to "make concessions"

notice once AGAIN how its ME that should "integrate"

How about...just for once (and it would be about the first time) "THEY" integrated" and accepted that a covered face IS NOT acceptable.

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

notice here how you wish to subjugate ME to islam?

notice how once AGAIN you expect ME to "make concessions"

notice once AGAIN how its ME that should "integrate"

How about...just for once (and it would be about the first time) "THEY" integrated" and accepted that a covered face IS NOT acceptable.

No Victor, I'm pointing out that you are transferring YOUR prejudice and fears onto them.

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

notice here how you wish to subjugate ME to islam?

notice how once AGAIN you expect ME to "make concessions"

notice once AGAIN how its ME that should "integrate"

How about...just for once (and it would be about the first time) "THEY" integrated" and accepted that a covered face IS NOT acceptable.

No Victor, I'm pointing out that you are transferring YOUR prejudice and fears onto them.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:




lol, I actually thought the idea again stemmed from a backward sexist belief. That neither the bride or groom were allowed to see each other at all before being betrothed together. The idea of it being bad luck to see the bride before hand is actually really dumb, as it is backing a past time when people were forced to marry and had no chance to even see each other before the day.

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:




lol, I actually thought the idea again stemmed from a backward sexist belief. That neither the bride or groom were allowed to see each other at all before being betrothed together. The idea of it being bad luck to see the bride before hand is actually really dumb, as it is backing a past time when people were forced to marry and had no chance to even see each other before the day.

The veil and train of a modern gown seem to have originated in Roman times. Roman brides were usually swaddled head to toe in a gigantic flame-coloured veil called the flammeum, to scare off evil spirits. Yep, it was genuinely meant to make them look as if they were on fire. That's one hell of a deterrent.

The veil and train also prevented them running away — a genuine concern — and allowed them to be easily transported to their new bridegroom, who often had never seen their face before it was unveiled at the ceremony. Essentially, it was a demon-scaring, theatrical marital straitjacket



http://www.bustle.com/articles/24357-why-do-brides-wear-veils-and-white-dresses-the-bizarre-history-of-5-wedding-traditions

Lord Foul wrote:true that is didge, quite common among many societies which all had their "match maker"

I dont think I would be wrong to say the even in ireland at least to the late 19th C  at least in rural areas the "match makers " plyed their trade

you should also look at records available from medieval times, where a "good match (in political/financial terms) ended quite conveniently when the woman "died in child birth"  AKA sufocated by the midwife as soon as the child was born.

not to also mention that "marriage by rape" was not uncommon either

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:true that is didge, quite common among many societies which all had their "match maker"

I dont think I would be wrong to say the even in ireland at least to the late 19th C  at least in rural areas the "match makers " plyed their trade

you should also look at records available from medieval times, where a "good match (in political/financial terms) ended quite conveniently when the woman "died in child birth"  AKA sufocated by the midwife as soon as the child was born.

not to also mention that "marriage by rape" was not uncommon either

Very true Victor with also where women were far worse treated than men and its funny you should say about Medival Times, as I am reading a book on cruelty and attrocities in Medival warfare. Which also goes into detail on crimes and punishments for civillians. I was not aware that the 1352 Statue of Treason, made women who murdered their husbands to be classed as treason.  

seems reasonable to me

Yeah women had little to no chance of seeing must justice in the past with rape, most was dealt with by some kind of payment and rarely was anyone convicted, though some families sought revenege.

Lord Foul wrote:translating isnt difficult if you have acess to a dictionary (which do exist) it just takes ages to do it one word at at a time, and then allow for differences in grammar

we say "the kings men"

the norman french and much of the continet today for that matter, say in best "yoda style"  "the men of the king "

All the best Victor