# Christopher Colombus (Split from Taekwondo isn't from Karate...thread)



## JR 137 (Jan 8, 2019)

As a point of order here...

Old sources aren’t always accurate. Facts handed down aren’t very accurate either.

George Washington wasn’t the first president of the United States. John Hanson was.
Articles of Confederation, US Constitution, Constitution Day Materials, Pocket Constitution Book, Bill of Rights

And Columbus didn’t discover America. Actually, I don’t think he stepped foot on American soil. He landed somewhere in the Caribbean Sea.

And the Vikings were here before he was.

And practically everyone accepted the earth was round before his ship sailed.

And no one truly knows his actual name nor where he was born.

Sure, read a single book and accept that as scholarly fact. Read a newspaper and accept that as scholarly fact. Or look at a picture and accept that as scholarly fact. Or listen to old wives tales and accept them as scholarly fact.

How about actual legitimate evidence beyond what a few guys with an obvious nationalistic pride agenda are pushing? And even if the nonsense you’re pushing is genuinely correct, what difference does it make in your and anyone else’s training? ZERO.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> And Columbus didn’t discover America.
> 
> And the Vikings were here before he was.



America was never 'lost' to be discovered though and the Vikings weren't the first, the indigenous population were.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 8, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> America was never 'lost' to be discovered though and the Vikings weren't the first, the indigenous population were.



And where do you think the indigenous population came from.......Korea?


----------



## pdg (Jan 8, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> And where do you think the indigenous population came from.......Korea?



Obviously, there proofs.


Or, it was aliens.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 8, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> And where do you think the indigenous population came from.......Korea?



One of the best things I heard about this subject came from the Iroquois just before a big Columbus day celebration. There statement, when asked what they felt about Columbus day was "What did Columbus discover, we knew where we were long before he got here"


----------



## Buka (Jan 8, 2019)

Xue Sheng said:


> One of the best things I heard about this subject came from the Iroquois just before a big Columbus day celebration. There statement, when asked what they felt about Columbus day was "What did Columbus discover, we knew where we were long before he got here"



I take your word for it. I've never been to Ohio.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 8, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> America was never 'lost' to be discovered though and the Vikings weren't the first, the indigenous population were.


I never said the Vikings were first nor did I say they discovered it. I simply said the Vikings were here before Columbus.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 9, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I never said the Vikings were first nor did I say they discovered it. I simply said the Vikings were here before Columbus.




Everyone was in America before Columbus.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 9, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Everyone was in America before Columbus.


My family wasn’t. First ones here were in the early 1950s. First the Italian side started creeping in, then came the Armenians


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 9, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> My family wasn’t. First ones here were in the early 1950s. First the Italian side started creeping in, then came the Armenians




Your family were,  Columbus didn't actually set foot in America.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Your family were,  Columbus didn't actually set foot in America.


His was more of a sail-by, waving from well out in the ocean at land he suspected was there.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 9, 2019)

In realty, Columbus originally had no idea he had found something that Europe did not know existed...Columbus thought he got to India


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2019)

Xue Sheng said:


> In realty, Columbus originally had no idea he had found something that Europe did not know existed...Columbus thought he got to India


True. He completely misjudged the distance to get around to India. Big time.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> True. He completely misjudged the distance to get around to India. Big time.



only a tad...he was only a little under 11,000 miles off


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2019)

Xue Sheng said:


> only a tad...he was only a little under 11,000 miles off


So, he was off by less than half the distance from my house to yours.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, he was off by less than half the distance from my house to yours.



exactly


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 9, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Your family were,  Columbus didn't actually set foot in America.


Well played.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 9, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Your family were,  Columbus didn't actually set foot in America.


He set foot in 'an' america. Just not North America or the USA. Gosh, stop being so USA-centric, Tez


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> He set foot in 'an' america. Just not North America or the USA. Gosh, stop being so USA-centric, Tez



The sobering fact is he landed in the Caribbean, which is why much of the islands are called 'West Indies' and the following colonisation wiped out all the indigenous people to replaced by slaves from Africa and colonisers. There are no native people in this islands at all, a whole people wiped out.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 10, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> The sobering fact is he landed in the Caribbean, which is why much of the islands are called 'West Indies' and the following colonisation wiped out all the indigenous people to replaced by slaves from Africa and colonisers. There are no native people in this islands at all, a whole people wiped out.


Yeah but then he traveled to both central and south america. Im not a fan of the guy in the slightest, and hate that we've got a holiday for him, but he did go to america


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 10, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Yeah but then he traveled to both central and south america. Im not a fan of the guy in the slightest, and hate that we've got a holiday for him, but he did go to america


Maybe I shouldn’t go there, but I hesitantly will...

There’s a lot of hate for Columbus nowadays. I teach 3 year olds-currently 6th graders in one (academic) class or another. Teacher’s are teaching the kids that Columbus was a bad guy. I’m not a fan of that. I’m not saying make the guy out to be a hero or more, but we should tone down the hate a bit IMO. 

Why? We’re judging a guy from the 1400s on 21st Century values and accountability. Things were far different back then. Human rights and even human life wasn’t looked at with the same value as today. Not remotely close. That was everyday life back then, right or obviously wrong. But they didn’t know it was obviously wrong to the extent we do today.

I look at it like the mistakes my parents’ generation made...

My brothers and I sat in the back of the station wagon. No seatbelts, car seats, etc. Sometimes we sat on our father’s lap while he drove. Sometimes he’d let us steer (with a discrete hand on the wheel). I rode on the back of my father’s motorcycle on the highway around kindergarten/1st grade. My parents smoked with the car windows up while we were in the car. We got slapped and spanked. 

Worse than that, when my parents were younger, driving drunk wasn’t a big deal. Police would pull you over and either 1. Tell you to get a cup of coffee 2. Tell you to park and take a nap or 3. Follow you home.

It wasn’t until the early 80s when people really started asking themselves what they’re really doing. 

Do I throw that stuff in my parents’ face? No. That’s the way things were; that was the norm. Do I joke around about it with them? Absolutely.

Looking at what as acceptable during my childhood, I can’t help but think what are we doing today that the next generation or two will hate us for. Trust me, we’re doing something that’ll make our great grandchildren scratch their heads in wonder and disbelief.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 10, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Maybe I shouldn’t go there, but I hesitantly will...
> 
> There’s a lot of hate for Columbus nowadays. I teach 3 year olds-currently 6th graders in one (academic) class or another. Teacher’s are teaching the kids that Columbus was a bad guy. I’m not a fan of that. I’m not saying make the guy out to be a hero or more, but we should tone down the hate a bit IMO.
> 
> ...


In my mind, he was the one who caused that whole culture. He discovered these new people, and within the first day of landing, he enslaved them. They weren't people whom were already enslaved, and there was nothing suggesting that they were inferior in the way people thought of africans. He met them, and made that decision, basically causing a huge rise in the international slave trade, including an entirely new race of people, and basically becoming a huge dictator. Yeah, plenty of people from the time would have made the same decisions he did, but he was the one who made them.


----------



## jobo (Jan 11, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> In my mind, he was the one who caused that whole culture. He discovered these new people, and within the first day of landing, he enslaved them. They weren't people whom were already enslaved, and there was nothing suggesting that they were inferior in the way people thought of africans. He met them, and made that decision, basically causing a huge rise in the international slave trade, including an entirely new race of people, and basically becoming a huge dictator. Yeah, plenty of people from the time would have made the same decisions he did, but he was the one who made them.


I agree with jr, you can only judge people's actions by the morals of the time, and Europe in the 14/1500s didn't have any,as we would recognise them,

it was ravaged by near constant war, starvation and diseases, the black death had only recently wiped out a quarter of the population, there was no sanctity of life as we would know it.

slaughter, butchery torture and enslavement  were what happened to other Europeans,
 there's no reason why they would treat the indigenous peoples of America any differently .

in fact a number of these were quite big on whole sale slaughter , enslavement themselves, so they were no better or worse morally than the people's they encountered.

just about any historical figure come up short when judged by 21st century morals, including those from 50 years ago , there's no chance someone from 500 years ago will stand up to examination


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 11, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> In my mind, he was the one who caused that whole culture. He discovered these new people, and within the first day of landing, he enslaved them. They weren't people whom were already enslaved, and there was nothing suggesting that they were inferior in the way people thought of africans. He met them, and made that decision, basically causing a huge rise in the international slave trade, including an entirely new race of people, and basically becoming a huge dictator. Yeah, plenty of people from the time would have made the same decisions he did, but he was the one who made them.



Again, not completely accurate.  The international slave trade was already in effect and growing when this occurred.  He just continued on a practice already in place.  He didn't start it, but he did open up a new area to exploit people.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 11, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> Again, not completely accurate.  The international slave trade was already in effect and growing when this occurred.  He just continued on a practice already in place.  He didn't start it, but he did open up a new area to exploit people.


My issue is not that he started it, but that he started it with an entirely brand new group of people. There was no indication when he came in the first day that these people were inherently inferior; he made that call and decided to make them slaves.


----------



## jobo (Jan 11, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> My issue is not that he started it, but that he started it with an entirely brand new group of people. There was no indication when he came in the first day that these people were inherently inferior; he made that call and decided to make them slaves.



you seem to be arguing a strange point, slavery has nothing to do with people's being viewed as inherently inferior, but everything to do with profit , the Spanish were on a mission to get ritcher, as we're all colonial powers, they really wanted gold, slavery was just a side issue. 

slavery was already a thing in the America s, it wasn't a new group of people, just new masters


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 11, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> In my mind, he was the one who caused that whole culture. He discovered these new people, and within the first day of landing, he enslaved them. They weren't people whom were already enslaved, and there was nothing suggesting that they were inferior in the way people thought of africans. He met them, and made that decision, basically causing a huge rise in the international slave trade, including an entirely new race of people, and basically becoming a huge dictator. Yeah, plenty of people from the time would have made the same decisions he did, but he was the one who made them.


I don’t disagree with anything thing you’ve said, except he caused that whole culture. But if you mean caused that culture in the Western Hemisphere, then I’ll kinda agree. Started it here would probably be a better choice of words though.

I just don’t put it on him, so to speak; I put it on European imperialist mentality/society/whatever of the era.

As a further note, being a teacher, I’m all for teaching the truth. But when my daughter was in second grade and came home the Friday before Columbus Day saying we shouldn’t have the day off because Columbus was a bad guy who killed people, something’s just not very settling. I’ve heard the same thing from young ones at my school. Teach that stuff to high school kids, not 7 year olds.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 11, 2019)

And the whole bringing new germs, thereby killing people through illness, yeah, pin that on Columbus too. I’ve heard that crap too many times. Sure, he knew how to use germ warfare.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 11, 2019)

From a YouTube video ( yes I know it may not be accurate) I learned it wasn't really Chris,,he had a brother who was a mean sob.  It was the brother that did the enslavement to mine for gold that was promised to the Queen of somewhere, for funding the trip. Chris dropped some of his crew off to do the dirty work while he set sail back. Albeit with some captive natives as show and tell pieces.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 11, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I rode on the back of my father’s motorcycle on the highway around kindergarten/1st grade.


That's nothing,,, I was riding on the motorcycle when I was 3. I would sit on the tank and hold onto the cross bar of the handle bars. I would wear a large Bell helmet my dad stuffed with rags to make it fit.  While my mom was on the back.....ok off to grandma's house we go!!!
But if you really want to get creative , you need to talk to my wife who is from Thailand were it's common to fit a family of seven plus the family pet on the motorcycle driving around Bangkok.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 11, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> From a YouTube video ( yes I know it may not be accurate) I learned it wasn't really Chris,,he had a brother who was a mean sob.  It was the brother that did the enslavement to mine for gold that was promised to the Queen of somewhere, for funding the trip. Chris dropped some of his crew off to do the dirty work while he set sail back. Albeit with some captive natives as show and tell pieces.


From what I’ve read, and it’s not a whole hell of a lot, very little facts are known about Columbus. He spelled and signed his name many different ways, he claimed to be from many different places, many countries claim he was born/from there, his family (parents and siblings) are either unknown or who they were is debated; stuff like that.

He was a sailor. And he landed in a place completely different than where he thought he landed. 

That we know. Everything else has been debated by many credible scholars.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> you seem to be arguing a strange point, slavery has nothing to do with people's being viewed as inherently inferior, but everything to do with profit , the Spanish were on a mission to get ritcher, as we're all colonial powers, they really wanted gold, slavery was just a side issue.
> 
> slavery was already a thing in the America s, it wasn't a new group of people, just new masters


That was the argument that was always given and used at the time, although the idea was money. But they would say "these people are inferior to us", so there was no moral issue in enslaving them. It was a different type of slavery than POW slaves.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 11, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I don’t disagree with anything thing you’ve said, except he caused that whole culture. But if you mean caused that culture in the Western Hemisphere, then I’ll kinda agree. Started it here would probably be a better choice of words though.
> 
> I just don’t put it on him, so to speak; I put it on European imperialist mentality/society/whatever of the era.
> 
> As a further note, being a teacher, I’m all for teaching the truth. But when my daughter was in second grade and came home the Friday before Columbus Day saying we shouldn’t have the day off because Columbus was a bad guy who killed people, something’s just not very settling. I’ve heard the same thing from young ones at my school. Teach that stuff to high school kids, not 7 year olds.


Yeah, starting it there is a better way to put it. The culture existed, but not over here. And regardless of who sailed over, they probably would have brought it with them, but again he's the one who actually did it. (and I don't blame him for the germs/germ warfare or any of that stuff, since no one could have predicted that or known how to stop it, and it could have just as easily hurt him instead).

To the rest of that, I agree. 7 year olds, or even middle school kids, shouldn't be bothered with that dilemma. Theirs too much nuance and complications in what happened for them to understand, and being told he is bad gets rid of any critical thinking they could learn about the subject itself. But that doesn't change my own opinion regarding him.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 11, 2019)

I dont think he introduced the slave trade to south america.

I think Native south american tribe were trading slaves with each other long before Colombus arrived.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 11, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> I dont think he introduced the slave trade to south america.
> 
> I think Native south american tribe were trading slaves with each other long before Colombus arrived.


That was along the lines of POW slavery. From what I understand, that results in a lot less individuals/percentage being slaves.


----------



## jobo (Jan 11, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> That was the argument that was always given and used at the time, although the idea was money. But they would say "these people are inferior to us", so there was no moral issue in enslaving them. It was a different type of slavery than POW slaves.


was this argument recorded as being by CC?   there was no moral argument against enslaving anyone in the 1400s as slavery wasn't considered , immoral ,'t



there were no such thing as human rights, back then, if he king or the lord or your master, didn't like you, they had you killed openly and publicly, if randomly murdering people wasn't immoral, then slavery certainly wasnt

you seem to have only a thin grasp of European history, expressly how horrible the PTB,were to every one ,their own kind included


----------



## elder999 (Jan 11, 2019)

Why do they speak Portuguese in Brazil, instead of Spanish?


----------



## jobo (Jan 11, 2019)

elder999 said:


> Why do they speak Portuguese in Brazil, instead of Spanish?


because the Portuguese got there first, of course it wasn't called Brazil, just that big forestry bit near the top,

its an arguable point if the Portuguese got to Brazil before the Spanish got to the west indies

and a fair chance the Chinese, the Japanise and the Polynesians beat them both


----------



## elder999 (Jan 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> because the Portuguese got there first, of course it wasn't called Brazil, just that big forestry bit near the top,
> 
> its an arguable point if the Portuguese got to Brazil before the Spanish got to the west indies
> 
> and a fair chance the Chinese, the Japanise and the Polynesians beat them both



The Africans got there first.

Columbus had a fair idea where he was going, contrary to the myth.

The King of Portugal _knew_ where Columbus had been, had heard of it from Africans, and when Columbus stopped in Lisbon, he threatened war with Spain because the lands "discovered" by Columbus rightfully belonged to Portugal because of the Treaty of Alcocovas, negotiated and signed in 1479 . The treaty negotiated as a result of this, the Treaty of Tordesillas, established new lines for the "new lands," and granted Portugal the larger part of South America......


----------



## jobo (Jan 11, 2019)

elder999 said:


> The Africans got there first.
> 
> Columbus had a fair idea where he was going, contrary to the myth.
> 
> The King of Portugal _knew_ where Columbus had been, had heard of it from Africans, and when Columbus stopped in Lisbon, he threatened war with Spain because the lands "discovered" by Columbus rightfully belonged to Portugal because of the Treaty of Alcocovas, negotiated and signed in 1479 . The treaty negotiated as a result of this, the Treaty of Tordesillas, established new lines for the "new lands," and granted Portugal the larger part of South America......


which Africans told him and how did they know where Columbus had been, ?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> which Africans told him and how did they know where Columbus had been, ?


Slave traders spoke to Portuguese of "a river in the ocean" that carried them across the Atlantic, and the lands they visited there. They were, of course, speaking of the North and South Equatorial currents, by which one can cross the Atlantic in a small craft in 60 days or less.
The King of Portugal, lord of the slave trade, knew of this, and thus had an idea of  where Columbus had been.


----------



## jobo (Jan 11, 2019)

elder999 said:


> Slave traders spoke to Portuguese of "a river in the ocean" that carried them across the Atlantic, and the lands they visited there. They were, of course, speaking of the North and South Equatorial currents, by which one can cross the Atlantic in a small craft in 60 days or less.
> The King of Portugal, lord of the slave trade, knew of this, and thus had an idea of  where Columbus had been.


so African s didn't tell him where Columba's had been like you said, I suspect your making things up


----------



## elder999 (Jan 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> so African s didn't tell him where Columba's had been like you said, I suspect your making things up


Np. I don't make things up.
Columbus may have, though....

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories - Wikipedia


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 11, 2019)

elder999 said:


> Why do they speak Portuguese in Brazil, instead of Spanish?


I read somewhere it was part of a settlement/agreement between Spain and Portugal. Everything west of a certain line was Spain’s, and east of it was Portugal’s. Brazil is I believe the easternmost part of continental North and South America. Portuguese settled/traded there, thereby using their language.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 12, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> As a further note, being a teacher, I’m all for teaching the truth. But when my daughter was in second grade and came home the Friday before Columbus Day saying we shouldn’t have the day off because Columbus was a bad guy who killed people, something’s just not very settling. I’ve heard the same thing from young ones at my school. Teach that stuff to high school kids, not 7 year olds.


Yeah, you can teach them truth without that. It's probably enough at that age to say he didn't really know he'd found a way to America, did some things we wouldn't agree with today, etc.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 12, 2019)

King John the Second had a 


elder999 said:


> The Africans got there first.
> 
> Columbus had a fair idea where he was going, contrary to the myth.
> 
> The King of Portugal _knew_ where Columbus had been, had heard of it from Africans, and when Columbus stopped in Lisbon, he threatened war with Spain because the lands "discovered" by Columbus rightfully belonged to Portugal because of the Treaty of Alcocovas, negotiated and signed in 1479 . The treaty negotiated as a result of this, the Treaty of Tordesillas, established new lines for the "new lands," and granted Portugal the larger part of South America......




King John the Second had a history with Spain anyway. As a Sephardic Jew I know that when the Spanish threw Jews out of Spain, King John, for a price allowed many to settle in Portugal, he also provided boats again for a price for other Jews to go to Tangier and Arzila. Others were sent to settle the island of Sao Tome. King John sent many expeditions to find lands for Portugal to colonise.


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2019)

elder999 said:


> Np. I don't make things up.
> Columbus may have, though....
> 
> Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories - Wikipedia


I'm not sure what point your supporting with that link, there nothing there about a conversation between africans and the king of Spain, which was your main claim.

There any number of ideas about who got to America, by what royte and when, it's certain that Columbus knew it was there before he set off, various Mediterranean / North African cultures had the technology to sail the atlantic for a couple of thousand years, if they did so and when is hard to establish , but old maps show a land mass there, as they also show australia and anartica . The Oriental cultures also had the tech to go,

Of all the claims I find that African did it by canue  the hardest to accept, but you never know, africans built a proper sail boat and went is a but more likely


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 12, 2019)

Guys...

I hate to break it to you, but the first non-indigenous person to set foot in North America was my ancestor, Madoc.

Madoc - Wikipedia

"Madoc" became "Mattocks" and I'm the last heir to that dynasty.  It's OK, you don't have bow or anything.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 13, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Guys...
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but the first non-indigenous person to set foot in North America was my ancestor, Madoc.
> 
> ...




I hope you know how to pronounce the Welsh then!


----------



## wanderingstudent (Jan 29, 2019)

Read "Lies my teacher told me", earlier this winter; a real eye opener.

I also, saw a show on CPTV last night about the Spanish colonizing Southern Florida- Saint Augustine area, and they had a fort a little north.  I forget the name of the Native Americans, it started with a "T".

Oh, it made me think of the how history books portray the English and Spanish.  At one point, there was a map of Spanish Occupancy it showed Florida, the Midwest- to the Pacific, and all lands South.  This left the Northeast open, for English Occupancy.  I am assuming the other area where Louisiana is was French, but that wasn't mentioned.

Hope to catch the show again.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 30, 2019)

wanderingstudent said:


> Read "Lies my teacher told me", earlier this winter; a real eye opener.
> 
> I also, saw a show on CPTV last night about the Spanish colonizing Southern Florida- Saint Augustine area, and they had a fort a little north.  I forget the name of the Native Americans, it started with a "T".
> 
> ...




Not 'English' occupancy, British. I'd suggest American history books often tell a different story to the rest of the worlds ones. Take Paul Revere for example he's credited with another man's exploits. Blame Longfellow for that and people for taking it as truth. The truth is in Revere's own writing. So much is re-written to suit the majority ruling at the time.

French Immigration to America: History for kids ***


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 30, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Not 'English' occupancy, British. I'd suggest American history books often tell a different story to the rest of the worlds ones. Take Paul Revere for example he's credited with another man's exploits. Blame Longfellow for that and people for taking it as truth. The truth is in Revere's own writing. So much is re-written to suit the majority ruling at the time.
> 
> French Immigration to America: History for kids ***


The american history books tell use about the british occupancy. Most americans just don't care and use britain, england and the UK interchangeably. CNN actually had to include the differences in one of their articles recently, even though I've seen them mix it up plenty as well.

When I was in high school, we learned very little about paul revere. We learned the poem, that the poem was wrong, and what actually happened. People seem to be taught (not you, basically any foreigner), that americans know less than everyone else about the american revolution, when in reality (I hope) we spend more time learning about it in school than any other country. We had two whole years while I was in school dedicated to pretty much just that. I don't get why that is. 

I only skimmed the french immigration link...what is the purpose of it? Are you stating that it's inaccurate or biased?


----------



## jobo (Jan 30, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> The american history books tell use about the british occupancy. Most americans just don't care and use britain, england and the UK interchangeably. CNN actually had to include the differences in one of their articles recently, even though I've seen them mix it up plenty as well.
> 
> When I was in high school, we learned very little about paul revere. We learned the poem, that the poem was wrong, and what actually happened. People seem to be taught (not you, basically any foreigner), that americans know less than everyone else about the american revolution, when in reality (I hope) we spend more time learning about it in school than any other country. We had two whole years while I was in school dedicated to pretty much just that. I don't get why that is.
> 
> I only skimmed the french immigration link...what is the purpose of it? Are you stating that it's inaccurate or biased?


Its because you have so little recorded history, it only starts in the 1700s, other countries have to included the previous 2000 years, so can't afford to spend two years on one little war


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 30, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> The american history books tell use about the british occupancy. Most americans just don't care and use britain, england and the UK interchangeably. CNN actually had to include the differences in one of their articles recently, even though I've seen them mix it up plenty as well.
> 
> When I was in high school, we learned very little about paul revere. We learned the poem, that the poem was wrong, and what actually happened. People seem to be taught (not you, basically any foreigner), that americans know less than everyone else about the american revolution, when in reality (I hope) we spend more time learning about it in school than any other country. We had two whole years while I was in school dedicated to pretty much just that. I don't get why that is.
> 
> I only skimmed the french immigration link...what is the purpose of it? Are you stating that it's inaccurate or biased?


Need to correct this. I dont think we spent a full 2 years on it, but definitely at least one year, and probably more.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 30, 2019)

jobo said:


> Its because you have so little recorded history, it only starts in the 1700s, other countries have to included the previous 2000 years, so can't afford to spend two years on one little war


Exactly. You guys have so much more to learn, in the same amount of time. So I domt get where the idea that Europeans know more about the history of the USA than americans comes from.


----------



## jobo (Jan 30, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Exactly. You guys have so much more to learn, in the same amount of time. So I domt get where the idea that Europeans know more about the history of the USA than americans comes from.


to be fair to Americans, the generally history of Britain is a complete mystery to most Britain's,  you could spend a very long time trying to find anyone who could explain to English  civic war (revolution ) to you if they even knew we had one,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2019)

jobo said:


> to be fair to Americans, the generally history of Britain is a complete mystery to most Britain's,  you could spend a very long time trying to find anyone who could explain to English  civic war (revolution ) to you if they even knew we had one,


I know it existed. It's mentioned frequently in the Brother Cadfael mysteries. That's where my British/English history comes from.


----------



## jobo (Jan 30, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I know it existed. It's mentioned frequently in the Brother Cadfael mysteries. That's where my British/English history comes from.


I suspect not, cadfael was 400 years to soon,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_Wa

e was 200 years to soon for the wars of the roses and two Hundred years to late for the Norman invasion, though more or less right for the crusades


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2019)

jobo said:


> I suspect not, cadfael was 400 years to soon,
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_Wa
> 
> e was 200 years to soon for the wars of the roses and two Hundred years to late for the Norman invasion, though more or less right for the crusades


Different civil war-ish fighting, then.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Different civil war-ish fighting, then.




We actually had quite a few civil wars.
History is one of my great interests, the one people call the Civil War when Charles the First was beheaded and the Commonwealth formed is of great interest to me as Cromwell invited Jews to come back in the country, they had been expelled in 1290 CE and returned in 1656 CE.




kempodisciple said:


> You guys have so much more to learn, in the same amount of time. So I domt get where the idea that Europeans know more about the history of the USA than americans comes from.




In the same amount of time? Are you sure? We start school at four and a half, leave at 16 or 18, a lot of years to learn history. University and college is extra years. Apart from the obvious that the history of the Americas is also the history of Europe ( who did you think 'settled the country' if not Europeans? You seem to be very defensive about your couple of hundred years history while forgetting the interdependency of your history with ours. Did you know how many people were driven to famine and poverty in the UK because of your Civil War? Look up 'Cotton Famine'.



kempodisciple said:


> I only skimmed the french immigration link...what is the purpose of it? Are you stating that it's inaccurate or biased?




You stated you knew little, I posted a link to help with that, what are you so crotchety about this?
if Americans are so 'not bothered' about what you call the British 'occupancy' ( think you need to research more about that)why do so many Americans search for British roots? Many Americans at the time didn't 'rebel' against the British, they were paying far less tax than British people and had the same amount of votes as they did.... ie not very many. Universal suffrage didn't come for a very long time and it came in the UK a long time before it did in the US ( 1965 for black people in the USA)


Learning what you are taught and learning the truth are often two very different things, you always have to bear than in mind.

if you really want to get Europeans and Brits mad you should start quoting the US version of the Second World War.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> We actually had quite a few civil wars.
> History is one of my great interests, the one people call the Civil War when Charles the First was beheaded and the Commonwealth formed is of great interest to me as Cromwell invited Jews to come back in the country, they had been expelled in 1290 CE and returned in 1656 CE.
> 
> 
> ...


I think you may have misread the emotional content in his post. I didn't see much emotion in the stuff you quoted, certainly not the same as you seem to read in it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> We actually had quite a few civil wars.
> History is one of my great interests, the one people call the Civil War when Charles the First was beheaded and the Commonwealth formed is of great interest to me as Cromwell invited Jews to come back in the country, they had been expelled in 1290 CE and returned in 1656 CE.


I knew there were multiple civil wars in British history, but not which bore the name. We have the convenience of there really only being one, so "Civil War" (with capitals or without) is unambiguous at this point.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think you may have misread the emotional content in his post. I didn't see much emotion in the stuff you quoted, certainly not the same as you seem to read in it.




Er what 'emotional content'? I think you are reading waaaaay too much into my posts, there's no deep meaning there, he does seem crotchety, that's not 'emotional' that's being cranky and that's how it seems on just reading it, I don't delve into people's emotional state though I'm curious as why you keep trying to delve into mine and criticise my posts these days. 



gpseymour said:


> I knew there were multiple civil wars in British history, but not which bore the name. We have the convenience of there really only being one, so "Civil War" (with capitals or without) is unambiguous at this point.




Each of our civil wars has a different name, we've had 7 so far, we're waiting to see if no 8 comes about shortly.
1.   Rebellion of 1088 to 1091 
2.   The Anarchy  1135–1154
3.  First Barons War    1215–1217
4.  Second Barons War  1264–1267
5.  Dispenser War   1321–1322
6. Wars of the Roses  1455–1487
7  English Civil War  1642–1651

No 5 is very juicy.  The wrong side won in no 6.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 31, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> In the same amount of time? Are you sure? We start school at four and a half, leave at 16 or 18, a lot of years to learn history. University and college is extra years.



I'm confused...how much time do you think we spend in school? For americans, at least where I am, it starts between 2 and 4, and high school finished at either 17 or 18, depending on your birthday. Then most people in america (google says 70%) go to college as well. So it's the exact same amount of time...did you think americans start school later, or that we left earlier? 



> Apart from the obvious that the history of the Americas is also the history of Europe ( who did you think 'settled the country' if not Europeans? You seem to be very defensive about your couple of hundred years history while forgetting the interdependency of your history with ours. Did you know how many people were driven to famine and poverty in the UK because of your Civil War? Look up 'Cotton Famine'.


 I didn't mean to appear defensive...I'm not offended or otherwise concerned about what people in the UK think of american history, any more than I care what people in Virginia think about New York. As far as I'm concerned, the UK is just a large state (or group of states I guess).
Just confused about why people in Europe think they know _more_ about american history than americans. I've thought about it in the past, and came up with three theories (sticking with the UK for this conversation, but generalizing for most europeans I've met): 
1: People from the UK actually do know more, and spend more time learning it. That would surprise me though, since even though we are very interdependent like you said, we don't spend as much time learning about the UK's history as we do on american history, and so many countries once belonged (for lack of a better word) to the UK that to spend all that time on every countries cessation would be impossible. 
2: People from the UK tend to believe Americans spend less time learning about our history than we actually do. Since you mentioned time in schooling earlier...the year estimate I made earlier was just for high school. We also spend a year in middle school and a year in elementary school learning about that stuff as well. And a ton of students learn more in college, or on their own.
3: People from the UK think there is a mass conspiracy out there that americans are actively being taught incorrect facts. This seems to be a popular idea, but I can't wrap my head around actually thinking it's true. 





> You stated you knew little, I posted a link to help with that, what are you so crotchety about this?
> if Americans are so 'not bothered' about what you call the British 'occupancy' ( think you need to research more about that)why do so many Americans search for British roots? Many Americans at the time didn't 'rebel' against the British, they were paying far less tax than British people and had the same amount of votes as they did.... ie not very many. Universal suffrage didn't come for a very long time and it came in the UK a long time before it did in the US ( 1965 for black people in the USA)


I think you're confusing me with wandering student. Rereading his post, he mentioned not knowing a lot about it, so that explains your post and it's a good link IMO. Maybe that's also where you're reading the defensiveness and crotchetiness? I didn't see that in his post either though. I also didn't refer to it as British occupancy. I also don't have any british roots, nor would it effect me if I did. And I haven't said anything about us rebelling, the 'rightness' of that, or universal suffrage. I think you're attributing a lot of things to me I never said.



> Learning what you are taught and learning the truth are often two very different things, you always have to bear than in mind.



Okay, so you subscribe to both theory 2 and 3 from above. Are people in the UK taught two versions of events...what actually happened and what you believe Americans believe happen? I really can't wrap my head around this.



> if you really want to get Europeans and Brits mad you should start quoting the US version of the Second World War.


I might do that at some point. I took a couple electives in college focusing on WW2, so it could be fun.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Just confused about why people in Europe think they know _more_ about american history than americans




I think you have this quite mixed up, historians study history, there are a great many historian in the USA who study European history, ancient Greek, Egyptian, Roman etc etc history. I know an American professor who is an expert on the Romans in Britian. As I said, American history is part of world history which we are taught so yes we know about American history but I'm not sure why you think all Europeans know more American history than all Americans. You have some strange ideas about Europe and the Brits.




kempodisciple said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the UK is just a large state (or group of states I guess).



Miffed are you?




kempodisciple said:


> 1: People from the UK actually do know more, and spend more time learning it. That would surprise me though, since even though we are very interdependent like you said, we don't spend as much time learning about the UK's history as we do on american history, and so many countries once belonged (for lack of a better word) to the UK that to spend all that time on every countries cessation would be impossible.
> 
> Cessation? Every countries ending?
> 
> ...



Oh for good ness sake, we don't tend to go for conspiracy theories, but perhaps you want to stop Americans telling us how evolution isn't taught in many schools only Creation, how American schools don't teach properly ( not British words) this is from an American writer not British or European. Is it true, we don't actually care, it's an American thing to sort. We are somewhat busy with our own problems.


American Schools vs. the World: Expensive, Unequal, Bad at Math - The Atlantic 




kempodisciple said:


> Okay, so you subscribe to both theory 2 and 3 from above. Are people in the UK taught two versions of events...what actually happened and what you believe Americans believe happen? I really can't wrap my head around this.




Completely and utterly wrong on all counts. I think you are floating around in your own world here mate.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the UK is just a large state (or group of states I guess).



Medium sized, actually.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 31, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> I think you have this quite mixed up, historians study history, there are a great many historian in the USA who study European history, ancient Greek, Egyptian, Roman etc etc history. I know an American professor who is an expert on the Romans in Britian. As I said, American history is part of world history which we are taught so yes we know about American history but I'm not sure why you think all Europeans know more American history than all Americans. You have some strange ideas about Europe and the Brits.



I'm referring to the general public, not experts in the field. Obviously the experts are the most knowledgeable, regardless of where they're from. And I don't think europeans know more american history than americans...I think a lot of europeans think that. Which I've gathered from europeans who have both directly and indirectly said as much.





> Miffed are you?


 How is me saying I'm not offended a sign of me being miffed?






> Oh for good ness sake, we don't tend to go for conspiracy theories, but perhaps you want to stop Americans telling us how evolution isn't taught in many schools only Creation, how American schools don't teach properly ( not British words) this is from an American writer not British or European. Is it true, we don't actually care, it's an American thing to sort. We are somewhat busy with our own problems.
> 
> 
> American Schools vs. the World: Expensive, Unequal, Bad at Math - The Atlantic


 Going to have to go through that article later to read it.







> Completely and utterly wrong on all counts. I think you are floating around in your own world here mate.


You stated, or at least pretty heavily implied, that brits are in school for longer than americans. You also pretty heavily implied that I/americans did not learn the truth in school, which you've said a couple times in the past as well. You're not the only person to have done this. I'm just trying to figure out why people think this.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> And I don't think europeans know more american history than americans...I think a lot of europeans think that. Which I've gathered from europeans who have both directly and indirectly said as much.




Do you want some fish with those chips on your shoulders?



kempodisciple said:


> You stated, or at least pretty heavily implied, that brits are in school for longer than americans. You also pretty heavily implied that I/americans did not learn the truth in school, which you've said a couple times in the past as well. You're not the only person to have done this. I'm just trying to figure out why people think this.



Actually it's the other way around you implied you spent longer at school than we did so therefore studied more history. 
You may want to stop thinking you know what I mean, I rarely imply anything, others will tell you I come straight out with what I'm thinking.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 31, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Do you want some fish with those chips on your shoulders?


 Again no chip. I really am unconcerned, it just confuses me.





> Actually it's the other way around you implied you spent longer at school than we did so therefore studied more history.


No. I stated

"People seem to be taught (not you, basically any foreigner), that americans know less than everyone else about the american revolution, when in reality (I hope) we spend more time learning about it in school than any other country."

I specifically said we spent longer learning about the american revolution than others, and acknowledged it was an assumption. I said nothing about length in school in general.

I later said "Exactly. You guys have so much more to learn, in the same amount of time. So I domt get where the idea that Europeans know more about the history of the USA than americans comes from."

That's about length, but stating that we spend the same amount of time in school, not more time.



> You may want to stop thinking you know what I mean, I rarely imply anything, others will tell you I come straight out with what I'm thinking.



When you reply to a statement that we are in school the same amount of time with "In the same amount of time? Are you sure? We start school at four and a half, leave at 16 or 18, a lot of years to learn history. University and college is extra years." So you question if we spend the same amount of time in school, then state the amount that you are in school. I'm pretty sure anyone reading that would read it as you stating that brits spend more time in school than americans.

When you tell someone to research something more, and offer a correction to what you think I learned, followed by "Learning what you are taught and learning the truth are often two very different things, you always have to bear than in mind.", again, I'm pretty sure anyone reading that would read it as you stating americans (or at least me) did not learn the truth in school.

If those aren't what you meant, and what you write is different than what's in your mind, I'm not sure there's a point in continuing this conversation. I'll never know what arguments you actually mean to make, and which ones your going to backtrack on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Do you want some fish with those chips on your shoulders?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's pretty clear who has a chip on their shoulder in this conversation.


----------



## Steve (Jan 31, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> America was never 'lost' to be discovered though and the Vikings weren't the first, the indigenous population were.


says the member of kingdom formerly known as the British Empire.


----------



## Steve (Jan 31, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's pretty clear who has a chip on their shoulder in this conversation.


Are we talking about an actual chip or a fry?

Regarding my previous post, I didn't realize things were getting so heated.   I was just being a smart aleck.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's pretty clear who has a chip on their shoulder in this conversation.




Not me mate, I'm having a giraffe. Really why do people take this so seriously? is this part of the current political climate that people think their country has to be the best? Oh we know more history than anyone else, oh we spend more time in school than you do. We have the biggest bestest words...….. Nu?



Steve said:


> says the member of kingdom formerly known as the British Empire.




Actually not so much, I have dual nationality. And American Empire - New World Encyclopedia



So me dears, carry on trying to dog pile, it's amusing me no end, I always enjoy watching you trying to upset me, ain't going to happen, you all get so touchy when you assume you are being criticised, I'm not heated about this, you will find Brits are the people most likely to poke fun, denigrate and generally laugh at the 'British Empire' and themselves, if you can't laugh at yourself life is pretty pointless.


----------



## Steve (Jan 31, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Not me mate, I'm having a giraffe. Really why do people take this so seriously? is this part of the current political climate that people think their country has to be the best? Oh we know more history than anyone else, oh we spend more time in school than you do. We have the biggest bestest words...….. Nu?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, I didnt realize the heat level in the thread.   Wasn't trying to dog pile.  In spite of everyone's assurances to the contrary, it's clear by the end of the thread that folks were getting upset.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 31, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Not me mate, I'm having a giraffe. Really why do people take this so seriously? is this part of the current political climate that people think their country has to be the best? Oh we know more history than anyone else, oh we spend more time in school than you do. We have the biggest bestest words...….. Nu?


Again, none of which was said. I'm bowing out of this conversation now though, as I am getting frustrated. Not from national pride or anything like that (and I wasnt frustrated up til this post), but because I was asking questions trying to understand something, and your response was to be argumentative and change your own statements for some unknown reason, then ignoring when it was pointed out, and wasting both of our time. Not for the first time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Not me mate, I'm having a giraffe. Really why do people take this so seriously? is this part of the current political climate that people think their country has to be the best? Oh we know more history than anyone else, oh we spend more time in school than you do. We have the biggest bestest words...….. Nu?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, everyone is clearly upset except the person acting upset? Interesting theory.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, everyone is clearly upset except the person acting upset? Interesting theory.




Really, you need to stop doing this, you have been like this since you become a mod. Anyone who has been on here long enough knows I don't get 'upset' on here. I will provoke, tease, chide, be argumentative and laugh at posts but I do not get 'upset', it's the internet and you are people I don't actually know, why would I get 'upset'. Please do stop trying to think you know me, that you can read from my words what emotion you think I'm feeling, it really doesn't suit you trying to be Steve. 

kempodisciple has taken an interesting thread and turned it into his crie de coeur about how he thinks Americans are thought of outside America, that he is completely wrong and has totally not understood very much is not my fault, it's also not my fault that he has no sense of humour, who knew telling the truth about Paul Revere would cause such a reaction. 

So sweetie, as the expression goes, chillax. You get it wrong when your blood pressure goes up, mine is fine. I have only once got upset on this site and that is when, back in the days of the Study, someone, a very right wing American gentleman stated as truth that in the UK we let premature babies die to save money for the NHS, as someone who lost a premmie baby you can understand why I was upset and perhaps too why I don't get upset because someone is being obtuse and far too overly serious. If you don't then well, your loss not mine.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2019)

Steve said:


> Again, I didnt realize the heat level in the thread.   Wasn't trying to dog pile.  In spite of everyone's assurances to the contrary, it's clear by the end of the thread that folks were getting upset.




Not it's not clear, as I wasn't, why do this? why assume that a poster is 'upset', I posted a light hearted comment about Paul Revere and some other facts, another poster got upset as he thought I was criticising American education. He has a bee in his bonnet about Europeans who he thinks are saying they know more about the American Civil War than Americans do and really?  did you think I'd not laugh at that and try to disabuse him of that idea. 

The problem, as was said on another thread is that people read into others posts what they are feeling. You have no facial expression, no tone of voice to judge yet you think I was upset, you know how I write as much as anyone on here, what on earth would make you think I was 'upset', crying into my tea? Oh that's right a mod decided, and a mod jumped in with that decision so he must be right. perhaps I need to put little smileys after all my sentences to prove I'm not bothered.  

And who posts Micheal Palin videos if they are upset? 


Really gentlemen, do lighten up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Really, you need to stop doing this, you have been like this since you become a mod. Anyone who has been on here long enough knows I don't get 'upset' on here. I will provoke, tease, chide, be argumentative and laugh at posts but I do not get 'upset', it's the internet and you are people I don't actually know, why would I get 'upset'. Please do stop trying to think you know me, that you can read from my words what emotion you think I'm feeling, it really doesn't suit you trying to be Steve.
> 
> kempodisciple has taken an interesting thread and turned it into his crie de coeur about how he thinks Americans are thought of outside America, that he is completely wrong and has totally not understood very much is not my fault, it's also not my fault that he has no sense of humour, who knew telling the truth about Paul Revere would cause such a reaction.
> 
> So sweetie, as the expression goes, chillax. You get it wrong when your blood pressure goes up, mine is fine. I have only once got upset on this site and that is when, back in the days of the Study, someone, a very right wing American gentleman stated as truth that in the UK we let premature babies die to save money for the NHS, as someone who lost a premmie baby you can understand why I was upset and perhaps too why I don't get upset because someone is being obtuse and far too overly serious. If you don't then well, your loss not mine.


And again, you seem to think there's an emotional thing going on (hence "chillax" and blood pressure comments). As you seem to think there's a deep emotional content in KD's posts (hence "crie de coeur", etc.).

I'm amused.


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2019)

anyway back to the thread title, here's an article that suggests that the colonization and subsequent depopulation of the America s lead to climate change, I'm not convinced myself, 

America colonisation ‘cooled climate’


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

jobo said:


> anyway back to the thread title, here's an article that suggests that the colonization and subsequent depopulation of the America s lead to climate change, I'm not convinced myself,
> 
> America colonisation ‘cooled climate’


I'd have to see the actual data on that - it does seem a stretch. The mechanism is obviously possible, but like you, I'm not convinced.


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'd have to see the actual data on that - it does seem a stretch. The mechanism is obviously possible, but like you, I'm not convinced.


the two things that are thrownat the man made climate change model, is the medieval warm period, and the 1700/ 1800 mini ice age, both of which are completely contradictory, to man made Carbon release, if the colonization of the Americas, lead to growth of forest and carbon capture, then that would be more than off set, by the more or less complete deforestation if Europe, which was one giant forest, and them burning any thing they could dig up, to fuel the industrial Revolution,


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> And again, you seem to think there's an emotional thing going on (hence "chillax" and blood pressure comments). As you seem to think there's a deep emotional content in KD's posts (hence "crie de coeur", etc.).
> 
> I'm amused.




So you are amused and I'm not allowed to be, I see. That's not emotional language it's just English! Don't you think cri de coeur sounds much better than whinging? And 'chillax', it's a modern word used by kids, my use of it, as an old person is irony. I write exactly as I always have, I am a logophile,  I enjoy using words so that what I write doesn't sound boring, our English teacher taught us to write creatively and to never ever use the word 'nice' to describe anything. Similarly one should always endeavour to use interesting words not mundane ones. Perhaps I should dumb down my sentences and put a little emoji beside every sentence so you understand how it's meant. 


Your radar is really off, you don't know anything about me, yet insist on putting your own meanings  into my posts, it's really an odd thing to do. Keep insisting I'm 'emotional' and I shall begin to think you are actually being sexist here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

jobo said:


> the two things that are thrownat the man made climate change model, is the medieval warm period, and the 1700/ 1800 mini ice age, both of which are completely contradictory, to man made Carbon release, if the colonization of the Americas, lead to growth of forest and carbon capture, then that would be more than off set, by the more or less complete deforestation if Europe, which was one giant forest, and them burning any thing they could dig up, to fuel the industrial Revolution,


Yeah, that's why I'd have to see their full data. From the one side, there's a viable mechanism. I'm not convinced that mechanism is enough to explain that. It might offset what was going on in Europe over the same period, but it would need to do more than just offset that. It's a terribly complex system, and this report seems to jump to a conclusion quite quickly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Keep insisting I'm 'emotional' and I shall begin to think you are actually being sexist here


Nice. I think we're done here, then.


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, that's why I'd have to see their full data. From the one side, there's a viable mechanism. I'm not convinced that mechanism is enough to explain that. It might offset what was going on in Europe over the same period, but it would need to do more than just offset that. It's a terribly complex system, and this report seems to jump to a conclusion quite quickly.


Yes that's rather the point in trying to make, by jumping to the conclusion that the mini ice age was " man " made, they are removing the valid explain nation that other cycles have a massive unpack on temp and are feeding the man made climate change case.

Their data undoubtably is no where near that clear cut, but they have chosen to publicise the most news worthy interpritation


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Nice. I think we're done here, then.




We were actually done when you thought I was an easy poster to practice your mod skills on. Not so good when it's back at you is it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> We were actually done when you thought I was an easy poster to practice your mod skills on. Not so good when it's back at you is it?


I don't even know what you're on about now, Tez. You're reading a lot into posts that aren't there. Maybe chill?


----------



## Steve (Feb 1, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Not it's not clear, as I wasn't, why do this? why assume that a poster is 'upset', I posted a light hearted comment about Paul Revere and some other facts, another poster got upset as he thought I was criticising American education. He has a bee in his bonnet about Europeans who he thinks are saying they know more about the American Civil War than Americans do and really?  did you think I'd not laugh at that and try to disabuse him of that idea.
> 
> The problem, as was said on another thread is that people read into others posts what they are feeling. You have no facial expression, no tone of voice to judge yet you think I was upset, you know how I write as much as anyone on here, what on earth would make you think I was 'upset', crying into my tea? Oh that's right a mod decided, and a mod jumped in with that decision so he must be right. perhaps I need to put little smileys after all my sentences to prove I'm not bothered.
> 
> ...


youre so vain... I bet you think this post is about you.


----------



## Steve (Feb 1, 2019)

I'm irritated but not with you guys.   If that helps.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2019)

Steve said:


> I'm irritated but not with you guys.   If that helps.


Yeah, well, go get bent, Steve.

There, now are you irritated with me?


----------



## Steve (Feb 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, well, go get bent, Steve.
> 
> There, now are you irritated with me?


No but I'm pretty salty with some folks in kansas city.   I have a very short list but... Some folks are on it today.


----------



## Steve (Feb 1, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> So you are amused and I'm not allowed to be, I see. That's not emotional language it's just English! Don't you think cri de coeur sounds much better than whinging? And 'chillax', it's a modern word used by kids, my use of it, as an old person is irony. I write exactly as I always have, I am a logophile,  I enjoy using words so that what I write doesn't sound boring, our English teacher taught us to write creatively and to never ever use the word 'nice' to describe anything. Similarly one should always endeavour to use interesting words not mundane ones. Perhaps I should dumb down my sentences and put a little emoji beside every sentence so you understand how it's meant.
> 
> 
> Your radar is really off, you don't know anything about me, yet insist on putting your own meanings  into my posts, it's really an odd thing to do. Keep insisting I'm 'emotional' and I shall begin to think you are actually being sexist here.


Brits just don't understand sarcasm.   Its not your fault, Tez.   You just don't use sarcasm as pervasively as we do in the states, and so you get upset.  We don't hold it against you all.   It's just the way things are.


----------



## wanderingstudent (Feb 1, 2019)

Here in New England, once the weather gets crisp, the air is often filled with the smell of smoke from fires.  I used to think it was great, I even burned some myself.  Now, I am repulsed and think its just pollution.

I also imagine its the way the US smelled regularly, before cleaner burning fuels were used.  Native Americans used fires for heat, cooking and clearing pastures.  As, did we for heat and cooking.

Horrible.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2019)

Steve said:


> No but I'm pretty salty with some folks in kansas city.   I have a very short list but... Some folks are on it today.


Sigh. Failure for me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2019)

wanderingstudent said:


> Here in New England, once the weather gets crisp, the air is often filled with the smell of smoke from fires.  I used to think it was great, I even burned some myself.  Now, I am repulsed and think its just pollution.
> 
> I also imagine its the way the US smelled regularly, before cleaner burning fuels were used.  Native Americans used fires for heat, cooking and clearing pastures.  As, did we for heat and cooking.
> 
> Horrible.


Some folks still use it for heating. It's still cheaper than all other alternatives in some cases.


----------



## jobo (Feb 2, 2019)

wanderingstudent said:


> Here in New England, once the weather gets crisp, the air is often filled with the smell of smoke from fires.  I used to think it was great, I even burned some myself.  Now, I am repulsed and think its just pollution.
> 
> I also imagine its the way the US smelled regularly, before cleaner burning fuels were used.  Native Americans used fires for heat, cooking and clearing pastures.  As, did we for heat and cooking.
> 
> Horrible.


There's little difderance, between you burning wood to make heat and a piwer station burning coal or gas to make heat and then electricity, that you turn in to heat, just that the polutionp is somewhere else


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> There's little difderance, between you burning wood to make heat and a piwer station burning coal or gas to make heat and then electricity, that you turn in to heat, just that the polutionp is somewhere else


That’s true, though I think there’s some efficiency gained in large, engineered plants. Some (maybe all?) of that gain would be lost in transmission. Now I want to go back and look up those numbers - I recall the carbon footprint of an electric car actually being pretty high if the electricity comes from a coal-fired plant.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> There's little difderance, between you burning wood to make heat and a piwer station burning coal or gas to make heat and then electricity, that you turn in to heat, just that the polutionp is somewhere else



Well, except that those power stations have all sorts of expensive filtering system to remove the pollution before it gets into the air.


----------



## Steve (Feb 2, 2019)

Natural gas burns pretty clean but is not easily renewable.   Nuclear is also clean but the byproduct is an issue.  

Only problem with solar, wind, or hydro is storage so that you can increase supply in high demand times.  

Regarding electic cars depends on where you live.  In my area alnost all of our energy is renewable . 

And last thing, even if coal is super dirty I like that it is entirely domestic .  energy independence is a national security issue .


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 2, 2019)

Steve said:


> Natural gas burns pretty clean but is not easily renewable.



I never understood why you see gas being burned off from oil wells. Is there some technical reason why this gas cannot be captured and used?

And, given the huge amounts of empty land you see around every pumpjack, I've always thought they should diversify and stick a wind turbine there as well.



> Nuclear is also clean but the byproduct is an issue.



I honestly think the answer to this is load it on a rocket and shoot it into the sun. Since the sun is nothing more than a monster fusion reactor, you'd just be adding a minuscule amount of fuel.



> Only problem with solar, wind, or hydro is storage so that you can increase supply in high demand times.



Well, there are some relatively small problems. Things like wind turbines chopping up birds (some of which are protected species).


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 2, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I never understood why you see gas being burned off from oil wells. Is there some technical reason why this gas cannot be captured and used?
> 
> And, given the huge amounts of empty land you see around every pumpjack, I've always thought they should diversify and stick a wind turbine there as well.
> 
> ...


Sending a rocket towards the sun would be quite expensive. Sure it’s all momentum once you escape earth’s gravity, but it’s expensive getting to that point. Factor in the price of the rocket and fuel. Then add the cargo capacity isn’t all that great.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 2, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Sending a rocket towards the sun would be quite expensive. Sure it’s all momentum once you escape earth’s gravity, but it’s expensive getting to that point. Factor in the price of the rocket and fuel. Then add the cargo capacity isn’t all that great.



It's a lot cheaper than safely storing it on earth for the thousands or millions of years it takes to decay.
And, as with any other technology, it's reasonable to think that space launches will become cheaper over time, as technology improves. Especially when you can eliminate the need to protect fragile humans.


----------



## jobo (Feb 2, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I never understood why you see gas being burned off from oil wells. Is there some technical reason why this gas cannot be captured and used?
> 
> And, given the huge amounts of empty land you see around every pumpjack, I've always thought they should diversify and stick a wind turbine there as well.
> 
> ...


no only economic ones, its a waste product in very small amounts, capturing it isn't worth the trouble, unless its a gas field where there's lots of it,



Dirty Dog said:


> I never understood why you see gas being burned off from oil wells. Is there some technical reason why this gas cannot be captured and used?
> 
> And, given the huge amounts of empty land you see around every pumpjack, I've always thought they should diversify and stick a wind turbine there as well.
> 
> ...


???? the sun uses hydrogen for fuel and makes ( amongst other things) uranium as a byproduct, it really doesn't need anymore


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 2, 2019)

jobo said:


> ???? the sun uses hydrogen for fuel and makes ( amongst other things) uranium as a byproduct, it really doesn't need anymore



It needs it more than we need it here.
The point was (since you apparently missed it) that there is no reason to think that dumping nuclear waste into the sun could hurt anything. Dumping it here, on the other hand...


----------



## jobo (Feb 2, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> It needs it more than we need it here.
> The point was (since you apparently missed it) that there is no reason to think that dumping nuclear waste into the sun could hurt anything. Dumping it here, on the other hand...


we'll_  no, it has more than we do it doesn't need it any more than we do.

the flaw with your plan apart from the cost of sending more than a few pounds of the stuff. well a few pounds would be outrageous. a few tons mind blowing. is what happens when the rocket blows up in earths atmosphere. which you may have notices happens from time to time. then it sweeps round the globe and kills everyone eventually. you may as well just post a bit to everyon e. it would have much the same effect


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> It's a lot cheaper than safely storing it on earth for the thousands or millions of years it takes to decay.
> And, as with any other technology, it's reasonable to think that space launches will become cheaper over time, as technology improves. Especially when you can eliminate the need to protect fragile humans.


I've sometimes wondered if it wouldn't be possible to make a huge rail gun for that purpose. No need for a rocket - just encase the spent fuel in a protective shell (could be cast around it) and fire it out of the atmosphere, then let momentum and Sol's gravity do the rest.


----------



## jobo (Feb 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I've sometimes wondered if it wouldn't be possible to make a huge rail gun for that purpose. No need for a rocket - just encase the spent fuel in a protective shell (could be cast around it) and fire it out of the atmosphere, then let momentum and Sol's gravity do the rest.


I think you may need to do some calcs on the viability of that, ! there's a quarter of a million tons of the stuff lying about,  your going to cast it in steel, so we can times that by 100?  so 250 million tons, and you have to break that down by the technology we have to fire an object at 25,000 mph, to determine how long it would take to reduce it by say 50%  and most importantly how much energy it would take to move that mass out of orbit, I suspect they would need to build some more nuclear power stations to do that, which then began the question of are you removing it faster than your making it, with each power station producing 27 tons a year, 270 tons armfter you've cast it


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2019)

jobo said:


> I think you may need to do some calcs on the viability of that, ! there's a quarter of a million tons of the stuff lying about,  your going to cast it in steel, so we can times that by 100?  so 250 million tons, and you have to break that down by the technology we have to fire an object at 25,000 mph, to determine how long it would take to reduce it by say 50%  and most importantly how much energy it would take to move that mass out of orbit, I suspect they would need to build some more nuclear power stations to do that, which then began the question of are you removing it faster than your making it, with each power station producing 27 tons a year, 270 tons armfter you've cast it


I read an article some years ago (more than a decade, probably closer to two) about the viability of rail-gun-type launches for spacecraft. Apparently, it's something that's actually technologically feasible. A long launch rail, at the right angle, was said to be capable of a more gradual acceleration that would still be sufficient for reaching orbit. Given the density of spent uranium (it's much denser than lead, for instance), a cast steel capsule around it won't add 100X the weight - likely something closer to 25%.

But, yeah, it's a question whether it would even be feasible to launch at the rate it's produced. Still, something worth wondering.


----------



## jobo (Feb 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I read an article some years ago (more than a decade, probably closer to two) about the viability of rail-gun-type launches for spacecraft. Apparently, it's something that's actually technologically feasible. A long launch rail, at the right angle, was said to be capable of a more gradual acceleration that would still be sufficient for reaching orbit. Given the density of spent uranium (it's much denser than lead, for instance), a cast steel capsule around it won't add 100X the weight - likely something closer to 25%.
> 
> But, yeah, it's a question whether it would even be feasible to launch at the rate it's produced. Still, something worth wondering.



 if you out it in  a steel cylinder yiul just have a radioactive steel cylinder, youl need to encase it so its safe to handle,
how long is this rail gun, it will have to be doingg 25 , 000 mph by the time it reaches low earth orbit or at best youl have a radio active satalite, looking for an excuse to fall to earth
as there's no propulsion after its left the rail gun, then it needs to be doing more than that as it leaves the muzzle,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2019)

jobo said:


> if you out it in  a steel cylinder yiul just have a radioactive steel cylinder, youl need to encase it so its safe to handle,
> how long is this rail gun, it will have to be doingg 25 , 000 mph by the time it reaches low earth orbit or at best youl have a radio active satalite, looking for an excuse to fall to earth
> as there's no propulsion after its left the rail gun, then it needs to be doing more than that as it leaves the muzzle,


As I recall, the article talked about using a mile-long rail to keep the acceleration gentle. In this case, that wouldn't be necessary. I have no idea how long a rail would be needed to launch a mass out of orbit.

As for the radioactive steel, that's a good point. Probably would need some shielding. I don't know how much it would take, though, since we're not talking about making it safe to live beside - just containing the material during the exit from the atmosphere.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 4, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> As I recall, the article talked about using a mile-long rail to keep the acceleration gentle. In this case, that wouldn't be necessary. I have no idea how long a rail would be needed to launch a mass out of orbit.
> 
> As for the radioactive steel, that's a good point. Probably would need some shielding. I don't know how much it would take, though, since we're not talking about making it safe to live beside - just containing the material during the exit from the atmosphere.


They can make the rocket out of those black boxes they use for airplane communications. 

Then again, why didn’t anyone think to make the whole plane out of the black box instead of a small part?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 4, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> As a point of order here...
> 
> Old sources aren’t always accurate. Facts handed down aren’t very accurate either.
> 
> ...


They only way we learned that history was incorrect, is that we began to walk history backwards from different perspectives.   History becomes more accurate as different cultural perspectives are added.  It's becomes less about "Who discovered America first" and more about what other things were going on around that time.

Something occurred to me a few mornings ago that was really simple.  I looked at the moon and saw that it had a round shadow.  The only thing that makes a round shadows are round objects.  It didn't take a lot of math to make sense of it.  For me it was the first non-scientific rationalization that the earth is round.  The simplicity of it was also my first realization of how easy other people could have figured that out.   If you use the sun and the shadows to measure time, then you would be pretty good with reading shadows.  And the theory of "the earth is flat" just became propaganda.  

Contrary to what history as told us.  More people probably accepted that the earth was round before it became a christian controversy.  To my knowledge only Christians thought and advertised that the world is flat.  I can't find that same argument from other cultures.   This just shows how important it is to look at history from a much bigger view sometimes than to try to determine "who was first."


----------



## jobo (Feb 4, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> They only way we learned that history was incorrect, is that we began to walk history backwards from different perspectives.   History becomes more accurate as different cultural perspectives are added.  It's becomes less about "Who discovered America first" and more about what other things were going on around that time.
> 
> Something occurred to me a few mornings ago that was really simple.  I looked at the moon and saw that it had a round shadow.  The only thing that makes a round shadows are round objects.  It didn't take a lot of math to make sense of it.  For me it was the first non-scientific rationalization that the earth is round.  The simplicity of it was also my first realization of how easy other people could have figured that out.   If you use the sun and the shadows to measure time, then you would be pretty good with reading shadows.  And the theory of "the earth is flat" just became propaganda.
> 
> Contrary to what history as told us.  More people probably accepted that the earth was round before it became a christian controversy.  To my knowledge only Christians thought and advertised that the world is flat.  I can't find that same argument from other cultures.   This just shows how important it is to look at history from a much bigger view sometimes than to try to determine "who was first."


the Christ ian churCH were not advocating the world was flat, they were advocating the earth was at the centre of the universe, which as far as anyone can actually measure it, that's exact ly where it is, so they were right all along,


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 4, 2019)

jobo said:


> the Christ ian churCH were not advocating the world was flat, they were advocating the earth was at the centre of the universe, which as far as anyone can actually measure it, that's exact ly where it is, so they were right all along,


By the earth being the center of the universe, they were also saying everything revolves around the earth. Except for the moon, they were wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2019)

jobo said:


> the Christ ian churCH were not advocating the world was flat, they were advocating the earth was at the centre of the universe, which as far as anyone can actually measure it, that's exact ly where it is, so they were right all along,


They weren't precise enough. I am the center of the universe.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 4, 2019)

jobo said:


> the Christ ian churCH were not advocating the world was flat, they were advocating the earth was at the centre of the universe, which as far as anyone can actually measure it, that's exact ly where it is, so they were right all along,


Thanks for the correction.  It was the center of the universe and that everything revolves around the earth, not flat.  I got it mixed up.  



gpseymour said:


> They weren't precise enough. I am the center of the universe.


Since you are the center of the universe.  I think we need 3 day weekends.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Since you are the center of the universe. I think we need 3 day weekends.


I don't control things. Everything just revolves around me.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 4, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't control things. Everything just revolves around me.


Very good response Sir.  I yield lol.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 4, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't control things. Everything just revolves around me.


Damn it, I had a few requests too. Nothing too complicated. Just having enough money to never have to worry about money again and enough be able to buy and do whatever I want whenever I want. Within reason, of course.

Is that really too much to ask?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 5, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Damn it, I had a few requests too. Nothing too complicated. Just having enough money to never have to worry about money again and enough be able to buy and do whatever I want whenever I want. Within reason, of course.
> 
> Is that really too much to ask?


The Hobbit and I keep wondering that same thing. It seems a small thing.


----------



## wanderingstudent (Feb 6, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Damn it, I had a few requests too. Nothing too complicated. Just having enough money to never have to worry about money again and enough be able to buy and do whatever I want whenever I want. Within reason, of course.
> 
> Is that really too much to ask?



I've come to feel rich people telling you "you don't want all this money, it only brings problems".  Is a way of keeping poorer people, in check.  After all, there are more poor people than rich.

Socially, there should be safe, affordable housing for all people.

One verse of the Tao Te Ching had me messed up, for awhile:

...On the path to enlightenment, there should be no wanting and not wanting...

The problem I had with it was, our wanting is what makes us human.  Our desires help fuel our progression.  We might as well all be living in caves, no running water/heat/electricity.

Anyway, I've adjusted and while I might not run out and buy that brand new curved screen 120" LCD TV, out of wanting; that is will be the replacement for when my current TV breaks.


Jon


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2019)

wanderingstudent said:


> I've come to feel rich people telling you "you don't want all this money, it only brings problems".  Is a way of keeping poorer people, in check.  After all, there are more poor people than rich.
> 
> Socially, there should be safe, affordable housing for all people.
> 
> ...


The wealthy and rich folks I've known always said quite the opposite: "If you get a chance, you've gotta try this!"


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 6, 2019)

wanderingstudent said:


> I've come to feel rich people telling you "you don't want all this money, it only brings problems".  Is a way of keeping poorer people, in check.  After all, there are more poor people than rich.
> 
> Socially, there should be safe, affordable housing for all people.
> 
> ...


You bring up some very good points. There’s the saying “money isn’t everything.” I highly doubt that was ever said by a parent who had no idea where dinner was coming from that night. Sure it’s not everything, but it’s definitely important. Homes, food, clothing, etc. all cost money. 

I know enough wealthy people. I mean genuinely wealthy. They’ve got their inherent problems too. A college friend’s father has an American Express black card. He couldn’t help but wonder sometimes who was genuinely his friend and who was looking for a handout. As for dating women, that was a million times worse. He’s a great guy and has a great head on his shoulders, but not everyone else does. 

Another thought...

Looking at my friends and family my age, there’s a common theme. The day to day crap we don’t want to do runs us down. Grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, fixing stuff around the house; stuff like that. Having enough money to pay someone to do that stuff for you would definitely cut down on a lot domestic squabbles. I like cooking dinner and fixing stuff now and then, I’d love to be able to do that stuff when I feel like doing it instead of when I have to do it. And someone else doing that stuff for us leaves a lot more time to do fun stuff.


----------



## Steve (Feb 6, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The wealthy and rich folks I've known always said quite the opposite: "If you get a chance, you've gotta try this!"


Money.  I'd much rather have it than not. 

But, I have to ask, what's the difference between rich and wealthy?
Just out of curiosity, what's the threshold for being rich, in your opinions?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2019)

Steve said:


> Money.  I'd much rather have it than not.
> 
> But, I have to ask, what's the difference between rich and wealthy?
> Just out of curiosity, what's the threshold for being rich, in your opinions?


I picked up a rough distinction from folks in and near those categories, so there's not a specific threshold. "Rich" is having enough money that you never have to think about it. "Wealthy" is having enough money your kids won't ever have to, either. Basically, if it's enough (barring extreme mismanagement) to change the financial standing of your entire family line, it's "wealth".


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 6, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I picked up a rough distinction from folks in and near those categories, so there's not a specific threshold. "Rich" is having enough money that you never have to think about it. "Wealthy" is having enough money your kids won't ever have to, either. Basically, if it's enough (barring extreme mismanagement) to change the financial standing of your entire family line, it's "wealth".


I always pictured it the opposite. Wealthy is knowing that you're set. Rich is being way way way above set.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 6, 2019)

Steve said:


> Money.  I'd much rather have it than not.
> 
> But, I have to ask, what's the difference between rich and wealthy?
> Just out of curiosity, what's the threshold for being rich, in your opinions?





gpseymour said:


> I picked up a rough distinction from folks in and near those categories, so there's not a specific threshold. "Rich" is having enough money that you never have to think about it. "Wealthy" is having enough money your kids won't ever have to, either. Basically, if it's enough (barring extreme mismanagement) to change the financial standing of your entire family line, it's "wealth".





kempodisciple said:


> I always pictured it the opposite. Wealthy is knowing that you're set. Rich is being way way way above set.



I always thought they were interchangeable.


----------



## Steve (Feb 6, 2019)

Growing up in Texas, me and my friends had a simple test for being such.  All you had to have was one of these three things: a theater in your house, a bowling alley in your house, or an indoor pool.  Pretty straightforward.

Never heard any distinction between rich and wealthy before.   I guess we are rich.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 7, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I always pictured it the opposite. Wealthy is knowing that you're set. Rich is being way way way above set.


Until I had these kinds of discussions with people with money, I'd never given the distinction any thought. But as I think about it, you can "get rich" (we even talk about "get rich quick schemes"), but you rarely hear about someone "getting wealthy". Though the term "wealth management" really just refers (in banking) to managing reasonably large sums of money.


----------

