Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Britain's greatest gift to the world
Science 11%
Literature 11%
Music 8%
Art 0%
Filmmaking 11%
Democracy 8%
Freedom 8%
World peace 38%

Votes: 34

 Celebrating 2000 Years of British Achievement

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Dec 31, 2001
As another year draws to a close, the mainstream media is dominated by reviews, repeats and recaps of the previous twelve months' events ad nauseam. 2001 will be remembered as the year in which the world was forever changed by the terrorist atrocities in America and the resulting aftermath in which the civilised world united against terrorism and overthrew Afghanistan's brutal Taleban regime.

While the drooling classes are occupied with their reminiscences on the recent past, the intellectual elite may take time out to consider the bigger picture. When one ponders the many factors that have shaped the modern world, not just over one year but during the previous two millennia, it is apparent that one nation has had a more profound effect on our lives than any other: Great Britain. It therefore seems fitting to celebrate the distinguished achievements of this fine nation and to appreciate the many ways in which the world has been enriched by the Empire upon which the sun never sets.


More stories about Elitism
What a bunch of elitist indie kids
Memoirs of an Ex-Southpaw: a Report from the Trenches
Arrested Development (Part One): Saving the Human Race
The Real Darwin Awards
Harnessing the Computational Power of Autism
AOL - The Saviour of the Internet
The rise of pseudo-connoisseurship and beer
The Democratization of Status. Rap music is to blame.
Are you Adequate?
It's Time We Rounded Up Rich White Males
Why I want to be an American Citizen
God Bless you your Majesty, salutes you!
Hacker Culture and its Misportrayal by Media and Government
Engineers, the silent, Anti-Social Killers

More stories by

Pet Ownership - Killing Through Kindness
Arrested Development (Part One): Saving the Human Race
Newbie's Guide to Online Gaming
Review: Linux Mandrake 8.1
Kill Yr Idols: Kurt Cobain
Avatars and the Telecommunications Revolution
Exploding the Myths of Teenage Drug Use
One of the Britain's greatest legacies is the enormous contribution it has made to science. For example, Sir Isaac Newton, the world's first scientist, achieved more during his brief lifetime than the combined efforts of the all the scientists of many lesser nations. It is hard to overstate the impact that Newton's work had on our lives. Newton's invention of gravity revolutionised the world and helped to make habitation on this hostile planet a little bit more hospitable. Furthermore, by creating the first Laws of Physics, Sir Isaac Newton devised a framework that brought order to the chaos of everyday existence. So unparalleled were Newton's knowledge and insight that his laws have only recently been replaced by those of another great Englishman, Sir Albert Einstein.

Sir Isaac Newton was just the first in a long line of distinguished British scientists. It is hard to imagine how different the modern world would be without electricity or magnetism. Fortunately, both of these phenomena were invented by the celebrated collaboration between Sir Michael Faraday and Sir James Clerk Maxwell. These inventions were the foundations of the Telecommunications Revolution, which blossomed due to the determined efforts of Britons including: Sir Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; Sir John Logie Baird, inventor of the television; Sir Guglielmo Marconi, inventor of radio; Sir Alan Turing and Sir Charles Babbage, inventors of the computer; Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the Internet. Britain's place at the forefront of scientific endeavour has continued throughout 2001, culminating with the groundbreaking invention of the human genome, which promises to create a new breed of superhumans.

Great Britain's scientific achievements are rivalled only by its preeminence in the production of music, literature and fine art. Throughout history, British composers have always been at the vanguard of developments in music. From Sir Thomas Tallis's groundbreaking work in polyphonic music and Sir George Frederick Handel's invention of opera through to Sir John Strauss's pioneering waltzes, Britain has defined music as we know it. To this day, Britain keeps its finger on the pulse of popular music, with contemporary artists including The Beatles, Pink Floyd and Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber achieving enormous commercial success.

It goes without saying that all of humanity's greatest literature was written by Englishmen. As the first language to have a dictionary and thanks to its large vocabulary and elegant grammatical structure, English quickly became the language of choice for discerning poets, playwrights and novelists. While authors from other countries have consistently failed to achieve any lasting success, countless native Anglophones including Sir Geoffrey Chaucer, Sir William Shakespeare and Sir Charles Dickens have set the standards for fine literature. British artists have also made an impression on society, thanks to the efforts of Sir Joseph Turner, Sir Anthony Van Dyke, Sir Laurence Stephen Lowry and Sir Tracy Emin. Clearly, the British have an unparalleled natural ability to produce artistic works of the greatest aesthetic appeal.

Great Britain's most important gift to the world, however, has been in ensuring the freedom of people all over the globe. As the world's first democracy, Britain introduced civilised society to all of the world's continents. Celebrated British explorers including Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir James Cook, Sir Francis Drake and Sir Christopher Columbus eagerly sought out new lands and liberated their inhabitants from their humble lives by introducing them to the British way of life. That such great democratic nations as the United States of America, Canada, Australia and India have arisen from former British colonies is testament to the vision of a civilised society brought to their shores by the early British pioneers.

In more recent times, Great Britain has fought tirelessly to liberate the citizens of lesser countries from tyranny and oppression. In two World Wars and conflicts in the Falkland Islands, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, countless courageous Britons have selflessly sacrificed their lives in the defence of the British ideals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Sadly, it is all too often forgotten that the free world owes a great debt of gratitude to the brave citizens of Great Britain.

Great Britain's benign guiding influence has enriched all of our lives. The British people have given many great gifts to the world yet have neither asked for nor received anything in return. Fortunately, so long as this great nation continues to prosper, we can rest assured the future of our world is safe in the hands of the benevolent British Empire.

ADDENDUM The New Year Honours List has been announced today, in which the achievement of several great Britons is formally recognised by the Queen. While it is a hard task to select just a few worthy citizens from the huge number of deserving and distinguished Britons, I think we can all agree that Her Majesty has chosen to honour a fine collection of outstanding Britons this year.

Recipients of the honour of Knight of the British Empire (KBE) include the actor Ben Kingsley, film director Alan Parker and the veteran broadcaster Jimmy Young.

The Commander of the British Empire (CBE) is awarded to brothers Barry, Maurice and Robin Gibb of the popular band "The Bee Gees", world heavyweight boxing champion Lennox Lewis and opera sensation Lesley Garrett.

New Officers of the British Empire (OBE) include: Nasser Hussain, captain of England's all-conquering cricket team; Graham Taylor, former manager of the national football team who masterminded England's 1994 World Cup campaign; and Sade, the chart-topping singer

The honour of Member of the British Empire (MBE) is bestowed upon the popular singer Daniel O'Donnell and Gary McAllister, the veteran footballer whose career has begun to wane in recent years.

On behalf of the editors and readers of, I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to these great British citizens and to thank them for all they have done to improve the lives of people all over the globe.


Thank you very much (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by hulver on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 08:14:11 AM PST
It's nice to see such a clear and accurate list of British achievements without all the rewriting of history that the Americans seem to do so much of these days.

Full marks to you sir.


Yes (none / 0) (#11)
by iat on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 09:16:27 AM PST
Who could forget Hollywood's recent abomination, U-571, which claimed that the Americans captured an Enigma machine from a German U-Boat? As we all know, it was the British who captured the Enigma machine and who, thanks to the genius of Sir Alan Turing, decoded German messages. If it wasn't for British bravery or code-breaking genius, France would still be occupied by the Germans. The Americans feel a sense of national guilt for their hesitancy in entering the Second World War and are trying save face by brainwashing the public with revisionist stories like U-571. - love it or leave it.

Suggestion (none / 0) (#69)
by hauntedattics on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 10:23:20 AM PST
U-571 may be an historical abomination, but it's fun to watch after getting completely hammered and make vulgar homoerotic comments after each jewel of dialogue.

You know what, scratch that, Top Gun is much more fun to watch that way. You can make fun of the haircuts at the same time.

One minor point (3.00 / 1) (#12)
by ausduck on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 10:11:02 AM PST
While the majority of your article was flawless, I am afraid that as an Australian I have to point out that Nasser Hussain is not the captain of an "all-conquering" team. England were obliterated 4-1 by Australia this year.
He also holds his bat too low to do well, but that is off-topic.

How Very New World of you (none / 0) (#13)
by bc on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 10:16:40 AM PST
'Tis not whether you win or lose, but the spirit in which you play the game.

Ever since the bodyline series the Australians have shown they are nothing but a bunch of carpers, with a disgraceful 'win at all costs' attitude.

In England, sport is treated as a gentlemanly reccreation, you can keep your 'winner take all' attitude. It is impossibly gauche.

♥, bc.

Re: One minor point (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 10:20:37 AM PST
> I am afraid

do not be afraid!

> Nasser Hussain is not the captain of an "all-conquering" team

in a way he is, like 'conquered all but those he did not conquer'. Now it's true for values of 'all' which are both zero and non-zero, which is a much more relevant, and accurate, statement.

i also think it's only fair to point as well that david beckham didn't let a single goal in all year, making that now a ten-year run.

bungatron at hotmail dot com

Bah (none / 0) (#26)
by iat on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 02:15:28 AM PST
England were obliterated 4-1 by Australia this year.

You can prove anything by quoting a few numbers and claiming that's "statistically accurate". It's well known that numbers can be easily manipulated to prove any point of view, no matter how incorrect, so I therefore refute your comment until you can provide me with some real evidence.

I am afraid that as an Australian

This sentence reveals your motivation for trying to fool us with deceptive statistics. You are still bitter and resentful about the fact that Australia is no longer part of the glorious Empire, instead being relegated to the less glamorous Commonwealth. While I can understand how angry you must feel that your third world nation has fallen from the reflected greatness of Britain's shadow, there really is no need to spread evil lies on Adequacy. It would be far more useful for you to spend your time writing letters to your elected representatives begging that Australia be re-admitted into the Empire. - love it or leave it.

Okay then, how about non-statistics (none / 0) (#30)
by ausduck on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 11:01:37 AM PST
I don't know what would constitute "real evidence", so I will merely give the following.
The following is what Alec Stewart (England wicket-keeper) wrote in his CricInfo diary after the series: "Looking back at the Ashes series, I think 4-1 was probably a fair reflection of the way the two teams played. We had one good day in the whole series - the final day at Headingley - and apart from that we were struggling to win the important sessions."

Phil Tufnell (member of England team when Aussie captain Steve Waugh, despite an injured leg, hit 150+):
"As I think someone might have said before, cricket's a funny old game. Though what is quite so amusing about being flayed around by some of the best batsmen in the world on one of the flattest pitches around on one of the hottest days of the year did just escape me for a moment." (

Also, I am a republican, and am disappointed that the monarchist Howard won the election. Just because I respect British accomplishments doesn't mean that I want to start singing God Save the Queen.

common mistake (1.00 / 2) (#15)
by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 12:08:55 PM PST
In your article you credit Tim Berners-Lee as the creator of the Internet. However, he was actually the creator of the World Wide Web. People often use these terms to mean the same thing. The easiest way to remember the diferrernce is to know that the WWW exists within the Internet. It is only a small of piece of the whole.

Also I would like to mention that Einstein was not an englishmen. He was a German-Swiss-U.S. scientist. Born to a Jewish family in Ulm (1879), he grew up in Munich, and his family moved to Switzerland in 1894.

He received his doctorate from the Univ. of Zurich in 1905, the same year he won international fame with the publication of three articles: one on Brownian motion, demonstrating the existence of molecules; one on the photoelectric effect, in which he demonstrated the particle nature of light; and one on his special theory of relativity, which included his formulation of the equivalence of mass and energy (E = mc2).

Fast Forward >>
He resigned his position at the Prussian Academy when A. Hitler came to power and moved to Princeton, N.J., where he joined the Institute for Advanced Study. Though a longtime pacifist, he was instrumental in persuading Pres. F. Roosevelt in 1939 to initiate the Manhattan Project for the production of an atomic bomb, a technology his own theories greatly furthered, though he did not work on the project himself.

The most eminent scientist in the world in the postwar years, he declined an offer to become the first prime minister of Israel and became a strong advocate for nuclear disarmament.

He died in Princeton, April 18, 1955.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

ummm, no (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by philipm on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:59:25 PM PST
einstein spent his critical years in britain. Just becuase he lived in some other places doesn't mean you can discount his english heritage.

Do you even respect international law? Maybe you are against jews as well?


no (none / 0) (#21)
by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 07:03:57 PM PST
I don't have anything against anyone based on race, culture or religion. I could care less. Prejudice is a tool of the weak minded.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

What about Cuisine? (none / 0) (#18)
by RobotSlave on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 03:23:37 PM PST
The world owes a debt of gratitude to Britain for its tremndous contributions to the culinary arts, including such delights as fish and chips, kippers, boiled beef, and curry.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Ah, but you neglect tikka masala -nt- (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 11:50:44 AM PST

A tear in my eye. (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 04:08:15 PM PST
God save the Queen.

Finance (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 05:42:55 PM PST
You alla seem to be forgetting GB's great achievements in finance.
Finance (economy, business, trade, maritime, industry, market etc) is both an art and a science.
GB has contributed in many ways. Great pioneers like Sir Adam Smith, Sir Margaret Thatcher, Sir Ford (automobiles i dont recall his name) have given a new perspective to worldwide economy.
Let us not forget the lubricant of global economy, the brittish pound. It is common knowledge that the US $ and the newly born Euro will one day merge under the Pound's umbrella ( when of course the US nad EU are as developped and advanced as GB).
In conclusion Brittons have proven to be the greatest artist in this field and thanks to them we are capable today of globalization.

First Democracy? (none / 0) (#22)
by joophy on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 07:12:05 PM PST
you know, i was pretty sure that a little town called athens was the first democracy about a few thousand years ago. but anyways, Britain rules all in Europe.

Britain's Proudest Acheivement (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 01:14:57 AM PST
Don't overlook Britain's proudest accomplishment, the United States of America. Brits have a right to hold their heads high over the USA's great achievements in democracy, capitalism, the dissemination of liberty, global pop-culture dominance, and Olympic medal-winning. America has saved the world from fascism and communism in the 20th century, and will save the world from Islamic fanaticism in the 21st.

The great deeds of the USA would however never have been possible without 1776 years of British Culture and history to build off. For America is just the extension and perfection of the natural development of British history. Just as the greatest computer operating system in the world, Linux, was developed from the UNICS operating system of the 1970's and '80's, so the USA is Linux to Great Britain's UNICS. God Save the Queen and God Bless the USA.

You forgot some great british men: (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 05:05:01 AM PST
  • Music: U2, ACDC, Metallica
  • Science: David Hilbert, Max Planck, Blaise Pascal
  • Politics: Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Lancelot of Windsor
  • Explorers: Sir Louis Armstrong, Sir Juri Gagarin (his parents were British citizens)

Einstien, Händel were Britts? (1.00 / 1) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 07:14:40 AM PST
Einstien and Händel were German.
Guglielmo Marconi was Italian.
Christopher Columbus was Italian-Spanish.

Is this a joke I didn't get?

you thick foreigner you (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 12:03:09 PM PST
How dare you Sir!

Of course they were English. Albert was born in Sudbury-On-Thames, Thomas in Cheam and Christopher was in Scunthorpe.

British standards (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 08:30:45 AM PST
You obviously have not heeded the advice of the article below this one.

The first scientist was in fact Archimedes, who made practical use of the theories of the first mathemetician, Euclid.

A couple of other points. Columbus was Portugese. And Einstein was American.

This is not to say I disagree - the British have indeed been the greatest civilization to ever exist. However, it would have been wise to use British standards of research while writing it.

einstein was austrian (none / 0) (#32)
by PotatoError on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 11:45:08 AM PST
..or swiss or german. but one of those.

it's spelled australian n/t (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by dirty monkey man on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 12:58:07 PM PST

Just like Hitler. (-) (none / 0) (#48)
by tkatchev on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 01:01:23 PM PST

Peace and much love...

As a person of letters ... (none / 0) (#31)
by pyramid termite on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 11:22:35 AM PST
... I simply have to add to your list. What would British Literature be without the fine contributions of Sir T.S. Eliot and Sir James Joyce, not to mention Sir Agatha Christie and Sir Barbara Cartland?
He who hides his madman, dies voiceless - Henri Michaux

The Americans r gonna LOVE this when they get up! (1.00 / 1) (#34)
by PotatoError on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 11:53:03 AM PST

England's contributions were not all positive (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by moriveth on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 02:34:52 PM PST
For example:

Oscar Wilde, pervert.

Karl Marx, Communist.

Margaret Thatcher, fascist.

Ezra Pound, anti-poet.

Henry VIII, enemy of the Bride of Christ.

Benjamin Britten, child molester.

Indeed, England's efforts against civilization are unparalleled save perhaps for Islam.

not to mention... (none / 0) (#36)
by joophy on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 04:37:55 PM PST
enslaving a quater of the earth.

Dont forget buggery. (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:43:28 PM PST
We know it anecdotally as "anal sex". It might have been developed as a trojan horse meant to penetrate and dissolve the social fabric of heathen states hostile to the Empire. The boys at Cambridge were certainly very inspired in their inventiveness whenever pressed into wartime research. But all that's conjecture, and anyway, it's not worth losing one's panties over.

I have to take issue with you. (none / 0) (#39)
by dmg on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 07:09:49 PM PST
Margaret Thatcher was not a Fascist.

The left wingers always start name-calling and getting their panties in a bunch about Mrs T because she knew their game and stood up to them revolutionizing British society in the process.

Lady Thacher was a Conservative, a Euro Skeptic, and a Montetarist. One who follows the economic doctrines of Milton Friedman (recipient of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science and the Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago) the author of one of the seminal economic texts of the 20th century Capitalism and Freedom which explains why capitalism and freedom are better than any other system of government.

Mrs Thatcher was a strong believer in Law and Order, as this quote clearly demonstrates.
  • "You saw the scenes which went on on the television last night. I must tell you that what we've got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must NOT succeed!"
    On the miners (during the bloody fight against violent left-wing radical miners at Orgreave, 1984).

    When Thatcher came to power, Britain was in a mess. Thatcher basically stopped the rot, and smashed the left wing in the UK. They have yet to recover.

    If you want to call someone a Fascist, Tony Blair fits the bill far more than Mrs Thatcher ever could. He is busy destroying everything that Mrs Thatcher worked for, and has introduced more centralized controls and regulations that make him almost dictatorial in his powers, singlehandedly turning Britain into a police state

    It is careless of you to throw terms around like 'Fascist' without really analysing what has happened to Britain. Blair is a de-facto democratic Fascist albeit with a benign public image. Thatcher was only guilty of sensible economic policies, such as not spending money you don't have.

    I have yet to meet anyone in Britain (left wing or right wing) with a single good word to say about Tony Blair. It's fair to say he is a hate figure over there. Even the Communist mayor of London with his plans to charge drivers $10 per day to drive on public roads is less hated.

    To sum up, Mrs Thatcher reversed Britain's economic decline by rolling back socialism, strengthened the country's defenses leading Britain to victory in the Falklands War, and was a staunch anti-communist. It is fair to say that the only thing that prevented Europe from falling victim to Soviet-style Communism was the fact that Thatcher was prepared to allow US Nuclear Weapons onto British soil while European socialist countries such as Belgium and Germany vacillated.

    I could write pages and pages on why Thatcher was the saviour of Great Britain, but life is short, so I leave you with this thought:
    Mrs Thatcher had more in common with the Founding Fathers of the USA than she did with Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Mitterand or any other European Fascist leaders. Who would you rather have running the USA ? GW Bush, or Margaret Thatcher ?

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

  • I fear I must take issue with you, dmg (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by moriveth on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 08:08:42 PM PST
    Your point that Maggie Thatcher does not fit the strictest definition of the term "fascist" is indeed well-taken. Yet I still must disagree with your assessment of the Lady of Iron--and particularly your implication that Mrs Thatcher was a superior leader to President George W. Bush.

    Mrs Thatcher's self-destructive arrogance is well-established--need I provide a helpful link for the term "poll tax?" I hope not, because I have no intention of doing any research to prove the fact that Mrs Thatcher was a rabid bitch-queen. Likewise, although Mrs Thatcher was indeed a resolute cold warrior, her contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union fades to insignificance next to that of President Ronald Reagan.

    Lastly, I feel I should correct your dismissive attitude towards George W. Bush, or as we affectionately term him, Dubya. While Dubya is frequently mocked, especially by bigoted anti-Americans overseas, he has actually been an extremely effective president. Dubya takes a laid-back, relaxed approach to the presidency reminescent of Reagan, perhaps the greatest president since Lincoln. And look where micromanagement got Nixon and Clinton!

    Throughout the recent crisis--more trying than any Mrs Thatcher endured--Dubya has stood firm for freedom and democracy. If his obvious personal warmth and firm conservative principles aren't enough for you, his strong religious faith should seal the deal: Dubya's for real.

    The proof, as they say, is in the polling: more Americans approve of Dubya's presidency than of any administration since his father's! Clearly, whatever your opinions of the man, Dubya must be doing something right to be as conservative as Mrs Thatcher and yet far more popular.

    George Bush a good president...wake up. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:14:40 PM PST
    George Bush is a moron...he has shown that from the day that they took the silver spoon out of his mouth. His financial plan is moronic...cutting taxes, but increasing military spending? Where do you think he gets the money? By raiding Social Security and Medicare, the two programs that need money put into them. That hardly sounds like the moves of a competent and intelligent planner. Lets not forget his disasterous business ventures...losing a 10 million dollar business in two years. Would you like this man running your country? You deride Clinton and Nixon...perhaps the two most controversial presidents in history, true, but certainly not the worse...Nixon was a genius at foreign policy, and Clinton's micromanagement led to one of the greatest economic booms in America's history. Please do not going around championing your embarasses me as an American.

    Sir, (none / 0) (#55)
    by Martino Cortez PhD on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 11:05:26 PM PST
    You are mis-guided.
    <p>Why should we not cut taxes? How is this misguided? Why should we not increase military spending, we are after all living in Post 9-11 times, no?
    <p>Why should I have to pay your retirement? Why should I pay your medical expensises? What kind of free-lofing bastard are you?
    <p>I'll have you know, your liberal presidents economic boom was actually a bust. All those puffed up, wanna be dot-boms tanked, resulting in a recession. You gonna peg that on Bush (how), or Clinton? Besides, why should the government have any way over the economy anyway?

    Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
    CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
    Copyright © 2002, Martino Cortez.

    your are the one that is misguided (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 02:29:23 AM PST
    With all due respect I cannot in good concience agree with your statements. Cutting taxes might be a good thing...if it helped more people than just the very rich, and did not affect social programs that much...but Bush's plan does. Under our system of economics, as you should know, a certain percentage of the the population has to be unemployed for the system to work, i.e. keeping the lower tier jobs filled. These people, as well as the elderly, need our support in the face of rising inflation.
    Regarding the Military spending issue...we already spend around 280 billion dollars on budget you relly think that we need more money spent in this area? That money could be put to much better use in social programs or in the bank. The government needs to be involved in the economy so that the averge consumer is protected. Bush's plans have backfired from day one, and will continue to backfire due to his short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness. He is a horrible businessman, and has shown himself, during his campaign and during the last few months, to be woefully inept at handling affairs of state. Breaking the ABM he insane..espcially with the operation going on in afghanistan. In few simple months he has managed to destroy all politcal gains in the last eight years...if this is the future it will be a very dark time in America for sure.

    Anonymous Reader Sir, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 02:55:07 PM PST
    Once again you have changed your party line. One second, you were supporting nuking afganistan, and how you are telling me we need to withdraw? What is it going to be?
    <p>You still have not answered my question though. Why should I be responsible for somebody elses life problems? Why should I pay for somebody elses mistakes. If you quit your job, why should I pay you unemployement? Why should I pay your medical expensices. You made the choice.
    <p>What is the ABM treaty, something you liberals made up? Please provide evidance that such a so called treaty even exists. America has never bowed down to lesser countries by signing treatys, and it sure isn't going to bow down for some liberal, communist cause like you represent.
    <p>Go back to Russia pal,

    Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
    CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
    Copyright © 2002, Martino Cortez.

    I doubt your doctorate (none / 0) (#60)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 04:21:13 PM PST
    I am sorry that you are so ignorant of foreign affairs that you are unfamiliar with the Anti-ballistic missile treaty signed between Russia and the United States in the late '70's to prevent nuclear proliferation.Furthermore, I have not changed my party line at is your own senility that seems to be taking grip. However, in the interests of intellectual discussion I will once again state my reasons for social programs. Even the most astute social planner could find himself at the mercy of inflation and a falling economy. Why should untold millions suffer because you are greedy and selfish? Why should millions die of hunger and poverty because you wanted another ivory backscratcher? By your statements you must be a of the unfortunate people who went from wanting world piece, to a piece of the pie. Your lack of concern for your fellow man is saddening. I pity you.

    Dear Sir, (none / 0) (#61)
    by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 04:42:33 PM PST
    I give up. Anonymous Reader sir, you are the most confused individual on this discussion site. In one post, you support marijuana, and in a following post, where you reply to yourself, you contractict that argument by informing us that you thing marijuana users should be sent to russian training camps.

    You are a communist, yet you are a libertarian. You are pro drug, yet pro anti-drug. You are pro hacker, yet at the same time, you want hackers to be arrested.

    Sir, I pity you, for you must be in quite the mental state to write so many contriversial, yet highly inconsistant posts. You either are very open minded, or are a so called "troll", which I remind you is strictly prohibited on this website.

    As far as nuclear weapons, I can assure you they are most nessicary. Without nuclear missles, how could you have nuclear war? This should be obvious to someone with such purported intellect. You two bit moron with a terribly confused outlook on the world.

    How to you know I am wealthy? Yes, I own several companies, and yes, I have estates across the globe. But I ask, how do you know that I am wealthy? You assume that I am, just as you assume, in your narrow minded, borderline communist liberal outlook, that the so called "poor people" (of which I see no evidance in our country) because "poor" due to their own faults. If this is the case, I ask of you, why then should I, and my fellow colleges pay the burden for their faults.

    I beg of you, as does everybody else on this gated community, please form a consistent set of beliefs, and rigoursly defend them. Otherwise, I will have no recourse other then to report you to this sites admins as a troll.

    Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
    CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
    Copyright © 2002, Martino Cortez.

    you are correct (none / 0) (#62)
    by philipm on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 07:05:08 PM PST
    I think we need to take a hard look and start banning open minded people as well as trolls.

    For example:

    [This post censored by the editors on general principles]


    I concede to your ignorance. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 07:11:56 PM PST
    Not all anonymous readers are the same...Doctor fact I have not made any comments regarding the other article that you mentioned. Maybe I am a masochist, but I will attempt once more to pierce the veil of ignorance that you surround yourself in. If you do not see any "poor people" then it is because you choose to ignore them. They are in soup kitchens and cardboard boxes all over the cities of the United States. As for your claim that they are there due to their own choosing...I highly doubt this. Why would anyone choose a life of poverty? You, sir, represent the worst America has to offer: a greedy, selfish republican with no scruples and a gagged concience. When memebers of other countries insult America, they do so becuase of people like you...those who are too blinded by greed to care about their fellow man.

    Thats Dr. Cortez, Sir (none / 0) (#64)
    by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 08:21:19 PM PST
    In no way did I say I was ignorant. If you wish to claim that the poor do exist in our society, I, as does everybody on this contriversial website, beg of you to prove your case. Show me and the rest of the elite intelligentsia who inhabit this website your proof. As you know, this site requires it's readership to rigoursly defend their arguments. You have failed.

    This post of yours again proves many's case that you, Anonymous Reader, should be banned from this site for your inconsistant, always changing posts.

    PS: You must have no life, you seem to post many, many, many comments on this website. Just this one article probably has at least 30 or 40 of your posts.

    Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
    CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
    Copyright © 2002, Martino Cortez.

    Dubya has stood firm for freedom and democracy (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:34:14 AM PST
    Which of course explains why he now has greater dictatorial powers than any US president in history. Not to mention the long list of international and diplomatic freedoms he's subverted in just 12 months of office, or the perpetual hypocricy of it.

    And most comical of all, we (the people) seem to adore him for it.

    Russia was not communist...can you not understand? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 08:06:13 PM PST
    I feel really bad for all the ignorant dolts who believe that communism was practised in Russia. Lets analyze shall we? : Russia had a dictator who took from the people their labor and gave them nothing in return. Communism allows people to be totally free of dictators, (by abolishing government) and makes sure that all people have the things that they need to be comfortable. How are these two similar in any way? Calling yourself communist does not make you so. The reality is that there has never been a communist government...ever. All have been fronts for facist dictators and a way for them to maintain power. Read a book before you post, dumbass. --A concerned Marxist--

    Islam ? Britain excels at that too !!! (none / 0) (#41)
    by dmg on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 08:07:49 PM PST
    Islam can almost be considered the state religion of the United Kingdom, if one takes into account the fact that many self-described Christians never attend church, and do not live a Christian lifestyle. The CIA world factbook lists the religion of Britons thus: Anglican 27 million, Roman Catholic 9 million, Muslim 1 million, Presbyterian 800,000, Methodist 760,000, Sikh 400,000, Hindu 350,000, Jewish 300,000 (1991 est.)

    Since the term Anglican refers to followers of the 'Church of England', we can safely ignore this 27 million since almost none of them attend church, and even their high priests are not required to believe in God, and call for the destruction of the very Church they are supposed to represent. If we are to believe that 27% of Britons are atheists then clearly the figure of 27 million God-fearing Anglicans must be some sort of joke.

    The Catholics referred to are almost all ethnic Irish and so cannot be considered British either, which leaves us with 1 million Muslims, all attending mosques, and all believing in God.

    British Muslims are increasingly contributing to domestic UK politics despite hostility from the neo-Fascist and racist New Labour government and opposition from paranoid Muslims within their own community.

    Indeed the deen of British Muslims is so strong that they have sent fighters to Bosnia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan and even trained some of the Jihadists responsible for the Sept 11th attacks and the recent attempt to blow up yet another US airliner. This is in addition to defending their faith against Western subversion.

    Is it possible that the next British Empire could be the Islamic British Empire ? It seems that Britain's young Muslim men are not slow to learn the tricks of 'realpolitik' from their one-time oppressors.

    If we combine the historic military excellence of Britan, with the powerful faith of her Muslim population it is hard to imagine any country (even the USA) standing up to such an entity.

    The first stage however, would be to convert every "Christian" in the UK to Islam. This could be problematic, but the demographics are favourable.

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

    Yes becuase we all know that communism is bad.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 07:55:56 PM PST
    sorry to pop your little bubble of ignorance, but most of the problems in society are formed by greedy, selfish capitalists. If you could break your capitalist brainwashing you would see that communism is a superior where no 5% of the population can control 95% of the wealth. I hope you eventually come out of that whole that you are hiding in... -a concerned marxist-

    Marx was not a bad guy. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:22:01 PM PST
    In an attempt to enlighten you all on the realities of the world I will say this: That there is not, and never has been a communist country. The countries that have called themselves communist have been, in acuality, dictatorships. People like Stalin, Castro, and Mao, use the name Communism to hide the truth from the world: that they are dictators. The communist manifesto describes a world where there is no class struggle, and where people have everything that they need. This is hardly representative of Russia, Cuba, or China. I would have thought that on adequcay, that haven for intellectual debate, people would have rid themselves of this ignorance beforehand.

    Greatest british non-invention (none / 0) (#40)
    by The dev0 on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 07:38:52 PM PST
    Or even non-adaption really, try basic DENTISTRY!! I'm always scared off by photos of brits coz they always looked like they have washed their stained teeth and are hanging 'em out to dry! Gee whiz, hasn't EVERYBODY seen the "Big Book of British Smiles" (tm)?

    Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...

    translation (none / 0) (#43)
    by Nobody on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:30:55 AM PST
    Translation: "I've never met a British person."

    Dentistry in the USA. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 05:42:48 AM PST
    How can anyone complain about dental work in the UK when everybody in the states looks like an extra from Metal Mickey. And something else, I bet that most of those things are made with good old Sheffield Steel.

    Sorry, but no. (none / 0) (#71)
    by The dev0 on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 06:33:36 PM PST
    I'm actually Australian, and there seems to be more Brits here than there are in England. I met one of them once too, and she had bad teeth so by proxy they all do. Isn't that obvious? Instead of trying to defend your wheezing, dying empire, maybe you should get an education .

    Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...

    Acheivements, but lacking in certain areas (none / 0) (#44)
    by Hegemonistic on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 10:37:41 AM PST
    I guess the "Englishmen" listed are notable, but the citizens of the United Kingdom need to understand some basic facts:

    1. The world doesn't use the <b>letter "u"</b> to describe a color.

    2. <b>Aluminium</b> isn't pronounced the way you believe it is.

    3. The letters <b>x, z and c</b> are widely used, but not in the areas you believe they are necessary.

    Prepare your <b>defense</b> as you see fit. Those of you that sit on the wrong side of the pond can claim world dominance for longer than we can, but shortly after our arrival the world has been ours.

    Understanding Irony: another achievement! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 09:46:55 AM PST
    > 1. The world doesn't use the <b>letter "u"</b> to describe a color.

    Actually, most languages with latin roots *do*. In fact, it's just American English that doesn't. If you did some homework, you'd find the same fellow who made you drop the 'u' from colour also thought that 'tuff' and 'wimin' were as legitimate bastardisations for his new dictionary. He was called Webster, or Mirriam, not that it really matters. Look up the facts and stop assuming that because you're american, everything you do is right.

    Go ask some Aussies, or New Zealanders, who don't seem to have the zealous hatred you guys have. Oh sorry, confusing spelling: zelos. Does that help?

    > 2. <b>Aluminium</b> isn't pronounced the way you believe it is.

    Well... actually... it is. (they have a preview button here. if that still doesn't help, try a dictionary. Preferably, one not in the language you are attempting to lampoon.)

    Perhaps you're mixing up spelling and pronounciation? English Aluminium, American Aluminum. This happened because in England, where the English speak English, it was decided that all element names would take an 'ium' ending rather than a 'um' ending. Naturally God Fearing Gun Toting Americans would never use such a stupid rule. Go look up 'californium' ... ooh sorry, 'californum'.. hang on 'cali'... er... it's element 98 anyway.

    > The letters <b>x, z and c</b> are widely used, but not in the areas you believe they are necessary

    At least in English English, they're optional.

    Okay. That's three wildly uninformed, almost accurate statements about why american English is the one wildly divergent dialect of English surviving in the world. Perhaps you'd like to comment on the rest of the language and spelling, or are you only going to highlight the .003% your 'countrymen' (some would say 'co-immigrants and ethnic cleansers') have contributed?

    I've never met an American who claimed British lineage. I've met plenty who have claimed Scots or Irish ancestry, and some who even claim a vague amorphous 'celtic' history. So why the fuck did you have to use English as the language to shaft? Why not Celtic, Gaelic, Scots, or even German, French or Spanish? I'll tell you. It boils down to one very simple statement. You all hugely resent the english. You hate the fact the language you speak comes from this pokey little island. You hate the fact that all major 'American' contributions to the world have come from not native americans, but immigrants. And if it wasn't for those Pesky injuns, you'd actually be able to claim 'American' as your own without a guilty and dirty set of secrets to hide.

    Now. Can anyone show me any americans that
    (1) Aren't actually immigrants from somewhere else,
    (2) Haven't been shafted or turned into alcoholics?

    and BTW, nobody is claiming world-dominance. If 'international news' was anything to you beyond three column inches of the latest war you have started, you'd realise this whole article is a mickey take.

    I can't wait for the day we start collecting license fees on english usage. I really can't.

    bungatron at hotmail dot com

    Irony? If it's flat, you can't understand it (none / 0) (#46)
    by Hegemonistic on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 11:06:22 AM PST
    Thank you for your rant. I merely posted consistent with my moniker.

    As the child of imigrants, I claim the largess of those that took my parents in, and the benifits of all imigrant inventions.

    Luckily, the UK didn't need imigration, they could use colonization.

    I believe you when you say that you've never met an American that claimed British lineage. Washington, Jefferson, Revere and many others weren't permitted to produce new children after the American Revolution.

    Unfortunately, I don't see you collecting much on your English usage fees. We Americans allow free of "our" language (see grammatical differences) and ideas.

    Re: Irony? If it's flat, you can't understand it (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 04:24:26 AM PST
    > Thank you for your rant. I merely posted consistent with my moniker.

    That'd be consistent*ly* in English. That's licensed English, not your rocky 'open-source' English.

    > As the child of imigrants, I claim the largess of those that took my parents in, and the benifits of all imigrant inventions.

    Again, that's Immi- and bene-

    Largess is so much more achievable with the natives at gunpoint or dead, isn't it?

    > Luckily, the UK didn't need imigration, they could use colonization.

    The UK didn't need immigration, because the islands history is a history of invasion. For example, the Saxons, the Normans, the Romans, etc. Currently the UK pays host to more Irish than Ireland does, and is one of the most prominent minorities here.

    > I believe you when you say that you've never met an American that claimed British lineage. Washington, Jefferson, Revere and many others weren't permitted to produce new children after the American Revolution.

    Well... none of them answer my email - it's "", right? When you see them next, could you ask them to back your point up more?

    Any others beyond the three you name? I believe there are still another 278,000,000 people to account for - and that's just the *living*.

    > Unfortunately, I don't see you collecting much on your English usage fees. We Americans allow free of "our" language (see grammatical differences) and ideas.

    Well, there are some extraordinarily pronounced grammatical differences here! You're right, the languages have become way too divergent, particularly with the way you seem to have this 'implied noun' rule.

    bungatron at hotmail dot com

    Thanks, Bungatron (none / 0) (#54)
    by Hegemonistic on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 12:17:55 PM PST
    Your comments always make me chuckle. I don't want to perpetuate this. I'm willing to let you believe what you want. My interest is waning.

    However, I am dissapointed that you didn't point out my use of the dreaded "z" in civilization.

    Oh well, I will then... (none / 0) (#57)
    by rgb1 on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 03:51:04 AM PST
    ...point out you're very welcome to use the "zed" in civilization, all us anglo types and probably some of the celtic types too - well the educated ones - used to spell with a "z" where now an "s" is used, up to less than 30 years ago. Dunno why it changed, maybe a bit ofeverse colonisation by Webster's great-great (adinfinitum) grandson/dottir (for the Nordics).

    Most important thing to rememer, there are no citizens (citesens?) in the UK, or Oz or eNZed, or anywhere where the Queen rules okay! We're all subjects. Don't that give you a nice warm glow? When the aussies scrape a 4-1 win, QEII wins too.

    Urban myth (none / 0) (#58)
    by iat on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 07:58:26 AM PST
    Most important thing to rememer, there are no citizens (citesens?) in the UK, or Oz or eNZed, or anywhere where the Queen rules okay! We're all subjects.

    Not quite. Those of us who were lucky enough to be born in the UK qualify for citizenship. It's just the poor people in our decaying former colonies who are lowly subjects. The distinction between "citizen" and "subject" is important though - it shows that native UKians are inherently superior to the colonial savages, simply by virtue of our superior breeding. - love it or leave it.

    You missed one out (none / 0) (#67)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 07:57:03 AM PST
    Surely you missed out the greatest 3 Englishmen ever, Sir God, Sir Jesus Christ & Sir Holy Ghost.

    Albert Einstein English? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 06:45:20 PM PST
    Since when? I think someone is feeling a tad too patriotic (or stupid).


    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to