Eeek.. footnotes and everything! :)

We're so hideously off-topic that I don't want to prolong this too much, but I guess the logical consequence of a sloppy post is the desire to clarify what one was saying...

I don't want to dispute gradations of control, despite my inept analogies! I was asserting that there is a very significant distinction between one country having de facto control of another and the two countries being part of the same country. There is certainly plenty of room for debate about where the dividing line lies, but I wasn't trying to go there! A better example would have been: "England" and India were never 'the same country' despite the British control of India.

Wales is more complex because it is very clear, imnsho, that Scotland was never made part of England, and the historical record documents that very clearly. Wales, on the other hand, very clearly was 'legally' annexed by England, but culturally maintains a very clear sense of itself as a separate people, some would even say a conquered nation.

It is my understanding that "England" never considered its colonial holdings to be *part* of "England"; they were answerable to "England", influenced by her, etc... I have seen some fascinating comparisons of British and French views of their colonies... France had much more of the expanding the country sentiment than did Britain and tended, if I remember correctly, to rule more directly whereas Britain had far, far less assimilation and tended to rule through local leaders. (This is way outside anything approaching an area of expertise for me... corrections are welcome!)

Had you merely used England as a shorthand, I would have grumbled quietly to myself and moved on.. it was the historical assertions which lured me out of lurking status and onto a soapbox. :)

I too am pessimistic about the future of Iraq. :(

...although I suspect our viewpoints on the specifics are at least as conflicting as on the present subject...

Eliana (who *someday* will have progressed enough to have something to contribute to a directly-Perl-related-topic!)

In reply to Re^2: Consideration for obscenity by Eliana
in thread Consideration for obscenity by ptum

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.