Login Register

Discussion

“Here is a truly excellent and clearly well researched set of articles I found for you all to enjoy.
http://tinyurl.com/bbmj5x7

By CallingtonFox Posted: January 30, 2013

86 comments

86 replies

Start the discussion

max 4000 characters
  • CallingtonFox  |  January 30 2013, 11:34AM

    I wonder how much bile this will draw, or can we have some reasoned responses instead of name calling and other childish outpourings? I have no idea who this blog poster is, I found him/her by chance and thought it would make a welcome change for somebody new to have their views aired.

  • Carvath  |  January 30 2013, 11:47AM

    Note that no comments can ever be posted on that blog. Doesn't show much confidence does it?

  • CallingtonFox  |  January 30 2013, 12:03PM

    It does not detract from his or her points though, does it? He/she gives references for all sides of the debate and direct links as well. Why not try rebutting the claims with your own researched answers with sources?

  • Carvath  |  January 30 2013, 12:38PM

    I'm sure people would be queued up to refute many of the points but comments are always 'off' on the blog. Anybody can say anything if it cannot be challenged.

  • Tstrunk  |  January 30 2013, 12:51PM

    Go ahead then Carvath, stop trolling and take up the challenge.

  • Tstrunk  |  January 30 2013, 12:53PM

    Post your comments right here, Carvath.

  • youngcornwall  |  January 30 2013, 1:02PM

    Fair enough request Mike.

  • CallingtonFox  |  January 30 2013, 1:07PM

    That is why I posted a link to the blog here, for people to read and debate upon. I have no idea why the blogger does not allow comment; maybe they are fed up with rubbish such as 'you are a member of the EDL', 'you are a troll and this is a country not a county' etc, etc, instead of reasoned responses. Maybe it is because the blog is a few years old and they do not check for replies anymore, I do not know and it does not matter. The fact is, this person has placed a lot of information, with sources and links to sources, which you still can answer via this thread, if you are able. And please, no name calling and other cr*p, the blog is not mine, the posts are not mine; if you can not have a sensible debate then don't bother posting.

  • Chopper8  |  January 30 2013, 1:08PM

    by Callington Fox "Here is a truly excellent and clearly well researched set of articles I found for you all to enjoy. '' Translates as; ''After spending ages searching the net - as I've nothing better to do with my time since I retired to what I'd mistakenly assumed to be ''Surrey-by-the Sea'' -here are some points that fully endorse my own preconceived opinions made by an anonymous blogger who, like me, refuses to acknowledge or accept any opinion that deviates from his own biased viewpoint.'' CF- plenty of information has been made available to you over time and you've chosen either to ignore, belittle or arrogantly dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your own oh-so-outdated world view. You may do it more eloquently than many on here, but at the end of the day you're no better than the Trolls you are so openly critical of, and I've long since reached the conclusion that trying to open a closed mind is a fruitless task.

  • Carvath  |  January 30 2013, 1:22PM

    I think that says it all Chopper8. The trolling was putting up the post in the first place that aped Angof's post. Interesting to see the other trolls sprinting out of the woodwork all who have demonstrated in the past that they haven't a clue about the topics that Mudhook quotes.

  • CallingtonFox  |  January 30 2013, 1:37PM

    Carvath, Angof, posted his thread in response to mine, not the other way round. Both of you, why do you not respond to the points made in the blog instead of trying to abuse me? Are you adults? Debate, respond with reasoned answers.

  • CallingtonFox  |  January 30 2013, 1:39PM

    I tell you what, do not bother to respond, you obviously have no answers to the points made in the blog and can only resort to abuse. Have a good day.

  • Slimslad  |  January 30 2013, 1:58PM

    The neo-Celts have a "thing" about "Mudhook", CF. They resent the fact that "Mudhook's" site does not allow them to post reams of "ancient laws and truths" on the site. Fairly hypocritical, if one looks at "Cornwall24", where any criticism of their, (sometimes), barmy theories are removed and the posters barred.

  • Slimslad  |  January 30 2013, 2:16PM

    The other thing, of course, is that Mudhook tends to use primary sources for information. Like the Census. HOW MANY SPEAK CORNISH FIRST? 30 January 2013 The latest 2011 census information includes a table of languages spoken in England and Wales. The information is in Table QS204EW. This shows that in Cornwall the number of people whose first or preferred language was Cornish totalled 464. Only those aged three and over were counted and the total relevant population in Cornwall was 515 880. The Cornish speakers are 0.09 percent of the relevant population. In the rest of England there were 90 people who put Cornish as their first or preferred language and 3 in Wales; in some places only one person put Cornish. London as a whole had 31 speakers, the most outside Cornwall.

  • CallingtonFox  |  January 30 2013, 3:23PM

    Will one nationalist actually bother to respond to the points made in the blog, I mean properly? It is not my blog, why abuse me? Of course I posted it to support my views, what is the problem with that, are only nationalists allowed to post links to the work of others? And when I produce the work of another, which clearly disagrees with the nationalist positions and I ask the nationalists to respond with reasoned answers to that work I am told, something like "you have already been shown everything", what is the point of saying that, when I have just posted something which directly contradicts the "everything"? It smacks of pure fear; what is wrong with just debating?

  • PaddyTrembath  |  January 30 2013, 6:29PM

    Part one:- CallingtonFox, you have walked into a "situation" that has been going on for years. there are those here who have tried to respond with reasoned answers, only to be jumped on and abused by others who disagree with them. Such behaviour is practiced by both "sides" of the debate. You will see some complaining about being banned from other sites, claiming it as some kind of censorship, refusing to accept the simple truth that they were banned for their behaviour, and not their views. Who, where, or when this behaviour started will probably never now be known, but it is probably true to say that some people on both "sides" have given up, and resort to such behaviour in the mistaken belief that that is all the "other side" is worth. As for the article you linked to, I am not an historian, nor am I a Legal Beagle, so I can not comment in detail on what mudhook says. However, personally, I have never needed such "facts" to see myself as Cornish, to believe in the Cornish Nation, or to believe that Cornwall is in dire need of a change in governance, in short a Nationalist. Quite often we are asked to define what a Cornishman is, to prove we exist. Whilst my answer has always been that you define a Cornishman in exactly the same way as you define any-other nationality, and for proof of existence, I am here, I exist, Proof. However, as those who doubt us are so insistent on proof, there are those in the Cornish movement that have gone out to find it. Is what they have found correct? Quite often you will find that it comes down to how you interpret what has been written by those in the past, many of whom probably had a vested interest in it anyway. It also quite often depends on how you translate a word, or a phrase, what meaning you ascribe to a word, or a phrase. So who is correct, can anyone now be correct? With so much having been lost, and different vested interests phrasing what they have written in the past, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the 2 sides. But, that would not please the deniers, as it would reinforce the "Cornish" argument as to their, our, existence.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  January 30 2013, 6:30PM

    Part two:- If you were to look at English history, you will find that, when compared to the histories of neighbouring nations, there will be inconsistencies and outright differences, with each nation insisting their version to be true. When the real truth is probably that both versions are correct, and both versions have been engineered to "fit", and that both versions are wrong, often all at t he same time. Quite often on here I see posters calling for "non-biased", or "impartial" historians, an animal that is as fictitious as the Griffin or the unicorn, what they are really calling for is an historian that agrees with their particular version of history, any other being biased. So, is it possible to debate that which Mudhook has written, yes, but it will never be possible to achieve consensus, as, as I have said already, there is truth on both side, there is misunderstanding on both sides, there is also very probably untruths on both sides, deliberate or accidental. So we would get nowhere, except provide more opportunity for those who wish to cause offence to do so (the reason they were banned from this and other sites) You speak of fear, but the real fear lies in the fact that there has always been a strong Cornish identity, separate from an English one, and that identity is getting stronger, it did weaken for a while during the days of empire, the British Empire, not an English one, but it is gaining ground once again. It is that which is feared, it is that fear which prevents reasoned debate, it is that fear which causes the "ill will" that is so often displayed on this and other sites. Now, those who fear, and those who demand proof (just so they can then "dis"-prove it), will probably just mock what I have written, which will just prove it right.

  • CallingtonFox  |  January 30 2013, 8:36PM

    Hello Paddy. I have to take you up on a number of issues. Whatever side of the debate one sits, we are all bound by laws and facts; nothing can function without them, at least not without anarchy. The nationalists are attempting to claim that Cornwall is a nation and cite various sources to try back this up. But, unless one is truly blinded by desire, you can not fail to see that nowhere has this been proven, only, yes only, the opposite. Even using such beliefs as 'I am Celtic' is more than deeply floored, it is plain wrong. The term 'Celtic' could be applied to all manner of peoples that once lived here and all over Europe. But the problems lie not with wanting to have a particular identity, however it is constructed; it lay with what that nationalism means to the individual; it lay with attempting to change what is proven and accepted, to something else. Why does it surprise anyone when those actions and ideals are challenged? Why does it surprise anyone that when 'race' is brought into the equation, as inevitably it has been, by the nationalists, that people start to question their motives (I for one have been roundly told to leave my own country on this very forum more than once because I do not accept the nationalist agenda), and I am wrong to challenge this? It is all very well for you to say things are changing, but unless this is done with full legality, you will find only trouble at the end of your rainbow. Nationalism, whether Scottish, Welsh, English, Irish or any other, is by its very nature, a dangerous, destructive and unavoidably divisive animal; learn from history.

  • AnGof2012  |  January 30 2013, 11:10PM

    I assume by 'floored' you mean 'flawed'. I speak Cornish but I probably have a better cooand of English than you! Mudhook is more than matched elsewhere on the internet. The English, the most dangerous of the lot according to Jack Straw and William Hague.

  • Tstrunk  |  January 30 2013, 11:33PM

    by AnGof2012Wednesday, January 30 2013, 11:10PM Mudhook is more than matched elsewhere on the internet. The English, the most dangerous of the lot according to Jack Straw and William Hague." What is wrong with English people AnGof2012?

  • CallingtonFox  |  January 30 2013, 11:46PM

    That is big and typically deflective of you to point out an obvious mistake, I'm sure you feel suitably smug now; you can attempt to claim a better grasp of the English language in your usual childish way, but you have no grasp of truth, historical or otherwise, regarding Cornwall. Now, why not just try answering each of the blogs points instead of playing the 'my sources are better than yours' game and without your usual back chat? Go on, give it a go, just for a change, I dare you. If you are civil to me, I will be civil to you.

  • CallingtonFox  |  January 31 2013, 1:34PM

    Come on, nationalists, answer the points made in the blog.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 01 2013, 9:33AM

    OK CallingtonFox, step by step. What is a Nation? Note, I asked what is a Nation, not what is a Nation State.

  • Chopper8  |  February 01 2013, 11:15AM

    Give it up Paddy, your'e wasting your breath. He has a closed mind and is unwilling or unable to accept the fact - yes, that's right CF, FACT - that, for many, Cornwall is a separate nation to England. His attitude and level of reasoning bring this to mind when presented with the truth about Cornwalls true constitutional status; mhttp://tinyurl.com/b5vtd6c

  • Chopper8  |  February 01 2013, 11:22AM

    Strange, I'll try that again; http://tinyurl.com/a7tafx4

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 01 2013, 2:49PM

    I know what you mean by a nation, Paddy, but what I am trying to get you to see is the impact on us ALL of those ideals, ideals which are extremely fluid in their interpretation. I ask you, using your idea of a nation and what it represents, where does the sentiment of telling me to leave Cornwall, which is a part of my country too, just because I do not accept what certain nationalists believe? Am I wrong to challenge this? Paddy, I get the impression that you just want recognition as an individual who is 'Cornish' not 'English'. I can not, and have no desire to, tell you otherwise. But when people, may be not you, start to challenge the status quo, one which really is backed up with proof, I am within my rights to know what proof they have regarding their position, not ideals, but facts. I want to know the intentions and impacts of those people's beliefs. If you want to achieve your dreams and those dreams impact directly on the lives of others, then surely you can understand being asked to justify them?

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 01 2013, 2:54PM

    Chopper8, I know what you are saying, but just believing Cornwall is a separate nation and actually being one, are two totally different things. I do not agree with you one bit that Cornwall is a separate nation, not because I am trying to antagonise you, but simply because we can only live with truth, with facts and not just ideals and all I have seen so far does nothing to proof me wrong, just the opposite.

  • youngcornwall  |  February 01 2013, 3:22PM

    by CallingtonFox "I know what you are saying, but just believing Cornwall is a separate nation and actually being one, are two totally different things." But with a little faith and more than enough determination, who knows what can be achieved. "Everyone, Cornish or otherwise, has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small; no one is too old or too young to do something."

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 01 2013, 4:17PM

    Yc, I agree, who knows what can be achieved, as long as we use only truth to build on.

  • Taxman100  |  February 01 2013, 4:28PM

    How honest, and unbiased are Historians History has been written for different reasons at different times. Although it is dangerous to generalise, you might like to consider the following. The father of Western European history was the Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484 BCe – c. 425 BCe). Herodotus regarded history as a source of moral teaching and included a number of moralising diversions in his 'Histories' of the Persian Wars. Although his immediate successor as an historian, Thucydides (c 460 BCe - c 395BCe), introduced a much more scientific approach to the writing of history in his 'Peloponnesian Wars', a good number of (mainly Roman) classical historians perpetuated the tradition of drawing moral lessons from history and their writing was skewed to this purpose. Most often the intention was to draw unfavourable comparisons between the Rome of their day and the glory of an earlier time; but there were also Roman and Greek writers whose recording of contemporary or near contemporary events were designed to promote political or personal agendas (or both!). So that the distortion of history has existed from the earliest times By the time of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 Ce, Europe consisted of barbarian enclaves (the so-called Dark Ages). The tradition of scholarship was preserved in the far west, in the surviving monasteries of Wales, Ireland and Brittany; and from thence spread via Scotland and northern England to a mainland Europe that was being Christianised and restored. History became the business of the Church, and the Church the business of history. "Christianity, sometimes in heretical form and already established in some barbarian tribes, endured; and, with more than a little irony, the surviving monasteries served as a conduit that preserved traditions of scholarship and memories of a civilised past. But scholarship was perverted into a sterile scholasticism that lacked curiosity, intellectual rigour and dynamism. In the 7th Century, as the great population movements subsided, an increasingly powerful papacy reached out across the barbarian divide to the far west, where Christianity had survived in remote communities. A united Church imposed its orthodoxy on pagan or heterodox enclaves and provided the institutional framework for a re-invented Empire, soon to be dubbed Holy Roman. Henceforward the Church was to assume a monopoly of learning, based for the most part on scholasticism and with the aim of creating a literate and educated clergy capable of promoting and justifying dogma." It was not until the 18th / 19th Centuries that historians began to attempt an objective approach, although not untinged with philosophical speculation. Edward Gibbon's 'The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' was the first major milestone of modern historiography. The 19th Century saw the emergence of a truly scientific approach to history, especially in Germany; but here and elsewhere history was sometimes used to further nationalistic and chauvinist agendas. "1848, the 'Year of Revolutions', had brought pressure to bear in many quarters. The century had seen the growth of separatism, triggered by maladministration and corruption, in the quest for self-determination and democracy and in some cases with the added ingredient of socialist political theory. New nation states were created, and emerging nationalist movements proliferated through the propaganda of aspiring political classes and by the usual methods: the distortion and re-invention of history, the stimulation of patriotic fervour without regard to historical political geography, the creation of folkish 'heritage', the fomentation of ancient grudges, the incitement of hatred towards neighbours."

  • Taxman100  |  February 01 2013, 4:29PM

    continued from comment above: The use of history as a propaganda tool persists on the outer fringes of Western writing and even more so in regions of the globe where political conflict or the clash of ideologies are current. And, more generally: "All important historical writing is revisionist and subjective (however much the historians and their supporters think, or write otherwise), and all writers, whatever their period, will choose their own points of focus. The wider the reading, the more the reader will be exposed to differing perspectives and opinions, and the better will he/she be able to form their own view of whatever passes for historical reality." Until the early 20th Century the peer review was robust. Historian's mostly working on their own or in very small groups had their own set of politics and viewpoints, and healthy clashes of opinion were common place. Today, Historians with similar viewpoints and political persuasions are grouped together in specialist units or large universities. This has degraded healthy and unfettered debate and in consequence the review has been called into serious dispute. It is now as important to research the author's history and associated politics as it is to study their theories.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 02 2013, 2:56AM

    Thank you Taxman100, as I said earlier, there is no such animal as an impartial historian. CallingtonFox, In one post, you say:- "I know what you mean by a nation, Paddy." and in another:- " but just believing Cornwall is a separate nation and actually being one, are two totally different things" It seems clear that you are either unsure of what a nation is, or prefer to use different definitions for the word to suit. As I said, step by step. http://tinyurl.com/avvpwmk "A nation refers only to a socio-cultural entity, a union of people sharing who can identify culturally and linguistically. This concept does not necessarily consider formal political unions." Under such a definition, would you agree that there exists a Cornish Nation?

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 02 2013, 3:03AM

    youngcornwall "But with a little faith and more than enough determination, who knows what can be achieved. "Everyone, Cornish or otherwise, has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small; no one is too old or too young to do something."" Plagiarism now YC? Tut Tut. I ought to know, I borrowed it myself, as you know, I only changed a little. Good though, isn't it, and very true.

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 02 2013, 7:40AM

    Paddy, the definition of a 'nation' as you know is very fluid and clearly you have your own idea of what it means to you. But you are one of many others who it is also clear from this forum and other places have their ideas of what it means, too. It is the impact of those ideas, collectively and individually, upon all of us, that raises serious questions. If you want to call yourself Cornish and consider yourself a part of a 'Cornish nation' then that of course, is your prerogative. That seems all hunky-dory until we move into the realms of 'and this is my country and it is separate from England'. That is what I am ultimately challenging because it is where we become embroiled in 'rights' to live in all its forms. I ask again, as an illustrative; am I wrong to challenge being told to leave what is a part of my own country, simply because I do not accept a persons beliefs? To be more specific to you; what do you think, should I leave if I do not accept your views? Should I leave because I am 100% certain that this is a part of England, a part of my country too? We must only move forward using only truths; if we attempt to re-write history and ignore those truths on which our society is built then we will all fail.

  • Chopper8  |  February 02 2013, 10:02AM

    ''by CallingtonFoxSaturday, February 02 2013, 7:40AM "Paddy, the definition of a 'nation' as you know is very fluid and clearly you have your own idea of what it means to you.''' And you, CF,still cannot or will not see the central flaw on your debating 'style' that is as clear as the nose on your face to any rationale person. You have a cast iron preconceived set of beliefs that are totally inflexible no matter what evidence or proof is placed in front of you. You see what you want to see and no more. Paddy's question is a case in point. You were asked a simple straightforward question,viz ''What is a Nation'?'" Here, just to help you, is the OED entry; - ''Definition of nation noun a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory:'' Simple enough you would think,yet even this is beyond you as you come out with some flannel about it being a fluid construct! This is the standard reference work in the English language but, as it doesn't fit in with YOUR world view you attempt to yet again obfuscate the matter, making it appear that there is more than one definition - yes, there is - yours, and everybody else's!!! Yet you repeatedly and aggressively call out ''Nationalists'' to respond to the anonymous internet ramblings of some tinfoil hat wearing ''little-englander''whose inane ramblings are somehow elevated to Gospel status simply because yet again - surprise surprise - they support you own preset opinions whilst simultaneously airily dismissing peer reviewed academic works that don't. As for the rest of your post, may I respectfully ask who has asked you to leave Cornwall? Who on earth would support such a ridiculous, wholly immoral , illegal and extremist stance? If the ''Nasty Nats'' started calling for the removal of every home counties refugee - which is what a lot of the Trolls that infest this place would love the general public to believe - Cornwall would be half empty. Mind you, it would solve the housing crisis at a stroke. That's a joke, by the way, before the usual suspects start frothing into their keyboards. I've reached the conclusion that reasoned debate is nigh on impossible on this site, given the quality - or lack of - of many of the postings. Still, at least you live in the Duchy unlike some I could mention - Geordie boy 'Slim' and 'Young west-midlands'. Er...LOL, isn't it boys?

  • youngcornwall  |  February 02 2013, 10:14AM

    by PaddyTrembath "I ought to know, I borrowed it myself, as you know, I only changed a little. Good though, isn't it, and very true." Being buried away on a defunct forum is no good to man or beast Paddy, even Marhak seems to have given in, probably fed up with Graham and his continual spamming lol. Yes you are right I should have put up a link, I still have another link outstanding on another thread I said I would put up.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 02 2013, 1:24PM

    CallingtonFox, as Chopper8, and the link I provided, have pointed out, the definition of the word Nation is far from fluid. This is the problem, if we are to debate topics such as this, we need to agree on what the specific words we use actually mean, or there will always be confusion, which leads to all sorts of trouble. The simple question is, are you prepared to accept the recognised, even official, definition of the word Nation? I have refrained from commenting on the remark you keep referring to, for the simple reason that, from past experience, to do so would leave me open to having to comment on a whole host of other remarks made by poster that you, or someone else, has decided to place on "my side" of the argument. We all post here as individuals, expressing our own opinions, and that is how we should be treated, and treat others. To ease your mind, only the sheriff has the legal ability to order anyone out of Dodge, as for anyone else, I look on it as akin to "I'll have your guts for garters" type of statement, it's an expression of annoyance, letting of steam, nothing more, unless it is accompanied by other statements you consider offensive and/or threatening, in which case you should report it to the relevant authorities. As for you challenging it, challenge everything, debate everything, I may disagree with you, but would never attempt to prevent you from having your say. The only exceptions to that would be those who constantly throw abuse and insult, or those who only contribute to extract the urine.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 02 2013, 1:26PM

    youngcornwall wrote:- "I still have another link outstanding on another thread I said I would put up." And?

  • youngcornwall  |  February 02 2013, 1:45PM

    "And?" I have now done so OK

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 02 2013, 2:49PM

    Chopper8 and Paddy, the definition of 'nation' is not exact in the minds of all, I have seen it referred to as pointed out by Chopper8 and I think that is probably the mainly accepted version; but I have also seen a 'nation' as meaning also a group of people who claim a certain kinship but do not have to be geographically bound. That is where the problems arise in more serious ways. The two ideas carry very different connotations; some people, for example, claim that Cornwall is a separate country to England and are unhappy to the point of real aggression if that view point is challenged; it is where 'nationalism' can become extremely dangerous. I gave you an example of such extremism; I have been told to leave Cornwall by two posters who are clearly taking their idea of nationalism to extremes, I have their names and their posts recorded. I know for a fact those posts have been seen by a number of other posters before TIC took them down. I take such statements seriously as I am just as entitled to live here but it seems, to some, I must accept Cornwall is not England, and I do not accept that at all. I think that you are failing to see that whatever your ideas of being Cornish are that there are a number of variations, each with its own set of possible impacts on our lives. You can both be whatever 'nationality' you want; I am well aware of your seriousness and respect that. But please respect my desire not to see our worlds collapse into serious problems. Chopper8, first of all, if you feel I am being aggressive then I apologize to you; I can get carried away with my debating style which can clearly come over as aggressive whereas I am, normally, only being passionate. Second; it is not good enough to downplay the information I linked to in the way you have. I do not know the blogger, do you? I do see a rationally dissected set of topics for which the author gives many sources in order to back up his conclusions. I see no harm in you reading them; of course I posted the link because it backs up my positions, why is that a problem? I only did so because the author has clearly done his or her research. I read all the information put to me by everyone else and a lot more because if I am wrong, then so be it; the truth is all that matters. But, like I have said, so far I have seen nothing to prove I am; not because I am afraid. Have you read what I posted? Have you checked out the points made and the sources? I did, just as I do with all information, regardless of which 'side' it comes from.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 02 2013, 7:32PM

    CallingtonFox, to be able to communicate/debate we need to be able to agree on the meanings of the words we use, especially ones that are deeply relevant to the topic under discussion. As the OED is generally considered to be the ultimate authority on the English language (not the American version of the language), then can we not agree to use that description, that meaning? If we can agree on that, we can start to move on, otherwise all we will do is go round and round in circles, and never getting anywhere. Without being able to agree on the meanings of the words needed to discuss the most basic concepts of the topic, nothing else is possible. The fact that others may wish to muddy the discussion by using different definitions, only goes to show that they do not wish to discuss/debate, only cause discord and animosity.

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 02 2013, 7:44PM

    Paddy, I agree.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 02 2013, 9:35PM

    Thank you, now, do you agree that under such a definition, there exists a Cornish Nation? A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.

  • Chopper8  |  February 02 2013, 11:17PM

    by CallingtonFoxThursday, January 31 2013, 1:34PM "Come on, nationalists, answer the points made in the blog." ''Come on Anglo- imperialists, answer the points made above!''

  • youngcornwall  |  February 03 2013, 9:05AM

    "do you agree that under such a definition, there exists a Cornish Nation?" No, just a handful who think they are a nation. If Cornwall was a separate nation it would have its own laws, not having to abide by English law, no doubt someone will explain if I am wrong.

  • AnGof2012  |  February 03 2013, 11:43AM

    Cornwall does have its own laws youngcornwall. But laws don't make a Nation. Ask any of the original inhabitants of North America.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 03 2013, 11:53AM

    YC, the OED defines a nation as:- "A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory." Also http://tinyurl.com/avvpwmk "A nation refers only to a socio-cultural entity, a union of people sharing who can identify culturally and linguistically. This concept does not necessarily consider formal political unions." You are continually confusing the Word Nation with the term "Nation State". The 2 are totally different. The UK is a multi nation state. The laws we have to "abide" by are a complete irrelevance in the definition of a nation, as you would clearly see if you read the posts above.

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 03 2013, 1:00PM

    "Thank you, now, do you agree that under such a definition, there exists a Cornish Nation?" No, because there is no clear agreement as to what a 'Cornish nation' of people, means. Do you agree that it is widely accepted, nationally and internationally, that Cornwall is a part of England and this is backed up by many, existing and extant in content, legal documents?

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 03 2013, 2:05PM

    CallingtonFox wrote:- "No, because there is no clear agreement as to what a 'Cornish nation' of people, means. " If you accept the OED definition of the word Nation, then under that definition, there is clearly a Cornish Nation. a) A large body of people united by common descent, as is the case in Cornwall. Do you agree? b) A large body of people united by common history, as is the case in Cornwall. Do you agree? c) A large body of people united by common language, as is the case in Cornwall. Do you agree? Under the definition, (a+b) +or- c = Nation. So, under that definition, there exists a Cornish Nation, as all 3 conditions apply in Cornwall. Like I said, we either agree on what the words we use mean, or communication does not exist. I will ask again, UNDER THE OED DEFINITION of the word Nation, do you agree that there exists a Cornish Nation? Or, do you wish to challenge the definition provided by the OED? CallingtonFox wrote:- "Do you agree that it is widely accepted, nationally and internationally, that Cornwall is a part of England and this is backed up by many, existing and extant in content, legal documents?" As I said originally, one step at a time. You are trying to jump the gun, brining international politics into a, at the moment, simple debate on existence. Before the debate can move to such lofty heights, we have to establish the foundations.

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 03 2013, 4:09PM

    "If you accept the OED definition of the word Nation, then under that definition, there is clearly a Cornish Nation." No, there is nothing clear about it; that is the problem. "a) A large body of people united by common descent, as is the case in Cornwall. Do you agree?" No, I do not agree; a common descent from whom? Who else could share that 'common descent'? What is a 'common descent'? "b) A large body of people united by common history, as is the case in Cornwall. Do you agree?" Again, no I do not agree. Who are these people, what is their 'common history'? Do they all agree on it? Is that 'common history' factual and clear with obvious delineations and boundaries easily recognized and backed up with proof, not theories? "c) A large body of people united by common language, as is the case in Cornwall. Do you agree?" No, I do not agree. The most common language in Cornwall is English; apparently the second most common is Polish. http://tinyurl.com/axot3pg

  • youngcornwall  |  February 03 2013, 4:26PM

    "a) A large body of people united by common descent, as is the case in Cornwall. Do you agree? b) A large body of people united by common history, as is the case in Cornwall. Do you agree? c) A large body of people united by common language, as is the case in Cornwall. Do you agree?" If you consider 500 out of a population of 500,000 as "A large body of people" you may be right, to someone else 500 out of a population 500,000 would be too small and insignificant, it all depends on how you interpret "A large body of people".

  • AnGof2012  |  February 03 2013, 8:27PM

    Quite something that they speak it as a first language. I speak it as a second language so rhere are now thousands of us. I recall Hebrew was slowly built up in this way. I am Cornish not English as allowed for in law. This is Cornwall not England. Not a thing the Anglo trolls can do about it.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 03 2013, 11:52PM

    CallingtonFox, perhaps you would like to give us your learned definition of the word Nation, as clearly those armatures at the offices of the Oxford English Dictionary are not up to the task. A large body of people united by common descent, as is the case in Cornwall. As studies have shown, the Cornish, in general, show a clear genetic difference from those the other side of the River, more in common with the Welsh than the English. Common descent. A large body of people united by common history, as is the case in Cornwall. Those people, of common descent, the Cornish, having inhabited the geographical area known as Cornwall for Thousands of years, all share the history of that people and that geographical place. The history is real, it is enriched by the folk lore of the people, as is the history of every peoples on this planet. It is as old as those people. You may disagree with some recent parts of that history that have been highlighted by some, but you can not deny it in it's entirety. Common history. A large body of people united by common language, as is the case in Cornwall. It is undeniable that until recently the Cornish language existed. There is argument over when the last "native speaker" died, and even who that was. Some maintain that the last native speaker did not die until after the revival had started. The fact is that a revival has started, it is growing in strength, and has helped to gain the language official recognition as one of the Languages of Britain, now. The language exists. Common Language.

  • Carvath  |  February 04 2013, 12:29AM

    Note also that the Kernowek language is "common" in 85% of Cornish place names, in world-used mining and geological terms and some words are carried over into English used in Cornwall. Every time someone mentions one of these majority place names they are effectively speaking Kernowek - an everyday occurrence to hundreds of thousands of people in Cornwall.

  • youngcornwall  |  February 04 2013, 9:18AM

    "it all depends on how you interpret "A large body of people"" And then one needs to ascertain which of these are not of mixed race with both parents being Cornish, in Cornwall's case I would have thought, but myself I would rather take the attitude anyone can be Cornish if they wish, so we could be going back to the same old question of "how long is a piece of string", kind of debate again so it seems.

  • Chopper8  |  February 04 2013, 9:18AM

    by CallingtonFoxSunday, February 03 2013, 4:09PM ""If you accept the OED definition of the word Nation, then under that definition, there is clearly a Cornish Nation." No, there is nothing clear about it; that is the problem. '' Wow! With such devastating reasoning and debating skills like that on display, how can one possibly resist the power of such a convincing argument. I now realise that for over 40 years I've been living a lie and that all the times my parents, grandparents, friends and family talked about being Cornish they were all in denial. Sad that it's taken an English retiree who's been here five minutes to show us all the error of our ways.Thanks for that C- Fox, I can now go on and live out the remainder of my days safe in the knowledge that we are really all just English and that the culture we share, our traditions and the language my ancestors spoke is all merely a made up fudge cobbled together by some middle-class hobbyists. Next time, on T.I.C; using the same impeccable logic,Callington Fox sets out to prove that the Sun sets in the East, gravity is a myth, Hitler was a woman and -most challenging of all - that he really does have an open mind.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 04 2013, 9:54AM

    YC, the operative of the phrase in question is "of common descent", not "large body of people". You have clearly demonstrated, by your post, that you either have no idea what common descent entails, or are just deliberately attempting to confuse the issue. In fact, I find the whole of the post you made to be racially offensive, not just to the Cornish, but to every "Racial", "National", or "Ethnic" group on this planet. By your reckoning, there are thousands, hundreds of thousands, of people living in India, who are mistaken in their belief that they are Indian. because at some time in the past, a randy British soldier decided to partake of the pleasures of some young Indian girl, either voluntarily or by force, with the end result that a child was born. A child that because of it's mixed parentage is, according to you, not Indian. Despite being brought up surrounded by Indians, despite being brought up in the Indian culture, and despite having an Indian mother. Also, by your reckoning, that child's offspring would also not be Indian, regardless of the purity of it's other parents blood. Opinions such as yours, belong in different times and places in Europe, rather than here in the 21st Century.

  • Taxman100  |  February 04 2013, 11:15AM

    All modern languages - those in common use today - are mixtures of old and dead languages, and have evolved naturally. The English language contains words, or words derived from the French/German, Latin and goodness knows what else. Likewise, words from the English language have been absorbed into other common languages. It is generally accepted Spanish is the most diverse! English place names within the UK include those of Roman, and Viking origin; to name but two. Therefore the use of old Cornish place names, or their derivatives, (Penzans, Penzance) within the English language is not unusual or unique. Although I am Cornish I use the place name Penzance - not the original Cornish. We have a right to choose.

  • youngcornwall  |  February 04 2013, 11:52AM

    by PaddyTrembath "or are just deliberately attempting to confuse the issue." Or pot calling the kettle again Paddy, no fool like an old fool as the Cornish say.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 04 2013, 2:07PM

    SO, you ARE just trying to confuse the issue then. I'm glad we've got that sorted out.

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 04 2013, 2:19PM

    Paddy, I did not challenge the definition of the word Nation given in the O.E.D, I challenged how you apply it to your own causes. You claim a 'large body of people united by common descent, as in the case of Cornwall', and cite 'genetic differences'. Yet you fail to acknowledge that the study of genetics which you are relying on to prove this has one very important qualifying caveat contained within its conclusions I quote from Dr Bruce Winney of Oxford's Department of Oncology, a member of the research team: "However, he cautions that these genetic differences that the project has found across the British Isles are small. We are far more genetically alike than we are different, he says." You claim: "A large body of people united by common history, as is the case in Cornwall. Those people, of common descent, the Cornish, having inhabited the geographical area known as Cornwall for Thousands of years, all share the history of that people and that geographical place. The history is real, it is enriched by the folk lore of the people, as is the history of every peoples on this planet. It is as old as those people. You may disagree with some recent parts of that history that have been highlighted by some, but you can not deny it in it's entirety. Common history." But fail to accept or understand just how tied up in that history we ALL are; that we are all subject to the same influxes and blood mixing. The original settlers of this geographical area have long been absorbed. The peoples who settled all over Britain from northern Europe, ALL who's families have lived in those parts since those settlers came, are going to be directly linked together. But of course this has to come with an acceptance of the fact that our ancestors were actually a mixture of tribe's people who share a very wide definition of 'race'. Cornwall, shares its history with most of the rest of us. You claim a common language, first of all the common language is English; I have not read anywhere that anyone was ever forced to speak it; what does that tell you? Acquiescence, an acceptance of being 'one' with England? The 'revival' of the old 'Cornish language' means what? Does the act of doing so mean the same to everyone? I have been giving my answers to you, will you please now answer this: Do you agree that it is widely accepted, nationally and internationally, that Cornwall is a part of England and this is backed up by many, existing and extant in content, legal documents?"

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 04 2013, 3:27PM

    CallingtonFox, We are genetically 99% identical to Chimpanzees, but this is irrelevant in this discussion. It is the concept of Common Descent that you are avoiding. I am sure that you will find that there is equal genetic similarity with the French, Swiss, Dutch, etc, and very little difference between "us" and the Native American, Mongolian, or even the Chinese. If you wish to be pedantic, as we all "Came out of Africa", all evolved from the same small group of primeval Monkeys, we are all African, and conform to their culture, customs and laws. I quoted the study only to show a common descent, a descent that the study shows is different from those the others side of the river. Yes, we are all tied up in history, the French are very entwined in English history, does that mean that the English and French are the same Nation? As I explained above, the history of a people is more than just dates, and such and such happened because.....It is also about folk lore, the myths and legends of that people. It is about the way that people interact with that history. The fact remains, that the history of the Cornish people is theirs, it is also part of the history of the people of the British Isles, and part of the history of the people of the world, but it is theirs first. Yes, the main language used in Cornwall is English, but English is also the main language used in America, Australia, New Zealand, and other places across the world, unless you wish to claim that they too are English, your argument is just for the sake of it. The simple fact is that the Cornish have a language, it is not a dead language, but even if it were, it would still be Cornish, it would still belong to the people of Cornwall. I maintain that the Cornish fulfill every requirement to be considered a Nation under the definition given for the word in the OED. AS for:- "Do you agree that it is widely accepted, nationally and internationally, that Cornwall is a part of England and this is backed up by many, existing and extant in content, legal documents?" I agree that as of now, politically, it is widely accepted, nationally and internationally, that Cornwall is a part of England. I will also agree that it is backed up by existing and extant in content, legal documents, but I would argue that that is not the full, "true" position of Cornwall, there are other documents that claim otherwise, and many documents that make no mention of it one way or another. I would also like to point out that this has nothing to do with Cornwall being a Nation or not, it is totally irrelevant to any question of Nationhood. I feel that I have shown Cornwall, and the Cornish to be a Nation, note, I do not claim a Nation state, just a nation. I feel that it is your inbuilt fear of anything remotely connected to the concept of Nationalism that leads you to constantly find relevant arguments against it. You constantly claim it to be dangerous, yet it is my opinion that it is far from that, it is beneficial to all to be able to recognise, accept, and rejoice in the many differences that can add so much colour and enjoyment to all. It is those who wish to deny, deride, or even enforce a different nationality on a people that are the dangerous ones, dangerous on so many different levels.

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 04 2013, 4:04PM

    Paddy, my point is that we are so entwined genetically and historically that we are, to all intents and purposes, one and the same 'nation of peoples'. We are only where we are because of historical facts, some seem hell bent on challenging those facts, which is fine of course, but do not like being asked for proof instead of conjecture (however honest and learned it might be), to back themselves up. Thank you for, as I expected, answering my questions with full honesty. I know you feel they are irrelevant but I beg to differ in as much as the impact of the nationalist claims of some upon the status of the answers needs to be recognized and addressed. Regarding my fear of 'nationalism', well, as I have stated often, yes it can be dangerous, very dangerous, history has shown us that and nationalism continues to cause real problems the world over. Nationalism is and always will be, divisive by its very nature. Celebrating diversity is not and never has been, an easy bed fellow of nationalism.

  • Tstrunk  |  February 04 2013, 5:02PM

    Callingtonfox I don't know if have seen this, http://tinyurl.com/cdcch7o it sums up pretty much what Cornish nationalism is and as it must have been edited by these very people that are Cornish nationalists it represents the dream, their dream.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 04 2013, 5:37PM

    CallingtonFox wrote:- "Paddy, my point is that we are so entwined genetically and historically that we are, to all intents and purposes, one and the same 'nation of peoples'." Such an opinion can only hold water if you were to use it to claim that the English and French were also so entwined genetically and historically, that they too are to all intents and purposes, one and the same nation of peoples. If so, I could. on some levels accept it, however it leaves out so much, it leaves out the whole concept of culture for example. In the 60's they were signing for a "great big melting pot", that would turn out "Coffee coloured people by the score", it would be so peaceful, and sooooooooooooo boring. Variety is the spice of life, uniformity, of any kind, stifles it. Your fear of Nationalists is based on the image that they have been portrayed in by those who would deny them their nationality. I will agree that there has been many atrocity done in the name of Nationalism, but equally, such atrocities have been carried out in the name of republicanism, socialism, capitalism, imperialism, religion, and even the "King". It is not the 'ism that is either bad, or dangerous, it is people who would use whatever they can to try to gain, or maintain, power. In Briton Nationalism has always been given a bad press, because it is Nationalists who have wanted what is theirs by natural right, the right to run their own affairs, and the right to remove themselves from the yoke of empire. I would argue that the reaction of the imperial power to such natural aspirations was the initial cause to any "trouble" that eventually occurred. If you continually knock a man down, he will, sooner or later, start to "knock" back. It is also arguable that those who do the initial knocking down, the imperialists, are as equally nationalistic, if not more so, than the nationalists they attempt to portray as the trouble makers. Nationalism is not dangerous, the suppression of nationalism, just like the suppression of any other legitimate belief system/opinion/collective wish is what is dangerous. Gandhi was a nationalist, the Dali Lama is a nationalist, both of them as equally nationalistic in their own ways as Michael Collins, or Yassir Arafat. Gandhi, once persecuted and hounded by the British is now, for the most part, revered, the Dali Lama, looked on as a symbol of peace and love in the west, is not looked on in such a light in China. Michael Collins, a National hero in Ireland, would have been hung from the highest tree the British could find if they had caught him in the 20's. Arafat, a hero to some, still the devil incarnate to others. Those 4, and many others, are what they are/were, do/did what they do/did, purely because of the way they have/had been treated, because of the way their people have/had been treated, some fought with weapons and violence, some fought with peace and dignity, but they all fought. They fought because they had been given no other option, they fought in retaliation against state bullying. Fear Nationalism? I fear no nationalist. I do fear the effects of some peoples attempts to hold onto/gain "power", I fear the trouble that causes, I fear people who feel they have been left with no other choice. I fear those who would use nationalism as an excuse on either side of the "argument".

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 04 2013, 7:42PM

    Paddy, I have indeed made the point, more than once, that science has shown us to be from the same melting pot. That our shared ancestry, history and cultures are more entwined than otherwise. Your point about "coffee coloured people" and coming from a "great big melting pot" And all this leading to lack of variety and stifling uniformity is unproven opinion. Who said we all have to be the same? It is within us all, pretty much, to need to belong; if we choose to belong to a narrow base it is that, which will stifle individuality. So the need to belong is natural but the wider the belonging the more room there is for diversity. My fear of nationalists is well founded; of course not all nationalist causes are the same, I accept we can not lump them all together; but when nationalism is based in falsehood (such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc, etc), and or when it is based on hatred (whatever the genesis of it), we descend into all kinds of hell. Your idea of a nation and what it entails is not everybody's; that is something I believe is being ignored in all this. Some, one who is still posting on this forum, want me out of Cornwall. Their nationalism claims Cornwall to be their own but because I do not accept that (with valid legal reasons), I am told to leave. Unless there is a unity born from solid truths then no cause can stand; I sincerely think those who want a 'Cornish nation' are missing that point.

  • youngcornwall  |  February 04 2013, 8:57PM

    by Tstrunk "Cornish nationalists it represents the dream, their dream." The problem is their dream whatever that dream maybe? (does anyone know) will contaminate anything good, because when certain nationalists get involved they are such a turnoff they turn milk sour, and they cannot see it.

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 04 2013, 9:37PM

    Tstrunk, that page has more objectivity than some others I have seen.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 05 2013, 12:54AM

    CallingtonFox wrote:- "Paddy, I have indeed made the point, more than once, that science has shown us to be from the same melting pot. That our shared ancestry, history and cultures are more entwined than otherwise." Yes, on one level our history, culture, and even ancestry are entwined to varying degrees, our proximity would allow nothing else, but they are also different. You still have not commented on the French aspect, whose history, culture, and yes, even ancestry are also entwined, do you conceder them to be a separate Nation? Again, please note I say Nation, not Nation state. CallingtonFox wrote:- "Your point about "coffee coloured people" and coming from a "great big melting pot" And all this leading to lack of variety and stifling uniformity is unproven opinion. Who said we all have to be the same? It is within us all, pretty much, to need to belong; if we choose to belong to a narrow base it is that, which will stifle individuality. So the need to belong is natural but the wider the belonging the more room there is for diversity." I disagree, the larger the unit, the less room for diversity there is. The larger the unit, the fewer units there are. It is clear from just a casual observation that things such as buildings tend to take on a uniformity, houses start to conform to a standard appearance, with standard construction materials. Choice in merchandise tends to level out, as larger units take over the manufacture and supply of it. Customs tend to merge, or are dropped to be taken over by those that have the most promotion in an ever dumbing down media. Accents are being lost, dialects forgotten, as all we hear in our media is a continuing move to a common accent, a common pronunciation. Yes, every now and then there will be some form of lip service paid to local/regional variance, but this is soon lost in the onward march towards uniformity. I'm not just talking about Cornwall here, but the rest of the British Isles, the whole world. We are on a full speed slid to dull grey uniformity, unless we take a stand against it now. I'm sorry, but you are so dreadfully wrong. CallingtonFox wrote:- "My fear of nationalists is well founded; of course not all nationalist causes are the same, I accept we can not lump them all together; but when nationalism is based in falsehood (such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc, etc), and or when it is based on hatred (whatever the genesis of it), we descend into all kinds of hell." The problem is, that you fear the wrong thing. It is not Nationalism that is to be feared, it is what has been done in it's name that is to be feared. BUT, such things have been done in the name of ALL other 'isms, ALL religions, it is when man seeks power for powers sake that we need to fear, it is when man twists another's beliefs to further his own ends that we need to fear.

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 05 2013, 12:55AM

    CallingtonFox wrote:- "Your idea of a nation and what it entails is not everybody's; that is something I believe is being ignored in all this. Some, one who is still posting on this forum, want me out of Cornwall. Their nationalism claims Cornwall to be their own but because I do not accept that (with valid legal reasons), I am told to leave." I believe that what you have not realised is that this "debate" has been going on on this, and other fora, for a very long time. there have been many instances of deliberate trolling, of outright flamewars, posters resorting to personal attack, threats, Whilst I have not heard of any such incident, I would not even be surprised to learn of there having been actual violence carried out against one poster by another. This behaviour is from both sides, and still goes on. I myself, have been insulted, mocked, and threatened with physical violence. It gets wearisome. People deal with it in different ways. Unfortunately, it has got to the point where some feel that the best form of defence is attack, and yes that is on both sides. If you enter into this debate, you will both witness, and be subject to such behaviour. I deal with it by treating others in the way they treat me, and knowing full well that 99.9999% of the bad things people post about me would not be repeated by them to my face. It is easy to hide behind the anonymity of a username on an internet forum, which is why I don't. CallingtonFox wrote:- "Unless there is a unity born from solid truths then no cause can stand; I sincerely think those who want a 'Cornish nation' are missing that point." The point that is being missed, is that we do not WANT a Cornish Nation, we HAVE a Cornish Nation. What we want is for it to be recognised. What we want is for us to be able to take our place in a truly united kingdom. And that, at the end of the day, is the ONLY truth that matters.

  • youngcornwall  |  February 05 2013, 9:22AM

    Don't some nationalists love threads like this, it is the only way they can get any satisfaction to vent their views, some are not too particular where they do their trolling either, you have been as far as Wales and Northern Ireland on message boards trolling haven't you Paddy.

  • Taxman100  |  February 05 2013, 9:35AM

    The problem here is that which has been experienced by many, and not just here in Cornwall. There can be no doubt there are those who only accept one view of Cornish history, their own; and anyone who has an opposing view is considered to be a heretic. In addition. we have had some who use this forum who refer to others as traitors and worse just because they hold an alternative well researched historical view of the County - oh, and yes, have the 'Cornish Tic' I am a Cornishman and proud of it, but I am not a Cornish Nationalist and never will be - particularly if the likes of AnGof are representative. Wasn't Bishop Trelawny a great Son of Cornwall?

  • Chopper8  |  February 05 2013, 10:00AM

    by youngcornwallTuesday, February 05 2013, 9:22AM "Don't some nationalists love threads like this, it is the only way they can get any satisfaction to vent their views, some are not too particular where they do their trolling either, you have been as far as Wales and Northern Ireland on message boards trolling haven't you Paddy." Oh look Paddy, you appear to have a stalker! Obviously not content to spend his days trolling forums - well, the ones he hasn't already been banned from - 'young-OCD' seems to have found another hobby. 'young'-OCD - you are one of the most prolific posters on this board and yet I struggle to think of anything positive that you have contributed to any thread on any subject - ever. It's clear by your continued anti-Cornish rhetoric on here and elsewhere that you have, lets say, ''issues''. Do yourself a favour, stop hanging off the big boys shirt tails, switch off your computer and go out into the real world. Go on, give it a go Mr Harvey, you might even shine at something. Let's face it, you're rubbish at this 'trolling' lark,

  • PaddyTrembath  |  February 05 2013, 10:11AM

    youngcornwall wroye:- "Don't some nationalists love threads like this, it is the only way they can get any satisfaction to vent their views, some are not too particular where they do their trolling either, you have been as far as Wales and Northern Ireland on message boards trolling haven't you Paddy." http://tinyurl.com/3q75vk) "In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." Yet another, off topic, fishing post from our resident Troll YC. Go back to your poems, and give us all a laugh.

  • youngcornwall  |  February 05 2013, 12:25PM

    by PaddyTrembath Tuesday, February 05 2013, 10:11AM "youngcornwall wroye:- "Don't some nationalists love threads like this, it is the only way they can get any satisfaction to vent their views, some are not too particular where they do their trolling either, you have been as far as Wales and Northern Ireland on message boards trolling haven't you Paddy." As long as everyone knows where they stand, and to what extent some will go to. by PaddyTrembath "Yet another, off topic, fishing post from our resident Troll YC. Go back to your poems, and give us all a laugh." The tourists trade the life blood pumping through Cornish veins seed sown on arrival of the Paddington to Penzance trains. yc

  • Chopper8  |  February 05 2013, 12:28PM

    by skymanandyTuesday, February 05 2013, 11:16AM "All I see is affirmation that all so-called English nationalists are really attention seeking trolls. A valid and intriguing thread has been slogged-on by a small group of trolls with the soul intent of trying to personalise and attack anyone who does not agree with them, which happens to be about 99% of people living in Cornwall. The only people gaining anything from this thread are those with a pastime of Psychoanalysis. It has to be accepted the trolls have muffled the debate and removed the ability of those wishing to debate this topic, not that I believe this was deliberate, more a unconscious Freudian act of self-defense, thank god they number so few. I await Taxman's lazy one line conspiracy quip or Callington Fox's epic novel or worst still 'youngcornwall's latest juvenile post telling us tales of pure bs living next to Fantasy Island. I look on to laugh and pity but feel no need to encourage. For my pennyworths, KGB has them licked using fact based investigation, not sentimental justification for bigotry. Victory to KGB." 'Fixed that for you Andy - or GravyDave or Gary or whatever your latest reincarnation is. Easy this game, isn't it?

  • Carvath  |  February 05 2013, 1:00PM

    Your slipping YC as time goes on. Some of your earlier poems were much better (and copyrighted). One of my favourites is 'My Comforter': http://tinyurl.com/ahunwbg Power to your elbow!

  • Chopper8  |  February 05 2013, 1:56PM

    ''Only in confirming my argument. Your trollish conspiracy was to be expected and erroneous. A home from home for a troll like you, whose only reason for being here is no doubt the miserable life you have in the real world; did you enjoy attacking YC with juvenile comments of OCD little troll?'' Ah, the classic defence tactic of the Uber-Troll. When called out for trolling, attempt to redirect the accusation. You've just registered and jumped straight in with a typical anti-Cornish diatribe which would suggest to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that this isn't the first time you've played this game. Oh, and by the way, do you actually know what a ''conspiracy'' is? As for YC well, I wouldn't expect you to understand for a moment' what with you only just registering, but again it doesn't take a genius to look through his posting history to detect a not-so-hidden agenda. You ought to recognise it, it's one you're no doubt all too familiar with. '' Grow a backbone and join the human race, only other trolls enjoy your personal attacks on forum users. If Paddy does not like comments it is for him to refute not a troll like you, the internet would be a better place was you to not have access toll." So you rush to the defence of one of the biggest trolls on here whilst simultaneously berating me for allegedly defending Paddy? Not the brightest are you? By the way, what's your first language? Surely not English going by that last sentence? Right, I've got to go and carry on with ''the miserable life you have in the real world'', as you so eloquently put it - real internet hardman,eh? So, I'll leave the field to you and your fellow trolls and keyboard warriors - go ahead, fill yer boots....

  • youngcornwall  |  February 05 2013, 3:16PM

    by Carvath "Power to your elbow!" Thank you Mike, I take your posting as a compliment. I try to be as open as a book, if anyone wishes to track me down for any reason, that shouldn't be too difficult, but being realistic, why should they want to.

  • Carvath  |  February 05 2013, 3:37PM

    I expect Monarchy and the Office of the Prime Minister will be trying to track you down YC! http://tinyurl.com/bhw7sln

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 05 2013, 3:51PM

    "You still have not commented on the French aspect, whose history, culture, and yes, even ancestry are also entwined, do you conceder them to be a separate Nation? Again, please note I say Nation, not Nation state." The thing is, they do have a 'Nation State' it makes the point moot. Otherwise we do have far more to share than otherwise. 'Nation States' and 'Nations' are an artificial construct WE create them; babies have no choice where they are born, do they care about nations and nation states? "The point that is being missed, is that we do not WANT a Cornish Nation, we HAVE a Cornish Nation. What we want is for it to be recognised. What we want is for us to be able to take our place in a truly united kingdom. And that, at the end of the day, is the ONLY truth that matters." And that is also where I disagree with you; why do you think it has not been recognized? Because it has not been established factually; it might be, one day, if you all agree on the myriad key stones of its construct; but they have to be real, not opinions of sand or you will fail; I for one am not against truth and will keep watching. As for the rest; I stand by what I have already written. For what it is worth, Paddy, I appreciate and enjoy your posts; you are willing to debate, constructively and politely.

  • CallingtonFox  |  February 05 2013, 4:10PM

    Skymanandy said: "For my pennyworths, Mudhook has them licked using fact based investigation, not sentimental justification for bigotry. Victory to mudhook." And all I was hoping for was to have his points and conclusions debated and, if possible, refuted, but nobody has taken the opportunity. I know of one who did not bother to open the link, I am wondering just who has bothered to open it and have a full read.

  • Chopper8  |  February 05 2013, 4:46PM

    by skymanandy; ''I look on to laugh and pity but feel no need to encourage.'' ''whose only reason for being here is no doubt the miserable life you have in the real world; '' ''Grow a backbone and join the human race,'' ''the internet would be a better place was you to not have access toll." ''Yes I just registered to post my revulsion at trolls like you '' '' in a hope you would be banned and could become some weird martyr for some alleged cause '' '' condemn the vermin '' The above represent just a small sample from your short but bilious posting history mainly directed at me, and you have the nerve to complain about ''vile postings'' and ''proper moderation''! What are you, twelve? I think any impartial reader is free to make up his or her mind as to who is in need of moderation, to judge your real reasons for jumping in so aggressively and assess the true value of your, cough, ''contribution'' to this debate...

  • AnGof2012  |  February 05 2013, 5:08PM

    Skymanandy is a previously banned poster from this forum. We all know who he is. Best ignored. Cornwall next to England just like Wales. Cornish not English.

  • Carvath  |  February 05 2013, 5:08PM

    Skyman got aggressive and abusive because Chopper8 realised who he was. He has posted under at least 3 different "names" in the last 2 days!

  • Tstrunk  |  February 05 2013, 5:52PM

    by CallingtonFoxMonday, February 04 2013, 9:37PM "Tstrunk, that page has more objectivity than some others I have seen." Reading this gives a clear picture of a real problem facing Cornish nationalism,they have no polical support. They are given open support by Cornwall Council and the like to promote the aspirations of the idea of Cornishess via such things like signage and pro Cornish events but isnt the real change needed in the form of political support? and that just isn't there. This can be seen in voting power. If there is to be a large swing of the voters then surely this will result in progress for the natiolist idea. I also think you have raised many interesting points here and feel this is partly the reason the whole thread is descending into a trolling event, it challenges their beliefs.

View all Comments
 
 

START A DISCUSSION

Something about your area!