Hamilton Saint

Assuming that you are referring to American football again (): the game consists of 4 quarters; each quarter runs for 15 minutes, but the clock starts and stops at the beginning and end of each separate "play"; the referee signals by whistle the when the clock should run or stop. So, the actual amount of time that the ball is in play is 60 minutes. Half-time comes at the end of the first two quarters. The referee has to constantly delay the re-start of the action in a televised game, in order to allow the broadcast of a couple of ads. Each team can also call three "time-outs" during each half of the game. Time-outs are usually called so that the coach can discuss strategy for upcoming key plays, or to stall the momentum of the opposing team. The teams switch ends at the end of the first and third quarter.

Some basic info about "real ale" here: http://www.camra.org.uk/about-real-ale

Nice one!

Yeah, right.

I said it was a generalization myself - or didn't you absorb that point. I was just returning the favour, because you want to characterize all Canadians as "big guy, big jug" people. "All Canadians are complete crumpets"? Nice alliteration there, but just another example of the simplicity of your ideas, and the crudity of your argumentative style. By the way, I am not your pal. Why would a pal of mine think that hurling insults is a rational tactic?

OK, I'll take the bait on this one. Point One: Obesity. If you check the figures (excuse the pun) - I'm using a 2007 WHO study - Canada sits 35th (61.1%) in the percentage of its population that are overweight (a BMI index number above 30). But the U.K. numbers are worse: 63.8%, putting it 28th in the list. Increases in the number of overweight and obese is a world-wide phenomenon - it's up 8% world-wide between 1980 and 2013. That 2007 study found U.K. residents were the third-most overweight people in Europe (only the rates in Iceland and Malta were higher). Point two: Obnoxiousness quotient. Your observations about Canadians, of course, were a gross (excuse another pun) generalization. I've traveled a lot over the years and noticed how different nationalities tend to behave when they're overseas as tourists. My observation (again a generalization) is this: Canadians tend to mix more with other tourists; they accommodate themselves more to local food and customs; they are not as loud and assertive as Yanks and Brits; and they are polite. Brits, on the other hand, tend to be more ethnocentric - they want to get food and drink they are familiar with; Brits are more likely to drink to excess than Canadians; Brits can be more bossy and self-assertive. And if you think that there is little difference between Canadians and Americans, you really haven't been paying attention! This year I was holidaying mid-winter in Mexico. The resort contained a majority of Americans. Previous years (4) I have been in Cuba - where the holidaymakers are primarily Canadian. The differences in behaviour are very noticeable. As a "mid-Atlantic" ex-pat, I am sensitive to these (often-subtle) differences.

Classic. I start reading through a thread with great interest and then, suddenly, there's a post from me. What?! Then I check the date. Jeez, this thread is two years old. But it still sounds fresh. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Oh, and I still like DM - although his comment about "What Saints must not do now" always does my head in.

Thanks for the update. I first became aware of Badger beers about ten years ago. The beer and wine shop (now closed) just around the corner from my friend's house in Frome (Somerset) had a display featuring four or five of their bottled beers. They seem to specialise in flavoured beers - one I recall had an interesting peach flavour (Golden Glory?). We were down on the Dorset coast another time, in order to visit Thomas Hardy's Cottage, Lulworth Cove and Durdle Door, and decided also to do the tour of the Hall & Woodhouse Brewery in Blandford St. Mary (which makes the Badger beers). A very long but memorable day!

I did a tour of the Hall & Woodhouse Brewery in Blandford St. Mary, Dorset about five years ago. They make badger beers, available in bottles or casks - all (or most) are ales. They also do a few ciders. A very interesting tour, explaining thoroughly the brewing process. They also have vintage equipment located around the place, so they can compare the old ways with the new. At the end of the tour, you get a free pint in the brewery's own pub. We enjoyed a pub lunch there, too.

I drink mostly ale. (Might have a Grolsch, or Becks, or Heineken, occasionally). I like Smithwicks, Guinness, Murphy's Stout, Hobgoblin, Old Speckled Hen, London Pride, etc., etc. I like a beer with a distinctive taste. Lots of good Canadian ales, too.

There was something about your style that indicated to me.......not sure what it was.............that you weren't the other................you know, guy. LOL

Saints Player starts four minutes before KO. Nice!

Jeez, Sarnia, it would really help if you tried to grasp what I actually write. I explained in my last post your errors in posts #838 and #848. I'll try one more time: Hamilton is in the Golden Horseshoe but not the GTA; Toronto is in both the Golden Horseshoe and the GTA. It's pretty straightforward.

It's not just the spelling that concerns me, it's the factual errors. The GTA and the Golden Horseshoe are not the same thing, regardless of where you happen to live in the province! The term Golden Horseshoe has been around since the 1950s; it has always meant (at a minimum) the region of land bordering the western edge of Lake Ontario running from the Niagara River around to Toronto. It forms a horseshoe shape. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is limited to the regional municipalities which surround the city of Toronto: Durham, York, Peel and Halton. There are major differences in attitude and culture between the people of Toronto and the people of Hamilton, even though they live relatively near to each other - just like there must be big differences in the attitudes of people living in Sarnia and Detroit, and even differences between those living in Sarnia and Windsor.

I presume you mean know-nothings? By the way, Hamilton isn't in the GTA. Nice try, though.

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania a man brought a concealed, loaded pistol to Easter Sunday Mass. The safety catch was off and the gun was accidentally discharged - the bullet then grazing a congregant. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-fires-accidentally-during-easter-mass-and-bullet-grazes-member-of-congregation-10158461.html Gotta be careful with all those crazed Catholics in the Cathedral praying to the Prince of Peace.

Forget Australia or New Zealand. Better to immerse yourself in a non-English speaking country, with a very different culture. I lived in Greece for 6 months before University in the early 70s. One of the best things I ever did. Went back there twice more in later years.

Well, how can you be consistent (or sincere), if you argue your point, but then respond to an opposing view by saying you don't care? If you really don't care, why bother in the first place?

You can roll your eyes as much as you want. You backed up your argument with CB Fry by making the point that he was a subject, not a citizen. When I provided evidence that your point was incorrect, you said that you didn't care. It's hard debating with someone whose thoughts lack consistency or logic. Sorry.

Don't put words or ideas in my mouth. I do protect myself: I live in a safe neighbourhood; I lock my doors; I stay out of trouble; I obey the law; and I keep guns out of the house.

It's not a matter of whether you care or not; your statement that the poster is a subject and not a citizen is just wrong. That's the point.

"The assertion that guns offer protection is a mantra the NRA has repeated often. In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, LaPierre opined: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", insisting that schools should have armed guards. Academics such as John Lott and Gary Kleck have long claimed that more firearms reduce crime. But is this really the case? Stripped of machismo bluster, this is at heart a testable claim that merely requires sturdy epidemiological analysis. And this was precisely what Prof Charles Branas and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania examined in their 2009 paper investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. They compared 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident with 684 people living in the same area that had not suffered a gun injury. The researchers matched these "controls" for age, race and gender. They found that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra. The reasons for this, the authors suggest, are manifold. "A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them." "

"On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies became either a British citizen, British Dependent Territories citizen or British Overseas citizen. Use of the term British subject was discontinued for all persons who fell into these categories, or who had a national citizenship of any other Commonwealth country. The category of British subjects now includes only those people formerly known as British subjects without citizenship and people born in Ireland before 1949."

Thanks for the clarification. So, you'll go with the party that wants to leave the EU and support Grammar Schools. That's a pretty narrow programme!

I wasn't joking or being rhetorical; I was pointing out an error - which you have identified yourself in the part of your response that I have highlighted. Precision in language is important!