It wasn't Dommy. Dommy (but with his second username, I forget it) left soon after I got active on OT. I know he's kind of legend, but he didn't figure strongly enough in my personal experience of CFC to become a dream figure.
I remember saying years ago that we need a "Dear Abby" thread on CFC for all these "how do I get a girlfriend", "I don't understand women", "what do I get my girlfriend for her birthday", etc. topics that have been posted over the years.
No, I am not volunteering to host it. If he's willing, I would nominate @Owen Glyndwr, since of all the guys on this forum, I've noticed that he's the one who consistently gives good advice on such topics.
I recall a professor I had when I was in school replying to medical doctors who claimed that they and only they should be called doctor. His response was that he was educated, medical doctors were only vocationally trained.
I doubt it will ever happen, but if anyone insists that I call them by some prefix, I won't, unless it's a part of their given name.
I go out of my way to call someone a Dr. if they are one, in an email in a professional setting for instance, but if you're self-absorbed enough to correct people and insist on them using the "proper" title, then I will not use it.
Almost.The definition of succession is "a formal separation from an alliance or federation," and these were not the legal status of the American colonies. It should have been called the American Rebellion.
However, at that time "rebellion" was a dirty, while in comparison, "revolution" evoked memories of the "Glorious Revolution." Sam Adams was the master propagandist who'd tuned the deaths of a few rioter into the "Boston Massacre" and the destruction of three tons of privately-owned tea into the "Boston Tea Party." He used words for their emotional impact, not for their accuracy. And so we have the American Revolution.
Almost.The definition of succession is "a formal separation from an alliance or federation," and these were not the legal status of the American colonies.
The colonies would have disagreed. There was an intense debate over the constitutional relationship between Britain and the colonies before 1776, and the prevailing American view was that the colonies were joined to Britain through the person of the king, in essentially the same way as Hanover or Ireland, rather than as a wholly-owned subsidiaries of Great Britain. From the American perspective, the British Empire was a new and unwelcome replacement, and their initial goal was the restoration of the older model of royal confederation; independent only became necessary when that had failed.
(That's why the Declaration of Independence focuses so heavily on the king, when most of their disputes were with parliament: if the bonds between the colonies and the person of the king were dissolved, parliament was by definition out of the picture.)
There's a strange habit, when discussing the American Revolution, of reflexively assuming that the British had legal and constitutional right on their side, and that the Americans may or may not have had moral right on their side, but the truth is that there was a genuine debate about the legality of both British imperial policy and American responses to it, and it's not at all clear that the British had the more robust position. The constitutional order of the First British Empire was profoundly ambiguous, and the proof of that ambiguity is its total collapse under the weight of what should have been a relatively minor dispute about taxation.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
That permanent opt-in group was the bee's knees.
.
