Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
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 It is no longer maintained.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.
Poll
The best Empire of all time is:
The Roman Empire 18%
The Persian Empire 6%
The Mongol Empire 12%
The Empire of Alexander the Great 0%
The British Empire 42%
The Mogul Empire 3%
The Inca Empire 3%
The French Empire 6%
The Egyptian Empire 3%
The Frankish Empire 6%

Votes: 33

 The British Empire - Why it was so good.

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jul 14, 2001
 Comments:
The British Empire is often attacked by liberals and historical revisionists. Here, they say, was an organised system of oppression that spanned the globe, depriving native peoples of their rights and organising mass slavery, drug use and raping the lands and cultures it conquered.

In their extremism, these people forget a few things - the Empire was not a force of evil for those it conquered, it was a force of good. The Pax Britannica made the 19th century comparitively peaceful and safe compared to the centuries that preceded it, and it was possible to travel the globe and visit all continents using just one currency, speaking one language and all without worry of molestation.

Here I shall analyse just why the Empire was so good for the people it conquered and what it did for the world.

globalization

More stories about Globalization
Yumi bai spikim Tok Pisin nau!
There was not enough violence in Genoa
Philip Morris Is Right
How to Smash Global Industrial Capitalism Without Leaving Your Bar-Stool
Welcome to the Third World
Chip Hell -- the AMD story
The Death of the Channel
Breaking Down the Language Barrier
Shit or Get Off the Pot
A Guide to the United Kingdom for Americans.

More stories by
bc

Lolita's World: The disturbing tendencies of the modern man.
Why we must increase Space Weapons research - a proof from the Drake equation.
Goths and Vampirism - A final solution?
Kill Yr Idols: Tiger Woods
Models - Stormtrooping superbitches of the Fashion Industry
Don't look at me.
A paean to masochism: A new philosophy of life.
Why America needs laws against flag burning.
AOL - The Saviour of the Internet
An Analysis of Marketing Techniques in Supermarkets.
Football & Fascism -- Prima Donnas and the Superman
A Day on the Town
Kill Yr Idols: Usamah bin Muhammad bin Laden
Using the Myers-Briggs System for a Better Society
Real Men use Realdolls?
George Harrison Dead: The World Mourns
Why I want to be an American Citizen
Let me make clear some first principles.

  • The wealth of a nation depends not on its physical resources, but upon the honesty and industriousness of its people. This is why Hong Kong is one of the wealthiest nations of the world per capita, and why mainland China is not - same people in each, but Hong Kong has a population tempered and improved by fair laws and centuries of Anglo Saxon tradition. This makes their culture quite different, and is why, despite the total lack of resources, they are so incredibally wealthy.
  • Any country which is superior to another in terms of the culture being fair and honest must surely become wealthier and more powerful than all neighbours, nomatter the resources available. A prime example of this might be ancient Athens, which despite its tiny size (a population of some 50,000 or so) managed to defeat, single handedly, the entire Persian Empire. This was due to Athens being a nation of moral probity and fairness.
  • Any nation which is wealthy therefore has moral probity. This is fairly trivial from my above points.
  • Any nation which has wealth has a duty to conquer countries less wealthy than it. This may seem controversial, but I think it follows from my previous points fairly well. This wealthier country will obviously have more moral probity and fairness - all the mechanisms of the market defined by Adam Smith depend upon a society that is, at its heart, fair. If someone is more intelligent and has higher moral values than a degenerate in the street, we recognise that that person has a duty to help the degenerate where he can. The same applies to nation states.
Britain became the world's foremost power in the 18th century. Closely rivalled by degenerate France for a time, before extinguishing its historical rival towards the end of the century in the Seven Years War, this was the century when Britain started to really make something of its Empire. In the 19th Century it grew almost by accident - by this time the British were so superior that individual mercenaries, like Rajah Brooke, could take over entire nations. Although the British Empire expanded to take over one third of the globe physically, it also had numerous satellite states and spheres of interest. All of South and Central America did not need to be conquered physically, because they were already controlled utterly and completely economically.

Britain took its obligations seriously however. It did not try to extinguish the cultures of other nations, but rather to bring them alive in a framework of fairness. The only cultural artifacts it imposed were simple principles of morals. Where native religions were opposed to even simple moral behaviour, they would introduce Christianity in order to right the wrongs of paganism and allow these peoples to flower.

The fact that Britain was not interested in changing the cultures and religions of the peoples it conquered can be seen most clearly in India. The British East India company, before the mutiny, was the ruler of India. By 1850 the wealth of the company and its turnover was greater than that of the whole of Britain - a great economic success. However, companies are not interested in changing cultures, only in making money. But when the mutiny started (sparked by a false rumour among the ignorant sepoys of cartridges being greased with pig fat), it was clear that it wasn't altering the culture of India enough and so the government disbanded it and India at last basked in the light of modern post-Enlightenment thought.

Britain in the 19th century can be considered the educator of the world - not a corner or a people did not benefit from the glow of western civilisation and Anglo Saxon culture. Of course, Britain did not intend to impose actual culture, just impose a moral framework such that decent commerce could occur. Primitive regions of the world, such as Ireland and Sierra Leone, have long been thankful for this.

By the 20th century, some nations had taken this lesson to heart so much that they began to take over Britain in economic performance and become teachers themselves - America and Japan are good examples of this. So it was that Britain selflessly undid its own status.

But just imagine for a moment what would have happened had Britain not been so selfless with its knowledge. If Britain had adopted a more protectionist attitude, the whole world would have suffered and we would still be in the dark ages because the light of Britain's advance into the Industrial Revolution and the modern world would not have spread beyond the shores of the Mother Country.

In fact, lets take this to an extreme degree - suppose financially and militarily superior nations and people did not seek to impose themselves on their neighbours. By now Europe would have a population in the billions, and would doubtless have collapsed utterly - it is only by exporting the human surplus and importing resources and agriproducts (like the potato) that Europe has been able to stay alive.

The nub is that those who criticise the Empire, a natural occurance, do not have any decent explanations of how world history was supposed to proceed.

The simple fact is that the British Empire, like all Empires before it, did a lot more good than it did harm. Just like the Roman Empire in ancient times, it spread plumbing, roads, trade, and education. The Roman Empire is now a rosy memory, and generally people recognise that it did much good for Europe - but people will not admit the same for the British Empire regarding what it did for the world.

Perhaps this is because we are still close to the British Empire in time, and it haunts us. I have no doubt that one day, the worth and achievements of Empire will be properly recognised. Whether you are in the USA, Australia, India, South Africa, Canada or Egypt, you can thank the existence of your nation and your standard of living on the British Empire.


My only question is this: (none / 0) (#3)
by elenchos on Sat Jul 14th, 2001 at 07:59:53 AM PST
What mode of travel would you be using to tour the holdings of the Empire around the globe? A ship perhaps? A British ship perhaps? And so you would be free of any worry of molestation? You are sea on a British ship, sailing for months around the world, and not at all worried about being molested.

Look. Just try saying that last sentece out loud to yourself, and you tell me if you can make it sound plausible for even a second.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Depends... (none / 0) (#4)
by bc on Sat Jul 14th, 2001 at 08:08:24 AM PST
...on your wealth. Even society ladies could safely trsvel between India and Britain without worry. Travel by the 1870's or so was very civilised. Just jump on a packet steamer, pay your fair and you should have been alright.

Of course, if you are talking about the earlies then things would have been quite different, as 18th and early 19th century travel was not exactly safe, due to piracy on the high seas, agressive foreign powers and and unruly, sometimes press ganged crews.

But later the Royal Navy had taken care of all these problems, and civilised (if expensive) travel all over the globe was certainly possible, on the numerous liners, steamers, yachts and so on that were built during the period.


♥, bc.

 
Yanks started the rot (none / 0) (#18)
by nobbystyles on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 06:56:20 AM PST
With their 'declaration of independence' over a few pennies on the price of a cup of tea. Tightwads who didn't want to pay for their defence.




what comes around goes around (none / 0) (#37)
by xopowo on Tue Aug 28th, 2001 at 03:33:02 AM PST
"...didnt want to pay for their defence" How much have the british paid for the US's continued defense of your nation? You might as well be the 52nd star on our flag right after Canada.


 
India (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 08:14:11 AM PST
The fact that Britain was not interested in changing the cultures and religions of the peoples it conquered can be seen most clearly in India. The British East India company, before the mutiny, was the ruler of India. By 1850 the wealth of the company and its turnover was greater than that of the whole of Britain - a great economic success.

While Indians starved in the fields.


Don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 11:56:43 AM PST
In their distinct non-interest for the cultures and religions of conquered peoples, Britain certainly didn't outlaw certain religious groups like the Thuggee, or the practice of "bride burning" (there's a specific name for this ritual, but my research fails me), right?

The moral and ethical concerns for these issues aside, Britain meddled in world affairs for decades, "correcting" the mistakes of countless cultures and religions in an attempt to homogenize and convert them to British values. We'll never know how many cultures and religions have been lost or otherwise sanitized beyond recognition for the sake of imperialism.


A troll's true colors.

Umm (none / 0) (#22)
by bc on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 12:10:16 PM PST
Are you defending wife burning (sutee I *think* is the term)? Or for that matter the Thugee (where the word 'thug' comes from) a group of Indians who rejoiced in brutally murdering travellers to appease their Indian Gods?

Its a good job Britain stamped these things out if you ask me - otherwise would be taking multiculturalism a bit too far.

Human Rights are universal.


♥, bc.

Hook, line and... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 12:43:08 PM PST
You're right, it's suttee, but I couldn't find it anywhere before. Looking it up now brings up this definition. Am I defending it, or the bloodthirsty cult known as the Thuggee? Of course not. Ethical and moral implications aside, the British empire explicitly went in and meddled with the natural evolution of Indian culture and religion contrary to your claims. They had no more right to pass judgement on Indian society than India had to pass judgement on Britain.

I am not sorry to see the Thuggee extinguished. Nor am I sorry to see the practice of suttee discouraged (though my research indicates that incidents have been slowly rising over the past fifteen years). What I'm saying is that it isn't my place to judge, and neither is it yours. I can suggest to the Indians that such practices are inhuman and barbaric; I can refuse to deal with them on that basis. I can discuss my disagreements with the Hindu all I want, but I am not allowed to force them to do anything except to make sure they don't impose their values and practices on me.

It's one thing to be asked to help by someone being oppressed. It's something else to step in where nobody asked. That's a distinction the US has yet to fully appreciate, and will struggle with for a long time to come.


A troll's true colors.

 
We need the British Empire even more today (none / 0) (#20)
by Adam Rightmann on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 09:35:28 AM PST
If you look at former colonies that were settled by England, and compare them to colonies that were settled by other colonial powers, you will notice a sever dichotomy. English settled colonies are now modern, stable, prosperous countries, while countries that have their roots in other colonial powers are dangerous, violence filled third world countries.

In the western hemisphere, compare Haiti, settled by the French, to the Bahamas, settled by the English. I know that when I do my civic duty and donate blood, stepping foot in Nassau does not make my blood a type IV pathogen.

In Asia, compare Singapore and Indonesia. One of these countries is a high tech Asian wonder, the other is slaughtering infidels. Guess which one was civilized by the British, and which one by the Dutch.

In Africa, compare English civilized Egypt with Italian civilized Libya. Which one is a world pariah, and which one is a force for moderation in the Arab world.

What I'm getting to is that the world would be a much better place if some of the colonies gone wrong, spoiled by the French, or Dutch, or Spanish, would be reconquered by the English for a century, just long enough to install morals and values. Hopefully, those countries would be wise enough to willingly submit.


A. Rightmann

WTF? (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 05:25:43 PM PST
Israel, Afganistan, Iraq, Tibet, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwae, Yemen, Burma are all suffering the hangover of Britains colonial interests.

Britain is also responsible for genocide in places that are now stable such as Tazmania and the US and the expulsion of native people in Diego Garcia. Its probably also worth pointing out that Egypt and India were civilised a long time before Britain and the arrival of the British.

All this is academic though -- stealing other peoples countries is wrong.


You can't take our land! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 08:37:10 PM PST
It's ours! You can't have it!

Do you have a flag?

Well...no...

No flag, no nation. Congratulations, we're your new rulers.

I forget the name of the British comic I'm paraphrasing, but it was funny as hell. Quite appropriate to this topic, as well.


A troll's true colors.

 
Bitter (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 12:17:43 PM PST
What of the USian empire? You know, the one that keeps saving the rest of the world's collective asses?


 
soapbox (none / 0) (#24)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 12:30:41 PM PST
Wow. This article was so incredibly bigoted and narrow-minded, I hardly know where to begin. Rather than pick it apart piece by piece (a temptation, but time constraints forbid), I'll just touch on a few phrases begging for comment.

Any nation which is wealthy therefore has moral probity.

Oh boy. Let's look at that very impressive word, probity:

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, we have this history and definition of the word: Middle English probite, from Middle French probité, from Latin probitat-, probitas, from probus honest
: adherence to the highest principles and ideals : UPRIGHTNESS
synonym see HONESTY


In other words, it's the Golden Rule: those with the gold make the rules. Another way to phrase it is "might makes right." While this certainly makes practical sense, its moral and ethical implications suggest a rather darker foundation. Because I'm stronger, smarter or wealthier, I have the right to subjugate all those weaker, less intelligent or poorer than I. At the same time, those who are stronger, smarter or wealthier than I have the right to subjugate me. Sound familiar to anyone? It's called a feudal society, and has been mostly out of fashion in Western society for the past century or so. Wow, talk about a reactionary piece.

Let's look at the implications of this statement a little further. I'm wealthier and therefore possess moral probity. That means my thoughts and ideals are more valid than yours regardless of any other considerations. Because I'm wealthier than you, I'm smarter than you (even if I'm not). I'm also happier than you (even if I'm not). I am therefore qualified to impose my values and views on you because I'm clearly superior to you. The fact that my values and views may not make any sense to you is irrelevant: I'm wealthier, and therefore what I say goes. You'll be much happier and better off with me dictating your thoughts and actions (even if you're not).

Boy, this is really making me re-think the issue on gun control.

Moving on to the other statement I wish to address: Where native religions were opposed to even simple moral behaviour, they would introduce Christianity in order to right the wrongs of paganism and allow these peoples to flower.

Looks like we're back to moral probity, again. Simple moral behavior, like worshiping the correct god, saying the correct cacheisms and having sex in the correct position? Free will be damned, I'm wealthier than you are so I get to tell you what you can and can't do!

...Right the wrongs of paganism... Goodness! You mean, uncounted generations of people worshiping pagan gods have been unhappy, unfulfilled and unforgiveably wrong since the beginning of time, and they never even knew it! The happiness and fulfillment they thought they had and yearned for (particularly after it was taken away from them) was a mere shadow of the happiness and fulfillment forced on them for their own good! Praise God for the merciful and enlightened British Empire who corrected these errors, whether anyone wanted them to or not!

In case anyone has missed the point, let me summarize: no one is qualified to dictate thought or value upon anyone else. You don't know what is right for me just because you know what works for you. Moral probity is a fallacy from the very onset, and using it as the foundation for an argument demonstrates the same inexcusable ignorance and small-mindedness that destroyed species and cultures before we even knew about them. It is the foundation for the "American Dream" that, I say as an American, doesn't exist. I'm wealthier than most of my fellows through persistence and hard work. I'm not happier or more fulfilled than any of them because of my ensuing moral probity. This is because my definition of "happiness" and "fulfillment" have nothing to do with my wealth. Suggesting otherwise will result in a well-earned laugh of contempt.


A troll's true colors.

Well, what is the alternative? (none / 0) (#26)
by bc on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 01:31:01 PM PST
Let's look at the implications of this statement a little further. I'm wealthier and therefore possess moral probity. That means my thoughts and ideals are more valid than yours regardless of any other considerations. Because I'm wealthier than you, I'm smarter than you (even if I'm not).

Here you take to an interpersonal level what I was applying to nations. One man may be wealthier than another through accident or inheritance, but not whole nations, and so we see that the analogy breaks down. What I was saying was that a high degree of economic success in a nation means that that nation must have a strict moral climate - a system of commonly observed rules such that trade can takes place, the ambitious can move up in society, and so on. All these things Britain had in the 18th century - certainly more so than mainland Europe and Arica, Asia etc.

In case anyone has missed the point, let me summarize: no one is qualified to dictate thought or value upon anyone else.

Apart from anything else, people do often have the right to dictate moral values to others. Look at parents with children, or unruly prisoners and the mentally ill - these people areoften reformed and educated morally in our society.

Britain and India was not unlike a mother and her daughter. Certainly much happened in the colonies that is regrettable, but what would the alternative have been? Suppose nations had not conquered others physically in those days, and did not do so culturally today? How could the world possibly progress? The implications would be quite unthinkable. The entire course of human history is all about the superior conquering the inferior (these terms being simply measured in terms of economic power, military power etc). The inferior then learn what made the superior so much better, and so civilisation and values spread. The Rift valley would be a very overpopulated place by now were it not for this process.

My fundamental point is that although the Empire was by no means perfect, like other Empires before it (such as the Roman Empire), in the long run it did a lot more good than harm.


♥, bc.

Response (none / 0) (#27)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 02:23:05 PM PST
Here you take to an interpersonal level what I was applying to nations.

That's because a philosophy applied to a nation can also be applied to an individual, and vice-versa. To successfully govern in a democratic (or at least representative) society, one must apply the moral and ethical code of individuals to those intended to rule those individuals. It's an excellent touch-test for the actions of a government. It is unacceptable for an individual to lie to further his or her own cause, and the same principle applies to a nation with similar consequences. Therefore, if a nation is ethically required to go out and conquer everyone it can to impose its will upon them, so must the individual. Double standards are always hypocrisy, bar none.

The entire course of human history is all about the superior conquering the inferior (these terms being simply measured in terms of economic power, military power etc).

So once again, might makes right and those with the gold makes the rules. I find that morally questionable on both an interpersonal and multinational level. Human history is filled with the rise of nations built on the blood and backs of others. We certainly would not be where we are today without that history. Would we still be hunter-gatherers, or would we have taken a different path, found a different way to advance and improve our lives? We'll never know.

We now have the benefit of hindsight, having gained the ability to preserve what history we can and attempt to learn from it. Given historical context and the example given in this article, the United States should have gone out and conquered the world (even mighty Britain) the moment our resources gave us the advantage. We didn't. Why? Because of the philosophy of George Washington, the first President of the United States. Here's a paragraph from his farewell address that I always found enlightening:
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.


Washington urged the US to stay out of foreign affairs. Leave the world to itself and concentrate on our own problems. Trade with the world, but leave them to their own problems. Improve our own lives and let the world learn to improve themselves. A lesson is best learned when the student comes to it on her own. A lesson forced on a student is often lost in resentment. Once that blanket of impartiality is lost, it can never be regained.

Which is where the US stands now. We didn't exactly conquer the world, but we've entangled ourselves in foreign affairs and are attempting to coerce the other nations of the world to conform to our ideals. Does Britain want to live by American ideals? Give up your monarchy entirely? It's an archaic and immoral tradition placing the whim of one individual (or group of individuals) above the rest.

After all, the United States have moral probity.


A troll's true colors.

 
"Moral Probity" (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 08:21:45 PM PST
What gal! Dude... have you watched "Gandhi" ?? Please do yourself a favor and watch the stunningly historically accurate movie. If you still blabber about "moral probity" and stuff, well... what more can one say?

The british systematically plundered the colonies. Did you know that the Kohinoor diamond, the world's largest diamond when it was found in diamond mines of India, was grabbed by the british, and after decades of cutting and polishing, the few remaining pieces still adorne the crown of the Queen of England? The peacock throne, the jewel studded throne that belonged to Shah Jahan (the one who built the world famous Taj Mahal) is now in british custody. The british moved thousands of Indians as slaves to work in its other colonies in Africa and The Carribean.

With the end of the second world war, there came a global awareness for the need for what is known today as "political correctness". And it is probably fair to say that England has been a fair "ruler" in the remaining half of the just concluded century. But to say Englad had anything that even sounds like "moral probity" is down right wrong. This article is factually wrong, poorly researched, highly biased and downright stupid. I cannot help feel the authors are writing with the sole motive to increase readership by adopting a controversial style.


The Kohinoor (none / 0) (#30)
by bc on Mon Jul 16th, 2001 at 08:36:53 PM PST
This diamond is in British hands rightfully. It was the jewel used by the Jhansi of the Sikhs north of India. The army, the Khalsa, was European trained and 80,000 strong. The British had no interest in controlling this region, but the Khalsa and the Jhansi together decided it would be a jolly good idea to attack British India. They were utterly defeated (though it was a close thing) and the British decided to take the son of the Jhansi into British custody (to guarantee their good behaviour) and take the diamond as war reparation. They never actuall took over though.

The diamond was used in much sex play at the time. A game was to balance it on your (oiled) stomach and try to pass it to another's stomach without using any hands. Much writhing and sex games were involved, and such games often degenerated into orgies.

The point is that, like so much history of the Empire, this little tale has been warped in the telling. The British only stole if you think war reparations after a major and unprovoked attack is stealing, and not justice.

Doubtless Britain did many bad things during its stewardship of the world. It is my belief, however, that it did more good than harm.


♥, bc.

Oh well... (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 18th, 2001 at 02:50:45 PM PST
The point is that, like so much history of the Empire, this little tale has been warped in the telling. The British only stole if you think war reparations after a major and unprovoked attack is stealing, and not justice.

ofcourse, it has been taken for granted the "victor" of a war walks away with all the spoils. But I really do not understand why you call the battle in question "unprovoked attack". First the British East India Company, masquerading as traders, settle much of India. Then they progressively oppress the native peoples to the point when the oppressed put together an army to fight them. I don't think this situation can be described as an "unprovoked attack" by the natives... Doubtless Britain did many bad things during its stewardship of the world. It is my belief, however, that it did more good than harm. every one is entitled to her own opinion. I agree it did do some "good". Several generations of Indians benefited from world class education in Cambridge and Oxford, at a time the Indian educational system was in shambles after centuries of invasions and increased in-fighting (let's not forget that India had the world's first modern university, Nalanda, that was destroyed in 1300 A.D by barbarians after functioning for 700 years straight). The British put in place modern railway and postal networks, and established a number of universities across the country; and finally they taught us to play cricket :) . All this is certainly appreciated. But then, there is nothing to say an indenpendent India would not have done all of this (except the cricket part) on its own. Considering how successful India engineers, mathematicians and scientists are doing in the U.S. it would have been very much possible....


 
Oh Please. Spare me. (none / 0) (#32)
by dmg on Tue Jul 17th, 2001 at 04:45:33 PM PST
. I cannot help feel the authors are writing with the sole motive to increase readership by adopting a controversial style

What ? Cannot handle any opinion that differs from your own ? How narrow minded can you get ? I have been reading adequacy for some time now, and I appreciate the challenging nature of the articles here, and the intelligent discussion. Do you really think that a site with no advertisment banners really gives a shit about page views ? Do you think anyone would waste their time making up crap that they don't believe ?

I think you are looking for conspiracies where none exist, dude. Maybe you been watching too many X-files...

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

In a word, yes. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Jul 18th, 2001 at 03:00:04 PM PST
Do you think anyone would waste their time making up crap that they don't believe?

Yes. I have a hard time believing much of what you submit. People are just not that small.


A troll's true colors.

 
Re: Oh Please... (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 18th, 2001 at 03:01:12 PM PST
What ? Cannot handle any opinion that differs from your own ? How narrow minded can you get ? I have been reading adequacy for some time now, and I appreciate the challenging nature of the articles here, and the intelligent discussion.

"intelligent discussion", maybe. "Challenging nature of articles?" - this can be interpreted anyway you wanted.

Do you really think that a site with no advertisment banners really gives a shit about page views ? Do you think anyone would waste their time making up crap that they don't believe ?

Oh yeah? if one really is not interested about their readership, why put up a site to begin with? why not mutter these essays inside your own brain or with your friends? They clearly want more people to visit their site. And then don't kid yourself about the whole advertisement banners thing... they will eventually appear, but till then, bragging rights and "ego-boo" is sufficient explanation.


 
Let none of this deter you my friends.... (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 18th, 2001 at 03:40:19 PM PST
I have been reading adequacy for some time now, and I appreciate the challenging nature of the articles here, and the intelligent discussion.

are you not part of the adequacy team? ROTFL... Yeah I know I was jobless enough to look around the site.

I want to thank you... this site adds spice to my otherwise dour day. If I don't read a butt-load of crap from your site everyday, I feel my day has not been well spent... Keep up the good work fellas... Keep dumping all that blurb onto the net... believe it or not, your site makes me <u>want</u> to live.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org 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 Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.