www.ditl.org

Seems to me its just yet another frenchman looking to argue over yet another meaningless topic to prove yet again how worthless they really are to the world.

IMO of course.

USSEnterprise wrote:Calling someone "Canadian", "English", or something seems to be the most neutral way to describe part of someone without going into religion, race, or something like that which can be rather touchy subjects.

You'd have thought so, but people get iffy about such things. Walking up the Falls Road and calling one of the locals a Brit (entirely accurately and without malice), for example, would not be particularly good for your health.

I think the problem stems from Solka's imference that being referred to as a "Canadian" was meant as a reference to his cultural background a/o native tongue, rather than the fact that he is from the nation of Canada.

Unfortunately he seems to be obstinately determined to cling to that inference, and be insulted, even when he's been told it isn't so.

And even when throwing an Anakin-class temper tantrum.

He's a frenchman.

Deepcrush wrote:He's a frenchman.

He hasn't surrendered yet...

Since he lives under British rule I'm thinking he already did.

Deepcrush wrote:Since he lives under British rule I'm thinking he already did.

Actually, I never been under British rule a single day of my life. Do your research.

I am not "insulted" at being called a Canadian, as they are a fine nation. I originally ('cause this thread had a point of origin) was simply making a correction about being referred as a French-Canadian, which while not 100% wrong, isn't 100% appropriate when you are referring my culture. Canada is both a country and a nation, Quebec is simply a nation. One deals more with borders and laws, the other deals more with culture and heritage. If you have to refer to the mindset of one culture, it would be more appropriate to refer to a man's nation and culture than his citizenship, as this is what defines his mentality and outlook on the rest of the world, which was the original topic.

The annoyance steemed out of the fact that you could not simply accept a man's explanation as to why he prefers to be referred as terminology X over Y, and kept insisting that he's a Canadian for everything relevant to the topic. Now, implying that my culture is merely a facet of the Canadian culture, that is insulting. You may say that my culture is a facet of the Canadian country, which is appropriate. Althought you'd have a hard time noticing us if you watched the 2010 Olympic opening.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Actually, I never been under British rule a single day of my life. Do your research.

Oh aye? I take it you haven't read up on which other countries the Queen of Canada is monarch of.

implying that my culture is merely a facet of the Canadian culture, that is a statement of the blindingly fucking obvious

Fixed for you.

The only reference to you being a "French-Canadian" was mine - which, when you corrected me, I politely retracted and apologized for any offense that might have occurred. Anything subsequent to that was bloody-minded refusal to accept the fact that we all were referring to you as a denizen of the country of which you are a citizen... which reference is neither wrong nor offensive.

Mikey wrote:which reference is neither wrong nor offensive.

Unless, of course, you're a fucking idiot.

Captain Seafort wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Actually, I never been under British rule a single day of my life. Do your research.

Oh aye? I take it you haven't read up on which other countries the Queen of Canada is monarch of.

Yup. Since 1982, we aren't ruled by the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland as a dominion of the United Kingdom, but by the Queen of Canada directly, as a selected Monarch.

So technically, Brits have no longer any authority in Canada, and in the case you decide to have a Republic, the monarchy would still have (technically) authority over Canada.

I thought HM completely embodied the state of the UKoGBaNI. You know, "L'etat c'est moi" and all that.

In other words, there is no difference between HM herself and the dominion of the UK.

While the monarchy of each of the commonwealth nations is "legally distinct" the monarch is still the same, British queen.

Reliant121 wrote:While the monarchy of each of the commonwealth nations is "legally distinct" the monarch is still the same, British queen.

Yes, it is still the same monarch, but AFAIK, each of the member states have her as a distinct ruler of their country, and not merely by virtue of being under the heel of the UK.

each of the Commonwealth are sovereign in their own right, under the monarchy of HM. Previously, the Parliament of UK had (symbolic, off course) power over the government structure of Canada (by virtue of appointing our Governor General, off course) and HM was our monarch by virtue of being monarch of the UK. Now, I guess it's an independant ruling structure with a direct relation between HM and Canada, with no UK in between.