BoxRec

AlexY2K4 wrote:Scotland isn't a nation. It is a region. Great Britain is a nation, Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are not, they are all regions.

Sorry, but you are talking out of your arse. Northumberland is a region, as is Anglia, Merseyside etc. A nation is another word for a country, look at a political map of the world, those wiggly lines are called borders, and what they surround is defined as a nation.

FROM DICTIONARY.COM, DEFINITION, NATION.

5 entries found for nation.
na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nshn)
n.

A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
The government of a sovereign state.
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

ive never heard such crap in my life.
they are all countries in their own right recognised as such internationally and within these isles.
I suppose Canada, Mexico and the USA arent nations neither as they are joined, sheesh

J wrote:ive never heard such crap in my life.
they are all countries in their own right recognised as such internationally and within these isles.
I suppose Canada, Mexico and the USA arent nations neither as they are joined, sheesh

Jay, I don't talk crap.

So you are actually telling me that there are 4 different countries inside a country?

Now that's what I call crap! Britain is the country.

AlexY2K4 wrote:Ahh! I've figured it out! I know why you have this big problem with me. It's because I can't stick your beloved Scotty Harrison or whatever his name is.

I think he's an overrated load of trash as a fighter and a total dick head of a person and you don't like that because he the savior of Scottish sport and culture.

And your basis for calling Harrison a "total dick head of a person" is based on what exactly? Do you know him personally or are you talking from your arse, the latter i think the WBO may not be the best of the titles but at least he has 1 of the main 4 rather than follow the alphabelt route.

Exile wrote:

AlexY2K4 wrote:Ahh! I've figured it out! I know why you have this big problem with me. It's because I can't stick your beloved Scotty Harrison or whatever his name is.

I think he's an overrated load of trash as a fighter and a total dick head of a person and you don't like that because he the savior of Scottish sport and culture.

And your basis for calling Harrison a "total dick head of a person" is based on what exactly? Do you know him personally or are you talking from your arse, the latter i think the WBO may not be the best of the titles but at least he has 1 of the main 4 rather than follow the alphabelt route.

WBO is the alphebet route.

Anyway, i'm sick of talking about belts. People are getting the impression that I actually approve of the proper three. I don't, I just happen to recognize them.

AlexY2K4 wrote:

Exile wrote:

AlexY2K4 wrote:Ahh! I've figured it out! I know why you have this big problem with me. It's because I can't stick your beloved Scotty Harrison or whatever his name is.

I think he's an overrated load of trash as a fighter and a total dick head of a person and you don't like that because he the savior of Scottish sport and culture.

And your basis for calling Harrison a "total dick head of a person" is based on what exactly? Do you know him personally or are you talking from your arse, the latter i think the WBO may not be the best of the titles but at least he has 1 of the main 4 rather than follow the alphabelt route.

WBO is the alphebet route.

Anyway, i'm sick of talking about belts. People are getting the impression that I actually approve of the proper three. I don't, I just happen to recognize them.

how does that differ from approval then?

neil r wrote:

AlexY2K4 wrote:

Exile wrote:
And your basis for calling Harrison a "total dick head of a person" is based on what exactly? Do you know him personally or are you talking from your arse, the latter i think the WBO may not be the best of the titles but at least he has 1 of the main 4 rather than follow the alphabelt route.

WBO is the alphebet route.

Anyway, i'm sick of talking about belts. People are getting the impression that I actually approve of the proper three. I don't, I just happen to recognize them.

how does that differ from approval then?

It's obvious neill.

Approval means that I like these titles and I have no problems with them.

Recognizing means that I accept the fact that these titles are legit and they are the three that most ambitious boxers will aim for.

Just because I happen to recognize these belts, it doesn't mean that I like the fact that they are full of corruption and have the poorest ranking systems ever devised.

I would love to find out one day that all title bodies went bust and we had no more of this crap, but it's not going to happen, so if i'm going to pick which ones have at least some degree of legitimacy, then it has to be the big three.

As I say, it doesn't mean that I approve of them, I just happen to think they are the only ones which actually mean something.

And I don't like the idea of a magazine deciding the rankings.

AlexY2K4 wrote:

neil r wrote:

AlexY2K4 wrote: WBO is the alphebet route.

Anyway, i'm sick of talking about belts. People are getting the impression that I actually approve of the proper three. I don't, I just happen to recognize them.

how does that differ from approval then?

It's obvious neill.

Approval means that I like these titles and I have no problems with them.

Recognizing means that I accept the fact that these titles are legit and they are the three that most ambitious boxers will aim for.

Just because I happen to recognize these belts, it doesn't mean that I like the fact that they are full of corruption and have the poorest ranking systems ever devised.

I would love to find out one day that all title bodies went bust and we had no more of this crap, but it's not going to happen, so if i'm going to pick which ones have at least some degree of legitimacy, then it has to be the big three.

As I say, it doesn't mean that I approve of them, I just happen to think they are the only ones which actually mean something.

And I don't like the idea of a magazine deciding the rankings.

So despite you disliking " the fact that they are full of corruption and have the poorest ranking systems ever devised"

You still "happen to think they are the only ones which actually mean something."

and how does the fact that you "don't like the idea of a magazine deciding the rankings" sit with you recognising the Rings rankings?

and how does the fact that you "don't like the idea of a magazine deciding the rankings" sit with you recognising the Rings rankings?

Simple, I just agree with their rankings, but because they are just a magazine, I don't like the thought of them having any authority in that respect.

I can't really explain it, no matter how much I agree with the ratings, I just don't like the idea of a magazine deciding who is this and that.

I just think that this moral crap is going too far.

Anyway, anyone who follows boxing will know the score anyway.

AlexY2K4 wrote:

and how does the fact that you "don't like the idea of a magazine deciding the rankings" sit with you recognising the Rings rankings?

Simple, I just agree with their rankings, but because they are just a magazine, I don't like the thought of them having any authority in that respect.

I can't really explain it, no matter how much I agree with the ratings, I just don't like the idea of a magazine deciding who is this and that.

I just think that this moral crap is going too far.

and the first part of the question??

So despite you disliking " the fact that they are full of corruption and have the poorest ranking systems ever devised"

You still "happen to think they are the only ones which actually mean something." ?

Because the WBC, WBA and IBF have a superior lineage than that of the WBO?

Well done lennox, took his time, i suspected he was firing blanks

He lead with an effective but ultimately impotent jab for a long time before finally finding his range and landing in the scoring zone

AlexY2K4 wrote:

J wrote:ive never heard such crap in my life.
they are all countries in their own right recognised as such internationally and within these isles.
I suppose Canada, Mexico and the USA arent nations neither as they are joined, sheesh

Jay, I don't talk crap.

So you are actually telling me that there are 4 different countries inside a country?

Now that's what I call crap! Britain is the country.

Look you ignorant individual Im not gonna continue this conversation cos you havent a freakin clue what your on about Im invloved in international trading and shipping, you have to register vessels and loadport and disport on official documents (for example a bill of lading) as what country they are from and where they are going and where they loaded, if you signed Britain they would refuse the paperwok as you need to be specific as in for example Breafoot Bay Scotland, not feckin britain, this is one example that's used every day. So stop trying to teach grandad to suck eggs mate. As i rewfeered to in previouis posts yes there are four individual internationally recognised countries in these Isles, asides from this the people of the British Isles would refute your claims massively, Im English from the British Isles, not British living in England. Im sure Neil and our scots brethrin, or Stu and the Welsh guys on here, Irish etc feel the same need for their own national identity. Got it yet?

Are you stupid or something Alex, Did you not read the dictionary definition of Nation?

Britain, or Great Britain to be correct, is the name given to the collection of countries which make up the british Isles, which is England, Northern Ireland (actually part of england officially), Wales and Scotland.

England is the country, as in your nationality is English, not British. However, anyone within Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can hold a British passport, or more correctly, a UK passport.

The United Kingdom, is the name given to the congolomeration of nations, which are England, Scotland and Wales. They are all administered from a central government, hence the term 'united.'

The United states is different, as they have a federal government, and the individual states are not countries (although Puerto Rico, Alaska and Hawaii are all individual countries), just in case you start spouting on about that.

Don't try and lecture people, when you are not even in possession of the facts.

I'll spell it out for you once more.

Region = A region of a country, for instance, the counties are all regions, as is the north of england, or 'the west country' regions are subdivisions of countries or nations.

Any you wonder why you are so 'victimised?'

If you wipe your finger round the toilet bowl, don't be surprised when it comes up smelling of shite. And if you act like a pompous dickhead, don't be surprised if people call you one.

Go buy yourself a dictionary, and look up the words, Nation, Country, and Region, you may find it instructive.

crash n burn baby yeaaaaah!

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Are you stupid or something Alex, Did you not read the dictionary definition of Nation?

Britain, or Great Britain to be correct, is the name given to the collection of countries which make up the british Isles, which is England, Northern Ireland (actually part of england officially), Wales and Scotland.

England is the country, as in your nationality is English, not British. However, anyone within Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can hold a British passport, or more correctly, a UK passport.

The United Kingdom, is the name given to the congolomeration of nations, which are England, Scotland and Wales. They are all administered from a central government, hence the term 'united.'

The United states is different, as they have a federal government, and the individual states are not countries (although Puerto Rico, Alaska and Hawaii are all individual countries), just in case you start spouting on about that.

Don't try and lecture people, when you are not even in possession of the facts.

I'll spell it out for you once more.

Region = A region of a country, for instance, the counties are all regions, as is the north of england, or 'the west country' regions are subdivisions of countries or nations.

Any you wonder why you are so 'victimised?'

If you wipe your finger round the toilet bowl, don't be surprised when it comes up smelling of shite. And if you act like a pompous dickhead, don't be surprised if people call you one.

Go buy yourself a dictionary, and look up the words, Nation, Country, and Region, you may find it instructive.

No i'm not stupid, I still think you are being a bit harsh?

How exactly does it make me stupid? All it means is, I am either correct, or I am not.

What you need to do is relax, have a drink and stop getting your little panties in a twist.

Puerto Rico isn't a US state is it James? (you mention Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii)

Loftgroov wrote:Puerto Rico isn't a US state is it James? (you mention Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii)

Is Puerto Rico a principality?

I think PR is to the USA what Gibraltar is to the UK.

Well, Gibraltar isn't a principality, nor do I believe is Puerto Rico.......

Puerto Rico is a soveriegn state with its own head of state etc while Gibraltar is a colony, or a possesion for want of a better word.

neil r wrote:Puerto Rico is a soveriegn state with its own head of state etc while Gibraltar is a colony, or a possesion for want of a better word.

Not quite. I know a few people online from Rico. PR is a self-governing commenwealth in associattion with the US. It's head of state is that nice Mr Bush. It's head of government is elected by the citizens of the country. It has control of it's tax and internal laws, but not of external politics, immigration, military stuff etc. Puerto Ricans can travel freely to the states without VISAs (although I don't think they can vote in the presidental elections)

So it's not a state or a colony. The closest exapmle I can think of, in my limited political knowlege, is Scotland (apart from the voting thing).

Puerto Rico is a part of the federal united states as far as I am aware, but yes, it is an independent nation of sorts. Alaska is also a nation as far as I am aware, as is Hawaii.

Alex my point was, despite being confronted with the obvious facts of a dictionary definition of nation, you still continued to fly in the face of reason.

Believe me, the last thing I need is another drink after last night.

large blooody mary mate, but a decent one from somewhere like browns, with all the spices etc, best hangover cure known to man, next ot a fry up.


aaah my healthy lifestyle!