2 for 1 Thread - Forster-Caskey pages 1-4 / Racism page 4

[FridaysGhost]

p.s. I used to train with some of the British Karate team and we all showered together. Amazingly, very tall black guys had large parts AND so did very tall Brits! We, however, do show an ability to use our bits better and longer.

Sorry to destroy anybodies misconceptions!

This post rather backs up my other one about you being a closet homosexual. On the rare occasions I have showered with others after sports events I tend not to be obsessed with the size of other guy's manhood.

Ha, ha! Whatever I am, as this site knows, I will never be in any sort of closet. I say it like it is. My post was true and also tongue-in-cheek as are a few other replies.

p.s. I was wildly amused by the blacks vs brits replies as I had meant no such thing. To me, when you use 'Brit' as a description, it describes people who can trace their british ancestry back to, lets say, 1066. The description has nothing to do with current British citizenship. How would anyone else describe our indiginous population?

[Royal Biscuitman]

Were you a permanent member of the Karartee team or just an interim member?

and also tongue-in-cheek

Ah interiming I see.

[Terminal Boardom]

p.s. I used to train with some of the British Karate team and we all showered together. Amazingly, very tall black guys had large parts AND so did very tall Brits! We, however, do show an ability to use our bits better and longer.

Sorry to destroy anybodies misconceptions!

This post rather backs up my other one about you being a closet homosexual. On the rare occasions I have showered with others after sports events I tend not to be obsessed with the size of other guy's manhood.

Ha, ha! Whatever I am, as this site knows, I will never be in any sort of closet. I say it like it is. My post was true and also tongue-in-cheek as are a few other replies.

p.s. I was wildly amused by the blacks vs brits replies as I had meant no such thing. To me, when you use 'Brit' as a description, it describes people who can trace their british ancestry back to, lets say, 1066. The description has nothing to do with current British citizenship. How would anyone else describe our indiginous population?

Welcome to the BNP Parliamentary candidate for Blackburn.

[From Despair To Where?]

p.s. I used to train with some of the British Karate team and we all showered together. Amazingly, very tall black guys had large parts AND so did very tall Brits! We, however, do show an ability to use our bits better and longer.

Sorry to destroy anybodies misconceptions!

This post rather backs up my other one about you being a closet homosexual. On the rare occasions I have showered with others after sports events I tend not to be obsessed with the size of other guy's manhood.

Ha, ha! Whatever I am, as this site knows, I will never be in any sort of closet. I say it like it is. My post was true and also tongue-in-cheek as are a few other replies.

p.s. I was wildly amused by the blacks vs brits replies as I had meant no such thing. To me, when you use 'Brit' as a description, it describes people who can trace their british ancestry back to, lets say, 1066. The description has nothing to do with current British citizenship. How would anyone else describe our indiginous population?

So you basically mean Anglo-Saxons.

Who were Germanic immigrants

And as for destroying any misconceptions, on the contrary, you have confirmed many presumptions.

[No Fixed Abode]

(Chris) Seymour - Cox

[melonhead]

p.s. I used to train with some of the British Karate team and we all showered together. Amazingly, very tall black guys had large parts AND so did very tall Brits! We, however, do show an ability to use our bits better and longer.

Sorry to destroy anybodies misconceptions!

This post rather backs up my other one about you being a closet homosexual. On the rare occasions I have showered with others after sports events I tend not to be obsessed with the size of other guy's manhood.

Ha, ha! Whatever I am, as this site knows, I will never be in any sort of closet. I say it like it is. My post was true and also tongue-in-cheek as are a few other replies.

p.s. I was wildly amused by the blacks vs brits replies as I had meant no such thing. To me, when you use 'Brit' as a description, it describes people who can trace their british ancestry back to, lets say, 1066. The description has nothing to do with current British citizenship. How would anyone else describe our indiginous population?

why 1066

[Sutekh]

The original Britons - those indigenous to the British Isles - were the Celts who residually are those peoples who were forced westwards by the Romans or who we're not of interest to the Romans for whatever reason. So that's largely - in the early years AD - the populations of Scotland, Ireland, Western Wales, Devon and Cornwall before the Vikings started visiting these fair shores.

Therefore everyone who can't trace their ancestry back to various Celtic roots is technically a foreigner

[Pepe the Horseman]

Contender for thread title of the year.

[soggy biscuit]

p.s. I used to train with some of the British Karate team and we all showered together

this announcement is still making me lol out loud

[melonhead]

The original Britons - those indigenous to the British Isles - were the Celts who residually are those peoples who were forced westwards by the Romans or who we're not of interest to the Romans for whatever reason. So that's largely - in the early years AD - the populations of Scotland, Ireland, Western Wales, Devon and Cornwall before the Vikings started visiting these fair shores.

Therefore everyone who can't trace their ancestry back to various Celtic roots is technically a foreigner

so only the welsh, scots and irish are truly british

get these fookin english out of our country!!!!

[No Fixed Abode]

(Chris) Seymour

Doubt you guys remember him though.

[RoyalBlue]

p.s. I used to train with some of the British Karate team and we all showered together. Amazingly, very tall black guys had large parts AND so did very tall Brits! We, however, do show an ability to use our bits better and longer.

Sorry to destroy anybodies misconceptions!

This post rather backs up my other one about you being a closet homosexual. On the rare occasions I have showered with others after sports events I tend not to be obsessed with the size of other guy's manhood.

Ha, ha! Whatever I am, as this site knows, I will never be in any sort of closet. I say it like it is. My post was true and also tongue-in-cheek as are a few other replies.

p.s. I was wildly amused by the blacks vs brits replies as I had meant no such thing. To me, when you use 'Brit' as a description, it describes people who can trace their british ancestry back to, lets say, 1066. The description has nothing to do with current British citizenship. How would anyone else describe our indiginous population?

FFS! Do you want a JCB to help with digging that hole?!

Now if Jason Roberts were to take issue with the initial comment and subsequent attempted explanation then for once I wouldn't criticise him!

Monkey in space - no. Distinction between Black and British -wow!

[ZacNaloen]

The original Britons - those indigenous to the British Isles - were the Celts who residually are those peoples who were forced westwards by the Romans or who we're not of interest to the Romans for whatever reason. So that's largely - in the early years AD - the populations of Scotland, Ireland, Western Wales, Devon and Cornwall before the Vikings started visiting these fair shores.

Therefore everyone who can't trace their ancestry back to various Celtic roots is technically a foreigner

so only the welsh, scots and irish are truly british

get these fookin english out of our country!!!!

Genetic tests show population of the British Isles largely unchanged since the ice caps receded iirc.

All those invasions only really succeeded in replacing the people in charge.

[FridaysGhost]

The original Britons - those indigenous to the British Isles - were the Celts who residually are those peoples who were forced westwards by the Romans or who we're not of interest to the Romans for whatever reason. So that's largely - in the early years AD - the populations of Scotland, Ireland, Western Wales, Devon and Cornwall before the Vikings started visiting these fair shores.

Therefore everyone who can't trace their ancestry back to various Celtic roots is technically a foreigner

Celts (if you wish to call them that), Romans and their Auxiliaries, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans, were all in the melting pot and I would expect all indiginous English to have traces of all in their ancestry. As you say, in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland the Celtic genes run truer. However, after 1066, the Nation states that make up this Island were more or less in place and, as an Island, we then protected our borders against any invasion for close to 1000 years.

There is no correlation at all between the movements of populations 1000 years ago, before most Nation boundaries had been established and the Financial Migrants who can now enter any Country, both legally and illegally due to the ease of travel due to technology. It is true that for close to 1000 years we did things right and the opening of our borders to all and sundry is very, very wrong.

If one calls the indiginous population of Australia 'Aborigines' (i.e. there is a name for the original inhabitants), why should the indiginous population of these Islands not be Brits?i

[Handsome Man]

The original Britons - those indigenous to the British Isles - were the Celts who residually are those peoples who were forced westwards by the Romans or who we're not of interest to the Romans for whatever reason. So that's largely - in the early years AD - the populations of Scotland, Ireland, Western Wales, Devon and Cornwall before the Vikings started visiting these fair shores.

Therefore everyone who can't trace their ancestry back to various Celtic roots is technically a foreigner

Celts (if you wish to call them that), Romans and their Auxiliaries, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans, were all in the melting pot and I would expect all indiginous English to have traces of all in their ancestry. As you say, in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland the Celtic genes run truer. However, after 1066, the Nation states that make up this Island were more or less in place and, as an Island, we then protected our borders against any invasion for close to 1000 years.

There is no correlation at all between the movements of populations 1000 years ago, before most Nation boundaries had been established and the Financial Migrants who can now enter any Country, both legally and illegally due to the ease of travel due to technology. It is true that for close to 1000 years we did things right and the opening of our borders to all and sundry is very, very wrong.

If one calls the indiginous population of Australia 'Aborigines' (i.e. there is a name for the original inhabitants), why should the indiginous population of these Islands not be Brits?i

I don't want to be a Brit if it means I get lumped together with you. Just a small bit of advice though, if you want to avoid looking faintly imbecilic. If you are going to lecture us with your advanced views on racial matters, you could at least spell indigenous correctly.

[Elm Park Old Boy]

The original Britons - those indigenous to the British Isles - were the Celts who residually are those peoples who were forced westwards by the Romans or who we're not of interest to the Romans for whatever reason. So that's largely - in the early years AD - the populations of Scotland, Ireland, Western Wales, Devon and Cornwall before the Vikings started visiting these fair shores.

Therefore everyone who can't trace their ancestry back to various Celtic roots is technically a foreigner

Celts (if you wish to call them that), Romans and their Auxiliaries, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans, were all in the melting pot and I would expect all indiginous English to have traces of all in their ancestry. As you say, in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland the Celtic genes run truer. However, after 1066, the Nation states that make up this Island were more or less in place and, as an Island, we then protected our borders against any invasion for close to 1000 years.

There is no correlation at all between the movements of populations 1000 years ago, before most Nation boundaries had been established and the Financial Migrants who can now enter any Country, both legally and illegally due to the ease of travel due to technology. It is true that for close to 1000 years we did things right and the opening of our borders to all and sundry is very, very wrong.

If one calls the indiginous population of Australia 'Aborigines' (i.e. there is a name for the original inhabitants), why should the indiginous population of these Islands not be Brits?i

Seriously. Stop digging.

[FridaysGhost]

I don't want to be a Brit if it means I get lumped together with you. Just a small bit of advice though, if you want to avoid looking faintly imbecilic. If you are going to lecture us with your advanced views on racial matters, you could at least spell indigenous correctly.[/quote]

It says it all, that you are unable to argue against the facts but do align yourself with the uneducated, not well-read and dim. Oh gosh! I wrote a long post and mis-keyed one letter! Get over it and answer the science.

Thought not!

[From Despair To Where?]

I must say, it's quite entertaining all this swivel eyed nonsense from our resident Alf Garnett

"Time for Karate training but be careful of the darkie's swinging appendage"

[melonhead]

The original Britons - those indigenous to the British Isles - were the Celts who residually are those peoples who were forced westwards by the Romans or who we're not of interest to the Romans for whatever reason. So that's largely - in the early years AD - the populations of Scotland, Ireland, Western Wales, Devon and Cornwall before the Vikings started visiting these fair shores.

Therefore everyone who can't trace their ancestry back to various Celtic roots is technically a foreigner

Celts (if you wish to call them that), Romans and their Auxiliaries, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans, were all in the melting pot and I would expect all indiginous English to have traces of all in their ancestry. As you say, in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland the Celtic genes run truer. However, after 1066, the Nation states that make up this Island were more or less in place and, as an Island, we then protected our borders against any invasion for close to 1000 years.

OUT! for drawing random arbitrary lines in time.

[melonhead]

It says it all, that you are unable to argue against the facts but do align yourself with the uneducated, not well-read and dim. Oh gosh! I wrote a long post and mis-keyed one letter! Get over it and answer the science.