On Monday 27 Dec 2004 21:49, Steve Lamb wrote: <snip> > To give a sledgehammer example what you're doing is saying that the > *Republic* of the United States of America, the Irish *Republican?* Army > and the People's *Republic* of China are somehow in cahoots with one > another because they all, as part of their offical name, chose the word > "Republic". <snip>
<pedantic> um, wikipedia defines a republic as a: form of government (and a state so governed) where the head of state is not a monarch. by this definition, It is correct to apply the term republic to both the USA and the PRC. it is also correct for both to apply the term to themselves. The IRA, (back when they picked the name) supported the idea of an Irish republic, ie, not ruled by the British Queen. As such it is correct for them to use the term to describe themselves as well. </pedantic> To Patch Steve's comment, which I agree with the spirit of, a British Republication supports the idea of Britain getting rid of it's Queen and all trappings thereof. An American Republican supports the Republican party, which doesn't have anything to do with getting rid of a monarch. Its all in the context. pedanticly yours, Pete -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
