"What a bunch of arseholes ...."

[mj_87-old]

GF - The path you should have chosen was not to post at all as you did not have first hand information.
You were relying on second hand information whichh is gossip.

and I do mean South Vietnam!)

No, I don't think you do.

What you mean is either southern Vietnam or south Vietnam (with the word "south" in all lower case letters).

"South Vietnam", with the word "south" capitalized, has not existed for thirty-some years.

GF - The path you should have chosen was not to post at all as you did not have first hand information.
You were relying on second hand information whichh is gossip.

Do any of us have first hand information about very much at all? I, for example, simply ignore what posters write about themselves as I have no way of verifying whether it is true or not. Claims of university degrees or success in business are used quite often to back up otherwise questionable assertions or opinions. I don't know as a fact that any particular poster lives in Pattaya or Bangkok just because they say they do. People say all sorts of things about themselves. I've just got off the phone after having a conversation with a friend in America who claims he's being blackmailed. However I know he's a fantasist and a drama queen whose daily life sounds like a novel and quite possibly is. Do I believe him? Do I need to decide that point?

GF - The path you should have chosen was not to post at all as you did not have first hand information.
You were relying on second hand information whichh is gossip.

You have not said specifically what you would have done under the same circumstances, but as I read it your answer is that unless you were with Mick throughout yourself, and personally in the operating theatre and the ICU to see what was happening (the only way you could have first hand information) you would not have posted at all - " leaving those abroad totally in the dark and those here reliant on bar room gossip" and "incorrect information ... posted here", which you knew to be wrong, "left uncorrected".

I should point out that the information currently being posted is also being posted by a third party, on information given by a second party (as mine was) - presumably you think this should also not be posted?

You could not have been faulted, as you have gone for the simple expedient of doing nothing wrong by doing nothing at all. That is not my style, nor has it ever been one which I have much respect for, so we will simply have to agree to disagree.

[quote=Beach Bunny]

and I do mean South Vietnam!)

No, I don't think you do.

What you mean is either southern Vietnam or south Vietnam (with the word "south" in all lower case letters).

"South Vietnam", with the word "south" capitalized, has not existed for thirty-some years.[/quote:3nmfnt99]

No, I definitely do not mean "either southern Vietnam or south Vietnam (with the word "south" in all lower case letters)".

That would refer to a general geographical area or region rather than an administrative region with specific boundaries which, as concerns the areas for which the British Embassy in Hanoi and the British Consulate in HCMC have administrative responsibility for British Consular affairs, is what I referred to.

The terms "northern Vietnam" and "southern Vietnam" are used by the British Foreign Office/Embassy/Consulate in the interests of political expediency rather than geographical accuracy (as the staff in the Consulate informed me).

Technically, however, the term "South Vietnam" is incorrect and it should be "the former South Vietnam" (although this is no more politically acceptable).

I have no objection to being corrected, as long as the individual doing so is correct; when they are not their intervention is less than pointless.

Sounds like you did mean "south Vietnam" then, and that I was correct.

Sounds like you did mean "south Vietnam" then, and that I was correct.

"Sounds like" (where have I heard that before??) you are incapable of understanding basic English, among your other inadequacies. Nothing new there, I suppose.

One of my many faults is that I still often refer to Burma instead of Myanmar, Rangoon instead of Yangon, Peking instead of Beijing, Bombay instead of Mumbai, etc - I find that more people understand what I am talking about that way. Unfortunately all too often there is some pedant (I think that is what I mean) who is all too eager to correct this and to confuse the issue, even if they are incorrect themselves.

People may understand what you are talking about, but that does not make your use of the language correct.

I'm sure you would not refer to the area around Berlin as "East Germany". "Eastern Germany" or "east Germany", perhaps.

Same goes for Vietnam.

"South Vietnam" is completely wrong. "south Vietnam" is correct.

Is it that difficult for you to admit you are mistaken?

No, I definitely do not mean "either southern Vietnam or south Vietnam (with the word "south" in all lower case letters)".

That would refer to a general geographical area or region rather than an administrative region with specific boundaries which, as concerns the areas for which the British Embassy in Hanoi and the British Consulate in HCMC have administrative responsibility for British Consular affairs, is what I referred to.

The terms "northern Vietnam" and "southern Vietnam" are used by the British Foreign Office/Embassy/Consulate in the interests of political expediency rather than geographical accuracy (as the staff in the Consulate informed me).

Technically, however, the term "South Vietnam" is incorrect and it should be "the former South Vietnam" (although this is no more politically acceptable).

So is it your position that Her Majesty's F&CO is the arbiter on the naming of all places? Are you asserting that the British currently secretly govern Vietnam? What pompous idiocy.

I was recently emphatically told by a young gentleman from modern Vietnam that there is only one Vietnam. I'm prepared to take his word for it over that of the F&CO.