Dessie Ellis - The Sinn Fein TD who is linked to 50 murders

JustinDee

dickwod1 wrote: »

I never said he was although Nelson Mandela coordinated sabotage campaigns against military and government targets, making plans for a possible guerrilla war if the sabotage failed to end apartheid. Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad and arranged for paramilitary training of the group he would use bombs to blast the symbolic places of apartheid like pass offices, native magistrates courts, post offices and the government offices

I was responding to your quote where you said "Why not remove the people with a terrorist past from the party, or at the very least have them retire from public roles?"

I do love the attempt at moral relativism by some. On one hand, you have someone involved in a resistance against an apartheid regime. On the other is an individual part of an organisation who took to arms in the late 60s/early 70s against a sectarian regime and proceeded to hijack the cause with an equally anti-democratic means towards a goal of 32 county republic.
Hardly the same circumstances. Not by a long shot (definitely no pun intended).

tipptom

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm speechless to be honest.

Well you should be with your warped reasoning.

howiya

The Sindo have another article on Dessie in today's paper.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/explosive-links-to-a-past-ellis-cannot-escape-3338797.html

The should really start it with the following paragraph

However, the jury found there was insufficient evidence to convict him of conspiracy to cause the explosions in London and acquitted him in November 1991. He was deported to Ireland and later became a Sinn Fein councillor for Finglas and since 2011 a TD for Dublin North-West.

Instead they bury it in the middle of the article in order further their own agenda.

Reading between the lines it would appear that the case the Indo are trying to make against him is akin to charging the man who makes bullets in a munitions factory with murder

The Waltzing Consumer

howiya wrote: »

Reading between the lines it would appear that the case the Indo are trying to make against him is akin to charging the man who makes bullets in a munitions factory with murder

Would any adult with a brain consider that a worthy comparison? Ellis has had no problem admitting he was in the PIRA and a bomb maker, as has been pointed out numerous times of this thread. He has admitted it and discussed it.

I think people want to know more about his role and how many people may have been killed in consequence of his self-admitted role in the PIRA.

Offy

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Would any adult with a brain consider that a worthy comparison? Ellis has had no problem admitting he was in the PIRA and a bomb maker, as has been pointed out numerous times of this thread. He has admitted it and discussed it.

I think people want to know more about his role and how many people may have been killed in consequence of his self-admitted role in the PIRA.

I agree, I certainly want to know more. Most Irish legends are dead and cannot tell their story, instead its written by the same ilk the write for the newspapers. It would e fascinating to hear a first hand account from a man that actually risked his life for the freedom of Irish people.

howiya

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Which part are you confused about?

RobFowl

Offy wrote: »

I agree, I certainly want to know more. Most Irish legends are dead and cannot tell their story, instead its written by the same ilk the write for the newspapers. It would e fascinating to hear a first hand account from a man that actually risked his life for the freedom of Irish people.

I think he was mainly involved in risking many other peoples lives........

(A Marxist state is very few peoples idea of freedon btw and that was PIRA's aspiration at the time)

GRMA

RobFowl wrote: »

I think he was mainly involved in risking many other peoples lives........

(A Markist state is very few peoples idea of freedon btw and that was PIRA's aspiration at the time)

I presume you mean marxist?

Why do you think that, and what do you base it on?

It was Gilmore and his pals who got help from the USSR

An Coilean

oscarBravo wrote: »

No; "terrorist bomb" as a phrase that's perfectly capable of standing on its own....

The actual point, for the avoidance of doubt, is that when a terrorist organisation plants a bomb for the purpose of attacking a security force (and that's glossing over the whole it's-OK-to-murder-policemen argument) or an economic target (which usually means destroying private property), that terrorist organisation has decided that the risk of murdering innocent civilians is an acceptable price to pay.

What is the difference, from a moral standpoint, between the IRA planting a Bomb to kill members of the security forces in the North, the French Resistance planting bombs to kill German soldiers during WW2 and the US air force dropping bombs on Bagdad in 2003 or Berlin in 1945?

In all of those cases their is a clear risk that Innocent civilians will lose their lives, as there is the likelyhood that private property will be destroyed, as there is the assumption that killing the enemy is OK.

In each case the argument can be made that the action was illegal or terroristic in nature. Why is it that you are holding the IRA up as being specifically immoral when attacks of the kind they carried out were not considered unacceptable when carried out by either legitimate armed forces of a state or resistance/revolutionary forces in many parts of the world over the last century.

Offy

An Coilean wrote: »

What is the difference, from a moral standpoint, between the IRA planting a Bomb to kill members of the security forces in the North, the French Resistance planting bombs to kill German soldiers during WW2 and the US air force dropping bombs on Bagdad in 2003 or Berlin in 1945?

In all of those cases their is a clear risk that Innocent civilians will lose their lives, as there is the likelyhood that private property will be destroyed, as there is the assumption that killing the enemy is OK.

In each case the argument can be made that the action was illegal or terroristic in nature. Why is it that you are holding the IRA up as being specifically immoral when attacks of the kind they carried out were not considered unacceptable when carried out by either legitimate armed forces of a state or resistance/revolutionary forces in many parts of the world over the last century.

I think this is the best post Ive ever seen on boards.

oscarBravo

An Coilean wrote: »

What is the difference, from a moral standpoint, between the IRA planting a Bomb to kill members of the security forces in the North, the French Resistance planting bombs to kill German soldiers during WW2 and the US air force dropping bombs on Bagdad in 2003 or Berlin in 1945?

What is the difference, from a moral standpoint, between an IRA sniper shooting a policeman, a police sniper shooting a bank robber who's holding a member of the public hostage, a psychopath sniper shooting random motorists from an overpass?

If you're going to ask me to accept that all situations where anyone ever kills another person are morally identical, you're going to have to first state that as your position and explain why it's a valid one to hold before you ask me to explain why it's not the case.

If you don't accept that all such situations are morally identical, then don't assume I do either. It's a pretty transparent attempt at a rhetorical trap.

Why is it that you are holding the IRA up as being specifically immoral...

Because one of the people who was convicted of making bombs for them is a member of my national parliament, and is the topic of this thread. When a member of the French Resistance or one of the US Joint Chiefs stands for election here, we can discuss their actions.

GRMA

http://judecollinsjournalist.blogspot.ie/2012/12/you-murder-he-kills-i-clear-area.html

Gets a lot spot on there....

Ghandee

oscarBravo wrote: »

What is the difference, from a moral standpoint, between an IRA sniper shooting a policeman, a police sniper shooting a bank robber who's holding a member of the public hostage, a psychopath sniper shooting random motorists from an overpass?

If you're going to ask me to accept that all situations where anyone ever kills another person are morally identical, you're going to have to first state that as your position and explain why it's a valid one to hold before you ask me to explain why it's not the case.

But that's not what he asked you.

What is the difference, from a moral standpoint, between the IRA planting a Bomb to kill members of the security forces in the North, the French Resistance planting bombs to kill German soldiers during WW2 and the US air force dropping bombs on Bagdad in 2003 or Berlin in 1945?

In all of those cases their is a clear risk that Innocent civilians will lose their lives, as there is the likelyhood that private property will be destroyed, as there is the assumption that killing the enemy is OK.

The question put forward (as i read it) was, why you differentiate between any other actions taken by other armies in a state of war?


The IRA were engaged in a war with the British govt and its security forces for a number of years.

oscarBravo

Ghandee wrote: »

The question put forward (as i read it) was, why you differentiate between any other actions taken by other armies in a state of war?

The presumption in the question is that I differentiate between those actions, and that it's unreasonable for me to differentiate, and that therefore I need to justify my differentiation.

If the premise behind the question is that it's unreasonable to morally differentiate between any situations where people kill other people, An Coilean needs to make it clear that he doesn't believe there's ever any moral difference between those situations. If, on the other hand, An Coilean believes that killing may or may not be morally justified depending on the situation, then it's hypocritical to ask me to defend the same position he holds.

The IRA were engaged in a war with the British govt and its security forces for a number of years.

If they were engaged in a war, they were war criminals, because they had no respect whatsoever for the Geneva Conventions.

JustinDee

According to the usuals, we're to forget about not long ago and move on while remembering '800 yeeyers of oppression etc etc'.
What funny folk we Irish are.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

If they were engaged in a war, they were war criminals, because they had no respect whatsoever for the Geneva Conventions.

So did the state forces but hey you have no problem with state terror, its only terror carried out by irregular forces you have a problem with.

.jacksparrow.

JustinDee wrote: »

According to the usuals, we're to forget about not long ago and move on while remembering '800 yeeyers of oppression etc etc'.
What funny folk we Irish are.

Any reason for your yeeyers comment?

Are you making some generalisation here?

SoulandForm

Getting off moral questions.

The Provisional IRA failed to force a withdrawal of the British state and made the already bad situation in Northern Ireland arguably more hopeless.

And they have never came out and admitted that their "Long war" strategy was a dismissal failure.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

So did the state forces...

Is that a tacit acceptance that the IRA were war criminals?

...but hey you have no problem with state terror, its only terror carried out by irregular forces you have a problem with.

If there's one thing I never get tired of in threads about the northern conflict, it's republicans telling me what I think and believe.

That aside, it's gratifying to see you accept that the IRA were not only war criminals, but terrorists.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is that a tacit acceptance that the IRA were war criminals? If there's one thing I never get tired of in threads about the northern conflict, it's republicans telling me what I think and believe.

That aside, it's gratifying to see you accept that the IRA were not only war criminals, but terrorists.

More whataboutery. Its disturbing to see you fail to condemn state terror killing of unarmed civilians.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

More whataboutery. Its disturbing to see you fail to condemn state terror killing of unarmed civilians.

Bloody hell. If we had a thread about loyalist terrorism, would you stomp into them demanding that everyone who criticised the loyalists also condemn Omagh while they're at it?

The topic of this thread is a convicted terrorist sitting in our national parliament. You are just the latest in a long string of people trying to distract attention away from that fact with moral equivalence and whataboutery - and you have the damn cheek to accuse me of whataboutery and describe as "disturbing" my failure to condemn something which has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic and on which I haven't even been asked my opinion?

Can you be objective enough for a moment to realise how bloody ridiculous your post is? Or are you too busy looking into your own heart to figure out what my thoughts and beliefs are?

JustinDee

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Any reason for your yeeyers comment?

Are you making some generalisation here?

Just wrote it phonetically as I tend to hear it, that's all. How I write it isn't the issue though.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

What is the difference, from a moral standpoint, between an IRA sniper shooting a policeman, a police sniper shooting a bank robber who's holding a member of the public hostage, a psychopath sniper shooting random motorists from an overpass?

Why have you twisted what An Coilean wrote? An Coilean asked

An Coilean wrote: »

What is the difference, from a moral standpoint, between the IRA planting a Bomb to kill members of the security forces in the North, the French Resistance planting bombs to kill German soldiers during WW2 and the US air force dropping bombs on Bagdad in 2003 or Berlin in 1945?

and you twisted that to

oscarBravo wrote: »

What is the difference, from a moral standpoint, between an IRA sniper shooting a policeman, a police sniper shooting a bank robber who's holding a member of the public hostage, a psychopath sniper shooting random motorists from an overpass?

so why did you do that?

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

Why have you twisted what An Coilean wrote?

I didn't "twist" anything. I pointed out the stupidity of a rhetorical question by asking a stupid rhetorical question of my own.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't "twist" anything. I pointed out the stupidity of a rhetorical question by asking a stupid rhetorical question of my own.

You changed the example that was given, Im curious to know why? It was in my opinion a valid example and relevant to this thread. The example you twisted it into is not relevant to this thread so why did you do that? Why not stay on topic?

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

You changed the example that was given, Im curious to know why?

I've already explained why. The question being asked wasn't a genuine solicitation of my opinion, but a transparent rhetorical device.

It was in my opinion a valid example and relevant to this thread.

I disagree, and have explained why in my subsequent posts.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bloody hell. If we had a thread about loyalist terrorism, would you stomp into them demanding that everyone who criticised the loyalists also condemn Omagh while they're at it?

The topic of this thread is a convicted terrorist sitting in our national parliament. You are just the latest in a long string of people trying to distract attention away from that fact with moral equivalence and whataboutery - and you have the damn cheek to accuse me of whataboutery and describe as "disturbing" my failure to condemn something which has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic and on which I haven't even been asked my opinion?

Can you be objective enough for a moment to realise how bloody ridiculous your post is? Or are you too busy looking into your own heart to figure out what my thoughts and beliefs are?

You have a problem with the parliament qualification criteria, alot of others don't. Take that issue up with his constituents who have elected him since 1999 on DCC. If elected, he has a right to sit on the council\Dail. That is the cornerstone of democracy you so clearly espouse unless its only when democracy suits your own opinion?

You have a long history of condemning IRA violence but a lack of history of condemning state violence perpetrated by the BA\RUC\collusion, the latest being the Pat Finucane fact based thread where you are awfully quiet posting your opinion there yet you are quite boisterous posting on this thread which is based on hearsay, it is expected that your opinion be rightfully criticised for whataboutery.

Ghandee

oscarBravo wrote: »

If they were engaged in a war, they were war criminals, because they had no respect whatsoever for the Geneva Conventions.

Any instances where the brits/Americans/ an.other army may have disregarded the Geneva conventions, or in your eyes is that only applicable to the IRA?

Just curious here.

The Waltzing Consumer

Should we really be discussing South Africa, WWII etc.?

So back to the actual topic. My thinking about this 30 year release and reaction of SF so far is that it undermines their moral standing and effectiveness as an opposition party. Without full disclosure, how can they ever expect to mature as a party by carrying such "baggage"?

Mary Lou has every right to criticise the Health Minister but she will not be able to do this effectively if Ellis and other TDs have such links with murder & violence are still TDs and such prominent members of the party. You may agree or disagree, but until they are gone, it will be a political burden.

Offy

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Should we really be discussing South Africa, WWII etc.?

So back to the actual topic. My thinking about this 30 year release and reaction of SF so far is that it undermines their moral standing and effectiveness as an opposition party. Without full disclosure, how can they ever expect to mature as a party by carrying such "baggage"?

Mary Lou has every right to criticise the Health Minister but she will not be able to do this effectively if Ellis and other TDs have such links with murder & violence are still TDs and such prominent members of the party. You may agree or disagree, but until they are gone, it will be a political burden.

Surly the history of Irish politics would teach us that "murder & violence" are a large part of all Irish politics, just look at the violence the AGS members use against student protests in recent years. Did FF, FG, Labour, etc. condemn this violence? So what makes them any better than SF?

The Waltzing Consumer

Offy wrote: »

Surly the history of Irish politics would teach us that "murder & violence" are a large part of all Irish politics, just look at the violence the AGS members use against student protests in recent years. Did FF, FG, Labour, etc. condemn this violence? So what makes them any better than SF?

Huh? What violence?

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

You have a problem with the parliament qualification criteria, alot of others don't. Take that issue up with his constituents who have elected him since 1999 on DCC. If elected, he has a right to sit on the council\Dail. That is the cornerstone of democracy you so clearly espouse unless its only when democracy suits your own opinion?

By which standard, every single member of our national parliament is beyond criticism, because they were all elected by their constituents.

I doubt you believe that any other TD should be exempt from criticism, so you have to accept that Dessie Ellis deserves criticism also.

You have a long history of condemning IRA violence but a lack of history of condemning state violence perpetrated by the BA\RUC\collusion, the latest being the Pat Finucane fact based thread where you are awfully quiet posting your opinion there yet you are quite boisterous posting on this thread which is based on hearsay, it is expected that your opinion be rightfully criticised for whataboutery.

Whereas you, on the contrary, are perfectly balanced in your equal condemnation of republican, loyalist and security force violence? You can link me to hundreds of threads where you've vehemently condemned the IRA's every action?

Ghandee wrote: »

Any instances where the brits/Americans/ an.other army may have disregarded the Geneva conventions, or in your eyes is that only applicable to the IRA?

Just curious here.

I actually don't think the Geneva Conventions apply to the IRA, because they were not at war. As far as I'm concerned they're not war criminals; they're just criminals. I only brought up the GC to point out that it's awfully convenient to claim that the IRA were an army at war, when that "army" ignored the laws of war to their heart's content.

In answer to your question: I'm sure there are no shortage of examples of national armies breaking the Geneva Conventions. I'm on record, for example, as describing the bombing of Dresden as an inexcusable act of mass murder and a war crime.

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

Surly the history of Irish politics would teach us that "murder & violence" are a large part of all Irish politics, just look at the violence the AGS members use against student protests in recent years. Did FF, FG, Labour, etc. condemn this violence? So what makes them any better than SF?

That's the same sophistry that's been wheeled out before: the false dichotomy that either all violence is acceptable, or no violence is acceptable.

If you're going to try to use that dichotomy, you have to publicly choose one or other of those positions. If you won't, and believe that there are some scenarios where violence is acceptable and others where it's not, then you can't keep presenting the false dichotomy as an argument.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

By which standard, every single member of our national parliament is beyond criticism, because they were all elected by their constituents.

I doubt you believe that any other TD should be exempt from criticism, so you have to accept that Dessie Ellis deserves criticism also.

They all deserve to be examined and criticised when its justified.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Whereas you, on the contrary, are perfectly balanced in your equal condemnation of republican, loyalist and security force violence?

Thanks, I have.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can link me to hundreds of threads where you've vehemently condemned the IRA's every action?

I have condemned them. It'll be very difficult to find your condemnation of state violence in NI. Condemning state violence does not make one a Republican, that status belongs to all kinds of right thinking people of all political persuasion.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the same sophistry that's been wheeled out before: the false dichotomy that either all violence is acceptable, or no violence is acceptable.

If you're going to try to use that dichotomy, you have to publicly choose one or other of those positions. If you won't, and believe that there are some scenarios where violence is acceptable and others where it's not, then you can't keep presenting the false dichotomy as an argument.

No I dont. Just because you tell me what to do does not mean I have to do it. I make my own decisions regardless of what you dictate.

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

No I dont. Just because you tell me what to do does not mean I have to do it. I make my own decisions regardless of what you dictate.

Fair enough: you can hold yourself to one standard, and demand that others hold themselves to a different one. There's a word for that.

SoulandForm

RobFowl wrote: »

I think he was mainly involved in risking many other peoples lives........

(A Marxist state is very few peoples idea of freedon btw and that was PIRA's aspiration at the time)

Seriously! You know very little about Norn Iron if you think that!

The Provisionals split from the rest of the Republicans at the time because of their Marxist turn. The idea of small farmers, pub and shop owners in rural Northern Ireland being Marxist is laughable. They may have had a few Marxists among them after the hunger strikes when People's Democracy joined them but they were never Marxist.

You had the INLA who were Marxist militarists and than the CPI and the Workers Party both of whom opposed the Provos's campaign.

I think a lot of Southern opposition to the Provos came not from disgust at murdered Protestants/Scotch Irish but from a fear of Proles with guns.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough: you can hold yourself to one standard, and demand that others hold themselves to a different one. There's a word for that.

Im not the one making demands, you are. Can we stay on topic please? <- a request not a demand.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

It'll be very difficult to find your condemnation of state violence in NI.

OK, so you that knows me better than I know myself: what's my opinion on Bloody Sunday? How do I feel about security force collusion with loyalist terrorists?

You're correct that I'm more vocal in my criticism of republican terrorists, because they impinge more directly on me. Republicans, not loyalists, use weasel words to pretend that the country of my birth doesn't exist, or is illegitimate. Republicans, not loyalists, repeatedly put my father's life at risk when he was defending the security of my state while I grew up. Republicans, not loyalists, are sitting in my national parliament, hypocritically lecturing the government about its treatment of the Irish people.

Offy

SoulandForm wrote: »

I think a lot of Southern opposition to the Provos came not from disgust at murdered Protestants/Scotch Irish but from a fear of Proles with guns.

I disagree, I think it came from De Velera. He betray them and murdered them where-ever he could find them. He used the normal propaganda to blacken their names.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so you that knows me better than I know myself: what's my opinion on Bloody Sunday? How do I feel about security force collusion with loyalist terrorists?

You're correct that I'm more vocal in my criticism of republican terrorists, because they impinge more directly on me. Republicans, not loyalists, use weasel words to pretend that the country of my birth doesn't exist, or is illegitimate. Republicans, not loyalists, repeatedly put my father's life at risk when he was defending the security of my state while I grew up. Republicans, not loyalists, are sitting in my national parliament, hypocritically lecturing the government about its treatment of the Irish people.

What is the country of your birth? Ive never heard any republican pretent that Ireland or England/GB doesnt exist. Would it be fair to say you were born in NI?

Chips Lovell

I think a lot of Southern opposition to the Provos came not from disgust at murdered Protestants/Scotch Irish but from a fear of Proles with guns.

Because it makes no sense at all to be disgusted at murder. There has to be some other reason.

SoulandForm

Sully wrote: »

He wasn't a member of the IRA or an advocate/supporter/leader of the IRA. He was a member of a party that had links to the Official Sinn Fein alright, but that didn't last long as the party soon cut ties and became the Workers Party.

The connection with the Official IRA was very much maintained after they became the Workers Party- it was only in the early 90s that the TDs in the Dail broke with the Army to become Democratic Left and go on to betray any hope of 32 county socialist Republic. The OIRA carried out various fund raising robberies for the WP. Its all in the book that was recently published.

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

Ive never heard any republican pretent that Ireland or England/GB doesnt exist.

You've never heard the phrase "free state" used in a post-1947 context? You've never heard the Republic of Ireland referred to derisively as the "26 counties"?

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've never heard the phrase "free state" used in a post-1947 context? You've never heard the Republic of Ireland referred to derisively as the "26 counties"?

How is it derisive?

When one thinks of Ireland as a single nation it is necessary to come up with a way to differentiate between the British controlled territory and the rest to avoid confusion. 26 counties and 6 counties is an easy way to do such... "Ireland" is not, and has never been, just the 26 counties, although I appreciate that that may be hard to accept for partitionists like yourself

SoulandForm

Offy wrote: »

I disagree, I think it came from De Velera. He betray them and murdered them where-ever he could find them. He used the normal propaganda to blacken their names.

Its true Devalera rounded up the remaining anti-treaty militants and placed them in concentration camps at the outset of WWII and indeed murdered a few.

The Provisional movement however arose and acted in different historical circumstances. Fianna Fail had an ambigous attitude to the Provos during the Troubles. You talk to Loyalists/Unionists they will drag up examples that FF was basically pro-PIRA, talk to Republicans or hardline Nationalists and they will give you other examples to show the opposite- the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've never heard the phrase "free state" used in a post-1947 context? You've never heard the Republic of Ireland referred to derisively as the "26 counties"?

Why cant you give a straight answer?
Post 1947, stop living in the past, whatever scarred you is in the past, perhaps you should leave it there?
The only time I heard the term 'free state' was from resentful Northern catholics that didnt like the fact that my wife married a southerner, other than that I dont remember anyone use that term, until now!

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

How is it derisive?

I refer you to the last line of your own post.

When one thinks of Ireland as a single nation it is necessary to come up with a way to differentiate between the British controlled territory and the rest to avoid confusion. 26 counties and 6 counties is an easy way to do such... "Ireland" is not, and has never been, just the 26 counties...

From the constitution of the sovereign country of my birth: "Éire is ainm don Stát nó, sa Sacs-Bhéarla, Ireland." / "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."

...although I appreciate that that may be hard to accept for partitionists like yourself

No siree bob, nothing derisive there.

Believe it or not, a desire not to see a United Ireland is a legitimate view to hold. You don't have to like it.

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

Why cant you give a straight answer?

To what question?

The only time I heard the term 'free state' was from resentful Northern catholics that didnt like the fact that my wife married a southerner, other than that I dont remember anyone use that term, until now!

Well, I guess if you've never seen or heard the term used, it has never been used.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

To what question? Well, I guess if you've never seen or heard the term used, it has never been used.

1) Where were you born? What country are you from?
2) I never claimed the term has never been used. I claimed I never remember hearing it outside the examples I gave. Again you are twisting what was said.