Bannies v subis

subis are funny

personally i prefer using banindia, stanlanders, bangles and 'land of the CBER'..

most oz or seas posters here have the bangles as their 2nd favourite team

most SEAs enjoy the use the use of nicknames - must be our Indigenous, convict, irish, chinese, jewish, italian, greek, turkish, slavonic, vietnamese, east african, sub-continental,chilean and multicultural heritage

*Reads list*
*Sees Horrie missed out a certain nationality*
My reaction....

Spoiler:

smerkles - where did the convicts come from?

Have Ange and Ash got the rags on?

Why, skull? You up for a bit of "red ink"?

Eek!! You sound like a bikie I played cricket with. He'd earned his "red wings".

It's pointless trying to have a sensible discussion with you on this subject isn't it, skully? As far as you are concerned you are right and anyone else's view counts for nothing.

Please do carry on making yourself look like a moron at your leisure. I give up.

Phurt, lighten up Ange. You've become crabby in your old age. Most unlike you to resort to attempted insults.

I have my view, you have yours. That's forumming.

Since when did reasoning with an FBer ever work?

If it did, Farky wouldn't be such an idiot.

I seem to recall in my rowdy confrontational C4 days, that my continued use of the word "Cons" when referring to the Aussies on here invoked some serious reactionary and prickled abuse - especially from the likes of the bender and zimmerkins amongst others.

It's the goose and gander situation IMO ... in other words .... what's good for ...!

BanIndia is a jocular euphemism only because of the BCCI ... whereas Pak, Lankan and the Bangle are "Johnners" type abbreviations which are spoken or printed with no malice aforethought.

No point getting het up about these things FFS ... it's banter, pure and simple ...(except in taipan's case, of course !)

eowyn wrote:People from the Subcontinent have, on the most part, said quite politely that they don't liike the term. Why continue to offend people in that way? Telling them to accept it because you say it's not offensive?

Some sooks have said they don't like it, some have said they don't give a shit.

Plenty of pommy forumers continue to use the term 'convict' to refer to Aussies, and I find that term offensive. Do I carry on like a pork chop about it? No, because I'm not a prize farquing sook. Funnily enough, these poms are the same ones who seem to object to the other shortened sobriquet.

Plenty of the abovementioned should just get rooted. They know who they are.

My ancestors came from Ireland , Denmark , Germany and England to settle in Australia way back in the 19th century. The English ancestor happened to be from Norfolk and was sent out here for poaching (it was probably shooting the gamekeeper more than the poaching ) . The rest of them came chasing gold or following their fathers who were chasing gold.

So I really cant be farqued if anyone wants to call me a convict because thats part of my heritage (well 1/32th of it anyway) ...

Id rather be called a convict than "English" ...though its equal parts of each


PS ..I use the term subi a lot less than I used to because someone politely asked me not to...

Merlin wrote:I seem to recall in my rowdy confrontational C4 days, that my continued use of the word "Cons" when referring to the Aussies on here invoked some serious reactionary and prickled abuse - especially from the likes of the bender and zimmerkins amongst others.

It's the goose and gander situation IMO ... in other words .... what's good for ...!

BanIndia is a jocular euphemism only because of the BCCI ... whereas Pak, Lankan and the Bangle are "Johnners" type abbreviations which are spoken or printed with no malice aforethought.

No point getting het up about these things FFS ... it's banter, pure and simple ...(except in taipan's case, of course !)

Some Aussies reacted adversely to "Cons"?? PMSL. They must have been weak qunts.

I find it a term of endearment when lobbed at me from an English comrade.