Otter wrote:

>>> We only allow in people of quality.

I quipped:

>> So times have changed since your great-great grandfather's day, eh?

Jim replied:

> So wrong. The "we" then didn't get any say; the Poms just forced
> their way in at gunpoint and began unloading their jails.

I think that makes me so *right*, actually.

So right but so disappointed! There I was relishing the prospect of a
bit of good old-fashioned flaming and all I get's the PC line, dull
almost by definition.

O tempora, o mores!

>> Current estimates are that 3-5% of the Australian population has
>> one or more ancestors who were convicts.

And fewer still, I suppose, who can claim ancestry with what you call
the '"we" then'. Interesting that your "we" includes you and the
indigenous population and your "their" is the Poms.

Does this mean you have no Pom ancestry but do have indigenous
Australian ancestry?

John
http://rarebooksinjapan.org