TF's that you will never see...

[Sephie]

Originally Posted by GenYun

He's right. They were an Irish tribe called the Scotti.

The Scotti were a Celtic tribe, not an Irish tribe (well technically they were an Irish Tribe, just like they were a Eurpoean Tribe and a Scottish Tribe). The Gaelic tribes originated on the European mainland, and as they dispersed fragmented.

[Snowglare]

Sports fan conversion. Casual fan of a popular team into the die-hard fan of a small market team.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by Herr Onymous-Bosch

The Scotti were a Celtic tribe, not an Irish tribe (well technically they were an Irish Tribe, just like they were a Eurpoean Tribe and a Scottish Tribe). The Gaelic tribes originated on the European mainland, and as they dispersed fragmented.

The Scots as you understand the term originated from Ireland in the 6th century.

Originally Posted by Snowglare

Sports fan conversion. Casual fan of a popular team into the die-hard fan of a small market team.

I don't think it qualifies as "small market", but my sister went from an extremely casual NY Giants fan to a rabid Patriots fan after living in Boston for 5 years. She is very depressed today, obviously. My Giant-fan brothers are less than sympathetic... (NB: she lives in NY)

[Sephie]

Originally Posted by Drachen

The Scots as you understand the term originated from Ireland in the 6th century.

There is some debate about that

Originally Posted by from your link

D?l Riata is commonly viewed as having been an Irish Gaelic colony in Scotland, although some archaeologists have recently argued against this.[3] The inhabitants of D?l Riata are often referred to as Scots, i.e., Latin scotti, a name for the inhabitants of Ireland; its original meaning is uncertain but it later refers to Gaelic-speakers, whether from Ireland or elsewhere.

Furthermore Scots refers to different ethnic groups at different times. It refers not only to the Scotti (which the Romans used as a generic term for Gaelic tribes of the Isles), but to the mix of said tribes with the picts. Furthermore the picts were not the original inhabitants of Scotland. They were a celtic tribe. The Celts were not in the Isles until after the 6th century BC, and there were other cultures around before them.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by Herr Onymous-Bosch

Furthermore Scots refers to different ethnic groups at different times. It refers not only to the Scotti (which the Romans used as a generic term for Gaelic tribes of the Isles), but to the mix of said tribes with the picts. Furthermore the picts were not the original inhabitants of Scotland. They were a celtic tribe. The Celts were not in the Isles until after the 6th century BC, and there were other cultures around before them.

I'm not sure you are clear on what you're talking about. The Picts were Celts, but they were in what is now Scotland before the 6th century. The Picts themselves are somewhat immaterial to the discussion. Pictish language is entirely conjectural at this point (although it's suggested to be more closely related to Welsh than Irish or Scots Gaelic) and their culture is extinct. It's clear that Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic are linguistically extremely similar and the two areas share more cultural features than they do with Welsh or English regions, no matter what the Romans called them.

[Sephie]

Originally Posted by Drachen

I'm not sure you are clear on what you're talking about. The Picts were Celts, but they were in what is now Scotland before the 6th century. The Picts themselves are somewhat immaterial to the discussion. Pictish language is entirely conjectural at this point (although it's suggested to be more closely related to Welsh than Irish or Scots Gaelic) and their culture is extinct. It's clear that Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic are linguistically extremely similar and the two areas share more cultural features than they do with Welsh or English regions, no matter what the Romans called them.

I said BC, not AD. The picts most certainly were not in Scotland before the 6th century BC.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by Herr Onymous-Bosch

I said BC, not AD. The picts most certainly were not in Scotland before the 6th century BC.

Fair enough. How is that relevant and how does that invalidate my other points?

[Sephie]

Originally Posted by Drachen

Fair enough. How is that relevant and how does that invalidate my other points?

I might say the same about your previous post.

[Snowglare]

Originally Posted by Drachen

I don't think it qualifies as "small market", but my sister went from an extremely casual NY Giants fan to a rabid Patriots fan after living in Boston for 5 years. She is very depressed today, obviously. My Giant-fan brothers are less than sympathetic... (NB: she lives in NY)

That's kinda hot, but yeah, it's like switching from the Yankees to the Red Sox. Ten or so years ago, that was a tough change. Now? Not so much.

Passion's cool. I think there's great potential in rapid personality changes that make the subject far more passionate about a given subject. Evil conversion gets tons of play, and that's basically girls getting passionate about evil. There's more to dichotomy than good/evil and man/woman, but you don't see much in the way of city/country, nerd/jock, housewife/businesswoman... all of which can be accompanied by physical changes. I suppose it's harder to make that sort of thing sexy, though, and the fantasy appeal is restricted to the rapid progression of the change rather than the change itself.