`:Most of the details you are heaping up don't change the fact that an invasion is an invasion. You say that ``Neither the Britons or the AS were one people they were a series of tribes who were apt to fight or form alliance with each other,  as Gildas will tell you.`` I'm sorry, but this is very far from what Gildas will tell me, or you, or anyone else. Gildas does relate that the Britons called the Saxons to help them against the Scots and the Picts, but he deplores this act as foolish and outrageous, not as something normal. He is very much aware of the distinction between the Brits as a whole, whom he calls ``our countrymen``, ``our nation``, ``our country``, and the AS as a whole, whom he calls ``the fierce and impious Saxons, a race hateful both to God and men``, ``the enemy``, ``our cruel foe``, ``cruel conquerors`` etc.. He does regard the AS as conquerors, so it is certainly not a modern sensibility to call their actions ``conquests`` and ``invasions``. These are just the facts. It may be a modern sensibility to condemn invasions as such, but we aren't talking about condemnation. We are just talking about calling invasions with their proper name. The ``modern sensibilities`` of condemning invasions are precisely what motivates the effort to muddle the issue, whitewash history and deny that these were invasions, an effort that I see you support.    `