world's worst tourists

David Horne writes:

... you mistakenly confuse having a hunch, or
suspecting something, with forming an opinion.

Uh ... they are the same thing.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" schreef in bericht
...
Sjoerd writes:

You live in the 19th century. The entire concept of social strata
doesn't
really exist anymore in most of Europe.

Where have you lived outside of Europe?

Lived nowhere. But visited for longer periods in 50+ countries outside
Europe. Anyway, your remark has nothing to do with my earlier statement.

Sjoerd

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Ley writes:

Really, but it's less secure than the current electronic transfer
methods, takes longer, costs more to process, takes longer and ...

I'm not convinced of this. The end-user interfaces to EFT are
incomplete and often incoherent. When I can press a button on a Web
page and pay anyone, anywhere, then it will be secure and convenient.

Well, I can do this. Since several years via the web and all in all
probably for the last 15 or so years (i.e. before the web and before the
(general avalability of the public) Internet). "anywhere" is (at least)
any account at any bank in any country.

Again projecting the inefficiencies in your french bank to the entire
banking system of Europe...

Other European countries may not be as efficient, true.

I think (to put it politely) that you can not project your limited
experience as a foreigner in France on France in general, but surely not
on the rest of Europe. After all, you don't want me to project my CA
experience on all of CA, let alone the whole US, do you?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Frank Slootweg writes:
[secure EFT issue deleted, already addressed in another response]

It looks like you are confusing France with Europe. The French are
known to make that mistake, but I didn't expect some Americans to be
equally clueless.

Some other countries are even worse, some are better, but Europeans
overall resemble each other a great deal, when compared to people from
other parts of the world.

You should really refrain from comments like that. It makes you lose
any credibility which you might have.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Ley writes:

Definitions please... Do you mean people can only move one class or
what?

In socialist societies like Sweden, nobody is ever allowed to become
rich or poor. Everyone has either a bit more money than average, or a
bit less, but they all have nice television sets, and virtually none
have mansions.

Ah, the s-word! I was waiting for it. Thanks for fulfulling my
expectations. As others have mentioned, it confirms *our* stereotyping
of Americans that they have no clue what socialist means. At least,
let's hope that it *is* stereotyping, not a fact.

I see that in another response you have giving the expected tirade on
the u-word. Thanks. As you can see, we are easily pleased.

Go Fig wrote:
In article ,
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Go Fig wrote:
In article ,
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Reid© writes:

that's a "none" then.

It depends on which freedoms you value. My favorite freedom is freedom
of speech, but there is still some of that in Europe (even if there is
far less of it than in the U.S.).

Again, be specific. In which sense is there (far) 'less' freedom of
speech in 'Europe' (whatever *that* may be)?

I have worked in/for an American company for 35 years and often the
'freedoms' of America came up. When going into detail however, they had
less 'freedoms' than most Europeans, especially in their work, in their
interaction with governement, etc., in their legal system, etc., etc..

Is this the 'specifics' you speak to above ?

Logic is not one of your strong points, is it?

Specificity is not one of yours, while you do seem to require it in
others.

As I said, logic is not one of your strong points. The burden of proof
is not on me, so it is irrelevant whether or not I am specific.

You even (try to) limit *our* constitutional rights/freedom when we
*transit through* one of your airports.

You could stay in your tiny country and wallow in them....

Oh, I see. You can whine when your 'freedoms' are violated/restricted
and about us supposedly having less, but we can't complain about you
violating our rights! I got it now.

Your Constitutional Rights end at your border, I'm sorry you can't see
the distinction between you arrogantly demanding them be universally
accepted by all and a general discussion about freedoms within
particular nations.

I think that *in transit* the "within particular nations" is already
somewhat ambiguous [1]. Anyway, you seem to have no problem violating

But if you think our rights end at our border, then what about your
right? ( the International Court in The Hague?)

[1] AFAIK, the violations already occur for people flying on non-US
planes and not changing planes while 'in' the US.

Mxsmanic wrote:
JohnT writes:

Here in the UK it is the easiest thing in the World to order online and
the Supermarket will deliver within an agreed time-slot.

Any time of day or night, any day?

And, sorry Miguel, they won't deliver at 3 am!

In that case, what's the advantage?

I don't like having stuff delivered, because I have to sit and wait for
them.

Not that it is a one-size-fits-all solution, but in certain areas they
have drop points fo delivery of 'goods', i.e. like your mailbox for
mail.

Where I live, they can just leave it in front of the door. It doesn't
get wet and it doesn't get nicked! :-)

Mxsmanic wrote:
Frank Slootweg writes:

We've had shops open on (most of)
Saturday for probably some 60 years (or more).

The U.S. has had shops open every day, and even 24 hours a day, for
several decades now.

Ah, the power of snipping! It makes your response *look* relevant,
while it isn't. Impressive!

Frank Slootweg writes:

Not that it is a one-size-fits-all solution, but in certain areas they
have drop points fo delivery of 'goods', i.e. like your mailbox for
mail.

Since the nearest supermarket is less than 100 metres away, what would
be the advantage?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Sloopy writes:

That's it?

If that does not seem significant to you, perhaps that's part of the
problem.

You're mad that if there's probable cause that you're
a terrorist that the investigators have a new tool to catch you?

Who said anything about probable cause or terrorism?

It's not like the government is going to be able to randomly supoena
library records, Miguel.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. The government can do that now.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.