world's worst tourists

No need to get snippy. I'm just reading posts in rec.travel.asia
and was wondering what makes it dedicated to European travel.

Frank Slootweg wrote in news:3f88555f$0$35684
:

Yourname wrote:
What makes this newsgroup dedicated to European travel?

What makes you and Mason unable to read a/the Newsgroups line?

What makes you lack the courtesy to post an interleaved response to an
interleaved response?

What makes you unable to include an attribution line?

What ... [1]

What I really wonder is why, in a newsgroup dedicated to European
travel, 10% of the posts are concerned with travel and 90% with
bashing some other country?


Mason Barge

[1] And at the moment, I'm not even grumpy, so you're warned!

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:17:30 -0700, Gerry
wrote:

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

Frank F. Matthews writes:

Then again the ignorant europeans who keep using the term "Ugly
American" without understanding the literary reference are cute as well.

There are precious few Americans who understand the reference, either.

Well as is the case with most words and phrases, they change over time.
Apparently the good-hearted culturally-ignorant "ugly American" is not
to be confused with the boorish tourist. But I think we can use the
words "ugly" and "American" without it's meaning being limited by the
title of a 50 year old book.

Not intelligently. The phrase is used because and only because it
describes a character in a novel, which has nearly nothing to do with
tourists or boorishness.

And their is a cost to the misuse of it, as such misuse actually
waters down the full impact of the meaning. I don't think that the
Iraqi War would be fully applicable, either, largely due to the
forthrightness of the American intervention, but it's several
magnitudes closer. And one could certainly make a case that the US,
through arrogance, lack of foresight, and ignorance, has played into
the hands of Iranian Shiites.

Graham Greene was smarter. Nobody is going to popularize a broad
usage of "The Quiet American", even though the term is even more
chilling, to my mind.

Well, of course, you can use the tem any way you want to. You can say
"irregardless" and "I have went", too. Doesn't do much for your
credibility, though.

Mason Barge

"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me some coffee."
-- Abraham Lincoln

Mxsmanic wrote:

Miguel Cruz writes:

Most Americans are highly ambitious overachievers?

Compared to Europeans, yes. In the U.S., you're much more likely to
starve if you don't work for a living, and that's a powerful motivator.


Those poor Europeans without even the ambition not to starve.

In article , Mason Barge
wrote:

Well as is the case with most words and phrases, they change over time.
Apparently the good-hearted culturally-ignorant "ugly American" is not
to be confused with the boorish tourist. But I think we can use the
words "ugly" and "American" without it's meaning being limited by the
title of a 50 year old book.

Not intelligently. The phrase is used because and only because it
describes a character in a novel, which has nearly nothing to do with
tourists or boorishness.

I would assert that you don't know what the highest usage count of the
phrase is, and thus the "only because" limiter is fanciful. "That's my
son the solider. He's the only one that's marching in step."

I understand what it once meant. I'm saying that it doesn't mean that
any more. Many words morph out of initial context not because everyone
is stupid but because the word has more practicable utility elsewhere.
I don't know whether this is the case with this lonely phrase or not.

And their is a cost to the misuse of it, as such misuse actually
waters down the full impact of the meaning. I don't think that the
Iraqi War would be fully applicable, either, largely due to the
forthrightness of the American intervention, but it's several
magnitudes closer. And one could certainly make a case that the US,
through arrogance, lack of foresight, and ignorance, has played into
the hands of Iranian Shiites.

That may be. Back to topic: I think the world concept of a helpful but
culturally ignorant American will generally never need a phrase, "Ugly
American" or otherwise. Such an image is more-or-less limited to the
picture of an evangelical missionary, no? And as Christianity morphs
more visibly into a political party and advance team for predatory
capitalism, it's easy to see even these potentially good souls viewed
as cynical parasites. Logically when the literarily unwashed hears the
phrase "ugly American", they have a use for such a handy phrase.

Graham Greene was smarter. Nobody is going to popularize a broad
usage of "The Quiet American", even though the term is even more
chilling, to my mind.

True, but out of literary context the universal image of a quiet
American doesn't take. Ugly takes and easily. "Quiet Brit" sounds
good. "Ugly Brit" doesn't seem to take: sounds like a reference to
dental aesthetics.

Well, of course, you can use the tem any way you want to. You can say
"irregardless" and "I have went", too. Doesn't do much for your
credibility, though.

There is a significant difference between grammatical error and show
shifts in culturally-implied meaning. Me, I don't use the phrase at
all, I'm just watching it go by.

--
///--- Vote for the richest Republican. He understand the common man.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:37:03 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Reid© writes:

why do you live in Europe again?
I like Paris as a city, mainly.

Despite not being able to get any money or go shopping, find the society
stratified, poorly paid, work-shy and intolerant. Boy, those buildings must
be nice to make up for it all.
--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

Tim Challenger writes:

Despite not being able to get any money or go shopping, find the society
stratified, poorly paid, work-shy and intolerant.

The money problem is recent. As for the problems with the society, I
don't associate much with people, so they are not usually problems for
me.

Boy, those buildings must be nice to make up for it all.

They are indeed. It's a very pretty city, and apart from the cost of
living, it has virtually no disadvantages.

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

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:12:58 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

...I don't associate much with people, ...
me.

We can tell.
--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

Yourname wrote:
No need to get snippy. I'm just reading posts in rec.travel.asia
and was wondering what makes it dedicated to European travel.

I'm sorry. It was just a_joke/sarcasm. This whole thread isn't a very
serious one anyway, at least not IMO. If you are looking for useful
information, discusions, etc., it's probably best to kill/ignore this
thread.

FWIW, I am reading rec.travel.australia+nz.

Frank Slootweg wrote in news:3f88555f$0$35684
:

Yourname wrote:
What makes this newsgroup dedicated to European travel?

What makes you and Mason unable to read a/the Newsgroups line?

What makes you lack the courtesy to post an interleaved response to an
interleaved response?

What makes you unable to include an attribution line?

What ... [1]

What I really wonder is why, in a newsgroup dedicated to European
travel, 10% of the posts are concerned with travel and 90% with
bashing some other country?


Mason Barge

[1] And at the moment, I'm not even grumpy, so you're warned!

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote in message .. .
Does this make the inhabitants of Paris 'less rich' somehow?

Yes. Less freedom.


What freedoms do Americans have that Europeans don't?

(I have asked this question a number of times in usenet land, and never
gotten much of an answer)

It's not an easy question. For one thing, the concepts of "freedom"
aren't universal and involve alot of culture. If the declaration
has any validity at all, it would be in terms of "rights". The
US Constitution has a slightly odd feature which declares we have
nonspecific rights. (10th amendment as I recall). So where as
many (though not all) countries have protections for specific rights,
human rights clauses, these kind of things, in theory, the US
citizen has comparatively more rights because his list of rights is
potentially endless.

However, if one wants to discuss specific freedoms, probably the
one that strikes me most often is the number of countries that all
a fair amount of control over their press institutions. All sorts of
things one "can't print" in various countries. I also understand
one can't insult a civil servant in Germany. I suspect the freedom
of speech clause would probably prevent such a law here.

"me" wrote in message
om...
"Deep Freud Moors" wrote in
message .. .
Does this make the inhabitants of Paris 'less rich' somehow?

Yes. Less freedom.


What freedoms do Americans have that Europeans don't?

(I have asked this question a number of times in usenet land, and never
gotten much of an answer)

It's not an easy question. For one thing, the concepts of "freedom"
aren't universal and involve alot of culture. If the declaration
has any validity at all, it would be in terms of "rights". The
US Constitution has a slightly odd feature which declares we have
nonspecific rights. (10th amendment as I recall). So where as
many (though not all) countries have protections for specific rights,
human rights clauses, these kind of things, in theory, the US
citizen has comparatively more rights because his list of rights is
potentially endless.

However, if one wants to discuss specific freedoms, probably the
one that strikes me most often is the number of countries that all
a fair amount of control over their press institutions. All sorts of
things one "can't print" in various countries. I also understand
one can't insult a civil servant in Germany. I suspect the freedom
of speech clause would probably prevent such a law here.

So - You've got the freedom to insult someone ? - Great !
And they, obviously, have the freedom to carry a gun :-)