Avoid Delta and Atlanta

On 18 Aug 2006 08:23:05 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 18:49:47 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Bias by definition. No where in that article did anyone post any actual
government figures as you claimed they did.

All you are saying is that the BBC and the attorney would have to be
biased.

No, I'm saying that the BBC has been proven to be biased on this issue
and that the lawyer is paid to be biased.

I am waiting for you to demonstrate what that bias is in this case.

???? What more do you need? Both the BBC and the lawyer have a specific
bias to oppose the war and the incarceration of the prisoners of war.
And all the article did is to quote biased sources. Thus the bias is
demonstrated.

And since you are the one supporting their claim then the burden of
proof is on you to justify that support.

Go ahead.

And, again, you claimed that the figures came from government sources
yet that is proven to be untrue. So quote the government sources.

Go ahead.

Would there be a point? You refuse to believe anything except the
party line.

You said:
"As it always is with prisoners of war. The fact that they were
captured on a battleground is all that it takes."

I have read that sentence 3 more times, played it backwards, rearranged
the letters, translated it into about 47 languages. Can't find anywhere
where I said anyone was *guilty* of anything.

Oh, so you still stand by this statement, even after it has been
demonstrated wrong?

Demonstrated wrong when? From the biased article that made a claim?
That's not demonstrating that it's wrong.

So tell me where it was demonstrated wrong.

Go ahead.

Most of those collected were not necessarily Taliban, but anyone they
could have found. Sadly, no one is willing to allow them to defend
themselves.

A shooting war? What war are you talking about?

????? 9/11? Madrid? London? Any of this ring a bell?

Yeah, none involved shooting IIRC.

A "shooting war" is a term to refer to a hot war where people are
actually being killed as opposed to a cold war.

Hello.

Never heard of it, and neither has dictionary.com or wiki.

I don't condone that,

Actually you just did.

When you (or anyone) uses a sentence that starts something like "I
oppose terrorism" there is one and only one proper way to punctuate it.
That is with a period, dot, full stop ".". As in "I oppose terrorism."
But if you punctuate it with "but...." then you are actually condoning
it.

What rubbish. You are merely saying that if I question the modes of
dealing with it, I condone the terrorists.

No. I'm saying that if you support the reasons for the terrorism then
you are condoning the terrorists.

Those 'reasons' would be anything you wanted I guess.

The war on terrorism is over, in case you hadn't noticed.

????? So the BBC lied when they reported the interrupted plan to bomb
the airliners last week?

It's been renamed "The Long War" now.

Gee, what a cute little trick. I guess when you have no logical
argument that's what you have to resort to.

Much like you using 'shooting war' then, as if it's a widely used
term.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 18 Aug 2006 08:24:55 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 21:12:55 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Carole Allen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 08:09:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:
That would be the phantoms that knocked down the Twin Towers and killed
3,000 people? The phantoms that bombed the Madrid subway? The phantoms
that bombed the UK transit system? The phantoms that were just stopped
from bombing 10 trans-Atlantic flights? *Those* phantoms?

The guys who did the Twin Towers were not Iraqi and had nothing to do
with Iraq.

Which has what to do with what I was talking about????

Absolutely everything given that's where the majority of the US
anti-terror funds are going. What a raging success that's been.

Nonsense.

I'll say one thing for you, you have developed quite a complex fantasy
world for yourself to live in.

Again you can't communicate properly.

Nonsense - Iraq has been a disaster?
Nonsense - it's using most of the money?
Nonsense - (insert random stuff here)?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 18 Aug 2006 08:52:17 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:35:54 +0100, The Reid
wrote:

Following up to Carole Allen

The guys who did the Twin Towers were not Iraqi and had nothing to do
with Iraq.

are there still a lot of Americans who don't realise that?

Yes. I have met quite a few that are convinced of this, and various
other bits of bull****, like Saddam being in league with Osama and
preparing to offer him sanctuary.

I suppose this means that I now have to look up the 9/11 commission
report which says that Saddam in fact offered sanctuary to Osama. Not
was "preparing to offer" it but actually did according to the testimony
they received.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but Saddam was, in fact, trying to
create an alliance with Osama to fight their common enemy.

OK. Here it is. I'm betting you won't bother to read it because you
obviously have an aversion to facts and learning. But I'll try anyway.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report...0commission%22

Be careful. This is full of facts and knowledge. Dangerous things for
people like you who don't want their precious private fantasy world
disrupted.

And you have the gall to claim the BBC is biased!

And no, I am not going to read 585 pages to try to prove you right,
believe it or not.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Dave Frightens Me wrote:

On 18 Aug 2006 08:23:05 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Go ahead.

Would there be a point?

You know it's pointless. Why are you continuing?

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Hatunen wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:29:14 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:


The question is, is a passport required to do the traveling? In
the case of the 200 year old Randall document, I suspect not. The
Randall document isnot a passport in the modern sense of that
word. I also note that the document is issued by the US consul at
Malta requesting the courtesy of the island for Mr Randall, who
seems to have already arrived there.


Do a bit of research on passports and then get back to us.
Passports are NOT something newly created in the 20th century.


In my original post I admit I misspoke: I meant not that
passports came into being after WW1 but that the requirement for
passports in Europe came into being after WW1.

There were standardizations of passports after WW1, that is correct.
However, the purpose of the passports were still similar.

Tchiowa wrote:

[...] English is the primary and *official* language of
government for the EU.

Y'know, it would be a great idea if you spent a little less quality
time on the crack pipe before posting this lunatic nonsense.

The EU conducts its parliamentary sessions in 20 languages, not just
English. There's nothing "primary" about it. The EU is legendary for
the vast amounts of paper consumed in publishing translations from
any given language to all the others.

Yeah, English is sometimes used for internal work, as is French and
German. It is far from being *the* primary and "*official*" language of
the EU, though.

It is the primary language of business
throughout the EU.

It's *a* language of business throughout the EU, with the obvious
exceptions of the UK and Ireland. English might mixed with local
languages, or it might be used as a lingua franca in a multi-
national team.

It is the primary language for education throughout
the EU.

Right. They just quit teaching everything in their native language in,
say, France, Germany, and Poland. Sure. You bet. Kids learn it
before their own native tongues.

Good crack in your 'hood, or is it the opium laced pot that makes you
like this?

Time to get back into the current century.

http://linguistlist.org/issues/12/12-166.html

"Current century?" Not with that reference; published in 2000 (end of
last century) and cites work from 20 years before that. That, and it
discusses English as a third language (L3) in various European contexts.

Keep up with the lunatic nonsense, though. You're really succeeding at
getting people to believe it by the classic Usenet method of "proof by
repeated and blatant assertion."
--
dgs

Tchiowa wrote:

The Reid wrote:

Following up to Carole Allen

and Europeans can travel between most countries without going through
any kind of passport control.

there's no place for common sense in this debate.

Plenty of common sense in the discussion. It's your ability to
comprehend that is at question.

Nah. His common sense is fine. Your reading comprehension, though,
has spent way too much time being filtered through a crack pipe.

The French speak English in the street,

Many do.

By "many," you mean "a random small number I pulled out of my ass."
Yes, it makes more sense now.

And the government of France is now using English. Did you see
where Chirac walked out of a meeting because one of his ministers
decided to use English?

President Jacques Chirac of France stormed out of a European Union
summit meeting after a French employers' leader said that English was
"the language of European business". That happened last March.

Note that this wasn't "one of his ministers."

The lunatic notion that the government of France is "now using English"
is yet to be proven, except of course by your standard of blatant and
repeated assertion.
--
dgs

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:01:50 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me wrote:

On 18 Aug 2006 08:23:05 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Go ahead.

Would there be a point?

You know it's pointless. Why are you continuing?

Apparently I am being rather silly!
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

"Gorazd Bozic" wrote in message
...
Tchiowa wrote:

Sorry, but while it may have been used in some circles, *common* usage
didn't happen until the Balkans came apart rather violently in the 90s.

People used it often well before the breakup of Yugoslavia. You and your
'circle' heard about it only recently, apparently.

Without checking OED, I'm comfortable that "Balkanization" was not uncommon
in usage in the last quarter of the 19th century, and in widespread usage
before 1939.

TMO

"The Reid" wrote ...
Following up to Hatunen

As I pointed out elsewhere, there were no passports until after
WW1.

Maybe not in the current sense, I'm sure ive seen a passport
signed by Elizabeth 1st. More a safe passage, I imagine.

The first versions, dating certainly to the Renaissance if not earlier, were
certainly requests by sovereigns (or local administrators) requesting "Safe
Passage". All sorts of early explorers and commercial travelers carried
them.

My French is not what it never was, (and its spelling worse), but distant
memory gives me the common usage of "Laissez Passer" for such documents, in
translation certainly implying such purpose.

TMO