Avoid Delta and Atlanta

On 17 Aug 2006 17:23:13 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 07:46:34 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 17:52:39 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 22:45:11 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and bigotry
that has kept the continent at war with itself for centuries. Not
something to be proud of.

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

These days, yes. But that's a recent development. The reason a lot of
Euros have passports was because that wasn't the case until recently.

Try to keep up.

As I pointed out elsewhere, there were no passports until after
WW1. The fact that they are no longer needed for much
intra-European travel means that they really only served their
purpose for about 80 years out of two millenia of European
history. You make a pretty weak case with the passport business,
espcially since you don't explain *why* passports are an
indication of bigotry and hatred.

Passports are not an indication of bigotry and hatred. I never said
that.

I could swear it was you who said:

"Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and
bigotry that has kept the continent at war with itself for
centuries."

I think I did. But, as I pointed out repeatedly, it's not the passport,
it's the need for the passport. It's the international boundaries.

OK.

A. Passports are not an indications of bigotry and hatred.

B. Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and
bigotry

So you claim that those two statements are not contradictory?

Yes. Let's try another one, should we?

A. Bed sheets are not an indication of bigotry and hatred.

B. Wearing a bedsheet in some circumstances *is* (think KKK).

There you go again (to quote Ronald Reagan).

A. You make the blanket statement that possession of passports is
result of hatred and bigotry

B. Then you say passports are not an indication of hatred and
bigotry.

C. Then you make an anology that in *some circumstances*
passports are an indcations of hatred and bigotry. You're a
slippery fellow, your are.

In the real world. Let's say a building burns down. What caused the
building to catch fire? Turns out a generator caught fire. What caused
the generator to catch fire? Turned out a water pump bearing froze up
and sparks from the spinning shaft ignited the crankcase oil. What
cause the water pump bearing to fail? The system operator used cheap
antifreeze and didn't change it often. Why did the operator fail to
maintain the system and use cheap products? Greed.

Root cause of the fi Greed.

Now let's look at passports.

Why do so many Europeans have passports? Because they need them to
travel more than a few hours? Why do they need them to travel more than
a few hours? Because there are so many international borders in Europe.
Why are there so many international borders in Europe? Because Europe
is chopped up into a large assortment of small countries. Why is Europe
chopped up into a large assortment of small countries? Because of the
various wars over the centuries. What are the root causes of war?
Hatred, bigotry, greed, etc.

Ah. Begging your own conclusion still again. Except you now add
"greed" to your list. When are you going to add "power"?

Root cause of so many Europeans having passports? The hatred, bigotry
and greed that caused the wars that created the countries that created
the borders that require the passports that they need.

Ditto.


What do you think caused the war? Stale wine?

Well, now. That seems to be the point we largely disagree on,
doesn't it? I say that some wars may have resulted from bigotry
and/or hatred but many wars have not; you say all wars have
resulted from bigotry and hatred.

All? Probably not.

Ah, slippery again. Your precviosu statements have been
unqualified.

But the vast majority? Yes. Bigotry and hatred are
at the root of almost any war.

Please provide examples.

As posted elsewhere I've spent a lot of
time in war zones. Including "hot shooting wars", "local insurgencies",
"cold conflicts". At the root of all of them is a bigotry and hatred.
It's difficult to make war on someone you like and respect and consider
as an equal.

In many war zones the hatred and bigotry are a result of the war,
not the cause.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 17 Aug 2006 17:28:14 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:

We were on a train in Finland from Oulu to Tampere with an hour
or so to change to the train to Turku Harbor where we were to
take a ferry to Stockholm. North of Tampere the train came to a
dead standstill in the middle of nowhere and sat, and sat, and
sat. We were getting worried aobut our connections, but all
attempts to find out from the conductor what the problem was
failed because the conductor simply didn't know any English and
my Finn is very, very skimpy.

I took the ferry from Stockholm to Helsinki. Had no problem
communicating in English with the ticket staff, crew, or people at the
arrival area.

Nor have I had any problem on the ferries between Turku and
Stockholm, Helsinki and Stockholm, Stockholm and Tallinn. You
think that might be because the job selects for those who can
handle several languages?

I have minor problems on the ferries between Helsinki and
Tallinn.

Even had no problem getting someone to explain to me in
English about Ankracet (I'm sure I misspelled that).

What is it?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:10:09 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:

Tchiowa wrote:
Hatunen wrote:


We were on a train in Finland from Oulu to Tampere with an hour
or so to change to the train to Turku Harbor where we were to
take a ferry to Stockholm. North of Tampere the train came to a
dead standstill in the middle of nowhere and sat, and sat, and
sat. We were getting worried aobut our connections, but all
attempts to find out from the conductor what the problem was
failed because the conductor simply didn't know any English and
my Finn is very, very skimpy.


I took the ferry from Stockholm to Helsinki. Had no problem
communicating in English with the ticket staff, crew, or people at the
arrival area. Even had no problem getting someone to explain to me in
English about Ankracet (I'm sure I misspelled that).


It is also difficult to believe that nobody else on his train spoke English.

Oh. I left that out. I found a passenger who did.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 17 Aug 2006 17:39:57 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 07:54:52 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 17:57:36 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:

As compared to what it used to be like, maybe? Which has been my
experience in 2 decades travelling to Europe fairly regularly.

Try traveling into the hinterlands a little more.

Like where? Atyrau, Kazakhstan? Riga, Latvia? Oporto, Portugal?

Is Kazakhstan in Europe?

Part of it is, yes. Atyrau is in Europe.

So, exactly what did you doin Riga and Oporto.

Riga to spend time with friends. Oporto just to spend time in Portugal.
One of my favorite countries.

And what does that have to do with the question? You tried to make a
point. Now you're switching gears.

Or are you starting like a couple of other people I've seen posting
that unless you hang out with the poor and uneducated you can't
possibly understand the culture?

Why do you assume that was my meaning?

Reference to the "hinterlands" and implication that people in the
cities somehow aren't truly part of the culture.

There you go again. I didn't say that. But I hope you aren't
going to argue that you can know the USA by visiting the city of
new York.

(Paris does not equal
France but Paris is part of France and you can't understand France
without understanding Paris.)

True. But the converse is also true.

By the by, my realtives are hardly poor and uneducated (hardly
anyone in Finland is uneducaated) but many of them don't speak
English.

Most of my relatives in Sweden speak English just fine.

I'm so happy for you.

But I do know that hanging out with General Motors executives
isn't the best way to understand the culture of America.
Especially since they show little grasp of it themselves.

Ah, back to the "if you're educated and successful you're not part of
the culture".

You ar e a twit, aren't you. That's not what I said. There are
many educated people in Kansas and Iowa.

Now do you want to ask the question again from above "Why do assume
that was my meaning?"?

YOu're very
much like those Europeans who come to the USA, visit New York and
Los Angeles, and proceed to tell us what all Americans are like,
even those in Kansas and Texas and Oregon.

How about the Europeans that come to the USA over 100 times and spend
several years total in 50 cities in 1/3 of the states. Would that help?

That's pretty much what I've done in Europe.

So you say.

Do you doubt it?

I neither doubt it nor accept it; I have no basis for either. But
your writings indicate you learned very little.

It's one thing to have several years experience, it's another to
have a week's experience a hundred or so times.

That's true.
(As an example, I checked my Frequent Flyer data base. I've landed in
Paris 83 times. Yes, I got so tired of the place that the last 40 or so
I spent very little time there. Took the train to Amsterdam or Lisbon
or anywhere else I could find other than Paris.)

Well, your certainly seem to have a lot of expeerience with CDG.

Yes. And in Paris.



************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 17 Aug 2006 18:07:48 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 08:00:38 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 18:12:23 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


And considering the people Serbia as some kind of "lesser people"
didn't figure into that calculation?

I have no evidence of that; do you?

Yes. It's called "experience". I've spent many years of my adult life
living in war zones.

Wow. Awesome.

Yes. Learning can be "awesome". You should try it.

I learned what it takes to make war. First thing
is to de-personalize your enemy.

That happesn precisely because the hatred and bigotry is too low.
It is a result of the war, not the cause.

Wrong. It is at the very root.

So you keep saying.


To start a war of conquest like
that you first must consider your target to be unworthy of protection
and independence.

Not necessarily. That's a wild leap of logic. Not all wars were
Hitlerian, and certainly the Great War was not.

See above.

What? The great War was oneof those wars you experienced?

No. But the root cause of all wars are about the same.

Are they now?

You really have a hard time with logical thinking, don't you? I said
absolutely nothing that even resembled what you thought you understood.

We both seem to have that problem.

So you calim that in 1860 Virginai didn't much like North
Carolina?

Nope. But they weren't fond of New York at all.

Quote: "The US was once a group of small political entities that
didn't much like each other." This says that they all disliked
all the others.

No it doesn't.

Where's the qualification? You don't say "many of which disliked
some of the others".


It's commonly said that prior to the Civil War we said "The United
States *are*" but after the war we said "The United States *is*"
(indicating a finally unified country).

It's commonly said, all right. But attemtps to document it have
demonstrated it to be untrue.

Whose attempts?

When you cited an EU law you rfused to tell me what it said oin
an apparent attempt to make me do my own homework; well, back to
you.

Fine. Tell me who made the attempt and I'll try to find it. I told you
who had the law, you tell me who made the "attempt" you referred to.

Check out the discussion at
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/002663.html

OK. I showed you mine. now you show me yours.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 17 Aug 2006 18:37:58 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 08:09:52 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 17:10:14 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

After all *what*????? An editorial from a biased source quoting a
defense attorney????

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that bias.

Let me get this straight. You're waiting for me to document the fact
that the BBC has been caught deliberately falsifying evidence to try to
discredit Blair and Bush as to the conduct of the war?

You expect others to do the homewoerk, so why shouldn't we expect
you to?

(and no, merely trying to broadly discredit the BBC doesn't count)

I don't need to try. They did that to themselves.

Cite, please?

????? Have you been sleeping the past few years? (I guess given some of
your other comments that might have actually happened.)

Andrew Gilligan? David Kelly? "Sexed up dossier"? Lord Hutton's
inquiry? You missed all that?

Here's one of probably 10,000 articles about what they pulled.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...air/index.html

If you don't think we're at war with Islamic Fascists then you need to
wake up. The fact is that the politicians refuse to label them as
Islamic so they just say "Terrorists". But that doesn't alter the fact
that we are in a shooting war.

Among other things, you apparently have no idea of what "fascism"
actually is. The Islamic terrorists are not fascists. For the
most part, fascism is antithetical to Islam. Saddam Hussein was
close to be a fascist, but he decreed the state to be secular.

Excellent tactic. You can't find fault with the argument so you want to
debate the use of a particular word.

I have very deep feelings about fascism and nazism, and I find
usage like yours both an indication of ignorance and watering
down of a term that should be kept the way it was.

Works real well in High School debates.

So you feel you should just throw around terminology willy-nilly
whether correctly used or not? And what was your reason for using
the term at all if not to make some sort of emotional argument?


My predjudice is getting these people on trial (IOW justice). Yours is
to avoid seeing that happen.

On trial for *what*? Most aren't accused of breaking US law. They are
being held as prisoners of war. Nothing "guilty" about that. And no
trials to hold.

They are indeed being held as prisoners of war. But that begs the
question: "Should they be held as prisoners of war?"

Good question. I think they should. But it has nothing to do with being
"guilty" of anything. Nor can we put them on trial.

Nonsense. If they are combatants in a war and are doing combative
things while out of uniform they can be summarily shot after a
brief military hearing.

During WWII, did the UK put captured German soldiers on trial or did
they simply hold them until the end of the war then send them home?

That was a declared war and both sides wore uniforms. A captured
enemy out of uniform is not a prisoner of war; that's why
Washington had Major Andre hanged.

Very good. A captured enemy out of uniform is not a prisoner of war.
Exactly Bush's argument with these people.

I know it is. But I'm not arguing either way. The question is
whether they are prisoners of war and if not, what are they? An
that requries another answer: Is it a war in teh meaning of that
term?

So now you're a Bush supporter? Amazing.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then, and Bush is
sometimes right. But personally, I don't think he is in this one,
but I'm not going to make it an absolute the way you do.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

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.


Where were they guys from that invaded Kuwait and when they surrendered
promised to do certain things?

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????

Hatunen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 17:23:13 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:

A. Bed sheets are not an indication of bigotry and hatred.

B. Wearing a bedsheet in some circumstances *is* (think KKK).

There you go again (to quote Ronald Reagan).

A. You make the blanket statement that possession of passports is
result of hatred and bigotry

B. Then you say passports are not an indication of hatred and
bigotry.

Try to find the word "possession" that exists in one sentence and not
the other. And then read where it is the "need" for possession.

C. Then you make an anology that in *some circumstances*
passports are an indcations of hatred and bigotry.

Completely untrue.

You're a slippery fellow, your are.

And you have a hard time with reading comprehension.

In the real world. Let's say a building burns down. What caused the
building to catch fire? Turns out a generator caught fire. What caused
the generator to catch fire? Turned out a water pump bearing froze up
and sparks from the spinning shaft ignited the crankcase oil. What
cause the water pump bearing to fail? The system operator used cheap
antifreeze and didn't change it often. Why did the operator fail to
maintain the system and use cheap products? Greed.

Root cause of the fi Greed.

Now let's look at passports.

Why do so many Europeans have passports? Because they need them to
travel more than a few hours? Why do they need them to travel more than
a few hours? Because there are so many international borders in Europe.
Why are there so many international borders in Europe? Because Europe
is chopped up into a large assortment of small countries. Why is Europe
chopped up into a large assortment of small countries? Because of the
various wars over the centuries. What are the root causes of war?
Hatred, bigotry, greed, etc.

Ah. Begging your own conclusion still again. Except you now add
"greed" to your list. When are you going to add "power"?

You still don't understand the cause of war, I see.

Root cause of so many Europeans having passports? The hatred, bigotry
and greed that caused the wars that created the countries that created
the borders that require the passports that they need.

Ditto.

And for you. Try to understand war.

What do you think caused the war? Stale wine?

Well, now. That seems to be the point we largely disagree on,
doesn't it? I say that some wars may have resulted from bigotry
and/or hatred but many wars have not; you say all wars have
resulted from bigotry and hatred.

All? Probably not.

Ah, slippery again. Your precviosu statements have been unqualified.

There have been hundreds of wars fought in Europe. The majority are
unquestionably bigotry and hatred. There may have been a couple that
weren't but that doesn't alter the conclusion one iota.

I qualified this because from your question it appeared that you found
a list of 461 wars but 2 weren't a result of hatred and bigotry and you
planned on using those 2 to negate the conlusions from the other 459.

But the vast majority? Yes. Bigotry and hatred are
at the root of almost any war.

Please provide examples.

WWII. Angolan Civil War.

Your turn. Provide examples of wars that had nothing to do with bigotry
and hatred.

As posted elsewhere I've spent a lot of
time in war zones. Including "hot shooting wars", "local insurgencies",
"cold conflicts". At the root of all of them is a bigotry and hatred.
It's difficult to make war on someone you like and respect and consider
as an equal.

In many war zones the hatred and bigotry are a result of the war,
not the cause.

Wrong. Hatred and bigotry are often increased to push the war or as a
result of the war, but the hatred and bigotry existed before and were
integral parts of the reasons for war.

Hatunen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 17:28:14 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:

Even had no problem getting someone to explain to me in
English about Ankracet (I'm sure I misspelled that).

What is it?

Duck Race