Avoid Delta and Atlanta

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?
--
Mike Reid
I will agree bendybuses are a good idea when they build bungalows on Mayfair
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"

In article . com,
(Tchiowa) wrote:

*From:* "Tchiowa"
*Date:* 17 Aug 2006 17:10:29 -0700


wrote:
In article . com,
(Tchiowa) wrote:

*From:* "Tchiowa"
*Date:* 16 Aug 2006 17:21:14 -0700


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 18:48:12 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:

I found that damn near everyone I met could speak English fairly
well.

That's due to your limited experience, probably limited to
touristy
areas.

No, mostly business. Sorry. You're wrong again.

What European languages, other than English, do you speak and
understand
with sufficient fluency to conduct a business meeting?

I used to speak enough Portuguese to attend a meeting and understand,
but certainly not conduct it. And I haven't used Portugues for about a
decade so I've probably lost even that basic ability.

But that points out the reason behind the use of English. Other than
English there is no language that enough people from enough places
speak to conduct meetings. English has become the "lingua franca" of
business in Europe.

Of international business, sure. But not all business is international,
even in big companies. At the meetings you attended they spoke English
BECAUSE you (and maybe others) didn't speak the local language: but I'll
bet you a euro to a cent they didn't carry on in English when they went
back to their offices and dealt with their everyday colleagues.

Following up to

but I'll
bet you a euro to a cent they didn't carry on in English when they went
back to their offices and dealt with their everyday colleagues.

look, be fair to Tshower, we all know French films are made in
English with French subtitles. Its the language of the streets!
--
Mike Reid
I will agree bendybuses are a good idea when they build bungalows on Mayfair
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"

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.

Heck, and that wasn't even in America!
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Frank F. Matthews

Give up Dave. Of course Europeans travel abroad more. Pretty much
every significant trip is abroad there.

Depends what significant means? If it means "long distance" then
clearly true. I think its also true that those trips will go into
"significantly" different cultures. but I'm told that the
existence of Creole restaurants and Philly cheese steaks
(whatever they are) all over the US means that effect is
neutralised in favour of the "US is best for all things" lobby.
Or perhaps I just don't understand?

Finally you said something that makes sense.

Clearly you don't understand much of any of these conversations.

wrote:
In article . com,
(Tchiowa) wrote:

*From:* "Tchiowa"
*Date:* 17 Aug 2006 17:10:29 -0700


wrote:
In article . com,
(Tchiowa) wrote:

*From:* "Tchiowa"
*Date:* 16 Aug 2006 17:21:14 -0700


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 18:48:12 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:

I found that damn near everyone I met could speak English fairly
well.

That's due to your limited experience, probably limited to
touristy
areas.

No, mostly business. Sorry. You're wrong again.

What European languages, other than English, do you speak and
understand
with sufficient fluency to conduct a business meeting?

I used to speak enough Portuguese to attend a meeting and understand,
but certainly not conduct it. And I haven't used Portugues for about a
decade so I've probably lost even that basic ability.

But that points out the reason behind the use of English. Other than
English there is no language that enough people from enough places
speak to conduct meetings. English has become the "lingua franca" of
business in Europe.

Of international business, sure. But not all business is international,
even in big companies. At the meetings you attended they spoke English
BECAUSE you (and maybe others) didn't speak the local language: but I'll
bet you a euro to a cent they didn't carry on in English when they went
back to their offices and dealt with their everyday colleagues.

That may be. But the fact remains that they speak English which is what
I was saying and what others were denying.

If there is a business meeting in Europe where people who speak
different first languages (none of which are English) are attending
it's a good bet the meeting will be conducted in English. If someone in
that meeting doesn't understand the other's first language at all then
it's almost guaranteed that the meeting will be in English.

And the whole world is like that now.

In Thailand where I live the Prime Minister speaks English. The King
speaks English. The streets signs are in English and Thai.
Advertisements are in English. A colleague of mine from South America
called his embassy and when he spoke in Spanish the lady in the embassy
(a Thai lady) asked him to switch to English. English is taught in
elementary schools "in the hinterlands" (as some like to phrase it).

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.

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Frank F. Matthews


Give up Dave. Of course Europeans travel abroad more. Pretty much
every significant trip is abroad there.


Depends what significant means? If it means "long distance" then
clearly true. I think its also true that those trips will go into
"significantly" different cultures. but I'm told that the
existence of Creole restaurants and Philly cheese steaks
(whatever they are) all over the US means that effect is
neutralised in favour of the "US is best for all things" lobby.
Or perhaps I just don't understand?

My point is that the concept of 'abroad' is relatively useless when
talking about travel. For me it takes many hundreds of miles to travel
abroad. I can get to a pretty different culture in 200 miles or so.
That trip wouldn't be 'abroad' though. Except going east it pretty much
takes a days driving to even get out of state.

While there are Cajun restaurants pretty much everywhere there are none
that I know of more than a days drive from Lafayette, LA. Creole
restaurants are very uncommon outside of Louisiana. As to Philly cheese
steaks they aren't usually very good at any distance from Philly.

The proportion of trips 'abroad' will be significantly affected by the
number of national boundaries that you cut an area up into.