Avoid Delta and Atlanta

wrote:


On our recent trip to Sardinia I was surprised that so few people spoke
English.

This is one of the reasons we rented a beach house a few years ago at
Torre delle Stelle. We rarely saw Americans. Of course, you need to make
sure you don't order the horse meat, but that is part of the adventure.
Unfortunately Alitalia lost it's cheap competitor, Volare on the FCO-CAG
route.

On 16 Aug 2006 17:11:46 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 01:40:52 -0700, "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.

You're all alone here. No one seems to wants to support your point of
view, because you are not making sense.

"No one"? You mean you and a couple of other US bashers who aren't
happy because I pointed out a rather glaring inconsistency in your
position.

The French speak English in the street,

Many do.

Many? Yes, maybe a whopping 1% speak some English in the street.

You should go to Paris again.

Now there's your problem. The assumption that the people in a
city like Paris are representative of the entire country. That
sort of dumb reasoning undermines everything you say.

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

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."


The need to have a passport in order to travel more than a couple of
hours in any direction in Europe is a result of the fact that Europe is
chopped up into little political entities.

OK.

And that is a result of
1,000 years or more of bigotry and hatred and war.

Ah, see, you're waffling now; that's not what you've said. You've
said it was a result of bigotry and hatred, not war.

The hatred and bigotry caused the boundaries and the need for passports
to travel arised from the boundaries.

Now, see, there's where your reasoning seems to be coming a
cropper. You provide no evidence that hatred and bigotry caused
teh boundaries.

Therefore the need for passports
for Euros results not from some cultural superiority as has been
claimed but rather because the hatred and bigotry that has existed for
a millenium and more (and still exists) created the national borders.

Who, exactly, was it that said the need for passports came
cultural superiority?

So the "More Europeans have passports than Americans" statement (which
is what this discussion is about) does not prove cultural superiority
but rather stems from a history of war and hatred.

I don't beleive the claim was made that the need for passports
proved cultural superority; I believe the calim was that
Europeans traveled more.

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

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


Hatunen wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 01:32:12 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


The Reid wrote:
Following up to Hatunen

that's a classic, "everybody in Europe speaks English". Is the
man trolling?

In all fairness, he didn't say "everybody".

True, but "almost all" is just as silly and if not a troll
indicates someone who has never moved outside major tourist
spots. .

Tourist spots??? English is the primary and *official* language of
government for the EU.

So because memebrs of the EU bureacracy sometimes use English it
means almost all Europeans speak English? Your logic escapes
mmost of us.

Interesting. I cited several examples. You separate them then respond
that *just one* of them doesn't prove anything. Try taking things as a
whole.

Oh, wow. You cited several examples. But you provided no
Gallup-type justification for extrapolating from those example to
an entire continent.

It is the primary language of business
throughout the EU.

Not yet. It is the primary language in certain places, e.g., the
board of FIAT.

Try again. Look at the law for contracts in the EU.

What, exactly, does it say?

English is the primary language of business in the EU for any business
that crossed national borders.

Ah. Changing your claim again. Now you add the qualification that
it is true for businesses that cross national boundaries. Do you
have an itemized list of all the European businesses that cross
national boundaries, denoting those that conduct business in
English and those that don't?

It is the primary language for education throughout the EU.

Most student now have to study English in the schools, but it is
far from the "primary language for education throughout the EU".

It is *required* for lower level students to learn at a minimum level
and many University degrees require almost fluencyi.

That is NOT the same thing as "the primary language of
education."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3143464.stm

"Italians place a very high importance on learning languages,
particularly English. Fifteen years ago it was quite difficult to find
an English speaker here but today it is relatively easy."

"Relatively easy"? Compared to what?

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. 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.

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

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


Hatunen wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 22:50:30 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 20:29:03 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:

Yes, I find European history quite odd myself. I assume that you're not
trying to claim that the reasons that Europe is chopped up into a few
dozen small countries is *not* because of the hatred and bigotry that
has marked your entire history.

That's a very over-simplified view of European history. It's been
"chopped up" since the fall of the Roman Empire and the onset of
the Dark Ages, when communications and transportation became so
difficult that each small area became isolated. And when it came
to the petty wars of the medieval era that kept jumbling up the
mix of countries it had little to do with bigotry and hatred and
a lot to do with the drive for power and wealth on the part of
the nobility.

Of course, there was lot of bigotry and hatred in the area of the
Balkans, but that's only part of Europe, and a lot of it was due
to the Islamic conquest of much of the Balkans.

Are you suggesting that Germany didn't invade France in the 1940s? Or
that millions of Jews weren't slaughtered? Or that WWI didn't happen?
Or that European history isn't basically the story of one war after
another as various groups tried to conquer or slaughter various other
groups?

The Jews are a special case, of course, as the scapegoat for the
Christians; I certainly don't deny bigotry and hatred, but I
don't seem to recll any wars that began as a result of
antisemitism. Believe it or not (and I fully expect you to deny
it), most wars in Europe throughout its history were not the
result of hatred or bigotry, but of power and greed.

Actually both. But if you want to say that the reason so many Euros
have passports is a result of hatred and bigotry *AND* power and greed
I'll go along with that.

What if that isn't what I want to say?

World War
One was not caused by hatred or bigotry, it was the result of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire deciding that the little incident at
Sarajevo was a good excuse to add Serbia to the Empire.

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?

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.

The US was once a group of small political entities that didn't much
like each other.

That's certainly a bit overstated; can you document the claim
that the royal govenment of Virginia didn't much liek the royal
government of Norht Carolina?

1860. Bit of a struggle in the US.

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

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.

But the US unified (for better or for worse). Europe
was never able to unify because of the hatred and bigotry and can't
unify today for many of the same reasons.

Bigotry doesn't enter into it, and hatred is a bit strong; it's
more like "suspicious", and given the past history of various
attemts to achieve power over Europe perhaps rightfully so.

OK. Bigotry, hatred, power, greed *AND* suspicion.

And what would that suspicion be a result of?

You betray a certain shallowness.

Why? Because I don't buy the view that the fact that Europe has been
split up for centuries requiring most Euros to have passports in order
to travel for more than a few hours somehow gives them some type of
cultural superiority?

NO, the shallowness is indicated by your insistence on
over-simplistic explanations for very complex situations.

Root cause analysis.

That was the topic.

Your topic.

No. It was in response to a very specific statement about Euros having
passports implied they were better than Americans.

Well, now, even I've argued against that.

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

On 16 Aug 2006 17:16:06 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 20:29:03 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 14 Aug 2006 18:09:13 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Jordi wrote:
snip
Nice one. How come you have such an odd view of Europe? Is it because
you are lying?

No, it's because I've been all over the world and have had the
opportunity to compare various cultures.

Oddly, so have I, plus many others reading this. Your view seems way
different to anyone elses here, suggesting you must be right, and
we're all wrong.

The Euro's opinion of themselves?

Which part do you disagree with? The fact that Europe is chopped up
into little political units because of a millenium of bigotry and war?
The fact the European economy is lagging far, far behind the US? The
fact that unemployment in most of Europe is roughly double what it is
in the US?

I see you like trick questions. When did you stop beating your
wife sort of thing.

"Which part do you disagree with? The fact that Europe is chopped
up into little political units because of a millenium of bigotry
and war?"

You don't leave it open to the possibility that Eruope is chopped
up into little political units for other reasons (and some of
those political units are pretty damn big).

Your denial or reality doesn't make these facts go away.

And then you argue from your own conclusion.


Very bizzare response.

Yes, I find European history quite odd myself.

This is evidently why you don't seem to understand the European view
of things.

Oh, but I do.

Ah. do you now?

I just think it's a very odd view.

That, of course, is your privelege, but you tend to confuse your
opinions with facts.


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

On 16 Aug 2006 17:21:14 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


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


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 14 Aug 2006 18:18:12 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Miguel Cruz wrote:

Contrast this with Athens and Berlin. A tiny minority of the people have
shared fluency in any language.

Almost all speak English.

*chuckle*

You would be one of those ignorant yanks if you believe this!

A few years ago I commented to a friend of my in Angola about the
difficulty I had in France (I used to go there several times a year)
because I don't speak French and not all that many people spoke
English. He claimed that it was because many people have an attitude
like you just expressed (ignorant yank) abouit Americans.

At his suggestion I tried using Portuguese when I went to France (I had
learned that after several years in Angola). So I did. I'd speak to
someone in France using Portuguese and they would respond in French.
I'd try again in Portuguese and then they would shift to English as a
"neutral language".

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.

I don't see business ad being a much better gauge of teh whole of
Europe than the touristy areas. Business people tend to fly in,
have tehir meetings, and fly out without really getting involved
in tee country. So I think this explains a lot about your need to
find simplistic explanations.

Clearly someone has never eaten Creole food and Philly Cheese Steaks.

Neither of those are as common as the humble Big Mac in the typical
diet.

Maybe in France you'd be right.

Not in the US.

So?

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

Tchiowa writes:

You should go to Paris again.

The average Parisian speaks only a few words of English--certainly
nothing that can be considered useful for communication.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tchiowa writes:

It is *required* for lower level students to learn at a minimum level
and many University degrees require almost fluencyi.

The definition of "fluency" is extremely flexible from one country to
another. It is very lenient in France.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

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


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 21:24:55 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Actually I did. It appears to be you that didn't.

The article is not an article it is an editorial comment. Do you
understand the difference?

The editorial comes from a source (BBC) that has already been caught
deliberately distorting information about the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq to further a rather extreme Left political view.

The information does *NOT* come from a government source. The article
doesn't claim that it does. The information comes from a "DEFENSE
ATTORNEY* who claims to have analyzed other data:

"Yet a thorough analysis by an American law professor and a defence
lawyer of information released by the US defence department revealed
last week that 92% of the 517 Guantanamo detainees had not been
al-Qaeda fighters."

And of course defense attorney's would never consider slanting their
information to serve their clients, would they?

And after all that,

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

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that bias.

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

you still conclude that all of them are guilty,

Learn to read. I never said anyone was "guilty" of anything.

You most certainly concluded that.

and deserve no legal recourse. Not so much as a shadow of a doubt.
None.

Do you understand anything about war? Prisoners captured during a war
may *NOT* be subjected to criminal trials and may be held until the end
of the war without "any legal recourse".

Right, this all comes down to the declaration of war on some phantom
enemy. I forgot. Apparently you take no issue with this, but are just
blinding trusting the US's word, no matter how flimsy it is.

You've obviously made up your mind on this one, so there's not much
point in trying to get any sense out of, or into you. That brain of
yours is in lockdown denial mode.

Pots and kettles. You clearly don't understand any of the issues but
you're not going to let that get in the way of your prejudices.

My predjudice is getting these people on trial (IOW justice). Yours is
to avoid seeing that happen.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--