Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:50:54 -0500,
wrote:

In article .com,
(Tchiowa) wrote:

Finland is not a Scandinavian country, better brush up your geography.

It was in Scandinavia when I was there. Did they move it?

http://www.goscandinavia.com/

"Welcome to the Official Website of the Scandinavian Tourist Boards in
North America. Please feel free to browse the country websites of
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandin...logy_and_usage

Geographically the Scandinavian peninsula includes mainland Sweden and
mainland Norway, and also a part of Finland


The beginning of that page states:

"The original and most common definition includes continental Denmark,
mainland Norway and Sweden."

and goes on to say:

"Sometimes Finland is included"

Finns do not call themselves Scandinavians; they conider
themselves a Nordic country, a term which covers Finland plus the
Scandinavian countries (Estonia is trying to claim Nordicness).

It is not only the Scandinavian Peninsula that matters, and
Finland barely extends on to the Peninsula (depending on where
you define the Peninsula to begin), but also the fact that
Denmark, Sweden and Norway speak Scandinavian languages (if
indeed they be distinct languages); language and settlement
history is why Iceland also considers itself a Scandinavian
country.


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

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?

No, I want you to demonstrate the bias you claimed existed in the
article I posted. You have misread. Again.

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

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

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.

Out and out lie. Show me where I said that.

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

Which wasn't correct, was it?

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.

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?

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.

A shooting war? What war are you talking about?

Terrorism is what happens when people are slapped about so much, that
they resort to extreme methods to get some semblance of justice. I
don't condone that, but the symptoms and the problems need to be
equally adressed. Simply feeding one side of it (like the USA and UK
have been doing) does nothing to stop it.

Why the **** am I wasting my keystrokes? You haven't even demonstrated
basic comprehension here.

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.

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.

The war on terrorism is over, in case you hadn't noticed.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 17 Aug 2006 08:14:09 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


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


The Euro's opinion of themselves?

No. You're insistence on putting all "Euro's" together illustrates a
flaw in your thinking.

You mean kind of like the way you (and others) have lumped Americans
together?

You apparently consider them comparable, and thus demonstrate your
idiocy.

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 use of the word 'bigotry' is just bizarre.

It wasn't bigotry that was at the root of many or most of the wars that
created the borders? Of course it was.

Bigotry had nothing to do with it. Of course I don't know what you are
specifically referring to, but you're pretty good at that.

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?

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

My denial or reality? What the hell are you trying to say? Maybe you
are on crack or yaa baa or something.

Ah, a typical juvenile response. Indicates you have no logical
argument. Thank you for the surrender.

You can plonk me if you really think you've won.

That is meaningless, as you included "real", which could mean anything.

No, Jordi included "real". I quoted him.

Try to keep up.

Getting a bit defensive are we? I never aimed that one at you.

Then you should be careful where you embed your reply. You embedded it
following *my* statement, not anyone else's.

And it wasn't an attack. You are jumping at shadows.

I never said it was an attack. Your tenuous grasp on reality is showing
again.

You did say "Try to keep up", which was a personal attack on me.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Hatunen wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:37:31 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:


It looks more to me like a subdued threat to the Maltese that
Randall is a US citizen so don't try any funny stuff. It was only
a couple of decades after the US went after the barbary Pirates.

Interesting that it's a printed form.

It's a passport. Passports back then didn't come in a little book.


Why is it a passport? How do you define passport?


Why not do a bit of research yourself?
Passports have existed for a very long time.


From: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

An official government document that certifies one's identity and
citizenship and permits a citizen to travel abroad

[French passeport, from Old French : passer, to pass; see pass + port,
port; see port1.]

(This is logical. What languages is your passport written in?)

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:08:28 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

Be sure to be ready on the one day a year when the drizzle and
clouds have lifted enough to actually see them.

That's our favorite misconception, which we do our best to keep alive. :-)

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

JohnT wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Martin writes:


I blame the poor quality of language teaching.

Yes.

Could you possibly get an Irony Transplant?

I think he needs to stop at the Clue Hire first.
--
dgs

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).

Ever hear of "root cause analysis"? You should pick up a book.

Let's help you out here.

If A can cause B and B can cause C and C can cause D and D happens
then we look to see if C caused D (C might not be the only potential
cause of D). If so, did B cause C? If so did A cause B? If all those
things fall into line the A is the "root cause" of D.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.