Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers

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

In article ,
(TOliver) wrote:

*From:* "TOliver"
*Date:* Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:27:57 GMT


"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.

I chance to have Shorter OED beside me: it dates Balkaniz/e/ation from
1900-1929, and Balkan itself from 1830-1869.

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:45:02 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:

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.

After WW1 passports became a requirement of the destination
countries; this was not true before WW1. If passports were not an
absolute requirement for entry into other countries, they do not
meet the current meaning of passport.

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

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
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.

All you have to do is to come up with one single *fact*.

Probably time for you to drop out like the others did after they
couldn't provide any facts either.

Common tactic: proven wrong, claim the other guy is a troll and say you
won't talk to him, duck out so you don't have to be caught being wrong
yet again.

One single *fact*, that's all I've asked for. You asked for the bias
and I gave you 3 very specific facts. You insist that there are
government sources involved, I'm asking for the source.

Go ahead. If you can.


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.

According to your super secret un-named "government sources"?

Sadly, no one is willing to allow them to defend themselves.

In fact a significant number have been found to not have been active
combatants and sent home.

But you wouldn't want to talk about that, would you?

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
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?

Well, since that wasn't one of the statements that couldn't be it,
could it?

Nonsense - it's using most of the money?

Most of the "US aniti-terror funds". Yes, that's nonsense. It isn't
using *any* of the "anti-terror funds".

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
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.

*EXACTLY* as I expected. Here was a bi-partisan commission set up to
investigate 9/11. The document is loaded with lots of facts and the
documented references behind them.

But you, as most with a similar political bent, aren't interested in
taking the time to actually learn something. You don't want your little
fantasy world rocked, do you?

You called the idea that Saddam had offered Osama sanctuary "bull
****". But went presented with documentation to the contrary you won't
even read it.

And that's why you refuse, right? You want the ability to keep spouting
opinions based on political bias and if you read the report you might
just be honest enough where you can't spout that claim any more.
Wouldn't want that.

Any one here want to put a little wager on how long it will be before
DFM refers to another of the facts in the report as "bull ****"?

This thread has been kind of interesting.

Claims that Europe's economy is as good as the US were countered with
facts. People dropped out. (Kill file! Kill file! Troll!)

Claims that Americans don't get enough vacation were countered with
facts. People dropped out. (Kill file! Kill file! Troll!)

Claims that work is a bad thing were countered with facts. People
dropped out. (Kill file! Kill file! Troll!)

Claims that countries with a mandatory 4 week vacation don't have
unemployment problems were countered with facts. People dropped out.
(Kill file! Kill file! Troll!)

Claims that the BBC article wasn't biased were countered with facts.
People dropped out. (Kill file! Kill file! Troll!)

Claims that Saddam never tried to form an alliance with Osama were
countered with facts. People dropped out. (Kill file! Kill file!
Troll!)

Claims that the US has little diversity were countered with facts.
People dropped out. (Kill file! Kill file! Troll!)

"How dare you not believe what I tell you when all you have are facts
but I can present you with personal opinions and biased sources?" (Kill
file! Kill file! Troll!)

Kind of humorous to observe.

On 19 Aug 2006 17:11:28 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Any one here want to put a little wager on how long it will be before
DFM refers to another of the facts in the report as "bull ****"?

This thread has been kind of interesting.

"How dare you not believe what I tell you when all you have are facts
but I can present you with personal opinions and biased sources?" (Kill
file! Kill file! Troll!)

You are really, really sad.

*plonk*
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:08:43 +0200, Dave Frightens Me
wrote:

On 19 Aug 2006 17:11:28 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Any one here want to put a little wager on how long it will be before
DFM refers to another of the facts in the report as "bull ****"?

This thread has been kind of interesting.

"How dare you not believe what I tell you when all you have are facts
but I can present you with personal opinions and biased sources?" (Kill
file! Kill file! Troll!)

You are really, really sad.

*plonk*

About bloody time.

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