Air France? Ptui!

wrote:

Ever heard of The Ugly American? Your comments just made yourself
one of those.

No - just a well-known troll. Like any pesky dog, if you ignore him
he'll be off - he has less stamina than gRunge.

B;

"Magda" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:14:00 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities,
arranged
some electrons, so they looked like this:

... You're being deliberately obtuse. Trouble not in the trying, trouble
in the
... successful learning. Everybody has things they can grasp quickly, and
things
... they can't. I can, and have, built computers from piles of loose
parts, but
... I couldn't run a sewing machine if my life depended on it.

What makes you think that people learn a language to pass off as a native?

I have no idea what you consider "successful" - but I am sure you don't,
either.

Who said anything about being able to pass as a native?
Successful, in this case, would be the ability to move about in public and
conduct simple interactions with the local people, without the need for a
translator.

A quick review of your recent posts indicates that further discussion would
likely be pointless, so I'm out of here.

aem sends...

Calif Bill wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Geoff Miller wrote:

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:



"Need"? Perhaps not, but it might enlarge your view of the world
considerably, if you did!


My view of the world is adequately large as-is, but thanks for
your concern.




Aka "too stupid to learn more than one language" - and that one poorly,
in many cases!


That's a hell of a thing to say about the citizens of the country
who liberated France from the Knotsies. What's the French word for
"ingrate?"

I'm an American, too, you idiot! (Fortunately not all of us are redneck
chauvinists.) As to "liberating" France, it took us long enough to get
involved, and France and Britain were doing quite well despite the Nazi's
superior forces. Also, without Russia, even the addition of American
military forces might not have turned the tide.


Actually tiny Holland stood up longer to the Germans than France. The
French lasted about 2 weeks. They were not doing well against the Germans.
What made the war winnable was Hitler. Even with a non agression pact with
Stalin, he opened up the Russian Front, took too many of his forces and
supplies away from the Battle of Britain. Plus the fine German engineering,
that made precision weapons that could not fire when it got real cold in
Russia. And do not knock redneck chauvinists. They have a right to
opinions also. And a lot of those rednecks are the the ones who went to war
to liberate France.

Actually, given the draft, the "ones who went to war" were a
cross section of the entire male population between eighteen
and forty! They included both college professors and
rednecks - along with every class in between. Unless there
were more rednecks among the population than seems
reasonable, they were only part of the whole, so no special
virtue attaches to them.

You seem to be a chauvinist in your way also. You
should get an education before making so many wrong statements.

Shall we compare college degrees?

And it was
the leaders of the US that kept us out of another European war for a while.
They believed that it was both bad for business and maybe there were some
Chamberlains among them. And it was Democrats in power at the time.

Really? I thought Herbert Hoover was a Republican. FDR may
have delayed until he knew the nation was behind him (unlike
the Shrub), but he certainly was no Isolationist!

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...

And it was the leaders of the US that kept us out of another European
war for a while. They believed that it was both bad for business and
maybe there were some Chamberlains among them. And it was Democrats in
power at the time.

Really? I thought Herbert Hoover was a Republican. FDR may have delayed
until he knew the nation was behind him (unlike the Shrub), but he
certainly was no Isolationist!

What years do you think Hoover was president?

Geoff Miller wrote:
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:

"Need"? Perhaps not, but it might enlarge your view of the
world considerably, if you did!

My view of the world is adequately large as-is, but thanks for
your concern.

I have learned several languages to varying degress and that didn't
have any significant effect on my view of the world. Living in multiple
countries certainly has affected it and learning (or trying to learn -
which is more accurate in my case) new languages is fun, but the notion
that speaking French enlarges your view of the world is simply
nonsense.

Aka "too stupid to learn more than one language" - and that
one poorly, in many cases!

That's a hell of a thing to say about the citizens of the country
who liberated France from the Knotsies. What's the French word
for "ingrate?"

Silly. The French word for "ingrate" is "French".

wrote:
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...

(snip)

Aka "too stupid to learn more than one language" - and that one poorly, in
many cases! As to "linguistically homogeneous", where do you live? (In
some parts of the country Spanish is more frequently spoken than English.)

Not a matter of stupidity- most people have trouble learning other languages
as an adult.

Very true.

I also think it appropriate to point out that the Euros accomplishment
in speaking several languages comes from the same source as their boast
of doing a lot of international travelling. The root of that is not "a
wide world view" but rather a history of hatred and violence that kept
the continent split up into dozens of little countries that for a long
time had zero interaction with each other beyond the occasional trip to
murder a few people that looked funny to them.

Europe is chopped up into little countries because of hatred and
bigotry. They should be ashamed of it rather than boast of it.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

I'm an American, too, you idiot! (Fortunately not all of us
are redneck chauvinists.) As to "liberating" France, it took
us long enough to get involved, and France and Britain were
doing quite well despite the Nazi's superior forces.

Excuse me? France was completely occupied. It was defeated so fast that
the Nazi's biggest problem during the invasion was the fuel trucks
keeping up with the tanks that were rolling through the country at full
speed. And Britain was under a V-2 barrage that they may not have
survived.

Also, without Russia, even the addition of American military
forces might not have turned the tide.

Speculation. But the reality is that the Germans were winning, England
was losing and France had already lost before the US got involved.

It's funny to here the Euro-philes complain about the US waiting so
long to get involved (very true) then complaining about us getting
involved too fast in other areas. Seems like they only want us getting
involved when it's their necks on the line.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
Geoff Miller wrote:

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:


Whereas I'm ashamed to acknowledge you as a fellow-countryman!



Likewise, you can be sure. I take it, then, that you didn't vote
for Bush?

Damned right! The man should be impeached, and if he hadn't
stacked Congress and the Supreme Court with his cronies, he
would be!

???? It's impossible for a President to stack Congress. The people
select Congress. And please tell me what percentage of the Justices of
the Supreme Court W selected.

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 12:19:15 -0700, (Geoff Miller)
wrote:



EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:

Whereas I'm ashamed to acknowledge you as a fellow-countryman!


Likewise, you can be sure. I take it, then, that you didn't vote
for Bush?

Did you vote for the pedophile protectors?

555555555555

Interesting. Nothing proven against anyone except the one Congressman
but you are ready to convict.

Did you vote for the thieves who stole the House Post Office blind?
(That one was proven)

Did you vote for the party whose Senate Leader just got nailed for
making false financial statements involving over a million dollars that
he "earned" in a rather questionable deal? (Reid has acknowledged his
involvement)

Did you vote for the party of drunken murderers who use their power to
avoid prosecution after they drive their cars into a river and leaver
their mistress to drown? (That one was proven)

Did you vote for the party who lies under oath in court hearings
(Again, proven)

But let's your style of unproven allegations, should we? Did you vote
for the party of rapists or who stood guard while they nephew committed
rape?

Myself, I vote for people based on their policies. Something you
apparently don't agree with.

"Tchiowa" kirjoitti
glegroups.com...


Interesting. Nothing proven against anyone except the one Congressman
but you are ready to convict.

There is only a couple of things on your postings which do bother the
subscribers of rte:

1. you faggot crosspost them all over the usenet - yes,
alt.gossip.celebrities too
2. they have nothing to do with travelling in Europe (which is the scope in
one of the crossposted groups)

Perhaps you just get lost