Canadian flag on the backback myth

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 02:13:19 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

The liberals seem to believe that Arabs are not genetically capable of
democracy and think it would be better if we just let them kill each other
and threaten the rest of the planet.


Right wing bigots forget one small detail: that not everyone necessarily
wants or believe in democracy.

Which should not be such a big surprise, since typically right wing bigots
tend to deal with democracy as just a mechanism that's easy to manipulate
to grab power.

Bassosa wrote:
Being from Holland (Amsterdam) there is no doubt in my mind that
Americans are treated differently. Why? Simply, because WE DO NOT LIKE
AMERICANS....never have, never will. I am not talking for myself but
this seems to be the general opinion. That’s just the way it is
and you guys keep on giving us reasons to dislike you...best change
your attitude like al travellers do when they go abroad...

Gee, wish I'd known that last week when having many conversations with a
couple from Amsterdam who had rented an RV and were touring the U.S. I may
not have been as hospitiable, although "origins" hardly entered our
discussions. They were more interested in learning about interesting
destinations and relaying their (very good) experiences to-date. They are
having a "trip of their lifetime."

MTV

Barney wrote in message . 4...
(PTRAVEL) had
oogle.com:

Barney wrote in message
. 4...
"PTRAVEL" had
:



In the half-century-plus that I have lived in the US, I've never
heard anyone refer to a waiter as "Hey Boy." And, I suspect,
neither have you.

I know it's hard to drop ingrained prejudice, but you really
should try -- you'll be happier for it.


You have at this point shown that you are in denial. You stipulate that you traveled extensivly and had never
witnesed any of which I stated.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that, in my extensive
travels, I have rarely seen an American acting rudely, and in no
greater numbers than any other nationality.


You stated that you never been treated rudely because you've never been rude.

No, I said that rude people tend to be treated rudely, and I've never
been treated rudely. That was in response to your suggestion that I
might not know I was rude.


The
context is Americans are known for rude behaviour through out the world.

And that is xenophobic stereotyping, and simiply wrong. The context
is, you don't like Americans. Okay, we understand that.


Yes I have heard Americans call waiters
"boy".

Sorry, but I simply do not believe you.

Maybe in the States you have not been treated rudely but the referance was not Americans as a host but as a
guest.

I didn't say I wasn't treated rudely in the States. I travel
internationally between two and three times a year, and have traveled
extensively and repeatedly to and through Europe and Asia. I've never
been treated rudely on my travels.

As a host I would say the Americans are indeed in the top ten.

And I'll stand by what I said in my last post. Try to get over your
prejudices -- you'll be happier for it.



__________________________________________________ ________
"I'm not into name calling. That's best left to the Morons and Idiots"

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:30:15 +0000, Xomicron wrote:


More semantics? Should I cite Clausewitz?

Anyway, I suppose in 30 years people will say similar things of the Iraq
folly. Of course one can't win wars that are not winnable. Such as
colonial wars, inclusing both Vietnam and Iraq.


Iraq would only be a colnial war if the US intended to
stay their indefinitely. In any event such wars CAN
be won, the Malayan emergency is a better example
than Vietnam in this regard.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

devil wrote in
news
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 02:13:19 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

The liberals seem to believe that Arabs are not genetically capable of
democracy and think it would be better if we just let them kill each
other and threaten the rest of the planet.

Right wing bigots forget one small detail: that not everyone necessarily
wants or believe in democracy.

Not everyone believes in human rights but that doesn't stop people from
trying to reconcile that problem.

Which should not be such a big surprise, since typically right wing
bigots tend to deal with democracy as just a mechanism that's easy to
manipulate to grab power.

Welcome to The Psychology of Liberalism 101. Why liberals are addicted to
ad hominems, and what they mean by bigot/racist/etc.

When dealing with liberals who have no comeback to truth or rationality,
they lard conservatives with references about ranting, kindergarten
mentality, preachy morality, puritanical ravings, band tempered reviling,
and small minded bitchiness. Liberals are frequently reduced to sputtering
impotence. Their choleric rage is the product of arrogance (the conviction
that opposing viewpoints are either evil, idiotic or a combination
thereof) compounded by subconscious inferiority. Having for so long
dominated the political debate, they are unaccustomed to dealing with
ideas, construction arguments and presenting evidence. Those who can't
contend ultimately fulminate.

"Bigot" is their favorite invective, along with its variations: "hateful",
"intolerant". "racist" and of course, "mean spirited".
Their point is that conservatives -- really, anyone who refuses to
prostrate himself before their idols, --- are a medley of
David Duke, Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott, the late George Lincoln
Rockwell and the early George Corley Wallace.

Since liberals refuse to define their terms, here's a handy guide to what
they mean by "bigot":

A bigot is a white person (by definition, non-whites can never be bigots,
regardless of how much they hate) who isn't eager
to confess his culpability for something others of his pigmentation did 50
or 150 years ago.

A bigot refuses to recognize the inherent justice of stealing a job or
educational opportunity from one who deserves it (on the basis of merit)
and presenting it to another, based solely on that person's race or
gender.

A bigot is a man, or a woman, who clings to the sexist delusion that
biology affects behavior and has the nagging suspicion that the female of
the species (whose nature inclines her to nurture) may not be as effective
in combat, as the more aggressive, not to mention larger and stronger -
males.

A bigot is someone who believes the culture that produced Michelangelo,
Mozart, Shakespeare and Edison is superior to those whose idea of advanced
civilization is female genital mutilation, tribal genocide and pleading
form alms.

A bigot wonders why X should arise at 6 a.m. and work 10 hours to support
Y and her brood, when Y's exclusive occupation is the production of
fatherless children who will grow up to mug him.

A bigot asks why America must accept a majority of the world's immigrants
(including millions who break our laws each year to come here), when we
currently have no shortage of poverty, disease, illiteracy and racial
tension.

A bigot refuses to put a life-style whose chief contribution to
civilization is the spread of venereal disease on a par with heterosexual
monogamy, which assures both the continuity of the human race and the
socialization of succeeding generations.

In short, a bigot is one who clings to sinister superstitions
(religion), vile chauvinism (love of country), outmoded patriarchy (the
family) and judgmental ethics (an objective moral code).

Pity, we can't all be as tolerant as the left. Hollywood's treatment of
the Catholic Church and evangelicals and the educational establishment's
regard for the traditional family are among the many manifestations of
liberal benevolence. This curious and dwindling breed lacks the remotest
self awareness. A friend told me that when she mentioned my name to a
colleague, he responded, "That *******, he's so intolerant, I could just
kill him".

So when they call you a bigot (or whatever), consider the source and wear
it as a badge of honor.

devil wrote in
news
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:30:15 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

devil wrote in
news
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:25:58 -0500, ANONYMOUSE wrote:



GWB Jr.


who's this "GWB Jr."?

some canadian?

It seems to me, the US is at War against Afghanistan

these united States have not been at war since 1945.

Nice exercise in semantics. The US did not lose a war in Vietnam
because they have decided that technically it was not a war,
presumably?

The United States did not lose the Vietnam militarily. They lost it
politically.

More semantics? Should I cite Clausewitz?

Anyway, I suppose in 30 years people will say similar things of the Iraq
folly. Of course one can't win wars that are not winnable. Such as
colonial wars, inclusing both Vietnam and Iraq.

The war in Iraq is virtually won. There's just some mopping up that needs
to be done. Most of the country is back on track and is happy with the
American effort. They are also enjoying their new found freedom.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:00:03 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

devil wrote in
news
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:30:15 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

devil wrote in
news
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:25:58 -0500, ANONYMOUSE wrote:



GWB Jr.


who's this "GWB Jr."?

some canadian?

It seems to me, the US is at War against Afghanistan

these united States have not been at war since 1945.

Nice exercise in semantics. The US did not lose a war in Vietnam
because they have decided that technically it was not a war,
presumably?

The United States did not lose the Vietnam militarily. They lost it
politically.

More semantics? Should I cite Clausewitz?

Anyway, I suppose in 30 years people will say similar things of the Iraq
folly. Of course one can't win wars that are not winnable. Such as
colonial wars, inclusing both Vietnam and Iraq.

The war in Iraq is virtually won. There's just some mopping up that needs
to be done. Most of the country is back on track and is happy with the
American effort. They are also enjoying their new found freedom.

Yeah right.

If you like wishful thinking, be my guest.

On 3 Jun 2004 00:37:24 GMT, Barney wrote:

(Lou Minatti) had
writtennews:fc2fd83e.0406021333.4c8ec6e2@posting. google.com:
Van wrote in message
. ..

Yes, it's safe to open. If you don't want to open the file, here
is a summary (sorry about the formatting):

Rank The World's Best Tourists Points
1 Germans +41
2 Americans +32
3 Japanese +24
4 Italians +10
5 French +5
5= Norwegians +5
5= Swedish +5
8 Spanish +4
8= Canadians +4
10 Chinese 3
10= Thais 3
10= Dutch 3
13 Brazilians -1
13= Danes -1
13= Polish -1
16 Russians -2
17 Argentineans -3
17= New Zealanders -3
17= Czechs -3
17= Finnish -3
21 Indians -4
22 Irish -6
22= Israelis -6
24 British -44


I have to stand corrected. Especialy if I had lived in Britan and
catered to the tourist trade.

These kinds of surveys are by their very nature unreliable and it
would be almost impossible to conduct a reliable survey on the topic.
The problem is that they countries that send the most tourists abroad
tend to rank very high both on the positive and the negative scales
just because they are the ones people think of first when asked the
question. The Swedes and Canadians may be perfectly nice tourists,
but when you ask the average tourist office worker who are the best
and worst tourists, these two countries rarely spring to mind. (Well,
a tourist worker in Denmark might mention Swedes, but you get the
point.) A person who has never met a Finnish tourist isn't qualified
to rank a German tourist above or below a Finn.

To correct the results for this built-in bias, you would have to first
of all ask the question about each nationality separately. (e.g., "How
would you rank the Dutch as tourists?" and you would have to discard
respondents who couldn't answer for all of the nationalities, having
met and remembered at least 50 tourists from each country. (Thus you
would probably reduce your sample to zero).
-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

On 3 Jun 2004 10:36:08 GMT, Barney wrote:

(PTRAVEL) had
writtennews:979ad702.0406022216.22d62278@posting. google.com:

Barney wrote in message
. 4...
"PTRAVEL" had
:

In the half-century-plus that I have lived in the US, I've never
heard anyone refer to a waiter as "Hey Boy." And, I suspect,
neither have you.

You have at this point shown that you are in denial. You stipulate that you traveled extensivly and had never
witnesed any of which I stated. You stated that you never been treated rudely because you've never been rude. The
context is Americans are known for rude behaviour through out the world. Yes I have heard Americans call waiters
"boy". Maybe in the States you have not been treated rudely but the referance was not Americans as a host but as a
guest. As a host I would say the Americans are indeed in the top ten.

I lived in the US for over 50 years and never heard anyone call a
waiter "boy". I don't say it's never happened and it may even have
been common many years ago in the southern states if the waiter was
black. However, I repeat I have never heard it.

Also, if you identify American tourists by the fact that they announce
their nationality, you are missing about 90% of them. I travel widely
in Europe and have also travelled less widely in Africa and China.
Most of the Americans I've met could not be identified at first glance
and didn't announce themselves. Especially the younger generation of
travellers is particularly hard to identify by nationality. I tend to
look at the language of the guidebooks people are carrying to get a
first stab at guessing their nationality, but an English language
guidebook doesn't really pin it down.
-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

devil wrote in message ...
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 15:56:13 -0700, PTRAVEL wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 15:16:36 +0000, Barney wrote:


Well my experience found that those who are rude and impolite are
mostly American. I realize only a few can spoil it for others. I
have met Americans in Canada that even refered to this country as a
"third world country"

To be fair though, I suspect Americans stand out for a bunch of reason,
starting with there being more of them.

People may just not notice those who behave. Probably think they are
Canadian :-).

Another issue: surely this sort of observation will bepend upon places and
destinations, and what type of tourism.

BTW, last time I saw obnoxious tourists in a restaurant, in Jasper it was,
they group of overly noisy folks, behaving like in conquered land, was
French. Then, digressing since these are not tourists, there is always a
group of overly loudy elderly Cantonese ladies in the back of the city
bus. Again, if they expected other folks to understand them, they would
probably make themselves less obnoxious too.

An interesting observation, because I've always found the Cantonese language
to be rather loud and harsh. My wife, who is Chinese and whose primary
language is Mandarin (though she can also speak Cantonese) agrees.
Mandarin, IMHO, is a more fluid and melodious language. However, I don't
think the character of the Cantonese language (or any other language for
that matter) is inherently obnoxious -- the additional tonal variations, as
well as the specific phoneme set, more or less dictate that other cultures
will find it harsh.

But my point was that, in circumstances where they expected no one to
understand them, they had no hesitation in speaking very loud.

That was the obnoxious part. In many ways similar to tourists in foreign
land. Behaving as if in conquered land. (I must say, looking back in my
own early life, I was at some point probably equally guilty of the same
behavior.)

I wonder, though, whether the tonal subtlties of Cantonese almost
mandate speaking more loudly than in western languages or, for that
matter, Mandarin. Mandarin uses 4 diferent tones, and they're fairly
easy to recognize. As I recall (though I may be wrong) Cantonese has
7 or 8. My point, though, is that there may not have been conscious
rudeness on the part of the Cantonese ladies.