From: Hatunen on
On 16 Aug 2006 01:32:12 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>

>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.

>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.

>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".

>Time to get back into the current century.

Or whatever parallel universe your wishful thinking from.

>"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?

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on
On 15 Aug 2006 22:50:30 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>

>Hatunen wrote:
>> On 15 Aug 2006 20:29:03 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
>> 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

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. 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. It was
also about Britain's long policy to not allow any one power to
gain hegemony over the continent, resulting is a bunch of
alliances that progressively dragged country after country into
that little old attempt to take over Serbia, and, of course,
Kaiser Bill's desire to achieve hegemony over the continent.

>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?

>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.

>> 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.

>That was the topic.

Your topic. YOu're the only one insisting on this warped view of
European history. The topic, if you'll up at the top, is
"Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers".

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:48:18 +0100, The Reid
<dontuse(a)> wrote:

>Following up to dgs
>>Oh, and Seattle population is barely 600,000; the metro area is less
>>than three million.
>i understand it has mountiains too.

And a volcano.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Tchiowa on

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2006 01:40:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> 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

> >> 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.

From: Tchiowa on

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2006 20:29:03 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> wrote:
> >Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> >> On 14 Aug 2006 18:09:13 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jordi wrote:
> >> 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?

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

> >> 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. I just think it's a very odd view.

> >> >> In what sense? 1.0 litre less of engine?, 4 less inches on a flat TV?
> >> >> Having some real vacation weighs substantially more on overal quality
> >> >> of life.
> >> >
> >> >As do a lot of other things. Most Americans have "real" vacations and
> >> >most have more to spend on their vacations that Euros do.
> >>
> >> 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.