From: Hatunen on
On 16 Aug 2006 17:57:36 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On 16 Aug 2006 01:32:12 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >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.
>
>Interesting. I cited several examples. You separate them then respond
>that *just one* of them doesn't prove anything. Try taking things as a
>whole.

Oh, wow. You cited several examples. But you provided no
Gallup-type justification for extrapolating from those example to
an entire continent.

>> >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.
>
>Try again. Look at the law for contracts in the EU.

What, exactly, does it say?

>English is the primary language of business in the EU for any business
>that crossed national borders.

Ah. Changing your claim again. Now you add the qualification that
it is true for businesses that cross national boundaries. Do you
have an itemized list of all the European businesses that cross
national boundaries, denoting those that conduct business in
English and those that don't?

>> >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".
>
>It is *required* for lower level students to learn at a minimum level
>and many University degrees require almost fluencyi.

That is NOT the same thing as "the primary language of
education."

>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3143464.stm
>> >
>> >"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?
>
>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. 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.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on
On 16 Aug 2006 18:12:23 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On 15 Aug 2006 22:50:30 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Hatunen wrote:
>> >> On 15 Aug 2006 20:29:03 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
>> >> 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
>> >groups?
>>
>> 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.
>
>Actually both. But if you want to say that the reason so many Euros
>have passports is a result of hatred and bigotry *AND* power and greed
>I'll go along with that.

What if that isn't what I want to say?

>> 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.
>
>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?

>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.

>> >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?
>
>1860. Bit of a struggle in the US.

So you calim that in 1860 Virginai didn't much like North
Carolina?

>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.

>> >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.
>
>OK. Bigotry, hatred, power, greed *AND* suspicion.

And what would that suspicion be a result of?

>> >> 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.
>
>Root cause analysis.
>
>> >That was the topic.
>>
>> Your topic.
>
>No. It was in response to a very specific statement about Euros having
>passports implied they were better than Americans.

Well, now, even I've argued against that.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on
On 16 Aug 2006 17:16:06 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:

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

I see you like trick questions. When did you stop beating your
wife sort of thing.

"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?"

You don't leave it open to the possibility that Eruope is chopped
up into little political units for other reasons (and some of
those political units are pretty damn big).

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

And then you argue from your own conclusion.


>> >> 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.

Ah. do you now?

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

That, of course, is your privelege, but you tend to confuse your
opinions with facts.


************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on
On 16 Aug 2006 17:21:14 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Dave Frightens Me wrote:
>> On 15 Aug 2006 18:48:12 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dave Frightens Me wrote:
>> >> On 14 Aug 2006 18:18:12 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Miguel Cruz wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Contrast this with Athens and Berlin. A tiny minority of the people have
>> >> >> shared fluency in any language.
>> >> >
>> >> >Almost all speak English.
>> >>
>> >> *chuckle*
>> >>
>> >> You would be one of those ignorant yanks if you believe this!
>> >
>> >A few years ago I commented to a friend of my in Angola about the
>> >difficulty I had in France (I used to go there several times a year)
>> >because I don't speak French and not all that many people spoke
>> >English. He claimed that it was because many people have an attitude
>> >like you just expressed (ignorant yank) abouit Americans.
>> >
>> >At his suggestion I tried using Portuguese when I went to France (I had
>> >learned that after several years in Angola). So I did. I'd speak to
>> >someone in France using Portuguese and they would respond in French.
>> >I'd try again in Portuguese and then they would shift to English as a
>> >"neutral language".
>> >
>> >I found that damn near everyone I met could speak English fairly well.
>>
>> That's due to your limited experience, probably limited to touristy
>> areas.
>
>No, mostly business. Sorry. You're wrong again.

I don't see business ad being a much better gauge of teh whole of
Europe than the touristy areas. Business people tend to fly in,
have tehir meetings, and fly out without really getting involved
in tee country. So I think this explains a lot about your need to
find simplistic explanations.

>> >Clearly someone has never eaten Creole food and Philly Cheese Steaks.
>>
>> Neither of those are as common as the humble Big Mac in the typical
>> diet.
>
>Maybe in France you'd be right.
>
>Not in the US.

So?

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:27:51 -0700, dgs <dgs1300(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:

>The Reid 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.
>
>Seattle itself is quite hilly, but the mountains are some distance
>away, both to the east and the west. To the east lie the Cascades,
>to the west lie the Olympics. If you like long hikes in wilderness
>country, or hiking up a mountain trail to the face of a glacier, or
>hiking up a mountain trail to alpine meadows, you'll like these. Not
>much trace of ancient civilizations in them, though.
>
>Which reminds me that I owe a friend in Belgium a nice picture of
>the Olympics, of which we have a very good view from our west-
>facing living-room window.

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

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *