Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Hatunen on 17 Aug 2006 12:40 On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:09:07 +0100, The Reid <dontuse(a)fell-walker.co.uk> wrote: >Following up to Hatunen > >>>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. > >according to the EU it has 20 official languages, soon to be 21, >and 30% of Europeans can hold a conversation in English. (dont >know at what level) Of course that 30% are the educated people. >Tshower should try going to a small town in Spain and seeing if >the garage mechanic, taxi driver or police can understand him :-) >In restaurants I hear mixed groups of educated europeans speaking >in mixed language without english taking priority. In a business >meeting english may well be used, (nobody is denying it is >becoming the world language). But spoken on the street in non >anglophone countries? Total bollox. In France the idea would be >heretical. We were on a train in Finland from Oulu to Tampere with an hour or so to change to the train to Turku Harbor where we were to take a ferry to Stockholm. North of Tampere the train came to a dead standstill in the middle of nowhere and sat, and sat, and sat. We were getting worried aobut our connections, but all attempts to find out from the conductor what the problem was failed because the conductor simply didn't know any English and my Finn is very, very skimpy. (We had to sprint with our luggage at Tampere to just barely catch our train to Turku, but we did make it.) ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 17 Aug 2006 12:47 On 17 Aug 2006 07:54:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Hatunen wrote: >> On 16 Aug 2006 17:57:36 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote: > >> >> 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. > >So now I have to conduct a continent wide poll for you? > >> >> >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? > >I told you to look. Go ahead. > >> >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? > >No. Do you? Or are you just grasping at an argument because you know >you're wrong? > >> >> >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." > >Pardon me. I guess I should have said "higher 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. > >Like where? Atyrau, Kazakhstan? Riga, Latvia? Oporto, Portugal? Is Kazakhstan in Europe? So, exactly what did you doin Riga and Oporto. >Or are you starting like a couple of other people I've seen posting >that unless you hang out with the poor and uneducated you can't >possibly understand the culture? Why do you assume that was my meaning? By the by, my realtives are hardly poor and uneducated (hardly anyone in Finland is uneducaated) but many of them don't speak English. But I do know that hanging out with General Motors executives isn't the best way to understand the culture of America. Especially since they show little grasp of it themselves. >> 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. > >How about the Europeans that come to the USA over 100 times and spend >several years total in 50 cities in 1/3 of the states. Would that help? > >That's pretty much what I've done in Europe. So you say. It's one thing to have several years experience, it's another to have a week's experience a hundred or so times. >(As an example, I checked my Frequent Flyer data base. I've landed in >Paris 83 times. Yes, I got so tired of the place that the last 40 or so >I spent very little time there. Took the train to Amsterdam or Lisbon >or anywhere else I could find other than Paris.) Well, your certainly seem to have a lot of expeerience with CDG. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 17 Aug 2006 12:58 On 17 Aug 2006 08:00:38 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Hatunen wrote: >> On 16 Aug 2006 18:12:23 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote: > >> >> 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? > >Yes. It's called "experience". I've spent many years of my adult life >living in war zones. Wow. Awesome. >I learned what it takes to make war. First thing >is to de-personalize your enemy. That happesn precisely because the hatred and bigotry is too low. It is a result of the war, not the cause. If you look at the soldiers on the >other side as men with wives and children and houses who watch football >and get drunk on weekends you have a hard time killing them. To make >war successfully you first have to take the view that your needs or >views are so far superior to theirs and that you and your people are >superior to them. > >> >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. > >See above. What? The great War was oneof those wars you experienced? > >> >> >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? > >Nope. But they weren't fond of New York at all. Quote: "The US was once a group of small political entities that didn't much like each other." This says that they all disliked all the others. >> >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. > >Whose attempts? When you cited an EU law you rfused to tell me what it said oin an apparent attempt to make me do my own homework; well, back to you. > >> >> >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? > >Mostly unfounded suspicion based on a belief that they are somehow less >human than you are and their mere existence deprives you of something >you think you deserve so you are suspicious of their motives. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 17 Aug 2006 13:06 On 17 Aug 2006 08:09:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Dave Frightens Me wrote: >> On 16 Aug 2006 17:10:14 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >After all *what*????? An editorial from a biased source quoting a >> >defense attorney???? >> >> I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that bias. > >Let me get this straight. You're waiting for me to document the fact >that the BBC has been caught deliberately falsifying evidence to try to >discredit Blair and Bush as to the conduct of the war? You expect others to do the homewoerk, so why shouldn't we expect you to? >> (and no, merely trying to broadly discredit the BBC doesn't count) > >I don't need to try. They did that to themselves. Cite, please? [...] >If you don't think we're at war with Islamic Fascists then you need to >wake up. The fact is that the politicians refuse to label them as >Islamic so they just say "Terrorists". But that doesn't alter the fact >that we are in a shooting war. Among other things, you apparently have no idea of what "fascism" actually is. The Islamic terrorists are not fascists. For the most part, fascism is antithetical to Islam. Saddam Hussein was close to be a fascist, but he decreed the state to be secular. > >> >> You've obviously made up your mind on this one, so there's not much >> >> point in trying to get any sense out of, or into you. That brain of >> >> yours is in lockdown denial mode. >> > >> >Pots and kettles. You clearly don't understand any of the issues but >> >you're not going to let that get in the way of your prejudices. >> >> My predjudice is getting these people on trial (IOW justice). Yours is >> to avoid seeing that happen. > >On trial for *what*? Most aren't accused of breaking US law. They are >being held as prisoners of war. Nothing "guilty" about that. And no >trials to hold. They are indeed being held as prisoners of war. But that begs the question: "Should they be held as prisoners of war?" >During WWII, did the UK put captured German soldiers on trial or did >they simply hold them until the end of the war then send them home? That was a declared war and both sides wore uniforms. A captured enemy out of uniform is not a prisoner of war; that's why Washington had Major Andre hanged. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 17 Aug 2006 13:10
On 17 Aug 2006 08:14:09 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Dave Frightens Me wrote: >> On 16 Aug 2006 17:16:06 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >The Euro's opinion of themselves? >> >> No. You're insistence on putting all "Euro's" together illustrates a >> flaw in your thinking. > >You mean kind of like the way you (and others) have lumped Americans >together? > >> >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 use of the word 'bigotry' is just bizarre. > >It wasn't bigotry that was at the root of many or most of the wars that >created the borders? Of course it was. You're begging your own question again. You really don't get this, do you? >> >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. >> >> My denial or reality? What the hell are you trying to say? Maybe you >> are on crack or yaa baa or something. > >Ah, a typical juvenile response. Indicates you have no logical >argument. Thank you for the surrender. For someone whose own use of logic is more than a bit flawed, you sure are rough on others. Check the beam in your own eye first. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |