From: dgs on
JohnT wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)> wrote in message
> news:2dd9e2dc6fm6qnfk1vfj1pvi6efake8ivh(a)
>>Martin writes:
>>>I blame the poor quality of language teaching.
> Could you possibly get an Irony Transplant?

I think he needs to stop at the Clue Hire first.
From: Tchiowa on

Hatunen wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 07:46:34 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
> wrote:
> >
> >Hatunen wrote:
> >> On 16 Aug 2006 17:52:39 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Hatunen wrote:
> >> >> On 15 Aug 2006 22:45:11 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and bigotry
> >> >> >that has kept the continent at war with itself for centuries. Not
> >> >> >something to be proud of.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> and Europeans can travel between most countries without going through
> >> >> >> any kind of passport control.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >These days, yes. But that's a recent development. The reason a lot of
> >> >> >Euros have passports was because that wasn't the case until recently.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Try to keep up.
> >> >>
> >> >> As I pointed out elsewhere, there were no passports until after
> >> >> WW1. The fact that they are no longer needed for much
> >> >> intra-European travel means that they really only served their
> >> >> purpose for about 80 years out of two millenia of European
> >> >> history. You make a pretty weak case with the passport business,
> >> >> espcially since you don't explain *why* passports are an
> >> >> indication of bigotry and hatred.
> >> >
> >> >Passports are not an indication of bigotry and hatred. I never said
> >> >that.
> >>
> >> I could swear it was you who said:
> >>
> >> "Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and
> >> bigotry that has kept the continent at war with itself for
> >> centuries."
> >
> >I think I did. But, as I pointed out repeatedly, it's not the passport,
> >it's the need for the passport. It's the international boundaries.
> OK.
> A. Passports are not an indications of bigotry and hatred.
> B. Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and
> bigotry
> So you claim that those two statements are not contradictory?

Yes. Let's try another one, should we?

A. Bed sheets are not an indication of bigotry and hatred.

B. Wearing a bedsheet in some circumstances *is* (think KKK).

> >Ever hear of "root cause analysis"? You should pick up a book.

Let's help you out here.

If A can cause B and B can cause C and C can cause D and D happens
then we look to see if C caused D (C might not be the only potential
cause of D). If so, did B cause C? If so did A cause B? If all those
things fall into line the A is the "root cause" of D.

In the real world. Let's say a building burns down. What caused the
building to catch fire? Turns out a generator caught fire. What caused
the generator to catch fire? Turned out a water pump bearing froze up
and sparks from the spinning shaft ignited the crankcase oil. What
cause the water pump bearing to fail? The system operator used cheap
antifreeze and didn't change it often. Why did the operator fail to
maintain the system and use cheap products? Greed.

Root cause of the fire: Greed.

Now let's look at passports.

Why do so many Europeans have passports? Because they need them to
travel more than a few hours? Why do they need them to travel more than
a few hours? Because there are so many international borders in Europe.
Why are there so many international borders in Europe? Because Europe
is chopped up into a large assortment of small countries. Why is Europe
chopped up into a large assortment of small countries? Because of the
various wars over the centuries. What are the root causes of war?
Hatred, bigotry, greed, etc.

Root cause of so many Europeans having passports? The hatred, bigotry
and greed that caused the wars that created the countries that created
the borders that require the passports that they need.

> >What do you think caused the war? Stale wine?
> Well, now. That seems to be the point we largely disagree on,
> doesn't it? I say that some wars may have resulted from bigotry
> and/or hatred but many wars have not; you say all wars have
> resulted from bigotry and hatred.

All? Probably not. But the vast majority? Yes. Bigotry and hatred are
at the root of almost any war. As posted elsewhere I've spent a lot of
time in war zones. Including "hot shooting wars", "local insurgencies",
"cold conflicts". At the root of all of them is a bigotry and hatred.
It's difficult to make war on someone you like and respect and consider
as an equal.

From: Tchiowa on

Hatunen wrote:

> 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.

I took the ferry from Stockholm to Helsinki. Had no problem
communicating in English with the ticket staff, crew, or people at the
arrival area. Even had no problem getting someone to explain to me in
English about Ankracet (I'm sure I misspelled that).

From: Tchiowa on

Hatunen wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 07:54:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
> wrote:
> >
> >Hatunen wrote:
> >> On 16 Aug 2006 17:57:36 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >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?

Part of it is, yes. Atyrau is in Europe.

> So, exactly what did you doin Riga and Oporto.

Riga to spend time with friends. Oporto just to spend time in Portugal.
One of my favorite countries.

And what does that have to do with the question? You tried to make a
point. Now you're switching gears.

> >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?

Reference to the "hinterlands" and implication that people in the
cities somehow aren't truly part of the culture. (Paris does not equal
France but Paris is part of France and you can't understand France
without understanding Paris.)

> By the by, my realtives are hardly poor and uneducated (hardly
> anyone in Finland is uneducaated) but many of them don't speak
> English.

Most of my relatives in Sweden speak English just fine.

> 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.

Ah, back to the "if you're educated and successful you're not part of
the culture".

Now do you want to ask the question again from above "Why do assume
that was my meaning?"?

> >> 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.

Do you doubt it?

> It's one thing to have several years experience, it's another to
> have a week's experience a hundred or so times.

That's true.

> >(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.

Yes. And in Paris.

From: Tchiowa on

Hatunen wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 08:00:38 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
> wrote:
> >
> >Hatunen wrote:
> >> On 16 Aug 2006 18:12:23 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
> >> wrote:
> >

> >> >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.

Yes. Learning can be "awesome". You should try it.

> >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.

Wrong. It is at the very root.

> >> >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?

No. But the root cause of all wars are about the same.

You really have a hard time with logical thinking, don't you? I said
absolutely nothing that even resembled what you thought you understood.

> >> 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.

No it doesn't.

> >> >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.

Fine. Tell me who made the attempt and I'll try to find it. I told you
who had the law, you tell me who made the "attempt" you referred to.