Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: mrtravel on 17 Aug 2006 21:10 Tchiowa wrote: > 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). > It is also difficult to believe that nobody else on his train spoke English.
From: Tchiowa on 17 Aug 2006 21:37 Hatunen wrote: > 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? ????? Have you been sleeping the past few years? (I guess given some of your other comments that might have actually happened.) Andrew Gilligan? David Kelly? "Sexed up dossier"? Lord Hutton's inquiry? You missed all that? Here's one of probably 10,000 articles about what they pulled. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/28/hutton.blair/index.html > >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. Excellent tactic. You can't find fault with the argument so you want to debate the use of a particular word. Works real well in High School debates. > >> 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?" Good question. I think they should. But it has nothing to do with being "guilty" of anything. Nor can we put them on trial. > >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. Very good. A captured enemy out of uniform is not a prisoner of war. Exactly Bush's argument with these people. So now you're a Bush supporter? Amazing.
From: Hatunen on 17 Aug 2006 23:14 On 17 Aug 2006 17:23:13 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Hatunen wrote: >> On 17 Aug 2006 07:46:34 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >Hatunen wrote: >> >> On 16 Aug 2006 17:52:39 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Hatunen wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Aug 2006 22:45:11 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> >> >> >> 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). There you go again (to quote Ronald Reagan). A. You make the blanket statement that possession of passports is result of hatred and bigotry B. Then you say passports are not an indication of hatred and bigotry. C. Then you make an anology that in *some circumstances* passports are an indcations of hatred and bigotry. You're a slippery fellow, your are. >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. Ah. Begging your own conclusion still again. Except you now add "greed" to your list. When are you going to add "power"? >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. Ditto. > >> >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. Ah, slippery again. Your precviosu statements have been unqualified. >But the vast majority? Yes. Bigotry and hatred are >at the root of almost any war. Please provide examples. >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. In many war zones the hatred and bigotry are a result of the war, not the cause. ************* 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 23:17 On 17 Aug 2006 17:28:14 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >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. Nor have I had any problem on the ferries between Turku and Stockholm, Helsinki and Stockholm, Stockholm and Tallinn. You think that might be because the job selects for those who can handle several languages? I have minor problems on the ferries between Helsinki and Tallinn. >Even had no problem getting someone to explain to me in >English about Ankracet (I'm sure I misspelled that). What is 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 23:17
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:10:09 GMT, mrtravel <mrtravel(a)bcglobal.net> wrote: >Tchiowa wrote: >> 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). >> > >It is also difficult to believe that nobody else on his train spoke English. Oh. I left that out. I found a passenger who did. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |