Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Hatunen on 17 Aug 2006 23:22 On 17 Aug 2006 17:39:57 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Hatunen wrote: >> 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: >> > >> >> >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. There you go again. I didn't say that. But I hope you aren't going to argue that you can know the USA by visiting the city of new York. >(Paris does not equal >France but Paris is part of France and you can't understand France >without understanding Paris.) True. But the converse is also true. >> 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. I'm so happy for you. >> 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". You ar e a twit, aren't you. That's not what I said. There are many educated people in Kansas and Iowa. >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? I neither doubt it nor accept it; I have no basis for either. But your writings indicate you learned very little. >> 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. ************* 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 23:26 On 17 Aug 2006 18:07:48 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Hatunen wrote: >> 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: >> > > >> >> >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. So you keep saying. > >> >> >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. Are they now? >You really have a hard time with logical thinking, don't you? I said >absolutely nothing that even resembled what you thought you understood. We both seem to have that problem. >> >> 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. Where's the qualification? You don't say "many of which disliked some of 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. > >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. Check out the discussion at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002663.html OK. I showed you mine. now you show me yours. ************* 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 23:33 On 17 Aug 2006 18:37:58 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >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. I have very deep feelings about fascism and nazism, and I find usage like yours both an indication of ignorance and watering down of a term that should be kept the way it was. >Works real well in High School debates. So you feel you should just throw around terminology willy-nilly whether correctly used or not? And what was your reason for using the term at all if not to make some sort of emotional argument? >> >> 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. Nonsense. If they are combatants in a war and are doing combative things while out of uniform they can be summarily shot after a brief military hearing. >> >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. I know it is. But I'm not arguing either way. The question is whether they are prisoners of war and if not, what are they? An that requries another answer: Is it a war in teh meaning of that term? >So now you're a Bush supporter? Amazing. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then, and Bush is sometimes right. But personally, I don't think he is in this one, but I'm not going to make it an absolute the way you do. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Tchiowa on 18 Aug 2006 00:21 Hatunen wrote: > On 17 Aug 2006 17:23:13 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > >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. Try to find the word "possession" that exists in one sentence and not the other. And then read where it is the "need" for possession. > C. Then you make an anology that in *some circumstances* > passports are an indcations of hatred and bigotry. Completely untrue. > You're a slippery fellow, your are. And you have a hard time with reading comprehension. > >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"? You still don't understand the cause of war, I see. > >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. And for you. Try to understand war. > >> >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. There have been hundreds of wars fought in Europe. The majority are unquestionably bigotry and hatred. There may have been a couple that weren't but that doesn't alter the conclusion one iota. I qualified this because from your question it appeared that you found a list of 461 wars but 2 weren't a result of hatred and bigotry and you planned on using those 2 to negate the conlusions from the other 459. > >But the vast majority? Yes. Bigotry and hatred are > >at the root of almost any war. > > Please provide examples. WWII. Angolan Civil War. Your turn. Provide examples of wars that had nothing to do with bigotry and hatred. > >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. Wrong. Hatred and bigotry are often increased to push the war or as a result of the war, but the hatred and bigotry existed before and were integral parts of the reasons for war.
From: Tchiowa on 18 Aug 2006 01:32
Hatunen wrote: > On 17 Aug 2006 17:28:14 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > >Even had no problem getting someone to explain to me in > >English about Ankracet (I'm sure I misspelled that). > > What is it? Duck Race |