From: Tchiowa on 18 Aug 2006 01:38
> On 17 Aug 2006 17:39:57 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
> >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.
> >> >>
> >> >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.
The explain your remark.
> But I hope you aren't going to argue that you can know the USA by visiting
> the city of new York.
No. But you can't know the US *without* visiting places like New York.
The "hinterlands" is no more an accurate representation of the US than
New York is.
> >> 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.
Then why the remarks? Especially those belittling successful people
(like your second sentence about GM execs).
From: Tchiowa on 18 Aug 2006 01:47
> On 17 Aug 2006 18:07:48 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
> >No. But the root cause of all wars are about the same.
> Are they now?
Conquest or religion are the excuses. Hatred and bigotry are the true
> >> 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".
Nor did I say "all".
Back to your comprehension abilities.
> >> >> >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
Except that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the US was
finally a unified country. Nothing at all.
> OK. I showed you mine. now you show me yours.
From: Tchiowa on 18 Aug 2006 01:59
> On 17 Aug 2006 18:37:58 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
> >Hatunen wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:09:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >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?
It's the commonly used term these days.
Dictionary describes Fascism as "A system of government marked by
centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic
controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,
and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." And
that's pretty much what the Islamic terrorists are trying to create.
> >> >> 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.
But no one is doing that and no one is suggesting it. And no one,
including me, is implying that they are "guilty" of anything.
> >> >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?
No. The question is whether the are prisoners of war or Prisoners Of
War. The second being the very specific term as defined by the Geneva
Conventions. They are not. But they are prisoners of war.
> An that requries another answer: Is it a war in teh meaning of that
From: The Reid on 18 Aug 2006 02:37
Following up to Hatunen
> but all
>attempts to find out from the conductor what the problem was
>failed because the conductor simply didn't know any English
this is the real world we all know, if the conductor had been a
uni professor you would have been OK.
I will agree bendybuses are a good idea when they build bungalows on Mayfair
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
From: Jim Ley on 18 Aug 2006 04:31
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:42:04 GMT, mrtravel <mrtravel(a)bcglobal.net>
>From: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
>An official government document that certifies one's identity and
>citizenship and permits a citizen to travel abroad
Then you're struggling with the "permits" as he could most definately
have travelled without the document, but dictionary's are never very
helpful in English.