Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: The Reid on 18 Aug 2006 04:35 Following up to Frank F. Matthews >Give up Dave. Of course Europeans travel abroad more. Pretty much >every significant trip is abroad there. Depends what significant means? If it means "long distance" then clearly true. I think its also true that those trips will go into "significantly" different cultures. but I'm told that the existence of Creole restaurants and Philly cheese steaks (whatever they are) all over the US means that effect is neutralised in favour of the "US is best for all things" lobby. Or perhaps I just don't understand? -- Mike Reid 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: mrtravel on 18 Aug 2006 04:35 Jim Ley wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:42:04 GMT, mrtravel <mrtravel(a)bcglobal.net> > wrote: > > >>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. It doesn't mean the issuer is permitting the person to travel, it means having the document permits the person to travel to other abroad.
From: barney2 on 18 Aug 2006 08:53 In article <1155859829.522926.263260(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com (Tchiowa) wrote: > *From:* "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> > *Date:* 17 Aug 2006 17:10:29 -0700 > > > barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk wrote: > > In article <1155774074.440967.36070(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > > tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com (Tchiowa) wrote: > > > > > *From:* "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> > > > *Date:* 16 Aug 2006 17:21:14 -0700 > > > > > > > > > Dave Frightens Me wrote: > > > > On 15 Aug 2006 18:48:12 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >I found that damn near everyone I met could speak English fairly > > > > well. > > > > > > > > That's due to your limited experience, probably limited to > > > > touristy > > > > areas. > > > > > > No, mostly business. Sorry. You're wrong again. > > > > What European languages, other than English, do you speak and > > understand > > with sufficient fluency to conduct a business meeting? > > I used to speak enough Portuguese to attend a meeting and understand, > but certainly not conduct it. And I haven't used Portugues for about a > decade so I've probably lost even that basic ability. > > But that points out the reason behind the use of English. Other than > English there is no language that enough people from enough places > speak to conduct meetings. English has become the "lingua franca" of > business in Europe. Of international business, sure. But not all business is international, even in big companies. At the meetings you attended they spoke English BECAUSE you (and maybe others) didn't speak the local language: but I'll bet you a euro to a cent they didn't carry on in English when they went back to their offices and dealt with their everyday colleagues.
From: The Reid on 18 Aug 2006 10:02 Following up to barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk > but I'll >bet you a euro to a cent they didn't carry on in English when they went >back to their offices and dealt with their everyday colleagues. look, be fair to Tshower, we all know French films are made in English with French subtitles. Its the language of the streets! -- Mike Reid 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: Tchiowa on 18 Aug 2006 11:23
Dave Frightens Me wrote: > On 17 Aug 2006 18:49:47 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Bias by definition. No where in that article did anyone post any actual > >government figures as you claimed they did. > > All you are saying is that the BBC and the attorney would have to be > biased. No, I'm saying that the BBC has been proven to be biased on this issue and that the lawyer is paid to be biased. > I am waiting for you to demonstrate what that bias is in this case. ???? What more do you need? Both the BBC and the lawyer have a specific bias to oppose the war and the incarceration of the prisoners of war. And all the article did is to quote biased sources. Thus the bias is demonstrated. And since you are the one supporting their claim then the burden of proof is on you to justify that support. Go ahead. And, again, you claimed that the figures came from government sources yet that is proven to be untrue. So quote the government sources. Go ahead. > >> You said: > >> "As it always is with prisoners of war. The fact that they were > >> captured on a battleground is all that it takes." > > > >I have read that sentence 3 more times, played it backwards, rearranged > >the letters, translated it into about 47 languages. Can't find anywhere > >where I said anyone was *guilty* of anything. > > Oh, so you still stand by this statement, even after it has been > demonstrated wrong? Demonstrated wrong when? From the biased article that made a claim? That's not demonstrating that it's wrong. So tell me where it was demonstrated wrong. Go ahead. > >> A shooting war? What war are you talking about? > > > >????? 9/11? Madrid? London? Any of this ring a bell? > > Yeah, none involved shooting IIRC. A "shooting war" is a term to refer to a hot war where people are actually being killed as opposed to a cold war. Hello. > >> I don't condone that, > > > >Actually you just did. > > > >When you (or anyone) uses a sentence that starts something like "I > >oppose terrorism" there is one and only one proper way to punctuate it. > >That is with a period, dot, full stop ".". As in "I oppose terrorism." > >But if you punctuate it with "but...." then you are actually condoning > >it. > > What rubbish. You are merely saying that if I question the modes of > dealing with it, I condone the terrorists. No. I'm saying that if you support the reasons for the terrorism then you are condoning the terrorists. > >> The war on terrorism is over, in case you hadn't noticed. > > > >????? So the BBC lied when they reported the interrupted plan to bomb > >the airliners last week? > > It's been renamed "The Long War" now. Gee, what a cute little trick. I guess when you have no logical argument that's what you have to resort to. |