From: Tchiowa on

The Reid wrote:
> 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?

Finally you said something that makes sense.

Clearly you don't understand much of any of these conversations.

From: Tchiowa on

barney2(a) wrote:
> In article <1155859829.522926.263260(a)>,
> tchiowa2(a) (Tchiowa) wrote:
> > *From:* "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
> > *Date:* 17 Aug 2006 17:10:29 -0700
> >
> >
> > barney2(a) wrote:
> > > In article <1155774074.440967.36070(a)>,
> > > tchiowa2(a) (Tchiowa) wrote:
> > >
> > > > *From:* "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
> > > > *Date:* 16 Aug 2006 17:21:14 -0700
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> > > > > On 15 Aug 2006 18:48:12 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
> > > > > > 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.

That may be. But the fact remains that they speak English which is what
I was saying and what others were denying.

If there is a business meeting in Europe where people who speak
different first languages (none of which are English) are attending
it's a good bet the meeting will be conducted in English. If someone in
that meeting doesn't understand the other's first language at all then
it's almost guaranteed that the meeting will be in English.

And the whole world is like that now.

In Thailand where I live the Prime Minister speaks English. The King
speaks English. The streets signs are in English and Thai.
Advertisements are in English. A colleague of mine from South America
called his embassy and when he spoke in Spanish the lady in the embassy
(a Thai lady) asked him to switch to English. English is taught in
elementary schools "in the hinterlands" (as some like to phrase it).

From: Hatunen on
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:35:54 +0100, The Reid
<dontuse(a)> wrote:

>Following up to Hatunen
>>>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.
>why are you all bothering?

I have given up. Life is more pleasnt without him.

>The mans clearly either a troll or a
>total idiot.

I vote the latter.

>He's told that mostly only educated people speak
>English as a second language, He then accuses you of saying
>educated people are not part of the culture. He does this sort of
>thing all the time. You can not make progress arguing with
>someone who does not apply logic and honesty.

What's that old saw? Don't assume malice if it can be explained
by stupidity.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:35:52 GMT, mrtravel
<mrtravel(a)> wrote:

>Jim Ley wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:42:04 GMT, mrtravel <mrtravel(a)>
>> 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.

You logic escapes me: if the document permits the person to
travel who is doing the permitting?

In fact, Americans do not need passports to travel abroad (with
certain rare exceptions); they need passports to enter the
country they are traveling to, and possibly visas.

The question is, is a passport required to do the traveling? In
the case of the 200 year old Randall document, I suspect not. The
Randall document isnot a passport in the modern sense of that
word. I also note that the document is issued by the US consul at
Malta requesting the courtesy of the island for Mr Randall, who
seems to have already arrived there.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:35:54 +0100, The Reid
<dontuse(a)> wrote:

>Following up to Hatunen
>>>that's usually a feature of mountains away from over hot areas
>>>and adds vastly to the beauty and fascination.
>>I think tht's what I was implying.
>Oh, it didnt read that way, but never mind.
>>I have no idea what "away from over hot areas" means.
>It means not in areas where its hot where climbing hills becomes
>a sweaty, wearying experience, without the benefit of clouds and
>cool winds and the colours of the landscape are bleached dry, the
>air is hazy and the sun beats down. Spain in summer, for example.

Uh. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *