Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Dave Frightens Me on 18 Aug 2006 17:53 On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:26:42 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: >On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:57:12 +0200, Dave Frightens Me ><deepfreudmoors(a)eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote: > >>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:35:54 +0100, The Reid >><dontuse(a)fell-walker.co.uk> 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? The mans clearly either a troll or a >>>total idiot. 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. >> >>I'll plonk him if you guys do! > >Done yesterday. I'm amazed I'm not there too! -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: Dave Frightens Me on 18 Aug 2006 17:59 On 18 Aug 2006 08:23:05 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >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. Would there be a point? You refuse to believe anything except the party line. >> >> 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. Most of those collected were not necessarily Taliban, but anyone they could have found. Sadly, no one is willing to allow them to defend themselves. >> >> 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. Never heard of it, and neither has dictionary.com or wiki. >> >> 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. Those 'reasons' would be anything you wanted I guess. >> >> 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. Much like you using 'shooting war' then, as if it's a widely used term. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: Padraig Breathnach on 18 Aug 2006 19:01 Dave Frightens Me <deepfreudmoors(a)eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote: >On 18 Aug 2006 08:23:05 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Go ahead. > >Would there be a point? You know it's pointless. Why are you continuing? -- PB The return address has been MUNGED My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
From: mrtravel on 18 Aug 2006 19:45 Hatunen wrote: > On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:29:14 GMT, mrtravel > <mrtravel(a)bcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>Hatunen wrote: >> >> >>>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. >>> >> >>Do a bit of research on passports and then get back to us. >>Passports are NOT something newly created in the 20th century. > > > In my original post I admit I misspoke: I meant not that > passports came into being after WW1 but that the requirement for > passports in Europe came into being after WW1. There were standardizations of passports after WW1, that is correct. However, the purpose of the passports were still similar.
From: Dave Frightens Me on 19 Aug 2006 06:26
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:01:50 +0100, Padraig Breathnach <padraigb(a)MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote: >Dave Frightens Me <deepfreudmoors(a)eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote: > >>On 18 Aug 2006 08:23:05 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Go ahead. >> >>Would there be a point? > >You know it's pointless. Why are you continuing? Apparently I am being rather silly! -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |