From: TOliver on 19 Aug 2006 09:27
"Gorazd Bozic" <gbozic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> Tchiowa wrote:
>> Sorry, but while it may have been used in some circles, *common* usage
>> didn't happen until the Balkans came apart rather violently in the 90s.
> People used it often well before the breakup of Yugoslavia. You and your
> 'circle' heard about it only recently, apparently.
Without checking OED, I'm comfortable that "Balkanization" was not uncommon
in usage in the last quarter of the 19th century, and in widespread usage
From: TOliver on 19 Aug 2006 09:32
"The Reid" <dontuse(a)fell-walker.co.uk> wrote ...
> Following up to Hatunen
>>As I pointed out elsewhere, there were no passports until after
> Maybe not in the current sense, I'm sure ive seen a passport
> signed by Elizabeth 1st. More a safe passage, I imagine.
The first versions, dating certainly to the Renaissance if not earlier, were
certainly requests by sovereigns (or local administrators) requesting "Safe
Passage". All sorts of early explorers and commercial travelers carried
My French is not what it never was, (and its spelling worse), but distant
memory gives me the common usage of "Laissez Passer" for such documents, in
translation certainly implying such purpose.
From: barney2 on 19 Aug 2006 09:44
In article <xlEFg.15481$ph.11437(a)tornado.texas.rr.com>,
toliverjrFIX(a)Hot.rr.com (TOliver) wrote:
> *From:* "TOliver" <toliverjrFIX(a)Hot.rr.com>
> *Date:* Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:27:57 GMT
> "Gorazd Bozic" <gbozic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Tchiowa wrote:
> >> Sorry, but while it may have been used in some circles, *common*
> > usage
> >> didn't happen until the Balkans came apart rather violently in the
> > 90s.
> > People used it often well before the breakup of Yugoslavia. You and
> > your
> > 'circle' heard about it only recently, apparently.
> Without checking OED, I'm comfortable that "Balkanization" was not
> uncommon in usage in the last quarter of the 19th century, and in
> widespread usage before 1939.
I chance to have Shorter OED beside me: it dates Balkaniz/e/ation from
1900-1929, and Balkan itself from 1830-1869.
From: Hatunen on 19 Aug 2006 14:25
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:45:02 GMT, mrtravel
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:29:14 GMT, mrtravel
>> <mrtravel(a)bcglobal.net> 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.
After WW1 passports became a requirement of the destination
countries; this was not true before WW1. If passports were not an
absolute requirement for entry into other countries, they do not
meet the current meaning of passport.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Tchiowa on 19 Aug 2006 19:58
Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> 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
> >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.
All you have to do is to come up with one single *fact*.
Probably time for you to drop out like the others did after they
couldn't provide any facts either.
Common tactic: proven wrong, claim the other guy is a troll and say you
won't talk to him, duck out so you don't have to be caught being wrong
One single *fact*, that's all I've asked for. You asked for the bias
and I gave you 3 very specific facts. You insist that there are
government sources involved, I'm asking for the source.
Go ahead. If you can.
> >> >> 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.
According to your super secret un-named "government sources"?
> Sadly, no one is willing to allow them to defend themselves.
In fact a significant number have been found to not have been active
combatants and sent home.
But you wouldn't want to talk about that, would you?