Italian bread. was Re: MacDonalds
in [Europe]
|
From: James Silverton on 27 Sep 2006 11:05 Hello, Dave! You wrote on Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:45:20 +0200: ??>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:37:13 +0200, in rec.travel.europe, Dave ??>> Frightens Me <deepfreudmoors(a)eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> ??>> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this: ??>> ... Indeed, everyone will want to try some! ??>> ??>> What's a sun tea jar? Presumably, it's an elegant jar for making sun tea. The tea is soaked in water for a considerable time outdoors in the sun. It is a possible process in a warm climate with lots of sun. I can't say I have any enthusiasm for it and there are also known bacterial infection hazards in the process even if I've never come across anyone who came to harm James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not
From: Hatunen on 27 Sep 2006 11:37 On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:31:09 +0200, Dave Frightens Me <deepfreudmoors(a)eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote: >On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:06:28 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:39:06 +0200, Dave Frightens Me >><deepfreudmoors(a)eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:08:42 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:24:15 +0200, Dave Frightens Me >>>><deepfreudmoors(a)eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:44:06 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:56:25 -0700, >>>>>>"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evgmsop(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dave Frightens Me wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:47:18 +0100, >>>>>>>> this_address_is_for_spam(a)yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of >>>>>>>> the royal duchy of city south and deansgate) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Dave Frightens Me <deepfreudmoors(a)eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>David, you frequently don't understand what I'm saying, although I'm >>>>>>>>>>not sure just why! :o) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I didn't understand what you said about the US. As far as I can see, >>>>>>>>>it's societal pressure there which helps the ban works where it's in >>>>>>>>>effect. If Americans all blindly obeyed the law, drivers wouldn't exceed >>>>>>>>>the speed limit, for one example. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, we get into murky territory there, because speeding comes down >>>>>>>> largely to enforcement, of which American cops are probably a whole >>>>>>>> lot better at! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was passing comment on the differences between US and Italian >>>>>>>> culture in regards to the observation of laws. An unpopular law is >>>>>>>> much more likely to be observed in the USA than Italy in my opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ummm...... remember Prohibition? IIRC, that was even a >>>>>>>Constitutional ammendment, but more observed in the breach >>>>>>>by most Americans of the time. (Although it's true America >>>>>>>has become far more a nation of sheep than it was then.) >>>>>> >>>>>>I guess that explains why no American under the age fifty has >>>>>>ever used marijuana. And why there is no longer any moonshine >>>>>>being distilled in the Appalachian hills. And no oe drives over >>>>>>the speed limit. And why there are no kids smoking cigarettes. Or >>>>> >>>>>Oddly all of that applies in Italy to, except for the moonshine bit. >>>>> >>>>>Are you just trying to be disagreeable here by any chance? >>>> >>>>I'm not the one making unsuported statements about Americans and >>>>I reserve the right to challenge same. So in this case, yes, I am >>>>being intentionally disagreeable. >>> >>>Then why do your counter statements fall over flat? >>> >>>i.e. Italians do all those same things. >> >>Did you actually read what I was responding to, or is this just a >>knee-jerk reaction to one of my posts? I'm not setting Americans >>against Italians, I'm trying to show that Americans aren't much >>different than anyone else. > >I would say there are substantial differences, just as there are >substantial similarities. Might I add that you are just as guilty of >knee-jerk reactions as anyone else here. > >>See the statements: "An unpopular law is much more likely to be >>observed in the USA than Italy in my opinion," and "Although it's >>true America has become far more a nation of sheep than it was >>then"? > >I was referring to your marijuana/moonshine passage. What about it? ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 27 Sep 2006 11:40 On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:07:21 +0200, B Vaughan<me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>See the statements: "An unpopular law is much more likely to be >>observed in the USA than Italy in my opinion," and "Although it's >>true America has become far more a nation of sheep than it was >>then"? >> >>I would reckon the era of sheepdom for the USA might have been >>the 1950s, though. > >Actually, it was Evelyn who made the sheep remark, not DFM. I don't >agree with her, either, though. I would say that maybe middle class >America at some time in the past was very obedient to the law whether >popular or not. Since may family was by no means middle class, I have >no direct experience. In the last 30 years, I think even the middle >class thumb their noses at the law. > >However, I maintain that Americans are very sensitive to the opinions >of their peers. It was this that I was contesting in DFM's original >post. Certain behaviors and attitudes are socially unacceptable in the >US, and people conform very rigorously to the standard of social >acceptability. You can see this very clearly in parenting standards. Everyone is concerned about the opinions of their peers. What else would you make of the concept of "machismo"? The subect of the opinion may vary from society to society, but regard for peer opinion seems to be built into human behavior. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: B Vaughan on 27 Sep 2006 12:56 On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:40:43 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: >On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:07:21 +0200, B Vaughan<me(a)privacy.net> >wrote: > >>However, I maintain that Americans are very sensitive to the opinions >>of their peers. It was this that I was contesting in DFM's original >>post. Certain behaviors and attitudes are socially unacceptable in the >>US, and people conform very rigorously to the standard of social >>acceptability. You can see this very clearly in parenting standards. > >Everyone is concerned about the opinions of their peers. What >else would you make of the concept of "machismo"? The subect of >the opinion may vary from society to society, but regard for peer >opinion seems to be built into human behavior. I think some cultures allow much more leeway in social acceptability than others. Some cultures seem to prize eccentricity; the British are famous for that, although I don't know how deserved the fame is. The Italians I know are considerably more individualistic than the Americans I have known. I don't know much about machismo. You don't see it here in Italy, at least not in the region where I live. I would say less than in the US. -- Barbara Vaughan My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
From: David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate on 27 Sep 2006 16:25
B Vaughan <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:40:43 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: > > >On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:07:21 +0200, B Vaughan<me(a)privacy.net> > >wrote: > > > >>However, I maintain that Americans are very sensitive to the opinions > >>of their peers. It was this that I was contesting in DFM's original > >>post. Certain behaviors and attitudes are socially unacceptable in the > >>US, and people conform very rigorously to the standard of social > >>acceptability. You can see this very clearly in parenting standards. > > > >Everyone is concerned about the opinions of their peers. What > >else would you make of the concept of "machismo"? The subect of > >the opinion may vary from society to society, but regard for peer > >opinion seems to be built into human behavior. > > I think some cultures allow much more leeway in social acceptability > than others. Some cultures seem to prize eccentricity; the British are > famous for that, although I don't know how deserved the fame is. I think, like many generalisations, there can be a little truth, and some history, but they are rarely universal, and often out of date. I think it might be more of an English thing than a British thing, and even then, a certain type of British thing. On a social level, I find the people around here, particularly in the suburbs, closer to what I'd expect in a Scottish suburb than, say, London. Funny you mention this though. During the interval at the concert I was at in Paris on Saturday, I was interviewed by someone from Radio France. I really didn't think my French was good enough for that kind of thing, certainly not with the time constraints, and the interviewer felt equally uncomfortable in English, so we decided he'd ask the questions in French, and I'd answer in English. Fine. One of the questions was about whether this particular kind of concert was an example of English eccentricity. This time, I felt fine answering in French. "Maybe, but I'm not English. I'm Scottish." I then went on to point out that if any of the pieces were considered 'eccentric' on the programme (and I mean that in the broadest sense of the way they're perceived, not necessarily my own opinion) it would be the two American composers, Cage and Nancarrow. This clearly confused him, so we moved on. -- David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk http://www.davidhorne.net/pictures.html http://soundjunction.org |