hello
kia ora
I`d jump in. I guess I`m looking for the Kiwi perspective on what I`m
doing. I`m in America right now but I`m supposed to be getting married
to a Kiwi in May and moving to NZ. She has a 7 year old and we don`t
want to separate him from his father so I am doing the moving. Also
while I`m doing all this changing I decided to go to University and get
a degree with computers. So to put it in a nut shell I`m getting
married,quitting my job, moving to the other side of the world and going
to University full time(double major). I`m 34 by the way. Well I don`t
know if I have a question to ask except maybe, has anyone else done or
know of someone who has done something major like this?
But also I`m interested in any comments on what I`m doing. I can`t live
without her so I know I`m coming. I`m just curious for an outside
opinion. Thanks and Kia Ora!
ChrissyR
> Hello everybody.
Hi.
> I just stumbled upon this little group and thought I`d jump in.
It is the best way to do it.
> I guess I`m looking for the Kiwi perspective on what I`m
> doing.
Then you came to the right place.
> I`m in America right now but I`m supposed to be getting married
> to a Kiwi in May and moving to NZ.
We have a great little country here. I hope you enjoy it.
> She has a 7 year old and we don`t
> want to separate him from his father so I am doing the moving.
You sound thoughtful and considerate.
> Also
> while I`m doing all this changing I decided to go to University and get
> a degree with computers.
In for a penny, in for a pound (have you heard that expression before?).
> So to put it in a nut shell I`m getting
> married,quitting my job, moving to the other side of the world and going
> to University full time(double major).
Have you ever read much about stress. Some major causes
- starting a relationship
- starting a new job
- ending a job
- ending a relationship
- shifting
- changing life styles
- having kids
> I`m 34 by the way. Well I don`t
> know if I have a question to ask except maybe, has anyone else done or
> know of someone who has done something major like this? But also I`m
> interested in any comments on what I`m doing.
When I was 37 I thought about going to uni (that is what we call university)
and my husband and I agreed that it would work. Just after I got the
enrolment stuff he left so I decided to go anyway. That was 3 years ago.
I now have a BSc (in computer science) and am doing a Masters now then,
maybe, possible (if I can be poor for a few more years) a PhD.
It has been the best years of my life. I do not regret it at all.
> I can`t live
> without her so I know I`m coming. I`m just curious for an outside
> opinion. Thanks and Kia Ora!
You will find it a bit different living in NZ than in the US. There is less
racial tension here and less distinction of social classes.
What uni are you going to attend?
Chrissy.
Patrick Ford
Given your attitude and motivation, you can't go wrong.
--
--
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
Harvesters, send spam directly to:
ro...@127.0.0.1,abuse@!--#echo var,postm...@nsa.gov
postmaster@localhost,abuse@localhost,ro...@mailloop.com
cat/dev/zero/tmp/...`@localhost,halt@localhost.C:\con\con@localhost
news.admin.ne...@myriad.alias.net
kia ora
my curser doesn`t work when I`m reading e`s. So I can`t organize my
replies quite as crisp as most.
Thanks for the positive reinforcement. Good luck with your phd. I can
tell you`ll make it, no problem.
I should be going to Auckland Uni.`s Tamaki campus.
I`ve stayed in NZ for a month not long ago (no thats not when we met)
and I fell in love with the Country. The people are laid back, the
scenery is absolutely gorgeous, the weather is temperate its just a
wonderful place to live.
Also most seem to know what that little lever on the left side of the
steering wheel is used for. lol
As far as the stress goes, you are right ha ha I couldn`t have pick a
more stressful combination except for the marrying part. That feels
easy.
Well, now that you have an American ear, anything you want to ask or
subject you want to unload on?
I`ll have few later I`m sure.
Rednalsiiwik
> steering wheel is used for. lol
;o)
Cheers
Mike the (cleenest windscreens in town) Kiwi
--
"There is no Try!"
"There is only Do or Do not do," Yoda
=***^^^***^^^***^^^***=
ChrissyR
<snipped stuff about coming to NZ>
matt...@zdt.co.nz wrote
> I am an American living in NZ and I could say a lot. However not all kiwi's
> would like to hear what I have to say. So if you really want to know
> anything feel free to ask. Oh by the way in every conversation you will be
> asked "where you from?"....until you get the hang of the kiwi accent.
And what you will realise is that we (New Zealanders) know that there
are two types of Yanks (that is what we call you lot - and you do not
have to be real Yanks, the civil war stuff, just from the US). I think that
there maybe one from each group represented here.
Chrissy.
Judy
>
>And what you will realise is that we (New Zealanders) know that there
>are two types of Yanks (that is what we call you lot - and you do not
>have to be real Yanks, the civil war stuff, just from the US). I think that
>there maybe one from each group represented here.
>
>Chrissy.
>
Very few people, with the possible exception of a few ignorant,
uneducated people, call Americans Yanks. Hope you are enjoying your
life over and here and that you have been made felt welcome.
Judy
ICQ12632743
Dick Adams
>> And what you will realise is that we (New Zealanders) know that there
>> are two types of Yanks (that is what we call you lot - and you do not
>> have to be real Yanks, the civil war stuff, just from the US). I think
>> that there maybe one from each group represented here.
First, the proper term is "The War of Northern Agression".
Second, Yank is a slang abbreviation for damn-yankee which is and
should be pronounced as a single one word. Come think of it, I'd
prefer to be called a Gringo.
If you asked a person from Scotland or Wales if they're a Brit,
they'll tell you right up that they're Scotch or Welsh.
Dick
ChrissyR
>
> >
> >And what you will realise is that we (New Zealanders) know that there
> >are two types of Yanks (that is what we call you lot - and you do not
> >have to be real Yanks, the civil war stuff, just from the US). I think that
> >there maybe one from each group represented here.
> >
> uneducated people, call Americans Yanks. Hope you are enjoying your
> life over and here and that you have been made felt welcome.
You are correct Judy - only people who do not know better refer to
Americans as Yanks. We do, however, refer to people from the US as
Yanks. The difference is that only the ignorant think that all Americans
are from the US - most are not.
Chrissy.
ChrissyR
>
> >> And what you will realise is that we (New Zealanders) know that there
> >> are two types of Yanks (that is what we call you lot - and you do not
> >> have to be real Yanks, the civil war stuff, just from the US). I think
> >> that there maybe one from each group represented here.
>
> First, the proper term is "The War of Northern Agression".
I take it you mean "Aggression"?
But if you say "My (insert ancestor of choice) fought in the War
of Northern Aggression" then most New Zealanders would not know
what you were talking about but is you said "My (insert ancestor
of choice) fought in the American Civil War" then your audience
would know what you meant and that is the point of conversation.
We, as New Zealanders, do not study American history at this
level so using a term that is understood makes sense.
> Second, Yank is a slang abbreviation for damn-yankee which is and
> should be pronounced as a single one word. Come think of it, I'd
> prefer to be called a Gringo.
My point was that the term "Yank" is used in NZ to mean a person
from the US.
> If you asked a person from Scotland or Wales if they're a Brit,
> they'll tell you right up that they're Scotch or Welsh.
They are British. That are not English. If that person who asked
them was a local and the Scottish or Welsh person was in China
at the time then they would be being a little arrogant thinking that
every Chinese person should know the difference. It is all about
having the people in the conversation understand what you are
talking about.
Chrissy.
Dick Adams
>>>> And what you will realise is that we (New Zealanders) know that there
>>>> are two types of Yanks (that is what we call you lot - and you do not
>>>> have to be real Yanks, the civil war stuff, just from the US). I think
>>>> that there maybe one from each group represented here.
>> First, the proper term is "The War of Northern Agression".
> I take it you mean "Aggression"?
Pardonnez-moi. :)
> But if you say "My (insert ancestor of choice) fought in the War
> of Northern Aggression" then most New Zealanders would not know
> what you were talking about but is you said "My (insert ancestor
> of choice) fought in the American Civil War" then your audience
> would know what you meant and that is the point of conversation.
One of the fundamental objectives of conversation is clarifications
of misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
> We, as New Zealanders, do not study American history at this
> level so using a term that is understood makes sense.
Updating one's knowledge is helpful at any age.
>> Second, Yank is a slang abbreviation for damn-yankee which is and
>> should be pronounced as a single one word. Come think of it, I'd
>> prefer to be called a Gringo.
> My point was that the term "Yank" is used in NZ to mean a person
> from the US.
That does not make it correct usage.
>> If you asked a person from Scotland or Wales if they're a Brit,
>> they'll tell you right up that they're Scotch or Welsh.
> They are British. That are not English. If that person who asked
> them was a local and the Scottish or Welsh person was in China
> at the time then they would be being a little arrogant thinking that
> every Chinese person should know the difference. It is all about
> having the people in the conversation understand what you are
> talking about.
It is possible to correct someone without being arrogant.
Dick
ChrissyR
> ChrissyR wrote:
>
> > But if you say "My (insert ancestor of choice) fought in the War
> > of Northern Aggression" then most New Zealanders would not know
> > what you were talking about but is you said "My (insert ancestor
> > of choice) fought in the American Civil War" then your audience
> > would know what you meant and that is the point of conversation.
>
> One of the fundamental objectives of conversation is clarifications
> of misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
No it is not - it is the sharing of knowledge without misunderstandings
and misinterpretations. You should try to get the sharing without the
need to fix the problems.
> > We, as New Zealanders, do not study American history at this
> > level so using a term that is understood makes sense.
>
> Updating one's knowledge is helpful at any age.
If I was talking to a person and they asked were I was from I would say
PN, the NI or NZ - it would depend on who they were and why they asked.
I would not expect a person from the US or UK to know where PN was. I
would, however not say NZ to someone who was from Nelson.
> > My point was that the term "Yank" is used in NZ to mean a person
> > from the US.
>
> That does not make it correct usage.
No - but it does make it a colloquialism and therefore correct if you
define correct as using a word in the usual context to mean the same
thing as the definition.
The expression "Yankee go home" that was used during WWII meant
"Americans go home". In America the word Yank means something
different than it does here.
> >> If you asked a person from Scotland or Wales if they're a Brit,
> >> they'll tell you right up that they're Scotch or Welsh.
>
> > They are British. They are not English. If that person who asked
> > them was a local and the Scottish or Welsh person was in China
> > at the time then they would be being a little arrogant thinking that
> > every Chinese person should know the difference. It is all about
> > having the people in the conversation understand what you are
> > talking about.
>
> It is possible to correct someone without being arrogant.
Why correct the person in the first place?
Chrissy.
Dick Adams
> Dick Adams wrote
[snip]
>> It is possible to correct someone without being arrogant.
> Why correct the person in the first place?
Are you suggesting that we should preserve ignorance?
ChrissyR
> > Dick Adams wrote
>
> [snip]
>
> >> It is possible to correct someone without being arrogant.
>
> > Why correct the person in the first place?
>
> Are you suggesting that we should preserve ignorance?
I am suggesting that we should realise that everyone cannot know
everything and that people can decide, for themselves, what they
want to know.
Are you suggesting that we should always correct a person if they
are wrong?
Chrissy.
Dick Adams
> Dick Adams wrote
>> ChrissyR wrote:
>>> Dick Adams wrote
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> It is possible to correct someone without being arrogant.
>>> Why correct the person in the first place?
>> Are you suggesting that we should preserve ignorance?
> I am suggesting that we should realise that everyone cannot know
> everything and that people can decide, for themselves, what they
> want to know.
I suggest you read the above sentence again and see if you really
meant to write that.
> Are you suggesting that we should always correct a person if they
> are wrong?
Only if you think it's relevant and can do so politely.
kia ora
pasting making the replies crisp and organized. lol
So Chrissy and Dick, I take it you two are married then. lol
If not you two are missing your calling.
Dick Adams
I have definitely NOT missed my calling. The mother of my sons
has been the worship of my life for the last 22-1/2 years. And
the only time we argue is when she asks me if I'm upset about
something, I tell her NO, and she continues asking the same
question. Eventually I say I'm upset that you think I'm upset.
Otherwise it feels like a honeymoon.
Dick
PAM.
> "kia ora" <nzs...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:982-3AA...@storefull-628.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Back in the good ol' 80's at the ripe old age of 24, I left UK to come
to NZ to start afresh. NZ$7000 in my pocket (well, bank) and that was
it. No job, no work visa no friends out here. Just me and the big wide
world.
The first thing I did, and by far the best thing was to buy a map of the
town (Auckland). I then spent the next few weeks, looking for jobs.
Dropping in on agencies, reading papers and walking around the place,
looking at all the wonder. I did finally get a job and had NZ$3 to my
name when I got my first pay packet. It took no time at all to get the
job but ages to get a work permit.
I've since been back and forth to UK to earn the money, and live here in
NZ. I'm not a New Zealand Citizen (never a kiwi though), have a house
and kiwi wife, 2 dogs (one British) and a ride on lawnmower. What more
could a man ask for?
It's a lovely place if you want it to be. But I guess that's like any
other place you like to call home.
PAM.
(Ex-pat Pete)
PAM.
>
> And what you will realise is that we (New Zealanders) know that there
> are two types of Yanks (that is what we call you lot - and you do not
> have to be real Yanks, the civil war stuff, just from the US). I think that
> there maybe one from each group represented here.
And the 2 types are?
1. Yank
2. Frozen Yank
PAM.
PAM.
> are two types of Yanks (that is what we call you lot - and you do not
> have to be real Yanks, the civil war stuff, just from the US). I think that
> there maybe one from each group represented here.
One could of course use the term Septic Tank.
PAM.
PAM.
Dick Adams wrote:
> Pardonnez-moi. :)
So you're a frozen Yank then? From Quebec?
;-)
PAM.
PAM.
>
> The expression "Yankee go home" that was used during WWII meant
> "Americans go home". In America the word Yank means something
> different than it does here.
What does it mean then?
PAM.
PAM.
> You are correct Judy - only people who do not know better refer to
> Americans as Yanks. We do, however, refer to people from the US as
> Yanks. The difference is that only the ignorant think that all Americans
> are from the US - most are not.
Yes. I've heard it on the news too. Which brings me to a new topic (See
Black Sticks)
ChrissyR
It is a term that relates to the Civil war - the Yanks and the Confederates.
Chrissy.
ChrissyR
> to NZ to start afresh. NZ$7000 in my pocket (well, bank) and that was
> it. No job, no work visa no friends out here. Just me and the big wide
> world.
>
> The first thing I did, and by far the best thing was to buy a map of the
> town (Auckland). I then spent the next few weeks, looking for jobs.
> Dropping in on agencies, reading papers and walking around the place,
> looking at all the wonder. I did finally get a job and had NZ$3 to my
> name when I got my first pay packet. It took no time at all to get the
> job but ages to get a work permit.
>
> I've since been back and forth to UK to earn the money, and live here in
> NZ. I'm not a New Zealand Citizen (never a kiwi though), have a house
> and kiwi wife, 2 dogs (one British) and a ride on lawnmower. What more
> could a man ask for?
Well - I can think of a few more things that one may like.
> It's a lovely place if you want it to be. But I guess that's like any
> other place you like to call home.
Chrissy.
Dick Adams
> PAM. wrote
>> ChrissyR wrote:
>>> The expression "Yankee go home" that was used during WWII meant
>>> "Americans go home".
Pardonnez-moi
"Yankee go home" was not "used during WWII" when the United States
Navy wrecking havoc upon the logistics of the Nippon Navy and the
Nippon troops threatening every person in the South Pacific.
You previously wrote that people have the right to believe whatever
they want to believe (or words to that effect). In this case, your
expressed belief is not supported by reality.
The expression "Yankee go home" was used post-WWII by citizens of
those nations that wished to enslave your ancestors and were occupied
by United States Armed Forces.
>>> In America the word Yank means something different than it does here.
>> What does it mean then?
> It is a term that relates to the Civil war - the Yanks and the
> Confederates.
Chrissy, You are absolutely amazing. You are one of a unique group
of people I have encountered in my life who are completely out of
touch with reality and continuously claim knowledge in topical areas
where they are functionally ignorant.
The etomology of "yankee" is a (circa 1600) Dutch reference to
English settlers of what is now the Northeastern United States,
also known as New England. Yankee was a form of Dutch cheese.
A "civil war" is a war over the central government of a country.
The War of 1861-1865 was a War instigated by the Northern States
to prevent the self-determination of the Southern States and is
properly referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression".
In addition, yankee is half of a word. The whole word is
damn-yankee.
Dick
P.S.: Chrissy, Let this pass and go on to issues where you have
some knowledge.
ChrissyR
<many lines of dribble snipped>
> The expression "Yankee go home" was used post-WWII by citizens of
> those nations that wished to enslave your ancestors and were occupied
> by United States Armed Forces.
Wow - I did not know this. When precisely did the US Armed Forces
occupy England and Russia?
<more lines of dribble snipped>
> Dick
>
> P.S.: Chrissy, Let this pass and go on to issues where you have
> some knowledge.
Your total post is pathetic and off topic. You then have the cheek to
order me to "let it pass" after spouting your shit. If you felt that way
then you should have had the good grace to "let it pass" BEFORE
you posted the above. Dick (such a appropriate name for you) try
leading by example and do not reply.
Chrissy.
Charlie Ferguson
Scotland.
Wouldn't that be Scots? Scotch is a wonderful elexir mad in Scotland.
I believe the wonderful people are called Scots.
Work hard......Take risks
PAM.
>
> Hello Dick, from a fellow Southerner and someone with ancestors from
> Scotland.
> Wouldn't that be Scots? Scotch is a wonderful elexir mad in Scotland.
> I believe the wonderful people are called Scots.
They're all Jocks to me.
PAM.
Patrick Ford
>
> A "civil war" is a war over the central government of a country.
> The War of 1861-1865 was a War instigated by the Northern States
> to prevent the self-determination of the Southern States and is
> properly referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression".
That's not strictly correct. The American Civil war was a result of some
states refusing to comply with legally binding legislation by the Federal
government outlawing slavery. If theSouth had won, there would still be
humans being bought and sold as farm animals now.
Any southerner with even a scrap of decency feels shame at their history,
but many loudly crow that "The South will rise again," presumably with
institutionalised slavery, and governent by anonymous illiterates wearing
sheets over their heads.
--
--
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
Harvesters, send spam directly to:
ro...@127.0.0.1,abuse@!--#echo var,postm...@nsa.gov
postmaster@localhost,abuse@localhost,ro...@mailloop.com
cat/dev/zero/tmp/...`@localhost,halt@localhost.C:\con\con@localhost
news.admin.ne...@myriad.alias.net
Dick Adams
> <all lines of dribble snipped>
You need to take the Dale Carnegie course on "How to win friends
and influence people." It could change your life forever.
Dick
Dick Adams
> Dick Adams wrote:
>> A "civil war" is a war over the central government of a country.
>> The War of 1861-1865 was a War instigated by the Northern States
>> to prevent the self-determination of the Southern States and is
>> properly referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression".
> That's not strictly correct. The American Civil war was a result
> of some states refusing to comply with legally binding legislation
> by the Federal government outlawing slavery. If the South had won,
> there would still be humans being bought and sold as farm animals now.
Mr. Ford,
No such "legally binding legislation" existed until after the War.
> Any southerner with even a scrap of decency feels shame at their
> history, but many loudly crow that "The South will rise again,"
> presumably with institutionalised slavery, and governent by
> anonymous illiterates wearing sheets over their heads.
First, while I agree with your implied reference to Klu Klux Klan,
it pains me to point out that many KKK members were not illiterate.
Second, attribute bias is a belief that one's physical traits, their
religion, or their place of origin has an effect upon their quality
of character, their competency, etc.... Attribute bias is a mental
health problem.
Third, institutionalized slavery is the same as attempting to eliminate
or subjugate a native population. It did happen in many places around
the world. It is the responsibility of every person alive today to
take action to prevent it from happening again.
Fourth, the South has risen again and it is very different than it
was 140 years ago just as England, New Zealand, Australia, etc. are
different today.
But it was not a Civil War. While the victory of the Northern
States had nothing to do with slavery, it did put an end to slavery.
And thus we have one of the very few valid cases of the end justifies
the means. However, in the process, the Northern States economically
raped the Southern States into a state of poverty that lasted over
100 years.
Dick
ChrissyR
Dick Adams <rda...@smarty.smart.net> wrote in message news:tajhbjg...@corp.supernews.com...
Have you done the course?
The people who like me are the people I like. I do not want to "win
friends" or "influence people". I have no desire to change who I
am just so someone like you will like me. The people who are
important to me like me the way I am.
Chrissy.
Dick Adams
> Hello Dick, from a fellow Southerner and someone with ancestors
> from Scotland.
>
> Wouldn't that be Scots? Scotch is a wonderful elexir mad in
> Scotland. I believe the wonderful people are called Scots.
Aye, and Drambuie (Bonnie Prince Charlie's gift to the world).
Dick Adams
> "win friends" or "influence people".
It is exceptionally clear that you do want want to win friends
and you do not appear to have any desire to influence people.
> I have no desire to change who I am just so someone like you
> will like me. The people who are important to me like me the
> way I am.
I believe very word you have written. If I have correctly
interpreted those words, they mean you have no desire to be
involved in updating your knowledge.
That is your choice and so be it.
Dick
Patrick Ford
> Patrick Ford <pa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > Dick Adams wrote:
>
> >> A "civil war" is a war over the central government of a country.
> >> The War of 1861-1865 was a War instigated by the Northern States
> >> to prevent the self-determination of the Southern States and is
> >> properly referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression".
>
> > That's not strictly correct. The American Civil war was a result
> > of some states refusing to comply with legally binding legislation
> > by the Federal government outlawing slavery. If the South had won,
> > there would still be humans being bought and sold as farm animals now.
>
> Mr. Ford,
>
> No such "legally binding legislation" existed until after the War.
OK.
> > Any southerner with even a scrap of decency feels shame at their
> > history, but many loudly crow that "The South will rise again,"
> > presumably with institutionalised slavery, and governent by
> > anonymous illiterates wearing sheets over their heads.
>
> First, while I agree with your implied reference to Klu Klux Klan,
> it pains me to point out that many KKK members were not illiterate.
True, and that makes it worse. But the power of numbers which existed at
one time relied on having gullible and ignorant rank and file members.
>
> Second, attribute bias is a belief that one's physical traits, their
> religion, or their place of origin has an effect upon their quality
> of character, their competency, etc.... Attribute bias is a mental
> health problem.
Sometimes. In most cases I think it's based simply on ignorance and
fear--usually completely unfounded fear, which is another way of saying
ignorance.
>
> Third, institutionalized slavery is the same as attempting to eliminate
> or subjugate a native population.
Not necessarily. That implies that the slaves are one race and the masters
another.
> It did happen in many places around the world.
Sure, and often disguised as an employer-employee relationship.
> It is the responsibility of every person alive today to
> take action to prevent it from happening again.
Which responsibility millions shirk from.
> Fourth, the South has risen again
Econimically it has, but not in the sense I have heard Southerners use the
phrase. There is still a large body of belief that one day all them
"uppity nigras" will be back in the fields with hoes in hand.
>
> But it was not a Civil War.
That depends on your definition of "civil war" and your view of the status
of the USA and the individual states at the time. One of the excuses the
United Nations had for failing to act in the Hutu genocide of Tutsi in
Ruanda was that was simple to dismiss it as a civil war. Some people regard
both the Korean war and the Vietnam war as civil wars, while others insist
they they were not. Similarly, the war of independance of Bangla Desh and
many others.
> While the victory of the Northern
> States had nothing to do with slavery, it did put an end to slavery.
> And thus we have one of the very few valid cases of the end justifies
> the means. However, in the process, the Northern States economically
> raped the Southern States into a state of poverty that lasted over
> 100 years.
You imply that the war was simply over money and economic control and the
slavery issue was just an excuse. That is very easy to believe. Have we all
been victim to the well known principle that the victors write the history
books afterwards?
Patrick Ford
Many people believe Dale Carnegie's course should more correctly be
entitled "How to Be a Phony Sleazeball and Suck People In."
Chrissy is saying she prefers to just be herself than a construct of one of
the great super-salesmen of all time. It's a bit rich to say someone who
has recently graduated from university and is now continuing to a master's
degree and probably a doctorate is not interested in "updating her
knowledge." Hell, man, "updating her knowledge" is presently her full-time
occupation!
Bill McDonald
as it relates to "racial tension and less distinction of social classes."?
I have worked and continue to work with a number of Kiwi's here in the US.
From my perspective it appears that NZ'ers are more hung up on social class
issues than the US native. You do still have Brit royalty involved in your
government dont' you?.. Plus, didn't Gil Simpson get knighted this past
year?. I'm not intending to be overly critical so please don't read this as
such.
On the racial note, don't you have a bit of a problem over there with the
original natives. Mori's?.
FYI. NZ has been a dream destination of mine for as long as I can remember.
I'm an avid outdoors person and a fly fishermen. Which makes NZ a meca for
me.
Take care!. Bill
p.s. I will be visiting NZ in either Apr or May for a couple of weeks. For
that reason, I subscribed to this NG. Hoping to find a "companion/guide".
PAM.
>
> ChrissyR, I'm curious about your source of information on the US. Specificly
> as it relates to "racial tension and less distinction of social classes."?
> I have worked and continue to work with a number of Kiwi's here in the US.
> From my perspective it appears that NZ'ers are more hung up on social class
> issues than the US native. You do still have Brit royalty involved in your
> government dont' you?..
That doesn't mean that people are necessarily 'hung up' on social class
issues.
> Plus, didn't Gil Simpson get knighted this past
> year?. I'm not intending to be overly critical so please don't read this as
> such.
> On the racial note, don't you have a bit of a problem over there with the
> original natives. Mori's?.
Doesn't everyone with an indigenous nation overrun with other 'base'
nations.
It just happens. Accept it. Move on.
> FYI. NZ has been a dream destination of mine for as long as I can remember.
> I'm an avid outdoors person and a fly fishermen. Which makes NZ a meca for
> me.
It will certainly be great for you here then. Have fun over here when
you come over.
Enjoy your fishing.
PAM.
bill
"It is possible to correct someone without being arrogant.!".
Damn Yankee = a person from the northern region of the US that represented
the faction that believed in the principals of United States with One
Government for All.
Red Neck = an individual that utilizes the term Damn Yankee. Participated
in a conflict in order to preserve the right to enslave an ethnic group.
Sorry to intrude on the group for the ignorance of one of my countrymen.
Note!. Here in the US a dick is your willy.
bill
in a long time. BTW. I live in Richmond Va. Capital of the Confederacy!
So.. I know of what I speak.
Patrick Ford
> ChrissyR, I'm curious about your source of information on the US. Specificly
> as it relates to "racial tension and less distinction of social classes."?
> I have worked and continue to work with a number of Kiwi's here in the US.
> From my perspective it appears that NZ'ers are more hung up on social class
> issues than the US native. You do still have Brit royalty involved in your
> government dont' you?..
Please try not to be absurd. The Queen is the constitutional head of state,
and the limit of her being "involved" is allowing her picture to be hung
in parliament and making a state visit every ten or so years.
> Plus, didn't Gil Simpson get knighted this past
> year?. I'm not intending to be overly critical so please don't read this as
> such.
> On the racial note, don't you have a bit of a problem over there with the
> original natives. Mori's?.
Given that some of the people reading this group are Maori, to whom do you
refer as "you"? There is no problem unless you call the legal processes of
finally implementing the provisions of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi a
problem. It is only a problem for a few rabid extreme right wing racists.
> FYI. NZ has been a dream destination of mine for as long as I can remember.
> I'm an avid outdoors person and a fly fishermen. Which makes NZ a meca for
> me.
> Take care!. Bill
> p.s. I will be visiting NZ in either Apr or May for a couple of weeks. For
> that reason, I subscribed to this NG. Hoping to find a "companion/guide".
You'd do better in other NZ groups. This one hasn't much history of making
introductions. Try nz.soc and soc.culture.new-zealand. There are also the
regional groups, nz.regional.??
Also, the free ads paper Trade and Exchange has matchmaking and contact
columns.
I think it's at http:www.trade-exchange.co.nz
--
--
My domain contains .co, not .com as appears in the header.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
Harvesters, send spam directly to:
ro...@127.0.0.1,abuse@!--#echo var,postm...@nsa.gov
postmaster@localhost,abuse@localhost,ro...@mailloop.com
cat/dev/zero/tmp/...`@localhost,halt@localhost.C:\con\con@localhost
ChrissyR
It is here too and a head is the top of it. Sometimes names are just so
appropriate.
Chrissy.
bill
depart without responding to your and a few others' misconceptions about the
US.
Chrissy: She stated something about blacks being sensitive and careing or
something.. Then stated that the US has racial and class status problems.
My response was intended to state that pretty much all societies have
minority issues. When I indicated "you" as in "don't you have a bit of a
problem over there with theoriginal natives. Mori's?.", I was refering to
New Zealand society. Does the Mori population celebrate Waitangi Day to the
degree of the majority? Once again, it's my understanding that it is still
an open wound.
Class: As well as hanging the Queens portrait in parliment, it was my
understanding that within your governmental makeup, there is an appointee
from the crown involved. I apologize if my information is incorrect.
Well, in closing, I do want to state that of the 60 or 70 Kiwi's I've met, I
have found them to be more likable than most groups i've encountered.
Albeit, they have all been techies and exports. Prob. not a reflection of
the NZ population as a whole.
But thanks for the guidance. Bill
Patrick Ford
> Patrick.thank you for the directions to more suited groups. But, I cannot
> depart without responding to your and a few others' misconceptions about the
> US.
>
> Chrissy: She stated something about blacks being sensitive and careing or
> something..
That was obviously a joke--an oblique reference to urban myths about
certain physical attributes of black men.
> Then stated that the US has racial and class status problems.
> My response was intended to state that pretty much all societies have
> minority issues. When I indicated "you" as in "don't you have a bit of a
> problem over there with theoriginal natives. Mori's?.", I was refering to
> New Zealand society. Does the Mori population celebrate Waitangi Day to the
> degree of the majority? Once again, it's my understanding that it is still
> an open wound.
That's a better description than your previous one.
>
> Class: As well as hanging the Queens portrait in parliment, it was my
> understanding that within your governmental makeup, there is an appointee
> from the crown involved. I apologize if my information is incorrect.
From the crown? The regal representative, the Governor-General, is
appointed ny that New Zealand government. For the last 30 or 40 years only
New Zealanders have been appointed. The Queens has nothing to do with this
process.
T A R T
bill <bilb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:996i13$a1q$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Class: As well as hanging the Queens portrait in parliment, it was my
> understanding that within your governmental makeup, there is an appointee
> from the crown involved. I apologize if my information is incorrect.
>
If you'd like to read about The Queen's involvement in NZ government, read:
http://www.gov-gen.govt.nz/intro/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/cox_nz/factsheet1.htm
In case you're interested- information regarding the Treaty of Waitangi:
http://www.govt.nz/aboutnz/treaty.php3
T A R T
Bill McDonald <wmcd...@potomacsys.com> wrote in message
news:995tn1$t4c$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> On the racial note, don't you have a bit of a problem over there with the
> original natives. Mori's?.
>
No.
Roman Empress
word, "issues" would be more appropriate....and before you all start calling
me a racist....
1: I am part Maori myself...
2: Most of the "issues" are valid
{but I do think many are just "Lets push and see how much we can get"......}
Roman Empress
T A R T <invi...@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:zhCt6.157$mSz.12...@news.xtra.co.nz...
T A R T
Roman Empress <jmb...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:RuCt6.159$mSz.7...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> I disagree with that I'm sorry to say, but I do think "problem" is the wrong
> word, "issues" would be more appropriate....and before you all start calling
> me a racist....
>
> 1: I am part Maori myself...
>
> 2: Most of the "issues" are valid
I agree there are valid issues which need to be resolved, but I don't see these
issues as being "a problem with the original natives. Moris".
Roman Empress
post, thinking it said Maori's when is said Mori's....
Seems I ought to think before I speak...or is that think before I type??
Please accept my humble apology...
T A R T <invi...@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:szCt6.163$mSz.7...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Patrick Ford
> Patrick.thank you for the directions to more suited groups. But, I cannot
> depart without responding to your and a few others' misconceptions about the
> US.
>
> Chrissy: She stated something about blacks being sensitive and careing or
> something.. Then stated that the US has racial and class status problems.
It's interesting that US television refards the depiction of an
inter-racial couple as strictly taboo. We can only assume that this
reflects your society's attitudes. Among your family, friends and
acquaintances, how many black/white couples are there? Compare this with
the common occurrence that is not even worth remarking on in more civilised
and advanced cultures like NZ, UK, France, Germany etc.
> My response was intended to state that pretty much all societies have
> minority issues. When I indicated "you" as in "don't you have a bit of a
> problem over there with theoriginal natives. Mori's?.", I was refering to
> New Zealand society.
Which clearly implies that you regard Maori people as somehow outside of
and not part of New Zealand society. It's perfectly understandable that an
American would have such a perception, but that concept is alien to how we
see society.
Patrick Ford
> I disagree with that I'm sorry to say, but I do think "problem" is the wrong
> word, "issues" would be more appropriate....and before you all start calling
> me a racist....
>
> 1: I am part Maori myself...
While I am sure you are not racist, being part Maori is no protestion
against that blihght, in my observation. In fact some of the worst
Maori bashers I know are part Maori.
>
> 2: Most of the "issues" are valid
>
> {but I do think many are just "Lets push and see how much we can get"......}
Any negotiator that does any less than that is damn silly and is going to
get steam-rollered.
ChrissyR
> depart without responding to your and a few others' misconceptions about the
> US.
>
> something..
What I actually said was that the general "light hearted" comment that
black men (I was referring to VERY black men, from Africa) are well
hung. This particular black man seemed to think that the attraction
was because they (black men) are sensitive and caring. I did not
express any opinion about black men and I definitely did not express
any opinion about the comparison between black men and non black
men.
I will express my opinion now though - some men are very caring and
sensitive and some are not. I have never noticed any racial correlation.
> Then stated that the US has racial and class status problems.
> My response was intended to state that pretty much all societies have
> minority issues. When I indicated "you" as in "don't you have a bit of a
> problem over there with the original natives. Mori's?.",
Maori.
> I was referring to New Zealand society.
> Does the Mori population celebrate Waitangi Day to the
> degree of the majority?
People feel very strongly about Waitangi day. Some Maori and non
Maori NZers feel very strongly for and against so many aspects of
all the issues involved in this day therefore it would be not appropriate
or possible to group people into categories of feelings based on
racial lines.
NZ does not have the same racial separation that exists in so many
other countries. I believe that most people in NZ would have friends
of many racial groups and would not even think about the race (or
nationality) of the other person.
> Once again, it's my understanding that it is still an open wound.
ummmmm - I am not getting into that one.
> Class: As well as hanging the Queens portrait in parliament, it was my
> understanding that within your governmental makeup, there is an appointee
> from the crown involved. I apologize if my information is incorrect.
I thought that the comment about the Queen was in reference to
England of something British and not class.
> Well, in closing, I do want to state that of the 60 or 70 Kiwi's I've met, I
> have found them to be more likable than most groups I've encountered.
> Albeit, they have all been techies
Oh - the best group.
> and exports.
They left here - the ones who stay ARE different, after all then stayed.
> Prob. not a reflection of the NZ population as a whole.
> But thanks for the guidance. Bill
Chrissy.
ChrissyR
>
> > Patrick.thank you for the directions to more suited groups. But, I cannot
> > depart without responding to your and a few others' misconceptions about the
> > US.
> >
> > something..
>
> That was obviously a joke--an oblique reference to urban myths about
> certain physical attributes of black men.
>
> > Then stated that the US has racial and class status problems.
> > My response was intended to state that pretty much all societies have
> > minority issues. When I indicated "you" as in "don't you have a bit of a
> > New Zealand society. Does the Mori population celebrate Waitangi Day to the
> > degree of the majority? Once again, it's my understanding that it is still
> > an open wound.
>
> That's a better description than your previous one.
>
> >
> > understanding that within your governmental makeup, there is an appointee
> > from the crown involved. I apologize if my information is incorrect.
>
> From the crown? The regal representative, the Governor-General, is
> appointed ny that New Zealand government. For the last 30 or 40 years only
> New Zealanders have been appointed. The Queens has nothing to do with this
> process.
The other thing that the "Crown" can give us is the protection of a
government out of control. This is something that is not used but
is there if needed. At least I think that is how it works.
Chrissy.
ChrissyR
> > Bill McDonald wrote
> > > there with the original natives. Mori's?.
> >
> > No.
Roman Empress wrote
> I disagree with that I'm sorry to say, but I do think "problem" is the wrong
> word, "issues" would be more appropriate....and before you all start calling
> me a racist....
That statement does not show you to be racist.
You do say that you disagree with TART (that we do not have a bit
of a problem with Maori) then you say the use of the word "problem"
is wrong. This, to me, reads that you think that the original statement
IS wrong and IS right all at the same time.
I could not possible agree or disagree with TART because what
she means is not at all clear. Here are the options that I could
come up with:
A
We do not have a bit of a problem - we have a fucking BIG
problem.
B
We do not have a bit of a problem - "problem" is too hash a
word.
C
"We" includes Maori so the statement is not valid.
D
The original natives are not Maori so the statement is invalid.
E
We do not refer to Maori as "original natives" so the statement
has little meaning in an NZ context.
F
Everything is great with all racial groups in NZ.
There are, no doubt, other things that the "No" could refer to but
if appears that which ever one TART meant she feels rather
strongly about it.
> 1: I am part Maori myself...
Now that does make you racist. If you think that you can have
one opinion about if you are part Maori and that this opinion is
not valid if you are not Maori then you are racist.
> 2: Most of the "issues" are valid
>
> {but I do think many are just "Lets push and see how much
> we can get"......}
An issue is not valid if it is just "let's push and see how much
we can get". If "many" fall into this category then how can "most"
be valid?
Chrissy.
PS - TART, what did you mean by your "No".
ChrissyR
> issues as being "a problem with the original natives. Moris".
I knew that there was another interoperation - and that is that the problems,
big or small, are there but not with the Maori but with others.
Chrissy.
T A R T
ChrissyR <C...@home.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:997bqt$2mig$1...@raewyn.paradise.net.nz...
I know the wounds are deep for some people, people are understandably passionate
about these issues, but I don't think the issues we're faced with are
unsolvable- I think we can deal with them adequately and move on.
Patrick Ford
>
>
> > 2: Most of the "issues" are valid
> >
> > {but I do think many are just "Lets push and see how much
> > we can get"......}
>
> An issue is not valid if it is just "let's push and see how much
> we can get".
You're confusing issues with methods of resolving issues.
If the method is "let's push and see how much we can get",
that says nothing about the validity of the issue. I've been involved with
an issue regarding Maori ownership and proprietorship, and as th eomnly
pakeha present, I told them to seek more than they expected the government
department they were negotiating with to concede. That is the nature of
negotiations. All the other people party to the discussion were more
inclined to ask for exactly what they wanted. I took my presenting of
examples from industrial negitiations, car purchase and real estate
purchase to get them to see my point. I knew that the government department
they were dealing with was hard-nosed and skilled at pushing claimants
backwards to about half of what they said they wanted.
> If "many" fall into this category then how can "most"
> be valid?
Why not? That's a perfectly reasonable statement. I'll be more specific and
say many claims are spurious or frivolous, but most are not. Isn't that
simple, based on the dictionary definitions and common usage of "many" and
"most"?
E. Scrooge
ChrissyR <C...@home.gen.nz> wrote in article
<997bgj$2mcj$1...@raewyn.paradise.net.nz>...
ROTFLMAO What a character.
You could've just asked that, without trying to provide all the possible
answers as well.
It's obvious that Bill not being of this part of the world meant Maori.
After looking at all the replies Bill will be more cofused than ever.
Just to give Bill an idea how things are here, we do have some Maori mixed
into the government of NZ, which helps to run this country.
With some people there are problems, while with others there are none, and
that goes for all races in NZ. As individuals, the truth is that we're all
pretty bloody good.
Patrick Ford
> that goes for all races in NZ. As individuals, the truth is that we're
> all
> pretty bloody good.
That's absolutely true. And we're very modest about it.
ChrissyR
>
> >
> >
> > > 2: Most of the "issues" are valid
> > >
> > > {but I do think many are just "Lets push and see how much
> > > we can get"......}
> >
> > An issue is not valid if it is just "let's push and see how much
> > we can get".
>
> You're confusing issues with methods of resolving issues.
> If the method is "let's push and see how much we can get",
> that says nothing about the validity of the issue.
That is what I was saying - the writer implied that some issues
(many actually) are "just......" which could mean that there is nothing
of substance in the issue other then getting more of whatever
they are trying to get. I did not read it was when an issue is being
resolved that the method used is one of "just....".
Chrissy.
ChrissyR
> ChrissyR wrote
I could have but that was not what I was talking about. I was saying
that there were many ways to read her comment and stating that
one agreed or disagreed with it was not possible if one did not know
what she meant. I was not interested in agreeing or disagreeing and
what I got from it was she had strong feelings about it.
> It's obvious that Bill not being of this part of the world meant Maori.
Yep - that was VERY obvious. I did not understand why Roman Empress
thought it necessary to apologise for thinking Maori was meant. Her
misunderstanding must have been something different.
> After looking at all the replies Bill will be more confused than ever.
I think that he is capable of understanding the replies. He does appear
to be able to read and write and the replies are not THAT complex.
> Just to give Bill an idea how things are here, we do have some Maori mixed
> into the government of NZ, which helps to run this country.
> With some people there are problems, while with others there are none, and
> that goes for all races in NZ. As individuals, the truth is that we're all
> pretty bloody good.
Chrissy.
PAM.
> sensitive and some are not. I have never noticed any racial correlation.
That is to say 'very caring' the way you see caring and not others. What
one person may see as caring, another person may not.
PAM.
PAM.
Just as a matter of interest and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I
didn't think the Maori's were the original natives (as in human). I
thought it was the Moriori (sp). or was that just the Chathams?
PAM.
ChrissyR
> > Bill McDonald wrote
> > > On the racial note, don't you have a bit of a problem over there with the
> > > original natives. Mori's?.
>
>
> Just as a matter of interest and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I
> didn't think the Maori's were the original natives (as in human). I
> thought it was the Moriori (sp). or was that just the Chathams?
There are different theories - one is that the Maori arrived and then
left and that they came back many years later after the other lot (cos
I can't spell it either). Another is that they came after the other lot.
Chrissy.
Patrick Ford
That was a proposition put forward by Percy Smith in the 19th century, and
debunked in the first decades of the 20th, although one stubborn and
obtuse government employed "expert", Elsdon Best, clung to it into the
1920s.
The Moriori went to the Chathams from the mainland long after the arrival
of the Polynesian settlers who were their ancestors and the Maori's
ancestors.
The idea that the Moriori were here before the Maori is now promoted only
by people who need it for their own political purposes. MOst know it's
wrong, which makes their repitiion of it a deliberate lie. It's totally
nsupportable on the grounds of irrefutable archeological and linguistic
evidence.
It still keeps on getting repeated by school teachers, but they can't be
held responsible on the grounds of their limited ability to think clearly
or obtain knowledge of anything..
Hell, the words "Maori" and "Moriori" are the same word in different forms.
It's as silly as saying the Poms usurped the English in England.
Patrick Ford
> PAM. wrote
> > > Bill McDonald wrote
> >
> > > > On the racial note, don't you have a bit of a problem over there with the
> > > > original natives. Mori's?.
> >
> >
> > Just as a matter of interest and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I
> > didn't think the Maori's were the original natives (as in human). I
> > thought it was the Moriori (sp). or was that just the Chathams?
>
> There are different theories - one is that the Maori arrived and then
> left and that they came back many years later
Whose theory is that and where is it documented? What evidence is there to
support it?
It's strange that in years of reading all I could find on the subject I
have never heard that one until now.
Roman Empress
threads and flaming??
Patrick Ford <pa...@ihug.com.nz> wrote in message
news:3AB8AB9E.MD...@ihug.com.nz...
Roman Empress
If it was THAT obvious, why did you feel it neccesary to point it out??
Patrick Ford
> Do any simple conversations ever happen in here or is it all long winded
> threads and flaming??
That's up to you. You have to make any newsgroup what you want it to be.
but it's the nature of usenet that threads are long-winded.
As far as I know the flaming has all stopped.
ChrissyR
>
> > Do any simple conversations ever happen in here or is it all long winded
> > threads and flaming??
>
> That's up to you. You have to make any newsgroup what you want it to be.
It is like a real conversation. If it is good then it can go on for a long time.
> As far as I know the flaming has all stopped.
Agreed.
Chrissy.
PAM.
> That was a proposition put forward by Percy Smith in the 19th century, and
> debunked in the first decades of the 20th, although one stubborn and
> obtuse government employed "expert", Elsdon Best, clung to it into the
> 1920s.
>
> The Moriori went to the Chathams from the mainland long after the arrival
> of the Polynesian settlers who were their ancestors and the Maori's
> ancestors.
>
> The idea that the Moriori were here before the Maori is now promoted only
> by people who need it for their own political purposes. MOst know it's
> wrong, which makes their repitiion of it a deliberate lie. It's totally
> nsupportable on the grounds of irrefutable archeological and linguistic
> evidence.
>
> It still keeps on getting repeated by school teachers, but they can't be
> held responsible on the grounds of their limited ability to think clearly
> or obtain knowledge of anything..
>
> Hell, the words "Maori" and "Moriori" are the same word in different forms.
> It's as silly as saying the Poms usurped the English in England.
Thanks for that. I was told by someone who could well have been taught
by such a teacher.
PAM.
Patrick Ford
>
> The other thing that the "Crown" can give us is the protection of a
> government out of control. This is something that is not used but
> is there if needed. At least I think that is how it works.
Parliament is supposed to do that. Funny, the original concept of
parliamentary government was to protect against a crown out of control.