Antw: Navo is a political dwarf (was Re: Thanks Hungary)
Jeroen M.W. van Dijk
> Alexander N. Bossy <alxa...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> >(That couldn't have been easy, given the political dwarves
> >who lead most of the west now.) By accepting Romania as well as
> >Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, NATO effectively cuts a
> >revanchist Russia from the Balkans, giving those countries a chance to
> >settle down without too much medeling
>
> I sure agree on the political dwarf comment; it's pretty close to what I
> like to call them: political midgets. Same difference ...
>
As a Dutchman I must strongly say that Holland or Belgium is not a political
dwarf. And why don't you middle european countries get an own defense
organisation. As soon as the Russia becomes weak the first thing you do is
looking for a new master (the USA).
Don't you middle europeans don't know that USA is backrupt don't pay its
contributions to the international organisations. If you look carefully what
happened in the Russia. You will see will happen with superpowers. Kernpower
cost money and that money can't be spended to food, housing, building and
culture.
Please forget your fixation on Clinton and the Russians. Those former
superpowers are timebombs.
> I am still not certain though if Clinton can keep steadfast and resists
> Russian intimidations regarding NATO expansion on the schedule talked
> about. This Prez is not known for strong principles. There are too
> many syrene calls for appeasment of Russia. Just like in the old days.
>
> The funniest part is that Russians keep talking as if NATO came to their
> borders by admitting those first tier countries, totally ignoring
> Ukraine and Belorus in between. BTW, Ukraine expresses no objection to
> Hungary's inclusion in NATO. So go and figure ...
Those funny part is that the Americans and CNN think that they are the rulers
of the world and the rest of the world keep them in that illusion as long they
keep giving away money.
So I would say: Europeans Country of the Nord, the East, the South and the West
United against the Evil Powers of the Russians, Nord-Americans and the Asians.
--
Jeroen M.W. van Dijk
ing. Control System Engineering
email: car...@dds.nl or dijk...@worldaccess.nl
Leszek Andrzej Kleczkowski
Jeroen M.W. van Dijk (dijk...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:
: As a Dutchman I must strongly say that Holland or Belgium is not a political
: dwarf.
You would have been if you'd shared your borders with the former Soviet
Union.
Leszek
danu...@chinook.halcyon.com
Jeroen M.W. van Dijk <dijk...@worldaccess.nl> wrote:
>
>As a Dutchman I must strongly say that Holland or Belgium is not a political
>dwarf.
Sure they are! It's easy to flirt with disaster knowing that the US
will save your ass from the consequences of your weakness or foolishness.
If it wasn't for the US, you might be talking in German at home now.
> And why don't you middle european countries get an own defense
>organisation. As soon as the Russia becomes weak the first thing you do is
>looking for a new master (the USA).
Judging from the differences in living standards, the new master is far
preferable.
>
>Don't you middle europeans don't know that USA is backrupt don't pay its
>contributions to the international organisations.
As far as I am concerned, it's all money flushed down the toilet,
anyway. With a few exceptions, those international organizations are a
joke. Especially the UN itself.
Joe
ing. Jeroen M.W. van Dijk
danu...@chinook.halcyon.com () wrote:
>Jeroen M.W. van Dijk <dijk...@worldaccess.nl> wrote:
>>
>>As a Dutchman I must strongly say that Holland or Belgium is not a political
>>dwarf.
>Sure they are! It's easy to flirt with disaster knowing that the US
>will save your ass from the consequences of your weakness or foolishness.
If Holland needs protection it should look at Germany or French,
because the americans have enough problems backhome.
If you know how many problems we had to remove the last American army
bases including America Nucilar Rockets.
For the americans we were just a sitting duck, a protection buffer.
>If it wasn't for the US, you might be talking in German at home now.
Im now talking English at home most of the time. And the Russians
tried the same with the Russian language, but they didn't make it.
Dutch comes from German. So Im still speaking German dialect at home.
>> And why don't you middle european countries get an own defense
>>organisation. As soon as the Russia becomes weak the first thing you do is
>>looking for a new master (the USA).
>Judging from the differences in living standards, the new master is far
>preferable.
Im sorry. The americans livings standards is only good for the
companies and the rich people. The most americans are living in their
self made dream of drugs and crime.
>>Don't you middle europeans don't know that USA is backrupt don't pay its
>>contributions to the international organisations.
>With a few exceptions, those international organizations are a
>joke. Especially the UN itself.
The point is not if those organizations are a joke or not. The point
is that the USA have a vote right membership, but don't have the money
to pay its contribution. The members of those organisation make it a
joke or not. BTW the organisations like UN or NAVO makes politics on
global level.
I hope that you all see that at economical level a battle is going on
for the middle european markets. Who do you want to let win the
Asians, the Americans or shall the Europeans keep their own market.
Jeroen.
BeeJay
On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, ing. Jeroen M.W. van Dijk spewed the following shit:
> danu...@chinook.halcyon.com () wrote:
>
> >Jeroen M.W. van Dijk <dijk...@worldaccess.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >>As a Dutchman I must strongly say that Holland or Belgium is not a political
> >>dwarf.
>
> >Sure they are! It's easy to flirt with disaster knowing that the US
> >will save your ass from the consequences of your weakness or foolishness.
>
> If Holland needs protection it should look at Germany or French,
> because the americans have enough problems backhome.
Mwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! I would say
that choosing either France or Germany as an ally would cause enough
problems in Europe. Wasn't it mainly because of the different opinions
within the EU (most notably France, Germany and Great Britain), that
peace was far from being realized in the former Yugoslavia, until the
Americans (do you read this, Van Dijk, the AMERICANS!!!) threw in their
power?
> If you know how many problems we had to remove the last American army
> bases including America Nucilar Rockets.
Oh and how we suffered from that. What a fucking drawback that was, Van
Dijk. My back still hurts from carrying all those "nucilar" rockets to the
docks.
> For the americans we were just a sitting duck, a protection buffer.
And a damn stupid one, as you clearly show. Boy o boy, you're talking
SHIT, Van Dijk, plain SHIT.
> >If it wasn't for the US, you might be talking in German at home now.
> Im now talking English at home most of the time. And the Russians
> tried the same with the Russian language, but they didn't make it.
> Dutch comes from German. So Im still speaking German dialect at home.
Oh, that's why...
> >> And why don't you middle european countries get an own defense
> >>organisation. As soon as the Russia becomes weak the first thing you do is
> >>looking for a new master (the USA).
>
> >Judging from the differences in living standards, the new master is far
> >preferable.
>
> Im sorry. The americans livings standards is only good for the
> companies and the rich people. The most americans are living in their
> self made dream of drugs and crime.
How do you know that, Van Dijk? Judging on your posts, you really don't
know what you're talking about. I'm, to American standards, poor but, as a
Dutchman living in the US, I'm HAPPIER than ever before, regardless of
crime and drugs.
> >>Don't you middle europeans don't know that USA is backrupt don't pay its
> >>contributions to the international organisations.
>
> >With a few exceptions, those international organizations are a
> >joke. Especially the UN itself.
>
> The point is not if those organizations are a joke or not. The point
> is that the USA have a vote right membership, but don't have the money
> to pay its contribution. The members of those organisation make it a
> joke or not. BTW the organisations like UN or NAVO makes politics on
> global level.
No Van Dijk, Joe is right. The UN is (unfortunately, I have to add) a
mess, and extremely powerless. You can't possibly blame the US for that.
> I hope that you all see that at economical level a battle is going on
> for the middle european markets. Who do you want to let win the
> Asians, the Americans or shall the Europeans keep their own market.
Now what bullshit is this? Lesson number one for Inzenjeur Van Dijk: as
long as there will be capitalism, there will be battles on and between
markets. Please Van Dijk, get real.
I'm sick and tired of poofs like you that blame others for their own
shortcomings.
BeeJay.
danu...@coho.halcyon.com
ing. Jeroen M.W. van Dijk <dijk...@worldaccess.nl> wrote:
>
>The americans livings standards is only good for the
>companies and the rich people.
I wonder why then everybody wants to come here. They should really talk
to you first.
>The most americans are living in their
>self made dream of drugs and crime.
You shouldn't give yourself away this fast ...
Any other jokes you might have, ing. Jeroen?
Joe
Ania Oleksik
>Dutch comes from German. So Im still speaking German dialect at home.
This is utter nonsense. Don't make assertions about subjects which you
have no knowledge of. I consider your assertions as a rationalizations
of the fact that you are 'still' speaking a 'German dialect' at home.
Michel Couzijn
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
PhD in Dutch Language and Literature
Ania Oleksik
On 4 Dec 1996 01:35:22 GMT, danu...@coho.halcyon.com () wrote:
>>The americans livings standards is only good for the
>>companies and the rich people.
>
>I wonder why then everybody wants to come here. They should really talk
>to you first.
By far, the rest of the world would NOT want to live in the U.S.
Take me as an example.
>>The most americans are living in their
>>self made dream of drugs and crime.
>
>You shouldn't give yourself away this fast ...
>Any other jokes you might have, ing. Jeroen?
Inadequate reply. Jeroen may exaggerate, but his argument
is valid that the U.S. has a VERY SERIOUS drug and poverty
problem. Also when compared to countries without capitalism
as its bible.
Jos Nijs
Hey,
>This is utter nonsense. Don't make assertions about subjects which you
>have no knowledge of. I consider your assertions as a rationalizations
>of the fact that you are 'still' speaking a 'German dialect' at home.
Heeft niets met de discussie vandoen hoor Michel. Vraagje: weet jij
toevallig iets over de 'afsplitsing' van het Engels van het Diets in
de 14e/15e eeuw (of was het vroeger OF vergis ik me helemaal ?)..
JN
BeeJay
On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Ania Oleksik wrote:
> On 4 Dec 1996 01:35:22 GMT, danu...@coho.halcyon.com () wrote:
[American life only good for the rich and the companies, according to some
frustrated cloggy who thinks he's speaking a German dialect]
> >I wonder why then everybody wants to come here. They should really talk
> >to you first.
>
> By far, the rest of the world would NOT want to live in the U.S.
> Take me as an example.
No, I will not take you as an example, because what you claim is in my
humble opinion questionable. As far as I know the US are the most popular
destination for migrants. It is also the most accessible destination in
the Western world, as far as I know.
> >>The most americans are living in their
> >>self made dream of drugs and crime.
> >
> >You shouldn't give yourself away this fast ...
> >Any other jokes you might have, ing. Jeroen?
>
> Inadequate reply. Jeroen may exaggerate, but his argument
> is valid that the U.S. has a VERY SERIOUS drug and poverty
> problem. Also when compared to countries without capitalism
> as its bible.
Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
*exaggeration*.
Yes, there's a drugs problem and there's a lot of poverty ("take me as an
example"), but that doesn't make life necessarily unbearable.
BeeJay.
danu...@coho.halcyon.com
BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
>*exaggeration*.
Yeap! I also found it ironic for somebody from Holland to point fingers
at US and blaming us for major drug addiction. Is there a more liberal
developed country with regards to drug usage than Holland?
Joe
Didier Moens
On 5 Dec 1996 12:53:21 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Ania Oleksik wrote:
>
>> On 4 Dec 1996 01:35:22 GMT, danu...@coho.halcyon.com () wrote:
>
>[American life only good for the rich and the companies, according to some
>frustrated cloggy who thinks he's speaking a German dialect]
Don't you think there's a large discrepancy between corporate America
and the average American citizen (after all, living standards ARE
going down or, at best, are status-quo for him).
>> >I wonder why then everybody wants to come here. They should really talk
>> >to you first.
>>
>> By far, the rest of the world would NOT want to live in the U.S.
>> Take me as an example.
>
>No, I will not take you as an example, because what you claim is in my
>humble opinion questionable. As far as I know the US are the most popular
>destination for migrants. It is also the most accessible destination in
>the Western world, as far as I know.
Yep, as the Mexican would-be immigrants will be happy to confirm.
[snip]
>Yes, there's a drugs problem and there's a lot of poverty ("take me as an
>example"), but that doesn't make life necessarily unbearable.
I suppose that's your personal opinion, as I can't imagine poor people
living in miserable circumstances will share your detached view ; the
LA riots are only a testimony.
"Life in Canada is wonderful - that is, if you happen to be a
pineapple". :)
Didier Moens
Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Universiteit Gent - Belgium
Tel : 0032 9 264 53 09 Fax : 0032 9 264 53 48
E-Mail : Didier...@lmb.rug.ac.be
Ania Oleksik
On 5 Dec 1996 12:53:21 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Ania Oleksik wrote:
>
>> On 4 Dec 1996 01:35:22 GMT, danu...@coho.halcyon.com () wrote:
>
>[American life only good for the rich and the companies, according to some
>frustrated cloggy who thinks he's speaking a German dialect]
If it makes you feel better to call your opponents names, go ahead,
but don't expect us to take you seriously any longer. Why would Jeroen
be frustrated? He's just hot-tempered, and he may be wrong. But
there's no reason to attribute any vile motives to his opinion. Can
you remain reasonable?
>> >I wonder why then everybody wants to come here. They should really talk
>> >to you first.
>>
>> By far, the rest of the world would NOT want to live in the U.S.
>> Take me as an example.
>
>No, I will not take you as an example, because what you claim is in my
>humble opinion questionable.
You only consider examples who agree with you? I guess you are far
away from any bachelor's or master's or PhD degree.
>As far as I know the US are the most popular
>destination for migrants. It is also the most accessible destination in
>the Western world, as far as I know.
Yes. Time to wonder if you know enough to back up this assertion. If
not, it is empty. Everyone thinks his/her country is the most
accessible and takes up too many migrants. BTW, shall we relate
numbers to size of the country here? Or do you think this is an
irrelevant factor?
>> >>The most americans are living in their
>> >>self made dream of drugs and crime.
>> >
>> >You shouldn't give yourself away this fast ...
>> >Any other jokes you might have, ing. Jeroen?
>>
>> Inadequate reply. Jeroen may exaggerate, but his argument
>> is valid that the U.S. has a VERY SERIOUS drug and poverty
>> problem. Also when compared to countries without capitalism
>> as its bible.
>
>Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
>*exaggeration*.
I agree with you ! (hooray) But that is exactly my point: Joe
addresses merely the exaggeration (I stated so) but not the argument
itself. That's why I call his reply inadequate (I avoided the word
'cheap).
>Yes, there's a drugs problem and there's a lot of poverty ("take me as an
>example"), but that doesn't make life necessarily unbearable.
So you have come back from asserting that America is great period or
America is the best country for migrants or America is the best-loved
country in the world or whatever great things to say about America
to
Life in America is bearable in spite of its problems with drugs and
poverty.
I think we have found agreement at the end of the line.
Let's celebrate.
Michel Couzijn
Amsterdam, The Netherlands (a great country, by the way...)
BeeJay
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Didier Moens wrote:
> On 5 Dec 1996 12:53:21 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Ania Oleksik wrote:
> >
> >> On 4 Dec 1996 01:35:22 GMT, danu...@coho.halcyon.com () wrote:
> >
> >[American life only good for the rich and the companies, according to some
> >frustrated cloggy who thinks he's speaking a German dialect]
>
> Don't you think there's a large discrepancy between corporate America
> and the average American citizen (after all, living standards ARE
> going down or, at best, are status-quo for him).
One question, before I answer this: do you consider rich Americans to be
part of corporate America, or do you see them as American citizens?
I will not deny that American citizens are in general not happy with the
way things are going, but the view of the initial correspondant was really
out of the ordinary and unjustified.
> >> >I wonder why then everybody wants to come here. They should really talk
> >> >to you first.
> >>
> >> By far, the rest of the world would NOT want to live in the U.S.
> >> Take me as an example.
> >
> >No, I will not take you as an example, because what you claim is in my
> >humble opinion questionable. As far as I know the US are the most popular
> >destination for migrants. It is also the most accessible destination in
> >the Western world, as far as I know.
>
> Yep, as the Mexican would-be immigrants will be happy to confirm.
Make that "will-be". There's also a steady flow of immigrants from the Far
East. For more information and statistics about immigration I refer to
the Website of the U.S. Dept. of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/).
> [snip]
>
> >Yes, there's a drugs problem and there's a lot of poverty ("take me as an
> >example"), but that doesn't make life necessarily unbearable.
>
> I suppose that's your personal opinion, as I can't imagine poor people
> living in miserable circumstances will share your detached view ; the
> LA riots are only a testimony.
Well, you have poverty and you have poverty. For some people it will be
unbearable, but for others it won't. But read carefully, Moens, because I
say "not necessarily unbearable", which does not exclude the possibility
that there's a contingent that is unhappy. Which only shows that you don't
necessarily have to be rich to be happy here, as the initial correspondant
wants us to think.
> "Life in Canada is wonderful - that is, if you happen to be a
> pineapple". :)
I leave this one to Gerard.
> Didier Moens
Oh dear, him again....
BeeJay.
Marek Konski
danu...@coho.halcyon.com wrote:
>
> ing. Jeroen M.W. van Dijk <dijk...@worldaccess.nl> wrote:
> >
> >The americans livings standards is only good for the
> >companies and the rich people.
>
This is also not true, however. The Americans
just like to believe in it just because people from all
over the world (but _not everybody_ in the world)
come to America.
MK
BeeJay
On 6 Dec 1996 danu...@coho.halcyon.com wrote:
> BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
> >*exaggeration*.
>
> Yeap! I also found it ironic for somebody from Holland to point fingers
> at US and blaming us for major drug addiction. Is there a more liberal
> developed country with regards to drug usage than Holland?
Don't think so...
BeeJay.
BeeJay
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Ania Oleksik wrote:
> On 5 Dec 1996 12:53:21 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Ania Oleksik wrote:
> >
> >> On 4 Dec 1996 01:35:22 GMT, danu...@coho.halcyon.com () wrote:
> >
> >[American life only good for the rich and the companies, according to some
> >frustrated cloggy who thinks he's speaking a German dialect]
>
> If it makes you feel better to call your opponents names, go ahead,
> but don't expect us to take you seriously any longer. Why would Jeroen
^^
I take it that should read "me". You speak for yourself in the first
place, in my humble opinion.
> be frustrated? He's just hot-tempered, and he may be wrong. But
> there's no reason to attribute any vile motives to his opinion. Can
> you remain reasonable?
He was hot-tempered, you can say that. I responded in a reasonable
fashion (i.e. I could have been far more aggressive), and I have the
right to respond the way I did, so don't complain.
> >> >I wonder why then everybody wants to come here. They should really talk
> >> >to you first.
> >>
> >> By far, the rest of the world would NOT want to live in the U.S.
> >> Take me as an example.
> >
> >No, I will not take you as an example, because what you claim is in my
> >humble opinion questionable.
>
> You only consider examples who agree with you? I guess you are far
> away from any bachelor's or master's or PhD degree.
Do I say that??? Can you read??? I don't take you as the example for what
the majority would like to do, because I don't think that the majority
would like the same things as you, or I have at least my doubts about
that. Is it a little less cloudy for you now?
My degree doesn't matter; my opinion matters here, and it's ridiculous to
bring this up. My degree is none of your business anyway.
> >As far as I know the US are the most popular
> >destination for migrants. It is also the most accessible destination in
> >the Western world, as far as I know.
>
> Yes. Time to wonder if you know enough to back up this assertion. If
> not, it is empty. Everyone thinks his/her country is the most
> accessible and takes up too many migrants. BTW, shall we relate
> numbers to size of the country here? Or do you think this is an
> irrelevant factor?
Ahum, now be careful, because there's plenty of information on the Net
supporting my case. For a start I would advice you to go to the Website of
the U.S. Dept. of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/), and then select the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. You can trust that
information, believe me.
> >> >>The most americans are living in their
> >> >>self made dream of drugs and crime.
> >> >
> >> >You shouldn't give yourself away this fast ...
> >> >Any other jokes you might have, ing. Jeroen?
> >>
> >> Inadequate reply. Jeroen may exaggerate, but his argument
> >> is valid that the U.S. has a VERY SERIOUS drug and poverty
> >> problem. Also when compared to countries without capitalism
> >> as its bible.
> >
> >Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
> >*exaggeration*.
>
> I agree with you ! (hooray) But that is exactly my point: Joe
> addresses merely the exaggeration (I stated so) but not the argument
> itself. That's why I call his reply inadequate (I avoided the word
> 'cheap).
Aha, but to what extend did he exaggerate? His generalizations were out
of the ordinary. I can understand an American citizen would feel insulted
by such crap, and I therefore understand that Joe reacted that way.
> >Yes, there's a drugs problem and there's a lot of poverty ("take me as an
> >example"), but that doesn't make life necessarily unbearable.
>
> So you have come back from asserting that America is great period or
> America is the best country for migrants or America is the best-loved
> country in the world or whatever great things to say about America
Never said that, dear. Can you actually read??? Your abilities in that
regard are really questionable. I refer to my first response to Van Dijk.
> to
>
> Life in America is bearable in spite of its problems with drugs and
> poverty.
That's what I indeed more or less said in my initial response. Personally
I'm happy here, that's more than just bearable.
> I think we have found agreement at the end of the line.
>
> Let's celebrate.
>
>
> Michel Couzijn
> Amsterdam, The Netherlands (a great country, by the way...)
BeeJay.
Marek Konski
ing. Jeroen M.W. van Dijk wrote:
>
[deleted]
>
> Im sorry. The americans livings standards is only good for the
> companies and the rich people. The most americans are living in their
> self made dream of drugs and crime.
>
Eh, that's just not true.
MK
danu...@coho.halcyon.com
Wojtek Rypniewski <Woj...@EMBL-Hamburg.DE> wrote:
>NATO should snap up countries like Poland and Hungary
>while the Poles and the Magyars are still willing.
Tak, Wojtku: Polacy i Wegrzy zawsze wspolnie! ;-)
Joe Pannon
Kees van den Doel
In article <32a8f521...@news.rug.ac.be>,
Didier Moens <Didier...@lmb.rug.ac.be> wrote:
>"Life in Canada is wonderful - that is, if you happen to be a
>pineapple". :)
Nonesense, Moens creature; life as a Kees in Canada is Prima Pico Bello
too.
Btw, you forgot to crotspam to nl.eeuwig.sepetember; I added the header
for you ain't I sweet?
Kees
danu...@chinook.halcyon.com
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen <veld...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>That's just what the US government wants you to believe, so that they can
>continue using their power in the UN/Security Council and let other countries
>pay for it.
>
>I guess you forgot how eager Bush was to use the UN/Security Council when they
>got into a conflict with Iraq.
And you think that Bush would not have acted without a UN in existence,
huh?
Joe
ing. Jeroen M.W. van Dijk
aole...@xs4all.nl (Ania Oleksik) wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Dec 1996 19:43:02 GMT, dijk...@worldaccess.nl (ing. Jeroen
>M.W. van Dijk) wrote:
>>Dutch comes from German. So Im still speaking a German dialect at home.
>This is utter nonsense. Don't make assertions about subjects which you
>have no knowledge of. I consider your assertions as a rationalizations
>of the fact that you are 'still' speaking a 'German dialect' at home.
If your really want to know its comes from a quote of Prof. Dr. W.G.
Klooster. I must say that I leave out the words I didn't understand.
BTW I believe that the title is not given any place in the Netherlands
PhD and aspecially not in Amsterdam. I have recently saw my sister bul
and it was in Dutch and Latin, but not in English.
The title PhD is protected by american laws.
:::::::::::::::::::> IMPORTANT! READ THIS! <:::::::::::::::::::::::::
ADVERTISEMENT: Use Jeroen's Email Archiving Service! Any unsolicited
commercial email sent to 'dijk...@worldaccess.nl' will be put into
storage on my hard- drive. Fulfill all of your storage needs! A
charge of $200 will be charged for every 2k stored. I accept VISA,
MASTERCARD, CHECK, and MONEY ORDERS. By sending me commercial email,
you signal understanding and acceptance of these terms.
Jeroen M.W. van Dijk
BeeJay
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, ing. Jeroen M.W. van Dijk wrote:
> aole...@xs4all.nl (Ania Oleksik) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 03 Dec 1996 19:43:02 GMT, dijk...@worldaccess.nl (ing. Jeroen
> >M.W. van Dijk) wrote:
>
> >>Dutch comes from German. So Im still speaking a German dialect at home.
>
> >This is utter nonsense. Don't make assertions about subjects which you
> >have no knowledge of. I consider your assertions as a rationalizations
> >of the fact that you are 'still' speaking a 'German dialect' at home.
>
> If your really want to know its comes from a quote of Prof. Dr. W.G.
> Klooster. I must say that I leave out the words I didn't understand.
Oh, clever.
> BTW I believe that the title is not given any place in the Netherlands
> PhD and aspecially not in Amsterdam. I have recently saw my sister bul
> and it was in Dutch and Latin, but not in English.
>
> The title PhD is protected by american laws.
And by Dutch law too, and by laws in many other countries. Foreign
graduates will get a PhD in Holland. A PhD is the equivalent of a "Dr."
title in the Netherlands (for your information, Van Dijk).
Still I think the first PhD graduated in what is now known as the United
Kingdom. In other words, Van Dijk, the titles may not originate from the
"evil" American empire, but from England, right across from you at the
other side of the North Sea.
BeeJay.
Ania Oleksik
On 6 Dec 1996 02:14:50 GMT, danu...@coho.halcyon.com () wrote:
>BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
>>*exaggeration*.
>
>Yeap! I also found it ironic for somebody from Holland to point fingers
>at US and blaming us for major drug addiction. Is there a more liberal
>developed country with regards to drug usage than Holland?
>
>Joe
Maybe not. But I fear you know too little about the repression of, or
tolerance towards, drug usage in The Netherlands (correct term for
'Holland'). First, we make a distinction between hard and soft drugs,
the latter being hash and marijuana. There is a strong repression
against hard drugs, and help for its victims. There is a moderate
tolerance towards soft-drugs (the famous coffee-shops). The result of
this is that The Netherlands has a very low number of hard drug
addicts, compared to western countries with a strong repression
against all types of drugs (France, Germany, U.S.). Many Dutch people
are 'proud' of this two-way strategy and have a hard time
understanding why peopleof 'unsuccessful countries want us to be more
like them.
Second, you are commiting an ad hominem fallacy here. The fact that I
or Jeroen live in the Netherlands does not disqualify us to advance
the argument that the U.S. has a serious drug (and poverty) problem.
Which is, by the way, something else than 'blaming the U.S. for major
drug addiction'. Jeroen simply pointed out that there is a distance
between the American Dream and the American Reality, and that drugs
and poverty are part of this Reality.
Ania Oleksik
On 6 Dec 1996 18:55:09 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>> If it makes you feel better to call your opponents names, go ahead,
>> but don't expect us to take you seriously any longer. Why would Jeroen
> ^^
>I take it that should read "me". You speak for yourself in the first
>place, in my humble opinion.
Your opinion is indeed humble. I speak for myself in the first place
and - not so humbly - for the rest of this newsgroup's subscribers in
the second place. I am an individual who considers himself part of a
group and acknowledge there are some rules which apply to group
membership. One of these unwritten rules, accepted by quite some
people is that you don't call each other names when you suffer from a
lack of arguments. I reminded us of that rule. The punishment for not
playing by this rule is losing your status of serious discussant.
>> be frustrated? He's just hot-tempered, and he may be wrong. But
>> there's no reason to attribute any vile motives to his opinion. Can
>> you remain reasonable?
>
>He was hot-tempered, you can say that. I responded in a reasonable
>fashion (i.e. I could have been far more aggressive), and I have the
>right to respond the way I did, so don't complain.
Yes I will complain. I don't understand your 'right' to respond the
way you did. Can you read me my rights? Do I have a right to complain
about your forbidding me to complain? Can you give me the URL-code
to a list of rights that you and I have?
This is not about rights, Bee, this is about rules on how we should
treat each other as discussants. If I think you are unreasonable (by
attributing vile motives to Jeroen's opinions}, I will tell you that.
The idea that you could have been more aggressive (i.e. transgress the
borders more than you did) does not make your response reasonable,
alas.
>> >> >I wonder why then everybody wants to come here. They should really talk
>> >> >to you first.
>> >>
>> >> By far, the rest of the world would NOT want to live in the U.S.
>> >> Take me as an example.
>> >
>> >No, I will not take you as an example, because what you claim is in my
>> >humble opinion questionable.
>>
>> You only consider examples who agree with you? I guess you are far
>> away from any bachelor's or master's or PhD degree.
>
>Do I say that??? Can you read??? I don't take you as the example for what
>the majority would like to do, because I don't think that the majority
>would like the same things as you, or I have at least my doubts about
>that. Is it a little less cloudy for you now?
Not at all. That's because I can read better than you can. Follow me.
Joe wrote that 'everybody wants to come here' (i.e. to the U.S.). I
denied this - and even asserted that 'by far, the rest of the world
would NOT want to live in this U.S.'. I still stand by this opinion. I
am one of the (many) examples of people who do not want to live in the
U.S. And my mother, and my father, and my sister. Even my wife,
although she is Polish ;-)
Then you show up and refuse to accept me as an example. For a silly
reason, namely that 'what I claim is questionable'. Clean your
ears/eyes, Bee, and understand that with 'everybody', Joe was not only
addressing the people in this world who only claim things which you
don't find questionable. Does this still make sense to you, Bee?
Hardly, I am afraid. Who causes me to write down this nonsense? You, I
am afraid.
To make it a little less cloudy, follow me:
You say: I don't accept you as an example,
because what you claim is questionable.
(hidden premiss: I only accept as examples people
with claims that I do not find questionable.)
I paraphrased the hidden premiss as 'examples who agree with you'. If
you believe this interpretation to be wrong, tell me why- I find it
correct. To answer your questions in brief: yes, you said that - and
yes, I can read.
But it is you fail to read well for a single moment, because you
paraphrase Joe's 'everybody wants to ...' as 'the majority would like
to...'. I am not going to spell out the difference. That's homework
for you.
You may express your doubt whether the majority of the people in this
world would like to do what I would like to do, but that is not the
issue here. I have very strong doubts about that too - amd did not
assert that. I asserted that the majority does NOT want to live in the
U.S., and that I am part of that majority. If you re-read that
passage, you can see for yourself who is the better reader, you or I.
>My degree doesn't matter; my opinion matters here, and it's ridiculous to
>bring this up. My degree is none of your business anyway.
No. But I made it my business. If you don't want me to, and/or want to
hide your degree from us (yeah, I know, from me, but in doing so
you'll hide it from the rest of our audience...) that's fine with me.
It's just that I found it so unusual for Internet users (once an
audience of researchers and other academics) to commit such a gross
sampling crime (selecting sample elements which justify your
hypothesis) that I got a little curious about it.
>> >As far as I know the US are the most popular
>> >destination for migrants. It is also the most accessible destination in
>> >the Western world, as far as I know.
>>
>> Yes. Time to wonder if you know enough to back up this assertion. If
>> not, it is empty. Everyone thinks his/her country is the most
>> accessible and takes up too many migrants. BTW, shall we relate
>> numbers to size of the country here? Or do you think this is an
>> irrelevant factor?
>
>Ahum, now be careful, because there's plenty of information on the Net
>supporting my case. For a start I would advice you to go to the Website of
>the U.S. Dept. of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/), and then select the
>Immigration and Naturalization Service. You can trust that
>information, believe me.
I doubt whether the information presented there (next time be more
specific which information you refer to - the Imm. & Nat. Service
presents quite a lot!) supports your case. The average number of
immigrants allowed to the U.S. is 800.000 a year from 1993 to 1995,
they say, showing a sharp decrease by more than 20 %. The U.S. (9300
km2) have 260 million inhabitants, which is a meagre 28 inhabitants
per square km. To compare, The Netherlands (41.000 km2) have 15
million inhabitants and live with 452 inhabitants per square km (16
times more) and nevertheless take up 30.000 immigrants a year
(1993-1995). Would you still say that the U.S. is the most accessible
country, related to size? I have heard that Germany was even more
accessible than The Netherlands, though I don't have precise numbers.
My case is anyway to say that too many more people believe their
country to be the most accessible in the world.
>> >> >>The most americans are living in their
>> >> >>self made dream of drugs and crime.
>> >> >
>> >> >You shouldn't give yourself away this fast ...
>> >> >Any other jokes you might have, ing. Jeroen?
>> >>
>> >> Inadequate reply. Jeroen may exaggerate, but his argument
>> >> is valid that the U.S. has a VERY SERIOUS drug and poverty
>> >> problem. Also when compared to countries without capitalism
>> >> as its bible.
>> >
>> >Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
>> >*exaggeration*.
>>
>> I agree with you ! (hooray) But that is exactly my point: Joe
>> addresses merely the exaggeration (I stated so) but not the argument
>> itself. That's why I call his reply inadequate (I avoided the word
>> 'cheap).
>
>Aha, but to what extend did he exaggerate? His generalizations were out
>of the ordinary. I can understand an American citizen would feel insulted
>by such crap, and I therefore understand that Joe reacted that way.
Yes, and once an American citizen has recollected him/herself, he/she
writes an adequate response. I am still waiting. The underlying
argument (The U.S. have a serious drug and poverty problem) is still
valid The question was whether the U.S. is 'a good master to run to
once Russia has become weaker as a protector of middle European
countries' (we almost forgot about that, didn't we?) and Jeroen tried
in his way to point out that the U.S. does not offer merely beds of
roses and mountains of gold and that maybe the middle European
countries should not unconditionally seek protection of the U.S. or
look at the U.S. as a role model..
BeeJay
On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Ania Oleksik wrote:
> On 6 Dec 1996 18:55:09 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> If it makes you feel better to call your opponents names, go ahead,
> >> but don't expect us to take you seriously any longer. Why would Jeroen
> > ^^
> >I take it that should read "me". You speak for yourself in the first
> >place, in my humble opinion.
[Snip]
> I am an individual who considers himself part of a
> group and acknowledge there are some rules which apply to group
> membership. One of these unwritten rules, accepted by quite some
> people is that you don't call each other names when you suffer from a
> lack of arguments. I reminded us of that rule. The punishment for not
> playing by this rule is losing your status of serious discussant.
Lack of arguments? Nonsense. By the way, for your information: the
unwritten rules you're talking about don't seem to be valid in
soc.culture.netherlands. And since when do *you* set standards for others
how to respond?
And may I remind you that I feel that Van Dijk's post was insulting
towards Americans? Do you actually see that?
> >> be frustrated? He's just hot-tempered, and he may be wrong. But
> >> there's no reason to attribute any vile motives to his opinion. Can
> >> you remain reasonable?
> >
> >He was hot-tempered, you can say that. I responded in a reasonable
> >fashion (i.e. I could have been far more aggressive), and I have the
> >right to respond the way I did, so don't complain.
>
> Yes I will complain. I don't understand your 'right' to respond the
> way you did. Can you read me my rights? Do I have a right to complain
> about your forbidding me to complain? Can you give me the URL-code
> to a list of rights that you and I have?
I have the right to respond the way I did. I will use the same cheap way
out as you: it's an unwritten rule. Or perhaps it is not: it's called
freedom of speech here in the US. As I do acknowledge that Van Dijk is
allowed to dump his insulting bullshit on the Internet; I only hope that
he will realize that he has to think twice before exaggerating to the
extend that he's actually attributing vile motives to American politics
with regard to international security.
Don't you see that, Couzijns?
> This is not about rights, Bee, this is about rules on how we should
> treat each other as discussants. If I think you are unreasonable (by
> attributing vile motives to Jeroen's opinions}, I will tell you that.
Fine, you tell me that (that's your "unwritten" right).
> The idea that you could have been more aggressive (i.e. transgress the
> borders more than you did) does not make your response reasonable,
> alas.
Well, we will never agree on this one, I'm afraid.
> >> >> >I wonder why then everybody wants to come here. They should really talk
> >> >> >to you first.
> >> >>
> >> >> By far, the rest of the world would NOT want to live in the U.S.
> >> >> Take me as an example.
> >> >
> >> >No, I will not take you as an example, because what you claim is in my
> >> >humble opinion questionable.
> >>
> >> You only consider examples who agree with you? I guess you are far
> >> away from any bachelor's or master's or PhD degree.
> >
> >Do I say that??? Can you read??? I don't take you as the example for what
> >the majority would like to do, because I don't think that the majority
> >would like the same things as you, or I have at least my doubts about
> >that. Is it a little less cloudy for you now?
>
> Not at all. That's because I can read better than you can. Follow me.
> Joe wrote that 'everybody wants to come here' (i.e. to the U.S.). I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let's settle this one, because I think we all mix up two things here. I
*think* (but he should come out and tell us) that Joe actually meant
migrants instead of the whole population. It is a mere fact that the US is
still the most popular destination for migrants from all over the world.
That's how I see it and frankly nobody really understood that. But I take
it that you're not a migrant, and as such are not an example!
[Huge snip, but answer to it all is enclosed in the above]
> >My degree doesn't matter; my opinion matters here, and it's ridiculous to
> >bring this up. My degree is none of your business anyway.
>
> No. But I made it my business. If you don't want me to, and/or want to
> hide your degree from us (yeah, I know, from me, but in doing so
> you'll hide it from the rest of our audience...) that's fine with me.
Now I do have a question, off topic really (has nothing to do with NATO
Dwarfism) but is it me or is is it just a habit of the Dutch? I mean, a
week ago or so somebody felt compelled to publish his grades in
soc.culture.netherlands, apparently to support his case, and now another
one is asking me to make public my degree, as if that would change
anything about the validity of my point? Degrees don't matter in any
discussion, just opinions. Or are you also infected with that typical
calvinistic "holier-than-thou-attitude", that moral superiority that
almost everybody seems to embrace in Holland? I fear the day that I have
to go there....
[Snip]
> >> >As far as I know the US are the most popular
> >> >destination for migrants. It is also the most accessible destination in
> >> >the Western world, as far as I know.
> >>
> >> Yes. Time to wonder if you know enough to back up this assertion. If
> >> not, it is empty. Everyone thinks his/her country is the most
> >> accessible and takes up too many migrants. BTW, shall we relate
> >> numbers to size of the country here? Or do you think this is an
> >> irrelevant factor?
> >
> >Ahum, now be careful, because there's plenty of information on the Net
> >supporting my case. For a start I would advice you to go to the Website of
> >the U.S. Dept. of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/), and then select the
> >Immigration and Naturalization Service. You can trust that
> >information, believe me.
>
> I doubt whether the information presented there (next time be more
> specific which information you refer to - the Imm. & Nat. Service
> presents quite a lot!) supports your case. The average number of
> immigrants allowed to the U.S. is 800.000 a year from 1993 to 1995,
^^^^^^^
Oh, that's funny. You forget to add that 500000 people a year (in
*addition* to the 800000 who were granted permanent residency) became
American citizens (many of them through marriage, which in the case of the
Netherlands does not guarantee citizenship, let alone permanent
residency; I've heard some really sad stories about that), and a 100000
refugees. Have to add though that many new citizens already have a Green
Card.
> they say, showing a sharp decrease by more than 20 %. The U.S. (9300
> km2) have 260 million inhabitants, which is a meagre 28 inhabitants
> per square km. To compare, The Netherlands (41.000 km2) have 15
> million inhabitants and live with 452 inhabitants per square km (16
> times more) and nevertheless take up 30.000 immigrants a year
^^^^^^
But how many of them will be guaranteed citizenship; how many refugees
does the Netherlands absorb?
Anyway, per 1000 inhabitants the Netherlands grant 2 persons permanent
residency per year, whereas the US is still granting 3 persons per 1000
permanent residency, about 50% more than the Netherlands. You really only
achieve that with less stringent immigration requirements and thus the US
is more accessible. Don't you think?
> (1993-1995). Would you still say that the U.S. is the most accessible
> country, related to size?
^^^^
Population density, you mean. As I show above, that depends on how you
calculate the rate of immigration. I do not include population density,
because I really wonder to what extend that influences the immigration
proces. What you say is that for what Holland can have, they do a good
job, but its immigration policy must be more stringent in order to keep
it that way. We're getting a little closer to what I mean here, by the
way.
I would like to know from you how many applications for permanent
residency/citizenship the Netherlands receive per year (let's say 1995),
in order to find out what percentage of applicants really gets what they
want.
> I have heard that Germany was even more
> accessible than The Netherlands, though I don't have precise numbers.
> My case is anyway to say that too many more people believe their
> country to be the most accessible in the world.
Forget the Netherlands, when it comes to accessability.
> >> >> >>The most americans are living in their
> >> >> >>self made dream of drugs and crime.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You shouldn't give yourself away this fast ...
> >> >> >Any other jokes you might have, ing. Jeroen?
> >> >>
> >> >> Inadequate reply. Jeroen may exaggerate, but his argument
> >> >> is valid that the U.S. has a VERY SERIOUS drug and poverty
> >> >> problem. Also when compared to countries without capitalism
> >> >> as its bible.
> >> >
> >> >Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
> >> >*exaggeration*.
> >>
> >> I agree with you ! (hooray) But that is exactly my point: Joe
> >> addresses merely the exaggeration (I stated so) but not the argument
> >> itself. That's why I call his reply inadequate (I avoided the word
> >> 'cheap).
> >
> >Aha, but to what extend did he exaggerate? His generalizations were out
> >of the ordinary. I can understand an American citizen would feel insulted
> >by such crap, and I therefore understand that Joe reacted that way.
>
> Yes, and once an American citizen has recollected him/herself, he/she
> writes an adequate response. I am still waiting. The underlying
> argument (The U.S. have a serious drug and poverty problem) is still
> valid The question was whether the U.S. is 'a good master to run to
Nobody claimed that the US did *not* have a drugs and crime problem, and
otherwise I really think you should take note of the fact that it was the
way Van Dijk posed his problem that pissed people off.
> once Russia has become weaker as a protector of middle European
> countries' (we almost forgot about that, didn't we?) and Jeroen tried
> in his way to point out that the U.S. does not offer merely beds of
> roses and mountains of gold and that maybe the middle European
> countries should not unconditionally seek protection of the U.S. or
> look at the U.S. as a role model..
Middle European countries should do whatever they want to do. But frankly
I don't think it's wrong to seek protection under the NATO.
By the way, wasn't it the US that had to be called in to initiate a peace
proces in the Balkan??? In other words, when it comes to security, there's
not much else to look for besides the US. Do you know any better
alternative?
BeeJay.
Full Name
On 7 Dec 1996 11:56:56 GMT, kvan...@xs4all.nl (Kees van den Doel)
wrote:
>In article <32a8f521...@news.rug.ac.be>,
>Didier Moens <Didier...@lmb.rug.ac.be> wrote:
*gasp* Is that kill-file in a bad shape, or what ?
>
>>"Life in Canada is wonderful - that is, if you happen to be a
>>pineapple". :)
>
>Nonesense, Moens creature; life as a Kees in Canada is Prima Pico Bello
>too.
Nope it isn't ; I got this confirmed and double-blind checked from a
very reliable source, who has proven on several occasions to be an
unquestionnable authority in the particular field of being the "Kees
in Canada" (and NOT "a Kees in Canada").
>Btw, you forgot to crotspam to nl.eeuwig.sepetember; I added the header
>for you ain't I sweet?
*sweet kiss on cheek*
{wipes mouth} Thanks Koos. I knew I could count on you ! However, I
took the liberty to remove some c.p. groups myself, as I assumed our
gipsy friends do not adhere to the harsh intellectual standards of
this highly educational conversation.
>
>
>Kees
Didier
BTW : Isn't soc.culture.netherlands a contradictio in terminis ?
----------
"Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch."
-- W. C. Fields
Didier Moens
BeeJay
On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Didier Moens wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Dec 1996 21:19:19 GMT, aole...@xs4all.nl (Ania Oleksik)
> wrote:
[Snip]
> [in-depth analysis of Bas' discussional merits (sic) snipped]
>
>
> You certainly have my vote ... :)
>
>
> My oh my ...
>
> It seems like I'm not the only one who doesn't wholeheartly agree with
> the way BJ compensates his questionnable lack of reading skills (or
> valid arguments contributing to the discussion, for that matter) with
> name-calling and childish ranting.
So far Moens, you have hardly contributed to this discussion, let
alone the fact that you apparently do not feel compelled to further
eloborate on the response I gave you in this threat. Kinda week , I would
say...
BeeJay.
BeeJay
On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, god almighty wrote:
> Didier...@lmb.rug.ac.be (Didier Moens) wrote:
[Snip]
> ->Oh, I forgot : NNTP is only for people sharing your views ; all others
> ->are Nazi postmasters who want to limit freedom of speech.
>
> yep, I'm a Nazi postmaster.
Ja hoor, ga jij maar lekker Moens' aarsje likken hoor. Ik hoop dat het je
smaakt.
BeeJay.
BeeJay
Op 9 Dec 1996 kakte Didier Moens het onderstaande in o.a. SCN en SCB:
> On 6 Dec 1996 17:24:08 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
> >> Yep, as the Mexican would-be immigrants will be happy to confirm.
> >
> >Make that "will-be". There's also a steady flow of immigrants from the Far
> >East. For more information and statistics about immigration I refer to
> >the Website of the U.S. Dept. of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/).
>
> Yep. And I'll consult Mr. Fox if I want to start a chicken farm.
Eh, was jij niet die figuur die anderen saai noemde? Je bent gewoon een
impotente paardelul, Moens, en je hebt geen enkel gevoel humor. Wanneer
zeg je nou eens *echt* iets leuks, Moens? En nou niet gaan zeuren dat het
slap van me is om je nu te gaan uitschelden, want dat hooghartige geblaat
van jou verdient deze reactie. En het is nog leuk ook!
[Snip]
> >> Didier Moens
> >
> >Oh dear, him again....
>
> You got a problem with that ?
Oh nee hoor, je moet doen wat je niet laten kunt. Ik moet jou gewoon niet.
> Oh, I forgot : NNTP is only for people sharing your views ; all others
> are Nazi postmasters who want to limit freedom of speech.
Jaja Moens, dat je een fout kereltje bent weten we al sinds de dag dat jij
hier op een fascistisch-spastische wijze amok ging maken over goedbedoelde
crossposts van Keizer Kees.
BeeJay.
BeeJay
On 9 Dec 1996, Adriana C. Bruggeman wrote:
> In article <Pine.SV4.3.94.96120...@hsc.usc.edu>,
> BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
[Snip]
> > Or are you also infected with that typical
> >calvinistic "holier-than-thou-attitude", that moral superiority that
> >almost everybody seems to embrace in Holland?
>
> I feel that this is insulting towards Dutch people...
Eh, don't take that too personal though, Jeaan.
> Jeaan
> --
> But at night I'd had these wonderful dreams [-J.Buffet]
> `\------,(__) Some kind of sensuous treat __o
> * | (oo) Not zuchini, fettucine or bulghar wheat _`\<,_
> * ||w--||(..)~* But a big warm bun and a huge chunk of meat..(_)/ (_)
BeeJay.
BeeJay
On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Didier Moens wrote:
> >Your opinion is indeed humble. I speak for myself in the first place
> >and - not so humbly - for the rest of this newsgroup's subscribers in
> >the second place. I am an individual who considers himself part of a
>
> [in-depth analysis of Bas' discussional merits (sic) snipped]
>
>
> You certainly have my vote ... :)
>
>
> My oh my ...
>
> It seems like I'm not the only one who doesn't wholeheartly agree with
> the way BJ compensates his questionnable lack of reading skills (or
> valid arguments contributing to the discussion, for that matter) with
> name-calling and childish ranting.
Ook goedkoop van je Moens; je laat eerst Michel Couzijns het vuile werk
opknappen (hetgeen hij overigens heel behoorlijk deed, wat nu niet direkt
betekent dat ik het met hem eens ben), kom jij met zo'n stemmingmakerig
kutalineaatje aankakken. EN HET IS NIET EENS LEUK, PUMMEL!!!!
Maar hou beschuldigingen als "questionable lack of reading skills" en
"childish ranting" maar voor je, want daar maak jij je m.i. veel meer
schuldig aan. Iemand die openlijk hetze-achtige acties onderneemt
zoals tegen Kees verdient het predikaat "volwassene" niet. Je hebt
fascistoide neigingen, Moens, 't is maar dat je het weet.
BeeJay.
Ania Oleksik
On 8 Dec 1996 21:29:01 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
(Michel Couzijn wrote:)
>> I am an individual who considers himself part of a
>> group and acknowledge there are some rules which apply to group
>> membership. One of these unwritten rules, accepted by quite some
>> people is that you don't call each other names when you suffer from a
>> lack of arguments. I reminded us of that rule. The punishment for not
>> playing by this rule is losing your status of serious discussant.
>
>Lack of arguments? Nonsense. By the way, for your information: the
>unwritten rules you're talking about don't seem to be valid in
>soc.culture.netherlands.
Maybe they're not valid on the moon. I don't care. All I care for is
that they are maintained in my correspondence. I am not responsible
for the standards others wish to live and mail by.
>And since when do *you* set standards for others how to respond?
Since a long time. Since there is no higher institutions than us, poor
individuals, setting the standars for our communicative behavior. No
one has more AND no one has less rights to do this than I have - as
long as I find sufficient support from others.
>And may I remind you that I feel that Van Dijk's post was insulting
>towards Americans?
Yes you may. You have just done that.
> Do you actually see that?
Playing the 'murdered innocence' is not your strongest point (I get
personal here for having a lack of arguments.)
>> >> be frustrated? He's just hot-tempered, and he may be wrong. But
>> >> there's no reason to attribute any vile motives to his opinion. Can
>> >> you remain reasonable?
>> >
>> >He was hot-tempered, you can say that. I responded in a reasonable
>> >fashion (i.e. I could have been far more aggressive), and I have the
>> >right to respond the way I did, so don't complain.
>>
>> Yes I will complain. I don't understand your 'right' to respond the
>> way you did. Can you read me my rights? Do I have a right to complain
>> about your forbidding me to complain? Can you give me the URL-code
>> to a list of rights that you and I have?
>
>I have the right to respond the way I did. I will use the same cheap way
>out as you: it's an unwritten rule.
Why follow my bad example? Have nothing better to offer?
> Or perhaps it is not: it's called freedom of speech here in the US.
And it's called impoliteness, disrespect and utter barbary here in the
rest of the world. Hide behind your iron curtain made of excuses.
We don't have freedom of speech here. We are bound by our civilization
and social behaviour. Sorry of this is different for you.
>As I do acknowledge that Van Dijk is
>allowed to dump his insulting bullshit on the Internet; I only hope that
>he will realize that he has to think twice before exaggerating to the
>extend that he's actually attributing vile motives to American politics
>with regard to international security.
>Don't you see that, Couzijns?
You have just spelt my name wrong. "Can you actually read?"
Because you seem keen on convincing my just how much Jeroen has
insulted the poor American people, and because I like you so much, I
have recollected just what Jeroen said about the U.S.:
>USA is backrupt [and does not] pay its contributions to the international organisations
>Those former superpowers are timebombs.
>The Americans and CNN think that they are the rulers of the world
>The americans have enough problems backhome.
>The americans livings standards is only good for the companies and the rich people.
>The most americans are living in their self made dream of drugs and crime.
>The USA have a vote right membership, but don't have the money to pay its contribution.
And I really have a hard time imagining why an American would be
insulted. Are you easily insulted, Bee? In that case you don't seem to
apply the same rules to others as you wish others to apply to you.
Seems to me that Jeroen is mostly pissed that big mouth America
(oops.. here *I* go insulting - you really have to walk tiptoe for Big
Brother] does not pay its UN membership fee. And that he does not
regard the U.S. as a very prosperous state, role model for other
countries seeking protection (that's what it was about, remember?)
He clearly sees the distance between the American Dream and the
American Reality (serious drug and poverty problems) from which many
Americans suffer (that is NOT the same as 'participate in').
You lose your case of the insulting Jeroen, I'm afraid. I wonder why
you had such a strong tendency to interprete his words so negatively.
Is it something in you, Bee?
>> This is not about rights, Bee, this is about rules on how we should
>> treat each other as discussants. If I think you are unreasonable (by
>> attributing vile motives to Jeroen's opinions}, I will tell you that.
>
>Fine, you tell me that (that's your "unwritten" right).
I am glad you understood. Do something with it.
>> The idea that you could have been more aggressive (i.e. transgress the
>> borders more than you did) does not make your response reasonable,
>> alas.
>
>Well, we will never agree on this one, I'm afraid.
Well, what could be the reason for this? Must be stubbornness from my
side, since you are all flexibility.
[Talking about huge snips!]
>> >My degree doesn't matter; my opinion matters here, and it's ridiculous to
>> >bring this up. My degree is none of your business anyway.
>>
>> No. But I made it my business. If you don't want me to, and/or want to
>> hide your degree from us (yeah, I know, from me, but in doing so
>> you'll hide it from the rest of our audience...) that's fine with me.
>
>Now I do have a question, off topic really (has nothing to do with NATO
>Dwarfism) but is it me or is is it just a habit of the Dutch?
I am not the Dutch.
> I mean, a week ago or so somebody felt compelled to publish his grades in
>soc.culture.netherlands, apparently to support his case
He is also not the Dutch.
>and now another one is asking me to make public my degree
Even together we are still not the Dutch (though it IS a small
country, I agree.)
>as if that would change anything about the validity of my point? Degrees
>don't matter in any discussion, just opinions.
Agreed. What makes you believe I determine the value of your post on
the basis of your title (if any)? It is the other way around: I
thought I could comment on your academic title on the basis of what
you wrote. Perfectly legitimate, I would say. I hope the subject
'academic title' is not taboo for you. I tells something (read this
word again: SOMEthing) about how clever you are. PhD's cannot be
bought for fifteen bucks, you know. But then again, there are lots of
PhD's with silly thoughts and no feeling for cynicism.
Take me as an example.
>Or are you also infected with that
>typical calvinistic "holier-than-thou-attitude", that moral superiority that
>almost everybody seems to embrace in Holland?
You must know quite a lot of Dutch people to make this generalization.
Congratulations!
>I fear the day that I have to go there....
So how do you know us 'so well'?
I believe you may be pleasantly surprised here in The Netherlands.
Nice country, nice people, we pay our international fees, we take up
lots of migrants, poverty and harddrug addiction are extremely low,
same as violent crimes. But we DO like a strong discussion from time
to time.
>[Snip]
Cheers.
That's why I asked you to select and present the data yourself if you
use them as arguments. It helps to avoid misunderstandings.
>> they say, showing a sharp decrease by more than 20 %. The U.S. (9300
>> km2) have 260 million inhabitants, which is a meagre 28 inhabitants
>> per square km. To compare, The Netherlands (41.000 km2) have 15
>> million inhabitants and live with 452 inhabitants per square km (16
>> times more) and nevertheless take up 30.000 immigrants a year
> ^^^^^^
>But how many of them will be guaranteed citizenship; how many refugees
>does the Netherlands absorb?
>Anyway, per 1000 inhabitants the Netherlands grant 2 persons permanent
>residency per year, whereas the US is still granting 3 persons per 1000
>permanent residency, about 50% more than the Netherlands.
Three kinds of lies. Learn about them. Disraeli.
I said you should relate that number to the size of the country - not
merely its number of inhabitants. Would you say that a 1000 km2
country with 1000 inhabitants can absorb as many refugees as a 10.000
km2 country with the same number (1000) of inhabitants? No. That's why
I related it to the density of the population. That's a combined
statistic, agree, but not too hard to understand.
With 452 people per km2, we're pretty filled up here. Physical
borders, you see? Compare that to the U.S.
>You really only
>achieve that with less stringent immigration requirements and thus the US
>is more accessible. Don't you think?
No I don't think so. See above argument. And what's more, the U.S. has
a very different and highly relevant history: it is a melting pot of
immigrants and thus has many familiary links with other parts of the
world. That's why so many people are attracted to the U.S. as well:
because their family is already there or has been there for a long
time. You cannot do in 1996 as if this differenence in status quo of
the years 1995 and before does not exist.
>> (1993-1995). Would you still say that the U.S. is the most accessible
>> country, related to size?
> ^^^^
>Population density, you mean. As I show above, that depends on how you
>calculate the rate of immigration. I do not include population density,
>because I really wonder to what extend that influences the immigration
>proces. What you say is that for what Holland can have, they do a good
>job, but its immigration policy must be more stringent in order to keep
>it that way. We're getting a little closer to what I mean here, by the
>way.
>I would like to know from you how many applications for permanent
>residency/citizenship the Netherlands receive per year (let's say 1995),
>in order to find out what percentage of applicants really gets what they
>want.
Now I really have better things to do. You asserted U.S. was the most
accessible - you collect the proof. Relate it to density and see your
proof melt as snow in the sunshine.
>> I have heard that Germany was even more
>> accessible than The Netherlands, though I don't have precise numbers.
>> My case is anyway to say that too many more people believe their
>> country to be the most accessible in the world.
>
>Forget the Netherlands, when it comes to accessability.
Why? I live here. I won't forget about MY COUNTRY (chest up high)
And though the rules have become stricter in the past two years, and
though the liberals (that is, RIGHT wing in Dutch politics) fight it
with all their might, I still believe we allow comparable many
immigrants access to our paradise under the sun... errr rain.
>> >> >> >>The most americans are living in their
>> >> >> >>self made dream of drugs and crime.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You shouldn't give yourself away this fast ...
>> >> >> >Any other jokes you might have, ing. Jeroen?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Inadequate reply. Jeroen may exaggerate, but his argument
>> >> >> is valid that the U.S. has a VERY SERIOUS drug and poverty
>> >> >> problem. Also when compared to countries without capitalism
>> >> >> as its bible.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
>> >> >*exaggeration*.
>> >>
>> >> I agree with you ! (hooray) But that is exactly my point: Joe
>> >> addresses merely the exaggeration (I stated so) but not the argument
>> >> itself. That's why I call his reply inadequate (I avoided the word
>> >> 'cheap).
>> >
>> >Aha, but to what extend did he exaggerate? His generalizations were out
>> >of the ordinary. I can understand an American citizen would feel insulted
>> >by such crap, and I therefore understand that Joe reacted that way.
>>
>> Yes, and once an American citizen has recollected him/herself, he/she
>> writes an adequate response. I am still waiting. The underlying
>> argument (The U.S. have a serious drug and poverty problem) is still
>> valid The question was whether the U.S. is 'a good master to run to
>
>Nobody claimed that the US did *not* have a drugs and crime problem, and
>otherwise I really think you should take note of the fact that it was the
>way Van Dijk posed his problem that pissed people off.
See above. In the course of argument, you have become more
exaggerating regarding Van Dijk than Van Dijk ever was regarding the
U.S..
>> once Russia has become weaker as a protector of middle European
>> countries' (we almost forgot about that, didn't we?) and Jeroen tried
>> in his way to point out that the U.S. does not offer merely beds of
>> roses and mountains of gold and that maybe the middle European
>> countries should not unconditionally seek protection of the U.S. or
>> look at the U.S. as a role model..
>
>Middle European countries should do whatever they want to do. But frankly
>I don't think it's wrong to seek protection under the NATO.
Me neither ! We agree ! (open can of beer)
>By the way, wasn't it the US that had to be called in to initiate a peace
>proces in the Balkan???
Acquiring peace in former Yugoslavia has been a very complex matter. I
think it is a gross oversimplification to believe that it just took
simple participation of the U.S. to make the peace process going. The
U.S. simply threw in their weight (and I am happy that they did) but
this is more a matter of size (and a single negotiator) than of
quality. Anyway peace is still far, far away in former Yugoslavia.
'Only' the bombing has stopped. Temporarily.
>In other words, when it comes to security, there's not much else to look for
>besides the US. Do you know any better alternative?
Yes, call me naive, but I still believe in the possibility of a UN
super police force. The U.S. can participate, of course, I would love
them to, but they really should pay their contribution in time.
Karel Stokkermans
In article <Pine.SV4.3.94.961206...@hsc.usc.edu>,
BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> writes:
> On 6 Dec 1996 danu...@coho.halcyon.com wrote:
[...]
> > Yeap! I also found it ironic for somebody from Holland to point fingers
> > at US and blaming us for major drug addiction. Is there a more liberal
> > developed country with regards to drug usage than Holland?
> Don't think so...
No. So? What do liberal laws w.r.t. drug *usage* have to do with the extent
of drug *abuse*? Relative numbers for drug addiction are higher in the States
than in the Netherlands. And how did the prohibition help curbing alcohol
abuse? It merely enriched the mafia.
Cheers,
Karel
--
-- Karel Stokkermans, RISC-Linz, Schloss Hagenberg, Austria, Europa
-- email: Karel.St...@risc.uni-linz.ac.at
-- url: http://info.risc.uni-linz.ac.at:70/1/people/kstokker
-- rsssf: http://info.risc.uni-linz.ac.at:70/0h/misc-info/rsssf/nersssf.html
"O hoe vergeefs / des doelmans hand / zich strekte naar de bal [ 21-6-88, ]
die 'een minuut / voor tijd de Duitse / doellijn kruiste..." [ J. Deelder ]
de Yeti
Karel Stokkermans wrote: [...]
Karel!
Welkom terug!
de Yeti
Gabor Barsai
In article <32acc35a...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>>besides the US. Do you know any better alternative?
>
>Yes, call me naive, but I still believe in the possibility of a UN
>super police force. The U.S. can participate, of course, I would love
>them to, but they really should pay their contribution in time.
>
>Amsterdam, The Netherlands
No, we can call you "stupid" or "unrealistic"; but naive, nah.
Gabor
Philippe
BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> kruispostte Blokkerig het onderstaande:
:>On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Didier Moens wrote:
:>> >Your opinion is indeed humble. I speak for myself in the first place
:>> >and - not so humbly - for the rest of this newsgroup's subscribers in
:>> >the second place. I am an individual who considers himself part of a
:>>
:>> [in-depth analysis of Bas' discussional merits (sic) snipped]
:>>
:>>
:>> You certainly have my vote ... :)
:>>
:>>
:>> My oh my ...
:>>
:>> It seems like I'm not the only one who doesn't wholeheartly agree with
:>> the way BJ compensates his questionnable lack of reading skills (or
:>> valid arguments contributing to the discussion, for that matter) with
:>> name-calling and childish ranting.
:>Ook goedkoop van je Moens; je laat eerst Michel Couzijns het vuile werk
:>opknappen (hetgeen hij overigens heel behoorlijk deed, wat nu niet direkt
:>betekent dat ik het met hem eens ben), kom jij met zo'n stemmingmakerig
:>kutalineaatje aankakken. EN HET IS NIET EENS LEUK, PUMMEL!!!!
:>Maar hou beschuldigingen als "questionable lack of reading skills" en
:>"childish ranting" maar voor je, want daar maak jij je m.i. veel meer
:>schuldig aan. Iemand die openlijk hetze-achtige acties onderneemt
:>zoals tegen Kees verdient het predikaat "volwassene" niet. Je hebt
:>fascistoide neigingen, Moens, 't is maar dat je het weet.
Het Blok-rijden van Vlaamse hersen-actiepotentialen neemt inderdaad
soms angstwekkende proporties aan. Je merkt vooral fasciculaire
browniaanse fascistoide wanorderlijke gedachten uit voort komen.
Jammer genoeg bestaan er geen echte fascistische staatsbestellen meer
ander kon men Moens daar effe voor een anti-stoffen-fok-kuur in een
van hun kampen sturen.
:>BeeJay.
Philippe
Michel Couzijn
Adriana C. Bruggeman <je...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu> wrote in article
<58hfge$4...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
> In article <Pine.SV4.3.94.96120...@hsc.usc.edu>,
> BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >Now I do have a question, off topic really (has nothing to do with NATO
> >Dwarfism) but is it me or is is it just a habit of the Dutch? I mean, a
> >week ago or so somebody felt compelled to publish his grades in
> >soc.culture.netherlands, apparently to support his case, and now another
> >one is asking me to make public my degree, as if that would change
> >anything about the validity of my point? Degrees don't matter in any
> >discussion, just opinions.
>
> Get that, Ania?
No, Ania did not get that, since she does not take part in this discussion.
It is
me who wites the contributions. I sign them with my own name. I am in fact
a secret agent from the U.S., the Polish name Ania Oleksik is my cover, and
I
pretend to be critical of the U.S. Up until now, no one noticed. You are
the first
to break my cover. Such a shame!
> > Or are you also infected with that typical
> >calvinistic "holier-than-thou-attitude", that moral superiority that
> >almost everybody seems to embrace in Holland?
>
> I feel that this is insulting towards Dutch people...
I can stand these insults only because I know who wrote them.
Specially since Bee admitted that he has never been here in The
Netherlands. Or at
least not for a long, long time.
Michel Couzijn AKA Ania Oleksik
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
BeeJay
On 10 Dec 1996, Michel Couzijn wrote:
> Adriana C. Bruggeman <je...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu> wrote in article
> <58hfge$4...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
> > In article <Pine.SV4.3.94.96120...@hsc.usc.edu>,
> > BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >Now I do have a question, off topic really (has nothing to do with NATO
> > >Dwarfism) but is it me or is is it just a habit of the Dutch? I mean, a
> > >week ago or so somebody felt compelled to publish his grades in
> > >soc.culture.netherlands, apparently to support his case, and now another
> > >one is asking me to make public my degree, as if that would change
> > >anything about the validity of my point? Degrees don't matter in any
> > >discussion, just opinions.
> >
> > Get that, Ania?
>
> No, Ania did not get that, since she does not take part in this discussion.
> It is
> me who wites the contributions. I sign them with my own name. I am in fact
> a secret agent from the U.S., the Polish name Ania Oleksik is my cover, and
> I
> pretend to be critical of the U.S. Up until now, no one noticed. You are
> the first
> to break my cover. Such a shame!
>
> > > Or are you also infected with that typical
> > >calvinistic "holier-than-thou-attitude", that moral superiority that
> > >almost everybody seems to embrace in Holland?
> >
> > I feel that this is insulting towards Dutch people...
>
> I can stand these insults only because I know who wrote them.
> Specially since Bee admitted that he has never been here in The
> Netherlands. Or at
> least not for a long, long time.
And BeeJay smiles (;-))))))))))))).
Rob Barends
In article <32AD7C1A...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
ig...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu says...
>
>Karel Stokkermans wrote: [...]
>
>Karel!
>Welkom terug!
Ha die Karel! En gefeliciteerd, Yeti!
>de Yeti
Rob
god almighty
BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
->Op 9 Dec 1996 kakte Didier Moens het onderstaande in o.a. SCN en SCB:
->> On 6 Dec 1996 17:24:08 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
->> >> Yep, as the Mexican would-be immigrants will be happy to confirm.
->> >
->> >Make that "will-be". There's also a steady flow of immigrants from the Far
->> >East. For more information and statistics about immigration I refer to
->> >the Website of the U.S. Dept. of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/).
->>
->> Yep. And I'll consult Mr. Fox if I want to start a chicken farm.
->Eh, was jij niet die figuur die anderen saai noemde? Je bent gewoon een
->impotente paardelul, Moens, en je hebt geen enkel gevoel humor. Wanneer
->zeg je nou eens *echt* iets leuks, Moens? En nou niet gaan zeuren dat het
->slap van me is om je nu te gaan uitschelden, want dat hooghartige geblaat
->van jou verdient deze reactie. En het is nog leuk ook!
->[Snip]
->> >> Didier Moens
->> >
->> >Oh dear, him again....
->>
->> You got a problem with that ?
->Oh nee hoor, je moet doen wat je niet laten kunt. Ik moet jou gewoon niet.
->> Oh, I forgot : NNTP is only for people sharing your views ; all others
->> are Nazi postmasters who want to limit freedom of speech.
->Jaja Moens, dat je een fout kereltje bent weten we al sinds de dag dat jij
->hier op een fascistisch-spastische wijze amok ging maken over goedbedoelde
->crossposts van Keizer Kees.
->BeeJay.
Ik moet Beejay helaas gelijk geven maar ik betwijfel of een
kloothommel uberhaupt wel hersenen heeft.
Misschien van wel want hij moet toch wel zijn vitale levensfunkties
laten coordinereren, of kan allen via hormonen? Maar voor humor is er
in ieder geval geen plaats.
God Almighty
Marek Konski
Ania Oleksik wrote:
>
> On 8 Dec 1996 21:29:01 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> (Michel Couzijn wrote:)
>
> >> I am an individual who considers himself part of a
> >> group and acknowledge there are some rules which apply to group
> >> membership. One of these unwritten rules, accepted by quite some
> >> people is that you don't call each other names when you suffer from a
> >> lack of arguments. I reminded us of that rule. The punishment for not
> >> playing by this rule is losing your status of serious discussant.
> >
> >Lack of arguments? Nonsense. By the way, for your information: the
> >unwritten rules you're talking about don't seem to be valid in
> >soc.culture.netherlands.
>
> Maybe they're not valid on the moon. I don't care. All I care for is
> that they are maintained in my correspondence. I am not responsible
> for the standards others wish to live and mail by.
>
> >And since when do *you* set standards for others how to respond?
>
> Since a long time. Since there is no higher institutions than us, poor
> individuals, setting the standars for our communicative behavior. No
> one has more AND no one has less rights to do this than I have - as
> long as I find sufficient support from others.
>
> >And may I remind you that I feel that Van Dijk's post was insulting
> >towards Americans?
>
> Yes you may. You have just done that.
>
Van Dijk is a looney who certainly needs some specialistic help.
Marek Konski
de Yeti
Karel Stokkermans wrote:
> > Het is Oeroeboeroe, vraag maar aan Karel.
>
> Natuurlijk. De vraag is alleen wel wat al die Roemenen hier mee moeten ;-).
Zie je dat, Hans van Zonneveld? Een volledig willekeurig neutraal
persoon, genaamd Karel, kennelijk zeer betrouwbaar, vindt ook dat
het Oeroeboeroe is. Dus laat die Barends nou maar lullen.
Q.E.D., vraag maar aan Kees.
de Yeti
de Yeti
In article <58l1hl$l...@news3.realtime.net>, rbar...@bga.com (Rob Barends)
wrote:
> [...]
Dat is fout.
Het is Oeroeboeroe, vraag maar aan Karel.
de Yeti
Philippe
ig...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu (de Yeti) kruispostte het
onderstaande:
:>In article <58l1hl$l...@news3.realtime.net>, rbar...@bga.com (Rob Barends)
:>wrote:
:>> [...]
OeHoeboeroe is het,
of heb je *nog* een essentiele eiwit ontdekt, Yeti ?
:>de Yeti
Philippe
de Yeti
Philippe wrote:
> of heb je *nog* een essentiele eiwit ontdekt, Yeti ?
Ik begrijp nog steeds niet waar je over zeurt. Jij, als arts,
laat ik dat er dit keer even bijzeggen, komt aanzetten met
"essentiele eiwitten". Daar krijg je meerdere reacties op,
o.a. van mij en Jeaan, dat wij dan wel eens graag van je
zouden willen weten wat "essentiele eiwitten" zijn, want
tenslotte bestaan die niet. M.i. had je gewoon iets verkeerds
gezegd. Kan gebeuren natuurlijk, doet iedereen wel eens, zelfs
Kees(*), maar ipv dat gewoon toe te geven doe je net alsof,
hardschreeuwend, jij dat allmeaal zo opgezet
had en dat je ons er in hebt geluisd. En ondertussen, zoals
bovenstaande kwoot aantoont, ga je nu mij die uitspraak van
de "essentiele eiwitten" in de mond schuiven, en dat nog wel
met nieuw publiek (s.c.b), zodat die lekker een verkeerde
indruk krijgen. Mooi is dat, dat manipuleren van jou.
En indien ik er dan werkelijk 'ingeluisd' zou zijn, dan
verneem ik graag van je, waar dat is gebeurd en waarom,
want dat begrijp ik dus echt niet.
de Yeti
(*) "Verdomd, de Yeti heeft recht" - Kees van den Doel, 1994
Rob Barends
In article <32AECFC8...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
>>
;-).
>
>Zie je dat, Hans van Zonneveld? Een volledig willekeurig neutraal
>persoon, genaamd Karel, kennelijk zeer betrouwbaar, vindt ook dat
>het Oeroeboeroe is. Dus laat die Barends nou maar lullen.
>Q.E.D., vraag maar aan Kees.
Laat je niet opnaaien, Hans. Karel is geen "volledig willekeurig
neutraal persoon" maar een ouwe holmaat van de harige Yeti.
>de Yeti
Rob
Rob Barends
In article <ignaz-101...@ts23-2.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
ig...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu says...
>
>In article <58l1hl$l...@news3.realtime.net>, rbar...@bga.com (Rob Barends)
>wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
>Dat is fout.
Kijk, sneeuwbal, daarom zei ik nou "Gefeliciteerd, Yeti" in een
vorige pots.
>de Yeti
Rob (wedden dat ik het hem niet eens _hoef_ te vragen ?)
Rob Barends
In article <58mhov$p...@alijku04.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>,
ksto...@risc.uni-linz.ac.at says...
>
>In article <ignaz-101...@ts23-2.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
>
>> In article <58l1hl$l...@news3.realtime.net>, rbar...@bga.com (Rob
Barends)
>> wrote:
>
>> > [...]
>
>> Dat is fout.
>> Het is Oeroeboeroe, vraag maar aan Karel.
>
;-).
Zie je wel...zie je wel...ongevraagde bijval.
>Karel
Rob (die de Roemenen gisteren al had gesnipt)
Philippe
de Yeti <ig...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu> kruispostte wel het
onderstaande omdat ie zich verdomd verneukt voelde :
:>Philippe wrote:
:>> of heb je *nog* een essentiele eiwit ontdekt, Yeti ?
:>Ik begrijp nog steeds niet waar je over zeurt. Jij, als arts,
:>laat ik dat er dit keer even bijzeggen, komt aanzetten met
:>"essentiele eiwitten".
Nooit van een bananeschil gehoord, Yeti ?
:>Daar krijg je meerdere reacties op,
:>o.a. van mij en Jeaan,
*enkel* van Jeaan en van je.
Niet manipuleren, hoor, Yeti !
:>dat wij dan wel eens graag van je
:>zouden willen weten wat "essentiele eiwitten" zijn, want
:>tenslotte bestaan die niet.
Als ik je een stront onder de voeten zet, en je d'er grandioos
intrapt, dan moet je niet gaan bl'eren dat je schoenen stinken.
Je moest maar beter uitkijken.
:>M.i. had je gewoon iets verkeerds gezegd.
M.i. heb je me ietsjes *te* serieus opgevat, maar enfin...
:> Kan gebeuren natuurlijk, doet iedereen wel eens, zelfs
:>Kees(*),
Jaja ouwe kees-koeien, dat weet ik ook wel.
Moet je echt nu Domineetje met mij gaan spelen?
:>maar ipv dat gewoon toe te geven doe je net alsof,
:>hardschreeuwend,
never used any capitals, my dear...
:>jij dat allemaal zo opgezet
:>had en dat je ons er in hebt geluisd.
Zou misschien ook nog inderdaad zo kunnen zijn?
:> En ondertussen, zoals
:>bovenstaande kwoot aantoont, ga je nu mij die uitspraak van
:>de "essentiele eiwitten" in de mond schuiven, en dat nog wel
:>met nieuw publiek (s.c.b), zodat die lekker een verkeerde
:>indruk krijgen.
esse, Yeti, esse, non videri !
(zijn, Yeti, zijn, niet blijken)
De Tarpe-ische rots ligt naast het Capitool...
of
hoge bomen vangen veel wind...
:>Mooi is dat, dat manipuleren van jou.
Mooi? weet ik niet, wel heb ik hartelijk moeten lachen dat je daarin
met beide voeten in getrapt bent...
:>En indien ik er dan werkelijk 'ingeluisd' zou zijn, dan
:>verneem ik graag van je, waar dat is gebeurd en waarom,
:>want dat begrijp ik dus echt niet.
Als ik een grap maak in een serieuze (?) draad over vega's en dat je
die grap niet door hebt, daar kan ik er echt niets aan doen.
Beken dat jij en Jeaan gewoon uitgegleden zijn op mijn bananeschil.
Maar daar ben je te trots voor.
Drink dan die bittere beker tot de bodem ...
Yeti Yeti Lamma Sabachtani,
ik ken je (en apprecieer je trouwens, misschien meer dan je denkt) al
langer.
Ik ken je hoge wetenschapsgraad en concomiterende hoge graad van
nerdiciteit. Daarom vond ik het extra leuk om je effe goed te grazen
te nemen door opzettelijk met pseudo-wetenschappelijke lul-toestanden
zoals "essentiele eiwitten" aan te komen draven.
Als arts heb ik ook lessen in biochemie gehad...
En dat Jeaan (die ook geen domme is) er eveneens ingestonken is, dat
maakte voor mij twee vliegen in een klap. Zoveel had ik nooit gehoopt.
sans rancune ?
Dit was toch een spel...
Gebruik je lachspieren ietsje *vaker*...
:>de Yeti
:>(*) "Verdomd, de Yeti heeft recht" - Kees van den Doel, 1994
hartelijke groeten,
Philippe
de Yeti
Philippe wrote:
> :>Daar krijg je meerdere reacties op,
> :>o.a. van mij en Jeaan,
>
> *enkel* van Jeaan en van je.
En Gerard en Katinka en Nogiemand.
> Niet manipuleren, hoor, Yeti !
Nee, dat laat ik aan jou over.
> :>M.i. had je gewoon iets verkeerds gezegd.
>
> M.i. heb je me ietsjes *te* serieus opgevat, maar enfin...
???
Zoals ik het las stond "essentiele eiwitten" daar heel serieus.
En ik zou aan jou dan ook graag willen vragen of jij mij de
'grap' uit zou kunnen leggen, want mijn minimale brein snapt um
niet. De 'grap' die jij maakte was deze:
" Zou het moeten of willen missen van essentiele eiwitten die in het
" vlees aanwezig zijn de schreeuwerigheid gevolg van het fanatisme
" van sommige vega's in de hand werken ?
Afgezien van het feit dat je in die zin vegetariers bewust wilt
beledigen, zie ik de grap van "essentiele eiwitten" dus nog
steeds niet in. Vandaar dus ook mijn reactie:
" Er zijn geen essentiele eiwitten in vlees die niet ook in
" vegetarisch voedsel zitten. Kom maar eens met een naam aanzetten
" van zo'n eiwit dat jij bedoelt.
> Als ik een grap maak in een serieuze (?) draad over vega's en dat je
> die grap niet door hebt, daar kan ik er echt niets aan doen.
Vandaar dus dat ik wederom aan je vraag om de 'grap' aan mij uit
te leggen, want ik snap um blijkbaar niet. En gelieve niet nogmaals
ontwijkend te antwoorden.
> Beken dat jij en Jeaan gewoon uitgegleden zijn op mijn bananeschil.
Ik vermoed dat Jeaan, Gerard, Katinka en ik allemaal gewoon een
foutje in jouw tekst hebben aangewezen. Niets anders.
Jij bent degene die daarna dat foutje mij in de schoenen
probeert te schuiven, en dat vind ik dus wat ondermaats van je.
("[] of heb je *nog* een essentiele eiwit ontdekt, Yeti ?")
Tenzij je gewoon uit kunt leggen hoe goed die 'grap' van je was.
Misschien kan ik er dan ook om lachen?
> Ik ken je hoge wetenschapsgraad en concomiterende hoge graad van
> nerdiciteit.
Mijn score in de nerdtest is anders maar een schamele 77/200.
> Daarom vond ik het extra leuk om je effe goed te grazen
> te nemen door opzettelijk met pseudo-wetenschappelijke lul-toestanden
> zoals "essentiele eiwitten" aan te komen draven.
Jaja, volgens mij zit je gewoon je eigen fout te verdoezelen.
Leuk geprobeerd hoor, maar wel een zwakke smoes.
> Als arts heb ik ook lessen in biochemie gehad...
Vandaar dus ook dat ik aankwam met die opmerking. Als een of andere
willekeurige onbenul met "essentiele eiwitten" die in vlees zouden
zitten zou komen aanzetten dan had ik waarschijnlijk niet eens
gereageerd. Tenzij het Rob Barends was, natuurlijk.
> sans rancune ?
> Dit was toch een spel...
Geen rancunes, nee, maar ik ben nog steeds benieuwd naar je uitleg
van de 'grap'.
de Yeti
danu...@coho.halcyon.com
Karel Stokkermans <ksto...@risc.uni-linz.ac.at> wrote:
>
>No. So? What do liberal laws w.r.t. drug *usage* have to do with the extent
>of drug *abuse*?
I guess once you make it legal, *abuse* becomes a simple *use*, eh?
But I think this topic has very little relavency to most of the news
groups it's propogated, so how about removing them from future postings?
Joe
BeeJay
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Ania Oleksik wrote:
> On 8 Dec 1996 21:29:01 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> (Michel Couzijn wrote:)
>
> >> I am an individual who considers himself part of a
> >> group and acknowledge there are some rules which apply to group
> >> membership. One of these unwritten rules, accepted by quite some
> >> people is that you don't call each other names when you suffer from a
> >> lack of arguments. I reminded us of that rule. The punishment for not
> >> playing by this rule is losing your status of serious discussant.
> >
> >Lack of arguments? Nonsense. By the way, for your information: the
> >unwritten rules you're talking about don't seem to be valid in
> >soc.culture.netherlands.
>
> Maybe they're not valid on the moon. I don't care. All I care for is
> that they are maintained in my correspondence. I am not responsible
> for the standards others wish to live and mail by.
O, so why make a big fuss about it anyway???
> >And since when do *you* set standards for others how to respond?
>
> Since a long time. Since there is no higher institutions than us, poor
> individuals, setting the standars for our communicative behavior. No
> one has more AND no one has less rights to do this than I have - as
> long as I find sufficient support from others.
You don't set my standards, dear, that's up to me. There's no way that
you're are going to tell me how to respond in this thread, forget it.
You have the right to say you don't like my response, but that's it.
Otherwise it's up to me how to respond.
> >And may I remind you that I feel that Van Dijk's post was insulting
> >towards Americans?
>
> Yes you may. You have just done that.
>
> > Do you actually see that?
>
> Playing the 'murdered innocence' is not your strongest point (I get
> personal here for having a lack of arguments.)
Hohoho, I truly think that you forget that I reacted to Van Dijk's post
because I was utterly pissed. No hard feelings otherwise.
> >> >> be frustrated? He's just hot-tempered, and he may be wrong. But
> >> >> there's no reason to attribute any vile motives to his opinion. Can
> >> >> you remain reasonable?
> >> >
> >> >He was hot-tempered, you can say that. I responded in a reasonable
> >> >fashion (i.e. I could have been far more aggressive), and I have the
> >> >right to respond the way I did, so don't complain.
> >>
> >> Yes I will complain. I don't understand your 'right' to respond the
> >> way you did. Can you read me my rights? Do I have a right to complain
> >> about your forbidding me to complain? Can you give me the URL-code
> >> to a list of rights that you and I have?
> >
> >I have the right to respond the way I did. I will use the same cheap way
> >out as you: it's an unwritten rule.
>
> Why follow my bad example? Have nothing better to offer?
>
> > Or perhaps it is not: it's called freedom of speech here in the US.
>
> And it's called impoliteness, disrespect and utter barbary here in the
> rest of the world. Hide behind your iron curtain made of excuses.
Ehm, don't you think Van Dijk's post was impolite and disrespectful? Why
do I get your critique, and not he? Because I defend the US? I reject your
use of the words "utter barbary", that's out of the ordinary.
> We don't have freedom of speech here. We are bound by our civilization
> and social behaviour. Sorry of this is different for you.
The Netherlands? Civilization??? Hahahahahaha!!! But read on, I know
what I'm talking about.
> >As I do acknowledge that Van Dijk is
> >allowed to dump his insulting bullshit on the Internet; I only hope that
> >he will realize that he has to think twice before exaggerating to the
> >extend that he's actually attributing vile motives to American politics
> >with regard to international security.
> >Don't you see that, Couzijns?
>
> You have just spelt my name wrong. "Can you actually read?"
> Because you seem keen on convincing my just how much Jeroen has
> insulted the poor American people, and because I like you so much, I
> have recollected just what Jeroen said about the U.S.:
>
> >USA is backrupt [and does not] pay its contributions to the international organisations
But still existing, and I dare say that the US should pay its contribution
*after* the UN has recollected itself; it's a mess, administratively and
also, as a result, financially. I think it is just fair of the US to ask
the UN *first* to clean up its act before the US will pay. The Netherlands
should do that too (;-))). I also refer to Marek's reply here with regard
to the use of the word "bankrupt".
> >Those former superpowers are timebombs.
Mmmm, Russia, China? But in case of the US... what a bullshit.
> >The Americans and CNN think that they are the rulers of the world
Not happily, though. The general feeling among the people here is that
the US should withdraw from *expensive* international peacekeeping efforts
as long as others can take care of that. Just because...
> >The americans have enough problems backhome....
that should be taken care of.
That's something Van Dijk apparently (and you, I take it; correct me if
I'm wrong) don't know or refuse to acknowledge.
> >The americans livings standards is only good for the companies and the rich people.
That's nonsense. No other words for that.
> >The most americans are living in their self made dream of drugs and crime.
There's a lot of drugs and crime, but here it is suggested that the
Americans don't realize that themselves. Read any American newspaper, or
watch the News on TV, and you can only come to the conclusion that they
damn well know what's going on in their own backyard.
> >The USA have a vote right membership, but don't have the money to pay its contribution.
I think the US will have the money if they want to.
Nicely recollected, but the context in which Van Dijk put it was
definitely different.
> And I really have a hard time imagining why an American would be
> insulted. Are you easily insulted, Bee? In that case you don't seem to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Depends. Not by you, in any case.
> apply the same rules to others as you wish others to apply to you.
> Seems to me that Jeroen is mostly pissed that big mouth America
> (oops.. here *I* go insulting - you really have to walk tiptoe for Big
> Brother] does not pay its UN membership fee. And that he does not
> regard the U.S. as a very prosperous state, role model for other
> countries seeking protection (that's what it was about, remember?)
> He clearly sees the distance between the American Dream and the
> American Reality (serious drug and poverty problems) from which many
> Americans suffer (that is NOT the same as 'participate in').
But since I participate in American daily life, read the newspaper and
keep up with what's happening around me, I dare say I'm qualified to
criticize what somebody else, who doesn't know what he's talking about,
and certainly is not able to put things in perspective, dumps here. Once
agian (how many times would you like me to repeat this???), nobody denied
that there's a drugs and poverty problem in the US.
> You lose your case of the insulting Jeroen, I'm afraid. I wonder why
> you had such a strong tendency to interprete his words so negatively.
> Is it something in you, Bee?
I don't think so; Van Dijk was showing off in a grossly exaggerating and
generalizing way that at least I consider insulting. Therefore you be
referred to his initial post. Had definitely a different tone from what
you want me to believe.
> >> This is not about rights, Bee, this is about rules on how we should
> >> treat each other as discussants. If I think you are unreasonable (by
> >> attributing vile motives to Jeroen's opinions}, I will tell you that.
> >
> >Fine, you tell me that (that's your "unwritten" right).
>
> I am glad you understood. Do something with it.
You tell me whatever you want, it's up to me whether I will do something
with it or not.
> >> The idea that you could have been more aggressive (i.e. transgress the
> >> borders more than you did) does not make your response reasonable,
> >> alas.
> >
> >Well, we will never agree on this one, I'm afraid.
>
> Well, what could be the reason for this? Must be stubbornness from my
> side, since you are all flexibility.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you! I like compliments (;-)))))).
> [Talking about huge snips!]
>
> >> >My degree doesn't matter; my opinion matters here, and it's ridiculous to
> >> >bring this up. My degree is none of your business anyway.
> >>
> >> No. But I made it my business. If you don't want me to, and/or want to
> >> hide your degree from us (yeah, I know, from me, but in doing so
> >> you'll hide it from the rest of our audience...) that's fine with me.
> >
> >Now I do have a question, off topic really (has nothing to do with NATO
> >Dwarfism) but is it me or is is it just a habit of the Dutch?
>
> I am not the Dutch.
> > I mean, a week ago or so somebody felt compelled to publish his
> >grades in
> >soc.culture.netherlands, apparently to support his case
>
> He is also not the Dutch.
>
> >and now another one is asking me to make public my degree
>
> Even together we are still not the Dutch (though it IS a small
> country, I agree.)
>
> >as if that would change anything about the validity of my point? Degrees
> >don't matter in any discussion, just opinions.
>
> Agreed. What makes you believe I determine the value of your post on
> the basis of your title (if any)? It is the other way around: I
> thought I could comment on your academic title on the basis of what
> you wrote. Perfectly legitimate, I would say. I hope the subject
From your post I just got that impression. I personally am not interested
in anyone's degree, because that simply does not matter in a discussion.
Since I have seen this degree-and-grades stuff before in SCN, it started
to irritate me.
> 'academic title' is not taboo for you. I tells something (read this
> word again: SOMEthing) about how clever you are. PhD's cannot be
> bought for fifteen bucks, you know. But then again, there are lots of
> PhD's with silly thoughts and no feeling for cynicism.
> Take me as an example.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your words, not mine (;-).
> >Or are you also infected with that
> >typical calvinistic "holier-than-thou-attitude", that moral superiority that
> >almost everybody seems to embrace in Holland?
>
> You must know quite a lot of Dutch people to make this generalization.
> Congratulations!
>
> >I fear the day that I have to go there....
>
> So how do you know us 'so well'?
>
> I believe you may be pleasantly surprised here in The Netherlands.
> Nice country, nice people, we pay our international fees, we take up
> lots of migrants, poverty and harddrug addiction are extremely low,
> same as violent crimes. But we DO like a strong discussion from time
> to time.
Hahaha, I apparently fooled you here. I am Dutch!!! Lived there for more
than 24 years, and I'm about to return, to my dislike.
And above all, the Netherlands is overorganized, individuals don't count
because you belong to a group, the government is constantly breathing in
your neck, there's too much social control, etc, etc. And the people are
rude! Don't talk about civilization, please. And I haven't even brought up
the behaviour of the Dutch in Indonesia during the colonial days, and the
fact that many Dutch people didn't seem to be disturbed by the deportation
of Jews in World War II. But let's not go off topic...
Ahem, if you could find the 800000 figure, you could also have seen on the
very same page the other numbers. You're not a child.
> >> they say, showing a sharp decrease by more than 20 %. The U.S. (9300
> >> km2) have 260 million inhabitants, which is a meagre 28 inhabitants
> >> per square km. To compare, The Netherlands (41.000 km2) have 15
> >> million inhabitants and live with 452 inhabitants per square km (16
> >> times more) and nevertheless take up 30.000 immigrants a year
> > ^^^^^^
> >But how many of them will be guaranteed citizenship; how many refugees
> >does the Netherlands absorb?
> >Anyway, per 1000 inhabitants the Netherlands grant 2 persons permanent
> >residency per year, whereas the US is still granting 3 persons per 1000
> >permanent residency, about 50% more than the Netherlands.
>
> Three kinds of lies. Learn about them. Disraeli.
^^^^
Oh, we're getting unfriendly here. There's actually no lie in the numbers
I give, dear.
> I said you should relate that number to the size of the country - not
> merely its number of inhabitants. Would you say that a 1000 km2
> country with 1000 inhabitants can absorb as many refugees as a 10.000
> km2 country with the same number (1000) of inhabitants? No. That's why
> I related it to the density of the population. That's a combined
> statistic, agree, but not too hard to understand.
Here you hit the nail yourself, Couzijn. I was talking about
accessibility, whereas you seem only to present data why your country
(which unfortunately also happens to be my country) can't be as
accessible, and not accessability itself.
> With 452 people per km2, we're pretty filled up here. Physical
> borders, you see? Compare that to the U.S.
That's why the US is more accessible? There are many other things to be
considered when it comes to immigration, not just size of a country.
> >You really only
> >achieve that with less stringent immigration requirements and thus the US
> >is more accessible. Don't you think?
>
> No I don't think so. See above argument. And what's more, the U.S. has
> a very different and highly relevant history: it is a melting pot of
> immigrants and thus has many familiary links with other parts of the
> world. That's why so many people are attracted to the U.S. as well:
> because their family is already there or has been there for a long
> time. You cannot do in 1996 as if this differenence in status quo of
> the years 1995 and before does not exist.
Oops, we will not agree on the accessability issue. But that there is a
difference between the past and now is true. Although it has been
predicted in the press here that the immigration figures for the year 1996
will be way up.
> >> (1993-1995). Would you still say that the U.S. is the most accessible
> >> country, related to size?
> > ^^^^
> >Population density, you mean. As I show above, that depends on how you
> >calculate the rate of immigration. I do not include population density,
> >because I really wonder to what extend that influences the immigration
> >proces. What you say is that for what Holland can have, they do a good
> >job, but its immigration policy must be more stringent in order to keep
> >it that way. We're getting a little closer to what I mean here, by the
> >way.
> >I would like to know from you how many applications for permanent
> >residency/citizenship the Netherlands receive per year (let's say 1995),
> >in order to find out what percentage of applicants really gets what they
> >want.
>
> Now I really have better things to do. You asserted U.S. was the most
> accessible - you collect the proof. Relate it to density and see your
> proof melt as snow in the sunshine.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bullshit. See my previous answer.
Mmmm, afraid that in the long run I might be right, Couzijn? Pretty weak
of you not to provide me with those figures, because if we could say that
the percentage of applicants that really will be granted permanent
residency is higher in the US or the Netherlands.... well, I guess you
understand what I'm aiming at.
For your information: 1 out of 11 Americans is *foreign* born (in L.A.
County alone, 1 out of 3 is foreign born). Just a figure for you to think
about.
> >> I have heard that Germany was even more
> >> accessible than The Netherlands, though I don't have precise numbers.
> >> My case is anyway to say that too many more people believe their
> >> country to be the most accessible in the world.
> >
> >Forget the Netherlands, when it comes to accessability.
>
> Why? I live here. I won't forget about MY COUNTRY (chest up high)
> And though the rules have become stricter in the past two years, and
> though the liberals (that is, RIGHT wing in Dutch politics) fight it
> with all their might, I still believe we allow comparable many
> immigrants access to our paradise under the sun... errr rain.
Yikes, you're nationalist!
Nonsense.
> >> once Russia has become weaker as a protector of middle European
> >> countries' (we almost forgot about that, didn't we?) and Jeroen tried
> >> in his way to point out that the U.S. does not offer merely beds of
> >> roses and mountains of gold and that maybe the middle European
> >> countries should not unconditionally seek protection of the U.S. or
> >> look at the U.S. as a role model..
> >
> >Middle European countries should do whatever they want to do. But frankly
> >I don't think it's wrong to seek protection under the NATO.
>
> Me neither ! We agree ! (open can of beer)
>
> >By the way, wasn't it the US that had to be called in to initiate a peace
> >proces in the Balkan???
>
> Acquiring peace in former Yugoslavia has been a very complex matter. I
> think it is a gross oversimplification to believe that it just took
> simple participation of the U.S. to make the peace process going. The
> U.S. simply threw in their weight (and I am happy that they did) but
> this is more a matter of size (and a single negotiator) than of
> quality. Anyway peace is still far, far away in former Yugoslavia.
> 'Only' the bombing has stopped. Temporarily.
You forget to add though, that the EU was hopelessly divided on
Yugoslavia, and therefore didn't seem to be able to achieve anything
there. It was not until after the US had thrown in its weight, things
started to move in the right direction; and the EU followed like a
slave... But yes, the situation is far from ideal, that's obvious.
> >In other words, when it comes to security, there's not much else to look for
> >besides the US. Do you know any better alternative?
>
> Yes, call me naive, but I still believe in the possibility of a UN
> super police force. The U.S. can participate, of course, I would love
> them to, but they really should pay their contribution in time.
See the above. I only hope the UN could regain something of its
effectiveness.
> Michel Couzijn
> Amsterdam, The Netherlands
BeeJay
Los Angeles, California.
Blurp!
Rob Barends
In article <32AF40C4...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
ig...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu says...
>
>Philippe wrote:
[ duizenden druilerige letters gesnipt ]
>Vandaar dus ook dat ik aankwam met die opmerking. Als een of andere
>willekeurige onbenul met "essentiele eiwitten" die in vlees zouden
>zitten zou komen aanzetten dan had ik waarschijnlijk niet eens
>gereageerd. Tenzij het Rob Barends was, natuurlijk.
Leuk Yeti. En zo duidelijk gesteld dat er geen uitleg nodig is.
>> sans rancune ?
>> Dit was toch een spel...
>Geen rancunes, nee, maar ik ben nog steeds benieuwd naar je uitleg
>van de 'grap'.
Jullie staan alletwee voor paal op dit moment. Gewoon ophouden, is
mijn advies. En vooral mij er buiten laten, dankjewel.
>de Yeti
Rob
T.M.Lutas
In article <32a699e8...@news.xs4all.nl>, aole...@xs4all.nl (Ania
Oleksik) wrote:
> On 4 Dec 1996 01:35:22 GMT, danu...@coho.halcyon.com () wrote:
>
> >>The americans livings standards is only good for the
> >>companies and the rich people.
> >
> >I wonder why then everybody wants to come here. They should really talk
> >to you first.
>
> By far, the rest of the world would NOT want to live in the U.S.
> Take me as an example.
Please lower your dosage of decriminalized heroin, it's affecting your
thinking. One of *the* hot button political topics in the US is what to
do with all the illegal immigrants. The immigration police are swamped
with the caseload and Congress is gearing up an investigation into the
possible tampering with official statistics by Clinton officials in
order to hide the magnitude of the immigration problem. Of course if
we weren't so government heavy immigration wouldn't be a problem but
that's a completely different conversation.
> >>The most americans are living in their
> >>self made dream of drugs and crime.
> >
> >You shouldn't give yourself away this fast ...
> >Any other jokes you might have, ing. Jeroen?
>
> Inadequate reply. Jeroen may exaggerate, but his argument
> is valid that the U.S. has a VERY SERIOUS drug and poverty
> problem. Also when compared to countries without capitalism
> as its bible.
Unfortunately, the poverty progress that had been made for almost a
hundred years of steady, incremental reduction in poverty rates ended
three years after Lyndon Johnson declared "war on poverty". over thirty
years later and the poverty rates still haven't budged. Socialism
doesn't work here either.
Romania, America, it doesn't matter where socialism is tried, it always
produces increased misery and an outstanding propaganda machine for
even more government.
DB
--
The Romanian Political Pages http://haven.ios.com/~dbrutus
Now available: The Romanian constitution in Romanian, an URL minder
Coming soon: A post-election edition
These posts are not official PNT-cd policy unless specifically marked as such.
Ania Oleksik
As far as I know, it was YOU who brought up the connection to Dutch
legislation on drugs abuse/usage (talking about ad hominem / tu quoque
arguments...) . See quote below. It's only fair that we defend
ourselves in the same fora that YOU used to make the Dutch society
suspect. Consider it a rectification to your posting.
>BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
>>*exaggeration*.
>Yeap! I also found it ironic for somebody from Holland to point fingers
>at US and blaming us for major drug addiction. Is there a more liberal
>developed country with regards to drug usage than Holland?
>
>Joe
But now the rectification has been published, I indeed agree to end
the discussion on this topic.
Karel Stokkermans
> Karel Stokkermans <ksto...@risc.uni-linz.ac.at> wrote:
> >No. So? What do liberal laws w.r.t. drug *usage* have to do with the extent
> >of drug *abuse*?
> I guess once you make it legal, *abuse* becomes a simple *use*, eh?
No, of course not. Abuse doesn't imply illegality, at least not in my
definition. Or wouldn't you agree that one can abuse alcohol? Moreover,
not all drug usage is legal in the Netherlands, but I'm not planning
to educate you on that issue.
> But I think this topic has very little relavency to most of the news
> groups it's propogated, so how about removing them from future postings?
Feel free.
Szia,
T.M.Lutas
In article <57v1jc$9...@dscomsa.desy.de>, Woj...@EMBL-Hamburg.DE (Wojtek
Rypniewski) wrote:
> In article <N.120296....@asd8-7.worldaccess.nl>,
dijk...@worldaccess.nl (Jeroen M.W. van Dijk) writes:
> |>
> |> [...] And why don't you middle european countries get an own defense
> |> organisation. As soon as the Russia becomes weak the first thing you do is
> |> looking for a new master (the USA).
> |>
>
> And why don't _you_ western European countries get your own defense
> organisation, rather than look for someone else (the USA) to defend you?
Just think, the WEU's performance in Bosnia could be repeated over, and
over, and over again. What a nightmare!
> As far as western Europe is concerned it only stands to gain by admiting
> central European countries into it's ranks. Assuming that NATO is
> primarily a military organisation rather than just for talking,
> squabbling, dithering and organising courses in molecular biology,
> admiting Poland and Hungary to NATO will double NATO's military
> potential in Europe. Apart from the Germans and the British, with strong
> martial traditions, who else is there in western Europe with enough guts
> (not just fancy equippment) or big enough to put up a good fight
> if necessary? NATO should snap up countries like Poland and Hungary
> while the Poles and the Magyars are still willing.
Agreed, though you might want to extend your list to add us poor humble
Romanians. We might be a sleeper on the list but leaving us out in the
cold would be a foolish move.
Karel Stokkermans
In article <58lvll$7...@fu-berlin.de>,
kat...@procyon.mpikg-teltow.mpg.de (Katinka van der Linden) writes:
> Adriana C. Bruggeman (je...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu) wrote:
> : Karel Stokkermans <ksto...@risc.uni-linz.ac.at> wrote:
> : [the maffia and enriched wheat flour]
> : Hee Karel! Das lang geleden. Welkom bak!
Nou, ik verschuil me eigenlijk in s.c.romanian tegenwoordig. En als
daar zo'n Amerikaanse Hongaar dan flauwekul over Nederland gaat
vertellen kan ik me natuurlijk maar moeilijk inhouden.
> Mooi. Kunnen we weer over voetbal beginnen. Hoe staat het met
> Austria these days?
Austria Klagenfurt? Austria Salzburg? Austria Wien? Austria Voesendorf?
Austria Tabak? Austria Graz?
En Hertha en Union gaan het dit jaar weer niet redden, merk ik wel.
Gruess Di',
de Yeti
Philippe wrote:
> :>> :>Daar krijg je meerdere reacties op,
> :>> :>o.a. van mij en Jeaan,
> :>>
> :>> *enkel* van Jeaan en van je.
>
> :>En Gerard en Katinka en Nogiemand.
>
> naderhand: 8eraf gelul...
Probeer je nou ook nog deze fout van je van je af te
schuiven? Zij hebben allen gereageerd op die fout van
je voordat je je fout ging verdoezelen. Dat is
gemakkelijk bewijsbaar. Dat is dus niet "enkel" Jeaan
en ik.
Maar ik heb geen zin in dit soort belachelijke
discussies. Mijns inziens laat je je hier kennen,
en als jij blijft vinden dat Jeaan en ik ergens
ingetrapt zijn, dan moet jij dat maar vinden, ik
wil je dat plezier niet ontnemen. Einde gezeur
van mijn kant.
de Yeti
Philippe
de Yeti <ig...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu> kruispostte het albuminoide
onderstaande:
:>Philippe wrote:
:>
:>> :>Daar krijg je meerdere reacties op,
:>> :>o.a. van mij en Jeaan,
:>>
:>> *enkel* van Jeaan en van je.
:>En Gerard en Katinka en Nogiemand.
naderhand: 8eraf gelul...
:>> Niet manipuleren, hoor, Yeti !
:>Nee, dat laat ik aan jou over.
maar doe je toch ...en niet een stiekum.
:>
:>> :>M.i. had je gewoon iets verkeerds gezegd.
:>>
:>> M.i. heb je me ietsjes *te* serieus opgevat, maar enfin...
:>???
:>Zoals ik het las stond "essentiele eiwitten" daar heel serieus.
*Moet* er echt altijd een smiley 8er zitten opdat je de witze door zou
hebben? Teleurstellend, Yeti...
:>En ik zou aan jou dan ook graag willen vragen of jij mij de
:>'grap' uit zou kunnen leggen, want mijn minimale brein snapt um
:>niet. De 'grap' die jij maakte was deze:
:>" Zou het moeten of willen missen van essentiele eiwitten die in het
:>" vlees aanwezig zijn de schreeuwerigheid gevolg van het fanatisme
:>" van sommige vega's in de hand werken ?
:>Afgezien van het feit dat je in die zin vegetariers bewust wilt
:>beledigen, zie ik de grap van "essentiele eiwitten" dus nog
:>steeds niet in. Vandaar dus ook mijn reactie:
:>" Er zijn geen essentiele eiwitten in vlees die niet ook in
:>" vegetarisch voedsel zitten. Kom maar eens met een naam aanzetten
:>" van zo'n eiwit dat jij bedoelt.
:>> Als ik een grap maak in een serieuze (?) draad over vega's en dat je
:>> die grap niet door hebt, daar kan ik er echt niets aan doen.
:>Vandaar dus dat ik wederom aan je vraag om de 'grap' aan mij uit
:>te leggen, want ik snap um blijkbaar niet. En gelieve niet nogmaals
:>ontwijkend te antwoorden.
Toe nou Yeti, maak je je zelf nog niet belachelijker dan strikt
nodig...
Hier de zonodig gevraagde decodering:
Heel die zin van me was gewoon om heel de toestand in het belachelijke
te trekken. Zowel het belachelijke van de vega's die zich menen te
moeten rechtvaardigen of zelfs apologetisch beginnen te missionneren
voor hun vleesderven, als de vleeseters die andersdenkenden als
soorten ketters willen doen doorgaan of zich gevictimiseerd voelen
door vermeende vega-terrorisme.
Voor mij mag iedereen eten wat ie wil, en niet eten wat ie niet wil.
Zo simpel is het. Als er eindeloos en oeverloos wordt geluld, kan een
grapje toch niet misplaatst zijn, zelfs zonder smileys.
Dat Jeaan en jezelf en naderhand enkele anderen het serieus opnamen
vind ik echt heel geestig. Het leggen van een bananeschil is bedoeld
(pardon Kees) om de andere d'erop te laten glijden. Om de Yeti te doen
uitglijden moet zoeits *heel goed* in elkaar geknutseld worden. Wees
blij dat ik echt mijn beste heb moeten doen opdat je niet zou merken
dat het lulkoek was. Dit is toch van mij uiteindelijk een hoog teken
van waardering van mij voor je en voor je kennis van zaken. Maar,
aanvaard in Keesnaam dat niemand perfect is en dat *iedereen* welles
in het ootje kan worden genomen.
:>
:>> Beken dat jij en Jeaan gewoon uitgegleden zijn op mijn bananeschil.
:>Ik vermoed dat Jeaan, Gerard, Katinka en ik allemaal gewoon een
:>foutje in jouw tekst hebben aangewezen. Niets anders.
Kom nou...
errarum humanum est, perseverare ergo diabolicum (zich vergissen is
menselijk, erin doorgaan is duivels)
:>Jij bent degene die daarna dat foutje mij in de schoenen
:>probeert te schuiven, en dat vind ik dus wat ondermaats van je.
Haha
ik vind je gevoel voor humor en nog meer voor zelfspot in deze onder
de maat die ik van je had verwacht.:-(
:>("[] of heb je *nog* een essentiele eiwit ontdekt, Yeti ?")
:>Tenzij je gewoon uit kunt leggen hoe goed die 'grap' van je was.
:>Misschien kan ik er dan ook om lachen?
Lach je ueberhaupt soms ? :-)
:>> Ik ken je hoge wetenschapsgraad en concomiterende hoge graad van
:>> nerdiciteit.
:>Mijn score in de nerdtest is anders maar een schamele 77/200.
Dat geloof ik niet.Moet veel hoger zijn. Doe de test nog es over.
Troost je: de mijne ligt rond de 30.
:>> Daarom vond ik het extra leuk om je effe goed te grazen
:>> te nemen door opzettelijk met pseudo-wetenschappelijke lul-toestanden
:>> zoals "essentiele eiwitten" aan te komen draven.
:>Jaja, volgens mij zit je gewoon je eigen fout te verdoezelen.
:>Leuk geprobeerd hoor, maar wel een zwakke smoes.
Kal maar verder raas...
:>
:>> Als arts heb ik ook lessen in biochemie gehad...
:>Vandaar dus ook dat ik aankwam met die opmerking. Als een of andere
:>willekeurige onbenul met "essentiele eiwitten" die in vlees zouden
:>zitten zou komen aanzetten dan had ik waarschijnlijk niet eens
:>gereageerd. Tenzij het Rob Barends was, natuurlijk.
Niet alleen is Rob Barends geen onbenul
maar *jij* had *beter* kunnen weten.
Ik lach me dubbel rot want het zijn juist de mensen die d'er *meer*
van afweten dan de modale potser in SCN die d'er in getrapt zijn.
En dan ook nog min of meer in de volgorde van de omvang van hun kennis
in de biochemie.
Doortrapt van me, he' ?!
Yeti toch... je bent noch ontmaagd noch ben je gecasteerd geworden.
Gewoon, voor een keer ben je met alle vier je sneeuwvoeten er
grandioos in getrapt, en je voel je op de koop toe op je pik
getrapt...
Je rotbui gaat wel over. Lach maar eens goed mee.
Aanvaard het onvermijdelijke van het "noodlot".
't Is toch geen wereldramp.
:>> sans rancune ?
:>> Dit was toch een spel...
:>Geen rancunes, nee, maar ik ben nog steeds benieuwd naar je uitleg
:>van de 'grap'.
zie supra
:>
:>de Yeti
proteinische en meest hartelijke groeten,
Philippe
die van essentiele eiwitgrappen houdt...
Philippe
rbar...@bga.com (Rob Barends) kruispostte het onderstaande:
:>In article <32AECFC8...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
:>ig...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu says...
:>>
:>>Karel Stokkermans wrote:
:>>
:>>> > Het is Oeroeboeroe, vraag maar aan Karel.
:>>>
:>>> Natuurlijk. De vraag is alleen wel wat al die Roemenen hier mee moeten
:>;-).
:>>
:>>Zie je dat, Hans van Zonneveld? Een volledig willekeurig neutraal
:>>persoon, genaamd Karel, kennelijk zeer betrouwbaar, vindt ook dat
:>>het Oeroeboeroe is. Dus laat die Barends nou maar lullen.
:>>Q.E.D., vraag maar aan Kees.
:>Laat je niet opnaaien, Hans. Karel is geen "volledig willekeurig
:>neutraal persoon" maar een ouwe holmaat van de harige Yeti.
Vertel es Rob, wat stak Karel in Yeti's hol ?
:>>de Yeti
:>Rob
Philippe
Rob Barends
In article <32B07D...@cad.canterbury.ac.nz>, jo...@cad.canterbury.ac.nz
says...
>Wat jij Jeaan? Je hebt wat gemist gisteren. Er was hier een heleboel
>kerstbier enzo.
Is dat rood en groen bier met ballen ?
>Ghost
Rob
de Yeti
(Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese wrote:
> > M.i. had je gewoon iets verkeerds
> > gezegd. Kan gebeuren natuurlijk, doet iedereen wel eens, zelfs
> > Kees(*), ..........
> <<snip>>
> > (*) "Verdomd, de Yeti heeft recht" - Kees van den Doel, 1994
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> DIT!!!!! is HET bewijs dat Kees ook wel eens een fout maakt?
Dat kwam zo. Ondergetekende wist al dat het Oeroeboeroe was,
een hoop ongeloof teweeg brengend. Kees zocht het toen op in
de echte originele Jean Dulieu boekjes die hij thuis heeft en
weldra gaat inscannen voor de ongelovigen en het resultaat van
die opzoeking was dus "Verdomd, de Yeti heeft recht", daarmee
het bewijs leverend voor de enige correcte schrijfwijze van
Oeroeboeroe. Het is dus Oeroeboeroe.
de Yeti
(Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese
de Yeti wrote:
> M.i. had je gewoon iets verkeerds
> gezegd. Kan gebeuren natuurlijk, doet iedereen wel eens, zelfs
> Kees(*), ..........
<<snip>>
> (*) "Verdomd, de Yeti heeft recht" - Kees van den Doel, 1994
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DIT!!!!! is HET bewijs dat Kees ook wel eens een fout maakt?
Nou dan weten we in iedergeval hoe het met jouw gevoel van
waarheid zit.
Dus: of Yeti zei oeHoeboeroe Kees beaamde dat!
en nu vindt Yeti dat een vergissing van Kees
of Yeti zei oeRoeboeroe en Kees beaamde dat en
nu vindt Yeti dat een vergissing van Kees.
of Yeti zei iets dat niks met uilen te maken had, Kees
bevestigt dat en Yeti geeft aan dat dit een vergissing
van Kees was, want Yeti zelf is immers is feilbaar.
dus: OeHoeboeroe is true!
Wat jij Jeaan? Je hebt wat gemist gisteren. Er was hier een heleboel
kerstbier enzo.
--
**************************************************
Ghost (00)
Joost Stenfert Kroese
Confederacy of Dunces against nucular testing
E-mail: Jo...@cad.canterbury.ac.nz
**************************************************
Kees van den Doel
In article <32b473ba.10316178@news>,
Hans van Zonneveld <han...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> > Het is Oeroeboeroe, vraag maar aan Karel.
>>> Natuurlijk. De vraag is alleen wel wat al die Roemenen hier mee moeten ;-).
>>Zie je dat, Hans van Zonneveld? Een volledig willekeurig neutraal
>>persoon, genaamd Karel, kennelijk zeer betrouwbaar, vindt ook dat
>>het Oeroeboeroe is. Dus laat die Barends nou maar lullen.
>>Q.E.D., vraag maar aan Kees.
>Hmm ik heb zelfs een deal met Kees gesloten als hij zijn deel
>nakomt dan zal het bewijs dat het Oeroe is snel boven water zijn.
OK, maar gaan de RECHTERS Philippe van Berends en Rob Schepens accoord
met dat dode Ovenvisje dat een Zilverling schijnt te zijn?
En verpak je die dode beestjes in het Parool, met name in de kolom van
Karin Huilebalker?
Kees
god almighty
aole...@xs4all.nl (Ania Oleksik) wrote:
->On 8 Dec 1996 21:29:01 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
->(Michel Couzijn wrote:)
->> I mean, a week ago or so somebody felt compelled to publish his grades in
->>soc.culture.netherlands, apparently to support his case
->He is also not the Dutch.
->>and now another one is asking me to make public my degree
->Even together we are still not the Dutch (though it IS a small
->country, I agree.)
->>as if that would change anything about the validity of my point? Degrees
->>don't matter in any discussion, just opinions.
->Agreed. What makes you believe I determine the value of your post on
->the basis of your title (if any)? It is the other way around: I
->thought I could comment on your academic title on the basis of what
->you wrote. Perfectly legitimate, I would say. I hope the subject
->'academic title' is not taboo for you. I tells something (read this
->word again: SOMEthing) about how clever you are. PhD's cannot be
->bought for fifteen bucks, you know. But then again, there are lots of
->PhD's with silly thoughts and no feeling for cynicism.
->Take me as an example.
Yeah, cool anotherone who makes publicity out of her stupid PhD.
->>Or are you also infected with that
->>typical calvinistic "holier-than-thou-attitude", that moral superiority that
->>almost everybody seems to embrace in Holland?
->You must know quite a lot of Dutch people to make this generalization.
->Congratulations!
Statistical proven.
->>I fear the day that I have to go there....
Don't.
->So how do you know us 'so well'?
->I believe you may be pleasantly surprised here in The Netherlands.
->Nice country, nice people, we pay our international fees, we take up
->lots of migrants, poverty and harddrug addiction are extremely low,
->same as violent crimes. But we DO like a strong discussion from time
->to time.
->>> >Ahum, now be careful, because there's plenty of information on the Net
->>> >supporting my case. For a start I would advice you to go to the Website of
->>> >the U.S. Dept. of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/), and then select the
->>> >Immigration and Naturalization Service. You can trust that
->>> >information, believe me.
Mark Twain said once: "You have big lies and statistics"
->>>
->>> I doubt whether the information presented there (next time be more
->>> specific which information you refer to - the Imm. & Nat. Service
->>> presents quite a lot!) supports your case. The average number of
->>> immigrants allowed to the U.S. is 800.000 a year from 1993 to 1995,
->> ^^^^^^^
->>Oh, that's funny. You forget to add that 500000 people a year (in
->>*addition* to the 800000 who were granted permanent residency) became
->>American citizens (many of them through marriage, which in the case of the
->>Netherlands does not guarantee citizenship, let alone permanent
->>residency; I've heard some really sad stories about that), and a 100000
->>refugees. Have to add though that many new citizens already have a Green
->>Card.
->That's why I asked you to select and present the data yourself if you
->use them as arguments. It helps to avoid misunderstandings.
->>> they say, showing a sharp decrease by more than 20 %. The U.S. (9300
->>> km2) have 260 million inhabitants, which is a meagre 28 inhabitants
->>> per square km. To compare, The Netherlands (41.000 km2) have 15
->>> million inhabitants and live with 452 inhabitants per square km (16
->>> times more) and nevertheless take up 30.000 immigrants a year
->> ^^^^^^
->>But how many of them will be guaranteed citizenship; how many refugees
->>does the Netherlands absorb?
It has nothing to do with the number of inhabitants per square miles.
In the Sahara, they have 125* less inhabitants per square mile and
they don't have any immigration only emi.
It has to do with the outside conditions. The human parameters are
playing a crucial role.
->>Anyway, per 1000 inhabitants the Netherlands grant 2 persons permanent
->>residency per year, whereas the US is still granting 3 persons per 1000
->>permanent residency, about 50% more than the Netherlands.
You cannot compare 2 total different economies, histories, etc with
each other.
->Three kinds of lies. Learn about them. Disraeli.
->I said you should relate that number to the size of the country - not
->merely its number of inhabitants. Would you say that a 1000 km2
->country with 1000 inhabitants can absorb as many refugees as a 10.000
->km2 country with the same number (1000) of inhabitants? No. That's why
->I related it to the density of the population.
Wrong the density is not a reason. It's not total irrelevant. But look
to the third world countries, the population is moving to the cities.
So they are moving where the density is the highest.
->statistic, agree, but not too hard to understand.
->With 452 people per km2, we're pretty filled up here. Physical
->borders, you see? Compare that to the U.S.
Wrong again. You are using statistics to back up your opinion.
But you have to use statistics to come to conclusions or opinions.
You are a manipulator.
->>You really only
->>achieve that with less stringent immigration requirements and thus the US
->>is more accessible. Don't you think?
->No I don't think so. See above argument. And what's more, the U.S. has
->a very different and highly relevant history: it is a melting pot of
->immigrants and thus has many familiary links with other parts of the
->world. That's why so many people are attracted to the U.S. as well:
->because their family is already there or has been there for a long
->time. You cannot do in 1996 as if this differenence in status quo of
->the years 1995 and before does not exist.
->>> (1993-1995). Would you still say that the U.S. is the most accessible
->>> country, related to size?
->> ^^^^
->>Population density, you mean. As I show above, that depends on how you
->>calculate the rate of immigration. I do not include population density,
->>because I really wonder to what extend that influences the immigration
->>proces. What you say is that for what Holland can have, they do a good
->>job, but its immigration policy must be more stringent in order to keep
->>it that way. We're getting a little closer to what I mean here, by the
->>way.
Pffffff. This is le népotisme du reasonnement personnel.
->>I would like to know from you how many applications for permanent
->>residency/citizenship the Netherlands receive per year (let's say 1995),
->>in order to find out what percentage of applicants really gets what they
->>want.
->Now I really have better things to do. You asserted U.S. was the most
->accessible - you collect the proof. Relate it to density and see your
->proof melt as snow in the sunshine.
Pfff. that wasn't proof in neither ways.
->>> I have heard that Germany was even more
->>> accessible than The Netherlands, though I don't have precise numbers.
->>> My case is anyway to say that too many more people believe their
->>> country to be the most accessible in the world.
->>
->>Forget the Netherlands, when it comes to accessability.
->Why? I live here. I won't forget about MY COUNTRY (chest up high)
->And though the rules have become stricter in the past two years, and
->though the liberals (that is, RIGHT wing in Dutch politics) fight it
->with all their might, I still believe we allow comparable many
->immigrants access to our paradise under the sun... errr rain.
->>> >> >> >>The most americans are living in their
->>> >> >> >>self made dream of drugs and crime.
->>> >> >> >
->>> >> >> >You shouldn't give yourself away this fast ...
->>> >> >> >Any other jokes you might have, ing. Jeroen?
->>> >> >>
->>> >> >> Inadequate reply. Jeroen may exaggerate, but his argument
->>> >> >> is valid that the U.S. has a VERY SERIOUS drug and poverty
->>> >> >> problem. Also when compared to countries without capitalism
->>> >> >> as its bible.
->>> >> >
->>> >> >Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
->>> >> >*exaggeration*.
->>> >>
->>> >> I agree with you ! (hooray) But that is exactly my point: Joe
->>> >> addresses merely the exaggeration (I stated so) but not the argument
->>> >> itself. That's why I call his reply inadequate (I avoided the word
->>> >> 'cheap).
->>> >
->>> >Aha, but to what extend did he exaggerate? His generalizations were out
->>> >of the ordinary. I can understand an American citizen would feel insulted
->>> >by such crap, and I therefore understand that Joe reacted that way.
->>>
->>> Yes, and once an American citizen has recollected him/herself, he/she
->>> writes an adequate response. I am still waiting. The underlying
->>> argument (The U.S. have a serious drug and poverty problem) is still
->>> valid The question was whether the U.S. is 'a good master to run to
->>
->>Nobody claimed that the US did *not* have a drugs and crime problem, and
->>otherwise I really think you should take note of the fact that it was the
->>way Van Dijk posed his problem that pissed people off.
->See above. In the course of argument, you have become more
->exaggerating regarding Van Dijk than Van Dijk ever was regarding the
->U.S..
->>> once Russia has become weaker as a protector of middle European
->>> countries' (we almost forgot about that, didn't we?) and Jeroen tried
->>> in his way to point out that the U.S. does not offer merely beds of
->>> roses and mountains of gold and that maybe the middle European
->>> countries should not unconditionally seek protection of the U.S. or
->>> look at the U.S. as a role model..
->>
->>Middle European countries should do whatever they want to do. But frankly
->>I don't think it's wrong to seek protection under the NATO.
->Me neither ! We agree ! (open can of beer)
->>By the way, wasn't it the US that had to be called in to initiate a peace
->>proces in the Balkan???
->Acquiring peace in former Yugoslavia has been a very complex matter. I
->think it is a gross oversimplification to believe that it just took
->simple participation of the U.S. to make the peace process going. The
->U.S. simply threw in their weight (and I am happy that they did) but
->this is more a matter of size (and a single negotiator) than of
->quality. Anyway peace is still far, far away in former Yugoslavia.
->'Only' the bombing has stopped. Temporarily.
->>In other words, when it comes to security, there's not much else to look for
->>besides the US. Do you know any better alternative?
->Yes, call me naive, but I still believe in the possibility of a UN
->super police force. The U.S. can participate, of course, I would love
->them to, but they really should pay their contribution in time.
->Michel Couzijn
->Amsterdam, The Netherlands
God Almighty
Katinka van der Linden
Karel Stokkermans (ksto...@risc.uni-linz.ac.at) wrote:
: > : Hee Karel! Das lang geleden. Welkom bak!
: Nou, ik verschuil me eigenlijk in s.c.romanian tegenwoordig. En als
: daar zo'n Amerikaanse Hongaar dan flauwekul over Nederland gaat
: vertellen kan ik me natuurlijk maar moeilijk inhouden.
en, is het daar nou ook al veeeeel gezelliger dan in scn, net als
blijkbaar in n.e.s.?
: > Mooi. Kunnen we weer over voetbal beginnen. Hoe staat het met
: > Austria these days?
: Austria Klagenfurt? Austria Salzburg? Austria Wien? Austria Voesendorf?
: Austria Tabak? Austria Graz?
oeps, ik kon me vagelijk herinneren dat we het de vorige keer over Austria
Wien gehad hebben, maar het is al een tijdje geleden...
: En Hertha en Union gaan het dit jaar weer niet redden, merk ik wel.
:
Ik heb laatst eens geprobeerd een Hertha-sjaaltje te kopen, als souvenir
voor mijn tijd in Berlijn of zo. Helaas, je kunt hier in Berlijn volop
sjaals, dekbedovertrekken, stropdassen etc. van Borussia Dortmund en
Bayern Muenchen kopen, maar niente van Hertha.
De Berlijners zijn van armoe ijshockey-fan geworden.
: Gruess Di',
: Karel
Tschuesschen,
Katinka
T.M.Lutas
In article <32af0196...@news.rug.ac.be>, Didier...@lmb.rug.ac.be
(Didier Moens) wrote:
> On 6 Dec 1996 17:24:08 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
> >Make that "will-be". There's also a steady flow of immigrants from the Far
> >East. For more information and statistics about immigration I refer to
> >the Website of the U.S. Dept. of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/).
>
> Yep. And I'll consult Mr. Fox if I want to start a chicken farm.
Ha! In the US the political pressure is on to reduce immigration, not to
bemoan the lack of immigrants. Lower immigration numbers are so politically
valuable that it is quite possible that the current Clinton administration
is guilty of cooking the books to reduce the figure in the paperwork. This
is a crime punishable by several years in prison. The idea that the
Justice department is cooking the books the other way is ludicrous.
I have helped several people over the years to get their papers legalized
and to make successful claims of asylum. The US system is overclogged with
immigrants of all types to the point where to get any decent service
out of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) you actually
have to call halfway across the country to quiet border posts at the
butt end of nowhere to actually get an intelligent human being on the
phone to answer basic questions. The major centers are that overwhelmed.
For those of us concerned with Romania (SCR is where the thread started)
we would like to improve conditions to the point where a mass out
migration is no longer the only sane option to an insane Romanian
government. With the election of Prof. Constantinescu as president and
the first non-communist dominated parliament since WW II we have
taken the first steps. There are some in western Europe who see America
as some evil monster to be bashed at every turn, unfortunately, this
fashion seems to be spreading among a small number of my own co-ethnics.
For shame! The steps we have made towards freedom wouldn't have been
possible without America, they certainly were possible without the
Netherlands (whose small help in NATO and other forums is still
appreciated but, objectively, is not essential).
I'm sort of glad that not every person in the world wants to go to
America. That means that there is hope left in some other nations and
the US is not the sole repository, merely the largest.
Kees van den Doel
In article <32b7d515.3147641@news>,
Hans van Zonneveld <han...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Wanneer zullen we eens een internationale SCN meeting houden zodat
>alle hoofdrolspelers en figuranten bijelkaar kunnen komen?
>Waar zullen we die houden?
Tja, hier natuurlijk, op het Keizerlijk paleis Kees in de Keizerstad
Vancouver. Iedereen is welkom!
Kees
P.S. Iedereen, behalve Christenen.
god almighty
kvan...@xs4all.nl (Kees van den Doel) wrote:
->In article <32b7d515.3147641@news>,
->Hans van Zonneveld <han...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
->>Wanneer zullen we eens een internationale SCN meeting houden zodat
->>alle hoofdrolspelers en figuranten bijelkaar kunnen komen?
->>Waar zullen we die houden?
->Tja, hier natuurlijk, op het Keizerlijk paleis Kees in de Keizerstad
->Vancouver. Iedereen is welkom!
->Kees
->P.S. Iedereen, behalve Christenen.
U wilt God Almighty uit uw huis verbannen, te laat Hij is er al.
Wilt U nog een Judasbiertje??
God Almighty
god almighty
de Yeti <ig...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
->Philippe wrote:
->> of heb je *nog* een essentiele eiwit ontdekt, Yeti ?
->Ik begrijp nog steeds niet waar je over zeurt. Jij, als arts,
->laat ik dat er dit keer even bijzeggen, komt aanzetten met
->"essentiele eiwitten". Daar krijg je meerdere reacties op,
->o.a. van mij en Jeaan, dat wij dan wel eens graag van je
->zouden willen weten wat "essentiele eiwitten" zijn, want
->tenslotte bestaan die niet. M.i. had je gewoon iets verkeerds
->gezegd. Kan gebeuren natuurlijk, doet iedereen wel eens, zelfs
->Kees(*), maar ipv dat gewoon toe te geven doe je net alsof,
->hardschreeuwend, jij dat allmeaal zo opgezet
->had en dat je ons er in hebt geluisd. En ondertussen, zoals
->bovenstaande kwoot aantoont, ga je nu mij die uitspraak van
->de "essentiele eiwitten" in de mond schuiven, en dat nog wel
->met nieuw publiek (s.c.b), zodat die lekker een verkeerde
->indruk krijgen.
Heb nu een heel verkeerde indruk van jou!!
Mooi is dat, dat manipuleren van jou.
->En indien ik er dan werkelijk 'ingeluisd' zou zijn, dan
->verneem ik graag van je, waar dat is gebeurd en waarom,
->want dat begrijp ik dus echt niet.
->de Yeti
->(*) "Verdomd, de Yeti heeft recht" - Kees van den Doel, 1994
God Almighty
Philippe
de Yeti <ig...@payne.mps.ohio-state.edu> kruispostte wel/niet het
onderstaande:
:>(Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese wrote:
:>> > M.i. had je gewoon iets verkeerds
:>> > gezegd. Kan gebeuren natuurlijk, doet iedereen wel eens, zelfs
:>> > Kees(*), ..........
:>> <<snip>>
:>> > (*) "Verdomd, de Yeti heeft recht" - Kees van den Doel, 1994
:>>
:>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:>> DIT!!!!! is HET bewijs dat Kees ook wel eens een fout maakt?
:>Dat kwam zo. Ondergetekende wist al dat het Oeroeboeroe was,
:>een hoop ongeloof teweeg brengend. Kees zocht het toen op in
:>de echte originele Jean Dulieu boekjes die hij thuis heeft en
:>weldra gaat inscannen voor de ongelovigen en het resultaat van
:>die opzoeking was dus "Verdomd, de Yeti heeft recht", daarmee
:>het bewijs leverend voor de enige correcte schrijfwijze van
:>Oeroeboeroe. Het is dus Oeroeboeroe.
Ik heb ook een origineel Dulieu boekje (Paulus de Boskabouter- de
beren, ISBN 90-269-0409-6 ,1971) een daarin staat de naam van de Uil
toch anders dan je beweert, Yeti. Ik kan dat ook inscannen,hoor...
Het is Oehoeboeroe.
en stop met nazeuren over die "essentiele eiwitten" svp. je bent erin
gestonken en een paar anderen ook. Punt uit.
Merk btw, dat ik enkele dagen gewacht heb om je onnozele vraag over
het bestaan d'ervan te beantwoorden, om te zien hoeveel volgelingen
jij zou hebben. ipv van te zeggen: dat bestaat niet, ga je notabene
mij vragen om wat uitleg te geven. Je hangt, en nu vette punt uit,
Yeti !
:>de Yeti
Philippe
Philippe
kvan...@xs4all.nl (Kees van den Doel) kruispostte het bijbelse
onderstaande:
:>In article <32b473ba.10316178@news>,
:>Hans van Zonneveld <han...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
:>>>> > Het is Oeroeboeroe, vraag maar aan Karel.
:>>>> Natuurlijk. De vraag is alleen wel wat al die Roemenen hier mee moeten ;-).
:>>>Zie je dat, Hans van Zonneveld? Een volledig willekeurig neutraal
:>>>persoon, genaamd Karel, kennelijk zeer betrouwbaar, vindt ook dat
:>>>het Oeroeboeroe is. Dus laat die Barends nou maar lullen.
:>>>Q.E.D., vraag maar aan Kees.
:>>Hmm ik heb zelfs een deal met Kees gesloten als hij zijn deel
:>>nakomt dan zal het bewijs dat het Oeroe is snel boven water zijn.
:>OK, maar gaan de RECHTERS Philippe van Berends en Rob Schepens accoord
:>met dat dode Ovenvisje dat een Zilverling schijnt te zijn?
De LINKSERS zijn geen rechters, en Rob en mijzelf zijn niet links.
QED
:>En verpak je die dode beestjes in het Parool, met name in de kolom van
:>Karin Huilebalker?
Kees, Kees, toon toch *enig* respect voor een dame,
al ben je het met haar helemaal oneens.
Beschaving, O beschaving....
Zou je *echt* niet tot het gristendom bekeerd zijn?
Je laatste potsen ruiken verdacht naar gristianiesme.
Want Judas verkocht toch ook gristes
aan de farizeeers voor dertig zilverlingen....
:>Kees
Philippe (in een exorcistische bui)
David Young
Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays! to all you beautiful women in
Holland... I've a proposal... would you consider a move to Houston?
36Year Old Caucasian male, Protestant, healthy, attractive, and
financially secure seeking a lovely, active, caucasian woman who puts
me first as will I her. No Drugs. No Cows. Prefer 25 to 30 year old
interested in a home...not an office. Before you think me
chauvinistic please consider. I've done all the "women going
somewhere" fatal attraction types and will settle for the basics...
A WIFE.
In return, you get all of my love and devotion, a great house, car,
boat, etc.. I'm 6.1", 180lbs, green eyes, balding blonde hair,
attractive. Return E-mail, or, photographs are encouraged to be
mailed to David Young, Personal/Confidential, Comedia Comm., Inc., PO
Box 7808, Houston, TX 77270-7808.
Fun loving guy with a politically conservative attitude seeking a GOOD WIFE.
Didier Moens
On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:34:16 GMT, g...@in.the.sky.net (god almighty)
wrote:
>aole...@xs4all.nl (Ania Oleksik) wrote:
>->On 8 Dec 1996 21:29:01 -0800, BeeJay <bja...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>->(Michel Couzijn wrote:)
[snip]
>->Agreed. What makes you believe I determine the value of your post on
>->the basis of your title (if any)? It is the other way around: I
>->thought I could comment on your academic title on the basis of what
>->you wrote. Perfectly legitimate, I would say. I hope the subject
>->'academic title' is not taboo for you. I tells something (read this
>->word again: SOMEthing) about how clever you are. PhD's cannot be
>->bought for fifteen bucks, you know. But then again, there are lots of
>->PhD's with silly thoughts and no feeling for cynicism.
>->Take me as an example.
>Yeah, cool anotherone who makes publicity out of her stupid PhD.
his
[snip]
>It has nothing to do with the number of inhabitants per square miles.
>In the Sahara, they have 125* less inhabitants per square mile and
>they don't have any immigration only emi.
>It has to do with the outside conditions. The human parameters are
>playing a crucial role.
Could You, in Thy infinite wisdom, elaborate on the distinct
differences between the Dutch and American 'human parameters' ?
Being of a wholly holy nature, Thou have not to shun any prejudicial
statements.
[snip]
>->Three kinds of lies. Learn about them. Disraeli.
>->I said you should relate that number to the size of the country - not
>->merely its number of inhabitants. Would you say that a 1000 km2
>->country with 1000 inhabitants can absorb as many refugees as a 10.000
>->km2 country with the same number (1000) of inhabitants? No. That's why
>->I related it to the density of the population.
>Wrong the density is not a reason. It's not total irrelevant. But look
>to the third world countries, the population is moving to the cities.
>So they are moving where the density is the highest.
They are moving where they hope or expect to find a better/wealthier
life. If the economy shifts to a rural pattern (when importance of
food supplies > industrial activity), there will be a migration to the
countryside.
Density is a consequence, not a motive.
[snip]
>->>In other words, when it comes to security, there's not much else to look for
>->>besides the US. Do you know any better alternative?
>
>->Yes, call me naive, but I still believe in the possibility of a UN
>->super police force. The U.S. can participate, of course, I would love
>->them to, but they really should pay their contribution in time.
>
>->Michel Couzijn
>->Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>
>
>God Almighty
Didier (who isn't an ir. nor a PhD, and doesn't make a big fuss about
it)
Ania Oleksik
Never knew even god almighty is afraid of revealing his/her true
identify. What a weasel ! (no blasphemy intended)
>aole...@xs4all.nl (Ania Oleksik) wrote:
>Yeah, cool anotherone who makes publicity out of her stupid PhD.
You know what is stupid? God almighties who know nothing
about the qualities of their mortal PhD's and nevertheless - for fear
of being pushed from their thrones or for utter dumbness or for
sheer jealousy - think they can call them stupid.
>->You must know quite a lot of Dutch people to make this generalization.
>->Congratulations!
>
>Statistical proven.
God almighties who can't tell adverbs from adjectives. That's stupid
too. Statistical proved, huh?
>->>I fear the day that I have to go there....
>
>Don't.
It's been some time since we saw some god almighty 'round here.
Are you sure you know enough about The Netherlands to advice Bee not
to go here? Have you ever left your homestead heaven, goddie?
> Mark Twain said once: "You have big lies and statistics"
Yeah, and that's why Disraeli stole it from him, and made a better
version, huh? Not all funny words in this world were said by Mark
Twain. He left a few for other people to contribute. If you have
gotten this little booklet for your birthday, goddie, this 'How to
bluff my way into one-liners and aphorisms', then at least check it
before contributing nonsense on the net.
>->>But how many of them will be guaranteed citizenship; how many refugees
>->>does the Netherlands absorb?
>
>It has nothing to do with the number of inhabitants per square miles.
>In the Sahara, they have 125* less inhabitants per square mile and
>they don't have any immigration only emi.
>It has to do with the outside conditions. The human parameters are
>playing a crucial role.
You can't compare two totally different economies, histories, etc.
Didn't you know that?
The U.S. and The Netherlands are, on the other hand, relatively
comparable when it comes to their economies. Not the size, just the
qualities and organization.
Not all the immigrants entering the U.S. are sent to a few states with
the highest population densities. I assert that it is for a large part
BECAUSE of the lower densitiy of the U.S. as a whole, that the U.S.
is capable of taking up ABSOLUTELY MORE immigrants than
The Netherlands. At the same time, I say that they should not complain
because their capacity for taking up immigrants is MUCH higher than
The Netherlands because of their lower density - and the fact that
the American economy is made out of the contributions of its
immigrants.
Think of the U.S. as made of several countries instead of states.
Should we then compare the abolute number of U.S. immigrants
to the absolute number of immigrants for each, say, European state? Or
to the number of immigrants of the European community as a whole?
I vote for the last.
>->>Anyway, per 1000 inhabitants the Netherlands grant 2 persons permanent
>->>residency per year, whereas the US is still granting 3 persons per 1000
>->>permanent residency, about 50% more than the Netherlands.
>
>You cannot compare 2 total different economies, histories, etc with
>each other.
Aha, so you already knew that. Why didn't you apply this to
your own reasoning above (Sahara vs. U.S. ? Unfortunately this is not
a good argument to use in THIS place, since the U.S. and The
Netherlands ARE comparable. Sorry for you.
>->Three kinds of lies. Learn about them. Disraeli.
>->I said you should relate that number to the size of the country - not
>->merely its number of inhabitants. Would you say that a 1000 km2
>->country with 1000 inhabitants can absorb as many refugees as a 10.000
>->km2 country with the same number (1000) of inhabitants? No. That's why
>->I related it to the density of the population.
>
>Wrong the density is not a reason. It's not total irrelevant. But look
>to the third world countries, the population is moving to the cities.
>So they are moving where the density is the highest.
Glad you brought up your own counterargument. About
comparing two totally different economies etc. Read your
own words. You might learn something from them.
>->statistic, agree, but not too hard to understand.
>->With 452 people per km2, we're pretty filled up here. Physical
>->borders, you see? Compare that to the U.S.
>
>Wrong again. You are using statistics to back up your opinion.
>But you have to use statistics to come to conclusions or opinions.
Wrong. First buy a book about the logic of science. Then buy a book
about statistics. THEN read them. It must be revealing. Do you believe
that we, scientists, just test every silly hypothesis that mankind can
think of? No. We select - on the basis of what we suspect to be good
hypotheses. Then we collect evidence. Here's where the statistics come
in. So we use the statistics to 'back up' our hypotheses. If we're
GOOD scientists, we try to be critical - that is, to refute our
hypotheses. If we argue, we try to refute each other's hypotheses, and
try to collect evidence for our own. It's called dialectics (difficult
word).
>You are a manipulator.
No. I am a discussant. I defend the idea that The Netherlands
did a better job in taking up immigrants than the U.S. did. If you
disagree, we'll have a discussion. If you call me names, we'll have
either a fight or a silence. I vote for the last.
>->Now I really have better things to do. You asserted U.S. was the most
>->accessible - you collect the proof. Relate it to density and see your
>->proof melt as snow in the sunshine.
>
>Pfff. that wasn't proof in neither ways.
I am glad that you agree. I also thought Bee did not present
satisfactory proof.
>God Almighty
(Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese
Rob Barends wrote:
>
> In article <32B07D...@cad.canterbury.ac.nz>, jo...@cad.canterbury.ac.nz
> says...
>
> >kerstbier enzo.
>
Nee jij hebt het over de kerstbier drinker.
(het valt niet mee om je groen te drinken met dat gat in de ozonlaag)
(Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese
de Yeti wrote:
> (Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese wrote:
> > > M.i. had je gewoon iets verkeerds
> > > gezegd. Kan gebeuren natuurlijk, doet iedereen wel eens, zelfs
> > > Kees(*), ..........
> > <<snip>>
> > > (*) "Verdomd, de Yeti heeft recht" - Kees van den Doel, 1994
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > DIT!!!!! is HET bewijs dat Kees ook wel eens een fout maakt?
> Dat kwam zo. Ondergetekende wist al dat het Oeroeboeroe was,
> een hoop ongeloof teweeg brengend. Kees zocht het toen op in
> de echte originele Jean Dulieu boekjes die hij thuis heeft en
> weldra gaat inscannen voor de ongelovigen en het resultaat van
> die opzoeking was dus "Verdomd, de Yeti heeft recht", daarmee
> het bewijs leverend voor de enige correcte schrijfwijze van
> Oeroeboeroe. Het is dus Oeroeboeroe.
> de Yeti
Het moet U even ontschoten zijn, en ik hou niet van gezeur over
spelfouten, maar U zegt Oeroeboeroe en dat moet Oehoeboeroe zijn.
Een belangrijk verschil.
doei
Adriana C. Bruggeman
In article <0000212d...@msn.com>,
David Young <Comedia...@msn.com> wrote:
>Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays! to all you beautiful women in
>Holland... I've a proposal... would you consider a move to Houston?
>36Year Old Caucasian male, Protestant, healthy, attractive, and
>financially secure seeking a lovely, active, caucasian woman who puts
>me first as will I her. No Drugs. No Cows. Prefer 25 to 30 year old
What! No cows?
Goodbye!
Jeaan
--
I like mine with lettuce and tomato
`\------,(__) Heinz 57 and french fried potatoes __o
* | (oo) Big kosher pickle and a cold draft beer _`\<,_
* ||w--||(..)~* Well good god almighty which way do I steer..(_)/ (_)
Philippe
kvan...@xs4all.nl (Kees van den Doel) tracteerde de goegemeente op
het hondse onderstaande:
:>In article <58u6e6$30...@analog.skynet.be>,
:>god almighty <g...@in.the.sky.net> wrote:
:>>->>Wanneer zullen we eens een internationale SCN meeting houden zodat
:>>->>alle hoofdrolspelers en figuranten bijelkaar kunnen komen?
:>>->>Waar zullen we die houden?
:>>->Tja, hier natuurlijk, op het Keizerlijk paleis Kees in de Keizerstad
:>>->Vancouver. Iedereen is welkom!
:>>->Kees
:>>->P.S. Iedereen, behalve Christenen.
:>>U wilt God Almighty uit uw huis verbannen, te laat Hij is er al.
:>Ik heb Hem er zo uit, met EXTRA STRENGTH ROACH spray.
:>Hans van Zonneveld, jij hebt God zeker ook uitgeroeid toen je die
:>Ovenvisjes uitroeide? Prima de Luxe!
:>>Wilt U nog een Judasbiertje??
:>Proost! Leve de Romeinen, Satan, de Heidenen, hekserij, en de Hond tegen
:>het Vloeken.
Maar Kees, poept die hond niet op de stoep?
:>Kees
Philippe
Philippe
"(Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese" <jo...@cad.canterbury.ac.nz>
tracteerde de goegemeente op het de kerst-sfeer bevorderende
onderstaande:
:>Rob Barends wrote:
:>>
:>> In article <32B07D...@cad.canterbury.ac.nz>, jo...@cad.canterbury.ac.nz
:>> says...
:>>
:>> >Wat jij Jeaan? Je hebt wat gemist gisteren. Er was hier een heleboel
:>> >kerstbier enzo.
:>>
:>> Is dat rood en groen bier met ballen ?
:>Nee jij hebt het over de kerstbier drinker.
:>(het valt niet mee om je groen te drinken met dat gat in de ozonlaag)
maar die ballen, wat moet er nu *daarmee* ?
Philippe
Wojtek Rypniewski
In article <dbrutus-1212...@ppp-48.ts-4.nyc.idt.net>, dbr...@haven.ios.com (T.M.Lutas) writes:
|> In article <57v1jc$9...@dscomsa.desy.de>, Woj...@EMBL-Hamburg.DE (Wojtek
|> Rypniewski) wrote:
|>
|> > As far as western Europe is concerned it only stands to gain by admiting
|> > central European countries into it's ranks. Assuming that NATO is
|> > primarily a military organisation rather than just for talking,
|> > squabbling, dithering and organising courses in molecular biology,
|> > admiting Poland and Hungary to NATO will double NATO's military
|> > potential in Europe. Apart from the Germans and the British, with strong
|> > martial traditions, who else is there in western Europe with enough guts
|> > (not just fancy equippment) or big enough to put up a good fight
|> > if necessary? NATO should snap up countries like Poland and Hungary
|> > while the Poles and the Magyars are still willing.
|>
|> Agreed, though you might want to extend your list to add us poor humble
|> Romanians. We might be a sleeper on the list but leaving us out in the
|> cold would be a foolish move.
|>
OK, you are in. :-)
Wojtek
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wojciech R. Rypniewski tel: +49-40-89902142
EMBL c/o DESY fax: +49-40-89902149
Notkestrasse 85 E-mail: woj...@embl-hamburg.de
D-22603 Hamburg, Germany WWW: http://www.embl-hamburg.de/~Wojtek/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan den Hollander
David Young wrote:
>
> [snip]
> Fun loving guy with a politically conservative attitude seeking a GOOD WIFE.
"politically conservative attitute" : I take that to mean that you are one of
those people who vote for one of the Pat's (Pat Robertson, or Pat Buchanan),
or in their absence for any Republican, as long as they are anti-abortion, for
family values (whatever that may mean), and for balancing the budget, even if
it means throwing people out of wellfare.
If that is so, then you may have posted in the wrong newsgroup; it is my guess
that there are very few people here who share those views.
JdH
Jan den Hollander
(Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese wrote:
>
> > (Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese wrote:
> >>> In article <0000212d...@msn.com>,
> >>> David Young <Comedia...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>>>Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays! to all you beautiful women in
> >>>>Holland... I've a proposal... would you consider a move to Houston?
> >>>>36Year Old Caucasian male, Protestant, healthy, attractive, and
> >>>>financially secure seeking a lovely, active, caucasian woman who
> >>>>puts me first as will I her. No Drugs. No Cows. Prefer 25 to 30
> >>>>year old
>
> >>> What! No cows?
> >>> Goodbye!
>
> > > Try Australia or New Zealand women, honestly, they know how to bake
> > > muffins while riding a 180 Lb man in a powerboat. Without cows that > > is. If all else fails, try our sheep.
>
> > There is some confusion here. What the poor sod probably means with
> > "cows" is women with tits dangling on their knees. Wouldn't that
> > disqualify most Sheila's and Kiwi's?
>
> I dunno! No topless beaches here. (this is Christchurch man,nicknamed
> sex-capital of New Zealand)
> Anyway, I had the idea that it was exactly the type he was after,
> also indicating that he was not a farmer, so they need not to worry
> too much about getting up early and stuff.
> No topless beaches in Orange Beach, Alabama either. The man must suffer
of lack of information concerning female anatomy, given the fact that his
frame of reference consists of cows.
JdH
(Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese
Jan den Hollander wrote:
> (Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese wrote:
>> Adriana C. Bruggeman wrote:
>>> In article <0000212d...@msn.com>,
>>> David Young <Comedia...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays! to all you beautiful women in
>>>>Holland... I've a proposal... would you consider a move to Houston?
>>>>36Year Old Caucasian male, Protestant, healthy, attractive, and
>>>>financially secure seeking a lovely, active, caucasian woman who
>>>>puts me first as will I her. No Drugs. No Cows. Prefer 25 to 30
>>>>year old
>>> What! No cows?
>>> Goodbye!
> > Hahaha He shouldn't be looking in the Netherlands, poor sod.
> > Try Australia or New Zealand women, honestly, they know how to bake
> > muffins while riding a 180 Lb man in a powerboat. Without cows that > > is. If all else fails, try our sheep.
> There is some confusion here. What the poor sod probably means with
> "cows" is women with tits dangling on their knees. Wouldn't that
> disqualify most Sheila's and Kiwi's?
I dunno! No topless beaches here. (this is Christchurch man,nicknamed
sex-capital of New Zealand)
Anyway, I had the idea that it was exactly the type he was after,
also indicating that he was not a farmer, so they need not to worry
too much about getting up early and stuff.
Philippe
Jan den Hollander <jan.and.klarie...@worldnet.att.net>
tracteerde de goegemeente op het koeionerende onderstaande:
:>(Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese wrote:
:>>
:>> Jan den Hollander wrote:
:>> > (Ghost) Joost Stenfert Kroese wrote:
:>> >> Adriana C. Bruggeman wrote:
:>> >>> In article <0000212d...@msn.com>,
:>> >>> David Young <Comedia...@msn.com> wrote:
:>> >>>>Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays! to all you beautiful women in
:>> >>>>Holland... I've a proposal... would you consider a move to Houston?
:>> >>>>36Year Old Caucasian male, Protestant, healthy, attractive, and
:>> >>>>financially secure seeking a lovely, active, caucasian woman who
:>> >>>>puts me first as will I her. No Drugs. No Cows. Prefer 25 to 30
:>> >>>>year old
:>>
:>> >>> What! No cows?
:>> >>> Goodbye!
:>>
:>> > > Hahaha He shouldn't be looking in the Netherlands, poor sod.
:>> > > Try Australia or New Zealand women, honestly, they know how to bake
:>> > > muffins while riding a 180 Lb man in a powerboat. Without cows that > > is. If all else fails, try our sheep.
:>>
:>> > There is some confusion here. What the poor sod probably means with
:>> > "cows" is women with tits dangling on their knees. Wouldn't that
:>> > disqualify most Sheila's and Kiwi's?
:>>
:>> I dunno! No topless beaches here. (this is Christchurch man,nicknamed
:>> sex-capital of New Zealand)
:>> Anyway, I had the idea that it was exactly the type he was after,
:>> also indicating that he was not a farmer, so they need not to worry
:>> too much about getting up early and stuff.
:>> No topless beaches in Orange Beach, Alabama either. The man must suffer
:>of lack of information concerning female anatomy, given the fact that his
:>frame of reference consists of cows.
Hoho, Hollander, do not forget that Holland is the *only* country in
the world where cows are prettier than women.
My wife being Dutch, you can imagine how perfect Dutch cows *are*
dixi, verdomme
:>JdH
Philippe
Rob Barends
In article <32B6F5...@worldnet.att.net>,
jan.and.klarie...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>Philippe wrote:
>
>> Hoho, Hollander, do not forget that Holland is the *only* country in
>> the world where cows are prettier than women.
>>
>> My wife being Dutch, you can imagine how perfect Dutch cows *are*
>>
>
>Texas to get a Dutch cow rather than a Dutch woman.
I'm amorous and from Texas (and Dutch). Why do you want to convince
me to get a Dutch cow rather than a Dutch woman ? I'm going to have
a piece of a Texas cow for dinner tonight. And there are many Dutch
women whom I like. Are you saying I have to choose ? I.e. I can have
cows or women, but not both ? Well, try to f@#$*ng stop me,
Hollander!
>> dixi, verdomme
>Hear, hear.
De gustibus non est disputandum, nomdeju!
>JdH
Rob
Henk
philippe...@ping.be writes:
=Jan den Hollander <jan.and.klarie...@worldnet.att.net>
=tracteerde de goegemeente op het koeionerende onderstaande:
[koeien vs vrouwen]
=Hoho, Hollander, do not forget that Holland is the *only* country in
=the world where cows are prettier than women.
=
=My wife being Dutch, you can imagine how perfect Dutch cows *are*
Yes, and to preserve your marital bliss I would suggest you
immediately locate an extremely attractive specimen of the
bovine sort, lest you spend your remaining days in the doghouse.
=dixi, verdomme
Oh, stond ze over je schouder mee te lezen?
--
- Henk Versteeg -- hver...@ingr.com -
- I.S.D.P. software -- It has to do more than just float -
Jan den Hollander
Rob Barends wrote:
>
> In article <32B6F5...@worldnet.att.net>,
> jan.and.klarie...@worldnet.att.net says...
> >
> >Philippe wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Texas to get a Dutch cow rather than a Dutch woman.
>
> I'm amorous and from Texas (and Dutch). Why do you want to convince
> me to get a Dutch cow rather than a Dutch woman ? I'm going to have
> a piece of a Texas cow for dinner tonight. And there are many Dutch
> women whom I like. Are you saying I have to choose ? I.e. I can have
> cows or women, but not both ? Well, try to f@#$*ng stop me,
> Hollander!
>
> >> dixi, verdomme
> >Hear, hear.
>
> De gustibus non est disputandum, nomdeju!
>
Wie de schoen past....
I didn't say you have to choose. Problem is, there was that *other*
guy from Texas, who was interested in Dutch women, but only if they
didn't look like cows, Dutch or otherwise. We are merely trying to
convince that *other* Texan guy that Dutch cows don't look so bad,
after all.
But if you want want both, fine with me. Don't get them mixed up
though; you might get into trouble if you try loading your cow onto
your powerboat.
JdH
Philippe
hver...@ingr.com (Henk) tracteerde de goegemeente op het zoophilische
onderstaande:
:> philippe...@ping.be writes:
:>=Jan den Hollander <jan.and.klarie...@worldnet.att.net>
:>=tracteerde de goegemeente op het koeionerende onderstaande:
:>[koeien vs vrouwen]
:>=Hoho, Hollander, do not forget that Holland is the *only* country in
:>=the world where cows are prettier than women.
:>=
:>=My wife being Dutch, you can imagine how perfect Dutch cows *are*
:>Yes, and to preserve your marital bliss I would suggest you
:>immediately locate an extremely attractive specimen of the
:>bovine sort, lest you spend your remaining days in the doghouse.
I'm glad where I am.
I leave the cow-fucking to you, if you feel like.
:>=dixi, verdomme
:>Oh, stond ze over je schouder mee te lezen?
Kijk uit, je kan nooit weten....
:>--
:>- Henk Versteeg -
Philippe
Henk
philippe...@ping.be writes:
=hver...@ingr.com (Henk) tracteerde de goegemeente op het zoophilische
=onderstaande:
=
=:> philippe...@ping.be writes:
=
=:>=My wife being Dutch, you can imagine how perfect Dutch cows *are*
=:>Yes, and to preserve your marital bliss I would suggest you
=:>immediately locate an extremely attractive specimen of the
=:>bovine sort, lest you spend your remaining days in the doghouse.
=
=I'm glad where I am.
=I leave the cow-fucking to you, if you feel like.
Who was talking about such perverse behavior? All I did was point out
to you that jealousy in the looks department is an universal
feminine trait. Beware of comparing when one of the subjects
is near and can read...
=:>=dixi, verdomme
=
=:>Oh, stond ze over je schouder mee te lezen?
=Kijk uit, je kan nooit weten....
Knap, als *jouw* vrouw over *mijn* schouder zou kunnen lezen..
Jan den Hollander
In the few days I monitored SCN I spotted the following bovophobic
postings:
:>In article <593p25$3...@star.cs.vu.nl>, jimt...@cs.vu.nl (Imthorn JA) writes:
:>> After Dutch ham, Spanish fruit, British fish, French farmers burnt
:>> a whole truck full of Dutch cows this morning. They are protesting
:>> against their own government, but hurt other people (financially,
:>> in this particular case) in the process. Not to mention the fact
:>> that 'good' food should not be set to fire in the first place.
:>> Where the h* did the French get the reputation of being polite?
In article <0000212d...@msn.com>,
David Young <Comedia...@msn.com> wrote:
>Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays! to all you beautiful women in
>Holland... I've a proposal... would you consider a move to Houston?
>36Year Old Caucasian male, Protestant, healthy, attractive, and
>financially secure seeking a lovely, active, caucasian woman who puts
>me first as will I her. No Drugs. No Cows. Prefer 25 to 30 year old
Rob Barends wrote:
>
> I'm amorous and from Texas (and Dutch). Why do you want to convince
> me to get a Dutch cow rather than a Dutch woman ? I'm going to have
> a piece of a Texas cow for dinner tonight. And there are many Dutch
> women whom I like. Are you saying I have to choose ? I.e. I can have
> cows or women, but not both ? Well, try to f@#$*ng stop me,
> Hollander!
>
> philippe...@ping.be writes:
> =
> =I'm glad where I am.
> =I leave the cow-fucking to you, if you feel like.
>
bertje wrote:
>
> Is juist andersom. Je kan mensenlevens redden door geen koe te eten.
> Een koe eet 5 tot 20 keer* zoveel voedsel dan een mens. Door het niet
> eten van een koe kan je dus 5 (tot 20) mensen meer voeden?
> Ook is het zo dat er voor ons, en ons vee, in de derde wereld op de
> vruchtbare plekken voedsel verbouwd word waar die hutu's etc. ook zelf
> van hadden kunnen eten.
>
In summary:
the French farmers burn cows,
David Young does not want to marry cows
Rob Barends wants to have them for dinner
Philippe Schepens wants to fuck them
and to top all off, bertje wants the Hutu's to eat their food.
What the hell is going on here? Why all this hatred directed towards
these poor, defenseless animals?
Are there any people out there who want to speak out on behalf of
the bovine species?
JdH
Peter Smulders
Jan den Hollander (jan.and.klarie...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: In summary:
: the French farmers burn cows,
: David Young does not want to marry cows
: Rob Barends wants to have them for dinner
: Philippe Schepens wants to fuck them
: and to top all off, bertje wants the Hutu's to eat their food.
: What the hell is going on here? Why all this hatred directed towards
: these poor, defenseless animals?
: Are there any people out there who want to speak out on behalf of
: the bovine species?
: JdH
What happened to newsgroup alt.cows.moo.moo? I can't find it anymore!
--
Peter
Adriana C. Bruggeman
Jan den Hollander presents an udderly cool summary:
>the French farmers burn cows,
>David Young does not want to marry cows
>Rob Barends wants to have them for dinner
>Philippe Schepens wants to fuck them
>and to top all off, bertje wants the Hutu's to eat their food.
>
>What the hell is going on here? Why all this hatred directed towards
>these poor, defenseless animals?
>Are there any people out there who want to speak out on behalf of
>the bovine species?
Well, I think they're cute, but their shit pollutes the ground water.
Did you know that a 1000 pound dairy cow shits 86 pound per day?
Henk
philippe...@ping.be writes:
=hver...@ingr.com (Henk) tracteerde de goegemeente op het los-bandige=:>=hver...@ingr.com (Henk) tracteerde de goegemeente op het zoophilische
=:>=onderstaande:
=:>=
=:>=:> philippe...@ping.be writes:
=:>=
=:>=:>=My wife being Dutch, you can imagine how perfect Dutch cows *are*
=:>=
=:>=:>Yes, and to preserve your marital bliss I would suggest you
=:>=:>bovine sort, lest you spend your remaining days in the doghouse.
=:>=
=:>=I'm glad where I am.
=
=:>Who was talking about such perverse behavior?
=
=U
Certainly not, I have my standards. (read back the reiteration above).
You are *supposed* to locate the aforementioned extremely attractive
bovine, introduce her to your other half and let the ladies decide
which is the better looking one. Divide and conquer.
= :>All I did was point out
=:>to you that jealousy in the looks department is an universal
=:>feminine trait. Beware of comparing when one of the subjects
=:>is near and can read...
=haha !
Double beware if the bovine has been in contact with a certain
person we all know.
When both subjects of the comparison can read you're toast.
=:>=:>=dixi, verdomme
=:>=
=:>=:>Oh, stond ze over je schouder mee te lezen?
=:>=Kijk uit, je kan nooit weten....
=
=:>Knap, als *jouw* vrouw over *mijn* schouder zou kunnen lezen..
=Ze is zeer knap, hoor !
Dat zeg je alleen maar om onmin te voorkomen.
Zoetebroodjesbakker...
=:>- Henk Versteeg
=
=Philippe
=a Henk-post a day keeps the sorrow away
You wouldn't say that if you knew about the subliminal delayed effect
on your eyeballs.
Jan den Hollander
Adriana C. Bruggeman wrote:
>
> Jan den Hollander presents an udderly cool summary:
>
> >the French farmers burn cows,
> >David Young does not want to marry cows
> >Rob Barends wants to have them for dinner
> >Philippe Schepens wants to fuck them
> >and to top all off, bertje wants the Hutu's to eat their food.
> >
> >What the hell is going on here? Why all this hatred directed towards
> >these poor, defenseless animals?
> >Are there any people out there who want to speak out on behalf of
> >the bovine species?
>
> Well, I think they're cute, but their shit pollutes the ground water.
>
> Did you know that a 1000 pound dairy cow shits 86 pound per day?
>
> Jeaan
> --
My dear Jeaan, that it nothing compared to the amount of bullshit some SCN'ers
produce. And believe me, that pollutes a whole lot more than cowshit does.
JdH
Jan den Hollander
Peter Smulders wrote:
>
> Jan den Hollander (jan.and.klarie...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> In the few days I monitored SCN I spotted the following bovinophobic
> postings:
>
> :>In article <593p25$3...@star.cs.vu.nl>, jimt...@cs.vu.nl (Imthorn JA) writes:
> :>> After Dutch ham, Spanish fruit, British fish, French farmers burnt
> :>> a whole truck full of Dutch cows this morning. They are protesting
> :>> against their own government, but hurt other people (financially,
> :>> in this particular case) in the process. Not to mention the fact
> :>> that 'good' food should not be set to fire in the first place.
> :>> Where the h* did the French get the reputation of being polite?
>
> In article <0000212d...@msn.com>,
> David Young <Comedia...@msn.com> wrote:
> >Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays! to all you beautiful women in
> >Holland... I've a proposal... would you consider a move to Houston?
> >36Year Old Caucasian male, Protestant, healthy, attractive, and
> >financially secure seeking a lovely, active, caucasian woman who puts
> >me first as will I her. No Drugs. No Cows. Prefer 25 to 30 year old
>
> Rob Barends wrote:
> >
> > I'm amorous and from Texas (and Dutch). Why do you want to convince
> > me to get a Dutch cow rather than a Dutch woman ? I'm going to have
> > a piece of a Texas cow for dinner tonight. And there are many Dutch
> > women whom I like. Are you saying I have to choose ? I.e. I can have
> > cows or women, but not both ? Well, try to f@#$*ng stop me,
> > Hollander!
> >
>
> > philippe...@ping.be writes:
> > =
> > =I'm glad where I am.
> > =I leave the cow-fucking to you, if you feel like.
> >
>
> bertje wrote:
> >
> > Is juist andersom. Je kan mensenlevens redden door geen koe te eten.
> > Een koe eet 5 tot 20 keer* zoveel voedsel dan een mens. Door het niet
> > eten van een koe kan je dus 5 (tot 20) mensen meer voeden?
> > Ook is het zo dat er voor ons, en ons vee, in de derde wereld op de
> > vruchtbare plekken voedsel verbouwd word waar die hutu's etc. ook zelf
> > van hadden kunnen eten.
> >
>
> >
> : In summary:
>
> : the French farmers burn cows,
> : David Young does not want to marry cows
> : Rob Barends wants to have them for dinner
> : Philippe Schepens wants to fuck them
> : and to top all off, bertje wants the Hutu's to eat their food.
>
> : What the hell is going on here? Why all this hatred directed towards
> : these poor, defenseless animals?
> : Are there any people out there who want to speak out on behalf of
> : the bovine species?
>
> : JdH
>
> What happened to newsgroup alt.cows.moo.moo? I can't find it anymore!
> --
> Peter
Thank you for pointing that out to me. I am calling in some support.
JdH
Philippe
Jan den Hollander <jan.and.klarie...@worldnet.att.net>
tracteerde de goegemeente op het bovinofiele onderstaande:
:>In the few days I monitored SCN I spotted the following bovophobic
:>postings:
:>In summary:
I can't help it if "koeien aller landen, verenigt U "
in het frans als volgt luidt:
"couilles de tous pays unissez-vous"
And to be able to fuck you definitely need "des couilles"
:>and to top all off, bertje wants the Hutu's to eat their food.
:>What the hell is going on here? Why all this hatred directed towards
:>these poor, defenseless animals?
:>Are there any people out there who want to speak out on behalf of
:>the bovine species?
Jeaan, where are YOU!
:>JdH
Philippe