In article >,  (Peter k
Chong) wrote:
>
>
> Sumerian:       ab(-ba) 128,13a (father)
> Finnish:        appi (father-in-law)
> Hungarian:      apa (father)
> Turkish:        aba (")
> Mongol:         aav (")

And don't forget the Etruscan apa! Same spelling and meaning as in Hungarian.

Gabor

On 6 Dec 1996 18:55:09 -0800, BeeJay > 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..

Michel Couzijn
Amsterdam, The Netherlands

some comments about the turkish:
sakIn (should be sakin - sa:kin), sahra, tekmil ciltlemek (from cilt - 
j^ild), kuvvet (from quwwa(t), however turkish kol - qol is relevant) 
are loanwords from arabic. nam, huysuzluk (from huy , xu:y) are 
loanwrods from persian.
for ol- (to become, be) most turkic languages have bol- for o"ksu"rmek
 - o"g~u"rmek (to retch, vomit) would be more relevant. s^olpan is 
qIrgIz, but old turkish has c^olpan, for elma many dialects of turkish 
have alma.

(note:newsgroup list truncated, do not respond without restoring original 
list)

In article >,
BeeJay  > wrote:
>> >Those former superpowers are timebombs.
>
>Mmmm, Russia, China? But in case of the US... what a bullshit.

Well, no, not really. The government is an economic and organizational mess,
and there is a lot of violence and prejudice.

>> 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.

Wasn't it Jim Brady, the SecState under the Bushman, who said that "we want to
see Yugoslavia remain a single entity" or something like that? To old Slob
Milo, that seemed to mean only one thing.
Of course, the dorkyness of the EU helped, but it wasn't just their fault.

Gabor

Hi : We have plenty of action this weekend  with live games in the IRC.
Please check ISFA's IRC Soccer Calendar for details :

ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE :

1) Liverpool vs Middlesbrough in #liverpool (Undernet) 

2) Sheffield Weds vs Man Utd in #ManUnited (DALnet)

WORLD CUP :

3) Peru vs Uruguay, in #futbol_mundial (Undernet) 

4) Argentina vs Chile, in #futbol_mundial (Undernet) 

SCITTISH PREMIER LEAGUE :

5) Raith Rovers vs Celtic, in #CelticGame (DALnet).

ISFA'S IRC SOCCER SERVICES :

1) ISFA's IRC Calendar : http://www.isfa.com/irc/calendar.html

2) ISFA's IRC Homepage : http://www.isfa.com/irc/

3) Affiliate Your IRC Soccer Channel to ISFA :
http://www.isfa.com/irc/affiliate.html

4) Enter the IRC through the Web :http://www.isfa.com/irc/enter.html

----

ISFA'S SOCCER WEB SERVER :

Some of the Winners of our Competition for 10 FREE Web Sites and FTP Sites
at ISFA are already up and running. Please check :

http://www.isfa.com/server.html

ISFA's Soccer Web Server will be open to the Fans any day. Please check the
above page for the Grand Opening. You will then be able to choose to use
our facilities to move your site or place a mirror there.

----

NEW SOCCER MAILING LIST :

Port Vale : http://www.isfa.com/isfa/lists/valiants/

Own your own Mailing List : http://www.isfa.com/isfa/lists/own-list.html

International Soccer List :  http://www.isfa.com/isfa/lists/soccer/

----

NEW PELE PAGE :

There is a wonderful NEW Pele Homepage hosted with great honour at ISFA.
There are photos gallore and videos which you can find at :

http://www.isfa.com/server/web/pele/

This page is trully great so do take your time to savour it. :-)

----

Cheers !
-- 
****************************************
questra
ISFA Administrator
Winning is a state of mind.
Internet Soccer Fans Association (ISFA):
http://www.isfa.com/
****************************************

In article >,  (Wojtek
Rypniewski) wrote:

> In article >,
 (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. 

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.