Frank F. Matthews

The Reids wrote:

    > Following up to Frank F. Matthews

    >>>Sure, those that go from UK have personal reasons, not because
    >>>they are the starving, huddled masses.
    >>That's true. The UK doesn't have enough population who are starving
    >>huddled masses to compete with the volume of Indios who are moving north.

    > there is a current "exodus" of nurses (about 2000) don't know
    > what leave they will get in US? But my Texan friend doesn't get
    > enough to visit here with her husband :-(

Nurses are a strange situation. Because of the need for 4 shift
coverage their schedules are often strange. They also commonly work a
good bit of overtime or alternate jobs. If overtime it may come in the
form of comp time which results in days off. If they choose pay then
their vacations are as limited as those of most. I don't know if there
are problems with accumulating comp time to result in a large block off.
In any case the nursing market is tight enough that if you ant time
off just quit. There will be a comparable job around when you get back.

Frank F. Matthews

Rod Speed wrote:

    > Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>Antipodean Bucket Farmer writes:

    >>>There are plenty of restrictions for departing Americans.

    >>Not so.

    > Fraid so.

    >>Americans may leave the country freely, with very rare exceptions.
    >
    >
    > He was obviously talking about the restrictions
    > imposed by the destination, given his next sentence.

    >>>While the US government (like most others)
    >>>doesn't care much about those who are leaving,

    > Which is saying just what you said.

    >>>the destination countries certainly *do* care, and have
    >>>requirements on who is issued work and residence permits.

    >>They don't care about anyone who hasn't entered their countries.

    > Pathetic, really.

    >>It's important to distinguish between emigration and immigration.

    > Nope, its always both with permanent movements.

Almost but what about the guy living in CDG?

    >>Most developed nations place no restrictions
    >>on the former, but many restrictions on the latter.

    > Which is what he said in different words.

Frank F. Matthews

Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote:

    > In article
    > <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] says...
snip

    >>It's important to distinguish between emigration and immigration.

    > I am will aware of the difference. And I am also aware
    > that leaving one place involves going to another place.
    > (The only legal alternative I can think of would be to
    > spend the rest of your life on a boat.)

Or in the transit facility of a suitable airport. Think CDG.

    >> Most developed nations place no restrictions on the former, but
    >>many restrictions on the latter.

    > If you don't think that there are any restrictions on
    > leaving, try getting on an international flight without
    > a passport.

Easy as pie for someone from the US going to Canada or Mexico. Or
someone from a Schengen country going to another.

snip

Frank F. Matthews

Rod Speed wrote:

    > "Antipodean Bucket Farmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>In article <[email protected]>,
    >>[email protected] says...

    >>>Rod Speed wrote:

    >>>>Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
    >>>>wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    >>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

    >>>>>>Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote

    >>>>>>>Rod Speed wrote

    >>>>>>>>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote

    >>>>>>>>>Ted Ng <ted_ng@[nospam].com> writes

    >>>>>>>>>>It sucks, but I see in the news that business conditions are now
    >>>>>>>>>>forcing Europe to cut back on the extensive social welfare system.

    >>>>>>>>>It will never regress to the American extreme.

    >>>>>>>>We'll see, particularly now with countrys like
    >>>>>>>>Turkey and Poland becoming part of the EU etc.

    >>>>>>>Poland yes in the EU but it will be a
    >>>>>>>long while, if ever, before Turkey joins.

    >>>>>>I used the word like for a reason.

    >>>>>Because you couldn't be specific?

    >>>>Nope. Because I chose a couple of examples of countrys which *IF*
    >>>>they ended up in the EU, would be likely to have a significant effect
    >>>>on the extensive social welfare system being discussed.

    >>>>>Just what country is 'like' Turkey or Poland?

    >>>>Irrelevant question.

    >>>You seem to consider every inconvenient question to be irrelevant.

    >>>You said that countries like Turkey & Poland were joining the EU. A
    >>>response was made that it will be a long while until Turkey joins and
    >>>your response was that you used the word like. The only interpretation
    >>>I can see for your response is that there is a different country that is
    >>>like Turkey and that is joining the EU. I would simply like to know
    >>>what the country is? Or were you simply making up nonsense responses?

    >>"Like" doesn't always mean, "similar to."

    >>It can also mean, "such as."

    >>As in, "countries such as Turkey and Poland becoming a
    >>part of the EU."

    > Precisely, said much better than I managed to do.

Of course if we use "such as" then we are back to my comment that there
is little plausibility to Turkey joining the EU in the near to
intermediate future (<15 years). You indicated that was why you used
like implying that you intended the meaning of "similar" at which point
I asked which countries are similar. You appear to try to keep bouncing
the meaning of your statement to keep from explaining it.

George Grapman

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
    >
    >
    > Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote:
    >
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> [email protected] says...
    >
    > snip
    >
    >>> It's important to distinguish between emigration and immigration.
    >
    >
    >> I am will aware of the difference. And I am also aware that leaving
    >> one place involves going to another place. (The only legal
    >> alternative I can think of would be to spend the rest of your life on
    >> a boat.)
    >
    >
    > Or in the transit facility of a suitable airport. Think CDG.
    >
    >>> Most developed nations place no restrictions on the former, but
    >>> many restrictions on the latter.
    >
    >
    >> If you don't think that there are any restrictions on leaving, try
    >> getting on an international flight without a passport.
    >
    >
    > Easy as pie for someone from the US going to Canada or Mexico. Or
    > someone from a Schengen country going to another.
    >
    > snip
    >
Even easier when you walk over the border to Mexico. No official on
either side even talk to you.

--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

nitram

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:52:32 GMT, George Grapman
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Frank F. Matthews wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>> [email protected] says...
    >>
    >> snip
    >>
    >>>> It's important to distinguish between emigration and immigration.
    >>
    >>
    >>> I am will aware of the difference. And I am also aware that leaving
    >>> one place involves going to another place. (The only legal
    >>> alternative I can think of would be to spend the rest of your life on
    >>> a boat.)
    >>
    >>
    >> Or in the transit facility of a suitable airport. Think CDG.
    >>
    >>>> Most developed nations place no restrictions on the former, but
    >>>> many restrictions on the latter.
    >>
    >>
    >>> If you don't think that there are any restrictions on leaving, try
    >>> getting on an international flight without a passport.
    >>
    >>
    >> Easy as pie for someone from the US going to Canada or Mexico. Or
    >> someone from a Schengen country going to another.
    >>
    >> snip
    >>
    > Even easier when you walk over the border to Mexico. No official on
    >either side even talk to you.

There are no officials on the road borders between some Schengen
lands.
--
Martin

The Reids

Following up to Barbara Bomberger

    >>>umm, I enjoy my work. At least most of the time.
    >I enjoy my work most of the time. But life is about balance. I also
    >enjoy travleing, going to the beach and playing golf.

and posting to useless debates on usenet, getting drunk, good
food and, er, other things. As a recovered golfaholic I draw the
line at the good walk spoiled :-)
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids

Following up to john

    >Government agencies aren't in the business of making money.
    >The government gets its money from the private sector.
    >The less government employees the less taxes we have to pay.

why am I not surprised you cant think beyond your tax bill? Like
most right wingers you know the price of everything and the value
of nothing.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Rod Speed

"Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>>Antipodean Bucket Farmer writes:
    >>>>There are plenty of restrictions for departing Americans.
    >>>Not so.
    >> Fraid so.
    >>>Americans may leave the country freely, with very rare exceptions.
    >> He was obviously talking about the restrictions
    >> imposed by the destination, given his next sentence.
    >>>>While the US government (like most others)
    >>>>doesn't care much about those who are leaving,
    >> Which is saying just what you said.
    >>>>the destination countries certainly *do* care, and have
    >>>>requirements on who is issued work and residence permits.
    >>>They don't care about anyone who hasn't entered their countries.
    >> Pathetic, really.
    >>>It's important to distinguish between emigration and immigration.
    >> Nope, its always both with permanent movements.

    > Almost but what about the guy living in CDG?

So rare that its not worth worrying about really.

There are also some stateless people too.

    >>>Most developed nations place no restrictions
    >>>on the former, but many restrictions on the latter.
    >> Which is what he said in different words.
    >

Rod Speed

"Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> "Antipodean Bucket Farmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>>In article <[email protected]>,
    >>>[email protected] says...
    >>>>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>>>Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
    >>>>>wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>Rod Speed wrote
    >>>>>>>>>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>Ted Ng <ted_ng@[nospam].com> writes
    >>>>>>>>>>>It sucks, but I see in the news that business conditions are now
    >>>>>>>>>>>forcing Europe to cut back on the extensive social welfare system.
    >>>>>>>>>>It will never regress to the American extreme.
    >>>>>>>>>We'll see, particularly now with countrys like
    >>>>>>>>>Turkey and Poland becoming part of the EU etc.
    >>>>>>>>Poland yes in the EU but it will be a
    >>>>>>>>long while, if ever, before Turkey joins.
    >>>>>>>I used the word like for a reason.
    >>>>>>Because you couldn't be specific?
    >>>>>Nope. Because I chose a couple of examples of countrys which *IF*
    >>>>>they ended up in the EU, would be likely to have a significant effect
    >>>>>on the extensive social welfare system being discussed.
    >>>>>>Just what country is 'like' Turkey or Poland?
    >>>>>Irrelevant question.
    >>>>You seem to consider every inconvenient question to be irrelevant.
    >>>>You said that countries like Turkey & Poland were joining the EU. A
    >>>>response was made that it will be a long while until Turkey joins and
    >>>>your response was that you used the word like. The only interpretation
    >>>>I can see for your response is that there is a different country that is
    >>>>like Turkey and that is joining the EU. I would simply like to know
    >>>>what the country is? Or were you simply making up nonsense responses?
    >>>"Like" doesn't always mean, "similar to."
    >>>It can also mean, "such as."
    >>>As in, "countries such as Turkey and Poland becoming a
    >>>part of the EU."
    >> Precisely, said much better than I managed to do.

    > Of course if we use "such as" then we are back to my comment that there is
    > little plausibility to Turkey joining the EU in the near to intermediate
    > future (<15 years).

Thats just your opinion. Mine differs, essentially because its in NATO already.

And I wasnt making any comment about the likelyhood of turkey
joining the EU anyway. I was using turkey and poland as EXAMPLES
of countrys where its just not feasible to have the sort of 'extensive
social welfare system' thats common in western europe.

    > You indicated that was why you used like implying that you intended the
    > meaning of "similar"

I did nothing of the sort. I JUST used them as EXAMPLES of countrys
where 'the extensive social welfare system' seen in western europe
is just not feasible and isnt likely to be any time soon.

And the EU wasnt even relevant when the original just said europe.

Now you can hair split about whether Turkey is a european country.

    > at which point I asked which countries are similar. You appear to try to keep
    > bouncing the meaning of your statement to keep from explaining it.

You appear to either be quite thick or are being deliberately obtuse.

Rod Speed

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Rod Speed writes
    >> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
    >>> Antipodean Bucket Farmer writes:

    >>>> Cancer is "primarily a disease of old age" because it takes
    >>>> a long time for toxins to damage the body to the breaking point.

    >>> This is conjecture.

    >> Nope been proven a long time ago now, most obviously with smoking.

    > The causes of most forms of cancer remain unknown.

Irrelevant to whether that 'toxin' cause has
been well established with lung cancer now.

Like I said elsewhere, that doesnt mean that say
childhood cancers are caused by a buildup of toxins.

    > Even for types of cancer for which some strong evidence of cause and
    > effect exists, the exact mechanism of causation is often still very unclear.

Also irrelevant how the toxin actually produces the
cancer, when its been rigorously extablished that those
who smoke are at much higher risk of lung cancer.

    >>> And cancer was a common disease
    >>> even before industrial toxins existed.

    >> Wrong. It wasnt actually that common at all then.

    > It was among people who lived long enough.

Nope.

    > More than half of all cancers occur after age 65.

Sure, but it wasnt common with say those rural communitys
in the days before the industrial revolution, some of which
did see quite a few live well past that age.

Mxsmanic

Rod Speed writes:

    > Irrelevant to whether that 'toxin' cause has
    > been well established with lung cancer now.

The original assertion was more general, to the effect that all cancers
are caused by toxins and that this explains their higher incidence
today.

In fact, the higher incidence of cancer today is largely explained by
longer life expectancies, with a few notable exceptions, such as the
prevalence of lung cancer, which is pretty much entirely the result of
smoking or (in rare cases) prolonged exposure to radon gas.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Deep Frayed Morgues

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:31:50 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >In any case, I know of people who have done exactly that, boarding
    >without a passport. They had some difficulties upon arrival, but they
    >got in.

!!!!!!!

OK, which country, and just how many 'difficulties'??? I would be very
suprised if you were able to get on any international flight without
showing your passport!!! I never have been able to!
---
DFM

Mxsmanic

Deep Frayed Morgues writes:

    > OK, which country, and just how many 'difficulties'???

I don't remember the specifics.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Jim Ley

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:39:25 GMT, Deep Frayed Morgues
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

    >On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:31:50 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >>In any case, I know of people who have done exactly that, boarding
    >>without a passport. They had some difficulties upon arrival, but they
    >>got in.
    >!!!!!!!
    >OK, which country, and just how many 'difficulties'??? I would be very
    >suprised if you were able to get on any international flight without
    >showing your passport!!! I never have been able to!

A friend of mine once made it to Holland and back from the UK without
a passport, outgoing she was simply never asked, returning there was
some convincing explaining that she'd forgotten it (which she had, she
didn't realise until getting there that she didn't have it), but made
it okay, immigration asked her a few extra questions, but let her in
okay.

Jim.