Debate : 24635


Off-Topic / Debate / 24635

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I'm not suggesting, nor making any statement, that Saddam's actions are just. I'm questioning whether the USA's actions were just. Or rather, specifically, wondering why you think they were "not unjust." (...) I'm speaking hypthetically as (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
Snipped much away. (...) However, is there a distinction between recognising the reality of a strongman being in power through force, and recognising the legitimacy of his rule? I'm just asking. But I suspect that many countries, operating in the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Typo! This should read "wasn't legitimate" rather than was. That is, the UN hardly ever says anything bad about a government's legitimacy, compared to the number of coups. So the UN seems to see coups as (at least defacto) an OK way to change (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I gave my reasons. (...) So, Germany could slaughter jews at whim in the 20th century because it was a sovereign nation and you fully support that? (...) Perhaps you mean "right" and not "power", because you are demonstrably wrong on that (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) This is an interesting point. But then, I'm begining to really question democracy as the most effective way of ruling a people. Sometimes coups occur because the masses make the wrong decision (ie, Musharraf taking over Pakistan to keep it (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) What is the alternative when it is often the people in these countries which can benefit most from what the UN can provide (e.g. direct aid and peace keeping)? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: <snip> (...) There's a debatable issue for you--if Pearl Harbor never happened, would the Americans have 'officially' entered WW2 at all? I mean, the Allies didn't know Hitler was murdering the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) See, with that kind of non-sequitor answer you are just encouraging Lenny to dodge the question the same way. Nor was the question aimed at countries, it was aimed at him as a person. Let me direct it specifically at you: could any nation (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I'm pretty sure this is maybe the most ignorant thing I've read in a month. I'm starting to think you're not able to have a friendly discussion about anything. No, I don't condone genocide. Did you really think I did? Regarding WW2 - the key (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Not comparable. And I'm not talking about my support - but rather the legality of international law. (...) You're changing my scenario. But even then, you'd still be a murderer for killing him. The correct thing to do would be to call the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
Jeez, did everyone take angry pills today? I think Bruce's point is pretty clear. You asserted that our invasion of Iraq was bad (illegal, unjust, whatever) because it violated the sovereignty of Iraq. Bruce is asking you (and now DaveK) if there (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I was just starting a tangent to the current discussion--hence, 'here's a debatable subject'... It's a "Hmmm.." (strokes chin thoughtfully). That said, if you want an answer to your specific question--'can sovereign nations slaughter the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Well, when you ask it, it seems well thought out and even-headed. I do believe, what Bruce actually asked me was if I supported Hitler killing the Jews - which is not well thought out, not even headed, and offensive. i tend to respond to guff (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) It always bums me out when I discover that someone hasn't been reading any of my posts. Dave! 8^) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Dave. You are now my hero. I will make an effort to read OTD regularly from now on so I can catch every snipet of ignorance that falls from your golden mouth. -Lenny (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) But that was just an extreme example of what I said. It was a starting point for distinguishing what you really think about the role of sovereignty in our war-decisions. Do you think that a nation can act to cause harm to its own population (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) A dodge, but I'll go with the flow: then you believe that international law supports that any nation recognized by the U.N. is free to slaughter its inhabitants at will and no intervention is just? (...) I'll lay it out to you the same way I (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) The Macho Libertarian Flash(tm) answer is that there is NO justification, short of actually being invaded by another sovereignty and needing to repel the attack, that justifies attack on another sovereign country. Nor is there any (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) In my experience, extreme examples do more to mud up the argument rather than cutting to the essence. The key issue is regarding WW2 and the Holocaust is that nation sovereignty wasn't an issue for either case (the war or the genocide). (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I just finished replying to your message where you did indeed dodge the question, so I gotta say that you ignorant claim is pretty darn ignorant. :-) (...) Of course not. I was merely trying to get you to confront the logical extension of your (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Well, let's talk about this, then, and keep it entirely in the realm of hypothetical. Country A is oppressive. A majority of citizens of Country A decide to have a 'revolt' to shake off the tyrannical oppressive gov't. Can the citizens get aid (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
"Lenny Hoffman" <lahoffma@NOSPAMma...r.fsu.edu> wrote in message news:I0JsE3.KMD@lugnet.com... (...) point (...) in our (...) than (...) Hmm, in my experience, extreme examples are great for exploring assertions, and helping cut to the essense. I (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I0Jrr3.GAL@lugnet.com... (...) short (...) to (...) own and (...) foreign (...) always (...) answer (...) Hmm, how do you define sovereignty? Does it require consent of the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message news:I0JpDD.1yqA@lugnet.com... (...) from (...) ways, we (...) a) (...) world (...) of your (...) This does tend to be the best way to deal with people who won't play nice. Of course at some (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
"Lenny Hoffman" <lahoffma@NOSPAMma...r.fsu.edu> wrote in message news:I0Jo0v.1KL2@lugnet.com... (...) was a (...) legality (...) of (...) it. I, (...) the chest (...) directly (...) them (...) is (...) Hmm, are you never justified in taking (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I'm curious--under the Flash(tm) philosophy, what happens if one sovereign nation invades and subjugates a second nation, thereby imposing the sovereignty of the invader over the invaded? What kind of action can be taken in response, since the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) "no intervention" - the UN has repeatedly placed economic sanctions on countries for human rights abuses. "slaughter" is a loaded term. A nation has a right to defend itself from insurgents and rebels. A nation has a right to enforce its own (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) ooh.. i know! Maybe I'm not man enough! (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
These are MLF answers mind you, not my personal view which is a bit muddier (...) I suspect you're not going to do that but OK, I'll play along. (...) Check. (...) Check. (...) Not legitimately directly from other countries. Only from privateers who (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
These are LMF answers, mind you... not mine, which are rather muddier (...) Armed conflict happens, presumably. (...) The citizens of the invaded country. As always, just as if they were considering secession peacefully. (...) The Second Amendment (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
These are LMF answers, not my own, which are rather muddier. (...) Yes, each and every one... (...) Any group of people, no matter how small, whether territorial or not. At the extreme, it must be unanimous consent or else provision must be made to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I0Ju05.zt6@lugnet.com... (...) people (...) Ok, so an improperly formed sovereignty doesn't have any validity... (...) the (...) exclude (...) Hmm, if I'm accused of a crime, (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Nope, I was genuinely intersted to see where the debate would go--I don't have a solid opinion on the matter, and this particular hypothetical scenario doesn't pertain to the current Iraqi situation. I did think about the American revolution, (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) That's fine with me--I'm interested in examining the philosophy itself, (...) Okay, I think that makes some sense. But couldn't the dominant nation simply impose upon the seceeding nation a fee of, say, a billion dollars per person to effect (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Dejure. "consent of the governed" and all that... It may defacto have a lot of guns though. (...) Only if you can escape, and your former co citizens (or properly employed police) don't come find you and remand you back into custody. I don't (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) In advance? Would you sign up for that? Or do you mean after the fact against people who were in already? I would tend to think (and I'm guessing here) that every new law (except basic common law, you can't dodge the prohibition against (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Well, maybe this is a better hypothetical: What if the dominant nation (accepting, though, that the minarchist idea kind of trumps this) simply buys all territory surrounding the smaller nation and then charges the smaller nation a billion (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I support cohesive sanctions against Iraq. That said, my wanting to not let people suffer anywhere in the world gets conflicted with what's best in the long run. 'Food for oil' will minimize the suffering of the people today, however it won't (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Hey, you know, I always (well, not really always) wondered why they don't do that with those "Native American" casinos you see popping up all over the place these days. Apparently they're able to fight that sort of thing off. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Can information penetrate this barrier? In that case pretty much any country with a sufficient(1) technology and manufacturing base should be OK (even if they're a net importer of food and raw materials now) 1 - I suspect defining "sufficient" (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Honestly, I don't know the answer to that one off hand. What do you suggest? Armored VTOL aircraft or spaceships? Or maybe just never leaving? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Not sure--maybe they could go at night, when no one's watching. Your other post suggesting "information" seems a good compromise, unless the surrounding nation can somehow claim the airwaves as its own property and thereby charge for their (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) There's only one part of your answer that matters: "No". When talking about something being "just" or "unjust", we are not talking about the power to enforce that, and I'm not addressing that at all. So, no, Saddam doesn't have the right to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Its an example to show that you can't use a country's laws legally in another country. The UN had the resolution--the UN has to deal with enforcing it. The US, stating the UN resolution as reason to invade, but at hte same time acting against (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I put a question mark behind my question to show that it wasn't an assumption. You assumed incorrectly that I was making an assumption. I would have used a more recent example from Africa, but I couldn't remember the name of the country (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) This does not answer my question. Because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. (...) Or a genocide against different tribe from the ruling one? Or those of a given religion that aren't rebeling? Or a people or region that were forced into the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I thought I made it clear that I was not making any reference to the U.N. resolution you are refering to. (...) You just ignored it again!!! (...) But it happened because of stupidity, thus it was Yet Another Stupid European War caused by (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) The US didn't invade Iraq because Iraq was breaking US laws, though. The justification for the invasion was because Iraq had failed to live up to the sanctions imposed on them by the UN after the Gulf War. The UN set a deadline by which time (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Britain and France had a treaty with Poland which guaranteed its territorial integrity. A {much} overlooked point is that the USSR invaded Poland a week or two after Nazi Germany did. We did not declare war on them as Churchill hoped the USSR (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Sounds a bit like Cuba. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) Note: The "consequences" did not include what happened (i.e. armed intervention). (...) That is a rather subjective view. (...) What did SH do whilst Clinton was running things that was worth even lobbing missiles at? (...) I hear they have (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I thought we were talking about the legitimacy, legality, moralness, and wisdom of the war. I was setting out to show via example, how this war was illegal. (...) No I didn't (this is sounding like a bad Python sketch). If action is justified (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) I can guess how it will deal with (URL) this>. I suppose the fact that this issue has been given this much attention is a small victory for those who really believe in freedom. Scott A (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) No. You said the war against Saddam was "unjust" and I disputed that. I did say in passing that I would dispute "illegal". It was never about the wisdom of the war, and I have said so repeatedly. Nor was it about Bush's stated reasons for (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) From what I can tell, the consequences didn't really amount to much other than saying "Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again!" If the UN wants to be taken seriously, they need to stick to their own decisions, and follow up on their resolutions in (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) No, they need to ignore debates based on flawed intelligence. (...) Are you saying that mandate was still valid? (...) So Clinton should have done less; not more? (...) Britain comprises Scotland, England and Wales (i.e. Britain can't (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) James Stewart, son of Mary, Queen of Scots, followed Elizabeth I to the throne, so didn't Scotland take over England? ;-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) They need to know that it's flawed intelligence before they can choose to ignore it on that basis. Last I checked the UN doesn't have a spy department, and SH was refusing access to their more direct information gathering services, like (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Ummmm scotsman only has one "t" :) And as an aside, it is a commonly held (mis?)conception in Australia (and more than likely elsewhere) that most Americans couldn't point to their home town on a map. But I was disappointed to see a Letterman (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
(...) It sounds logical on paper, but after acceding to the English throne, James IV of Scotland (becoming James I of England) only returned to Scotland once during the whole of his rule, at which time he basically told them they were worthless (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) It's also not spelled with a lower-case "s", but that's beside the point. (...) I've often wondered about this sort of thing. Admittedly, I have it easier than most US citizens, having lived my entire life on the longest lakeshore in the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
Yes, I get tired of the "clueless American" geography issue, when I find so many non-US citizens are surprised to find out that I can drive for over 600 miles on relatively straight interstates without touching reaching the far end of the state I (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Takes me 20 hours(ish) of straight driving to get from my place in Ontario to the next province--Manitoba Though I'd say the best story about size and geography--a friends father tagged along with a university undergrad study course to look at (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I0ny3F.F5E@lugnet.com... (...) easier than (...) the (...) where (...) If it's (...) the US (...) without (...) single (...) the (...) failing to (...) of (...) Hmm, I think I could (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message news:I0qwBt.2D3@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) Yep, your provinces are pretty big... (...) tagged (...) former (...) which (...) country on (...) Careful though, 7 hours doesn't sound that (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Hmmm, maybe it's a pretty darn big world after all! :-) JOHN (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Yeah, Russia is _almost_ bigger than any two of the other 5 largest nations, even after having large chunks of the ex-U.S.S.R. lopped off (and one of those chunks still ranks at #9 for both total land-mass and total area). In 1998, the (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Have you ever lived in Kansas? ;) (...) Exactly. And to many Americans, knowing the geography of your neighboring States is roughly equivalent to knowing the geography of neighboring nations in Western Europe. The big difference is that most (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Yeah, but LA to Boston is only 5 hours...he was flying east. Chris (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Added to that the idea that LA and Boston are on opposite coasts, whereas Moscow and the city whonse name I can't remember are not really near the 'outer edges' of the former Soviet Union. So the 7 hours was 'in country', not even going from (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:I0r83n.J72@lugnet.com... (...) country on (...) non-stop (...) Good point. I just checked for Seattle to Miami, it's 5 hrs 44 minutes. I looked at Alaska Airlines schedule, can't (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Last I checked, it's faster to fly west than east, since you'd be flying into the planetary rotation instead of overtaking it. Also, you can't judge the size of a country very accurately by board-to-debark times, since many airlines pad those (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I0rBKu.1C9r@lugnet.com... (...) into (...) Flying against the planetary rotation might get you somewhere, I'm not sure how all the dynamics work. What I do know is that in the (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message news:I0r8qE.nzy@lugnet.com... (...) country on (...) non-stop (...) Moscow (...) edges' (...) True, I was just pointing out that 7 hours by itself isn't impressive. You need to add the fact (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I0r5CA.243s@lugnet.com... (...) of (...) major (...) No, and I admit, I would have a harder time placing Kansas with just a map of natural features. (...) their (...) the US (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Yep, and I'd probably have no trouble with the places I've lived (and most of the places I've visited) in Aus. I'd probably take a little longer to find the places I stayed in the USA & Canada, but I think I'd generally get pretty close. (...) (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Look for the place with no elevation contours. :-) (...) What? False!!! Sam traveled Middle-earth from Mordor to the Grey Havens, something very few in Middle-earth could say that they had done. Now his old Gaffer, Hamfast, is given away by (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) I try to avoid doing that as much as possible. I may live in Michigan, but we've got sand dunes nearby, rolling hills, and lots of faux-elevation (i.e. trees in great abundance). (...) I was thinking specifically of the scene in TFotR, where (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) See, there's one of the things I'm wondering about. Do Europeans and such have an easier time of placing their home town on a world map or globe where everything is color-blocked by nations? I grew up seeing a US map that was color-blocked by (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Yeah, the one that someone proved really WAS "flatter than a pancake" ;-) -- Tom Stangl (URL) Visual FAQ home (URL) Visual FAQ Home (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Downright provincial:-) Moi: Canada, Mexico, Spain, Portugal, France, (West) Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Israel, Egypt, Jordan; most of those countries on multiple occasions, and 34 states. JOHN (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Basic physics says that if you spin the world in one direction, the air will (generally) spin in the other direction (counter-rotation, equal/opposite reaction and such), which should carry you even faster into the rotation and fight you even (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography
(...) Not bad. You have me beat for foreign countries, that's for sure. Countries: US, Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy, Australia, Japan States of the US: All but HI, ME, MT, AR, NM, ND (unless you (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography
(...) Oo! Oo! Finally a piddling contest I can do reasonably well in! Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany (both sides before the wall came down), Ireland, Malaysia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) When??? (refers to edited highlight) We ought to have given you a LUG reception, had we known in advance you were coming! :-) Great list. Mine is about the same size, but probably less extensive within the countries themselves: Portugal, (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Does this apply to driving, as well? If so, I may have found a new excuse for being late to work. But a more serious question: How big a factor is planetary rotation vis a vis commercial jet travel? I would have thought that, because flights (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography
(...) What I've never done, however, is go below the equator. Sounds scary down there! But at some time I would like to see in person water circle the drain in the opposite direction;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) lol Well, Pedro, it was a little before your time (circa 1967:-) I was about 6 at the time and I'm sure I had my LEGO in the back seat of the rental car to keep me quiet and occupied;-) I was close in 1984 when I spent part of my honeymoon in (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) I think the issue is the jet stream. It moves eastward somewhat faster than the ground, so going east you have a tailwind, and going west you have a headwind. Unfortunately for you, the mountains in PA aren't high enough for this to make you (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography
Nations (in order, to the best of my ability): West Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, England, Denmark, Austria, United States, Mexico, Canada, Jamaica I have driven, as an adult, on my own, and (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography
(...) What's the order there? Chronological by earliest first visited, to most recently first visited? If so, were you an Army brat or expat's kid? For me, the chronological order starts with the US since I was born here... (US '59, Canada '59 (I (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography
(...) You got me curious now: isn't Labrador a part of Newfoundland nowadays? Administratively speaking, that is. ;-) Pedro (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography
Yes it is. There! ;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography
(...) I think that Labrador is in charge of Retrieval. Dave! (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography
(...) I have no idea offhand and didn't look it up in advance. Perhaps someone else does know and feels strongly enough about it that they want to share. But being American, it's apparently expected that I not know... just trying to hold up the (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography
(...) I could hold up the Canadian stereotype, eh and say the centre of the universe is Toronto... Faulty history/geography recollection--Newfoundland came into Canada in '49 (or was it '52, should really refresh my memory on that one) When I was a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I0rxHu.uF0@lugnet.com... (...) had to (...) in (...) driving (...) My first hole is #4... I'm not well travelled in Texas (have been to Dallas and Fort Worth though, Dallas (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography
(...) Two straight weeks in salt-water? That can't be good for your skin... ;P (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography
(...) Yeah, I thought about that after I'd posted: "In order...of course it's in order, everything's in some order." It is chronological order of visitation. I was sort of an army brat. Dad was drafted during Vietnam and went to Germany and got (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography
(...) (Enters the public toilet) Within Australia: All mainland states & territories, lived in Tasmania, NSW and Victoria Countries: USA, Canada, Indonesia, Italy, Austria, Czech Republic, UK (England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland) USA: California, (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography
(...) Irish you hadn't setter straight; for puns, I grousely outnumber you Dave! JOHN (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) I must admit I have never checked, so I can't even say "last I checked", but since Long Jumpers don't slaver at setting world records on a west facing runway let me be the first official doubter. Going east helps getting into orbit since that (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Last I remember of Halley, Hadley and Coriolis that's not how it works, but it's been quite some time since I last looked at that kind of thing. The basic physics as I remember the model is that the heated air around the equator rises (the (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) Your explanation of hot air movement and how it affects weather and climate matches my memory of the facts a lot better than the previous hot air explanation did. Thanks for posting that! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
(...) I'll buy that, except that the original claim seemed to be that the rotation itself was the factor, not the jetstream. Admittedly, I may have misunderstood the framing of the problem: perhaps the question of east/west travel already assumed (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)