HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: luzeaux@campanile.berkeley.edu (Dominique Luzeaux)
Subject: Re: Euro Disney (was CNN Reports...)
Keywords: greve
Reply-To: luzeaux@campanile.berkeley.edu (Dominique Luzeaux)
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:39:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.234734.21792@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
pkersale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Philippe Herve Kersale) writes:
|> Cependant pour une fois, je ne lance pas la pierre a la CGT, car
ainsi on a vu
|> CNN dire que les francais n'acceuillent pas tous de bon coeur ce park
(Asterix
|> ou es tu?). Ca ne fait pas de mal aux americains de savoir qu'ils n'ont pas
|> toujours tout vrai.

C'est assez lamentable que la CGT ait fait greve, usant une de fois de plus
du droit de greve comme d'un chantage exerce a l'attention de la population;
un tel exercice du droit de greve est de l'abus de pouvoir, et devrait etre
lourdement sanctionne. Il n'est pas normal que le droit de greve serve
maintenant de cette maniere: il n'y a plus de revendication liee aux conditions
de travail, c'est une signature politique la plupart du temps, voire tout
simplement une manifestation de paresse.

A propos de CNN, j'ai entendu ce matin aussi: "le temps n'est apparemment pas
tres beau sur le reportage? Les Anglais vont se poser la question de savoir
s'ils vont aller a Paris ou en Floride, vu que cela leur coute a peu pres le
meme prix".
N'est-il pas lamentable que les vols en avion coutent si cher en Europe?

En Grande-Bretagne, l'ete dernier, j'ai vu des annonces pour des
weekends a Paris
avec tickets pour Euro-Disneyland. Il faudrait aussi se rendre compte que
lorsque les gens vont debarquer a Disneyland, ils vont passer une ou deux nuits
dans la region parisienne, d'ou un gain pour la restauration, l'hotellerie et
les commercants. Il serait alors de bon ton de ne pas sombrer dans un
anti-americanisme primaire; de plus, quand un enfant va voir Asterix ou Disney,
il se fout de savoir si celui-la est Francais ou celui-ci Americain.

	Dominique Luzeaux
Xref: sparky soc.culture.europe:3660 soc.culture.esperanto:661
From: pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Pierre Charles Jelenc)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.esperanto
Subject: Re: English OR Esperanto?
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:17:04 GMT
Reply-To: pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Pierre Charles Jelenc)
Distribution: soc
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Apr10.165947.15488@yuma.acns.colostate.edu> cc433336@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Constantinos A. Caroutas) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.153709.22765@cs.tu-berlin.de>,
>wolfi@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) writes:
>>
>>It's true that all written down languages emerged from naturally evolved
>>dialects, with a set of fixed othography and grammar rules 'artificially'
>>added to them. I don't agree on the concept of 'poor' and 'advanced' though,
>>and it doesn't necessarily require a _bureaucracy_ to establish such a
>>language.
>
>I read somewhere that Indoeuropean had 12,000 roots, prefixes, infixes,
>and endings and it was quite advanced. It makes me wonder whether that
>language evolved over many years or whether it was defined in several
>months.
>
>>Anyway, Esperanto is not comparable, cause it is not an evolved language
>>spoken already by the people of a country. It is completely made up.
>
>An Esperanto speaker told me that there is no agreement how to say
>"billion" in that language. When they agree, will it be considered
>evolution?
>
>Constantinos A. Caroutas

Esperanto does not have any problem saying "billion", it's English that
does: do you mean 10**9 (US) or 10**12 (British)?

10**9 = miliardo
10**12 = miliono da milionoj (or duiliono)

Pierre

        Pierre Jelenc                        pcj1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu 
        Columbia University, New York                                    
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.greek
From: kstokker@risc.uni-linz.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
Subject: Re: billion/milliard
Organization: RISC, J.K. University, Linz; Austria
Distribution: soc
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:17:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.025431.66673@yuma.acns.colostate.edu> cc433336@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Constantinos A. Caroutas) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.014952.22066@cs.tu-berlin.de>,
>wolfi@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) writes:
>>             US              UK            Ger             Fre
>>10**6        million         million       Million         million
>>10**9        billion         milliard      Milliarde       milliard/billion
>>10**12       trillion        billion       Billion         trillion
>>10**15       quadrillion     trillion      Trillion        mille trillions (?)
>>Now if that isn't confusing.
>>However in real life I never heard/read the supposed UK usage, Britons seem
>>to go along with US.
>
>That the US system was dominant over the UK one is what I'd heard too.
>And I'm pleased because the logic of the US one matches that of the
>Greek.
>
>Constantinos A. Caroutas

I'll throw in my tuppence:
                NL
10**6         miljoen
10**9         miljard
10**12        biljoen
10**15        biljard
10**18        triljoen
10**21        triljard
10**24        quadriljoen
etc.,
completely regular and much more logical than any other system as described
above (do the Germans really call 10**15 Trillion? Hard to believe).
(NL means Netherlands, BTW.)
-- 
-- Karel Stokkermans, RISC-Linz, Schloss Hagenberg, Austria, Europa
 -- email: kstokker@risc.uni-linz.ac.at (or k314070@edvz.uni-linz.ac.at)
"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 ]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
From: wolfi@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke)
Subject: Re: English OR Esperanto?
Organization: Techn. University of Berlin, Germany
Distribution: soc
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:37:09 GMT

gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis) writes:


>
>  Ancient Greek: Initially was a group of very poor related languages.
>                 Mycenae's central bureaucracy forces the establishment
>                 of a more elaborate advaned language.
>                 Athenian's economic and military superiority forced the
>                 adoption of the Classical language to many other states.
>                 Macedonian's military expansion forced the almost whole
>                 then known world to adopt the Hellenistic language.
>
> Roman Language: Initially a very poor language. Adopted heavily many
>                 Ancient Greek elements gradually, but as the state and
>                 the followed bureaucracy expanded then an advanced and
>                 elegant version was cultivated and forced by the central
>                 government.
>
> I know that very similar things happened to English, Modern German,
> Arabic, Chinese, Persian.


It's true that all written down languages emerged from naturally evolved
dialects, with a set of fixed othography and grammar rules 'artificially'
added to them. I don't agree on the concept of 'poor' and 'advanced' though,
and it doesn't necessarily require a _bureaucracy_ to establish such a
language.

Anyway, Esperanto is not comparable, cause it is not an evolved language
spoken already by the people of a country. It is completely made up.


>Gregory Dandulakis


Wolfgang




--
* Wolfgang Schwanke * Technische Universitaet Berlin * Germany * wolfi on irc *
* email: wolfi@cs.tu-berlin.de  wolfaefg@w250zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de  wolfi%opal@db0tui11 *

"Beam me up, Scotty. There is no intelligent life on this planet."
Xref: sparky soc.culture.europe:3752 soc.culture.nordic:2864 eunet.politics:631
From: karl@diku.dk (Karl-Christian Hansen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.nordic,eunet.politics
Subject: Re: EC membership of Sweden and Austria, and so WHAT ?
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:34:15 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

muller@advection.engin.umich.edu (Jens-Dominik Mueller) writes:


>In article <1992Apr8.103114.15035@odin.diku.dk>, karl@diku.dk (Karl-Christian Hansen) writes:
>...
>> BUT consider this fact: Helmuth Kohl recently won a German election by
>> calling Willy Brandt a traitor. Reason: Brandt defected Germany in the 
>> 1930's. Running from the Nazi's obviously makes you a traitor in Herr
>> Kohl's mind. So what is he?
>...
>> But just to make it clear: Our not-so-good friend H. Kohl recently suggested
>> that South Jutland should be German territory again. His reasoning was
>> something like "historical rights". (He made the same claim with respect
>> to Western Poland, but who cares in Denmark.) 

>You reiterate claims that you were asked to back up with substantial
>information. Kohl did not win ANY election recently. What are you talking
>about? 

The last German election.
>Also I haven't heard of any territorial claims of Germany to any
>neighboring country. Germany recently signed a treaty with Poland that 
>guarantees the current borders. Get your facts right, Karl!

Maybe not. I read the papers, I watched the news on TV. 
Right, Germany did sign a treaty with Poland. After the election. And after
some pretty negative comments from the rest of Europe.

>Proove your allegations or shut up. Jens.

Read the paper, watch the news, get informed. After doing that, I suggest 
you read the Maastricht Treaty. Real exciting stuff...

Karl
Xref: sparky soc.culture.europe:3613 soc.culture.nordic:2737 eunet.politics:607
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.nordic,eunet.politics
Subject: Re: EC membership of Sweden and Austria, and so WHAT ?
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:41:17 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <1992Apr8.171606.25967@kth.se> matsd@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE writes:
>The interesting issue for an EU/EEC election
>discussion must be to assure that each representative "represents" the
>same number of EU/EEC citizens, regardless of whether she/he is a Greek,
>German or Danish representative. 

  Actually, small countries are over-represented, which mean that the Nordic
countries together are about as strong as Germany, voteswise.

>  mats dahlgren 

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
Xref: sparky soc.culture.europe:3804 soc.culture.french:3133
From: junikka@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka)
Subject: Re: EC membership of Sweden and Austria ?
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 00:15:26 GMT

I tried email, but it bounced twice.

duncan@ossian.uucp (Duncan C Thomson) writes:


>You can find out more about Esperanto from your national Esperanto
>organisation, who will probably organise courses or recommend books.
>There is an e-mail course on the net.  There is an Esperanto newsgroup.

I'm interested in learning more about the email course.

jari
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: The nasty Kohl, was: EC membership of Sweden and Austria, and so WHAT ?
Date: 3 Apr 92 07:42:00 GMT
	<1992Mar25.115746.16013@odin.diku.dk> <x8c+Gt#@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University


>>>>> "Karl" == Karl-Christian Hansen (karl@diku.dk)

Karl> Hitler dreamed of a Europe under German leadership, and that is
Karl> what we are moving towards.

I can't believe you're for real, Karl. Disgusting remark.

/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
From: kurrer@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu (Christian Kurrer)
Subject: Re: '*.*.soviet' Includes More Than 50 Million Turks, 'Joni.'
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:04:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.193501.6045@cns.umist.ac.uk> ko@cns.umist.ac.uk  
(Kutluk Ozguven) writes:
> han@anadolu.michigan.com (hasan.b.mutlu) writes:
> 
> 
> ><1992Apr14.100406.4894@mits.mdata.fi>
> >jjj@mits.mdata.fi (Joni Jarvenkyla)
> 
> >>Just form alt.propaganda.turkish or something similar. I don't quite
> >>understand why I have to read masses of Turkish propaganda in a group
> >>called soc.culture.soviet. 
> 
> >A group called '*.*.soviet' also includes more than 50 million
> >Turks, 'Joni.' 
> 
> >                '*.*.soviet' =/ '*.*.russia' 
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I disagree with hbm. Even if it were *.*.russia then "Turkish  
probaganda"
> would still discuss the culture, history, and political condition of 
> 10% Turkish minority in and out of "autonomous" Turkish republics in the
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^
> so-called Russia. We could also discuss about the continuous opression  
of the 
> Tartar Turks and their present freedom movement, that was resulted with  
60 % 
> yes vote to liberation from Russia.
> 
> So *.*.russia does not save Mr Jarvenkyla's argument. *.*.soviet  
certainly
> not. But a soc.culture.armenian would decrease the number of articles,
> if Armenian netters had not opposed to that idea in last years voting.
> 
> Kutluk

You should be a little more careful here. There is a difference between 
Turkish and Turkic. To my understanding, the Soviet Union had a multitude  
of Turkic ( Turkic = subfamily of Altaic languages including Turkish  
(Webster) ) minorities, but I never heard of Turkish minorities in the  
Soviet Union.

This difference is similar to the difference between German and Germanic 
( Germanic = a branch of the Indo-European language family containing  
English, German, Dutch, Afrikaans, Flemish, Frisian, the Scandinavian  
languages, and Gothic (Webster) ).

Christian Kurrer
Xref: sparky soc.culture.europe:3591 soc.culture.nordic:2712 eunet.politics:596
From: eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas, SUNET)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.nordic,eunet.politics
Subject: Re: EC membership of Sweden and Austria ?
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:14:29 GMT
Reply-To: eric@sejnet.sunet.se
Organization: Swedish University Network (SUNET), Stockholm, Sweden
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-5

Ah, I knew this would happen.

In article <1992Apr6.113514.15008@ccsun.strath.ac.uk>, duncan@ossian.uucp
(Duncan C Thomson) writes...
>Adopting a national language (or perhaps a small number of national
>languages) as standard is another solution, less expensive in time and
>money, but it *is* unfair.  And no union should be built on unfairness.

Welcome to the world, Duncan. The world is generally built on unfairness. Many
times, unfairness is convenient and productive, and not as unfair as some
people make it sound. This is an example.

>The third solution is to adopt an easy, neutral auxiliary language.  It is
>fair, it is cheapest in terms of time and money.

STOP! I want to see a proof of this gratuitous claim. I want real-world based
arguments showing that making everyone learn a new, artificial language is
cheaper than using the existing business and educational infrastructure in
support of English, and encouraging more people to learn it.

>It is proven to work - at the world Esperanto congress thousands of people
>from all over the world meet and discuss a huge variety of topics, without
>a single interpreter.

Well I regularly go to international conferences where thousands of people meet
and speak English, without using a single interpreter, and most of them are not
native speakers.

>It is outward-looking - it is spoken not only in Europe, but across the
>world - from Nigeria to Nepal, from the USA to China.

Whereas English is only spoken in the UK and US, I presume?

>Try it - you might be surprised!

I have tried. I have learnt (or studied and mostly forgotten) 6 european
languages, including most of the ones Esperanto is supposedly based on, so I
thought I'd understand it easily. But I don't. Unfortunately, it doesn't even
look like Finnish to me - I do understand a few bits here and there, and find
them totally repulsive. It looks just like a string of awful spelling mistakes
from a variety of real languages. I have an easier time trying to map German to
Swedish (which I don't even speak very well) than reading Esperanto. Can we get
back to the real world now?

  Eric
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: The nasty Kohl, was: EC membership of Sweden and Austria, and so WHAT ?
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:27:45 GMT
	<1992Mar25.115746.16013@odin.diku.dk> <x8c+Gt#@engin.umich.edu>
	<FISCHER.92Apr3084200@thor.iesd.auc.dk>
	<ABRAHAM.92Apr3132308@loke.iesd.auc.dk>
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University

>>>>> "Per" == Per Abrahamsen (abraham@iesd.auc.dk)
>>>>> "Lars" == Lars P. Fischer (fischer@iesd.auc.dk)
>>>>> "Karl" == Karl-Christian Hansen (karl@diku.dk)

Karl> Hitler dreamed of a Europe under German leadership, and that is
Karl> what we are moving towards.

Lars> I can't believe you're for real, Karl. Disgusting remark.

Per> But he is right! 

No, he's not!  Starting from wrong premises and applying flawed logic,
thereby accidentally ending up at a true statement does not make you
right. 

Per> Unless the European union becomes real, we will have a Europe
Per> under German leadership.

That might be true. But it does not make Karl's remark less
disgusting. Drawing Hitler into the discussions hints at a relation
between the *motives* of the Nazis and the present Germans. What's
more, it does so without any kind of argument or reason other that
nationality. Disgusting if anything ever was.

Per> That is fair, considered that Germany is the only nation doing
Per> anything for Europe.  Who else does anything more than talking about
Per> helping eastern Europe?

The Germans have a long history of dominating Europe politically and
culturally. One reason is the size of the German people (note: not
nation), another is that Germans have traditionally been acting where
others are talking. This is part of what we see working on the
European scene at the moment, but note that the Germans have the
economy to support action.

Still, it seems pretty obvious to me that the hatred towards Germans
displayed by Karl and his like is nothing but envy and distrust
towards people that are clearly working more coordinated, have a
clearer goal, and are doing a better job than most of everyone else at
the moment.

/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
From: wolfi@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke)
Subject: Re: The nasty Kohl, Whatever happened to the United Europe?
Organization: Techn. University of Berlin, Germany
Distribution: soc
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:31:28 GMT

peter@cs.vu.nl (Grunwald PD) writes:


>Why don't all these people see that, if anyone is really dangerous in Germany,
>it's the people AGAINST the EC, NOT those PRO!
>
>You can cry around that Germany is becoming a superpower and that that is a
>bad thing, and that 'subtler than 50 years ago, not by tanks but by capitalist
>means' the Germans are slowly 'conquering' the East...
>
>...but the east is, in fact, for a big part asking for it (cf. Walesa's visit
>to Germany last week) and Germany is the only country in the whole wide world
>responding to it...and whether this will amount to a terrible future with
>Germans in control or a great future with more welfare in eastern Europe is
>not at all decided yet. Making -indeed disgusting- comparisons between present
>Germany and its leaders and Nazi Germany certainly won't help at all in working
>towards the latter option.

[ some stuff deleted ]

>BTW:
>I wonder whether the people making these Nazi comparisons (there's  more and
>more of them) have any idea about how terrible and different from now it really
>was in Nazi Germany. (maybe they also have no idea of how it is now...
>considering NYT's rather biased statements about Germany of a few months ago?)

Thank you for this passage, I can only agree.

Also I'd like to add, that the notion for Germany's involvement in the east
is her geographic position in the middle of Europe, with 2 neighbouring
countries being ex-eastern block, not to mention the integration of the
former GDR.

Germans would really be to blame if they did _not_ establish good contacts
with those countries in the same way as with the western neighbours in the
post war era.



Anyway, whatever happened to the idea of a Europe of regions, where cross-
border links in culture and economy are more important than the national
borders themselves?

It works quite well in western Europe, for example between Holland and Belgium,
Germany and France, and within the Scandinavian countries.

To a great extent we have to thank the EC for that, or am I wrong?


Now that the iron curtain has gone and the chance for a REAL United Europe
(and not just western Europe) is here, people suddenly seem to want it no
more, which is really saddening.

Can someone explain me why?


This comes from someone in ex-West Berlin, 70 km from the Polish border,
who would like to see the same openness here as on the Franco-German border.




Cheers


Wolfgang

--
* Wolfgang Schwanke * Technische Universitaet Berlin * Germany * wolfi on irc *
* email: wolfi@cs.tu-berlin.de  wolfaefg@w250zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de  wolfi%opal@db0tui11 *

"Beam me up, Scotty. There is no intelligent life on this planet."
From: albion@bnr.ca (Alan Buchanan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: English OR Esperanto?
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:47:20 GMT
Reply-To: alanbu@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Originator: albion@bcrks63


In article <1992Apr11.020300.20201@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis) writes:

> 
> 
> May be I can illustrate the use of the adjectives "poor" and "advanced"
> for a natural language by taking as paralleles the use of the adjectives
> "low" and "high" level programming languages.
> 
> In both cases all the languages can be used to satisfy all or almost
> all the human needs, in principle. But the differences in the *efficiency*
> of doing that, with respect to the "user friendlyness", are large
> for most of the cases.
> 

Can this efficiency be quantified or is it a qestion of perception? 
Languages evolve along the lines of ease of use within their normal
context. Simplicity of construction might make generation easier at
the expense of greater quantity.

 I believe that German and Russian generate some very long expressions
 and often constrain the listener to receive the full sentence before
 the message can be comprehended.

 I believe that English is an isolating language in which brevity is
 a highly prized asset. Its users are never too proud to borrow words
 from other languages if the result is shorter words and sentences.
 This will, however, lead to greater complexity in generation.

I do not know enough about languages in general, but I have not heard
that one is universally better than the others.


                                   Alan


--
Alan Buchanan       Bell-Northern Research, Ltd       Ph.: (613) 763-2750
Silicon Design      P.O. Box 3511, Station C          Fax: (613) 763-3970
  Methods           Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7  

alanbu@bnr.ca        

        Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.
                         - William Butler Yeats
Xref: sparky soc.culture.europe:3516 soc.culture.german:2849