(Didier Moens) wrote:
->On 6 Dec 1996 17:24:08 -0800, BeeJay > wrote:
->>> >No, I will not take you as an example, because what you claim is in my
->>> >humble opinion questionable. As far as I know the US are the most popular
->>> >destination for migrants. It is also the most accessible destination in
->>> >the Western world, as far as I know.
->>> Yep, as the Mexican would-be immigrants will be happy to confirm.
->>Make that "will-be". There's also a steady flow of immigrants from the Far
->>East. For more information and statistics about immigration I refer to
->>the Website of the U.S. Dept. of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/).
->Yep. And I'll consult Mr. Fox if I want to start a chicken farm.
->>Well, you have poverty and you have poverty. For some people it will be
->>unbearable, but for others it won't. But read carefully, Moens, because I
->>say "not necessarily unbearable", which does not exclude the possibility
->>that there's a contingent that is unhappy. Which only shows that you don't
->Depends on your definition of 'contingent'.
->>necessarily have to be rich to be happy here, as the initial correspondant
->I certainly agree with that.
->>wants us to think.
->>> Didier Moens
->>Oh dear, him again....
->You got a problem with that ?
->Oh, I forgot : NNTP is only for people sharing your views ; all others
->are Nazi postmasters who want to limit freedom of speech.
yep, I'm a Nazi postmaster.
->"If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil.
->But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an
On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Ania Oleksik wrote:
> 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.
> I am an individual who considers himself part of a
> group and acknowledge there are some rules which apply to group
> membership. One of these unwritten rules, accepted by quite some
> people is that you don't call each other names when you suffer from a
> lack of arguments. I reminded us of that rule. The punishment for not
> playing by this rule is losing your status of serious discussant.
Lack of arguments? Nonsense. By the way, for your information: the
unwritten rules you're talking about don't seem to be valid in
soc.culture.netherlands. And since when do *you* set standards for others
how to respond?
And may I remind you that I feel that Van Dijk's post was insulting
towards Americans? Do you actually see that?
> >> be frustrated? He's just hot-tempered, and he may be wrong. But
> >> there's no reason to attribute any vile motives to his opinion. Can
> >> you remain reasonable?
> >He was hot-tempered, you can say that. I responded in a reasonable
> >fashion (i.e. I could have been far more aggressive), and I have the
> >right to respond the way I did, so don't complain.
> Yes I will complain. I don't understand your 'right' to respond the
> way you did. Can you read me my rights? Do I have a right to complain
> about your forbidding me to complain? Can you give me the URL-code
> to a list of rights that you and I have?
I have the right to respond the way I did. I will use the same cheap way
out as you: it's an unwritten rule. Or perhaps it is not: it's called
freedom of speech here in the US. As I do acknowledge that Van Dijk is
allowed to dump his insulting bullshit on the Internet; I only hope that
he will realize that he has to think twice before exaggerating to the
extend that he's actually attributing vile motives to American politics
with regard to international security.
Don't you see that, Couzijns?
> This is not about rights, Bee, this is about rules on how we should
> treat each other as discussants. If I think you are unreasonable (by
> attributing vile motives to Jeroen's opinions}, I will tell you that.
Fine, you tell me that (that's your "unwritten" right).
> The idea that you could have been more aggressive (i.e. transgress the
> borders more than you did) does not make your response reasonable,
Well, we will never agree on this one, I'm afraid.
> >> >> >I wonder why then everybody wants to come here. They should really ta
> >> >> >to you first.
> >> >>
> >> >> By far, the rest of the world would NOT want to live in the U.S.
> >> >> Take me as an example.
> >> >
> >> >No, I will not take you as an example, because what you claim is in my
> >> >humble opinion questionable.
> >> You only consider examples who agree with you? I guess you are far
> >> away from any bachelor's or master's or PhD degree.
> >Do I say that??? Can you read??? I don't take you as the example for what
> >the majority would like to do, because I don't think that the majority
> >would like the same things as you, or I have at least my doubts about
> >that. Is it a little less cloudy for you now?
> Not at all. That's because I can read better than you can. Follow me.
> Joe wrote that 'everybody wants to come here' (i.e. to the U.S.). I
Let's settle this one, because I think we all mix up two things here. I
*think* (but he should come out and tell us) that Joe actually meant
migrants instead of the whole population. It is a mere fact that the US is
still the most popular destination for migrants from all over the world.
That's how I see it and frankly nobody really understood that. But I take
it that you're not a migrant, and as such are not an example!
[Huge snip, but answer to it all is enclosed in the above]
> >My degree doesn't matter; my opinion matters here, and it's ridiculous to
> >bring this up. My degree is none of your business anyway.
> No. But I made it my business. If you don't want me to, and/or want to
> hide your degree from us (yeah, I know, from me, but in doing so
> you'll hide it from the rest of our audience...) that's fine with me.
Now I do have a question, off topic really (has nothing to do with NATO
Dwarfism) but is it me or is is it just a habit of the Dutch? I mean, a
week ago or so somebody felt compelled to publish his grades in
soc.culture.netherlands, apparently to support his case, and now another
one is asking me to make public my degree, as if that would change
anything about the validity of my point? Degrees don't matter in any
discussion, just opinions. Or are you also infected with that typical
calvinistic "holier-than-thou-attitude", that moral superiority that
almost everybody seems to embrace in Holland? I fear the day that I have
to go there....
> >> >As far as I know the US are the most popular
> >> >destination for migrants. It is also the most accessible destination in
> >> >the Western world, as far as I know.
> >> Yes. Time to wonder if you know enough to back up this assertion. If
> >> not, it is empty. Everyone thinks his/her country is the most
> >> accessible and takes up too many migrants. BTW, shall we relate
> >> numbers to size of the country here? Or do you think this is an
> >> irrelevant factor?
> >Ahum, now be careful, because there's plenty of information on the Net
> >supporting my case. For a start I would advice you to go to the Website of
> >the U.S. Dept. of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/), and then select the
> >Immigration and Naturalization Service. You can trust that
> >information, believe me.
> I doubt whether the information presented there (next time be more
> specific which information you refer to - the Imm. & Nat. Service
> presents quite a lot!) supports your case. The average number of
> immigrants allowed to the U.S. is 800.000 a year from 1993 to 1995,
Oh, that's funny. You forget to add that 500000 people a year (in
*addition* to the 800000 who were granted permanent residency) became
American citizens (many of them through marriage, which in the case of the
Netherlands does not guarantee citizenship, let alone permanent
residency; I've heard some really sad stories about that), and a 100000
refugees. Have to add though that many new citizens already have a Green
> they say, showing a sharp decrease by more than 20 %. The U.S. (9300
> km2) have 260 million inhabitants, which is a meagre 28 inhabitants
> per square km. To compare, The Netherlands (41.000 km2) have 15
> million inhabitants and live with 452 inhabitants per square km (16
> times more) and nevertheless take up 30.000 immigrants a year
But how many of them will be guaranteed citizenship; how many refugees
does the Netherlands absorb?
Anyway, per 1000 inhabitants the Netherlands grant 2 persons permanent
residency per year, whereas the US is still granting 3 persons per 1000
permanent residency, about 50% more than the Netherlands. You really only
achieve that with less stringent immigration requirements and thus the US
is more accessible. Don't you think?
> (1993-1995). Would you still say that the U.S. is the most accessible
> country, related to size?
Population density, you mean. As I show above, that depends on how you
calculate the rate of immigration. I do not include population density,
because I really wonder to what extend that influences the immigration
proces. What you say is that for what Holland can have, they do a good
job, but its immigration policy must be more stringent in order to keep
it that way. We're getting a little closer to what I mean here, by the
I would like to know from you how many applications for permanent
residency/citizenship the Netherlands receive per year (let's say 1995),
in order to find out what percentage of applicants really gets what they
> I have heard that Germany was even more
> accessible than The Netherlands, though I don't have precise numbers.
> My case is anyway to say that too many more people believe their
> country to be the most accessible in the world.
Forget the Netherlands, when it comes to accessability.
> >> >> >>The most americans are living in their
> >> >> >>self made dream of drugs and crime.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You shouldn't give yourself away this fast ...
> >> >> >Any other jokes you might have, ing. Jeroen?
> >> >>
> >> >> Inadequate reply. Jeroen may exaggerate, but his argument
> >> >> is valid that the U.S. has a VERY SERIOUS drug and poverty
> >> >> problem. Also when compared to countries without capitalism
> >> >> as its bible.
> >> >
> >> >Ahem, I personally think that Joe was responding to Van Dijk's
> >> >*exaggeration*.
> >> I agree with you ! (hooray) But that is exactly my point: Joe
> >> addresses merely the exaggeration (I stated so) but not the argument
> >> itself. That's why I call his reply inadequate (I avoided the word
> >> 'cheap).
> >Aha, but to what extend did he exaggerate? His generalizations were out
> >of the ordinary. I can understand an American citizen would feel insulted
> >by such crap, and I therefore understand that Joe reacted that way.
> Yes, and once an American citizen has recollected him/herself, he/she
> writes an adequate response. I am still waiting. The underlying
> argument (The U.S. have a serious drug and poverty problem) is still
> valid The question was whether the U.S. is 'a good master to run to
Nobody claimed that the US did *not* have a drugs and crime problem, and
otherwise I really think you should take note of the fact that it was the
way Van Dijk posed his problem that pissed people off.
> once Russia has become weaker as a protector of middle European
> countries' (we almost forgot about that, didn't we?) and Jeroen tried
> in his way to point out that the U.S. does not offer merely beds of
> roses and mountains of gold and that maybe the middle European
> countries should not unconditionally seek protection of the U.S. or
> look at the U.S. as a role model..
Middle European countries should do whatever they want to do. But frankly
I don't think it's wrong to seek protection under the NATO.
By the way, wasn't it the US that had to be called in to initiate a peace
proces in the Balkan??? In other words, when it comes to security, there's
not much else to look for besides the US. Do you know any better