OT: Social Security Admin or scam?

On 9/18/2005 9:45 AM Charlie Self mumbled something about the following:
> Odinn wrote:
>
>>On 9/18/2005 8:31 AM Ron Magen mumbled something about the following:
>>
>>>Putting the 'scam or not' aside for a moment . . .
>>>
>>>I'm the first to admit that my Farsi is non-existent . . . but then again
>>>I'm not 'operating' in the Middle-East. A bit of an accent I don't mind,
>>>HOWEVER if you are working - in a 'people communicating' position - you
>>>should have a GOOD COMMAND & COMPREHENSION of the language of THAT country.
>>>
>>>I don't mean to 'interpret' for Charlie, but what really gets to me is when
>>>it is on 'your' dime, that this happens. You call 'Tech Support' for
>>>computer/software assistance and get a heavily accented, barely
>>>understandable voice, reading a 'script' {which may - or may NOT - have
>>>anything to do with your problem}. It gets worse when you try to explain
>>>that HIS answer has nothing to do with YOUR question . . . and are angrily
>>>informed that you can only be on the line for 7 minutes !!
>>>
>>>It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service is
>>>across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they speak
>>>clear English {so far !!}.
>>>
>>
>>Ummm, when did the US establish a national language?
>>
>>--
>>Odinn
>
>
> We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a
> legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
> as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their
> way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
> nothing but confusion.
>
Are you that stupid? Before English came to North America, there were
several different languages that existed here before then. English
wasn't the only language that came over before a good portion of North
America became the US, there was German, French, Spanish, Dutch and
several other languages. When the US was formed, there still existed
all these languages, and we've added several more since then. Which one
is the national language? Apache? Cherokee? Lakhota? Choctaw?

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

George wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
> > got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
> > answer it some day. Or not.
> >
> > Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
> > with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
> >
> > Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
> >
> > I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is not
> > a scam.
> >
> > Jesus wept. It wasn't bad enough when they tried to have China produce
> > the berets for the Army.
> >
> > I'm writing of blockheads, solid oak, so it's semi-on topic.
> >
>
> You're living too narrow a life. There are thousands of
> Indian/Pakistani/Arabic accents out there in the US. Most have jobs, some
> with firms hired by Uncle Sam. Mom got the real SSA application paperwork
> and the boiler-room call, but it sounded like a pure "Joiszy" accent on
> hers.
>
> Ask for a Spanish speaker next time.

Or next time ask the speaker where they are located.

--

FF

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 17 Sep 2005 14:10:06 -0700, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
> >>got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
> >>answer it some day. Or not.
> >>
> >>Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
> >>with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
> >>
> >>Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
> >>
> >>I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is
> >>not a scam.
> >>
> >>Jesus wept. It wasn't bad enough when they tried to have China produce
> >>the berets for the Army.
> >>
> >>I'm writing of blockheads, solid oak, so it's semi-on topic.
> >
> >
> > I'm all for it, so long as we take it to its obvious conclusion and
> > outsource Congress.
>
> Be patient, they're already outsourcing lawyers.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 17 Sep 2005 14:10:06 -0700, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
> >>got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
> >>answer it some day. Or not.
> >>
> >>Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
> >>with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
> >>
> >>Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
> >>
> >>I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is
> >>not a scam.
> >>
> >>Jesus wept. It wasn't bad enough when they tried to have China produce
> >>the berets for the Army.
> >>
> >>I'm writing of blockheads, solid oak, so it's semi-on topic.
> >
> >
> > I'm all for it, so long as we take it to its obvious conclusion and
> > outsource Congress.
>
> Be patient, they're already outsourcing lawyers.

Henry St.Pierre wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1126991406.692023.310470
> @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
> > got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
> > answer it some day. Or not.
> >
> > Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
> > with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
> >
> > Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
> >
> > I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is not
> > a scam.
> >
> > Jesus wept. It wasn't bad enough when they tried to have China produce
> > the berets for the Army.
> >
> > I'm writing of blockheads, solid oak, so it's semi-on topic.
> >
>
> You may answer it or not? You have been remarking for some time about how
> your medication(s) is really impacting your cost of living, comfort,
> quality of life etc. I love your bitching about the VA. Were you really at
> Parris Island?
> Hank

Yes, you may answer or not. What has that to do with anything. You can
always refuse to answer anyone about anything over the phone. Just hang
up, which is what I did. I'm not exactly sure where you read anything,
from me, about medicine "impacting" my cost of living. My medical
costs, thanks to VA, are far lower than for most people. I wasn't happy
when GWB's boys more than tripled that cost immediately after his first
election, but that still leaves prices relatively low, so they don't
much affect my cost of living.

Oh. Yes. I went through Parris Island, in early '58. But Parris Island
is not the sum total of a tour in the Marines.

Odinn wrote:
> On 9/18/2005 8:31 AM Ron Magen mumbled something about the following:
> > Putting the 'scam or not' aside for a moment . . .
> >
> > I'm the first to admit that my Farsi is non-existent . . . but then again
> > I'm not 'operating' in the Middle-East. A bit of an accent I don't mind,
> > HOWEVER if you are working - in a 'people communicating' position - you
> > should have a GOOD COMMAND & COMPREHENSION of the language of THAT country.
> >
> > I don't mean to 'interpret' for Charlie, but what really gets to me is when
> > it is on 'your' dime, that this happens. You call 'Tech Support' for
> > computer/software assistance and get a heavily accented, barely
> > understandable voice, reading a 'script' {which may - or may NOT - have
> > anything to do with your problem}. It gets worse when you try to explain
> > that HIS answer has nothing to do with YOUR question . . . and are angrily
> > informed that you can only be on the line for 7 minutes !!
> >
> > It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service is
> > across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they speak
> > clear English {so far !!}.
> >
>
> Ummm, when did the US establish a national language?
>
> --
> Odinn

We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a
legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their
way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
nothing but confusion.

Odinn wrote:
> On 9/18/2005 12:28 PM Chris mumbled something about the following:
> > "Odinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>On 9/18/2005 9:45 AM Charlie Self mumbled something about the following:
> >>
> >>>Odinn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On 9/18/2005 8:31 AM Ron Magen mumbled something about the following:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Putting the 'scam or not' aside for a moment . . .
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'm the first to admit that my Farsi is non-existent . . . but then
> >>>>>again
> >>>>>I'm not 'operating' in the Middle-East. A bit of an accent I don't mind,
> >>>>>HOWEVER if you are working - in a 'people communicating' position - you
> >>>>>should have a GOOD COMMAND & COMPREHENSION of the language of THAT
> >>>>>country.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I don't mean to 'interpret' for Charlie, but what really gets to me is
> >>>>>when
> >>>>>it is on 'your' dime, that this happens. You call 'Tech Support' for
> >>>>>computer/software assistance and get a heavily accented, barely
> >>>>>understandable voice, reading a 'script' {which may - or may NOT - have
> >>>>>anything to do with your problem}. It gets worse when you try to explain
> >>>>>that HIS answer has nothing to do with YOUR question . . . and are
> >>>>>angrily
> >>>>>informed that you can only be on the line for 7 minutes !!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service is
> >>>>>across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they speak
> >>>>>clear English {so far !!}.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Ummm, when did the US establish a national language?
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Odinn
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a
> >>>legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
> >>>as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their
> >>>way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
> >>>nothing but confusion.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Are you that stupid? Before English came to North America, there were
> >>several different languages that existed here before then. English wasn't
> >>the only language that came over before a good portion of North America
> >>became the US, there was German, French, Spanish, Dutch and several other
> >>languages. When the US was formed, there still existed all these
> >>languages, and we've added several more since then. Which one is the
> >>national language? Apache? Cherokee? Lakhota? Choctaw?
> >>
> >>--
> >
> >
> > Strange that a man calling people stupid, backs it up with elementary school
> > history facts.
> > Before Cherokee, humans in ( what is now) the US, grunted and banged as a
> > language. By your elementary reasoning we should accept that as a language
> > as well.
> >
> > The original languages in the US all melted into on language, English. For
> > a reason. A functioning country cannot function without commons.
> >
> > Wonder how this guy would feel if he had an accident, called 911 and they
> > did not speak English.
> >
> > Brings up the question. People in the US who cannot speak English, are they
> > a burden or a profit to our society?
> >
> > What was Andrew Dice Clay's joke??? :)
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> Let's see if you can follow this logic. Not everyone in the US has
> spoken English since the beginning of the US. Now, because we have
> people who speak something else, it's no longer okay that there are
> people who don't speak english? What about the vast differences between
> english in the Northeast and the deep south, or the midwest, or even
> California, for that matter. None of us speak the same english. We
> don't even speak english according to the Brits, so what is our national
> language again?
>
>
See if you can follow this logic: file your court papers in Farsi and
see what happens.

No one that I know of has said it is not OK to speak another language.
What is not OK is the insistence that the official systems in the U.S.
be made to use different languages and teach different languages. As I
recall, when the large mass of Italians hit the U.S., most of them
learned English as quickly as possible. Same with the Germans and the
French who showed up here. In fact, all the Vietnamese I know speak
pretty good English, as do most of the Pakistanis and Indians, though
their singsong accent often baffles me...quite possibly because of my
poor hearing at this point in my life.

English differs little in its written form from Alabama to Maine and
west to Washington and California, and doesn't change a whole lot in
Chicago, St. Louis and Des Moines.

Dialects of languages are common in all major languages. If you get
curious, Google Chinese and discover how many dialects a billion or two
people can form. In English, though, the written form remains the same.

Odinn wrote:
> On 9/18/2005 9:45 AM Charlie Self mumbled something about the following:
> > Odinn wrote:
> >
> >>On 9/18/2005 8:31 AM Ron Magen mumbled something about the following:
> >>
> >>>Putting the 'scam or not' aside for a moment . . .
> >>>
> >>>I'm the first to admit that my Farsi is non-existent . . . but then again
> >>>I'm not 'operating' in the Middle-East. A bit of an accent I don't mind,
> >>>HOWEVER if you are working - in a 'people communicating' position - you
> >>>should have a GOOD COMMAND & COMPREHENSION of the language of THAT country.
> >>>
> >>>I don't mean to 'interpret' for Charlie, but what really gets to me is when
> >>>it is on 'your' dime, that this happens. You call 'Tech Support' for
> >>>computer/software assistance and get a heavily accented, barely
> >>>understandable voice, reading a 'script' {which may - or may NOT - have
> >>>anything to do with your problem}. It gets worse when you try to explain
> >>>that HIS answer has nothing to do with YOUR question . . . and are angrily
> >>>informed that you can only be on the line for 7 minutes !!
> >>>
> >>>It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service is
> >>>across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they speak
> >>>clear English {so far !!}.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Ummm, when did the US establish a national language?
> >>
> >>--
> >>Odinn
> >
> >
> > We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a
> > legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
> > as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their
> > way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
> > nothing but confusion.
> >
> Are you that stupid? Before English came to North America, there were
> several different languages that existed here before then. English
> wasn't the only language that came over before a good portion of North
> America became the US, there was German, French, Spanish, Dutch and
> several other languages. When the US was formed, there still existed
> all these languages, and we've added several more since then. Which one
> is the national language? Apache? Cherokee? Lakhota? Choctaw?
>

Learn something about English, and language in general, before calling
others stupid, please.

Charlie Self wrote:
>
> In fact, all the Vietnamese I know speak
> pretty good English, as do most of the Pakistanis and
> Indians...
^^^^^^^

I'll bet the Australians, New Zealanders, English and Canadians
do too. ;-)

--

FF

George E. Cawthon wrote:
> ...
>
> That isn't quite true about those immigrants.
> There were large enclaves of Italian, Germans,
> French, Finns, Swedes, etc. where the people
> mostly spoke their native language and many of the
> actual immigrants never learned English or didn't
> learn it very well. But to be fair, they usually
> made their kids go to school and learn English. I
> have a friend who is a Finn that never spoke any
> English until he went to the first grade.

And I one who spoke nothing but Russian until he was
twelve. He was raised in Washington DC.

>
> Ah, but the written form of Chinese is the same
> regardless of the dialect. But those dialects in
> Chinese are far different from our regional accents.

Though there are idiomatic sxpressions unique to
each dialect that, even when weritten, make sense
only in the context of their respective dialects.

>
> Nonetheless, I agree, using translations in
> conduction of government and teaching in different
> languages is a waste of resources and a waste of
> money.

I disagree. In many cases it is not only not a waste
it is essential to the proper functioning of government
when you consider that functioning includes police
investigations, courtroom testimony disaster relief,
and so on.

In education it is far from wasteful to teach English to
non speakers of English and other languages to English
speakers.

--

FF

Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
> We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a
> legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
> as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their
> way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
> nothing but confusion.

Do they pay taxes? Is your money better than theirs?

--

FF

Norman D. Crow wrote:
> ...
>
> I was told many years ago that one of the reasons Switzerland has been able
> to "enforce" their neutrality from world conflicts is that every adult has
> served in their armed forces and is a permanent life member
> of their military, including having their uniform, weapon, etc, @ home ready
> for immediate callup.
>
> This was told to me in the '60s/'70s by a Swiss who was attending a tech
> school with me. I have no idea if this is still true.

Switzerland has almost no 'standing army'. But as you say, virtually
all adult males are part of their reserve forces.

Of course Switzerland has a distinct geographical advantage IRT
enforcing their neutrality.

BTW, there are three official languages in Switzerland...

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> >
> >
> > We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a
> > legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
> > as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their
> > way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
> > nothing but confusion.
>
> Do they pay taxes? Is your money better than theirs?
>
> --
>
> FF

What does one have to do with the other? Presumably, on your basis,
some guy speaking Bantu, who pays taxes, should be able to force his
language on the rest of us. The dominant language in this country has
always been English, for the simple reason that by far the largest
percentage of the population spoke and read it. It simplifies public
life to have it remain so, but there is no reason that people cannot
speak whatever language they prefer among themselves, whether Bantu,
Swahili or one of god knows how many Chinese dialects. Hell, they can
even speak Irish for all I care. I just don't care to have to pay for
the translations that take up half the space in manuals and tax
instructions, or to have to deal with people who cannot speak English
but are being paid by MY taxes to sell government programs to the
public.

I guess we can go with a dual language set-up, a dual cultural set-up,
as in Quebec. We all know that has worked beautifully over the years,
don't we?

Charlie Self wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Charlie Self wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a
> > > legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
> > > as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their
> > > way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
> > > nothing but confusion.
> >
> > Do they pay taxes? Is your money better than theirs?
> >
> > --
> >
> > FF
>
> What does one have to do with the other? Presumably, on your basis,
> some guy speaking Bantu, who pays taxes, should be able to force his
> language on the rest of us.

Your presumption, not mine.

> ... I just don't care to have to pay for
> the translations that take up half the space in manuals and tax
> instructions, ...

Suppose there is enough revenu from Bantu speakers so that
income tax instructions published in Bantu cost the government
the same as income tax instructions published in English.
Then it wouldn't be your taxes that go for paying for the
translation, right?

Personally, I'm kind of ambivalent about publishing income tax
instructions in multiple languages, though it may be cost-effective
in some cases.

But supposing that there is a school system with a lot of
students who speak Bantu. It makes sense to me to hire some-
one who speaks Bantu to teach those students English.

>
> I guess we can go with a dual language set-up, a dual cultural set-up,
> as in Quebec. We all know that has worked beautifully over the years,
> don't we?

Switzerland has three official languages.
How well has that worked out?

BTW, have you ever complimented an Indian on how well he speaks
English?

--

FF

Chris wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >>
> >> What does one have to do with the other? Presumably, on your basis,
> >> some guy speaking Bantu, who pays taxes, should be able to force his
> >> language on the rest of us.
> >
> > Your presumption, not mine.
> >
> >> ... I just don't care to have to pay for
> >> the translations that take up half the space in manuals and tax
> >> instructions, ...
> >
> > Suppose there is enough revenu from Bantu speakers so that
> > income tax instructions published in Bantu cost the government
> > the same as income tax instructions published in English.
> > Then it wouldn't be your taxes that go for paying for the
> > translation, right?
> >
>
>
> I have an idea. When the English speakers are not the majority of the tax
> payers, than we can change the language.
>

I have an idea, suppose suppose we don't change the language.

>
> > Personally, I'm kind of ambivalent about publishing income tax
> > instructions in multiple languages, though it may be cost-effective
> > in some cases.
> >
> > But supposing that there is a school system with a lot of
> > students who speak Bantu. It makes sense to me to hire some-
> > one who speaks Bantu to teach those students English.
> >
>
> NO. It does them no good or the soceity that they are in.

I do not see how you can deny that teaching those students English
does not benefit both the students and their society.

Sadly, you are not alone.

> ...
>
> > BTW, have you ever complimented an Indian on how well he speaks
> > English?
> >
> Find me one that speaks anything other than English these days, and I will.
>

My doctor speaks Hindi and English. But please, do not compliment
her on her English.

BTW, the question was addressed to Charles Self, in response to
something he wrote earlier.

--

Chris wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Chris wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> What does one have to do with the other? Presumably, on your basis,
> >> >> some guy speaking Bantu, who pays taxes, should be able to force his
> >> >> language on the rest of us.
> >> >
> >> > Your presumption, not mine.
> >> >
> >> >> ... I just don't care to have to pay for
> >> >> the translations that take up half the space in manuals and tax
> >> >> instructions, ...
> >> >
> >> > Suppose there is enough revenu from Bantu speakers so that
> >> > income tax instructions published in Bantu cost the government
> >> > the same as income tax instructions published in English.
> >> > Then it wouldn't be your taxes that go for paying for the
> >> > translation, right?
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I have an idea. When the English speakers are not the majority of the
> >> tax
> >> payers, than we can change the language.
> >>
> >
> > I have an idea, suppose suppose we don't change the language.
>
> Pretty much repetitive. I said the same thing above.

No it is not repetative. You missed the point. Accomodating
other languages does not change 'the' language from English
nor does it force another language on English speakers (an
earlier remark).


>
> >>
> >> > Personally, I'm kind of ambivalent about publishing income tax
> >> > instructions in multiple languages, though it may be cost-effective
> >> > in some cases.
> >> >
> >> > But supposing that there is a school system with a lot of
> >> > students who speak Bantu. It makes sense to me to hire some-
> >> > one who speaks Bantu to teach those students English.
> >> >
> >>
> >> NO. It does them no good or the soceity that they are in.
> >
> > I do not see how you can deny that teaching those students English
> > does not benefit both the students and their society.
> >
> > Sadly, you are not alone.
>
> I read wrong on the above. Thought you meant to bring someone in to
> continue teaching in Bantu and not English. Neither the less bringing in a
> teacher for each language is out of the question. Use a native speaker for
> all the different speakers. Better education as well.

I'm not able to make any sense of that paragraph even after reading
it several times.

>
> >> > BTW, have you ever complimented an Indian on how well he speaks
> >> > English?
> >> >
> >> Find me one that speaks anything other than English these days, and I
> >> will.
> >>
> >
> > My doctor speaks Hindi and English. But please, do not compliment
> > her on her English.
> >
> > BTW, the question was addressed to Charles Self, in response to
> > something he wrote earlier.
>
> We were taking about Cherokee Indians early. When did it change to Indians
> (as in the country)?

It changed when Charlie Self mentioned Vietnamese, Pakistanis and
Indians in the same sentence. I presume he meant Asiatic Indians,
not 'woo woo' Indians. Perhaps his article has not yet propagated
to your newsserver.

--

FF

George E. Cawthon wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > George E. Cawthon wrote:
> >
> >>...
> >
> >
> >>Nonetheless, I agree, using translations in
> >>conduction of government and teaching in different
> >>languages is a waste of resources and a waste of
> >>money.
> >
> >
> > I disagree. In many cases it is not only not a waste
> > it is essential to the proper functioning of government
> > when you consider that functioning includes police
> > investigations, courtroom testimony disaster relief,
> > and so on.
> >
> > In education it is far from wasteful to teach English to
> > non speakers of English and other languages to English
> > speakers.
> >
>
> We are in agreement. On the translation part I
> was referring only to using several languages for
> normal conduction of business, i.e., legal
> notices, ballots, minutes of a meeting, etc.
> Certainly translators are needed in any court or
> legal type situation where one of the parties does
> not speak English.

Legal notices, of course, are a legal type situation and
when you consider one of the societal benefits of a legal
notice is to reduce future legal hassles then publication
in the predominant language(s) of the community in which
it is published is not wasteful.

I think one point on which we agree is that the need to
provide tranlsations for non-English speakers is highly
situational. Neither total accomodation nor a prohibition
on accomodation makes sense and reasonable persons can
disagree as to where to draw the line in various
situations.

>
> Your last part is most valid. What is not valid
> is trying to teach school subjects by translation
> or in classes conducted in a foreign language to
> K-12 students. It is far more efficient to simply
> teach the nonspeaker English and forget other
> subjects. In other words, intensive language
> training with 5-6 hours a day. That will set the
> child back 1 year in school but thereafter he/she
> learns in English.

That's the basic idea, the devil's in the details.

--

FF

Duane Bozarth wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Chris wrote:
> ...
> > > ... Thought you meant to bring someone in to
> > > continue teaching in Bantu and not English. Neither the less bringing in a
> > > teacher for each language is out of the question. Use a native speaker for
> > > all the different speakers. Better education as well.
> >
> > I'm not able to make any sense of that paragraph even after reading
> > it several times.
> ...
>
> "Neither the less ..." should have been "Nevertheless ..." which helps
> at least some.
>
> If I interpret, Chris is saying teach all ESL students w/
> native-speaking English instructors, not in their native tongue.
>
> I don't have a problem w/ using bilingual teachers, but I do think the
> goal needs to be all-English instruction/immersion asap.
>
> So, iow, all shop measurements should be in English, not metric, and all
> safety instructions printed in English only. (Now are we back on topic?)
> :)

Seems sensible to me. But there's one thing the Internet has proven to
me, and that's that English speaking countries, almost all of which
rely on the consistency of written language, need to spend a whole lot
more effort in teaching the basics to native English speakers (and
writers).

Chris wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Chris wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Chris wrote:
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> I have an idea. When the English speakers are not the majority of the
> >> >> tax
> >> >> payers, than we can change the language.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I have an idea, suppose suppose we don't change the language.
> >>
> >> Pretty much repetitive. I said the same thing above.
> >
> > No it is not repetative. You missed the point. Accomodating
> > other languages does not change 'the' language from English
> > nor does it force another language on English speakers (an
> > earlier remark).
> >
> Yes it is repetative as the chances are NONE that the majority of the tax
> payers will be anything but English.

You continue to miss the point. Making something available in
other languages does not make it unavailable in English. A
repeated insistance that it does is indicative a failure to
grasp that simple reality, or disengenousness.

Making tax instructions available in Spanish does not 'change
the language' from English to Spanish so long as the English
language instructions remain available.

>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Personally, I'm kind of ambivalent about publishing income tax
> >> >> > instructions in multiple languages, though it may be cost-effective
> >> >> > in some cases.
>
> >>
> >> I read wrong on the above. Thought you meant to bring someone in to
> >> continue teaching in Bantu and not English. Neither the less bringing in
> >> a
> >> teacher for each language is out of the question. Use a native speaker
> >> for
> >> all the different speakers. Better education as well.
> >
> > I'm not able to make any sense of that paragraph even after reading
> > it several times.
> >
>
> Find a native speaker to read it for you then,.

Could you help us out by identifyihng your native language?

> >>
> >> We were taking about Cherokee Indians early. When did it change to
> >> Indians
> >> (as in the country)?
> >
> > It changed when Charlie Self mentioned Vietnamese, Pakistanis and
> > Indians in the same sentence. I presume he meant Asiatic Indians,
> > not 'woo woo' Indians. Perhaps his article has not yet propagated
> > to your newsserver.
> >
> I must of missed that memo.

Yes. That's pretty much what I said only I used the word
'article' instead of 'memo' because it was the correct English
word to use.

--

FF

Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> >
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> ...
> > >> ... I just don't care to have to pay for
> > >> the translations that take up half the space in manuals and tax
> > >> instructions, ...
> > >
> > > Suppose there is enough revenu from Bantu speakers so that
> > > income tax instructions published in Bantu cost the government
> > > the same as income tax instructions published in English.
> > > Then it wouldn't be your taxes that go for paying for the
> > > translation, right?
> ...
>
> But there would still be an incremental additional cost that
> wouldn't/shouldn't be required--that's the cost to which I object.

I don't object if there is a reasonable expectation of saving
a similar amount of money as a consequence of the accomodation.
In this example, tax forms and instructions, I expect the
publication of Spanish language instructions for tax forms
would improve the efficiency with which taxes are collected.

There are any number of situations where a pig-headed insistance
on English-only will exacerbate problems. It is a measured
decision as to where to draw the line.

--

FF

Duane Bozarth wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Chris wrote:
> ...
> > > ... Thought you meant to bring someone in to
> > > continue teaching in Bantu and not English. Neither the less bringing in a
> > > teacher for each language is out of the question. Use a native speaker for
> > > all the different speakers. Better education as well.
> >
> > I'm not able to make any sense of that paragraph even after reading
> > it several times.
> ...
>
> "Neither the less ..." should have been "Nevertheless ..." which helps
> at least some.

Yes, I got that much. The paragraph sort of reminds me of
some of the things I write late at night. When I read it
back that night, I read words that are no longer there when
I see it posted the next day...

>
> If I interpret, Chris is saying teach all ESL students w/
> native-speaking English instructors, not in their native tongue.

Perhaps so. If so, that's the kind of stupidity that needs to
be railed against. Teaching English to students who speak
Bantu is much easier for a Bantu speaker who is a conmpetent
ESL teacher than for a non-Bantu speaker who is otherwise
as well qualified.

In addition, it is necessary from the outset to communicate
various concepts to both the students and their parents and
from them to the teachers and administrators from the outset.
This includes things like school rules, schedules, and
vaccination requirements.

>
> I don't have a problem w/ using bilingual teachers, but I do think the
> goal needs to be all-English instruction/immersion asap.

I think we all agree on that, especially most immiigrant
parents. I recall a quote form one Texan who said he
wants his children to learn in English so they can become
engineers, doctors, and lawyers. The school system
wants to teach them in Spanish so they can flip burgers
and mow lawns.

--

FF

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I think we all agree on that, especially most immiigrant
> > parents. I recall a quote form one Texan who said he
> > wants his children to learn in English so they can become
> > engineers, doctors, and lawyers. The school system
> > wants to teach them in Spanish so they can flip burgers
> > and mow lawns.
>
> Many of our parents and grandparents came from other countries. The faster
> they learned English, the faster they got good paying jobs and opened
> businesses. They figured it out for themselves, not with the government
> holding their hand.

All of us had relatives who came from somewhere else, including
so-called Native Americans. It's just that their ancestors go here 1500
or 2000 years ago and ran off the previous inhabitants longer ago than
anyone else.

That said, the government help wasn't available back then, so the
harder workers did best (assuming at least average intelligence,
whatever that is). Today, in many cases, the harder workers do best and
whine less, so we hear less about them. The fastest learning immigrants
are those who come from a culture where learning was valued. I think
that may always have been the case. It may always be the case. If
school is viewed as a way to coop the kids up for the day, keep 'em out
from underfoot at home, then the learning process involved is secondary
and will get short shrift. That's hard enough for native English
speakers. It's even harder for those starting without the most useful
language in this country.

George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> Your last part is most valid. What is not valid
> >> is trying to teach school subjects by translation
> >> or in classes conducted in a foreign language to
> >> K-12 students. It is far more efficient to simply
> >> teach the nonspeaker English and forget other
> >> subjects. In other words, intensive language
> >> training with 5-6 hours a day. That will set the
> >> child back 1 year in school but thereafter he/she
> >> learns in English.
> >
> > That's the basic idea, the devil's in the details.
> >
>
> Not really.
>
> I've been out of retirement a couple three times to ease the transition for
> Russian kids. Since they are illiterate in both languages, it makes perfect
> sense to teach the one they'll use to find a toilet or burger in real life.
> The worksheets have a picture of a frog to prompt for a short "o" sound, or
> spelling, which might as well be f-r-o-g as l-ya-g-u-sh-k-a.

Well, I'd call those details.

--

FF

Chris wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Chris wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Chris wrote:
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Chris wrote:
> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I have an idea. When the English speakers are not the majority of
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> tax
> >> >> >> payers, than we can change the language.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have an idea, suppose suppose we don't change the language.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pretty much repetitive. I said the same thing above.
> >> >
> >> > No it is not repetative. You missed the point. Accomodating
> >> > other languages does not change 'the' language from English
> >> > nor does it force another language on English speakers (an
> >> > earlier remark).
> >> >
> >> Yes it is repetative as the chances are NONE that the majority of the tax
> >> payers will be anything but English.
> >
> > You continue to miss the point. Making something available in
> > other languages does not make it unavailable in English. A
> > repeated insistance that it does is indicative a failure to
> > grasp that simple reality, or disengenousness.
> >
> > Making tax instructions available in Spanish does not 'change
> > the language' from English to Spanish so long as the English
> > language instructions remain available.
> >
>
> Respectfully I am not missing the point at all. Give a little / take a lot
> comes to mind. We are just enabling the fact that there is no reason the
> learn English. Give a few things in multiple languages and then the demand
> will be for more. Next thing you know, we will be searching street signs
> for English, like we do with instruction manuals.

Here I disagree. I do not see accomodations for non-English
speakers making it at all harder for English Speakers. It
hasn't made anything harder for me and I don't anticipate it
becomming that way.

I think the products that have manuals/instructions printed
in a huge variety of languages are typically intedned for sale
in the same package in many different countries, though I suppose
that may not always be the case.

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Chris wrote:
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> news:[email protected]...
> > >> >
> > >> > Chris wrote:
> > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:[email protected]...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Chris wrote:
> > >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> ...
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> I have an idea. When the English speakers are not the majority of
> > >> >> >> the
> > >> >> >> tax
> > >> >> >> payers, than we can change the language.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I have an idea, suppose suppose we don't change the language.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Pretty much repetitive. I said the same thing above.
> > >> >
> > >> > No it is not repetative. You missed the point. Accomodating
> > >> > other languages does not change 'the' language from English
> > >> > nor does it force another language on English speakers (an
> > >> > earlier remark).
> > >> >
> > >> Yes it is repetative as the chances are NONE that the majority of the tax
> > >> payers will be anything but English.
> > >
> > > You continue to miss the point. Making something available in
> > > other languages does not make it unavailable in English. A
> > > repeated insistance that it does is indicative a failure to
> > > grasp that simple reality, or disengenousness.
> > >
> > > Making tax instructions available in Spanish does not 'change
> > > the language' from English to Spanish so long as the English
> > > language instructions remain available.
> > >
> >
> > Respectfully I am not missing the point at all. Give a little / take a lot
> > comes to mind. We are just enabling the fact that there is no reason the
> > learn English. Give a few things in multiple languages and then the demand
> > will be for more. Next thing you know, we will be searching street signs
> > for English, like we do with instruction manuals.
>
> Here I disagree. I do not see accomodations for non-English
> speakers making it at all harder for English Speakers. It
> hasn't made anything harder for me and I don't anticipate it
> becomming that way.
>
> I think the products that have manuals/instructions printed
> in a huge variety of languages are typically intedned for sale
> in the same package in many different countries, though I suppose
> that may not always be the case.
>
> --
>
> FF

In general, the manuals aimed at the U.S. eastern market are usually
printed in English, Spanish and French. That's actually Northeast
needs, as there are very few French speakers who wander this far away
from Quebec.

As long as we continue to teach English as the primary language,
insisting that immigrants learn it, we won't have problems with
multi-language signage and similar fun stuff. When we stop, for
whatever reason, the pressures from those who don't speak English for
convenience items will increase. Given the butt kissing mode most
politicians live in these days, it won't take long to change.

Charlie Self wrote:
> Odinn wrote:
>
>>On 9/18/2005 12:28 PM Chris mumbled something about the following:
>>
>>>"Odinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 9/18/2005 9:45 AM Charlie Self mumbled something about the following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Odinn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 9/18/2005 8:31 AM Ron Magen mumbled something about the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Putting the 'scam or not' aside for a moment . . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm the first to admit that my Farsi is non-existent . . . but then
>>>>>>>again
>>>>>>>I'm not 'operating' in the Middle-East. A bit of an accent I don't mind,
>>>>>>>HOWEVER if you are working - in a 'people communicating' position - you
>>>>>>>should have a GOOD COMMAND & COMPREHENSION of the language of THAT
>>>>>>>country.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't mean to 'interpret' for Charlie, but what really gets to me is
>>>>>>>when
>>>>>>>it is on 'your' dime, that this happens. You call 'Tech Support' for
>>>>>>>computer/software assistance and get a heavily accented, barely
>>>>>>>understandable voice, reading a 'script' {which may - or may NOT - have
>>>>>>>anything to do with your problem}. It gets worse when you try to explain
>>>>>>>that HIS answer has nothing to do with YOUR question . . . and are
>>>>>>>angrily
>>>>>>>informed that you can only be on the line for 7 minutes !!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service is
>>>>>>>across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they speak
>>>>>>>clear English {so far !!}.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ummm, when did the US establish a national language?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Odinn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a
>>>>>legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
>>>>>as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their
>>>>>way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
>>>>>nothing but confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you that stupid? Before English came to North America, there were
>>>>several different languages that existed here before then. English wasn't
>>>>the only language that came over before a good portion of North America
>>>>became the US, there was German, French, Spanish, Dutch and several other
>>>>languages. When the US was formed, there still existed all these
>>>>languages, and we've added several more since then. Which one is the
>>>>national language? Apache? Cherokee? Lakhota? Choctaw?
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>
>>>
>>>Strange that a man calling people stupid, backs it up with elementary school
>>>history facts.
>>>Before Cherokee, humans in ( what is now) the US, grunted and banged as a
>>>language. By your elementary reasoning we should accept that as a language
>>>as well.
>>>
>>>The original languages in the US all melted into on language, English. For
>>>a reason. A functioning country cannot function without commons.
>>>
>>>Wonder how this guy would feel if he had an accident, called 911 and they
>>>did not speak English.
>>>
>>>Brings up the question. People in the US who cannot speak English, are they
>>>a burden or a profit to our society?
>>>
>>>What was Andrew Dice Clay's joke??? :)
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Let's see if you can follow this logic. Not everyone in the US has
>>spoken English since the beginning of the US. Now, because we have
>>people who speak something else, it's no longer okay that there are
>>people who don't speak english? What about the vast differences between
>>english in the Northeast and the deep south, or the midwest, or even
>>California, for that matter. None of us speak the same english. We
>>don't even speak english according to the Brits, so what is our national
>>language again?
>>
>>
>
> See if you can follow this logic: file your court papers in Farsi and
> see what happens.
>
> No one that I know of has said it is not OK to speak another language.
> What is not OK is the insistence that the official systems in the U.S.
> be made to use different languages and teach different languages. As I
> recall, when the large mass of Italians hit the U.S., most of them
> learned English as quickly as possible. Same with the Germans and the
> French who showed up here. In fact, all the Vietnamese I know speak
> pretty good English, as do most of the Pakistanis and Indians, though
> their singsong accent often baffles me...quite possibly because of my
> poor hearing at this point in my life.
>
> English differs little in its written form from Alabama to Maine and
> west to Washington and California, and doesn't change a whole lot in
> Chicago, St. Louis and Des Moines.
>
> Dialects of languages are common in all major languages. If you get
> curious, Google Chinese and discover how many dialects a billion or two
> people can form. In English, though, the written form remains the same.
>

That isn't quite true about those immigrants.
There were large enclaves of Italian, Germans,
French, Finns, Swedes, etc. where the people
mostly spoke their native language and many of the
actual immigrants never learned English or didn't
learn it very well. But to be fair, they usually
made their kids go to school and learn English. I
have a friend who is a Finn that never spoke any
English until he went to the first grade.

Ah, but the written form of Chinese is the same
regardless of the dialect. But those dialects in
Chinese are far different from our regional accents.

Nonetheless, I agree, using translations in
conduction of government and teaching in different
languages is a waste of resources and a waste of
money.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> I think we all agree on that, especially most immiigrant
> parents. I recall a quote form one Texan who said he
> wants his children to learn in English so they can become
> engineers, doctors, and lawyers. The school system
> wants to teach them in Spanish so they can flip burgers
> and mow lawns.

Many of our parents and grandparents came from other countries. The faster
they learned English, the faster they got good paying jobs and opened
businesses. They figured it out for themselves, not with the government
holding their hand.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Chris wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Chris wrote:
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >
>> >> > Chris wrote:
>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have an idea. When the English speakers are not the majority of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> tax
>> >> >> payers, than we can change the language.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I have an idea, suppose suppose we don't change the language.
>> >>
>> >> Pretty much repetitive. I said the same thing above.
>> >
>> > No it is not repetative. You missed the point. Accomodating
>> > other languages does not change 'the' language from English
>> > nor does it force another language on English speakers (an
>> > earlier remark).
>> >
>> Yes it is repetative as the chances are NONE that the majority of the tax
>> payers will be anything but English.
>
> You continue to miss the point. Making something available in
> other languages does not make it unavailable in English. A
> repeated insistance that it does is indicative a failure to
> grasp that simple reality, or disengenousness.
>
> Making tax instructions available in Spanish does not 'change
> the language' from English to Spanish so long as the English
> language instructions remain available.
>

Respectfully I am not missing the point at all. Give a little / take a lot
comes to mind. We are just enabling the fact that there is no reason the
learn English. Give a few things in multiple languages and then the demand
will be for more. Next thing you know, we will be searching street signs
for English, like we do with instruction manuals.

If you accommodate / nurture the guise that not knowing English is ok, the
problem will only worsen.

I am not saying that if you cannot read English you should not pay taxes.
If you cannot read English than pay someone who can figure your taxes for
you. Do not expect the others to pay (through taxes to translate) for your
lack of knowledge. For that matter why should a foreign speaker who took
the time to learn English pay for another who refuses?

Point blank; name me one US citizen that who has stood out for the better of
this country who could not speak English. That leaves out 100% of the
military, as English is required. Let us dwell on why English is mandatory
in the military. Because at the extreme, lives are on the line. This can
easily be translated into living in the US. Not that lives are on the line
in normal US living. It is well known that nobody can function 100% unless
there is a common form of communication.

For Pete's sake we have English as the most popular second language
throughout the world. Why? Because of the affiliation of the US. You have
people in other countries learning English, not only because of the US but
the fact that it seems to becoming the most international language. Can we
not expect the same for the people that are actually living on our soil?

Chris

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
> got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
> answer it some day. Or not.
>
> Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
> with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
>
> Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
>
> I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is not
> a scam.
>
> Jesus wept. It wasn't bad enough when they tried to have China produce
> the berets for the Army.
>
> I'm writing of blockheads, solid oak, so it's semi-on topic.
>

You're living too narrow a life. There are thousands of
Indian/Pakistani/Arabic accents out there in the US. Most have jobs, some
with firms hired by Uncle Sam. Mom got the real SSA application paperwork
and the boiler-room call, but it sounded like a pure "Joiszy" accent on
hers.

Ask for a Spanish speaker next time.

"Norman D. Crow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Henry St.Pierre" wrote in message
>>
>>>I love your bitching about the VA. Were you really at
>>> Parris Island?
>>
>> When you've actually spent a slice of your life serving your country
>> you've
>> thereby earned the right to criticize any part of it you damn well
>> please.
>>
>
> YEP!
>
> --

So much for social responsibility. Every man an island. To hell with
unity!

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> So much for social responsibility. Every man an island. To hell with
>> unity!
>
> There are damn few higher forms of "social responsibility" than serving
> your
> country; "Every man an island" is inarguably the antithesis of "serving
> your
> country"; and "unity" is something while learn by doing so.
>
> And it is well documented that those who haven't will attempt to argue
> otherwise ... and to those, it's always a waste of your breath.
>

Are you writing in English? The words are familiar, but what you're saying
is a mystery.

There are many ways to serve, none of which involve demanding that you be
served.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George" wrote in message
>
>> Are you writing in English? The words are familiar, but what you're
> saying
>> is a mystery.
>
> Good first step there, George, recognizing your problem ... reading
> comprehension.
>
>> There are many ways to serve, none of which involve demanding that you be
>> served.
>
> The "mystery" is where/how the hell you came up with "demanding to be
> served" as an issue ... but it's a notable fact that those who give the
> most, generally "demand" the least.
>
No comprehension problems here. Please learn to write.

"Norman D. Crow" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> I was told many years ago that one of the reasons Switzerland has been
> able to "enforce" their neutrality from world conflicts is that every
> adult has served in their armed forces and is a permanent life member
> of their military, including having their uniform, weapon, etc, @ home
> ready for immediate callup.
>
> This was told to me in the '60s/'70s by a Swiss who was attending a tech
> school with me. I have no idea if this is still true.
> --

Well, the terrain may be a contributing factor, but a resolute and ready
citizenry doesn't hurt. All the tunnels are pre-mined and good defensive
positions prepared, so they say.

Israelis were doing pretty well as long as they had clearly identified
enemies, then too many people started "bitching" about their country's
internal politics and ignoring the threat. Got a bit more dangerous. When
the propagandists and the people spend their time harping on the single
issue with which they disagree, and see the opposite party as a greater
enemy than the external ones sworn to cut their throats ... well, it's not
good.

Chris wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
...
> >> ... I just don't care to have to pay for
> >> the translations that take up half the space in manuals and tax
> >> instructions, ...
> >
> > Suppose there is enough revenu from Bantu speakers so that
> > income tax instructions published in Bantu cost the government
> > the same as income tax instructions published in English.
> > Then it wouldn't be your taxes that go for paying for the
> > translation, right?
...

But there would still be an incremental additional cost that
wouldn't/shouldn't be required--that's the cost to which I object.

I am also opposed to the advancement of other than English as "official"
languages for official business simply on the grounds of minimizing the
tendency to Balkanization of the US. The fundamental success of the US
has relied on the assimilation of various ethnic groups into a cohesive
whole. You can have your culture and enclave, I'm all for that but you
simply <must> learn to not necessarily completely subjugate that to the
overall culture but learn to coexist in "the big picture" imo.

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Chris wrote:
...
> > ... Thought you meant to bring someone in to
> > continue teaching in Bantu and not English. Neither the less bringing in a
> > teacher for each language is out of the question. Use a native speaker for
> > all the different speakers. Better education as well.
>
> I'm not able to make any sense of that paragraph even after reading
> it several times.
...

"Neither the less ..." should have been "Nevertheless ..." which helps
at least some.

If I interpret, Chris is saying teach all ESL students w/
native-speaking English instructors, not in their native tongue.

I don't have a problem w/ using bilingual teachers, but I do think the
goal needs to be all-English instruction/immersion asap.

So, iow, all shop measurements should be in English, not metric, and all
safety instructions printed in English only. (Now are we back on topic?)
:)

Charlie Self wrote:
...

> ... But there's one thing the Internet has proven to
> me, and that's that English speaking countries, almost all of which
> rely on the consistency of written language, need to spend a whole lot
> more effort in teaching the basics to native English speakers (and
> writers).

Well, that's true in spades for all subjects, not just English. :(

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris wrote:
> > ...
> > > > ... Thought you meant to bring someone in to
> > > > continue teaching in Bantu and not English. Neither the less bringing in a
> > > > teacher for each language is out of the question. Use a native speaker for
> > > > all the different speakers. Better education as well.
> > >
> > > I'm not able to make any sense of that paragraph even after reading
> > > it several times.
> > ...
> >
> > "Neither the less ..." should have been "Nevertheless ..." which helps
> > at least some.
>
> Yes, I got that much. The paragraph sort of reminds me of
> some of the things I write late at night. When I read it
> back that night, I read words that are no longer there when
> I see it posted the next day...
>
> >
> > If I interpret, Chris is saying teach all ESL students w/
> > native-speaking English instructors, not in their native tongue.
>
> Perhaps so. If so, that's the kind of stupidity that needs to
> be railed against. Teaching English to students who speak
> Bantu is much easier for a Bantu speaker who is a conmpetent
> ESL teacher than for a non-Bantu speaker who is otherwise
> as well qualified.

First, where you gonna' find one--particularly in small communities
where many of the newest immigrants end up working in places like
packing plants, etc.? Second, the Eyetalians, et al. seemed to have
managed in the 20s and before--why are the current kids so much less
capable than they were?

> In addition, it is necessary from the outset to communicate
> various concepts to both the students and their parents and
> from them to the teachers and administrators from the outset.
> This includes things like school rules, schedules, and
> vaccination requirements.

Initially, there is a potential problem, particularly w/ some of the
adults, granted. Still, it's typically easier to find a part-time
translator than an instructor in places like we are here--we have many
varieties of SE Asians, etc., from the influx in the 60s that are now,
for the most part, successful small business owners, etc., while the
packing plant jobs are now <mostly> Hispanic-speaking. But, I can think
of only a couple of the various Asian-speaking folks who have ever
chosen to become teachers and are in the schools, yet many do
translations as needed on a "on-call" basis.

> >
> > I don't have a problem w/ using bilingual teachers, but I do think the
> > goal needs to be all-English instruction/immersion asap.
>
> I think we all agree on that, especially most immiigrant
> parents. I recall a quote form one Texan who said he
> wants his children to learn in English so they can become
> engineers, doctors, and lawyers. The school system
> wants to teach them in Spanish so they can flip burgers
> and mow lawns.

I don't see that from the school system (here anyway), but I do see the
end result it has from many of the social "do-gooders" that want to
maintain "diversity" at the sake of assimilation, thus prolonging and
deepening the isolation from the mainstream economy.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Your last part is most valid. What is not valid
>> is trying to teach school subjects by translation
>> or in classes conducted in a foreign language to
>> K-12 students. It is far more efficient to simply
>> teach the nonspeaker English and forget other
>> subjects. In other words, intensive language
>> training with 5-6 hours a day. That will set the
>> child back 1 year in school but thereafter he/she
>> learns in English.
>
> That's the basic idea, the devil's in the details.
>

Not really.

I've been out of retirement a couple three times to ease the transition for
Russian kids. Since they are illiterate in both languages, it makes perfect
sense to teach the one they'll use to find a toilet or burger in real life.
The worksheets have a picture of a frog to prompt for a short "o" sound, or
spelling, which might as well be f-r-o-g as l-ya-g-u-sh-k-a.

Pull up a chair and sit side-by side in the classroom, where they can get a
feel and an ear for English in use rather than as some sort of mathematical
construct as we teach other languages. Don't isolate them. ESL is a bad
hoax in almost every case, because the people instructed are, by and large,
illiterate in their native language.

The best teacher is the playground....

Charlie Self wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
...
> > I think the products that have manuals/instructions printed
> > in a huge variety of languages are typically intedned for sale
> > in the same package in many different countries, though I suppose
> > that may not always be the case.
...
> In general, the manuals aimed at the U.S. eastern market are usually
> printed in English, Spanish and French. That's actually Northeast
> needs, as there are very few French speakers who wander this far away
> from Quebec.

Those products aren't "aimed" anywhere--they're simply generic to cover
all markets. We get the same stuff here in the midwest/southwest as
there. The choice of languages is one of the manufacturer for how many
to print it in rather than where the product is going for almost
everything.

> As long as we continue to teach English as the primary language,
> insisting that immigrants learn it, we won't have problems with
> multi-language signage and similar fun stuff. ...

That's already an issue in the southern tier states w/ Spanish... :(

"Henry St.Pierre" wrote in message

>I love your bitching about the VA. Were you really at
> Parris Island?

When you've actually spent a slice of your life serving your country you've
thereby earned the right to criticize any part of it you damn well please.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/17/05

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Chris wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Chris wrote:
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What does one have to do with the other? Presumably, on your basis,
>> >> >> some guy speaking Bantu, who pays taxes, should be able to force
>> >> >> his
>> >> >> language on the rest of us.
>> >> >
>> >> > Your presumption, not mine.
>> >> >
>> >> >> ... I just don't care to have to pay for
>> >> >> the translations that take up half the space in manuals and tax
>> >> >> instructions, ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Suppose there is enough revenu from Bantu speakers so that
>> >> > income tax instructions published in Bantu cost the government
>> >> > the same as income tax instructions published in English.
>> >> > Then it wouldn't be your taxes that go for paying for the
>> >> > translation, right?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I have an idea. When the English speakers are not the majority of the
>> >> tax
>> >> payers, than we can change the language.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I have an idea, suppose suppose we don't change the language.
>>
>> Pretty much repetitive. I said the same thing above.
>
> No it is not repetative. You missed the point. Accomodating
> other languages does not change 'the' language from English
> nor does it force another language on English speakers (an
> earlier remark).
>
Yes it is repetative as the chances are NONE that the majority of the tax
payers will be anything but English.

>> >>
>> >> > Personally, I'm kind of ambivalent about publishing income tax
>> >> > instructions in multiple languages, though it may be cost-effective
>> >> > in some cases.

>>
>> I read wrong on the above. Thought you meant to bring someone in to
>> continue teaching in Bantu and not English. Neither the less bringing in
>> a
>> teacher for each language is out of the question. Use a native speaker
>> for
>> all the different speakers. Better education as well.
>
> I'm not able to make any sense of that paragraph even after reading
> it several times.
>

Find a native speaker to read it for you then,.

>> >

>> > My doctor speaks Hindi and English. But please, do not compliment
>> > her on her English.
>> >
>> > BTW, the question was addressed to Charles Self, in response to
>> > something he wrote earlier.
>>
>> We were taking about Cherokee Indians early. When did it change to
>> Indians
>> (as in the country)?
>
> It changed when Charlie Self mentioned Vietnamese, Pakistanis and
> Indians in the same sentence. I presume he meant Asiatic Indians,
> not 'woo woo' Indians. Perhaps his article has not yet propagated
> to your newsserver.
>
I must of missed that memo.


Chris

Tom Watson wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2005 14:10:06 -0700, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
>>got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
>>answer it some day. Or not.
>>
>>Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
>>with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
>>
>>Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
>>
>>I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is not
>>a scam.
>
>
> I'm all for it, so long as we take it to its obvious conclusion and
> outsource Congress.

They already are 'mentally'. That's the first step!
John

On 9/18/2005 10:59 PM Mark & Juanita mumbled something about the followin=
g:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:03:02 -0400, Odinn <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
>=20
>=20
>>On 9/18/2005 9:45 AM Charlie Self mumbled something about the following=
:
>>
>>>Odinn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 9/18/2005 8:31 AM Ron Magen mumbled something about the following:=

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Putting the 'scam or not' aside for a moment . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm the first to admit that my Farsi is non-existent . . . but then =
again
>>>>>I'm not 'operating' in the Middle-East. A bit of an accent I don't m=
ind,
>>>>>HOWEVER if you are working - in a 'people communicating' position - =
you
>>>>>should have a GOOD COMMAND & COMPREHENSION of the language of THAT c=
ountry.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't mean to 'interpret' for Charlie, but what really gets to me =
is when
>>>>>it is on 'your' dime, that this happens. You call 'Tech Support' for=

>>>>>computer/software assistance and get a heavily accented, barely
>>>>>understandable voice, reading a 'script' {which may - or may NOT - h=
ave
>>>>>anything to do with your problem}. It gets worse when you try to exp=
lain
>>>>>that HIS answer has nothing to do with YOUR question . . . and are a=
ngrily
>>>>>informed that you can only be on the line for 7 minutes !!
>>>>>
>>>>>It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service=
is
>>>>>across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they sp=
eak
>>>>>clear English {so far !!}.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ummm, when did the US establish a national language?
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Odinn
>>>
>>>
>>>We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a=

>>>legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
>>>as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their=

>>>way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
>>>nothing but confusion.
>>>
>>
>>Are you that stupid? Before English came to North America, there were =

>>several different languages that existed here before then. English=20
>>wasn't the only language that came over before a good portion of North =

>>America became the US, there was German, French, Spanish, Dutch and=20
>>several other languages. When the US was formed, there still existed=20
>>all these languages, and we've added several more since then. Which on=
e=20
>>is the national language? Apache? Cherokee? Lakhota? Choctaw?
>=20
>=20
> Was, wenn wir entschieden, =FCber USENET mit irgendeiner Sprache zu spr=
echen,
> w=E4hlten wir? W=FCrde dieses wirklich f=FCr das Sprechen mit einer gro=
=DFen Gruppe
> wirkungsvoll sein? Es sollte nicht eine =DCberraschung sein, die Engli=
sch
> unsere nationale Sprache ist. Dies hat f=FCr mehr als 100 Jahre gegolt=
en.
> Da=DF eine Gesellschaft eine allgemeine Form von Kommunikationen ben=F6=
tigt,
> sollten nicht Raketenwissenschaft sein. Es scheint ziemlich unh=F6flich=
, zu
> verlangen da=DF Gesellschaft=E4nderung, weil Neulinge ablehnen, die nat=
ionale
> Sprache zu erlernen. Dieses ergibt nur eine zersplitterte Gesellschaft=
und
> ringt gegen sich. Ich w=E4hlte Deutsches in dieser Kommunikation f=FCr =
einen
> Grund vor.Wenn meine Vorfahren die gleiche Logik verwendet hatten, w=FC=
rden
> Sie Deutsches verstehen m=FCssen, um mit mir in diesem Forum zu spreche=
n.
> Verstehen Sie dieses?
>=20
> My apologies to true German speaking participants of rec.woodworking.=

> I'm sure the grammar in the above is absolutely atrocious. It was,
> however, meant to convey a point. That point is that a common language=
is
> not a luxury in a cohesive society, it is a necessity. That the langua=
ge
> in the United States is English is a fact, to rail against that fact, o=
r to
> work against it only serves to further divide that society and make it =
less
> cohesive and able to function well with itself and others.
>=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
>=20
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------+
> =
=20
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
> =
=20
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------+

Ich verstehe tadellos gut. Es bedeutet nicht, ich darin =FCbereinstimme, =

da=DF wir eine nationale Sprache haben, noch bedeutet sie mich zustimmt, =

da=DF wir ein haben sollten. Wir haben nie ein in der Geschichte der US=20
gehabt, und ihn jetzt nach 200 Plusjahren zu =E4ndern w=FCrde ein Fehler =
sein.

--=20
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
> got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
> answer it some day. Or not.
>

I retired from SS about five years, ago.

We had procedures to call beneficiaries directly, but they were few and
always about specific claims.

We did mail out questionnaires from time to time, but they were always sent
on official letterhead paper, in officially franked envelopes.

The administration maintains a list of certified translators, (especially
for foreign documents like birth certificates and marriage licenses), but
they have to be officially tested by the Administration before they can be
certified as translators, and it's an expensive and time consuming process.

I have personally talked on the phone to Administration employees(!) in
which I required a translator just to understand them. (South Texas
District Offices). Luckily, the guy at the next desk was of Latin
extraction, and I'd just hand the phone to him and let him chatter away in
Spanish, and then he'd translate to English. (Romero also was kind enough
to demonstrate to me that I would never be a chess master, since he
regularly kicked my butt in our matches)

Far northeastern accents, were sometimes difficult, too, especially Maine,
but we could usually manage.

Keep in mind the quality of telephone equipment, which could easily make a
bad language situation, almost impossible.

Consider the situation where the beneficiary calls into the Administration
with a question. (Those infamous 800 number help lines.) A good many
times, not only does the answering employee not understand the language, a
fair amount of time, the employee doesn't even know which language is being
spoken. They might guess at Spanish, French or German, just from the sound,
but how about Polish, Rumanian, or Portuguese? Not to mention Bantu, Farsi
or Vietnamese.

Newt Gingrich is campaigning that all people wishing to be US citizens
should be required to take a comprehensive history test, administered
completely and solely in English. Among other things. I happen to agree.

While I do not want to adopt an official language, (with all the silly
bureaucracy that the French have, to keep foreign words out of the French
language), I see no problem with declaring standard English as the official
language of choice, and abandoning all the special considerations that are
in place, today.

James....
I've been to Mexico. I liked the people. I liked the food. I can even
appreciate many elements of the culture (love of family, honesty, fidelity,
honor). But I don't want to live in Mexico.

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 17 Sep 2005 14:10:06 -0700, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
>>got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
>>answer it some day. Or not.
>>
>>Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
>>with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
>>
>>Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
>>
>>I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is
>>not a scam.
>>
>>Jesus wept. It wasn't bad enough when they tried to have China produce
>>the berets for the Army.
>>
>>I'm writing of blockheads, solid oak, so it's semi-on topic.
>
>
> I'm all for it, so long as we take it to its obvious conclusion and
> outsource Congress.

Be patient, they're already outsourcing lawyers.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> up, which is what I did. I'm not exactly sure where you read anything,
> from me, about medicine "impacting" my cost of living.

I've never seen you mention anything about medicinal costs either. You may
at one time have mentioned something in passing, but either way, I think
he's just trying to bait you.

My first reaction was 'SCAM' but maybe not; see
http://www.ssa.gov/prescriptionhelp/vendorfollowup/factsheet.htm

In any case I would at least demand that the caller provide proof that they
were indeed the SSA, keeping in mind that a scam artist might be better
prepared to do that convincingly than the SSA itself. My best advice is
don't trust anybody calling a senior citizen. I'm just about one myself now
but, more particularly, I'm recalling how my elderly mother was hounded by
all kinds of persons/organizations trying to extract money in any way they
could. Some of the mailings were cleverly disguised to look like official
US Government origins. She's been dead four years now following two
additional years in a nursing home and we still get mail solicitations
addressed to her; but we live in a different part of the country from when
she last lived with us.

My personal rule is 'don't cooperate with anybody who calls me unless I know
them and are expecting a call'. Usually that means I hang up following the
first few words of the spiel but, at most, I might agree to call back, not
to any number the caller provides but to that organizations number from the
phone directory or the internet.

David Merrill

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
> got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
> answer it some day. Or not.
>
> Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
> with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
>
> Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
>
> I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is not
> a scam.
>
> Jesus wept. It wasn't bad enough when they tried to have China produce
> the berets for the Army.
>
> I'm writing of blockheads, solid oak, so it's semi-on topic.
>

[email protected] wrote:
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>>...
>>
>>That isn't quite true about those immigrants.
>>There were large enclaves of Italian, Germans,
>>French, Finns, Swedes, etc. where the people
>>mostly spoke their native language and many of the
>>actual immigrants never learned English or didn't
>>learn it very well. But to be fair, they usually
>>made their kids go to school and learn English. I
>>have a friend who is a Finn that never spoke any
>>English until he went to the first grade.
>
>
> And I one who spoke nothing but Russian until he was
> twelve. He was raised in Washington DC.
>
>
>>Ah, but the written form of Chinese is the same
>>regardless of the dialect. But those dialects in
>>Chinese are far different from our regional accents.
>
>
> Though there are idiomatic sxpressions unique to
> each dialect that, even when weritten, make sense
> only in the context of their respective dialects.
>
>
>>Nonetheless, I agree, using translations in
>>conduction of government and teaching in different
>>languages is a waste of resources and a waste of
>>money.
>
>
> I disagree. In many cases it is not only not a waste
> it is essential to the proper functioning of government
> when you consider that functioning includes police
> investigations, courtroom testimony disaster relief,
> and so on.
>
> In education it is far from wasteful to teach English to
> non speakers of English and other languages to English
> speakers.
>

We are in agreement. On the translation part I
was referring only to using several languages for
normal conduction of business, i.e., legal
notices, ballots, minutes of a meeting, etc.
Certainly translators are needed in any court or
legal type situation where one of the parties does
not speak English.

Your last part is most valid. What is not valid
is trying to teach school subjects by translation
or in classes conducted in a foreign language to
K-12 students. It is far more efficient to simply
teach the nonspeaker English and forget other
subjects. In other words, intensive language
training with 5-6 hours a day. That will set the
child back 1 year in school but thereafter he/she
learns in English.

"Odinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9/18/2005 8:31 AM Ron Magen mumbled something about the following:
>> Putting the 'scam or not' aside for a moment . . .
>>
>> I'm the first to admit that my Farsi is non-existent . . . but then again
>> I'm not 'operating' in the Middle-East. A bit of an accent I don't mind,
>> HOWEVER if you are working - in a 'people communicating' position - you
>> should have a GOOD COMMAND & COMPREHENSION of the language of THAT
>> country.
>>
>> I don't mean to 'interpret' for Charlie, but what really gets to me is
>> when
>> it is on 'your' dime, that this happens. You call 'Tech Support' for
>> computer/software assistance and get a heavily accented, barely
>> understandable voice, reading a 'script' {which may - or may NOT - have
>> anything to do with your problem}. It gets worse when you try to explain
>> that HIS answer has nothing to do with YOUR question . . . and are
>> angrily
>> informed that you can only be on the line for 7 minutes !!
>>
>> It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service is
>> across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they speak
>> clear English {so far !!}.
>>
>
> Ummm, when did the US establish a national language?
>
> --

Seeing that the Constitution was written in only one language; good enough
for me.

Or are you saying that because he was an English speaking CUSTOMER in the
US, he should not feel the need for customer service to speak English?

Chris

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Charlie Self wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > Charlie Self wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is
>> > > a
>> > > legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
>> > > as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done
>> > > their
>> > > way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
>> > > nothing but confusion.
>> >
>> > Do they pay taxes? Is your money better than theirs?
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > FF
>>
>> What does one have to do with the other? Presumably, on your basis,
>> some guy speaking Bantu, who pays taxes, should be able to force his
>> language on the rest of us.
>
> Your presumption, not mine.
>
>> ... I just don't care to have to pay for
>> the translations that take up half the space in manuals and tax
>> instructions, ...
>
> Suppose there is enough revenu from Bantu speakers so that
> income tax instructions published in Bantu cost the government
> the same as income tax instructions published in English.
> Then it wouldn't be your taxes that go for paying for the
> translation, right?
>


I have an idea. When the English speakers are not the majority of the tax
payers, than we can change the language.


> Personally, I'm kind of ambivalent about publishing income tax
> instructions in multiple languages, though it may be cost-effective
> in some cases.
>
> But supposing that there is a school system with a lot of
> students who speak Bantu. It makes sense to me to hire some-
> one who speaks Bantu to teach those students English.
>

NO. It does them no good or the soceity that they are in.

>> I guess we can go with a dual language set-up, a dual cultural set-up,
>> as in Quebec. We all know that has worked beautifully over the years,
>> don't we?
>
> Switzerland has three official languages.
> How well has that worked out?
>
German language is still dominant. The Ittalian and French speakers
understand German pretty well becuase they want to be a part of soceity not
a debt. Does them no good to listen and vote for the Government when they
cannot understand them.

> BTW, have you ever complimented an Indian on how well he speaks
> English?
>
Find me one that speaks anything other than English these days, and I will.


>
> FF
>

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1126991406.692023.310470
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
> got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
> answer it some day. Or not.
>
> Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
> with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
>
> Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
>
> I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is not
> a scam.
>
> Jesus wept. It wasn't bad enough when they tried to have China produce
> the berets for the Army.
>
> I'm writing of blockheads, solid oak, so it's semi-on topic.
>

You may answer it or not? You have been remarking for some time about how
your medication(s) is really impacting your cost of living, comfort,
quality of life etc. I love your bitching about the VA. Were you really at
Parris Island?
Hank

"Norman D. Crow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "George" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> "Norman D. Crow" wrote in message
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > "Swingman" wrote in message
>>>
>>>> >> "Henry St.Pierre" wrote in message
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>I love your bitching about the VA. Were you really at
>>>> >>> Parris Island?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> When you've actually spent a slice of your life serving your
>>>> >> country you've
>>>> >> thereby earned the right to criticize any part of it you damn
>>>> >> well please.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > YEP!
>>>
>>>> So much for social responsibility. Every man an island. To hell
>>>> with unity!
>>>
>>> There are damn few higher forms of "social responsibility" than
>>> serving your
>>> country; "Every man an island" is inarguably the antithesis of
>>> "serving your
>>> country"; and "unity" is something while learn by doing so.
>>>
>>> And it is well documented that those who haven't will attempt to
>>> argue otherwise ... and to those, it's always a waste of your
>>> breath.
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.e-woodshop.net
>>> Last update: 9/17/05
>>>
>>>
>> I, for one, would be much happier in a society of people who have
>> served their country, than take from their country.
>>
>
> I was told many years ago that one of the reasons Switzerland has been
> able to "enforce" their neutrality from world conflicts is that every
> adult has served in their armed forces and is a permanent life member
> of their military, including having their uniform, weapon, etc, @ home
> ready for immediate callup.
>
> This was told to me in the '60s/'70s by a Swiss who was attending a
> tech school with me. I have no idea if this is still true.

In many respects you are correct. In Switzerland, every male (18 to 65)
is part of the armed forces. They take their weapons and equipment home
with them.That doesn't insure their neutrality. What insures their
neutrality is their not aligning with other countries, their banking
system and why would any other country want to invade them. The Germans
loved them. The Jews on the other hand (the ones who survived) are not so
happy with the Swiss (bankers not the farmers).

Sheesh, I said I wouldn't do this again.
Hank

[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> Norman D. Crow wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> I was told many years ago that one of the reasons Switzerland has
>> been able to "enforce" their neutrality from world conflicts is that
>> every adult has served in their armed forces and is a permanent life
>> member of their military, including having their uniform, weapon,
>> etc, @ home ready for immediate callup.
>>
>> This was told to me in the '60s/'70s by a Swiss who was attending a
>> tech school with me. I have no idea if this is still true.
>
> Switzerland has almost no 'standing army'. But as you say, virtually
> all adult males are part of their reserve forces.
>
> Of course Switzerland has a distinct geographical advantage IRT
> enforcing their neutrality.
>
> BTW, there are three official languages in Switzerland...
>

Yes there are three official languages in switzerland and several more that
are not official (Romanche for one). Most swiss are conversant in all their
languages.
I trained with their citizen army one time ago. You airborn pukes, think
you can run? Think again.
Hank

Charlie Self wrote:
> Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
> got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
> answer it some day. Or not.
>
> Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
> with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
>
> Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
>
> I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is not
> a scam.
>
> Jesus wept. It wasn't bad enough when they tried to have China produce
> the berets for the Army.
>
> I'm writing of blockheads, solid oak, so it's semi-on topic.
>

If they asked for your social security number, it
is a scam! And, the bbb here says there currently
is such a scam ongoing and the interviewer is
threatening legal action for some infraction.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Henry St.Pierre" wrote in message
>
>>I love your bitching about the VA. Were you really at
>> Parris Island?
>
> When you've actually spent a slice of your life serving your country
> you've
> thereby earned the right to criticize any part of it you damn well please.
>

YEP!

--
Nahmie
The greatest headaches are those we cause ourselves.

"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "George" wrote in message
>>>
>>> "Norman D. Crow" wrote in message
>>
>>> >
>>> > "Swingman" wrote in message
>>
>>> >> "Henry St.Pierre" wrote in message
>>> >>
>>> >>>I love your bitching about the VA. Were you really at
>>> >>> Parris Island?
>>> >>
>>> >> When you've actually spent a slice of your life serving your country
>>> >> you've
>>> >> thereby earned the right to criticize any part of it you damn well
>>> >> please.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > YEP!
>>
>>> So much for social responsibility. Every man an island. To hell with
>>> unity!
>>
>> There are damn few higher forms of "social responsibility" than serving
>> your
>> country; "Every man an island" is inarguably the antithesis of "serving
>> your
>> country"; and "unity" is something while learn by doing so.
>>
>> And it is well documented that those who haven't will attempt to argue
>> otherwise ... and to those, it's always a waste of your breath.
>>
>> --
>> www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 9/17/05
>>
>>
> I, for one, would be much happier in a society of people who have served
> their country, than take from their country.
>

I was told many years ago that one of the reasons Switzerland has been able
to "enforce" their neutrality from world conflicts is that every adult has
served in their armed forces and is a permanent life member
of their military, including having their uniform, weapon, etc, @ home ready
for immediate callup.

This was told to me in the '60s/'70s by a Swiss who was attending a tech
school with me. I have no idea if this is still true.
--
Nahmie
The greatest headaches are those we cause ourselves.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:03:02 -0400, Odinn <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 9/18/2005 9:45 AM Charlie Self mumbled something about the following:

>>
>> We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a
>> legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
>> as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their
>> way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
>> nothing but confusion.
>>


>Are you that stupid? Before English came to North America, there were
>several different languages that existed here before then. English
>wasn't the only language that came over before a good portion of North
>America became the US, there was German, French, Spanish, Dutch and
>several other languages. When the US was formed, there still existed
>all these languages, and we've added several more since then. Which one
>is the national language? Apache? Cherokee? Lakhota? Choctaw?


You might want to make allowances for those who use the language more
precisely than you do.

This would involve understanding the difference between a Nation and a
State.

Charlie is entirely correct in asserting that We have always had a
National language, and that it is English (or, at least a form of
same).

What we do not have is a State language.

Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"Odinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9/18/2005 9:45 AM Charlie Self mumbled something about the following:
>> Odinn wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/18/2005 8:31 AM Ron Magen mumbled something about the following:
>>>
>>>>Putting the 'scam or not' aside for a moment . . .
>>>>
>>>>I'm the first to admit that my Farsi is non-existent . . . but then
>>>>again
>>>>I'm not 'operating' in the Middle-East. A bit of an accent I don't mind,
>>>>HOWEVER if you are working - in a 'people communicating' position - you
>>>>should have a GOOD COMMAND & COMPREHENSION of the language of THAT
>>>>country.
>>>>
>>>>I don't mean to 'interpret' for Charlie, but what really gets to me is
>>>>when
>>>>it is on 'your' dime, that this happens. You call 'Tech Support' for
>>>>computer/software assistance and get a heavily accented, barely
>>>>understandable voice, reading a 'script' {which may - or may NOT - have
>>>>anything to do with your problem}. It gets worse when you try to explain
>>>>that HIS answer has nothing to do with YOUR question . . . and are
>>>>angrily
>>>>informed that you can only be on the line for 7 minutes !!
>>>>
>>>>It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service is
>>>>across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they speak
>>>>clear English {so far !!}.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ummm, when did the US establish a national language?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Odinn
>>
>>
>> We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a
>> legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
>> as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their
>> way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
>> nothing but confusion.
>>
> Are you that stupid? Before English came to North America, there were
> several different languages that existed here before then. English wasn't
> the only language that came over before a good portion of North America
> became the US, there was German, French, Spanish, Dutch and several other
> languages. When the US was formed, there still existed all these
> languages, and we've added several more since then. Which one is the
> national language? Apache? Cherokee? Lakhota? Choctaw?
>
> --

Strange that a man calling people stupid, backs it up with elementary school
history facts.
Before Cherokee, humans in ( what is now) the US, grunted and banged as a
language. By your elementary reasoning we should accept that as a language
as well.

The original languages in the US all melted into on language, English. For
a reason. A functioning country cannot function without commons.

Wonder how this guy would feel if he had an accident, called 911 and they
did not speak English.

Brings up the question. People in the US who cannot speak English, are they
a burden or a profit to our society?

What was Andrew Dice Clay's joke??? :)

Chris

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:03:02 -0400, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 9/18/2005 9:45 AM Charlie Self mumbled something about the following:
>> Odinn wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/18/2005 8:31 AM Ron Magen mumbled something about the following:
>>>
>>>>Putting the 'scam or not' aside for a moment . . .
>>>>
>>>>I'm the first to admit that my Farsi is non-existent . . . but then again
>>>>I'm not 'operating' in the Middle-East. A bit of an accent I don't mind,
>>>>HOWEVER if you are working - in a 'people communicating' position - you
>>>>should have a GOOD COMMAND & COMPREHENSION of the language of THAT country.
>>>>
>>>>I don't mean to 'interpret' for Charlie, but what really gets to me is when
>>>>it is on 'your' dime, that this happens. You call 'Tech Support' for
>>>>computer/software assistance and get a heavily accented, barely
>>>>understandable voice, reading a 'script' {which may - or may NOT - have
>>>>anything to do with your problem}. It gets worse when you try to explain
>>>>that HIS answer has nothing to do with YOUR question . . . and are angrily
>>>>informed that you can only be on the line for 7 minutes !!
>>>>
>>>>It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service is
>>>>across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they speak
>>>>clear English {so far !!}.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ummm, when did the US establish a national language?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Odinn
>>
>>
>> We've ALWAYS had a national language, English. What we don't have is a
>> legally official language, and I'm coming to think that is a mistake,
>> as more and more groups come in and insist on having things done their
>> way, in their language. Diversity in that sense makes for absolutely
>> nothing but confusion.
>>
>Are you that stupid? Before English came to North America, there were
>several different languages that existed here before then. English
>wasn't the only language that came over before a good portion of North
>America became the US, there was German, French, Spanish, Dutch and
>several other languages. When the US was formed, there still existed
>all these languages, and we've added several more since then. Which one
>is the national language? Apache? Cherokee? Lakhota? Choctaw?

Was, wenn wir entschieden, über USENET mit irgendeiner Sprache zu sprechen,
wählten wir? Würde dieses wirklich für das Sprechen mit einer großen Gruppe
wirkungsvoll sein? Es sollte nicht eine Überraschung sein, die Englisch
unsere nationale Sprache ist. Dies hat für mehr als 100 Jahre gegolten.
Daß eine Gesellschaft eine allgemeine Form von Kommunikationen benötigt,
sollten nicht Raketenwissenschaft sein. Es scheint ziemlich unhöflich, zu
verlangen daß Gesellschaftänderung, weil Neulinge ablehnen, die nationale
Sprache zu erlernen. Dieses ergibt nur eine zersplitterte Gesellschaft und
ringt gegen sich. Ich wählte Deutsches in dieser Kommunikation für einen
Grund vor.Wenn meine Vorfahren die gleiche Logik verwendet hatten, würden
Sie Deutsches verstehen müssen, um mit mir in diesem Forum zu sprechen.
Verstehen Sie dieses?

My apologies to true German speaking participants of rec.woodworking.
I'm sure the grammar in the above is absolutely atrocious. It was,
however, meant to convey a point. That point is that a common language is
not a luxury in a cohesive society, it is a necessity. That the language
in the United States is English is a fact, to rail against that fact, or to
work against it only serves to further divide that society and make it less
cohesive and able to function well with itself and others.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:31:10 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ron
Magen" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:

>It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service is
>across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they speak
>clear English {so far !!}.

If you used an American Express card you wouldn't be so lucky.
Ayup, they're all Indian CS now, too.


- Metaphors Be With You -
http://diversify.com Web Application Programming

Putting the 'scam or not' aside for a moment . . .

I'm the first to admit that my Farsi is non-existent . . . but then again
I'm not 'operating' in the Middle-East. A bit of an accent I don't mind,
HOWEVER if you are working - in a 'people communicating' position - you
should have a GOOD COMMAND & COMPREHENSION of the language of THAT country.

I don't mean to 'interpret' for Charlie, but what really gets to me is when
it is on 'your' dime, that this happens. You call 'Tech Support' for
computer/software assistance and get a heavily accented, barely
understandable voice, reading a 'script' {which may - or may NOT - have
anything to do with your problem}. It gets worse when you try to explain
that HIS answer has nothing to do with YOUR question . . . and are angrily
informed that you can only be on the line for 7 minutes !!

It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service is
across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they speak
clear English {so far !!}.

Regards {with my fingers crossed},
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
{PS - Be careful what you wish for . . .}

"George" <George@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
> > got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
> > answer it some day. Or not.
> >
> > Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
> > with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
> >
> > Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
> >
> > I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is not
> > a scam.
> >
> > Jesus wept. It wasn't bad enough when they tried to have China produce
> > the berets for the Army.
> >
> > I'm writing of blockheads, solid oak, so it's semi-on topic.
> >
>
> You're living too narrow a life. There are thousands of
> Indian/Pakistani/Arabic accents out there in the US. Most have jobs,
some
> with firms hired by Uncle Sam. Mom got the real SSA application paperwork
> and the boiler-room call, but it sounded like a pure "Joiszy" accent on
> hers.
>
> Ask for a Spanish speaker next time.
>
>

On 9/18/2005 8:31 AM Ron Magen mumbled something about the following:
> Putting the 'scam or not' aside for a moment . . .
>
> I'm the first to admit that my Farsi is non-existent . . . but then again
> I'm not 'operating' in the Middle-East. A bit of an accent I don't mind,
> HOWEVER if you are working - in a 'people communicating' position - you
> should have a GOOD COMMAND & COMPREHENSION of the language of THAT country.
>
> I don't mean to 'interpret' for Charlie, but what really gets to me is when
> it is on 'your' dime, that this happens. You call 'Tech Support' for
> computer/software assistance and get a heavily accented, barely
> understandable voice, reading a 'script' {which may - or may NOT - have
> anything to do with your problem}. It gets worse when you try to explain
> that HIS answer has nothing to do with YOUR question . . . and are angrily
> informed that you can only be on the line for 7 minutes !!
>
> It's bad enough when the 'local number' for Verizon Customer Service is
> across the country {I'm in PA, they are in AZ}, but at least they speak
> clear English {so far !!}.
>

Ummm, when did the US establish a national language?

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Chris wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Chris wrote:
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >
>> >> > Chris wrote:
>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Chris wrote:
>> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I have an idea. When the English speakers are not the majority
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> tax
>> >> >> >> payers, than we can change the language.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I have an idea, suppose suppose we don't change the language.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Pretty much repetitive. I said the same thing above.
>> >> >
>> >> > No it is not repetative. You missed the point. Accomodating
>> >> > other languages does not change 'the' language from English
>> >> > nor does it force another language on English speakers (an
>> >> > earlier remark).
>> >> >
>> >> Yes it is repetative as the chances are NONE that the majority of the
>> >> tax
>> >> payers will be anything but English.
>> >
>> > You continue to miss the point. Making something available in
>> > other languages does not make it unavailable in English. A
>> > repeated insistance that it does is indicative a failure to
>> > grasp that simple reality, or disengenousness.
>> >
>> > Making tax instructions available in Spanish does not 'change
>> > the language' from English to Spanish so long as the English
>> > language instructions remain available.
>> >
>>
>> Respectfully I am not missing the point at all. Give a little / take a
>> lot
>> comes to mind. We are just enabling the fact that there is no reason the
>> learn English. Give a few things in multiple languages and then the
>> demand
>> will be for more. Next thing you know, we will be searching street signs
>> for English, like we do with instruction manuals.
>
> Here I disagree. I do not see accomodations for non-English
> speakers making it at all harder for English Speakers. It
> hasn't made anything harder for me and I don't anticipate it
> becomming that way.
>
> I think the products that have manuals/instructions printed
> in a huge variety of languages are typically intedned for sale
> in the same package in many different countries, though I suppose
> that may not always be the case.
>
> --
The manuals might of been a bad example in this case. The manuals are nor
really written to accommodate the US but the global market that has come
about. It was just the best analogy that I could come up with.

Chris

On 17 Sep 2005 14:10:06 -0700, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Actually, it probably isn't a scam, but I'm fuming. A few weeks ago, I
>got a questionnaire about the new SS "drug benefit" and figure I may
>answer it some day. Or not.
>
>Today, I get a call from someone representing herself as from the SSA
>with a survey that will take 2-1/2 minutes.
>
>Memorized patter, with an Indian/Pakistani accent.
>
>I guess the U.S. government is now outsourcing to India, if this is not
>a scam.
>
>Jesus wept. It wasn't bad enough when they tried to have China produce
>the berets for the Army.
>
>I'm writing of blockheads, solid oak, so it's semi-on topic.


I'm all for it, so long as we take it to its obvious conclusion and
outsource Congress.


Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Chris wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What does one have to do with the other? Presumably, on your basis,
>> >> some guy speaking Bantu, who pays taxes, should be able to force his
>> >> language on the rest of us.
>> >
>> > Your presumption, not mine.
>> >
>> >> ... I just don't care to have to pay for
>> >> the translations that take up half the space in manuals and tax
>> >> instructions, ...
>> >
>> > Suppose there is enough revenu from Bantu speakers so that
>> > income tax instructions published in Bantu cost the government
>> > the same as income tax instructions published in English.
>> > Then it wouldn't be your taxes that go for paying for the
>> > translation, right?
>> >
>>
>>
>> I have an idea. When the English speakers are not the majority of the
>> tax
>> payers, than we can change the language.
>>
>
> I have an idea, suppose suppose we don't change the language.

Pretty much repetitive. I said the same thing above.

>>
>> > Personally, I'm kind of ambivalent about publishing income tax
>> > instructions in multiple languages, though it may be cost-effective
>> > in some cases.
>> >
>> > But supposing that there is a school system with a lot of
>> > students who speak Bantu. It makes sense to me to hire some-
>> > one who speaks Bantu to teach those students English.
>> >
>>
>> NO. It does them no good or the soceity that they are in.
>
> I do not see how you can deny that teaching those students English
> does not benefit both the students and their society.
>
> Sadly, you are not alone.

I read wrong on the above. Thought you meant to bring someone in to
continue teaching in Bantu and not English. Neither the less bringing in a
teacher for each language is out of the question. Use a native speaker for
all the different speakers. Better education as well.

>> > BTW, have you ever complimented an Indian on how well he speaks
>> > English?
>> >
>> Find me one that speaks anything other than English these days, and I
>> will.
>>
>
> My doctor speaks Hindi and English. But please, do not compliment
> her on her English.

We were taking about Cherokee Indians early. When did it change to Indians
(as in the country)?


Chris