I am so completely sick of some of the people from the UK, and other places, but its mainly the UK, that just sit and criticise people from the US. Now I'm not going to generalize, and say its all people from the UK, because its most certainly not. But its statements like these, that really really get to me.
"What you really mean is Americans* have no will power or common sense."
- Jac And that one isnt so bad, because it was used fairly in context with the topic, and yes Jac, I saw you're little message at the bottom about how you dont mean your little friends or something, but there ARE americans that are not your friends, that do have will power, and commen sense.
but what about this one:
"Americans are sheep.... or they are just plain ignorant" -Wes
I mean I cannot believe this!! What horrible things to say! These are just a few recent ones, both taken from the "Physique Critiqe" thread. I have have seen lots of other comments like this, and I finally had to say something. I mean, you guys criticise americans, but yet you fail to see that the show that you love so much and talk about in this ng all the time, is an AMERICAN show. If you hate us so much why do you watch Friends? A show just full of Americans.
Remember when I say this I dont want anyone to be offended because I know that all people from the UK do NOT say these things, and I am only referring to people who have made comments like this.
Wow, thank god someone brought this up! Being from America myself, It really kinda pissed me off when someone made the post "Sad Americans." Really, before you critisize us, go to America. It's mostly the politicians. Don't base us on our sleep-around-whip-it-out president.... It's still a great country.
Rikus from the Netherlands here... I have been to the usa last year and i must say its a great country with many friendly people. Going again this summer!
Now can we stop this fighting and just be "friends" again;-)
I think any country outside of the US was more forgiving than the US of Clinton. :) Us Canadians were like:" Oh ya, that's nice....now why is this a huge scandal? Nobody has ever cheated on anybody in a country before?" JRP
Has it really been the first time that someone has lied under oath? I don't want to start anything, because I do understand where you citizens are coming from....I hate dishonesty also, but what business was it of theirs to ask about Clinton's affairs in the first place? <shrugs> bedroom stuff is bedroom stuff and it should stay there. I am just bothered by how presidents and prime ministers and actors and singers,etc have to reveal the most intimate details of their lives....Would you do so publicly? I wouldn't personally. What business is it of anyone if my husband and I do it 1 a year or 5 times a day? No interest to anybody but the people involved, and that's the bedroom stuff. Just my 2 cents.... JRP
I'm sure not. But just because we can't stop it doesn't me we shouldn't try. Right?
Because it was relevant to the Paula Jones Sexual Harassment Lawsuit. Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment before the whole Monica Lewinski thing broke out.
First of all, it was the epitome of hypocrisy to assume there was no "quid pro quo" when a President of a country is involved with a college summer intern.
And secondly, I agree with you. But *I think* he misindicated his relationships while under oath, not to mention on public TV (witness the now-famous "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman" clip) Sure there is an interpretation issue here, but there is *always* and interpretation issue. What if my definition of sex was between 3 people simultaneously, and 3 people only. Does that mean I can get off on that technicality when asked point blank if I'd had "sex" with someone by someone in authority investigating a potential sexual harassment case? In a society, one is not allowed to live my one's own definitions of concepts. One must live by society's definitions. This is the concept Clinton failed to grasp, and the core of the whole issue "is oral sex really sex?". I think Hillary thinks it is.
The question is not that his "definition" of sex is different than that of Congress during the impeachment hearings. The question was did Clinton *knowingly* mislead an investigation into sexual misconduct and coersion. It was once said that if he had simply admitted to having whatever relationship he had with Monica, or Paula, or both, that whole thing wouldn't have happened. But he didn't. He tried to cover it up, mislead a direct investigation, and generally snow the whole proceedings. THAT is why the problems arose.
Believe me, it wasn't like people were interested in hearing about Clinton's bedroom antics. In fact, he was not charged for any sort of violation of acceptable relationships allowed in the military, even though he is the Commander-in-Chief of all the US military. Had he been a simple military man having an "affair" with a subordinate, he would have been hauled in front of the star chamber and thoroughly punished.
There were valid grounds to question his statements. If there weren't, it wouldn't have proceeded as far as it did.
LOL! I agree. There is a certain defintion about sex that you cannot fight. Two people definetely qualify.
I would hope so. It is called "oral sex" (notice the second word) for a reason, right? :)
So everybody believes that they had a right to ask the president about his affairs, and he misdirected, or tried anyway, the American people. It is still hard to understand why the US citizens have a right to know these things. His decision to do this with the intern was his to make, and I don't understand how it would or could affect what he does for a living, except maybe lose respect from the americans. On the other hand, if it was part of another sexual harassment case, then there must have been a good enough reason to ask him about his affairs.
I didn't know this, thanks for the info... :)
That's hard to say. Many trials (from what I've seen) always try out different approaches, albeit legal ones, and sort of put a "feeler" out for any inconsistencies. Maybe the president thought it was all going to blow over before anything was ever goign to really happen? What is past is done with, so I wonder now how people like him still. There was much anger and bitterness for awhile....has it really died down? JRP
Bingo. Exactly. They were trying to establish a "pattern" of sexual harassment, I believe. Women were coming out of the woodwork claiming to have been "harassed" by Clinton, either during his presidency or earlier, when in Arkansas. If one can establish a "pattern" of a certain type of behavior, it lends credibility to their claims.
I think so. Most people don't even remember what went on. Heck it was hard for me to remember who was suing Clinton in the first place (Paula Jones). I think what did happen is it crippled any effectiveness of his presidency. Not much has been accomplished since that time, atleast I can't think of any off the top of my head. . .
I don't doubt there was a sort of "witch-hunt" mentality about this. It was split down party lines so cleanly it was pathetic.
And he is going down in history as the second (?, or is it third?) American president ever impeached. I absolutely loathed History in High School, so once it's older than a few years, I tend to "sani-flush" it.
He didn't lie, and he certainly wasn't asked point blank, that was the problem. He was able to evade the questioning because of the euphemisms employed, and because the lawyers seemed unable to distinguish between the past & present tenses of the verb "to be".
He was asked point blank. many times. One of which he answered (on TV) "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". He got off by claiming his definition of sex was different than those of the inquisitors. That's not unlike me saying my definition of theft is only when I take something off your body. If I break into your house and take your TV, well, that was just me "finding" a TV in your house, and, well, 'finders keepers'. So all those TVs in my garage with serial numbers matching those of which were reported "stolen" are actually mine, regardless. So, no, I haven't stolen any TVs.
We're not that we're going to settle this here, but the question was did he *knowingly mislead* and investigation into sexual misconduct. The answer is yes. He admitted to "not helping" the investigation where he was dutibound to assist. THAT was where the problems arose from
I think if you get enough lawyers and publicity together, you could argue just about any point one wanted to make. Don't think the world is round? Get enough lawyer together and we can raise enough doubt to perhaps sway some opinions. . . .
Oh, boy, I shouldn't get into this. This will be my *only* post on this subject, regardless of what follows.
The Clinton impeachment was a political witchhunt. They wanted to get him, they kept trying to get him, they could *never* pin him down on any prosecutable offense, so they sniffed around on his Achilles heel - his sexual weaknesses - until they found something they could attack. They badgered him until they caught him, they cornered him, they pushed him into a lie, and then yelled GOTCHA and tried to make out that it was a serious enough offense to destroy the presidency and the republic over. Clinton squirmed to his lowest depths as a person who cannot tell the straightest line of truth to save his life, and the Congress split, almost to a person, down partisan lines every step of the way. Because it was disgraceful behavior from the president, entrapment from the Republicans, and everybody who wanted to keep his or her job had to pull the line. Clinton did not get interrogated because they discovered he'd done something shameful. Clinton was interrogated so they *could* discover something shameful,and they did. And the American government has been seriously crippled in the process.
Every person who enters that office from now on must tremble in his shoes, because the partisan bickering and hatred has gotten so toxic and evil that the people from the opposite party will try to destroy the president ten minutes after he takes office. This will happen to either Bush or Gore next year - because they both have skeletons in their closet and everybody who pays attention knows what they are. The Lewinsky scandal just was NOT worth the incredible damage it has done to this country and I am absolutely certain it's going to happen again. Our country will pull out only if the big party bosses come to understand that if they try to destroy each other without sufficient merit, they will also destroy themselves and ultimately, the US. (Remember what happened to Newt Gingrich? Now, how on EARTH could Newt lose his job because Billy Boy got impeached?????!!!!!!!!)
I have no great personal respect for Slick Willy. He presided over some social changes of which I approve. I am very disappointed that he could not conduct himself in an appropriate manner, and I think he is a great example of enormous potential horribly wasted because of personal weakness and childishness. But there are villians all over this scenario, no heroes, and Monica Lewinsky, (with her line of handbags) appears to be the only winner.
That's not
Grin. To lighten the mood... what about if you take a blue sweatshirt from a Las Vegas shop with the excuse that you are going to bring it back, so you aren't really stealing, just "borrowing" without permission? :-)
Would you mind expanding on ML's line of handbags?
DANISH SPOILER SPACE FOR 524
524 "TOI Vegas (part 2)"
Well indeed. I had the surprise ending of Season 5 spoilt for me in advance, but while watching the episode I didn't know for sure. Maybe what I saw in that damned magazine photo was not the biggie. So when I saw Monica stealing the sweater from the gift shop at Caesar's Palace there was a chance that it would end with her being thrown in jail...
But for some strange reason the script wasn't interested in the theft, it was just a fun thing to do, as long as you don't get broody about it. Did she really steal it? What if Chandler had already purchased the item, then let Monica smuggle it out to give her a thrill; or did he return it later? There are missing scenes, but we don't know what they contained. This is where we need a Friends scriptwriter who posts to ATF.
Tina: Am I right in thinking that in British law, if you take something away with the intent to return it, then that does not constitute theft, unless the item is a motor vehicle? What about American law?
This is what I meant about euphemisms. If you've only ever had fellatio or cunnilingus in your life, then you're still a virgin. If I was Hillary Clinton I would still feel betrayed & cheated upon, but as a point of law 'sexual relations' is a vague enough phrase for anyone to interpret the words as meaning coitus and nothing else.
(On other topics, Tina Nellis has picked me up on points of law. If she perceives the need to do so again, I'd welcome that.)
He told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What he failed to do was answer some more questions which were *not* asked, even though he knew that the other side should have asked them.
Having said that, I don't regard what Mr.Clinton did in his office or in court as moral or honest, but I bear even less respect for the lawyers and politicians involved. As presidential villains go, he is no Nixon.
Well, that's only with respect to the definition of "virgin", not the definition of "sex". A virgin is someone who has never had coitus before. Sex can mean much more than that.
Any phrase is vague enough to interpret any way, if you've got enough lawyers and time.
Well, OK. He did not answer the questions with any sort of complete answer expected from someone in his position.
Actually, many, many years ago, an English professor of mine said that Nixon will be regarded as a great president, just not any time soon. I believe that, even though I believe Nixon's crimes were a bit more serious. The difference between Nixon and Clinton was that Nixon actually accomplished some great feats (relations with China being a big one). Clinton has done. . . what?
Well, OK. I do like the FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) he signed into law. It says that once every 12 months, US companies of 50 or more employees MUST allow someone to take 12 weeks off (unpaid) for family reasons.
The whole Clinton-Lewinski scandal was based on politics. The general public wasn't as outraged as it may have been perceived by other countries. I was upset by the fact that he lied while under oath and I lost a lot of respect for Clinton as a person. The impeachment and witch-hunt that followed was a case of the Republicans trying to do whatever possible to get rid of a Democratic President that they didn't like, no matter if they really felt as passionately about the issue in question while the Democrats did whatever possible to keep their Democratic President in office no matter how they really felt about what he did. It was a case where party affiliation was more of a factor than personal integrity.
You know what I am sick of? people talking about Clinton. Like it wasnt enough that thats all we heard for a year! Please, I am no longer reading the posts on this, because I am so SICK OF IT! You guys in the UK, didn't see it on the front cover of every newspaper and magazine, and wherever you went thats all you heard, for months and months!
Well, to be fair, there was only a few posts on Clinton. I wouldn't assume something that happens in the US is going to make front-page news everywhere.
Fair point, but I hope you realise it goes both ways. I'd say this is one of the groups with the least American/British clashes. How about those of us that would rather not spend our times slagging off other countries like you and me ignore these people. The group certainly isn't the place to discuss it, and none of these comments bear any relation to the fact that Friends is made in America.
yes, i am aware that it goes both ways. I was just sort of looking at it from my american point of view. I'm *know* that there are americans that say bad things about people in the UK, i'm just not one of them. And I know that this isnt the place to discuss, but I would just like to simply read a thread, without having to hear bad things said about the people in my country. Also, I know that the statements themselves had nothing to do with the fact that Friends is an american show, i was just asking that for people who seem to hate americans so much, they certainly like watching american television shows. -Kat
Monica:"Fine! Judge all you want to but (to Ross) married a lesbian, (to Rachel) left a man at the altar, (to Phoebe) fell in love with a gay ice dancer, (to Joey) threw a girl's wooden leg into the fire, (to Chandler) live in a box."
On 29 Apr 2000 18:01:31 GMT, [email] (Katrina) wrote:
Finally!
I agree with you, Katrina.
I just wanted to say that as a European I'm sick and tired of this bickering as well. Yeah, there are obese Americans living in the "Land of the Free", but the statements in the Physique tread were just stupid.
There are skinny and fat people living in Europe as well, and I don't think people are that different anymore. People who are overweight can now be seen all over the Western world, and it is an increasing health-problem. So, please, stop this generalisation about Americans being fat (and not being able to have their own opinions).
And another thing, the people who said these things, have they actually visited the country and found out these things on their own?
Because I've got the feeling that Europeans that don't like the effect the American culture and the American way of life have on their own culture have never been to the US.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Jacqui's remark was reasonable for she was replying to a generalisation by Wes about American food: "The mass-produced food that's being manufactured over here is GARBAGE. It's made NOT to satisfy your hunger-- therefore people eat MORE. You are lucky you live in Europe, where they still have some standards about the quality of food. People are practically being poisoned over here."
Nope, can't say that I agree. Why is it acceptable for an American to bash America, but not for a Brit? I've never, never ever understood this. If you were truly opposed to racial discrimination then you wouldn't be committing it yourself.
That didn't come out too politely, for which I apologise. For reference, I'm from the UK, and if that changes the way you reply to me then you're as racist as the people you're attacking.
Bugger, *that* didn't come out too well either. I should quit while I'm behind.
Blarg. Whoah. Shit shit shit. I hate it when I do this. That statement implies that I'm calling Jacqui racist, doesn't it? I wasn't. Dammit, I'm an imbecile. Oh, just ignore all my posts forever. Killfile me. Go on, you know you want to.
I was going to say "sleeping" until I remembered what day it is. Urgh. Probably, I'll be being poked out of bed by a bunch of well-intentioned friends who have no idea just how close they're coming to being killed. Yourself? :-)
Blarg. Whoah. Shit shit shit. I hate it when I do this. That statement implies that I'm calling Jacqui racist, doesn't it? I wasn't. Dammit, I'm an imbecile. Oh, just ignore all my posts forever. Killfile me. Go on, you know you want to.
Ok, now I'm confused. When did I bash america?? and when did I commit myself?
and I'd never reply to a Brit differently than I would to an American.. what would make you even think that?
-Kat
Monica:"Fine! Judge all you want to but (to Ross) married a lesbian, (to Rachel) left a man at the altar, (to Phoebe) fell in love with a gay ice dancer, (to Joey) threw a girl's wooden leg into the fire, (to Chandler) live in a box."
I think Raven was getting rather tangled in his words. Wes originally attacked Americans (yes he did, go read his post), to which I replied, "and that's when you started yelling". ;) What Raven was trying to say was that you didn't yell at Wes for calling Americans obese, just at me for saying they got that way through lack of will power or common sense. I'm the Brit in that sentence, Wes is the American. Does that make things clearer?
Ah, thank you, Jacqui. That's *exactly* what I was talking about. You've just saved me a tedious trek through Remarq. (I can't even *find* the Usenet on Deja any more.)
Oh, Jeez. This'll teach me to enter debates. Do I *really* have to go through Deja and find the comments relevant to it? You were criticising Jac for her remarks, but making no comment whatsoever about anti-US statements made by an American (at least, someone I assume is American based on the tone of his/her post).
On the other hand, now I've been to sleep and woken up again in a much better mood than last night it doesn't seem quite so relevant. <sigh>
Because in discussions about racial attacks from one country to another, the nationality of each poster is usually important to some people. I was once flamed for making anti-English comments. The flamer thought I was American. I'm not. Watching her flounder after I pointed that out was quite funny.
I am French and I am so tired by discussions out Friend's subjects. Make racism, opposed ENGLISH against AMERICAN, we'll be back in 1780 ( sorry for the date, I am not sure ) for the Indepedance of USA, I can't believe it. The best I can't believe it, it's about fat people. I can't believe discussions about fat people in alt.tv.friends. I can say French people who read news in this newsgroup must laugh. Mat VIVE LA FRANCE
Okay, so how about this: If everyone keeps dumping on one another, those who just can't be bothered with it (including me) will leave. Does anyone *really* want that?
Sort it out, peeps. I'm getting *really* tired of all the unnecessary flaming going on here, and I know I'm not the only one.
Tina (and with that, I'm going to go DVD shopping :))
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Raven doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
I've got a killfile, but I'd have to killfile a lot of people who I really don't want to killfile to avoid this "debate". I'm just saying, if people don't just move on with it, people who aren't interested are likely to just start leaving.
They're good, but I'm still attempting to figure out whether mine's actually multi-region in the true sense of the word or not...
No, get a *thread* killfile. KFing people is too much work by far, and you miss the interesting stuff. But flamewars usually only spill over into two or three threads, and the on-topic stuff vanishes from them pretty quickly.
To be quite honest, I don't see how flamewars really differ from any other kind of off-topic, except that they're more unpleasant for more people to read. The advice is the same. Don't like it? Don't read it. Killfile it. Leaving is a last resort, and frankly an overreaction to most things except dramatic personal persecution on Usenet.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
I *think* it's the kind which locks after (in this case) 5 changes, but everywhere else aside from the software seems to say it's completely limit-free. I'm confused. :(
In the previous post, the mostly harmless Tina claimed:
If it's anything like the 303 (which I have), it's a limit-free player UNTIL you remove a little jumper (a pin that connects 2 contacts on the drive). So don't remove anything from the drive and you'll be fine :)