TreizeVents

In the early seventies, when many of my freinds were questioning the surnaming business (and even the first name or "Chrisitan names" as it was then), given the various possibiities for naming children, a number of parents invented a fascinating.  Rather than choosing the name of the father or the mother, double barreling, or inventing some oddball name the kid would have to live with forever, they (I think there were some 20 parents or maybe more) named all the children with the same surname, Wild.  The kids all knew each other too, a bit like cousins.  The parents were fairly close friends.  Of course 30 years or so later, I have no idea what happened, but somewhere in Britain there are quite a few children who are all part of the same "family", called Wild.

I used to enjoy some conversations in England when I was able to mention that I was actually British, although my accent always gave away my origins within three words.  Or that I had lived in the same valley for 32 years.  One I really liked was "but you haven't lost your accent".  Surrounded as I was with people from all the regions of Britain who had not lost their accents (as well as a few who had learned a "better one") I always wondered what the heck they were talking about.  Being accepted as a immigrant is tough, no matter what country you are in.  I love the subtle differences though.  And as well, being able to understand the different sorts of racism or culturism that exist.  For example, as an American, I noticed (not among my freinds, of course?) how working class English people often really liked Americans just because they were Americans and Americans or American things were cool.  But the middle class English generally had the feeling that Americans were a little bit inferior, speaking a slightly off English, and not really having an culture or hisotry.  Also probably being stupid.  They would all deny this of course, but they would, wouldn't they.  I remember once in a Teaching English as aforeign language class how we were to spell out proverbs or sayings in phonetics,w hich the other students were to then pronounce.  We were to do this as we say it.  So when my turn came and the middle class English southern English had to pronounce the saying in Midwest American English, they really had a problem.  They just didn't want to do it.  The working class English, or northerners or Welsh or Scottish just did it.  This moment has stayed with me for years.  One reason I took our British citizenship is that it was obvious where my home was, and I had no desire ever, for any reason, silly or not, to be sent "back".  Thanks goodness for Euorpe, so we can stay in France if we want to. The French on the other hand.....

I too have never really understood the antipapthy of the Brits to British people who criticise and are activists in France.  Having been both an immigrant and citizen in Britain, where I was also very active, I cannot figure out why people are not active where they live. But then there are many things I can't figure out.  There are some critical or liberal minded people on the forums though.  There is the language problem which I find a real barrier, maybe others too.  I can talk more or less, but not write.  But I guess lots of the people who immigrate here are mostly people after a quiet private rural life.  Or perhaps just earning aliving and supporting a family is hard enough, leaving little time for active citizen participation.  Fair enough.  I do find it harder here than in Britain. On the other hand, I sometimes think you have had shabby treatment on forums.  Keep up the good work.

Can't trade stories about racing and Time trials, as I have always been a cyclo-tourist.  But I agree with the advice given.  You can get a reasonable bike, good advice and almost certainly get it set up properly at Decathlon http://www.decathlon.fr/FR/index.html and Intersport.  Check the prices and where the nearest store is.  Another chain I like best of all Culture Velo http://www.culturevelo.com/ , gives good advice and is slightly more like a local shop.  Sometimes Bouticycle can be good. http://www.bouticycle.com/index.php?page=contenu2&op=1  Each of these, certainly the Decathlon near me, have small selections of used bikes, allowing you to try something different.  Most people start with cheaper bikes and move up once they know what kind of riding they do, and also what the flaws or inadequacies of the cheaper bike are.  If they never find flaws, then they have the right bike.  I suggest buying several bikes sizes and its absoutely true that a little bike won't fit a big person, and vice versa.  No way.  But if you are doing adjusting a lot for different people, make sure they sell you a long seat post. I also still suggest you visit a local shop.  Sometimes they have last year's models at a price that is not far off the chain stores.  My local VTT shop can match the big stores quite often.  And you might meet someone interesting, who you can see on market days, and chat about your bike and buy the odd bit if kit you are missing. One thing I remember well.  A group of us used to get together and ride a bit in my small Yorkshire town.  Only one guy had been a real bike rider, like the guys trading stories.  None of us had the proper cycling clothes, you know, the shirts, shorts, shoes and so forth.  Gradually we found out why cyclists wear such clothing.  It works really well.  So think about that if start to use your bike more.  The right shorts and shirts and shoes make a huge difference to your pleasure.  But we had fun with just regular clothes too.

Not only are bikes often set up badly, but they are often ridden badly.  One of the biggest flaws (not my “opinion”, but an actual fault) that I see on the roads (I ride in the South of France) is people of all ages riding in too high a gear.  That is, a gear that makes you work harder to get the pedals around.  Nearly everyone should ride in a much lower gear, that is, spinning the pedal around easily.  The difference is immense.  I also see people very often with the saddles too low.  This means you don't get very good power and also that you put undue strains on your knees.  If you don't ride far or fast, then this might not make a noticeable difference, but if the height of the saddle is wrong, ride any sort of distance and you won't find riding easy.  Most of this does not matter much for rides of 10k or less on level ground.  Especially if one stops often to wait for the slower members of the group.   It all depends on how you cycle, which is something I don't know for Debra and her four other cyclists, nor for the OP, in any detail.  That's the first thing that a small shop, or a caring staff member in a big shop like Decathlon or Intersport would ask.  The problem with a mail order bike is that there is no one to ask and they can't see your body. I say nothing much about tyres that are not sufficiently inflated. I also would like to get as many people on bikes as I can, but safely and wisely.  And I am actually glad I was wrong about Debra's bikes.  I would have expected them to be lying about in the garage after two years of serious riding.  But of course I don't know how, where or for how long they were ridden.   What bikes did you get Debra?  How often and how do you ride them? And I am not joking about nearly anyone being able to tell the difference between a good bike and a not very good one.  You just let someone ride the good one and they can tell, even if they are not experienced or a serious cyclist.  I still remember my pal Colin borrowing my bike once, and being instantly converted.  Even though he was much stronger on his cheap bike than me on my expensive one.  Sadly, you can't buy better legs and hearts.  I also remember my pal Shirley when she got her first classy bike, after being quite happy with her cheap one for years.  She was just ecstatic.  She told me, "everything is easier, everything is faster, everything is better."  I think its worth spending the extra money (and sometimes not much extra) and doing it in a local shop (big or small) where you can exchange bits and get it adjusted properly.

Hi Debra, I am delighted that you have bought quality bikes for a cheap price.   Although I don't know why you are "amazed" at my post, since Ianf posted much the same thing before I did.  But I would stand by my advice, for all the reasons I stated.  I am also delighted you have never had difficulty repairing anything on any of the bikes, or had to replace a part. Bikes are amazing machines.  And of course if our OP wants to follow your advice and order bikes by mail order from somewhere in Britain, I am sure they will.  There are, if I might repeat one thing, more factors to consider than money.  I freely admit that I have no idea what your experience is with bikes and biking, except for this one purchase, so I have no way to know who you are and what you know.  I love to discuss bike matters and purchases.  And the truth is, I don't really know what the experience of the OP is and what they really want.  That takes a bit more investigation, which a good bike shop would do as part of the deal.  But I am glad you got a good deal on your bikes and hope you enjoy riding them as often as you can.  I love bikes.

I agree completely with Ianf.  As a cyclist and advisor for a number of friends who have bought a bike and were utterly happy with it five years later, I do not under any circumstances advise you to buy a "cheap" bike from a big discounter.  I have seen many of these bikes back in the garage, gathering dust, in a year or two.  Something goes wrong, a bit breaks or needs adjusting.  The bike shop nearby is sometimes reluctant to put it right, or they point out that a new bit costs nearly what the bike costs.  Into the garage, end of riding.  The customer has got it into their mind that a bike is cheap, and suddenly its not cheap.  I advise you to go around the nearby bike shops, have a chat, find someone you trust and take their advice.  Its kind of fun too, as bike shop owners are a funny lot, some are charming and keen, others need lessons in customer relations.  Après vente, they will exchange pedals or saddles or make adjustments.  Adjustments are always needed.  You can also pop by the shop and chat while you are in town on market day.  The bike will last you for a long time, and because the bits are well made, you can adjust them.  I have many times tried to (and sometimes failed) adjust the brakes or the gears of a cheap bike.  Hard to do.  More expensive ones are much easier.  Ask any mechanic.  On the other hand, if you have no desire to shop locally and keep small shops open, if you think that something which is "the cheapest" is also the best, if you are really broke and cannot afford anything better (think about buying a used quality bike from a local shop, for example), if you think that every product is a throwaway product, then get something cheap.  It will be in the garage, taking up space within two years.  If its for a kid, they will break something or something will need adjusting, for sure.  I know many people who have bought cheap bikes.  When they get on a more expensive, well made, lighter, better outfitted (brakes, wheels, tyres and shifters), they suddenly see why a good bikes costs more.  Believe me, you can tell the difference.   Even if you are happy with your cheap bike, you can tell the difference when you spend a bit more.  Bikes are interesting, as you can buy good quality, or even "the best",  at a price you can afford.  You usually can't do that with other goods.   Having said all that, better to have a cheap bike than no bike at all.  The more people on bikes, for whatever reason, and whatever the bike, the better the world will be.  Welcome to one of the finest activities on earth.

I saw a rather nice article on your work in Connexxions, in the last three months.  A friend lent me it.  Good work.  I admire your ability to be active in France.  I try but just don't do very well.  You are an excellent inspiration.  Nice short article in Decroissance as well.  I assume you have seen these, or I could send them. All the best.  Don't let the critics get you down.

[quote user="WJT"] TV, I disagree with your post, with the exception of agreeing with your statement about the ordinary Iranian, I do feel very sorry and sad for them. But in regards to some of the other comments, I personally don't know how anyone could possibly compare or try and justify the recruitment of mostly young men to blow themselves up on buses and cafés for example to kill as many innocent civilian men, women and children as possible. Yes, war is horrific but I don't think our governments (or Israel) set out to kill innocents intentionally as these people do. Shame the leaders never do this to themselves, (I wonder why this is never questioned) they only recruit mostly very young and vulnerable boys and make financial gifts to the families to encourage it even further. You have to wonder if they had had a reasonable leader that could have negotiated with Israel in the first place and stop the suicide bombings, by now they would have their own state. So where does the real  blame lie right now as we speak? As far as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I think calling him a bit strange is a complete and utter understatement in my opinion. Personally, I wouldn't like to see him have nuclear weapons nor get anywhere close to one for whatever reason they can come up with. He has made it clear how he feels and I would not trust him not to use them. I do hope you are right in what you say about him not being re-elected because I feel that the moderate Iranian is having a huge price to pay for this leader and of course has for a long time with the fanatical clerics running the country.  There are still many including students in prison for trying to speak out against them and this was even before the lunatic. In any case, it is very good news in this instance and it looks as if the 15 are safe and will be freed. [/quote] Glad the lads and lasses are back.  Now we can hope that all of them come home soon.  What a disaster, that invasion. As for your comments WJT, of course well everyone is entitled to their view.  Especially on a Forum [:D]  When the Israelis (or anyone at all) do actions like they did recently in Gaza and in Lebanon, they know very well they are going to destroy homes, factories, water plants, power plants, road communcation and kill loads of civilians.  So do Hezbollah, although their rockets were so low quality and so impossible to aim (they were much like artillery shells, no guidance) they hardly did any civilian damage.  Check it out if you think they ripped apart Israeli life.  They both know that, I know that, and surely you know that.  I doubt if any of the suicide bombers could get close to a military base, but I am sure they would do so if they could.  As I recall, in the last little war the number of civilians killed on each side was vastly, utterly disproportionate.  But that's war, when one side is the fifth biggest military power on earth, and the other is a bunch of fairly well supplied guerillas.  By the way, most of the soldiers on every side are young and innocent.  They always are.  They go into battle scared and knowing they might die, but some of them don't.   So now you know someone who thinks there is not a big difference between a bomb arrivng from 35,000 feet or a rocket from 1,000 feet and some semtex strapped to a body.  Killing civilians is killing civilians.  Although if you asked me, I would say that morally, suicide bombers rank well below nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and even below knocking out water supplies and power stations.  The Palestinians would be happy to use those big weapons, but they JUST DON'T HAVE THEM.  They are all killers, but some are sanctioned by a state.  I do agree about the old guys who send the young guys into battle while they sit at home, and also, usually, protect their own kids from serving.  You forgot one thing.  The soldiers are most often young, but also poor, without any other real hope for a job or a career.  Not forgetting a few of them have wanted to be soldiers all their lives, and love it.  The fact that "gifts" are made to dead soliders families is not that unusual.  Palestinians do not have a big system of military benefits, hosptials, pensions and widows/widowers support.  I cannot figure out why you are so bent out of shape about Saddam sending a bit of money (or so we are told, some claim it was just publicity), when all countries support their soldiers or families "after".  The Palestinians are POOR.  They can't do that kind of support for dead fighters.  Of course they don't have an "army" as such, so they don't have "soldiers" as such.  They have practically nothing, as such.  I am assuming that you see some, just a bit, of justice in the Palestinians being a bit annoyed about thier land being occupied, walled off, controlled and, well, let's say it, stolen.  It would annoy anyone.  Really annoy them. Well perhaps my evaluation of Ahmadinajad is an understatement.  I am British. But your demonisation of him is, in my view, without a lot of foundation.  Have you done any independent work on him and what he says?  I have, because I wondered how somoene could deny the holocaust and be such a jerk.  And tell me this, are you really confident that the guys in North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, the USA, France, and dare I say it, the UK, are so trustworthy in their use of those weapons of mass destruction.  Do you think maybe if there were NONE of them, we would all sleep a little better?  I do.  So the real question is how to get those guys who already have them to give them up, NOT how to demonise someone who DOES NOT have them, cannot have them for at least 4-8 years, depending on who you believe.  Where is the immediate danger?  I repeat, do you really trust the guys running Bushland? OK, I admit, I trust Tony more than Bush.  But its a tricky decision.  However, who has been doing the invading lately?  Who has been attacking, occupying and scaring us all?  Who has been cruising around off the frontiers of Iran with two battleships and air force bases within striking distance?  Last I heard, the only people suffering in North Korea were the North Koreans.  As for Pakistan, I am sure you would agree its not a model democracy and paece loving dictator.  Those weapons of mass destruction are plain and simply dangerous.  And I don't want to pay for another generation of Trident to protect us from whom, exactly?  sorry that paragraph is so full of related but unconnected comments.  Take them one at a time.  I have gone on long enough.

[quote user="WJT"]I agree with what you say, however, Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers to blow themselves up and kill civilians in the meantime. He made it very clear he wanted nuclear weapons and in fact even though the intelligence was very poor, one of the reasons it was so poor is because he actually believed he had the capability. The scientists he had working for him didn't want to tell him otherwise. Iran has a lunatic holocaust denier and would love to obliterate Israel and the west and it appears they too want nuclear bombs. Not to mention the many insurgents that are being trained and supplied coming into Iraq from Iran and killing our boys and the Iraqi civilians daily. [/quote] I find some of these arguments quite correct factually, but quite irrelevant to making any kind of calm judgement or making any kind of rational decisions.  For example "kiling civilians"...  For over two centuries, gradually and now totally unmistakably and always, nearly any kind of war, occuptiaon or invasion involves primarily killing civilians in huge numbers.  Always more civilians than soliders.  So telling me that someone or some coutnry or some weapon is particularly awful because they or it kills civilians is not an argument for anything except an anti-(all) war position, with which I agree.  Obviously I don't applaud killing innocent civilians, but that is what happens.  If they are killed by low level tactics like suicide bombers or medium level or by high level weapons, is really just a matter of how much money the "fighters" have.  These dyas they call this asymmetrical warfare, and accept that budetary restrictions on the part of poor folks means they use "poor people's tactics".  Mass destruction is the highest level, but not everyone can afford that threat. "Everyone" wants nukes, tanks, fighter planes, nuclear reactors and missles.  And there is market for them, either in the form of reactors which eventually might make the fuel, or just plain buying the bombs and weapons.  Both France and Britain are serious major arms dealers, and both also want to sell reactors toanyone who will pay.  Admittedly they are not alone (and not the biggest sellers) in selling arms and reactors, but hey, its a global marketplace.  Those are BIG markets. As for the lunatic holocaust denier, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I have seen him several times on TV and read some of what he says, translated from Farsi.  I admit he is a bit strange to my ears and eyes.  First of all, he doesn't deny the holocaust happened, but he says that the Palestinians should not have been forced by Europeans to pay the price for what Europeans did.  An intriguing argument and one that is hard to find an answer to.  Second, he is a smart guy and nearly always answers questions with questions that show he knows very well what is going on.  Even if he is a little bit dippy, he is not the power in Iran, its the clerics, the Supreme Leader of Iran.  He is just a rather unpopular mouthpiece.  He should be gone within a few months, certainly by 2009 when he will lose the next election.  He lost the local ones recently.  teh Iranians don't like him.  I think he embarasses most of them.  He is history.  Don't worry about him.  Who listens to every upstart braggart anyway?  Many countries have them. I also find it odd that nearly everyone is training armed forces or police forces in this country or that, but when Iran trains a few, they get busted heavily.  Everyone does this.  Why pick on them?  Besides, it is pretty well known that nearly all the "insurgents" in Iraq are Iraqis of one kind or another.  Although some would try to tell you they are all from Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan or Iran.  They are locals, 98%.  Even American generals will agree with that. In my mind, the main thing that is clear is that if a bunch of Moslems/Arabs/Comminists do something, it is awful and horrible, but if we white Western folks do it it is business as usual.  Who actually has all the bombs, righ tnow?  Who is not getting rid of them very fast, right now?  I repeat, I am for NONE of this invasion, bombing, occupation, killing civilians, defense stuff.   To condemn the brown guys and applaud the white guys is just plain hypocritical, or maybe worse.  EVEN IF I would always and obviously rather live in Britain than Iran or Iraq. I have enough problems in France with the language and strange culture.  I do not support all that "our boys" do, in the Iraq invasion or in the World Cup.  Sometimes we are the bad guys or we do something stupid.  We should call a cat a cat. PS  Last time I saw Ahmadinejad on the box (French TV) and he was asked about Israel, he gave the example of the Soviet Union as what he meant.  He said that regime is gone now.  That "country" no longer exists.  Like he wants the Isreali regime/country to go.  He has never said he wants all Jews in Israel to be wiped out.  Never.  Just get rid of the government which thinks and has thought for 50 years, that violence and defense will be the answer.  It ain't and won't. PSS  I still don't like Ahmadinejad or want to live in Iran.  Mind you, everyone I know who knows that country and Iranians says it is fabulous and they are great people. 

[quote user="WJT"]Sorry TV, couldn't get past most of the first article. I guess there are times when you may have to treat someone differently when they threaten to blow themselves up. I am not condoning anything just an observation. Not sure if Iran would worry about the British captives wanting to harm themselves and others at the same time.[/quote] What did you think of the other two? I don't get your point about people threatening to blow themselves up.  Who was doing this in this case?  The Brits?  Sorry I just didn't get the point even though I re-read it several times.  Can you elaborate?  Ta.

Interesting that you found the possibility that the UK government might be lying "humourous".  But there was a fair bit of humour in one of the articles.  I really dislike it when governments lie even though they do it all the time.  I just find it a recurrent source of annoyance.  Especially when they do it about war, which they always do. What is it "on TV" (French? English?) that made you think all would be well for the captured military?  And did you think that the captured soldiers were treated badly before and were in danger?  I never thought they were in danger of any kind, and they seemed to be treated quite well from the beginning.  Non?

A friend sent me these links today.  They were designed to make me re-examine what I thought.  They succeeded.  Any of you find them interesting or challenging.  I thought things were simple. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2047128,00.html http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2412764.ece http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/index.html the articles of 2 April, 29,30 31 March are relevant

[quote user="WJT"]OMG! This from the link that Suze provided from the Telegraph, I find it hard to believe that French Muslims are now voting for Le Pen. [blink][/quote] Remember, there are old Muslims and young Muslims.  Old Muslims think the young people are out of control and need some manners.  Like Old Folks everywhere.  And also remember that not everyone in the high rises is brown or black.  People like the Daily Telegraph forget that.  Many folks in the banlieu are just plain folks who want peace and quiet, and the kids are a drag, making noise and trouble.  But in general, I do share your amazement.  but then working class people have often voted conservative, when its not in "their interest".  People are really compmlicated and funny and not always "rational and logical".  Don't you just love them?

Well, first of all, this just proves that your average TV1 punter knows nothing about what is actually happening, although I will apologise to "the people" if they get it anywhere near right. Secondly, the idea that the choice of the French people will reduce to two rightwingers AGAIN is too horrible to contemplate, so I won't.  I believe in the French, I love them, they just can't do it to us again. Thirdly, every poll says Bayrou would win in a shootout with either Sego or Sarko.  But then every poll does NOT hint that Sarkozy will gain huge amounts, Sego will lose huge amounts and Bayrou will suddenly gain huge amounts.  So maybe the polls are completely out of whack.  But "opinion has two elements, one taht never changes, and one that can change liek the wind direction.  Problem is that no one knows what the proportions are.  And this year the vote is more fragile and changeable than for many years, everyone agrees. Fourthly, Bayrou is clearly the "most popular".  But he has no party (29 deputies out of 577), and could not possibly win enough seats in the legislatives in June to govern on his own.  So at least his winning would allow us to play the "coaltion game" in France for five years.  See what it would be like here.  Somehow I don't think it would be much fun.  As the Big Two say, "Look at Italy". Fifthly, I also find it hard to believe that suddenly Le Pen will lose a fair bit, as "everyone says" his real vote is underestimated by the polls, not overestimated. But just answering your question directly, welcome to the world of President Bayrou. I should add that I am following the elections really closely this year, partly to learn about the French system.  So don't get the idea I am connected to the events in Paris or know all that much. Questions: When do or did the elections start? Why have there been no adverts on the telly? What is a suppliant? Why did Bove have such a hard time getting signatures? Why do the French allow such losers (the little people) to even be in the elections? Why do they all seem to agree that there is some kind of problem with immigration and French identity? Will the French ever be able to stomach a woman as President?

[quote user="woody"]does anyone know when the new french prime minister is going to be elected, and will they change the country much, i think theres sarkozy and the women from the charente are in the running for it [/quote] Judging by the timing of your post, one minute into 2 April, I figure you were two minutes late in posting. But its a cute post. My prediction.  First round:  Sarkozy 25%  Royal 24%  Bayrou15%  Le Pen 15%, sadly, the rest not much at all. Second Round:  Royal 52%  Sarkozy 48% OK, I admit that its wishful thinking.  A France governed (so far as the President governs) by Sarkozy is my idea of a five year minor bad dream.  And there is no way the French will elect a WOMAN.  Although they will never admit it is because she is a woman.  Sexism or chauvinism is impossible in the Republique, where all French people are treated equally, by definition.

[quote user="smudger"] ... 2. Secondly, forget the oft quoted “you must learn French asap”.  Yes, it’s useful but it’s not the key to living in France. You’ll never get your French up enough to talk fluently and eloquently as you would (hopefully) in your own native language, unless you marry a French person or have a viable business in France ...3. Thirdly, the French are not very interesting. .... .........  [/quote] Smudger has already made his or her choice, so I guess we are writing for those who come after.  Or for ourselves.  I think he has written well and has seen some things I have seen too.  I only have comments on his second and third points.  The others just don't tap into my own experience.  Or I think he is wrong. I think being able to speak French fluently and comfortably, in various settings, and in various registers is utterly crucial to me (and maybe to others).  I will probably end up leaving France because I just can't get it together to learn enough French.  Maybe if my French partner would allow me to speak French at home (my French hurts my French partner's ears) ... maybe if I worked here ... maybe if I studied harder ... maybe if my kids went to school here ... maybe I would be able to speak better French.  But I can't, and for me, this is the most important contribution to a successful settlement in France.  So I think that Smudger is dead wrong, and if I knew anything about how he lives, I bet I could say why.  If you have the kind of life where French people as a “background” to your life and not an intimate part of it, then I can understand why language skill is not important.  I should add that I can easily hold my own in a dinner party, in a cafe, I can read anything, understand a lecture or a TV programme entirely, as well as watch dubbed movies (that was hardest to suffer through).  But that is not the same thing as being comfortable and fluent in French. Secondly, where I live, in France Profonde, but in a town of 6,500, and in my neighbourhood, I find the French people to be utterly unfriendly.  Not superficially unfriendly, when I go to the market or a public event there are many people I talk to and sit with and so forth.  I also have two major groups of French people I hang with, but its not the same.  I would say that if I left this town and the surroundings, there would be maybe two or three French people that I would miss in any way at all.  Five years!  They are, here in my town, so wrapped up in childhood buddies and family that there really is no room for anyone else.  No deep room, especially for someone whose French is not really good.  On the other hand, I hang with a number of English speakers in Montpellier, and there is no problem at all.  I have made lifetime pals there in only two years.  I would miss them.  Somehow, the French people around here are closed off, not interested in, and even wary of foreigners.  This is not so true in the small villages and hamlets around here, just in our town.  This is well-known to all local people, although we didn’t know it when we moved here.  There are simply too many locals in our town, and they keep to themselves.  We picked the wrong place.  We should have been in the countryside or in the big city.  In Montpellier or in the small hamlets, more people are incomers and they are more open and friendly.  Also more interesting.  Those who live nearby, but not in town, are more often bi-cultural couples, who by definition are more open to foreigners.  I doubt if I shall ever be big mates with any pure French couple, or French person who does not have any foreign linguistic or cultural experience  As I get to know people in our town, as my French has got better, I realise I just don't find them very interesting.  Like Smudger, although maybe for different reasons.  By the way, since I am stuck here, I hope I am wrong about the previous understanding. Just my additions to a very intelligent little evaluation of Smudger's.  Good luck to him.

Right, I am off to bed.  Someone thinks this thread diversion is "natural".  Someone thinks it "evolved".  Actually every time you punch the "post" key you CHOOSE.  I guess I am slightly different to some of you, as you are from me.  I can have a conversation with some people for quite a while on the same topic.  Half an hour even.  Dozens of interchanges.  We help each other stay on topic, so we can explore it in some depth.  Even happens in meetings with several people, now and again.  In any case, my main contention is that there is too often on the list, with serious topics, a tendency to mock, without being serious.  When I criticise Dotty, its serious, not mockery and jokes.  She thinks she has no assumptions, and looks at the world with open wonder.  I think everyone has assumptions.  That's a serious comment, not a joke.  In any case, I shall retire from this thread.  No one likes to post things and read hints that they are criticisng the "natural order", or being told they are too serious, or haven't been on the list long enough to fully grasp the "group dynamic".  I will continue to try to hold back the tide of "fun", joke, non-serious posts, but I figure it is pretty hopeless.  Do you really think that all conversations that start out seriously, MUST end with jokes, personal invective and wandering around any subject at all.  I guess I inhabit a different world.  I think that if you want to start a new thread, you should start a new thread, not divert one which is doing just fine.  You all are right, I am probably too serious. [;-)] Sleep well.

[quote user="Bugbear"] I don't consider the subject of fifteen british sailors being held in Iran a trivial subject, TV. Perhaps we should discuss 'friendly fire' in Iraq instead........................[:@] [/quote] Why do you do that Bugbear?  Do you actually, seriously, honestly think I was saying that 15 soldiers being captured inside or outside some boundary is trivial?  Nor would I claim that the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died in the last four years was trivial.  Or even the Americans and others.  Ever.  I was talking about the other stuff that just sprang up on the thread.  Niggle niggle, joke joke. Anyway, the topic was not the Iraq war and British soldiers being captured, but Mosques in London.  Do you not see my point?  A little self-discipline would be a good idea.  Its not that hard, one just ignores a post  that is off topic or a little loopy, without having to say the person is a berk a jerk or a nerk.  Even if you think they are.  Is that so hard? And I am not saying YOU did it, nor that anyone else specifically did it.  So no need to get offended and attack me.  Its a kind of group dynamic that often ruins coherent threads that seem to be going somewhere, that seem to be interesting.  Suddenly they degenerate.

Gee whiz, I went away for the day and come back to what was a slightly intelligent, fairly sensible thread about mosques and London which had turned into a slagging match between various people for reasons I don't quite get, even after reading all the posts.  Then, suddenly off we go on the Iranian capture of 15 soldiers.  It certainly is hard for you lot to stay on topic and not to get offended easily.  Its only a bit of fun with the internet, maybe we might learn a few new facts or perspectives.  If you want to talk about Iranian/Uk war relations, then why not start a new thread?  I sometimes feel very much an outsider on these threads, when they suddenly warp off for two pages on something really trivial.  Why?  But I suppose, fun for some.  I am disappointed. [:(]

[quote user="Dotty "]Why are you being sarcastic? I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm just sharing it.  Also please don't tell me I have an underlying assumption about anything, you don't know me, you don't know how I think. [/quote] I was responding to you being annoyed about alledgedly not being able to build a Christian Church in any Muslim country, which I thought was an inappropriate comment, revealing some simplistic assumptions about religious tolerance in Islamic countries.  As far as assumptions, I spent a lifetime figuring out what people's assumptions are by listening or reading what they say or write.  You and nearly everyone on earth, except maybe some kind of enlightened beings, have loads of underlying assumptions.  And you reveal them all the time.  Even I do. [:)] Do you honestly think that you don't reveal them when you post?

[quote user="powerdesal"] TV, I am not getting involved in the dockland mosque thing but you really ought to think before you make the sort of statement above. In Saudi Arabia there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Christians. They are mostly the Indian and Philipino workers who do the (relatively) low level work. The number of 'Western' christians is quite limited, probably not more than a few thousand. It is absolutely against the Saudi law to have any Christian gathering, for whatever reason, anywhere. The punishment for such is severe. There are Christian churches in the more enlightened Muslim states, in fact the Catholic church in Dubai was paid for by the Dubai Ruler. This is definitely not normal in most (not all) Muslim countries. Pakistan has a sizeable Christian population but they suffer intense persecution and are treated as very much second class citizens. The idea of any Christian group being allowed to openly demonstrate for anything in a Muslim country is laughable. The above only illustrates how tolerant and enlightened we in the West are in terms of other religions, it does however also illustrate the superficiality of your comment. [/quote] I am not sure what we disagree about.  In some countries, Christians are second class citizens, in others Muslims.  Sometimes its related to religion and sometimes skin colour or nationality or just plain exploitation of labour.  Add in Jews and Buddhists and Scientlogists and go back a few hundred years and we have the same story repeating itself in various ways. I was a Quaker, and they didn't get on very well in England some years back.  I certainly would agree TOTALLY that one of the most oppressive and intolerant regimes on earth is in Saudi Arabia, way worse than Iran or Iraq ever have been, as far as I know.  And you certainly get my agreement about Pakistan, what a place!  Although I am not sure that it is not, like Saudi Arabia, a combination of traditional patriarchal rule (not to do with Islam) and Islam, mixing into a horrible combination.  Those are superb countries to take as examples of awful political regimes with little if any tolerance of difference.  We agree completely.  There are, however, other countires that are full of Muslims, with far more tolerance.  And if I had a choice, I would certainly rather live in Western Europe for its tolerance of my own various practices.  Although if I were a serious Muslim, I might have some doubts.  This is why my original post used the word "some".  Some means that I was criticising the Dotty's more sweeping assumptions.   I just don't like sweeping generalisations about Muslims, Arabs, Christians, English or anyone.  Unless I make them.[;-)]  I don't think we have any disagreement at all.

Just as I supposed you were not talking about youth on small noisy bikes in cities, I was not talking about kids riding around on BMXs or VTTs in cities.  Can you guys get serious?  Have you no idea about serious riding on a velo?  Do ANY of you ride a bike seriously.  Half an hour indeed! OK, OK, I agree that all men over 57 who ride BMWs can go as fast as they want, and are in total control of their bikes, have good judgement all the time, don't drink and drive, have mastered all the skills needed for riding in all weather and that the oppressive fools who wrote speed limits did not mean "them" when they wrote the laws.  But what if they are under 53, or have been drinking or are riding Hondas?  And how can you tell, other than the pot bellies on the old guys if they don't cover them up with leathers. Anyway, I love the bikers who ride too fast (young and without skills of course).  I call them "organ donors", and lump them with small cars filled with youth.  How would you stop THEM from speeding?

[quote user="Dotty "]Going back to mosques, I don't really care what they build in Docklands.  But what does annoy me is if I had enough money could I build a christian church in an islamic country?[/quote] Brilliant logical point, but exactly who would go to the new church you want to build?  Has there been a massive immigration of Christians to some Muslim country that I missed.  In most of them, incidentally, contrary to your underlying assumption,  there have beeen and in many cases still are, Jewish and Christian groups.  Even Buddhist.  Cor blimey, if had enough money, I can think of so many more fascinating things to do with it than build a church were no one can use it to make some logical point for someone.  Even exciting Christian things.

[quote user="Marym2"]I do not care who said what. Again the two lines were mine the rest was a round robin email,  However look at this link http://www.geocities.com/londondestruction/claremont.html and you may see where I am coming from.[/quote] What a fantastic local protest that was!  Famous all over the UK, and an important incident in the growth of the anti-roads movement of the nineties, and the British altermondilasite movement.  I can't quite see what this has to do with building a mosque.  I can't see the connnection between a road and a mosque.  And I cannot imagine that that many of the protesters in Wanstonia would oppose a mosque.  Can you make the connections more clearly?  Thanks.