French Government Bans Term 'E-Mail'

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: jonmullen
Fvcking retards

Fucking retards that all Americans owe their much touted freedom to.

4th July = 'Thanks France' day.

Enough with the tired French hating.

I believe we've repaid that debt ten times over at least. Plus you must keep in mind that the french from the 18th century are a tad different from the current french.

They exercised their democratic right to disagree rather than cave to peer group pressure.

Do you admire the 'Yes Man' more than the 'free thinker'?

Is this comment directed at the ban of the word e-mail or their lack of involvement in Iraq?

Yeah I'm a tad confused. If you're going to change the subject, at least have the common sense to tell people.
Make me ashamed to be British too sometimes

I posted to avoid confusion, you must have missed it.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: jonmullen
Fvcking retards

Fucking retards that all Americans owe their much touted freedom to.

4th July = 'Thanks France' day.

Enough with the tired French hating.

I believe we've repaid that debt ten times over at least. Plus you must keep in mind that the french from the 18th century are a tad different from the current french.

They exercised their democratic right to disagree rather than cave to peer group pressure.

Do you admire the 'Yes Man' more than the 'free thinker'?

Is this comment directed at the ban of the word e-mail or their lack of involvement in Iraq?

Edit: Nevermind, didn't see you'd already responded to that. Anyway, let me tell you why your statement is wrong.

First off, the French people did not vote on whether or not to send troops which means they didn't excersise their "democratic right to disagree". Their governement made a descision for them. Strictly speaking, regular citizens don't decide military issues. If they vietnam would not have lasted near as long as it did, which I think is obvious. There's a distinct difference between citizens excersising their democratic right and their governement deciding things for them. I think you're failing to realize.

Secondly, what the French did was not right at all. Here's a pretty decent analogy imo. A jury begins deliberations for a murder trial where the defendent is clearly guilty. 11 of the jurors are in agreement to deliver a guilty verdict. One juror refuses no matter what because the defendant is a good buisness partner of theirs. Therefore one person holds up justice because of their own agenda.

While we obviously did not have everyone but France in agreement with us this isn't an exact analogy but I belive it's fairly close. The French sold Iraq many things, including several of their reactors iirc. Therefore it's not in their best interest to lose Iraq as a customer. So, for that reason, they make it clear that they will veto any resolution reached because it would get in the way of their personal agenda. If they had simply said "we want no part of this war" and let the other nations decide for themselves I would have zero problem with that. They didn't do that though. They tried to dictate to the rest of the nato nations the actions that they would take with regards to Iraq for the simple reason that military action in Iraq wasn't in France's best interests. That is clearly and plainly wrong.

1) Did the American People vote for war? No.
2) The evidence of guilt is yet to be found. Guilty before proven innocent?
3) This is indeed why a referendem would have served the French People well. I too believe that the French Govt. had business interests in Iraq to protect, but the coalition now has that and then some. See the Irony?

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: jonmullen
Fvcking retards

Fucking retards that all Americans owe their much touted freedom to.

4th July = 'Thanks France' day.

Enough with the tired French hating.

I believe we've repaid that debt ten times over at least. Plus you must keep in mind that the french from the 18th century are a tad different from the current french.

They exercised their democratic right to disagree rather than cave to peer group pressure.

Do you admire the 'Yes Man' more than the 'free thinker'?

Is this comment directed at the ban of the word e-mail or their lack of involvement in Iraq?

Edit: Nevermind, didn't see you'd already responded to that. Anyway, let me tell you why your statement is wrong.

First off, the French people did not vote on whether or not to send troops which means they didn't excersise their "democratic right to disagree". Their governement made a descision for them. Strictly speaking, regular citizens don't decide military issues. If they vietnam would not have lasted near as long as it did, which I think is obvious. There's a distinct difference between citizens excersising their democratic right and their governement deciding things for them. I think you're failing to realize.

Secondly, what the French did was not right at all. Here's a pretty decent analogy imo. A jury begins deliberations for a murder trial where the defendent is clearly guilty. 11 of the jurors are in agreement to deliver a guilty verdict. One juror refuses no matter what because the defendant is a good buisness partner of theirs. Therefore one person holds up justice because of their own agenda.

While we obviously did not have everyone but France in agreement with us this isn't an exact analogy but I belive it's fairly close. The French sold Iraq many things, including several of their reactors iirc. Therefore it's not in their best interest to lose Iraq as a customer. So, for that reason, they make it clear that they will veto any resolution reached because it would get in the way of their personal agenda. If they had simply said "we want no part of this war" and let the other nations decide for themselves I would have zero problem with that. They didn't do that though. They tried to dictate to the rest of the nato nations the actions that they would take with regards to Iraq for the simple reason that military action in Iraq wasn't in France's best interests. That is clearly and plainly wrong.

1) Did the American People vote for war? No.
2) The evidence of guilt is yet to be found. Guilty before proven innocent?
3) This is indeed why a referendem would have served the French People well. I too believe that the French Govt. had business interests in Iraq to protect, but the coalition now has that and then some. See the Irony?

1) I never said the war in Iraq was the result of the U.S. Citizens excercising their "democratic right to disagree" did I? I thought that fact was obvious enough already without me having to state it.

2) Innocent til proven guilty does not apply to conflicts between nations. I would think that would be obvious. Look at this another way. Let's say a prison inmate is released. The conditions of his parole state that he must check in with his parole officer once a week. Can he blow them off for a year and avoid jail by calling his parole officer right as the police are coming to arrest him? That's essentialy what Saddam did isn't it? He blew off the conditions of his parole by not allowing the UN weapons inspectors in for years and tried to weasel his way out of it by allowing them in at the last second. I don't think you'd agree that a parolee should be able to get away with that so why is it alright with you that a sadistic dictator with even more potential for causing people harm gets away with it?

3) I can't disagree with you on this. Other than the part about the coalition having buisness interests in Iraq that is. As far as I know we haven't taken control of the oil wells and started exporting the oil to the U.S., and the U.S. alone have we? Also, I can't see how you can argue that in the short term, the war has done anything but hurt our bottom line considering the money we spent to fight it. In the long term it is completely possible that we will reap some sort of financial gain from unseating Saddam but unless you can see the future neither you, nor I, know if we will ever benifit (or even break even) from this war so your comments are completely unfounded.

 

[Martin]

flxnimprtmscl, your analogies suck.

Secondly, what the French did was not right at all. Here's a pretty decent analogy imo. A jury begins deliberations for a murder trial where the defendent is clearly guilty. 11 of the jurors are in agreement to deliver a guilty verdict. One juror refuses no matter what because the defendant is a good buisness partner of theirs. Therefore one person holds up justice because of their own agenda.

A more apt analogy would be that 3 of the jurors want to see the man die so they can rob him and take his place. The other 9 are opposed to his execution for a variety of reasons, some because there is no solid proof of his guilt, some because they don't see the need to execute him and others because they have vested business interests. In the end, the 3 jurors declare the court irrelevant and execute the guy anyway.

You're forgetting that France wasn't the only country opposed to the war. In the security council 3 members with veto power were opposed to the war. Even without the vetoes, only 4 our of 15 countries supported the war.

 

[Lucky]

french suck!

 

[Thoreau]

Originally posted by: kermalou
yahoo story

fvcking frenchies

Is this their best counter-attack to us coming up with Freedom Fries?

Edit: After reading through the rest of this thread, DAMN am I late to the draw today...

 

[MithShrike]

WGAF? (Who Gives a Fvck for all you who can't figure it out.)

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
flxnimprtmscl, your analogies suck.

Secondly, what the French did was not right at all. Here's a pretty decent analogy imo. A jury begins deliberations for a murder trial where the defendent is clearly guilty. 11 of the jurors are in agreement to deliver a guilty verdict. One juror refuses no matter what because the defendant is a good buisness partner of theirs. Therefore one person holds up justice because of their own agenda.

A more apt analogy would be that 3 of the jurors want to see the man die so they can rob him and take his place. The other 9 are opposed to his execution for a variety of reasons, some because there is no solid proof of his guilt, some because they don't see the need to execute him and others because they have vested business interests. In the end, the 3 jurors declare the court irrelevant and execute the guy anyway.

You're forgetting that France wasn't the only country opposed to the war. In the security council 3 members with veto power were opposed to the war. Even without the vetoes, only 4 our of 15 countries supported the war.

*sigh*

First off, as far as I know only three nations on the security council supported the war. The U.S. of couse, the UK, and Spain.

On the other hand of the nations that are members of the U.N. but not part of the security council we recived support from in one way or another from nations including Kuwait, Quatar, Italy, Israel, Japan, Poland, and Denmark just to name a few of the more than 30 U.N. nations that gave varying levels of support for the war.

Also, in your analogy the dissenting members didn't want to excecute him because "there is no solid proof of his guilt". Correct me if I'm wrong but he did thumb his nose at the U.N. resolution that required him to allow in weapons inspectors didn't he? Also I do belive the weapons inspectors did find quite a few missles that he claimed had been destroyed didn't they? So I wouldn't exactly say that "there's no proof of his guilt". Maybe there wasn't proof of his guilt for certain things that the U.S. was alleging but he was certainly guilty of more than a few things. Including the genocide of his own people. Let's not forget that one while we're trying to argue what a loveable guy Saddam was.

In fact, here's something he's guilty of right here. All quotes are from U.N. resolution 1441 which states that Iraq has "a final oportunity to comply with it's disarmament obligations". In resolution 1441 it also states that "false statements or omissions will constitute a material breach of the Resolution" and that Iraq will "face serious consequences" if it continues to violate it's obligations as spelled out in the resolution. Hmm, lying will be considered a "breach of the resolution", lied about the presence of the missles, "one last chance", "serious consequences" gee, whatever could that mean?

Oh, and unless you can prove that we, or any other coalition nation has robed Iraq please retract that incredibly stupid comment.

 

[bradruth]

This whole preschool language war is pathetic. So they didn't want to fight a country that they weren't threatened by, BIG F'N DEAL. They (and WE) need to grow up or at least *pretend* we are adults.

 

[ElFenix]

way to stand up for your obnoxious culture!

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: zsouthboy

Originally posted by: nan0bug
We should just block french people from all internet sites in the western hemisphere.

La Page Web Ne peut pas Être montrée :

Vous Neube! Vous sucez à l'Internet!

ROFLMAO

From what i remember of 4th grade french, thats hilarious!!!



(something about you suck at the internet, right?)

:beer: pour vous

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Ummm.... I live in Quebec and the term "courriel" has been used instead of "email" when speaking French for a long time. Anyways the Académie Française is a bunch of irrelevent crusty old men that make decisions to satisfy their own ego. I wouldn't put too much importance on what they do.

The Culture Ministry saying that email should be replaced by courriel is on the same level as US Congress changing "french fries" to "freedom fries". Right now Americans are hypersensitive to anything the French say or do, so irrelevent news like this gets coverage and everyone gets their panties in a wad over nothing.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: MogulMonster
cough....freedom fries...cough.....

Very true. Fvcking Americans!
:disgust:

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Calm down.. They are just trying to protect their language from dilution that has happened to English. This is in government documents. They didn't ban any word, so change the topic.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Ummm.... I live in Quebec and the term "courriel" has been used instead of "email" when speaking French for a long time. Anyways the Académie Française is a bunch of irrelevent crusty old men that make decisions to satisfy their own ego. I wouldn't put too much importance on what they do.

The Culture Ministry saying that email should be replaced by courriel is on the same level as US Congress changing "french fries" to "freedom fries". Right now Americans are hypersensitive to anything the French say or do, so irrelevent news like this gets coverage and everyone gets their panties in a wad over nothing.

The US congress did NOT do that - The cafeteria that serves congress did it.

They did not have a referendum and decide to cast an official vote to rename French Fries, and remove the term "French" from the saying on any and all government documents.

Learn the facts before you go spouting sh!t off.

But if France is gonna continue their asinine practice of "protecting the purity of their language," that's f*cking it.

I will no longer even ATTMEMPT to say "kwah-sson." It's a f*cking crescent roll from now on.
See France? You did this. And there's nothing you can do to stop it. CRESCENT CRESCENT CRESCENT!

Tu mange le merde et morte.

 

[Muck]

Originally posted by: EXman
Hot dog is illegal to I think the french prefer weiners

That sounds about right. LMAO!!

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
flxnimprtmscl, your analogies suck.

Secondly, what the French did was not right at all. Here's a pretty decent analogy imo. A jury begins deliberations for a murder trial where the defendent is clearly guilty. 11 of the jurors are in agreement to deliver a guilty verdict. One juror refuses no matter what because the defendant is a good buisness partner of theirs. Therefore one person holds up justice because of their own agenda.

A more apt analogy would be that 3 of the jurors want to see the man die so they can rob him and take his place. The other 9 are opposed to his execution for a variety of reasons, some because there is no solid proof of his guilt, some because they don't see the need to execute him and others because they have vested business interests. In the end, the 3 jurors declare the court irrelevant and execute the guy anyway.

You're forgetting that France wasn't the only country opposed to the war. In the security council 3 members with veto power were opposed to the war. Even without the vetoes, only 4 our of 15 countries supported the war.

*sigh*

First off, as far as I know only three nations on the security council supported the war. The U.S. of couse, the UK, and Spain.

On the other hand of the nations that are members of the U.N. but not part of the security council we recived support from in one way or another from nations including Kuwait, Quatar, Italy, Israel, Japan, Poland, and Denmark just to name a few of the more than 30 U.N. nations that gave varying levels of support for the war.

Also, in your analogy the dissenting members didn't want to excecute him because "there is no solid proof of his guilt". Correct me if I'm wrong but he did thumb his nose at the U.N. resolution that required him to allow in weapons inspectors didn't he? Also I do belive the weapons inspectors did find quite a few missles that he claimed had been destroyed didn't they? So I wouldn't exactly say that "there's no proof of his guilt". Maybe there wasn't proof of his guilt for certain things that the U.S. was alleging but he was certainly guilty of more than a few things. Including the genocide of his own people. Let's not forget that one while we're trying to argue what a loveable guy Saddam was.

In fact, here's something he's guilty of right here. All quotes are from U.N. resolution 1441 which states that Iraq has "a final oportunity to comply with it's disarmament obligations". In resolution 1441 it also states that "false statements or omissions will constitute a material breach of the Resolution" and that Iraq will "face serious consequences" if it continues to violate it's obligations as spelled out in the resolution. Hmm, lying will be considered a "breach of the resolution", lied about the presence of the missles, "one last chance", "serious consequences" gee, whatever could that mean?

Oh, and unless you can prove that we, or any other coalition nation has robed Iraq please retract that incredibly stupid comment.

1. US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria. Of course Bulgaria was in it only for the money, but then again, so are most of the members of the Coalition of the Billing.
2. Even if you look at the UN as a whole, the numbers are not much different. Out of ~190 nations, only 30 expressed support. Any way you want to look at it (SC, UN, public opinon) most of the world was opposed to the war.
3. Please read my posts carefully. I said some because there is no solid proof of his guilt, some because they don't see the need to execute him and others because they have vested business interests. I would say most people (muyself included) fell into category #2: Even though he may have had some left over bits, he was not a threat and there was no need for the war.
4. AFAIK, Hans Blix gave Iraq a B as far as compliance goes. B is a decent mark in most poeple's opinions. HB never complained of Iraqi non-compliance.
5. Bulgaria supported the war because they want to get their money back from Iraq (2 bil or so). Poland's PM recently admited that the only reason Poland was there is because they could have direct access to the oilfields (there is a thread about his in P&N). Finally, do you think Bush & Co are doing this merely out of altruism? Spending billions and sacrificing soldiers so that the Iraqis can be free?

 

[mooglekit]

The French government amuses me...often their decisions just seem to be made to take up time and justify their being there....I really love France though...been there twice and the people themselves have always been wonderful to me.

moogs

P.S. If anyone wants to take me on a third trip I would happily oblige

 

[Goosemaster]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Les francois ne sont pas tres intelligent....ils trouvemnt tout le raisons possible pour attackaque les etats unis politiquement


<-----took french 4 3 years ago

 

[DorkBoy]

fvcking frenchies

hope they DIE

 

[Harvey]

There are times when I think all of France suffers from a medical condition known as anal-cranial inversion. They're extremely anal in their fear of what they call franglais.

My favorite franglais story happened when I did some consulting in Paris. I was out for dinner with my client, George. I speak pretty decent French, he's better at English than I am at French. Anyhow, dinner was more than I could eat, and I turned and said to him in French, "George, demandez du gar&ccedil;on un sac de chien." (If you don't understand it, cut and paste it into the Bablefish.

Geoge cracks up, and I say, "It was intended to be funny, but I didn't think it was that funny."

He says, "Regardez." (Watch this). He calls the waiter over, and says, "Gar&ccedil;on. Le doggie bag, s'il vous plait." The French would never lower themselves to creating their own name for this lowly American custom.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Ummm.... I live in Quebec and the term "courriel" has been used instead of "email" when speaking French for a long time. Anyways the Acad&eacute;mie Fran&ccedil;aise is a bunch of irrelevent crusty old men that make decisions to satisfy their own ego. I wouldn't put too much importance on what they do.

The Culture Ministry saying that email should be replaced by courriel is on the same level as US Congress changing "french fries" to "freedom fries". Right now Americans are hypersensitive to anything the French say or do, so irrelevent news like this gets coverage and everyone gets their panties in a wad over nothing.

The US congress did NOT do that - The cafeteria that serves congress did it.

They did not have a referendum and decide to cast an official vote to rename French Fries, and remove the term "French" from the saying on any and all government documents.

Learn the facts before you go spouting sh!t off.

But if France is gonna continue their asinine practice of "protecting the purity of their language," that's f*cking it.

I will no longer even ATTMEMPT to say "kwah-sson." It's a f*cking crescent roll from now on.
See France? You did this. And there's nothing you can do to stop it. CRESCENT CRESCENT CRESCENT!

Tu mange le merde et morte.

I meant the US Congress cafeteria, so sorry to have offended you with that. You are a perfect example of the hypersensitivity I'm talking about; let it go man, who gives a fvck what French people call their email apart from the French? And by the way, it's "croissant", pronounced "krwah-ssan".

I'm done with this thread, continue with the French-bashing if it makes you happy.

 

[KingNothing]

Originally posted by: DorkBoy
fvcking frenchies

hope they DIE

Given a long enough time span the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

 

[TuffGirl]

Originally posted by: Beau

Lets ban the word "French" and use the phrase "Sensless retards" or "stards" for short instead.

Heh roofles. I like this idea myself.

But seriously, this is really an unwise maneuver on France's part considering the existing elitist snob French stereotype many Americans hold and the whole anti-French sentiment that was exacerbated during the Iraqi war. Why they should antagonize Americans any further is beyond me. Zee eediots I say!

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: notfred
Oh no, they want official business to be carried out in the native language!

If any of you are the type that like to say "People should speak English in America... we shouldn't have to have spanish translations for everything" Then you really can't complain about this.

Yup.

Face it guys, unless you live in France, this in no way affects your life.