Ajaxtalk

Just voted for you Ko, sadly I think my Dutch is about as good as Jacobg's though

Ko,

thought you were on holiday mate. Getting worse than a politician for vote gathering, next you will be kissing wee babies etc :yes: ;)

Voted for you last week anyway, but good luck with it. See you when you get back

Have a good break

I voted!

I did it too ;) :cheer:

All done mate.

Now provided my little dutch knowledge is still intact, I am assuming after I submitted it said something along the lines of:

Thanks for the something (vote?) (does stemmen = vote?)

Your vote(?) is now definitely sent to our administration.

Problem with my Dutch is that I picked it up from my Oma and Opa's and my parents as a kid. This means that my Dutch language is still stuck in the late 50s. I can understand a lot, have some trouble speaking it fluently, but the guttural parts are fine. I can read it as well, if not really, really slowly, so I actually want a read of your book. (it does mean that a book is great value as it lasts me years!).

Where's the best/safest place to purchase one of these (oh yeah and how do i get a signed copy? ;) )

DanK schreef:I am actually wanting a read. (my reading of dutch is slow, but it means that a book is great value as it lasts me years!). Where's the best/safest place to purchase one of these (oh yeah and how do i get a signed copy? ;) )

Hmm. The only 'official' way I can think of is the Dutch version of http://www.bol.com/ website (click 'The Netherlands' on their homepage), which is a very reliable online bookstore that ships internationally. The site is in Dutch, but you should be able to find your way through the registration and purchase process. Problem is: the shipping cost to Australia is pretty outrageous.

My book is here.

The other options...

1. I send you a (signed! :yes: ) copy and we think of a payment method. (No, ladies and gentlemen, the author of a book does not get boxes full of free copies...)

2. You wait until you visit Holland again, buy the book yourself and I sign it when we meet up for 23 beers.

K.

Do you sign before or after the 23 beers? ;)

Or do you have such an autograph it really doesn't matter?

Not that I want to spoil Ko's 'vote for my book or I ban you' campaign, but I have a bit of a tricky question.

I've been living in the UK now for just over 6 months and there is one thing in particular that bothers me and so far noone could explain to me the difference between: bring and take.

The funny thing is, I always get it wrong. No matter what, I always make the wrong decision. So from now on I'll just think of what I think it will be, think it over again and chose the other one..

But if anyone can explain to me when to use which option I am very, very grateful!

Raymon schreef:Not that I want to spoil Ko's 'vote for my book or I ban you' campaign, but I have a bit of a tricky question.

I've been living in the UK now for just over 6 months and there is one thing in particular that bothers me and so far noone could explain to me the difference between: bring and take.

The funny thing is, I always get it wrong. No matter what, I always make the wrong decision. So from now on I'll just think of what I think it will be, think it over again and chose the other one..

But if anyone can explain to me when to use which option I am very, very grateful!

Hm...tricky one. You can have 'bring' and 'take' to mean very similar things as in 'I am bringing this to someone', or you can say, 'I am taking this to...' Very similar.

You can also have it the other way. as in 'i am going to take this back to my place', or 'I will bring it back to my place'.

Even the Oxford dictionary has it meaning similar things:
bring (TOWARDS PLACE)
verb [T] brought, brought
to take or carry someone or something to a place or a person, or in the direction of the person speaking:
"Shall I bring anything to the party?" "Oh, just a bottle."
[+ two objects] Bring me that knife/Bring that knife to me.
Can you help me bring in (= take into the house) the shopping?
The police brought several men in for questioning (= took them to the police station because they might have been involved in a crime).
This subject brings me to (= causes me to come to) the second part of the discussion.
What brings you (= Why have you come) to London?
When they visit us they always bring their dog with them.

Its a tough one for me to explain anyway, but its one of those sayings that just sound better with one than the other.

How have you said it in the past that has been incorrect Raymon? Maybe this will help. Or maybe someone who doesnt speak English like an Aussie can help you. ;)

The other thing to remember. I think technically you 'take' something away, whereas you 'bring' something to.

Hope this helps.

Raymon schreef:Do you sign before or after the 23 beers? ;)

Both, if you're unlucky... ;)

K.

Well, if you consider the words 'take' & 'bring' in relation to a destination, then you can use both - eg. I'm going to take a 12-pack of beer with me or I'm goig to bring a 12-pack with me.

Now, according to me, the usage changes when you take into consideration the location of the person you're talking/writing to.

Let's say you're going from NY to Boston.
Then you would tell a friend in NY that you're taking beer with you.

But if you're speaking to your friend in Boston, then you would say -
I'm bringing beer with me.

Hope that cleared up the confusion a bit.

Amol schreef:Well, if you consider the words 'take' & 'bring' in relation to a destination, then you can use both - eg. I'm going to take a 12-pack of beer with me or I'm goig to bring a 12-pack with me.

Now, according to me, the usage changes when you take into consideration the location of the person you're talking/writing to.

Let's say you're going from NY to Boston.
Then you would tell a friend in NY that you're taking beer with you.

But if you're speaking to your friend in Boston, then you would say -
I'm bringing beer with me.

Hope that cleared up the confusion a bit.

Yeah sounds right to me but there’s a problem, as now both are considered acceptable. You can easily use the sentence as:
"I'm taking beer with me".

Ah...the fun with English hey? Makes it easy to learn :D

Kowalczyk schreef:

DanK schreef:I am actually wanting a read. (my reading of dutch is slow, but it means that a book is great value as it lasts me years!). Where's the best/safest place to purchase one of these (oh yeah and how do i get a signed copy? ;) )

Hmm. The only 'official' way I can think of is the Dutch version of http://www.bol.com/ website (click 'The Netherlands' on their homepage), which is a very reliable online bookstore that ships internationally. The site is in Dutch, but you should be able to find your way through the registration and purchase process. Problem is: the shipping cost to Australia is pretty outrageous.

My book is here.

The other options...

1. I send you a (signed! :yes: ) copy and we think of a payment method. (No, ladies and gentlemen, the author of a book does not get boxes full of free copies...)

2. You wait until you visit Holland again, buy the book yourself and I sign it when we meet up for 23 beers.

K.

Cheers Menno. Can you send me an email (no hurry) when you get a chance to work out what the costs might be? Depending on this I might wait until we can catch up some time in the (near I hope) future.

BTW - I did a search on you on Amazon.co.uk - just to make sure the book didn't make its way on there and this is what came up...

Ajax, the Dutch, the War: Football in Europe During the Second World War
by Simon Kuper Price: £6.39 - 25 used & new from £2.45

1 reference to menno pot in this book
1. from Intro Pages:
" ... would never have appeared in English but for the internet. I want to thank Menno Pot and his colleagues on the ajax-usa.com website for translating much of my ... "

Nice one mate :xyxthumbs:

Oh yeah. Is that 23 beers per hour or in a day?

DanK schreef:
Ajax, the Dutch, the War: Football in Europe During the Second World War
by Simon Kuper Price: £6.39 - 25 used & new from £2.45

I own two versions of this book. It is so good.

DanK schreef:Cheers Menno. Can you send me an email (no hurry) when you get a chance to work out what the costs might be? Depending on this I might wait until we can catch up some time in the (near I hope) future.

I sent you a PM yesterday. Check that. :xyxthumbs:

BTW - I did a search on you on Amazon.co.uk - just to make sure the book didn't make its way on there and this is what came up... " ... would never have appeared in English but for the internet. I want to thank Menno Pot and his colleagues on the ajax-usa.com website for translating much of my ... "

Yeah. Cool, innit? I wanted to translate parts of the Dutch-language version of the book and sent Kuper e-mail, asking him for his permission. He gave his permission and (when the chapters were published) he was pleasantly surprised by the reactions on the (old) Ajax USA forum. He had never expected so many 'foreigners' to be so interested. It was the decisive push for him to publish an updated, revised version in English. Very kind of him to give Ajax USA (and me) a mention.

Needless to say that it is an absolutely fantastic book, which every Ajax fan must read.

K.

I saw a copy of it at Waterstone's in Swansea when i was in Wales over Christmas. I was pretty impressed with that.

DanK schreef:

Amol schreef:Well, if you consider the words 'take' & 'bring' in relation to a destination, then you can use both - eg. I'm going to take a 12-pack of beer with me or I'm goig to bring a 12-pack with me.

Now, according to me, the usage changes when you take into consideration the location of the person you're talking/writing to.

Let's say you're going from NY to Boston.
Then you would tell a friend in NY that you're taking beer with you.

But if you're speaking to your friend in Boston, then you would say -
I'm bringing beer with me.

Hope that cleared up the confusion a bit.

Yeah sounds right to me but there’s a problem, as now both are considered acceptable. You can easily use the sentence as:
"I'm taking beer with me".

Ah...the fun with English hey? Makes it easy to learn :D

Thank you Amol and Dank :xyxthumbs:

It does clear up quite a bit. Will try to use these rules in real life. And English easy? Maybe in America or Australia (no offence) but these bloody English people take their language far too serious! ;)

carcajou schreef:

DanK schreef:
Ajax, the Dutch, the War: Football in Europe During the Second World War
by Simon Kuper Price: £6.39 - 25 used & new from £2.45

I own two versions of this book. It is so good.

Not wrong there. Bloody amazing read. Quite an eye opener.

Goodbye american AjaxTalkers. You will be missed.

Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
By Declan McCullagh

Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyan ... 22491.html

Well bye bye to Eredivisie's only Englishman. Sean Docherty of ADO just signed for Port Vale (seems he had some sense after all)

SE6Ajacied schreef:Well bye bye to Eredivisie's only Englishman. Sean Docherty of ADO just signed for Port Vale (seems he had some sense after all)

Isn't Michael Ball of PSV an Englishman?

I know he never plays, but I thought he was English.

K.

That is correct.

Kowalczyk schreef:

SE6Ajacied schreef:Well bye bye to Eredivisie's only Englishman. Sean Docherty of ADO just signed for Port Vale (seems he had some sense after all)

Isn't Michael Ball of PSV an Englishman?

I know he never plays, but I thought he was English.

K.

Oh yeah, I forgot him -I checked, born Liverpool, 2nd October 1979

666 schreef:Goodbye american AjaxTalkers. You will be missed.

Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
By Declan McCullagh

Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyan ... 22491.html

Wrong. The legislation refers to telephone calls. See below.

The relevant legislation schreef:TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > § 223
TITLE 47—TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS

CHAPTER 5—WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION

SUBCHAPTER II—COMMON CARRIERS

Part I—Common Carrier Regulation
§ 223. Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications

Whoever in interstate or foreign communications . . . makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications . . . shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

The original version of § 223 only applies to phone calls, but that's before § 113 kicks in:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:5:./temp/~c109cjYb9l:e96088: schreef:(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet

"Other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet" includes AjaxTalk.

See ya in court! :evildr:

Btw, hiding controversial legislation inside unrelated or vaguely connected laws looks like a trend. The copyright mob tries to bury anti-P2P legislation inside child protection laws. The same technology that let's you share mp3s and football games can also be used to spread kiddie porn. Check the laws proposed by Orrin Hatch (and also check who funds his campaign - I think it's reasonable to suspect a conflict of interests here, and to follow up the suspicion with legal action).

So if you're sharing Ajax games with BitTorrent or watch 'em live on the chinese P2P networks you could be jailed for spreading annoying content...