Lloyd sipped at his dainty little china cup of tea. His flower-ordained
umbrella protected his pale flesh from the harsh rays of sunlight that
managed to penetrate the thick London fog. The tea soothed his gums as it
passed through the gaping holes of missing teeth. Each sip added another
layer of yellowing to his few remaining teeth, which grew at all angles.
The thick crop of hairs growing from his ears, nose and eyebrows quivered
with delight.

What does this have to do with Microsoft? Well, the British have the
monopoly on tea. They will complain that Americans wouldn't know a good
cup of tea if it bit them in the... what... "arse"? Yes, tea is the
trademark of the almighty Great Britain, just as Windows is the trademark
of the almighty Great Microsoft.

But, just as everything that is Windows was stolen from any number of
other truly innovative companies, everything that is Britain was stolen
from any number of other truly innovative (and genuinely cultured)
countries.

Tea for example, was stolen from India during the height of British
colonialism. And let's not forget the Opium Wars, where the British Empire
simply took over the opium trade in the far East. The first drug lords.

The similarities go from the subtle and insidious to the obvious and
absurd. Just look at Bill Gates - his pasty white flesh, that inbred look,
that smug attitude. If I actually thought it possible for an Englishman to
come to the United States and actually be successful in a free market
(even if it was through less than moral means), I would suspect the
national origins of Mr. Gates. As it is, I just have to accept that he is
merely an aberration of our normally highest-quality gene pool.

Where am I going with this? Actually, I forgot. But I will say this: Mr.
Gates, you'd better not forget what happened to Britain when they bombed
Pearl Harbor.

Gactimus wrote:
> Lloyd sipped at his dainty little china cup of tea. His flower-ordained
> umbrella protected his pale flesh from the harsh rays of sunlight that
> managed to penetrate the thick London fog. The tea soothed his gums as it
> passed through the gaping holes of missing teeth. Each sip added another
> layer of yellowing to his few remaining teeth, which grew at all angles.
> The thick crop of hairs growing from his ears, nose and eyebrows quivered
> with delight.

I'm following you so far...

>
> What does this have to do with Microsoft? Well, the British have the
> monopoly on tea. They will complain that Americans wouldn't know a good
> cup of tea if it bit them in the... what... "arse"? Yes, tea is the
> trademark of the almighty Great Britain, just as Windows is the trademark
> of the almighty Great Microsoft.
>
> But, just as everything that is Windows was stolen from any number of
> other truly innovative companies, everything that is Britain was stolen
> from any number of other truly innovative (and genuinely cultured)
> countries.

A stretch, but ok.

>
> Tea for example, was stolen from India during the height of British
> colonialism. And let's not forget the Opium Wars, where the British Empire
> simply took over the opium trade in the far East. The first drug lords.
>
> The similarities go from the subtle and insidious to the obvious and
> absurd. Just look at Bill Gates - his pasty white flesh, that inbred look,
> that smug attitude. If I actually thought it possible for an Englishman to
> come to the United States and actually be successful in a free market
> (even if it was through less than moral means), I would suspect the
> national origins of Mr. Gates. As it is, I just have to accept that he is
> merely an aberration of our normally highest-quality gene pool.

This, I do not understand.

>
> Where am I going with this? Actually, I forgot. But I will say this: Mr.
> Gates, you'd better not forget what happened to Britain when they bombed
> Pearl Harbor.

And this is just absurd.

Anyways, it would be more apt to compare apples to apples. i.e. the
trade corporations (EITC?) to MS, rather than apples to oranges.

Steve

You're just jealous that a geek finally made good...better than everybody
else in fact.

Go computer geeks...nicest guys on earth. As long as you know what you're
talking about when you call tech support....


Melinda, married to a sweet, intelligent, good-looking computer geek and
lovin it...
--
"The country has entered an era in which
questions are not asked, for questions are
daughters of disquiet or arrogance, both
fruits of temptation and the food of sacrilege." Djaout
"Gactimus" > wrote in message
...
> Lloyd sipped at his dainty little china cup of tea. His flower-ordained
> umbrella protected his pale flesh from the harsh rays of sunlight that
> managed to penetrate the thick London fog. The tea soothed his gums as it
> passed through the gaping holes of missing teeth. Each sip added another
> layer of yellowing to his few remaining teeth, which grew at all angles.
> The thick crop of hairs growing from his ears, nose and eyebrows quivered
> with delight.
>
> What does this have to do with Microsoft? Well, the British have the
> monopoly on tea. They will complain that Americans wouldn't know a good
> cup of tea if it bit them in the... what... "arse"? Yes, tea is the
> trademark of the almighty Great Britain, just as Windows is the trademark
> of the almighty Great Microsoft.
>
> But, just as everything that is Windows was stolen from any number of
> other truly innovative companies, everything that is Britain was stolen
> from any number of other truly innovative (and genuinely cultured)
> countries.
>
> Tea for example, was stolen from India during the height of British
> colonialism. And let's not forget the Opium Wars, where the British Empire
> simply took over the opium trade in the far East. The first drug lords.
>
> The similarities go from the subtle and insidious to the obvious and
> absurd. Just look at Bill Gates - his pasty white flesh, that inbred look,
> that smug attitude. If I actually thought it possible for an Englishman to
> come to the United States and actually be successful in a free market
> (even if it was through less than moral means), I would suspect the
> national origins of Mr. Gates. As it is, I just have to accept that he is
> merely an aberration of our normally highest-quality gene pool.
>
> Where am I going with this? Actually, I forgot. But I will say this: Mr.
> Gates, you'd better not forget what happened to Britain when they bombed
> Pearl Harbor.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:59:44 -0800, "Melinda" >
wrote:

>You're just jealous that a geek finally made good...better than everybody
>else in fact.
>
>Go computer geeks...nicest guys on earth. As long as you know what you're
>talking about when you call tech support....

On average, I would say that geeks are nicer than most.

But now let's talk about being clueless. My favorite Microsoft joke:

A group of tourists are flying over Seattle in a helicopter when a
thick Seattle fog swoops in and blankets everything. The pilot is lost
and getting low on fuel when he spots a building poking out of the
fog. Relieved, he flies nearby and sees a bunch of office workers
inside. He scribbles something on a piece of paper and holds it up.
The office workers scribble something back. The pilot nods, waves, and
flies off soon finding the airport and a safe landing.

After they land, the passengers, grateful to be alive, go up to the
pilot and ask what he write to the office workers. He said, I wrote,
"Where am I?". And they wrote back, "You are in a helicopter."

He said I immediately knew that had to be a Microsoft building ful of
geeks who gave him an answer that was technically correct and
completely useless. That allowed him to orient himself and find the
airport.

;-)

>Melinda, married to a sweet, intelligent, good-looking computer geek and
>lovin it...


--
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/09/04)

Gactimus > writes:

> [...theft...]
>
> Tea for example, was stolen from India during the height of British
> colonialism. And let's not forget the Opium Wars, where the British Empire
> simply took over the opium trade in the far East. The first drug lords.

Not exactly. Tea was stolen by the British, who brought it to India
so they could grow it there and wouldn't have to pay the Chinese
monopoly prices for it. (Not that the Brits necessarily objected to
*charging* monopoly prices.)

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

On 05 Feb 2005 11:31:00 -0500, Lewis Perin wrote:

> Gactimus > writes:
>
>> [...theft...]
>>
>> Tea for example, was stolen from India during the height of British
>> colonialism. And let's not forget the Opium Wars, where the British Empire
>> simply took over the opium trade in the far East. The first drug lords.
>
> Not exactly. Tea was stolen by the British, who brought it to India
> so they could grow it there and wouldn't have to pay the Chinese
> monopoly prices for it. (Not that the Brits necessarily objected to
> *charging* monopoly prices.)

That sounds an awful lot like Microsoft after all.

--
Derek

There is an island of opportunity in the middle of every difficulty.
Miss that, though, and you're pretty much doomed.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:03:00 +0000 (UTC)
(Saurav Pathak) wrote:

> Lewis Perin ) wrote on 05 Feb 2005 11:31:00 -0500:
> + Gactimus > writes:
>
> + > [...theft...]
> + >
> + > Tea for example, was stolen from India during the height of British
> + > colonialism. And let's not forget the Opium Wars, where the British
> Empire + > simply took over the opium trade in the far East. The first
> drug lords.
>
> + Not exactly. Tea was stolen by the British, who brought it to India
> + so they could grow it there and wouldn't have to pay the Chinese
> + monopoly prices for it. (Not that the Brits necessarily objected to
> + *charging* monopoly prices.)
>
> do you have a reference for this? as far as i am aware, the
> chinese variety is different from the assam variety which is
> native to that place.
> http://www.tocklai.org/about_tea/tea_class.htm
>
> the chinese variety does not survive in india.


More detail he

http://www.fmltea.com/Teainfo/tea-cultivation.htm

(Saurav Pathak) writes:

> Lewis Perin ) wrote on 05 Feb 2005 11:31:00 -0500:
> + Gactimus > writes:
>
> + > [...theft...]
> + >
> + > Tea for example, was stolen from India during the height of British
> + > colonialism. And let's not forget the Opium Wars, where the British Empire
> + > simply took over the opium trade in the far East. The first drug lords.
>
> + Not exactly. Tea was stolen by the British, who brought it to India
> + so they could grow it there and wouldn't have to pay the Chinese
> + monopoly prices for it. (Not that the Brits necessarily objected to
> + *charging* monopoly prices.)
>
> do you have a reference for this?

As for the bringing of tea cultivation to India by the British in the
19 century, Eric Jorgensen has already posted a source. There are
many others, including James Norwood Pratt's _New Tea Lover's
Treasury_.

> as far as i am aware, the chinese variety is different from the
> assam variety which is native to that place.
> http://www.tocklai.org/about_tea/tea_class.htm

True, but the fact that the Assam strain grew wild doesn't change the
fact that tea *cultivation*, not to mention tea drinking, originated
in China. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some anthropologist
has found some use of tea in the ethnobotany of Assam hill tribes, but
you aren't going to find a mention of tea in e.g. the Vedas.

> the chinese variety does not survive in india.

It sure does in Darjeeling.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Lewis Perin ) wrote on 21 Mar 2005 11:05:34 -0500:
+ (Saurav Pathak) writes:

+ > Lewis Perin ) wrote on 05 Feb 2005 11:31:00 -0500:
+ > + Gactimus > writes:
+ >
+ > + > [...theft...]
+ > + >
+ > + > Tea for example, was stolen from India during the height of British
+ > + > colonialism. And let's not forget the Opium Wars, where the British Empire
+ > + > simply took over the opium trade in the far East. The first drug lords.
+ >
+ > + Not exactly. Tea was stolen by the British, who brought it to India
+ > + so they could grow it there and wouldn't have to pay the Chinese
+ > + monopoly prices for it. (Not that the Brits necessarily objected to
+ > + *charging* monopoly prices.)
+ >
+ > do you have a reference for this?

+ As for the bringing of tea cultivation to India by the British in the
+ 19 century, Eric Jorgensen has already posted a source. There are
+ many others, including James Norwood Pratt's _New Tea Lover's
+ Treasury_.

yes, but some of the accounts are inaccurate. it was the local nobleman,
maniram dewan, who led bruce to tea, which is generally glossed over in
british accounts, because the dewan was an enterprising man, and had set
up his own tea estates. the british placed sedition charges on him and
had him hanged.


+ > as far as i am aware, the chinese variety is different from the
+ > assam variety which is native to that place.
+ > http://www.tocklai.org/about_tea/tea_class.htm

+ True, but the fact that the Assam strain grew wild doesn't change the
+ fact that tea *cultivation*, not to mention tea drinking, originated
+ in China. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some anthropologist
+ has found some use of tea in the ethnobotany of Assam hill tribes, but
+ you aren't going to find a mention of tea in e.g. the Vedas.

no one is claiming that they are mentioned in vedas.

+ > the chinese variety does not survive in india.

+ It sure does in Darjeeling.

yes, but in assam, it does not. the assams are grown very close
to sea level. the chinese plant does not do well in this situation.
you need to make that distinction.

--
saurav

(Saurav Pathak) writes:

> Lewis Perin ) wrote on 21 Mar 2005 11:05:34 -0500:
> + (Saurav Pathak) writes:
>
> + > Lewis Perin ) wrote on 05 Feb 2005 11:31:00 -0500:
> + > + Gactimus > writes:
> + >
> + > + > [...theft...]
> + > + >
> + > + > Tea for example, was stolen from India during the height of British
> + > + > colonialism. And let's not forget the Opium Wars, where the British Empire
> + > + > simply took over the opium trade in the far East. The first drug lords.
> + >
> + > + Not exactly. Tea was stolen by the British, who brought it to India
> + > + so they could grow it there and wouldn't have to pay the Chinese
> + > + monopoly prices for it. (Not that the Brits necessarily objected to
> + > + *charging* monopoly prices.)
> + >
> + > do you have a reference for this?
>
> + As for the bringing of tea cultivation to India by the British in the
> + 19 century, Eric Jorgensen has already posted a source. There are
> + many others, including James Norwood Pratt's _New Tea Lover's
> + Treasury_.
>
> yes, but some of the accounts are inaccurate. it was the local nobleman,
> maniram dewan, who led bruce to tea, which is generally glossed over in
> british accounts, because the dewan was an enterprising man, and had set
> up his own tea estates. the british placed sedition charges on him and
> had him hanged.

No matter how villanous the Brits were toward Dewan and the rest of
the population of India, the reason tea was being looked into in the
Subcontinent in the 19th century was Britain's desire to stop paying
the Chinese for it.

> + > as far as i am aware, the chinese variety is different from the
> + > assam variety which is native to that place.
> + > http://www.tocklai.org/about_tea/tea_class.htm
>
> + True, but the fact that the Assam strain grew wild doesn't change the
> + fact that tea *cultivation*, not to mention tea drinking, originated
> + in China. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some anthropologist
> + has found some use of tea in the ethnobotany of Assam hill tribes, but
> + you aren't going to find a mention of tea in e.g. the Vedas.
>
> no one is claiming that they are mentioned in vedas.

Please forgive my whimsy, or sarcasm, or whatever it was. I'll be
more explicit now: as far as I know, you won't find tea mentioned in
Indian literature before the 19th century, because tea was simply
unknown to mainline Indian culture.

> + > the chinese variety does not survive in india.
>
> + It sure does in Darjeeling.
>
> yes, but in assam, it does not. the assams are grown very close
> to sea level. the chinese plant does not do well in this situation.
> you need to make that distinction.

Granted.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

(Saurav Pathak) writes:

> Lewis Perin ) wrote on 21 Mar 2005 11:05:34 -0500:
> + (Saurav Pathak) writes:
>
> + > Lewis Perin ) wrote on 05 Feb 2005 11:31:00 -0500:
> + > + Gactimus > writes:
> + >
> + > + > [...theft...]
> + > + >
> + > + > Tea for example, was stolen from India during the height of British
> + > + > colonialism. And let's not forget the Opium Wars, where the British Empire
> + > + > simply took over the opium trade in the far East. The first drug lords.
> + >
> + > + Not exactly. Tea was stolen by the British, who brought it to India
> + > + so they could grow it there and wouldn't have to pay the Chinese
> + > + monopoly prices for it. (Not that the Brits necessarily objected to
> + > + *charging* monopoly prices.)
> + >
> + > do you have a reference for this?
>
> + As for the bringing of tea cultivation to India by the British in the
> + 19 century, Eric Jorgensen has already posted a source. There are
> + many others, including James Norwood Pratt's _New Tea Lover's
> + Treasury_.
>
> yes, but some of the accounts are inaccurate. it was the local nobleman,
> maniram dewan, who led bruce to tea, which is generally glossed over in
> british accounts, because the dewan was an enterprising man, and had set
> up his own tea estates. the british placed sedition charges on him and
> had him hanged.

No matter how villanous the Brits were toward Dewan and the rest of
the population of India, the reason tea was being looked into in the
Subcontinent in the 19th century was Britain's desire to stop paying
the Chinese for it.

> + > as far as i am aware, the chinese variety is different from the
> + > assam variety which is native to that place.
> + > http://www.tocklai.org/about_tea/tea_class.htm
>
> + True, but the fact that the Assam strain grew wild doesn't change the
> + fact that tea *cultivation*, not to mention tea drinking, originated
> + in China. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some anthropologist
> + has found some use of tea in the ethnobotany of Assam hill tribes, but
> + you aren't going to find a mention of tea in e.g. the Vedas.
>
> no one is claiming that they are mentioned in vedas.

Please forgive my whimsy, or sarcasm, or whatever it was. I'll be
more explicit now: as far as I know, you won't find tea mentioned in
Indian literature before the 19th century, because tea was simply
unknown to mainline Indian culture.

> + > the chinese variety does not survive in india.
>
> + It sure does in Darjeeling.
>
> yes, but in assam, it does not. the assams are grown very close
> to sea level. the chinese plant does not do well in this situation.
> you need to make that distinction.

Granted.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

(Saurav Pathak) writes:

> Lewis Perin ) wrote on 21 Mar 2005 18:14:54 -0500:
>
> + [...]
> + Please forgive my whimsy, or sarcasm, or whatever it was. I'll be
> + more explicit now: as far as I know, you won't find tea mentioned in
> + Indian literature before the 19th century, because tea was simply
> + unknown to mainline Indian culture.
>
> what is there to be sarcastic about? it is accepted that tea was unknown
> in mainland india. if you want to sugar-coat it while saying it, you
> are welcome. but there is really no need.

You're right; I should have restrained myself. I suppose I was just
feeling irritated at (what I wrongly perceived as) excessive
nationalism. You know, the kind that persuades Indians to claim that
tea culture was invented in their country; Han Chinese to pretend that
ethnic minorities had nothing to do with the origin of tea culture;
and Americans to say ritually that their country is the greatest on
earth.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

(Saurav Pathak) writes:

> Lewis Perin ) wrote on 21 Mar 2005 18:14:54 -0500:
>
> + [...]
> + Please forgive my whimsy, or sarcasm, or whatever it was. I'll be
> + more explicit now: as far as I know, you won't find tea mentioned in
> + Indian literature before the 19th century, because tea was simply
> + unknown to mainline Indian culture.
>
> what is there to be sarcastic about? it is accepted that tea was unknown
> in mainland india. if you want to sugar-coat it while saying it, you
> are welcome. but there is really no need.

You're right; I should have restrained myself. I suppose I was just
feeling irritated at (what I wrongly perceived as) excessive
nationalism. You know, the kind that persuades Indians to claim that
tea culture was invented in their country; Han Chinese to pretend that
ethnic minorities had nothing to do with the origin of tea culture;
and Americans to say ritually that their country is the greatest on
earth.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Lewis Perin ) wrote on 22 Mar 2005 11:15:16 -0500:
+ (Saurav Pathak) writes:

+ > Lewis Perin ) wrote on 21 Mar 2005 18:14:54 -0500:
+ >
+ > + [...]
+ > + Please forgive my whimsy, or sarcasm, or whatever it was. I'll be
+ > + more explicit now: as far as I know, you won't find tea mentioned in
+ > + Indian literature before the 19th century, because tea was simply
+ > + unknown to mainline Indian culture.
+ >
+ > what is there to be sarcastic about? it is accepted that tea was unknown
+ > in mainland india. if you want to sugar-coat it while saying it, you
+ > are welcome. but there is really no need.

+ You're right; I should have restrained myself. I suppose I was just
+ feeling irritated at (what I wrongly perceived as) excessive
+ nationalism. You know, the kind that persuades Indians to claim that
+ tea culture was invented in their country; Han Chinese to pretend that
+ ethnic minorities had nothing to do with the origin of tea culture;
+ and Americans to say ritually that their country is the greatest on
+ earth.

cool.

btw, during your vacation in india, did you visit
a broker's office, where they do the tasting? it
does not get you anything by way of taste (common
tea leaves, mostly), but that is another interesting
world. if you have, i must have missed it in your
journal. which, btw, i rather enjoyed.

--
saurav