@tchrist Okay, but you're always inveighing against "urban" customs.

It all seems très gay. Hell, I can’t even imagine gay people doing this unless they’re hopeless nelly beyond all reason and taste.

Drag queen territory.

You really didn’t know this?

No wonder the Boulderites were scandalized by your country.

The only people who ever ever kiss are intimates or one-time intimates, and the latter not all that commonly.

> In the United States and Canada, the cheek kiss may involve one or both cheeks. According to the March 8, 2004 edition of Time Magazine, "a single [kiss] is [an] acceptable [greeting] in the United States, but it's mostly a big-city phenomenon."

Wiki.

It does not happen.

also this is a record of truth.

Mitch is right.

It's also an age thing.

Yeah sure.

The younger the people, the more they kiss here.

Everyone was young once.

@Cerberus le bisou is totally a hoity toity thing. uppercrust or wannabe NYC.

It still doesn't happen. And didn't. And won't.

We have buttons/broaches saying "I shake hands, thanks".

@Mitch bingo.

"You can't let him drive her home. She says goodbye the naughty way."

But we also have ones saying "I kiss twice and I start left".

@Cerberus You need to adopt the American practice then and just slap them.

@Cerberus oh...I have lived in the city and suburbs, never out in the country.

@Mitch He has no idea what city and town and country even are. Remember the urbanized landscape?

@tchrist You're not exactly doing your country a favour...

@Cerberus both cheeks -never- in the US unless you're in a subcommunity of French people.

Next time, I'll just stuff raw herring into people's faces when they try to kiss me, the Dutch way.

@Cerberus you believe wiki?

If I get just one of you sybarites to stop slobbering all over us, I shall have done my country a great service. This kind of crap is an actionable invasion of personal space.

@Mitch Sure.

@Cerberus the other way here...even less touching among young people. when you start to dress up nicer is when handshakes and social kissing might occur

@tchrist Look, you don't need to be so aggressive. I have told you several times that I, too, am not very happy with all the kissing.

Public affection is considered a public nuisance.

According to that article.

I want to convey to you how off-putting this kissing thing is to us.

@Mitch Now you're talking about teenagers.

I will stop if you are now in a state of understanding.

The contrapositive is also true.

Your conveyance is off putting.

It's like...a Hummer.

It is the only way to show you how it comes across.

It is that offensive.

You're like a Hummer limousine.

That’s not a hummer.

The site says it's a Hummer.

That is the very god of hummers.

You're telling me you're an Indian now?

Huitzilopochtli, Hummer of the South.

Same thing.

I actually wonder why limousines are allowed at all. Do people wear safety belts in there?

I sometimes also wonder why line buses are allowed...

What is a “line bus”?

?

A bus that travels along a line.

Hm.

You mean public transport?

Like that A line or the 14 line or whatever?

That, or a shuttle bus.

But why would they not be allowed? How else are people to use public transport?

With safety belts.

Oh.

I don’t know that I have ever seen that in a bus or even a long-distance “coach”.

But I have wondered.

When you go 100km/h, I sometimes wonder how safe a line bus is.

Neither have I.

As long as it does not stop too quickly, you’re fine.

D'oh.

Our city buses go on the highway, where it is posted at 65.

The same applies to aeroplanes and cars.

But a plane may be forced to stop rather quickly, such as when it crashes into the ground.

Small buses, like minivans, have shoulder straps and seat belts, and you are legally obliged to wear them.

"Line bus".

Mmm?

Why don’t buses have seat belts?

Google has a bazillion hits for that question.

Apparently, many have asked it.

We have no school buses.

Huh?

So you have many many many little tiny schools within walking distance?

Isn’t that expensive?

The federal government only requires seat belts in small buses that weigh less than 10,000 pounds where having a seat belt would affect safety.

Or line buses. Or your parents take you if there is no other way or if you are really young.

But you cannot expect kids to bike to school. They have crap to carry, and winter happens here.

Many kids do, but it cannot be required.

Perhaps that would help them lose some weight.

You don’t understand winter.

I cycled to school at -20.

What’s that in English?

I think smaller children might be taken to school by their parents if it's really really cold.

We get –20 here.

And I mean in Fahrenheit.

How many school days a year?

Add the 20 mph wind chill from cycling, and you just sentenced those kids to amputation from frost bite.

It's usually not many, since they also have Christmas break and all.

Doesn’t matter, it is also too snowy to bike. And it is obnoxious to make people bike in pouring rain. It just doesn’t work.

Of course if it's freezing really hard for a month every year, then it might become inefficient.

A public school is expected to proved public transportation. Otherwise, they are stealing your tax dollars.

Fat.

We always cycled through the rain.

Also, it is dangerous. You must not make children bike in traffic. That is cruel.

I cycled 24 km a day on normal days, rain or no rain.

Parents don’t want their kids run down by asshole drivers in a hurry.

Neither do the kids.

You can cycle over moderate snow. Otherwise, clear the snow.

Biking in snow during rush hour is a recipe for dead bikers.

It just takes longer.

Naaah.

Cars slip. Into bikes. And kill them.

Actually, traffic seems safer when it's snowing, because all drivers are very careful and drive very slowly.

You are kidding, right?

There are more accidents when it is snowing.

Surely you know this.

Probably on highways mostly.

Actually, most accidents are on city streets.

Still, it's probably not much more dangerous for bikes than for cars.

You can cycle over ice.

You just have to be careful.

Sure, it's slow and inconvenient.

You can’t bike through more than about three inches of snow.

You can always take your kids to school by car for a few weeks every year.

Huh?

It is not the parents’ job to play school bus.

That’s the school’s job.

That’s why they call it a school bus.

Can you imagine all those cars?

Bad for the environment.

A bus is a more economical use.

Well, that's not entirely true. It depends on how fast the snow falls. If people keep cycling on the snow, it flattens even as new snow keeps falling. If a very thick layer should fall at night, yes, then your need to clear the snow away. The government does that.

I had to go rescue a friend this past winter, because the dummy was biking in the snow and was ill prepared.

A few weeks a year should be OK.

They can’t clear it away as fast as it falls.

And they do not clear residential districts.

Only main roads, like highways.

If you have severe snow for more than a few weeks, then...

It isn’t just the snow.

It is the wind, too.

Then just clear it.

It is policy here not to plow residential neighborhoods.

It is really annoying.

You can cycle in almost any wind.

No, not really.

They perhaps they should start plowing all streets?

Only the most severe storm forces you off your bike.

They figure it will melt within a week, so they don’t bother. Very annoying.

This past Monday I had 14 inches of new snow, and on Wednesday I had 10 more inches of new snow.

There were precious fewer bikers about.

No surprise.

And this is in spring, mind you.

Then either plough well or cancel school or take your kids by car.

I do not understand this.

I pay taxes.

Those taxes go to public schools.

I'm not saying a school bus is necessarily bad, but I don't believe you couldn't do without even in your weather.

Part of public schools is getting the public to school. That is what the taxes are for.

I do think it is really good for kids to get some exercise.

It is like serving fastfood at school.

I think I know the problem.

You don’t understand our distances.

You do not tell a six-year old to bike ten or fifteen miles to school year round. That is rude.

That is a bit too far.

Kids who live within a mile or so of school do not have bus service.

So don't buy a house that far from a school if you have young children.

It is for those who live far away.

I biked about 10 km a day when I was 10 or so.

@Cerberus so teenagers in France/Benelux don't kiss?

I was a block from school for grade school, and maybe seven blocks for junior high. But high school was almost 3 miles away, so of course there was bus service. I used to ride some times, but I always preferred walking.

@Mitch I'm not sure. I think they kiss less under 15 or so at least.

@Cerberus depends on how the ppublic school district is mapped out.

Then a formal greeting is more like "ugh" shrug.

Meaning I used to ride my bike. But I didn’t like it because I was too sweaty.

Shrugh.

@Cerberus I remember 17 year olds doing it all the time in Europe, but definitely not here in the US.

@tchrist It would have been healthier. 3 miles is nothing.

But you're missing the more important question!!

@Cerberus That really is not the point, you realize.

@Mitch I'm not entirely sure what kids do.

What about poor East Germany and its dearth of women! and what happened to them? did they all fle for Hamburg?

I was wondering about that too.

As I said, I often walked it, and sometimes biked. But there was a bus if the weather was poor.

@Cerberus you must surely have some memories.

Why do the men stay while the girls leave?

Androsexuals?

Maybe because they only let the lesbians get away?

Or maybe a bunch of men went to East Germany (yes, I know, that's not what happened)

@Mitch Sure, when we were kids, I think we mostly did nothing when we were, say, under 15; then we started feeling we were "adults" so handshakes and kisses became more common.

also it's not called East Germany. Or even former East Germany... what is it called?

Ostdeutschland?

Oyster Dutchland.

jinx

@Cerberus handshakes is the only adult thing now. also women are more likely to handshake now (in a business setting)

@Mitch My God, can you imagine the liability of kissing in a business setting!?

Naw those are both too retro. I think in English it is more proper to say 'eastern Germany'

In business, no kissing, unless perhaps at a one-on-one business lunch between people who know each other well.

@tchrist It's what they do in France in business. It's like a transaction.

Bonobos.

French bonobos.

ha ha!

I contradicted Cerb.

I'm not sure it's all that common in business in France...

I don't know what's reality in business in France...hmm...maybe...

He is easily contra dicted. It’s the pro dicted part that is hard. Or pre.

@Mitch Well, I was talking about here. The farther you go down south, the more kissing.

do academics count as business?

How’s the kissing in Oslo then, yaheythere?

Yes, though somewhat less so.

no kissing in Germany.

hm... maybe they do?

I cannot imagine smoochy Finns.

Nor Greenlanders.

Sure Germans kiss, as Reg said.

I thought Reg is Russian.

He has lived in Germany since forever.

He is ethnically informed.

oh

I bet it's more common in southern Germany.

Bayarisch are very different from Hamburgers.

Or however you call those people.

mmm... hamburgers.

Suddeutscher

It reminds me of some bad scene from the Godfather. Sicilian kiss of death. Or was that the Judas thing?

Franken, Preussen,...Bayrischer?

was that a kiss on two cheeks?

There are still Prussians?

also, southern France is the hot.

He doesn't live in the south.

Nor in France. Quite.

I think there are still Presser, but in the same way that there are still Mayans.

*Preußen

It depends on your definition of Preußen.

It was expanding and expanding throughout the 18th–19th centuries.

Until it was bigger than modern Germany.

Or at least on the same scale.

The newness of the place we now call Germany as a nation-state entity is always too easy for us here to forget.

Well, not the place, but the entity.

Bavaria was the last large state to be incorporated, and then they simply changed its name into Deutschland.

France and Spain and England are reasonably old as nation-states, but Germany and Italy really are not.

Germany is barely 90 years younger than your country, and your borders changed a lot more.

That’s misleading.

Why?

When did your incorporate your last territories?

The place we now call Germany has been occupied by civilized, literate people for many hundreds of years, even thousands.

It was not Germany then.

But we call it that.

This is confusing.

So?

Confusing land with nation.

When your colonies declared independence, it was nothing like the modern state.

How are the nation and the land not both called America?

You’re missing the point.

People talk about medieval Germany.

What is that, really?

Not all of premodern Germany was ever incorporated into modern Germany.

@tchrist It varied.

As a state, it was the HRE.

The whole HRE was very complicated.

Especially since it was none of those things.

It should have just been called Germasomething.

As a region, it initially included the Low Countries, I believe, but later it was more like the German-speaking regions, and at some point it came to exclude Switzerland, probably, depending on whom you spoke to.

I’ve never understood all the electors bit.

Why not?

They didn’t get elected. :)

The HRE also often included large parts of Italy btw.

Uhh... passive ≠ active.

If you are an elector, you elect.

Yeah yeah. It was a joke.

The HR Emperor was also called the German Emperor at times.

We only get (mandatorily) taught state, U.S., and some English/British history. It is a lot simpler.

He was formally King of Germany, I believe, but Emperor of the HRE.

Or King of Spain, when Carlos V was Emperor.

Charles.

He was elected King, as has been the Germanic custom since time immemorial, but he was appointed Emperor, usually by the Pope.

Annointed, even.

No, Charles V was also King of Germany.

I'm not sure what the exact title is called.

> Formally the Prince-Electors elected a King of the Romans, who was elected in Germany but became Holy Roman Emperor only when crowned by the Pope. Charles V was the last to be a crowned Emperor (elected 1519, crowned 1530); his successors were all Emperors by election (German: erwählter Römischer Kaiser; Latin: electus Romanorum imperator) only.

It was all very complex.

@Cerberus And you wonder why I’ve never quite understood it?

The exact feudal constructions? No.

They matter little anyway.

They also varied with time.

I remember studying Sophia of Hanover once upon a time. The Electress.

When was she electress?

It’s how the English Crown came to come from Hanover.

I think.