|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jan 27, 2013 22:55:02 GMT 1
I mean Polish culture versus British and American, but other are also welcome. Poles angle and take fish home to cook (mostly). Law allows it in Poland because registered anglers pay annual fees for fishing, which start from about 200 PLN. www.pzw.org.pl/pzw/wiadomosci/lista/63/skladkiBrits release the caught fish back into the water (mostly). Hence, such signs in Britain:   I believe Americans are more like Poles, after Tim revealed a few secrets on hunting and fishing. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 27, 2013 23:36:04 GMT 1
I mean Polish culture versus British and American, but other are also welcome. Poles angle and take fish home to cook (mostly). Law allows it in Poland because registered anglers pay annual fees for fishing, which start from about 200 PLN. www.pzw.org.pl/pzw/wiadomosci/lista/63/skladkiBrits release the caught fish back into the water (mostly). Hence, such signs in Britain: I believe Americans are more like Poles, after Tim revealed a few secrets on hunting and fishing. Yes, American anglers need to purchase a license for fresh water fishing. (Though I don't know if this is true in all states.) For salt water fishing no license is needed, except one might be needed for commercial fishermen. Also, keep in mind that some warning signs prohibiting fishing might be warning that the fish are coming from polluted waters and may be dangerous to eat! |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jan 27, 2013 23:57:00 GMT 1
Yes, American anglers need to purchase a license for fresh water fishing. (Though I don't know if this is true in all states.) For salt water fishing no license is needed, except one might be needed for commercial fishermen. Also, keep in mind that some warning signs prohibiting fishing might be warning that the fish are coming from polluted waters and may be dangerous to eat! Jeanne, I put main stress on Polish custom of taking fish home and British putting it back into water. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 28, 2013 1:17:03 GMT 1
Yes, American anglers need to purchase a license for fresh water fishing. (Though I don't know if this is true in all states.) For salt water fishing no license is needed, except one might be needed for commercial fishermen. Also, keep in mind that some warning signs prohibiting fishing might be warning that the fish are coming from polluted waters and may be dangerous to eat! Jeanne, I put main stress on Polish custom of taking fish home and British putting it back into water. Okay, I get that, but my point is why do Brits release the fish? Could it be that the fish are from polluted waters and are unsafe to eat??? .....just asking.... By the way, don't Brits hunt fake foxes now-a-days? Again...just asking...  |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Jan 28, 2013 8:17:02 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jan 28, 2013 22:55:27 GMT 1
English prefer fried eggs while Poles regular scrambled eggs with chopped sausage, spring onion etc. ? ? ? ?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyhorse1 on Jan 29, 2013 20:59:15 GMT 1
Here in the U.S. we eat eggs in a varity of ways; boiled, fried, over light, scrambled, omlets with every concievable added vegitable and cheese.
Fact is I prefer Cream Chipped beef with an egg over light on top.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jan 29, 2013 22:03:06 GMT 1
Here in the U.S. we eat eggs in a varity of ways; boiled, fried, over light, scrambled, omlets with every concievable added vegitable and cheese. Fact is I prefer Cream Chipped beef with an egg over light on top. What about poached??? |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jan 30, 2013 19:54:11 GMT 1
LONDON (Oct. 31, 2002)—During a wartime visit to Moscow in 1942, Winston S. Churchill discovered a marvel of modern technology: hot and cold water flowing from the same faucet.
The plumbing in the villa where he stayed as a guest of Stalin was unlike the primitive British standard of separate taps for hot and cold. Rather than having to fill up the sink to achieve the right blend, the British leader could wash his hands under gushing water “mingled to exactly the temperature one desired,” as he put it in his memoirs. From then on, he resolved to use this method whenever possible.
His countrymen have been slow to take up the single-spigot cause. Most bathroom sinks in Britain still have separate hot and cold taps today, 60 years after Mr. Churchill’s conversion and decades after nearly all dual taps were scrapped in the U.S. and most vanished from continental Europe. For reasons of thrift, regulations and a stubborn attachment to tradition, the British have resisted the tide of plumbing history. Even when they renovate old homes, many choose two-tap systems, and builders often install them in new, low-end housing. Separate taps account for an estimated 40% of all bathroom-faucet sales in the U.K.
“It’s very strange to me,” says Ayelet Langer, who moved to London from Israel last year and found two faucets mounted on the newly installed bathroom sink in her apartment. “I thought I couldn’t really cope with it at first, but now I do.” Worried that the water from the hot tap will scald the fingers of her one-year-old son, she washes his hands in the kitchen sink, which has a single spout.
blogs.warwick.ac.uk/mhillebrandt/entry/british_peculiarities_i/ British  Polish 
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Feb 3, 2013 14:21:05 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Feb 10, 2013 21:54:53 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jun 8, 2013 17:53:47 GMT 1
Jeanne, I put main stress on Polish custom of taking fish home and British putting it back into water. Okay, I get that, but my point is why do Brits release the fish? Could it be that the fish are from polluted waters and are unsafe to eat??? .....just asking.... It is their style - taking caught fish home is seen as barbarism, while buying the same fish in the market or shop isn`t. It is connected with the level of development, I suppose. When Poles are as rich as Brits one day, eating angled fish will also be considered bad taste. Something like that doesn`t happen in Poland - a public expression of immense joy after a controvercial person dies. It happened in Great Britain after Margaret Tatcher died. Really amazing to see how people, even young ones, are able to hate each other so that they organise parties in streets, drink champagne etc. Forgive me, Brits, I know I am generalising, but you are sick people. ) Don`t get offended. If Poles hold such parties in Poland one day, I will also call them sick. In the Polish culture as it is now, the dead should get respect.          |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 4, 2013 0:51:42 GMT 1
Something like that doesn`t happen in Poland - a public expression of immense joy after a controvercial person dies. It happened in Great Britain after Margaret Tatcher died. Really amazing to see how people, even young ones, are able to hate each other so that they organise parties in streets, drink champagne etc. Forgive me, Brits, I know I am generalising, but you are sick people. ) Don`t get offended. If Poles hold such parties in Poland one day, I will also call them sick. In the Polish culture as it is now, the dead should get respect. I agree that reactions like this are barbaric...and that the dead should be given a degree of respect. After all, what harm can they do once they are dead? They have gone the way of all flesh...the way we all will follow... |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Sept 29, 2015 21:43:44 GMT 1
This post shows Polish vs Russian culture, with Polish being a product of European customs while Russian -- .... Asian?
Poles have always given way to ambulances, even breaking rules if necessary. Like everywhere in Europe. I was taught it at my driving licence course in 20 century. That is why I was immensely surprised reading Russian comments about Polish youtube films in which they express regret such custom doesn`t exist in Russia.
Ambulance ride in Poland
In Russia it takes much longer
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 19, 2016 22:35:51 GMT 1
In Poland citizens can`t buy guns as freely as in US. Some guys are unaware of this regulation.
Three Dutch citizens held after attempted Kalashnikov purchase in Poland
16.03.2016 17:24
Three Dutch citizens described as having 'Arab origins' have been detained after attempting to buy Kalashnikovs and a pistol in a shop in Gdynia, northern Poland.
Photo: IARPhoto: IAR
The owner of the shop told the Dziennik Baltycki paper that the men did not have permits for the weapons.
When he declined to sell them the guns, they allegedly offered to pay double the asking price, in cash.
The shopowner refused and called the police, and the would-be customers departed.
The three were later detained in a local shopping centre.
Reportedly the men attempted to resist counter-terrorism police, and tasers were used.
Grażyna Wawryniuk, spokeswoman for the Prosecutor's Office in Gdańsk, has confirmed that three men have been detained, adding only that “procedures are being carried out.”- See more at: www.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/244947,Three-Dutch-citizens-held-after-attempted-Kalashnikov-purchase-in-Poland#sthash.LoaTM2E1.dpuf |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Apr 9, 2016 23:48:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Apr 10, 2016 12:07:45 GMT 1
Just to clarify...it is true that most American Catholics receive Communion into the hand, and it is always their choice to do either, but many still choose to receive on the tongue. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Apr 10, 2016 12:26:18 GMT 1
Just to clarify...it is true that most American Catholics receive Communion into the hand, and it is always their choice to do either, but many still choose to receive on the tongue. Do you know the origin of hand reception? I have no clue why it happens. A few years ago I observed an American tourist in Poland who refused to open his mouth and put out his hand instead. The priest was visibly surprised but complied with the wish. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Apr 30, 2016 15:01:28 GMT 1
Just to clarify...it is true that most American Catholics receive Communion into the hand, and it is always their choice to do either, but many still choose to receive on the tongue. Do you know the origin of hand reception? I have no clue why it happens. A few years ago I observed an American tourist in Poland who refused to open his mouth and put out his hand instead. The priest was visibly surprised but complied with the wish. We know, of course, that in the early Church people received Communion in the hand. St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century gave some advice on how to do that reverently: In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen.The practice changed over the centuries when heresies arose claiming that the Eucharist was not the actual body and blood of Christ; the Church introduced receiving on the tongue to indicate that the body of the Lord was so sacred as to not be touched by human hands other than the consecrated hands of the priest. Things changed with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. I found this quote on the webpage of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (www.usccb.org): The General Instruction asks each country's Conference of Bishops to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. In the United States, the body of Bishops determined that Communion should be received standing, and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving...Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving, not of the person distributing Communion. Based on the above, it's easy to understand that in post-Vatican II Poland with the now St. John Paul II in a strong leadership position, the Polish Bishops would choose reception on the tongue for the Church in Poland, rather than following the example of the more liberal U.S. Bishops who allowed reception by the hand. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Apr 30, 2016 21:53:30 GMT 1
Do you know the origin of hand reception? I have no clue why it happens. A few years ago I observed an American tourist in Poland who refused to open his mouth and put out his hand instead. The priest was visibly surprised but complied with the wish. We know, of course, that in the early Church people received Communion in the hand. St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century gave some advice on how to do that reverently: In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen.The practice changed over the centuries when heresies arose claiming that the Eucharist was not the actual body and blood of Christ; the Church introduced receiving on the tongue to indicate that the body of the Lord was so sacred as to not be touched by human hands other than the consecrated hands of the priest. Things changed with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. I found this quote on the webpage of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (www.usccb.org): The General Instruction asks each country's Conference of Bishops to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. In the United States, the body of Bishops determined that Communion should be received standing, and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving...Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving, not of the person distributing Communion. Based on the above, it's easy to understand that in post-Vatican II Poland with the now St. John Paul II in a strong leadership position, the Polish Bishops would choose reception on the tongue for the Church in Poland, rather than following the example of the more liberal U.S. Bishops who allowed reception by the hand. Oh, I see. I had no idea about this (hi)story. But I also came across another explanation - priests fear that hand reception might lead to an act of desecration if one secretly keeps the Communion instead of swallowing it right away. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Apr 30, 2016 22:15:57 GMT 1
We know, of course, that in the early Church people received Communion in the hand. St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century gave some advice on how to do that reverently: In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen.The practice changed over the centuries when heresies arose claiming that the Eucharist was not the actual body and blood of Christ; the Church introduced receiving on the tongue to indicate that the body of the Lord was so sacred as to not be touched by human hands other than the consecrated hands of the priest. Things changed with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. I found this quote on the webpage of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (www.usccb.org): The General Instruction asks each country's Conference of Bishops to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. In the United States, the body of Bishops determined that Communion should be received standing, and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving...Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving, not of the person distributing Communion. Based on the above, it's easy to understand that in post-Vatican II Poland with the now St. John Paul II in a strong leadership position, the Polish Bishops would choose reception on the tongue for the Church in Poland, rather than following the example of the more liberal U.S. Bishops who allowed reception by the hand. Oh, I see. I had no idea about this (hi)story. But I also came across another explanation - priests fear that hand reception might lead to an act of desecration if one secretly keeps the Communion instead of swallowing it right away. That is a legitimate concern here also. Priests and lay Eucharistic Ministers keep a close watch to make sure the host is consumed. Communicants are supposed to consume the host before turning away from the priest or Eucharistic Minister. In Poland, are there lay people who distribute Communion, or priests only? |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Apr 30, 2016 23:05:01 GMT 1
Oh, I see. I had no idea about this (hi)story. But I also came across another explanation - priests fear that hand reception might lead to an act of desecration if one secretly keeps the Communion instead of swallowing it right away. 1 That is a legitimate concern here also. Priests and lay Eucharistic Ministers keep a close watch to make sure the host is consumed. Communicants are supposed to consume the host before turning away from the priest or Eucharistic Minister. 2 In Poland, are there lay people who distribute Communion, or priests only? 1 Wow, that`s strict, I don`t like this atmosphere of being watched... it is irritating..... I suppose that`s why Poles prefer the mouth reception. 2 Only male priests. Will we ever live to see female priestesses handing out Communion? PS. I am for equality - women must start fighting for their rights! |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Apr 30, 2016 23:33:37 GMT 1
1 Wow, that`s strict, I don`t like this atmosphere of being watched... it is irritating..... I suppose that`s why Poles prefer the mouth reception. 2 Only male priests. Will we ever live to see female priestesses handing out Communion? PS. I am for equality - women must start fighting for their rights! Of course we do not have women priests here, but we do have both male and female "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist" (the official title) who distribute Communion. The practice began in the 70's because of the impending shortage of priests and to speed up the process of handing out Communion and to keep Masses to a reasonable length, since with one priest distributing Communion it would take a very long time at a crowded Mass. p.s. Why would women have a "right" to be a priest? Not even men have a right, they are called and chosen...we're not talking about human rights here; we are talking about religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on May 1, 2016 0:00:46 GMT 1
1 Of course we do not have women priests here, but we do have both male and female "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist" (the official title) who distribute Communion. The practice began in the 70's because of the impending shortage of priests and to speed up the process of handing out Communion and to keep Masses to a reasonable length, since with one priest distributing Communion it would take a very long time at a crowded Mass. 2 p.s. Why would women have a "right" to be a priest? Not even men have a right, they are called and chosen...we're not talking about human rights here; we are talking about religion. 1 No lack of priests in Poland for the time being although they are visibly aging....    2 A woman who feels she has been called cannot be chosen for a priestess due to traditional regulations. That`s unfair! I can`t agree to it. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on May 1, 2016 0:23:02 GMT 1
2 A woman who feels she has been called cannot be chosen for a priestess due to traditional regulations. That`s unfair! I can`t agree to it. So are you also saying you can't agree with Jesus' decision to choose only men as his Apostles? Because that is the basis for the Church's limitation of the priesthood to men only. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on May 1, 2016 0:32:22 GMT 1
2 A woman who feels she has been called cannot be chosen for a priestess due to traditional regulations. That`s unfair! I can`t agree to it. So are you also saying you can't agree with Jesus' decision to choose only men as his Apostles? Because that is the basis for the Church's limitation of the priesthood to men only. I am sure Jesus wouldn`t mind women as priestesses if he lived today. In His times it was so much different, women were limited in their rights, that is why he didn`t choose any because he knew people wouldn`t follow them in the same way as they did with male apostles. Cultural norms have changed and are not as restrictive as they used to be. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on May 1, 2016 0:40:27 GMT 1
So are you also saying you can't agree with Jesus' decision to choose only men as his Apostles? Because that is the basis for the Church's limitation of the priesthood to men only. I am sure Jesus wouldn`t mind women as priestesses if he lived today. In His times it was so much different, women were limited in their rights, that is why he didn`t choose any because he knew people wouldn`t follow them in the same way as they did with male apostles. Cultural norms have changed and are not as restrictive as they used to be. Oh, I see...and just when did Jesus tell you why he did this?  |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on May 1, 2016 0:55:28 GMT 1
I am sure Jesus wouldn`t mind women as priestesses if he lived today. In His times it was so much different, women were limited in their rights, that is why he didn`t choose any because he knew people wouldn`t follow them in the same way as they did with male apostles. Cultural norms have changed and are not as restrictive as they used to be. Oh, I see...and just when did Jesus tell you why he did this? He didn`t but all his teaching proves he had nothing against women (call to mind the case of female sinner they wanted to stone to death) and the fact he didn`t choose them for apostles was purely practical. |
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on May 1, 2016 1:11:29 GMT 1
Oh, I see...and just when did Jesus tell you why he did this? He didn`t but all his teaching proves he had nothing against women (call to mind the case of female sinner they wanted to stone to death) and the fact he didn`t choose them for apostles was purely practical. I agree that Jesus, of course, had nothing against women, in fact he dealt with them in a way unheard of in his day. For example, his conversation and interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well, with the woman who anointed his feet and wiped them with her hair, and with the woman caught in adultery. His out-of-the-ordinary- for-his-time dealings with these woman indicate that had Jesus wanted women to be his among his Apostles, he would have had no problem appointing them along with the men. He chose, however, not to do so, and the Church must follow his example, which is the primary guidance the Church has in this matter. Aside from the above "official" reason, there is another practical reason. Most people would agree that women tend to be more spiritual than men. It is the women who are freely drawn to Church, with the men often following them. There is the fear of a "feminization" of the Church should women be allowed to be priests. With women in the primary roles, men would slowly fade from the picture and the Church would be left without their important presence and contributions. It's a way of keeping a balance...the women will be there anyway, but not so much the men unless they have that leadership and example of other men in the priestly role. This is just my humble view, not the teaching of the Church... |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jun 17, 2016 23:41:27 GMT 1
I suppose Poles are unique when they display Polish flags with the names of their locations, mostly small towns or hamlets, but smaller cities too. I can regularly see those flags during all kinds of sports events. (I have never seen Krakow or Warsaw written on a flag.  E.g., in the photo below, on the right you can see the flag with The Royal City of Knyszyn. Yes, it is a historical settlement but today it counts merely 3000 residents. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KnyszynKnyszyn was the favorite residence of King Sigismund II of Poland, and was the Polish court's main base for hunting expeditions into the nearby virgin forests. In the 1560s the king maintained a royal stud of over 3000 horses in Knyszyn, including large numbers of Arabian horses, among the first to be bred in northern Europe. Sigismund II died in the town in 1572, after which the royal property rapidly fell into neglect.
Few signs of the former royal residence and extensive studs remain aside from foundations, which are poorly marked.
     |
|
