What is it that intrigues foreigners about CZ women?

I have only been to the Czech Republic on one trip, for a week but I think it is a very nice country. If you are a Czech you can be very proud.

I wish more people would just try and accept the idea that each country is different. Would you really want every country to be the same? The differences are one of the things that makes travel so much fun.

I agree with Sova it is interesting to get to know someone from another culture. I think you learn a lot about yourself and your own culture too.

 

Maybe I didn't explain myself fully.

The stereotypes I mentioned were different ones that are promoted about women in Eastern Europe and Russia.

My ex is from Russia, and she's as American as an American, if that makes any sense. I do know a few men who married women from this part of the world and they were surprised they got more than their hands full!

My limited experience with women in this part of the world has been that they are probably more educated, on average...sometimes lacking in opportunities outside of the big cities but nevertheless ambitious and anxious to be contributors to the "global economy."

 

Interesting discussion,really

If the foreigners come to the CR mostly because of women(the younger ones),what about Czech boys?What do foreign women think of them?Because I haven´t heard many positive things from Czech girls.

But I can remember my teacher of French who has been living in the CR and has a Czech boyfriend saying that in her opinion the Czechs seem to be more courteous than the French. Well,ask every other Czech woman about that and you´ll get a completely different answer! So difficult to say.

Lelee

P.S.Not every Czech girl is independant and know what she want from life.This is utterly individual thing which depends upon personality and life experience. You usually don´t born like that but you have to grow up to gain such an attitude. Moreover, some girls do want to have a family instead of career. But most of them desire self-realization and economical independance.

 

I don't have a Czech boy per say but I do have a Czech man. I find that he is far more calm, solid and emotionally rational than 90% of the American men I've encountered in my life. He also has a truly amazing work ethic and a generous spirit that I seldom see anywhere much less in men.

 

I would cook and clean for you (or hire help)!, and support you emotionally and financially, and have no qualms about it-- you see I am a modern man, raised by great feminist women. (i.e. a doormat, to be abused by 'modern women', who secretly just want to be dominated by footbal players, not wooed by intelligent, successful, respectful men)

Is there this dormant, secretive love in the hearts of Czech women, for the 'strong man', the controlling macho (Eastern European style, as with Russia and Poles, etc.). If so, might it not be generations before women can fully extricate themselves from the sexist patterns so ingrained. Will they, in the process, completely destroy that part of themselves that is innocent, beautiful, human and attractive, replacing it with cynical boredom and selfish, anti-intellectual consumeristic frivolity as has occurred here in the US?

So why then is it impossible to find a beautiful, intelligent, independent, charming woman like Elanastef here in the states? Answer: No, there is NOTHING good about USA at this time. America is indeed the beautiful, but the USA in this era sucks! (don't look to us any more for great music arrising from the pain of the slaves who built this place, nor artistic innovations as we've innovated art into non-existence in terms of general culture. And don't look to us for technical prowess-- much of it is concerned with developing weapons of war, which people here generally love more than anything on earth).

I think I need to move and build my manse in the countryside near Prague, rather than in upstate NY--

It seems that in the US, despite our having escaped so much of war and dictatorship, we've managed to completely corrupt our culture, women do not appear to have found a cultural mode to identify with that allows them to be happy in marriage. Capitalistic consumeristic marketing and undeserved spoiled affluence are to blame, I think, people are forever bombarded with unsettling marketing messages designed to make them unhappy with the status-quo.

There is a distinct lack of humility, genuine human interest, soul, love, all of the things that make life and love culturally and emotionally enriiching here.

Perhaps Czech women were delayed from exposure to consumerism for a generation or two, remaining with some cultural roots and humanistic ethic not yet spoiled by the sort of conceited bourgeoise arrogance one finds rampant in, for example, nasty Germany (to a degree far in excess of even USA).

If so, is the dissolution of human and family integrity a necessary product of the evolution away from antiquated gender-based divisions of house-chores?

But back to the real question-- are the Czech women really as sexy and subdued as they say? (jut kidding...)

 

to answer your question ...No we are not. But we'll let you cook and clean for us.... or hire help, any day :wink:

 

So where do the most genuine, "real" non-materialistic girls in the CR live?

And are you really posting a message at 2:30 in the morning?

 

Besides the topic....

I like this very much: America is indeed the beautiful, but the USA in this era sucks!

Maybe here Natureboy defined the main difference.

 

The US would have been okay with all the "goodwill" after 9/11 if we'd just left Iraq alone or simply gone "in and out" to remove Saddam Hussein and then departed, as happened a decade earlier.

The problem is that either way, a vacuum would have been created.

Which is wose, a dictator killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds with no relief in sight or the possibility of hope and that things might turn around after a long, slow, painful process?

You can argue that the US harmed Russia equally when we didn't save it from currency devaluation in 1997/98. Their economy still has not recovered. Of course, others would blame the leadership for selling off the government industries for practically nothing to about 15 merciless oligarchs they're still fighting to control.

 

All those who still believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 raise your hands.... shame on those who insidiously still mash these two concepts into the same sentence-- is there nothing they won't believe?

The USA is one of the great installers of ruthless, murderous dictators, and has toppled many interesting young, small hybrid governments by and of the people, purely in the interest of preserving the gluttonous way of life of the robber barrons who have always run this place.

There is nothing virtuous about this Iraq war whatsoever-- it was a criminal campaign, pursued under false pretense, by a criminal administration installed via a stolen election. The Iraq war has turned all the US citizens who pay taxes into virtual war criminals, implicating us all in the unprecedented torture of prisoners, incarcerating poeple for years without due process-- that is now the law of the land here folks, sound familiar??

There are profound questions as to who, how and why the 9/11 'attacks' occurred. But they apparently served their purpose, allowing a fraudulent, un-elected administration to completely disband much of the 'democratic process', in order to pursue unwinnable wars far away.
If indeeed 9/11 was a sort of ruse, it would not be the first-- it has now been generally accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin incedent never happened-- so much horror in Vietnam all the way around, and it was fought for naught, achieving nothing, deja-vu all over again.

The only people who have 'benefited' from this war, or any war since 1947, are the war profiteers. Beware the military industrial complex--- but only a genuine sociopath could ethically consider profits from war a 'benefit' Welcome to the USA, folks.

Democracy is indeed a highly corruptable system, just another power-structure to be abused, and power corrupts absolutely. All you need is a possible fabricated shocker like 9/11 and you can scare citizens into supporting any actions, even ones in lands that had nothing to do with anything.

Those living in young democracies should not look to the USA as a great example of proper or egalitarian government-- it's roots were corrupt from the outset, whole swaths of the population did not even have the vote, women, African, etc. (comprising, ironically those whe generally did all the work!) This place is run by a bunch of rich, bogus white religious fanatics (as in "Jesus was a carpenter, therfore personal and corporate greed at the expense of everyone and everything else must be good") who didn't like their tea tax, as it always has been.

But of course, as all those who remember the Prague uprising or Tienanmen square, etc, know that things get much worse under repressive regimes. But it would be false to believe the US does not promote equally repressive regimes if it suites their interest, cases in point El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, etc. etc. It is no coincedence Rumsfeld and Saddam were buddies, and the Bin Ladens and the Bushes are friends.

But back to beautiful and independent Czech women~ and the preservation of the feminine cultural soul in the face of rampant consumerism...

 

INDEED

 

I did not know that "What intrigues foreigners about CZ women" is war in IRAQ, 9/11 and Tienanmen . :shock:

Thank you guys for enlightening me. :evil:

 

Tiananmen-

I'm laughing at this thread, because I am a Democrat and pretty liberal and yet am forced to defend Bush!!!

I don't know if this whole idea of women "protected from the ravages of Western consumerism" even exist.

I'm sure Prague is getting more and more commercial/touristy/expensive/hip/cool and therefore "bad."

The influence of Western music, videos, sports, movies, tv shows, is almost everywhere. In Russia, MTV is more popular than in the US.

In fact, clothing styles are usually set first by Europeans and then adapted by Americans....

I love to think of this "pure," "idealistic" optimistic/positive Czech woman who doesn't care about money, isn't ambitious, doesn't want a nice car/house/things at all...in face, she rejects them! A woman who would rather work in a smaller city, even though she could make more money in a larger city or another country....a woman with exceeding intelligence yet who accepts being a housewife and mother? Who wants to work in social or non-profit work instead of studying business/law/medicine.

A model who doesn't think she's pretty, who is humble, who never lets compliments go to her head...who doesn't care about jewelry or French cosmetics or having a nice dress and who can walk out of the house without caring one iota how she looks to other people...who can be comfortable in a palace or outhouse, a rural village or Paris/Venice/Milan!

I'm sure a few of these women exist in every country of the world, but they are few and far between from what I've discovered.

 

Well, this is all a bit off-topic, I agree-- maybe it should have been on a different forum, or at least thread altogether-- and I am certainly no historian. (chalk it up to an illustration as to why we should find a beautiful, intelligent, modern, soulful Czech woman to be queen of the earth...) Here goes:

However, you cannot prove the corollary, that Iraq, Syria and Iran weren't aiding Al-Queda and fomenting terrorism in the Middle East.
Possible, but debateable, certainly no reason to invade as we did.

You certainly cannot defend Saddam Hussein
No we can't. But Rwanda should never have been allowed to happen either, in this age. Rwanda may be rich in rare gorillas, but lacking oil or European-looking Bosnians to sympathise with, nobody in the west much cared for Rwanda, as they didn't care for the poor Kurds.

The incongruity here is that none of this would matter to this government if it weren't for the oil, not Isreal, not any of it. We did not invade Iraq to rescue Kurds! (which would have been a genuine cause, but true to form, it was the US who was supplying Saddam's military at the time)

Does anyone ever mention that westerners have been gratuitously bombing Arabs since the invention of the airplane? Yes the world should have cried out when the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddha, but destroying Iraq when the Taliban was in Afganistan, dispersing Iraq's ancient treasures, and now aiming bombs at the great architecture and people of Persia, Arabs have every right to feel they are under generalized attack for the (as yet unproven) crimes of the few fanatics, which do not (or at least did not previously) represent the world of general Arab opinion. At this point it is the US that needs to be stopped in its genocidal aggression!

Yes, the US was responsible for assassinating/killing Allende in Chile, as long as reported attempts on Duvalier in Haiti.
Did you mean Aristide?

Trujillo (Dominican) was a bloodthirsty dictator who jailed and tortured opposition, seizing power only due to US intervention, by deposing the elected president. Remember that hospital full of children we bombed in Greneda?

Military interventions and actions these days are almost always corrupt. 60% of all arms are supplied by US manufacturers, (suggest seeing "Why We Fight"), unless the international arms trade is brought under strict control-- these wars benefit the arms manufacturers more than anyone.

The US Senate and House approved, and they were all democratically elected.... (remember Ohio and Florida my friend, the era of democratic elections in this country is over. Those voting machines might as well be made by Klebold as diebold...)

You're making a huge leap to say everyone who pays taxes is a war criminal... maybe those who voted for Bush, but there is nothing that could have changed the situation, short of a Democratic president and Congress.
When we pay to the military establishment over half our hard-earned tax revenue (exclude Social Security which is not really a tax, and you'll see where the taxes end up), and a rogue group of rightist thugs is allowed to take over illegally, and use that wealth to cause the kind of mass murder we have, I would counter that yes, we are all personally responsible, and not only that, personally liable for our crimes against humanity (as were the masses of saluting Germans), it was our tax dollars, our absurd ideology, our fabricated fears and our complacency that is responsible for this war, (hence my desire to find some more evolved populace to live among, like the Dutch, or Czechs!).

But before the taxpayers, the true murderers are the individual marines, army and national guardspeople themselves who actually go and comit these atrocities. No amount of college tuition is worth allowing onesself to be trained as a murdering automaton. I have no sympathy for military personel whatsoever (but then neither did Einstein, so I'm in good company).

Without these trained armies of drones, corrupt commandors in chief would stand alone. We all had the chance to realize the personal and national crime of warfare during the whole agonizing array of bogus military conflicts since the last world war, and we've now officially blown it completely-- this crime will not go away any time soon.

The US gives tremendous rights, in general, to criminals.
(NOT if you're an Arab POW in Guantanamo, or a black person in Alabama, hello?)

How about the Revolutionary War? If it had failed, . all would have been executed for treason/sedition (terrorism, essentially).
And indeed they almost were-- it was luck and weather that saved Georges army. But slave-holding and mysogeny are crimes against humanity in my book. There is no virtue available to unrepentant slave-holding rich people, revolutionaries or not--in any era. Not to mention that the birth of this nation was concurrent with the intentional extermination of the entire continent of Native American nations, fascinating peoples, who lived here sustainably (otherwise known as ethic cleansing on an unprecedented continental scale-- long before the Serbians, the Hutus or the Nazis).

Truthfully, if you are asking, I would rather none of it happened at all, and America were left to be the Beautiful, and the pristine, as opposed to the consumerist strip-mall we've turned it into (George Carlin has a rater pithy way of putting this) irrational and impractical as that sounds-- but you asked...

Though Ben Franklin apparently consulted Hiawatha's methods when trying to come up with a respectable constitution, Franklin states in his own autobiography something to the effect of the Natives should be cleared off the landscape to make room for those who would farm the land-- such unrepentant racist, manifest destiny malarkey sort of ruins all of Ben Franklin's other brilliance.

Canada apparently did not need a revolutionary war, and remains non-nuclear today. In truth, if the British really wanted this place, they would have spent the troops to keep it. I think the herosim and need for the revolution is dramatically overstated-- in any case the Irish were pretty good at geurilla warfare for centuries against the controlling British, no?

If you're going to take this approach, the entire world is guilty and there has never been a "just" war...was it just for the US to fight in World War I and II? After all, Europe was not our problem, was/is it? Was the Civil War in the US just?

Hear hear! People who pick up guns and grenades and who then hurl them at other people are nothing less than murderers. Infantrymen who train to use weapons of war, and then actually go and brainlessly follow orders and do it, are no less murderous than 'Joey the Mafia Hitman'. You cannot reconcile civility with warfare, they just cannot exist in the same brain-- perhaps this is why government bent on military machismo is destined to fail.

The civil war was not about the slaves, as we know, (any more than WW2 was about the Jews or Gypsies as a few bombs to the railroad tracks leading to the death camps could have saved millions of lives) and in the end achieved nothing but a national bloodbath. Perhaps it would have been best to let the south keep the whole of its toothless, inbred Appalachian Redneck Texan backwater nasty bunch of uneducated theives who are largely responsible for this bible-belt hypocracy running the country, and the apparently world, (now I'm starting to sound like a bigot-- there are indeed good people in Appalachia, and even a couple, I hear in the whole of Texas).

Slavery was going out of style by the time of our civil war, and destined to be reformed. The reasons for the Civil war here remain muddled, Lincoln himself stated that he would have supported or eschewed slavery based on it's relevance to the preservation of the union.

Europe (except for apparently the Dutch and Czechs!) is a very old, highly fascist, bombastic, habitually totalitarian place full of endlessly hateful nationalistic entities packed together with little room, who have historically felt the itch to conquer neighbors by whatever bloodthirsty means, each with ancient traditional hatreds going back to the Visigoths, something we don't really confront in our land of cowboys and sleaze, (apartheid and slavery roots notwithstanding).

It is these ancient hatreds that are the fatal flaw of the evolutionary psychology of humans. Such murderous, nationalistic passions that in the end mean absolutely nothing-- proven by the fact that Germany and Japan are now our greatest allies, and the French and English actually coexist depite all that hullabaloo for centuries.

Indeed there never has been a 'just war', the concept of a 'just war' was a biblical myth invented to appease men's generally bloodthirsty nature. In truth, the Commandments are the "constitution" of Judeo-Christian theocracy. If your religeon commands you not to kill, then none who kills can be considered Christian, and should be tried for heresy, and removed from the streets altogether (an "eye for an eye" leaves everyone blind, but even blindness is not the same as blowing people away winth incendiaries and shrapnel)

War is murder, mass murder, nothing less, nothing more. The epic wars of history have in the end achieved nothing, except to destroy the most beautiful of human nurturing dreams and work that our mothers singlehandedly provide.

This era was our chance to give peace a chance, this war in Iraq has instilled justifiable hatred across a large swath of humanity, and it did so purely for corrupt aims.

There's no such thing as a "winnable" or "conventional" war anymore. I agree, war is obsolete, with absolutely no relevance nor function in societies nor the world whatsoever. People should not be trained to be violent, rather violent people should be taken out of society, in therapy and on meds.

This is why one longs for independent intelligent women to take charge all over the globe-- government, despite its noble aspirations, has apparently utterly failed. Perhaps women could give government the compassion it needs in order to serve its constituency, one can't help but notice that women do this naturally, while men bicker and fight almost from birth. (Margaret Thatcher and Imelda Marcos notwithstanding...)

would you prefer US didn't have a military at all? What would happen then?
Yes! Iceland has no standing military (if you don't count their newly invigorated campaign to wipe out the last of the whales). Do you see any Cossacks invading across the North Sea to occupy their fjords and steal their herrings? We live in a time when war is obsolete, militaries should be reduced to relics across the globe, only existing to deal with any remaining Rwanda-type outrages, which are then addressed in a mutinational mode. Other than that, they should all disarm and work on their marching band rhythm skills if they like to trapse around like robots...

Do you think people would just let us be if we were like ostriches with our heads stuck in the sand of isolationism?
Isolationism, a fancy word for staying out of other people's business, rather than attempting to unilaterally dominate and control the world stage--

Think of the massive benefits the world could know if it were freed from our tyranny and occupations, think of how much good the tax dollars could do if diverted from an obsolete war machine to the benefit of citizens who finance it all by their labors? We live in a time when we actually have no mortal national enemies (until now), and you are witnessing the complete fabrication of a global threat purely in order to line the pockets of war profiteers, and to hold the populace in fear so that government can be radically altered by our VP and his ilk, who feel there are too many checks and balances, and the US should be more of an oligarchy, with the president our new King.

Bush is incompetent, but it's not in his nature to deliberately kill Americans to start a war...even the most unpatriotic liberal doesn't really believe that, or, if they do, our country is going to continue to fall apart as neither side will ever "trust" the other and be able to work out a amicable governmental relationship.
Honestly I wouldn't put it past him, Bush has condemned his own military personel to death by thousands, in service of lies-- but George is clearly just a pawn, he was the Trojan Horse which unleashed the likes of Cheney and his well-connected corporations who have made out like bandits in this, and will continue to do so on into the endless future it seems.

Suggest watching the latest edit of Loose Change (http://www.loosechange911.com/)-- definitely no 'Alien Autopsy'-style invented conspiracy flick!

Name any war since WWII that was just, involving the US or not? Afghanistan? Should we have stopped Pol Pot/Khymer Rouge? What about Mao in China? Stalin in Russia? Rwanda? Sudan? Somalia? Yugoslavia? The Falklands War?
Each is a different story, and yes, the world should have stopped Pol Pot, and should now deal with Darfur, Russia was entirely up to the Russians to resolve-- (no outside army was ever able to survive their winter, no matter how much vodka), the Falklands was just an absurd exercise, nobody cared about it's sheep before nor since. But it it would appear the UN was created for this sort of thing--

How's about bannning the sale, manufacture and supply of weapons of war on the open market? Countries who allow the manufacture of weapons and ammo to be sold on the international market are criminal to their core (implicating all individuals who work in these munitions factories, as well as the engineers who design weapons) and should be prosecuted in tribunals. Of course some hatemongers will then just resort to machetes--

Genocidal hatred is difficult to comprehend if one is not raised to hate from the outset. People who resort to this sort of mindset, illogical as it is, are apparently so fundamentally skewed by whatever hardwired obsolete evolutionary baggage awakened in them from this training, that racists appear uncontrollable except by force, and permanently psychotic, unable to be rehabilitated-- once a racist always a racist, it seems. But clearly poverty can be addressed-- arming children and manufacturing landmines is not the way.

It is entirely up to the rich western European nations who propagated the preposterous national crimes of colonialism, to see to it that every possible reconciliation and repair is done. France, Spain, England, that means you! As some Germans seem to try to find peace peace by working on Kibbutzes (sp?), so should a massive section of the gross national product of rich, former aggressor nations be devoted to restoration of the lands they tried to dominate, and over which bloodthirsty wars are still fought today-- a sort of global affirmative action.

You don't think a totalitarian system (go rent V for Vendetta, read 1984 or Animal Farm) would be even more bloodthirsty and militaristic? There have been over 100 wars fought around the world in the last ten years, are you speaking out against or in favor of those causes?
The only value of troops and arms in this modern world, is in the preventing of conflict in less modern, or more hateful, unbalanced societies, under the auspices of the UN (which Americans seem to categorically not belive in nor support). After that, all militaries should logically be disbanded. There is no difference between murderous slaughter on the battlefield, and that done in the civilian streets, as long as you condone killing, you are flying in the face of all that humanity works so hard to preserve, starting with it's infants and children.

Democracy is less corruptible because of separation of powers....and church and state.
Not for years now...During this time, all checks were out the window, and we are all now subject to Bushes weird cultist take on Christianity, which he clearly feels should not be separated from anything.

The republicans have controlled everything, and have now poisoned the supreme court with appontments of ideagogues indefinitely. The idea that the supreme court is appointed, and for life, as about as bizarre as the electoral college system, and no more democratic. So if you're a corrupt president like dubbya, and rig an election, claim a bogus mandate, you can basically fix the country in your favor for the foreseeable, long after they've thrown you out

If they weren't a sufficient "check" against Republican presidents, then the people who voted for them have no one to blame but themselves.Agreed! Americans should be blaming themselves big-time, those who supported this administration, and supported this war (while people demonstrated by the millions worldwide against it), are murderous criminals, and should be all taken to task. Indeed there really is something gravely "the matter with Kansas".

One could do well to not trust either party/syndicate at this point... the only binding principle besides the probably fabricated fear of 'terrorism' is the American conviction that control and consumption of the lion's share of world wealth and resources is their birthright-- it seems they will engage in any degree of genocidal national crime to preserve that illusion.

Americans fled from religious persecution and created a society to protect the rights of the minority from being dominated by the majority. That's a sort of mythical, wishful blanket statement isn't it? You may be talking about German Palatines, or so-called 'Pilgrims', etc. but the settlers here were not by and large fleeing persecution, opportunity seekers perhaps (unless one could consider the vast waves Scots Irish fleeing poverty religeous persecution?) Certainly the few of us Jews whom the US decided to let in did better than the boatloads turned back to be gassed.

The US is by now a good place to be only one thing: Fundamentalist wasp, and very wealthy. For all others, it's hardly heaven.

What country had an egalitarian government in 1776? Once again, please tell me which societies gave women and minorities more rights at earlier times than the US? Why aren't those societies dominant today...?
The so-called Iroquise Confederacy-- one of the most advanced and egalitarian social systems devised-- worked well till most were wiped out by the Dutch and English with their smallpox, etc. (under Hiawatha's system, women had the vote from the outset).

The irony is that Marie and Louis were guillotined
France had much to gain, and lose, if considered by the distorted light of colonial aims... but Paul Wellstone and his family did not. Point being? Who knows...

Consider Mecca and Medina...they're like Jerusalem for Christians. Now imagine a bunch of foreign occupiers who have no respect for your religion or God traipsing all around your "turf."
Exactly why we should be out of there-- and rebuilding the place and making massive reparations, not through their own oil money, but directly from our bloated, SUV-driving coffers, and pray they can forgive us for our profound sins against the children and the culture there.

Certain of the pre-isreal Jewish anti-zionists would appear to have had an extremely valid point-- we have no business conquering lands to support a defunct long obsolete nation, we would have been better to provide refuge from persecution and promote tolerance way back in the early 1900's before all this started, and have stayed away from other people's lands. Who wants to move to a treeless arid desert anyway, let alone do battle there? Nobody deserves to be able to conquer nations. The only acceptable way to live on somebody elses land is to purchase that land at fair market-value, and to then live subject to the laws of the land in which they now live.

But back to beautiful and independent Czech women~ and the preservation of the feminine cultural soul in the face of rampant consumerism...

 

Okay, how about I turn it this direction?

Who is a recognizable Czech woman/celebrity that everyone can agree has all these qualifications?

Unfortunately, there are plenty of Czech, Hungarian and Slovak women in the US, but they are mostly famous for their "abilities" in pornographic films.

So who are the female versions of Vaclav Havel...

Are there any female CEO's of corporations, high government officers/ministers, non-profit leaders (like a Mother Teresa for your country), lawyers, doctors, models that you can all universally admire and agree upon?

 

Who can be comfortable in a palace or outhouse, a rural village or Paris/Venice/Milan! THIS is the nice thing, if you can compare. You can appreciate much better Paris (and hot water) after some time outdoor


You are my angel, virtuous and tru, and wondrous and magnificent, and so smart and earnest!

So, may I ask how it came to pass that you studied and learned such a capacity to write in English? Are you really a Briton in disguise....