author: Michael Cerkowski

subject: Re: Forced Molting...  The Truth?

text:
bacon wrote:
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.>
.> > Here it is again, for bacon:
.> >
.> > bacon wrote:
.> > .>
.> > .> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.> >
.> >    No, you wrote this.
.> >
.> > .>
.> > .> Please point out where I misrepresented what the ARA's have
posted
.> > and I
.> > .> will post the direct quotes.  In preparation for the twisting
and
.> > .> turning responses to this by shitsquids like you, I am loaded
and
.> > .> cocked.
.> >
.> >    Or half-cocked, perhaps. First, the only people I recall
.> > claiming a figure of 8 weeks were some never-quoted letter
.> > writers mentioned by James, not anyone posting here. Second,
.>
.> The world doesn't begin and end here at t.p.a.  For a reference to
the
.> figure of 8 weeks, check out the PeTA Animal Times at
.> http://peta-online.org/a199/molt.html and note the headline.  Ah what
the
.> Hell, I'll save ya some trouble.  It says, "Each year, something
hideous
.> happens in the egg industry. Factory farmers intentionally starve
millions
.> of hens for up to eight weeks. This is the birdsï¿½ story."  The story
that
.> follows is rife with the type of lies I have come to expect after
many years
.> of dealing with the creative minds in the PeTA propaganda machine,

   First, you wrote "Please point out where I misrepresented what the
ARA's
have posted.." You wrote "posted", as in posted in TPA. Now you've
decided
that if anyone anywhere wrote something that may not be true, we're all
liars. That's just the sort of tactic that we've come to expect from
you.
Again, if you want respect from the ARAs, try being honest.
   Second, you have not established that no chicken is ever deprived of
food for eight weeks. The quote said "up to", remember, not "usually"
or even "typically" or "often". You have visited *one* battery
operation,
and taken the owner at his word. Even if he is telling the truth, that
doesn't refute the original post. It doesn't even refute the PETA claim.

.> such as,
.>
.> "in nature, hens replace old feathers with new ones every single year
and
.> spend about four months" [Try eight to ten weeks]
.>
.> "Forced molting throws hensï¿½ systems into collapse, stressing and
shocking
.> them into losing their feathers quickly and forcing their worn-out
bodies
.> into a new laying cycle." [Try gives the hens a respite.  These
jackasses
.> would have us believe that you can get worn out spent hens to begin
laying
.> again by starving and torturing them.. Come on!  Use your head!!]

   You can get a worn out horse to work a bit longer by beating it.
Since the hens live for much less than their natural life expectancy,
it is reasonable to believe that a forced molt can both cause the
chickens to suffer, and *temporarily* increase egg production. Young
animals have more capacity to tolerate abuse without dying.

.>
.> "To trick the hens into laying more eggs, they are deprived of food
and
.> water for two weeks or more." [Try five days and don't forget about
those 18
.> or more eggs in various stages of development which the hens will
assimilate
.> during that time.... hardly starving conditions at all.  Oh... water
is
.> never withheld either.]

   Did anyone post that water is withheld? Have you established that
no battery operations withhold water, or withhold food for more than
five days?

.>
.> "Our researchers uncovered hundreds of thousands of hens slowly and
.> painfully starving to death as a result of this trauma."

   Considering that tens of millions of hens are involved, that isn't
difficult to accept.

.>
.> "As the days of torture go on, many birdsï¿½worth only pennies each to
the
.> factory farmerï¿½die. The scared, confused survivorsï¿½ crowded cages
fill with
.> rotting corpses and manure-covered feathers."
.>
.> I could go on, but I'd give the entire story away.

   Why did you choose PETA to rebut, instead of the AR vets whose
site was used as a reference in the original post? It's clear to
many of us that PETA uses extreme examples; why don't you take
on the veterinarians? Afraid you'll lose?

.>
.> > the ARAs were claiming a figure of one to two weeks for length
.> > of time that food is removed; James found an industry site
.> > that confirmed that figure. Third, the fact that that
.> > particular facility withdraws food for "only" five days
.> > probably means that the birds are too stressed to live
.> > through a longer fast in large numbers.
.>
.> See above.  The fact that this particular facility is one of the
largest in
.> the western states and that a tour of the area in which this process
was
.> taking place revealing none of the terrible conditions alluded to.
No
.> rotting corpses, for instance.  The fact that they only fast the fowl
for
.> five days probably means that the ARFs are lying yet again.

   Your logic skills are deficient. You have established that *one*
facility, which you may have preselected based on a relatively
good reputation, "fasts" chickens for five days to force molting.
That is very close to what was originally claimed, and you have
done nothing to disprove the claim - supported by the site that
Hepler posted - that they are often deprived of food for longer.
We have also seen posts from two people who have witnessed the
presence of dead birds in battery operations.
   You seem to be hoping, a la Sue Bishop, that people will forget
what this debate is about, so that you can claim victory while
supporting only the claims of your opponents.

.>
.> > That doesn't
.> > constitute a rebuttal to the claim that molting is
.> > forced - or "induced", if you want to pretend that that
.> > word has a different meaning -  and that molting involves
.>
.> I didn't say the words have a different meaning.  I pointed out that
the
.> ARFs changed the name of the procedure.  It is not referred to as
forced
.> molting by the producers.  Forced carries a more negative
connotation..

   Oh, that's a *Great* rebuttal. It's always fun to see what a fur
producer thinks is acceptable to people.

.> Similar to murder as in mink are murdered rather than mink are killed
.> (impossible since murder is specifically defined as one human killing
.> another).

   Tell that to someone whose dog has been "killed" by a psycho. The
dictionary definition of murder has become largely outdated, at
least in the public useage.

.>
.> >
.> > depriving the chickens of food. It is a *confirmation* of
.> > that claim. You have gone from agreeing with Sue that the
.> > whole idea was a myth or lie to agreeing that it is
.> > fact, but that they are starved for a few days less in
.> > one facility. This is why people tune you out when you
.> > rant about AR "lies". If you them to listen, then start
.> > behaving in an honest way yourself.
.>
.> Sorry to tell you, but people don't tune out.  You only wish they
would.
.> You oughta see my email!  I never said the story was a myth.  You
read my
.> posts and you'll see that I have always said this may be a true
claim, that
.> I hadn't researched it, but that I expected to find, when I did
research it.
.> That if it was true at all, it would almost certainly contain lies
and
.> misinformation.  I explained that my suspicions were based on 15+
years of
.> experience in which every story I'd read about the fur industry and
every
.> other AR generated story that I'd bothered to track down contained
lies and
.> misinformation or was completely false.  In tracking this one down I
found
.> exactly what I expected, the AR story contained lies and
misinformation.  A
.> grain of truth around which the ARFs built a wall of bullshit.

   You found what you expected, all right. You found evidence to support
the claim that you were trying to refute, so you decided to
retroactively
(again, like Sue) change the thrust of your argument. Your mind is as
closed as that of the most ardent high school ARA.

.>
.> >
.> > > Please post information, or at least some URLs, from the "egg
industry"
.> > > and USDA which contradicts what I said.
.> >
.> >    Just read back in the thread. James posted a url.
.>
.> You are the one I am dealing with here.  I don't have time nor the
desire to
.> go back searching for references you claim exist.  Just produce it
for me
.> would you?  I've done so every time you've requested it of me.

   So you claim never to have seen any of the half dozen or so
posts about it? You really do keep your hands firmly over your
eyes, don't you? The site, geared toward smaller egg producers,
suggested that food be withheld for 7 to 10 days or longer, if
I remember correctly. Hepler agreed that it supported the
original claim of one to two weeks. Maybe he'll believe that
you never saw it, and repost it.

.>
.> Bacon


author: bacon

subject: Re: Forced Molting...  The Truth?

text:
Michael Cerkowski wrote:

I was originally referring to the AR movement in general (as you well know,
having made a point of my being an affirmation of a claim you made in one
of your FAQs).  When you said I was misrepresenting "posters" you were
wrong,  I wasn't speaking about AR's on this group specifically, I was
talking about the AR people in general.  Having said that every story I'd
ever seen from the AR side in reference to the fur industry contained lies
or was completely false, and that every other story I had bothered to track
down also contained lies and misrepresentations, and that I was confident
that this story would turn out the same (it did).  Having had that paradigm
in mind when you accused me of misrepresenting, I mistook the way in which
you were wrong.  You are correct that no one specifically posted the "8
week" lie here on t.p.a.  Nevertheless, it is a lie being forwarded by the
creative minds of the PeTA propaganda machine.  Which is what I was
originally referring to.

Saying that this is a "tactic" of mine, particularly one people have come
to expect here on t.p.a. is a bald faced outright lie and you know it.

I couldn't care less about being respected by liars.  I strive for honesty
at all times.  For years I've been accused of lying by ARs and not one has
demonstrated a single example of an intentional misrepresentation.  In this
case we did have a misunderstanding which I clarified immediately upon
noting it.  The real lie occurred when you said I misrepresented posts when
I was clearly referring to the "AR faction".

Any chicken deprived of food for eight weeks will indeed be a rotting
corpse.  Any chicken deprived of food for four weeks would be a rotting
corpse.  That anyone could hear such a claim and consider it valid is
astounding to me.  I find it very difficult to believe that anyone with the
ability to write and communicate could be so stupid, but PeTA seems to
depend on it..... and apparently plenty of people are.

I visited one of the western states largest egg producers,  he took me on a
tour, I saw the conditions of these birds with my own eyes, He showed me
documentation of the procedure.  He explained it in terms which made
perfect logical sense.  The trouble with you is you slam your eyes shut,
throw your hands over your ears and start to scream when logic enters.  How
can you possibly imagine that torturing fowl for any period of time, one
day, five days, ten days or ten years, will cause tired, spent hens to
begin laying big, healthy eggs again?  I suppose if PeTA claimed that tired
draught horses which could no longer pull the plow are "tricked" into
working again by starving them for two weeks, you would buy it?  I'm sorry,
stupid question, of course you would.  The reason the egg producers do this
is to give the hens a chance to rejuvenate so that egg production can
resume and the hen's useful life can be extended.   I have no reason to
believe that he is the only good guy.  All the other producers are only
interested in torturing their birds.

This is so ridiculous a line of logic I can't hardly sit still.  I honestly
can't believe you are this foolish.  The horse works to avoid the sting of
the whip and somehow this translates to hens producing eggs due to being
starved.   Good lord!  Would this work with mink?  I wonder if I could put
'em in sacks and slam 'em against a wall for a while to get better fur
quality.  Maybe if I starve the mothers they will have more kits.   Christ
almighty!  Please tell me you're just antagonizing me and are not actually
this incredibly inane!

I don't care what anyone posted.  PeTA has indeed made the claim, as have
others.  It is possible that other facilities have withheld feed for longer
than five days.  Perhaps a hen could survive for two weeks on the eggs she
is carrying.

Considering that you are an idiot, I'm not surprised.

For one thing PeTA is one of my pet peeves they are completely lacking in
integrity and I love to point that out at every opportunity.  My story does
indeed take on the veterinarians as well.  They claim 2 weeks.  Not true.
They neglect to mention that the hens are not without nourishment.  They
attempt to forward the same ridiculous idea that egg production can be
stimulated by weakening the producers.  They also make a Salmonella claim
which I am currently working on.  I can tell you in advance, you won't like
the results.  Yep....  another BIG lie.

That you find my logic flawed is certainly a good sign.  But just for good
measure, I'll explain it.

1- For over 15 years I've seen nothing but lies and misrepresentation from
the AR side about my business.  There are plenty of actual truths about the
fur industry for those who think mink are furry mini-people to dislike, but
this is not enough.  The AR factions have generated lie after lie and
continued to forward those lies even after the true has been amply
demonstrated.

2- I have taken it upon myself to investigate some of the claims made
against other animal industries and sports by the AR side.  In every single
case, including cases in which I was able to go to the exact business the
AR's had written about (the elk stunning story, for example, where the
exact ranch had been named along with the manufacturer of the device), I
found the same thing... lies and misrepresentation.  Not just little white
lies.... great big bold, bald faced, whoppers.

3- I hear a very suspicious story about egg producers starving hens to get
more eggs out of them.  Having 30 years of experience with chickens myself,
I find it very difficult to believe that the hens would be alive, after two
weeks of starvation, let alone that this abuse would lead to better
production, so I decide to investigate.  I go to the largest producer I can
find within a reasonable distance.  I find that the procedure used by one
of the leaders in the industry bears little resemblance to that being
described in various places by the AR factions.  I am not surprised by
this.  Based on all my previous experience this falls right in line.  So I
write a story presenting the truth.

4- Cerkowski finds my logic flawed.

5- My confidence is bolstered.

You mean that in a facility of hundreds of thousands of chickens some
die!?  No!

I have no idea what you are talking about here.....    Come to think of it,
neither do you.

Yes it is.  I pointed out the true fact that the AR sources for this story
took a procedure which has a name, induced molting, and changed the name of
the procedure to increase the negative impact of their story.  I didn't say
a word about what is acceptable to anyone.

The fact that people are not aware of the definition of words does not
change the definition.  Dog who got killed by a psycho got killed, not
murdered.  Had the dog killed the psycho the psycho would have been killed,
not murdered.  The word "murder" is used inappropriately to attach more
negative emotion to the action.

I don't know what this thing you have for Sue is about, you seem to have
Sue on the brain.  If you'll go back and read the posts you'll find no
changes in my position.  I first expressed skepticism but didn't rule out
the possibility that it was true, and carefully pointed that out.  I then
announced that I'd discovered that forced molting did exist as a procedure
and expressed skepticism about it being what the AR side claimed it was.  I
looked into it, found I was right, and you'll probably twist and spin for
another week or so trying to keep reality within the bounds you have set
for it.

I didn't say I never saw it  I said I had neither the time nor desire to go
searching for it to find out if it was from an egg producer or from the
USDA.  You are the one claiming it did.  I've spent a good deal of time on
this providing actual evidence, sources and so forth.  The least you could
do is look up this one item.

I'm sorry.....   I've been trying to hold back.....     aaa....
uunnnghh.......  It's no use.

You are a jackass. (a lazy one to boot!)

Bacon


author: R Bishop

subject: Re: Forced Molting...  The Truth?

text:
In article <[email]>,
	bacon <[email]> wrote:

..

<snip>

He's just pissed because I refuse to let his little scenarios about whitetail
deer die.  He'd LOVE to have that topic go away.  Since he's been reading
and reading and reading the only book he could find on the topic (do his
lips move?) and STILL doesn't want to discuss it.......

<snip>

And I expressed disbelief in the 'eight weeks' scenario.  Which he never
HAS supported.

I forsee he will invoke excuse # 7 again.

Sue

Official Secretary of OSGSL

Dogs think they're human
Cats think they're God


author: Martin L. Martens

subject: Re: Forced Molting...  The Truth?

text:
Michael Cerkowski wrote:

[...]

In previous times, you have done the same thing by visiting
*one* operation and took the operator at her word.

It's not good to have a double standard Michael. But since
you've already admitted that you use double standards, one
wouldn't expect a very high standard from you.

[...]

No, if he had done it, it would be like you. That's your
standard tactic #6.

[...]


author: Ludwig Von Sowell

subject: I've Been Waiting for Obama's "Terrorist Fist Bump"  With The First Lady,

text:
Why didn't Mitt attack him over the Terrorist Fist Bump?

Why hasn't Mitt asked him why he is a Marxist Muslim From Kenya?

Mitt refuses to discuss the real concerns of those who post here!

He sucks!

The gesture!   It was big news at one time!  It concerned Americans!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vmQrTi3aM


author: Zacharias Mulletstein

subject: Re: I've Been Waiting for Obama's "Terrorist Fist Bump"  With The First Lady,

text:
"Ludwig Von Sowell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

There's no such thing as a "terrorist fist bump."  I'm far from a terrorist,
and I've been doing it all my life.  My daddy taught me how to do it when I
was a baby.  The fist bump is as American as Chevrolet or apple pie or
baseball.


author: Jeanne Douglas

text:
In article <k4ppjm$gp4$[email]>,
 "Zacharias Mulletstein" <[email]> wrote:

It was one of Fox News' blond bimbos who came up with that idiotic
"theory"; was it Megan Kelly? It was so stupid she had to take it back.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden


author: SaPeIsMa

text:
"Jeanne Douglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I always find it funny when pinkies accuse conservatives of being under the
sway of "faux news"..
    (isn't it also funny how they find such childish name games cute ?)
And yet, it seems that it's ALWAYS the pinkies who seem to listen
religiously to Fox News and are constantly quoting or claiming to quote
things from it.


author: gig

subject: Re: divine providence (long)

text:
"Pieter" <[email]> wrote in message...

Well, I think you're taking this quote out of context here in regards to our
discussion, twisting it a bit to apply to the point you're trying to make.
To me this quote is dealing with the nature of our fullness, because we ARE
everything, we HAVE everything. With regards to the Soul, to BE is to HAVE,
meaning we are complete. We are not in want of anything, whereas with the
ego, to be is to want, and as a consequence, chase after everything. It's
got little to do with the simple logic of the statement I was making above.
But even twisting it around to apply to our scenario, I could say, I AM
spirit and therefore I HAVE a spiritual body.

The course uses certain terminology and has a perfect consistency about it,
but it's still all written within a certain context and understanding. It's
very specific in what it wants to accomplish and "not saying so" serves it's
purpose more than "saying so". In short, it works best just the way it is.

"Substance" is really not a good word here, as I think it falls back into
the physical realm of things. "Characteristics" is a far better word. So
while yes, it does categorically state we are *not* a body, I would claim it
makes that statement (and others like it) with full knowledge of certain
characteristics the reader is associating with the word "body". In any case,
it's never a word itself, but always our understanding and the meanings that
we associate with any given word, that either limits or frees us.

But to further elaborate...  in my opinion, the course is written in such a
way as to have the most direct and powerful impact on the ego's thought
system. The author knows exactly where we are in our mindsets about
ourselves and the whole set of flawed beliefs that go along with that
mindset. He's directly confronting our erroneous self-concept and the first
order of business is to tear that down. "I am not a body." is a pretty
radical statement for most people to consider and strikes at the heart of
that erroneous self-concept. It also immediately raises the question, "Well
if I'm not a body, then what am I?" This sets us on the path of true Self
discovery, if we're willing to go the whole nine yards, so to speak.
Eventually, everyone has to answer that question though, and depending on
the degree of fear and curiosity, some will come to the answer sooner or
later than others.

Don't get me wrong though, I agree 100% with the statement, "I am not a
body". But I also see the context (that I believe) it was written in. In my
opinion, one of the benefits of reading, understanding and applying the
course (perhaps not stated, so maybe I should say "fringe benefits"), is to
free FORM  from our limited sense and erroneous beliefs about it. Not to
totally deny it. Form is not the enemy, but we have made it so. Just like
the body, which is nothing more than form, form is not the problem. It's our
BELIEFS about form (i.e. the body and any other so-called "physical
structures" otherwise generally classified as "form") that get us confused
and into trouble. The problem comes about when we lose the proper
perspective, the big picture of things and how reality truly operates. I see
this error as two-fold, but essentially two sides of the same bad coin that
all has to do with IDENTITY. The error occurs in one of two ways and IMHO
the course was written to deal more with the first type, than the second
type of error I'm about to describe below.

We either identify TOO MUCH with form (believing we ARE form, i.e. "I AM a
body.") and thereby lose the perspective of limitless and freedom which is
the natural state of our abstract minds OR, seeing this first error that
we've committed, we get scared and our minds run in the opposite direction
and totally DENY form, thinking it is "bad" or "evil" in nature, when really
all that was bad or evil (for us anyway) was just our original error - the
OVER-IDENTIFICATION with form (any form, not just ourselves), which could
be called "idol worship". What really happens in the second case though is,
we project the guilt from the first error (our total identification with
form), onto form itself, blaming it, and we then try and make amends by
over-reacting in the opposite direction (in regards to identity) and we
totally DENY form. But again, form is not the problem, only our RELATIONSHIP
with it is. In my thinking, the course was written for the first type of
error (the total identification with form), knowing that the second error
(the total denial of form) would fall under the weight of it's own absurdity
and obvious lack of appeal. Who wants to over-identify with what is
essentially nothingness? Yes, our minds and essentially ourselves, are
totally abstract, but they are also creative in nature, as evidenced by the
Creator Himself. To deny His creation entirely is to make the second error
mentioned above and also deny our own ability to create. All form, by
itself, is neutral until we bestow it with our attention, our mind. But the
kicker is, we HAVE to bestow it with our attention. There's no choice,
there's no in-between. Totally identifying with form or totally denying it,
are just different aspect of the same error/illusion, which is forgetting or
losing sight of our own true identity.

Again, the course is not concerned about much of this because it'll all
become more and more self-evident, as we drop the old perspective and accept
the so-called new one. In short, I see the course as a tool to help us set
ourselves free from the self-imposed prisons we've put them in by
over-identifying with form and as end result, we'll see how to use all FORM
creatively, joyfully, constructively... in ways we never could have imagined
in our old ego modes. God creates, so we must create. It's His nature and so
it's our nature. Content (Mind) and Form go together though, always. It's my
belief you can't have one without the other. The course is directing our
attention back to Content, because that's where the original error of
over-identification with form started. Content is what gives rise to Form.
Content is where everything starts. But that's only half the process.
Content must be expressed so it can be experienced. Without expression it
doesn't exist. The content of love gives rise to love's form as the content
of ego gives rise to ego's form. The good news is, only one is real.

So yeah, when you get right down to it I guess, I'm really speculating
somewhat with all of this, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong.
It's just the way I'm seeing things right now. The proof, like everything
else, will be in experience. But I also know, belief comes before
experience. We can't experience what we don't believe. Belief experienced
then turns into knowledge. We then KNOW what's true because we ARE what's
true.

Sure. I don't happen to believe the course is the only way to skin a cat
though. The course has it own terminology and context and I accept it for
what it is and think it's great, probably perfect. And when you get right
down to it, using a term like "spiritual body" probably does more harm than
good in discussing the course, because it's not consistent with the course's
terminology, nor is it what the course is focusing on, so I will grant you
that. But I also believe there are numerous other perspectives using
different terminology and context that on the surface might appear to
conflict with the course, but in content, don't conflict at all, but are
merely further extensions/expansions of it. Love is love, however it's
expressed. Perhaps someday we will all write our own course?

Yes. So they are useful in one conception or another. And when in Rome, do
as the Romans.

Incidentally, I have no problem with the idea of dropping things that are no
longer useful. But some of that goes back to one's beliefs about ideas like
"useful" and "body". Like anything else though, the truth will set us free.
:-)

gig


author: Pieter

subject: Re: divine providence (long)

text:
"gig" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:[email]...

Above you stated:

"I can have something *and yet not be it*."

This is in direct opposition to the Course's

statement that to have and to be are

*identical* in truth. -  This is not a statement

which only refers to a special context; it is

a universal truth, and because of that

mentioned several times.

If you want, I can supply quotes.

So according to the Course: if you

*had* a spiritual body, then you had to

*be* it as well; yet it states that

"I am *not* a body".

What I meant to say is that

a physical body is of a physical substance;

A spiritual body must be of a spiritual substance.

We cannot answer that of ourselves;

remember the quote:

"what you are will TELL you of Itself."

Imo the first error was *separation from God*.

The Course very often speaks of form;

so what place it is given in the whole of

Creation, can be studied easily.

For example this is said:

". . . love is CONTENT, and NOT form of ANY kind.

The special relationship is a RITUAL OF FORM,

aimed at the raising of the form to take the place of God,

at the EXPENSE of content. There IS no meaning in the

form, AND THERE WILL NEVER BE. The special

relationship MUST be recognized for what it is; a

senseless ritual, in which strength is extracted from the

death of God, and invested in His killer, as the sign that

form has triumphed over content, and love has LOST

its meaning." (T-16.V.12:1-4)

The words "formless" and "formlessness"

are used several times as well.

Yes, you do! :-)

My view is that if one believes that

ACIM very directly points to the truth,

then it is worthwhile to carefully listening to it.

- I don't know the expression "to skin a cat";

can you explain it please? Thanks in advance!

(It doesn't sound very positive to me.)

There really is but one truth.


subject: Re: divine providence (long)

text:
"Pieter" <[email]> wrote in message
news:47ac7f19$0$24840$[email]...

Just means there's more than one way to get things done. In this case I was
just alluding to other spiritual paths/perspectives, which are really all
part of the same one I guess. "All roads lead to Rome." :-)


author: Adam H.

subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On 15 Oct 2004 17:11:36 -0700, [email] (papa jack)
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/print?id=166434

Funny how the Swifties don't mention how eyewitness testimony (that is
to say, Vietnamese villagers that were there) directly contradicts
what they say about Kerry's Silver Star, isn't it? One might almost
think they're not interested in anything but making Kerry look bad in
any way possible.

Well, I might. You won't, PJ, because you're not interested in the
truth if it doesn't make Kerry look bad.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


author: Jerry Johnson

subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
I have read that Nightline (ABC) has sent a team to nam to locate
locals who were around during Kerry's tour and could verify his claims.
Garbage.  That delta changes all the time, so there are no permanent
vills.

 Those people do not follow the gregorian calendar (although the French
brought it to the government and the educated).  All the USN activity in the
delta, '64-'74, only represented one period of time to the locals.  And with
a lifespan of ~40 years, who would be around to remember what happened in
'68?  Not to mention the massive relocation program that Hanoi implemented
after retaking the south.

 ABC should realize that what they are attempting is the worst kind of
politics.  And lowers journalism, what once was an actual profession, by
another rung.


author: papa jack

subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
============================================================================

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041011-123955-3725r.htm
__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack remarks:
Yep, I'm not surprised, Adam, that you would think unknown
Vietnamese villagers were far more credible than Major Day:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041011-123955-3725r.htm

  "Shot down over North Vietnam in 1967, Maj. Day suffered
   numerous injuries, managed to escape from his prison,
   walked for two weeks through the jungle eating live
   frogs before he was recaptured.

  "He then spent the next six years as a prison cellmate
   of John McCain, who would become a Republican senator,
   at the prison the Americans called, with bitter irony,
   the 'Hanoi Hilton.' Maj. Day's presence in the room is
   palpable. Even in a group of decorated war veterans,
   he stands out as a living legend.

  "The others sheepishly introduce themselves and are
   honored just to shake his still-firm hand.

  "'Kerry betrayed us by telling the people we were commit-
   ting atrocities,' Maj. Day says. 'A man who does that
   is not fit to lead. It's impossible to let this man
   masquerade as a war hero and someone who has leadership.
   To imagine this guy who betrayed us becoming president
   and him being the leader of our armed forces is just
   unthinkable.'
  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Now go to:

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/10/11/Commentary/Persecution.In.Vietnam-750415.shtml

[...]
  "Vietnam is among the worst human rights abusers on
   earth along with China and Sudan. Numerous reports
   of severe persecutions on Christians, Buddhists and
   followers of other faiths are alarming and deserve
   our immediate attention.

  "Ironically, since the U.S. granted normal trade
   relations status to Vietnam in 2001, Vietnam's
   record of human rights violations has spiraled.
   House-church Christians have been arrested for
   practicing their faith. Gatherings to worship and
   witnessing are a crime in Vietnam."
[...]

Since there is no freedom of speech in Viet Nam today,
how can we have any confidence at all about information
supposedly given in an interview controlled by VN PR
flaks?

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
On Oct 11, 2004,the AP posted an article by Liz Sidoti titled:
"Dems Oppose Plan to Air Anti-Kerry Film."  Go to:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041011/D85LDJ680.html
____________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:

  "The Democratic Party and 18 senators are objecting to a
   broadcasting company's plan to air on 62 TV stations a
   critical documentary about John Kerry's anti-war activi-
   ties after he returned home from Vietnam three decades ago.

  "Sinclair Broadcast Group has asked its television stations
   - many of them in competitive states in the presidential
   election - to pre-empt regular programming to run the
   documentary as part of an hourlong program two weeks before
   the Nov. 2 election.

  "Based near Baltimore, the company owns or manages affiliates
   of major broadcast networks in several states, including Ohio,
   Florida and Pennsylvania.
[...]

  "The documentary, called 'Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,'
   chronicles Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress and links him
   to activist and actress Jane Fonda. It includes interviews with
   Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives who claim that Kerry's
   testimony - filled with 'lurid fantasies of butchery in Vietnam'
   on the part of U.S. troops - demeaned them and led their captors
   to hold them longer.

  "The Democratic National Committee planned to file a complaint
   with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday contending that
   Sinclair's airing of the film should be considered an illegal
   in-kind contribution to President Bush's campaign. Also, 18
   Democratic senators sent a letter to the Federal Communication
   Commission asking that it investigate whether Sinclair's plan
   was an improper use of public airwaves.
  [...]

  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Why is it "evil" for Sinclair Broadcast Group to air a program
documenting the truth about Kerry's 1971 testimony before
Congress and his links to radical Anti-American activists --
but "good" for ABC news Nightline to air this obvious propaganda
favoring Kerry right before the election?


author: M is for Malapert

subject: More abortions under Bush (Was Re: Swiftees Final Push)

text:
"papa jack" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

[usual nonsense deleted - I'm not responding; I'm making a new post and
ensuring you'll see it]

'Voting for pro-life politicians increases abortion
'I've posted in the past about the curious fact that, if pro-lifers main
goal is reducing abortion, they'd be better off supporting pro-choice
politicians. Internationally, the countries with the lowest abortion rates
are invariably countries that have legal abortion, strong welfare states and
widely available (and encouraged) use of birth control. (In contrast, not a
single country that has banned abortion has a low abortion rate; they simply
have high rates of illegal abortion.)

[stats about abortion rates increasing since 2000 deleted - read the whole
thing]

'Mark Roche - a Dean at at the University of Notre Dame - is another
pro-lifer who has realized that if the goal is reducing abortion, rather
than punishing women, abortion bans simply don't work. In a New York Times
op-ed, he writes (emphasis added by me):

'"During the eight years of the Reagan presidency, the number of legal
abortions increased by more than 5 percent; during the eight years of the
Clinton presidency, the number dropped by 36 percent. The overall abortion
rate (calculated as the number of abortions per 1,000 women between the ages
of 15 and 44) was more or less stable during the Reagan years, but during
the Clinton presidency it dropped by 11 percent.
'"There are many reasons for this shift. Yet surely the traditional
Democratic concern with the social safety net makes it easier for pregnant
women to make responsible decisions and for young life to flourish; among
the most economically disadvantaged, abortion rates have always been and
remain the highest. The world's lowest abortion rates are in Belgium and the
Netherlands, where abortion is legal but where the welfare state is strong.
Latin America, where almost all abortions are illegal, has one of the
highest rates in the world.

'"None of this is to argue that abortion should be acceptable. History will
judge our society's support of abortion in much the same way we view earlier
generations' support of torture and slavery - it will be universally
condemned. The moral condemnation of abortion, however, need not lead to the
conclusion that criminal prosecution is the best way to limit the number of
abortions. Those who view abortion as the most significant issue in this
campaign may well want to supplement their abstract desire for moral
rectitude with a more realistic focus on how best to ensure that fewer
abortions take place."'

More at http://www.amptoons.com/blog/index.html - be sure to read it all,
including the links.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On 17 Oct 2004 17:32:11 -0700, [email] (papa jack)
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

Since Major Day was not on that river, in the case of the Swiftie's
'case' against Kerry's Silver Star, he has no credibility.

Now, why do you suppose the Swiftie's suppressed the evidence they had
that supported Kerry's version of the story, PJ? Don't you think that
impacts their credibility?

He wasn't there at the incident for which Kerry got the Silver Star,
so he has nothing relevant to say about that. There are also dozens or
hundreds of equally credible vets that will take the opposite position
of his - funny how you never cite them.

I guess your idea of a fit president is someone who winks at
atrocities and breaking the Geneva Convention and then denies doing
it.

What does that have to do with talking to villagers? What evidence do
you have that the interview was 'controlled'? None? I thought so.

Or was that an accusation designed merely to attack the source?

This is the same station owner that decided not to air the reading of
American fatalities because it was 'too political', but is all too
willing to air a one-sided attack job on Kerry two weeks before the
election.

And what is the 'obvious' propaganda on ABC? Oh, wait, I forgot. If
it's not there to make Kerry look bad, you'll call it propaganda. If
any station decided to air Fahrenheit 9/11 two weeks before the
election you'd be foaming at the mouth and calling them traitors, but
as long as Kerry is the target it's all hunky-dory. I'd almost
forgotten that the one thing you're not interested in is truth.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


author: Scott Stratton

subject: Re: More abortions under Bush (Was Re: Swiftees Final Push)

text:
I can see the point made in the Study.. and I fully support the idea.
  But I think there is one minor flaw to the Data.  As you said there is
increase of Illegal Abortions in Countries where it is banned.  But how
is that measured.

   It's the same argument that if you legalize Street Drugs, and offer
more Education, you are going to solve the problem of Gang Viloence and
Drug Addicts out there.

   I personally believe that Abortion should be made available to people
all over the world.  However you are right in noting that Countries that
have a High Welfare Program... my Home Country of Canada included, offer
people choices over abortion.

   But I don't think that the Legalization of Abortion is what did it...
It was the fact that Women had other choice available to them.  Knowing
that if Push comes to shove they are not going to be thrwon out on the
street with the Child in Hand.

   To me Legalization of Abortion is not what is needed, but good
education, starting in the Early Years of Childrens lives to teach them
about subjects like Birth Control, Peer Pressure, all down the line...
that is the Key.. the more we equip our Youth with Knowledge,  the wider
the choices become for them... and we may never even have to address the
idea of Abortion.

   One minor Study that they did, and I'm in the 20-30 yr old crowd, is
that my Generation is actually seeing a Decrease in the number of
Children Born per Captia in North America.

   In fact I know here in Canada our Population has increased more
through Immigration then Naturally Born Citizens over the past Decade.
Now is that a fact that services like Abortion is availble... well thats
a good question.. but I would like to lean it more towards the Education
that is given to these poeple, and the choices they are making as a
result in suck education.

   Again I agree with the Full Legalization of Abortion.   But treating
it like the idea of Teenager sneaking Liquor from the cabniet, and once
he/she is old enough will not find the same exciment in it, so there for
  will not do it is a little to simplistic.

   I think we need to elect an even mix of both Pro-Lie and Pro-Choice
people to give both sides an equal say in the matter.. and who knows
maybe a new alternative will come about.

Scott

M is for Malapert wrote:


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
============================================================================

     http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041011-123955-3725r.htm
__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

============================================================================
    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/print?id=166434

============================================================================
Papa Jack pointed out:
Look at the date of your quoted article, Adam -- Oct. 15, 2004.

Now notice the The Washington Times article I cited was dated
October 11, 2004.  How could the Swifties mention an article
which hadn't been published yet?

============================================================================

============================================================================

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
What sort of "strawman" are you building here, Adam?
Read the cited article again.  Major Day said nothing
whatsoever about Kerry's Silver Star.  Day said:

   "Kerry betrayed us by telling the people we were
    committing atrocities. A man who does that is
    not fit to lead. It's impossible to let this
    man masquerade as a war hero and someone who
    has leadership. To imagine this guy who betrayed
    us becoming president and him being the leader
    of our armed forces is just unthinkable."

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
And, what evidence was that, Adam?  I don't know of any
evidence which the Swifties suppressed -- do you?

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
Is this supposed to be a clever "gotcha?"  If so, I'm
a bit slow in my old age.  I need you to explain it to
me.

============================================================================

   http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041011-123955-3725r.htm

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack responded:
And, your point is?

You're the only one talking about the Silver Star in this
particular thread, Adam.  That's called building a
"Strawman."

Please get back on the same page as the rest of us.

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
You show your ignorance, Adam.  Go to:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5370

  "Col. George E. "Bud" Day is America's most
   highly decorated living veteran officer. He
   served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam,
   receiving more than 50 combat awards and the
   Congressional Medal of Honor...."

You clearly don't understand how much honor is due to
a man like Col. George E. Day.  Three and four-star
generals will salute him -- and they'll stand up when
he enters the room.

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack asks:
And where do I find these hundreds of vets who think
it was good for Kerry to tell people that those who
served in Viet Nam were committing atrocities?

I heard about those who testified at the Winter Soldier
Investigation conducted by Kerry, Fonda, and other radicals.
Many were later shown to have been liars who weren't even
in Viet Nam.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Historians

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack retorted:
And I guess your idea of a fit president is one who
rapes the Queen of England, bombs the Kremlin, and
gooses the Pope.

See, two can play that stupid rhetorical tricks game, Adam.

============================================================================

 http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/10/11/Commentary/Persecution.In.Vietnam-750415.shtml

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack explained slowly:
My evidence is many years of research into the methods
of repressive Communist governments.  The Vietnamese
take such matters as a majore TV network show very
seriously.  Do you really believe a government like
that just turned loose this network camera crew to
conduct these interviews without careful political
controls?

============================================================================

============================================================================

   http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041011/D85LDJ680.html
____________________________________________________________________________

  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack ROTFLMAO:
Do you understand how weak that is, Adam?

Why do you call the "Stolen Honor" program a "one-sided attack
job on Kerry?"  Have you seen it?

Even if it is, why is such a program not protected by the
1st Amendment?

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Are you as ignorant as you seem, Adam?


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On 18 Oct 2004 17:07:19 -0700, [email] (papa jack)
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

Oh, my. Look, PJ, the Swifties' visit was 6 MONTHS previous to that of
ABC. If you aren't going to bother to read the cites I give, just say
so instead of wasting my time.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
============================================================================

       http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041011-123955-3725r.htm
__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

============================================================================
      http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/print?id=166434

============================================================================

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Do you know something the "Nightline" producer didn't know?
The article said:

  "He said that, after they met, the Swift Boat veteran
   and the cameraman turned around and went back down
   the river. 'Nightline' HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY
   THE MEN."

You're hanging your entire position on an alleged tale by
a Vietnamese "villager" about unidentified people?

============================================================================

============================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Run away little boy.  What a phony excuse to flee in terror
from my numerous other comments and questions.


author: Osprey

subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
"Adam H." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Point out, using your cites, where PJ is wrong.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On 19 Oct 2004 02:22:50 -0700, [email] (papa jack)
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

It's as good as much of the Swifties' 'evidence', PJ.

This whole thread has only confirmed what I set out to do - I've shown
you'll blindly accept anything if it makes Kerry look bad, and equally
as blindly dismiss it if it doesn't.

You mean, like those times you snip out my comments without
explanation?

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:19:37 -0400, "Osprey" <[email]>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

As I already said, Bobby - I'm not wasting my time replying to someone
who's arguing against something he hasn't even read.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
"Adam H." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Well I didn't see it, so do it again please.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:31:33 -0400, "Osprey" <[email]>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

Read the thread, Bobby. I'm not going to help you with Usenet.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
"Adam H." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Adam, I have my news reader set to reading only new messages due to the HUGE
volume of news that comes through. I am very selective in what I download
and have a few people on ignore so I don't even see  their messages at all.
Such as pr..what's his name, krisblake, and a few others.
Even if I was to change my reader's settings I would not see past post.  So
again, if you can post the cites and the information that shows PJ wrong
please do so.  If not, then just say you can't.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:38:24 -0400, "Osprey" <[email]>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

Bobby, as I said - I'm not going to do your work for you. There's
message-IDs on every post. If you don't know what to do with them then
I'm not interested.

Now, I could, but I won't, because if you're too lazy to look this up
then I'm not interested in what you have to say about it.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
"Adam H." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Nuff said, I didn't think you could actually do a task.  As usual, all
bark..no bite


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:46:11 -0400, "Osprey" <[email]>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

[threadsnip]

So, because *you're* too stupid/lazy to look something up, that's my
fault? How does that work, Bobby? What with all your 'webmaster'
skills, you'd think you could accomplish something as trivial as using
Google - seems I overestimated you. That's becoming increasingly
easier judging by the trend.

Learn the difference between "can't" & "won't", Bobby. The relevant
part here is that I won't, and you can't. Are your clients (assuming
that they actually exist) aware of the sheer depths of your
incompetence?

But it was nice of you to show that, yet again, you never fail to
disappoint those who think as little of you as possible.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


author: osprey

subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
Adam H. <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Yea, so...

I asked you to provide "facts" and "proof" of something, and you
failed.
In another post you cried about facts.  In less than 24 hours, you
have shown that when tasked to provide "facts" on an issue you are
trying to argue you can't do it.  Instead trying to pawn off your
argument by telling me to look it up.  The truth is, you are lazy and
don't have the "facts" and are not capable of supporting your own
statements.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
===================================================================

==========================================================================
Papa Jack ROTFLMAO:
Thanks, Adam, everyone needs a good belly laugh from time
to time.

Your pitiful attempts to run away on this thread are really
hilarious.  Typical liberal when caught in his lies.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On 18 Oct 2004 22:52:06 -0700, [email] (osprey) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

Am I supposed to care what you ask for?

Your reply to PLH, who asked you to prove a claim of yours:

"Easy to provide proof, just follow the threads. "

So, piss off, you chickenshit coward.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On 19 Oct 2004 02:32:04 -0700, [email] (papa jack)
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

Oh? What lies? Are you another one who thinks that I should have to
look up the thread for Bobby and re-post it, or are you taking the
position that I should have to prove a claim I never made? Either way,
you and Bobby have certainly not bothered to hide your stupidity in
this thread.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
Adam H. <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...
Just remember your own words and what you ask for from others, and let
this serve as a reminder that you don't practice what you preach.

I have proven my point, once again....hypocrite


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On 19 Oct 2004 03:45:30 -0700, [email] (osprey) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

Wrong. What you've failed to do is notice, once again, that I don't
prove claims that I never made. I gave you a chance to see that, you
failed, so you get smacked for it. You're an idiot.

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
"Adam H." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Then why couldn't you provide the cites when asked?  Adam, you are all talk
and you are such a liar.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:49:12 -0400, "Osprey" <[email]>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:

And that's where I refused to 'prove' a claim I never made, you moron.

As I said, I don't prove claims I never made. Now you're just lying
about what I wrote *and* proving your cowardice by not leaving that
fact in your reply.

So, piss off, you chickenshit cross-dresser. Do you really think
you're proving some kind of point by lying about what I write?

---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

President George W. Bush.


subject: Re: Swiftees Final Push

text:
Adam H. <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Well, actually he does think he's proving something by lying about
what people write.  Why else would he do it some much?  Unfortunately
for him, almost everyone here knows what kind of a cowardly, pussy
liar he is.


author: WolfWolf

subject: Re: Iraqs sovereign right to arm itself

text:
"Harry Snape" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
itself
defending
and
Saddam has,
Desert
the
justify
sanctions. 2/

Saddam Hussein is dead in the water. He is up the river without a paddle,
and the tsunami that's coming isn't that far away.

July 5, 2002

US Vs Iraq

Tentative Date Set

DEBKA-Net-Weekly's sources in Washington reveal that September 11, the day
burned in the American psyche, is also US President's preferred date for
launching the awaited offensive against Iraq in 2002.

In another unique disclosure, those sources report that White House war
planners have added the Turkoman minority of north and central Iraq to the
Kurdish militias scheduled to fight alongside the Americans against Saddam
Hussein, with both gaining autonomy at the end of the road.

1. Jumping off Sites Located on Red Sea

The first, exclusive details of the advancing American preparations for its
campaign against Iraq have reached DEBKA-Net-Weekly.

According to our sources, President George W. Bush has told a select group -
secretary of state Colin Powell, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national
security adviser Condoleezza Rice, deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz
and General Tommy Franks, chief of the US central command and senior staff
members - that he favors the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks on
America as launch date for the US assault on Saddam Hussein.

He qualified this by making it clear that D-Day depends first and foremost
on the military's readiness to go. Everything must be in place, the command
centers and forward bases, the troops' training and placement, the advance
preparations inside Iraq and precise intelligence on the whereabouts of the
campaign's primary target, Saddam Hussein. This intelligence must also
evaluate the chances of capturing or killing the Iraqi ruler and the top
military chiefs at his side.

Bush stressed that if September 11 is ruled out by operational
considerations, he is willing to pick another date.

Our military sources say General Franks, who has been placed in command of
the Iraq campaign, reported to the president that the chain of US command
centers and bases was now in place. Without specifying field particulars
that could jeopardize American lives, DEBKA-Net-Weekly reveals that the
Americans managed to avoid calling on any Arab country, including Egypt and
Saudi Arabia, to host forward bases. They quietly and speedily built their
main command center for the Iraq offensive in Eritrea, together with jumping
off points for the US air force and navy. Their new home now is the
strategic Eritrean port of Assab, which is located near the Bab el Mandeb
Straits linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the mouth of Persian
Gulf. Travelers to this remote corner report that its dusty streets have
suddenly filled with white American vans dashing around without license
plates but recognizable as military vehicles from their sprouting antennae.
In Assab's harbor, docks and storage facilities have been renovated and
closed off as a US military zone. Rooftop aerials and satellite dishes mark
out a major US command post.

Just to the north of Assab, the Americans have whipped a small local airport
into the largest air base in the Horn of Africa, partly compensating for the
sophisticated Prince Sultan air force base denied them in Saudi Arabia. Its
new, wide runways can cater to heavy bombers, transports and fighter-bombers
taking off for missions against any target in southern Iraq or the Baghdad
area with the help of in-air fuel feeds.

Still further to the north, another cluster of US air and naval bases has
risen on the Dalak archipelago on the western side of the Red Sea, across
from Saudi Arabia's Farasan Islands.

The US presence on Dalak gives it control of the full length of the Red Sea
and the eastern approaches to the Suez Canal and the Sinai Peninsula,
linking up with the giant American air base at Sharm el Sheikh. From either
base, the US air force reach extends to any point in Iraq - from Baghdad to
the northern oil cities of Kirkuk and Mosul.

The largest concentration of US bases is located on the big island of Dalak
Dist; some installations have gone up in the small eastern town of Deba
Alawa and a town on the western side of the island of Jamil. In these
locations, the US forces can avail themselves of Soviet port facilities,
landing strips, headquarters and structures built there in the 1970s when
the USSR maintained a large naval presence on the archipelago; later, the
Israeli navy and air force used the sites as their forward base in the Red
Sea.

Northern Iraq, including its oil cities, will be under the purview of US
bases in southern Turkey and Tbilisi, Georgia. The new Red Sea bases, along
with American aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean,
will round off US coverage of all Iraqi airspace.

This blanket air control does not imply, DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources
caution, America's intention of placing the brunt of its offensive on air
assault, on the pattern of the 1991Gulf War and the Afghanistan campaign,
where US air force planes dropped tons of ordnance, missiles and
bunker-busting bombs. For the present, the plan is to employ the air force
mainly as cover for American ground invasion forces, most of whom will be
detached from US Oceania bases.

Our military sources describe the present plan as being for a US-UK force of
up to 75,000 troops attacking in three synchronous bridgeheads.

Force One

This first contingent, also the smallest - no more than 30,000 to 40,000
troops - will attack from the north, setting out from US installations in
southern Turkey, mainly the large air base at Incirlik. They will link up
with US special forces already present in northern Iraq, US commando-trained
Kurdish forces, Turkish special forces positioned near Mosul and Kirkuk and
Turkish-trained Turkomans

Its primary mission will be to "cleanse" the Syrian-Iraqi Western desert on
the frontier with Syria of Iraqi missiles, especially the ones capable of
carrying chemical and biological warheads. Its second objective will be to
seize all of northern Iraq and drive out Iraqi forces, before going on to
capture the oil towns of Kirkuk and Mosul. After the fighting, two
autonomous regions in northern Iraq are planned, one Kurdish and the other
Turkoman.

Force Two

This one will drive across from Jordan. DEBKA-Net-Weekly was the first to
report last year the presence of US and Israeli special forces in the
Hashemite kingdom on a twin mission: to defend Jordan against an Iraqi
invasion and to ready Jordanian bases and airfields for use in the US
offensive against Iraq. Ferried in by airplane or helicopter, or parachuted
in, the task of Force Two will be to seize three or four main air bases in
western and central Iraq, after they have been thoroughly pounded in a US
air-cruise missile blitz. The captured bases will be converted for the use
of American bomber and fighter squadrons, some diverted from the Persian
Gulf and Red Sea. This action comes under the overall plan for the US
military to operate from inside Iraq - unlike the doctrine followed in
Afghanistan, where the US army operated from outside bases. A large
contingent of engineering units is standing by in Kuwait and Qatar ready to
move in and prepare Iraqi installations such as H-3, H-4 and the massive
al-Baghdadi air base for the influx of US warplanes and troops.

Force Three

This force will push into Iraq in two waves, the first, comprised mostly of
US special forces, from bases in Eritrea, Jordan and the Sinai and from US
navy ships, will fan out across central Iraq, including Baghdad; its
paramount mission being to strike and seize the headquarters and habitations
of Saddam Hussein, his family and close associates, as well as the country's
hidden depots of missiles and chemical and biological weapons systems.

The second wave, having captured and occupied bases inside Iraq, will
advance from there to take on the heaviest and most dangerous combat
assignment: destroying the Iraqi leadership and its military power base.
Washington's military planners calculate that Saddam, rather than throw in
the sponge, will throw his entire arsenal, including nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons, against this force, an escalation that could bring forth
an American nuclear response to take him out.

Persuading the Iraqi Army Not to Resist

According to DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources, General Franks has no
intention of pouring 200,000 to 250,000 troops into the Iraqi campaign, as
has been widely reported. On the contrary, he is thinking in terms of a far
smaller invasion force numbering no more than 75,000 including several
thousand members of the British armored brigades and Royal marines. Their
mission will be essentially to capture five or six installations in Iraq and
transform them into American bases of operation.

Above all, the US general is counting on the Iraqi army holding back from
the battle to keep Saddam in power. US military planners have noticed that,
with the exception of the 1980-1987 Iran-Iraq conflict, Saddam's troops have
rarely stood up to an invading army.

During the 1991 Gulf War, US intelligence recruited hundreds of American and
European nationals of Iraqi descent who were in touch with relatives in
Iraq. Those relatives were asked to persuade Iraqi officers from their
hometowns to refrain from resisting the overwhelmingly superior US-led
allied assault forces. This ploy worked. On January 16, 1991, Day One of the
assault, whole Iraqi units with their commanders laid down arms and
surrendered, offering pre-arranged signs to keep them safe from bombing and
shelling.

This time, ethnic Iraqis were not employed, but DEBKA-Net-Weekly's
intelligence sources report that CIA undercover agents who entered Iraq
managed to make contact with several unit commanders, including senior ranks
of elite contingents of the Republican Guard stationed in and around
Baghdad. The agents spread the word that the United States has no quarrel
with the Iraqi army and would prefer to keep the Iraqi military out of
harm's way. Washington's only objective was to displace Saddam and his
regime. Unit commanders were promised handsome cash bonuses for themselves
and their men for staying clear of the fighting. In fact, when the
hostilities were over, America would replenish their equipment and earmark
budgets to keep those units militarily operational.

This sensitive intelligence operation is believed by Franks's staff officers
and the CIA field agents who conducted it to have won over an important
section of the Iraqi military, who agreed to sit on their hands when the
fighting breaks out. They believe that no more than five or six Iraqi
armored divisions, roughly one-third of the Iraqi army, will remain loyal to
Saddam and fight to the last man. This discovery obviates the need for a
large army of hundreds of thousands to defeat the Saddam regime.

Conversely, DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources say Saddam is perfectly
aware of the US divide and conquer plan and is weighing preventive steps.
One would be to throw the US timetable and tactics out by taking pre-emptive
action. Iraqi officers and soldiers would not dare to refuse to take part in
such combat lest they be court-martialed and executed for disobeying orders
or for treason.

2. Iraq Emulates America's Small But Deadly Combat Units

DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources find Iraq's operational war plans
remarkably similar to the ones drawn up in Washington for toppling Saddam
Hussein. A senior US officer familiar with the plans said: "You might have
said Saddam Hussein had the US operational plans before him when he drafted
Iraqi counter-measures."

Like the Americans, Saddam is not planning to deploy large-scale units,
since he does not trust the loyalty of the bulk of his army and knows
American agents are subverting some of his elite units. Appreciating that he
cannot win a conventional war against the United States, he does not propose
to be drawn into one.

In mid-June, therefore, according to our military and intelligence sources,
Saddam reached three strategic decisions:

1.
His tactics against an American assault will be to hit the attackers with
suicide units, kamikaze pilots, short-range cruise missiles and Scud
missiles loaded with a wide range of nuclear, biological and chemical
ordnance, including nuclear or radiological - "dirty" - bombs. The nearer
the moment for military decision-making on the Iraqi front, the closer US
intelligence comes to believing that Saddam has nuclear bombs or a large
quantity of radiological bombs that can contaminate wide areas with
radiation.
Washington also estimates that Iraq has bombs, warheads or artillery shells,
for delivering mustard and other nerve gases, such as sarin, tabun and VX,
as well as biological agents that include botulinal toxin, anthrax, ricin
and aflatoxin, which is a natural carcinogen.

2.
These weapons systems will also be unleashed against Israel, Saudi Arabia,
Jordan and the Gulf states that support the United States.

3.
Iraq will attack Saudi Arabia in the event of a US offensive, a decision
Saddam made just recently after receiving intelligence information
indicating the United States may be planning to wrest Iraq's southern and
northern oilfields from Baghdad's control. (This plan is referred to in the
Turkoman Strip
<outbind://31-00000000368A5D69C0964C46BD94F65F95DF066304B33000/#1-3>article.
)

Against Saudi Arabia too Iraq will wield its suicide units, kamikaze
aircrews and missiles carrying nuclear, biological and chemical warheads.
They will be launched mainly against the oil fields of the Saudi kingdom and
such Gulf countries as Kuwait, Qatar and Oman. Saddam aims to put most of
the Persian Gulf's oil fields out of commission and contaminate their
surrounding environments for years to come, to pay America back for laying
hands on Iraqi oil resources.

Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - nuclear and chemical - will also hit
broad regions of the Middle East, from the Mediterranean to the Gulf,
including Iraq itself.

In case he decides to beat the Americans to the punch - thereby throwing off
the American timeline by at least six months - Saddam is concentrating his
army in three main areas:

Iraqi armored divisions have been deployed in the north along the eastern
banks of the Big Zab and Little Zab Rivers across from the border with
Turkey.

A second force is arrayed around Saddam's hometown of Ikrit and Samara.
Saddam suspects the word the Americans are spreading that they intend
focusing on Baghdad is intended to divert attention from proposed US attacks
on those two towns. Striking Saddam's family clan in Tikrit would spell his
eclipse and provoke the rest of Iraq's Sunni Muslim tribes into withdrawing
their fealty from his regime in Baghdad. He is therefore determined not to
let the Americans cut this ground from under his feet.

The third area in which Saddam has disposed military strength is Baghdad and
its environs: the Azimiya and Kadhimaih regions to the north and the
satellite towns of Salman, Shaikh Bagir and Zaidan to the west and Khan Azad
to the south.

He is also buttressing his defenses on the Euphrates and Tigris river banks
lest US Marines land at strategic invasion points for jumping into the Iraqi
heartland. Saddam is now weighing ordering the armored divisions, he has
positioned on the Big Zab and Little Zab river banks, to cross those
waterways and reach the Turkish border zone, there to wipe out the US
special forces and CIA personnel training anti-Saddam Kurdish units - as
well as those units.

According to DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources, Iraqi intelligence has
gathered enough data from the optic fiber equipment the Chinese installed in
Iraqi air defense systems early last year (and first reported in
DEBKA-Net-Weekly No. 4 on March 8, 2001) to convince Saddam that neither the
Americans nor the British can muster enough air power to halt an Iraqi
armored thrust.

The optic fibers provide real-time information on any intrusion of Iraq's
air space by planes or missiles. By tracking US and British over-flights of
no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, Iraqi air force commanders
discovered that neither has the resources for round-the-clock surveillance.
They break off patrols for 16 to 24 hours several times a week. At first,
the Iraqis used these breaks for secret movements of men and equipment. Now
Saddam proposes to use these gaps for surprise operations against the
Americans.

All eyes are therefore fixed on the Iraqi divisions in the north. If they
are ordered to move, the war with the United States could flare before
September.
http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/Mideast_Madness/020705.Mideast.roundup
.html


author: francispoon

subject: Re: Iraqs sovereign right to arm itself

text:
"WolfWolf" <[email]> wrote in message news:<al8kj1$def$2@nntp-
snipped...

I would take a wild guess that if the attack were to go in this time
frame it would take place on Sept 9.

FP


author: peter terry

subject: Re: Iraqs sovereign right to arm itself

text:
"francispoon" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
day
Indeed, Bush is looking for any kinds of diversion possible given that the
American economy is almost dead in the water.... belly up!

Give the economic fat a few years to slim out and Americans really start
hurting, then it's good riddance Bush the village idiot.

PeterT


subject: Response to Susan Maneck from an Iranian Baha'i

text:
See below.......

Freethought110

All religions are sick men's dreams, false -- demonstrably false -- and
pernicious .

-  Ibn Warraq

Belief in the sickness as the sickness - It was [Religion] which first
painted the Devil on the world's wall; it was [Religion] which first brought
sin into the world. Belief in the cure which it offered has now been shaken
at its very roots: but 'belief in the sickness' which it teaches and
propagates continues to exist - Nietzsche


author: Susan Maneck

subject: Re: Response to Susan Maneck from an Iranian Baha'i

text:
Sounds like you've got some problems down under. And not being there I'm not in
a position to say whether this is because they are really that unresponsive or
you were being so obnoxious to illicit this kind of a response. But I know
there is always the House of Justice and they saw to it that things were put
right in this recent business with the consultation at unit convention as well
as the matter involving Nima friend Terry. But they had to be approached
appropriately as well.
Susan Maneck

"How very strange the imaginings of those who speak as prompted by their own
caprices, and who wander distractedly in the wilderness of self and passion!"
Baha'u'llah
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/


author: Michael McKenny

text:
Greetings, Nima.
   Do keep us up to date over this. Oh, by the way, let's get some more
details. What is the name of the NSA member who starred in this tragedy.
Whatever happened, anyway, to that idea of identifying the guys who'll
be electing and the wider list of more eligible candidates for the coming
election to the UHJ. Who are the 9 members of the OZ NSA and the ABMs and
Counsellors there? Are there any Aboriginals among the list?
   Interested,
   Michael.

"Freethought110" ([email]) writes:


author: Dermod Ryder

text:
"Freethought110" <[email]> wrote in message
news:newscache$7k872h$v9f$[email]...

"Ensaaf"?  Does this mean "common sense" or "absence of idiocy"?

If so I can well understand and fully empathise with the author of the
epistle you forwarded.

I do wonder what the Blessed Mediatrix will make of it.   What
obfuscations can we look forward to?

Or maybe she will just quietly turn off, tune out and sneak away back
to her BS.

the AO
towards
they are
the ABM
matter
to the
powerless to
and
original
writes a
sanctions
letter.
in the
on this
Iranian
Association is
Iranians not
him out
has a
in
on
wants Shah
anything
and the AO


text:
or

Typical. Blame the victim and don't respond to the grievance. Just shift the
onus back to the party wronged. The AO can do no wrong and must be
"approached" in the correct genuflective Orwellian manner. As far as Terry
goes, he would've been hamstrung if behind the scenes noises and protest
hadn't been forthcoming -- AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT!

Funny, you haven't responded to the following item of my friend's letter to
you:


text:
Those morsels, my friend, shall be coming in due course. Patience. I've
already dropped one name of an ABM involved. In due time more shall be
revealed. And, let me tell you, there is information I have obtained that
will make your head spin :) The rabbit hole has very interesting twists and
routes indeed!


author: Beth

text:
"Freethought110" <[email]> wrote:

Hi - some thoughts on this -

Knowing the process of what happened to the Faith is useful. However,
this is the way it went down, the Faith has changed and is in a good
political position to assisting a world government (goal of the
present conflicts) - as religion is being used as the center of
political movement....ask the world bank. Where we go from here is
the question?

Nima has told the Truth about what happens to *SINCERE* Iranian
Baha'is who try and stand up for the principles of Baha'u'llah as we
once knew them....**similar to what happens to SINCERE Westerners**.
You can imagine how the SINCERE Iranian feels getting this treatment
in a foreign country by the FAITH after your family has been tortured
in prisons and given up their lives for the new Faith.

I have tried to explain it before but will try again....so we can
understand that it is the SINCERE BAHA'IS WHO WON'T BEND TO THE
HIJACKERS WHO ARE SUFFERING---Regardless if they are Iranian or
Western....each technique fits the group. What I am telling you is
through first hand experience. For Westerner's it is like coming in
contact with the mafia....you're soon dead or serving something
different that what you signed up to do.

1. There were *sleepers* who had gotten themselves positioned in the
high profile positions in the Faith waiting for the opportune time to
go into a world-wide concerted effort to take control and appropriate
the Faith in a way similar to entryism (taking an organization over
through being in it). The sleepers were often Easterner's who had
been living in the West for some time and had high credentials in the
public sector too.

2. When the refugees were coming from Iran it was the beginning of
the take over (hijacking of the Faith).

3. Refugees were broken (not having jobs, or knowing the language,
and experiencing tortures) from leaving their country and the
horrendous things happening to them and therefore, relied heavily on
the *Western Iranian Community* to shelter and help them.

In Iranian culture once you are shunned it is like death (especially
in a new country). Captitalizing on this the *sleepers in high
profile positions* held the generality of refugees in line to their
own agenda with this threat of shunning. Now you can see when SINCERE
IRANIAN BAHA'IS tried to stand up for principles of the Baha'i Faith
which were being undermined in the community they got the treatment
Nima speaks of. I helped a few go to Haifa for help...but the Hand
there at the time said "he knew this was going on" and after the turn
of the century it would straigten out.

There are Westerner's *that get in line* and persecute SINCERE
BAHA'IS in the same manner. Sleepers have been recruited for some
time and are not all Easterner's....the PERKS are worth it. The
majority in Oz on the NSA are of this nature....as seems to have
happened in the US-Kazemzedeh contingency too.

---- this is why you are disillusioned and not so happy to go for
what the vision was......we have been hijacked and lived to see the
unpleasantness of it....and the fundamentalizing has had a terrible
toll. It is unfortunate that the Refugees have been manipulated to be
lackies if they wanted to live to see another day....all very
understandable.....survival. Of course the *vision* was taliored to
capture the Westerner's too......bait and switch technique.


text:
Dermod,

Ensaaf/insa:f means "justice,"fair mindedness," etc.


text:
Why should I take their word for it? You already admitted these people are
seriously bad.

That's exactly the point. You go to the Institutions with your complaints and
your evidence. Fortunately in Terry's case I had plenty of it. But if I had
instead tried to fight out on the internet like you tried to do I would have
lost my credibility.

I've told you, I have no way of knowing what is going on in Australia. That
certainly isn't the way things are done here.

Susan Maneck

"How very strange the imaginings of those who speak as prompted by their own
caprices, and who wander distractedly in the wilderness of self and passion!"
Baha'u'llah
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/


text:
"Susan Maneck " <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

No one is asking *you* specifically to take anyone's word for anything.
After all, we know *exactly* where you stand. You aren't the person being
asked to take words.

Again distortion. The Iranians are good; the ones *inside* the hall of power
are the ones who are out for the AO's blood. Those are the ones who have
your number, whom travel by stealth, whom I do not know and are willing to
do anything it takes, by any means necessary to bring down the whole
stinking mess. They have bidden their time and will strike without a moments
notice, and you have no one to blame for yourselves once they do. You have
been warned!

and
have

Again, this goes to: The AO can do no wrong and must be "approached" in the
correct genuflective Orwellian manner. So much for the "justice" in the
universal house.

Right *grin* Kind of like how they weren't done in that way with Sobhani and
Akhtar-Khavari ;-P

Freethought110

All religions are sick men's dreams, false -- demonstrably false -- and
pernicious .

-  Ibn Warraq

Belief in the sickness as the sickness - It was [Religion] which first
painted the Devil on the world's wall; it was [Religion] which first brought
sin into the world. Belief in the cure which it offered has now been shaken
at its very roots: but 'belief in the sickness' which it teaches and
propagates continues to exist - Nietzsche


subject: RE: reciprocity (was:  "Denying the Antecedent" fallacy)

text:
I'm not so sure at all that your last sentence is
true, especially insofar as primates and cetaceans
are concerned.  But let's assume that it is and that
no non-human animal can understand the concept.  They
can still act *as if* they do, and as long as they
act as if they do, I suggest that humans should, in
turn, respond in a like manner, especially those humans
who place such great emphasis on reciprocity in ethics.

Secondly, the type of passive reciprocity that I've
been describing makes the same demands on everyone.
No one need understand that he is following it; he
just needs to follow it, in order to receive the same
kind of treatment in return.  It would be a sufficient
condition for having a claim against not being harmed.

Lastly, I didn't know that the concept of diminishing
marginal utility had fallen into disfavor.  It's one
of the most enduring economic concepts that has stayed
with me since Economics 101 back in the university days.
It always did seem like a great concept for describing
people's behavior, even if people didn't literally
perform the analysis and apply it.

- Bob

------------------------------------------------------------
 Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
                http://MailAndNews.com

 Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
 POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------


author: Jonathan Ball

subject: Re: reciprocity (was:  "Denying the Antecedent" fallacy)

text:
farrell77 wrote:

But their acting "as if" they understand reciprocity is different from
humans acting "as if" they are formally performing the implied
cost-benefit analysis of acting on their preferences; as I said, humans
*can* actually do the analysis, even if they don't do it virtually all
the time.  It's clear they can understand the the positive concept.
Doug's objections to your assertion that animals reciprocate is based on
an objection to observing a negative behavior (failing to act) and
labeling it a positive understanding.

As I said, Prof. Alchian taught us this in grad school over 20 years
ago.  I imagine anyone who went to Chicago, UCLA, or U. of Wash. learned
this.  Maybe you needed to get to econ *201* for it.

It's a case of applying Occam's razor:  you don't need it to get a
downward sloping demand curve out of price theory.  Simpler is better.


author: Dutch

text:
"farrell77" <[email]> wrote ...
[..]

I believe reciprocity is rooted in the nature of relationships in highly developed
social groups. I watched a documentary showing chimps sharing food with weaker members
of the troop then later receiving proportional amounts of grooming and attention.
Jonathan is right, they don't "understand" it as an abstract concept, but it's part of
their behaviour. Sharing and cooperation seem to make everyone thrive more than
everyone fighting for dominance. I can see this type of behaviour being very useful to
animals like rats where large numbers live in a small space.

[..]


text:
Dutch wrote:

That seems like more of a quid pro quo to me.

I imagine that depends on the density.  Rats crowded into a small space
and behaving pathologically has always been held up as *the* example of
the undesirability of overcrowding.


text:
"Jonathan Ball" <[email]> wrote
members
part of
useful to

I was referring to rats in their chosen environment, all squashed together in small
dark places. My guess is they have instinctive tit-for-tat behaviors like mutual
grooming and food sharing, simply because those traits are beneficial in social
groups. It stands to reason that our own systems of rights and "Golden Rule" evolved
from this kind of behavior.


text:
Dutch wrote:

But I don't think rats naturally *do* choose to live all squashed
together.  And human adherence to the Golden Rule, or some facsimile, is
observed regardless of population density.  Adherence probably becomes
more valuable as density increases, which perhaps explains in part why
urban areas tend to have more explicit laws and regulations concerning
everyday life - parking restrictions, zoning, etc. - than rural areas.


author: The Puddies

subject: Maitreya posts - a joke of great similarity !

text:
Hi all,

The joke posted below seems to me to have more than a passing resemblance to
the entire Maitreya threads which have been posted in Buddhist newsgroups.
I submit it for your enjoyment.   One might easily substitute JME for "Hank"
and the names of Dolores and Debbie for the couple at the door.

Regards,
Evelyn

KISS HANKS ASS......

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found
a well
groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:  "Hi! I'm John, and
this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I
want to
kiss his ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you
don't, he'll kick
the shit out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns
this town.

He can do what ever he wants, and what he wants is to give you a million
dollars, but he
can't until you kiss his ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars?   Isn't it
worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh, yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well, no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money,
and he kicks
the shit out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the
million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and
I'm sure she
got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've
never talked to
anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a
raise, maybe
you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty dollar bill on the
street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And
remember, if you
don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from
him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other times
we kiss
Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's
ass. All we
had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that
Hank wanted
you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the
whole thing.
Here's a copy; see for yourself."

John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on From the desk of Karl
letterhead.

There were eleven items listed:

        1.Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you
leave town.
        2.Use alcohol in moderation.
        3.Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
        4.Eat right.
        5.Hank dictated this list himself.
        6.The moon is made of green cheese.
        7.Everything Hank says is right.
        8.Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
        9.Don't drink.
       10.Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
       11.Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.

Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's
handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist
kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says, 'Everything Hanks says is right.'  That's good enough
for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way!  Item 5 says, 'Hank dictated this list himself.'  Besides,
item 2 says, 'Use alcohol in moderation,'  item 4 says, 'Eat right,' and
item 8 says, 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows
those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says, 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6
says, 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2,  9 just clarifies 2. As far
as 6 goes,
you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of
rock...."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of
space, so it
could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the moon came
from the Earth
has been discounted.  Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't
make it
cheese."

John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know
Hank is
always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is
right because

Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says
so. That's
circular logic, no different than saying, 'Hank's right because he says he's
right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it!  It's so rewarding to see someone come around
to Hank's
way of thinking."

Me: "But.... oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary blushes. John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way.
Anything
else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: "There's no need for such
language!
Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be
out of the question?"

Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la la,
la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that...."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary faints. John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I
wouldn't have
wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting
my money
and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered
kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

The end.


author: Joseph M. Emmanuel

subject: Re: Maitreya posts - a joke of great similarity !

text:
On 16 Nov 1997 22:07:52 GMT, "The Puddies" <[email]> wrote:

The flaws of your story are:

1 - God does exist (it is clearly proven in THOTH).
2 -  You do not have to kiss any part of Him/Her/It (God).  If He asks you
      to do something it is good (God) for you.  Knowing Him is to Know
      Thyself (and visa versa)
3 - I did not made up the Revelation I have brought to humanity.
4 - Those who support my teaching prove it to themselves first before
      accepting it.  They are not blind followers.

-Joseph ([email])
One God, One World, One Humanity
Unity Of All Under One God
http://www.maitreya.org (in English and French)