author: Druiddandy

text:
John Baker wrote:
<<You do that, Tom.  But the question is what town is my home town?  Who am I?
Where do I really live?>>

You are John Charles Baker. You live in Chehalis, Washington.

Anything else you'd like to know?


author: John Baker

subject: Re: On Baker's Masters In International Affairs and Other Such  Nonsense

text:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:39:34 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
<[email]> wrote:

Bob!! You naughty boy.  Still mad you didn't make it to round
two in the AF testing?

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


subject: Re: On Baker's Masters In International Affairs and Other Such Nonsense

text:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:48:47 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
<[email]> wrote:

Opinions about this differ.  But we did establish that it was I, not
you who passed three days of intensive AF testing and went on to the
longest technical school in the AF....you may not think that's
evidence of intelligence but others will.

And since you didn't make round two it is the proof required
for you to kill yourself.

I knew you'd chicken out

And even Webb has rolled on my MA (s)...so at least someone with some
brains thinks I proved some accademic history.  More proof is coming.

Stay tuned.

john

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
On 10 Jan 2002 19:43:11 -0800, [email] (Elizabeth
Weir) wrote:

Elizabeth!!!

Don't you get it.  Jim thinks you are me...he doesn't think you're
real.  He thinks all these other people are me to!!  What a joke!

Now some of these names are mine, like "Bacon" and appear in
the header line, but my name always appears at the bottom of these
posts.

I'm not you and you know it.

So consider wisely what Agent Jim says.

john

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


author: Dr Peter Groves

text:
Elizabeth Weir <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<[email]>...

I tend to agree, largely on the grounds that you can write English.  Baker
can't.

Peter G.


subject: Re: On Baker's Masters In International Affairs and Other Such   Nonsense

text:
On 24 Jan 2002 12:15:45 -0800, [email] (Alisa
Beaton) wrote:

My degrees are not the business of this group or you, Ms.

I don't have to share them with anyone.

I'm having fun making wild claims about them, but as as as
credentially up...don't hold your breath.

Why should I?  I only answer questions I like.  This isn't the rank
its hlas!!!

"ludicrous claims?!!!"  Me?  Name one!

Your wild flights of fancy are

That's good.  They are intended as so.

john

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:21:32 -0500, "David L. Webb"
<[email]> wrote:

David,

You are such a nit!  Why should I furnish you with a citation?  Isn't
this hlas?  Not the rack.  What are you the Grand Inquisitor?

I've tried to be honest here.  And have some fun.  Fun for all of us.

If you doubt something from me, under my own name, was published in
SA, that's ok by me.

I don't care.

You check it out.

If you doubt I have a Ph.D. (the type that was given to me) you check
it out.

I'm busy.

john

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


author: Tom Reedy

subject: Re: On Faker's Masters In International Affairs and Other Such  Nonsense

text:
I have contacted FSU and will keep the group posted on what I find out.

TR

"Thomas Larque" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:[email]...
junior
has a


author: JPWearing

text:
A quick check of Florida State's on-line library catalogue reveals only one
Ph.D. dissertation by a John L. Baker in 1997. Its subject was various aspects
of chamber music. That doesn't sound like the description Baker gave of his
putative dissertation.

Incidentally, I believe it is a criminal offense in Florida to claim academic
credentials one doesn't have.

JPW


author: Bob Grumman

text:
I'm interested in accomplishments, Baker, not test scores.

So, you're going to use one Air Force test that you took, according
to you, and did well on, according to you, as evidence that you are
not half or less as intelligent as I?

I would say that alone put me way ahead of you.

David Webb did no such thing, unless I missed a post.  Whether he
did or not, I'll come down to your level and challenge you on the
kind of thing you consider an accomplishment, getting a degree.
I've announced the BA I got, with its date and the school I got
it from.  All you have to do to equal it is announce a similar
degree you got, with its date and the school you got it from.
I now believe you won't even be able to do that.  Did you even
graduate from high school, Baker?

                                                 --Bob G.


text:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 17:47:35 +1100, "Dr Peter Groves"
<[email]> wrote:

I like you too Peter.  But my native language isn't
English.  Nevertheless I'll bet I've had more of my prose published
than you've had of yours....

john
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


author: David L. Webb

text:
In article <[email]>, John Baker wrote:

   Then why did you offer to compare you educational record with Bob
Grumman's and to muck out stables if yours wasn't superior to his,
"Dr." Faker?

   Then why did you offer to compare you educational record with Bob
Grumman's and to muck out stables if yours wasn't superior to his,
"Dr." Faker?  You're curiously defensive for someone who has been
boasting about his advanced degrees so volubly on so many occasions.
Might that be because those degrees don't exist?

   You mean, lying about them?  Evidently you are having fun doing so,
although I fail to see how anyone who makes any pretense whatever to
scholarship could regard lying and fraud as "fun."

   Astounding -- Alisa's reasonable query has reduced Baker to
stuttering incoherence!

   Don't worry, Baker -- I suspect that virtually everyone has caught
on by now to your fraudulent claims, and no one takes them seriously;
certainly *nobody* will be holding his or her breath until you
authenticate them, because it is quite clear that you cannot do so.

   Because you're the one who brought it up.  Because you're the one
who challenged Bob Grumman to compare his educational record with your
supposedly superior one.  Because you're the one who has *repeatedly*
tried to intimidate h.l.a.s. participants with your supposedly superior
qualifications -- qualifications which have turned out to be quite
fraudulent.  It's amusing how defensive and reticent a phony can get --
after having boasted of his manifold qualifications, his multiple
advanced degrees and titles, his study with Dirac, his scientific work,
etc., etc., -- when he is finally exposed as a fraud.

   You're in good company, Baker -- that's almost _verbatim_ what a
former governor of Tennessee said to reporters shortly after a major
fraud and bribery scandal broke, not too long before he was pursued by
federal agents, tried, convicted, and incarcerated.

   But judging by your past performance you should *like* Alisa's
question, Baker; after all, it's about your favorite subject -- you!

   Yes, we know that your academic rank is completely fraudulent, "Dr."
Faker; that's been pretty conclusively established.

   You've claimed to have a Ph.D., for one thing, and that claim has
turned out to be completely bogus.  You've claimed to have "solved"
Fermat's Last Theorem, yet your solution turned out to be delusional
nonsense readily recognizable as such by any reasonably bright shool
child with a decent mathematics background.  These are just a few of
your ludicrous claims.  Bob Grumman has expressed doubt that you even
have a Bachelor's degree, doubt which, in view of your squandered
credibility, is quite reasonable.

   Read it again, Baker (if thou canst) -- you might get it yet.

               David Webb


text:
In article <[email]>, John Baker wrote:

   Because you offered to do so earlier.  I'm merely requesting that
you follow up -- for a change.

   No, I'm just asking you to substantiate your *own* claims, as you've
offered to do *yourself*.  You are evidently unable to do so.

   Obviously, you have not succeeded in that undertaking.

   Fraud may be fun for you; others disagree.

   You might have written a Letter to the Editor that got published in
_Scientific American_.  In fact, there has been an April Fool tradition
at the magazine which has sometimes taken the form of publication in
the April issue of a batch of Letters to the Editor from cranks and
lunatics.  Indeed, there is a well-known internet eccentric who
believes that the entire universe is a plutonium atom, that he himself
is the reincarnation of an Australian race horse, that Fermat's Last
Theorem is false (and that he has a counterexample), and many other
bizarre things; one of his letters to the Editor got published in the
April Fool edition of _Scientific American_, so certainly a Letter to
the Editor from you might have been published there also.

   However, I do doubt that any actual *article* by you appeared in the
publication.  You can dispel my doubt by furnishing the reference.

   That's very fortunate for you!  If you actually cared about your
impostures being exposed, you'd be out of luck.

   If you wish...what's the reference?

   That has already been done, and you were lying.  No doctoral thesis
by you appears in the UMI database.  It has been established pretty
conclusively that you do not have a Ph.D. -- unless perhaps you founded
your own university (with a faculty of one!) and awarded yourself the
degree.

   Busy fabricating more bogus credentials that you can boast about and
use to try to intimidate people?

[...]

            David Webb


text:
<John Baker> wrote in message news:[email]...

That would be the type that comes in a cornflakes packet?


author: Thomas Larque

text:
On 15 Jan 2002 21:56:25 GMT, [email] (JPWearing) wrote:

So there we go.  Depending only on the absence of a possible but
*very* unlikely explanation from Florida State University about how
Baker got his Ph.D but didn't get his work filed with UMI or the
University Library, we now what looks like good evidence that John
Baker is a liar and a fraud who has claimed a Ph.D from a particular
institution that has apparently not awarded that Ph.D.

Does Washington have the same laws on academic credentials as Florida?
It would be very amusing to see Baker fined or jailed for his
dishonesty.  It couldn't happen to a more deserving man.

Thomas Larque.

"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk


text:
In article <[email]>, John Baker wrote:

[...]

   What *is* your native language, Baker?

   You make another unwise bet here, Baker -- I'm going to have to find
some more stables for you to muck out.

            David Webb


text:
<John Baker> wrote in message news:[email]...
writes:
Baker

If you're referring to peer-reviewed journals and respectable academic or
commercial presses, then I seriously doubt it.  But there wouldn't be a lot
of point in arguing with you about it, because you have shown yourself to be
unreliable in these matters.  Various people on this ng have invited you to
refute the growing consensus that you are a liar and a fraud, and
specifically that you have fraudulently claimed to have received a Ph.D from
Florida State University.  Since you have made no serious effort to refute
these contentions, the reasonable assumption is that you can't; and if
they're true, there's not a lot of point in arguing with you.

Peter G.


text:
"David L. Webb" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<snip>
<snip>

According to Florida State University, John C. Baker received a Master of
Arts in Philosophy June 10, 1972.

He does not have a doctorate. He has lied about that for years, on this and
other newsgroups, as well as to his fellow antistratfordians. Any Doctor of
Divinity degree he holds is fraudulent, probably made up or bought through
the mail or the Internet.

Bottom line: Baker is a liar and a fraud.

TR


text:
snip

Well, it won't happen now: I just heard that Baker was killed in
a tavern brawl . . .

                                          --Bob G.


text:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:35:08 +0000, Thomas Larque
<[email]> wrote:

I should clarify this for those who keep claiming that it doesn't
matter whether John has a Ph.D or not.  Until now I suspected that
John was guilty of buying a fake diploma from a non-existent
University that existed purely to sell diplomas to people who did no
work for them.  This is clearly morally and intellectually dishonest,
and would show John up as a person with no moral values at all.  What
seems more likely now, however, is that John is dishonestly claiming
to have a Ph.D from a real University which did not actually award him
that degree.  This is far more dishonest, and would show John up as
somebody who is not only willing to claim a qualification that he knew
he didn't earn but which he really did possess (having spent money on
a certificate from a fake University), but somebody who is willing to
fraudulently claim a qualification that he not only did not earn, but
does not possess either.

The Florida law against false academic credentials seems to prohibit
the buying or selling of fake diplomas of the kind that I have
described above.  I imagine that a different set of laws come into
play in the instance of somebody who lies about possessing
qualifications from a particular real University.  I would hope that
this is considered far more serious than buying a fake diploma from a
diploma mill.

John has promised never to post to this Newsgroup again unless he can
prove that he has a Ph.D.  I hope that he will honour that promise.
If Florida State University says that Baker does not have a Ph.D from
them, he should never post again - but then if John is willing to lie
about having received a Ph.D from Florida State, why should he keep
his word about a much more minor matter like not posting to HLAS?

Thomas Larque.

"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk


author: Sabyha

text:
Is it possible he did his PhD under another name?  He is so big on the
authorship controversy and he did allude to it all being a *riddle*.

I just don't understand why any person would lie about such a thing.  It just
doesn't make sense to me.

Jodie

Jodie - Australia
http://members.aol.com/powtied/power1.html
Power of Will


text:
"Dr Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote in message
news:FLo18.73502$[email]...
<snip>

from

That sounds like a good idea, and I'll join you in not responding to Faker's
idiocies. It's only right, since I quit reading his messages long ago.

TR


text:
John is nuts.  But I hope he doesn't get in serious trouble
over this.  He is too obviously nuts to be more than an
irritant.  Much worse to me than his lying about his degrees
(I no longer believe he has even a bachelor's) are his
misrepresentations of his opponent's beliefs.

                                            --Bob G.


author: KQKnave

text:
In article <[email]>, [email]
(Sabyha) writes:

Read baker's posts. They're all quite nuts. Why would this make any
sense?

Another possibility is that "John Baker" is just a pseudonym pr pen-name
he uses in all of his publications, web or otherwise, no doubt as a way
of saying "See, you don't know who I am, so how do you know
who Shakespeare was?"

See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html

Agent Jim


text:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:56:04 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
<[email]> wrote:

Baker apparently wants respect that he hasn't earned and he may even
have got some work (and hence dirty money) through this dishonesty.

I would say that it is very unlikely that he did his Ph.D under a
different name.  He claims to have been using John Baker for his MA
(incidentally no MA turns up on UMI with Baker's name *or* with the
title that Baker gave, so the MA might well be a lie too, if so he
probably got a job teaching College on the basis of that lie) and his
webpage shows him using John Baker across a wide range of years in
formal and informal situations.

I am not sure why you find it difficult to believe that people would
lie about their qualifications.  Surveys show that a huge proportion
of CVs are dishonest.  Liars like John (apparently) are quite happy to
tell a few untruths in order to gain money, respect and job prospects.
The more of them that get caught the better.

I disagree with Bob.  If John has broken a law, he should be reported.

Thomas Larque.

"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk


author: Art Neuendorffer

subject: Sept. 14: The Day of the Holy Nut

text:
----------------------------------------------------
         King Henry IV, Part ii  Act 3, Scene 2

SHALLOW: Come on, come on, come on, sir; give me your hand,
       sir, give me your hand, sir: an early stirrer, by
       the *ROOD* ! And how doth my good cousin Silence?
--------------------------------------------------
        King Richard III  Act 3, Scene 2

STANLEY:  My lord, good morrow; good morrow, Catesby:
  You may *JEST* on, but, by the holy *ROOD*,
  I do not like these sEVERal councils, I.

                  Act 4, Scene 4

DUCHESS OF YORK: No, by the holy *ROOD*, thou know'st it well,
     Thou camest on earth to make the earth my hell.
     A grievous burthen was thy birth to me;
     Tetchy and wayward was thy infancy;
     Thy school-days frightful, desperate, wild, and furious,
     Thy prime of manhood daring, bold, and venturous,
     Thy age confirm'd, proud, subdued, bloody, treacherous,
     More mild, but yet more harmful, kind in hatred:
     What comfortable hour *CANST thou name*
     That EVER graced me in thy company?
-----------------------------------------------------
        King Henry IV, Part i  Act 1, Scene 1

WESTMORELAND: For more uneven and unwelcome news
  Came from the north and thus it did import:
  On Holy-*ROOD* day,
-----------------------------------------------------
Medieval Holidays: Holy Rood Day occurs on May 3rd
  and a celebration of the discovery of the cross on
  which Jesus was crucified.

    http://www.2020site.org/trees/hazel.html

<<It was possibly from the use of Hazel-wands that fortune-telling
powers accrued to the fruit of the tree. In many places an ancient
custom prevailed, which it was thought unlucky to omit, of going
a-nutting on Holy Rood Day, September 14th; whilst the practice of
burning nuts on All-Hallows' Eve, October 31st, alluded to by Burns
in his "Hallowe'en," and by Gay, was so general that the vigil was
called Nuterack Night. The Vicar of Wakefield and his neighbors, it
will be remembered, "religiously cracked nuts on All-Hallows' Eve."
----------------------------------------------------
FW 2:8 250.24  A fork of hazel o'er the field in vox
   the VERvEine virgins ode. If you cross this *ROOD*
  as you roamed the rand I'm blessed but you'd feel him
  a blasting *ROD* . *Behind, me, FREEs from EVIL smells*
-------------------------------------------------------
  http://www.stratford-upon-avon.co.uk/soahstry.htm

          November 1563 - November 1564

  ... as Chamberlain, (John Shakespeare) has been supervising the
defacing of the images in the Guild Chapel pulling down the rood loft
and removing other popish relics. We have had difficulty getting
people to fill public office. In September John Wheler was elected
  as high bailiff but promptly refused to serve.
------------------------------------------------------------
<<Near its orchard border of sundried clay, workmen moved
  into the chapel to see its painted walls with legends
  - the town's old Catholic poetry:

   WHEN ERTH UPON ERTH HATH BYLDED HIS BOWERS THEN
    SHALL ERTH FOR ERTH SUFFER MANY HARD SHOWERS

Over the chancel arch was a Doom, or Last Judgement, with the Virgin
in blue and St.John in bright brown. Heaven was a palace with St.
Peter in a red alb and green cope, and burning souls fell throught
a hell mouth into a cauldron. A crucifixion rose on the south wall,
and on jambs for the tower arch were Thomas a Becket and the names
of his murderers. After the Doom had been WHITEWASHED, for which
the workmen were paid 2s., but before the rood loft was taken
down & seats were installed for the vicar and his clerk,
the acting CHAMBERLAIN's account noted on 10 January 1564:
"Item payd for defasying images in ye chappell ijs">>
                               - _Shakespeare a Life_ by Honan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: A Visit to Edinburgh and Lodge Canongate Kilwinning #2.
     http://www.calodges.org/scrl/monthly/edinburg.htm  :

The "Royal Mile" leads from this castle to *HOLYROOD* Castle,
         home of Mary, Queen of Scots, from 1561-1567.

   [(1561-1567) when Sackville was Grandmaster Freemason.]

   The present Lodge building was consecrated in December, 1736,
and is the oldest building in the world built for Masonic purposes.
  On entering the Lodge room, one is instantly drawn drawn
    to what appear to be four alcoves contining statues,
       two on the north wall and two on the south.

      http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_709660.html
      http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_714510.html

When approached, they are found to be cleverly executed mural
paintings of Lord BYRON & [W]alter  [S]cott on the north wall
        and ROBERT BURNS & [W]ILLIAM [S]HAKESPEARE on the south.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holy Cross, or HOLY ROOD.   September 14
http://www.uab.edu/english/hone/etexts/edb/day-pages/257-sep14.html

<<Holy Cross is in our almanacs & the church of England calendar
  on September 14, whereon is celebrated a Romish catholic festival
  in honour of the holy cross, or, as our ancestors called it,
  the holy rood. From this denomination Holy-rood-house,
  Edinburgh, derives its name.

The rood was a carved or sculptured groupe consisting of a crucifix,
or image of Christ on the cross, with, commonly, the virgin Mary on
one side, and John on the other; though for these were sometimes
substituted the four evangelists, and frequently rows of saints
  were added on each side.

The rood was always placed in a gallery across the nave, at the
entrance of the chancel or choir of the church, and this gallery was
called the rood-loft, signifying the rood-gallery; the old meaning of
the word loft being a high, or the highest, floor, or a room higher
than another room. In the rood-loft the musicians were stationed,
  near the rood, to play during mass.

The holy roods or crosses being taken down at the time of the
reformation, the rood-loft or gallery became the organ-loft or
singing gallery, as we see it in our churches at present:
the ancient rood-loft was usually supported by a crossbeam,
richly carved with foliage, sometimes superbly gilt,
with a screen of open tabernacle-work beneath.

When the roods, and other images in churches were taken down
throughout England, texts of scripture were written on the walls
of the churches instead. The first rood taken down in London was
the rood belonging to St. Paul's cathedral, and then all the
other roods were removed from the churches of the metropolis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The festival of Holy Cross, or as it is more elaborately termed by
the Catholics, the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, is in commemoration
of the alleged miraculous appearance of the cross to Constantine in
the sky at mid-day. It was instituted by the Romish church on occasion
of the recovery of a large piece of the pretended real cross which
Cosroes, king of Persia, took from Jerusalem when he plundered it.
The emperor Heraclius defeated him in battle, retook the relic,
and carried it back in triumph to Jerusalem. According to Rigordus,
a historian of the 13th century, the capture of this wood by Cosroes,
though it was recaptured by Heraclius, was a loss to the human race
they never recovered. We are taught by him to believe that the
mouths of our ancestors "used to be supplied with 30, or in some
instances with 32 teeth, but that since the cross was stolen
by the infidels, no mortal has been allowed more than 23!" >>
------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nutting appears to have been customary on this day.

The old play of "Grim, the Collier of Croydon:"?

   "This day, they say, is called Holy-rood day,
     And all the youth are now a nutting gone."

It appears, from a curious manuscript relating to Eton school, that
in the month of September, "on a certain day," most probably the 14th,
the scholars there were to have a play-day, in order to go out and
gather nuts, a portion of which, when they returned, they were to
make presents of to the different masters; but before leave was
granted for their excursion, they were required to write verses on the
fruitfulness of autumn, and the deadly cold of the coming winter.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
       James Fenimore Cooper
  http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/jfcooper.htm

   born Sept. 15, 1789, Burlington, N.J.
______________    +62
       ---------------
   died Sept. 14, 1851, Cooperstown, N.Y.
____________     -530
       ---------------
   died Sept. 14, 1321, Dante in exile

<<Through his Leatherstocking series Cooper created the archetype
of the 18th-century frontiersman, Natty Bumppo. He lives free,
close to nature, while the settlers bring 'civilization' that
destroys the wilderness. Cooper wrote over 30 novels & considered
  THE PATHFINDER (1841) & THE DEERSLAYER (1840) his best works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tuesday, Sept. 14, 1731, being Holy-rood day, the king's
   huntsmen hunted their free buck in Richmond New park,
   with bloodhounds, according to custom."
------------------------------------------------------------------
  September 14,  feast day of St. Notburga, patroness of servants.

<<Born Rattenburg; Tyrol, 1265; died 1313; cultus confirmed in 1862.
This peasant fulfilled God's plan for her life as a kitchen servant in
the household of Count Henry of Rattenburg. Each day she would give
the abundant food left from her master's table to the poor who waited
at the side door of the castle. Not content with this, she would even
stint her own meals to increase the portion available for the poor.
All was well as long as the count's mother was alive. When his wife,
Countess Ottila became mistress of the household, she disapproved of
this charity. Ottila gave orders that the broken food was to go into
the buckets to feed the pigs. For a time Notburga followed the orders
of her mistress and gave to the poor only what she could save from her
own food and drink. But soon she again began her old practice secretly
until her mistress caught her & dismissed Notburga. The saint worked
for a time for a farmer at Eben, and continued her benefactions.

Notburga's biographer tells us that soon thereafter the count was
  caught up in the strife between the count of Tyrol and the duke
of Bavaria, and attributed his troubles to the meanness of Ottila,
  who had died shortly after firing Notburga. Henry remarried
   & Notburga was rehired, this time as housekeeper.

She later asked Count Henry to lay her body on a farm-wagon
    *and bury her wherever the oxen should finally rest*
After several miracles en route, the oxen stopped at the *DOORs*
  of Saint Rupert's church. In art, her emblem is a sickle.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/forvm/Articles/sejanus.htm

<<Sejanus & Livilla planned and eventually gave *DruSUS* a
slow acting POISON that killed him on September 14, 23 A.D.
  Sejanus had eliminated his greatest contender for power.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 14,  407,     St John Chrysostom dies

Sept. 14, 1224,   while praying in his cell on Mount Alverna
   Francis of Assisi received the marks which confirmed his
   sanctity. They did not bleed, but were instead impressions
   of the heads of nails. Francis kept these stigmata a secret
     by wearing shoes & stockings and covering his hands.

Sept. 14, 1321, Dante died in exile from his native Florence

Sept. 14, 1716, 1st American lighthouse Little Brewster Island, Mass.

Sept. 14, 1741, Georg Friederic Hï¿½ndel, 56, finished Messiah.
         He wrote the score, start-to-finish, in only 24 days.

Sept. 14, 1742, Scottish-born Pennsylvania judge James Wilson born.

Sept. 14, 1752, Britain & its colonies adopt Gregorian calendar.

Sept. 14, 1759, Battle of Quebec general Montcalm dies at 47.

Sept. 14, 1773, Dr. Samuel Johnson said "I have, all my life long,
       [lain in bed till noon], yet I tell all young men, that
        nobody who does not rise early will ever do any good."

Sept. 14, 1778, Ben Franklin: the 1st minister plenipotentiary.

Sept. 14, 1812, Moscow set on fire by Russians
                           after Napoleon's troops invade.

Sept. 14, 1814, Ft McHenry bombarded by British the night before.

Sept. 14, 1836, Aaron Burr dies on Staten Island.

Sept. 14, 1847, Winfield Scott takes control of Mexico City.

Sept. 14, 1849, Ivan Pavlov, pioneer in behavioral psychology, born

Sept. 14, 1851, James Fenimore Cooper dies.
        [Mark Twain's essay on the literary offenses of Cooper.]

Sept. 14, 1852, Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, dies at 83.

Sept. 14, 1879, Margaret Sanger, birth control proponent, born.

Sept. 14, 1886, Czech statesman Jan Masaryk was born.

Sept. 14, 1901, McKinley assassinated in Buffalo
                               by anarchist Leon Czolgosz.

Sept. 14, 1927, dancer Isadora Duncan strangled by scarf
                            in the spokes of red Bugatti automobile.

Sept. 14, 1940,  First peace-time draft law.

Sept. 14, 1959, Soviet's Luna-2 the first to land on Moon

Sept. 14, 1982, Princes Grace of Monaco killed in an automobile
                  accident. American novelist John Gardner died
                    the same day in a motorcycle accident.

Sept. 14, 1975, Mother Elizabeth Seton: 1st American-born saint.
--------------------------------------------------------------
         Last of the Mohicans - James Fenimore Cooper

The THISTLE is the order for dignity and antiquity;
  the veritable *nemo me impune lacessit* of chivalry.
    Ye had ancestors in that degree, Duncan, and
  they were *an ornament* to the nobles of Scotland."
-------------------------------------------------------------
            Pioneers - James Fenimore Cooper

"I have but little more to say, sir, I followed to the lake
where I had so often been told that Natty dwelt, and found him
maintaining his *OLD MASTER IN SECRET* ; for even he could
not bear to exhibit to the world, in his poverty and dotage,
a man whom a whole people once looked up to with respect."

                   "And what did you?"

"What did I? I spent my last money in purchasing a rifle,
  clad myself in a coarse garb, and learned to be a hunter by
  the side of Leather-Stocking. You know the rest, Judge TEMPLE."

"Ant VERE vas olt Fritz HARTmann?" said the German, reproachfully;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer


subject: Re: Sept. 14: The Day of the Holy Nut

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Art Neuendorffer <[email]>

([email]) wrote:

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]

   But Art -- wouldn't the Day of the Wholly Nuts be your birthday,
which I presume must be April 1?

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]

   ...but you have elevated the pursuit to an eVERyday activity, Art.

[...]

   Eton =>

  N
E O
  T

   But Art -- the fourteenth letter of the alphabet (counting "I" and
"J" as the same letter) is "O"!

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]

   But Art "Saint Notburga" is an anagram of

               I, Art N. "a gob" -- nuts.

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]


subject: Re: Sept. 14: The Day of the Holy Nut

text:
------------------------------ï¿½------------------------------ï¿½--
Art Neuendorffer wrote:

Dwebb's *TUNG* wrote:

                I, Art N. "a gob" -- nuts.
--------------------------------------------------------------
    [ *TUNG* : heavy, onerous (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish) ]
--------------------------------------------------------------
                      *TUN(G)NUT*
..............................................................
   *TUNG* n : Chinese tree bearing seeds that yield *TUNG* oil

*TUNG* oil comes from the seeds of *Aleurites FORDii* , a deciduous
shade tree native to China. It belongs to the *EUPHORBIA* Family along
with the *CANDLEnut tree* (A. molucanna), another species with seeds
rich in unsaturated oils. For centuries tung oil has been used for
paints & waterproof coatings, and as a component of caulk & mortar.
  It is an ingredient in "India ink." Some woodworkers consider
   *TUNG* oil to be one of the best natural finishes for wood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<*EUPHORBIA* , n. (Bot.)*sPURGE* , or *bastard sPURGE* , a genus
  of plants of many species, mostly shrubby, herbaceous succulents,
  affording an acrid, milky juice. Some of them are armed with
  thorns. Most of them yield powerful emetic & cathartic products.>>

http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/eclectic/kings/euphorbia-coro.html

<<The scientific name *EUPHORBIA* is said to have been given to this
genus of plants by a celebrated African monarch, King Juba of
Mauritiana. This king was the son of the partisan Juba, of the wars
of *POMPEY* & Caesar. It is claimed that he was exceptionally learned
and had some knowledge of botany & medicine. Having found purging
properties in a plant growing in his dominion, he called the attention
of his renowned court physician, *EUPHORBUS* , to it & named it in
his honor?EUPHORBIA. The trivial name, sPURGE, seems to have arisen
from the reputed property given by King Juba, as it is but a
contraction of *esPURGE* , a French term meaning to *PURGE* >>
-----------------------------------------------------------
  _The Second Part of the Return from Parnassus_ (1601)

Kempe: Few of the university [men] pen plays well, they smell too
  much of that writer Ovid,and that writer Metamorphosis, and talk
  too much of Proserpina and Jupiter. Why, here's our fellow
  Shakespeare puts them all down, aye and Ben Jonson too. O that
  Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow, he brought up Horace giving
  the poets a pill, but our fellow Shakespeare hath given him
  a *PURGE* that made him bewray his credit.
------------------------------------------------------------------
       _Every Man in His Humour_ by Ben Jonson

H:  Aye Lorenzo, but election is now gouernd altogether
by the influence of humor, which insteed of those holy flames
that should direct and light the soule to eternitie, hurles foorth
nothing but smooke and congested vapours, that stifle her up,
and bereaue her of all sight and motion. But she must have store of
Ellebore, given her to *PURGE* these grosse obstructions: o that
is well sayd, give me thy torch, come lay this stuffe together. So,
give fire? there, see, see, how our Poets glory shines brighter,
and brighter, still, still it increaseth, o now it is at the highest,
and now it declines as fast: you may see gallants,
*SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI* . Well now my two Signior out sides,
     *STAND FOORTH*, and lend me your large eares,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
           Joel Roberts POINSETT (1779-1851)
    http://www.ecke.com/html/h_corp/corp_joelp.html

<<The son of a French physician, POINSETT was appointed as the first
United States Ambassador to Mexico (1825 - 1829) by President Madison.
While visiting the Taxco area in 1828, POINSETT became enchanted by
some brilliant red blooms. He sent some of the plants back to South
Carolina, where he began propagating the plants and sending them to
friends. Among the recipients of POINSETT's work was John BartRAM
of Philadelphia who in turn gave the plant over to Robert Buist who
sold the plant under its botanical name, *EUPHORBIA* PULcherrima but
become known by its more popular name of *POINSETTIA* around 1836.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________        *POINSETTIA CUN*
________        *ANNUIT COEPTIS* - *Virgil*
_____       "God has favored our undertakings"

CUN, CON, v. t. [AS. CUNnan to know, be able, &
(derived from this) CUNnian to try, test.] *To underSTAND*

   "Of muses, Hobbinol, I *CON* no skill." --Spenser.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
___________          *NOTBURGA*
___________          *BOAR TUNG*

  Tongue, n. [OE. *tunge, tonge* , AS. tunge; akin to OFries.
   tunge, D. tong, OS. tunga, G. zunge, OHG. zunga, Icel. &
Sw. tunga, Dan tunge, Goth. tugg[=o], OL. dingua, L. lingua.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
(May 1564) _Thabridgment of the histories of Trogus Pompeius,
collected and wrytten in the *LATEN TONGE* , by the famous
historiographer Iustine, and translated into English by Arthur
Goldyng: a worke conteynyng brieflie great plentie of moste
delectable hystories, and notable examples, worthie not onelie
to be read but also to be embraced and followed of all menne._

    Dedication to [14 year old] Edward deVere:

<<It is not unknown to others, and I have had experience thereof
  myself, how earnest a desire your honour hath NATURALLY graffed
  in you to read, peruse, and communicate with others as well the
histories of ancient times and things done long ago... and that not
without a certain PREGNANCY of WIT and ripeness of *underSTANDing* >>
----------------------------------------------------------------
         King Richard III  Act 3, Scene 2

*STANLEY* :  My lord, good morrow; good morrow, Catesby:
      You may *JEST* on, but, by the holy *ROOD*,
      I do not like these sEVERal councils, I.
------------------------------ï¿½--------------------------ï¿½--
_________  *TUNG* : vault (Scottish)
-------------------------------------------------------
           *STANLEY TONG* epitaph

   Ask *who lyes HEaRE* but do not weep
   He is not dead he doth but sleep
   This stoney register is for his *BONES*
   His *FAME* is more perpetual than these *STONES*
   And his own goodness with himself being gone
   Shall lyve when earthlie monument is none

   Not monumental stone preserve our *FAME*
  *Nor SKY aspyring PYRAMIDS our NAME*
   The *MEMORY of Him for whom this STANDS*
   Shall outlive marble and *deFACErs Hands*
   When all to tyme's consumption shall be geaven
  *STANDley for whom this STANDs shall STAND in Heaven*
----------------------------------------------------
             John Milton (Second Folio)

  What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd *BONES* ,--
     The LABOUR of an age in piled *STONES* ?
  Or that his hallow'd relics should be HID [HUT]
      *Under a STAR-y-pointing PYRAMID* ?
    Dear son of *MEMORY*, great HEIR of *FAME* ,
    What need'st thou such weak witness of thy *NAME* ?
------------------ï¿½------------------------------ï¿½-----
             *JOHN WE-EVER* (1599)
    Epigrammes in the Oldest Cut and Newest Fashion.

*HONIE-TONG'd Shakespeare* when I saw thine issue,
   I swore Apollo got them and none other,

They burn in love, THY CHILDREN Shakespear *HET* *THEm*
   Go, wo thy Muse, more *NYMPhish bROOD BEGET THEm*
------------------------------------------------------
   *HET* , v. t. & i. To *PROMISE* [Obs.] --Chaucer.

_________________    < 33 >
.
___     /T/  OT __  [H]  EONLIEBEGE TTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
__-    /O/  NN _   [E T]  SMRWHALLH APPINESSEANDTHATETE
__    /R/  NI___  [T(I)E] *PROMISED*BYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
_    /W/  IS___  [H E T H]  THEWELL WISHINGADVENTVRERIN
___________________________  SETTIN GFORTH-TT
---------------------------ï¿½------------------------------ï¿½------
   Book I THE ILIAD by Homer translated by Samuel Butler

"Then uprose *smooth-TONGued NESTOR* , the facile speaker of the
Pylians, and the words fell from *his lips sweeter than HONEY* "
------------------------------ï¿½-----------------------------------
"In judgement a *NESTOR* , in wit a *Socrates*, in art a *Virgil*
------------------------------ï¿½-----------------------------------
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/cï¿½omment2/ps1-18.htm

   To The Right Honorably And VERiE Good Lord,
       EDWARD DE VERE, ERLE OF OXINFORD,
  Lord Great Chamberlain Of England, Vicount Bulbecke, Etc.

  God hath by householde alyance lincked vnto your Lordship
  a long experienced *NESTOR* , whose counsaile and footsteps
    if you folowe, no doubte but you shalbee bothe happie
in your selfe, and singularly profitable to your common welth;

Your good Lordship's moste humlble to commaund, Arthur Golding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  Art Neuendorffer


author: Jim Austin

subject: Re: To murder is human, to execute divine

text:
David Friedman <[email]> wrote in message news:<ddfr-51F291
[email]>...

No. Those "other words" do not describe my statement.

But then, those "other words" were not intended to describe my
statement. They were intended to set up yet another one of Friedman's
staw men.

The dishonesty is entirely Friedman's.


text:
David Friedman wrote:

Just repeated my responses to each renewed questionable libertarian assertions.

Ideas have consequences.

Libertarian ideas have certain consequences. Those consequences
persist despite libertarian refusals to acknowledge them.

Thus I'm justified in disregarding libertarian denials.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


author: David Friedman

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Jim Austin <[email]> wrote:

In other words, you can know what the consequences are without having to
know what the ideas are, hence are free to make up assertions about what
position Charlotte is arguing for and then attack her for the
implications of your invented position.

More likely insane than dishonest.


author: Charlotte Corday

text:
David Friedman <[email]> wrote in message news:<ddfr-706DFA
[email]>...

Yes, David, without a doubt the fix is in. No matter what I say, the
opposite will be thrown back at me in what is steadily emerging as a
campaign of misdirection.


text:
David Friedman wrote:

Yes. Libertarians believes that assertions gain strength through repetition.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


text:
In article <[email]>,
 Jim Austin <[email]> wrote:

Which is why you keep repeating the assertion that we believe something
we have told you we do not believe? I didn't realize you had agreed that
you were a libertarian.

Could it be that you don't have arguments against our actual position,
so have to invent a position, repeatedly attribute it to us, ignore
repeated denials that it is our position, and then refute the position
you have invented?


text:
Jim writes, responding to Charlotte:

I admire Charlotte's patience. It is hard to see how someone can be both
sane and honest and yet keep repeating, over and over again, versions of
this assertion when Charlotte (and I and everyone else on her side of
the argument) has explicitly said that that is not our position.


author: Patrick Crosby

text:
David Friedman wrote:

Touchï¿½.  When one realizes that the entirety of  Objectivism is based upon, not
any sort of empirical science whatsoever, but upon a fictional tale, your p
oint is
all the more poignant.
m
m


author: Fred Weiss

text:
"David Friedman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
jurisdiction,
a

Are you putting Europe in the Middle Ages up as some kind of model of gov't?
As one that didn't have "final authorities" but "worked"?

If so, I'd be curious which aspect you are most interested in reviving: the
barons, the kings, or the church. Also let's not forget the serfs. It might
be a question of some importance since one wonders how quickly we'd devolve
back to the Middle Ages if your system were ever implimented which, as you
know, I'm convinced we would. I'm not entirely sure that's even a prospect
that troubles you.

Fred Weiss


text:
In article <atdr09$l55$[email]>,
 Fred Weiss <[email]> wrote:

Not at the moment. "Worked" is not such a simple question, since it is
hard, looking at a particular historical society, to separate out the
features that are due to the political institutions, the features that
are due to the beliefs of the populace--there is no necessary connection
among, say, feudalism, Catholicism, and Aristotelianism, although they
were all features of the (post Aquinas) Middle Ages--levels of
scientific knowledge, capital accumulation, and the like.

I had a more modest objective--to point out that you had made a factual
assertion, quoted above, that appeared to be false, as demonstrated by
that example.

And I gather that making confident assertions inconsistent with the
historical evidence is not a prospect that troubles you, since you
ignore the question completely in order to find an excuse to attack what
you think my political beliefs imply. As I have commented before, for
someone who believes his philosophy is founded on the facts of reality,
you seem curiously uninterested in what they are.


author: Charles Novins

text:
"Fred Weiss" <[email]> wrote in message
news:atao50$ej8$[email]...
We're discussing the application of deadly force and that is not - and
cannot be - subject to competition. Not at least within a specified legal
jurisdiction.

CHARLES NOVINS:
What is the necessary size, if any, of this specific legal jurisdiction?  Is
the jurisdiction "planet Earth" too large?  If not, are we living under
anarchy at this time?  Alternately, if a town or a single-family home is too
small a jurisdiction, why is this so?


text:
"Charles Novins" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Offhand, I don't think it matters much. Obviously we have very small to very
large countries now. They presumably have some historical basis, more or
less.

The more important issue is that I don't see anyway to get around the
necessity of geography being the primary determinant of legal jurisdiction,
i.e. that you have one gov't in one geographic area and that if you had
competing gov'ts in any area - without a final authority above them - it
would be a prescription for disaster, namely, constant warfare. And such a
scenario would quickly lead to one/some of them dominanting the others
anyway. Isn't that how nation/states in fact evolved?

Fred Weiss


text:
In article <atbv26$96s$[email]>,
 Fred Weiss <[email]> wrote:

What was the "final authority" in Europe in the Middle ages?

Most obviously, the church was not subject to the royal authority nor
the royal authority to the church. Each had authority over some set of
issues. There were occasional conflicts, but nothing like constant
warfare.

A little less obviously, the King typically had some but far from
unlimited authority in the territory of a particular baron. In terms of
political theory the king's rights (and the baron's) were limited. In
terms of political reality, the combined armies of the barons were much
larger than the army of the king, so the king, unless he was very good
at putting coalitions together, didn't have the power to make individual
barons do whatever he pleased.

There was sometimes violent conflict between king and baron or among the
barons--and there is sometimes violent conflict in our system of nation
states. But in most places there wasn't "constant warfare."


text:
In article <at91el$tkb$[email]>,
 Fred Weiss <[email]> wrote:

I think it quite likely that a system of private rights enforcement
agencies would use private courts that held public trials--except,
perhaps, when both parties preferred to keep the trial closed in order
to protect proprietary information, or for similar reasons.

If I were arguing with someone about whether the automobile industry
should be private or governmental, you would think it odd if he wrote:

"Maybe you need to remember yourself and remind your cohorts that cars
have to be built with wheels, and windshields you can see out of,  when
you and they advocate taking production of cars into your own hands - or
when some "private car producing company" does in your name."


text:
In article <at914p$3si$[email]>,
 Fred Weiss <[email]> wrote:

On a slight tangent ... . I was thinking about the various accounts of
the Hatfield and McCoy conflict, and trying to figure out what was
really going on.

What is striking about the story is not the conflict between the
Hatfields and the McCoys but between the states of Kentucky, where the
McCoys lived, and West Virginia, where the Hatfields lived. It ended up
as a Supreme Court case, with the state of West Virginia accusing the
state of Kentucky of sending armed men into its territory, kidnapping
its citizens, and carrying them back to be tried in a Kentucky court.

Suppose we assume that for some reason, possibly local politics, the
government of Kentucky generally supported the McCoys and the government
of West Virginia the Hatfields, as they did in the Supreme Court case.
We then have an explanation for the first part of the feud.

Three McCoys get in a fight with a Hatfield and shoot him--in Kentucky.
The three are then arrested--presumably by Kentucky law enforcement of
some sorts. A bunch of Hatfields take the three away from the people who
have arrested them, take them back to West Virginia, wait until the
Hatfield who was shot dies, and then execute them--on the Kentucky side
of the border, apparently.

West Virginia fails to arrest the Hatfields responsible for this killing
and extradite them to Kentucky. About five years later the governor of
Kentucky intervenes and ends up sending armed men into West Virginia.

A lot of the details of what happened are unclear, and vary from one
account to another. But an obvious interpretation of the first stage was
that the Hatfields believed, perhaps correctly, that McCoys that killed
a Hatfield would be favored by a Kentucky court--either not charged,
acquitted, or let off with light sentences. That's consistent with the
pattern of biases by both state governments thereafter. And it brings us
back to the story that Fred refers to at the beginning of this.


text:
"David Friedman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

As I've pointed out before this would only be the case if there were some
mechanism in place to grant them the authority to do so, in which case you
don't have anarchism, you have gov't. In order for any court to exist which
anyone respects it must have *final* authority or be within some system
(allowing for appeals) which leads to final authority. Either you have final
authority or you don't. If you don't, you're system completely breaks down
the first time anyone refuses to acknowledge it. If you do, you don't have
your system. You have mine.

We're not discussing trade in goods and services where "the best man wins".
We're discussing the application of deadly force and that is not - and
cannot be - subject to competition. Not at least within a specified legal
jurisdiction. It can't in its very nature. Not if you want civilization. You
couldn't have two competing US gov'ts with two separate and distinct Supreme
Courts and two competing legislatures and two competing armies - let along
dozens of them, none of them with final authority.

That is a prescription for anarchy. And surely you don't want anarchy, do
you?

Fred Weiss


text:
Jason Hoetger <[email]> wrote in message news:<at6563$i1e$1@new
sreader.mailgate.org>...

But if assassinations are not to be subject to an independent review
after the fact (much less public trials or rights for the accused),
how can we say that there are any safeguards at all in place?

Well, since the President and his appointed agents in the CIA are
simultaneously serving as judge (who decides the rules of determining
guilt), prosecutor (who makes the case against the accused) and jury
(who ultimately renders a verdict), then we have nothing more than a
kangaroo court.


author: Jason Hoetger

text:
"David Friedman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

As I stated earlier in the thread, we do know what they're doing. We just
don't know it before it happens, nor can we, because that would jeopardize
the mission. We know, for instance, about the Yemen strike you mention
below.

One American citizen was killed. He wasn't the target, I don't believe, but
he was hanging around the target.

Read the AP article about it. It states that the US won't kill anyone unless
all methods of capturing him have failed. It specifically mentions local law
enforcement as one of those methods. If Yemen is unable to capture somebody
when the US can tell them exactly where they are, what they're doing, &c.,
it means that the Yemeni government has failed to provide the services
required of a monopoly government. Yemen is unable, at least in some parts
of its territory, to provide law and order.

Jason Hoetger


text:
"Charlotte Corday" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<at4hqg$v8b$1@slb
individual
assassinate
matter.

This is the story "..about a black man named Carl who takes the law into his
own hands when he shoots and kills two young white boys who brutally raped
and beat his 10-year-old daughter." It is further a small town in rural
Mississippi where Carl has good reason to suspect he cannot get justice. He
also kills the men in full open view - in the courtroom itself and where he
knows he will immediately be subject to arrest and stands trial. To
underscore the context the D.A. is a politically ambitious prosecutor hoping
to use this case to promote his run for governor and the KKK comes to town
to visibly intimidate the townspeople and influence the outcome of the case.

Incidentally, this is a part of the country where for a very long time a
black man could be lynched for merely looking at a white woman the wrong
way.

Fred Weiss


text:
"David Friedman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Maybe you need to remember that yourself and remind your cohorts of "all the
rest of that stuff" (I assume you are referring to due process) when you and
they advocate taking the law into your own hands - or when some "private
agency" does in your name.

Fred Weiss


text:
"David Friedman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
in
they

Nationality doesn't matter. If you take up arms against the United States,
expect the United States to come after you. When a man is pointing a gun at
you (or in this case strapping a belt of explosives around his waist), it
doesn't matter if he's from Bosnia, Burma, or Burbank. Once you join the
enemy, you forfeit any rights you had as an American. You become an enemy
soldier.

(Actually, I think there probably were a small number of Americans who
joined enemy armed forces in WWII, and maybe even fought directly against US
armed forces.)

world
have

In which case I would advocate trial by military tribunal.

You could say that there's nothing to limit a judge and jury from executing
innocent people simply because they hate them, or to limit the President
from declaring martial law in Louisiana and suspending all civil liberties.
Except there is. The laws of the nation, allegiance to the constitution, the
oversight of congress, the cabinet, the judiciary, and ultimately the
American people every 2, 4, & 6 years.

Also, I'd like to remind you that the ability to kill American citizen
terrorists only extends to areas of the world where there is no law and
order save that of al-Qaeda. Otherwise, there's no need to kill them, since
they can be just as easily captured by local law enforcement and handed over
to US authorities for interrogation.

Jason Hoetger


text:
In article <at7lph$hfd$[email]>,
 Jason Hoetger <[email]> wrote:

But part of the point of requiring public trials, juries, and all the
rest of that stuff is to try to make sure that if rights are being
blatantly violated, the public has a reasonable chance of knowing about
it. That doesn't appear to apply here. It's hard to vote someone out for
doing something you didn't know he did.

Unless I am mistaken, the one case of an assassination by the U.S.
government that we know of (not of an American citizen) occurred in
Yemen, which is not a place where there is "no law and arder save that
of al-Qaeda." Indeed, I'm not sure there is any part of the world, or at
least anything larger than a building or group of buildings, to which
your description applies. Al-Qaeda is not a national government, and the
nearest thing to a national government that was willing to openly
support them was the Taliban, which no longer controls much territory.


text:
Fred Weiss <[email]> wrote in message news:<at4hqg$v8b$1@slb
1.atl.mindspring.net>...

The film I would present in evidence for my case is A Time to Kill,
based on the novel by John Grisham.
.
.
.
.
.
.


text:
In article <at6563$i1e$[email]>,
 Jason Hoetger <[email]> wrote:

Who gets to decide whether the American citizen who was killed without a
trial, without any opportunity to confront his accusers or defend
himself, was guilty or not. Do I have it right? Weren't you the one
talking about public trials and the rights of the accused?

Hence American citizens accused of being enemy soldiers have no right to
a trial to determine whether or not it is true. Have I got it right?

But the decisions is made maybe even by the President himself, so
there's nothing to worry about.

A certain through the looking glass style to your position.


text:
"David Friedman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Yes. Similarly, when Americans were in the trenches in France in WWI and in
the Phillipines, N. Africa, Italy, etc. in WWII, the Japanese and Nazi
soldiers didn't get an opportunity to "confront his accusers" before they
were killed.

In the context of law enforcement, yes.

Yes. American soldiers roaming around al-Qaeda-controlled parts of the world
and who have demonstrated clearly that they are part of al-Qaeda do not have
a right to a trial.

Yes, just like the decision to drop the atomic bombs, bomb Germany to hell,
and countless other major decisions in a war. You're 4 for 4 today,
Friedman.

Jason Hoetger


text:
In article <at6chi$jmn$[email]>,
 Jason Hoetger <[email]> wrote:

Japanese soldiers were not American citizens, however.

You mean, American citizens who the president decides are enemy soldiers
have no right to a trial. It is, on your account, the president or some
other high official who decides whether these particular citizens are
enemy soldiers. They could, after all, be being enemy soldiers in
Philadelphia as well as in Afghanistan. There doesn't seem, in your
account, to be any mechanism forcing the president or CIA or whoever to
actually limit their killing to people who really are enemy soldiers.


text:
Jason Hoetger <[email]> wrote in message news:<asr4jp$bj5$1@new
sreader.mailgate.org>...

I know that in your previous post, Jason, you must have brought up
public trials, the rights of the accused and appeals for some reason.
Perhaps it was to remind us that what we have is actually a two-tiered
system of Constitutional rights. If the government decides you deserve
it, you get a public trial, rights of the accused, appeals, etc. If
the government decides you don't deserve this treatment, you either
get interrogated in a holding cell (probably in a country without
"civilized" prohibitions on torture), or if they can't get you
cornered there, you qualify to enter the next round of assassination
targets. You bring up the subject of battlefields, Jason, but I'm not
aware that the CIA usually performs its work on battlefields. If it's
combatants in war and battlefields that we are speaking of, would it
be correct to say that the 405,399 U.S. servicemen killed in World War
II were "assassinated" by the Germans, Italians and Japanese?

I have no idea whether it's whim or not.  Is there an appeals process
to make sure that the Assistant Director for Assassinations, Southern
European Desk, thinks long and hard instead of just long before he
waves his hand?  And what happens to the assassinations bureaucrat if
the wrong fellow's car is bombed?  Does he get the same treatment as
the FBI chiefs who okayed the assassination at Ruby Ridge, i.e.
nothing?

A calculated military strike against people who have taken up arms
against the U.S.  Sounds a lot like Waco.

I suppose this means the North Koreans are better off than the
Yemenis?

There was a big credit card fraud ring that was recently broken up in
my state.  As far as I can tell the credit thieves were not relying on
government police forces to protect their operatives and information.
Does this make the fraud ring a "competing protection agency"?

I guess that proves that they're really not a "competing protection
agency" after all.

I suppose that if you think that there's a Saudi Arabian terrorist
operation in Damascus, the more Americans of Arabic descent that you
assassinate in Damascus, the less likely the terrorist operation will
survive.  Ergo, kill all Arab-Americans in Damascus.

I was wondering the same about Larry the Public Utilities
Commissioner, Jason.

Apparently, the CIA's assassination authority is newly minted. We
shall have to wait to see how widespread it becomes.

I'm sure that if my post had contained any "eggagerations,
misrepresentations, evasions, and flat-out lies" (not to mention
misspellings), you would have been kind enough to point them out.

We're left with a government agency that has life or death powers over
U.S. citizens and is answerable only to itself.


text:
Fred Weiss <[email]> wrote in message news:<asqpfp$b40$1@slb
0.atl.mindspring.net>...

Too bad Galt smoked one too many unfiltered Dollar Sign-brand
cigarettes.  If he were alive today, he'd take one look at the current
scene, say this "limited government" is toast, and call for unplugging
"the motor of the world."


text:
Mike <[email]> wrote in message news:<11d36492.0212060354.381a
[email]>...

Constitutionally, there is no basis for the government having the
power to issue death warrants on its own citizens. Ethically, however,
I do not oppose assassination in all circumstances.  But, inasmuch as
there can never be a government right which is not also an individual
right, I would argue that if a CIA agent has the right to assassinate
a bad guy, I must possess that same right.


text:
Patrick Crosby <[email]> wrote in message news:<3DF164FA.1FF8598D@
ieee.org>...

I don't see much to disagree with here.

I don't disgree here either except to note that the idea of justice is
not to impose the same punishment on all offenders (punishing only
some pot smokers, for example, would violate fewer rights than
punishing all of them), but to make the punishment fit the crime.  If
the punishment does in fact fit the crime, it does not matter who
carries it out.  Justice is done, period.

I am not opposed to bribery if that is the only available way to
prevent an injustice by the government.

Here we agree. Unless there is a means of public review of CIA-ordered
assassinations, it can't help but become the worst kind of government
of men.

. .
.
.
.
.
.


text:
"Charlotte Corday" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I dunno, sounds like just the kind of justice an anarchist should relish. I
haven't noticed any of you demonstrating any particular interest in "public
trial, rights of the accused, appeals, etc". I seem to remember someone in
particular vociferously maintaining their "right" to recover stolen jewelry
without bothering about the niceties of legal procedure.

You're curiously very concerned about the CIA allegedly dispensing with the
niceties of objective law in dealing with murderous foreign agents with the
mission of destroying the US, but not your run-of-the-mill vigilante over
even a mundane matter like stolen jewelry.

And surely we don't want any private citizen denied the right to do just
that, do we?

I think it's sufficient to point out your blatant inconsistency.

Isn't that the power each of us has in the anarchist world where each of us
retains our "right of retaliation"?

Fred Weiss


text:
"Charlotte Corday" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Just in case there was any doubt precisely where she stood on this matter.

Fred Weiss


text:
"Charlotte Corday" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

It wasn't to defend the imagined "rights" of enemy soldiers.

Nope. Try again, maybe?

More lies. How much time do you spend making this stuff up?

They were killed in action, just like every Nazi, Italian, Japanese, and
al-Qaeda soldier. I don't see where you're going with this, other than
shooting yourself in the foot.

Another gross misrepresentation. The article lists times when so-called
"assassination" is acceptable, and I've repeated them here for your benefit.
If you choose not to read them or not to understand, don't expect me to
argue about it with you.

What happens when you're firebombing Dresden and you kill 120,000 civilians?
It's unfortunate, and should be avoided whenever possible, but that's war.
These people are in a war zone surrounded by enemy soldiers in a war we
didn't start. We have to defend ourselves.

Again, this is a totally different context. Ruby Ridge was not filled to the
brim with people who had sworn to die fighting the Great Satan. I don't know
enough about Ruby Ridge to comment on the specifics, but I do know that it
relates to civilians not in a war zone, where constitutional protections
should be followed. You may have a point about too broad of powers given to
FBI snipers in certain, limited circumstances; as I said, I don't know the
specifics. But at this point I have a hard time believing anything you say.

No, it doesn't. Fighting a war only sounds like law enforcement to people
who are incapable of or unwilling to understand the difference. Did the
people at Waco take up arms against the US? Were they working for an
organization that has declared itself to be at war with the US and which
will strike at US civilians whenever it can? Have the Branch Dividians made
it impossible for local law enforcement to operate in Waco? Again, I don't
know the specifics, but I somehow doubt it.

Striking military targets hostile to the US, something which apparently you
oppose, is necessary to protect American lives (something you therefore
oppose by implication).

of

Maybe, maybe not. What's the point?

No. The fraud ring was operating within the jurisdiction of your state.
Additionally, the fraud ring had not publicly declared itself to be at war
with the US, training people as we speak to blow up Americans.

groups

I guess not. They're a monopoly protection agency and they only protect
those people assosiated with themselves, leaving the others to fend for
themselves (or more likely, be destroyed by al-Qaeda operatives).

What are you talking about?

Larry was arguing against your nonsensical assertion that the US is some
sort of police state where bureaucrats are allowed to kill civilians at
will. So would you like to step back into context and answer my question
now?

whether
whim.

I hope it becomes more widespread so that al-Qaeda terrorists thinking about
taking up arms against the US will think twice before they join.

Yep, I was.

Only in your mind, Charlotte.

You're unwilling to admit that the US is at war with al-Qaeda. The reason
you're unable to admit it is because then it would destroy your false
equivalence of domestic law enforcement actions and the killing of these
al-Qaeda operatives. Have you been hiding under a rock for the last 2 years?
Al-Qaeda is sworn to destroy Americans. They have proclaimed that they are
at war with the US. They have a network of terrorist training camps with
which to arm their supports. They have declared all American targets,
military or civilian, "open season" for destruction. And you claim we're not
at war? Perhaps we should wait until a few more towers are in dust heaps and
a few hundred thousand Americans are dead and then send in Sheriff Jones to
investigate.

I, unlike you, support the defense of America and do not want to see it or
its people destroyed by masses of religious fanatics you so ardently defend.

Jason Hoetger


text:
"Fred Weiss" <[email]> wrote in message
news:at3aro$9k5$[email]...

Incidentally, if anyone wants to see the principle here very well
concretized, I recommend the Clint Eastwood movie, Magnum Force.

Fred Weiss


author: Bert Hyman

text:
[email] (Charlotte Corday) wrote in
news:[email]:

You seemed to have stopped reading my post before you got to the last
phrase, so here it is again for your consideration:

"... with a rational body of laws."

Try again.


text:
"Charlotte Corday" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

If you had done such a good job reading Galt's "sermon", maybe you could
answer that question yourself.

Fred Weiss


text:
"Charlotte Corday" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<asnu7q$ok6$[email]>...
i.e.
foreign
a

These people are *combatants* in a *war* on terror.  Established civilian
laws do not apply to these people, just as they didn't apply to Americans
who may have joined the Nazi soldiers in WWII. The goal is to capture them
and have the CIA question them, if possible--/that/ is the purpose of local
law enforcement, in this case--not to try them. If not possible, they need
to be killed *before they gun down Americans*. Or do you suggest that, in
WWII, we should've established a few extra circuit courts in N. Africa,
Europe, and the Pacific and issued summons, warrants, and subpoenas for each
Japanese and Nazi foot soldier? Engage them on the battlefield? No way, we
can't violate their imagined "rights", which in Charlotte Corday's mind
includes the "right" to kill innocent Americans when it suits their fancy.

In any case, you've conceded the point that this hardly constitutes
bureaucratic whim and assassination with impunity. So what's your problem
here? Calculated, military strikes against people who have taken up arms
with an enemy army currently at war with the US? Oh, the horror...

help
properly,

Yep, the US and NK both have functioning monopoly governments, capable of
extending their laws--be they rational or otherwise--over their entire
territory. Countries like Yemen do not have this power.

the
open
anarchists

I'm sure I could find some link that mentions an al-Qaeda bodyguard or
something similar. It's obvious to any rational person that they're
certainly not relying on government police forces to protect their
operatives and information. Yet, there's a remarkable lack of competition.
For some reason, they don't want Christian, Jewish, atheist, or other groups
in there protecting those citizens' rights. Who would've thought?

that
gunning

Yep, if there's no value to be gained from them through interrogation,
definitely they need to be killed as soon as possible, hopefully before they
blow up a few dozen or a few thousand American civilians. What would you
have us do? Let them roam freely, plotting their schemes and swatting
innocent Americans down like flies? I wouldn't at all be surprised.

Larry the
me
not

And what does Waco have to do with killing enemy combatants overseas? Aside
from that, one specific law enforcement action that turned violent, whether
justified or not, hardly amounts to widespread authority to execute at whim.

So what's your point after all this? After we sort through the
eggagerations, misrepresentations, evasions, and flat-out lies of your
original post, we're left with: armed government agents can kill enemy
soldiers. So what?

Jason Hoetger


text:
Bert Hyman <[email]> wrote in message news:<Xns92DB5C870534AVeebleFet
[email]>...

By "review" do you mean that the State may throw you in prison or
execute you if it determines that your actions were not "reasonable"?
And who, may I ask, has review power over the State when it uses force
to assassinate people by decree?


text:
In news:[email] Charlotte Corday
<[email]> wrote:

Your connection must have dropped before you got to the last line of my
original post, so here it is again for your consideration:

"This presumes a functioning legal system with a rational body of
laws."

Try again.


text:
In article <[email]>,
 Charlotte Corday <[email]> wrote:

I think in principle the answer is that anyone can "review" anyone's
actions. Each of us is responsible for acting justly. If it is clear to
me that the state has committed a crime, I have the right to act against
it--although doing so is rarely prudent. If it is clear to agents of the
state that I have committed a crime, they have the right to ...  . In
both cases, of course, this presumes that what is clear is also true.


author: Mike

text:
Is your problem with assassination in general or with the
assassination of US citizens in particular?


text:
Bert Hyman <[email]> wrote in message news:<Xns92DBBDE2CACA1VeebleFet
zer@209.98.13.60>...

I see. The "functioning legal system" that orders someone's
assassination is the very legal system that decides whether or not
that order was rational.


text:
[email] (Charlotte Corday) wrote in
news:[email]:

I wasn't a party to the discussion that produced this statement, but
seeing it just now, with no context, I make a (relatively) benign
interpretation, with little mental gymnastics:

If I use force (including lethal force) in self-defense, I should
expect somebody, probably The State, to review my actions to
determine if I acted "reasonably", but only after the fact.

This presumes a functioning legal system with a rational body of
laws.


author: dave odden

text:
Charlotte Corday wrote:

Maybe nothing. I think the point is that the individual, even if employed by
the state, does not and cannot individually make the decision based on whim.
The decision is made strictly in accordance to objectively stated
principles, which are established collectively by the government. Given a
proper Objectivist government, a judge might improperly render a wrong
decision (because of his prejudices) but because the laws are objective,
they will require a review of the decision by others who, presumably, do not
share the prejudice of the offending judge. Then the appeals court would be
required by objective law to void the lower judges decision -- they have no
choice in the matter. Furthermore, if those judges fail in their appelate
responsibilities, there must be a means of appealing that decision.

At the end of the food chain, if indeed the entire government is so corrupt
that they are blatantly ignoring the objectively stated law, then you do not
indeed have a properly functioning government, you have an immoral
dictatorship. Recall that any foreign government which is more moral has the
right to invade and oust the dictatorship (or, the citizens can declare
their independence). Canada would thus have the moral right to invade the US
in order to eliminate those people who give and use state sanction for
murdering our own citizens.

But you're right, there is a huge element of mysticism in the belief that
government make decisions (and not individuals). There is a horrific
tendency even among Objectivists to forget that a government should not be
composed of people, it should be composed of laws. Only a mind can interpret
what a particular law actually means, but if a law is properly written,
anyone can interpret it and know what it says. Which, alas, is pretty much
never the case anymore, anti-trust laws being perhaps the worst laws in
terms of objective interpretability.


text:
"Charlotte Corday" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Apparently, in addition to skipping Galt's Speech, you've also never
bothered to read the details of or understand the principles underlying The
US Constitution which in major part, e.g. the Bill of Rights, the separation
of powers, etc. is directed at the very issue you raise. The Founders didn't
do a bad job of it either since, while some of our freedoms have certainly
eroded, we are still a predominantly free country - certainly free enough
for you to constantly whine about it without fear of political
repercussions.

Fred Weiss


author: Don Watkins III

text:
Fred Weiss writes:

But the argument you (and I) give for against viginlantism is, retaliation
shouldn't be left up to individuals but impartial third parties with predefined
rules, standards of evidence, and punishments because these third parties are
more likely to retaliate justly.

David believes private institutions are more likely to result in just
retaliation and protection, indicating he is much more on our side than those
who argue for vigilantism.

Sure, he doesn't argue people don't have the_right_to retain their right to
retaliate, but that's because he doesn't argue about rights!  Still, his
argument implies that people will tend to delegate that right, if only out of
prudence.

You may not like his argument nor his conclusions -- I'm not saying you should.
 But it still stands, that while arguing against vigilantism is important in
order to discredit "moral anarchists" like Roy Childs and George Smith, David's
theory isn't affected by it.

Don Watkins
http://www.don-watkins.com


text:
Fred Weiss writes:

Why the scare quotes?  Don't you believe we have a right to retaliate?  And if
not, from whence did government get this right?

Don Watkins

http://www.don-watkins.com


text:
"Don Watkins III" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Yes, really. As a general principle, vigilantism is immoral. You might as
well throw out the legal system entirely if people can ignore it and mete
out what they consider justice on their own, i.e. take the law into their
own hands. It's "lynch mob 'justice'".

There may at times in particular circumstances be mitigating factors and one
might be sympathetic toward some instances, but those are not what are at
issue here. It is clear from the full context that this position is not
being taken in respect of these rare exceptions but as a general assault on
the rule of law.

Fred Weiss


text:
Charlotte Corday writes:

Fred Weiss writes:

Not really -- it doesn't say government doesn't have the right to decide
whether or not the force was appropriate after the fact and punish the person
if it wasn't.  In fact, it doesn't really even say individuals had the right to
retaliate -- all it says is that the morality or immorality of the use of force
is to be evaluated according to whether it was proportionate retaliation rather
than who did the retaliating.

That may be wrong, but it's hardly a blank check for vigilantism.

BTW, Fred, I finally saw your last post to me in the Asymmetry -- it was a good
post and it may take me a day or two to respond, but keep an eye out.

Don Watkins
http://www.don-watkins.com


author: Cliff

subject: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
Can anyone tell me that what are the advantages Marx's Communism
Theory. I am lost while reading his article


author: the flies

subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
The advantage is that people are able to divide their days between
toil and work.  Toil is cleaning toilets and doing things that just
gotta be done, work is when you actually care about what you're doing,
like maybe you're an architect or whatever.  The advantage is that ppl
regulate themselves.

In marx's theory, there are more or less two stages: stage one he
called socialism, where industry is state-owned, and the proletariat
runs the state.  Stage two he called communism, and everybody holds
hands and acts friendly toward one another, there's no government b/c
ppl think of their commun_ities before themselves.

Rather naive, but the theory isn't the hell-hole that its execution
seems to inevitably become.  Problematic theory? yes.  Advantages:
from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Disadvantages: need some sort of (objective) government to decide who
needs what and how able you are.

You will note that even ppl trying to be objectively helpful (the
party) will always ending up benefitting themselves and becoming an
oligarchy.  This is because objectivity is a false concept put forward
by self-serving power-hungry oligarchs (and ppl who would become
such).

the flies


author: robert j. kolker

subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
the flies wrote:

You are naive. The Proles never ran the State. It was always the
aprachiks. No matter what form of government you have the aparachiks
will infest it.

People decide what they need and how able they are. That is why there is
a -market- for labor. When one is able to work, one can either sell his
services or gather capital to start his own business. We don't need no
steeeenking government to tell us how hard we should be working.

Ah! The aparachiks. They are always there like the cockroaches.

No society is perfect and no government is perfect but the least worst
situation is a mini-state that works to protect a market system for
services and goods. That is as good as it is going to get.

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
Mikey wrote:

What -did- he produce and what -did- he believe?

Bob Kolker


author: PG

subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
Engles was loaning him some capital.  Marx aslo did later in life make
some sound investments on the stockmarket.

I guess deep down he really did like capatalism just not for everyone
else.  Somewhat like JMK.

Jerry Story wrote:


subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
Ken Gardner wrote:
Strange. That is what capitalists do also. Any time you can get a
machine that doesn't get tired, doesn't get sick and doesn't join labor
uniions to produce as well or better than a man, then fire the man and
hire the machine.

Listen to the -Ballad of John Henry- some time.

"Well, de Cap'n he say to John Henry,
I'm gonna bring ma a steam drill on the job
I'm gonna lay dat steel on down, lawd, lawd,
lay dat steel on down.

And John Henry he say to the Cap'n
Well a man ain't nothing but a man
Before I let a steam drill beat me down,
I go an' die wid dis hammer in my hand, lawd, lawd
Die wid dis hammer in my hand"

And so John Henry did.

Bob Kolker


author: Ken Gardner

subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
robert j. kolker wrote:

Maybe, but the modern Marxists see science and technology as tools of
oppression, e.g. as ways to replace less productive workers with more
productive machines.

Incidentally, I should have included opposition to "outsourcing" and
opposition to free trade to my list above.

Ken


author: Mikey

subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
Karl Marx didn't produce a theory of communism.  Believe it or not, he
didn't produce a theory of class either.  He found it too difficult.
Furthermore, he was not an atheist.

Mik

"Cliff" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Jerry Story

subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
Cliff wrote:

Karl Marx would have done better if he had followed his wife's advice,
instead of writing about capital to make some.


author: Agent Cooper

subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
Atlas Bugged <[email]> wrote in message news:<0I-dnZsHxsGPizn
[email]>...

LOL! But seriously, folks. Having studied this subject a bit, I can
honestly say that it's a mixed bag. On the one hand, Marx's account of
man's essential nature being productive activity (in the 1844
manuscripts) seems just right, and terribly reminiscent of a certain
Russian woman's similar views. On the other hand, his critique of
capitalism, resting as it does on a production factor theory of
pricing, looks like a brilliant mistake. His proposal to nationalize
heavy industry and regulate it by democratic government has been tried
in the west, and has proven to be something of a failure. The idea was
broached in the east, but it was thought that it might be better to
skip the democratic government part. Thus instead of the glories of
Amtrak, we get the glories of the Stasi.

I never quite understood how the idea that heavy industry should be
nationalized so that labor could set its own wages turned into the
idea that peasants with pitchforks should wave red banners and kill
everything in sight. It may have something to do with Marx's one real
genius, which was for a meaner-than-catshit prose style. But I do tend
to place most of the blame for this

http://tinyurl.com/4d6kb

and this

http://tinyurl.com/5ecwn

on this

http://tinyurl.com/5r589


subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
Atlas Bugged <[email]> wrote in message news:<0I-dnZsHxsGPizn
[email]>...

Funny. :-)

Even Jerry (amazingly not obsessing about health for one second) came
up with a chuckle.

Fred Weiss


author: Chris Cathcart

subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
"Jerry Story" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Why bother to do that when Engels can do it for him.

Marx was a lousy bum, a fucking loser.  I'd have pissed on his rug.


subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
Cliff wrote:

None, although one must understand Marx in order to understand the
modern political left.  Marx and his ideas are the driving force
behind such leftist icons as coercive wealth redistribution, class
envy, class struggle, moral relativism/subjectivism, the tendency to
see the world purely in economic terms, the distrust of science and
technology, antiglobalization, the notion of historical necessity, and
the conspiracy theory mode of thinking.  Also, modern liberalism has
embraced virtually every one of the planks listed in The Communist
Manifesto.

Ken


subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

text:
Ken Gardner wrote:

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx hugged science and technology so hard
that they yelled. Engles was very big on science and technology. What
Marx and Engles did not understand is what motivates people to produce
and what motivates people to want more than they earn.

Bob Kolker


author: Atlas Bugged

subject: Re: Karl Marx's Theory

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

There are several.  There is population control.  Also, obesity seems to
disappear, along with some members of your family.  Life is easier, because
the hardest thing - thinking - is largely out of the question.  But my
favorite aspect is the sexual angle - I have been told that under Marxism,
everyone gets fucked all the time.


author: DaiKiwi

subject: Re: Latin for a 12 year old

text:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:14:32 +0100, "paul stanbrook"
<[email]> wrote:

Not a starter or textbook, but I recall that some of the 'Asterix' stories
were translated into Latin. You might check with a good bookshop, or Hodder
& Stoughton, and see if they're still available. Should keep a 12 year
old's attention.

Dave
Return address spamblocked - Change NZ to uk to reply


author: Matthew Montchalin

subject: Re: Latin for a 12 year old

text:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, DaiKiwi wrote:
|Not a starter or textbook, but I recall that some of the 'Asterix'
|stories were translated into Latin. You might check with a good
|bookshop, or Hodder & Stoughton, and see if they're still available.

They sure are expensive over in the Pacific Northwest though.

|Should keep a 12 year old's attention.

Very good series, right there.  But the student would do best to complete
his first year of Latin before being exposed to that kind of a pleasure.

:)


author: Ian Kinloch

subject: Re: Latin for a 12 year old

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] (DaiKiwi) wrote:

And Pooh and Paddington bears - but they are far from beginners' standard.

Ian


author: M. J. Zaragumma

subject: typing long s in word

text:
could anybody please tell me how to type the long s in microsoft word
document?
many thanks.


author: bookburn

subject: Re: typing long s in word

text:
"M. J. Zaragumma" <[email]> wrote in message
news:414e0da4$0$42250$[email]...
| could anybody please tell me how to type the long s in microsoft
word
| document?
| many thanks.

You can go to programs/accessories/system tools/character maps.  Then
you select any of the type fonts and any of the characters to copy.
bb


author: Peter Farey

subject: Re: typing long s in word

text:
M. J. Zaragumma wrote:

Insert
Symbol
Font: (normal text)
Subset: Latin Extended-A

It's the first character in that subset -
 ?

Peter F.
[email]
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm


author: Neil Brennen

subject: Shakespeare Trust invades Baltimore...

text:
Commander Reedy,

Mission accomplished. We re-established connection with Agent Ross, and
brainwashed the Kositsky woman. When we left she was babbling of Minerva
Britannia. We attempted to turn Dr. Stritmatter, but failed - we got bogged
down in a debate oVER Leslie Howard instead. HoweVER, we did get his "Oxford
is Shakespeare" bumper sticker removed from his car.

All in all, it was a successful mission for the Trust. Please make check
payable to "Neil R. Brennen".

Agent Brennen


author: Lynne

subject: Re: Shakespeare Trust invades Baltimore...

text:
"Neil Brennen" <[email]> wrote in message news:<yS4ic.7225$[email]>...

Although Agent Brennen managed to reconnoitre the land (several times)
and meet up with Superior Officer Terry Ross, whose code word,
apparently, was Mar-Vell, Stritmatter and Kositsky, those two intrepid
Oxfordian spies, managed to evade Brennen at the last, leaving him
stranded in Mount Washington after Mickey Finning his drink at supper,
which, not to be too indelicate, was a load of crepe.

Hata Mari of the MIA (Mouse Intelligence Agency)

P.S. It's BRITANNA, Brennen, not Britannia. No wonder you couldn't
close the deal.


author: Tom Reedy

text:
"Neil Brennen" <[email]> wrote in message
news:yS4ic.7225$[email]...
bogged

Fool! You actually tried to go head-to-head with the Mastermind who
possesses the sensitive soul and the correct Oxfordian mindset necessary to
appreciate the Greatest Author in History, Ever? Count yourself lucky you
weren't converted yourself! If Kaplan had been there, you would have had no
chance at all!

Obviously he was toying with you by successfully diverting the conversation
to the "complex, multi-talented genius" that Howard was, "one of the two
leading Shakespearean actors of his day," one of the "prominent
intellectuals of his century" (all descriptions of Howard by Puppetmaster
Stritmatter).

I see that although you were in his home territory, you were unable to stop
the activities of the greatest threat to the Established Order (EA), Art
Neuendorffer, so any reimbursements of expenses are problematic at this
point.

I've been out of town for the past couple of days and so didn't receive
advance
authorization to release Trust funds. In order to expedite the transfer,
please send a small, one-time authorization fee in the amount of $2,500 via
money order made out to my name. No orders drawn on Congolese banks will be
accepted.

Major Tom
Ground Control


text:
"Lynne" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<yS4ic.7225$[email]>...
bogged
"Oxford

Yes, this actually happened. I was being charitable and assumed it was not
done deliberately. It's too much like the sort of adventures Sam Sloan has
at his website - minus the chess and underage Asian girls.

I also met the famous Terry Ross, a man who appears to know everything about
everything - a sort of John Kennedy squared. We had a meeting of minds, and
yes, Terry did have to stoop very low....


author: Ken Kaplan

text:
I am truly honored that I received mention in your post. Wow. Minor celebrity.
But Kaplan will be in Baltimore in October.

Ken

"Tom  Reedy" <[email]> wrote in message news:<N8bic.8665$[email]>...


text:
"Tom  Reedy" <[email]> wrote in message news:<N8bic.8665$[email]>...

The Folger's wasn't aware we were spies and we gained access this
afternoon, tellingly enough on the birthday (maybe) of Shakespeare of
Stratford.

I can now say (and this is an absolute thrill) that I've held in my
hand, or at least touched

A first folio
The Edward de Vere Geneva Bible
The Bishops Bible of Elizabeth I--very big, for a pulpit, I believe
Emilia Bassano Lanyer's first edition of her book of poetry, _Salve
Deus Rex Judaeorum_

Sigh.
Mouse


text:
"Tom Reedy" <[email]> wrote in message
news:N8bic.8665$[email]...
to
no

I thought Roger and I got along well. I even offered to move to another
table when Authorship came up, but he said no.

conversation

Where are these quotes, Tom?

stop

Art N. is harder to locate than WMD in Iraq.

via
be


author: Art Neuendorffer

text:
"Neil Brennen" <[email]> wrote

"Neil Brennen" <[email]> wrote

       http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/jkennedy.php ^2

FW 77: He afterwards whaan-ever his blaetther began
  to fail off him and his rough bark was wholly husky
 and, stoop by stoop, he neared it (wouldmanspare!)
carefully lined the ferroconcrete result with rotproof
 bricks and mortar, fassed to fossed, and retired
 beneath the heptarchy of his towerettes,
----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer


text:
"Ken Kaplan" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
celebrity.

Right up there with a fellow who finishes second in a church Spam cooking
contest.

I hope Baltimore has enough handkerchiefs for all the crying over Oxhead....


author: David L. Webb

text:
In article <IAjic.8216$[email]>,
 "Neil Brennen" <[email]> wrote:

   Just visit the sculpture of George Mason; Art is bound to be close by
-- it would be difficult even for Art to wander very far away clad in a
straightjacket.


text:
"Neil Brennen" <[email]> wrote in message
news:IAjic.8216$[email]...
and
Minerva
you

As all gentlemen should, I trust, no matter what side of the debate they
support.

Indeed, to better keep his eye on you! (Hold your friends close, and your
enemies closer!)

Puppetmaster

On the Leslie Howard thread at the Shakespeare Fellowship Forum.

Last I heard the Bush team was trying to recruit him to explain all the
administration's positive accomplishments during the past three years. I
understand it was his work here on hlas that attracted their attention.

TR

check


text:
"David L. Webb" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

David! You're alive! I was beginning to wonder! First Elizabeth and
then you went MIA.  Art is a well-tempered cavalier whose
straightjacket is a cover; what is more, he never speaks to statues
unless they speak to him first. <g>


text:
EA?

"David L. Webb" <[email]> wrote

   Lynne said that she noted your misspelling but didn't see making a big
point of it.

<<The old word "strait" ("narrow, tight") has survived only as a noun in
geography referring to a narrow body of water ("the Bering Strait") and in a
few adjectival uses such as "straitjacket" (a narrowly confining garment)
and "strait-laced" (literally laced up tightly, but usually meaning
narrow-minded). Its unfamiliarity causes many people to mistakenly
substitute the more common "straight.">>

    Roger Stritmatter, Lynne Kositsky & I spent a pleasant afternoon at the
Folger birthday party. We all agreed that the Shakespeare Brainy Beanie was
the spitting image of the Stratman but Lynne couldn't afford the $15:

http://gifts24.com/g/i/item.html?theId=49&rev=%2Fg%2Fb%2Fbrowse.html%3FvId%3D37%26bId%3D8

<<Shakespeare Brainy Beanie - 11 inch tall William Shakespeare beanie doll.
A beanie not for the masses. Shakespeare wears a period style black
velveteen nickers and ruffled shirt. Great fun. Ideal gift for a performer
or literary individual. Introduce an older child to literature with a
William Shakespeare Doll and a book of sonnets.>>

  [Note: The Brainy Beanie is not anatomically correct so Sonnet 20 is
written to no one in particular.]

Art Neuendorffer

P.S.,  Lynne did pass me the secret decoding ring. I'm now trying to figure
out the significance of "Drink Your Ovaltine."

          "DRINK YOUR OVALTINE"
          "VERO NIL OKRA NUDITY"


text:
"Tom  Reedy" <[email]> wrote in message news:<w%lic.9696$[email]>...
snip

Oxfordi-agents Stritmatter and Kositsky have a rendezvous with Art
Neuendorffer(code name *Neufer*) tomorrow at 13.30 hours, at an
undisclosed location. He is to be awarded a special badge of merit for
his undiminished efforts to confuse the enemy.

Hata Mari


text:
"Tom Reedy" <[email]> wrote in message
news:w%lic.9696$[email]...
necessary
had

Roger was, and Lynne says I was.


text:
In article <[email]>,
 [email] (Lynne) wrote:

[...]

   I've just been too busy.

   Speaking of Elizabeth Weird, a while back she wrote (among a great
deal of similar science crankery):

   "...when paradigms begin to fail to describe the evidence, they
   crumble.  Marx crumbled, Freud crumbled, Einstein is crumbling
   and Darwin is probably next."

She would doubtless be saddened by a news item I read a while ago:

<http://www.repubblica.it/2004/d/sezioni/cronaca/darwin/studio/studio.htm
l>

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/science/newsid_3666000/3666957.stm>

   But "well-tempered cavalier" is an anagram of

                  "I.e., we tell L. mad Vere crap."

I'm sure that "L." refers to you, Lynne; I'm even more sure that
whateVER crap Art told you was quite insane.

   What exactly did George Mason say to him that provoked Art's effusion
of lunatic logorrhea?