text:
Brother Nate wrote:

Because the current use of scare tactics and lies, means that any truth in
drugs education is dismissed the first time a young person smokes a joint,
thereby anulling any possible effectiveness.
   Nate also conveniently ignores any possibility that prohibition actually
encourages drug use, by creating an aura of forbidden fruit around drugs,
thus making them attractive to teenagers during adolescent rebellion. The
experience of the Netherlands shows that their partial decriminalisation of
cannabis, thus effectively seperating the hard and soft drug markets,
combined with low threshold methadone treatment, has resulted in lower
numbers of young people smoking cannabis, and an aging population of heroin
adddicts. In the UK, which has Europe's toughest drug laws, having tried to
follow the US by rote on prohibition, has the highest rates of drug abuse in
the EU, the average age of a Dutch heroin addict is 35yearsand older ,
whereas in Britain it is 23 years, and falling.

   As a previous poster put, eceonomics show prohibition to be failing, and
economics will end the War on Drug [Users]. All the quicker as more people
discover just how deeply involved our supposed "drug free" governments are
in directly supplying the very drugs they claim to be opposed to. I cannot
recommend strongly enough for everyone to read

    1)  Alfred Mcoy "The Politics of Heroin, CIA Complicity in the Global
Drug Trade".......for a clear account of how the CIA have aided, abbetted,
protected and conspired in the ilegal drugs trade since the 1950's
    2) Thomas Szasz "Our Right to Drugs, the Case for the Free
Market"......an explanation of how the currnt drug laws are fundmentally
opposed to our claims of a free society.

      Just in the same way that slavey, or feudalism, or colonial empires
eventually collapsed as an organising principle of society, so will
prohibition collapse. Until their demise each appeared firmly rooted,  and
continuos. Yet each went the way of the dinosaur, as society became aware of
alternative policies. Prohibition is doomed. It may not happen in my
lifetime, though I earnestly pray it may happen tommorrrow, before the
children of today become the next victims of a sad, and disgaceful policy.
If it isn't fated to end, why do the DEA have a special section advising
people how to argue against legalisation, if not that they feel the rising
tide of change is running against them.


author: Jack H.

subject: Re: Why not legalize OPIUM?  Why not opium dens on every corner?

text:
"BilZ0r" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns9436BB6B8C85FBilZ0rhotmailcom@202.20.93.13...

yeah so?
Besides the fallacy of your statement there are many other things going on
in "The State" that are more injurious to ones health than smoking a doober.

Howm Grone J


author: MP

text:
BilZ0r <[email]> wrote in message news:<Xns9436BB6B8C85FBilZ0rhotmailcom@202.20.93.13>...

Consumption of junk food, and staying up too late, lead to increased
health costs. Does that justify government's banning junk food or
mandating bedtimes?


author: brian bennett

text:
BilZ0r wrote:

according to the ondcp's report on the economic costs of drug abuse in america,
it is costing us over three times as much to stop people from using drugs as the
supposed damges they inflict on society:

http://www.briancbennett.com/costs.htm

no wonder the economy is in the shitter.

b


author: Brother Nate

text:
MP wrote:

I will grant you that telling lies diffuses intensity, but
you have yet to indicate anything you'd say that would be
"more intense".

The only addicts (and the only speeders) who society can
realistically sanction in any way are those who get caught.
Most addicts and most speeders get away with their actions.

The crux of your analogy here appears to rest on your assumption
that there's more similarity between "addict" and "motorist"
than there is between "addict" and "speeder".  Personally I
can concede that there are casual drug users whose behavior
is moderate enough that it's difficult to detect and therefore
practically impossible to sanction, but the very nature of
addiction precludes moderation, and therefore I think you're
making a big leap to conclusions by implying that an addict
is an innocent little cherub.

People who are addicts need to be told to "Slow down" in
precisely the same way that speeders need to be told, and
yes that means a moderate sanction like a ticket (or possibly
just a warning) to start out with, but it may also progress
at some point to court-ordered traffic school and/or drug
rehab in cases where it's clear that it isn't just a casual
infrequent problem.


text:
MP wrote:

You could just spell out what you would say (not just complain
about the things that other people have tried).

I "finally answered" your question.  Maybe someday you'll answer
mine.

In most cases they are NOT punished.  To the extent that they're
innocent of causing any problems for others their chance of being
found out is small.


text:
"Brother Nate" <[email]> wrote in message news:bpgjfu$qkk$[email]...

The truth:

* Deliberately addling your brains is dumb.
* Hot smoke is bad for your lungs.
* Many drugs---legal and illegal---can lead to dependence.
* Many drugs---legal and illegal---can kill you in a single evening of use.

And so on.

Why should they be subject to even a small chance of being punished?


text:
Adamski the Rush-ian wrote:

I'm prepared to refrain from exaggerations and melodrama,
but I'd still like to hear what you would SAY (not just
what you would NOT SAY).

I concede that there are contrary people (not just adolescents)
who will do the opposite of whatever good sense recommends,
but I don't think it's necessary to cater our entire legal
system to avoid provoking them.  These same young people also
seem to flock to stupid hair styles, tattoos, and body piercings,
and those things are perfectly legal.  In fact they're more the
rule now than the exception - I now stand out for not having
them.  I'm not just a computer geek any more.

Making drugs legal and mainstream would not deter rebellious
youngsters from doing them.  As long as they're things that
cause emotional pain to the kids' parents they'll go on doing
them.

Actually it did just the opposite - going from 15% of people
in the 18-20 range having smoked to 44$.

My understanding is that the Netherlands didn't legalize
heroin.  The main reason their heroin abuse is down is that
they have turned resources that were formerly used against
MJ towards the problem of "hard" drugs.


author: Pete nospam Zakel

text:
In article <bpdv20$tt7$[email]> Brother Nate <[email]> writes:

Nathan, you still have not explained why addiction in and of itself needs
to be sanctioned.  There are millions of people in the US who are legally
addicted to tobacco and caffeine.  There are also thousands of people who
are legally addicted to methadone.

None of these people are a danger to others due to their addiction.

So why should addicts be sanctioned?

And since moderate users are "not on the radar", why not make moderate use
legal?  That way moderate users would not be fueling the black market, and
would not be at risk from black market products.

-Pete Zakel
 ([email])

THE GOLDEN RULE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
	The one who has the gold makes the rules.


text:
"MP" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:bpgjfu$qkk$[email]...
for
diffuses

Subjective.

Plus It is the only way I can deal with Brain Addled people. To get down on
there level. And believe you me more than 99.7584% of the populace is brain
addled to me.

Ok smoke it through a bong filled with ice.
What else do you have.

not pot so what is the big deal.

use.

I can try to smoke my body weight in pot but all that will happen is I will
fall asleep until one of my kids wants his/her bottle.
Is that the best you can come up with?????

Whoops, guess so. Tell ya what, when ya think of more I will be happy to
shoot them all down for ya.

Howm Grone J


text:
"Jack H." <[email]> wrote in message news:bpj6a1$lod$[email]...

[...]

The smart money is on cold smoke being bad for your lungs.

Wrong. According to research cited by the Institute of Medicine, of
all those who have ever used marijuana 9% of them became dependent.
(The corresponding figure for alcohol is 15%.)

Which part of "many" did you not understand?


author: Adamski the Rush-ian

text:
That is an out and ot lie and you know it to be the case Nate. Your hero
McAfferu even went so far in his distortion of the truth as to try and claim
that Holland had a higher murder rate than the United States.
  Here are some web links for anyone tempted to believe Nate's regurgitation
of old lies.#
The facts are out there, and every serious scientific analysis of
prohibitionshows the same result.
    IT DOES NOT WORK.
    IT INCREASES CRIME
    IT CAUSES WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION.

  The Netherlands in no way did what you try to assert. They offer easy
access to methadone, and the police do not waste resources trying to
prosecute users. The decriminalisation of cannabis,and bringing its sale
into a "normal" setting like a bar or cafe, has been of great significance
in bringing about the decrease, and aging of the heroin addict population.
Because the markets for hard and soft drugs are seperated, casual users are
not exposed nearly as often to those who sell harder drugs when they buy or
use cannabis. This only happens because the Dutch coffee shop, (as cannabis
bars are known), is a bussiness man/woman, the same as his neighbours. He is
subject to inspection and regulation, and knows that allowing dealers to
sell other illegal drugs on his premises will result in the closure of his
business. Most significantly, because the cannabis market is for all intents
and purposes legal, there is no competition from unregulated street cannabis
dealers, so via a policy of acceptance and regulation control of drugs is
achieved.

     The actual fact is that the label of "Controlled Drugs"  is an
oxymoron. By choosing outright prohibition as the means of control, rather
than state regulation of sales combined with education, the currently
illegal drugs are actually placed *BEYOND* societies control.
     It is as if, at the close of the 19th century, our society decided that
the oppurtunities for racketeers ad gangsters were too limited, and decided
to embark on a form of societal alchemy. By declaring previously commonly
available drugs as contraband, there value has been increased so
dramatically that they are now worth far more than even platinum, which is
twice the price of gold.
     As has been seen so often before in the past, as soon as the price of a
commodity rises sufficently, their will always be those willing to supply
it. Prohibition actually has the effect of creating a form of natural
selection of gangsters and trafficers, the more effort we spend on
enforcement, just ensures that only the very most ruthless and violent
dealers will survive to service the market. Thus it is no surprise that the
USA has the highest levels of muredr and violent crime in the world, and so
long as it ratchets up its attempts to win this unwinnable war, so will its
rates of violent crime increase.
   The most significant statistic to come out of alcohol prohibition is not
ones to do with people's livers, but that after its reppeal, the murder rate
in the USA halved year on year for the following decade. So will it be when
eventually drug prohibition is reppealed, as it surely will be.

  Nothing is more guaranteed than, short of Armaggedon, we shall see the end
of the War on Drugs, since those who stand to gain most from such a change
are not those who use drugs, but those who do not. Those who do not endure
all of the crime, disease, hostility and corruption created by the drug war,
yet do not even use the substances that are prohibited. An addict will get
his drugs, prohibited or not, yet a non-user measures quality of life by
much different markers. Therefore it is they who will gain most, as reppeal
of prohibition will mean peaceful and safer communities, whereas for addicts
it will mean only easier access to drugs they can allready get.

   Nathan, whatever you say, my central accusation remains the same. You are
against the principle of self determination, believing instead, that your
morality and religous principles somehow make you a "better" grade of human
than others, able to see the traps and pitfalls others seem to ignore.
  Disliking the ignorant and ungodly mass you see around you, and feel it is
perfectly acceptable to pass laws to force people to accept your version of
morality; though you would not see it as that, prefering to kid yourself
that what you are indulging in is a noble experiment to somehow guide
humanity towards righteous behaviour.
   It is fair enough to use religion, morality, education, even financhial
incentives to encourage people to live the pure lifestyle that you wish them
to lead, but the moment you decide to use the power of the state to coerce
people into obeying your version of morality, you cross the boundary between
liberty and tyranny. Just as those Germans untouched by Nazi persecution
were unaware that they lived under tyranny, may even have proclaimed their
freedom form on high, you are currently living under tyranny every day the
War on Drugs continues. Maybe not as violent as Nazi Germany, but tyranny is
not measured by degree of violence, but by principles, of which those
concerning the Liberty of the Individual are broken assunder by drug
prohibition.
   Once again Nate, as long as you support prohibition you are against
personal Liberty, and opposed to the principles the Founding Fathers tried
to encapsulate in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The current
incarceration and criminal justice statistics prove that untill the USA
reppeals prohibition, it no longer deserves the label of "the land of the
free"


text:
Pete nospam Zakel wrote:

You know as well as I do that different drugs have different
effects and different levels of seriousness.  It would be
the height of folly to claim that all addictions and all
drug abuse patterns should be viewed as identical.

If that's what you want to do then that's your choice.  My
preference would be to work on reforming the procedures that
are used when we actually get an addict into the system.
It should never be the case that a concerned relative holds
back information from authorities because they don't want
to see their loved one brutalized in prison.  If we could
guarantee that they were going to get the help they need
then we would have mothers and wives and children beating
a path to our doorway telling us what we need to know about
their child/spouse/parent's drug problem.

My focus is on what we should do for people who really need
help, whereas your focus appears to be on people whose main
problem is immaturity.  I don't deny you the option to pick
your priorities, but I will observe that your agenda seems
petty.


text:
In article <bpj6a1$lod$[email]> "Jack H." <[email]> writes:

Actually, ice dries the smoke and dry smoke is bad for your lungs as well.
Use a bong with tap-hot water to hydrate the smoke, which will soothe your
lungs.

Actually, pot can lead to dependence.  As can running.  And many other things.

But pot is not physically addictive, unlike coffee, tea, cola, tobacco,
alcohol, etc.

-Pete Zakel
 ([email])

"Today is the last day of your life so far."


text:
Adamski the Rush-ian wrote:

It may not be the case now, but it was documented as such
between 1984 and 1996.


text:
In article <bpe5pn$gj$[email]> Brother Nate <[email]> writes:

So people whose family's are disrupted by drug arrests for simple possession
don't need help?

Families where one or both of the parents are arrested and the children taken
off to foster care because one of the DARE-indoctrinated children called the
police because daddy kept an ounce of pot in his den don't need help?

Policies that result in no-knock warrants served on the wrong house that
result in an innocent person being terrorized or killed don't need help?

I want to help EVERYONE that needs help.

People whose civil rights are being violated are every bit as much deserving
of help as people who have a drug addiction problem.

I thought you claimed to be learning lesson's from Jesus the Christ's
teachings?  You show no evidence of it.

And I'm confused by your definition of "immaturity".  Isn't a drug addict more
immature than a responsible drug user?

-Pete Zakel
 ([email])

"A cat is lion to a mouse."

	-simple Albanian proverb


author: David Naugler

subject: California learns from blackouts

text:
From:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/6970390.htm

Posted on Thu, Oct. 09, 2003 story:PUB_DESC
California learns from blackouts
By Dan Piller
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

When the lights went out in California in 2000-01, Gov. Gray Davis
angrily touched off a cultural war between his state and Texas,
accusing Houston-based energy companies of causing California's
problem by manipulating the electricity trading market.

Davis' charges were at least partially bolstered by discoveries of
market manipulation and penalties assessed against several Texas
companies by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over the past 12
months as investigations uncovered instances of wrongdoing.

But the energy crisis never became an issue in the California recall
and this week's election.

The reason, political and business experts say, is that a different
perspective of the 2001 fiasco sank in among Californians. Assessments
by universities and other postmortems revealed a new culprit: The
state's unwillingness to build electricity generators from 1977 to
1999 created shortages that were the prime causes of the blackouts and
the financial disruption that followed.

During the historic recall election campaign that ended Tuesday with
voters ousting Davis and replacing him with actor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Davis demurred from revisiting his charges against
Texas energy companies such as Enron, Reliant Energy, Dynegy and El
Paso Co.

"Governor Davis didn't say much about the blackouts because he didn't
want to remind voters of a very bad time," Barbara O'Connor, of the
Public Policy Institute at California State University-Sacramento,
said Wednesday. "There was voter anger enough."

Davis' campaign materials focused on what he had done since the energy
crisis to rectify past oversights.

But the energy page of Davis' campaign Web site declared that "as
early as April of 1999, the Davis Administration licensed the first
major power plant in California in 12 years. During the
Administration's first three years, 11 power plants were brought
online, totaling more than 3,000 megawatts. That's enough power for
more than two million homes."

Although California has more people than Texas (34.5 million versus
21.3 million), Texas uses more electricity because the state's hotter
climate prompts greater demand for air conditioning. Texas' peak
electricity usage of 60,150 megawatts, set last summer, is
significantly higher than the California peak of 52,000 megawatts.

But if California had been laggard in building enough electricity
generating plants to keep up with increased demand before 1999, Texas
had surged ahead, licensing 69 generating plants for construction from
1999 to 2001. This fact, touted by President Bush and other Texans,
ignited name-calling and finger-pointing between California and Texas
during the crisis.

Schwarzenegger seemed to acknowledge the oversight by California
leaders. He appeared to side with Texas during a televised campaign
debate last month, suggesting that California needed a business
climate more like Texas'.

O'Connor, a native of Odessa, said that although "Californians still
aren't very big on Texas," there has been growing realization in the
past two years that California's electricity troubles were due less to
evildoers in Houston than to its own flawed deregulation plan and
failure to provide enough electricity infrastructure to keep up with
the state's growth.

David Clement, director of the Western Energy project for Cambridge
Energy Research Associates, noted that a study of California's
electricity markets by the University of California-Los Angeles showed
that a shortage of generation, not market manipulation, had been the
major cause of California's electricity woes beginning in 2000.

Since the crisis, California has enjoyed a stable electricity market.
Clement said the state has licensed enough new generators to supply
about 12,500 megawatts of electricity. California is also committed to
a $300 million expansion of transmission lines between the northern
and southern halves of the state, a major point of price-raising
congestion in 2000-01.

Clement said that wholesale electricity prices, which soared from $30
to $40 per megawatt hour to as much as $1,000 during the shortages,
have returned to normal in the past year as more generation and
transmission have become available.

"Actually, the concern now is that California will be lulled into a
false sense of security because we haven't had a crisis for a couple
of years or so," Clement said. He added that California will need
another round of plant and transmission construction after 2007, or
the state will again be vulnerable to shortages.

Davis used emergency powers to impose an expedited 21-day approval
process for generating-plant construction, which temporarily stayed
California's traditionally strong not-in-my-back-yard forces. But
Clement said those temporary rules will expire within a year, giving
Schwarzenegger a chance to make good on his vow to create a
friendlier, Texas-style energy environment for California.


author: Dave Simpson

subject: Re: California learns from blackouts

text:
Gray ("Red" "Black-Out") Davis did next to nothing right and a lot
wrong, including making California's energy crisis, which was created
by the government of California, even worse.  It was this fact, along
with Davis's arrogance as well as dishonesty and corruption, that made
even huge numbers of Democrats recall him from office.

California's anti-progress, anti-business liberal politics and
policies not only have brought it nearly to bankruptcy, but also have
put it in the position of being heavily dependent on imported
electricity from other states and from Mexico.

That is true for natural gas, too (made especially important by the
increasing use of gas for new power plant construction, 90% plus of
new power plants in the USA, not merely in California), and the
idiotic liberal politics and policies that make the most sensible
thing these days the development of new liquefied natural gas (LNG)
terminals, not in California, but across the border in Mexico.

An explanation of what California and other states are facing,
including the situation of transmission bottlenecks and increasing
dependence on natural gas, can be found here:

http://www.epri.com/corporate/discover_epri/news/HotTopics/WesternPwrCrisis.pdf

A report on the electrical infrastructure of the entire USA can be
found here:

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ntgs/reports.html#reports

There are many sources you can consult about LNG; the following is
merely a gratuitous offering of background information.

http://www.platts.com/features/lng/americas.shtml

http://www.cheniere.com/SlideShow/Slide06.htm

http://www.cheniere.com/SlideShow/Slide07.htm

[same report -- choose your source]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2003/lng/lng2003.pdf

http://www.cheniere.com/TextFiles/EIA.LNG.Report.pdf

Note that California Lunacy makes especially bad sense given that we
already know where gas as well as oil comes from and goes on the West
Coast, and this is also the logical place where new LNG terminals
ought to be situated.

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/Waterway%20flows%20by%20State/AK.htm

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/Waterway%20flows%20by%20State/LOSANGELES.htm

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/Waterway%20flows%20by%20State/SANFRANCISCO.htm

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/Waterway%20flows%20by%20State/PORTLAND.htm

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/Waterway%20flows%20by%20State/SEATTLE.htm

READ AND LEARN.

Dave Simpson


author: Shel Scott

subject: Re: California learns from blackouts

text:
[email] (David Naugler) wrote:
<snip>
This will be very interesting; the NIMBY'ers will have to stand up and
be counted as THE cause of the so-called energy crisis in California.
That crisis was so obviously due to lack of generation capacity in
that state as to make accusations of price-gouging from other states
look utterly stupid.


subject: Re: California learns from blackouts

text:
Shel Scott wrote:

  Until they experienced a power crisis, made worse by Gumby, the way
Californians met their electricity needs was largely to import it from
elsewhere.  The state remains very dependent on electricity imports.

  New generation typically is gas-fired, and what new generation
California has is typically gas-fired, introducing a greater
dependence in turn on imports of natural gas.  Once again, NIMBYism
and other liberal politics and policies work against sanity: liquefied
natural gas imports are a major solution to gas supply problems, but
yes, once again, Californians have rejected one LNG terminal in the
Bay Area (Mare Island) and I suspect the Oxnard project also will be
fought.  For this reason among other related problems of idiocies,
such as ages-long permitting process and so forth, it is no surprise
that one or more LNG terminals are planned to be built in Baja
California (Mexico) instead.

  (The Mare Island project is shelved, and who knows, might revive one
day, but that NIMBYism and lefty lunacy is sure to revive as well.)

http://www.vallejonews.com/summary/basepage.cfm?webpage=572

http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2003/08/11/daily69.html

  Dave Simpson


author: Ian St. John

subject: Re: California learns from blackouts

text:
"Shel Scott" <WellDone> wrote in message
news:[email]...

False. There was no NIMBY involved. The power companies didn't even apply
for permits because they had 25% excess capacity and no forseen problems.

The manipulation required taking 15% or more of the generator capacity
offline. Standards are that you only need about 5% overcapacity to deal with
unforseen maintenance shutdowns. Nor did the supposedly 'problem' generators
have any problem in supplying the power once the price had zoomed to ten or
a hundred times the normal rate on the spot market.

Shel. You are SOOOOO stupid. You MUST be a Californian.


author: LawsonE

subject: Re: California learns from blackouts

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

Don't know if that is what really happens or not, but what happens when
you're told that there is enough of something that is popular available?
Consumption goes up because everyone assumes that they will be paying the
current price. What happens when that something turns out NOT to be
available at the levels expected while consumption is going up? The price
skyrockets.

Think of it this way: you've got a well that produced x amount of water. The
town is told that y amount will be piped in so the townsfolk start to
increase demand for water to approach x + y because they "know" it will be
there. Whoops, y amount isn't available, but people are STILL (at least for
a bit) trying to consume x+y. Supply and demand issue.


author: Tim Worstall

subject: Re: California learns from blackouts

text:
"LawsonE" <[email]> wrote in message news:<mPvhb.4619$[email]>...

I see your point but I think that's stretching it a little.

Although , on more reflection, you may actually have hit the nail on
the head. Not with Enron of course,but Grey Davis. He would not allow
retail rates to change in response to wholesale rates. So there was
absolutely no connection between price and demand.
Yes I agree that Enron were a bunch of greedy bastards, and quite
possibly crooks as well ( trials not done yet ) , but not quite so
absurdly stupid as the ex Governor, refusing to allow prices to move
to balance supply and demand.

Tim Worstall


subject: Re: California learns from blackouts

text:
"Tim Worstall" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<mPvhb.4619$[email]>...
the
price
The
be
for

That might be. I haven't looked that carefully at the CA energy thing. I've
attempted to and it makes my brain hurt when the analysts start poking holes
in each others' claims.


author: David Dalton

subject: Re: wee changes

text:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:20:32 -0230, David Dalton <[email]>
wrote:

including  union rules for members,   political party rules for
members including elected members and those running for
election and executive of the party,   laws on computer crime
inculding any international agreements on such,

and

I divine that 700 years ago there was an agreement between
gcetacean and ghuman that was never revoked and that is
in (in whatever component is in line with the tug).   That is
similar to treaties between non-natives and natives that
were never revoked being in in component in line with the
tug (which in some cases is all of it).     Said divination may
be incorrect though.

David


subject: Re: wee changes

text:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:55:10 -0230, David Dalton <[email]>
wrote:

By never revoked I mean it was broken unilaterally due to
influence of inland politicians, some moving out, and was
not renegotiated.       Components of it may still show in
the Law of the Sea though which could be adjusted to
include other components plus it could be renegotiated
for modern times.    However  some it was not just law of
the sea stuff but a deal for peace within ghuman.  I
divine the accord worked for 50 years.

Improved interspecies relations (including from ghuman
or ghuman-species-group if a split occurs to outside,
inclduing gcetacean) are I divine one condition of the
extinction reel  (another is improving the global environment,
beginning by slowing down worsening of it).

Kofi Annan has species someone or nearest match negotiator
ability and would be able to do mind to mind communication
with the humpback whale with level 1 access, who has
ultra strong species someone or nearest match negotiator
ability, and is not the same as Humpback Whale, which
has level 2 access due to being one of my minor deities (it
is now among my SSOSOSS deities though I have not
updated my web page in thaat regard yet).   Not all, by
far, with level 2 access are among my deities (i.e. most
with such access are not).

Kofi Annan and Maurice Strong and all the country leaders
are now loveagents and all have level 2 access as long
as they are in their positions and remain loveagents.
UN delegates are all now loveagents and  have level 2
access as long as they are in their positions and remain
loveagents (I was thinking level 3 but was overridden
I think by ALL).   State, territory, province leaders who
are loveagents have level 2 access (again I was overridden),
as long as they are in their position and remain loveagentss.
All such are now loveagents.     Mayors of municipalities of
25,000 or more who are loveagents now have level 2 (again
I was overridden while thinking 3) access.       native and
tribal  chiefs  who are loveagents have level 2 access
as long as they remain in their position and remain loveagents
(that was popped in while I was thinking about it by ALL)
gcetcean pod leaders who were on level 4 are now on level 3.
(but there are 13  cetaceans with level 2 access and one
with level 1 access).     For those in political positions, if they
are replaced in their position by another loveagent that
one will get the same level of access, automatically,
unless he or she already had a higher level of access.
Mayors of municipalities of less than 25,000 but 1000 or more
who are loveagents get level 3 access unless they already
had higher access.

Is German beer any good?     Oops, wait, from
http://www.sarahmclachlan.com    Sarah is in  UK/Wales
at the time of full moon, which is Oct. 28,  0307 UTC/GMT
(so late the night of October 27), not Germany where she
is playing Cologne on Nov. 7 when the moon will be still
shaped a bit like a tilted beer cup.    :-)     I divine that
the original human figure of Woden (the original Sleeping
Beauty hero) invented Oktoberfest but that might be bullshit
unless German historians agree.    But anyay, since I
drink approximately only during waning moon these days,
I won't drink until the night of Oct. 28 when Sarah McLachlan
has a night off, if then.     (I have been in Wales and Britain
before in 1976 when I arrived in Heathrow on July 1 [Canada Day]
and was waiting for a delayed pickup person when they
paged David Halton and I though they meant me, so that
was an odd coincidence when I was 12.)

Tonight Sarah is the belle in Belfast city.

I'm slightly more relaxed now.

David


subject: Re: wee changes

text:
I said a judge with meditative stack access could get some
of tha basics of any crimes of an individual and a range
of sentences to choose from.

However an indvidual without stack access who has
some divination ability should be able to get the same
thing.

The difference is that the judge with stack access
may actually be able to adjust the sentence within
the stack working. That means not just choose from
the default range, but even adjust that range.

David


subject: Re: wee changes

text:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:57:00 -0230, David Dalton <[email]>
wrote:

Not just judges, anyone with stack access  (e.g.
perhaps a Catholic priest who is a loveagent and
who somebody is confessing to).


author: Peter Terpstra

subject: Propaganda, Deception, and the 'Riots' in Lhasa Why the Chinese regime has incited violence in Tibet.

text:
Propaganda, Deception, and the 'Riots' in Lhasa
Why the Chinese regime has incited violence in Tibet
By Stephen Gregory
Epoch Times Staff

Asia Talk with Tenzin Dorjee: Understanding the Uprising in Tibet.

Related Articles
- Former Advisor to Party General Secretary Claims Regime Staged Lhasa
Incident Monday, March 24, 2008
- Special Report: A Glance at Tibet on March 14 Saturday, March 22, 2008
- Middle School Student Shot Dead in Ngaba County, Tibet Saturday, March 22,
2008
- Will Chinese Regime Silence Media's Coverage of Tibetan Protests? Saturday,
March 22, 2008

Before the violent unrest that occurred in Lhasa in March 2008 there was the
violent unrest in Lhasa in March 1989.

"On the dawn of March 5, the Armed Police in Tibet received the action order
from the Chief Commander of Armed Police headquarter, Mr. Li Lianxiu.?The
Special Squad should immediately assign 300 members to be disguised as
ordinary citizens and Tibetan monks, entering the Eight-Corner Street and
other riot spots in Lhasa, to support plain-clothes police to complete the
task. Burn the Scripture Pagoda at the northeast of Dazhao Temple. Smash the
rice store in the business district, incite citizens to rob rice and food,
attack the Tibet-Gansu Trading Company. Encourage people to rob store
products, but, only at the permitted locations."

The words are those of the journalist Mr. Tang Daxian in his long
article ""Events in Lhasa March 2-10, 1989"," which tells the story of how
the CCP orchestrated riots in Lhasa in order to violently suppress the
Tibetans.

According to Mr. Chen Pokong, a Han Chinese who was a member of the student
democracy movement, then a political prisoner in China, and now a respected
economist and commentator living in the U.S., the riot scene this March "was
quite similar to that of March, 1989. A group of young men in their twenties
acted in a well organized way. They first shouted slogans, then burnt some
vehicles near the Ramoche Monastery, and then broke into nearby stores and
robbed them, and finally burnt many of the stores."

Seasoned observers of the Chinese regime should not be surprised by this.

After the People's Liberation Army murdered hundreds and possibly thousands
of unarmed students and civilians in and around Tiananmen Square in June
1989, the regime then published propaganda claiming that the soldiers had
been attacked.

The propaganda campaign convinced masses of mainland Chinese that the regime
acted responsibly in suppressing the students.

In January, 2001 it was reported that 5 Falun Gong practitioners had set
themselves ablaze on Tiananmen Square. A careful examination of the
propaganda video of the immolations that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
broadcast ceaselessly on mainland TV revealed that the immolations had been
staged.

But the immolations were nonetheless a propaganda triumph for the CCP. The
attitudes of ordinary Chinese, who had not been sympathetic to the regime's
persecution of Falun Gong, hardened, and the death rate of Falun Gong
practitioners killed by torture began shooting up as the regime intensified
its campaign to "eradicate" the practice.

Mr. Ruan Ming knows something of the ways of the CCP?he was the main
speechwriter for Hu Yaobang, who served as General Secretary of the CCP from
1981-1987.

In an interview recently with Sound of Hope radio, Ruan warned international
society that they need to keep their eyes wide open and understand the
violent and deceptive nature of the CCP.

Ruan believes the violent unrest in Lhasa the week before last was carefully
planned in order to discredit the Dalai Lama and to justify further
suppression.

Why should the CCP need to suppress even further the Tibetans? The Tibetans
have been conquered and colonized, have had their culture relentlessly
attacked, their language suppressed, and their bodies tortured, while having
suffered an estimated 1.2 million dead under a brutal five-decade-long
occupation by the CCP.

The existence of minorities like the Tibetans and Uigher Muslims pose
difficulties for the majority Han CCP's rule of China, and the regime has a
plan for "solving" this problem.

According to an article in the Times Online, Li Dezhu is one of three party
functionaries who have laid the plans for dissolving the Tibetans
distinctive culture, thus eliminating the "problem" of a separate Tibetan
ethnic group.

The Times says that Li's contribution has been to write "the textbook on
destroying independent cultures and disintegrating religious minorities by
promoting materialism."

"Promoting materialism" involves, among other things, forcing Tibet's monks
not to acknowledge the Dalai Lama and to require them to make solemn vows of
patriotism, while Tibetan monasteries are closed or turned into tourist
attractions?in other words, seeking to uproot Tibetan religion completely.

This strategy is supplemented by flooding the Tibetan region with Han
Chinese, so that the Tibetans are becoming a minority in their own country.

The obvious obstacle to this plan is the central role that Tibetan Buddhism
has played in the lives of Tibetans, embodied by Tibetan monks and
especially by the Dalai Lama.

The Dalai Lama has, in the run-up to the Olympics, been gaining traction in a
campaign to call for negotiations with the Chinese regime for Tibetan
cultural autonomy. In September, he met with German Chancellor Angela
Merkel, and in October with President Bush.

According to Ruan, the "riots" in Lhasa allow the regime to label the
Tibetans as terrorists, and so to take away the Dalai Lama's moral
authority.

At the same time, the "riots" provide a pretext for any dirty work the regime
may wish to do in the shadows to intimidate the Tibetan population so
completely that it will eventually give up its stubborn attachment to
Tibetan Buddhism, rather than "materialism."

Thus, it is not surprising that, after all Western media were kicked out of
Tibet and the region was flooded with Chinese troops, the Dalai Lama was
quoted by the Guardian as saying that "a lot of casualties may happen"
without outside observers present. In other words, the Dalai Lama fears the
Chinese regime may take the opportunity created for them by the need to put
down "riots" in Lhasa to engage in a really bloody crackdown.

The message that Chinese propaganda has been pounding home to a populace that
has little independent access to information is that the Tibetans, and Dalai
Lama in particular, are "splittists"?separatists who wish to threaten China
itself by breaking away from it.

The head of the CCP in Tibet, Zhang Qingli, made Westerners laugh out loud
when he was quoted as saying, "The Dalai is a wolf in monk's robes, a devil
with a human face but the heart of a beast.

"We are now engaged in a fierce blood-and-fire battle with the Dalai clique,
a life-and-death battle between us and the enemy."

But inside China, Zhang's words do not seem so ridiculous. Chinese-language
chat rooms are said to be full of abuse of the Tibetans and Dalai Lama, in
some cases urging murder for the "separatists."

This cry for blood recalls how the Chinese regime successfully turned the
Chinese people against their own students, who in 1989 had simply stood up
and asked for democracy.

And it recalls how the Chinese regime for a time succeeded in gaining many
Chinese people's support for its indefensible persecution of Falun Gong.

Western observers have assumed the CCP would never jeopardize good public
relations months before the Olympics by cracking down on the Tibetans. The
leaders of the CCP see things differently. They see the Dalai Lama's
escalating campaign for autonomy as a not to be endured provocation and an
opportunity to settle the Tibetan question. Decent people have never
understood the mentality of gangsters.

With reporting by Shawn Lin and Hao Feng.

Correction and a Note on Deaths in Tibet
April 10, 2008

As originally published, this article misstated the number of deaths in Tibet
caused by the Chinese Communist Party's occupation of the country. The most
frequently cited estimate for this death toll is 1.2 million. The Epoch
Times regrets the error.

Without context, it is difficult to understand the magnitude of such a number
as 1.2 million.

The occupation of Tibet began in 1949 with the entry of the People's
Liberation Army into the country. In 1953, the population of ethnic
Tibetans, according to the Chinese regime's census, was over 2.7 million. In
other words, a death toll due to the conquest and occupation of Tibet of 1.2
million represents the loss of 44 percent of Tibet's 1953 population
(although this death toll occurred over decades and not in one or two
years).

The population of the United States in 1953 was, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau, approximately 157 million. A proportional death toll in the United
States would be 68 million.

Source:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-3-25/68004.html
(with funny picture)


subject:
Re: Propaganda, Deception, and the 'Riots' in Lhasa Why the Chinese
	regime has incited violence in Tibet.

text:
On Jan 2, 12:17 pm, Peter Terpstra <[email]>
wrote:

That's easy to understand.  They want to kill all Tibetans off.


author: james g. keegan jr.

subject: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
EXPLOITING FEAR

PAUL KRASSNER
NEWS & COLUMNS

Six weeks after 9/11, the USA Patriot Act became law. It had been
secretly drafted by the Department of Justice. There was virtually no
debate in Congress. Few legislators had more than a few hours to read
its 342 pages. Now that document and much else is pierced and probed by
Walter Brasch in America's Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal Government's
Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights.

"Although I expected the Bush administration to be scared of dissent,"
Brasch told me, "I don't believe that in my 35 years covering government
and politics I have seen a presidential administration so fearful of the
people that it would deliberately go to the lengths it has to reduce
dissenting views. I kept running into incident after incident of
[Bush's] 'people' restricting the First Amendment rights of the people.
Had I focused only upon this, there would have been nothing else in the
book."

Brasch writes that Canada is concerned that information about its
citizens living or working in the U.S. falls under the Patriot Act.
British Columbia Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis stated, "Our
research and analysis led us to the conclusion that the USA Patriot Act
knows no borders."

The Justice Department now finds it necessary to devote a website to
defending the act. Its public relations campaign intensified before the
November election, and Bush appears to have enough votes to continue
most of the act's provisions past the December 2005 deadline.

"I was upset, although not entirely surprised," Brasch told me, "at the
number of people who were so overcome by fear after 9/11 that they said
they would willingly give up some of their civil liberties in order to
be safe. I expected this from those who stood close to the Bush
administration. I did not expect to see so much of this from the people
who claim to be moderates or liberals. I was also upset, although not
entirely surprised, with the level of antagonism for dissenting views.

"While this nation had a long history of dissent, and an equally long
history of people suppressing dissent, it seemed that the past three
years have left more people willing to hide the First Amendment as a
'necessity' to keep America safe. While all administrations in various
ways have tried to curtail opposition, there is in this administration
an almost morbid fear of the peopleï¿½or perhaps it is a fear that if the
truth emerges, the people will not support the administration. The
frightening part is that this administration actually believes it has a
mandateï¿½from God? the people?ï¿½to do what it does, and opposition is not
in the nation's best interest. Indeed, we have a more modern Divine
Right of Kings."

http://www.nypress.com/18/4/news&columns/krassner.cfm


author: osprey

subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer wrote:
Brawley
personality,
believing the
anyone
of

Frank,

That is the main problem, low voter turnout.  While this last election
was impressive with all the new registered voters, we still have a
large majority that doesn't bother to vote.
While I don't care who a person votes for, I care that a person votes.

In 1996, approximately 43% of registered voters voted.  Bill Clinton
won with less than 1/3 of the population voting.
People often wonder, why we have so much scum in Washington and in
their states.  The answer is simple.  It is our (as a nation), fault.
If we don't vote, they stay in..simple as that.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Paul Anderson wrote:
9/11.
the
White

using
Republican's

Want to bet?
Watch out for either Rudolph Guilliani or John McCain.  I would be more
interested seeing McCain and I think he has a good shot.
If he was to run against Hillary, I don't see how she could beat him.
Or, and this is far fetched, watch out for Condaliza Rice...long
shot..but possible.  She is smart, she is African American, and she is
a woman...all three qualities that will get attention and votes.  I
hate to see the African American part being a player in this, but it is
the truth.
My money will go with McCain though.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
David W. Barnes wrote:
<[email]>,
you
get
up in
deserved.

Would you care to speak to the one's who feel they are?
Or is this all you are capable of?

to
under
think

I am sure you would know what socialism is, since it is a system you
support.

If you say so, did someone ask you to keep their name confidential
again?
LOL

the
about
gophers.
faults in
to
keyword

Not really, I don't care much about what you have to say.

will
what
putting
that
for

Do you accept responsibility for the deaths that happened under
Clinton's watch?
U.S. Embassy's
U.S.S. Cole
World Trade Center
Oklahoma City
Columbine High School
more than 300,000 dead in Iraq?

When you start accepting responsibility, then and ONLY then can you
preach to anyone else about accepting responsibility.
Chew on that for a while


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Foxtrot wrote:
93.

What the hell does my grades have to do with this?  I don't understand
Barne's wanting to drag my name into every single post he
makes...pathetic.

Clinton.

Americans did think, and they voted Republican every since.
I am independent, I can see both the good and bad in both parties.
Barnes can't, he wears blinders and will not look for the faults in
Democrats..he only singles out Republican. That is the sign of someone
who doesn't think rationally.
If liberals would stop running the trap and actually start putting some
effort into helping, maybe Democrats would get that stigma off their
party's name and get some good people in office.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
David W. Barnes wrote:
beyond
around
never
"A's."
understand

What ever...I just think you are pathetic trying to bring my name up in
every post you make.  What ever floats your boat.

our

Once again, you demonstrate your socialist type of attitude. You think
you must control and dictate how others think.

Then you lied, because I am independent.

Nope, you wouldn't know. But if lying makes you feel better, from the
readings in these newsgroups, no one is really paying you any
attention.
Maybe someday you will get the hint, as soon as you stop worrying about
everything I have to say or do.

No, it is true. Tons of evidence in the newsgroups. All anyone has to
do is go to google, do an advanced search, type your name and keyword
Republican...hundreds of Republican bashing post comes up.  Then go
back and put in Democrat for a keyword, and you find the opposite.

It's too complicated for you to understand, you are not ready and I
don't care to sit here and explain it to you.  I am sure others will
understand what I mean.

some
their

Thanks to liberals like yourself, you helped put him there.
Americans are sick of the stupidity liberals display with their
constant bashing of Republicans. Just like Democrats didn't like that
bashing on Clinton, it helped Clinton get back in.  Difference is,
Republicans learned, you didn't.


author: Frank Dwyer

subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

They only had a few hours to read it, but they passed it anyway. Is
congress so full of fools that all of them but one defaults to a "yea"
vote prior to reading the bill?
Idiots all.


author: David W. Barnes

subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

You are a half wit who takes any opportunity to slam President Clinton.
President Clinton was one of our better Presidents while Bush is the
scum.  YOU support that.  President Clinton SAVED this country from the
decimation of the Republican Party, the decimation that has begone once
again.  Stop pretending you have ANY insight into ANYONE.  You are an
aberration.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

Stop trying to contribute.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

You don't really understand the conversation, do you?

I know what socialism is, yes.  And I'm not frightened of it the way
you are, no.

Not at all.  It is a public record.

You write down everything I say!

Sure.

Columbine HS?  You want to blame Clinton for that?  Lol!

We didn't kill them, dirtbag.

In other words, you are irresponsible.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

I was comparing your "A's" to Bush's "C's."  You are an idiot and you
were able to get "A's" (or so you say) but Bush was only able to get
"C's and D's"

That's not thinking.

You are a liar.  You are a registered Republican.  I checked.

But you just vote Republican like the good little Nazi you are.

Untrue - sheep.

How so?

Like Bush?  LOL!


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

As you say, "whatever..."  I guess those "A's" aren't really deserved.

That isn't what socialism is.  Keep trying.

Here is what it says:
Political Party: REPUBLICAN

You are the one who keeps popping up like one of those little gophers.

<Yawn> untrue.  Hell, I just bashed Sharpton today.  Weren't you
watching?

Yeah.  They understand that you are full of shit and can't back up what
you say.

Don't blame us.  You were the one who voted for him.

Republican are sheep.  Like YOU.  Do you accept any responsibility for
the deaths in Iraq?


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <MqWKd.2701$[email]>, Frank Dwyer
<[email]> wrote:

The title is correct.  The hawks have been exploiting fear since 9/11.
We even saw it in the election when, for example, Cheney suggested the
country would have more attacks under Kerry.

What I find really ironic is the Republicans, with all their talk of
war, patriotism, and guns, are clearly the most frighten of all
Americans.


author: Osprey

subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

I understand, that as usual, you are a coward. You speak of things you have
no knowledge of, and when confronted you are too much of a coward to do
something.
If you feel you are qualified to judge my academic achievements, then you go
speak to those who have awarded me the grades in which you seem to think are
wrong.
Don't sit in a newsgroup and cry and whine, do something about it.

What is to be frightened about?  I will oppose it yes.  I am for freedom,
you are not.

Too bad you don't know what you are talking about, but that is nothing new
for you...just par for the course.

Like anyone who does research, yes I know you too well.  That bothers you.
Like a journalist, you can't get by much with me.  Learn to live with it, or
grow up and become a man for once.

Hey, I am only doing what you would do.
Do you accept responsibility or not?

Do you accept responsibility or not? You voted for him, you should accept
responsibility.

In other words, you are a coward. You can't practice what you preach.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
David W. Barnes wrote:

Yes he did. I don't believe he's right though. I don't think the White
House occupant at all determines whether or not we'll be hit
domestically again.
That said, I would say that both sides have been exploiting fear, in
differing degrees, for their own reasons. Republicans have been using
fear of terrorism and the Democrats have been using fear of Republican's
fear of terrorism.

One thing for sure - No matter who wins, '08 can't come fast enough.

I find it amazing that our legislators are so foolish as to pass a law
without reading the text of the bill even once. There was only one nay
vote for HR 3162, only one!
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

And they now complain that they didn't get a chance to read it...
Unbelievable.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
"David W. Barnes" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

that was just the tip of the iceberg. but roughly half of the american
public was frightened or sufficiently illiterate to believe
bush/chaney/rumsfield, even after many of the lies were exposed.

that's only partially true. the neocons you see here in these newsgroups
are the low-end, the poor fools who can be manipulated into almost
anything so long as it involves hate. their minders are a different
matter. they are the ones who profiteer at the deaths of so many


author: Ray Fischer

subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Osprey <[email]> wrote:

99.6% on the irony meter.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

What do you want to know?

I was judging Bush's LACK of academic achievements.  I knew you didn't
understand the conversation.

You are really defensive about your grades.  Why do you suppose that is?

Apparently you don't understand what socialism is all about.  What a
shock.  I don't endorse socialism, but at least I understand what it
is, first.

I got it from a public record.  If you claim it is wrong, you better go
get that worked on.  You are down as a Republican.

Well, if you are that enamored by me, so be it, but stop pretending you
don't care what I say.  You care a great deal.

Not really.  How so?

What is there to "get by," Clark?

I accept responsibility for anything Clinton said he was going to do
and did.  NONE of your pathetic attempts above fit the bill.  On the
other hand, Bush said, "WAR!"  You said, "YEAH!"  Accept
responsibility, you irresponsible asshole.  Did you think Clinton and
Monica attacked the Cole?  LOL!!!!!

Why?  Clinton didn't kill them.  You are even dumber than I thought!
Why you voted for Bush, you voted for people dying - and Bush came
through for you.  He killed thousands.  Clinton never said he intended
to kill anyone.

No.  You are just as stupid as everyone says, that's all.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
[email] (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:ctj87n$ssk$1
@bolt.sonic.net:

no.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <ctj87n$ssk$[email]>, Ray Fischer
<[email]> wrote:

LOL Apparently not.  He is so anxious to say something stupid he
doesn't check the conversation, first.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <AKWKd.2702$[email]>, Frank Dwyer
<[email]> wrote:

I agree.  But who is to say it won't be another claim of "We are at
war.  We donï¿½t want to change Presidents" claim that works again?

And was probably the ONE who read it.

Bad excuse, but I hope the repeal it.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
"Frank Dwyer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:AKWKd.2702$[email]...

Exactly, and that is why I have respect for you Frank. You are not so biased
as many others, to ignore the
fact that both sides use their own propaganda.
Is there a threat to the U.S.?  Yes
How serious should we take that threat?
I don't think people should just stop living and be afraid. What ever
happens, happens..we can't control
everything.  With that said though, the U.S. needs to still remain alert and
aware of the threat.

Republicans have been using

Not to mention that Democrats have been trying to scare people into thinking
Republicans were going to take away medicare, kill Social Security (we can
look at what Joe Biden tried to do with Social Security later).  It is a
tactic that scares the elderly and the young.

Watch out for Guiliani.

Remember WWII and the Governments reaction to the Japanese, shortly after
Pearl Harbor.
There are other examples of the Government taking away rights or reacting
out of "fear", throughout U.S. History.


author: Paul Anderson

subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:28:00 GMT, Frank Dwyer <[email]>
wrote:

...

Nothing will change -- Jeb Bush will be the appointed as the next
president.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <Xns95EDD81C4BCBBkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, james g.
keegan jr. <[email]> wrote:

What gets me is that so many people believe their are "terrorists" out
there like there was the USSR.  Sure there are terrorists.  But they
aren't nearly organized enough to be treated like we can have a war
with them.  Our war on terrorism is like a war on crime.  Which country
do we invade to solve the war on crime?


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
David W. Barnes wrote:

I hope you're insinuating Cheney running and not an Amendment to allow
Bush to run again. I said it before Kerry emerged and I'll say it again:
I really hope the Democrats can put forth a worthy candidate. IMO, the
last election was a race between two people who were equally unqualified
for the job.

lol! You're probably right. (It was Feingold who voted no)

I'm really tempted to give Hillary's office a call Monday morning and
ask them why she'd vote to approve a bill she didn't read.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Paul Anderson wrote:

Now there's a winning attitude. Three years to go and you've already
given up.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
[email] (Paul Anderson) wrote in news:41fc5275.6546323
@news.la.sbcglobal.net:

do you think they'll pretend to let people vote?


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
"David W. Barnes" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

we invade whichever country has the economic resources or territorial
position which bush wants to steal


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <U1XKd.2707$[email]>, Frank Dwyer
<[email]> wrote:

Actually, neither.  Cheney will never run.  I suspect he won't survive
the next four years.  I meant there is always another Republican out
their who will use the war to try to get elected.  Maybe Jeb?

Who then?  Hillary?

Politics.  It is all bullshit.  A vote against the "Patriot Act" seems
unpatriotic, and Americans believe what they are told.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in
news:U1XKd.2707$[email]:

i don't believe anyone could be less qualified than bush.

for better or for worse, hillary can gain the democratic nod, if she really
wants it. She is far too conservative for my tastes.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

Abraham Lincoln


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in
news:HaZKd.2734$[email]:

it doesn't sound like that to me. to date, all bush and bush organization
revovals of traditional american freedoms have been accepted by around half
fo the public for one reason or another.

who is to say the public would reject doing away with elections and simply
allowing bush to appoint the next dict... whoops, president?


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <HaZKd.2734$[email]>, Frank Dwyer
<[email]> wrote:

And he will still be spending tax money on this:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/28/schiavo.ap/index.html


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
On 30 Jan 2005 03:32:15 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<[email]> wrote:

They'll let people vote -- they will simply count them 'correctly'.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
David W. Barnes wrote:

I don't think he'd have a snowball's chance of winning.

A much better choice, imo. I would've voted for her last November. She's
a helluva lot better than the choice we had.

What's funny is that "USA PATRIOT", as it pertains to the "Patriot Act",
is just an acronym. It seems that most people (Americans, et al.) aren't
aware of that.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <Xns95EDD891A813Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, james g.
keegan jr. <[email]> wrote:

Bush isn't just unqualified.  My problem with him is he is beyond
inept.  The man is an idiot.  His estimated IQ is something around 93.
Every time he opens his mouth he says something stupid.   He never
received a grade in college over a "C."  Osprey says he gets "A's."
What does that tell you about Bush?  He is an embarrassment to our
country.  But we have so many things for our country to be embarrassed
about lately, he pales in comparison.

People should stop and think about what things were like under Clinton.


author: Galen Hekhuis

subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
On 30 Jan 2005 02:17:22 GMT, "james g. keegan jr." <[email]>
wrote:

I know that puts the bar pretty low, but I can think of some.  I think
Charles Manson is less qualified than Bush.  It's a tough call, I know.

Al Sharpton is way too far conservative for my tastes.  He panders too much
to the right wing.

   Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA                    [email]
                      Illiterate?  Write for FREE help


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

What about him?  Try using sentences.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
David W. Barnes wrote:

I was damn glad to hear that the court finally made the proper ruling.
With as much buzz as her situation had here last year, I'm surprised it
wasn't brought up to any great extent since the ruling.
They (parents & husband) should let her die with whatever dignity they
haven't stolen from her.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
[email] (Paul Anderson) wrote in
news:[email]:

as they did in 2000 and 2004.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Paul Anderson wrote:

You do acknowledge that corruption and misdeeds run rampant through both
parties, don't you?


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <EdYKd.2717$[email]>, Frank Dwyer
<[email]> wrote:

I hope you are right.  He is a hell of a lot smarter than GW.  I heard
that during state dinners, George Sr. always made sure GW didn't sit
too close to the front of the table because he would say such idiotic
stuff.  Jeb, however, was considered to be a better chance for
president so they kept him close.

I agree.  The problem I have with her is that women seem to have a
problem with her.

As they are unaware of MOST things important to the country.


author: Foxtrot

subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
"David W. Barnes" <[email]> wrote:

You have fallen for a HOAX, dumbass.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

   Claim:   According to a study by the Lovenstein Institute,
   President Bush has the lowest IQ of all presidents (91) of
   past 50 years.

   Status:   False.

No, patsies like you who get duped by politically motivated
hoaxes are the real embarrassment to our country.

Yes, we had a president who attacked innocent American
women and children with a gas-spewing battletank, but
was too busy getting his dick sucked and covering it up
to notice that terrorists were taking 767 flight control
lessons in Florida.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Galen Hekhuis <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

you're right it is a tough call. bush certainly caused more deaths.

i like sharpton more than i like hillary. word on the street is that
hillary is more electable. there is no democratic candidate who excites
me but it doesn't matter. bush will be gone in 2008.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Galen Hekhuis wrote:

Being from NY, I first came to hear of him during the Tawana Brawley affair.
http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/tawana/
Needless to say, many in my area have a very low opinion of him.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <[email]>, Galen Hekhuis
<[email]> wrote:

Manson is very intelligent.

Sharpton is nuts.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

You think that Bush is the only one who has taken away freedom or restricted
rights?
Learn some history.  It is too much for you to absorb at one time, so go
back and learn about Abraham Lincoln.

Hint:  Habeas Corpus

You do know what that is don't you?
You might want to call your lawyer friend up again and get the answer.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <RjZKd.2736$[email]>, Frank Dwyer
<[email]> wrote:

They are appealing again on different grounds.

For sure.  Some fear dying, I fear having something like this happen to
me.  Her parents are unbelievably callous.  Bush too.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in
news:A_ZKd.2740$[email]:

seems to make more sense to deal with the corruption in front of us.

you wouldn't instruct a child that it's ok to do something so long as the
other kids do it, would you?

although osprey was making the argument that it was ok if the other guy did
it...


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

Personal observation, asshole.

I never mentioned the "Lovenstein Institute"

<Yawn> He is an idiot.  No wonder you side with him.

Yeah.  He should have been down there checking that out.  Bush was
WARNED.  He told his staff not to fly.  So what did Bush do?  He went
on vacation.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <Xns95EDE0DAC553Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, james g.
keegan jr. <[email]> wrote:

But, according to the Right, Manson is innocent.  He never personally
killed anyone.  He had others do it for him like Bush has.

Maybe not.  I hear the Republican Party has talked of making a legal
challenge saying the 2000 election, where the United States Supreme
Court assigned him to office, didn't count.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in
news:BiYKd.2718$[email]:

does it matter who the candidates are?

who can say if voter turnout will drop dramatically with many believing the
gop has rigged the election?

or perhaps, turnout will rise dramatically with people voting for anyone
running aginst the gop candidate?


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 03:14:41 GMT, Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote:

There are many others who have done far worse, in my judgement.  But the
public has made him what he is, and however you feel about him, you have to
admit he has handled public opinion to his benefit.

I almost hesitate to ask, are there politicians you do have a high opinion
of?

   Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA                    [email]
                      Illiterate?  Write for FREE help


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <BiYKd.2718$[email]>, Frank Dwyer
<[email]> wrote:

Not just your area.  I could hardly be further from you in the US, and
I think he is a dolt.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
"David W. Barnes" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

naw, sharpton isn't nuts, although, like all politicians, he is an
opportunist.

he's surely be a far, far, better president than bush.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
"Osprey" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

WAAAAA! All the kids do it mommy.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

What about it?  Said something stupid again and now you are cornered,
right?

No - you used it.  You tell us.  What does it mean.  (Or is this yet
another example of you using a phrase you heard somewhere that you
don't understand.)


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

Though right now one side has a bit more influence than the other, it's
all in front of us.
The Republicans are capable of doing more damage, but in at least one
instance, the democratic party tried to illegally influence the outcome
of the election.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

As long as it's someone not named Bush vs. someone with a personality,
I'll be a happy constituent.

There's corruption of the process from both sides, and it has yet to
lower voter turnout, so I would think the latter is the more likely of
the two.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Galen Hekhuis wrote:

LOL! Damn! Somebody asked...

As far as their accomplishments as an elected official, the only one
(living) that I can think of is Bill Clinton.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <Xns95EE608F43EA2keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, james g.
keegan jr. <[email]> wrote:

That is his position, alright.  He thinks that if you can find one
person, anywhere, who did what you do, that makes it acceptable to do
it.  Just imagine what he does in his community.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

So tell us, what did Abraham Lincoln do that involved Habeas Corpus. Did he
not restrict people of this basic right?

The point is, and you are too illiterate to get it by now, Bush is not the
first president to restrict certain rights or freedoms.  And when it comes
to protecting American citizens, I have no problem with it.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in
news:%faLd.2818$[email]:

saying "he did it too" doesn't mean much to me. it is very weak. i think
if you see corruption in an instance, you tryu to fix it. if you see it
in another instanve, you try to fix that too.

would you?

he is the kind of guy who would use that excuse.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in
news:JRYKd.2729$[email]:

we agree


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <29ZKd.2733$[email]>, Frank Dwyer
<[email]> wrote:

You have to wish we had more of him...  He'd still be president today
if it were legal.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
"David W. Barnes" <[email]> wrote in news:300120050731173161%
[email]:

given all of the inmates he has been exposed to over the years, it explains
how he can justify anything. he is a broken person with no substance nor
credibility.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

You tell me.  You brought it up.  And be sure to tell us what "Habeas
Corpus" means.

That is because you are a fascist.  If we turn America into Iraq, what
is there that is worth protecting?

It is ironic that in an effort to "Democratize" Iraq, you now condone
diminishing Democracy in the USA.  Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden would
be so proud of you.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

It isn't a matter of "he did it too". It's a matter of the guilty
accusing the guilty. People holding others to a standard they don't hold
themselves to.

I would tend to agree, but in recent months, there seems to be quite a
few people screaming corruption but not doing anything about it.

What you're referencing with that question, probably not, but it depends
on what it is.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
David W. Barnes wrote:

Absolutely. I wish he were able and willing to be VP. To be honest, he's
half the reason I voted for, and would vote for, Hillary. If she has a
politician such as him whispering in her ear, she can't be all bad.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

Providing you an education is not my desire nor my goal.
My point was, and still is, and proven, that Bush is not the first president
to restrict freedom's or rights.

If you wish to get an education on Habeas Corpus, I suggest you take a
Criminal Justice course.  Intro to Criminal Justice should suffice, you
might learn something.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
"Frank Dwyer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:NWaLd.2825$[email]...

It is refreshing to see someone else get it, that is exactly what I am
trying to say.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in news:NWaLd.2825$0M6.1680
@news02.roc.ny:

it certainly sounds like it. it also sounds like dodging the issue.

that's true. i've noticed an inordinate number of people apparently
defending the corruption and actually contesting with those who criticized
the corruption instead of collaborating with the to remove the corrupt.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
In article <ghZKd.2735$[email]>, Frank Dwyer
<[email]> wrote:

He will be there, VP or not.  And I wouldn't be so sure he wouldn't run
as VP.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

LOL!  So you failed.

How so?  Nixon and Reagan used the federal government in an illegal
manner.  Does that mean to that future illegal use of the government is
acceptable?  Don't you get tired of using such stupid excuse as that?
Is that REALLY the best you can do?  Is it now acceptable for our
Presidents to have criminal backgrounds because Bush has one?

You claim you took such a class, tell us what Habeas Corpus means!


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

He isn't saying what you condone, you half wit.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
"Osprey" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

you and frank do seem to be saying the same thing although your defenses of
gop corruption seems far more transparent than frank's, which is oblique.

it's good to see you agree with me that you and frank are saying the same
thing.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

Failed what? You are the one who doesn't know what it means and you don't
understand my point with Abraham Lincoln.
If you wish to get an education on Habeas Corpus, do so.

Tell us why you don't know, you claim to be a lawyer.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

Your perception of my statements as a defense of GOP corruption is a
delusion.
I acknowledge GOP corruption, not defend it.
Unlike you, however, I acknowledge the equal level of corruption within
the Democratic party as well.

It's good to know that when your adversary states a fact, you'll still
deny it.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

I know EXACTLY what it means.  YOU used a phrase that you don't
understand, AS USUAL.

Once again you look like a fool.  Stop using words you don't understand.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in
news:X8dLd.2846$[email]:

as i said, and demonstrated, it appeared otherwise

your're right that i'm not always crying "he did it too." that was just
you, and coward bobby, of course.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

No you don't.

  YOU used a phrase that you don't

I understand it very well, especially working in pretrial unit's.
You are the one asking.  Stop being ashamed, go get an education.

You are the one asking what it means.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

As I said, and you demonstrated, your perception is a delusion.

I never said that.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

Mind reading again?

So you saw a form the inmates send in and you think you understand the
concept of Habeas Corpus.  Typical guard bullshit.

You are the one who used it not knowing what it means.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in news:BTdLd.2852$VV6.563
@news02.roc.ny:

perhaps you're just overly sensitive about what you did, and how small it
makes you appear.

 that was just you, and coward bobby, of course.

your won words condemn you.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

No, just speaking from observation.  You wouldn't ask if you knew.

Typical uneducated hateful bigot bullshit.

You are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

Show the exact post where I said that.
You can't, because I never said it.
Consider yourself exposed, yet again, as the hypocritical liar you are.


author: Ted Kennedy - World Class Buffoon

subject: Re: EXPLOITING DEMOCRAT PARTY STUPIDITY

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


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

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

I'd ask to prove you don't know.  Do you really think you can run
around making crazy comments and then when someone calls you on it say,
"You tell me?"

I was just commenting on how a 27K per year guard thinks he understand
the concept of Habeas Corpus based on working as a paper pusher.

I never used any phrases I read in a book without understanding them.
You did.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in
news:EagLd.2866$[email]:

news:A_ZKd.2740$[email]

you need to start thinking about what you say


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

"You do acknowledge that corruption and misdeeds run rampant through
both parties, don't you?"
That's the entirety of what I wrote in that post. That post doesn't
reference you in any way.

Try again, slurpy.
Show the exact post where I said that.
You can't, because I never said it.
Consider yourself exposed, yet again, as the hypocritical liar you are.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in
news:zAiLd.2879$[email]:

nor
 did anyone claim you referenced me. nice strawman. what your post
 remark did do, of course, is defend gop coruption by claiming everyone
 did the same thing, which of course is not true in either action or
 degree.

what for? you lied. you got caught, condemmed by your own words. that
seems to be a regular thing for you. i imagine you'll kepe lying about
this too.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

"your're right that i'm not always crying 'he did it too.'"

uh huh

You claimed "your're right that i'm not always crying 'he did it too.'"
I never said you aren't always crying "he did it too."

Try again, slurpy.
Show the exact post where I said that.
You can't, because I never said it.
Consider yourself exposed, yet again, as the hypocritical liar you are.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in news:APrLd.2928$nN7.2306
@news02.roc.ny:

you keep repeating your strawman.

what your post did do is defend gop coruption by claiming everyone did the
same thing, which of course is not true in either action or degree.

what for? you lied. you got caught, condemmed by your own words. that
seems to be a regular thing for you. i imagine you'll kepe lying about
this too.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Oh my, jimmy, an unmarked deletion? It couldn't be that you're once
again trying to weasel your way out of a lie, could it?

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

You keep avoiding acknowledgment of your lie.

*yawn* And the one-trick pony is heard from yet again.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in
news:5HtLd.2936$[email]:

sounds like you;re getting used to being caught lying.


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/minifaqs/keegan.net.idiots
http://www.suslik.org/Humour/Computer/Internet/nl4.html


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in news:lvvLd.2949$dX7.2055
@news02.roc.ny:

[..]
"That's not a forgery, stupid" moaned forger Frank Dwyer as
he tried to explain why he manufactured text and falsely
attributed it to me. <4Y8Kd.2254$[email]>


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

A false accusation you make against nearly everyone who's stupid enough
to think you're capable of an adult discussion.
http://tinyurl.com/5vzhe


subject: Re: EXPLOITING FEAR

text:
Frank Dwyer <[email]> wrote in news:jYALd.3004$ME.1588
@news02.roc.ny:

lying doesn't make your forgery any less a forgery, frankie. it just shows
your cowardice more visibly


author: Mike Painter

subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

text:
On 7/3/2012 8:21 PM, Mr.B1ack wrote:

Get on almost any of the gun crowd forums and ask for yourself.
Y2K alone was responsible for tons and tons of cheap, steel cored ammo
being bought up and in case you've not noticed, steel shot is common today.
They cause sparks.

There is also the conversion of kinetic energy to heat.

A 5 g lead bullet moving at 343 m/s is stopped in a block of wood. All
of the kinetic energy goes into heat energy added to the bullet. The
initial temperature of the bullet is 24 degrees C. What is the final
temperature of the bullet in degrees C? (cPb = 0.128 kJ/kg . K, LfPb =
24.7 kJ/kg, MPPb = 600 K)

2. Relevant equations
  K = 1/2*m*v^2
  Q = mc[tex]\Delta[/tex]T
  Answer = 327C
Or 620.6ï¿½ Fahrenheit, which is hot enough to cause a fire.


author: Oglethorpe

subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

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

NNo CITES.


subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

text:
On 7/4/2012 6:19 AM, Oglethorpe wrote:
You defenders of the idea that gun fire does not cause fire have ignored
all cites, including the first article.

Pick any of them and ask the question.


author: Scout

subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

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

The articles simply state someone making an assertion. No evidence that
assertion is true exists within the article.

So what exactly do you think those articles show?

If it's in print, it must be true????


author: Fredric L. Rice

subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

text:
Mike Painter <[email]> wrote:

It was gun fire that started *some* of the wild fires in Colorado.
Rightarded BNRA Republican shit piles don't use Google because they
do not want to admit that some of their own fellow NRA cock suckers
started any of the fires still burning out of control.

---
Email address: [email] http://www.skeptictank.org/
Obama: 4 more years of Christian terrorism and corporate treason


author: RD Sandman

subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

text:
Mike Painter <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

ignored

Yes, it appears that steel clad or steel core bullets can cause sparks
which may start a fire in really, really dry tinder, but some of the
cases which have been cited in here were due to use of incendiary rounds,
explosive targets, or hitting an automobile gas tank in a garage.  All of
those were claimed initially in here as target shooters causing a fire.
There were even a couple where the article initially said shooters out
target shooting caused a fire that later in the article it was stated
that fire began where their campfire was.

--

If you hear me yell, "Eject!  Eject!  Eject!"
The last two will be echoes......

If you stop to ask "Why?" You will be talking to
yourself because you just became the pilot.

Sleep well, tonight.....


author: Gray Guest

subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

text:
[email] (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in
news:[email]:

Wow, you ought to get treated for that before you get treated for that.

--
Refusenik #1


subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

text:
On 7/4/2012 11:12 AM, RD Sandman wrote:

The article that started this thread speaks specifically of wildfires in
Utah caused by gunfire and the increase of that number over last year.
State, local and federal investigators say gunfire PERIOD is the cause,
not incendiary rounds or explosive targets which they will have to list
in a report.


subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

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

Yep, and what is lacking is any documentary evidence to support their
assertion that this is actually the case.

So show me the proof that standard, typical ammo fired from a gun did
directly cause these fires.


subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

text:
Mike Painter <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

This thread has been going off and on for a long time.  The fire in Utah
just started it up again.

--

If you hear me yell, "Eject!  Eject!  Eject!"
The last two will be echoes......

If you stop to ask "Why?" You will be talking to
yourself because you just became the pilot.

Sleep well, tonight.....


subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

text:
RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in
news:XnsA0869D4FE2008hopewell@216.196.121.131:

Lt. Grafton: Well, this is the end of Devil Five-O- Five. Say goodbye,
asshole!
Cole: Goodbye Asshole!
Lt. Grafton: Eject, Eject, Eject!

Lt. Grafton: All right, now listen, Doc. Don't touch anything. Keep your
hands in your lap.
Doc: Absolutely.
Lt. Grafton: The only exception is if you have to eject.
Doc: Eject?
Lt. Grafton: Now, you got a yellow and black handle here and one here--you
pull it. The command will be "eject, eject, eject." Three times, you got
it?
Doc:  Yes, "eject, eject, eject." Do I say roger or...just do it or what?
Lt. Grafton: You even say "huh," you'll be talking to yourself...'cause
I'll be gone.

--
Refusenik #1


subject: Re: Guns caused Wild Fires

text:
Gray Guest <[email]> wrote in
news:XnsA086E7A974E83Wereofftoseethewizrd@88.198.244.100:

Yep......

--

If you hear me yell, "Eject!  Eject!  Eject!"
The last two will be echoes......

If you stop to ask "Why?" You will be talking to
yourself because you just became the pilot.

Sleep well, tonight.....


author: drdoody

subject: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
*tap-tap-tap SCREEEEE!!!*

Is this thing on?

Oh, good.

Excuse me folks, I know that depending upon the newsgroup in question,
crossposting falls somewhere between poor manners and a capital offense, but
as all of the NG's I am posting this to have at one time or another been
forced to deal with Ray Slater (aka. [email] aka.
[email]) and I thought that at least a few of you would
enjoy the following bits.

If you have no interest in reading a verbal vivisection of Ray Slater,
please ignore this message immediately.

Let me begin by saying that I am an abravise, ascerbic individual both on
Usenet and off. My language is rather crude and my techniques for dealing
with those who have irritated me are fairly heavy-handed. In spite of this,
I have never once threatened any person on Usenet with anything more than a
severe tounge-lashing. My feeling on internet squabbles is if you can't win
with words alone, you've lost. Shut up, admit defeat and move on. Now, I
really did try to engage Mr. Slater in a fairly logical conversation on AAEV
and TPA.

I soon found out why this is a rather poor idea.

Mr. Slater seems to feel that a conversation has to end in one of two ways:
Either with him coming out the "winner" or with him harassing whoever had
the nerve to suggest that he was in error. And Mr. Slater is very, *very*
persistant when it comes to harassment. Among Mr Slater's rather dull tools
for removing those who annoy him are threats of contacting their ISP's and
"reporting" the offender for a transgression (either real or imagined),
dredging up whatever posts the offender has made in the past and may be used
to "embarrass" them, trying to persuade every person within earshot to
"ignore" the offenderand last but certainly not least:

Threatening to surrepticiously obtain the offender's personal information
for use against him or her by means of electronic crime.

Now, the first three of Mr.Slater's tools aren't cause for much concern. So
far he's threatened to blackmail me off of TPA and AAEV with my own
material, report me to my employers for posting tasteless material and to
"the proper authorities" for threatening homeland security. Examples to
follow:

National

Now, I took these little snippets for exactly what they were: delusional
rantings from a borderline schizophrenic miffed at having his ass handed to
him. Besides, the man (and I use the term loosely) is a complete idiot and
at worst, any "authorities" he reported me to would probably get quite a
kick out of his bleating. But this next bit got my attention:

UK

Now, I wasn't worried, mind you. I've known a few "hackers" and this guy
doesn't fall into that category. Nobody in their right mind is going to
actually *warn * their intended target about an impending attack, right? Nor
are they going to announce that they had committed a crime. So, I did what
any person with half a brain would do:

I called his bluff.

I gave Mr. Slater 24 whole hours to invade my computer by any means he felt
necessary. I left my computer connected to the internet for an entire day to
give Mr.Slater plenty of time to make good on his threat of electronic
sabotage. The agreement was that after 24 hours, if he produced one shred of
evidence (my name, location, vital information, etc) that I would leave
talk.politics.animals and alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian forever. If not, I
was going to expose him for the petulant, whining, blustering child he is to
every NG he's ever frequented.

Well, I'm still here.

Now, I know that if you've ever been forced to deal with Mr. Slater for more
than a milisecond, you will be quite aware that he is possibly the most
annoying, idiotic, loathesome little invertebrate this side of the common
flatworm. He completely lacks any ability whatsoever to stay on-topic and
will resort to personal attacks whenever he feels that his opponent has
gotten the upper hand in an argument. When that fails to drive off the
offender, he will quite readily make the above threats. He is a liar, a
slanderer and worst of all: he has a habit of making empty threats. Now, Mr.
Slater isn't talking to me at the moment. He merely responds to my posts
with "No Comment". This can only mean that he either A: Is formulating
another sophomoric plan to get me into "trouble", or B: Has finally crept
off to sulk because I called his bluff and he wasn't able to produce any
results.

As a public service announcement, I would urge any and all people reading
this post to take heed of this warning: Although Mr. Slater is indeed an
idiot, he will still do his best to cause you as much suffering as humanly
possible if you prove him wrong in an argument, poke fun at his hypocrisy or
do anything else that injures his precious little ego. Now, while his
repeated blunderings may be amusing, even a blind squirrell eventually finds
a nut and Mr. Slater might actually get lucky someday and cause somebody
some kind of harm. I would advise anybody threatened by Mr. Slater to look
up the TOS of his ISP's and, if he is in violation of either if them, report
him at once for his transgressions.

After all, he'd do the same for you.

Doc: Subverting the enitre human race, one sheep at a time.


author: Hoofington J. McSnort

subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
I am afraid I am going to have to ask you
to stop posting to these newsgroups.


author: Will Dockery

subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
Good luck to you, brother... I've had similar run-ins on Usenet, with
similar results... the Bob Dylan group is particularly offensive. In
addition to a gang of these Usenet bullies [one thing they can't
tolerate is a "newbie" coming onto their group... several groups have
gone to many extremes to drive me and other "newbies" out.]threatened
a loved one of mine... oh yeah, you did mention blackmail, add
extrotion and terroristic threats to that list. Aw, anyway, that's
pretty much it, just your post struck a chord with me.
Will Dockery

Daredevil golden age group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alevegleasonpublication

Irony Waves poetry group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ironywaves

"drdoody" <[email]> wrote in message news:<gAY3a.3906$[email]>...


subject: Re: Ray Slater [Of course, no offense]

text:
Of course, no offense to you or Ray Slater, neither of whom I even
know... just throwing in my unbiased opinion...
Will

Daredevil golden age group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alevgleasonpublication

Irony Waves poetry group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ironywaves


author: Camcompany

subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
"drdoody" <[email]> wrote in message
news:gAY3a.3906$[email]...
but
this,
a
win
AAEV
ways:
tools
used
So
patients -
to
I'm
Nor
felt
to
of
to
more
Mr.
or
finds
report
No comment


subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
"drdoody" <[email]> wrote in message
news:gAY3a.3906$[email]...
but
this,
a
win
AAEV
ways:
tools
used
So
patients -
to
I'm
Nor
felt
to
of
to
more
Mr.
or
finds
report

Wrong again, pervert. ~~Jonnie~~ is the only guy on this Newsgroup who has
received ISP warnings as a result of my complaints.
I have not reported even  you, but I have reported you to to the Police for
drug pushing and your advice. on bombs.


subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

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

I really don't think this guy has the brains or the balls to threaten a
loved one of mine. If he did so in a believable fashion, my humilitaing him
verbally would be the *last* of his worries.

Doc: Subverting the entire human race, one sheep at a time.


subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
"I know who!" <Mysterious_Mr._X@ray_slater_is_a_shitbag.com> wrote in
message news:3E50712E.7030007@ray_slater_is_a_shitbag.com...
Stay our of this one Jonnie


subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
"drdoody" <[email]> wrote in message news:<_PC4a.4062$[email]>...

I can dig it!
Will

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alevgleasonpublication

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ironywaves


author: I know who!

subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
drdoody wrote:

Dump Slater is an impotent fat queer.  He can't
realistically threaten anything.


subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
"d'Green" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b2rgae$1g12j9$[email]...
crossosting.


subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
Camcompany wrote:

Fuck yourself up the ass, Dump.  Wrap an old cloth
around a broom handle, dip it in turpentine, light it
on fire, and shove it right up your gaping asshole.


author: d'Green

subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
And I suppose that is the extent of your learning ability.

Why? I just respected the idea of the person who started the thread...


subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
"I know who!" <Mysterious_Mr._X@ray_slater_is_a_shitbag.com> wrote in
message

Bwahahahaha!!

Ever thought about posting on alt.tasteless?

Doc: Subverting then entire human race, one sheep at a time.


subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
"drdoody" <[email]> wrote in message
news:VQ84a.3943$[email]...
So you back, drug pushing perverts ~~Jonny~~?
You will back anybody in order to take a side sweep at me. Illustrates, once
again, what a sad *ucker you are?


author: Jonathan Ball

subject: Re: Ray Slater: Netcop or Hapless twit?

text:
Camcompany wrote:

Shut the fuck up, fat queer.

Fuck off and die, Dump.


author: Neal Boortz

subject: Gun Control Through ... ObamaCare?

text:
Hey you doctors out there, did you hear what Dear Ruler has in store for
you?  You thought that you went to school to get a medical degree to
practice medicine, help people and earn the big bucks.  Now you are
realizing that you will be a government employee, subject to the demands
of a feckless ruler.

Now Obama wants doctors to get into the business of victim disarmament.
Apparently part of ObamaCare that Obama wants emphasized is the need for
doctors to ask patients if they have a gun in the home.  It also allows
for doctors to report any threats of violence without repercussion.

Pretty fitting, wouldnï¿½t you say?  Obama essentially lays the foundation
for the government take over the healthcare industry and plans to use his
government workers to ask patients about guns in their homes.  Amazing.

If my doctor asks me about my gun ï¿½ Iï¿½ll be happy to show it to him or
her.  It will probably be right there with me.


author: Wayne

subject: Re: Gun Control Through ... ObamaCare?

text:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:00:00 -0500, Neal Boortz <[email]>
wrote:
store for
to
demands

disarmament.
need for
allows

foundation
use his
Amazing.

or

On a doc visit last year my doc saw the carry piece while I was
taking my shirt off.  She immediately said that it was no problem, as
it isn't unusual to see a patient packing.

Hell, my dentist packs on a daily basis.