subject: Re: Resolution

text:
Freind:

Sorry about reality - but when people attack my spiritual path and
right to post in a public forum, I have no problem calling them Nazi's.

"those who come after the Rama people may in your eyes be ten times
worst than them"
-Freind

You are correct in that the lie that Rama was a cult leader was started
by kidnappers and people that have been found in courts, unlike Rama,
to have broken many laws.  Ch'an Fu is a Rick Ross sympathizer along
with many others that block dharma in the USENET:

http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/dbase/bios/rross.html

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/rossr1.html

http://www.freedomdomain.com/mindcontrol/cultaware.html

http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/press/9309-nd.htm

I actually am glad for this dharma battle.  It has exposed the
so-called Buddhist room regulars that somehow think hating and
attacking someone else's spiritual path is a part of Buddhism; thus
exposing their lack of knowledge and adharmic states of attention.

-CW


author: Julian

subject: Re: Resolution

text:
thefriend wrote:

Thanks for the endorsement Friend.
http://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/


subject: Re: Resolution

text:
thefriend wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble Friend, but it is clear to anyone
who should care to check that you have been a busted
flush from day one.

Stay away from the Gin, lass.


subject: Re: Resolution

text:
thefriend wrote:

I don't doubt you "love" children but
I do doubt the legality of the form it takes.

http://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/


author: thefriend

subject: Re: Resolution

text:
I too have been plagued by the senseless minds here on occasion because my
original thoughts seem to offend.

But you see Curly ultimately we must forgive them and when we hit back at
them because we are human and not perfect like the Buddha we should always
still hold out our hand to them that offend us with the hope of
reconciliation.

You see Culy  I have intellectually CRUSHED these guys on this site over
and over, and they know that, and because I am an outsider, they hate
that.

I just slammed hard headed Stumper again as I have in the past, but I
still must not dam him to hell, because remember he is a fragile human
like us who is redeemable.

As for Julian, a nasty chap, well his actions speak for themselves.
He has offended me a thousand times but I have refraimed most of the time
from getting as low as him.
He needs help, and I hope he gets it.

Chan Fu, I havenï¿½t peeped his hole card yet, but I know he has psychic or
psychotic abilities, but that may be his problem, he thinks that is a big
thing.
He needs a heart transplant.

Ms Ruut is sometimes condescending in her manner, she means no harm, she
just has a thing for feeling superior to us mortals, shell get over it.

Anyway when you finish your tirade, (and I canï¿½t criticize you for I had
one myself) just remember these people even though they donï¿½t sometimes
act like it are human beings.

Or maybe some of them
Are of the Jinn


subject: Re: Resolution

text:
Sorry to burst your bubble Friend, but it is clear to anyone
who should care to check that you have been a busted
flush from day one.

Stay away from the Gin, lass.

And who pratel are thou
O unknown one

I have yet to apply my lash to thee
stop hidding
I wont hurt ye
I love children


author: Anraku

subject: Re: Resolution

text:
How much montly tuition was paid to the
Buddha, that is the question, and nothing else.
These nincompoops paid to Cultmeister Rama
six thousend $ fee, monthly.
They never will admit, that they were duped.
A true Master can accept voluntery donations:
but NEVER can ask for a fee.
And that is the difference betwen a good religious
teacher, and a quack.

Anraku


author: Evelyn Ruut

subject: Re: Resolution

text:
"thefriend" <friend@aboveandbelow> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Sorry you got that impression.

Evelyn


subject: Re: Resolution

text:
How much montly tuition was paid to the
Buddha, that is the question, and nothing else.
These nincompoops paid to Cultmeister Rama
six thousend $ fee, monthly.
They never will admit, that they were duped.
A true Master can accept voluntery donations:
but NEVER can ask for a fee.
And that is the difference betwen a good religious
teacher, and a quack.

Anraku

Fine Anraku believe what you like.
I remember years ago we use to mock the so called Black Muslims who had a
religion that said white people were devils. I can understand people
having problems with other peopleï¿½s beliefs, but does that mean we should
belittle, mock and try to do damage to people.

Would the great Buddha treat people that way?
I think not.

Look Anraku I donï¿½t really know you and donï¿½t necessarily believe what you
do.
But judging from what I know of you the last thing I would do is make jest
or mockery of your cherished beliefs.

You are a honorable man Anraku, and I see that and respect it.
But when we dishonor others that may be when we dishonor ourselves.

We can have differences and express them in a respectable manner that
upholds human dignity.

The friend


subject: Re: Resolution

text:
Ms Ruut is sometimes condescending in her manner, she means no harm, she

Sorry you got that impression.

Evelyn

No Ms Eve I think you are a grand dame, in fact you are one of the few
here with good sense I think. The others here have sense, it's just not
good sense. We wont mention no names. Itï¿½s just that I believe what was
done to Curly and his crew started to border on the abusive. Also the
witch stuff said by Mr Curly I thought was unfortunate.

Just listen to this briefly, and it will give you an example of what I am
talking about.

Years Ago I spent time in a religious community where we did that to
people on occasion.
We would abuse people verbally in the hope of squashing there ego, at
least that was the flimsy justification we used to do it.

But then a sensitive and a bit disturbed fellow joined the community and
the guys in the community heaped all kinds of abuse on him.
And you know what happened
One day the guy took a knife and almost killed the chief abuser.

Thatï¿½s when I stopped indulging in that kind of stuff.

We just have to watch ourselves when we indulge in harmful speech to each
other the ramifications can get out of control.


subject: Re: Resolution

text:
"thefriend" <friend@aboveandbelow> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Very true.   I belonged to a dharma community at one time, which consisted
for the most part of former Gurdjieff group people, who had later become
interested in Buddha dharma.   They often did the same thing as in their
former connection, without realizing they carried it forward with them.

A newcomer came into the center one day who was very lonely, somewhat
troubled, but drawn to buddhism.   The cold shoulder she received was not
very bad, at least not what I could see, but people were definitely not warm
to her.   The woman committed suicide.  I often wondered if the people in
the group had been kinder, warmer, more loving to her, would it have had any
influence on her actions?   Maybe she would have done this anyway, but now
we will never really know if the polite but chilly reception she got, added
to her emotional pain.

When it comes to the Rama people, it is not quite that way.   They abuse
people calling them nazi and witch and all sorts of bad things, no matter
how they have been approached.   It gets people annoyed to be preached at,
and even more so when the preachers are reviling you and refuse to engage in
civil discussion.

I have decided not to continue to feed the problem, and I consciously chose
to keep out of discussions with them.   If the truth be told, I have
actually kilfiled all their various names, not out of anger, but to prevent
myself from being led into incorrect speech with them.

I genuinely wish everyone peace...... Its easier to do when I don't see the
abuse.

Evelyn


author: Mike Schneider

subject: Re: More Trickle Up Economics

text:
In article <Pine.SOL.L3.93.960927165040.25159O-100000@bingsun2>,
<[email]> wrote:

   Nonsense. Proper accounting and honesty is all that is required. Lack
of the latter precludes the government from doing the former. It then has
a convenient excuse to tell you that the gold standard is unmaintainable.

   Gold is a wided traded commodity. One need only compare its value
expressed in various currencies, and track the changes between them.

   Low unemployment does not cause inflation (passe Keynsian notion). The
Federal Reserve boosting the money supply causes inflation. This
"boosting" is accomplished by the lowering of interest rates. Contraction
of the money supply is accomplished by rate rikes. Generally, the Fed
inflates or contracts the money supply in order to, it hopes, stave off
the consequences of government policy actions, such as tax increases (but
gravity must be obeyed). Occasionally it is between a rock and a hard
place, such as the current situation in which the money supply has
inflated rapidly and a rate hike recession would surely burst the
speculation bubble currently gripping the stock market.
   These manipulative shenanigans would not occur save for fiat currency.

   In which case inflation will roar out of control. Your loans will be
easier to repay, but everything else will be more expensive. But
ultimately, institutional bond holders would get pissed at the government
for anihilating their investments (what good does a 10% return do you if
inflation is also at 10%?). The goverment WILL listen to these people,
because if they boycott a government bond auction, our currency would
collapse relative to other world currencies. That would in turn kill the
stock market without the numbers even changing on the big board - since
the stocks are denominated in dollars. This kind of overnight
hyperinflation almost occured last spring when the U.S. dollar briefly
plunged from 110 Yen to 81 Yen (at 75 Yen Japanese banks were poised to
liquidate US bond and dollar holdings, resulting in a Weimer Republic
style disaster for the U.S. economy into banana republic status).
   Either way, the market speculation bubble will soon burst, sending
shock waves throughout the U.S. economy. It WILL be a hard crash. Most
people think no economic calamity could ever be as bad as the Great
Depression was. They are mistaken. Back then, the currency retained value
even though the markets collapsed (contrast to Germany's
hyperhyperinflation). Americans were also self-reliant; today a large
percentage relies on the government for support.

WARNING TO ADVERTISERS:

I keep a log of ALL domain names used by email spam merchants. I will NEVER buy ANY product from ANY business, whether it spams or not, if it's internet connection is though a known "rouge ISP" which caters to professional spammers. I encourage others to cooperate with me in identifying rouge ISPs for the purposes of creating a list of them for public distribution with the purpose of a widespread general boycott alert to be updated periodically in usenet forsale groups.
--------------
Who are the most informed, cutting edge Americans supporting?
Libertarian HARY BROWNE wins www poll! 30%, Dole 23%, Clinton 18%!


author: Marcel Duchamp

subject: Re: More Trickle Up Economics

text:
Mike Schneider wrote:

if we had an event such as the Arab Oil Embargo of the mid 1970's then
prices would go up without the Fed doing anything. The Fed's
manipulation of the money supply is one of many factors that influence
inflation. Employment *is* another factor. But, like the weather, the
economy is a complex system that doesn't always behave as one would
expect and is often difficult to predict or manage.

<snip, snip, snip>

There could be an economic collapse and it could be harsh, but not for
the reasons you give. Nor would it be as easy to predict as you seem to
think.

The Galt's Gultch Gaming Group as your organizational id indicates to me
that your prediction of economic collapse is influenced more by Ayn Rand
and Atlas Shrugged than by economic insight. For Ayn Rand capitalism was
a religion. The economic collapse that she predicted was a religious
archtype like the Flood of Noah. In Rand's case, the god of economics
punishes the "sin" of socialism by visiting economic collapse upon
socialist parasites. The "chosen" elite flee to Galt's Gultch where (we
presume) they are saved by capitalism.

As a science, economics has limited utility. As a religion, it has none.

PS: John Galt died penniless. After years of struggle, he never did
succeed in geting his engine to work. To this day, his dream of a
perpetual motion machine has yet to be realized.


subject:
Disproving Creation: watch Creationist Coward and Liar Andrew-a-Blank
 RUN from this easy challenge!

text:
On Mar 25, 10:04 pm, "Andrew" <[email]> wrote:

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE GUTS TO FACE ME ONE ON ONE?

Every time I challenge you to a formal debate you RUN AWAY thereby
*proving* that your claim that you have an omnipotent god bakcign you
up is a LIE!

So here it is again so you can prove it again: You post one item of
positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth, or for a creator, and
I will respond by refuting it with solid science or by posting one of
my own for an ancient Earth, or for abiogensis or for evolution.

Let's proceed in that fashion, alternating, and see who runs out
first.  All you need to start is ***ONE*** item of ***positive***
***scientific*** evidence.  just one.  One single item.  Can you not
even manage that?  With an omnipotent god behind you (so you claim)
CAN YOU NTO EVEN MANAGE TO POST ONE ITEM?

YOU have run out of the thread every single time I've offered you this
challenge.  Go ahead and run again and prove to every one of your
Christer ilk that your god is a lie and you dare not face me.

Go on.  I'll wait.  And wait.  And wait.  And wait.

Budikka


author: Andrew

subject: Re: Provng Creation: comets could not have seeded life on Earth

text:
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:[email]...

Rather when are you going to find the courage to
return to your God, your loving Heavenly Father?

Every time you are invited to come back to God,
your loving Heavenly Father, you RUN AWAY!

He is still waiting, and waiting - for YOU.

Since He is waiting, just come to Him now because
the clock is ticking and time is flying.

Andrew


author: Dreamer In Colore

text:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:16:44 -0700, "Andrew" <[email]>
wrote:

How utterly creepy. I'm picturing some wizened old thing sitting on a
throne, just waiting for Budikka. Doing nothing else, of course, but
waiting for Budikka.

Well, since the loving Heavenly Father is omniscient, then he probably
already knows that Budikka's holding her middle finger in a fetchingly
upright position, and since the loving Heavenly Father is omnipotent,
then he can certainly afford to just pluck her from the earthly
firmament whenever he so chooses.

Oh, did you mean to imply that he wants Budikka to come freely to him?
Well then, he'll just have to wait.

He's probably got infinite patience, after all, and he's ideally
virtuous too... so he's got that whole patience is a virtue thing
down. If you're in such a hurry... why don't you go see him and tell
him that she'll be a little late?

Cheers,
Dreamer


author: Ralph

text:
On 3/27/2013 2:16 AM, Andrew wrote:

You know Andrew, I can't tell if you are just yanking Bud's chain or you
really are as stupid as you appear.


author: Tang Huyen

subject: Re: Question en français pour Tang Huyen

text:
GeF wrote:

The self that we deludeds hold so dear to ourselves
is merely a composition (samskara), a product of the
fourth aggregate, the aggregate of the compositions
(samskara-skandha). Right off, the Buddha denies
that it is a substance or essence but asserts that it
is a creation of mind. In awakening, the mind's action,
mentation, is quiesced and does not proceed, and the
compositions (a part of mentation, the other part
being the third aggregate, the aggregate of
idea/concept/notion) are quiesced and do not proceed,
and no self is created. In such state of non-mentation,
the issue of self doesn't even arise, in other words one
doesn't bother oneself about whether one exists or
not or is real or not. One doesn't negate anything,
surely not a self that one hasn't created.

In Hinduism what is negated is all the particularities
of the world, including oneself, and when they are
done away with, the attributeless Brahman remains,
and serves as the absolute, a blank, homogeneous
absolute. In Buddhism what is negated is the
particularities of mind, the products of mentation,
and what happens, both out there and in here is not
negated at all. What happens still happens with all its
incommensurable richness and differentiation, but
what has changed is that one doesn't attempt to
duplicate it with one's mentation. One merely
observes what happens, out there and in here,
without attempting to impose one's interpretation on
it, and doesn't create a self to coordinate that
interpretation. In the absence of the running
commentary that mentation is, what happens comes
in what all the greater alacrity, because it flows free
of the interference of mentation. The manifoldness
of what happens comes out with all the greater
salience, in contradistinction to the blank,
homogeneous absolute of Hinduism.

But mentation is necessary for life, you object? Sure,
it is necessary for doing anything, even walking, but
it is not always needed. The problem with us in
delusion is that we have no control over it. It keeps
running on and on, whether we like it or not.
Buddhist training helps us modulate its running, so
that it runs only when needed and doesn't run when
not needed, and when it runs, it is transparent and
not opaque, flexible and not unwieldy, thin and not
thick, light and not heavy. It is a good servant but a
bad master. The trick is to put it in its place and not
let it run rampant. We need to use the self often,
even if only to think and talk, but like mentation
which creates it, we can learn to make it a good
servant to us and not our master -- transparent and
not opaque, flexible and not unwieldy, thin and not
thick, light and not heavy. We learn to use mentation,
and its product the self, in a merely assumed mode
(as fluff) and not for real.

What is unexpected is that as mentation recedes,
grace fills in, and the less self there is around, the
more plentifully grace blesses one, though there is
nobody to receive it. That's the trade-off of
Buddhist transcendence.

Tang Huyen


author: GeF

text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

so the answer is there is no negation when there
is no one to do the negation..


author: Robert Epstein

text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

Well, Tang, I have to say that for the short time that I was lucky
enough to have such an experience, you have described it above almost
perfectly.  Even in Hinduism among the high Advaita Vedantists there is
a term for an awakened state in which form and the world is not negated,
but just seen as a sort of dreamlike projection, Sahaj Samadhi, or
"eyes-open" samadhi.  It is similar to the "after enlightenment,
mountains are mountains, and rivers are rivers" of zen.

In "my" experience that I have been referring to, I was not sitting
quietly under a tree, but standing up to say something in a seminar with
a room full of people.  All of a sudden it was as if I had become
transparent, like there was no one there.  As you say, there was no
sense of anything disappearing, in fact everything was sharper and more
clearly defined.  In fact everything just made sense exactly as it was,
and was thus very easy to navigate.  I didn't have to think of what to
say, or worry about how I would come across to a large group, the words
just came out of my mouth and were appropriate.  Action went on
unimpeded, but I didn't seem implicated, as there was no one for it to
get back to or anyone to assess it.  There was an experience that my
mind still, I think, noted without any particular thoughts arising, and
that was one of blissfulness, which might stand in for what you called
"grace," because it was as if the very fact of being there with
consciousness taking in whatever was occurring was an enormous gift, a
perpetual gift.  And as you said, there was no one to receive this gift,
and that also was an amazing gift.  I think this experience lasted for a
couple of minutes, no longer.  But that is very long for consciousness
to be free.  It seems like a very long beautiful period of time, perhaps
in retrospect.  If there are still egoic tendencies in one's system,
this experience recedes, and egoic tendencies and forms take back over
and cover over or re-infiltrate the experience of "just being."  That is
disappointing to the mind that finds itself back in the egoic state, but
only to it.  The transparent arrangement that consists of body, action
and consciousness, without any self, is, I think, inherently blissful
and grateful.

Robert

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


author: stumper

text:
GeF wrote:

No.

It's not what you say
but it's how you are.

How are you?


text:
GeF wrote:

Here you asked about the self as the object negated,
and the one who does the negation, and in Buddhism
both don't exist. To return to what you say above,
there is no negation when there is no one to do the
negation and no object to be negated. It is not that
they totally don't exist, because we routinely believe
in them and behave as if they were real, but they
exist only as a creation of mind, and when mind is
quiesced, they are no longer produced, and in the
awakened, they can still be produced, but then they
are mere tools of his and not the master of him, and
they are used merely in the assumed mode, only for
convenience and not taken for real. Delusion
consists in creating them from one's own side and
then taking them for real on their own side, in and
of themselves. Nagarjuna talks of magicians who
create demons and spirits and who get scared of
them, in closed circle. The self is similar, in that
one fakes it up for convenience, but gets carried
away, forgets that fact and takes it for real in and
of itself.

Contrariwise, if the self were real, it couldn't be
gotten of, and one would be stuck with it for good.
But it is a mere thought-up thing (une chose pensï¿½e)
and one can do away with it simply by no longer
thinking it up.

Tang Huyen


author: Hollywood Lee

text:
Robert Epstein wrote:

I've had that happen when I've tied my tie too tightly. :)


text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

Mind your language, please.

Who is there to think it up
and then do away with it?

"so the answer is there is no negation when there
is no one to do the negation.."

Who is talking to whom here?


text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

Is there a hidden confession here... ;)  ?


text:
Hollywood Lee wrote:

If you can get it that way, I would "choke myself off" more often.  :)

Robert

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


text:
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:

Dang.  I wonder if he will survive such a stinging rebuke?


text:
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:

He deserves a little more tender loving care than that.


text:
Hollywood Lee wrote:

Charles' anger comes from having to muzzle his admiration because of his
jealousy. Or because he hates Tang Huyen's every word ?

Or ... ?


text:
GeF wrote:

If your persona is based on the oh, so erudite country gentleman holding
forth on subjects for his subjects, then the occasional banishment to
the downstairs kitchen is mandatory.

BTW - I've always wondered why people mistreat those who prepare or
handle their food.  http://www.stainedapron.com/rev.htm


text:
GeF wrote:

Even though you are clueless,
there is no need to confess so easily.


subject: Surface beauty (was Re: Question en français_pour_Tang_Huyen)

text:
brian mitchell wrote:

Actually, Buddhist masters are not teasers but teachers,
and something that seems flippant prima facie can be
a didactic device, even right at the surface. The
saying quoted in mangled form by you is in full:

"Not thinking of good, not thinking of evil, what is your
original face?" (Hui-neng).

The Buddhist nature of it is as clear as its didactic
intention, which is right at the surface (and doesn't
require any digging): dropping good, dropping evil,
you'll get back to your original nature (or whatever),
without further ado. The Buddhist path is spelled out
right there. If you follow it, you'll awaken. Don't
bother about anything else.

ï¿½If an ignorant person composes a meritorious
composition, his consciousness goes to merit
(puï¿½ï¿½am ce sankharam abhisankharoti,
puï¿½ï¿½upagam hoti viï¿½ï¿½anam, Skt. punyopaganam
samskaranam punyopagam eva vijï¿½anam bhavati).
If an ignorant person composes an unmeritorious
composition, his consciousness goes to demerit. If
an ignorant person composes an immovable
composition, his consciousness goes to the
immovable (aneï¿½jam ce sankharam abhisankharoti,
aneï¿½jupagam hoti viï¿½ï¿½anam, Skt. anenjyopaganam
samskaranam anenjyopagam eva vijï¿½anam bhavati).
But when in a monk, ignorance is cut and knowledge
has arisen, because of the fading of ignorance and
the arisal of knowledge, he does not compose a
meritorious composition, he does not compose an
unmeritorious composition, he does not compose an
immovable composition; *not composing, not willing
out* (anabhisankharonto anabhisaï¿½cetayanto), he
grasps nothing in the world (na loke upadiyati, Skt.
na kiï¿½cil loka upadatte). Not grasping he is
unperturbed (anupadiyam na paritassati, Skt.
anupadadano na paritasyati). Unperturbed, internally
he fully blows out (aparitassam paccattaï¿½ï¿½eva
parinibbayati, Skt. aparitasya atmaiva parinirvati).ï¿½
SN, II, 82 (12, 51), SA, 192, 83a-b,
Nidana-samyukta, 133-135.

Dhammapada, XXVI, 412*, Thanissaro tr.:

  "He has gone
   beyond attachment here
   for both merit & evil --
   sorrowless, dustless, & pure:
       he's what I call
       a brahman."

The same, tr. Buddharakkhita:

412. "He who in this world has transcended the ties of
both merit and demerit, who is sorrowless, stainless
and pure -- him do I call a holy man."

Tang Huyen


text:
Evelyn Ruut wrote:

a clone of Donald Rumsfeld

wot a joke :-(


text:
Evelyn Ruut wrote:

He wants to discuss serious matters
with mature people and make video games.

BTW I would love to have a game
which will awaken me by and by.


text:
GeF wrote:

So soon?
It's not what you say
but how you are.

How are you today?


subject: Re: Question en français_pour_Tang_Huyen

text:
brian mitchell wrote:

I'm asking what are the rules
to handle such a query.

If someone asks that question,
what should be the system's reply?


text:
Evelyn Ruut wrote:

That's a good one.
Now, turn it into a video game.
There must be billions in it.


text:
Evelyn Ruut wrote:

It might be interesting to try
to create an artificial intelligence Zen master.


text:
stumper wrote:

wouldn't be hard.  just ask Ned where he gets his quotes and copy and paste


text:
GeF wrote:

You can start with a rule based expert system
if you have a decent natural language parser.

Give me a rule for
"What is your original face
before your parents were born?"


text:
stumper wrote:

all that's needed is a hidden microphone, a fake computer,
and lots of suckers to believe they have a chance to get enlightened..


text:
GeF wrote:

Do you often talk without knowing what you are talking about?


text:
stumper wrote:

yes..  Poobah.  But the text you propose is an answer, not a question.
Think about it.


text:
GeF wrote:

I often reply without bothering
to read carefully what I reply to.

What are you talking about?


text:
stumper wrote:

"What is your original face
before your parents were born?"


author: Phil Stovell

text:
Good news if you're a rat!

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article319502.ece

High-dose cannabis stimulates growth of brain cells in rats

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 14 October 2005

Cannabis, the third most popular recreational drug after alcohol and
tobacco, yesterday won an unlikely accolade from scientists who said that
it could boost brain power.

Experiments on rats given a potent cannabinoid have shown the drug
stimulates the growth of new brain cells. Canadian researchers found that
the drug caused neurons to regenerate in the hippocampus, an area that
controls mood and emotions, after one month of treatment.

Its effect was similar to that of the antidepressant drug Prozac, which
also stimulates nerve growth in the hippocampus. The rats were less
anxious and more willing to eat in a novel environment that would normally
make them fearful.

Most drugs, including alcohol, heroin, cocaine and nicotine, have been
shown to destroy nerve cells in the hippocampus, the researchers from the
University of Saskatchewan, Canada, say. "The present study suggests that
cannabinoids are the only illicit drug that can promote adult hippocampal
neurogenesis following chronic administration," they write in the Journal
of Clinical Investigation.

The finding runs counter to previous research highlighting the risks of
cannabis use, including a heightened degree of psychosis in vulnerable
users, and an increased risk of lung cancer similar to that in tobacco
smokers. The authors say regular cannabis users are known to suffer acute
memory impairment, as well as dependency and withdrawal symptoms.

The new research suggests that the size of the dose may be crucial. The
results showed that regular injections of high, but not low, doses of the
artificial cannabinoid HU210 were associated with anti-anxiety and
antidepressive effects.

"These complicated effects of high and low doses of acute and chronic
exposure to cannabinoids may explain the seemingly conflicting results
observed in clinical studies regarding the effects of cannabinoid on
anxiety and depression," the scientists say.

The study emerged from the recent discovery that, unlike other parts of
the brain, the hippocampus can generate neurons throughout the lifespan of
mammals, including humans.

Natural selection has conserved cannabinoid receptors in animals that have
been separated by evolution for 500 million years, suggesting they have an
important biological role. Cannabinoids appear to alter the effects of
pain, nausea, tumours, sclerosis and other disorders in both animals and
humans, the team says.

The experiment involved giving rats regular injections of HU210 for a
month. At the end of this time, hungry animals showed significantly less
reluctance to eat in a novel environment. Rats are normally neophobic -
wary of new situations.


author: Shaun aRe

subject: Re: High-dose cannabis stimulates growth of brain cells in rats

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

I WANNA BE A RAT!

Shaun aRe


author: Howm Grone J

text:
Wadayamean by wanna be????

( in my worst James Cagney)

Why you dirty Rat.....

Howm Grone J


text:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:07:01 +0100, Shaun aRe wrote:

Rat on a rat - phone crimestoppers :-).


text:
"Howm Grone J" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Well I was lying I rilly wanna be a mole.

Because you clean lizard.

Shaun aRe


author: Dan Clore

text:
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27625.htm
WikiLeaks Analysis Suggests Hundreds of Thousands of Unrecorded Iraqi Deaths
By Les Roberts
March 07, 2011
"ICH"

Imagine that the New York Times revealed that five Senators were known
to be taking bribes from a particular corporation. Some days later the
Washington Post runs a story saying they had independent sources
suggesting that four Senators were taking bribes from that same
corporation but goes on to state that this was nothing new as the story
was already covered, neglecting to mention that three of the four names
were different than those previously reported by the Times. This is hard
to imagine because eight named Senators in a scandal is not the same as
five named Senators, and because healthy competition between papers
would tend to point out the information missed by a rival. Yet, this is,
at least numerically, what happened following the October 22nd, 2010
release of the Iraq War Logs by WikiLeaks.

The release which supposedly included over 391,000 classified DoD
reports described violent events after 2003 including 109,000 deaths,
the majority (66,000) being Iraqi civilians. At the time of the release,
the most commonly cited figure for civilian casualties came from
Iraqbodycount.org (IBC), a group based in England that compiles press
and other descriptions of killings in Iraq. In late October, IBC
estimated the civilian war death tally to be about 104,000. Virtually
all authorities, including IBC themselves, acknowledge that this count
must be incomplete, although the fraction missed is debated. The press
coverage of the Iraq War Logs release tended to focus on the crude
consistency between the number recorded by WikiLeaks, 66,000 since the
start of 2004, and the roughly 104,000 recorded deaths from
Iraqbodycount since March of 2003. The Washington Post even ran an
editorial entitled, ï¿½WikiLeaksï¿½s leaks mostly confirm earlier Iraq
reportingï¿½ concluding that the Iraq War Log reports revealed nothing new.

A research team from the Columbia University Mailman School of Public
Health released a report this week analyzing the amount of overlap
between the 66,000 WikiLeaks reports and the previously known listing of
IBC. The team developed a system for grading the likelihood that the
WikiLeaks War Log record matched an entry in IBC, scoring the match
between 0 (not a match) to 3 (very likely a match). The matching records
were graded by at least two reviewers and then a third reviewer
arbitrated any discrepancies. The conclusion? Only 19% of the WikiLeaks
reports of civilian deaths had been previously recorded by IBC. With so
little overlap between the two lists, it is almost certain that both
tallies combined are missing the majority of civilian deaths, suggesting
many hundreds of thousands have died.

On some level, not noticing that the WikiLeaks list of 66,000 deaths
were different events than those previously recorded by IBC is somewhat
understandable. Reporters have precious few hours to read, assess, reach
out to experts, and then produce copy on the topic of the day. It takes
several minutes to review a particular War Log and then go to the public
database on Iraqbodycount.org and see if on that specific day there was
an event that seems to match the War Log description. In fact, many
papers ran an AP wire article on the WikiLeaks release so it is likely
very few reporters actually looked at the Iraq War Logs.

On the other hand, WikiLeaks gave these records in advance to five
papers including the New York Times and it took the Columbia University
team just minutes to realize that for most events reported outside of
Baghdad (where matching takes more work) there were no reported killings
in a particular city or province on that day within IBCï¿½s database.

This is not the first time this topic has been inadequately covered by
the US press. A study I coauthored in The Lancet in estimating 100,000
excess deaths by September of 2004 (an estimate confirmed three times
since then) received extraordinary press coverage almost everywhere in
the world, but almost none within the US. Project Censored cited the
topic of Iraqi civilian deaths as the second most under-reported topic
of 2004. A survey by researchers from Johns Hopkins University suggested
there had been 600,000 deaths due to the invasion by mid-2006. A poll by
the Opinion Research Business in late 2007 put the tally over 1 million.
Both estimates were viciously attacked by critics, largely supported by
experts in their respective disciplines, but consistently labeled as
ï¿½controversialï¿½ by the press.

The implications of the WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs for the US standing in
the Middle-East are profound. The only public estimate of the Iraqi
death toll ever provided by the US was President Bushï¿½s response at a
public forum in December of 2005 in which he said, "I would say 30,000
more or less have died as a result of the initial incursion and the
ongoing violence against Iraqis," with the Whitehouse spokesmen later
attributing this estimate to media accounts. This number matched the IBC
estimate at that time. WikiLeaksï¿½ War Logs suggest the US had
information to know that this estimate was only a small fraction of the
reality.

See also Do WikiLeaks and Iraq Body Count tell the same story? No! A
Comparison of the Reports of Iraqi Civilian Deaths - Les Roberts - Full
report [http://www.brussellstribunal.org/pdf/wikileaks_report_march_5.pdf ]

Les Roberts is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Program on Forced
Migration and Health at Columbia University.

http://www.brussellstribunal.org/


author: ishikawa

subject:
Re: WikiLeaks Analysis Suggests Hundreds of Thousands of Unrecorded
 Iraqi Deaths

text:
The author of the above (Les Roberts) forgets to mention that Iraq
Body Count (IBC) and Wikileaks worked together on Wikileaks' Iraq
logs, the result being an analysis which found there was an 81%
overlap between the Wikileaks logs and IBC's data.

If the overlap is indeed that high, then the conclusions about the
number of dead would be more in line with the WHO estimate of 151,000
violent deaths - a point made by 'Science' journal (18 January 2008,
p. 273).

The 'Columbia University' study cited by Les Roberts, above (and on
which Roberts bases all his conclusions), seems to have been conducted
by Roberts himself, with his students (although the authors aren't
clearly noted on the paper). What would explain the large discrepancy
between the IBC/Wikileaks estimate of an 81% overlap and Roberts's
claim of a 19% overlap? Well, it looks as if Les Roberts and his
students have decided to pretty much automatically classify all the
data which IBC got from morgues (rather than press reports) as "no
match" or "unlikely match" (at best). That's obviously a problem.


subject:
Re: WikiLeaks Analysis Suggests Hundreds of Thousands of Unrecorded
   Iraqi Deaths

text:
ishikawa wrote:

Very interesting information. Could you provide a link to the
IBC/WikiLeaks study?


text:
On Mar 8, 7:07 pm, Dan Clore <[email]> wrote:

IBC published the figures estimating the overlap:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs/

It was well covered by the media, because Julian Assange mentioned it
in press conferences, eg:

"Working with Iraq Body Count, we have seen there are approximately
15,000 never previously documented cases of civilians who have been
killed by violence in Iraq." (Julian Assange) http://tinyurl.com/5szpvoh

I think Les Roberts must be aware of this, so it's odd that he doesn't
mention it, especially when he makes bizarre comments such as: "On
some level, not noticing that the WikiLeaks list of 66,000 deaths were
different events than those previously recorded by IBC is somewhat
understandable."

But then Roberts has a history of misrepresenting and/or
misinterpreting IBC's data (he even acknowledged that he was in error
once, when called on it*). See, for example a previous "study" that he
conducted with his students, and misleading statements he made about
its results: http://tinyurl.com/les-roberts

Further work needs to be done to verify who is closest to the truth
about the overlap, but based on previous history (and on the obvious
fact that IBC know their own data better than Roberts's students, and
that IBC worked in collaboration with Wikileaks, and were present at
the main televised Wikileaks press conference), I would put my money
on IBC.

Roberts, it should be noted, is an epidemiologist, so this type of
comparison of datasets isn't really within his field of expertise (or
even experience).

* Les Roberts's error (just under half way down article): http://tinyurl.com/yjpjnfd


text:
On Mar 8, 10:16 pm, Dan Clore <[email]> wrote:

Indeed. I've just had a look at some of the bigger Wikileaks incidents
(eg over 50 deaths) which Les Roberts and his students claim have "no
match" with IBC's data. It seems that Roberts hasn't been very
thorough (I'm being charitable here). For example, there's a Wikileaks
war log which documents 50 dead, involving a truck, and damage to a
mosque, dated 19 June 2007:   http://213.251.145.96/id/43C86B72-0546-B08C-CF0ED9AC57F6AA84

No match with IBC? Well, check that date (19 June 2007) in IBC's
database, and you find this entry: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/k6733

IBC record a greater number of deaths for the incident, but it's a
truck bomb targeting a mosque - on the same date. And some of the
other details suggest a definite match (eg the IBC "gas cylinders", or
"TRUCK FILLED WITH %%% TANKS" in the Wikileaks log).

On their spreadsheet, Roberts and his students put this down as
"0" ("no match") - indeed it's one of the *biggest* incidents that
they classify as "no match". And what about examples that aren't as
clear - and that require more of a judgment call from Roberts's
students (who perhaps aren't particularly adept at interpreting IBC's
data?). Bear this in mind, and then read the third paragraph in Les
Roberts's article (above) again. The "grading system" and the
"reviewing" that Roberts talks about basically means Roberts's
students making judgment calls in many cases, given the type of data
involved. And from the rather shaky premise of the study, Roberts
concludes that: "it is almost certain that both tallies combined are
missing the majority of civilian deaths, suggesting many hundreds of
thousands have died".

I don't think this is the type of study on which to base claims of
"near certainty" on such issues.


text:
On Mar 9, 11:50 am, Dan Clore <[email]> wrote:

I'm not convinced by this, at all.

It would require that there were two such incidents on the same day,
with the same details (50+ civilian deaths, mosque, truck filled with
gas cyclinders) - one of which somehow escaped the notice of anyone
(except the US military), and the other recorded by multiple media
sources (IBC have made the point that large incidents of this type
generate a lot of media coverage). Smaller incidents may be totally
overlooked, but not these large ones - that's stretching credulity too
much, I think.

To simply dismiss it as "no match" seems seriously problematic for a
study of this type.


author: Joshua Dougherty

text:
On Mar 9, 6:50 am, Dan Clore <[email]> wrote:

Um Dan, those are the same incident. Khulani, Khillani, Khulani and
Ghai Lani are all just transliterations. I've worked with iraqi place
names and transliterations like this for years now so am familiar with
it. There is nothing unusual about differences like those above. They
all are the same word, just with a difference in whether the sound of
the Arabic word should start with an English 'Kh...' or 'Gh...' sound.
In this case, the press mostly decided to write it up in English with
a 'Kh', while the US military decided to use 'Gh' in this log.

Also, your "real kicker" about the time of day is just some kind of
mistake on the website ishikawa cited. WikiLeaks provided IBC with the
unredacted logs to work with. The date and time given in the log is:

"Date:	2007-06-19 13:50:00"

And the log gives a detailed timeline in the text. These numbers get
redacted on the website, but you can confirm 1:50PM from the
unredacted text:

"TIMELINE:

1350: ROMEO ELEMENT CALLS STRIKE TO REPORT A LARGE EXPLOSION ON RTE
WILD THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE A VBIED

1432: SHIA MOSQUE GHAI LHANI WAS TARGETED BUT THERE IS A REPORT THAT
IT POSSIBLY TARGETED AN MP PATROL ALSO

1458: UPDATE FROM THE UNIT ON THE GROUND IS THAT THE DRIVER WAS INSIDE
OF A TRUCK FILLED WITH PROPANE TANKS WHEN HE TRIED TO CROSS THE CURB
THE TRUCK GOT STUCK AND WAS DETONATED THERE.

1800: BJCC REPORTS 50X KILLED AND 125 X WOUNDED"

The time of 7:50 AM never appears anywhere in the actual log, so i
don't know why it says that on that website. Perhaps there is some
kind of bug with the dateline on that site. You can however see again
that 1:50PM is correct in the 'tracking number' column on the left on
the website:

"20070619135038SMB"

That means 2007, June 19 at 1350 (or 1:50 PM)

But even if there had been a disparity with the time of day between
the two sources that wouldn't necessarily mean it didn't match, it
could just mean that a media report got the time wrong.

And really Dan, think of how ludicrous your conclusion is. There is no
other WL log entry with a large number killed like this in on that
day. This is the only one. So if these are two separate incidents
(bomb 1 and bomb 2), then the US military notices huge truck bomb 1
but fails to notice the huge truck bomb 2. At the same time, the press
widely reports huge truck bomb 2 (to the tune of 54 separate reports),
while not one of these reports, many quite detailed, notice or mention
the other huge truck bomb 1, that is just like it at a different
mosque that day. This is just lunacy.

I've also done some further checking with the Roberts study. The cases
where they say there is no match are wrong most of the time. But for
example, look at the four biggest incidents they claim have no IBC
match. The big incidents are typically the easiest to find matches, as
there usually are not multiple huge things that could be confused. One
of these is the incident ishikawa brought up. So how about the next
three, using the same website as ishikawa for the WL logs?

1) http://213.251.145.96/id/400F2C60-E4FC-16ED-630FB2A7A107D5A8/

66 by car bomb in Karbala

This is the match:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/k6218

IBC gives a sowewhat higher number but same area, same day. Was there
another car bomb in the same area that day killing over 60 people that
nobody noticed? Right! Apparently so.

66 unrecorded deaths in IBC (to then be multiplied exponentially with
'capture-recapture' techniques later).

2) http://213.251.145.96/id/11812

65 by suicide car bomb at KDP and PUK Headquarters near Arbil.

That's this:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/k021

Again, IBC gives a higher number, but again was there a second,
different suicide bomb that killed over 60 people in the same area on
the same day with the same target? Or is it perhaps just that the war
log is an early field report and the IBC entry is based on later
updated casualty totals?

No, that's not plausible. 65 more unrecorded deaths.

3) http://213.251.145.96/id/390B3593-053C-B45E-345FE49337F39672

55 by car bomb near Karbala. This is just another report about the
first bombing (the logs often have multiple entries for the same
thing, this is not unusual). Or... were there now two additional car
bombings in the same area that day that nobody noticed, while noticing
the one that IBC has. Must be. That's another 55 unrecorded deaths.

The matching is just incompetent.


text:
On Mar 9, 9:32 am, Joshua Dougherty <[email]> wrote:

I did a little more checking to figure out what is going on with the
times on that website, and there is definitely some kind of systematic
bug going on with the time they give under the headline.

Looking at the Karbala log here:
http://213.251.145.96/id/400F2C60-E4FC-16ED-630FB2A7A107D5A8/

It has the same exact problem with the time. The time given under the
headline reads "2007-04-28 13:15:00", or 1:15 PM. But the time given
in the tracking number is "20070429191538SLA" or 7:15 PM. The time it
gives under the headline is 6 hours too early, the same exact error as
in the previous Baghdad log. So it seems like there's some kind of bug
there shifting the times down by 6 hours somehow.

The unredacted log says, "Date:	2007-04-28 19:15:00", or 7:15 PM. The
log never says 1315 or 1:15 PM. IBC places the time as 7:10 PM.

Further, the unredacted summary says the bomb "DETONATED AT THE AL
ABBAS INTERSECTION", and IBC says "checkpoint near Imam Abbas shrine",
which further reinforces that this is an unambiguous match.


text:
Good of you to reply, Les, but I find it difficult to understand what
you mean here:

The "vast majority of 50 death events are in both"? What does this
mean? Apologies if I'm being obtuse, but it doesn't make a lot of
sense to me. Your study claims that "Only 19% of the WikiLeaks reports
of civilian deaths had been previously recorded by IBC". But as we've
seen above, some of the biggest incidents in the Wikileaks logs which
your study claims "no match" with IBC, are in fact a clear match. It
looks very much like incompetence in the matching process. How do you
defend this?


author: jmh

text:
On Mar 9, 10:19 am, Joshua Dougherty <[email]> wrote:

Sounds like some time zone issue.

jmh


text:
On Mar 9, 2:27 pm, Joshua Dougherty <[email]> wrote:

I did not put this quite right, so to clarify, I looked at all the
incidents of 4 or more deaths which were coded as 'no match' or 0.


text:
On Mar 9, 5:25 pm, Les Roberts wrote:

It took me a while to decipher this, partly because it's badly worded
("50 death events"), partly because it's logical nonsense (the point
about "the most efficient way" doesn't follow from the premise), and
partly because it doesn't address the point about *incompetence* in
the matching process. A "false negative" (which, in this context,
presumably denotes a failure to find a match where one actually
exists) doesn't necessarily imply sloppiness, but sloppiness would
certainly be required to fail to find the matches that Josh identified
above for those large-scale incidents. This worrying level of
incompetence in the matching process is what Les Roberts should be
addressing.


text:
On Mar 9, 2:27 pm, Joshua Dougherty <[email]> wrote:

To expand a bit on this. The approach the Roberts analysis is usually
in terms of the assumptions is basically equivalent to the one IBC
used for determining proportions of new _incidents_, as opposed to new
_deaths_.

That is, for 'new incidents' IBC assumes that aggregate matches of any
kind are never matches, because the purpose here was to see how much
new incident-level details would be added, not how many new deaths
would be added to the numbers. These findings are discussed here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/warlogs/

That is the 2nd part of our 3-part analysis, plus accompanying
appendix. The other parts are here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/qa/warlogs/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs-appendix

The main finding for the 'Details' piece is:

"IBC estimates that the Iraq War Logs describe hitherto unreported
details of 23,000 violent incidents in which Iraqi civilians were
killed or their bodies were found."

That is on the basis of assuming that Baghdad bodies never match to
morgue, or never match to daily bodies found tallies, or that
assassinations in Basra never match to the big Basra assassination
entry above (x490), etc. etc. etc. It assumes that any and all
aggregate matches are not matches. So this is assuming there are never
any matches but direct and specific incident-level matches.

Even under those assumptions, we come to a total of 23,000 incidents
(or logs), so about half the logs, that will provide new incident
details. This is also almost the total number of incidents already
present in the IBC database (24,212). So our finding is that the
number of incidents in IBC will basically double after all the work is
complete. That is, IBC already had about 50% matching even under the
most extreme of assumptions possible with matching (which are
appropriate if estimating incident percentages, but absurd assumptions
if estimating death percentages.)

Moreover, these new incidents are almost never the big incidents. They
are mostly the logs with 1, 2 or 3 deaths. So even if 23,000 amounts
to about 50% of the logs, it does not amount to 50% of the deaths in
the logs. It will be much less than 50% of the deaths in the logs,
because these 50% of logs are weighted heavily toward the logs with
the fewest deaths each.

Thus there is simply no way for us to even come close to Roberts'
conclusion of only "19%" matching deaths (or even 19% of matching
logs). There are at least around 50% of matching logs, and this
necessarily means much more than 50% matching deaths, even when you
are assuming away all possible aggregate matches. This shows still
further that the problem with Roberts' analysis can not only be the
assumptions about morgue or aggregates, but must also involve a very
serious problem with their matching, entailing a large systematic bias
toward coding things as '0' when the correct coding is '3'.


author: Les Roberts

text:
On Mar 10, 9:23 am, Joshua Dougherty <[email]> wrote:

Hi Josh,

I read your thoughts and last evening we looked at all the events >20
killings and ....depending on how you handle the double report, we
think they are all in IBC.  I am not sure what my students are
learning, but I am learning humility.
I can envision three ways why a systematic sample of 200 files taken
with match=0 from the datafile could be showing such a low false
negative rate and why virtually all the largest matches called “0”s
are false.  One would change the overall results little, the other two
would change figure 3 and the deaths estimate substantially, clearly
we have some investigation and reanalysis to undertake before I can
make a fully informed comment.

Your reading of the Siegler article is reasonable and wrong.  We had a
questionnaire, it was short.  After the initial interviews a subset of
these could not be assessed because of the morgue tally issue.  So the
students with such reports were asked to skype / call / e-mail back to
their interviewees and ask if the body had gone to the morgue.  I
believe (as I read this again after a couple years) 61 said, no the
body did not go to the morgue.  An additional 48 could not be
contacted, or said they did not know, or said the body did go to the
morgue.  Thus the phrase vast majority was of those that we called
back and that knew.

I was not aware of your analysis until I shared our report last
weekend.  I had looked at your website around 10.24 when the 16,000
number was being bantered around but I think the analysis was not yet
up.  I suspect you have a lot of false positives.  I am starting to
think, at least with the fraction of deaths reported, we
underestimated our false negatives.  That would drive our analyses in
opposite directions.  We will reanalyze what we did.  In the meantime,
I think you can pretty easily measure your false positive rate
associated with the inability to match to morgue data.

If you assume that all events, large and small, have an equal chance
to end up with the morgue (and I suspect this is not true, I suspect
the big events that involve police and body collection vehicles more
likely take bodies to the morgue….but stay with me for a moment) if
21% of your deaths (on Oct 24th anyway) are from morgue tallies, when
you look at the single killings for example, only ~21% of those you
match should be from morgue tallies.   That is to say, if for example
24% of single incidents matched, you would expect no more than an
additional 5% of singleton reports to be morgue tally matches.(...of
the overlap, we would expect the incident matches to be 5 times more
than the morgue tally matches)

 I will look into our data and get back to you with what we find.   If
we have made major errors, we will reanalyze and share the report
through the same people we sent it out with this time and correct the
record.  Next week everyone is away, I suspect it will take a couple
weeks to properly reanalyze.

We had two dozen people take just a few War logs from an arbitrary
starting point.  Zero of them found more matches than definite not
matches.  Only a couple found more maybe + matches than non matches.
I remain very confident that most war logs are not in IBC.  Let me
explore what we have done wrong on our quality control efforts….and I
hope you will do the same….and we can have a constructive chat in a
couple weeks.
Cheers,  Les


text:
On Mar 10, 3:02 pm, Les Roberts <[email]> wrote:

Les, there's a problem of credibility and trust here. You are
promoting fairly extreme claims, such as: "the WikiLeaks list of
66,000 deaths were different events than those previously recorded by
IBC". But the examples we've seen above reveal a basic incompetence in
your attempts to match to IBC records.

Josh makes the highly relevant point that those large incidents should
be the easiest to match. Before you start talking about false negative
rates again, perhaps you could take a step back and explain in
straightforward language why we should take seriously a study which
seems to lack the basic level of proficiency needed to carry out its
main task?


text:
On Mar 10, 10:02 am, Les Roberts <[email]> wrote:

Thanks Les,

Certainly i think more double-checking is needed.

"I remain very confident that most war logs are not in IBC."

Yes, you are correct about that. In fact the IBC analysis i cited says
that is so. But again we need to avoid confusing log percentages with
death percentages.

And here i must correct my previous posting saying that 50% was the
incident-level (no aggregates) match percentage for logs. I was using
the wrong denominator there to get 50%. The Civilian category has
34,000 logs, and i was thinking of the total log count. So we came to
32.4% logs matched, which led to the conclusion of 23,000 new detailed
incidents for civilians. But again keep in mind that you are referring
here to a percentage of incidents or logs, and not to a percentage of
deaths. These are very different things because the logs that match to
IBC tend to contain more deaths than the logs that do not match.

So the percentage of deaths matched has to be considerably higher than
32.4% matching rate for logs. Working this out quickly, i come to
about 35,000 deaths contained in that 32.4% of matched logs, so around
53% of the deaths in the logs matched even when we were ruling out any
kind of aggregate matches.

And one last point on this would have to do with the capture-recapture
assumptions, and whether one should actually include all of IBC's
aggregate deaths in the totals at the end if you've ruled out matching
to them with the assumptions at the start. If you are effectively
matching only specific incidents to specific incidents, then it would
seem appropriate to remove all the aggregates from the IBC total
before doing the estimate. You suggested that 20% in IBC are morgue,
and there is much more than morgue. I'm not sure exactly how much off
the top of my head, but i'd guess perhaps this would go up to 40% if
including non-morgue aggregates. So then it seems like perhaps the
more appropriate capture-recapture would be 66,000 in WL, vs. maybe
60,000 in IBC, and not 66,000 vs. 90,000 or 100,000. What choice is
made about this would make a pretty big difference in the estimate,
and of course who's matching rate you believe would also make a big
difference.


text:
On Mar 10, 5:38 pm, Joshua Dougherty <[email]> wrote:

Yes, it's an important point. Les Roberts's claim of a "19%" overlap
(of Wikileaks and IBC) is probably the figure that will stick in
people's minds after reading Roberts's article. But that "19%" figure
doesn't refer to a percentage overlap of recorded *deaths*. It refers
to logs (ie incident reports).

This is problematic because most public discourse (eg media,
scientific, etc) is about death counts/estimates. Roberts's own Lancet-
published studies, for instance, are about estimating the number of
deaths - not about the number of incidents leading to deaths. IBC have
rich data on both deaths and incidents and, to their credit, are very
clear about distinguishing the two in these matters. I think Les
Roberts should make an effort to be a little clearer when he's talking
about percentages of incidents/logs, as opposed to percentages of
deaths. His study does provide a figure for the claimed percentage
overlap of deaths (31.6%), but he doesn't mention this in his article.


text:
Since it's been a couple weeks now and I haven't heard any more on
this I thought I'd post an update. I previously looked at all the
incidents in Roberts' spreadsheet of 4 or more killed that were coded
as '0' or no match. I've since looked at those with 3 killed that were
coded as '0' or no match.

There were 75 logs of 3 killed in the sample for which there is
supposedly no IBC match. I found there were only 21 where there is
clearly no match.

19 were direct incident-level matches

18 were aggregate matches - 4 of which would require morgue alone, the
rest matching to daily bodies found entries or other types of
aggregate entries.

14 are partial or possible matches, which under Roberts' system should
probably be coded as 1 or 2 rather than 0

3 have a civilian-combatant issue which likely explains the non-match,
1 of these being deaths of foreign security contractors

And then the 21 where we'd agree there is no match and the correct
code is 0.

So the same problem is carrying through with these. Lots of 'false
negatives' at the incident level and with regard to aggregate matches
if estimating 'new deaths', rather than 'new incident details'.

In Roberts' first posting of Mar 9, he wrote: "Please take a random
sample of 10 or 20 of the records (not some selected group likely to
be right or wrong) and look for yourself."

So I've also tried this. I sorted the full spreadsheet by report key
(Column A) and just looked at the first 20 in the sorted list. This
gave a pretty diverse selection of dates and event types, and is easy
for anyone to replicate. Another advantage here is that unlike the
previous checks i did on the 4+ and the 3's, this one would also
include matched incidents, not just the non-matched 0's, so I can
check for "false positives" too.

Of these 20 logs, the original spreadsheet codes only 4 as matched, or
at least partially/possibly matched. The other 16 are all coded as no
match (0). I don't quite understand the match codes for these four,
however. Log #4 gives a code of "32", which i guess means that one
person thought it should be a '3' and another thought it should be a
'2', but k023 is definitely the match, so it should be just a 3. Log
#5 gives a code of "113" which I guess means two people thought it was
unlikely a match (1), while another thought it was matched (3), but
k022 is the correct match and this should be a 3. Then Log #7 gets
only a 2, but k047 is clearly the match, so this should just be a 3.
Log #8 gets a '4' but that isn't even one of their codes, so i guess
this is supposed to be equivalent to 3, which is correct.

So there are no "false positives" at all, and even the few 'positives'
they do find are being (mis)interpreted to still drive the results
more negative.

When I reanalyze the whole 20, I come to about the opposite
conclusions, that there are only 4 that clearly have no match, and 16
which match either fully or partially/possibly:

8 are direct incident-level matches

1 is an aggregate match to morgue, unambiguously so, as the log says
"His body was taken to Justice Medical" (i.e., the Baghdad morgue)

4 are aggregate matches mainly to daily bodies found tallies

3 are possible matches

4 are no match

So again here the same problems keep coming up: a systematic failure
to find matching incidents when they are there, a failure to
adequately handle any kind of aggregate IBC entries (when trying to
estimate 'new deaths', as opposed to 'new incident details'), and the
sample suggests a new failing to properly code the full value even of
those cases where matches are found, building in even more negative
bias. All of these problems appear to be systematic and, taken
together, clearly drive the results hugely in the direction of
exaggerating the number of new deaths.

To sum up, I simply so no reason here to doubt or alter any of the
conclusions given in IBC's original report on this issue, published at
the time of the WikiLeaks release of the logs. The difference between
those conclusions and the newer ones offered by Roberts a couple weeks
ago are adequately explained by all the failings discussed above. I'd
hope that Roberts will follow through on his promise of Mar 10 to
correct the record, as it is quite clear that their published
conclusions are very wrong and a correction is in order.

Below is a more detailed listing of the 20 incidents discussed above,
and the appropriate IBC match/coding as I see it:

1. x271
2. k021
3. No match
4. k023
5. k022
6. No match
7. k047
8. k052
9. k6103g - aggregate match to bodies found - Suleikh is Adhamiya
district
10. k6098 - Log says 2 killed-4 wounded, IBC says 1 killed-4 wounded -
otherwise identical, so this is just a match with a disparity over the
number killed
11. Possible - k6248
12. x493g - aggregate match to morgue - log says "His body was taken
to Justice Medical."
13. k6013a - aggregate match to bodies found - log says body found and
retreived by IP in Doura area - IBC reports say "Police patrols found
in Baghdad on Tuesday, April 17, twenty-five unidentified bodies... 5
in ( Doura)"
14. Possible - k6097
15. No match
16. k6099
17. d3459 - aggregate match - log gives no coordinates or location,
but says the reporting unit was 'BASRAH OPS, NCC', which suggests this
was Basrah and so would match d3459
18. k3062 - aggregate match, or k3058c, or x493e morgue
19. Possible - k6100
20. No match

On Mar 10, 11:02 am, Les Roberts <[email]> wrote:


text:
On Mar 26, 5:49 pm, Joshua Dougherty <[email]> wrote:

I just looked at this one again and it actually does give coordinates,
but these would place it in Kuwait, over the border from Basrah. I've
noticed other logs where the coordinates are clearly wrong, so I'd
guess that these are wrong and it is Basrah.


text:
I admire Josh Dougherty's politely-worded understatement. The evidence
he's presented appears to be very damning (I looked at several of the
matches, and they certainly check out.). It wouldn't be so serious if
Les Roberts hadn't already promoted his conclusions across the
internet -- conclusions based on a study irretrievably flawed with
systematic failures.

I hope Dr Roberts puts as much effort into publishing corrections as
he put into promoting his mistaken claims...


text:
Reverting back to original subject: 'WikiLeaks Analysis Suggests
Hundreds of Thousands of Unrecorded Iraqi Deaths' for reference
purposes.


text:
ishikawa wrote:

Thanks. I think I've read some of this before. Very interesting to
compare with Roberts' piece.


text:
ishikawa wrote:

I don't think that that's actually a match. There's the same or very
similar MO, and both reports give the target of the attack as a Shiite
mosque in Baghdad. But not only is the number of casualties different
(50 killed versus 86-87) the name of the mosque given is different --
Khillani versus Ghai Lani. Using the Antiwar.com archives, I've found a
Yahoo report that is definitely the same incident as IBC reports (IBC
doesn't list it as a source), and it gives the name of the mosque as
Khulani. Khillani and Khulani are obviously just different
transliterations, but Ghai Lani looks different enough that it seems
unlikely to be another transliteration of the same name, though it's
possible. The Yahoo report also gives the number wounded as over 200,
whereas the WikiLeaks report gives the number wounded as 125.

But here's the real kicker: The WikiLeaks report gives the time of issue
as 07:50:00. The IBC report gives the time of the incident as 2:00 p.m.
Now, these WikiLeaks reports use the military 24 hour system rather than
a.m. and p.m. So if the WikiLeaks report were for the same incident as
the IBC report, it would have to be issued some time after 14:00:00.

So, I conclude that these are clearly two separate incidents, if the
information is at all accurate. It's far from unknown for insurgents to
coordinate attacks using the same MO at around the same time, so I
wonder if that isn't the case here.


text:
Joshua Dougherty wrote:

Thanks, Josh. You've provided more than adequate explanations for two of
the three major discrepancies here. (The third is the number of
casualties.) I think that's good enough to conclude that these reports
are about the same incident. There was a reason I qualified my conclusions.


author: William Markiewicz

subject: Re: Does morality exist without religion?

text:
[email](Kenneth J. Beirne) wrote:

     "Holy wars" are immoral because

      a)  their very existence implies that the respective deities are
bloodthirsty, hardly a model for a "just and loving God"
      b)  their main victims are innocent bystanders like women and
children.

     Empathy is nonlogical, nonreligious emotional involvement in the
suffering of others. It cannot be maudlin because the higher the level
of a society the more empathy, altruism, compassion are appreciated.
The universal innate human disdain for the "brain-only" quality is
well expressed in science-fiction where the alien characters are
mostly "mechanical insects" with superior brains and technology but
nevertheless inferior to humans precisely because they totally lack
human warmth. Generally, those stories turn out to have a happy ending
for humans because in one way or another the brain-only characteristic
becomes a handicap for the invading monsters.

     We admire the ancient Greeks without need to explain it for they
released prisoners right after battle. Hate and cruelty toward the
enemy were virtually unknown. All this without any religious
background.

     Athenians, through Democracy, introduced the concept of sharing
power rather than grabbing power. Who is "stronger" and who is
"weaker" was irrelevant.

     The Dravidian poet and philosopher, TiruKkural, said these
memorable words: "The narrow minded say, 'Be good to the virtuous
one.'  But who will offer consolation to those who don't deserve it?"

     One Pharoah, I don't remember which it was, described how a
Phoenician, not recognizing the Pharaoah, was laughing at the
Egyptians and calling them stupid because they were saving drowning
enemy soldiers who had lost the battle. "I am proud of this kind of
stupidity," the Pharoah thought to himself.

     All this proves that compassion has long been a common human
heritage which must be taken as an evolutionary trend.

William
http://web.idirect.com/~vagabond


author: Lloyd Parker

subject: Re: "Property Rights"  advocates Vs. the Community at Large

text:
In article <[email]>,
   Steven Canyon <[email]> wrote:
news:<[email]>...
on
is
of

Only if you're alone on an island.

Of course, you're the idiot who claimed laws don't apply to you and thus
you can drive on whichever side of the road you want!  LOL!


author: Doug Bashford

text:
In <anhjeg$pi9$[email]>
 On 3 Oct 2002 14:15:44 GMT, [email] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote about:
 Re: "Property Rights"  advocates Vs. the Community at Large

Bashford:

Steven Canyon:

Spoken like a true spoiled brat....er I mean Libertarian.


author: Steven Canyon

text:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:56:39 GMT, [email] ( Doug
Bashford ) wrote:

Sorry, I don't consider your society to have any authority over me.  I
generally have natural inhibitions against doing most the things the
laws saw that I should not do but those are my own preferances.  then
there are other laws that I have no natural inhibitions against and I
"break" those laws whenever I want providinf that it's convenient to
do so.

I didn't say that the system exempted me from their laws, I said that
I do not consider myself morally obligated to obey them.  I understand
how, with your limited reasoning ability, you would not be able to
understand that.  After all, you are a communalist and you have no
mind beyond the range of the collective.


author: Roger Coppock

subject: Global warming: scientists reveal timetable

text:
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Correspondent, The Independent
03 February 2005

A detailed timetable of the destruction and distress that global
warming is likely to cause the world was unveiled yesterday.

It pulls together for the first time the projected impacts on
ecosystems and wildlife, food production, water resources and economies
across the earth, for given rises in global temperature expected during
the next hundred years.

The resultant picture gives the most wide-ranging impression yet of the
bewildering array of destructive effects that climate change is
expected to exert on different regions, from the mountains of Europe
and the rainforests of the Amazon to the coral reefs of the tropics.

Produced through a synthesis of a wide range of recent academic
studies, it was presented as a paper yesterday to the international
conference on climate change being held at the UK Met Office
headquarters in Exeter by the author Bill Hare, of the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany's [ . . . ]

The rest is at:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=607254


author: W. D. Allen Sr.

subject: Re: Global warming: scientists reveal timetable

text:
Here we go again!

These people can't forecast tomorrow's temperature accurate within ten
percent but claim to know what the weather will be one hundred years from
now! And Roger-The-Lodger actually believes them.

The "global warmers" credo.

"When in danger,
  when in doubt,
  run in circles,
  scream and shout!"

(it will be true for probably the next one hundred years)

end

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


author: z

text:
W. D. Allen Sr. wrote:
ten
from

Yeah. Like doctors can't tell you the date you will die, but they
persist in telling you that getting lung cancer will make it happen
sooner. Ha ha, silly scientists.


author: Vendicar Decarian

text:
"W. D. Allen Sr." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

  Similarly, it is quite difficult to predict the current height of W.D.
Allen's first child accurate to 10%.

  However we can quite easily predict with good precision the average height
of the U.S. population 100 years from now.

  Statistics is powerful tool.

  Allen Sr. is an ignorant man.

  Death will be his only release from his self imposed state of ignorance.


text:
In article <[email]>,
   "W. D. Allen Sr." <[email]> wrote:

Nobody is predicting the weather 100 years from now.  Try a dictionary.


author: owl

text:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:40:47 -0800, "W. D. Allen Sr."
<[email]> wrote:

Wow.  WDASr thinks the global warming debate is about predicting the
weather for February 5th, 2105 ... lends a whole new dimension to the
phrase 'inner space'.


author: Thomas Palm

text:
"W. D. Allen Sr." <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Apart from the usual fallacy of not understanding the difference between
climate and weather you make another false claim here. Meteorologists
almost never are off by 10% using the sensible temperature scale, Kelvin.
That would involve a 30K error and how often does that happen?


author: James

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

No, it's about shrinking doom and gloom from a few hundred years from now to
next month.


text:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:17:34 -0500, "James" <[email]> wrote:

Wow.  Now James jumps in with February 5th, 2105 jumping out a century
and springing back to only a month away.

Queue the Rocky Horror theme song.


subject:
When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof vest
 carrying a machine gun?.....There is absolutely no reason why you need an
 assault weapon, high capacity magazine or armor-piercing bullets

text:
When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof vest
carrying a machine gun?

You stupid ass backward gun loons don't need assault weapons, high
capacity magazines or armor-piercing bullets.

Grow up and be a positive role model for your kids instead of the shit
filled boot idiot that you are now.

TMT


subject:
Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof vest
 carrying a machine gun?.....There is absolutely no reason why you need an
 assault weapon, high capacity magazine or armor-piercing bullets

text:
On Jan 28, 7:51 pm, Too_Many_Tools <[email]> wrote:

Why don't gun loons know their local deer hunting reqs....are they
really THAT stupid?

TMT


text:
On Jan 27, 3:26 pm, "[email]" <[email]> wrote:

Wrong...America has 20 dead 1st graders as towhy assualt rifles ,
high
capacaity magazines, and armour penetriting bullets
should not be available to the public.

Any sane person would know that...why don't you?

TMT


author: Alim Nassor

text:
On Jan 25, 8:23 pm, Too_Many_Tools <[email]> wrote:

Another dumb motherfucker who doesn't know what the 2nd Amendmet is
about.


text:
On Jan 25, 8:48 pm, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:

You fucking idiot.  I can take my AR with a 30 round mag, legally, and
hunt deer.


text:
On Jan 25, 8:57 pm, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:

You haven't heard much either.


text:
On Jan 27, 7:48 pm, "David R. Birch" <[email]> wrote:

I've got 2.  Both 8mm.  Great rifles.


text:
On Jan 25, 8:23 pm, Too_Many_Tools <[email]> wrote:

LOL..very funny...you gun loons don't even know what your local deer
hunting regs are...what a hoot!

And note that not one of you have come up with any reason why assualt
weapons, high cap mags or AP ammo should be available to the public.

Sounds like you will be happy with the new gun laws that are coming...

TMT


author: [redacted]

text:
On Jan 26, 3:33 pm, Frank <[email]> wrote:

I am surprised, but you are absolutely correct.  It does not make
sense to me, but no one ever said laws have to be based on reason.

When I was young one topic that came up was whether a auto loading
shot gun was faster than a pump shotgun.  There is not much difference
in the speed except that with a pump , the left arm comes back so you
can shift the aim a bit faster and when the left arm extends , you
extend it toward where you want the next shot.  So someone that is
used to using a pump can aim at a second target slightly faster.  But
not a significant difference.  Would make no difference in deer
hunting where one is not trying to shoot another deer.

The limitation on the number of rounds in a shotgun is pretty
universal.  I have heard of people that got around that by having two
guns.

                                                           Dan


author: NotMe

subject: Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof vest carrying a machine gun?.....There is absolutely no reason why you need an assault weapon, high capacity magazine or armor-piercing bullets

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

Never hunted wild pig (considered vermin in many areas) have you?


text:
On Jan 25, 9:57 pm, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:

Outlawing hunting with autoloading shotguns is about the most stupid
thing  I have heard in a long time.  A pump shotgun can deliver aimed
shots faster  than an autoloader.

Since autoloading shotguns are legal for birds, I can not imagine that
there is a state that prohibits them for deer.  What would be the
rational?  Your statement would make more sense if it was  " Never
heard of a state that prohibits using auto loading shotguns for deer."

Dan


author: JohnJohnsn

text:
On Jan 25, 8:57 pm, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:
With your every posting you prove how little you Liberals know, and
how much you've never heard of.

2012-2013 Summary of [Texas] Fishing and Hunting Regulations
Valid September 1, 2012 through August 31, 2013
[...]
Means and Methods
Firearms
NEW LAW: Silencers may be used to take any wildlife resource; however
all federal, state and local laws continue to apply.
• Game animals and game birds may be hunted with any legal firearm,
EXCEPT:
- white-tailed deer, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, and pronghorn
antelope may NOT be hunted with rimfire ammunition of any caliber.
- shotguns are the only legal firearm that may be used to hunt Eastern
turkey during the spring
Eastern turkey season (see County Listings). Rifles and handguns may
not be used to hunt
Eastern turkey.
- pellet guns and other air guns are NOT LEGAL .
- fully automatic firearms are NOT LEGAL .
- a shotgun is the only legal firearm for hunting migratory game birds
(see Definitions - Legal
Shotgun, pg. 72).
• Nongame Animals (Non-Protected): Any lawful firearm, pellet gun, or
other air gun is legal.
• Magazine Capacity (number of shells/cartridges allowed): There are
no restrictions on the number of shells or cartridges a legal firearm
may hold when hunting game animals or game birds (except migratory
game birds, see Legal Shotgun, pg. 72¹).
• Muzzleloader: Any firearm that is loaded only through the muzzle.
Note: A cap and ball firearm in which the powder and ball are loaded
into a cylinder is not a muzzleloader. Muzzleloader deer seasons are
restricted to muzzleloading firearms only.
• Possession of firearms by felons: A convicted felon, regardless of
where the conviction occurred, may not possess or use a firearm (as
defined by Penal Code, §46.01) to hunt in this state. Under Penal
Code, §46.01, a muzzleloading firearm is lawful if it is an antique or
curio firearm manufactured before 1899 or a replica of an antique or
curio firearm manufactured before 1899 that does not use rimfire or
centerfire ammunition.
[...]
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/cs_bk_k0700_284_2012_2013.pdf

¹Legal Shotgun: Shotguns not larger than 10 gauge, fired from the
shoulder, and incapable of holding more than three shells (shotguns
capable of holding more than three shells must be plugged with a one-
piece filler which is incapable of removal without disassembling the
gun, so the gun’s total capacity does not exceed three shells).

Now; where's that prohibition of using auto-loading rifles in deer
hunting; or the requirement to use a single-shot rifle; bolt-action or
otherwise?

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant;
it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
--Ronald Reagan
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousands real
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience’ that would
take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown
in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that
forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm
those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."
--Cesare Bonesana, Marchese Beccaria, `Of Crimes and Punishments'

"Why is it that every time a lunatic uses a firearm to commit an
atrocity the gun-control fanatics want to punish the millions of gun
owners that DIDN'T do it?!?!?
--Me, Dec. 18, 2012...


author: Gray Guest

text:
Too_Many_Tools <[email]> wrote in news:144c68e1-72a7-40ae-
[email]:

I'm sure you see them regularly while hallucinating.

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama


author: Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !

subject:
Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof
 vest carrying a machine gun?.....There is absolutely no reason why you need
 an assault weapon, high capacity magazine or armor-piercing bullets

text:
On 1/25/2013 8:23 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

AFAIK states require a single shot bolt action rifle for deer.

--
---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/Sf9PJCiSbLI/AAAAAAAANYI/wzO53XgcCrM/s400/cry_baby.jpg

SAVE AMERICA!!

Spay or neuter
your Republican!!
--
--> Slow thinkers --> Stay Right

--


text:
On Jan 27, 9:55 pm, Alim Nassor <[email]> wrote:

LOL...I was just thinking of you in the same context.

Say Hi to your Mother the next time you are in her bed.

TMT


author: Ray Keller

text:
"Alim Nassor" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Jan 25, 8:48 pm, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:

You fucking idiot.  I can take my AR with a 30 round mag, legally, and
hunt deer.
====================
Same here in Az


author: David R. Birch

text:
On 1/27/2013 10:01 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:

10 so far.

8mm - 3
7mm - 1
7.62x51 - 1
30'06 - 5

David


author: Yardpilot

text:
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:14:09 PM UTC-8, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Come up with a reason why they shouldn't. Oh, and define them.


text:
On Jan 27, 3:14 pm, Too_Many_Tools <[email]> wrote:
 Sound

And no one  has come up with any reason why assualt rifles , high
capacaity magazines, and armour penetriting bullets
should not be available to the public.

Dan


author: Michael A. Terrell

subject:
Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof vest
 carrying a machine gun?.....There is absolutely no reason why you need
 an assault weapon, high capacity magazine or armor-piercing bullets

text:
NotMe wrote:

   What?  That could wipe out his entire family.


author: Frank

text:
On 1/26/2013 2:27 PM, [email] wrote:

I mentioned Pennsylvania and have rules in front of me.  All deer
hunting must be with manually operated rifles, shotguns or pistols.
There is an additional rule that shotguns are limited to three shells.

Not sure I agree on ability of a pump shotgun to deliver aimed shots
faster but speed of auto-loaders is exaggerated.

Ever see this shooter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsLx5ISBXw4


text:
On Jan 25, 8:31 pm, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:

You don't know much.


author: Gunner

text:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:31:46 -0600, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie


author: RD Sandman

text:
"Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !" <[email]> wrote in
news:51034013$0$10380$[email]:

NO, they don't.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

If law school is so hard to get through....
how come there are so many lawyers?


author: Padraigh ProAmerica

subject:
Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof
	v...

text:
Re: When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof vest
carrying a machine gun?.....There is absolutely no reason why you need
an assault weapon, high capacity magazine or armor-piercing bullets

Group: talk.politics.guns Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2013, 8:31pm (EST-1) From:
[email] (Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !)
On 1/25/2013 8:23 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
When was the last time you saw a deer wearing a bullet proof vest
carrying a machine gun?
You stupid ass backward gun loons don't need assault weapons, high
capacity magazines or armor-piercing bullets.
AFAIK states require a single shot bolt action rifle for deer.
--
===========================

You know jack.

There are almost no single-shot deer-caliber rifles being maufactured
(Thompson/Center makes single shots, but these are geared towards target
shooters).

Most hunters use autoloaders, bolt-actions with magazines and lever
actions.

In some states (Connecticut) you can;t use a rifle- deer must be taken
by shotgun.

You might want to consider doing a little research before proving
yourself to be a moron.
-------------------------------

--
"A man who can own a gun is a citizen. A man who cannot own a gun is a
subject."--

Unknown


text:
On Jan 25, 9:31 pm, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:

Cite.      The state _I am in does not allow using a single shot bolt
action rifle for deer.  In fact, I don't think you can find any single
shot bolt action rifles suitable for hunting deer.

                                                                    Dan


author: deep

text:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:31:46 -0600, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:

Autoloaders are legal in lots of states.


author: Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names

text:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:31:46 -0600, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:

A "single-shot bolt-action?"

The purpose of the bolt is to eject the fired cartridge and load
another round from the magazine.

A single-shot rifle is simply broken open at the chamber and a round
inserted by hand.

Here are the Virginia regulations . . . no mention of single-shot or
bolt-action.

No restrictions on shot size except for spring gobbler season when it
is unlawful to have any shot in possession larger than number 2 fine
shot while hunting.
Shotguns must not be larger than 10 gauge.
Unplugged shotguns are legal for hunting nonmigratory game and crows.
Shotgun barrels must be at least 18 inches long.
Shotguns with rifled barrels are permitted in areas where slugs may be
used.
All game birds and animals, except deer, may be hunted with shotguns
from boats. Hunters must have permission from the landowner to
hunt/retrieve game located on private land.
Rifles used for deer or bear must be .23 caliber or larger.
Rifles (including air rifles) may be used for taking wild animals and
wild birds, except migratory game birds and waterfowl, and where
prohibited by local ordinances.
Rifles (including air rifles), pistols, and revolvers may be used for
hunting crows, except where prohibited by local ordinances.
Rifles (including air rifles), pistols, and revolvers may be used for
hunting turkeys, except where prohibited by local ordinances.
Pistols, revolvers, and muzzleloading pistols may be used for small
game, except where prohibited by local ordinances.
Pistols and revolvers are lawful for deer and bear hunting only in
those counties where hunting deer and bear with rifles is lawful.
Cartridges used must be .23 caliber or larger and have a
manufacturer's rating of 350 footpounds muzzle energy or more.
Muzzleloading shotguns, muzzleloading rifles, or archery tackle may be
used to hunt during the firearms seasons where not prohibited.
Archery tackle (including crossbows) may be used for hunting wild
birds and animals.
Crossbows are legal to use by any hunter.
If a crossbow is used during an archery season (including the urban
archery season) the hunter must have a crossbow license.
If a hunter chooses to use both conventional archery tackle and a
crossbow during an archery season, he will need both an archery
license when using the conventional bow and a crossbow license when
using the crossbow.
If a hunter chooses to use a crossbow during the firearms season, no
crossbow license will be required (just as there is no requirement for
a person to have an archery license if using conventional archery
equipment during the firearms season).
The laws governing the use of archery tackle also apply to crossbow
tackle.


author: bigdog

text:
On Friday, January 25, 2013 9:31:46 PM UTC-5, Thanks for all the FREE STUFF ! wrote:

In Ohio, most deer hunters use shotguns. Other choices are antique weapons(bows and muzzle loaders). I think handguns are also allowable, but I don't know of anyone who would hunt a deer with a handgun. Since I am not a hunter myself, I could be wrong about that.


text:
"Ray Keller" <[email]> wrote in news:lNnNs.55371
$[email]:

@t6g2000pba.googlegroups.com...
single
TQKQ/Sf9PJCiSbLI/AAAAAAAANYI/wzO53Xg...

Or an SKS or an AK clone.....Or my .357Mag.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

If law school is so hard to get through....
how come there are so many lawyers?


text:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:36:53 -0600, "David R. Birch"
<[email]> wrote:

Anything you really arent attached to? Id not mind having an 06

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie


author: pyotr filipivich

text:
Alim Nassor <[email]> on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:55:43 -0800
(PST) typed in misc.survivalism  the following:

	He's such a slow thinker, he's off the shoulder and in the
drainage ditch.

--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.


text:
On 1/25/2013 8:45 PM, [email] wrote:

No semi autos ever are permitted for deer hunting you fucking moron.

--
---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/Sf9PJCiSbLI/AAAAAAAANYI/wzO53XgcCrM/s400/cry_baby.jpg

SAVE AMERICA!!

Spay or neuter
your Republican!!
--
--> Slow thinkers --> Stay Right

--


text:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:45:00 -0800 (PST), "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

You do know that bolt action big game rifles have magazines, right?
Usually hold 3-4 rounds.  Most hunting rifles are of such design.


text:
On 1/25/2013 8:50 PM, deep wrote:

never heard of a state for deer with auto loader -- that includes shotguns.

--
---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/Sf9PJCiSbLI/AAAAAAAANYI/wzO53XgcCrM/s400/cry_baby.jpg

SAVE AMERICA!!

Spay or neuter
your Republican!!
--
--> Slow thinkers --> Stay Right

--


text:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:48:47 -0600, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie


text:
"Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !" <[email]> wrote in
news:51034410$0$10380$[email]:

Bullshit.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

If law school is so hard to get through....
how come there are so many lawyers?


author: Stormin Mormon

text:
They are permitted in NYS. You f/m.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  www.lds.org
.

"Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !" <[email]> wrote in
message news:51034410$0$10380$[email]...

No semi autos ever are permitted for deer hunting you fucking moron.


author: Scout

text:
"Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !" <[email]> wrote in
message news:51034410$0$10380$[email]...

Where?


text:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:48:47 -0600, "Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"
<[email]> wrote:

Lots of states allow autoloaders for big game hunting.  Many have
magazine size limitations.   Remington has been making a big line of
autoloader hunting rifles for about 100 years now.


author: Jeff M

text:
On 1/25/2013 8:48 PM, Thanks for all the FREE STUFF ! wrote:

You can hunt anything in-season with just about any otherwise legal
firearm, including semi-autos, in Florida.  There are very few hunting
weapon or ammo restrictions in Florida, except for a handful regarding
shotgun shot sizes and muzzle loading types.


text:
On 1/25/2013 9:57 PM, Thanks for all the FREE STUFF ! wrote:

Shotguns in Delaware can be auto-loaders but capacity is limited to
three shells.  You can also use a pistol on private lands with no
limitations except caliber and barrel length.  Only muzzle loading
rifles are allowed besides.

Pennsylvania varies from area to area with rifles allowed in some
regions and only shotguns in others.  No auto-loaders allowed but no
magazine capacity limit.

Another comment, with multiple tags you can bag more than one deer at a
time in Delaware.  Think it's been six times that I've doubled on deer
traveling together - all with my auto-loading Remington 1100.


text:
New York.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  www.lds.org
.

"Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !" <[email]> wrote in
message news:51034614$0$10378$[email]...

never heard of a state for deer with auto loader -- that includes shotguns.


author: RogerN

text:
"Thanks for all the FREE STUFF !"  wrote in message
news:51034614$0$10378$[email]...

Illinois, one of the tighter gun law states, even allows auto loading
shotguns:

http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/hunting/Pages/HuntingDevicesandAmmunition.aspx
"Shotguns, loaded with slugs only, of not larger than 10 gauge nor smaller
than 20 gauge, not capable of firing more than 3 consecutive slugs;"

RogerN


author: Klaus Schadenfreude

text:
You're what we call "ignorant."

But go ahead and find those state statutes requiring "single shot bolt
action rifles."


text:
On 1/25/2013 8:57 PM, Thanks for all the FREE STUFF ! wrote:

Wisconsin has no restrictions on type of action or magazine capacity
beyond ruling out certain types of ammo and full auto weapons.

I usually hunt with an FN49 semiauto, 10 rounds of 30'06.

David


author: Steve W.

text:
Thanks for all the FREE STUFF ! wrote:

NY regs :
Manner of Taking
It is illegal to take or hunt wildlife:
with any semi-automatic firearm with a capacity to hold more than 6
rounds, EXCEPT the following semi-automatic firearms:
     firearms using .22 or .17 caliber rimfire ammunition, or
     firearms altered to reduce their capacity to no more than 6 shells
at one time in the magazine and chamber combined, or
     autoloading pistols with a barrel length of less than eight inches.

VT regs:
Machine Guns & Autoloading Rifles
It is illegal while hunting in Vermont to use, carry, or have in your
possession a machine gun of any kind or description
or an autoloading rifle with a magazine capacity of over 6 cartridges,
except a .22 caliber rifle using rimfire cartridges.
No restrictions on shotguns.

--
Steve W.


text:
Klaus Schadenfreude <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

I doubt he even knows what a semi auto is.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

If law school is so hard to get through....
how come there are so many lawyers?


text:
deep" wrote in message news:[email]...

That's ironic, one libtard trying to educate another!  Making any progress?
:-)

Here in Illinois they don't allow deer hunting with rifles except muzzle
loaders.  One of the favorites is the single shot slug guns with rifled
barrels.  They have a handgun season but can't use semi-autos and must meet
certain energy ratings.

RogerN


text:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:07:07 -0500, Frank
<[email]> wrote:

California, 3 rd limit on migratory game birds, no distinction in
action types

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie


text:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 07:27:00 -0600, "David R. Birch"
<[email]> wrote:

If you find another FN49 in any caliber besides 8mm...let me know

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie


text:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 07:27:00 -0600, "David R. Birch"
<[email]> wrote:

nice gun


text:
"Steve W." <[email]> wrote in message
news:kdvpb9$3fb$[email]...

Fine and as long as it holds less than 6 rounds in the Magazine, you're good
to go.

So what's your point?


text:
RD Sandman wrote:

   That''s what left after a tractor trailer runs of a Kia full of
hamsters and they roll off the road together.


author: AmyLeVere

text:
"RD Sandman"  wrote in message
news:XnsA15482B1E6BEDhopewell@216.196.121.131...

Klaus Schadenfreude <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

I doubt he even knows what a semi auto is.

#####

I had a friend that had a Hemi with an Auto.


author: Tom Gardner

text:
On 1/25/2013 10:58 PM, RogerN wrote:

The blind teaching the deaf how to fly.