Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
IOW, you (pl.) say you don't prefer it if ONLY criminals carry weapons, you (pl.) just want to change the law so everyone who carries a weapon is by definition a criminal . . . I didn't say that, and I didn't say anything about criminalizing guns. It is my belief that there are relatively very few individual who can demonstrate an actual use for a personally owned gun - hunters, target shooters, for the most part - and we can devise ways to enable them to own guns while trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who really should not have them. I don't think it's unreasonable or unconstitutional to try to do that. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 03:35 PM 8/1/2003 -0700 Matt Grimaldi wrote: So then the President used information that ultimately came from French Intelligence, a country which his own administration has all but accused of having a conflict of interest wrt Iraq? This sounds worse than before. John D. Giorgis wrote: I love this. You get to nail Bush for not cooperating with our allies, like the French. *AND* You get to nail Bush *for* cooperating wth our allies, like the French. Sorry, but I can't take your Catch-22 seriously. I don't call using 3rd-hand soft info from France as cooperating with them. They didn't want the evidence to be used in the first place, and certainly didn't share the hard evidence with us, if there was any. If Bush hadn't used the evidence, the basic positions of the debate for and against invading Iraq would not have changed, and this particular facet would never have come up. Besides, why should Bush believe anything from France, over the objections of his own intelligence department, when he is suspicious of France's motives? If he's going to disregard them, why not *also* disregard soft evidence in the form of assurances passed through a 3rd party? Anything french, especially at the time the SOU was given, was tarred as suspicous by the administration and the media. Why should he take their assurances over his own CIA, and browbeat them into settling on a statement that is technically not untrue, yet misleading wrt the strength of the evidence supporting it. All this going into the most important and heavily reviewed speech he makes. It seems to me that the administration's standards should be getting tougher for things like this, not weaker. This is not a catch-22, but rather someone acting out of character. It suggests that he had an Agenda and anything he could get his hands on, regardless of its integrity, would be employed. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Hyperion - The Motion Picture
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Hyperion - The Motion Picture Maybe I Should Read The Book Maru No maybe. I'd put Hyperion/Fall of Hyperion up there with The Anubis Gates, His Dark Materials, and just a very few others as among the ten best books I've ever read. I know I'm in the list minority when I say this, but I would also highly recommend Endymion and Rise of Endymion as well as the final coda story entitled Orphans of the Helix which may be hard to find. Many people feel they weren't as good as H and FOH, but I did enjoy them immensely. (Plus, they answered a ton of questions and enigmas raised in the first two books.) I think the entire series was just incredible and it's on my personal top ten as well. I consider Hyperion/Fall of Hyperion to be essentially one book that got published in two parts. I remember reading Hyperion and coming to the end and thinking - huh? Wha hoppen? That's IT? I did not know that it immediately continued in Fall of Hyperion; which, fortunately, I was able to find a copy of almost the next day and thus was not doomed to hellish frustration. Worth noting (don't worry... this isn't a spoiler): FOH is told from a totally different perspective and literary style. It also takes a certain 'poetic' theme and weaves it deeply into the narrative which is followed up and explained more fully in the final book. A good film adaptation could be eye-popping and mind-blowing. But since when has Scorsese shown any interest in skiffy? Who cares? *grin* He'd be awesome at it. ;-) I wonder who would play Kassad or FC de Soya. :-) Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: shoelaces, concetration, stingy reactions and Re: dyslexiaandtinted lenses
--- Sonja van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: I also feel that it is necessary to note that there is a lot of quackery around learning disabilities. FREX The Gift of dyslexia is a non scientific book with absolutely ridiculous notions like dyslexics shoes come untied more often, and that dyslexic are clumbsy. There are studies by ~real~ scientists such as Shaywitz shoing that this stuff is nonsense. Well, about those shoes. ;o) I remember that a while back I read about some research into tying shoe laces. It showed that there are many ways to tie your laces but there are only one or two ways that will result in laces that will not continuously come undone. Well that, and it helps if you knot the loops of your toddies shoelaces once you tied them. I don't have the link to it, but if it exist maybe a benevolent listee might provide it for our amusement. :o) Just passing on the info from real scientists. The thing you don't realize is the links you provided refernce reasearchres the dyslexic comunity knows to be quacks. There are hundreds of dyslexics out there who are being told that their problem is simply solved with red glasses, that they are clumsy, that they are inferior, that they need special help. It's all BS. One does not have to be autistic to have a heightened sense for such things as flickering lights or shrill electronics. The average person can only see flicker below some frequency (can't remember what it is just now) and the above average person can only here between 20 Htz and 20k Htz. There are individuals who can see and here better, and they are often distracted in learning environemnts that contain such noise. Thank you for the information. I personally have exceptionally good hearing but found that I can shut it down or more like totally screen my surroundings out while I work. It usually results in me being very concentrated, the more so, the noisier the environs I'm working in get. People have found that it then takes a considerable amount of effort to get my attention once I'm in that state. So I sort of use the noises around me to focus my thoughts and become very concentrated. Something I found totally impossible in a silent room, where I would jump at even the slightest of sounds. You are one of millions of individuals on this planet who are lucky enough to have autistic tendencies. Use your powers of concentration wisely. Recognize those like you, and those deeper in do not suffer from a defect, they are not broken, they do not need help. well, other than help being treated as an equal in society. It is ridiculous to suggest that a student should wear dark red glasses when the lighting could simply be adjusted. Especialy if the student is autistic and is having a difficult enough time socialy anyway. Reading this (and Julia's response) I feel that I have to ask if either you or Julia for that matter read or even glanced at the sites I pointed to? The reason I'm asking is because f.i. information like below is on one of the sites and both your responses seem to be oddly out of sync with this and other things mentioned there. from http://www.read-eye.connectfree.co.uk/dyslexia.htm Once again these people are quakcs. If you contact them as a concerenc=ed parent of a shild with autism or dyslexia they will try and convince you that all your childs problems are optical and can be fixed with red glasses. Visual stress is a condition that often contributes to reading difficulties in adults and children. The condition is related to light sensitivity in disorders such as migraine and epilepsy. It causes distortions on the printed page when black print contrasts sharply with a bright background. So, DONT USE FLORESENT LIGHTS, and DON'T TURN THE LIGHTS ON BRIGHT!!! Most public places have the lights on so bright and use floresets becouse they are cheeper. Somewhere along the line people bought into an old wives tale that dim lights are bad for your eyes. actuly bright lights are. No one needs dark red lenses, what they need is the lights to be turned down. Visual stress is often a big part of the problem in Dyslexia, No more so than it is for anyone else. remember these people use the term Visual Dyslexia and then drop the visual so that they are just saying dyslexia they are still not talking about the same thing. And if they are they are lying. but can also affect other poor readers and may cause eyestrain and headaches in good readers. etc. disclaimer I didn't say, nor did I attempt to say that this in any way applies to Jan, nor that it was _the_ solution to cure any or all dyslexic and/or autistic people, nor did I say that every dyslexic can become a normal reader by putting on dark red lenses, nor did I say that every dyslexic is autistic or that every autistic person is dyslexic, or a combination thereof. Nor did I as far as I know in any
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Erik Reuter wrote: Okay, POSITIVE point: Try listening more and arguing less. You might learn something. Nope, I learn more by arguing. By the way, that isn't really a point, it is more of an order. Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an order, it would have read: 'Listen more and argue less...'. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re:_Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_ofprice_discrimination
From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:_Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of price_discrimination It is my belief that there are relatively very few individual who can demonstrate an actual use for a personally owned gun Every individual can demostrate a actual use for a personally owned gun. It balances the tactical power, the threat of injury or death one individual can have over another. Without ANY guns that power would be in the hands of thowse who are larger and/or more willing to accept minor injuries...etc. If everyone has a gun, that power is balanced. Can I ask where you stand on weapons of mass destruction? This line of arguement would suggest that Iraq was fully justified in wanting to have its own nukes. And that we have suppresed their human rights by denying access to them. I actually have some sympathy for that position, the moral inequalities of the whole Iraq issue worry me. To carry it further, when we all have guns, do we all then upgrade to personal tactical nukes? GCU Another Lurker from the Culture. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there is the matter of accidents. Simple solution, teach a class in gun safty in school. Replace the 10th 11th or 12th year of english those clases are a waste. 1) I didn't consider any of those classes I took those years to be a waste, personally. 2) I'm not sure that the person I was in high school would have handled a gun safety course all that well. I'm keenly interested in taking one *now*, but I've done a lot of growing and thinking about the whole thing since high school. Just my opinion. (I didn't like taking driver's ed when I had to, either, but part of that was the specific instructor, I think.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:13:49 -0500 Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there is the matter of accidents. Simple solution, teach a class in gun safty in school. Replace the 10th 11th or 12th year of english those clases are a waste. 1) I didn't consider any of those classes I took those years to be a waste, personally. Neither do I. In fact, the foundation of writing skills and language analysis they established probably allow me to do my job effectively. An observation: Just because a required class may not help you personally doesn't mean it's worthless. For example, I may never use the trigonometry that I learned about in HS in my daily life, but it's essential to everything from construction to chemistry. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re:_Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No matter what laws get passed, no matter who can leagaly cary a gun and who can't Criminals will allways own and carry guns. Right, and other criminals will always commit crimes, so why have any laws at all? A much more interesting statistic would be the perentage of non-law-enforcement people who carry a conceled weapons who are also non-criminals. Personsly I would prefer there to be more non-criminals with concealed weapons than criminals with concealed weapons, but proponents of gun control laws seem to prefer it if ONLY criminals carry weapons. No we don't. We don't want anyone to have a gun who doesn't have a good reason to have one. And we don't feel it is impossible to cut down on the sheer extraordinarily huge number of guns circulating in our society. Difficult, especially given the grinding political power of the NRA, but why should it be so easy to buy a gun in Virginia that criminals drive down from New York to stock up on guns and then drive them back up to New York to sell? Nobody really needs a gun. Seriously. Soap Box So, you would prefer the largest, and strongest to be the only ones who can weild lethal force? Or do you beleive that everyone else should practice martial arts? You are not going to change human nature with restrictive gun laws, you are only going to change the balance of power. Right now our laws are broken. Like it or not -some- humans are violent. That is just the way it is. And as long as that is the case there must be some way to level the feild. Right now our laws are broken. Guns level the feild. A big strong angry man is no match for a small frail woman with a P99-40. Give them both a gun and it's equal odds. Criminals don't like equal odds. They would rather not commit the crime than do one that has a 50-50 chance of failure. Like I said our laws are broken. Only the criminal has the wapon and they can be rather certain that most people are not carrying a gun, so they have the upper hand. It's like our laws tell them, here are a bunch of sitting ducks, have fun! Look at all the babbies with candy! And of course that is auful and those people are terible, but you can't run and put your head in the sand and pretend that it isn't like that. You can't pretend that we live in an evolved STTNG society. We don't! We live in a Wild West society, only now, only the bad guys have the guns. A gunless society, a society that didn't need to have power balanced would be a wonderful society to live in. But unfortunatly we don't live in such a society, we live in a society that ~Requires~ something to balance tactical power. Only, our laws have taken that away from us, our laws have shifted the balance of power to benifit the criminal. One might say that they don't want to live in a society where everyone is carrying a gun on their hip, but what would not be realized is that is the exact same society we DO live in, only the guns are hidden, and only the _chriminals_ have them unless you live in Texas or Nevada. A society where everyone was carrying a weapon would be a society where the week and the meek would have equal power when they walk out of their front door. It would be More peacefull and provide for More equality. I beleive that for a weaponless society to work, we must first experience have tactical equality. /Soap Box If you absolutely have to have one (and I don't know why you would), you should have to demonstrate that need, demonstrate proper training in its use, be required to own insurance against any possible misuse of your gun by you or by anyone else (thus giving you a powerful incentive to take good care of it). I'm not talking about hunters or target-shooters, but they tend to be much more responsible about taking care of their weapons than the gun nuts symbolized by Phil Gramm, who, when asked how many guns he had, replied, More than I need but not as many as I want. Guns are dangerous. Pure and simple. It may not be possible to get rid of them entirely, but that should be our society's goal. Meanwhile, let's settle for what limitations we can get. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fightthe evil of pricediscrimination
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (And no, I'm not going to purchase a gun until I feel a lot more comfortable around one than I am. And generally, the rattlers just kinda park themselves in the road, so there's time to get the ammo out of the separate locked box, load the gun, and go back out to do it in. And I've heard that rattlesnake tastes like chicken.) That gun belongs on your hip fully loaded. You live in one of the SANE states that allows LAW ABIDING citizes to balance their own power with that of the criminal. Do you think that rapists and murdererd keep their amo locked in a seperat box? I'm not taking the gun *with* me. Carrying a loaded gun while I'm carrying small children isn't my idea of a Good Idea. I'm talking about having it available to dispatch dangerous animals near my house. And anything short of a poisonous snake, the dogs can probably take care of (sometimes to my dismay -- you weren't around for the skunk saga, but I'd be willing to give you the short version off-list if you asked). I *do* have a couple of friends who *do* have guns with them a good deal of the time, and on one occasion, one might have had his life saved by having that gun with him. (At least, this is what he's told me, and he's honest and not unduly paranoid about *that* sort of thing.) But most of the people I know aren't packing, and there are so many places I need to go that have signs on the door prohibiting firearms that I'm not sure I *would* want to carry any time soon. If I were further out from a major population center, I'd probably feel differently, and take different actions, but I'm not about to try to walk into, say, a fabric store in Austin with a loaded gun. (I might break the rules at Luby's, though) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Pregnancy update, etc.
Well, I've made it to 31 weeks. Ideally, we'd all like for me to get to 36 weeks before I give birth, as that's the point at which we can expect that neither baby would need to go to the NICU after birth. Between 32 and 34 weeks, if I go into labor, they're going to want to try to stop the labor, shoot me up with steroids to do rapid lung maturation, and then let me go back into labor after 48 hours. At 34 weeks, lung maturity won't be an issue, but there's still a chance that one baby or the other would have to go to the NICU for some period of time. My OB would like to see me get to at least 34 weeks. The perinatal nurse I see every week would like for me to make it to at *least* 36 weeks, 37 would be better. (But if it's 36 1/2 weeks and I haven't gone into labor, I may engage in various activities that could promote going into labor.) The babies' heartbeats are good, my ankles are *slightly* swollen, nothing to worry about too much, my blood pressure is OK, my belly is longer bottom to top (at least, the outside of it measures longer when it's measured from bottom to top, most of that is from growing *out*), and my cervix is in reasonable shape for a woman carrying twins at 31 weeks who has had a baby before. No indication that I'll go into labor in the next week, anyway. (I'm still having contractions, but not too many.) I'm also rather uncomfortable, I waddle like a penguin when I walk sometimes (especially if I'm just getting up after sitting for awhile, or lying down for awhile), I feel like a beached whale when I try to move while lying down, it's hot outside, I can't get enough good sleep at night most nights, and I'm cranky as a result of all that. And my maternity clothing is starting to not fit very well, but we don't think it's worth it to spend a whole lot on stuff that I'd only need for a maximum of 7 more weeks. Well, I got a new pair of sneakers, but there's a difference between clothing not fitting so well and getting close to the point where it'll be impossible for me to tie my own shoes. (These ones zip up. They're kinda cute.) In other news, my father-in-law had a number of scans done on him on Monday, CAT, MRI and bone; they found a tumor in his right lung 1.4cm across, which is in a very bad spot to attempt surgical removal, so they started him on chemo shortly after he saw the oncologist on Wednesday. He'll be on chemo for 3 days in a row every 3 weeks for 4-6 months. It's a rare sort of cancer he has (all I know is that it's a neuroendicrine cancer) and it is likely to come back, so he may be looking at 4-6 months of chemo every 2-3 years for the rest of his life. One side effect of the chemo drugs they're giving him now is an increased probability of leukemia at a later time, but he probably didn't have more than another 20-25 years left in *any* case (he'll be 72 next month, his own father died at 95 or 96), so the thing is to keep him alive *now*. Another side effect of the chemo will be loss of his hair; he's not a terribly vain man about his looks, but since I've known him he *has* taken some pride in having a full head of hair that hasn't started going gray *yet*, and that's going to go. One thing about all the scans was that they found evidence of a recent rib fracture. He'd had some pain in one side and seen a doc about it, and the X-rays they took at the time were negative for a rib fracture, but the X-ray didn't get the right angle, whereas everything he went through on Monday did. (He has mild osteoporosis. Both of Sammy's grandmothers have great bone density, both of my grandmothers had good bone density, but we've got a weak link, so to speak, in Sammy's grandfather, and the next time Dan goes for a physical exam, I'm going to remind him that he needs to talk with his doc about this. I figure I'm in good shape for now, anyway, but I myself ought to start getting bone density tests at some point) So, in a nutshell, I'm uncomfortably pregnant and Dan's parents won't be coming anytime *real* soon; I'm wondering at what point they'll be out there to see the new grandbabies. (My mom will see them as soon as they get home from the hospital, as she's here helping out with things.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: good olde fashioned bible burning
From: Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: good olde fashioned bible burning Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:04:48 -0700 -Original Message- From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 7:45 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: good olde fashioned bible burning At 07:35 PM 8/6/03 +0530, Ritu wrote: At first sight, the subject header appeared to say ' good old fashioned bride burning'. Maybe that's why in Utah they frequently have wedding receptions at the stake center . . . Perhaps they hold secret bride burnings in the temple? Humm.. It would truly suck to be a groom in Utah then. No sex before OR after the wedding. Over time that *would* cut down on the Mormon population. :) Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination
From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:25:53 -0700 (PDT) --- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:13:49 -0500 Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there is the matter of accidents. Simple solution, teach a class in gun safty in school. Replace the 10th 11th or 12th year of english those clases are a waste. 1) I didn't consider any of those classes I took those years to be a waste, personally. Neither do I. In fact, the foundation of writing skills and language analysis they established probably allow me to do my job effectively. An observation: Just because a required class may not help you personally doesn't mean it's worthless. For example, I may never use the trigonometry that I learned about in HS in my daily life, but it's essential to everything from construction to chemistry. I wasn't saying to do away with all 3 years, just one. Besides no one made you take 12 years of triginomotry, or 12 years of art history. or 12 years of colour theory. Well, a better analogy might be that I had 12 years of Math as well as English. (Trig wasn't the only thing taught just as Jane Eyre wasn't the only book taught.) I'm sure I learned a lot in those math classes that I will never use. I still think it was appropriate to take them. A well-rounded education is better than none. Why do you think that 12 years of english is necisary? Did you really learn anything in 10th,11th or 12th grade you didn't already know in 9th? Yes. Definitely. It wasn't all Shakespeare and Beowulf. Sophmore and Junior year a great deal of our workload was increasing vocabulary and reading comprehension skills to help us do well on the SAT's and ACT's. Senior year we concentrated on English lit, book analysis and poetry. We had essays and reports due weekly. I probably learned more about writing and analyzing different literary styles in those three years than during my first two years of college. It serves me in good stead these days. Our experiences may be different. I took advanced placement English courses in High School. As a result, the workload was accelerated and the subjects were more varied. The only difference in these classes was the publisher of the book, and the words on the spelling tests. Granted for me, the spelling tests were like automatic Fs due to my genetics, which I did find teribly unfair. I can't speak to that, but I did almost flunk art due to my color-blindness. I think they should make exceptions due to disabilities. But still, for everyone else the rest of the information was 3 years of re-run. How many times can you be tought to diagram a sentence before you just don't care anymore. How many times can you go around a class reading shakespear aloud? Is it really necisary to subject students to Beowofe 3 years in a row? How many compare-contrast papers can one write? The way we teach English in this country is akin to spending a smester a year teaching 1st 2nd 3ed and 4th graders how to tie shoes. My experience in the NYC school system was very different. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Listref] Vitamin C and the Heart
Alberto wrote: So Linus Pauling was right, after all. Pity that's too late for his third [or fourth?] Nobel Debbi replied: But he advised 'megadoses' on the order of 6-7 *grams*/day; this study used ~ 500-700 milligrams/day. Megadosing can promote renal stones and a type of 'crystal arthritis' - I don't advise over a gram a day, except for during colds/flu when 2g is OK as long as you stay properly hydrated. Even 500 milligrams per day seems like a lot. Isn't the RDA about 60 milligrams? The daily multivitamin I take has something like 120 milligrams. An orange has about 70 milligrams, and I've always heard that is an excellent source of C. By way of comparison, like humans, guinea pigs don't manufacture their own vitamin C and they typically need 10 to 15 milligrams per day (typical weight of an adult male is 1 to 1.5 kg). Reggie Bautista _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Milky Way
And the Milky part of it comes from a myth that it's the milk spilling out of a goddess's breast into the sky. Really? And I thought it was named after a candy bar... Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Maher Mike Hawash pleads guilty, cut deal to be chief witness
Mike Hawash was a topic here a while back, so I thought this might be of interest. (As a refresher: he's a US citizen who was picked up by the feds and held secretly as a material witness, for 5 weeks before being charged.) Maher Mike Hawash pleads guilty 08/06/03 From staff and wire services A former Intel software designer charged this spring for plotting with six others to fight against U.S. troops in Afghanistan pleaded guilty today to providing material support and services to the Taliban government. Maher Mike Hawash's deal with the government allows him to avoid what could have amounted to a life sentence in exchange for becoming a chief witness against his alleged co-conspirators. The deal calls for a 7- to 10-year federal prison term, which will be determined by a federal judge after the trial of the others. Hawash had initially pleaded innocent to charges of conspiracy to wage war against the United States, conspiracy to provide material support to al-Qaida and conspiracy to contribute services to al-Qaida and the Taliban. In exchange for testimony, federal prosecutors agreed to drop charges of conspiring to levy war against the U.S. and conspiring to provide material support for terrorism. He will serve a minimum of seven years in federal prison under the deal, which was approved by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Hawash agreed to testify in federal court, before grand juries and before any potential military tribunals. Federal agents grabbed Hawash, 38, from a parking lot outside his work at Intel Corp. in February and simultaneously searched his home. He was held as a material witness, but federal officials would not confirm publicly they held him until charges were filed five weeks later, in what supporters called an abuse of civil rights. In a 41-page affidavit released in April, the U.S. Attorney's Office accused Hawash, a naturalized U.S.citizen, of growing angry with the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, then conspiring with at least five other Muslim men to join the fight in Afghanistan against U.S. troops. Hawash accompanied the group as it tried and failed to enter Afghanistan from western China in late fall 2001, according to court documents. The Taliban were a militant Muslim organization that controlled most of Afghanistan until the American invasion in 2001 following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that year. Kent Robertson, chief of criminal prosecutions at the U.S. Attorney's office in Portland, has declined to say why his office chose to hold Hawash secretly as a material witness before seeking an indictment. The FBI appears to have begun investigating Hawash after receiving tips from some of his neighbors, according to the affadavit. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: good olde fashioned bible burning
At 11:10 PM 8/6/03 +0530, Ritu wrote: Jon Gabriel wrote: At first sight, the subject header appeared to say ' good old fashioned bride burning'. Maybe that's why in Utah they frequently have wedding receptions at the stake center . . . Perhaps they hold secret bride burnings in the temple? Humm.. It would truly suck to be a groom in Utah then. No sex before OR after the wedding. Oh, but the grooms can get married again. And anyway, the bride is burnt only after a few days/weeks/months have passed. Given that the population of Utah continues to grow, I'd say that it would have to be a matter of at least years, as she would have to have more than one child to replace her and then increase the total population . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
