Re: Ready for Faster Check Cashing?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been following the Check 21 initiative for about 6 months now and I think this is the beginning of the end for paper checks. I have mixed feelings on this. Even though there will always be people that will want to write a paper check, I suspect that banks will make check writing so unattractive with fees that most will want to switch to a debit card or electronic banking. Now if the US government would only stop companies from charging a fee to pay online, something like this might work... Ready for Faster Check Cashing? Check 21... Oct. 26, 2004 -- Consumers who rely on the float period (the lag time between when a check is deposited and when the funds clear) to get by every month are soon going to find themselves out of luck. Starting Thursday, a federal law called Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act or Check 21, will allow banks to process checks without any lag time. Complete article... http://tinyurl.com/67q5u Checks? What are those, is it edible? It all started when one of our banks started giving away accounts. So everybody has at least one of those. And I don't think I know anybody who doesn't have at least one of those accounts. They are easy to get and basically free of charge, so that's good enough to make and recieve transfer payments. Once these accounts became popular checks slowly became extinct. Approximately two years ago banks unilaterally decided the consumers would be better off without them and I haven't seen a paper check ever since. Can't say I miss them. Considering that we don't even have the abillity to pay by credit card at supermarkets and such it's very amazing how we adapted. All the panic at the time has abided and the system works just fine without them. Afterall it seems we are more adaptable then we gave ourselves credit for. Sonja :o) GCU: Charge ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Technical problem, or something far worse?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Following up on myself -- these last two messages really came through fast! So it is not always six hours... That's good news. Ruben ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l That's because they aren't moderated anymore. Though the messages before were. Other people besides Ruben that have been moderated during the last month are [EMAIL PROTECTED] (last moderated 23-10), Martin Lewis (last moderated 24-10), Maru (last moderated 18-10), Miron Mercury (last moderated 25-10) and Ray Moses (last moderated 25-10). One message of our doctor and one of Jean-Louis as well as one of Nicola Gebendinger went through the moderation cycle. But I think that was accidental. I have (unexpectedly) found myself on moderation mode before, for inocuous reasons as it turned out. I take issue with the fact that our list owner doesn't think it worth the effort to tell people that they are put on moderation mode and the reason behind the moderation. My first emotion is one of being deeply insulted, when it happens. And the only one it seems who is bothered enough to respond to my being mad about it and take my miffedness in good faith is Julia. And even though I know it's general policy that the first messages of anybody joining the list and/or new subscription adresses are moderated as a standard, I personally think it's unfair to not let people know that they are being put on moderation mode for whatever reason. I know it's an effort but it would be nice to increase transparency in this matter. Sonja GCU: One itch scratched ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Bill Clinton on Iraq
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:55:42 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just days after Bush's now-controversial State of the Union Address in 2003, Clinton declared: After what happened on 9/11, the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution, which said clearly that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. snip It is interesting to note Bill Clinton's approval of how Bush handled the Iraq situation That quote doesn't indicate anything like approval of how Bush handled the Iraq situation. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Question about Tolerance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 05:03 PM 26/10/04 -0700, you wrote: Hidey-ho. New (digest) list member here. Chad Underkoffler -- pleezedtameetcha. I have a question, snip The second thing I'd like to discuss is Is tolerance a positive, negative, or neutral meme? and Can tolerance be abused, or is it currently being abused, in our society? As I just posted to the memetics list, I think tolerance and other rational type memes are features of unstressed societies, ones with rising income per capita and a rosy future. Stressed human societies, where the future looks bleak, lose tolerance memes in preparation for the warriors of the society killing some alien tribe or internal identifiable group. Dire business. If model is correct, then it provides a science based reason to put shoes on the women (i.e., empower them and be sure they have the technology to limit the number of children they have). Maybe increase in education would accomplish the same? When there is more education usually population numbers go down. Another nice side effect of education is that there usually is an increase in wealth. Not sure the men would be happy though. It would severely limit their powers. Sonja GCU: Prosperity and education go hand in hand ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
At 09:02 PM 10/26/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:56:47 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Protecting the Saudi government from what? The fact that members of the Saudi royal family and Saudi agents ergo the Saudi government were directly involved in the planning and funding of the 9/11 attacks. Don't you find it just a little implausible that the Saudi government was providing funding to an organization devoted to the overthrow of the Saudi government/ JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
At 12:01 PM 10/26/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: Today it's California's biggest broadcaster, Pappas Telecasting, donating half a million $ in free air time to Republican campaigns. They claim the FCC (run by Colin Powell's political hack son) ruled that equal time isn't necessary because it didn't go to the candidates, but instead to the candidates' county committees. Never in my life have I seen anything like this. It isn't politics. It is something else. I must have missed your objections to Michael Moore's uncapped donation the Kerry-Edwards Campaign. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
At 09:25 PM 10/26/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: The world is full of possibilities Doug, but this is a long shot. Political pressure comes from leverage. Who would we get involved in a coalition to push on Saudi, and what would be the leverage. A trillion dollars worth of investments in the U.S. alone, maybe? It would certainly not be Europe. Europe bends over backwards to not antagonize the Arabs. What are they going to use as leverage, threatening an economic boycott of Saudi oil? If there was a second oil embargo right now, who would be hurt worse: the Saudi government who could wrap themselves in Arab solidarity...and gain at least a few months of breathing room, or the Western world who would find themselves very short of fuel? It would not be Japan, for close to the same reasons. The only country with any leverage at all is the US...and that leverage is the defense it supplies to the Saudi government. But, that leverage is minimal. I think there is little argument on this list that the Saudi government, before 9-11, played tribute to AQ as part of an agreement to leave them alone. This isn't so much support as submitting to blackmail. In short, I'm frustrated with an argument that political pressure might work without some detailed discussion of how such pressure can be obtained. Stern notes from all NATO members is really not much pressure. There has to be some significant negative consequences to back up the pressure. Otherwise it's not pressure. So are you telling me that no matter what Saudi Arabia does, they can get away with it? Is there a threshold that will provoke either political or military action? To me, the 9/11 attacks are a pretty high threshold - to high to ignore _any_ of the participants. If Saudis in the U.S. had been detained and interrogated, if Saudis had been pinpointed as the perpetrators of the attacks, then, with the world behind us in the months after 9/11 then they could have been dealt with by the world as long as it wasn't seen by the rest of the world as a grab for Saudi oil by the U.S. (the way the Iraqi invasion is seen). What do you mean by get away with it and military action? Let me put it another way. Let's say that it is March of 2002, you are National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, and you are presented with evidence that the Saudi Royal Family helped fund 9/11. What is your policy reccomendation? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the monsters
At 07:12 PM 10/26/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: b) Don't you deal with the bigger culprits first and in some proportion to their involvement? Sometimes you deal with the problem you *can* deal with first, if two problems are roughly similar in their seriousness. (BTW - I am not agreeing with you that the Saudis were a bigger problem, just arguing that even if you do believe this that Iraq was still a roughly comparable problem in seriousness.) There are at least 10 very big reasons why the Saudi problem, even if it was as you describe, was more intractable than the Iraqi problem. This is, BTW, the same reason why the US doesn't do more for the Tibetans and Uighurs - there isn't much more we *can* do. d) that's a response to the litany of evidence of Saudi Jihad? That's a RESPONSE? Al Jazeera rants Jihad by night and the Wahhabi-purchased mosques rant it by day. Uh Al-Jazeera is Qatari, and is hardly welcomed in Saudi Arabia. We have no energy policy and conservation is gutted while oil prices skyrocket pouring billions straight from our SUVs into the pockets of those wanting death for our sons, and THAT paragraph sums up the wisdom offered in response? I don't know anyone who believes that conservation coudl seriously impact our energy security. 1) to say that I call anybody who disagrees with me a traitor was a damned deliberate lie. Either prove it or @[EMAIL PROTECTED] apologize! I have already posted an array of your comments that had some very nasty things to say about Republicans in general. To summarize my reading of those posts, you described Republicans as being dumb/uneducated, of holding a grudge against the Union, of having no ideas, and you have denounced utter nastiness, idea-bereftness, hatefulness, shrill intemperate jingoism, rapaciously insatiable kleptomania and slavish devotion to the Saudi Royal House of the present GOP. If this is still not enough evidence for you, how about this Dr. Brin - perhaps you could name a public figure who: a) broadly agrees with the Republican/President's/neocon Agenda of: -fighting the war in Iraq -cutting taxes -broad-based restrictions on abortion -reforming Social Security into an individual-savings system b) by definition disagrees with you on at least three of the four above whom you don't consider to be a traitor and/or monster? To the best of my recollection, every public figure who has supported that Agenda in disagreement with you, you have accused of treason and/or sub-humanity. 2) even if others disagree with my intensity of response to Gautam's para about Egypt and Germany, it is easy for anybody to see that it was an argument rife with flaws and not one to hold up as a paragon of argumentation. The argumentation style was called reductio ad absurdum. I'm not necessarily a big fan of it, but you, yourself recently used the exact same technique when you repeated the every sperm is sacred ridiculousness. Methinks that you should not protest this technique too much. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
At 07:17 AM 10/26/2004 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: No poster has questioned more people's patriotism on this List than Dr. Brin, and no person has launched more overheated insults than Dr. Brin. And quite frankly, it is a bit appalling when your only response is to go after the *targets* of said comments. Only response appears to be based on the assumption that you are aware of *all* of my responses, Well, let me see: -You have not objected to Dr. Brin's overheated rhetoric publicly -In fact, to the best of my recollection, you haven't even really responded to Dr. Brin's insults in any way -You have not sent me any off-list communication to the effect of just so you know, I think that Dr. Brin is way out of line here, and I wrote him offlist that he should really try and act more reasonable in List Discussions. -You have asked Gautam for an overly literal clarification of his response to these insults in a way that struck me as more of a rebuttal than a clarification. I'm not sure what you mean by go after. With my last message to Guatam in this thread, my intention was to tell him how his words sounded to me, then ask if I heard him as he intended. I was seeking understanding, not to criticize. (Not that I can boast of any great skill at that.) Taking off my list manager hat... Are you saying that there are victims of David's criticism who have behaved better than he has, so if I ask for clarification from them, I should also ask him? Yes to the former - Dr. Brin has been over-the-top in tossing around insults in a way that has been unparalleled on this List - or at least unparalleled in a long time. No to the latter - I don't know that his remarks nevessarily need clarification. They have been repeated often enough for all of us to get the message. It would, however, be nice to see someone other than myself, Gautam, and Dan to encourage Dr. Brin to at least try and respect the approximately 50% of American voters who disagree with him. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:20:12 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today it's California's biggest broadcaster, Pappas Telecasting, donating half a million $ in free air time to Republican campaigns. They claim the FCC (run by Colin Powell's political hack son) ruled that equal time isn't necessary because it didn't go to the candidates, but instead to the candidates' county committees. Never in my life have I seen anything like this. It isn't politics. It is something else. I must have missed your objections to Michael Moore's uncapped donation the Kerry-Edwards Campaign. I was unaware that Michael Moore was a broadcasting company with obligations to the FCC please enlighten me. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: Defectors
Pat Buchanan: http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html As Barry Goldwater said in 1960, in urging conservatives to set aside their grievances and unite behind the establishment party of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and Lodge, the Republican Party is our home. It is our only hope. If an authentic conservatism rooted in the values of faith, family, community, and country is ever again to become the guiding light of national policy, it will have to come through a Republican administration. The Democratic Party of Kerry, Edwards, Clinton Clinton is a lost cause: secularist, socialist, and statist to the core. .. There is another reason Bush must win. The liberal establishment that marched us into Vietnam evaded punishment for its loss of nerve and failure of will to winby dumping LBJ, defecting to the childrens crusade to give peace a chance, then sabotaging Nixon every step of the way out of Vietnam until they broke his presidency in Watergate. Ensuring Americas defeat, they covered their tracks by denouncing their own war as Nixons War. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Technical problem, or something far worse?
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: [Various complaints snipped.] From the e-mail that *everyone* receives when they subscribe: Your first messages will be moderated. If you do not see your message appear on the list, give it some time, and if it still hasn't appeared in a few hours, e-mail the admins. Please don't send the same message repeatedly. How much more transparent can we be? Wouldn't it be more transparent to the newer people to note your relationship to the Netherlander who was at the center of so much trouble related to moderation? Any transparency you're like to offer about [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Sheesh. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
JDG wrote: I must have missed your objections to Michael Moore's uncapped donation the Kerry-Edwards Campaign. Michael Moore doesn't have an FCC license -- he's not a trustee of the public airwaves. Doesn't that make all the difference? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Albert Speaks
Got a great quote for you from the likes of Albert Einstein...he was asked to distill the essence of physics into one sentence...without hesitation he fired back: NOTHING HAPPENS...TILL SOMETHING MOVES. A seemingly simple answer, that is simply BRILLIANT. From my friend Chuck Landau, The secret of the Illuminatti is the ability to turn gravity into levity. Yours, Miron Murcury PS. Pictures from Titan! Wow. If I'm not living in a science fiction world, then where am I? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Wish me luck...
I'm off to Orlando for a job interview - I don't know much about the position yet, but it seems like it could be very cool, and living near Orlando would make my wife happy - she has family there and hates the Boston area. Wish me luck! -bryon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
On Oct 26, 2004, at 3:49 PM, Dan Minette wrote: No technical problems. If it's the former, it's a challenge. If it's the latter, I'm shocked, especially since this list's very namesake has always been preaching the free flow of ideas, freedom of speech, transparency and accountability. Censorship seems to go directly against those wonderful principles. Yes, indeed. Sad, isn't it? Are you in fact shocked? If you know this list as well as you seem to be saying, then I think you almost certainly know the circumstances under which messages are moderated, indeed, the circumstances under which people can be banned from the list when moderation failed. Anyone think I need to explain further? Not me. But, I'm also shocked, shocked to find you have set up gambling on brin-l. BTW, I'll send you an account off-list where you can send my winnings. :-) I'll bite: how has Nick set up gambling on Brin-L? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hypo-allergenic cats now available to order
Perhaps we will have another cat one day... http://www.allerca.com/html/pricingreserve.html Sure, but do they have videos of them spinning in zero-G? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:00:52AM -0700, Dave Land wrote: I'll bite: how has Nick set up gambling on Brin-L? Try to keep up now, Dave! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wish me luck...
Behalf Of Bryon Daly I'm off to Orlando for a job interview - I don't know much about the position yet, but it seems like it could be very cool, and living near Orlando would make my wife happy - she has family there and hates the Boston area. Wish me luck! Good luck! I am jealous... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
On Oct 27, 2004, at 9:12 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:00:52AM -0700, Dave Land wrote: I'll bite: how has Nick set up gambling on Brin-L? Try to keep up now, Dave! That was the purpose of the question, Eric. What is not as clear is the purpose of your riposte. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Defectors
On Oct 27, 2004, at 5:29 AM, JDG wrote (quoting Pat Buchanan): The liberal establishment ... broke [Nixon's] presidency in Watergate. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Nixon and his band of thieves broke his presidency in Watergate. Dave Lies, Damned Lies, and Pat Buchanan Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:22:41AM -0700, Dave Land wrote: That was the purpose of the question, Eric. No. What is not as clear is the purpose of your riposte. It's purpose was to encourage you to re-read and think, Davey. Brin-L obviously has nothing to do with gambling. So Dan's statement was obviously rhetorical. Look for similarities between the unreasoning in Dan's statement and the one that started this thread. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
On Oct 27, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:22:41AM -0700, Dave Land wrote: That was the purpose of the question, Eric. No. You seem know what the purpose of my question was (or, anyway, what it was not), yet it is not what /I/ thought it was. Fascinating. Or was your No intended to reject my misspelling of your name, (for which I apologize)? What is not as clear is the purpose of your riposte. It's purpose was to encourage you to re-read and think, Davey. Brin-L obviously has nothing to do with gambling. So Dan's statement was obviously rhetorical. Look for similarities between the unreasoning in Dan's statement and the one that started this thread. No, thanks. I won't waste my time with that. Maybe Dan will answer my question, maybe he won't. Maybe you'll continue to try to show how much more clever you are than I am, and maybe you won't. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:03 PM Subject: Re: Shocked shocked No, thanks. I won't waste my time with that. Maybe Dan will answer my question, maybe he won't. Maybe you'll continue to try to show how much more clever you are than I am, and maybe you won't. I'll answer. It was a cultural reference to Casablanca. The police chief shuts down Rick's Cafe Americana, and Rick asks him why. The answer is because I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling at this establishment, sir. Then a staffer comes up to the police chief and says: your winnings sir. Indicating, of course, that the police chief himself has gambled there regularly. I thought that Casablanca was mainstream enough for most folks to get the reference. If you didn't, no attempt to sound more knowledgeable than you was intended. I'm sure you have cultural refererences that I wouldn't get tooand you are free to use them if you think they are funny. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
More Defections: This Time, It's News
Howdy, Coder/Blogger Dan Shafer reports on Salon.com's report that an unusual number of American newspapers are switching from Bush in 2000 to Kerry in 2004 -- unusual in the sense that just twice before in the last 16 elections has the Democratic candidate won more endorsements than the Republican. http://eclecticity.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@.1e6f62b3! discloc=.3c519204 or, if you prefer, http://tinyurl.com/4d7e4 Sincerely, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
On Oct 27, 2004, at 10:33 AM, Dan Minette wrote: I'll answer. It was a cultural reference to Casablanca. The police chief shuts down Rick's Cafe Americana, and Rick asks him why. The answer is because I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling at this establishment, sir. Then a staffer comes up to the police chief and says: your winnings sir. Indicating, of course, that the police chief himself has gambled there regularly. I thought that Casablanca was mainstream enough for most folks to get the reference. If you didn't, no attempt to sound more knowledgeable than you was intended. I'm sure you have cultural refererences that I wouldn't get tooand you are free to use them if you think they are funny. Thanks for answering. I heard some kind of resonance in shocked, shocked, but must admit that I didn't remember where it came from and didn't pursue it. Incidentally, I was not concerned that you were trying to sound more knowledgeable than me (or anyone else). Any criticism along those lines was directed at Erik, who for some reason found it necessary to answer my honest query with a smart-yap comment. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Shocked shocked
Behalf Of Dan Minette I thought that Casablanca was mainstream enough for most folks to get the reference. If you didn't, no attempt to sound more knowledgeable than you was intended. I'm sure you have cultural refererences that I wouldn't get tooand you are free to use them if you think they are funny. Did you hear that big WHOOSHing sound the other day? That was the sound of this reference going *way* over my head. But it did lead me to a certain website to see what was up over there these days. Not much new. I'm still wondering how Sonja knew whether all those messages were moderated or not... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Albert Speaks
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Albert Speaks Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:22:56 EDT PS. Pictures from Titan! Wow. If I'm not living in a science fiction world, then where am I? In a Fantasy world? -Travis _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
I think on this list it might be best to stick with SF/Fantasy movie references! :) Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1 __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
- Original Message - From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:36 PM Subject: RE: Shocked shocked Behalf Of Dan Minette I thought that Casablanca was mainstream enough for most folks to get the reference. If you didn't, no attempt to sound more knowledgeable than you was intended. I'm sure you have cultural refererences that I wouldn't get tooand you are free to use them if you think they are funny. Did you hear that big WHOOSHing sound the other day? That was the sound of this reference going *way* over my head. I'm sorry, I just made the assumption that the fundamental things still apply, as time goes by.** grin Dan M. A line from the song As Time Goes By, which is the song that Bogart refers to with his Play it, Sam Popularly remembered, the line is Play it again, Sam. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
Horn, John wrote: I'm still wondering how Sonja knew whether all those messages were moderated or not... Easy -- check the headers. If there's a header X-Mailman-Approved-At header, then it was moderated. Everything else is unapproved... ;-) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:22 PM Subject: Re: Shocked shocked Horn, John wrote: I'm still wondering how Sonja knew whether all those messages were moderated or not... Easy -- check the headers. If there's a header X-Mailman-Approved-At header, then it was moderated. Everything else is unapproved... ;-) Nick So, I take it you don't approve of this post. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shocked shocked Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:44:12 -0400 Look for similarities between the unreasoning in Dan's statement and the one that started this thread. If I may... Someone was talking about toothpicks in the statement that started this thread, and how said toothpicks would be a viable substitute for poker chips in an environmental sense, as their subsequent usage would stimulate an effort to manufacture more wood and thus enable a concerted effort to preserve our dwindling supply of naturally occurring plastic trees. Jumping on this idea, Nick - a hardcore environmentalist through through - came to the rather quick conclusion, that it would be remiss of him to pass on such an altogether germane opportunity to advocate tree hugging while simultaneously living the life of Big Ed Deline, with the concurrently added bonus of major profits, to be used for various charitable and personally pleasurable pursuits, such as saving the 'just as important as the plastic tree' gum tree, and maintaining a constant supply of microwaveable popcorn for personal consumption whilst maintaining an acceptable level of law order within the newly conceived gambling establishment more properly referred to as the brin-l mailing list. Needless to say, our admin/bookie had to operate in a low-key manner in order for the establishment to survive; accepting business from a distinctly indiscernible clientele was the only way to go, and it was felt that due to your unremitting penchant for LANDing illegal operations such as this one in hot water, you should be kept out of the loop. Of course Dan has recently gone public with knowledge of our little gambling ring - d'oh!!! -, while Erik currently feigns prior knowledge of it's existence. Consequently, both will be dropped from the official brin-l Christmas card list, and will not, I repeat WILL NOT be granted admission to this years Halloween costume ball to be held at an as of yet undisclosed location. So there you have it... ...a big pile of... ...enjoy the eclipse tonight! -Travis = If you didn't find the above even slightly humorous, please keep it to yourself. If you are of contrasting opinion, please, tell me all about it. _ MSN® Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling get-togethers. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weekly Chat Reminder
As Steve said, The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ...And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Our products just aren't engineered for security. - Brian Valentine, senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development team. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Florida Election Ballot
Sorry, couldn't help but pass this one along Florida Election Ballot http://wearabledissent.com/101/floridaballot.html Just in case the URL wrapped: http://tinyurl.com/6uhxn _ If you can't take the heat, don't tickle the dragon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)
Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: big snip So it wouldn't be as worthwhile for the candidates to focus on CO because there's less return for their effort? You mean something like the 33 or so other states that the candidates don't need to bother with because they're virtually wrapped up? Oh horrors! What would the citizens of CO do? :-) Some of us will vote for the portioning of the EC votes, because we resent that right now our presidential votes essentially *do not count*; some of us don't need to have a candidate visit the state to make up our minds WRT who gets our vote. And of course if all the states did this, then it wouldn't be a disadvantage to anyone. I agree that it is a risky proposition from a certain point of view, but if most states eventually portion out the EC votes, you're right about no disadvantage. Laugh about it, shout about it, when you have to choose -- Anyway you look at it, you lose. SG Debbi A Mere 978 Posts To Go... Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Technical problem, or something far worse?
At 27-10-04 13:24, Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:35:38PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: transparency and accountability. So, what's your name and and home address? Considering the inherent unsafety of the Internet, I prefer to keep my personal information personal. But you may address me as Sir!. :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Question about Tolerance
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:48:11 +0200 From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 05:03 PM 26/10/04 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The second thing I'd like to discuss is Is tolerance a positive, negative, or neutral meme? and Can tolerance be abused, or is it currently being abused, in our society? As I just posted to the memetics list, I think tolerance and other rational type memes are features of unstressed societies, ones with rising income per capita and a rosy future. Stressed human societies, where the future looks bleak, lose tolerance memes in preparation for the warriors of the society killing some alien tribe or internal identifiable group. Dire business. Interesting. Hmm. Question: Can an unstressed society make itself into a stressed society without an actual bleak future in sight? That is, can it auto-suggest itself into a pressure cooker? I'm thinking that the increase of more-or-less non-journalistic personal broadcast methods (webpages, maillists, blogs, talk-radio, cable perspective shows) and the weirdification of journalistic bastions (weirdification being an inclusive term for media consolidation, slipping of journalistic non-bias, focus on ratings or personal fame over news) beginning in the Clinton administration did just that. The mixing of the private and public debate over politics and other public issues (Whitewater, Lewinsky, OJ Trial) were molehill issues promoted to mountain status in a relatively unstressed society, based on two things: 1) the actions of all participants first taken and then towards playing to the camera; and 2) the wide-open broadcast channels of the developing Communication Age. (I'm tempted to make some sort of comment on the direct association of entertainment with politics that hit high gear in the Viet Nam era, but I don't have any solid ideas marshalled.) So you end up with people foaming at the mouth over things that really aren't their business in the larger sense -- or if some element *is* partly their business, the topic gets wrapped up in extraneous issues. A murder trial or even an impeachment investigation -- while definitely news -- should not consume the majority of the attention of a society. But they did, and churned up great rancor between internal factions. When something actually threatening happened that pointed to a real bleak future (9/11, of course), the pressure cooker exploded. Question: Does tolerance exist today, right here, right now? My current answer: Sort of. However, there's an increasing need to divide everything in public (and in some cases, private) discourse into binary, black/white divisions. Personal anecdote: During a recent visit with my father-in-law, he wanted to know who I planned on voting for. I said Kerry, despite not particularly liking him -- I just happen to prefer him to Bush, who I see as a poor, dangerous President. Over the course of the discussion, my f-i-l continually mischaracterized me as a rabid supporter of Kerry. References to my guy or my candidate and assuming that I agreed 5x5 with absolutely everything that had ever come out of John Kerry's mouth, and so forth. Even when presented with, Dude, Kerry's not 'my guy,' I don't agree with him on all his policies, I think he made some youthful-and-extreme errors in judgement thirty years ago, but I'm *not* voting for Bush the mischaracterizations continued. My f-i-l could simply not grasp that I was not totally 100% behind Kerry in all things, amen. He's not a dumb guy. He's not a nut. He's not a redneck. He's not a pocket millionaire. He's just an average American citizen. And shades of gray -- at least in the political sense -- no longer exists for him. If model is correct, then it provides a science based reason to put shoes on the women (i.e., empower them and be sure they have the technology to limit the number of children they have). So you're seeing population density as a part of determining stress levels, then. And a decreased population as leading to increased prosperity? Maybe increase in education would accomplish the same? When there is more education usually population numbers go down. Another nice side effect of education is that there usually is an increase in wealth. Not sure the men would be happy though. It would severely limit their powers. Perhaps on the population control end, but I've found that for every three people who gain increased tolerance through increased education, there's one who does not broaden his/her horizions but simply increases the power of their narrow, rhetorical weapons. I see education as a positive thing in general, though in specific, it can be horribly negative. It's a tool, to be used or misused by the weilder. CU = Chad Underkoffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Atomic Sock Monkey Press [ http://www.atomicsockmonkey.com ] ** ** Live Journal [ http://www.livejournal.com/users/chadu/ ] **
Re: Technical problem, or something far worse?
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:35:14PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 27-10-04 13:24, Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:35:38PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: transparency and accountability. So, what's your name and and home address? Considering the inherent unsafety of the Internet, I prefer to keep my personal information personal. Aww, por bby. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:36:08AM -0700, Dave Land wrote: Any criticism along those lines was directed at Erik, who for some reason found it necessary to answer my honest query with a smart-yap comment. Whine, whine, whine. If you just paid attention, you wouldn't have to whine about it. It is strange how people confuse paying attention with intelligence. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
On Oct 27, 2004, at 2:08 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:36:08AM -0700, Dave Land wrote: Any criticism along those lines was directed at Erik, who for some reason found it necessary to answer my honest query with a smart-yap comment. Whine, whine, whine. If you just paid attention, you wouldn't have to whine about it. It is strange how people confuse paying attention with intelligence. Oh, shut up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 02:17:17PM -0700, Dave Land wrote: Oh, shut up. Oh, no. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
teeny ancient humans
Former brineller Stefan Jones passed on this: --- Stefan Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . in case you haven't already seen this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm Scientists have discovered a new and tiny species of human that lived in Indonesia at the same time our own ancestors were colonising the world. The new species - dubbed the Hobbit due to its small size - lived on Flores island until at least 12,000 years ago. Yeah, it's breathtaking. One more piece for the Great Jigsaw puzzle. I find it truly stunning how many people can shrug off stuff like this, preferring instead a tiny, cramped cosmos just 6,000 years old, scheduled to end any-time-now in a scripted stage show of unfathomable violence and cruelty. An ancient and immense and ongoing cosmos is so vastly more dramatic and worthy of a majestic Creator. Our brains, capable of exploring His universe, picking up His tools and doing His work, seem destined for much greater tasks than cowering in a small groups of the elect, praying that some of our neighbors will go to perdition... Meanwhile, I am told that those marvelous placards at the Grand Canyon, telling about the layering of geological eras, wonderfully vivid before the eye, have been taken down and replaced with bible passages. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
David Brin wrote: BTW, this is consistent with Bush's comment when, as governor of Texas, he was asked about the execution in Texas of a woman, Faye Tucker. He MOCKED her in a high, whiny voice, whimpering, please, don't kill me. YeahCarla Faye Tucker.she got high on drugs one night.took a pickaxe.and killed two of her neighbors.and couldn't remember why By Texas standards, she deserved the injection. Has anyone noted how the execution rate dropped in Texas since Bush executed his term as President? xponent Dead-ish Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: teeny ancient humans
d.brin wrote: Meanwhile, I am told that those marvelous placards at the Grand Canyon, telling about the layering of geological eras, wonderfully vivid before the eye, have been taken down and replaced with bible passages. I had to check on this one, since I couldn't imagine the park service doing this. It appears that a private group put them there 33 years ago; they were taken down last year in response to an ACLU letter, and then put back up a few days later. But as far as I can see, they didn't replace anything. Personally, I'd really rather not have the government posting things that favor any particular religion. I sure wish some of the people who endorse this sort of thing and despise the ACLU would take a good look at what has happened historically when the government is the church. Or maybe they have and just don't believe it could happen today. I dunno. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YeahCarla Faye Tucker.she got high on drugs one night.took a pickaxe.and killed two of her neighbors.and couldn't remember why By Texas standards, she deserved the injection. I am not arguing against this. Or even that it is wrong to value a cluster of cells more than the life of a murderer (though that would be an interesting discussion.) My point was to point out the high school bully-style mockery, substituting for the decorum, sobriety and gravitas that should be shown by the leader of a civilization, when discussing life or death... ... or war... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: Re: teeny ancient humans
At 04:47 PM Wednesday 10/27/04, d.brin wrote: Former brineller Stefan Jones passed on this: --- Stefan Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . in case you haven't already seen this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm Scientists have discovered a new and tiny species of human that lived in Indonesia at the same time our own ancestors were colonising the world. The new species - dubbed the Hobbit due to its small size - lived on Flores island until at least 12,000 years ago. Yeah, it's breathtaking. One more piece for the Great Jigsaw puzzle. I find it truly stunning how many people can shrug off stuff like this, preferring instead a tiny, cramped cosmos just 6,000 years old, scheduled to end any-time-now in a scripted stage show of unfathomable violence and cruelty. An ancient and immense and ongoing cosmos is so vastly more dramatic and worthy of a majestic Creator. Our brains, capable of exploring His universe, picking up His tools and doing His work, seem destined for much greater tasks than cowering in a small groups of the elect, praying that some of our neighbors will go to perdition... Meanwhile, I am told that those marvelous placards at the Grand Canyon, telling about the layering of geological eras, wonderfully vivid before the eye, have been taken down and replaced with bible passages. I myself like Psalms 19:1 . . . -- Ronn! :) Ronn Blankenship Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any opinions contained herein are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official position of the University of Montevallo. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
Horn, John wrote: I'm still wondering how Sonja knew whether all those messages were moderated or not... Fairly easy actually. It says so in the message headers. xponent Been There Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: Brin: Nixon was much better
See the section snipped below from: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6562575? = War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . . Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war. --RICHARD M. NIXON, REAL PEACE (1983) Richard Nixon looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush. Indeed. Where is Richard Nixon now that we finally need him? If Nixon were running for president today, he would be seen as a liberal candidate, and he would probably win. He was a crook and a bungler, but what the hell? Nixon was a barrel of laughs compared to this gang of thugs from the Halliburton petroleum organization who are running the White House today -- and who will be running it this time next year, if we (the once-proud, once-loved and widely respected American people) don't rise up like wounded warriors and whack those lying petroleum pimps out of the White House on November 2nd. Nixon hated running for president during football season, but he did it anyway. Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for -- but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him. == I would add - as I say at: http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html - that Nixon had other saving graces. Pragmatic self interest of the USA mattered to him. Thus, he Kissinger used Judo and made nice with China, astonishing and staggering the USSR, something we could STILL do with Iran, transforming everything. He proposed a Health Care program that made Hillary look like Newt Gingrich. The crowd around him was satiable. They stole in small, limited chunks, no more than a few times as greedily as some of LBJ's chums. He was not a reliable servant of a hostile foreign power. Dang, I never thought I'd miss him. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
David Brin wrote: My point was to point out the high school bully-style mockery, substituting for the decorum, sobriety and gravitas that should be shown by the leader of a civilization, when discussing life or death... ... or war... But who elected the president of the USA to become the leader of a civilization? I didn't - I'd rather elect Fidel Castro :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 198, Issue 3
JDG wrote: It strikes me as a fair reading of Dr. Brin's comments to this List for some time now - that Republicans are enemies of the United States, and Republican policies are never the product of rational thought, but are instead the product of this enmity. Dr. Brin can correct the record if he feels that I have misinterpreted him on this point. (snip) At 10:22 AM 10/26/2004 -0700 Matt Grimaldi wrote: It is not a fair reading of Brin's statements to attribute that hyperoble to DB. Trying to paint anyone, let alone Brin, into a straw-man corner is just dumb. JDG: Not true on Colin Powell., Colin Powell supported the Iraq war, and Dr. Brin has stated that it is only possible to have supported Bush's policy in Iraq if you are a traitor in the pocket of the Saudis. Come to think of it, Arnold Shwarzenegger supported the Iraq war too. JDG - I'm a traitor, your're a traitor, we're a traitor all, and when we get together, we do the traitor call!, Maru Again you try to equate any agreement with the need for use of force with whole-hearted endorsement of the decisions, actions, and events that unfolded in Iraq, and any criticisms of the decisisions, actions, and events that unfolded in Iraq as as statement that absolutely no use of force was ever justified. You're doing the same with Brin's statements, stretching them to mean more than they might actually say, which in some cases is more than DB actually believes. As long as you refuse to see that middle ground exists you demonstrate that you are not interested in exploring it and trying to reach some kind of consensus. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
NASA expert: White House stifles global warming data
NASA expert: White House stifles global warming data IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) -- The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night. In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now, James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience. Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming. Complete article http://tinyurl.com/5zzs5 _ If you can't take the heat, don't tickle the dragon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: teeny ancient humans
On Oct 27, 2004, at 2:59 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: d.brin wrote: Meanwhile, I am told that those marvelous placards at the Grand Canyon, telling about the layering of geological eras, wonderfully vivid before the eye, have been taken down and replaced with bible passages. I had to check on this one, since I couldn't imagine the park service doing this. It appears that a private group put them there 33 years ago; they were taken down last year in response to an ACLU letter, and then put back up a few days later. But as far as I can see, they didn't replace anything. I'm not knowing what geographical placards David might be referring to, but I found a couple of stories from last summe about an ACLU church-state controversy that resulted in the (temporary?) July 6 removal and (temporary?) July 23 restoration by the park service of three bronze plaques bearing verses from the Psalms at Hermit's Rest, Lookout Studio and Desertview tower that were put up by the the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary in the 1960s. I gave up trying to find out what happened after they were replaced. As of August 31, 2003, the Washington Times reported that they were restored pending a decision from federal officials. The plaques evidently were placed on concession buildings and were privately funded by the Evangelical Sisterhood, so it's not clear that they represented an unconstitutional establishment of religion (Which would have been? Judaism? Christianity?). A couple of links for your enjoyment: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/128/11.0.html http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/living/religion/6331850.htm?1c http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030831-121933-3836r.htm Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:25 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis Dan wrote: The world is full of possibilities Doug, but this is a long shot. Political pressure comes from leverage. Who would we get involved in a coalition to push on Saudi, and what would be the leverage. A trillion dollars worth of investments in the U.S. alone, maybe? According to: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html quote On the other hand, Saudi Arabia does have extensive -- around $100 billion -- foreign assets, which provide a substantial fiscal cushion. end quote That makes sense to me, given the low production and low price of oil in the mid-80s and in the late '90s...actually it hasn't been at all high until just recently.I'd guess that private investment also exists; but not $900 billion worth. So, freezing their assets would have noticeable negative consequences for them, but it would also have repercussions for the US. I would guess that OPEC would have a fairly significant response. Since oil is fungible; it would take a world boycott to affect the US, but I would think that there would be a strong negative reactioneven if we had fairly convincing proof. We could count on France, I think, to lead the reaction. So, I think it would hurt them more than us in the short term, but I think the results would be a bit uncertain overall. Nonetheless, you did put forth a real type of pressure that could be applied. So are you telling me that no matter what Saudi Arabia does, they can get away with it? No. I'm telling you, with regard to political pressure, there is minimal that can be done. You suggest freezing Saudi assets in the US, and that's possible, but I'm not sure how much the net leverage is. The next step I can think of is war. Is there a threshold that will provoke either political or military action? To me, the 9/11 attacks are a pretty high threshold - to high to ignore _any_ of the participants. If the Saudi government actually ordered it; then we might have to pay a high price to set an example. But, we were willing to let the Taliban slide if they would stop protecting AQ. We let Pakistan slide with a great deal when they offered to cooperate. It appears to me that the Saudi government has decided that paying protection money is not a good way to keep AQ at bay and is now fighting them. And if we did; we would have much of the world unified against us...because we would be acting against their economic best interests. If Saudis in the U.S. had been detained and interrogated, if Saudis had been pinpointed as the perpetrators of the attacks, then, with the world behind us in the months after 9/11 then they could have been dealt with by the world as long as it wasn't seen by the rest of the world as a grab for Saudi oil by the U.S. (the way the Iraqi invasion is seen). That's an excuse for people to oppose uswe are losing money hand over fist in Iraq. Of course people would scream. European opinion would be strongly against us...we would risk their prosperity. I don't see any country's role as so special that they can get away with an atrocity and I bet you don't either. Why the Saudi government would work with hand in glove with a group dedicated to overthrow them in order to attack the country most responsible for their defense is beyond me. But, if you would argue that the Saudi government looked the other way while protection money was being paid, that's believable. I have no doubt that the fact that the Saudi government was cowardly in the face of AQ will be very embarrassing to them. But, I don't think that this should be a grounds for going to war. It would be worth threatening the government over, if the kept on paying the bribe money. But, indications are that they have now decided they need to fight AQ; which is what we wanted from them. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Technical problem, or something far worse?
At 09:35 PM 10/27/2004 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 27-10-04 13:24, Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:35:38PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: transparency and accountability. So, what's your name and and home address? Considering the inherent unsafety of the Internet, I prefer to keep my personal information personal. Yeah, you just never know where your name and address might get posted! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Week 8 NFL Picks
6-8 last week, Yuck.52-50 for the year. Double yuck. And, the Upset Special falls to 4-3 after the Bills bumble and stumble their way to a loss vs. the punchless Ravens. Well, the Bills' season may be over, but I will keep plugging away Arizona at Buffalo - The Cardinals are coming off a huge upset win at home, and the Bills are reeling from an incredibly embarassing loss. I'll take the Bills' chances to recover in the cold weather at home. Pick: BILLS Green Bay at Washington - This year all sorts of silly streaks and curses seem to be getting broken. Red Sox coming back from down 0-3 and winning the World Series! And George Bush being re-elected without Ohio, and without the Redskins winning their last home game. Pick: PACKERS Detroit at Dallas - I have almost no idea. The Cowboys have really started falling apart, and the Lions really surprised me with their big win in New York. My best explanation is that something really is wrong in Big D - like no RB, no QB, and underperforming WR's. Pick: LIONS Jacksonville at Houston - The Jaguars are coming off their latest lucky, emotional win, but should falter against the Texans coming off of their bye week. Pick: TEXANS Cincinnati at Tennessee - Despite the upset on Monday night, the Bengals defense is still terrible, and Billy Volek is not as bad as he has looked the past two weeks. Pick: TITANS Indianapolis at Kansas City - Its scary to think that some team is going to have to lose this game and find themselves really behind the 8-ball. The Chiefs have more to lose, are on a roll, want vengeance for last year's playoff lost, and are at home. Pick: CHIEFS (I think) New York at Minnesota - The Vikings' poor play on defense is going to haunt them, and Kurt Warner and Tiki Barber seem like a great matchup to exploit the fast turf in the Dome. Pick: GIANTS UPSET SPECIAL Baltimore at Philadelphia - The Eagles won't give this game away like the Bills did, and now the Ravens are missing their Top *3* offensive players with Jonathan Ogden joining Jamal Lewis and Todd Heap on the sidelines. Pick: EAGLES Carolina at Seattle - When they drew up the schedule, I thought that this game might have serious playoff seeding implications. Now, Carolina has lost 4 straight, the Seahawks 3-straight. The Panthers are simply lost without Steve Smith and both of their top RB's, and the Seahawks desperately need this game to keep grips on their season. Pick: SEAHAWKS Atlanta at Denver - Both teams were embarassed last week. But its just hard to see Atlanta's run defense to recover from last week's pounding and stopping Reuben Droughns. Pick: BRONCOS New England at Pittsburgh - You just know that Ben Roethlisberger's five pick game is coming Pick: PATRIOTS Oakland at San Diego - The Raiders showed signs of life last week, and it still wasn't enough. Pick: CHARGERS San Francisco at Chicago - O.k., I have officially given up on Jonathan Quinn. Pick: 49ERS Miami at NY Jets - We knew the Fish would win one this year. Two may be too much to hope for. Pick: JETS ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The first two sentences above really set me off. And I can only hope that you can understand why. Actually, after everything I've heard on this list, I have no sympathy whatsoever, Rob, and I really don't appreciate having you compare me to racists. You want a fighting mood? You'll get one and more fast if you ever, ever, ever think you can get away with doing that again. Gautam, I think this is where you are having some trouble. (And not just with me) I did not compare you to racists. No sir...not at all!! I said that what you *said* reminds me of what racists /and/ certain flag draped/waving A-holes have said(most of the time they are the same person), both to me and in front of me. So when you said I am on America's Side, the obvious implication is that you think that someone else is *not* on Americas side. Maybe it is a character flaw on my part, but that kind of talk makes me unreasonably angry at the best of times, and I will focus on the offending remarks to the exclusion of any redeeming qualification that may be present. For that, I will apologise, even though I believe I am correct in being offended by such (Speaking generally here), but not in my reaction or how I express my outrage. In this case, of course, I was pointing out whose side I am on. I'm not on President Bush's side. I'm not on Senator Kerry's side. I'm just on America's side. Brin has very loudly proclaimed that we're on opposite sides. Well, okay. I know whose side I'm on, though. I understand what you are trying to say, but from where I sit, You and Brin are both on the same side. It is a matter of loyal opposition. Maybe I'm crazy but I really do believe in inclusiveness. He uses abusive language and arm-waving to cover the fact that every time someone challenges him, they demonstrate that he traffics in inaccuracies, conspiracy theories, and paranoia. I think one has to account for the presuppositions (is that even a real word?) held by a person one is discussing an issue with. Some of what Brin says comes across as reasonable to me, but I hold a different set of assumptions at the onset than you or (Frex) Dan. The only way to have a meaningful debate is to agree on the terms and definitions at the beginning of the discussion. But what I think is happening here is that every person is starting with a different set and assuming that others are working from the same toolkit, but I think we have some metric/imperial mixtures confusing the issues discussed. But if we're on opposite sides (as he said - not me.) I've never claimed to be on the opposite side from him, not once. So in our particular dyad, only one has accused the other of cowardice (him). Only one has insulted the other's intelligence (him). And only one has proclaimed that people who disagree with him are bribed or blackmailed by foreign powers (him). Only one has ranted about NASCAR and the Confederacy (him). Gary, the problem with you is you're a hack. I will continue this discussion if it seems you're interested in discussing, not lecturing from a position of Olympian ignorance. Bob, get one of your surgeon friends to remove the stick from your ass, okay? Maybe your head along with it? You know, Erik, if you didn't keep reminding us we might forget what a jackass you are. There is no monopoly for insulting tone on Brin-L. G And you think _I'm_ questioning people's patriotism? That's bullshit. It may not be your intent, but the language you use sure leads me to think so. But like I've said, I'se seen very similar language where that was implicitly (even explicitlyG) the intent of the speaker. IMO even a hint in that direction should be avoided if it is in any way possible. Like I said, it's just gaming the refs, trying to intimidate people into shutting up for fear that they'll be accused. If you accuse the other guy of being unfair loudly enough and often enough, people might not notice what's actually going on, I guess. I'd agree that some do that and it often works, but honestly, I'm not interested in that kind of discussion. I see it often enough on USENET and it lowers my opinion of the speaker. I want everyone to know that *that* is unfair to Gautam. But I think too that there has been a whole hell of a lot of this circulating onlist lately and I ascribe it to some willfull misunderstanding of the words of others.me included. Well, fine, now that you've said it you take it back. I accept that. But if you really want to take the stand of someone trying to make peace, it would help if every once in a while you looked at the discussion and said, hmm, maybe I could criticize both sides once in a while. My very first post in that regard *was* aimed at both parties. Neither party responded. In fact it evoked no comment at all from anyone. I'm not even asking that you be evenhanded. I'm
Updated Electoral College Look
I am continuing to look closely at the State Polls that come in, as well as TV ad buys, and candidate visits to get a feel for how this race is developing. When it comes to State polls, I tend to put a lot of stock in Gallup generally (as they are the granddaddy of pollsters) and in Mason-Dixon particularly. Mason-Dixon has a long track record, and in particular has batted nearly 1.000 in their 2000 and 2002 state polls. (Mason-Dixon does not do national polls, only state-by-state polls.) Anyhow, based on the latest Mason-Dixon and Gallup polls, it appears that Bush has opened up a modest lead in NV, CO, IA, and NM. In addition, we have anonymous quotes from the Kerry campaign that seem to concede that they are not doing well in CO (where no poll has ever shown them ahead), nor in rural IA.Kerry has also cancelled visits to CO. So, state-by-state, Mason-Dixon has Bush +5 at 49% overall in NM, and Gallup has Bush at the magical 50% level and +3 in NM.In IA, Mason-Dixon has Bush at +6 and 49%, while Gallup has Bush at the magical 50% level and +4. In NV, both Mason-Dixon and Gallup have Bush at 52% and up by +10 and +9 - moreover, no poll from any source has shown Kerry up in NV since the Democratic Convention. So, if we assign all these States as leaning to Bush and if we similarly give Kerry Pennsylvania [and Michigan if you believe that Michigan has actually come in play], which despite substantial candidate visit-attention this week, both show fairly consistent leads for Kerry in the polls, that leaves us with six true toss-up States, which can hardly be described with confidence as leaning in any direction. These six toss-ups are Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Hawaii. Bush: 239 Kerry: 224 Thus, the following scenarios produce a Kerry win: 1) OH + WI + MN + NH + HI (i.e. if Bush wins FL, Kerry must run the table to win.) 2) If Kerry wins FL, on the other hand, he still needs 19 more EV's. 2a) FL + OH 2b) FL + MN + WI (Note: NH and HI don't matter if Kerry wins FL in this scenario.) That's it! Only three possible scenarios for Kerry add up to 270. So, look carefully at any remaining State Polls from IA or NM or maybe NV showing Kerry tightening the race, otherwise the electoral math is looking very simple. Meanwhile, what is particularly troubling for Kerry is that in my last analysis both FL and WI seemed to be leaning Bush. While the latest polls from FL and WI have been more favorable to Kerry, the state polls may yet swing back towards Bush by election day. . Moreover, I can't help but sum up this race in the fact that both campaigns are visiting Minnesota right now, and neither candidate is visiting Missouri. With the exception of OH and FL, a lot of this year's contest seems to be being fought in States Gore won in 2000. In any event, it will be worth looking very carefully at where the candidates choose to divide their time in these last five days among OH, FL, WI, MN, and NH and then if visits to places like PA, NJ, and MI by Bush or by Kerry to IA, NM, or NV can fundamentally alter this basic dynamic. And who knows, maybe we will have an unprecedented candidate visit to Hawai'i. I would never have believed it, but then again, I would never have believed that the Red Sox would come back on the Yankees either JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Boston wins!
And on a related note, pigs fly, water runs uphill, and the Apocalypse is scheduled to begin 3:00 PM next Thursday. :) Jim I can only imagine what kind of hangover Gautam will be nursing tomorrow Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Wow.
This is a momentous day. Not only did I get to see a lunar eclipse, but I got to watch the Boston Red Sox win the World Series. Wow. If someone had told me back in 1986 that such a day would come, with both eclipse and World Series victory, I wouldn't have believed it. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: Brin: the administration's own words
IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S WORDS - Ø In February, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell said We have kept him contained, kept him in his box. Saddam has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. Ø In July 2001, National Security Director Condoleezza Rice stated We are able to keep arms from Hussein. He has not been able to rebuild any military capability. (How do you get from that assessment to imminent, grave threat in 12 months?) Ø May 2003, Dep. Sec. of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's #2 man and acknowledged architect of the Iraq invasion) said for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, WMD's, (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Ø May 28, 2003, after a few vacant trailers were found in Iraq, Pres. Bush said For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them. The trucks were for hydrogen balloons. Ø On the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, President Bush proudly proclaimed Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. The absurdity and naiveté of that statement stands on its own. Ø In September 2003, Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was at the heart of the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. In his debate last week, Cheney asserted that he has not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11. But of course it is really all about offering rationalizing to a gullible public, while your real reasons are kept hidden. See http://www.davidbrin.com/shame.html for a discussion of the worst stain on America's honor in our lifetimes... the decision to leave Saddam in power, in 1991 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Week 8 NFL Picks
John D. Giorgis wrote: 6-8 last week, Yuck.52-50 for the year. Double yuck. And, the Upset Special falls to 4-3 after the Bills bumble and stumble their way to a loss vs. the punchless Ravens. Well, the Bills' season may be over, but I will keep plugging away I'm going to conduct a little experiment. I'll respond to JDG's pick mail this week and for up to the next 3 weeks, giving my own picks. My own picks will not be based on any sort of reasoned analysis, but just who I would prefer to win in each case. :) Arizona at Buffalo - Pick: BILLS Bills. Green Bay at Washington - Pick: PACKERS Packers. Detroit at Dallas - Pick: LIONS Cowboys. Jacksonville at Houston - Pick: TEXANS Texans. Cincinnati at Tennessee - Pick: TITANS Bengals. Indianapolis at Kansas City - Pick: CHIEFS (I think) Colts. New York at Minnesota - Pick: GIANTS UPSET SPECIAL Vikings. Baltimore at Philadelphia - Pick: EAGLES Ravens. Carolina at Seattle - Pick: SEAHAWKS Seahawks. Atlanta at Denver - Pick: BRONCOS Falcons. New England at Pittsburgh - Pick: PATRIOTS Patriots. Oakland at San Diego - Pick: CHARGERS Raiders. San Francisco at Chicago - Pick: 49ERS Bears. Miami at NY Jets - Pick: JETS Dolphins. I expect that JDG will have a better record for this week than I will, as I'm just playing favorites and he's actually looking at factors that will realistically affect the outcome of the games. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shocked shocked
Dave Land wrote: Incidentally, I was not concerned that you were trying to sound more knowledgeable than me (or anyone else). Any criticism along those lines was directed at Erik, who for some reason found it necessary to answer my honest query with a smart-yap comment. That's Erik for you -- he's got one of the smartest yaps around here. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Updated Electoral College Look
John D. Giorgis wrote: I am continuing to look closely at the State Polls that come in, as well as TV ad buys, and candidate visits to get a feel for how this race is developing. When it comes to State polls, I tend to put a lot of stock in Gallup generally (as they are the granddaddy of pollsters) and in Mason-Dixon particularly. Mason-Dixon has a long track record, and in particular has batted nearly 1.000 in their 2000 and 2002 state polls. (Mason-Dixon does not do national polls, only state-by-state polls.) Combined results of lots of state polls, plus the raw data, can be found at http://www.electoral-vote.com/ And if you are so inclined, you can get a little meter that gets the predicted total for the day from the site to put on your webpage at http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/enhancements.html I don't think that you, JDG, will be terribly impressed with the politics of the person who maintains the site, but dealing with all the data is a great service, IMO. (I've heard praise of the daily analysis by someone who doesn't agree with the politics.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Republicans
Robert Seeberger wrote: Has anyone noted how the execution rate dropped in Texas since Bush executed his term as President? Not really. Maybe you're right, and I hadn't been paying that much attention. (About 4 months after he took office, my life changed drastically) But I have noticed that there are all sorts of circumstances under which people are begging Perry to intervene, and he won't. Even when everyone who's supposed to officially give advice to him on these things asks him to take some particular action. He's pretty damn -- well, something. Julia not voting for Perry, no way, no how ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Boston wins!
Jim Sharkey wrote: And on a related note, pigs fly, water runs uphill, and the Apocalypse is scheduled to begin 3:00 PM next Thursday. :) Between that and the lunar eclipse, we figured there must be a few more signs out there on that. I won't believe it unless I've seen at least 3 signs, and I've only seen 2, at best. :D Julia who had the awful thought in the 8th inning - what if the New Madrid fault goes in the 9th? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Week 8 NFL Picks
At 11:03 PM 10/27/2004 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote: I expect that JDG will have a better record for this week than I will, as I'm just playing favorites and he's actually looking at factors that will realistically affect the outcome of the games. Considering that I am inexplicably performing at a coin flip level this year, I wouldn't be sure... you could beat me! ;-) JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Boston wins!
Sadly I have an 8:30am midterm tomorrow morning, so only a mild one... I think today involved the most stereotypically male moment of my life. I saw the first half of the game at a lingerie fashion show, watching models while behind them the game was being played. There was much laughter and joy. GM --- Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And on a related note, pigs fly, water runs uphill, and the Apocalypse is scheduled to begin 3:00 PM next Thursday. :) Jim I can only imagine what kind of hangover Gautam will be nursing tomorrow Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Boston wins!
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Sadly I have an 8:30am midterm tomorrow morning, so only a mild one... I think today involved the most stereotypically male moment of my life. I saw the first half of the game at a lingerie fashion show, watching models while behind them the game was being played. There was much laughter and joy. GM That's not terribly fair, unless they got to see the game as well. :) Julia SO not ready to model any lingere anytime soon in front of anyone I'm not married to ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
