Re: Oops...
On 09/10/2007, at 12:26 PM, jon louis mann wrote: Type O was the original paleolithic blood type. Type A showed up after agriculture changed our diet from hunter/gatherer. Ah, the Blood Type Diet, which is almost certainly pure woo: Allele O phylogenetic analysis suggests that the most frequent silencing mutation (deletion of a G in exon 6) appeared once in human evolution in the ancient O02 allele lineage and that allele O01 resulted from an interallele exchange between O02 and A101. Assuming constancy of evolutionary rate, diversification of the representative alleles of the three human ABO lineages (A101, B101, and O02) was estimated at 4.5 to 6 million years ago. Roubinet F, Despiau S, Calafell F, Jin F, Bertranpetit J, Saitou N, Blancher A. Evolution of the O alleles of the human ABO blood group gene _Transfusion_ (2004) May;44(5):707-15 4.5 - 6 million years ago. Not 4-6000 years ago. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Oops...
Robert Seeberger wrote Type O was the original paleolithic blood type. Type A showed up after agriculture changed our diet from hunter/gatherer. Then type B, AB, etc. I didn't realize type O (high protein diets) correlates with internet posters. Jon..that is all bull. Is that part of a high protein diet? I guess that depends on whether or not that's the actual animal or the by-product... - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops...
- Original Message - From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:08 AM Subject: RE: Oops... Robert Seeberger wrote Type O was the original paleolithic blood type. Type A showed up after agriculture changed our diet from hunter/gatherer. Then type B, AB, etc. I didn't realize type O (high protein diets) correlates with internet posters. Jon..that is all bull. Is that part of a high protein diet? I guess that depends on whether or not that's the actual animal or the by-product... /Me suspects you are trying to moove a bum steer on me. G xponent Cow Tipping Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops...
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:08 AM Subject: RE: Oops... Robert Seeberger wrote Type O was the original paleolithic blood type. Type A showed up after agriculture changed our diet from hunter/gatherer. Then type B, AB, etc. I didn't realize type O (high protein diets) correlates with internet posters. Jon..that is all bull. Is that part of a high protein diet? I guess that depends on whether or not that's the actual animal or the by-product... /Me suspects you are trying to moove a bum steer on me. G xponent Cow Tipping Maru rob The cows are working for a decent enough wage, you don't really need to tip them. Very unlike waitstaff in restaurants. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops...
At 09:26 PM Monday 10/8/2007, jon louis mann wrote:
IAAMOAC is a good idea.
I am a member of a civilization
Opps...
The Most Common Blood Type Among Internet Posters Is Type-O Positive
Maru
-- Ronn! :)
uh, uh...
Type O was the original paleolithic blood type.
Type A showed up after agriculture changed our diet from
hunter/gatherer.
Then type B, AB, etc.
I didn't realize type O (high protein diets) correlates with internet
posters.
I am A positive which means I should be a vegetarian.
Instead I am a carnivore and like my steakmedium rare.
-- Jon :{
*sigh*
Type-O. Typo.
Get it? :)
Difficult Concept Maru
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops...
- Original Message -
From: jon louis mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: Oops...
IAAMOAC is a good idea.
I am a member of a civilization
Opps...
The Most Common Blood Type Among Internet Posters Is Type-O Positive
Maru
-- Ronn! :)
uh, uh...
Type O was the original paleolithic blood type.
Type A showed up after agriculture changed our diet from
hunter/gatherer.
Then type B, AB, etc.
I didn't realize type O (high protein diets) correlates with
internet
posters.
I am A positive which means I should be a vegetarian.
Instead I am a carnivore and like my steakmedium rare.
-- Jon :{
Jon..that is all bull.
It is doubtful that there is any truth to it at all.
xponent
Pop Culture Crap Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On Oct 25, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:29, Jonathan wrote:
On Oct 25, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the
U.N.
headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of
weapons
of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's
finest sons
and daughters.
Yessir, how very encouraging it would have been to find some. It's
just a
damn shame that more tyrants don't have WMDs. But we can change
that! In
You mean except the sarin shells and suchlike? Yea. no, he didn't
have nuclear capacity, but chemical and a willingness to use it? Ask
the Kurds.
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
Yeah, and I'll have them write their answer on my picture of Rumsfeld
shaking Saddams' hand. You know, the snapshot taken the very same
week
the UN report describing this Kurdish gassing you cite actually came
out! Poppy Bush had Rummy there to smooth out public response to this
Your point?
Machiavelli is a alive and well in the XXIst.
It's a family business practice you might say. Noriega was Poppy's CIA
Boy until he grew too uppity and was giving the leadership of other
South American satrapies restless notions. They used him to run drugs
into America fund black-ops Congress {the public} need not worry it's
pretty head over, so they set him up and he's rotting in a prison
remarkably like Saddams. BTW - Panama is still a wreck to this day.
The UN had rooted out everything of note - hence Bush lamenting not
That's why they're STILL don't know where he hid all the chemicals.
That's NOT everything of note, many of the stashes were still
potentially lethal.
Well, as several defectors relayed in the 90's SH actually did
dismantle the infrastructure and stockpiles. We've all discussed this
before in this group. They hid the plans for nukes in backyard gardens
and generally held in suspension the broad swath of WMD/NBC development
and production. The Bush administration was very well aware of this.
Much of those remaining {and tiny} stockpiles were degraded by 2002
beyond any reasonable shelf life and he had no way to freshen up his
boutique. Compare and contrast this administration hyping these facts
up with their public talk of mushroom clouds.
finding any when he insisted we attack anyway. How was Saddam
supposed
to prove a negative: Bush demanded he prove he no longer had WMD and
Saddam retained NBC weapons. And by cooperating with international
inspectors, as he did not.
warned the inspectors to leave {Saddam wanted them there to forestall
invasion} so US could attack... It was all pretext to loot - both the
Yes, conspiracy theory #104590581656874387135786468715674
Right.
Wrong. #104590581656874387135786468715128, your off a few significant
figures.
Check your catalog.
This one is becoming all too real as the documentation flows, nay
floods, from disaffected insiders going back to the first meetings of
this administration in the White House. The rats are fleeing a sinking
ship now and they are dishing dirt to avoid the stain of all this
blood, gold, failure shame.
Seriously, are you really defending this bunch of corporate kleptos?
There are shit-loads of money being made and stolen around this
noble war and if you can't smell the conspiracies your simply a fool
a tool. There were literally shipping-pallets of money large enough
to see from space that have gone missing. They were auctioning off the
Iraqi Heathrow tarmac rights within weeks of the invasion {this was
called looting once upon a time}. I subscribe to Greg Palasts'
documented evidence of conspiracy that the big bucks would be made
keeping the Iraqi oil OFF the market and boost up oil revenues
dramatically. Let alone the no-bid contracts galore or the quiet
backroom invoice-billing systems I've mentioned from my own time as a
defense contractor that are absolutely fleecing our treasury. There's
plenty of motive for conspiracies just on the time-tested motivator
called Greed. I'll leave Power for another time.
Read up on Palast and his new book, Armed Madhouse,
www.gregpalast.com {his site is down this AM, you may need to see
wikipedia}
He's collected a stunning amount of evidence, memos, interviews,
garbage-bin scavenging... he's a true investigative reporter able to
bring a forensic accountants' skills to get at the nub of things - with
humor.
target country resources and the US treasury and all we have is a
handful of decade old dusty artillery shells to show for this threat.
Chemical. Warfare. Shells. That's not old dusty artillery shells.
Your are trying to make a point by denying clear and present
evidence.
So, Mr Braveheart. Content with being a real hero - but only when you
So, Mr. I love Dictators, content to crap on the world and surprised
when the world shits back? That America did not
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On OpenMail
playsound ScoobyDoo-puzzled
type char, ?
End OpenMail
Call me feeble minded and dense, because I'm sure you do, but what
point does such an artfully un-commented Comment below make?
- Jonathan -
On Oct 25, 2006, at 8:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are you arguing here?
and then.
So, Mr Braveheart. Content with being a real hero - but only when you
play one online?
and then..
I'm more interested in whatever became of the Anthrax poisoning of a
few key {democratic} leadership offfices just as the Patriot Act was
coming up for review. That investigation has mysteriously dried up
after tracking US milspec grade production was involved. We have more
to worry about Weapons of Mass Deception than anything else these
days.
No Comment, Maru
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 25 Oct 2006 at 15:34, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So...why DO you think Iraq did not still have a chemical weapons program? Which part of when we invaded do you not understand??? They didn't have a program and they didn't have stockpiles -- when we invaded. Thus, as our dear leader said this morning, we never found any. The chemical weapons found are still dangerous NOW, let alone years ago at the invasion. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
Nick Arnett wrote: I have to correct myself. Wasn't taking notes. Here's exactly what he said: Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters. This would be the same speech in which he also said that 'we are winning', right? Ritu GSV Enemies of English ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 25 Oct 2006 at 23:02, pencimen wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: Indeed... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html One shell constitutes an active program??? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163896/posts Looks like a right wing loony site. Can you find the same story from a reputable source? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm (Yes, that particular stash had decayed...but only becuas the storage conditions hadn't been controlled...) Like this one: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3Chap2.pdf N - There is no evidence of any active Iraqi nuclear program. B-U.S. search teams have not uncovered any biological weapons or weaponized agents. C-No chemical weapons or programs found. They're lying. Period. Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news reporters wouls say something about it..I talk to friends of American soliders out there for the real news, tbh). AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They're lying. Period. Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news reporters wouls say something about it..I talk to friends of American soliders out there for the real news, tbh). Enlighten me. Why would they lie? And you're not really contradicting anything I said. You obviously know that there was no program and no stockpiles of useful weapons. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On Behalf Of Andrew Crystall Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news reporters wouls say something about it..I talk to friends of American soliders out there for the real news, tbh). I'm not sure I really want to get involved in this but... Is that really the most reliable of information sources? You heard it from a friend of a friend? That's how urban legends get started and passed around. We've got a lot of troops in Iraq. I'm sure there are a lot of rumors being passed around. That's the nature of warfare. Besides, if there are NBC being found, only a very small percentage of them would be involved. The rest would be getting it second/third/fourth-hand. I'm sure those soldiers who are telling these stories believe it but that doesn't mean it is true. I'd think that the Bush administration would be trumpeting these finds for all they are worth if they really were there... - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 7:02, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They're lying. Period. Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news reporters wouls say something about it..I talk to friends of American soliders out there for the real news, tbh). Enlighten me. Why would they lie? And you're not really contradicting anything I said. You obviously know that there was no program and no stockpiles of useful weapons. You are speaking in my name. Don't. There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*, Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes. Yes, 2 1/2 years down the line the seals used in the style of binary shells the Iraquis used, absent controlled storage, will have decayded and then they rapidly become useless. And there are no outright lies. I never said there were. What I actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical weapon traces, more than the number which were believed he held (400- 500) is somehow NOT considered very newsworthy. And that's just what what has been FOUND. A hole in the desert is secure and cheap. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there are no outright lies. I never said there were. What I actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical weapon traces, more than the number which were believed he held (400- 500) is somehow NOT considered very newsworthy. Have you notified the White House? I'm sure they'd be interested in knowing that they don't know what's going on in Iraq with regard to chemical weapons. There might be a reward! Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 13:14, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there are no outright lies. I never said there were. What I actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical weapon traces, more than the number which were believed he held (400- 500) is somehow NOT considered very newsworthy. Have you notified the White House? I'm sure they'd be interested in knowing that they don't know what's going on in Iraq with regard to chemical weapons. There might be a reward! How you bothered to actually read the evidence rather than taking the politicans spin? There might be some actual material proving my point! .. Stuff this, I don't need this list where idiots like YOU are going to deny that sarin shells have been found in Iraq despite EVERY piece of evidence and multiple declassified documents from the US Government refering to them. Have fun with your crackpot conspiracy theories, with Jonathon over there. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How you bothered to actually read the evidence rather than taking the politicans spin? There might be some actual material proving my point! Read it? I've posted it. And my satire of Bush's idea that it was not encouraging that we didn't find any WMDs (or NBCs, if you wish) is not some politician's spin. It's mine, dammit, mine! I wrote it all by myself! Stuff this, I don't need this list where idiots like YOU are going to deny that sarin shells have been found in Iraq despite EVERY piece of evidence and multiple declassified documents from the US Government refering to them. I haven't denied that. I've just refused to leap to the conclusion that Iraq had either an active chemical weapons program or stockpiles of usable chemical weapons when we invaded. And they certainly haven't built any since then. A couple of leftover warheads with sarin hardly constitutes a stockpile, especially since Iraq launched lots of them against the Kurds, many of which undoubtedly were duds and are sitting around in the desert until somebody finds them and (a) disposes of them or (b) tries to use them against their enemies. Leftover duds, as I'm sure you know if you've read the documents about this, are almost certainly the source of the ones that have been found. No U.S. official has interpreted these discoveries as evidence that there was a chemical weapons program or stockpiles when we invaded, now have they? Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those people are wrong, especially when there are so many who would find it encouraging to find such evidence. You have quite an uphill battle there -- at least it seems that way to this idiot. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 14:09, Nick Arnett wrote: I haven't denied that. I've just refused to leap to the conclusion that A couple of leftover warheads with sarin hardly constitutes a stockpile, Lies. PLAIN LIES. You ARE denying it, and leftover warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED leftover warheads, right. especially since Iraq launched lots of them against the Kurds, many of which undoubtedly were duds and are sitting around in the desert until somebody finds them and (a) disposes of them or (b) tries to use them against their enemies. No. You don't GET duds with binary Sarin rounds. The two used for roadside bombs in 2004 were still un-mixed, and very dangerous. Other rounds from the same era, in 2004, would of been the same. Yes, more recently they've found hundreds of similar rounds, mixed and since degraded. Given Iraq's sarin would have a life of no more than three weeks after mixing and the fact the seals between the portions had degraded...that degredation looks relatively (post-invasion) recent. Leftover duds, as I'm sure you know if you've read the documents about this, are almost certainly the source of the ones that have been found. No U.S. No, they are almost certainly are NOT. That is pure political spin at odds with rational analysis of the evidence. Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. And by the way, there seems to be a lack of response to list commands on the website. In about an hour I'll just go ahead and blacklist it anyway. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
If the rounds are NOT duds, it would be easy to verify if there were no rifling marks around the driver band...can y'all provide evidence of that? Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:09:38 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging! On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How you bothered to actually read the evidence rather than taking the politicans spin? There might be some actual material proving my point! Read it? I've posted it. And my satire of Bush's idea that it was not encouraging that we didn't find any WMDs (or NBCs, if you wish) is not some politician's spin. It's mine, dammit, mine! I wrote it all by myself! Stuff this, I don't need this list where idiots like YOU are going to deny that sarin shells have been found in Iraq despite EVERY piece of evidence and multiple declassified documents from the US Government refering to them. I haven't denied that. I've just refused to leap to the conclusion that Iraq had either an active chemical weapons program or stockpiles of usable chemical weapons when we invaded. And they certainly haven't built any since then. A couple of leftover warheads with sarin hardly constitutes a stockpile, especially since Iraq launched lots of them against the Kurds, many of which undoubtedly were duds and are sitting around in the desert until somebody finds them and (a) disposes of them or (b) tries to use them against their enemies. Leftover duds, as I'm sure you know if you've read the documents about this, are almost certainly the source of the ones that have been found. No U.S. official has interpreted these discoveries as evidence that there was a chemical weapons program or stockpiles when we invaded, now have they? Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those people are wrong, especially when there are so many who would find it encouraging to find such evidence. You have quite an uphill battle there -- at least it seems that way to this idiot. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 27/10/2006, at 5:04 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*, Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes. Once, as far as I can find. Yes, 2 1/2 years down the line the seals used in the style of binary shells the Iraquis used, absent controlled storage, will have decayded and then they rapidly become useless. And there are no outright lies. I never said there were. They're lying. Period What I actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical weapon traces, more than the number which were believed he held (400- 500) is somehow NOT considered very newsworthy. It's not newsworthy if noone can verify it. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 27/10/2006, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. Andrew, calm down. Equating doubt about your unconventional claims about the level of Saddam's weapons stockpile with holocaust denial is just disgraceful. It's not on at all. There aren't any denialists here, just people who doubt evidence that you keep claiming but haven't provided clear evidence for. You keep saying it's there, you desperately want to believe it, but you haven't shown the evidence that'll convince many of the critical thinkers here. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You ARE denying it, and leftover warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED leftover warheads, right. Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the memo that said we get to count degraded old non-working warheads as a stockpile. Must be in this pile of old and degraded documents on my desk somewhere. Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent, said an overview of the report unveiled by Senator Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra, head of the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives. ... A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions 'in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for.' Let's see... the invasion took place in 2003. Those weapons were build before 1991. Close enough! Obviously they had an active chemical weapons program and stockpiles of chemical weapons. What's a decade or so difference when we're at war against terror? And who cares if they DON'T WORK, the point is... what's the point? Oh, wait a second. Which invasion were YOU talking about? I meant the most recent one. No. You don't GET duds with binary Sarin rounds. The two used for roadside bombs in 2004 were still un-mixed, and very dangerous. Other rounds from the same era, in 2004, would of been the same. Yes, more recently they've found hundreds of similar rounds, mixed and since degraded. Given Iraq's sarin would have a life of no more than three weeks after mixing and the fact the seals between the portions had degraded...that degredation looks relatively (post-invasion) recent. Cite, please. Those rounds were not built in 2004, they were from the '80s. Mixed? As far as I can see, all the rounds we have found are binary -- the precursors don't get mixed until the weapon is detonated. And since, as the Pentagon said, these warheads were non-functional, how would they have gotten mixed? Where are you getting these allegations? Or did you zip off to Iraq and have a look yourself? From the Christian Science Monitor, after one of the shells was used in an IED two years ago (which was the most recent time anything like this showed up as any sort of weapon): What makes this relevant now is the ongoing speculation about the source of the sarin chemical artillery shell that the US military found rigged as an improvised explosive device (IED) last week in Baghdad. If the 155-mm shell was a dud fired long ago - which is highly likely - then it would not be evidence of the secret stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that the Bush administration used as justification to invade Iraq. ... The key to whether the sarin artillery round came from an arms cache or was a derelict dud rests in the physical characteristics of the shell. The artillery shells in question were fitted with two aluminum cannisters separated by a rupture disk. The two precursor chemicals for the kind of sarin associated with this shell were stored separately in these containers. The thrust of the shell being fired was designed to cause the liquid in the forward cannister to press back and break the rupture disk, whereupon the rotation of the shell as it headed downrange would mix the two precursors together, creating sarin. Upon impact with the ground - or in the air, if a timed fuse was used - a burster charge would break the shell, releasing the sarin gas. Many things go wrong when firing an artillery round: the propellent charge can be faulty, resulting in a round that doesn't reach its target; the fuse can malfunction, preventing the burster charge from going off, leaving the round intact; the rupture disk can fail to burst, keeping precursor chemicals from combining. The fuse could break off on impact, leaving the fuse cavity empty. To the untrained eye, the artillery shell, if found in this state, would look weathered, but unfired. Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. Oh, look, we just DID get there. Please close that door yourself, since you opened it. I'll take it as the traditional Internet signal of rhetorical desperation. You, you, you -- Nazi! I win!!! Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*, Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes. Once, as far as I can find. No, no, no. That was a Saran shell, filled with plastic wrap that explosively unrolls and smothers people. I got it all mixed up with Sarin, which is not actually a kind of plastic wrap, but is a cholinesterase inhibitor, if I remember my biochemistry. Not too surprising to confuse the two, since you'll find both under many kitchen sinks. Really. A lot of insecticides are cholinesterase inhibitors. That's why (seriously) we had a false alarm about chemical weapons in what turned out to be a mobile agricultural vehicle. Sarin is sort of super-duper Parathion in gas form. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 27 Oct 2006 at 8:52, Charlie Bell wrote: On 27/10/2006, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. Andrew, calm down. Equating doubt about your unconventional claims Charlie, piss off. about the level of Saddam's weapons stockpile with holocaust denial is just disgraceful. It's not on at all. No, it's RIGHT up there. Denial of rational facts because of a belief bias which prevents you from listening to the evidence. Same goat, same goat. (If you want a *real* flamestorm, I recently stated on a MMO forum that there was no difference between the rights of the RIAA to restrict digital music distribution and the rights of MMO makers to restrict real-money trade of their in-game currency and goods). There aren't any denialists here, just people who doubt evidence that you keep claiming but haven't provided clear evidence for. You keep Again, read the links. People talking rubbish about the rounds, when the rounds were BINARY, and rounds from the same era had seals which were, verifyably from the roadside incidents, still intact as late as early 2004. saying it's there, you desperately want to believe it, but you haven't shown the evidence that'll convince many of the critical thinkers here. Critical? You're mush-heads who can't believe simply FACTS when they're put before you, trying desperately to YOUR belief that Saddam had no NBC weapons and no willingness to use them. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 15:56, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You ARE denying it, and leftover warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED leftover warheads, right. Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the memo that said we get to count degraded old non-working warheads as a stockpile. Must be in this pile of old and degraded documents on my desk somewhere. B-I-N-A-R-Y. Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons Yes. And several hundred more since then. That's NOT an insignificant number, as you keep on claiming. Let's see... the invasion took place in 2003. Those weapons were build before 1991. Close enough! Obviously they had an active chemical weapons program and stockpiles of chemical weapons. What's a decade or so difference when we're at war against terror? And who cares if they DON'T WORK, the point is... what's the point? Who cares if you can't be bothered to read that shells from the SAME era were active as late as early 2004, and used in roadside bombs. As soon as the chemicals mix, the Sarin itself will degrade inside a month - more realistically, given the likely purity of the Sarin, three weeks. No. You don't GET duds with binary Sarin rounds. The two used for roadside bombs in 2004 were still un-mixed, and very dangerous. Other rounds from the same era, in 2004, would of been the same. Yes, more recently they've found hundreds of similar rounds, mixed and since degraded. Given Iraq's sarin would have a life of no more than three weeks after mixing and the fact the seals between the portions had degraded...that degredation looks relatively (post-invasion) recent. -- the precursors don't get mixed until the weapon is detonated. And since, as the Pentagon said, these warheads were non-functional, how would they have gotten mixed? Where are you getting these allegations? Or did you zip off to Iraq and have a look yourself? They are non-functional BECAUSE the seals degraded and the chemicals mixed (or the shells cracked..which frankly is unbelieveable for that many rounds). The precursors are stable chemicals which have a shelf life of decades, however the canisters used to seal the chemical chambers away from each other, again, degrade. What makes this relevant now is the ongoing speculation about the source of the sarin chemical artillery shell that the US military found rigged as an ONE shell. Not 500. The origion of most of the shells is clear, and they were not duds. Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. Oh, look, we just DID get there. Please close that door yourself, since you opened it. I'll take it as the traditional Internet signal of rhetorical desperation. You, you, you -- Nazi! I win!!! Well done, you trumped yourself. I never said it, you did. People REALLY need to think before invoking Godwin's law. It also proves my point - Godwin's law is itself a paranoid conspiracy meme. (Right up there with Won't someone think of the children.) AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 16:03, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/26/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*, Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes. Once, as far as I can find. No, no, no. That was a Saran shell, filled with plastic wrap that I'm dyslexic. The words let and gost come to mind. (No, really!). AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well done, you trumped yourself. I never said it, you did. People REALLY need to think before invoking Godwin's law. It also proves my point - Godwin's law is itself a paranoid conspiracy meme. (Right up there with Won't someone think of the children.) Hmmm. You'd have me believe that you've been immunized against satire detection? See, I was making fun of your mention of the Holocaust, which has Nazi associations (many references widely available). It was satire -- like irony, but with the knob twisted toward the fluff setting. I'll just say that in the context of Bush's remarks yesterday, I don't find the discovery of some corroded, decaying, non-working chemical weapons from the 1980s, which failed to seriously injure anyonw when used in an IED two years ago, to be the least bit encouraging. They just don't compare to the 122mm rocket that blew Wes to smithereens in Fallujah. Now that's encouraging. (Hint -- satire again.) Enough. Nick (thinking of children even now) -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 16:40, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well done, you trumped yourself. I never said it, you did. People REALLY need to think before invoking Godwin's law. It also proves my point - Godwin's law is itself a paranoid conspiracy meme. (Right up there with Won't someone think of the children.) Hmmm. You'd have me believe that you've been immunized against satire detection? About the 1001th time you see Godwins Law gets invoked, it's no longer funny, it's a tired old conspiracy meme, misused as badly as rhe moral majority's won't someone think of the children / for the children meme. See, I was making fun of your mention of the Holocaust, which has Nazi associations (many references widely available). It was satire -- like irony, but with the knob twisted toward the fluff setting. I probbaly get irony about toxins better when the house's contract holder's not going to try to poison me with an unknown insecticide. Litterally. I'll just say that in the context of Bush's remarks yesterday, I don't find the discovery of some corroded, decaying, non-working chemical weapons from Which were still functional as of 2004...the precursors can survive a LONG time. My real post-war fear, tbh, was that a bunch of coalition troops would discover an old active Sarin shell the hard way... Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 27/10/2006, at 9:14 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. Andrew, calm down. Equating doubt about your unconventional claims Charlie, piss off. No. about the level of Saddam's weapons stockpile with holocaust denial is just disgraceful. It's not on at all. No, it's RIGHT up there. Denial of rational facts because of a belief bias which prevents you from listening to the evidence. Same goat, same goat. Uh huh. Who's being rational? Disagreement is not denial. (If you want a *real* flamestorm, I recently stated on a MMO forum that there was no difference between the rights of the RIAA to restrict digital music distribution and the rights of MMO makers to restrict real-money trade of their in-game currency and goods). That's arguable. But why are you determined to start a flame storm? You can *talk* on this forum. You might think we're being stupid or whatever, but you can convince most people with the right evidence. I just haven't been convinced so far that the evidence you've provided justifies your viewpoint to me. There aren't any denialists here, just people who doubt evidence that you keep claiming but haven't provided clear evidence for. You keep Again, read the links. People talking rubbish about the rounds, when the rounds were BINARY, and rounds from the same era had seals which were, verifyably from the roadside incidents, still intact as late as early 2004. That doesn't actually take the discussion further. That they had seals intact in 2004 says nothing about where they were made or stored, or when, or indeed if they were retooled misfires that were found. We still find unexploded and dangerous WW2 ordinance in the East End now and again. Proof that Germany has an active war against the Allies, indeed... saying it's there, you desperately want to believe it, but you haven't shown the evidence that'll convince many of the critical thinkers here. Critical? You're mush-heads who can't believe simply FACTS when they're put before you, trying desperately to YOUR belief that Saddam had no NBC weapons and no willingness to use them. Not what I've said at all. I'm just disagreeing with your interpretation and reasoning. I don't think there were no weapons at all, I just think the scope and threat was greatly exaggerated by the US Administration, and that Saddam could've been kept as he was until the job in Afghanistan was done. He was so tied up with the increasing weapons inspections he couldn't do much. As it is, we now have two complete clusterfucks, one on each side of an already theocratic fundamentalist state, and much bolder extremists all over the area as Hizbollah's escalation showed. Frankly, I'm glad to be out of the region. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote: Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters. Yessir, how very encouraging it would have been to find some. It's just a damn shame that more tyrants don't have WMDs. But we can change that! In You mean except the sarin shells and suchlike? Yea. no, he didn't have nuclear capacity, but chemical and a willingness to use it? Ask the Kurds. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You mean except the sarin shells and suchlike? Yea. no, he didn't have nuclear capacity, but chemical and a willingness to use it? Ask the Kurds. If he had chemical WMDs when we invaded, then the president of the United States misled the entire country this morning. He was discouraged that Saddam didn't *still* have WMDs, apparently. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:14, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You mean except the sarin shells and suchlike? Yea. no, he didn't have nuclear capacity, but chemical and a willingness to use it? Ask the Kurds. If he had chemical WMDs when we invaded, then the president of the United States misled the entire country this morning. He was discouraged that Saddam didn't *still* have WMDs, apparently. WMD, right. A useless politicised term. I prefer the precise term NBC. Which, indeed, he retained the capacity for. They're STILL finding stashes of decayed chemical warfare shells out there. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On Oct 25, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the
U.N.
headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of
weapons
of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's
finest sons
and daughters.
Yessir, how very encouraging it would have been to find some. It's
just a
damn shame that more tyrants don't have WMDs. But we can change
that! In
You mean except the sarin shells and suchlike? Yea. no, he didn't
have nuclear capacity, but chemical and a willingness to use it? Ask
the Kurds.
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
Yeah, and I'll have them write their answer on my picture of Rumsfeld
shaking Saddams' hand. You know, the snapshot taken the very same week
the UN report describing this Kurdish gassing you cite actually came
out! Poppy Bush had Rummy there to smooth out public response to this
report and they were all-too eager to have an Iraqi WMD infrastructure
{that decade}. Like Nixon Ford, who started Irans nuclear program
under the Shah, the people in power now have a myopic take on history
and rarely learn from their experiences, except how to set other
countries up to knock down later.
Who was Def Sec under Ford... Rumsfeld!
Who got him that job, Chief of Staff... Cheney!
What are you arguing here?
The UN had rooted out everything of note - hence Bush lamenting not
finding any when he insisted we attack anyway. How was Saddam supposed
to prove a negative: Bush demanded he prove he no longer had WMD and
warned the inspectors to leave {Saddam wanted them there to forestall
invasion} so US could attack... It was all pretext to loot - both the
target country resources and the US treasury and all we have is a
handful of decade old dusty artillery shells to show for this threat.
So, Mr Braveheart. Content with being a real hero - but only when you
play one online? Shall we sign you up to start marching into every
country on your list of potential WMD harbingers? I can see North
Korea is right up there at the moment - so I trust you enjoy kimchee
and sleeping on permafrost?
Or perhaps you insist your hide is worth more than one of Nick's family
when it comes to promoting the values championed so bravely from behind
the safety of your keyboard? Do you believe in them, but {somehow} not
enough to actually go fight for them as you advocate others should?
Eager to push for war when your safely drawing a salary and too good
for boot camp? We have words for this sort of approach, but I'll wait
for your response to see where you take my questions.
I'm more interested in whatever became of the Anthrax poisoning of a
few key {democratic} leadership offfices just as the Patriot Act was
coming up for review. That investigation has mysteriously dried up
after tracking US milspec grade production was involved. We have more
to worry about Weapons of Mass Deception than anything else these days.
- Jonathan -
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WMD, right. A useless politicised term. I prefer the precise term NBC. Which, indeed, he retained the capacity for. They're STILL finding stashes of decayed chemical warfare shells out there. Are you saying that when we invaded, Iraq had working, stockpiled chemical weapons? And yet today, George Bush, who has everything to gain by saying so, failed to do so? Said the opposite -- that we couldn't find any such weapons! You'd have us believe that now the adminstration is so clueless that they are falsely admitting that Iraq didn't have such weapons? When did I enter Bizarro World? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
IIRC, there have been some chemical weapons found in Iraq, including a story I read sometime when insurgents used an old mustard gas shell as an IED. However, there has not been large enough stocks of sufficient known manufacture lots to conclude an active weapons program... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:56:00 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging! On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WMD, right. A useless politicised term. I prefer the precise term NBC. Which, indeed, he retained the capacity for. They're STILL finding stashes of decayed chemical warfare shells out there. Are you saying that when we invaded, Iraq had working, stockpiled chemical weapons? And yet today, George Bush, who has everything to gain by saying so, failed to do so? Said the opposite -- that we couldn't find any such weapons! You'd have us believe that now the adminstration is so clueless that they are falsely admitting that Iraq didn't have such weapons? When did I enter Bizarro World? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IIRC, there have been some chemical weapons found in Iraq, including a story I read sometime when insurgents used an old mustard gas shell as an IED. However, there has not been large enough stocks of sufficient known manufacture lots to conclude an active weapons program... Well, we knew that *before* we invaded. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:56, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WMD, right. A useless politicised term. I prefer the precise term NBC. Which, indeed, he retained the capacity for. They're STILL finding stashes of decayed chemical warfare shells out there. Are you saying that when we invaded, Iraq had working, stockpiled chemical weapons? And yet today, George Bush, who has everything to gain by saying so, failed to do so? Said the opposite -- that we couldn't find any such weapons! You'd have us believe that now the adminstration is so clueless that they are falsely admitting that Iraq didn't have such weapons? When did I enter Bizarro World? When you insist on using WMD, which is a politically defined term, and caring about press releases rather than facts. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack A fairly good guide to this. Plus the other agents used against Iran. Heck, the US and Britian SOLD Iraq many of the precursors to chemical weapons in that period, and analysis strongly suggested he hadn't use it all. Indeed... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163896/posts etc. So...why DO you think Iraq did not still have a chemical weapons program? AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:29, Jonathan wrote:
On Oct 25, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the
U.N.
headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of
weapons
of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's
finest sons
and daughters.
Yessir, how very encouraging it would have been to find some. It's
just a
damn shame that more tyrants don't have WMDs. But we can change
that! In
You mean except the sarin shells and suchlike? Yea. no, he didn't
have nuclear capacity, but chemical and a willingness to use it? Ask
the Kurds.
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
Yeah, and I'll have them write their answer on my picture of Rumsfeld
shaking Saddams' hand. You know, the snapshot taken the very same week
the UN report describing this Kurdish gassing you cite actually came
out! Poppy Bush had Rummy there to smooth out public response to this
Your point?
The UN had rooted out everything of note - hence Bush lamenting not
That's why they're STILL don't know where he hid all the chemicals.
That's NOT everything of note, many of the stashes were still
potentially lethal.
finding any when he insisted we attack anyway. How was Saddam supposed
to prove a negative: Bush demanded he prove he no longer had WMD and
Saddam retained NBC weapons. And by cooperating with international
inspectors, as he did not.
warned the inspectors to leave {Saddam wanted them there to forestall
invasion} so US could attack... It was all pretext to loot - both the
Yes, conspiracy theory #104590581656874387135786468715674
Right.
target country resources and the US treasury and all we have is a
handful of decade old dusty artillery shells to show for this threat.
Chemical. Warfare. Shells. That's not old dusty artillery shells.
Your are trying to make a point by denying clear and present
evidence.
So, Mr Braveheart. Content with being a real hero - but only when you
So, Mr. I love Dictators, content to crap on the world and surprised
when the world shits back? That America did not create the very
situation it decrys, and now you want to pull in the borders, hide
and deny that it ever happened, and think that it'll go away without
help. That you want the terrorists dying for their god round your
house, rather than in another country?
Noted. (No, I don't have time for conspiracy theorists, no.)
for boot camp? We have words for this sort of approach, but I'll wait
for your response to see where you take my questions.
There are words for your approach as wel, starting with paranoia
and mentally ill. I work for the good of my country, Israel, as I
allways have done. If it came down to it, yes, I'd be there in the
line with a rifle.
I'm more interested in whatever became of the Anthrax poisoning of a
few key {democratic} leadership offfices just as the Patriot Act was
coming up for review. That investigation has mysteriously dried up
after tracking US milspec grade production was involved. We have more
to worry about Weapons of Mass Deception than anything else these days.
The anthrax which it was so-easy to order? It dried up because there
were no solid leads. The procedure for getting hold of it is now
actually, well, reasonably secure.
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So...why DO you think Iraq did not still have a chemical weapons program? Which part of when we invaded do you not understand??? They didn't have a program and they didn't have stockpiles -- when we invaded. Thus, as our dear leader said this morning, we never found any. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
Andrew Crystall wrote: Indeed... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html One shell constitutes an active program??? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163896/posts Looks like a right wing loony site. Can you find the same story from a reputable source? Like this one: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3Chap2.pdf N - There is no evidence of any active Iraqi nuclear program. B-U.S. search teams have not uncovered any biological weapons or weaponized agents. C-No chemical weapons or programs found. Doug QED maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are you arguing here?
and then.
So, Mr Braveheart. Content with being a real hero - but only when you
play one online?
and then..
I'm more interested in whatever became of the Anthrax poisoning of a
few key {democratic} leadership offfices just as the Patriot Act was
coming up for review. That investigation has mysteriously dried up
after tracking US milspec grade production was involved. We have more
to worry about Weapons of Mass Deception than anything else these
days.
No Comment, Maru
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If he had chemical WMDs when we invaded, then the president of the United States misled the entire country this morning. He was discouraged that Saddam didn't *still* have WMDs, apparently. Unless, of course, those weapons ended up in Syria. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: oops: Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story
Didn't Bush say from the get-go that the US would be going after the terrorists' finances? How can these terrorists be as insidious and frighteningly organized as he claims but still not be bright enough to assume their financiers are being watched? Regardless of whether or not they can implement countermeasures, does the President honestly think they don't realize their money trails are being sought out? Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops!: Scandal rocks Ohio Republican Party Insider
On Jun 11, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Gary Nunn wrote: Scandal rocks Ohio GOP insider He can't account for millions state put in his rare coin fund James Dao, New York Times Saturday, May 28, 2005 [...] Democrats have tried to turn the missing coins into a morality tale about the dangers of one-party government. Indeed, in Ohio it is hard to find anyone responsible for government problems who is not a Republican, since Republicans control not only the governor's office, but the Legislature, the attorney general's office, the Supreme Court and the state auditor's office. I find it difficult to imagine that things would be any different with a one-party Democratic government; power does seem to corrupt. What might be different is how the wrongdoing is handled. For eight years Clinton was dogged pointlessly by an independent counsel; six years into a missing OBL, persistent and hard-to-quash rumors about dodgy personal history (possibly at least on par with any real estate scandals), and lies told about Iraq, not a whisper of investigation has been leveled against Bush. It's not so much follow the money any more as find the quiet spots which have been created by money, or so it seems sometimes. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops!: Scandal rocks Ohio Republican Party Insider
Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 11, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Gary Nunn wrote:
Scandal rocks Ohio GOP insider
He can't account for millions state put in his rare coin fund
James Dao, New York Times
Saturday, May 28, 2005
[...]
Democrats have tried to turn the missing coins into a morality tale
about
the dangers of one-party government. Indeed, in Ohio it is hard to find
anyone responsible for government problems who is not a Republican,
since
Republicans control not only the governor's office, but the
Legislature, the
attorney general's office, the Supreme Court and the state auditor's
office.
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:14:42 -0700 Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor,
nightwares Books wrote:
I find it difficult to imagine that things would be any different with
a one-party Democratic government; power does seem to corrupt. What
might be different is how the wrongdoing is handled. For eight years
Clinton was dogged pointlessly by an independent counsel; six years
into a missing OBL, persistent and hard-to-quash rumors about dodgy
personal history (possibly at least on par with any real estate
scandals), and lies told about Iraq, not a whisper of investigation has
been leveled against Bush.
It's not so much follow the money any more as find the quiet spots
which have been created by money, or so it seems sometimes.
$ I SO agree to that Warren, Politics is 82% about money, marketing, greed, and
$prestige and 17% about notions of doing the right thing (figures: myass).
That amounts to 99% overhead for actually DOING the right thing.
$WELL, I for one,encourage the democrats will learn something from this { =))
} -like there's a sucker born every minute -p.t.barnum
$but I can afford to laugh, I'm on their mailing list - Leonard J Matusik
(FedUp Democrat from NC) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .
I'm about out of ideas without being there to poke at it. First, with only a working disk on the system, try booting using a Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the new hard drive. If you cannot, this is a bad suggestion. (However, I have been able to boot every Intel 386 and compatibles system with Knoppix for at least three years, so this procedure has worked for me.) Second, after changing to the troublesome disk (and making sure every jumper is the same, etc), try booting using the same Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the troublesome hard drive. If you can can read the troublesome disk, then you can copy the info. If not, you have a hardware problem and you will have to spend a fortune to get the data, and you may not get it ... If you cannot boot off of a CD directly, try the `Smart Boot Manager' (SBM). Put that program on a floppy and use it first, then try the CD. My copy of sbm is quite old; I don't think it has been updated. The program works great with old Pentium 100s that I have used for testing (i.e. 100 MHz Pentiums; I do not know whether it works with 486s). -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm about out of ideas without being there to poke at it. First, with only a working disk on the system, try booting using a Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the new hard drive. If you cannot, this is a bad suggestion. (However, I have been able to boot every Intel 386 and compatibles system with Knoppix for at least three years, so this procedure has worked for me.) Second, after changing to the troublesome disk (and making sure every jumper is the same, etc), try booting using the same Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the troublesome hard drive. Good suggestion. I want to add: make sure you unplug the working drive from its data cable and power cable and plug the drive-under-test into the known working cables. (You may have already been doing this, but just in case you were plugging/unplugging from the motherboard...) Also, make sure that the cable connector is going into the drive in the correct orientation. Some cheap cables are not keyed, and it is possible to insert them backwards / upside down. Not all drives have their connector in the same orientation. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .
At 04:28 PM Wednesday 2/2/2005, Robert J. Chassell wrote: I'm about out of ideas without being there to poke at it. First, with only a working disk on the system, try booting using a Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the new hard drive. If you cannot, this is a bad suggestion. (However, I have been able to boot every Intel 386 and compatibles system with Knoppix for at least three years, so this procedure has worked for me.) Okay, I found where one can download Knoppix from. Any idea on how big it is, as I am currently working with very limited space, and I'm not sure how much hard drive space it will want to use even if I can tell it to save the file directly from the web to CD? Second, after changing to the troublesome disk (and making sure every jumper is the same, etc), try booting using the same Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the troublesome hard drive. If you can can read the troublesome disk, then you can copy the info. If not, you have a hardware problem and you will have to spend a fortune to get the data, and you may not get it ... If you cannot boot off of a CD directly, try the `Smart Boot Manager' (SBM). Put that program on a floppy This is a recent Dell machine. However, I did order the floppy drive kit because I need to be able to access floppies. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get it to work, either. and use it first, then try the CD. My copy of sbm is quite old; I don't think it has been updated. The program works great with old Pentium 100s that I have used for testing (i.e. 100 MHz Pentiums; I do not know whether it works with 486s). --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .
At 04:34 PM Wednesday 2/2/2005, Erik Reuter wrote: * Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm about out of ideas without being there to poke at it. First, with only a working disk on the system, try booting using a Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the new hard drive. If you cannot, this is a bad suggestion. (However, I have been able to boot every Intel 386 and compatibles system with Knoppix for at least three years, so this procedure has worked for me.) Second, after changing to the troublesome disk (and making sure every jumper is the same, etc), try booting using the same Knoppix disk and see whether you can read the troublesome hard drive. Good suggestion. I want to add: make sure you unplug the working drive from its data cable and power cable and plug the drive-under-test into the known working cables. (You may have already been doing this, but just in case you were plugging/unplugging from the motherboard...) Done. Also, make sure that the cable connector is going into the drive in the correct orientation. Some cheap cables are not keyed, and it is possible to insert them backwards / upside down. Not all drives have their connector in the same orientation. Done. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: When I tried to copy the files from my old computer which died back in November onto this new computer by putting the hard drives** from the old one into this one in the secondary position, something strange and not-wonderful happened. The first one worked fine. The second one (the primary drive from the computer that died), though, b-i-g problem: now, it, the secondary drive from that machine (with all my astronomy/teaching stuff and more), and the hard drive which came in this new machine all are considered Unknown device by this machine. Are your master/slave/cable select jumpers set up correctly on the drives? Also, is your power supply strong enough to power all your drives? (2) the computer and everything associated with it (including the phone line) is plugged into a power center with surge protection which itself is plugged into a surge-protected power strip which is plugged into the wall, and AFAIK those surge protectors are working, Are you getting enough juice through two surge protectors hooked together to power your machine? Maybe try plugging your computer into one surge protector, that's plugged directly into the wall. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, resend: Another irregular question . . .
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:29:37 -0600, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : the night this happened. So, you experts out there, any ideas on how to completely repair the problem(s), or at least recover the data? My sympathies. I've just had my computer crap out on me, (including a broken HD), as well, so I know the pain and inconvience... Steve's suggestions are good: check the jumpers and just try one drive at a time to eliminate the power supply as a potential issue. Also check to make sure your IDE cable is well seated at both ends. And check the power connector connection on the drives as well - those %^*$% molex 4-pin power connectors are the worst. Other thoughts: - What is saying the drive is an unknown device? The BIOS, or Windows when you boot with the working disk? - Most PC BIOS's allow you to go in and fiddle a bit with the IDE device detection, I know one of my old PC's BIOS had an option to autodetect the hard disk. It's worth trying to fiddle around in the BIOS if you haven't already tried. - Given that you've got 3 previously working drives all not responding at the same time, it makes me think it's a configuration/cabling/jumper problem rather than actual drive failures. Is there any way for you to try the drives on a different computer? - On my brand new PC (replacing the crapped out one), it wouldn't properly detect either of my (new/working) hard disks until I disabled the RAID option in the BIOS - does your PC support RAID, could the option for it have been accidentally activated somehow? - It's not likely to be a fix for you, but I'll mention it any, because I wish I had heard it earlier than I did. Sometimes disks die because of stiction as it's called, where the just disk won't spin up one day. That's happened to me a few times in the past, and it's catastrophic because there's no warning. Over at the Anandtech forums, I've seen a number of people swear that they've revived a dead disk by popping it in the freezer for a few hours, then immediately plugging it in, and it would spin up and work long enough to retrieve the data off it. I haven't tried it, but if the disk is dead anyway and you've lost valuable data, it might be worth a shot. - There is software that can pull lost data files and directories off even a reformatted disk (est $100), but if your computer won't recognize the drive at all, that won't help you. - If you're really desperate to get your data and all else fails, there are data recovery services that can very likely help. I've seen some as cheap as $200-500, but prices can go much, much higher. - Advice from someone who's been burned by lost data many different ways: Paranoia is good. Invest in a DVD recorder and some backup software, and try to back up at least semi-regularly. Good luck! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think there's a critical difference, however. What Clinton did hadlittle to no impact on how he performed in office, while Bush's action are having a daily-felt impact on people all over the world. Reason #13 why Republicans hate Clinton - to this day, some partisans still insist that compulsive lying and perjury just don't matter. To this day some partisans still insist that treason and 29 criminal convictions (all of them pardoned by daddy), just don't matter. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, Bush Just Lied Again....
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it just that it matters much more when it involves illegally selling arms to a country which has very recently held American diplomatic personnel hostage, then when it involves adultery. I must have missed the part where you changed the subject header, Dan I believe that we were talking about whether or not Clinton's *compulsive* lying mattered, not about events of the 1980's. Indeed, No he was comparing the relative criminalness of his daddy's administration and clintons administration. 29 treasonous criminals... All of which were pardoned by W's daddy. And like vampires several of them have returned from the dead to do VV's bidding, like good little convicted treasonous criminals pardoned by daddy. don't you find this kind of moral relativism a little distastefull when you stoop to this level? How do you respond to your children when they apply this same logic - deflecting attention from their own misdeeds by pointing out the faults of a sibling? And if you respond in that way, why do you suddenly endorse this line of thought here in serious discussion? How can you even compare the scope of wrongdoing between clinton and bush senior / reagan? http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/view.html?pg=4 Doonesbury from April 6 contrasts them interestingly. Of course, if compulsive lying and perjury don't matter - how come it only bothers you when you think that Republicans are doing it, and not Democrats? How come it only bothers you when democrats are doing it, and not republicans? http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm Bush not only lies more often, his lies have a much bigger impact on americans. Bill Clinton was questioned under the terms of the Violence Against Women Act, which he touted and signed into law with much fanfare. Instead of following his own law, however, he fought implementation of his law at every step, and then he committed perjury. I am sure he was just faithfully defending the laws and Constitution of the United States when he did that. Isn't there I am sure poindexter was faithfully defending the laws and Constitution of the United States when he was committing treason against the United States. Oh wait he gets to faithfully defend the laws and Constitution of the United States all over again! something very troubling to our republic when our leader arbitrarily holds that his own laws don't apply to himself? Like when his daddy pardons criminals in his own / previous cabinet. Fortuantely, we saw your partisan spots in the economics threat ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did it appear in SI? Your link pointed to Scaife's paper, and since I knew that John Steigerwald is a Pittsburgher, I assumed that the story originated there (like so much other Clinton-bashing). Yes, the article noted (if you bothered to read it), that the quote appears in this week's issue of Sports Illustrated. Personally, I agree with Mr. Steigerwald that Clinton's quote is so obviously false as to not require follow-up but I suppose that some well-worn Clinton defender will try and verify it I'll keep my eyes open. (BTW - This latest lie has apparently not yet hit the national right- wing mainstream media the article only came to my attention as part of my daily digest of Buffalo Bills news, since it discusses a Bills item at the bottom...) JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of iaamoac Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 5:47 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again) --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did it appear in SI? Your link pointed to Scaife's paper, and since I knew that John Steigerwald is a Pittsburgher, I assumed that the story originated there (like so much other Clinton-bashing). Yes, the article noted (if you bothered to read it), that the quote appears in this week's issue of Sports Illustrated. If I hadn't read it, I wouldn't know who wrote it or where it appeared! It just didn't stick that Steigerwald was quoting SI as the of the quote. Nonetheless, my comments stand. The Tribune-Review put its own 'special' spin on it, which is what I was commenting about. SI is the source of the quote; Scaife's rag is the source of the Clinton-bashing. (BTW - This latest lie has apparently not yet hit the national right- wing mainstream media the article only came to my attention as part of my daily digest of Buffalo Bills news, since it discusses a Bills item at the bottom...) Is it possible that nobody really cares? I sure don't, but I do care to see that people know who and what is behind the reporting. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:46:33 - --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did it appear in SI? Your link pointed to Scaife's paper, and since I knew that John Steigerwald is a Pittsburgher, I assumed that the story originated there (like so much other Clinton-bashing). Yes, the article noted (if you bothered to read it), that the quote appears in this week's issue of Sports Illustrated. Personally, I agree with Mr. Steigerwald that Clinton's quote is so obviously false as to not require follow-up but I suppose that some well-worn Clinton defender will try and verify it I'll keep my eyes open. (BTW - This latest lie has apparently not yet hit the national right- wing mainstream media the article only came to my attention as part of my daily digest of Buffalo Bills news, since it discusses a Bills item at the bottom...) Perhaps with a war on they have more important things to cover? Attacking a former President about something he did or didn't do during High School seems incredibly trivial when they could be reporting on the war or American POW's. Then again, I feel the same way about Oscar coverage. :) Jon _ STOP MORE 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: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
On 25 Mar 2003 at 7:48, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:09 PM 3/24/03 -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote: John Horn wrote: Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man... Ronn! replied: ...about as much as some now hate Bush -- and everything he stands for, and everything he does, just because _he_ stands for/does it? I support the war, but I don't support Bush in general. Hate is probably too strong a word; let's go with strongly dislike :-) But I understand where you are coming from. I have some family members who are anti-war for one reason and one reason only, and that is because they are anti-Bush. It may be a selection effect, but most of the people who I have heard from who are anti-war are, if asked, about equally anti-Bush. I don't think I have yet heard from anyone who is both pro-Bush and anti-war. *sticks his hand up* I'm on the other side of the pond mind you. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)
At 07:17 AM 3/25/2003 -0800, you wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of iaamoac Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 5:47 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again) --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did it appear in SI? Your link pointed to Scaife's paper, and since I knew that John Steigerwald is a Pittsburgher, I assumed that the story originated there (like so much other Clinton-bashing). Yes, the article noted (if you bothered to read it), that the quote appears in this week's issue of Sports Illustrated. If I hadn't read it, I wouldn't know who wrote it or where it appeared! It just didn't stick that Steigerwald was quoting SI as the of the quote. Nonetheless, my comments stand. The Tribune-Review put its own 'special' spin on it, which is what I was commenting about. SI is the source of the quote; Scaife's rag is the source of the Clinton-bashing. (BTW - This latest lie has apparently not yet hit the national right- wing mainstream media the article only came to my attention as part of my daily digest of Buffalo Bills news, since it discusses a Bills item at the bottom...) Is it possible that nobody really cares? I sure don't, but I do care to see that people know who and what is behind the reporting. Nick Really? So that makes it what.three papers that attack Clinton and a few thousand that attack Bush? While we're at it, did Ford attack Carter after 1977? Did Reagan say anything about Carter after 1981? Did GHW Bush say things about Clinton after 1993 (other than when he was attacked first)? Yet it's Clinton bashing now when an article calls him on a bald-faced lie. Kevin T. - VRWC What is air? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just LiedAgain....)
Kevin Tarr wrote: Kevin T. - VRWC What is air? Off the top of my head, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and some other stuff. Why? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)
At 04:36 PM 3/25/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: Kevin T. - VRWC What is air? Off the top of my head, nitrogen, oxygen, Argon is third at about 0.94%, IIRC without looking it up. carbon dioxide, and some other stuff. Why? FWIW, hair keeps the air off the top of my head. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foamÂ… God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
At 16:46 23-03-03 -0600, John Horn wrote: ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton is and was a compulsive liar Give it a rest. He's not president anymore, remember? You won, OK? Your guy is in office. Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man... It's all plain jealousy, I tell ya. They're just jealous because the Democrats produce better presidents than the Republicans. Badmouthing Clinton is just their way of dealing with their jealousy. :-) Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
---Original Message--- From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think there's a critical difference, however. What Clinton did hadlittle to no impact on how he performed in office, while Bush's action are having a daily-felt impact on people all over the world. Reason #13 why Republicans hate Clinton - to this day, some partisans still insist that compulsive lying and perjury just don't matter. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it just that it matters much more when it involves illegally selling arms to a country which has very recently held American diplomatic personnel hostage, then when it involves adultery. I must have missed the part where you changed the subject header, Dan I believe that we were talking about whether or not Clinton's *compulsive* lying mattered, not about events of the 1980's. Indeed, don't you find this kind of moral relativism a little distastefull when you stoop to this level? How do you respond to your children when they apply this same logic - deflecting attention from their own misdeeds by pointing out the faults of a sibling? And if you respond in that way, why do you suddenly endorse this line of thought here in serious discussion? Of course, if compulsive lying and perjury don't matter - how come it only bothers you when you think that Republicans are doing it, and not Democrats? Bill Clinton was questioned under the terms of the Violence Against Women Act, which he touted and signed into law with much fanfare. Instead of following his own law, however, he fought implementation of his law at every step, and then he committed perjury. I am sure he was just faithfully defending the laws and Constitution of the United States when he did that. Isn't there something very troubling to our republic when our leader arbitrarily holds that his own laws don't apply to himself? Fortuantely, we saw your partisan spots in the economics threat JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
-Original Message- From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 03:17 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again ---Original Message--- From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think there's a critical difference, however. What Clinton did hadlittle to no impact on how he performed in office, while Bush's action are having a daily-felt impact on people all over the world. Reason #13 why Republicans hate Clinton - to this day, some partisans still insist that compulsive lying and perjury just don't matter. I'm hardly a partisan - I'm center-left, but a registered Republican, but have long hair and an earring and painted fingernails, but I own stock, but I voted for Clinton and Gore... I've never heard you give an honest argument why lieing about a personal affair which damaged his own reputation is somehow worse than trompling on 50 years of diplomacy. -jeffrey who's partisan? miller- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
John Horn wrote: Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man... Ronn! replied: ...about as much as some now hate Bush -- and everything he stands for, and everything he does, just because _he_ stands for/does it? I support the war, but I don't support Bush in general. Hate is probably too strong a word; let's go with strongly dislike :-) But I understand where you are coming from. I have some family members who are anti-war for one reason and one reason only, and that is because they are anti-Bush. Reggie Bautista _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton is and was a compulsive liar, he now claims to have dunked a basketball in a high school basketball game. Oops, consider the source. Sports Illustrated? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of iaamoac Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 1:21 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again) --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton is and was a compulsive liar, he now claims to have dunked a basketball in a high school basketball game. Oops, consider the source. Sports Illustrated? Did it appear in SI? Your link pointed to Scaife's paper, and since I knew that John Steigerwald is a Pittsburgher, I assumed that the story originated there (like so much other Clinton-bashing). Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)
Nick Arnett wrote: Did it appear in SI? Yep. It was an interesting article. Basically, Clinton the golfer seems like Clinton the President (a parallel the author draws as well). Possessed of an innate charm and talent, but far too willing to cut corners. And in it, Clinton asserts he did dunk, once, in a high school basketball game, on a breakaway where he had half the court to get a head of steam up. Maybe it's a fabrication, maybe it isn't. So what? The guy's not President anymore, so why does anyone care? Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Of course, if compulsive lying and perjury don't matter - how come it only bothers you when you think that Republicans are doing it, and not Democrats?... scratches side of face in puzzlement Umm, I'm pretty sure that he at some point said he *voted* for Bush, or at least that was the impression I got, and I think he's also pointed out a few of Clinton's faults as well...Actually, he seems to me to broadly intersect the 'moderate Republican' camp. Debbi who could be wrong, but can't get the 'Hephalumps and Woozles (are very confuzles)' song out of her head at the moment -- and some of her _dearest friends_ are Republican! :) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton is and was a compulsive liar Give it a rest. He's not president anymore, remember? You won, OK? Your guy is in office. Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man... I think we hate the fact that the country we love was suckered by a compulsive liar for eight years. Indeed, the fact that Clinton was so successful here for eight years, so much so that even after committing perjury he could survive impeachment, really makes us question the efficacy of the US republican system that we love. And that, understandably makes us unhappy. Indeed, it is telling that no longer do people attempt to defend Clinton... they just concede his flaws and hope as best they can to forget him. That's progress in my mind. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Conspiracy redux (was RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of J.D. Giorgis ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton is and was a compulsive liar, he now claims to have dunked a basketball in a high school basketball game. Oops, consider the source. If there is anything that even vaguely resembles a vast, right-wing conspiracy, it is headed by the owner of the newspaper in which the article appeared, Richard Mellon Scaife, who has funded various anti-Clinton projects. Actually, owner is probably not the right word. It's part of the not-so-secret conspiracy to elect conservatives and destroy liberal leaders. And consider the context -- a sports opinion column. This wasn't presented as news. If it were, at a reputable newspaper, it couldn't have been offered without doing any homework on it. But there's nothing to indicated that the reporter (whom I knew when I was a reporter in Pittsburgh, and boy, am I disappointed in him) even tried to confirm the story. But then again, once you decide to work for Scaife, why bother? It's pretty pathetic when even the sports writers jump on the bandwagon. And consider that the quote from Clinton describes it as unbelievable. By the way... the first computers I ever used were located in Scaife Hall at CMU. I learned to swim in Andrew Mellon's pool (he donated his mansion to my father's college). My mother taught Scaife's daughters. My first checking account was at Mellon Bank. In Pittsburgh, one can hardly spit without hitting something produced or funded by Scaifes and Mellons. They are old, old, big, big money folks. So, John, what do *you* think of Richard Mellon Scaife??? Do you think he'll ever stop his campaign to discredit Clinton? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
At 04:46 PM 3/23/03 -0600, Horn, John wrote: From: J.D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton is and was a compulsive liar Give it a rest. He's not president anymore, remember? You won, OK? Your guy is in office. Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man... ...about as much as some now hate Bush -- and everything he stands for, and everything he does, just because _he_ stands for/does it? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foamÂ… God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
-Original Message- From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 06:38 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again At 04:46 PM 3/23/03 -0600, Horn, John wrote: From: J.D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton is and was a compulsive liar Give it a rest. He's not president anymore, remember? You won, OK? Your guy is in office. Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man... ...about as much as some now hate Bush -- and everything he stands for, and everything he does, just because _he_ stands for/does it? I think there's a critical difference, however. What Clinton did had little to no impact on how he performed in office, while Bush's action are having a daily-felt impact on people all over the world. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
Horn, John wrote: Give it a rest. He's not president anymore, remember? You won, OK? Your guy is in office. Boy, Republicans *really* hate that man... But they love a guy that tells substantive lies. Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth, and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens, In my economic plan, more than $2 trillion of the federal surplus is locked away for Social Security. For years, politicians in both parties have dipped into the Trust Fund to pay for more spending. And I will stop it. I am going to ask Congress to bolster the first year (Pell Grant) aid from thirty-three hundred dollars to five thousand one hundred dollars As president, I would not sign legislation that would send nuclear waste to any proposed site unless it's been deemed scientifically safe. I also believe the federal government must work with the local and state governments that will be affected to address safety and transportation issues. I am committed to helping families prepare for the cost of higher education. And then there's this: George W. Bush does not lie about sex, I suppose--merely about war and peace. Most particularly he has consistently lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities as well as its missile-delivery capabilities. Take a look at Milbank's gingerly worded page-one October 22 Post story if you doubt me. To cite just two particularly egregious examples, Bush tried to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used for missions targeting the United States. Previously he insisted that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed the Iraqis to be six months away from developing a weapon. Both of these statements are false, but they are working. Nearly three-quarters of Americans surveyed think that Saddam is currently helping Al Qaeda; 71 percent think it is likely he was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. What I want to know is why this kind of lying is apparently OK. Isn't it worse to refer repeatedly to intelligence...that remains largely unverified--as the Wall Street Journal puts it--in order to trick the nation into war, as Bush and other top US officials have done, than to lie about a blowjob? Isn't it worse to put pressure...on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates, as USA Today worded its report? Isn't it more damaging to offer cooked information, in the words of the CIA's former chief of counterterrorism, when you are asking young men and women to die for your lies? Don't we revile Lyndon Johnson for having done just that with his dishonest Gulf of Tonkin resolution? http://www.rense.com/general31/bushlies.htm Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
