Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 11:13 In article <endp5i$9a8$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <459A00A0.DE70F2C9(a)earthlink.net>, >Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >[...] >> You too! How's the weather up your way? It is actually raining down >>here for the first time in a long time. > >It never rains in sunny California. We aren't getting our snow quota. April and May are going to be interesting months this year. > > >If we work at it we may even hit my suggested target of 1,000,000 posts > I hope not. I have a hypothesis that 1,000,000 is a limit of the ISP newsserver I use. I've had to redo my data base of posts read every time s.p. goes over the number of one million. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 11:15 In article <1167690380.376386.38920(a)h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Winfield Hill" <hill(a)rowland.org> wrote: > >Ben Newsam wrote: >> >> Bollocks! <vbg> > > That did it, we're over 12,500 posts! Now I'm curious. Why is 12,500 an interesting number? /BAH
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 12:02 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:engh6m$8qk_009(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <459B42B0.AF5E7A6B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>> >Once the terrorism eventually drops into oblivion the >>> >wiretaps will also cease. >>> >>> I doubt it. When did the honey bee subsidy end? It was needed >>> encourage >>> bee keeping to make wax for bullets. >>> >>> >All this assumes the terrorists lose. >>> >>> I am confident that the method to terrorism will remain in use for a >>> long >>> time. It will be new groups with new reasons. >> >>It's been with us at least since the time of the Roman Empire. >> >>I doubt that terrorism will suddenly cease to be an attractive option for > those >>who want to make a big impact with relatively few followers. > > You keep assuming that this mindset exists. That is what the > mindset of moderates need to change to; but it hasn't yet. I see you haven't tired of posting gibberish.
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Jan 2007 06:49 In article <ahslp2t268fc2uif75tduevrvrua1aitgg(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Jan 07 10:41:55 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >us: > >>> >>>Here it is again, international calls. >>> >> >>Involving people IN the US. Without a warrant. > > > You're an idiot! The moment one places an international connection, >one NO LONGER has ANY right to privacy on that comm link. And where is that exception in the 4th amendment? >PERIOD. You need to read the constitution. And the FISA act. >It doesn't get any more plain than that. > > Get yourself a clue.
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Jan 2007 06:45
In article <f0efd$459a7d43$4fe7539$20621(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <e4998$4599798f$4fe76a0$13856(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> [....] >> >>>>We are talking about communications within the US. Not those that have >>>>left. The wire taps are being done within the US where the expectation of >>>>privacy applies. You need to read up on what has been happening to your >>>>rights. >>> >>>This is your claim. >>> >>>Show me. >> >> >> Note here that the judge's order was "nation wide" >> //www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/18/WIRETAP.TMP > >"A federal judge's emphatic rejection Thursday of the Bush >administration's warrantless wiretapping of calls between >Americans and alleged foreign terrorists is far from the >last word on the legality of the program, which most likely >will be determined by the Supreme Court or Congress." > >An opinion in a district court is the starting point for a >legal discussion. Note the international nature of the >discussion. > ><snip> additional opinions > >> Why did they feel the need to said what they did here >> http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s2455.html > >Congress is liable to say anything at all, especially when >writing and submitting new bills. Let's just wait and see >what comes out of the Judiciary Committee. > >You've not convinced me that domestic phone calls are being >wiretapped without a warrant. I've maintained that the >program which has everyone cranked has to do with >international calls and international emails. That's a >completely different issue than domestic only because >there can be no expectation of privacy. One party to the calls is in America. How does the 4th amendment allow that? > >Which mobster was put away because the government bugged >every parking meter along a route he liked to walk while >he talked business with his associates? > A little different -- in public, there is less expectation of privacy, as anyone standing around could overhear. >We live in a world of surveillance. How many cameras in >the UK today? They don't have a Bill of Rights. >As surveillance increases so do the >countermeasures, and eventually the counter- >countermeasures will kick in. Nothing will stop the cycle. > >I remember when it was almost fashionable to be in a plane >that was hijacked and forced to fly to Cuba. That fad ended >when Castro summarily locked up any hijacker who forced a >landing on Cuban soil. Wile initially he demanded a ransom >which he called a "landing fee" from the airline whose >plane had been forced to Cuba, he tired of the game. > > >All this will end when all governments clamp down on >terrorists among them. Note that Pakistan is tired of >the nonsense along the Afghanistan border and has >expressed an intention to fence and mine that border. Which will do what, keep bin Laden in Pakistan? >They'll probably get theirs done before we fence the >Mexican border. But eventually those governing will not >only become bored with the problems terrorists carry >with them but will also realize that their country >cannot progress while harboring such violence. > >Once the terrorism eventually drops into oblivion the >wiretaps will also cease. The question will be whether >to scrap NSA's computers or to try to find some other >use for them. Perhaps an artificial reef someplace? :-) > >All this assumes the terrorists lose. In the meanwhile >I'm guessing that terrorist networks are finding more >secure means of communicating over time. That means that >the surveillance system presently in use loses its value. > >I don't think the the USG needs to worry too much because >the shift in the communications paradigm will take place >long before the wheels of government resolve the present >day concerns of citizens like you, Ken, and you'll have >a whole new set of concerns before you know it. > |