Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 11:49 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:48:51 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >> >>Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling >> >>a criticism "unacceptable." >> > >> > Which criticism was unacceptable? >> > >> > I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't >> > think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about >> > something. >> > >> > You can't have it both ways. >> >> Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an >> argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who >> disagrees with you. > >Criticism was considered unacceptable in 1930s Germany too. --- If the parallel is valid, expect to hear someone knocking on your door because of your antics here. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 11:52 On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:49:11 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >news:deDUg.49810$E67.34301(a)clgrps13... >> >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >> message news:69t5i2hpcjkq20p8tm1dv71ub7k2vpbon0(a)4ax.com... >> >>> Sounds like it. Wasn't there a recent suggestion that the Nazis and >>> the Brits should have made a deal? >> >> The British were asked to help take out Hitler before WWII and refused. >> Big mistake, since no heir would have been as bad. >> > >No way of knowing that for sure. Hitler's insanity contributed heavily to >his forces defeats. If they had a competent, sane, commander in chief it may >have gone differently. --- It certainly _would_ have. Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Keith on 5 Oct 2006 11:54 In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78(a)News.Individual.NET... > > In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh(a)4ax.com>, To-Email- > > Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com says... > >> On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET>, > >> > Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> [snip] > >> >> > >> >>Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without > >> >>warrant. Get with the program. > >> >> > >> > > >> >Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to > >> >involve > >> >someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" > >> >for > >> >certain key words and phrases. > >> > > >> [snip] > >> > >> That's rarely the case, and not without warrant. > >> > >> What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_, > >> "To/From" data. > >> > >> From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge. > > > > YEs, and the foreign "taps" were intercepted calls from > > "interesting" foreign numbers. They were not taps on phones. > > I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in my > living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your > listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights. > Your "demands" are silly. When the other end of the line is in a mosque in Iran (number captured on a &bad_guy's_laptop), I _demand_ that your call be intercepted. Your "Constitutional rights" have nothing to do with it. -- Keith
From: Keith on 5 Oct 2006 11:56 In article <eg32hc$5l0$6(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article > <kurtullman-8700B9.17512004102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, > Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > >> I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in my > >> living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your > >> listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights. > > > > Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over > >that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone > >doesn't have a warrant on it. > > Bush didn't get warrants! Not needed for foreign intelligence. -- Keith
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 11:56
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-0F836F.10021405102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a >> Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets. >> > Define abuse, (seriously). Well, verbal is frequently one of the forms of abuse the is acknowledged in psychology. I'm not talking about occasionally getting into an argument and yelling at your spouse, I'm talking about constant berating that causes long-term psychological damage. I'm not a child psychologist, but I have heard that physical abuse of children causes long-term extreme loss of self-confidence and a host of other problems, apparently up to and including schizophrenia and suicide. I have no idea what fraction of that amount of damage can be caused by just talking about it, but I suspect if the sexual overtones are there (and it appears they were in this case), seems to me a good amount of damage would result. Still, I suspect you're absolutely right, it isn't as bad as physical abuse. Still, there's a good reason for the urban legend (?) that a person convicted of inappropriate behavior with a child is likely to be killed in jail. Apparently even murders, rapists and thieves view children as untouchable (as they should). > I usually reserve that term for actual > physical contact (sexual, assaultive) and (so far at least) there is > nothing to indicate that either happened. Although I am the first to > suggest that the possibility it did happen is much more likely given > both the history of abuse and behaviors that got him into trouble. I hear you, but I'm not willing to even suggest the possibility until there is even a shred of evidence...innocent until proven guilty, and all. > Talkin' dirty is illegal, but I still say it is a couple orders of > magnitude below physical and sexual abuse. Agreed, but those couple of orders of magnitude are made up by the fact that the guy is a US Congressman, and in effect, the page's boss. They write the laws that guide this nation...we're supposed to expect more of them. Add to that the power imbalance (which is what consent laws are all about), and it becomes even worse. Eric Lucas |