Beth, The BBC and PC
Annie
Hey Beth, I've just been _____
watching BBC "Breakfast." ((( `\
I'm totally shocked by the , ,`\ )
degree to which political (^ ) )
correctness has infiltrated ~-( )
The Beeb. Gawwhhh! It's as _'((,,,)))
bad as, or even worse than, ,-' \_/ `\
American television. As ( , |
much TV as you watch, no `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
WONDER you come up with all \ / | |
the nutty crap that you do. =()=: / ,' aa
You've gotta start using
the 'OFF' button more. Hehehe!
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Ross Simpson
> Hey Beth, I've just been _____
> watching BBC "Breakfast." ((( `\
> I'm totally shocked by the , ,`\ )
> degree to which political (^ ) )
> correctness has infiltrated ~-( )
> The Beeb. Gawwhhh! It's as _'((,,,)))
> bad as, or even worse than, ,-' \_/ `\
> American television. As ( , |
> much TV as you watch, no `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
> WONDER you come up with all \ / | |
> the nutty crap that you do. =()=: / ,' aa
> You've gotta start using
> the 'OFF' button more. Hehehe!
Oh please, don't mention Television here. It's nothing
more than a Bulletin Board. Going Over & Over again.
At least in WWII Television was a bit more harder to
come by, naturally the Germans had an early system,
however it was quite primative. Perhaps Radio was the
killer!
Peace!
Ross.
bv_schornak
>At least in WWII Television was a bit more harder to
>come by, naturally the Germans had an early system,
>however it was quite primative. Perhaps Radio was the
>killer!
>
In WWII we had our popular "Volksempfaenger", the obligatory
radio you could find in each household - a very simple diode
detector. Some of our "traitors" misused it to receive BBC,
Radio Moskow or other forbidden (Allied) sources...
German TV came up in 1936, developed for the olympic games -
but it was not the big boom for TV ... too expensive for the
poor quality.
The first "real" German TV stations were "on air" in 1952...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
Bellfellow
wrote:
>
>In WWII we had our popular "Volksempfaenger", the obligatory
>radio you could find in each household - a very simple diode
>detector. Some of our "traitors" misused it to receive BBC,
>Radio Moskow or other forbidden (Allied) sources...
>
>German TV came up in 1936, developed for the olympic games -
>but it was not the big boom for TV ... too expensive for the
>poor quality.
>
>The first "real" German TV stations were "on air" in 1952...
>
The BBC also had a service before WWII. It was broadcast from Crystal
Palace, I believe. They closed it down for the duration of the war
(imagine that today!). They started up again a couple of years after
the war, 1947 or '48. In those days a typical programme involved
someone sitting in a studio surrounded by baskets of flowers and
playing the harp. There was also the famous Potter's Wheel.....
Ross Simpson
> >At least in WWII Television was a bit more harder to
> >come by, naturally the Germans had an early system,
> >however it was quite primative. Perhaps Radio was the
> >killer!
> In WWII we had our popular "Volksempfaenger", the obligatory
> radio you could find in each household - a very simple diode
> detector. Some of our "traitors" misused it to receive BBC,
> Radio Moskow or other forbidden (Allied) sources...
>
> German TV came up in 1936, developed for the olympic games -
> but it was not the big boom for TV ... too expensive for the
> poor quality.
Yes I was lucky enough to catch some footage of the opening
of the Olympic games. Well they did improve on the footage &
naturally I would have just assumed that not too many people
had one due to the expense & quality.
> The first "real" German TV stations were "on air" in 1952...
I heard that due to WWII, this slowed down the progress of
some of the German Technologies (which I was told they were
years ahead of everyone else), would the Television have been
one of them?
Ross.
bv_schornak
>>The first "real" German TV stations were "on air" in 1952...
>>
>
>I heard that due to WWII, this slowed down the progress of
>some of the German Technologies (which I was told they were
>years ahead of everyone else), would the Television have been
>one of them?
>
Probably - you can't use TVs to conquer foreign countries...
They only developed TV as a "prestige object" to demonstrate
their "superior" hi-tech during the olympic games. After the
games, they were not interested in this technologies further
on - most people couldn't afford it and the military use was
too limited...
They put all available forces into the development of better
weapons and new war-related stuff (propulsion drives for the
ME262, the H-bomb and other "nice" things). Most "Civilian"
applications have low priority, if you're starting to battle
the world. Later on in war times, they had no more material
to supply the production of luxury goods, every ounce of the
resources went into the production of weaponry. Near the end
of the war, cutlery and (metal) kitchen items were collected
to supply the production of ammunition...
Have a nice weekend
Bernhard Schornak
--
<http://electroniciraq.net/> - 1st hand information...
Ross Simpson
> >I heard that due to WWII, this slowed down the progress of
> >some of the German Technologies (which I was told they were
> >years ahead of everyone else), would the Television have been
> >one of them?
> Probably - you can't use TVs to conquer foreign countries...
No, I didn't mean that! Just technology in general.
> They only developed TV as a "prestige object" to demonstrate
> their "superior" hi-tech during the olympic games. After the
> games, they were not interested in this technologies further
> on - most people couldn't afford it and the military use was
> too limited...
> They put all available forces into the development of better
> weapons and new war-related stuff (propulsion drives for the
> ME262, the H-bomb and other "nice" things). Most "Civilian"
> applications have low priority, if you're starting to battle
> the world. Later on in war times, they had no more material
> to supply the production of luxury goods, every ounce of the
> resources went into the production of weaponry. Near the end
> of the war, cutlery and (metal) kitchen items were collected
> to supply the production of ammunition...
A friend of mine who has done a bit of research about WWII as
a matter of interest has told me a simular story.
> Have a nice weekend
Mines half over, but I'll try & make the most of today, and the
same to you.
Ross.
Beth
> Bernhard wrote:
> > The first "real" German TV stations were "on air" in 1952...
>
> I heard that due to WWII, this slowed down the progress of
> some of the German Technologies (which I was told they were
> years ahead of everyone else), would the Television have been
> one of them?
Well, they weren't ahead of the BBC, anyway, because they were the
first TV station in the world...we had the advantage, I suppose, that
it was a Scotsman who invented the whole idea so we could start before
everyone else...but, yeah, the Germans were most probably hot on the
heels of the BBC but got further behind than they should have been
because they stopped progress to fight a war...
An interesting thing is that BBC News would actually win the "longest
running programme in the world" title - and would now be guaranteed to
keep it for as long as they remain on air because they have a 24 hour
news channel which makes it impossible for anyone else to ever "catch
up" - _if_ they didn't constantly insist on changing its official name
all the time...so it actually loses out because they insist on
renaming the news as "Breakfast" or "Ten o'clock news" (was "the nine
o'clock news" until recently ;)...
And, in fact, this means that the title of "longest running programme
in the world" goes to one very, very unlikely candidate: "the Sky at
Night" (an astronomy programme :)...it actually only gets shown once a
month(!) because developments don't really go that fast in astronomy
and it is a "special interest" programme that they tend to show in the
wee hours of the morning...it's an incredibly cheap and simple format
too...Patrick Moore - who's got to be pushing a hundred by now (I
always find it amusing when they are discussing things on the
programme and he says something like "ah, yes, I met Jules Verne once
and we discussed travel to the Moon"...okay, that's an exagerration
but he really is ancient and has hosted the show as long as it's been
going and every so often makes a comment that reveals just how ancient
he really is ;) - just sits in his seat and then invites some
astronomer in to discuss a topic and they just "chat" back and forth
about it, with some computer graphics of Jupiter inserted every once
in a while so you can see the sort of thing they are talking
about...being once a month and so incredibly cheap, it's been able to
hang on to transmission for the entire life of the BBC so far and
probably will continue to do so (especially now that it has earnt the
"longest running programme" title which'll mean everyone would freak
and protest if they dared to touch it ;)...
And if anything demonstrates the difference the licence fee makes then
it has to be this programme...there's absolutely no way it could have
survived in any "ratings war"...but the licence fee means it doesn't
have to and it can stick to its original "edutainment" purpose...and
I'm betting most British astronomers were encouraged to take up the
profession by watching all those cool drawings and, later, graphics of
comets circling the Sun and stuff like that...shame that American TV
is commercial, really, because a programme like this would actually be
a perfect match when America actually goes out into space to see it
first hand...the perfect programme to inspure and educate
astronauts-to-be (or cosmonauts-to-be if they showed something like it
in Russia too :)...but, then, I may be biased as I like all that
astronomy stuff...it'd probably bore the hell out of most
people...hehehe :)
Beth :)
Beth
> Probably - you can't use TVs to conquer foreign countries...
I beg to differ; Using TVs in order to project "shock and awe"
propoganda as part of a delibrate "psy-ops" campaign to make the enemy
feel like it stands no chance that it'll give up without actually
fighting, is _exactly_ the strategy that the "coalition forces" (nice
euphamsism there...two countries and a handful of Austrailians barely
makes a "coalition"...but, fair enough, they need some sort of catchy
name for the media to use and that name stuck :) are employing right
now...
And Saddam is entirely trying to fight back and make the Americans and
British "wobble" when he strikes back with his own TV footage of
captured troops...I mean, there's footage on Iraqi TV of an old man
with a rifle and there's an Apache war helicopter crashed behind him,
the commentary trying to say that this old man took down the
helicopter with just his rifle...knowing what an Apache war helicopter
is like, this is a doubtful story but, of course, Saddam knows how to
generate propoganda...it was probably brought down by a rocket
launcher or something similar but he then arranges for it to be
broadcast as a "David and Goliath" story on the TV between a monster
war machine and an old man faithful to his country...so that the Iraqi
troops are "emboldened" into thinking that they can easily conquer the
"invasion force"...the coalition forces may have slightly
underestimated how good Saddam is at this Soviet-style
propoganda...Iraqi TV has always been broadcasting "how bold is our
leader" stuff for decades...he's a lot of practice at doing this sort
of thing so his skill at it should not be underestimated too much...
It's certainly a war being fought in the media as much as on the
ground because almost everything has an official euphamism...everyone
says "decapitation" because, well, "assassination" (which it is, even
if it can be considered "good" assassination, if such a thing exists)
sounds evil and underhand...everyone's using the word "embolden" when
I've never heard a single politician or anyone in the media ever use
that word before Bush and Powell started using it...on Saddam's side,
the magic words are things like "invasion force", keeping well away
from the coalition's "army of Liberation" because if he gets the Iraqi
people to view it as an "invasion" to try to "conquer" their country
then, sure, they'll defend their home country to the last man...
Both sides are using TV (and were also trying to use TV, even before
the fighting started) to win some psychological victories...which has
to be welcomed a little because if people give up without fighting
then that saves lives on both sides...
And Vietnam might not have been on the same scale as this current war
in terms of media coverage...but "the TV war" was one of the nicknames
given to the Vietnam war for similar reasons...though, in that case,
it surely did more harm than good to the American cause, as it
actually reminded its people just how horrific and vile wars can
be...that it's never quite as "clean" and "clinical" as the
politicians advocating it suggest...it might sometimes be grudingly
necessary (personally, I'm not convinced that this is the case this
time) but war is _never_ anything less than a failure of humanity...
France was at least right on one thing it said...war must _always_ be
the last resort and not the first port of call...as Buckminister
Fuller put it:
"Either war is obselete or men are"
Beth :|
Ross Simpson
Well I can't argue with that.
Unfortunately I was referring to more than just Television. Computers
was another field, unfortunately they were destroyed! Oh well!
I suppose it could be argued with what my friend told me about the
Nazi's, so I'll keep the Peace! :-)
Ross.
Annie
On 2003-03-25 BethS...@hotmail.com said:
> ...it might sometimes be grudingly necessary (personally, I'm not
> convinced that this is the case this time) but war is _never_
> anything less than a failure of humanity...
_____
Yeah. Right. Sure thing, Beth. ((( `\
_ _`\ )
After all, Saddam Hussein and his (^ ) )
towel-headed minions are certainly ~-( )
rational, reasonable people. _'((,,,)))
,-' \_/ `\
I mean, if we could just sit down ( , |
and TALK with them...let them know `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
that we love them, and mean them \ / | |
no harm...why, then surely everything =()=: / ,' aa
could be worked out agreeably.
Golly...the slaughter of the Kurds with chemical weapons,
and the torture and butchering of millions of people over
the years by Hussein and his two psycho sons were probably
just unfortunate misunderstandings.
Say...you wouldn't happen to be related to an old Brit by
the name of Neville Chamberlain, would you?
Can you say "peace in our time?" Can you say "useful idiot?"
I KNEW you could! Hehehe!
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > ...it might sometimes be grudingly necessary (personally, I'm
not
> > convinced that this is the case this time) but war is _never_
> > anything less than a failure of humanity...
>
> rational, reasonable people.
>
> I mean, if we could just sit down and TALK with them...let them know
> that we love them, and mean them no harm...why, then surely
everything
> could be worked out agreeably.
>
> Golly...the slaughter of the Kurds with chemical weapons, and the
> torture and butchering of millions of people over the years by
> Hussein and his two psycho sons were probably just unfortunate
> misunderstandings.
Typical reaction from you, Annie...so intent on being right-wing and
decapitating everyone you don't like, you don't bother with anything
so obvious as actually _listening_ to what's being said properly...
I said _WAR_ is never anything less than a failure of humanity...
I did not say it was an American or British failure of humanity...that
failure of humanity can come from the other side: Hitler, Stalin,
Saddam...due to _their_ failure of humanity, they regrettably force us
all down that route with them...
Surely you understand this? Without their failure of humanity, we
presumably would not be embarking on such a risky mission that has and
may claim the lives of our troops? And we would not embark on it
unless the situation demanded it because, yes, it is a generally
agreed opinion that _WAR_ is a failure of humanity...we should always
embark on it as a last resort and with deep, deep regret...because
somewhere in our race, we've failed even basic civility...in this
case, it was most certainly Saddam who failed...and, surely, it goes
without question that we support our troops - our friends, parents and
children that they inevitably are - because we want them back
home...and, if possible - and as Bush and Blair have both stated -
we'd rather not cause any harm to innocent Iraqi civilians or their
infrastructure (they need that infrastructure because, already, Saddam
has perpertrated a humanitarian crisis...if the water goes and the war
lasts too long before it's possible to get back to rebuilding the
infrastructure, there is a potential - according to the Red Cross
speaking to the British government about their thoughts (it was
broadcast on BBC Parliament the other day) - for a humanitarian crisis
on a massive scale...9 million estimated by the Red Cross (with Red
Crescent, their Muslim counterparts) to need _immediate_ aid as we
speak right now)...
I've told you before but you obviously weren't paying attention...I
see _humans_ first then, if appropriate, I might happen to look at
what flag they are standing under...as much as Saddam has been
demonised, he biologically qualifies as "human" (but not on any other
score) and, thus, all the things you speak of are most certainly
failures of humanity...
American and British soldiers have paid with their lives to rid this
world of that failure of humanity...I don't think that it's entirely
appropriate that you make light of the situation like that merely to
score some more of your "right-wing" points against the "leftist
wishy-washy hippy" that you perceive me to be...
Saddam's crimes do not excuse this from being a failure of
humanity...those crimes _are_ the failure of humanity that I speak
of...and those troops who will die attempting to rectify the situation
will yet further be crimes against humanity...and "colateral damage"
of innocent Iraqi civilians is _also_ a crime against humanity (is it
not these people we're attempting to save from Saddam? It's illogical
to save them by killing them...luckily, our troops understand this and
have more sense than to get all "gung ho" and slaughter everything in
sight, ultimately defeating the very purpose of going in there...but
I'm not sure your reaction or remarks would be so equally
weighed)...and many of the Iraqi soldiers are also brain-washed or
misguided or have guns pointed at them...perhaps difficult to call
them "innocent" as they fire at other people but their deaths would
_also_ be crimes against humanity...
But, similarly, the worryingly serious talk in your House of
Representatives about exhuming the American war dead from France
merely because of a difference in _judgement_? All France actually
said was that it believed that the inspections should be taken to its
finality before military action was taken...they did NOT rule it out
at all (it was Germany alone that ruled it out entirely)...that is
only a difference in _judgement_ about the course to follow...a matter
of timing rather than no concord or common ground at all...America and
Britain proceeded with what it _judged_ to be the right course of
action and France cannot be blamed for proceeding with similar
conviction to what it believed...and it's not as if France was alone
in believing this, the Second Resolution could not be passed because
there was one guaranteed veto and two likely vetos (Russia and China),
coupled with great difficulty in persuading the "floating" nine
temporary members...
The French are equally differing on judgement than the UK government
who is backing America...but it's quite frankly childish and immature
lunacy of a highly offensive nature to seriously suggest that America
or Britain exhume its war dead from France and transport them back to
"patriotic soil"...but that was a serious motion that your House of
Representatives (who've renamed "French fries" to "Freedom fries" on
their menu, for pity's sake) tabled...I Hope they soon return to
common sense and _true American_ values of respecting those of all
race, colour and creed and their freedom to voice their own judgements
and to believe their own beliefs...I am a friend of America and when
such _anti-American_ talk - just because you were unable to get your
own way - is heard amongst the American administration sends a cold
shiver down my spine...that is NOT the America we know and
respect...sorry, but such suggestions and such pure _hatred_ aimed at
someone - many times the strong ally of America - who only differed in
their opinion of the timing? It's quite frankly childish...and when
such outright anti-French _hatred_ is seriously debated amongst the
American administration on the level of exhuming thousands of dead -
disturbing their final resting places merely to settle a childish
score on matter of disagreement of timing - then I'm loathe to say it
but you can start to see why some people out there project such
anti-American hatred...the treatment the French have been given on
this matter has been similar _raw hatred_...talk of denying American
investment in France, ignoring them and trying to _physically_ damage
their economy over a matter of judgement in timing? And talk of
exhuming war dead? And even changing "French fries" to "Freedom fries"
on the menu? That sounds equally like unwarranted pure hatred - even
xenophobic paranoia - too...
Be careful not to make this famous quotation true:
"Wars teach us not to Love our enemies, but to hate our allies."
[ W. L. George ]
It's very sad to see the American-Franco relationship decay when they
aided America with the Civil War and gave the gift of Madame
Liberty...and America fought to free them from the Nazis...even with
our "special relationship" to America, Britain has looked on the
acoord between the two Republics sometimes with envious eyes...
Now more than ever, America must NOT revert to the usual stereotype of
being isolationist...and I say this with no real vested interest, as
it makes no great difference to Britain...I say it for America's
benefit...that feeling of isolationism - rejecting the Kyoto accord,
believing itself above the simple diplomacy of demonstrating
compliance to the Geneva Convention and other things - is a large part
of where anti-American feelings spring up from...this talk of war dead
exhumation...Bush saying things like "you're with us or against us"
(one of the many things that Tony Blair is finding increasingly
difficult to defend because it's clearly an unreasonable ultimatum to
demand of your _allies_...force your hand too hard on this and you
might indeed find the reply "against us" appearing as it did on the
Second Resolution)...exactly as I warned about the "we don't follow
the Geneva Convention" appearance excused others to believe they don't
need to respect it either, if America goes back to isolationism and
forsaking the rest of the world for its own interests then others will
feel justified to do so too...I'd agree that they are utterly wrong to
believe this (America included) but that _is_ what will happen...I'm
loathe to say "I told you so" on such a serious matter but I did
explicitly warn with grave, grave concern about the consequences of
American soldiers in future wars, that "camp X-ray"'s avoidance of
clearly demonstrating the Geneva Convention was being applied would be
used by others as an excuse for them not to keep to it when they have
US soldiers in their capture...and that's, unfortunately, exactly what
they did...
Put it this way...in the recent past, there were people collecting
funds from the public on the streets of New Orleans...funds towards
supporting the IRA...funds that would help the IRA place terrorist
bombs in London...only chance keeping those bombs from exploding where
someone like me was innocently walking by...your government knew of
this and did nothing...just imagine the situation reversed...how would
America feel if there were people collecting funds for Al Queda to
attack America on the streets of London and the UK government ignored
it, saying it was not their problem? Your country did this and it did
this _personally_ to me because those bombs were placed in my home
town...I could be dead and not writing this post and possibly someone
here put money into their funds to make that happen...
But I have sense to know that this wasn't _true_ America...Britain
does not bear a grudge and refuse to back you...and we're talking
about _direct funding of a terrorist organisation_ here, not just a
mere disagreement about timing...
But when it comes to the current American administration, they are
worrying...they don't seem very American on many points...the big clue
to this is with how much force they have to continually "invoke the
stars and stripes"...how Bush insists on reminding people how American
he is...that's very suspicious...reminiscent of Stalin invoking "for
the greater good of Mother Russia" propoganda whenever he wanted to
send his troops to the slaughter...
America and Americans 100% get my vote...but I simply don't trust Bush
and his "interpretation" of "American interests"...are the Americans
made aware of "PNAC" ("the Project for a New American Century",
authored in 2000...long before 9/11, yet it spookily predicts the
tradegy - "a catastrophic event of the weight of Pearl Harbour" - as
the means to convince the public of allowing them to proceed with
their effective "American Empire") of which most of your
administration are signed up members of? I wonder if you'd be so
trusting of this current administration - non-elected by the state
Bush's brother governs - if you read that document...there's talk of
taking over Iraq in it but no suggestion that it's for humanitarian
reasons...it speaks of Iraq being a weak opponent allowing it to be
the perfect springboard for _forcing_ "American interests" on the
Middle-East...
Totally; Saddam Hussein is a brutual and vile genocidal butcher...his
removal will certainly be a victory for the entire world...the entire
world agrees on this - resolution 1441 was _unanimous_ - even large
parts of the Iraqi people...but I'm suspicious of Bush's motives
here...I'm thinking along the lines of how Stalin "Liberated"
countries from the Nazis, only to plunge them into the Soviet Union
and working in the Gulags (concentration camps where people were
worked to death...in some regards, worse than even Auschwitz because
it was equally genocidal but did so with slow and painful
deaths)...his naming of the "axis of evil", this long-term plan to
invade countries one by one to "proliferate American interests abroad"
as the PNAC document phrases it...and, of course, just like Stalin's
Empire or Britain's Empire (for which we can be deeply ashamed),
Empires tend to be ruled with iron fists...the worry the American
people should have is that such Empire-building is in direct
contradiction to the admirable freedoms and Love of democracy that
represents _true_ America...in short, if this is a repeat of the
Soviet Union but in reverse then, just like the USSR, you can be sure
that Liberty will be one of the first things to fall as it's
incompatible...indeed, there is some symbolic meaning that Madame
Liberty is French and now we start to see the Americans reject and
project hatred at the French...pray hard that I'm wrong and that
doesn't include your administration equally hating Madame Liberty and
all she represents...
"One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing;
that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one."
[ Agatha Christie (1890 - 1976), Autobiography (1977) ]
Beth :|
TS
>in the world" goes to one very, very unlikely candidate: "the Sky at
>Night" (an astronomy programme :)...
Too bad I can´t receive BBC here....=(
bv_schornak
>>>I heard that due to WWII, this slowed down the progress of
>>>some of the German Technologies (which I was told they were
>>>years ahead of everyone else), would the Television have been
>>>one of them?
>>>
>
>
>>Probably - you can't use TVs to conquer foreign countries...
>>
>
>No, I didn't mean that! Just technology in general.
>
Depends on the technologies you have in mind. In general the
military development had highest priority. Until the war was
taking its tribute, they put some effort into the "civilian"
applications, too. But a lot of our scientists were jews or
members of the political "opposition" - so they were leaving
Germany or imprisoned in concentration camps. Most remaining
scientists were "system conform", so their favorite field of
research naturally was pointed towards the coming war.
Einstein, Brecht and so many other "thinkers" and scientists
were forced to leave Germany, so they left a "vacuum" in all
parts of culture and sciences. Might be the main reason, why
Germany lost the technology race in the end...
>>Have a nice weekend
>>
>
>Mines half over, but I'll try & make the most of today, and the
>same to you.
>
Thanks a lot. I was working part of Saturday, a disadvantage
of my job. I have to be available every hour of the week. ;)
Beth
> Einstein, Brecht and so many other "thinkers" and scientists
> were forced to leave Germany, so they left a "vacuum" in all
> parts of culture and sciences. Might be the main reason, why
> Germany lost the technology race in the end...
The Nazi philosophy was absurd; Excluding people like Einstein, Brecht
and Freud from the "Master Race"...but actually being run by a midget
with, apparently, severe sexual problems and his loyal staff of
heart-disease-and-diabetes-threatening obese drunkards...Mein Kampf?
Mein Arsch, more like it...hehehe :)
Beth :)
Ross Simpson
> Depends on the technologies you have in mind. In general the
> military development had highest priority. Until the war was
> taking its tribute, they put some effort into the "civilian"
> applications, too. But a lot of our scientists were jews or
> members of the political "opposition" - so they were leaving
> Germany or imprisoned in concentration camps. Most remaining
> scientists were "system conform", so their favorite field of
> research naturally was pointed towards the coming war.
I don't know how advance the Germans were back in the early
days, but they certainly had some talent & a good movie
director in Friz Lang (Think that's spelt right! (-: ).
Peter Lorre was a very fine actor in his first movie 'M' that
even Hitchcock should have been proud of. However prior to that
in the '20s Lang directed a SCI-FI movie, unfortunately I've
only seen small clips of, but it still looked good of what they
showed. Apparently in terms of money for the 1920s it was very
expensive.
> Einstein, Brecht and so many other "thinkers" and scientists
> were forced to leave Germany, so they left a "vacuum" in all
> parts of culture and sciences. Might be the main reason, why
> Germany lost the technology race in the end...
Yes, Germany certainally had some tallent which stood out.
Unfortunately the NAZI's had stand out as well :-(
> Thanks a lot. I was working part of Saturday, a disadvantage
> of my job. I have to be available every hour of the week. ;)
Still, it's better than no work. Well that's not exactly true
for myself, however all I can say is, at least I'm doing
something.
Ross.
Annie
On 2003-03-25 BethS...@hotmail.com said:
>I've told you before but you obviously weren't paying attention...I
>see _humans_ first then, if appropriate, I might happen to look at
>what flag they are standing under...as much as Saddam has been
>demonised, he biologically qualifies as "human" (but not on any
>other score) and, thus, all the things you speak of are most
>certainly failures of humanity...
_____
Rather than being "failures of ((( `\
humanity," they're actually _ _`\ )
"confirmations of humanity." (^ ) )
~-( )
You claim to be a "Christian." If _'((,,,)))
you're at all familiar with your ,-' \_/ `\
Christian scriptures, then you ( , |
should already know that your God `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
-- Himself -- acknowledges that the \ / | |
inherent nature of "humanity" is evil. =()=: / ,' aa
See Jeremiah 17:9, Genesis 8:21,
Matthew 7:11, etc., etc., etc. The Christian scriptures are
replete with this message...in almost every book of the Bible.
The New Age-y concept that all human life is somehow wonderful
and good (assuming, of course, that the life is fortunate
enough to escape the abortionist's scalpel and emerge intact
from the womb) is strictly touchy-feely bunk.
Human life is one of the cheapest commodities on this planet.
It's a "buyers market;" supply far outstrips demand. Hehehe!
Beth
Well, they've gone digital and satellite these days, so it might be
possible in some weird way...
Annie seems to be able to pick up BBC "Breakfast" over in the States
(which, I agree, is a cruel punishment to inflict on our American
cousins...it used to be okay, actually...a proper news programme but
then some new boss in charge decided that it would be better as a
"magazine show"...you know, all stories about how fat some celebrity
is and which diet they gone on, before visiting a hospital to watch
someone have some vital organ extracted on live TV...exactly all the
things you most loathe watching as you're eating your
breakfast...you're quite right about "Breakfast", Annie...one of the
recent programmes where the BBC have gone "down market" in a big way,
trying to play the "ratings game"...when, in fact, they don't need to
do that at all...but it's probably all they teach at business school
these days or something...it's going to the dogs, I tell ya...in my
day, we used to live in a shoe box and go to the cinema for a
thrupenny farthing sixth...we were grateful when our father would beat
us to a pulp...ah, yes, kids these days...they don't know how good
they got it * )...
Beth :)
* Sorry, couldn't resist the tribute to the late Messers Peter Cooke
and Dudley Moore there :)
Annie
On 2003-03-26 BethS...@hotmail.com said:
> Annie seems to be able to pick up BBC "Breakfast" over in the States
> (which, I agree, is a cruel punishment to inflict on our American
> cousins...
It's on CSPAN1 (cable channel) at midnight, Pacific time.
I'm betting that you, Beth, look a lot like the dark-haired BBC
morning newsreader named Kate.
I like watching the London traffic reports. No wonder London
traffic is so messed up. EVERYBODY'S DRIVING ON THE WRONG SIDE
OF THE ROAD. Hehehe!
Ross Simpson
> > Annie seems to be able to pick up BBC "Breakfast" over in the States
> > (which, I agree, is a cruel punishment to inflict on our American
> > cousins...
> It's on CSPAN1 (cable channel) at midnight, Pacific time.
> I'm betting that you, Beth, look a lot like the dark-haired BBC
> morning newsreader named Kate.
> I like watching the London traffic reports. No wonder London
> traffic is so messed up. EVERYBODY'S DRIVING ON THE WRONG SIDE
> OF THE ROAD. Hehehe!
Sadily us Aussies have nothing like that here. Most of our
TV screens are filled with American Shows :-(
The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.) is the closest thing
to the BBC (well at least it's commercial free! (-:).
Sadily, it hasn't been the same since it's lost the rights to
one of my favourite programs :-( (well the David Attenborough
documentaries are good!).
Ross.
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > I've told you before but you obviously weren't paying
attention...I
> > see _humans_ first then, if appropriate, I might happen to look at
> > what flag they are standing under...as much as Saddam has been
> > demonised, he biologically qualifies as "human" (but not on any
> > other score) and, thus, all the things you speak of are most
> > certainly failures of humanity...
>
> "confirmations of humanity."
I don't see why those two things are necessarily mutually exclusive...
> You claim to be a "Christian." If you're at all familiar with your
> Christian scriptures, then you should already know that your God
> -- Himself -- acknowledges that the inherent nature of "humanity"
> is evil. See Jeremiah 17:9, Genesis 8:21, Matthew 7:11, etc.,
> etc., etc. The Christian scriptures are replete with this
> message...in almost every book of the Bible.
Indeed; We are all born already carrying Original Sin and human nature
is to sin...yes, that message is contained in the scriptures...but,
Annie, you're supposed to read it all the way through...you've left
out the central theme - Christ's mission and sacrifice - the essence
of why Christianity is symbolically represented by the Cross...the
message carried by the Sermon on the Mount...what is the nature of
Forgiveness, Charity, Turning the Other Cheek and Humbleness, and why
we should do this...the Salvation that Christ promised...why Christ
spoke of Himself as bringing the Sword...why the peacemakers are
blessed...why the meek shall inherit the Earth...
You're missing out all the important bits...the bits that put _Christ_
into "Christian"...
Christ spoke as He died on the Cross that He Forgave us of our
sins...this was Christ's Salvation for us...He promised Salvation and
delivered It to anyone who is willing and able to see what His
sacrifice actually means...to those who sincerely ask for
Forgiveness...He knew that He was going to the Cross and that He would
be betrayed but did not hide or run from It...the ultimate Turning Of
The Other Cheek...ultimate Forgiveness...ultimate Humbleness and
Charity...total unfailing unconditional Love...and that _was_ the
promise of Salvation fulfilled...
"I come not to destroy the law but to _fulfill_ it"
> The New Age-y concept that all human life is somehow wonderful
> and good (assuming, of course, that the life is fortunate
> enough to escape the abortionist's scalpel and emerge intact
> from the womb) is strictly touchy-feely bunk.
One of these days, you might actually see me and hear what I'm saying
rather than keep talking to this stereotype you've created in your
imagination...
I would _utterly agree_ with you...all human life is not wonderful and
good...we can leave that nonsense to bad Star Trek plots, of which I
assure you I have no alliegance...but all human life is _capable_ of
being wonderful and good...it may, indeed, be human nature to walk
passed the homeless person on the street...this happens all the time
and is certainly the "default" people assume...but every once in a
while, a Good Samaritan may stop...
Hopefully you can appreciate the difference...it's not our nature,
perhaps...but humans have the potential to go beyond their
nature...and, indeed, we're not born with a free pass into Heaven or
any such thing...but there are means of getting tickets and reserving
a place ahead of time...you are not given Salvation, so to speak, you
have to _go get it_ :)
It's odd how you accuse me of being "New Age-y" when I regularly
predict - and can hardly be accused of holding back with it - the
nature of man to be short-sighted and greedy causing his own
self-destruction...and I attribute squarely to the nature of Homo
Sapiens...I openly mock any and all human arrogances like "we're
evolved", "we're top of the food chain", etc. and I openly loathe the
"philosophy" of Naziism or any even mild derivative thereof...I
prophesise the fall of Civilisation (not "a" civilisation but
Civilisation, no article attached)...when I'm on a roll, I doubt you
could easily find anyone half as condemning and cynical as I can be
and regularly am...hardly "all life is wonderful and good and we'll
all skip happily through the big field of flowers into the Coming
Utopia of Perfectness"...
This ain't going easy...this ain't automatically wonderful...good
ain't the default setting...BUT, objectively, the glass _is_ as half
empty as it _is_ half full, whichever way you may prefer to
subjectively look at it...
Are you sincerely believing that Turning the Other Cheek is "simple"?
That keeping your head cool to keep the peace is "fun"? That making
the compromises of diplomacy makes a person instantly "happy smiley"?
That your entire life's mission of Salvation from which you are given
no rest whatsoever and failure is an eternally lost soul is
"wonderful"? That standing by your belief in Love when all around
attack, mock, condemn, call you stupid, call you naive, create
ludicrous "hippy" cliches that you're loathe to accidentally utter in
their presence, be perceived as "backward" or naive or inexperienced
or lacking reality and a million other things that, yes, you're but
one of everyone I have to encountered that does this and must suffer
gladly...this is "great" and "heart warming"?
Oh, how you are sorely mistaken if you really believe that...you're so
close to seeing it as well...yes, entirely, this _is_ against the
instincts of human nature that we all carry...this is a constant
struggle...there is no room for an ounce of cowardice, as it is never
given any mercy by those who do not accept that mercy is one of the
greatest powers...and, when you slip and fail, you also do not give
yourself forgiveness or mercy and you can't help but give yourself
only guilt...
But, of course, this is "vacuus"...this is
"naive"...brain-dead...tree-hugging nonsense...no-one of intelligence
could willingly choose such a difficult and "inconvenient" path,
right? It's so easy to mock those who won't fight back, isn't it? And
just letting go...ignoring the consequences of your actions...letting
redundent instincts and "evil" natures take over...letting your soul
fill with choking self-destructive hatred (usually over something
that's pointless and trivial)...inflicting pain on others when you
receive it so as to perpetuate that pain for an eternity...these
things are to be welcomed?
Come on, Annie, you're an intelligent person...I'm surprised that
you'd let them let you talk through their paranoid, fearful
stereotypes - as the fear of the unknown and incomprehensible is the
strongest fear - so easily...you've seen enough of me talking in other
contexts to know that such simplistic views - "generic templates" -
like that couldn't possibly apply...it really does seem so strange to
me that you clearly know that I _don't_ go around hugging trees and
playing an acoustic guitar from what I say otherwise...but dare I
tread even a foot into the stereotype - to recite one of the cliches
like "no one ever wins a war" - that, suddenly, you treat me as if an
entirely different person...hardly seems fair when you _literally_
become a different person but I do not change my perception of you at
all...
> Human life is one of the cheapest commodities on this planet.
> It's a "buyers market;" supply far outstrips demand. Hehehe!
[ Strange humour to find that amusing...but, hey, who am I to talk
about strange humour when I roll out jokes that should carry
government health warnings? :) ]
In a sense, you're quite right...but in another sense, you're so
sorely wrong...it's right there...if I may re-arrange your sentence to
make it clearer:
When you view human life as merely a "commodity" to be bought and sold
then it has no real worth to you and never will...
And, as I say, that's quite right...and it's also so sorely wrong
too...you'd have thought that at least someone somewhere _understood_
why slavery was abolished...it wasn't only for the slaves'
benefit...but perhaps it's too subtle to be seen...it's not only the
slave who becomes poor by this deal...you have a million "things" but
all of them are utterly worthless to you because you are unable to
understand their true worth...
"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but to lose his
immortal soul?"
[ Also, if you have these millions of things which you never actually
use for anything useful but, equally, refuse for any of them to be
taken away from you - even though you're completely at a loss to come
up with a good justifiable reason why you must hold onto your
"collection" - then, sorry, but you must seriously consider that
you've got an obsessive-compulsive disorder related to feeling
insecure, popularly referred to as "hoarding"...and it really
shouldn't be taken lightly as such a "hoarding" instinct really can
ruin a person's life and well-being...
"Hoarders" (those who truely do have this obsessive-compulsive
disorder) find a feeling of security to be surrounded by their
"collection"...and it becomes a problem - and this is how you know
you've likely got the disorder rather than just a keen interest in
collecting something - because the person _only_ feels secure when
surrounded by their "collection"...and if you try to take any of it
away then they irrationally defend it, no matter how good the reason
to clear it away...for example, someone with the disorder will start
collecting all types of junk - filling up the mantlepiece, mounting
them up into big piles, allowing entire rooms to be taken over and
rendered useless just to hold all this junk, etc. - but even with a
very reasonable "look, there's too much stuff here and you never use
any of it...so, let's clear some of it away to make some space",
they'll literally _freak_ at the notion...if they are an aggressive
person, then they may even attack you physically to prevent you from
trying...they _won't_ permit it to be done, _even if_ it would be much
better _for them_ to let go of at least some of their
"collection"...their feelings of security are literally all tied up in
their "collection"...losing any of the collection literally _hurts_
them psychologically...I mean, we _all_ like to collect things and,
yes, we all hate to lose things...but when you have this disorder,
these ordinary healthy human instincts go into "overdrive" and it
becomes a serious problem to that person and everyone around them
because the instinct starts to overtake intelligence and common
sense...they might _know_ that it's better to let go of some of it but
will be totally unable to do so...and living continuously in such a
contradiction will attack their nerves, attack their psychological
well-being and, though the constant stress, start to ruin their
physical health...
As I say, not a problem to be taken lightly...it's a very
self-destructive disorder...and can be related in nature to serious
addictions like alcoholism or nicotine addiction or being addicted to
gambling (same rough symptoms and basic psychological
disorder...unable to live without something but, with it, they are
running themselves at 100mph towards the grave...but even knowing that
only too well won't do a blessed thing to stop them...in fact, all
you'll do is increase their stress by going on about it...because they
really do _know_ that it's wrong but it feels even worse not to, that
the addiction always wins...going on about it only makes them feel
like utter crap, like a total failure and that feeling'll be
persistent while they are still addicted so it'll be a constant stress
on them that won't let up...it'll absolutely ruin their health in more
ways than one...with alcoholism or nicotine addiction there is a
physical addictive substance involved but it doesn't need to be
there...those who gamble too much, those who "hoard", etc. have the
same underlying psychological problem...in fact, perhaps worse because
there's no actual physical substance involved so that means it's an
actual obsessive-compulsive disorder...the usual "limiters" in this
person are not functioning and they can't limit themselves at all...
So, why am I pointing these things out here specifically? Because
everyone's so impressed with the businessman who has billions in his
bank account...but he still carries on regardless...completely
insatiable when it comes to "hoarding" more money...does he actually
stop to _enjoy_ this money for anything other than re-investing it to
make yet more money (does he actually collect for a reason or is it
just the act of collecting, in other words)? Is it known that these
people - rushing around the stock exchange - are so incredibly
stressed that they literally ruin their physical health (ruining their
health and dying young...eeriely close to alcoholics, despite their
actually being no _physical_ substance - like alcohol is to an
alcoholic - which is literally causing the damage? Which means that
their abuse is, in a sense, worse because they can damage themselves
almost as much as alcoholics do, merely from internal
stress...alcoholics drink themselves to death but these people are
almost on a worse deathwish, because they are only _willing_
themselves into bad health by their actions) and, yet, are still
unable to let go? Yes, it is known that this happens commonly and is a
very serious problem...
Does this psychological disorder - a seriously dangerous insecurity
that they must surround themselves with a "collection" of money or
they cannot measure their worth to humanity in any other way...their
self-image, their self-confidence, their self-esteem, what they feel
is their "contribution" to the world, their perception of how others
see them that they believe no-one will want to know them without their
insane "collection" is _all_ tied up in how big the figure on their
bank statement is - effectively ruin their lives because no matter how
well they do, they could always do better (there is no limit that
anyone could approach on how rich a person can be)...
Does this disorder grow so large as to start contradicting other
things, like their intelligence and their common sense? For instance,
they get the massive bank account in order to feel that they have some
_social_ worth...that men / women will like them because they are
rich...that people in general will want to be their friends because of
it...a common enough thing for a person to want to have...loneliness
is everyone's enemy...but, wait, do they then mercilessly fire half
their workforce, delibrately create a social divide between them and
their workers, come to view some others as "not good enough", etc.,
etc....in short, get so obsessed with their "collection" that they
have now started to contradict the very reason they started doing
this...
If they were penguins (which, by the way, also have this thing about
attracting friends and potential mates by collecting large mounds of
shiney pebbles...trading pebbles to "buy" friendships...the pebbles
equally lacking any actual "real" worth because they don't do anything
but collect them and trade them...yes, shiney pebbles are, basically,
"penguin money" ;) then they would be those penguins who
"over-collect" and spend so much time making a large mound of pebbles
that they attack everyone else to get more pebbles, that they "don't
have the time" to court the female penguins that they attract with
their impressive pebble display because they are obsessed with getting
even more pebbles...basically, penguins that, yes, also have the same
obsessive-compulsive disorder of "hoarding" to an extreme that humans
can suffer...these penguins, I'm afraid to say, carry on collecting
pebbles - convinced that they don't have enough of them - until they
become almost "hermits" despite being surrounded by fellow penguins
who genuinely keep trying to say "hello" to them...
It becomes - in both penguin and human circles - a very, very vicious
circle...they keep collecting more pebbles / money because the
apparent lack of social interest makes them think they can't have
enough as yet...but, of course, it's actually the fact that they are
spending so much time collecting pebbles and _alienating_ themselves
from social contact while they "are too busy" doing the collecting
which is the true reason why there's a lack of social interest...so,
they try harder to collect even more...in doing so, they miss more and
more opportunities for social contact...lacking that social contact,
they are convinced they need to get more again...so, off they go
collecting more pebbles and start attacking other penguins to steal
from their collections (those penguins now so annoyed with them that
there's _no way_ that they'll ever "be friends" or want to have
children with this other penguin)...they return to their collection,
where they've _wrongly_ invested all their feelings of security and
worth, thinking that "bigger mound of pebbles = person everyone
Loves"...
And, in the end, both the human and the penguin are left with their
"collection"...and _only_ their "collection"...like reaching 30 or 40
or 50 years of age and then looking back on your life with regret
because you weren't "adventurous" enough...played things too
catiously..."if only" you could do it all again, right?
Sorry, you may admire this and Hope to be like it too...but,
seriously, at these sorts of levels - where it moves from trying to
"do well" to an out-and-out obsession - then these people actually
deserve our pity and our help...they have a very serious
obsessive-compulsive disorder...we need to make clear to these people
that they are honestly worth a great, great deal with or without their
"pebbles"...and that truely is a _fact_...those who know better might
be wondering why I'm making such a big deal of this...but those who
really have invested all their security and all their feelings of
worth into "collections" of effective junk might start to spookily
recognise themselves in these descriptions...
Human life - to humans, at least - _is_ priceless...and if you don't
see this and can't understand why I say this - why I warn of this
before it becomes "too late" for you - then, please, review the
_logic_ of what you want to achieve in life and then compare it to how
you go about it...you'd be amazed and stunned by how many millions, if
not billions, of people would actually do this and find that there's
actually a glaringly obvious contradiction and paradox between the two
things...and, obviously, logic dictates that there couldn't and
shouldn't be any paradox or contradiction at all...how can you achieve
something if the means you use to do that is a contradiction and
paradox of what you want to achieve? It simply can't work as it
doesn't make any sense...
Simple example: Big business works hard to make money, which "improves
the economy", which raises the standard of living for everyone, right?
Yet, wait, how are they making that money? Oh, yes, that's
right...they are destroying the diversity of their competition in a
quest for monopoly - removing everyone's "choice"...they cut the
workforce in half to be "more efficient" - turning entire communities
into "ghost towns", making all those people poor and unable to buy
anything...in short, the means they use to "improve the standard of
living" is actually destroying these people's "standard of
living"...the very thing we're supposedly trying to improve with one
hand, we're destroying with the other...
And the "biggie" that is my favourite theme is fossil fuels...the
facts are simple and undeniable...we're all on a fast train racing
towards a brick wall..._everyone_ on the train is looking at everyone
else, sure that someone else will be the first one to jump and lead
everyone to safety...but, unfortunately, there's a big stalemate going
on...everyone's waiting for _someone else_ to take the initiative and
no-one's actually doing anything; The politicians cry "the scientists
will save us!" and the scientists are crying "we need the businesses
to invest in allowing us to make the necessary research...we can't
conjure a miracle from thin air!" and the businessmen are crying "this
has nothing to do with us...it's a socio-political matter...the
politicians will save us!"...the public just sits there, frightened
and joins in with the merry-go-round of blaming everyone else...the
train keeps hurtling towards the brick wall, speeding up faster and
faster rather than slowing down...worse, there's the laws of physics
to contend with...if you don't start slowing this train down then you
might pass the "point of no return" and there simply isn't enough
track left in which to stop the train before it hits the brick
wall...turning the train analogy back into reality to explain this,
you require _energy_ to do anything...so even if _tomorrow_ the
scientists declare "we have the solution!", how long will it take to
replace the old infrastructure with a new one? And, importantly, if -
for example - the "solution" is to build all these massive wind farms
or cover everything in solar panels or build some massive particle
accelerator to mass-produce anti-matter...it doesn't really matter how
they achieve the "solution", it can't be instituted
overnight...materials will need to be mined, they'll need to be
transported, they'll need to be processed, they'll need to be
built...and if this is going to _fully_ replace the old ways of doing
things, we're likely to need not just one or two wind farms or solar
panels but absolutely millions of the things all over the globe...it's
a massive project to undertake...and it'll require a _lot_ of
committment, for sure...but, _CRUCIALLY_, it'll require a massive
amount of _energy_...merely to transport the materials around means
filling up millions of trucks with _fossil fuels_...the power that
runs the machines that process the materials comes from the power
station _burning fossil fuels_...the builders who'll build these
things will need food, which we transport to all the shops in trucks
that run on, you guessed it, _fossil fuels_...
It's all _massively interdependent_...the way we've structured our
civilisations means that _anything_ we do requires energy and,
currently, we get all of that from fossil fuels...we _CAN'T_ just
"wait" here, people...after a certain point, even with the perfect
solution in how to solve the problem handed to you on a silver platter
_tomorrow_, it'll take a lot of time and it'll take lot of energy...it
will be, after all, a _complete replacement_ of our _ENTIRE_
infrastructure...but it's got to be done because it's a simple fact
that the current one has an expiration date on it...that the current
methods are dead-end methods...there isn't an inexhaustible supply of
this stuff and the process that creates it takes millions of years
(and, for comparison, we've only really been at this fossil fuels
stuff seriously for about 100 years...that means we're using it up
many, many thousands of times quicker than it can replenish...and it
doesn't appear overnight, as the stuff we have used was given those
millions of years to accumulate completely untouched by humans...so if
we're using it as we wait for it to replenish then...well, worse,
because the process does actually demand a _concentration_ of the raw
materials so you have to leave a large amount untouched and give it a
few million years...absolutely no artifical means to create this stuff
can be used either...second law of thermodynamics...we'd expend more
energy making it than we could get in return...the equations can only
be balanced if we stand back and let Nature do all the work...let Her
waste all _her_ energy making the stuff and, trust me, there's a
tremendous wastage in the process of creating fossil fuels...they only
"pack a punch" because we're talking millions of tons of organic
matter crushed by millions of tons of earth over millions of
years...it's an incredibly wasteful process but there's such a massive
amount of energy at the "source" that even wasting 99% of it still
produces an impressive "power pellet" in a lump of coal :)...
I know, I know...no-one likes me saying these things...because the
"solution" very likely requires that horrible word - "sacrifice" - to
be uttered...yes, current renewable technologies are pale shadows of
fossil fuel use...but, let's get this straight, it's NOT POSSIBLE to
continue using the current fossil fuels...it's _INEVITABLE_ that
they'll run out...oh, and, trust me, the "pain" of making the changes
now is going to be nothing in comparison to trying to make the changes
when it's "too late"...solar panels on your roof awkward and
expensive? Sure...but at least now we have some energy remaining to be
able to easily manufacture it and transport it to our homes...imagine
trying to install this stuff when it's a _necessity_ (there's no other
options left)...when materials can't be driven around on the back of
trucks like they are now...I'm not sure what would come to replace
this but, perhaps, it's some other not-so-clever fuel used to do
it...but any alternative won't pack the same punch and it'll probably
be in short supply - now that it has to take over the ludicrous oil
use we have currently - so it'll probably cost an arm and a leg and
take a week to deliver where it would have taken a day before because
it can't move that fast anymore...it might even become "cost
effective" to start using the horse and cart again...at least for
simple local deliveries and such like...oh, yes, we'd still know all
about our fantastic technologies but without the means to fuel them,
we _would_ be effectively thrust backwards in time...not a lack of
knowledge about these things but a lack of the actual resources to be
able to realise them...that is, if anyone remembers how things worked
and has the skills to make this possible...there aren't so many
trained blacksmiths anymore...
If we haven't made the change by the "point of no return" then it's
going to be an awful lot more painful to make the changes after
that...that point marks where we simply don't have enough left to make
the changes using traditional fossil fuel technologies...and, at that
point, it's an out and out impossibility to use those technologies,
which means there's no option but to go back to...well, horse and
cart..."milk float" electrical vehicles (so it goes at around 2mph for
a few hundred miles before you need to stop for a few days - perhaps a
week - to give it enough time to collect enough sunlight from the
solar panels on the roof to have enough energy to go the next 100
miles...all at 2mph...sounds fun, doesn't it? It'd probably end up
faster to walk the distance but, well, if there's a lot to be carried,
this might be the only reasonable option :)...or perhaps you'll simply
throw it over your shoulder and just _walk_...
Are people seeing the simple message here? Yes, it might currently
seem inconvenient and expensive and such...but, well, that's going to
be as nothing compared to what it'll be like if the entire human race
continues - as we're all doing right now - to sit on our big bums and
only start to make changes when, simply, it's become "too late"...yes,
either way you'll have to pay...but the cost really is cheaper now
than it'll be if you wait too long...the price of things includes the
infrastructure costs - transport, processing, labour, etc. - so when
these things become scarce, difficult and maybe even nigh-on
impossible, all prices will simply sky-rocket...even Moore's law will
be violated...well, it's actually a pretty big and costly operation to
dredge sand offshore to get our raw material - silicon - for all those
chips...and, of course, glass comes from the same place...
Oh, and don't even think about some types of plastics...one of the raw
materials that goes into developing that comes from entirely the wrong
place...one of the many "biproducts" of refining oil...so, remember,
the next time the lady in the shop (US: store) asks you if you'd like
a plastic bag to carry things home in, just remember what you're
actually endorsing by bowing to that "convenience"...cars and other
vehicles actually represent a rather small drain on resources and
cause rather small environmental effects in comparison to domestic use
(which, again, I stress can actually be _fully accounted for_ right
here and right now by decentralising power and installing solar panels
everywhere...although, of course, it won't be done overnight and,
sure, it wouldn't be easy by any means...but the point to stress is
that NO solution here can ever be "easy"...so far, this really is our
best and only Hope that the scientists have found...perhaps they might
find something better tomorrow...but, well, that's dangerous
thinking...they _might_ find something...but, then again, they
promised nuclear fusion - which would turn nuclear power into the
"fuel of the future" they initially promised because it would be more
or less a "renewable" source then...which it certainly isn't now...in
fact, nuclear materials are actually incredibly scarce (which we can
be thankful for, as if everything was radioactive, we'd be dead ;) so
using it right now before fusion is secured is, quite frankly, a
tremendous abuse...I suppose the nuclear waste that's buried could be
dug back up - though, the bill for that ain't likely to be pretty -
but the stuff dumped in the sea will have to stay there unless we get
really, really desparate and there's no other option...I mean,
reclaiming large quantities of nuclear waste from miles down in the
sea ain't going to be anything less than extremely dangerous and
extremely expensive...in short, the people who dump this stuff are NOT
expecting or accounting for any recovery operation, that's clear...
Anyway, we can't sit around just "Hoping" that the scientists will
conjure a miracle tomorrow...they, indeed, might just do that...but,
then again, they have been looking into this issue for quite a long
time...a means to "cheat" the second law of thermodynamics has been
science's "pet project" longer than science has been called
"science"...in comparison, Saudia Arabia estimates 40 years of oil at
current rates left...the others don't estimate anything vastly
different to that...plus, a bit like how the coalition troops have
been "50 miles away from Baghdad" but "constantly making good
progress" for the last few days, these estimates weirdly don't seem to
change as time goes by...obviously, someone checks once and then
everyone just re-iterates the statistic long after its expiration
date...it, of course, must actually be going down all the time...so
it's probably less than 40 years remaining by now but no-one's
bothering to re-assess it and pass on more current statistics...just
like those troops couldn't have been constantly moving forward with
"great progress" for a number of days but yet are always "50 miles
South of Baghdad"...they must be closer by now but the journalists and
politicians are still repeating the old statistics from a few days
back so it sounds like they're running on the spot or something silly
like that...well, either that or we're being lied to...but, on both
scores, I will give the benefit of the doubt that it's just old
statistics (though I don't really know why I should trust the UK
government after that absurd "British intelligence report" they
issued...a 12 year old plagarised student dissitation - clearly
"edited" to sound worse than it actually originally was - which they
repeatedly claimed was "current British intelligence"...that's just an
outright lie, sorry to say...well, either that or the famed "British
intelligence" which inspired James Bond has had such a severe cutback
that it now does just represent one student writing an essay in
California, who _doesn't even know he works for them_...that's what
logic dictates and I'd have to put my money on it just being a _lie_
to the British people...they had no evidence to give - confirmed by
the fact that Hans Blix, who they'd _surely_ share any intelligence
about weapons with, uttered the phrase "supposed weapons of mass
destruction, if they even exist"...which hardly sounds like they
handed over concrete proof or he'd have phrased it with a little more
conviction than that - so they "invented" some "evidence"...this, of
course, doesn't actually mean that there are no weapons of mass
destruction...but it does certainly mean that they _lied_ to the
electorate...and that cannot be a crime that the UK public can let
pass by without consequences...by the way, Colin Powell's "poison
factory" turned out to be a kitchen when journalists asked Saddam
Hussein if they could look at it...which he said "sure" to because
that piece of "intelligence" wasn't entirely accurate that he knew he
could score points letting the Western journalists look at...oh, and
it was reported only as a small paragraph at the back of the
newspapers but the "report" submitted to the IAEA about Iraq have
nuclear dealings with Nigeria was actually declared to be "not
authentic" when they checked it...as I say, I _know_ Saddam Hussein
deserves what he's going to get...my problem with all of this is the
behaviour of our administrations in getting what they wanted: lying to
the public, inventing "evidence", destroying international consensus
and the UN, creating enemies amongst our allies, etc....sure, kick
Saddam out and I'll be jumping for joy on behalf of the Iraqi people
and the safety of our world...but I'm not at all pleased by how the US
and UK governments got this to happen...here's some more interesting
things...they've been talking to the Iraqi opposition about what to do
in a post-war Iraq...after the discussions, a journalist asked the
Iraqi opposition when they'd be taking over control...his reply was:
"it depends how long the US want to maintain their military
presence"..."how long would that likely be?"..."there was talk of
around 8 years"...8 years(!!)...granted, he may have misunderstood
Colin Powell but that's a pretty big misunderstanding to be giving the
Iraqi opposition...
And the big one that defies belief...I, at first, didn't even see it
and, perhaps, many others haven't really thought about it in detail to
realise what it means...both Donald Rumsfeld (spelling?) in one of
those White House press conferences and Tony Blair in Prime Minister's
Question Time in the House of Commons were asked about when the "oil
for food" programme would be restored...both said - so it suggests an
agreement between the US and UK on this - that the "oil for food"
programme would be installed "as soon as possible" after the regime is
removed, making it possible to get humanitarian relief to the Iraqi
people...
Okay, has anyone else spotted it? Like I say, I initially didn't see
it either...but then was kicking myself that they'd made such a
massive error and had put it on public display...the original purpose
of the "oil for food" and sanctions against Iraq was for what exactly?
Ah, yes, the sanctions and "oil for food" programme was to punish
Saddam and make sure that he couldn't develop weapons of mass
destruction...by controlling his imports and how he makes money, they
can ensure he doesn't do anything that he's not supposed to be
doing...that was the purpose of the sanctions and the "oil for food"
programme as stated by the governments who put it in place...
So, anyone want to tell me why they will be restoring the "oil for
food" programme _after_ removing Saddam? Many times on the record
they've said that the sanctions and the "oil for food" programme was
NOT targetted at the Iraqi people - who they regret may be suffering
under them (but that it was Saddam's fault because he was abusing the
programme and not delivering the food to the people but keeping it for
himself and his supporters, right? You've all heard this stuff to, I
expect :)...
Surely, if the aims of this war are to remove Saddam and his evil
regime (yay!) then why on Earth will the "oil for food" programme be
restored after they've got rid of him? That's a complete contradiction
of their "it's not targetted at the innocent Iraqi people" and "it's
there to stop Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction"
claims...the logical course of action which would be consistent would
be _total removal_ of all sanctions, import / export restrictions and
the "oil for food" programme (rather than get their food specifically
through a limited programme, they could return to being an ordinary
country of the world and _freely_ trade their oil or any other
resources _they choose_ with other countries who don't place _any
restrictions_ on them getting foods, medicines, etc.)...
In short, if they are here to "liberate" the Iraqi people with this
war then an important part of that liberation is to remove sanctions
and restrictions on trade...this returns them to being their own
soverign state, like any other in the world, free - "liberated" - to
act as a member of the international community once more...retaining
sanctions and trade restrictions, _forcing_ them still to trade "oil
for food" through a programme with pretty tight restrictions (even
something usually "innocent" like aspirin was limited under the
programme, due to its "potential use" in chemical weapons, for
example)...
The legitimacy of Saddam Hussein's removal (and _no-one_ denies
this...resolution 1441 was unanimous because _all_ agree that he had
to be stopped...the _only_ disagreement that was made was on the
means - "regime change" - and the timing - US and UK impatience to let
Hans Blix finish his work (only a matter of months he was
predicting)...France and Russia and China all were committed to taking
military action _when_ and _only when_ UN inspections had run their
course...you might disagree with this opinion and, like the US and UK
administrations, believe that the threat was too immediate to wait
around...but let's not paint the "division" larger than it actually
was...really, I watched those UN Security Council meetings _in full_
when they broadcast them live...not a single country - except,
obviously, Iraq itself - disputed the problem...in fact, _only_
Germany utterly disagreed with the possibility that military action
was eventually required...
The legitimacy of Saddam Hussein's removal does NOT mean that the UK
government and US administration have a legitimacy to act illegally,
destroy international consensus, outrightly _lie_ to their electorate,
take any action they like...after all, these current actions could
really be threatening a World War, for Pete's sake...those Turkish
troops are still sitting there threatening to cross the border and
settle their "dispute" with the Kurds...the Iranians are being mostly
quiet but there have been missiles thrown into their territories and
some Iranian "irregulars" moving about fully armed in Iraq near
British soldiers...and then the entire Arab world is furious and
enraged about this...and you can't blame them:
There's a tremendous irony in Tony Blair calling the French threat of
veto "an unreasonable veto"...France was backed in its opinion by at
least Germany, Russia and China, as well as a majority of the
"floating members"...now, let's look at a different set of UN Security
Council resolutions, shall we? Isreal had a Security Council
resolution tabled against it regarding returning the occupied
territories...out of the 15 Security Council members at that time,
_14_ backed it...America cast its veto power in total opposition to
everyone else on that council and Isreal was let off the hook...even
the UK didn't back America on that resolution...another resolution
appears against Isreal regarding a similar "UN inspections"
resolution, targetted just as with Saddam, at monitoring and disarming
"weapons of mass destruction" (Isreal has them _fact_)...again, 14
agreed but America cast its veto...
Now, I'm not going to go into whether America was right or wrong in
doing this...but, Tony Blair, how can someone seriously call France's
veto "unreasonable" when even if it had not cast that veto, the two
other remaining permanent members said that they would have had to do
so in France's place (and, you can look at the statistics, France,
Russia and certainly China are never "gung ho" about using their
vetos...China's probably only used theirs once or twice in the entire
history of the UN)...and even if they had not, there wouldn't have
been the 9 votes necessary to pass your Second Resolution...
How can this be called "an unreasonable veto" when America _always_
casts it veto every time Isreal is the target of the resolution...and
_always_ casts it against the complete consensus of the other 14
members...oh, and - as is the right of any veto member - they are
allowed never to explain why they cast the veto and, suitably, America
has never explained why it always does this for Isreal...so, in fact,
I can't say if America is right or wrong to do so, because they might
have a very good reason I've not realised - that's quite possible -
but they never actually explain on what criteria they've let off
Isreal from resolutions (including one of _very close parallel_ to
that put on Saddam Hussein about UN weapons inspections and
disarmament...a resolution they not only supported but were the party
responsible for both tabling them, making diplomatic efforts to get
1441 passed and then, eventually, are willing to sacrifice the
authority of the UN completely...even going so far as to declare them
"irrelevent"...totally against all past American interests in the
UN...after all, why do you think the UN is in New York? Yes, America
was 100% behind the UN in setting it up, giving it a location to
operate from, making the diplomatic moves to ensure that it worked and
that other countries would happily respect its authority...I repeat,
the current American administration is acting _against_ all previous
American actions...America, rightly, was proud to help develop and
host this _democratic_ institution for securing world peace,
peacekeeping missions and instigating humanitarian relief
projects...America most definitely had a right to be proud of the part
it played in helping to set up and maintain and support the UN...
Bush is throwing this all away with immense arrogance and, yes, one or
two outright lies thrown in...please, America (true America...its fine
people and not whatever administration is currently in charge), _be
patriotic_...stand by all that makes America great...the things that
other countries do admire and respect...a Love of Liberty...freedom
and democracy...equal sufferage and an intolerance for unfair
discrimination...the only official written constitution securing human
rights like freedom of speech, _freedom of religion_, etc....when
America means these things, even as a non-American, I and I know other
people would happily stand under the Stars and Stripes...when those
Stars and Stripes are standing there representing what makes America
unique...what makes America America...
I repeat, just in case you missed it...do you know about the PNAC
("Project for a New American Century" is the Orwellian title that PNAC
stands for)? There's a website which you can find this "educational"
resource for the American people about the future aims of your current
administration for the future of America and the world...it makes
_very_ interesting reading...some of the reports might wake you up to
what the administration is really planning...this is all part of a
"divide and conquer" strategy, similar to how Microsoft operate in
creating global monopoly but a world monopoly of military power,
economic power, political power, etc.
And, _yes_, these reports do use the terms "American Empire" and "our
new imperial role as global leaders"...if you're familar with Orwell
or Hitler's similar use of euphamisms, then these documents will be
far too familiar in their use of euphamism...I mean, you (non-)elected
this born again Christian alcoholic who struggles with the English
language...don't you want to hear all about his "James Bond Villan"
plans of World Domination? I know, I sound exactly like a raving
lunatic...people don't really sit around large desks planning world
domination like in the movies, right? I used to think so too...
So, let's get this straight...I ain't "anti-American"...and I'm NOT
"appeasing" Saddam Hussein...in fact, the _exact opposite_...I'm
severly worried seeing America - under its new administration - cease
to act in traditionally American ways, following traditional American
values..._threatening_ to invoke terrorist reprisals that could kill
even more Americans...casually destroying the international
institutions it fought so hard to help set up...just walking away from
Kyoto, not sending the Foreign Secretary - Powell at the moment - to
the UN Security Council anymore, sending the message that they aren't
interested anymore...whipping up _raw xenophobic hatred_ against the
French over a trivial matter of disagreement in timing...the "open
government" you have now starting to openly _lie_ to its electorate
and there is evidence that they are making deals behind closed doors
relating to this "new imperial role of global leadership"...no, not
"anti-American" in the slightest...anti-the-current-administration,
perhaps...but that's because, as I see it, it's _them_ who are
starting to act in "anti-American" ways...
And Saddam is such a vile butchering arsehole of the highest order
that, to my shame, my Christian values do temporarily slip (those
values _never_ support murder...but I _do_ find myself
sometimes...hearing of what he's done to the Kurds and the Shi'ar -
gassing them, draining the marshes, starving them...I do sometimes
find myself happy to "overlook" even murder...and that really does
take a lot, because only Hitler has come close to making me feel that
angry when I saw footage of hundreds of Jews being buried into a mass
grave...an image that will haunt me to my grave)...
Unfortunately, it looks like it's far, far bigger and much more
sinister than simply people being xenophobic or too "wishy-washy" to
condemn a vile butchering arsehole...oh no, don't let yourself be so
easily swayed by cheap propoganda...there's something even more
suspicious and dangerous going on that all of us - regardless of
nationality (as this is _individuals_ here, not nations) - need to be
worrying about...
Perhaps I'm wrong...I do Hope I am...but then, I said exactly those
words when I cautioned against ignoring the Geneva Convention for the
future safety of American - and, eventually, all international -
soldiers...
But "Lest We Forget" - and as you rightly state about "human nature" -
there are people amongst us who're entirely capable of the vilest
things...and just because we're fighting Hitler, doesn't mean we can't
also have Stalin around at the same time...
Beth :)
Beth
> I like watching the London traffic reports. No wonder London
> traffic is so messed up. EVERYBODY'S DRIVING ON THE WRONG SIDE
> OF THE ROAD. Hehehe!
Oh, that's not the half of it...ain't you heard about Ken's
"Congestion charges" in central London? You actually have to _pay_ for
the priviledge of going nowhere...hehehe...nah, just kidding...I
actually support Ken's charges, as it's good for the environment and
keeping traffic down and stuff...of course, I would say that...because
I don't actually drive myself...hehehe ;)
But, watch out...the scheme seems to be going okay so far and there's
been talk about other capitals around the world copying the scheme if
it proves to be successful...so, this could very well also start
happening in New York, Paris, Sydney, etc., etc....you have been
warned!! :)
Beth :)
Beth
> Sadily us Aussies have nothing like that here. Most of our
> TV screens are filled with American Shows :-(
Murdoch's Sky TV is like that, full of American shows...but then, he
does also own Fox so that explains why it's like that...and, of
course, he's also an Aussie too...does he actually own any Aussie
media, do you know? Or is it just the British media he dominates?
> The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.) is the closest thing
> to the BBC (well at least it's commercial free! (-:).
Cool; I just hate TV ads myself...basically, I think I might perhaps
take them too personally...it's like "yeah, yeah...whatever...I know
where the shops are so when I want something I know where to go...hey,
get off my TV!! I didn't invite you to come into my home and annoy me
with the same old advert for the hundredth time...go on, go
away...shoo! shoo!"...most people, I presume, don't take them quite so
personally as an invasion of privacy...ramming themselves in your face
and rudely interrupting your enjoyment, while you were trying to enjoy
watching as interesting programme...but, well, I don't know...I just
can't help take it that way...it's like, I don't want it, I didn't ask
for it and then they have the outright cheek of invading your home in
order to treat you contemptuously as if you're a complete imbecile...I
mean, if someone came to the door and barged their way into your
living room and started treating you like a complete idiot then
there's absolutely no way at all any of us would tolerate it...they'd
be straight out the door, wouldn't they? So why on Earth do we
tolerate it being beamed directly into our homes and into our faces?
Which, quite frankly, is _worse_ than being pestered by Jehovah's
Witnesses, if you ask me...at least you can switch off the lights and
pretend you're not in with them ;)
> Sadily, it hasn't been the same since it's lost the rights to
> one of my favourite programs :-( (well the David Attenborough
> documentaries are good!).
Oh, yeah...those wildlife programmes are absolutely
brilliant...definitely one of the places where the BBC excel...mind
you, I'm just a complete sucker for all those pictures of small, cute
baby penguins sitting on their mother's feet so they don't get too
cold standing on the ice...hehehe :)
Beth :)
Ross Simpson
"Beth" <BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in message...
> > Sadily us Aussies have nothing like that here. Most of our
> > TV screens are filled with American Shows :-(
> Murdoch's Sky TV is like that, full of American shows...but then, he
> does also own Fox so that explains why it's like that...and, of
> course, he's also an Aussie too...does he actually own any Aussie
> media, do you know? Or is it just the British media he dominates?
Yeah a one stage or another he owned one of the commercial stations
here. Don't know what his current status is.
> > The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.) is the closest thing
> > to the BBC (well at least it's commercial free! (-:).
> Cool; I just hate TV ads myself...basically, I think I might perhaps
> take them too personally...it's like "yeah, yeah...whatever...I know
> where the shops are so when I want something I know where to go...hey,
> get off my TV!! I didn't invite you to come into my home and annoy me
> with the same old advert for the hundredth time...go on, go
> away...shoo! shoo!"...most people, I presume, don't take them quite so
> personally as an invasion of privacy...ramming themselves in your face
> and rudely interrupting your enjoyment, while you were trying to enjoy
> watching as interesting programme...but, well, I don't know...I just
> can't help take it that way...it's like, I don't want it, I didn't ask
> for it and then they have the outright cheek of invading your home in
> order to treat you contemptuously as if you're a complete imbecile...I
> mean, if someone came to the door and barged their way into your
> living room and started treating you like a complete idiot then
> there's absolutely no way at all any of us would tolerate it...they'd
> be straight out the door, wouldn't they? So why on Earth do we
> tolerate it being beamed directly into our homes and into our faces?
> Which, quite frankly, is _worse_ than being pestered by Jehovah's
> Witnesses, if you ask me...at least you can switch off the lights and
> pretend you're not in with them ;)
Well I'm no Jehovah's Witness, but for once I would like to force
them into my house & quote some stuff out of my bible. Basically
just dominate the conversation & see how they like somebody
bashing the bible (not literally) to them. Ain't got the guts to
do that though.
I was under the impression that the BBC was commercial free, but
who better to ask someone who has access to it?
> > Sadily, it hasn't been the same since it's lost the rights to
> > one of my favourite programs :-( (well the David Attenborough
> > documentaries are good!).
> Oh, yeah...those wildlife programmes are absolutely
> brilliant...definitely one of the places where the BBC excel...mind
> you, I'm just a complete sucker for all those pictures of small, cute
> baby penguins sitting on their mother's feet so they don't get too
> cold standing on the ice...hehehe :)
I tend to like British comedy shows more than American comedy, but
that's just one guys opinion. Oh well! :-)
Ross.
Annie
On 2003-03-27 BethS...@hotmail.com said:
> [ 789 lines snipped ]
_____
Holy crap! We went from a religious ((( `\
dissertation, to mental illness, to 6 6`\ )
biology, to oil, junk science and (^ ) )
alternative energy, to wacky ~-( )
governmental conspiracy theories, _'((,,,)))
to nutty geo-politics. ,-' \_/ `\
( , |
Quite honestly, Beth, you're `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
burning WAY too much "worry" time \ / | |
over ideas that are unfounded =()=: / ,' aa
and crazy -- and over leftist "scare"
scenarios that would never come true
even in Lenin's most vivid dreams.
Go read the history of the term "useful idiot," and learn.
Your faith in the United Nations is touching, but unrealistic.
You have to realize that to America, the United Nations is a
joke. It's never been anything more than a "public relations"
ploy. It gives all the little, inconsequential countries a
place to strut around, to puff and vent, and to FEEL important
...even though they're not.
Do you REALLY think that a major nation like the United States
(or Britian) is actually going to put its fate in the hands
of a bunch of corrupt, trash-culture third-world countries
where the majority of the populations still defecate in public
streets? Guess again, Honey.
It might be a Utopian socialist dream, but it ain't gonna happen.
That's why the U.S.A. and the U.K. are in Iraq WITHOUT United
Nations "approval."
Beth, for your own sanity, you've just GOT to stop spending so
much time on those radical "green" web sites. Seriously! Now go
take your Lithium...and on the way out to the kitchen, turn off
that #%&*ing TV. Hehehe!
Beth
> Well I'm no Jehovah's Witness, but for once I would like to force
> them into my house & quote some stuff out of my bible. Basically
> just dominate the conversation & see how they like somebody
> bashing the bible (not literally) to them. Ain't got the guts to
> do that though.
No, actually, I'm quite terrible...the Jehovah's Witness or Mormons or
someone come around and then they ask something like "would you be
interested in hearing about the Jehovah's Witness / Mormon
gospels?"...and, so, I actually say: "yeah, okay...I'd Love to hear
about it"...and then they explain this and that for half an hour or
so...and then they ask something like: "so, you're interested in
joining the Jehovah's Witnesses / Mormons?"...and I go: "Nope, not in
the slightest...perfectly happy with my faith as it is, thanks"...and
they look puzzled: "So why did you let us go on all this time
explaining about it?"..."well, you asked if I'd like to _hear_ about
it...I always like a good story so, yes, I was interested in _hearing_
about it...not at all interested in joining, though"...they walk away
confused and probably put me on some sort of "black list" of people
not to bother again, as I haven't seen any in ages now...I'm probably
listed as "smart arse, time waster" or something but it wasn't nasty
or delibrate...they asked an honest question so I gave an honest
answer...the fact that telling the truth just happens to have stopped
the pestering me was not intentional but, hey, I'm not
complaining...after all, I've heard all the stories now...not
interested in hearing them all over again :)
But, well, they asked a question and I replied honestly...it's not my
fault that they are so cautious and polite in their questioning -
because everyone usually tells them to get lost - that, strictly, the
question _doesn't_ ask if I was interested in joining but was asking
me if I was interested in listening...well, you know me...I'm always
interested in _listening_ and chatting about _anything_...the Mormons
who came around explained a whole lot to me about that John Smith
fellow that I didn't know before...very interesting story...I've
always liked good stories...
So, I suppose, in a sense, I actually did beat them at their own
game...and they were probably very annoyed that I'd wasted their time
when there were actually people out there who might want to find their
faith or something that I kept them from...but it wasn't
intentional...I was just answering the questions honestly...they
should have asked better questions and not asked a completely
different question trying to "mask" their intentions in
over-politeness...it's a bit like when someone asks you: "Could you
pass over the salt?" while you're eating...well, strictly, the answer
is: "Yes, I could pass the salt if I tried" and you just carry on
eating...it should at least be in the imperative tone rather than a
question, like "Please, pass over the salt, if you'd be so kind"...now
that is fully polite but actually says what you really mean...the verb
has to be first (temporarily ignoring the "please", added merely to
ensure it sounds polite and not as though it's an order :) as it
should be in the imperative tone...
I don't know...they don't teach anyone anything useful about their own
languages anymore, do they? hehehe :)
> I was under the impression that the BBC was commercial free, but
> who better to ask someone who has access to it?
It is; But we don't only have the BBC...so, we do have commercial
channels too...such as all of Murdoch's propoganda channels...oops!
sorry...I, of course, mean news channels :)
> I tend to like British comedy shows more than American comedy, but
> that's just one guys opinion. Oh well! :-)
Well, it's a mixed bag...some stuff is excellent...
And then there's "Are you being served?" and the "Carry On"
movies..."ooh, matron!", "Can I stroke your pussy?" and such
like...amusing initially for about one or two jokes but then all the
double-entendre jokes wear thin _very quickly_ ;)
Beth :)
Ross Simpson
> > Well I'm no Jehovah's Witness, but for once I would like to force
Well fortunate enough to know where there place for worship is around
here, unfortunately I haven't got the guts to rock up there with a
bible of all the indigenous plants in our area (or what our supervisor
refers to as the bible).
> But, well, they asked a question and I replied honestly...it's not my
> fault that they are so cautious and polite in their questioning -
> because everyone usually tells them to get lost - that, strictly, the
> question _doesn't_ ask if I was interested in joining but was asking
> me if I was interested in listening...well, you know me...I'm always
> interested in _listening_ and chatting about _anything_...the Mormons
> who came around explained a whole lot to me about that John Smith
> fellow that I didn't know before...very interesting story...I've
> always liked good stories...
Ha! :-)
> So, I suppose, in a sense, I actually did beat them at their own
> game...and they were probably very annoyed that I'd wasted their time
> when there were actually people out there who might want to find their
> faith or something that I kept them from...but it wasn't
> intentional...I was just answering the questions honestly...they
> should have asked better questions and not asked a completely
> different question trying to "mask" their intentions in
> over-politeness...it's a bit like when someone asks you: "Could you
> pass over the salt?" while you're eating...well, strictly, the answer
> is: "Yes, I could pass the salt if I tried" and you just carry on
> eating...it should at least be in the imperative tone rather than a
> question, like "Please, pass over the salt, if you'd be so kind"...now
> that is fully polite but actually says what you really mean...the verb
> has to be first (temporarily ignoring the "please", added merely to
> ensure it sounds polite and not as though it's an order :) as it
> should be in the imperative tone...
Yeah, well I've got enough Salt in me to last a while, so I don't very
often have to say that! :-)
> I don't know...they don't teach anyone anything useful about their own
> languages anymore, do they? hehehe :)
No, I normally go to 'alt.folklore.computers' if I want to learn some
proper English, or just read Annie's Posts in here! :-)
> > I was under the impression that the BBC was commercial free, but
> > who better to ask someone who has access to it?
> It is; But we don't only have the BBC...so, we do have commercial
> channels too...such as all of Murdoch's propoganda channels...oops!
> sorry...I, of course, mean news channels :)
Just like here, back in Oz. They always bang in more ads whenever a
program is comming to a end.
> > I tend to like British comedy shows more than American comedy, but
> > that's just one guys opinion. Oh well! :-)
> Well, it's a mixed bag...some stuff is excellent...
I'm more 70/30.
> And then there's "Are you being served?" and the "Carry On"
> movies..."ooh, matron!", "Can I stroke your pussy?" and such
> like...amusing initially for about one or two jokes but then all the
> double-entendre jokes wear thin _very quickly_ ;)
I didn't really used to mind 'Are you being served?', but I
was watching it when I was a little kid (at a time when
everything was weird & wonderful). I don't mind some of the
Carry On movies, Carry On don't loose you head was one of
my favs (but it's sort of laughtibly silly). Sid James was
better in 'Bless this house' shows :-)
I suppose Frank Spencer wasn't one of yours?
Ross.
bv_schornak
>I don't know how advance the Germans were back in the early
>days, but they certainly had some talent & a good movie
>director in Friz Lang (Think that's spelt right! (-: ).
>Peter Lorre was a very fine actor in his first movie 'M' that
>even Hitchcock should have been proud of. However prior to that
>in the '20s Lang directed a SCI-FI movie, unfortunately I've
>only seen small clips of, but it still looked good of what they
>showed. Apparently in terms of money for the 1920s it was very
>expensive.
>
Probably you mean "Metropolis" - it still is a "cult film" -
the film shows, how capitalism works, masses of working ants
live for the fun of a few beneficiaries.
Fritz Lang also produced the "Dr. Mabuse" movies, one of the
reasons, why he left Germany in 1933. There was a similarity
between the fiction "Dr. Mabuse" and Adolf Hitler...
Peter Lorre immigrated to Hollywood, but never became a star
(he would have been worth!).
>>Einstein, Brecht and so many other "thinkers" and scientists
>>were forced to leave Germany, so they left a "vacuum" in all
>>parts of culture and sciences. Might be the main reason, why
>>Germany lost the technology race in the end...
>>
>
>Yes, Germany certainally had some tallent which stood out.
>Unfortunately the NAZI's had stand out as well :-(
>
Unfortunately...
There were the "von Neumann" and "Zuse" computers (the first
a "mental model", the latter a real existing machine), later
on they had the "Enigma" encryption machine - which couldn't
be decrypted by the allies, even if their propaganda machine
stated the opposite - and much more superior technologies in
this field.
German tanks, planes and cannons were kind of superior, too.
It took a lot of time, before the "allied forces" could keep
track with German war technologies - God beware, if we would
have finished the development of the H-bomb before the final
breakdown. There wasn't too much missing - the horror of the
destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have taken place
in London, Moskow, Paris or New York, too...
>>Thanks a lot. I was working part of Saturday, a disadvantage
>>of my job. I have to be available every hour of the week. ;)
>>
>
>Still, it's better than no work. Well that's not exactly true
>for myself, however all I can say is, at least I'm doing
>something.
>
As long as you need some money to survive, there is no other
choice. Either you do it, or there are about 4.7 millions of
unemployed waiting for their chance. For worse conditions...
Have a nice weekend
Bernhard Schornak
--
<http://electroniciraq.net> - 1st hand information...
bv_schornak
>The Nazi philosophy was absurd; Excluding people like Einstein, Brecht
>and Freud from the "Master Race"...but actually being run by a midget
>with, apparently, severe sexual problems and his loyal staff of
>heart-disease-and-diabetes-threatening obese drunkards...Mein Kampf?
>Mein Arsch, more like it...hehehe :)
>
Many Germans spell it as "Mein Krampf" - might be translated
as "My Rubbish"...
Have a nice weekend
Bernhard Schornak
--
Bellfellow
>There were the "von Neumann" and "Zuse" computers (the first
>a "mental model", the latter a real existing machine), later
>on they had the "Enigma" encryption machine - which couldn't
>be decrypted by the allies, even if their propaganda machine
>stated the opposite
Their "propaganda machine" never mentioned Enigma. Nobody mentioned
Enigma until 1971, when a former British codebreaker called F.W.
Winterbotham blew the story in his book "The Ultra Secret". Neither
did anyone mention the existence of the world's first working
electronic computer, called Colossus, which had been instrumental in
breaking the Enigma code, something they had achieved by 1940.
Churchill ordered Colossus to be destroyed in 1945, and everyone was
sworn to secrecy, and they all adhered to that order until
Winterbotham published his account. However, the fact is that the
British were reading the German wireless traffic by 1941 and it was
one of the reasons they won the battle of El Alamein. (The other
reason was the extra six hundred tanks, of course). It's also true
that Rommel suspected they were reading it, but by that time his
opinion didn't count for much with the Nazi leadership.
.
bv_schornak
This article includes a lot of sarcastic statements - if
your sense of humour isn't intact, you should _not_ read
further...
I'm _against_ killing of human beings, no matter if they
are civilians or soldiers of any party!
Beth wrote:
>>Probably - you can't use TVs to conquer foreign countries...
>>
To avoid misunderstandings: This statement is related to
the time between 1933 and 1945... ;)
Of course, the TV stations are feeding couch potatoes in
every part of the world with the latest "thrilling" news
in our modern world. It's a big business, ratings are as
high as possible. Imagine, how much more people you will
reach with your ads - in times of a war! Just watch the
Wallstreet-Journal. You get a clue how much money may be
earned with dying people and the destruction of land and
material...
BTW - some people around the world are paying much money
to get _authentic_ "movies", showing how human "game" is
hunted, tracked down and killed (sad, but true). Now you
get it every day - legal and FOR FREE!
>I beg to differ; Using TVs in order to project "shock and awe"
>propoganda as part of a delibrate "psy-ops" campaign to make the enemy
>feel like it stands no chance that it'll give up without actually
>fighting, is _exactly_ the strategy that the "coalition forces" (nice
>euphamsism there...two countries and a handful of Austrailians barely
>makes a "coalition"...but, fair enough, they need some sort of catchy
>name for the media to use and that name stuck :) are employing right
>now...
>
Not to forget - the Italian, Turkish, Spanish, Japanese,
Czech and Polish (what a shame) "help".
BTW - "Shock and Awe" now is called "Operation Freedom".
Means the occupation of a _foreign_ country, bombing and
killing the people you officially are trying to liberate
and such. Mr. Bush can easily destroy the entire country
now - the countries which are _not_ involved in his holy
war will pay the reconstruction of Iraq...
Maybe we have to populate Iraq after the end of the war,
first - but there are enough immigrants in Europe we can
send down there! Could be an idyllic place again - under
"protection" of American and British troops, of course.
>And Saddam is entirely trying to fight back and make the Americans and
>British "wobble" when he strikes back with his own TV footage of
>captured troops...I mean, there's footage on Iraqi TV of an old man
>with a rifle and there's an Apache war helicopter crashed behind him,
>the commentary trying to say that this old man took down the
>helicopter with just his rifle...knowing what an Apache war helicopter
>is like, this is a doubtful story but, of course, Saddam knows how to
>generate propoganda...it was probably brought down by a rocket
>launcher or something similar but he then arranges for it to be
>broadcast as a "David and Goliath" story on the TV between a monster
>war machine and an old man faithful to his country...so that the Iraqi
>troops are "emboldened" into thinking that they can easily conquer the
>"invasion force"...the coalition forces may have slightly
>underestimated how good Saddam is at this Soviet-style
>propoganda...Iraqi TV has always been broadcasting "how bold is our
>leader" stuff for decades...he's a lot of practice at doing this sort
>of thing so his skill at it should not be underestimated too much...
>
Probably, but ... do you remember the Afghan rebels, who
shot down those huge Russian fortress-like helicopters -
nearly impossible to destroy them - just with one bullet
from an old Kalashnikov? If you know the "Achilles Heel"
of your target...
Nevertheless - most of the lost soldiers and material are
"collateral damage", caused by fire and missiles from the
"allied forces". Terms like "allied" and "coalition" are
thought to remind of the world wide effort against Hitler
back in WWII? Where's the relation between Saddam Hussein
and Adolf Hitler?
And - the US government dreamt of a "Blitzkrieg" - "veni,
vidi, vici!" - but it turned out, that the people deny to
be liberated by foreign "unbelievers"...
Now the "allied forces" have to change their strategies -
Mr. Bush sends another 100000 American sons and daughters
down there - to die as "collateral damage". Oil rules...
>It's certainly a war being fought in the media as much as on the
>ground because almost everything has an official euphamism...everyone
>says "decapitation" because, well, "assassination" (which it is, even
>if it can be considered "good" assassination, if such a thing exists)
>sounds evil and underhand...everyone's using the word "embolden" when
>I've never heard a single politician or anyone in the media ever use
>that word before Bush and Powell started using it...on Saddam's side,
>the magic words are things like "invasion force", keeping well away
>from the coalition's "army of Liberation" because if he gets the Iraqi
>people to view it as an "invasion" to try to "conquer" their country
>then, sure, they'll defend their home country to the last man...
>
Probably they would do the same without Saddam, too? This
aggression against an Arabic country isn't very tolerated
by the Arabs, I think. Following the latest news, we soon
will experience another "intifada"... Pointed against the
entire "Western World". Thank you, Mr. Bush - that's what
we were waiting for so long! Dividing human beings into a
"good" and a "bad" fraction probably is the theory we all
needed badly. A disadvantage of the theory might be, that
the other side can use it without changing a word...
>Both sides are using TV (and were also trying to use TV, even before
>the fighting started) to win some psychological victories...which has
>to be welcomed a little because if people give up without fighting
>then that saves lives on both sides...
>
Not with stubborn people like G.W. Bush and S. Hussein...
>And Vietnam might not have been on the same scale as this current war
>in terms of media coverage...but "the TV war" was one of the nicknames
>given to the Vietnam war for similar reasons...though, in that case,
>it surely did more harm than good to the American cause, as it
>actually reminded its people just how horrific and vile wars can
>be...that it's never quite as "clean" and "clinical" as the
>politicians advocating it suggest...it might sometimes be grudingly
>necessary (personally, I'm not convinced that this is the case this
>time) but war is _never_ anything less than a failure of humanity...
>
If all the countries would have to destroy their "weapons
of mass destruction" (in order of the amount), Iraq would
be one of the last on the list...
This occupation can't be justified, it is an inacceptable
intervention in the affairs of a foreign country!
>France was at least right on one thing it said...war must _always_ be
>the last resort and not the first port of call...as Buckminister
>Fuller put it:
>
>"Either war is obselete or men are"
>
Having a look at the world, he forgot to mention the real
truth - earth doesn't need us "Homo Sapiens" at all...
Have a nice weekend
Bernhard Schornak
--
Phil Carmody
> "bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in message...
>
>> Depends on the technologies you have in mind. In general the
>> military development had highest priority. Until the war was
>> taking its tribute, they put some effort into the "civilian"
>> applications, too. But a lot of our scientists were jews or
>> members of the political "opposition" - so they were leaving
>> Germany or imprisoned in concentration camps. Most remaining
>> scientists were "system conform", so their favorite field of
>> research naturally was pointed towards the coming war.
>
> I don't know how advance the Germans were back in the early
> days, but they certainly had some talent & a good movie
> director in Friz Lang (Think that's spelt right! (-: ).
Metropolis. Brilliant. Lang was superlative, but much of the 20s
film-making in Germany was groundbreaking in content and style.
Gotta just love decimal time!
Phil
Beth
> Probably you mean "Metropolis" - it still is a "cult film" -
> the film shows, how capitalism works, masses of working ants
> live for the fun of a few beneficiaries.
Yeah, it even had some cool "special effects"...not quite so
convincing to modern eyes but absolutely ground-breaking for the
time...giving it that feeling that we're all used to seeing today but
which was brand new then of using effects, specially built sets,
costumes and such to make this future vision of the "Metropolis" look
like a totally tangible real place...he wasn't the first to use these
things, of course...but it's one of the first _proper_ uses of these
things to create something tangibly "other"...people might have gone
"wow!" at the effects in that Flight to the Moon film but "Metropolis"
took it further to the point where the audience was so convinced and
impressed - with a tangible universe in front of their eyes - that it
went beyond just "wow!" and turned into "oh dear God, don't let this
become true"...it moved beyond simply impressing the audience with
some "fairy tale" effects - which, yes, shocked them but it wasn't
that "this could really be true" realism - into making them believe
what they were seeing was really filmed in the future...
It's the difference between the Jetson's cartoon view of the future
and those found all too believable bleak futures in Blade Runner or
Minority Report...perhaps "Metropolis" isn't always given true credit
because, yes, these weren't jaw-dropping _technical_ innovations
(though they _were_ ceratinly impressive :)...but it was a
jaw-dropping _directorial_ innovation...this was where a director
first _challenged_ the audience with a dystopian future...with
socio-political views...and, most importantly, one of the first times
that a director _challenged_ his audience with the possible
_consequences_ of their own attitudes and actions...it was a movie
that carried an important message and not just merely "entertained"
people for a short while...
No wonder the Nazi vision made him flee...
> Fritz Lang also produced the "Dr. Mabuse" movies, one of the
> reasons, why he left Germany in 1933. There was a similarity
> between the fiction "Dr. Mabuse" and Adolf Hitler...
Ah, yes...in a sense, if another Hitler rose today in America then
Spielberg would be the parallel...Spielberg has basically "devoted"
himself to movies which deal with themes of intolerance, as he
considers this such an important issue that if it takes him a hundred
films to get the point across, then a hundred films it will take...
Similarly, Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" is a film that challenges the
audience with a message...from the sounds of things - if it had
similarities to Hitler - this "Dr.Mabuse" probably carried similar
"warning" messages...so, once the Nazis were clearly in power and
you've got a track record of issuing "warnings" in films about
preventing just such future nightmares as the Nazis then, yes, it
would make sense to get out of there fast...because those who can and
have generated effective anti-propoganda are clearly setting
themselves up as the perfect target for a sudden "disappearance"...
You can bet if there ever was things like "precognitive crime
divisions" then Spielberg's Minority Report (and the Philip K. Dick
novel that inspired it) would suddenly "disappear" off the shelves...
The modern equivalent of the Nazi book burning...Orwell explains why a
dictator does this with his NewSpeak language...if the people can't
think any thoughts of resistance or rebellion then they can't organise
or spread that resistance and rebellion into forming a tangible threat
against the dictator...when people like the Nazis rise, then some of
the first people put against the wall and shot will be the poets,
artists, musicians, etc....anyone who could warn the people and start
/ lead an uprising against the tyrannical rulers...Fritz sounds like
exactly such a man, so he probably made exactly the right call in
running...at the very least, being a good film maker, they would force
such people to use their talents in making propoganda...probably with
a gun pointed at their head...
> Peter Lorre immigrated to Hollywood, but never became a star
> (he would have been worth!).
>
> >>Einstein, Brecht and so many other "thinkers" and scientists
> >>were forced to leave Germany, so they left a "vacuum" in all
> >>parts of culture and sciences. Might be the main reason, why
> >>Germany lost the technology race in the end...
> >
> >Yes, Germany certainally had some tallent which stood out.
> >Unfortunately the NAZI's had stand out as well :-(
>
> Unfortunately...
>
> There were the "von Neumann" and "Zuse" computers (the first
> a "mental model", the latter a real existing machine), later
> on they had the "Enigma" encryption machine - which couldn't
> be decrypted by the allies, even if their propaganda machine
> stated the opposite - and much more superior technologies in
> this field.
Hey, due credit to Von Neumann, of course...but "superior
technologies"? Or are you forgetting that Alan Turing was working on
our side (though the Nazi-esque "reward" he got for the good work he'd
done - highly barbaric "treatments" to "cure" his homosexuality that,
almost certainly, were the thing that drove him to suicide - will be
forever to our shame...to twist the saying a little, "with friends
like these, who needs Nazis?")?
From what I've heard (very interesting indeed that we appear to have
all heard different versions of history, isn't it? A cause for
concern?), it was a half-way house kind of thing...the Engima code was
incredibly difficult to crack and, yes, there were long periods where
they weren't listening...but they did crack the code to get some
important information...
The whole point being that this was what made the Engima code so
incredibly difficult to crack...the next code depended on the last
codes and a very complex relationship...so, for security (perhaps
because they "wised up" to realising they were being listened to, I
don't know), they would restart the code again (this could be done via
traditional _physical_ means...you simply order everyone to reset
their Enigma machines to a certain set positions - there apparently
was a "book of codes" which meant that they could just say "now use
code 13" and, without that book, you have no idea what "code 13"
actually is in terms of the switches and settings on the Engima
machine)...thus, locking the Allies out of the code once more,
struggling to get back in...and due to the nature of the code - using
previous codes and a complex relationship to get the next code - if
you "lost your place" in the sequence then you were right back to
square one all over again...
> German tanks, planes and cannons were kind of superior, too.
> It took a lot of time, before the "allied forces" could keep
> track with German war technologies - God beware, if we would
> have finished the development of the H-bomb before the final
> breakdown. There wasn't too much missing - the horror of the
> destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have taken place
> in London, Moskow, Paris or New York, too...
Yes; That could quite possibly have happened...but this is, of course,
where the Nazi philosophy had stepped on its own toes, so to
speak...the very people who could have done it for them, they'd turned
into refugees fleeing from them...the surnames say it all:
Oppenheimer, Einstein, etc....
There's a sort of "poetic justice" there...because the Nazis clearly
would have used these technologies and other things with evil
intentions, they were frightening people...which, ironically, then
scared away the very families of the very people who eventually went
on to help create those technologies...
Beth :)
Beth
> I suppose Frank Spencer wasn't one of yours?
Wasn't one of my what? "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em" was also from the
BBC too...now that was a show I liked...yes, very cheap slapstick
comedy with not an ounce of intelligence but, well, that was the whole
point..."oooh, Betty!" ;)
Beth :)
Frank Kotler
[enigma]
> From what I've heard (very interesting indeed that we appear to have
> all heard different versions of history, isn't it?
Ain't that the truth. My understanding was that Brit/Yank "intelligence"
*did* crack ENIGMA, but rather than crow about it as Bernhard's post
suggests, we kept it quiet and sold the technology to a lot of our
"allies" - letting them believe it was "unbreakable". (as you say, "with
friends like these...")
Seems like there are a lot of "different stories" going around lately,
too...
Best,
Frank
Phil Carmody
Hmmm, sorry Beth, I have to piggy-back here. I don't remember adding Annie to
my killfile, but I don't seem to get her posts any more.
> Annie wrote:
>> Golly...the slaughter of the Kurds with chemical weapons, and the
>> torture and butchering of millions of people over the years by
You (Annie) do realise that at this point you could insert the
words "the United Kingdom", don't you?
Phil
bv_schornak
Probably my "background information" wasn't very accurate in
this case. Searching some real information, I found this:
The military version of the "Enigma" existed since 1926. The
code was broken by the Polish cryptoanalyst Marian Rejewski
in 1932, the British government got the code in 1939. So the
lost battle in 1941 might be influenced by decyphered orders
of the staff. Rommel was a brilliant commander, so the extra
tanks didn't mean too much. As in Stalingrad, the defeat was
caused by the "Fuehrer's" outstanding military talent...
The world's first binary digital electronic computer was the
Z1, developed and build 1936 - 1938 by Konrad Zuse. It still
exists in the Museum for Transport and Technology in Berlin!
The first Colossus started working at Christmas 1943, see
<http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/index.htm>.
This site offers a lot of information about en- / decryption
in WWII.
Ross Simpson
> Probably you mean "Metropolis" - it still is a "cult film" -
> the film shows, how capitalism works, masses of working ants
> live for the fun of a few beneficiaries.
Yes, I was just testing you to see if you were familar with
it! :-)
> Fritz Lang also produced the "Dr. Mabuse" movies, one of the
> reasons, why he left Germany in 1933. There was a similarity
> between the fiction "Dr. Mabuse" and Adolf Hitler...
You don't know where Fritz went to? Oh well don't worry too
much about answerning that, I could check out his Profile
that I have with 'M'.
> Peter Lorre immigrated to Hollywood, but never became a star
> (he would have been worth!).
Actually Peter Lorre also did some early movies in the UK with
Hitchcock too, with the 1930s 'Man who knew too much' &
'Secret Agent', but I also see he did some American movies in
the '30s as well.
From what I've seen of Peter Lorre, I reckon he's a great
actor, but they all tend to be of a supporting cast.
> >Yes, Germany certainally had some tallent which stood out.
> >Unfortunately the NAZI's had stand out as well :-(
> Unfortunately...
> There were the "von Neumann" and "Zuse" computers (the first
> a "mental model", the latter a real existing machine), later
> on they had the "Enigma" encryption machine - which couldn't
> be decrypted by the allies, even if their propaganda machine
> stated the opposite - and much more superior technologies in
> this field.
> German tanks, planes and cannons were kind of superior, too.
> It took a lot of time, before the "allied forces" could keep
> track with German war technologies - God beware, if we would
> have finished the development of the H-bomb before the final
> breakdown. There wasn't too much missing - the horror of the
> destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have taken place
> in London, Moskow, Paris or New York, too...
> >Still, it's better than no work. Well that's not exactly true
> >for myself, however all I can say is, at least I'm doing
> >something.
> As long as you need some money to survive, there is no other
> choice. Either you do it, or there are about 4.7 millions of
> unemployed waiting for their chance. For worse conditions...
Well, I do get something to get by with.
> Have a nice weekend
Oh yes, were up to that point in time ain't we!
Ross.
Ross Simpson
> > I suppose Frank Spencer wasn't one of yours?
Oh okay! :-) I liked the episode where they were blowning up
this building, Frank was too slow (or something) & comes running
out of the dust (the employment agency thought he would be good
at distroying things in that company!).
Only reason I thought you might of disliked it would be for
the silly side of things.
Ross :-)
Beth
> Holy crap! We went from a religious dissertation, to mental
> illness, to biology, to oil, junk science and alternative
> energy, to wacky governmental conspiracy theories, to nutty
> geo-politics.
Everything is interdependent, Annie...cause and effect, action and
consequence...the butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo causing a
hurricane on the other side of the world...your own limited interests
are but one drop in a massive ocean...
Also, everything is immensely parallel...biology doesn't "stop" just
because you're paying attention to something else at the time...all
these things - everything - keep moving forward unconcerned for what
interests you...
Interestingly, there is something else you personally possess - as
well as the rest of us - that is also based on immense parallelism of
interdependent entities...that's how the neurons in your brain
work...one brain cell can't do anything useful but combined into a big
interdependent network, those brain cells develop amazing
capabilities...and all those brain cells work in parallel...this ain't
no "pipeline" sequential computer...and that isn't just a "speed"
thing (though, boy, it sure works quickly :), it's essential to how
these brain cells work interdependently with one another...it's like
one big democracy inside your skull...each individual brain cell is a
blithering idiot by itself...but, combined, they take on capabilities
that are simply impossible alone...it's not just a saying, it's a
_fact_: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"...
Why's this so interesting? Well, the brain and reality should be a
good match...which is hardly surprising when natural selection created
the brain in order to specifically deal with the complexity of
reality...but there's a catch...humans are social animals and those
instincts dominate any logic we may or may not have...but, most
specifically, the words we choose, the boundaries we create, the
divisions we adhere to, the hierarchies we bow to, the systems we
develop to interact, the fears that create the imbalances, the
paranoia that isolates the rich from the poor, the moral messages we
put into fables, stories and fairy tales...all of this...it's not
reality in its widest sense...it never was and it never will be...this
stuff only exists inside a network of people with their networks of
neurons...
We say: "we're top of the food chain"...reality says: "ummm, it
doesn't work like that...it's actually a complicated spiral of
cycles...there is no 'top' or heirarchy here at all"...
We say: "we've the most evolved beast"...reality says: "ummm, it
doesn't work like that...things adapt to their environment...if the
environment regresses, things regress...it's not a race to Godhood and
it never was and it never will be...and even if it was, all the
animals that share the Earth with you have evolved just as much as
you...in fact, cockroaches and crocodiles have a better claim because
their forms have been stable since dinosaur times...so that means
they've hit a stable form that suits their environment exactly"...
We say: "we are the most intelligent beast"...reality says: "granted,
but intelligence has not proved its survival value...in fact, as the
only beast capable of your level of intelligence, then that suggests
you're a lone mutant...eveything has legs, they are known to
work...everything has eyes, they are known to work...only humans have
that level of intelligence, the jury's still out whether it's worth
anything...and looking at how humans so often bring themselves to the
verge of destruction of not just themselves but the entire planet,
Nature's seriously doubting that it's a good idea"...
We say many things...reality pays those things little
attention...ain't we learnt the lesson yet? The clues are all around
us...evolving is adapting to suit your environment...but, instead, we
stay as we are and try to twist everything else around us...that's not
evolving...that's holding it back and running away from it...again, is
intelligence actually a good mutation? The jury is still out...but
much of the evidence so far is not looking good for us...
And, Annie, you see things in such black and white terms...those
abitrary boundaries - formed by accident alone - that end up in the
words we use all too real to you...we're binary creatures in an
analogue reality...the lens through which we see things is full of
distortions and "rounding errors"...when something you're looking at
seems "wrong", it doesn't mean it is...perhaps, instead, it's the eyes
through which you are looking at things that are "wrong"...
What logical reason is there that it's "wrong" for me to go through
all these many varied subjects...all of which is _known_ to be
interdependent on everything else...is what you see "wrong" or is it
the lens through which you look at it? Is your own mind making these
decisions or are you merely telling me the acculumation of things
you've been told?
Am I "wrong", by your judgement, or is it that the lens you look
through - that very act of judgement - which is the fallacy? I can't
tell you...because I've decided that it's more likely that the act of
judgement is the inherent fallacy...so I just don't come to any
judgement on the matter...that's where you come in...you like to judge
with fire and brimstone, as far as I can see, so you are the
jury...but, remember, it's a jury's duty to be impartial...report on
the evidence alone...hearsay is striken from the record...guilty or
not guilty?
> Quite honestly, Beth, you're burning WAY too much "worry" time
> over ideas that are unfounded and crazy -- and over leftist
> "scare" scenarios that would never come true even in Lenin's
> most vivid dreams.
And what exactly is so vastly more important that I should be saving
my energy for? And, anyway, you're not listening because the only
_burning_ going on here is all those fossil fuels...I thought the
philosophy of those who'd think what I say is "crazy" would actually
be promoting the exact opposite of energy conservation...isn't this
all about getting as much as you can, sod the consequences? Isn't this
all about climbing career ladders, social ladders, money ladders, etc.
so that you can be Queen of the Junk Pile? Aren't we supposed to just
burn and burn and burn until there's nothing left to burn anymore?
Aren't we supposed to just "overlook" that we'll leave our children
with nothing, force them to live the problems we created because it
was simply too "inconvenient" to do anything about it? Isn't this the
"blame culture" so, of course, it's the scientists' fault for not
finding something else, it's the politicians' fault for not
legislating, it's the businessmans' fault for sucking it all dry?
Isn't the idea that we say "I'm alright, Jack", pass the buck and vote
in whichever politician promises tax cuts, which they always go back
on, anyway?
And you're doing it again...anyone who doesn't agree to your
particular worldview is a "lefty"...because that's the Boogieman
you're created to hang all the evils of the world on...someone who
actually is a Marxist would find your comments baffling because I'm
nothing like them...even _you_ have not gone as far as I have in
declaring Marx _utterly wrong_ (because he turned the rich classes
into an enemy...he made it sound nice and clever...but he was on
exactly the same "paranoid pre-emptive vengence" gig that
characterises those he made his enemy...he declared someone else's
view to be "wrong" and dismissed it entirely, forcing them to comply
to his system...sounds like the same old human bullcrap rolled out for
the seven billionth time)...I credit trade and business as the very
foundations of civilisation, for Pete's sake...you're only a fair
weather friend to it while it means you can live the "Good Life",
right? If Marx could guarantee you the big car and mansion with a
swimming pool, then you'd U-turn at the drop of a hat because there's
not a bone of principle or forethought guiding you...only naive
Utopian dreams that if you follow some crackpot extremeist worldview -
whatever's in vogue on the patch of soil you currently inhabit - long
enough, there'll be a pot of gold for you at the other
end...struggling hard with comprehending the mechanism, you ain't
noticed yet that their promises are and always have been failing
you...
"Unfounded", you say? "Wacky governmental conspiracy theories", you
say? You didn't check the PNAC reference I gave you, did you?
Surely, it's your democratic and patriotic duty as an American to know
what this "New American Century" that you're current "patriotic"
administration is committed to entails? You can then be another great
American pioneer...unlike the French, you have a word for
entrepreneur...there's gold in them tha' hills...
The documents on the PNAC website go back well before 9/11/2001...and
yet it already speaks of these wars against Iraq, Iran, Syria, North
Korea, etc...interestingly, these "links to terrorist groups" only
turned up in their rhetoric once 9/11 happened and they could use the
tradegy of the lost American lives to push the American people to
support Bush's "crusade"...he had this on the cards a long, long time
ago...
And what exactly is it that's on the cards? Well, interestingly, as
America has "open government" it is actually possible for any world
citizen to find out with a web browser...go to
http://www.newamericancentury.org where you'll find a "non-profit
educational organization" specifically for you good American people to
learn about this bold new project...
It sounds good to begin with...but as you read more, you can begin to
negotiate the euphamisms...the project will use "overwhelming military
force" (no, this phrase was not coined for this current conflict with
Iraq...it appears in documents going back to 1997 when this "project"
was set up) in order to "proliferate American interests
abroad"...well, other than it being a mandate to send out American
troops everywhere, risking their lives, you might think this doesn't
sound too bad...but it goes on to suggest that America's new "imperial
role" of "global leadership" will use "any means necessary" to ensure
American domination (oh, yes, the word "Empire" _is_ used
unapologetically)...those means being the "overwhelming military
force" we're beginning to see in Iraq (which appears not to actually
be working but that's another matter)...but also attacking the
economies of any nation that appears to be getting to big for its
boots (and there you all were thinking that the threat of attacking
the French economy was all about that Second Resolution...nope, that
just gave them the excuse to start their policy without anyone
questioning it...put it this way, Russia and China fully backed France
and would also have cast their vetos...nothing is said about these
two, though (when American journalists pushed Ari Fleischer on whether
anything would be done about Russia's threats of veto, the ambiguous
"no, Russia has its own issues" reply was given...whatever that was
supposed to mean...but it somehow meant that Russia was "off the hook"
despite taking as tough a stance as France...tougher, actually...when
conflict began, Putin issued a cold "desist immediately" threat that
sounded almost like something the former Soviets would have threatened
at America)...because "old Europe" is the real economy that seems the
greater threat at the moment to their "new imperial role"...Russia's
economy is still a mess so, unless they sort it out, Russia'll be
"excused" any political stance it takes at all...France and Germany,
on the other hand, represent much of the economic power of
Europe...Blair's stance has allowed Britain to escape this...so
far...they'll find an excuse at some point...we're not factored into
this "new imperial role"...we just lend credibility to the project in
its early stages so that it appears "international")...
So far, the American administration is following the plan almost to
the letter...thus, we can give some predictions for you to see if they
come true...an American presence will remain in Iraq after the
conflict for, say, 8 years give or take...they'll start setting up
"connections" between terrorists, Saddam's "regime" with Iran, Syria
and Saudia Arabia...this is to make you believe its "patriotic" for
them to continue to unleash their "new imperial role" across the
Middle East...the purpose, basically, is because the founders of this
new "project" are businessmen and "proliferating American interests
abroad" in creating a "new imperial role" where they crush any and all
opposition "by any means necessary" is all about creating a "New World
Order" that keeps them fat, rich and bloated...oh, by the way, they'll
be using the lives of American troops and the once good American name
by which to do it...and it'll undoubtedly invoke killing innocent
people on the other sides too...
It's far from "unfounded"...they lay it out for all to see on a
website, for pity's sake..."open government" and all that...much like
how the Nazis weren't secretative about their plans either...it was
only the unacceptable Holocaust that they kept hidden...the parallel
seems pretty good so far...
I don't blame Bush too much, though...he's the face...you don't pay to
put anyone who might think for themselves in such a position...an
idiot ex-drunkard with a pedigree that the American people will vote
for, who can be manipulated thanks to being "born again"...slip Billy
Graham a few dead presidents and tell him to tell Bush that it's
"Christian" to blow up Muslims and he'll happily go on camera looking
all mean and sincere that "tough talking Texan tactics will take on
terrorists"...that whole "cowboy" thing, it just seems so "patriotic",
doesn't it? But, notice, Bush is _still_ invoking the Stars and
Stripes, and _still_ trying to justify this war...why? He's got
it...he's "right", right? He's still doing that because he's still got
a guilty conscience that he Hopes the American people will eventually
forgive him (once they work out what's really going on...and you lot
will because you ain't stupid or anything...it's just they are making
sure the grand plan doesn't emerge until it's secured enough that
no-one can do anything to stop it happening) if he just keeps on
trying...
Indeed, I urge you to be patriotic (whilst remembering that if your
government isn't being patriotic then opposing them is an entirely
patriotic thing to do :)...please, exercise your democratic
right...get interested in your nation's politics and take advantage of
your open government system...you are perhaps the _only_ people who
can actually do anything about this, as I and other people around the
world can't do a blessed thing but try to highlight the issues to
you...America does have the power here...but I want it to be the power
of the American people and not the power of the current "anti-American
values" administration you've had non-elected...
Only a few minutes of your time to browse but it could change the
future of the entire world:
http://www.newamericancentury.org
> Go read the history of the term "useful idiot," and learn.
Okay, here's the deal...I'll do that, if you go _properly_ look
through the documents at the web address above...fair exchange is no
robbery, right? :)
> Your faith in the United Nations is touching, but unrealistic.
What faith? As per usual, you're not talking to the person, you're
talking to a stereotype of the person you feel comfortable with...
It's not a question of faith...it's a question of priniciple...
I mean, has it really come down to this? That I have to point out to
an American that the United Nations is the closest thing this world
has to a world democracy? Do I have to spell out the principles of
democracy to an American?
A shame...it appears it's not only your administration who's lost
sight of the principles of the Founding Forefathers...or the
principles that all the previous American administrations had to the
United Nations...I repeat, the United Nations HQ isn't in New York by
coincidence...America gave the UN it's full commitment by fully taking
responsibility for providing all the real estate...as well as all the
diplomatic initiatives it fully committed to, with others, in setting
the whole thing up in the first place...
And America gave such effort and commitment because America believes
in Democracy and in Liberty...is this no longer true? :(
> You have to realize that to America, the United Nations is a
> joke.
Not true; To this new American administration forging its "global
leadership" and "new imperial role", it has to make people treat the
UN as a joke...because these new plans for an American Empire violate
the democratic principles of both the United Nations and of "Old
America" so it simply can't maintain both at the same time...
Why is the UN a "joke" to America? Because it's the Big Bully nation
that some claim it to be? If America is now denying world democracy
because it can just "steamroller" its opinions onto the rest of the
world through military might then, quite frankly, the America of
Democracy and Liberty that I admire must now be well and truely
dead...
So, America is now considering world democracy a "joke" because it's
big and powerful and can just kill anyone who doesn't like what it
thinks? And most Americans are actually happy with this? How could
this have come to pass? Did they hide subliminal "kill! kill! kill!"
messages in episodes of Barney the Dinosaur or something?
I mean, America can now start to see the reality behind the
rhetoric...our "tough talking Texan" has no idea when American troops
will return..."it'll take as long as it takes", he says...and that
whole "overwhelming military force" just isn't working on the ground
against guerilla tactics...Colin Powell was talking to the Iraqi
opposition to work out deals and tactics over Iraq...journalists then
asked the Iraqi opposition - who they'd obviously forgot to tell him
to shut his mouth - when would America make good on their deal and
move out to let his people take over? The Iraqi representative
replied: "There was talk of around 8 years"...8 years of guerilla
tactics? How many Americans will come home in body bags over that
amount of time? The tactics ain't working...before the conflict
started, they boldly announced that they'd be in and out of Umm Qasr
within an hour or so...they are _still_ trying to secure it...now we
see the troops who's tactics were to rush at Baghdad slow down...why?
Because Donald Rumsfeld's plan was totally wrong...there have been no
"uprisings" with Iraqis throwing petals at the troops feet...there
were no big battles raged over the desert and it's all going to be
guerilla fighting in Iraqi towns...and, simply, tanks and planes and
the other military hardware of "overwhelming force" are almost useless
in a situation where the enemy is hiding in buildings in towns and
amongst ordinary civilians...ordinary civilians they are not allowed
to attack whatsoever for political reasons (how many troops will come
home in body bags because our troops have had their hands tied, just
to suit the politics back home?)...if you look at a map of Iraq which
actually shows the urban areas and the desert areas, then you'll
notice that the "good progress" so far has been in crossing the
desert...and that's because the Iraqis know that they don't stand a
chance taking on superior American and British weapons carrying only
AK47s in the middle of an open desert...they were _never_ going to
fight this conventionally...that would have been suicide and admitting
defeat...Donald Rumsfeld's great strategy was not realistic at
all...the military must have despaired reading it, knowing that it had
no Hope of succeeding as it was written...and, trying not to admit the
outright cock-up they made planning this, they've got to send more
troops in...resupply...giving those there a welcome "breather"
(though, they are in hostile territory, so telling them to just sit
around and wait for back up is risking them unnecessarily...they
should _never_ have been placed in such a dangerous situation where
not even the towns bordering Kuwait like Umm Qasr and Basra are
secured but they've been pushed deep into Iraq - into very hostile
territory - and then ordered to sit around twiddling their
thumbs...let us pray hard that the American administration's
impatience and military naivity won't claim any of our troops
lives...as they are ordered to be literally stuck in the middle of
hostile territory while the politicians scramble to reinforce
them...except those politicians seem far more concern with maintaining
the pretence that "everything's according to plan" - when clearly it
isn't and we know this because they told us before going in that they
had objectives measured in hours and days (Umm Qasr was supposed to be
a walk over in a matter of an hour or so) - than showing the proper
concern for sticking their troops - our families and friends - in the
middle of nowhere, surrounded by a hostile enemy who's happy to use
civilian suicide bombs that the troops _must_ "bring to safety" for
Bush's politicial face, while the polticians scramble to try to
rectify their awful military mistakes and a strategy where precious
little truely has gone according to plan...I'm watching it all hour by
hour, like probably many people, and what the politicians say and
what's actually happening on the ground are not matching up...and
don't give me "look at the wider picture" because I am...I'm talking
specifically about their overall strategy...it was the wrong
one...especially when taking on a desparate and unthinking tyrrant
like Saddam Hussein...who definitely knows how to plan militarily
because his entire government are military, for pity's sake...it
should have been a _soldier_ and not some politician who drafted this
plan...and, unfortunately, we're now seeing why...the "shock and awe"
didn't make a single Iraqi give up, the psy-ops failed, the uprisings
haven't happened, the weather was not accounted for, the troops are
stuck unsupported - with large stretches behind them not secured at
all - slap bang in the middle of the country, not even the border
towns with Kuwait are secured, the humanitarian aid can't go any real
distance into Iraq (border areas with Kuwait so far) because nothing
is secured (even on the Iraq / Kuwait border, they had to bring along
a lot of military hardware to make the humanitarian aid
possible...it's still very hostile even there)...it's a total fudging
mess of a strategy...our troops, though, to their credit have
prosecuted it with excellence and are dealing with things well...but
the orders they've been given are just crap...risking them
unnecessarily from more than angle (sticking them in the middle of
nowhere, tying their hands by not allowing a single civilian casualty
when, for goodness sake, it's a guerilla war, where you can't tell
who's "friend or foe" because they are delibrately all dressing alike
to gain the advantage over our troops), merely to make it "look
better" in political terms for the American administration...
Yeah, sure...you blindly trust an administration, who's clearly cocked
this whole plan up completely, with the lives of our troops...but,
personally, I consider it more "patriotic" to support our troops,
who've been risked unnecessarily, than to support a bunch of
politicians (who's impatience lost them the international support that
would have made the "coalition" as big and strong as it was for the
first Gulf War...Hans Blix only wanted a month or two and then even
France and Russia and China would have happily joined in...they split
the UN for NO GOOD REASON...well, actually, there is a good reason but
it's not one they probably want people to know...they _wanted_ to
destroy the credibility of the UN - turn it into a "joke" - so that it
posed no obstacle whatsoever to their "new imperial role" of "global
leadership"...
Oh, and guess which taxpayers will be paying for this New Empire? Yes,
the Americans will foot the bill...and who really gets the benefits?
Why, of course, the oil barons...oil barons like one President George
W. Bush...that's the plan here, "folks"...you pay - with your taxes
(the promised tax cut's already disappeared), the lives of your
troops, etc. - while they profit...I mean, what profit do ordinary
Americans really get out of this? A safer world? Oh, come on, we know
that's not true...the Arab World is the angriest it's ever been and
those terrorist recruits must be queueing up for the next suicide
bombing mission Bin Laden's invented...you pay (and, boy, will it be
one heck of a cost...not only measured in dollars but in lives) and
they profit...in that regard, that's the only "American" thing about
this whole plan your administration has...they profit from the rest of
the world's misery...
> It's never been anything more than a "public relations"
> ploy. It gives all the little, inconsequential countries a
> place to strut around, to puff and vent, and to FEEL important
> ...even though they're not.
You repeat Bush's rhetoric brilliantly but do you realise what it's
actually saying? This is the talk of a Big Bully...this is
anti-democratic...this is anti-Libertarian...really, think about it...
Who are these "inconsequential countries"?
Afghanistan? They were hardly "inconsequential" on 9/11 and we had the
Taliban to fight...
Saudia Arabia? They are hardly "inconsequential" when they spawned Bin
Laden and the majority of the suicide bombers who prosecuted the 9/11
attacks...
Iraq? They were hardly "inconsequential" when they were collecting
"weapons of mass destruction"...
Iran? They don't seem to be "inconsequential" to Mr.Bush because he's
listed them as part of the "axis of evil" (which means soon he'll be
trying to convince the American public to back a war against
Iran...conveniently, it's next door to Iraq so that can be used as a
"base of operations"...which, by the way, is _explicitly stated_ in
one of those PNAC documents that Iraq is the perfect "springboard" to
taking the fight to other Middle Eastern countries)...
North Korea? They are hardly "inconsequential" as they resume their
nuclear weapons programme...
Mozambique? They are hardly "inconsequential" when American troops are
being stationed there because Al Qu'ada have been reported to be
operating out of that area and around other parts of Africa...
"Old Europe"? Hardly "inconsequential" when they are going to harm
American business by insisting that there's no investment made in "old
Europe" at all...because they opposed America...note, as Jack Straw
pointed out to Colin Powell in a joke at the UN, Britain is actually
also a part of "old Europe" so the wording should have been chosen
more wisely...although, of course, the joke is on Jack Straw because
I'm not as naive as Tony Blair to actually believe throwing in with
fighting Iraq will actually make the slightest bit of difference to
Bush's perception of "old Europe" when it comes to their "new imperial
role" of "global leadership"...the second Britain even blinks at the
mere suggestion of not backing America up 100%, we'll be discarded as
"old European rubbish" just like all the rest...
Russia? They were hardly "inconsequential" when they were the Soviet
Union...things have changed, sure...but they are still not a country
to piss off because those nukes didn't disappear nor did the
population that once composed the Red Army disappear when the Berlin
wall fell down...push them too far - especially when they are happily
agreeing with France, Germany and others who could more than "make up"
the losses of the Soviet Union collapsing - and Cold War II could
still be on the cards...
Isreal? America NEVER considers Isreal "inconsequential" because
America's support for Isreal and how it always uses its veto
"unreasonably" for Isreal is exactly why all these other
"inconsequntial countries" are going after American lives in terrorist
attacks...
As the world's only superpower with massive military and economic
power, then America has the _greatest responsibility_, not the
least...I've told you before, "with great power comes great
responsibility"...in ignoring this _fact_, America has enraged these
"inconsequential countries" into not being "inconsequential" at
all...they are very consequential to whether you live or die tomorrow,
as they could send the next suicide mission to wherever you happen to
be...trust me, I know something about this because the IRA were
bombing London continuously for years...
In fact, I really Hope Isreal was worth it...because there was one
episode in UN history where America could have abstained rather than
exercised its veto (the _only_ country to have backed Isreal on this
in the entire Security Council)...the resolution tabled against Isreal
for UN inspections and disarmament (ironically, the thing that America
sooo backed, that we're now at war because of it, when it came to
Iraq)...were there not that "unreasonable veto" then, all these
"inconsequential countries" would not have perceived an "unreasonable"
bias to Isreal...that was America's chance to have made none of this
happen...people would have been blaming Britain more for its role in
cocking that whole situation up in the first place...how ironic that
the "joke" of the UN was actually where America publicly displayed its
bias to Isreal that is a large part of what's causing this whole
situation...
Don't you get it yet? All these "inconsequential countries" now pose
terrorist threats to America because America too many times played the
Big Bully and mocked the whole thing as one big "joke"...even if you
think some soap opera is a joke but your husband / wife thinks its
very important, have the wisdom not to insult it...or, simply, don't
be surprised when you're kicked out and forced to sleep on the couch
instead...the UN was where, actually, these countries could sort these
things out reasonably by getting international backing rather than
feeling there was no other choice left - with the Big Bully making
threats and laughing at them - but to start terrorist action...indeed,
as things carry on and the Big Bully carries on being the Big Bully,
you'll find country after country developing "links to Al
Qu'ada"...those links exist because America does openly mock the UN
and goes around threatening "inconsequential countries" with its
"overwhelming military force"...Iraq better go well or America'll have
messed up big time when the Big Bully actually attacks but is forced
to go running home with a bloody nose...all hell would break loose, as
they'd stop being scared of you...
> Do you REALLY think that a major nation like the United States
> (or Britian)
Oh, come on, we're as "inconsequential" as all the rest...don't go
trying cheap flattery...we're a small island nation and we could be
wiped out with a handful of well-placed nukes because there's nowhere
to run but the sea and the land area's small enough that you could
easily get complete coverage with not that many warheads...definitely
nothing to an arsenal of a few tens of thousands of "weapons of mass
destruction" that America has at its disposal...
[ Proof: We're not "consequential" enough that you even know how to
spell the name, for pity's sake...it's "Britain" and not
"Britian"...bet you never spelt "Russia" or "Soviet Union" incorrectly
when they were hardly an "inconsequential" threat to America... ]
> Do you REALLY think that a major nation like the United States
> (or Britian) is actually going to put its fate in the hands of
> a bunch of corrupt, trash-culture third-world countries where
> the majority of the populations still defecate in public
> streets? Guess again, Honey.
Oh dear, oh dear...you haven't even bothered to see how the UN
operates before declaring it a "joke", have you? There are five
"permanent members" on the UN Security Council - America, Britain,
France, Russia and China - who are always a part of the 15 members
(the others are "rotated" around...from over 180 countries that are UN
members)...at any point, any one of these countries can issue a veto
and, there we have it, doesn't matter what the rest of them think,
it's a "no go"...
So, no, I don't "think" that major nations would put its fate in the
hands of third-world countries...more than that, I _KNOW_ they won't
because they _DON'T_...the UN is actually not as democratic as it
probably should be, if we were being all "principled" about things...
Because the remaining 10 "temporary" members are "rotated" around from
a pool of over 180 countries then you're unlikely to get enough of
those "inconsequential countries" on the council...and even if you
did, they couldn't ever bring something that the permanent 5 don't
agree to...
And your view of these countries is out-of-date in the majority of
cases and, clearly to anyone with eyes, you're speaking out of
ignorant xenophobic racism here...you're sounding like a KKK member or
part of the Nazi youth or something, Annie...pure blind intolerance
and hatred...
These third world countries are poor because the big ones keep them
that way...the world banks happily hand out loans to them that there's
no way they could ever repay...the interest is delibrately
extortionate...devoting every single penny they have wouldn't clear
the interest on these loans...in fact, it would be financial suicide
to loan this money, if it weren't for the "side effects"...the real
agenda...
If you keep a country poor then you can set up a sweat shop for mere
pennies...a workforce of thousands all paid less than a cent a
day...investment required: Negligable...then you export those products
to First World countries and charge First World prices as if there
were First World expenses and wages to be covered but there
aren't...end result: insanely large profits...for companies that -
have you guessed it yet? - these world banks have loans and interests
with...they happily make the loans and insist on repayment that's
clearly impossible but the minor loss there is easily recouped
elsewhere...
Because, simply, though morally bankrupt, having slaves to do your
bidding is a profitable business...
If you've got some problem with these countries that your racism can't
tolerate, then please realise that we _create_ their poverty...and
they know that too...that's why these "inconsequential countries"
happily burn the Stars and Stripes in the street before going off to
join Bin Laden...they _know_ we cause their misery...most struggle on
by...but some will decide that they've nothing to lose (because we
ensure they have nothing or they'd be much too expensive labour) and
it's that desparate that suicide seems a "good" option, even if it'll
only make the smallest dent in America's (or Britain's or France's
or...) hide...
> It might be a Utopian socialist dream, but it ain't gonna happen.
There you go - again - with your total lack of comprehension about
what you're talking about...yet again, anything you don't like is
"socialist" and you hang all the evils of the world on its doorstep...
If you had any idea about what you were talking about, then you'd know
that a socialist's _actual_ Utopian dream is a Communist state...the
UN is a coalition of _independent_ countries, permitted to disagree
with each other and retaining their own sovereign laws and
jurisdiction...well, that's NOT a true socialist's agenda...just like
the "Red Menance" that America once feared, the Utopian socialist
wants to open their arms wide and consume the whole world into one big
Communist Union...uniformity would be the order of the day...just like
the former Soviet Union, religions would be banned because they create
divisions and the Utopian socialist wants to include everyone _without
exception_ into their "Union of Brotherly Love" or something...
The real Utopian socalist would want to reform the Soviet Union but
also include everywhere else in the world into one big "happy" World
Union...that's the Utopian socialist's dream...because that's exactly
what the socialists once tried to do...it didn't work but that
wouldn't effect the socialist because, well, they believe in this sort
of thing...that's why they are socialists...
The UN actually is not socialist...at least, what it is is (mildly)
democratic...so it's only as "socialist" as democracy itself is...but
that doesn't seem like something America would (ordinarily) have a
problem with because America's the "First Democracy" (not actually
true, mind you...Iceland wins that prize by a thousand years on
everyone else and exercises it in a more democratic (less
representative democracy) way...but we won't split hairs...the point
is democracy is hardly an "anti-American" concept, full of
"socialism"...well, unless Bush is in charge...then he convinces you
it is because democracy might actually spoil his plans)...
> That's why the U.S.A. and the U.K. are in Iraq WITHOUT United
> Nations "approval."
No, they're in Iraq without UN mandate because they are contravening
international law...
Similarly to how Bush is in power not by democratic will but because
the Supreme Court decided (and I'll be kind and not mention the whole
"Florida is governed by one of Bush's relatives" thing :)...
> Beth, for your own sanity, you've just GOT to stop spending so
> much time on those radical "green" web sites.
Really? The only website I've mentioned is the PNAC website which
details incredibly right-wing "imperial conquest by military might"
plans which your current US administration is signed up to (the
founding signatories of the PNAC project might be familar to you:
George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice...well, I think you
can guess the rest ;)...and which they seem to be following pretty
much to the spirit, if not the letter...
I've only ever visited the "Greenpeace" website once and that was only
to check out if they had anything about solar panels...oh no, that's
the whole point, Annie...I visit all these right-wing PNAC websites
and am so shocked by how awful they are that any "radical green" talk
is purely inspired by being utterly terrified of these Fourth Reich
Empire fantasies...
> Seriously! Now go take your Lithium...
Ah, you're second favourite way to try to undermine what I've said
without actually addressing it with _facts_ (because you don't have
any)...if you can't attack the argument, you play dirty and attack the
person...
But, you see, I understand all this "pre-emptive strike"
nonsense...I've already repeatedly declared myself "insane" before
you've had the chance...I take _myself_ down a peg or two because
then, when you try with pathetically desparate attempts like this, it
looks like you're just joining in with _my_ jokes...you can't do any
damage that I haven't already accounted for...
See? It's not only right-wing xenophobes like yourself who can employ
"pre-emptive strikes"...I got there first...better luck next time...
> and on the way out to the kitchen, turn off that #%&*ing TV. Hehehe!
Ditto to this one; Except, of course, if you're trying the "TV rots
your brain and makes you believe 'socialist' propoganda" then that's
not going to stick either...unlike yourself, who's only demonstrated
just how right-wing and xenophobic they are, I've provided facts,
references, reasoned argument, humour and, hey, my ever happy smiley
face :)
You said it yourself to ScriptKid, Annie (in the thread I'm
delibrately ignoring so as to try not to encourage either of you
;)...I'm out of your league and can eat up small-fry like you for
breakfast...I'd leave our little ScriptKid alone, though...unlike you
and your neo-Nazi friends*, I'm not just a Big Bully who has no idea
of the responsibility that the power you so desparately crave, to
satisfy your psychological insecurities and feelings of inadequacy,
carries...
Anyway, it's time for you to go to the PNAC website...and then I'll
keep to my end of the bargain and look up "useful idiot"...
Have a nice remainder of a weekend, Annie...every second counts as the
clock ticks down...
Beth :)
* Now there's an oxymoron for you...Nazis don't have friends...it all
part of the charter of intolerance, arrogance and back stabbing...
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > Ross Simpson wrote:
> > > I suppose Frank Spencer wasn't one of yours?
>
> > Wasn't one of my what? "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em" was also from
the
> > BBC too...now that was a show I liked...yes, very cheap slapstick
> > comedy with not an ounce of intelligence but, well, that was the
whole
> > point..."oooh, Betty!" ;)
>
> Oh okay! :-) I liked the episode where they were blowning up
> this building, Frank was too slow (or something) & comes running
> out of the dust (the employment agency thought he would be good
> at distroying things in that company!).
Well, I don't remember them episode by episode...but they repeat them
often enough that I must have seen every episode at some point...the
one I always remember is the one where he's on rollerskates...
Did you know that Micheal Crawford really did do all the stunts on the
show for real? Very Harold Lloyd or Jackie Chan...although, in the
case of "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em", it was probably more about the BBC
not wanting to put up the cash for a stunt double and special effects
than anything else...hehehe :)
> Only reason I thought you might of disliked it would be for
> the silly side of things.
No, no...I actually like sillyness...well, the right sort in the right
amounts...that show was good because there was no pretence or
anything...it's just silly from start to finish and that's the whole
point and that's what you're supposed to enjoy...just total unashamed
sillyness and slapstick comedy :)
Beth :)
Ross Simpson
<Huge Snip>
> Oh, and guess which taxpayers will be paying for this New Empire? Yes,
> the Americans will foot the bill...and who really gets the benefits?
> Why, of course, the oil barons...oil barons like one President George
> W. Bush...that's the plan here, "folks"...you pay - with your taxes
> (the promised tax cut's already disappeared), the lives of your
> troops, etc. - while they profit...I mean, what profit do ordinary
> Americans really get out of this? A safer world? Oh, come on, we know
> that's not true...the Arab World is the angriest it's ever been and
> those terrorist recruits must be queueing up for the next suicide
> bombing mission Bin Laden's invented...you pay (and, boy, will it be
> one heck of a cost...not only measured in dollars but in lives) and
> they profit...in that regard, that's the only "American" thing about
> this whole plan your administration has...they profit from the rest of
> the world's misery...
Wars aren't suppose to be cheap nowadays are they? And what about that
huge Debt problem that they (suppositively) have, does the money out
of the War in Iraq go into that?
<Another Cut!>
> Russia? They were hardly "inconsequential" when they were the Soviet
> Union...things have changed, sure...but they are still not a country
> to piss off because those nukes didn't disappear nor did the
> population that once composed the Red Army disappear when the Berlin
> wall fell down...push them too far - especially when they are happily
> agreeing with France, Germany and others who could more than "make up"
> the losses of the Soviet Union collapsing - and Cold War II could
> still be on the cards...
I hear in a documentary that Margaret Thatcher was opposed to taking
the Berlin Wall down? Somewhat of a shock!
<The Final Cut!>
Ross.
Beth
> Wars aren't suppose to be cheap nowadays are they? And what about
that
> huge Debt problem that they (suppositively) have, does the money out
> of the War in Iraq go into that?
Oh, don't worry about that...the reconstruction contracts have already
been worked out with American companies...Bush has is oil interests
too, of course...
And Donald Rumsfeld promised that the "oil for food" programme would
be re-instated as soon as possible so they can get some cash back from
that deal too (what Donald Rumsfeld has failed to mention is _WHY_ the
"oil for food" programme needs to be re-instated whatsoever...this
programme and the sanctions on Iraq were, we're told, designed to
curtail Saddam's ability to procure weapons of mass destruction...but,
also, the US administration tells us that this is a mission to
"liberate" the "innocent" Iraqi people...so why is he so keen to
reinstall sanctions and restrictions and basically blackmail these
"innocent", "liberated" people to sell their oil or, simply, he'll let
them starve? And he said this in response to a question of
"humanitarian aid in post-war Iraq"...sounds like it would be
anti-humanitarian aid, if Saddam isn't there but the Iraqi people are
still kept under "oil for food" and sanctions as if he was...so much
for "innocent" and so much for "liberated"...I pray this was some
cross-wires thing and he didn't mean to say it and he isn't intending
this at all...but, well, it seems pretty unlikely for him to be
sounding off about how firmly committed he is to restoring this
draconian programme - which Unicef, the World Health Organisation, Red
Cross / Crescent and _independent_ others have blamed for the vast
majority of the humanitarian crisis there...considering Saddam only a
relatively minor component in starving these people to death by not
distributing the sparse amounts fairly - if he wasn't actually
intending to do so)...
> > Russia? They were hardly "inconsequential" when they were the
Soviet
> > Union...things have changed, sure...but they are still not a
country
> > to piss off because those nukes didn't disappear nor did the
> > population that once composed the Red Army disappear when the
Berlin
> > wall fell down...push them too far - especially when they are
happily
> > agreeing with France, Germany and others who could more than "make
up"
> > the losses of the Soviet Union collapsing - and Cold War II could
> > still be on the cards...
>
> I hear in a documentary that Margaret Thatcher was opposed to taking
> the Berlin Wall down? Somewhat of a shock!
Oh, probably...and not much of a shock...everyone else around the
world seems to think Maggie was great...she got on alright with
Regean, I suppose, but that's about the most positive thing...because,
otherwise, and certainly domestically, she was basically insane...for
instance, the Trade Unions got on her nerves a bit so she destroyed
the entire coal mining industry...totally...wiped it out...ghost towns
and empty, neglected communities surrounding closed coal
mines...there's right-wing and then there's insanity...Maggie was both
but leaning more to insanity...in the end, her own party kicked her
out ungracefully because she was a total liability to them...
In fact, thinking about it, she managed to hang onto power and
cultivate this world thing that everyone thinks she was an angel or
something abroad because her extreme right-wing insanity was actually
quite appropriate for dealing with the Cold War and, dare I say,
Ronald Regean...and she got kicked out when it was clear that she was
crap at everything else...so, from her perspective, I'm sure she
_didn't_ want the Berlin wall to come down, as that was the only thing
that people were keeping her around for...
I would compare that to how Churchill was also replaced after WWII
because he equally was great in war but a bit crap in domestic
issues...but it would be entirely offensive to Churchill to relate him
to Maggie in any way, even with an extremely large bargepole being
used to keep them firmly apart ;)...
[ Just listening to the news and there's a BBC correspondent in
Baghdad who found some Iraqi civilians who were willing to talk in
secret about things with the journalists, out of the sight of Saddam's
troops or police...from what the reporter could gather, the reason why
he was prepared - as an ordinary civilian - to take up arms against
the American and British troops was because he saw it as an invasion
of his country...sure, he hated Saddam but "that was for the Iraqi
people to deal with" and he would go "hand in hand" with Saddam in
this case, because he views this as an invasion and occupation of his
country...and, understandably as we'd all probably do this too in our
countries, he considered defending the "invasion" more important at
that moment than kicking Saddam out...when asked why he views it as an
"invasion" rather than a "liberation", he replied that it was because
it was only American and British troops...known supporters and
defenders of Isreal...when asked if it were UN troops coming to remove
Saddam from power, he seemed reasonably happy with that idea...not
overjoyed and probably still thinking "invasion" but he didn't say
"no" to it, if removing Saddam was all they were there for...
In other words, if this one man's view reflects a general consensus in
Iraq, then had Blix been given that remaining month or two then it had
gone to a Second Resolution at the expected time...to which France and
Russia and others who opposed an "impatient war" had said they would
have been perfectly happy to support because they _had_ signed
resolution 1441 and did agree that _when UN inspections fail_ (hence,
must reach conclusion for them to deem that it has "failed"), they'd
have gone on board with military conflict...which would have made it a
_UN_ war, which would have made the Iraqi people happy that it
couldn't have been an "invasion" of "pro-Isreal forces" and, yup, we
probably would have had those "uprisings" and a quick war and the
people cheering on the troops as they "liberated" everyone...
In short, Bush's impatience might be exactly proving the "more haste,
less speed" saying has some truth to it, as we're told by CENTCOM that
the "pause" (which they were denying only yesterday, that there was no
"pause") to re-inforce and re-supply "could be weeks"...this'll
probably drag on just as long as if they'd waited for Blix to finish
and then went in as the UN instead...
NO-ONE disagreed that Saddam should be removed from power...only a
tiny few like Germany refused any sort of military action...and, sure,
Saddam had "played games" for 12 years...but this impatience not to
wait but one month more to make it a UN approved action, is seemingly
spawning a nightmare...
There's "tough talking" and then there's just shooting your mouth off
to look "bold" for re-election...worryingly, it looks increasingly -
with military plans falling apart - like we got the latter...yes,
America has overwhelming military might...but the jury's still out as
to whether Bush's got any brain cells...overwhelming military might in
the hands of a blithering idiot doesn't usually make a good recipe for
success... ]
Beth :)
Ross Simpson
> > I hear in a documentary that Margaret Thatcher was opposed to taking
Oh, okay. I only got that idea because she was around as PM for a while.
Anything, I only ever saw her involving seemed to be something of good
nature (please anyone who knows different please debate that!). But
you're correct in stating that she was kicked out & indeed I think
a few people have told different stories about why she was kicked out.
Because I used to collect my regular computer mags (when Margaret
Thatcher & John Major - or whoever) were Prime Ministering, on
the odd occasion people who have there chance to say what they
liked/dislike, who they liked/dislike. John Major wasn't anyone
favourite, but I don't recall seeing anyone give their 2 cents
(or pence I suppose) about Margaret Thatcher! :-)
Well I suppose that supports what you've been saying about the war.
> In short, Bush's impatience might be exactly proving the "more haste,
> less speed" saying has some truth to it, as we're told by CENTCOM that
> the "pause" (which they were denying only yesterday, that there was no
> "pause") to re-inforce and re-supply "could be weeks"...this'll
> probably drag on just as long as if they'd waited for Blix to finish
> and then went in as the UN instead...
Didn't some of the Nazi's invade Poland before the official start to
WWII in error?
> NO-ONE disagreed that Saddam should be removed from power...only a
> tiny few like Germany refused any sort of military action...and, sure,
> Saddam had "played games" for 12 years...but this impatience not to
> wait but one month more to make it a UN approved action, is seemingly
> spawning a nightmare...
> There's "tough talking" and then there's just shooting your mouth off
> to look "bold" for re-election...worryingly, it looks increasingly -
> with military plans falling apart - like we got the latter...yes,
> America has overwhelming military might...but the jury's still out as
> to whether Bush's got any brain cells...overwhelming military might in
> the hands of a blithering idiot doesn't usually make a good recipe for
> success... ]
Well it's all being part of being a doer. :-)
Ross.
Annie
On 2003-03-30 BethS...@hotmail.com said:
> [730 lines snipped]
Gawwhhh! You certainly have a high opinion of yourself,
don't you, Beth.
Unfortunately, your posts are so incredibly long and
convoluted that the only way anyone could possibly
respond to all your frenetic ramblings would be to write
a small book.
That's not only inappropriate in this forum, but it
wouldn't make any difference to you, anyway.
Don't you see what you're doing, Beth? You're justifying
your opinions by referencing sources which happen to agree
with YOUR world view, and passing that off as "truth."
It's the same thing, in essence, that you accuse ME of.
As you're fond of saying, "Pot...kettle...black."
> Similarly to how Bush is in power not by democratic will
> but because the Supreme Court decided (and I'll be kind
> and not mention the whole "Florida is governed by one of
> Bush's relatives" thing :)...
You see, it's THIS kind of stuff that incontrovertibly
proves to me that you're either hanging out on left-wing
web sites, or are swallowing the spurtings from left-wing
European "news" sources.
Your quote, above, is the "official" line of the left.
And quite honestly, it makes you, and the "news" sources
from which you garner this junk, look moronic.
It's obvious that neither you nor your "sources" have a
CLUE as to how the American election system works.
First of all, the Supreme Court's deciding of a case
involving a federal matter -IS- the "democratic will."
When there's a dispute, that's how such things are
decided, according to U.S. law.
Second of all, the Supreme Court did -NOT- put Bush into
the presidency. It simply ruled that based on the submitted
evidence, Bush had won the majority of votes in the state
of Florida.
And remember: the U.S is not a "democracy." It's a consti-
tutional republic. A U.S. president is -NOT- elected by a
direct vote of the masses, and NEVER HAS BEEN.
Following a presidential election, each state sends a
small group of "electors" to meet as a federal Electoral
College. It was these designated -ELECTORS- who elected
Bush...just as they elected Klinton, and Kennedy, and
Nixon, and every other U.S. president. The Supreme Court
had nothing to do with it.
Third of all, the whole Florida vote thing was a straw man,
set up by the Democrat Party when they realized that they
were going to lose the election.
The fact is, numerous other states used EXACTLY THE SAME
VOTING SYSTEM THAT FLORIDA DID in the presidential election.
Did we hear anything about "hanging chads" and "confusing
ballots" from those states? No; we didn't.
Why do you suppose that is? Is the population of the state
of Florida so extraordinarily stupid that THEY were the
only ones to experience these problems?
Maybe...but then, those other states didn't have sufficient
electoral votes to potentially swing the election to the
Democrat party -- as Florida did.
The Democrat Party came up with those ludicrous, groundless
and bogus allegations in Florida simply because they saw it
as a last desperate, disingenuous chance to try to hold on
to the power that they were so obviously going to lose.
As far as Jed Bush being the governor of Florida: do you
honestly believe that a state governor has the power to
"throw" a federal presidential election? If you do, you're
entitled to your opinion, of course -- but it's an abysmally
ignorant opinion.
For a governor to do so (even if he COULD...which he can't)
would violate about thirteen-dozen federal election laws.
If the Democrat Party had even -ONE MILLIGRAM- of actual
evidence of such skulduggery, they could easily have Jed
Bush arrested, indicted and prosecuted. Has that happened?
No.
Why? Because there IS no evidence. It's simply not true.
It's just another example of the propaganda that's
disseminated by the left in the U.S., in a vain attempt
to advance their agenda and bugger their opposition.
Beth, you've been flim-flammed by your "news" sources.
I'm no fan of George Bush (as you seem to think). I
didn't vote for him. And I certainly didn't vote for
Al "The-Automobile-Is-The-Greatest-Threat-To-The-Planet"
Gore. He's totally loony, and mentally unbalanced, IMHO.
But given a choice between just those two, it's no contest:
Bush wins by a mile.
I'll now respond to one other thing that you made a big deal
about in your message:
> http://www.newamericancentury.org
Beth, do you have ANY idea what this is, or who's behind
it? I don't think you do.
First of all, it's a private foundation set up specifically
to proselytize a particular world view. It has no "official"
status or standing whatsoever.
Second of all, it's run by William Kristol -- the founder of
The Weekly Standard, a known "globalist," a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations, and a frequent "guest" at the
secret meetings of The Bilderberg Society.
Although Kristol was a member of the first Bush adminis-
tration, and is sometimes referred to in the press as a
"conservative," he is not...repeat, NOT...a "conservative,"
and never had been.
Bill Kristol is a "one-worlder." His goal (through his foun-
dation, above) is essentially to PREVENT conservatives in the
U.S. Republican Party from interfering with "open borders,"
NAFTA, and other constructs for a one-world government.
Interestingly, Kristol's father -- Irving Kristol -- founded
the leftist magazine "Encounter" in England, and was a big
supporter of socialist candidates...such as Hugh Gaitskell,
M.P., a Fabian socialist, and former Parliamentary Leader of
the British Labour Party. (The Labour Party, as you MUST know,
is heavily socialist).
Since you seem to place such a high value on information from
web sites, here's where you can get some more background on
William Kristol, and his beliefs and affiliations:
http://www.freeworldalliance.com/pinkelephants/weeklystandard.htm
Overall, my observation is that you appear to be TOO willing
to accept political "news" from various media sources as being
true. But it seldom is. Not even on the BBC.
I've been watching BBC television every day this past week, and
I can tell you from first-hand observation that The Beeb's TV
news coverage is pathetically superficial, criminally unresearched,
and laughably slanted toward a "politically-correct" agenda.
The traffic reports are good, though. Hehehe!
_____
"Believe none of what you ((( `\
hear or read, and only _ _`\ )
half of what you see." (^ ) )
~-( )
_'((,,,)))
,-' \_/ `\
( , |
`-.-'`-.-'/|_|
\ / | |
=()=: / ,' aa
Frank Kotler
...
> And Donald Rumsfeld promised that the "oil for food" programme would
> be re-instated as soon as possible
...
I've been trying to keep out of this - if I argue with all your BS and
all Annie's BS, I'd go on even longer than you do :)
But I think there's a misunderstanding here - not your fault - caused by
"misleading terminology".
You (and any reasonable person) understand the "oil for food program"
(UK programme) to be the "program" - an "exception" to the sanctions.
Quite reasonable, and a "good catch" to think that this is a tipoff to
future plans for Iraq. But what the politicians appear to be talking
about is a fund of money - several Billions, apparently - being held by
the UN (note: UN, not US). The question under debate (I guess it's been
settled) is whether *this* money will be used for humanitarian aid, or
whether it's going to be up to the US, since we invaded them, to fund
all of the humanitarian aid.
The UN (in response to US actions) has blocked this fund from being used
to feed the Iraqi people. Restarting the "money for food" part of the
program - the "oil for money" part has already been done - is what the
debate's about. It's not up to Rumsfeld (although he may not be aware of
this).
That's not proof that we're *not* planning to continue the sanctions,
but if you can figure out what the politicians mean (what the meaning of
the word "is", is), I don't think that it actually proves that we *do*
plan to continue the sanctions, either.
Furthermore... well, I said I wouldn't...
Best,
Frank
bv_schornak
>>Probably you mean "Metropolis" - it still is a "cult film" -
>>the film shows, how capitalism works, masses of working ants
>>live for the fun of a few beneficiaries.
>>
>
>Yes, I was just testing you to see if you were familar with
>it! :-)
>
Test passed and rejected... ;)
>You don't know where Fritz went to? Oh well don't worry too
>much about answerning that, I could check out his Profile
>that I have with 'M'.
>
As I "flew" through a biography, he first went to Paris, and
later to Hollywood. He came back to Germany for a short time
(1956...1960) and died 1976 in Los Angeles. There were a lot
of movies after Metropolis and "M" - but they couldn't reach
the same "quality" than the early ones...
>>Peter Lorre immigrated to Hollywood, but never became a star
>>(he would have been worth!).
>>
>
>Actually Peter Lorre also did some early movies in the UK with
>Hitchcock too, with the 1930s 'Man who knew too much' &
>'Secret Agent', but I also see he did some American movies in
>the '30s as well.
>
>>From what I've seen of Peter Lorre, I reckon he's a great
>actor, but they all tend to be of a supporting cast.
>
As I said - he would have been worth more attention...
>>As long as you need some money to survive, there is no other
>>choice. Either you do it, or there are about 4.7 millions of
>>unemployed waiting for their chance. For worse conditions...
>>
>
>Well, I do get something to get by with.
>
Either I eat it or I'm hungry... ;)
>>Have a nice weekend
>>
>>
>
>Oh yes, were up to that point in time ain't we!
>
And it was too short, as usual...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
bv_schornak
Have a look at <http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/index.htm>, there's a
lot of information about this stuff. The ENIGMA machines were sold in
Germany on the "free market", the military version was an improved (and
probably modified) version...
Ross Simpson
> As I said - he would have been worth more attention...
Yeah well, most of the movies I've seen him in are from
the '30s. I thought he was wonderful in 20,000 Leagues
Under the Sea (but that's all I ever recall seeing him
in later in his movie career). I see he has a part in
Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (which I was thinking
of getting), but as yet I haven't seen it!
> >Oh yes, were up to that point in time ain't we!
> And it was too short, as usual...
Well the big fright to all this, is if we continue to
do this for another 52 weeks, we'll be at the same
point next year!
Ross.
Brent
"Ross Simpson" <yeah_whatever> wrote in message
news:3e86d7f0$0$12376$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Beth" <BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in message...
[snip]
> Didn't some of the Nazi's invade Poland before the official start to
> WWII in error?
[snip]
I don't know, but I'd have paid dearly for someone from a militarily
irrelevant country (something like Lichtenstein) to have marched up to said
Nazi soldiers, wave a red card in their faces, tell them that they're
offside, and that they have to give the Polish army a free kick at them as a
punishment. :)
regards,
-Brent
doomsday AT optusnet DOT com DOT au
bv_schornak
Looking at the "real future": It's worse than Lang's vision!
But you're right - this film has _much_ power! If you see it
with the eyes of the people who lived in the late 20'ies ...
this movie rolls over you like a tank...
They offered him a high position in their hirarchy, but Lang
didn't want it (he probably knew why).
>>There were the "von Neumann" and "Zuse" computers (the first
>>a "mental model", the latter a real existing machine), later
>>on they had the "Enigma" encryption machine - which couldn't
>>be decrypted by the allies, even if their propaganda machine
>>stated the opposite - and much more superior technologies in
>>this field.
>>
>
>Hey, due credit to Von Neumann, of course...but "superior
>technologies"? Or are you forgetting that Alan Turing was working on
>our side (though the Nazi-esque "reward" he got for the good work he'd
>done - highly barbaric "treatments" to "cure" his homosexuality that,
>almost certainly, were the thing that drove him to suicide - will be
>forever to our shame...to twist the saying a little, "with friends
>like these, who needs Nazis?")?
>
Is "superior" too strong? If so, please exchange it with the
better matching term "leading", or something like that. Even
if John von Neumann and Alan Turing were "thinkers" - Konrad
Zuse was the one who developed (and built) the first working
binary digital computer in 1936...1938, followed by Turing's
"The Bombe". Shame on me - John von Neumann went to the USA
in 1930 and became an American citizen 1934 - he was born in
Hungaria, but worked in Germany until 1929...
...about Alan Turing - in Germany we have a matching slogan:
"Undank ist der Welten Lohn!"
(Never expect thanks for anything...)
>>From what I've heard (very interesting indeed that we appear to have
>all heard different versions of history, isn't it? A cause for
>concern?), it was a half-way house kind of thing...the Engima code was
>incredibly difficult to crack and, yes, there were long periods where
>they weren't listening...but they did crack the code to get some
>important information...
>
Every country in the world has limited information about the
events in other countries - so I don't think, that it should
bother you too much, if history books differ from country to
country. As long as you don't come upon a book which states
that the last world war started in 2003 (would be a prophecy
rather than a history book)...
Most things which are handled by secret services are (as the
name suggests) top secret... There is no chance to get _any_
other information than the "official" published news...
>The whole point being that this was what made the Engima code so
>incredibly difficult to crack...the next code depended on the last
>codes and a very complex relationship...so, for security (perhaps
>because they "wised up" to realising they were being listened to, I
>don't know), they would restart the code again (this could be done via
>traditional _physical_ means...you simply order everyone to reset
>their Enigma machines to a certain set positions - there apparently
>was a "book of codes" which meant that they could just say "now use
>code 13" and, without that book, you have no idea what "code 13"
>actually is in terms of the switches and settings on the Engima
>machine)...thus, locking the Allies out of the code once more,
>struggling to get back in...and due to the nature of the code - using
>previous codes and a complex relationship to get the next code - if
>you "lost your place" in the sequence then you were right back to
>square one all over again...
>
The ENIGMA code was broken in 1932 (!) by a Polish officer -
later on (1939) Poland gave it to France and Britain.
Here <http://home.us.net/~encore/Enigma/enigma.html> you may
find a lot of background information about this stuff.
>>German tanks, planes and cannons were kind of superior, too.
>>It took a lot of time, before the "allied forces" could keep
>>track with German war technologies - God beware, if we would
>>have finished the development of the H-bomb before the final
>>breakdown. There wasn't too much missing - the horror of the
>>destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have taken place
>>in London, Moskow, Paris or New York, too...
>>
>
>Yes; That could quite possibly have happened...but this is, of course,
>where the Nazi philosophy had stepped on its own toes, so to
>speak...the very people who could have done it for them, they'd turned
>into refugees fleeing from them...the surnames say it all:
>Oppenheimer, Einstein, etc....
>
>There's a sort of "poetic justice" there...because the Nazis clearly
>would have used these technologies and other things with evil
>intentions, they were frightening people...which, ironically, then
>scared away the very families of the very people who eventually went
>on to help create those technologies...
>
Can't fully agree with that. The _only_ reason why the Nazis
did not build a nuclear bomb were the insufficient resources
of D2O (Deuterium or "heavy water") and uranium. In 1944 the
Allies destroyed the _only_ German D2O factory in Norway, so
the Nazis had no more chance to win the "nuclear race"...
Even if most of our "elite" left Germany, there still were a
lot of misleaded or "blind" scientists working for the Nazis
during the war. They put all efforts into the development of
new weapons with high effectiveness - think of the V1 and V2
missiles which reached London with very high accuracy or the
ME 262, the 1st jet airplane produced in series. Poeple all
over the world should thank their Gods that the Nazi Leaders
were too stupid to focus all powers into the right channels.
With a smarter Leader we would have done much more damage to
the world than we already did with this stupid person called
Adolf Hitler...
Humans are very imaginative if they want to kill other human
beings with a minimum expense...
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> Gawwhhh! You certainly have a high opinion of yourself,
> don't you, Beth.
Not especially; But I do know a lot of the tricks, Annie...I have much
interest in human psychology (something I picked up after doing
artificial intelligence work...well, we were trying so hard to make
something "intelligent", it makes you address what anyone actually
means by the word "intelligent"...though not always the best source in
some people's cases, studying humans and the way we go about things is
where lots of those answers lie...doing AI gets you thinking about
thinking, so to speak :)...
And this is a typical "trick", Annie...you know that I would hate to
be seen as "arrogant" or "bullying" - I regularly make a point about
how bad I think these things are - so you're basically trying a simple
"guilt trip" trick on me...accuse me of appearing to be the things you
know I most hate...then, of course, convinced that I've made a
terrible mistake if this is how people are perceiving things, I'll
back down...
Yet another miscalculation, Annie, because you're attacking the
stereotype and not the person...on a matter of principle, I _never_
back down...and being pro-peace does not mean anti-fight...
Do I have a high opinion of myself? Well, let's look at that in
reverse...are you suggesting that I should live life with a low opinon
of myself? Self-pitying, low self-esteem, too apathetic and shy and
unsure to put up any fight to anyone bullying their opinion...dare I
say, putting up opposition to the likes of you...well, of course, that
_would_ be what you'd suggest when you, so far, have not addressed any
real issue directly on its own merits...but have just immediately
descend to personal attacks...yes, I might be carrying a sharp tongue
to stress my points in response...but I've not needed to descend that
far...what do you think that's saying to our "audience" here, really?
Especially when the audience mostly knows full well that though I
carry a lot of self-confidence in what I say, I'm one of the last you
could accuse of "being smug and superior"...yes, I often walk a tight
rope of nearly being "too pushy" or "too arrogant"...but I _never_
cross it because, as I say, I'm a creature of principle...and I have
not even the tiniest shred of a belief that I'm "superior" to anyone
in any way...
Yes, I'm sure of what I say because I work hard to qualify what I
say...but that's all it is - confidence - and I'm perceptive enough to
be able to tell the difference between some cheap psychological
debating trick and the real deal...
> Unfortunately, your posts are so incredibly long and
> convoluted that the only way anyone could possibly
> respond to all your frenetic ramblings would be to write
> a small book.
Again, personal comments...nothing relating to what I've said...and
there's no compulsion to take the whole thing on...I notice, despite
your complaint, that, in fact, you do know this is possible because,
below, you've found one thing you think you can take on with a proper
_debate_ rather than just throw insults and cast aspersions at my
person instead...
Fine, I'm evil incarnate, if that makes you feel happy...but, still,
were this true - which I doubt anyone could actually believe - then it
still doesn't mean that any of my points aren't valid...were I satan's
whore, I could still be absolutely correct in everything I've said...
Make as many personal attacks as you like...that can't directly take
from anything I've said...in fact, the only effect that could possibly
have is to upset me (were, as I say, you actually addressing _me_
rather than this stereotype you're actually insulting...it won't upset
me because I can't see that you're even actually addressing me, the
person, at all)...and if upsetting me so as to silence me is your
great plan in "winning" this debate, you deserve pity and won't win
any real "fans" elsewhere (they may cheer on you "winning" because
they agree with your worldview...but, deep down, they can't cheer on
the methods because they are just weak and fashioned on being
cruel...like the methods of all bullies always are)...
> That's not only inappropriate in this forum, but it
> wouldn't make any difference to you, anyway.
Nice tries one and all; But the sudden concern for being "on-topic"
rings hollow when you can be just as bad as me...and you've never once
complained about being "off-topic" in all this time...so, again,
another psychological trick...you know I'm concern not to upset people
unnecessarily, so you try to suggest that I'm upsetting people by
being so "off-topic"...a clever trick...but, as I say, it rings hollow
from you because you've had plenty of opportunity to complain about
this before but you never have _once_ made this
complaint...suspiciously, you only develop this "community spirit"
when you think you've got a chance at shutting me up...elsewhere,
you're proud to tell us just how right-wing,
I-don't-give-a-fudge-about-anyone-else you are...it just doesn't add
up that, all of a sudden, from a proud advocate of anti-social
behaviour, you've become the "representative voice of the
community"...
And then the second accusation that, effectively, I wouldn't listen to
you...absolutely not true...those who pay attention know that I'm a
very good listener indeed...those who don't automatically assume that
as I'm verbose, I never listen...wrong...where do you think I get all
these opinions, facts, stories, sayings, song lyrics, intuitive skills
to know when people are trying to play games with me, etc., etc.,
etc.? I get it from listening and observing...if you think my "output"
is verbose then you might be surprised that my "input" is even bigger
still...I'm listening to you, Annie...totally...I'm even picking up
the bits between the lines too...and, as I've stressed millions of
times before, I rarely post anew...almost always I write in reply and,
further, in direct reply to what is put to me by others...
Yes, I tackle a topic to destruction but that's my way...and it's not
possible to be able to tackle a topic to destruction unless you've
been paying attention to all that has come before about it...
I'm listening...but, so far, all you are trying to do is personally
insult a stereotype you've invented me to be...I'm actually _waiting_
for you to address a point so we can debate it...but you're not giving
me anything to work with in return...
In order to listen, you see, it requires that there's something to be
heard...
> Don't you see what you're doing, Beth? You're justifying
> your opinions by referencing sources which happen to agree
> with YOUR world view, and passing that off as "truth."
Really? I stress, the reference I've given you of the PNAC website is
NOT a source that agrees with my world view at all...the very
opposite...it's, to anyone who reads it, clearly a right-wing
agenda...heck, this website calls the "Bush Doctorine" weak and not
right-wing enough...
Again, you've clearly _NOT_ looked at it because it's actually a
website of those of your disposition...the American (far)
right-wing...anyone who has looked at it - and, again, I urge people
to look even if only to see the front page of it, in order to see it's
hardly a "radical green" website as Annie's accusing it to be - can
tell...
> It's the same thing, in essence, that you accuse ME of.
>
> As you're fond of saying, "Pot...kettle...black."
[ Surely, if I'm so "politically correct", Annie, then that would be
"pot...kettle...carbon residue"? ;) ]
No, it doesn't hold, Annie...not to anyone who's looked at the
references I gave...the website mentioned is hardly a "radical green"
website...I actually reference it NOT because it "agrees with my world
view" but exactly because it doesn't...I'm pointing to the "enemy" so
that you can all see for yourself what you think of their behaviour,
when they have openly exposed some of the darker sides of their
attitudes...having some faith that right thinking people will see some
of the dangers hidden therein...heck, it's actually taking a big risk
with my argument because some of the documents on the website are
actually very reasonable and even when not reasonable, they carries
very, very persuasive language almost good enough to suck me into
thinking its a good idea...this is, after all, the "propoganda"
website for this world view I'm not at all happy with...pointing
people to it is quite dangerous because those who aren't wary or are
already quite right-wing about these things will find it "very
reasonable"...I'm going on trust completely that people who look at it
won't just automatically believe everything they read and will think
over the consequences and attitudes expressed for themselves to see if
they agree with them...
Oh, come on...this is the last thing I can be accused of when I've
given a reference to the PNAC website...when, of course, I could
easily find and reference "my" world view in Micheal Moore, John
Pilger, proceedings of the UN and dozens of "radical green"
websites...but I chose to keep away from those...they've been
mentioned before and, for instance, "Stupid White Men" has been a #1
bestseller world-wide for ages..."New Rulers of the World" is another
book that covers this whole issue that's selling like hot cakes...
[ References to the books just mentioned...just in case anyone's
interested:
Stupid White Men:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060392452/qid=104915032
7/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-3033527-4517634?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
New Rulers of the World:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/185984393X/qid=104915035
7/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3033527-4517634?v=glance&s=books
Fast Food Nation:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060938455/qid=104915041
3/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3033527-4517634?v=glance&s=books ]
There's a wealth of things I could reference all over the place...but
I didn't because I _knew_ you'd pull some "oh, you're just quoting
lefties" stunt...as, amusingly, you did anyway, when I actually
referenced the website of these "New Rulers of the World"...those who
wish to create the American Empire by many, many wars and by
"overwhelming force", using _your_ tax money and giving you the
"benefit" of becoming an even greater target of pure hatred to all
those suicide bombers out there...when I actually reference the
"opposition" only, you still accuse me of "quoting lefties"...sorry,
Annie, but you weren't listening or paying attention...I quoted the
exact opposite...and you've just proved to anyone who actually
followed my references that you didn't even bother to go look, as the
front page of the website clearly could not be confused for these
"radical green" websites you talk about (and, honestly, not a word of
a lie...other than Greenpeace's website - which I only looked at for
stuff about solar panels, avoiding any political stuff - I actually
have no real idea what these "radical green" websites you talk about
are and haven't visited any...please, if you have the URLs, then send
them to me, it would be interesting to see :)
> > Similarly to how Bush is in power not by democratic will but
> > because the Supreme Court decided (and I'll be kind and not
> > mention the whole "Florida is governed by one of Bush's
> > relatives" thing :)...
>
> You see, it's THIS kind of stuff that incontrovertibly
> proves to me that you're either hanging out on left-wing
> web sites, or are swallowing the spurtings from left-wing
> European "news" sources.
Hehehe...nope, no "left-wing" web sites...and, sorry, just as you've
been watching BBC News in order to "spy on the lefties", I've been
tuning into CNN and NBC and others to compare how the news is being
reported here and over in America...
I'm doing this because I was surprised that when I mentioned the
accidental shooting of a Wedding party in Afghanistan to an American,
they had no idea what I was talking about...so I asked around other
nationalities and they all knew about the tragic accident (and, yes,
it was a pure accident...no conspiracy theories...just one big PR
disaster when American troops - hearing gun fire - attacked what was
just a wedding...unfortunately, in Afgahnistan, where the war lords
walk around with AK47s everywhere, firing them into the air as part of
the wedding celebration is not unheard of and was actually what was
happening there...but, understandably on edge, the American troops
thought "better safe than sorry" and attacked...a pure, tragic
accident because you can clearly understand why they would think what
they did and, yes, their reaction was what you'd expect)...the only
nationality that seemed to be blissfully aware of the tragic mistake
these American troops had done was fellow Americans...the people you'd
expect to have heard the news first...
I was so surprised by this, as I could not believe that the entire
American media would be easily gagged or that fellow Americans
wouldn't care about their own troops, that, yup, I've been watching a
lot of the American coverage of this war...there's been no "cover ups"
or anything that I can see...but there is - how do you put it? - a
slightly biased tone of voice and choice of what to show when...
If you think the BBC is bad, Annie, then you ought to look at the
French and German stuff (if you can decode what they're saying :)
because the British stuff is "backing the troops" and is definitely
more "pro" than these two (can't call them "independent observers",
though, after all that UN stuff but the choice of what stories to show
when and how to emphasise various points are strikingly different)...
I can't pick up Al Jazeera myself...can you get that? Although, I
suppose as it's all in Arabic, it wouldn't be much use...but even the
choice of pictures shown could give an impression of their "editorial
stance"...
And let's not kid ourselves..._ALL THE MEDIA_ are carrying their own
"editorial stances" about this war...you're not supposed to just
"believe" them...that's why I'm actually channel hopping amongst all
the different news channels to get a wider view...the "bias" of one
channel counteracted by the opposite "bias" of another one...
> Your quote, above, is the "official" line of the left.
Okay...one thing you've got to appreciate, Annie, is that "the left"
here isn't the same as "the left" over where you are...
Perhaps Bush doesn't like to point this out to the Americans as it
might make them distrust Blair or something...but he's our "the
left"...the Labour party is a socialist party...a part of higher tax,
investment in public services, spreading the wealth from the rich to
the poor...their chosen colour is _red_ and, yes, you _can_ draw the
conclusion from that about why they chose that colour as
socialists...their main symbol is the red rose but, yes, some election
pamphlets carry a _red flag_, which I'm sure you know what that
suggest about their political beliefs...and they were the ones who
invented and brought in the thoroughly socalist NHS...
Which makes for very odd bedfellows to be backing Bush in Blair and
Aznar...granted, Blair is the least "left" person they've had running
the Labour party but he still commits to higher taxes to "improve
public services" (that's actually a quotation from the man :)...and
they've been making a big fuss about their whole "wealth distribution"
stuff, which you might recognise as something Marx would like to talk
about...he's sort of a "lefty" who employs right-wing methods to
impose socialist ideas...a very weird person politically indeed...
And our "right" - the Conservative party - was in power for 18
years(!)...we, unfortunately, don't have the same "two offices and
then you're through" thing that you Americans do...if people keep
voting for you, then your party can stay in power as long as those
votes keep coming...it was mostly run by Maggie, who had not a single
socialist pulse in her entire body...her nickname was "the Iron
Maiden" and it was _totally appropriate_, perhaps even "too
kind"...she, for example, didn't like Trade Unions so she made her
point by wiping out an entire industry and destroying community after
community just to teach them a lesson...heck, an attack by a foreign
country would be hard-pressed to beat the damage Maggie inflicted _on
her own people_...
So, on reflection, one of the most right-wing administrations your
country has had is now teaming up with Britain's "lefties"...our
right-wing would actually be probably telling you that you're being
too weak and pathetic and need to be killing more people because
they're "only foreigners" so it's "not like you're actually killing
real people or anything, right?"...their current attempts to tempt
people back to them include regularly stirring up race hatred on the
Euro, asylum seeking and anything else where they can just "blame
foreigners"...it's often difficult to tell our right-wing from the BNP
(British National Party...this is basically the British neo-Nazi party
who's proud of their skinheads hospitalising "pakis"...the KKK of the
UK, if you like...but who have actually managed to get into office in
some parts of the country)...
But, hey, you carry on thinking that the UK is "a bunch of
lefties"...trust me, it isn't like that at all...maybe the French or
the Germans are like that, perhaps, but you're tarring all of Europe
with the same misinformed brush...it's not as simple as that...
But then, that's probably appropriate because _your own Pentagon_ (the
American military, no less) has recently been also saying that the
current administration has "too simplistic a world view that they're
dangerous"...
> And quite honestly, it makes you, and the "news" sources
> from which you garner this junk, look moronic.
Actually, when it comes to the American political system, then I
actually go straight to the American news channels...it's not only you
who can pick up foreign TV channels, you know, Annie...despite the
propoganda of your right-wing press, we're not quite that
technologically backward...but, yeah, I know...they still report
"Britain only has 4 TV channels" and other things that are decades
old...I've seen the out-of-date reports (and, also, as a joke in
"Friends" which didn't work over here because their British stereotype
was all wrong...but, hey, it's a funny show otherwise so we'll forgive
them this once :) on American TV first-hand...
> It's obvious that neither you nor your "sources" have a
> CLUE as to how the American election system works.
Well, as the British Magna Carta and bicameral system was part of the
inspiration to America in also instituting checks and balances to
compromise the claim of equal state representation in the Senate with
the claim of equal representation of all it citizens, where each
member of the House of Representatives represents roughly an equal
amount of people, requiring the approval from both Houses to make law
(with Nebraska being the sole state exception to a bicameral
legislature in the federal system of government), as the old written
national constitution still in operation - completed in 1787 at a
convention of 55 delegates who met in Philidelphia to amend the
original Articles of Confederation, which was originally a unicameral
system, but was not fully certified until 1791 as ratification of many
states hinged on additions to the Bill of Rights - the Constitution of
the United States - separating legislative, executive and judicial
power whilst explicitly guaranteeing individual Liberty - specifies in
Article I which vests all legislative power in Congress, composed of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, who, under Article II,
vest the executive power with the President following the mandated
electoral college system, where states appoint electors equal to the
number of senators and representatives it has in the Congress -
excluding U.S. senators, representatives and government officers who
are ineligible - then, in every state but Maine and Nebraska, a
winner-takes-all rule operates pledging - though not constitutionally
obliging - electors to vote for their state's winners and a candidate
winning 270 of the 538 votes wins the election, where the President is
given power to nominate judges to the Supreme Court, who was
instituted by the Constitution in 1787 with authority to act in cases
arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the U.S., as well
as controversies between states and citizens of different states and
matters to which the U.S. is a party, along with its admiralty and
maritime jurisdication, an appeal or certiorari is brought to the
Court where it rules in clarification, refining and testing the
Constitution's philosophic ideals and translates them into working
principles...then, yes, it can be difficult to comprehend, I
suppose...
Mind you, one wonders just how much you could tell me about the
British system in return...not to suggest that it is a cruel libel to
imply that the stereotypical "isolationist" might dominate with you,
in contrast to the wider interests other world citizens take in the
different political systems around the world, of course...no, I
wouldn't do that...it's _you_ who attacks stereotypes rather than real
people...
> First of all, the Supreme Court's deciding of a case
> involving a federal matter -IS- the "democratic will."
No, it's not...the "democratic will" is solely, as you actually
confirm yourself without knowing later, the popular vote...but as the
U.S. is a constitional republic as opposed to a democracy then the
popular vote doesn't directly decide the Presidency, as the bicameral
system is delibrately designed so that, though individual Liberties
are preserved, there is a "check and balance" that the states
(senators) have equal claim to the representatives (who represent the
popular opinion), forming collectively the Congress of the U.S., which
means that the Presidency is not legally decided solely on the popular
vote but merely vests power in electors to elect via the electoral
college system the actual Presidency...
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction, as vested by Article III, is to
adjudicate in inter-state or inter-state-citzenship matters, as a
matter of clarification of the Constitution...it is not vested the
powers of "democratic will" whatsoever...that is determined solely by
the popular vote of citizens (remembering the weird exceptions of
Nebraska, of course :)...
Clearly, by which time the Supreme Court entered into the matter,
"democratic will" - namely the popular vote - had decided Al
gore...but the checks and balances of the United States Constitution
means that their democratic decision does not directly elect the
President...it merely decides the electors of Congress to then elect
the President...
We also have a bicameral system of a roughly similar nature over here
too...no-one actually "elects" Tony Blair as Prime Minister...we vote
only for Members of Parliament into the House of Commons (which
represents the "common people"...though there isn't a direct parallel
to the U.S. system, it could roughly be seen as the House of
Representatives...the Senate could be equated to the House of Lords -
in that both are "land-based" representations, speaking very loosely -
but our Second House has no actual democratic basis at all...well, it
does have a little now because the constitution was altered recently
to try to reform this prehistoric house...but, as I've warned a few
times, the new reforms actually compromise the traditional "checks and
balances" we have, allowing a majority government to rule
unopposed...which is a _massive_ and _dangerous_ constitutional reform
but they got away with it because they harped on about how
"undemocratic" and "archaic" the Second House was - which, granted, it
was and it _did_ need reform but not of this nature, which removes an
important "check and balance" - leading to what is now no longer a
truely bicameral system...unfortunately, most British people have
absolutely NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what "bicameral" means, let alone why
it's so constitutionally important that it must be preserved...I mean,
if the House of Representatives managed to convince the Supreme Court
to rule that the Senate has all its legislative powers removed - which
would be the rough parallel - then, to those who comprehend the
"checks and balances" bicameral system, they'd absolutely freak out at
the notion of such a shift in unopposable power within Congress
:)...within the majority party (or, if ever pushed to it, coalition
government but that's a rarity indeed ;), those MPs "elect" who they
wish to be Prime Minister...
Anyway, the Supreme Court has the legal jurisdiction in Constitutional
disputes to come to a decision...it ruled to effectively end a
statewide recount of ballots in Florida, whose 25 electoral votes were
needed by both candidates to secure the narrowest of majorities in the
electoral college...that was NOT the "democratic will" - this was the
popular vote which would have favoured Al Gore - but it is the legal
authority in such Constitutional disputes and has the power vested in
it to decide such matters, regardless of the "democratic will" of the
American people (which, quite frankly, was already lost by the time it
reaches the electoral college, as their electors are actually not
constitutionally obliged to elect their state's winner, anyway...it
would be bizarre indeed but they are permitted to elect the
opposition, if they really wanted to do so, even if in conflict with
the "democratic will" of the American people who vested the elector
with the power of Presidential election)...
Sorry if this is being pedantic but it's important because I said
"democratic will" - the popular vote - to which the electoral college
and Supreme Court have no jurisdiction...in short, the Supreme Court
didn't "overrule" the popular vote - they don't jurisdiction to do
so - but they are able to rule in matters of clarification regarding
things like recounts...their ruling was to end the recount - _despite_
suspicion of error (that whole "dimple chad" business ;) - and merely
take the original count, even if potentially flawed in actually
representing the popular vote...
Of course, this is all _legally_ correct...this is how the
Constitution defines the balance of jurisdiction...and, yes, Dubya is
_legally_ President...but the legality of the matter does not actually
represent the "democratic will" of the American people, as Al Gore won
the popular vote...and, as they ended the recount before the results
were known, we'll _never_ know whether the 25 electoral votes needed
by both candidates really did favour Bush or not...perhaps, after
recount, it would have been clear that the original vote was actually
representative of the "democratic will" of that state...but they
stopped the recount and effectively said "we'll go with whatever we've
currently got" so Bush got power...this may or may not have been
correct in respect of the "democratic will" of the State of
Florida...we simply can never know this now...
Hence, I'm entirely justified to mockingly refer to it as a
"(non-)election" of Mr. George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the
United States, because the Supreme Court overruled and ended a recount
which would have made us sure that it was actually the "elector's
will" (which is different to the popular vote, which is the
"democratic will", as I've Hopefully now explained to you :)...
You might not like this, as you like Bush...but the Supreme Court's
ruling not to make it sure - amid the correctly stated contraversy of
Florida, which was governed by a relative of one Dubya Bush - means
you're just going to have to lump it...he's there _legally_ but we'll
never know if he's there _morally_ with respect to the "democratic
will" of the State of Florida...they pulled the recount that would
have said one way or the other for sure...
As you're attributing non-Constitutional powers to the Supreme Court
that it has the authority to tell people how they've voted - which it
certainly does NOT - then I have to wonder if _you_ understand your
own political system as much as you say you do...
> When there's a dispute, that's how such things are
> decided, according to U.S. law.
Yes; Article III vests the Supreme Court with the authority to
adjudicate in any such Constitutional matters...it clarifies, refines
and tests the Constitution's philosophic ideals, translating them into
working _legal_ principles...
But this is NOT the "democratic will"...that is solely the popular
vote...which across all states was won by 500,000 votes to Al
Gore...and as for the State of Florida...well, we'll never be sure of
that, because the Supreme Court's refusal to recount means that the
validity of the original count was actually truely respresentative of
their "democratic will" in that particular state has not, and now
cannot, be verified...the state, which I repeat, is governed at that
time by a relative of Dubya, so any suspicion and dubiousness placed
on that original vote is ultimately his _legal_ responsibility...
But "legal" does not mean "moral" and it does not necessarily mean
"correct" or "accurate"...
> Second of all, the Supreme Court did -NOT- put Bush into
> the presidency. It simply ruled that based on the submitted
> evidence, Bush had won the majority of votes in the state
> of Florida.
Sorry if you thought I implied otherwise...that's quite right...the
Supreme Court does not have the authority to decide electors nor to
make their elections for them...it is, in fact, _YOU_ who've just
wrongly suggested that they have this power by calling their decision
"the democratic will"...they cannot vote or "put" anyone in power of
their own choosing because the checks and balances deny them this
authority...they do NOT replace or "become" the "democratic will", as
you've just wrongly stated above, they merely clarify Constitutional
matters of any apparent inter-state or inter-state-citizenship
conflict...
In short, they said "look, we ain't having no recount...whatever the
original count, accurate or not with all this 'dimple chad' nonsense,
stands"...the original count favoured Bush so he legally becomes
President...would a recount have verified this and confirmed not only
his legal but his moral authority as President? We'll never know
because they terminated the recount, deeming it unnecessary
constitutionally (and their rulings on matters of Constitutional
conflict is _final_ :)...and those votes must now be lost, as I doubt
anyone's kept them...and a revote wouldn't resolve the matter as the
"democratic will" could substantially alter, which was one big reason
why the Supreme Court ruled as it did...not necessarily because it was
accurate but more because they feared more appeals that the recount of
the recount of the recount would be disputed...they put an end to the
matter immediately and finally...
Was this correct? Constitutionally, due to the way power is
ping-ponged between various powers, yes...in actuality, we'll never
know...
> And remember: the U.S is not a "democracy." It's a consti-
> tutional republic. A U.S. president is -NOT- elected by a
> direct vote of the masses, and NEVER HAS BEEN.
Exactly; And when I said "democratic will", I was talking specifically
about the popular vote of the American people...that favoured Al Gore
by around half a million votes...so, I was right to say that this was
the "democratic will"...
It wasn't the "electoral will" of the electoral college...or, at
least, up to the contravertial State of Florida, it was neck and
neck...both needed those 25 elections available there...even without
the recount and the Supreme Court ruling, then the majority Bush
secured was far, far less than that attributable to statistical
error...thus, mathematically, it was, to all intents and purposes, a
draw...plus, with "dimple chad" contraversies, this made a case for a
recount...fearing this could go on and on, the Supreme Court said
"tough cookies" and it stood...
Make the distinction; Bush has legal authority to be President but
that does not mean that were the recount to be had and it reversed
this statistical error majority that Gore would have had it
instead...on the presumption that the recount would be more accurate
of the "democratic will"...but that was the Supreme Court's problem
and the explanation of its ruling...who's to say a recount would be
any more or less accurate than the original count...would Bush then
take it to appeal to the Supreme Court too? Thus, to resolve this
Constitutional conflict, the Supreme Court's ruling was really "tough
cookies...someone has to win and this is too close to call...appeal
denied, Mr.Gore...Bush is President"...though, of course, this was NOT
their "democratic will" but merely their interpretation of the
"democratic will" of the people...a completely different thing...
> Following a presidential election, each state sends a
> small group of "electors" to meet as a federal Electoral
> College. It was these designated -ELECTORS- who elected
> Bush...just as they elected Klinton, and Kennedy, and
> Nixon, and every other U.S. president. The Supreme Court
> had nothing to do with it.
Correct; I know this and have explained it myself...more specifically,
each state appoints as many electors as it has senators and
representatives in Congress (the District of Columbia has three
votes)...three presidents so far have become President despite losing
the popular vote: Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877, Benjamin Harrison in
1888 and, of course, George Walker Bush in 2000 :)...
Trust me, when this all flared up, the news went into every boring
little detail of the election system so that we could understand what
all the fuss was about...hey, you're the only superpower in a now
unipolar world...your elections and how they work are almost better
reported to us than our own (they sort of "presume" - wrongly, after
talking with people to find out how little they actually know about
how it all works - that we already understand our own system so never
bother to explain it...but when it comes to your system, they'll go on
for hours with pretty computer graphics animating everywhere to try to
explain it :)...and, as I say, though there are some large differences
here and there, your Constitution was inspired by the British Magna
Carta so the UK has parallels (both being bicameral systems with
delibrate checks and balances) that ain't in those "Napoleanic"
European countries...it's different but, in some ways, so very much
the same...we also don't "elect" our Prime Minister, we elect Members
of Parliament who "elect" that amongst the majority party (not quite
as flexible as the US way but similar in its principle)...you really
did more or less take our system but made it more flexible and
democratic - abandoning the third "check and balance" of monarchy
completely - and then, unlike us, actually writing it down
explicitly...
But there is more in common between them than there is apart,
really...compare to any of those "Napoleanic" systems on the European
mainland and you'll see what I mean...it wasn't just "feet and inches"
that you borrowed from us rather than Napolean ;)...
> Third of all, the whole Florida vote thing was a straw man,
> set up by the Democrat Party when they realized that they
> were going to lose the election.
Donning my statistical hat, that's a libelous statement...the
"critical value" of attributing it not to statistical error was not
reached...they had every right to appeal to the Supreme Court...as the
Supreme Court understood because they did not throw out the appeal,
they terminated the count (same bad result for the Democrats but,
legally, a confirmation of the legality of the appeal)...
Now, if you'd said "they were bad losers and pushed a pedantic
statistical point" then I wouldn't disagree...although, of course,
we're talking about the U.S. Presidency...show me anyone who wouldn't
be pedantic and a sore loser...
But they had every right of appeal on the matter...it wouldn't have
reached the Supreme Court if they hadn't...and statistics - by which
these things _are_ interpreted - really does back the case
completely...in fact, if this were any old statistical count you were
making rather than for the Presidency where it is simply not permitted
for there to be indecision, the statistical opinion would be "it's a
draw...the margin of error is larger than the majority and isn't
making the critical statistical value attributable for error"...
But, then again, the way you're talking, sounds like you'd be just as
sore a loser because you're moaning when your opinion has actually
won...put your political prejudices to one side for a second...there
was every right of appeal and there was statistical backing for that
appeal...in reverse, Bush would have made exactly the same moves and
you _know_ that would be the case...because, either way, there was a
reasonable conflict - it was so close to a draw that statistics would
_refuse_ to make a determination, regardless of majority because it's
not enough to dwarf statistical error - and, thus, the jurisdiction
moves to the Supreme Court...
It might have been a right royal pain in the butt for you and an
annoyance to the Supreme Court and all that jazz...but there was a
Constitutional case to be answered...that's why it went to the Supreme
Court for their ruling, as they are the ones with the only authority
to rule Constitutional conflicts...it was not a "straw man"...
> The fact is, numerous other states used EXACTLY THE SAME
> VOTING SYSTEM THAT FLORIDA DID in the presidential election.
> Did we hear anything about "hanging chads" and "confusing
> ballots" from those states? No; we didn't.
Simple; It isn't a Supreme Court matter unless someone takes it to
appeal with them...both parties were happy that the other states -
whether rightly or wrongly - were as they were so no-one took those to
appeal...but in any state where there was this same "majority is less
than statistical error" dispute, they would have had every right to
have taken those to the Supreme Court too...
> Why do you suppose that is? Is the population of the state
> of Florida so extraordinarily stupid that THEY were the
> only ones to experience these problems?
Ah, well...this is where politics comes into it...Florida had an
incredibly close count - so they could make the case that the result
was not respresentative because the apparent "majority" could really
just be all attributable to error (it was that close) - but there was
one more thing working in their _political_ favour with Florida
too...it was governed by a relative of Bush...thus, they could also
throw in an underhand _political_ implication that there was "rigging"
and "jerrymandering" going on in that state...
And that political move works...especially now that a recount is
impossible...the political motivation there is simple...they can cast
a large shadow of doubt over whether Bush should really be President
_morally_, even if it has been ruled that he is _legally_...was it
rigged in any way? We'll never know...and that's a shrewd _political_
move to make facing election defeat...
They picked on Florida specifically because it gave the best case for
appeal and that constant political shadow of doubt to throw at Bush
for all of his presidency...the phrase "(non-)election of Dubya" may
piss you off big-time but that, you see, was the whole point of
picking on Florida...the underhand remarks can be legitimately made...
Don't like that? Tough cookies...should have voted Bush a clear
majority - canvassed against the electoral apathy, encouraging your
fellow Americans to vote for "your man" - then it would have
disappeared...though a "constitutional republic", there is some
democracy involved and, thus, as always, it's _your_ fault - as a
people - when things go dreadfully wrong...
> Maybe...but then, those other states didn't have sufficient
> electoral votes to potentially swing the election to the
> Democrat party -- as Florida did.
Yes; But do you think anyone's going to buy that Dubya wouldn't have
done the exact same thing in reverse, were the position reversed?
And, yes, it was a very close call in Florida...so close that it
really did give them a legitimate case to take to the Supreme Court
that any supposed "majority" could be totally attributable to
statistical error...that is a valid statistical case to be made...
Grasping at straws desparately, perhaps...but it's a valid
observation...and, lest we forget, that this works both ways...that
same state swung it for Bush too...they _both_ needed Florida to
secure the Presidency...with your obvious biases, you're making it
sound like they were trying to "steal" it or something...but, sorry,
it was an effective draw and it could have gone either way very, very
easily...
And, sorry, but you're clearly biased...whereas, I'm an independent
observer who voted for neither party nor has any Democrat or
Republican biases...any comments regards Bush are aimed squarely at
him personally because he's a moron...but there's no bias there
because Al Gore was clearly a complete moron too...
No wonder it was so close...being given the choice between two short
planks...how on Earth did anyone make up their minds? Hmmm...do I vote
in a complete moron or do I vote in the blithering idiot?
Hmmm...decisions, decisions...
I invented the internet, don't you know...oh, yes, unlike the French,
we have a word for entrepreneur...
The list from these two is endless...you could probably perhaps, by
merging them together in some evil Frankenstein way, get an IQ just
below Daisy Duke's on the Dukes of Hazzard...not to suggest she's a
redneck bimbo or anything, of course...hehehe ;)
> The Democrat Party came up with those ludicrous, groundless
> and bogus allegations in Florida simply because they saw it
> as a last desperate, disingenuous chance to try to hold on
> to the power that they were so obviously going to lose.
"So obviously going to lose"? Oh, come on, Annie...your prejudices
here are even more blatant to your xenophobia in the last post...it
could have swung _either way_, it was around a mere 300 "majority" in
the end...as noted, if it were purely "democratic will", which it
isn't, Gore had _half a million_ majority...
> As far as Jed Bush being the governor of Florida: do you
> honestly believe that a state governor has the power to
> "throw" a federal presidential election? If you do, you're
> entitled to your opinion, of course -- but it's an abysmally
> ignorant opinion.
No, I don't really believe it; But that, you see, isn't the
point...the point is that it pisses Dubya supporters off no end...the
underhand implication that it's rigged and he has no more right than a
vote-rigging tyrrant like Saddam Hussein to be in power...as I say,
that's the _political_ reason to chose Florida...if you can't win,
then piss off your opponent no end by making underhand comments...you
should understand this, you seem to be the master of returning insults
when things don't suit your prejudices...you're doing it to me
continuously without equally not a shred of justification for doing
so...don't dish it out if you can't take it back in return :)
> For a governor to do so (even if he COULD...which he can't)
> would violate about thirteen-dozen federal election laws.
Yup; That's the beauty of the implication...it means that Bush's
Presidency would be _criminal_, not just undesirable...ooh, I can hear
your blood boiling from over here and I'm such a long way away
too...hehehe ;)
> If the Democrat Party had even -ONE MILLIGRAM- of actual
> evidence of such skulduggery, they could easily have Jed
> Bush arrested, indicted and prosecuted. Has that happened?
> No.
>
> Why? Because there IS no evidence. It's simply not true.
Hey, there's a parallel here...if Bush could have come up with _real_
evidence of Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" then the Second
Resolution would have been his without question...the world would have
happily given him their approval and he wouldn't have had to have
contravened international law to wage his "Crusade" - a Christian
quasi-Jihad - against those unchristian Muslims...hey, _his_ wording
and _his_ "born again" Christian values poking their xenophobic
prejudices to the fore...no wonder the two fo you get on so
well...he's actually the little Hitler you've always wanted to
slaughter all those "towel-heads" (_your_ wording in an old post) that
you hate, hate, hate so much...
I mean, if you're going to be a Nazi about all of this, Annie...have
the courage of your convictions to where your intolerant ignorance
with some pride...it just looks cowardly when you seem so ashamed of
all your prejudices, trying your best not to let them poke through to
the surface but invariably they do as you just can't help yourself...
You like Bush because, as governor of Texas, he executed more people
than all the other states combined and you just Adore that sort of
"zero tolerance" (despite much statistical proof all over the world
and in the US specifically that it has NO impact on people's actual
safety whatsoever) because it quenches your bloodlust...you like Bush
because he's going to teach those "dirty foreigners" - those "radical
lefty socialists", as you automatically deem any foreigner who doesn't
agree with you as being...despite, in my case, plenty to say that you
haven't got me pegged in the slightest with your prejudiced xenophobic
stereotypes - who really has the biggest dick in the world...you like
Bush because he's going to create this "American Empire" you wholly
approve of...
Fine; The consequences will eventually teach you otherwise...no matter
how hard you try, the truth will always out...
> It's just another example of the propaganda that's
> disseminated by the left in the U.S., in a vain attempt
> to advance their agenda and bugger their opposition.
What the hell are you talking about? It has _nothing whatsoever_ to do
with the "left" in your country...I honestly have very little idea who
they are or what they stand for...they certainly don't get any sort of
"propoganda" through to someone like me...I only get an appreciation
of the actual politics of the various sides in the US by their foreign
policies when it comes to effect the wider world and "leaks" out of
America...I know Clinton continued bombing campaigns and started
military conflicts and he was, I presume, "the left" as you loathe him
so much...hardly something a pacifist would back either...sounds like
the "left" is only a relative term in your country...as, with Blair,
it has now become in ours (it used to actually _truely_ stand for
different values...now there's no telling them apart and Blair got
more support from his opposition than his own party over backing
America in this war)...
But you attempt to display some "international understanding" from
time to time...but this is ludicrously self-centred to think that your
politicians - superpower or not - has any influence on anyone passed
your shores...if the American people are happy and you aren't causing
any international problems, then do whatever the hell you like
internally...you've got a democracy - sorry, representative democracy
in a constitutional republic - so use it as you see fit...if some evil
tyrrant gets control somehow (unlikely), against the will of the
people, then you can be assured that we'll happily lend whatever
support we can (though, sorry, it's pathetic in comparison to what you
can do...but then that's the Bush Doctorine that only America can have
power...and, anyway, it's yours...as, really, Europe's more than happy
to return favours...just the situation has never arisen, yet, and
we're all ex-powers with ex-colonies who've gone beyond this ancient
"machtpolitik" stuff...in fact, you may not realise it, but Europe
_is_ trying to lend a hand by trying to help _everywhere_ to reach a
"postmodern" world :)...
Actually, this article comes from that PNAC website - which is NOT a
"radical green" website at all, I assure you - and though I think it
jumps to the wrong conclusions (assuming terrorists are nation states
and that modern wars are all going to be conventional and that America
and the rest of the world aren't also able to reach the "postmodern"
world too, etc., etc. ;), it does explain the American / European
thing well...
http://www.newamericancentury.org/kagan-052002.htm
No propoganda...this comes from your right-wing...but, contrary to
your accusations, I _do_ listen and am actually quoting the "enemy"
because, in this one article, they've got a good handle on many of the
issues...they diagnose the "problem" brilliantly...it's only really
their "final solution" that I have a problem with...
> Beth, you've been flim-flammed by your "news" sources.
Oh, puh-lease...you quote the right-wing agenda perfectly yourself, as
if I was hearing it straight off whatever propoganda sheet you're
quoting...but my opinion doesn't fit anyone's agenda because it is
_my_ opinion and no-one else's...the "radical greens", in fact, must
be in a panic that I'm quoting right-wing "imperial America" websites
as having a "good handle on the issues"...
Continuously and consistently, everyone here has seen that I evade any
cheap and nasty "labelling" as you're so keen to inflict on
people...my opinions on, for instance, assembly language matters fits
in with nobody's "agenda"...I _insist_ on making my own mind up about
everything...everyone should know by now that I hold Liberty most
highly and won't be anyone's puppet on anything...even those I agree
with won't find me joining any of their "clubs"...I'm fierously
independent...and, yes, I would die before giving that up...and I'll
fight for anyone wanting to retain theirs...
Sure, like anyone else, subtle propoganda might slip its way passed my
defences without me knowing...that could happen to any of us...but I'm
likely to be one of the very last who'd ever fall for such things
because, as I say, I value Liberty higher than anything (as a
principle...Love is higher but works in a different way)...I would
_never_ willingly let it happen...I've never joined a single club,
party, institution or anything in my life (where I've been given a
choice in the matter), even if I totally agree with them on
everything...I just won't make the compromise...
And British news sources are mostly Murdoch-owned...Murdoch is "pro"
this war and his media does not hide its bias at all...in fact, one of
Murdoch's business partners is a signatory of the "Project for a New
American Century"...he's Austrailian but he changes nationality at a
drop of a hat, if there's a way to make money out of it...
> I'm no fan of George Bush (as you seem to think). I
> didn't vote for him. And I certainly didn't vote for
> Al "The-Automobile-Is-The-Greatest-Threat-To-The-Planet"
> Gore. He's totally loony, and mentally unbalanced, IMHO.
They both are; But how can you not be a fan of Bush? He's everything a
bloodthirsty right-winger would want in a fantatical President...
Who did you vote for? Ross Perot? (no, that's just a crap joke...I
know he wasn't in the running ;)...
> But given a choice between just those two, it's no contest:
> Bush wins by a mile.
Regrettably, you might be right there...I would point out I'm not
"pro" or really "anti" either of them...I just hate to see America run
by morons, especially ones who're going to start World War III because
they have no real idea how the world really is...looking at the things
Gore said in his campaign, it probably wouldn't have made any great
difference...I repeat, _your_ Pentagon was making the claims that this
administration has "a far too simplistic view of the world"...yup, I'd
back your _troops_ any day...they actually seem to know what they're
talking about and what they're doing...mostly...I've always admired
the precision of military thinking, even if I can't agree with their
raison d'etre as a killing force...I'm 100% backing the troops...it's
their orders from brain-dead politicians, willing to put them in
harm's way if it saves some political face, I have a distinct problem
with...
> I'll now respond to one other thing that you made a big deal
> about in your message:
>
> > http://www.newamericancentury.org
>
> Beth, do you have ANY idea what this is, or who's behind
> it? I don't think you do.
Ummm, there's a list of signatories on the "statement of principles"
with names such as "Donald Rumsfeld", "Jeb Bush" (in lieu that the
president himself can't be seen to be tainted by such a thing), "Dick
Cheney", "Dan Quayle", etc....and then some names seem "innocent" but
then you check them up and they are business partners with people like
Murdoch...the founders and contributors also include other names like
"Condaleeza Rice"...
> First of all, it's a private foundation set up specifically
> to proselytize a particular world view. It has no "official"
> status or standing whatsoever.
Well, of course...these views couldn't really be so publicly displayed
as actual government policy...after all, some "cartel" of government
officials and sleazy global businesspeople? No-one would stand for
it...but if the signatories and founders just all happen to be the
current American administration or intimately related to them, then
the administration carries this "particular world view"...
Seconded by the fact that the pre- 9/11 documents relate things that
have actually happened post- 9/11...it may not carry official
status...indeed, it couldn't being what it is...but the "world view"
is being followed...the notable places where it deviates from the plan
are places where Congress overruled things...because, unlike Hitler,
they haven't removed democracy as an "inconvenience"...so they still
have to jump through all the hoops...
Of clear note is that Donald Rumsfeld is an unashamed signatory of
this project...and he's also the one who's orders are now being
followed in the war...the one which officials at the Pentagon are
complaining about because he was "overruling" their military decisions
and ignoring their military expertise...so, the "chief architect" of
these war plans is proudly someone who shares this "particular world
view"...
> Second of all, it's run by William Kristol -- the founder of
> The Weekly Standard, a known "globalist," a member of the
> Council on Foreign Relations, and a frequent "guest" at the
> secret meetings of The Bilderberg Society.
>
> Although Kristol was a member of the first Bush adminis-
> tration, and is sometimes referred to in the press as a
> "conservative," he is not...repeat, NOT...a "conservative,"
> and never had been.
Nope; He's an old-style "divide and conquer" imperialist...he makes
that clear by his "project"...in respect of that, it would be a
blessing if he were "only" a conservative...
Again, you presume that somehow your internal "lefties" could have
beamed propoganda trans-Atlantic using "brain waves" or something...I
had no idea that the left were trying to sour his name by calling
him - shock! horror! - a "conservative"...in the true meaning of the
word "conservative", a "world view" of destroying all world order to
monopolise the world under his imperial - probably commercial - banner
could hardly be called "conservative" in the original semantics of the
word...
> Bill Kristol is a "one-worlder." His goal (through his foun-
> dation, above) is essentially to PREVENT conservatives in the
> U.S. Republican Party from interfering with "open borders,"
> NAFTA, and other constructs for a one-world government.
"One world government"...you say it like it doesn't either mean an
iron-fist Empire or a Communist super-state...
> Interestingly, Kristol's father -- Irving Kristol -- founded
> the leftist magazine "Encounter" in England, and was a big
> supporter of socialist candidates...such as Hugh Gaitskell,
> M.P., a Fabian socialist, and former Parliamentary Leader of
> the British Labour Party. (The Labour Party, as you MUST know,
> is heavily socialist).
Not "New" Labour...Blair-ite socialism is only fractionally left of
Maggie conservatism...
> Since you seem to place such a high value on information from
> web sites,
No, I don't; Obviously, oh ye of slow mind, I'm supplying website
addresses because I'm posting on the internet...it's going to be
difficult to refer you to anything else, isn't it? I've attempted
books this time - trying to think of something I could otherwise quote
you - but it's unlikely that you'll pay for what you automatically
assume to be "radical green junk"...
> here's where you can get some more background on
> William Kristol, and his beliefs and affiliations:
>
> http://www.freeworldalliance.com/pinkelephants/weeklystandard.htm
You've got to Love the irony...you tell me not to put any stock in
trusting anything I read...you insult website information...then use a
website with clear "denial" interests as "proof"...
I'm going to post up a website myself...I'll make up some lies and
denial claims to suit my interets and then post that up for you...see?
It's "proof"...
> Overall, my observation is that you appear to be TOO willing
> to accept political "news" from various media sources as being
> true. But it seldom is. Not even on the BBC.
Oh, just fudge off with this, will you? None of this has anything to
do with the BBC...as Murdoch owns all the papers, I read none of
them...
> I've been watching BBC television every day this past week, and
> I can tell you from first-hand observation that The Beeb's TV
> news coverage is pathetically superficial, criminally unresearched,
> and laughably slanted toward a "politically-correct" agenda.
I've been watching American news channels...they are far worse for
"political correctness" by a large margin...
> The traffic reports are good, though. Hehehe!
I prefer the weather myself...it's the closest most media gets to
"truth" these days...though the horoscopes are even seeming to be
relatively accurate in comparison too...
Beth :)
Jerry Coffin
says...
[ ... ]
> Can't fully agree with that. The _only_ reason why the Nazis
> did not build a nuclear bomb were the insufficient resources
> of D2O (Deuterium or "heavy water") and uranium. In 1944 the
> Allies destroyed the _only_ German D2O factory in Norway, so
> the Nazis had no more chance to win the "nuclear race"...
Sorry, but this isn't really true. First, heavy water isn't really
necessary to build atomic bombs. It's part of what you use to produce a
fusion bomb instead of only a fission bomb, but it's not necessary for
building nuclear deviced in general.
Second Germany controlled some of the richest deposits of Uranium-235 on
earth for the majority of the war.
In short, they had all the resources necessary to do the job. Despite
this, at the end of the war, they hadn't achieved a chain reaction at
all. They hadn't even figured out how to compute the amount of Uranium-
235 they'd need, and their estimates were off by something like three
orders of magnitude.
To make a long story short, Germany's research at the very end of the
war had only reached about the same point that the US research had
reached around November of 1942 -- knowledge of the basic construction
of a nuclear pile, but had yet to make it work.
It was roughly 3 years later that the US had operational nuclear
weapons, which might imply that Germany could have achieved nuclear
weapons by 1948 had research continued. In reality, that's probably
unrealistic: the US only started serious research in 1941, and achieved
a self-sustaining chain reaction about a year later. Germany had been
researching nuclear reactions since about 1939, and hadn't achieved a
chain reaction before it was defeated. In short, it's quite clear that
research in Germany was going _much_ more slowly than in the US.
Even given infinite supplies of Uranium-235 and heavy water, Germany
would not have been able to build a nuclear bomb before they were
defeated. Given the rate at which research was proceeding, I think
another decade or so would be a more reasonable estimate.
> With a smarter Leader we would have done much more damage to
> the world than we already did with this stupid person called
> Adolf Hitler...
This, however, is entirely true -- it's entirely possible to do
tremendous damage without nuclear weapons, and Germany had some of the
best conventional weapons on earth at the time. Hitler was clearly not
merely stupid, but in fact many of his decisions appear entirely
irrational.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
bv_schornak
>>As I said - he would have been worth more attention...
>>
>
>Yeah well, most of the movies I've seen him in are from
>the '30s. I thought he was wonderful in 20,000 Leagues
>Under the Sea (but that's all I ever recall seeing him
>in later in his movie career). I see he has a part in
>Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (which I was thinking
>of getting), but as yet I haven't seen it!
>
While reading some biographies, I stumbled upon my own
favorite, the raven in "The Raven" (I'm an old Vincent
Price fan).
Some more famous films with him:
Casablanca,
The Maltese Falcon,
The Patsy (his last film before he died in 1964),
The Mask of Dimitrios,
Passage to Marseille,
Confidential Agent,
The Beast with Five Fingers,
Allthrough the Night,
They met in Bombay,
Black Angel,
The Cross of Lorraine,
all Mr. Moto movies and much more...
Now that I finished this research, I found a list with
80 (!) of his movies:
<http://www.kinotv.com/proc/bio/bio.cfm?namecode=56864.0.htm>
It's in German language, but also lists English names,
if they are known.
>>>Oh yes, were up to that point in time ain't we!
>>>
>>And it was too short, as usual...
>>
>
>Well the big fright to all this, is if we continue to
>do this for another 52 weeks, we'll be at the same
>point next year!
>
Ouch... ;)
Beth
> I've been watching BBC television every day this past week, and
> I can tell you from first-hand observation that The Beeb's TV
> news coverage is pathetically superficial, criminally unresearched,
> and laughably slanted toward a "politically-correct" agenda.
Wait a minute...looking at your unfouned insults of British news
again, what on Earth are you talking about?
Pathetically superficial? Tell that to the relatives of an ITN
reporter who died pursuing his story...tell that to the reporters
stationed in Baghdad who, despite the coalition knowing that they were
stationed there, got bombed in their positions at the Iraqi Ministry
of Information and, as Westerners amongst the Iraqis, have voluntarily
submitted themselves to be effective PoWs and face these bombings
directly merely to ensure that all avenues of reporting are
covered...tell that to the "embedded" reporters who are unarmed press
in the middle of front-line troops...
Criminally unresearched? I've told you, Annie...I've _seen_ the
typical American coverage...at least our TV has the decency to find
out how to properly pronounce the names of eye-raq-eye towns...and at
least they understand that a journalists' first responsibility is
reporting the truth rather than only reporting the things that keep
Bush's public opinion rating high (Murdoch hasn't even tried to deny
that his media are doing this, when someone spotted the pattern that
they've never said a bad word once)...
Laughably slanted to a "politically correct" agenda? Right, let's
analyse this one because I won't let that stand...are you trying to
suggest that journalists aren't doing their job properly when they try
to present all sides of the story? Are you trying to suggest that it's
only good coverage if they ignore truth or fairness and merely pass on
what the politicians say without researching or questioning its
validity?
We have journalists that have given their lives in searching of a
story...we have journalists who uncompromisingly go to the front line
and risk their lives (the first journalists into a not-yet-secured
Kabul were BBC, so much so they had their offices attacked)...we have
journalists that the politicians have actually banned from entering a
country because they reported truths that the politicians didn't
like...we had a journalist who put on a burka and had to go passed
Afghanistani soliders - risking his life if he was discovered - to get
into places where no-one could go...we have the infamous Paxman who
never lets anyone get away with anything (a politician tried to dodge
a direct question...so he asked it again and again and again...around
26 times, refusing to give up until the politician answered)...I could
go on and on...
You, on the other hand, have journalists with perfect teeth and
plastic hair who read out statements from Central Command
directly...no research, no verification, no bloody way they would dare
to mess up their hair by actually going anywhere near trouble...
If you mean by "politically correct" that they have their _politics
are correct_ - that a journalist seeks truth and presents it with
fairness and no bias - then, yes, in that context, they might be
"politically correct"...but I find it hilarious that your typical
perfect-teeth-plastic-hair-I'm-not-getting-out-from-behind-my-desk
American auto-cue readers is seriously being held up as champions of
truth...now, you do have a few rare journalists who are damn good in
pursuing the truth...but the vast majority are only trying to get
their face on TV to be "discovered" for a Hollywood movie...as long as
the ratings are good, spew out any old crap at the audience because
it's all ratings, ratings, ratings...they only bother with the
programmes because it's the only way to get people to look at the
adverts...
The BBC's track record is beyond reproach on this matter...during
WWII, the whole of Europe tuned to the BBC because it was the one you
could trust...the BBC's world-wide good reputation is founded on their
exceptional World Service and news coverage...literally, BBC reporters
can walk up to any person on the globe and say "I'm from the BBC" and,
yes, they do immediately let them in and would Love to be interviewed
by them..._any_ country...even countries that are enemies to Britain,
such as the trust the BBC were getting talking to Iraqi civilians who
were risking their lives in saying such things because they spoke of
their hatred for Saddam Hussein - an offence Saddam or any of his
loyal regime will happily execute you for...ratings do not apply to
the BBC because, you see, they are a _public service_ in Britain - and
consider their duty to that very serious - not merely a way for some
media giant to get you watching crap adverts so that his pockets bulge
with cash..."Nation speaks peace unto nation" is their motto and they
live and breathe what that means...
In fact, to those that know of the BBC around the world, this pathetic
attempt to tarnish their excellent reputation by pretending that their
coverage is no good just won't wash with most people...you just don't
like what you're seeing because they _do_ interview the enemy and ask
their opinion - fairly getting both sides of the story - unlike your
TV which only tows the party line...I've seen it with my own eyes,
Annie...when the spokesman walks out to give a speech, they don't ask
probing questions to discover the truth...they all act like the
"straight man" feeding them a question that allows them to churn out
their rhetoric...the White House even ensures this by giving their
press conferences in a special room, where only those they "approve"
of are invited...where do our ministers talk? Either they come to the
journalists at the TV studio - where they have no such "selection"
power - or the cabinet give their speeches right there on the street
outside Downing Street...no selection, if you've got a valid "press"
badge, you can walk into Downing Street and set up your camera as you
see fit and, yes, they will literally heckle ministers as they leave
No.10 - "Clare Short! Have you betrayed your principles?"...
Come on...in these regards, you're going to have an insanely difficult
time trying to convince people that the British media is
"tame"...everyone knows the BBC's reputation world-wide...and our
tabloids are also world reknown for absolutely ripping people apart in
getting their story (in fact, they sometimes go to far and ruin
people's lives, they are so bloodthirsty for being the one who has the
scoop...look what they did to Diana)...people world-wide know this
themselves and don't need me to tell them how far from "tame" the
British press can be...the worst of our gutter press are, quite
literally, animals and probably go too far and should be put down
humanely...
I doubt you'll convince anyone but yourself with this "oh, they are so
tame compared to the insightful ABC's Scott Jennins" argument...and,
yeah, I know of Larry King and his reputation...thoroughly
undeserved...put him up against Paxman and he'd run away
crying...literally...Paxman has actually done that to his interviewees
when they were trying to run away from the answers and he simply would
not let them get away with it..."boo hoo! It's not fair...he's
actually asking me all the hard questions"...carry on watching,
Annie...check out the usual grillings that you find on "HardTalk" -
wish I could remember the name of the guy who presents it - regardless
of his own opinion, he always plays "Devil's Advocate" and really
grills his guests...and you can tell 100% that your media don't do a
good enough job because they've been inviting American senators onto
the show and they simply don't even know how to handle actually being
challenged to quantify and verify their claims...one guy walked out
because Isreal was mentioned - "you can't say that" / "actually, I can
ask whatever I like" - and he couldn't come up with anything but a
series of excuses and contradictions which were demolished the instant
he said them...
We can put it to the vote, if you like...I'm confident of
victory...addressing a world-wide audience, who has the "tame" news se
rvice here...America or the UK? I already know the answer and your
attempts to deny the truth sound exactly like all those very same
denials of blatant truth your politicians attempt when faced with
_real_ journalists and not a bunch of empty-headed plastic Hollywood
starlets, hired for their teeth rather than their journalistic
abilities...
Beth :)
Annie
On 2003-04-01 BethS...@hotmail.com wrote:
> [ 1090 lines ]
Oh crap. Here we go again.
> ...Again, you've clearly _NOT_ looked at it because it's actually
> a website of those of your disposition...the American (far)
> right-wing...
Bzzzt! Wrong. I -have- looked at it...and "one-world-ism" is not "right-
wing." It's left-wing. Any scheme that puts power over the many into the
hands of the few is left-wing.
We'd better define our terms. Here's the political spectrum, correctly
rendered (requires a fixed-width font to view properly):
(LEFT) (center) (RIGHT)
Totalitarianism | Anarchy
|---------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
Communism "Demo- Parlia- Parlia- Constitutional "Pure"
Pharoahism cratic" mentary mentary republic (USA) democracy
Naziism socialism "nanny democracy (mob rule)
Fascism (Sweden, state" (AU, JP)
Socialism Finland) (UK, NZ)
etc.
> ...I've been tuning into CNN and NBC and others to compare how the
> news is being reported here and over in America...
>...
> ...they are far worse for "political correctness" by a large margin...
Compared to the BBC, this is somewhat true...although the BBC is rife
with "political correctness." It's hilarious to see their deliberate
"balance" of men, women, cross-dressers, high-brow Brits, low-brow
Brits, Welsh, Irish, Scots, and various racial minorities. Hehe!
CNN is the worst of the lot; it's radically left-wing. That's why
it's commonly known on this side of the pond as the "Clinton News
Network." No one who's looking for real news takes CNN seriously.
It's good for seeing what the leftist "marching orders" are, on
any particular day, but that's about all.
NBC, ABC and CBS are also strongly left-biased. I don't watch any
of'em.
> ...I was surprised that when I mentioned the accidental shooting
> of a Wedding party in Afghanistan to an American, they had no
> idea what I was talking about...
I think you're confused. That didn't happen in THIS war. That's
old news. Anyway, the American you spoke to probably couldn't
decipher your East-End accent. Hehe!
> But then, that's probably appropriate because _your own Pentagon_
> (the American military, no less) has recently been also saying that
> the current administration has "too simplistic a world view that
> they're dangerous"...
Source...?
> You like Bush because, as governor of Texas, he executed more
> people than all the other states combined and you just Adore
> that sort of "zero tolerance"...
Duhhh! Can you read AT ALL? I specifically stated a couple of times
that I'm -NOT- a fan of George Bush.
Besides, you're seriously misinformed (again). A state governor does
not, and can not, "execute people." More leftist hogwash...but you
don't know any better. The left COUNTS on that fact.
> ...the Supreme Court's refusal to recount means that
> the validity of the original count was actually truely
> respresentative of their "democratic will" in that particular
> state has not, and now cannot, be verified...
See, you THINK you know what you're talking about...but you don't.
Fact is, the Florida ballots WERE re-counted NUMEROUS TIMES --
particularly in the counties where the Democrat Party contested
the result (because their candidate lost).
The whole nutty concept of "dimpled chads," "confusing ballots,"
etc., was solely a desperate fiction...concocted by the Democrat
Party in an attempt to alter the outcome of the election.
Florida law states quite specifically and clearly that defective
ballots (mis-punched, multi-punched, etc.) are invalid, and are
not to be included in the vote count.
If residents of the state of Florida are so weak and/or stupid
that they're unable to punch a punchcard or read a ballot correctly,
that's THEIR problem. But in reality, it wasn't a problem at all.
It was a fantasy, promulgated by the Democrat Party.
All the Supreme Court did was put an end to the "recount" nonsense
that the Democrat Party had fomented.
If you want to look for a Florida voting scandal, read up on how
one of the Democrat employees in the Florida elections office
conveniently "lost" the mailed-in ballots from overseas members
of the U.S. military. (Military votes traditionally tend to be
conservative...and definitely anti-Klinton/Gore.)
> ...would a recount have verified this and confirmed not only
> his legal but his moral authority as President? We'll never
> know because they terminated the recount...
Bzzzt! Wrong answer again. There WERE numerous recounts before
the Supreme Court ruled on the matter...and Bush STILL won.
> And when I said "democratic will", I was talking specifically
> about the popular vote of the American people...
In that case, one might argue that William Jefferson Blyth "Bubba"
Klinton had no "moral authority" to be president. He got only 42
per cent of the popular vote.
> Trust me, when this all flared up, the news went into every boring
> little detail of the election system so that we could understand
> what all the fuss was about...
Then either the Brit press "filtered" the "facts" (very likely),
or you didn't "get it" (also likely).
>...any comments regards Bush are aimed squarely at him personally
> because he's a moron...
Again, this is the "official line" of the left. You've seen this
idea repeated on web sites, in "news"-papers and on television,
and you've swallowed it. It's patent nonsense.
The left did the same thing to Dan Quayle, portraying him as some
kind of mental defective. Also untrue. A perusal of Quayle's very
scholarly legal writings quickly dispels this notion.
On the other hand, the left made a big deal about Klinton being
a Rhodes Scholar. What they DIDN'T tell you is that he didn't
actually attend his studies at his English university. Instead,
he want to Russia and studied Marxism. Yeah, Klinton's a real
"brain," fersher. Hehehe!
Anyway, you have very little room to talk, with that milquetoasty
yahoo Blair -- and his crap-eating grin -- as your "leader." Hee!
>...I know Clinton continued bombing campaigns and started military
> conflicts and he was, I presume, "the left" as you loathe him so
> much...hardly something a pacifist would back either...
Billy-Bob desperately felt he HAD to do SOMETHING to get the
Monica scandal out of the headlines. That's why he did it.
It was totally wrong, self-serving and disingenuous.
> ...I _insist_ on making my own mind up about everything...
Then maybe you could make your mind up to be a bit more disciplined
and terse with the prose that you post here. Eh?
> ...I've never joined a single club, party, institution or anything
> in my life (where I've been given a choice in the matter)...
Really? I guess some gang of thugs must have come to your flat and
physically DRAGGED you down to that neighborhood "discotheque," then.
HUNDREDS OF TIMES! Hehe!
> Who did you vote for? Ross Perot? (no, that's just a crap joke...
> I know he wasn't in the running ;)...
I voted for Patrick Buchanan. It's a pity he didn't win.
> ...you tell me not to put any stock in trusting anything I read...
> you insult website information...then use a website with clear
> "denial" interests as "proof"...
Yep. I was trying to bring things down to a level that you could
perhaps comprehend.
> Oh, just fudge off with this, will you?
No. You'll have to fudge yourSELF! Hehehe!
Love,
Annie
Ross Simpson
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in message...
> >>As I said - he would have been worth more attention...
> >Yeah well, most of the movies I've seen him in are from
> >the '30s. I thought he was wonderful in 20,000 Leagues
> >Under the Sea (but that's all I ever recall seeing him
> >in later in his movie career). I see he has a part in
> >Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (which I was thinking
> >of getting), but as yet I haven't seen it!
> While reading some biographies, I stumbled upon my own
> favorite, the raven in "The Raven" (I'm an old Vincent
> Price fan).
> Some more famous films with him:
> Casablanca,
Oh yes, now I remember! :-)
I've seen the Colourized version & the B&W, I perfer
seeing it in B&W! :-)
> The Maltese Falcon,
Last time I saw Maltese Falcon I didn't like it
all that much. I've grown up since! :-)
Why do they Colourize these movies, they look better
in B&W! :-)
> Now that I finished this research, I found a list with
> 80 (!) of his movies:
I've done my research & brought the right books, so I
could give you all the movies he has been in! :-)
> <http://www.kinotv.com/proc/bio/bio.cfm?namecode=56864.0.htm>
> It's in German language, but also lists English names,
> if they are known.
Well, my book's in English! :-)
> >Well the big fright to all this, is if we continue to
> >do this for another 52 weeks, we'll be at the same
> >point next year!
> Ouch... ;)
Christmas comes fast each year, so instead of being
jolly around Christmas, I'm jolly all year round! :-)
Cheers,
Ross.
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> >Yeah, it even had some cool "special effects"...not quite so
> >people for a short while...
> >
> >No wonder the Nazi vision made him flee...
>
> Looking at the "real future": It's worse than Lang's vision!
As long as it never gets worse than (or even equal to) Orwell's
vision...though that's probably Hoping against facts, the way things
are going with CCTV, identity cards, DNA records, cookies, "loyalty"
cards which track your shopping for "targetted advertising", etc.,
etc....
> But you're right - this film has _much_ power! If you see it
> with the eyes of the people who lived in the late 20'ies ...
> this movie rolls over you like a tank...
Exactly; That's why even if he was not pioneering the technologies and
techniques, it still should be viewed as an important ground-breaking
film (thankfully, it is by most right-thinking people :)...as I say,
it's the _directorial_ genius...literally creating a tangible universe
in front of your face so real - not just visually but the whole ethos
and atmosphere of it - that, oh yeah, when you see this bleak future,
it _scares_ you...as it should do...
Heck, you can look at it now and _still_ its clear power comes
across...and, well, we're all used to watching superior
computer-generated visuals that literally cannot be differentiated
from reality...so, to those in the '20s who had never seen anything of
it like before...it must literally have "invaded" their lives with its
uncompromising vision...
You know what they say, "They don't make them like they used
to"...techniques have improved...but the far more important vision,
message, atmosphere, challenge to the audience and such are few and
far between these days...in fact, when things like "the Matrix" shows
up and causes such a stir, it's because they are against such a bland
backdrop of cliche' and uniformity...
"You LIED!
You FAKED!
You CHEATED!
You changed the stakes...
Unrehearsed...let these bubbles burst...
On and on...a three-ring circus...
Tradegy or comedy?
Probably just publicity!
...
Lose myself inside your schemes,
Go for the money, honey...
NOT THE SCREEN!
Your movies are...blah-blah-blah...
Go the whole hog: BE BIGGER THAN GOD!!!"
[ "Open Up" by Leftfield featuring Johnny Rotten (yes, of the Sex
Pistols) on vocals...I can't really quote much more of it because,
well, it's Johnny Rotten singing and he's never been "politically
correct" in any sense of the word...well, put it this way, the next
line is "Burn, Hollywood, burn!" and he really sounds like he actually
means it deadly seriously...and, personally, I don't have any problems
with the residents of Los Angeles that I would want to risk upsetting
them with typical Johnny Rotten lyrics...*gulp* ]
> >>Fritz Lang also produced the "Dr. Mabuse" movies, one of the
> >>reasons, why he left Germany in 1933. There was a similarity
> >>between the fiction "Dr. Mabuse" and Adolf Hitler...
> >>
> >
> >Ah, yes...in a sense, if another Hitler rose today in America then
[ snip ]
> >a gun pointed at their head...
>
> They offered him a high position in their hirarchy, but Lang
> didn't want it (he probably knew why).
He almost certainly knew why, I'd reckon...after all, he was making
movies like the ones we've mentioned...he's offered a top job...and
yet he runs away at full steam the second he gets a chance? The
evidence suggests he probably knew better than most why...
> >Hey, due credit to Von Neumann, of course...but "superior
[ snip ]
> >like these, who needs Nazis?")?
>
> Is "superior" too strong?
Well...sort of, yes...it's opposite would, of course, be
"inferior"...which has a bit of the ring of what a Nazi talking about
a Jew might chose to describe those he hates, if you catch my
drift...certainly it might not be wise - image-wise - to use a word
like "superior" in a discussion where Nazis are mentioned...it sort of
sounds like "We are so superior in every way to your pathetic,
barbaric technologies!"...knowing you, that's not what you meant but,
yes, the choice of word in the current context might be more carefully
selected :)
> If so, please exchange it with the
> better matching term "leading", or something like that. Even
> if John von Neumann and Alan Turing were "thinkers" - Konrad
> Zuse was the one who developed (and built) the first working
> binary digital computer in 1936...1938, followed by Turing's
> "The Bombe". Shame on me - John von Neumann went to the USA
> in 1930 and became an American citizen 1934 - he was born in
> Hungaria, but worked in Germany until 1929...
Another great mind that they sent over to the Americans? Like I say,
the entire philosophy is totally backward because everyone who should
easily deserve any place in the "master race" had a lot more sense and
got out of there while they still could as fast as they could...says
volumes, really...anyone with a brain on their shoulders got the hell
out of there as fast as they could...that, I feel, makes it richly
deserve being called "the philosophy of the idiot"...what would that
be in German? "Dumbkopfspolitiken" or something like that? hehehe ;)
> ...about Alan Turing - in Germany we have a matching slogan:
>
> "Undank ist der Welten Lohn!"
> (Never expect thanks for anything...)
Indeed; But what I find so repulsively ironic, of course, is that they
"thank" him for his work helping in "defeating the Nazis", by
exercising what really was neo-Nazi intolerance about his
sexuality...effectively torturing the man, to the point of driving him
to suicide...
> >>From what I've heard (very interesting indeed that we appear to
have
[ snip ]
> >important information...
>
> Every country in the world has limited information about the
> events in other countries - so I don't think, that it should
> bother you too much, if history books differ from country to
> country.
Well, I said "interesting", not "shocking" or "surprising"...yes, the
history books differ depending on who's writing it...but, of course,
the point is that if it's accurate history then this cannot be true,
as there was only _one_ history...
In other words, these histories cannot be altogether truthful or
trustworthy, if there's such variation in accounts...so what's
"interesting" is to consider just what the lies are - but, more
crucially, _why_ someone would feel they needed to alter the history -
and what is correctly reported (if any...after all, some historical
accounts are so different with no common threads between them at
all...you have to even start considering if _any of them_ have any
truth to them)...
> As long as you don't come upon a book which states
> that the last world war started in 2003 (would be a prophecy
> rather than a history book)...
Actually, that was something amusing I read the other day...it was a
tongue-in-cheek article about how this reporter actually checked up
the dates of the Second World War in an American Encyclopeadia and, of
course, was initially shocked to find it listed as starting a few
years after the dates listed in British stuff...of course, the reason
for this discrepancy is obvious because they were measuring "the start
of the war" from different things...Britain - as an actual target of
Hitler's army - got involved sooner than the Americans who had to
first realise that "something was up" and that it wasn't just some
small passing thing (well, up until WWII, Europe was doing this sort
of in-fighting all the time that it had to go far enough to make it
clear that it was World War and a serious matter that they had to be
involved with and not just yet another "internal domestic matter" that
would have been disasterous for them to have gotten messed up
with...we make the jokes with the "Yanks" - which I Hope they take in
the spirit intended - but it's perfectly understandable why they
didn't dive in on day one...but it's interesting to see the difference
on the history there...though this time, it's not because it's
"inaccurate"...it's because the same thing is being viewed from a
different perspective and "the start of the war" is being measured by
different events, based on what those countries consider the defining
point where peace ended and "war" started :)...
> Most things which are handled by secret services are (as the
> name suggests) top secret... There is no chance to get _any_
> other information than the "official" published news...
True; But, in time, some of this stuff comes to light in the
end...when there's no longer a reason to keep it secret...mind you,
there's also stuff that they'll never reveal no matter how much time
passes...well, some things will not do you any favours no matter when
you finally reveal it (revealing total failures that happened or plans
that won't go down well with the public...say, assassination plots or
whatever...though the one against Hitler is happily revealed because I
doubt you could find anyone who'd take Hitler's side, even if they
find the whole idea of assassination - which, apparently, we call "an
opportunity for decapitation" these days so it doesn't sound so bad -
is distasteful to your sensibilities...in Hitler's case, even the
pacifists "look the other way" about such plots)...
> >The whole point being that this was what made the Engima code so
[ snip ]
> >square one all over again...
>
> The ENIGMA code was broken in 1932 (!) by a Polish officer -
> later on (1939) Poland gave it to France and Britain.
>
> Here <http://home.us.net/~encore/Enigma/enigma.html> you may
> find a lot of background information about this stuff.
Cool; Will have a look see in the morning once I've gotten some sleep
(forcing myself to finish this reply off before heading to the land of
Nod :)...
Unfortunately, far too true...how pathetic we are when our greatest
achievements and most effort is put into weaponry because, deep down,
we're all just immensely paranoid and fearful animals...
As I've said before, the actual universal rule that dominates is that,
in the end, everything is deeply ironic...we can see that in Turing's
story...but we can also see it in how, fearful of the "unknown", we
all build up all these weapons to kill each other, "just in
case"...and the irony is that we wouldn't have need to be fearful, if
we weren't so intent on arming ourselves...and we wouldn't be arming
ourselves, if we weren't, deep down, such a paranoid species...the
image that springs to mind is a cat on the prowl, its eyes moving back
and forth looking for dangers and even the smallest thing it doesn't
expect makes it dart across the road, up a wall and hide away in
safety somewhere...humans may like to pretend we're different but, in
this regard, we're not, really...whether there is danger or there
isn't, we assume there is, anyway...like the growing number of young
people arrested by the police and found to be carrying knives and
things...ask them why: "it's because there's all these other people
carrying knives and I don't want to be defenceless if they attack"...
The classic catch-22...I honestly don't really believe humankind is
inherently violent or destructive, really...the fact that, in the
majority, we all live in peace and want peace and seek to maintain
peace (even most wars are always dubbed "necessary evils"...a short
outbreak of war, intended to secure a lasting peace on the other
side)...even the madman terrorist is causing his violence in his mind
to "secure peace" for his peoples or whatever...often wrong and
misguided thinking...but, still, at the heart of every human, we all
would honestly prefer things if we could be sure that nothing bad
would happen and could carry on in peace...what makes humans so
incredibly destructive is this catch-22 caused by being - often quite
reasonably - fearful of someone else spoiling our peace...the Cold War
"arms race" would be the pinnicle of where this happened to its
maximum so far...but also all conflict and weapons development is
basically founded on this simple, but quite possibly irresolvable,
catch-22...we were animals fighting for our very survival in the wild
once and that's given us instincts to be prepared to fight, to
constantly scan the horizon for predators and all that sort of
thing...in modern times, though, this translates into "preparedness"
of arms stockpiles and various things like that...one wrong spark or
one wrong look and our greatest fears are (actually or
apparently...doesn't change the outcome) confirmed so we start
throwing these weapons at each other...
I mean, "why can't we all just get along instead?" :)
Gute Nacht, Bernhard...ich muss jetzt schlafen...*yawn* :O *blink,
blink* :)
Beth :)
Ed Beroset
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
> > Oh, just fudge off with this, will you?
>
> No. You'll have to fudge yourSELF! Hehehe!
Not that this isn't endlessly fascinating or anything, but could y'all
please move it to email? It's not really anything to do with assembly
language programming.
And to help bring things back on topic, here's some code which displays
the date and time and can be redirected to a file (under DOS). How would
one do this under Linux in assembly?
; showdate.asm
;
; prints the date and time to stdout
; equivalent to the following C++ program:
;
;#include <iostream.h>
;#include <time.h>
;
;int main()
;{
; time_t t;
; time(&t); // get the current time
; cout << ctime(&t); // convert to string and print
; return 0;
;}
;
; written on Thu 05-11-2000 by Edward J. Beroset
; and donated to the public domain by the author
;
; This code may be assembled and linked using Borland's TASM:
; tasm /la /m2 showdate
; tlink /Tdc showdate
;
STDOUT equ 01h ; handle of standard output device
DOS_GET_DATE equ 02ah ; get system date
DOS_GET_TIME equ 02ch ; get system time
DOS_WRITE_HANDLE equ 040h ; write to handle
DOS_TERMINATE equ 04ch ; terminate with error code
DOSINT macro function, subfunction
IFB <subfunction>
mov ah,(function AND 0ffh)
ELSE
mov ax,(function SHL 8) OR (subfunction AND 0ffh)
ENDIF
int 21h ; invoke DOS function
endm
MODEL tiny
;.STACK 100h
.CODE
;****************************************************************************
; main
;
; calls showdate routne and exists with 00 error code
;
; Entry:
;
; Exit:
;
; Trashed:
; none
;
;****************************************************************************
main proc far
.STARTUP ; sets up DS and stack
call showdate ;
.EXIT 0 ; return with errcode=0
main endp
;****************************************************************************
; showdate
;
; fetches the DOS system date, prints it to stdout and exits
; the format of the output is identical to that of the Posix ctime()
; function:
;
; Thu May 11 16:11:30 2000
;
; The day of week and month are always 3 characters long. The time of
; day is in 24hour form (e.g. 16:11:30 is a few minutes after four in
; the afternoon) and the year is always four digits. The whole thing is
; followed by a newline character (line feed = 0ah), making 25
; characters total.
;
; Note that ctime() returns 26 characters which is all of the above,
; followed by a terminating NUL char but this program does not emit a
; NUL.)
;
; Entry:
; DS points to segment for our data tables
;
; Exit:
; carry may be set if last write failed
;
; Trashed:
; none
;
;****************************************************************************
showdate proc
push ax bx cx dx ;
DOSINT DOS_GET_DATE ;
; returns the following
; cx = year (1980-2099)
; dh = month (1-12) == (Jan..Dec)
; dl = day (1-31)
; al = day of week (0-6) == (Sun..Sat)
push cx ;
push dx ; save the return values
; write the day of week
mov dx, offset dayname ;
mov cx,3 ; number of bytes to write
call WriteSubstring ;
; write the month
pop ax ; recall month/day
push ax ; and save it again
mov al,ah ; isolate just month
mov dx, offset monthname - 3 ; monthname array is 1-based
mov cx,3 ; number of bytes to write
call WriteSubstring ;
; write the day of the month
pop ax ;
call WriteNumber ;
call WriteSpace ;
; write the hour
DOSINT DOS_GET_TIME ; ch = hour, cl = min,
; dh = sec, dl = hundredths
push dx ; save seconds
push cx ; save minutes
mov al,ch ;
call WriteNumber ;
call WriteColon ;
; write the minutes
pop ax ;
call WriteNumber ;
call WriteColon ;
; write the seconds
pop ax ;
mov al,ah ;
call WriteNumber ;
call WriteSpace ;
; write the year (century first)
pop ax ;
xor dx,dx ; clear other reg before divide
mov cx,100 ; ax = ax/100, dx = remainder
div cx ;
push dx ; save remainder
call WriteNumber ;
; write the year (year within century)
pop ax ;
call WriteNumber ;
mov dx,offset newlinechar
call PrintOne ;
pop dx cx bx ax ; restore stack
ret ;
showdate endp
;****************************************************************************
; WriteSubstring
;
; writes a short substring to stdout
; specifically, prints CL characters, starting at DS:(DX+CL*AL)
;
; Entry:
; DS:DX ==> pointer to base of string array
; CL = size of each string
; AL = string selector (i.e. which string)
;
; Exit:
; CY set if there was an error writing last byte
; if CY clear,
; AX = 1 (number of bytes written)
; else
; AX = error code
;
; Trashed:
; BX CX DX
;
;****************************************************************************
WriteSubstring proc
mul cl ; ax = cl * al
add dx,ax ; offset now points to appropriate day
string
call PrintIt ;
WriteSubstring endp
; deliberately fall through
;****************************************************************************
; WriteSpace
;
; writes a single space character (20h) to stdout
;
; Entry:
; DS points to data table segment
;
; Exit:
; CY set if there was an error writing last byte
; if CY clear,
; AX = 1 (number of bytes written)
; else
; AX = error code
;
; Trashed:
; BX CX DX
;
;****************************************************************************
WriteSpace proc
mov dx,offset spacechar;
WriteSpace endp
; deliberately fall through
;****************************************************************************
; PrintOne
;
; prints a single character pointed to by DS:DX
;
; Entry:
; DS:DX ==> points to the character to be printed
;
; Exit:
; CY set if there was an error writing last byte
; if CY clear,
; AX = 1 (number of bytes written)
; else
; AX = error code
;
; Trashed:
; BX CX DX
;
;****************************************************************************
PrintOne proc
mov cx,1 ;
PrintOne endp
; deliberately fall through
;****************************************************************************
; PrintIt
;
; prints the passed string to stdout
;
; Entry:
; DS:DX ==> points to string to be printed
; CX = number of bytes to be printed
;
; Exit:
; CY set if there was an error writing to stdout
; if CY clear,
; AX = number of bytes written
; else
; AX = error code
;
; Trashed:
; none
;
;****************************************************************************
PrintIt proc
mov bx,STDOUT ;
DOSINT DOS_WRITE_HANDLE ; write to the file
ret ;
PrintIt endp
;****************************************************************************
; WriteColon
;
; writes a colon character to stdout
;
; Entry:
; DS points to data segment
;
; Exit:
; CY set if there was an error writing to stdout
; if CY clear,
; AX = 1 (number of bytes written)
; else
; AX = error code
;
; Trashed:
; none
;
;****************************************************************************
WriteColon proc
mov dx,offset colonchar;
jmp PrintOne ;
WriteColon endp
;****************************************************************************
; WriteNumber
;
; prints the number in AL to stdout as two decimal digits
;
; Entry:
; AL = number to be printed. It must be in the range 00-99
;
; Exit:
; CY set if there was an error writing to stdout
; if CY clear,
; AX = 2 (number of bytes written)
; else
; AX = error code
;
; Trashed:
; BX CX DX
;
;****************************************************************************
WriteNumber proc
xor ah,ah ; clear out high half
mov cl,10 ; prepare to convert to decimal (base 10)
div cl ; divide it out
or ax,3030h ; convert to ASCII digits
push ds ; remember DS for later
push ax ; push converted chars on stack
mov dx,ss ;
mov ds,dx ; ds = ss
mov dx,sp ; print data from stack
mov cx,2 ; two characters only
call PrintIt ;
pop bx ; fix stack
pop ds ; restore ds pointer
ret ;
WriteNumber endp
;.DATA
dayname db "SunMonTueWedThuFriSat"
monthname db "JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec"
spacechar db " "
colonchar db ":"
newlinechar db 0ah ; in C this is \n
end
Ed
Annie
On 2003-04-01 BethS...@hotmail.com wrote:
> [ 149 lines, snipped ]
_____
Yeah...whatever. Get OVER it, Beth. ((( `\
\ _ _`\ )
(^ ) )
~-( )
_'((,,,)))
,-' \_/ `\
( , |
`-.-'`-.-'/|_|
\ / | |
=()=: / ,' aa
Frank Kotler
> And to help bring things back on topic, here's some code which displays
> the date and time and can be redirected to a file (under DOS). How would
> one do this under Linux in assembly?
Call "ctime()"? As it happens, I was just fooling with some similar
code. Not "according to specs", just happens to be similar. It doesn't
mess with day-of-the-week, at all. Dos makes this pretty easy. I don't
know, off the top of my head, what day of the week "time zero" was, but
it can't be too hard to figure out from there.
This also suffers from the defect that it doesn't do any error-checking,
anywhere. I assume that the clock could be busy - probably returns
"-EAGAIN", or something... In case it's "dead", we don't want to retry
forever, so some kind of "retry-count" is in order...
In Linux, using the BIOS is out, and writing "direct to screen" makes
you jump through hoops (Would you believe moving the cursor by calling
the file "seek" function? Linux is "different"), so stdout is the easy
way to write anything "to the screen". I normally don't worry about
errors writing to the screen, but since it can inherently be
re-directed, various errors should be handled there, too.
No point in sending error-messages to stdout - need more code to send
'em to stderr (if we're going to do anything more than return an
errorlevel). I don't know *what* we do in case of an error writing to
stderr!
This doesn't use any macros or "include files". For *nix-ish code,
Konstantin Boldyshev - http:linuxassembly.org - has written some macros
for Nasm that, if you use 'em consistantly, allow the same code to be
assembled with system calls suitable for Linux, *BSD, maybe BeOS(?),
just by defining an OS on the command line to Nasm. Looks (not
surprisingly) like a higher level language...
Speaking of HL* - Randy's busy, but I'll bet some student of HLA could
post a HLA version of it - probably would only be a few lines. That,
too, should assemble and run on Linux, and I understand QNX is in the
pipeline(?). Of course, it won't make a dos version like you've got -
which is the winner of the "smallest size" comparison, no doubt. But
once you get past the initial "bloat", you get error handling
more-or-less free.
I *do* understand the advantages of a "higher-level" approach - from
"DOSINT" all the way up to HLA. I just prefer, for the moment at least,
to work at a more "primitive" level.
Looking again at this code, it's even more "primitive" than I realized -
less "similar" to what your code does. I think I've got a slightly more
"refined" version - but it's stuck over on the "Linux side". If I'm
inspired to boot to Linux, maybe I'll add the "day of week" stuff to it,
and post that...
Later,
Frank
;-----------------------
; nasm -f elf time1.asm
; ld -s -o time1 time1.o
global _start
section .data
months_table: ; number of days in each month
db 1Fh,1Ch,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh
mon_name3: ; three-letter month names
db 'JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJan'
section .bss
yr resd 1
doy resd 1
dom resd 1
mon resd 1
hr resd 1
min resd 1
sec resd 1
section .text
_start
mov eax, 13 ; sys_time
xor ebx, ebx ; NULL - no buffer
int 80h
mov byte [months_table + 1], 1Ch ; 28 days in february again
; (for repeat calls...)
mov ecx, 60
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [sec], edx
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [min], edx
mov ecx, 24
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [hr], edx
mov ecx, 365
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [yr], eax
add dword [yr], 1970
test dword [yr], 3
jnz notly
mov byte [months_table + 1], 1Dh ; 29 days in february
notly:
shr eax, 2 ; how many leapyears in that?
sub edx, eax
mov [doy], edx
xor ebx, ebx
findmonth:
mov al, [months_table + ebx]
cbd
sub edx, eax
js foundmonth
inc ebx
jmp short findmonth
foundmonth:
add edx, eax
mov [dom], edx ; zero-based
mov [mon], ebx ; zero-based
mov eax, [yr]
call showeax
mov eax, [mon]
mov eax, [mon_name3 + eax + eax * 2]
push eax ; we've got one more character than we need
mov eax, 4 ; sys_write
mov ebx, 1 ; stdout
mov ecx, esp
mov edx, 3 ; only print 3
int 80h
pop eax
mov eax, [dom]
inc eax ; zero-based
call showeax
mov eax, [hr] ; gmt?
call showeax
mov eax, [min]
call showeax
mov eax, [sec]
call showeax
xor ebx, ebx
mov eax, 1 ; sys_exit
int 80h
;---------------
;-----------------------------------
; showeax - prints a decimal representation of eax to stdout
; expects - number to print in eax
; returns - nothing
;------------------------------------
showeax:
pushad
xor edi, edi ; counter
mov esi, 10 ; divide by ten
push esi ; double as LF :)
inc edi
.top
xor edx, edx ; zero edx for the divide
div esi ; quotient in eax, remainder in edx
add dl, '0' ; convert number to ascii char
push edx ; save it
inc edi ; bump counter
or eax, eax ; is quotient zero?
jnz .top ; if not, do more
.print
mov eax, 4 ; sys_write
mov ebx, 1 ; stdout
mov ecx, esp ; character's on the stack
mov edx, 1 ; just one
int 80h ; do it
pop edx ; get rid of the character we've printed
dec edi ; decrement counter
jnz .print ; 'til done
popad
ret
;-----------------------
Ben Yates
>
> CNN is the worst of the lot; it's radically left-wing. That's why
> it's commonly known on this side of the pond as the "Clinton News
> Network." No one who's looking for real news takes CNN seriously.
> It's good for seeing what the leftist "marching orders" are, on
> any particular day, but that's about all.
>
I just have to ask, Annie! I take it you _don't_ have the Fox News
Network available?
I can't imagine anything being more left-wing than FNN!
And with all the in-fighting between FNN and (MS)NBC, they sound like
a bunch of damn kids - did you see the Geraldo Rivera and the Peter
Arnett stories, and the volleys they fired back and forth? Geraldo
accusing that NBC was 'out to get' him, etc.?
In CNN's defense, for the most part they just report the news and
don't editorialize on it like every other network. Yes, there are
close relationships with the government for obtaining news, but I have
seen them airing Al Jazeera newscasts as well (occasionally), with no
editorializing on them...
Annie
On 2003-04-02 ben_ya...@yahoo.com (BenYates) said:
> I just have to ask, Annie! I take it you _don't_ have the Fox
> News Network available?
> I can't imagine anything being more left-wing than FNN!
In the way they report the news, Fox is more conservative than
any of the "alphabet" channels. That's their "thing."
> And with all the in-fighting between FNN and (MS)NBC, they sound
> like a bunch of damn kids - did you see the Geraldo Rivera and the
> Peter Arnett stories, and the volleys they fired back and forth?
> Geraldo accusing that NBC was 'out to get' him, etc.?
Jerry Rivers is an old leftist agenda-follower from WAY back. He's
also an egotist, somewhat of a paranoid, an adrenalin junkie, and
a absolutely TERRIBLE "reporter." Why Fox hired him, I don't know.
On live TV, he drew a map in the sand showing where a U.S. military
detachment was and where they were going, and also revealed their
timetable. The U.S. military was quite correct in kicking him out.
They should have shot him for sedition right on the spot.
> In CNN's defense, for the most part they just report the news and
> don't editorialize on it like every other network. Yes, there are
> close relationships with the government for obtaining news, but I
> have seen them airing Al Jazeera newscasts as well (occasionally),
> with no editorializing on them...
CNN's "editorializing" is in their selection of what stories they
choose to run, and the "spin" they put on their coverage of those
stories.
_____
If you think you're getting unbiased ((( `\
news on CNN, well...may Allah bless _ _`\ )
you. Hehehe! (^ ) )
The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot
>news on CNN, well...may Allah bless _ _`\ )
>you. Hehehe!
annie...lately ur posts have been quite good...keep it up...u're beginning to
sound hot (for a change)...heheh...just playing ;p
--The Mosquito Scriptkiddiot.
"There are two sides to every story...and then there is what really happened."
;p
Annie
On 2003-04-03 anothe...@aol.comnospam (The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot) said:
> annie...lately ur posts have been quite good...keep it up...
> u're beginning to sound hot (for a change)...heheh...
_____
I -am- hot...not that it'll ((( `\
do YOU any good, Bug-D00d. _ _`\ )
(^ ) )
Shouldn't you be doing your ~-( )
homework or something, kid? _'((,,,)))
Hehehe! ,-' \_/ `\
Beth
> > [ 1090 lines ]
>
> Oh crap. Here we go again.
My sentiments exactly in respect of you too...
> > ...Again, you've clearly _NOT_ looked at it because it's
actually
> > a website of those of your disposition...the American (far)
> > right-wing...
>
> Bzzzt! Wrong. I -have- looked at it...and "one-world-ism" is not
"right-
> wing." It's left-wing. Any scheme that puts power over the many into
the
> hands of the few is left-wing.
Bzzt! Wrong...you need to learn something more about the political
spectrum before you make any more comments because your definitions
are all _wrong_...
Communism was actually a polar-opposite reaction to growing fascism in
the world...Marx not only opposed class division but also saw that his
communism would trascend any organised state - seen by Marx as
inevitably an instrument of oppression...in "true" communism, there
would be no state at all...the ideology specifically _opposes_ such a
notion of "power over the many in the hands of the few"...that was
it's entire raison d'etre for being...in Marx's terms, the "many" are
the (working class) "Proletariat" and the "few" are the (ruling class)
"Bourgeoisie"...Marx's aim was to remove the power of the bourgeoisie
over the proletariat...communism is the philosophy of "all men are
born equal" and utterly _opposes_ the very idea of "power over the
many in the hands of the few"...check this up, if you don't believe
me...Marx's philosophy is well documented in many places...
The clue is in the question, Annie...a true "commune" has no leader
and all members of the commune have equal duty and responsibility to
that "commune"...true communism - which, I know its a cliche' but it's
true, was never actually properly implemented by the Soviets - would
have no leaders and no one person would ever have power over anyone
else...you're actually stating it to be the polar opposite of what it
actually is and what Marx intended it to be...
[ The "Borg" on Star Trek are, of course, assimilating automatons
intent on taking over the universe by ceaseless "consumption" of all
obstacles...though most people don't notice it, look at their
name...say it "borge" (or "borj") rather than "borg" to make it
clearer...in short, "Borg" = "BOuRGeoisie"...as always in sci-fi, all
their themes and enemies are thinly veiled metaphors of things from
reality, in order to take an issue out of context so that we can take
a "step back" to see it in its true light...the big, all-consuming,
never-ending evil of the Borg is a metaphor for the big,
all-consuming, never-ending Capitalist empire-builders...the
McDonald's in every country, "assimilating" and destroying cultures as
it marches ceaselessly ever forward...and, of course, has ironically
been actually re-applied back to its original source when everyone
jokingly calls MS "the Borg"...yup, the richest of the
rich...certainly what Marx would call "the Bourgeoisie" or "Borg" for
short ;)...
Remember the Golden Rule of the Universe...in the end, _everything_ is
deeply ironic...the universe is playing one massive joke on us and,
mostly, we don't notice it because we insist on taking ourselves so
damn seriously that we lack the necessary humour to detect the "Big
Joke" ;) ]
> We'd better define our terms. Here's the political spectrum,
correctly
> rendered (requires a fixed-width font to view properly):
>
> (LEFT) (center) (RIGHT)
> Totalitarianism | Anarchy
> |---------------------------------------------------------|
> | | | | | |
> Communism "Demo- Parlia- Parlia- Constitutional "Pure"
> Pharoahism cratic" mentary mentary republic (USA) democracy
> Naziism socialism "nanny democracy (mob
rule)
> Fascism (Sweden, state" (AU, JP)
> Socialism Finland) (UK, NZ)
> etc.
Well, this explains things...this "polticial spectrum" is utterly
wrong by the standard meanings of "left" and "right"..."anarchy"
shouldn't even be in there because "anarchy" is the political
equivalent of "aethism", it's a denial of _any_ political system
whatsoever..."mob rule" (which you're calling "extreme right") is
actually one way to view what _communism_ (actually extreme left) is
supposed to be...in communism, the ruling class - the Bourgeoisie - is
eliminated and the "prolateriat" - the working-class, the "mob" - are
given equal self-rulership with no leader...though, in communism, the
theory was that the "mob" (prolateriat) would peacefully co-exist -
being socialists that care about one another (again...clue is in the
question, "socialists" are _social_ people, caring about _society_
:) - so it wouldn't be at all the typical anarchistic image of "mob
rule" and there would be rule of law and morals but no rule of any
specific man or woman...
And you're trying to suggest that Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were
"left wingers"? Sorry, but fascism grew as a polar opposite reaction
to growing Marxist thinking...fascists are _extreme right wing_...they
believe in "every man (and woman) for him / herself"...you take what
you can and as much as you can...and, usually, are perfectly happy
with crapping on anyone and everyone else from a great height to do
that...and, yes, the power of the few is in the hands of the
many...communism and fascism are polar opposite extremes...
Capitalism is essentially a right-wing ideology...which was why Marx -
in opposing capitalism and fascist thinking - created its opposite
which is the left wing...
Now, despite your claims, I'm actually in the middle (perhaps a slight
leanings towards the left on some issues...but the odd leaning to the
right on slightly less issues than the left) as I'm a believer in
Liberty (liberal, libertarianism, etc. :)...that's the middle ground
(normally insulted because they "won't make up their minds what side
they are on!"...hehehe :)...the left and the right impose strict
political ideologies to either extreme and those of the middle -
liberals - believe in a balance and allowing things to sometimes go to
the left and sometimes go to the right...
The left wing is the philosophy of the "collective" or society...the
right wing is the philosophy of the individual...
Here's the political spectrum in terms that political scientists who
study this sort of thing would use:
(Left) (Center)
(Right)
"All men are equal" | "Every man for
himself"
| |
|
+---------------+-----------------+------------------+----------------
-+
| | | |
|
Communism Socialism Liberalism Conservatism /
Fascism
Individualism
Anarchy is not even in the spectrum at all - unlike your version -
because it is the philosophy of _denying_ political systems
completely...political "aethism", so to speak...also, if you like, the
spectrum is actually 2 dimensional in respect that all of these
beliefs can go to anarchy (so, for each part of the spectrum, there's
a second variable which is how strongly the rule of law and strict
adherance to the political system is kept :)...for instance, fascists
without the rule of law becomes anarchists because it's "every man for
himself" but with no rules or laws guiding it...so it becomes one
massive brutual and random fight...liberals without the rule of law
also become anarchists because they believe that it's not one way or
the other and that an individual should be free to choose anything -
left or right or both or neither - and being free to chose any action
without the rule of law is another type of anarchy...communists share
everything equally and (are supposed to) have no leader...society
shares its brudens, duties and responsibilities equally and fairly
amongst everyone...without the rule of law, though, they also become
anarchists because the social duties and such cannot be fairly
distributed and attributed without some sort of system by which to do
it that all agree upon...
So, as well as the left / right distinction, there's a separate
measure of the belief in the rule of law - how "strict" you are to
your chosen part of the political spectrum - that sort of goes up the
Y axis from the X axis of the spectrum above towards "anarchy" (they
all become alike when the rule of law is abandoned because political
systems require the rule of law to operate)...anarchy is an outright
"free for all" where no rules or laws or any system are in place at
all...anarchists are those who believe that no system should be in
place whatsoever...
Hopefully, most people out there aren't as misinformed as you and will
immediately recognise that I'm labelling the various political
philosophies more or less correctly (some areas are not clear-cut as
to where they fit in, mind you...I've tried to avoid any contravertial
areas so we can all agree on terms...once we actually bother to learn
those terms properly, that is :)...those who don't recognise this -
such as yourself, Annie - are completely free to check it up for
yourself to see that my labelling makes sense, whereas your labelling,
Annie, seems to just be "everything I don't like is 'left'" (so having
"anarchy" to the extreme right on your chart suggests that you're a
"free for all" right-winger who's not much of fan of the rule of
law...individuals are most important and should be free to do whatever
they like in acquiring as much as they can...you would, from the look
of the chart, be happy to agree with Maggie (definitely right-wing and
a touch extremeist about it) that "there is no such thing as society"?
As your chart actually seems to be "everything I dislike to the left"
so that implies "everything I like and want to be is on the right"
;)...
[ Incidentally, the terms "left" and "right" come from how the French
National Army's presiding officers would seat their radicals in the
"coute gauche" (left side), the moderates directly in front of them
and the conservative nobles to their right...this quite arbitrary
seating arrangement eventually gave us these initially odd-looking
terms :) ]
As for "one-world-ism" then that's a politically neutral concept and
has more to do with the level of extremeness and intolerance for other
world views...
The classic examples are, of course, the Soviet Union ("the Red
Menance") and the Nazi Third Reich (but you can also throw in the
British and French Empires and, as I was earlier suggesting, any
proposed "American Empire" that might be to come...nationality is
irrelevent, though, it's the methods and the nature of the "Empire"
that's important here)...
Hitler is undisputably "extreme right-wing" by anyone's
standards...and his "Third Reich" was the creation of an intolerant
Nazi "Empire"...his philosophy - as "Mein Kampf" clearly illustrates
his intended goals - was one breed of "one-world-ism"...namely, world
domination by the "few" - the "master race" - over the many (that is,
if their hatred of parts of those "many" permitted them to even remain
alive, as they was also genocide on the agenda too...to, in a sense,
get rid of all this "riff-raff", leaving only those "few" to own the
world for themselves)...
The "Red Menance", though - if we can take this as an example of
socialist "one-world-ism" - was a different breed of
"one-world-ism"...this type of "one-world-ism" is where humans
everywhere work together for "the good of the world" (in the Soviet
Union, the phrase "for the good of Mother Russia" was the usual "call
to arms" for military service to repel the Capitalists knocking on
their door)...something like the UN or the EU is a move towards
left-wing "one-world-ism" (the EU more than the UN)...in the UN, Kofi
Annan has no "power" over the others nor does any other country (well,
it's not perfectly implemented which is why the UN is only a "move
towards" this rather than the real deal...the 5 permanent members are
given unequal rights in the UN :)...though negotiation and diplomacy -
_social_ interaction - compromises are agreed...compromise implicitly
is sacrificing the needs of "individuals" (be that nation or people)
for the good of the "society" (be that the wider world or other people
in the same country)...diplomacy is implicitly socialist, even if all
sides do it at times (but, as Churchill noted, "there are no deals
with Nazis" and they entered into no diplomacy because they were
_extreme right-wingers_ and would never compromise the Nazi vision by
making "deals" with "inferior animals" who'd only "pollute" their
"master race" genepool...more moderate right-wingers, though, can be
persuaded to negotiate purely for the practical reasons of it
all...that explains why Blair - a "supposed" socialist - was urging
the UN route and Bush - certainly right of any "moderate" stance -
couldn't give a crap about the UN at all and probably only did what he
did to see if it would help Blair out...and, also, if, by chance, they
had convinced the UN then they could have done all the same things as
now but it's looks "legal and approved" which would have eliminated
the majority of opposition to this conflict)...
A belief in "one-world-ism" doesn't mean that you're left-wing or
right-wing...the political spectrum doesn't measure this facet of
philosophy...in fact, a moderate middle-of-the-road liberal can also
believe in "one-world-ism"...they would porbably go for the style of
the UN, where everyone works together and compromises for the good of
the world (left-wing) but each nation retains their own internal
jurisdiction and can't be "ruled" by any of the others
(right-wing)...this "political neutrality" of the way the UN currently
works is the _only_ way to get everyone - remembering we have every
branch of the political spectrum to cover here, with notables like
America and China willing to (mostly) go along with the whole idea -
on board...the Soviets or China or Cuba and others would NOT be happy
to join it otherwise (if one nation - a breed of "one world
government" - could outrightly dictate what all these others do...in
other words, a lone dictator "owns" the UN and tells everyone what to
do)...nor would the Americans, British and other Western powers either
in reverse (if they lost their "individuality" and jurisdiction in
their own affairs because the UN controlled the internal affairs of
member nations by consensus...in other words, all individual
jurisdiction was removed and _everything_ was "run by committee" and
through consensus of all parties)...
Because it's "balanced" between the two extremes, they could get all
these many and varied parties to actually consider sitting round the
same desk as each other...Bush is now calling the UN "irrelevent"
because the "left" elements of compromise, diplomacy and negotiation
are getting in the way of his _right-wing_ agenda...
The current American administration is clearly right-wing...one of the
most right-wing administrations you've had so far (though Nixon was
hardly an angel either :)...the intolerance for compromise with the
UN...the securing of "individual" interests - security or financial,
depending on who you listen to regards the real motivations for this
war and the last one - unilaterally by Empire-building...this is all
right-wing stuff...and quite extreme right-wing stuff too...no.
nowhere near Hitler or anything - I'm not suggesting that - but it's
beyond the typical "moderate right-wing" that most politicians tend to
be...
"One-world-ism" isn't inherently left or right wing...it all depends
on what _style_ of government - which political system - this "one
world" will be under and the means used to acquire it...after all, all
"left" and "right" refer to is the political philosophy of rulership
(or lack thereof, as in the socialist's case)...the want to expand
your system to encompass the whole world - automatically eliminating
the rival philosophies - is something all sides have tried to do or
wished for...
> > ...I've been tuning into CNN and NBC and others to compare how
the
> > news is being reported here and over in America...
> >...
> > ...they are far worse for "political correctness" by a large
> > margin...
>
> Compared to the BBC, this is somewhat true...although the BBC is
rife
> with "political correctness." It's hilarious to see their deliberate
> "balance" of men, women, cross-dressers, high-brow Brits, low-brow
> Brits, Welsh, Irish, Scots, and various racial minorities. Hehe!
Actually, you have to appreciate the history...
Only recently has it actually been like this...previously, the BBC was
reknown for having white middle-class men with perfect (Oxford-esque)
accents reciting things boldly like they were reading
Shakespeare...and that had gone on for a _very_ long time....since
they started, right up until only a handful of years ago...it was
thoroughly NOT "politically correct" and, if you don't believe me and
you can get your hands on archive footage, you can find out for
yourself...
Also, the comedian Harry Enfield had a delibrate parody of this utter
_lack_ of "political correctness" on the BBC in a comedy character
called "Chumley Warner" (the basic joke being that it's filmed like
it's very old archive footage and there's two "toffs" talking about
"topics of the day" and is offensively NOT "politically
correct"...parodying some of the left over Victorian attitudes - such
as the importance of beating your kid with a large plank daily to
instill discipline (doesn't sound funny written like that but it works
on the screen because it's all done as an outright parody and
slapstick of just how insane people used to be in the past ;) - that
really were still present on early TV :)...this stuff might be easier
for you to locate yourself (although, as far as I know, Harry Enfield
was never one of our comedians who transferred outside the
UK...doubtlessly because, like this character, all his characters were
parodies of uniquely British things...his other famous comedy
character - "Loadsamoney" - was another parody of the arrogant
"Yuppies" of '80s Britain..."Maggie's children", as they are
dubbed...so, he doesn't "transfer" well outside Britain and you've
probably never heard of him...anyway, his comedy partner - Paul
Whitehouse (interestingly, Johnny Depp's favourite "comedy actor"...he
liked him so much he did a cameo on one of Paul's shows and didn't ask
for a fee for doing it because he just wanted to work with someone he
admired..."which was nice" :) - was actually funnier than Harry
Enfield himself and split off to do other work, which sort of ruined
Harry's career from then on :) to see how they take the piss severely
out of the BBC's previous utter lack of "political correctness"...
It's a very recent thing that they've brought women and Scots, Welsh,
Irish and Asian people in as presenters...and they've only really done
so recently because they kept receiving complaint after complaint from
their viewers that there was a clear bias...and, as you know, the BBC
is a "public service" so, in the end, we're their bosses...they
actually did this _against_ their previous policy which favoured
people _without_ accents on _professional_ grounds (well, obviously
there was an accent...it was people who could speak "perfect" English
in an actor-like manner...the Germans call their version "hoch
Deutsche" and is an accent similar to that spoken around Hannover, if
I recall correctly :)...
This was such a policy of theirs that, in fact, the "perfect" accent
is very often jokingly called "a BBC voice" by Brits (so, you can
imagine, to earn that title, the BBC really did overdo things...that
was, in fact, why there were all the complaints about
"misrepresentation" that made them change policy)...because all their
announcers would be hired, basically, because they related and sounded
like and would be understood easily by "Middle-Englanders"...
But, on one thing, you're absolutely right...their positive
discrimination policy they've now adopted probably goes too far in the
other direction...if the ratios of the presenters matched the ratio of
British peoples then they would only be one or two Asian-descent
presenters but there's load of them...and, yes, I noticed the policy
of getting mostly women to present the sport because, traditionally,
sport is seen as a "male thing" so they are overdoing it to the
reverse extreme that all sports reporters are now women...
I'm "anti" all types of discrimination myself...this sort of positive
discrimination is better but still full of crap, in my opinion...a
lack of discrimination is not giving the slightest crap about what
colour or gender someone is...the ratios would match those in the
population because you're not paying any attention to these things in
hiring people...so, naturally, if there's roughly 50% women and
roughly 50% women apply for the job then roughly 50% of the presenters
should be women...but you DON'T force that with "positive
discrimination" (another oxymoron for you there)...you sort out any
"institutional racism / sexism" so that the climate is as equally
welcoming to _anyone_ regardless of other
irrelevent-to-the-job-at-hand parts of their identity (be that colour,
gender, height, disability, etc., etc. ;)...
But, no, if you're trying to suggest that the BBC is naturally
"politically correct" then you don't know the history...they were
_forced_ into doing this by viewer complaints and organisations like
the Equal Opportunities Commission...they never used to do it and were
even _known_ for their complete lack of "political correctness" (the
phrase "speaking with a BBC voice" meaning "adopting a stereotypical
'British' middle-class, middle-England accent (with clear
"professional" elocution, as actors employ)" :)...
So, yeah, it is now "politically correct" in terms of positively
discriminating all races and genders into the presenter roles...but
that's recent and that's new and that never used to be BBC policy at
all...they resisted "political correctness" for a long while, right up
until around a decade at most ago...
And something else which needs to be appreciated, which people outside
Britain might not pick up...the UK is composed of separate
_nations_...and they all carry different _cultures_...not having
Scots, Welsh or Irish presenters is as much a form of _racism_ as not
having the Asian- or African- descended peoples represented...in
America, for instance, you're all American...there are the different
states, of course...but all of them signed up to being American...and
there was quite a lot of "coaxing" with things like "the pledge of
allegiance" - as it was important to get that sense of "American-ness"
to keep the Union from falling apart in its initial stages - to bring
you all together...
So, perhaps, you might not immediately get the difference that
discrimination against the "Celtic contingent" of the Scots, Irish and
Welsh is not in the same league as something like making fun of
"rednecks" and Texans...it's strictly racism - as any colour-based
variety - because they are different nations with different cultures
(during the '80s at election time, this distinction between cultures
was clear as crystal...the Scots and Welsh lit up in _red_ - for
socialist Labour - while England lit up in _blue_ - for Maggie's
conservatives...it's not imaginary, we are different peoples but, at
the same time, we're all British and the majority do still stand by
that...oh, speaking of which, I noted an American before saying he
heard Sean Connery going on about Scottish Independence and presumed
that it was the majority opinion...independence from England - which
they now have - sure...but the majority don't favour leaving the
United Kingdom and you have to listen to Sean Connery with the fact
that he's a member of the Scottish Nationalist Party and their chief
spokesman - due to his celebrity - firmly in mind...he's worth
listening to, of course, but he does sometimes neglect, I've noticed,
to mention his political affliations and that he's not speaking from a
politically neutral standpoint...a bit like a recommendation for
Clinton from Kevin Spacey who're great mates, if you catch my drift
;)...
> CNN is the worst of the lot; it's radically left-wing. That's why
> it's commonly known on this side of the pond as the "Clinton News
> Network." No one who's looking for real news takes CNN seriously.
> It's good for seeing what the leftist "marching orders" are, on
> any particular day, but that's about all.
>
> NBC, ABC and CBS are also strongly left-biased. I don't watch any
> of'em.
Oh, fair enough; I can't pick them all up from here, so maybe there is
a bias to the "statistical sample"...but these channels are the
"direct feeds" to the American channels directly...in terms of showing
American TV programmes more generally on British TV, they are
sprinkled fairly evenly amongst them and there's still a sense of
"political correctness" (and, dare I say, "bland-ifying" and
"middle-of-the-road-ism"...trying too hard to "please all of the
people all of the time", which I guess comes from the nature of all
that "syndication" business...being "neutral", you won't "offend" any
channel's sensibilities and then get syndicated across them all,
making more money :) to everything that gets seen...
> > ...I was surprised that when I mentioned the accidental
shooting
> > of a Wedding party in Afghanistan to an American, they had no
> > idea what I was talking about...
>
> I think you're confused. That didn't happen in THIS war. That's
> old news.
Ummm, no...you're confused...of course it wasn't _THIS_ war because it
happened in Afghanistan...wasn't the past tense a clue to the fact
that I was relating a _previous_ incident? Yes, it wasn't in this war
but the last one...I wasn't suggesting otherwise...
[ And, again, I read your words with a growing unease...for you to
jump to these sorts of "she's a blithering idiot" conclusions, is
distinctly distressing on many levels...the inability to even
acknowledge the possibility that it could be _you_ who's confused what
I said...the brushing over what I say, clearly not really listening or
paying full attention to it...the constant unrelenting "she's foreign
so she 'obviously' doesn't understand anything" xenophobic attitude
running throughout all of your replies...constantly aiming criticisms
at some imaginary stereotype you have of me rather than the real
person...programmers do tend to have anti-social behaviour but you
take the biscuit and the cake and then you scoff the lot of them... ]
> Anyway, the American you spoke to probably couldn't
> decipher your East-End accent. Hehe!
Sorry..."mentioned" was meant metaphorically...it wasn't oral
communication but written...so, the accent couldn't have come into
it...
> > But then, that's probably appropriate because _your own
Pentagon_
> > (the American military, no less) has recently been also saying
that
> > the current administration has "too simplistic a world view
that
> > they're dangerous"...
>
> Source...?
As stated, the Pentagon; Reported by left-wing and right-wing, pro-war
and anti-war press alike...both the newspapers with "Shockingly
Awful!" as their headlines and the ones already suggesting that they
_know_ Saddam is dead (jumping the gun on actually having proof of
this before going into wild celebrations about it...some parts of our
press have no notion of the concept of "evidence" or verifying a story
before printing)...
Straight from Donald Rumsfeld himself in rebutting the allegations and
pointing out his military service as an air force pilot...and from
other White House spokesmen also debunking NOT the reports but the
allegations they made...if the reports are false, then they wouldn't
be needing to defend Mr.Rumsfeld's military predigree...instead,
they'd be pointing out the non-existence of these accusations...
The administration itself is not trying to suggest that the reports
are false but are trying to get "damage limitation" on what those
reports are saying...you only do this when the reports are, indeed,
correct that trying to "prove" they are false would only get you into
deeper hot water when more evidence arises...
But, okay, we'll - for your sake - call it "hearsay" that these
allegations actually come from the Pentagon...regardless, many, many
military experts - ex-Pentagon who're now cashing in by being the
"expert" on military matters - are all saying the same
things...journalists are making the accusations...members of the
public are making the accusations...the Pentagon would only be icing
on the cake...
And the facts speak for themselves, anyway...in military terms, it's a
total nightmare of military planning to stick your troops slap bang in
the middle of a country - surrounded by "hostiles" in all directions,
sitting on hostile ground - telling them not to press the offensive
but to hold back until re-inforcements turn up because - and this they
_do_ admit - they wrongly planned the size of the invasion
force...troops sitting slap band in the middle of hostile territory -
where they are open to attacks and suicide bombing from almost all
sides - telling them to "wait" and not gain any significant progress
while you scramble to put more troops in, which they were perfectly
able to put in there at the start (so the only reason why there's not
enough troops is because they planned it wrongly)...in support of our
troops, I find this neglegent misplanning to be almost criminal...
And, here's the crunch, they've been showing footage of the
re-inforcement soldiers as they set off and arrive ready for
battle...and straight from the mouth of an American soldier: "it's
terrible...we really should have been here from the start" (actual
personal blame missing on the American politicians running the show
but the lack of troops at the start is squarely their
responsibility...because, of course, that would be an unpatriotic,
probably court-marshall-able, offence)...
I'm backing the troops entirely...I didn't want them to be put in as
"expendable" in the first place...now they're in, I won't excuse any
misplanning that will risk their lives...and, heck, even as someone
who's pro-peace, I find this constant tying of their hands in a war si
tuation - merely to suit political face back home - to be verging on
criminal too...how many will come home in a body bag because the
politicians can't politically afford Iraqi civilians dying? To suit
their political ends, they are giving conflicting military
orders...there's clearly guerilla warfare going on in places and
suicide bombings being used but yet the troops have orders just to
stand there and take it...to make distinctions between people that
cannot be distinguished from one another in split-second decisions in
fire fights...I don't want to see anyone die on either side but this
"kid gloves" approach - to suit their political faces - is likely to
end up killing more on both sides than a direct undiscriminating
assault would...
They are trying to wage a _military_ campaign as if it were a
political election campaign...I'm not happy with war but, please, hand
it to the right people...let the military make the military
decisions...they know what they're doing in situations like these and,
despite what they represent, I trust the military with clear
objectives to complete a million times more than I trust someone who's
got his next presidential campaign running the show in the back of his
mind...
> > You like Bush because, as governor of Texas, he executed more
> > people than all the other states combined and you just Adore
> > that sort of "zero tolerance"...
>
> Duhhh! Can you read AT ALL? I specifically stated a couple of times
> that I'm -NOT- a fan of George Bush.
No, it's exactly _because_ I can read that I know that you approve of
the man's methods...if you didn't vote for him with your beliefs and
ideology then you must have slipped when making your mark on the
ballot paper...you're not one of those Florida voters, are you?
> Besides, you're seriously misinformed (again). A state governor does
> not, and can not, "execute people." More leftist hogwash...but you
> don't know any better. The left COUNTS on that fact.
Well, you have no idea what the "left" actually means...your
misinformed "diagram" proves this by listing all the political
philosophies in all the wrong places (and there's NO excuse for an
intelligent person who claims to know all about these things making
the mistake of listing "anarchy" as a political system...when, of
course, the whole point of anarchy is the _rejection_ of any political
system whatsoever...that sort of mistake is beyond "misinformation"
and is just complete ignorance of what the systems you're listing
actually ideologoically represent)...
Plus, oh ye of slow of mind, this isn't "leftist propoganda"
brain-washing me because this was a conclusion I drew for myself
reviewing the figures...and you're really beginning to annoy me with
this continual accusation of being "brain-washed by lefties" when the
information I get comes from all sources - of all political
persuasions and none - and I draw my own conclusions from that
information...
And, clearly, you have little grasp of the English language if you
actually thought I literally meant that Bush himself performed the
executions...only a prejudiced moron who's desparate to grasp any
straw in trying to shut me up because I'm clearly showing their
"wisdom" to be such vacant ignorance, could come even close to drawing
such a backward conclusion...
Tip: Diagnose before you prescribe...you actually stand some chance of
being correct if bother to listen and work out who you're talking to
and what they are saying before you start handing out advice and
insults...
> > ...the Supreme Court's refusal to recount means that
> > the validity of the original count was actually truely
> > respresentative of their "democratic will" in that particular
> > state has not, and now cannot, be verified...
>
> See, you THINK you know what you're talking about...but you don't.
What a coincidence! I was thinking exactly the same thing in
reverse...your explanations of political systems sounds very
convincing...sounds like you think you know what you're talking
about...turns out you don't...let's see if you fair any better here...
> Fact is, the Florida ballots WERE re-counted NUMEROUS TIMES --
> particularly in the counties where the Democrat Party contested
> the result (because their candidate lost).
Source...?
> The whole nutty concept of "dimpled chads," "confusing ballots,"
> etc., was solely a desperate fiction...concocted by the Democrat
> Party in an attempt to alter the outcome of the election.
Source...?
> Florida law states quite specifically and clearly that defective
> ballots (mis-punched, multi-punched, etc.) are invalid, and are
> not to be included in the vote count.
Source...?
> If residents of the state of Florida are so weak and/or stupid
> that they're unable to punch a punchcard or read a ballot correctly,
> that's THEIR problem. But in reality, it wasn't a problem at all.
> It was a fantasy, promulgated by the Democrat Party.
Despite having clear, indisputable backing from statistics...yes,
"they" are the ones with all these "fantasies"...when it's _you_ who's
relying solely on this concept of some "leftist" (which you define
incorrectly to begin with) brain-washing device which penetrates from
the deepest rainforest tribes to the monks of Tibet in order to
convince the many and varied peoples of the world that, people who
have no say in the matter whatsoever and don't carry an American vote,
are being convinced to vote for Clinton, long after he's done his full
stretch in the Presidency and can never ever go back to it, regardless
of how much brain-washing goes on...and this is what you're relying on
mainly to demonstrate how an openly self-confessing Libertarian is
actually a left-wing "spy", sent by Clinton's mob in order to
specifically pick on _you_ so that you'll vote for someone who you
can't actually vote for, even if it was your deepest, most cherished
wish in the whole universe...
Yes, indeed, despite this reliance on an entirely absurd set of
notions that a survivalist living in a bunker would consider "far
fetched", this is clearly a "leftist" conspiracy theory designed
specifically to attack you (which is highly convenient that they treat
_you_ as the centre of the universe when you're so ego-centric that
this coincidentally fits right in with your "world view" of
exaggerated self-importance :)...and, yes, it's "them" (whoever "they"
are..."leftists", clearly...but as you don't even know what the "left"
is, "they" might as well just be called the "bogeyman", as that's all
"they" are to you) who are "fantasising"...
Sure, this is all making perfect sense...to you and _only_ you...
> All the Supreme Court did was put an end to the "recount" nonsense
> that the Democrat Party had fomented.
Right, so how did they get the authority - in a state who's governor
is a relative of the opposition - when, constitutionally, the only
authority to resolve such conflicts rests in the Supreme Court...to
"order" these innumerable recounts which all got fully recounted
several times and did it all overnight, to keep within the tight
schedules of TV?
And, again, the Supreme Court has no authority to just barge in and
declare "an end to this Democrat nonsense!"...someone has to lodge an
appeal before they are even involved...and they certainly can't just
"decide" who they like best...and even if they did, you do remember -
in the checks and balances bicameral system America has - who actually
makes the nominations for the appointment of Supreme Court judges? Oh,
yes, in this case, it would have been Clinton and his "leftist"
brain-washing machine who appointed Supreme Court judges sympathetic
and biased to their enemy? Man, Clinton's "leftist" plot is getting
thicker and thicker here...now he's delibrately nominating those
sympathetic to his opposition to the Supreme Court so that they can
sabotage his own party's relection Hopes...
This Clinton sure is an evil schemer with his dasdardly plots...this
conspiracy theory is now developing layer upon layer, full of
back-stabbing and putting sympathetic "spies" into the opposition...no
doubt all part of an eleborate plot to brain-wash the Inuit Eskimoes
into electing a constitutionally non-electable ex-president without
them actually having any vote by which to do it...I'd Love to know
where this great "leftist" plot is headed because it's confusing the
hell out of me so far...
> If you want to look for a Florida voting scandal, read up on how
> one of the Democrat employees in the Florida elections office
> conveniently "lost" the mailed-in ballots from overseas members
> of the U.S. military. (Military votes traditionally tend to be
> conservative...and definitely anti-Klinton/Gore.)
Yes, of course...and your conspiracy theory here against Democrats is
so much more legitimate and so not-libelous, while the reverse
accusations are clearly a "fantasy" and all part of an incredibly
elobrate "leftist" plot, run by fascists (who are actually right-wing,
not "leftist")...
Ummm...am I "getting" this right, Annie? It's such a long string of
confused paranoia and conspiracy that it's easy to lose the plot...
> > ...would a recount have verified this and confirmed not only
> > his legal but his moral authority as President? We'll never
> > know because they terminated the recount...
>
> Bzzzt! Wrong answer again. There WERE numerous recounts before
> the Supreme Court ruled on the matter...and Bush STILL won.
No, oh ye of the slow mind, it's the wrong answer _once_...this is the
same exact point that you made above...you've just repeated it so as
to look like you have more valid points than you actually do...and, if
this did happen as you say, then one should point out the necessary
Constitution violation needed to make this happen that way...or the
logic defying lack of time in which "Cinton's mob" could have
"ordered" (without any constitutional authority by which to do so) all
these millions of recounts that, apparently, only takes them a few
split-seconds to do, ready for the evening TV news...
Fine; I can't actually clearly demonstrate otherwise...so, for the
sake of argument, we'll go with your assertion that they did recount
the votes umpteen billion times or whatever...but, regardless, it is
the trivial minutia of the matter...considering just how much I said
and the level of detail about a political system that has no direct
relevance to me at all then you being only able to find this one
supposed "error" in all I said is, I bet, a damn sight better error
rate than you'd have in return...I note you've not returned to the
argument nor re-quoted anything in the last post about me not
understanding your election system...well, that at least shows some
sense, not to back a horse that's clearly going to lose for you...
Fine, George Wanker Bush - sorry...I mean, Walker Bush...a freudian
slip there, I do apologise - still won the recount...it's irrelevent
to the underlying point...those recounts were ignored by the Supreme
Court in just as much a negative way for Bush to make his point, as
for Gore to try to salvage his...it still isn't the "obviously going
to lose" or the "democratic will" that you suggested (already, my
error rate here in comprehending what's going on is much less than
yours...and, for Pete's sake, it's _your_ system...it has no direct
relevence to me whatsoever how it works but I seem to have a better
grasp of it than you appear to :)...but he still won by a majority
less than that attributable to statistical error...that's a
statistical "draw"...the only reason he's there is because a "draw" is
unacceptable and so the Supreme Court had to give it to him on a
"majority" that actually proves nothing (even without that whole
"dimple chad" nonsense, the simple error rate of innocent miscounting
is far higher than Bush's majority)...draws aren't constitutionally
allowed so the slenderest majority - error rate or not - gave it to
the man Bush...
He's there _legally_...I never denied that...but that doesn't mean its
actual representative of what the American people nor the electors
actually wanted...it's a loophole in the Constitution that it never
really considered a situation where the vote would end up being this
close...no, Gore shouldn't got it either, as it was a "draw" by strict
statistical interpretation...it should have gone to a complete revote,
really...but that would have been time-wasting, expensive, not covered
by the Constitution and then you couldn't guarantee that it wouldn't
have just been as equally close the next time...
> > And when I said "democratic will", I was talking specifically
> > about the popular vote of the American people...
>
> In that case, one might argue that William Jefferson Blyth "Bubba"
> Klinton had no "moral authority" to be president. He got only 42
> per cent of the popular vote.
Yes; Indeed, you can claim this about many presidents...I wouldn't say
otherwise...sorry, you've been reading too much of your right-wing
press that everyone in Europe fancies Clinton due to their "leftist"
brain-washing device...bzzzt! Wrong...I wouldn't defend him any more
or less than anyone else...
You forget..._you_ have the "vested interest" in these people...I'm
just an "independent observer" who's uneffected by the vast majority
of this crap...vote a cabbage into office for all I care...it makes
not an ounce of difference...what _is_ relevent to me is the indirect
foreign policy of whoever happens to be in office - for example, if a
President who's voted in decides to take a "nuke Britain" policy or
something - and that, of course, on a human level, that the American
people aren't gassed out of existence by some evil tyrranical dictator
who sneaks himself in Hitler-style to the Presidency when no-one's
paying any attention or something...
> > Trust me, when this all flared up, the news went into every
boring
> > little detail of the election system so that we could
understand
> > what all the fuss was about...
>
> Then either the Brit press "filtered" the "facts" (very likely),
> or you didn't "get it" (also likely).
Probably; But, sorry, our press has strict guarantees that the
government doesn't come near it...I mean, we have an absolutist system
(monarchy) and, yet, as we all know, the press rip the absolutist
monarch to pieces and no intervention of the "freedom of the press" is
permitted (they certainly ruined Diana's life and helped to cause the
crash that killed her)...so, any "filtering" is editorial and,
therefore, your press - or any press anywhere - can't be held up as
any more "filtered" in this respect than any other in a free
country...
In fact, _your_ TV _must_ be the lap dogs of the commercial interests
of big businesses who keep them going with advertising and sponsorship
money...were this a murder enquiry that would be a clear case of
"motive" and "opportunity" that you're the one being "filtered" in a
way that simply could NOT apply to those you accuse...
[ This actually betrays the BIG underlying problem here...underneath
all your comments, there's a "she's backwards and lies in a backward
country" sentiment running through it...
I mean, repeatedly you make "backwards Brits" or "backward Aussies" or
"towel-heads" or whatever "jokes" and think everyone thinks this to be
so amazingly witty...when, in truth, you just come across as a
xenophobic intolerant idiot - dragging the good name of your fellow
citizens down with you because you do it all claiming "all American
values" - but, well, so far, we've all tried to be "nice" and
"diplomatic" in not mentioning it and "overlooking it"...I note the
passing comments that you've already been "killfiled" by some here and
I think I know why that might be, considering that there's only really
the intolerance that you've ever spoken that's actually upsetting
enough to warrant being "killfiled" for...but, well, this is the straw
that breaks the camel's back right here...I'll say it straight out so
you realise just how offensive you actually are being to many people
here...
And, sorry, I do apologise for using a sentence that ended with a
preposition... ]
> >...any comments regards Bush are aimed squarely at him
personally
> > because he's a moron...
>
> Again, this is the "official line" of the left.
Oh, for Pete's sake...you don't even know what "the left" is...and,
bloody hell, they have some fantastic brain-washing techniques or
something because we can attribute all the ills of the world in all
their multitude to something being "the official line of the left" and
one cog in the great "Clinton conspiracy" to get re-elected when it's
totally impossible for him to get re-elected...you're like a broken
record...but, worse, the thing you keep repeating doesn't even make
any sense and you've just shown is founded on complete ignorance as to
what "the left" and socialism actually is...
> You've seen this
> idea repeated on web sites, in "news"-papers and on television,
> and you've swallowed it. It's patent nonsense.
I rarely browse the internet...I refuse to read the British newspapers
but I object to Murdoch making money out of cheap voyeurism (and,
basically, he owns all the newspapers and they are all sensationalist
rubbish)...and most of the TV I watch is actually fictional
entertainment...
These "lefties" certainly have powerful propoganda because it can
brain-wash people who're not even looking at it at all...no, sorry,
_that's_ what's "patent nonsense"...
I'll tell you exactly where I've derived my opinion that Bush is a
moron...his inability to speak cogently...his bizarre pauses in the
middle of talking in all the wrong places...his weird, weird choice in
calling the 9/11 suicide bombers "these folks"...I can get it all from
the man himself...and I'm famed amongst people that know me for being
an exceptionally preceptive and intuitive judge of character that some
even think its "psychic" (clearly not...but it's that on the ball in
the vast majority of cases to give them that impression :)...
From Bush's own words in an interview that his "favourite childhood
book" was a book that wasn't even first published until he was 20
years old...and are you going to deny that he's an ex-alcoholic with
drink driving on his record? Or are you going to try to deny his "born
again" Christian beliefs? Good luck with those two because he's happy
to admit them - to let us all know how much of a changed man and good
Christian he's become - straight to anyone's face...and, of course,
the drink driving offence will be on public record too...
Then there's the innumerable quotations direct from the horse's
mouth...once, an innocent mistake...twice, oops!...thrice, hmmm...four
times, okay, he's an idiot...five times, oh dear! etc., etc....there's
literally hundreds of absolutely idiotic things this man has said
which go well beyond simple "innocent mistakes"...yes, if anything,
Gore was worse...but this isn't a "village idiot contest" - let's see
who's the biggest idiot and have a big old laugh about it - this is
the Presidency of a superpower...after all, unlike the French, we have
a word for entrepreneur...
But, seriously, I'll credit the man that one of the cock-ups
attributed to him wasn't a cock-up at all - it was unfair to call him
stupid over something he actually _delibrately_ meant to say - and he
meant it with serious passion and conviction...
When he called this series of war campaigns we're now beginning a
"Crusade"...I'm sure he actually meant to say that and knew what he
was saying...and that it was wrong to attribute it to him being
unaware of what the Crusades actually were...the Christians already
have the mass slaughtering of Muslims in the name of Holy Lands - of
what is now Isreal - on their hands once already...he probably didn't
make a mistake and he's just working himself up to "do the double" on
that score...
> The left did the same thing to Dan Quayle, portraying him as some
> kind of mental defective. Also untrue. A perusal of Quayle's very
> scholarly legal writings quickly dispels this notion.
Never heard about that...again, I stress that these are completely
irrelevent elsewhere...there were NO slurs or comments or examples
pulled up over and over demonstrating clear intelligence problems,
that we got to hear about, about _any other President_ in your entire
history (Gore, as a Presidential candidate did get world publicity for
his "I invented the internet" line...but that's pure comedy, Americans
just couldn't keep that joke to themselves ;)...
This is a one, only, sole, singular and lone example that _this_ very
_specific_ President is getting this perception and, yes, outright
fear from the rest of the world...
When the stuff about Regean, his reliance on horoscopes and such were
only ever actually mentioned in passing once his Presidency was
_already over_...now, in America itself, I can easily believe that
every politician gets this sort of treatment regardless...American
election campaigns are famed for making slurs at other candidates,
which is "not on" in other countries that we note the cultural
difference that America seems to happily accept candidates ripping the
crap out of each other politically...
But, outside America, there hasn't been any such campaign...despite
your constant insistance, your "left" (or your "right" for that
matter) nor the CIA, as is often accused by survivalists, don't send
out "brain waves" to convince the world of such-and-such...our press,
in fact, actually are quite "sportman-like" in respecting the man
_despite_ his regular displays of idiocy (well, as I say, certainly in
Britain, any direct personal attack is considered "just not on, old
sport"...you just don't do it and when the Tories attacked Blair
directly in their campaign, it caused a massive fuss with people
shouting "this is terrible! We shouldn't be going down the American
route of having politicians making personal attacks at each other in
their election campaigns!"...and they meant it on principle because
those pro and against Blair made exactly the same "that's not how
things work here" point to force the Tories to eventually retract the
adverts)...trust me, if our press didn't like the man and he keeps
supplying us with all those Bush-isms then they'd rip the man's image
in small little shreds with the rest of the world...we're never kind
to our politicians and I doubt they'd make an exception to Bush just
because he's a "visitor" to our news...but, actually, they are
treating him well - despite a million opportunities to pull him
apart - because he's far too dangerous just to make into a cheap
joke...
> On the other hand, the left made a big deal about Klinton being
> a Rhodes Scholar. What they DIDN'T tell you is that he didn't
> actually attend his studies at his English university. Instead,
> he want to Russia and studied Marxism. Yeah, Klinton's a real
> "brain," fersher. Hehehe!
Also, again, had absolutely no idea about this because it's some
irrelevent triviality from the battles of election campaigns...we get
informed about the fact that American elections are going on and how
it works and things...but we all just couldn't give a crap about who's
what or wherever and whatever...
You have no interest in Robin Cook, Jack Straw, Clare Short, Tony
Benn, Gordon Brown, Ken Livingston and other "leftists", right? Well,
there you have it...exactly the same thing in reverse...we just don't
care...the only reason why Bush is an exception that people are _very
interested_ in what he's doing, because the man is ordering America on
his "Crusade" for Bond-like World Domination...if he didn't do that
then we couldn't give a crap about him either...I could tell you all
about how "New Labour" Blair and "Old Labour" Gordon Brown - Prime
Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer respectively - have this
bitter "in-fighting" thing going because of their different
ideological perspectives...but you wouldn't care...just as no-one
outside America cares if Dan Quayle was insulted by Colin Powell once
in the '70s or whatever it is that's not at all important...
> Anyway, you have very little room to talk, with that milquetoasty
> yahoo Blair -- and his crap-eating grin -- as your "leader." Hee!
Totally right; I wouldn't excuse him for a split-second...even his own
party can't any longer be depended on to defend him...
But the point here is that there's no point talking to the
poddle...you gotta talk to the big man who pulls his strings...I
wouldn't be greatly surprised to find out that Blair is part of Bush's
plot, using money and influence to help Blair - who was one of the
first to use American-style electioneering with all pop tunes and big
glossy ads and the obligatory string of promises that he completely
breaks within the first month of office - get into the job...well, if
you can "proliferate American interests" for "global leadership" just
by finding a snivelling toad from one of the countries on your list to
do your bidding by giving him a big bribe then that saves the bill of
any military conflict to invade Britain...after all, the world's
greatest weapon has always been the chequebook...
> >...I know Clinton continued bombing campaigns and started
military
> > conflicts and he was, I presume, "the left" as you loathe him
so
> > much...hardly something a pacifist would back either...
>
> Billy-Bob desperately felt he HAD to do SOMETHING to get the
> Monica scandal out of the headlines. That's why he did it.
> It was totally wrong, self-serving and disingenuous.
Probably; Sounds likely enough, anyway...
> > ...I _insist_ on making my own mind up about everything...
>
> Then maybe you could make your mind up to be a bit more disciplined
> and terse with the prose that you post here. Eh?
You really don't read anything I write, do you? I've numerously stated
that I've already made up my mind on that score that there's not a
single thing to regret or apologise for there...and that, yes, the
_ONLY_ time this complaint arises is when someone is trying to shut me
up because they aren't doing too well with their
counter-arguments...you'd think by now everyone would get the message
that won't work...
But one "trick" does work, I only ever post in reply...therefore, if
you stop posting nonsense that begs for correction then there's
nothing to reply to...and, hey presto, no more long and verbose posts
that'll demonstrate just how ignorant you actually are...
> > ...I've never joined a single club, party, institution or
anything
> > in my life (where I've been given a choice in the matter)...
>
> Really? I guess some gang of thugs must have come to your flat and
> physically DRAGGED you down to that neighborhood "discotheque,"
then.
> HUNDREDS OF TIMES! Hehe!
Oh ye of the slow mind, obviously I didn't mean "club" as in
"nightclub" or "party" as in "having a fun time"...next time, take
some deep breaths, press the "on" switch on your brain, think for a
while and _then_ write the reply ;)...
[ Also Love the way you stress "discotheque" mockingly presuming that
the Brits say that...we don't...due to the rhyming quality, the terms
are "pubs and clubs"..."disco" actually would automatically be taken
to mean the musical style if you said it to a Brit, because nobody's
said "discotheque" in the last few decades meaning a club...the U2
song I once referenced called "discotheque" is so named because then
it "translates" to all those other Europeans who's words for a club
tend to be "discotheque"-related because of the Latin
derivation...and, secondly, it's _taking the piss_ out of pop tunes so
it delibrately uses the archaic crap-sounding name for a pathetic club
playing bland pop hits...the "joke" here actually is that you've
failed to spot the "joke" and not because "look! They use funny words
in Britain!"...no-one says it...that's the whole point...it's a
_mocking_ term, not seriously meant :) ]
> > Who did you vote for? Ross Perot? (no, that's just a crap
joke...
> > I know he wasn't in the running ;)...
>
> I voted for Patrick Buchanan. It's a pity he didn't win.
Who?!? Oh, well...he's got a nice name, at least..."Patrick" with that
Irish twang to it...cool...
> > ...you tell me not to put any stock in trusting anything I
read...
> > you insult website information...then use a website with clear
> > "denial" interests as "proof"...
>
> Yep. I was trying to bring things down to a level that you could
> perhaps comprehend.
And then you decided to go one step further and just start making
childish comments like the above...
> > Oh, just fudge off with this, will you?
>
> No. You'll have to fudge yourSELF! Hehehe!
Clever trick; You've quoted it out of context and put it at the end to
make it look like this was a general "I give up! You've beaten
me!"...not so...this was specifically in relation to hearing that
whole "leftist plot" crap for the millionth time...I'm happy to go
on...just I'm growing very tired fast of the whole ludicrous "leftist
plot" stuff which makes no sense, can't apply and is founded in
complete ignorance of what the left actually is...
There's one thing worse than a broken record...a broken record stuck
in a tight loop where there's a horrible penetrating sound screaming
out of the speakers..._that_ was the reason for letting off the
steam...not because you've in any way "defeated" me with your
continuing nonsense...
Beth :)
Beth
> Yeah...whatever. Get OVER it, Beth.
Yeah; You're so right...I mean, what was I thinking? Spending so much
time worrying about such "trivial" topics as war, death, murder,
oppression, racism, the world-wide rise of right-wing fanatical
extremeism (does anyone need to be reminded what happened last time
that trend emerged?), a coming Jihad (seemingly from all sides),
America's seeming loss of Americanism, French defiling British war
graves in response, watching death tolls rise all over the place, eye
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaving everyone blind and
toothless, world-wide terrorism, environmental destruction, being dead
by tomorrow morning, compassion for fellow human beings who also could
be dead by tomorrow morning, leaving no future for our children but a
series of unsolvable and painful nightmares, etc., etc., etc., etc.,
etc.?
I mean, obviously, these are entirely pointless things to be worrying
about that I should just "get over"...because - and only because - I
disagree with you and you can't mount a defence that'll make me
apathetically further contribute to it all with more and more
brainless consumerism and stop bugging _your_ conscience that you
don't even have the smallest amount of courage to do even the tiniest
single thing about it...you won't even discuss it properly because you
stupidly believe it'll all just "blow over", if you ignore it for long
enough...
Yeah, clearly, I'm the one with the problem here...I do
apologise...well, there's no point wasting time talking to a brick
wall like yourself so I will shut up, if you don't respond any
further...after all, you don't need me to harp on about it, as your
own conscience nagging at you can do an infinitely better job of that
than I ever could, as you read all those death tolls and reports of
suicide bombers murdering until it reaches someone _you_ know...
Just listen to all that silence screaming at you...listen...can you
hear it? The entire world is screaming in pain...how anyone can block
out this all-penetrating sound, I'll never know...it's deafening...
Beth :|
Beth
newsreader...so I can't attach them to the correct places...I'll just
attach a reply here instead...
------------
> Beth wrote:
> Hmmm, sorry Beth, I have to piggy-back here. I don't remember
> adding Annie to my killfile, but I don't seem to get her posts
> any more.
> > Annie wrote:
> >> Golly...the slaughter of the Kurds with chemical weapons, and the
> >> torture and butchering of millions of people over the years by
>
> You (Annie) do realise that at this point you could insert the
> words "the United Kingdom", don't you?
Yeah, that you could...if you changed "the Kurds" to something more
generic like "human beings" then we could insert even more names...and
if we only have "torture and butchering of millions of people" then
you can select any random name you like from an Atlas...especially as
inserting "United Kingdom" here is blaming people like me for things
done by those before me...so, if merely being a descendent of someone
else who did these sort of things is included, we can't exclude any
nationality or person whatsoever...
In that regard, literally and metaphorically, we _all_ carry the mark
of Cain, if it can be inherited like this...
Though, not for a second am I excusing what the UK might have done in
its past...but it would be remiss not to point out - when, as usual in
war, everyone starts to become their nationality and responsible for
what others may have done before them - that such tarring of all with
the same brush applies to any and all...
I stress most highly, I don't consider any innocent citizen anywhere
on the globe responsible for any of this...even an Iraqi being fired
upon shared my attitude on this (paraphrased): "This is not the people
of America and Britain...they are good, kindly people...this is those
who would rule in their name and seek their own interests"...that is
exactly right...
Saddam is calling on his people to be "patriotic" to "defend Iraq"
from the "invading aggressors"...Bush and Blair, in return, are
calling on their people to be "patriotic" to "defend the world" from
"a threat to world peace"...Chirac is calling on his people to be
"patriotic" which has lead to British war graves being defiled with
hateful grafitti and swastika signs...
But if these people with their pathetic psychological insecurities to
"show who's boss" and take over other lands in _their_ own interests
weren't there then _none of this_ would be happening at all...the
people of Iraq, America, Europe and the World could go on as
before..."business as usual"...
All of them use our names and nationalities to play _their_ war and
power games...and all of them will most probably go to their graves
uneffected by what they've done to us all...let's not divide along
_their_ political borders and give them the excuses they need to do it
all again and again and again...because, always, we pay - not just
money but, often, with our lives - while they play and perhaps profit
in enough power to start it all over again...
The grand irony is that the most patriotic thing to do in situations
like this is to put our flags to the ground and talk as _people_, not
national stereotypes...but, of course, this is so ironic to see and so
difficult to do, no-one'll actually ever do it (especially as there's
guaranteed a stand-off of "you do it first, then I'll do it"
involved)...and this will roll on and on...humans started this
millenia ago and will carry on doing it for millenia...different names
rise and fall...but it's all the same old crap for the seven millionth
time...unfortunately, no single person ever lives long enough to see
the pattern enough times to realise just how pointless and empty it
all is in the long run (you can only work this out by actually looking
at the history books, changing the names and places around to see it's
the same old pattern repeated over and over...both ceaseless and
pointless because, tomorrow, our enemies will be our friends and our
friends our enemies and it'll all happen all over again...it's been
this way for millenia and no-one's doing anything differently this
time, so there's no reason to think it won't all just carry on
going)...
This time we got the closest - with millions marching together,
abandoning the name of their nationality - we've ever been to what
Eisenhower predicted:
"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to
promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want
peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of
the way and let them have it."
[ Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969) ]
Perhaps not this war but one of them at some point will eventually
make enough people angry _at the right people_ to prove Eisenhower
right and then - and only then - will this whole stupid cycle stop
dead...
Beth :|
-------
Also, Ed wrote a post in reply to me (or was it Annie? One of us,
anyway) which showed up for a second but then my ISP "lost" it or
something because it got crossed out and now doesn't show up at
all...hasn't appeared on Google either...I'm not ignoring it, Ed, if
it has anything directed at me...it's just that I can't get access to
it anywhere to even be able to read it...or did you cancel it or
something? Whatever...just explaining the silence on my part, if it
seems at all strange to those who might be able to see it...
Beth :)
Beth
> If you think you're getting unbiased news on CNN, well...may
> Allah bless you. Hehehe!
Hehehe...agreed...although, I'd extend that more generally because it
has universal application:
If you think you're getting unbiased news from _anywhere_, well...may
your god, or lack thereof, walk with you...
Beth :)
Beth
> annie...lately ur posts have been quite good...keep it up...u're
> beginning to sound hot (for a change)...heheh...just playing ;p
He's a fickle one, alright...well, anyway, his hormones are your
problem now, Annie ;)
Beth :)
Beth
> Here's the political spectrum in terms that political scientists who
> study this sort of thing would use:
>
> (Left) (Center)
> (Right)
> "All men are equal" | "Every man for
> himself"
> | |
> |
>
>
+---------------+-----------------+------------------+----------------
> -+
> | | | |
> |
> Communism Socialism Liberalism Conservatism /
> Fascism
> Individualism
Oops! Let me fix the diagram because it's come out all wrong...
(Left) (Center) (Right)
"All men are equal" | "Every man for himself"
| | |
+------------+------------+------------+-------------+
| | | | |
Communism Socialism Liberalism Conservatism Fascism
/ Individualism
Right, this diagram _should_ Hopefully not suffer any word wrap and
can be seen properly...mind you, I thought the same about the last
diagram until I posted it...hehehe ;)
Beth :)
Ross Simpson
> > annie...lately ur posts have been quite good...keep it up...
> > u're beginning to sound hot (for a change)...heheh...
> I -am- hot...not that it'll
> do YOU any good, Bug-D00d.
Being on the 'net doesn't help either. HaHaHa!
> Shouldn't you be doing your
> homework or something, kid?
I'd seriously advise against that!
Homework can be a bad thing when
studying the wrong subject.
Ross.
Ross Simpson
> > Yeah...whatever. Get OVER it, Beth.
Hope I'm not too personal here, but I was just wondering if you
two have ever met? I'm guessing that you haven't, but really
your postings in here suggest otherwise. There is one little
problem with the 'net which separates us, unlike a phone call or
even meeting one another, we can never really tell what the other
person is like (even years after reading one another's posts).
But the 'net is changing all the time & nowadays it's possible
to send pictures of ourselves (or whoever we want others to
think about what we look like), or voice messages (pretty much
the same deal as the pictures). So even though we could be
frank & honest, it will never be like that (unless things
change).
Oh well, at least there's a few smiles in it! :-)
Ross.
Ross Simpson
> Some posts are showing up on Google that I don't see on my
> newsreader...so I can't attach them to the correct places...
> I'll just attach a reply here instead...
> ------------
Well it appears smack on bottom of my post! (not that it's
of any importance) :-)
> Also, Ed wrote a post in reply to me (or was it Annie? One of us,
> anyway) which showed up for a second but then my ISP "lost" it or
> something because it got crossed out and now doesn't show up at
> all...hasn't appeared on Google either...I'm not ignoring it,
> Ed, if it has anything directed at me...it's just that I can't
> get access to it anywhere to even be able to read it...or did
> you cancel it or something? Whatever...just explaining the
> silence on my part, if it seems at all strange to those who might
> be able to see it...
Normally messages like that are cancelations. It is possible to
post a message & then cancel it, but I suppose it depends on
the news browser.
Ross.
Annie
On 2003-04-03 BethS...@hotmail.com said:
> ...The entire world is screaming in pain...
_____
What utter New Age rubbish! ((( `\
_ _`\ )
You have no perspective. Like (^ ) )
most people, you're caught up ~-( )
in the particular moment you _'((,,,)))
happen to inhabit. ,-' \_/ `\
( , |
The stuff you decry has been `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
going on for centuries. Millenia. \ / | |
Yet mankind has muddled through, =()=: / ,' aa
and somehow managed to survive.
Duhhh! Turn off the TV, and get a LIFE. Hehehe!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Annie
On 2003-04-02 BethS...@hotmail.com wrote:
> [ 1135 lines of blah-blah-blah -- snipped! ]
>
> Well, this explains things...this "polticial spectrum" is utterly
> wrong by the standard meanings of "left" and "right"...
> ...
> ...communism and fascism are polar opposite extremes...
_____
Really? Well, let's put aside the ((( `\
ivory-tower academic theories, _ _`\ )
and look at the REALITY of how (^ ) )
these forms of government are ~-( )
implemented in the real world: _'((,,,)))
,-' \_/ `\
Communism: repressive; little or ( , |
no personal freedom; all power in `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
the hands of an absolute dictator. \ / | |
=()=: / ,' aa
Fascism: repressive; little or
no personal freedom; all power in
the hands of an absolute dictator.
There's literally no -practical- difference.
So if communism is on the "left," and fascism is on the
"right," as you claim, where on your scale do we put an
open system of government based on personal freedoms --
such as the U.S.A.?
In the center? No, it's totally illogical to say that
openness and freedom are some kind of "middle ground"
between two forms of totalitarianism. That makes no
sense whatsoever.
On the right? No, it's totally illogical to place open-
ness and freedom next to totalitarianism. That makes no
sense whatsoever.
So it looks to me, Beth, like your scale, and your
"standard meanings of 'left' and 'right,'" are erroneous.
The truth is, totalitarianism in -ANY- form is "left-wing."
Conversely, freedom is "right-wing" (opposite of totalitar-
ianism) -- anarchy being the ultimate unrestrained "freedom."
Communism and socialism have always been philosophically
barren and bankrupt, because they refuse to acknowledge
that humankind has an innate, in-born nature.
That innate human nature can be fairly accurately summed up
as vanity, jealousy, lust and greed.
Anyone who has spent time with a two-year-old -- or observed
Saddam Hussein -- knows this to be true. Even the Christian
Bible affirms it.
Communism and socialism, on the other hand, assume that every
new-born human is a "clean slate" -- which can be bent, formed,
and shoved into any desired mold.
Bzzzt! Wrong!
Genetics and human nature will puncture such theoretical ivory-
tower balloons, every time.
Now stop trying to be pseudo-academic and/or "psychic," girl,
and start using your COMMON SENSE (whatever of it might remain).
If we were to put all your crap messages into a time capsule,
and force you to read them again in 50 years, you'd be
thoroughly mortified by their callowness, their lack of
brevity and incisiveness, and their naive acceptance of what-
ever junk science and crap ecological theories happened to be
in vogue at the time.
Get OVER it! Turn off the TV. Go out and have a drink. Get a
LIFE...go get married, or something. Hehehe!
Love,
Annie
Frank Kotler
> Ed Beroset wrote:
>
(that was the part ya missed, Beth :)
> If I'm
> inspired to boot to Linux, maybe I'll add the "day of week" stuff to it,
> and post that...
Well, I fiddled with it a little... It's a bit more like ctime... Still
completely devoid of error-handling. It needs to be re-written
completely - this was written to "show" the time on-the-fly, better to
put the time to a string, and display it all at once. Ctime apparently
returns a pointer to a statically allocated buffer which can be
overwritten by subsequent calls to time functions. Seems to me it would
be better to pass a pointer to a buffer to the function(?). We'll see...
The time numbers are only showing one digit, if less than ten - I should
replace that with a routine that shows a zero-padded two digits...
But I ran into a real stumper. This is returning GMT. How the devil do I
find my local timezone? I thought I'd find it as an environment
variable, but I don't see it there. I'd be willing to read and try to
parse "/etc/localtime", but the contents of that aren't what I expected,
and I don't quite see *how* to parse it! Well, consult the C source, if
all else fails...
This is what I've got so far - nothing very virtuous.
Best,
Frank
; nasm -f elf time3.asm
; ld -s -o time3 time3.o
global _start
section .data
months_table: ; number of days in each month
db 1Fh,1Ch,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh
mon_name3: ; three-letter month names
db 'JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJan'
day_name3 db 'SunMonTueWedThuFriSat'
section .bss
yr resd 1
doy resd 1
dom resd 1
dow resd 1
month resd 1
hr resd 1
min resd 1
sec resd 1
section .text
_start
mov eax, 13 ; sys_time
xor ebx, ebx ; NULL - no buffer
int 80h
mov byte [months_table + 1], 1Ch ; 28 days in february again
; (for repeat calls...)
mov ecx, 60
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [sec], edx
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [min], edx
mov ecx, 24
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [hr], edx
push eax
mov ecx, 7
xor edx, edx
div ecx
add edx, byte 4
cmp edx, byte 7
jb gooddow
sub edx, byte 7
gooddow:
mov [dow], edx
pop eax
mov ecx, 365
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [yr], eax
add dword [yr], 1970
test dword [yr], 3
jnz notly
mov byte [months_table + 1], 1Dh ; 29 days in february
notly:
shr eax, 2 ; how many leapyears in that?
sub edx, eax
mov [doy], edx
xor ebx, ebx
findmonth:
mov al, [months_table + ebx]
cbd
sub edx, eax
js foundmonth
inc ebx
jmp short findmonth
foundmonth:
add edx, eax
mov [dom], edx ; zero-based - C is 1-based
mov [month], ebx ; zero-based
; separate subfunction here?
mov eax, [dow]
mov eax, [day_name3 + eax + eax * 2]
call put3char
mov al, ' '
call putc
mov eax, [month]
mov eax, [mon_name3 + eax + eax * 2]
call put3char
mov al, ' '
call putc
mov eax, [dom]
inc eax ; zero-based
call showeax
mov al, ' '
call putc
mov eax, [hr] ; gmt?
call showeax
mov al, ':'
call putc
mov eax, [min]
call showeax
mov al, ':'
call putc
mov eax, [sec]
call showeax
mov al, ' '
call putc
mov eax, 'GMTX' ; localtime???
call put3char ; tell 'em about it, anyway
mov al, ' '
call putc
mov eax, [yr]
call showeax
mov al, 10 ; newline - ctime() does one
call putc
call putc ; asm is better, we'll do two :)
popad
ret
;-----------------------
;-------------------------
putc:
push eax
mov eax, 4 ; sys_write
mov ebx, 1 ; stdout
mov ecx, esp ; character's on the stack
mov edx, 1 ; just one
int 80h ; do it
pop eax
ret
;---------------------------
;--------------------------------
; put3char
; expects: 3 "good" characters and 1 "garbage" character in eax
; returns: nothing
;-----------------
put3char:
push edx
push ecx
push ebx
push eax ; we've got one more character than we need
mov eax, 4 ; sys_write
mov ebx, 1 ; stdout
mov ecx, esp
mov edx, 3 ; only print 3
int 80h
pop eax
pop ebx
pop ecx
pop edx
ret
;------------------------------
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > ...The entire world is screaming in pain...
>
And "leftist" too, no doubt...
Well, let's see if I can put my AI work to some use here...your brain
seems to use a very simple word-association-pigeon-holing
algorithm...I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with the
code for that:
----------- 8< -------------
Program Annie's Brain;
Var
NewAge : PigeonHole;
Leftist : PigeonHole;
RadicalGreen : PigeonHole;
Begin Annie's Brain;
forever do
Word := GetWordFromEars();
select (Word)
case "Fossil fuels":
case "Rainforest":
case "Environment":
PutPersonInPigeonHole(RadicalGreen);
case "Crystal beads":
case "Horoscope":
case "Age of Auqarius":
PutPersonInPigeonHole(NewAge);
default case:
PutPersonInPigeonHole(Leftist);
endselect;
endfor;
End Annie's Brain;
----------- >8 -------------
Normally, AI programs would be a little more complex than this...but
you're brain is so blinkered, just pigeon-holing people into
stereotypes that it's refreshingly easy to emulate the behaviour
accurately in only a few lines of code :)
> You have no perspective. Like most people, you're caught up
> in the particular moment you happen to inhabit.
Unlike you, who, I suppose, are a time-traveller or immortal and has
an infinite and perfect perspective on all matters...this implicit
claim of being omnipotent, Annie, hardly seems likely and some may
even find blasphemous because omnipotence and immortality are normally
attributes only ascribable to a god or goddess of some kind...
> The stuff you decry has been going on for centuries. Millenia.
Hello?!?! That's what I've been saying myself...that's the whole
fudging point of what I was saying...it has been going on for so long
that it's way passed time everyone stopped doing it...it's been going
on for so long that everything has become dependent on things that
have a big expiration date stamped on the side of them...will it be
the end of humankind? No, not in that case...that's not the
message...you so have not been listening...we make the changes now,
it's more or less painless...and everything carries on as before...
We wait and the means to rectify the situation goes...it's simply too
late by then...making changes is long, hard, painful and
difficult...because we can't run the vehicles, we can't power up the
factories, we can't deliver the food to the supermarkets, we can't do
so many things we simply _need_ to have done for our "Western
lifestyle" to continue...our lifestyles will be forced - as we've left
ourselves no other choice - to "muddle through", as you put
it...sacrifices here...sacrifices there...you won't recognise what
things will become...
You misunderstand completely; I'm not saying it's the End of the
World...I'm saying it'll be the End Of the World _as We Know
It_...subtle change of wording but a massive difference in what I'm
saying...so, if you think I'm trying to tell everyone to do this so we
can all go around hugging trees and skipping through the flowers then
you've so got it backwards...what you're failing to appreciate is my
words here are an attempt to salvage this way of life - to keep it
going - because the other option of carrying on blindly _is_ the thing
that will destroy it...not me...totally non-New Age...this isn't
"everyone should wear pretty beads and dance with the flowers",
Annie...this is salvaging the ability to put toast in the toaster in
the mornings, drive to work, switch on a computer, switch on the
light, read and write Emails, to enjoy the metropolitan life, to go
shopping for food in the supermarkets because it's all conveniently
delivered there overnight while we're all sleeping...
I'm trying to save _your_ world and _your_ lifestyle...if you let this
stuff run out without making the slightest effort to do anything
whatsoever, then there won't be a means to power the grid with enough
power so that you can turn on that toaster or that light or that
computer...without fuel for vehicles, the food won't get delivered to
the convenient supermarkets and the metropolitan lifstyle - so far
from all the farms where the food is grown - will become increasingly
difficult, if not impossible...they'll work out a scheme, of course,
eventually, where they get it out to the stores somehow...but not in
the same volumes as before because there isn't any of that oh-so-good
oil anymore...yes, everyone mocks all the alternatives...but unless
something serious is done to improve those alternatives, unless the
investment goes into their research and manufacture...then those jokes
we laugh at could be all that's left that actually moves...they'll
deliver the food on the back of a milk float at 2mph, needing to
refuel it every 50mph and you can't overload it too much or that just
drains the batteries faster meaning it takes too long to get there...
Don't you get it? This is preventative action so it never even
happens - that life goes on _exactly_ as it does now without any stops
or black-outs - rather than attempting a poor "cure" long after it's
too late...listen to me and we all get through this without a single
scratch...ignore me and all that "New Age Lifestyle" stuff you scorn
and mock might end up being the _only_ option left for you...if you
can't live the big, modern metropolitan lifestyle because it all runs
on fuels that _will_ _inevitably_ _run_ _out_ (absolute concrete fact
that they'll go...no dispute, no debate...it's 100%
inevitable...especially if people can't even be persuaded to slow
down, let alone stop)...then that lifestyle becomes impossible to
continue...the "solar panel hanging out the window" you mocked before
will end up being your only option to get enough power to make
yourself toast in the morning...the "everybody makes their own clothes
and lives with trees and dances through fields of flowers" New Age
Lifestyle you detest will become all too real as the only option
left...well, okay, the dancing bit is optional...but we'll be forced
to go back to knitting jumpers and "mending" rips in a dress with a
needle and thread or sowing a patchwork quilt over the wear and tear
that clothes inevitably go through...the big companies can't run those
big mass-production factories without power, they can't deliver the
clothes from some sweatshop in Taiwan over to the local store...things
can't be disposable...not because everyone's become a "hippy"
overnight but because if you throw something out, it's going to be too
awkward and expensive - as it used to be before they set up this
massive (fossil fuel-dependent) infrastructure that lets you get
everything you need so easily and cheaply...
If you don't do it voluntarily then, in the end, simple practicalities
will _force_ us all back a few centuries, _force_ us to live the "tree
hugging" lifestyle...as if Edison et al. had never discovered
electricity at all, as if Diesel et al. had not developed the internal
combustion engine at all...because look at the name: internal
_combustion_ engine...you need something powerful to combust or it
won't work...certainly not as good as it worked when there was oil to
put inside it...and though we don't usually get to see how power
stations work (but I have visited one before on a school outing :),
they all work by burning things for heat (nuclear creates the heat
slightly differently but it has it's own unique "very rare", "very
toxic" and "creates tons of killer waste" problems) to power turbines
to spin magnets and metal coils around and around to make power...that
won't work without the fuel either...
You really aren't listening...I don't follow fashions and I don't
subscribe to any clubs or organisations...and this _ain't_ no "hippy
recruitment drive"...it's the exact opposite...we need to slowly start
to seriously commit to slow, progressive changes in the right
direction to, essentially, go "Cold Turkey" off this fossil fuel
drug...as awkward and painful as that might be, it's _NOTHING_
compared to what you'd have to do if we wait any longer...with this
drug, the longer you're on it, the more impossible it gets to come off
it (which is why after a century of living the high life, people are
so sucked into it all that they insult me saying these things
automatically...when I'm actually perhaps going to turn out as being
your very, very bestest friend for trying to make you see sense before
it was too late ;)...
This isn't fashion...in fact, it's simple arithmetic..."outgoing >
(100000 * ingoing) = will run out very, very soon"...this isn't about
trying to get everyone to "join the New Age Hippy Club! It's great! We
dance all day long with the flowers!"...in fact, as you should know by
now is the thing I hold most highly, it's a desparate attempt to
retain our Liberty of lifestyle...to let people carry on as they are
now to _choose_ how they want to live...wait too long and the decision
gets made for you, whether you like it or not...you'll press the power
switch on your computer and it won't come on - the power company can't
generate anywhere near enough to power the entire grid up to the
amount needed...
You're rejecting what I'm saying through instinct and, in doing so,
don't see that I'm actually totally on your side...I don't say this
stuff to accuse or blame or condemn or anything...I don't say this
stuff to try to get you to think like me or behave like me or
anything...the things you've attacked are attempts to alert you - a
good friend never hesitates to tell you when you're wrong or look
ridiculous - to a loss of that thing we all hold most dear:
Liberty...Liberty of choice, Liberty of movement, Liberty of
expression, the Liberty in American values, etc....without knowing,
you're thinking I'm here to take it away and that is actually the last
thing I'd ever want to do...I'm trying to help you to help yourself to
_preserve_ it for as long as you still want to have it...
But it is Liberty we're talking about here, after all...so, in the
end, it's _your_ choice...I'm just offering what I think are the best
options for retaining that choice and the freedom to choose...take it
or leave it...but be sure to make an _informed_ choice and _realise_
exactly the consequences of your actions...because, in the end, if you
don't make the choice soon then the practicalities out there will make
it for you and force you to keep to its choice, whether you like it or
not...I'd Love it if it were possible to give people time and not to
rush them into answering...but, as I've said before, there's a clock
ticking...if people don't answer soon then we'll have to just assume
that it's a "no" vote and accept what's coming because not a single
thing can be done without sufficient support to start making
changes...
> Yet mankind has muddled through, and somehow managed to survive.
Of course; At no point have I said that humankind would not
continue...you're doing it again...talking to a stereotype and not
what's actually being said (if this is an example of your
"perspective", you can keep it all to yourself...because it just seems
to mean is that you're wearing blinkers and can't see or listen to
anything outside your little "Bubble World")...
I ain't that old ex-dunkard on the corner of the road carrying a "The
End of the World is Nigh" sandwich board...I ain't suggesting for a
second that we'll be wiped out by anything...or that humans won't find
a way to by-pass things and "muddle through" it all...
I wonder, are you typical middle-class? That is, when you say, "muddle
through", have you ever had to _truely_ "muddled through" something?
Being truely penniless for a stretch of time (where "I'm broke"
_literally_ means you have _no money_ and not just "I can't afford to
do that and carry on maintaining my luxurious car, have a bottle of
wine (obviously not French wine anymore ;) with every meal and save up
for a big plasma screen TV")...
Oh, yes, humankind has had to "muddle through" many times
before...we're pretty good at it...blacks have, do and will "muddle
through" things like presecution, Apartheid, slavery, racism,
etc....gays have, do and will "muddle through" things like
presecution, beatings, being disowned, in other times being tortured
with inhuman "treatments" to "cure" something that isn't a disease at
all, etc....Jews have, do and will "muddle through" things like
persecution, hatred, the Holocaust, people trying to drive them into
the sea, etc....
That's one type of "muddle through" this world doesn't need
anymore...and it can disappear because the only thing keeping it alive
is humankind and its continual bullcrap...
Then there's the "muddle through" when the fossil fuels run out...when
a few billion cars parked out there simply become nothing better than
well-decorated metal tents because there's no petrol left to fuel them
(though, before it all goes, then it'll still be that metal
tent...because look at the price of oil now while it's still pumping
freely...just imagine how that price will sky-rocket when all the oil
reserves are sucked dry and there's only one - holding the entire
world to ransom - coming to its end...gold is expensive because it's
_rare_...when oil becomes rare then it'll become ludicrously
expensive...we don't actually need to go right up to those very last
drops for the problems to start...keep an eye on those oil prices...at
some point, they'll start a slow but progressively faster and faster
exponential rise into pricelessness...you'll have to abandon your car
before it actually all runs out unless you're a crazy, eccentric
multi-billionaire who'll happily pay the price of a small country to
buy enough of it to go for a short drive around town ;)...
You say "muddle through" but that's my whole entire point..."muddling
through" ain't going to be any sort of picnic...which is why I say
that if you're just saying "muddle through" so dismissively then
you've never had to properly "muddle through" anything that
serious...because it's NO walk in the park whatsoever...and this will
be the entire world all "muddling through" a massive section of our
highly-dependent infrastructure simply disappearing from under
us...except for perhaps old people dying of a harsh, cold Winter or
other things like this then, no, it won't do anything like wipe out
all life...it's more subtle than that...it's like a grand-scale
_theft_, not a grand-scale murder...we'll live and "muddle
through"...but the things we possess and hold dear and have gotten so
used to (like having food delivered to the supermarket down the road,
which is easy to get to by car :) will simply be snatched away from
us...
It's not the End of the World...some sort of apocaplyse or
anything...but it's the End of the World _as We Know It Now_...ever
been robbed? Well, imagine everyone being robbed of almost everything,
all at the same time...but there's no insurance here because the
insurance people will be just as robbed as the rest of us (and they'll
insist that as humans are responsible directly through pure neglect
and short-sightedness then it can't be classified as "an Act of God"
under the insurance scheme, anyway...they won't pay out for delibrate
arson so they ain't going to pay out for delibrate neglect...and, yes,
delibrate neglect is exactly what this is so every court would have to
uphold that decision because it's utterly correct :)...
> Duhhh! Turn off the TV, and get a LIFE. Hehehe!
Actually, yes...exactly...you can also choose to power the TV using a
renewable resource instead of switching it off...but, otherwise,
that's exactly right...we need to switch off or switch over and that's
exactly how we get our lives to continue as they are, mostly
uneffected...
We mock the one living in the solar panel house..."look at the silly
hippy!", the kids shout...but then the fossil fuels
disappear...everyone is in such a panic, scrambling to copy the
"hippy" but prices are so high because there's such demand but
no-one's put any research or investment into any solar panel company
to give it the capacity to cope with such an insanely large "rush
order" from the entire planet on the same day...the company then
reports "they're ready, come and collect them"...but, oh no, there's
no oil left to put into your car and this one, solitary solar panel
supplier is on the other side of the state / country (well, no-one's
been buying them...everyone's been laughing and mocking the entire
idea as "silly hippy" stuff...so, there's only one "hippy" business
person mad and crazy enough to have set up a solar panel supply store
in the entire area when there's absolutely no serious demand for them
at all...in fact, until the "rush order" from the entire planet came
in one day, she'd been able to happily get by running it by herself as
a small home business...manual ordering which she does personally,
hand packaging the stuff and driving it over to the customer in her
own small little car...this order that's suddenly landed on her
doorstep is simply impossible for her to deal with during her entire
lifetime...sure, the advance order money will pay for her to get tons
of employees and a proper system set up to deal with this much...but,
well, that takes time to do and, well, all the other companies out
there are not exactly running smoothly because none of their vehicles
have any fuel in them and even the lights won't come on in the
factories, let alone the big production line machines...where is she
going to get all these machines she'll need from? Sounds unlikely?
Then check out how "professional" many of the current suppliers of
solar panels actually are...if this were all to happen overnight, then
this would be a pretty accurate picture of what would happen...and if
everyone's refusing outright not to do a single thing until they
actually "feel the pinch" of this stuff disappearing then these
companies won't be all that much better...some might not even be
trading anymore, as there was no demand and, thus, no profits to be
made)...
"Choose life...
Choose a job...
Choose a career...
Choose a family...
Choose a f**ing big television...
Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical
tin openers...
Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance....
Choose fixed-interest mortgage repayments...
Choose a starter home...
Choose your friends...
Choose leisure wear and matching luggage...
Choose a three piece suite on hire purchase in a range of f**king
fabrics...
Choose DIY and wondering who you are on a Sunday morning...
Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing sprit-crushing game
shows stuffing f**king junk food into your mouth...
Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a
miserable home nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish,
f**ked-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself...
_Choose your future_...
Choose _life_..."
[ Renton's speech from Trainspotting :) ]
Beth :)
Ed Beroset
> Frank Kotler wrote:
>
>> Ed Beroset wrote:
>>
>>> And to help bring things back on topic,...
>>
>
> (that was the part ya missed, Beth :)
>
>> If I'm inspired to boot to Linux, maybe I'll add the "day of week"
>> stuff to it, and post that...
>
>
> Well, I fiddled with it a little... It's a bit more like ctime... Still
> completely devoid of error-handling. It needs to be re-written
> completely - this was written to "show" the time on-the-fly, better to
> put the time to a string, and display it all at once. Ctime apparently
> returns a pointer to a statically allocated buffer which can be
> overwritten by subsequent calls to time functions. Seems to me it would
> be better to pass a pointer to a buffer to the function(?). We'll see...
Looks pretty close, though. I think I'll tinker with it too. I like
the idea of passing a pointer to a buffer -- it would allow one to
construct an even longer string of which this would be just one part --
maybe an error log entry, for example.
> The time numbers are only showing one digit, if less than ten - I should
> replace that with a routine that shows a zero-padded two digits...
Yes, the Posix standard, as I recall, is particular about being an exact
and consistent length.
> But I ran into a real stumper. This is returning GMT. How the devil do I
> find my local timezone? I thought I'd find it as an environment
> variable, but I don't see it there. I'd be willing to read and try to
> parse "/etc/localtime", but the contents of that aren't what I expected,
> and I don't quite see *how* to parse it! Well, consult the C source, if
> all else fails...
Hmmm. Did you try TZ as the environment variable? I'll look into it
too. Who knows? We might even be able to turn alt.lang.asm into a
place that people discuss assembly language programming! ;-)
Ed
The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot
>problem now, Annie ;)
>
>Beth :)
lol...beth...if it makes u feel any better...i still love u ;p
j/k
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > [ 1135 lines of blah-blah-blah -- snipped! ]
> >
> > Well, this explains things...this "polticial spectrum" is
utterly
> > wrong by the standard meanings of "left" and "right"...
> > ...
> > ...communism and fascism are polar opposite extremes...
[ Actually, you might be shocked but I thoroughly agree with your
observations below...I never said that the academic theory is any sort
of reflection of practical reality...you're absolutely right...and
I've clearly stated numerous times that _Marx was wrong_...and, yes,
one of the reasons why he's so wrong is that he forgot the in-built
inherent nature of human beings (also, it was logically flawed and
contradictory on other scores...the academics can tell you all about
that :)...
But, let's be clear about this here, _YOU_ said "left" and _YOU_ said
"right"...and _YOU_ are defining them contrary to what these
inherently academic and philosophical terms mean...
I _utterly_ AGREE with you that, in practical reality, Marx was sooo
dreaming when he came up with that Communist nonsense...and he was
ignoring basic human nature completely...for instance, in the Utopian
Communist state - where there are no leaders - what happens if someone
doesn't like living that way and refuses to perform their "public
duty"? What happens if someone simply breaks the law? Yup, Marx never
really properly addressed even the simplest of things like this...he
was imaging that everyone would "be happy and friendly" and no-one
would put a foot wrong and spoil the philosophy...
It was because he'd left out the _practical realities_ of this
pie-in-the-sky dream of "brotherly Love" that when the Soviets
_claimed_ to be implementing it, they broke its Golden Rule
immediately by having leaders...in the "True Communist Utopia", there
are no need for leaders because everyone Loves everyone else and they
skip happily through the flowers all day long...
Yeah, right...an absolute pie-in-the-sky unrealistic fantasy...and,
so, all those who _claim_ (they DON'T have what was actually defined
by Marx, Engels and others) they are Communist are nothing of the
sort...they tell their people "we need leaders to organise things for
the good of everyone and to deal with criminals and such"...it's
actually breaking the Golden Rule that "everyone is equal" and
certainly, as we actually see, when these leaders get "special
favours" and live better lives than anyone else...that makes them
"bourgoisie" because they are a ruling class who lives a better
life...
Be clear...neither the Soviets nor China were / are actually
Communists...that's what they say they are...but they ain't...a bunch
of would-be dictators saw that this laughably pie-in-the-sky fantasy
about everyone Loving each other could be used to get control of
millions / billions of people and convince them that their repressive
rulership was "for their own good"...
That was something else that Marx et al _never_ accounted for in their
wild unrealistic fantasies either...they never thought about criminal
activity and how to generally and reasonably deal with it...but the
greatest omission that was never accounted for was what if those
criminals actually get control over the whole thing? What if would-be
dictators - seeing massive countries all following an unrealistic
naive dream - think "oh, come on...this is going to be like stealing
candy from a baby"...all they have to do is spout "for the good of our
people" a few million times so that everyone is convinced that they
are true, visionary Marx-converts and then they hand them the keys to
the whole thing for them to take over and rule as an oppressive
dictatorship...and, under Communism, a dictator can be _truely_
oppressive because all property is automatically state-owned...you're
not ever actually allowed to "own" anything for yourself...it's the
state's and they choose to distribute it as they see fit...not just
oppressive but a perfect recipe for corruption: "do this thing for us
and then we'll give you a special bonus"...
Anyway, I agree more or less fully with your assessment of the
practicalities...those countries that supposedly tried "Communism"
never actually had the real thing...because, in fact, you can't ever
have the real thing because it was just one big pie-in-the-sky
unrealistic fantasy, made up by some academic (Marx...that's why you
_can't_ separate the academics from the terms "left" and "right", they
are academic terms...if you weren't talking theory then you
_shouldn't_ use these academic terms...say "oppressive dictatorship"
and I'll happily agree with you almost all the way with your
assessment...but what you actually said was "left" - an academic term
about political philosophy - and, therefore, if you start talking
academic theory, the reply has to be academic theory in return :)...
Again, you're not really paying full attention...I'm not saying that
your assessment of these things being both oppressive and actually
were entirely identical in _practical reality_...BUT you said "left"
and "right"...and, for someone NOT wanting to talk about academic
theories of political philosophies, it's a total no-no to start using
the academic terminology...
Plus, who are you trying to fool with this "I'm not talking about
academics" when - hello? - you use academic terminology like "left"
and "right" (in practical reality, these _academic_ terms fall down
completely for _all parts of the political spectrum_...even Hitler
claimed "socialism" in the Nazi party's full name in order to dupe any
socialists into voting for him...just as with the Communistics, it was
an outright lie in order to gain control of the country and install
yourself as an absolute oppressive dictator)...
And, come on, this "I'm not talking academics" falls totally apart
because YOU DREW A CHART...you started labelling the chart with
_academic_ terminology of clearly defined academic political system
definitions all of that chart...you then tried to lecture me on how it
all works...
For someone wanting to talk about _practical realities_ then drawing c
harts, using academic terminology and trying to give an academic
lecture on the matter just doesn't wash...truth is, you didn't know
what "left" and "right" meant but after making this faux pas, you're
trying to wriggle out of it by pretending you never meant the things
you meant...
Annie, Annie, Annie...if you don't know what you're talking about,
have the sense not to pretend to be a great academic "expert" on the
matter...because, you see, I was not in the slightest bit bluffing
anyone when I say that I have an interest in human behaviour and
psychology, of which politics and political systems are but one branch
(Maxim now also knows this because he brought up psychology in
alt.os.development...at least with Maxim, though, he wasn't bluffing
at all...he actually _does_ know enough psychology and enough of the
correct terms to discuss it properly...in fact, better than I do in
places but I know enough to keep up with what he's saying and to
discuss it properly :)...
You're absolutely right (mostly) about the practical realities of
these things...in fact, _ALL_ the systems fall down in practice...I
mean, taxes are a _socialist_ thing...a democracy of equal sufferage
is inherently a _socialist_ thing...Capitalism can't survive without
the odd "socialist" thing here and there...China's now admitting that
Communism can't survive without the odd "capitalist" thing here and
there, as they open their markets to world trade...
All these labels are _academic_ and _theoretical_...you actually can't
implement _ANY OF THEM_ without contradicting the strict essentials of
the academic ideals in some way...they are all, basically,
pie-in-the-sky fantasies...they are only meant to "represent" the
basic philosophical ideals of how systems should work...none of them
can actually be implemented in practice...not even anarchy, in
fact...because before any of these systems were set up, then - by
default - anarchy must have reigned...the wild west had its fair share
of anarchy in places with people randomly shooting other people
because they felt like it and getting away with it because no strict
set of laws had yet to be installed across America until, of course,
things like the Act of Confederation and the Constitution were set
up...and that's the point...before any nation sets up a political
system (and though some countries are so old that no history records
their "barbaric anarchy", it's simple logic that before a political
system is set-up then you have anarchy because anarchy is where there
are no political systems of any kind at all :), they must have been in
anarchy...
So, we can even clearly see that anarchy doesn't really work in
practice either...because all of us abandoned our original anarchy to
set up other political systems...
The whole thing is _academic_, Annie...the clue is in the
question..._philosophy_ is _nothing but_ academic musings...and that
what "communism", "socialism", "liberalism", "conservatism", "fascism"
and even "anarchy" all are...they are _philosophies_...they are purely
_academic_ names for political ideals...in practice, implemented
absolutely rigidly and pedantically, they _ALL_ fall apart...that's
human nature and practicalities for you...ideals like these simply
don't function and can't be made to function...
And how our systems actually function is by being _predominantly_
capitalist and, yes, conservative...but, well, there's the odd bit of
"socialism" in the background that no-one much talks about...yup, even
in the good ol' U.S. of A, that's the case too...if it weren't true
then - good news - you wouldn't need to pay any taxes because they are
a "socialist" thing...America, though, is clearly the least socialist
and least happy with socialist things that any country is...which is
fair enough...whatever works for you is just fine with us :) ]
> Really? Well, let's put aside the ivory-tower academic theories,
As noted above, you can't talk _philosophy_ and use _academic terms_
like "left", "right", "socialism", "capitalism", "conservatism" or
"anarchy" and not be talking academic theories...
If you want to put these academic theories to one side then you'll
have to stop using these _academic terms_...and stop giving the
impression that you're talking academically by drawing diagrams of
political philosophies...
The clue is in the question, these are _philosophical_ ideas and
ideals...philosophy is inherently academic...you can't simultaneously
put aside "academics" _and_ talk philosophy...they are one and the
same thing...
> and look at the REALITY of how these forms of government are
> implemented in the real world:
Ah, okay...if you're moving beyond the academic theory and want to
look at the _practical reality_ of some of the actual instances of
countries _claiming_ these ideals then that's a _completely different_
matter and you'll be pleasantly surprised to hear that I almost
entirely agree with you on almost every point :)...
> Communism: repressive; little or no personal freedom; all power
> in the hands of an absolute dictator.
Correct; But - though it's a cliche', it's absolutely true - these
countries were _never_ really actually communist...they were
repressive dictatorships that claimed "communism" because that
airy-fairy pie-in-the-sky naive "everybody Loves each other" stuff is
the perfect instrument by which to dupe everyone into handing you
absolute power and control...
According to the academic theories of Marx and Engels and others,
there should actually be _no leader_ at all...the whole thing is
supposed to all be shared out equally and everyone's nice to each
other and it's all lovely...of course, this is a vomit-inducing naive
unrealistic fantasy...it could _NEVER_ actually be like this...and
though some claim to be "communist", they ain't...I don't even believe
it's even possible to get that namby-pamby naive fantasy off the
ground, even in perfect conditions where there's no dictators trying
to use it to sneak into power and control...
Which is something else to point out; I think - no, I _know_ for a
fact - that Communism is all just one big wishy-washy naive fantasy
and don't believe for a second it ever could work or even be made to
work...it's sooo denying all practicalities and human nature...it's
pretending these things don't exist - that no-one would try to cheat
the system by breaking the law, for example - because the whole big
naive idea can't actually cope with even the most minor transgression
from this perfect ideal...
It's just one big fairy tale...I have absolutely NO sympathies with
these "Communists"...and have said it before - but I'll say it again
to make it crystal clear - I reckon Marx was _totally WRONG_ with the
whole bullcrap academic nonsense...
I was not defending communism, I want to make absolutely clear...I was
just defending the appropriate use of the term...
And, you, you're absolutely right...it's just a oppressive, horrible,
vile dictatorship in all the examples we actually see "claimed" in the
world...but they aren't actually implementing the real deal,
anyway...claiming "Communism" was a convenient way to dupe all the
people into installing a dictator and then duping them to all pledge
allegiance to their "great leader" by claiming that everything is "for
the good of the people"...if you can fool people into believing you
mean it, it's the perfect way to trick people into making you a
dictator willingly without any need for sending in armies and killing
people...you walk in and say "I will control everything...this is for
your own good" and then you quote bits of Marx's totally unrealist
"it'll be great because everyone's equal and free and happy...everyone
Loves each other" complete unrealistic nonsense...but the people like
the sound of this naive fairy-tale (well, if it were possible, it does
_sound_ good...of course, that's NOT what they'll actually be getting
because Communism is a totally naive piece of academic crap...it
doesn't work, couldn't work and no bugger could even work out how to
really, practically get the thing off the ground)...
But I'm NO Marxist...they also say "it's never been implemented
properly" (and that's actually true)...but, unlike them - who tend to
say this stuff as if, were it properly implemented, everything would
be great - I don't for a second believe any of this utter nonsense for
a second...it was never implemented properly because it never can be
implemented properly...it's a complete fantasy from start to
finish...human nature could NEVER be made to fit it and when you get
criminals and dictators and other people refusing to play by the
rules, it can't cope and falls apart...
Talking to Maxim over in alt.os.development - who lived in the Soviet
Union and so knows what it's like and happily likes to discuss what a
complete pile of bullcrap it is (oh, you'd like Maxim, Annie...the
Soviet Union sooo made him hate all that Marxist, socialist stuff that
he's rejected the whole lot...and I _mean_ rejected with an
understandable passion...he's such a capitalist believer now that he'd
make even the most money-grabbing capitalists we can muster look like
"wimps"...for example, does a company have any moral responsibility of
any kind - however small - to its consumers? Maxim says "no" because
_nothing_ should touch the workings of capitalism...even if a product
actually starts killing people...hey, that's their own fault for
buying it...he's jumped from the one extreme the exact opposite
side...you'd Love how Maxim views the world now he's free from the
Soviets...he's uncompromisingly Capitalist now :) - the thing that
brought the Soviet Union down in his opinion was _information_...while
the Iron Curtain was up, they could say all that "for the good of
Mother Russia" bullcrap and the people - not knowing any different -
swallowed it all at first...let the dictators do whatever they
liked...gave them their trust...but, as information - computers,
media, etc. - all started leaking through the Iron Curtain showing
them that the outside world wasn't this "evil" thing that their
leaders were telling them it was (when they cut off all ties with the
outside world, they claimed this was because things outside would
"harm", "pollute" and "destroy" their supposed "Utopia"...if you're
not allowed to actually see outside to find out that it's not true and
all just a means to keep them obedient, then, well, it's
understandable that, at first, they all mostly swallowed what they
were told and let it all carry on :)...
But as more and more information about the outside world got in and
they could see all these Westerns who were rich (comparatively) and
lived freely and happily and there was no need to queue to get your
bread or anything...then the lies of the leadership couldn't last or
hold...in the end, Communism collapsed because the people eventually
learnt that the whole big fantasy of Communism was utter
bullcrap...via information from the outside world, they could also
start to find out the wider picture of things that happened and see
for themselves that their leaders actually weren't really implementing
Communism but were just oppressive dictators pretending to be
Communists because while people believed that lie, they were willing
to let them do anything...
In fact, Maxim was telling me how - when the Berlin wall came down -
the Russians all expected to get rich almost instantly...and were a
little disappointed that it didn't happen (some of the older
generation even saying "let's go back to Communism" because, well,
they were at least sure of that system, even if it was crap...luckily,
that was an "older generation" thing and most realised just how great
it was to be rid of the "big lie" their leaders had made them live
under)...but, as I tried to explain, Democracy doesn't directly make
you rich or anything...it's the whole Liberty thing to be able go out
there and make your fortune...that's where the money is truely
made...but, at first, like the French, the Russians didn't have a word
for Entreprenure...but that's fair enough as they've been under a
system where that couldn't happen at all for so long (most people
never having lived under anything different their entire lives),
you've got to give them a chance to work out how it's all supposed to
work...once they get the hang of it - and get rid of the immense crime
and corruption that's bound to show up with such a drastic change of
government overnight (there's always a period of anarchy between any
large-scale system change like this...just ask the French with their
revolution...or, in fact, the American Wild West was largely anarchy
at first until the laws were all properly set up so you can look to
your own history :) - then, Hopefully, the Russians will "catch up"
properly and we can all forget their temporary nightmare of so-called
"Communism"...but which was actually just a dictatorship using that
name just to dupe people into going along with the whole oppressive
regime because, so they were told, any hardship or sacrifice on the
battlefield was "for the good of Mother Russia"...
> Fascism: repressive; little or no personal freedom; all power in
> the hands of an absolute dictator.
Yup; And Hitler - the supreme fascist - did, in fact, much the same
"tell it's one thing so they don't realise it's something completely
different" thing that the Russian dictators did...Germany was a
democracy and a very advanced and civilised people...they,
unfortunately, hit very, very hard times (hyper-inflation where their
money just became utterly worthless) and, so, Hitler came along and
made big, bold promises...any general xenophobia - which often appears
in hard times - he found, he exploited fully...
He actually worked his way up into power through simple deceitful
electioneering...he told the people what they wanted to hear, they
voted for him, he used the power to set up his evil
dictatorship...once elected into a high enough position, he then used
that power - with yet more lies - to simply _remove democracy_ and set
himself up in this new position of "Fuehrer"...absolute
dictator...well, by then, it was basically too late and, of course, he
was still lying through his face that he'd fix this problem and solve
that problem...and one or two domestic problems - like the
hyper-inflation thing - he did actually bring under control so people
thinking he was being good on his promises thought to just let him
continue...no doubt, many Germans also realised what was really going
on as the true face of Naziism made itself perfectly clear...but,
well, what could you do? He was in power...the armies and the police
answered to him...he even set up "extra" agencies like the secret
police...it was too late to realise what was really going on...he'd
"removed" democracy so they couldn't then remove him via the ballot
box...the rest is history we all know too well...
But Hitler didn't claim "Communism" like the Russian dictators
(perhaps the very first Russian leaders actually naively believed
it...but it's clear by the time we reached Stalin, it had all gone
sour big-time and he clearly was just an oppressive dictator and
nothing else...the banner of "Communism" just allowed them to "hide"
what was really going on by convincing the people it was something
else...something for their benefit...it wasn't...it was exactly the
same bare-faced lying that Hitler had used to dupe people into making
him an absolute dictator too)...he had his whole "Mein Kampf" and
"master race" philosophies...once absolute dictator that no-one could
do anything to oppose him, he didn't really try hide to hide his
agenda...well, the Holocaust was a secret - the whole "it's a labour
camp for Jews" lie - because, basically, if people had discovered that
truth, he wouldn't have got away with it...even his own high-ranking
Nazi officer had severe problems with the idea...he had to cancel a
programme where the old and disabled Germans were gassed because
killing his own people - perhaps relatives of the Nazi officers he was
asking to actually do the vile deed - was causing even the loyalest
Nazis to question him...Jews were hated generally (shamefully, not
just in Germany...there was world-wide anti-semitic feeling...for
example, look at Shylock the Jew in Shakespeare's Merchant of
Venice...this anti-semitic stereotype and making a Jew the "bad guy"
wasn't just something personal to Shakespeare, there was loads of
people who shared that belief...some of it can actually be traced back
to the Bible because the Old Testament has nothing against "charging
interest" so Jews could happily do this and be the money lenders -
and, subsequently, were all very rich...which, likely, was one cause
of the ill-feeling that others were simply jealous of their wealth and
it turned into very nasty hatred over the centuries - BUT the New
Testament forbids Christians to charge interest on giving loans...as
we know, in modern times, Christians now ignore this bit and happily
charge interest) that Hitler was able to gas the Jews without his Nazi
officers threatening to rebel and refuse to do it, as they'd done with
the programme of gassing old and disabled people (they were to be
killed off by Hitler's "master race" ideas because they would only
"pollute" the "master race"'s genes or some such vile nonsense)...
One thing that's rare said but deserves a mention is how it's often
forgotten that many of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were _German_
Jews...I think it's worth stressing as we shouldn't start thinking in
the terms Hitler used...he didn't consider them "his people" because
they were Jewish...so, it's not really correct to start labelling
people as Hitler labelled them...he did kill his "own people", such
was his vile insanity...which is why I do insist that the distinction
is made between "German" and "Nazi"...Germans themselves were victims
of the Holocaust...both Jew and non-Jew...sorry, but when I hear
English football supporters thinking they are funny or something
chanting: "Two World Wars and one World Cup"...it's _wrong_...well,
the "world cup" bit is right but the Second World War was against the
_Nazis_...Germans suffered as well and, as this forever hangs over
those people, they still suffer today (though it's an amusing episode
that actually insults people who do it, we've probably all seen the
"Don't mention the War" episode of Fawlty Towers...that sort of thing,
though, does still happen to Germans...and, of course, such simplistic
labelling and some "they are all the same" xenophobia actually makes
people who throw these insults far closer to Hitler by thinking in a
racist way than some random German who's only connection is that the
whole vile thing happened to his country)...
The distinction between "German" and "Nazi" is _very important_, I
feel...if you don't make it, then you're actually being a bit of a
"Nazi" yourself...we attacked the Nazis, who were German...but it
doesn't work the other way around to say that all Germans are
Nazis...and, certainly today, it's _utterly wrong_...there are a few
ignorant neo-Nazis there today but then there's a few ignorant
neo-Nazis in every country...the ordinary German people don't deserve
to be labelled "Nazi" or even connected with them in any way because
it's bad enough that it hangs over all Germans that this vile
attrocity happened in their country...I lived in Germany, it almost
tangibly hangs over them (somehow made worse because I'm
British...they were delibrately avoiding "mentioning the War" just as
much as I was...in fact, well done to John Cleese for turning it into
a joke that even Germans find funny...it perhaps has eased and removed
that whole stupid thing for Germans in some cases :)...a guilt about
something that has nothing to do with the vast, vast majority of
them...a punishment on the innocent is there already...we don't need
any stupid comments making it worse...
> There's literally no -practical- difference.
Agreed fully...
> So if communism is on the "left," and fascism is on the "right,"
> as you claim,
I don't claim, per se...this is the "official" academic
terminology...you got a problem with it then :
1. Take it up with the academics who insist upon it being that way...
2. Don't use their terminology because, appreciate, if you start
talking in "left" and "right" terms and mention the academic names of
all the political philosophies, it gives the impression that you're
talking _theory_ and not _practice_...
3. If you like, invent your own terms and use them on your chart...and
explain that you're talking _practical reality_ and not wishy-washy
academic theory...then I'll happily adopt your terms, for the sake of
continued discussion, and we can start discussing things on _practical
reality_ terms...
I Hope you appreciate why I say this...it's like if I started using
formal language theory terms talking to Randy, he'd probably - and
rightly - think that I wanted to discuss the academic theory...when I
wanted to label what HLA was, I avoided "compiler" and "assembler"
completely because, like "left" and "right", the academic theory has
"hi-jacked" those words...if you say "assembler", people immediately
think you "must" mean the academic theory...if you're meaning
something else, then use a different word...it just avoids any
confusion about what you're talking about...
I'm not defending the academic theory of all this "left" and "right"
stuff (to be honest, it seems incredibly simplistic to me...and some
academics are starting to agree, trying to come up with new measures
which are more descriptive and accurate :)...it does have problems and
certainly doesn't add up to _practical reality_, as you suggest...but,
well, that's the way those terms are defined...in much the same way
that "assembler" and "compiler" have their academic definitions and
cause just as much headache when something in _practical reality_ like
HLA turns up and neither term really fits properly...
I don't really disagree with your observations of these political
systems in _reality_ here at all, Annie...but, well, "left" and
"right" are officially and strictly defined by the academics...if you
want to make your own definitions, fine...and that's a perfectly valid
thing to do because the academic who came up with "left" and "right"
don't really seem to have known what they were talking about fully,
that I'll happily accept a different measure..._as long as you clearly
explain that you mean something different by "left" and "right"_ - to
let me know it's a different measure to the "standard" stuff so I can
interpret it correctly as you mean it - because I'm obviously going to
initially assume you mean what everyone else means when they use these
terms :)...
> where on your scale do we put an open system of
> government based on personal freedoms -- such as the U.S.A.?
It's NOT "my" scale...it's the "standard" scale that people who study
political philosophy use...
But, anyway, _they_ would put the U.S.A., I'd guess, as middle to
middle-right (the middle is the personal freedom...the right comes
from being Capitalist, which is a system founded on
individualism...right is the philosophy of the individual so there's
definitely a right component :)...fluctuating back and forth depending
on whether Republicans or Democrats are running the show...as I
suggest, because the country has a general right bias, _your_ "left"
is relative to that and isn't necessarily the same as "left" in
another country...Britain is more centred because it has "left" stuff
(NHS, Welfare state, etc. :) but also shares similar "right" stuff
that Americans have (Capitalism, individualism, etc.)...though Britain
is a tricky one with such a thoroughly simplistic scale because it
sort of "borrows" from both sides at the same time but is quite far
into those sides...it averages out near the middle but that doesn't
show the wider "variance" Britain has than America...America has a
small "variance" because it sticks rigidly to not paying any attention
to anything on the left side of the scale (really, America only has
taxes as a concept from the left side...but even then, no bugger likes
having them so it's more than practialities force it on America rather
than it actually being "left" in any way :)...
Yes, it's a silly scale when it comes down to it...I'll happily take
another (sensible) scale in its place...but when people usually say
"left" and "right", this is the scale that they almost certainly
mean...if you want to use a different scale to highlight something
then that's fine by me...just be _clear_ about using a different scale
and that you're redefining the terms to suit your new scale...I think
the current "standard" scale here is perhaps too simplistic so if
you've got a better one (as long as it actually makes some sort of
sense :) which measures "amount of freedom" instead then, sure, that's
cool...but you've got to _make that clear_ before you start so that I
can know that you're using completely different definitions of "left"
and "right" which fit into your scale...otherwise, I'm bound to
interpret what you're saying all wrong because I think you mean one
thing when you actually mean something different...
> In the center? No, it's totally illogical to say that openness
> and freedom are some kind of "middle ground" between two forms
> of totalitarianism. That makes no sense whatsoever.
The idea of the scale is that "left" is all about "society" and
"right" is all about "the individual"...
So, if you're on the right, then it's all about
individualism...Captialism is a right-based concept because it's all
about an individual being free to make money how they see fit and
being an Entreprenure and stuff...and the state (generally) keeps out
of that...
Thus, it _does_ make sense - by this scale - that it's in the middle
because if you go too far to the extreme left, this means devoting
_everything_ to "society"...the state "owns" everything, wealth is
distributed evenly and that sort of wishy-washy idea (which can't
really be done in practice)...thus, the state "owns" you and it's one
form of totalitarianism...
Going too far to the extreme right, though, means that we get the
other type of totalitarianism which is where a person becomes "owned"
by another...slavery would be a far right thing...absolute fascist
dictators are also clearly far right...that's the other type of
totalitarianism...
The idea of the scale is that - a bit like scales you'd use to measure
your weight - you want to balance between your own individual wants
and needs (right) and your duty and responsibility to your society
(left)...and that's the middle and that's being "liberal" about
things...for example, you pay your taxes to "society" (left) in order
for the state to function but, otherwise, you're allowed to be an
individual who does what they choose (right) but you're not allowed to
break society's laws (left)...
That's the sort of rough concept here...you have to balance your
individual wants and needs with your duties and responsibilities to
"society" (paying taxes, keeping within the law :)...
Now, you may think this is a bit silly and, perhaps, like me, find it
too simplistic...I wouldn't disagree or complain if you did...I'm just
explaining how this scale - someone else's invention, not mine -
works...I ain't saying that I actually totally agree with what it's
trying to say...
> On the right? No, it's totally illogical to place open-ness and
> freedom next to totalitarianism. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes, that actually is one of the things that doesn't make me happy
with this "standard" scale...Capitalism is to the right...but if you
carry on going to the right, you get to Hitler...that is a bit
weird...I can't really disagree with you that the scale certainly has
its faults and strangenesses...
> So it looks to me, Beth, like your scale, and your "standard
> meanings of 'left' and 'right,'" are erroneous.
NOT "my" scale...sorry, but "left" and "right" didn't just appear from
nowhere...there's all these academics studying political philosophy
and looking at the various systems...as I mentioned, the terms "left"
and "right" actually come from a weird source: the seating
arrangements that presiding officers of the French army would place
people...it probably is sorely in need of revision because that simple
way of doing things no longer suits the much more complex picture we
have now...
But, I repeat, NOT "my" scale...this is the "standard" scale that's
used and when politicians or journalists or whatever say "left (wing)"
or "right (wing)", then this is certainly the scale they are referring
to...
Otherwise, if everyone just invents whatever scale they like then when
people say "left" and "right", no-one knows what the hell they are
talking about because these terms would mean something completely
different on a different scale...the current "standard" scale measures
the balance between "society" and "the individual"...whereas, your
scale you've come up with seems to be measuring "degree of freedom"
(going to the right, where you see "anarchy" as total freedom...which,
if you're interested in theoretical discussion, I would have some
interesting comments on...is "anarchy" complete freedom? Does this
mean that to make America even greater and even more free than it
already is, you'd just remove government completely and live in
"anarchy"? What about the fact that people can rape you, kill you and
steal from you in an anarchy but, as there's no system, then there's
no laws to protect you from this (which sounds very much like _losing_
your individual freedom rather than gaining it, if you could suddenly
lose all your possessions or lose your life and there's no protection
from the law)? There's lots of interesting things to discuss
there...and that's what all those academics who study political
philosophy go on and on about all day :)...
You could always try running your new "scale" passed the people in
news:alt.politics or something...but, be sure to explain your
redefining it all first or you'll end up confusing them just as much
as you did me :)...
> The truth is, totalitarianism in -ANY- form is "left-wing."
> Conversely, freedom is "right-wing" (opposite of
> totalitarianism) -- anarchy being the ultimate unrestrained
> "freedom."
Well, by your new invented scale, perhaps...but try telling people
generally that you think Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were "extreme
left wingers" and everyone'll think you've flipped your lid...because
by the standard scale that _everyone but you_ uses, these fascists are
"extreme right"...
If you don't like this then you can always become a famous political
philosopher and propose "Annie's new political scale" and, perhaps,
people might start using it...then it'll be possible to call
everything "left wing" and it won't cause misunderstanding, arguments
and total confusion...
But, otherwise, you really can't just invent terms and scales and
change them around as you like...at least, not without first
explaining what you're doing...as a programmer, you've got to
appreciate that agreed standards are _essential_ or things just go
haywire very quickly...no doubt, all the agro in the last post was
probably meaningless because I was just misinterpreting what you
meant...but, then again, I don't know for sure because all this
redefining terms as you feel like makes the whole thing totally
confusing...
I stress, it's NOT "my" scale...when people say "left" and "right", it
isn't just some vague loose terminology...it actually does relate to
this whole academic theory about political philosophies...it's pretty
strict usage...Hitler is "extreme right"...Marx's ideas are "extreme
left" (though, true, the Soviet Union was actually really "right"
masquerading as "left" in order to fool its people into accepting a
dictatorship and happily sacrificing themselves on the battlefield
"for the good of Mother Russia")...there's no debate or redefining
terms here, this is all about the standard scale and fixed meanings
about what is what...
As always, look it up, if you don't want to take my word for it...any
political science textbook should explain how it all works and what
the terms _specifically_ mean...
> Communism and socialism have always been philosophically barren
> and bankrupt, because they refuse to acknowledge that humankind
> has an innate, in-born nature.
With Communism, I agree totally...ain't going to say a word against
that opinion...
Socialism, on the other hand, isn't totally "barren and bankrupt" in
my own personal opinion...there's got to be things like taxes and laws
and such things...and, yeah, I like the NHS, welfare state and the BBC
and think those things work just fine...but _only_ because of what
those things are, that it makes sense to be slightly "left" about
them...socialism shouldn't go anywhere near financial markets or
anything else that certainly works and makes most sense to be firmly
"right"...
And, don't worry, I know you're not going to agree with that...America
in general doesn't agree to any "leftist" stuff like that...and you
come across as a firmly "right" American, perhaps a little more so
than the average American...
> That innate human nature can be fairly accurately summed up as
> vanity, jealousy, lust and greed.
Yes; We agree on that...well, I might be tempted to throw other things
onto the list...but it's pretty comprehensive and stuff...so I'll
happily take that list as it stands without a single complaint at all
:)
> Anyone who has spent time with a two-year-old -- or observed
> Saddam Hussein -- knows this to be true. Even the Christian
> Bible affirms it.
Yup; I've told you already a few times that I don't disagree with this
assessment at all...and, sure, the Bible does say we're all sinners
who must repent...that's accurate...
> Communism and socialism, on the other hand, assume that every
> new-born human is a "clean slate" -- which can be bent, formed,
> and shoved into any desired mold.
Wait a minute...by _your_ scale, communism, socialism and fascism are
no different...you've even said that straight out...why are you now
only listing communism and socialism but excluding fascism? You're not
now changing definitions on me again, are you? See, this is the
problem...I don't now know whether you're using your scale (and just
left fascism out this time), the standard scale or have invented yet
another new scale...
Does this mean - if communism and fascism are "all the same thing" -
that fascists like Hitler also believed that "new-born humans are
'clean slates' to be bent, formed and shoved into any desired mold"?
Because that doesn't sound like Hitler...he was all genetics, eugenics
and "master race" about things...so, with Hitler, you weren't born a
"clean slate"...you were a Jew or you weren't...if you were a Jew then
there was no "bending" or anything, you were just slaughtered...also,
if you were black then Hitler would have dealt with you in the same
way too...if you weren't to his displeasure then he wasn't really too
concern with "bending and forming"...there was the Nazi Youth, I
suppose...but that was recruiting more Nazis at the most
impressionable age...and, thus, the age where someone is most easily
seduced into the whole vile Nazi "philosophy"...
> Genetics and human nature will puncture such theoretical ivory-
> tower balloons, every time.
Communism, sure...100%...total pie-in-the-sky fantasy...we're
completely agreed...
But, the odd bit of mild socialism, though...well, if it won't work
then how do many of the European countries follow some socialist
policies and not "puncture" their "theoretical balloons"?
> Now stop trying to be pseudo-academic and/or "psychic," girl,
> and start using your COMMON SENSE (whatever of it might remain).
_You_ started talking about "left" and "right" (and as you work to
your own invented scale, it made no sense)...you started talking
political philosophy which is inherently academic...so, any academic
stuff is all down to you bring the academic theory into the
picture...drawing inaccurate charts of your own invented-on-the-spot
meanings for already established terms...
Clearly, you thought "left" and "right" were loose, vague terms and
thought they referred to "personal freedom" when it's not quite that
simple nor quite that vague...now you're just covering up that you
shouted your mouth off about things, thinking you understood them when
you actually didn't...
It would perfectly okay for you to admit the mild mistake, you
know...I promise that I wouldn't make any big deal or even mention it
in response...if you don't know these things then you don't and you
could easily just think that they were loose, vague terms with no real
specific meaning related any sort of academic scale...it's no great
crime, Annie...and trying to keep to this "your scale", "my scale"
thing is going to so easily fall apart if anyone else actually knows
(or looks up) what "left" and "right" refer to and find that what you
call "my (Beth's) scale" is actually not my invention at all but what
those standard terms relate to...
> If we were to put all your crap messages into a time capsule,
> and force you to read them again in 50 years, you'd be
> thoroughly mortified by their callowness, their lack of
> brevity and incisiveness, and their naive acceptance of what-
> ever junk science and crap ecological theories happened to be
> in vogue at the time.
Obviously, only time could prove that conclusively (and, well, Usenet
archives may, one day, allow that hypothesis to be put to the test
:)...
But I don't agree...I might find my manner too arrogant,
perhaps...everyone mellows with time...or some other minor cosmetic
thing like that...I don't think, though, that I'll be in any way
"mortified" to read back what I've written in these posts on a 50 year
old Usenet archive in the slightest...not at all...I'd even happily
put money on it, save for the impracticalities of actually getting
that to work over 50 years (we - ether, neither or both - could be
knocked over by a bus and dead by then, for all we know :)...
[ I wonder how you'd feel in 50 years time to read back what you've
written...well, except that...no, that's right..."Annie"'s younger
than me, right? So, she could be around in 50 years time :) ]
Beth :)
Beth
> Hope I'm not too personal here, but I was just wondering if you
> two have ever met? I'm guessing that you haven't, but really
> your postings in here suggest otherwise.
Two women fighting, Ross...it's quite usual for things to get bitchy
and personal and mercilessly unforgiving almost immediately...some
sort of programmed instinct or something, no doubt...it just kicks in
without any conscious thought, I find...
Anyway...no, I've never met Annie in person (and, therefore, I think
it's safe to say that's vica versa too ;)...
Beth :)
Annie
On 2003-04-04 BethS...@hotmail.com wrote:
> [ 812 lines -- snipped ]
>
>...If you want to put these academic theories to one side then
> you'll have to stop using these _academic terms_...and stop
> giving the impression that you're talking academically by
> drawing diagrams of political philosophies...
Nonsense. You're talking as though "academic terms" are
somehow sacrosanct. They aren't.
The currently-prevailing concept of "left/right" was devised
by LEFT-WING academics. It was designed to further their own
agenda. I totally reject it.
It's like the nutty concept of "global warming" being caused
by human activity. This disingenuous idea was concocted by
leftists -- enviro-wackos. They couch it in pseudo-"academic
terms" (even though it's completely junk science) to try to
give it the appearance of validity. As a result, some people
-- yourself included -- have swallowed it.
Not me, sister. I'm a bit more particular about what I take
into MY system. Hehehe!
Annie
On 2003-04-04 BethS...@hotmail.com said:
> Anyway...no, I've never met Annie in person (and, therefore, I
> think it's safe to say that's vica versa too ;)...
_____
Ummm...that's "VICE-versa," Beth. ((( `\
And it's pronounced "vise," not _ _`\ )
"visuh." Gawwhh. East-enders. (^ ) )
~-( )
You provide the web site, and I'll _'((,,,)))
be happy to upload my photo -- if ,-' \_/ `\
YOU'LL do the same. What do you ( , |
say, Bigmouth? Hehehe! `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
\ / | |
=()=: / ,' aa
The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot
> be happy to upload my photo -- if ,-' \_/ `\
> YOU'LL do the same. What do you ( , |
> say, Bigmouth? Hehehe!
y dont both of you just send ur pix to me ;p
Annie
On 2003-04-04 anothe...@aol.comnospam (The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot) said:
> y dont both of you just send ur pix to me ;p
_____
I just took a look at your ((( `\
web site, Insect. There's _ _`\ )
a bunch of garbage there, (^ ) )
but you seem to have plenty ~-( )
of space available. How 'bout _'((,,,)))
if YOU host the photos of ,-' \_/ `\
Beth and me on your web site? ( , |
I've got a nice picture all `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
ready to send, as soon as \ / | |
Beth agrees to this. Hehe! =()=: / ,' aa
Ross Simpson
> Two women fighting, Ross...it's quite usual for things to get bitchy
> and personal and mercilessly unforgiving almost immediately...some
> sort of programmed instinct or something, no doubt...it just kicks in
> without any conscious thought, I find...
Well that just goes back onto what I said. Sorry!
The 'net can play it's tricks of deception onto
anyone. At least we can eliminate the things which
aren't human that may post messages via the 'net
(well so far), but people can post messages to
these group & 'con you into thinking they aren't
who they really think they are!
Not that I'm denying your identity, but the 'net
can be very decieving to those who don't fully
understand the rules of it (but you should know
the 'net better than I do, Beth!)
> Anyway...no, I've never met Annie in person (and, therefore, I think
> it's safe to say that's vica versa too ;)...
Well until then, we only tell others what they
need to know about ourselves (what we do with
our personal lives is our business), the 'net
gives some protection in who we are & what we're
like. Sure some of the things might come out
(unless, you're really clever at living a lie,
not me I'm hopeless).
Well, I supppose you (not you Beth!) could be
the quietist person in the world, still it tells
something to another. It either tells someone
that you're either shy or are up to no good.
Quiet people have the tendency to be up to
no good, however shyness has it's own signs as
well!
Peace,
Ross.
The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot
> web site, Insect. There's _ _`\ )
> a bunch of garbage there, (^ ) )
> but you seem to have plenty ~-( )
> of space available. How 'bout _'((,,,)))
> if YOU host the photos of ,-' \_/ `\
> Beth and me on your web site? ( , |
> I've got a nice picture all `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
> ready to send, as soon as \ / | |
> Beth agrees to this. Hehe!
ok cool...send them to me when u're ready ;p
Annie
On 2003-04-04 anothe...@aol.comnospam (The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot) said:
>ok cool...send them to me when u're ready ;p
_____
Only if Beth agrees to participate. ((( `\
I'm not gonna be the only non-trollop _ _`\ )
female on your web site, Bug-Bite. (^ ) )
Hehehe! ~-( )
_'((,,,)))
,-' \_/ `\
( , |
`-.-'`-.-'/|_|
\ / | |
The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot
> I'm not gonna be the only non-trollop _ _`\ )
> female on your web site, Bug-Bite. (^ ) )
> Hehehe!
aw c'mon...send it to me anyway...i wont put it up if it makes u feel
better...i'll wait till i get beth's as well ;p
Ross Simpson
> > Only if Beth agrees to participate.
> > I'm not gonna be the only non-trollop
> > female on your web site, Bug-Bite.
> aw c'mon...
...do it for your oldz palz mozzie! ;-)
> send it to me anyway...i wont put it up if it makes u feel
> better...i'll wait till i get beth's as well ;p
Bet chaz Ł1 million it ain't Annie! ;-)
Ross.
Annie
On 2003-04-05 anothe...@aol.comnospam (The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot) said:
> aw c'mon...send it to me anyway...i wont put it up if it makes u
> feel better...i'll wait till i get beth's as well ;p
_____
I don't think Beth is gonna go for it. ((( `\
Notice her conspicuous silence, Bug. _ _`\ )
It's most unusual for Beth. Hehehe! (^ ) )
Frank Kotler
> Hmmm. Did you try TZ as the environment variable?
Not there - it's probably *supposed* to be... Turns out "man 5 tzfile"
explains the contents of "/etc/localtime" - could parse it, but there's
a "higher level" system call that returns "tz_minuteswest", among other
things...
Hurry, hurry! Only a short time left before this version breaks on
daylight savings time (UK: summertime). The "tz_dsttime" variable was
intended to return an algorithm by which to calculate when daylight
saving time is in effect, but being a political decision not subject to
rational analysis, they gave up. The man page says it's a "bug"!
So after today, I may have to go back to parsing "/etc/localtime". Of
course, I *could* just set the damn environment variable... I guess it's
progress - shorter than the last one, anyway :)
Best,
Frank
; nasm -f elf time5.asm
; ld -s -o time5 time5.o
global _start ; inform the linker
;----------------------------------------------
; some structures for "time stuff" - much like C
struc tv
tv_sec resd 1
tv_usec resd 1
endstruc
struc tz
tz_minuteswest resd 1
tz_dsttime resd 1 ; obsolete! do not use!
endstruc
struc tm
tm_sec resd 1 ; Seconds. [0-60] (1 leap second)
tm_min resd 1 ; Minutes. [0-59]
tm_hour resd 1 ; Hours. [0-23]
tm_mday resd 1 ; Day. [1-31]
tm_mon resd 1 ; Month. [0-11]
tm_year resd 1 ; Year - 1900.
tm_wday resd 1 ; Day of week. [0-6]
tm_yday resd 1 ; Days in year.[0-365]
tm_isdst resd 1 ; DST. [-1/0/1]
endstruc
;-------------------------
section .data
months_table: ; number of days in each month
db 1Fh,1Ch,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh,1Eh,1Fh
mon_name3: ; three-letter month names
db 'JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJan'
day_name3 db 'SunMonTueWedThuFriSat'
section .bss
timeval resb tv_size
timezone resb tz_size
tm_greenwich resb tm_size
tm_local resb tm_size
ctime_buffer resb 80
section .text
_start
mov eax, 78 ; sys_gettimeofday
mov ebx, timeval ; fills in these structures
mov ecx, timezone
int 80h
or eax, eax
jns okay_time
mov ebx, eax
jmp error_exit
okay_time:
mov ecx, 60 ; minutes! that's so C!
mov eax, [timezone + tz_minuteswest]
mul ecx
neg eax
add eax, [timeval + tv_sec]
mov esi, tm_local
call fill_tm
mov edi, ctime_buffer
call fill_ctime
mov esi, ctime_buffer
call putz
or eax, eax
jns exit
mov ebx, eax
jmp error_exit
exit:
xor ebx, ebx
error_exit:
mov eax, 1 ; sys_exit
int 80h
;---------------
;-------------------
fill_tm:
mov ecx, 60
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [esi + tm_sec], edx
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [esi + tm_min], edx
mov ecx, 24
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [esi + tm_hour], edx
push eax
mov ecx, 7
xor edx, edx
div ecx
add edx, byte 4
cmp edx, ecx
jb gooddow
sub edx, ecx
gooddow:
mov [esi + tm_wday], edx
pop eax
mov ecx, 365
xor edx, edx
div ecx
mov [esi + tm_year], eax
add dword [esi + tm_year], 1970
; leap year... kinda brain-dead
; should be okay for "current" dates
test dword [esi + tm_year], 3
jnz notly
mov byte [months_table + 1], 1Dh ; 29 days in february
notly:
shr eax, 2 ; how many leapyears in that?
sub edx, eax
mov [esi + tm_yday], edx
xor ebx, ebx
findmonth:
mov al, [months_table + ebx]
cbd
sub edx, eax
js foundmonth
inc ebx
jmp short findmonth
foundmonth:
add edx, eax
inc edx ; C is one-based
mov [esi + tm_mday], edx
mov [esi + tm_mon], ebx ; zero-based
mov byte [months_table + 1], 1Ch ; 28 days in february again
; (for repeat calls...)
; mov [esi + tm_isdst], ????
ret
;---------------------------------
;---------------------------
fill_ctime:
mov eax, [esi + tm_wday]
push esi
lea esi, [day_name3 + eax + eax * 2]
mov ecx, 3
rep movsb
pop esi
mov al, ' '
stosb
mov eax, [esi + tm_mon]
push esi
lea esi, [mon_name3 + eax + eax * 2]
mov ecx, 3
rep movsb
pop esi
mov al, ' '
stosb
mov eax, [esi + tm_mday]
call twodigits
mov al, ' '
stosb
mov eax, [esi + tm_hour]
call twodigits
mov al, ':'
stosb
mov eax, [esi + tm_min]
call twodigits
mov al, ':'
stosb
mov eax, [esi + tm_sec]
call twodigits
mov al, ' '
stosb
mov eax, [esi + tm_year]
mov ecx, 100 ; kludge to use "twodigits"
xor edx, edx
div ecx
call twodigits
mov al, dl
call twodigits
mov al, 10 ; newline - ctime() does one
stosb
xor al, al
stosb
ret
;-------------------------
;-----------
; convert al to two ascii digits
; and stuff 'em in es:edi
;-----------
twodigits:
aam
add ax, 3030h
xchg ah, al
stosw
ret
;--------------
;-----------------------
putz:
mov eax, 4 ; sys_write
mov ebx, 1 ; stdout
mov ecx, esi ; buffer
xor edx, edx ; length in edx
find_len:
cmp [ecx + edx], byte 0
jz found_len ; okay *now* length in edx
inc edx
jmp short find_len
found_len:
int 80h
ret
;-----------------------------
bv_schornak
>>Casablanca,
>>
>
>Oh yes, now I remember! :-)
>I've seen the Colourized version & the B&W, I perfer
>seeing it in B&W! :-)
>
>>The Maltese Falcon,
>>
>
>Last time I saw Maltese Falcon I didn't like it
>all that much. I've grown up since! :-)
>
I like Humphrey Bogart, so I like this movie...
>Why do they Colourize these movies, they look better
>in B&W! :-)
>
Any modification is taking away a lot of the "aura" of
the original! If a movie was released in black & white,
then I don't want to see it in colour. If the original
had no sound, then I do not want to see a version with
synchronized voices...
As I have been reading somewhere, movie companies plan
to release movies with computer-animated dead artists.
Shame on the people who even think of such things...
[movies list]
>I've done my research & brought the right books, so I
>could give you all the movies he has been in! :-)
>
>>It's in German language, but also lists English names,
>>if they are known.
>>
>
>Well, my book's in English! :-)
>
Congratulations! :)
Saves a little bit of bandwidth... ;)
>Christmas comes fast each year, so instead of being
>jolly around Christmas, I'm jolly all year round! :-)
>
Just wait, until Microsoft has a patent for this idea,
then you have to pay per use... ;)
Have a nice weekend <jne loop>
Bernhard Schornak
bv_schornak
>>Can't fully agree with that. The _only_ reason why the Nazis
>>did not build a nuclear bomb were the insufficient resources
>>of D2O (Deuterium or "heavy water") and uranium. In 1944 the
>>Allies destroyed the _only_ German D2O factory in Norway, so
>>the Nazis had no more chance to win the "nuclear race"...
>>
>
>Sorry, but this isn't really true. First, heavy water isn't really
>necessary to build atomic bombs. It's part of what you use to produce a
>fusion bomb instead of only a fission bomb, but it's not necessary for
>building nuclear deviced in general.
>
I know that D2O is needed for the "H-bomb", which, of course,
is a "fusion" rather than a "fission" bomb.
>Second Germany controlled some of the richest deposits of Uranium-235 on
>earth for the majority of the war.
>
>In short, they had all the resources necessary to do the job. Despite
>this, at the end of the war, they hadn't achieved a chain reaction at
>all. They hadn't even figured out how to compute the amount of Uranium-
>235 they'd need, and their estimates were off by something like three
>orders of magnitude.
>
>To make a long story short, Germany's research at the very end of the
>war had only reached about the same point that the US research had
>reached around November of 1942 -- knowledge of the basic construction
>of a nuclear pile, but had yet to make it work.
>
>It was roughly 3 years later that the US had operational nuclear
>weapons, which might imply that Germany could have achieved nuclear
>weapons by 1948 had research continued. In reality, that's probably
>unrealistic: the US only started serious research in 1941, and achieved
>a self-sustaining chain reaction about a year later. Germany had been
>researching nuclear reactions since about 1939, and hadn't achieved a
>chain reaction before it was defeated. In short, it's quite clear that
>research in Germany was going _much_ more slowly than in the US.
>
>Even given infinite supplies of Uranium-235 and heavy water, Germany
>would not have been able to build a nuclear bomb before they were
>defeated. Given the rate at which research was proceeding, I think
>another decade or so would be a more reasonable estimate.
>
So you see, how "fast" research and a lot of holes in memory
may sum up to nonsense... Possibly you have more information
about all this stuff than we've got in Germany (internet was
not available as I learned something about it).
Of course - most of our "elite" scientists immigrated to the
USA (for good reasons), so the left "2nd choice" couldn't do
the same work. Also, Germany fought its war against the rest
of the world, so they had to set priorities for research and
production of new weaponry. Thus, the development of nuclear
bombs and other non-standard "gimmicks" got stuck somewhere.
But let me tell you, that I'm not sad about the fact, that a
nuclear device couldn't be build by the Nazis - they _would_
have used it as often as possible...
>>With a smarter Leader we would have done much more damage to
>>the world than we already did with this stupid person called
>>Adolf Hitler...
>>
>
>This, however, is entirely true -- it's entirely possible to do
>tremendous damage without nuclear weapons, and Germany had some of the
>best conventional weapons on earth at the time. Hitler was clearly not
>merely stupid, but in fact many of his decisions appear entirely
>irrational.
>
As usual, I used the wrong word, should have been "mad"? The
symptoms of a sick mind are similar for most big conquerors.
In the end - they all lost any relation to reality and could
not find back...
Have a nice weekend
Bernhard Schornak
The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot
>
>Ross.
heheh yeah...she'll prolly go to www.googirl.com.ar, pick a picture and send
one saying its her lol
Annie
On 2003-04-05 anothe...@aol.comnospam (The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot) said:
> heheh yeah...she'll prolly go to www.googirl.com.ar, pick a
> picture and send one saying its her lol
_____
Unless Beth chooses to participate, ((( `\
you'll never know, Bug-Brain. Hehehe! _ _`\ )
(^ ) )
I hope that site has more than just ~-( )
Argentinian women. Argentinian _'((,,,)))
women aren't too hot. They're short ,-' \_/ `\
and dumpy, and they all have black ( , |
hair and brown eyes. Eeeeewwwww. `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
The Mosquito ScriptKiddiot
> Argentinian women.
why dont u just go and check for urself...u'll be amazed...they have an
unbelievable collection of pix...all kinds of women...my fave is kalin olson ;p
bv_schornak
>>Looking at the "real future": It's worse than Lang's vision!
>>
>As long as it never gets worse than (or even equal to) Orwell's
>vision...though that's probably Hoping against facts, the way things
>are going with CCTV, identity cards, DNA records, cookies, "loyalty"
>cards which track your shopping for "targetted advertising", etc.,
>etc....
>
With TCPA, Orwell's vision might become true. He only missed
the right year...
>>But you're right - this film has _much_ power! If you see it
>>with the eyes of the people who lived in the late 20'ies ...
>>this movie rolls over you like a tank...
>>
>
>Exactly; That's why even if he was not pioneering the technologies and
>techniques, it still should be viewed as an important ground-breaking
>film (thankfully, it is by most right-thinking people :)...as I say,
>it's the _directorial_ genius...literally creating a tangible universe
>in front of your face so real - not just visually but the whole ethos
>and atmosphere of it - that, oh yeah, when you see this bleak future,
>it _scares_ you...as it should do...
>
>Heck, you can look at it now and _still_ its clear power comes
>across...and, well, we're all used to watching superior
>computer-generated visuals that literally cannot be differentiated
>from reality...so, to those in the '20s who had never seen anything of
>it like before...it must literally have "invaded" their lives with its
>uncompromising vision...
>
>You know what they say, "They don't make them like they used
>to"...techniques have improved...but the far more important vision,
>message, atmosphere, challenge to the audience and such are few and
>far between these days...in fact, when things like "the Matrix" shows
>up and causes such a stir, it's because they are against such a bland
>backdrop of cliche' and uniformity...
>
Unfortunately, nowadays generations are too much spoilt with
"perfect" visions, so they can't see the inner value of this
"old junk". Todays kids never will feel the same impression,
because they know a lot of things only out of history books.
Things which were parts of our lives. As we may have learned
the history of the first or second World War. As our parents
have learned Napoleon's history, and so on...
[Johnny Rotten / Leftfield]
>Go the whole hog: BE BIGGER THAN GOD!!!"
>
>[ "Open Up" by Leftfield featuring Johnny Rotten (yes, of the Sex
>Pistols) on vocals...I can't really quote much more of it because,
>well, it's Johnny Rotten singing and he's never been "politically
>correct" in any sense of the word...well, put it this way, the next
>line is "Burn, Hollywood, burn!" and he really sounds like he actually
>means it deadly seriously...and, personally, I don't have any problems
>with the residents of Los Angeles that I would want to risk upsetting
>them with typical Johnny Rotten lyrics...*gulp* ]
>
Rotten Johnny still exists?
Last thing I heard of him was PIL's "metal box" - one of the
most expensive punk/new wave records ever published (I think
I paid nearly 100 Deutschmarks for that thing, as it came to
the shops - today it's worth multiples of that).
"Be bigger than God" has the same quality than "God save the
Queen" from 1979 (wouldn't have expected anything else)... ;)
[How to use "superior"]
>Well...sort of, yes...it's opposite would, of course, be
>"inferior"...which has a bit of the ring of what a Nazi talking about
>a Jew might chose to describe those he hates, if you catch my
>drift...certainly it might not be wise - image-wise - to use a word
>like "superior" in a discussion where Nazis are mentioned...it sort of
>sounds like "We are so superior in every way to your pathetic,
>barbaric technologies!"...knowing you, that's not what you meant but,
>yes, the choice of word in the current context might be more carefully
>selected :)
>
Thanks for your explanation! I see - sounds like "Anonymous"
statement about the Taliban. Ok - I'm learning... ;)
>>Shame on me - John von Neumann went to the USA in 1930 and
>>became an American citizen 1934 - he was born in Hungaria,
>>but worked in Germany until 1929...
>>
>
>Another great mind that they sent over to the Americans? Like I say,
>the entire philosophy is totally backward because everyone who should
>easily deserve any place in the "master race" had a lot more sense and
>got out of there while they still could as fast as they could...says
>volumes, really...anyone with a brain on their shoulders got the hell
>out of there as fast as they could...that, I feel, makes it richly
>deserve being called "the philosophy of the idiot"...what would that
>be in German? "Dumbkopfspolitiken" or something like that? hehehe ;)
>
No term for such a man... What about "GroeFaZ" (abbreviation
for "Groesster Feldherr aller Zeiten" -> "Greatest commander
of all times")? It's thought as a compliment - but the short
form "GroeFaZ" sounds like a swearword for German ears... ;)
If I think about it - I probably would have to consider if I
should stay in Germany, if it would happen today. But I know,
that I would not go anywhere else, because you can't fight a
regime from "outside"...
[Alan Turing]
>Indeed; But what I find so repulsively ironic, of course, is that they
>"thank" him for his work helping in "defeating the Nazis", by
>exercising what really was neo-Nazi intolerance about his
>sexuality...effectively torturing the man, to the point of driving him
>to suicide...
>
There is _no_ real difference between Germans and the people
in other countries. If I remember right, concentration camps
were "invented" in the UK, gasing people was common practice
in WW1, execution of enemies of the government was practiced
in Russia, too (with much more casualties)... Mankind always
finds a way to get rid of "unwanted members".
The German mentality - to do everything with high precision,
in the most effective way - together with the typical German
yearning to obey led to a worst case condition... If you put
all bad people of a country together and let them take over,
then it could happen anywhere else, again and again...
[differences in history books]
>>Every country in the world has limited information about the
>>events in other countries - so I don't think, that it should
>>bother you too much, if history books differ from country to
>>country.
>>
>
>Well, I said "interesting", not "shocking" or "surprising"...yes, the
>history books differ depending on who's writing it...but, of course,
>the point is that if it's accurate history then this cannot be true,
>as there was only _one_ history...
>
>In other words, these histories cannot be altogether truthful or
>trustworthy, if there's such variation in accounts...so what's
>"interesting" is to consider just what the lies are - but, more
>crucially, _why_ someone would feel they needed to alter the history -
>and what is correctly reported (if any...after all, some historical
>accounts are so different with no common threads between them at
>all...you have to even start considering if _any of them_ have any
>truth to them)...
>
It's nothing to really worry about, as long as there is _no_
difference in important dates! History books always are the
work of humans, and thus, they include a portion of opinion.
The only important thing is, that the author does not create
new facts which only exist in her/his fantasy. As with most
things - historical facts can be seen from as many points of
view as human beings exist. A good history book should offer
as many _facts_ as possible, so the reader has the choice to
come to own conclusions.
Just see it this way: If there is a battle with huge amounts
of dead and wounded, few people are interested in a list of
destroyed plants on the battlefield. If 1000 people get the
order to write a report, then by chance there might be _one_
amongst them who is interested in plants rather than people,
so s/he might report how many _plants_ were destroyed during
the battle, only few words about the soldiers or the winner.
Now imagine, you stumble upon _this_ report 1 or 2 centuries
later. It's the only document which survived through all the
passed years. I bet you would be "surprised" about this kind
of report about a battle - even if it is authentic and there
are _no_ lies in it... ;)
>Actually, that was something amusing I read the other day...it was a
>tongue-in-cheek article about how this reporter actually checked up
>the dates of the Second World War in an American Encyclopeadia and, of
>course, was initially shocked to find it listed as starting a few
>years after the dates listed in British stuff...of course, the reason
>for this discrepancy is obvious because they were measuring "the start
>of the war" from different things...Britain - as an actual target of
>Hitler's army - got involved sooner than the Americans who had to
>first realise that "something was up" and that it wasn't just some
>small passing thing (well, up until WWII, Europe was doing this sort
>of in-fighting all the time that it had to go far enough to make it
>clear that it was World War and a serious matter that they had to be
>involved with and not just yet another "internal domestic matter" that
>would have been disasterous for them to have gotten messed up
>with...we make the jokes with the "Yanks" - which I Hope they take in
>the spirit intended - but it's perfectly understandable why they
>didn't dive in on day one...but it's interesting to see the difference
>on the history there...though this time, it's not because it's
>"inaccurate"...it's because the same thing is being viewed from a
>different perspective and "the start of the war" is being measured by
>different events, based on what those countries consider the defining
>point where peace ended and "war" started :)...
>
Might hit my point - even if it is the truth, every event is
"interpreted" from different angles...
>>Most things which are handled by secret services are (as the
>>name suggests) top secret... There is no chance to get _any_
>>other information than the "official" published news...
>>
>
>True; But, in time, some of this stuff comes to light in the
>end...when there's no longer a reason to keep it secret...mind you,
>there's also stuff that they'll never reveal no matter how much time
>passes...well, some things will not do you any favours no matter when
>you finally reveal it (revealing total failures that happened or plans
>that won't go down well with the public...say, assassination plots or
>whatever...though the one against Hitler is happily revealed because I
>doubt you could find anyone who'd take Hitler's side, even if they
>find the whole idea of assassination - which, apparently, we call "an
>opportunity for decapitation" these days so it doesn't sound so bad -
>is distasteful to your sensibilities...in Hitler's case, even the
>pacifists "look the other way" about such plots)...
>
NSA, CIA, Roswell...
About Hitler's assassins - many tried but none of them succeeded...
>>Here <http://home.us.net/~encore/Enigma/enigma.html> you may
>>find a lot of background information about this stuff.
>>
>
>Cool; Will have a look see in the morning once I've gotten some sleep
>(forcing myself to finish this reply off before heading to the land of
>Nod :)...
>
Sigh - am I really _that_ boring? :-D
[Nazis, technologies and philosophy...]
>>Can't fully agree with that. The _only_ reason why the Nazis
>>did not build a nuclear bomb were the insufficient resources
>>of D2O (Deuterium or "heavy water") and uranium. In 1944 the
>>Allies destroyed the _only_ German D2O factory in Norway, so
>>the Nazis had no more chance to win the "nuclear race"...
>>
See Jerry's reply and my answer, too...
>>Humans are very imaginative if they want to kill other human
>>beings with a minimum expense...
>>
>
>Unfortunately, far too true...how pathetic we are when our greatest
>achievements and most effort is put into weaponry because, deep down,
>we're all just immensely paranoid and fearful animals...
>
And the owner of the largest amount of weapons now "counter-
strikes" the owner of a few (outdated versions of) weapons -
because he's freightened that the "little brother" could use
his toys - against whomever - he obviously never could reach
his "big brother"...
>As I've said before, the actual universal rule that dominates is that,
>in the end, everything is deeply ironic...we can see that in Turing's
>story...but we can also see it in how, fearful of the "unknown", we
>all build up all these weapons to kill each other, "just in
>case"...and the irony is that we wouldn't have need to be fearful, if
>we weren't so intent on arming ourselves...and we wouldn't be arming
>ourselves, if we weren't, deep down, such a paranoid species...the
>image that springs to mind is a cat on the prowl, its eyes moving back
>and forth looking for dangers and even the smallest thing it doesn't
>expect makes it dart across the road, up a wall and hide away in
>safety somewhere...humans may like to pretend we're different but, in
>this regard, we're not, really...whether there is danger or there
>isn't, we assume there is, anyway...like the growing number of young
>people arrested by the police and found to be carrying knives and
>things...ask them why: "it's because there's all these other people
>carrying knives and I don't want to be defenceless if they attack"...
>
There is a huge difference between our natural instincts and
our brain-controlled behaviour - parts of the latter one are
permanently trying to "override" our instincts.
While the cat in your example always will look for safety in
the first place, a human always tries out, how dangerous the
situation really is (suppressing the fact, that he's playing
with his life). A cat has a "sense" for most situations - it
knows, when it is time to start running away - a much better
solution than being food for a stronger creature. The modern
Homo Sapiens has lost this "sense", because there is no real
threat of being the "game" of stronger creatures. The _only_
left challenge for our species is to fight each other.
Imagine - if we humans would spend our time to develop items
to protect ourselves, instead of another, improved method to
attack and kill each other!
>The classic catch-22...I honestly don't really believe humankind is
>inherently violent or destructive, really...the fact that, in the
>majority, we all live in peace and want peace and seek to maintain
>peace (even most wars are always dubbed "necessary evils"...a short
>outbreak of war, intended to secure a lasting peace on the other
>side)...even the madman terrorist is causing his violence in his mind
>to "secure peace" for his peoples or whatever...often wrong and
>misguided thinking...but, still, at the heart of every human, we all
>would honestly prefer things if we could be sure that nothing bad
>would happen and could carry on in peace...what makes humans so
>incredibly destructive is this catch-22 caused by being - often quite
>reasonably - fearful of someone else spoiling our peace...the Cold War
>"arms race" would be the pinnicle of where this happened to its
>maximum so far...but also all conflict and weapons development is
>basically founded on this simple, but quite possibly irresolvable,
>catch-22...we were animals fighting for our very survival in the wild
>once and that's given us instincts to be prepared to fight, to
>constantly scan the horizon for predators and all that sort of
>thing...in modern times, though, this translates into "preparedness"
>of arms stockpiles and various things like that...one wrong spark or
>one wrong look and our greatest fears are (actually or
>apparently...doesn't change the outcome) confirmed so we start
>throwing these weapons at each other...
>
>I mean, "why can't we all just get along instead?" :)
>
I think, the need to be armed only depends on our brains, it
is not a natural instinct (nature always tries to select the
"best" specimen of each species for a continuous evolution).
So the current Homo Sapiens is a "perverted" species, 'cause
it tries to bypass nature - along with pointless destruction
of the environment we're depending on. Probably it is caused
by our stupid behavior to gather more things than we can eat
or use. Those who already gathered a lot are _greedy_ to get
more and more. Even if they can't use it - the possession is
what counts - may all the gathered goods rot away, get dusty
or oxydize...
Means, that everything depends on our society. Mankind is in
a position, where everyone could be supplied with food and a
minimum equipment to survive. Instead of sharing everything,
we take away the few items in the possession of weaker ones,
decreasing their chance to survive. This is not our natural
behaviour - animals living in a society share their food and
protect each other...
It is the result of continuous brainwashing, since thousands
of years some "smart" specimen of our race developed and im-
proved methods to control all others. In the beginning, they
perverted the job of the "medicine men" (an important thing)
and invented Gods and Devils to awake fears and devotion. In
the following millenia they improved this mental cage around
the peoples minds, finally resulting in our main religions.
Along with the perversion of the former "healers" the chiefs
roles were perverted, too. Instead of the most _wise_ person
in the society now the strongest (and most devious) one (and
his children) was the leader - no more election like before.
With the upcoming capitalism, our old monarchies soon became
obsolete and religion shared the fate. Time for another kind
of "opium for the masses" - and the new stuff was (and still
is) much stronger - kind of a designer drug, made to measure
for modern suppression. Instead of devoting your entire life
to one of the available Gods and their Avatars on earth, now
the big idea is, that you're a free being. Free to sell your
working power, 'cause you don't have much more to deal with,
of course - or did you think, you could do now what you ever
wanted to do?
Ok, I'm at the same point as you (see below) now. The end of
Bernhard's fairy tales for tonight... ;)
>Gute Nacht, Bernhard...ich muss jetzt schlafen...*yawn* :O *blink,
>blink* :)
>
With a "little" delay (probably you've slept some more times
since Tuesday - I just visited home for a short resting time
the last few days ;) ) - "Gute Nacht und schoene Traume"...
Ross Simpson
> > I hope that site has more than just
> > Argentinian women.
> why dont u just go and check for urself...u'll be
> amazed...they have an unbelievable collection of
> pix...all kinds of women... my fave is kalin olson ;p
Dare I say that once I was writing text messages (in
other groups) for someone who was looking for freeware
games for DOS. I suggested 'gameshippo.com' thinking
it was the 'Freeware games' site. Instead, it was one
of those naughty kinky sites which found out who you
were & send e-mails to you! :-(
The actual site is called 'gamehippo.com', so you
could really see what happens :-)
Ross.