Politics Herein
Lots42
WARNING
SPACE
You know what I hate? When people 'round up' the numbers on a tragedy
to the nearest thousand. Say the EXACT number or don't say it all,
dammit.
Jeremy D. Impson
> You know what I hate? When people 'round up' the numbers on a tragedy to
> the nearest thousand. Say the EXACT number or don't say it all, dammit.
Lots, you're being an idiot. There is an accepted, and more importantly,
meaningful way to report those kinds of numbers. Firstly, no on knows
the EXACT number. So you try to judge the degree of error, then quote an
number that's "fuzzy" at the correct order of magnitude in order to
reflect the error.
--Jeremy
--
Jeremy Impson
jdimpson can be contacted at acm dot org
http://impson.tzo.com/~jdimpson
Nimrod Poindexter
Lots42 wrote:
> You know what I hate? When people 'round up' the numbers on a tragedy
> to the nearest thousand. Say the EXACT number or don't say it all,
> dammit.
Ah, your post makes me yearn tragically for the nightly media/military
"body counts" of the Vietnam era.
Good times. Good times.
Mark South
> You know what I hate? When people 'round up' the numbers on a tragedy
> to the nearest thousand. Say the EXACT number or don't say it all,
> dammit.
How does it make you feel when they round the casualty figures down by a
few thousand here and there, or change the counting mechanism, or prevent
journalists from showing the scale of the tragedy?
--
mark south: world citizen, net denizen
echo znexfb...@lnubb.pb.hx | tr a-z n-za-m
Lots42
Lots42
Jeremy D. Impson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Lots42 wrote:
>
> > You know what I hate? When people 'round up' the numbers on a tragedy to
> > the nearest thousand. Say the EXACT number or don't say it all, dammit.
>
> Lots, you're being an idiot. There is an accepted, and more importantly,
> meaningful way to report those kinds of numbers. Firstly, no on knows
> the EXACT number.
Bullcrap. In many tragedies, the exact number IS known. Not to use the
exact number when it is known is reprehensible.
Lots42
Mark South wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:01:15 -0700, Lots42 wrote:
>
> > You know what I hate? When people 'round up' the numbers on a tragedy
> > to the nearest thousand. Say the EXACT number or don't say it all,
> > dammit.
>
> How does it make you feel when they round the casualty figures down by a
> few thousand here and there, or change the counting mechanism,
It makes me mad.
> or prevent
> journalists from showing the scale of the tragedy?
I would withold judgement until I learn exactly why the journalists are
being blocked. Unfortunately, due to the actions of traitors like
Geraldo, we can't spew top secret information into a pool of
journalists like a fire hose being turned on Starbucks haters.
John Schmidt
Okay, fair enough. Give me *one* *single* *example* of a tragedy
which had the exact number of casualties known, but the number
reported was rounded up to the nearest thousand.
JS
David DeLaney
>Lots42 wrote:
>> You know what I hate? When people 'round up' the numbers on a tragedy
>> to the nearest thousand. Say the EXACT number or don't say it all,
>> dammit.
>
>How does it make you feel when they round the casualty figures down by a
>few thousand here and there, or change the counting mechanism, or prevent
>journalists from showing the scale of the tragedy?
"Do you have change for ten million people?"
Dave "bombs are nothing, compared / to nu-cle-ar war" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
bar...@bookpro.com
>bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
>> On 12 Sep 2005 18:01:15 -0700, "Lots42" <lot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >You know what I hate?
>>
>> Gay people.
>
>Um, no, I don't.
Okay, maybe not *hate* them, but you sure do despise them.
Or is all that homophobia you keep displaying just shtick?
BW
cl
bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
>
> Or is all that homophobia you keep displaying just shtick?
>
Depends on who is getting the shtick displayed for them.
Lots42
John Schmidt wrote:
> Okay, fair enough. Give me *one* *single* *example* of a tragedy
> which had the exact number of casualties known, but the number
> reported was rounded up to the nearest thousand.
>
> JS
I think we might be speaking at cross purposes here. 9-11's numbers are
-now- being reported to the nearest thousand, while back in 2001 and
early 2002, actual, real numbers were used.
Lots42
bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
> Okay, maybe not *hate* them, but you sure do despise them.
>
> Or is all that homophobia you keep displaying just shtick?
>
> BW
What in the name of Christ?
Dude, just because I hate some jerks who -are- gay, doesn't mean I hate
all gay people.
SHeeyit.
Otto Bahn
> Dave "bombs are nothing, compared / to nu-cle-ar war" DeLaney
It's simply a matter of time
Bombs are nothing
Compared to nuclear war
Hundreds or thousands
Verses ten million and four
Minutes and hours
Become a century or more
The world awaits
In the eye of the storm
Bombs are nothing
Compared to nuclear war
--oTTo--
Make that ten million five and still counting
cl
Otto Bahn wrote:
>
> "David DeLaney" <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote
>
> > Dave "bombs are nothing, compared / to nu-cle-ar war" DeLaney
>
> It's simply a matter of time
>
> Bums are nothing
> Compared to nuclear war
> Hundreds or thousands
> Verses ten million and four
> Minutes and hours
> Become a century or more
> The world awaits
> In the eye of the storm
>
> Bums are nothing
> Compared to nuclear war
>
IFYPFY using my ol'grandpaws pronunciation
John Schmidt
*What* real numbers? We can't even be 100% sure how many people were
on each of the three hijacked airliners. There's NO POSSIBLE WAY to
get much closer than a gross approximation for anywhere else. If I'm
wrong, give me the /exact/ number - you *do* say it's available,
after all.
JS
Otto Bahn
> >Dude, just because I hate some jerks who -are- gay, doesn't mean I hate
> >all gay people.
>
> Oh, yeah, I forgot. Some of your best friends are gay.
Dr. Phil says you are your own best friend.
--oTTo--
Lots42
John Schmidt wrote:
> *What* real numbers? We can't even be 100% sure how many people were
> on each of the three hijacked airliners.
Bullshit. Count the number of tickets sold. Why are you saying such
illogical things?
Lots42
bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2005 07:42:49 -0700, "Lots42" <lot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Dude, just because I hate some jerks who -are- gay, doesn't mean I hate
> >all gay people.
>
>
Are you drunk?
Or is this just a really badly executed troll?
John Schmidt
1) Airline employees deadheading on a flight *often* weren't in any
system.
2) Tickets sold have no bearing on who boarded the flight.
3) Boarding passes issued and processed have no bearing on who
was on the flight (hint: people can leave after being seated).
The ball's in your court, Bubbles.
JS
Otto Bahn
> >>*What* real numbers? We can't even be 100% sure how many people were
> >>on each of the three hijacked airliners.
> >
> >
> > Bullshit. Count the number of tickets sold. Why are you saying such
> > illogical things?
>
> 1) Airline employees deadheading on a flight *often* weren't in any
> system.
I'm visualizing a pilot in uniform save the tie-dye T-shirt.
> 2) Tickets sold have no bearing on who boarded the flight.
Well, they have some bearing, as I do believe they collect
the stubs for this very point. Saying there were a 155 on
a plane is a little iffy, but it's close enough that an
estimate is not needed.
Then again, I'm wondering why you two are even arguing over
this. You've both have a point.
> 3) Boarding passes issued and processed have no bearing on who
> was on the flight (hint: people can leave after being seated).
On those itty-bitty planes where everyone gets an aisle seat
*and* a window seat, they have to balance the passengers, and
this could be a problem. I don't know if the balancing is
for side to side, front and back, or both.
--oTTo--
Kevin S. Wilson
<GoAheadK...@Blew.Devels.com> wrote:
>Saying there were a 155 on a plane is a little iffy,
IJWTS that when I hear police/emergency dipatchers talk about a
crippled plane coming in for a landing, or a plane landing because of
a medical emergency, they always refer to "souls on board," as in "The
plane has diverted from Salt Lake City with 100 souls on board."
I'm too lazy to look up the origins of this phrase and why it
continues to be used in such contexts. I'm hoping one of you brainiacs
will know.
Marc Goodman
> IJWTS that when I hear police/emergency dipatchers talk about a
> crippled plane coming in for a landing, or a plane landing because of
> a medical emergency, they always refer to "souls on board," as in "The
> plane has diverted from Salt Lake City with 100 souls on board."
>
> I'm too lazy to look up the origins of this phrase and why it
> continues to be used in such contexts. I'm hoping one of you brainiacs
> will know.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE DOGS?? IF THERE ARE 5 DOGS IN THE CARGO COMPARTMENT,
DOES THAT MAKE 105 SOULS ON BOARD OR STILL ONLY 100?? WHO GETS TO DECIDE
WHETHER DOGS HAVE SOULS OR NOT????
Otto Bahn
> >Saying there were a 155 on a plane is a little iffy,
>
> IJWTS that when I hear police/emergency dipatchers talk about a
> crippled plane coming in for a landing, or a plane landing because of
> a medical emergency, they always refer to "souls on board," as in "The
> plane has diverted from Salt Lake City with 100 souls on board."
IMMINENT DOOM!
I think it's a Christian thing based on what is at stake
for the passengers.
Hmmm...I wonder if the yearly death data we get from the
State has the cause of death. It would be interesting to
see what percentage of them go gently into that good night,
how many go by morphine drip, go instantly, go by fire, and
by tree chipper.
Go, dogs, go! To a tree party! (In the sky.)
--oTTo--
Lots42
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was responsible for the sheer,
mindboggling incomeptence of the airlines.
Also, I forgot that the federal goverment wouldn't have investigated
the HELL out of everyone who even looked at the flights involved. In
fact, they only figured out who the hijackers were via magic. Yeah, a
magic wizard appeared in the Pentagon and told them the relevant names.
You really haven't thought this through, huh?
Leo Sgouros
"Otto Bahn" <GoAheadK...@Blew.Devels.com> wrote in message
news:dg78ih$hjg$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
Both, and I believe that even small commuter aircraft have the load bearing
computers-I guess somewhere near the tires.-I know that when you see a
flight that is "weight restricted", the computers are reading the weights at
all the landing gear sites, and comparing the weight to the length of the
runway, the amount of thrust, and the amount of fuel they want to burn, in
comparison to the temperature outside-the hotter it gets, the lighter the
plane has to be.
Can I get a midget to bring me champagne now?
> --oTTo--
>
>
Otto Bahn
> > On those itty-bitty planes where everyone gets an aisle seat
> > *and* a window seat, they have to balance the passengers, and
> > this could be a problem. I don't know if the balancing is
> > for side to side, front and back, or both.
>
> Both, and I believe that even small commuter aircraft have the load bearing
> computers-I guess somewhere near the tires.
My flights were in the 90's. They had a little seating
diagram and they X'ed out the seats with people. Whether
or they fed that into the computer for suggestions or
were just winging it, I can't be sure. But it looked like
the latter the way the stewardess was eyeballing the
situation.
> -I know that when you see a
> flight that is "weight restricted", the computers are reading the weights at
> all the landing gear sites, and comparing the weight to the length of the
> runway, the amount of thrust, and the amount of fuel they want to burn, in
> comparison to the temperature outside-the hotter it gets, the lighter the
> plane has to be.
> Can I get a midget to bring me champagne now?
You have my permission to do whatever you want, so long as
you don't hurt the midget or break any agreements. The
last time I hired a midget, they weren't unionized, and I
bet you're still good to go on that one.
BTW, what's the going rate for midgets these days?
--Tedward
Leo Sgouros
> "Leo Sgouros" <hpap...@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> > On those itty-bitty planes where everyone gets an aisle seat
>> > *and* a window seat, they have to balance the passengers, and
>> > this could be a problem. I don't know if the balancing is
>> > for side to side, front and back, or both.
>>
>> Both, and I believe that even small commuter aircraft have the load
>> bearing
>> computers-I guess somewhere near the tires.
>
> My flights were in the 90's. They had a little seating
> diagram and they X'ed out the seats with people. Whether
> or they fed that into the computer for suggestions or
> were just winging it, I can't be sure. But it looked like
> the latter the way the stewardess was eyeballing the
> situation.
>
Ahhh, the computers of the day were little devices like a slide rule, or
perhaps real computers-you are in the ballpark of the main switch to
computerization in the 80's, some still in the nineties-I bet 747 pilots
have one around also, just in case.
http://www.pilotfriend.com/flight_training/navigation/Calculations.htm
http://foraker.research.att.com/~davek/slide/random/e6b.html
http://www.crocuta.com/sliderules/jeppesen-mb-9/front.jpg
>> -I know that when you see a
>> flight that is "weight restricted", the computers are reading the weights
>> at
>> all the landing gear sites, and comparing the weight to the length of the
>> runway, the amount of thrust, and the amount of fuel they want to burn,
>> in
>> comparison to the temperature outside-the hotter it gets, the lighter the
>> plane has to be.
>> Can I get a midget to bring me champagne now?
>
> You have my permission to do whatever you want, so long as
> you don't hurt the midget or break any agreements. The
> last time I hired a midget, they weren't unionized, and I
> bet you're still good to go on that one.
>
> BTW, what's the going rate for midgets these days?
>
20 bux, same as in Yakksville
> --Tedward
>
>
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:17:56 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
> <GoAheadK...@Blew.Devels.com> wrote:
>
>>Saying there were a 155 on a plane is a little iffy,
>
> IJWTS that when I hear police/emergency dipatchers talk about a
> crippled plane coming in for a landing, or a plane landing because of
> a medical emergency, they always refer to "souls on board," as in "The
> plane has diverted from Salt Lake City with 100 souls on board."
And, assuming they are all wearing shoes, there are 200 soles on
board. Unless some of them also have fish.
--
TimC
"Some people think that noise abatement should be a higher priority for ATC. I
say safety is noise abatement. You have no idea how much noise it makes to have
a 737 fall out of the sky after an accident." -- anon. air traffic controller
John Schmidt
> I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was responsible for the sheer,
> mindboggling incomeptence of the airlines.
Whuh? I have *no* idea what that means. Look, just because I'm pointing
out the sheer idiocy of your assertions (you still haven't responded to
a request for a single example to back them up, oh evasive one) doesn't
mean I think you're a buffoon.
After all, there are so many other reasons to think so.
JS
John Schmidt
> Then again, I'm wondering why you two are even arguing over
> this. You've both have a point.
I guess it just reminds me of going to the zoo, and watching monkeys
who are impotent with rage fling feces at visitors while the visitors
stand safely behind a plexiglass barrier.
Yeah, I'm an old sentimental softy.
JS
Kitty Davis
This is turning into a very argumentative thread, both on the gay issue and
the airline issue. Surely it should be crossposted to at least one other
group?
Otto Bahn
> >> >Dude, just because I hate some jerks who -are- gay, doesn't mean I hate
> >> >all gay people.
> >>
> >> Oh, yeah, I forgot. Some of your best friends are gay.
> >>
> >> BW
> >
> > Are you drunk?
> >
> > Or is this just a really badly executed troll?
>
> This is turning into a very argumentative thread, both on the gay issue and
> the airline issue. Surely it should be crossposted to at least one other
> group?
Won't anyone think about the children?
--oTTo--
cl
Kitty Davis wrote:
>
> "Lots42" wrote:
> >
> > bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
> >> On 13 Sep 2005 07:42:49 -0700, "Lots42" <lot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Dude, just because I hate some jerks who -are- gay, doesn't mean I hate
> >> >all gay people.
> >>
> >> Oh, yeah, I forgot. Some of your best friends are gay.
> >>
> >> BW
> >
> > Are you drunk?
> >
> > Or is this just a really badly executed troll?
>
> This is turning into a very argumentative thread, both on the gay issue and
> the airline issue.
No it isn't
Otto Bahn
> > Then again, I'm wondering why you two are even arguing over
> > this. You've both have a point.
I need more grammer. (Or time, actually.)
> I guess it just reminds me of going to the zoo, and watching monkeys
> who are impotent with rage fling feces at visitors while the visitors
> stand safely behind a plexiglass barrier.
A zoo called Usenet. Sounds like a Salinger short story.
"Clever girl." was the last thing a character in Jurassic
Park said.
--oTTo--
cl
No, and they shouldn't. All resources should be focused on the
acceptability of destructive testing using animals. It is important that
shampoos not react oddly with nitric acid and if they do we must know
the human toll. Animals are here for that purpose you know!
Lots42
John Schmidt wrote:
> Lots42 wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was responsible for the sheer,
> > mindboggling incomeptence of the airlines.
>
> Whuh? I have *no* idea what that means.
I thought the airlines were smarter then I gave them credit for.
According to what you posted, they are not. Ah, well.
> Look, just because I'm pointing
> out the sheer idiocy of your assertions (you still haven't responded to
> a request for a single example to back them up,
I've replied to all requests -I've- seen. Re-post any questions again
and I'll try to answer them.
Otto Bahn
Death row would be a useful place to figure out what
the LD-50 is.
--oTTo--
Glenn Knickerbocker
> the stubs for this very point. Saying there were a 155 on
> a plane is a little iffy, but it's close enough that an
> estimate is not needed.
Wait, you're saying an estimate is not needed because we can just use an
estimate instead?
ŹR
Glenn Knickerbocker
> plane has diverted from Salt Lake City with 100 souls on board."
>
> I'm too lazy to look up the origins of this phrase and why it
> continues to be used in such contexts. I'm hoping one of you brainiacs
> will know.
Everybody knows bodies can't fly.
¬"No, I fling her"R
Otto Bahn
The discussion is about rounding off instead of using
what we think is the exact total, and yes it does wacky,
but it is really a case of uncertainty vs. precision,
so there is some logic to the madness.
--oTTo--
Matthew L. Martin
> this statement that you made: "In many tragedies, the exact number IS
> known."
>
> He asked for an example. You gave one. It turned out that in the
> example you gave, they did not know the exact number for sure, and he
> explained why. You admitted that you had made an assumption about the
> airlines that turned out to be incorrect. So since your example
> didn't back up your assertion, you're back at square one.
>
> So, to repeat his request: Since you are aware of "many tragedies" in
> which "the exact number IS known," he would like you to provide a
> single actual example.
>
What an antiarkian post.
Stop that! You know better, even if you are allowed.
--
Matthew
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
Matthew L. Martin
>
It's not the taunting, it's doing it in a rational manner. Everything
you wrote was clear, concise and to the point.
10 pts for taunting lots42.
2 pts for doing it in civil, understandable English.
Take a look at OttO's posts on this thread. He gets extra points for style.
Otto Bahn
> So, to repeat his request: Since you are aware of "many tragedies" in
> which "the exact number IS known," he would like you to provide a
> single actual example.
Clubhouse fires and some plane crashes, but then again,
those don't number "in the thousands". Armies tend to
be pretty good at figuring out who is missing, but then
again MIA and AWOL are hard to account for.
I remember how the numbers for the tsunami went from 14K
to "over 22K" to "55K and counting" to "almost a hundred
thousand" to 116K to "approaching 150K" to "Captain, she's
already giving a 110%!" to "200K and probably a lot more".
9-11 did the opposite, it just stopped doing so too soon.
--oTTo--
A thousand brainiacs can't be wrong
Kevin S. Wilson
>So, to repeat his request: Since you are aware of "many tragedies" in
>which "the exact number IS known," he would like you to provide a
>single actual example.
King Lear 10
Hamlet 8
HTH.
Mark Edwards
No cluons were harmed when "Otto Bahn"
<GoAheadK...@Blew.Devels.com> wrote:
>A thousand brainiacs can't be wrong
Sure they can - in a thousand different rational, logical and
completely off-center ways.
Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request
Mark Edwards
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:41:24 -0400, bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
>>So, to repeat his request: Since you are aware of "many
>>tragedies" in which "the exact number IS known," he would like you
>>to provide a single actual example.
No cluons were harmed when Kevin S. Wilson <res...@spro.net> wrote:
>King Lear 10
>Hamlet 8
Babylon 5
Star Trek IV
Kevin S. Wilson
>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:07:18 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
><not...@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>>> Since when is taunting Lots42 antiARKian?
>>>
>>
>>It's not the taunting, it's doing it in a rational manner. Everything
>>you wrote was clear, concise and to the point.
>
>That's my favorite kind of taunting. There's no reason for it to
>upset the tauntee--no flames, no irrationality--but it nearly always
>does.
And, I might add, you are the Automatic President and Queen Bee of the
Rational Taunting.
>And it's plenty ARKian if it gets Lots42 to tell me to get offa his
>lawn.
Why else bother?
Lots42
bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
> I think he was looking for you to provide documentation to back up
> this statement that you made: "In many tragedies, the exact number IS
> known."
>
> He asked for an example. You gave one. It turned out that in the
> example you gave, they did not know the exact number for sure, and he
> explained why. You admitted that you had made an assumption about the
> airlines that turned out to be incorrect. So since your example
> didn't back up your assertion, you're back at square one.
>
> So, to repeat his request: Since you are aware of "many tragedies" in
> which "the exact number IS known," he would like you to provide a
> single actual example.
>
> BW
Let me sort this out: I've learned that counting the number of
passengers on a plane is not always an exact science. Why? God only
knows.
But it would seem to me that with the sheer number of man hours that
went into investigaitng 9-11, they'd know the numbers for -that-
tragedy. It makes no sense not to know for certain, espceially re: the
planes.
What, did they just ask the airline ticket agencies for the estimate of
'souls' on the plane and ignore all the people reporting their family
member vanished on 9-11?
P.S. Yeah, the above contradicts some of what I've said before but
things change.
Lots42
bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
> >>>Stop that! You know better, even if you are allowed.
> >>
> >>
> >> Since when is taunting Lots42 antiARKian?
> >>
> >
> >It's not the taunting, it's doing it in a rational manner. Everything
> >you wrote was clear, concise and to the point.
>
> upset the tauntee--no flames, no irrationality--but it nearly always
> does.
>
> lawn.
>
Barb, if you are tying to not make sense, congratulations, you succeded.
Joseph Michael Bay
>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:17:56 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
><GoAheadK...@Blew.Devels.com> wrote:
>>Saying there were a 155 on a plane is a little iffy,
>IJWTS that when I hear police/emergency dipatchers talk about a
>crippled plane coming in for a landing, or a plane landing because of
>a medical emergency, they always refer to "souls on board," as in "The
>plane has diverted from Salt Lake City with 100 souls on board."
>I'm too lazy to look up the origins of this phrase and why it
>continues to be used in such contexts. I'm hoping one of you brainiacs
>will know.
It's the number of passengers minus the number of network admin@%#@^#
NO CARRIER
--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
By reading this line you agree to mow my lawn. NO GIVEBACKS.
Joseph Michael Bay
>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> IJWTS that when I hear police/emergency dipatchers talk about a
>> crippled plane coming in for a landing, or a plane landing because of
>> a medical emergency, they always refer to "souls on board," as in "The
>> plane has diverted from Salt Lake City with 100 souls on board."
>>
>> I'm too lazy to look up the origins of this phrase and why it
>> continues to be used in such contexts. I'm hoping one of you brainiacs
>> will know.
>AND WHAT ABOUT THE DOGS?? IF THERE ARE 5 DOGS IN THE CARGO COMPARTMENT,
>DOES THAT MAKE 105 SOULS ON BOARD OR STILL ONLY 100?? WHO GETS TO DECIDE
>WHETHER DOGS HAVE SOULS OR NOT????
One hundred and five sevenths.
Joseph Michael Bay
>Hmmm...I wonder if the yearly death data we get from the
>State has the cause of death. It would be interesting to
>see what percentage of them go gently into that good night,
>how many go by morphine drip, go instantly, go by fire, and
>by tree chipper.
And who in her lonely slip, who by barbiturate, who in these
realms of love, who by something blunt, and who by avalanche,
and who by being drowned in ranch?
Kevin S. Wilson
>On 14 Sep 2005 15:51:35 -0700, "Lots42" <lot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
>>> >>>Stop that! You know better, even if you are allowed.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Since when is taunting Lots42 antiARKian?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >It's not the taunting, it's doing it in a rational manner. Everything
>>> >you wrote was clear, concise and to the point.
>>>
>>> That's my favorite kind of taunting. There's no reason for it to
>>> upset the tauntee--no flames, no irrationality--but it nearly always
>>> does.
>>>
>>> And it's plenty ARKian if it gets Lots42 to tell me to get offa his
>>> lawn.
>>
>>Barb, if you are tying to not make sense, congratulations, you succeded.
>
>I think this counts. Judges?
>
Needs more spittle all over you screen.
Otto Bahn
> > >Needs more spittle all over you
>
> Maybe I shouldn't have given away what the goal was.
Kontex-Away drops another "goal" into the Obvious Bag,
and then draws the string tight, but not too tight,
juuust right.
--oTTo--
Pirate Lamb: Muttony On The Bounty
TomH
(Joseph Michael Bay) wrote:
>"Otto Bahn" <GoAheadK...@Blew.Devels.com> writes:
>
>>Hmmm...I wonder if the yearly death data we get from the
>>State has the cause of death. It would be interesting to
>>see what percentage of them go gently into that good night,
>>how many go by morphine drip, go instantly, go by fire, and
>>by tree chipper.
>
>And who in her lonely slip, who by barbiturate, who in these
>realms of love, who by something blunt, and who by avalanche,
>and who by being drowned in ranch?
Original Ranch?
Cheddar & Parmesan Ranch?
Buttermilk Ranch?
Spicy Ranch?
BBQ Ranch?
Or
The Obvious Bag favorite: Bacon Ranch?
--
TomH [ antonomasia <at> gmail <dot>com ]
John Schmidt
, which reduced King Lear's magic number to 12, and put
Hamlet 4 games back in the wildcard race.
JS
Matthew L. Martin
> bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
>
>
>>I think he was looking for you to provide documentation to back up
>>this statement that you made: "In many tragedies, the exact number IS
>>known."
>>
>>He asked for an example. You gave one. It turned out that in the
>>example you gave, they did not know the exact number for sure, and he
>>explained why. You admitted that you had made an assumption about the
>>airlines that turned out to be incorrect. So since your example
>>didn't back up your assertion, you're back at square one.
>>
>>So, to repeat his request: Since you are aware of "many tragedies" in
>>which "the exact number IS known," he would like you to provide a
>>single actual example.
>>
>>BW
>
>
> Let me sort this out: I've learned that counting the number of
> passengers on a plane is not always an exact science. Why? God only
> knows.
Actually, you could know if you read this thread.
> But it would seem to me that with the sheer number of man hours that
> went into investigaitng 9-11, they'd know the numbers for -that-
> tragedy. It makes no sense not to know for certain, espceially re: the
> planes.
How? It's not like there were RFIDs implanted in everyone involved and
working readers on all the streets.
> What, did they just ask the airline ticket agencies for the estimate of
> 'souls' on the plane and ignore all the people reporting their family
> member vanished on 9-11?
How many people used 9-11 as a reason to disappear and take up a new
identity.
> P.S. Yeah, the above contradicts some of what I've said before but
> things change.
>
NEEDS MORE CHANGE!!!11!!!
TomH
<not...@notnow.never> wrote:
>Lots42 wrote:
>>
>> What, did they just ask the airline ticket agencies for the estimate of
>> 'souls' on the plane and ignore all the people reporting their family
>> member vanished on 9-11?
>
>How many people used 9-11 as a reason to disappear and take up a new
>identity.
How many people used 9-11 as a reason to 'disappear'
somebody else and take up a new insurance claim?
>> P.S. Yeah, the above contradicts some of what I've said before but
>> things change.
>>
>
>NEEDS MORE CHANGE!!!11!!!
From $20.00 SAIT - that's ten, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen,
eighteen, nineteen, and ninety-eight. Thank-you for playing.
Lots42
TomH wrote:
> How many people used 9-11 as a reason to 'disappear'
> somebody else and take up a new insurance claim?
All the ones I knew about were caught when someone checked the names on
the lists of the dead/missing/whatever.
Otto Bahn
> >>So, to repeat his request: Since you are aware of "many tragedies" in
> >>which "the exact number IS known," he would like you to provide a
> >>single actual example.
> >
> > King Lear 10
> > Hamlet 8
>
> , which reduced King Lear's magic number to 12, and put
> Hamlet 4 games back in the wildcard race.
Ouch. Hamlet at least has a cushy four game series
against The Merry Wives of Windsor, while King Lear
has a three day matchup with the always dangerous
Henry VII.
--oTTo--
Paula
>>What an antiarkian post.
>>
>>Stop that! You know better, even if you are allowed.
>
>Since when is taunting Lots42 antiARKian?
It's not. But you are supposed to be screaming at him to post proof
or retract. All this patient explaining of requests and stuff is just
bad form.
--
Paula
"Anyway, other people are weird, but sometimes they have candy, so it's best to try to get along with them." Joe Bay
Otto Bahn
> >Hmmm...I wonder if the yearly death data we get from the
> >State has the cause of death. It would be interesting to
> >see what percentage of them go gently into that good night,
> >how many go by morphine drip, go instantly, go by fire, and
> >by tree chipper.
>
> And who in her lonely slip,
Yes!
> who by barbiturate,
Oh, yesss!
> who in these realms of love,
Yes! Yes! Yesss!
> who by something blunt,
YES! YESSS! YESSS!...oh dear lord YES!
> and who by avalanche,
YES! OOOOooooOOOOOooOOOOooOOOooooOOOOOHHHHhhhhhhhHHHHHHHhhhhhhhHH.
> and who by being drowned in ranch?
[No Carrier]
bar...@bookpro.com
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:51:21 -0400, bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
>
>>>What an antiarkian post.
>>>
>>>Stop that! You know better, even if you are allowed.
>>
>>Since when is taunting Lots42 antiARKian?
>
>It's not. But you are supposed to be screaming at him to post proof
>or retract.
I'll do that after he posts proof that he has actually had sex with a
woman. Or, since he refused to post proof, does that mean he
automatically retracted (so to speak)?
>All this patient explaining of requests and stuff is just
>bad form.
I gots to do what I gots to do.
BW
Otto Bahn
> >>Since when is taunting Lots42 antiARKian?
> >
> >It's not. But you are supposed to be screaming at him to post proof
> >or retract.
>
> I'll do that after he posts proof that he has actually had sex with a
> woman.
That's not proof of anti-gay. See Hudson, Rock.
--oTTo--
Lots42
bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
> >> I'll do that after he posts proof that he has actually had sex with a
> >> woman.
> >
> >That's not proof of anti-gay. See Hudson, Rock.
>
> was hetero AND had had sex with a woman.
>
> BW
One doesn't have to follow the other. I could have had sex with a woman
and be bi.
bar...@bookpro.com
That's true. If you have ever had sex with a woman.
Not to harp on the gay thing, because I know it makes you squirm for
some reason, bue because your ignorance of the world is so frequently
appalling, I would like to point out that you could also have had sex
with a woman and be gay. Plenty of gay men have had sex with women.
Not that I think you probably fall in that category.
BW
TeaLady (Mari C.)
news:1126925494.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0537-2, 09/16/2005), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Being bi means being attracted to both sexes (or, if you are a
hater, hating both sexes and still being sexually turned on by
them). Being tri is hard, as there just aren't too many 3rd
sexes around. Being quad might involve other species, and
that's just sick.
--
TeaLady (mari)
Sunshine is not conducive to the efficient work environment.
Therefore all access to the outdoors shall be limited to those
persons who perform non-productive tasks, and managers.
Lots42
bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
> Not to harp on the gay thing, because I know it makes you squirm for
> some reason,
Mostly because the jokes are boring and trite. Not to mentiong boring.
And more boring.
>bue because your ignorance of the world is so frequently
> appalling,
OH NOES I LEARNED SOMETHING.
Seriously, though, what have I appallingly expressed ignorance about,
besides the incompetence of record keeping re: airplane passengers.
Lots42
outrage at the way the world works and your naive political opinions
to pull out the most egregious ones. Stick to your doggie dialogues,
and you'll be fine.
BW
---
WHOO HOO I WIN!
::spikes crystal ball::
Otto Bahn
> One doesn't have to follow the other. I could have had sex with a woman
> and be bi.
Well why didn't you just come right out and say so?
--oTTo--
Kevin S. Wilson
>On 18 Sep 2005 16:29:51 -0700, "Lots42" <lot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Mang, I ain't going back over all your tedious posts of real or faked
>>outrage at the way the world works and your naive political opinions
>>to pull out the most egregious ones. Stick to your doggie dialogues,
>>and you'll be fine.
>>
>>WHOO HOO I WIN!
>
>Why would anyone go through your old crap looking for examples of
>your ignorance when you're bound to post a few new examples in the
>next several days?
>
It's the nuance that makes me love you, Barbara. Had I been moved to
express the same idea (and trust me, it would take only a miniscule
dose of Exlax to move me that way), I would have said ". . . in the
next few days," as opposed to "in the next several days."
Each phrase, of course, would have garnered a different response.
That's what I mean by "nuance."
Mark Edwards
No cluons were harmed when bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
>Sad but true. Except I enjoy it so much, so it isn't all that sad
>for
>me.
>
>[1] Also for good sentence rhythm.
<movie lyric>
She's got sentence,
With a rhythm.
She's got nuance,
Who could ask for anything more?
</movie lyric>
Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request