Idealistic Update
RonW
about what this is about, I posted this idea way back early in the
year about an idealistic thought I had about starting a youth program
in this little town near the bottom of the hill where I live.
As a recluse, this was nothing short of a social adventure for me that
has reaped not only success, but has opened some doors for me. I am
finding that 'the world' isn't as unfriendly as I originally (and
ingrownly) thought.
For the record, I'm still a recluse. And for those who have been
following along and supporting me, heres another article.
http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18441111&BRD=1709&PAG=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6
RW
Solitary Soul
I think that what you're doing should serve as an inspiration to a lot of the
people posting to this group.
Instead of sitting at home - in your dank, dark lairs - being miserable with
boredom and loneliness - several of you could benefit by following Ron's example
- by getting off of your A.S.S.es and doing volunteer work.
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
Welcome to alt.support.shyness, also known as The *PAIN* Club.
- Solitary Soul
dan74
>
> Instead of sitting at home - in your dank, dark lairs - being miserable with
> boredom and loneliness - several of you could benefit by following Ron's example
> - by getting off of your A.S.S.es and doing volunteer work.
>
I've been doing voluntary work for 6 years.
Don't ASSume anything, even about ASSers.
popp...@yahoo.com
Solitary Soul
Did I mention anyone in particular?
Did I list you as being one of the "several" that could benefit?
I know that I often read posts from certain parties, complaining about
how bored and miserable they are, so I would think that it's safe to
A.S.S.ume that those are the ones that need to explore the possibility
of doing volunteer work.
RonW
lot of the people posting to this group. >
Why thank you Solitary. The key to this is finding inspiration in
something, which is what I did.
This Kclub models the Mclub I've run in the little school I work at so
creating this was easy. The hard part was learning the social game.
If I tried doing this 5 or 6 years ago, I would have contaminated the
whole thing because I wouldn't have dealt with some of the obstacles I
described in the beginning of all this, appropriately. (Like that
youth director problem I shared about.) The good part is that all the
systems I've developed over the years I was able to test here, a fresh
test. And I find that everything worked effortlessly.
<Instead of sitting at home - in your dank, dark lairs - being
miserable with boredom and loneliness - several of you could benefit
by following Ron's example - by getting off of your A.S.S.es and
doing volunteer work. >
That might be hard for some. I know even with myself, it's hard to
take that step when you have built a nice safe Ft. Knox to live in -
in my case, I've spared no expense on making my home an independent
country almost. I have my trees, ponds, bird sanctuary, gardens, and
my basement workshop. Then there's the state_lands for my sense of
adventure. Outside of my job, I involved myself in society as little
as possible.
However, since I've started this, it's consumed a lot of my time and
thought life. And that's in a good way - I can't believe how ingrown
I was becoming even though I thought I had taken every precaution to
insure that I didn't do that.
If you're interested, here's the first two articles they did on this
Kclub.
http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18202228&BRD=1709&PAG=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6
http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18233202&BRD=1709&PAG=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6
Thanks for your support.
RW
Hardpan
wrote:
>On Jun 10, 5:22 am, Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOS...@ev1.net> wrote:
I donated blood for 26 years but am currently on strike until Bush is
out of office and the troops come home.
No blood from the Pan' until all of that happens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave,
and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for
then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
-Mark Twain
Titanium
> Things have been proceeding very nicely. For those who have no idea
> about what this is about, I posted this idea way back early in the
> year about an idealistic thought I had about starting a youth program
> in this little town near the bottom of the hill where I live.
>
Very refreshing to hear on this board.
Congratulations, and keep on going.
Grant Robertson
@hotmail.com says...
> > I would think that it's safe to
> > A.S.S.ume that those are the ones that need to explore the possibility
> > of doing volunteer work.
>
>
So they can see that - unlike your over-generalization - ALL of society
is not brutal and can meet some nice people who like doing good things
for other people.
Claiming "ALL of society" anything, especially something extreme, is as
bigoted and self-defeating as claiming ALL people of a particular race
have some particular characteristic.
michaela
> 2...@hotmail.com says...
>>> I would think that it's safe to
>>> A.S.S.ume that those are the ones that need to explore the
>>> possibility of doing volunteer work.
>>
>> Why should they help other people? Society has only brutalised
them.
>
> So they can see that - unlike your over-generalization - ALL of
> society is not brutal and can meet some nice people who like doing
> good things for other people.
As I see it it goes one level "deeper" than that. Have you seen
"Crash" (with Sandra Bullock)? It shows how good and bad
run through all of us, kinda Maslow-like. One minute I am
capable of being a hero and the next I'm being a bully and the
next I'm a loving daughter and the next I'm a disciplining mom
and the next I'm stonewalling my husband because I don't
feel I have the energy to deal with what he's putting before me
right now...
When viewed like that, istm that perople are more like matrixes
that randomly intersect with others and react or respond to them
etc.
> Claiming "ALL of society" anything, especially something extreme, is
> as bigoted and self-defeating as claiming ALL people of a particular
> race have some particular characteristic.
- Michaela
Grant Robertson
> > ALL of
> > society is not brutal and can meet some nice people who like doing
> > good things for other people.
>
> As I see it it goes one level "deeper" than that. Have you seen
> "Crash" (with Sandra Bullock)? It shows how good and bad
> run through all of us, kinda Maslow-like. One minute I am
> capable of being a hero and the next I'm being a bully and the
> next I'm a loving daughter and the next I'm a disciplining mom
> and the next I'm stonewalling my husband because I don't
> feel I have the energy to deal with what he's putting before me
> right now...
>
> When viewed like that, istm that perople are more like matrixes
> that randomly intersect with others and react or respond to them
> etc.
Very good point. In a way this shows that we are not changing who we are
when we present a better face to someone we just met. We are simply
showing them the part of us that is appropriate for the moment. It also
means that we can be more successful in our interactions with others if
we learn how to bring out those parts of them that we want to see.
Solitary Soul
>> I know that I often read posts from certain parties, complaining about
>> how bored and miserable they are, so I would think that it's safe to
>> A.S.S.ume that those are the ones that need to explore the possibility
>> of doing volunteer work.
>
>Why should they help other people? Society has only brutalised them.
Because there's more to be gained than just the altruistic benefit of
knowing that you've made someone else's life better.
There's been a running philosophical debate within this group for years now
(mostly with Lisa and Michaela) over whether or not someone can do something
for someone else without realizing some sort of a benefit for themselves
as an outcome.
It's my own perspective that shy, socially-deficient people could potentially
realize a great deal of benefit by volunteering. If you consider the general
composition of groups that volunteer to help others, you'd be dealing with
people who don't tend to be self-centered, and tend to empathize with others,
so it stands to reason that these are the kinds of people that would tend to
be more tolerant - accepting of others (at least for anything short of the
most egregious of social gaffes) - and the kind of people with which the
socially-deficient can gain some sort of social proficiency (A.S.S.uming
that they are capable of it in the first place) - and this would be the sort
of social context in which you could also gauge your own capacities for
social development (and it's not a "given" by any means that a person could
develop those skills to an adequate extent).
It's obvious enough that the greatest obsession within this group is the
inability of getting a girlfriend/intimate relationship, which is due to
a lack of the basic social capacity to develop a relationship of that sort.
It's my supposition that, if a person cannot function viably within a group
of volunteers - within the sort of lower-order relationship that a social
context of that nature would present - and cannot develop that degree of
social proficiency - then it does not bode well for anything of a more
intimate nature developing with an attractive female-type person.
... which is a major part of the reason why I've long advocated to everyone
in this group that they should seek out those social contexts in which they
could potentially fit in.
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
"Most of the people here have no hope in them they'll be allowed
into the humanity club and just hate everybody for keeping them out.
The truth is now we keep ourselves out."
- Bandaid, 02-01-04
Solitary Soul
I don't think an objective of that nature would be very realistic for most
of the guys in this group (" ... learn how to bring out those parts of them
that we want to see").
We're too busy trying to figure out a way to present a side to OURSELVES
that we would want OTHERS to see - first things first.
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
Solitary Soul
>On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:27:48 -0000, dan74 <daniel...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Jun 10, 5:22 am, Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOS...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Instead of sitting at home - in your dank, dark lairs - being miserable with
>>> boredom and loneliness - several of you could benefit by following Ron's example
>>> - by getting off of your A.S.S.es and doing volunteer work.
>>>
>>I've been doing voluntary work for 6 years.
>>Don't ASSume anything, even about ASSers.
>
>I donated blood for 26 years but am currently on strike until Bush is
>out of office and the troops come home.
>
>No blood from the Pan' until all of that happens.
How is that relevant to anything within this sub-thread?
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
I care deeply about the problems of others even though I hate them.
- ASStagon
Solitary Soul
><I think that what you're doing should serve as an inspiration to a
>lot of the people posting to this group. >
>
>Why thank you Solitary. The key to this is finding inspiration in
>something, which is what I did.
>
>This Kclub models the Mclub I've run in the little school I work at so
>creating this was easy. The hard part was learning the social game.
>If I tried doing this 5 or 6 years ago, I would have contaminated the
>whole thing because I wouldn't have dealt with some of the obstacles I
>described in the beginning of all this, appropriately. (Like that
>youth director problem I shared about.) The good part is that all the
>systems I've developed over the years I was able to test here, a fresh
>test. And I find that everything worked effortlessly.
>
><Instead of sitting at home - in your dank, dark lairs - being
>miserable with boredom and loneliness - several of you could benefit
>by following Ron's example - by getting off of your A.S.S.es and
>doing volunteer work. >
>
>That might be hard for some. I know even with myself, it's hard to
>take that step when you have built a nice safe Ft. Knox to live in -
I didn't mean to advocate that anyone should undertake the sort of endeavor
that you have with your program, but just get out and JOIN an already-established
volunteer group. Anyone can do that, sanctuary or no.
>in my case, I've spared no expense on making my home an independent
>country almost. I have my trees, ponds, bird sanctuary, gardens, and
>my basement workshop. Then there's the state_lands for my sense of
>adventure. Outside of my job, I involved myself in society as little
>as possible.
>
>However, since I've started this, it's consumed a lot of my time and
>thought life. And that's in a good way - I can't believe how ingrown
>I was becoming even though I thought I had taken every precaution to
>insure that I didn't do that.
>
>If you're interested, here's the first two articles they did on this
>Kclub.
>http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18202228&BRD=1709&PAG=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6
>
>http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18233202&BRD=1709&PAG=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6
>
>Thanks for your support.
I've sent a message to an email address for feedback with the Houston Independent
School District, bringing this to their attention:
http://tinyurl.com/2u8bs3
We'll see if they take an interest.
I think that everyone else in this group should do the same with their own
local school district(s).
Who knows how far this could go.
Grant Robertson
solitarys...@ev1.net says...
> I don't think an objective of that nature would be very realistic for most
> of the guys in this group (" ... learn how to bring out those parts of them
> that we want to see").
>
> We're too busy trying to figure out a way to present a side to OURSELVES
> that we would want OTHERS to see - first things first.
I know. It is a really, really long term goal. But something to think
about for the future.
Grant Robertson
solitarys...@ev1.net says...
> It's my supposition that, if a person cannot function viably within a group
> of volunteers - within the sort of lower-order relationship that a social
> context of that nature would present - and cannot develop that degree of
> social proficiency - then it does not bode well for anything of a more
> intimate nature developing with an attractive female-type person.
>
> ... which is a major part of the reason why I've long advocated to everyone
> in this group that they should seek out those social contexts in which they
> could potentially fit in.
Excellent point! I have avoided volunteering for any organized volunteer
activity because the people I have seen talk about it appeared to have
only volunteered so they could brag about having done it. One more step
on their social ladder. But I should probably do some work for the
habitat for humanity locally. I can swing a hammer with the best of them
(OK, the mediocre of them) and could use the exercise. Either the people
will NOT be snobs just adding to their list of things to brag about, or
they will be but won't be able to tell that I am not. Either way it will
be a learning experience. If only I hadn't gotten rid of my leather
gloves.
Grant Robertson
@hotmail.com says...
> Things have been proceeding very nicely. For those who have no idea
> about what this is about, I posted this idea way back early in the
> year about an idealistic thought I had about starting a youth program
> in this little town near the bottom of the hill where I live.
>
I just now read the article. This is totally awesome! Congratulations for
getting this project off the ground. That is a good idea for other cities
to try. I am also going to forward the link to my city commissioner.
RonW
RonW
> Very refreshing to hear on this board.
>
> Congratulations, and keep on going.
Thank you
RonW
for
getting this project off the ground. That is a good idea for other
cities
to try. I am also going to forward the link to my city commissioner. >
Thank you and good luck.
RonW
Independent
School District, bringing this to their attention:
http://tinyurl.com/2u8bs3
We'll see if they take an interest.
I think that everyone else in this group should do the same with their
own local school district(s).
Who knows how far this could go. >
And it's not a complicated or expensive thing to start either. Kids
tend to like feeling as though they are helping with something but
many times finding an outlet can be tricky. In the case with this
KClub program, they have a 'yellow brick road' to follow. Everything
is all set up way ahead of time and all they have to do is just show
up and participate. And in return for that participation, they
receive perks in return.
Some of those perks are free passes to the city pool, free trips - in
this case the mayor_of_Oneida is also the executive director of a
childrens camp and has offered me the use of that facility for the
KClub this fall - cabins, kitchen/dining facility, trails - its a
beautiful place. There are other perks I have been able to arrange
for these kids that are so much bigger than anything I have been able
to provide in the school setting.
The thing is, these members are not in this for the perks, but because
they want to help. Those rewards just make it easier and more fun for
them to donate their time. It's my way (and concept) to make them feel
important by being a member and that the work they are doing is
valuable.
It would be an honor though, if a city the size of Houston Tx. found
my little program to be something they could model after. And if they
do contact you, feel free to have them call me in person. I'd love to
be of help to them if I could.
Thanks/RW
Sklenge
>> I know that I often read posts from certain parties, complaining about
>> how bored and miserable they are, so I would think that it's safe to
>> A.S.S.ume that those are the ones that need to explore the possibility
>> of doing volunteer work.
>
> Why should they help other people? Society has only brutalised them.
If I felt like that I would start by helping people who feel brutalized or
let down by society in the same way as me. In this way I'd be helping people
like me. It would be less philanthropic more selfish but still helpful to
everyone involved. You see this kind of self centred helpfulness all the
time when people who have lived happy lives are struck by tragedy like drug
or alcohol abuse, cancer or MS and they spend all their energy campaigning
and fundraising for their new cause. Prior to being affected by the issue
they don't bother with it.
Sklenge
I think we can suffer from seeing what we want to see and not paying
attention to how the things we're noticing [and not noticing] could cause us
problems in the future. Eg, one thing I've noticed with all my relationships
is how the thing that can attract me to someone/something often becomes the
thing I find the most irritating about them. This is something that changes
in my perception rather than anything that changes in them probably. Once
the veil has slipped it's very difficult to imagine getting it back in
place.
michaela
> on 11/6/07 4:50 am, Grant Robertson wrote:
>> solitarys...@ev1.net says...
>>> I don't think an objective of that nature would be very realistic
>>> for most of the guys in this group (" ... learn how to bring out
>>> those parts of them that we want to see").
>>>
>>> We're too busy trying to figure out a way to present a side to
>>> OURSELVES that we would want OTHERS to see - first things first.
>>
>> I know. It is a really, really long term goal. But something to
think
>> about for the future.
>
> I think we can suffer from seeing what we want to see and not paying
> attention to how the things we're noticing [and not noticing] could
> cause us problems in the future. Eg, one thing I've noticed with all
> my relationships is how the thing that can attract me to
> someone/something often becomes the thing I find the most irritating
> about them.
Haven't we heard this one thousand times?
And they call it /love/
- Michaela
Grant Robertson
says...
> If I felt like that I would start by helping people who feel brutalized or
> let down by society in the same way as me. In this way I'd be helping people
> like me.
>
help people who are where I used to be just a little bit ago.
Grant Robertson
> > I think we can suffer from seeing what we want to see and not paying
> > attention to how the things we're noticing [and not noticing] could
> > cause us problems in the future. Eg, one thing I've noticed with all
> > my relationships is how the thing that can attract me to
> > someone/something often becomes the thing I find the most irritating
> > about them.
>
> Haven't we heard this one thousand times?
>
> And they call it /love/
>
> - Michaela
Hilarious! I love it.
Grant Robertson
@hotmail.com says...
> It would be an honor though, if a city the size of Houston Tx. found
> my little program to be something they could model after. And if they
> do contact you, feel free to have them call me in person. I'd love to
> be of help to them if I could.
>
Solitary Soul
That's what I was thinking. This could turn out to be something big.
I think we could all help by drawing attention to Ron (and to those articles
that were published/posted) to those who are in a position to implement
such things.
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
Nothing is certain, and anything is possible
- Solitary Soul
Solitary Soul
Sure - you got it.
What do you do about slackers?
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
RonW
>
> - Show quoted text -
RonW
This upcoming Team Night (this coming Wednesday) I'm going to have to
address the problem of some of the members playing and running around
while others are working to complete the projects. This hasn't been a
real 'bad' problem but if it isn't addressed, there could be some
safety compromises not to mention a breakdown in moral and teamwork.
Also, there is a problem with a couple of them when it comes to
respect issues with one of the group supervisors.
None of those are unfixable problems, and I think after our talk on
Wednesday, things will be better. I think, at least with some of
these kids, their home life doesn't do much to promote teamwork - or
give and take for that matter. That is probably one other thing that
this program will give to them, that piece of life learning that they
lack.
Thanks
Sklenge
> Sklenge wrote:
>> on 11/6/07 4:50 am, Grant Robertson wrote:
>>> solitarys...@ev1.net says...
>>>> I don't think an objective of that nature would be very realistic
>>>> for most of the guys in this group (" ... learn how to bring out
>>>> those parts of them that we want to see").
>>>>
>>>> We're too busy trying to figure out a way to present a side to
>>>> OURSELVES that we would want OTHERS to see - first things first.
>>>
>>> I know. It is a really, really long term goal. But something to think about
>>> for the future.
>>>
>> I think we can suffer from seeing what we want to see and not paying
>> attention to how the things we're noticing [and not noticing] could
>> cause us problems in the future. Eg, one thing I've noticed with all
>> my relationships is how the thing that can attract me to
>> someone/something often becomes the thing I find the most irritating
>> about them.
>
> Haven't we heard this one thousand times?
Aw, you mean I'm not original?
>
> And they call it /love/
In that case it maybe follows that all human interaction could be called
love. And that would revalue it.
Solitary Soul
><What do you do about slackers?>
>
>This upcoming Team Night (this coming Wednesday) I'm going to have to
>address the problem of some of the members playing and running around
>while others are working to complete the projects. This hasn't been a
>real 'bad' problem but if it isn't addressed, there could be some
>safety compromises not to mention a breakdown in moral and teamwork.
>Also, there is a problem with a couple of them when it comes to
>respect issues with one of the group supervisors.
As I expected ...
>None of those are unfixable problems, and I think after our talk on
>Wednesday, things will be better. I think, at least with some of
>these kids, their home life doesn't do much to promote teamwork - or
>give and take for that matter. That is probably one other thing that
>this program will give to them, that piece of life learning that they
>lack.
>
>Thanks
I have a suggestion ...
The most optimal situation would be for them to police themselves - to use peer
pressure to your advantage.
You could tell them that you're going to pick three foremen - from the most
dedicated, hardest-working, of the group that shows the most initiative and
the best leadership abilities. You'll also reserve the right to replace a
foreman at any time should you decide that there is someone who would be
better at the position than one of the current group of three (to foster
a spirit of competition - and to keep the foremen on their toes).
If there are any kids that refuse to accept a certain degree of discipline,
then it will be up to the foremen to decide if they should be expelled
- if they should stay or go.
HTH.
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
Death was in that poisonous wave,
And in its gulf a fitting grave
For him who thence could solace bring
To his lone imagining --
Whose solitary soul could make
An Eden of that dim lake.
"The Lake" - by Edgar Allan Poe
RonW
the most dedicated, hardest-working, >
That is a very good suggestion. The problem implimenting that right
now is a hindsight-type issue and I'm going to have to think about
it.
When I set this whole thing up in April, the majority (like 95%) of
the membership were simply loyal MClubbers who followed me from the
school program to the city program. And I used those group leaders to
get me started - those group leaders from the MClub were very loyal
and dedicated and I felt would be excellent role models for future
leaders.
The problem is that both of them have lost that leadership edge right
along with their dedication. I spoke to my boss about them a month
ago and he thinks it's the age. Personally, I think with one of them
the responsibility went to her head and I am kind of waiting till the
end of the year when she graduates and moves up to the middle school.
What will probably happen is that once she is out of my building, and
that personal contact is lost, she won't be coming to the other
program.
The other one has discovered the world. The older sister (18 years
old) is beautiful and is really into modeling and a whole network of
things all dealing with beautycraft. She has been mentoring the
younger sister (who looks just like her) and this other leader's
committment has been waning as well.
In the short term, those two remain leaders but there is some obvious
dislike about the whole thing on the part of both the members and some
of the parent volunteers. However, I've left them in place for now
thinking time (like this month after moving-up is over) will process
them out. And I have created two more leadership slots and those two
new girls have been fantastic.
Creating more leadership spots in a group of only 30 members, that
I'll really have to think about. Making children compete and show top-
notch dedication when I have 2 or my 4 sitting leaders not showing
that might cause more problems.That whole group leadership issue is a
big area that I plan on reforming and your suggestion is a good goal
for me to use.
In fact, there are alot of things I am going to have to reform. The
problem is that I transfered my system for MCLub over to this program
and while at the time we were starting out I thought I was a good
idea, I'm having to re-think some things. Handing out those
leadership roles upfront was a mistake because two of those positions
have now been wasted. Another area I discovered needing change is
that I tend to be benevolent and easy going with these kids and in the
school setting, I have all the boundaries and rules all in place to
help me so controlling the group is effortless. In this setting, I
need to set clearer boundaries - again, tonights the night I'm going
to establish a few more ground rules.
Thanks/RW
Sklenge
> <You could tell them that you're going to pick three foremen - from
> the most dedicated, hardest-working, >
[some snippage follows]
>
> That is a very good suggestion. The problem implimenting that right
> now is a hindsight-type issue and I'm going to have to think about
> it.
>
> When I set this whole thing up in April, the majority (like 95%) of
> the membership were simply loyal MClubbers who followed me from the
> school program to the city program. And I used those group leaders to
> get me started - those group leaders from the MClub were very loyal
> and dedicated and I felt would be excellent role models for future
> leaders.
>
> That whole group leadership issue is a
> big area that I plan on reforming and your suggestion is a good goal
> for me to use.
>
> In fact, there are alot of things I am going to have to reform. The
> problem is that I transfered my system for MCLub over to this program
> and while at the time we were starting out I thought I was a good
> idea, I'm having to re-think some things.
>
> Thanks/RW
Without wanting to be over cautious, I'd just like to say that I'm surprised
that you have the agreement from everyone involved to be as open as you are
in your OP about everyone's input and your perception of it.
This is the kind of openness that can cause legal and corporate issues
further along HR and PR corridors.
What's your opinion about the balance between preserving privacy for your
colleagues and members of the club and being politically transparent about
how you are all working together?
RonW
I realize this thread was probably not my best judgement call in life.
Over the years I've been here, I've posted alot of true stories but
now things have changed.
I don't believe I have written anything I am ashamed of, either here,
or anywhere else during my online career. And if there comes a time
where I have to answer for what I've posted, I'll just have to tell
the truth. I am posting here, an online support group, using real
life stories, and it was a mistake.
So, if the people in here who have supported my endeavor can just
allow this thread to die, thats ok with me. I thank you for your help
with what I've been doing with this program. Allowing me to vent when
things weren't going right and giving me a bouncing board, and
providing the common-sense advice. I can assure you, if you could see
this program, I think you would not be disappointed. It does make a
difference around here.
RW
michaela
Emma, it took me a while, but do you remember in the "Cho
bullied relentlessly for being shy, quiet and Asian" thread, how
I was talking about opposites and how you didn't buy (or
whatever... no energy this side) into what I was saying about
opposites?
I'm not sure if I mentioned "complementary opposites" and this is
a slightly different way of looking at it all, but you have stumbled
on your own "fault" in the whole game of life. Perhaps we have
some common ground after all...
['s funny that... how after we give up... resistance is removed.]
- Michaela
Sklenge
> Sklenge wrote:
>> on 11/6/07 4:50 am, Grant Robertson wrote:
>>> solitarys...@ev1.net says...
...bear with me.
>
> ['s funny that... how after we give up... resistance is removed.]
>
> - Michaela
There's more to say on this but this isn't the appropriate juncture/forum
for me to say the next thing I wanted to say.
Hardpan
<solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:11:54 -0700, Hardpan <hardp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:27:48 -0000, dan74 <daniel...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 10, 5:22 am, Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOS...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Instead of sitting at home - in your dank, dark lairs - being miserable with
>>>> boredom and loneliness - several of you could benefit by following Ron's example
>>>> - by getting off of your A.S.S.es and doing volunteer work.
>>>>
>>>I've been doing voluntary work for 6 years.
>>>Don't ASSume anything, even about ASSers.
>>
>>I donated blood for 26 years but am currently on strike until Bush is
>>out of office and the troops come home.
>>
>>No blood from the Pan' until all of that happens.
>
>How is that relevant to anything within this sub-thread?
Are you ever pleased about anything that I write here, SS?
Seriously, dude, I make a mention of doing past volunteer work, and
how I am protesting the war in Iraq and the current thief in office by
not donating blood until the troops come home, a relevant issue to
this thread and you come down on me.
For what logical reason?
You still sore about being so wrong about my supposed marital life?
<bg>
This is a prime indicator of a male who has "had any" in a while, or
in your case, ever. :-D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!
And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is
no virtue."
-Sen. Barry Goldwater
Titanium
> > Why should they help other people? Society has only brutalised them.
>
> So they can see that - unlike your over-generalization - ALL of society
> is not brutal and can meet some nice people who like doing good things
> for other people.
>
It'll be hard to believe but I have a long history of doing volunteer
work. And it's just like any other collective activity.
You'll definitely feel out of place and uncomfortable if you don't get
along or talk with your volunteer colleagues. It's conceptually good
to be helping out those in need. But social ineptitude still shows
even in volunteer work, and this makes even the simplest of volunteer
jobs to be mundane, tiresome, and mentally stressful.
I'm not currently volunteering but this was something I tried doing
since high school. The way I volunteered varied based on setting, my
exact role, and my life experience, but my social incompetence always
created difficulty in my efforts. It didn't necessarily show in the
quality/quantity of my work but I always felt "unwell." ( why I kept
volunteering is a different matter in itself )
And volunteers don't seem realize that most people don't really " need
" help; they're all just too lazy. Most of the people being helped
were healthy and young enough for the work force. And yet, they tend
to do poorly or put almost no effort in state-assisted job training
programs and seem to have no motivation to work, even when offered a
job. Now, there are some folks with long-term disabilties that are
forced to rely on welfare. But on the underside of these disabilities
is often a history of drug abuse and gang-related injuries. Sometimes,
you can't help but wonder if these people even should be offered
compassion.
So most of these people claiming to be "in need" are not necessarily
real. And pretty soon, it'll get irritating to work with them, as they
tend to feel healthcare, food, and housing access are a right and that
they deserve everything from us because they are poor or are under
the illusion that everyone else is living well off.
Nowadays, I don't know how a person could believe anything in
society.
Grant Robertson
seaga...@hotmail.com says...
> > > Why should they help other people? Society has only brutalised them.
> >
> > So they can see that - unlike your over-generalization - ALL of society
> > is not brutal and can meet some nice people who like doing good things
> > for other people.
> >
>
> It'll be hard to believe but I have a long history of doing volunteer
> work. And it's just like any other collective activity.
>
> You'll definitely feel out of place and uncomfortable if you don't get
> along or talk with your volunteer colleagues. It's conceptually good
> to be helping out those in need. But social ineptitude still shows
> even in volunteer work, and this makes even the simplest of volunteer
> jobs to be mundane, tiresome, and mentally stressful.
[Big Snip]
There are definitely limits to my compassion these days too. There is
this guy who comes to the coffee shop where I hang out. He is totally
spaced out. He wears these funky hats (both in style and smell), talks
really loud and just won't shut up. But everyone puts up with him because
he is mentally disabled and flashes the peace sign and says, "Precious
Love!" all the damn time. But here is the thing. I know for a fact that
he got that way from being a total, feakazoid, stoner back in the day. I
didn't know him then but I know people who did. Even they put up with
him. Naturally, I can't say anything because everyone else just "precious
loves" him and I would be a pariah if I did. But I don't gotta like the
guy or let him start talking to me when I am trying to study.
People always assume I am a bleeding heart liberal but there are some
people who should be allowed to suffer some of the consequences of their
actions. This guy doesn't work but has a small apartment to himself, can
afford to hang out at the coffee shop and drink coffee all day, and buy
these gigantic cigars and smoke them right outside the door to the shop
all because he is on disability. I think they ought to at least put the
guy to work to earn some of his keep.
On the other hand. I have heard about the terrible things that being
homeless does to the human mind. I'm told that, after just a couple of
months, most people just shut down and give up. My town is pretty darn
homeless friendly so there are a lot of experts on the subject around.
Then there are people who have just never, ever, been taught that you
gotta earn your keep in this world. A couple of generations of welfare
will do that to people. So, in a way, it truly is a trap. People
sometimes need personal coaches to teach them over a long term basis that
they really do gotta get the heck up every darn day and drag themselves
to work. Finally, not all depression is obvious to the outside observer.
Most people with mental illness which prevents them from working still
seem normal when there is no pressure on them. It's kinda like me with
the shyness. Most people think I am outgoing but they don't notice that I
never go out on dates.
So, if you volunteered for agencies where all they did is hand out stuff
to the homeless then I can see where you would get burned out. Perhaps
you should try Habitat for Humanity. It may sound harsh, but you don't
actually have to deal with the needy people. You just work beside other
volunteers. If you are burned out from the constant needyness then this
might be the type of thing for you. Plus, you are working on a big
project and you don't have to do much socializing if you don't want to.
As you are building the house, you don't have to worry about whether the
intended owner really needs it or not. You don't really care. (But
pretend you do.) All you really need to care about is that you are
gaining new skills in both building and socializing and gaining some
pretty good bragging rights. This may sound shallow, but if that is how
you have to think about it for now, then fine. At least you are helping.
If your social skills are so lacking that you can't even do this without
there being actual problems then maybe you need your own personal coach.
Some therapists are willing to do this kind of thing. But, I gotta say,
it sounds more like you were just uncomfortable with your own performance
and others may not have even noticed anything wrong. I don't know, I
wasn't there.
Disclaimer: All of this is coming from a guy who has only done one
afternoon's worth of official volunteer work in his whole life. I have
always felt so burned out from doing so darn many individual favors for
people that I never had the motivation to do volunteer work. It's funny
how, when you do favors for individuals, you are considered a desperate
sap. But when you work even longer and harder on some volunteer project,
even for people who may or may not deserve it, then you are treated like
a hero. I think it has to do with that social thing. Volunteering is a
social activity, doing favors isn't. Plus, when you volunteer, you kind
of get to take credit for the entire project rather than for just the
small favor you did for your friend or neighbor.
Solitary Soul
>On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:29:18 -0500, Solitary Soul
><solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:11:54 -0700, Hardpan <hardp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:27:48 -0000, dan74 <daniel...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jun 10, 5:22 am, Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOS...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of sitting at home - in your dank, dark lairs - being miserable with
>>>>> boredom and loneliness - several of you could benefit by following Ron's example
>>>>> - by getting off of your A.S.S.es and doing volunteer work.
>>>>>
>>>>I've been doing voluntary work for 6 years.
>>>>Don't ASSume anything, even about ASSers.
>>>
>>>I donated blood for 26 years but am currently on strike until Bush is
>>>out of office and the troops come home.
>>>
>>>No blood from the Pan' until all of that happens.
>>
>>How is that relevant to anything within this sub-thread?
>
>Are you ever pleased about anything that I write here, SS?
>
>Seriously, dude, I make a mention of doing past volunteer work, and
>how I am protesting the war in Iraq and the current thief in office by
>not donating blood until the troops come home, a relevant issue to
>this thread and you come down on me.
>
>For what logical reason?
First of all, I was only asking you to explain yourself. I can understand how
you might perceive that to be persecutory - given that you can't explain much
about most everything that you post - and almost always resort to personal attacks
when you're pressed to make such an explanation.
Second of all, this thread/sub-thread has nothing to do with national policy.
In case you haven't noticed, this is a SHYNESS group - this is alt.support.SHYNESS
- which has nothing to do with politics. If you want a political discussion
- on the subject of foreign policy - then there are plenty of other groups
on the WWW that are dedicated to that. I have a policy of refraining from
engaging anyone on politics within this group, mainly because most everyone
who posts about politics within this group are about as naive and simplistic
on the subject as they are about socialization in general - including yourself
- ESPECIALLY yourself.
... and I find it particularly bizarre that you think that you're making
some sort of a protest statement about the war effort by not donating blood.
... but it doesn't really surprise me - as it's just more of the same from you.
Lastly, you mentioned blood donation as "volunteer work", when the gist of this
thread/sub-thread has to do with the social aspects of performing volunteer work.
There is virtually no social interaction involved with blood donation; You go down
to the donation facility, they stick a needle in your arm, draw the blood, give
you some juice, and then you go home once you've recovered from the effects.
Titanium understands what is going on in this thread - and posted something that
is obviously relevant - as demonstrated within his own post within this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/2lyzkk
>You still sore about being so wrong about my supposed marital life?
><bg>
>
>This is a prime indicator of a male who has "had any" in a while, or
>in your case, ever. :-D
... and you do it yet AGAIN - more personal attacks when you don't have
a rational response.
It's more than obvious that the point that I was trying to make with you back then
went whizzing right over your head, as most other things do with you.
If you REALLY want to dig up old skeletons here, then I'll try ONCE AGAIN
to get you to understand what it is that I was trying to get you to understand
at that time. I realize how hard it is for you - for anything to sink into that
"Hardpan" of a head of yours - but PLEASE TRY real hard to comprehend this time:
:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:
:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:
:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 05:59:34 -0800, Hardpan <hardp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:57:29 -0600, Solitary Soul
><solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:49:31 -0500, Mickey <mi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Ummm...no. In your post, you made an assertion, pretty explicitly, about
>>>the existence of Hardpan's ex-wife. He asked you to prove it, not very
>>>nicely, but that's what he did. Now you could be be a man and either
>>>back up your assertion, or retract it. Instead, you chose to cut it out
>>>and rant, IOW, took the wussy way out.
>>
>>Ummm ... why should I? (prove it) - that was my point.
>>
>>Hardpan spouts all kinds of empty-headed drivel about myself and several
>>others in this group (including Pnats) - I'm playing his own game by his rules
>
>What rules are those, SS?
>
>Getting caught making a huge mistake here about my life and then
>trying to cover your mistake up, instead of own up to it like a Man?
No - it's the one where you make all kinds of wild extrapolations based upon
a sparse set of personal facts and revelations that someone might make to this group
in order to wage a personal attack upon them - or based upon nothing at all other
than whatever you pull out of your own A.S.S.
I can play that game too - better than you can AAMOF.
>> - and at least mine was backed up by plausibility
>
>What "plausibility" would that be ?
Your hostile attitude towards marriage and committed LTR's are a product of
your own bad experiences/consequences WRT a failed relationship of your own.
It's entirely plausible, and, within the context of your own game, I don't have
to prove that it actually happened - I just have to make the assertion - and you
have to prove that it's actually wrong.
That's how your game is played.
>> - while he's got nothing but his own insane delusions.
>
>Or so you keep repeating, hoping it will stick someday if you
>repeat it often enough.
>
>You know, speaking of wacko's such as yourself, I have heard that
>the 30 year anniversary, special edition of the movie, "Taxi-Driver"
>is hitting the shelves soon near you.
>
>Just think; you could spend hours and hours talking to yourself
>in front of the mirror, practicing the "What you looking at? Are you
>talking to me?" lines that made Robert De Niro, so famous <bg>.
... and you just keep on proving my point - totally oblivious to it.
How dense can you get?
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Solitary Souls'old sig line, dated December 2004
>
>"To hate someone else for your own failings is nothing
>less than insane".
> - Solitary Soul
How is that sig relevant to anything?
I'm not the one who hates/blames women due to my own inabilities to attract one
- and the inability to function within an intimate LTR with one.
:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:
:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:
:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 05:59:11 -0800, Hardpan <hardp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:23:27 -0600, Solitary Soul
><solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:52:45 -0800, Hardpan <hardp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:49:34 -0600, Solitary Soul
>>><solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:15:44 -0800, Hardpan <hardp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 02:01:31 -0600, Solitary Soul
>>>>><solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:06:32 -0800, Hardpan <hardp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:48:45 GMT, mickey <mi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Since this is a game oft played in a.s.s. I thought it would be a public
>>>>>>>>service to put it out here. Not that I particularly think game players
>>>>>>>>should be prevented from playing what makes them happy, but that, others
>>>>>>>>are not sucked into genuinely trying to help when the other person is
>>>>>>>>merely looking for a counterplayer not a way to stop the game.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><begin excerpt>
>>>>>>>>Games People Play, Eric Berne(c)1964.
>>>>>>>>page 159-162
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wooden Leg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thesis: The most dramatic form of "Wooden Leg" is "The Plea of
>>>>>>>>Insanity." This may be translated into transactional terms as follows:
>>>>>>>>"What do you expect of someone as emotionally disturbed as I am-that I
>>>>>>>>would refrain from killing people?" To which the jury is asked to reply:
>>>>>>>>"Certainly not, we would hardly impose that restriction on you!" The
>>>>>>>>"Plea of Insanity," played as a legal game, is acceptable to American
>>>>>>>>culture and is different from the almost universally respected principle
>>>>>>>>that an individual may be suffering from a psychosis so profound that no
>>>>>>>>reasonable person would expect him to be responsible for his actions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sounds like "East Texas" to me <bg>!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's an odd statement to make - given that it came from California
>>>>>> - and California is known throughout the nation as that state that
>>>>>>is home to a lot of freaks and weirdos.
>>>>>
>>>>>California is a big state, SS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not as big as Texas but the BS level is less too. <g>
>>>>>
>>>>>What you say is true in parts of this state, near the coasts and in
>>>>>LA/San Diego, but out in the central valley areas and the foothills,
>>>>>plenty of people are not much different then the rednecks from your
>>>>>own home state.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then again lots of them folks up around Redding, Shasta and
>>>>>Susanville, are as hard right-wing, church-going, gun-owning,
>>>>>Christian Republican, Bush-supporting, flag-waving, conservative
>>>>>pro-war morons, as any place in the mid-west you could possibly name.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, once again, it just goes to show how naive you really are about
>>>>>the real world, with your lack of experience.
>>>>
>>>>No - once again - you've completely missed the point.
>>>>
>>>>Virtually the entire nation outside of California perceives of the state
>>>>as being the kook-capitol of America - and let's not forget San Francisco
>>>> - also known as Queer-City, U. S. A.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, you wouldn't think of your fellow kooks as kooks, as they
>>>>would seem to be perfectly normal to yourself.
>>>
>>>I am not a "fellow kook", SS, and, as someone else posted here,
>>>California is not a "Blue state", by a long damn shot.
>>>
>>>Our Governor is a Republican, for petes sake.
>>>
>>>Yes, I may be a democrat, but I am not a liberal, sandal wearing,
>>>pot-smoking, homosexuality supporting, middle-aged hippie, as you
>>>would like others here to think I am. I dont live in the SF Bay area
>>>either.
>>>
>>>I am very conservative person; I love shooting my guns like you do
>>>and I vote only for conservative Democrats, and even a Republican,
>>>when I think they deserve it.
>>>
>>>BTW, have I never missed casting my vote, not once in 30 years.
>>>
>>>I drive a full-sized, late-model American-made pickup truck (no gun
>>>rack), I live in a nice house in a nice town, I grudgingly pay my
>>>taxes, and I willingly work in a profession that involves a high risk
>>>of being killed or maimed everyday that I work.
>>>
>>>I don't like anti-gun assholes, like many Democrats (and some
>>>Republicans) politicians, who wish to take our rights away one by one,
>>>including our RKBA, and as far as I am concerned we should put them
>>>all in a ship, and then sink it to the bottom of the ocean.
>>>
>>>I once took an oath on a Bible to protect and defend the Constitution
>>>against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I mean to uphold that
>>>oath in full, as much as I possibly can, as it was originally intended
>>>by the founding fathers, not like all the politically correct people,
>>>including many politicians, judges and police officers.
>>>
>>>These cretins utter the oath, never meaning to do anything to uphold
>>>it at all, as they have never even read it or the many other documents
>>>that the founders wrote over two hundred years ago, as I have, and
>>>don't give a damn about other peoples constitutional rights at all.
>>
>>I don't believe ANY of this - PROVE IT!!!
>
>Aww, poor Solitary Soul.
>
>You got caught covering up your little "boo-boo" about my life,
>so now everything I post here is a "lie", not your big mistake,
>correct?
You seem to think that you should get the benefit of a double-standard where
you can make any sort of assertion as to how other people tend to think and live,
and the onus is upon them (me) to prove you wrong, while anything that you might
post about yourself should be accepted as "The Gospel Truth" - without any sort
of verification nor evidence.
That only happens in Hardpan-World - not in reality. Within the context of your game,
any sort of "boo-boo" that I might have made is of no particular significance:
It's up to you to prove me wrong.
The key point that you're not grasping here is that, however you might live your
life and I might live my life (or anyone else might live their own lives) has
no bearing upon anything - it doesn't give you any validity nor credibility
- it's what you post that actually matters - and your own ability to make logical
observations and rationalizations in support of whatever position/perspective
that you might take. I could make the claim that I'm a Space Shuttle Astronaut,
but it wouldn't give the words that I post any validity/credibility - it wouldn't
matter in the least.
If you're incapable of doing that sort of thing - of developing a logical, rational
response - then effectively elaborating upon it in a coherent manner (as it's
apparent enough that you are indeed incapable) - then your best option would be to
simply refrain from making any sort of comment on the matter at hand - and from
making yourself look like even more of a dimwit than you already have. We can keep
playing your game for as long as you like, but the only loser will be yourself
- but of course that's a role that you've grown very much accustomed to playing
- so I'm not very optimistic in that regard.
... and while we are on the subject of sigs, check out my latest one ... <grin>
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
"I am in my early fifties and I didn't have any
gray at all until I was 43 and I still have my hair
(but not my sanity, unfortunately.)"
- Hardpan (Dec 17, 2006)
Hardpan
<solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote:
Why do you think I needed to make an explanation?
Clue: I didn't then and I don't now. I don't let people like you
confine me to certain "roles" here or in real life.
>Second of all, this thread/sub-thread has nothing to do with national policy.
>In case you haven't noticed, this is a SHYNESS group - this is alt.support.SHYNESS
> - which has nothing to do with politics. If you want a political discussion
> - on the subject of foreign policy - then there are plenty of other groups
>on the WWW that are dedicated to that.
So what?
We are all subject to the whims of government foolishness. Its your
own self-engaged policy that determines what you think is appropriate
for this group,but its not mine.
Clear enough?
>I have a policy of refraining from
>engaging anyone on politics within this group, mainly because most everyone
>who posts about politics within this group are about as naive and simplistic
>on the subject as they are about socialization in general - including yourself
> - ESPECIALLY yourself.
Coming from a loner like you, with no history of success with women at
all, I find that notion of yours quite amusing.
I work and live in the world outside of my little closet everyday,
unlike you, living out in the boondocks and stuck in the past, SS.
> ... and I find it particularly bizarre that you think that you're making
>some sort of a protest statement about the war effort by not donating blood.
>
> ... but it doesn't really surprise me - as it's just more of the same from you.
My rationale is very simple:
Since the American people are too stupid, ignorant or scared to
impeach a complete fool and a liar like GW Bush, who is allowing
many people to die needlessly in the middle-east, both our troops and
the Iraqi people, I no longer need to be wasting my time keeping a few
of these foolish idiots alive by donating blood and blood-related
products for their use, and no cost to them, as I have for many years.
>Lastly, you mentioned blood donation as "volunteer work", when the gist of this
>thread/sub-thread has to do with the social aspects of performing volunteer work.
>There is virtually no social interaction involved with blood donation; You go down
>to the donation facility, they stick a needle in your arm, draw the blood, give
>you some juice, and then you go home once you've recovered from the effects.
You no absolutely NOTHING about the blood donation process at all, if
you post such garbage as this, SS.
Facts for Solitary Soul:
When one donates platelets, as I have done for 18 years, in addition
to regular whole blood donations, you can easily be inside the blood
bank for three (3) long hours as the platelets have to be filtered out
of the blood by a very expensive machine designed for that operation.
Even a simple stick for a pint of whole blood takes almost one hour
for many people, in and out the door, but you wouldn't know that as
you have never seen the insides of a blood bank, now have you?
>then you go home once you've recovered from the effects.-SS
Q: Recovered from what effects exactly ?
Most people have _no_ effects, as they are pre-screened beforehand.
I have only witnessed people who were having difficulty during or
after a donation a couple of times in 26 years of donating blood.
>There is virtually no social interaction involved with blood donation-SS
As to social interaction, there are usually plenty of people in the
blood banks and where there are people there will be social
interactions. They have all manner of yearly awards and banquets on
top of all that as well, to keep people coming back to donate blood.
Hell, there are even people that have met, dated and gotten married by
donating blood, but according to you there is "no social interaction."
there.
Yeah, right, whatever you say, pal.
>Titanium understands what is going on in this thread - and posted something that
>is obviously relevant - as demonstrated within his own post within this thread:
>http://tinyurl.com/2lyzkk
And your point, if any, is ?
>>You still sore about being so wrong about my supposed marital life?
>><bg>
>>
>>This is a prime indicator of a male who hasnt "had any" in a while, or
>>in your case, ever. :-D
> ... and you do it yet AGAIN - more personal attacks when you don't have
>a rational response.
You don't like reading the truth too much, do you SS?
I guess it hurts that fabulously intelligent brain of yours, upstairs
in your hugely inflated head , right, SS?
Face the facts, pal: You made a huge mistake when you claimed I was a
divorced man, and yet we are expected to believe everything you post
here?
You just made another _HUGE_ mistake in thinking that you know more
about blood donations then I do.
You don't know anything about it at all, as I have just proved.
What's next on the list of "things you know all about", SS??
You gonna start telling us how great a nice piece of @$$ is, even
though you are still a middle-aged virgin <bg> ?
Solitary Soul
Because I didn't believe that what you posted was relevant to this thread, but I
wanted to give you a chance to dispel that belief - to give you the benefit of
a doubt. Instead, you've confirmed that belief - as you've now made abundantly
clear to me with this response.
>Clue: I didn't then and I don't now. I don't let people like you
>confine me to certain "roles" here or in real life.
That you believe that I was trying to confine you to any sort of "role" is more
evidence of your seriously delusional state. The only "role" that you have with
this group is that of "Village Idiot" - a "role" that you're VERY good at - and you
don't need any help from myself (nor from anyone else) to play it.
>>Second of all, this thread/sub-thread has nothing to do with national policy.
>>In case you haven't noticed, this is a SHYNESS group - this is alt.support.SHYNESS
>> - which has nothing to do with politics. If you want a political discussion
>> - on the subject of foreign policy - then there are plenty of other groups
>>on the WWW that are dedicated to that.
>
>So what?
>
>We are all subject to the whims of government foolishness. Its your
>own self-engaged policy that determines what you think is appropriate
>for this group,but its not mine.
>
>Clear enough?
Yes - you've made it abundantly clear: What you originally posted has no relevancy
to this thread whatsoever - it was just more of your lunatic ravings - so you've
answered my original question.
Thank you.
>>I have a policy of refraining from
>>engaging anyone on politics within this group, mainly because most everyone
>>who posts about politics within this group are about as naive and simplistic
>>on the subject as they are about socialization in general - including yourself
>> - ESPECIALLY yourself.
>
>Coming from a loner like you, with no history of success with women at
>all, I find that notion of yours quite amusing.
So you believe that having "success with women" (whatever that means) gives a
person some sort of insight WRT politics and foreign policy - THAT is especially
insane (as one has nothing to do with the other) - but quite typical of you.
Of course, noting that you're insane is a statement of the obvious, given that
it's something that isn't in dispute - as you yourself have acknowledged that
you're insane (per the quote within my new sig).
>I work ...
... doing something that you're too embarrassed of to reveal to this group.
> ... and live ...
... that's debatable - we can agree that you survive - but not much more beyond that.
> ... in the world outside of my little closet everyday,
>unlike you, living out in the boondocks and stuck in the past, SS.
You STILL don't understand - after all that I've typed. Any personal claims that
you make about yourself - and what you might have accomplished in life
- is meaningless - as you haven't done anything to verify it as being factual
- and references like the above are summarily irrelevant - and you make yourself
look like even more of a dimwit whenever you make them.
What you HAVE done is to make it abundantly clear that you're a misanthropist.
A VERY small percentage of the overall population shares your sentiments, and
I've known many people who have many friends - and they live in the same world
that you do - with the people of the world - and are demonstrably able to cope
with them without experiencing the same degree of contempt and animosity towards
them that you do. That most people manage to cope with society is evidence enough
that most ordinary people can manage to do it. That you hate people so much is
evidence enough that you don't understand people - or society in general - as it's
human nature to hate that which you don't understand - especially true of people
who are of sub-average intelligence - and it's obvious enough that you are VERY
sub-average in that regard.
Any claims that you make about your "knowledge of the world" - and whatever it is
that you might have accomplished in life (or probably did not accomplish) - is simply
more source for amusement - please keep it up - I could use a good laugh.
>> ... and I find it particularly bizarre that you think that you're making
>>some sort of a protest statement about the war effort by not donating blood.
>>
>> ... but it doesn't really surprise me - as it's just more of the same from you.
>
>My rationale is very simple:
>
>Since the American people are too stupid, ignorant or scared to
>impeach a complete fool and a liar like GW Bush, ...
... and I suppose that you believe that Bill Clinton was the greatest president
that this nation ever had.
Only the Congress can impeach the POTUS - and convict him of any crimes that
he might have committed. The "American people" have no direct control over
that process, as our form of government is a REPUBLIC (and not a pure democracy)
- but it would be unrealistic of me to expect simpletons such as yourself to
be able to make such distinctions. If GW Bush hasn't committed any crimes, then
there is no basis for impeachment proceedings. Clinton committed PERJURY,
and suborned perjury - something for which us commoners would have spent some
time behind bars for - yet he served out his second and final term in office
- without much in the way of meaningful consequences.
If Clinton got off the hook for committing actual crimes, then why should GW Bush
be impeached?
> ... who is allowing many people to die needlessly in the middle-east, ...
So you believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power, thereby eliminating the risk
that he posed to this nation, and clearing the way for the potential to create
a democratic republic in Iraq, was not worth the effort.
What would you have done about Saddam Hussein - after he'd violated virtually
every UN resolution that he agreed to in the aftermath of the liberation of Kuwait?
If you were president, what would you do about Iraq at this time?
> ... both our troops and the Iraqi people, ...
So you believe that GW Bush is responsible for the insurgency - and that
his administration isn't trying to resolve it. You have no understanding
of the animals that are trying to foment chaos and mayhem within Iraq.
It's people like yourself that are playing into their hands, and will likely
lead to serious consequences for this nation in the long term.
>I no longer need to be wasting my time keeping a few
>of these foolish idiots alive by donating blood and blood-related
>products for their use, and no cost to them, as I have for many years.
So you didn't feel the same way when your ol' buddy Bill Clinton was stinking up
the White House for 8 years - clear enough.
So you believe that you'll influence anyone's opinion of the current president
with your boycott, and that you can compel action. Have you notified the press
of this "enormous loss to the general public"?
One other thing: I've noted how you've been ranting and raving about how GW Bush
and the Republicans have been infringing upon personal liberty, yet the most
egregious encroachment upon personal liberty *BY* *FAR* was passage of the so-called
"Assault Weapons Ban" into law - which was drafted and passed by a Congress
controlled by DEMOCRATS - then signed into law by your ol' buddy Bill Clinton
- and it was one of the main reasons why the Democrats lost control of Congress
- as Bill Clinton acknowledged himself - and gave credit to the NRA for it's
role in bringing that about.
If your sweetheart Hillary should ever win the White House (heaven forbid),
the next question you'd be asking would be: "Where do I go to turn them in?"
I'm not trying to defend the Republicans for what they've done - I'm simply making
the observation that the Democrats are FAR worse - that the Republicans are the
lesser of two evils.
>>Lastly, you mentioned blood donation as "volunteer work", when the gist of this
>>thread/sub-thread has to do with the social aspects of performing volunteer work.
>>There is virtually no social interaction involved with blood donation; You go down
>>to the donation facility, they stick a needle in your arm, draw the blood, give
>>you some juice, and then you go home once you've recovered from the effects.
>
>You no absolutely NOTHING about the blood donation process at all, if
>you post such garbage as this, SS.
What I typed above was the experience that I've had when I've donated blood
- as well as for the others that I've known who have done the same. That you
consider it to be "garbage" is an indication that you're not as knowledgeable
on the subject as you claim to be.
>Facts for Solitary Soul:
>
>When one donates platelets, as I have done for 18 years, ...
The term "blood donation" was not limited to platelets - it's a specification that
was never established within this exchange. You're apparently pressing the claim that
donating platelets is somehow a different matter from blood donation in general.
Since I'm not aware of any difference, and it's always been my understanding that
platelets are separated from the blood drawn from the standard procedure - but I'm
not someone who would claim to be an expert on blood donation - so I'll Google on
"blood donation" and do some research ...
From the FAQ for the American Red Cross:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
What is done with donated blood?
Typically, each donated unit of blood - referred to as whole blood
- is separated into multiple components, such as red blood cells,
plasma, platelets, and cryoprecipatitated AHF (antihemophilic factor).
Each component can be transfused to different individuals with different
needs. Therefore, each donation can be used to help save as many as three lives.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.givelife2.org/aboutblood/faq.asp
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It looks like there is no difference - and the platelets are extracted from
the blood after it is drawn - as I originally believed.
> ... in addition
>to regular whole blood donations, you can easily be inside the blood
>bank for three (3) long hours as the platelets have to be filtered out
>of the blood by a very expensive machine designed for that operation.
>
>Even a simple stick for a pint of whole blood takes almost one hour
>for many people, in and out the door, but you wouldn't know that as
>you have never seen the insides of a blood bank, now have you?
Another erroneous assumption on your part.
>>then you go home once you've recovered from the effects.-SS
>
>Q: Recovered from what effects exactly ?
>
>Most people have _no_ effects, as they are pre-screened beforehand.
Take a close look at what you wrote: You used the term "MOST people"
- so that gives validity to my observation. IOW: It would depend upon who
is doing the donating.
>I have only witnessed people who were having difficulty during or
>after a donation a couple of times in 26 years of donating blood.
You have yet to verify that claim (26 years of donating blood) - I'm just giving you
the benefit of a doubt on that - as it suits my purposes to do so - as you've been
playing into MY game with what you've been posting.
Up above you stated that it's been 18 years - an apparent inconsistency
- but no matter.
>>There is virtually no social interaction involved with blood donation-SS
>
>As to social interaction, there are usually plenty of people in the
>blood banks and where there are people there will be social
>interactions.
Wrong - not always - that's an absurd statement to make. Nearly everyone has been
in crowds where they never had any interaction with anyone - even highly-extroverted
people.
When I've donated blood, everyone attended to the business at hand, and there
was nothing much beyond that.
How much socializing do YOU YOURSELF do when you donate blood?
> They have all manner of yearly awards and banquets on
>top of all that as well, to keep people coming back to donate blood.
You're making a lot of claims, with nothing much in the way of references
to back them up.
Let's take a look at a webpage from The American Association of Blood Banks
- one that goes into the details of "The Blood Donation Process":
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The Blood Donation Process
Donating blood is a safe, simple, and rewarding experience that usually only
takes 45-60 minutes.
Before You Donate
To donate blood, find a blood bank near you using AABB's blood bank locator.
Then, call the blood bank to make an appointment. When making the appointment,
ask the following questions:
* What are your general donor requirements? (Most places require you to
weigh a minimum of 110 pounds, be at least 16 years old and be generally
healthy).
* What kind of identification is required? (First-time donors are usually
asked to present two forms of identification—the type of identification
needed varies by facility).
* If you have any particular health concerns or have traveled outside of
the country, it's also a good idea to inform the blood bank at the time
you are making your appointment.
When You Arrive at the Blood Donation Center
* When you sign in, you will be asked to complete a donor registration form,
which includes your name, address, phone number, and various other types
of demographic information.
* You will also be asked to show your donor card or the type of identification
required by the particular blood bank you visit.
Pre-Donation Screening
* During pre-donation screening, a blood bank employee will ask you some
questions about your health, lifestyle, and disease risk factors. All
of this information is confidential.
* Next, an employee will perform a short health exam, taking your pulse,
temperature and blood pressure.
* A drop of blood from your finger will also be tested to ensure that your
blood iron level is sufficient for you to donate. All medical equipment
used for this test, as well as during the donation process, is sterile,
used only once and then disposed.
Blood Donation
* Once the pre-donation screening is finished, you will proceed to a donor
bed where your arm will be cleaned with an antiseptic, and a professional
will use a blood donation kit to draw blood from a vein in your arm. If
you are allergic to iodine, be sure to tell the phlebotomist at this point.
* During the donation process, you will donate one unit of blood; this takes
about six to ten minutes.
Post-Donation
* Following your donation, you will receive refreshments in the canteen area,
where you can stay until you feel strong enough to leave.
* After donating, it is recommended that you increase your fluid intake for
the next 24 to 48 hours; avoid strenuous physical exertion, heavy lifting
or pulling with the donation arm for about five hours; and eat well balanced
meals for the next 24 hours. After donating, smoking and alcohol consumption
is not recommended
* Although donors seldom experience discomfort after donating, if you feel
light-headed, lie down until the feeling passes. If some bleeding occurs
after removal of the bandage, apply pressure to the site and raise your arm
for three to five minutes. If bruising or bleeding appears under the skin,
apply a cold pack periodically to the bruised area during the first 24 hours,
then warm, moist heat intermittently.
* If you have any questions concerning your donation or experience any unexpected
problems, please call the center where you donated blood.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.aabb.org/Content/Donate_Blood/Donation_Process/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Donating blood is a safe, simple, and rewarding experience that usually only
takes 45-60 minutes."
~ AABB
" ... you can easily be inside the blood bank for three (3) long hours ... "
~ Hardpan
I have no idea as to why you're hanging around for "three (3) long hours", but it
doesn't seem like it's necessary.
.....................................................
"When you sign in, you will be asked to complete a donor registration form,
which includes your name, address, phone number, and various other types
of demographic information."
~ AABB
IOW: Answering very simple questions that aren't difficult for most people,
but I would suppose those questions might be difficult for yourself - given
your sub-standard level of intelligence - so it might take you three (3) hours
to finish it at your pace. I can see where you could potentially have some room
for debate with that.
.....................................................
"Following your donation, you will receive refreshments in the canteen area,
where you can stay until you feel strong enough to leave."
~ AABB
IOW: They give you some juice, and then you go home once you've recovered from
the effects - as I stated before - as was my own experience.
.....................................................
It would appear that you're trying to make this out to be something more than
it actually is - that you're EXAGGERATING (as you often do within this group).
>Hell, there are even people that have met, dated and gotten married by
>donating blood, but according to you there is "no social interaction."
>there.
>
>Yeah, right, whatever you say, pal.
Yeah, right - so tell me: How many friends have YOU YOURSELF made while
donating blood?
How often do you talk to them (at the time and in the aftermath)?
... and for how long and how often do you maintain contact with your
blood-donating buddies?
How many of those banquets have you attended?
How many of those awards have you won?
You've indicated that you've spent a matter of hours in this endeavor:
" ... you can easily be inside the blood bank for three (3) long hours ... "
THREE LONG HOURS!!! <mock gasp>
The gist of this thread concerns itself with spending several DAYS at a time
working with other people - within a GROUP activity - having to interact with
peers while engaged within the performance of that particular activity - and
"THREE (3) LONG HOURS" isn't anything comparable with that.
THAT is the point (within this thread/sub-thread) - THAT was the matter that
my original question was addressing - THAT is what I wanted you to explain
when I asked: "How is that relevant to anything within this sub-thread?"
Clear enough?
>>Titanium understands what is going on in this thread - and posted something that
>>is obviously relevant - as demonstrated within his own post within this thread:
>>http://tinyurl.com/2lyzkk
>
>And your point, if any, is ?
Do I REALLY need to spell that out for you?
... OK ... that was a dumb question ... this is _Hardpan_ that I'm responding to
... so it needs to be spelled out quite explicitly ... so that a 12-year-old
can understand it ...
Ron made note of the way that the whole experience has impacted him WRT
his perceptions of people, and his expectations with regards to how he can
relate to them, as he mentioned within his own post within this thread:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
15 kids showed up for the first team night. 3/4ths were from the
north side - all of them were MClub members - my wife thought it was
cool how loyal these kids were to me.
The mayor came, gave his endorsements, encouraging words - you people
would love this man. He isn't like any old mayor, he cares about
things like this.
I have connected this group with some really neat projects. One (my
favorite) is trail maintenance in this huge nature park outside of
town. I also connected them to the Relay_for_ Life, a worthwhile
cause - a fundraiser for cancer research. KClub will be showing up to
support by helping to put away the hundreds of chairs and help pick up
the mess.
One of the reasons I'm posting this info here at the shyness club is
because I am like alot of you here and think that some of the life
systems I've come up with have been instrumental in helping me to
succeed. This little project, for somebody like myself, is a big
thing.
I am not shy but I'm very awkward socially. I've never meshed in
groups nor am I successful making friends. After a series of failures
in life I withdrew - became deeply private and reclusive. I began to
work with the inner self by constructing a series of systems to help
me navigate society better - and trialed and errored those systems -
tweaked is a better word, until I was satisified.
I learned about power, the ability to change things and practiced on
myself first, then turned that know-how on to little things in the
little areas of the world I was practicing on.
This whole program is something I've always wanted to do but knew I
didn't have the tools. And while I still don't have every tool I
need, I have enough. So what if I don't have a 5/8ths box end - vise
grips work. (my favorite word - compensating)
I'm STILL a recluse. Yet when I decided to proceed with this whole
thing I went into it thinking I would have to prove myself to people.
However, there has been upfront support from this community towards my
idea - upfront faith, upfront trust BEFORE I really produce anything.
The school district has endorsed me, the city government has endorsed
me, and the parents of this town endorse me.
I didn't anticipate that. I actually thought I'd get 'some' support
from key allies, and have to fight a mini-war to get this thing
started. Its been effortless instead.
Even the media which I have such a phobia over has been kind to me -
making me and this little program look good. They came last night and
did another article.
Anyway, just thought I'd update my friends who read my idealistic
updates.
Thanks/RW
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It's apparent enough that he has benefitted from the experience - in terms of
his own social development - in developing social skills - but that doesn't
always happen for everyone similarly situated ...
Within the text of Titanium's post, he elaborates upon the social aspects
of his own volunteering experience:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You'll definitely feel out of place and uncomfortable if you don't get
along or talk with your volunteer colleagues. It's conceptually good
to be helping out those in need. But social ineptitude still shows
even in volunteer work, and this makes even the simplest of volunteer
jobs to be mundane, tiresome, and mentally stressful.
I'm not currently volunteering but this was something I tried doing
since high school. The way I volunteered varied based on setting, my
exact role, and my life experience, but my social incompetence always
created difficulty in my efforts. It didn't necessarily show in the
quality/quantity of my work but I always felt "unwell." ( why I kept
volunteering is a different matter in itself )
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is relevant and to the point within this thread: The experience can be a gauge
as to how a person is able to cope with social interaction. Titanium has elaborated
upon how it affected him, and has indicated that it wasn't the beneficial experience
that many people find it to be - or manage to make it to be - as Ron did.
IOW: It doesn't work out well for everyone, and not everyone can benefit
in terms of social development - as different people have different personal
resources with which to operate with when engaged in social situations
- so they don't derive the same benefits from the experience(s)
- so it isn't a "cure-all" in that regard for everyone afflicted with
shyness-related issues.
... and it re-enforces some very fundamental observations that I myself have made
in many of my posts to this group.
DO try to pay attention - I know it's hard for you.
>>>You still sore about being so wrong about my supposed marital life?
>>><bg>
>>>
>>>This is a prime indicator of a male who hasnt "had any" in a while, or
>>>in your case, ever. :-D
>
>> ... and you do it yet AGAIN - more personal attacks when you don't have
>>a rational response.
>
>You don't like reading the truth too much, do you SS?
What gives you that idea?
What have you posted that has any truth to it?
>I guess it hurts that fabulously intelligent brain of yours, upstairs
>in your hugely inflated head , right, SS?
Hurts??? <chortle>
Not at all.
It's more amusing than anything else - and I'm having all kinds of fun watching
you make a complete fool of yourself - watching The Kook-a-fornia Kid self-destruct
- beating you at your own game.
This is a form of recreation for me.
>Face the facts, ...
"FACE THE FACTS???" <chortle>
What would you know about facts?
> You made a huge mistake when you claimed I was a divorced man, ...
You've yet to prove that I've made any such mistake.
I've elaborated upon all of that in the part that you snipped from my previous post.
What were you thinking? ... that you could just snip it and it would just go away?
... as if it had never been posted?
To recap:
You've posted A LOT of crap about myself (and about several people in this group)
that has no basis in fact - and I'm just playing your game by your own rules
- and you're too incredibly dense to understand that - YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.
I suppose you firmly believe that you know the absolute truth about everyone
who posts to this group - and it's just more evidence of your own madness
- your own delusional state.
I'll pose the question that I posed in my last post - in the part that you
conveniently snipped: What makes you think that you should get the benefit
of a double-standard in that regard?
> ... and yet we are expected to believe everything you post here?
What makes you believe that I have any such expectation?
What exactly are you disputing (WRT the voracity of my posts)?
>You just made another _HUGE_ mistake in thinking that you know more
>about blood donations then I do.
Give a quote from a post of mine where I specifically stated that I know more
about blood donations than you do. If you don't, then it's just more evidence
that you're seriously delusional. I didn't think that, and you were not reading
my mind when you thought that I did; Those voices talking to you in your head are
not my thoughts.
After doing a bit of research, it would seem that you're not as much of an "expert"
on the subject as you're trying to make yourself out to be. I suppose next you're
going to claim a higher level of expertise than The American Red Cross and The
American Association of Blood Banks - which would be typical of you.
>You don't know anything about it at all, as I have just proved.
The only thing that you've proven is that you're insane - but that's something
that's been proven many times before over the years - and something that
you've admitted to yourself.
>What's next on the list of "things you know all about", SS??
>
>You gonna start telling us how great a nice piece of @$$ is, even
>though you are still a middle-aged virgin <bg> ?
Do you REALLY believe that you're being clever or amusing with juvenile comments
like that?
If that is the best that you can do, then you're just giving more evidence as to
just how simple and dimwitted you really are - that you're revealing yourself to be
someone operating on a mentality level with that of a 12-year-old - and too dimwitted
to realize that it's working against you - that you're just shooting yourself
in the foot.
You remind me of a crazy bitch that I once called my half-sister. She's much like
yourself: In her 50's, but operating with the mentality level of a 12-year-old
- and the both of you are proof-positive that age has nothing to do with maturity.
You've been blowing a lot of smoke about your presupposed "experience", but having
experience means absolutely nothing if you don't learn from it - as you've
demonstrated within the contents of your posts in the time that you've been posting
to this group that you have not learned much of anything from whatever experiences
that you might have had (or might not have had - there is still the issue of
verification) - as you simply don't have the capacity to learn - you're just too
limited in that regard.
I suppose that being dimwitted isn't really your fault (as intelligence seems to
be dependant upon genetics to a significant extent), but it's so difficult to have
any compassion for someone who is such an A.S.S.hole as yourself.
William P
news:k8lr735oklrhl65am...@4ax.com:
> So you believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power, thereby
> eliminating the risk that he posed to this nation, and clearing the
> way for the potential to create a democratic republic in Iraq, was not
> worth the effort.
Does anyone still think a pro-US democracy is going to come out of this
thing?
Anyway, with the benefit of hindsight, and given the relative threat
posed by Iraq relative to other possible causes, were there other ways to
spend a trillion dollars that had a good chance of having better and less
mixed and ambiguous effects on US national security? I'd say probably.
> So you believe that GW Bush is responsible for the insurgency - and
> that his administration isn't trying to resolve it. You have no
> understanding of the animals that are trying to foment chaos and
> mayhem within Iraq. It's people like yourself that are playing into
> their hands, and will likely lead to serious consequences for this
> nation in the long term.
The question is more like did the people in charge of hundreds of
billions of dollars of resources and thousands of lives have a better
understanding going in than the average usenet moron?
> One other thing: I've noted how you've been ranting and raving about
> how GW Bush and the Republicans have been infringing upon personal
> liberty, yet the most egregious encroachment upon personal liberty
> *BY* *FAR* was passage of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" into law
> - which was drafted and passed by a Congress controlled by DEMOCRATS -
It's all relative but I'd rather not own an M16 than be deported to Syria
and tortured for years without evidence that could hold up in court and
with no hope of trial.
Solitary Soul
>Solitary Soul <solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote in
>news:k8lr735oklrhl65am...@4ax.com:
>
>> So you believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power, thereby
>> eliminating the risk that he posed to this nation, and clearing the
>> way for the potential to create a democratic republic in Iraq, was not
>> worth the effort.
>
>Does anyone still think a pro-US democracy is going to come out of this
>thing?
How do you know that it could never happen?
The US (with allies) conquered Germany and Japan, and they both turned out OK.
>Anyway, with the benefit of hindsight, and given the relative threat
>posed by Iraq relative to other possible causes, were there other ways to
>spend a trillion dollars that had a good chance of having better and less
>mixed and ambiguous effects on US national security? I'd say probably.
Such as?
A lot of Arabs want to destroy us. They will likely hit us again. Their
capacity for doing damage to us will depend upon the resources that they
have at their disposal. Saddam Hussein was trying to reconstitute his
WMD program, and he had demonstrated that he could not be trusted
- and it was unrealistic to believe that a handful of weapons inspectors
could cover a nation the size of California to the extent that they could
locate a WMD facility with any reasonable degree of certainty. The chances
that Saddam could have armed terrorist organizations with WMD's were too
great; Saddam had to go.
>> So you believe that GW Bush is responsible for the insurgency - and
>> that his administration isn't trying to resolve it. You have no
>> understanding of the animals that are trying to foment chaos and
>> mayhem within Iraq. It's people like yourself that are playing into
>> their hands, and will likely lead to serious consequences for this
>> nation in the long term.
>
>The question is more like did the people in charge of hundreds of
>billions of dollars of resources and thousands of lives have a better
>understanding going in than the average usenet moron?
What makes you think that they didn't?
I don't see where anyone else has any better ideas.
With foreign policy, it's often the case that nothing is known with certainty,
so you have to go with your best guess, and it often becomes a judgement call
as to which action to take, based upon the associated risks involved.
Bill Clinton had a chance to kill Osama BinLaden. In hindsight, it's too bad
that he didn't pull the trigger when he had the chance - but that is only
known in hindsight.
>> One other thing: I've noted how you've been ranting and raving about
>> how GW Bush and the Republicans have been infringing upon personal
>> liberty, yet the most egregious encroachment upon personal liberty
>> *BY* *FAR* was passage of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" into law
>> - which was drafted and passed by a Congress controlled by DEMOCRATS -
>
>It's all relative but I'd rather not own an M16 than be deported to Syria
>and tortured for years without evidence that could hold up in court and
>with no hope of trial.
The chances of you being deported to Syria are not very high, as it isn't very
high for any particular individual here in the US. It's not much different from
most other miscarriages of justice: It's abominable, but it's an exception to
the rule - and not all that prevalent - unlike the "Assault Weapons Ban"
- which was a gross infringement upon the most important right that a free
society could have.
The reference to M16's indicates your ignorance on the implications of the "Assault
Weapons Ban" - as the ban targeted many semi-automatic firearms. Selective fire
weapons (such as the M16) can only be legally owned when registered with the
Department of the Treasury, pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934 - and they
have been highly regulated ever since - and the "Assault Weapons Ban" had nothing
to do with that. Your perceptions of the ban comes as a consequence of your own
misconceptions - as promulgated by a blatantly biased news media - which misled
a lot of people into believing that the ban was intended for selective fire weapons.
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
If it wasn't true, I would not have troubled myself to write it.
- BHP/seatosummit28 (08-30-06)
William P
>>Does anyone still think a pro-US democracy is going to come out of
>>this thing?
>
> How do you know that it could never happen?
>
> The US (with allies) conquered Germany and Japan, and they both turned
> out OK.
In a better world, occupying a country for years at such extreme cost
should be based on a better understanding and probability than a "you
can't prove it will never happen" philosophy.
It seems there's something different about the dynamics of Iraq today
versus Germany or Japan in the 1940s.
>>Anyway, with the benefit of hindsight, and given the relative threat
>>posed by Iraq relative to other possible causes, were there other ways
>>to spend a trillion dollars that had a good chance of having better
>>and less mixed and ambiguous effects on US national security? I'd say
>>probably.
>
> Such as?
Killing Bin Laden would be nice. North Korea is kind of scary and the
possibility of a million people dying to a nuclear weapon made there is
grounded in reality. I'm not sure if there's an effective way to deal
with it, but for a trillion dollars, I'm sure there's something to try.
Bombing the hell out of the place until Saddam was a little more amenable
to UN weapons inspectors might have been a little better for US national
security than what we have now too.
> A lot of Arabs want to destroy us. They will likely hit us again.
> Their capacity for doing damage to us will depend upon the resources
> that they have at their disposal.
And hmm, maybe the guy who had the infrastructure and connections to
effectively hit the US homeland a couple of times might be one to do it
again?
> Saddam Hussein was trying to
> reconstitute his WMD program,
That is a "somewhat" contested assertion.
> and he had demonstrated that he could
> not be trusted
> - and it was unrealistic to believe that a handful of weapons
> inspectors
> could cover a nation the size of California to the extent that they
> could locate a WMD facility with any reasonable degree of certainty.
> The chances that Saddam could have armed terrorist organizations with
> WMD's were too great; Saddam had to go.
Is it harder for terrorists to get weapons now than it was before the
invasion?
>>The question is more like did the people in charge of hundreds of
>>billions of dollars of resources and thousands of lives have a better
>>understanding going in than the average usenet moron?
>
> What makes you think that they didn't?
Because of the results. The "mission accomplished" thing didn't project a
very nuanced understanding of the coming struggles very well either.
> I don't see where anyone else has any better ideas.
>
> With foreign policy, it's often the case that nothing is known with
> certainty, so you have to go with your best guess, and it often
> becomes a judgement call as to which action to take, based upon the
> associated risks involved.
Yes, to some degree, but taking potshots without near certainty using
hundreds of billions, thousands of US soldier lives, and hundreds of
thousands of civillian lives is ill advised. Especially one of the likely
outcomes is an extreme destabilization of a relatively stable situation.
> Bill Clinton had a chance to kill Osama BinLaden. In hindsight, it's
> too bad that he didn't pull the trigger when he had the chance - but
> that is only known in hindsight.
Yes, in my opinion, there are many times when the US should have done
more about Bin Laden, not the least of which include the beginning of the
Bush Administration, as well as now.
>>It's all relative but I'd rather not own an M16 than be deported to
>>Syria and tortured for years without evidence that could hold up in
>>court and with no hope of trial.
>
> The chances of you being deported to Syria are not very high, as it
> isn't very high for any particular individual here in the US. It's not
> much different from most other miscarriages of justice: It's
> abominable, but it's an exception to the rule - and not all that
> prevalent - unlike the "Assault Weapons Ban"
> - which was a gross infringement upon the most important right that a
> free
> society could have.
Still, it doesn't bug you to have an administration that wants to
reinterpret the constitution so that Hillary Clinton and all future
governments could conceivably have you deported and tortured for the rest
of your life without a trial or even a disclosed reason? "It probably
won't happen to me" is a good enough reason not to get really really
upset? That seems really alien to me, and like it probably even starkly
violates some principles that were once considered really conservative.
> The reference to M16's indicates your ignorance on the implications of
> the "Assault Weapons Ban" - as the ban targeted many semi-automatic
> firearms. Selective fire weapons (such as the M16) can only be legally
> owned when registered with the Department of the Treasury, pursuant to
> the National Firearms Act of 1934 - and they have been highly
> regulated ever since - and the "Assault Weapons Ban" had nothing to do
> with that. Your perceptions of the ban comes as a consequence of your
> own misconceptions - as promulgated by a blatantly biased news media -
> which misled a lot of people into believing that the ban was intended
> for selective fire weapons.
I come out on the side of civil liberty pretty strong, and I'm definitely
not for gun control in general. But this is really about where you draw
the line isn't it? Somewhere between owning a Browning M2 mounted in a
truck with supporting rockets and guided anti-aircraft missles, and
owning shotguns and hunting rifles, I'd think you need to regulate really
hard. Where the line is is up for debate, and I do agree with people who
think it's important to fight very hard that it doesn't get pushed too
far based on overreaction.
But that's an incremental shove. The other stuff to me is like an
Orwellian nightmare.
Solitary Soul
>Solitary Soul <solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote in
>news:272s7358iaciimp8k...@4ax.com:
>
>>>Does anyone still think a pro-US democracy is going to come out of
>>>this thing?
>>
>> How do you know that it could never happen?
>>
>> The US (with allies) conquered Germany and Japan, and they both turned
>> out OK.
>
>In a better world, occupying a country for years at such extreme cost
>should be based on a better understanding and probability than a "you
>can't prove it will never happen" philosophy.
The costs were not known in advance - this is what critics don't seem
to understand.
Besides that, a lot of people who supported the effort before are now in
opposition, and the man reason for their change in position has to do with
the costs - which doesn't mean that the effort did not have a good rationale
for being waged - just that it's become more costly than originally estimated
in waging it.
... and that is what bothers me more than anything else.
The message that we are sending to the world (including the terrorists) is that:
"When the going gets tough, we cut and run." - and that is a bad message to send
to those that want to destroy us. Bin Laden once stated that we (US) don't have
the fortitude for a protracted war, and we are proving him to be right.
>It seems there's something different about the dynamics of Iraq today
>versus Germany or Japan in the 1940s.
All countries are different.
>>>Anyway, with the benefit of hindsight, and given the relative threat
>>>posed by Iraq relative to other possible causes, were there other ways
>>>to spend a trillion dollars that had a good chance of having better
>>>and less mixed and ambiguous effects on US national security? I'd say
>>>probably.
>>
>> Such as?
>
>Killing Bin Laden would be nice.
The effort to do that is still being made.
> North Korea is kind of scary and the
>possibility of a million people dying to a nuclear weapon made there is
>grounded in reality. I'm not sure if there's an effective way to deal
>with it, but for a trillion dollars, I'm sure there's something to try.
What gives you the idea that something isn't being tried?
Negotiations are still on-going.
What makes North Korea different from Iraq is that North Korea is a VERY closed
society, and it doesn't have much to do with terrorism. The chances that any
nuclear weapons that might be produced by the North Koreans falling into the
hands of a terrorist organization are very small - and another aspect to that
is that Kim Jong-Il doesn't hate the US as Saddam did - and there is the possibility
that a more democratic regime could succeed him once he relinquishes power:
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-18b-04.asp
>Bombing the hell out of the place until Saddam was a little more amenable
>to UN weapons inspectors might have been a little better for US national
>security than what we have now too.
It didn't work before, so there is no reason to believe that it would work in
the future.
>> A lot of Arabs want to destroy us. They will likely hit us again.
>> Their capacity for doing damage to us will depend upon the resources
>> that they have at their disposal.
>
>And hmm, maybe the guy who had the infrastructure and connections to
>effectively hit the US homeland a couple of times might be one to do it
>again?
Not if we hit him first. Everything is being done that is feasible in that regard.
>> Saddam Hussein was trying to
>> reconstitute his WMD program,
>
>That is a "somewhat" contested assertion.
If he wasn't, then why was he interfering with the weapons inspectors in the
first place?
Why did he build facilities that blended into the surrounding area, and were
designed to be undetectable from the air? ... and were empty when troops
came across them?
Why build those facilities and leave them empty?
This is the reason why I don't like to debate politics in this group: Most of the
people who post here have a serious lack of critical thinking skills, and I don't
have the time nor the inclination to educate them/you on matters of foreign policy.
>> and he had demonstrated that he could
>> not be trusted
>> - and it was unrealistic to believe that a handful of weapons
>> inspectors
>> could cover a nation the size of California to the extent that they
>> could locate a WMD facility with any reasonable degree of certainty.
>> The chances that Saddam could have armed terrorist organizations with
>> WMD's were too great; Saddam had to go.
>
>Is it harder for terrorists to get weapons now than it was before the
>invasion?
WMD's?
I would think so.
>>>The question is more like did the people in charge of hundreds of
>>>billions of dollars of resources and thousands of lives have a better
>>>understanding going in than the average usenet moron?
>>
>> What makes you think that they didn't?
>
>Because of the results. The "mission accomplished" thing didn't project a
>very nuanced understanding of the coming struggles very well either.
The sectarian violence was not anticipated, certainly not to the degree that
we are witnessing now.
>> I don't see where anyone else has any better ideas.
>>
>> With foreign policy, it's often the case that nothing is known with
>> certainty, so you have to go with your best guess, and it often
>> becomes a judgement call as to which action to take, based upon the
>> associated risks involved.
>
>Yes, to some degree, but taking potshots without near certainty using
>hundreds of billions, thousands of US soldier lives, and hundreds of
>thousands of civillian lives is ill advised. Especially one of the likely
>outcomes is an extreme destabilization of a relatively stable situation.
"Yes - but" ... it's a matter of opinion - it was a calculated risk.
Most of GW Bush's critics want to characterize him as having made his decision
in a vacuum, but that isn't the case. There are plenty of others within his
administration that thought it was a good idea to invade - even Hillary Clinton
thought it was a good idea at the time.
The only difference between then and now is that the situation on the ground has
gotten more difficult - more so than had been previously expected.
>> Bill Clinton had a chance to kill Osama BinLaden. In hindsight, it's
>> too bad that he didn't pull the trigger when he had the chance - but
>> that is only known in hindsight.
>
>Yes, in my opinion, there are many times when the US should have done
>more about Bin Laden, not the least of which include the beginning of the
>Bush Administration, as well as now.
>
>>>It's all relative but I'd rather not own an M16 than be deported to
>>>Syria and tortured for years without evidence that could hold up in
>>>court and with no hope of trial.
>>
>> The chances of you being deported to Syria are not very high, as it
>> isn't very high for any particular individual here in the US. It's not
>> much different from most other miscarriages of justice: It's
>> abominable, but it's an exception to the rule - and not all that
>> prevalent - unlike the "Assault Weapons Ban"
>> - which was a gross infringement upon the most important right that a
>> free
>> society could have.
>
>Still, it doesn't bug you to have an administration that wants to
>reinterpret the constitution so that Hillary Clinton and all future
>governments could conceivably have you deported and tortured for the rest
>of your life without a trial or even a disclosed reason? "It probably
>won't happen to me" is a good enough reason not to get really really
>upset? That seems really alien to me, and like it probably even starkly
>violates some principles that were once considered really conservative.
Of course it does (bother me), but it doesn't begin nor end with that
potential scenario. People have spent many years in prison on false charges,
many of which are the result of bad reports from crime labs. This is a
possibility that is FAR more likely than the one you just elaborated upon.
Justice isn't perfect, and it probably will never be so for as long as we live.
Some of the people being detained and interrogated are probably not being
given due process, but we can't ignore the fact that a lot of those that
are in a similar situation are there because they are bad people who want
to destroy us - and they are getting just what they deserve (IMO).
I'm not condoning nor supporting anything of that nature, but it becomes a
matter of degree that we have to put into perspective. When you have a government
that believes that it has the power to disarm the citizenry, then proceeds to take
an incremental step in doing so, then that is a step towards tyranny - and something
that impacts FAR more people (society in general) than the few people that are being
treated unjustly as a consequence of efforts to pursue terrorism.
... which was the point that I was making when I typed before:
"I'm not trying to defend the Republicans for what they've done - I'm simply making
the observation that the Democrats are FAR worse - that the Republicans are the
lesser of two evils."
>> The reference to M16's indicates your ignorance on the implications of
>> the "Assault Weapons Ban" - as the ban targeted many semi-automatic
>> firearms. Selective fire weapons (such as the M16) can only be legally
>> owned when registered with the Department of the Treasury, pursuant to
>> the National Firearms Act of 1934 - and they have been highly
>> regulated ever since - and the "Assault Weapons Ban" had nothing to do
>> with that. Your perceptions of the ban comes as a consequence of your
>> own misconceptions - as promulgated by a blatantly biased news media -
>> which misled a lot of people into believing that the ban was intended
>> for selective fire weapons.
>
>I come out on the side of civil liberty pretty strong, and I'm definitely
>not for gun control in general. But this is really about where you draw
>the line isn't it? Somewhere between owning a Browning M2 mounted in a
>truck with supporting rockets and guided anti-aircraft missles, and
>owning shotguns and hunting rifles, I'd think you need to regulate really
>hard. Where the line is is up for debate, and I do agree with people who
>think it's important to fight very hard that it doesn't get pushed too
>far based on overreaction.
... which is what the "Assault Weapons Ban" was: An overreaction - and those who
supported it did so by exploiting people's naivete on the subject of firearms
- exploiting the use of fear and hysteria. Everyone was led to believe that
the law was directed towards selective-fire weapons - and a lot of that belief
was fostered by a mainstream press that was playing its role in advancing that
agenda.
>But that's an incremental shove. The other stuff to me is like an
>Orwellian nightmare.
... but it happens far more often than you realize - within our (US) system
of criminal justice - and likely in every criminal justice system throughout
the world.
Just because someone would get due process doesn't mean that they will get
perfect justice.
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
Welcome to alt.support.shyness, also known as The *PAIN* Club.
- Solitary Soul
William P
>>In a better world, occupying a country for years at such extreme cost
>>should be based on a better understanding and probability than a "you
>>can't prove it will never happen" philosophy.
>
> The costs were not known in advance - this is what critics don't seem
> to understand.
People in charge with making monumentous historical decisions really do
need to have a good grasp of what's going to happen, and if there are
wild uncertainties, including some worse than the original state, another
approach should be tried.
Is anyone convinced that there was a supreme effort to understand the
cultural dynamics of the Arab world before going into this thing? To the
tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of experts in the
language and cultures involved? It sure doesn't seem like it to me.
That the costs were not knows is exactly the criticism here. It's not at
all unreasonable to expect a lot out of the most supreme policy makers,
and to judge based on results and consequences.
> Besides that, a lot of people who supported the effort before are now
> in opposition, and the man reason for their change in position has to
> do with the costs - which doesn't mean that the effort did not have a
> good rationale for being waged - just that it's become more costly
> than originally estimated in waging it.
>
> ... and that is what bothers me more than anything else.
>
> The message that we are sending to the world (including the
> terrorists) is that: "When the going gets tough, we cut and run." -
> and that is a bad message to send to those that want to destroy us.
> Bin Laden once stated that we (US) don't have the fortitude for a
> protracted war, and we are proving him to be right.
Right out of the gate the US proved they didn't have the fortitude to do
what their best military experts knew it would take to "win", including
providing adequate troop levels.
>>Killing Bin Laden would be nice.
>
> The effort to do that is still being made.
Good. Multiplying the resources and manpower toward that specific effort
by about 10 wouldn't be misplaced, imo.
> What gives you the idea that something isn't being tried?
>
> Negotiations are still on-going.
>
> What makes North Korea different from Iraq is that North Korea is a
> VERY closed society, and it doesn't have much to do with terrorism.
> The chances that any nuclear weapons that might be produced by the
> North Koreans falling into the hands of a terrorist organization are
> very small - and another aspect to that is that Kim Jong-Il doesn't
> hate the US as Saddam did - and there is the possibility that a more
> democratic regime could succeed him once he relinquishes power:
>
> http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-18b-04.asp
Still, it's a pretty high card that they've built a functional nuclear
weapon, while Iraq has done nothing at all since Desert Storm.
> It didn't work before, so there is no reason to believe that it would
> work in the future.
Before: Iraq had the sixth largest army in the world (iirc), chemical
weapons, it was bent on dominating other countries in the Middle East, it
had effective missles and an air force.
After: Iraq is completely neutered, and does nothing for about 12 years.
It can't make even a token resistance to a US invasion. There is either
no evidence of WMD or not enough to specifically present anything
plausible.
How was that not working?
>>And hmm, maybe the guy who had the infrastructure and connections to
>>effectively hit the US homeland a couple of times might be one to do
>>it again?
>
> Not if we hit him first. Everything is being done that is feasible in
> that regard.
I'd like to move the bar up with respect to "feasible". If we've got
hundreds of billions of dollars and nearly the entire US military on the
table, then "everything" should be quite a lot.
>>That is a "somewhat" contested assertion.
>
> If he wasn't, then why was he interfering with the weapons inspectors
> in the first place?
>
> Why did he build facilities that blended into the surrounding area,
> and were designed to be undetectable from the air? ... and were empty
> when troops came across them?
>
> Why build those facilities and leave them empty?
>
> This is the reason why I don't like to debate politics in this group:
> Most of the people who post here have a serious lack of critical
> thinking skills, and I don't have the time nor the inclination to
> educate them/you on matters of foreign policy.
This view of Iraq and WMDs has become much more of a fringe one, and it's
continuing in that direction. The counter question is why hasn't any
evidence been provided by the US government that is sufficient to
convince anyone of this who is not in a shrinking and increasingly
extreme and marginalized segment of the far Right?
>>Is it harder for terrorists to get weapons now than it was before the
>>invasion?
>
> WMD's?
>
> I would think so.
Why has the invasion of Iraq made it more difficult for a terrorist to
cause massive destruction? The weapons we're talking about include things
like planes, right? Or maybe just a dirty bomb: putting a bunch of
nuclear waste in with a bunch of conventional explosive. That would be a
cost effective way to nearly permanently vacate a non-trivial section of
any city. Is that much tougher than it was before?
>>Because of the results. The "mission accomplished" thing didn't
>>project a very nuanced understanding of the coming struggles very well
>>either.
>
> The sectarian violence was not anticipated, certainly not to the
> degree that we are witnessing now.
That's the point.
> "Yes - but" ... it's a matter of opinion - it was a calculated risk.
It was calculated really badly, based on simple and hard empiricism.
> Most of GW Bush's critics want to characterize him as having made his
> decision in a vacuum, but that isn't the case. There are plenty of
> others within his administration that thought it was a good idea to
> invade - even Hillary Clinton thought it was a good idea at the time.
The structure of the whole administration and country failed in this
respect, yes. In a sane world, the reasons for such a monumental failure
in calculation would be addressed and fixed.
No, I won't settle for "we did the best we could because you couldn't
have known better". For that many resourses, they absolutely need to know
better, and they especially need to know better than you and me!
>>Still, it doesn't bug you to have an administration that wants to
>>reinterpret the constitution so that Hillary Clinton and all future
>>governments could conceivably have you deported and tortured for the
>>rest of your life without a trial or even a disclosed reason? "It
>>probably won't happen to me" is a good enough reason not to get really
>>really upset? That seems really alien to me, and like it probably even
>>starkly violates some principles that were once considered really
>>conservative.
>
> Of course it does (bother me), but it doesn't begin nor end with that
> potential scenario. People have spent many years in prison on false
> charges, many of which are the result of bad reports from crime labs.
> This is a possibility that is FAR more likely than the one you just
> elaborated upon. Justice isn't perfect, and it probably will never be
> so for as long as we live.
It still would be nice if at least in principle, an innocent guy had at
least a legal right to get a lawyer and avoid a lifetime of torture, like
that used to be the case. If that didn't always happen in practice,
taking steps to make it easier is the wrong direction.
> Some of the people being detained and interrogated are probably not
> being given due process, but we can't ignore the fact that a lot of
> those that are in a similar situation are there because they are bad
> people who want to destroy us - and they are getting just what they
> deserve (IMO).
>
> I'm not condoning nor supporting anything of that nature, but it
> becomes a matter of degree that we have to put into perspective.
Personally it absolutely horrifies me. The current state of things
doesn't seem so bad (for a non Muslim anyway) but I couldn't imagine many
clearer steps toward a nightmarish state than the things we're talking
about, e.g. no right to due process, increasing public acceptance to
obtaining information in ways that German and Japanese war criminals were
previously convicted for, and illegal wiretapping.
> When
> you have a government that believes that it has the power to disarm
> the citizenry, then proceeds to take an incremental step in doing so,
> then that is a step towards tyranny - and something that impacts FAR
> more people (society in general) than the few people that are being
> treated unjustly as a consequence of efforts to pursue terrorism.
The same argument is that it is undeniable some of the people prevented
from owning semi-automatic handguns are bad people. If, empirically,
loosening the "rights" of some people to prevent some weapons helps
national security, then it's an easier case to make to me, versus giving
up what I see to be a more basic right, that of an innocent to be
protected from false accusations and torture without trial.
There's a philosophical debate that can be had about whether the 2nd
amendment still has any merit for a major function it was intended for,
including protecting people from a government gone wrong. But yes, a
culture of sheep should absolutely be prevented.
I come out pretty neutral on stuff like that, seeing both sides.
> ... which was the point that I was making when I typed before:
> "I'm not trying to defend the Republicans for what they've done - I'm
> simply making the observation that the Democrats are FAR worse - that
> the Republicans are the lesser of two evils."
> ... which is what the "Assault Weapons Ban" was: An overreaction -
> and those who
> supported it did so by exploiting people's naivete on the subject of
> firearms
> - exploiting the use of fear and hysteria. Everyone was led to
> believe that
> the law was directed towards selective-fire weapons - and a lot of
> that belief was fostered by a mainstream press that was playing its
> role in advancing that agenda.
Yes a lot of people have hysterical views on the topic.
Personally, I'd go for careful study and making decisions based on
evidence. As far as I can tell, whatever someone's reactionary moral
position is, there is no evidence that increased gun control does
anything at toward overall safety, as a variable that can be demonstrated
to be strictly causal, so I'd err on the side of personal freedom.
But swinging the line toward more restriction doesn't strike me as an
extreme tragedy. You think the opposite, and I don't think either will
ever be convinced otherwise.
>>But that's an incremental shove. The other stuff to me is like an
>>Orwellian nightmare.
>
> ... but it happens far more often than you realize - within our (US)
> system
> of criminal justice - and likely in every criminal justice system
> throughout the world.
So let's make it happen less, not more? Let's keep in mind that there are
terrifying steady states that groups of human beings can and have gotten
into, with every step of the way paved by good intentions, and be hyper-
consious of moving toward such an attractor.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Instead of sitting at home - in your dank, dark lairs - being
> miserable with boredom and loneliness - several of you could
> benefit by following Ron's example
> - by getting off of your A.S.S.es and doing volunteer work.
I've been trying that for a long time.
First I saw an ad where ESL volunteers were needed in Redwood City,
so I showed up to volunteer. But what I witnessed was grossly
demeaning treatment of ESL students, as if they had been each
convicted of a felony and were currently in maximum security prison
where they are forced to follow extremely strict and arbitrary
rules and one tiny mistake in adherence to those rules will send
them back to their cell for lockdown.
Then I offered to help people overcome shyness, but nobody ever responded.
Then I signed up for an official volunteer referral agency, and
looked through their listings of possible volunteer activities.
Virtually all of them required a 6-month committment, with no
chance to even test whether I am capable of doing that kind of work
before signing the committment papers. The only volunteer activity
that looked like I could be sure in advance I could do it, was
tutoring math and reading, so I called them back to volunteer for
that, but they said they lost their facilities for that activity
and have no funding to find new facilities so that kind of
volunteer work won't be done any time soon.
Then I posted notices around places I hung out, advertising my
services to tutor beginning-level computer programming. I got a few
students from time to time, but nobody had time to continue long
enough to make it useful. My last student was 1.5 years ago.
Then I overheard somebody asking somebody else for free ESL
tutoring, and I mentionned a computer program I have on the Web
which could help in that area, with reading and
spelling-missing-word, to learn vocabulary, and there was some
interest at first, but only one person ever showed up to try my
program, and although she did well, she decided she wasn't
interested in learning vocabulary, that somehow she preferred to
learn conversation without bothering to learn any vocabulary (does
that makes any sense??). The person who had originally asked for
free ESL tutoring, never showed up because she's been too busy.
Another person said she's so busy that she hasn't even answered
some e-mail that a friend sent her months ago, and she needs to get
that task done before she can afford to spend any time learning
English.
Summary, there aren't any opportunities to do volunteer work.
Students simply don't have time, and burearcrats impose so many
hurdles to volunteering as to kill the whole process.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> So they can see that - unlike your over-generalization - ALL of society
> is not brutal and can meet some nice people who like doing good things
> for other people.
In my case, I *can* legitimately make that generalization. Not one
decent/nice adult person who lived close enough to me that
friendship was possible, has ever expressed a serious interest in
becoming friends with me. Most commonly the excuse why they can't
be friends is that they don't have time for me. But they have time
for other people. I can only conclude that they don't consider me
to be as worthy a potential friend as the other peop[e they spend
time with. They'd rather I commit suicide than be their friend.
So they have a nice clean way of being brutal to me. Instead of
killing me themselves, they simply drive me to suicide, and their
hands are "clean".
Even people who have never met me in person and have no idea what
I'm like in person, are nevertheless hoping I would kill myself,
and urging me to do so, by demeaning articles about me posted to
newsgroups, and demeaning e-mail directly to me.
How do y'all feel about me posting examples of that demeaning e-mail
so that y'all can see what I'm talking about? If I post it, should
I say who sent me each demeaning item, or keep it anonymous, or
should I make up nicknames for each e-mailer?
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> we can be more successful in our interactions with others if we
> learn how to bring out those parts of them that we want to see.
I have no idea how to manipulate anybody in that way. In fact I
wouldn't even know where to begin. Also I suspect it would not be
ethical to manipulate people like that without their informed consent.
(It might even be a violation of the Geneva conventions.)
Solitary Soul
>Solitary Soul <solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote in
>news:bh4t73taeftcmqmj7...@4ax.com:
>
>>>In a better world, occupying a country for years at such extreme cost
>>>should be based on a better understanding and probability than a "you
>>>can't prove it will never happen" philosophy.
>>
>> The costs were not known in advance - this is what critics don't seem
>> to understand.
>
>People in charge with making monumentous historical decisions really do
>need to have a good grasp of what's going to happen, and if there are
>wild uncertainties, including some worse than the original state, another
>approach should be tried.
WHAT other approach(es)? ... what else was there to do?
>Is anyone convinced that there was a supreme effort to understand the
>cultural dynamics of the Arab world before going into this thing? To the
>tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of experts in the
>language and cultures involved? It sure doesn't seem like it to me.
>
>That the costs were not knows is exactly the criticism here. It's not at
>all unreasonable to expect a lot out of the most supreme policy makers,
>and to judge based on results and consequences.
That is why I don't like to debate politics in this group; You're being
extremely naive here. The costs are NEVER known in advance of engaging
in a war effort. The basic problem with cost assessment is: The enemy
is never nice enough to tell us what it intends to do, and for how long
it will wage an effort.
>> Besides that, a lot of people who supported the effort before are now
>> in opposition, and the man reason for their change in position has to
>> do with the costs - which doesn't mean that the effort did not have a
>> good rationale for being waged - just that it's become more costly
>> than originally estimated in waging it.
>>
>> ... and that is what bothers me more than anything else.
>>
>> The message that we are sending to the world (including the
>> terrorists) is that: "When the going gets tough, we cut and run." -
>> and that is a bad message to send to those that want to destroy us.
>> Bin Laden once stated that we (US) don't have the fortitude for a
>> protracted war, and we are proving him to be right.
>
>Right out of the gate the US proved they didn't have the fortitude to do
>what their best military experts knew it would take to "win", including
>providing adequate troop levels.
How do you know that? ... because of what you've been told by the press?
It's extremely naive to trust the press to tell you the truth. That is a
hard lesson that I learned a long time ago.
>>>Killing Bin Laden would be nice.
>>
>> The effort to do that is still being made.
>
>Good. Multiplying the resources and manpower toward that specific effort
>by about 10 wouldn't be misplaced, imo.
Are you familiar with the Law of Diminishing Returns?
Bin Laden is hiding within a large region with a mountainous terrain,
which includes areas in Pakistan. We have to respect the sovereignty
of nations that we are not invading, so sending military forces into
Pakistan would not be a good idea.
Now that Bin Laden is being pursued, his capacity for waging terror
has been greatly diminished. Although he hasn't been captured, he
isn't the factor that he once was.
>> What gives you the idea that something isn't being tried?
>>
>> Negotiations are still on-going.
>>
>> What makes North Korea different from Iraq is that North Korea is a
>> VERY closed society, and it doesn't have much to do with terrorism.
>> The chances that any nuclear weapons that might be produced by the
>> North Koreans falling into the hands of a terrorist organization are
>> very small - and another aspect to that is that Kim Jong-Il doesn't
>> hate the US as Saddam did - and there is the possibility that a more
>> democratic regime could succeed him once he relinquishes power:
>>
>> http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-18b-04.asp
>
>Still, it's a pretty high card that they've built a functional nuclear
>weapon, while Iraq has done nothing at all since Desert Storm.
Another naive belief on your part.
Here is an excerpt from the speech that Hillary Clinton made on the floor
of the Senate in 2002:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed
a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons
of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories
necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system
was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed,
and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed
far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in
the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of
chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a
major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well
as substantial nuclear facilities.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
... and before you type it, the fact that the weapons inspectors were
finding WMD's is not a testament to their effectiveness.
The fact that Hillary Clinton has refused to admit that her vote on that
resolution was a mistake is a pretty clear indication that there is some
credibility to the claim that there were good reasons for the invasion.
There are several credible witnesses who maintain that Saddam shipped his
WMD's off to Syria prior to the invasion:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites
06 January, 2004
AFP
Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected
from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the
Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper
"De Telegraaf," that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of
Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:
-1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in
northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground
factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles.
Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.
-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there
is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.
-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south
of Homs city.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The information is there if you're willing to do the research - and don't
get all of your information from a mainstream press that wants you to believe
what THEY want you to believe.
>> It didn't work before, so there is no reason to believe that it would
>> work in the future.
>
>Before: Iraq had the sixth largest army in the world (iirc), chemical
>weapons, it was bent on dominating other countries in the Middle East, it
>had effective missles and an air force.
>
>After: Iraq is completely neutered, and does nothing for about 12 years.
>It can't make even a token resistance to a US invasion. There is either
>no evidence of WMD or not enough to specifically present anything
>plausible.
>
>How was that not working?
Once again, from the aforementioned speech made by Hillary Clinton:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions
by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt
to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits
on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called
presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to
hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required
by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process,
the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others,
ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and
suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If you bothered to do your homework, you wouldn't be making such a fool
of yourself. I don't have the time nor the inclination to educate you
on this matter - but perhaps you're becoming more aware of the fact that
the situation isn't as "cut-and-dried" as you've been led to believe.
>>>And hmm, maybe the guy who had the infrastructure and connections to
>>>effectively hit the US homeland a couple of times might be one to do
>>>it again?
>>
>> Not if we hit him first. Everything is being done that is feasible in
>> that regard.
>
>I'd like to move the bar up with respect to "feasible". If we've got
>hundreds of billions of dollars and nearly the entire US military on the
>table, then "everything" should be quite a lot.
Why don't you send an email message to the Pentagon, and tell those generals
how they should do their jobs.
I mean - SHEESH.
>>>That is a "somewhat" contested assertion.
>>
>> If he wasn't, then why was he interfering with the weapons inspectors
>> in the first place?
>>
>> Why did he build facilities that blended into the surrounding area,
>> and were designed to be undetectable from the air? ... and were empty
>> when troops came across them?
>>
>> Why build those facilities and leave them empty?
>>
>> This is the reason why I don't like to debate politics in this group:
>> Most of the people who post here have a serious lack of critical
>> thinking skills, and I don't have the time nor the inclination to
>> educate them/you on matters of foreign policy.
>
>This view of Iraq and WMDs has become much more of a fringe one, and it's
>continuing in that direction. The counter question is why hasn't any
>evidence been provided by the US government that is sufficient to
>convince anyone of this who is not in a shrinking and increasingly
>extreme and marginalized segment of the far Right?
What makes you think that the evidence has NOT been provided?
Again: most people get their information from the mainstream press,
and I wouldn't trust the press any further than I can pitch a midget.
The evidence has been provided, and the press has reported upon it,
it's just that the press doesn't deem it to be "newsworthy" to bring it
up again.
>>>Is it harder for terrorists to get weapons now than it was before the
>>>invasion?
>>
>> WMD's?
>>
>> I would think so.
>
>Why has the invasion of Iraq made it more difficult for a terrorist to
>cause massive destruction? The weapons we're talking about include things
>like planes, right? Or maybe just a dirty bomb: putting a bunch of
>nuclear waste in with a bunch of conventional explosive.
Where would they get the nuclear waste?
> That would be a
>cost effective way to nearly permanently vacate a non-trivial section of
>any city. Is that much tougher than it was before?
The point that you're ignoring is that there are other (and far easier) ways
to launch an attack that would deliver widespread collateral damage with
the use of WMD's - and removing Iraq from the picture has greatly reduced that
risk. The world will never be perfectly safe - just a bit safeR (as a result).
>>>Because of the results. The "mission accomplished" thing didn't
>>>project a very nuanced understanding of the coming struggles very well
>>>either.
>>
>> The sectarian violence was not anticipated, certainly not to the
>> degree that we are witnessing now.
>
>That's the point.
>
>> "Yes - but" ... it's a matter of opinion - it was a calculated risk.
>
>It was calculated really badly, based on simple and hard empiricism.
Once again: The risk of doing nothing was FAR greater than the risk
of doing something - which is the fundamental point that I've been
trying to get you to understand throughout this exchange.
>> Most of GW Bush's critics want to characterize him as having made his
>> decision in a vacuum, but that isn't the case. There are plenty of
>> others within his administration that thought it was a good idea to
>> invade - even Hillary Clinton thought it was a good idea at the time.
>
>The structure of the whole administration and country failed in this
>respect, yes. In a sane world, the reasons for such a monumental failure
>in calculation would be addressed and fixed.
>
>No, I won't settle for "we did the best we could because you couldn't
>have known better". For that many resourses, they absolutely need to know
>better, and they especially need to know better than you and me!
The expectation was for the newly-installed Iraqi government to start policing
themselves by this time. Throughout all of the entire operation, US forces have
never lost a battle. The main problem (WRT security) is that, after US forces
have cleaned out an area (from insurgents), the Iraqi forces have failed to hold
it from being retaken. The factional in-fighting needs to be resolved via
political negotiation, something that needs to be expedited (IMO).
Secretary Gates (among others) have been pressuring Prime Minister Al-Maliki
for progress to resolve the multitudes of problems that plague Iraq
- turning up the pressure on him - something that you would learn for yourself
if you'd bother to make the effort.
That is what the NICS is for (supposedly).
> If, empirically,
>loosening the "rights" of some people to prevent some weapons helps
>national security, then it's an easier case to make to me, versus giving
>up what I see to be a more basic right, that of an innocent to be
>protected from false accusations and torture without trial.
>
>There's a philosophical debate that can be had about whether the 2nd
>amendment still has any merit for a major function it was intended for,
>including protecting people from a government gone wrong. But yes, a
>culture of sheep should absolutely be prevented.
If you think that an armed populace couldn't mount a successful insurrection
under such circumstances, I have only to point to Iraq.
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> shy, socially-deficient people could potentially realize a great
> deal of benefit by volunteering.
Please explain how trying to volunteer, and being rebuffed by all
potential helpees and the volunteer-bureaucracies around them, can
result in anything except total frustration on the part of the
person attempting to volunteer?
> If you consider the general composition of groups that volunteer
> to help others, you'd be dealing with people who don't tend to be
> self-centered, and tend to empathize with others,
Oh, you mean like Christina "Minna" Sandmeyer who committed suicide?
Just to make sure I had her name spelled correctly, I tried some Google
searches, and look what I found:
<http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/08.16.01/sandmeyer-0133.html>
Shortly thereafter she began working with the Mid-Peninsula Housing
Management Corporation in Redwood City, a nonprofit company that
builds and manages affordable housing in Northern California.
Yeah, like where **I** live currently!!!
Now it hurts even more that she and I never knew of each other
before she killed herself, so I never got a chance to help her.
Maybe it's now time for me to take the bus to Foothills Park and
follow her path.
"When people give signs that [they] are in pain, it's time to take it
seriously," Galland says. "You have to be vigilant with your loved
one, and to live in ways that help make them [know], help remind them
everyday how much they mean to the people around them."
That's the major difference between her and me. Everyone around her
loved her. Not one person has ever loved me since before I was even
born. My life means nothing to anyone. Not one person will miss me.
spy vs spy
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:rem-2007...@yahoo.com...
|> From: Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOS...@ev1.net>
| > Instead of sitting at home - in your dank, dark lairs - being
| > miserable with boredom and loneliness - several of you could
| > benefit by following Ron's example
| > - by getting off of your A.S.S.es and doing volunteer work.
|
|
not true. Both Thor and Rose from a.s.d want to meet you and work on
shyness. You rebuffed them.
Two people want to meet you and you responded rudely. Maybe you need to
post an apology in a.s.d.
Solitary Soul
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
>> From: Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOS...@ev1.net>
>> shy, socially-deficient people could potentially realize a great
>> deal of benefit by volunteering.
>
>Please explain how trying to volunteer, and being rebuffed by all
>potential helpees and the volunteer-bureaucracies around them, can
>result in anything except total frustration on the part of the
>person attempting to volunteer?
Note my use of the word "potentially" in the statement above - it doesn't
work for everyone.
I was a volunteer with VGS (Vocational Guidance Services) several years ago
(it's a United Way Agency). I can describe my experience with them as being
a mostly positive one.
Perhaps you haven't looked in the right places.
>> If you consider the general composition of groups that volunteer
>> to help others, you'd be dealing with people who don't tend to be
>> self-centered, and tend to empathize with others,
>
>Oh, you mean like Christina "Minna" Sandmeyer who committed suicide?
>
>Just to make sure I had her name spelled correctly, I tried some Google
>searches, and look what I found:
><http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/08.16.01/sandmeyer-0133.html>
> Shortly thereafter she began working with the Mid-Peninsula Housing
> Management Corporation in Redwood City, a nonprofit company that
> builds and manages affordable housing in Northern California.
>Yeah, like where **I** live currently!!!
>Now it hurts even more that she and I never knew of each other
>before she killed herself, so I never got a chance to help her.
>Maybe it's now time for me to take the bus to Foothills Park and
>follow her path.
> "When people give signs that [they] are in pain, it's time to take it
> seriously," Galland says. "You have to be vigilant with your loved
> one, and to live in ways that help make them [know], help remind them
> everyday how much they mean to the people around them."
That relation is anecdotal - it isn't representative.
>That's the major difference between her and me. Everyone around her
>loved her. Not one person has ever loved me since before I was even
>born. My life means nothing to anyone.
Same here - but I don't let it bother me.
> Not one person will miss me.
*I* would miss you.
Would you miss me?
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> just get out and JOIN an already-established volunteer group.
> Anyone can do that, ...
You are completely incorrect. All already-established volunteer
groups in this area require all prospective volunteers to sign a
contract stating that they will continue to volunteer for at least
six months. Shy people are unsure of what they can do and what they
can't do, and are unwilling to sign a contract in bad faith, such
as promising to do something for six months before they even
**try** the activity for five minutes to get even a preliminary
superficial idea whether they might be able to do it or not.
> I think that everyone else in this group should do the same with
> their own local school district(s).
Do the same as what?? You never showed what *you* did.
Many years ago, when I had successfully used my flashcard-drill
program to teach my pre-school children how to read at near-adult
level (requiring only 20 minutes drill per day, for one year), I
tried to solicit interest in local schools, but they referred me to
the school district, and so I inquired there, and they expressed
total non-interest. Their attitude was to wait until the child was
in second grade, and if the child in second grade hadn't yet
spontaneously learned to read, *then* the school district would
finally take an interest in that "retarded" child.
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/--------------------------------------------------------------\
| |\/||_| ._ _ ._ _ _ o _ |~) _ |_ _.__|_ |
| | | _| | |(_|| | |}_ |_\ |~\(_)|_)}_| | o |
\-(Rendered by means of <http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>)-/
Then enter your best guess of the text (15-25 chars) into this TextField:
+------------------------------+
| |
+------------------------------+
William P
>>People in charge with making monumentous historical decisions really
>>do need to have a good grasp of what's going to happen, and if there
>>are wild uncertainties, including some worse than the original state,
>>another approach should be tried.
>
> WHAT other approach(es)? ... what else was there to do?
I'm not the guy who makes final decisions for the US army (yet). But they
really do need to do better than creating a situation that is arguably
worse than that which would have resulted from doing nothing.
I don't think you believe the US military effort was close to what could
have been guessed to be optimal, do you?
> That is why I don't like to debate politics in this group;
Then don't reply.
> You're
> being extremely naive here. The costs are NEVER known in advance of
> engaging in a war effort. The basic problem with cost assessment is:
> The enemy is never nice enough to tell us what it intends to do, and
> for how long it will wage an effort.
That's a ridiculous cop-out answer that can justify anything. Do you
believe the effort made at assessing costs and risks was close to
optimal?
>>Right out of the gate the US proved they didn't have the fortitude to
>>do what their best military experts knew it would take to "win",
>>including providing adequate troop levels.
>
> How do you know that? ... because of what you've been told by the
> press?
>
> It's extremely naive to trust the press to tell you the truth. That is
> a hard lesson that I learned a long time ago.
Where do you get your info?
>>Good. Multiplying the resources and manpower toward that specific
>>effort by about 10 wouldn't be misplaced, imo.
>
> Are you familiar with the Law of Diminishing Returns?
It really depends on the function. Some have assymptotes, some grow
forever, some have local maxima, some are non-linear, some are chaotic.
What you speak of is not a "Law", although it may very well be true for
some individual function.
> Bin Laden is hiding within a large region with a mountainous terrain,
> which includes areas in Pakistan. We have to respect the sovereignty
> of nations that we are not invading, so sending military forces into
> Pakistan would not be a good idea.
>
> Now that Bin Laden is being pursued, his capacity for waging terror
> has been greatly diminished. Although he hasn't been captured, he
> isn't the factor that he once was.
>>Still, it's a pretty high card that they've built a functional nuclear
>>weapon, while Iraq has done nothing at all since Desert Storm.
>
> Another naive belief on your part.
>
...
> ... and before you type it, the fact that the weapons inspectors were
> finding WMD's is not a testament to their effectiveness.
>
> The fact that Hillary Clinton has refused to admit that her vote on
> that resolution was a mistake is a pretty clear indication that there
> is some credibility to the claim that there were good reasons for the
> invasion.
Are we presupposing that Hillary Clinton is simultaneously very
perceptive, not primarily motivated by politics, and had the will and
confidence to go against an administration in a move that could have been
perceived as being political suicide?
Why should Hillary Clinton (of all people) believing there is
intelligence increase my confidence in it? It is probable that she spent
a lot of time studying the particulars? Are you trying to demonstrate
simply that all branches of the US government, as well as the press, may
have been duped?
> There are several credible witnesses who maintain that Saddam shipped
> his WMD's off to Syria prior to the invasion:
So I can't trust the press, but I can trust, without demonstrated
physical evidence, a Syrian journalist who claims to have an inside
connection? Did the US government investigate these sites? Why did the
Iraq Survey Group dismiss the possibility of WMD being shipped to Syria
as unlikely?
>>> It didn't work before, so there is no reason to believe that it
>>> would work in the future.
>>
>>Before: Iraq had the sixth largest army in the world (iirc), chemical
>>weapons, it was bent on dominating other countries in the Middle East,
>>it had effective missles and an air force.
>>
>>After: Iraq is completely neutered, and does nothing for about 12
>>years. It can't make even a token resistance to a US invasion. There
>>is either no evidence of WMD or not enough to specifically present
>>anything plausible.
>>
>>How was that not working?
>
> Once again, from the aforementioned speech made by Hillary Clinton:
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
First, again you seem to be presupposing that I should place a lot of
weight in information from Hillary Clinton's political speeches? Should
I?
Second, whether Iraq's capabilities were nearly zero or nonzero is
irrelevant to what I asked; they were very clearly much lower than before
Desert Storm.
> If you bothered to do your homework, you wouldn't be making such a
> fool of yourself. I don't have the time nor the inclination to educate
> you on this matter - but perhaps you're becoming more aware of the
> fact that the situation isn't as "cut-and-dried" as you've been led to
> believe.
Hardly anything is ever cut and dried.
> Why don't you send an email message to the Pentagon, and tell those
> generals how they should do their jobs.
>
> I mean - SHEESH.
Above, you seem to be inquiring into how I would handle US military
operations, for some reason. It takes me several weeks to take over a
newsgroup. An major army is going to take significantly longer.
> What makes you think that the evidence has NOT been provided?
For one, most of the people more knowledgeable than I think it hasn't,
and of those who think it has, they are a minority, and a shrinking
minority.
> Again: most people get their information from the mainstream press,
> and I wouldn't trust the press any further than I can pitch a midget.
But I am to believe you are better informed than people in the Iraq
Survey Group?
> The evidence has been provided, and the press has reported upon it,
> it's just that the press doesn't deem it to be "newsworthy" to bring
> it up again.
>>Why has the invasion of Iraq made it more difficult for a terrorist to
>>cause massive destruction? The weapons we're talking about include
>>things like planes, right? Or maybe just a dirty bomb: putting a bunch
>>of nuclear waste in with a bunch of conventional explosive.
>
> Where would they get the nuclear waste?
Any nuclear reactor used for electricity generation, for instance.
>> That would be a
>>cost effective way to nearly permanently vacate a non-trivial section
>>of any city. Is that much tougher than it was before?
>
> The point that you're ignoring is that there are other (and far
> easier) ways to launch an attack that would deliver widespread
> collateral damage with the use of WMD's - and removing Iraq from the
> picture has greatly reduced that risk.
Flying a plane into a building really isn't that hard, for a few people
willing to dedicate and sacrifice their lives to the effort. Or doing
something like Timothy McVeigh did seems far easier than obtaining
whatever you mean by WMD's above.
> The world will never be
> perfectly safe - just a bit safeR (as a result).
Is it absolutely clear that the world is safer as a result of the current
efforts in Iraq?
>>It was calculated really badly, based on simple and hard empiricism.
>
> Once again: The risk of doing nothing was FAR greater than the risk
> of doing something - which is the fundamental point that I've been
> trying to get you to understand throughout this exchange.
How do you know what the risks of doing nothing were? And do you believe
there was no other effective way to reduce a risk posed by Iraq aside
from either nothing or the actual course of action?
>>No, I won't settle for "we did the best we could because you couldn't
>>have known better". For that many resourses, they absolutely need to
>>know better, and they especially need to know better than you and me!
>
> The expectation was for the newly-installed Iraqi government to start
> policing themselves by this time.
That expectation was obviously naive and clearly wrong.
> Throughout all of the entire
> operation, US forces have never lost a battle.
Indeed. Desert Storm neutered any ability Iraq had to succeed in any
remotely conventional warfare.
> The main problem (WRT
> security) is that, after US forces have cleaned out an area (from
> insurgents), the Iraqi forces have failed to hold it from being
> retaken. The factional in-fighting needs to be resolved via political
> negotiation, something that needs to be expedited (IMO).
>
> Secretary Gates (among others) have been pressuring Prime Minister
> Al-Maliki for progress to resolve the multitudes of problems that
> plague Iraq
> - turning up the pressure on him - something that you would learn for
> yourself
> if you'd bother to make the effort.
Does Al-Maliki actually have any power?
> If you think that an armed populace couldn't mount a successful
> insurrection under such circumstances, I have only to point to Iraq.
Well yes, but in such a situation whether or not civillians have legal
semiautomatic pistols or not might not make such a difference. The first
step of an insurrection would have to be obtaining a lot of stuff that is
currently illegal or prohibitively difficult to own as it is. Iraqis
aren't doing much with small arms against the US military.
But there's a case to be made that the overriding option should be to
prevent a situation where the citizens of the US feel the need to rise up
on a national scale in the first place.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> If there are any kids that refuse to accept a certain degree of
> discipline, then it will be up to the foremen to decide if they
> should be expelled - if they should stay or go.
Didn't Philip Zimbardo do an experiment like this long ago,
assigning roles of "prisoner" and "prison guard" at random, with
the results being that that pretend guards would commit more and
more brutality upon the pretend prisoners? Checking with Google:
Linkname: The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the
Psychology of Imprisonment
URL: http://www.prisonexp.org/
Linkname: Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
Unless you have adequate safeguards to prevent that sort of thing
from being the result of your contrived situation, I recommend you
drop the idea NOW.
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
# # # # ### ### ### ###
### ## # # # # ### # ### ### ### # # # ### # ### #
# # # # ### # # # # # # # ### # ### ## # ### # # ##
## ## # # # ### # ## ### ### # # # # # # # # ### #
### # # ### ### ### # ###
\-----(Rendered by means of <http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>)------/
Then enter your best guess of the text (15-25 chars) into this TextField:
+-------------------------+
| |
+-------------------------+
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> I have heard about the terrible things that being homeless does
> to the human mind. I'm told that, after just a couple of months,
> most people just shut down and give up.
I was homeless for 3.5 years.
> if you volunteered for agencies where all they did is hand out
> stuff to the homeless ...
I wonder how the homeless people feel about being treated as
worthless, as objects to be given stuff, but nothing they might do
in return is treated as of any value.
IMO, the right way to handle homeless and other currently-unemployed
people is to study each to learn what they have to offer that might
be of value to other people, then arrange situations where they can
earn money by providing such value.
> As you are building the house, you don't have to worry about
> whether the intended owner really needs it or not.
How could any sane person gain satisfaction volunteering under such
a contrived worthless situation? Why not just make piles of rock in
the desert?
> I have always felt so burned out from doing so darn many
> individual favors for people that I never had the motivation to
> do volunteer work.
Did you ever give any of those people a decent opportunity to
reciprocate in a way that you would value? Or did you consider them
to be mere "charity cases" whose return donation would be of zero
value?
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
__________________ _ _______ _ _______
\__ __/\__ __/( ( /||\ /||\ /|( ____ )( \ ( ____ \
) ( ) ( | \ ( |( \ / )| ) ( || ( )|| ( | ( \/
| | | | | \ | | \ (_) / | | | || (____)|| | | |
| | | | | (\ \) | \ / | | | || __)| | | |
| | | | | | \ | ) ( | | | || (\ ( | | | |
| | ___) (___| ) \ | | | | (___) || ) \ \__| (____/\ _ | (____/\
)_( \_______/|/ )_) \_/ (_______)|/ \__/(_______/(_)(_______/
_______ _______ _______ ______ _______ ______ _______ ______
( ___ )( ) /\/ ___ )/ ___ \ ( ____ ) / ____ \( ____ )/ ___ \
| ( ) || () () | / /\/ ) |\/ \ \| ( )|( ( \/| ( )|\/ \ \
| | | || || || | / / / ) ___) /| (____)|| (____ | (____)| ___) /
| | | || |(_)| | / / _/ / (___ ( | __)| ___ \ | _____) (___ (
| | | || | | | / / / _/ ) \| (\ ( | ( ) )| ( ) \
| (___) || ) ( |/ / ( (__/\/\___/ /| ) \ \__( (___) )| ) /\___/ /
(_______)|/ \|\/ \_______/\______/ |/ \__/ \_____/ |/ \______/
\--------(Rendered by means of <http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>)---------/
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
(Compared to invasion of Iraq:)
> were there other ways to spend a trillion dollars that had a good
> chance of having better and less mixed and ambiguous effects on US
> national security? I'd say probably.
I agree. In 1972, George McGovern proposed a program which if
started then and built over the years, including internationalization
as soon as the InterNet would support it in the mid 1990s, could
achieve what we want. With virtually everyone worldwide usefully
employed, earning a decent income, achieving a decent standard of
living, why would anybody in their right mind choose suicide
bombing instead, and why would the masses encourage any suicide
bombers?
> The question is more like did the people in charge of hundreds of
> billions of dollars of resources and thousands of lives have a better
> understanding going in than the average usenet moron?
On the average, I'd say no. Whereas the average usenet moron has
the sense to consult multiple sources, including WikiPedia and
various discussions in newsgroups, the idiots in charge of our
current USA government ignored all those various sources, and chose
instead just those very few untrustworthy sources that supported
belief in WMD in Iraq and the consequent need to invade.
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| . .._.. . , . / _, _, ._, _, |
| |\/| | |\/| -+-*._ .. .._.| _. _ ._ _ / '_) '_) ._.(_ ._ '_) |
| | |_|_| | | |[ )\_|(_|[ | * (_.(_)[ | )/ /_. ._) [ (_) [_)._) |
| ._| | |
\-----(Rendered by means of <http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>)------/
Then enter your best guess of the text (20-30 chars) into this TextField:
+------------------------------+
| |
+------------------------------+
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> an administration that wants to reinterpret the constitution so
> that Hillary Clinton and all future governments could conceivably
> have you deported and tortured for the rest of your life without a
> trial or even a disclosed reason? "It probably won't happen to me"
> is a good enough reason not to get really really upset?
I'm on your side, already upset/angry totally. It's like the story
after Hitler's Germany, where first they come for the gypsies,
which everyone hates anyway so nobody stops the stormtroopers, then
they come for the Jews, which a lot of people hate so nobody
protects them either, then they come for more and more groups, and
still nobody tries to protect them, until by the time they come for
*you* there's nobody left you could ask to come help you. If the
USSR aided by Britain and the USA hadn't stopped Hitler, he would
have eventually exterminated every non-Aryan worldwide.
I wonder who would eventually be exterminated if the President of
the USA were completely free to exterminate anyone he didn't like?
You do know that whenever the torture-prisons get too crowded, the
government must reduce population there, by any means necessary?
It's a two-step pipeline: Home/ -> TorturePrisons/ -> /dev/null
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Bin Laden is hiding within a large region with a mountainous
> terrain, which includes areas in Pakistan. We have to respect the
> sovereignty of nations that we are not invading, so sending
> military forces into Pakistan would not be a good idea.
But we *could* legally close the border between Afghanistan and
Pakistan, right? Preventing Bin Laden from moving back and forth
between the two countries would further reduce his ability to plan
terrorist attacks, right? Likewise we *could* legally close the
border between Iraq and Syria, right? Preventing movement of arms
and fighters between those two countries, would somewhat reduce the
ability of the insurgents to become well armed, right? We might
even reduce traffic in clandestine materials between various
provinces within Iraq, so that insurgents in one region could no
longer attack adjoining regions, right?
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| | ' | //~\/~\ /~~ /~\ |
| ~|~||/~\ \ /| ||/~\| /~~/~\|/~\ /~\ / ,/ <|/~\Y~\|~~\ < |
| | || | \/ \_/|| |.\__\_/| | |/ /__\_/| \_/|__/\_/ |
| _/ | |
\-----(Rendered by means of <http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>)-----/
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Both Thor and Rose from a.s.d want to meet you and work on shyness.
Neither of them has ever contacted me on such a matter. Only one
person from any newsgroup has contacted me on any personal matter
in recent months, and that one person resides more than a thousand
miles from California and has expressed no intention of traveling
here any time in the foreseeable future.
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/------------------------------------------------------------------\
| ___ |
| |__| _ _ |_ |_ _ _ | |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ | | |
| | | (- (_| |_ | ) (- | | | ) (_) ||| |_) _) (_) | ) . . |
| | |
\---(Rendered by means of <http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>)---/
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> *I* would miss you.
I don't believe you. Actions speak louder than words. AFAIK you
have never once attempted to establish a personal relationship with
me. If my knowledge is incomplete, if you *ever* sent me e-mail,
you need to tell me what e-mail address you sent from, and which of
my e-mail addresses you sent it to, and when you sent it, so that I
might conduct a search to try to find it. (Knowing my address is
necessary to know which account to search. Knowing your address is
necessary to know what key to feed to the search engine. Knowing
when you sent it would affect whether it's in this or that place
that varies by time.)
> Would you miss me?
No. I know nothing about you, not even your sex or general location
in the world. For all I know, you could be in Australia or Nigeria.
For all I know, you could be the person who sends me hundreds of
penis-enlargement ads per day, or the person who reports hundreds
of relatives dead in airplane crashes per day, each with millions
of US dollars that need my help to be moved out of the country.
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| . . .. , |
| | _ __. . __ ;_/*|| __ ._ _ -+- __ _.. , _ __ |
| \__|(/,_) (_|_) | \|||_) * [ )(_) | _) (_] \/ (/,_) * |
| ' |
\-----(Rendered by means of <http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>)-----/
Solitary Soul
>Solitary Soul <solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote in
>news:0psv73ptvdovadgff...@4ax.com:
>
>>>People in charge with making monumentous historical decisions really
>>>do need to have a good grasp of what's going to happen, and if there
>>>are wild uncertainties, including some worse than the original state,
>>>another approach should be tried.
>>
>> WHAT other approach(es)? ... what else was there to do?
>
>I'm not the guy who makes final decisions for the US army (yet). But they
>really do need to do better than creating a situation that is arguably
>worse than that which would have resulted from doing nothing.
So then you don't know what else to do - that's the whole point: Options were
limited.
You can't summarily assess that the situation is worse now than the option
of doing nothing - that is something that will never be known with any
degree of certainty. All a person can do is to assess the probabilities
of potential outcomes, then act based upon those assessments.
>I don't think you believe the US military effort was close to what could
>have been guessed to be optimal, do you?
No - I think Rumsfeld botched the operation royally - but that doesn't mean
that the operation was a bad idea in conception.
IOW: That isn't really relevant to this discussion.
>> That is why I don't like to debate politics in this group;
>
>Then don't reply.
>
>> You're
>> being extremely naive here. The costs are NEVER known in advance of
>> engaging in a war effort. The basic problem with cost assessment is:
>> The enemy is never nice enough to tell us what it intends to do, and
>> for how long it will wage an effort.
>
>That's a ridiculous cop-out answer that can justify anything.
It's the truth; The enemy is never so accommodating as to reveal what
it can do, and to what it's intentions are. All one can do is to guess.
> Do you believe the effort made at assessing costs and risks was close to
>optimal?
How do you know that it wasn't?
>>>Right out of the gate the US proved they didn't have the fortitude to
>>>do what their best military experts knew it would take to "win",
>>>including providing adequate troop levels.
>>
>> How do you know that? ... because of what you've been told by the
>> press?
>>
>> It's extremely naive to trust the press to tell you the truth. That is
>> a hard lesson that I learned a long time ago.
>
>Where do you get your info?
I start with the press, then move on to other sources. The press doesn't
lie 100% of the time, but they're good at distorting the truth - twisting
the facts to elicit a pre-defined conclusion.
>>>Good. Multiplying the resources and manpower toward that specific
>>>effort by about 10 wouldn't be misplaced, imo.
>>
>> Are you familiar with the Law of Diminishing Returns?
>
>It really depends on the function. Some have assymptotes, some grow
>forever, some have local maxima, some are non-linear, some are chaotic.
>What you speak of is not a "Law", although it may very well be true for
>some individual function.
What I'm referring to is the concept of adding additional resources in order
to hasten a successful outcome - it doesn't always work that way.
Adding additional programmers to a software project will not quicken it's
completion - I believe it's referred to as "The Mongolian Horde" effect.
I was thinking that, if I were to quote Richard Cheney, you'd have a problem
WRT credibility - and therefore voracity. By quoting someone who is a
prominent member of the opposition party, I was hoping that it would have
some credibility with you.
Instead, I can see now that you're just going to dig in your heels, and keep
insisting that Saddam Hussein was being a good little boy - not trying to
cause any problems - and there is nothing that I can post that will change
your mind on the matter.
>> There are several credible witnesses who maintain that Saddam shipped
>> his WMD's off to Syria prior to the invasion:
>
>So I can't trust the press, but I can trust, without demonstrated
>physical evidence, a Syrian journalist who claims to have an inside
>connection?
I never stated that you should (trust it). I just quoted a credible witness
- someone who was actually IN Syria at that time. My intention in doing so
was to demonstrate that it was never drop-dead certain that Saddam Hussein
did not reconstitute his WMD program.
I don't have any belief either way that I hold with complete certainty:
I think it's definitely a possibility that he did - based on his past
behaviors - and that what some people might have witnessed could have
some validity.
It all comes back to one of the most fundamental philosophies by which
I live my life: "Nothing is certain, and anything is possible."
If you want to hold such a belief with absolute certainty, then that
is your own problem.
> Did the US government investigate these sites? Why did the
>Iraq Survey Group dismiss the possibility of WMD being shipped to Syria
>as unlikely?
>
>>>> It didn't work before, so there is no reason to believe that it
>>>> would work in the future.
>>>
>>>Before: Iraq had the sixth largest army in the world (iirc), chemical
>>>weapons, it was bent on dominating other countries in the Middle East,
>>>it had effective missles and an air force.
>>>
>>>After: Iraq is completely neutered, and does nothing for about 12
>>>years. It can't make even a token resistance to a US invasion. There
>>>is either no evidence of WMD or not enough to specifically present
>>>anything plausible.
>>>
>>>How was that not working?
>>
>> Once again, from the aforementioned speech made by Hillary Clinton:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>First, again you seem to be presupposing that I should place a lot of
>weight in information from Hillary Clinton's political speeches? Should
>I?
In this particular circumstance, she's summarizing information that had
been widely known and distributed. Hillary Clinton may be a liar, but not
all of her words are lies.
In her speech, she mentioned "Operation Desert Fox" which was an attempt
to - as you put it - "Bombing the hell out of the place until Saddam was
a little more amenable to UN weapons inspectors" - it was tried - and it
didn't work:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others,
ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and
suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Review the line:>
>> >Bombing the hell out of the place until Saddam was a little more amenable
>> >to UN weapons inspectors might have been a little better for US national
>> >security than what we have now too.
>>
>> It didn't work before, so there is no reason to believe that it would
>> work in the future.
>
>Before: Iraq had the sixth largest army in the world (iirc), chemical
>weapons, it was bent on dominating other countries in the Middle East, it
>had effective missles and an air force.
>
>After: Iraq is completely neutered, and does nothing for about 12 years.
>It can't make even a token resistance to a US invasion. There is either
>no evidence of WMD or not enough to specifically present anything
>plausible.
>
>How was that not working?
Once again, from the aforementioned speech made by Hillary Clinton:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions
by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt
to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits
on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called
presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to
hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required
by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process,
the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others,
ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and
suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Second, whether Iraq's capabilities were nearly zero or nonzero is
>irrelevant to what I asked; they were very clearly much lower than before
>Desert Storm.
It's only very clearly lower in Parker-World.
>> If you bothered to do your homework, you wouldn't be making such a
>> fool of yourself. I don't have the time nor the inclination to educate
>> you on this matter - but perhaps you're becoming more aware of the
>> fact that the situation isn't as "cut-and-dried" as you've been led to
>> believe.
>
>Hardly anything is ever cut and dried.
>
>> Why don't you send an email message to the Pentagon, and tell those
>> generals how they should do their jobs.
>>
>> I mean - SHEESH.
>
>Above, you seem to be inquiring into how I would handle US military
>operations, for some reason. It takes me several weeks to take over a
>newsgroup. An major army is going to take significantly longer.
>
>> What makes you think that the evidence has NOT been provided?
>
>For one, most of the people more knowledgeable than I think it hasn't,
>and of those who think it has, they are a minority, and a shrinking
>minority.
The blind leading the blind.
Who are "they"?
>> Again: most people get their information from the mainstream press,
>> and I wouldn't trust the press any further than I can pitch a midget.
>
>But I am to believe you are better informed than people in the Iraq
>Survey Group?
>
>> The evidence has been provided, and the press has reported upon it,
>> it's just that the press doesn't deem it to be "newsworthy" to bring
>> it up again.
>
>>>Why has the invasion of Iraq made it more difficult for a terrorist to
>>>cause massive destruction? The weapons we're talking about include
>>>things like planes, right? Or maybe just a dirty bomb: putting a bunch
>>>of nuclear waste in with a bunch of conventional explosive.
>>
>> Where would they get the nuclear waste?
>
>Any nuclear reactor used for electricity generation, for instance.
How many of them would supply terrorists with nuclear waste?
>>> That would be a
>>>cost effective way to nearly permanently vacate a non-trivial section
>>>of any city. Is that much tougher than it was before?
>>
>> The point that you're ignoring is that there are other (and far
>> easier) ways to launch an attack that would deliver widespread
>> collateral damage with the use of WMD's - and removing Iraq from the
>> picture has greatly reduced that risk.
>
>Flying a plane into a building really isn't that hard, for a few people
>willing to dedicate and sacrifice their lives to the effort. Or doing
>something like Timothy McVeigh did seems far easier than obtaining
>whatever you mean by WMD's above.
It wouldn't be very difficult to drop anthrax into a major water supply
reservoir for a major metropolitan area, or spray such an area with
tabun gas - without having to self-sacrifice - and have casualties in
the hundreds of thousands as a consequence.
Your thinking is much too limited on the matter.
>> The world will never be
>> perfectly safe - just a bit safeR (as a result).
>
>Is it absolutely clear that the world is safer as a result of the current
>efforts in Iraq?
Not according to yourself and what you want to believe.
I'll point out that there has not been a successful attack since 9-11-01,
and we'll never know as to how many of them have been thwarted - that's
classified information.
>>>It was calculated really badly, based on simple and hard empiricism.
>>
>> Once again: The risk of doing nothing was FAR greater than the risk
>> of doing something - which is the fundamental point that I've been
>> trying to get you to understand throughout this exchange.
>
>How do you know what the risks of doing nothing were? And do you believe
>there was no other effective way to reduce a risk posed by Iraq aside
>from either nothing or the actual course of action?
>
>>>No, I won't settle for "we did the best we could because you couldn't
>>>have known better". For that many resourses, they absolutely need to
>>>know better, and they especially need to know better than you and me!
>>
>> The expectation was for the newly-installed Iraqi government to start
>> policing themselves by this time.
>
>That expectation was obviously naive and clearly wrong.
How so?
If a nation is on the brink of civil war, then it would obviously be in their
best interests to do everything they can to stabilize the political situation,
and reach some sort of an accord. If there are elements within that political
sphere who insist upon violence to resolve their grievances, then they need
to be neutralized as effectively as possible.
This much should be very obvious, even to you.
>> Throughout all of the entire
>> operation, US forces have never lost a battle.
>
>Indeed. Desert Storm neutered any ability Iraq had to succeed in any
>remotely conventional warfare.
The key word there is "conventional".
>> The main problem (WRT
>> security) is that, after US forces have cleaned out an area (from
>> insurgents), the Iraqi forces have failed to hold it from being
>> retaken. The factional in-fighting needs to be resolved via political
>> negotiation, something that needs to be expedited (IMO).
>>
>> Secretary Gates (among others) have been pressuring Prime Minister
>> Al-Maliki for progress to resolve the multitudes of problems that
>> plague Iraq
>> - turning up the pressure on him - something that you would learn for
>> yourself
>> if you'd bother to make the effort.
>
>Does Al-Maliki actually have any power?
Who has more power?
>> If you think that an armed populace couldn't mount a successful
>> insurrection under such circumstances, I have only to point to Iraq.
>
>Well yes, but in such a situation whether or not civillians have legal
>semiautomatic pistols or not might not make such a difference.
There's more to it than just the possession of semi-automatic pistols
- and it exposes your ignorance on the matter that you think that it does.
It's only the first step in an incremental process.
> The first
>step of an insurrection would have to be obtaining a lot of stuff that is
>currently illegal or prohibitively difficult to own as it is. Iraqis
>aren't doing much with small arms against the US military.
What are the casualty figures with regards to the number of troops killed
by way of small arms fire?
>But there's a case to be made that the overriding option should be to
>prevent a situation where the citizens of the US feel the need to rise up
>on a national scale in the first place.
There could come a time when all other safeguards might fail, and it would
become necessary to engage in insurrection - and that goes back to that
issue of uncertainty that I've been harping on throughout all of this.
No one can say for sure that it could never happen, so the only thing a person
can do is to prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.
Solitary Soul
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
>> From: Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOS...@ev1.net>
>> Bin Laden is hiding within a large region with a mountainous
>> terrain, which includes areas in Pakistan. We have to respect the
>> sovereignty of nations that we are not invading, so sending
>> military forces into Pakistan would not be a good idea.
>
>But we *could* legally close the border between Afghanistan and
>Pakistan, right? Preventing Bin Laden from moving back and forth
>between the two countries would further reduce his ability to plan
>terrorist attacks, right? Likewise we *could* legally close the
>border between Iraq and Syria, right? Preventing movement of arms
>and fighters between those two countries, would somewhat reduce the
>ability of the insurgents to become well armed, right? We might
>even reduce traffic in clandestine materials between various
>provinces within Iraq, so that insurgents in one region could no
>longer attack adjoining regions, right?
If it were that simple, then why do you think it hasn't been done?
.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
spy vs spy
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:rem-2007...@yahoo.com...
Thor has posted over and over in a.s.d how he and rose want to meet you.
So please don't play
the pitty party game with me.
spy vs spy
"RGB" <asd0...@gipgipgip.com> wrote in message
news:1182814917.3...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
| x-no-archive: yes
|
| On Jun 25, 4:37 pm, "spy vs spy" <spyvs...@mad.com> wrote:
|
| > Thor has posted over and over in a.s.d how he and rose want to meet you.
|
|
My bad .. I forgot ..
Okay .. I shall revise ..
Robert Maas refuses to meet RGB, Thor and Rose. All three want to meet him
and over come shyness.
All three live close by in California.
Robert however, keeps saying how nobody wants to meet him. I don't
understand why he keeps saying
such things when not one, not two but THREE people want overcome shyness
with him.
Would Robert Maas please explain why he has reject these three offers of
friendship?
spy vs spy
"Janithor" <Jani...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:46805328...@comcast.net...
| x-no-archive: yes
|
| spy vs spy wrote:
| > "Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote in
| > message news:rem-2007...@yahoo.com...
| > |> From: "spy vs spy" <spyvs...@mad.com>
| > | > Both Thor and Rose from a.s.d want to meet you and work on shyness.
| > |
| > | Neither of them has ever contacted me on such a matter. Only one
| > | person from any newsgroup has contacted me on any personal matter
| > | in recent months, and that one person resides more than a thousand
| > | miles from California and has expressed no intention of traveling
| > | here any time in the foreseeable future.
|
|
| Mark and I have posted publicly several times, inviting you to join us.
|
|
| > Thor has posted over and over in a.s.d how he and rose want to meet you.
| > So please don't play
| > the pitty party game with me.
|
|
|
I have a feeling Robert is just a big fat fake. He only wants to help women
overcome shyness.
He won't help you or RGB because you are men.
spy vs spy
"Jester's mummy" <coc...@nest.egg> wrote in message
news:rcm083tthndnm6opl...@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:55:59 GMT, "spy vs spy" <spyv...@mad.com> wrote:
|
| ><(((*>
| ><(((*>"RGB" <asd0...@gipgipgip.com> wrote in message
| ><(((*>news:1182814917.3...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
| ><(((*>| x-no-archive: yes
| ><(((*>|
| ><(((*>| On Jun 25, 4:37 pm, "spy vs spy" <spyvs...@mad.com> wrote:
| ><(((*>|
| ><(((*>| > Thor has posted over and over in a.s.d how he and rose want to
meet you.
| ><(((*>|
| ><(((*>| Hey, what about me? The whole thing was my idea!
| ><(((*>|
| ><(((*>
| ><(((*>My bad .. I forgot ..
| ><(((*>Okay .. I shall revise ..
| ><(((*>
| ><(((*>Robert Maas refuses to meet RGB, Thor and Rose. All three want to
meet him
| ><(((*>and over come shyness.
| ><(((*>All three live close by in California.
| ><(((*>Robert however, keeps saying how nobody wants to meet him. I don't
| ><(((*>understand why he keeps saying
| ><(((*>such things when not one, not two but THREE people want overcome
shyness
| ><(((*>with him.
| ><(((*>
| ><(((*>Would Robert Maas please explain why he has reject these three
offers of
| ><(((*>friendship?
|
| For the same reason that Marty's toilet is always plugged?
|
| Tara J. Ballance
| Montreal, Canada
you mean like the song I just posted?
heard it on the radio today and now it is stuck there
You're a lying sack of crap
You're a lying sack of crap.
You're a lying, scheming, stinking, nasty, sack of liquid crap. (plink,
plink!)
I feel like posting it every time Maas or Marty says anything.
MCMLXVI
>> shy, socially-deficient people could potentially realize a great
>> deal of benefit by volunteering.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
> Please explain how trying to volunteer, and being rebuffed by all
> potential helpees and the volunteer-bureaucracies around them, can
> result in anything except total frustration on the part of the
> person attempting to volunteer?
That's a shame. What do you believe would cause them to rebuff you?
>> If you consider the general composition of groups that volunteer
>> to help others, you'd be dealing with people who don't tend to be
>> self-centered, and tend to empathize with others,
>
> Oh, you mean like Christina "Minna" Sandmeyer who committed suicide?
*perk*
> Just to make sure I had her name spelled correctly, I tried some Google
> searches, and look what I found:
> <http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/08.16.01/sandmeyer-0133.html>
> Shortly thereafter she began working with the Mid-Peninsula Housing
> Management Corporation in Redwood City, a nonprofit company that
> builds and manages affordable housing in Northern California.
> Yeah, like where **I** live currently!!!
> Now it hurts even more that she and I never knew of each other
> before she killed herself, so I never got a chance to help her.
> Maybe it's now time for me to take the bus to Foothills Park and
> follow her path.
I believe I have you to thank for leading me to news:alt.support.shyness
in the first place, all thanks to my curiosity in a new acquaintance, a
local musician, who, I found out, happened to have been a friend of
Christina Sandmeyer. I thought the more interesting accounts of her life
(and death) would appear on Usenet. So, uh, "thanks".
> "When people give signs that [they] are in pain, it's time to take it
> seriously," Galland says. "You have to be vigilant with your loved
> one, and to live in ways that help make them [know], help remind them
> everyday how much they mean to the people around them."
> That's the major difference between her and me. Everyone around her
> loved her. Not one person has ever loved me since before I was even
> born. My life means nothing to anyone. Not one person will miss me.
It's a shame that you believe no one reached out to you in your times of
need. We can't do much about the past, but let's see what we can do in
the Here and Now.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> I sent you an email to which you did not respond, ...
What e-mail address did you send it from? I'll guess: Jani...@comcast.net
What e-mail address did you send it to? I'll guess my currently active address.
I get several hundred spam per day. Did you follow instructions to
tag your message so it'd bypass my spam filter?
InGood 0 0 0k
No, no e-mail there at all, not from you, not from anyone.
As for my inbox:
Inbox 6853 6733 47107k
Would you be willing to come over here and sift through all 47+
megabytes of spam to see if you can find one mis-placed message?
No, I didn't think so. Will you pay me ten dollars per hour to
spend *my* time sifting through all that spam? No, I didn't think
so. I'll now do a full keyword search for "Janithor" in header now ...
> Subject: Pizza in Redwood City or Mountain View?
Aha! This just duplicates a question you already asked in a
newsgroup, which I already answered. My answer is still no. I don't
want to spend my money and time (an hour or two each way) taking
public transit somewhere and then just sitting there and being
"stood up". I don't have a cell-phone, so I would have no way to
keep in contact with you from time to time to synchronize our meeting.
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/--------------------------------------------------------------\
| |\/|||\/| _|_o._ |_| ._| _ _ ._ _ /~)~/._ / |)~/ |
| | ||| | | || | _||_|| |o(_(_)| | |/ /__)| (_)| _) |
\-(Rendered by means of <http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>)-/
MCMLXVI
[Quoted for the information of "spy vs spy" et al. on
news:alt.support.depression ]
I believe it's poignantly ironic that there were some Usenet accounts I
seemed to remember where people's continuing love for Minna helped the
police recover the remains of another missing person while looking for
Minna. It's as if her spirit was still working to help put another
family's worries to rest. Now, her spirit seems to be continuing its
work through the words and thoughts of Mr. Maas, even if he doesn't seem
to know how better to put it to use.
Can we figure out a way for us to move forward, here, in the present,
rather than dwell on past offers missed?
Solitary Soul
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
>> From: Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOS...@ev1.net>
>> *I* would miss you.
>
>I don't believe you. Actions speak louder than words. AFAIK you
>have never once attempted to establish a personal relationship with
>me. If my knowledge is incomplete, if you *ever* sent me e-mail,
>you need to tell me what e-mail address you sent from, and which of
>my e-mail addresses you sent it to, and when you sent it, so that I
>might conduct a search to try to find it. (Knowing my address is
>necessary to know which account to search. Knowing your address is
>necessary to know what key to feed to the search engine. Knowing
>when you sent it would affect whether it's in this or that place
>that varies by time.)
I've never sent you any messages.
I know you from your posts - which I find to be ... interesting.
I think that most of the long-timers within this group (alt.support.shyness)
consider you to be one of the legendary figures within this group,
as I believe that you've had an impact upon this group.
This group hasn't been the same without you - in the times of your absence
- and I would hate to see you leave it - never to return.
>> Would you miss me?
>
>No. I know nothing about you, not even your sex or general location
>in the world. For all I know, you could be in Australia or Nigeria.
I'm male - residing in the south of Texas - but what difference does that make?
>For all I know, you could be the person who sends me hundreds of
>penis-enlargement ads per day, or the person who reports hundreds
>of relatives dead in airplane crashes per day, each with millions
>of US dollars that need my help to be moved out of the country.
I'm none of the above - I've never sent any messages of that kind.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> I'm male - residing in the south of Texas - but what difference
> does that make?
It means it's impractical for either of us to ever visit the other
to get acquainted towards eventually becoming friends.
If I suddenly got so rich that I could afford to travel, I'd go to
Massachusetts to visit the one person who ever stuck out her neck
to try to support me against the harassers/libelers.
Or I'd go to Vancouver BC to visit the one person who ever
appreciated anything I ever did, if she's still alive.
Or I'd hire a detective to find Heather and arrange a meeting.
Or I'd hire a hit-man to find and dissappear a certain very bad person
who has been libeling and harassing me for more than seven years.
Or I'd hire detectives and lawyers to track down and sue everyone
who has sent me spam since the start of 2004, to thereby obtain so
much income that I could do *all* of the above.
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| o o o o o-o o |
| | o | / | | | |
| -o- o-o o o o o o-o | o-o o-o o-O-o o o o O--o oo -o- |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / | | | | | | |
| o | o o o--O o--o o o O o-o o-o o o o o o--o o o o-o o |
| | |
| o--o |
\-----(Rendered by means of <http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>)------/
spy vs spy
| x-no-archive: yes
| way around. Why would I make my already bad reputation even worse by
| standing you up after making such a public spectacle of trying to get
| together with a fellow shy person, have some pizza, and maybe enjoy a
| game of put put golf? What's wrong with that? I'll pick you up if you
| want. Pick a day where you're not doing anything. If I don't show,
| then no loss to you. If I do show, you get some free pizza and beer if
| you like beer. I'll even splurge on some refreshing Spaten Premiums if
| you want. If I treat you badly, then you can slam me hard on ass and
| asd, and my rep will be totally ruined forever and I'll have to leave
| the group forever with my tail between my legs, holding my head in shame
| for eternity. I'm shy too, I met my wife on alt.support.shyness in
| 1996, no joke.
|
you many have ruined your chances now. he does not drink beer.
spy vs spy
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:rem-2007...@yahoo.com...
Fuck it. You are nothing but a troll.
You reject every attempt at help. EVERY SINGE ONE. You want to be a lonely
pathetic little man.
People like you make me sick. All you want is the attention. You don't want
to change. You don't want to work
at getting better. Do I know what it is like to be so deep in the pit you
feel as if you will never get out? Yes.
Was I down so low I did not even know how to ask for help to get out? Yes.
However, .... when help was offered .. I at least tried to climb out.
You know why nobody likes you? Because you are a jerk. Because I've seen
people try and help you for what....??? Nine years now.
You rebuff them, call them stupid, reject each and every suggestion.
Go .. live in your little apartment. Be alone. You created this for
yourself.
And for anybody else here who tells me "oh this a support group, you can't
talk to somebody this way"..
Just do a Google search on "Robert Maas" .. See what a jerk he really is.
He is a troll and should be
treated as one.
spy vs spy
| x-no-archive: yes
|
| spy vs spy wrote:
| I'm going. I am on a mission from God.
|
You blew it again. He won't meet with you now because you mentioned God.
spy vs spy
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:rem-2007...@yahoo.com...
| > I sent you an email to which you did not respond, ...
|
| What e-mail address did you send it from? I'll guess: Jani...@comcast.net
| What e-mail address did you send it to? I'll guess my currently active
address.
| I get several hundred spam per day. Did you follow instructions to
| tag your message so it'd bypass my spam filter?
| InGood 0 0 0k
| No, no e-mail there at all, not from you, not from anyone.
| As for my inbox:
| Inbox 6853 6733 47107k
| Would you be willing to come over here and sift through all 47+
| megabytes of spam to see if you can find one mis-placed message?
| No, I didn't think so. Will you pay me ten dollars per hour to
| spend *my* time sifting through all that spam? No, I didn't think
| so. I'll now do a full keyword search for "Janithor" in header now ...
| > Subject: Pizza in Redwood City or Mountain View?
| Aha! This just duplicates a question you already asked in a
| newsgroup, which I already answered. My answer is still no. I don't
| want to spend my money and time (an hour or two each way) taking
| public transit somewhere and then just sitting there and being
| "stood up". I don't have a cell-phone, so I would have no way to
| keep in contact with you from time to time to synchronize our meeting.
|
| --
|
Okay .. one more thing I've been wanting to say for a long time.
This whole "Spam has ruined my life" is Bullshit! I know of nobody
who has so much spam they need to spend all their time obsessing over it.
Everybody with an email address gets spam. Some how people are still able
to get up everyday and function as a normal person in society.
What the hell do you do??? Open each one? Are you unable to just read
the subject line and delete with out opening it? You say you spent all your
time on spam that you could not go to a meeting at your child's school.
You are one sick jackass. So now I'll be on your 'hate list', you will
threaten to sue me? Go on Robert. The Mountain View police know
all about you. Making one phone call to them would be all it would take.
spy vs spy
"RGB" <asd0...@Use.Organization> wrote in message
news:_E4gi.14216$a72....@fe07.news.easynews.com...
| In article <C34gi.3392$cV.3340@trnddc04>,
|
| Maas. He's a fucking obsessive stalker freak weirdo pervert homicidal
| fantasizer, is what he is, he's simply not sane enough to be a simple
| "troll". A "troll" posts to alt.music.led-zeppelin that Jimmy Page sucks
| and takes heroin because he knows he sucks. Maas does something
| rather... different.
Okay so he is not a Troll. And yes, he is an obessive stalker sick fuck.
I agree with you on that.
Alan Harding
<coc...@nest.egg> writes
>On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:55:59 GMT, "spy vs spy" <spyv...@mad.com> wrote:
>><(((*>"RGB" <asd0...@gipgipgip.com> wrote in message
>><(((*>news:1182814917.3...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>><(((*>|
>><(((*>| On Jun 25, 4:37 pm, "spy vs spy" <spyvs...@mad.com> wrote:
>><(((*>|
>><(((*>| > Thor has posted over and over in a.s.d how he and rose want
>>to meet you.
>><(((*>|
>><(((*>| Hey, what about me? The whole thing was my idea!
>><(((*>|
>><(((*>My bad .. I forgot ..
>><(((*>Okay .. I shall revise ..
>><(((*>
>><(((*>Robert Maas refuses to meet RGB, Thor and Rose. All three want
>>to meet him
>><(((*>and over come shyness.
>><(((*>Robert however, keeps saying how nobody wants to meet him. I don't
>><(((*>understand why he keeps saying
>><(((*>such things when not one, not two but THREE people want overcome
>>shyness
>><(((*>with him.
>><(((*>
>><(((*>Would Robert Maas please explain why he has reject these three
>>offers of
>><(((*>friendship?
>
>For the same reason that Marty's toilet is always plugged?
He rejects friendship because he uses too much toilet roll?
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
marasu
> > As you are building the house, you don't have to worry about whether the intended owner really needs it or not.
On Jun 25, 4:37 pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:
> How could any sane person gain satisfaction volunteering under such a contrived worthless situation? Why not just make piles of rock in the desert?
Habitat for Humanity has certain standards it's developed over 30 some-
odd years, and I doubt rock abodes would meet them, but I don't know
for sure. I will research them online (habitat.org)-- or off.
lil...@shyuser.com
> In article <rem-2007jun25-...@yahoo.com>,
> rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
>
> > > I sent you an email to which you did not respond, ...
>
> > What e-mail address did you send it from? I'll guess:
> > guess my currently active address. I get several hundred spam per
> > day. Did you follow instructions to tag your message so it'd bypass
> > through all 47+ megabytes of spam to see if you can find one
> > mis-placed message? No, I didn't think so. Will you pay me ten
> > dollars per hour to spend *my* time sifting through all that spam?
>
> waste even a passing serious thought of actually reaching out to him.
> The "will you pay me" part is just too much.
<snip>
You guys tried, and that's something to respect you and Janithor and
others for doing. Why not just get together for a lunch with whoever
wants to come? You don't need any particular individual to make an
appearance. If I were local, I would go to meet folks and buy a
round, too.
Some people will never, ever recognize that they are the person
primarily responsible for their own well being. Because to do that,
they have to take responsibility for their mistakes and work to
correct them. Their problem isn't YOUR problem. Nothing you can say
or do will have any result other than Maas fabricating reasons why you
should have done more (or done differently, or not done....) to
satisfy his needs.
You can just let it go. You don't have to play that game. :) And
you're not obligated to feel bad or angry. You tried. That counts
for a lot.
Alan Harding
<asd0...@Use.Organization> writes
>In article <1182875647.7...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> lil...@shyuser.com wrote:
>
>> You guys tried, and that's something to respect you and Janithor and
>> others for doing. Why not just get together for a lunch with whoever
>> wants to come? You don't need any particular individual to make an
>> appearance. If I were local, I would go to meet folks and buy a
>> round, too.
>
>and have a dinner in his honor. Plus, of course, the miniature golf.
Why not turn it into a wider meet? You must remember when they were a
frequent occurrence.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> From: lil...@shyuser.com
> You guys tried,
Actually they only *pretended* to try. They knew full-well that I
have no money to travel, yet they proposed I spend an hour or two
each way to travel to meet them, with no guarantee they'd even show
up after I spent all that time commuting to the claimed meeting
location and would have to spend all that time again just to go
home crying after being stood up. Not one of them has ever tried to
establish friendly communication with me, and most of them have
posted demeaning libel about me on many occasions, so the chance
this is a set-up to hurt me further is greater than the chance this
is a legitimate attempt to meet me.
I've been stood up several times in the past, by people who
actually seemed very friendly on the phone, but who took one look
at me from afar and saw I was so grossly unattractive that they
just hid around a corner until I gave up and went home and then it
was finally safe for them to come out of hiding to get back to
their car to escape back to home. Somebody who was just setting me
up for hurt wouldn't even bother to arrive and hide around a
corner.
> If I were local, I would go to meet folks and buy a round, too.
If I were local to the proposed meeting place, I'd show up too, but
I don't have money to buy anything, regardless of whether it's
round or square or triangular. Unfortunately neither of the
proposed meeting places is local to either of us (assuming your
IP number is representative of your location).
Now if there's somebody in my local area who would like to meet me,
for example Heather Thompson who claimed to reside only about 1
mile from where I live now, I'm sure we could find some place about
halfway between us for meeting. For example, the Sunnyvale public
library is within reasonable walking distance (or very easy bike
riding distance) from Heather's residence near Las Palmas Park, and
a tolerable bike ride from my current residence near the CalTrain
station, especially if I break the bike ride into two parts, one
part to the free lunch M/W/F on Sunset at the end of Washington
Park, then the other part from there to the library.
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
______________________________
| | (_ _) | |
| |\/| | | | | |\/| | (Rendered by means of
| | | | | | | | | | http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>
| | | | _| |_ | | | |
| |__| |_( )_| |__| |
------------------------------
Then enter your best guess of the text (3 chars) into this TextField:
+-----+
| |
+-----+
Then look up that abbreviation in a search engine,
and type the mostly likely meaning here:
+---------------+
| *?? *? *????? |
+---------------+
%
spy vs spy
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:rem-2007...@yahoo.com...
| > From: lil...@shyuser.com
| > You guys tried,
|
| Actually they only *pretended* to try. They knew full-well that I
| have no money to travel, yet they proposed I spend an hour or two
| each way to travel to meet them, with no guarantee they'd even show
| up after I spent all that time commuting to the claimed meeting
| location and would have to spend all that time again just to go
| home crying after being stood up. Not one of them has ever tried to
| establish friendly communication with me, and most of them have
| posted demeaning libel about me on many occasions, so the chance
| this is a set-up to hurt me further is greater than the chance this
| is a legitimate attempt to meet me.
|
No dipshit. RGB, Thor and Rose were going to come to YOU. They
were going to take the effor to a place near your home. And you in essase
told them to fuck off.
You just like to whine you LOVE to be the poor misreable little man.
|
| > If I were local, I would go to meet folks and buy a round, too.
|
| If I were local to the proposed meeting place, I'd show up too, but
| I don't have money to buy anything, regardless of whether it's
| round or square or triangular. Unfortunately neither of the
| proposed meeting places is local to either of us (assuming your
| IP number is representative of your location).
Buy a square? Comign from anybody else this might be funny. From you,
it just shows how lame you are.
| Now if there's somebody in my local area who would like to meet me,
| for example Heather Thompson who claimed to reside only about 1
| mile from where I live now, I'm sure we could find some place about
| halfway between us for meeting. For example, the Sunnyvale public
| library is within reasonable walking distance (or very easy bike
| riding distance) from Heather's residence near Las Palmas Park, and
| a tolerable bike ride from my current residence near the CalTrain
| station, especially if I break the bike ride into two parts, one
| part to the free lunch M/W/F on Sunset at the end of Washington
| Park, then the other part from there to the library.
|
|
Just how much do you want the world given to you on a silver platter?
Next you will say that the library to too far and people need to come to
your home.
I think Thor, RGB and Rose should go to the Sunnyvale Library, have an a.s.d
mini meet just the three of them.
Then they can post on how much fun they had. Hell I'd go if I were not many
states away.
Not to meet you, but to meet them.