[OT]: Changing Times
Masked Man
night. I asked him what he thought about the shootings at
schools, our immoral President, the computer age and just
things in general.
He replied, "Gee, let me think a minute... I was born before
television, penicillin, polio shots, frozen foods, Xerox,
contact lenses, Frisbees and the Pill. There weren't things
like radar, credit cards, laser beams or ball-point pens.
Man had not invented pantyhose, dishwashers, clothes dryers,
electric blankets, air conditioners and he hadn't walked on
the moon. Your Mom and I got married first-then lived
together.
Every family had a father and a mother, and every kid over
14 had a rifle that his dad taught him how to use and
respect. Until I was 25, I called every man older than me
'sir'; and after I turned 25, I still called policemen and
every man with a title, 'sir.' In our time, closets were
for clothes, not for 'coming out of.' Sunday's were set
aside for going to church as a family, helping those in need,
and just visiting with your neighbors. We were before
gay-rights, computer dating, dual careers, day-care centers,
and group therapy. Our lives were governed by the Ten
Commandments, good judgment and common sense. We were taught
to know the difference between right and wrong, and to stand
up and take responsibility for your actions.
Serving your country was a privilege, living here was a
bigger privilege. We thought fast food was what you ate
during Lent. Having a meaningful relationship meant getting
along with your cousins. Draft dodgers were people who closed
their front doors when the evening breeze started. And
time sharing meant time the family spent together in the
evenings and weekends - not condominiums. We never heard of
FM radio, tape decks, CD's, electric typewriters, artificial
hearts, word processors, yogurt or guys wearing ear rings.
We listened to the 'big bands', Jack Benny and the
President's speeches on the radio. I don't ever remember any
kid blowing his brains out listening to Tommy Dorsey. If you
saw anything with 'Made in Japan' on it, it was junk.
The term 'making out' referred to how you did on your school
exam. Pizza's, McDonald's and instant coffee were unheard
of. We had 5 and 10 cent stores where you could actually buy
things for 5 and 10 cents. Ice cream cones, phone calls,
rides on a street car, and a Pepsi were all a nickel. And
if you didn't want to 'splurge,' you could spend your nickel
on enough stamps to mail a letter and two postcards. You
could buy a new Chevy Coupe for $600, but who could afford
one. Too bad, because gas was 11 cents a gallon. In my day
'grass' was mowed, 'coke' was a cold drink, 'pot' was
something your mother cooked in, and 'rock music' was your
grandmother's lullaby.
'Aids' were helpers in the Principal's office, a 'chip'
meant a piece of wood, 'hardware' was found in a hardware
store and software wasn't even a word. We were not before
the difference between the sexes was discovered, but we were
surely before the sex change, 'Billy' having two mommy's,
and pornography in a family home and at newsstands. And we
were the last generation that was so dumb as to think you
needed a husband to have a baby. No wonder people today call
us old and confused, and there is such a generation gap.
And I'm only 53!!
--
Who was that masked man?
Bozo the Evil Klown
thing.
*****************************************
"Insanity is a part of the times, Vir: You must learn to *embrace* the
madness!!" Londo Mollari
Joxman
about our time? *Old man voice* When I was a kid we never had those "brain
mouses" we had to use our OWN arms to move the cursor! ...and we never had
those new fandangled "sinaptic interfaces" we actually had to look at a
"monitor" and respond using a "keyboard"! You kids have it too
easy...*grumble grumble* :)
P.S. your dad seems to have good values and you would be wise to emulate him
:)
Masked Man wrote in message <3958db05....@news.mindspring.com>...
havoc
> I was talking to my Dad about current events the other
> night. I asked him what he thought about the shootings at
> schools, our immoral President, the computer age and just
> things in general.
>
> He replied, "Gee, let me think a minute..
<snipping "When I was a kid" speech>
Anyone else notice that the past gets a bit over-romanticized?
As if all things were right with the world because a Hershey bar cost
only a nickel and the Saturday Matinee was a quarter (That was for a
double feature, news reels, cartoon and serial, all for 25 cents).
Afterall, right now, as compared to those times, we have greater life
expectencies and more advanced educations. In terms of foreign
relations, the Cold War is over and America has never been so secure.
Civil Rights are actually protected somewhat for all races, religions
and ethnicities. For the most part, a homosexual can come out of the
closet in safety and acceptance(At least when compared to 50 years
ago... Nowadays a homosexual can find employment, can even be elected to
Congress). Our schools are integrated. Technology has given us the
information superhighway, a tool for the sharing and advance of
knowledge. We can spend our leisure time with a wider variety of
activities then were ever available before. Etc, etc.
It's a pretty damn good time to be alive.
-Havoc
John Ro
> I wonder what the next generation will say about us, or what we will say
> about our time? *Old man voice* When I was a kid we never had those "brain
> mouses" we had to use our OWN arms to move the cursor! ...and we never had
> those new fandangled "sinaptic interfaces" we actually had to look at a
> "monitor" and respond using a "keyboard"! You kids have it too
> easy...*grumble grumble* :)
Heh, heh, a take off on the Grumpy Old Man sketch by Dana Carvey in SNL
(Satuday Night Live.) And yes, I misspelled Saturday. Ha ha ha.
One verse
Brian F.
havoc <ha...@ucs.net> wrote in message news:39479839...@ucs.net...
Excellent post. You made all the points I was thinking but hadn't said yet.
Well spoken.
Brian
Helen & Bob
Steve Christianson wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> havoc wrote:
> >
> > Masked Man wrote:
> >
> > > I was talking to my Dad about current events the other
> > > night. I asked him what he thought about the shootings at
> > > schools, our immoral President, the computer age and just
> > > things in general.
> > >
> > > He replied, "Gee, let me think a minute..
> >
> > <snipping "When I was a kid" speech>
> >
> > Anyone else notice that the past gets a bit over-romanticized?
> > As if all things were right with the world because a Hershey bar cost
> > only a nickel and the Saturday Matinee was a quarter (That was for a
> > double feature, news reels, cartoon and serial, all for 25 cents).
> >
> > Afterall, right now, as compared to those times, we have greater life
> > expectencies and more advanced educations.
>
> Yep. "When I was a kid", life expectancies were in the 60s and
> octagenarians were practically unheard of. I remember when Willard Scott
> started giving birthday wishes to people who turned 100 since it was so
> unheard of: recently he had to give that up because so many people are
> turning 100 now.
>
> > In terms of foreign
> > relations, the Cold War is over and America has never been so secure.
>
> Damn right. The Cold War hung over all of our heads when I was growing
> up.
>
> > Civil Rights are actually protected somewhat for all races, religions
> > and ethnicities.
>
> Women and minorities have unprecedented economic opportunities now,
> thanks to civil rights progress. Personally, I've always felt that the
> reason there was so much "family" back in the "good old days" was simply
> because women couldn't find better work than being a wife and
> bottle-washer.
>
> > For the most part, a homosexual can come out of the
> > closet in safety and acceptance(At least when compared to 50 years
> > ago... Nowadays a homosexual can find employment, can even be elected to
> > Congress). Our schools are integrated. Technology has given us the
> > information superhighway, a tool for the sharing and advance of
> > knowledge. We can spend our leisure time with a wider variety of
> > activities then were ever available before. Etc, etc.
> >
> > It's a pretty damn good time to be alive.
>
> I couldn't agree more. No major wars, budget surplus, booming economy,
> low inflation...I'm happy! :-)
Now, consider what has gone on in the world since 1939 till now. HOW was all
this marvelous society won. How did we get from there to here? I will tell
you this much. It was not easy. It didn't happen by wishing it so. A
tremendous amount of things that are reviled today went into winning this.
Bob
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> > I was talking to my Dad about current events the other
> > night. I asked him what he thought about the shootings at
> > schools, our immoral President, the computer age and just
> > things in general.
> >
> > He replied, "Gee, let me think a minute..
>
> <snipping "When I was a kid" speech>
>
> Anyone else notice that the past gets a bit over-romanticized?
> As if all things were right with the world because a Hershey bar cost
> only a nickel and the Saturday Matinee was a quarter (That was for a
> double feature, news reels, cartoon and serial, all for 25 cents).
>
> Afterall, right now, as compared to those times, we have greater life
> relations, the Cold War is over and America has never been so secure.
> closet in safety and acceptance(At least when compared to 50 years
> ago... Nowadays a homosexual can find employment, can even be elected to
> Congress). Our schools are integrated. Technology has given us the
> information superhighway, a tool for the sharing and advance of
> knowledge. We can spend our leisure time with a wider variety of
> activities then were ever available before. Etc, etc.
>
> It's a pretty damn good time to be alive.
>
<activate cynic mode>
Except that the planet's atmosphere is almost unbreathable, everything we
eat or drink is polluted in one way or another, dangerous radiation is
reaching the surface in ever-increasing amounts, and there's more sadism,
hurtfulness and violence among the human race than ever before... not
forgetting petty, buraucratic governments, all-powerful Borg-like software
companies that charge you an arm and a leg for their products, nuclear
weapons that could wipe out every living thing on Earth, and Brannon Braga!
</deactive cynic mode>
--
Windows reinstalls suck!
ICQ: 37464244
Remove NOSPAM from my e-mail address to reply
Helen & Bob
"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
>
> > It's a pretty damn good time to be alive.
> >
>
> <activate cynic mode>
>
> Except that the planet's atmosphere is almost unbreathable,
Horsepucky, its much, much better now than in the '50's. I speak from the
experience of having lived in Los Angeles in the '50's, and not being able to
see three blocks, while my eyes and nose watered, from the smog. That doesn't
happen today, according to my friends who still live there.
> everything we
> eat or drink is polluted in one way or another,
Again, I think its less now than it was. Do you have any facts/statistics to
back up what you say? I remember rivers burning, yes burning, from the
pollution in them. Haven't heard much about that lately.
> dangerous radiation is
> reaching the surface in ever-increasing amounts,
That may be, from Chernoble. Otherwise, again, your support for this
statement?
and there's more sadism,
Really? More than in the conzentration lagers and the Gulags? hurtfulness and
violence among the human race than ever before... not
Really? With the crime rate of the worlds most crime ridden nation (the USA)
falling? With no major wars going on? (Yes, there will always be some minor
wars going on, usually one warlord against another)
forgetting petty, bureaucratic governments,
No more petty or bureaucratic than in the past, but no less, either
all-powerful Borg-like software
That can be humbled by a students virus from the Philippines
> companies that charge you an arm and a leg for their products,
Why is that different?? By the way, ever heard of a little custom called "The
Company Store"? (read economic slavery). Its illegal now.
> nuclear
> weapons that could wipe out every living thing on Earth,
yes, isn't it amazing that we've had these weapons now since '45, had still
haven't killed ourselves. I've lived with that threat for 55 years now.
> and Brannon Braga!
Now, you've finally hit something that is truly terrible about today's world.
Can't argue about that one.
Bob
Merrick Baldelli
Klown) wrote:
>If your father is 53, having an immoral President is certainly not a *new*
>thing.
Most definitely NOT.
havoc
> ,Now, consider what has gone on in the world since 1939 till now. HOW
> was all
> this marvelous society won. How did we get from there to here? I
> will tell
> you this much. It was not easy. It didn't happen by wishing it so.
> A
> tremendous amount of things that are reviled today went into winning
> this.
> Bob
Absolutely agreed...
Vigilance is the price for freedom.
I am never one to say history should be forgotten. Or that our
ancestors should not receive well-deserved respect.
But we must be realistic as to how this marvelous society was won. We
must always re-examine to determine which aspects are marvelous and
which can be improved. Which aspects need to be changed with the
times. We didn't win the Cold War *because* homosexuals used to stay in
the closet. We didn't invent the internet thanks to the fact that women
used to be exclusively homemakers.
Hard Work, Respect for the Individual, the liberal notion of freedom
for, and empowerment of the individual...
These basic prinicples help to comprise the American ethic, which has
proven to be successful.
-Havoc
Now finished with his patriotic pat on the back.
havoc
> >
> > It's a pretty damn good time to be alive.
> >
>
> <activate cynic mode>
>
Sheesh... you make a pretty good cynic....
> Except that the planet's atmosphere is almost unbreathable, everything
> we
> eat or drink is polluted in one way or another, dangerous radiation is
>
> reaching the surface in ever-increasing amounts,
And we're actually taking active steps to clean the enivormnent. Waters
that were uninhabitable 30-40 years ago are once again sparkling clean
in some places. I live right on the Hudson River, closed to swimmers
and fishers for the last 55 years or so... but it's getting cleaner
every day. (Doesn't even smell anymore).
> and there's more sadism,
> hurtfulness and violence among the human race than ever before...
Strong statement. Yup, those things still exist, and is huge amounts in
some parts of the world. But America and Europe doesn't currently see
anything even approaching the evils of Nazism and Stalinism.
> not
> forgetting petty, buraucratic governments,
Name me a time in history when governments were less petty? The world
is more democratic than ever before, certainly we're moving in the right
direction.
> all-powerful Borg-like software
> companies that charge you an arm and a leg for their products,
But 50 years ago, we didn't even have those products.
> nuclear
> weapons that could wipe out every living thing on Earth,
And with the end of the cold war, we feel safer than 30 years ago.
> and Brannon Braga!
>
You win.
-Havoc
King of Cyberia
MM :I was talking to my Dad about current events the other
MM :night. I asked him what he thought about the shootings at
MM :schools, our immoral President, the computer age and just
MM :things in general.
He should teach 20th Century history... <g>
(snipped)
MM :the difference between the sexes was discovered, but we were
MM :surely before the sex change, 'Billy' having two mommy's,
MM :and pornography in a family home and at newsstands. And we
MM :were the last generation that was so dumb as to think you
MM :needed a husband to have a baby. No wonder people today call
MM :us old and confused, and there is such a generation gap.
Wonderful story, give your Dad a *BOl'BH* this Father's Day.
One more... in the 50's a family could survive on the father's income
ONLY, and he didn't need a stupid college education. Have our standards
of living gone up, or is it just more complicated to get something
actually done around here?
MM :And I'm only 53!!
You, or him?
--
"Put him in the Tower of London! Make him... part of the tour."
(Patrick Stewart)
WuName: the Silent Observer
(Not related to the ppl at www.geocities.com/ussindependencea/index.html)
Home of Section 31 and Area 001 Command: home.coqui.net/hannbio/index1.htm
Helen & Bob
"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
> "Helen & Bob" <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
> >
> > > dangerous radiation is
> > > reaching the surface in ever-increasing amounts,
> >
> > That may be, from Chernoble. Otherwise, again, your support for this
> > statement?
> >
>
> I'm talking about, from our own sun. The star that allows us to live, is
> killing us, thanks to the fact that we've dissipated half the protective
> shield around our planet. Global warming gets worse each year. The effects
> are becoming very plain to see.
We have not dissipated the "protective shield" around our planet. And if we
had, it would be gone forever, and no use in discussing it. IF you are talking
about the ozone hole over Antarctica, that expands and retracts on a regular
basis. You must realize that there are "environmentalists" with their own
agendas, and will tell "fibs", "white lies" and the like to advance their
causes.
> and there's more sadism,
> > Really? More than in the conzentration lagers and the Gulags? hurtfulness
> and
> > violence among the human race than ever before... not
> > Really? With the crime rate of the worlds most crime ridden nation (the
> USA)
> > falling? With no major wars going on? (Yes, there will always be some
> minor
> > wars going on, usually one warlord against another)
>
> And far more general hurtfulness - not just war and death, but people just
> generally behaving like crap to each other. Not necessarily violently or
> illegally, but let's face it, people just don't tend to act very nicely
> towards one another these days.
Anything you are talking about re: sadism, etc., is a matter of communications.
We just hear about it more today. (remember Jack the Ripper?) . If you want a
return to a polite society, go back to an armed society. VERY polite. If you
read history, you will find that Europe and England were very polite when the
average gentleman on the street had a sword on him.
>
>
> > forgetting petty, bureaucratic governments,
> >
> > No more petty or bureaucratic than in the past, but no less, either
> >
>
> MUCH more bureaucratic, if you live in Britain or Europe.
If so, its because you've gone way, way too far left. IF you are going to have
a socialistic society, you need an incredible bureaucracy to run it. There is
no escaping in. The more the government runs things, the larger the
government. We have the same problem in the US, not as large as in Europe, but
growing.
> > all-powerful Borg-like software
> > That can be humbled by a students virus from the Philippines
> >
> > > companies that charge you an arm and a leg for their products,
> >
> > Why is that different??
>
> Because no-one ever charged you £700 for a couple of CDs with a few office
> programs on, before this year.
Want to lower the price?? Don't buy them. Eventually, they will come down. At
least, in a competitive economy.
>
>
> > By the way, ever heard of a little custom called "The
> > Company Store"? (read economic slavery). Its illegal now.
> >
>
> Actually, I haven't. Elaborate.
Its how my mothers family were "enslaved" circa 1919. My grandfather was a coal
miner. He wasn't paid in currency, he was paid in "company script", that was
good only at the Company operated store (This was in a very small town in
Oklahoma. NO competing store was allowed.) They lived in a house supplied by
the company, which they rented. There was nothing else available.
They got all their supplies from the Company Store. Strangely enough, there was
always more week than there was money. When my Grandfather was killed in a
cave-in, my three uncles, aged 15, 14, and 12 all had to quit school, and go to
work in the mine. My Grandmother had to take in laundry. Now, mind you, there
was no running water. My mother, aged 6, had to carry water from the creek up
to the house, then take care of my Aunt Belva, who was 3. My Grandmother was
pregnant with my 3d aunt at the time. WHY did they have to do this? In order
to get enough money to pay off the company store, so that they would be allowed
to leave.
You think things are tough NOW?????
> > > nuclear
> > > weapons that could wipe out every living thing on Earth,
> >
> > yes, isn't it amazing that we've had these weapons now since '45, had
> still
> > haven't killed ourselves. I've lived with that threat for 55 years now.
> >
>
> But what are governments doing about destroying them? Nothing. In fact, last
> year our government spent £1.2 billion on weapons. Guess how much went on
> health and education? About £300 million.
Of course, there is the contention that without the weapons and defense, there
would be no children to teach. Considering the history of the 20th century to
date (6.5 months to go), there is validity in that.
>
>
> > > and Brannon Braga!
> >
> > Now, you've finally hit something that is truly terrible about today's
> world.
> > Can't argue about that one.
>
> <g>
I left in the comment about Braga without expansion :-)
Bob
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> And we're actually taking active steps to clean the enivormnent. Waters
> that were uninhabitable 30-40 years ago are once again sparkling clean
> in some places. I live right on the Hudson River, closed to swimmers
> and fishers for the last 55 years or so... but it's getting cleaner
> every day. (Doesn't even smell anymore).
>
Rivers may be cleaner. But the sea is full of toxic waste and fish stocks
are at their lowest.
> > and there's more sadism,
> > hurtfulness and violence among the human race than ever before...
>
> Strong statement. Yup, those things still exist, and is huge amounts in
> some parts of the world. But America and Europe doesn't currently see
> anything even approaching the evils of Nazism and Stalinism.
>
True. Nowadays, instead, it's individuals doing horrible things to each
other, instead of dictators doing horrible things to lots of people. A
recent news story was about a man who raped and murdered a 9-year-old girl,
for example. Just truly sick.
> > not
> > forgetting petty, buraucratic governments,
>
> Name me a time in history when governments were less petty? The world
> is more democratic than ever before, certainly we're moving in the right
> direction.
>
You should try being unemployed in the UK! It's an endless round of
bureaucratic bullshit.
>
> > and Brannon Braga!
>
> You win.
>
I knew no-one could disagree with that one. <g>
--
Walk with the prophets.
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> "EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
>
> > dangerous radiation is
> > reaching the surface in ever-increasing amounts,
>
> That may be, from Chernoble. Otherwise, again, your support for this
> statement?
>
I'm talking about, from our own sun. The star that allows us to live, is
killing us, thanks to the fact that we've dissipated half the protective
shield around our planet. Global warming gets worse each year. The effects
are becoming very plain to see.
> and there's more sadism,
> Really? More than in the conzentration lagers and the Gulags? hurtfulness
and
> violence among the human race than ever before... not
> Really? With the crime rate of the worlds most crime ridden nation (the
USA)
> falling? With no major wars going on? (Yes, there will always be some
minor
> wars going on, usually one warlord against another)
And far more general hurtfulness - not just war and death, but people just
generally behaving like crap to each other. Not necessarily violently or
illegally, but let's face it, people just don't tend to act very nicely
towards one another these days.
> forgetting petty, bureaucratic governments,
>
> No more petty or bureaucratic than in the past, but no less, either
>
MUCH more bureaucratic, if you live in Britain or Europe.
> all-powerful Borg-like software
> That can be humbled by a students virus from the Philippines
>
> > companies that charge you an arm and a leg for their products,
>
> Why is that different??
Because no-one ever charged you £700 for a couple of CDs with a few office
programs on, before this year.
> By the way, ever heard of a little custom called "The
> Company Store"? (read economic slavery). Its illegal now.
>
Actually, I haven't. Elaborate.
> > nuclear
> > weapons that could wipe out every living thing on Earth,
>
> yes, isn't it amazing that we've had these weapons now since '45, had
still
> haven't killed ourselves. I've lived with that threat for 55 years now.
>
But what are governments doing about destroying them? Nothing. In fact, last
year our government spent £1.2 billion on weapons. Guess how much went on
health and education? About £300 million.
> > and Brannon Braga!
>
> Now, you've finally hit something that is truly terrible about today's
world.
> Can't argue about that one.
Masked Man
<gar...@reincarnate.com.GRETHOR> wrote:
|MM :And I'm only 53!!
|
|You, or him?
Masked Man----->Me. I can relate to every word in this post, but
please know that I didnt actually have this conversation. It was an
email that came to me from a friend that I was touched by enough to
share with you. Perhaps I should have included a disclaimer at the
beginning....what prompted me to share was the excellent summary of
social and technological changes that have happened in my very short
lifetime....
havoc
Helen & Bob wrote in message <39483234...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
>If so, its because you've gone way, way too far left. IF you are going to
have
>a socialistic society, you need an incredible bureaucracy to run it. There
is
>no escaping in. The more the government runs things, the larger the
>government. We have the same problem in the US, not as large as in Europe,
but
>growing.
>
You might want to look up Theodore Lowi's theories on beauracracy.. He has
an interesting point of view, and actually calls it the Fourth Branch of the
American government. Furthermore, it actually adds to the system of checks
and balances by providing a stabilizing force in government, that doesn't
change at the whim of each and every election. I'm not suggesting
beauracracy is good, but it actually does serve a positive purpose. It
provides lots of little checks and balances within the government. Yes, too
much of it is extremely tedious. And yes, unnecessary beauracracy should be
eliminated.
-Havoc
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> "EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
> >
> > I'm talking about, from our own sun. The star that allows us to live, is
> > killing us, thanks to the fact that we've dissipated half the protective
> > shield around our planet. Global warming gets worse each year. The
effects
> > are becoming very plain to see.
>
> We have not dissipated the "protective shield" around our planet. And if
we
> had, it would be gone forever, and no use in discussing it. IF you are
talking
> about the ozone hole over Antarctica,
And what about the one over the Arctic? Much closer to home, at least from
where I'm standing.
> that expands and retracts on a regular
> basis. You must realize that there are "environmentalists" with their own
> agendas, and will tell "fibs", "white lies" and the like to advance their
> causes.
>
>
> Anything you are talking about re: sadism, etc., is a matter of
communications.
> We just hear about it more today. (remember Jack the Ripper?) . If you
want a
> return to a polite society, go back to an armed society. VERY polite. If
you
> read history, you will find that Europe and England were very polite when
the
> average gentleman on the street had a sword on him.
>
It's not just sadism and so forth I mean, though - there are a lot of things
a person can do to be hurtful to another, that don't involve violence.
> >
> > MUCH more bureaucratic, if you live in Britain or Europe.
>
> If so, its because you've gone way, way too far left. IF you are going to
have
> a socialistic society, you need an incredible bureaucracy to run it.
It's not socialist, though, despite what our government say. It's starting
to lean towards the totalitarian...
> >
> > Because no-one ever charged you £700 for a couple of CDs with a few
office
> > programs on, before this year.
>
> Want to lower the price?? Don't buy them. Eventually, they will come
down. At
> least, in a competitive economy.
>
I don't buy them. I can't *afford* them! £700 is two months' salary for me!
(It was six month's income while I was unemployed...)
Well, at least employee exploitation isn't as bad as it used to be. CUSTOMER
exploitation, on the other hand...
> >
> > But what are governments doing about destroying them? Nothing. In fact,
last
> > year our government spent £1.2 billion on weapons. Guess how much went
on
> > health and education? About £300 million.
>
> Of course, there is the contention that without the weapons and defense,
there
> would be no children to teach. Considering the history of the 20th
century to
> date (6.5 months to go), there is validity in that.
>
Good Gods, surely we have enough stockpiled by now! The amount of weaponry
in the world's combined arsenals is enough to wipe out every living thing on
this planet ten to fifteen times over! Shouldn't governments be spending
taxpayers' money on improving quality of life for their citizens, rather
than preparing fight World War 3? (Which won't come until 2053 anyway!)
>
> I left in the comment about Braga without expansion :-)
>
Well, no-one can really argue that point ;-)
EvilBill[AGQx]
> an interesting point of view, and actually calls it the Fourth Branch of
the
> American government. Furthermore, it actually adds to the system of
checks
> and balances by providing a stabilizing force in government, that doesn't
> change at the whim of each and every election. I'm not suggesting
> beauracracy is good, but it actually does serve a positive purpose. It
> provides lots of little checks and balances within the government. Yes,
too
> much of it is extremely tedious. And yes, unnecessary beauracracy should
be
> eliminated.
>
Try being unemployed in the UK. Every few months, or if your circumstances
change in even the slightest way, you get another mountain of paperwork to
fill out - most of it details the employment service has already got five
times over!
Helen & Bob
"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
OF COURSE IT IS. Its how a socialist bureaucracy guarantees its own continued
employment. It is NOT in their best interest in helping you get a job. It IS
in their interest to keep you on the dole, so that THEY continue to get a
paycheck that is more than the dole.
Does that make sense, now???
Bob
Helen & Bob
"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
Snip a ton of evilbills incredible prose and all of Bobs babbling.
>
> Good Gods, surely we have enough stockpiled by now! The amount of weaponry
> in the world's combined arsenals is enough to wipe out every living thing on
> this planet ten to fifteen times over! Shouldn't governments be spending
> taxpayers' money on improving quality of life for their citizens, rather
> than preparing fight World War 3? (Which won't come until 2053 anyway!)
>
1. Well, if it wont come until 2053, I wont be here.
2. Actually, its not the amount of weapons, its the type. One must have a
range of weaponry for the proper response. Without going into a long discussion
on the subject, (which has been discussed and cussed and discussed to death in
many places), i will just put in one of my favorite quotes, the source of which
I forgot long, long ago.
You cannot control a kindergarten with a sub-machine gun.
There is more to that sentence than meets the eye.
Bob
Oh, by the way, in relation to other posts, on a different subject, it was 108 f
degrees at my house yesterday. Today it should cool down to 106. NOW do you
understand why I make my scarves?
Bob
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
><activate cynic mode>
>
>Except that the planet's atmosphere is almost unbreathable, everything we
>eat or drink is polluted in one way or another, dangerous radiation is
>reaching the surface in ever-increasing amounts, and there's more sadism,
>hurtfulness and violence among the human race than ever before... not
>forgetting petty, buraucratic governments, all-powerful Borg-like software
>companies that charge you an arm and a leg for their products, nuclear
>weapons that could wipe out every living thing on Earth, and Brannon Braga!
>
></deactive cynic mode>
Actually, as I've always said, I think unspeakable horror has
always been a part of humanity for as long as we can remember. The
only two differences between today and 40 years ago is: 1. News
travels far more instantaneously than it did, making what's happening
in Los Angeles California feel as though it's around the corner from
Atlanta, GA and 2. people think that television and the internet are
baby-sitting tools.
And watching Bob go at it (as I remember a lot of the stories
my grandmother used to tell me about the Depression), you don't know
how easy economically we have it today. I can tell you from my
experience in Woonsocket History -- a city like Woonsocket which at
the turn of the 20th century was considered a bright spot in the world
for textile prior to it moving south soon thereafter -- also used to
pay their employees with "Company Script" And many of the homes for
the employees that they rented from the textile factories still stand
today as a reminder of that time long since gone.
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>True. Nowadays, instead, it's individuals doing horrible things to each
>other, instead of dictators doing horrible things to lots of people. A
>recent news story was about a man who raped and murdered a 9-year-old girl,
>for example. Just truly sick.
Ummm, this generally supports the point that news is becoming
way too efficient in desiminating the horror out to everyone.
I can tell you about the horrors of the story of the
Vietnamese couple that were murdered in their sleep with their throats
cut 30 years ago. No apparent cause or motive for this, other than
what would be termed nowadays as a hate crime.
Go back 40 years ago, and I can tell you about the stories
surrounding the hanging tree in Cumming, GA that involved blacks being
hung there (right in front of city hall) for attempting to speak out
against segregation.
Tell me, what's so different about this horror and the horror
of today?
havoc
Helen & Bob wrote in message <39492EFC...@ix.netcom.com>...
Getting a little paranoid now Bob?
Look at it from the other side, would it be better if there was no
unemployment insurance, and as a result poor EB either starves, or is forced
to take any menial job available, even for just a few crumbs of bread, to
the point where an employer can make him a slave. (I believe you mentioned
the company store earlier).
True.. that to a certain extent, beauracracy gets trapped in guaranteeing
their own existence, but it's also a bit much to think that no beuaracracy
can ever have a positive goal.
-Havoc
Helen & Bob
havoc wrote:
> Getting a little paranoid now Bob?
Nope, just a bit too much experience with bureaucrats. The vast majority of
government employees are honest, hardworking folks. I do live in a State
Capitol City, and have lots of friends and neighbors working for the Govt. in
one form or another. I also spent 15 years as a Cost/price analyst in
Aerospace. (govt. purchasing)
There DOES exist a type of govt. employee who is there just for the paycheck,
and generally, because of the civil service regulations, does nothing to earn
it. Usually, you can find them shunted off into some dead end where they do no
harm, and collect a paycheck. There is the occasional one who loves the feeling
of power it gives them to cause problems for the citizen. This person does
exist. He's not too common, but far more common than he should be. I find they
generally gravitate to those agencies that are there to "help" the people.
Social Services have a lot of them. Please, do not think that I am tarring all
social services workers with the same brush, because that is not the case. But
YOU know that they are there.
> Look at it from the other side, would it be better if there was no
> unemployment insurance, and as a result poor EB either starves, or is forced
> to take any menial job available, even for just a few crumbs of bread, to
> the point where an employer can make him a slave. (I believe you mentioned
> the company store earlier).
>
> True.. that to a certain extent, beauracracy gets trapped in guaranteeing
> their own existence, but it's also a bit much to think that no beuaracracy
> can ever have a positive goal.
>
> -Havoc
I never said that. I will say that the more socialistic a government gets, the
more self serving these agencies get. Prime example - look at the USSR.
Bob
Bozo the Evil Klown
>we
>> had, it would be gone forever, and no use in discussing it.
If you're talking about the Ozone Layer, as long as plants keep producing
oxygen the ozone can replenish itself. If you're patient.
Anyone remember the old Far Side cartoon showing a layer of clowns surrounding
Earth: "The Bozone Layer: Protecting the rest of the Solar System from the
Earth's harmful effects."
---
the politicians who find ways to spend billions, yet never seem to solve any
problems, but rather make several worse, therefore arguing that there is now
an even worse problem, and you need me there to keep the money flowing to
fix this "newer" problem that has developed.
If anyone doubts this, all I can say is look at the career of Ted Kennedy.
"Helen & Bob" <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39499BD8...@ix.netcom.com...
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
LOL :)
> >
> > Good Gods, surely we have enough stockpiled by now! The amount of
weaponry
> > in the world's combined arsenals is enough to wipe out every living
thing on
> > this planet ten to fifteen times over! Shouldn't governments be spending
> > taxpayers' money on improving quality of life for their citizens, rather
> > than preparing fight World War 3? (Which won't come until 2053 anyway!)
>
> 1. Well, if it wont come until 2053, I wont be here.
*I* may well be though! And I'd prefer a better death than having a nuclear
bomb dropped on my home town!
> 2. Actually, its not the amount of weapons, its the type. One must have
a
> range of weaponry for the proper response.
I'm sure everyone has enough of everything by now!
> Without going into a long discussion
> on the subject, (which has been discussed and cussed and discussed to
death in
> many places), i will just put in one of my favorite quotes, the source of
which
> I forgot long, long ago.
>
> You cannot control a kindergarten with a sub-machine gun.
>
Well, you can if it's the Borg kids. <g>
> There is more to that sentence than meets the eye.
>
> Oh, by the way, in relation to other posts, on a different subject, it was
108 f
> degrees at my house yesterday. Today it should cool down to 106. NOW do
you
> understand why I make my scarves?
I'd be dead before it got that high. Literally.
EvilBill[AGQx]
They weren't little kids?
It just seems like atrocities are becoming more and more commonplace. Before
Nazi Germany, the only comparable thing I can think of prior to that, was
the Spanish Inquisition. But that sort of thing seems to be happening ever
more frequently - Bosnia and Kosovo, anyone?
EvilBill[AGQx]
circumstances
> > change in even the slightest way, you get another mountain of paperwork
to
> > fill out - most of it details the employment service has already got
five
> > times over!
>
> OF COURSE IT IS. Its how a socialist bureaucracy guarantees its own
continued
> employment. It is NOT in their best interest in helping you get a job.
It's not in their best interest to let you starve to death, either - but
they still don't pay you enough when you're unemployed to prevent that from
happening.
I know - it would've happened to me within a few months, had I not gotten a
job.
> It IS
> in their interest to keep you on the dole, so that THEY continue to get a
> paycheck that is more than the dole.
> Does that make sense, now???
Yeah - but it still doesn't make it any less frustrating!
Helen & Bob
"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
> "Helen & Bob" <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
> > >
> > > Try being unemployed in the UK. Every few months, or if your
> circumstances
> > > change in even the slightest way, you get another mountain of paperwork
> to
> > > fill out - most of it details the employment service has already got
> five
> > > times over!
> >
> > OF COURSE IT IS. Its how a socialist bureaucracy guarantees its own
> continued
> > employment. It is NOT in their best interest in helping you get a job.
>
> It's not in their best interest to let you starve to death, either - but
> they still don't pay you enough when you're unemployed to prevent that from
> happening.
> I know - it would've happened to me within a few months, had I not gotten a
> job.
>
> > It IS
> > in their interest to keep you on the dole, so that THEY continue to get a
> > paycheck that is more than the dole.
> > Does that make sense, now???
>
> Yeah - but it still doesn't make it any less frustrating!
>
>
Yes, I know, I have been there in my past. Try it when you have a wife and two
small children to feed, not just yourself.
The frustration becomes overwhelming. If you REALLY want frustration, try it
when you are in your fifties, with a B.Sc. in accounting, 30 years experience,
have been a comptroller TWICE, and on your last job 15 years, and you don't
even get responses to résumé's. That's why I have my own small businesses.
You are not a free man until you are not dependent upon a boss's whim for your
income.
The toughest decision you will ever make about going into business for
yourself is:
WHAT business.
If you can make that decision, the rest is easier. Not easy, mind, just
easier.
Bob
Helen & Bob
--- wrote:
> Agreed, H&B. But what is more scary is the self-perpetuating existence of
> the politicians who find ways to spend billions, yet never seem to solve any
> problems, but rather make several worse, therefore arguing that there is now
> an even worse problem, and you need me there to keep the money flowing to
> fix this "newer" problem that has developed.
>
> If anyone doubts this, all I can say is look at the career of Ted Kennedy.
>
>
Statement is true regardless of party. Look at who we have running for
president right now. A draft dodger and a dolt. The question is, over the next
four years, which one is likely to do the least harm to the country? This year,
a very hard choice. I am tending to lean towards the dolt, who at least went to
'Nam, and did not hide in the safe hole his daddy made for him.
Bob
Helen & Bob
"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
>
> >
> > 1. Well, if it wont come until 2053, I wont be here.
>
> *I* may well be though! And I'd prefer a better death than having a nuclear
> bomb dropped on my home town!
Why? I understand the fear for humanity, but death at ground zero
is not a bad way to go. Never fear death, because it does not hurt. GETTING to
death can be very painful, but death itself is painless. I know. I did it
twice last July.
> > 2. Actually, its not the amount of weapons, its the type. One must have
> a
> > range of weaponry for the proper response.
>
> I'm sure everyone has enough of everything by now!
That is an invalid assumption unless you are an arms expert, and have complete
knowledge of weaponry available everywhere. I may tend to agree with the
sentiment, but I do NOT have the expertise to make that statement.
>
>
> > Without going into a long discussion
> > on the subject, (which has been discussed and cussed and discussed to
> death in
> > many places), i will just put in one of my favorite quotes, the source of
> which
> > I forgot long, long ago.
> >
> > You cannot control a kindergarten with a sub-machine gun.
> >
>
> Well, you can if it's the Borg kids. <g>
>
> > There is more to that sentence than meets the eye.
>
> >
> > Oh, by the way, in relation to other posts, on a different subject, it was
> 108 f
> > degrees at my house yesterday. Today it should cool down to 106. NOW do
> you
> > understand why I make my scarves?
>
> I'd be dead before it got that high. Literally.
Speaking of heat resistance, I just sent an order of my scarves to The British
Ectodermal Dysplasia Support Group. In conversation, the administrator said
they were having a heat wave there, it got up to 86 f. Now, I understand that's
quite warm for Britain.
For the merkans, it got so hot that Highway I 80 was closed about 45 miles west
of me. The road BUCKLED in the heat, and they had to close it while it was
repaired. For the Brits, I-80 is a highway that crosses the country. It starts
( I think) in New Jersey (where I have seen it) and ends in the San Francisco
Bay area.
Bob
TheFlinx
Helen & Bob wrote in message <394A2A48...@ix.netcom.com>...
Wait... Isn't Bush a draft dodger AND a dolt?
(well, to be accurate I guess you'd call him a National Guard dodger, there
is some pretty good proof that he only showed up for the National Guard
stuff he was interested in and blew off everything else.
Michele
why does it matter if they served or not. In 10 years you
are going to get people who did no war time. What makes a
person who fought a war better then a person who didnt. This
is what i never understood when clinton was runing. I
wouldn't vote for bush anywas. Sorry but I do believe in gun
control. Please if you are going to flame me for the last
sentence, don't. I can discuss things politely but when you
get to name calling, i cant talk to people like that. ( yes
i know you guys wont )
--
Michele
"take the cheese to sickbay" B'elanna
What is the phrase heard most often in Voyager's Mess Hall?
"Medical Emergency!!!"
What did the blonde Klingon say?
It was a good day to dye.
Helen & Bob
Michele wrote:
>
> why does it matter if they served or not. In 10 years you
> are going to get people who did no war time.
Naw, we'll be getting Gulf War vets. The point is not whether they were in war or
not. Its whether they think enough of the country to put their tails on the line
for it or not. Whether or not you go to the shooting is not the question. Its if
you made yourself available for your country, or did you find a hidey-hole.
Clinton did not care enough about his country to ever serve. Gore did. Bush used
his daddy to find a place where he would not go. For that matter, Newt Gingrich
also did not serve. Neither did that great patriot Rush Limbaugh. Rush says its
because he has a bad knee. He could have signed a waiver. Hell, we had a guy in
my basic training outfit with a club foot.
> What makes a
> person who fought a war better then a person who didnt. This
> is what i never understood when clinton was runing.
As I said above, its not the fighting that makes the difference. Its if they were
willing to stand up for their country.
> I
> wouldn't vote for bush anywas. Sorry but I do believe in gun
> control.
I have never been against gun control, but rather the level of it, and how much.
Our problem is not gun laws. MY GOD, we have over 20,000 gun laws on the books.
Too many people think you can solve a problem by passing a law. Pass a law, it
makes you feel better. What counts is ENFORCEMENT. California has some very
tough gun laws. We have a longer waiting period in effect than is proposed in
national law. Understand this, if you understand nothing else. Gun laws only
affect the law abiding. People who murder do not obey gun laws. There is not a
gun law that you can pass that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It
is simply impossible. Interestingly, statistics show that where the public are
allowed to carry weapons. the crime statistics, including murder, drop
surprisingly.
> Please if you are going to flame me for the last
> sentence, don't.
I have never flamed anybody for an honest post. I have flamed idiots like Dexter.
> I can discuss things politely but when you
> get to name calling, i cant talk to people like that. ( yes
> i know you guys wont )
(although the blond Klingon joke might prompt one. JOKE JOKE JOKE grin grin
grin ;-) ;-)
Bob
havoc
Forgetting about the institution of slavery which still existed in the
19th Century in the Americas?There have always been atrocities, you
can't find a stretch of history without them. But in general, there are
less than in past history, not more.
-Havoc
havoc
Yup, completely true. Though the most common of these employees are the
patronage type jobs... Pure political paybacks. For example, a lawyer
might get a job as the legal counsel to some commission.... He'll get a
salary of $20,000 a year (hypothetically), and all he does it attend a
meeting once a month. Most government employees are relatively hard
workers, but some are lazy. And as to the patronage jobs, they are
borderline crooks. It's all on the up and up... just disgraceful
budgetary alotments.
> > Look at it from the other side, would it be better if there was no
> > unemployment insurance, and as a result poor EB either starves, or
> is forced
> > to take any menial job available, even for just a few crumbs of
> bread, to
> > the point where an employer can make him a slave. (I believe you
> mentioned
> > the company store earlier).
> >
> > True.. that to a certain extent, beauracracy gets trapped in
> guaranteeing
> > their own existence, but it's also a bit much to think that no
> beuaracracy
> > can ever have a positive goal.
> >
> > -Havoc
>
> I never said that. I will say that the more socialistic a government
> gets, the
> more self serving these agencies get. Prime example - look at the
> USSR.
Again, very true. Though the USSR was a bit different.... with NO
private enterprise, there could be no standard for employment and a
level of hard work. People couldn't really be fired, since the
government would just re-hire the person in another job. In the U.S.
and other socialist countries (most countries are actually technically
socialist, the USSR was communist), government must compete with private
enterprise as an employer and in terms of beauracracy. So, when
government offers competitive salaries, it will get competitive
employees. And the same goes for the level of
beauracracy....Medicare/Medicaid is probably *less* beauracratic than
most HMO's. (HMO's spend far more per dollar on administration than
Medicare). The post office, regardless of all the jokes, operates
pretty efficiently. But then again, at the DMV, you still wait on line
for an hour.
-Havoc
havoc
> Agreed, H&B. But what is more scary is the self-perpetuating existence
> of
> the politicians who find ways to spend billions, yet never seem to
> solve any
> problems, but rather make several worse, therefore arguing that there
> is now
> an even worse problem, and you need me there to keep the money flowing
> to
> fix this "newer" problem that has developed.
>
Let me give you an example from local politics...
The Courthouse I work in is undergoing a major renovation and
expansion. We've been overcramped for years... The building was
originally built to accomodate 3 courtrooms, there is now a need for
about 10. (We've squeezed in 7, but some of the courtrooms are barely
big enough to hold 10 people). So State required the County to put up
the money for an expansion. For years, the County resisted. Finally,
under enough pressure, the County legislature approved, but they wanted
to slim down the $35 million dollar budget. So, just to create the
appearance of budget cuts, they cut out air conditioning and furniture
from the budget, with the full knowledge that these things would
eventually be needed. So, they manage to knock a couple million out of
the budget. Now, two years later, with the construction well underway,
the County Executive has gone back to the legislature to ask for the
money for a/c and furniture. The legislators are making a big fuss, and
want to know why this wasn't just included in the first place!
So, essentially, the legislators do nothing, except try to make it look
like they're doing something.
On a national level, I hate when I see Congress delegating more and more
power to the Executive branch. They don't want any actual work and
responsibility.. only the appearance!
-Havoc
> If anyone doubts this, all I can say is look at the career of Ted
> Kennedy.
>
> "Helen & Bob" <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:39499BD8...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > Look at it from the other side, would it be better if there was no
>
> > > unemployment insurance, and as a result poor EB either starves, or
> is
> forced
> > > to take any menial job available, even for just a few crumbs of
> bread,
> to
> > > the point where an employer can make him a slave. (I believe you
> mentioned
> > > the company store earlier).
> > >
> > > True.. that to a certain extent, beauracracy gets trapped in
> guaranteeing
> > > their own existence, but it's also a bit much to think that no
> beuaracracy
> > > can ever have a positive goal.
> > >
> > > -Havoc
> >
> > I never said that. I will say that the more socialistic a
> government
> gets, the
> > more self serving these agencies get. Prime example - look at the
> USSR.
> > Bob
> >
> >
havoc
> --- wrote:
>
> > Agreed, H&B. But what is more scary is the self-perpetuating
> existence of
> > the politicians who find ways to spend billions, yet never seem to
> solve any
> > problems, but rather make several worse, therefore arguing that
> there is now
> > an even worse problem, and you need me there to keep the money
> flowing to
> > fix this "newer" problem that has developed.
> >
> > If anyone doubts this, all I can say is look at the career of Ted
> Kennedy.
> >
> >
>
> Statement is true regardless of party. Look at who we have running
> for
> president right now. A draft dodger and a dolt. The question is,
> over the next
> four years, which one is likely to do the least harm to the country?
> This year,
> a very hard choice. I am tending to lean towards the dolt, who at
> least went to
> 'Nam, and did not hide in the safe hole his daddy made for him.
> Bob
Well.... Here is the problem, Bush didn't completely dodge... There
was nothing improper, but the consensus is that he couldn't have gotten
into the Guard if not for being a Bush. On the other hand, Gore went
knowing that he would be *relatively* safe. Partially, he was playing
for Daddy's cameras.
And on the other hand again, Bush is also an extreme dolt. Notice how
he constantly blinks while talking? And if you've heard him speak, he
just isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. And on the other hand (yet
again), at least he knows that he didn't invent the internet.
-Havoc
Who Would Gladly Take Clinton (Or preferably McCain) over any of these
guys.
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> Look at it from the other side, would it be better if there was no
> unemployment insurance, and as a result poor EB either starves, or is
forced
> to take any menial job available, even for just a few crumbs of bread, to
> the point where an employer can make him a slave. (I believe you
mentioned
> the company store earlier).
>
They force that choice on you anyway. You don't get enough on the dole to
survive on.
EvilBill[AGQx]
<cynic mode>
Yes, these days people are more interested in killing each other over drugs,
and screwing around on each other, than mass murder...
</cynic mode>
EvilBill[AGQx]
> >
> > *I* may well be though! And I'd prefer a better death than having a
nuclear
> > bomb dropped on my home town!
>
> Why? I understand the fear for humanity, but death at ground zero
> is not a bad way to go. Never fear death, because it does not hurt.
GETTING to
> death can be very painful, but death itself is painless. I know. I did
it
> twice last July.
>
It's nothing to do with pain. It's not a GOOD way to die. To go out without
seeing the face of your enemy...
> >
> > I'm sure everyone has enough of everything by now!
>
> That is an invalid assumption unless you are an arms expert, and have
complete
> knowledge of weaponry available everywhere. I may tend to agree with the
> sentiment, but I do NOT have the expertise to make that statement.
>
Well, most countries are likely to have an arms stockpile, nuclear or
otherwise.
> >
> > I'd be dead before it got that high. Literally.
>
> Speaking of heat resistance, I just sent an order of my scarves to The
British
> Ectodermal Dysplasia Support Group. In conversation, the administrator
said
> they were having a heat wave there, it got up to 86 f. Now, I understand
that's
> quite warm for Britain.
>
VERY warm. Luckily, it's not that bad where I am, yet. If it gets that bad,
I'll be laid up.
EvilBill[AGQx]
> >
> > why does it matter if they served or not. In 10 years you
> > are going to get people who did no war time.
>
> Naw, we'll be getting Gulf War vets. The point is not whether they were
in war or
> not. Its whether they think enough of the country to put their tails on
the line
> for it or not. Whether or not you go to the shooting is not the question.
Its if
> you made yourself available for your country, or did you find a
hidey-hole.
> Clinton did not care enough about his country to ever serve.
Personally I wouldn't join a military service. I'm physically weak and
somewhat clumsy, so I'd just be a danger to everyone I served with ;-)
> Interestingly, statistics show that where the public are
> allowed to carry weapons. the crime statistics, including murder, drop
> surprisingly.
>
Yeah, because they all claim self-defence <g>
>
> I have never flamed anybody for an honest post. I have flamed idiots like
Dexter.
>
I have *ignored* idiots like Dexter ;-)
EvilBill[AGQx]
> >
> > Yeah - but it still doesn't make it any less frustrating!
>
> Yes, I know, I have been there in my past. Try it when you have a wife
and two
> small children to feed, not just yourself.
> The frustration becomes overwhelming. If you REALLY want frustration, try
it
> when you are in your fifties, with a B.Sc. in accounting, 30 years
experience,
> have been a comptroller TWICE, and on your last job 15 years, and you
don't
> even get responses to résumé's. That's why I have my own small
businesses.
> You are not a free man until you are not dependent upon a boss's whim for
your
> income.
> The toughest decision you will ever make about going into business
for
> yourself is:
>
> WHAT business.
>
> If you can make that decision, the rest is easier. Not easy, mind, just
> easier.
Although since I have £3500 worth of debts to pay off, starting my own
business just isn't viable at the moment.
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>They weren't little kids?
Some were. It was just generally the adults took the fall for
the children's actions.
>It just seems like atrocities are becoming more and more commonplace. Before
>Nazi Germany, the only comparable thing I can think of prior to that, was
>the Spanish Inquisition. But that sort of thing seems to be happening ever
>more frequently - Bosnia and Kosovo, anyone?
The Middle Ages were riddled with such atrocities, but the
difference, was the nobility believed they had the RIGHT to do such
things because it fell within their right to govern the lands. A lot
of what happened in the middle ages to modern times, the lower class
was illiterate.
If you have the right, does that necessarily make them wrong?
And who's going to report them if it was considered part of the
government? Only in revolutions when the revolutionaries win, does it
get properly (and oftentimes improperly) recorded. Remember, history
is invariably written by the victor, never the loser.
According to a book I'm currently re-reading (great birthday
present too), up until the end of the middle-ages, even the nobility
was quite illiterate, having only the priests and monks of europe
being the literate class. I seem to recall that illiteracy did indeed
extend a lot farther too for the lower class having met my
great-grandmother remember her not being able to read too well (and
not because of her sight either).
So, if the upper class thinks it's right to do, and the lower
class not literate enough to prove otherwise in history by writing or
illumination, who do you think's side is going to be written?
And if someone can remember, but wasn't there a mandate in the
United States sometimes within the last 150 years about MANDATORY
attendance in school and a literacy program? My grandmother, as I
came to find out, was born in the 1910's and learned to read much
later than I did. Along as some reason my remembering from the movie,
"The Color Purple" happening around the turn of the century, didn't
Celie learn to read rather later than our children do?
Wouldn't you say that perhaps it's through this literacy, and
the need to record history more clearly and concisely (thanks to it
now being the Information Age), only makes it appear that more
atrocities and horrors are occurring than prior to World War II?
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>And what about the one over the Arctic? Much closer to home, at least from
>where I'm standing.
My personal favorite is listening to people complain about how
much hotter it's been getting year after year. Does anyone else pay
attention to the "This Date in History" on some weather reports? As
I've seen there have been even hotter and more freakish weather
patterns 80+ years ago, than there are today.
Considering the fact that accurate and consistent weather
reporting and cataloging has only been in effect for the last 50 years
(conservative personal estimate), it's kind of hard to accept today's
data as being an indication that the ozone layers disappearing, not to
mention severe changes in climates indicating that we humans are
destroying the world's atmosphere.
While true we've done quite a lot to do damage thanks to our
progress into the Industrial and Information Age, I am also lead to
believe that weather patterns and changes in climate occur not in the
cycle of years, but as decades, centuries, millennia and even longer.
How're we to know what we're seeing today isn't something
experienced 1,000 years ago, but wasn't properly recorded because the
means to record it weren't available.
Helen & Bob
havoc wrote:
>
> Well.... Here is the problem, Bush didn't completely dodge... There
> was nothing improper, but the consensus is that he couldn't have gotten
> into the Guard if not for being a Bush. On the other hand, Gore went
> knowing that he would be *relatively* safe. Partially, he was playing
> for Daddy's cameras.
The operative term is "relatively". There was no safe place there, not with
charlies activities in the cities. Now Dubya was safe in Tayexas, and Gore
was in 'Nam. IMHO, Gore is the better American.
Of course, looking at the political spectrum right now, and DAMN I wish
McCain were there.
>
>
> And on the other hand again, Bush is also an extreme dolt. Notice how
> he constantly blinks while talking? And if you've heard him speak, he
> just isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. And on the other hand (yet
> again), at least he knows that he didn't invent the internet.
>
> -Havoc
> Who Would Gladly Take Clinton (Or preferably McCain) over any of these
> guys.
You know, this might sound silly to the younger folks, but when I look back
at the giants who have been in that office in my lifetime, I am truly
frightened for the future of my country. I wont be here, but my kids will
be, and maybe grandkids. I sure wish I was leaving them something better
than we have had over the last 20 years.
Bob
Helen & Bob
"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
>
> Personally I wouldn't join a military service. I'm physically weak and
> somewhat clumsy, so I'd just be a danger to everyone I served with ;-)
>
Unless you have some debilitating condition (MS or something on that order) or
some congenital deformity, (there was a guy in my basic training outfit that
had a club foot. He signed a waiver to get in ) you would be amazed how Basic
will thoughen you AND reduce the clumsiness. I don't know about the British
Army, but the US services pay pretty damn well now. At least, a hell of a lot
better than when I was in. I made $95 per month as an E-3 in 1960. I
understand its about 10 times that much now. Not to bad considering that you
also get room and board.
Bob
Michele
>
> Michele wrote:
>
> >
> > why does it matter if they served or not. In 10 years you
> > are going to get people who did no war time.
>
> Naw, we'll be getting Gulf War vets. The point is not whether they were in war or
> not. Its whether they think enough of the country to put their tails on the line
> for it or not. Whether or not you go to the shooting is not the question. Its if
> you made yourself available for your country, or did you find a hidey-hole.
> his daddy to find a place where he would not go. For that matter, Newt Gingrich
> also did not serve. Neither did that great patriot Rush Limbaugh. Rush says its
> because he has a bad knee. He could have signed a waiver. Hell, we had a guy in
> my basic training outfit with a club foot.
>
> > What makes a
> > person who fought a war better then a person who didnt. This
> > is what i never understood when clinton was runing.
>
> As I said above, its not the fighting that makes the difference. Its if they were
> willing to stand up for their country.
>
> > I
> > wouldn't vote for bush anywas. Sorry but I do believe in gun
> > control.
>
> I have never been against gun control, but rather the level of it, and how much.
> Our problem is not gun laws. MY GOD, we have over 20,000 gun laws on the books.
> Too many people think you can solve a problem by passing a law. Pass a law, it
> makes you feel better. What counts is ENFORCEMENT. California has some very
> tough gun laws. We have a longer waiting period in effect than is proposed in
> national law. Understand this, if you understand nothing else. Gun laws only
> affect the law abiding. People who murder do not obey gun laws. There is not a
> gun law that you can pass that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It
> allowed to carry weapons. the crime statistics, including murder, drop
> surprisingly.
>
But we also have so many guns that shouldnt be out there,
that used to be military type guns. Sorry if I am wrong, I
had herad that somewhere. I think we need to make it harder
for the psychos etc to have them. we also need it harder for
kids to get to them. How about this, we just get rid of the
ammo. :) I agree on the enforcement but people can get
through loop holes. That is where we get the problems, like
the columbine, or psycho ex's or pissed off people shooting
people. and the nra does not help with their talk all the
time. I can't look at charleston heston anymore without
cringing. ( the last press conference he did ) I do not want
a group like that in charge, ok yes i know they are in most
politicans pockets but still.
Michele
Helen & Bob
"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
>
> >
> > Forgetting about the institution of slavery which still existed in the
> > 19th Century in the Americas?
and in the 20th century in the middle east.
> There have always been atrocities, you
> > can't find a stretch of history without them. But in general, there are
> > less than in past history, not more.
I disagree. You find more in the past, they just aren't advertised as much.
You mentioned the Spanish Inquisition. Remember, that was not a short term
project, but lasted a very long time. Of course, we all forget Vlad the
Impaler. Have you ever seen the paintings of the Horrors of War, about the
atrocities committed on civilians in Spain by Napoleons troops? Rome had the
"games" for what, 500 years? How many NON gladiators were killed there?
It goes on and on and on.
Bob
>
> >
>
> <cynic mode>
> Yes, these days people are more interested in killing each other over drugs,
> and screwing around on each other, than mass murder...
> </cynic mode>
>
Helen & Bob
"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
>
> >
> > WHAT business.
> >
> > If you can make that decision, the rest is easier. Not easy, mind, just
> > easier.
>
> Although since I have £3500 worth of debts to pay off, starting my own
> business just isn't viable at the moment.
>
> --
> Walk with the prophets.
> ICQ: 37464244
> Remove NOSPAM from my e-mail address to reply
I owed over $100,000 when I started.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Michele wrote:
> snippity snip
I am feeling very mellow. My Darling Daughter dropped in unannounced and took my wife
and I out for dinner for Fathers Day. She did it tonight because we will be on the road
Sunday. I didn't even know she was back in the state. To all you fathers out there.
You should be so lucky as to have children as great as mine. Proud?? Hell yes.
>
>
> But we also have so many guns that shouldnt be out there,
> that used to be military type guns. Sorry if I am wrong, I
> had herad that somewhere.
There's the problem. "Used to be military type guns". Well, the '03 Springfield. .30
cal. bolt action, 5 shot magazine. Effective up to 1000 yards. BUT, it does not fit
the profile of the assault weapon that most people cry about. The Garand M-1. .30 cal,
semi-automatic, 8 round clip. Effective to about 700 yards. The M-14. Same as the
m-1, but a 20 round magazine. Semi-auto. Now, we are getting to the weapons that make
people nervous. The M-16. Currently, a "bursting" type weapon, fires 3 rounds
automatically, then stops. 7.62 mm (about .224 cal) Not a long range weapon, but
nasty. Designed for use against an "uncivilized" (ie, does not take care of its wounded
during a battle) enemy. The most popular terrorist weapon is the AK-47. Cheap, fully
automatic, 30 round magazine, millions of the made, and easy to smuggle. Most
definitely a weapon not for the civilian. The above will cover most of the types of
ex-and current military weapons (small arms variety -- there is no use for us to get
into mortars or artillery).
All of the weapons I have listed are available my the millions. All of them are "long
weapons", i.e., not pistols. Should they be in the hands of civilians? I have no
problem with the bolt action .03. I really have no problem with the M-1. Its to big to
hide, and most of them that are out there are wall hangers. M-14. Just not popular.
M-16? In the semi-auto mode (one round per trigger pull) its called the AR-15, one of
the finest varmint guns ever made. Definitely a sporter. AK-47? I have a friend that
has one that has been re-configured for a 5 round (legal) magazine. He says its for
hunting. I think its for home defense. Mind you, this man is an ordained minister.
You want to take his gun from him?
I think we need to make it harder
for the psychos etc to have them.
No, we need to make it impossible for the psychos to get them. The problem with psychos
is that they are just crazy, not stupid.
They can make guns at home.
we also need it harder for kids to get to them.
Did you read all the laws the kids at Columbine violated??
How about this, we just get rid of the ammo. :) I agree on the enforcement but people
can get through loop holes. That is where we get the problems, like the columbine, or
psycho ex's or pissed off people shooting
> people. and the nra does not help with their talk all the
> time. I can't look at charleston heston anymore without
> cringing. ( the last press conference he did ) I do not want
> a group like that in charge, ok yes i know they are in most
> politicans pockets but still.
>
> Michele
>
I do not blame the NRA. There hasn't been a group vilified so much by the press in
years. Their basic situation is this. Just because some idiot on the other side of the
continent goes crazy, why should I (hardworking, honest, upright citizen) be disarmed?
Why should I suffer for the acts of someone else? Their point is valid.
I have two guns. I have a pistol and a rifle. I have never been in contact with the
police except for an occasional traffic violation, and contributions to the widows and
orphans fund. Please, tell me exactly why I cannot have my guns? I have harmed no
one. My guns have harmed no one. I do not understand why people feel I should give
them up.
Bob
Michele
bob, no one is saying they should give it up. They are
saying whydont we make it harder for the criminals to get
them. the problem is that even the good ideas the nra shoot
them down. even the child safety locks. do you or the nra
need thoses machine guns, or those huge riffles that shoot
off 100 rounds in 30 seconds.
--
havoc
Helen & Bob wrote in message <394ACA9C...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
>"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> > Forgetting about the institution of slavery which still existed in the
>> > 19th Century in the Americas?
>
>and in the 20th century in the middle east.
>
>> There have always been atrocities, you
>> > can't find a stretch of history without them. But in general, there
are
>> > less than in past history, not more.
>
>I disagree. You find more in the past,
psst.... Bob.. that's what I said :) You're agreeing with me, disagreeing
with EB.
they just aren't advertised as much.
>You mentioned the Spanish Inquisition. Remember, that was not a short term
>project, but lasted a very long time. Of course, we all forget Vlad the
>Impaler. Have you ever seen the paintings of the Horrors of War, about the
>atrocities committed on civilians in Spain by Napoleons troops? Rome had
the
>"games" for what, 500 years? How many NON gladiators were killed there?
>
>It goes on and on and on.
>
>Bob
>
>>
>> >
>>
>> <cynic mode>
>> Yes, these days people are more interested in killing each other over
drugs,
>> and screwing around on each other, than mass murder...
>> </cynic mode>
>>
Michele
>
> > bob, no one is saying they should give it up. They are
> > saying whydont we make it harder for the criminals to get
> > them.
>
> definition, criminials will not respect any gun laws. Even with the
> strictest gun control in the world, making it virtually impossible for
> law-abiding citizens to get guns at all, *criminals will still have all
> the guns they want*.
>
> --
> "Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery."
> - Dr. Heywood Floyd, "2001: A Space Odyssey"
well we also need to keep the criminals off the street also,
and get help for those who need it. We let way too many
people out early, and no one wants to pay taxes for more
mental health, or social programs.
Masked Man
wrote:
|well we also need to keep the criminals off the street also,
|and get help for those who need it. We let way too many
|people out early, and no one wants to pay taxes for more
|mental health, or social programs.
Masked Man----->When you crunch the numbers and try to provide for all
the people in modern American society who we think ought to be in
prison, we find that we need ten times as many prisons as we have now.
No one wants to finance that project, so the alternative is to keep
cutting many offenders loose to make room for the new wave.
--
Who was that masked man?
EvilBill[AGQx]
> >
> > Personally I wouldn't join a military service. I'm physically weak and
> > somewhat clumsy, so I'd just be a danger to everyone I served with ;-)
>
> Unless you have some debilitating condition (MS or something on that
order) or
that
> had a club foot. He signed a waiver to get in ) you would be amazed how
Basic
> will thoughen you AND reduce the clumsiness. I don't know about the
British
> Army, but the US services pay pretty damn well now. At least, a hell of a
lot
> better than when I was in. I made $95 per month as an E-3 in 1960. I
> understand its about 10 times that much now. Not to bad considering that
you
> also get room and board.
And you have to leave behind family, friends, online life, Quake, Star Trek,
and girlfriend/boyfriend/marital partner...
EvilBill[AGQx]
> > business just isn't viable at the moment.
>
>
Ouch!
Bozo the Evil Klown
>|well we also need to keep the criminals off the street also,
>|and get help for those who need it. We let way too many
>|people out early, and no one wants to pay taxes for more
>|mental health, or social programs.
>
>Masked Man----->When you crunch the numbers and try to provide for all
>the people in modern American society who we think ought to be in
>prison, we find that we need ten times as many prisons as we have now.
>No one wants to finance that project, so the alternative is to keep
>cutting many offenders loose to make room for the new wave.
Another alternative is to *analyze* the numbers: Too many assaholic politicos
campaigned on a Get Tough On Drugs campaign and pushed for draconian mandatory
sentencing. That's why we have to release murderers and rapists early, because
the law requires people arrested for very minor drug offenses to do mandatory
jail time, *but* the law doesn't require new prisons to be built.
*****************************************
"Insanity is a part of the times, Vir: You must learn to *embrace* the
madness!!" Londo Mollari
EvilBill[AGQx]
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:06:44 +0100, "EvilBill[AGQx]"
> <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >And what about the one over the Arctic? Much closer to home, at least
from
> >where I'm standing.
>
> My personal favorite is listening to people complain about how
> much hotter it's been getting year after year. Does anyone else pay
> attention to the "This Date in History" on some weather reports? As
> I've seen there have been even hotter and more freakish weather
> patterns 80+ years ago, than there are today.
>
Here in Britain, the weather *is* getting hotter and more inconsistent year
by year. I know - because it is slowly killing me. Literally.
<snip>
>
> How're we to know what we're seeing today isn't something
> experienced 1,000 years ago, but wasn't properly recorded because the
> means to record it weren't available.
>
We don't - but even if that's the case, human activity is likely to have
exacerbated it this time round.
havoc
Bozo the Evil Klown wrote in message
<20000617160640...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
>Masked Man doth write thus:
>
>>|well we also need to keep the criminals off the street also,
>>|and get help for those who need it. We let way too many
>>|people out early, and no one wants to pay taxes for more
>>|mental health, or social programs.
>>
>>Masked Man----->When you crunch the numbers and try to provide for all
>>the people in modern American society who we think ought to be in
>>prison, we find that we need ten times as many prisons as we have now.
>>No one wants to finance that project, so the alternative is to keep
>>cutting many offenders loose to make room for the new wave.
>
>Another alternative is to *analyze* the numbers: Too many assaholic
politicos
>campaigned on a Get Tough On Drugs campaign and pushed for draconian
mandatory
>sentencing. That's why we have to release murderers and rapists early,
because
>the law requires people arrested for very minor drug offenses to do
mandatory
>jail time, *but* the law doesn't require new prisons to be built.
>
Actually, in New York, we did away with early releases. Everyone must serve
at least 7/8ths of their time. We still get plenty of crime, we still get
prisons busting at the seams..
And at a cost of somewhere between $30,000-$70,000 per prisoner, per year.
You would think, that for at least some of those offenders, they would
benefit more from an effective drug treatment program, which costs only
about $8,000 per year. But despite the extravagant costs, and the proven
ineffectiveness, it is more popular politically to punish as opposed to
rehabilitate.
-Havoc
havoc
Helen & Bob wrote in message <394B0DEC...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
>
>I do not blame the NRA. There hasn't been a group vilified so much by the
press in
>years. Their basic situation is this. Just because some idiot on the
other side of the
>continent goes crazy, why should I (hardworking, honest, upright citizen)
be disarmed?
>Why should I suffer for the acts of someone else? Their point is valid.
>I have two guns. I have a pistol and a rifle. I have never been in
contact with the
>police except for an occasional traffic violation, and contributions to the
widows and
>orphans fund. Please, tell me exactly why I cannot have my guns? I have
harmed no
>one. My guns have harmed no one. I do not understand why people feel I
should give
>them up.
>Bob
>
The NRA sometimes gets unfairly vilainized, but sometimes quite deservedly.
Your point is very valid Bob,
but why does the NRA oppose perfectly reasonable restrictions like licensing
and pistol registration? Just so we can keep track of the weapons, and
hopefully get them out of the hands of the crooks. You can keep yours. I'm
not saying you, an honest citizen, should lose your pistol. But how about a
criminal background check, just to be safe?
-Havoc
Michele
I am all for rehabilitation , but it is more popular the
other thing. hell our own sheriff treats dogs better then
his prisoners and he isnt a guy I would vote for. ( i am
serious )
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>why does it matter if they served or not. In 10 years you
>are going to get people who did no war time. What makes a
>person who fought a war better then a person who didnt.
The issue here is the hypocrisy that comes from one saying, "I
have always had the concerns of the country as my top-most priority."
Draft Dodging isn't the concerns of the country as highest priority --
that's a clear indication of one's own self-interest taking higher
priority.
Nor is it considered Patriotic, which is another aspect of a
politician we're tend to look for and look up to.
>This is what i never understood when clinton was runing. I
>wouldn't vote for bush anywas. Sorry but I do believe in gun
>control.
I believe in people control. Controlling guns only puts the
weapons in the hands of convicts and illegals and never in the hands
of who they should belong to.
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> How're we to know what we're seeing today isn't something
>> experienced 1,000 years ago, but wasn't properly recorded because the
>> means to record it weren't available.
>
>We don't - but even if that's the case, human activity is likely to have
>exacerbated it this time round.
Without proof, this is simply baseless conjecture, no?
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>Personally I wouldn't join a military service. I'm physically weak and
>somewhat clumsy, so I'd just be a danger to everyone I served with ;-)
I was the same, and they made a man out of me.
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
><cynic mode>
>Yes, these days people are more interested in killing each other over drugs,
>and screwing around on each other, than mass murder...
></cynic mode>
<realist mode>
Tell me, what do you think sells more copies or causes more
people to tune in the news?
Mrs. Flannigan wins the pie competition at the local county
fair? Or,
Mrs. Flannigan pulls out an AK-47 and in a fit of road rage,
kills the woman in front of her because she was cut off on the
off-ramp?
</realist mode>
[Listening to Don Henley's Dirty Laundry in the background]
Merrick Baldelli
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Unless you have some debilitating condition (MS or something on that order) or
>some congenital deformity, (there was a guy in my basic training outfit that
>had a club foot. He signed a waiver to get in ) you would be amazed how Basic
>will thoughen you AND reduce the clumsiness. I don't know about the British
>Army, but the US services pay pretty damn well now. At least, a hell of a lot
>better than when I was in. I made $95 per month as an E-3 in 1960. I
>understand its about 10 times that much now.
Not ten... More like 5. E-3's typically make about $550 when
I was in in the mid 80's and maybe 6 times more now (I saw the pay
scale somewhat recently, and I'm sorry to say, but officers make
better monthly pay, which still doesn't compare to what one makes in
the private sector).
>Not to bad considering that you also get room and board.
True, it's nice to have that money in your pocket when you're
single, but if you've got a family -- you won't make it at all.
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>And you have to leave behind family, friends, online life, Quake, Star Trek,
>and girlfriend/boyfriend/marital partner...
For the first 12 - 18 weeks.... The first 6 - 8 weeks they'll
get you over your computer addiction, then for the remaining weeks,
you'll be in a rather strict college environment. After that -- it's
usually a 9 - 5 job which starts at 6 (depends on the job you choose
to want to do), and get out in 8 hours (most of the time). Then you
can play with your friends as though you weren't in the military.
Merrick Baldelli
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Statement is true regardless of party. Look at who we have running for
>president right now. A draft dodger and a dolt. The question is, over the next
>four years, which one is likely to do the least harm to the country? This year,
>a very hard choice. I am tending to lean towards the dolt, who at least went to
>'Nam, and did not hide in the safe hole his daddy made for him.
I'm doing a write-in vote for the Sock Puppet for Pets.com.
When asked who I vote for, I simply say, "definitely not you."
EvilBill[AGQx]
> <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >
> >We don't - but even if that's the case, human activity is likely to have
> >exacerbated it this time round.
>
> Without proof, this is simply baseless conjecture, no?
>
That's why I said "likely". I mean, if it is, say, a 1000-year cycle, there
wasn't any industrial pollution 1000 years ago, was there?
EvilBill[AGQx]
> <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >And you have to leave behind family, friends, online life, Quake, Star
Trek,
> >and girlfriend/boyfriend/marital partner...
>
> For the first 12 - 18 weeks....
During which the girlfriend decides she wants a new man in her life...
> The first 6 - 8 weeks they'll
> get you over your computer addiction, then for the remaining weeks,
> you'll be in a rather strict college environment. After that -- it's
> usually a 9 - 5 job which starts at 6 (depends on the job you choose
> to want to do), and get out in 8 hours (most of the time). Then you
> can play with your friends as though you weren't in the military.
>
If you have any friends, that is <g>
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> For the first 12 - 18 weeks....
>
>During which the girlfriend decides she wants a new man in her life...
Oh yee of little faith..
>> The first 6 - 8 weeks they'll
>> get you over your computer addiction, then for the remaining weeks,
>> you'll be in a rather strict college environment. After that -- it's
>> usually a 9 - 5 job which starts at 6 (depends on the job you choose
>> to want to do), and get out in 8 hours (most of the time). Then you
>> can play with your friends as though you weren't in the military.
>
>If you have any friends, that is <g>
Trust me, you'll make friends. I did. And it was even one
big coming out party for me too.
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>"Merrick Baldelli" <mbal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:20:56 +0100, "EvilBill[AGQx]"
>> <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >We don't - but even if that's the case, human activity is likely to have
>> >exacerbated it this time round.
>>
>> Without proof, this is simply baseless conjecture, no?
>
>That's why I said "likely". I mean, if it is, say, a 1000-year cycle, there
>wasn't any industrial pollution 1000 years ago, was there?
Did you know that Volcanos produce 1,000 times more pollution
in our atmosphere than we do? Tell me, how many volcanos have erupted
in the last three hundred years?
I seem to recall an eruption of Mount St Helen's, and another
in either the Mesoamerican region, or South America that causes a
cooler summer for the following year. And that occurred within my
lifetime.
EvilBill[AGQx]
> <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> For the first 12 - 18 weeks....
> >
> >During which the girlfriend decides she wants a new man in her life...
>
> Oh yee of little faith..
>
That should be "Oh ye who is used to having his trust betrayed"...
> >> The first 6 - 8 weeks they'll
> >> get you over your computer addiction, then for the remaining weeks,
> >> you'll be in a rather strict college environment. After that -- it's
> >> usually a 9 - 5 job which starts at 6 (depends on the job you choose
> >> to want to do), and get out in 8 hours (most of the time). Then you
> >> can play with your friends as though you weren't in the military.
> >
> >If you have any friends, that is <g>
>
> Trust me, you'll make friends. I did. And it was even one
> big coming out party for me too.
>
Heh, actually, I meant "if you have any friends" because computer geeks are
notorious for not having any <g>
EvilBill[AGQx]
> <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >
> >That's why I said "likely". I mean, if it is, say, a 1000-year cycle,
there
> >wasn't any industrial pollution 1000 years ago, was there?
>
> Did you know that Volcanos produce 1,000 times more pollution
> in our atmosphere than we do? Tell me, how many volcanos have erupted
> in the last three hundred years?
>
Quite a lot. I do know quite a bit about volcanoes. And I also know that
today's eruptions are on a far lesser scale than the eruptions of, say, a
million years or so ago.
> I seem to recall an eruption of Mount St Helen's,
May 18th, 1980
> and another
> in either the Mesoamerican region, or South America that causes a
> cooler summer for the following year.
Nevada del Ruiz in '85? Or Pinatubo in '91?
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>"Merrick Baldelli" <mbal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:31:38 +0100, "EvilBill[AGQx]"
>> <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> For the first 12 - 18 weeks....
>> >
>> >During which the girlfriend decides she wants a new man in her life...
>>
>> Oh yee of little faith..
>
>That should be "Oh ye who is used to having his trust betrayed"...
Wanna swap war stories? I bet mine are more fun. LOL
>> >If you have any friends, that is <g>
>>
>> Trust me, you'll make friends. I did. And it was even one
>> big coming out party for me too.
>
>Heh, actually, I meant "if you have any friends" because computer geeks are
>notorious for not having any <g>
I'm a geek. I am an admitted geek. I have lots of jock and
redneck friends. I think it has to do with my being quite the loud
mouth.
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>Quite a lot. I do know quite a bit about volcanoes. And I also know that
>today's eruptions are on a far lesser scale than the eruptions of, say, a
>million years or so ago.
LOL, Details, details. I think gravimetric problems and a
whole slew of meteors and asteroids may have helped the strength of
the eruptions along, no?
>> I seem to recall an eruption of Mount St Helen's,
>
>May 18th, 1980
And I even have dust from it too..
>> and another
>> in either the Mesoamerican region, or South America that causes a
>> cooler summer for the following year.
>
>Nevada del Ruiz in '85? Or Pinatubo in '91?
Pinatubo '91. I was in Indiana at the time of the Nevada del
Ruiz eruption, and remember nothing but rain for that one.
Bozo the Evil Klown
>>today's eruptions are on a far lesser scale than the eruptions of, say, a
>>million years or so ago.
>
> LOL, Details, details. I think gravimetric problems and a
>whole slew of meteors and asteroids may have helped the strength of
>the eruptions along, no?
The root power source for Earth's geology is (mainly) the heat produced by
radioactive decay in the core. As these isotopes decay, the amount of energy
available to drive geological special effects decreases.
BUT vagaries of geology in the crust will always have some effect on the rising
bubbles of magma..... and every now and then an asteroid big enough to smash
through the crust will drop by for a visit.
Helen & Bob
"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
> "Merrick Baldelli" <mbal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:46:42 +0100, "EvilBill[AGQx]"
> > <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > >And you have to leave behind family, friends, online life, Quake, Star
> Trek,
> > >and girlfriend/boyfriend/marital partner...
> >
> > For the first 12 - 18 weeks....
>
> During which the girlfriend decides she wants a new man in her life...
>
> > The first 6 - 8 weeks they'll
> > get you over your computer addiction, then for the remaining weeks,
> > you'll be in a rather strict college environment. After that -- it's
> > usually a 9 - 5 job which starts at 6 (depends on the job you choose
> > to want to do), and get out in 8 hours (most of the time). Then you
> > can play with your friends as though you weren't in the military.
> >
>
> If you have any friends, that is <g>-
Some of the friends you make in the service will be the best friends of your
life. Ray and I became friends in the Army. We still talk on the phone.
This friendship has now lasted 40 years. I live in Central California. Ray
lives in Southern Georgia. (around 2800 miles apart, for those who do not
know the USA. I have two friends left from my college days. All the rest
have drifted in and out. Thats the way it is in life.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Merrick Baldelli wrote:
IIRC, the Army preferred anyone under E-5 to be single. My neighbor across the
streets kid went in about 6 years ago. IIRC, as an E-3, married with one kid, he
made about 1140 a month, and you're right, he couldn't make it, that's far too
little for a family of three.
HOWEVER, I will guarantee you that in 1960, $95 per month in Alaska went nowhere.
MAYBE off post once per month.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Merrick Baldelli wrote:
You realize, of course, that you are using logic, reason, and common sense
on a gun issue. This will not be accepted. One must scream, rant, and
make outrageous statements.
Bob
EvilBill[AGQx]
> <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >
> >That should be "Oh ye who is used to having his trust betrayed"...
>
> Wanna swap war stories? I bet mine are more fun. LOL
>
Heh, mine aren't from romantic relationships, as Chloë is my first - but I'm
quite familiar with being betrayed...
> >
> >Heh, actually, I meant "if you have any friends" because computer geeks
are
> >notorious for not having any <g>
>
> I'm a geek. I am an admitted geek. I have lots of jock and
> redneck friends. I think it has to do with my being quite the loud
> mouth.
>
I'm more typical of the computer nerd - shy and introverted :)
EvilBill[AGQx]
> <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >Quite a lot. I do know quite a bit about volcanoes. And I also know that
> >today's eruptions are on a far lesser scale than the eruptions of, say, a
> >million years or so ago.
>
> LOL, Details, details. I think gravimetric problems and a
> whole slew of meteors and asteroids may have helped the strength of
> the eruptions along, no?
>
Maybe sixty-odd million years ago. Not really so much between one million
and 500,000 years ago, when a lot of very powerful volcanic activity was
taking place.
> >
> >May 18th, 1980
>
> And I even have dust from it too..
>
So do I, somewhere.
> >
> >Nevada del Ruiz in '85? Or Pinatubo in '91?
>
> Pinatubo '91. I was in Indiana at the time of the Nevada del
> Ruiz eruption, and remember nothing but rain for that one.
>
I remember the Pinatubo eruption. I still have newspaper clippings about it
somewhere.
Julianna Feigl
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>"Merrick Baldelli" <mbal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:22:30 +0100, "EvilBill[AGQx]"
>> <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >That should be "Oh ye who is used to having his trust betrayed"...
>>
>> Wanna swap war stories? I bet mine are more fun. LOL
>>
>
>Heh, mine aren't from romantic relationships, as Chloë is my first - but I'm
>quite familiar with being betrayed...
>
*everybody* makes that experience!
>> >
>> >Heh, actually, I meant "if you have any friends" because computer geeks
>are
>> >notorious for not having any <g>
>>
>> I'm a geek. I am an admitted geek. I have lots of jock and
>> redneck friends. I think it has to do with my being quite the loud
>> mouth.
>>
>
>I'm more typical of the computer nerd - shy and introverted :)
LOL! Aren't we all?
Julianna
--------
Tuvok:
The main reason to watch Voyager!
Helen & Bob
havoc wrote:
Well, people keep screaming about them, but AFAIK, they have been in effect in
most states for years. Here, in Calif, it takes two weeks to buy a pistol, and
an OK from the police. Now, with that going on, how the hell do the gangbangers
get TEK-9s and Full auto weapons to shoot the hell out of their neighborhoods?
Where? Why from GUN SMUGGLERS. You know, people who laugh at the law. You want
to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, fine, I don't have a problem with
that. Please, tell me how you are going to do that?? With 300,000,000 guns in
the country, what legislation do you propose that will keep guns out of the
hands of criminals???
Sorry, If that came out snippy, but I find the subject frustrating. IF you read
some history, you will find the murder rate in the Big Cities is higher now than
the "gun death" rate in the Wild and Woolly Old West. WHAT???? murder drops
with an armed populace?? Sorry, I didn't mean to be a heretic.
Bob
EvilBill[AGQx]
Helen & Bob
Michele wrote:
Tons of snipping.
>
> bob, no one is saying they should give it up. They are
> saying whydont we make it harder for the criminals to get
> them.
And your suggestions for doing that? We have 20,000 gun laws on the books in the various
States and the criminals still get guns. They get illegal guns. They get full auto (machine)
guns. They get guns that are illegal for the honest civilian to own. They get guns made in
other countries that are illegal here. PRIME EXAMPLE would be the AKP-47. Now made in a
bunch of countries. Illegal in the USA unless it is semi-auto with a 5 round magazine.
> the problem is that even the good ideas the nra shoot
> them down. even the child safety locks.
Why are child safety locks a good idea??? Sure, I know the knee jerk reaction, but they are a
delay when you need a gun. How about parental/adult responsibility is safe storage of
weaponry? We could go on for years about this.
> do you or the nra
> need thoses machine guns, or those huge riffles that shoot
> off 100 rounds in 30 seconds.
The weapons you are talking about are illegal in the USA for civilians and have been illegal
since 1934. That's 66 years they have been illegal. NO, the NRA does not espouse them. But,
the "bad guys" still get them. What is your point? That the NRA supports illegal weaponry?
Bob
Helen & Bob
"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
>
>
> And you have to leave behind family, friends, online life, Quake, Star Trek,
> and girlfriend/boyfriend/marital partner...
Its called Growing up, Leaving home, etc. When I first left home, I gave up
many, many comforts. (Mom doing my laundry, cooking my dinner, etc. When I got
back from my Army hitch, guess what. My friends were still there. I admit I
did give up TV for a couple of years. BFD. If the girlfriend wont wait for
you, its better to know that before making the "big mistake" (Marriage leading
to divorce).
Marital Partner?? In most cases, after basic training, the partner can
accompany you. Financially, its a strain to be married while in the lower
ranks, but it can be done.
Online life? I have a netfriend on another ng who is on active duty in Bosnia.
He still posts. (laptop). Quake? What is that? Something really vital for your
survival? Star Trek? There was life before Trek. There will be life after
Trek.
Bob
havoc
Yes, but many people can evade the licensing and registration laws
simply by crossing state borders. Where the NRA opposes such
commonsense measures, it is quite fair for the NRA to come under
attack. They aren't simply "protecting the gun rights of the innocent
and honest citizen" since the innocent and honest citizen shouldn't have
much of an objection to a criminal background check.
> Now, with that going on, how the hell do the gangbangers
> get TEK-9s and Full auto weapons to shoot the hell out of their
> neighborhoods?
> Where? Why from GUN SMUGGLERS. You know, people who laugh at the
> law. You want
> to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, fine, I don't have a
> problem with
> that. Please, tell me how you are going to do that?? With
> 300,000,000 guns in
> the country, what legislation do you propose that will keep guns out
> of the
> hands of criminals???
>
100% effective legislation? There is none. But it's equally
inappropriate to assume that legislation would be zero percent
effective. Laws can keep some guns out of the hands of some of the "bad
guys." That fact that such laws are less than 100% effective isn't a
reason to not have the laws.
> Sorry, If that came out snippy, but I find the subject frustrating.
> IF you read
> some history, you will find the murder rate in the Big Cities is
> higher now than
> the "gun death" rate in the Wild and Woolly Old West. WHAT????
> murder drops
> with an armed populace?? Sorry, I didn't mean to be a heretic.
>
lol.. We've had this discussion. I believe there are many other factors
at play that make comparison very difficult.
-Havoc
Helen & Bob
Steve Christianson wrote:
> In the meantime, I'm running off to do errands downtown. In Washington
> D.C., my home town, where I've lived for nearly 30 years and yet can't
> feel safe after dark because people like me who despise violence and
> guns get no sympathy in our culture.
Oh, many things we could discuss here, Steve. D.C. is the most incredible place I have seen. I
is the ONLY place where I have seen the police walk in groups of four. The economic problems of
D.C. are the biggest contributor to its problems. Now, if you want to give up your freedom to
feel safe, you will find that condition in many places in the world, where people have no
freedom. Of course, they fear the police, and the knock on the door in the middle of the
night. Sorry. One of my favorites once stated (on the order of, not the exact quote, as I am
too lazy to look it up right now) that he who would give up a little of his freedom to be safe,
soon finds that he has neither. I absolutely support your right to call for the repeal of the
2d amendment, based on the first amendment. But if we repeal the 2d, how long until we lose the
first? IMHO, it would not be long, in terms of the life of nations.
Bob
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
>
> "EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
> >
> > And you have to leave behind family, friends, online life, Quake, Star
Trek,
> > and girlfriend/boyfriend/marital partner...
>
> Its called Growing up, Leaving home, etc. When I first left home, I gave
up
> many, many comforts. (Mom doing my laundry, cooking my dinner, etc. When
I got
> back from my Army hitch, guess what. My friends were still there. I
admit I
> did give up TV for a couple of years. BFD. If the girlfriend wont wait
for
> you, its better to know that before making the "big mistake" (Marriage
leading
> to divorce).
Even if she loves you, though, she might not want to wait months or years
for her "needs" to be satisfied...
> Online life? I have a netfriend on another ng who is on active duty in
Bosnia.
> He still posts. (laptop).
Haven't got a laptop.
> Star Trek? There was life before Trek. There will be life after
> Trek.
I'd miss Season 7 of DS9.
Ah well. It's an academic discussion, anyway, heh. I don't think I would
join the military ever. <g>
Merrick Baldelli
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>HOWEVER, I will guarantee you that in 1960, $95 per month in Alaska went nowhere.
>MAYBE off post once per month.
This is definitely true.. Not that there's all that much up
there. However, getting off base once in a while is better than being
always cooped up there, that's for sure.
Merrick Baldelli
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> I believe in people control. Controlling guns only puts the
>> weapons in the hands of convicts and illegals and never in the hands
>> of who they should belong to.
>
>You realize, of course, that you are using logic, reason, and common sense
>on a gun issue. This will not be accepted. One must scream, rant, and
>make outrageous statements.
Explains why I can't run for office, and when I do no one
seems to take me seriously.
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>"Merrick Baldelli" <mbal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:22:30 +0100, "EvilBill[AGQx]"
>> <evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >That should be "Oh ye who is used to having his trust betrayed"...
>>
>> Wanna swap war stories? I bet mine are more fun. LOL
>>
>
>Heh, mine aren't from romantic relationships, as Chloë is my first - but I'm
>quite familiar with being betrayed...
Betrayal isn't one of those things I've yet dealt with.
Infidelity, Death, drug abuse, and passive aggressive codependence
were though.
>> I'm a geek. I am an admitted geek. I have lots of jock and
>> redneck friends. I think it has to do with my being quite the loud
>> mouth.
>
>I'm more typical of the computer nerd - shy and introverted :)
Eh, the only difference between shy and introverted and being
popular is correct timing.
Merrick Baldelli
<evilbill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>Maybe sixty-odd million years ago. Not really so much between one million
>and 500,000 years ago, when a lot of very powerful volcanic activity was
>taking place.
I want a volcano to open up just outside of Atlanta. In fact,
I would like to see it in Gwinnett.
Merrick Baldelli
<glacierqu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I'm more typical of the computer nerd - shy and introverted :)
>
>LOL! Aren't we all?
People don't believe I was shy and introverted when I was
growing up, based on what they know of me today. So, I guess I don't
quite fit in that particular club.