Y2K isn't over yet
Doug Srock
Make sure the Workweek goes off smoothly first.
Foreign countries that supply a lot of what we use have yet to report.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet......
Richard M. Hays, Jr.
Watchers or Jenny Craig? Excuse me, that's Monica Lewinsky who is with Jenny
Craig (Ha! Ha! Ha!). Happy New Year, everybody!
Richard M. Hays, Jr.
ha...@city-net.com
http://trfn.clpgh.org/speak/
http://www.12steps.org/
http://www.warroom.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/ (Check out the late night jokes link there)
http://www.triblive.com/
http://www.post-gazette.com/
http://www.stonybrookschool.org/
Doug Srock wrote in message <386fa8ab...@news.stargate.net>...
Doug Srock
Monica....
Shout Laundry Spray come to mind immediately......
To get stains out after the Impeachment Hearings are over
Shout them Out.
Ja...@world.org
Clinton News Network with hype like that.
Get a life asshole.
Brian Y.
> Make sure the Workweek goes off smoothly first.
>
> Foreign countries that supply a lot of what we use have yet to report.
>
> The fat lady hasn't sung yet......
Believe me, it's over. Let's move on now...
Doug Srock
The word is spelled knock
On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 16:24:31 -0100, Ja...@world.org wrote:
>Nock off the......
Ja...@world.org
Isn't this exciting Doug, you correcting my spelling and me retorting, and us together sending nasty notes too each other when we could be on the street and me kicking your useless fucking ass. Just like REAL men should be doing, but I'll make an exception in your case.
Tim Scoff
wrote:
For me it isn't over. I work in IT support and some of my end users
use databases with date calculations. I'm positive that some of them
have some 2 digit dates used somewhere in some calculations that aren't
going to work properly this year and I'll have to track down the
problem. I don't know where yet, but I know that it's going to happen.
--
Tim Scoff
t...@scoff.net
http://www.scoff.net/Tim
Chuck
Are you one of Quinn's relatives or what?
I wonder if Quinn will be spouting this bullshit tomorrow morning too?
How can Quinn possibly save face now? No of what he said came true.
Who will believe him now?
I put Quinn on the same page that I put Honsberger on, you know,... the
list of programs I don't listen to...
BTW: Rumor has it that fast Freddie bought himself a generator, could it
be that fast Freddie is one of Quinn's buds? <rotflmao>.
Chuck
In article <386fa8ab...@news.stargate.net>,
dsr...@shire.net (Doug Srock) wrote:
> Don't sell off your supplies just yet.
> Make sure the Workweek goes off smoothly first.
>
> Foreign countries that supply a lot of what we use have yet to report.
>
> The fat lady hasn't sung yet......
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Doug Srock
On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 18:21:53 -0100, Ja...@world.org wrote:
>IF that's the best you can do Douggie it's time to quit
>the rest snipped by the Yada Yada Yada patrol.......
Doug Srock
Well, I have been watching CNN, CNBC, FOX and The three Mainstream
Networks and there has been NOTHING reported about any conditions in
third world countries.....
ie: Where we get a lot of food, clothing and raw materials for
medicines from. Among other things. Yah, your lights are on, your
modem works and I was able to buy the last Twinkie at my local BP
today. Tip of the iceburg.....
The next three months will tell the story better..... Remember,
everybody stockpiled, those stockpiles only last so long.......
For me, I am not cheering yet.
Chuck
Gee how did I know you would love to be campared to Quinn.
> Well, I have been watching CNN, CNBC, FOX and The three Mainstream
> Networks and there has been NOTHING reported about any conditions in
> third world countries.....
I condemn the news media too!
> ie: Where we get a lot of food, clothing and raw materials for
> medicines from. Among other things. Yah, your lights are on, your
> modem works and I was able to buy the last Twinkie at my local BP
> today. Tip of the iceburg.....
Just don't wanna give up on the right wing extremism? Just when is
Clinton gonna set up marshall law in the US? Do you still have the
generator running in your war bunker?
> The next three months will tell the story better..... Remember,
> everybody stockpiled, those stockpiles only last so long.......
> For me, I am not cheering yet.
3rd world countries are capitalists just like us, they want our money,
they will find was to send their crap over to our country.
Tell Jimmy I said hello...
Chuck
Richard M. Hays, Jr.
help put a deficit in the sale of cigars?
Esther Filderman wrote in message ...
>In article <XUOb4.9$yj.2...@speed.city-net.com> "Richard M. Hays, Jr."
<ha...@city-net.com> writes:
>
>
> Excuse me, that's Monica Lewinsky who is with Jenny
> Craig (Ha! Ha! Ha!).
>
>weight like me, I never swallow!"
>
>
Richard M. Hays, Jr.
storm and nothing happens? That's right. You thank God and are glad to have
been prepared. The same thing can be stated about this Y2K thing. Nobody
gives the same wrath to DeNardo, Bowman, Kudzma, or any others on TV and
radio. Why should all of you now chastise Quinn and Rose? They were
forecasters like weather folks who prepared for the worst and hoped for the
best.
Chuck wrote in message <84p4fi$e26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Mischa E Gelman
Richard M. Hays, Jr. <ha...@city-net.com> wrote:
>Do all of you say the same thing if our local weather people predict a major
>storm and nothing happens? That's right. You thank God and are glad to have
>been prepared. The same thing can be stated about this Y2K thing. Nobody
>gives the same wrath to DeNardo, Bowman, Kudzma, or any others on TV and
>radio.
I sure as heck do. Only G-d knows what the weather's going to be and
yet many folks hold these folks up to be prophets. I'm still waiting for
them to approach something like 50 percent accuracy before I pay attention
to what they say.
--
[The modern man] says, "Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie
the hopes of the race, but in education." This, clearly expressed, means,
"We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children." -
G.K. Chesterton
Mischa E Gelman
A compliment??
>Well, I have been watching CNN, CNBC, FOX and The three Mainstream
>Networks and there has been NOTHING reported about any conditions in
>third world countries.....
I only had CNN on for maybe 10 minutes this past week and yet I managed to
hear quite a bit about how well things went down in the third world as
well. Sounds like it was just as quiet as here.
Chuck
news media for their poor coverage.
What Quinn and Rose did should be considered a crime. They could have
caused a catastrophe if everyone started making a run on the banks.
Don't you consider it a little funny that while Quinn was forecasting
the end of the world he was collecting money hands over fist from Y2K
advertisers on his show?
It is unfortunate that you are so blinded by your party loyalty that you
can't see the forest from your Y2K bunker.
Yeah, I'm a Republican, but do I support the likes of idiot right
wingers ---- heck no. Nor will I support liars like Rick Santorum when
he runs his next term---- the same guy who wants smaller govt yet mailed
out flyers (at tax payers expense) supporting the RRI the day before
the RRI election.
BTW Rich, when is Clinton going to place us all under marshal law? Is
that not what your buddy Quinn told ya?
Chuck
In article <4V0c4.17$yj.11...@speed.city-net.com>,
"Richard M. Hays, Jr." <ha...@city-net.com> wrote:
> Do all of you say the same thing if our local weather people predict a
major
> storm and nothing happens? That's right. You thank God and are glad to
have
> been prepared. The same thing can be stated about this Y2K thing.
Nobody
> gives the same wrath to DeNardo, Bowman, Kudzma, or any others on TV
and
dav...@city-net.com
>In article <38702cb5...@news.stargate.net>,
> dsr...@shire.net (Doug Srock) wrote:
>> What a compliment! To be compared to Quinn!
>
>Gee how did I know you would love to be campared to Quinn.
>
>
>> Well, I have been watching CNN, CNBC, FOX and The three Mainstream
>> Networks and there has been NOTHING reported about any conditions in
>> third world countries.....
>
>I condemn the news media too!
>
>
>> ie: Where we get a lot of food, clothing and raw materials for
>> medicines from. Among other things. Yah, your lights are on, your
>> modem works and I was able to buy the last Twinkie at my local BP
>> today. Tip of the iceburg.....
>
>Just don't wanna give up on the right wing extremism? Just when is
>Clinton gonna set up marshall law in the US?
They will do that the MOMENT they think they can get away with it.
Consider the following statement and tell me why you think it doesn't
apply to today:
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never
will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out
the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon
them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either
words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by
the endurance of those whom they oppress."
--Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857
Wake up, Chuck. Do you think we are still running under the rule of
law?
There's a difference between vigalance and paranoia. Quinn has been,
and still is, advocating vigalance. If Quinn's advertising clientel
decided to exploit the paranoid along with the vigilant, then that's
their business - they didn't stick a gun to anyone's head.
Prior to the Y2K scare, I was almost totally unprepaired for any kind
of disaster. The storms that came through in '98, which left me
without power for 5 days and no telephone for about 3 days, were a
little wake up call. Thanks to the Y2K scare and the storms of '98,
many of us have become much better prepared for any unforseen events
that could take place in the future.
So what's so bad about that?
Tom Pendergast
> There's a difference between vigalance and paranoia. Quinn has been,
> and still is, advocating vigalance. If Quinn's advertising clientel
> decided to exploit the paranoid along with the vigilant, then that's
> their business - they didn't stick a gun to anyone's head.
Wrong again, paranoid Freeman-wannabe clown. Quinn and Rose openly,
repeatedly, and willingly added their personal endorsements to the
messages relayed by these advertisers. We all know that a radio
voice can read a spot as strictly paid content or they can embellish
the hell out of it with their own enthusiasm. Denial is a bitch,
but of course you already know that.
> Prior to the Y2K scare, I was almost totally unprepaired for any kind
> of disaster. The storms that came through in '98, which left me
> without power for 5 days and no telephone for about 3 days, were a
> little wake up call. Thanks to the Y2K scare and the storms of '98,
> many of us have become much better prepared for any unforseen events
> that could take place in the future.
Gee, I lived through the same five days without power, and I guess
my neighborhood didn't have the same miraculous revelation that
yours and Hayes' did. Of course I might have missed it, as I
don't have the ugly, massive demons of a lawful government keeping
me awake at night.
--
- TP
Chuck
Sorry to disagree with you, but this Y2K scam that Quinn and Rose pulled
off is just one of many lies and half truths that he has spread in the
past.
I agree that many of our laws have been de-railed.
I'm glad that you are now ready for any winter storm or power outage.
While I'll agree that eternal vigilance is a good idea, I do not believe
hunkering down in your Y2K bunker waiting for Clinton to start marshall
law is a little bizzare.
All Quinn is trying to do is get recognized on the National level. I'm
glad that right winged wackos like Quinn have failed. I'm glad for the
most part that people did not make a huge run on banks.
Maybe the people of this region will recognize Quinn for what he is. I
did long ago. Maybe Quinn can go back to spinning Donny Osmand records
again.
Dave, THERE IS NO WAY THE TRAILER TRASH IN THE WHITE COULD EVER PLACE US
UNDER MARSHALL LAW AND GET AWAY WITH IT FOR LONG! Get real!
We still live in the greatest countries in the world.
Chuck
In article <3870c88f....@news.city-net.com>,
> There's a difference between vigalance and paranoia. Quinn has been,
> and still is, advocating vigalance. If Quinn's advertising clientel
> decided to exploit the paranoid along with the vigilant, then that's
> their business - they didn't stick a gun to anyone's head.
>
> Prior to the Y2K scare, I was almost totally unprepaired for any kind
> of disaster. The storms that came through in '98, which left me
> without power for 5 days and no telephone for about 3 days, were a
> little wake up call. Thanks to the Y2K scare and the storms of '98,
> many of us have become much better prepared for any unforseen events
> that could take place in the future.
>
> So what's so bad about that?
>
> -Dave
> http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/
>
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 02 Jan 2000 22:50:14 -0500, e...@minerva.psc.edu (Esther Filderman)
wrote:
>In article <XUOb4.9$yj.2...@speed.city-net.com> "Richard M. Hays, Jr." <ha...@city-net.com> writes:
>
>
> Excuse me, that's Monica Lewinsky who is with Jenny
> Craig (Ha! Ha! Ha!).
>
>To steal a joke: Didn't you hear? Their new slogan is, "You can lose
>weight like me, I never swallow!"
>
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
Now! Listen to Dr. Jihad! & Buy the CD!
http://mp3.com/DrJihad
pa...@telerama.com
disapointed that it did'nt.
pa...@telerama.com
<There's a difference between vigalance and paranoia
The spin begins.
Rich Loether
>Weather forecasting is not an exact science. And yes, I also condemn the
>news media for their poor coverage.
Correct, and remember that the "news" media is primarily in the
entertainment business.
>What Quinn and Rose did should be considered a crime. They could have
>caused a catastrophe if everyone started making a run on the banks.
Then you weren't listening to them very hard. Quinn was talking about
making preparations for Y2K months ago, back in the spring of '99. At
that time there was zero chance of anything even resembling a run on
banks, unless you think Quinn dictates policy to everybody in town. I'm
amused that one talk show host on one small time radio station gets
credited with the ability to do what you suggest.
>Don't you consider it a little funny that while Quinn was forecasting
>the end of the world
I listened to him a lot. He didn't forecase any end of the world.
He forecast uncertainty. He forecast the exact same things that
every large organization in the country forecast. The number of
people working on 12/31/99 was many times the normal for a New
Year's Eve, The difference was that Quinn suggested doing something
about it early enough to get prepared with no impact on society at
large.
>he was collecting money hands over fist from Y2K
>advertisers on his show?
Please. Tell us how much he made, OK? Then we'll all be able to
tell if it's hand over fist.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rj...@pitt.edu Computing & Info Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
6fl...@stargate.net
> They will do that the MOMENT they think they can get away with it.
> Consider the following statement and tell me why you think it doesn't
> apply to today:
>
Again, davekle what are you going to do about it when it happens? Shot
down the tomahawk missiles with your 30-06? Enjoy your life while its good
- stop losing sleep over things you can't change.
One more question on this subject. How do you put a country of this size
under marshall law? Is the government going to subcontract out to your
neighbors?
>
> There's a difference between vigalance and paranoia.
One is pointless and the other is really pointless.
> Quinn has been, and still is, advocating vigalance. If Quinn's
> advertising clientel
> decided to exploit the paranoid along with the vigilant, then that's
> their business - they didn't stick a gun to anyone's head.
>
Quinn's a consummate capitalist. He's no different than Limbaugh, the 700
club, or Jay Leno. They entertain you for your money. Entertainment!!!!
Quinn didn't think the world was ending and he doesn't care if Vince Foster
was crucified beneath the Washington Monument.
Other than running his mouth, what does Quinn do to change the injustice he
see? Does he sponsor legislation? Does he do public service announcements
that he'll have to pay for on other networks to reach a broader audience?
He's a scam man. His actions don't justify his position.
>
> Prior to the Y2K scare, I was almost totally unprepaired for any kind
> of disaster. The storms that came through in '98, which left me
> without power for 5 days and no telephone for about 3 days, were a
> little wake up call. Thanks to the Y2K scare and the storms of '98,
> many of us have become much better prepared for any unforseen events
> that could take place in the future.
>
Yawn..... Are you that dependent on technology? People all of the planet
regularly experience blackouts for extended periods of time 'cause foreign
power grids aren't as good as ours. They survive with out thousands of
dollars of generators, guns, and food. When the power goes out man think
of it as a camping trip. A break from the hustle a bustle.
dav...@city-net.com
>Dave,
>
>Sorry to disagree with you, but this Y2K scam that Quinn and Rose pulled
>off is just one of many lies and half truths that he has spread in the
>past.
>
>I agree that many of our laws have been de-railed.
Would you agree that in a general sense, the rule of law has been
de-railed?
>I'm glad that you are now ready for any winter storm or power outage.
Me, too. And I'm glad that so many others who weren't prepared
before, are prepared now. Aren't you? Isn't that a good thing? Talk
to some of the people who lived through the depression, and they'll
tell you it's a good thing. Do you think they had an advanced warning
to prepare? Fact is Chuck, you just never know.
>While I'll agree that eternal vigilance is a good idea, I do not believe
>hunkering down in your Y2K bunker waiting for Clinton to start marshall
>law is a little bizzare.
Marshall law....bizzare? Maybe. Maybe, not. The tyrants are limited
by their fear of those whom they would attempt to oppress. If we
continue on our current path of dumbing down and ignoring our rule of
law, how long do you think it will be before the tyrants no longer
have anything to fear?
Here's a perfect example of how we're being dumbed down (gradualism
is the key and it's working marvelously):
How would you're grandparents and great-grandparents have reacted to a
military exercise in their neighborhood? What would your
great-grandfather have done had he witnessed Unmarked helecopters
dropping troops dressed in all black with no insignia or anything
identifying them as U.S. troops, while firing assualt weapons and
setting off explosions in their neighborhood? Would our forfathers
and our ansestory have stood for that? Be honest.
>All Quinn is trying to do is get recognized on the National level. I'm
>glad that right winged wackos like Quinn have failed. I'm glad for the
>most part that people did not make a huge run on banks.
I don't totally disagree with you on Quinn. He has brought on to his
show, what have been proven to be alarmists and others whose
commentary and allegations have been disproved and it discredits him
when he repeatedly does this. I think Quinn also discredits himself by
not pointing out what an equally heinous bunch of oath breakers and
hyporcits the Republicans are. But Quinn has also brought a lot of
legitimate and fundimental issues to the table which others in the
media are afraid to touch. Quinn understands the importance of
sovereignty, the rule of law and our Constitutions and he gets that
point across. While others in the media choose to ignore the blatent
disregard for the rule of law by many of our elected officials, Quinn
shows clear cut examples of where our Constitutions and the rule of
law are being violated. And for this he should be commended.
>Maybe the people of this region will recognize Quinn for what he is. I
>did long ago. Maybe Quinn can go back to spinning Donny Osmand records
>again.
>
>Dave, THERE IS NO WAY THE TRAILER TRASH IN THE WHITE COULD EVER PLACE US
>UNDER MARSHALL LAW AND GET AWAY WITH IT FOR LONG! Get real!
Not yet, thank God.
But what do you think it would take to get the average dumbed down
citizens to beg for marshall law and for some dirt bag president, who
looks upon his oath of office as a mere formality, to take the step?
Here's a hint:
"Reichstag fire"
Look it up if you don't already know the story. History repeats
itself and singing "It can't happen here" isn't the solution.
So, Chuck, here's the big question that you seem to think you have the
answer to:
What is it that makes the United States magically immune
from tyranny? What unique thing, or things, do we possess
which all of the other great fallen civilizations didn't have?
>We still live in the greatest countries in the world.
Agreed. But for how long?
-Dave
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/htlr.html
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never
will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out
the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon
them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either
words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by
the endurance of those whom they oppress."
--Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857
>Chuck
>
>In article <3870c88f....@news.city-net.com>,
> dav...@city-net.com wrote:
>> Chuck <sho...@nauticom.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <38702cb5...@news.stargate.net>,
>> > dsr...@shire.net (Doug Srock) wrote:
>> >> What a compliment! To be compared to Quinn!
>> >
>> >Gee how did I know you would love to be campared to Quinn.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Well, I have been watching CNN, CNBC, FOX and The three Mainstream
>> >> Networks and there has been NOTHING reported about any conditions
>in
>> >> third world countries.....
>> >
>> >I condemn the news media too!
>> >
>> >
>> >> ie: Where we get a lot of food, clothing and raw materials for
>> >> medicines from. Among other things. Yah, your lights are on, your
>> >> modem works and I was able to buy the last Twinkie at my local BP
>> >> today. Tip of the iceburg.....
>> >
>> >Just don't wanna give up on the right wing extremism? Just when is
>> >Clinton gonna set up marshall law in the US?
>>
>> They will do that the MOMENT they think they can get away with it.
>> Consider the following statement and tell me why you think it doesn't
>> apply to today:
>>
>> Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never
>> will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out
>> the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon
>> them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either
>> words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by
>> the endurance of those whom they oppress."
>>
>> --Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857
>>
>> Wake up, Chuck. Do you think we are still running under the rule of
>> law?
>>
>> There's a difference between vigalance and paranoia. Quinn has been,
>> and still is, advocating vigalance. If Quinn's advertising clientel
>> decided to exploit the paranoid along with the vigilant, then that's
>> their business - they didn't stick a gun to anyone's head.
>>
>> Prior to the Y2K scare, I was almost totally unprepaired for any kind
>> of disaster. The storms that came through in '98, which left me
>> without power for 5 days and no telephone for about 3 days, were a
>> little wake up call. Thanks to the Y2K scare and the storms of '98,
>> many of us have become much better prepared for any unforseen events
>> that could take place in the future.
>>
>> So what's so bad about that?
>>
>> -Dave
>> http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/
>>
>
>
dav...@city-net.com
>
>
>> They will do that the MOMENT they think they can get away with it.
>> Consider the following statement and tell me why you think it doesn't
>> apply to today:
>>
>
>Again, davekle what are you going to do about it when it happens? Shot
>down the tomahawk missiles with your 30-06? Enjoy your life while its good
>- stop losing sleep over things you can't change.
>
>One more question on this subject. How do you put a country of this size
>under marshall law?
You do something to get the people to beg for it.
> Is the government going to subcontract out to your
>neighbors?
>
>>
>> There's a difference between vigalance and paranoia.
>
>One is pointless and the other is really pointless.
>
>
>> Quinn has been, and still is, advocating vigalance. If Quinn's
>> advertising clientel
>> decided to exploit the paranoid along with the vigilant, then that's
>> their business - they didn't stick a gun to anyone's head.
>>
>
>Quinn's a consummate capitalist. He's no different than Limbaugh, the 700
>club, or Jay Leno. They entertain you for your money. Entertainment!!!!
>Quinn didn't think the world was ending and he doesn't care if Vince Foster
>was crucified beneath the Washington Monument.
>
>Other than running his mouth, what does Quinn do to change the injustice he
>see? Does he sponsor legislation? Does he do public service announcements
>that he'll have to pay for on other networks to reach a broader audience?
>He's a scam man. His actions don't justify his position.
>
>>
>> Prior to the Y2K scare, I was almost totally unprepaired for any kind
>> of disaster. The storms that came through in '98, which left me
>> without power for 5 days and no telephone for about 3 days, were a
>> little wake up call. Thanks to the Y2K scare and the storms of '98,
>> many of us have become much better prepared for any unforseen events
>> that could take place in the future.
>>
>
>Yawn..... Are you that dependent on technology? People all of the planet
>regularly experience blackouts for extended periods of time 'cause foreign
>power grids aren't as good as ours. They survive with out thousands of
>dollars of generators, guns, and food. When the power goes out man think
>of it as a camping trip. A break from the hustle a bustle.
>
>
>>
dav...@city-net.com
>dav...@city-net.com wrote:
>
>> There's a difference between vigalance and paranoia. Quinn has been,
>> and still is, advocating vigalance. If Quinn's advertising clientel
>> decided to exploit the paranoid along with the vigilant, then that's
>> their business - they didn't stick a gun to anyone's head.
>
>Wrong again, paranoid Freeman-wannabe clown.
Why concentrate all your criticism on Quinn, you nutty assassin?
It seem to me that FEMA, the media, the Red Cross, local and state
officials all warned us to prepare for any possible Y2K problems. Why
did they do that and why aren't you castigating them as a bunch of
paranoid kooks?
Electra Angelbyte
>Don't you consider it a little funny that while Quinn was forecasting
>advertisers on his show?
>
Actually, if you want to lay blame, it is the radio station that made
money from all the advertising. Quinn and Rose are not paid by the
advertisers. And if you follow that logic, than ANY radio station,
including KDKA, is "guilty".
Tom Pendergast
99% of the time, there would be absolutely no doubt that you are
correct. But... Quinn makes it widely known that management at
WRRK takes a -total- "hands off" approach to his show. Also, a good
many of his "normal" commercials are of the "trade" variety, where
the advertiser gets air time in compensation for their goods or
services, and it would not surprise me a bit if Y97 management lets
Quinn grab some form of compensation for the clients that he brings
to the show. If the show isn't making WRRK any real bucks in normal
mode, a little cash (minus Quinn's cut) is better than none.
--
- TP
Chuck
dav...@city-net.com wrote:
> Chuck <sho...@nauticom.net> wrote:
>
> >Dave,
> >
> >Sorry to disagree with you, but this Y2K scam that Quinn and Rose
pulled
> >off is just one of many lies and half truths that he has spread in
the
> >past.
> >
> >I agree that many of our laws have been de-railed.
>
> Would you agree that in a general sense, the rule of law has been
> de-railed?
That is not what I said. Dave you need to step back for a couple of
months and calm down. Things are not as bad as you think.
> >I'm glad that you are now ready for any winter storm or power outage.
>
> Me, too. And I'm glad that so many others who weren't prepared
> before, are prepared now. Aren't you? Isn't that a good thing? Talk
> to some of the people who lived through the depression, and they'll
> tell you it's a good thing. Do you think they had an advanced warning
> to prepare? Fact is Chuck, you just never know.
>
> >While I'll agree that eternal vigilance is a good idea, I do not
believe
> >hunkering down in your Y2K bunker waiting for Clinton to start
marshall
> >law is a little bizzare.
>
> Marshall law....bizzare? Maybe. Maybe, not. The tyrants are limited
> by their fear of those whom they would attempt to oppress. If we
> continue on our current path of dumbing down and ignoring our rule of
> law, how long do you think it will be before the tyrants no longer
> have anything to fear?
>
> Here's a perfect example
<snipped>
Sorry to snip Dave, but to make things short and sweet. My original
point was that Quinn and Rose made crazy statements about the world
ending and Clinton signing martial law into existance. He has also made
some really bizarre statements about foreign troops in Allegheny Natl
Forest. He does not know what he is talking about! He is nothing but a
right wing wacko.
Face it, Quinn and every other Right Wing wacko has pretty much lost all
of their credibility. For almost a year every credible computer geek
has been saying that it was not going to be any big deal. In that same
time period, Quinn brought onto his show anyone who could spread lies
about cars not working, garage doors not opening. No one can be that
stupid Dave to believe that bullshit.
We live in one of the greatest countries in the world. Whether it be a
few billion lines of bad computer code, or a few bad BIOS chips....
nothing will destroy this great nation.
If you feel righteous about having extra water, food and your marlin
30/30 fully loaded and ready to go for the next end of the world
scenerio or snow storm, good for you.
Chuck
Chuck
r...@pitt.edu (Rich Loether) wrote:
> >What Quinn and Rose did should be considered a crime. They could
have
> >caused a catastrophe if everyone started making a run on the banks.
>
> Then you weren't listening to them very hard.
Yes, up until just a few short months ago Quinn brought on any nut he
could onto his show to tell us that computers were going to fail, banks
would go down, gas stations would cease to work, OPEN YOUR EYES AND
EARS UP RICH! go onto to his web site (unless he removed his Y2K Crap).
Quinn did take advantage of the right wing wackos that would listen to
him and his wacko guests. And yes, he did profit well from his
frightened, bunkered wacko listeners buying their dooms day supplies.
He even brought on folks that said many cars would not run, garage doors
might not open. Did you believe that crap too Rich?
>Quinn was talking about
> making preparations for Y2K months ago, back in the spring of '99. At
> that time there was zero chance of anything even resembling a run on
> banks, unless you think Quinn dictates policy to everybody in town.
Runs on banks in this country could have become a reality. All it would
take is for that small snowball to start rolling down the hill, the news
media would have immediately picked up on it and BANG! AVALANCHE!
Remember we live in a country that buys up all the milk in all the
stores if we get 4" of snow.
No one will with any reasonable intelligence is ever going to believe
Quinn again. Heck I'm still waiting for the foreign troops to come out
of Allegheny Natl Forest, or how about those UN troops aligned on the
Canadian border?
Like I said to Dave earlier tonight, if you want to feel righteous that
your now prepared with your bottled water, MREs and your fully loaded
30/30 then I say good for you.
As for arguing any more about Quinn, I am finished with it as of
tonight. I am surprised though, I thought the Right wing of the
Republican party were the only ones that went for Quinn's bullshit. I am
disappointed that you Libertarian boys believe any of it. I know none
of you are stupid, so I guess that just leaves gullible ehhh?
Jeremiah McAuliffe
dav...@city-net.com
>> >I agree that many of our laws have been de-railed.
>>
>> Would you agree that in a general sense, the rule of law has been
>> de-railed?
>
>That is not what I said.
I'm not putting words in your mouth.
I simply asked you a question, which, if you answer honestly (yes),
leads us back to the importance of vigilance. I never heard Quinn
advocate hiding in a bunker. I did hear some of his guests suggest
that they were almost certain that major propblems would occur. THAT
is what leads me to have a credibility problem with Quinn, not the
fact that he advocated preparedness.
And, as for the martial law thing (the second question you neglected
to address), let's try once again. YOU are of the opinion that
Martial Law is all but an impossibility in this country; that we could
never have a President, with a stroke of the pen, toss the ol'
constitution out the window; and anyone who believes that this could
possibly happen is a kook. So, tell us why you think you are right by
answering the following question:
What is it that makes the United States magically immune
from tyranny? What unique thing, or things, do we possess
which all of the other great fallen civilizations didn't have?
Give me the answer and put those of us who believe in upholding and
defending the Constitution at ease.
-Dave
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/
Rich Loether
>In article <84t0ij$3bn$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
> r...@pitt.edu (Rich Loether) wrote:
>> >What Quinn and Rose did should be considered a crime. They
>> >could have caused a catastrophe if everyone started making
>> >a run on the banks.
>> Then you weren't listening to them very hard.
>Yes, up until just a few short months ago Quinn brought on any nut he
>could onto his show to tell us that computers were going to fail, banks
>would go down, gas stations would cease to work,
Of the many guests Quinn had on his show, some of them, to which you
weren't listening very hard, discussed what MIGHT happen. They all
talked about preparations we could take that would protect us if the
worst were to happen. They talked about areas were we were vulnerable.
Nobody I heard said they knew what was going to happen, just what MIGHT
happen. Can you list a single exception to this?
>OPEN YOUR EYES AND EARS UP RICH!
Been there. Done that.
>go onto to his web site (unless he removed his Y2K Crap).
Been there. Seen what he had. Everything I saw was sound advice
for people who live in any area where the utilities can't be counted
on to provide electricity, water or gas on each and every day of your
life.
For me, I've lived through electric and water outages. I've had
supplies at hand to deal with outages of several hours on both of
those. Gas has been reliable but I recall scares a few years back
when we weren't so sure. I know people who have lived through
electric outages of several days, some of them losing hundreds of
dollars worth of frozen food, some hundreds of dollars worth of
tropical fish, etc. What IS your problem here? Just because
the forecast problem didn't occur doesn't mean another won't.
>Quinn did take advantage of the right wing wackos that would listen to
>him and his wacko guests. And yes, he did profit well from his
>frightened, bunkered wacko listeners buying their dooms day supplies.
Insults, which don't become you, aside, what would be wrong with Quinn
profiting from his listeners preparing for utility outages, and how
much do you think he made on the deal?
>He even brought on folks that said many cars would not run, garage doors
>might not open. Did you believe that crap too Rich?
He brought on folks who said that cars MIGHT not run, garage doors
(and other "smart appliances") might not work. I believe there was
a chance of these things happening, slim, but a chance. Neither one
would affect me. I didn't worry about either. The fact of the matter
is that nobody knew for sure.
>> Quinn was talking about
>> making preparations for Y2K months ago, back in the spring of '99. At
>> that time there was zero chance of anything even resembling a run on
>> banks, unless you think Quinn dictates policy to everybody in town.
>Runs on banks in this country could have become a reality.
I'm sure he'd be flattered by your estimate of his impact.
>All it would
>take is for that small snowball to start rolling down the hill, the news
>media would have immediately picked up on it and BANG! AVALANCHE!
The "news media" cover something Quinn spawned? Don't make me laugh.
>Remember we live in a country that buys up all the milk in all the
>stores if we get 4" of snow.
No. It isn't GET 4" of snow. It's the first flurry after a FORECAST
of 4" of snow. Quinn has nothing to do with that.
This is exactly why preparation during the summer would have zero
effect on anybody.
>No one will with any reasonable intelligence is ever going to believe
>Quinn again.
Hell, Chuck, I don't believe the things Quinn is reported to have
said. As for the things I heard from his mouth, some I believe,
some I write off to his blind spots, some I think are just plain
wrong. In any case, he was one of the few outlets last summer who
bothered to even mention that there might be a problem. Meanwhile,
we at PITT and other companies were busing our butt to avoid Y2K
problems.
Absolutes don't become you either.
>Heck I'm still waiting for the foreign troops to come out
>of Allegheny Natl Forest, or how about those UN troops aligned on the
>Canadian border?
After the way the locals responded to, "NO STADIUM TAX!", do you
have any doubt that the Feds are incapable of far worse misdeeds?
>Like I said to Dave earlier tonight, if you want to feel righteous that
>your now prepared with your bottled water, MREs and your fully loaded
>30/30 then I say good for you.
I have a few gallons of bottled water about, less than $10 worth. I'll
use every drop in a few years anyway. I don't own a single MRE. And my
.30-30 isn't my defense weapon of choice. I won't discuss more than that
in this medium.
>As for arguing any more about Quinn, I am finished with it as of
>tonight.
Good. Your efforts only showed that you didn't listen very well.
>I am surprised though, I thought the Right wing of the
> Republican party were the only ones that went for Quinn's
> bullshit.
Oh? Since wen was the FBI part of the Right Wing of the Repugnican
Party, or FEMA? Let's recognize that the established wings of the
Repugnican party are no friends of ours. The members of the party
are, but the leadership isn't.
>I am disappointed that you Libertarian boys believe any of it.
I believed "might". I never even considered anything resembling "will".
I seem to be in some good company, going by the amount of money spent
by corporate America on the chance of a problem. Call it insurance.
Do you also castigate cruise ships that carry life boats and airliners
with life jackets? How about buildings with fire extinguishers?
>Chuck
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
------------------
pupd...@my-deja.com
Chuck <sho...@nauticom.net> wrote:
> In article <38720f57....@news.city-net.com>,
> Face it, Quinn and every other Right Wing wacko has pretty much lost
all
> of their credibility. For almost a year every credible computer geek
> has been saying that it was not going to be any big deal. In that
same
> time period, Quinn brought onto his show anyone who could spread lies
> about cars not working, garage doors not opening. No one can be that
> stupid Dave to believe that bullshit.
This might be a repost (apologies if so, still fighting with Deja), but
even if so another point bears mentioning here.
It was the "credible computer geeks" who are responsible for Y2K making
into the media is much as it did. The major media may have been talking
about this for a year, but if you care to search PC magainzes, this has
been discussed for many years. I saw first-hand a Y2K bug long before a
lot of people here knew what the internet was. It was the repeated
efforts of the computer community that resulted in the bug being as big
of a media event as it became, and ultimately in my opinion, is the
primary reason for its defeat.
And the point that I made before that might not have made it is that
I've read of at least one instance where cars *did* stop running. It
occured on Jan 1, 1999. If any of you people who are singing the "They
took us for a ride" song would care to do the research, there were
plenty of real examples of the bug that occured long before this last
weekend. It was those real problems that created the concern.
The bug was real, yet like I said in my longer post (which I suggest you
read...entirely, not just bits), there seem to be a lot of people that
are more concerned about trying to turn this into another reason to
point fingers than to actually celebrate the fact that we got through
it. You care more about the fact that you were right than the fact that
the best-case scenario actually occured. That, my friends, is a very sad
statement.
I mean, here we have something that we all managed to defeat,
that no one got hurt from, and yet people still use it as nothing more
than another excuse to argue. There's a lot of lessons mankind can learn
from this if it really wanted to.
Well, do you want to?
-Robert Chesnavich
pup...@pair.com
Rich Loether
>> >What Quinn and Rose did should be considered a crime.
and
>No one will with any reasonable intelligence is ever going to believe
>Quinn again.
I don't know if anyone noticed that I copied Quinn on my reply to
Chuck's rant.
His reply to me is reproduced here:
"I am sitting here looking at the Y-2-K prep books from the State of PA,
signed by the Lt. Governor. Next to it sits the FEMA flyer, the Red
Cross flyer, the Navy report on the vulnerability of the 40 cities
where it has bases. They all recommend stocking up on food, water,
blankets, and fuel as well as withdrawing small amounts of cash from
the bank. Then there is the CIA memo to the employees suggesting the
same. And don't forget the millions in food and water and emergency
beds stock piled by the city of Washington DC. And the 40 city command
centers built just for this. Oh yes and the Russians and Americans who
sat with their fingers crossed at Cheyenne Mountain, along with the
employees of every utility company and telecommunications company in
the country who blew off their New Years party to be in front of their
computers. Also, there is the Coast Guard report that much of foreign
shipping will probably have to be prevented from entering ports because
of Y-2-K navigation failures. Then there's the National Guard, the State
Police, the Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, who was the first
to sound the alarm to the Clinton Administration.
"There's a lot more. Ask your friends which one of these wacko nutballs I
should recommend stand trial with me."
So whadaya think, Chuck? It's going to be one crowded courtroom
with all those folks there.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Dan Sullivan
and then feel cheated when they don't die.
Chuck
pim...@pobox.com wrote:
> Chuck sounds like one of those people who buy life insurance
> and then feel cheated when they don't die.
I had to come out of retirement to answer that one.
No Dan, I was just railing against the bunkered, right wing wackos who
WANT to use their life insurance. And when they did not die, they are
angry.
I rail against idiot radio jocks that spread untruths (knowingly).
While Quinn may get some things right, he gets too many things wrong.
I will not go through life worrying if I am going to have to use my life
insurance. Yes, I am vigilant about our government, but I am not losing
sleep over the possiblility of Clinton placing us all under martial law.
I am not going to worry my life away cause Quinn says there are foreign
troops waiting to come out of Allegheny National Forest.
The only folks I was flaming was the bunkered, right wing wacko types
who went out and bought tons of food, guns, generators because Quinn
told them they should.
Out of all the Libertarians Dan, you were the one I thought you would
see through Quinn's crap. Lets see, I heard from Dave, Rob, Dan---
where is Terry? Did Terry see through Quinn?
I guess the Libertarian party has found a new home with the Right Wing
Republicans, go for it guys, keep them 30/30s loaded. You never know
when one of them black helicopters might fly by again.
Chuck
Mischa E Gelman
>Out of all the Libertarians Dan, you were the one I thought you would
>see through Quinn's crap. Lets see, I heard from Dave, Rob, Dan---
>where is Terry? Did Terry see through Quinn?
Terry hasn't posted here in a while for whatever reason. What about Rich
B.?
>I guess the Libertarian party has found a new home with the Right Wing
>Republicans, go for it guys, keep them 30/30s loaded. You never know
>when one of them black helicopters might fly by again.
Dave's been on the conspiracy high at least since I started reading this
NG (over a year ago at the shortest).
--
You can make your superhero a psychopath, you can draw gut-splattering
violence, and you can call it a "graphic novel," but comic books are still
incredibly stupid. - Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin&Hobbes
dav...@city-net.com
>In article <857h9j$j6i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Chuck <sho...@nauticom.net> wrote:
>
>>Out of all the Libertarians Dan, you were the one I thought you would
>>see through Quinn's crap. Lets see, I heard from Dave, Rob, Dan---
>>where is Terry? Did Terry see through Quinn?
>
>Terry hasn't posted here in a while for whatever reason. What about Rich
>B.?
>
>>I guess the Libertarian party has found a new home with the Right Wing
>>Republicans, go for it guys, keep them 30/30s loaded. You never know
>>when one of them black helicopters might fly by again.
>
>Dave's been on the conspiracy high at least since I started reading this
>NG (over a year ago at the shortest).
Give us some examples of my "conspircy" stuff.
dav...@city-net.com
>In article <857h9j$j6i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Chuck <sho...@nauticom.net> wrote:
>
>>Out of all the Libertarians Dan, you were the one I thought you would
>>see through Quinn's crap. Lets see, I heard from Dave, Rob, Dan---
>>where is Terry? Did Terry see through Quinn?
>
>Terry hasn't posted here in a while for whatever reason. What about Rich
>B.?
>
>>I guess the Libertarian party has found a new home with the Right Wing
>>Republicans, go for it guys, keep them 30/30s loaded. You never know
>>when one of them black helicopters might fly by again.
>
>Dave's been on the conspiracy high at least since I started reading this
>NG (over a year ago at the shortest).
Check out the loony conspiracy section of my web page (this is some of
the REALLY off the wall stuff!):
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/idxkook.htm
dav...@city-net.com
>I guess the Libertarian party has found a new home with the Right Wing
>Republicans, go for it guys, keep them 30/30s loaded. You never know
>when one of them black helicopters might fly by again.
>
>Chuck
There you go again.....Vigilance = paranoid.
Do me a favor and come out of retirement once again, summon up some
courage, and address my question:
*********************
What is it that makes the United States magically immune
from tyranny? What unique thing, or things, do we possess
which all of the other great fallen civilizations didn't have?
*********************
What's YOUR answer? I can't wait to hear.
-Dave
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/
dav...@city-net.com
>In article <mTpd4.529$Dc3.2...@news.sgi.net>,
> pim...@pobox.com wrote:
>> Chuck sounds like one of those people who buy life insurance
>> and then feel cheated when they don't die.
>
>I had to come out of retirement to answer that one.
>
>No Dan, I was just railing against the bunkered, right wing wackos who
>WANT to use their life insurance. And when they did not die, they are
>angry.
>
>I rail against idiot radio jocks that spread untruths (knowingly).
>While Quinn may get some things right, he gets too many things wrong.
<snip>
What do you think Quinn's reply that Rich posted?
Why aren't you castigating the Lt. Governor, FEMA, the Red
Cross, the FBI and the CIA?
Chuck
Because those groups did not spread dooms day bullshit like Quinn. They
used common sense and said that "just in case" it happens you should
prepare for it like you would a snow storm. They also added that it
probably would not happen. Their scenerio was much different that
Quinn's.
On the other hand Quinn brought on anyone he could on his show who would
say the end of the world was going to happen at Y2K.
Did any of you Libertarians ask yourself, why is Quinn not bringing on
someone who will say that everything would be ok come Y2K.
Did you Libertarians think that everyone who was saying it would be ok
were just trying to trick you? Trick you so that Clinton could place us
under martial law?
Little paranoid, ehhhh?
Chuck
Chuck
Wing
> >Republicans, go for it guys, keep them 30/30s loaded. You never know
> >when one of them black helicopters might fly by again.
> >
> >Chuck
>
> There you go again.....Vigilance = paranoid.
>
> Do me a favor and come out of retirement once again, summon up some
> courage, and address my question:
>
> *********************
> What is it that makes the United States magically immune
> from tyranny? What unique thing, or things, do we possess
> which all of the other great fallen civilizations didn't have?
> *********************
>
> What's YOUR answer? I can't wait to hear.
Dave,
Our world is NOT perfect. That said, the document that protects us all
is the United States Constitution and the US Supreme Court. The
Constitution was written by man and the Supreme Court is run by men,
thus they are both not perfect, that said we still live in one of the
greatest countries in the world.
I won't argue that there have been things that happen in this country
that should not, but we will never have a perfect world.
Only God is perfect.
pupd...@my-deja.com
Chuck <sho...@nauticom.net> wrote:
> In article <mTpd4.529$Dc3.2...@news.sgi.net>,
> pim...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> see through Quinn's crap. Lets see, I heard from Dave, Rob, Dan---
> where is Terry? Did Terry see through Quinn?
Hey Chuck, I have a feeling at this point that you're barely actually
even reading my posts and instead are scanning them for buzzwords, but
on the hope that I'm wrong, another clue for you:
I never listened to Quinn on this issue. I barely ever listened to him
at all, since I've almost never kept a morning schedule. And I knew
about this issue long before he did and long before you did, and I can
talk circles around either one of you too about it. And that's not any
type of bragging, because there are people who could in turn talk
circles around me about it.
But even just myself I've already said a good number of things, all
factual, that have proven you wrong. I've already seen a number of
people just on this board alone fall into the black hole of ignoring
points out of fear of being disproven. I fear that I'm seeing it again.
> I guess the Libertarian party has found a new home with the Right Wing
> Republicans, go for it guys, keep them 30/30s loaded. You never know
> when one of them black helicopters might fly by again.
I don't suppose you've ever seen "The Monster are Due on Maple Street",
have you Chuck? Who's your alien this week?
You're falling, and it's not a pretty sight to see.
-Robert Chesnavich
pup...@pair.com
Chuck
You _may_ be able to talk some circles around me about some aspects of
computers, but we both know that computers are logical. Either the code
was fixed or it was not fixed. Either the date was passed properly or it
was not going to be passed properly to the OS. For over 6 months people
in the know have been saying that Y2K was going to be nothing more than
a bump in the road.
If you would have run the proper checks on your computer system and
tested them, either they worked or they did not work. These types of
tests were done on every major critical system in the country. Guess
what, they worked and guess what? On Jan 1 they worked. Logical ehh?
Quit talking down to me as if I was some moron and you were the know it
all computer geek. I have enough of an understanding that since the
systems were tested, and they passed those tests, they were going to
work. Could there have been a bump in the road, heck yes, but nothing
like what Quinn and the rest of your Libertarian buddies have been
saying.
I apologize for placing you on the Jim Quinn right wing, wacko list.
Maybe you were smart enough to know that the world was not going to end.
Hell at least you are smart enough not to be one of the Quinn deciples.
Just spare me the "I am a computer engineer", thus I know more than you
bullshit! You have proven nothing. I think you've read too many of your
Tribune Review clippings, remember the ones that backed you on your run
against Foerster for county council. One hint Rob, and shhhhhhh please
don't tell anyone.... the Trib would have backed Hitler if he was
running against Foerster.
Have I fallen Rob?, no, was I right about Y2K, yes. You will be forever
my hero for helping to whip that nasty Y2K bug. Am I happy that the Y2K
bug never reared it's ugly head?, yeah, but I knew it would not even
show.
I am out of this argument all together, retirement here we go again~~~
Logging off, over and out...
Chuck
In article <85ap59$nrg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Tom Pendergast
>
> Hey Rob,
>
> You _may_ be able to talk some circles around me about some aspects of
> computers, but we both know that computers are logical. Either the code
> was fixed or it was not fixed.
> Quit talking down to me as if I was some moron and you were the know it
> all computer geek. I have enough of an understanding that since the
> systems were tested, and they passed those tests, they were going to
> work. Could there have been a bump in the road, heck yes, but nothing
> like what Quinn and the rest of your Libertarian buddies have been
> saying.
Annoying Libertarian Dead Solid Giveaway #1, applies under most any
situation, no matter which one you're talking to (and also proves
my theory that they're a lot closer to liberals in some cases than
they are to conservatives)...
I'm smarter than you.
--
- TP
(another guy that's not as stump dumb as you think folks are [I was
part of a team of four that upgraded nearly 100 Unix LAN/WAN systems
for a major local retail chain two years ago]. You tell 'im, Chuck.)
dav...@city-net.com
>> *********************
>> What is it that makes the United States magically immune
>> from tyranny? What unique thing, or things, do we possess
>> which all of the other great fallen civilizations didn't have?
>> *********************
>>
>> What's YOUR answer? I can't wait to hear.
>
>
>Dave,
>
>Our world is NOT perfect. That said, the document that protects us all
>is the United States Constitution and the US Supreme Court. The
>Constitution was written by man and the Supreme Court is run by men,
>thus they are both not perfect, that said we still live in one of the
>greatest countries in the world.
>
>I won't argue that there have been things that happen in this country
>that should not, but we will never have a perfect world.
>
>
>Only God is perfect.
>
>Chuck
The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the
determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every
single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this
defense are the constitutional rights secure."
--Albert Einstein
What percentage of the population do you think has the slightest clue
as to why, in a democracy, a constitution is an important thing? Of
them, how many have a good understanding of the document and are
willing to defend it?
And BTW, you STILL haven't answered the BIG question. I don't
understand why the people who are SO confident that marshal law can
never happen here can't answer the question. What's up with that?
*********************
What is it that makes the United States magically immune
from tyranny? What unique thing, or things, do we possess
which all of the other great fallen civilizations didn't have?
*********************
pupd...@my-deja.com
Chuck <sho...@nauticom.net> wrote:
> Hey Rob,
>
> You _may_ be able to talk some circles around me about some aspects of
> computers, but we both know that computers are logical. Either the
code
it
> was not going to be passed properly to the OS. For over 6 months
people
> in the know have been saying that Y2K was going to be nothing more
than
> a bump in the road.
I think you better re-define "in the know". Virtually every company on
the planet that had any even vague connection to the Y2K bug had people
on staff at midnight on Jan 1. Most had been running tests for months,
and many of them also had pretty deeply entrenched contingency plans for
when the bug occured, not if.
Would you like some "in the know" articles that show that there were
very specific, real-life crashes that were Y2K related that proved that
the problem was real? I've got plenty of them.
The above paragraph is wrong on many levels. I can show these levels to
you whenever you want.
> If you would have run the proper checks on your computer system and
> tested them, either they worked or they did not work. These types of
> tests were done on every major critical system in the country. Guess
> what, they worked and guess what? On Jan 1 they worked. Logical ehh?
Illogical. Only so much simulation could be done ahead of time. You can
set a single computer to Jan 1 and watch what happens, but that will
produce nowhere near the same results as the real thing. If you think it
can, then I still question how much you actually know about this issue.
> Quit talking down to me as if I was some moron and you were the know
> it all computer geek.
Chuck, you should know my rules for respect: you offer it to me, and
I'll offer it to you. Since you went on your brainwashed-Quinn-fanboy
tirade I have no qualms with telling it to you like it is. And I already
said that I'm not nearly the world's expert in this field, only that you
know for less of what you're talking about on this issue than you claim.
> I have enough of an understanding that since the
> systems were tested, and they passed those tests, they were going to
> work.
Totally incorrect. Did you know, for example, that a number of
governmental systems that had been "thoroughly tested" for Y2K later
developed problems, before Jan 1 in fact?
> Could there have been a bump in the road, heck yes, but nothing
> like what Quinn and the rest of your Libertarian buddies have been
> saying.
If you don't think that was a real possibility then you truly didn't
understand what the nature of the problem was. The nature of the
question wasn't whether or not the bug could crash systems, cause the
loss of power, and keep cars from running...because as I already said,
those things *happened*. The nature of the problem was...well, since you
know as much as you say you do, I'll let you answer this one.
> I apologize for placing you on the Jim Quinn right wing, wacko list.
Thank you: that's a start at least. But...
> Maybe you were smart enough to know that the world was not going to
end.
I had no idea what the future was going to bring. Anybody who is so 100%
positive that they know the future worries me a lot more than Jim Quinn
ever will.
> Hell at least you are smart enough not to be one of the Quinn
> deciples.
I am nobody's disciple. Now stop dropping that label on everyone else
and you may be onto something.
> Just spare me the "I am a computer engineer", thus I know more than
you
> bullshit!
Chuck, there are areas of expertise that we all have, and there are
certainly areas where people know more than each other. This applies to
everyone. There are things that you know more about than me, and vice
versa. Wisdom is recognizing this, and not being deathly afraid to learn
something from someone. I learn from people every day in all kinds of
realms of knowledge. What is your fear of doing the same?
> You have proven nothing.
I've given you several, factual examples of the Y2K bug doing things
that you said it couldn't do. That is proof. Either you ignored it, or
you don't care.
I can give you more of them, as well as a detailed explanation of how
the worst-case scenario could have happened.
> I think you've read too many of your
> Tribune Review clippings, remember the ones that backed you on your
> run against Foerster for county council. One hint Rob, and shhhhhhh
> please don't tell anyone.... the Trib would have backed Hitler if he
> was running against Foerster.
So now I've gone from Quinn disciple to Trib disciple? Do you even see
how you are acting? Just to dash your facts again, I had no idea what
the Trib's stance on what Y2K was going to bring was. Did they even post
a prediction? I read them off and on and I certainly never saw anything
about it.
> Have I fallen Rob?, no, was I right about Y2K, yes.
Irrelevant. What your views are is not nearly as important as how you
come to them. I'm much happier about being completely wrong about it
than I would be to think that Y2K was a vast Quinn-wing conspiracy to
get people to buy more generators.
And I didn't say you've fallen: only that you're falling, ie, on the way
there. I say that not because I might agree or disagree with you, but
because of the fact that I'm worried about the possibility that I might
not be able to get any facts through to you at all.
And what you're falling into is the fear that I mentioned in my previous
post. You read entire posts, and ignore 9 of the 10 points made, many of
which, again, are factual elements that disprove you. You assume things
about the motivations of people who disagree with you, and seem to only
care a little bit about whether or not it's true. I thank you for
apologizing to me, but you have a few other people you should apply that
towards on this board.
The fact that I'm even responding to you means that I still hold the
possibility that we can have conversations where we are willing to learn
things from each other. I've all but lost that with the other person who
responded to this post, who I won't even bother reading.
Chuck, do you remember when I was on Honsberger's show, and then a year
later on Thor Tolo's show? Both of those times you chastised me for not
tearing into them. You wanted me to rip them apart, curse them, insult
them, show absolutely no mercy, GIVE THEM EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE
COMING!!!
I didn't, and I'm glad I didn't. Do you understand why now? Give your
fellow man respect. If you don't, many other goals you might have about
this world have no chance.
So if I say you're falling, it's because I don't want to see it
continue. And I feel the same about the other person who responded to
this, but I have so little hope that he'll listen that I'm not going to
take the time to reply.
But when I said "Peace to all" in my first message, I meant it. If I'm
hard on you, it's only a means to the end of trying to get a point
through. I don't value hatred, unlike those who hold up as a badge of
honor the fact that their party builds more prisons and locks more
people away then all of the others.
Arguments should be about two people searching for the truth, nothing
more.
> You will be forever
> my hero for helping to whip that nasty Y2K bug.
I'll assume that's not sarcasm and thank you. But I don't think you're
really grasping that nobody actually wanted this bug to happen, and that
we were ALL happy that it didn't happen, including the most extreme of
the doomsday predictors. Read my first post again, I made the point
there about as good as I'm capable of making it.
> Am I happy that the Y2K
> bug never reared it's ugly head? yeah,
Good: that's without a doubt the most important issue here.
> but I knew it would not even show.
You guessed it would, and you guessed right. And I'm glad your guess was
right. But the fact of the matter is, nobody knew for a fact what was
going to happen. And I've been over this already. I can guess better
than Joe DeNardo what tomorrow's temperatures will be, but that doesn't
mean that I "knew" what was going to happen.
Nobody, Chuck, not you nor I nor Jim Quinn nor Bill Clinton nor the Red
Cross nor Bill Gates nor anyone knew what was going to happen on Jan 1.
Until you realize how little we as humans actually know, I'm going to
worry about you.
> I am out of this argument all together, retirement here we go again~~~
Honestly, I think a breather will do you some good right now.
Happy New Year,
Rich Loether
>In article <mTpd4.529$Dc3.2...@news.sgi.net>,
> pim...@pobox.com wrote:
>> Chuck sounds like one of those people who buy life insurance
>> and then feel cheated when they don't die.
>I had to come out of retirement to answer that one.
>No Dan, I was just railing against the bunkered, right wing wackos who
>WANT to use their life insurance. And when they did not die, they are
>angry.
Has anyone here heard a single person complain because they didn't
have to (get to) use their generator? ...or eat their stored food?
...or anything else along that line?
Chuck
pupd...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <85b097$spb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Chuck <sho...@nauticom.net> wrote:
> > Hey Rob,
> >
> > You _may_ be able to talk some circles around me about some aspects
of
> > computers, but we both know that computers are logical. Either the
> code
> > was fixed or it was not fixed. Either the date was passed properly
or
> it
> > was not going to be passed properly to the OS. For over 6 months
> people
> > in the know have been saying that Y2K was going to be nothing more
> than
> > a bump in the road.
>
> I think you better re-define "in the know". Virtually every company on
> the planet that had any even vague connection to the Y2K bug had
>people
Back out of retirement, I feel like Michael Jordan.
In the know people = Not you, apparently not any of the Libertarians in
this area.
> on staff at midnight on Jan 1. Most had been running tests for months,
> and many of them also had pretty deeply entrenched contingency plans
for
> when the bug occured, not if.
>
> Would you like some "in the know" articles that show that there were
> very specific, real-life crashes that were Y2K related that proved
that
> the problem was real? I've got plenty of them.
>
> The above paragraph is wrong on many levels. I can show these levels
to
> you whenever you want.
Don't bother, you have not and cannot prove me wrong. The fact that the
systems were checked and re-checked and passed proves the "in the know"
crowd correct. Over 6 months ago both Duquesne Light, Peoples Natl Gas,
both of the banks I deal with came out and said either they would be or
already were Y2K ready. Were there some bumps in the road? Yes, I said
that Rob. I know of no one who 1) could not get their car running, or
2) could not open their garage. 3) lost power
Were there people working New Years eve in case of a bump in the road,
yes!
I don't care what articles you have in your posession, the systems were
checked and re-checked and guess what, they passed with flying colors.
Even computers in China, Russia ran without a glitch Rob, how can you
account for that? Their lights did not go out.
> > If you would have run the proper checks on your computer system and
> > tested them, either they worked or they did not work. These types
of
> > tests were done on every major critical system in the country.
Guess
> > what, they worked and guess what? On Jan 1 they worked. Logical
ehh?
>
> Illogical. Only so much simulation could be done ahead of time. You
can
> set a single computer to Jan 1 and watch what happens, but that will
> produce nowhere near the same results as the real thing. If you think
it
> can, then I still question how much you actually know about this
issue.
But you are wrong Rob, the utilities did run tests together in
simulation. I have 2 friends that work for 2 different banks, Mellon and
PNC. Both ran simulated tests, and guess what they passed! Guess what,
I ran to the MAC machine 2 days later and got my money out.
> > Quit talking down to me as if I was some moron and you were the know
> > it all computer geek.
>
> Chuck, you should know my rules for respect: you offer it to me, and
> I'll offer it to you. Since you went on your brainwashed-Quinn-fanboy
> tirade I have no qualms with telling it to you like it is. And I
already
> said that I'm not nearly the world's expert in this field, only that
you
> know for less of what you're talking about on this issue than you
claim.
I have never claimed to be an expert, not like your veiled attempt at it
a few posts ago. I only said computers are logical, when tested
properly they either work or they do not. Guess what Rob, they did!
> > I have enough of an understanding that since the
> > systems were tested, and they passed those tests, they were going to
> > work.
>
> Totally incorrect. Did you know, for example, that a number of
> governmental systems that had been "thoroughly tested" for Y2K later
> developed problems, before Jan 1 in fact?
Got that from an old Quinn web page ehhh? I'll give you a hint Rob,
Quinn did not even have the balls to leave the Y2K crap up on his page.
Remember we still have leap year to deal with and yet even Quinn has
given up his Y2K crusade. Not you ehhhh Rob?
Was it a critical system Rob? Was it something that would have made
Clinton place us under martial law? Or was it a stand alone computer
that would not let the some high paid government worker play solitaire?
> > Could there have been a bump in the road, heck yes, but nothing
> > like what Quinn and the rest of your Libertarian buddies have been
> > saying.
>
> If you don't think that was a real possibility then you truly didn't
> understand what the nature of the problem was. The nature of the
> question wasn't whether or not the bug could crash systems, cause the
> loss of power, and keep cars from running...because as I already said,
> those things *happened*. The nature of the problem was...well, since
>you <rest of rambling snipped>
Who had cars that would not run?
If it was going to be so bad, how come China and Russia kept on going
without any problems? Get a clue Rob
Maybe it is the Libertarian computers that would not run, maybe because
they thought if they did run, Clinton would place them under martial law
and not give them their mice back. Or maybe those black helicopters
would fly against Pittsburgh again.
What if, what if, what if, we could go on forever.
We live in one of the greatest countries in the world and we beat that
angry little bug. <smack> </smack> But then Russia, China and how many
other 3rd world countries are still running so how really bad could it
have been... ehhh Rob. I guess them Chinese knew.
What if, what if, what if what if what if what if what if.
Lions and tigers and Y2K, ohhhhh my!
Chuck
Tom Pendergast
>
> In article <85d9l0$hse$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> pupd...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <85b097$spb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Chuck <sho...@nauticom.net> wrote:
> > > Hey Rob,
> > >
> > > You _may_ be able to talk some circles around me about some aspects
> of
> > > computers, but we both know that computers are logical. Either the
> > code
> > > was fixed or it was not fixed. Either the date was passed properly
> or
> > it
> > > was not going to be passed properly to the OS. For over 6 months
> > people
> > > in the know have been saying that Y2K was going to be nothing more
> > than
> > > a bump in the road.
> >
> > I think you better re-define "in the know". Virtually every company on
> > the planet that had any even vague connection to the Y2K bug had
> >people
>
> Back out of retirement, I feel like Michael Jordan.
Chuck --
Give it up, they'll run you around in circles forever if you let
them. I know it's tempting, witness my "never-ending" battle with
the anarchist-libertarian conspiracy theory weenie Kleber, notice
also that Dan Sullivan is now around for "backup". Keep wasting
time on Rob and it won't be long before they're consuming all of
your time replying to their half-truths and useless historical
quotes. Actually, I do realize that you've already figured this
out, as you too have recently stopped devoting any substantial time
to the on-line holy wars, just as I have. Enjoy your "retirement"!
--
- TP
(.sig file on the transporter heading for the wind tunnel)
dav...@city-net.com
>Chuck --
>
>Give it up, they'll run you around in circles forever if you let
>them. I know it's tempting, witness my "never-ending" battle with
>the anarchist-libertarian conspiracy theory weenie Kleber
Tom,
If I'm such a "weenie", why don't you put me in my place....Take the
"Assassin" challenge and prove to everyone that you're right and that
I'm a loony conspiracy kook. Prove me wrong, you jackass assassin:
Dear Tom "the Assassin" Pendergast:
I'll provide you with 3 facts in the Vince Foster case which, at the
VERY least, suggest that there was a coverup in the investigation of
his death. Then, you can prove my facts are wrong and also prove that
I'm a conspiracy kook.
And just in case you're afraid to take me on with the Foster death,
you can choose either of the following and the same rules will apply:
-TWA 800 cover up
-Waco cover up
As I said before, good luck, jackass. I don't expect you will meet
the challenge any more than I expected Honzman to. And we all know
why that is, don't we?
I'll be awating your childish non-acceptant reply.
pupd...@my-deja.com
is going to die anytime soon, and I've made all of the major points that
I wish to make and it's consuming a lot of my time I'm going to back
out.
If anyone wants to do research on this issue, there are plenty of sites
all over the web with more specific examples of what I'm talking about.
In the meantime, Chuck, I hope the next time we talk it doesn't
degenerate into insults about irrelevencies, like the Trib endoresment
of my recent campaign. And Tom, you were the first person I responded to
in this. I hope you find another way someday besides hatred. The level
to which it has consumed you is downright frightening.
Peace,
Dan Sullivan
>In article <857h9j$j6i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sho...@nauticom.net says...
>>In article <mTpd4.529$Dc3.2...@news.sgi.net>,
>> pim...@pobox.com wrote:
>>> Chuck sounds like one of those people who buy life insurance
>>> and then feel cheated when they don't die.
>>I had to come out of retirement to answer that one.
>>No Dan, I was just railing against the bunkered, right wing wackos who
>>WANT to use their life insurance. And when they did not die, they are
>>angry.
>Has anyone here heard a single person complain because they didn't
>have to (get to) use their generator? ...or eat their stored food?
>...or anything else along that line?
No, Chuck is complaining on their behalf. It is awfully kind
of him, isn't it? Of, course, Chuck *knew* nothing was going
to happen, and now he knows that even the things that did
happen, according to reputable news sources, didn't
*actually* happen.
I am reminde of the people who sued Pizza Hut because they
woudn't deliver a pizza into the Hill District on Rodney
King Riot Night. They *knew* there was no danger, and Pizza
Hut should have known, too. Never mind that there was
violence in other cities. Never mind that black leaders not
only held a peace march and appeared on the media asking for
non-violence, but even took to the streets with bullhorns,
pleading with angry people to simmer down. No, none of these
things mattered to the people suing Pizza Hut, because they
*knew* what could not be known.
So, now, does Chuck claim to have known what could not be
known, and the people who did not know this were right-wing
wackoes who take their marching orders from Jim Quinn. That
includes groups like NORAD, who put their their computer
people and their missle defense people on special alert in
case thier computer system (or, more likely, the Russian
system) had a bug that might inadvertantly launch missles.
Chuck is right that we can't prove anything to him; nobody
can prove anything to him. We can only have fun making him
look silly, but that is getting too easy to be sporting. Now
that he has Tom on his side, it is even easier. Indeed,
someone with a sisyphus complex might try to help make their
case in a way that sounds plausable.
Chuck
pim...@pobox.com wrote:
> No, Chuck is complaining on their behalf. It is awfully kind
> of him, isn't it? Of, course, Chuck *knew* nothing was going
> to happen, and now he knows that even the things that did
> happen, according to reputable news sources, didn't
> *actually* happen.
<rest of dan's dribble snipped>
Wrong again Dan, so much for your reading ability.
I stated in the past week that:
Y2K was blown out of proportion, especially by the Right Wing Quinn
wackos and some the Libertarian types(but not you Rob!). I did agree
that there might have been some bumps in the road, but nothing more than
that.
I stated that there were many tests done on mission critical systems,
they passed. On January 1, 2000 Russia, China, North and South Korea
and many many third world countries watched the year 2000 come in
without any problems.
Everything that every credible computer engineer said came true. That
everything would be good to go come Y2K. Of course that proved every
idiot that Quinn paraded on the radio wrong.
Keep on sitting in your little bunker Dan, heck maybe your video store
will give you a receipt dated wrong on Feb 29, 2000 and then you can
come back on pgh.opinion and tell us how right you and your computer
guru Rob was. Me, I'll keep listening to folks that really know the
problem.
BTW: I hear Jim Quinn is now the local Chairman of the Libertarian
party, is that true? Do you think he could pull some off his right wing
wacko buddies out to vote for you Libs? Ohhh but then again, they may
stay in their bunkers until May....
Chuck
Tom Pendergast
>
> I should probably point out that since it doesn't look like this thread
> is going to die anytime soon, and I've made all of the major points that
> I wish to make and it's consuming a lot of my time I'm going to back
> out.
> And Tom, you were the first person I responded to
> in this. I hope you find another way someday besides hatred. The level
> to which it has consumed you is downright frightening.
Yup. I generally "hate" selfish pigs that have no respect for the
safety and rights of others. You might be the greatest guy in the
world Rob, but you drive like a total asshole, told us so yourself
right here on line. Someday you're going to be doing you own
personal speed (non-)limit because you're so damned cocky and
consumed by your self-induceded, self-inflated sense of your own
importance, and you're going to screw up. If there's a God, you
won't kill or maim anybody else when it happens, but we all know
that we can't count on that.
--
- TP
dav...@city-net.com
Hey Chuck,
Look at your response below. I would expect name calling from the
Assassin like this but that's about it. What the fuck is wrong with
you?
-Dave
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/
Chuck
Such language, do you eat with them fingers and mouth?
I re-read my posting and to be honest with you I cannot see where I
called anyone a name. That is other than:
-Quinn who I refer to as a "right wing wacko". But then, I've been
doing that for the last week.
-I callled Rob a "guru"
-I questioned Dan's reading ability
-I abreviated the word Libertarian to "Lib"
Please quote where I called anyone a name other than Quinn.
Are you pulling an old Liberal ploy, you know how they make the
Republicans out to be mean spirited?
Chuck
In article <387c7276....@news.city-net.com>,
Dan Sullivan
>pupd...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> I should probably point out that since it doesn't look like this thread
>> is going to die anytime soon, and I've made all of the major points that
>> I wish to make and it's consuming a lot of my time I'm going to back
>> out.
>...
>> And Tom, you were the first person I responded to
>> in this. I hope you find another way someday besides hatred. The level
>> to which it has consumed you is downright frightening.
>Yup. I generally "hate" selfish pigs that have no respect for the
>safety and rights of others. You might be the greatest guy in the
>world Rob, but you drive like a total asshole, told us so yourself
>right here on line.
No, Tom, you interpret like a total asshole, especially when
you perceive a threat to the authority of your beloved
police. Rob said he sometimes goes over the speed limit.
Guess what? Most people go over the speed limit, most of the
time.
I have ridden with Rob. He is passed more than he passes.
>Someday you're going to be doing you own
>personal speed (non-)limit because you're so damned cocky and
>consumed by your self-induceded, self-inflated sense of your own
>importance, and you're going to screw up. If there's a God, you
>won't kill or maim anybody else when it happens, but we all know
>that we can't count on that.
Well, unlike Rob, I generally pass far more cars than pass
me, and, if I have a vehicle that is up for it, I often
exceed the speed limit by more than the customary 10 miles
per hour. I have logged well over 1.3 million miles without
being responsible for even a fender-bender, which is an
exceptionally good record.
Don't you just hate that? And what do you *not* hate, other
than submission?
Dan Sullivan
>In article <NMNe4.79$jt6....@news.sgi.net>,
> pim...@pobox.com wrote:
>> No, Chuck is complaining on their behalf. It is awfully kind
>> of him, isn't it? Of, course, Chuck *knew* nothing was going
>> to happen, and now he knows that even the things that did
>> happen, according to reputable news sources, didn't
>> *actually* happen.
><rest of dan's dribble snipped>
>Wrong again Dan, so much for your reading ability.
>I stated in the past week that:
>Y2K was blown out of proportion, especially by the Right Wing Quinn
>wackos and some the Libertarian types(but not you Rob!). I did agree
>that there might have been some bumps in the road, but nothing more than
>that.
You stated so many things that citing one or two things
means almost nothing. As for Quinn's exaggerations, I agree
that he exaggerates, but not as much as you have exaggerated
in your condemnation of him. You will get a lot more
agreement if you tone it down.
Tom Pendergast
>
> Tom Pendergast <shar...@pgh.net> wrote:
>
> >pupd...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I should probably point out that since it doesn't look like this thread
> >> is going to die anytime soon, and I've made all of the major points that
> >> I wish to make and it's consuming a lot of my time I'm going to back
> >> out.
> >...
> >> And Tom, you were the first person I responded to
> >> in this. I hope you find another way someday besides hatred. The level
> >> to which it has consumed you is downright frightening.
>
> >Yup. I generally "hate" selfish pigs that have no respect for the
> >safety and rights of others. You might be the greatest guy in the
> >world Rob, but you drive like a total asshole, told us so yourself
> >right here on line.
>
> No, Tom, you interpret like a total asshole, especially when
> you perceive a threat to the authority of your beloved
> police. Rob said he sometimes goes over the speed limit.
> Guess what? Most people go over the speed limit, most of the
> time.
Please, we've had this argument a dozen times before, let's cut
to the chase: You, and everybody else who routinely, flagrantly
and grossly break speed limits believe three lies:
1) You're smarter than everybody, including those
who design highways and set speed limits.
2) You're bulletproof.
3) You are above the law.
> I have ridden with Rob. He is passed more than he passes.
...
> Well, unlike Rob, I generally pass far more cars than pass
> me, and, if I have a vehicle that is up for it, I often
> exceed the speed limit by more than the customary 10 miles
> per hour. I have logged well over 1.3 million miles without
> being responsible for even a fender-bender, which is an
> exceptionally good record.
Oh. So he must not be as smart as you?
--
- TP
Rich Loether
>Please, we've had this argument a dozen times before, let's cut
>to the chase: You, and everybody else who routinely, flagrantly
>and grossly break speed limits believe three lies:
> 1) You're smarter than everybody, including those
> who design highways and set speed limits.
> 2) You're bulletproof.
> 3) You are above the law.
Tom,
I suppose there's something that makes you believe that you're
better at telling what other people believe than, say, Janet
Reno or Jesse Jackson. In public it does nothing but make you
look foolish.
Instead of the list you supplied above, try:
1) It's my responsibility to insure that I get to my
destination safely, therefore I must decide on a moment
by moment basis how fast to travel.
2) In order to do this, I must evaluate continually
changing road condition, traffic, weather, etc.
3) When I evaluate all the things that go into the
determination of a safe speed, my numbers are sometimes
higher than those posted on speed limit signs, somethimes
lower.
3) This is to be expected since those numbers do not
vary with weather conditions, lighting, traffic, etc.
Since it's my butt which will be in traction if I wrap my car
around a utility pole, not that of the guy who posted the speed
limit sign, I have a much greater interest in seeing that my
determinations are in line with reality. There is also a
continuously active mechanism in place which doesn't give a rat's
ass what my intentions, religion, or politically affiliation are,
just whether my numbers are right. This mechanism is Mother Nature.
While Mother Nature is really good at painting sunsets and sculpting
landscapes, she's just as soon see you or I dead if we exceed her
standards of "too fast for conditions".
Therefore someone who has successfully traveled many hundreds of
thousands of miles without serious mishap MUST be doing a pretty
good job of telling what is and what isn't a safe speed.
Now go back to your reruns of COPS.
Tom Pendergast
Rich Loether wrote:
>
> In article <387D5C5A...@pgh.net>, shar...@pgh.net says...
>
> >Please, we've had this argument a dozen times before, let's cut
> >to the chase: You, and everybody else who routinely, flagrantly
> >and grossly break speed limits believe three lies:
>
> > 1) You're smarter than everybody, including those
> > who design highways and set speed limits.
>
> > 2) You're bulletproof.
>
> > 3) You are above the law.
>
> Tom,
>
> I suppose there's something that makes you believe that you're
> better at telling what other people believe than, say, Janet
> Reno or Jesse Jackson. In public it does nothing but make you
> look foolish.
>
> Instead of the list you supplied above, try:
>
> It's my responsibility to insure that I get to my
> destination safely, therefore I must (1) decide on a moment
> by moment basis how fast to travel (2).
>
> In order to do this, I must evaluate continually
> changing road condition, traffic, weather, etc. (1)
>
> When I evaluate (1) all the things that go into the
> determination (1) of a safe speed (2), my numbers are
> sometimes higher than those posted on speed limit signs (3),
> somethimes lower.
>
> This is to be expected (1) since those numbers do not
> vary with weather conditions, lighting, traffic, etc. (2)
>
> Since it's my butt which will be in traction if I wrap my car
> around a utility pole (3), not that of the guy who posted the speed
> limit sign (1), I have a much greater interest in seeing that my
> determinations are in line with reality (3). There is also a
> continuously active mechanism in place which doesn't give a rat's
> ass what my intentions, religion, or politically affiliation are,
> just whether my numbers are right (1). This mechanism is Mother
> Nature.
>
> While Mother Nature is really good at painting sunsets and sculpting
> landscapes, she's just as soon see you or I dead if we exceed her
> standards of "too fast for conditions" (2).
>
> Therefore someone who has successfully traveled many hundreds of
> thousands of miles (2) without serious mishap MUST be doing a pretty
> good job (1) of telling what is and what isn't a safe speed (3)
--
- TP
Dan Sullivan
>Please, we've had this argument a dozen times before, let's cut
>to the chase: You, and everybody else who routinely, flagrantly
>and grossly break speed limits believe three lies:
> 1) You're smarter than everybody, including those
> who design highways and set speed limits.
Only Tom acts like he is smart enough to tell other people
what they think. People who break speed limits cannot be
assumed to think they are smarter than "everybody," since
almost everybody routinely travels above the speed limit.
All these people might think they are smarter then the
bureaucrats who post the speed limits, but then these
bureaucrats must also think they are smarter than the
driving public, for they think they can impose the judgement
of a metal sign as if it were superior to the judgement of
the people on the road.
> 2) You're bulletproof.
It never occurred to me to worry about bullets when driving.
When you tell me you have become a traffic cop, I might
start.
> 3) You are above the law.
When a law is so disrespected that the general populous
breaks it, it ceases to be a valid law, and everyone is
above it. That said, I do not think I am above everyone
else. It's not like I'm a cop or something.
>> I have ridden with Rob. He is passed more than he passes.
>...
>> Well, unlike Rob, I generally pass far more cars than pass
>> me, and, if I have a vehicle that is up for it, I often
>> exceed the speed limit by more than the customary 10 miles
>> per hour. I have logged well over 1.3 million miles without
>> being responsible for even a fender-bender, which is an
>> exceptionally good record.
>Oh. So he must not be as smart as you?
He just hasn't been driving for as long. You really are hung
up on this intelligence thing.
Tom Pendergast
>
> Tom Pendergast <shar...@pgh.net> wrote:
>
> >Please, we've had this argument a dozen times before, let's cut
> >to the chase: You, and everybody else who routinely, flagrantly
> >and grossly break speed limits believe three lies:
> > 2) You're bulletproof.
>
> It never occurred to me to worry about bullets when driving.
You really ought to try and "get out" more, Dan! In popular, modern
day vernacular, "bulletproof" also means "a sense of infallibility"
> > 3) You are above the law.
> >> I have ridden with Rob. He is passed more than he passes.
> >...
> >> Well, unlike Rob, I generally pass far more cars than pass
> >> me, and, if I have a vehicle that is up for it, I often
> >> exceed the speed limit by more than the customary 10 miles
> >> per hour. I have logged well over 1.3 million miles without
> >> being responsible for even a fender-bender, which is an
> >> exceptionally good record.
>
> >Oh. So he must not be as smart as you?
>
> He just hasn't been driving for as long.
Oh. So the older you get (the longer you drive) the faster you
are capable of going? The better your reflexes are? The better
your vision is?
--
- TP
Ja...@world.net
It will be just as soon as you bone heads get off of it.
Dan Sullivan
>Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> Tom Pendergast <shar...@pgh.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Please, we've had this argument a dozen times before, let's cut
>> >to the chase: You, and everybody else who routinely, flagrantly
>> >and grossly break speed limits believe three lies:
>...
>> > 2) You're bulletproof.
>>
>> It never occurred to me to worry about bullets when driving.
>You really ought to try and "get out" more, Dan! In popular, modern
>day vernacular, "bulletproof" also means "a sense of infallibility"
I think the word you are looking for is "invulnerability." I
could be wrong, though. The reason I have logged 1.3 million
miles without causing an accident is that I pay attention to
the all important laws of inertia and friction, and watch
out for potential accidents. You might think some bureaucrat
in Harrisburg can look at a street once and know better than
the rest of us what is a safe speed for all situations, but
most people have a better sense of what to do in the actual
situation facing them than the bureaucrat can have in
predicting conditions.
>
>> > 3) You are above the law.
>> >> I have ridden with Rob. He is passed more than he passes.
>> >...
>> >> Well, unlike Rob, I generally pass far more cars than pass
>> >> me, and, if I have a vehicle that is up for it, I often
>> >> exceed the speed limit by more than the customary 10 miles
>> >> per hour. I have logged well over 1.3 million miles without
>> >> being responsible for even a fender-bender, which is an
>> >> exceptionally good record.
>>
>> >Oh. So he must not be as smart as you?
>>
>> He just hasn't been driving for as long.
>Oh. So the older you get (the longer you drive) the faster you
>are capable of going?
Why do you always twist one thing into another? Age has
nothing to do with how many miles you have driven. I had
driven more miles by age 35 than most people drive in their
lifetimes, because I happened to drive for a living.
> The better your reflexes are? The better
>your vision is?
No, the better your judgement. As a matter of fact, I drive
slower in some situations, now that I am older and my
reflexes are slower. Of course, we can't make such decisions
for ourselves, so some bureaucrat will have to make that a
law, requiring each person to subtract 1 mph for for every
so many years over 40. After all, they are better able to
make decisions for us than we are for ourselves.
Dan Sullivan
>Regarding the subject.
>It will be just as soon as you bone heads get off of it.
How the newgroups work:
Each thread is marked separately.
If you tire of a thread, you don't click it...
...unless you are starved for attention, in which case you
complain.