EPO and Hobby Cyclists
Gunny Bunny
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,1178479,00.html
http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/040325/2/2rhp.html
trg
course those with serious medical conditions).
Increasing the amount of oxygen available to muscles will only help if the
muscles are trained to such a state that they can use all the oxygen already
available. If your muscles are not able to use all the oxygen available (the
case with most of us), increasing red blood cells to provide more oxygen
(the action of EPO) won't be of much help.
Gunny Bunny
However, I tend to disagree, we all get tired 'eventually' and gasp for air,
if we have more platelets, we would not tire as quickly.
"trg" <t...@world.REMOVETHIS.std.com> wrote in message
news:408153cd$0$503$636a...@news.free.fr...
J999w
>if we have more platelets, we would not tire as quickly.
Platelets or something else?
jw
Derk
> However, I tend to disagree, we all get tired 'eventually' and gasp for
> air, if we have more platelets, we would not tire as quickly.
Well, if you don't mind gambling with your health.....
Why do you think it's banned?
Derk
Fred
http://www.noprescriptiondrugs.com/pharm93.html
"Gunny Bunny" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:249gc.33302$2Z6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
NobodyMan
wrote:
>"trg" <t...@world.REMOVETHIS.std.com> wrote in message
>news:408153cd$0$503$636a...@news.free.fr...
>> IMO, EPO is of little practical value to anyone but an elite athlete (and
>of
>> course those with serious medical conditions).
>>
>> Increasing the amount of oxygen available to muscles will only help if the
>> muscles are trained to such a state that they can use all the oxygen
>already
>> available. If your muscles are not able to use all the oxygen available
>(the
>> case with most of us), increasing red blood cells to provide more oxygen
>> (the action of EPO) won't be of much help.
>>
>> Gunny Bunny wrote:
>> > Is EPO really that easy to get ahold of and is it really that
>> > dangerous ??
>> >
>> > http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,1178479,00.html
>> >
>> > http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/040325/2/2rhp.html
>> >
>> > http://bicycling.about.com/library/weekly/aa052800a.htm
>> >
>> > http://bicycling.about.com/library/weekly/aa022199.htm
>>
>>
>
>Oh, u make some good points there :)
>
>However, I tend to disagree, we all get tired 'eventually' and gasp for air,
>if we have more platelets, we would not tire as quickly.
>
Platelets have nothing to do with performance enhancement using EPO,
or with the carrying of O2 in the bloodstream.
EPO stimulates the production of red blood cells, pushing more of
those critters into the bloodstream, providing more oxygen carrying
capablility.
Truth is, most of us don't use all the oxygen already provided in our
blood. Our muscles just aren't "trained" to that level yet, unlike
the elite athletes. Increasing the capacity won't help if you can't
muscles don't max out the draw for what is already there.
In fact, you place yourself in jeopard. You clog your bloodstream
with more rbcs, raising your hematocrit level, but when you go out and
sweat, you lower the plasma level, becoming more and more likely to
form an embolis - and die.
Improper use of EPO can and has killed people. Don't play with this
one folks.
Gunny Bunny
"BaCardi" <usenet...@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:2nggc.110859$RC2....@fe04.usenetserver.com...
> Fred wrote:
> > It's virtually impossible to get, if you're a moron.
> >
> > ndrugs.com/pharm93.html
>
>
>
>
> This is totally irresponsible for you to post a link to an online
> pharmacy where you can supposedly buy this stuff. 1) This stuff is
> dangerous and 2) There are illegal pharmacies like this one all over the
> place. You could do a search on google and find a lot of these places.
> They are illegal in the USA, Canada, Eurpeon nations, etc. I've read
> about places like this. They take your money and run.
>
> EPO is and should be prescribed by physicians. It is a prescription drug
> and is illegal to purchase without consent and supervision from a
> doctor. The stuff is highly dangerous. Your suggestion of a place to buy
> the stuff is out of line. To the OP, DON'T DO IT!
Well, Patani did it and it worked for him !!
Andy Coggan
news:9sd3805dr28n889at...@4ax.com...
> EPO stimulates the production of red blood cells, pushing more of
> those critters into the bloodstream, providing more oxygen carrying
> capablility.
>
> Truth is, most of us don't use all the oxygen already provided in our
> blood. Our muscles just aren't "trained" to that level yet, unlike
> the elite athletes. Increasing the capacity won't help if you can't
> muscles don't max out the draw for what is already there.
This is not true.
Andy Coggan
Werehatrack
have said:
>Is EPO really that easy to get ahold of
Yes.
>and is it really that dangerous ??
Yes, if improperly used. Of course, for some people, the only safe
dose is zero. In light of the lack of ability for the average person
to evaluate the drug's safety for their own use, do you want to take
the risk given the small benefit that might theoretically be obtained?
Bear in mind that the most probable outcome of its use for someone who
is not a competitive-level athlete is that you won't be able to tell
much of a difference if any...
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Tom Kunich
news:0Zkgc.14600$A_4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I wonder where people pick up these myths. EPO is beginning to have more
myths about it than helmets.
NobodyMan
Research cites to back this, please?
Tom Kunich
EPO is of little worth to a normal human being. If you're like most every
other humans on the planet you already have a hematocrit of somewhere
between 42% and 50% NORMALLY. Most recreational racers/riders will already
be from 46%-48%. Stress will be a major factor in RBC lifespan for you.
If you are highly trained athlete who has been training very hard over a
long period of time your hematocrit can fall not so much from not being able
to replace RBC's fast enough as from increasing your total blood volume from
training. You can also reduce the numbers of RBC's from extended anaerobic
training.
Most people aren't going to train this hard or this long. Therefore, EPO
isn't of much use to someone that isn't a highly trained athlete since
additional slight gains in oxygen carrying capacity aren't matched by
additional total blood volume.
EPO forces the body to produce additional RBC's. However, it ain't magic. If
you use it too often and in too high doses, it can cause some pretty serious
side effects ranging from your marrow being depleted of immature RBC's to
developing an allergy to your own EPO which of course means curtains.
So the long and the short of it are that it does almost nothing to a normal
cyclist and can end up killing you. Does that sound like a good tradeoff to
you?
Carl Sundquist
> >> blood. Our muscles just aren't "trained" to that level yet, unlike
> >> the elite athletes. Increasing the capacity won't help if you can't
> >> muscles don't max out the draw for what is already there.
> >
> >This is not true.
> >
> >Andy Coggan
> >
> Research cites to back this, please?
>
>
1. Get on an airplane. Fly to Fresno, CA. Watch out for queers. Drive east
to Mt. Whitney trailhead. Hike to summit.
2. Take some EPO. Repeat #1. Your journey will be easier, no matter whether
you have increased your fitness or not.
Steve
Sundquist" <car...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
Are you saying your "Gaydar" will be enhanced too?
Steven Bornfeld
No, the EPO was after that.
Steve
>
Andy Coggan
They are too numerous to count. But if you want to read some of the more
modern research, go to PubMed and search for studies using search terms such
"polycythemia", "VO2max", "muscle respiratory capacity", etc.
Andy Coggan
Gunny Bunny
Andy, u made the statement, u should provide at least one to support your
argument if u have one :)
Tim Mullin
Shouldn't it be the guy claiming "The truth is...." first back up his
statement? Dr. Coggan is well known exercise physiologist, and well
respected in these parts. I tend to believe what he says, because he has
some expertise in the field. No offense, but when someone with the
esteemed moniker "NobodyMan" claims that most of us don't use all the
oxygen in out blood....well....why the fuck should I believe him? Here's
how it works, you first made the claim, Andy called bullshit, and you
really need to take a bit of your own advice and, "provide at least one
trg
Even though it runs counter to my personal experience, Andy's word is gold
in this matter. My own experience was so far from a contriolled, quantified
study, that I assume there were other factors mitigating the effects of a
rising crit. I went from a crit of 21 to 56 in little more than a year,
stopping off at around 35 for some months. An interesting experience, but
probably useless in experimental terms.
NobodyMan
wrote:
I was going off the research I read. I asked for cites to enlighten
my own knowledge. I'm now reading up on some of the cites that have
been thoughtfully given.
Did I say "You don't know what the #@#$#$ you are talking about so
shut the #$#$#$ up?" NO. I asked for some cites. That's all.
Otherwise all that was provided was anectdotal evidence, which is to
say, no evidence at all.
Geez, don't be so uptight.
NobodyMan
Anectodotal evidence, which is not evidence at all and therefore
inadmissable. Thank you please play again.
Now what Dr. Coogan provided I'll take to heart and read.
Carl Sundquist
east
> >to Mt. Whitney trailhead. Hike to summit.
> >
> >2. Take some EPO. Repeat #1. Your journey will be easier, no matter
whether
> >you have increased your fitness or not.
> >
>
> Anectodotal evidence, which is not evidence at all and therefore
> inadmissable. Thank you please play again.
>
> Now what Dr. Coogan provided I'll take to heart and read.
>
If you try to do a 100 mile ride without a seat on your seatpost, do you
need more than anecdotal evidence to know that your ass will hurt?
Carl Sundquist
> blood. Our muscles just aren't "trained" to that level yet, unlike
> the elite athletes. Increasing the capacity won't help if you can't
> muscles don't max out the draw for what is already there.
>
Research cites to back this, please?
Tom Kunich
news:108930n...@corp.supernews.com...
Actually he is not only right but correct as well. Blood oxygen normally
runs about 99% in a healthy individual. You'll be seeing blackout spots at
90% or lower.
Ewoud Dronkert
> If you try to do a 100 mile ride without a seat on your seatpost
You know, Gert-Jan Theunisse did that for some while (but without the
post as well, presumably) after he had had an operation on the perineum.
Carl Sundquist
So is that the premise of how an altitude tent works? Your muscles are
drawing out all the oxygen in your blood as you sleep, so therefore
the body must produce more RBCs? Sleep high, train low because you're
using more muscle and oxygen while you're sleeping?
Tom Kunich
>
> So is that the premise of how an altitude tent works? Your muscles are
> drawing out all the oxygen in your blood as you sleep, so therefore
> the body must produce more RBCs? Sleep high, train low because you're
> using more muscle and oxygen while you're sleeping?
When your blood oxygen runs below 96% or so it causes the body to release
more natural EPO.
Carl Sundquist
That's fine. Now go re-read what Mr. Nobody said about our muscles not being
"trained" like elite athletes, therefore we're not using all the O2 in our
blood anyway and unable to take advantage of an increased 'crit.
h squared
leaving the subject itself behind, isn't it somewhat amusing that the
person who wrote that post would bust ("Thank you please play again.")
on carl for not providing research cites in his reply? perhaps instead
he should have provided his own supporting evidence?
hh
h squared
h squared wrote:
> perhaps instead
> he should have provided his own supporting evidence?
ps. i see where he wrote that he would do the homework that coggan
provided, that's cool, just had to speak up (or indulge in my own round
of butt kissing, whatever you prefer) for carl.
h
Phil
> Is EPO really that easy to get ahold of and is it really that dangerous ??
>
Seems to me good solid traininng would make more of a difference to
hobby atheletes. How many of us get THAT close to our maximum
ability.
Regards
Tom Kunich
That wasn't what I was agreeing with. I was agreeing with the statement that
people don't use the oxygen they have present in their blood. That's true
and correct but only as far as it goes. In order for everything to operate
properly your blood oxygen must stay pretty close to saturation.
My ex-brother-in-law was something of a world record as the only person to
live to 40 years old with no pulmonary artery. His blood oxygen was stable
at about 76% if memory serves and his blood was always pretty thick because
of that. Finally they transplanted a pulmonary artery in him and the
presence of oxygen made him so giddy he was like a drunk for a couple of
years until his body got used to it.
As you intimate, the training of the muscles has almost nothing to do with
the delivery of oxygen to them. Although I believe that more well trained
muscles have more mitochondria than untrained muscles. So maybe to a very
small extent the statement that more highly trained athletes better use
oxygen might be somewhat true. But certainly hematocrit has little to do
with this mechanism.
Tom Kunich
news:40856475...@hotmail.com...
>
> leaving the subject itself behind, isn't it somewhat amusing that the
> person who wrote that post would bust ("Thank you please play again.")
> on carl for not providing research cites in his reply? perhaps instead
> he should have provided his own supporting evidence?
Generally I've stopped supplying cites because that is generally the tactic
of people who don't know what they're talking about. There have been any
number of times, recently I've written something and people have demanded
citations for things that could be varified in seconds using Google or
Yahoo! with no help from anyone else.
That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the political
arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that Condoleesa Rice
acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The only trouble here was
that a year before her supposed ignorance of a major terrorist group she did
a recorded talk on that very subject.
Just recently we see Bob Woodward write a book claiming that Colin Powell (a
man of rather towering intellect) was "out of the loop" and "not aware of
the war plans in Iraq" only for General Powell to claim that entirely
inaccurate.
What we are seeing is some sort of mass mental aberation in which writers
are telling us what other people about whom they know nothing are thinking.
Seems like the same guys are making comments about Hincapie.
Tom Kunich
news:8bd8dc13.04042...@posting.google.com...
> "Gunny Bunny" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:<249gc.33302$2Z6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > Is EPO really that easy to get ahold of and is it really that dangerous
??
> >
> --snip--
>
> Seems to me good solid traininng would make more of a difference to
> hobby atheletes. How many of us get THAT close to our maximum
> ability.
EXACTLY. EPO won't make you fast. It will help KEEP a top flight athlete
fast over a longer period of time.
Robert Chung
>
> Generally I've stopped supplying cites because that is generally the
> tactic of people who don't know what they're talking about. There have
> been any number of times, recently I've written something and people
> have demanded citations for things that could be varified in seconds
> using Google or Yahoo! with no help from anyone else.
>
> That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the political
> arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that Condoleesa
> Rice acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The only trouble
> here was that a year before her supposed ignorance of a major terrorist
> group she did a recorded talk on that very subject.
Cite, please?
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Generally I've stopped supplying cites because that is generally the tactic
> of people who don't know what they're talking about.
I'd suggest that most people who provide cites do so for the purpose of
providing further edification on the subject at hand and, furthermore, to
allow the public at large who may be reading these posts to understand that
the poster has done some homework. In other words, to suggest that they are
not plucking their 'facts' from the ether (or their nether region).
Just saying...
> That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the political
> arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that Condoleesa Rice
> acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The only trouble here was
> that a year before her supposed ignorance of a major terrorist group she did
> a recorded talk on that very subject.
>
> Just recently we see Bob Woodward write a book claiming that Colin Powell (a
> man of rather towering intellect) was "out of the loop" and "not aware of
> the war plans in Iraq" only for General Powell to claim that entirely
> inaccurate.
So politicians never lie, especially when it suits them? Heh...
--
tanx,
Howard
Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Stewart Fleming
Tom Kunich wrote:
> number of times, recently I've written something and people have demanded
> citations for things that could be varified in seconds using Google or
> Yahoo! with no help from anyone else.
>
> That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the political
> arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that Condoleesa Rice
> acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The only trouble here was
Talking of Dr Rice...
"Rice's selection of sources raises questions, since he [sic] frequently
does not sift facts from propaganda and valid information from
disinformation or misinformation. He passes judgments and expresses
opinions without adequate knowledge of facts."
Review in American Historical Review (1985)
http://www.counterpunch.org/kalvoda04202004.html
Ya, I only checked the Web version, not the original source...
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
Tom is in my killfile for making too much stuff up. And again he
confirms his willingness to just state fantasy as fact. Sad.
JT
Gunny Bunny
"VCopelan" <vcop...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040420211325...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> Well, you can safely ignore my earlier post about EPO. Apparently, the
usual
> EPO dose is 25 to 125 units per kilogram. And I'm still not advocating
EPO
> usage.
Obviously, u know nothing about EPO, so we will give your McPinion the
weight it deserves :)
Nev Shea
226327.news.uni-berlin.de:
He probably saw that on FOX news, and of course they know what they are
talking about because they don't cite sources either.
NS
PS -- thanks Robert, for posting links to the PIPA report a while back
Robert Chung
>
> PS -- thanks Robert, for posting links to the PIPA report a while back
Sometimes I think that report is amusing. The rest of the time I think
that report is scary.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf
Tom Kunich
news:YOURhoward-196D7...@netnews.comcast.net...
So despite the fact that Condoleesa Rice's talk, the recording of which has
been widely played on radio and television, you are willing to tell us that
she is lying, and I am making it up and not some guy who stands to make
about a million dollars on his book if he can generate enough sales through
controversy?
And although General Powell makes absolutely nothing out of lying about his
knowledge of the plans concerning Iraq, and the fact that he is a man of
extremely high morals and ethics, you believe that some clown who has lied
in the past about his information sources is more creditable than Colin
Powell speaking on TV all day yesterday.
I think that you have proven my point about the mental aberations of your
end of the political spectrum.
Tom Kunich
news:Ijphc.2498$cY5.2...@news02.tsnz.net...
So, Stewart, you find a "review" such as this informative despite the fact
that they don't even know that Condoleezza Rice is a woman? And despite the
fact that this appears to be from 20 years ago?
Stewart Fleming
Tom Kunich wrote:
> So, Stewart, you find a "review" such as this informative despite the fact
> that they don't even know that Condoleezza Rice is a woman? And despite the
> fact that this appears to be from 20 years ago?
As an academic, I'm often expected to conduct blind review of papers.
Are you saying that the reviews that I write are invalid because I don't
know the gender, race or identity of the author?
[Amusing to note that the original author of that review is hoist on his
own petard though, not checking out the background details and relying
on some secondary source :-)]
The fact that it's from 20 years ago, well passage of time I can do
nothing about. Verdict of history doesn't matter anyway. We'll all be
dead.
Stewart Fleming
Tom Kunich wrote:
> And although General Powell makes absolutely nothing out of lying
about his
> knowledge of the plans concerning Iraq, and the fact that he is a man of
> extremely high morals and ethics, you believe that some clown who has lied
> in the past about his information sources is more creditable than Colin
> Powell speaking on TV all day yesterday.
Tom, what is there in someone's personal ethics and moral background
that makes them unwilling or unable to lie for their country when
ordered to do so?
Gunny Bunny
Some times the truth is so important, it must be surrounded by a bodyguard
of lies....Winston Churchill
Stewart Fleming
Gunny Bunny wrote:
> Some times the truth is so important, it must be surrounded by a bodyguard
> of lies....Winston Churchill
I'll see your (slightly incorrect) Winston Churchill and raise you a
William Cohen (Feb 19, 2002):
"WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, it could backfire. You
may recall that Winston Churchill, back during World War II, said in a
time of war, the truth may be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies. Well,
that was then and this is now. And we are in a different kind of war. We
are in a long-term war. And the danger is that if the Pentagon were to
try to engage in any sort of sustained deception to foreign media, which
as was pointed out, could blow back and affect our own media, it would
be a big mistake."
Paul Southworth
What a relief to learn that the government doesn't lie anymore!
It's almost enough to make a person want to vote. :-)
Robert Chung
>>
>>> Generally I've stopped supplying cites because that is generally the
>>> tactic of people who don't know what they're talking about.
>>
>>> political arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that
>>> Condoleesa Rice acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The
>>> only trouble here was that a year before her supposed ignorance of a
>>> major terrorist group she did a recorded talk on that very subject.
and
> So despite the fact that Condoleesa Rice's talk, the recording of which
> has been widely played on radio and television,
Well, since you're reluctant to provide citations, I'll provide these:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032504.shtml (the last item on the page)
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh033104.shtml (the 2nd item on the page)
I don't know if Rice was familiar with the term "Al Qaeda" prior to
January 2001 or not, but since you've done the googling that you say
you've done, and since you obviously couldn't be referring to the WJR
radio interview, please provide a citation to the recorded talk that you
meant. I can't find it.
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So despite the fact that Condoleesa Rice's talk, the recording of which has
> been widely played on radio and television, you are willing to tell us that
> she is lying, and I am making it up and not some guy who stands to make
> about a million dollars on his book if he can generate enough sales through
> controversy?
Tom, if this speech was so widely played, then why do I find it so hard
to get a reference to it? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct me towards
one - I am interested. Really. Because what I recall and what seems to
consistently come up in searches is that the public record shows that
between January 1, 2001 and September 10, 2001, Rice made no references to
al Qaeda, and that her mentions of terrorism in speeches were limited to
talk that focused on state-run terror. Not freelance terrorists like bin
Laden. In the time leading up to her selection as NSA, her talks and
writing seemed to focus on her area of expertise, which is Cold War related.
By the way, did you know that she was to give a talk on September 11,
2001? No mention of terrorism in that one - it was to be another try at
selling the missile defence system.
> And although General Powell makes absolutely nothing out of lying about his
> knowledge of the plans concerning Iraq, and the fact that he is a man of
> extremely high morals and ethics, you believe that some clown who has lied
> in the past about his information sources is more creditable than Colin
> Powell speaking on TV all day yesterday.
Powell is doing what he considers to be his duty, Tom. If you remember,
he was always reluctant to go on with Iraq when he considered Afghanistan
to be only partially done. He has said in the media in this last week that
he only recalls having two conversations with Bob Woodward, but Woodward
has tapes of six interviews with him, and phone logs to back it up. Anyway,
it appears that it wasn't so much Powell being "out of the loop" by his own
doing - he was LEFT out of the loop because Bush had decided to go into
Iraq long before he was done with the public attempts at "diplomacy". And
Bush went to Cheney, Rummy and Rice to get the ball rolling on that plan
first because they wanted to do it, too, unlike Powell.
Howard Kveck
"Robert Chung" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Nev Shea wrote:
> >
> > PS -- thanks Robert, for posting links to the PIPA report a while back
>
> Sometimes I think that report is amusing. The rest of the time I think
> that report is scary.
It sure doesn't put a very flattering light on an awful lot of people,
does it?
JP
> "h squared" <peckledoggyr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40856475...@hotmail.com...
> >
> > leaving the subject itself behind, isn't it somewhat amusing that the
> > person who wrote that post would bust ("Thank you please play again.")
> > on carl for not providing research cites in his reply? perhaps instead
> > he should have provided his own supporting evidence?
>
> Generally I've stopped supplying cites because that is generally the tactic
> of people who don't know what they're talking about. There have been any
> number of times, recently I've written something and people have demanded
> citations for things that could be varified in seconds using Google or
> Yahoo! with no help from anyone else.
>
> That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the political
> arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that Condoleesa Rice
> acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The only trouble here was
> that a year before her supposed ignorance of a major terrorist group she did
> a recorded talk on that very subject.
So far, everything I seen about that references Bin Laden. Clarke said
she *acted as if* she hadn't heard of Al Qaeda; the shills say, "she
mentioned Bin Laden in this speech", ergo, she had obviously heard of
Al Qaeda.
What's wrong with this syllogism? Anyone? Anyone?
Of course, even if she could be shown to "have heard of Al Qaeda" that
doesn't prove that the look on her face didn't make it seem like she
had never heard of them. It's pretty hard to prove a statement of
opinion, which is what it is (essentially) when the form "acted as if"
is used.
Maybe she acted as if she had never heard of Al Qaeda because she was
completely clueless about what to do about them.
JP
Tom Kunich
news:RfDhc.2692$cY5.2...@news02.tsnz.net...
>
I think that reflects a great deal more on your own ethics than anything I
can say.
Howard Kveck
"Robert Chung" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Somersby has access to Lexis-Nexus, as do more than a few others, and
there are no hits on this via L-N by anyone that I've seen.
Howard Kveck
SocSecTr...@earthlink.net (JP) wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<lCmhc.3054$eZ5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the political
> > arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that Condoleesa Rice
> > acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The only trouble here was
> > that a year before her supposed ignorance of a major terrorist group she
> > did a recorded talk on that very subject.
>
> So far, everything I seen about that references Bin Laden. Clarke said
> she *acted as if* she hadn't heard of Al Qaeda; the shills say, "she
> mentioned Bin Laden in this speech", ergo, she had obviously heard of
> Al Qaeda.
>
> What's wrong with this syllogism? Anyone? Anyone?
>
> Of course, even if she could be shown to "have heard of Al Qaeda" that
> doesn't prove that the look on her face didn't make it seem like she
> had never heard of them. It's pretty hard to prove a statement of
> opinion, which is what it is (essentially) when the form "acted as if"
> is used.
Exactly. If you read Clarke's comment in context, you'll see that's
precisely what he meant. The implication of what he said is that al Qaeda
didn't register on their radar screen because they were more focused on
other things, like missile defence or state sponsored terrorism.
Stewart Fleming
Tom Kunich wrote:
*stunned silence*
Literally, words fail me.
Kyle Legate
once again be effective.
Thanks.
gwhite
Is the "misperception link" to FOX causal or simply correlative? If
it is causal then there must be citations, and certainly some
frequency to them.
"The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly
depending on their source of news."
By implication of "depend," then the misstatements were made on FOX.
To me, depend means causal.
"Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are
more likely to have misperceptions."
Did you personally hear the implicit misstatements on FOX? In my
opinion, FOX isn't really "fair and balanced," but that said, I
haven't heard those specific misstatements when I've listened. (Maybe
I'm one of those who *didn't* pay attention.) So where is the causal
link?
gwhite
I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
you folks do your verification. Good luck.
Robert Chung
> "Robert Chung" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>>
>> Sometimes I think that report is amusing. The rest of the time I think
>> that report is scary.
>>
>> http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf
>
> Is the "misperception link" to FOX causal or simply correlative? If
> it is causal then there must be citations, and certainly some
> frequency to them.
>
> "The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly
> depending on their source of news."
>
> By implication of "depend," then the misstatements were made on FOX.
> To me, depend means causal.
>
> "Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are
> more likely to have misperceptions."
>
> Did you personally hear the implicit misstatements on FOX? In my
> opinion, FOX isn't really "fair and balanced," but that said, I
> haven't heard those specific misstatements when I've listened. (Maybe
> I'm one of those who *didn't* pay attention.) So where is the causal
> link?
Sometimes I think the way your brain works is amusing. The rest of the
time I think it's scary.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>
>I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
>information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
>and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
>check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
>and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
>time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
>citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
>you folks do your verification. Good luck.
Don't bullshit us. Much of Fox show, especially ones like the one in
question, are available as transcripts at their website. There is a
well-known instance of Rice mentioning Osama Bin-Laden that Fox played
repeatedly to show she "was well aware of Al Quaeda". That's the best
they could do because that's all their is. You've either
intentionally or unintentially fallen for their spin.
JT
Robert Chung
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> anything I can say.
>
> *stunned silence*
> Literally, words fail me.
I feel your pain. Sometimes aspirin helps.
Howard Kveck
Stewart Fleming <stewart...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > "Stewart Fleming" <stewart...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:RfDhc.2692$cY5.2...@news02.tsnz.net...
> >>Tom, what is there in someone's personal ethics and moral background
> >>that makes them unwilling or unable to lie for their country when
> >>ordered to do so?
> >
> >
> > I think that reflects a great deal more on your own ethics than anything I
> > can say.
>
> *stunned silence*
> Literally, words fail me.
Stewart, it's kind of funny that lying for the government is something to
be admired by Tom when the liar is named North, Oliver. When a 'lunatic
idea' has a 'certain strange genius'...
gwhite
> On 23 Apr 2004 01:08:53 -0700, gwh...@ti.com (gwhite) wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
> >information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
> >and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
> >check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
> >and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
> >time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
> >citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
> >you folks do your verification. Good luck.
>
> Don't bullshit us.
WTF? I know I heard what I reported I heard.
> Much of Fox show, especially ones like the one in
> question, are available as transcripts at their website.
So if you know how to find it, then do so.
> There is a
> well-known instance of Rice mentioning Osama Bin-Laden that Fox played
> repeatedly to show she "was well aware of Al Quaeda". That's the best
> they could do because that's all their is.
So? Why would I care either way? I could not care less if she and
Bush roast or survive well.
> You've either
> intentionally or unintentially fallen for their spin.
What spin are you referring to? I heard something on TV and referred
to it. That is was stated by FOX is likely true. Whether or not
their own citation is true or false is a matter for those who care to
go and investigate. I'm simply relating what I witnessed. I didn't
judge it one way or another, or make any indication of doing so.
As far as judgement goes, I'm not so sure having known about Osama
Bin-Laden and AQ is such a good thing. After all, that is what the
inquiry is about. If they (Rice, et al) knew about AQ before 9-11, I
can see how that could be viewed as negative. They knew and didn't do
enough. But I'll leave it for you guys who need one side or the other
to be "right" to argue it out.
gwhite
Tom Kunich
news:698b8866.04042...@posting.google.com...
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:<8fth80ll57eukh8to...@4ax.com>...
> > On 23 Apr 2004 01:08:53 -0700, gwh...@ti.com (gwhite) wrote:
> >
> > >I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
> > >information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
> > >and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
> > >check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
> > >and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
> > >time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
> > >citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
> > >you folks do your verification. Good luck.
> >
> > Don't bullshit us.
>
> WTF? I know I heard what I reported I heard.
Hmm sounds just like what I said and what the other's arguing with you said
that I couldn't possibly have heard.
> > You've either
> > intentionally or unintentially fallen for their spin.
>
> What spin are you referring to? I heard something on TV and referred
> to it. That is was stated by FOX is likely true. Whether or not
> their own citation is true or false is a matter for those who care to
> go and investigate. I'm simply relating what I witnessed. I didn't
> judge it one way or another, or make any indication of doing so.
Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
terrorism in the world. The same people who proclaim loudly that queers
should have the right to "marry" other queers (being a homosexual is a death
penalty in Islam), that women should have the right to wear anything that
they like, that pay big bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends"
demonstrating every possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations
of the world in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't
they French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground which has
brought about more social advancement in the Arab world than all past
history.
The very lifestyle that Liberals think they have improved the world with are
the root cause of terrorism. It isn't SUV's driving down American roads - it
is the sky black with airlines flying them all over the world to demonstrate
their "enlightenment" to the downtrodden populations of third world
countries.
What it all boils down to is the Liberal belief that they are right no
matter what history has to say about it. They will regale you with the dream
of how they stopped the war in Vietnam but never mention the 3 million
deaths the communists committed after the American pullout. Nor the 4
million deaths in Cambodia or the 2 million in Laos. To the Liberals,
pulling out of Vietnam was good regardless of the cost to anyone else. And
they truly don't believe that the blood is on their hands.
> As far as judgement goes, I'm not so sure having known about Osama
> Bin-Laden and AQ is such a good thing. After all, that is what the
> inquiry is about. If they (Rice, et al) knew about AQ before 9-11, I
> can see how that could be viewed as negative. They knew and didn't do
> enough. But I'll leave it for you guys who need one side or the other
> to be "right" to argue it out.
The problem doesn't require a commission. You only have to read Osama's
declaration of war against the USA. He said that when he saw that 10
Americans killed in Somalia and the Americans run away he knew that he could
win.
Funny thing that the Liberals aren't advertising that so much.
Robert Chung
Wow. Amusing. Scary.
Benjamin Weiner
> Is the "misperception link" to FOX causal or simply correlative? If
> it is causal then there must be citations, and certainly some
> frequency to them.
> "The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly
> depending on their source of news."
> By implication of "depend," then the misstatements were made on FOX.
> To me, depend means causal.
Usually, in order to look for a correlation, one does something like
plot y against x. Frequently one calls y the "dependent variable" and
x the "independent variable," same use of "depends." Often one
chooses x as the presumed cause and y as the effect, but usually one
can demonstrate the existence of a correlation without calling it
cause/effect. (There are statistical methods which try to make sure
you get the same answer for fitting y against x or x against y.) It
could be the other way around, after all - perhaps people who have
misperceptions choose to get news from FOX because it makes them feel
good, or it's somehow correlated with whether they like checking out
the anchors. Oh sorry, that was the Gum thread.
Anyway, you're the engineer. You should know this crap.
Howard Kveck
"Robert Chung" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Does aspirin help in cases of aberrant thinking?
gecwhite
Benjamin Weiner wrote:
>
> gwhite <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> ...Often one chooses x as the presumed cause
> and y as the effect, but usually one can
> demonstrate the existence of a correlation
> without calling it cause/effect.
Exactly -- that is what I was getting at. I don't so much doubt the
correlation, but I don't believe it is causal _based solely on what I've
heard on FOX_.
> ... perhaps people who have misperceptions choose
> to get news from FOX because it makes them feel
> good,...
Presuming the pipa report is not garbage, I think this is probably more
like it since the political bent would seem to be the correlation. I am
unconvinced those with the "misperceptions" acquired that specific
misinformation on FOX, but the pipa report made the strong implication
that this was indeed so. That was my problem with it. I don't (at
all) mind criticism of FOX, or any other network for that matter, but
actual facts would be nice.
I appreciate your response.
Howard Kveck
gwh...@ti.com (gwhite) wrote:
> I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
> information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
> and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
> check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
> and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
> time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
> citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
> you folks do your verification. Good luck.
Greg, I don't doubt you saw what you say you did. I wonder if it was on
a news show, or one of the pundits, like Hannity... Of course, that may not
really matter, as the line between those kinds of shows is pretty blurry
over at FNC. (There's an interesting article on that over at Salon, if you
don't mind sitting through an ad to get a free day pass - yeah, it's a
little annoying, but the article is worth the hassle, imo. link is here:
<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/31/fox/index_np.html>)
Anyway, I think that what Fox was trying to do was a sort of "gotcha" on
Clarke. By taking one sentence out of context and showing something that
seemed to disprove it, they are trying to discredit everything he said.
What he seemed to mean was that when he asked her for a meeting to discuss
al Qaeda, she dismissed it in a way that indicated that they had much more
important things to think about. You know, "Huh? Why would you want to talk
about them?!?!"
I think you're right on the money when you say, "If they (Rice, et al)
knew about AQ before 9-11, I can see how that could be viewed as negative.
They knew and didn't do enough."
--
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
> doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
> terrorism in the world. The same people who proclaim loudly that queers
> should have the right to "marry" other queers (being a homosexual is a death
> penalty in Islam), that women should have the right to wear anything that
> they like, that pay big bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends"
> demonstrating every possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations
> of the world in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't
> they French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
> terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground which has
> brought about more social advancement in the Arab world than all past
> history.
You have -got- to be joking. If you spent the least amount of time
looking into the Islamic terrorist movement, you might discover that the
causes that are overwhelmingly listed are US foreign policy, US trade
policy and US support of Israel. Do the Islamic fundies hate western
culture? Of course they do! But so do Christian fundies. There is no way in
hell that the number one reason for Islamic terrorists is western culture.
Christ, think about why they attacked the World TRADE Center (twice,
remember?), and not Universal Studios or Tower Records. Don't you think
that building had some symbolism to them? Do you think Mohammed Atta yelled
out, "Take that, Rachel and Ross!" as the planes piled into the buildings
that day? To ascribe the motivations of al Qaeda or any other serious
terrorist organization to "Friends" is the most preposterous thing you've
come up with yet, even as a goddamn analogy.
So what's the solution to the culture issue, T? Women back in the home,
maybe even burqas? That worked wonders in Afghanistan.
Is it possible that by invading Iraq, Bush has inspired even more people
to take up the anti-US terorism cause? And he was able to supply them with
plenty of targets in Iraq, and they don't even have to do any sneaking into
the US to get those targets. Thoughtful.
Do you think that stunt Bush pulled last week where he gave Ariel Sharon
even more than he wanted won't have some effect? You know, Sharon seems to
be hinting that Arafat is the next to go - do you think that'll calm the
Palestinians down, Tom? (By the way, back in that Update on French
anti-Americanism thread, you tried to thoroughly lambaste me for saying
that the Iraqi people are glad that Saddam is gone, but that if we don't
leave soon, they'll take up arms against us. Soooo, after the events in
Fallujah a couple weeks ago (and in plenty of other places since), whattaya
say - maybe I wasn't so far off the mark, hmmm?)
Social advancement, in the Arab world? Sure, lots of US dough flows into
the Arab world due to the oil trade - how much positive effect does that
have on the general population of those countries? Or does it go to a
select few and the governments of those countries, who keep the population
in line with brutal and oppressive security? Ever consider why Osama bin
Laden has the house of Saud as one of his primary objectives?
You want root causes of terror against the west, that first, watershed
event? Try The Brits and US helping the Shah of Iran overthrow the
immensely popular Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953.
> The very lifestyle that Liberals think they have improved the world with are
> the root cause of terrorism. It isn't SUV's driving down American roads - it
> is the sky black with airlines flying them all over the world to demonstrate
> their "enlightenment" to the downtrodden populations of third world
> countries.
>
> What it all boils down to is the Liberal belief that they are right no
> matter what history has to say about it. They will regale you with the dream
> of how they stopped the war in Vietnam but never mention the 3 million
> deaths the communists committed after the American pullout. Nor the 4
> million deaths in Cambodia or the 2 million in Laos. To the Liberals,
> pulling out of Vietnam was good regardless of the cost to anyone else. And
> they truly don't believe that the blood is on their hands.
How many would have died if the war had continued the way it been fought
from the first? They never really tried to "win". It was always an attempt
to maintain the status quo. Suppose they had tried to actually win the way
Nixon suggested? You know, he wanted to drop an atomic bomb or several on
Hanoi. How many casualties from that? What about from the retaliation that
would have been inevitable from the North Vietnamese' allies/backers? Would
that blood be acceptable, or would it, too, be on "Liberal's hands"?
Is there any evidence that the US being in Vietnam had any restraining
effect on Pol Pot in Cambodia? Of course not.
Chile? Guatemala? Yeah, you said that Chile was "only about 30,000".
Guatemala seems to have been at least 200,000 - and that's just the ones
that died while Rios Mont was in charge. The deaths kept on rolling after
he was eased out. Did Liberals cause those? John Negroponte still asserts
that there were no death squads. Strange that CIA guys seem to disagree
with him there.
Since we supplied the weapons to the Afghan rebels when they were
fighting the Russians, and then said, "See ya" once the Russians were
defeated, don't the people who supported that effort have just a bit of
blood on their hands, courtesy the Taliban? Not all the muj turned into
Taliban, so perhaps if there'd been a little more support for the guys who
became the Northern Alliance, the Taliban wouldn't have got power... After
Russia was gone, the powers that be just didn't give a damn anymore.
> The problem doesn't require a commission. You only have to read Osama's
> declaration of war against the USA. He said that when he saw that 10
> Americans killed in Somalia and the Americans run away he knew that he could
> win.
>
> Funny thing that the Liberals aren't advertising that so much.
Whose voices were the loudest in clamoring for the admin. to withdraw
from Somalia after that, Tom? Conservatives. They said the cost outweighed
any benefit to the US. Clinton should have ignored them, since we were
already there.
Funny to read you going on about "Liberals not wanting to take
responsibility" for their actions in the causes of terrorism, as you seem
to do a pretty damn good job of that yourself. Thanks for the glimpse into
your twisted psyche, Tom.
Kyle Legate
> In article <NIeic.6574$eZ5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these
>> people are doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no
>> responsibility for the terrorism in the world. The same people who
>> proclaim loudly that queers should have the right to "marry" other
>> queers (being a homosexual is a death penalty in Islam), that women
>> should have the right to wear anything that they like, that pay big
>> bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends" demonstrating every
>> possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations of the world
>> in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't they
>> French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
>> terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground
>> which has brought about more social advancement in the Arab world
>> than all past history.
>
> You have -got- to be joking. If you spent the least amount of time
> looking into the Islamic terrorist movement, you might discover that
> the causes that are overwhelmingly listed are US foreign policy, US
> trade
> policy and US support of Israel.
>
While your points are all correct based on careful, distanced analysis of
the available FACTS, you'll never get through to a guy who thinks that all
terrorism is caused by a girl's ass crack.
Tom Kunich
news:YOURhoward-7FF64...@netnews.comcast.net...
>
> You have -got- to be joking. If you spent the least amount of time
> looking into the Islamic terrorist movement, you might discover that the
> causes that are overwhelmingly listed are US foreign policy, US trade
> policy and US support of Israel. Do the Islamic fundies hate western
> culture? Of course they do! But so do Christian fundies. There is no way
in
> hell that the number one reason for Islamic terrorists is western culture.
Howard, cite some foreign policy that you believe causes the likes of Atta
to fly a plane into a building. That isn't someone that hates business,
that's someone that has a bitter abiding hatred for the basic fundamentals
of our culture.
> So what's the solution to the culture issue, T? Women back in the home,
> maybe even burqas? That worked wonders in Afghanistan.
I think you are missing my point. It isn't what we are doing to the Muslims
that is the problem. It is the fact that we exist at all.
Here's the long and the short of it - I'm not suggesting WE change anything.
But if you really believe that our putting gays on TV (Queer Eye?) having
string bikinis on 13 year old girls and advertising "women's hygene
products" in magazines isn't any of your or my business, then you have to
accept that you are part of cause of Islamic hatred.
> Is it possible that by invading Iraq, Bush has inspired even more
people
> to take up the anti-US terorism cause?
Is it possible that seeing war close up and personal will discourage a
greater number?
> Do you think that stunt Bush pulled last week where he gave Ariel
Sharon
> even more than he wanted won't have some effect? You know, Sharon seems to
> be hinting that Arafat is the next to go - do you think that'll calm the
> Palestinians down, Tom?
Well, do you really believe that leaving Arafat alive and planning his next
financial additions to his family terrorism business is calming anyone down?
You have to have a pretty blank mind not to have noticed that Hamas had
offices in Arafat's building.
> (By the way, back in that Update on French
> anti-Americanism thread, you tried to thoroughly lambaste me for saying
> that the Iraqi people are glad that Saddam is gone, but that if we don't
> leave soon, they'll take up arms against us. Soooo, after the events in
> Fallujah a couple weeks ago (and in plenty of other places since),
whattaya
> say - maybe I wasn't so far off the mark, hmmm?)
I'd say that while you're saying that the "Iraqi people" are rebelling that
isn't what the word is from people that are there. In fact they are saying
that there are a minute portion of the population and that there are more
members of the KKK in this country than the rebels in Fallujah. So why are
you implying that a tiny segment are representative of an entire country?
> Social advancement, in the Arab world? Sure, lots of US dough flows
into
> the Arab world due to the oil trade - how much positive effect does that
> have on the general population of those countries?
Real historian are you? Try this: Arabs now have a lifespan nearing
"normal". They don't die of diseases, starvation or inter-tribal strife at
an average age of 34 any longer. That is directly due to western money,
western medicine and western CULTURE.
> Ever consider why Osama bin
> Laden has the house of Saud as one of his primary objectives?
Because of tribal politics that go back 100 years to Ibn Saud himself?
> You want root causes of terror against the west, that first, watershed
> event? Try The Brits and US helping the Shah of Iran overthrow the
> immensely popular Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953.
Obvious reasons for Arabs who HATE the Iranians.
> How many would have died if the war had continued the way it been
fought
> from the first? They never really tried to "win". It was always an attempt
> to maintain the status quo.
I suggest you study the Vietnamese war before making such ignorant
statements. North Vietnam was BEATEN in the Tet Offensive. Any serious
military action against the North would have caused them to completely
crumble. They were not allowed to do so by the Liberals. Got that? The WAR
WAS WON and then handed back to the North Vietnamese who them murdered in
wholesale numbers.
But I have the gist of your claim "It isn't MEEEEEEE, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH IT!!! IT'S SOMEONE ELSE!"
Gotcha.
gwhite
> Wow. Amusing. Scary.
Nothing, nuthin, no thing.
I believe most folks realize the zen approach to communication is only
of utility a fraction of the time. You don't. With a general style
of multitudinous open-ended questions and no clear statements on
anything of import, you keep suggesting nothing is "there." People
will eventually believe you. I know I do.
After the pipa response, I stopped believing you could appreciate
irony. You wouldn't know irony if it gave you a big smooch.
gwhite
> I wonder if it was on
> a news show, or one of the pundits, like Hannity...
I think it was Ham & Cheese, now that you remind me. It is all rather
foggy. Sure, I get bored like everyone else.
> <http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/31/fox/index_np.html>)
Thanks, I'll check it out in awhile...
> Anyway, I think that what Fox was trying to do was a sort of "gotcha" on
> Clarke.
Well that would have been Ham, but most certainly not Cheese. I see
your point.
> By taking one sentence out of context and showing something that
> seemed to disprove it, they are trying to discredit everything he said.
> What he seemed to mean was that when he asked her for a meeting to discuss
> al Qaeda, she dismissed it in a way that indicated that they had much more
> important things to think about. You know, "Huh? Why would you want to talk
> about them?!?!"
Could be for all I know. But it is an election year and politically
there just isn't any way a sitting administration up for re-election
can say "I screwed up" about something like 9-11. In fact, I don't
think politics allow much room for admitting mistakes "period."
That's too bad I suppose, but that's kinda "just how it is."
If they did the right thing, they'll say: "I did the best job
possible."
If they didn't do so well they would say: "I did the best job
possible."
Presidential politics don't allow a lot of wiggle room there. Not
that it makes me happy.
I'm not ascribing blame, but people do make mistakes. Admitting I
have not studied this particular issue, I (to date) suspect there is a
good bit of blame to go around. Regarding how it has been handled
politically, I would be cynical if you were to say the democrats, if
they were currently in power, would be any more likely to admit a
mistake of not decisively punching out AQ. I would be cynical if you
were to tell me they would have "done better" as an incoming
administration in 2001.
> I think you're right on the money when you say, "If they (Rice, et al)
> knew about AQ before 9-11, I can see how that could be viewed as negative.
> They knew and didn't do enough."
Yes, it seems like it could be used against them, but again I wasn't
listening to the overall context/framework of the discussion, or
trying to analyze it. In light of that, I think everyone should be
mirandized at birth -- especially potential politicians. "Everything
you say can and will be used against you." Of course, if they're "on
your side," just the opposite will happen. "Everything you say can
and will be used for you."
gwhite
> "gwhite" wrote:
> > WTF? I know I heard what I reported I heard.
>
> Hmm sounds just like what I said and what the other's arguing with you said
> that I couldn't possibly have heard.
Yes, I'm saying it was very unlikely you pulled it out of thin air,
aside from how the statements are specifically viewed by various
politicos.
> > What spin are you referring to?...
>
> Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
> doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
> terrorism in the world.
Well I certainly don't feel responsible *for* it. The complaints
about things like US trade policy and culture "stomping" as provoking
terrorism are utterly ridiculous. I do feel responsible to do
something *about* terrorism.
We are probably in agreement that an effete (appeasement) policy is
one doomed for long term disaster, death, and chaos. For the purpose
of winning, it doesn't work any better with one's enemies than it does
in a bike race. Basically we get in their face and take them out.
That would be my approach.
Robert Chung
> (There are statistical methods which try to make sure
> you get the same answer for fitting y against x or x against y.)
Which are those, and why would one be interested in that particular
criterion?
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Howard, cite some foreign policy that you believe causes the likes of Atta
> to fly a plane into a building. That isn't someone that hates business,
> that's someone that has a bitter abiding hatred for the basic fundamentals
> of our culture.
Foreign policies that they hate the US for would include the perception
that the US has an imperialistic streak, supporting and, in fact,
installing brutal and oppressive leaders in various countries that do not
represent the majority population in any way. The Shah of Iran, Rios Mont,
Marcos, Somoza, Suharto, Pinochet and Saddam (when he was our friend during
the Iran-Iraq war) are a few of those who come to mind. Our support for the
Sauds especially galls them. Top of the list, of course, is the support of
Israel. There's not a chance that any cultural issues tops that last one,
in particular. Mideastern scholars say so, if you'd care to look.
> Here's the long and the short of it - I'm not suggesting WE change anything.
> But if you really believe that our putting gays on TV (Queer Eye?) having
> string bikinis on 13 year old girls and advertising "women's hygene
> products" in magazines isn't any of your or my business, then you have to
> accept that you are part of cause of Islamic hatred.
A very small part. Policy issues trump cultural ones, however. Big time.
> > Is it possible that by invading Iraq, Bush has inspired even more
> > people to take up the anti-US terorism cause?
>
> Is it possible that seeing war close up and personal will discourage a
> greater number?
Apparently not. Shiites have never tolerated suicide bombing, yet right
now in Iraq, it -is- being condoned, as one example. Perhaps you should
google it - there are many reports in various news outlets online that talk
about recruiting in various Islamic extremist grooups being at an all time
high since the invasion of Iraq.
> Well, do you really believe that leaving Arafat alive and planning his next
> financial additions to his family terrorism business is calming anyone down?
> You have to have a pretty blank mind not to have noticed that Hamas had
> offices in Arafat's building.
If you think that executing Arafat is going to make the Palestinians
say, "Oh, well, that ends that. We'll just let Israel have our homes, olive
orchards and land - they are obviously more deserving..." The pot is about
to boil over after they killed Yasin and Rantisi - right now is the calm
before the storm. Do in Arafat and the explosion will be massive. Here's
another thing you seem not to know: Islamic people the world over identify
with the Palestinians.
> I'd say that while you're saying that the "Iraqi people" are rebelling that
> isn't what the word is from people that are there. In fact they are saying
> that there are a minute portion of the population and that there are more
> members of the KKK in this country than the rebels in Fallujah. So why are
> you implying that a tiny segment are representative of an entire country?
The guys doing the fighting are, indeed, a small percentage of the
population, as is always the case. But they are supported by an
overwhelming percentage of the population. If you don't want to take my
word for it, perhaps try that of Brig. Nick Carter, commander of British
troops in southern Iraq:
"During an interview in Basra last week Brig Carter acknowledged that
the Coalition's presence in southern Iraq was entirely dependent on the
goodwill of the local Shia Muslim leader, Sayid Ali al-Safi al-Musawi."
There are many articles on the web telling of this.
In recent actions in and around Najaf and Fallujah, with Iraqi forces to
be in support of the US, 40% abandoned their positions, and 10% fought
against the US. There will be a huge backlash if the US goes into Najaf -
for Muslims, it would be the equivalent of attacking the Vatican for
Catholics.
> > Ever consider why Osama bin Laden has the house of Saud as one of his
> > primary objectives?
>
> Because of tribal politics that go back 100 years to Ibn Saud himself?
Did you consider that bin Laden would think that the friend and big
supporter of his enemy would be an enemy, too? The Saudi security service
isn't exactly a friendly bunch, and they are trained by Americans, as well
as being supported by US dollars. Very brutal, very repressive. Very hated.
> > You want root causes of terror against the west, that first, watershed
> > event? Try The Brits and US helping the Shah of Iran overthrow the
> > immensely popular Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953.
>
> Obvious reasons for Arabs who HATE the Iranians.
Ehh???? You completely misunderstand that one. Islamic fundamentalists
and extremists state that the removal of Mossadegh was the moment that they
knew that the west did not have the Islamic world's interests at heart.
They hated the US for putting the much despised Shah back in power.
Remember the Iranian Revolution in '77? That had nought to do with culture.
Terrorist organizations like al Qaeda aren't restricted to having
allegiance to one nation state - they have people from many nations working
with them, including people from countries who have natural enmities. Those
antagonisms go away because of the common goal.
> > How many would have died if the war had continued the way it been
> >fought from the first? They never really tried to "win". It was always an
> > attempt to maintain the status quo.
>
> I suggest you study the Vietnamese war before making such ignorant
> statements. North Vietnam was BEATEN in the Tet Offensive. Any serious
> military action against the North would have caused them to completely
> crumble. They were not allowed to do so by the Liberals. Got that? The WAR
> WAS WON and then handed back to the North Vietnamese who them murdered in
> wholesale numbers.
The NV did lose huge numbers of Viet Cong units in the Tet Offensive,
but it was a calculated maneuver. They still had plenty of regular army and
guerrilla troops available. But they threw Tet in an effort to kill as many
South Vietnamese and US soldiers as possible, as well as demoralize the
rest. They succeeded at both ends. The war wasn't close to being won,
unless you are going by the stories that Westmoreland and Macnamara were
telling at the time. And you are aware that those numbers were cooked,
right? Check out Macnamara's new-ish book. Among others.
> But I have the gist of your claim "It isn't MEEEEEEE, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO
> WITH IT!!! IT'S SOMEONE ELSE!"
Speaking for yourself again, eh? The fact you can't recognize that there
are people in the world who don't agree with US foreign policy shows that
you're a man who's in serious denial. I guess Tom knowledge is better than
that of a pile of mid-eastern scholars.
gwhite
> Whose voices were the loudest in clamoring for the admin. to withdraw
> from Somalia after that, Tom? Conservatives. They said the cost outweighed
> any benefit to the US. Clinton should have ignored them, since we were
> already there.
If true, then indeed he should have ignored them. After all, he was
commander-in-chief, not them. Those guys died for no reason.
Abomination.
I suspect the "to intervene or not intervene" topic is a very long
talk -- I think it is already older than me. The US has history of
doing some great things and some things it would rather forget. And
it never did anything as bad as that of some of history's
super-villains. There is no real excusing the bad things, but does
that mean you can't do good things, or paralyze yourself from doing
so? How do you decide? Laws and property rights might come in handy.
Remember that people still want to come here. And if they can't come,
they willingly want to trade with us, and we in turn do so willingly
-- maybe more than any other 1st world country. If politics can't
solve the nasty problems, free trade will. Growing dependent upon
each other for a better life strongly disincentivizes killing each
other, not to mention opening communication between cultures.
Moreover trade is something free people do in practice, not an
ethereal idea about what they "should do." Models (rules) for a
better society should consider how people actually behave, and not be
based on instructions of how they should behave given great advice
from a morally superior politician, a political sect, a religious
leader, ... and on and on. ;-)
Benjamin Weiner
> Howard,
> While your points are all correct based on careful, distanced analysis of
> the available FACTS, you'll never get through to a guy who thinks that all
> terrorism is caused by a girl's ass crack.
Our problem is that Western society's corruptive influence isn't
corrosive enough. Several of the Sept 11th plotters were in the
U.S. for months before the attacks, occassionally making forays
into Florida bars (IIRC). If only one of them had been corrupted
enough to think "Hey, I'm not sure I want to die for a holy cause.
I want to spend some more time here drinking Bud Light and checking
out girls' asses," the whole tragedy might have been averted.
I'd still like to see the entire cast of "Friends" launched on
a rocket into the sun, though, but not for foreign policy reasons.
Tom Kunich
> >
> > Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people
are
> > doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
> > terrorism in the world.
>
> Well I certainly don't feel responsible *for* it. The complaints
> about things like US trade policy and culture "stomping" as provoking
> terrorism are utterly ridiculous. I do feel responsible to do
> something *about* terrorism.
that's because the "responsibility" is so diaphanous. We believe in live and
let live. We allow "adult book stores" to be opened three doors down from
grade schools and we essentially do nothing about kiddy porn and roadside
bill boards about feminine hygene products all of which are so disturbing to
most of the rest of the world that we don't even have a good idea of just
how outraged they really are.
I worked with very educated people from all over the globe and in many cases
when prompted they have spoken of humiliation when turning on the TV, radio
or even opening a newspaper. Although they will say that they prefer the
freedom of this country, when they go back to their own countries they don't
talk about Standard Oil buying crude from Saudi sheiks, but about "Friends"
(well, actually soap operas but you know what I mean) coming through on the
satellite link to every home. In second world countries they all want to
have the luxuries and comforts that we Americans have but their religious
leaders see the moral corruption much more than the Escalades.
You don't feel responsible but you are. As am I. One of the differences here
is that I have accepted that responsibility. I have considered what we could
do and have come to the conclusion that we have been doing about as good a
job on the overall picture as we could. No one could predict Ayatollah
Komeni and in fact the Shah was a MUCH kinder and gentler governor than the
Ayatohlahs but a substantial margin. To suggest that our support of Shah
Pavlevi was wrong was to completely ignore Iran's history before and after
the Shah. In fact, what brought him down wasn't his somewhat free-handed
secret service who were butchers on the occassion, but that he was
attempting to install a government free from religious affiliations.
> We are probably in agreement that an effete (appeasement) policy is
> one doomed for long term disaster, death, and chaos. For the purpose
> of winning, it doesn't work any better with one's enemies than it does
> in a bike race. Basically we get in their face and take them out.
> That would be my approach.
I think that we have no choice. It really is "us'ns or them".
Benjamin Weiner
Well, you never know, Greg might be your paper's referee.
There's potentially hundreds of ways of fitting a straight line
to a set of points. I have some references cribbed from a grad
student if you care (but you probably know them already).
Amazingly, there is a controversy in my field right now which is
partly because people are arguing about these methods
(Tremaine et al 2003 Astrophys J 574, 740). If you care about
the values of the underlying relation, then a couple of nice
properties are invariance under changes in scale of x or y and
exchange of x and y; not all methods do this. Me, I just act
dumb and use the routine from Numerical Recipes.
Robert Chung
I'm less familiar now with the statistical decision theory stuff than when
I was actively studying it -- but I don't think I've ever heard much about
x-y exchange *as a purely statistical procedure.* The closest thing I can
drag off the top of my head is the principal components stuff--but most of
that is used as an aid to factor reduction rather than an end-all
statistical procedure by itself.
I just looked up the black hole mass-velocity dispersion stuff. It's
interesting for two reasons:
1. When I gave my "straightening scatterplots" lecture about a month ago I
had to search around for data I could use for examples. Next year perhaps
I'll use some black hole data.
2. I can only see the abstract of the Tremaine article (2002) so this is
perhaps both unfair and premature but this reinforces something else that
I occasionally mention in my lectures: that the statistical techniques
developed in different fields are optimized to handle different kinds of
issues. Econometric techniques (and techniques developed in the other
social sciences) tend to be much more focused on dealing with the
consequences of crappy data than the techniques used in the physical
sciences, which focus more on the efficiency of the estimator.
Benjamin Weiner
> I'm less familiar now with the statistical decision theory stuff than when
> I was actively studying it -- but I don't think I've ever heard much about
> x-y exchange *as a purely statistical procedure.* The closest thing I can
> drag off the top of my head is the principal components stuff--but most of
> that is used as an aid to factor reduction rather than an end-all
> statistical procedure by itself.
Maybe you'd be interested in this:
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/leapz.pdf
A rather long saga, which like Proust's could only be brought
to a conclusion by the death of the author.
> I just looked up the black hole mass-velocity dispersion stuff. It's
> interesting for two reasons:
> 1. When I gave my "straightening scatterplots" lecture about a month ago I
> had to search around for data I could use for examples. Next year perhaps
> I'll use some black hole data.
> 2. I can only see the abstract of the Tremaine article (2002) so this is
> perhaps both unfair and premature but this reinforces something else that
> I occasionally mention in my lectures: that the statistical techniques
> developed in different fields are optimized to handle different kinds of
> issues. Econometric techniques (and techniques developed in the other
> social sciences) tend to be much more focused on dealing with the
> consequences of crappy data than the techniques used in the physical
> sciences, which focus more on the efficiency of the estimator.
Oh, sorry. Damn journal publishers. You can get the full text here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203468
Many of the references can also be found in full-text version by
searching here:
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph
The abstract doesn't capture the statistical-method smack-talk
that is in the body of the paper, although one of their points
is that the difference in statistical methods is not as big as
their colleagues/mortal enemies have claimed. Science and
rbr have a lot in common actually.
It does seem that different fields have very different needs
from statistics. However, in astronomy, we have no shortage of
crappy data, or data with substantial selection effects.
Robert Chung
>
> Oh, sorry. Damn journal publishers. You can get the full text here:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203468
Thanks. From Table 1:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/velocity-dispersion.png
Ewoud Dronkert
> Thanks. From Table 1:
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/velocity-dispersion.png
So does log(v)-m have an exponential signature?
Robert Chung
Ewoud Dronkert
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/velocity-dispersion.txt
Thanks, just what I needed to keep my mind off the beautiful weather
outside.
Robert Chung
In that case, I'll mention that it took me three tries to find a
linearizing transform that works better than log(velocity) vs. log(mass),
better in the sense of goodness-of-fit (which is an excellent example of
why I'm not a fan of using goodness-of-fit as a model selection
criterion). It took me three tries because I screwed up the first try, so
a guy like you ought to be able to do it in two.
The Milky Way seems out of place.
Ewoud Dronkert
> The Milky Way seems out of place.
It not being a black hole, fortunately, may have something to do with
that. Just guessing though; I hate astronomy, hate it, hate it. (One
less than cyclingforums.com).
Benjamin Weiner
> The Milky Way seems out of place.
I'll speak to the appropriate authorities about having it moved.
You might want to pack any breakables securely, as I expect
items will shift during flight.