OT: The questions mo_ron couldn't answer

[BillB]

Mo_ron claimed that racism does not exist in the US the way I suggest it
does.

In an effort to try to get him to work through his abject stupidity
(inconsistent with a university education), I asked him a couple of
straightforward questions:

Why do black college graduates have almost double the unemployment rate
of white college graduates?

Why does a "white-sounding" name in the US gets far more job interviews
than a "black-sounding" name with an identical resume?

Mo_ron responded to that post, but ignored those important questions.
When I pointed out that he deliberately avoided answering those
important questions and asked them again, he again went into avoidance
mode and tried to change the subject.

Can anyone figure out why mo_ron would try to avoid these questions?
Does it suggest he now realizes that racism DOES, in fact, exist the way
I suggest it does, but is unwilling to admit it?

Can anyone come up with a reason (that does not involve racism) why
"white-sounding names" get FAR more job interviews than a
"black-sounding names"?

http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf

[mo_ntresor]

yawn

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 8:50 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:

>> Can anyone come up with a reason (that does not involve racism) why
>> "white-sounding names" get FAR more job interviews than a
>> "black-sounding names"?
>>
>> http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf
>
> yawn

See what I mean?

Have you ever seen a person so utterly defeated?

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 8:40 AM, BillB wrote:

> http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf

And half the study was done in Chicago! LOL!

[BillB]

There was another study done at Northwestern a while back that examined
the effect of a felony drug conviction with a short prison sentence (vs.
a clean record) on the respective hiring chances of young black and
white workers.

Guess what? A criminal record had a profound effect on an applicant's
chances to be hired. That's not surprising in itself. A white applicant
with the criminal record was something like 50% less likely to be hired.
Also not surprising, it was even worse than that for black applicants.
What WAS surprising is that a white applicant just out of prison was
more likely to be hired than a black person with a clean record!

But racism doesn't exist the way I suggest it does. No way. Just ask
mo_ron! He'll tell you! He has two university degrees (that he can't name).

[Follow]

On Nov 12 2012 9:40 AM, BillB wrote:

> http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf

This study was published nearly a decade ago and was probably conducted a
decade or more ago. A lot changes in that sort of time frame.

Also, do you think it might be possible that an HR dept. would avoid the
"black sounding" names suggested by the study because they suffer from a
subconscious fear of an AA lawsuit when one of these applicants come in?
I think Affirmative Action can have a negative effect on our society in
that way, especially in the job market.

Your study leaves out one very important point as well as the above. How
many of the HR decision makers that were part of the study *were* black,
and how did the percentages shake out regarding them? If you see a
similar trend with black hiring managers, then it might be something other
than racism causing these gaps.



Follow :)

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 10:02 AM, Follow wrote:
> On Nov 12 2012 9:40 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>> http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf
>
> This study was published nearly a decade ago and was probably conducted a
> decade or more ago. A lot changes in that sort of time frame.

LOL! Hundreds of years of brutal racism, and he thinks a lot has changed
in ten years.

> Also, do you think it might be possible that an HR dept. would avoid the
> "black sounding" names suggested by the study because they suffer from a
> subconscious fear of an AA lawsuit when one of these applicants come in?
> I think Affirmative Action can have a negative effect on our society in
> that way, especially in the job market.

Ya, that MUST be it. After all, what else could it be?

Good thinking!!

Isn't it interesting how teabaggers would rather make fools of
themselves in public by doing intellectual contortions and back-flips,
rather than simply admitting the blatantly obvious? The question is: Why?

[O-PGManager]

On Nov 12 2012 11:40 AM, BillB wrote:

> Mo_ron claimed that racism does not exist in the US the way I suggest it
> does.

Does your racism meter ever go off for non-black people? Have you heard
of this program?

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2012/02/editorial_nypds_investigation.html

6 years of flooding muslim communities with undercover agents (leading to
not a single case), invading their privacy, and sewing distrust.

Why do you never mention these institutional race attacks? (apologies if
you have at some point)

Can we conclude from your rhetoric about the US being dangerously,
imminently, vulnerable to a muslim nuclear terror attack that it just
doesn't bother you a whole lot?

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[brattt]

Be very careful arguing with B-BillB. Pretty soon you will have to prove
that your real name is Follow:)


---------------------------------------------------------------

Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 10:15 AM, BillB wrote:

> Isn't it interesting how teabaggers would rather make fools of
> themselves in public by doing intellectual contortions and back-flips,
> rather than simply admitting the blatantly obvious? The question is: Why?

"Denying racism is the new racism."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZed_FpQxwI

He took the words right out of my mouth.

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 10:23 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Does your racism meter ever go off for non-black people?

Yes, but my specific academic interest is with racism in North America
(Canada and the US) against people of African heritage. That is the
problem I have been studying for a couple of decades. It's BY FAR the
most longstanding, pervasive, acute and expensive form of the problem in
the US. Besides, if you can't get a teabagger to admit the painfully
obvious facy that there is a massive problem with racism against
African-Americans in the US, and to agree that concrete steps need to be
taken to rectify the problem, how are you going to get them to admit it
for any other race? Racism against African-Americans is the best example
I have.

> Have you heard
> of this program?
>
> http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2012/02/editorial_nypds_investigation.html
>
> 6 years of flooding muslim communities with undercover agents (leading to
> not a single case), invading their privacy, and sewing distrust.
>
> Why do you never mention these institutional race attacks? (apologies if
> you have at some point)

I have heard about it, but I don't know enough about the details to
offer authoritative commentary.

Are you under the impression that I don't know that racism against
Middle Eastern Muslims is a big problem? That would be rather ridiculous.

> Can we conclude from your rhetoric about the US being dangerously,
> imminently, vulnerable to a muslim nuclear terror attack that it just
> doesn't bother you a whole lot?

I don't think I ever used the word imminent. I believe I quoted a range
of opinions from the world's most qualified nuclear terrorism experts
who collectively estimated the risk at approximately 50% in the next
decade or two. Further, I don't think I specified that such an attack
would necessarily come from Muslim extremists (although I'd say that is
the highest probability).

[Hollis2]

On Nov 12 2012 11:40 AM, BillB wrote:

> Mo_ron claimed that racism does not exist in the US the way I suggest it
> does.
>
> In an effort to try to get him to work through his abject stupidity
> (inconsistent with a university education), I asked him a couple of
> straightforward questions:
>
> Why do black college graduates have almost double the unemployment rate
> of white college graduates?

Are all college graduates the same? Do all college degrees offer the same
opportunity for employment? Do some college graduates have post-graduate
degrees which make it more likely that they be employed?

> Why does a "white-sounding" name in the US gets far more job interviews
> than a "black-sounding" name with an identical resume?

Do you think that affirmative action, which allows less qualified black
into college, make employers see black graduates as less qualified than
white graduates. Do companies find that the black employees they hire do
less well than white employees? Do you think that if you did the same
thing with white names and Asian names, that the Asians would get more
interviews than whites?

[O-PGManager]

On Nov 12 2012 2:03 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 11/12/2012 10:23 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > Does your racism meter ever go off for non-black people?
>
> Yes, but my specific academic interest is with racism in North America
> (Canada and the US) against people of African heritage. That is the
> problem I have been studying for a couple of decades. It's BY FAR the
> most longstanding, pervasive, acute and expensive form of the problem in
> the US. Besides, if you can't get a teabagger to admit the painfully
> obvious facy that there is a massive problem with racism against
> African-Americans in the US, and to agree that concrete steps need to be
> taken to rectify the problem, how are you going to get them to admit it
> for any other race? Racism against African-Americans is the best example
> I have.
>
>
> > Have you heard
> > of this program?
> >
> >
http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2012/02/editorial_nypds_investigation.html
> >
> > 6 years of flooding muslim communities with undercover agents (leading to
> > not a single case), invading their privacy, and sewing distrust.
> >
> > Why do you never mention these institutional race attacks? (apologies if
> > you have at some point)
>
> I have heard about it, but I don't know enough about the details to
> offer authoritative commentary.

Well 10 minutes of research and hearing from the communities effected
would fill you in. Millions of dollars spent, endless surveillance,
privacy invaded, not resulting in a single investigation. Not to mention
the legally dubious grounds of the NYPD surveilling the fuck out of people
out of state.

It's an ugly situation.

> Are you under the impression that I don't know that racism against
> Middle Eastern Muslims is a big problem? That would be rather ridiculous.
>
>
> > Can we conclude from your rhetoric about the US being dangerously,
> > imminently, vulnerable to a muslim nuclear terror attack that it just
> > doesn't bother you a whole lot?
>
> I don't think I ever used the word imminent. I believe I quoted a range
> of opinions from the world's most qualified nuclear terrorism experts
> who collectively estimated the risk at approximately 50% in the next
> decade or two. Further, I don't think I specified that such an attack
> would necessarily come from Muslim extremists (although I'd say that is
> the highest probability).

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 11:32 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Well 10 minutes of research and hearing from the communities effected
> would fill you in.

I don't comment on things I've studied for 10 minutes. Mo_ron might be
able to help you there.

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 12 2012 12:32 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Well 10 minutes of research and hearing from the communities effected
> would fill you in. Millions of dollars spent, endless surveillance,
> privacy invaded, not resulting in a single investigation. Not to mention
> the legally dubious grounds of the NYPD surveilling the fuck out of people
> out of state.
>
> It's an ugly situation.

the best way to fight these terrible injustices is to post about them on
usenet ... the modern day freedom fighters!

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 11:39 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> the best way to fight these terrible injustices is to post about them on
> usenet ... the modern day freedom fighters!

Is it also the best way to reduce government spending?

[brattt]

don't forget though - out of (I'm guessing) 20 regular posters, half of
whom don't read his shit he has the audience he deserves to further his
academic research.

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 12 2012 1:20 PM, brattt wrote:

> > the best way to fight these terrible injustices is to post about them on
> > usenet ... the modern day freedom fighters!
>

> don't forget though - out of (I'm guessing) 20 regular posters, half of
> whom don't read his shit he has the audience he deserves to further his
> academic research.

we all know he doesn't give a shit about racism. cannucks will always
seek something "american" to whine about; it's in their nature.

mo_ntresor

[VegasJerry]

Well, Bill; perhaps if you were black; and had a larger dick; you'd have better luck pissing into the wind trying to converse with mo_ron. I've joined a few others in turning our collective backs (pissing down-wind, as it were) on any attempt to engage him in any meaningful discussion. He simply "Dumbs out."

I have come to the conclusion that you're a mean and terrible person (from being a hockey player?) for slapping around - and making fun of - this hopeless mo_ron ®.

But it is entertaining (I may even start watching hockey again).

Jerry 'n Vegas

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 12:20 PM, brattt wrote:

> don't forget though - out of (I'm guessing) 20 regular posters, half of
> whom don't read his shit he has the audience he deserves to further his
> academic research.

Once again, completely ignore the incontrovertible evidence of
widespread racism, and attack the person who points you to the evidence.

[risky biz]

On Nov 12 2012 12:03 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 11/12/2012 10:23 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > Does your racism meter ever go off for non-black people?

> > Can we conclude from your rhetoric about the US being dangerously,
> > imminently, vulnerable to a muslim nuclear terror attack that it just
> > doesn't bother you a whole lot?
>
> I don't think I ever used the word imminent. I believe I quoted a range
> of opinions from the world's most qualified nuclear terrorism experts
> who collectively estimated the risk at approximately 50% in the next
> decade or two. Further, I don't think I specified that such an attack
> would necessarily come from Muslim extremists (although I'd say that is
> the highest probability).

How does someone get to be described as a "Nuclear Terrorism Expert"? Do
they get a little card issued by the Israel Lobby?

Given that Pakistan is the only Muslim country with a nuclear weapon
capability and that no other Muslim country even has a nuclear weapon
program these "Nuclear Terrorism Experts" have evidently developed a
brilliant theory that Pakistan is going to give nuclear weapons to
terrorists to attack the United States. Brilliant. What is the thought
process that would lead to a conclusion like that? Or was there any
thought process to speak of?

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 12 2012 1:36 PM, risky biz wrote:

> > I don't think I ever used the word imminent. I believe I quoted a range
> > of opinions from the world's most qualified nuclear terrorism experts
> > who collectively estimated the risk at approximately 50% in the next
> > decade or two. Further, I don't think I specified that such an attack
> > would necessarily come from Muslim extremists (although I'd say that is
> > the highest probability).
>
> How does someone get to be described as a "Nuclear Terrorism Expert"? Do
> they get a little card issued by the Israel Lobby?
>
> Given that Pakistan is the only Muslim country with a nuclear weapon
> capability and that no other Muslim country even has a nuclear weapon
> program these "Nuclear Terrorism Experts" have evidently developed a
> brilliant theory that Pakistan is going to give nuclear weapons to
> terrorists to attack the United States. Brilliant. What is the thought
> process that would lead to a conclusion like that? Or was there any
> thought process to speak of?

no, no, NO! he was very adament: this would be a nuclear device
DEVELOPED (from online manuals) entirely by terrorist organizations then
delivered to an american city.

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 12:36 PM, risky biz wrote:

> How does someone get to be described as a "Nuclear Terrorism Expert"? Do
> they get a little card issued by the Israel Lobby?

No, they usually get advanced degrees from leading academic
institutions, spend decades working in military intelligence,
counter-terrorism, the CIA, or other intelligence organizations, and
then spend years more studying this specific problem.

The CVs of these individuals are readily available for your perusal if
you do a little digging. Here is one example:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/199/graham_allison.html?back_url=%2Fpublication%2F20057%2Fnuclear_terrorism_fact_sheet.html&back_text=Back
to publication

> Given that Pakistan is the only Muslim country with a nuclear weapon
> capability and that no other Muslim country even has a nuclear weapon
> program these "Nuclear Terrorism Experts" have evidently developed a
> brilliant theory that Pakistan is going to give nuclear weapons to
> terrorists to attack the United States.

Nope. That's actually one of the very unlikely scenarios. You don't need
to be given a nuclear weapon. It's not that hard (relatively speaking)
to make a crude nuclear device. The major stumbling block is acquiring
the required amount (which isn't much...about 20kg) of fissionable
material. That material is most likely to come from any one of the
poorly secured storage facilities, and not necessarily (in fact,
probably not) from a Muslim country.

"In addition, there are large stockpiles of fissile material, and the
security of some of this material is under question. In August 1994
German police confiscated a suitcase used to smuggle plutonium from
Moscow to Munich. On October 13, 1997 the New York Times reported on a
number of examples of nuclear material smuggling from an insecure
Russian system. The US has been assisting Russia in securing its fissile
material under the Nunn-Lugar Program, but in recent years the
government has been cutting funds for this."

Brilliant. What is the thought
> process that would lead to a conclusion like that?

You tell me. It was your conclusion.

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 11:17 AM, Hollis2 wrote:

> Are all college graduates the same? Do all college degrees offer the same
> opportunity for employment? Do some college graduates have post-graduate
> degrees which make it more likely that they be employed?

No, all college graduates are not the same. Are you saying black college
graduates are, on average, inferior to white college graduates?

Are you saying black college graduates have less access to the best
schools and graduate programs? I can agree with that. That's part of the
point.

> Do you think that affirmative action, which allows less qualified black
> into college, make employers see black graduates as less qualified than
> white graduates.

If they do, they are racists. If you have two four-year college
graduates, from the same school, from the same program, with the same
grades, who gives a flying fuck how they got admitted?? They are
obviously equally talented. In that scenario, I would say the minority
is most likely the stronger candidate. He overcame more obstacles (on
average) than the white candidate.

>Do companies find that the black employees they hire do
> less well than white employees?

lol..I am sure the racist managers think so.

Do you think that if you did the same
> thing with white names and Asian names, that the Asians would get more
> interviews than whites?

I'm not sure. I haven't seen any data on that.

[mo_ntresor]

if you know blacks are too stupid to find canada, then you know any resume
with a black sounding name must be a hoax.

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 1:57 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> if you know blacks are too stupid to find canada, then you know any resume
> with a black sounding name must be a hoax.

You're doubling down on that grade school illogic even after I gave you
a public spanking?

Why did so many African-Americans stay in the South, despite all the
lynchings and brutally racist Jim Crow laws? Was it no better in Vermont?

University of Chicago, eh? lol

[risky biz]

None of those arguments are even relatively convincing. What is the
thought process that leads someone to a conclusion that there's a 50%
chance of nuclear weapons grade material being not only acquired but used
by a terrorist element in the next ten years? It's just leaping to
conclusions and scare mongering. If inadequate security resulted in
nuclear material being compromised it would almost surely be acquired by a
state, not a small terror organization.

I also disagrre with the statement that it isn't that hard to make a
nuclear device, even a crude one. I know someone could probably find
something on the internet that says you can make it in your backyard shed
in two weeks but the process of initiating a fission reaction is very
difficult to engineer. The most likely scenario if a terrorist group was
trying to do this is they would all die of radiation poisoning before they
got even close to the ability to produce a fission reaction.

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 2:41 PM, risky biz wrote:

> I also disagrre with the statement that it isn't that hard to make a
> nuclear device, even a crude one.

And your qualifications are....?

[Dutch]

risky biz wrote:
> The most likely scenario if a terrorist group was
> trying to do this is they would all die of radiation poisoning before they
> got even close to the ability to produce a fission reaction.

that's very reassuring

[BillB]

And by the way, you don't make a gun-type nuclear weapon in a garden
shed. You need a machine shop, a machinist, someone with a nuclear
physics background, and perhaps a couple of other workers. It is
estimated it could be completed in six months. A nuclear weapons
specialist informed me that it's roughly as difficult as building a car
from scratch.

The consequences are almost unthinkable.

But hey, whatever lets you sleep at night.

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 12 2012 3:41 PM, risky biz wrote:

> None of those arguments are even relatively convincing. What is the
> thought process that leads someone to a conclusion that there's a 50%
> chance of nuclear weapons grade material being not only acquired but used
> by a terrorist element in the next ten years? It's just leaping to
> conclusions and scare mongering. If inadequate security resulted in
> nuclear material being compromised it would almost surely be acquired by a
> state, not a small terror organization.
>
> I also disagrre with the statement that it isn't that hard to make a
> nuclear device, even a crude one. I know someone could probably find
> something on the internet that says you can make it in your backyard shed
> in two weeks but the process of initiating a fission reaction is very
> difficult to engineer. The most likely scenario if a terrorist group was
> trying to do this is they would all die of radiation poisoning before they
> got even close to the ability to produce a fission reaction.

no, no, NO! he's read the expert reports written by smart government
people, and the verdict is in: they need jobs and here's how they get
their funding!

mo_ntresor

[ChrisRobin]

On Nov 12 2012 5:57 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> no, no, NO! he's read the expert reports written by smart government
> people, and the verdict is in: they need jobs and here's how they get
> their funding!

Bingo. You've just described the entire intelligence community –
disguising their thinly veiled propaganda as "expertise," when in fact
their entire livelihood depends upon the expansion of the conflicts they
purport to objectively evaluate. Yeah, that'll end well.

Look out folks, Saddam's got nukes! (wink, wink)

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 3:21 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> On Nov 12 2012 5:57 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
>> no, no, NO! he's read the expert reports written by smart government
>> people, and the verdict is in: they need jobs and here's how they get
>> their funding!
>

> Bingo. You've just described the entire intelligence community �

> disguising their thinly veiled propaganda as "expertise," when in fact
> their entire livelihood depends upon the expansion of the conflicts they
> purport to objectively evaluate. Yeah, that'll end well.
>
> Look out folks, Saddam's got nukes! (wink, wink)

Do you still believe Dick Cheney brought down the Twin Towers?

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 2:41 PM, risky biz wrote:

> None of those arguments are even relatively convincing. What is the
> thought process that leads someone to a conclusion that there's a 50%
> chance of nuclear weapons grade material being not only acquired but used
> by a terrorist element in the next ten years?

If I had told you on January 1, 2000 that there was a 50% chance that in
the next decade a rag-tag team of Middle Eastern terrorists would
simultaneously hijack four commercial jets with box-cutters, commandeer
the cockpit, and fly them into Manhattan skyscrapers, the Pentagon, and
the White House, what would have said?

Fear mongering, right?

But "the experts" did foresee that scenario. They even warned George
Bush about it.

[risky biz]

On Nov 12 2012 3:52 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 11/12/2012 2:46 PM, BillB wrote:
> > On 11/12/2012 2:41 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >
> >> I also disagrre with the statement that it isn't that hard to make a
> >> nuclear device, even a crude one.
> >
> > And your qualifications are....?

No one needs qualifications, it's pretty common knowledge. But I am
closely related to someone who does have qualifications.

> And by the way, you don't make a gun-type nuclear weapon in a garden
> shed.

Isn't that what I said?

> You need a machine shop, a machinist, someone with a nuclear
> physics background, and perhaps a couple of other workers. It is
> estimated it could be completed in six months. A nuclear weapons
> specialist informed me that it's roughly as difficult as building a car
> from scratch.

Which you're implying is pretty easy? Any guess why nuclear weapons states
have always undertaken numerous test explosions before they have any
confidence that their device will actually detonate?

> The consequences are almost unthinkable.

I don't think I ever argued that nuclear terrorism was acceptable. Only
that it is exremely unlikely.

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 3:36 PM, risky biz wrote:

> I don't think I ever argued that nuclear terrorism was acceptable. Only
> that it is exremely unlikely.

Still waiting for your qualifications. Did you get a little card issued
by the al-Qaeda lobby?

You were interested in the qualifications of my experts, so what are the
qualifications of yours?

[risky biz]

Poor comparison. It wasn't that hard to hijack an airplane at the time. I
would have said it was highly credible.

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 3:45 PM, risky biz wrote:

> Poor comparison. It wasn't that hard to hijack an airplane at the time. I
> would have said it was highly credible.

Ya, it is a poor comparison, because what they pulled off is far more
difficult and unlikely than someone building a gun-type nuclear device
(assuming they could acquire the fissile material).

The only REALLY hard part is getting that fuel. That is ALL that is
really stopping it from happening, and twenty years is an awfully long
time to find it.

Let's say the experts are off by a factor of ten. It's only a 5% chance.
Now what?

[fffurken]

On Nov 12, 11:53 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

> Ya, it is a poor comparison, because what they pulled off is far more
> difficult and unlikely than someone building a gun-type nuclear device
> (assuming they could acquire the fissile material).

Really?

> The only REALLY hard part is getting that fuel. That is ALL that is
> really stopping it from happening, and twenty years is an awfully long
> time to find it.

They've been talking about terrorists detonating a nuclear bomb for
decades already. I remember it being postulated that the IRA would do
it and I don't recall it being revealed since that it was ever even a
hair-brained scheme for the IRA.

[risky biz]

On Nov 12 2012 4:53 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 11/12/2012 3:45 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > Poor comparison. It wasn't that hard to hijack an airplane at the time. I
> > would have said it was highly credible.
>
> Ya, it is a poor comparison, because what they pulled off is far more
> difficult and unlikely than someone building a gun-type nuclear device
> (assuming they could acquire the fissile material).

OK, you're obviously not making any attempt to be logical so go ahead and
say terrorists (which, given the cultural background here, means ISLAMIC
TERRORISTS) are likely to detonate a nuclear device in North America in
the next decade or two (going back to what you originally said).

And while you're at it go ahead and say we're under threat of soon having
Sharia law imposed on us. I recall seeing you pronouncing on that subject
in the past, too.

> The only REALLY hard part is getting that fuel. That is ALL that is
> really stopping it from happening, and twenty years is an awfully long
> time to find it.
>
> Let's say the experts are off by a factor of ten. It's only a 5% chance.
> Now what?

I guess we'll undertake a neverending, bankrupting war against an Islamic
threat that doesn't exist. Is that what you're looking for? OK. Whatever.

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 4:20 PM, risky biz wrote:

>> Ya, it is a poor comparison, because what they pulled off is far more
>> difficult and unlikely than someone building a gun-type nuclear device
>> (assuming they could acquire the fissile material).
>
> OK, you're obviously not making any attempt to be logical so go ahead and
> say terrorists (which, given the cultural background here, means ISLAMIC
> TERRORISTS) are likely to detonate a nuclear device in North America in
> the next decade or two (going back to what you originally said).

You are the one being illogical. I can bury you in highly qualified
expert opinions saying it's an extremely serious risk. In fact, I don't
think I can find ONE opinion that says it isn't. What do you have? Your
layman's "feelings*? That is ILLOGICAL.

I already said it doesn't mean "Islamic," although that is obviously the
most likely scenario in the current political climate.

> And while you're at it go ahead and say we're under threat of soon having
> Sharia law imposed on us. I recall seeing you pronouncing on that subject
> in the past, too.

I've never said any such thing.

>> The only REALLY hard part is getting that fuel. That is ALL that is
>> really stopping it from happening, and twenty years is an awfully long
>> time to find it.
>>
>> Let's say the experts are off by a factor of ten. It's only a 5% chance.
>> Now what?
>
> I guess we'll undertake a neverending, bankrupting war against an Islamic
> threat that doesn't exist. Is that what you're looking for? OK. Whatever.

An Islamic threat doesn't exist? WTF?? What the hell are you smoking?
They came a hair away from flying a jet into the White House for fuck
sakes. They took down the World Trade Center. They flew a jet into the
Pentagon. And you think a threat doesn't exist?? You are living in Never
Never Land.

There is no way taking countermeasures against the threat of nuclear
terrorism comes anywhere close to "bankrupting" the US. That is just
drama queen bullshit.

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 4:17 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Nov 12, 11:53 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
>> Ya, it is a poor comparison, because what they pulled off is far more
>> difficult and unlikely than someone building a gun-type nuclear device
>> (assuming they could acquire the fissile material).
>
> Really?

Really. I know that's hard for a lot of laypersons to wrap their heads
around, but it's really not terribly difficult to build a crude nuclear
device. People who know nothing about the process think it is, but it
isn't. The hardest part is acquiring the fuel.

All I can suggest is that you read up on the facts from people who know
what they are talking about.

>> The only REALLY hard part is getting that fuel. That is ALL that is
>> really stopping it from happening, and twenty years is an awfully long
>> time to find it.
>
> They've been talking about terrorists detonating a nuclear bomb for
> decades already. I remember it being postulated that the IRA would do
> it and I don't recall it being revealed since that it was ever even a
> hair-brained scheme for the IRA.

Who is they? The technology becomes more accessible every year. The
plans are practically open source at this point. Never mind what it will
be like 20 years from now. I could be wrong, but I really don't think
the IRA ever had that kind of reach in their heyday. I'm not saying it
never happened, but I don't remember anyone saying the IRA was a high
risk to detonate a nuclear device. In contrast, I don't know of ONE
legitimate terrorism or nuclear weapons expert today who tries to
diminish the risk of it happening in the US in the foreseeable future.

Denying the risk is akin to rejecting climate change because it's an
inconvenient truth.

[fffurken]

On Nov 13, 12:50 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

> > They've been talking about terrorists detonating a nuclear bomb for
> > decades already. I remember it being postulated that the IRA would do
> > it and I don't recall it being revealed since that it was ever even a
> > hair-brained scheme for the IRA.
>
> Who is they? The technology becomes more accessible every year. The
> plans are practically open source at this point. Never mind what it will
> be like 20 years from now.

If that's the case, would it not make sense that the biggest risk for
any nation during the cold war say, was the risk from countless
potential nuclear terrorists?

If any old gobshite can do it now with the required material, couldn't
the super powers do it in the past?

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 3:28 PM, BillB wrote:

>> Bingo. You've just described the entire intelligence community �
>> disguising their thinly veiled propaganda as "expertise," when in fact
>> their entire livelihood depends upon the expansion of the conflicts they
>> purport to objectively evaluate. Yeah, that'll end well.
>>
>> Look out folks, Saddam's got nukes! (wink, wink)
>
> Do you still believe Dick Cheney brought down the Twin Towers?

Hello? Anybody there?

I'm serious...do you still believe that, or have you matured?

[mo_ntresor]

it's nothing that special, surprising or nefarious; just more dipshit
bureaucrats who desperately want to believe they're important.

mo_ntresor

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 12 2012 5:56 PM, fffurken wrote:

> > Who is they? The technology becomes more accessible every year. The
> > plans are practically open source at this point. Never mind what it will
> > be like 20 years from now.
>
> If that's the case, would it not make sense that the biggest risk for
> any nation during the cold war say, was the risk from countless
> potential nuclear terrorists?
>
> If any old gobshite can do it now with the required material, couldn't
> the super powers do it in the past?

you're talking to a guy who believes five dipshit towelheads in a tent can
replicate the multi-year work of 50 of the 20th century's greatest
scientists who THEMSELVES were backed by one of the world's most powerful
nation's financial and material resources.

not too bright, is he?

mo_ntresor

[Hollis2]

On Nov 12 2012 4:34 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 11/12/2012 11:17 AM, Hollis2 wrote:
>
> > Are all college graduates the same? Do all college degrees offer the same
> > opportunity for employment? Do some college graduates have post-graduate
> > degrees which make it more likely that they be employed?
>
> No, all college graduates are not the same. Are you saying black college
> graduates are, on average, inferior to white college graduates?
>
> Are you saying black college graduates have less access to the best
> schools and graduate programs? I can agree with that. That's part of the
> point.

No, I'm saying that on average black college graduates tend not to do as
well.

"Yet, even among students enrolled in college, there is much evidence that
racial gaps persist in college achievement and graduation rates (Vars and
Bowen 1998, Sacerdote 2001)."

http://www.texastop10.princeton.edu/conference/seminar08/Fletcher-Tienda_CollegeAchievementHighSchoolMatter_v01.pdf

> > Do you think that affirmative action, which allows less qualified black
> > into college, make employers see black graduates as less qualified than
> > white graduates.
>
> If they do, they are racists. If you have two four-year college
> graduates, from the same school, from the same program, with the same
> grades, who gives a flying fuck how they got admitted?? They are
> obviously equally talented. In that scenario, I would say the minority
> is most likely the stronger candidate. He overcame more obstacles (on
> average) than the white candidate.

Again, there are clear achievement differences between black and white
college graduates. Businessmen know this.

> >Do companies find that the black employees they hire do
> > less well than white employees?
>
> lol..I am sure the racist managers think so.

Do you think that companies know how different groups of employees
perform?

>
> Do you think that if you did the same
> > thing with white names and Asian names, that the Asians would get more
> > interviews than whites?
>
> I'm not sure. I haven't seen any data on that.

When I lived on Long Island, the local 7-11 was bought by a Korean man.
He fired everyone who worked in the store and hired Koreans to replace
them. I asked him why and he told me that Koreans work harder and they
don't steal. This was clearly a generalization and I'm sure that some of
the blacks, whites and Hispanics that worked there were better than some
of the Koreans that replaced them. However, from what I know about
Koreans, for the most part, the new owner was right. He was playing the
percentages.

Businessmen don't deal with theory, they deal with reality.

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 5:24 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> you're talking to a guy who believes five dipshit towelheads in a tent can
> replicate the multi-year work of 50 of the 20th century's greatest
> scientists who THEMSELVES were backed by one of the world's most powerful
> nation's financial and material resources.
>
> not too bright, is he?

Your ignorance is absolutely astonishing.



From Live Science:


*The Easy Part* (<== their title, not mine)

There is more than enough information out there explaining how to
produce a nuclear weapon. This became obvious in 1967 after three newly
minted physics professors with no nuclear weapons experience were able
to draw up a credible design for a nuclear bomb. The physicists had been
hired by researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to assess
the difficulty of producing a nuclear weapon, a project known as the Nth
Country Experiment.

However, acquiring the necessary materials to fuel the bomb, such as
weapons-grade uranium, proved to be difficult at the time.




That was in *1967*, you fool. By the way, the person who informed me
that building such a device was about as hard as building a car was a
nuclear weapons designer at Lawrence Livermore.

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 4:56 PM, fffurken wrote

> If that's the case, would it not make sense that the biggest risk for
> any nation during the cold war say, was the risk from countless
> potential nuclear terrorists?
>
> If any old gobshite can do it now with the required material, couldn't
> the super powers do it in the past?

I don't mean to minimize the technical and logistic hurdles to building
such a device. I'm not saying any mo_ron with a cannister of fissile
material could whip one up. It would take money, time, a facility and
some fairly extensive technical and scientific expertise. There would
probably be some degree of hostile state sponsorship.

During the cold war, I believe it was a major concern that the Soviet
Union could, or had already, smuggled a so-called "suitcase nuke" into
the country. However, if such a device were ever detonated, the Soviet
Union would have been obliterated (along with us in turn). There would
have been few other suspects to turn to. That is not the case today.

[Hollis2]

On Nov 12 2012 2:32 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> On Nov 12 2012 2:03 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> > On 11/12/2012 10:23 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > Does your racism meter ever go off for non-black people?
> >
> > Yes, but my specific academic interest is with racism in North America
> > (Canada and the US) against people of African heritage. That is the
> > problem I have been studying for a couple of decades. It's BY FAR the
> > most longstanding, pervasive, acute and expensive form of the problem in
> > the US. Besides, if you can't get a teabagger to admit the painfully
> > obvious facy that there is a massive problem with racism against
> > African-Americans in the US, and to agree that concrete steps need to be
> > taken to rectify the problem, how are you going to get them to admit it
> > for any other race? Racism against African-Americans is the best example
> > I have.
> >
> >
> > > Have you heard
> > > of this program?
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2012/02/editorial_nypds_investigation.html
> > >
> > > 6 years of flooding muslim communities with undercover agents (leading to
> > > not a single case), invading their privacy, and sewing distrust.
> > >
> > > Why do you never mention these institutional race attacks? (apologies if
> > > you have at some point)
> >
> > I have heard about it, but I don't know enough about the details to
> > offer authoritative commentary.
>
> Well 10 minutes of research and hearing from the communities effected
> would fill you in. Millions of dollars spent, endless surveillance,
> privacy invaded, not resulting in a single investigation. Not to mention
> the legally dubious grounds of the NYPD surveilling the fuck out of people
> out of state.
>
> It's an ugly situation.

Nevertheless, there has been no ruling that defines the program as
illegal. The New Jersey AG said the NYPD were not violating any state
law. So, until the activities are deemed to be illegal, Bloomberg and Ray
Kelly will carry on.

Generally, the authority of the government (at all levels) to conduct
surveillance in public places and places is fairly broad.

Also, you have no idea how useful this program has been in stopping
possible terrorist attacks and providing useful intelligence on the
activities of terrorists in and outside the US. Most of what they do is
secret. Obviously, the NYPD think its useful, because they are doing
their best to keep it going despite taking a lot of heat for it.

> > Are you under the impression that I don't know that racism against
> > Middle Eastern Muslims is a big problem? That would be rather ridiculous.
> >
> >
> > > Can we conclude from your rhetoric about the US being dangerously,
> > > imminently, vulnerable to a muslim nuclear terror attack that it just
> > > doesn't bother you a whole lot?
> >
> > I don't think I ever used the word imminent. I believe I quoted a range
> > of opinions from the world's most qualified nuclear terrorism experts
> > who collectively estimated the risk at approximately 50% in the next
> > decade or two. Further, I don't think I specified that such an attack
> > would necessarily come from Muslim extremists (although I'd say that is
> > the highest probability).
>
>
> Opie G. Manager
> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[FL Turbo]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:56:38 -0800 (PST), fffurken
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 13, 12:50�am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
>> > They've been talking about terrorists detonating a nuclear bomb for
>> > decades already. I remember it being postulated that the IRA would do
>> > it and I don't recall it being revealed since that it was ever even a
>> > hair-brained scheme for the IRA.
>>
>> Who is they? The technology becomes more accessible every year. The
>> plans are practically open source at this point. Never mind what it will
>> be like 20 years from now.
>
>If that's the case, would it not make sense that the biggest risk for
>any nation during the cold war say, was the risk from countless
>potential nuclear terrorists?
>

Hey, moron.
The "cold war" has essentially been over ever since the Evil Empire
went down.
That was then and this is now.
The technology was not "practically open source" in those days.

>If any old gobshite can do it now with the required material, couldn't
>the super powers do it in the past?

They certainly could have done so.
But then, there was the "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy,
namely that "If you nuke our country, we will nuke your country".

Now, if any old gobshite nukes us, who are we gonna nuke in return?

Think about it.

[risky biz]

Yeah, it's as easy as building your own car from scratch. Why do you
equate quantifying the risk with denying or diminishing the risk? That's
an evasion.

No one was saying there was a high risk of the IRA detonating a nuclear
device because there wasn't a vested interest group expending endless
efforts to turn the Irish into the new Jews of the modern era as they have
successfully turned every Arab and Muslim in the world into the equivalent
of Hitler's Jews.

The only feasible device that a small group could even attempt to create
would be a fissionable gun type device and if you think designing it to
ram the fiisionable material together at just the right speed is an
elementary problem then you don't know what you're talking about. That's
aside from the fact that they wouldn't know if it really worked without an
actual detonation. Do you think a test like that might be noticed by
someone? LOL.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 3:43:15 PM UTC-5, mo_ntresor wrote:

> On Nov 12 2012 1:36 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I don't think I ever used the word imminent. I believe I quoted a range
>
> > > of opinions from the world's most qualified nuclear terrorism experts
>
> > > who collectively estimated the risk at approximately 50% in the next
>
> > > decade or two. Further, I don't think I specified that such an attack
>
> > > would necessarily come from Muslim extremists (although I'd say that is
>
> > > the highest probability).
>
> >
>

> > How does someone get to be described as a "Nuclear Terrorism Expert"? Do
>
> > they get a little card issued by the Israel Lobby?
>
> >
>
> > Given that Pakistan is the only Muslim country with a nuclear weapon
>
> > capability and that no other Muslim country even has a nuclear weapon
>
> > program these "Nuclear Terrorism Experts" have evidently developed a
>
> > brilliant theory that Pakistan is going to give nuclear weapons to
>
> > terrorists to attack the United States. Brilliant. What is the thought
>
> > process that would lead to a conclusion like that? Or was there any
>
> > thought process to speak of?
>
>
>
> no, no, NO! he was very adament: this would be a nuclear device
>
> DEVELOPED (from online manuals) entirely by terrorist organizations then
>
> delivered to an american city.
>
>
>
> mo_ntresor

Not easy to do without killing yourself. Making a device which will explode without melting is delicate.

[Tim Norfolk]

Reproducing that work is orders of magnitude easier than doing it for the first time, particularly given the fact that they didn't know if it would work. Supposedly, the models suggested that the first test blast might fuze the nitrogen in the atmosphere.

[risky biz]

On Nov 12 2012 5:44 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 11/12/2012 4:20 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> >> Ya, it is a poor comparison, because what they pulled off is far more
> >> difficult and unlikely than someone building a gun-type nuclear device
> >> (assuming they could acquire the fissile material).
> >
> > OK, you're obviously not making any attempt to be logical so go ahead and
> > say terrorists (which, given the cultural background here, means ISLAMIC
> > TERRORISTS) are likely to detonate a nuclear device in North America in
> > the next decade or two (going back to what you originally said).
>
> You are the one being illogical. I can bury you in highly qualified
> expert opinions saying it's an extremely serious risk. In fact, I don't
> think I can find ONE opinion that says it isn't. What do you have? Your
> layman's "feelings*? That is ILLOGICAL.

Point of logic: "serious" and "likely" don't have the same meaning.

> I already said it doesn't mean "Islamic," although that is obviously the
> most likely scenario in the current political climate.
>
> > And while you're at it go ahead and say we're under threat of soon having
> > Sharia law imposed on us. I recall seeing you pronouncing on that subject
> > in the past, too.
>
> I've never said any such thing.

You've never posted on the subject of the supposed threat of Sharia law in
North America? I'll withdraw the comment if you haven't but I distinctly
remember your name on such a post and being surprised you would fall for
an idiot idea like that.

> >> The only REALLY hard part is getting that fuel. That is ALL that is
> >> really stopping it from happening, and twenty years is an awfully long
> >> time to find it.
> >>
> >> Let's say the experts are off by a factor of ten. It's only a 5% chance.
> >> Now what?
> >
> > I guess we'll undertake a neverending, bankrupting war against an Islamic
> > threat that doesn't exist. Is that what you're looking for? OK. Whatever.
>
> An Islamic threat doesn't exist? WTF?? What the hell are you smoking?
> They came a hair away from flying a jet into the White House for fuck
> sakes. They took down the World Trade Center. They flew a jet into the
> Pentagon. And you think a threat doesn't exist?? You are living in Never
> Never Land.

Well, I'm not living in Never Never Land, Bill. I was simply referring to
an Islamic nuclear weapon threat which, since that was what we were
discussing, I assumed you would realize. Maybe you just found it useful to
your rhetoric to portray it as something else.

> There is no way taking countermeasures against the threat of nuclear
> terrorism comes anywhere close to "bankrupting" the US. That is just
> drama queen bullshit.

Well, if you haven't yet developed the realization that America's wars
against just about every Muslim and Arab in the world is bankrupting
America then you're missing something. By the way- I didn't say
"countermeasures against the threat of nuclear terrorism" would bankrupt
America. Those are words you're trying to put in my mouth. You're the one
who's turning into a drama queen here.

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> Reproducing that work is orders of magnitude easier than doing it for the first time

University of Chicago! Hard Sciences! Have you ever encountered a
bigger fraud than mo_ron?


Here's a little reality check for the terminally ignorant
from the UN's Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission:


Most physicists and nuclear weapons analysts have concluded that
construction of a gun-type device would pose few technological barriers
to technically competent terrorists.26

In 2002, the U.S. National Research Council in its report warned, �Crude
HEU weapons could be fabricated without state assistance.�27
The Council further specified, �The primary impediment that prevents
countries or technically competent terrorist groups from developing
nuclear weapons is the availability of [nuclear material],
especially HEU.�28

Thus, this prestigious group of scientists emphasized the dangers
posed by HEU over other types of nuclear material. In September 2003,
several scientists under the auspices of the Union of Concerned
Scientists signed a letter, which stated that HEU is �the easiest
material in the world for terrorists to use to make a nuclear bomb.�29
Moreover, commenting on the relative ease of using HEU to make a nuclear
weapon, Richard Garwin and Georges Charpak wrote, �Enriched uranium is
the dream materialfor making bombs.�30
Frank von Hippel, a physicist who had served as the Assistant
Director for National Security at the White House�s Office of Science
and Technology Policy, wrote in 2001, �It is generally agreed, however,
that educated terrorists could turn weapon-grade uranium � into a
gun-type nuclear explosive.�31 While there appears to be little doubt
among the experts that technically competent terrorists could make a
gun-type device given sufficient quantities of HEU, the question remains
as to how technically competent do they have to be and how large of a
team would be needed. At one end of the spectrum of analysis, there is
the view that a suicidal terrorist could literally drop one piece of HEU
metal on top of another piece to
form a supercritical mass and initiate an explosive chain reaction.
Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez�s oft-cited quote exemplifies this view. He
wrote, �With modern weapons-grade uranium, the background neutron rate
is so low that terrorists, if they have such material, would have a good
chance of setting off a high-yield explosion simply by dropping one
half of the material onto the other half. Most people seem unaware that
if separated HEU is at hand it�s a trivial job to set off a nuclear
explosion � even a high school kid could make a bomb in short order.�32

http://www.un.org/disarmament/education/wmdcommission/files/No2.pdf

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 6:59 PM, risky biz wrote

> You've never posted on the subject of the supposed threat of Sharia law in
> North America? I'll withdraw the comment if you haven't but I distinctly
> remember your name on such a post and being surprised you would fall for
> an idiot idea like that.

Never. I always laughed at such claims.

>>> I guess we'll undertake a neverending, bankrupting war against an Islamic
>>> threat that doesn't exist. Is that what you're looking for? OK. Whatever.
>>
>> An Islamic threat doesn't exist? WTF?? What the hell are you smoking?
>> They came a hair away from flying a jet into the White House for fuck
>> sakes. They took down the World Trade Center. They flew a jet into the
>> Pentagon. And you think a threat doesn't exist?? You are living in Never
>> Never Land.
>
> Well, I'm not living in Never Never Land, Bill. I was simply referring to
> an Islamic nuclear weapon threat which, since that was what we were
> discussing, I assumed you would realize. Maybe you just found it useful to
> your rhetoric to portray it as something else.

Many of the steps necessary to mitigate the threat of nuclear terrorism
overlap the countermeasures required to minimize many other kinds of
plausible mass casualty threats. You can't really separate them into
neat boxes.
That's why I thought you were referring to the Islamic threat in
general. I'm sorry I misunderstood.

>> There is no way taking countermeasures against the threat of nuclear
>> terrorism comes anywhere close to "bankrupting" the US. That is just
>> drama queen bullshit.
>
> Well, if you haven't yet developed the realization that America's wars
> against just about every Muslim and Arab in the world is bankrupting
> America then you're missing something. By the way- I didn't say
> "countermeasures against the threat of nuclear terrorism" would bankrupt
> America. Those are words you're trying to put in my mouth. You're the one
> who's turning into a drama queen here.

Wars against Islamic countries only increase the threat. I'm not talking
about starting wars. I was one of the most vocal opponents on RGP to the
invasion of Iraq and the strategy in Afghanistan.

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 12 2012 7:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> Reproducing that work is orders of magnitude easier than doing it for the
first time, particularly
> given the fact that they didn't know if it would work. Supposedly, the
models suggested that the
> first test blast might fuze the nitrogen in the atmosphere.

calculus has been orders of magnitude easier since newton. try teaching
it to university of akron students.

mo_ntresor

[risky biz]

> [b]Wars against Islamic countries only increase the threat.[b] I'm not

talking
> about starting wars. I was one of the most vocal opponents on RGP to the
> invasion of Iraq and the strategy in Afghanistan.

Bingo.

[O-PGManager]

On Nov 12 2012 2:38 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 11/12/2012 11:32 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > Well 10 minutes of research and hearing from the communities effected
> > would fill you in.
>

> I don't comment on things I've studied for 10 minutes. Mo_ron might be
> able to help you there.

That's a fantastic dodge. I'm sure you'd accept Susan saying "I'm just
not informed enough on the subject to have an opinion on whether or nor
there is rampant endemic racism in America."

[Follow]

On Nov 12 2012 11:18 AM, brattt wrote:

> On Nov 12 2012 12:02 PM, Follow wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12 2012 9:40 AM, BillB wrote:
> >
> > > http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf
> >
> > This study was published nearly a decade ago and was probably conducted a
> > decade or more ago. A lot changes in that sort of time frame.
> >
> > Also, do you think it might be possible that an HR dept. would avoid the
> > "black sounding" names suggested by the study because they suffer from a
> > subconscious fear of an AA lawsuit when one of these applicants come in?
> > I think Affirmative Action can have a negative effect on our society in
> > that way, especially in the job market.
> >
> > Your study leaves out one very important point as well as the above. How
> > many of the HR decision makers that were part of the study *were* black,
> > and how did the percentages shake out regarding them? If you see a
> > similar trend with black hiring managers, then it might be something other
> > than racism causing these gaps.
> >
> >
> >
> > Follow :)
>
> Be very careful arguing with B-BillB. Pretty soon you will have to prove
> that your real name is Follow:)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
> Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

I won't argue with him. He asked a question, it was answered, then he
(predictably) turned into a gibbering hyena. Follow is obviously my
absolute real name. My last name is :).



Follow :)

[ChrisRobin]

On Nov 12 2012 6:28 PM, BillB wrote:

> Do you still believe Dick Cheney brought down the Twin Towers?

How is this relevant to the topic at hand?

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 8:35 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

>> I don't comment on things I've studied for 10 minutes. Mo_ron might be
>> able to help you there.
>
> That's a fantastic dodge. I'm sure you'd accept Susan saying "I'm just
> not informed enough on the subject to have an opinion on whether or nor
> there is rampant endemic racism in America."

No, I wouldn't accept that, because

1) susan has lived in the United States most of her life, and you'd have
to be walking around with earplugs and wearing a blindfold all those
years to not know that's the case, and,

2) I have presented reams of evidence proving that to be the case.


In contrast,

1) I know virtually NOTHING about the NYPD's counter-terrorism tactics, and,

2) You haven't posted any evidence of anything, except maybe a couple of
links to newspapers articles. I read two of those articles, they both
looked like they came off the same wire service, and in reading them
critically I saw a number of holes in the story. Also, I saw little or
nothing of the NYPDs defense of the program.

I learned a long time ago not to trust newspaper accounts of any complex
court proceedings. In many cases, the reporters don't even understand
what they heard, and on several occasions I've gone to the court filings
or transcripts or decisions only to find the press got it *100% backwards.*

This is a complex issue, and reading about it for 10 minutes, even if
it's in a publication as venerable as Rolling Stone Magazine, is not
nearly enough, for me, to have a full grasp of the situation and start
pontificating on it. That's not how I roll. I like to know exactly what
I'm talking about before I shoot my mouth off. That's why I suggested
you turn to mo_ron for an uninformed opinion. I'm sure he'll be more
than willing to accommodate you.

[BillB]

Your previous statement ties right in with what you claimed was Dick
Cheney's motive for attacking America.

Do you still believe Dick Cheney brought down the Twin Towers, or not?

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 7:15 PM, BillB wrote:

> Never. I always laughed at such claims.

I searched the archives. This must be what you are talking about:

"We must STOP the march toward Sharia law being imposed on North
Americans, else we can expect to see scenes like this played out in town
squares across Canada and the US."

Am I right?

What you missed is that "the scenes like this" to which I was referring
were homosexuals being burned in the town square. The thread, which I
started, was called "Porn for Irish Mike."

I was obviously being sarcastic. I didn't *really* think we were going
to start burning homosexuals in town squares across North America. I was
mocking him.

All the other posts where I mention Sharia law were also made in a
mocking tone against the wingnuts who kept bringing it up. This is a
post I made about the Republican party just a few months ago, which also
mocked the wingnut fear of Sharia law:

OT: Anything Jump Out at You?

Why don't they just go ahead and rename it The White People's Party once
and for all?

Here's their platform (top eight issues):

1. Seal the borders. Construct a 90 foot high barbed wire concrete wall,
with a crocodile filled moat, protected by 50 cal. machine guns, around
the entire perimeter of the US to keep out brown people.

2. Deport anyone with brown or brownish skin who can't produce his
papers. Send Obama back to Kenya. He is definitely not an American.

3. English only, everywhere. No more press 2 for Spanish. Offering goods
or services in any language other than English will be a felony.

4. Totalitarian enforcement of White-Christian values, where convenient
(no more abortion, no gay marriage, etc.). Don't worry, certain
Christian values will continue to be ignored, of course.

5. Cut off all transfer payments (welfare) to lesser races (but social
security and medicare for white people is still okay)

6. Reduce the foreign aid to non-white countries/gdp ratio. Because
sometimes being last just isn't good enough.

7. Stand on guard against the creeping and insidious influence of Sharia
law in US courts. Also, ban the construction of mosques within 1000
yards of a white person.

8. Balance the budget within 52 years


So, are we good?

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 8:51 PM, Follow wrote:

> I won't argue with him.

That would be like bringing a squirt gun to a nuclear war.

[~M~]

"ChrisRobin" wrote in message news:lsc8n9x...@news.ezprovider.com...

>Bingo. You've just described the entire intelligence community –
>disguising their thinly veiled propaganda as "expertise," when in fact
>their entire livelihood depends upon the expansion of the conflicts they
>purport to objectively evaluate. Yeah, that'll end well.

It works for the climate change industry.


--
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not
want merely because you think it would be good for him."
- Robert Heinlein

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:02:06 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 12 2012 9:40 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>> http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf
>
>This study was published nearly a decade ago and was probably conducted a
>decade or more ago. A lot changes in that sort of time frame.

Do you have any evidence to support the idea that a lot has changed,
or is this merely wild conjecture on your part designed to avoid
admitting the obvious truth?

--

Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:34:43 -0800, "risky biz"
<risk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>The only feasible device that a small group could even attempt to create
>would be a fissionable gun type device and if you think designing it to
>ram the fiisionable material together at just the right speed is an
>elementary problem then you don't know what you're talking about. That's
>aside from the fact that they wouldn't know if it really worked without an
>actual detonation. Do you think a test like that might be noticed by
>someone? LOL.

Why would they need to test it? The test would be an actual attack.

[fffurken]

On 13 Nov, 02:36, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:

> >If that's the case, would it not make sense that the biggest risk for
> >any nation during the cold war say, was the risk from countless
> >potential nuclear terrorists?
>

> >If any old gobshite can do it now with the required material, couldn't
> >the super powers do it in the past?
>
> Hey, moron.
> The "cold war" has essentially been over ever since the Evil Empire
> went down.
> That was then and this is now.
> The technology was not "practically open source" in those days.

Did I say that? Stop posting at me, you are a retard.

[risky biz]

I obviously didn't read the whole post so I shouldn't have commented on it.

[risky biz]

They could send out numerous detonation teams to test duds but they would
then have to transport the dud back somewhere for analysis. Not feasible
because in a lot of cases there would be a detonation but not a detonation
that creates fission. It would attract attention, to say the least. So all
they could ever produce is a lot of duds and maybe get lucky with one real
detonation. But how do you test numerous duds without a constant supply of
fissionable material? It's simply unworkable which is good because we're
giving millions of people a good reason to want to do it.

[da pickle]

Far be it from me to acknowledge you at all, risky, but it is obvious
that you are correct in what you are talking about in this thread and
BillB has managed to deflect his poor knowledge about "the point" into
irrelevant trolls about "anything else" but the subject under discussion.

The obtaining of bomb grade material is exceptionally difficult and the
construction of even the crudest of crude "bombs" is even more
difficult. Those handling such material are much more likely to kill
themselves before they get back to the safe house than they are in
making a bomb ... but, as you say, it might be done and some care (as is
already being done) must continue.

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 13 2012 7:19 AM, da pickle wrote:

> > I obviously didn't read the whole post so I shouldn't have commented on it.
>
> Far be it from me to acknowledge you at all, risky, but it is obvious
> that you are correct in what you are talking about in this thread and
> BillB has managed to deflect his poor knowledge about "the point" into
> irrelevant trolls about "anything else" but the subject under discussion.
>
> The obtaining of bomb grade material is exceptionally difficult and the
> construction of even the crudest of crude "bombs" is even more
> difficult. Those handling such material are much more likely to kill
> themselves before they get back to the safe house than they are in
> making a bomb ... but, as you say, it might be done and some care (as is
> already being done) must continue.

maybe billb will demonstrate how simple it is. wouldn't that be great!

mo_ntresor

[Follow]

Yes, I do. Between 2004 and 2012, a black guy was elected as president,
then re-elected. A LOT has changed.



Follow :)

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 13 2012 9:04 AM, Follow wrote:

> > Do you have any evidence to support the idea that a lot has changed,
> > or is this merely wild conjecture on your part designed to avoid
> > admitting the obvious truth?
>

> Yes, I do. Between 2004 and 2012, a black guy was elected as president,
> then re-elected. A LOT has changed.

half white!!

how you doing, follow? still rolling in slc? i keep harping harping on
wife to get a place out there and try it, but she's terrified our family
will be terrified by mormon evangelists. fundamentally, that real estate
market is profoundly undervaluded -- especially given ski proximity and
denver comps (becoming one of the priciest real estate markets around).

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

On 11/13/2012 6:19 AM, da pickle wrote:

> The obtaining of bomb grade material is exceptionally difficult and the
> construction of even the crudest of crude "bombs" is even more
> difficult.

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 13 2012 9:41 AM, BillB wrote:

> > The obtaining of bomb grade material is exceptionally difficult and the
> > construction of even the crudest of crude "bombs" is even more
> > difficult.
>

> UN's Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission:

ROFLMAO!!!!

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

Poor mo. Proven a fool again.

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 13 2012 9:49 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> > UN's Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission:
>
> ROFLMAO!!!!

this HAS to be a joke! has the justice league weighed in yet??

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

Not sure, but apparently the National Research Council, the Director for
National Security at the White House’s Office of Science and Technology
Policy, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Nobel Prize winning nuclear
physicist, nuclear weapon designers, and thousands of other scientists
and nuclear weapons experts have.

Do you need me to post the opinions of 1000 other hyper-qualified
experts before you will admit you are an ignoramus?

Poor mo. Proved a fool again.

[risky biz]

A lot has changed for sure. In the last four years your ego has sunk and
now it's completely collapsed.

[Follow]

I have a lot of friends in your killfile who are probably lonely for me.
Why don't you plonk me in there too so I don't have to deal with your
inane replies to me?



Follow :)

[Follow]

I am still in slc. Why don't you guys just visit first? I think this
town will be really good for another 5 or so years before it starts
getting way too big for my tastes and I'll have to move a little farther
out. The real estate market is correcting really fast because of our
rapid growth, really good investment ops here, and Elko is not far away
and is a boom town for investing. This place has everything a big city
has, only with more theatre, and a practically non-existent crime rate.
We have awesome private schools, the best views, great business
environment and opportunities, and clean air. The mormons are really not
an issue, but the church has managed to help maintain Utah's economy
despite this horror show everywhere else in the country.

Gotta get a hold of me before you get out here though so we can plan a get
together of some sort.



Follow :)

[risky biz]

They don't let you have a killfile anymore just because your guy lost? I
don't think that's fair.

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 13 2012 11:14 AM, Follow wrote:

> > how you doing, follow? still rolling in slc? i keep harping harping on
> > wife to get a place out there and try it, but she's terrified our family
> > will be terrified by mormon evangelists. fundamentally, that real estate
> > market is profoundly undervaluded -- especially given ski proximity and
> > denver comps (becoming one of the priciest real estate markets around).
>

> I am still in slc. Why don't you guys just visit first? I think this
> town will be really good for another 5 or so years before it starts
> getting way too big for my tastes and I'll have to move a little farther
> out. The real estate market is correcting really fast because of our
> rapid growth, really good investment ops here, and Elko is not far away
> and is a boom town for investing. This place has everything a big city
> has, only with more theatre, and a practically non-existent crime rate.
> We have awesome private schools, the best views, great business
> environment and opportunities, and clean air. The mormons are really not
> an issue, but the church has managed to help maintain Utah's economy
> despite this horror show everywhere else in the country.
>
> Gotta get a hold of me before you get out here though so we can plan a get
> together of some sort.

i was there in 08, that's when i decided it was fundamentally under
appreciated. that proximity to the best skiing and outdoor venues on
earth is unmatched anywhere (40 minute drive from slc to alta). it's
beautiful there, more beautiful than denver. my wife's worried it's
uptight and too socially conservative. i think they'd done away with the
liquor nonsense when we were there ....

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 5:43 PM, Hollis2 wrote:


>> If they do, they are racists. If you have two four-year college
>> graduates, from the same school, from the same program, with the same
>> grades, who gives a flying fuck how they got admitted?? They are
>> obviously equally talented. In that scenario, I would say the minority
>> is most likely the stronger candidate. He overcame more obstacles (on
>> average) than the white candidate.
>
> Again, there are clear achievement differences between black and white
> college graduates. Businessmen know this.

Just to be clear...

You have two applicants, both graduates of the same school, same
program, same grades, but you're okay with the businessman throwing one
applicant's resume in the trash because he has a black-sounding name
(and therefore might have been the beneficiary affirmative action)?

In your mind, that is not racism.

Is that correct?

[Follow]

You should probably propose new legislation to deal with that inequity.



Follow :)

[Follow]

I travel a lot and while Utah definitely has the worst reputation for
strict liquor laws and high prices, I can tell you that I've seen far
worse. Utah is kinda middle of the road on their liquor law strictness.
Though for some reason, good scotch is really overpriced here, but I go
into California enough that I can smuggle in a decent McAllan without
taking out a loan. ;)



Follow :)

[risky biz]

Nah. I think you should be self-reliant.

[brattt]

Just to be clear

You have two applicants, both graduates of the same school, same program,
same grades, but you're okay with the businessman throwing one applicant's

resume in the trash because he is white (and therefore forced to hire the
black because he is the beneficiary affirmative action)?

In your mind, that is not racism.

Is that correct?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

[Dutch]

Nobody is this dense.

[BillB]

On 11/13/2012 3:11 PM, Dutch wrote:

> Nobody is this dense.

Don't kid yourself.

[brattt]

On Nov 13 2012 5:11 PM, Dutch wrote:

> Nobody is this dense.

So are you saying that affirmative action has no racist undertones?

Is that what you say to the white guy that was equally (and in a lot of
cases) more qualified than the black guy?

[fffurken]

On Nov 14, 12:18 am, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > Nobody is this dense.
>
> So are you saying that affirmative action has no racist undertones?
>
> Is that what you say to the white guy that was equally (and in a lot of
> cases) more qualified than the black guy?

Say if that kind of thing was found in the workplace for women, i.e.
an enforced quota for women to hold a certain number of jobs, would
that be misandry?

[BillB]

On 11/12/2012 9:10 PM, BillB wrote:

> Do you still believe Dick Cheney brought down the Twin Towers, or not?

Well??

[O-PGManager]

On Nov 13 2012 12:07 AM, BillB wrote:

> On 11/12/2012 8:35 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> >> I don't comment on things I've studied for 10 minutes. Mo_ron might be
> >> able to help you there.
> >
> > That's a fantastic dodge. I'm sure you'd accept Susan saying "I'm just
> > not informed enough on the subject to have an opinion on whether or nor
> > there is rampant endemic racism in America."
>
> No, I wouldn't accept that, because
>
> 1) susan has lived in the United States most of her life, and you'd have
> to be walking around with earplugs and wearing a blindfold all those
> years to not know that's the case, and,
>
> 2) I have presented reams of evidence proving that to be the case.

And I don't accept it from you, because

1) it's not a complex issue at all..... the NYPD flooded muslim
communities in the tri-state area with surveillance purportedly to "keep
us safe". After millions of dollars of spent, not ONE, not ONE CRIMINAL
investigation was opened as a result of the surveillance. (this was
confirmed by the NYPD.)

Look at your failed analysis with its contradictory premises...... 1) I
know nothing about this, and 2) I know this is way too complicated to get
a grasp on in 10 minutes.

Then you have the audacity to cite the NYPD's near total silence on this
humiliating state of affairs as evidence of the articles were biased.

Your endless haranging on this newsgroup about 'institutional racism' and
browbeating Susan for her supposed ignorance on the subject rings hollow
when you refuse to examine stone cold examples presented to you.


>
>
> In contrast,
>
> 1) I know virtually NOTHING about the NYPD's counter-terrorism tactics, and,
>
> 2) You haven't posted any evidence of anything, except maybe a couple of
> links to newspapers articles. I read two of those articles, they both
> looked like they came off the same wire service, and in reading them
> critically I saw a number of holes in the story. Also, I saw little or
> nothing of the NYPDs defense of the program.
>
> I learned a long time ago not to trust newspaper accounts of any complex
> court proceedings. In many cases, the reporters don't even understand
> what they heard, and on several occasions I've gone to the court filings
> or transcripts or decisions only to find the press got it *100% backwards.*
>
> This is a complex issue, and reading about it for 10 minutes, even if
> it's in a publication as venerable as Rolling Stone Magazine, is not
> nearly enough, for me, to have a full grasp of the situation and start
> pontificating on it. That's not how I roll. I like to know exactly what
> I'm talking about before I shoot my mouth off. That's why I suggested
> you turn to mo_ron for an uninformed opinion. I'm sure he'll be more
> than willing to accommodate you.


Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[brattt]

of course -

[BillB]

On 11/13/2012 5:21 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> 1) it's not a complex issue at all..... the NYPD flooded muslim
> communities in the tri-state area with surveillance purportedly to "keep
> us safe". After millions of dollars of spent, not ONE, not ONE CRIMINAL
> investigation was opened as a result of the surveillance. (this was
> confirmed by the NYPD.)

haha...you are using the same hyperbolic and vague language I saw in the
newspaper articles. This is persuasive to you?

Flooded? What does that mean? "Millions of dollars?" What's that? Three
guys salaries for a few years? Those are not details. They are fluff.
They noted where Muslims shop? That is supposed to be sinister?

I need extensive DETAILS to form a valid opinion. Not fluff.

If they haven't found evidence of criminal activity, that's a good
thing, isn't it? Had they found some, would that make the program good?
No. You are operating on 20/20 hindsight.

> Look at your failed analysis with its contradictory premises...... 1) I
> know nothing about this, and 2) I know this is way too complicated to get
> a grasp on in 10 minutes.

It's, prima facie, an extremely complicated issue. I don't need to know
a single detail to know that. I know that Boeing 747s are complicated
machines, but I don't know the first thing about how to build one.

> Then you have the audacity to cite the NYPD's near total silence on this
> humiliating state of affairs as evidence of the articles were biased.

I don't know that they have had total silence. All I know is their
position was not represented in the articles to which you linked.

> Your endless haranging on this newsgroup about 'institutional racism' and
> browbeating Susan for her supposed ignorance on the subject rings hollow
> when you refuse to examine stone cold examples presented to you.

I don't browbeat anyone. I have ZERO doubt there is racism against
Muslims. But like you, apparently, I know little to nothing about this
particular program.

[Dutch]

brattt wrote:
> On Nov 13 2012 5:11 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> Nobody is this dense.
>
> So are you saying that affirmative action has no racist undertones?

Yes, except that racist hiring practices are the reason it exists.