Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
David James Polewka
THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are
motivated by "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the
object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the
properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about
it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new
species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because
entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the
physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit,
then they couldn't giver a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds
for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have
been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not
normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The
"curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up.
88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the
welfare of the human race - most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present
obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who
develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in
promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn't Dr.
Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the
H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do
benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one
side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but
from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.
89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire
to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an
effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work
mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.
90. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some
scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of
the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or
less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus
science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.
91. Also, science and technology constitute a mass power movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through
identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83).
92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient
only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the
funds for research.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
Uncle Al
[snip]
> THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
> 87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities.
[snip]
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
The mindless troll has found a compadre. If you don't like
technology, ass, don't use it. Sure as Hell don't bother those of us
who are the high priests of it. We are busy creating the future you
so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our
ladies. You got a problem with that, bub? Go marry a European if you
can stand the smell.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Do something naughty to physics.
Uncle Al says, "The inevitability of scientific socialism is queued up
with controlled thermonuclear fusion, christ's return, and honest
government."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
David James Polewka
>David James Polewka wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
>> 87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities.
>[snip]
>
>The mindless troll has found a compadre. If you don't like
>technology, ass, don't use it. Sure as Hell don't bother those of us
>who are the high priests of it. We are busy creating the future you
>so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our
>ladies. You got a problem with that, bub? Go marry a European if you
>can stand the smell.
Unabomber Manifesto -- anagram
************************************
I fear no Mensa mot, Bub!
************************************
Thomas McDonald
"David James Polewka" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3f0a8a29...@nntp.mindspring.com...
David,
This fellow is a comedian. How interesting that he feels competent to
rule on what is "normal".
FWIW, pretty much everyone I know who has a very narrow scientific focus
has a range of curiousity and excitement about other areas. Hell, even
Gould was a Red Sox fan, and wrote on baseball.
Tom McDonald
<snip more-of-the-same ramblings>
Steve Harris
"Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
news:nyDOa.274$zu1....@reggie.win.bright.net...
Most scientists I know read things like Science News or
Science Digest, and have an avid interest at least in all
areas of science (and usually many other areas of learning
as well). Alas, we live in a world of specialization which
particularly rewards specialists, grant-wise.
I can't tell you how many times I've had a grant proposal
criticized on the grounds that it wasn't being submitted by
a recognized expert in the field in which the work was
proposed. That's fine, but this actually happened once in a
field my lab had invented, and in which there WERE no
experts working on the technique but me and a couple of my
team members! The reviewers seemed to think I should also be
expert in several related fields, even though I was the
inventor, and all those experts in related fields hadn't had
the idea in the first place. Bastards. If you came up with a
genuinely new idea in science, you'll still get "peer
reviewed" for grants, even though in a very real sense, you
don't have any peers at that point. I've never seen a
reviewer with the humility to recognize that.
SBH
Jon and Mary Miller
>We are busy creating the future you so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our ladies. You got a problem with that, bub? Go marry a European if you can stand the smell.
>
>
Been to Europe lately?
Jon Miller
C. P. Weidling
> "David James Polewka" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3f0a8a29...@nntp.mindspring.com...
> > http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/una3.html
> >
> > THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
> > 87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of
...<snip>...
> and effort that scientists put into their work. The
> > "curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up.
>
> David,
>
> This fellow is a comedian. How interesting that he feels competent to
> rule on what is "normal".
>
> FWIW, pretty much everyone I know who has a very narrow scientific focus
> has a range of curiousity and excitement about other areas. Hell, even
> Gould was a Red Sox fan, and wrote on baseball.
>
> Tom McDonald
>
> <snip more-of-the-same ramblings>
Gould was a Yankees fan. I remember reading something he wrote wrt to
Red Sox hitter Ted Williams. When the Sox played the Yanks, Williams was
The Enemy.
C. P. Weidling
> "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> news:nyDOa.274$zu1....@reggie.win.bright.net...
> >
> > "David James Polewka" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> message
> > news:3f0a8a29...@nntp.mindspring.com...
> > > http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/una3.html
> > >
> > > THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
...<snip>...
> > > "curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just
> doesn't stand up.
> >
> > David,
> >
> > This fellow is a comedian. How interesting that he
> feels competent to
> > rule on what is "normal".
> >
> > FWIW, pretty much everyone I know who has a very
> narrow scientific focus
> > has a range of curiousity and excitement about other
> areas. Hell, even
> > Gould was a Red Sox fan, and wrote on baseball.
>
>
>
> Most scientists I know read things like Science News or
> Science Digest, and have an avid interest at least in all
> areas of science (and usually many other areas of learning
> as well). Alas, we live in a world of specialization which
> particularly rewards specialists, grant-wise.
>
...<snip>...
When Albert Einstein delivered a eulogy for his friend and fellow
scientist Max Planck, he said some people become scientists for
various reasons, as a way to compete, to achieve fame, but some,
including Planck, did it because they wanted to know and under-
stand the world.
Also, from an essay by Martin Rees at
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/rees03/rees_print.html:
It's good for us as researchers to address a wider public. It makes us
realize what the big questions are. What I mean by this is that in
science the right methodology is often to focus on a piece of the
problem which you think you can solve. It's only cranks who try to
solve the big problems at one go. If you ask a scientist what they're
doing, they won't say trying to cure cancer or trying to understand
the universe; they'll point at something very specific, progress is
made by solving bite-sized problems one at a time. But the
occupational risk for scientists is that even though that's the right
methodology, they sometimes lose sight of the big picture. Members of
a lay audience always ask the big questions, the important questions,
and that helps us to remember that our piecemeal efforts are only
worthwhile insofar as they're steps towards answering those big
questions.
Steve Harris
"C. P. Weidling" <c...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:lzk7ask...@localhost.localdomain...
Members of
> a lay audience always ask the big questions, the important
questions,
> and that helps us to remember that our piecemeal efforts
are only
> worthwhile insofar as they're steps towards answering
those big
> questions.
Actually, in my own field (biomedical research) you don't
need to rely on lay people to ask the big questions. The MDs
in the audience will do it, because they're always thinking
about how whatever it is you're doing can be usefully
applied to some real and pressing clinical problem.
My difficulties in biomedical research have been with the
PhDs. Most of who act, in their research and their thinking,
as though they and their families were immortal and
disease-proof.
SBH
David Lloyd-Jones
>
> Gould was a Yankees fan.
Typical. Goddam Marxist.
-dlj.
Mark Thorson
> I can't tell you how many times I've had a grant proposal
> criticized on the grounds that it wasn't being submitted by
> a recognized expert in the field in which the work was
> proposed. That's fine, but this actually happened once in a
> field my lab had invented, and in which there WERE no
> experts working on the technique but me and a couple of my
> team members!
This would be your work in proactive treatments for
chronic, whole-body frostbite?
David Lloyd-Jones
Mark,
Didn't they get into trouble with the Human Subjects Experimentation
Ethics Board? Something to do with the subjects and the staff not
being adequately distinguished the one from the other?
-dlj.
Thomas McDonald
Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan?
Tom McDonald
David Lloyd-Jones
>
> Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan?
Oh Yecchhh! Almost enough to turn me into a Steinbrunner-Marxist.
(Actually I don't think that's true. Say it ain't so, Joe, say it
ain't so. George Will is my idea of the uber-Yankee. If he should
come up to Boston, may everybody pour growlers of bottom-sludge on
his head.)
Excuse me, Mr. Van Winkle, did I hear somebody say the Dodgers have
moved out of town?
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>
> Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan?
Oh Yecchhh! Almost enough to turn me into a Steinbrunner-Marxist.
(Actually I don't think Will could be a Red Sox fan. With that
haircut he's gotta be a Princeton guy. Maybe a Yalie if he ever had
a bad hair day. But he's never been within ten miles of the Green
Monster. Say it ain't so, Joe, say it ain't so. [That was a bow to
David Friedman, as a Chicago lurker in this newsgroup.] George Will
tonyp
"Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote
> Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan?
Try again :-)
George Will was a Cubs fan in his youth. Then he went Beltway and started
rooting for the Orioles. I don't know whether that was before or after he
changed his mind about taxes: he used to argue that we, as a nation, are
_under_taxed.
-- Tony P.
C. P. Weidling
John Updike perhaps? He saw Ted Williams last time at bat and wrote a
fairly famous description of the event.
David Lloyd-Jones
> "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote
>> Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan?
> Try again :-)
>
> George Will was a Cubs fan in his youth.
Gawd, what a f#$%^&*()g relief!!
> Then he went Beltway and started
> rooting for the Orioles.
Well, maybe the guy isn't that bad after all. The Orioles have their
good points... Like, take *that* Hubert Humphrey!
> I don't know whether that was before or after he
> changed his mind about taxes: he used to argue that we, as a nation, are
> _under_taxed.
Undoubtedly true -- but when did whiney George say that?
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
> "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote
>> Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan?
> Try again :-)
>
> George Will was a Cubs fan in his youth.
Gawd, what a f#$%^&*()g relief!!
> Then he went Beltway and started
> rooting for the Orioles.
Well, maybe the guy isn't that bad after all. The Orioles have their
good points... Like, take *that* Hubert Humphrey!
> I don't know whether that was before or after he
> changed his mind about taxes: he used to argue that we, as a nation, are
> _under_taxed.
Undoubtedly true -- but when did whiney George say that?
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
> "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote
>> Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan?
> Try again :-)
>
> George Will was a Cubs fan in his youth.
Gawd, what a f#$%^&*()g relief!!
> Then he went Beltway and started
> rooting for the Orioles.
Well, maybe the guy isn't that bad after all. The Orioles have their
good points... Like, take *that* Hubert Humphrey!
> I don't know whether that was before or after he
> changed his mind about taxes: he used to argue that we, as a nation, are
> _under_taxed.
Undoubtedly true -- but when did whiney George say that?
-dlj.
tonyp
"David Lloyd-Jones" <da...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3F0BB211...@rogers.com...
> tonyp wrote:
> > I don't know whether that was before or after he
> > changed his mind about taxes: he used to argue that
> > we, as a nation, are _under_taxed.
>
> Undoubtedly true -- but when did whiney George say that?
I figure, 1984: here's the opening paragraph of his column titled
America the Undertaxed
"Ah, July: the fields are white with daisies. In January, I promised that not
"until the fields are white with daisies" would I again mention that we are, as
a nation, undertaxed. I now return to that topic because the inescapable need
to raise taxes raises this question: can Ronald Reagan really want to be
re-elected? If he faces facts --if he reads the numbers in the Wall Street
Journal -- he knows that in 1985 the President must hurry to restore the
government's revenue base. Reagan cannot be a Reaganite after 1984."
How times do change :-)
-- Tony P.
Tim Worstall
> David James Polewka wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
> > 87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities.
> [snip]
>
> http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
>
> The mindless troll has found a compadre. If you don't like
> technology, ass, don't use it. Sure as Hell don't bother those of us
> who are the high priests of it. We are busy creating the future you
> so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our
> ladies. You got a problem with that, bub? Go marry a European if you
> can stand the smell.
Interesting little piece of research came up the other day.
There are two statistically significant links concerning breast cancer
:
1) Right handed people tend to get them on the left breast and vice
versa.
2) The UK, which uses more underarm deodorant than other European
countries ( as in most things, we Brits seem to be mid Atlantic ) has
higher breast cancer rates than other european countries.
The researchers posit that the aluminium or zirconium oxides in
deodorants may be causing the cancers......and the right / left part
is becasue a right handed person will naturally aply more doedorant
using their right hand....to hte left side of the body. ( Rather like
men nearly always have shorter sideburns on the other side of their
face from their handedness ).
I don't say it's true, probably simply a result of data dredging. Yet
interesting nonetheless....smell or surgery ?
Tim Worstall
Thomas Palm
> Interesting little piece of research came up the other day.
> There are two statistically significant links concerning breast cancer
> :
> 1) Right handed people tend to get them on the left breast and vice
> versa.
> 2) The UK, which uses more underarm deodorant than other European
> countries ( as in most things, we Brits seem to be mid Atlantic ) has
> higher breast cancer rates than other european countries.
>
> The researchers posit that the aluminium or zirconium oxides in
> deodorants may be causing the cancers......and the right / left part
> is becasue a right handed person will naturally aply more doedorant
> using their right hand....to hte left side of the body. ( Rather like
> men nearly always have shorter sideburns on the other side of their
> face from their handedness ).
>
> I don't say it's true, probably simply a result of data dredging. Yet
> interesting nonetheless....smell or surgery ?
All I smell is a giant class action suit against deodorant companies :-)
Steve Harris
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Steve Harris wrote:
> >>I can't tell you how many times I've had a grant
proposal
> >>criticized on the grounds that it wasn't being submitted
by
> >>a recognized expert in the field in which the work was
> >>proposed. That's fine, but this actually happened once
in a
> >>field my lab had invented, and in which there WERE no
> >>experts working on the technique but me and a couple of
my
> >>team members!
> >
> > This would be your work in proactive treatments for
> > chronic, whole-body frostbite?
Nah, my work in rapid mild hypothermia induction in mammals
by repeated fluorocarbon lung lavage. Three years ago they
said it was pretty extreme, since not likely clinically
relevant. If you caught the front page of the NY Times
yesterday, you'll see that the clinical relevance of cooling
people down rapidly after resuscitation has now pretty well
penetrated, even to the popular media. This was all obvious
to us 3 years ago from 20 years of animal experiments done
by a dozen labs, but the reviewers had to read it in the
NEJM 16 mo ago. Morons. As noted, we gave all the
references; the reviewers were either too lazy to read them,
or too stupid to see their implications, or both.
We were NOT asking for money to do human research, just more
animal research as proof of concept (stuff since done by
others who DID get the grant money, in academia). Mostly at
the time it was research we'd already done <g>, but not all
of it. Try doing that and having a reviewer tell you that
work you already did won't work. It makes you want to commit
murder, since you really can't reply in any way which should
cause the kind of pubic embarrassment and career damage to
the anonymous reviewer that such remarks SHOULD occasion.
If a reviewer has the unmitigated egotistical gall to say
your experiment won't work, when you know it will because
you did it, and you know the reviewer can't be basing his
opinion on any of his own work or expertise because he
doesn't DO that kind of work, because it was invented by you
and *nobody* else is doing it, THEN you have the right to be
pretty damned angry. But who are you going to complain to?
The NIH is only going to yawn and tell you to take a number
and stand in line.
SBH
Alfred Einstead
> The mindless troll has found a compadre. If you don't like
> technology, ass, don't use it. Sure as Hell don't bother those of us
> who are the high priests of it. We are busy creating the future you
> so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our
> ladies. You got a problem with that, bub?
well, I think the Unibomber has a point. I mean if you're going
to do that, then wouldn't your time be better spent trying to
solve the seemingly intractible problem of creating a backless
halter dress that is also strapless (and also with a hem 12"
above the knees)?
As is well-known, Einstein has already carried out significant
preliminary research on the issue of spatial dependence of the
stress tensor along the periphery of a strapless dress. So, there's
good work to build upon here.
Uncle Al
A good engineer first identifies the real problem. A chemist would
use adhesive rather than equilibrium structural support. Given the
wonders of the marketplace (and ending up shopping for cosmetics with
my woman), I have empirical proof that one can purchase both adhesive
nipple outline obliterators and artifical high beams. We have come so
far from the pastie.
Implantable Fe-Nd-B magnets also suggest themselves.
James Dolan
steve harris <sbha...@ix.reticulatedobjectcom.com> wrote:
|"C. P. Weidling" <c...@rahul.net> wrote in message
|news:lzk7ask...@localhost.localdomain...
|
|>Members of a lay audience always ask the big questions, the important
|>questions, and that helps us to remember that our piecemeal efforts
|>are only worthwhile insofar as they're steps towards answering those
|>big questions.
|
|
|Actually, in my own field (biomedical research) you don't
|need to rely on lay people to ask the big questions. The MDs
|in the audience will do it, because they're always thinking
|about how whatever it is you're doing can be usefully
|applied to some real and pressing clinical problem.
md's _are_ laypeople.
--
[e-mail address jdo...@math.ucr.edu]
Harry Conover
ROFL
Sadly, I am still trying to figure out Nutcase Ten's connection
between the evil hi-tech infrastrure and the killing of an owner or a
Radio Shack store. After all, Radio Shack doesn't even sell hi-tech,
just consumer junk.
Realize that if Ted K. had access to a regular piece of ass, none of
his killings would have likely happened.
Harry C.
Andrew Resnick
wrote:
<snip>
>
> As is well-known, Einstein has already carried out significant
> preliminary research on the issue of spatial dependence of the
> stress tensor along the periphery of a strapless dress. So, there's
> good work to build upon here.
A Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown by Robert Baker (Editor)
*
Publisher: Prentice Hall Trade; (November 1982)
* ASIN: 0138526087
<grin>
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph. D.
National Center for Microgravity Research
NASA Glenn Research Center
PSmith9626
One must realize that Ted K, was a research mathematician who worked in a very
narrow backwater in math, and who was asked often to broaden his mathematical
research interests, but who refused to do that.
He was projecting the kind of man he was to all the other people in science
and math.
No wonder he left the field.
I wonder how much of his anger was due to the mere fact that he realized that
he was a nine day wonder in a backwater math field at a first rate place (
Berkeley) full of
mathematicians with wide mathematical and scientific and cultural interests.
The "gifted kid" cracked under junior faculty pressure.
best
Penny
p.s. All this crap about "evil technology" was just the standard trash from
telegraph
avenue coffee houses. He wasn't even original in his obsessions..
>Message-id: <befbq1$h55$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>
David James Polewka
>Uncle Al says, "The inevitability of scientific socialism is queued up
>with controlled thermonuclear fusion, christ's return, and honest
>government."
In order to see the big picture, you have to take everything
into account, at the same time! When you do, you see we
have two problems: overgoverning and overpopulation.
Any out-of-control population is a pestilence to other populations,
except those is symbiosis. The problems caused by human
overpopulation are hard to see. If you don't read about them,
you're in the dark. In order to be in harmony with Nature, we
should have to endure our natural enemies, just as all other
populations do. A convenient place to start would be to stop
suppressing SARS, allowing it to spread unchecked,
and see how that goes.
A SARS pandemic would be much more destabilizing to
non-democratic regimes than to democracies, because
those regimes enjoy little popular support. This would
give an edge to the various democratic movements, allowing
them to do the work themselves, instead of the American
military. It would also come down hard on the biggest
troublemakers outside of politics, practicing alcoholics
and addicts, because of their weakened condition.
Of course, the elderly would be at risk, too, and the
thinning of that segment would restore Social Security
to health. Etc, etc.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
David James Polewka
><< The problems caused by human
>overpopulation are hard to see. >>
>
>I don't think so. The slums & urban sprawl are everywhere.
How about salt water intrusion into underground aquifers?
Destruction of coral reefs? Decimation of fish stocks?
Ozone depletion? Loss of habitat? Loss of diversity?
Easy to see?
><< A convenient place to start would be to stop
>suppressing SARS, allowing it to spread unchecked,
>and see how that goes.
>
>Never mind SARS. Look at AIDS. That is exactly what is happening, especially in
>Africa. It doesn't seem to have resulted in an increase in democracy so far. It
>will be many years before we see whether it has any effect on the preservation
>of the rainforests. Meanwhile, millions are suffering and dying. There must be
>a better way to prevent overpopulation.
There's less suffering with SARS!
EdiSon
> There's less suffering with SARS!
You are an idiot!
No people mean no consumers and no money.
U.S economy is deterioating and isn't going to get any better because of SARS.
David James Polewka
Richard Herring
<jon.and.m...@comcast.net> writes
>Uncle Al wrote:
>
>>We are busy creating the future you so abhor - including smoother,
>>softer, silkier, drier armpits for our ladies. You got a problem with
>>
What percentage of US citizens even have passports?
--
Richard Herring
RP Henry
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:jIv0l+W7IBF$Ew...@baesystems.com...
I've had one since 1980 and never used it.
My 9-year-old daughter, on the other hand, has used hers twice.
The Ghost In The Machine
<imb...@mindspring.com>
wrote
on Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:48:18 GMT
<3f13e9f0...@nntp.mindspring.com>:
> chang_...@hotmail.com (EdiSon) wrote:
>
>>imb...@mindspring.com (David James Polewka) wrote:
>>
>>> There's less suffering with SARS!
>>
>>You are an idiot!
>>No people mean no consumers and no money.
>>U.S economy is deterioating and isn't going to get any better
>>because of SARS.
>
> Are there any other life forms besides people?
None that spends money. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Uncle Al
All of them. If you do not have internal papers you will be detained
at an airport.
Uncle Al
Your passport is expired. If you do not renew within a stated
additional period you have to pay the whole whopping fee again. Have
the AAA take your picture. Uncle Al recommends wearing your best suit
and tie - because jackbooted State compassion fears trampling those
with real status.
David Lloyd-Jones
> "Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> asked:
>>What percentage of US citizens even have passports?
>
> I've had one since 1980 and never used it.
> My 9-year-old daughter, on the other hand, has used hers twice.
Richard,
I'm not sure that this was the exact focus of the other Richard's
question, interesting though it be to know.
There were just short of 7 million US passports issued in 1995, the
latest year for which I've seen numbers. US passports last ten
years, but are renewable. If half of all passports get renewed, that
would suggest somewhere around 110 million passports out there. This
only gets us half way there, since nobody has a clue how many US
citizens there are to within 5%.
A reasonable guess, however, might be that 35~40% of Americans have
passports.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
> "Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> asked:
>
> I've had one since 1980 and never used it.
> My 9-year-old daughter, on the other hand, has used hers twice.
Richard,
RP Henry
> RP Henry wrote:
> >
> > "Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> > news:jIv0l+W7IBF$Ew...@baesystems.com...
> > > In message <3F0B652A...@comcast.net>, Jon and Mary Miller
> > > <jon.and.m...@comcast.net> writes
> > > >Uncle Al wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>We are busy creating the future you so abhor - including smoother,
> > > >>softer, silkier, drier armpits for our ladies. You got a problem
with
> > > >>that, bub? Go marry a European if you can stand the smell.
> > > >>
> > > >Been to Europe lately?
> > >
> > > What percentage of US citizens even have passports?
> >
> > I've had one since 1980 and never used it.
> >
> > My 9-year-old daughter, on the other hand, has used hers twice.
>
> Your passport is expired. If you do not renew within a stated
> additional period you have to pay the whole whopping fee again. Have
> the AAA take your picture. Uncle Al recommends wearing your best suit
> and tie - because jackbooted State compassion fears trampling those
> with real status.
I renewed it last year. And good thing, too. Those sunglasses and the
Grateful Dead t-shirt in the original photo were going to get me stopped
everywhere.
Richard Herring
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> writes
>Richard Herring wrote:
>>
>> In message <3F0B652A...@comcast.net>, Jon and Mary Miller
>> <jon.and.m...@comcast.net> writes
>> >Uncle Al wrote:
>> >
>> >>We are busy creating the future you so abhor - including smoother,
>> >>softer, silkier, drier armpits for our ladies. You got a problem with
>> >>that, bub? Go marry a European if you can stand the smell.
>> >>
>> >Been to Europe lately?
>>
>> What percentage of US citizens even have passports?
>
>All of them. If you do not have internal papers you will be detained
>at an airport.
And what percentage of US citizens visit airports?
I said "passports". Things that allow you to pass through foreign ports.
Foreign, as in where most of the world's population resides.
--
Richard Herring
Joe Jefferson
>
> Richard Herring wrote:
> >
> > In message <3F0B652A...@comcast.net>, Jon and Mary Miller
> > <jon.and.m...@comcast.net> writes
> > >Uncle Al wrote:
> > >
> > >>We are busy creating the future you so abhor - including smoother,
> > >>softer, silkier, drier armpits for our ladies. You got a problem with
> > >>that, bub? Go marry a European if you can stand the smell.
> > >>
> > >Been to Europe lately?
> >
> > What percentage of US citizens even have passports?
>
> All of them. If you do not have internal papers you will be detained
> at an airport.
I've been through airports quite a few times, most of them since 9/11.
They only ask for a passport if you're entering or leaving the country.
For all other flights you just need a drivers license or other form of
photo ID.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp
Site Updated November 25th, 2001
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> >
> > Richard Herring wrote:
> > >
> > > In message <3F0B652A...@comcast.net>, Jon and Mary Miller
> > > <jon.and.m...@comcast.net> writes
> > > >Uncle Al wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>We are busy creating the future you so abhor - including smoother,
> > > >>softer, silkier, drier armpits for our ladies. You got a problem with
> > > >>that, bub? Go marry a European if you can stand the smell.
> > > >>
> > > >Been to Europe lately?
> > >
> > > What percentage of US citizens even have passports?
> >
> > All of them. If you do not have internal papers you will be detained
> > at an airport.
>
> I've been through airports quite a few times, most of them since 9/11.
> They only ask for a passport if you're entering or leaving the country.
> For all other flights you just need a drivers license or other form of
> photo ID.
Hey stooopid - those are your internal passports. One supposes you've
never traveled in the USSR. No matter, the USSR will come to you.
Wait! It already has, right down to the photo ID and being surrounded
by armed guards when presenting it.
There was a time in the United States when if you wanted to travel,
you paid your $ and went. God help anyone who sought to trample on
your Constitutional right to go anywhere at any time without
interference unless mandated by court order. That included asking for
"identification." "1984" was right:
"The monthly chocolate ration has been increased to 24 grams from 26
grams last month. We are winning the War of Production!"
Sound familiar?
Joe Jefferson
Just out of curiosity, what color is the sky in your world?
Albert Wagner
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
<snip>
> One supposes you've
> never traveled in the USSR. No matter, the USSR will come to you.
Poor Uncle Al hasn't read anything but his own stuff for years and
doesn't know about the demise of the USSR.
jonah thomas
> Uncle Al wrote:
>>Richard Herring wrote:
>>>What percentage of US citizens even have passports?
>>All of them. If you do not have internal papers you will be detained
>>at an airport.
> I've been through airports quite a few times, most of them since 9/11.
> They only ask for a passport if you're entering or leaving the country.
> For all other flights you just need a drivers license or other form of
> photo ID.
That's what he's talking about. We used to talk about how terrible it
was that russians who wanted to travel inside the USSR needed an
"internal passport" to go anywhere, to check into a hotel, etc.
Now you need your driver's license to get on a commercial airplane or
check into a hotel etc.
But it isn't quite the same here. You can go anywhere you can drive
without having to show your internal passport to anybody at all provided
you never stay at a hotel or motel, and you never cash a check, and the
police don't stop you. Of course if you use a credit card there will be
records that show every single place and time you use it.
David James Polewka
>In sci.physics,
>David James Polewka <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
>> chang_...@hotmail.com (EdiSon) wrote:
>>
>>>imb...@mindspring.com (David James Polewka) wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's less suffering with SARS!
>>>
>>>You are an idiot!
>>>No people mean no consumers and no money.
>>>U.S economy is deterioating and isn't going to get any better
>>>because of SARS.
>>
>> Are there any other life forms besides people?
>
>None that spends money. :-)
That's all the economy is, people and money!
EdiSon
>
> That's all the economy is, people and money!
The more people (aka power) and money you have, the more useful things
you can do to justify your own ideology. Or else, you canl only watch
and force yourself to accept others to do whatever they like.
N'vok
A few hundred people won't make much of a difference. Earth has been
declared SARS free. I'm not saying it is, mind, but there haven't been
any new cases in some time.