Why Pollyannas Continue To Be Idiots
Paul Milne
have had no apparent catastrophic failures. That is good news to the pollies
and full support for the position that NOTHING at all of any significance
will happen. That is foolish.
It is beyond ludicrous to believe that in the myriad of cases of companies
and countries and other entities that wildly underspent, started late or not
at all, simply ended up with no significant problems.
It is far far too early to think that we are out of the woods. I'll be
satisfied to wait a bit longer before even beginning to think it has passed.
The effects of Y2K can be insidious, they can even, ultimately, go virtually
unnoticed. I would not have expected that, but it can go that way. They can
easily contribute to the degradation of the economy over the next six
months, a year and beyond in a way that may never be attributable to Y2K.
It will not matter much to me. The economy is going down. It is going down
hard. Serious preparations are necessary. Mine are in place. So if Pollies
want to come out at night and dance around their campfires, no skin off my
nose.
They will remain where they are, unprepared and I will remain where I am,
prepared. And when push comes to shove, for whatever reason, they will still
be on the short end of the stick.
I won't be reading the newsgroup much, if at all anymore. Nothing of value
is occurring in here, at this point. I am sure that the Polies will enjoy
lubricating each other for weeks to come. Have at it. Maybe you are just
having a problem going on with your lives.
No skin off my nose. Like I have always said...
No matter what happens, good, bad or indifferent, I will have been prepared,
the sun will come up and the birds will still sing. My family is safe and
sound and happy. And that's exactly the way it is for us here. Not one bit
different from the day before.
Enjoy revelling in your malignance, Pollyannas.
--
Paul Milne
Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
bks: "It was not overt lying. It was overgeneralization for rhetorical
purposes."
Jean-Francois Robichaud
>
> We are a mere seven days into the Year 2000. That is all. Seven days. We
> have had no apparent catastrophic failures. That is good news to the pollies
> and full support for the position that NOTHING at all of any significance
> will happen. That is foolish.
>
> It is beyond ludicrous to believe that in the myriad of cases of companies
> and countries and other entities that wildly underspent, started late or not
> at all, simply ended up with no significant problems.
Why don't you just give it up Paul? Most of the regular csy2k doomers
had the guts to admit they had grossly overestimated the risks of Y2K.
There's nothing wrong with making that mistake, it was an honest one;
they still have their dignity. You, you just keep hanging on to that
delusion of yours.
> It is far far too early to think that we are out of the woods. I'll be
> satisfied to wait a bit longer before even beginning to think it has passed.
> The effects of Y2K can be insidious, they can even, ultimately, go virtually
> unnoticed.
I think that most people have accepted that those Y2K effects have not
been in the form of failures, but mere glitches. There must have been
millions of such glitches or malfunctions around the globe since Jan.1,
and there will be more. But they do not result in major failures, except
for a few exceptional ones. We'll never hear about most of these
effects, because they get fixed as the malfunctions occur. I've seen it
happen where I work. An apparently major and widespread Y2K error was
discovered where I work, but fixed in a matter of hours. Most of the
employees haven't even heard about it. That story is being repeated in
thousands of companies everywhere.
I don't think we overestimated how widespread the Y2K bug was. We
overestimated the effects on each system. Many people assumed that if a
system was non-compliant, it would fail. With that point of view, it
made sense to predict TEOTWAWKI, or at least major problems. The reality
is showing us that the assumption was wrong. The vast majority of
non-compliant systems did not fail. Some got minor glitches, some had no
trouble whatsoever.
---------
Even I overestimated the effects in Y2K. I used to participate a bit in
the ng in early 99. I just looked back on my predictions for Y2K (this
was from a made-up "report" dated March 2000):
"On the morning of January 1st, 10% of American households were left
without electrical power. The power was re-established in most
house-holds by the next day, but it took up to ten days to re-establish
power in some localities."
- Wrong there, I haven't heard of any major electrical grid failures,
though we had a blackout in a part of Montreal on the morning of Jan.
1...
"Oil prices are dropping from their peak of mid-January. The price had
started going up in September, had quickily stabilized (at a 10
cents/gallon increase from summer price) up till December, when the
price climbed another 10 cents/gallon in 3 weeks."
- Nothing to do with reality here either...
"The predicted water and food shortages did not happen. Many stores,
anticipating a run by clients overstocked in apprehension for 2000. A
lot of them faced serious losses when much of that food went to waste."
- True about no shortages, but stores did not overstock like I
predicted.
"Y2k hit the hardest on companies that were not prepared to deal with
the problem in time. Due to the failure of major mainframes and embedded
systems, they suffered serious losses, and many bankruptcies have been
noted."
- Maybe too early to tell, but I have yet to hear of a company going
bankrupt because of Y2K.
"As a final observation: while the effects of the y2k bug have been more
than minor irritants, most of them have been worked out by now."
- Wrong: Y2K WAS a minor irritant after all!
And my favorite prediction that did not happen was this one:
" Also, the man who was arrested after jumping in front of Dan Rather
during a live news telecast, screaming "I was right!" and foaming at the
mouth has been identified as Mr. Bradley K. Sherman. He has since been
interned in a mental hospital. Ever since, he can be heard babbling
incomprehensibly about gold prices, generators, and white resin chairs.
He seems to be suffering from a rare multiple personalities disorder.
His many personaes go by the names of Tim May, Ron Schwartz and an
hilariously silly dwarf character."
---------
But mainly, in retrospect, it's fun to look back at some discussions I
had, especially with Steve Baxter (CanadianY2K). He ridiculized my
ideas, based on his so-called knowledge of the situation, but in the
end, my point of view was much closer to reality and common sense.
Bye y'all, it was fun...
--
Jean-Francois Robichaud
pgooding
Paul Milne wrote in message <94726720...@helium.cstone.net>...
>The effects of Y2K can be insidious, they can even, ultimately, go
virtually
>unnoticed
Un-fucking-believable! That's what people have been trying to
tell you for two years. Insidious and unnoticed ... so exactly
how did you take these attributes, and turn them into food riots,
runs on banks, pain, death, and destruction? It's a rhetorical
question, we already know the answer: Your are a nutcase.
You said so yourself. A lunatic, a fake, and a charlatan.
This quote of yours, above, is truly one for the archives.
Virtually unnoticed! "YOU WILL BE DEAD!!" -- P. Milne.
Or, the effects can be virtually unnoticed. You know,
six of one, half a dozen of the other. To quote you,
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Stupid idiot!!!!!!
Paul Milne
Jean-Francois Robichaud <jea...@cae.ca> wrote in message
news:3876358D...@cae.ca...
> Paul Milne wrote:
> >
> > We are a mere seven days into the Year 2000. That is all. Seven days. We
> > have had no apparent catastrophic failures. That is good news to the
pollies
> > and full support for the position that NOTHING at all of any
significance
> > will happen. That is foolish.
> >
> > It is beyond ludicrous to believe that in the myriad of cases of
companies
> > and countries and other entities that wildly underspent, started late or
not
> > at all, simply ended up with no significant problems.
>
> Why don't you just give it up Paul? Most of the regular csy2k doomers
> had the guts to admit they had grossly overestimated the risks of Y2K.
> There's nothing wrong with making that mistake, it was an honest one;
> they still have their dignity. You, you just keep hanging on to that
> delusion of yours.
>
> > It is far far too early to think that we are out of the woods. I'll be
> > satisfied to wait a bit longer before even beginning to think it has
passed.
virtually
Todd Cocks
So sorry that your hoped-for collapse of the U.S. government and governments
around the world didn't come about.
It's nice to see that you are the laughingstock of the group. An eye for an
eye and all that.
-Todd
Ben H
Paul Agrees, I'll send the check; I just need the mailing address of the
Doc.
<bi...@dns.domains2k.com> wrote in message
news:slrn87csvr...@dns.domains2k.com...
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:35:13 -0500, Paul Milne <fed...@halifax.com> wrote:
>
> or rather, quoted an entire article by
>
> >Jean-Francois Robichaud <jea...@cae.ca>
>
> and wrote nothing in reply.
>
> Well said, Paul. One of your more intelligent posts.
>
> Hey Milne, here's a proposition for ya. I'll kick in $500 towards
> a psychiatric evaluation fund. Don't know what something like that
> could cost, but I suspect you may have pissed off enough people in
> here alone to pay for it. Here are the conditions.
>
> #1. The person doing the evaluation is to be provided with whatever
> evidence in the public record we choose. In other words, it's to
> be based on more than a 1 hour interview. Every goofy word you've
> ever written on Usenet is fair game.
>
> #2. The results, good, bad, or otherwise, are to be publicly posted
> here on csy2k, and anywhere else we (or you) please. You agree in
> writing to allow this without recourse.
>
> #3. If it should be determined by someone competent to judge your
> mental state that you're not a certifiable nut, I'll publicly
> apologize here on csy2k for having called you such. I'll continue
> to call you an asshole, and an ugly little man with a foul temper
> and potty mouth, as that's my own opinion, and is unlikely to change.
>
> Binro
>
> PS Don't bother telling us how you're going to leave the newsgroup.
> You can't, your addicted to it, and you know it. Even the humiliation
> in here is preferable to the alternative, puttering around your
> lonely backwater farm, wishing the sky would fall.
>
> -=-= If you're within 5 miles of Paul Milne, you're toast. =-=-
>
bi...@dns.domains2k.com
Ed Carp
>>
>> We are a mere seven days into the Year 2000. That is all. Seven days. We
>> have had no apparent catastrophic failures. That is good news to the
pollies
>> and full support for the position that NOTHING at all of any
significance
>> will happen. That is foolish.
Yup. If you hurry, you can go back in time (ala "Seven Days") and change it
all to conform to what you want it to be! If you hit the right time line,
you, too, can watch as an alternate version of Moshe or bks drink dog piss
out of a rusty hubcap ;)
I saw it on TV, it must be true ;)
Ed Carp
>I'll kick in 20 bucks under the same conditions set by binro. As soon as
>Paul Agrees, I'll send the check; I just need the mailing address of the
>Doc.
I'll also to be happy to contribute $20, as long as we get to see the
evaluation. Posted, of course...
Ed Carp
<8561dj$sc6$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>...
>I think it's great that the whole TrueBeliever2000 cult is
>happy to be wrong and Tim May thinks it's wonderful to be
>politically incorrect (as if that isn't the current way of
>conforming). Personally I *do* prefer to be right and I
>do like to be politically correct. I also like good
>writing, a minimum of spelling errors and people who
>don't hide their insults behind pseudonyms.
But nit hiding can come back and bite you. I can see it now ... someone
digs up 20-year-old USENET postings and tries to throw mud at someone else.
We've already heard from one idiot who pokes around on the net looking to
see what his prospective employees have posted. Not only would I never work
for such a person, I hope he gets sued into oblivion for such an idiotic and
stupid stunt.
Very chilling on free speech, don't you think? Tim May has the luxury of
not having to care about what his next employer will think of him - some of
us don't have that luxury. And as long as we have fools who will search the
internet looking for reasons not to hire people, we never will.
Bob Brock
I guess the moral of that story is to never say things in public that
you want kept private?
>
Ed Carp
>>But nit hiding can come back and bite you. I can see it now ... someone
>>digs up 20-year-old USENET postings and tries to throw mud at someone
else.
>>We've already heard from one idiot who pokes around on the net looking to
>>see what his prospective employees have posted. Not only would I never
work
>>for such a person, I hope he gets sued into oblivion for such an idiotic
and
>>stupid stunt.
>>
>>Very chilling on free speech, don't you think? Tim May has the luxury of
>>not having to care about what his next employer will think of him - some
of
>>us don't have that luxury. And as long as we have fools who will search
the
>>internet looking for reasons not to hire people, we never will.
>
>I guess the moral of that story is to never say things in public that
>you want kept private?
No, the moral of the story is to not associate with people who would be so
shallow as to use words written on an Internet newsgroup to judge you.
Lizard
wrote:
>The economy is going down. It is going down
>hard.
WHEN, and by HOW MUCH?
All economies collapse, all civilizations fade, all people die. Anyone
can 'predict' these things will occur in some nebulous future time. A
true prophet gives *dates*.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Bob Brock
Wouldn't that depend to a large extent on how well they pay and
company benefits. I've seen hiring managers use a lot less to
eliminate job candidates. For example, I know one who, when he takes
a job candidate out to lunch, looks to see if the candidate puts salt
on his food before he tastes it. He says that it shows that the
candidate makes decisions (salting his food) before he gets all the
facts (tastes to see if food needs salt). I don't agree with it, but
the decision to hire is his.
Which is more valid? Food salting or USENET posts? That depends on
the hiring manager doesn't it?
>
Ed Carp
Neither one. I would not wish to work for such a person who uses such
arbitrary means to determine job eligibility. That's as stupid as the
manager who only hires receptionists that wear a 'D' cup bra or larger, on
the idea that it's more pleasant for his (mostly) male clientle.
Bob Brock
>Bob Brock wrote in message ...
>
>>On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:46:33 -0600, "Ed Carp" <e...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Brock wrote in message ...
>>>
SNIP
>>Which is more valid? Food salting or USENET posts? That depends on
>>the hiring manager doesn't it?
>
>
>Neither one. I would not wish to work for such a person who uses such
>arbitrary means to determine job eligibility. That's as stupid as the
>manager who only hires receptionists that wear a 'D' cup bra or larger, on
>the idea that it's more pleasant for his (mostly) male clientle.
Never eat at "Hooters" huh? It happens all the time and you probably
don't even know it. If there was another candidate for the job that
you have now, will you ever really know why you got it and the other
person didn't? Do you put salt on your food before you taste it?
Ed Carp
>>Neither one. I would not wish to work for such a person who uses such
>>arbitrary means to determine job eligibility. That's as stupid as the
>>manager who only hires receptionists that wear a 'D' cup bra or larger, on
>>the idea that it's more pleasant for his (mostly) male clientle.
>
>Never eat at "Hooters" huh? It happens all the time and you probably
>don't even know it. If there was another candidate for the job that
>you have now, will you ever really know why you got it and the other
>person didn't? Do you put salt on your food before you taste it?
Actually, I haven't eaten at Hooters in years. And I believe they were sued
a year or so back and lost the lawsuit regarding this very same matter.
No, I wouldn't know. I don't think I would want to, because if I did, I'd
be so angry that they'd probably find themselves served with notice of a
lawsuit the next day. And no, I don't salt my food, either before or after
tasting it.
This sort of irrationality in hiring is part of the reason that corporate
America is losing the ability to compete in the world marketplace. Where
Bob gets hired or promoted not because he's good at what he does, but
because he's buds with someone on the board of directors. Where people hire
the same old people as CEO and CFO and CIO, even though they have a string
of companies behind them that they've screwed up, simply because they know
someone. And why someone either gets hired or not because of their skin
color or they had a bad haircut the day before or any number of irrelevent,
inconsequential, or irrational reasons.
The only hiring criteria, IMO, should be competence. Hell, if Paul Milne
was the best at what he did, I'd hire him. I might wear earplugs when he's
around, but I'd be a fool if I didn't hire him, and I'd be irresponsible to
my shareholders and customers. The object, the bottom line of a company
*is* the bottom line - how much a candidate can make your company, not how
good of a friend they are to someone's uncle, or how they salt their food.
kiraba...@my-deja.com
> Why don't you just give it up Paul? Most of the regular csy2k doomers
> had the guts to admit they had grossly overestimated the risks of Y2K.
> There's nothing wrong with making that mistake, it was an honest one;
> they still have their dignity. You, you just keep hanging on to that
> delusion of yours.
>
--------------------------
No one grossly overestimated the Risks. The risks were merely
unpredictable one might say (Obviously in this case out of the range of
logic.)
But only one die has been cast. It doesn't follow that the next and
last roll(software) will not be chronic. In fact, logically, everything
points to it being Chronic and Devastating still. Yourdon's "Year of
Disruptions, a Decade of Depression" is still in play.
Y2K is simply back to the time before they had discovered the problem
of embedded chips. Even then Peter De Jager's essay had "Doomsday" in
its' title.
Don Juan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
li...@ork.net
> I won't be reading the newsgroup much, if at all anymore. Nothing of value
> is occurring in here, at this point.
Translation: I was wrong, but I'm not man enough to admit it, even when
the time finally comes that *I* realize I was wrong. So, I'll just leave
now in order not to have to do that.
Y2KC
> And my favorite prediction that did not happen was this one:
>
> " Also, the man who was arrested after jumping in front of Dan Rather
> during a live news telecast, screaming "I was right!" and foaming at the
> mouth has been identified as Mr. Bradley K. Sherman. He has since been
> interned in a mental hospital. Ever since, he can be heard babbling
Don't be so fast to give this one up.
Y2KC
Bradley K. Sherman
Dan was none too happy about the whole thing.
I think it's great that the whole TrueBeliever2000 cult is
happy to be wrong and Tim May thinks it's wonderful to be
politically incorrect (as if that isn't the current way of
conforming). Personally I *do* prefer to be right and I
do like to be politically correct. I also like good
writing, a minimum of spelling errors and people who
don't hide their insults behind pseudonyms.
It's a very, very, radical point of view. Far too
avant garde for the type of individual who thinks that
Starship Troopers is a great novel rather than a silly
coming-of-age juvenile militaristic hack. And certainly
above the head of someone who confuses a request for
the date with the time of day!
--bks
Zeke Wolf
Paul Milne <fed...@halifax.com> wrote in message
news:94726720...@helium.cstone.net...
> We are a mere seven days into the Year 2000. That is all. Seven days. We
> have had no apparent catastrophic failures. That is good news to the
pollies
> and full support for the position that NOTHING at all of any significance
> will happen. That is foolish.
>
> It is beyond ludicrous to believe that in the myriad of cases of companies
> and countries and other entities that wildly underspent, started late or
not
> at all, simply ended up with no significant problems.
>
> It is far far too early to think that we are out of the woods. I'll be
> satisfied to wait a bit longer before even beginning to think it has
passed.
> The effects of Y2K can be insidious, they can even, ultimately, go
virtually
> unnoticed. I would not have expected that, but it can go that way. They
can
> easily contribute to the degradation of the economy over the next six
> months, a year and beyond in a way that may never be attributable to Y2K.
>
> It will not matter much to me. The economy is going down. It is going down
> hard. Serious preparations are necessary. Mine are in place. So if
Pollies
> want to come out at night and dance around their campfires, no skin off my
> nose.
>
> They will remain where they are, unprepared and I will remain where I am,
> prepared. And when push comes to shove, for whatever reason, they will
still
> be on the short end of the stick.
>
> I won't be reading the newsgroup much, if at all anymore. Nothing of value
The Goobers
[snippage]
> I won't be reading the newsgroup much, if at all anymore.
Mr Milne, when others have made statements similar to this your response
has been along the lines of 'if you cannot tolerate the temperature then
remove yourself from the place where food is prepared' or 'make certain
that you are not struck in the nether-regions by the door'.
It is said that following one's own advice is a Good Thing, Mr Milne.
DD
Tim May
<BAB85F162E8A74BC.10708BE2...@lp.airnews.net>, "Ed
Carp" <e...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Bob Brock wrote in message ...
>
> >>Neither one. I would not wish to work for such a person who uses such
> >>arbitrary means to determine job eligibility. That's as stupid as the
> >>manager who only hires receptionists that wear a 'D' cup bra or larger, on
> >>the idea that it's more pleasant for his (mostly) male clientle.
> >
> >Never eat at "Hooters" huh? It happens all the time and you probably
> >don't even know it. If there was another candidate for the job that
> >you have now, will you ever really know why you got it and the other
> >person didn't? Do you put salt on your food before you taste it?
>
>
> Actually, I haven't eaten at Hooters in years. And I believe they were sued
> a year or so back and lost the lawsuit regarding this very same matter.
>
> No, I wouldn't know. I don't think I would want to, because if I did, I'd
> be so angry that they'd probably find themselves served with notice of a
> lawsuit the next day.
And in a free society just how could you sue someone for their choice of
employees? It's their property.
>
> This sort of irrationality in hiring is part of the reason that corporate
> America is losing the ability to compete in the world marketplace.
Ed, you have apparently not kept tabs on just what the U.S. position is
these days. Hint: it is dominant. In many industries and technologies. It
is certainly not losing its ability to compete.
> The only hiring criteria, IMO, should be competence.
And you are perfectly able to run your own business on this basis.
Just don't tell _me_ or anyone else who to hire.
--Tim May
--
They pulled the pin...now we're all just waiting
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Bob Brock
Ed Carp wrote in message ...
>Bob Brock wrote in message ...
>
>>>Neither one. I would not wish to work for such a person who uses such
>>>arbitrary means to determine job eligibility. That's as stupid as the
>>>manager who only hires receptionists that wear a 'D' cup bra or larger,
on
>>>the idea that it's more pleasant for his (mostly) male clientle.
>>
>>Never eat at "Hooters" huh? It happens all the time and you probably
>>don't even know it. If there was another candidate for the job that
>>you have now, will you ever really know why you got it and the other
>>person didn't? Do you put salt on your food before you taste it?
>
>
>Actually, I haven't eaten at Hooters in years. And I believe they were
sued
>a year or so back and lost the lawsuit regarding this very same matter.
>
>No, I wouldn't know. I don't think I would want to, because if I did, I'd
>be so angry that they'd probably find themselves served with notice of a
>tasting it.
>
>Bob gets hired or promoted not because he's good at what he does, but
>because he's buds with someone on the board of directors. Where people
hire
>the same old people as CEO and CFO and CIO, even though they have a string
>of companies behind them that they've screwed up, simply because they know
>someone. And why someone either gets hired or not because of their skin
>color or they had a bad haircut the day before or any number of irrelevent,
>inconsequential, or irrational reasons.
>
>The only hiring criteria, IMO, should be competence. Hell, if Paul Milne
>was the best at what he did, I'd hire him. I might wear earplugs when he's
>around, but I'd be a fool if I didn't hire him, and I'd be irresponsible to
>my shareholders and customers. The object, the bottom line of a company
>*is* the bottom line - how much a candidate can make your company, not how
>good of a friend they are to someone's uncle, or how they salt their food.
Ed, while I agree with you in principle, I disagree in practice. The hiring
manager who used the "salt" test was a personnel manager and retired in
1965. So, he was using that criteria in the 1940-60's. It's nothing new
and it's how the world is and has been. If Paul Minle were the best
programmer in the world, I wouldn't hire him, not because of his
personality, but because of his flawed decision making. If (when) my
company grows to the point that I need employees, I want employees who can
look at a problem and fix it without me having to hold their hands. If they
can't look at what has happened in the last week and come to the conclusion
that the power and phones won't be out tomorrow across the country, I don't
want them.
Sorry, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Bob Brock
name doesn't come to mind right now, what a maroon!
Tim May wrote in message ...
>In article
><BAB85F162E8A74BC.10708BE2...@lp.airnews.net>, "Ed
>Carp" <e...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Brock wrote in message ...
>>
>> >>Neither one. I would not wish to work for such a person who uses such
>> >>arbitrary means to determine job eligibility. That's as stupid as the
>> >>manager who only hires receptionists that wear a 'D' cup bra or larger,
on
>> >>the idea that it's more pleasant for his (mostly) male clientle.
>> >
>> >Never eat at "Hooters" huh? It happens all the time and you probably
>> >don't even know it. If there was another candidate for the job that
>> >you have now, will you ever really know why you got it and the other
>> >person didn't? Do you put salt on your food before you taste it?
>>
>>
>> Actually, I haven't eaten at Hooters in years. And I believe they were
sued
>> a year or so back and lost the lawsuit regarding this very same matter.
>>
>> No, I wouldn't know. I don't think I would want to, because if I did,
I'd
>> be so angry that they'd probably find themselves served with notice of a
>> lawsuit the next day.
>
>And in a free society just how could you sue someone for their choice of
>employees? It's their property.
>
>
>>
>> This sort of irrationality in hiring is part of the reason that corporate
>> America is losing the ability to compete in the world marketplace.
>
>Ed, you have apparently not kept tabs on just what the U.S. position is
>these days. Hint: it is dominant. In many industries and technologies. It
>is certainly not losing its ability to compete.
>
>> The only hiring criteria, IMO, should be competence.
>
Whit In Wa
>On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:42:30 -0500, "Paul Milne" <fed...@halifax.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The economy is going down. It is going down
>>hard.
>
>WHEN, and by HOW MUCH?
>
TEOTWAWKI..happened the day they enacted the Social Security "Insurance"
bill..
The day American's decided to turn their lives, and their will over to their
god as they know him ...aka.. Big Brother.. and to admit their are powerless
over their own lives and their own future.. and to look down upon and call
anyone who suggests otherwise.. "Doomers"
To let Big Brother be responsible for their futures..cause we all know..we can
not be responsible for ourselves. Big Brother has proven..beyond a doubt
their money-management skills.. to the tune of 4 trillion dollars in debt since
the SSI bill was enacted..and we all ..blindly follow...handing them our hard
earned money day in and day out.. so that THEY can care for us.. in our time of
need.
While we have vets starving in the streets.. and some elderly sleeping in urine
soaked beds..while Big Brother pays 600 per toilet seat..we follow our god..and
pay hourly for HIM to care for us in our time of need.
I'm a smoker. I pay a few hundred dollars a year for future health care costs
cause Big Brother says smoking is bad for me and I'm gonna die young .. and
instead of having to pay for 20 years for my Social Security .. then having to
pay for 10 or 20 years for extended care as I die slowly of old age.. me dying
pre SSI days will cost them more .. then say them paying for 20 yrs of SSI and
20 years of extended care ..
What part of this WHOLE damn system is bullshit .. don't you understand. The
Government is in it for TWO reasons and one of them is NOT you. The TWO
reasons.. money and power.
This government was started for a REASON.. the Boston Tea party was as big a
vent that year.. as Y2k was for us... for a REASON...
But..your just one person right? What can you do?? Right??? NOTHING right?
Cept give a hard time.. so you can feel like a "MAN" .. to those who think ..
they CAN make a difference.. so maybe it takes a lunatic.. to think he can make
a difference... ?
As far as WHEN Big brother will fail... there is no telling..they have a
complete and total hold on this society.. they control so much of what we are
able to do ..and say.. we spend 1/4 of our lives working for them.. and the
money we do bring home we pay to someone else.. and 1/4 of THAT goes to big
brother.... and what THAT person brings home... 1/4 of THAT goes to big
brother....and so on and so forth....
Paul lives in a pipe dream.. and someday he will be right.. and I think chances
are it will be in his lifetime...but he wont be the one paying for OUR .. OUR
generations.. complete lack of motivation..risk taking..living for the
moment..and so on.. HIS grandchildren will be.
I was very concerned about a potential grid failure .. no matter how remote the
possibilty was...NOT cause I thought it'd "bring down" Big Brother. But because
I thought it'd strengthen Big Brother... just how many Executive Orders have
you read the past 10 years? IF there was a grid faiulre.. they have more
powers then *any* of you have even dreamed of...
But one of the three major grids failing for an extended period of time ..
MIGHT have aoken the public to just how much power and control over our every
waking moment we've given to the government.
Don't give Paul such a hard time.. he's one of those lunatics who's actually
broken out of the "I"m just one person, what can I do" mold. He hasnt
realized yet that there is NOTHING that just one person can do.. we are
completely and totally at the mercy of our god Big Brother.. we gave him that
power...step by step....law by law... moment by moment.. traced back someday
to SSI. and the don't worry about taking care of yourselves... WE will take
care of you.. give us your money.. WE know how to manage money.. we've provent
hat havent we? Day.
And now we have a society as a whole.. who conciders those of use who suggest
taking care of thine own self.. who suggest being PREPARED .. are
sick..warped...horrible.. terrible people.. who should be ashamed.. and bow
down before OUR God Big Brother.. and confess our sins.
Don't worry. Be Happy. And for Big Brothers sake do NOT For one moment think
you should take responsibilty for yourself..and your family.
er.. I better shuddup before I start ranting...hehe...
Whit :)
.
.
Don Scott
>
>er.. I better shuddup before I start ranting...hehe...
>
A little late for that - how come you didn't consider that about ten
years ago?
DS
>Whit :)
>
>.
>.
>
Bradley K. Sherman
<max_t...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
Along with Don Scott's Beatles parodies, Max Thomsen's
Zardoz compositions were the funniest components of a
very bleak newsgroup.
--bks
li...@ork.net
> The only hiring criteria, IMO, should be competence. Hell, if Paul Milne
> was the best at what he did, I'd hire him. I might wear earplugs when he's
> around, but I'd be a fool if I didn't hire him, and I'd be irresponsible to
> my shareholders and customers. The object, the bottom line of a company
> *is* the bottom line - how much a candidate can make your company, not how
> good of a friend they are to someone's uncle, or how they salt their food.
Of course competence should be the only criterium, but competence at
getting along is part of that, as is appearance, decorum, and all the
other factors that exist when you have a company that coinsists of more
thna one or two employees.
The Goobers
>
> Bob Brock wrote in message ...
>
> >>Neither one. I would not wish to work for such a person who uses such
> >>arbitrary means to determine job eligibility. That's as stupid as the
> >>manager who only hires receptionists that wear a 'D' cup bra or larger, on
> >>the idea that it's more pleasant for his (mostly) male clientle.
> >
> >Never eat at "Hooters" huh? It happens all the time and you probably
> >don't even know it. If there was another candidate for the job that
> >you have now, will you ever really know why you got it and the other
> >person didn't? Do you put salt on your food before you taste it?
>
> Actually, I haven't eaten at Hooters in years. And I believe they were sued
> a year or so back and lost the lawsuit regarding this very same matter.
>
> No, I wouldn't know. I don't think I would want to, because if I did, I'd
> be so angry that they'd probably find themselves served with notice of a
> tasting it.
>
> Bob gets hired or promoted not because he's good at what he does, but
> because he's buds with someone on the board of directors. Where people hire
> the same old people as CEO and CFO and CIO, even though they have a string
> of companies behind them that they've screwed up, simply because they know
> someone. And why someone either gets hired or not because of their skin
> color or they had a bad haircut the day before or any number of irrelevent,
> inconsequential, or irrational reasons.
Mr Carp... 'losing the ability to compete'? Assuming this is true (and
I do not believe that such an assumption is valid) then might I be so
bold as to ask when this Golden Age of American Competetiveness was...
back, say, when White Males Over Forty-Five Only Need Apply?
DD
li...@ork.net
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 05:04:35 GMT, tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>>And in a free society just how could you sue someone for their choice of
>>employees? It's their property.
> Civil rights don't count, Tim?
Property rights don't count, Madcat?
Joseph E. McIsaac
> Paul "The Lying Cunt of Ouachita Baptist" Milne prophesied and
> decreed and encouraged us to read between the lines:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I won't be reading the newsgroup much, if at all anymore. Nothing of value
> > is occurring in here, at this point. I am sure that the Polies will enjoy
> > lubricating each other for weeks to come. Have at it. Maybe you are just
> > having a problem going on with your lives.
>
> Translation: "My attempt to hijack the newsgroup succeeded . . . and
> failed. I succeeded (of course) because I made myself and my lunatic
> beliefs central to c.s.y2k. Eat you own dog food is today's and
> every day's watchword. But those days are over, long gone, it seems,
> after just 7 days, but because I, Zardoz Master of All, am no longer
> the center of received wisdom of the newsgroup, the newsgroup is no
> longer worth reading. I said it, I believe it, that settles it. I
> dished out the 'cretinous, lying, shithead, asshole, misanthropic,
> shit-for-brains' for two-plus years, but Zardoz regrets nothing, for
> one day Zardoz will be vindicated. Zardoz lives! Zardoz roolz!
Others wrote about the doomer argument being like, "The Easter Bunny" argument,
and I have repeated it for I believe it was a good analogy. The "Easter Bunny
Argument" states that it's far, far easier to argue the possible existence of the
Easter Bunny than to PROVE that it doesn't exist. Prior to the rollover, the
doomers could argue that there could be Y2K disasters and the realists had to
somehow prove that there wouldn't be. As DocDwarf has stated on more than one
occasion, it is impossible to prove that someone will (or will not) happen in the
future.
I always thought that it twas far easier to be a slack-jawed, drooling doomer
because you could make up any fantasy, spin any line, and never have to back it
up... until January 1, 2000. Now that we've crossed the event horizon, this is no
longer possible.
Ed Carp
>>The only hiring criteria, IMO, should be competence. Hell, if Paul Milne
>>was the best at what he did, I'd hire him. I might wear earplugs when
he's
>>around, but I'd be a fool if I didn't hire him, and I'd be irresponsible
to
>>my shareholders and customers. The object, the bottom line of a company
>>*is* the bottom line - how much a candidate can make your company, not how
>>good of a friend they are to someone's uncle, or how they salt their food.
>
>Ed, while I agree with you in principle, I disagree in practice. The
hiring
>manager who used the "salt" test was a personnel manager and retired in
>1965. So, he was using that criteria in the 1940-60's. It's nothing new
>and it's how the world is and has been. If Paul Minle were the best
>programmer in the world, I wouldn't hire him, not because of his
>personality, but because of his flawed decision making. If (when) my
>company grows to the point that I need employees, I want employees who can
>look at a problem and fix it without me having to hold their hands. If
they
>can't look at what has happened in the last week and come to the conclusion
>that the power and phones won't be out tomorrow across the country, I don't
>want them.
This is based on a flawed premise - that competence or incoompetence is
uniform in all areas. Not entirely true. If Paul Milne *were* the best
programmer in the world, there would mean that he was also the best at
making decisions WHEN RELATED TO CODING. But this doesn't carry over to any
other area. There are a lot of idiot savants running around out there (and
I suspect that many of them write code) - they can't tie their shoes, but
they are very gifted at what they do. Paul may very well be one of those.
It is a common fallacy to assume that expertise or incompetence in one area
carries over to all areas, and I can cite a *huge* number of examples.
Flawed decision-making in one area doesn't mean flawed in *all* areas, else
people should be immediately fired from their jobs for getting into car
wrecks, or being arrested for DUI, because of their "lack of judgement".
Ed Carp
>Paul "The Lying Cunt of Ouachita Baptist" Milne prophesied and
Hmmm...didn't know he had one.
Ed Carp
<20000108060324...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
>While we have vets starving in the streets.. and some elderly sleeping in
urine
>soaked beds..while Big Brother pays 600 per toilet seat..we follow our
god..and
>pay hourly for HIM to care for us in our time of need.
Only in America can a Vietnam vet sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
dodger sleeps in the White House.
>This government was started for a REASON.. the Boston Tea party was as big
a
>vent that year.. as Y2k was for us... for a REASON...
Have you been reading David Icke again?
Ed Carp
<20000108060324...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
>Don't give Paul such a hard time.. he's one of those lunatics who's
actually
>broken out of the "I"m just one person, what can I do" mold. He hasnt
I don't recall giving Paul a hard time about his opinion, just in how he
expressed it. His complete contemt for those who didn't agree with him was
what bothered me more than any of his "you'll be drinking dog piss out of a
rusty hubcap" themes.
Ed Carp
>> This sort of irrationality in hiring is part of the reason that corporate
>> America is losing the ability to compete in the world marketplace. Where
>> Bob gets hired or promoted not because he's good at what he does, but
>> because he's buds with someone on the board of directors. Where people
hire
>> the same old people as CEO and CFO and CIO, even though they have a
string
>> of companies behind them that they've screwed up, simply because they
know
>> someone. And why someone either gets hired or not because of their skin
>> color or they had a bad haircut the day before or any number of
irrelevent,
>> inconsequential, or irrational reasons.
>
>Mr Carp... 'losing the ability to compete'? Assuming this is true (and
>I do not believe that such an assumption is valid) then might I be so
>bold as to ask when this Golden Age of American Competetiveness was...
>back, say, when White Males Over Forty-Five Only Need Apply?
No, that had nothing to do with it. We started losing the ability to
compete when other countries like Korea and Japan started figuring out how
to manufacture what we produce for less money and in larger quantity.
When's the last time you saw a TV set that was made here? When's the last
time you saw a computer with a US-made motherboard in it?
li...@ork.net
> Only in America can a Vietnam vet sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
> dodger sleeps in the White House.
Please. Draft-dodging is the least of his crimes.
li...@ork.net
> In the case of employment, property rights are overridden by civil rights,
> as I hope you know.
Up to a certain point.
Douglas Miller
>On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 05:04:35 GMT, tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>
>>And in a free society just how could you sue someone for their choice of
>>employees? It's their property.
>
>Civil rights don't count, Tim?
>
--
dlmiller/at/netdirect/dot/net
Ed Carp
No, but it was germane to the post.
I've said all along that Bill Clinton ought to be in a federal prison,
sentenced to a very long stretch, for (among other things) treason, not to
mention perjury, (for which the cowards in the Senate refused to convict).
The Goobers
> >>> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 05:04:35 GMT, tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
> >>
> >>>>And in a free society just how could you sue someone for their choice of
> >>>>employees? It's their property.
> >>
> >>> Civil rights don't count, Tim?
> >>
>
> > In the case of employment, property rights are overridden by civil rights,
> > as I hope you know.
>
> Up to a certain point.
'Up to a certain point' is almost as good as '... yet' for
meeting-yet-not-meeting an argument, I've seen.
Isn't *anything* 'up to a certain point'?... up to a certain point, of
course.
DD
Bob Brock
Whit In Wa wrote in message
<20000108060324...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
>>From: Lizard liz...@mrlizard.com
>
>>On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:42:30 -0500, "Paul Milne" <fed...@halifax.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The economy is going down. It is going down
>>>hard.
>>
>>WHEN, and by HOW MUCH?
>>
>
>TEOTWAWKI..happened the day they enacted the Social Security "Insurance"
>bill..
>
>The day American's decided to turn their lives, and their will over to
their
>god as they know him ...aka.. Big Brother.. and to admit their are
powerless
>over their own lives and their own future.. and to look down upon and call
>anyone who suggests otherwise.. "Doomers"
>
>To let Big Brother be responsible for their futures..cause we all know..we
can
>not be responsible for ourselves. Big Brother has proven..beyond a doubt
>their money-management skills.. to the tune of 4 trillion dollars in debt
since
>the SSI bill was enacted..and we all ..blindly follow...handing them our
hard
>earned money day in and day out.. so that THEY can care for us.. in our
time of
>need.
SNIP
>Don't worry. Be Happy. And for Big Brothers sake do NOT For one moment
think
>you should take responsibilty for yourself..and your family.
>
>er.. I better shuddup before I start ranting...hehe...
>
>Whit :)
>
>.
>.
>
li...@ork.net
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 14:58:10 GMT, li...@ork.net wrote:
>>
>>> In the case of employment, property rights are overridden by civil rights,
>>> as I hope you know.
>>
>>Up to a certain point.
> And the 'certain point' is?
Whatever the liberals decide is the appropraite level of mangling property
rights.
Lizard
>
>What part of this WHOLE damn system is bullshit .. don't you understand. The
>Government is in it for TWO reasons and one of them is NOT you. The TWO
>reasons.. money and power.
And in other breaking news, water is wet, sex is fun, and
kittens&puppies are cute.
Tell us something we DON'T know.
The American government is corrupt. ALL governments are corrupt. The
essence of government is mired in self-contradiction. The ideal
government exists to protect the rights of its citizens -- but for
government to exist at all, it must engage in regular violations of
those same rights. Four wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
But this doesn't mean that The End Is Nigh or that the Y2K bug is
going to STILL destroy the world, just you wait, next month certainly.
Corrupt regimes survive a long, long, time -- and what comes after
them is usually worse.
I repeat:Most of those who predicted TEOTWAWKI did so not because they
studied the evidence, but because they WANTED it to happen. In my
experience, going from "I want this to occur" to "This WILL occur" is
a very dangerous logical leap. It's a form of 'magical thinking', the
belief that the world is amenable to human will. Sad to say, it isn't.
Reality trundles on without regard to your desires. The universe does
not care for you at all.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Lizard
>Only in America can a Vietnam vet sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
>dodger sleeps in the White House.
Only in America can someone who looks no older than 21 hold a sign
reading "Vietnam Vet, Please Help" and have people toss him money. :)
pgooding
>On 08 Jan 2000 11:03:24 GMT, whit...@aol.comSPAM (Whit In Wa) wrote:
>>
>>What part of this WHOLE damn system is bullshit .. don't you understand.
The
>>Government is in it for TWO reasons and one of them is NOT you. The TWO
>>reasons.. money and power.
Uh, well, you might not get the Nobel Prize for this one, dude.
First of all, money and power have been inextricably linked throughout
history. How they impinge upon government is something that
ebbs and flows; after all, someone has to govern. So there is
going to be a government. You kinda have to start from that premise.
Now you take your Constitution ...well, you get the idea. Now
your Constitution was written by fellas who pretty much saw
government as the privilege and responsibility of white people
who owned land, if you know what I mean. So we are still rather
improving on it, don't you think? I mean, you have really
thought this all through, haven't you? There really is more
to it than just money and power, don't you think so?
John Denver
Lizard wrote:
> I repeat:Most of those who predicted TEOTWAWKI did so not because they
> studied the evidence, but because they WANTED it to happen. In my
> experience, going from "I want this to occur" to "This WILL occur" is
> a very dangerous logical leap. It's a form of 'magical thinking', the
> belief that the world is amenable to human will.
As if the doomers were the only ones guilty of "magical thinking". Look
at the stock market bulls. They WANT the stock market to go up, so they
relentlessly spew out a cloud of favorable predictions, which pumps the
stock market, and makes the prophecy come true. The ideological
orthodoxy of the bulls is almost Soviet in its insistence on a uniform
propaganda message. I watched Lou Rukeyser last night, and they had Abby
Cohen and a bunch of other anointed pollies gabbing about faith in the
bull. It was hilarious watching them make their predictions for next
year. Everybody was eyeing each other suspiciously when they announced
their projected low for the DOW. They were all afraid to be the one who
came out the lowest, and the low folks were almost blushing with shame
when they gave their number. It's sort of like EC (Economic Correctness).
> Sad to say, it isn't.
> Reality trundles on without regard to your desires. The universe does
> not care for you at all.
So what makes you think technology will save us from the problems it
creates? Your whole point of view is based on the idea that the human
mind holds a priveleged position of dominance over the universe. Isn't
that too "magical thinking"? Can you scientifically prove that the
outcome of technical development will be positive, or is it just going
to come out good because you hope it will?
John Denver
pgooding wrote:
>
> There really is more
> to it than just money and power, don't you think so?
Absolutely. You forgot PUSSY!
Phil Edwards
wrote:
>We are a mere seven days into the Year 2000. That is all. Seven days. We
>have had no apparent catastrophic failures. That is good news to the pollies
>and full support for the position that NOTHING at all of any significance
>will happen. That is foolish.
>
>It is beyond ludicrous to believe that in the myriad of cases of companies
>and countries and other entities that wildly underspent, started late or not
>at all, simply ended up with no significant problems.
>
>It is far far too early to think that we are out of the woods. I'll be
>satisfied to wait a bit longer before even beginning to think it has passed.
>The effects of Y2K can be insidious, they can even, ultimately, go virtually
>unnoticed. I would not have expected that, but it can go that way. They can
>easily contribute to the degradation of the economy over the next six
>months, a year and beyond in a way that may never be attributable to Y2K.
You know what's funny, Paul? Most of the people who were posting to
this group before you turned up would endorse every word of that. I've
never said that "NOTHING at all of any significance will happen" -
neither have most of the people you denounced as 'pollies'. I've
always said that "companies and countries and other entities that
wildly underspent, started late or not at all" *would* end up with
significant problems - so did most of the people you denounced as
'pollies'. And nobody but a hardened TEOTWAWKIst would expect the
effects of Y2K to be sudden, dramatic and immediate. People could
believe all the above and still be a 'polly' in your eyes.
>The economy is going down. It is going down
>hard. Serious preparations are necessary. Mine are in place.
Toddle along to misc.survivalism with the other true believers, would
you? We've got date-related errors in complex systems to discuss, just
like we were doing before you came here. Identifiable and non-critical
errors, primarily, in complex but remediable systems.
Paul, you did your best to ruin this newsgroup, demoralise the people
doing serious work to fix the Y2K problem and turn Y2K into a
survivalist issue. I'm happy to say you failed.
Phil "thanks for the Bastiat stuff, though" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards p...@amroth.zetnet.co.uk
"There were lots of [bugs] before Y2K. There will be
lots of them after Y2K." - Daniel P.B. Smith
The Goobers
Mr Carp, it might just be that the United States no longer makes such
things but makes... other stuff, instead. I know that it is difficult
to measure things like 'ideas' in the same fashion as one measures
widget-production but it might be a Good Thing to muse over the fact
that *everyone*, around the world, agrees that the educational system in
the United States of America is utterly rotten and incompetent...
... and *everyone*, around the world, wants to send their kids to the
United States to attend college or graduate school. Just because it is
cheaper to make widgets in Lower Slobbovia does *not* mean that the
United States is no longer 'competitive'.
DD
Dean T. Miller
Nah. That's just an aspect of power.
-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines (CDP, KB0ZDF)
William Lynch
> >> dodger sleeps in the White House.
> >
>
> No, but it was germane to the post.
>
> I've said all along that Bill Clinton ought to be in a federal prison,
> sentenced to a very long stretch, for (among other things) treason, not to
> mention perjury, (for which the cowards in the Senate refused to convict).
Serious question, what, exactly, did Bill Clinton do to make him so
despicable and how do you differentiate him from Teddy Kennedy, Newt
Gingrich, Dick Armey, Dick Gephardt, etc.? Saying "he's a draft dodger"
is insufficient, how & when did he dodge the draft, etc.
Bill Lynch
Lizard
wrote:
>So what makes you think technology will save us from the problems it
>creates? Your whole point of view is based on the idea that the human
>mind holds a priveleged position of dominance over the universe. Isn't
>that too "magical thinking"? Can you scientifically prove that the
>outcome of technical development will be positive, or is it just going
>to come out good because you hope it will?
I cannot prove that technology will save us[1], any more than I can
*prove* that the force of gravity will not magically alter tomorrow.
But there is no evidence for either gravity or technology failing, so,
based on past performance, I judge future performance.
Frankly, the only thing I truly fear about the future is that luddites
like you might continue to breed. But there is no cure which is not
worse than the disease, I'm afraid, so the best thing to do is let yo
run free on your hog farms. The Amish haven't done me much harm, after
all.
In any event, as I've said many times, humanity has ALWAYS been
dependant on technology. Sooner or later you'll understand that the
lifestyle you advocate is as dependant on, and defined by, technology
as that of any cube farm dwellers.
I wonder what you'll be like when you're out of college and have had
to live in the 'real world' for 5 or 6 years. It will be interesting
seeing how your opinions change when the emotional fervor of youth is
tempered by actual life experience.
[1]Save us from WHAT, precisely? We live longer and healthier lives
than anyone in history, and this is linked to living in industrial
nations. If technology were 'dangerous', people in America and Europe
would live shorter and more disease-ridden lives than people in the
Third World, but the precise opposite is true. Indeed, since the
industrial nations have acheived ZPG, or close to it, while the
non-industrial nations continue to churn out babies like they had
nothing else to do (as it turns out, they don't), then,
industrialization looks like the only possible solution to the problem
of overpopulation. As you well know, farm-boy, rural families have
always been larger than urban families, because children are an
economic benefit on the farm, while they're a deficit in the city.
Thus, if you REALLY cared about the fate of man on Earth, you'd be
encouraging everyone to move to efficiency apartments in the city,
where the thought of sharing same with a squalling brat would be
enough to drive even Catholics to use birth control.
A.Lizard
wrote:
>Ed Carp wrote:
>>
>> The Goobers wrote in message <38773707...@home.com>...
>>
[snip]
>> When's the last time you saw a TV set that was made here? When's the last
>> time you saw a computer with a US-made motherboard in it?
>
>Mr Carp, it might just be that the United States no longer makes such
>things but makes... other stuff, instead. I know that it is difficult
>to measure things like 'ideas' in the same fashion as one measures
>widget-production
computer software industry profit + entertainment industry profit
might give you a first approximation.
>but it might be a Good Thing to muse over the fact
>that *everyone*, around the world, agrees that the educational system in
>the United States of America is utterly rotten and incompetent...
>
>... and *everyone*, around the world, wants to send their kids to the
>United States to attend college or graduate school. Just because it is
>cheaper to make widgets in Lower Slobbovia does *not* mean that the
>United States is no longer 'competitive'.
However, I don't know of anybody outside the Third World who
would want to send their kids to the US for the express purpose
of attending elementary through high school. As far as I've been
able to see, the arguments I've seen about the US educational
system have been *exclusively* focused on the K-12 years.
A better question is that why do US colleges and universities
work so well and elementary, middle, and high schools fail?
Here's your red herring back. Prepared properly, it will taste
almost like eel. :-)
A.Lizard
>DD
************************************************************************
"Here's the most exasperating part: Ninety-five percent of the Y2k hoax
hysteria is planted by people who stand to gain, head-lined by
propagation-hungry publishers, and purveyed as truth by perpetuators of
rumour." Dave Eastabrook
"Anybody who still believes in the media must have been in a coma for
the past 30 years." - Robert Anton Wilson
Personal Web site http://www.ecis.com/~alizard
Y2Kinfo: http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/y2k.html
Littleton page:http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/littleto.html
backup address (if ALL else fails) alizard@[spam]onebox.com
PGP 6.5.1 key available by request,keyserver,or on my Web site
PGPfone v1.02 and v2.1 available for secure voice conferencing, get
your own (W9x,NT,Mac) at http://www.pgpi.org/products/nai/pgpfone/
************************************************************************
Ed Carp
Certainly.
I really don't differentiate him from any other sleaze politician, except
that he happens to be President of the United States, the highest elected
office in this country, and should be representative of the country. It's
an office which Ronald Reagan held in such high honor that he refused to
take his jacket off while in the Oval Office, the same place where Bill
Clinton encouraged Monica Lewinsky to give him not one, but several
blowjobs. The man doesn't respect the office, he doesn't respect this
country, and he doesn't respect the citizens of this country. He's
despicable.
Bill Clinton and his cronies in the White House are infamous for attempting
to suppress critics. For example, in 1996, the White House forced Hotwired
to remove a link from their web site to www.realchange.org/clinton.htm
Clinton has made deals with everyone from Tyson Chicken to Archer Daniels
Midland for political favors in return for contributions.
As for his being a draft dodger, this comes from
http://www.impeachclinton.com/proceedings/textbookclinton.htm :
Like his mentor Fulbright, Clinton won a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford
University. During his two years at Oxford Clinton's opposition to the Viet
Nam War came into conflict with his political aspirations. When he received
a draft notice in 1969 he enrolled in the Army Reserve Officers Training
Corps (ROTC) at the University of Arkansas Law School. He made himself
available for the draft but was never called up because he received a high
number in the draft lottery held that year. Then, in a letter that years
later was made public during his presidential campaign, he admitted to his
draft officer that he had deceived the ROTC in the representation of
himself. He was then dropped from the ROTC program, which critics claimed
was the goal of the letter, in case ROTC students were later subjected to
the draft. His letter referenced a loathe for the U.S. military and himself
as being part of this camp.
I could go on and on and on about the man's unsuitability to be President,
but I think you get the idea. And I don't feel like I need to do your
homework for you - if you don't believe me, just look around, do your own
homework and you'll see I'm right.
Tim May
<449A67181CE43F9B.11F1001E...@lp.airnews.net>, "Ed
Carp" <e...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> I really don't differentiate him from any other sleaze politician, except
> that he happens to be President of the United States, the highest elected
> office in this country, and should be representative of the country. It's
> an office which Ronald Reagan held in such high honor that he refused to
> take his jacket off while in the Oval Office,
With all due respect to Ronald Reagan, many direct accounts indicate he
had a fairly "laid-back" attitude toward working hours. He spent several
hours a day in official functions--greeting dignitaries, photo
opportunities, etc. And maybe a few hours a day in "private office work."
Not hard to not take off your coat when you're only in private for an hour
or two a day.
He also watched a lot of movies. No idea what he wore then.
Which is not to say there's anything _wrong_ with his laid-back attitude.
--Tim May
--
They pulled the pin...now we're all just waiting
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Ed Carp
>With all due respect to Ronald Reagan, many direct accounts indicate he
>had a fairly "laid-back" attitude toward working hours. He spent several
>hours a day in official functions--greeting dignitaries, photo
>opportunities, etc. And maybe a few hours a day in "private office work."
>
>Not hard to not take off your coat when you're only in private for an hour
>or two a day.
Agreed, but that's still better than the oaf that's in the White House now.
I believe the following information is from the Washington Post, May 20,
1998 (but I got it from
http://www.impeachclinton.com/proceedings/chinaconnection.htm)
Despite the war waged on the Congress by the mass media, Committees and
individuals questioned whether the Administration granted the waiver because
Loral's CEO, Bernard Schwartz, was the party's largest single donor in the
1996 election. Questions were sidestepped by Bill Clinton and his pundits in
the White House and virtually no members of the Washington Press Corps dared
ask even basic questions.
The Justice Department is investigating allegations that Loral Space and
Communications and Hughes Electronics Corp. helped improve China's missile
guidance systems by analyzing a failed 1996 satellite launch in China. In
addition, the department's campaign finance task force is deciding whether
to open a criminal probe of the White House's decision this year to grant
Loral a waiver for another satellite launch in China.
Controversy greeted a further move to lift sanctions on sales a month ago.
It coincided with the leaks from US Intelligence that China has several
Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles targeted on America. The latest
revelations - the first to show corroborated and explicit evidence of a link
between the Chinese government and the Democrats' campaign - suggests that
national security may have been compromised.
This "compromise" technically comprises a charge of "high treason," not the
first such claim but one of the most serious, when coupled with an order by
Bill Clinton which selectively opened the door for the sale of guidance
systems for these missiles directly to Communist Chinese army (PLA)
officials (meaning that the PLA was then able to directly target U.S.
targets accurately).
The Goobers
>
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 23:43:55 GMT, The Goobers <docd...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ed Carp wrote:
> >>
> >> The Goobers wrote in message <38773707...@home.com>...
> >>
> [snip]
> >> When's the last time you saw a TV set that was made here? When's the last
> >> time you saw a computer with a US-made motherboard in it?
> >
> >Mr Carp, it might just be that the United States no longer makes such
> >things but makes... other stuff, instead. I know that it is difficult
> >to measure things like 'ideas' in the same fashion as one measures
> >widget-production
> computer software industry profit + entertainment industry profit
> might give you a first approximation.
A good place to start, certainly... but there are a few research
facilities here and there which might round out the list.
>
> >but it might be a Good Thing to muse over the fact
> >that *everyone*, around the world, agrees that the educational system in
> >the United States of America is utterly rotten and incompetent...
> >
> >... and *everyone*, around the world, wants to send their kids to the
> >United States to attend college or graduate school. Just because it is
> >cheaper to make widgets in Lower Slobbovia does *not* mean that the
> >United States is no longer 'competitive'.
>
> However, I don't know of anybody outside the Third World who
> would want to send their kids to the US for the express purpose
> of attending elementary through high school. As far as I've been
> able to see, the arguments I've seen about the US educational
> system have been *exclusively* focused on the K-12 years.
This may well be... in which case one might see an even more curious
phenomenon of a pyramid with a 'rotten' base and a universally-admired
and -acknoeldged, stable top?
>
> A better question is that why do US colleges and universities
> work so well and elementary, middle, and high schools fail?
Why, because they are given such good material to work with, of course!
>
> Here's your red herring back. Prepared properly, it will taste
> almost like eel. :-)
If that is the case then it is no red herring... *everyone* knows the
best one can do with that is to approximate chicken.
DD
Tom Beckner
> snip
>
> Paul, you did your best to ruin this newsgroup, demoralise the people
> doing serious work to fix the Y2K problem and turn Y2K into a
> survivalist issue. I'm happy to say you failed.
>
Nonsense, part of the continuing pattern of obfuscation.
Paul argued remediation would fail in the attempt to avert disaster and
disruption based on the scale of the job at hand.
Paul would post an article from major media and other sources. He would
add his editorial comment. This would start a thread that would go on
for days with "serious" people attacking Paul while ignoring the
referenced information.
Once engaged in this manner, Paul responded in kind, no holds barred.
He's no saint, never claimed to be. His critics are not pure as the
driven snow, either. But, the threads lived on, with attention to the
source information diverted.
Paul is tenacious, focused on the scale of the year 2000 set of problems
and the implications that the possibility remains they will not be
resolved soon enough to avoid significant disruption. As he has said
before, if he's wrong the sun will still shine and the birds will
still sing.
Last week the electric utilities hit a home run with an almost seamless
rollover. This has somehow been extrapolated into a litmus test for the
resolution of the Year 2000 set of problems. I find it difficult to
believe a "serious person" would take this leap of faith that enterprise
business systems will survive remediation because enterprise control
systems did as they rolled over one while making real-time calculations.
With so much at stake I find it curious that a serious person would
concern himself with the views of an electrician in Halifax. There must
be a reason. Maybe the electrician with all his questions and speculation
has hit a nerve that won't be relieved with over the counter remedies.
It is also curious that shills are jumping on Cory Hamasaki. It's curious
that Declan's article never mentioned the CCCC section of his newsletter
or mentioned the definition, or Cory's caveats, liberally repeated as to
assure no confusion between his observations and his speculation.
Dealing with the truth is like working with a splinter, it is painful to
ignore it and painful to probe for it. The timid and the shills are more
inclined to avoid the pain associated with probing and exploration.
I've made mistakes and wrong assessments. However, I would rather be
criticised as an apologist for someone that has revealed a measure of truth
than stand by as those with nothing better to do revel in whipping him
with half truths.
If you think it's worthwhile to do a hatchet job on someone at least get
it right.
A more worthwhile endeavor this month would be tracking the industrial
sectors and financial sectors and measure the effect of their mounting
problems.
The oil refinery fire in Delaware is an example.
Tom Beckner
Phil Edwards
<tbec...@xout.erols.com> wrote:
>Phil Edwards wrote:
>> snip
>>
>> Paul, you did your best to ruin this newsgroup, demoralise the people
>> doing serious work to fix the Y2K problem and turn Y2K into a
>> survivalist issue. I'm happy to say you failed.
>
>Nonsense, part of the continuing pattern of obfuscation.
>
>Paul argued remediation would fail in the attempt to avert disaster and
>disruption based on the scale of the job at hand.
Paul argued that remediation *had already failed*, based on a very
limited understanding of the problem and a pre-existing agenda.
>Paul would post an article from major media and other sources. He would
>add his editorial comment.
"Editorial comment". Bwahahahaha.
>This would start a thread that would go on
>for days with "serious" people attacking Paul while ignoring the
>referenced information.
I'd say Paul's 'editorial comment' was fair game, wouldn't you?
>Paul is tenacious, focused on the scale of the year 2000 set of problems
>and the implications that the possibility remains they will not be
>resolved soon enough to avoid significant disruption.
No, Paul is obsessed with (what he believes to be) the coming crash,
just like he was before he ever got wind of Y2K.
>Last week the electric utilities hit a home run with an almost seamless
>rollover. This has somehow been extrapolated into a litmus test for the
>resolution of the Year 2000 set of problems. I find it difficult to
>believe a "serious person" would take this leap of faith that enterprise
>business systems will survive remediation because enterprise control
>systems did as they rolled over one while making real-time calculations.
Straw man. Firstly, Paul and the other doomers implied very strongly
that the utilities *would fail* - that we'd be in misc.survivalism
territory *by now*. Secondly, I don't have any faith in the magical
ability of enterprise business systems to survive remediation. But I'm
not convinced, and never have been convinced, that remediation was
useless - which is enough, in Paul's eyes, to make me a 'Pollyanna'.
>With so much at stake I find it curious that a serious person would
>concern himself with the views of an electrician in Halifax.
You're right, I don't care about Paul's views. I care about his
deliberate and persistent disruption of this newsgroup.
>Dealing with the truth is like working with a splinter, it is painful to
>ignore it and painful to probe for it.
There have been failures and there will be more failures. Y2K
remediation was essential and was not completed 100% successfully; the
failure to complete it successfully will have effects throughout 2000.
I know you disagree with my position on Paul Milne. I'd be interested
to know in what way do you disagree with my position on Y2K.
Phil
The Goobers
>
> William Lynch wrote in message <38781466...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> >Ed Carp wrote:
> >>
> >> li...@ork.net wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> >Ed Carp <e...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> >> Whit In Wa wrote in message
> >> >> <20000108060324...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
> >> >
> >> >> Only in America can a Vietnam vet sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
> >> >> dodger sleeps in the White House.
> >> >
> >> >Please. Draft-dodging is the least of his crimes.
> >>
> >> No, but it was germane to the post.
> >>
> >> I've said all along that Bill Clinton ought to be in a federal prison,
> >> sentenced to a very long stretch, for (among other things) treason, not to
> >> mention perjury, (for which the cowards in the Senate refused to convict).
> >
> >Serious question, what, exactly, did Bill Clinton do to make him so
> >despicable and how do you differentiate him from Teddy Kennedy, Newt
> >Gingrich, Dick Armey, Dick Gephardt, etc.? Saying "he's a draft dodger"
> >is insufficient, how & when did he dodge the draft, etc.
>
> Certainly.
>
> that he happens to be President of the United States, the highest elected
> office in this country, and should be representative of the country.
There you have it, Mr Carp... not only can you, by your own admission,
not 'differentiate him from any other sleaze politician' (some might
argue that there is not any other kind) but you agree that he holds 'the
highest elected office in the country.'
I believe it was Mencken who said 'Give the people what they want, they
deserve it'... or might you be of the Soviet school which states 'The
problem with free elections is that you don't know how they are going to
turn out'?
Freedom is a *grave* responsibility, indeed, Mr Carp... perhaps you
might learn to forgive Mere Humans because they do not, at all times,
live up to it.
DD
SAG
>
> Nonsense, part of the continuing pattern of obfuscation.
Pattern of obfuscation?
<sarcasm>
You mean the facade that almost everything is running okay?
</sarcasm>
<snip>
>
> It is also curious that shills are jumping on Cory Hamasaki. It's curious
> that Declan's article never mentioned the CCCC section of his newsletter
> or mentioned the definition, or Cory's caveats, liberally repeated as to
> assure no confusion between his observations and his speculation.
>
> Dealing with the truth is like working with a splinter, it is painful to
> ignore it and painful to probe for it. The timid and the shills are more
> inclined to avoid the pain associated with probing and exploration.
Mr. Beckner,
IMNSHO, it is high time for you to cease and desist this use of the term
"shill."
I don't know whether, or not you introduced the term to csy2k but you
have used it often.
I believe you have applied it to Pollys who you accused of "shilling"
for some enterprise, saying that things would be okay when, in reality,
they wouldn't be okay. It is now January 9th -- things are, and are
going to be okay, at least in the context of y2k. Even if we wait 'till
the end of Q2 to finalize the tally, IMO, it's going to end up in a
pretty narrow range. Something like:
1.0001 <= Final Edwards Score <= 1.2000
Hence the riddle. When is a "shill" not a "shill." Answer: when he's
right!
>
> I've made mistakes and wrong assessments. However, I would rather be
> criticised as an apologist for someone that has revealed a measure of truth
> than stand by as those with nothing better to do revel in whipping him
> with half truths.
>
> If you think it's worthwhile to do a hatchet job on someone at least get
> it right.
>
> A more worthwhile endeavor this month would be tracking the industrial
> sectors and financial sectors and measure the effect of their mounting
> problems.
>
> The oil refinery fire in Delaware is an example.
Mounting problems? Talk about fantasies! Geeze!
Guy, the game is over. We made it though. We're okay! FOF is going to
work on day-to-day problems, just like it worked up until 12/31/99.
SAG
Bob
>
>Phil Edwards wrote:
>> snip
>>
>> Paul, you did your best to ruin this newsgroup, demoralise the people
>> doing serious work to fix the Y2K problem and turn Y2K into a
>> survivalist issue. I'm happy to say you failed.
>>
>
>
>disruption based on the scale of the job at hand.
>
>referenced information.
Obfuscation, indeed.
As I pointed out months ago, what Paul usually did was to post an
article, and then concoct a opinion that was not supported by the
article, then call anybody who didn't agree with his assessment a
moron.
The referenced information was typically ignored by serious people
because Paul's statements had very little basis in the facts. It
was usually his "reasoning" process that was attacked.
The fact that his assessments of the information were uniformly
incorrect would seem to vindicate those of us who found his
reasoning to be faulty.
NOT ONE DROP OF OIL!
William Lynch
> >> sentenced to a very long stretch, for (among other things) treason, not
> to
> >> mention perjury, (for which the cowards in the Senate refused to
> convict).
> >
> >Serious question, what, exactly, did Bill Clinton do to make him so
> >despicable and how do you differentiate him from Teddy Kennedy, Newt
> >Gingrich, Dick Armey, Dick Gephardt, etc.? Saying "he's a draft dodger"
> >is insufficient, how & when did he dodge the draft, etc.
>
> Certainly.
>
> I really don't differentiate him from any other sleaze politician, except
> that he happens to be President of the United States, the highest elected
> an office which Ronald Reagan held in such high honor that he refused to
Thanks for the response.
Bill Lynch
William Lynch
>
> Tom Beckner wrote:
> >
(snip)
> >
> > It is also curious that shills are jumping on Cory Hamasaki. It's curious
> > that Declan's article never mentioned the CCCC section of his newsletter
> > or mentioned the definition, or Cory's caveats, liberally repeated as to
> > assure no confusion between his observations and his speculation.
> >
> > Dealing with the truth is like working with a splinter, it is painful to
> > ignore it and painful to probe for it. The timid and the shills are more
> > inclined to avoid the pain associated with probing and exploration.
>
> Mr. Beckner,
>
> IMNSHO, it is high time for you to cease and desist this use of the term
> "shill."
>
> I don't know whether, or not you introduced the term to csy2k but you
> have used it often.
>
> I believe you have applied it to Pollys who you accused of "shilling"
> for some enterprise, saying that things would be okay when, in reality,
> they wouldn't be okay. It is now January 9th -- things are, and are
> going to be okay, at least in the context of y2k. Even if we wait 'till
> the end of Q2 to finalize the tally, IMO, it's going to end up in a
> pretty narrow range. Something like:
>
> 1.0001 <= Final Edwards Score <= 1.2000
>
> Hence the riddle. When is a "shill" not a "shill." Answer: when he's
> right!
I would also add: when the "shill" is posting in good faith. Something
which Milne & his goon squad constantly disparaged.
Bill Lynch
pgooding
William Lynch wrote in message <3878CACD...@worldnet.att.net>...
>> Like his mentor Fulbright, Clinton won a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford
>> University. During his two years at Oxford Clinton's opposition to the
Viet
>> Nam War came into conflict with his political aspirations. When he
received
>> a draft notice in 1969 he enrolled in the Army Reserve Officers Training
>> Corps (ROTC) at the University of Arkansas Law School. He made himself
>> available for the draft but was never called up because he received a
high
>> number in the draft lottery held that year. Then, in a letter that years
>> later was made public during his presidential campaign, he admitted to
his
>> draft officer that he had deceived the ROTC in the representation of
>> himself. He was then dropped from the ROTC program, which critics claimed
>> was the goal of the letter, in case ROTC students were later subjected to
>> the draft. His letter referenced a loathe for the U.S. military and
himself
>> as being part of this camp.
>>
>> I could go on and on and on about the man's unsuitability to be
President,
>> but I think you get the idea
I do get the idea. I get the idea that you think that non-loathing of
the military is a requirement for being president. Of course, the
Constitution makes no such requirement. I have no particular
affection for Clinton, but you are describing an attitude toward
the military, during the Vietnam war, that was rather common.
Are you saying that all of those people who distrusted the military
then were to be disqualified from being president? All the ones
who used the rules to their advantage and stayed out of the service?
All I can say is, the guy was elected president twice, so maybe
your view is not worth much politically? If anyone deserves to
be in jail for treason, as mentioned in this thread, I'd vote for
starting with Robert McNamara and the defense dept buttheads
who let us get into the war up to our armpits, then whined that
we "didn't let them win it" after they fucked it up. Just a thought.
Tim May
[entire quoted article snipped]
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Bill Lynch
A word to the wise, Bill: you don't need to forward to us an entire
article with just the words "Thanks for the respons." attached at the
bottom.
Tom Beckner
>
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 08:51:20 -0800, Tom Beckner
> <tbec...@xout.erols.com> wrote:
>
> Paul argued that remediation *had already failed*, based on a very
> limited understanding of the problem and a pre-existing agenda.
Not to equivicate, but this depends on the context of "fail" in
reference to time. For the present it seems to me we have this fish by
the lips.
I'll pass on the "agenda" accusation as not being a significant
consideration. A "hidden agenda" might merit attention as a frame of
reference, but it seems to me Paul Milne has been candid.
>
> >Paul would post an article from major media and other sources. He would
> >add his editorial comment.
>
> "Editorial comment". Bwahahahaha.
Exception noted. I'll concede being generous.
>
> >This would start a thread that would go on
> >for days with "serious" people attacking Paul while ignoring the
> >referenced information.
>
> I'd say Paul's 'editorial comment' was fair game, wouldn't you?
If you accept there are degrees of fairness, it would be more fair if the
focus were on the source material.
snip
>
> No, Paul is obsessed with (what he believes to be) the coming crash,
> just like he was before he ever got wind of Y2K.
Computer related Year 2000 problems are not playing out in a vacuum.
>
> >Last week the electric utilities hit a home run with an almost seamless
> >rollover. This has somehow been extrapolated into a litmus test for the
> >resolution of the Year 2000 set of problems. I find it difficult to
> >believe a "serious person" would take this leap of faith that enterprise
> >business systems will survive remediation because enterprise control
> >systems did as they rolled over one while making real-time calculations.
>
> Straw man. Firstly, Paul and the other doomers implied very strongly
> that the utilities *would fail* - that we'd be in misc.survivalism
> territory *by now*. [...
And the fact that we aren't is significant. Those of us that expressed the
most concern have been proven incorrect at this time in reference to the
electric utilities.
...] Secondly, I don't have any faith in the magical
> ability of enterprise business systems to survive remediation. But I'm
> not convinced, and never have been convinced, that remediation was
> useless - which is enough, in Paul's eyes, to make me a 'Pollyanna'.
The jury is out on successful or not. My verdict on useless is not guilty.
I'm eating fried Treet (Spam was too expensive IMO), chicken eggs and
white toast cooked on an electric stove, so I will confess to being
predjudiced in favor of very useful in light of the evidence.
snip
>
> You're right, I don't care about Paul's views. I care about his
> deliberate and persistent disruption of this newsgroup.
Disruption of the ng? One guy could accomplish this? Others shared
your view and started another news group IIRC. I don't have the URL.
snip
>
> There have been failures and there will be more failures. Y2K
> remediation was essential and was not completed 100% successfully; the
> failure to complete it successfully will have effects throughout 2000.
Agreed.
>
> I know you disagree with my position on Paul Milne. I'd be interested
> to know in what way do you disagree with my position on Y2K.
I accept the Charlotte's Web contention that even 100% remediated systems
will cause havoc whereas you may not.
The only thing I know for certain is that I have been proven wrong based upon
my expectations for the year of 1999. Very wrong, as in not even close.
There is still evidence to support Milne / Infomagic but there have always been
two sides to this coin. I continue to believe their case has merit because
their contentions include the economic and political risks that are also
evident.
Critics can call this grasping for straws. I admit being ignorant of future
outcomes, the scale of variables is beyond my grasp.
>
> Phil
> --
> Phil Edwards p...@amroth.zetnet.co.uk
> "There were lots of [bugs] before Y2K. There will be
> lots of them after Y2K." - Daniel P.B. Smith
Tom Beckner
William Lynch
>
> William Lynch wrote in message <3878CACD...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >> Like his mentor Fulbright, Clinton won a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford
> >> University. During his two years at Oxford Clinton's opposition to the
> Viet
Actually, Ed Carp posted this in a reply to a question I posted. I did
like your post, however.
Bill Lynch
William Lynch
Thanks for the tip, Tim.
Bill Lynch
Lizard
>I really don't differentiate him from any other sleaze politician, except
>that he happens to be President of the United States, the highest elected
>office in this country, and should be representative of the country.
Bill Clinton is a lying weasel with the ethics of Al Capone and the
morals of a cat in heat.
He is, thus, totally representative of the country.
(And I wouldn't want to live anywhere else!)
li...@ork.net
>>> I could go on and on and on about the man's unsuitability to be
> President, but I think you get the idea
> I do get the idea. I get the idea that you think that non-loathing of
> the military is a requirement for being president. Of course, the
> Constitution makes no such requirement.
How about committing high crimes and misdemeanors? Does that qualify, or
does that become something good in the hands of Clinton?
How about lying under oath? How about assisting perjury? How about
obstruction of justice?
The Goobers
As my memory, admittedly porous as it is, has it, such things were
addressed by the Congress during the Impeachment.
DD
Sammy's huwumin
Phil Edwards
<tbec...@xout.erols.com> wrote:
>> There have been failures and there will be more failures. Y2K
>> remediation was essential and was not completed 100% successfully; the
>> failure to complete it successfully will have effects throughout 2000.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> I know you disagree with my position on Paul Milne. I'd be interested
>> to know in what way do you disagree with my position on Y2K.
>
>I accept the Charlotte's Web contention that even 100% remediated systems
>will cause havoc whereas you may not.
On the contrary, I thought of including a line about how we can be
(mathematically) certain that the remediation process itself will have
introduced more errors; I decided against in the end on the grounds
that it was covered by "...not completed 100% successfully".
So we're pretty much agreed, despite having diametrically opposed
views on the constructiveness or otherwise of Milne's contributions.
Which is interesting.
A.Lizard
wrote:
>"A.Lizard" wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 23:43:55 GMT, The Goobers <docd...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Ed Carp wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Goobers wrote in message <38773707...@home.com>...
>> >>
>> [snip]
>> >> When's the last time you saw a TV set that was made here? When's the last
>> >> time you saw a computer with a US-made motherboard in it?
>> >
>> >Mr Carp, it might just be that the United States no longer makes such
>> >things but makes... other stuff, instead. I know that it is difficult
>> >to measure things like 'ideas' in the same fashion as one measures
>> >widget-production
>> computer software industry profit + entertainment industry profit
>> might give you a first approximation.
>
>A good place to start, certainly... but there are a few research
>facilities here and there which might round out the list.
Certainly. That's why I said "first approximation".
>>
>> >but it might be a Good Thing to muse over the fact
>> >that *everyone*, around the world, agrees that the educational system in
>> >the United States of America is utterly rotten and incompetent...
>> >
>> >... and *everyone*, around the world, wants to send their kids to the
>> >United States to attend college or graduate school. Just because it is
>> >cheaper to make widgets in Lower Slobbovia does *not* mean that the
>> >United States is no longer 'competitive'.
>>
>> However, I don't know of anybody outside the Third World who
>> would want to send their kids to the US for the express purpose
>> of attending elementary through high school. As far as I've been
>> able to see, the arguments I've seen about the US educational
>> system have been *exclusively* focused on the K-12 years.
>
>This may well be... in which case one might see an even more curious
>phenomenon of a pyramid with a 'rotten' base and a universally-admired
>and -acknoeldged, stable top?
Make that universally detested and 'rotten' base... and it is
curious, isn't it?
>>
>> A better question is that why do US colleges and universities
>> work so well and elementary, middle, and high schools fail?
>
>Why, because they are given such good material to work with, of course!
False, but my compliments on your sense of humor. Unfortunately,
the majority of students in college now have to take "bonehead"
English and similiar remedial courses covering material that they
could reasonably have been expected to get in high school.
>>
>> Here's your red herring back. Prepared properly, it will taste
>> almost like eel. :-)
>
>If that is the case then it is no red herring... *everyone* knows the
>best one can do with that is to approximate chicken.
I always thought that was "crunchy frog", but I may be having a
senior moment myself.
A.Lizard
<wbl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>SAG wrote:
>>
>> Tom Beckner wrote:
>> >
>(snip)
>>
>> 1.0001 <= Final Edwards Score <= 1.2000
>>
>> Hence the riddle. When is a "shill" not a "shill." Answer: when he's
>> right!
>
>I would also add: when the "shill" is posting in good faith. Something
>which Milne & his goon squad constantly disparaged.
>
>Bill Lynch
With the *possible* exception of Joe McIssac himself, does
*ANYONE* on the Internet know whether or not his posts with
respect to banking readiness were made in "good faith"?
It's my opinion that he was posting the Usenet equivalent of
publicity handouts which *happened* to approximate (we hope, or
at least I do) the actual state of readiness of the majority of
banks in the US. As to whether he had enough information to know
the actual situation, I have *no* opinion.
A.Lizard
li...@ork.net
> li...@ork.net wrote:
>> How about committing high crimes and misdemeanors? Does that qualify, or
>> does that become something good in the hands of Clinton?
>>
>> How about lying under oath? How about assisting perjury? How about
>> obstruction of justice?
> As my memory, admittedly porous as it is, has it, such things were
> addressed by the Congress during the Impeachment.
Does your porous memory recall for which of those he was impeached?
Douglas Miller
He was impeached for all of those, and unfortunately acquitted on all counts.
--
dlmiller/at/netdirect/dot/net
William Lynch
>
> pgooding <ppgo...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I could go on and on and on about the man's unsuitability to be
> > President, but I think you get the idea
>
> > I do get the idea. I get the idea that you think that non-loathing of
> > the military is a requirement for being president. Of course, the
> > Constitution makes no such requirement.
>
> does that become something good in the hands of Clinton?
>
> How about lying under oath? How about assisting perjury? How about
> obstruction of justice?
The US Senate disposed of this about a year ago, i.e., not guilty across
the board. Did you miss it? It was in all the papers.
Bill Lynch
Paul Milne
<li...@ork.net> wrote in message news:vM9e4.2892$Ef6.7...@news.shore.net...
> William Lynch <wbl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > li...@ork.net wrote:
>
> >> How about committing high crimes and misdemeanors? Does that qualify,
or
> >> does that become something good in the hands of Clinton?
> >>
> >> How about lying under oath? How about assisting perjury? How about
> >> obstruction of justice?
>
> > The US Senate disposed of this about a year ago, i.e., not guilty across
> > the board. Did you miss it? It was in all the papers.
>
> *impeached* President Clinton.
>
> But history will record his guilt. We all saw how he lied to us, on
> national television. He waved his grubby finger at the world, and told us
> that he did NOT have sex with that woman...Monica Lewinsky, and then when
> it was clear that he would be shown to be the liar that he is, because she
> had his semen on her clothing, he changed his story.
>
> Unconvicted, but hopefully soon to be disbarred from the practice of law,
> in his home state.
What home state? He won't go back to Arkansas. NY won't do squat to him. Not
if his equally repugnant and felonious wife gets elected.
--
Paul Milne
Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
bks: "It was not overt lying. It was overgeneralization for rhetorical
purposes."
William Lynch
>
> William Lynch <wbl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > li...@ork.net wrote:
>
> >> How about committing high crimes and misdemeanors? Does that qualify, or
> >> does that become something good in the hands of Clinton?
> >>
> >> How about lying under oath? How about assisting perjury? How about
> >> obstruction of justice?
>
> > The US Senate disposed of this about a year ago, i.e., not guilty across
> > the board. Did you miss it? It was in all the papers.
>
> The Democrats, in a straight party line vote, failed to convict the
> *impeached* President Clinton.
ROTFLMAO. Good one, Liam, tears running down my cheeks.
Bill Lynch
William Lynch
>
> William Lynch <wbl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > li...@ork.net wrote:
>
> >> How about committing high crimes and misdemeanors? Does that qualify, or
> >> does that become something good in the hands of Clinton?
> >>
> >> How about lying under oath? How about assisting perjury? How about
> >> obstruction of justice?
>
> > The US Senate disposed of this about a year ago, i.e., not guilty across
> > the board. Did you miss it? It was in all the papers.
>
> The Democrats, in a straight party line vote, failed to convict the
> *impeached* President Clinton.
>
> national television. He waved his grubby finger at the world, and told us
> that he did NOT have sex with that woman...Monica Lewinsky, and then when
> it was clear that he would be shown to be the liar that he is, because she
> had his semen on her clothing, he changed his story.
>
> Unconvicted, but hopefully soon to be disbarred from the practice of law,
> in his home state.
A continuing right-wing wet dream. Harmless fun & it keeps them off the
streets.
Bill Lynch
Paul Milne
pgooding <ppgo...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:5Wbe4.4722$Dr6....@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> >
> >>>> I could go on and on and on about the man's unsuitability to be
> >> President, but I think you get the idea
> >
> >> I do get the idea. I get the idea that you think that non-loathing of
> >> the military is a requirement for being president. Of course, the
> >> Constitution makes no such requirement.
> >
> >does that become something good in the hands of Clinton?
> >
> >How about lying under oath? How about assisting perjury? How about
> >obstruction of justice?
>
>
>
> 1. High crimes and misdemeanors: The process did not remove him
> from office. I am a process guy. He stays. Whether it "qualifies"
> or not is a political judgement. The judgement was rendered
> by the constitutionally provided authority and process.
>
> 2. Lying under oath: It hink this is redundant, as it was the basis
> for the action against him under your itme #1. He stays.
>
> 3. Assiting perjury: Ditto #2.
>
> 4. Obstruction of justice: Ditto #2.
>
> As luck would have it, his enemies tried these paths, and failed
> to remove him from office.
His 'enemies'?Is that it, they were his 'enemies'? LOL LOL
He lied under oath. He perjurered himself. He obstructed justice. You do not
have to be his 'enemy' to realize that he is a criminal. You could be his
best friend and Clinton would still be a philandering lying obstructing
perjurer. The only question would be why would anyone have someone like
Clinton as a 'friend'?
--
Paul Milne
Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
bks: "It was not overt lying. It was overgeneralization for rhetorical
purposes."
I would not overturn the result. My
> defense is of the process, not the man. The man gives me
> a headache, but I respect the process, not grudgingly, but
> enthusiastically. Happily for you, Clinton will be removed from
> office in about a year, by way of expiration of his final term.
>
>
>
li...@ork.net
>> How about committing high crimes and misdemeanors? Does that qualify, or
>> does that become something good in the hands of Clinton?
>>
>> How about lying under oath? How about assisting perjury? How about
>> obstruction of justice?
> The US Senate disposed of this about a year ago, i.e., not guilty across
Bradley K. Sherman
>William Lynch <wbl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> li...@ork.net wrote:
Uh, you guys are trying to assert that politicians lie?
This must be the csy2k version of dumb and dumber.
--bks
li...@ork.net
No, just that he blatantly lies every chance he gets, both on
international television and under oath.
Bradley K. Sherman
>No, just that he blatantly lies every chance he gets, both on
>international television and under oath.
What a juvenile opinion. Another teenager, I guess.
--bks
The Goobers
>
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 12:19:09 GMT, The Goobers <docd...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"A.Lizard" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 23:43:55 GMT, The Goobers <docd...@home.com>
> >> wrote:
[snippoliente]
> >> >but it might be a Good Thing to muse over the fact
> >> >that *everyone*, around the world, agrees that the educational system in
> >> >the United States of America is utterly rotten and incompetent...
> >> >
> >> >... and *everyone*, around the world, wants to send their kids to the
> >> >United States to attend college or graduate school. Just because it is
> >> >cheaper to make widgets in Lower Slobbovia does *not* mean that the
> >> >United States is no longer 'competitive'.
> >>
> >> However, I don't know of anybody outside the Third World who
> >> would want to send their kids to the US for the express purpose
> >> of attending elementary through high school. As far as I've been
> >> able to see, the arguments I've seen about the US educational
> >> system have been *exclusively* focused on the K-12 years.
> >
> >This may well be... in which case one might see an even more curious
> >phenomenon of a pyramid with a 'rotten' base and a universally-admired
> >and -acknoeldged, stable top?
>
> Make that universally detested and 'rotten' base... and it is
> curious, isn't it?
Answering a question with a question - let along the same question! - is
no answer at all... and as I am of limited experience I try not to deal
with 'universals'.
>
> >>
> >> A better question is that why do US colleges and universities
> >> work so well and elementary, middle, and high schools fail?
> >
> >Why, because they are given such good material to work with, of course!
>
> False, but my compliments on your sense of humor.
Pfoo... you'se jes' easily amused.
> Unfortunately,
> the majority of students in college now have to take "bonehead"
> English and similiar remedial courses covering material that they
> could reasonably have been expected to get in high school.
... and (despite? because of? utterly unconnected-with?) ... this fact
the colleges and universities are still considered to be 'Best O' The
World', as noted above.
Utterly *amazing* what those institutions can do in a mere four years, I
guess.
>
> >>
> >> Here's your red herring back. Prepared properly, it will taste
> >> almost like eel. :-)
> >
> >If that is the case then it is no red herring... *everyone* knows the
> >best one can do with that is to approximate chicken.
>
> I always thought that was "crunchy frog", but I may be having a
> senior moment myself.
No, crunchy frogs run more quickly, maybe.
DD
The Goobers
>
> The Goobers <docd...@home.com> wrote:
> > li...@ork.net wrote:
>
> >> How about committing high crimes and misdemeanors? Does that qualify, or
> >> does that become something good in the hands of Clinton?
> >>
> >> How about lying under oath? How about assisting perjury? How about
> >> obstruction of justice?
>
> > addressed by the Congress during the Impeachment.
>
> Does your porous memory recall for which of those he was impeached?
One of the ones which was addressed, perhaps... if not, then please do
your own homework.
DD
pgooding
li...@ork.net wrote in message ...
>pgooding <ppgo...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I could go on and on and on about the man's unsuitability to be
>> President, but I think you get the idea
>
>> I do get the idea. I get the idea that you think that non-loathing of
>> the military is a requirement for being president. Of course, the
>> Constitution makes no such requirement.
>
>does that become something good in the hands of Clinton?
>
>How about lying under oath? How about assisting perjury? How about
>obstruction of justice?
Well, let's take your questions one at a time:
1. High crimes and misdemeanors: The process did not remove him
from office. I am a process guy. He stays. Whether it "qualifies"
or not is a political judgement. The judgement was rendered
by the constitutionally provided authority and process.
2. Lying under oath: It hink this is redundant, as it was the basis
for the action against him under your itme #1. He stays.
3. Assiting perjury: Ditto #2.
4. Obstruction of justice: Ditto #2.
As luck would have it, his enemies tried these paths, and failed
to remove him from office. I would not overturn the result. My
pgooding
>national television. He waved his grubby finger at the world, and told us
>that he did NOT have sex with that woman...Monica Lewinsky, and then when
>it was clear that he would be shown to be the liar that he is, because she
>had his semen on her clothing, he changed his story.
Which finger is the grubby one? My sly point: Obviously you
have a hard on for the guy; good for you. At least you are not
impotent (you see, there is always a silver lining). But
seriously, I don't give a damn whether he had sex with
Monica Lewinsky or not. And I really don't care that he
lied about it, either. If everyone who has lied about sex
lost their job tomorrow, the country would be in a depression,
and Milne would crow that he was right all along.
li...@ork.net
Sorry, you'll have to scout for others within your age group elsewhere.
I'm older than that.
pgooding
Paul Milne wrote in message <94747538...@helium.cstone.net>...
>His 'enemies'?Is that it, they were his 'enemies'? LOL LOL
Well, I think it would be hard to argue that his friends
arranged the impeachment. Eh?
>He lied under oath. He perjurered himself. He obstructed justice. You do
not
>have to be his 'enemy' to realize that he is a criminal. You could be his
>best friend and Clinton would still be a philandering lying obstructing
>perjurer. The only question would be why would anyone have someone like
>Clinton as a 'friend'?
I have no idea. This is not my area of expertise ... friendship with
strange characters from Arkansas. As I said, I was defending the
process, not the man. Whether you agree with the outcome or not,
the process was applied, and the outcome is in the record books.
Under ordinary circumstances, that would be the end of our not-
very-interesting conversation. But with you, it is never over. You
just have a fascination with making yourself look good by constantly
pointing out what a shithead Bill Clinton is. On me, the technique
does not work. I think he is a shithead, yes, but I also think you
are a shithead, and I don't give you any points for agreeing with
me about Clinton. Clinton will probably never recant his "I did not
have sex with that woman" statement. But what is preventing you
from admitting that you hyped Y2K fears in here without ever having
any factual basis for doing so? It's a rehtorical question, we already
have your answer.
Paul Milne
>
> Paul Milne wrote in message <94747538...@helium.cstone.net>...
>
> >His 'enemies'?Is that it, they were his 'enemies'? LOL LOL
>
>
> Well, I think it would be hard to argue that his friends
> arranged the impeachment. Eh?
>
> >He lied under oath. He perjurered himself. He obstructed justice. You do
> not
> >have to be his 'enemy' to realize that he is a criminal. You could be his
> >best friend and Clinton would still be a philandering lying obstructing
> >perjurer. The only question would be why would anyone have someone like
> >Clinton as a 'friend'?
>
> I have no idea. This is not my area of expertise ... friendship with
> strange characters from Arkansas. As I said, I was defending the
> process, not the man. Whether you agree with the outcome or not,
> the process was applied, and the outcome is in the record books.
No, son ,the 'process' was most asuredly NOT applied. In case you are merely
ignorant, Senator Byrd is on record as having stated that 'Clinton is guilty
as hell and I am going to vote to acquit him. regardless." Or, words very
close to that effect.
Now, if you wnat to stick your neck out and defend a 'process' that is being
carried out by criminals like Senator Byrd, then help your self. The process
is only as good as those carrying it out and our congress is rife with
criminals.
> Under ordinary circumstances, that would be the end of our not-
> very-interesting conversation. But with you, it is never over. You
> just have a fascination with making yourself look good by constantly
> pointing out what a shithead Bill Clinton is.
Being that clinton is a shit-head is no reflection one way or the other upon
me. The reflection is upon this country that we could have such a vile,
craven and repugnant chief executive.
On me, the technique
> does not work. I think he is a shithead, yes, but I also think you
> are a shithead, and I don't give you any points for agreeing with
> me about Clinton. Clinton will probably never recant his "I did not
> have sex with that woman" statement. But what is preventing you
> from admitting that you hyped Y2K fears in here without ever having
> any factual basis for doing so? It's a rehtorical question, we already
> have your answer.
>
I have not at all hyped anything. At very worst, the only thing that is
off...is timing.
pgooding
Paul Milne wrote in message <94748136...@helium.cstone.net>...
>No, son ,the 'process' was most asuredly NOT applied. In case you are
merely
>ignorant, Senator Byrd is on record as having stated that 'Clinton is
guilty
>as hell and I am going to vote to acquit him. regardless." Or, words very
>close to that effect.
>
>Now, if you wnat to stick your neck out and defend a 'process' that is
being
>carried out by criminals like Senator Byrd, then help your self. The
process
>is only as good as those carrying it out and our congress is rife with
>criminals.
Please do not refer to me as your "son". This would put
a stain on my reputation, as I am sure you can understand.
Milne, you are a moron. The process was applied. You
just don't like the outcome. The senate trial is a political
judgment, members can vote any way they wish. That
is the process, whether you like it or not. You can argue
that Byrd made the wrong decision, and make your case.
But his vote is valid even if he makes it by flipping a coin.
If you don't like the process, you can always work to
change the Constitution. With your track record of
persuasion, I am sure that you will succeed.
>> Under ordinary circumstances, that would be the end of our not-
>> very-interesting conversation. But with you, it is never over. You
>> just have a fascination with making yourself look good by constantly
>> pointing out what a shithead Bill Clinton is.
>
>Being that clinton is a shit-head is no reflection one way or the other
upon
>me. The reflection is upon this country that we could have such a vile,
>craven and repugnant chief executive.
So, the country is bad?
>> On me, the technique
>> does not work. I think he is a shithead, yes, but I also think you
>> are a shithead, and I don't give you any points for agreeing with
>> me about Clinton. Clinton will probably never recant his "I did not
>> have sex with that woman" statement. But what is preventing you
>> from admitting that you hyped Y2K fears in here without ever having
>> any factual basis for doing so? It's a rehtorical question, we already
>> have your answer.
>>
>
>I have not at all hyped anything. At very worst, the only thing that is
>off...is timing.
Well, Paul, you know what they say: Timing is everything.
Paul Milne
>
> Paul Milne wrote in message <94748136...@helium.cstone.net>...
> >No, son ,the 'process' was most asuredly NOT applied. In case you are
> merely
> >ignorant, Senator Byrd is on record as having stated that 'Clinton is
> guilty
> >as hell and I am going to vote to acquit him. regardless." Or, words
very
> >close to that effect.
> >
> >Now, if you wnat to stick your neck out and defend a 'process' that is
> being
> >carried out by criminals like Senator Byrd, then help your self. The
> process
> >is only as good as those carrying it out and our congress is rife with
> >criminals.
>
> Please do not refer to me as your "son". This would put
> a stain on my reputation, as I am sure you can understand.
> Milne, you are a moron. The process was applied.
No it was not. senator Byrd, for one took an OATH to apply the law
impartially and he REFUSED to do it, therefore making a shambles of any
process that COULD have been applied.
Perhaps you think that a process has been applied when elected
representatives intentionally circumvent it breaking their oaths as they do
it.
You
> just don't like the outcome.
Not at all. There was no 'outcome'. There was no process. The democrats
railroaded the decision straight on through. They pencil-whipped it good.
The senate trial is a political
> judgment, members can vote any way they wish.
Yes they can. And before they vote they should not go before the press and
specifically claim that they will violate their oath and find the man not
guilty even though he is guilty as sin.
Perhaps you could devote some time to that issue.
That
> is the process, whether you like it or not. You can argue
> that Byrd made the wrong decision, and make your case.
No, he did not merely make a wrong decision. He broke his oath and violated
his public trust. of course, you just want to chalk that up to a bad
decision. How convenient.
> But his vote is valid even if he makes it by flipping a coin.
No it is not. he took an oath to do impartial justice. The flipping of a
coin could not possibly do thta. To assert that it could shows your malice.
> If you don't like the process, you can always work to
> change the Constitution.
The constitution does not need to be 'changed' it need s to be acted upon,
which it has not for many mnay mnay years.
With your track record of
> persuasion, I am sure that you will succeed.
>
> >> Under ordinary circumstances, that would be the end of our not-
> >> very-interesting conversation. But with you, it is never over. You
> >> just have a fascination with making yourself look good by constantly
> >> pointing out what a shithead Bill Clinton is.
> >
> >Being that clinton is a shit-head is no reflection one way or the other
> upon
> >me. The reflection is upon this country that we could have such a vile,
> >craven and repugnant chief executive.
>
> So, the country is bad?
>
The country is wildly beyond reform at this point. The present government is
corrupt and unconstitutional as the day is long.
> >> On me, the technique
> >> does not work. I think he is a shithead, yes, but I also think you
> >> are a shithead, and I don't give you any points for agreeing with
> >> me about Clinton. Clinton will probably never recant his "I did not
> >> have sex with that woman" statement. But what is preventing you
> >> from admitting that you hyped Y2K fears in here without ever having
> >> any factual basis for doing so? It's a rehtorical question, we already
> >> have your answer.
> >>
> >
> >I have not at all hyped anything. At very worst, the only thing that is
> >off...is timing.
>
>
> Well, Paul, you know what they say: Timing is everything.
>
>
Yup, sure is.
Whit In Wa
>studied the evidence, but because they WANTED it to happen.
Well hun, I wasn't and am not predicting TEOTWAWKI. And *IF* it were to the
degree a few doomers were predicting (mass embedded system failures, or
long-term grid failure) It would have given Big Brother MORE power, not less.
So I was definately NOT hoping for that. There have been so many unbelievable
executive orders passed in the past 20 years.. taking away basicall *ALL* the
rights of the American Citizens - if and when Big Brother should decide it
needs to. And TEOTWAWKI - long term grid failure - would have given them just
the opportunity.
People here may think I'm some sorta extremist anti-government activist. I'm
not Prior to my decision to get involved again in THIS issue in Nov of 98,
ormally I'd go months at a time without ever discussing Big Brother...
Computers/sexuality/history are my three favorite topics.
Hopefully by mid Feb.. I'll be proven wrong about this issue.. and can start to
enjoy my conversations again.
Whit
.
.