You Can Forget Electricity
Paul Milne
My conscience is bothering me and I've got to say something. I read Mitch
Ratcliffe's challenge on ZDNet. He apparently thinks that everything's going
fine with all the Y2K remediation work because no one who is involved in it
will speak out publicly.
Sorry, but the $1000 doesn't cut it. I have been warned by management that
if I go public or say anything negative it's my CAREER. They'll destroy me.
I've been in the business for 30 years and I'm too old to change careers.
I can't identify myself, but I can speak out.
I work for an electrical utility. (I won't say where because you'd figure
out who it is.) If our company is indication, the lights ARE going out next
January at the crack of midnight.
We don't have time to test every piece of equipment. What we're doing is
TYPE CHECKING, which is just a fancy of way of saying SPOT CHECKING. Just
the other day I looked at a Phillips VRZ262-Q7 unit that monitors the
current in four 05388 sub assemblies. I wanted to check everything but my
supervisor said, "NO just check one assembly." We ASSUME that the other
three will be OK. We're doing the same thing with our Siemens System 3
SCADA; we're only looking at some of the RTUs. They've declared the DPS
system to be "non-mission-critical" so we're not even checking it!
I'm worried because we've been laying off people right and left to cut costs
for the past 5 years. Some of these people have gone to work for private
contractors, but a lot of them have gone into other types of work. The
company is being run by kids in business suits, and these geniuses think
that they'll be able to hire the private contractors to help out in a pinch.
BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE OVERLOADED, TOO.
The April 9 drill was a PR stunt. Lane Core was right. I don't know what
everyone else did but I can TELL you what we did. We talked to each other on
walkie-talkies and had a great picnic.
One day last winter we advanced the dates on the EMS and the power went off.
Cascade failures knocked out a bunch of other stuff. Because of that the
geniuses decided that we can't test the entire system, so we just work on
"spot remediation." We make sure all the dates LOOK right so that we can
claim good numbers in our reports. The first time the whole system will be
tested together is January 1 2000!
(Don't you remember reading about that big outage last Winter? That's what
happened! I was there!)
Prepare people. Don't let the Happy Faces fool you. You should be ready for
a week at least with no power on New Year's with random outages of 4-6 hours
for at least another YEAR. Or WORSE.
-- Worried Utility Worker (wor...@eusa.com), June 28, 1999
Dear Worried,
I don't know what area of the country you are in, and that is fine with me.
I respect your desire for anonymity. I've travelled the western two-thirds
of the country this past year on business not related to Y2K as a speaker at
large seminars and I can assure you that you are not alone. I've had
numerous other Electrical Utility workers come to me during breaks in the
seminar/conferences to relate to me what they've seen going on with their
companies.
You are not the first to tell me of threats by senior management. I know
some folks who know so much that is bad that they are terrified that the
information might get out and that they would be blamed. They told me anyway
because they trusted that my expertise as a former news reporter included
reporter confidentiality. They entrusted that to me and I've kept it.
The testing situation you describe is what I've heard in perhaps a dozen
different power companies. One guy told me that they don't have the manpower
nor the replacements to test and replace what they figured they'd need...so
they're just doing some spot testing.
BUT...that's not the worst of it. Guess what...its even worse in the oil
industry...which I have tons more testimony from folk in that
industry...including relatives. They indicate that spot testing is all that
can be done, and they don't even know where a lot of the stuff is.
Furthermore, some companies in the oil fields are not even bothering to test
their systems...preferring to "fix on fail" or wait for Bill Gates to ride
to the rescue. It's nearly as bad in the refineries also. SO... your company
may not have any oil to fuel your plants (if you use oil) or get any coal
from the railroads (they use diesel fuel, that the refineries will likely be
interrupted from supplying so the trains may not run)... then of course
there is the issue of gasoline for you folks needing to run around repairing
lines. There's only about a 3 day inventory of gasoline...sometimes just a
day or two... (not much storage capacity is left to tank up more than that
in most refineries).
So... consider that ... and consider that if your power goes down and the
refineries in areas below 40 degrees will have to shut down because while
they've got power plants for lights and control room equipment, etc...most
don't have separate power generation to keep the oil lines warmer than 40
degrees...below which the oil congeals and the plant shuts down and likely
would be forced into lengthy cleanups. IF there are repeated shut downs of
4-6 hours duration at a refinery during such below 40 degree temps... then
it is likely such plants won't even be able to adequately start production
till 90 days after warm weather keeps temps continously above 40 degrees.
Now maybe you get an even clearer picture of the impact oil and electricity
have on each other... a combination of the problems you're describing plus
the problems in the oil side...could spell extreme trouble for everybody...
therefore... your one week problem could become exceedingly longer... maybe
even a year??? I don't know...but perhaps its not so unfathomable that the
power grid may go dark and perhaps stay dark for 6 months or a year. One
industries problems may feed the others in a vicious cycle.
It's certainly not going to be any bump in the road situation unless we're
all extremely fortunate beyond belief.
However, I still say the odds are more likely for serious problems lasting 6
months to a year....but you're report if typical of the entire industry
(despite Rick Cowles and others testimony to the contrary)... then minimum
recoveries might be even longer.
-- R.C. (raca,b...@mailcity.com), June 29, 1999.
(snip first part)
After months of serious Y2K research, I still can't predict, even roughly,
what Y2K in and of itself will result in next year. But I know a grossly
overvalued stock market and a highly vulnerable economy (both domestic and
global) when I see it; I know something about human nature; I know what
mystery, fear, and uncertainty can do. I know "the horror, the horror" of
the primitive subconscious beast within.
There's a terrible irony here. If more companies aren't more forthcoming,
and don't let their employees be more forthcoming (be the news good, bad, or
indifferent), we are likely to wreak upon ourselves far more lasting harm
than what any noncompliant VZ whatever gizmo could do by itself. By their
very acts to protect themselves, many companies may be slitting their own
corporate throats.
However this all turns out, we are all (no matter where we stand on Y2K or
what we have done or haven't done) going to look back on this and not feel
very good about ourselves. A mirror has been held up to our society--and the
reflection is ugly.
-- Don Florence (dflo...@zianet.com), June 29, 1999.
================
The failure of the remediation was always an EASILY predictable blend of
gradeschool math, the human nature of 'business as usual', and IT Metrics.
There is going to be a great collective 'dope-slap'. Everyone will be crying
that they told us everything was alright, "Trust us."
That feeling of betrayal will be the principal fuel of the chaos that
ensues. The dominant theme of the mayhem will be 'betrayal'. Betrayal by
government, betrayal by business, betrayal by the media and betrayal by
families.
The absolute levels of naivete are astonishing. The levels of
self-deception, no less so. But the last of the responses above indicates
that even in the face of voluminous information there are those who STILL
think that they can not conclude what is going to happen. They just refuse
to concluded it. It is too horrible to contemplate. And THAT is exactly why
it is going to be so bad. When people like these finally realize that they
have been betrayed. And they have not made substantial preparations.
Paul Milne
wi...@my-deja.com
"Paul Milne" <fed...@halifax.com> wrote:
> From The Yourdon forum:
>
> One day last winter we advanced the dates on the EMS and the power
went off.
> Cascade failures knocked out a bunch of other stuff. Because of that
the
> geniuses decided that we can't test the entire system, so we just work
on
> "spot remediation." We make sure all the dates LOOK right so that we
can
> claim good numbers in our reports. The first time the whole system
will be
> tested together is January 1 2000!
>
> (Don't you remember reading about that big outage last Winter? That's
what
> happened! I was there!)
Oh, yeah, I remember that big power outage last Winter [sic]. So that's
what that was!
Methinks somebody needs new batteries for the bullshit detector. Aren't
you supposed to change them every spring and fall when you change the
clocks?
-JW
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Don Scott
>The failure of the remediation was always an EASILY predictable blend of
>gradeschool math, the human nature of 'business as usual', and IT Metrics.
>
Paul:
Much like we believe little of what you write here, you should believe
little of what is written by others elsewhere.
It might cause you to worry.
DS
Tom Beckner
>In article <93067192...@helium.cstone.net>,
> "Paul Milne" <fed...@halifax.com> wrote:
>> From The Yourdon forum:
>>
>went off.
>> Cascade failures knocked out a bunch of other stuff. Because of that
>the
>> geniuses decided that we can't test the entire system, so we just work
>on
>> "spot remediation." We make sure all the dates LOOK right so that we
>can
>> claim good numbers in our reports. The first time the whole system
>will be
>> tested together is January 1 2000!
>>
>> (Don't you remember reading about that big outage last Winter? That's
>what
>> happened! I was there!)
>
>what that was!
>
>Methinks somebody needs new batteries for the bullshit detector. Aren't
>you supposed to change them every spring and fall when you change the
>clocks?
>
> -JW
>
JW:
Can you identify the largest power failure in the US in the
past twelve months?
After you have done that, look up some newspaper articles and
see the published cause.
Then, find someone that does utility work, high voltage
sub station work, tell them the story and the published cause
and ask their opinion.
Then, tell them the cause in the above article. Ask them which
is more believable.
Tom Beckner
John 3X
TYPE CHECKING, which is just a fancy of way of saying SPOT CHECKING. Just
the other day I looked at a Phillips VRZ262-Q7 unit that monitors the
current >>
A Phillips VRZ262 is a VCR, dumbass.
http://www.giantsavings.com/dnbenteprisesinc/philmagvrz26.html
Steve Heller
><< We don't have time to test every piece of equipment. What we're doing is
>TYPE CHECKING, which is just a fancy of way of saying SPOT CHECKING. Just
>the other day I looked at a Phillips VRZ262-Q7 unit that monitors the
>current >>
>
>
>A Phillips VRZ262 is a VCR, dumbass.
>
>
>http://www.giantsavings.com/dnbenteprisesinc/philmagvrz26.html
You may not have noticed, but there is a slight difference between
Philips Magnavox (consumer electronics) and Phillips Petroleum
(petrochemicals and equipment therefore). Note that they are even
spelled differently; one L vs. 2 L's.
--
Steve Heller, WA0CPP
PGP public key available from http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
http://www.koyote.com/users/stheller/homepage.html
Author of "Who's Afraid of C++?", "Who's Afraid of More C++?",
"Optimizing C++", and other books
Tom Beckner
><< We don't have time to test every piece of equipment. What we're doing is
>TYPE CHECKING, which is just a fancy of way of saying SPOT CHECKING. Just
>the other day I looked at a Phillips VRZ262-Q7 unit that monitors the
>current >>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.giantsavings.com/dnbenteprisesinc/philmagvrz26.html
>
You mean Philips Magnavox VRZ262AT, from the link you posted.
Why did you leave out the "AT"?
Tom Beckner
wi...@my-deja.com
Tom Beckner <tbec...@xout.erols.com> wrote:
> wi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >In article <93067192...@helium.cstone.net>,
> > "Paul Milne" <fed...@halifax.com> wrote:
> >> From The Yourdon forum:
> >>
> >went off.
> >> Cascade failures knocked out a bunch of other stuff. Because of
that
> >the
> >> geniuses decided that we can't test the entire system, so we just
work
> >on
> >> "spot remediation." We make sure all the dates LOOK right so that
we
> >can
> >> claim good numbers in our reports. The first time the whole system
> >will be
> >> tested together is January 1 2000!
> >>
> >> (Don't you remember reading about that big outage last Winter?
That's
> >what
> >> happened! I was there!)
> >
that's
> >what that was!
> >
> >Methinks somebody needs new batteries for the bullshit detector.
Aren't
> >you supposed to change them every spring and fall when you change the
> >clocks?
> >
> > -JW
> >
>
> JW:
>
> Can you identify the largest power failure in the US in the
> past twelve months?
No, but what does that have to do with anything? It doesn't say
anything about the "largest power failure in the US", just "that big
outage". Who knows what "that big outage" refers to?
>
> After you have done that, look up some newspaper articles and
> see the published cause.
>
I suppose I could try to look up some articles, if I had any idea what
"that big outage" referred to. Here's the result of searching
altavista for "that big outage":
AltaVista found no document matching your query
A search of the Boston Globe (www.boston.com) turned up several
stories about big outages last winter, one due to snow and ice, the
other due to a fire in an overloaded transformer. Which one are we
talking about?
> Then, find someone that does utility work, high voltage
> sub station work, tell them the story and the published cause
> and ask their opinion.
>
> Then, tell them the cause in the above article. Ask them which
> is more believable.
>
I don't know any power engineers offhand, but I am guessing that if
I did find one, they would find either ice and snow or an overloaded
transformer pretty believable.
> Tom Beckner
>
>
Hmmmm. Maybe there's a general battery shortage. All the people
stocking up for y2k perhaps?
John 3X
>>A Phillips VRZ262 is a VCR, dumbass.
>>http://www.giantsavings.com/dnbenteprisesinc/philmagvrz26.html
>You may not have noticed, but there is a
>slight difference between Philips Magnavox
>(consumer electronics) and Phillips Petroleum
>(petrochemicals and equipment therefore). Note
>that they are even spelled differently; one L
>vs. 2 L's.
Thanks for the clarification, however, according to Phillips Petroleum website,
they don't make any devices that monitor current. If they did, wouldn't you
think the chances are slim that they would use a model-numbering scheme
IDENTICAL to a similarly-named company that happens to make electronic
devices???
John 3X
>>>VRZ262-Q7 unit that monitors the current
>>A Phillips VRZ262 is a VCR, dumbass.
>>http://www.giantsavings.com/dnbenteprisesinc/philmagvrz26.html
>You mean Philips Magnavox VRZ262AT, from
>the link you posted.
>Why did you leave out the "AT"?
Oh my god, your're RIGHT!!! He said the VRZ262-Q7, and you saw the VRZ262AT, so
clearly he must be telling the TRUTH, even though Philips apparently doesn't
mention any VRZ262-Q7 ANYWHERE, and it just appears that he took the model
number for a VCR and changed the last two alphanumerics.
Yes, that's it. The Philips VRZ262 line, including the latest in VCRs and
ELECTRICAL CURRENT MONITORS. Yeah.
Are you really so incredibly clueless that you don't see the original post for
the obvious troll that it is??? If so, then you're even stupider than Milne, if
that's possible.
Paul Milne
smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
<377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
>State of Y2K for this month.
>
>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
>
>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
>
>-- Stephen
> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
>
You'll be dead soon.
Paul Milne
smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam
Bob Brock
Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
>
>Paul Milne
Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may actually
take you seriously.
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
news:377e9...@news4.his.com...
Funny ... I thought that he was simply stating the likely outcome of Steve's
inadequate Y2k preparations. I guess that I'll read more into Paul's posts
from now on. ;-)
Anyone living within two miles of Stephen Poole ... should probably move.
Ciao,
--
D. Scott Secor, Year 2000 Institute & Board of Inquiry, Mpls., MN USA
Define "Compliance" or "Readiness" in 500 words or less. Originality
and lack of conformity will be awarded extra credit! http://y2k.board.org/
Bob Brock
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator wrote in message ...
>Bob Brock <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in message
>news:377e9...@news4.his.com...
>>
>> Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
>> >
>> >smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>> ><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>> >>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
>> >>State of Y2K for this month.
>> >>
>> >>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
>> >>
>> >>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
>> >>
>> >>-- Stephen
>> >> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You'll be dead soon.
>> >
>> >Paul Milne
>>
>>
>> Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may
actually
>> take you seriously.
>
>
>Funny ... I thought that he was simply stating the likely outcome of
Steve's
>inadequate Y2k preparations. I guess that I'll read more into Paul's posts
>from now on. ;-)
I really think that the solution would be for you not to read anything into
it. Of course then you would just be left with what he wrote.
Bob Brock
Don Joe - see signature wrote in message
<3788b807...@sbpw.dh5ilhfw.tmm>...
>On Sat, 3 Jul 1999 19:04:29 -0400, "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net>
wrote:
>
>>
>>Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
>>>
>>>smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>>><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>>>>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
>>>>State of Y2K for this month.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
>>>>
>>>>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
>>>>
>>>>-- Stephen
>>>> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You'll be dead soon.
>>>
>>>Paul Milne
>>
>>
>>Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may actually
>>take you seriously.
>
Yeah, you're right. Think it will take that long?
eat_my_h...@my-deja.com
paulie is just being a crybaby cuz his July 1 date is proving him to be
an empty minded asshole! loser! the world laughs at Milne!
suck my asshole, PAUL!
Paul Milne
Bob Brock wrote in message <377e9...@news4.his.com>...
>
>Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
>>
>>smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>>>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
>>>State of Y2K for this month.
>>>
>>>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
>>>
>>>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
>>>
>>>-- Stephen
>>> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
>>>
>>
>>You'll be dead soon.
>>
>>Paul Milne
>
>
>Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may actually
>take you seriously.
>
>
It is not a threat, shithead. It is a prognostication of where his
compalcence will land him by not preparing and being caught with his pants
down.
For you to call it a 'threat' is a lie and once again shows what an
intellectual coward you are.
Paul Milne
Ralph Daugherty
> > > went off. Cascade failures knocked out a bunch of other stuff. Because
> > > of that the geniuses decided that we can't test the entire system, so
> > > we just work on "spot remediation." We make sure all the dates LOOK
> > > right so that we can claim good numbers in our reports. The first time
> > > the whole system will be tested together is January 1 2000!
When are you guys going to quit responding to these bogus posts? It's
unfortunate that they've been propagated, but they're obviously bogus. This
is the second stupid story I've seen in the last five minutes.
Ralph
Bob Brock
"Paul Milne" <fed...@halifax.com> wrote:
>
> Bob Brock wrote in message <377e9...@news4.his.com>...
> >
> >Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
> >>
> >>smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
> >><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
> >>>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see
the
> >>>State of Y2K for this month.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
SNIP
> >Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may
actually
> >take you seriously.
> >
> >
>
> It is not a threat, shithead. It is a prognostication of where his
> compalcence will land him by not preparing and being caught with his
pants
> down.
Well never mind then, hell if it's a prognostication from you, it sure
can't be a threat. In fact, there is almost a 100% probability that
it's wrong.
>
> For you to call it a 'threat' is a lie and once again shows what an
> intellectual coward you are.
Yeah right. At least I'm not celebrating Independence Day by engaging
in a fantasy about how I could be a part of the new secessionist
movement. Your motives are becomming more apparent Paul.
cory hamasaki
Bob Blackmo
seem pretty clearly stated to me and have been since virtually day
one, at least in this ng.
I often wonder about what your motives, since you, like several
others, keep changing the focus of your message from week to week. Are
you trying to "quash the doomsters", or are you a shill of a different
feather. Are you perhaps a JBT on a disinformation mission? Or just a
concerned individual, who really feels that y2k might have some
negative impact. A propagandist PR flak. Or someone who, IMO,
misguidely believes that "panic is the problem"?
At least PM is consistent about his political agenda, even if one
disagrees with his message. I've always understood that one should
keep his friends close, and his enemies closer. In your case, it's
hard to tell which you are. My gut feeling, from the trolling fashion
in which you present your case, is that you are hiding your true
agenda. The same can't be said about Milne.
blackmo
Bob Brock wrote in message <7lnpua$sr8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Don Scott
Bob Brock
Bob Blackmo wrote in message ...
>What makes you imply that PM has ever been *hiding* his motives? They
>seem pretty clearly stated to me and have been since virtually day
>one, at least in this ng.
Well, to be perfectly honest with you, this is the first time I've seen the
little seditionist actually advocate secession. I could have missed all
those other times, but I really don't think so.
>I often wonder about what your motives, since you, like several
>others, keep changing the focus of your message from week to week. Are
>you trying to "quash the doomsters", or are you a shill of a different
>feather. Are you perhaps a JBT on a disinformation mission? Or just a
>concerned individual, who really feels that y2k might have some
>negative impact. A propagandist PR flak. Or someone who, IMO,
>misguidely believes that "panic is the problem"?
So many lables to choose from. I don't think I'll pick any of those.
>At least PM is consistent about his political agenda, even if one
>disagrees with his message. I've always understood that one should
>keep his friends close, and his enemies closer. In your case, it's
>hard to tell which you are. My gut feeling, from the trolling fashion
>in which you present your case, is that you are hiding your true
>agenda. The same can't be said about Milne.
I don't guess you would believe me if I told you that I had no agenda except
the prusuit of truth. Would you?
Bob Blackmo
>Bob Blackmo wrote in message ...
>>What makes you imply that PM has ever been *hiding* his motives?
They
>>seem pretty clearly stated to me and have been since virtually day
>>one, at least in this ng.
>
>Well, to be perfectly honest with you, this is the first time I've
seen the
>little seditionist actually advocate secession. I could have missed
all
>those other times, but I really don't think so.
It's not the first time he's stated his feelings about the federal
government, nor is it the first time he's stated that he would like
the South to "Rise Again". I've engaged in a brief dispute with him on
this point myself, but that was quite awhile ago.
>>I often wonder about what your motives, since you, like several
>>others, keep changing the focus of your message from week to week.
Are
>>you trying to "quash the doomsters", or are you a shill of a
different
>>feather. Are you perhaps a JBT on a disinformation mission? Or just
a
>>concerned individual, who really feels that y2k might have some
>>negative impact. A propagandist PR flak. Or someone who, IMO,
>>misguidely believes that "panic is the problem"?
>
>So many lables to choose from. I don't think I'll pick any of those.
In all honesty, the only one *I* apply to you is the "quash the
doomsters", and this label is probably not very accurate, since it has
come to my awareness that the label "doomster" is an extremely wide
catagory. As an example, I feel that I fall into the doomer camp, but
only because I see the *possibility* of major catastrophic impact. I
see no point in the South Rising again, but I'm a flatlander, it's not
my place to tell the "South" to shut the hell up. I see no need for a
Christian Reconstructionist movement, I see little need for JBT's or
any of the other bs, either. All I see is (as Cory put it...and I
paraphrase) a non-zero possibility of major system collapse. This is
not based on the fact that I am a drooling lapdog of Cory, or Paul,
which I'm not...(sure, I drool from time to time, but I've never sat
on their lap) but because I've been interested in chaos and complexity
theory, as well as networks. These two interests have always been
related, in my mind.
>>At least PM is consistent about his political agenda, even if one
>>disagrees with his message. I've always understood that one should
>>keep his friends close, and his enemies closer. In your case, it's
>>hard to tell which you are. My gut feeling, from the trolling
fashion
>>in which you present your case, is that you are hiding your true
>>agenda. The same can't be said about Milne.
>
>I don't guess you would believe me if I told you that I had no agenda
except
>the prusuit of truth. Would you?
I'm leaning that way, and have been for a while. Believe it or not.
blackmo
SAG
<snip the Double Doomer>
> self-deception, no less so.
Oh, that I could only help you see that it is YOUR naivete that is
astonishing and that YOU have deceived YOURSELF so thoroughly.
Tried to, months ago, on the embedded systems in refineries thread
(IRRC, Paul came to understand that these were called "embedded" 'cause
they were embedded in concrete). Paul laughed it off my counter
explanation. I'm not even going to try on this one.
SAG
SAG
> Can you identify the largest power failure in the US in the
> past twelve months?
That would be San Francisco, possibly. Is that what you have in mind?
>
> After you have done that, look up some newspaper articles and
> see the published cause.
>
> Then, find someone that does utility work, high voltage
> sub station work, tell them the story and the published cause
> and ask their opinion.
>
> Then, tell them the cause in the above article. Ask them which
> is more believable.
The newspaper story being that somebody left a grounding strap in place
after working on a transformer or breaker repair?
Choose between the two? That's easy, the newspaper account! Did you
follow, couple months ago, the story on the hydrogen explosion in
Florida 'cause the maintenance staff didn't perform their hydrogen purge
procedure before opening the generator casing? Tragic but true; wish it
were otherwise but this kind of mistake is not uncommon.
Now let's talk about credibility . . . . That outage impacted
*portions* of the city of San Francisco. I have first hand knowledge of
this 'cause my sister, who lives in the Bernal Heights area of the city
was unaffected.
Next, think about PG&E's utility service area:
http://www.pge.com/pgecorp/financial/reports/1997annualreport/utility-operations.html.
Now I don't have first hand information on this but, with their compact
service area, guess that they operate one electric control area which
means that they have only ONE EMS (Energy Management System) -- if that
failed in service due to a y2k test, HOW COME ONLY A PORTION OF THE CITY
OF SAN FRANCISCO was impacted?
Finally, what makes you believe that a utility has made no provision for
testing these systems -- that they have no choice but to *test* on the
running EMS with this kind of exposure. How ever old this system is,
how did they ever get it into operation without a test facility. How do
they install software upgrade? How will they ever replace it?
Sorry,
This story, IMO, is bogus.
SAG
Tom Beckner
You are searching for the truth?
One characteristic of a man searching for the truth is that
he asks questions.
You, however, are unencumbered with that burden.
Your mischaracterizations, rhetoric and bullshit are becoming
more transparent.
If you were to take the time to frame direct questions, there
are knowledgable people that follow this ng that would give
you direct answers, or source information to research.
Tom Beckner
smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam
wrote:
>Please CET, please get a clue so you won't get trapped in an elevator
>like the Mayor of L.A., have your phones or permits systems fail like
>Monkey-see Monkey-do County, get swept away by a sea-tide of sewage
>while picnicing in the Van Nuys park, have to stare at blank screens as
>at Peach Bottom 2.
You know that you sound like a broken record, don't you? You are
becoming more and more pathetic, Cory. You keep repeating the same
dozen or so examples over and again, as if by repetition you can
convince yourself (and other weak-minded people) that golly, gee whiz,
"Houston, we have a problem!" and "WHOA-oh" something REALLY BAD is
going to happen next year, but I've got lots of canned tuna, so I'll
be OK, but Poole is gonna die .. . ..
I am ever-increasingly amused at how you have quietly decided to
abandon the Jo Anne Effect thing, because by now, it should be obvious
even to YOU that it was a blown prediction. A BUST. A NO-GO.
Given that you couldn't even get that one right (and if you like, I'll
be glad to quote your oh, so CAREFULLY reasoned argument about the
thing from last year), why in the WORLD should I CARE what you, or
anyone like you, thinks?
Do you realize -- do you even have mental capacity to GRASP -- does
ANY Doomer realize, just ONE DOOMER ON THE FACE OF THIS TINY PLANET!
-- that on the same day in which the events which you describe, and
which are launching you to new heights of euphoria, happened,
THOUSANDS of other computer systems failed ... some of them
spectacularly! ... and never even made the news?
(There's a free clue there, but I've long since despaired of you or
any other Doomlit getting it.)
Are you capable of processing the fact that this happens every day?
That (just to give one example from the NCSA) on a given business day,
an average of 140 systems are hammered by computer viruses ALONE,
causing downtime and loss of production (in some cases, measured in
DAYS) while the problem is straightened out?
Did you even NOTICE that Asia got hammered by the Win95.CIH
"Chernobyl" computer virus -- hundreds of thousands of systems
hammered in a SINGLE DAY! -- and they worked around it IN SPITE OF A
HORRID ECONOMY TO START WITH?
(Consider that another free clue.)
Ever call K-Mart or Sears or your insurance company to ask about your
bill, only to have the Cylon on the other end of the line say, "call
back later, our computers are down?"
(Yet still another free clue.)
ROFL! Do you think that elevators only fail because of Y2K? That
monitoring systems at nuclear power plants have NEVER gone out before?
That software bugs have NEVER printed bogus checks, or mailed
incorrect bills?
You, and people like you, are absolutely amazing. You count
individual trees which happen to be diseased and never even see the
giant, healthy green forest all around you.
>Is it starting to sink in?
What has sunk in, more than anything else, is that either you are a
disingenuous clown/troll who is in this for a cheap blood rush -- for
the LIFE of me, I cannot bring myself to believe that someone could be
so ignorant of BASIC FACTS -- or you are indeed something worse than a
moron.
NO ONE -- save for Doomlits who think you're cute, and Paul Milne, who
is proof that the aliens have invaded -- takes you seriously anymore.
GET THE NEWS. ASSIMILATE IT.
YOUR OWN PREDICTIONS HAVE FAILED. WHY IN THE *WORLD* SHOULD I LISTEN
TO A WORD YOU HAVE TO SAY FROM THIS POINT FORWARD?
(Mutter ... mutter .. .. . .. .. slowly coming to my senses . .. . )
I experience epiphany: Why should I waste further time on morons?
-- Stephen (answer: I won't. Be well.)
Bob Blackmo
smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>"Chernobyl" computer virus --
Thank you. <g>
blackmo
Tom Beckner
Here is the deal. I will trust you. Look into it, come up with
some firsthand information and I will accept it on your
word.
Get out of the Ivory Tower and down on the street for just
a little while.
The advertised cause was a utility crew leaving a ground leg
attached when they put a substation back in service.
Bullshit.
I cannot get a temporary feed connected if the sky is cloudy.
Look. I have blown up as much stuff as I have fixed, but that
is small time.
These guys are in another world, another level. They don't
make this kind of mistake and live to tell about it.
As far as the Florida explosion goes, think about it. Remove a
door that has warning labels the size of the door without
permission? Give me a break.
Same for that one. Get out of the Ivory Tower, come up with
some street level verification. I'll trust your judgement.
Maybe you are the guy I have been waiting to hear from, either
way.
We don't need Dick Tracy, one of the Hardey Boys will do just
fine. Good luck and Godspeed.
Tom Beckner
Tom Beckner
snip
>Do you realize -- do you even have mental capacity to GRASP -- does
>ANY Doomer realize, just ONE DOOMER ON THE FACE OF THIS TINY PLANET!
>-- that on the same day in which the events which you describe, and
>which are launching you to new heights of euphoria, happened,
>THOUSANDS of other computer systems failed ... some of them
>spectacularly! ... and never even made the news?
>
>(There's a free clue there, but I've long since despaired of you or
>any other Doomlit getting it.)
>
>Are you capable of processing the fact that this happens every day?
>That (just to give one example from the NCSA) on a given business day,
>an average of 140 systems are hammered by computer viruses ALONE,
>causing downtime and loss of production (in some cases, measured in
>DAYS) while the problem is straightened out?
>
>Did you even NOTICE that Asia got hammered by the Win95.CIH
>"Chernobyl" computer virus -- hundreds of thousands of systems
>hammered in a SINGLE DAY! -- and they worked around it IN SPITE OF A
>HORRID ECONOMY TO START WITH?
>
CET has it figured, current problems are handled = future
problems will be handled.
What could be simpler?
Scale is not an issue, just ignore it.
Tom Beckner
Bradley K. Sherman
Tom Beckner <tbec...@xout.erols.com> wrote:
....
>The advertised cause was a utility crew leaving a ground leg
>attached when they put a substation back in service.
>
>Bullshit.
Anything to back this up, besides your opinion?
--bks
Ralph Daugherty
Oops! All the responses were from BS detectors. Sorry. They all went
off on this one.
Ralph
docd...@clark.net
>>
>> Bob Brock wrote in message <377e9...@news4.his.com>...
[snippage]
>> >Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may actually
>> >take you seriously.
[snippolinio]
>> For you to call it a 'threat' is a lie and once again shows what an
>> intellectual coward you are.
>
>Yeah right. At least I'm not celebrating Independence Day by engaging
>in a fantasy about how I could be a part of the new secessionist
>movement. Your motives are becomming more apparent Paul.
Ummmm... both of you might benefit from applying a little something called
a 'dictionary'... I am, at present, on the road and of my reference-texts
bereft but:
shows:
3 : an indication of something impending
... which indicates that Mr Milne, indeed, was writing of a threat.
DD
docd...@clark.net
Bob Blackmo <bla...@swbell.net> wrote:
>What makes you imply that PM has ever been *hiding* his motives? They
>seem pretty clearly stated to me and have been since virtually day
>one, at least in this ng.
I'm not too sure about that... as I recall he stated, at one point, that
his goal was just to make so much noise that other folks were drowned
out... and then there was the darling shift towards 'for the children',
with the occaisional detours into Delenda est Carthago.
>My gut feeling, from the trolling fashion
>in which you present your case, is that you are hiding your true
>agenda.
And *my* 'gut feeling' is that you should... Get A Job.
DD
Tom Beckner
Absolutely not. Only my intuition.
I have personally known pilots of small aircraft leaving the
airfield turn their cars around to return to the aircraft to
see if the master switch was in the off position.
I have seen utility mechanics doing small jobs stop everything
to go back and observe a line condition (state) and bring a
helper to verify.
I am not asking anyone to act or weigh my concerns on their
own merit. I have asked an authority to verify (SAG).
You could do the same. Spend four hours on it. Start with a
union hall and the newspaper office that filed the story.
I would believe Mickey still reads the ng.If inclined, he
could contribute. He has his pride. Whatever.
It really doesn't matter. As Cory Hamasaki said, we are picking
nits.
Tom Beckner
SAG
>
> SAG:
>
> Here is the deal. I will trust you. Look into it, come up with
> some firsthand information and I will accept it on your
> word.
Sorry. Might be interesting but I've neither the inclination or the
time.
I think I'm wasting my breath but here we go, one more time with what
you term the Ivory Tower explanation . . . .
>
> The advertised cause was a utility crew leaving a ground leg
> attached when they put a substation back in service.
>
> Bullshit.
>
<snip stuff I didn't understand>
> These guys are in another world, another level. They don't
> make this kind of mistake and live to tell about it.
Actually, that was my point. Such accidents, much to the chagrin of
utility safety executives, are too common. These guys may have been
lucky but the accident scenario is quite plausible . . . .
o Deenergize substation feeds (could have been done miles away)
o Ground conductors (for safety, in case somebody closes the switch)
o Perform maintenance
o Neglect to unground conductors
o Call for feeds to be energized
o Instantaneous fault current causes large transient on the system --
other protective devices operate, blackout out other, electrically
close, areas.
In contrast, that EMS date rollover cause is much less plausible.
First, EMS handles power plant dispatch and energy interchange -- not
distribution. While there probably are EMS failure scenarios that could
lead to interruptions, why so localized?
>
> As far as the Florida explosion goes, think about it. Remove a
> door that has warning labels the size of the door
Ooops. I didn't realize you doubted that one as well. Well, let's
begin . . . .
What makes you think there would be warning labels? Though I don't
spend a lot of time in power plants, don't think there're many warning
signs -- staff is supposedly trained to know where there's danger -- a
hydrogen atomosphere, for example.
The signs you see at substations, towers, transformers are *for the
public.*
I would expect to see "Danger Flammable Liquids" at the entrace to a
refinery, for example, would be a bit redundant inside, wouldn't you
say. Did you see "Silkwood?" See danger radiation signs *inside* the
processing plant? Etc.
> without permission? Give me a break.
Huh? Permission? Not sure what you mean by this. They would have had
"permission" to perform their maintenance when the unit was brought off
line and all the "protection" in place. Somebody screwed up and several
died.
Think Van Nuys? No reason *to* cover up the circumstances and, in the
case of the loss of life accident in Florida, plenty of reasons *not
to.* Remember, with loss of life, the state labor authorities would
perform an investigation. There's no upside benefit and plenty of
downside risk to lie about the circumstances just to keep the press off
a y2k story.
HTH,
SAG
Steve King
cory hamasaki wrote:
> Tuna is on sale at Giant, the mid-grade, non-Albacore, 39 cents a can.
> Stock up, 100 cans is only 39 bucks. Canned peas, 4 cans for two
> bucks. 100 cans is 50 bucks.
>
> It's cassarole time! Tuna, peas, (a white sauce made from flour and
> butter) macaroni or rice. If Y2K is *not* a problem, you've got cheap
> eats for a year. 10 minutes in the kitchen and you have a hot meal for
> 4. I like to finish up with fresh fruit in season.
cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html
=========================================================
Did cory say Tuna?
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid=f:ai99178.txt
If this has been previously posted my apologies.
~Steve
li...@ork.net
>>>You'll be dead soon.
>>>
>>>Paul Milne
>>
>>Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may actually
>>take you seriously.
> It is not a threat, shithead. It is a prognostication of where his
> compalcence will land him by not preparing and being caught with his pants
> down.
> For you to call it a 'threat' is a lie and once again shows what an
> intellectual coward you are.
Don't be an idiot again, Paul.
Not everyone has observed your frequent temper tantrum emissions for a
long period of time so as to know that you are stating what you believe in
your mind to be a prediction, rather than a threat.
Reasonable people can reasonably interpret what you just typed as a
threat. If you had half a brain you would realize that and precede such
emissions with a disclaimer.
Tom Beckner
>Tom Beckner wrote:
>>
>> SAG:
>>
>> Here is the deal. I will trust you. Look into it, come up with
>> some firsthand information and I will accept it on your
>> word.
>
>Sorry. Might be interesting but I've neither the inclination or the
>time.
>
I am not surprised
Tom Beckner
Tom Beckner
Brock's stock in trade is obfuscation and half truths.
Tom Beckner
cory hamasaki
Bob Brock
Mr. Milne is more than capable of making threats.
Tom Beckner wrote in message <7lp1ih$35h$2...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam
wrote:
>CET has it figured, current problems are handled = future
>problems will be handled.
YOU GOT IT! Amazing; a Doomlit with a brain! I couldn't have said it
better myself! Fabulous!
Here's another free clue: if Asia could work around hundreds of
thousands of dead computers -- an event for which little advance
preparation had been made -- don't you think that we'll be able to
handle Y2K, given that just about everyone who works in ANY field that
even touches a computer has been forewarned, has at least as
rudimentary contingency plan in place, and will be watching like a
hawk for problems over the Y2K transition?
Simply put: WE WILL DO WITHOUT THE STUPID COMPUTERS, IF NEED BE, UNTIL
THEY'RE FIXED.
Wow, what a concept. Amazing. More epiphany.
-- Stephen (someone strike up that brass band -- THEY'RE FINALLY
GETTING IT ... dare we hope?!?)
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
(Now PLEASE don't disappoint me by making moronic statements in the
future, or I'll have to split Cory's Flying Pig Award with you.)
Tom Benjamin
>> It's cassarole time! Tuna, peas, (a white sauce made from flour and
>> butter) macaroni or rice. If Y2K is *not* a problem, you've got cheap
>> eats for a year. 10 minutes in the kitchen and you have a hot meal for
>> 4. I like to finish up with fresh fruit in season.
You forgot the onions. Also great on toast.
Tom
cory hamasaki
Larry J. Farrell
Don Joe - see signature <don...@example.com> wrote in message
news:37846649....@sbpw.dh5ilhfw.tmm...
> Another thing (and nobody attack me for this, please) -- "Tuna Helper"
ain't all
> that bad, and it's cheap, easy to slap together, and should keep quite
well.
>
Only problem with that is - Tuna Helper is a very expensive way to buy pasta
don't you think???
Larry
Paul Milne
Bob Brock wrote in message <37802...@news4.his.com>...
>Bullshit.
>
>Mr. Milne is more than capable of making threats.
>
>
Capability of a threat is not the same thing as commission of a threat.
Once again, you have been caught in more of your childish distortion and
lies.
Paul Milne
Harlan Smith
cory hamasaki <kiy...@ibm.XOUT.net> wrote in message
news:5CPnPdd87dY0-pn2-dMNWRJ8hdyRT@localhost...
> Oh, and Drac posted the URL for an expose article by a local newspaper.
Yes, it was slightly shocking for the premier model county.
http://www.gazette.net/news/counties/story012.html
You might want to look at some California counties too:
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/VENTURA/VCNEWS/t000059269.html
The latter article is still up but catch it quick as they quickly disappear
into the archives.
Harlan
docd...@clark.net
Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>In article <377e9...@news4.his.com>, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote:
>|
>| Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
>| >
>| >smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>| ><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>| >>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
>| >>State of Y2K for this month.
>| >>
>| >>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
>| >>
>| >>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
>| >>
>| >>-- Stephen
>| >> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
>| >>
>| >
>| >You'll be dead soon.
>|
>| take you seriously.
>
>who actually take you seriously stop.
>
>(If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
>and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
>part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
Once again... according to:
... it most certainly is: 3 : an indication of something impending
DD
Paul Milne
docd...@clark.net wrote in message
<3vbg3.17816$4e1.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>...
Yes, shithead, IMPENDING, impending through his own inaction not action on
the prt of the one who merely recognizes HIS inactivity.
Man, you are really getting more pathetic every day mr. filthy midget
Paul Milne
>DD
>
Paul Milne
Richard Brennan wrote in message ...
>Anonymous wrote:
>
>>In article <377e9...@news4.his.com>, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-america.net>
wrote:
>>|
>>| Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
>>| >
>>| >smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>>| ><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>>| >>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
>>| >>State of Y2K for this month.
>>| >>
>>| >>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
>>| >>
>>| >>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
>>| >>
>>| >>-- Stephen
>>| >> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
>>| >>
>>| >
>>| >You'll be dead soon.
>>|
>>| Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may
actually
>>| take you seriously.
>>
>>You need to lighten up on the illogical inferences before the few
>>who actually take you seriously stop.
>>
>>(If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
>>and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
>>part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
>>
>undesirable coming".
yes, most assuredly he lives under the threat of something undesirable
coming, asshole. But you make it out to be the consequence of the hand of
another RATHER than as a consequence of his own sloth.
The AGENCY of the undesirable action is HIMSELF.
try again, you pathetic oaf.
Paul Milne
>--
>Richard Brennan
Paul Milne
li...@ork.net wrote in message ...
>Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>> | >You'll be dead soon.
>> |
>> | Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may
actually
>> | take you seriously.
>
>> You need to lighten up on the illogical inferences before the few
>> who actually take you seriously stop.
>
>> (If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
>> and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
>> part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
>
>
>Reasonable people could read his poin t-blank statement "You'll be dead
>soon." as a threat.
No, only unreasonable people would do that in light of the history of my
posts and my ample explanation that the agency of his troubles is his own
inactivity rather than at the hand of another.
pollyannas cling to the shard that they ought to have the 'benefit' of the
doubt when remediation is concerned. Yet they will not relinquish the
benefit of doubt even when that benfit is not even needed.
you are vile hypocrites.
>
>If you doubt this, try calling up a police station, and making this
>statement.
Paul Milne
Anonymous wrote in message <1999070601...@mail.replay.com>...
>In article <klcg3.888$6M6.2...@news.shore.net>, <li...@ork.net> wrote:
>| Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>| > You need to lighten up on the illogical inferences before the few
>| > who actually take you seriously stop.
>|
>| > (If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
>| > and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
>| > part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
>|
>| Paul is not a doctor, nor are we in a medical examination room.
>
>
>| Reasonable people could read his poin t-blank statement "You'll be dead
>| soon." as a threat.
>
>before could interpret it that way. No, I don't think it is wise for him
>to say those sorts of things.
>
>However, both you and Mister Brock _have_ been reading Mister Milne's
>postings for over a year. He has used that phrase _dozens_ of times to
>reply to people who oppose him, and you both know exactly what he means.
>Should he do it? No. Would a "reasonable person", having seen one
>context dozens of times suddenly think it has changed? No.
>
I have just made EACTLY that same point.
>Stop playing pedantic games.
Again, precisely. But, allow them to play these silly games as it further
serves to educate lurkers as to their intentional distortions, bizarre
interpretation and malevolent and malicious intent.
Paul Milne
>
>...aeternum................................................................
..
Paul Milne
li...@ork.net wrote in message <_hdg3.898$6M6.2...@news.shore.net>...
>Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> In article <klcg3.888$6M6.2...@news.shore.net>, <li...@ork.net> wrote:
>> | Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>> | Reasonable people could read his poin t-blank statement "You'll be dead
>> | soon." as a threat.
>
>> It is possible that someone who has never read Mister Milne's writing
>> before could interpret it that way. No, I don't think it is wise for him
>> to say those sorts of things.
>
>it.
No, you should understnad that with brock's HIGH dgree of familiarity with
my posts that he was acting in a disigenuous and malicious manner to even
suggest that *I* was the agency of a threat rather than the threat was
emanating from the unpreparedness of the individual in question, himself.
brock is a liar and when he can not make headway rationally, he raises his
malevolent skull and vomits.
Paul Milne
Bob Brock
>| Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
SNIP
>Stop playing pedantic games.
>
>...aeternum................................................................
..
My statement was,"Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or
someone may actually take you seriously. I didn't say that I took Paul
seriously since I'd never do that. However, for you to take my statement
and start playing games with it is...typical.
Paul Milne
Bob Brock wrote in message <37816...@news4.his.com>...
You are a damnable liar. Telling someone to lighten up on the THREATS is to
say that he has made THREATS, you asshole.
Easily you could have said, "Lighten up, Paul, before someone perceives this
as a threat". But, you did not. You called it a THREAT and now are trying to
weasel your way out of your pathetically malevolent lies, once again.
" lighten up on THE threats' not what may be perceived as a threat.
once again, you are caught as a liar and a weasel.
But, I do thank you for the wealth of character information that the lurkers
will get about you from this.
Poison your own wells much?
Paul Milne
>
>
Bob Brock
Paul Milne wrote in message <93122796...@helium.cstone.net>...
Paul, anyone lurking that is reading this has to be able so see just how
mentally unstable you actually are. I, and a few others in the NG, do know
that you are indeed capable of making a threat. What you are incapable of
doing is carrying through on it...
Paul Milne
I think that mental instability is dramatically manifested by your
malevolent reasoning in this post. To whit....
I, and a few others in the NG, do know
>that you are indeed capable of making a threat.
brock, anyone who can utter a word is 'capable' of making a threat.
Apparently you have the inability to make a distinction between ability to
doso and HAVING done so. When, in reality is capability synonymous with
actually having done so? To retreat into the realm of 'capability' means
one DID it, is to self destruct. Away with all of our courts. Away with
resonable doubt. Away with justice. Why....the man was capable of stealing
that pig, therefore he did it.
What you are incapable of
>doing is carrying through on it...
now bobbo, if you truly believe that I *am * INCAPABLE of carying out a
threat, then why did you make such a big stink about anything at all?
First you ssay that i have a certain CAPABILITY, ie. to make athreat, and
then you say that I LACK another capability, ie, to carry it out. Isn't it
wonderfully deliciuos within your malicious little paradigm that my
capabilities and incapabilites match so delightfully with your weaseling
lies. How wonderful for you.
First you said I made a threat , which manifestly I did not and then you
turn around and say that i was 'capable of making a threat and then you say
that I could not carry one out even if I did. MY MY MY....how much time you
spend falsly accusing people of making threats which you testify that you
don't beleive they could carry out.
Please once again for the lurkers, WHO is afflicted with said 'mental
instability'?
After you finish poisoning your well, how about pissing into the wind? Oh,
excuse me, I made the assumption that becuase most men are 'capable' of
pissing standing up, that you are as well, my mistake.
LOL LOL LOL
Paul Milne
>
>
>
>
Bob Brock
Paul Milne wrote in message <93122998...@helium.cstone.net>...
>
>Bob Brock wrote in message <37816...@news4.his.com>...
>>
>>Paul Milne wrote in message <93122796...@helium.cstone.net>...
>>>
>>>Bob Brock wrote in message <37816...@news4.his.com>...
>>>>
>>>>Anonymous wrote in message <1999070601...@mail.replay.com>...
>>>>>In article <klcg3.888$6M6.2...@news.shore.net>, <li...@ork.net>
wrote:
>>>>>| Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>SNIP
>>>>
>>>>>Stop playing pedantic games.
>>>>>
>>>>>...aeternum............................................................
.
>.
>>.
>>>.
>>>>..
>>>>
>>>>My statement was,"Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or
>>>>someone may actually take you seriously. I didn't say that I took Paul
>>>>seriously since I'd never do that. However, for you to take my
statement
>>>>and start playing games with it is...typical.
SNIP
>>Paul, anyone lurking that is reading this has to be able so see just how
>>mentally unstable you actually are.
>
>
>I think that mental instability is dramatically manifested by your
>malevolent reasoning in this post. To whit....
ROTFLMAO.
>
>
> I, and a few others in the NG, do know
>>that you are indeed capable of making a threat.
>
>brock, anyone who can utter a word is 'capable' of making a threat.
>Apparently you have the inability to make a distinction between ability to
>doso and HAVING done so. When, in reality is capability synonymous with
>actually having done so? To retreat into the realm of 'capability' means
>one DID it, is to self destruct. Away with all of our courts. Away with
>resonable doubt. Away with justice. Why....the man was capable of stealing
>that pig, therefore he did it.
Yeah, but we both know the truth don't we Paul?
>
> What you are incapable of
>>doing is carrying through on it...
>
>now bobbo, if you truly believe that I *am * INCAPABLE of carying out a
>threat, then why did you make such a big stink about anything at all?
The stink is yours Paul. I just said that you should stop doing such things
in case someone actually did take you seriously. I do have to admit that
you are right, no one would actually take you seriously.
>
>First you ssay that i have a certain CAPABILITY, ie. to make athreat, and
>then you say that I LACK another capability, ie, to carry it out. Isn't it
>wonderfully deliciuos within your malicious little paradigm that my
>capabilities and incapabilites match so delightfully with your weaseling
>lies. How wonderful for you.
Yeah, I thought it worked out rather well too.
>
>First you said I made a threat , which manifestly I did not and then you
>turn around and say that i was 'capable of making a threat and then you say
>that I could not carry one out even if I did. MY MY MY....how much time you
>spend falsly accusing people of making threats which you testify that you
>don't beleive they could carry out.
I didn't say that you made a threat in the referenced post. You keep saying
that. You know some could call that delusional...
>
>Please once again for the lurkers, WHO is afflicted with said 'mental
>instability'?
Yes, please read on lurkers...
>
>After you finish poisoning your well, how about pissing into the wind? Oh,
>excuse me, I made the assumption that becuase most men are 'capable' of
>pissing standing up, that you are as well, my mistake.
>
>LOL LOL LOL
That should have convinced some of them of your rationality....
Paul Milne
Bob Brock wrote in message <37817...@news4.his.com>...
Oh, i see. After having lied about another's motives, backpedalled and
committed several othe r perverted flip flops'. NOW you pretend to *KNOW*
the 'truth' even though what you believe you know is explicitly contrary to
what I have posted here.
Indeed, you are a sick sick person.
I scrolled down to the bottom of the post and came back. Nothing else .
That's it? That's all you have bobo? That you pretend to 'know' something .
And that 'something' is that I wish to be the agency of harm to that fellow
even after I explicitly and repeatedly maintain otherwise.
After I clearly explained that his misfortunes would be brought about
becuase of his OWN intentional refusal to prepare and NOT by anything that
anyone in particular would possibly do to him?.
And you know this EVEN AFTER you stated that you believed I had an
incapacity for carrying out any threat at all, even if the threat was only
something conjured up in your malicious little mind.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Stop it!! Stop it , I tell ya'! My sides are splitting! Yer killin' me!
ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO
Oh, wait a minute........"yer killin' me? " Bob, are you THREATENING me?
Are you secretly threatening me? Come on, just as YOU said....
"....you are indeed capable of making a threat"
And
"..we both know the truth don't we ..?"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
BWHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!
bobo, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.
what a maroon.
Paul Milne
Anonymous
|
| Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
| >
| >smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
| ><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
| >>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
| >>State of Y2K for this month.
| >>
| >>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
| >>
| >>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
| >>
| >>-- Stephen
| >> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
| >>
| >
|
| take you seriously.
You need to lighten up on the illogical inferences before the few
who actually take you seriously stop.
(If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
...aeternum..................................................................
Richard Brennan
According to my OED, it is indeed a threat or "indication of something
undesirable coming".
--
Richard Brennan
li...@ork.net
> | >You'll be dead soon.
> |
> | Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may actually
> | take you seriously.
> You need to lighten up on the illogical inferences before the few
> who actually take you seriously stop.
> (If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
> and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
> part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
Paul is not a doctor, nor are we in a medical examination room.
Reasonable people could read his poin t-blank statement "You'll be dead
soon." as a threat.
Anonymous
| > You need to lighten up on the illogical inferences before the few
| > who actually take you seriously stop.
|
| > (If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
| > and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
| > part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
|
| Paul is not a doctor, nor are we in a medical examination room.
Irrelevant. You know that is an analogy.
| Reasonable people could read his poin t-blank statement "You'll be dead
| soon." as a threat.
It is possible that someone who has never read Mister Milne's writing
before could interpret it that way. No, I don't think it is wise for him
to say those sorts of things.
However, both you and Mister Brock _have_ been reading Mister Milne's
postings for over a year. He has used that phrase _dozens_ of times to
reply to people who oppose him, and you both know exactly what he means.
Should he do it? No. Would a "reasonable person", having seen one
context dozens of times suddenly think it has changed? No.
Stop playing pedantic games.
...aeternum..................................................................
li...@ork.net
> In article <klcg3.888$6M6.2...@news.shore.net>, <li...@ork.net> wrote:
> | Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> | Reasonable people could read his poin t-blank statement "You'll be dead
> | soon." as a threat.
> It is possible that someone who has never read Mister Milne's writing
> before could interpret it that way. No, I don't think it is wise for him
> to say those sorts of things.
Having said that, you should now go back to my original message, and read
it.
li...@ork.net
> li...@ork.net wrote in message ...
>>Reasonable people could read his point-blank statement "You'll be dead
>>soon." as a threat.
> No, only unreasonable people would do that in light of the history of my
> posts and my ample explanation that the agency of his troubles is his own
> inactivity rather than at the hand of another.
Reasonable people exist that have not seen your frequent posts of "You
will die" to lots and lots of individuals on here. That's why, little
Paul, you need to actually read what I posted, before opening your yap.
Since your skills are undoubtedly too deficient to find my earlier
message, idiot, here's my post again:
-------------
"Don't be an idiot again, Paul.
Not everyone has observed your frequent temper tantrum emissions for a
long period of time so as to know that you are stating what you believe in
your mind to be a prediction, rather than a threat.
Reasonable people can reasonably interpret what you just typed as a
threat. If you had half a brain you would realize that and precede such
emissions with a disclaimer."
-------------
I will accept your apology if you promise to enroll in a good school this
time, Paul, one that will teach you how to read.
Bob Brock
Paul Milne wrote in message <93123297...@helium.cstone.net>...
>
>Bob Brock wrote in message <37817...@news4.his.com>...
>>
>>Paul Milne wrote in message <93122998...@helium.cstone.net>...
>>>
>>>Bob Brock wrote in message <37816...@news4.his.com>...
>>>>
>>>>Paul Milne wrote in message <93122796...@helium.cstone.net>...
>>>>>
>>>>>Bob Brock wrote in message <37816...@news4.his.com>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anonymous wrote in message <1999070601...@mail.replay.com>...
>>>>>>>In article <klcg3.888$6M6.2...@news.shore.net>, <li...@ork.net>
>>wrote:
>>>>>>>| Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
SNIP
>bobo, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.
>
>what a maroon.
>
>Paul Milne
SNIP
Were you really so drunk that you don't remember? Should I forward you
e-mails back to you to refresh your memory?
Richard Brennan
>
>Richard Brennan wrote in message ...
>>
>>>In article <377e9...@news4.his.com>, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-america.net>
>wrote:
>>>|
>>>| Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
>>>| >
>>>| >smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>>>| ><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>>>| >>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
>>>| >>State of Y2K for this month.
>>>| >>
>>>| >>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
>>>| >>
>>>| >>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
>>>| >>
>>>| >>-- Stephen
>>>| >> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
>>>| >>
>>>| >
>>>|
>actually
>>>| take you seriously.
>>>
>>>who actually take you seriously stop.
>>>
>>>(If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
>>>and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
>>>part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
>>>
>>undesirable coming".
>
>coming, asshole.
Great, you agree; your mode of address could do with some work, but
that's only so much "white noise" now, isn't it?
> But you make it out to be the consequence of the hand of
>another RATHER than as a consequence of his own sloth.
>
I make out nothing. Being of an optimistic tendency, I merely try to
educate you.
Let's take it step by step:
1) The OED states one meaning of "threat" is "indication of something
undesirable coming".
2) Doctor stating "you will be dead soon" is without doubt an
"indication of something undesirable coming".
3) Ergo, Doctor stating "you will be dead soon" can reasonably be termed
a "threat".
>The AGENCY of the undesirable action is HIMSELF.
>
The word "threat" does not of itself include anything about the agency
involved. To "make a threat" would be a different matter. That would
mean the *creation* by an agency of an undesirable possibility where
there was none before.
What the Doctor was doing was *highlighting* the threat.
In the same way, you've been highlighting various threats that you
perceive folks to be under, viz. being dead soon, drinking out of
hubcaps, burying a newborn child - that sort of thing, and naturally I
assume that's what Bob Brock was referring to, before this storm-in-a-
teacup started.
>
>try again, you pathetic oaf.
>
Ahhh now, you're tryin' to sweet-talk me!
--
Richard Brennan
Richard Brennan
>
>On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 00:53:55 +0100, Richard Brennan
><ric...@allsystems.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Anonymous wrote:
>>
>>>In article <377e9...@news4.his.com>, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote:
>>>|
>>>| Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
>>>| >
>>>| >smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>>>| ><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>>>| >>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
>>>| >>State of Y2K for this month.
>>>| >>
>>>| >>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
>>>| >>
>>>| >>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
>>>| >>
>>>| >>-- Stephen
>>>| >> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
>>>| >>
>>>| >
>>>| >You'll be dead soon.
>>>|
>>>| Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may actually
>>>| take you seriously.
>>>
>>>You need to lighten up on the illogical inferences before the few
>>>who actually take you seriously stop.
>>>
>>>(If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
>>>and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
>>>part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
>>>
>>According to my OED, it is indeed a threat or "indication of something
>>undesirable coming".
>
>meanings in what you just said?
>
Try reading "or in other words" instead of "or".
Even better, don't take *my* word for it, look it up in a dictionary for
yourself.
--
Richard Brennan
T.S. Monk
wrote:
-----< deleted for brevity >-----
>You know that you sound like a broken record, don't you? You are
>becoming more and more pathetic, Cory. You keep repeating the same
>dozen or so examples over and again, as if by repetition you can
Saw some new ones on World Net Dairy today. Some eight-figure checks
seem to have been printed in error.
===================================================
UNBOLT.M...@hotmail.com
===================================================
:
: Is there a solution to this problem? I don't
: know of one. We're rolling full speed toward
: December 31, 1999. We can't stop, we can't
: slow down, we're gonna hit, brace for impact.
:
: cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html
:
===================================================
T.S. Monk
signature) wrote:
-----< deleted for brevity >-----
>Another thing (and nobody attack me for this, please) -- "Tuna Helper" ain't all
>that bad, and it's cheap, easy to slap together, and should keep quite well.
Can you say "Hungry Man?" I knew you could. :) _Nothing_ is that
bad when you're *really* hungry. I know, I've been there. More than
I can say for the "other doc," I'm sure.
Richard Brennan
>
>On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:59:18 +0100, Richard Brennan
><ric...@allsystems.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Let's take it step by step:
>
>
>>1) The OED states one meaning of "threat" is "indication of something
>>undesirable coming".
>>
>>2) Doctor stating "you will be dead soon" is without doubt an
>>
>>a "threat".
>
>
Okay, have another go, by all means.
>"Doctor stating 'you will be dead soon'" can reasonably be termed a "threat"
>only to the same extent that my saying "Look, there goes a red car" means that I
>can reasonably be termed a "red car".
>
Might you be so kind as to reveal the logic that validates your
assertion?
>Pointing out an observed fact does *not* magically turn the messenger into the
>item being observed.
>
I don't recall having said otherwise. Please point out where I said
that the Doctor was a threat.
>The doctor discovered a threat, and pointed it out to the patient. The doctor
>did not *make* the threat.
>
As I said in the part you surreptiously snipped, the threat was
highlighted, not made, by the Doctor (go on, pretend you didn't know
this already).
>I've seen your logic before. Lou Costello used it to "prove" that 2 + 2 = 22.
>
Abbot, *he* was only funnin'!
--
Richard Brennan
docd...@clark.net
Paul Milne <fed...@halifax.com> wrote:
>
>docd...@clark.net wrote in message
><3vbg3.17816$4e1.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>...
>>In article <1999070523...@mail.replay.com>,
>>>In article <377e9...@news4.his.com>, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-america.net>
>wrote:
>>>|
>>>| Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
>>>| >
>>>| >smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>>>| ><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>>>| >>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
>>>| >>State of Y2K for this month.
>>>| >>
>>>| >>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
>>>| >>
>>>| >>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
>>>| >>
>>>| >>-- Stephen
>>>| >> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
>>>| >>
>>>| >
>>>| >You'll be dead soon.
>>>|
>>>| Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may actually
>>>| take you seriously.
>>>
>>>You need to lighten up on the illogical inferences before the few
>>>who actually take you seriously stop.
>>>
>>>(If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
>>>and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
>>>part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
>>
>>
>>http://www.m-w.com
>>
>>... it most certainly is: 3 : an indication of something impending
>>
>
>
>Yes, shithead, IMPENDING, impending through his own inaction not action on
>the prt of the one who merely recognizes HIS inactivity.
Good of you to admit it, Mr Milne... so despite the reason for this
impending status you do admit, then, to making 'an indication if impending
status'... which is, according to the definition given, making 'a threat'.
>
>Man, you are really getting more pathetic every day mr. filthy midget
Mr Milne, if using a dictionary makes me such then such is life... I
wonder, though, what it is about the passage of time which alters your
view of how I appeared when you had the opportunity to view me; your
opinions now are a bit more... harsh than they were when the incident
occurred.
DD
smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam
signature) wrote:
>People like you will be found trying to plow their fields by hitching up horses
>to their fuel-less tractors, scratching their heads, muttering that they *know*
>it's gotta work.
Why do you assume that the tractors will be "fuel-less[sic]?"
>By the way, has anyone told you that you're a smug little prick who desperately
>needs to get over himself? (Recently, that is.)
You really do need to scrub off that mirror finish on your monitor.
-- Stephen
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam
Monk) wrote:
>Saw some new ones on World Net Dairy today. Some eight-figure checks
>seem to have been printed in error.
You don't consider it telling that you have to depend on right-wing
wacko news services to support your argument? Farah went off the deep
end months ago.
And see what I wrote to Cory again: do you think this is the first
time such a thing has ever happened? That these things ONLY occur due
to Y2K bugs?
-- Stephen
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
Richard Brennan
>
>Perhaps you can engage DD in your word games. Sorry, but I have neither the
>time nor the inclination to continue playing with you.
>
Good of you to admit that what you were doing was "playing".
--
Richard Brennan
>
>On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:34:30 +0100, Richard Brennan
Paul Milne
docd...@clark.net wrote in message ...
When a doctor informs a patient of his impending death from terminal cancer,
is he making a threat? Of course not mr filthy midget.
Unless you want to argue that every case of making an' indication of
impending staus' is NECESSARILY a threat. But you would not want to do that.
now, would you mr filthy midget?
>>
>>Man, you are really getting more pathetic every day mr. filthy midget
>
>Mr Milne, if using a dictionary makes me such then such is life...
Was it Disraeli or Chesterfiled who said that the last refuge of a scoundrel
is Patriotism. Well add a new one.
"The penultimate refuge of pedantic filthy midgets is the dictionary".
I
>wonder, though, what it is about the passage of time which alters your
>view of how I appeared when you had the opportunity to view me; your
>opinions now are a bit more... harsh than they were when the incident
>occurred.
>
That is becuase I can still smell you. One *would* have thought the fetid
stench might have passed on by now. I guess I will have to actually burn
those clothes after all.
Paul Milne
>DD
smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam
signature) wrote:
>First Foole rips the source as non-credible, then issues a defacto
>acknowledgment that the story is true.
Proof of a reading comprehension problem. The "deep end" aspect isn't
the story itself, it's spin placed upon it -- namely, IGNORING the
fact that things like this have been happening for as long as
computers have been issuing checks, and that a Y2K-related failure is
by no means a unique case. But don't expect Farah to tell you that.
For that matter, don't expect ANY Doomlit to tell you that.
-- Stephen
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
Anonymous
| Paul, anyone lurking that is reading this has to be able so see just how
| that you are indeed capable of making a threat. What you are incapable of
| doing is carrying through on it...
And you, Mister Brock, are _capable_ of behaving in a rational and
honorable fashion, which I have at times seen you do. That doesn't mean
that you are doing so now, much as Mister Milne was not making any
of the threats of which you accuse him.
...aeternum..................................................................
Anonymous
| >In article <klcg3.888$6M6.2...@news.shore.net>, <li...@ork.net> wrote:
| >| Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
|
|
| SNIP
|
| >
| >...aeternum................................................................
| ..
|
| someone may actually take you seriously. I didn't say that I took Paul
| seriously since I'd never do that. However, for you to take my statement
| and start playing games with it is...typical.
"Lighten up on the threats" means you considered or implied his
statement to be a threat. If you did not in fact consider it to be
a threat, learn to be more precise in your choice of words.
As for my "playing games" with your statement being typical, provide
some evidence.
And, an apology on your part is in order. (Not to me.)
...aeternum..................................................................
Anonymous
| >|
| >| Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
| >| >
| >| >smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
| >| ><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
| >| >>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
| >| >>State of Y2K for this month.
| >| >>
| >| >>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
| >| >>
| >| >>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
| >| >>
| >| >>-- Stephen
| >| >> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
| >| >>
| >| >
| >| >You'll be dead soon.
| >|
| >| take you seriously.
| >
| >who actually take you seriously stop.
| >
| >(If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
| >and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
| >part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
| >
| undesirable coming".
You and your fellow incompetent pedant Mister "Dwarf" are technically
correct, but are being deceptive, since the context of Mister
Brock's accusation was clear that he meant the more common use of
the word threat: "expression of intention to inflict evil, injury
or damage". Let's try your definition in Mister Brock's sentence:
"Paul, you really need to lighten up on the indications of something
undesirable coming or someone may actually take you seriously." Does
_anyone_ here _really_ think this is what Mister Brock meant?
I'm not wasting further time with people who are intentionally obtuse.
...aeternum..................................................................
cripto anonymous remailer
Tom Benjamin
>Proof of a reading comprehension problem. The "deep end" aspect isn't
>the story itself, it's spin placed upon it -- namely, IGNORING the
>fact that things like this have been happening for as long as
>computers have been issuing checks, and that a Y2K-related failure is
>by no means a unique case. But don't expect Farah to tell you that.
Are you the same Stephen Poole who perpetuated a Y2k hoax? The admitted
irresponsible lout? A newbie who thinks internet hoaxes are funny? How do I
know this post isn't another deliberate lie?
I don't. Probably is.
Tom
Steve Heller
write:
Yes, that's the same Stephen "Cess" Poole. As I've already pointed
out, his credibility is zero after that stunt he pulled. Just ignore
him and maybe he'll go away.
>I don't. Probably is.
Yep.
--
Steve Heller, WA0CPP
PGP public key available from http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
http://www.koyote.com/users/stheller/homepage.html
Author of "Who's Afraid of C++?", "Who's Afraid of More C++?",
"Optimizing C++", and other books
Frank Ney
don...@example.com (Don Joe - see signature) to write:
>Another thing (and nobody attack me for this, please) -- "Tuna Helper" ain't all
>that bad, and it's cheap, easy to slap together, and should keep quite well.
Sorry. Hamburger Helper I can take, but that Tuna Helper is *SKANKY*!
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to
tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about
as useless as a miniskirt in a convent."
- Claire Wolfe, _101 Things To Do 'Til The Revolution_
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GAT d- s:+ a35 C$ L++>++++$ P+ W++ N++ o-- K- w>--- O(++) M-
PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+ 5++ X+ R tv+ b+++ DI+++ UF++ D++ G e+*
h* r++ y?*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Mark
>
> On 5 Jul 1999 02:33:02 -0500, don...@example.com (Don Joe - see
> signature) wrote:
>
> >People like you will be found trying to plow their fields by hitching up horses
> >to their fuel-less tractors, scratching their heads, muttering that they *know*
> >it's gotta work.
>
> Why do you assume that the tractors will be "fuel-less[sic]?"
>
Errr, how about because we rely on foreigners for 50% of our oil and
that they (Saudis, Venezualans) are years behind the curve?
Or maybe you'd like to consider the possibility that a few MORE (read,
California) refineries might explode this year in the compliant US
refineries?
Hey, an aluminum plant here, a refinery there .... it's just a flesh
wound, right? 'cept it's just July. Hang in there. Read the news for
a change.
Terry Austin
Don Joe - see signature wrote in message
<3790f926....@sbpw.dh5ilhfw.tmm>...
>On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 05:07:25 GMT, smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote:
>
>>On 5 Jul 1999 02:33:02 -0500, don...@example.com (Don Joe - see
>>signature) wrote:
>>
>>>People like you will be found trying to plow their fields by hitching up
horses
>>>to their fuel-less tractors, scratching their heads, muttering that they
*know*
>>>it's gotta work.
>>
>>Why do you assume that the tractors will be "fuel-less[sic]?"
>
Research, intelligence, and understanding. Look 'em up
in a dictionary.
>
>>>By the way, has anyone told you that you're a smug little prick who
desperately
>>>needs to get over himself? (Recently, that is.)
>>
>>You really do need to scrub off that mirror finish on your monitor.
>
>Step over this line and show me how, asshole.
You keep beating your chest like that and you're gonna
break a rib.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
Tom Benjamin wrote in message <6nJg3.3804$re6.1...@news2.randori.com>...
>smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>
>>Proof of a reading comprehension problem. The "deep end" aspect isn't
>>the story itself, it's spin placed upon it -- namely, IGNORING the
>>fact that things like this have been happening for as long as
>>computers have been issuing checks, and that a Y2K-related failure is
>>by no means a unique case. But don't expect Farah to tell you that.
>
>Are you the same Stephen Poole who perpetuated a Y2k hoax? The admitted
>irresponsible lout? A newbie who thinks internet hoaxes are funny? How do I
>know this post isn't another deliberate lie?
He really struck home with that one, didn't he? And y'all
don't like being shown up as the gullible fools you are.
>
>I don't. Probably is.
>
You certainly hope so.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
Don Joe - see signature wrote in message
>On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:35:34 -0000, "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
>wrote:
from
>pickpockets.
Er, what are you getting on about? The only people looking
for money around here are the Y2K "consultants" using
scare tactics.
How much do you charge an hour?
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
Don Joe - see signature wrote in message
>On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:34:19 -0000, "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Don Joe - see signature wrote in message
>>>On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 05:07:25 GMT, smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam
wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 5 Jul 1999 02:33:02 -0500, don...@example.com (Don Joe - see
>>>>signature) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>People like you will be found trying to plow their fields by hitching
up
>>horses
>>>>>to their fuel-less tractors, scratching their heads, muttering that
they
>>*know*
>>>>>it's gotta work.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you assume that the tractors will be "fuel-less[sic]?"
>>>
>>>Why do you assume that they won't?
>>
>>Research, intelligence, and understanding. Look 'em up
>>in a dictionary.
>
>fabricator.
And a bunch of mentally deficient Chicken Littles who
couldn't figure out how to use a dictionary with a Boy
Scout to help 'em.
>
>
>>>>>By the way, has anyone told you that you're a smug little prick who
>>desperately
>>>>>needs to get over himself? (Recently, that is.)
>>>>
>>>>You really do need to scrub off that mirror finish on your monitor.
>>>
>>>Step over this line and show me how, asshole.
>>
>>
>>You keep beating your chest like that and you're gonna
>>break a rib.
>
>Then step over the line and shut me up, Bad Boy.
If there some part of "Fuck off an die" that isn't clear?
And lines look like this: __________________
You didn't draw a line.
Moron.
And no, this isn't the first time I've been threatened
in this newsgroup. You're not even very good at
it.
Frankly, I'd just as soon you kept posting. Pickings
have been lean here lately, and it's gotten boring.
I could use a good playmate.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
Mark wrote in message <37837337...@spring.com>...
>smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote:
>>
>> On 5 Jul 1999 02:33:02 -0500, don...@example.com (Don Joe - see
>> signature) wrote:
>>
>> >People like you will be found trying to plow their fields by hitching up
horses
>> >to their fuel-less tractors, scratching their heads, muttering that they
*know*
>> >it's gotta work.
>>
>> Why do you assume that the tractors will be "fuel-less[sic]?"
>>
>
>that they (Saudis, Venezualans) are years behind the curve?
Source that this will interrupt fuel supplies? Anything?
>
>Or maybe you'd like to consider the possibility that a few MORE (read,
>California) refineries might explode this year in the compliant US
>refineries?
Always a possibility. And Y2K has no effect on that chances.
>
>Hey, an aluminum plant here, a refinery there .... it's just a flesh
>wound, right? 'cept it's just July. Hang in there. Read the news for
>a change.
I have. Non event after non event. We're in Y2K *now*,
and - gasp - nothing has happened.
Terry Austin
joanne...@home.com
> Sorry. Hamburger Helper I can take, but that Tuna Helper is *SKANKY*!
Well, *I* like it.
It's a bit more expensive than tuna/noodles/whatever from "scratch", but
it cooks up quickly, there's only one pot to wash, and it makes 3-4
servings. My husband takes the leftovers in his lunch.
Jo Anne
jr...@ucekillservtech.com
>In article <93122346...@helium.cstone.net>,
>Paul Milne <fed...@halifax.com> wrote:
>>
>>docd...@clark.net wrote in message
>><3vbg3.17816$4e1.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>...
[snippage]
>>>>|
>>>>| Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may actually
>>>>| take you seriously.
>>>>
>>>>You need to lighten up on the illogical inferences before the few
>>>>who actually take you seriously stop.
>>>>
>>>>(If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
>>>>and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
>>>>part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
>>>
>>>Once again... according to:
>>>
>>>http://www.m-w.com
>>>
>>>... it most certainly is: 3 : an indication of something impending
>>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, shithead, IMPENDING, impending through his own inaction not action on
>>the prt of the one who merely recognizes HIS inactivity.
>Good of you to admit it, Mr Milne... so despite the reason for this
>impending status you do admit, then, to making 'an indication if impending
>status'... which is, according to the definition given, making 'a threat'.
A fine example of the shortcomings of incautious reliance
upon dictionaries! Most dictionaries give definitions of words, not
phrases. You are confusing the phrase 'to make a threat' with the
word 'threat'. The dictionary equivalent of 'to make a threat' is
the word 'threaten', which is not the same as 'threat'. Not that
it matters much to me who wins this little spat, but it bothers
me so when I see the mother tongue mangled in support of an
argument. 8^)
G. V.
GV
Paul Milne wrote:
> Bob Brock wrote in message <37802...@news4.his.com>...
> >Bullshit.
> >
> >Mr. Milne is more than capable of making threats.
> >
> >
>
> Capability of a threat is not the same thing as commission of a threat.
>
> Once again, you have been caught in more of your childish distortion and
> lies.
>
> Paul Milne
>
> >
> >Tom Beckner wrote in message <7lp1ih$35h$2...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
> >>Bullshit.
> >>
> >>Brock's stock in trade is obfuscation and half truths.
> >>
> >>Tom Beckner
> >>
> >>
> >>li...@ork.net wrote:
> >>>Paul Milne <fed...@halifax.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>You'll be dead soon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Paul Milne
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or someone may
> >actually
> >>>>>take you seriously.
> >>>
> >>>> It is not a threat, shithead. It is a prognostication of where his
> >>>> compalcence will land him by not preparing and being caught with his
> >pants
> >>>> down.
> >>>
> >>>> For you to call it a 'threat' is a lie and once again shows what an
> >>>> intellectual coward you are.
> >>>
> >>>Don't be an idiot again, Paul.
> >>>
> >>>Not everyone has observed your frequent temper tantrum emissions for a
> >>>long period of time so as to know that you are stating what you believe
> in
> >>>your mind to be a prediction, rather than a threat.
> >>>
> >>>Reasonable people can reasonably interpret what you just typed as a
> >>>threat. If you had half a brain you would realize that and precede such
> >>>emissions with a disclaimer.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
Terry Austin
Don Joe - see signature wrote in message
>On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:47:19 -0000, "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Don Joe - see signature wrote in message
>><379785fd....@sbpw.dh5ilhfw.tmm>...
>>>On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:34:19 -0000, "Terry Austin"
<tau...@hyperbooks.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don Joe - see signature wrote in message
>>>><3790f926....@sbpw.dh5ilhfw.tmm>...
>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 5 Jul 1999 02:33:02 -0500, don...@example.com (Don Joe - see
>>>>>>signature) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>People like you will be found trying to plow their fields by hitching
>>up
>>>>horses
>>>>>>>to their fuel-less tractors, scratching their heads, muttering that
>>they
>>>>*know*
>>>>>>>it's gotta work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why do you assume that the tractors will be "fuel-less[sic]?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Research, intelligence, and understanding. Look 'em up
>>>>in a dictionary.
>>>
>>>Why bother? We're talking about Stepen Foole, admitted liar, hoaxer, and
>>>fabricator.
>>
>>And a bunch of mentally deficient Chicken Littles who
>>couldn't figure out how to use a dictionary with a Boy
>>Scout to help 'em.
>
your
>character.
Yes, it does. And on his, and on yours. I find the
refletions quite attractive.
>
>
>>>>>>>By the way, has anyone told you that you're a smug little prick who
>>>>desperately
>>>>>>>needs to get over himself? (Recently, that is.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You really do need to scrub off that mirror finish on your monitor.
>>>>>
>>>>>Step over this line and show me how, asshole.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You keep beating your chest like that and you're gonna
>>>>break a rib.
>>>
>>>Then step over the line and shut me up, Bad Boy.
>>
>>If there some part of "Fuck off an die" that isn't clear?
>
>The part you fail to take to heart?
>
>>And lines look like this: __________________
>>
>>You didn't draw a line.
>
>Ah, but I was communicating *via* a line.
Via a line, perhaps. Communicating? Hardly.
I still have no idea what you're babbling about.
>
>I've heard life's a bitch for the literal-minded. Thanks for clearing up
any
>doubts.
I know you are, but what am I? It wasn't especially
funny when Pee Wee Herman said it, and it's no
funnier when you do.
>
>>Moron.
>
>Is that your new middle name? Has "asshole" suddenly become passe'?
>
See above, 'tard-boy.
>>And no, this isn't the first time I've been threatened
>>in this newsgroup. You're not even very good at
>>it.
>
>Is the mouse in your pocket threatening you? I know *I* certainly haven't.
>
Of course you haven't. I belive you.
>>Frankly, I'd just as soon you kept posting. Pickings
>>have been lean here lately, and it's gotten boring.
>
>Try your other nostril.
It is less boring than you.
>
>>I could use a good playmate.
>
>Tired of Foole *already*?
>
He's hardly a moron. Quite unlike you.
>
>--
>This is not a real email address, nor a real name, so
>don't reply via email.
>
Afraid to admit who you really are?
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
Don Joe - see signature wrote in message
>On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:48:35 -0000, "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Don Joe - see signature wrote in message
>>>On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:35:34 -0000, "Terry Austin"
<tau...@hyperbooks.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tom Benjamin wrote in message
<6nJg3.3804$re6.1...@news2.randori.com>...
>>>>>smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>Proof of a reading comprehension problem. The "deep end" aspect isn't
>>>>>>the story itself, it's spin placed upon it -- namely, IGNORING the
>>>>>>fact that things like this have been happening for as long as
>>>>>>computers have been issuing checks, and that a Y2K-related failure is
>>>>>>by no means a unique case. But don't expect Farah to tell you that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you the same Stephen Poole who perpetuated a Y2k hoax? The admitted
>>>>>irresponsible lout? A newbie who thinks internet hoaxes are funny? How
do
>>I
>>>>>know this post isn't another deliberate lie?
>>>>
>>>>He really struck home with that one, didn't he? And y'all
>>>>don't like being shown up as the gullible fools you are.
>>>
>>>How dickensian. Attacking the victims for not keeping their wallets
secure
>>from
>>>pickpockets.
>>
>>Er, what are you getting on about? The only people looking
>>for money around here are the Y2K "consultants" using
>>scare tactics.
>
>literal-mindedness, so willya puleeeze stop proving it over and over?
You didn't answer my question.
>
>And since you revel in your knowledge of the word "dictionary", perhaps you
>could condescend to actually *open* one and look up the meaning of the word
>"metaphor".
About the same time as you look up the meaning of the
word "idiot."
>
>Then, reach *deep* into your pocket, fish out your mouse, and ask him what
>*vermin* think of people who defend lying sacks of shit.
He says you're an idiot, too. So does the cat, who is
old enough to be senile. The possum hasn't expressed
an opinion yet, but his english is a bit weak, so he may
not have understood the question.
>
>>How much do you charge an hour?
>
>$32,767.00
>
And worth every penny of it, no doubt.
Terry Austin
Bob Brock
Anonymous wrote in message <1999070623...@mail.replay.com>...
>In article <37816...@news4.his.com>, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-america.net>
wrote:
>|
>| Anonymous wrote in message <1999070601...@mail.replay.com>...
>| >In article <klcg3.888$6M6.2...@news.shore.net>, <li...@ork.net> wrote:
>| >| Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>|
>|
>| SNIP
>|
>| >Stop playing pedantic games.
>| >
>|
>...aeternum................................................................
>| ..
>|
>| My statement was,"Paul, you really need to lighten up on the threats or
>| someone may actually take you seriously. I didn't say that I took Paul
>| seriously since I'd never do that. However, for you to take my statement
>| and start playing games with it is...typical.
>
>"Lighten up on the threats" means you considered or implied his
>statement to be a threat. If you did not in fact consider it to be
>a threat, learn to be more precise in your choice of words.
If you would like to provide me with an "inbox," I can show you threats from
your favorite seditionist....
`
>As for my "playing games" with your statement being typical, provide
>some evidence.
See above.
>
>And, an apology on your part is in order. (Not to me.)
It will be a cold day in hell.
>
>...aeternum................................................................
..
Richard Brennan
>
>In article <dwoQoBAT...@allsystems.demon.co.uk>,
>Richard Brennan <ric...@allsystems.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>| Anonymous wrote:
>|
>wrote:
>| >|
>| >| Paul Milne wrote in message <93104059...@helium.cstone.net>...
>| >| >
>| >| >smpo...@bellsouth.net.shuvdaspam wrote in message
>| >| ><377e89d4...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>| >| >>Paul, my good friend and Ringmaster, you of all people need to see the
>| >| >>State of Y2K for this month.
>| >| >>
>| >| >>http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html
>| >| >>
>| >| >>Hint: look at the article, "An Experiment In Journalism ..."
>| >| >>
>| >| >>-- Stephen
>| >| >> If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne, you're a hostage.
>| >| >>
>| >| >
>| >|
>| >| take you seriously.
>| >
>| >who actually take you seriously stop.
>| >
>| >(If a 500-pound man walks into a doctor's office smoking a cigarette,
>| >and his blood pressure measures 225 over 130, and the doctor says, in
>| >part, "You'll be dead soon," is it a threat?)
>| >
>| undesirable coming".
>
>You and your fellow incompetent pedant Mister "Dwarf" are technically
>correct, but are being deceptive, since the context of Mister
>Brock's accusation was clear that he meant the more common use of
>the word threat: "expression of intention to inflict evil, injury
>or damage". Let's try your definition in Mister Brock's sentence:
>
>"Paul, you really need to lighten up on the indications of something
>undesirable coming or someone may actually take you seriously." Does
>_anyone_ here _really_ think this is what Mister Brock meant?
>
Try the converse:
"Paul, you really need to lighten up on the expressions of intention to
inflict evil, injury or damage or someone may actually take you
seriously."
Does *anyone* here *really* think this is what Bob Brock meant? Don't
you think there would have been at least one post vociferously objecting
if it was *really* thought that Paul Milne was threatening to come over
personally and see to it that they were "dead soon"? It is *obvious*
that these threats are *alluded* to by Paul Milne. He is *not* making
them and never has been. The most I've seen in that direction is where
he expresses an interest in settling matters in the old-fashioned way,
were this not Usenet with no place for the physical fist.
>I'm not wasting further time with people who are intentionally obtuse.
>
I think you may be partly right here at least - you seem unable to step
back from your original knee-jerk and reconsider with a less pre-judging
mind. Interesting that in your excess of protestation, you are now
feeling the need to make use of personal insults to support your
argument, when you originally took so much time to point out this error
in others.
--
Richard Brennan