US relinquishes control of the internet
John Rennie
"After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing
disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will
relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow
foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system."
I had no idea that anybody controlled the internet.
yitzhak in eretz (sic)
They don't really 'control' the Internet. They just oversee the various
aspects such as TLD attribution and IP block assignation. But once they've
assigned blocks of IP addresses, such as the 62.0.0.0 - 62.0.255.255
address which is reserved for an Israeli IP (among others), then they have
limited control over which service providers are allocated those IPs within
a subdomain (which is really all that a country TLD is).
One of the other 'building blocks' of the Internet is more widely
distributed, i.e. DNS, with (IIRC) servers in the United States, London and
Tokyo. Last time I looked, they were looking at ways to distribute (for
fauly-tolerance as well as protection from attack) the services within a
root zone itself. I believe that the 'A' rootserver is maintained by a
private company, but that its IP is distributed by ICANN, too.
Jon will be along in a minute to tell me I'm talking a load of tosh.
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
AADP's 'left-wing Israeli intellectual'
'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity -
and I'm not sure about the former' (Albert Einstein)
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
John Rennie wrote:
>
> Re: US relinquishes control of the internet
>
I heard they were giving it over to the South Swazilandians. No, I
heard that wrong, the South Swizlestickians.
You never wondered why dot gov is government run websites in
America?
--
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
Earl Evleth
"John Rennie" <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> I had no idea that anybody controlled the internet.
I thought there was some outfit in California which controls
the issuance of internet domains?.
John Rennie
of control as important but it aint really. The
internet which we enjoy is a monster and quite out
of control.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Have you ever wondered why .gov.au isn't?
The existence of government run websites does not mean that the
government controls the internet, Bill.
(cue Bill going into spluttering denial again)
--
The Professor: What's "Friends"?
Satan: A TV show. Six characters in search of a smack in the mouth.
- Andy Hamilton, Old Harry's Game
yitzhak in eretz (sic)
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
><tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> John Rennie wrote:
>> >
>> > Re: US relinquishes control of the internet
>> >
>> I heard they were giving it over to the South Swazilandians. No, I
>> heard that wrong, the South Swizlestickians.
>>
>>
>> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/30/icann-agreement-us
>> >
>> > "After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing
>> > disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will
>> > relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow
>> > foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system."
>> >
>> > I had no idea that anybody controlled the internet.
>> >
>> You never wondered why dot gov is government run websites in
>> America?
>
> Have you ever wondered why .gov.au isn't?
Or '.gov.il'. Or '.gov.uk'. Or '.gouv.fr'.
And so on ...
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > John Rennie wrote:
> > >
> > > Re: US relinquishes control of the internet
> > >
> > I heard they were giving it over to the South Swazilandians. No, I
> > heard that wrong, the South Swizlestickians.
> >
> >
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/30/icann-agreement-us
> > >
> > > "After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing
> > > disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will
> > > relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow
> > > foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system."
> > >
> > > I had no idea that anybody controlled the internet.
> > >
> > You never wondered why dot gov is government run websites in
> > America?
>
> Have you ever wondered why .gov.au isn't?
>
> The existence of government run websites does not mean that the
> government controls the internet, Bill.
>
> (cue Bill going into spluttering denial again)
>
You apparently didn't even understand what I was saying. The dot
gov sites are US government sites because the US government started
the internet. The countries that didn't start the internet, like
Australia, have domains like you gave us an example of: dot gov dot
AU.
A similar situation exists with dot mil:
http://www.101domains.com/tlds/mil.shtml
#begin quote
Reserved exclusively for the United States Military domain name
registration, Tightly restricted to eligible agencies
...
.mil (military) is the sponsored top-level domain for the United
States Department of Defense and its subsidiary organizations. It
was one of the first top-level domains, created in January 1985.
The United States is the only country that has a top-level domain
for its military. Other countries often use second-level domains
for this purpose, e.g., .mod.uk for the United Kingdom's Ministry
of Defence.
#end quote
Some TLDs are available to all but US users tend to expect/demand
them and not some longer country specific form. One example is dot
com. It is very rare to see something.com.us but not rare at all to
have something.co.uk or something.com.au . This has come as some
bit of advantage for non US websites because there are more choices
available.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
You are a loony. None of the above means that the government controls
the internet.
Planet Visitor II
Why doesn't it? And why do you always use an ad hominem when at a
loss to explain your argument?
Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
Indifference to evil is complicity with evil.
Earl Evleth
1j71zcl.13pnhxzq7vmqgN%dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net, "Mr Q.
Z. Diablo" <dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net> wrote:
>
> Have you ever wondered why .gov.au isn't?
>
> The existence of government run websites does not mean that the
> government controls the internet, Bill.
>
> (cue Bill going into spluttering denial again)
In fact I judge the potential value of web sits on the
basis of those that info. One is more like to find
accurate information on educational (.edu) web sites
than .org web sites. (example www.aei.org).
By the way, I see where Australia's homicides
have been dropping, at least until 2007.
http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/homicide.aspx
for a long time now I have found the US government's
crime stats unavailable
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm
`
does not come up.
John Rennie
was high in the 70s and 80s.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> On 4/10/09 0:25, in article
> 1j71zcl.13pnhxzq7vmqgN%dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net, "Mr Q.
> Z. Diablo" <dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Have you ever wondered why .gov.au isn't?
> >
> > The existence of government run websites does not mean that the
> > government controls the internet, Bill.
> >
> > (cue Bill going into spluttering denial again)
>
> In fact I judge the potential value of web sits on the
> basis of those that info. One is more like to find
> accurate information on educational (.edu) web sites
> than .org web sites. (example www.aei.org).
>
That's not what we were, however, discussing. Furthermore, dot edu
means the schools *and* of the students. Student webpages have
various verisimilitudes.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Think crack.
Earl Evleth
> dot edu
> means the schools *and* of the students.
Educational institutions, like Universities
Like
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=582
If you want to know about sea ice you go to
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Sometimes you find lecture notes on these sites.
The .edu signature gives certain credibility to
what is there.
Your right wing think tanks will have .org signatures.
I don't know how much devotion you have to junk science.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> On 4/10/09 18:06, in article 4AC8C80C...@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
> 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > dot edu
> > means the schools *and* of the students.
>
> Educational institutions, like Universities
>
> Like
>
> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=582
>
> If you want to know about sea ice you go to
>
I already know about sea ice.
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
>
> Sometimes you find lecture notes on these sites.
>
> The .edu signature gives certain credibility to
> what is there.
>
As I said, and you ignored, the dot edu could be a student website.
That means that "credibility" still needs to be considered.
> Your right wing think tanks will have .org signatures.
>
Or dot com or whatever. I don't really have any right wing think
tanks, Earl.
> I don't know how much devotion you have to junk science.
>
I don't have any devotion to junk science, Earl.
Earl Evleth
> As I said, and you ignored, the dot edu could be a student website.
I never ran into one. I don't frequent the student world.
None of them every heard about Rydberg states.
`
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_state
or photochemistry.
the photochemistry of the methyl radical is at
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988CPL...147..466C
and guess who?
[PDF]
Photodissociation dynamics of the methyl radical 3s Rydberg state
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View
vestigated the photochemistry of methyl radical at 216 nm ..... 4 H. T. Yu,
A. Sevin, E. Kassab, and E. M. Evleth, J. Chem. Phys. 80 5,. 2049 1984. ...
www.chem.tamu.edu/rgroup/north/CH3JCP.pdf - Similar
by SW North - 1995 - Cited by 21 - Related articles
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
I've often wondered what it would be like if Conservatives read
each others' posts instead of just the posts of Liberals. Liberals
read Liberals' posts. In fact, many Liberals killfile anyone who
isn't Liberal. They make an excellent cheering squad for their
fellow squabbies.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[snip monomania]
[snip tedium]
> I've often wondered what it would be like if Conservatives read
> each others' posts instead of just the posts of Liberals. Liberals
> read Liberals' posts. In fact, many Liberals killfile anyone who
> isn't Liberal. They make an excellent cheering squad for their
> fellow squabbies.
I've often wondered why you simply evade when you've painted yourself
into a corner, Bill. Now, Bill, explain to us all how the existence of
government web sites shows that the internet is controlled by the
government ...
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
You don't get to decide that, especially when your claim is absurd.
> Now, Bill, explain to us all how the existence of
> government web sites shows that the internet is controlled by the
> government ...
>
As I've repeated to you several times, the government websites for
America are dot gov. They don't need a dot gov dot US. Why is that?
Because they created the internet and got the first extensions.
This is also true of dot mil. That claim is true, that's the claim
I was making.
How does that paint me into a corner? It's also true that the US
has controls over the internet that other countries don't have.
Some of these were being given up because the internet is now
clearly a world wide thing that any one nation should not probably
have complete control over. This was stated in the text of the
article that started this thread.
So if anyone has the burden of proving their claim right now, it's
you. What is your claim about the internet? You haven't really even
said.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
So you admit that the government does not control the internet? If so,
that's settled.
> How does that paint me into a corner? It's also true that the US
> has controls over the internet that other countries don't have.
Well certainly, APNIC have no control over US netblocks or root servers
located in the USA. By the same token, ARIN has no control over
Australian netblocks. You are aware, Bill, that neither ARIN nor APNIC
are government entities?
> Some of these were being given up because the internet is now
> clearly a world wide thing that any one nation should not probably
> have complete control over. This was stated in the text of the
> article that started this thread.
>
> So if anyone has the burden of proving their claim right now, it's
> you.
Wrong, Bill. You have made a claim and the burden of proof, therefore,
lies with you.
> What is your claim about the internet? You haven't really even
> said.
My claim about the internet is that it is not controlled by the
government. Certainly government sites and government networks that are
exposed to the public are, but the management of the internet itself has
little or nothing to do with government.
Planet Visitor II
ROTFLMAO... How pathetic. How imitative of your friend. Has he been
providing you lessons by back-channel?
>> I've often wondered what it would be like if Conservatives read
>> each others' posts instead of just the posts of Liberals. Liberals
>> read Liberals' posts. In fact, many Liberals killfile anyone who
>> isn't Liberal. They make an excellent cheering squad for their
>> fellow squabbies.
>
>I've often wondered why you simply evade when you've painted yourself
>into a corner, Bill.
Pot...
Kettle...
Incredibly Black...
> Now, Bill, explain to us all how the existence of
>government web sites shows that the internet is controlled by the
>government ...
Now, Jon, explain to us all what I did that caused you to call me a
"racist lunatic," and what another did for you to suck his racist "I'm
a-gonna kill me all A-rabs" pecker?
You duplicitous, cowardly fart.
Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
"The silence of a friend usually amounts to treachery. His not
daring to say anything in our behalf implies a tacit censure" --
William Hazlitt.
No wonder you needed to stay silent about Desmond's racist.
You can't jeopardize your friendship with him, Jon.
Planet Visitor II
Looks like Jonathan is still reading Planet Visitor II. Notice that
there was no one ad hominem in his comment, given I mentioned
that all his comments generally have at least one obligatory
insult.
Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
"The devil's most devilish when respectable" - Liz Browning
Earl Evleth
1j74b7o.1yahance4r1nyN%dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net, "Mr Q.
Z. Diablo" <dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net> wrote:
> Certainly government sites and government networks that are
> exposed to the public are, but the management of the internet itself has
> little or nothing to do with government.
Fortunately for Bonde, there is no internet organization which
stops those making stupid posts from posting.
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:29:10 +0100
> Subject: Re: US relinquishes control of the internet
Bill, this is an overly broad generalization. I am a leftist and I read you
all the time. You cannot deny it. Just as you also read my posts.
Donna Evleth
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
If you'll recall, it was the very article that started this thread
that asserted that the US had now given up *some* of its control of
the internet. So you can take your argument up with whoever wrote
that. You haven't as of yet refuted anything from that article. My
claim was simply that one could look at the top level domains that
are assigned to the various countries to see which one had a closer
claim to control. Who would choose a longer form if they had
control? If the US didn't have control, how come it got dot gov and
dot mil? How come everyone else had to go with dot gov dot whatever
or dot mil dot whatever?
> > How does that paint me into a corner? It's also true that the US
> > has controls over the internet that other countries don't have.
>
> Well certainly, APNIC have no control over US netblocks or root servers
> located in the USA. By the same token, ARIN has no control over
> Australian netblocks. You are aware, Bill, that neither ARIN nor APNIC
> are government entities?
>
The problem you'll have is that the control used to be by the US
government. Of course there has been a relaxing of that as the dot
com and whatever domains were privatized. I remember when
commercial activities on the internet were frowned upon.
> > Some of these were being given up because the internet is now
> > clearly a world wide thing that any one nation should not probably
> > have complete control over. This was stated in the text of the
> > article that started this thread.
> >
> > So if anyone has the burden of proving their claim right now, it's
> > you.
>
> Wrong, Bill. You have made a claim and the burden of proof, therefore,
> lies with you.
>
But since the original article says the following:
#begin quote requote original article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/30/icann-agreement-us
"After complaints about American dominance of the internet and
growing
disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will
relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow
foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system."
#end quote
the presumption has shifted to you.
> > What is your claim about the internet? You haven't really even
> > said.
>
> My claim about the internet is that it is not controlled by the
> government. Certainly government sites and government networks that are
> exposed to the public are, but the management of the internet itself has
> little or nothing to do with government.
>
#begin quote
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/30/icann-agreement-us
"After complaints about American dominance of the internet and
growing
disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will
relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow
foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system."
#end quote
The ball's clearly in your court.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Of course there are some Liberals who read the creations of
Conservatives, but the point is that many do not, they simply read
the claptrap of their own cohorts. They apparently do this so they
can reinforce, "high five", their side. How can I, for example,
resist the onslaught of ten Liberals insisting that they are all
right when I've only got my own words and they just ignore all
cites and all evidence?
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:34:42 +0100
I didn't think we had 10 "liberals (your term, not mine) on this group.
Name them for me.
Donna Evleth
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[to justify an apparent claim that the government controls the internet]
> #begin quote
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/30/icann-agreement-us
>
> "After complaints about American dominance of the internet and
> growing
> disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will
> relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow
> foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system."
> #end quote
>
> The ball's clearly in your court.
And here is the proof that the government does not control the internet
- the fact that none of the following bodies are constrolled by the
government any more than a private corporation is controlled by the
government. Moreover, only one of these organisations is based in the
USA:
ARIN
RIPE NCC
APNIC
LACNIC
AfrNIC
If your claim is that the government controls the internet then it is
patently false, as the companies mentioned above actually have all the
control, including "life or death" powers over anyone who has been
allocated a netblock.
The article can say what it likes, as can "Washington" but, at day's
end, there is little that the US government can do about "American
Dominance of the internet" as that is almost entirely a commercial
phenomenon.
Fancy a right wing loon believing everything that they read in The
Grauniad!
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Of course there are some Liberals who read the creations of
> Conservatives, but the point is that many do not, they simply read
> the claptrap of their own cohorts. They apparently do this so they
> can reinforce, "high five", their side. How can I, for example,
> resist the onslaught of ten Liberals insisting that they are all
> right when I've only got my own words and they just ignore all
> cites and all evidence?
Eh? So you experience an "onslaught of ten Liberals" (strange how you
capitalise that) despite the fact that they do not read anything but the
"claptrap of their own cohorts".
If there's any claptrap being posted then it's yours, Bill. The simple
and obvious contradiction in the above paragraph renders it nonsensical.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
I think the nom is "Liberals". If you essentially fit the mould of
the modern "Liberal", I think you can be termed one.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Of course there are some Liberals who read the creations of
> > Conservatives, but the point is that many do not, they simply read
> > the claptrap of their own cohorts. They apparently do this so they
> > can reinforce, "high five", their side. How can I, for example,
> > resist the onslaught of ten Liberals insisting that they are all
> > right when I've only got my own words and they just ignore all
> > cites and all evidence?
>
> Eh? So you experience an "onslaught of ten Liberals" (strange how you
> capitalise that) despite the fact that they do not read anything but the
> "claptrap of their own cohorts".
>
What they'll often do is high five, or as I said, "tag team", the
disinterested observer being nearly non-existent.
> If there's any claptrap being posted then it's yours, Bill. The simple
> and obvious contradiction in the above paragraph renders it nonsensical.
>
There's no contradiction.
Planet Visitor II
wrote:
Ummm...
Donna Evelth
Earl Evleth
Mitchell Holman (silly liberal)
Desmond Coughlan (racist liberal)
Necromancer (working-class liberal)
Urinal Stain (crazy liberal)
William Black
liberal (that's his handle... not much question there)
broadsailor
deadrat
RPS (illiterate liberal)
Svenne
Easeye
Sunny Malone
robw
Green Sky
Greg Morrow
Sam
John Rennie
Jonathan Elliot (Diablo)
There's 20 for you.
These are the names I found of "liberals" who posted comments in
just the last two weeks. I could go back and find a dozen more, such
as Peter Morris, and dirtdog, and "Honest Nev," for example.
Now lest there is all that denial claiming that they are "communists,"
or "socialists," or "plutocrats" or "timocrats," or "autocrats," or
"kleptocrats" or "just about anything but a "liberal," let me define
what "I" mean by a "Liberal," as someone who meets a great
majority of the following opinions and beliefs --
Opposes the death penalty
Supports gun control
Supports Roe v. Wade unconditionally
Supports UHC including illegals and those who do not pay
Supports big brother government but --
Blames the government for crime
Blames the government for waste
Blames the government for graft
Believes throwing money at a problem is a fix for the problem
Opposes U.S. invasion of Iraq
Opposes U.S. invasion of Afghanistan
Opposes U.S. military intervention anywhere
Opposes the U.S. as being too militaristic
Blames world problems post-WW II solely on the U.S.
Believes the U.S. funds corrupt governments throughout the world
Believes U.S responsible for all global warming
Sees the U.S. as backward in fascination with the word "redneck"
Sees the U.S. as "too wealthy," wishing to see the U.S. get
her _nose bloodies_ a few times.
Believes the U.S. criminal justice system uses discriminatory
practices in prosecutions
Believes terrorism can be solved by negotiation with terrorists
Believes Bush was involved in 9/11 ("Truthers")
Believes Bush stole the 2000 presidential election
Compares Bush to Hitler
Compares Guantanamo to Dachau or the Nazi death camps
Supports personal level non-intervention (trolley problem)
Blames conservatives for bank failures
Leans leftist in _not blaming_ individuals involved in violent
protests
Leans leftist in _blaming_ the government for their actions in
violent protests
Opposes Christianity and ridicules Christians
Believes those who bomb abortion clinics are "true Christians"
Leans in favor of Islam and insists Muslims are "misunderstood"
Believes terrorists murdering in the name of Islam are not really
"true Muslims"
Looks unfavorably on Israel
Expects miracles from "multiculturalism"
Opposes any and all "profiling"
Believes racism and anti-Semitism are "grossly overstated"
as a "negative character trait"
Uses excessive ad hominem in dialogs with non-liberals
Needs a scapegoat
Relies on killfiles when the going gets tough. (I can't think
of a conservative ever using a killfile)
Now obviously I don't claim all liberals meet all of the opinions
and beliefs I've listed, nor is it that they meet strong agreement
with some of those opinions. They only need to meet a majority,
or support that opinion if another liberal holds it, to be considered
a liberal in my opinion.
Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
"A liberal is a man who leaves the room when the fight starts" --
Heywood Broun
Thus, that excessive use of the killfile by liberals.
>Donna Evleth
Planet Visitor II
wrote:
>
>
<fx: holds up hand to make a point... oops... Donna has me killfiled.
Never mind.>
Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
"Without confrontation and cross examination, a man brought before
a hearing board is subject to trial by inquisition." - Edward B.
Williams (One Man's Freedom).
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:41:02 +0100
You're now going to have to define the term "modern liberal".
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:13:04 +0100
> Subject: Re: US relinquishes control of the internet
>
>
>
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
>> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course there are some Liberals who read the creations of
>>> Conservatives, but the point is that many do not, they simply read
>>> the claptrap of their own cohorts. They apparently do this so they
>>> can reinforce, "high five", their side. How can I, for example,
>>> resist the onslaught of ten Liberals insisting that they are all
>>> right when I've only got my own words and they just ignore all
>>> cites and all evidence?
>>
>> Eh? So you experience an "onslaught of ten Liberals" (strange how you
>> capitalise that) despite the fact that they do not read anything but the
>> "claptrap of their own cohorts".
>>
> What they'll often do is high five, or as I said, "tag team", the
> disinterested observer being nearly non-existent.
And you believe that you are a disinterested observer? You who have so
often lectured the rest of us about the virtues of the marketplace?
Donna Evleth
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Not in a bickering I'm directly involved in.
> You who have so
> often lectured the rest of us about the virtues of the marketplace?
>
????????????????????????????????????
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
The term is "Liberal". It means people who ally at a certain place
and time. I use it to mean people who are described as or self
describe as Liberals in the context of US politics in the current
era.
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:35:22 +0100
I would never describe myself as a "Liberal" in the US in the current
climate. Since I am going to be hanged anyway by all the good
conservatives, I might as well be hanged for a Socialist as a wishy-washy
Liberal.
Donna Evleth
yitzhak in eretz (sic)
> dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
> Looks like Jonathan is still reading Planet Visitor II.
Sure, Nazi Noles. Which is why the first line of Jon's post contained the
words..
'Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
<tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:'
You. Fucking. Dolt.
(Um, for those keeping count, this is destruction #529, since Reichstag
Rennie made NN promise only to answer me using his obsessive (and widely
killfiled) name 'deconstructing...')
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
AADP's 'left-wing Israeli intellectual'
'If Algeria introduced a resolution in the UN, declaring that
the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would
pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions'
(Abba Eban)
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Of course if you claim the mantle of "Socialist", you can't
discount that you are at least a "Liberal" for purposes of tag
teaming, high fiving and similar confusingly named activities.
deconstructing desmond coughlan
A-rab scum from the Nile to the Tigris" Coughlan <yit...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On 2009-10-05, James 'Jew Lover' Noles <na...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:41:27 +1100,
>> dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>
>> Looks like Jonathan is still reading Planet Visitor II.
>
<clip Desmond whining>
Oops... Nothing left. Sorry, folks.
A Jew deconstructing desmond coughlan
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
"Sometimes Virtue starves, while Vice is fed" -- Alexander Pope
>Y.
yitzhak in eretz (sic)
> dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>>[snip tedium]
> ROTFLMAO... How pathetic. How imitative of your friend. Has he been
> providing you lessons by back-channel?
Poor Nazi Noles. You're taking a pasting these days. As ever.
Right now, in purely Usenet terms, Scum-Cunt, Jon and I are standing
pissing on your grave. Your grave in Usenet terms, of course, for you have
been comprehensively _t-h-r-a-s-h-e-d_ on news:alt.activism.death-penalty.
Of course, although you will lie as usual and snip the words 'in Usenet
terms', so that you can claim that I want you 'dead', nothing could be
further from the truth. But when you do die, as we all must, I'd be
grateful if you could get Nadia Liliane to make an appropriate announcement
here on news:alt.activism.death-penalty. I shall not celebrate, but I
shall not grieve, either. It will be just the demise of another morcel of
excreta on the toilet pan of life. However, I would like to know where you
are buried, because I have fond memories of having urinated on an electoral
poster of Jean-Marie le Pen in 1997. I should like to make it a hat-trick,
so to speak, by urinating on the grave of a fascist piece of human waste
like you.
Don't make me look for it on findagrave.com, Nazi Noles, or I'll do more
than piss on it.
{ snip some more incandescent rage that Jon 'dared' to plonk NN }
(Um, for those keeping count, this is destruction #535, since Reichstag
Sambo the Abo
> Right now, in purely Usenet terms, Scum-Cunt, Jon and I are standing
> pissing on your grave.
Homo bitches squat.
Sambo
> Y.
deconstructing desmond coughlan
>On 2009-10-05, James 'Jew Lover' Noles <na...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 08:59:24 +1100,
>> dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>
>>>[snip tedium]
>
>> ROTFLMAO... How pathetic. How imitative of your friend. Has he been
>> providing you lessons by back-channel?
>
>Poor "Jew Lover" Noles. You're taking a pasting these days. As ever.
>
>Right now, in purely Usenet terms, Scum-Cunt, Jon and I are standing
>pissing on your grave. Your grave in Usenet terms, of course, for you have
>been comprehensively _t-h-r-a-s-h-e-d_ on news:alt.activism.death-penalty.
>
>Of course, although you will lie as usual and snip the words 'in Usenet
>terms', so that you can claim that I want you 'dead', nothing could be
>further from the truth.
LOL... you want all your enemies dead, Desmond. And you certainly
just a few days ago demanded I "off" myself. I suppose you'd say
you don't want jigsaw dead. And you certainly hate me more than you
hate him.
In any case you're delusional since "Scum-Cunt" is your pet name for
that girlfriend you keep on the side, and she has nothing to do with
this.
BTW -- how's it feel to be the "bedfellow" of "Sambo the Abo"?
>But when you do die,
Which cannot be soon enough for you... you've made that very clear,
Desmond.
>as we all must, I'd be
>grateful if you could get Nadia Liliane to make an appropriate announcement
>here on news:alt.activism.death-penalty.
But you said you wanted her to be dead ahead of me. Make up your
mind. Maybe you want us to go at exactly the same moment like in the
movie, "The Notebook." I wouldn't mind it. Life seems pretty dreary
with the thought of her possibly not being with me. That's why I
feel a great empathy toward Donna... but don't mention I said so,
and you know that no one reads "Yitzhak" or "deconstructing desmond
coughlan" but the two of us.
>I shall not celebrate, but I shall not grieve, either.
Oh, you'd celebrate all right. You'd throw a fucking block party
if you stopped seeing my comments.
> It will be just the demise of another morcel of
>excreta on the toilet pan of life. However, I would like to know where you
>are buried, because I have fond memories of having urinated on an electoral
>poster of Jean-Marie le Pen in 1997. I should like to make it a hat-trick,
>so to speak, by urinating on the grave of a fascist piece of human waste
>like you.
Gee, Desmond... you said you can't honor or dishonor the dead. You
are an emotionally confused little fucker, aren't you?
>Don't make me look for it on findagrave.com, "Jew Lover" Noles, or I'll do more
>than piss on it.
Pay $300 to find the grave I suppose. Money is no object when it
comes to hiding your Nazi doctrine past.
>{ snip some more incandescent rage that Jon 'dared' to plonk NN }
You're dreaming again.
<clipped claims of victory... as usual anytime he finds himself
getting his behind tanned>
A Jew deconstructing desmond coughlan
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
The black power movement occurred when Black Americans
changed the negative term "black" to the positive term
"Black." The musician James Brown coined the phrase,
"Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud." REV. ALTON E.
PARIS, AMERICAN
Desmond, however, insists that the Black race should NEVER
have the word "black" capitalized. Especially when it refers
to the Black race. Since he wants to make sure that the
negative connection of the word "black" in respect to
"blackmail," "black heart," "black soul," "dirty," "evil"
"blackest day," "black humor," all and so many other
such terms remains connected to the "Black" race.
And then he tries to claim he's not a racist.... ROTFLMAO.
>Y.