Democracy is Doomed
rea...@usa.net
Because of my job, I have become familiar with a number of Third World
countries where democracy was tried with total failure. I've seen
first-hand the reality that for a democracy to succeed, the people must
to be educated, rational and discerning.
Evidence abounds that we Americans are losing those qualities. If so,
American democracy is doomed.
The Clinton-scandals phenomenon is the perfect illustration. Most
Americans have either convicted him or acquitted him based totally in
prejudice. In my observation, this is exactly how most Third World
citizenry base their votes.
While this is a bipartisan problem in the US, conservatives are really
showing their shortcomings these days. Most that I speak with, hear on
talk radio, or read Usenet seem utterly incapable of discerning between:
A) Spurious Rumor B) Serious Allegation; and C) Proven Fact
Their lack of discernment is appalling. They will accept, as fact, some
rumor they hear from an anonymous voice on Rush Limbaugh's show but will
reject a newspaper or magazine article which has names, dates, a byline,
confirmed sources and a fact checker.
It's absurd! And it's just like the third world where politics are
driven by rumor and prejudice. In some countries, if a candidate wants
to smear his opponent, he will start a rumor that the candidate is
secretly a cannibal. You may laugh at those "dumb" third worlders but, I
swear, if Rush said this about Bill Clinton, scads of Americans would
believe it!
Case in point are the rumors about Vince Foster. Ken Starr (who is no
friend of the Clintons) has confirmed the conclusions of two other
investigations by showing, with evidence, that Foster was not murdered.
His resources coupled with his opposition to the Clintons logically makes
him a credible source when he says the Clintons are innocent. Still, many
choose to believe the unfounded rumors.
Now I'm hearing conservatives call talk radio and say that Starr has been
corrupted by those evil Clintons! So illogical and ignorant! Yet,
presumably, they rely on these same moronic skills with voting.
American Democracy is doomed!
Sincerely,
Curtis
PS: E-mail me your credit card number and I'll send you a video tape for
$39.95 which PROVES that Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are the #1 crack
cartel in America. Learn about their secret airport in downtown New York
city which flies in loaded C1s every hour. You'll be SHOCKED SHOCKED
SHOCKED as you follow the trail of dead bodies leading to these notorious
killers. It's amazing _I'M_ still alive to write this, considering their
ruthlessness! E-mail me your card now before it's too la... auggg...
girggle... groan...
PS from Curtis' widow: Sob! Curtis was assassinated by Rush and Newt.
It's a fact! And it's PROOF that Rush and Newt are the two most corrupt
people on the face of the earth. I'm a witness! Dead bodies everywhere.
Where is the outrage?! (Don't forget the expiration date on your card.)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Scott Eckelman
rea...@usa.net wrote in article <8612392...@dejanews.com>...
>
> Case in point are the rumors about Vince Foster. Ken Starr (who is no
> friend of the Clintons) has confirmed the conclusions of two other
> investigations by showing, with evidence, that Foster was not murdered.
> His resources coupled with his opposition to the Clintons logically
makes
> him a credible source when he says the Clintons are innocent. Still,
many
> choose to believe the unfounded rumors.
>
Case in point, indeed. While it's been reported on every major network
and in most major newspapers that Ken Starr has finished/written/published
his report on the death of Vince Foster and that unnamed sources say
that the conclusion is suicide, this is an unfounded rumor, apparently
one which you believe. Starr has not released any such report, and
when asked, his office will not comment on the ongoing investigation.
What were you saying about the ignorance of the American people?
Scott E.
Jack Bowen
>American Democracy is doomed!
>
>Sincerely,
>Curtis
Although your post was a little " off the wall" Curtis, I enjoyed it.
A lot of the " Limba Nuts" on the net would do well to pay attention to
it.
Tell you wife not to worry about Credit Cards - just get a million dollar
advance and write a book.
JB
PS I'll bet you a dollar to a do-nut you get some serious inquiries
about your "proof" of a RL-NG cartel.
Michael Rivero
rea...@usa.net wrote in article <8612392...@dejanews.com>...
>
>
> Case in point are the rumors about Vince Foster. Ken Starr (who is no
> friend of the Clintons) has confirmed the conclusions of two other
> investigations by showing, with evidence, that Foster was not murdered.
In order to believe the suicide theory to be valid, one must accept that
Vincent Foster placed a .38 revolver into his own mouth and pulled the
trigger without getting any of his fingerprints or his blood on the gun
or powder or bullet fragments from the gun into the wound.
A short list of FACTS from the OFFICIAL RECORDS.
No blood on the gun. FBI lab report dated May 9th 1994, page 10.
No fingerprints belonging to Vincent Foster on the gun. FBI Memo attached
to lab report dated May 9th 1994, page 2.
No powder matchable to the dark blued steel gun found in the wounds.
FBI lab report dated May 9th 1994, page 8.
No bullet fragments in the wounds. Beyer Autopsy, Gross Description
page, next to last paragraph.
I repeat: The claim of suicide requires Vincent Foster to have inserted
a .38 revolver into his own mouth and pulled the trigger without getting
hi fingerprints or blood on that gun or powder or bullet fragments from
that gun in his wounds.
Then there is the matter of the silver gun.
Vincent Foster was found with a .38 Revolver made by Colt Arms. It was
built from parts taken from two other guns, and as a result had two
serial numbers. The Frame number was 355055, and according to the
records of the Colt Arms company (scanned and available at my website)
the gun was manufactured with a standard dark blue, almost black, finish.
In the Park Police record, the gun is describes as black. The accompanying
photographs in the Park police report show a black gun. (Also scanned and
available at my website.)
The photograph leaked by the White House to ABC-TV also shows a dark gun.
Outside of a glint from the camera flashgun, the gun image is too dark to
even detect the manufacturers blue color. One thing is quite clear, and that
is that the sharp protruding edges of the gun, where the finish would wear
off preferentially, show no signs of wear. Compare the albedo of the gun to
Fosters gold ring on his finger, just an inch away.
In all the Fort Marcy Park witnesses, in the Park Police, in the experts
at the FBI and ballistics lab, the gun is never described as anything but
dark blue or (more often) black.
No connection exists between that gun and Vincent Foster. Not even
fingerprints. Not even blood. Even the DNA traces on the gun, while "not
inconsistant" with Foster, were more likely to have originated with a black or
an Hispanic than a Caucasian.
Despite this, Robert Fiske (the ex-BCCI lawyer) inserted a comment on
page 38 of his report on Foster; a statement that Lisa Foster thought the gun
found with her husband was one she had brought up from Little Rock, Arkansas.
This statement came from an interview of Lisa Foster conducted by the FBI
several months after the murder of Vincent Foster, under the watchful eyes
of attorney Jim Hamilton and Fiske's representative on the scene, Roderick
Lankler.
In the original FD-302a report of the interview, as well as the handwritten
notes (scanned and available at my website), the intervieweing FBI agents
describe the gun being shown to Lisa Foster as "silver colored", not just
once, but several times. The gun is never described as dark blue or black.
The FBI agents are not quoting Lisa Foster, they write down THEIR impressions
of what is being said and done, and in their own words,"LISA FOSTER believes
that the gun found at Fort Marcy Park may be the silver gun which she brought
up with her other belongings when she permanently moved to Washington."
In order for Lisa Foster to believe that the gun prsented to her as the
Fort Marcy Park gun might be the family silver gun, the gun presented to
her as the Fort Marcy Park gun must also be silver. Lisa Foster doesn't
have to be a gun expert to know that silver is not black.
From both the FD-302a form (released as part of the first Senate
Whitewater hearings) and the handwritten notes (pried loose via Chris
Ruddy's FOIA lawsuit), it's clear that Lisa Foster was shown a gun she
recognized as the gun she brought up from Little Rock, but it's equally
clear that this is not the same gun as that found with Vincent Foster.
Black is not silver.
Once found out, this lie generated more lies to try to keep the coverup
in place, including the ludicrous suggestions that Lisa Foster cannot tell
silver from black, and that two FBI agents, and two lawyers heard and saw
a black gun described as silver in writing and did not request a clarification
or (as would be standard procedure) note the gun's serial number to preserve
the chain of evidence.
One thing is clear, regardless of just exactly how the FBI's report came to
describe a silver gun, it is utterly worthless in connection to the dark
blued steel .38 found with Vincent Foster, yet that is precisely how Fiske
chose to use it, paraphrasing (minus gun color, of course) Lisa's statement
into his report to link the .38 revolver to Vincent Foster.
The Fiske Report, having based it's conclusion that Vincent Foster owned
the dark blued steel revolver he was found with solely on Lisa Foster's
recognition of a silver gun, is invalidated.
The FBI, already in court for evidence tampering in another area of the
Vincent Foster affair, manufactured the testimony of Lisa Foster as it
was used in the Fiske Report.
This pattern of repeated alterations in evidence and testimony proves
the existance of a coverup, which in turn proves murder.
--
RANCHO RUNNAMUKKA | Special Effects / Documentary Films
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
TWA 800 BOOK - http://www.parismatch.com/actualite/twa4/indexang.html
Cam Kirmser
> friend of the Clintons) has confirmed the conclusions of two other
> investigations by showing, with evidence, that Foster was not murdered.
> him a credible source when he says the Clintons are innocent. Still, many
> choose to believe the unfounded rumors.
>
> corrupted by those evil Clintons! So illogical and ignorant! Yet,
> presumably, they rely on these same moronic skills with voting.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Curtis
>
> $39.95 which PROVES that Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are the #1 crack
> cartel in America. Learn about their secret airport in downtown New York
> city which flies in loaded C1s every hour. You'll be SHOCKED SHOCKED
> SHOCKED as you follow the trail of dead bodies leading to these notorious
> killers. It's amazing _I'M_ still alive to write this, considering their
> ruthlessness! E-mail me your card now before it's too la... auggg...
> girggle... groan...
>
> PS from Curtis' widow: Sob! Curtis was assassinated by Rush and Newt.
> It's a fact! And it's PROOF that Rush and Newt are the two most corrupt
> people on the face of the earth. I'm a witness! Dead bodies everywhere.
> Where is the outrage?! (Don't forget the expiration date on your card.)
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
For one, we are not a democracy. We are a Republic that Clinton and his
ilk are trying to turn into a democracy, and that will be our
downfall...
--
Cam Kirmser
gam...@flash.net
Sic friatur crustum dulce et Obesa cantavit...
Lew Glendenning
Michael Rivero wrote:
>
> In article <rayE8t...@netcom.com>, Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
> >> A short list of FACTS from the OFFICIAL RECORDS.
> >>
> >>
> >> No blood on the gun. FBI lab report dated May 9th 1994, page 10.
> >
> >that's no surprise at all.
> >
>
> No, his head was NOT between the gun and the blood once the gun had
> fired.
>
> The gun was inside Foster's mouth when fired. In the time interval
> required for the bullet to travel down the barrel and impact the roof
> of Foster's mouth, the recoil moved the gun 1/10 of an inch, at which
> point Foster's mouth was filled with a mixture of blood and gun propellent.
>
> It is impossible for the gun barrel not to have been coated with blood
> from the entrance wound.
>
> Vincent Foster was murdered.
Again, for the non-gun people, detail.
Guns work because the powder burns (doesn't explode) at a high rate,
producing a high volume of gasses which drive the bullet down the
barrel. These are operating at high pressure. 50,000 psi at the moment
a high-powered rifle or "automatic" pistol is fired, but I don't know
about revolvers, which have a space between cylinder and barrel. Still,
lots of gas at high pressure. Human flesh will be torn by the gasses
themselves.
If you stand beside a .38 special with a 4-inch barrel as it is fired,
you will feel a physical slap as the shock wave hits your body. At a
few feet, you still feel it inside. A .38 special is fairly potent
cartridge.
So, if you fire a gun into anything soft at a range of inches, the
gasses rush into the channel created by the bullet, and blow the soft
substance back out of the channel.
In flesh, a wound channel is created by the bullet. Entirely
independently of the gasses, a supersonic bullet creates a cavity due to
the shock wave. This distended cavity collapses due to the natural
resilience of tissue. At short ranges, this cavity is filled with the
propellant gasses.
Given a shot inside a human mouth, the person's cheeks will be distended
very wide due to the propellent gasses. The .38 slug will create a
shockwave as it penetrates the brain. Because the head has overpressure
and a single extra relief hole, brain and blood (the brain is an
astonishingly bloody organ) will gush from the entrance wound and mix
with the propellent gasses still entering the mouth. Collapse of cheeks
will help propell a lot of debris (polite term) out of the mouth.
Lots of blood and brains sprayed to the person's front.
What happens behind depends on the bullet and cartridge, but generally a
big exit wound, and lots of debris propelled by the force of the bullet.
Lew
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <3356c1b8...@news.mindspring.com>, ain't...@tno.e-mail says...
> Yo, *Fischer*! Who the fuck are you and where have you
>*been*?? Is this, like, your very first-ever post on the Vince Foster
>case?
(smile) Of course, if it is, he'll find out that a small minority of
conspiracy theorists believe that if they shout their theories loud enough
that it's enough to prove their case...everyone else is just covering up
because they are big evil government types...
amusing, but it gets boring quickly...
cheers, scott
Ray Fischer
Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
> A short list of FACTS from the OFFICIAL RECORDS.
>
>
> No blood on the gun. FBI lab report dated May 9th 1994, page 10.
So what? Given that his head was between the gun and the blood,
that's no surprise at all.
> No fingerprints belonging to Vincent Foster on the gun. FBI Memo attached
>to lab report dated May 9th 1994, page 2.
So what again? Do you think that everything you touch acquires a
fingerprint? Isn't so. Fingerprints smear more of the time, and
especially on oiled guns.
> No powder matchable to the dark blued steel gun found in the wounds.
>FBI lab report dated May 9th 1994, page 8.
Not "no powder", but "no powder MATCHABLE". No surprise there either,
since there isn't anything especially unique about the powder used for
bullets.
> No bullet fragments in the wounds. Beyer Autopsy, Gross Description
>page, next to last paragraph.
"Gross description page". Is that anything like a cursory
examination? You mean that a first examination it appeared that all
of the bullet fragments exited the body? And this is a surprise???
> I repeat:
You're an idiot. Learn to think instead of sticking your nose into
the ass of every conspiracy theory that comes along.
> Then there is the matter of the silver gun.
>
> Vincent Foster was found with a .38 Revolver made by Colt Arms. It was
>built from parts taken from two other guns, and as a result had two
>serial numbers. The Frame number was 355055, and according to the
>records of the Colt Arms company (scanned and available at my website)
>the gun was manufactured with a standard dark blue, almost black, finish.
>
> In the Park Police record, the gun is describes as black. The accompanying
>photographs in the Park police report show a black gun. (Also scanned and
>available at my website.)
You mean you can't tell the difference between dark blue metal and
black in a photograph?!?
Well, that settles it then.
> The photograph leaked by the White House to ABC-TV also shows a dark gun.
>Outside of a glint from the camera flashgun, the gun image is too dark to
>even detect the manufacturers blue color. One thing is quite clear, and that
>is that the sharp protruding edges of the gun, where the finish would wear
>off preferentially, show no signs of wear. Compare the albedo of the gun to
>Fosters gold ring on his finger, just an inch away.
You are an idiot. Did I already tell you that? Did you happen to
consider for a moment that highlights tend to get washed out in
photographs? And especially in prints of photographs? Do you know
what that means?
Get a life, wanker.
--
Ray Fischer "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding." Louis Brandeis
Michael Rivero
In article <rayE8t...@netcom.com>, Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> No blood on the gun. FBI lab report dated May 9th 1994, page 10.
>
>that's no surprise at all.
>
No, his head was NOT between the gun and the blood once the gun had
fired.
The gun was inside Foster's mouth when fired. In the time interval
required for the bullet to travel down the barrel and impact the roof
of Foster's mouth, the recoil moved the gun 1/10 of an inch, at which
point Foster's mouth was filled with a mixture of blood and gun propellent.
It is impossible for the gun barrel not to have been coated with blood
from the entrance wound.
Vincent Foster was murdered.
Billy Beck
Get *this!
r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>> A short list of FACTS from the OFFICIAL RECORDS.
>> No blood on the gun. FBI lab report dated May 9th 1994, page 10.
>
>So what? Given that his head was between the gun and the blood,
>that's no surprise at all.
Yo, *Fischer*! Who the fuck are you and where have you
*been*?? Is this, like, your very first-ever post on the Vince Foster
case? It certainly looks like it. Riddle us this: do the words,
"left posterior palate" mean anything to you? Guess what: the gun is
supposed to be *in* his head. Now, here's what you do: you get to go
sit in the corner and figure out the muzzle velocity of the bullet
(and the gases) exiting that Colt .38, pulverizing the soft tissues in
his mouth, and then plot their course. Don't forget that there is
only one immediate escape from the compression chamber of the
mouth...in which the muzzle of the gun is contained.
Final Jeopardy: "Blood on the gun."
Please state your answer in the form of an intelligent
question.
And, uh...
>> In the Park Police record, the gun is describes as black. The >>accompanying photographs in the Park police report show a black gun. >>(Also scanned and available at my website.)
>
>You mean you can't tell the difference between dark blue metal and
>black in a photograph?!?
...you need to direct this question to the FBI.
>Get a life, wanker.
You come in here spooing your completely ignorant crap, and
presume to *advise* as well?
Big splash, Fischer. You're in the fool pool. Start
swimming.
Billy
UltraZ
rea...@usa.net wrote:
>Because of my job, I have become familiar with a number of Third World
>countries where democracy was tried with total failure. I've seen
>first-hand the reality that for a democracy to succeed, the people must
>to be educated, rational and discerning.
>Evidence abounds that we Americans are losing those qualities. If so,
>American democracy is doomed.
>The Clinton-scandals phenomenon is the perfect illustration. Most
>Americans have either convicted him or acquitted him based totally in
>prejudice.
Totally incorrect, evidence for a myriad of crimes against this
president have amassed. He only postpones the inevitable by having a
liberal media and newsbabes on his side. Read about 11 of 12
indictments in WW. Still think there's nothing there? Cmon get real.
Its not the end of Democracy, its the beginning of justice and benign
cooperation between a bias press and a liberal.
Life will go on.
UZ
Martin McPhillips
On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:48:28 GMT, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>> A short list of FACTS from the OFFICIAL RECORDS.
>>
>>
>> No blood on the gun. FBI lab report dated May 9th 1994, page 10.
>
>So what? Given that his head was between the gun and the blood,
>that's no surprise at all.
You probably realize that you began your response with a statement
that makes no sense, but that is typical of the kind of argument
that people who wish to defend the "Vince Foster killed himself"
scenario.
In fact, holding a gun---particularly a .38---inside one's mouth
and pulling the trigger produces a series of entirely predictable
results, in addition to death.
One of the most predictable of these is a jet spray---a "blowback"---
of blood and tissue that will land on the gun, the hand, and the sleeve,
at least.
The facts discussed about the death of Vincent Foster are
those that are collected in the records of the official investigations
into his death.
Vince Foster was found late in the afternoon of July 20, 1993
lying dead in Ft. Marcy Park, a federal Civil War site in Virginia,
outside of Washington, D.C.
Foster's death was called a suicide.
He was found with a 1913 Army Colt .38 Special in his hand, with
a wound of entry inside his mouth.
Yet there was no characteristic pattern of blood splatter behind
Foster, in spite of the fact that the .38 he used is a powerful
weapon.
There was no blowback spray of blood and tissue on his hand,
or on his sleeve.
There was no blood disgorged from the wound down the front of
his shirt.
A trickle of blood at the corner of his mouth was running uphill, against
the force of gravity.
At the crime scene, 35mm documentary photographs were taken,
but they did not come out. Several Polaroids were also taken, most
of which have gone missing.
Mr. Foster was a top-level Executive Branch official, with an office
in the West Wing of the White House---he was the lawyer to the
President of the United States---the Deputy White House Counsel.
But instead of the investigation of his death being immediately turned
over to the FBI, the crime scene was investigated by detectives from
the U.S. Park Police, and for one of those detectives, John Rolla, this
was his *first* death investigation.
Further, the police at the scene seached Mr. Foster's pockets but
could not find his car keys. Yet those keys were later found at the
morgue after the body had been visited by Craig Livingstone and
William Kennedy.
The body was sent to a 75 year old coroner, Dr. Beyer, who said
that he had taken head x-rays---important in a head shot case---but
could never produce those x-rays. He later said that he did not take
the x-rays.
In addition, there is no record of Mr. Foster having left the White
House grounds the day of his death. After telling one of his
assistants that he would "be back," at around 1:15 in the
afternoon he left his office and is reported to have been seen
by White House guard Skyles. But Foster was never seen in
the parking lot, not getting into or out of his car, not driving
out of the lot. He was not seen in transit to Ft. Marcy Park. He
was not seen alive in Ft. Marcy Park. No one saw him drive
into the parking lot there, or get out of his car. No one saw
him walking in the park. No heard a gunshot. A wine cooler bottle
was found near Foster's body, and there were wine coolers in his
car, but there is no report of anyone having sold Foster any
wine coolers along any route to Ft. Marcy Park.
In other words, Foster told his assistant he would be back, was
possibly seen after that by a White House guard, and then
*never* seen alive again.
In the hours after Mr. Foster's death his office was searched by at
least two high-level White House officials---Margaret Williams,
the First Lady's top aide, and Patsy Thomasson, an old
Arkansas hand. Ms. Williams was observed by Secret Service
uniformed agent Henry O'Neil carrying stacks of files from
Mr. Foster's office, something that Williams denies doing.
About six days after his death, and after his briefcase had
been searched three times, a note was found, torn into
28 pieces, in the bottom of Foster's briefcase.
There were no fingerprints on the note. Although
the palm print of Bernard Nussbaum *was* found on it.
After two and a half years, the Independent Counsel, Kenneth
Starr has been unable to confirm the finding of suicide.
Billy Beck
cay...@bway.net (Martin McPhillips) drolled:
>In fact, holding a gun---particularly a .38---inside one's mouth
>and pulling the trigger produces a series of entirely predictable
>results, in addition to death.
"I still haven't found the right way to express laughter in
Usenet."
Billy
Billy Beck
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>ain't...@tno.e-mail says...
>
>> Yo, *Fischer*! Who the fuck are you and where have you
>>*been*?? Is this, like, your very first-ever post on the Vince Foster
>>case?
>
>(smile) Of course, if it is, he'll find out that a small minority of
>conspiracy theorists beli...
No blood on the gun, Erb. Fact in evidence.
Billy
privacy
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 03:49:50 GMT, ain't...@tno.e-mail (Billy Beck)
wrote:
>
>cay...@bway.net (Martin McPhillips) drolled:
>
>>In fact, holding a gun---particularly a .38---inside one's mouth
>>and pulling the trigger produces a series of entirely predictable
>>results, in addition to death.
>
> "I still haven't found the right way to express laughter in
>Usenet."
The correct term is:
"BWWWWWAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAA!!!!"
And now, you know. ;)
----------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION SPECIFICALLY DENIED TO SEND, FORWARD, OR
OTHERWISE DELIVER BULK EMAIL OR UNSOLICITED ADVERTISE-
MENTS TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS.
Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a
computer/modem/printer meets the definition
of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C),
it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement
to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation
of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action
to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
is greater, for each violation.
VIOLATIONS **WILL** BE PROSECUTED.
andrew u straw
In <3356A5...@flash.net> Cam Kirmser <gam...@flash.net> writes:
<snipped most of the original post, except this part, which makes me
laugh>
>>
>> PS: E-mail me your credit card number and I'll send you a video tape for
>> $39.95 which PROVES that Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are the #1 crack
>> cartel in America. Learn about their secret airport in downtown New York
>> city which flies in loaded C1s every hour. You'll be SHOCKED SHOCKED
>> SHOCKED as you follow the trail of dead bodies leading to these notorious
>> killers. It's amazing _I'M_ still alive to write this, considering their
>> ruthlessness! E-mail me your card now before it's too la... auggg...
>> girggle... groan...
>>
>> PS from Curtis' widow: Sob! Curtis was assassinated by Rush and Newt.
>> It's a fact! And it's PROOF that Rush and Newt are the two most corrupt
>> people on the face of the earth. I'm a witness! Dead bodies everywhere.
>> Where is the outrage?! (Don't forget the expiration date on your card.)
>>
>> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>For one, we are not a democracy. We are a Republic that Clinton and his
>ilk are trying to turn into a democracy, and that will be our
>downfall...
I wonder why it is that the word "ilk" only seems to be used when one is
trying to indirectly smear someone. It must be simply the sound of the
word, because ilk in MY dictionary only means "like" or "kind." It just
doesn't sound as disgusting (for whatever reasons) to say "kind" as it
does to say "ilk." Looks like the bad-mouthers of the Internet have found
a new word to twist to their evil purposes :)
Also, what makes a Republic any better than a democracy? A Republic is
less responsive to the will of the people, which is fine if you
assume that "the people" are generally schmucks, but illegitimate if you
believe in democracy more than elitism.
Andrew Straw
Michael Schneider
In article <5j6nog$d...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> In article <3356c1b8...@news.mindspring.com>, ain't...@tno.e-mail says...
>
> > Yo, *Fischer*! Who the fuck are you and where have you
> >*been*?? Is this, like, your very first-ever post on the Vince Foster
> >case?
>
> (smile) Of course, if it is, he'll find out that a small minority of
> conspiracy theorists believe that if they shout their theories loud enough
> that it's enough to prove their case...everyone else is just covering up
> because they are big evil government types...
>
> amusing, but it gets boring quickly...
> cheers, scott
Have you proven "your" case?
+--+--+
Own a Macintosh? Why on *earth* are you then using Netscape,
AOL, DejaNews or other clunky-ass browser to read usenet? Yuk!
Surf to: http://www.shareware.com/SW/Search/Index/
"Quick Search", "Macintosh", type in: "YA-Newswatcher"
Select a download site. Decompress downloaded file with Stuffit.
"Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" -- Yago
Scott D. Erb
In article <mike1-18049...@192-161.dynamic.visi.com>,
mi...@nospam.visi.com says...
> Have you proven "your" case?
Have you proven yours?
Listen, if the investigation comes out saying it was a murder, I'll
publically post that you all were right and I was wrong. Forgive me if I
don't take internet conspiracy theories too seriously.
cheers, scott
Martin McPhillips
The facts discussed about the death of Vincent Foster are
Wayne McGuire
cay...@bway.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:48:28 GMT, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>
>>Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>>> A short list of FACTS from the OFFICIAL RECORDS.
>>>
>>>
>>> No blood on the gun. FBI lab report dated May 9th 1994, page 10.
>>
>>So what? Given that his head was between the gun and the blood,
>>that's no surprise at all.
>
>You probably realize that you began your response with a statement
>that makes no sense, but that is typical of the kind of argument
>that people who wish to defend the "Vince Foster killed himself"
>scenario.
Another flaming idiot has appeared on the Internet
to attempt to defend the laughably confused and
dishonest Fiske Report: RAY FISCHER.
Here's the updated list of the club of dunces:
David Borowski
James Dolan
Ray Fischer
Gary Frazier
Jason Gottlieb
Richard Hanson
Paul H. Henry
JadeGold
Chris Kelly (Swopa)
Brad Kepley
Henry E. Kilpatrick Jr.
Mark Komarinski
Van Lewis
Alan Miles
James R. Olson Jr.
Pat Parson
David M. Pickering
Elizabeth Rosen (Left is Right)
Michael King Ross
Stilt Man
The really strange and amusing thing is that all
these folks think that by defending the Fiske
Report and aiding and abetting a criminal cover-up
they are protecting the Clintons. They think that
by protecting the Clintons they are protecting the
Democratic Party, the liberal political agenda and
the leftist establishment.
How stupid can you get? The Clintons have done
more to damage the Democratic Party and the left
than any other force in modern American political
life. None of the above ideological zealots is
able to respond to events and facts in the real
world, whether it concerns the true circumstances
of Vince Foster's death or the actual state of the
Democratic Party in 1997.
What we've got here is a collection of losers
damaging their own political cause because they
don't care about the truth.
Now let's step back and watch Ray Fischer further
embarrass himself with his every ignorant post
about the Foster case. Should be fun.
--
Wayne McGuire
http://www.cybercom.net/~wmcguire
Cam Kirmser
What's wrong with using the word "ilk," especially if it, as you pointed
out, means the same thing as "kind" or "like?" Are you saying the word
"ilk" is inherently evil? Amazing, first, guns are given sentience, and
now words are given morality. Unlike most liberals, to me, a word is a
word. The only time the sound of a word takes precedence over meaning is
when I have already used the word in a sentence, or if the alternate
word simply fits better phonetically. You want me to use "kind?" Sure,
fine, I will, but does that, somehow, magically change the meaning? We
can call a rose a spatula, if we want, but it's still a rose. For
example, it is now trendy to say "physically challenged." BAH! the
person is still a cripple or handicapped. That's just the way it is.
--
Ray Fischer
So on one side we have the people listed above, as well as medical
examiners, police, criminologists, the US Senate, the FBI.
And on the other side we have some people who really don't know what
they're talking about and who clearly are anti-government anti-liberal
political bigots out to attack anything that doesn't kiss up to their
right-wing ideology.
Hmmm.
Tough choice.
Ray Fischer
Lew Glendenning <rlgl...@alink.net> wrote:
>Again, for the non-gun people, detail.
>
>Guns work because the powder burns (doesn't explode) at a high rate,
>producing a high volume of gasses which drive the bullet down the
>barrel. These are operating at high pressure. 50,000 psi at the moment
>a high-powered rifle or "automatic" pistol is fired, but I don't know
>about revolvers, which have a space between cylinder and barrel. Still,
>lots of gas at high pressure. Human flesh will be torn by the gasses
>themselves.
>
>If you stand beside a .38 special with a 4-inch barrel as it is fired,
>you will feel a physical slap as the shock wave hits your body. At a
>few feet, you still feel it inside. A .38 special is fairly potent
>cartridge.
>
>So, if you fire a gun into anything soft at a range of inches, the
>gasses rush into the channel created by the bullet, and blow the soft
>substance back out of the channel.
As opposed to pushing the tissue and blood out of the gaping hole in
the back of the head? You're saying that the higher pressure inside
the mouth will push the blood into the mouth instead of out the lower
pressure and larger hole in the back of the head?!?
Sure. And you also have a bridge you want to sell me, right?
>In flesh, a wound channel is created by the bullet. Entirely
>independently of the gasses, a supersonic bullet creates a cavity due to
>the shock wave. This distended cavity collapses due to the natural
>resilience of tissue.
Not in the milliseconds it takes for the bullet to exit the skull.
> At short ranges, this cavity is filled with the
>propellant gasses.
Moving _away_ from the entrance wound.
>Given a shot inside a human mouth, the person's cheeks will be distended
>very wide due to the propellent gasses. The .38 slug will create a
>shockwave as it penetrates the brain. Because the head has overpressure
>and a single extra relief hole,
Bzzzzt! Wrong. A bullet won't stop at the back of the head. I will
blow out a nice large hole.
> brain and blood (the brain is an
>astonishingly bloody organ) will gush from the entrance wound and mix
>with the propellent gasses still entering the mouth. Collapse of cheeks
>will help propell a lot of debris (polite term) out of the mouth.
Unless, of course, the big hole in the back of the head relieves all
of the pressure, and the blood goes out that way.
>Lots of blood and brains sprayed to the person's front.
>
>What happens behind depends on the bullet and cartridge, but generally a
>big exit wound, and lots of debris propelled by the force of the bullet.
So the gas and bullet are travelling towards the back, but you claim
that the blood travels forward?!?
Sure.
Ray Fischer
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Don't forget that there is
>only one immediate escape from the compression chamber of the
>mouth...in which the muzzle of the gun is contained.
The large gaping wound in the back of the head where the bullet blew
out the back of the skull?
Billy Beck
r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Don't forget that there is
>>only one immediate escape from the compression chamber of the
>>mouth...in which the muzzle of the gun is contained.
>
>The large gaping wound in the back of the head where the bullet blew
>out the back of the skull?
Izzat so? Okay.
*Now* you get to go find that "large gaping wound in the back
of [Vince's] head". I wouldn't suggest you rely on the official
records.
Billy
Michael Schneider
In article <rayE8v...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Wayne McGuire <wmcg...@cybercom.net> wrote:
(List of dopes)
> >The really strange and amusing thing is that all
> >these folks think that by defending the Fiske
> >Report and aiding and abetting a criminal cover-up
> >they are protecting the Clintons.
>
> So on one side we have the people listed above, as well as medical
> examiners, police, criminologists, the US Senate, the FBI.
Would that be the medical examiner who perjured himself in Senate
testimony? Of the *Park* "Police" who couldn't find his keys during two
thorough searches, or the FBI, which sent goons to harrass Patrick
Knowlton for refusing to change his testimony that Foster did not have a
gun when found (corroberating the paramedics)?
Hey Ray, *stop* letting these people think for you.
They're making you look stupid.
Lew Glendenning
Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> Lew Glendenning <rlgl...@alink.net> wrote:
> >Again, for the non-gun people, detail.
> >
> >Guns work because the powder burns (doesn't explode) at a high rate,
> >producing a high volume of gasses which drive the bullet down the
> >barrel. These are operating at high pressure. 50,000 psi at the moment
> >a high-powered rifle or "automatic" pistol is fired, but I don't know
> >about revolvers, which have a space between cylinder and barrel. Still,
> >lots of gas at high pressure. Human flesh will be torn by the gasses
> >themselves.
> >
> >If you stand beside a .38 special with a 4-inch barrel as it is fired,
> >you will feel a physical slap as the shock wave hits your body. At a
> >few feet, you still feel it inside. A .38 special is fairly potent
> >cartridge.
> >
> >So, if you fire a gun into anything soft at a range of inches, the
> >gasses rush into the channel created by the bullet, and blow the soft
> >substance back out of the channel.
>
> As opposed to pushing the tissue and blood out of the gaping hole in
> the back of the head? You're saying that the higher pressure inside
> the mouth will push the blood into the mouth instead of out the lower
> pressure and larger hole in the back of the head?!?
>
> Sure. And you also have a bridge you want to sell me, right?
Notice the timing: First, the hole is made by the bullet INTO the
head. This bullet is traveling about 1100 feet per second as it leaves
the gun (from memory, so could be off a bit). It is slowed by the
initial contact with skull and further slowed by the brain tissue, so
takes about somewhat less than a millisecond to transit the head. In
that millisecond, the over-pressure in the skull gouts blood back into
the mouth.
Further, the hole into the skull is <.5", while the supersonic gasses
are exerting pressure everywhere. The gas volume doesn't merely follow
the bullet.
Don't believe me? Go do the melon experiment. Nobody who does the
melon experiment will argue. Nobody who shoots a handgun into a chunk
of meat and has to clean bits of goo out of the barrel will argue.
In both cases, the bullet transits the tissue much faster than than it
goes through a human head.
Until then, you don't appear to know much about guns, bullets, trauma,
etc., or you are arguing merely to fuzz the issues.
Lew
j
People ! You are trying to reason this thing out using
assumptions and presumptions. What is needed is Hard
Data ... something modeled by the same sort of software
they use to simulate nuclear explosions. An exacting
mathematical model. Anything less is PURE SPECULATION
and deserves no attention whatsoever.
Lew Glendenning
Wrong on many points.
1) Simulations of nuclear explosions don't model every particle and
wave. I don't know what the record for number of elements in a
simulation is, but it is surely less than 10s of billions, while there
are millions of trillions of elements in a nuclear explosion.
Even if you wanted to simulate the behavior of every particle, you
couldn't because of computational complexity. Every particle/wave has
some effect on every other. Therefore, the size of the computation
increases at least as the square of the number of particles, for
first-order effects.
The economy has many more kinds of interactions than a nuclear
explosion.
2) There are only a few dozen kinds of elements in a nuclear explosion.
E.g. plutonium atoms, free neutrons, plutonium nucleus breakdown
products, a few kinds of radiation. There millions of kinds of elements
in an economy (every commodity and product in every location,
world-wide).
3) Rules/equations governing the behavior or elements in nuclear
explosions are very simple compared to economies, much less societies.
We don't know the rules/equations relating the price of all of the
various commodities, much less products, which make up an economy.
Impossible to know for our relationship with each other.
4) Rules govering nuclear explosions are physical laws. Rules govering
the economy change constantly. Not only laws regulating it, but
invention of new materials and processes constantly change the equations
relating prices of existing materials and products.
5) Simulating a nuclear explosion doesn't change real nuclear
explosions. However, gathering the data to simulate the economy would
do so.
6) Even if you could avoid 5), and even if you had the computer power
and it didn't also distort the economy, you would have an "initial
conditions" problem. This is due to non-linear components of the
equations and feedback between equations. Therefore, missing a single
element of the economy, or mis-typing causing a single penny error in
the price of a pound of carrots in Modesto, CA may cause the simulation
of the economy to turn out completely differently than if the error had
not been made.
7) Reporting the outcome of a simulation of a nuclear explosion doesn't
change real nuclear explosions. However, this is not true of economies
or societies.
These are the fundamental reasons that economy can never be a predictive
science.
Sorry, you will have to live with ambiguity.
Lew
privacy
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 01:53:06 GMT, jma...@iu.net (j) wrote:
>People ! You are trying to reason this thing out using
>assumptions and presumptions. What is needed is Hard
>Data ... something modeled by the same sort of software
>they use to simulate nuclear explosions. An exacting
>mathematical model. Anything less is PURE SPECULATION
>and deserves no attention whatsoever.
And where is your model? Or do you prefer only to shoot down the work
of others without providing anything with which to replace it?
xona
Rush screwing his wife vs. two pigs havingv sex
xona
Martin McPhillips
White House spokesman Xona proposes a tag-team
match/sexual competition between the Limbaughs
and the Clintons----
On 21 Apr 1997 13:59:01 -0700, xona <xo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> Rush screwing his wife vs. two pigs havingv sex
>
>xona
MORE IMPRESSIONS OF USENET
CLINTOONIACS
....
XONA--An octogenarian haruspex on
nitroglycerin whose hobbies include
bingo, vertigo, and social lumbago.
....
MR. MANDY GRUNWALD--The Marquis de
Sade, dressed as JonBenet Ramsey,
hosts a gala benefit for biological
weapons engineers.
j...@globaldialog.com
xona wrote:
>
> Rush screwing his wife vs. two pigs havingv sex
>
> xona
Wiping away a fake tear v. cracking up at Ron Brown's funeral
Loren Petrich
[On the supposed impossibility of "predicting the economy"...]
So every business that has *ever* tried to predict *anything*
economic is simply wasting time?
Try telling the Board of Directors of your favorite company that
trying to predict future economic trends is a waste of time and money
some time.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Charles Mott
In article <335BA3...@alink.net>, rlgl...@alink.net wrote:
[snip -- context destroyed. Sorry about that.]
> 4) Rules govering nuclear explosions are physical laws. Rules govering
> the economy change constantly. Not only laws regulating it, but
> invention of new materials and processes constantly change the equations
> relating prices of existing materials and products.
>
George Soros (sadly, both a closet communist and greedy
speculator) has written about how flawed, from a very
fundamental standpoint, mathematical economics is.
Traditional economists have been ridiculing Soros, but
I tend to agree with his arguments.
Lew Glendenning
Lew Glendenning wrote:
>
> j wrote:
> >
> > People ! You are trying to reason this thing out using
> > assumptions and presumptions. What is needed is Hard
> > Data ... something modeled by the same sort of software
> > they use to simulate nuclear explosions. An exacting
> > mathematical model. Anything less is PURE SPECULATION
> > and deserves no attention whatsoever.
>
>
> 1) Simulations of nuclear explosions don't model every particle and
> wave. I don't know what the record for number of elements in a
> simulation is, but it is surely less than 10s of billions, while there
> are millions of trillions of elements in a nuclear explosion.
>
> Even if you wanted to simulate the behavior of every particle, you
> couldn't because of computational complexity. Every particle/wave has
> some effect on every other. Therefore, the size of the computation
> increases at least as the square of the number of particles, for
> first-order effects.
>
> The economy has many more kinds of interactions than a nuclear
> explosion.
>
> 2) There are only a few dozen kinds of elements in a nuclear explosion.
> E.g. plutonium atoms, free neutrons, plutonium nucleus breakdown
> products, a few kinds of radiation. There millions of kinds of elements
> in an economy (every commodity and product in every location,
> world-wide).
>
> 3) Rules/equations governing the behavior or elements in nuclear
> explosions are very simple compared to economies, much less societies.
> We don't know the rules/equations relating the price of all of the
> various commodities, much less products, which make up an economy.
> Impossible to know for our relationship with each other.
>
> the economy change constantly. Not only laws regulating it, but
> invention of new materials and processes constantly change the equations
> relating prices of existing materials and products.
>
> explosions. However, gathering the data to simulate the economy would
> do so.
>
> 6) Even if you could avoid 5), and even if you had the computer power
> and it didn't also distort the economy, you would have an "initial
> conditions" problem. This is due to non-linear components of the
> equations and feedback between equations. Therefore, missing a single
> element of the economy, or mis-typing causing a single penny error in
> the price of a pound of carrots in Modesto, CA may cause the simulation
> of the economy to turn out completely differently than if the error had
> not been made.
>
> 7) Reporting the outcome of a simulation of a nuclear explosion doesn't
> change real nuclear explosions. However, this is not true of economies
> or societies.
>
> These are the fundamental reasons that economy can never be a predictive
> science.
>
> Sorry, you will have to live with ambiguity.
>
> Lew
One other point:
Nuclear explosions run to completion without much influence from the
outside. That is, the forces are extremely large relative to influences
such as sunshine, wind, ... Therefore, the simulations can ignore these
influences.
The economy is subject to many outside influences: weather's effects on
crops, vacations, ... Natural disaster's effects on whole regions and
use of money/products within them, etc.
Thus, while economic simulations do ignore these influences, they
thereby don't predict the future.
Lew
j
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> [On the supposed impossibility of "predicting the economy"...]
> So every business that has *ever* tried to predict *anything*
>economic is simply wasting time?
> Try telling the Board of Directors of your favorite company that
>trying to predict future economic trends is a waste of time and money
>some time.
IF you start a big rock rolling down a hill, you can predict
that it will generally continue in a downwards direction.
Of course it may take an odd bounce or two, but the general
direction is gonna be DOWN. The problem is that it is pretty
much impossible to predict EXACTLY where the boulder is
going to finally come to rest unless you cheat excessively.
Of Course there exists advantages in attempting to predict
the course of the economy. Big trends are important. Alas,
it is almost impossible to predict whether those Big Trends
are gonna wind up helping or hurting YOUR particular
company. Will you be standing on the boulder or wind up
squashed beneath it ? One may draw inferences from economic
analysis, but there are limits to how well one can tune
ones business to profit from the general trends. Over-
specialize and you are more likely to lose than gain. Plan
too far ahead and you can expect to have guessed wrong.
-j
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Lew Glendenning (rlgl...@alink.net) wrote:
: Loren Petrich wrote:
: >
: > [On the supposed impossibility of "predicting the economy"...]
: >
: > So every business that has *ever* tried to predict *anything*
: > economic is simply wasting time?
: >
: > Try telling the Board of Directors of your favorite company that
: > trying to predict future economic trends is a waste of time and money
: > some time.
: > Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
: > pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
: > My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
: > Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
: I stand by my quite detailed reasoning on why the economy is not
: predictable. As usual, you don't try to deal with such reasoning, but
: rather try to change the subject.
: As usual, you are wrong about the new subject also.
: Venture capitalists here in Silicon Valley are among the best predictors
: of trends in business and technology in the world.
: Nine of 10 of the companies they invest in go broke.
That doesn't necessarily mean they are bad predictors - it may mean they
are taking on lots of risk. How do you know that 19 out of 20 wouldn't go
broke if they didn't try to predict?
: In major companies, even ones thought well-managed such as HP, well over
: half of all projects which are funded are canceled, for reasons of
: technical failure or the market not turning out as they expected. Most
: of the remaining projects fail in the market, many before a formal
: product rollout.
But you need to estimate the counterfactual to determine what would have
happened without prediction and planning.
: I don't need to tell the BOD that trying to predict the future is a
: waste of time and money. They already know it. However, they also know
: that attempting is the only way to produce wealth. Risks and rewards,
: you know.
: This problem, BTW, is the reason that controlled economies don't work.
: In these economies, managers are afraid to take the risks, since failure
: is a political event, and nobody's career can withstand the 9 failures
: needed for a serious increment in technology/market
: share/profitability.
Evidence?
: Therefore, they manage slowly-declining products
: in slowly-declining companies. The USSR ultimately failed from the slow
: decline.
MITI does a pretty good job of picking winners, although, of course,
nobody gets them all right.
: (You want to know how clever and tough Khruschev was, realize that he
: ascended to the top of the toughest political system in the world,
: starting from a position as Minister of Agriculture!)
Have you ever checked out the growth rates of the Russian economy in the
1960s?
: You don't understand much about the reality of the economic system you
: criticize so often.
I'm not so sure you do either although you sure have a good ideological
filter.
: Of course, if you did, you would be out creating jobs and wealth for the
: poor people you pretend to champion.
But what if he is?
: Lew
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Charles Mott (cm...@srv.net) wrote:
: In article <335BA3...@alink.net>, rlgl...@alink.net wrote:
: [snip -- context destroyed. Sorry about that.]
: > 4) Rules govering nuclear explosions are physical laws. Rules govering
: > the economy change constantly. Not only laws regulating it, but
: > invention of new materials and processes constantly change the equations
: > relating prices of existing materials and products.
: >
: George Soros (sadly, both a closet communist and greedy
: speculator) has written about how flawed, from a very
: fundamental standpoint, mathematical economics is.
: Traditional economists have been ridiculing Soros, but
: I tend to agree with his arguments.
Watch out for Soros' strawmen.
--
Buddy K
Lew Glendenning
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> [On the supposed impossibility of "predicting the economy"...]
>
> So every business that has *ever* tried to predict *anything*
> economic is simply wasting time?
>
> Try telling the Board of Directors of your favorite company that
> trying to predict future economic trends is a waste of time and money
> some time.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
> Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
I stand by my quite detailed reasoning on why the economy is not
predictable. As usual, you don't try to deal with such reasoning, but
rather try to change the subject.
As usual, you are wrong about the new subject also.
Venture capitalists here in Silicon Valley are among the best predictors
of trends in business and technology in the world.
Nine of 10 of the companies they invest in go broke.
In major companies, even ones thought well-managed such as HP, well over
half of all projects which are funded are canceled, for reasons of
technical failure or the market not turning out as they expected. Most
of the remaining projects fail in the market, many before a formal
product rollout.
I don't need to tell the BOD that trying to predict the future is a
waste of time and money. They already know it. However, they also know
that attempting is the only way to produce wealth. Risks and rewards,
you know.
This problem, BTW, is the reason that controlled economies don't work.
In these economies, managers are afraid to take the risks, since failure
is a political event, and nobody's career can withstand the 9 failures
needed for a serious increment in technology/market
share/profitability. Therefore, they manage slowly-declining products
in slowly-declining companies. The USSR ultimately failed from the slow
decline.
(You want to know how clever and tough Khruschev was, realize that he
ascended to the top of the toughest political system in the world,
starting from a position as Minister of Agriculture!)
You don't understand much about the reality of the economic system you
criticize so often.
Of course, if you did, you would be out creating jobs and wealth for the
poor people you pretend to champion.
Lew
Pat Parson
Lew Glendining (rlgl...@alink.net) wrote:
> : (You want to know how clever and tough Khruschev was, realize that he
> : ascended to the top of the toughest political system in the world,
> : starting from a position as Minister of Agriculture!)
Tough, maybe. Clever, no. As minister of agriculture, he promoted the
half-witted schemes of Lysenko, who proposed a "socialist biology" that
emphasized a sort of bastardized Larmarkist biology. It almost ruined
Soviet agriculture, as they tried to "evolve" new strains of grain to
grow in hostile environments. (they rejected the "capitalist" Darwin)
Pat
Lew Glendenning
Have I ever claimed that reality connects with political success?
Pat Parson
Frank R. Hipp wrote:
>
> Pat Parson <ppar...@swbell.com> wrote:
> >Tough, maybe. Clever, no. As minister of agriculture, he promoted the
> >half-witted schemes of Lysenko, who proposed a "socialist biology" that
> >emphasized a sort of bastardized Larmarkist biology. It almost ruined
> >Soviet agriculture, as they tried to "evolve" new strains of grain to
> >grow in hostile environments. (they rejected the "capitalist" Darwin)
> >
> >Pat
>
> provide for the nation. Let nature and the free market run their
> course and all will benefit !!
>
> Frank R. Hipp
> Essentially. However, neither capitalism nor evolution provide any moral
guidance. It's like aerodynamics; it can teach you to build airplanes, but
can't give you any guidance on what you should or shouldn't do with them.
None of this is a guide to human conduct; it's all just descriptions of the
way things work.
Pat
Frank R. Hipp
Pat Parson <ppar...@swbell.com> wrote:
>Lew Glendining (rlgl...@alink.net) wrote:
>
>> : (You want to know how clever and tough Khruschev was, realize that he
>> : ascended to the top of the toughest political system in the world,
>> : starting from a position as Minister of Agriculture!)
>
>Tough, maybe. Clever, no. As minister of agriculture, he promoted the
>half-witted schemes of Lysenko, who proposed a "socialist biology" that
>emphasized a sort of bastardized Larmarkist biology. It almost ruined
>Soviet agriculture, as they tried to "evolve" new strains of grain to
>grow in hostile environments. (they rejected the "capitalist" Darwin)
>
>Pat
Ideology couldn't defeat nature and a planned economy could not
provide for the nation. Let nature and the free market run their
course and all will benefit !!
Frank R. Hipp
Who controls the past,
controls the future.
Who controls the present,
controls the past.
-- '1984'
Lew Glendenning
> > >half-witted schemes of Lysenko, who proposed a "socialist biology" that
> > >emphasized a sort of bastardized Larmarkist biology. It almost ruined
> > >Soviet agriculture, as they tried to "evolve" new strains of grain to
> > >grow in hostile environments. (they rejected the "capitalist" Darwin)
> > >
> > >Pat
> >
> > Ideology couldn't defeat nature and a planned economy could not
> > provide for the nation. Let nature and the free market run their
> > course and all will benefit !!
> >
> > Frank R. Hipp
> guidance. It's like aerodynamics; it can teach you to build airplanes, but
> can't give you any guidance on what you should or shouldn't do with them.
>
> None of this is a guide to human conduct; it's all just descriptions of the
> way things work.
>
> Pat
The first thing a rational entity does is understand the constraints
imposed by reality. The left defines "moral" in a way completely
removed from reality. A "progressive" or socialist claims that it is
moral to require that everyone give all of their money to the state, and
have the state redistribute it; or to have the state manage the economy.
These violates constraints placed on the economic, social and political
system by human nature, complexity of economic systems, and the
inability of any system to model (therefore inability to predict)
systems of the complexity of the economy.
So, you must deny that these levels of reality provide a guide to human
conduct. We say, rather, that they constrain what can be considered
moral, and that if you violate these constraints, you are immoral
because you cause more dead babies than would otherwise occur.
It is immoral to advocate a morality which increases the number of dead
babies in the world. It is immoral to advocate laws which do this.
These are high standards, in that they require you really know the
long-term effects of your morality and laws. We rationalists strongly
critique proponents of "the politics of compassion" for violating these
standards.
Your stance denies the possiblity of rationality in the political
arena. After all, there is no "engineering of compassion", or morality
of quantum mechanics. In these areas, we have solid information, and
opinion/morality don't have much room to operate. From my humble
viewpoint, a constitution is just another design document, specifying
how a government will operate. Whether it is a stable government
depends on a lot of details, like whether it violates human rights (i.e.
will PO even a minor fraction of its citizens and thereby fail by
constant civil unrest), whether it recognizes property rights (so it
has sufficient economic vitality to remain socially cohesive and
militarily strong), or whether it has adequate feedback control (e.g. no
positive feedback loops such as lawyers profiting from the law's
complexity, and strong-enough negative loops such as punishing official
misconduct).
In my view, there is not much room for political "opinion". The
important political issues are equivalent to engineering issues, not
not-rooted-in-reality religious issues.
Moralists and utopians have no place in such discussions.
Lew
Huge Cajones Remailer
>: Therefore, they manage slowly-declining products
>: in slowly-declining companies. The USSR ultimately failed from
>: the slow decline.
>
>course, nobody gets them all right.
typical LIbERal sap. can't get enough of big government. most
economists agree miti is a drag on japanese progress.
>--
>Buddy K
the k must stand for krazy kommie ekonomist.
-sparky
Loren Petrich
In article <335F44...@alink.net>,
Lew Glendenning <rlgl...@alink.net> wrote:
>Pat Parson wrote:
>> Lew Glendining (rlgl...@alink.net) wrote:
>> > : (You want to know how clever and tough Khruschev was, realize that he
>> > : ascended to the top of the toughest political system in the world,
>> > : starting from a position as Minister of Agriculture!)
>> Tough, maybe. Clever, no. As minister of agriculture, he promoted the
>> half-witted schemes of Lysenko, who proposed a "socialist biology" that
>> emphasized a sort of bastardized Larmarkist biology. It almost ruined
>> Soviet agriculture, as they tried to "evolve" new strains of grain to
>> grow in hostile environments. (they rejected the "capitalist" Darwin)
A slight rewrite of history. What Lysenko *really* claimed was
that he could do a better job at breeding crop plants than those
reactionary capitalist idealists who like nothing better than
cross-breeding fruit flies all day. And he managed to convince Stalin
that those followers the reactionary genetics of Mendel, Weismann, and
Morgan were nothing but troublemakers and obstructionists and enemies of
the Soviet people. Thus, some of their best geneticists, like Vavilov,
were sent to Siberian prison camps.
When challenged, he was the classic belligerent ignoramus; when
asked about using statistics, he would respond that his mentor Michurin
did not need statistics, so why should he?
Though Khrushchev supported Lysenko, those Mendelist-Morganists
nevertheless started to come out of hiding, and eventually, Lysenkoism
was phased out.
Lysenko was essentially a quack geneticist with a talent for
sucking up to the boss -- a boss who could dispose of his competition.
>Have I ever claimed that reality connects with political success?
Mr. Glendenning, hasn't it ever occurrend to you that nobody's
ever got political success by being a dummy? Or by whining about how evil
politics is?
[I couldn't resist satirizing right-wing rhetoric]
Lew Glendenning
For someone who is obviously bright and literate, you are puzzlingly
obtuse at times.
How does my statement connect to yours? How is this a satire of
right-wing rhetoric?
What does right-wing rhetoric have to do with this argument? With my
positions?
You are not dumb. Why this foolish style of argument, rhetoric, etc.?
I have learned quite a lot in this thread. I made some interesting
connections between theories of systems, computational complexity,
utopian/moralism requirement of omniscience, etc. New for me, at least.
My growing understanding of these things could lead me to entirely
different conclusions than I have come to so far. Developing
understanding, for me, never ends, and every 5 years or so I learn
something new which at least changes my intellectual foundations,
although so far not my conclusions re: gov design nor personal ethics.
You don't seem to have the same goals. Your beliefs are, it seems to
me, forever fixed, and your goal with every post is to reaffirm your
beliefs, not to extend your understanding of the world.
You snip tough arguments. I use them to check my understanding, to
learn (although mostly I learn about the mental sets of people making
the arguments).
I don't expect you to agree with me. Many of my friends and family
don't. However, please make better arguments in the future.
Lew
Loren Petrich
In article <336282...@alink.net>,
Lew Glendenning <rlgl...@alink.net> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Mr. Glendenning, hasn't it ever occurrend to you that nobody's
>> ever got political success by being a dummy? Or by whining about how evil
>> politics is?
>> [I couldn't resist satirizing right-wing rhetoric]
>How does my statement connect to yours? How is this a satire of
>right-wing rhetoric?
Because that is a classic defense of businesspeople, translated
into a defense of politicians.
>You don't seem to have the same goals. Your beliefs are, it seems to
>me, forever fixed, and your goal with every post is to reaffirm your
>beliefs, not to extend your understanding of the world.
Thank you for describing yourself :-)
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Frank R. Hipp (f...@no-spam.tamu.edu) wrote:
: Pat Parson <ppar...@swbell.com> wrote:
: >Lew Glendining (rlgl...@alink.net) wrote:
: >
: >> : (You want to know how clever and tough Khruschev was, realize that he
: >> : ascended to the top of the toughest political system in the world,
: >> : starting from a position as Minister of Agriculture!)
: >
: >Tough, maybe. Clever, no. As minister of agriculture, he promoted the
: >half-witted schemes of Lysenko, who proposed a "socialist biology" that
: >emphasized a sort of bastardized Larmarkist biology. It almost ruined
: >Soviet agriculture, as they tried to "evolve" new strains of grain to
: >grow in hostile environments. (they rejected the "capitalist" Darwin)
: >
: >Pat
: Ideology couldn't defeat nature and a planned economy could not
: provide for the nation. Let nature and the free market run their
: course and all will benefit !!
That's plumb silly, Frank. If we did, we'd still be in caves fighting each other
and the wild beasts over scraps of meat and berries.
: Frank R. Hipp
: Who controls the past,
: controls the future.
: Who controls the present,
: controls the past.
: -- '1984'
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Lew Glendenning (rlgl...@alink.net) wrote:
: Pat Parson wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > Pat Parson <ppar...@swbell.com> wrote:
: > > >Tough, maybe. Clever, no. As minister of agriculture, he promoted the
: > > >half-witted schemes of Lysenko, who proposed a "socialist biology" that
: > > >emphasized a sort of bastardized Larmarkist biology. It almost ruined
: > > >Soviet agriculture, as they tried to "evolve" new strains of grain to
: > > >grow in hostile environments. (they rejected the "capitalist" Darwin)
: > > >
: > > >Pat
: > >
: > > Ideology couldn't defeat nature and a planned economy could not
: > > provide for the nation. Let nature and the free market run their
: > > course and all will benefit !!
: > > Frank R. Hipp
: > > Essentially. However, neither capitalism nor evolution provide any moral
: > guidance. It's like aerodynamics; it can teach you to build airplanes, but
: > can't give you any guidance on what you should or shouldn't do with them.
: >
: > None of this is a guide to human conduct; it's all just descriptions of the
: > way things work.
: >
: > Pat
: The first thing a rational entity does is understand the constraints
: imposed by reality. The left defines "moral" in a way completely
: removed from reality. A "progressive" or socialist claims that it is
: moral to require that everyone give all of their money to the state, and
: have the state redistribute it; or to have the state manage the economy.
Exaggerated horse manure!!
: These violates constraints placed on the economic, social and political
: system by human nature, complexity of economic systems, and the
: inability of any system to model (therefore inability to predict)
: systems of the complexity of the economy.
Pure blather!!!
: So, you must deny that these levels of reality provide a guide to human
: conduct. We say, rather, that they constrain what can be considered
: moral, and that if you violate these constraints, you are immoral
: because you cause more dead babies than would otherwise occur.
: It is immoral to advocate a morality which increases the number of dead
: babies in the world. It is immoral to advocate laws which do this.
: These are high standards, in that they require you really know the
: long-term effects of your morality and laws. We rationalists strongly
: critique proponents of "the politics of compassion" for violating these
: standards.
But what you believe is likely to cause more dead babies.
: Your stance denies the possiblity of rationality in the political
: arena.
It is boundedly rational at best.
: After all, there is no "engineering of compassion", or morality
: of quantum mechanics. In these areas, we have solid information, and
: opinion/morality don't have much room to operate.
Those are just metaphors for what is observed. When better metaphors arise, those
will be abandoned for new ones. Perhaps you should delve into the philosophy of
science a little more.
: From my humble
: viewpoint, a constitution is just another design document, specifying
: how a government will operate. Whether it is a stable government
: depends on a lot of details, like whether it violates human rights (i.e.
: will PO even a minor fraction of its citizens and thereby fail by
: constant civil unrest), whether it recognizes property rights (so it
: has sufficient economic vitality to remain socially cohesive and
: militarily strong), or whether it has adequate feedback control (e.g. no
: positive feedback loops such as lawyers profiting from the law's
: complexity, and strong-enough negative loops such as punishing official
: misconduct).
You are attaching as much emotionalism to your arguments as anyone. The stuff
about lawyers is clearly your personal moral opinion and conflicts with what we
observe in reality.
: In my view, there is not much room for political "opinion". The
: important political issues are equivalent to engineering issues, not
: not-rooted-in-reality religious issues.
Silly. Political issues have little to do with engineering issues. Furthermore,
the least useful people when it comes to understanding human behavior are engineers
(as a class - clearly not each and every one of them falls into this category).
: Moralists and utopians have no place in such discussions.
They always have been and always will be. Engineering arguments have no place in
such discussions.
: Lew
--
Buddy K