Y2k Domino Effect Sighted
z...@my-dejanews.com
I live in oilfield / refinery country. Recently, I was able to confirm
the following:
Three of the local plants contract a large local janitorial service to
do housekeeping, etc.
The owner of this service was recently informed that all three plants
would be shutting down between Christmas and New Year's Eve and that
he should plan his business accordingly (ie. a significant part of his
work load will be reduced indefinitely).
Workers at these plants have yet to be informed. But, the janitorial
service owner was specifically told by all three plants that the shutdown
was in precaution to y2k. To prevent accidental fires, all air lines are
to be flushed with nitrogen.
None of the plants knew how long they will be down, but presumably
they are worried about power reliability, emergency generators having
already been considered.
How much cleaning supply should this man order in December? etc.
Prediction: Rumors will begin to circulate in these plants as to the
shutdowns. Company memos will attempt to reassure workers that
"all is well", perhaps even to the reverse lie of "Hey, we're even thinking
of adding on an *expansion*, not shutting down." (Senior management
in the oil industry lives and swears by Machiavelli's "The Prince" - that's
not just a metaphor, they actually *study* Machiavelli - according
to a friend of mine who was one of the world's top geophysicists. If you're
in management and haven't been presented with your copy yet, you are not
yet deemed worthy. I would guess most have read Sun Tzu's "Art of War"
as well.)
Before anyone asks the names of these plants (I don't want to get a letter
from the legal staff of a major oil corporation, folks), I have an experiment
that perhaps some of the more intrepid readers may wish to participate in:
If this is a widespread phenomenon (are plants secretly planning shutdowns
nationwide or worldwide?), then it should be fairly simple for readers in
position to contact friends of theirs who are vendors to large plants, and
post their invesigatory findings in this thread or by email
(z...@rocketmail.com) - anonymity guaranteed. In particular, we are looking
for vendors which require an actual physical presence at the plants. Also, is
anyone from OSHA willing to speak "off the record"?
Zach Anderson [ z...@rocketmail.com ]
http://geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1157/y2k.htm
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ben williams
1. "oilfield / refinery country"
this is not a utility. it is by assumption a refinery.
2. "all air lines are to be flushed with nitrogen."
furthers the assumption of a refinery.
3. shutting down between Christmas and New Year's Eve
probably would have little or no effect on reality.
possibility of a y2k safety precaution.
possibility of a plant holiday.
read first, then practice your 'chosen' middle name.
ben
Terry "Asshole" Austin wrote in message
<372b74dd...@news.artnet.net>...
>z...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I live in oilfield / refinery country. Recently, I was able to confirm
>>the following:
>
>Confirm from whom?
>>
>>Three of the local plants contract a large local janitorial service to
>>do housekeeping, etc.
>>
>>The owner of this service was recently informed that all three plants
>>would be shutting down between Christmas and New Year's Eve and that
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>he should plan his business accordingly (ie. a significant part of his
>>work load will be reduced indefinitely).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Which is it?
>
>>Workers at these plants have yet to be informed. But, the janitorial
>>service owner was specifically told by all three plants that the shutdown
>>was in precaution to y2k. To prevent accidental fires, all air lines are
>>to be flushed with nitrogen.
>>
>>None of the plants knew how long they will be down, but presumably
>>they are worried about power reliability, emergency generators having
>>already been considered.
>
>You presume quite a bit. Without any evidence of any kind to support your
>presumption, apparently.
>>
>>How much cleaning supply should this man order in December? etc.
>>
>>Prediction: Rumors will begin to circulate in these plants as to the
>>shutdowns. Company memos will attempt to reassure workers that
>>"all is well", perhaps even to the reverse lie of "Hey, we're even
thinking
>>of adding on an *expansion*, not shutting down." (Senior management
>>in the oil industry lives and swears by Machiavelli's "The Prince" -
that's
>>not just a metaphor, they actually *study* Machiavelli - according
>>to a friend of mine who was one of the world's top geophysicists.
>
>What's his name?
>
>> If you're
>>in management and haven't been presented with your copy yet, you are not
>>yet deemed worthy. I would guess most have read Sun Tzu's "Art of War"
>>as well.)
>>
>>Before anyone asks the names of these plants (I don't want to get a letter
>>from the legal staff of a major oil corporation, folks),
>
>If you're telling the truth, you have nothing to worry about. If the world
>really is going to end in 10 months, you have nothing to worry about.
>Lawsuits take much longer than that.
>
>> I have an experiment
>>that perhaps some of the more intrepid readers may wish to participate in:
>>
>>If this is a widespread phenomenon (are plants secretly planning shutdowns
>>nationwide or worldwide?), then it should be fairly simple for readers in
>>position to contact friends of theirs who are vendors to large plants, and
>>post their invesigatory findings in this thread or by email
>>(z...@rocketmail.com) - anonymity guaranteed. In particular, we are
looking
>>for vendors which require an actual physical presence at the plants. Also,
is
>>anyone from OSHA willing to speak "off the record"?
>
>I've checked with VPs at banks, Central Plant supervisors at a major
>university, Board of Directors at both a local power company and a local
>water utility, and they all say the same thing: There will be no major
>interruptions of service. Minor problems, like billing and maintenance
>records being kept manually for a while, but nothing major. Service will
>continue to serve.
>
>In short, I *have* checked, and I've found *nothing* to support your
>bullshit.
>
>Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
>http://www.hyperbooks.com
>Become a Sluggite today!
>Sluggy Freelance T-Shirts now available
phinias_...@my-dejanews.com
z...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> I live in oilfield / refinery country. Recently, I was able to confirm
> the following:
>
> do housekeeping, etc.
>
> The owner of this service was recently informed that all three plants
> would be shutting down between Christmas and New Year's Eve and that
> work load will be reduced indefinitely).
>
They probably only did that so they wouldn't break a contract and get sued.
As far as their ethics goes ...... the next paragraph says it all.
> Workers at these plants have yet to be informed. But, the janitorial
> service owner was specifically told by all three plants that the shutdown
> was in precaution to y2k. To prevent accidental fires, all air lines are
> to be flushed with nitrogen.
>
The Big Secret. Shhhhh. Don't awaken the trusting fools.
> None of the plants knew how long they will be down, but presumably
> they are worried about power reliability, emergency generators having
> already been considered.
>
> How much cleaning supply should this man order in December? etc.
>
About a pint.
Make that a lifetime supply - for his bunker. You know, the kind that cleans
shit off toilet bowls that haven't been flushed in a few weeks?
> Prediction: Rumors will begin to circulate in these plants as to the
> shutdowns. Company memos will attempt to reassure workers that
> "all is well", perhaps even to the reverse lie of "Hey, we're even thinking
> of adding on an *expansion*, not shutting down." (Senior management
> in the oil industry lives and swears by Machiavelli's "The Prince" - that's
> not just a metaphor, they actually *study* Machiavelli - according
> to a friend of mine who was one of the world's top geophysicists. If you're
> in management and haven't been presented with your copy yet, you are not
> yet deemed worthy. I would guess most have read Sun Tzu's "Art of War"
> as well.)
>
Machiavelli - wasn't he a nice, Italian man that wouldn't harm a fly?
> Before anyone asks the names of these plants (I don't want to get a letter
> from the legal staff of a major oil corporation, folks), I have an experiment
> that perhaps some of the more intrepid readers may wish to participate in:
>
You'll be ripped here for not naming names. I don't give a shit, really, but
whereas this credible sounding tone does not fit the agenda of certain
polarized individuals here, expect the rake over.
> If this is a widespread phenomenon (are plants secretly planning shutdowns
> nationwide or worldwide?), then it should be fairly simple for readers in
> position to contact friends of theirs who are vendors to large plants, and
> post their invesigatory findings in this thread or by email
> (z...@rocketmail.com) - anonymity guaranteed. In particular, we are looking
> for vendors which require an actual physical presence at the plants. Also, is
> anyone from OSHA willing to speak "off the record"?
>
Don't forget us, Zach, when you get more stuff.
What is your take on all the gas and chem plant explosions these days? If it
is Y2K test related, do you think this has influenced any of the companies
you know about to plan shut downs instead of FOF (Fix On Failure), real time
on 00?
- pHINIAS t. pHOOBAR (distant cousin of Phinias T. Bluster)
Terry Asshole Austin
>
>
>I live in oilfield / refinery country. Recently, I was able to confirm
>the following:
Confirm from whom?
>
>Three of the local plants contract a large local janitorial service to
>do housekeeping, etc.
>
>The owner of this service was recently informed that all three plants
>would be shutting down between Christmas and New Year's Eve and that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>he should plan his business accordingly (ie. a significant part of his
>work load will be reduced indefinitely).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which is it?
>Workers at these plants have yet to be informed. But, the janitorial
>service owner was specifically told by all three plants that the shutdown
>was in precaution to y2k. To prevent accidental fires, all air lines are
>to be flushed with nitrogen.
>
>None of the plants knew how long they will be down, but presumably
>they are worried about power reliability, emergency generators having
>already been considered.
You presume quite a bit. Without any evidence of any kind to support your
presumption, apparently.
>
>How much cleaning supply should this man order in December? etc.
>
>Prediction: Rumors will begin to circulate in these plants as to the
>shutdowns. Company memos will attempt to reassure workers that
>"all is well", perhaps even to the reverse lie of "Hey, we're even thinking
>of adding on an *expansion*, not shutting down." (Senior management
>in the oil industry lives and swears by Machiavelli's "The Prince" - that's
>not just a metaphor, they actually *study* Machiavelli - according
>to a friend of mine who was one of the world's top geophysicists.
What's his name?
> If you're
>in management and haven't been presented with your copy yet, you are not
>yet deemed worthy. I would guess most have read Sun Tzu's "Art of War"
>as well.)
>
>Before anyone asks the names of these plants (I don't want to get a letter
>from the legal staff of a major oil corporation, folks),
If you're telling the truth, you have nothing to worry about. If the world
really is going to end in 10 months, you have nothing to worry about.
Lawsuits take much longer than that.
> I have an experiment
>that perhaps some of the more intrepid readers may wish to participate in:
>
>If this is a widespread phenomenon (are plants secretly planning shutdowns
>nationwide or worldwide?), then it should be fairly simple for readers in
>position to contact friends of theirs who are vendors to large plants, and
>post their invesigatory findings in this thread or by email
>(z...@rocketmail.com) - anonymity guaranteed. In particular, we are looking
>for vendors which require an actual physical presence at the plants. Also, is
>anyone from OSHA willing to speak "off the record"?
I've checked with VPs at banks, Central Plant supervisors at a major
Gunner
>I've checked with VPs at banks, Central Plant supervisors at a major
>university, Board of Directors at both a local power company and a local
>water utility, and they all say the same thing: There will be no major
>interruptions of service. Minor problems, like billing and maintenance
>records being kept manually for a while, but nothing major. Service will
>continue to serve.
>
>In short, I *have* checked, and I've found *nothing* to support your
>bullshit.
>
>Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
>http://www.hyperbooks.com
>Become a Sluggite today!
>Sluggy Freelance T-Shirts now available
Southern California Edison/Pacific Gas and Electric are gonna keep
manual records? on 95,000,000 customers?
Bank of America is gonna keep manual deposit/withdrawal records and
then post checks manualy?
Ditto for Wells Fargo etc etc etc?
Hummm Los Angles Water and Power is gonna do all billing and whatnot
manualy for 15,000,000 people?
I suppose that all the above organizations etc are gonna send vouchers
to their vender? Or are they gonna depend on the Manualy operating
banks to make sure that the vendors are getting paid? And the vendors
are gonna pay their vendors/employees etc by check to be handled
manualy by the banks?
And the banks are gonna just tell the marginal companies/people that
its ok that their mortgages/loans/etc are gonna be several months late
due to manually processing of checks/deposits/withdrawals etc?
I suppose landlords are gonna let their renters slide for a few months
because of all of the above etc?
Are the suppliers of materials for water treatment plants gonna send
clorine, etc etc to those plants if they know it may be months or
longer before they get paid? A water treatment plant in full working
order, still cant treat water without the treatment materials.
I can go on and on and on ad neaseum ad infinitum.
Assuming the FAA gets its act togather, and there really is regular
air travel, are they gonna put a hold on the regs for regular
replacement of time/life parts, because the vendors/etc cant get the
parts to them?
I suppose that they are just gonna ignore a 10,000hr timelife on
turbines and other components? Are they willing to use an inferiour
grade of Jet A, JP-4, et al, because the fuel vendors are having
delivery/quality control problems?
Im damned sure not gonna fly on an already aging aircraft that has had
its time/life replacement schedule put on hold, nor aircraft using
fuel with a "little too much" water or other contaminates. Will UPS
and Fed-Ex pilots even deliver criticly needed materials to other
industries in such aircraft? US Postal Service? How about the same
sceanerio in the trucking industry... what if your payment for
materials that will keep your industry running, is one of a bunch of
broken down US Postoffice semi-trailers stuck in East Bumfuck? With
replacement parts "on order"? And those orders are not getting filled
because the banks are not handling payments for those same parts?
Bear in mind that much of the Aerospace industry has converted to the
"just in time" method, and there are few spare parts sitting on
shelves. Parts are ordered in blocks as needed. This holds true for
much of todays hi tech industrial base, so if those plants have
banking/delivery problems of raw materials, how the hell are the
needed parts gonna make it to other assembly lines and plants.
A single high-tech assembly may depend on 3-20 vendors supplying
services and materials to the assembler.
I suspect that you are a bit naieve and optomistic about the complex
infrastructure.
I sincerly hope your correct, but suspect your gonna get a hell of a
shock.......
Unless drastic steps are taken, such as suspending forfitures, liens,
etc etc, I view the Y2K problem as a tiny snowflake falling on a
mountain side, and slowly rolling down hill, getting bigger and
bigger, and bigger, finaly becoming this huge fucking monster that
crushes the village at the bottom of the hill.
Gunner
james d. hunter
>
> >I've checked with VPs at banks, Central Plant supervisors at a major
> >university, Board of Directors at both a local power company and a
local
> >water utility, and they all say the same thing: There will be no
major
> >interruptions of service. Minor problems, like billing and
maintenance
> >records being kept manually for a while, but nothing major. Service
will
> >continue to serve.
> >
> >In short, I *have* checked, and I've found *nothing* to support your
> >bullshit.
> >
> >Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
> >http://www.hyperbooks.com
> >Become a Sluggite today!
> >Sluggy Freelance T-Shirts now available
>
> Southern California Edison/Pacific Gas and Electric are gonna keep
> manual records? on 95,000,000 customers?
> Bank of America is gonna keep manual deposit/withdrawal records and
> then post checks manualy?
> Ditto for Wells Fargo etc etc etc?
>
> Hummm Los Angles Water and Power is gonna do all billing and whatnot
> manualy for 15,000,000 people?
That part doesn't matter too much. The electric billing machines
being down would mean the LAers would get free power
until the billing machines come back up.
It wouldn't be the end of the world. If the situation gets
that bad, the president would probably declare martial law
with food and power quotas for households. The time it
would take the power company CEOs and bankers to figure out alternate
ways to get their money could probably be measured in minutes.
David L. Paxton
> That part doesn't matter too much. The electric billing machines
> being down would mean the LAers would get free power
> until the billing machines come back up.
Yes, and having worked for a power company some time back, when it comes
back on line you will receive monstrous bills. AND they control the
switch if you don't want to pay the bill. I will be keeping both hard
copy billing from the power company and actually read the meter myself
(not as easy as it sounds since every other dial turns backwards from
the ones on either side on some meters) toward the end of January. I
have seen the power company send bills to people for over a thousand
bucks because some meter reader did not do his job correctly. And that
is without any computer problems.
> It wouldn't be the end of the world. If the situation gets
> that bad, the president would probably declare martial law
OR declare a national emergency? Then the president will no longer be in
power, the UN will. And you will have no constitutional rights.
> with food and power quotas for households. The time it
And the FEMA and military the right to confiscate your food and supplies
to be distributed by the quota system, again with no constitutional
rights to ownership of your own supplies and land.
> would take the power company CEOs and bankers to figure out alternate
Or the UN. BTW there is NO stipulation as to when the UN rule ends, once
it takes control it is their choice when to give control back.
> ways to get their money could probably be measured in minutes.
Big Dave
smpo...@bellsouth.net.no_spam_pleeze.cz
<dlpa...@gate.net> wrote:
>OR declare a national emergency? Then the president will no longer be in
>power, the UN will. And you will have no constitutional rights.
A fine point: the UN would NOT administer a national emergency. FEMA
would. The loss of constitutional rights would be the usual
consequence of de facto martial law.
You should read the laws on precisely how a national emergency is
declared, how FEMA steps in, what the roles of the various
congresspeople and the President are, etc., etc.
If you disagree with me, I'd like to see the law that supports your
contention. :)
-- Stephen ( CFR quote will be fine )
http://personal.bhm.bellsouth.net/~smpoole7
james d. hunter
>
> james d. hunter wrote:
> > That part doesn't matter too much. The electric billing machines
> > being down would mean the LAers would get free power
> > until the billing machines come back up.
>
> Yes, and having worked for a power company some time back, when it
comes
> back on line you will receive monstrous bills. AND they control the
> switch if you don't want to pay the bill. I will be keeping both hard
> copy billing from the power company and actually read the meter
myself
> (not as easy as it sounds since every other dial turns backwards from
> the ones on either side on some meters) toward the end of January. I
> have seen the power company send bills to people for over a thousand
> bucks because some meter reader did not do his job correctly. And
that
> is without any computer problems.
Of course, paper copy is advisable. Monstrous bills shouldn't
cause any fatalities; they have been around since electric
power has been around.
> > It wouldn't be the end of the world. If the situation gets
> > that bad, the president would probably declare martial law
>
> OR declare a national emergency? Then the president will no longer be
in
> power, the UN will. And you will have no constitutional rights.
The UN has close to zero power now. It's power in the
event of Y2K emergencies would be closer to zero.
> > with food and power quotas for households. The time it
>
> And the FEMA and military the right to confiscate your food and
supplies
> to be distributed by the quota system, again with no constitutional
> rights to ownership of your own supplies and land.
You are restating the obvious. Martial law does
mean suspension of constitutional rights.
In an emergency like this, if the gov't finds
that somebody is hoarding all the baby formula,
I'm all for sending the SWAT team in to bust them up.
> > would take the power company CEOs and bankers to figure out
alternate
>
> Or the UN. BTW there is NO stipulation as to when the UN rule ends,
once
> it takes control it is their choice when to give control back.
Forget about the UN, everybody else is.
james d. hunter
>
> In article <36E53A84...@jhuapl.edu>,
jim.h...@spam.free.jhuapl.edu.
> wrote:
> > The UN has close to zero power now. It's power in the
> > event of Y2K emergencies would be closer to zero.
>
>
> > > And the FEMA and military the right to confiscate your food and
> > supplies
> > > to be distributed by the quota system, again with no
constitutional
> > > rights to ownership of your own supplies and land.
> >
> > You are restating the obvious. Martial law does
> > mean suspension of constitutional rights.
> > In an emergency like this, if the gov't finds
> > that somebody is hoarding all the baby formula,
> > I'm all for sending the SWAT team in to bust them up.
>
hope.
Hopefully, since you obviously don't know what a looter is.
Stormhound
jim.h...@spam.free.jhuapl.edu. wrote under the topic Y2k Domino Effect
Sighted:
> In an emergency like this, if the gov't finds
> that somebody is hoarding all the baby formula,
> I'm all for sending the SWAT team in to bust them up.
Some hypothetical questions for everyone who's debating the pros and cons
of stockpiling, hoarding, turning in "hoarders", and so forth...
Just out of sheer curiosity...would you be happy to send the SWAT team in
if you found out a neighboring family had stored up food for some long (2
week+) amount of time, and what would be the minimum such "hoarding" you feel
would justify such intervention?
And, just to make things more interesting, how would your answer to the
above change if they came out and said that they had stored up extra
specifically because they knew you (and maybe a few other neighbors) hadn't,
and that they were sharing the food in the hopes that you could all cooperate
for your mutual well-being? What actions, if any, would you take to defend
this supply under these circumstances?
I'd love to see some honest answers to this one from folks on both sides of
the aisle...who's feeling brave? <g>
Stormhound, Poser of Moral Dilemmas
DNRC Ombudsman for Induhvidual Affairs, Holder of Past Knowledge
Home page at http://www.sound.net/~stormhnd
james d. hunter
>
> In article <36E55936...@jhuapl.edu>,
jim.h...@spam.free.jhuapl.edu.
> wrote:
>
> > Jeffrey Quick wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <36E53A84...@jhuapl.edu>,
> > jim.h...@spam.free.jhuapl.edu.
> > > > The UN has close to zero power now. It's power in the
> > > > event of Y2K emergencies would be closer to zero.
> > >
> > > Those soldiers will be needed for martial law in their own
countries.
> > >
> > > > > And the FEMA and military the right to confiscate your food
and
> > > > supplies
> > > > > to be distributed by the quota system, again with no
> > constitutional
> > > > > rights to ownership of your own supplies and land.
> > > >
> > > > You are restating the obvious. Martial law does
> > > > mean suspension of constitutional rights.
> > > > that somebody is hoarding all the baby formula,
> > > > I'm all for sending the SWAT team in to bust them up.
> > >
me, I
> > hope.
> >
> > Hopefully, since you obviously don't know what a looter is.
>
> looters are SWAT teams who steal baby formula.
Can it(pun intended). I've heard the Jack-Booted Gestaspo story
before.
---
Jim
David P. Leising
> I live in oilfield / refinery country. Recently, I was able to confirm
> the following:
>
> Three of the local plants contract a large local janitorial service to
> do housekeeping, etc.
>
> The owner of this service was recently informed that all three plants
> would be shutting down between Christmas and New Year's Eve and that
> he should plan his business accordingly (ie. a significant part of his
> work load will be reduced indefinitely).
>
> Workers at these plants have yet to be informed. But, the janitorial
> service owner was specifically told by all three plants that the shutdown
> was in precaution to y2k. To prevent accidental fires, all air lines are
> to be flushed with nitrogen.
>
> None of the plants knew how long they will be down, but presumably
> they are worried about power reliability, emergency generators having
> already been considered.
>
> How much cleaning supply should this man order in December? etc.
>
> Prediction: Rumors will begin to circulate in these plants as to the
> shutdowns. Company memos will attempt to reassure workers that
> "all is well", perhaps even to the reverse lie of "Hey, we're even thinking
> of adding on an *expansion*, not shutting down." (Senior management
> in the oil industry lives and swears by Machiavelli's "The Prince" - that's
> not just a metaphor, they actually *study* Machiavelli - according
> to a friend of mine who was one of the world's top geophysicists. If you're
> in management and haven't been presented with your copy yet, you are not
> yet deemed worthy. I would guess most have read Sun Tzu's "Art of War"
> as well.)
>
> Before anyone asks the names of these plants (I don't want to get a letter
> from the legal staff of a major oil corporation, folks), I have an experiment
> that perhaps some of the more intrepid readers may wish to participate in:
>
> If this is a widespread phenomenon (are plants secretly planning shutdowns
> nationwide or worldwide?), then it should be fairly simple for readers in
> position to contact friends of theirs who are vendors to large plants, and
> post their invesigatory findings in this thread or by email
> (z...@rocketmail.com) - anonymity guaranteed. In particular, we are looking
> for vendors which require an actual physical presence at the plants. Also, is
> anyone from OSHA willing to speak "off the record"?
>
> Zach Anderson [ z...@rocketmail.com ]
> http://geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1157/y2k.htm
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
What scares me the most about Y2K is how many organizations are going to
PRETEND they have a Y2K problem to justify delaying payments they owe to
people. Can you imagine the billions that could be pocketed by simply
delaying payments due by a short time? That figure, added to that of the
number of lawsuits that are going to be filed over Y2K problems, will
probably exceed by several orders of magnitude the monetary loss caused by
REAL Y2K problems!
Dave
Terry Austin
james d. hunter wrote in message <36E53A84...@jhuapl.edu>...
>David L. Paxton wrote:
> >
> > james d. hunter wrote:
> > > That part doesn't matter too much. The electric billing machines
> > > being down would mean the LAers would get free power
> > > until the billing machines come back up.
> >
> > Yes, and having worked for a power company some time back, when it
>comes
> > back on line you will receive monstrous bills. AND they control the
> > switch if you don't want to pay the bill. I will be keeping both hard
> > copy billing from the power company and actually read the meter
>myself
> > (not as easy as it sounds since every other dial turns backwards from
> > the ones on either side on some meters) toward the end of January. I
> > have seen the power company send bills to people for over a thousand
> > bucks because some meter reader did not do his job correctly. And
>that
> > is without any computer problems.
>
> Of course, paper copy is advisable. Monstrous bills shouldn't
> cause any fatalities; they have been around since electric
> power has been around.
Never mind that idiotic things like that happen all the time, and
ARE DEALT WITH MANUALLY BY PEOPLE DOING THEIR
JOBS. Y2K will be no different.
If they can't do real-time billing for a while, they will not just
stop sending out bills. They'll send estimated bills until they
get the billing computers working. Which wont' take long.
>
> > > It wouldn't be the end of the world. If the situation gets
> > > that bad, the president would probably declare martial law
> >
> > OR declare a national emergency? Then the president will no longer be
>in
> > power, the UN will. And you will have no constitutional rights.
>
> The UN has close to zero power now. It's power in the
> event of Y2K emergencies would be closer to zero.
There is no constitutional provision AT ALL for suspending
constituional rights. Any attempt to do so is treason, pure
and simple. And the US military *will* treat is exactly as such,
up to and including arresting the President if necessary on
just that charge. If you don't believe it, you haven't been around
very many military people. They take their oath - to defend and
uphold the *Constitution* first and foremost - very seriously.
Besides, the UN is an extension of US foregin policy - when
it is convenient to use it as such. Beyond that, it has no power
whatsoever, as recent conflicts between UN will and NATO
peacekeeping missions have demonstrated.
>
>
> > > with food and power quotas for households. The time it
> >
> > And the FEMA and military the right to confiscate your food and
>supplies
> > to be distributed by the quota system, again with no constitutional
> > rights to ownership of your own supplies and land.
>
> You are restating the obvious. Martial law does
> mean suspension of constitutional rights.
> In an emergency like this, if the gov't finds
> that somebody is hoarding all the baby formula,
> I'm all for sending the SWAT team in to bust them up.
Good luck. That does pretty much make the SWAT team
looters, since their actions would be outright unconstitutional
search and seizure. And privataly owned guns outnumber
police owned guns by several hundred to one. As they should.
>
>
> > > would take the power company CEOs and bankers to figure out
>alternate
> >
> > Or the UN. BTW there is NO stipulation as to when the UN rule ends,
>once
> > it takes control it is their choice when to give control back.
>
> Forget about the UN, everybody else is.
Never mind that they UN *cannot* legally take control in any way except
through military conquest - which they are utterly incapable of
without active material assistance on the part of the US.
You *really* think US troops are going to fight US troops?
What a maroon.
Terry "Asshole" Austin
Terry Austin
smpo...@bellsouth.net.No_spam_pleeze.cz wrote in message
<36e53896...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>>power, the UN will. And you will have no constitutional rights.
>
>would. The loss of constitutional rights would be the usual
>consequence of de facto martial law.
And is unconstitutional on the face of the record. The Constitution
has no provision under *any* circumstances for suspending
constitutional rights. And the military would take a very dim
view of attempts to do so. As a few of 'em about it. It might
surprise you. "All enemies, foreign and *domestic*." And their
first oath is not to the President, or the goverment, or the United
States. Their *first* oath is to the *Constitution*.
>
>You should read the laws on precisely how a national emergency is
>declared, how FEMA steps in, what the roles of the various
>congresspeople and the President are, etc., etc.
You should read the Constitution. And the oath that every
member of the US military takes. FEMA does not have enough
troops to enforce blatantly unconstituional laws. And the
military will not help them.
>
>If you disagree with me, I'd like to see the law that supports your
>contention. :)
The United States Constitution.
Terry "Asshole" Austin
james d. hunter
[snip]
> You *really* think US troops are going to fight US troops?
Terry Austin
David L. Paxton wrote in message <36E52A...@gate.net>...
>james d. hunter wrote:
>> That part doesn't matter too much. The electric billing machines
>> being down would mean the LAers would get free power
>> until the billing machines come back up.
>
>Yes, and having worked for a power company some time back, when it comes
>back on line you will receive monstrous bills.
Unless, of course, they use estimated bills in the meantime.
> AND they control the
>switch if you don't want to pay the bill.
And they will face class action lawsuits they will lose if they
get unreasonable. Aside from any premeptive legislative actions.
>I will be keeping both hard
>copy billing from the power company and actually read the meter myself
Not a bad idea under the best of circumstances.
>(not as easy as it sounds since every other dial turns backwards from
>the ones on either side on some meters) toward the end of January.
To take a polaraoid of it. That was tough.
>I
>have seen the power company send bills to people for over a thousand
>bucks because some meter reader did not do his job correctly. And that
>is without any computer problems.
And how difficult was it to get this fixed? The problem there is not
Y2K, but incompetant AR people. Which is always a problem.
>
>> It wouldn't be the end of the world. If the situation gets
>> that bad, the president would probably declare martial law
>
>OR declare a national emergency? Then the president will no longer be in
>power, the UN will. And you will have no constitutional rights.
Unconstituional on the face of the record. The military takes their
oath to "defend and protect the Constitutional of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic" very seriously.
And FEMA *is* unconstitutional on the face of the record.
Not to mention, private gun ownership exceeds government
gun ownership by a couple orders of magnitude.
>
>> with food and power quotas for households. The time it
>
>And the FEMA and military the right to confiscate your food and supplies
>to be distributed by the quota system, again with no constitutional
>rights to ownership of your own supplies and land.
They may (or may not) have the ability. The only right that matters
is the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and the basic
human right of self defense. And if you live in a state that infringes
on either of those rights, you have a problem. But it's not a Y2K
problem.
>
>> would take the power company CEOs and bankers to figure out alternate
>
>Or the UN. BTW there is NO stipulation as to when the UN rule ends, once
>it takes control it is their choice when to give control back.
BTW there is NO stipulation in the Constitution under which it can
be suspended. That includes the Bill of Rights, too. Any attempts to
do so is treason, pure and simple.
Terry Austin
jmnt...@my-dejanews.com
> > that somebody is hoarding all the baby formula,
> > I'm all for sending the SWAT team in to bust them up.
I couldn't find the original post so I am replying to this here, Storm. I'm
sure you'll find an answer to your question here also. If not ask me about it
tomorrow! <g>
WHAT????? Listen to what you just said (typed)! "...hoarding ALL the baby
formula..." First of all, I'd like to see that happen. How much storage
space would all the baby formula take? I better be building my storage
container now! Besides aren't I contributing to the wellness and strength of
the economy by purchasing the formula? Hmm?
Let me guess...you also think the government is the end all to EVERY problem?
You do have a ".edu" at the end of your e-mail address...so I must assume
that. (jim.h...@spam.free.jhuapl.edu). I'll take the risk!
Sending in a SWAT team to bust them up for what? What law have they broken?
The "I don't have what he has so it's not fair" law? When did that go on the
books? GMAFB!!! You almost must be a DeJager clone..."enemy of the poeple."
"Thank you Mr Stalin. We have your table right over here..." Geez!
That's how most laws get made anyway...someone has something someone else
doesn't have. It's then not fair so we have to have a law against it. Laws.
Give me more of them! We've got so many now they're almost unenforceable.
Why do we need more? Cause someone doens't "feel good" about themselves or
mommy and daddy didn't give them enough attention when they were younger.
If I choose to purchase baby formula, I can buy as much as I want. There is
nothing you or anybody else can so to stop me. If I want to buy apples,
oranges, toilet paper, soap, aspirin, etc. It's called freedom. Geez! I
wish you polly/lib's would just keep your nose out of my life. I can take
care of myself just fine! A bunch of "busybodies" with too much time on
their hands!! Reminds me of Homeowner's Association's! That's a story for
another post! ;-)
In our world today freedom is a strange commodity! And with Polly/lib
statement slike the one above, freedom becomes even more strange everyday!!!!
Thank you, Messr Stormhound, for allowing me to respond!
To quote an old, old saying: "You can have my baby formula when you can pry
it from my cold, dead hands!" Something like that... :-)
J.M. Nuzum
>
> Some hypothetical questions for everyone who's debating the pros and cons
> of stockpiling, hoarding, turning in "hoarders", and so forth...
>
> Just out of sheer curiosity...would you be happy to send the SWAT team in
> if you found out a neighboring family had stored up food for some long (2
> week+) amount of time, and what would be the minimum such "hoarding" you feel
> would justify such intervention?
>
> And, just to make things more interesting, how would your answer to the
> above change if they came out and said that they had stored up extra
> specifically because they knew you (and maybe a few other neighbors) hadn't,
> and that they were sharing the food in the hopes that you could all cooperate
> for your mutual well-being? What actions, if any, would you take to defend
> this supply under these circumstances?
>
> I'd love to see some honest answers to this one from folks on both sides of
> the aisle...who's feeling brave? <g>
>
> Stormhound, Poser of Moral Dilemmas
> DNRC Ombudsman for Induhvidual Affairs, Holder of Past Knowledge
> Home page at http://www.sound.net/~stormhnd
>
James Garvin
> There is no constitutional provision AT ALL for suspending
> constituional rights. Any attempt to do so is treason, pure
> and simple. And the US military *will* treat is exactly as such,
> up to and including arresting the President if necessary on
> just that charge. If you don't believe it, you haven't been around
> very many military people. They take their oath - to defend and
> uphold the *Constitution* first and foremost - very seriously.
BRRR...That's the wrong answer Terry! Try again the the bonus round. If the
US military takes the Constitution so damn seriously, why do you loose all
your rights once you join the military? Why did a military member get kicked
out for using his 1st Amendment right? Why did a half dozen or so officers
just get a slap on the wrist and a dozen and a half NCO's go to jail for the
Ft. Leonard wood prostitution ring? If you think the military is cool...you
are wrong. It is just like a big corp with the old boys club taking care of
their own. Ever hear of the Masons? If the military is so great how come
they are going to be 8,000 enlistment's short this year? How come everyone
is getting out?
> Besides, the UN is an extension of US foregin policy - when
> it is convenient to use it as such. Beyond that, it has no power
> whatsoever, as recent conflicts between UN will and NATO
> peacekeeping missions have demonstrated.
True, but NATO is the one we have to worry about.
> Never mind that they UN *cannot* legally take control in any way except
> through military conquest - which they are utterly incapable of
> without active material assistance on the part of the US.
But NATO can. They can declare marshall law in all NATO countries and
well...that's that.
> You *really* think US troops are going to fight US troops?
Happened in 1861-1864/5
> What a maroon.
I think of myself a mauve
James
Gunner
> That part doesn't matter too much. The electric billing machines
> being down would mean the LAers would get free power
> until the billing machines come back up.
>
>
> It wouldn't be the end of the world. If the situation gets
> that bad, the president would probably declare martial law
> with food and power quotas for households. The time it
> would take the power company CEOs and bankers to figure out alternate
> ways to get their money could probably be measured in minutes.
Oh really? and how would I pay the power companies? Assuming that they
are gonna manually send out a gazillion "estimated" statedments? If
the banking system is seriously fubar... you think that they are gonna
take 5 rabbits and 100 lbs of beans as payment?
Right.
And how is my boss gonna pay me? 100 lbs of 3/4" cold rolled steel bar
stock? Hummm?
Get real. First you say its no problem, then when presented with a
real life possiblilitys, you start drifting off to Martial law and
CEOs of suddenly insolvent companies and their equally broke bankers
comming up with a payment plan in minutes........ They gonna barter
vegies and beans? Promisory notes? Redeemable in how many
days/months/years.......
Ah huh.......Really well thought out, friend.
Gunner
Bob Brock
commodities market by buying a whole lot of silver at one time. While a
SWAT team wasn't used, they did have a significant problem with the Federal
government about it. That is if memory serves me correctly.
Mr. Milne is the ex-commodities broker. Perhaps he would like to expound on
the federal laws regarding hoarding and commodities price manipulation...
jmnt...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7c47i2$79n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7c4007$53$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Stormhound <stor...@sound.net> wrote:
>> In article <36E53A84...@jhuapl.edu>,
>> jim.h...@spam.free.jhuapl.edu. wrote under the topic Y2k Domino
Effect
>> Sighted:
>>
>> > In an emergency like this, if the gov't finds
>> > that somebody is hoarding all the baby formula,
>> > I'm all for sending the SWAT team in to bust them up.
SNIP
>Sending in a SWAT team to bust them up for what? What law have they
broken?
>The "I don't have what he has so it's not fair" law? When did that go on
the
>books? GMAFB!!! You almost must be a DeJager clone..."enemy of the
poeple."
>"Thank you Mr Stalin. We have your table right over here..." Geez!
>
>That's how most laws get made anyway...someone has something someone else
>doesn't have. It's then not fair so we have to have a law against it.
Laws.
>Give me more of them! We've got so many now they're almost unenforceable.
>Why do we need more? Cause someone doens't "feel good" about themselves or
>mommy and daddy didn't give them enough attention when they were younger.
>
>If I choose to purchase baby formula, I can buy as much as I want. There
is
>nothing you or anybody else can so to stop me. If I want to buy apples,
>oranges, toilet paper, soap, aspirin, etc. It's called freedom. Geez! I
>wish you polly/lib's would just keep your nose out of my life. I can take
>care of myself just fine! A bunch of "busybodies" with too much time on
>their hands!! Reminds me of Homeowner's Association's! That's a story for
>another post! ;-)
>
>In our world today freedom is a strange commodity! And with Polly/lib
>statement slike the one above, freedom becomes even more strange
everyday!!!!
SNIP
storm
> I'd love to see some honest answers to this one from folks on both sides of
> the aisle...who's feeling brave? <g>
I am not feeling particularly brave, Hound, but I'll take a stab at it.
I am one of those individuals who is storing up food, water, batteries, and
paper products. In fact I have collected about a 1 year supply for a family of
four. I have done so over a period of a year by buying extras each week along
with my regular shopping, or by catching a sale at the local department store. I
am certain that I have not taken anything away from another by doing so. The
shelves have certainly been filled back up on each of my return trips. This is
the amount that I feel is reasonable because I will then be able to replace my
own supplies through gardening, raising livestock etc. if the effects of Y2K
continues into a second year.
I have been encouraging my neighbors to stock up as well. I figure that the
more of us who do so now while the supplies are readily available the better
chance we all have to get ready in time. Obviously, I will NOT be turning anyone
else in, who is stockpiling to protect his/her own family.
In the event that Y2K turns out to be a catastrophe and I know someone who
has "hoarded up" exorbitant supplies strictly for his/her own financial gain
<profiteering>, I could try to persuade that person to be reasonable. I could
ask him/her to sell the supplies at a fair profit or to donate them because
people are starving. In failing to do that, I could try to either raise the
money to purchase these supplies or I could use my own money to purchase as much
as I could to distribute among the needy at no personal gain. Beyond that I feel
that I have no right to be judge, and jury.
I hope that I never have to make a choice to defend the supplies I have
accumulated. I am certain that I will NOT at the cost of anyone's life.
Storm
--
"Tragedy and comedy are but two aspects of what is real, and whether we see the
tragic or the humorous is a matter of perspective." --Arnold Beisser
james d. hunter
>
> > It wouldn't be the end of the world. If the situation gets
> > that bad, the president would probably declare martial law
> > with food and power quotas for households. The time it
> > would take the power company CEOs and bankers to figure out
alternate
> > ways to get their money could probably be measured in minutes.
>
> Oh really? and how would I pay the power companies? Assuming that
they
> are gonna manually send out a gazillion "estimated" statedments? If
> the banking system is seriously fubar... you think that they are
gonna
> take 5 rabbits and 100 lbs of beans as payment?
>
> Right.
> And how is my boss gonna pay me? 100 lbs of 3/4" cold rolled steel
bar
> stock? Hummm?
Why not try to use your head to work the problem.
It is a fairly easy equation.
30 local power facilities, ready to deliver.
200 bankers using Y1K computers that can't add.
1 Governor with the Authority over the National Guard.
15 million voters without heat.
> Get real. First you say its no problem, then when presented with a
> real life possiblilitys, you start drifting off to Martial law and
> CEOs of suddenly insolvent companies and their equally broke bankers
> comming up with a payment plan in minutes........ They gonna barter
> vegies and beans? Promisory notes? Redeemable in how many
> days/months/years.......
> Ah huh.......Really well thought out, friend.
There is a very good reason that none of the USENET Y2K
"computeriods" are Governors.
---
Jim
Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply
And if they tell you that 1, they're not interested in selling, period, and 2,
you're tresspassing, and 3, you are to leave *now* and *never* return, or else
-- what will you say and/or do?
> I hope that I never have to make a choice to defend the supplies I have
>accumulated. I am certain that I will NOT at the cost of anyone's life.
You sound sort of like the ideal homeowner. Ideal to a predator, that is.
--
When they say, "Eat your spam," I say, "Drink your [purple] Koolaid".
Sender: crosscut
Domain: killtrees.com
Gunner
>
> Why not try to use your head to work the problem.
> It is a fairly easy equation.
>
> 30 local power facilities, ready to deliver.
> 200 bankers using Y1K computers that can't add.
> 1 Governor with the Authority over the National Guard.
> 15 million voters without heat.
>
>
> > real life possiblilitys, you start drifting off to Martial law and
> > CEOs of suddenly insolvent companies and their equally broke bankers
> > comming up with a payment plan in minutes........ They gonna barter
> > vegies and beans? Promisory notes? Redeemable in how many
> > days/months/years.......
> > Ah huh.......Really well thought out, friend.
>
> "computeriods" are Governors.
Ok so Im assuming (you havent given me an answer yet, just the
sceanario) that the Governer is gonna "nationalize" the power
companies and either command the power company employees to come in to
work, or try to run with Nat. Guard. Ok. This has been tried in the
20's with the coal mines.... didnt work.. just a bunch of strikers got
killed.
Now assuming the power company guys come in to work. How are they
gonna get paid? Vouchers?
Will the stores accept vouchers? Remember the Vouchers paid to state
employees a few years ago when the State of California almost went
bankrupt? After about a week, stores stopped taking them.
What will the employees use for fuel for their cars to get them to
work? Vouchers again?
Asumming that there is lots of damage to the power system due to Y2K
induced problems such as blown transformers, substations and switching
equipment, Is the Governor gonna be able to force a supplier in
another state to fork over the equipment, and then force trucking co.s
to haul it into California? Consider the fact that there may be a
sudden shortage of said equipment due to problems in other states...
now what?
Assuming that the fuel suppliers are headquartered in other states, do
you think the Governer will be able to force those people to deliver
fuel, both for power plants, and private vehicles and OTR trucks?
Particularily when there are 49 other states in the same shape?
How many members of the guard are even gonna show up? Particularily
when their families may be at risk at home?
Calling out the guard, and giving 50+ governors a free rein is not
gonna solve much..... Consider the Northridge earth quake a few years
ago in L.A. It was over 2 weeks before most of the victims got aid.
Same with Hurricane Andrew. And those were spots of trouble surrounded
by normalicy.
I suspect that even if every city, county, state, had a ready core of
"expiditers" ready and on hand, and they knew just what problems
needed to be solved first, they couldnt do it in any short amount of
time. The ifrastructure of each state, let alone the country, is so
interwoven, and is so fragile, that, like a house of cards, it will
come down very quickly, and take a fairly long time to build back up
again.
It will be possible to keep the power and water flowing for a while,
using martial law, but factor in sabotage, normal breakdowns, strikes,
riots, and a prospected bad winter, I dont think that will be for
long, There will be large areas that will be with out power and water
for an extended period of time. And by large, Im refering to places
like the Bay area, the eastern sea board/beltway etc. The bigger the
area, the harder its gonna be to maintain the basics, even though
those places will be concentrated on first, due to population density.
I suspect that you vastly underestimate just how complex this problem
is. Now if you have specific ways to handle these problems, rather
than a airey "call out the guard" and "its simple, stupid" ...I'd be
most happy to hear them. As a matter of fact, PLEASE give me the
benifit of your wisdom, and tell me where I'm wrong, and just how you
would solve these problems.
Gunner
james d. hunter
>
> >
> > Why not try to use your head to work the problem.
> > It is a fairly easy equation.
> >
> > 30 local power facilities, ready to deliver.
> > 200 bankers using Y1K computers that can't add.
> > 1 Governor with the Authority over the National Guard.
> > 15 million voters without heat.
> >
> >
a
> > > real life possiblilitys, you start drifting off to Martial law
and
> > > CEOs of suddenly insolvent companies and their equally broke
bankers
> > > comming up with a payment plan in minutes........ They gonna
barter
> > > vegies and beans? Promisory notes? Redeemable in how many
> > > days/months/years.......
> > > Ah huh.......Really well thought out, friend.
> >
> > "computeriods" are Governors.
>
> Ok so Im assuming (you havent given me an answer yet, just the
> sceanario) that the Governer is gonna "nationalize" the power
> companies and either command the power company employees to come in
to
> work, or try to run with Nat. Guard. Ok. This has been tried in the
> 20's with the coal mines.... didnt work.. just a bunch of strikers
got
> killed.
to the Y2K situation at all. The Governor has almost unlimited
authority to maintain peace in the state in emergencies.
I don't where you live; but didn't your state -ever- have a
major flood, hurricance, tornado swarm, lightning storm, blizzard,
heat wave, el nino, la nina, severe local flooding, wind storms --
anything at all out of the smooth sailing?
> Now assuming the power company guys come in to work. How are they
> gonna get paid? Vouchers?
> Will the stores accept vouchers? Remember the Vouchers paid to state
> employees a few years ago when the State of California almost went
> bankrupt? After about a week, stores stopped taking them.
> What will the employees use for fuel for their cars to get them to
> work? Vouchers again?
> Asumming that there is lots of damage to the power system due to Y2K
> induced problems such as blown transformers, substations and
switching
> equipment, Is the Governor gonna be able to force a supplier in
> another state to fork over the equipment, and then force trucking
co.s
> to haul it into California? Consider the fact that there may be a
> sudden shortage of said equipment due to problems in other states...
> now what?
California is probably better off weather, food, & manufacturing
wise than any other state. Don't being expecting much in
the "support" area if you guys can't handle it.
> Assuming that the fuel suppliers are headquartered in other states,
do
> you think the Governer will be able to force those people to deliver
> fuel, both for power plants, and private vehicles and OTR trucks?
> Particularily when there are 49 other states in the same shape?
>
> How many members of the guard are even gonna show up? Particularily
> when their families may be at risk at home?
How the hell should I know? They take an oath to show up. Soldiers
not showing up for their troop movements is why they've been executed
in the past.
> Calling out the guard, and giving 50+ governors a free rein is not
> gonna solve much..... Consider the Northridge earth quake a few years
> ago in L.A. It was over 2 weeks before most of the victims got aid.
> Same with Hurricane Andrew. And those were spots of trouble
surrounded
> by normalicy.
Well if Y2K produces any major physical infrastrucure damage
it won't be because of earthquakes.
> I suspect that even if every city, county, state, had a ready core
of
> "expiditers" ready and on hand, and they knew just what problems
> needed to be solved first, they couldnt do it in any short amount of
> time. The ifrastructure of each state, let alone the country, is so
> interwoven, and is so fragile, that, like a house of cards, it will
> come down very quickly, and take a fairly long time to build back up
> again.
> It will be possible to keep the power and water flowing for a while,
> using martial law, but factor in sabotage, normal breakdowns,
strikes,
> riots, and a prospected bad winter, I dont think that will be for
> long, There will be large areas that will be with out power and water
> for an extended period of time. And by large, Im refering to places
> like the Bay area, the eastern sea board/beltway etc. The bigger the
> area, the harder its gonna be to maintain the basics, even though
> those places will be concentrated on first, due to population
density.
Can you give any evidence at all that there -will- be large
areas without power. If you can, tell the world where they'll
be.
> I suspect that you vastly underestimate just how complex this problem
> is. Now if you have specific ways to handle these problems, rather
> than a airey "call out the guard" and "its simple, stupid" ...I'd be
> most happy to hear them. As a matter of fact, PLEASE give me the
> benifit of your wisdom, and tell me where I'm wrong, and just how you
> would solve these problems.
No. I don't underestimate the problem.
---
Jim
Liam
>Oh really? and how would I pay the power companies? Assuming that they
>are gonna manually send out a gazillion "estimated" statedments? If
>the banking system is seriously fubar... you think that they are gonna
>take 5 rabbits and 100 lbs of beans as payment?
>
>
Send em a check. . . in the mail . . .(ROFL)
Liam
Jimmie Rogers
allowed to have on hand any more is hoarding
JonquilJan wrote:
> Wasn't there a point made a few months ago that 'hoarding' is when you
> stock items specifically for resale at a high profit in hard times?
>
> (Other than regular businesses that is)
>
> Anyone else remember this?
>
> JonquilJan
>
> Learn something new every day
> As long as you are learning, you are living
> Wehn you stop learning, you start dying
Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply
>It would depend. If someone was trying to survive or selling a 20.00
>can of formula (don't know the cost I breast fed my kids when they
>don't have a baby for 200.00 dollars to the parents of a starving
>baby.POW! That's hoarding. If they have a baby and extra formula and
>are willing to take 20.00 or a possible trade of toilet paper etc...
>that's being civil. If it's given, that's being a human being. I
>remember about 2 or three years ago the NE had a blizzard and the
>bread trucks were having trouble getting through. There were certain
>entrepreneurs who would buy up all the bread that was left and try to
>sell a 1.00 loaf for twenty dollars. I'm definitely going stock up now
>that I know who my neighbors are.
Then by your own definition you are choosing to become a hoarder.
>On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 20:23:47 GMT, Stormhound <stor...@sound.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <36E53A84...@jhuapl.edu>,
>> jim.h...@spam.free.jhuapl.edu. wrote under the topic Y2k Domino Effect
>>Sighted:
>>
>>> In an emergency like this, if the gov't finds
>>> that somebody is hoarding all the baby formula,
>>> I'm all for sending the SWAT team in to bust them up.
>>
>> Some hypothetical questions for everyone who's debating the pros and cons
>>of stockpiling, hoarding, turning in "hoarders", and so forth...
>>
>> Just out of sheer curiosity...would you be happy to send the SWAT team in
>>if you found out a neighboring family had stored up food for some long (2
>>week+) amount of time, and what would be the minimum such "hoarding" you feel
>>would justify such intervention?
>>
>> And, just to make things more interesting, how would your answer to the
>>above change if they came out and said that they had stored up extra
>>specifically because they knew you (and maybe a few other neighbors) hadn't,
>>and that they were sharing the food in the hopes that you could all cooperate
>>for your mutual well-being? What actions, if any, would you take to defend
>>this supply under these circumstances?
>>
>> I'd love to see some honest answers to this one from folks on both sides of
>>the aisle...who's feeling brave? <g>
>>
>>Stormhound, Poser of Moral Dilemmas
>>DNRC Ombudsman for Induhvidual Affairs, Holder of Past Knowledge
>>Home page at http://www.sound.net/~stormhnd
>>
>>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Tim May
> My neighbors were the ones hoarding and profiteering, not me. I can't
> be at the mercy of people trying to take advantage of my family nor
> depend on my neighbors. I think you took my statement out of context.
> The things I buy are for my family and I. They are not for resale. I
> need to stock up so I don't have to pay 20.00 for a jar of .99 jelly.
And how can you possibly "be at the mercy" of people who have bought supplies?
How can their 50 jars of jelly possibly put you at their "mercy"? Do you
think you would be better off if they had not bought jars of jelly? How?
I give up...you're too stupid to even explain basic economics to.
--Tim May
--
Y2K: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, enjoy it in any case
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
doggystyle
>
> Wasn't there a point made a few months ago that 'hoarding' is when you
> stock items specifically for resale at a high profit in hard times?
>
> (Other than regular businesses that is)
>
> Anyone else remember this?
>
> JonquilJan
>
> Learn something new every day
> As long as you are learning, you are living
> Wehn you stop learning, you start dying
Now that hoarding has been duly demonized as counter to the interests of
society, perhaps we should widen our scope a bit, i.e.:
1) The banks themselves are hoarding cash.
2) The federal government is hoarding gold, and cash, and guns.
3) The rich. Aren't they in fact hoarding? Isn't that what 'rich'
means? Possessor of a large hoard?
I get the feeling that the problem is not so much "hoarding" or
"stockpiling" or "accumulating more than your fair share" per se. The
problem is that "hoarding" by those lacking hoards may do something
"unfair" (or "inappropriate", or "irresponsible") to the hoards of those
who already have one.
Here's an amusing little thought experiment I heard about from some
anonymous whacko on the Internet (who died in a car wreck, I think):
Queue us all up at the bank doors, sorted in order of ascending assets
-- poor first, rich last. Blow the starting whistle. What do you have
when the dust clears? A BANK JOB. Robin Hood Writ large. And the
wonderful thing is that this heist is perfectly legal!
The not so wonderful part is that the "rule of law" is like playing
poker with your evil big sister. Every time she slides a big pile of
chips over to her side, it's: "Hey sorry, but that's the rules. We can't
play the game if you don't follow the rules." Then when you draw the
flush, she suddenly remembers a rule she forgot to tell you about.
Thus we see that the capitalist system is not really +a+ system. It is
two systems: the rules for the good times, and then the improvisational
"rules we forgot to tell you about" for the bad times.
doggystyle
smpo...@bellsouth.net.no_spam_pleeze.cz
book.
On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 14:37:06 -0700, James Garvin <bo...@nmt.edu> wrote:
>If the
>US military takes the Constitution so damn seriously, why do you loose all
>your rights once you join the military?
Uh ... because you sign a CONTRACT. You forfeit certain
constitutional rights -- which the courts have upheld time and again,
by the way -- and agree to adhere to, and be judged under, the Uniform
Code Of Military Justice (UCMJ).
>But NATO can. They can declare marshall law in all NATO countries and
>well...that's that.
Where in the WORLD are you getting this information from? Sheesh!
Even amongst NATO countries, there must be broad agreement before
action can be taken, and the "troubled" government must REQUEST
assistance under the terms of the treaty!
Do you really believe that France, England and Greece can just march
in and say, "yo, Yanks, we're going to take over now . . ........ ?"
If they tried, they would very quickly be met by Bubba and His
12-Guage Shotgun.
-- Stephen ( heh )
http://personal.bhm.bellsouth.net/~smpoole7
smpo...@bellsouth.net.no_spam_pleeze.cz
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>And is unconstitutional on the face of the record. The Constitution
>has no provision under *any* circumstances for suspending
>constitutional rights. And the military would take a very dim
>view of attempts to do so. As a few of 'em about it. It might
>surprise you. "All enemies, foreign and *domestic*." And their
>first oath is not to the President, or the goverment, or the United
>States. Their *first* oath is to the *Constitution*.
OK, badly worded on my part. Under martial law, certain rights (such
as Habeus Corpus) CAN be suspended or amended. You can also be placed
under curfew (which curfew can be enforced). Things like that.
But you're right in essense.
-- Stephen
http://personal.bhm.bellsouth.net/~smpoole7
JonquilJan
Rick Bowen
>
> I hope that I never have to make a choice to defend the supplies I have
>accumulated. I am certain that I will NOT at the cost of anyone's life.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your family's included? By that I mean the lifeboat scenario. Taking on
more than you can help, with the cost of reduced supplies for your family.
Because you can bet they won't leave you with anything.
> Storm
Rick Bowen
NRA Member #APN0405N3
TSRA Life Member #073009
Strider
diseases from Whores. Not to mention the even NASTIER things that your wife
will do to you if you get caught! >:-o
JonquilJan wrote in message ...
>Wasn't there a point made a few months ago that 'hoarding' is when you
>stock items specifically for resale at a high profit in hard times?
>
Oh! You mean hoarding!
Never mind.
Strider
William P.N. Smith
> I'd love to see some honest answers to this one from folks on both sides of
>the aisle...who's feeling brave? <g>
Well, obviously, it depends on who gets to #define hoarding, and under
what conditions they do so. In general, anyone who stocked up on
anything that runs out and won't give it to me when I ask is hoarding
it, and should have it taken away at gunpoint.
On the other hand, my stuff is my stuff, for which I paid good money
(and other opportunity cost), and if yawl didn't think to stock up
that's your lookout. My gold is for sale, but my food isn't. 8*)
And on the third tentacle, the guy who makes the rules, if he's backed
up by Guys With Guns (TM) is probably going to get his way. While
it's interesting to think about the National Guard confiscating food
from the (closed, due to failed computers or lack of power) grocery
stores and stopping by my house with some of it, and while I might
spout some nonsense about firing on the army when they come by to take
my generator, neither of these things are likely. If some random
looter wants my stuff he's going to have to survive the radiation
field (9mm particle radiation) around my house, but if a well
organized group of Guys With Guns stops by and insists, I'll probably
help them move the generator to the shelter in hopes they'll give me
and mine a place therein.
William Smith wp...@compusmiths.com N1...@amsat.org
ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
Rick Bowen
> > How many members of the guard are even gonna show up? Particularily
> > when their families may be at risk at home?
> How the hell should I know? They take an oath to show up. Soldiers
> not showing up for their troop movements is why they've been executed
> in the past.
That's when they were pulled from unaffected areas of the country and they
weren't worried about their families.
> > Calling out the guard, and giving 50+ governors a free rein is not
> > gonna solve much..... Consider the Northridge earth quake a few years
> > ago in L.A. It was over 2 weeks before most of the victims got aid.
> > Same with Hurricane Andrew. And those were spots of trouble
>surrounded
> > by normalicy.
>
> Well if Y2K produces any major physical infrastrucure damage
> it won't be because of earthquakes.
>
> Can you give any evidence at all that there -will- be large
> areas without power. If you can, tell the world where they'll
> be.
Can you give ANY evidence that there won't be?
> > I suspect that you vastly underestimate just how complex this problem
> > is. Now if you have specific ways to handle these problems, rather
> > than a airey "call out the guard" and "its simple, stupid" ...I'd be
> > most happy to hear them. As a matter of fact, PLEASE give me the
> > benifit of your wisdom, and tell me where I'm wrong, and just how you
> > would solve these problems.
>
> No. I don't underestimate the problem.
Sounds like it.
> Jim
Conway Yee
> the aisle...who's feeling brave? <g>
In practice, hoarding is when the other guy has more of the stuff you
need than you do.
Remember, in times of crisis, little things like the rule of law go by
way of "national security" etc. Remember the American concentration
camps for the Japanese and the mis-use of census data?
--
tnx es 73 de Conway Yee, N2JWQ | DON'T | Department of Radiology | 3 BOXES:
| TREAD | BIDMC | BALLOT
y...@hisha.bih.harvard.edu | ON | 330 Brookline Avenue | JURY
cy...@caregroup.harvard.edu | ME | Boston, MA 02215 | CARTRIDGE
Rick Bowen
>It would depend. If someone was trying to survive or selling a 20.00
>can of formula (don't know the cost I breast fed my kids) when they
>don't have a baby for 200.00 dollars to the parents of a starving
>baby.POW! That's hoarding.
No, this is hoarding.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: 1hoard
Pronunciation: 'hOrd, 'hord
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English hord, from Old English; akin to Gothic huzd
treasure, Old English hydan to hide
Date: before 12th century
: a supply or fund stored up and often hidden away
You are thinking of:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: prof·i·teer
Pronunciation: "prä-f&-'tir
Function: noun
Date: 1912
: one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency
- profiteer intransitive verb
IOW, profiteering.
If they have a baby and extra formula and
>are willing to take 20.00 or a possible trade of toilet paper etc...
>that's being civil. If it's given, that's being a human being. I
>remember about 2 or three years ago the NE had a blizzard and the
>bread trucks were having trouble getting through. There were certain
>entrepreneurs who would buy up all the bread that was left and try to
>sell a 1.00 loaf for twenty dollars. I'm definitely going stock up now
>that I know who my neighbors are.
See above.
>On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 20:23:47 GMT, Stormhound <stor...@sound.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <36E53A84...@jhuapl.edu>,
>> jim.h...@spam.free.jhuapl.edu. wrote under the topic Y2k Domino =
>Effect
>>Sighted:
>>
>>> In an emergency like this, if the gov't finds
>>> that somebody is hoarding all the baby formula,
>>> I'm all for sending the SWAT team in to bust them up.
>>
>> Some hypothetical questions for everyone who's debating the pros and =
>cons
>>of stockpiling, hoarding, turning in "hoarders", and so forth...
>>
>> Just out of sheer curiosity...would you be happy to send the SWAT team=
> in
>>if you found out a neighboring family had stored up food for some long =
>(2
>>week+) amount of time, and what would be the minimum such "hoarding" you=
> feel
>>would justify such intervention?
No intervention, no reason. You wanna buy stereos and take Caribbean
vacations, it's your right. If I buy food, it's MY right. Plain and simple.
What's mine is mine. Unless you want to take me on an all expense paid
vacation to Belize or Aruba. Then I'll share. :-) We all make choices.
Some good. Some not so good.
For all of the people out there that say this unfairly targets poor people,
pinto beans ARE on the WIC program. Beer & twinkies are not.
dkh
<cYjF2.64$by5....@news7.ispnews.com>...
> Wasn't there a point made a few months ago that 'hoarding' is when you
> stock items specifically for resale at a high profit in hard times?
Stocking up as above is speculation and is actually good for society
because it helps smooth the bumps in the economy.
IMO, "hoarding" involves creating a shortage by buying things up, for self
or for resale.
Itsfun2do
treaties signed by the president and ratified by congress....
Itsfun2do
were "requested" to.
Itsfun2do
two.. capitlism is not whats being discussed... the question is hoarding,
three, i doubt you could do more than mention supply and demand let alone
pass your self off as knowlegble about such things as the laffer curve,.
i wonder do you know the major difference between Capitlism and Communism?
(as related to economics)
Itsfun2do
i wouldnt be telling anyone you have a year supply for four...
you just endanger your family.
Itsfun2do
<< areas without power. If you can, tell the world where they'll
< be.
goto the Edison Electic institutes home page...they will tell you there will
be power outages...go to the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commision)page...they
will tell you the same thing.
but they cant predict where.. so how in the heck could anyone else?
<<How the hell should I know? They take an oath to show up. Soldiers
<<not showing up for their troop movements is why they've been <<executed
in the past.
damn i bet your a lib...hate the military but they damn sure better be
there to protect me...
<<No. I don't underestimate the problem
i believe you had a typo... dont feel bad we all have typos from time to
time..
we know you were trying to say that you dont UNDERSTAND the problem..
alabama.native
wrote:
No, but I do know how to spell 'Capitalism'.
Scott
(snip)
>
> i wonder do you know the major difference between Capitlism and Communism?
> (as related to economics)
You mean besides the fact that communism is a proven failure on a
national level, and capitalism on a national level is a proven sucess -
or do you mean that with capitalism, you can always find a party, where
with communism, the Party ALWAYS finds you?
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
Scott <d...@null.com> wrote in message news:36E6269B...@null.com...
I prefer Winston Churchill's definition:
Capitalism is the UNEQUAL distribution of WEALTH.
Socialism is the EQUAL distribution of POVERTY.
Communism is Socialism with a gun to your head.
(or something along those lines)
Ciao,
--
D. Scott Secor, Year 2000 Institute & Y2K Board of Inquiry, Mpls., MN USA
Y2K with an attitude! URL: http://y2k.board.org/ Alias:
http://thrill.to/2000/
Itsfun2do
Question for the group...why do people attack an arguemt by saying... duh
you spelt a word wrong....
its that same kinda "dot the I's and cross the T's" BS beau Ah Kra C
thinking that is preventing the world from fixing the y2k prob..
.....
btw i can see by your lame attempt to imitate a person with knowlege (a
teacher)... that you knew what i was saying . wheather or knot you Un Der
Stand..is a hole differnt kettle o fish.
Terry
PS in case you dont get it......
take your anal ass and worry about something worth worring about....
Tony Walton
>
> for one you had no need to insult her...
>
> two.. capitlism is not whats being discussed... the question is hoarding,
>
> three, i doubt you could do more than mention supply and demand let alone
> pass your self off as knowlegble about such things as the laffer curve,.
>
> (as related to economics)
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man.
Communism is the exact opposite.
--
Tony
JonquilJan
produce from my own garden makes me a 'hoarder'?
These laws, if there are really any, have to have been made by people
who have no concept of self-sufficiency, raising your own food, country
/farm life.
JonquilJan
Jimmie Rogers <jme...@mail.tds.net> writes: > acording to the things that i have read 3 months supply is all you are
> allowed to have on hand any more is hoarding
>
> JonquilJan wrote:
>
> > Wasn't there a point made a few months ago that 'hoarding' is when you
> > stock items specifically for resale at a high profit in hard times?
> >
Monte Ferguson
itsf...@hotmail.com says...
> have you taken into consideration that the Constitution is not "above"
> treaties signed by the president and ratified by congress....
What gives the President and Congress the power to enter into treaties?
Hint: It's not Divine Right.
--
Monte Ferguson Remove exxes to get to:
mfer...@neox.xrr.com
Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply
>It would depend. If someone was trying to survive or selling a 20.00
>can of formula (don't know the cost I breast fed my kids) when they
>don't have a baby for 200.00 dollars to the parents of a starving
>baby.POW! That's hoarding. If they have a baby and extra formula and
>are willing to take 20.00 or a possible trade of toilet paper etc...
>that's being civil. If it's given, that's being a human being.
Ahoy, there be shit between yer' ears, matey!
Here, let me help: "If someone has a $2,000.00 can of formula, and he refuses to
sell it to me, because he has chosen to use it to water his tobacco plants, then
that's *my* tough shit, because it's *his* property, and I can go piss up a
rope."
Please repeat that simple truth until it sinks into that thick skull of yours.
Gunner
<jim.h...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> > > Why not try to use your head to work the problem.
> > > It is a fairly easy equation.
> > >
> > > 30 local power facilities, ready to deliver.
> > > 200 bankers using Y1K computers that can't add.
> > > 1 Governor with the Authority over the National Guard.
> > > 15 million voters without heat.
> > >
> > > There is a very good reason that none of the USENET Y2K
> > > "computeriods" are Governors.
A continuing non-answer
> This isn't the 1920's and a workers' strike has no relationship
> to the Y2K situation at all. The Governor has almost unlimited
> authority to maintain peace in the state in emergencies.
> I don't where you live; but didn't your state -ever- have a
> major flood, hurricance, tornado swarm, lightning storm, blizzard,
> heat wave, el nino, la nina, severe local flooding, wind storms --
> anything at all out of the smooth sailing?
Yes we have had all of the above, but never all at the same time, only
in very localized areas. Resources from other area were brought to
bear on those individual areas, which in fact did take finite time, in
some cases weeks and months.
> California is probably better off weather, food, & manufacturing
> wise than any other state. Don't being expecting much in
> the "support" area if you guys can't handle it.
Very true, however those areas, like most tech dependent things
require fuel, electricity, and a functioning and timely transport
system, which includes an efficient distribution system.
> > How many members of the guard are even gonna show up? Particularily
> > when their families may be at risk at home?
>
> How the hell should I know? They take an oath to show up. Soldiers
> not showing up for their troop movements is why they've been executed
> in the past.
The Guard is a microcosim of our society. These gentlemen have a life
outside of their military duties. Their military duties are a very
small subset of their regular life, unlike active military. Many
employers are loth to allow their employees the two weeks of summer
training each year, because they tend to be important members of a
company. Their absense for the two week training has been known to
virtualy cripple a business, even when their absense has been planned
for. Now factor in a strong possibliity that the two weeks gets
stretched out much farther... and the backup people in those companies
have their own problems and dont come in either.
> > Calling out the guard, and giving 50+ governors a free rein is not
> > gonna solve much..... Consider the Northridge earth quake a few years
> > ago in L.A. It was over 2 weeks before most of the victims got aid.
> > Same with Hurricane Andrew. And those were spots of trouble
>surrounded
> > by normalicy.
>
> Well if Y2K produces any major physical infrastrucure damage
> it won't be because of earthquakes.
Nice non answer. Still avoiding the basic premise are we?
> > I suspect that even if every city, county, state, had a ready core
> Can you give any evidence at all that there -will- be large
> areas without power. If you can, tell the world where they'll
> be.
No one knows, however if you'd spend the time searching the websites
of the various utilities, you 'd get some idea of what each one thinks
is gonna happen, not to mention the various opinions of industry
watchdogs, whom all feel that "major problems" will occure.
> than a airey "call out the guard" and "its simple, stupid" ...I'd be
> > most happy to hear them. As a matter of fact, PLEASE give me the
> > benifit of your wisdom, and tell me where I'm wrong, and just how you
> > would solve these problems.
>
> No. I don't underestimate the problem.
>
> ---
> Jim
Jim, Jim, Jim,
I dispair ever getting a straight answer from you. You are harder to
pin down than a plate full of live eels. Your original posts indicate
that you think there will be few if any problems with Y2K. When I
present you with events of high probability, you start drifting off
into "vague speak". When I attempt to bring you back on subject, you
drift off in another direction. I really dont know if you really dont
know how to handle my questions, or you have an aversion to even
thinking about the various problems that may occur.
I hope that your real life job doesnt require analyasis of any great
depth.
It appears that you are either incapable of giving me an answer or
choose not to do so, for what ever reason , so Im gonna drop this
thread as non productive. Besides, I really avoid engaging in a
battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Gunner
Scott
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 04:58:25 GMT, ge...@REMOVEerols.com (Genie) wrote:
>
> >It would depend. If someone was trying to survive or selling a 20.00
> >can of formula (don't know the cost I breast fed my kids) when they
> >don't have a baby for 200.00 dollars to the parents of a starving
> >baby.POW! That's hoarding. If they have a baby and extra formula and
> >are willing to take 20.00 or a possible trade of toilet paper etc...
> >that's being civil. If it's given, that's being a human being.
>
> Ahoy, there be shit between yer' ears, matey!
>
> Here, let me help: "If someone has a $2,000.00 can of formula, and he refuses to
> sell it to me, because he has chosen to use it to water his tobacco plants, then
> that's *my* tough shit, because it's *his* property, and I can go piss up a
> rope."
>
> Please repeat that simple truth until it sinks into that thick skull of yours.
Heh heh heh!
Don't hold back, Ron - tell us how you REALLY feel... lol
Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply
>Then the 60 quarts of tomatoes (plus other goodies) that I can using
>produce from my own garden makes me a 'hoarder'?
>
>These laws, if there are really any, have to have been made by people
>who have no concept of self-sufficiency, raising your own food, country
Wouldn't it be tragic if those canned tomatoes accidentally contained a large
quantity of minced tomato *leaves* mixed in with the tasty tomatoes?
>/farm life.
>
>JonquilJan
>
>
>Jimmie Rogers <jme...@mail.tds.net> writes: > acording to the things that i have read 3 months supply is all you are
>> allowed to have on hand any more is hoarding
>>
>> JonquilJan wrote:
>>
>> > Wasn't there a point made a few months ago that 'hoarding' is when you
>> > stock items specifically for resale at a high profit in hard times?
>> >
>> > (Other than regular businesses that is)
>> >
>> > Anyone else remember this?
>> >
>> > JonquilJan
>> >
>> > Learn something new every day
>> > As long as you are learning, you are living
>> > Wehn you stop learning, you start dying
>>
--
JonquilJan
>
> >Then the 60 quarts of tomatoes (plus other goodies) that I can using
> >produce from my own garden makes me a 'hoarder'?
> >
> >These laws, if there are really any, have to have been made by people
> >who have no concept of self-sufficiency, raising your own food, country
>
> Wouldn't it be tragic if those canned tomatoes accidentally contained a large
> quantity of minced tomato *leaves* mixed in with the tasty tomatoes?
>
HeHe
JonquilJan
Itsfun2do
da constitution gibs da pradadent N da congruss da pow'r to make, sign,and
RATafy dem dere treaties.....
da constitution,of its own , subjegates itself to da treaties.
Its tays it is da supreme law of da lan',....not da supreme law of da
whirl'....
>>>>
James Garvin
>
> >If the
> >US military takes the Constitution so damn seriously, why do you loose all
> >your rights once you join the military?
>
> Uh ... because you sign a CONTRACT. You forfeit certain
> constitutional rights -- which the courts have upheld time and again,
> by the way -- and agree to adhere to, and be judged under, the Uniform
> Code Of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Ok...lemme get this right:
1) I defend the Constitution, but I can't use it.
2) Any time I sign ANY contract I loose all my rights????
3) I really don't remember when I raised my right hand I said that I would
forgo all my rights, human or otherwise to join the Army.
4) I REALLY don't think the UCMJ has been touched since it was written. You
know that under the UCMJ that if you aren't married, premarital sex is AGAINST
THE LAW...hello (have you ever read the UCMJ?? I have)
Ah, but that is why the military is 7,000 bodies short...Nobody wants to put up
with that kind of bullshit. Are you a brainwashed Military idiot...Don't
answer that...I know...wait...YES YOU ARE...get a life other than thinking you
tough and big because you can command people around in whatever branch you are
in.
> >But NATO can. They can declare marshall law in all NATO countries and
> >well...that's that.
>
> Where in the WORLD are you getting this information from? Sheesh!
>
> Even amongst NATO countries, there must be broad agreement before
> action can be taken, and the "troubled" government must REQUEST
> assistance under the terms of the treaty!
>
> Do you really believe that France, England and Greece can just march
> in and say, "yo, Yanks, we're going to take over now . . ........ ?"
>
> If they tried, they would very quickly be met by Bubba and His
> 12-Guage Shotgun.
Not true...The other countries can declare a country "bad" and take over as
it's police and military force...It won't happen though because it is a major
political faux pax for them...Yes they can...but they won't...Big Political boo
boo...Then we would take our bases out of their countries and their beer, wine,
liquor economies would collapse.
Itsfun2do
doesn not invaladate the argument at hand.
Inorder to communicate
one needs to generate an idea....
transmit the idea to a second party
the second party needs to recieve the idea
the second party needs to recieve the same idea that was sent.
you obvioulsy knew he was talking about martial law... there fore he
communicated with you...
now do your job and attack the arguement presented structurally.
Oar knot.
Itsfun2do
james d. hunter
>
> On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 22:42:12 -0500, "james d. hunter"
> <jim.h...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > Why not try to use your head to work the problem.
> > > > It is a fairly easy equation.
> > > >
> > > > 30 local power facilities, ready to deliver.
> > > > 200 bankers using Y1K computers that can't add.
> > > > 1 Governor with the Authority over the National Guard.
> > > > 15 million voters without heat.
>
> > > >
> > > > There is a very good reason that none of the USENET Y2K
> > > > "computeriods" are Governors.
> A continuing non-answer
It is an answer, because that's the way Governors think.
> > This isn't the 1920's and a workers' strike has no relationship
> > to the Y2K situation at all. The Governor has almost unlimited
> > authority to maintain peace in the state in emergencies.
> > I don't where you live; but didn't your state -ever- have a
> > major flood, hurricance, tornado swarm, lightning storm, blizzard,
> > heat wave, el nino, la nina, severe local flooding, wind storms --
> > anything at all out of the smooth sailing?
> Yes we have had all of the above, but never all at the same time,
only
> in very localized areas. Resources from other area were brought to
> bear on those individual areas, which in fact did take finite time,
in
> some cases weeks and months.
>
> > California is probably better off weather, food, & manufacturing
> > wise than any other state. Don't being expecting much in
> > the "support" area if you guys can't handle it.
> Very true, however those areas, like most tech dependent things
> require fuel, electricity, and a functioning and timely transport
> system, which includes an efficient distribution system.
Yeah, but the transportion industry is also aware of potential
Y2K problems. I counting on that the number 2000 doesn't have
anything fundamental to with physics.
>
> > > How many members of the guard are even gonna show up?
Particularily
> > > when their families may be at risk at home?
> >
> > How the hell should I know? They take an oath to show up.
Soldiers
> > not showing up for their troop movements is why they've been
executed
> > in the past.
> The Guard is a microcosim of our society. These gentlemen have a life
> outside of their military duties. Their military duties are a very
> small subset of their regular life, unlike active military. Many
> employers are loth to allow their employees the two weeks of summer
> training each year, because they tend to be important members of a
> company. Their absense for the two week training has been known to
> virtualy cripple a business, even when their absense has been planned
> for. Now factor in a strong possibliity that the two weeks gets
> stretched out much farther... and the backup people in those
companies
> have their own problems and dont come in either.
Agreed, that's why laws have been passed so that employers
discriminate against the Guard.
> > > Calling out the guard, and giving 50+ governors a free rein is
not
> > > gonna solve much..... Consider the Northridge earth quake a few
years
> > > ago in L.A. It was over 2 weeks before most of the victims got
aid.
> > > Same with Hurricane Andrew. And those were spots of trouble
> >surrounded
> > > by normalicy.
> >
> > Well if Y2K produces any major physical infrastrucure damage
> > it won't be because of earthquakes.
> Nice non answer. Still avoiding the basic premise are we?
>
> > > I suspect that even if every city, county, state, had a ready
core
>
> > Can you give any evidence at all that there -will- be large
> > areas without power. If you can, tell the world where they'll
> > be.
>
> No one knows, however if you'd spend the time searching the websites
> of the various utilities, you 'd get some idea of what each one
thinks
> is gonna happen, not to mention the various opinions of industry
> watchdogs, whom all feel that "major problems" will occure.
I expect all kinds of problems. Mostly I expect a lot of lawsuits.
>
> > than a airey "call out the guard" and "its simple, stupid" ...I'd
be
> > > most happy to hear them. As a matter of fact, PLEASE give me the
> > > benifit of your wisdom, and tell me where I'm wrong, and just how
you
> > > would solve these problems.
> >
> > No. I don't underestimate the problem.
> >
> > ---
> > Jim
>
> Jim, Jim, Jim,
> I dispair ever getting a straight answer from you. You are harder to
> pin down than a plate full of live eels. Your original posts indicate
> that you think there will be few if any problems with Y2K. When I
> present you with events of high probability, you start drifting off
> into "vague speak". When I attempt to bring you back on subject, you
> drift off in another direction. I really dont know if you really dont
> know how to handle my questions, or you have an aversion to even
> thinking about the various problems that may occur.
I think there will be numerous problems. What I don't see
on the horizon are doomsday problems.
> I hope that your real life job doesnt require analyasis of any great
> depth.
My job does require analysis at great depth. It does not require
mind reading at any depth, which is where most of the Y2K
problems start -- one player trying to psych-out another player.
[snip]
---
Jim
smpo...@bellsouth.net.no_spam_pleeze.cz
>Asumming that there is lots of damage to the power system due to Y2K
>induced problems such as blown transformers, substations and switching
>equipment
But it's that assumption that is incorrect. Before I can take your
argument seriously, you've got to prove this. I'm not going to simply
take it as a given.
-- Stephen
http://personal.bhm.bellsouth.net/~smpoole7
smpo...@bellsouth.net.no_spam_pleeze.cz
>Ok...lemme get this right:
>1) I defend the Constitution, but I can't use it.
>2) Any time I sign ANY contract I loose all my rights????
>3) I really don't remember when I raised my right hand I said that I would
>forgo all my rights, human or otherwise to join the Army.
>4) I REALLY don't think the UCMJ has been touched since it was written. You
>know that under the UCMJ that if you aren't married, premarital sex is AGAINST
>THE LAW...hello (have you ever read the UCMJ?? I have)
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never said you lost
ALL your rights. You're erecting a strawman.
When you sign to join the military, in certain cases, you won't enjoy
the right to trial by jury of your peers. That is a constitutional
right, but the courts have agreed that military need and necessity can
permit that right to be suspended or modified to fit the unique
situation in the armed services.
On the other hand, you RETAIN the right to vote -- so much so, that
you're permitted to vote by absentee, if necessary, from the other
side of the world.
I was addressing the false comments made by the original poster --
that somehow our constitutional rights could all be thrown out the
window if Y2K causes massive disruptions. It won't happen. It CAN'T.
-- Stephen
http://personal.bhm.bellsouth.net/~smpoole7
smpo...@bellsouth.net.no_spam_pleeze.cz
wrote:
>you are leaving out the fact that those countries can and would ,, IF they
>were "requested" to.
I didn't leave that out. I stated it quite clearly. :)
But no finessing, now. What he said was,
>NATO ... can declare marshall law in all NATO countries and
>well...that's that.
... which is patently false as written.
-- Stephen
http://personal.bhm.bellsouth.net/~smpoole7
smpo...@bellsouth.net.no_spam_pleeze.cz
wrote:
>have you taken into consideration that the Constitution is not "above"
>treaties signed by the president and ratified by congress....
Patently false. Again: where in the WORLD are you getting this
information?
-- Stephen
http://personal.bhm.bellsouth.net/~smpoole7
James Garvin
> SPELL "martial law"?! Uh-huh.
Ok...Go look at the Nato doctrine pompous ass.
> If the US government requested NATO troops, they'd probably come. But that
> would not happen until Fedgove basically gave up putting down an
> insurrection on its own. So you'd see martial law long before NATO got
> involved.
But why would we? Do we need NATO troops? True, but you would also see an
outcry by the "civilized" nations of the world and they would "help" us. We do
it...why can't they?
> Wrong. US troops battled the troops of an independent nation, the
> Confederate States of America.
True, but most of the officers graduated West Point. There were also a good
deal of Union soldiers that defected to the South. So yes it was US troops
fighting US troops Mr. Hair Spliter
James
James Garvin
need to expound on the inablity of ones spelling.
James
James Garvin
> > (as related to economics)
>
> national level, and capitalism on a national level is a proven sucess -
> or do you mean that with capitalism, you can always find a party, where
> with communism, the Party ALWAYS finds you?
Ah, but Communism is a utopian idea. The Communism we saw in the Eastern Bloc
countries was a bastardization of Marxist Communism.
To attain the Communist ideal you must first reach Socialism.
Socialism: The distribution of goods and services to the masses in an equal
fashion. Also, money would be moot because there would be no need. Everyone
would work equally and thus, equal work means equal goods traded. There is
still a government of some kind, but it only governs the land with order laws
and ensures equality. (Won't happen)
Communism: The root is Commune (as seen by the monks of the middle ages when
they were hiding out from the plague) The Communist ideal is no government, no
law, no money...etc. The reason, everyone governs themselves under God and
everything is equal and a Utopia is born. (Won't happen either)
Marx was an quixotic fellow that held God above all. He was quite the Utopian.
But alas, Lenin and Stalin came along and screwed everything up....
Itsfun2do
you make your self look more ignorant than you are
James Garvin
> >Ok...lemme get this right:
> >1) I defend the Constitution, but I can't use it.
> >2) Any time I sign ANY contract I loose all my rights????
> >3) I really don't remember when I raised my right hand I said that I would
> >forgo all my rights, human or otherwise to join the Army.
> >4) I REALLY don't think the UCMJ has been touched since it was written. You
> >know that under the UCMJ that if you aren't married, premarital sex is AGAINST
> >THE LAW...hello (have you ever read the UCMJ?? I have)
>
> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never said you lost
> ALL your rights. You're erecting a strawman.
No you didn't transfer your thoughts fully.
You said, "Uh ... because you sign a CONTRACT. You forfeit certain constitutional
rights -- which the courts have upheld time and again, by the way -- and agree to
adhere to, and be judged under, the Uniform Code Of Military Justice (UCMJ)."
You didn't define the rights I lost. Thus, I lost what rights? Thus, whenever I
sign ANY contract I loose rights??? The UCMJ also takes away other rights...Like
the right to free speech. There was a Marine Officer that was kicked out recently
for stating that the didn't like the President. Pretty silly, eh? Or how about
when soldiers are forced to perform dangerous tasks in Garrison...why risk a life
in peace time and in Garrison??? Why can't a soldier question stupid orders?
Orders like, "Go and drive that unsave 2 1/2 ton truck around until it falls
apart." The miltiary is stuck in the hayday of the uneducated soldiers and lack of
technology. Thus, the educated soldiers weren't needed, but now they are. And
they can't get any techno geeks 'cause nobody wants to deal with idiots that have
total power over you.
> When you sign to join the military, in certain cases, you won't enjoy
> the right to trial by jury of your peers. That is a constitutional
> right, but the courts have agreed that military need and necessity can
> permit that right to be suspended or modified to fit the unique
> situation in the armed services.
Yes, fine. That is somewhat different. However, it is PEACE TIME, and there is no
need for the military to be anal. That is why they are loosing people at a record
rate.
> On the other hand, you RETAIN the right to vote -- so much so, that
> you're permitted to vote by absentee, if necessary, from the other
> side of the world.
But I lose the right to free speech. Lose the right to hold an oppinion. Lose the
right to govern yourself. Lose the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PERSUTE OF
HAPPINESS. What happend to that? (I voted from Germany BTW...I know this)
> I was addressing the false comments made by the original poster --
> that somehow our constitutional rights could all be thrown out the
> window if Y2K causes massive disruptions. It won't happen. It CAN'T.
It can. I won't, but it can happen. Think about it, it happened in German, France
and Italy. Why can't it happen here?
James
James Garvin
> >treaties signed by the president and ratified by congress....
>
> Patently false. Again: where in the WORLD are you getting this
> information?
Wrong again! Patently true. No other countries have ratified out
Constitution and thus they do not have to obey it.
Terry Austin
James Garvin wrote in message <36E6A29A...@nmt.edu>...
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 14:37:06 -0700, James Garvin <bo...@nmt.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >If the
>> >US military takes the Constitution so damn seriously, why do you loose
all
>> >your rights once you join the military?
>>
>> constitutional rights -- which the courts have upheld time and again,
>> by the way -- and agree to adhere to, and be judged under, the Uniform
>> Code Of Military Justice (UCMJ).
>
>1) I defend the Constitution, but I can't use it.
Er, precisely what Constitutional rights do you forfeit? I know it's one
or two, but it's certainly not the entire batch.
>2) Any time I sign ANY contract I loose all my rights????
Some rights *can't* be signed away, no matter what (including
in the military). Some can. Any time you sign a contract, you should
know what you're signing.
>3) I really don't remember when I raised my right hand I said that I would
>forgo all my rights, human or otherwise to join the Army.
Nor did you.
>4) I REALLY don't think the UCMJ has been touched since it was written.
You
>know that under the UCMJ that if you aren't married, premarital sex is
AGAINST
>THE LAW...hello (have you ever read the UCMJ?? I have)
What section. Be specific. Are you sure it's UCMJ, and not the
procedural book that accompanies it? I've heard a *lot* of stuff
said about UCMJ that just isn't true.
>
>Ah, but that is why the military is 7,000 bodies short...Nobody wants to
put up
>with that kind of bullshit. Are you a brainwashed Military idiot...Don't
>answer that...I know...wait...YES YOU ARE...get a life other than thinking
you
>tough and big because you can command people around in whatever branch you
are
>in.
Military is short because it is deliberately downsizing, just like it
did after Vietnam. Not necessarily publicly, but it is deliberate.
And Clinton is a moron with ability to lead military people whatsoever.
>
>> >But NATO can. They can declare marshall law in all NATO countries and
>> >well...that's that.
>>
>> Where in the WORLD are you getting this information from? Sheesh!
>>
>> Even amongst NATO countries, there must be broad agreement before
>> action can be taken, and the "troubled" government must REQUEST
>> assistance under the terms of the treaty!
>>
>> Do you really believe that France, England and Greece can just march
>> in and say, "yo, Yanks, we're going to take over now . . ........ ?"
>>
>> If they tried, they would very quickly be met by Bubba and His
>> 12-Guage Shotgun.
>
>Not true...The other countries can declare a country "bad" and take over as
>it's police and military force...It won't happen though because it is a
major
>political faux pax for them...Yes they can...but they won't...Big Political
boo
>boo...Then we would take our bases out of their countries and their beer,
wine,
>liquor economies would collapse.
>
Bullshit. Quote their charter on that. This would create a state of
war against the US, which would be met with massive, overwhelming
military force. NATO may well think they have the right on paper,
but in reality, NATO does *nothing* against the primary membership,
including the US. Especially the US.
And they don't even have that right against their own members
on paper.
Terry "Asshole" Austin
Terry Austin
Can somebody translate this shit into english?
Itsfun2do wrote in message ...
Terry Austin
Monte Ferguson wrote in message ...
>> treaties signed by the president and ratified by congress....
>
>Hint: It's not Divine Right.
>
Terry "Asshole" Austin
Terry Austin
Itsfun2do wrote in message ...
>were "requested" to.
>
>
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
>On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 22:42:12 -0500, "james d. hunter"
><jim.h...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
>> Can you give any evidence at all that there -will- be large
>> areas without power. If you can, tell the world where they'll
>> be.
>
>No one knows, however if you'd spend the time searching the websites
>is gonna happen, not to mention the various opinions of industry
>watchdogs, whom all feel that "major problems" will occure.
In other words, you're not going to answer. As usual. Every
utility web site I've looked at - and it's been a few - have said
there will be minimal service interruption. Who says otherwise?
(We know what names will show up in that list - and you won't
answer anyway.)
>
>> than a airey "call out the guard" and "its simple, stupid" ...I'd be
>> > most happy to hear them. As a matter of fact, PLEASE give me the
>> > benifit of your wisdom, and tell me where I'm wrong, and just how you
>> > would solve these problems.
>>
>> No. I don't underestimate the problem.
>>
>> ---
>> Jim
>
>Jim, Jim, Jim,
>I dispair ever getting a straight answer from you. You are harder to
>pin down than a plate full of live eels. Your original posts indicate
>that you think there will be few if any problems with Y2K. When I
>present you with events of high probability, you start drifting off
>into "vague speak". When I attempt to bring you back on subject, you
>drift off in another direction. I really dont know if you really dont
>know how to handle my questions, or you have an aversion to even
>thinking about the various problems that may occur.
>I hope that your real life job doesnt require analyasis of any great
>depth.
>It appears that you are either incapable of giving me an answer or
>choose not to do so, for what ever reason , so Im gonna drop this
>thread as non productive. Besides, I really avoid engaging in a
>battle of wits with an unarmed man.
>
Now *that* is funny, in light of the above.
Terry "Asshole" Austin
Terry Austin
Itsfun2do wrote in message ...
> << areas without power. If you can, tell the world where they'll
> < be.
>
will
>be power outages...go to the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commision)page...they
>will tell you the same thing.
How widespread and for how long? I said specifically *large* *areas*.
And for how long? A 24 hour power outage is *not* a huge deal.
Inconvenient. But not much more.
>
>but they cant predict where.. so how in the heck could anyone else?
If they expect entire grids to go down, it's pretty fucking easy to
predict where. "The east half of the US." If they *can't* predict
where, it's because it will be in a small, localized area.
>
>
><<How the hell should I know? They take an oath to show up. Soldiers
> <<not showing up for their troop movements is why they've been
<<executed
>in the past.
>
>damn i bet your a lib...hate the military but they damn sure better be
>there to protect me...
More namecalling. Typical.
>
>
><<No. I don't underestimate the problem
>
>i believe you had a typo... dont feel bad we all have typos from time to
>time..
>
>we know you were trying to say that you dont UNDERSTAND the problem..
>
>
Terry "Asshole" Austin
Terry Austin
Jeffrey Quick wrote in message ...
>In article <36E59482...@nmt.edu>, James Garvin <bo...@nmt.edu> wrote:
>
>> > Never mind that they UN *cannot* legally take control in any way except
>> > through military conquest - which they are utterly incapable of
>> > without active material assistance on the part of the US.
>>
>> But NATO can. They can declare marshall law in all NATO countries and
>> well...that's that.
>
>SPELL "martial law"?! Uh-huh.
>
>would not happen until Fedgove basically gave up putting down an
>insurrection on its own. So you'd see martial law long before NATO got
>involved.
>>
>>
>> Happened in 1861-1864/5
>
>Wrong. US troops battled the troops of an independent nation, the
>Confederate States of America.
>
Yep. In a very, very different fight than anything Y2K has even
been alleged to be going to cause.
What *do* they teach in US History classes these days? Obviously
not US History.
Terry "Asshole" Austin
Dan Finn
smpo...@bellsouth.net.No_spam_pleeze.cz wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 21:23:11 GMT, gun...@cyberg8t.com (Gunner) wrote:
>
>>Asumming that there is lots of damage to the power system due to Y2K
>>induced problems such as blown transformers, substations and switching
>>equipment
>
>But it's that assumption that is incorrect. Before I can take your
>argument seriously, you've got to prove this. I'm not going to simply
>take it as a given.
>
Wow, you must be an atheist too[1]. Unless you don't aply your 'prove
it' logic to everything?
[1] I have no problem with atheists and have no interest in starting a
religious war here.
=============================================================
Daniel Finn musq...@SPAMbigfoot.com
http://www.bigfoot.com/~musqlar
NRA Life Member GOA Member LEAA Life Member
"Lee Harvey Oswald . . . Charles Whitman . . . Those individuals
showed what one motivated Marine and his rifle can do!"
DI Hartman, Full Metal Jacket
Terry Austin
Itsfun2do wrote in message ...
>treaties signed by the president and ratified by congress....
>
the President and Congress to negotiate and sign treates.
And specifically prohibits them from violating the Constitution
in any way. Try reading the Constitution sometime.
Then you won't look so stupid.
Terry "Asshole" Austin
Terry Austin
Rick Bowen wrote in message
<9CABF2FA67783FA1.D61024C6...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>
>> > How many members of the guard are even gonna show up? Particularily
>> > when their families may be at risk at home?
>
>> not showing up for their troop movements is why they've been executed
>> in the past.
>
>weren't worried about their families.
>
>> > Calling out the guard, and giving 50+ governors a free rein is not
>> > gonna solve much..... Consider the Northridge earth quake a few years
>> > ago in L.A. It was over 2 weeks before most of the victims got aid.
>> > Same with Hurricane Andrew. And those were spots of trouble
>>surrounded
>> > by normalicy.
>>
>> it won't be because of earthquakes.
>
>>
>> Can you give any evidence at all that there -will- be large
>> areas without power. If you can, tell the world where they'll
>> be.
>
Past performance of power companies. In times of natural
disaster. Like hundreds of thousands of people without power
because of a hurricane. Do you *really* think it will take them
longer to replace a few hundred, or even a few thousand,
circuit boards than it does to run serveral hundred miles of new
wire?
Terry "Asshole" Austin
Terry Austin
Liam wrote in message <7c4qas$8ajs$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>Gunner wrote:
>
>>Oh really? and how would I pay the power companies? Assuming that they
>>are gonna manually send out a gazillion "estimated" statedments? If
>>the banking system is seriously fubar... you think that they are gonna
>>take 5 rabbits and 100 lbs of beans as payment?
>>
>>
>Send em a check. . . in the mail . . .(ROFL)
>
Pretty much. Since there won't be any major interruptions
at either banks or the Post Office.
Terry "Asshole" Austin
Terry Austin
smpo...@bellsouth.net.No_spam_pleeze.cz wrote in message
<36e5aeef...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>On Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:40:44 -0000, "Terry Austin"
><tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>And is unconstitutional on the face of the record. The Constitution
>>has no provision under *any* circumstances for suspending
>>constitutional rights. And the military would take a very dim
>>view of attempts to do so. As a few of 'em about it. It might
>>surprise you. "All enemies, foreign and *domestic*." And their
>>first oath is not to the President, or the goverment, or the United
>>States. Their *first* oath is to the *Constitution*.
>
>OK, badly worded on my part. Under martial law, certain rights (such
>as Habeus Corpus) CAN be suspended or amended. You can also be placed
>under curfew (which curfew can be enforced). Things like that.
Only if you're willing to commit treason against the Constitution. Which
our government is willing to do as much as they can. Their will to
do so is limited by the military's will to enforce such illegal orders,
and the public's willingness to tolerate them.
>
>But you're right in essense.
>
Basically. In reality, the government can get away with more than
they should, because we will not be facing any kind of real
crisis. If the shit really hit the fan, the military would be calling
the shots in short order, and they would probably be pretty
loyal to the Constitution.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
<36e5ad0c...@news.bhm.bellsouth.net>...
>It's obvious that someone needs to write a "Martial Law For Dummies"
>book.
Heh. Be amusing.
>
>If they tried, they would very quickly be met by Bubba and His
>12-Guage Shotgun.
>
And there's nothing more dangerous than a drunken, horny
hillibilly with a loaded shotgun. Arkansas don't have none of
those secret coded UN messages on the back of *their* road
signs. At least, none without holes in 'em.
Terry Austin
James Garvin
> disaster. Like hundreds of thousands of people without power
> because of a hurricane. Do you *really* think it will take them
> longer to replace a few hundred, or even a few thousand,
> circuit boards than it does to run serveral hundred miles of new
> wire?
Once again Terry "Asshole" Austin proves his ignorace.
Terry, since it is painfully obvious that you don't have a rational thought in
that head of yours, I'll make this simple.
<The Story of EMBEDED CHIP>
Once upon a time there was a little boy named EMBEDED CHIP. Well, Chip as we
will call him, was very hard to find sometimes. Now granted Chip does live with
his Mother usually, he sometimes goes off on his own to play. When he goes off
on his own to play, Chip, is a very naughty little boy. He can cause
disruptions and such without ANYONE knowing exactly where it came from.
</The Story of EMBEDED CHIP>
Now I don't think that the world is going to end, or the power grid is just
going to shut down, but I do know there will be problems other than "changing
out a few circuit boards. There is a lil' more to the power grid than that and
embeded chips don't always live on a circuit board that is easily accessable.
So, stop the ignorace and unplug your computer.
James
James Garvin
> Some rights *can't* be signed away, no matter what (including
> in the military). Some can. Any time you sign a contract, you should
> know what you're signing.
I did read the contract and understood it (JMG). Untrue...Did you ever serve in
the military? I'm starting to think you are some punk that just thinks he knows
what is going on. Try again...As soon as you join the military all your rights
go away. You are a GI (government issue) and that's it...Expendable and useless
except as a bullet catcher.
> >3) I really don't remember when I raised my right hand I said that I would
> >forgo all my rights, human or otherwise to join the Army.
>
> Nor did you.
Ah, but I wasn't allowed the right to:
Happiness (I was forced to work 14 hour shift 7 days a week for 2 years)
Liberty (same thing, but I also wasn't allowed to express myself without severe
repercussions.)
Life (O.K. got that, but only through shear luck did I come out of the Army
alive)
> What section. Be specific. Are you sure it's UCMJ, and not the
> procedural book that accompanies it? I've heard a *lot* of stuff
> said about UCMJ that just isn't true.
I'd have to find it it was in the 100's I believe...I could be wrong...(it was
around sodomy)
> Military is short because it is deliberately downsizing, just like it
> did after Vietnam. Not necessarily publicly, but it is deliberate.
> And Clinton is a moron with ability to lead military people whatsoever.
Then why are they allow high school dropouts in? Why don't you even need a GED
anymore? Why can you score a 32 (that's 32 out of 140 (I think it is still
140)) and get in (I made a 120 in high school and I didn't even try!)
> Bullshit. Quote their charter on that. This would create a state of
> war against the US, which would be met with massive, overwhelming
> military force. NATO may well think they have the right on paper,
> but in reality, NATO does *nothing* against the primary membership,
> including the US. Especially the US.
Ok so by sending NATO troops...to say...Bosnia does prove this????
> And they don't even have that right against their own members
> on paper.
Yes they do, but they won't because there will be military repercussions!
> Terry "Asshole" Austin
Don't you mean Terry "Ignoramus" Austin?
James
alabama.native
Terry,
It's too late for Itsfun2do. He's already in my "plonk" file, and must
be in several others', too, because most people seem to ignore him.
B Poulton
Jimmie Rogers <jme...@mail.tds.net> wrote:
>acording to the things that i have read 3 months supply is all you are
>allowed to have on hand any more is hoarding
>
Out of curiosity, *who* decides how much 3 months of food is? Do they come
in and say, "We're taking all your pasta, soup, and canned goods but we'll
leave you 3 months worth of oatmeal."? 3 months of food for my son makes
for a substantially bigger pile than 3 months for myself. Would they figure
it on a calorie basis? That regulation is just words on paper. If they were
to start confiscating they'd take everything, sort out what *they* want,
and divvy the rest up to the community.
I can just see a JBT, after kicking your door in, standing there making a
list and using a calculator to figure things out.
--
alex...@trythis.dsoe.com (Bob Poulton) Remove the 'trythis.' to reply.
(for Usenet only) (if I remember to stick it in)
"Conclusions are what happens when you get bored of thinking about a
subject"
Bart Bailey
Itsfun2do wrote:
> i wonder do you know the major difference between Capitlism and Communism?
> (as related to economics)
the difference is that one of them is misspelled
Dean T. Miller
Exactimento!
Conway Yee <y...@hisha.bih.harvard.edu> wrote:
>In practice, hoarding is when the other guy has more of the stuff you
>need than you do.
>
>Remember, in times of crisis, little things like the rule of law go by
>way of "national security" etc. Remember the American concentration
>camps for the Japanese and the mis-use of census data?
-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines (CDP, KB0ZDF)
Terry Austin
James Garvin wrote in message <36E6B5A9...@nmt.edu>...
>> I'm supposed to take, without proof, the word of somebody who can't even
>> SPELL "martial law"?! Uh-huh.
>
Tell us about it. Then explain which part of the Constitution
will cause our military to not nuke the shit out of *any* invader,
including NATO (which could only invade the US if the US
invited them to anyway).
I'm asking for specific quotes here, bub.
>
>> If the US government requested NATO troops, they'd probably come. But
that
>> would not happen until Fedgove basically gave up putting down an
>> insurrection on its own. So you'd see martial law long before NATO got
>> involved.
>
>But why would we? Do we need NATO troops? True, but you would also see an
>outcry by the "civilized" nations of the world and they would "help" us.
We do
>it...why can't they?
Because we have all the troops. And nukes. And, most important
of all, the *money*.
>
>> Wrong. US troops battled the troops of an independent nation, the
>> Confederate States of America.
>
>True, but most of the officers graduated West Point. There were also a
good
>deal of Union soldiers that defected to the South. So yes it was US troops
>fighting US troops Mr. Hair Spliter
>
Not even remotely. Legally, morally, and culturally, it was a completely
different situation.
And, Mr. Fucking Moron, we're not talking about a civil war here.
We're talking about US troops fighting US troops UNDER THE
SAME FUCKING COMMANDERS. Retard. This is just about
the most idiotic fucking thing I have *ever* seen. NATO invading
the US. Right. Not even the UPN would buy that script.
Terry "Amused Asshole" Austin
Terry Austin
Dan Finn wrote in message <36e6c33d...@news.erols.com>...
>On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 18:05:26 GMT,
>smpo...@bellsouth.net.No_spam_pleeze.cz wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 21:23:11 GMT, gun...@cyberg8t.com (Gunner) wrote:
>>
>>>Asumming that there is lots of damage to the power system due to Y2K
>>>induced problems such as blown transformers, substations and switching
>>>equipment
>>
>>But it's that assumption that is incorrect. Before I can take your
>>argument seriously, you've got to prove this. I'm not going to simply
>>take it as a given.
>>
>Wow, you must be an atheist too[1]. Unless you don't aply your 'prove
>it' logic to everything?
>
>[1] I have no problem with atheists and have no interest in starting a
>religious war here.
>
You didn't answer his question. Gunner won't, either.
Terry "Asshole" Austin
Dan Finn
OK, Terry[1] guess what, I can't prove there will be a massive grid
failure. But then, I haven't really seen it proven otherwise either.
I'm one of the many that is just planning on what 'may' happen, and
hoping it doesn't. As for all the power company web sites saying there
may be a small disruption, well great. But if each of them has a small
. . . Well, how many small does it take to make a large?
[1] Hope you don't mind I don't call you an asshole. I don't know you
well enough. ;-)
z...@my-dejanews.com
tau...@hyperbooks.com wrote:
> z...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >I live in oilfield / refinery country. Recently, I was able to confirm
> >the following:
>
> Confirm from whom?
See my comment below.
> >Three of the local plants contract a large local janitorial service to
> >do housekeeping, etc.
> >
> >The owner of this service was recently informed that all three plants
> >would be shutting down between Christmas and New Year's Eve and that
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >he should plan his business accordingly (ie. a significant part of his
> >work load will be reduced indefinitely).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Which is it?
The actual shutdowns are scheduled between Christmas and New Year's,
whereas the length of each shutdown is unknown.
>
> >Workers at these plants have yet to be informed. But, the janitorial
> >service owner was specifically told by all three plants that the shutdown
> >was in precaution to y2k. To prevent accidental fires, all air lines are
> >to be flushed with nitrogen.
> >
> >None of the plants knew how long they will be down, but presumably
> >they are worried about power reliability, emergency generators having
> >already been considered.
>
> You presume quite a bit. Without any evidence of any kind to support your
> presumption, apparently.
No, since sustained emergency power generation was voiced as a concern,
IMHO they *must* be concerned about the power grid. There may be other
concerns as well. Obviously, they are concerned about accidental fires - else
why would all three plants be flushing lines with nitrogen?
> >How much cleaning supply should this man order in December? etc.
> >
> >Prediction: Rumors will begin to circulate in these plants as to the
> >shutdowns. Company memos will attempt to reassure workers that
> >"all is well", perhaps even to the reverse lie of "Hey, we're even thinking
> >of adding on an *expansion*, not shutting down." (Senior management
> >in the oil industry lives and swears by Machiavelli's "The Prince" - that's
> >not just a metaphor, they actually *study* Machiavelli - according
> >to a friend of mine who was one of the world's top geophysicists.
>
> What's his name?
Hint: He resigned suddenly and unexpectedly fron Tenneco in 1972, never
again to return to the oil industry.
> > If you're
> >in management and haven't been presented with your copy yet, you are not
> >yet deemed worthy. I would guess most have read Sun Tzu's "Art of War"
> >as well.)
> >
> >Before anyone asks the names of these plants (I don't want to get a letter
> >from the legal staff of a major oil corporation, folks),
>
> If you're telling the truth, you have nothing to worry about. If the world
> really is going to end in 10 months, you have nothing to worry about.
> Lawsuits take much longer than that.
I don't even want to get the dreaded *letter*, folks.
> > I have an experiment
> >that perhaps some of the more intrepid readers may wish to participate in:
> >
> >If this is a widespread phenomenon (are plants secretly planning shutdowns
> >nationwide or worldwide?), then it should be fairly simple for readers in
> >position to contact friends of theirs who are vendors to large plants, and
> >post their invesigatory findings in this thread or by email
> >(z...@rocketmail.com) - anonymity guaranteed. In particular, we are looking
> >for vendors which require an actual physical presence at the plants. Also, is
> >anyone from OSHA willing to speak "off the record"?
>
> I've checked with VPs at banks, Central Plant supervisors at a major
> university, Board of Directors at both a local power company and a local
> water utility, and they all say the same thing: There will be no major
> interruptions of service. Minor problems, like billing and maintenance
> records being kept manually for a while, but nothing major. Service will
> continue to serve.
>
> In short, I *have* checked, and I've found *nothing* to support your
> bullshit.
>
> Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
> http://www.hyperbooks.com
> Become a Sluggite today!
> Sluggy Freelance T-Shirts now available
>
Terry - Not too many responded to your post, so I thought I'd do so. Not to
pick a fight or anything, IMHO, you're seem to be asking the wrong types of
questions and/or to the wrong people. For example, if I tell you I confirmed
the item from the actual owner of the janitorial service, who is to say how
credible *I* am? If I get his testimony on video, who is to say I didn't
hire some actor off the street?
I commend you for checking with your bank VP, etc. This is more than what
most people have done. But, would it not be wiser to dig a little deeper and
check with sources who have no discernable reason to perpetuate a lie?
This is why I suggested the "experiment" of contacting vendors who may have
lost large contracts. Of course, they may not be particularly gleeful to
inform you that their business will be in jeopardy as of 2000, but with a
little investigative insight, you may turn something up.
Unfortunately, I would venture that those afficted with the ostrich syndrome
(not necessarily directed at you) would never dream of doing any in-depth
legwork - it's just not in their nature.
{ Shameless plug: Czech out my new article, "Y2K: Nine Possible Futures" at:
http://geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1157/future.htm }
Zach Anderson [ z...@rocketmail.com ]
http://geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1157/y2k.htm
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jmnt...@my-dejanews.com
Jimmie Rogers <jme...@mail.tds.net> wrote:
> acording to the things that i have read 3 months supply is all you are
> allowed to have on hand any more is hoarding
Allowed?
By who? The "Great Allower of Hoarding?"
Where the hel* do you people read this stuff? Worse yet...you believe it?
J.M. Nuzum
<<SNIP>>
jmnt...@my-dejanews.com
JonquilJan <war...@imcnet.net> wrote:
> Then the 60 quarts of tomatoes (plus other goodies) that I can using
> produce from my own garden makes me a 'hoarder'?
>
> These laws, if there are really any, have to have been made by people
> who have no concept of self-sufficiency, raising your own food, country
> /farm life.
>
> JonquilJan
Amen!
Another good word for it...FREEDOM!!!
Of course, we have forgotten about that word in our society. You can have
freedom...as long as it conforms to everyone else's definition...or you're a
Polly/Lib.
Bah!
J.M. Nuzum
>
> Jimmie Rogers <jme...@mail.tds.net> writes: > acording to the things that i
have read 3 months supply is all you are
> > allowed to have on hand any more is hoarding
> >
> > JonquilJan wrote:
> >
> > > Wasn't there a point made a few months ago that 'hoarding' is when you
> > > stock items specifically for resale at a high profit in hard times?
> > >
> > > (Other than regular businesses that is)
> > >
> > > Anyone else remember this?
> > >
> > > JonquilJan
> > >
> > > Learn something new every day
> > > As long as you are learning, you are living
> > > Wehn you stop learning, you start dying
Bart Bailey
> ....remember about 2 or three years ago the NE had a blizzard and the
> bread trucks were having trouble getting through. There were certain
> entrepreneurs who would buy up all the bread that was left and try to
> sell a 1.00 loaf for twenty dollars. I'm definitely going stock up now
> that I know who my neighbors are.
I was living in NOLA in '65 when *Betsy* came through; Broke levees, flooded parts
of the city and killed power for about 4 days. There was this one small market in
Metairie where the local people went to buy a few supplies and when the owner,
entrepreneur, opportunist, mercenary, or whatever you want to call it tried to
jack prices the folks just took their items and walked out! Most of the stuff from
the freezer was going to be lost anyway, but rather than sell what he could
fairly, he chose the gouging gambit and lost. BTW back then gasoline pumps had a
provision to insert a crank and manually operate them without electricity, as I no
longer own any gas powered vehicles, I'm not sure if this override feature is
currently available.
Tim May
<km...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Genie wrote:
>
> > ....remember about 2 or three years ago the NE had a blizzard and the
> > bread trucks were having trouble getting through. There were certain
> > entrepreneurs who would buy up all the bread that was left and try to
> > sell a 1.00 loaf for twenty dollars. I'm definitely going stock up now
> > that I know who my neighbors are.
>
> I was living in NOLA in '65 when *Betsy* came through; Broke levees,
flooded parts
> of the city and killed power for about 4 days. There was this one small
market in
> Metairie where the local people went to buy a few supplies and when the owner,
> entrepreneur, opportunist, mercenary, or whatever you want to call it tried to
> jack prices the folks just took their items and walked out!
And the store owner would have been completely justified in shooting to
stop this robbery.
Y2K is going to be a target-rich environment.
--Tim May
--
Y2K: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, enjoy it in any case
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.