Separation of Particles.
Philip Deitiker
The issue has come up about the separation of particles which
might have resulted in an ink with uniform qualities. Particle
separation is something I have alot of experience in, it would
be an area of my expertise. I have separated protein
structures of 1 billion molecular weight and have separated
living L2 stage and L4 nematodes from adults and eggs and
other contaminants.
In nature, few particles have uniform size distributions
unless they are the product of a biological process, and even
then it has particle should be a discrete life cycle stage,
natural accretions such as crystals exist over several
magnitude size ranges, and clays are often the result of
sedimentary washes in which sedimentation as above plus
randomizing factors play a role in the final composition.
There should be no expectation that one could or should find
clays with crystals of uniform particle size distribution and
if one found such one would probably need to go explain how it
might have happened. Therefore an ink made from a clay in
which the dye particles had a uniform size would have
neccesarily involved some process of purification
(irregardless of the heat transformation issues).
To get a uniform particle distribution sedimentation will
not work, not at least in a few steps. When particles undergo
sedimentation the small particles close to the bottom will
also sediment while waiting for the largest particles to be
removed. There is an equation that describes sedimentation
based on differential density and particle size.
I am going to simplify the argument suppose you have two
particles A and B, and you want to remove lighter particle A
from heavier particle B. You have determined that B moves
twice as fast as A. During the sedimention in a column 1/2 of
A will be removed with all of B as particulate. The process
can be repeated and 1/4 (1/2 * 1/2) in the second run of the
resuspended sediment. During 3 or 4 repetitions one can
recover most of A. This procedure deals with 2x or greater
velocities (at equal density 4 to 16 times the mass) to make a
cut of lower mass differential many more repititions will need
to be performed. However this does not remove the particles
much smaller than A to set up this argument we need to assume
that A is composed of particle partitions AA and AB (final
product). The issue is that the resulting A is composed of AA
and AB sized particles, AA is half the density of AB. While in
the previous step repetition is a matter of yeild, during this
step repetition is a matter of purity. During the first
sedimentation AB (product) will contaminated with 1/2 AA,
repitition of AB sedimentation results in 1/4 AA and 1/8th.
This would be a density sedimentation cut.
This is not an efficient methodology and repetitions will
invariably result in loss and accidents. As it turns out there
is a one step process for sedimenting particles more dense
than water, it is even applicable to the purification of
fusiform shaped living organisms. It requires a cylinder and
an extraction of siphon tube. It also require one additional
ingrediant sucrose or glycerol. Sucrose is simple sugar. The
sucrose in layered from more to less dense layers (bottom to
top) as suspensions of the particles into a final solution
density less than the top of the gradient and in a relatively
thin layer. particles fall like snow flakes, the larger and
more dense snowflakes falling faster. The apparatus is
operated for a length of time (t) in which d is the distance
to the middle of the cylinder where the extraction tube is,
and v is the average velocity of the desired particle over the
top half of the column (both glycerol and sucrose have
increasing viscosity with increased concentration so it is not
the velocity through water). t= d/v.
The extracted particles can be sedimented, producing a
concentrate, since they are in sucrose one would probably want
to wash them twice. Water soluble particles can be sedimented
in dense media like oils containing chloroform or
dicholormethane.
Is there any description in any literature of the 15th century
that discusses sedimentation processes or gradient
sedimentation as would be needed to get a uniform particle
distribution?
These armchair archaeologist should be careful where they
step. I have done EM, I have a paper out on the use of EM for
particle size statistics and also have alot of experience with
sedimentation. If you are going to introduce procedures into
argument of how clay anatase was obtained with a VM anatase
properties you should be able to explain how those clay
particles were prepared for Ink specifically using known 15th
century techniques.
maison.mousse
Philip Deitiker a écrit dans le message ...
Look up the term gibberish!! You have no idea at all what you are taking
about!!
For those with an interest
check out a book on sedimentary processes. Look up "Stokes's law " which
is roughly v = C d²
where v is the settling velocity C includes particle density, fluid density,
acceleration of gravity and fluid viscosity. d = particle diameter.
See also the "impact law" v = C2 Sqrt d
See also Exclusion Chromatography.
JL
Tedd Jacobs
"maison.mousse" <maison...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:4329b25b$0$5373$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
oh brother....
> For those with an interest
> check out a book on sedimentary processes. Look up "Stokes's law "
which phil just demonstrated.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
The problem with this kind of argument is that it is invalid. One does
not have to know the mechanism by means of which albumen coagulates to
be able to fry an egg. Nor was it necessary for anyone to have
developed atomic theory to enable the formation of natural nuclear
reactors several million years ago. http://tinyurl.com/9gehw
It is not necessary for anyone in the 15th century to have discussed
sedimentation processes or gradient sedimentation for such processes
to occur in nature. Finally, it is not unknown for ancient artifacts
having modern properties to have been manufactured along process paths
quite different from what we would use today.
Even if no one in the 15th century discussed sedimentation processes,
this will not preclude sedimentation effects from having manifested
themselves in the course of the manufacture of a mediaeval ink..
>
> These armchair archaeologist should be careful where they
>step. I have done EM, I have a paper out on the use of EM for
>particle size statistics and also have alot of experience with
>sedimentation. If you are going to introduce procedures into
>argument of how clay anatase was obtained with a VM anatase
>properties you should be able to explain how those clay
>particles were prepared for Ink specifically using known 15th
>century techniques.
>
Now that's a more sensible argument.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook http://tinyurl.com/ac628 gives
the theory and practice of all the major separation processes in
considerable detail.
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
news:4329b25b$0$5373$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr:
> Where would one find this paper of yours on "EM"?
> Look up the term gibberish!!
Hey Mickey. Well I knew you would show up with a little baiting.
Journal of Cell Biology Oct;123(2):303-11. would be a good place to
start looking. I am sure that PubMed is way way over your head so I
will provide the link for you.
> You have no idea at all what you are taking about!!
Well damn, Isn't that a surprise!!
> For those with an interest
> check out a book on sedimentary processes. Look up "Stokes's
> law " which is roughly v = C d²
Vt = (Po-Pf)Vg/k
Vt = terminal velocity.
Po = density of Object. Pf = density of fluid
V = volume of the object. Note: the Volume of an object is a cube
function of the radius. g = gravity
k signifies that Mickey has shit for brains which is constant.
Although I didn't want to burden this group with that level of
information.
This is derived from from omega- Fb - Fv = ma
omega is the force of gravity, Fb = bouyant force, Fv = frictional
force do to viscosity.
Stokes law refers to movement of particles in fluids however it is
not specifically applied to sedementation for the purposes of
purification.
> where v is the settling velocity C includes particle density,
> fluid density, acceleration of gravity and fluid viscosity. d =
> particle diameter. See also the "impact law" v = C2 Sqrt d
Sedimention coefficient is dependent on both relative density and
upon shape, so-called axial coefficient.
> See also Exclusion Chromatography.
Size Exclusion Chromatrography is only useful for particles in a
certain size range. Generally the range is 10E2 daltongs to 10E6
daltons.
But don't let these admonishments stop you, I do so much enjoy your
posting they make me laugh, and the harder you try to impress people,
the funnier it gets. So I say try real hard hear Mickey, you will
come up with something special we can all enjoy!.
Tedd Jacobs
"Eric Stevens" wrote...
speaking of invalid... it is necessary to know how to fry an egg in order
to fry an egg.
Eric Stevens
Ooh - I dunno. According to Charles Lamb it wasn't necessary for the
inventor of roast pork to know how to roast pork. :-)
Eric Stevens
Hu McCulloch
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.Spam> wrote in message
news:Xns96D270...@128.249.2.19...
>
> The issue has come up about the separation of particles which
> might have resulted in an ink with uniform qualities. Particle
> separation is something I have alot of experience in, it would
> be an area of my expertise. I have separated protein
> structures of 1 billion molecular weight and have separated
> living L2 stage and L4 nematodes from adults and eggs and
> other contaminants.
>
> In nature, few particles have uniform size distributions
> unless they are the product of a biological process, and even
> then it has particle should be a discrete life cycle stage,
> natural accretions such as crystals exist over several
> magnitude size ranges, and clays are often the result of
> sedimentary washes in which sedimentation as above plus
> randomizing factors play a role in the final composition.
> There should be no expectation that one could or should find
> clays with crystals of uniform particle size distribution and
> if one found such one would probably need to go explain how it
> might have happened. Therefore an ink made from a clay in
> which the dye particles had a uniform size would have
> neccesarily involved some process of purification
> (irregardless of the heat transformation issues).
On the contrary, Weaver (1976) reports that the TiO2
that is commonly present in kaolinite clays consists mostly of
rounded anatase pellets, ranging naturally from 0.05 to 0.20 microns in size
(p. 216).
Although this is an even tighter distribution than the 0.03 to 0.5 micron
range
reported by McCrone for the VM anatase crystallites, both are just
eyeball characterizations of the distribution so I do not see the
difference as significant. The size uniformity of the VM anatase
particles therefore could in fact have arisen in nature, and
does not require any artificial purification process of the type
Philip describes in the sequel.
The simple gravity segregation process he describes also occurs naturally
for wind- or water-born particles. If repeated, the segregation
can become more and more pronounced, as he describes. Weaver
found that the anatase pellets are often found in larger aggregates composed
of tightly packed pellets, ranging from 5 to 10 microns, and occasionally
up to 80 microns in diameter (p. 216). These naturally occuring kaolin
anatase aggregates correspond well in size with the 5- or 10-micron
anatase-rich particles isolated and analyzed by the McCrones. They would
be considerably denser than the kaolinite flakes, and would also have a
higher
ratio of volume to surface. They therefore would fall much faster from
air- or water-suspension than would the clay flakes. In repeated
windstorms or stream erosions, they would eventually become segregated
from virtually all of the kaolinite except that which is actually stuck to
them,
and the McCrones did indeed find a little Al and Si in their particles,
consistent with 5-10% kaolinite. Such aggregates are present in nature,
but Philip's segregation mechanism implies that their presence
does not necessarily require the immediate
co-presence of a large mass of kaolinite, as claimed by Ken Towe.
In a thick slurry such as studied by Weaver, Stokes' Law segregation
would not work so well, if at all, but that is a different matter.
(snip)
> Is there any description in any literature of the 15th century
> that discusses sedimentation processes or gradient
> sedimentation as would be needed to get a uniform particle
> distribution?
It should not be hard to document the existence of kaolin clay,
windstorms, and water erosion in the 15th century. Getting
the anatase aggregates from the environment to the map requires only,
as I have suggested, that the scribe dug himself a turnip for his lunch
basket in the morning, and later prepared a pot of ink, stirring it
with his still-gritty finger.
If you don't believe mud existed in the middle ages, try watching
the initial scenes of Mel Gibson's "Braveheart." ;-)
-- Hu McCulloch
www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/vinland/vinland.htm
(qv for Weaver reference)
Tedd Jacobs
"Eric Stevens" wrote...
> "Tedd Jacobs" wrote:
>>"Eric Stevens" wrote...
>>> Philip Deitiker wrote:
[...]
>>>>Is there any description in any literature of the 15th century
>>>>that discusses sedimentation processes or gradient
>>>>sedimentation as would be needed to get a uniform particle
>>>>distribution?
>>>
>>> The problem with this kind of argument is that it is invalid. One does
>>> not have to know the mechanism by means of which albumen coagulates to
>>> be able to fry an egg.
>>
>>speaking of invalid... it is necessary to know how to fry an egg in order
>>to fry an egg.
>>
>>
> Ooh - I dunno. According to Charles Lamb it wasn't necessary for the
> inventor of roast pork to know how to roast pork. :-)
a poet. how fitting.
D. Spencer Hines
news:dgdhba$bbb$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
| It should not be hard to document the existence of kaolin clay,
| windstorms, and water erosion in the 15th century. Getting
| the anatase aggregates from the environment to the map requires only,
| as I have suggested, that the scribe dug himself a turnip for his
| lunch basket in the morning, and later prepared a pot of ink,
| stirring it with his still-gritty finger.
|
| If you don't believe mud existed in the middle ages, try watching
| the initial scenes of Mel Gibson's "Braveheart." ;-)
|
| -- Hu McCulloch
| www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/vinland/vinland.htm
| (qv for Weaver reference)
He might even have thought a little soil in the ink wouldn't spoil
anything.
We are talking about very small samples here.
DSH
Seppo Renfors
Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
> The issue has come up about the separation of particles which
> might have resulted in an ink with uniform qualities. Particle
> separation is something I have alot of experience in, it would
> be an area of my expertise. I have separated protein
> structures of 1 billion molecular weight and have separated
> living L2 stage and L4 nematodes from adults and eggs and
> other contaminants.
Ohhhhh.... and I'm SO "impressed"... specially considering that the
adult "Ascaris suum" nematodes that live in the intestines of a pig,
they can be up to 40 cm long, or perhaps the "Parascaris equorum"
nematode from a horse that can also be up to 40 cm long.....
YAAAAAWN......
....and nearly every high school kid has dissected frogs - so what? Of
course this makes the bottle washer an "expert" (a has been drip under
pressure) in hydrography/hydrology.....
>
> In nature, few particles have uniform size distributions
> unless they are the product of a biological process, and even
> then it has particle should be a discrete life cycle stage,
WOW.... ROCKS have as "life cycle"? Hmmmm... they must be PET ROCKS!
> natural accretions such as crystals exist over several
> magnitude size ranges, and clays are often the result of
> sedimentary washes in which sedimentation as above plus
> randomizing factors play a role in the final composition.
More gibberish!
> There should be no expectation that one could or should find
> clays with crystals of uniform particle size distribution and
> if one found such one would probably need to go explain how it
> might have happened.
THAT is the biggest load of codswallop I have seen since his last
trumpeting about HLA's. Obviously he has never observed nature, as a
kid or as an adult - nor has he read anything about clays - even
though it has been there right under his nose (no CLAY not cocaine).
But he COULD have checked his bathtub out when he pulled the plug and
seen how the grott washed off him separated according to size and
weight on its way down the plug hole! The question is does he even
take baths - maybe not?
> Therefore an ink made from a clay in
> which the dye particles had a uniform size would have
> neccesarily involved some process of purification
> (irregardless of the heat transformation issues).
Oh dear..... more display of IGNORANCE - nobody makes INK out of clay
- nobody has suggested such either. However a clay WAS used to dry wet
ink - the procedure is called "pouncing"..... only Deitiker has been
too busy bad-mouthing people to learn a bloody thing!
> To get a uniform particle distribution sedimentation will
> not work, not at least in a few steps. When particles undergo
> sedimentation the small particles close to the bottom will
> also sediment while waiting for the largest particles to be
> removed. There is an equation that describes sedimentation
> based on differential density and particle size.
I wonder, how the hell does the dumb BERK think that "sediment" even
occurs in nature? What causes it? Some hand reaches in from outer
space and dumps it in a test tube for him? Even then he put the bloody
test tube in a shaker and mixed the stuff up and is now saying "SEE it
doesn't work" - only HAD he allowed it to settle - he would have noted
the heaviest particles on the bottom and the next heaviest above that
etc...
But then that doesn't suit his agendas, so to hell with reality as
fantasy doesn't have any such problems!
[..]
ENOUGH, it is getting painful!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Deitiker
news:dgdgb...@enews3.newsguy.com:
The other issue of course is how would you purify anatase of the
right color from natural clays, since the translocated sediment is a
mixture from all upstream sources.
Philip Deitiker
news:dgdhba$bbb$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu:
Stokes' Law Segregation? Try gravimetric sedimentation. Are you
trying to be Pinky's Brain?
It is almost impossible in nature to accumulate particles of near
identical size.
What we have here is an argument between two groups of people in
which the two groups are not talking to each other, but are talking
about what leads them to their conclusion. He we have a situation
were you are prescribing that the anatase in the map line margins
would be carried outward from an Ink which contained as a portion of
clay used in an Ink, anatase, a crystal in the outward boundary. For
the moment I am going to assume this is true. You have three
essential problems.
1. Particle size
2. Mobility on Parchment +
3. Color.
Lets us assume that the winds blowing off some mountain blew anatase
particles into the air where by on falling down they separated and
fell in different places, and some artist just happen to find a thin
line of clay deposits from the freak windstorm that did this (Note I
do live in Texas were such wind storms blow in dust from the west, we
seldomly get more than a dusting). But lets assume it happened. What
you would need is a sufficient highland composition of anatase spread
over a large enough region to get a deposite.
The silt generated by rivers is going to give a heterogeneous
particle distribution.
You still have anatase of different colors, whereas the yellowed line
can be no darker than yellow, and you have no control, with wind
coming of large areas of uplift that anatase that comes in
multicolored even if they were, by a accident of nature all about the
same size.
Then you have the issue, would anatase sediment in and ink or would
it diffuse outward while leaving the black pigments behind. This
implies that the original ink was placed in a small line and as the
paper wetted the anatase moved through the parchment fibers before
sedimenting and drying.
Hu, frankly you are dismissive of a problem which, like the madam,
you seem to have 100 excuses of how it might have happened, but as
Towe laid down quite explicitly, where is this clay with the particle
size and anatase color, by which a sizable portion of the intractable
organic material and adhering material is removed leaving a high
level of anatase of the right size color, and how did the anatase
migrate from the black line into the yellow line?
To specifically answer the question you need to show.
1. A source of anatase with the right particle size distribution.
2. A source of anatase of the right particle distribution with the
right color, white to light yellow.
3. That in an ink mixture the anatase would migrate and the black
components would not.
4. A procedure in the 15th century that separates the anatase from
the contaminants that would alter the color.
So where is this source of light yellow anatase koalinite clay of
uniform size distribution. Name the place in which it is found.
> If you don't believe mud existed in the middle ages, try
> watching the initial scenes of Mel Gibson's "Braveheart." ;-)
Yes and if the underlying ink was blue you might have an arguement.
Eric Stevens
If iron was originally present in the natural clay, which it almost
certainly was, the anatase would be contaminated by iron. Whether or
not McCrone could have been expected to find the iron is another
matter.
For a background on kaolin clays see
http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/engineering/issues/muh-02-26-5/muh-26-5-7-0202-9.pdf
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
No, he's talking sense. Stokes Law refers to the the rate of
settlement of a free-sinking body in a continuous fluid. See
http://www.cord.edu/faculty/ulnessd/legacy/fall1998/sonja/stokes.htm
which describes the necessity for the fluid to be continuous. Fill it
with a myriad of other particles and Stokes Law no longer applies.
>It is almost impossible in nature to accumulate particles of near
>identical size.
Right now I am looking at several square kilometres of tidal mud where
the particle size is finely graded.
Eric Stevens
Alaca
> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>> It is almost impossible in nature to accumulate particles of near
>> identical size.
> Right now I am looking at several square kilometres of tidal mud where
> the particle size is finely graded.
That's why it is mud, but it can only called homogene
within an certain range. In reality it is not, as you know.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
Seppo Renfors
Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
[..]
>
> The other issue of course is how would you purify anatase of the
> right color from natural clays, since the translocated sediment is a
> mixture from all upstream sources.
One has to wonder how come the man continues to insist on embarrass
himself so continually. "Anatase" doesn't come in colours - aggregate
containing anatase does - it is caused by impurities with the anatase
and NOT by the anatase. Poor bastard doesn't even know that much!
Seppo Renfors
EH???? ..."gravimetric sedimentation"...???? What the hell is THAT???
"Gravimery" refer to the measurement of weight in Physics and has
little to do with "sedimentation" at all - Detiker is way out of his
depth and is resorting to flim-flam!
> Are you
> trying to be Pinky's Brain?
>
> It is almost impossible in nature to accumulate particles of near
> identical size.
Aha..... and CLAY doesn't exist in nature, according to that
statement!
[..]
Eric Stevens
>Eric Stevens wrote: j2pmi1tchhmoa55fq...@4ax.com,
>> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
>>> It is almost impossible in nature to accumulate particles of near
>>> identical size.
>
>> Right now I am looking at several square kilometres of tidal mud where
>> the particle size is finely graded.
>
>That's why it is mud, but it can only called homogene
>within an certain range. In reality it is not, as you know.
Quite right, but the same applies to synthetic anatase. Short of
Plancks constant, particle sizes are not quantized but lie on a
continuum. The point about the anatase identified by McCrone is that
its size lay in a very narrow range. The question being discussed was
whether or not natural separation methods can achieve the same narrow
size range and the answer is that it can. Please don't construe this
reply as meaning that I think that this is what happened in the case
of the anatse on the VM.
A more important question is whether or not a natural process can
significantly separate anatase from other clay ingredients and I have
difficulty in accepting that it can.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>> Stokes' Law Segregation? Try gravimetric sedimentation.
>
>EH???? ..."gravimetric sedimentation"...???? What the hell is THAT???
>"Gravimery" refer to the measurement of weight in Physics and has
>little to do with "sedimentation" at all - Detiker is way out of his
>depth and is resorting to flim-flam!
Dork!
Eric Stevens
Paul J Gans
>Eric Stevens wrote: j2pmi1tchhmoa55fq...@4ax.com,
>> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>> It is almost impossible in nature to accumulate particles of near
>>> identical size.
>> Right now I am looking at several square kilometres of tidal mud where
>> the particle size is finely graded.
>That's why it is mud, but it can only called homogene
>within an certain range. In reality it is not, as you know.
Further, the particles in the mud
Alaca
>"Alaca" wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>>> It is almost impossible in nature to accumulate particles of near
>>>> identical size.
>>> Right now I am looking at several square kilometres of tidal mud
>>> where the particle size is finely graded.
>> That's why it is mud, but it can only called homogene
>> within an certain range. In reality it is not, as you know.
> Quite right, but the same applies to synthetic anatase. Short of
> Plancks constant, particle sizes are not quantized but lie on a
> continuum. The point about the anatase identified by McCrone is that
> its size lay in a very narrow range. The question being discussed was
> whether or not natural separation methods can achieve the same narrow
> size range and the answer is that it can. Please don't construe this
> reply as meaning that I think that this is what happened in the case
> of the anatse on the VM.
I don't
> A more important question is whether or not a natural process can
> significantly separate anatase from other clay ingredients and I have
> difficulty in accepting that it can.
And I also doubt that in the middelages they where
capable of detecting it and extract it even from
anatase rich kaolin.
This whole medieval anatase ink business seems
nonsense to me.
Alaca
> Alaca wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>>> It is almost impossible in nature to accumulate particles of near
>>>> identical size.
>
>>> Right now I am looking at several square kilometres of tidal mud
>>> where the particle size is finely graded.
>
>> That's why it is mud, but it can only called homogene
>> within an certain range. In reality it is not, as you know.
> Further, the particles in the mud
Take your time.
--
P.A.
Paul J Gans
>Take your time.
Yeah. Finger slip. I was going to explain about
sedimentation, but decided that it was useless. The
pro-forgery folks don't care because they know the VM
is a forgery. The anti-forgery folks won't read it
or care what it says anyway.
So I went to kill the posting and hit the wrong key.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>I don't
Of course it is nonsense. But you won't get Seppo or
Inger or anyone else to deal with the facts that (1)
anatase is the rarest of the three solid forms of
titanium dioxide, and (2) the vast majority of the
anatase in nature is black or dark green.
The anatase on the map was white or light yellow.
This is not a detail. It *alone* makes the map a
forgery.
But folks don't understand. The odds against yellow
natural anatase getting accidently into the yellow
part of an ink is so low that it is more likely that
flying saucers did it.
----- Paul J. Gans
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Not necessarily. All it does is make the anatase modern. It doesn't
make the map a forgery until someone finds enough about the ink to
show that the anatase was an essential part. Until that has been done
all the presence of anatase does is raise a suspicion.
>
>But folks don't understand. The odds against yellow
>natural anatase getting accidently into the yellow
>part of an ink is so low that it is more likely that
>flying saucers did it.
>
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
news:dgifk8$qf4$2...@reader1.panix.com:
> But folks don't understand. The odds against yellow
> natural anatase getting accidently into the yellow
> part of an ink is so low that it is more likely that
> flying saucers did it.
Don't give Inger and Yuri any ideas.
Tedd Jacobs
"Seppo Renfors" wrote...
>
>
> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>
> [..]
>>
>> The other issue of course is how would you purify anatase of the
>> right color from natural clays, since the translocated sediment is a
>> mixture from all upstream sources.
>
> One has to wonder how come the man continues to insist on embarrass
> himself so continually. "Anatase" doesn't come in colours - aggregate
> containing anatase does - it is caused by impurities with the anatase
> and NOT by the anatase. Poor bastard doesn't even know that much!
http://www.mindat.org/min-213.html
anatase color: brown, indigo blue, green, grey, black.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
> misled.
yes.
Eric Stevens
<Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
>
>"Seppo Renfors" wrote...
>>
>>
>> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>>
>> [..]
>>>
>>> The other issue of course is how would you purify anatase of the
>>> right color from natural clays, since the translocated sediment is a
>>> mixture from all upstream sources.
>>
>> One has to wonder how come the man continues to insist on embarrass
>> himself so continually. "Anatase" doesn't come in colours - aggregate
>> containing anatase does - it is caused by impurities with the anatase
>> and NOT by the anatase. Poor bastard doesn't even know that much!
>
>http://www.mindat.org/min-213.html
>
>anatase color: brown, indigo blue, green, grey, black.
You can find a quote to prove anything on the 'net.
Pure anatase is white. Coloured anatase is due disturbances of the
crystal lattice caused by the inclusion of impurities or in the case
of blue anatase by the inclusion of so-called oxygen deficient anatase
in the crystal.
Eric Stevens
Tedd Jacobs
"Eric Stevens" wrote...
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:44:09 -0600, "Tedd Jacobs"
> <Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Seppo Renfors" wrote...
>>>
>>>
>>> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>>>
>>> [..]
>>>>
>>>> The other issue of course is how would you purify anatase of the
>>>> right color from natural clays, since the translocated sediment is a
>>>> mixture from all upstream sources.
>>>
>>> One has to wonder how come the man continues to insist on embarrass
>>> himself so continually. "Anatase" doesn't come in colours - aggregate
>>> containing anatase does - it is caused by impurities with the anatase
>>> and NOT by the anatase. Poor bastard doesn't even know that much!
>>
>>http://www.mindat.org/min-213.html
>>
>>anatase color: brown, indigo blue, green, grey, black.
>
> You can find a quote to prove anything on the 'net.
explains alot.
>
> Pure anatase is white. Coloured anatase is due disturbances of the
> crystal lattice caused by the inclusion of impurities or in the case
> of blue anatase by the inclusion of so-called oxygen deficient anatase
> in the crystal.
find a 15th century method.
Eric Stevens
<Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
I've never argued for a 15th century method of producing white, or
near white, anatase particles although I have read the arguments in
favour.
In suggesting that I should find a 15th century method to produce
white anatase you are trying to change the subject away from the fact
that pure anatase IS white and that the colours you mentioned are due
to the presence of impurities.
Eric Stevens
maison.mousse
Eric Stevens a écrit dans le message ...
Anatase is generally brown. can also appear indigo blue, green, grey, black.
Very finely divided and well sorted Anatase is white. Less finely divided
Anatase is less white.
Compare with gold. Normally yellow but when very finely divided it is a
dark purple .
http://www.mindat.org/min-213.html is a very accurate web site.
Information found there can be confirmed by the expanded editions of Dana's
manual and other standard references on minerals.
JL
inger
"maison.mousse" <maison...@wanadoo.fr> skrev i meddelandet
news:432d3358$0$1733$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
JL,
Eric is a technician and not a scholar of Chemistry, all the same he might
know about Dana's manual most other here don't. I guess it would be good if
you sent the group a bit information about the manual. Hope you agree
Inger E
>
>
Alaca
> Paul J Gans says
>> But folks don't understand. The odds against yellow
>> natural anatase getting accidently into the yellow
>> part of an ink is so low that it is more likely that
>> flying saucers did it.
> Don't give Inger and Yuri any ideas.
Why not? At least you cannot exclude the possibility
that flying saurcers are made of titanium or are
contaminated with it.
This idea deserves some serious consideration
and who are better in that thanthe YIS trio?
maison.mousse
inger a écrit dans le message
>
>Eric is a technician and not a scholar of Chemistry, all the same he might
>know about Dana's manual most other here don't. I guess it would be good if
>you sent the group a bit information about the manual. Hope you agree
>
>Inger E
>>
Dana's manual (s) of Mineralogy were first written by mineralogists Edward
Dana and William Ford
at the first part of the 20th century. The manuals still bare Dana's name
tho updated by different authors . The standard version called "Dana's
Manual of Mineralogy" is a basic text used in beginning courses in
mineralogy
and along with the CRC "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" forms part of
the base of a geologists reference library. The Manuals also exist in
multiple volume sets for the professional mineralogist.
Dana's manual contains all the information a working geologist would need
in the normal course of events
for rock and mineral identification.
JL
Philip Deitiker
news:432d6d31$0$40150$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>> Paul J Gans says
>
>>> But folks don't understand. The odds against yellow
>>> natural anatase getting accidently into the yellow
>>> part of an ink is so low that it is more likely that
>>> flying saucers did it.
>
>> Don't give Inger and Yuri any ideas.
>
> Why not? At least you cannot exclude the possibility
> that flying saurcers are made of titanium or are
> contaminated with it.
> This idea deserves some serious consideration
> and who are better in that thanthe YIS trio?
3& C0NR@& for one, have you perchance met Mr. "M@n @5 01& @5 C0@1",
he's a V3livk0sky fan. Eric seems also to have alot of competition in
kookville at the moment. We have now on the scene Mickey Mouse,
Blofont "Think brands" Ketchup, and Fred Poundstone (distant ancestor
of Flinstone). I do realize we could have a more entertaining line up
of too comical to be real characters on the the scene, but to conjure
up the whole disenfranchised space alien crowd? I mean seriously,
there could be evedroppers on the far side or mars just waiting to
jump in with a galore of sock puppets, each of which I would have to
charge 2.5 cents according to Tom. [I think I should at least get a
quarter for getting aliens to claim they are going to plonk me]
BTW, if I cannot get you (i.e Black, "Douggie" and Tom, also) to
ignore Inger, can I ask then just one very small favor, when she goes
on about stalking, abuse, her internet or legal prowess, could you
ignore her for at least as long as she is engage in that level of
psychosis, sort of like a time out for a badly behaving child. You
could creatively respond to her with a [timed out] Without some group
psychology here this group has been known to dive headfirst into that
pool, I can refer you to May to September of 2003 and January to
April of 2004 for examples. These types of discussions can be found
anywhere on the UseNet and it is well wornout and _Boring_.
Tedd Jacobs
what's the subject line say? what color does anatase aprear in nature? how
would you propose separation in the 15th century?
your squink stinks as does your ethicless approach to science.
Paul J Gans
>> Paul J Gans says
>>> But folks don't understand. The odds against yellow
>>> natural anatase getting accidently into the yellow
>>> part of an ink is so low that it is more likely that
>>> flying saucers did it.
>> Don't give Inger and Yuri any ideas.
>Why not? At least you cannot exclude the possibility
>that flying saurcers are made of titanium or are
>contaminated with it.
You are right. And so Fred is right. I should
never speak in absolutes. Which makes my statement
that Fred is right wrong.
I have a headache.
>This idea deserves some serious consideration
>and who are better in that thanthe YIS trio?
Groan.
----- Paul J. Gans
PS: Many years ago when both the earth and usenet
were new, I posted regularly on sci.archaeology.
As near as I can tell only Doug Weller and Yuri
are left from that time in the past. When
soc.history.medieval was formed I migrated to that
and for a while it was a wonderful group.
But as is true of all utopias and semi-utopias,
the end came more quickly than we wished.
Alaca
> Alaca wrote:
>> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>> Paul J Gans says
>>>> But folks don't understand. The odds against yellow
>>>> natural anatase getting accidently into the yellow
>>>> part of an ink is so low that it is more likely that
>>>> flying saucers did it.
>>> Don't give Inger and Yuri any ideas.
>> Why not? At least you cannot exclude the possibility
>> that flying saucers are made of titanium or are
>> contaminated with it.
> You are right. And so Fred is right. I should
> never speak in absolutes. Which makes my statement
> that Fred is right wrong.
>
> I have a headache.
Oh dear. I know what it is.
Try retracing your steps back until the
right people appear wrong again.
>> This idea deserves some serious consideration
>> and who are better in that thanthe YIS trio?
> Groan.
You better take some rest now Paul.
> ----- Paul J. Gans
>
> PS: Many years ago when both the earth and usenet
> were new, I posted regularly on sci.archaeology.
> As near as I can tell only Doug Weller and Yuri
> are left from that time in the past. When
> soc.history.medieval was formed I migrated to that
> and for a while it was a wonderful group.
>
> But as is true of all utopias and semi-utopias,
> the end came more quickly than we wished.
This morning (or was it yesterday?), for the first time
since I am around, there were more posts in SciA
than in SHM. But SHM is sadly out of control, with
almost all current affairs. I know, that can happen to
every group.
Paul J Gans
>> Groan.
The US is, in my opinion, veering out of control
right now. The national budget is in terrible
trouble, there are societal strains over both
oil and the hurricane, both of our wars are not
going well, and the Government offers nothing but
"we will stick to our duty."
So folks are testy and tense. Trivia becomes important
and the important is ignored and being unfixable.
Not good times here.
---- Paul J. Gans
Philip Deitiker
news:432dc275$0$32276$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
> This morning (or was it yesterday?), for the first time
> since I am around, there were more posts in SciA
> than in SHM. But SHM is sadly out of control, with
> almost all current affairs. I know, that can happen to
> every group.
Its the temporal shift. Sci.Archaeology discusses history, therefore
history groups should discuss modern events.
Philip Deitiker
> The US is, in my opinion, veering out of control
> right now.
Ya don't say. Running for office, no-one else of any credibility is
either, what to do?
Paul J Gans
Put one of our internet loons in charge. That way the collapse
will be quick and not a long painful death.
Then we can accept an aid package from Europe and Asia and
get started on rebuilding. Perhaps we'll try a parliamentary
government next time.
After all, most nations have undergone a switch or two in
their governments without totally fatal results.
---- Paul J. Gans
Seppo Renfors
Please remember the bottle washer claimed "Separation of Particles"
and "purified anatase" - not anatase contaminated with something AND
it involves very fine particles eg as defined by "kaolinite".
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Black
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dgldnv$g5q$3...@reader1.panix.com...
> Then we can accept an aid package from Europe and Asia and
> get started on rebuilding. Perhaps we'll try a parliamentary
> government next time.
>
> After all, most nations have undergone a switch or two in
> their governments without totally fatal results.
It's an interesting point often made by political analysts here that the
United States have not seriously revised their system of government in over
two hundred years.
Just about everyone else has.
The United States still has a system of government from the eighteenth
century and its head of state has the powers of an eighteenth century
monarch.
Recent events seem to show that it is no longer working properly.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Paul J Gans
>In sci.archaeology, William Black created a message
>ID news:dglrf5$7hj$1...@news.freedom2surf.net:
>> It's an interesting point often made by political analysts
>here that the
>> United States have not seriously revised their system of
>government in over
>> two hundred years.
>>
>> Just about everyone else has.
>>
>> The United States still has a system of government from the
>eighteenth
>> century and its head of state has the powers of an
>eighteenth century
>> monarch.
>>
>> Recent events seem to show that it is no longer working
>properly.
>The problem with the US government is not in its design, the
>problem with the US government is the people who elected that
>government and those who chose and chose not to constitute it.
>Take a good look at americans and their habits and tell me
>that Bush is unfit to their wishes in leadership. Not needs
>but desires.
I suspect it is a tad more complex than that. Nobody in the
18th century forsaw global warfare. They envisioned war as
somebody coming the the US and fighting, not the other way
around.
The rise of the big business media has meant that to a large
degree the media is unwilling to push the hard questions.
The "kinglike model" of the Presidency insulates the
President from having to answer hard questions from his
political opponents. Thus the President, by not telling
the truth, can obtain much of what he wants without anyone
asking him about it.
In the modern world I do not think this is a good arrangement.
Perhaps if our system automatically gave us a President and
a Congress of different political parties we'd have a chance,
but as it is -- forget it.
----- Paul J. Gans
Eric Stevens
That's talking about natural anatase, with all it's impurities.
What do you think they had to do to synthetic anatase to make it
white? Bearing in mind that for the first few years of manufacture it
was tinged with yellow.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
You are describing a working environment in which one could never
expect to encounter pure anatase.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
My 'ethicless approach' as you call it is derived from the accurate
use of words. Pure anatase IS white but is almost never found in
nature. That's why standard books of mineralogy describe it in all the
colours of its contaminants. If you want to continue to argue that I
am wrong I suggest you try to explain why it is that paint and ink
manufacturers should try to make white pigments using a brown, indigo
blue, green, grey or black filler.
Eric Stevens
maison.mousse
Eric Stevens a écrit dans le message ...
Pure Anatase is found in nature. Crystals large enough to see with the human
eye are generally NOT white.
The difference is that light refracts and reflects differently
off of the larger crystals faces than off a collection of the smaller
cryptocrystalline faces.
This has nothing to do with impurities.
JL
Alaca
Hey boys, try to keep politics out of this!
You are playing with fire.
--
P.A.
Alaca
> Alaca:
>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Alaca wrote:
>>>> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>>>> Paul J Gans says
>>>>>> But folks don't understand. The odds against yellow
>>>>>> natural anatase getting accidently into the yellow
>>>>>> part of an ink is so low that it is more likely that
>>>>>> flying saucers did it.
>>>>> Don't give Inger and Yuri any ideas.
>>>> Why not? At least you cannot exclude the possibility
>>>> that flying saucers are made of titanium or are
>>>> contaminated with it.
>>> You are right. And so Fred is right. I should
>>> never speak in absolutes. Which makes my statement
>>> that Fred is right wrong.
>>>
>>> I have a headache.
>> Oh dear. I know what it is.
>> Try retracing your steps back until the
>> right people appear wrong again.
>>>> This idea deserves some serious consideration
>>>> and who are better in that thanthe YIS trio?
>>> Groan.
>> You better take some rest now Paul.
>>> PS: Many years ago when both the earth and usenet
>>> were new, I posted regularly on sci.archaeology.
>>> As near as I can tell only Doug Weller and Yuri
>>> are left from that time in the past. When
>>> soc.history.medieval was formed I migrated to that
>>> and for a while it was a wonderful group.
>>>
>>> But as is true of all utopias and semi-utopias,
>>> the end came more quickly than we wished.
>> This morning (or was it yesterday?), for the first time
>> since I am around, there were more posts in SciA
>> than in SHM. But SHM is sadly out of control, with
>> almost all current affairs. I know, that can happen to
>> every group.
> The US is, in my opinion, veering out of control
> right now. The national budget is in terrible
> trouble, there are societal strains over both
> oil and the hurricane, both of our wars are not
> going well, and the Government offers nothing but
> "we will stick to our duty."
>
> So folks are testy and tense. Trivia becomes important
> and the important is ignored and being unfixable.
>
> Not good times here.
No, but that is no reason to swamp
the wrong newsgroups with it.
Tedd Jacobs
"Eric Stevens" wrote...
*squink*.
is there a 15th century method for separation? again you wont answer it.
all you ever wish to accomplish is muddying the water.
Philip Deitiker
ID news:dglrf5$7hj$1...@news.freedom2surf.net:
> It's an interesting point often made by political analysts
here that the
> United States have not seriously revised their system of
government in over
> two hundred years.
>
> Just about everyone else has.
>
> The United States still has a system of government from the
eighteenth
> century and its head of state has the powers of an
eighteenth century
> monarch.
>
> Recent events seem to show that it is no longer working
properly.
Philip Deitiker
Do you recall why the Marines were formed?
> The rise of the big business media has meant that to a large
> degree the media is unwilling to push the hard questions.
> The "kinglike model" of the Presidency insulates the
> President from having to answer hard questions from his
> political opponents.
Samuel 8:11
"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take
your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they
will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be
commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow
his ground and reap his harvest, and still other to make weapons of
war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be
perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields
and vinyards and olive groaves and give them to his attendants. . . .
This particular verse is 3200 years old and most of the formers of
the constitution were aware of it.
The president may have too much responsibility in the 20th century.
Some have argued that there should be 2 ministers, a interior
minister and foriegn minister. Possibly 2 vice presidents with
obligations in the Senate removed. This country has a stronger
presidency today since WWI. What happened to the league of nations?
> Thus the President, by not telling the truth, can obtain much of
> what he wants without anyone asking him about it.
Are you separating the President from other politicians. Can you show
me a politician that always tells the truth. If you can I can show
you a bridge in Broklyn that needs to be sold.
> In the modern world I do not think this is a good arrangement.
As opposed to monarchy? I tell you something, I live in Bush's
backyard, people were talking about Iraq, the need to invade, it was
a very popular notion. If Socrates lived in Houston he certainly
would have fodder for a great thesis. The errors made in Iraq were
not about motivation, there is certainly motivation enough to depose
Saddam Hussien, by any standard. The errors in Iraq are about
understanding the culture you are, in the words of frm.Sec.State
Powell, 'going to own' by invasion. The Iraqi invasion was an error
not because Saddam Hussien was an evil man, but because he was
essentially built by an evil plan, the Anglo-franco carving of the
middle east. There is a saying with regard to plumbing, if you have
an old rusty leaky pipe that can be patched then let it leak a
little, because once you touch your wrench to the pipe, you going to
end up fixing every pipe in the house. Yes, Iraq needs to be fixed,
but westerners can't help but screw it up more because we cannot help
but look at Iraq from western eyes and through western mores.
There is a spirit in the people of the region, a spirit that comes
from having some of the worlds oldest civilizations under their feet,
and from having a long experience of being invaded and occupied. And
you might be surprised that from a genetic point of view, the traces
of the invaders are few and far between. What cultural undertones
that underlye the common belief in the region that are so deeply
embedded are hard for us to understand, the problem is that from a
point of view different from our own they function. We, in the west,
may be there someday, who knows?
But the problem with the religious idealogs in this country, those
who have pushed Bush into power, they don't want to look aside from
their blinders, worse they don't want to look at themselves, they
haven't pulled the plank from their own eyes. As a result we go to
war, not because Bush wants, but because he reflects their want.
When the hurricane of 1900 hit galveston they built a huge sea wall
and elevated the entire city, some areas were elevated 8 feet. This
is a huge undertaking. Since that time New Orleans knew it could get
hit by the same catagory of storm. Why was their a desire to repair
galveston and make it 'safe' but not to repair New Orleans, that was
obviously in more danger. One effort the size of galveston would have
saved how many homes, how many lives. We have storm walls around the
coast here and there are not all that many people behind them to
protect. The walls come because people were motivated to build them
and to get them built. Why aren't orleanians motivated to raise their
city? Why did they allow housting to expand 10ft below sea level?
You have to think, not every responsibility lies in the fault of the
nation, state, if the cry is loud enough at the local level,
eventually things will get done.
> Perhaps if our system automatically gave us a President and
> a Congress of different political parties we'd have a chance,
> but as it is -- forget it.
That's idealistic. Two problems in the US.
The democratic party is very slow to reform and get out of subserving
fractional interest. The democrats need to realize that their common
enemy, ignorance and religious idolatry, will not be one by divisive
rankoring for regional power. The candidates they have put forth are
not candidates that have holo-american acceptance. Kerry for
instance, I voted for him, laughing at his chances, had a very poor
reception in the south, gore was even more humourous. Clinton despite
his 'long comings' was the best democratic candidate for the job, for
the south, since LBJ. (I would dare to say clinton was better than
LBJ but I fault him, he should have fessed up on lewinsky and dealt
with the Energy and Terrorism issues more effectively)
The Republican party is a self-righteous religion infested joke who
have the most hypocritcal set of mores. Their adevertisements are
hideous jokoes that play into the lowest instincts of human kind.
_But_ within that context I see a few republicans that are truely
presidential material. Americans need to be able to recognize
leadership not demogogary. That's the problem. The republicans will
play any trick, pull out all the stops, and do whatever it takes to
take power and preserve it. They are unabashed in what they will do,
they flaunt it like King Arthurs Sword.
I would also remind you that President Carter was not destroyed by
his honesty (although one could certainly make the case he should
have been more washington savvy). It was the democratic congress that
destroyed him, as they currently destroy their best candidates,
Clinton snuck under their radar and dominated the party with his
charm, but that process has been shut down by the regionalist.
What we have in this country are the lack of true statesmen at the
level of the state and the nation. Statesmen don't sell well in 15
second commercials. Demagogs do. Unity is the key, those who cannot
unite and get their membership to unite behind them, fail. Kerry was
get at getting people to unite against Bush, but could not get people
to unite behind him. Why is that?
Alaca
> "Eric Stevens" wrote...
>> My 'ethicless approach' as you call it is derived from the accurate
>> use of words. Pure anatase IS white but is almost never found in
>> nature. That's why standard books of mineralogy describe it in all
>> the colours of its contaminants. If you want to continue to argue
>> that I am wrong I suggest you try to explain why it is that paint
>> and ink manufacturers should try to make white pigments using a
>> brown, indigo blue, green, grey or black filler.
> [...].
>
> is there a 15th century method for separation? again you wont answer
> it. all you ever wish to accomplish is muddying the water.
And that brings me to the following theory ;-)
The medieval scribe made his ink with water
he used earlier to wash the monks turnips in.
--
P.A.
Eric Stevens
See http://www.thespectroscopynet.com/Educational/Colour.htm
and
http://www.huntsman.com/pigments/Media/Manufacture_and_Generals_Properties.pdf
"Pure Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is a colourless crystaline solid ..."
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
Tedd,
Please stop flailing around. I never said anything about a 15th
century method of manufacture except in response to other people. All
I said (several times now) is that pure anatase is white. There is no
point anyone trying to discuss this in an intelligent manner if they
are not prepared to get the basic facts right.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
... or maybe the water in which the monk had washed.
Eric Stevens
Tedd Jacobs
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:rksui1l3hlc0q2i9p...@4ax.com...
you use a poet in defense of an argument being invalid and i'm the one
"flailing".
I never said anything about a 15th
> century method of manufacture except in response to other people.
"My 'ethicless approach' as you call it is derived from the accurate use of
words." "never said anything..."? "except" nullifies the use of "never".
not a very accurate usage, dont you agree.
All
> I said (several times now) is that pure anatase is white.
and i'm still waiting to see if you have a point in that statement relative
to the topic.
"If you are going to introduce procedures into
argument of how clay anatase was obtained with a VM anatase
properties you should be able to explain how those clay
particles were prepared for Ink specifically using known 15th
century techniques." (1st post: Deitiker).
so once again i claim *squink*.
There is no
> point anyone trying to discuss this in an intelligent manner if they
> are not prepared to get the basic facts right.
i wish you would. if it is (to be generous) rare to find 'white' anatase in
nature, then of what value is the 'pure color' to the discussion of particle
separation of impure 'colored' anatase?
"The other issue of course is how would you purify anatase of the
right color from natural clays, since the translocated sediment is a
mixture from all upstream sources." (10th post: also Deitiker).
your squink still stinks stevens. you always seem to just miss it.
ilicet.
Eric Stevens
<Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
I love the way your arguments are so ill organised that you don't know
which thread you are currently engaged in. Charles Lamb ** the
essayist** has nothing to do with with the causes of colour in
anatase. (Yes, I know Charles Lamb wrote poems, but then so have I).
At his point your use of quote marks seems to have gone to ... heck.
I've sorted it out for you this time round.
>
>>I never said anything about a 15th
>> century method of manufacture except in response to other people.
>
>"My 'ethicless approach' as you call it is derived from the accurate use of
>words." "never said anything..."? "except" nullifies the use of "never".
>not a very accurate usage, dont you agree.
No I don't, but maybe the logic is too complex for you. It certainly
was when you attempted to construct an argument against me.
>
>>All
>> I said (several times now) is that pure anatase is white.
>
>and i'm still waiting to see if you have a point in that statement relative
>to the topic.
I was contradicting the guy who wrote "anatase color: brown, indigo
blue, green, grey, black". Those are not the colour of anatase. Those
are the colours given to anatase by impurities. But may be you don't
like getting basic facts straight?
>
>"If you are going to introduce procedures into
>argument of how clay anatase was obtained with a VM anatase
>properties you should be able to explain how those clay
>particles were prepared for Ink specifically using known 15th
>century techniques." (1st post: Deitiker).
I'll leave that argument to others.
>
>so once again i claim *squink*.
I suppose its better than no argument at all. But maybe you don't like
getting basic facts straight?
>
>There is no
>> point anyone trying to discuss this in an intelligent manner if they
>> are not prepared to get the basic facts right.
>
>i wish you would. if it is (to be generous) rare to find 'white' anatase in
>nature, then of what value is the 'pure color' to the discussion of particle
>separation of impure 'colored' anatase?
What use it is is a matter of opinion. What colour it is, is a matter
of fact.
>
>"The other issue of course is how would you purify anatase of the
>right color from natural clays, since the translocated sediment is a
>mixture from all upstream sources." (10th post: also Deitiker).
I haven't the foggiest idea and if you look back at my previous
related posts you would know that I have already said more or less
exactly that.
>
>your squink still stinks stevens. you always seem to just miss it.
On the other hand you never seem to quite 'get it'.
>
>ilicet.
>
Tertullian to you too. :-)
Eric Stevens
Alaca
> "Alaca" wrote:
>> Tedd Jacobs wrote:
>>> "Eric Stevens" wrote...
>>>> My 'ethicless approach' as you call it is derived from the accurate
>>>> use of words. Pure anatase IS white but is almost never found in
>>>> nature. That's why standard books of mineralogy describe it in all
>>>> the colours of its contaminants. If you want to continue to argue
>>>> that I am wrong I suggest you try to explain why it is that paint
>>>> and ink manufacturers should try to make white pigments using a
>>>> brown, indigo blue, green, grey or black filler.
>>
>>> [...].
>>> Is there a 15th century method for separation? again you wont
>>> answer it.
.>>> All you ever wish to accomplish is muddying the water.
>> And that brings me to the following theory ;-)
>> The medieval scribe made his ink with water
>> he used earlier to wash the monks turnips in.
> ... or maybe the water in which the monk had washed.
Are monks allowed to wash their own turnips?
--
° P. A. °
Eric Stevens
I don't know about that but they were required to wash their hands and
face.
Eric Stevens
David Johnson
$5N3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
[snip lots of stuff]
The main problem with representative government is that it very often is...
BTW, not _really_ archaeology...
David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"
Tom McDonald
other's turnips. Although perhaps the maid...?
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Paul J Gans
>>>The problem with the US government is not in its design, the
>>>problem with the US government is the people who elected that
>>>government and those who chose and chose not to constitute it.
>>>Take a good look at americans and their habits and tell me
>>>that Bush is unfit to their wishes in leadership. Not needs
>>>but desires.
>>
>> I suspect it is a tad more complex than that. Nobody in the
>> 18th century forsaw global warfare. They envisioned war as
>> somebody coming the the US and fighting, not the other way
>> around.
>Do you recall why the Marines were formed?
Which has nothing to do with anything. NOBODY
envisioned the US fighting a full-fledged war in
Europe or anyplace outside of North America. The
Constitution was written with this in mind.
>> The rise of the big business media has meant that to a large
>> degree the media is unwilling to push the hard questions.
>> The "kinglike model" of the Presidency insulates the
>> President from having to answer hard questions from his
>> political opponents.
>Samuel 8:11
>"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take
>your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they
>will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be
>commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow
>his ground and reap his harvest, and still other to make weapons of
>war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be
>perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields
>and vinyards and olive groaves and give them to his attendants. . . .
>This particular verse is 3200 years old and most of the formers of
>the constitution were aware of it.
>The president may have too much responsibility in the 20th century.
>Some have argued that there should be 2 ministers, a interior
>minister and foriegn minister. Possibly 2 vice presidents with
>obligations in the Senate removed. This country has a stronger
>presidency today since WWI. What happened to the league of nations?
That's several questions. I'd be more happy if the President
had to answer hard questions. I have no doubt that if that
were the case we'd *still* be in Iraq (look at Tony Blair),
but now the questions would be coming fast and furious.
>> Thus the President, by not telling the truth, can obtain much of
>> what he wants without anyone asking him about it.
>Are you separating the President from other politicians. Can you show
>me a politician that always tells the truth. If you can I can show
>you a bridge in Broklyn that needs to be sold.
Yes. I am. No other politician can go to war. The President
is the only national leader we have.
>> In the modern world I do not think this is a good arrangement.
>As opposed to monarchy?
Oh come on. Every western nation has a democracy, none
are functioning monarchies, and all function quite well.
I specified a parliamentary system in what I wrote. Do
you have something against them?
>I tell you something, I live in Bush's
>backyard, people were talking about Iraq, the need to invade, it was
>a very popular notion.
Of course it was a popular notion. As you know the notion
arose from a carefully watered bed of confusion, misleading
charges, and downright lies.
With almost nobody asking tough questions and the few that
did branded as "Saddam lovers", of course the idea was popular.
>If Socrates lived in Houston he certainly
>would have fodder for a great thesis. The errors made in Iraq were
>not about motivation, there is certainly motivation enough to depose
>Saddam Hussien, by any standard.
Not at all. The only motivation that survived a dose of
the facts was that Saddam was a very evil man. That is true.
But he was no more evil than a half-dozen or more other evil
men about whom we care so little that we don't even know
their names.
>The errors in Iraq are about
>understanding the culture you are, in the words of frm.Sec.State
>Powell, 'going to own' by invasion. The Iraqi invasion was an error
>not because Saddam Hussien was an evil man, but because he was
>essentially built by an evil plan, the Anglo-franco carving of the
>middle east. There is a saying with regard to plumbing, if you have
>an old rusty leaky pipe that can be patched then let it leak a
>little, because once you touch your wrench to the pipe, you going to
>end up fixing every pipe in the house. Yes, Iraq needs to be fixed,
>but westerners can't help but screw it up more because we cannot help
>but look at Iraq from western eyes and through western mores.
We knew that. George Bush the Elder gave it as his reason
for *not* advancing on Baghdad. But that line of reasoning
was drowned out in the run-up to the invasion.
> There is a spirit in the people of the region, a spirit that comes
>from having some of the worlds oldest civilizations under their feet,
>and from having a long experience of being invaded and occupied. And
>you might be surprised that from a genetic point of view, the traces
>of the invaders are few and far between. What cultural undertones
>that underlye the common belief in the region that are so deeply
>embedded are hard for us to understand, the problem is that from a
>point of view different from our own they function. We, in the west,
>may be there someday, who knows?
I'm well aware of this.
> But the problem with the religious idealogs in this country, those
>who have pushed Bush into power, they don't want to look aside from
>their blinders, worse they don't want to look at themselves, they
>haven't pulled the plank from their own eyes. As a result we go to
>war, not because Bush wants, but because he reflects their want.
Ok. I'll buy that as being part of the truth. For me there
is humor in the situation Our fanatics are just as fanatical
as the Muslim fanatics, but we don't see it. All we see is their
fanaticism.
For proof watch the storm of venom about to be unleashed on me
by the "usual sources".
>When the hurricane of 1900 hit galveston they built a huge sea wall
>and elevated the entire city, some areas were elevated 8 feet. This
>is a huge undertaking. Since that time New Orleans knew it could get
>hit by the same catagory of storm. Why was their a desire to repair
>galveston and make it 'safe' but not to repair New Orleans, that was
>obviously in more danger. One effort the size of galveston would have
>saved how many homes, how many lives. We have storm walls around the
>coast here and there are not all that many people behind them to
>protect. The walls come because people were motivated to build them
>and to get them built. Why aren't orleanians motivated to raise their
>city? Why did they allow housting to expand 10ft below sea level?
>You have to think, not every responsibility lies in the fault of the
>nation, state, if the cry is loud enough at the local level,
>eventually things will get done.
It is a bit more complex than that. First, Galveston was
destroyed. As a result it was possible to refound, as in
foundation, the entire city. New Orleans is different. The
land it is built on is settling as the silt compacts. When
the French founded it, it was slightly above sea level.
Perhaps the best thing to do now is to build up the height of
the city. But I suspect (I don't *know*) that all this will
do is hasten further compaction of the silt -- which is very
very deep.
>> Perhaps if our system automatically gave us a President and
>> a Congress of different political parties we'd have a chance,
>> but as it is -- forget it.
>That's idealistic. Two problems in the US.
It was not made as a serious suggestion.
>The democratic party is very slow to reform and get out of subserving
>fractional interest. The democrats need to realize that their common
>enemy, ignorance and religious idolatry, will not be one by divisive
>rankoring for regional power. The candidates they have put forth are
>not candidates that have holo-american acceptance. Kerry for
>instance, I voted for him, laughing at his chances, had a very poor
>reception in the south, gore was even more humourous.
I fear you underestimate the efficiency of the propaganda
machine. Both candidates were "Swift-boated" out of existance.
The Democrats may be silly, but they do seem not to have
the same appetite for lies as their opponents.
>Clinton despite
>his 'long comings' was the best democratic candidate for the job, for
>the south, since LBJ. (I would dare to say clinton was better than
>LBJ but I fault him, he should have fessed up on lewinsky and dealt
>with the Energy and Terrorism issues more effectively)
Would not have made an iota of difference. You note that
the region was ripe for war with Iraq? The Repubicans were
talking impeachment from before Clinton's second term. They
were hell-bent on doing it -- and in the end did it on
grounds that were frivolous.
The Republicans controlled Congress during much of Clinton's
term. They were very much against foreign adventures and
foreign involvement. You may recall the campaign *against*
Clinton taking action against bin Laden labelling it as
an "attempt to divert attention from his sex scandal by
starting a foreign war".
In that sort of environment, what sort of action against
bin Laden could be undertaken?
>The Republican party is a self-righteous religion infested joke who
>have the most hypocritcal set of mores. Their adevertisements are
>hideous jokoes that play into the lowest instincts of human kind.
>_But_ within that context I see a few republicans that are truely
>presidential material. Americans need to be able to recognize
>leadership not demogogary. That's the problem. The republicans will
>play any trick, pull out all the stops, and do whatever it takes to
>take power and preserve it. They are unabashed in what they will do,
>they flaunt it like King Arthurs Sword.
Well, leadership is in the beholder and thus subjective.
I've not seen any leaders from either party.
>I would also remind you that President Carter was not destroyed by
>his honesty (although one could certainly make the case he should
>have been more washington savvy). It was the democratic congress that
>destroyed him, as they currently destroy their best candidates,
>Clinton snuck under their radar and dominated the party with his
>charm, but that process has been shut down by the regionalist.
>What we have in this country are the lack of true statesmen at the
>level of the state and the nation. Statesmen don't sell well in 15
>second commercials. Demagogs do. Unity is the key, those who cannot
>unite and get their membership to unite behind them, fail. Kerry was
>get at getting people to unite against Bush, but could not get people
>to unite behind him. Why is that?
Now how are you going to get the TV stations to broadcast
more than 15 seconds (if that much) of what a candidate
says?
The candidate can give the best speeches in the world and
they may not even make the newspaper.
The answer to your last question is that the campaign to
blacken his name was relentless, universal, and filled with
misrepresentations and lies.
He's the one who went to Vietnam, not Bush. And in return
he was villified by his enemies for it.
Folks believed that stuff.
---- Paul J. Gans
Philip Deitiker
> Which has nothing to do with anything. NOBODY
> envisioned the US fighting a full-fledged war in
> Europe or anyplace outside of North America. The
> Constitution was written with this in mind.
The country grew one could expect that a fledgling country having to
fight a war in north africa would as it grew bigger have to fight
wars else.
1848 Mexican American war. American troups in vera cruz and mexico
city.
Seriously america has had a conflict every 50 years or so since the
nation formed.
>>The president may have too much responsibility in the 20th
>>century. Some have argued that there should be 2 ministers, a
>>interior minister and foriegn minister. Possibly 2 vice
>>presidents with obligations in the Senate removed. This country
>>has a stronger presidency today since WWI. What happened to the
>>league of nations?
>
> That's several questions. I'd be more happy if the President
> had to answer hard questions. I have no doubt that if that
> were the case we'd *still* be in Iraq (look at Tony Blair),
> but now the questions would be coming fast and furious.
He will answer questions when his voter base ask him to answer
questions and not a moment before. he does not exist in a vacuum,
there are alot of rather hard-line conservatives in his voter base
who don't think conservatism should answer to anyone.
>>> Thus the President, by not telling the truth, can obtain much
>>> of
>>> what he wants without anyone asking him about it.
>
>>Are you separating the President from other politicians. Can you
>>show me a politician that always tells the truth. If you can I
>>can show you a bridge in Broklyn that needs to be sold.
>
> Yes. I am. No other politician can go to war. The President
> is the only national leader we have.
Any politician can go to war, all he has to do is become president
(OK so we exclude Arnold). What that entails in the case of Bush is
having a bunch of loony activist scaring people and playing dirty
politics to get their man in office. So americans don't have the
resolve stop it. We eat dirty junky food, we watch smutty crap on TV,
we allow ourselves to become stupified gluttons and so the smut of
these political campaigns is not enough to stop us from voting for
the smut generators. We believe in what the moral activist say but we
somehow don't realize that they do act as what they say people should
act. America is a cesspool of hypocrisy and the bigger problem is
that it is not a secret anymore, the rest of the world has tapped
into this and exploit it for their agenda.
Let us face the fact, when you are young you are democratic, you
want the system to be fair and efficient. But most americans who vote
are older, they don't care if the pass huge debt onto the next
generation, they want their tax cuts now, before they die, even
though it was the baffoons they elected to office in the last
generation that ran the debt. If you ask an honest republican he will
say exactly this, but then add 'if we hadn't funded welfare the debt
would not have accumulated' never mentioning the wasteful military
spending of the 80s and 90s. So we are wealthy, and so we are greedy
and want to keep all the wealth in our control and so we want someone
like Bush, a fool, a triggerfinger. So this is what america deserves,
live with it. You don't like it run for office. This is the same
thing I told that whining father whose son refused to serve under the
UN. Just because his son was in the armed forces or because he served
for 20 years means nothing, military rule is military rule and
political rule is political rule. If you think things are way wrong
run for office, if you win change the rules because people agree with
you.
>>> In the modern world I do not think this is a good arrangement.
>
>>As opposed to monarchy?
>
> Oh come on. Every western nation has a democracy, none
> are functioning monarchies, and all function quite well.
> I specified a parliamentary system in what I wrote. Do
> you have something against them?
I actually think Japan would have a better political system if the
Emperor were to return to power, make him the minister of culture and
give him the ability to speak. There is nothing inately wrong with a
monarchy, the problem with government is corruption, societies in
which groups of people do not respect other groups of peoples have
corrupt governements. Many of Bush's supporters are either overt
racist or cryptoracist they would do anything to thwart the upward
mobility of minorities or the poor. Since we allow this to enter our
government we have corruption. Isreal has a democracy, a democracy
that is approximately a fascist state in which one half of the
population has no rights, in which the name of the game is a holy
land grab. Russia has a fascist democracy. Englands parlimentary
system is slow to reform.
Democracy is an abstraction that is never fullfilled. We don't
trust ourselves, as with Samuel we defer our opinions to
representatives, we defer our might to an administrator. The
judiciary is probably the only body within our government that
abstractly serves its function best. The house of representatives are
a bunch of local yocals who are not statesmen. The Senate will better
behaving is probably the best example of service is not fairly
representative of the US population.
>>I tell you something, I live in Bush's
>>backyard, people were talking about Iraq, the need to invade, it
>>was a very popular notion.
>
> Of course it was a popular notion. As you know the notion
> arose from a carefully watered bed of confusion, misleading
> charges, and downright lies.
No! People though Saddam was the great unconquered evil who thumbed
his nose at the US. They beleive he needed to go. I begged many of
the question to bushes supporters before the war. 'DO you know what
the US is getting into, do you realize that Saddam is the thumb in
the Dike, however gangrenous the thumb is. Do you realize that there
are equal or greater evils in the world. I was insulted by many
people, called a liberal and many other names. Even though they could
provide no convincing argument for war, they wanted Saddam out. They
had their man in office, and they wanted him to do as they pleased.
Its been over 2 years since this conflict has begun, and only now are
people beginning to see the light. Yes, I was decieved, just like
everyone else, but I did not feel that war was the right call, but I
know many americans who were leading the charge. One colonel that I
knew agreed with everything I said, but insisted that it was right to
take Sadam out, I asked him how long he thought intensive troop
levels would be in Iraq, and he said 10 years. You must know what
that cost is going to be and to still support it. _This_ is the
problem with America, when you are poor you never thing about going
in to this kind of quagmire, but we are Socrates Athenians.
> With almost nobody asking tough questions and the few that
> did branded as "Saddam lovers", of course the idea was popular.
I was called something similar to this. The bathist are fascist, same
as the Nazis they are evil, but by the same token Iraq should not
exist, Tito could be called a fascist also, but what forces did he
keep at bay in Yugoslavia. If you go in with the falacy that you can
liberate Iraq and all of a sudden people will join hands and rejoice,
you don't understand the middle east well. The bible says if a man
commits a sin against another man, the sin will be remembered for 7
generations and 77 generations, this is not a prediction, it is an
observation.
The US is allies with Turkey, France and England, but the fact of
the matter is we should have told all three to go to hell, Carved the
country into 4 sections, trained those that allied with us armed
them, and if the bathist attack let them annihalate them. You cannot
play tiddly winks on the 50 yard line in the middle of a football
game, someone will step on your head and wonder if there was a soft
spot in the turf. If you don't have the resolve to do what needs to
be done, you don't go to war. Plain and simple.
The truth of Iraq is that the English and French created fascist
governments in the Middle east because they set out to disrespect
cultural and ethnic boundaries when they created states. Its not our
problem, they did the carving, they should go in and fix the problem
and apologize for what they did. And then the british should
apologize to the palestinians for tricking them and cheating the
repeatedly take on Isreal and give the palestinian lands back to the
palestinians, because this was not done by barbarians on the end of
the earth, it was done for the world to see the league of nations
published everything, the mandates were a fraud, a cheat. The United
Nations told Britian to fix palestine and they walked out instigating
a war and allowing Israel to continue Britians policy essentially
unchecked. This propoganda war the US is fighting abroad we are
loosing, the reason we are loosing because we are not honest. Saddam
Huseins party came to power because to of the Arab-Israeli conflict
and as long as that conflict exists peoples will not evolve
culturally and deal with deeper problems. The US is not the one to
correct these problems, we cow before Israel, Bush bows to Sharon.
>>If Socrates lived in Houston he certainly
>>would have fodder for a great thesis. The errors made in Iraq
>>were not about motivation, there is certainly motivation enough
>>to depose Saddam Hussien, by any standard.
>
> Not at all. The only motivation that survived a dose of
> the facts was that Saddam was a very evil man. That is true.
> But he was no more evil than a half-dozen or more other evil
> men about whom we care so little that we don't even know
> their names.
Yes. But the comparisons were of no value, we wanted Syracuse.
>>The errors in Iraq are about
>>understanding the culture you are, in the words of frm.Sec.State
>>Powell, 'going to own' by invasion. The Iraqi invasion was an
>>error not because Saddam Hussien was an evil man, but because he
>>was essentially built by an evil plan, the Anglo-franco carving
>>of the middle east. There is a saying with regard to plumbing,
>>if you have an old rusty leaky pipe that can be patched then let
>>it leak a little, because once you touch your wrench to the
>>pipe, you going to end up fixing every pipe in the house. Yes,
>>Iraq needs to be fixed, but westerners can't help but screw it
>>up more because we cannot help but look at Iraq from western
>>eyes and through western mores.
>
> We knew that. George Bush the Elder gave it as his reason
> for *not* advancing on Baghdad. But that line of reasoning
> was drowned out in the run-up to the invasion.
Because the beleived daddy bush failed. The timing was ripe, we had
his army and his guard in our grips we could have crushed them and
scattered them to the four winds, but we choose to back out, and when
he rebuilt he built an army that was much more a guerrila army than a
conventional army, we knew that.
There is a certain logic and mores of war, it exists for the sanity
of soldiers and generals. Afterall they have to live with their
deeds, and to realize they did for naught. What was the play, Henry
the fifth, "if the cause be right . . ." We had an agreement with
Sadam Hussien, from our point of view he disobeyed, his obeyance
would be his abandoning of office. It was not in the contract, his
obligation was to remove weapons of mass distruction, and his
supports would believe he did fulfilled the contract, so now they and
he are just. You cannot try him now after fulfillment of an agrement
we signed off on. "the cause is not right" and the enemies are
justified in their despisal. If we thought Saddams deeds were too
evil that he should continue, we should have deposed him at that
moment, he cannot be held in account for deeds we ignored in a
contract. We broke the contract and this will cost us in the eyes of
the middle east or in other eyes, the shia, we entered a contract
that was unjust, we should have deposed him when the armies were
weak, and while we could point the finger without shame on him. We
are simply a stupid brute with no credibility and we are being picked
apart by exploitative vultures, the forces of the just in Iraq have
not gathered around us, if they did in the blink of an eye the
insurrection would vanish, and they would be fleeing to Syria with
dead bodies in thier wake, as what happened in Kuwait.
>> But the problem with the religious idealogs in this country,
>> those
>>who have pushed Bush into power, they don't want to look aside
>>from their blinders, worse they don't want to look at
>>themselves, they haven't pulled the plank from their own eyes.
>>As a result we go to war, not because Bush wants, but because he
>>reflects their want.
>
> Ok. I'll buy that as being part of the truth. For me there
> is humor in the situation Our fanatics are just as fanatical
> as the Muslim fanatics, but we don't see it. All we see is
> their fanaticism. For proof watch the storm of venom about to
> be unleashed on me by the "usual sources".
Its immaterial, they poisoned Socrates after syracuse, but anyway the
Athenians were doomed. People want to blame, its easier to create a
scapegoat than for the majority to point the selfrighteaos finger at
themselves, and then the collapse begins. The signs of times catches
up with those that don't see them.
>>When the hurricane of 1900 hit galveston they built a huge sea
>>wall and elevated the entire city, some areas were elevated 8
>>feet. This is a huge undertaking. Since that time New Orleans
>>knew it could get hit by the same catagory of storm. Why was
>>their a desire to repair galveston and make it 'safe' but not to
>>repair New Orleans, that was obviously in more danger. One
>>effort the size of galveston would have saved how many homes,
>>how many lives. We have storm walls around the coast here and
>>there are not all that many people behind them to protect. The
>>walls come because people were motivated to build them and to
>>get them built. Why aren't orleanians motivated to raise their
>>city? Why did they allow housting to expand 10ft below sea
>>level? You have to think, not every responsibility lies in the
>>fault of the nation, state, if the cry is loud enough at the
>>local level, eventually things will get done.
>
> It is a bit more complex than that. First, Galveston was
> destroyed. As a result it was possible to refound, as in
> foundation, the entire city. New Orleans is different. The
> land it is built on is settling as the silt compacts. When
> the French founded it, it was slightly above sea level.
It is nothing, in the course of humanity much greater things were
done by lessor people. How much of Orleans can be filled by the
pyramids of Giza. Is there not a building code to be found, A peir
and beam house need only be unfastened raised, new piles driven and
refastened. We can send a Saturn V rocket to the moon, a much greater
task than bringing in fill every fifty years of a point in space,
elevating a house or rebuilding. The only thing one needs is resolve.
After 1900 there was resolve, to rebuild galveston and do it right.
> Perhaps the best thing to do now is to build up the height of
> the city. But I suspect (I don't *know*) that all this will
> do is hasten further compaction of the silt -- which is very
> very deep.
Selectfill does not compact. It doesn't do anything but form a glue
and stick. Grass does not grow in it. it doesn't hold water and it
doesn't let water drain through it.
> I fear you underestimate the efficiency of the propaganda
> machine. Both candidates were "Swift-boated" out of existance.
> The Democrats may be silly, but they do seem not to have
> the same appetite for lies as their opponents.
So why argue about it. Who consumes these lies? If they fed lies and
we rejected the lies and voted against those who built on lies then
it would be their fault. But we consume the lies and indulge them,
fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
> Would not have made an iota of difference. You note that
> the region was ripe for war with Iraq? The Repubicans were
> talking impeachment from before Clinton's second term. They
> were hell-bent on doing it -- and in the end did it on
> grounds that were frivolous.
Yeah and so what, who stood up for him, who marched against the
demogogs and witch hunters. All in all they took out three speakers
of the house in the witch hunt and clinton was still in office.
> The Republicans controlled Congress during much of Clinton's
> term. They were very much against foreign adventures and
> foreign involvement. You may recall the campaign *against*
> Clinton taking action against bin Laden labelling it as
> an "attempt to divert attention from his sex scandal by
> starting a foreign war".
And who believed them, the same folks who wanted to invade Iraq.
Again its us who are the fools, the politicians are playing the
exploit the public game. You want to change the politicians and I am
arguing you first need to find out what has made this land of
diversity start to act like a preWWII european country.
> In that sort of environment, what sort of action against
> bin Laden could be undertaken?
Does Bush care, he'd shoot the pope if he could find a good reason.
Thats the point of democrats presidents and the Armed forces, as long
as the armed forces are on your side, you can run wild all over the
world for a while.
Philip Deitiker
news:JxpYe.291850$5N3.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
I am not implying that Bush would shoot the Pope reason or no reason,
my point in this is that the armed forces and the administrators in
this country are alligned with Bush's philosophy so that if he can
justify his acts, he could get away with them for some time, even if
eventually things go south, as the 'extended' lie of Iraq has. People
follow Bush because they think reformism and liberalism are immoral,
and thus anyone who is against these is moral, no matter what they
do. For clinton, getting the armed forces on his side was a big
problem, but if he had them on his side he could run crazy with bin
ladin. These Armed forces will never serve a democratic president
loyally because they associate liberalism with anti-war protestors
and those who betrayed the armed forces after Vietnam.
And quite frankly some of the Backlash against liberallism is
deserved, and liberals need to realize this Clinton certainly did,
and thats why he got things done. Many of the eastern democrats sat
in Washington for 20 years and did nothing, they sacrificed their own
president to the wolves because he did not play the game their way.
So just as human nature is people are reaching for something else for
a time.
We often think that peoples acts are misfortunes or fortunes of one
man. Hitler was not German, germans did not behave as Hitler would
have them. Its not true, however germans, overwhelmingly supported
hitler once he gained power and had successful invasions of others.
The defeated German of WWI had a lust for revenge and Hitler fit the
bill. By the same token Bush is a product of his time. People were
massaging him for president before he took the governership, because
his daddy was president? Because he fit the recipe of what they
thought would get elected. Bush is a sign of our times, and we are a
sign of our times, and not just the US but the whole world except a
few disenfranchised have joined the parade. It is a mindless
procession with a very mindful leadership, but they are not mindful
of what good leadership is, but what functions to lead and to keep
themselves leaders and to keep the led wanting to be led. People are
afraid to put the breaks on, anywhere, anytime, 10,000s of new
computer viruses, computer email scams, pornographic emails
unsolicited, sent to hospitals and children. The media industries are
sick and they are carrying americans into their sickness. Religion
has become infected by the same sickness a campaign to build wealth
out of debauchery. We are in fact the pepsi generation, fully
inspired by corporate greed and fashioned out of a 15 second
television spot. We cannot deny it, the kiddoes are 50% overweight
and type II diabetes in their teens, have no idea what cooked from
scratch food is, are educated by rigid testing so that teachers no
longer need to stimulate thinking, in fact college professors can be
fired for trying to get the students to think. With all this going on
and Americans embracing it and demanding the super dupper twice as
big as before artery clogging burger, that somehow we are getting
less leadership than we deserve. It is up to americans to say,
without fear, enough is enough, to stop 2 parent 80 hour work weeks,
to take their families back and take control of what they eat. To
stand up for marriage and parentally advised dating, not a pretending
a $50,000 wedding equals a marriage. To not have to have the biggest
house one can afford, that maybe two children sharing a bedroom is
not the worst disaster in the world. That a shoe with a small defect
in not a reason to buy a nedw $200 pair of shoes. If you want to know
the thinking of Bush's constituancy just follow the local news for
Houston around the Enron disaster you will know more than enough.
People actually blamed Enron because they invested their whole life
savings in the company, because they beleived the company would
double its value every two years forever. Seriously, who can be so
self-deluded. Greed is what draws a person into that thinking, so its
not at all surprising with they are crushed. There is nothing new
about what is happening in Washington, in the course of human kind
this process repeats itself over and over and over again. Humility
and suffering breeds Wisdom. Bravado and Arrogance breed ignorance.
The lessons may be taught but we are not learning, americans are gods
people and god will take care of us, no matter what. We can read, and
we have bibles, but we do not _READ_ the bible as we would read any
other book for content, its too hard, it has to be read many times to
be understood. Instead we have pundits that carve out from the bible
what they want us to hear, and the sooth our souls to afford their
SUVs and swimming pools, interrupted by commercials for potato chips
and budweiser. It is neccesary for the human soul to suffer in order
for it to understand the value of spirituality and wisdom. Not
wisdoms but wisdom appropriate for times. The parents of today have
forsaken their upbringing, and they say "I don't want my child to
suffer as I did when I was growing up", but what they don't realize
is that is what made the greatest generation of americans great. The
great depression and WWII carved the American century from dust. This
silver spoon generation is the Bush generation.
To bring this back to archaeology and history, it was a bit of a
surprise when I was told the andaman islanders of the 'stone age'
groups survived without loss during the tsunamis to see 1000s of
indians perish. I looked at this with some intrique in that their
primative systems of wisdoms superceded the immigrants superior
reliance on technology. And I look at HLA around the world and in
many places you see a claim of an invasion, but the HLA says 'what
invasion' and wonder did the wisdom of the conquered eventually
prevail, did the invaders arrogance not factor in the power of spirit
and wisdom of the ages. You cannot inject that into people, they
either have to find it despite their long comings or they have to get
it the hard way.
Paul J Gans
Sorry for the delay in responding.
In soc.history.medieval Philip Deitiker <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> says in
>news:dgt0cv$mr1$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>> Which has nothing to do with anything. NOBODY
>> envisioned the US fighting a full-fledged war in
>> Europe or anyplace outside of North America. The
>> Constitution was written with this in mind.
>The country grew one could expect that a fledgling country having to
>fight a war in north africa would as it grew bigger have to fight
>wars else.
Why? When the Constitution was written there was no such
feeling. Indeed, for many generations US policy was to
avoid foreign entanglements.
>1848 Mexican American war. American troups in vera cruz and mexico
>city.
>Seriously america has had a conflict every 50 years or so since the
>nation formed.
Yes, but until 1917 they were all wars confined to North
America as I said above. The one exception, the Spanish-
American war is a picky business. It wasn't really a war,
the Spanish Empire being a hollow shell. But we can
change 1917 to 1898 if you wish.
>>>The president may have too much responsibility in the 20th
>>>century. Some have argued that there should be 2 ministers, a
>>>interior minister and foriegn minister. Possibly 2 vice
>>>presidents with obligations in the Senate removed. This country
>>>has a stronger presidency today since WWI. What happened to the
>>>league of nations?
>>
>> That's several questions. I'd be more happy if the President
>> had to answer hard questions. I have no doubt that if that
>> were the case we'd *still* be in Iraq (look at Tony Blair),
>> but now the questions would be coming fast and furious.
>He will answer questions when his voter base ask him to answer
>questions and not a moment before. he does not exist in a vacuum,
>there are alot of rather hard-line conservatives in his voter base
>who don't think conservatism should answer to anyone.
That's impractical. One is asked only one question: will
you vote for this candidate or not. There is no opportunity
to get a candidate to speak out on issues that may be of
interest to many people.
>>>> Thus the President, by not telling the truth, can obtain much
>>>> of
>>>> what he wants without anyone asking him about it.
>>
>>>Are you separating the President from other politicians. Can you
>>>show me a politician that always tells the truth. If you can I
>>>can show you a bridge in Broklyn that needs to be sold.
>>
>> Yes. I am. No other politician can go to war. The President
>> is the only national leader we have.
>Any politician can go to war, all he has to do is become president
>(OK so we exclude Arnold).
Now *that* made my head spin. I assume that you are agreeing
that only the president can go to war
>What that entails in the case of Bush is
>having a bunch of loony activist scaring people and playing dirty
>politics to get their man in office. So americans don't have the
>resolve stop it. We eat dirty junky food, we watch smutty crap on TV,
>we allow ourselves to become stupified gluttons and so the smut of
>these political campaigns is not enough to stop us from voting for
>the smut generators. We believe in what the moral activist say but we
>somehow don't realize that they do act as what they say people should
>act. America is a cesspool of hypocrisy and the bigger problem is
>that it is not a secret anymore, the rest of the world has tapped
>into this and exploit it for their agenda.
I generally agree with all that, except I'd not use the
word "smut" -- I have an even worse term. But never mind
that.
One reason why folks are turned off is that they are tired
of being sold the Brooklyn Bridge. Individuals feel totally
powerless. It is a bad situation.
On the other hand there have been candidates who have spoken
the truth. Nobody wants to hear it. My favorite examples
are those who complain bitterly about local taxes and then,
when they are cut, complain bitterly about the lack of
local services.
> Let us face the fact, when you are young you are democratic, you
>want the system to be fair and efficient. But most americans who vote
>are older, they don't care if the pass huge debt onto the next
>generation, they want their tax cuts now, before they die, even
>though it was the baffoons they elected to office in the last
>generation that ran the debt. If you ask an honest republican he will
>say exactly this, but then add 'if we hadn't funded welfare the debt
>would not have accumulated' never mentioning the wasteful military
>spending of the 80s and 90s. So we are wealthy, and so we are greedy
>and want to keep all the wealth in our control and so we want someone
>like Bush, a fool, a triggerfinger. So this is what america deserves,
>live with it. You don't like it run for office. This is the same
>thing I told that whining father whose son refused to serve under the
>UN. Just because his son was in the armed forces or because he served
>for 20 years means nothing, military rule is military rule and
>political rule is political rule. If you think things are way wrong
>run for office, if you win change the rules because people agree with
>you.
I can't agree with this though I do agree with the emotion
behind it. The choices can not be either accept it or run
for office.
There are many intermediate positions. One is to try very
hard to get more information out there for the public to see.
I want more hard questions. I want the President and many
other top officials to have to stand up in front of people
who will ask hard questions and not accept dollops of sugar
cream as answers.
To me that's one advantage of the British system. Blair had
to stand up to some withering criticism in Parliment. Bush
has never had to answer any particular hard questions.
Even the format of the "Presidential Debates" during election
time is basically useless. I'd like to see each candidate
interviewed separately with NO advanced peek at the quesions
and no softball questions at all. Let Republicans prepare
the questions for Democrats and vice versa.
Folks might vote differently.
>>>> In the modern world I do not think this is a good arrangement.
>>
>>>As opposed to monarchy?
>>
>> Oh come on. Every western nation has a democracy, none
>> are functioning monarchies, and all function quite well.
>> I specified a parliamentary system in what I wrote. Do
>> you have something against them?
>
>I actually think Japan would have a better political system if the
>Emperor were to return to power, make him the minister of culture and
>give him the ability to speak. There is nothing inately wrong with a
>monarchy, the problem with government is corruption, societies in
>which groups of people do not respect other groups of peoples have
>corrupt governements. Many of Bush's supporters are either overt
>racist or cryptoracist they would do anything to thwart the upward
>mobility of minorities or the poor. Since we allow this to enter our
>government we have corruption. Isreal has a democracy, a democracy
>that is approximately a fascist state in which one half of the
>population has no rights, in which the name of the game is a holy
>land grab. Russia has a fascist democracy. Englands parlimentary
>system is slow to reform.
Again, too many statements. I will say that one fundamental
error made in the Constitution was to make the same individual
both head of government and head of state. That's the role
of a functioning monarch.
Most nations have a ceremonial head of state, usually a
respected person who can draw the nation together. That's
the person who shows up at state funerals, museum openings,
gala parties, etc.
The head of government is just another human being who has
a job to do and should spend his time doing it.
> Democracy is an abstraction that is never fullfilled. We don't
>trust ourselves, as with Samuel we defer our opinions to
>representatives, we defer our might to an administrator. The
>judiciary is probably the only body within our government that
>abstractly serves its function best. The house of representatives are
>a bunch of local yocals who are not statesmen. The Senate will better
>behaving is probably the best example of service is not fairly
>representative of the US population.
That's a bit cynical. You aren't old enough to be that
cynical. That's my job.
>>>I tell you something, I live in Bush's
>>>backyard, people were talking about Iraq, the need to invade, it
>>>was a very popular notion.
>>
>> Of course it was a popular notion. As you know the notion
>> arose from a carefully watered bed of confusion, misleading
>> charges, and downright lies.
>No! People though Saddam was the great unconquered evil who thumbed
>his nose at the US. They beleive he needed to go. I begged many of
>the question to bushes supporters before the war. 'DO you know what
>the US is getting into, do you realize that Saddam is the thumb in
>the Dike, however gangrenous the thumb is. Do you realize that there
>are equal or greater evils in the world. I was insulted by many
>people, called a liberal and many other names.
I do understand what you are saying. McCall and Patterson still
dislike me intensely for having similar opinions.
By the way, being called a "liberal" isn't really a bad thing.
It is a good and useful term that has been redefined for
political reasons.
>Even though they could
>provide no convincing argument for war, they wanted Saddam out. They
>had their man in office, and they wanted him to do as they pleased.
>Its been over 2 years since this conflict has begun, and only now are
>people beginning to see the light. Yes, I was decieved, just like
>everyone else, but I did not feel that war was the right call, but I
>know many americans who were leading the charge. One colonel that I
>knew agreed with everything I said, but insisted that it was right to
>take Sadam out, I asked him how long he thought intensive troop
>levels would be in Iraq, and he said 10 years. You must know what
>that cost is going to be and to still support it. _This_ is the
>problem with America, when you are poor you never thing about going
>in to this kind of quagmire, but we are Socrates Athenians.
Look, there is no question that the entire war thing is going
to go down in history as one of the great screw-ups of US
history.
If you had been reading alt.history.british at the time you'd
have seen some of us making the points you are making in the
months before the war began. Why do you think many of the loons
hate me? It rots their socks that we were right.
How did I get so smart? I've got a bit of a checkered
career. If you've googled me you know this. Part of
what I do is try to keep up on things like the history
of the Middle Ages. That's led me to pay some attention
over the years to the Middle East. One can't understand
what goes on there without some background, just as the
development of the US can not be understood without knowing
about the history of England and France (among others).
We were not forced into war with Iraq. There was time
for a full congressional debate and a formal declaration
of war of the sort that Real Men make when they go to war.
We can argue about whether the Democrats would have raised
much objection, but at least the public would have had some
idea that there was a war on.
I'm also a strong opponent of any war fought on the side
with the pretense that the home front can go on as usual.
If you are going to fight a war, mobilize. Draft enough
soldiers, organize industry to produced the weapons needed,
and get the home folks to make sacrifices.
If they won't make sacrifices, they won't back your war.
>> With almost nobody asking tough questions and the few that
>> did branded as "Saddam lovers", of course the idea was popular.
>I was called something similar to this. The bathist are fascist, same
>as the Nazis they are evil, but by the same token Iraq should not
>exist, Tito could be called a fascist also, but what forces did he
>keep at bay in Yugoslavia. If you go in with the falacy that you can
>liberate Iraq and all of a sudden people will join hands and rejoice,
>you don't understand the middle east well.
We will have to ask those in the Bush administration if they'd
ever read a book about the Middle East.
>The bible says if a man
>commits a sin against another man, the sin will be remembered for 7
>generations and 77 generations, this is not a prediction, it is an
>observation.
I understand. It tends to run longer in some areas than
others. Arabs, for example, keep the medieval crusades
very much alive in their schools and every day life.
We should have known this.
> The US is allies with Turkey, France and England, but the fact of
>the matter is we should have told all three to go to hell, Carved the
>country into 4 sections, trained those that allied with us armed
>them, and if the bathist attack let them annihalate them. You cannot
>play tiddly winks on the 50 yard line in the middle of a football
>game, someone will step on your head and wonder if there was a soft
>spot in the turf. If you don't have the resolve to do what needs to
>be done, you don't go to war. Plain and simple.
I don't agree about our allies. We need allies. We cannot
go it alone. We are too dependent on others for supplies,
intelligence, and money for that.
> The truth of Iraq is that the English and French created fascist
>governments in the Middle east because they set out to disrespect
>cultural and ethnic boundaries when they created states.
Sure, but don't be too harsh. They did what was the
best practice then. They tried to create states that
had some economic and geographic viability.
But yes, the also let short-term goals take precedence.
>Its not our
>problem, they did the carving, they should go in and fix the problem
>and apologize for what they did. And then the british should
>apologize to the palestinians for tricking them and cheating the
>repeatedly take on Isreal and give the palestinian lands back to the
>palestinians, because this was not done by barbarians on the end of
>the earth, it was done for the world to see the league of nations
>published everything, the mandates were a fraud, a cheat. The United
>Nations told Britian to fix palestine and they walked out instigating
>a war and allowing Israel to continue Britians policy essentially
>unchecked.
You are too focussed on Israel. Our problems in the Middle
East have little to do with Israel despite the efforts of
various Middle Eastern groups to make it seem that way.
Our problems with the Middle East were bin Laden and our
dependence on oil. These were not initially linked.
Practically nobody objected to our war in Afghanistan.
But we did not finish the job.
That war had nothing to do with Israel. Neither does
bin Laden who only throws in anti-Israeli comments to
keep the fires going. His aim is to establish his
exceptionally conservative view of Islam all over the
Islamic world. His major enemies are other Islamic
states and the nations of the west that he sees as
supporting them.
>This propoganda war the US is fighting abroad we are
>loosing, the reason we are loosing because we are not honest. Saddam
>Huseins party came to power because to of the Arab-Israeli conflict
>and as long as that conflict exists peoples will not evolve
>culturally and deal with deeper problems.
This is not true. Saddam came to power for other
reasons entirely. Check the history of Iraq since
its modern formation. You can find good sources on
the web.
>The US is not the one to
>correct these problems, we cow before Israel, Bush bows to Sharon.
Calm youself.
Daddy was right. Had we gone ahead we'd have had the same
problem we have now. Daddy knew that and said as much in
his book on his presidency.
[much left out -- post too long already]
----- Paul J. Gans
David Johnson
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding.
>
> In soc.history.medieval Philip Deitiker <Donev...@worlnet.att.net>
> wrote:
[snip]
> I generally agree with all that, except I'd not use the
> word "smut" -- I have an even worse term. But never mind
> that.
>
> One reason why folks are turned off is that they are tired
> of being sold the Brooklyn Bridge. Individuals feel totally
> powerless. It is a bad situation.
True. For a quarter-century I carefully examined all the voting material,
picked who I felt would be the best candidate and voted for them. Net
result: In twenty-five years I elected exactly nobody. Not a one. No
candidate I voted for from City Councilman to President ever one.
Finally, in 2000 I changed my strategy - for President, at least - and
voted for the lesser of two evils rather than the best candidate as I
felt it was important that the _greater_ of two evils didn't get in.*
And, Glory Be, for the first time ever, the candidate I voted for
actually got the most votes...
...and he _still_ didn't win...
I haven't bothered to vote since. It may take a quarter-century, but
eventually even _I_ can recognize a windmill when I'm tilting at it.
> On the other hand there have been candidates who have spoken
> the truth. Nobody wants to hear it. My favorite examples
> are those who complain bitterly about local taxes and then,
> when they are cut, complain bitterly about the lack of
> local services.
Equally true. An honest candidate would have to say "you can't have
everything you want - and what you _do_ get will cost something." You'll
never win an election _that_ way.
David
* And I was right, wasn't I.
David Johnson
news:Xns96DA7C06EF6BCtr...@207.217.125.201:
ever _won_, of course...
David
Paul J Gans
>[snip]
>David
<grin>
But don't give up the ship and all that stuff. Cynicism
won't get you the government you want either.
My luck at the polls has been just as bad, except that
I once voted for Reagan and he won. That was, in the
end, worse.
I think that much of this starts on a local level.
Folks pay almost no attention, but they ritualistically
gripe at the usual things: high property taxes, bad
roads, lousy schools, etc., but they don't care enough
even to go to a local council meeting.
Democracy is that form of government where people get
what they voted for.
----- Paul J. Gans
am...@hotmail.com
Paul J Gans wrote:
> But don't give up the ship and all that stuff. Cynicism
> won't get you the government you want either.
Nothing will give you such a goverment unless you have financial (or
other)
ties with one bunch of the politicians and, as a result, have a vested
interest
in them winning over another bunch.
Smart and really big businesses tend to give to both sides so that they
almost
always end up with a goverment they want.
>
> My luck at the polls has been just as bad, except that
> I once voted for Reagan and he won. That was, in the
> end, worse.
Not if you look a little bit beyond your nose. RR was _very_
instrumental in
destroying the SU for which _I_ personally very grateful to him. :-)
>
> I think that much of this starts on a local level.
Did not know that either Senior or Junior Clowns from MA ever been
members of a
city council ...
> Folks pay almost no attention, but they ritualistically
> gripe at the usual things: high property taxes, bad
> roads, lousy schools, etc., but they don't care enough
> even to go to a local council meeting.
Which would be patently pointless because they don't have a right to
vote on
such a meeting. Actually, screwing you up starts on a level of your
condo (if
you live in one): the trustees can (and usually do) safely ignore
whatever you
are saying.
And, what _is_ interesting is that as soon as you elected some
seemingly nice
person into a position of even minimal power, he/she will almost
immediately
change behavior on one of a complete a--hole.
>
> Democracy is that form of government where people get
> what they voted for.
This is not completely true. To start with, legislature can just ignore
people's
direct vote (for example, in MA it simply cancelled cutting of the
taxes voted
by the people).
Then, people may not vote for a certain crook but it does not mean that
he will
not win because even more people would not vote for his competitor.
Not to mention that a well-trenched politician can raise enough of a
support
(and money) to make competition impractical.
William Black
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dh1nnj$3fr$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> My luck at the polls has been just as bad, except that
> I once voted for Reagan and he won. That was, in the
> end, worse.
>
> I think that much of this starts on a local level.
> Folks pay almost no attention, but they ritualistically
> gripe at the usual things: high property taxes, bad
> roads, lousy schools, etc., but they don't care enough
> even to go to a local council meeting.
>
> Democracy is that form of government where people get
> what they voted for.
Somebody once said 'People get the government they deserve'.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Philip Deitiker
> Yes, but until 1917 they were all wars confined to North
> America as I said above. The one exception, the Spanish-
> American war is a picky business. It wasn't really a war,
> the Spanish Empire being a hollow shell. But we can
> change 1917 to 1898 if you wish.
The distinction is trivial
>>>>The president may have too much responsibility in the 20th
>>>>century. Some have argued that there should be 2 ministers, a
>>>>interior minister and foriegn minister. Possibly 2 vice
>>>>presidents with obligations in the Senate removed. This
>>>>country has a stronger presidency today since WWI. What
>>>>happened to the league of nations?
>>>
>>> That's several questions. I'd be more happy if the President
>>> had to answer hard questions. I have no doubt that if that
>>> were the case we'd *still* be in Iraq (look at Tony Blair),
>>> but now the questions would be coming fast and furious.
>
>>He will answer questions when his voter base ask him to answer
>>questions and not a moment before. he does not exist in a
>>vacuum, there are alot of rather hard-line conservatives in his
>>voter base who don't think conservatism should answer to anyone.
>
> That's impractical. One is asked only one question: will
> you vote for this candidate or not. There is no opportunity
> to get a candidate to speak out on issues that may be of
> interest to many people.
Its a problem but his supporters favor ignorance, they get what they
ask for.
>>Any politician can go to war, all he has to do is become
>>president (OK so we exclude Arnold).
>
> Now *that* made my head spin. I assume that you are agreeing
> that only the president can go to war.
The president is a politician that can go to war, he is not a
monarch, he is elected amoung other politicians, basically, by his
political party to represent that part amoung the poeple and if
elected takes up the executive powers of the government. No polician
in this country has appeared from nowhere, they all came from one
machine or another.
> I generally agree with all that, except I'd not use the
> word "smut" -- I have an even worse term. But never mind
> that.
>
> One reason why folks are turned off is that they are tired
> of being sold the Brooklyn Bridge. Individuals feel totally
> powerless. It is a bad situation.
And this differs from Socrates how? Laws of Mass action combined with
the emotive aspects of human evolution create a situation which allow
the emotions to dominate in society, mob rule, until something very
strong knocks them upside the head (recession, ruthless ruler, a
great catastrophe), and they humble themselves to the wisdom of ages
and serve society instead of themselves.
> On the other hand there have been candidates who have spoken
> the truth. Nobody wants to hear it. My favorite examples
> are those who complain bitterly about local taxes and then,
> when they are cut, complain bitterly about the lack of
> local services.
Cut taxes at national level, raise taxes at state level, lower taxes
at state level raise taxes for municipalities and school districts.
Alternatively create massive amounts of debt and interest that must
be repaid requiring even more taxes.
The core of the tax cutters are people close to retirement age who
have large incomes and realize their descendants and not them will
have to pay it back.
> There are many intermediate positions. One is to try very
> hard to get more information out there for the public to see.
> I want more hard questions.
Why? Take a look at Roberts, he's going to be the chief justice and
he has managed to find 1000 ways to avoid answering questions like a
defendant in an interoggation room. The republicans
llllloooovvvvveeee that.
> To me that's one advantage of the British system. Blair had
> to stand up to some withering criticism in Parliment. Bush
> has never had to answer any particular hard questions.
Because, his religious fundementalist evangelical base need only
faith to vote, they don't need information, thats a distraction they
think comes from the devil. Got it. Change them and you will change
the president.
>>corruption. Isreal has a democracy, a democracy that is
>>approximately a fascist state in which one half of the
>>population has no rights, in which the name of the game is a
>>holy land grab. Russia has a fascist democracy. Englands
>>parlimentary system is slow to reform.
>
> Again, too many statements. I will say that one fundamental
> error made in the Constitution was to make the same individual
> both head of government and head of state. That's the role
> of a functioning monarch.
The buck stops here. Someone needs to orchestrate the government and
its agencies.
> Most nations have a ceremonial head of state, usually a
> respected person who can draw the nation together. That's
> the person who shows up at state funerals, museum openings,
> gala parties, etc.
You would actually be surprised who important the emperor has been in
keeping a unified and defendable Japan. The largest naval army that
existed ever came upon Japan under Khan. Japan defeated this army and
sent it running. The most important job their emperor performs is to
set a cultural standard and present as a cultural icon. Superficially
trivial in the short term, extremely important over the long haul.
>>statesmen. The Senate will better behaving is probably the best
>>example of service is not fairly representative of the US
>>population.
>
> That's a bit cynical. You aren't old enough to be that
> cynical. That's my job.
> By the way, being called a "liberal" isn't really a bad thing.
> It is a good and useful term that has been redefined for
> political reasons.
I'm not a liberal, Im indepedent, I vote according to the person.
I was raised in west Texas under a prickly pear by rattlesnakes.
> Look, there is no question that the entire war thing is going
> to go down in history as one of the great screw-ups of US
> history.
Yes, and the fault lies in the arrogance of this nation.
> hate me? It rots their socks that we were right.
I don't argue anymore, I just bet people money. Glenlevit for a
serious bet.
> I understand. It tends to run longer in some areas than
> others. Arabs, for example, keep the medieval crusades
> very much alive in their schools and every day life.
>
> We should have known this.
Yes, we need to learn to walk as if we are on rice paper.
> I don't agree about our allies. We need allies. We cannot
> go it alone. We are too dependent on others for supplies,
> intelligence, and money for that.
Then we should not have gone to war.
> Sure, but don't be too harsh. They did what was the
> best practice then. They tried to create states that
> had some economic and geographic viability.
>
> But yes, the also let short-term goals take precedence.
If not them to correct the problem who? US? why us?
> You are too focussed on Israel. Our problems in the Middle
> East have little to do with Israel despite the efforts of
> various Middle Eastern groups to make it seem that way.
Isreal has stalled social evolution in the middle east, its a major
problem, it is the most important problem in the middle east as long
as they have a scapegoat they don't have to look at themselves.
>>Because the beleived daddy bush failed. The timing was ripe, we
>>had his army and his guard in our grips we could have crushed
>>them and scattered them to the four winds, but we choose to back
>>out, and when he rebuilt he built an army that was much more a
>>guerrila army than a conventional army, we knew that.
>
> Daddy was right. Had we gone ahead we'd have had the same
> problem we have now. Daddy knew that and said as much in
> his book on his presidency.
Then he should have taken the oil feilds in the south an created a
nation out of it, taken the oil feilds in the north and created
kurdistan and leave the Bathist to beg to these to for their
survival.
Philip Deitiker
news:Xns96DA7C06EF6BCtr...@207.217.125.201:
> True. For a quarter-century I carefully examined all the voting
> material, picked who I felt would be the best candidate and
> voted for them. Net result: In twenty-five years I elected
> exactly nobody. Not a one. No candidate I voted for from City
> Councilman to President ever one.
My vote used to count, until that prick Tom Delay came and farted all
over the Texas Legislature. What comes around goes around, eventually
all his little dirty tricks and megalomanical schemes will catch him
will he bent over.
Philip Deitiker
> David Johnson <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:Xns96DA7C06EF6BCtr...@207.217.125.201:
>>No candidate I voted for from City Councilman to President ever
>>one.
>
> ever _won_, of course...
eber wan, obi wan
Glenallan
"David Johnson" <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96DA7C06EF6BCtr...@207.217.125.201...
Glenallan
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dh1sas$i75$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
Glenallan
"Philip Deitiker" <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:47%Ye.302694$5N3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Glenallan
Philip Deitiker
news:1127508927....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>
>> But don't give up the ship and all that stuff. Cynicism
>> won't get you the government you want either.
>
> Nothing will give you such a goverment unless you have financial
> (or other)
> ties with one bunch of the politicians and, as a result, have a
> vested interest
> in them winning over another bunch.
> Smart and really big businesses tend to give to both sides so
> that they almost
> always end up with a goverment they want.
Well, hmm let me thing, I pay taxes and those taxes go to pay
congressman and presidents salaries. Therefore if I don't get what I
want I should remove that amount of revenue from my taxes, and report
that is why they are getting $2.30 cents less than they expected,
with a list of things I thought the government did really wrong.
If you pay special money to public officials to fight the enemy you
become the enemy.
Philip Deitiker
news:dh1sas$i75$1...@news.freedom2surf.net:
> Somebody once said 'People get the government they deserve'.
In that case we have the best government that money can buy.
Little Anecdote here, during the evacuation of the surge zones the
federal government was supposed to make sure all gas tanks along the
route had gas, that would be governer Perry, who assumed office when
Bush flew to become president. This was part of the states evacuation
plan, instead the State, one of the richest states in the country,
forgot it was supposed to find and deliver gasoline. Droves of people
ran out of gas, the death toll is probably about 5 per county along
the way, not to mention that a bus that was on the road for 24 hours
blew up south of Dallas. IN the case of Louisiana and Texas both
governers have DROPPED the ball. This is the governship that
generated Bush, so one does not need to wonder why he makes such poor
administrative decision. Although Clinton came from one of the
poorest states. There is a lesson here. If you come from an
incredibly poor state but you do a pretty good job with little money,
that better than coming from a mediocre state and doing what appears
to be a better than average job.
David Johnson
[snip]
> Democracy is that form of government where people get
> what they voted for.
Really? I never have...
David
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:dh1nnj$3fr$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> My luck at the polls has been just as bad, except that
>> I once voted for Reagan and he won. That was, in the
>> end, worse.
>>
>> I think that much of this starts on a local level.
>> Folks pay almost no attention, but they ritualistically
>> gripe at the usual things: high property taxes, bad
>> roads, lousy schools, etc., but they don't care enough
>> even to go to a local council meeting.
>>
>> Democracy is that form of government where people get
>> what they voted for.
>Somebody once said 'People get the government they deserve'.
Yeah. I often say that. I was trying for a new twist
on it.
- ---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
What's the matter? You don't like being gerrymandered
by a crook?
We are much more sophisticated in New York
----- Paul J. Gans
James Beck
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> says in
>news:dh1i0p$7v7$1...@reader1.panix.com:
[snip]
>
>Because, his religious fundementalist evangelical base need only
>faith to vote, they don't need information, thats a distraction they
>think comes from the devil. Got it. Change them and you will change
>the president.
Optimist.
Reveal the President and his policies, and some of them may change
their vote, though.
Philip Deitiker
Yeah, you get gerrymandered by the Mob. lol.
Philip Deitiker
news:dmh9j1lgit690moje...@4ax.com:
>
> Optimist.
>
> Reveal the President and his policies, and some of them may
> change their vote, though.
>
Not enough to matter.
James Beck
He didn't win by *that* much.
Philip Deitiker
Kerry had more than any other incumbant ever, and he still lost.
It was a valiant effort, however the bush loyalist realized W might
loose and they got out the vote. He is in no more trouble now than
then, the only difference is that the Bush supporters can pull out
all stops. You have to break the will of the supporters, something
needs to shatter them, that they know the cause be wrong.
am...@hotmail.com
Philip Deitiker wrote:
> am...@hotmail.com says in
> news:1127508927....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Paul J Gans wrote:
> >
> >
> >> But don't give up the ship and all that stuff. Cynicism
> >> won't get you the government you want either.
> >
> > Nothing will give you such a goverment unless you have financial
> > (or other)
> > ties with one bunch of the politicians and, as a result, have a
> > vested interest
> > in them winning over another bunch.
> > Smart and really big businesses tend to give to both sides so
> > that they almost
> > always end up with a goverment they want.
>
> Well, hmm let me thing, I pay taxes and those taxes go to pay
> congressman and presidents salaries.
And the salaries of all beurocratists, big and small...
>Therefore if I don't get what I
> want I should remove that amount of revenue from my taxes, and report
> that is why they are getting $2.30 cents less than they expected,
> with a list of things I thought the government did really wrong.
You can definitely try but "goverment" on all levels has tools to
extract these money from you regardless of your wishes. Part of the
game
is that people who live off your taxes are making the rules. One of the
rules they made is that not to pay taxes is illegal.
> If you pay special money to public officials to fight the enemy
You mean _your_ enemy?
>you
> become the enemy.
?
I think that this is not as much about 'fighting the enemy' as about
fighting for your interests. For example, if you are a trial lwyer,
you will be interested in absense of any limits on the rewards granted
and in the laws which would expand field of a litigation.
Paul J Gans
>James Beck <jbe...@nyc.rr.com> says in
>news:nl4cj1lf0f6ck7v4k...@4ax.com:
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 01:35:06 GMT, Philip Deitiker
>> <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>James Beck <jbe...@nyc.rr.com> says in
>>>news:dmh9j1lgit690moje...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Optimist.
>>>>
>>>> Reveal the President and his policies, and some of them may
>>>> change their vote, though.
>>>>
>>>Not enough to matter.
>>
>> He didn't win by *that* much.
>>
>Kerry had more than any other incumbant ever, and he still lost.
>It was a valiant effort, however the bush loyalist realized W might
>loose and they got out the vote. He is in no more trouble now than
>then, the only difference is that the Bush supporters can pull out
>all stops. You have to break the will of the supporters, something
>needs to shatter them, that they know the cause be wrong.
Get them to read a newspaper?
----- Paul J. Gans
Philip Deitiker
>>now than then, the only difference is that the Bush supporters
>>can pull out all stops. You have to break the will of the
>>supporters, something needs to shatter them, that they know the
>>cause be wrong.
>
> Get them to read a newspaper?
Have you read the Houston Chronical?
am...@hotmail.com
Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
> Kerry had more than any other incumbant ever,
Whaaaaaat?
He had nothing except extremely rich wife who proved to be rather a
liability because quite a few people had been irritated by a sight
of a self-important, rude, rich bitch.
Sorry, I forgot. He also had a pair of well-developed lungs. But he
did not use them for anything besides saying "I have a plan!". No
specifics on anything, a clear inability to pursue the same line of
thought to the end of a single sentence and an extremely unimpressive
record as a senator (just a puppy who starts yapping when Ted barks).
His military record was quite unimpressive comparing to one of the
loosers like Dole, Papa Bush or McCain (who, BTW, was a much greater
entertainment).
Having a trial laywer as a co-runner probably did not help.
>and he still lost.
> It was a valiant effort,
What was 'valliant' about this effort? He was not risking anything,
including his senatorial post.
>however the bush loyalist realized W might
> loose and they got out the vote.
I suspect that the issue could be not as much loyalty to Bush as a
perspective to have a Dukakoid as a president. Of course, close
association with a Senior Clown from MA, immediately put him into
'Extreme Left' category, which scared center away (did it for me
even if I suspected and still suspect that the guy is simply a
very successful gigolo intended to enjoy life as much as possible;
well, being from MA, he mingles with a wrong crowd).
>He is in no more trouble now than
> then, the only difference is that the Bush supporters can pull out
> all stops. You have to break the will of the supporters,
Probably you did not have this intention but it sounds a little bit
too macabre.
>something
> needs to shatter them,
Concentration camps?
>that they know the cause be wrong.
How do you know that the 'cause' <whatever this cause is> is wrong
and that <whatever your cause is> is right? Actually, attitude like
this can easily land more people into the camp of your opponent:
quite a few people don't like to be told what is and what is not
right unless they are told that what they thing is right _is_ right.
The only thing that can change opinion of the ...er... "masses" is
an appeal to their self-interest. But the problem for the Dems is that
they are offering very little in these terms. What they are talking
about? Abortions (except for those who have fixed opinion one way or
another, who really cares). 'Tax cut for the rich'. Sure, but the
problem is that they do not offer anything targeted to the middle class
and when they do, their "middle" is too low to be appealing to the
most of working people. BTW, even on this issue their position is not
very strong because none of these rich 'fighters for the people' said:
'I got tax break which I did not need and I paid taxes on a higher
bracket'. _I_ would vote for such a guy. Romney (governor of MA) at
least refused at accept governor's salary.
am...@hotmail.com
Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> Get them to read a newspaper?
The big ones like NYT and the BG are loosing subscriptions because
quite
a few people are fed up with being fed one-sided propaganda. And, with
Internet, you can hardly maintain control over information.