Schell's decision, in retrospect
Stark
celebration now looks like an overreaction and a bad idea.
It was rather depressing watching all those other cities across the planet
celebrating New Years with huge gatherings and such, while most of us were
left to sit at home and watch it on tv. There's nothing quite so lame as
watching fireworks on tv.
It's hard to really believe that our city was in so much more danger than
any other city on the planet that the big party at the Needle had to be
cancelled.
>I< went to a cool party for New Years eve, so I didn't personally miss out.
But Seattle has symbolically moved into the future cowering in fear. And
our leadership was so traumatized by WTO week, and their own bungled
mishandling of it, that they're now apparently afraid that if any group of
Seattleites gets together in public we'll all start rioting.
Stark
Mike
Year's Eve problems. He's made Seattle look pretty pathetic. He's obviously
incompetent.
Stark wrote in message <386d...@news2.foxinternet.net>...
boydn...@seanet.com
>
> Shell blew it by underestimating the WTO fiasco, and overestimating the New
> Year's Eve problems. He's made Seattle look pretty pathetic. He's obviously
> incompetent.
It kills me to say this because I thought Schell was a moron when you
all were first voting him into powerful office. But; how could you
possibly know that -this- cancellation was wrong?
Have -you- conferred with the BATF and FBI? Do you -know- that the
"cedible terrorist threat" the FBI saw for the center would have been
cancelled or somehow not happen if the center was crowded? Yes, I agree
that Schell had proven his incompetence but that proof has been in most
of his public actions -other- then this one.
Also, lets give credit where credit is due to all of the self
contradictory media reports here. CBS news (national) the day he
announced the closure started their segment on seattle saying "seattle
has cancelled it's new years celebration". Rediculous, nobody told me I
couldn't show up at a friends, and oddly enough when I did, there was a
whole collection of happy people who also didn't realize there wasn't
supposed to be any celebration in Seattle. And to CBS credit they did
spend the substance of the segment (if any news today can be said to
have substance) explaining that it was the center that was closed.
He cancelled a dance and a bonfire, we should all get over it (and
persecute him for his -really- bad decisions).
boydn...@seanet.com
Tim Crowley
mayor playing dictator one too many times.
He obvioously can't lead. He should step down in disgrace.
----------
Stark
> It kills me to say this because I thought Schell was a moron when you
> all were first voting him into powerful office. But; how could you
> possibly know that -this- cancellation was wrong?
> Have -you- conferred with the BATF and FBI? Do you -know- that the
> "cedible terrorist threat" the FBI saw for the center would have been
> cancelled or somehow not happen if the center was crowded?
First of all, the FBI were not reporting any evidence that the Seattle
Center was to be attacked. The mayor said something to the effect that
"even if there is the slightest chance that something might happen, we
should close the seattle center".
And (again admitting that hindsight is 20/20):
Terrorists didn't blow up or attack anything around Seattle (or anywhere
else, I believe). If they had been planning to set off explosives at the
Space Needle, but were thwarted by the closing of the Seattle Center, they'd
have just blown something else up. There were plenty of groups of people
all around Seattle, plenty of buildings and such to attack, but no attack
took place.
It would actually have been much more difficult to attack the space needle,
with all the security around it, than to attack people out in the street or
at a nightclub or wherever else. There were various parks crammed with
people who were watching the fireworks from a distance, these parks had no
security at all and could have been attacked easily.
Since no attack took place, we can safely assume that none would have taken
place had the seattle center remained open.
Stark
Travis Pahl
lets Seattle make our own decision. We are adults you know. We do not
need to be treated like children.
Travis Pahl
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000 boydn...@seanet.com wrote:
>Mike wrote:
>>
>> Shell blew it by underestimating the WTO fiasco, and overestimating the New
>> Year's Eve problems. He's made Seattle look pretty pathetic. He's obviously
>> incompetent.
>
>It kills me to say this because I thought Schell was a moron when you
>all were first voting him into powerful office. But; how could you
>possibly know that -this- cancellation was wrong?
>Have -you- conferred with the BATF and FBI? Do you -know- that the
>"cedible terrorist threat" the FBI saw for the center would have been
Clave
news:386e...@news2.foxinternet.net...
<...>
> Since no attack took place, we can safely assume that none would have
taken
> place had the seattle center remained open.
Um, how do you figure?
Jim
The Voice of Bay Ridge
and if so, it was a threat that should have been dealt with. If you have a
competent police force, and a mayor that knows what he is doing, that
should not be a problem.
Every other major city in the US, and the world, had its celebration with
no significant problem. I walked in Times Square before midnight, and let me
tell you, none of us were afraid.
Schell is a moral coward, and his decision was " cover your ass ".
governance at its finest. He and the police who went along with the decison
to hide should be mocked without mercy, driven from office, then driven out
of town.
How did this guy become mayor of a city like Seattle anyway?
MorganPark
>any other city on the planet that the big party at the Needle had to be
>cancelled.
No city in the world is more terrorist prone than the cities of Bethlehem and
Jursalem are- and they HAD their celebrations.
Kev in Atlanta GA USA
SCN User
In a previous article, Sta...@foxinternet.net ("Stark") says:
>Hindsight being 20/20, Paul Schell's decision to cancel the Space Needle
>celebration now looks like an overreaction and a bad idea.
Also found out where the guy that is the head of "INVESTIGATING" the WTO
"riots" stands. Compton came out in support of Schell, so you can guess
how much effort HE will put into investigating. Out for HIM the next
time around too!
>It was rather depressing watching all those other cities across the planet
>celebrating New Years with huge gatherings and such, while most of us were
>left to sit at home and watch it on tv. There's nothing quite so lame as
>watching fireworks on tv.
Perhaps there is a good side to this; perhaps SOME people and some
conventions that were thinking of coming here will change their minds and
stay away! After all, business wants to locate in a "world class" city.
Seattle has proved NOT to be one.
>It's hard to really believe that our city was in so much more danger than
>any other city on the planet that the big party at the Needle had to be
>cancelled.
It wasn't in any more danger. . . . .Hey if terrorists want to come here
a wreak havoc there is no way to stop them! Think about how long the
border with Canada is and how little of it is coveered by patrols. I
could come in from Canada countless ways and I sure as hell wouldn't pick
a populated area to cross the border!
>But Seattle has symbolically moved into the future cowering in fear. And
>our leadership was so traumatized by WTO week, and their own bungled
>mishandling of it, that they're now apparently afraid that if any group of
>Seattleites gets together in public we'll all start rioting.
Well, wehat can you expect from people that ignor warning signs? If you
knew I were a kleptomanic and a firebug would you invite me into your
home? Schell did!!
shishi
--
"America is at that awkard stage. It's
too late to work within the system, but too
early to shoot the bastards."
Claire Wolfe
Bhikku
Tim Crowley <tcro...@olywa.net> wrote in message
news:9Csb4.330$t4....@news6.giganews.com...
> Some of us find the freedom to assemble a very important right. We see
this
> mayor playing dictator one too many times.
That overreaction is even more dangerous than Schell's. The right to
peaceably assemble was in no way abridged.
> He obvioously can't lead. He should step down in disgrace.
No thanks. I'd prefer he stay in office, continue his job to the end of
the term, and then suffer the fickle electorate's decision; not knuckle
under to public whining. First we hammer him for "caving" to terrorists,
then we demand he cave under public pressure and quit his job. I don't
want a mayor who gives up under any of these conditions.
Of all the important issues that face the mayor, we choose a decision
about a New Year's Eve party to be one of the most important to us. I
just don't understand that...
Travis Pahl
>> He obvioously can't lead. He should step down in disgrace.
>
>No thanks. I'd prefer he stay in office, continue his job to the end of
>the term, and then suffer the fickle electorate's decision; not knuckle
>under to public whining. First we hammer him for "caving" to terrorists,
>then we demand he cave under public pressure and quit his job. I don't
>want a mayor who gives up under any of these conditions.
>
>Of all the important issues that face the mayor, we choose a decision
>about a New Year's Eve party to be one of the most important to us. I
>just don't understand that...
>
It is not a decision about a New Years eve party. It is a series of
decisions that have lead to a degragation of civil rights.
Travis Pahl
Jim String
<Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante15.u.washington.edu>,
Travis Pahl wrote:
The really interesting thing is that there are a lot of Schell
defenders who go on and on about how the right to peaceably assemble
and freedom of speech weren't infringed by Schell's actions. Well, that
may be and then again maybe not. The point is that an awful lot of
people think that it was in fact an infringement of their civil rights,
regardless of whether they are correct or not.
It's sort of like avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. It
doesn't so much matter whether Schell's action _actually_ infringed
on people's civil rights, the fact is that many people think so. You
aren't going to "educate" them if they're wrong and people get very
vicious about it because civil rights must be constantly fought for
or lost. People understand that, or at least a lot of them do. Even
the two-digits that are out there. If you piss off all of the two-digits
you shouldn't expect a particularly rational or intelligent response.
Since the two-digits comprise approximately half of the population
by definition it is especially important for our representatives to
avoid even the appearance of violating our civil rights, in fact,
that's why America was designed by the Founders to be a constitutional
representative republic rather than a democracy.
Best,
Jim
Max Masters!!!
very few records left of this time. we need to create a hoax
so that at the next millennium seattle looks like it was the
*only* place to be. we can forge history!
Stark wrote:
>
> Hindsight being 20/20, Paul Schell's decision to cancel the Space Needle
> celebration now looks like an overreaction and a bad idea.
>
> It was rather depressing watching all those other cities across the planet
> celebrating New Years with huge gatherings and such, while most of us were
> left to sit at home and watch it on tv. There's nothing quite so lame as
> watching fireworks on tv.
>
> It's hard to really believe that our city was in so much more danger than
> any other city on the planet that the big party at the Needle had to be
> cancelled.
>
> >I< went to a cool party for New Years eve, so I didn't personally miss out.
> But Seattle has symbolically moved into the future cowering in fear. And
> our leadership was so traumatized by WTO week, and their own bungled
> mishandling of it, that they're now apparently afraid that if any group of
> Seattleites gets together in public we'll all start rioting.
>
> Stark
Max Masters!!!
Travis Pahl wrote:
>
> Even if he was correct, all he had to do was say what the dangers are and
> lets Seattle make our own decision. We are adults you know. We do not
> need to be treated like children.
hmmm. and if that info was a secret, then what?
Clave
news:38713098...@hotmail.com...
Well, dammit, <stamps his little feet> it just *shouldn't* be. I don't like
it, see?
Jim
Travis Pahl
>Travis Pahl wrote:
>>
>> Even if he was correct, all he had to do was say what the dangers are and
>> lets Seattle make our own decision. We are adults you know. We do not
>> need to be treated like children.
>
>hmmm. and if that info was a secret, then what?
>
Then i would have to ask why information concerning my safty is 'secret'.
But assuming there is a good reason, then all he has to say is there
reason for concern with out giving any specific details (as he did anyhow)
but not go as far as restricting peoples rights.
Travis Pahl
Hans_DounerBlaus
here.
"Bhikku" <TheB...@nospamaol.com> wrote in message
news:84qpu6$f3o$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
>
> Tim Crowley <tcro...@olywa.net> wrote in message
> news:9Csb4.330$t4....@news6.giganews.com...
> > Some of us find the freedom to assemble a very important right. We see
> this
> > mayor playing dictator one too many times.
>
> That overreaction is even more dangerous than Schell's. The right to
> peaceably assemble was in no way abridged.
>
Tim Crowley
There is only one reason I think he should step down, and that is because he
cannot lead. All he can do now is react.
----------
In article <84qpu6$f3o$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, "Bhikku"
Max Masters!!!
? what? he should just say "we are not going to do it
for good reasons i won't discuss" and you'd be happy
about that? maybe the info is so sensitive that he
can't even allude to it? there was an arrest made
today i think so it's entirely possible that he
*couldn't* discuss all of the reasons and only gave
the ones he could discuss. finally, how can he impose
the no people area without some kind restriction on
rights? (note this "restriction" is a matter of
degree.)
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center', and I
would have been happy.
Travis PAhl
Max Masters!!!
Travis Pahl wrote:
> He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
> needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center', and I
> would have been happy.
i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
understanding that there are risks. i agree with
that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
possible to fully inform the public of special risks
then you would say that we are all adults and we can
decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
Travis Pahl
That is what I am saying. I don't think you are confused. I think you
might be getting it...
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
>"Max Masters!!!" <nocon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:38716CC9...@hotmail.com...
>>
>> Travis Pahl wrote:
>>
>> > He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
>> > needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center', and
>I
>> > would have been happy.
>>
>> i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
>
>Neither can I...
>
>
>> ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
>> understanding that there are risks. i agree with
>> that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
>> possible to fully inform the public of special risks
>> then you would say that we are all adults and we can
>> decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
>
>Enough with the Scoratic method, wise guy. You aren't going to get Travis
>to admit (even though he knows) that there might be reasons *not* to fully
>inform the public. Trust me, Max. I've been down that road with him more
>than a few times and I know his limits.
>
I already understand that there may be reasons to not fully inform the
public. Details can and often are left out, but the seriousness and the
level of severity should not be left out.
I would have been happy with Mayor schell saying nothing MORE than he
aleady had. His warning was perfectly fine. It was his actions (closing
public land from the public) that I have a problem with.
Clave, You seem to be making an issue out of something I have already
agreed with you on. I have not once asked that the mayor say any EXTRA
information. So lets not try and divert the issue to something other than
what it is... That being the mayor treating us like children.
Travis
Clave
news:38716CC9...@hotmail.com...
>
> Travis Pahl wrote:
>
> > He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
> > needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center', and
I
> > would have been happy.
>
> i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
Neither can I...
> ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
> understanding that there are risks. i agree with
> that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
> possible to fully inform the public of special risks
> then you would say that we are all adults and we can
> decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
Enough with the Scoratic method, wise guy. You aren't going to get Travis
to admit (even though he knows) that there might be reasons *not* to fully
inform the public. Trust me, Max. I've been down that road with him more
than a few times and I know his limits.
Jim
Clave
news:Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante35.u.washington.edu...
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Max Masters!!! wrote:
> >
> >
> >> He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
> >> needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center',
and I
> >> would have been happy.
> >
> >i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
> >
> >understanding that there are risks. i agree with
> >that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
> >possible to fully inform the public of special risks
> >then you would say that we are all adults and we can
> >decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
>
> might be getting it...
What if it *isn't* possible to fully inform the public?
Jim
Clave
news:Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante35.u.washington.edu...
<...>
> I already understand that there may be reasons to not fully
> inform the public. Details can and often are left out, but
> the seriousness and the level of severity should not be
> left out.
Um, how can you communicate seriousness/severity without details?
> I would have been happy with Mayor schell saying nothing
> MORE than he aleady had. His warning was perfectly fine.
> It was his actions (closing public land from the public)
> that I have a problem with.
You're being petulant. You want what you want, and you can't accept the
possibility that there might be circumstances that dictated the closing of
the grounds without a full public disclosure of the reasons.
> Clave, You seem to be making an issue out of something
> I have already agreed with you on.
Don't try to make nice with me. As far as this issue goes, we've agreed on
nothing.
> I have not once asked that the mayor say any EXTRA
> information. So lets not try and divert the issue to
> something other than what it is... That being the mayor
> treating us like children.
And yet you admit that you're not in possession of the information that led
him to his decision.
I think your ignorance is as much of an issue as his decision.
Jim
Jim String
>
>Travis Pahl wrote:
>
>> He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
>> needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center', and I
>> would have been happy.
>
>i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
>
>ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
>understanding that there are risks. i agree with
>that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
>possible to fully inform the public of special risks
>then you would say that we are all adults and we can
>decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
Well, I'm curious about your opinions on the fact that (possibly SCOTUS
too) court rulings have consistently indicated that police have no
obligation whatsoever to protect us as individuals. They aren't even
obligated to answer 911 calls, in fact I've advised people to not say
anything if they have to call 911, just dial and drop the phone on
the floor. That way the cops can't "prioritize" the call, they have to
assume the worst and respond immediately. They'll probably change that
prioritization once they realize that people have a clue.
Schell has no obligation to protect people, people are responsible for
their own protection. Get a gun, take safety classes and learn the law.
It distresses me a lot that eighteen year olds can have children yet
are denied the ability and reponsibilty to protect them. Of course, if
you can't handle the responsibility of owning and keeping a gun safely
then _please_ don't get one. The exercising of any of our rights as
Americans involves some rather serious consideration of the related
responsibilities.
Yer a total dickhead if yer a'thinking the 2nd recognizes your right to
wave a gun around in defense of whatever pisses you off. In some places
you may indeed have that privilege, like Texas where you _can_ shoot a
TV or car stealer after dark, but don't ever count on it. There's always
going to be a bunch of criminal protecters around who will try their
damnest to screw you up good for shooting a bad guy. The dickheads will
even make a huge issue out of what ammo you used, very sad that society
has devolved to such a low level, I'm embarrassed that American society
has gotten so low that it's no longer acceptable to shoot someone who
is presenting a credible threat of severe bodily injury or death.
Best,
Jim
Shaun Patrick Darragh
On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 06:31:00 GMT, "Clave"
<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>
>What if it *isn't* possible to fully inform the public?
>
I'm wracking my brain for the precise quote, but it's just not coming
now...
In any event, Jefferson said (my paraphrase) that official secrecy is
inherently antithetical to a free society. Given revelations like
Cointelpro, Iran Contra, CIA involvement in the assasination of
Allende, ad nauseum, I'm inclined to agree...
Shaun
Shaun Patrick Darragh
www.aa.net/~shaund
paghat
<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
> "Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante35.u.washington.edu...
> > On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Max Masters!!! wrote:
> > >
> > >Travis Pahl wrote:
> > >
> > >> He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
> > >> needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center',
> and I
> > >> would have been happy.
> > >
> > >i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
> > >
> > >ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
> > >understanding that there are risks. i agree with
> > >that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
> > >possible to fully inform the public of special risks
> > >then you would say that we are all adults and we can
> > >decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
> >
> > That is what I am saying. I don't think you are confused. I think you
> > might be getting it...
>
>
> What if it *isn't* possible to fully inform the public?
>
> Jim
The problem is people expect the government to inform the public &
government rarely knows which end is up.
-paghat
paghat
pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
> Schell has no obligation to protect people, people are responsible for
> their own protection. Get a gun, take safety classes and learn the law.
When "the law" is the enemy -- ringing about the Center like armed thugs
to keep honest citizens from celebrating New Years, or pepper-spraying
innocent bystanding women in the eyes not even concerned they're being
filmed in the act because they regard themselves ABOVE the law -- then
what you would seem to be advocating is "shoot the police."
-paghat
Tim Crowley
Tim
if you can't trust him to tell the truth, he cannot lead.
----------
In article <6Ggc4.1503$B74....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "Clave"
Clave
news:38719daf...@news.aa.net...
> >
>
> now...
>
> In any event, Jefferson said (my paraphrase) that official secrecy is
> inherently antithetical to a free society. Given revelations like
> Cointelpro, Iran Contra, CIA involvement in the assasination of
> Allende, ad nauseum, I'm inclined to agree...
In a perfect world, such would be the case.
Jim
Clave
So the truth is that he thought there was enough of a risk to cancel the
party.
Jim
"Tim Crowley" <tcro...@olywa.net> wrote in message
news:Dxpc4.4600$905....@news5.giganews.com...
Travis Pahl
>"Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante35.u.washington.edu...
>
><...>
>
>> I already understand that there may be reasons to not fully
>> inform the public. Details can and often are left out, but
>> the seriousness and the level of severity should not be
>> left out.
>
>Um, how can you communicate seriousness/severity without details?
By saying it is a (great, moderate, low) risk. And then not going into
detail what the risk is. Is it really that complicated?
>> I would have been happy with Mayor schell saying nothing
>> MORE than he aleady had. His warning was perfectly fine.
>> It was his actions (closing public land from the public)
>> that I have a problem with.
>
>You're being petulant. You want what you want, and you can't accept the
>possibility that there might be circumstances that dictated the closing of
>the grounds without a full public disclosure of the reasons.
I know i can not accept that. That is what I have been making very clear.
There is no reason for him to close the grounds. If it is really that
dangerous, he should just tell us how dangerous it is and let us decide
for ourselves. We are grown ups.
>> Clave, You seem to be making an issue out of something
>> I have already agreed with you on.
>
>Don't try to make nice with me. As far as this issue goes, we've agreed on
>nothing.
We just agreed again on the fact that i will not accept the possibility
that there might be circumstances that dictated the closing of the grounds
without a full public disclosure of the reasons. Does it really bother
you that much when I agree with you?
>> I have not once asked that the mayor say any EXTRA
>> information. So lets not try and divert the issue to
>> something other than what it is... That being the mayor
>> treating us like children.
>
>And yet you admit that you're not in possession of the information that led
>him to his decision.
I have not admitted that. I have only admitted that he MIGHT have more
information than he gave us as to why he closed the grounds. I do not
know for sure that he had more information.
But again you are trying to divert attention from the real issue here.
Should the mayor treat us children and not let us make our own decisions?
kTravis Pahl
David Schilling
> In article <Esgc4.1418$B74....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "Clave"
> <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > "Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante35.u.washington.edu...
> > > On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Max Masters!!! wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Travis Pahl wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
> > > >> needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center',
> > and I
> > > >> would have been happy.
> > > >
> > > >i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
> > > >
> > > >ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
> > > >understanding that there are risks. i agree with
> > > >that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
> > > >possible to fully inform the public of special risks
> > > >then you would say that we are all adults and we can
> > > >decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
> > >
> > > That is what I am saying. I don't think you are confused. I think you
> > > might be getting it...
> >
> >
> > What if it *isn't* possible to fully inform the public?
> >
> > Jim
>
> The problem is people expect the government to inform the public &
> government rarely knows which end is up.
> -paghat
Of course the government cannot possibly fully inform the public. I have heard
that "they rarely know which end is up." Therefore, we should read the Stranger
and watch Public Access (Channel 29), that is where the informed people are.
David
Eric da Red
Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>"Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante35.u.washington.edu...
>
>
>> I already understand that there may be reasons to not fully
>> inform the public. Details can and often are left out, but
>> the seriousness and the level of severity should not be
>> left out.
>
>Um, how can you communicate seriousness/severity without details?
Maybe it would be something like Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam
War.
Or maybe not. After all, Nixon wasn't a wuss.
--
Dialogue Of The Week: R: "I assume your radio has on OFF switch. I also
assume it has a tuning knob."
C: "No. My apartment was burglarized a couple of weeks ago and strangely
the off and tuning knobs on my radio were the only things the thief took."
paghat
schilli...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Of course the government cannot possibly fully inform the public. I
have heard
> that "they rarely know which end is up." Therefore, we should read the
Stranger
> and watch Public Access (Channel 29), that is where the informed people are.
>
> David
Is that Chinese guy with the show "Tea With Chan" (or some such) still on?
He knew everything & it was the best show on public access. One show when
his guest didn't show up he interviewed the teapot instead, then the empty
chair, with long pauses for replies, in between calls from Kent and Renton
from drunken fucks calling him a sissy cocksucking faggot. I was
practically rolling on the floor. He should've been paid big bucks to be
on Comedy Central.
-paghat the ratdyke
David Schilling
paghat wrote:
The Bong Hit Olympics, now that is where the imformed people are. What ever you
do, don't trust the government, trust the dopers on public access. For that
matter, don't trust the Seattle Times or the P-I or major TV News.
David
Max Masters!!!
Clave wrote:
>
> "Max Masters!!!" <nocon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:38716CC9...@hotmail.com...
> >
> > Travis Pahl wrote:
> >
> > > He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
> > > needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center', and
> I
> > > would have been happy.
> >
> > i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
>
> Neither can I...
i'm feeling a little more sensible today. but
then again, i haven't read his reply yet! :)
> > ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
> > understanding that there are risks. i agree with
> > that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
> > possible to fully inform the public of special risks
> > then you would say that we are all adults and we can
> > decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
>
> Enough with the Scoratic method, wise guy. You aren't going to get Travis
> to admit (even though he knows) that there might be reasons *not* to fully
> inform the public. Trust me, Max. I've been down that road with him more
> than a few times and I know his limits.
"a man has to know his limits," Clint Eastwood. in one of
the dirty harry movies i think.
Max Masters!!!
Clave wrote:
>
> "Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante35.u.washington.edu...
>
> <...>
>
> > I already understand that there may be reasons to not fully
> > inform the public. Details can and often are left out, but
> > the seriousness and the level of severity should not be
> > left out.
> Um, how can you communicate seriousness/severity without details?
now i can't believe *you're* falling for this. pretty
tempting stuff, huh? it's like: ok, this is pretty simple,
a couple of posts tops to clear this up. but then it just
denigrates into some weird ideological thing that refuses
to change its' mind NO MATTER WHAT! good luck, clave. i'll
let you take over for me. haha.
HAVE FUN!
Max Masters!!!
Tim Crowley wrote:
>
> We know that he SIAD he had no specific information. Is he a liar???
depends on what you mean by "a liar???". :) depends
on what he means by "specific info". :)
Max Masters!!!
Travis Pahl wrote:
> I know i can not accept that. That is what I have been making very clear.
> There is no reason for him to close the grounds. If it is really that
> dangerous, he should just tell us how dangerous it is and let us decide
> for ourselves. We are grown ups.
HERE WE GO AGAIN! SPLASH!
what if he can't communicate that without interfering
with an ongoing investigation by the FBI?0
> We just agreed again on the fact that i will not accept the possibility
> that there might be circumstances that dictated the closing of the grounds
> without a full public disclosure of the reasons. Does it really bother
> you that much when I agree with you?
you can't imagine any plausible reason? how come?
> I have not admitted that. I have only admitted that he MIGHT have more
> information than he gave us as to why he closed the grounds. I do not
> know for sure that he had more information.
but even if he did, you don't want/need it. right?
> But again you are trying to divert attention from the real issue here.
> Should the mayor treat us children and not let us make our own decisions?
people still could have decided to go to the center. they
just would have been arrested.
Max Masters!!!
Travis Pahl wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Max Masters!!! wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Travis Pahl wrote:
> >
> >> He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
> >> needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center', and I
> >> would have been happy.
> >
> >i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
> >
> >ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
> >understanding that there are risks. i agree with
> >that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
> >possible to fully inform the public of special risks
> >then you would say that we are all adults and we can
> >decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
> >
> >
>
> That is what I am saying. I don't think you are confused. I think you
> might be getting it...
ok, so what happens when the mayor *can't*
fully inform?
Max Masters!!!
Clave wrote:
>
> "Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante35.u.washington.edu...
> What if it *isn't* possible to fully inform the public?
you're as much of a sucker as i am, clave.
Clave
>
> Clave wrote:
> >
> > "Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> >
news:Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante35.u.washington.edu...
> >
> >
> > > I already understand that there may be reasons to not fully
> > > inform the public. Details can and often are left out, but
> > > the seriousness and the level of severity should not be
> > > left out.
> > Um, how can you communicate seriousness/severity without details?
>
> now i can't believe *you're* falling for this. pretty
> tempting stuff, huh? it's like: ok, this is pretty simple,
> a couple of posts tops to clear this up. but then it just
> denigrates into some weird ideological thing that refuses
> to change its' mind NO MATTER WHAT! good luck, clave. i'll
> let you take over for me. haha.
>
> HAVE FUN!
Well, unless he can come up with something new pretty damn fast, this
conversation's gonna wind up in the shitter with all the rest of Travis'
greatest misses.
Jim
Max Masters!!!
David Schilling wrote:
> The Bong Hit Olympics, now that is where the imformed people are. What ever you
> do, don't trust the government, trust the dopers on public access. For that
> matter, don't trust the Seattle Times or the P-I or major TV News.
is that show still on?
Max Masters!!!
Jim String wrote:
>
> In article <38716CC9...@hotmail.com>, Max Masters!!! wrote:
> >
> >Travis Pahl wrote:
> >
> >> He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
> >> needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center', and I
> >> would have been happy.
> >
> >i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
> >
> >ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
> >understanding that there are risks. i agree with
> >that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
> >possible to fully inform the public of special risks
> >then you would say that we are all adults and we can
> >decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
>
> Well, I'm curious about your opinions on the fact that (possibly SCOTUS
> too) court rulings have consistently indicated that police have no
> obligation whatsoever to protect us as individuals. They aren't even
> obligated to answer 911 calls, in fact I've advised people to not say
> anything if they have to call 911, just dial and drop the phone on
> the floor. That way the cops can't "prioritize" the call, they have to
> assume the worst and respond immediately. They'll probably change that
> prioritization once they realize that people have a clue.
my ignorance forces me to not have an opinion
on that subject. although i like your suggestion
about 911.
Clave
>
> Clave wrote:
> >
> > "Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> >
news:Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante35.u.washington.edu...
> > > >
> > > >Travis Pahl wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All
he
> > > >> needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle
center',
> > and I
> > > >> would have been happy.
> > > >
> > > >i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
> > > >
> > > >ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
> > > >understanding that there are risks. i agree with
> > > >that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
> > > >possible to fully inform the public of special risks
> > > >then you would say that we are all adults and we can
> > > >decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
> > >
you
> > > might be getting it...
> >
> > What if it *isn't* possible to fully inform the public?
>
> you're as much of a sucker as i am, clave.
Nah, I'm installing NT on a machine and I'm bored as hell.
Jim
paghat
schilli...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> The Bong Hit Olympics, now that is where the imformed people are. What
ever you
> do, don't trust the government, trust the dopers on public access. For that
> matter, don't trust the Seattle Times or the P-I or major TV News.
>
> David
But always trust UseNet.
-paghat
Tim Crowley
"
"It is safer to be prudent," said Schell. "This is already an unprecedented,
unpredictable New Yearąs and we did not want to take chances with public
safety, no matter how remote the threat might seem."
"Itąs also a time, following WTO, for the city to take a breather from
tension," added Schell.
There is no specific threat against Seattle Center, according to the FBI and
the Justice Department. And the federal agencies have said there is no
factual basis to stories circulated last week that Seattle, New York and
Washington, D.C., were year-end terrorist targets."
With that criteria he must stop EVERY public event in Seattle, and outlaw
cars, biking and sking. They all take chances with public safety.
----------
In article <hrqc4.448$WM5....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "Clave"
<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> So the truth is that he thought there was enough of a risk to cancel the
> party.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Tim Crowley" <tcro...@olywa.net> wrote in message
> news:Dxpc4.4600$905....@news5.giganews.com...
>> We know that he SIAD he had no specific information. Is he a liar???
>>
>> Tim
>> if you can't trust him to tell the truth, he cannot lead.
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <6Ggc4.1503$B74....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "Clave"
>> <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > And yet you admit that you're not in possession of the information that
> led
>> > him to his decision.
>> >
Tim Crowley
----------
In article <38727EA5...@hotmail.com>, "Max Masters!!!"
<nocon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> people still could have decided to go to the center. they
> just would have been arrested.
Just so the City Attorney can drop more charges???
Travis Pahl
>Travis Pahl wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Max Masters!!! wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Travis Pahl wrote:
>> >
>> >> He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
>> >> needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center', and I
>> >> would have been happy.
>> >
>> >i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
>> >
>> >ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
>> >understanding that there are risks. i agree with
>> >that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
>> >possible to fully inform the public of special risks
>> >then you would say that we are all adults and we can
>> >decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
>> >
>>
>> That is what I am saying. I don't think you are confused. I think you
>> might be getting it...
>
>ok, so what happens when the mayor *can't*
>fully inform?
>
He can always give the warning minus the details.
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
>Travis Pahl wrote:
>
>> I know i can not accept that. That is what I have been making very clear.
>> There is no reason for him to close the grounds. If it is really that
>> dangerous, he should just tell us how dangerous it is and let us decide
>> for ourselves. We are grown ups.
>
>HERE WE GO AGAIN! SPLASH!
>
>what if he can't communicate that without interfering
>with an ongoing investigation by the FBI?0
telling people there is extreme danger is not going to interfere with an
investigation anymore than closing something down is going to interfere
with an investigation.
>> I have not admitted that. I have only admitted that he MIGHT have more
>> information than he gave us as to why he closed the grounds. I do not
>> know for sure that he had more information.
>
>but even if he did, you don't want/need it. right?
It is not necessary, but should be given when ever possible.
>> But again you are trying to divert attention from the real issue here.
>> Should the mayor treat us children and not let us make our own decisions?
>
>people still could have decided to go to the center. they
>just would have been arrested.
And arresting people for peacefully assembling is something I have a
problem with. I am sorry that so many of my fellow americans do not have
the same problem.
Travis Pahl
Max Masters!!!
Travis Pahl wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Max Masters!!! wrote:
>
> >Travis Pahl wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Max Masters!!! wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Travis Pahl wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> He does not need to say 'because of reasons I can not discuss' All he
> >> >> needed to do is say what he said minus the 'closing seattle center', and I
> >> >> would have been happy.
> >> >
> >> >i can't believe i'm falling for this but:
> >> >
> >> >ok, you've got me confused. everyone goes anywhere
> >> >understanding that there are risks. i agree with
> >> >that as i'm sure you do. furthermore, if it was
> >> >possible to fully inform the public of special risks
> >> >then you would say that we are all adults and we can
> >> >decide whether or not those risks are worth it, correct?
> >> >
> >>
> >> That is what I am saying. I don't think you are confused. I think you
> >> might be getting it...
> >
> >ok, so what happens when the mayor *can't*
> >fully inform?
> >
>
> He can always give the warning minus the details.
and what if he can't give an adequate warning?
Shaun Patrick Darragh
<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> In any event, Jefferson said (my paraphrase) that official secrecy is
>> inherently antithetical to a free society. Given revelations like
>> Cointelpro, Iran Contra, CIA involvement in the assasination of
>> Allende, ad nauseum, I'm inclined to agree...
>
>In a perfect world, such would be the case.
>
Sorry, the idealist in me keeps peeking out from under the
covers....until the pragmatist knocks him back in line... :-)
Shaun
Shaun Patrick Darragh
www.aa.net/~shaund
Clave
Aw, Shaun, I'm not *trying* to be mean. Not to you, anyway.
Jim
Shaun Patrick Darragh
<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>Aw, Shaun, I'm not *trying* to be mean. Not to you, anyway.
>
Nah, I mean the pragmatist in me... :-)
paghat
<Pine.A41.4.10.100010...@dante19.u.washington.edu>,
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> And arresting people for peacefully assembling is something I have a
> problem with. I am sorry that so many of my fellow americans do not have
> the same problem.
>
> Travis Pahl
Last night's news: 38 percent of Northwesterners think Mayor Chickenfucker
should resign immediately, another 8 percent are too befuddled to have an
opinion, so though too many Mellow Northwesterners do seem rather to like
being the chickenfucker's chicken, many others feel kinda bad about it.
-paghat the ratgirl
David Schilling
paghat wrote:
Why would anyone poll "northwesterners"? They should poll those people who
have a direct electorial relationship with the mayor of SEATTLE. Schell may
have an effect on those of us who do not live within the city limits, but we
must rely on those who vote for the Seattle Mayor. Does a "northwesterner's"
opinion matter? Not really. Does a Seattleite's opinion/voting power
matter? Yes.
So the question is, which came first: the chicken or the chickenplucker?
David
Scott W.
continue to support him. Besides, anyone that can piss off both the
left-wing loonies and the right-wing kooks works fine by me.
--
remove X's to reply
"Stark" <Stark4(delete-this-&-the-4)@foxinternet.net> wrote in message
news:386d...@news2.foxinternet.net...
> Hindsight being 20/20, Paul Schell's decision to cancel the Space Needle
> celebration now looks like an overreaction and a bad idea.
>
> It was rather depressing watching all those other cities across the planet
> celebrating New Years with huge gatherings and such, while most of us were
> left to sit at home and watch it on tv. There's nothing quite so lame as
> watching fireworks on tv.
>
> It's hard to really believe that our city was in so much more danger than
> any other city on the planet that the big party at the Needle had to be
> cancelled.
>
> >I< went to a cool party for New Years eve, so I didn't personally miss
out.
> But Seattle has symbolically moved into the future cowering in fear. And
> our leadership was so traumatized by WTO week, and their own bungled
> mishandling of it, that they're now apparently afraid that if any group of
> Seattleites gets together in public we'll all start rioting.
>
> Stark
>
>
paghat
schilli...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
I always think of Seattlites as northwesterners even though in the 30
years I lived inner city I was one of only six who was actually born
there.
-paghat
paghat
<sjwi...@worldnetX.att.net> wrote:
> As a Seattle homeowner, I think Paul Schell is a damn fine mayor and will
> continue to support him. Besides, anyone that can piss off both the
> left-wing loonies and the right-wing kooks works fine by me.
>
You accidentally typed "fine" between "damn" and "mayor."
-paghat
squeak
paghat wrote:
>
>
> Is that Chinese guy with the show "Tea With Chan" (or some such) still on?
> He knew everything & it was the best show on public access. One show when
> his guest didn't show up he interviewed the teapot instead, then the empty
> chair, with long pauses for replies, in between calls from Kent and Renton
> from drunken fucks calling him a sissy cocksucking faggot. I was
> practically rolling on the floor. He should've been paid big bucks to be
> on Comedy Central.
>
> -paghat the ratdyke
Did you see the episode where his guest put a real rat in a food processor?
Now that's comedy genius!
John
paghat
Yr freaking me out.