Basic freedoms... and when it crosses the line...
Cambela
Doyen, I think you had better consider that so far, every participant
in this ng has posted their request to
you that you stop chasing after people to get them to stop their
illegeal activity. Friends and foes alike have come together on this
issue. Majority rules, you must stop, or you will be flamed and
ridiculed from now on by me for one. I promise, You will be MY
project. Cease and desist or pay the consequences.
I am formidable Scorpio enemy. Come out of the closet now and say who
you are and wave the white flag
and thou shalt be forgiven. No joke.
Cambela
John Palmer
On 14 Sep 1997 03:37:45 -0400, anon-...@anon.twwells.com wrote:
>With all due respect Joe, I'm sorry, but I just can't do that. This is no
>'ethnic' cleansing! So far I have identified the activities of two individuals
>who were/are committing actions that are AGAINST THE LAW!
Actually, since Tim has not, to my knowledge, ever dispensed
legal advice, it's likely that nothing he's done is against the law.
>You're right though. This is an un moderated NG, and that is the reason why
>people like Jerry and Tim were able to get a stranglehold on it. Not anymore.
There is no rational basis for claiming that Tim has a
"stranglehold" on this newsgroup. There was little enough evidence
that Frager did, either; there was simply a greater chance that what
he was doing was illegal.
And let me point out that Tim is a paranoid schizophrenic, which
means he has delusions. Delusions that are as real to him as bread
and butter are to us. What you are doing is starting to persecute him
based upon something that he, literally *CAN NOT* help.
So he can get medication for his syndrome, you say? No. He
believes such medication would be tantamount to submitting to mind
control. He would even have strong evidence on his side; if he took
such medication, he'd no longer "see" the things he now "sees"
clearly. That's PROOF. . . proof that they're controlling his mind
and removing his vision of the truth.
Attacking Tim in this way is cruel and nasty. And yes, this is
me, mister Nasty-poster, saying this. I use carefully calculated bits
of nastiness in my posting style for a particular point, figuring that
some, or most, of what I use it on is more important than a few
people's feelings. And I'm saying that what you are doing is unjust.
*AT LEAST* think about that.
(beginning of portions of post that Doyen requested Joe to answer.
>You see, I agree with you on THESE statements:
>
>> "believing that it is not a good thing to bait even those people
>> with *invisible* disabilities"
>
>> "the paranoid schizophrenia with which he has been diagnosed is
>> no laughing matter"
>
>However I also think you are missing the other IMPORTANT aspects here Joe.
>
>-Is ADD an invisible disability?
>
>I certainly think so!
Yep. We agree. However, you're saying that you'll make a
"right" with one minor wrong being met with a MAJOR one.
You're saying that since Tim Brown posts sincerely held beliefs
to this newsgroup, you'll attack him through an invisible disability
he has. It might be objectively wrong for him to be posting as he
does here. . . but it's NOT subjectively wrong. HE thinks he's doing
the right thing. And you're attacking him for that.
> I don't think ANYONE here who is affected with ADD would
>call it anything less. Since you feel "it is not a good thing" to bait people
>like this, why is it that you don't impress this upon Tim as well?
Because Tim is a paranoid schizophrenic and *HE CAN'T BELIEVE IT*
if Joe tells him something like that.
>Let's be fair here Joe. I know you're trying to be 'fair' to everyone, but it
>just isn't happening. You are stuck between TWO people who both have invisible
>disabilities that are no laughing matter. Does one take precedence over the
>other. I'm sorry, but I don't think so.
No, one doesn't take precedence over the other. But you're
saying that someone with (the equivalent) of tourette's syndrome
should be punished for barking/cussing/twitching in a room full of
people for whom such noises/movements are bothersome. . . even if
that person with Tourette's thinks that s/he *NEEDS* to be in that
room, truly and sincerely, and thinks that room would be hurt if s/he
left.
>Tim is taking the risk by being here. He is a big boy, and with my knowledge of
>his illness, I do know that he is able to make conscious decisions in his life.
Then you don't have knowledge of his illness.
>He is not locked in straight-jacket at some institution,
Which *ONLY* proves that no government institution has ruled him
to be a danger to the safety of himself or others.
>
>Personally, if you feel that what Tim does is "o.k."
No one said that. What was said was that he couldn't help
himself.
> then you couldn't possibly
>be bothered by my actions?
Are you a paranoid schizophrenic? If so, I'd still be bothered by
your actions, but I wouldn't hold you as accountable as I would if you
were a free-from-cognitive-deficits person.
>If Tim can't take what he gives, then he is in the wrong place.
As I understand it, you're trying to give him WORSE than he
gives. You're trying to get him legally punished for words that the
vast majority of people consider to be harmless rantings.
>==========
>end message
>
>
>Now, on to Mark...
>
>Mark, Mark, Mark. How many references do you want citing court appearances by
>individuals with schizophrenia who were found to be 'mentally competent' when
>charged with similar offences?
I'd like some, personally. Though keep in mind that "mentally
competent" is simply a legal term and *NOT* a term of truth. It's a
statement that the law declares the person able to take responsibility
for their actions. It *DOES NOT* mean that the person is or was
rationally able to control him/herself.
> Now _WHY_ is it that Tim is 'untreated' Mark?
Because he views the use of drugs for his affliction to be the
equivalent of mind control.
>The courts have CONSISTENTLY put away people for crimes committed, and being
>untreated has VERY LITTLE weight.
Yep. The courts are not very sympathetic to mental illness,
since a faked mental illness can lead to crimes committed with
impunity. That doesn't mean that those judgements are accurate.
>]>>This is outrageous. It is demonstrative of what I have discussed numerous
>]>>times: the "second class" status of the person with a mental disability.
>
>As I said above, what about the treatment of the 'people' here in the NG by
>those like Tim? What is it that gives his the RIGHT to do what he does?
Er, and what treatment of people here in this newsgroup is
performed by Tim and is damaging?
>WHY IS HE HERE? Answer me that. No bullshit, no back talk.
Because he believes he should be.
>]>>I am asking that ***anyone*** who is offended by this to publicly post a
>]>>message asking that this be ended. And that includes the lurkers!
>
>A fruitless exercise however. I don't bend. If I say something will happen,
>and it doesn't, then you will know that I am dead. Pretty simple.
So you don't really care if you cause harm, only that you do what
you want? You don't change your mind once you've got an idea in your
head, regardless of what other evidence you see?
>By the way, a quick way to end this would be to have Tim leave. Unless there is
>some way schizophrenia and ADD are the same thing, he does not belong here.
He was treated for attention deficit disorder as a child; not
unexpectedly, ritalin was bad for him, as it's bad for just about any
schizophrenic. He most certainly has a reason to be here, though I
won't play the sesame street game about which of these things "doesn't
belong".
>So I don't see why I shouldn't enjoy the same 'freedom' to 'torment' as he does?
>Do I have to wait until a 'perpetual be nice to Doyen week' is started...?
I don't think that would happen. While I understood the "Be
Nice to Tim Week", I dislike the way it's bandied around sometimes.
The purpose is to say "Tim sincerely believes what he says, and can't
help it. Don't make fun of him for being something he can't help, any
more than you'd make fun of a stutterer." (After all, a stutterer
doesn't *HAVE* to talk, right?)
The "Be Nice to Sara" week is silly and nasty, IMHO, but I sure
as hell can't blame the folks who started it up, since Sara seems to
enjoy being silly and nasty to others.
"Be Nice to Doyen" would happen only if it was discovered that
you, too, were a nasty person who was more-or-less harmless. Right
now, there's a growing opinion that you're being nasty. . . but you're
declaring yourself that you don't want to be harmless. That, in
itself, is making people upset.
--
"Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in
kidnergarten. Like, always check for extraneous roots
when squaring to remove the radicals."
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
In article <5vg489$sto$1...@twwells.com> doyen writes:
>With all due respect Joe, I'm sorry, but I just can't do that. This is no
>'ethnic' cleansing! So far I have identified the activities of two individuals
>who were/are committing actions that are AGAINST THE LAW! Now you can't tell me
>that those actions ARE appropriate can you?
What law are you accusing tim (or is it someone else besides frager?) of
violating. Falsely claiming to be an attorney is not illegal unless
under oath or part of another crime.
R, esq.
--
For more information about this service, send e-mail to:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
things on 15 Sep 1997 10:39:25 -0400, anon-...@anon.twwells.com
wrote:
>In article <5vg489$sto$1...@twwells.com> doyen writes:
>
>
>>With all due respect Joe, I'm sorry, but I just can't do that. This is no
>>'ethnic' cleansing! So far I have identified the activities of two individuals
>>who were/are committing actions that are AGAINST THE LAW! Now you can't tell me
>>that those actions ARE appropriate can you?
>
>What law are you accusing tim (or is it someone else besides frager?) of
>violating. Falsely claiming to be an attorney is not illegal unless
>under oath or part of another crime.
>
>R, esq.
I think it's significant that although a half dozen people have asked
Doyen this question, he has not once answered it.
Doyen has crossed the line into trolldom.
Don Stauffer
| Email is welcome except solicitation, which |
| will be forwarded to domain Administrators. |
Michael J. Frankel
In article <341e7e5c....@news.dca.net>,
Don Stauffer <A...@Skyler.Com> wrote:
>While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>things on 15 Sep 1997 10:39:25 -0400, anon-...@anon.twwells.com
>wrote:
>
>>In article <5vg489$sto$1...@twwells.com> doyen writes:
>>
>>
>>>With all due respect Joe, I'm sorry, but I just can't do that. This is no
>>>'ethnic' cleansing! So far I have identified the activities of two individuals
>>>who were/are committing actions that are AGAINST THE LAW! Now you can't tell me
>>>that those actions ARE appropriate can you?
>>
>>What law are you accusing tim (or is it someone else besides frager?) of
>>violating. Falsely claiming to be an attorney is not illegal unless
>>under oath or part of another crime.
>>
>>R, esq.
>
>I think it's significant that although a half dozen people have asked
>Doyen this question, he has not once answered it.
>
>Doyen has crossed the line into trolldom.
I propose we ignore him. Starting *now*.
-m
that's how one deals with trolls...
--
Michael Frankel (SayItRealFast)
m...@wwa.com
http://wwa.com/~mjf/
stan....@mailexcite.com
"Cambela" <dabluka(remove)@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Doyen, I think you had better consider that so far, every participant
> in this ng has posted their request to you that you stop chasing after people
> to get them to stop their illegeal activity. Friends and foes alike have
> come together on this
> Majority rules, you must stop, or you will be flamed and
> Cease and desist or pay the consequences.
I hope I don't offend anyone by asking this, but what the heck is going
on?! I know I've only recently come back here after an absence of about
fourteen months, but something seems a little screwy. Since when is
illegal activity something a.s.a-d tries to defend? And since when does
"majority rule". Majority ruled during slavery - that didn't make it
right!
I'm genuinely confused by the atmosphere. Since when has it become
okay for anyone, EVEN A SCHIZOPHRENIC!, to forge a vendetta against the
treatment of ADD. Saying that it's fake and all that shit that makes me
want to hurt the owners of such words. This used to be a place where we
were safe from all those friggin' assholes who say "try harder!" "ADD is
fake!" "Ritalin is Poison!" "You're just lazy!" "Spare the rod, spoil the
child!" "Just pay attention!!!" "YOU ARE A WORTHLESS FUCKING PIECE OF
DIRT - YOU DON'T HAVE ADD - BECAUSE ADD DOESN'T EXIST! FACE IT! YOUR
PROBLEMS ARE BECAUSE YOU ARE A WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT WHO DOESN'T
DESERVE ANY RESPECT OR CONSIDERATION. YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE HAPPY!
YOU DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE!!"
Has this newsgroup become a place where those words are acceptable? Is
it now okay for ADD'ers to be picked on EVEN ON AN ADD
NEWSGROUP!!!!!!!!???? Last I knew, Frager, Sara, Tim, etc. were on the
same ship and all saying the same EXTREMELY EXTREMELY EXTREMELY HURTFUL,
DAMAGING, HARMFUL crap. Frager is *finally* gone - amen! - but have we
now gone soft on the others? Help me out here. I really am looking for
some honest insight.
John(Palmer)? Joe (Parsons)? Nancy (Gleason)? Mark (Probert)? Can
you guys fill me in? How about any of the other regulars of old? Am I
in the dark here - or is there some other explanation or event which has
occured that I just don't know about? Thanks for any responses. Take
care.
-stan
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Cambela
stan....@mailexcite.com wrote in article
<8743800...@dejanews.com>...
>
> "Cambela" <dabluka(remove)@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Doyen, I think you had better consider that so far, every
participant
> > in this ng has posted their request to you that you stop chasing
after people
> > to get them to stop their illegeal activity. Friends and foes
alike have
> > come together on this
> > Majority rules, you must stop, or you will be flamed and
> > Cease and desist or pay the consequences.
>
> I hope I don't offend anyone by asking this, but what the heck is
going
> on?! I know I've only recently come back here after an absence of
about
> fourteen months, but something seems a little screwy. Since when is
> illegal activity something a.s.a-d tries to defend? And since when
does
> "majority rule". Majority ruled during slavery - that didn't make it
> right!
You are starting to convince me. I just have a creepy feeling that I
better watch every word that I post from now on or someone might decide
that I am not good for the group and try to prosecute me.
Thats all. But I understand what you mean.
Respectfully,
Cambela
MarkProbe
In article <01bcc27b$a77415a0$818f...@dabluka.ix.netcom.com>, "Cambela"
<dabluka(remove)@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>You are starting to convince me. I just have a creepy feeling that I
>better watch every word that I post from now on or someone might decide
>that I am not good for the group and try to prosecute me.
>Thats all. But I understand what you mean.
This is one of the reasons SOTUS looks at any law affecting Freedom of
Speech with such scrutiny: the chilling effect that Doyen's actions may
have.
Michael J. Frankel
In article <19970916121...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Any power Doyen has is that we give to him ourselves.
Ignore him.
-m
he has no real power...
BLeyton
Here are a few of my comments:
In article <5vg489$sto$1...@twwells.com>, anon-...@anon.twwells.com writes:
>With all due respect Joe, I'm sorry, but I just can't do that. This is no
>'ethnic' cleansing! So far I have identified the activities of two
>individuals
>who were/are committing actions that are AGAINST THE LAW! Now you can't tell
>me
>that those actions ARE appropriate can you?
No, they're not appropriate, but just like dealing with ADHD kids, we try
to choose our battles carefully.
>You're right though. This is an un moderated NG, and that is the reason why
>people like Jerry and Tim were able to get a stranglehold on it. Not
>anymore.
I really wouldn't say that Tim and Sara have a stranglehold on this group.
They're more like a couple of hecklers in the back of the crowd shouting
out rude remarks.
>Tim is taking the risk by being here. He is a big boy, and with my knowledge
>of
>his illness, I do know that he is able to make conscious decisions in his
>life.
>He is not locked in straight-jacket at some institution, he's out here on the
>Internet. He's taken a stance of inflicting people with insulting remarks
>and
>other hurtful instruments.
>
>Personally, if you feel that what Tim does is "o.k." then you couldn't
>possibly
>be bothered by my actions? Heck, I have a FEW invisible disabilities, but it
>doesn't mean I can do what I please with no repercussions.
>
>If Tim can't take what he gives, then he is in the wrong place. The Internet
>is
>not a 'supervised' environment, and never will be. If he comes out here, he
>becomes open to the same things we all do.
That's exactly the point, but I'm surprised that you don't see it. The
internet is *not* a supervised environment. That's why we see
inappropriate behaviors all the time. Why is it that you feel that you
have the right to supervise this unsupervised environment?
<snip>
>I'm not responsible." The difference is, there is _CHOICE_ involved! Tim
>chose
>not to take his medication, and I had no choice in that. However, DON'T ASK
>ME
>to accept his behavior because of it. I probably would be MUCH more flexible
>if
>he WAS being treated, or if he made an effort not to sabotage this NG.
So if Tim was, say, a heroin addict, then your response would be to call
the cops? Look, it takes all kinds to populate this world. Usenet is just
a small version of the world. I may think that Tim is a jerk, and that
many of his comments are uncalled for, but the last time I checked, this
was a free country. If Tim is violating any laws, then you already know
that most of us here on this group are willing to overlook that.
You made an analogy earlier about what would happen if Tim were to come to
an AA meeting. I think a better analogy would be if Tim were to show up at
a CHADD meeting. If he did, then we'd all probably roll our eyes, whisper
to our neighbor that Tim is just a flake, and ignore him. I really doubt
that anyone would call the cops & have him forceably removed.
>WHY IS HE HERE? Answer me that. No bullshit, no back talk.
As you already know, Tim is here because he feels that he has something to
share regarding the use of Ritalin. He has some experience with it, that
he feels qualifies him to speak out. You and I may disagree with his
conclusions, but that's life.
>A fruitless exercise however. I don't bend. If I say something will happen,
>and it doesn't, then you will know that I am dead. Pretty simple.
Why are you being so rigid? Can't you see that many of us backed you in
Jerry's case, because we agreed with you that what he was doing was
illegal, immoral, and harmful to others.
Most of us do not feel the same way about Sara and Tim. Don't get me
wrong - I do feel that they both go overboard with their hostile comments
designed to annoy people. But I can also laugh at some of the more
preposterous statements. Sara even seems more than willing to laugh at
herself. Why can't you just roll your eyes with the rest of us, and ignore
them?
>By the way, a quick way to end this would be to have Tim leave. Unless there
>is
>some way schizophrenia and ADD are the same thing, he does not belong here.
>Not
>if he is going to post what he is posting. So until things change, I intend
>to
>carry on as I have been. I already took the precaution of keeping my ISP
>informed, and I have been told that they don't have a problem with it, as
>long
>as I do not 'break the law.' I am very careful when I go about my actions.
>
>
>So I don't see why I shouldn't enjoy the same 'freedom' to 'torment' as he
>does?
I think you're taking too much pleasure in being powerful enough to stop
people. Can you please take a step back and look honestly at your
motivation? Ask yourself who you are doing this for. If it's for the
group, please respect the fact that we have already told you that we don't
need your help anymore. If it's for yourself, then you should know that
this is the wrong motivation.
Doyen, you have struck a nerve here. We are all just as annoyed by some
of the comments that have been made here, but we are very concerned that
you don't seem to know where to draw the line. After you get rid of Sara
and Tim, who will be next? Jen, Joe, me? Do we all now have to watch
every word we type, so that we don't say something that will offend you and
cause you to do one of your investigations and get us in trouble with the
authorities? That's not what this group is about. These are only words -
yes they sometimes have the potential to harm, but we are prepared to take
that chance, except in the most serious circumstances.
We have drawn the line Doyen. We have explained to you what we are
willing and unwilling to put up with. Please respect that.
Brian Leyton
BLeyton
In article <8743800...@dejanews.com>, stan....@mailexcite.com writes:
> John(Palmer)? Joe (Parsons)? Nancy (Gleason)? Mark (Probert)? Can
>you guys fill me in? How about any of the other regulars of old? Am I
>in the dark here - or is there some other explanation or event which has
>occured that I just don't know about? Thanks for any responses. Take
>care.
Frager is gone because Doyen collected every bit of documentation that he
could find, that proves that Jerry Kolnick was impersonating an M.D., and
then turned it all in to the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners for
potential criminal prosecution. He also turned this information in to the
2 ISP's that Jerry was using, and got them to cancel his accounts.
Tim made a statement that he would carry on where Jerry left off, and
Doyen took that as an invitation to turn his guns on Tim and Sara.
Most of us are just as offended by some of the things that Tim and Sara
post, but we don't feel that these actions are illegal. We also feel
threatened by Doyen, because he seems more than willing to turn people into
the proper authorities - we are concerned that Doyen's vendetta could
easily turn on anyone who gets on his wrong side. That's why we've drawn
the line, and said that we are willing to put up with the garbage that Time
& Sara post - it's one of the prices we pay for living in this society.
We need to recognize that we can't keep every kook, snake-oil salesperson
and crackpot out of this newsgroup. We feel that while the most serious
cases may need to be dealt with, we prefer to put up with the rest of them,
simply to preserve our own freedom of speech.
Brian Leyton
Sara Freeman
In <19970916184...@ladder01.news.aol.com> ble...@aol.com
(BLeyton) writes:
>
>In article <8743800...@dejanews.com>, stan....@mailexcite.com
writes:
>
>> John(Palmer)? Joe (Parsons)? Nancy (Gleason)? Mark (Probert)?
Can
>>you guys fill me in? How about any of the other regulars of old? Am
I
>>in the dark here - or is there some other explanation or event which
has
>>occured that I just don't know about? Thanks for any responses.
Take
>>care.
>
>Frager is gone because Doyen collected every bit of documentation that
he
>could find, that proves that Jerry Kolnick was impersonating an M.D.,
and
>then turned it all in to the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners for
>potential criminal prosecution. He also turned this information in to
the
>2 ISP's that Jerry was using, and got them to cancel his accounts.
Do you know all of this for a fact.
>
>Tim made a statement that he would carry on where Jerry left off, and
>Doyen took that as an invitation to turn his guns on Tim and Sara.
>
>Most of us are just as offended by some of the things that Tim and
Sara
>post, but we don't feel that these actions are illegal. We also feel
>threatened by Doyen, because he seems more than willing to turn people
into
>the proper authorities - we are concerned that Doyen's vendetta could
>easily turn on anyone who gets on his wrong side. That's why we've
drawn
>the line, and said that we are willing to put up with the garbage that
Time
>& Sara post - it's one of the prices we pay for living in this
society.
>
>We need to recognize that we can't keep every kook, snake-oil
salesperson
>and crackpot out of this newsgroup. We feel that while the most
serious
>cases may need to be dealt with, we prefer to put up with the rest of
them,
>simply to preserve our own freedom of speech.
>
>Brian Leyton
>
--
If you can't say anything nice about
anybody . . . come sit by me.
Sara Freeman
In <8743800...@dejanews.com> stan....@mailexcite.com writes:
>
>
> "Cambela" <dabluka(remove)@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Doyen, I think you had better consider that so far, every
participant
>> in this ng has posted their request to you that you stop chasing
after people
>> to get them to stop their illegeal activity. Friends and foes
alike have
>> come together on this
>> Majority rules, you must stop, or you will be flamed and
>> Cease and desist or pay the consequences.
>
> I hope I don't offend anyone by asking this, but what the heck is
going
>on?! I know I've only recently come back here after an absence of
about
>fourteen months, but something seems a little screwy. Since when is
>illegal activity something a.s.a-d tries to defend? And since when
does
>"majority rule". Majority ruled during slavery - that didn't make it
>right!
>
Can
>you guys fill me in? How about any of the other regulars of old? Am
I
>in the dark here - or is there some other explanation or event which
has
>occured that I just don't know about? Thanks for any responses. Take
>care.
>
explosion had so much force that his body parts are now in orbit up
there among all the other satellites and their debris. If you have a
good pair of binoculars and the weather is clear enough look to the
northeast at about 11:00 tonight and you will see a leg go by.
Michael J. Frankel
In article <19970916184...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
No matter what he thinks, he has no *power* to do so.
-m
unless we give it to him (on a silver platter)...
Hint: fear.
Michael J. Frankel
In article <5vmtj4$m...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
Sara Freeman <fre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>In <19970916184...@ladder01.news.aol.com> ble...@aol.com
>(BLeyton) writes:
>>
>>In article <8743800...@dejanews.com>, stan....@mailexcite.com
>writes:
>>
>>> John(Palmer)? Joe (Parsons)? Nancy (Gleason)? Mark (Probert)?
>Can
>>>you guys fill me in? How about any of the other regulars of old? Am
>I
>>>in the dark here - or is there some other explanation or event which
>has
>>>occured that I just don't know about? Thanks for any responses.
>Take
>>>care.
>>
>>Frager is gone because Doyen collected every bit of documentation that
>he
>>could find, that proves that Jerry Kolnick was impersonating an M.D.,
>and
>>then turned it all in to the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners for
>>potential criminal prosecution. He also turned this information in to
>the
>>2 ISP's that Jerry was using, and got them to cancel his accounts.
>
>Do you know all of this for a fact.
*Excellent* question Sara.
-m
You *go* girl!!!
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
<dabluka(remove)@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>stan....@mailexcite.com wrote in article
><8743800...@dejanews.com>...
>>
>> "Cambela" <dabluka(remove)@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Doyen, I think you had better consider that so far, every
>participant
>> > in this ng has posted their request to you that you stop chasing
>after people
>> > to get them to stop their illegeal activity. Friends and foes
>alike have
>> > come together on this
>> > Majority rules, you must stop, or you will be flamed and
>> > Cease and desist or pay the consequences.
>>
>> I hope I don't offend anyone by asking this, but what the heck is
>going
>> on?! I know I've only recently come back here after an absence of
>about
>> fourteen months, but something seems a little screwy. Since when is
>> illegal activity something a.s.a-d tries to defend? And since when
>does
>> "majority rule". Majority ruled during slavery - that didn't make it
>> right!
>
>You are starting to convince me. I just have a creepy feeling that I
>better watch every word that I post from now on or someone might decide
>that I am not good for the group and try to prosecute me.
>Thats all. But I understand what you mean.
>
>Respectfully,
>Cambela
Stan:
While I agree with your sentiments completely, and I think the
"majority rules" statement was poorly worded, what is going on here
is, many of us are concerned that "Doyen", who appeared on the ng only
a month or two ago, has named Tim as his "next" target, based on some
unnamed "illegal activity". No one I've seen post in opposition to
this has supported illegal activities; "Doyen" has simply ignored all
our questions as to what activity he's referring to, and none of us
has seen Tim do anything illegal (at least not since I've been on the
group). The closest thing Tim seems to have done is make inaccurate
statement of some laws, but not in a way which is "practicing law".
There is some question as to how "Doyen" was able to get rid of "Frgr"
so quickly after so long, why "Doyen" seems to have no interest in ADD
or support, and what he considers "illegal". "Frgr" has lost his
effect, so one has to wonder if the person behind the "Faketor" has
simply developed a new way of trolling.
While we'd very much like Tim to stop posting inaccurate assertions,
and better yet to stop believing them, we don't feel it's appropriate
or acceptable to prevent him from speaking if he wants to. As (I
think) Benjamin Franklin said, "I disagree with what you're saying,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As I see it,
Tim's speech may be objectionable but it is and should be protected.
I also think Tim's posts could be worse if, as "Frgr" did, he jumped
on posts by newbies and offered incorrect statements and bad advice.
Mostly, I just see him challenge opinions or facts posted by people
who are not likely to be harmed as much as annoyed.
Tim Brown
m...@sashimi.wwa.com (Michael J. Frankel) writes:
>No matter what he thinks, he has no *power* to do so.
>-m
>unless we give it to him (on a silver platter)...
>Hint: fear.
Doyen does not scare me one bit. Unlike him, I am brave enough to use a
deliverable e-mail address and my real name and hometown. The fact that
my account has not been pulled since I switched to IgLou in May 1996
suggests that IgLou--unlike those big, bland on-line services and some of
the more censorous ISPs that run rampant in the U.S.--understands the
First Amendment and knows the proper way to run an ISP.
With that in mind, I suspect Doyen will have an extremely difficult
time trying to censor me. I have broken no laws and no IgLou policies.
Not now, not ever. My only crime is daring to disagree with the coward
known as Doyen.
Of course, I also thought he would fail in his attempt to get Dr.
Frager's accounts pulled, since Dr. Frager also broke no laws. Alas, I
was wrong, apparently because the ISPs Frager used have a low tolerance
for dissent.
An ISP would have to be pretty heartless to pull my account,
considering that I live in a dry county and thus am deprived of a social
life due to the moral hypocrisy of those who think they know what's best
for everyone else. This is the one and only decent ISP accessible in my
area. IgLou is the ONLY link between Highland Heights, Kentucky, and the
outside world, especially for those of us who can't afford to bribe county
officials for a driver's license. (If you all think I'm kidding, then
move here and find out for yourselves.) Without IgLou, I would lead a
very bleak existence in a coal mine or factory, earning subminimum wages
while management violently busts our unions.
--
bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom
Annoy a Republican -- think for yourself!
Annoy a conservative -- THINK!
Tantrum 95.7 TNT -- You Can Still Rock In New America!
MarkProbe
In article <EGMxG...@iglou.com>, bath...@iglou2.iglou.com (Tim Brown)
writes:
>Doyen does not scare me one bit. Unlike him, I am brave enough to use a
>deliverable e-mail address and my real name and hometown. The fact that
>my account has not been pulled since I switched to IgLou in May 1996
>suggests that IgLou--unlike those big, bland on-line services and some of
>the more censorous ISPs that run rampant in the U.S.--understands the
>First Amendment and knows the proper way to run an ISP.
> With that in mind, I suspect Doyen will have an extremely difficult
>time trying to censor me. I have broken no laws and no IgLou policies.
>Not now, not ever. My only crime is daring to disagree with the coward
>known as Doyen.
I certainly hope you are right. If you get *any* correspondence that may
be the result of Doyen's tactics, then please let the group know who sent
it, and the substance of the correspondence.
> Of course, I also thought he would fail in his attempt to get Dr.
>Frager's accounts pulled, since Dr. Frager also broke no laws. Alas, I
>was wrong, apparently because the ISPs Frager used have a low tolerance
>for dissent.
I thought goat was pretty tough. Most of us did. He probably had a good
reason to pull the plug.
John Palmer
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:56:14 -0600, stan....@mailexcite.com wrote:
> I hope I don't offend anyone by asking this, but what the heck is going
>on?! I know I've only recently come back here after an absence of about
>fourteen months, but something seems a little screwy. Since when is
>illegal activity something a.s.a-d tries to defend? And since when does
>"majority rule". Majority ruled during slavery - that didn't make it
>right!
Well, here's the thing. There's lots of things that are "wrong"
that aren't, and shouldn't be, prosecutable. My *FEAR* (note: I'm not
yet accusing) is that Doyen is willing to go to any length to
prosecute/persecute Tim for behavior that, if it is illegal, probably
shouldn't be.
Tim has claimed to be "America's Foremost Schizophrenic
Attorney". He has not attempted to dispense legal advice to the
extent of my knowledge.
Frager did, quite possibly, put out enough smoke and mirrors that
someone could have thought he was a doctor. He might well have made
references to a "practice" and "patients" and "dealing with cases of
ADD", etc, which inches over that line.
Tim has a reason to be here: a false diagnosis of ADD that he
believes was responsible for a lot of grief. He's wrong about a lot
of things, but he's SINCERELY wrong. . .
I would not want to see him get in legal trouble for what he
does here. It would be unfair.
BLeyton
In article <5vmtj4$m...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
fre...@ix.netcom.com(Sara Freeman) writes:
>>Frager is gone because Doyen collected every bit of documentation that
>he
>>could find, that proves that Jerry Kolnick was impersonating an M.D.,
>and
>>then turned it all in to the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners for
>>potential criminal prosecution. He also turned this information in to
>the
>>2 ISP's that Jerry was using, and got them to cancel his accounts.
>
>Do you know all of this for a fact.
Well, Ummmm, no. But he has been rather quiet lately, so I assume that
this was the reason. I suppose he could have been run over by a bus...
Brian Leyton
stan....@mailexcite.com
> >> I hope I don't offend anyone by asking this, but what the heck is
> >>going on?! I know I've only recently come back here after an absence of
> >>about fourteen months, but something seems a little screwy. Since when is
> >> illegal activity something a.s.a-d tries to defend? And since when does
> >> "majority rule". Majority ruled during slavery - that didn't make it
> >> right!
> >You are starting to convince me. I just have a creepy feeling that I
> >better watch every word that I post from now on or someone might decide
> >that I am not good for the group and try to prosecute me.
> >Thats all. But I understand what you mean.
> >Respectfully,
> >Cambela
> Stan:
> While I agree with your sentiments completely, and I think the
..very thorough explanation of the Doyen/Tim situation >snipped<...
> I also think Tim's posts could be worse if, as "Frgr" did, he jumped
> on posts by newbies and offered incorrect statements and bad advice.
> Mostly, I just see him challenge opinions or facts posted by people
> who are not likely to be harmed as much as annoyed.
Thank you, Don, for responding to my "verbal explosion". Do you think,
maybe, that Doyen *might* think that Tim's posts are as harmful as
Frager's had been? You make a very astute distinction between aimless
annoyance and "jumping on posts by newbies and offering incorrect
statements and bad advice". Do you think that Doyen might not have made
such a distinction, and might reconsider if such a distincion actually
exists?
I can tell you that any urgency in my postings is precisely out of a
militant defense of those who might actually take that bad advice. I am
*SO* afraid of the effect that such bullshit will have that I actually
have begun to think that, sometimes, the First Amendment must take a
backseat. I haven't decided where I stand on that issue exactly, but I
do know that, as left-ist as I usually am, I know firsthand what
untreated ADD can do and the WRECK it can make of someone's life, and
that sometimes even a "dirty" liberal like me must change his mind on
occasion.
Now, do I approve of "Big Brother" deciding who stays and who goes? Of
course not! Doyen - if you're reading this, can you tell me/us what
criteria you are using in deciding who to pursue or not? And, what are
your methods? If you are not making the final decision, then I see
nothing wrong with your actions. If you are merely "pressing charges" so
to speak, then it is somebody else who decides the legitimacy of such
complaints. If you are some kind of sys.op/hacker who knows how to kick
someone off, then I suggest you must answer to all of us. What is the
story. Do we have reason to be alarmed? Are you subject to the same
scrutiny?
Don, again, thanks for responding. And, do you really think that Tim's
posts have less "harm potential" than Frager's did? That harm potential
is the ONLY reason I get so unwound over such posts - and why I need more
info before I can judge Doyen or this situation.
Looking forward to a continued exchange,
Brian Leyton
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:14:45 -0600, stan....@mailexcite.com wrote:
> Don, again, thanks for responding. And, do you really think that Tim's
>posts have less "harm potential" than Frager's did? That harm potential
>is the ONLY reason I get so unwound over such posts - and why I need more
>info before I can judge Doyen or this situation.
Stan, I'll put my 2 cents in here - I for one feel that Tim indeed
does have less harm potential than F***er. Think about it from the
perspective of a newbie making their first post to this group. They
ask a question about Ritalin, and get one of F***er's standard,
well-written diatribes about the evils of medications, the
medical/pharmaceutical complex, etc., signed with the title "Dr.".
Before this person gets to hear the responses from more reasoned
voices, they already have heard what appears to be an authoritative
opinion from a medical professional.
Now look at one of Tim's standard postings. "ADD is made-up, it
doesn't exist, drugs are evil, blah, blah, blah".
I think that there's a huge difference here.
Brian Leyton
zero K
John Palmer <jpal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> No, one doesn't take precedence over the other. But you're
> saying that someone with (the equivalent) of tourette's syndrome
> should be punished for barking/cussing/twitching in a room full of
> people for whom such noises/movements are bothersome. . . even if
> that person with Tourette's thinks that s/he *NEEDS* to be in that
> room, truly and sincerely, and thinks that room would be hurt if s/he
> left.
>
I live alone because I find it difficult to concentrate with people
around. If someone with (the equivalent) of tourette's syndrome
kept barking/cussing/twitching in my room, no one would criticize me for
kicking them out.
zero K
BLeyton <ble...@aol.com> wrote:
> That's exactly the point, but I'm surprised that you don't see it. The
> internet is *not* a supervised environment. That's why we see
> inappropriate behaviors all the time. Why is it that you feel that you
> have the right to supervise this unsupervised environment?
>
If we do not supervise ourselves, the government may well step in to
supervise things for us.
> >I'm not responsible." The difference is, there is _CHOICE_ involved! Tim
> >chose
> >not to take his medication, and I had no choice in that. However, DON'T ASK
> >ME
> >to accept his behavior because of it. I probably would be MUCH more flexible
> >if
> >he WAS being treated, or if he made an effort not to sabotage this NG.
>
> So if Tim was, say, a heroin addict, then your response would be to call
> the cops?
If he kept stealing my property to finance his habit, yes.
>Look, it takes all kinds to populate this world. Usenet is just
> a small version of the world. I may think that Tim is a jerk, and that
> many of his comments are uncalled for, but the last time I checked, this
> was a free country. If Tim is violating any laws, then you already know
> that most of us here on this group are willing to overlook that.
>
Not me.
Hands, please?
> You made an analogy earlier about what would happen if Tim were to come to
> an AA meeting. I think a better analogy would be if Tim were to show up at
> a CHADD meeting. If he did, then we'd all probably roll our eyes, whisper
> to our neighbor that Tim is just a flake, and ignore him. I really doubt
> that anyone would call the cops & have him forceably removed.
>
He probably would be if he made it difficult for the meeting to
function.
zero K
BLeyton <ble...@aol.com> wrote:
> We need to recognize that we can't keep every kook, snake-oil salesperson
> and crackpot out of this newsgroup. We feel that while the most serious
> cases may need to be dealt with, we prefer to put up with the rest of them,
> simply to preserve our own freedom of speech.
>
> Brian Leyton
No more than you can keep Doyen out. You can only persuade him/her/it
that Tim et al. are basically harmless. If Tim, or anyone else, is not
actually doing anything illegal on the Net, then it is highly unlikely
that they will be prosecuted. I don't think that prosecuters enjoy
explaining the workings of the net to juries. Was Frager actually
prosectued? The mere threat was probably enough to put him/her/it off,
because impersonalting a doctor _is_ a crime, as it should be.
If you are so uncomfortable about what you have to say in usenet, post
anonymously. I do so just because I got tired of cleaning spam off my
hard drive.
zero K
<stan....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
> I can tell you that any urgency in my postings is precisely out of a
> militant defense of those who might actually take that bad advice. I am
> *SO* afraid of the effect that such bullshit will have that I actually
> have begun to think that, sometimes, the First Amendment must take a
> backseat. I haven't decided where I stand on that issue exactly, but I
> do know that, as left-ist as I usually am, I know firsthand what
> untreated ADD can do and the WRECK it can make of someone's life, and
> that sometimes even a "dirty" liberal like me must change his mind on
> occasion.
>
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin
MarkProbe
In article <1997092805...@rotary428-pri.voicenet.com>,
zer...@demon.co.uk (zero K) writes:
>If we do not supervise ourselves, the government may well step in to
>supervise things for us.
I guess you did not hear, the CDA was ruled unconstitutional.
MarkProbe
>>Look, it takes all kinds to populate this world. Usenet is just
>> a small version of the world. I may think that Tim is a jerk, and that
>> many of his comments are uncalled for, but the last time I checked, this
>> was a free country. If Tim is violating any laws, then you already know
>> that most of us here on this group are willing to overlook that.
>>
>
>Not me.
>
>Hands, please?
Go to DejaNews and look for a thread entitled outrageous. You lose.
stan....@mailexcite.com
Cute quote, but quite inappropriate.
Even with our First Amendment, you CANNOT shout "Fire" in a crowded
theatre! That is the ONLY example I need to show you that even the First
Amendment can only go so far - and that there are exceptions to EVERY
rule - even those that *SEEM* like "essential liberties". To cite more
examples of laws which *seem* to contradict the First Amendment, but
which in fact are laws that are ESSENTIAL to our overall freedom and
quality of life, take a look at Slander and Libel. You cannot lie about
someone verbally - even with freedom of speech. And, you cannot lie
about someone on paper - even with freedom of the press. Sorry, but
that's a fact.
So, how much of a stretch is it to say that you shouldn't be able to
publically and deliberately LIE about some*thing*? I say it's hardly a
stretch at ALL.
I doubt Mr. Franklin had or would have had a problem with laws saying
that you cannot shout "Fire" in a crowded auditorium if there is in fact
no fire. It would be a LIE that would seriously jeopardize the safety
and freedom of those people in that theatre. And that law is all about
*SAFETY*. So - yes, sometimes safety does come first. AND, what about
the liberty of those theatre goers who do not wish to be trampled and
possibly hurt by the panic which could result as a result of such ABUSE
of our freedom? What about their freedom to enjoy a movie, their freedom
to go out in public without having to fear for their *safety*? Sometimes
safety and freedom go hand in hand.
And, yes, I've given *a lot* of thought to priorities. And *still*, I
feel that sometimes the First Amendment takes *second* priority. I agree
that it should be rare, but sometimes it MUST!
But then again, maybe not! Maybe the First Amendment was never meant
to protect LIARS!!!!!!!!! Whether you're falsely shouting "Fire!" in a
crowded auditorium, or falsely calling Ritalin poison. Maybe you ARE NOT
supposed to be protected by a very sacred freedom which must NOT EVER be
taken for granted.
EVER.
zero K
Tim Brown <bath...@iglou2.iglou.com> wrote:
> Doyen does not scare me one bit. Unlike him, I am brave enough to use a
> deliverable e-mail address and my real name and hometown.
What do you do about spam?
No real e-mail address. No way. No sir. Nope.
zero K
--
Spam, spam, spam, spam:
antoi...@aol.com
sup...@juno.com
customer...@shop.juno.com
postm...@juno.com
pres...@juno.com
adve...@juno.com
p...@support.juno.com
sup...@hotmail.com
comm...@hotmail.com
ab...@hotmail.com
sa...@hotmail.com
wayne...@earthlink.net
in...@wwa.com
sa...@wwa.com
ll-s...@wwa.com
sup...@wwa.com
service@@wwa.com
bil...@wwa.com
webfe...@wwa.com
ab...@aol.com
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
wrote:
><stan....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
<actual message snipped>
>They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> --Benjamin Franklin
Either Franklin said something remarkably similar to Jefferson (quite
possible), or you got the quote and the attribution wrong:
"Those who would give up liberty for a small security will have
neither."
-- Thomas Jefferson
If these are accurate quotes I think I like Jefferson's wording
better.
Roger Glover
MarkProbe wrote:
>
> In article <1997092805...@rotary428-pri.voicenet.com>,
> zer...@demon.co.uk (zero K) writes:
!!!!
!!!!!!
> >If we do not supervise ourselves, the government may well step in to
> >supervise things for us.
>
> I guess you did not hear, the CDA was ruled unconstitutional.
It quite often happens that the British do not hear about
American legal decisions. :^)
I have also observed that UK citizens in general seem to
prefer a slightly more paternalistic government than the
kind we Americans tend to idealize.
-- Rog
zero K
The Constitution can be amended.
zero K
<stan....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
> > <stan....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
> > > I can tell you that any urgency in my postings is precisely out of a
> > > militant defense of those who might actually take that bad advice. I am
> > > *SO* afraid of the effect that such bullshit will have that I actually
> > > have begun to think that, sometimes, the First Amendment must take a
> > > backseat. I haven't decided where I stand on that issue exactly, but I
> > > do know that, as left-ist as I usually am, I know firsthand what
> > > untreated ADD can do and the WRECK it can make of someone's life, and
> > > that sometimes even a "dirty" liberal like me must change his mind on
> > > occasion.
> > >
> > --
> > They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> > deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> > --Benjamin Franklin
>
> Cute quote, but quite inappropriate.
>
> Even with our First Amendment, you CANNOT shout "Fire" in a crowded
> theatre!
You _can_, whether you _will_ escape punishment or not is another
question. In all likelihood, you'll get trampled to death. If someone
yells "FIRE" in a newsgroup, my lazy ass is goin nowhere. =;->
> That is the ONLY example I need to show you that even the First
> Amendment can only go so far -
And one of the very few examples . . . .
>and that there are exceptions to EVERY
> rule - even those that *SEEM* like "essential liberties". To cite more
> examples of laws which *seem* to contradict the First Amendment, but
> which in fact are laws that are ESSENTIAL to our overall freedom and
> quality of life, take a look at Slander and Libel. You cannot lie about
> someone verbally - even with freedom of speech. And, you cannot lie
> about someone on paper - even with freedom of the press. Sorry, but
> that's a fact.
No, you can lie all you want. Whether anyone will talk to you
afterwards is another bag of worms. Defamation (a.k.a Libel and
Slander) is "An _intentional_ false communication . . . that _injures_
another's reputation or _good_ name." _Black's Law Dictionary_, and is
damned hard to prove in court. The US Supreme Court tends to favor the
First Amendment over defamation. Unlike Timmy, I aced Constitutional
Law at an acredited law school, while I was learning about ADD the hard
way . . . .
>
> So, how much of a stretch is it to say that you shouldn't be able to
> publically and deliberately LIE about some*thing*? I say it's hardly a
> stretch at ALL.
>
A thing cannot feel injury to its damaged reputation.
> I doubt Mr. Franklin had or would have had a problem with laws saying
> that you cannot shout "Fire" in a crowded auditorium if there is in fact
> no fire. It would be a LIE that would seriously jeopardize the safety
> and freedom of those people in that theatre. And that law is all about
> *SAFETY*.
I thought it was about agrandizing politicians . . . ;-)
>So - yes, sometimes safety does come first. AND, what about
> the liberty of those theatre goers who do not wish to be trampled and
> possibly hurt by the panic which could result as a result of such ABUSE
> of our freedom? What about their freedom to enjoy a movie, their freedom
> to go out in public without having to fear for their *safety*? Sometimes
> safety and freedom go hand in hand.
>
Newsgroup readers are rarely in any _immediate_ danger to life or limb.
> And, yes, I've given *a lot* of thought to priorities. And *still*, I
> feel that sometimes the First Amendment takes *second* priority. I agree
> that it should be rare, but sometimes it MUST!
>
--
I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it.
--Voltaire
> But then again, maybe not! Maybe the First Amendment was never meant
> to protect LIARS!!!!!!!!! Whether you're falsely shouting "Fire!" in a
> crowded auditorium, or falsely calling Ritalin poison. Maybe you ARE NOT
> supposed to be protected by a very sacred freedom which must NOT EVER be
> taken for granted.
>
Calling Ritalin a poison is nowhere near the same as shouting fire in
the proverbial theater. No one's life will be directly endangered by
not taking Ritilan.
> EVER.
>
> -stan
"The best protection against bad speech is more speech."
--Some US Supreme Court Justice whose name escapes me.
zK
--
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
--
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
--Mao Zedong
MarkProbe
In article <1997092900...@rotary443-pri.voicenet.com>,
zer...@east.ru (zero K) writes:
It may be amended, but it will not be amended. The CDA was just a peice of
"feel good" right wing type legislation where the congresscritters can go
back to their constituents and say that they were for "family vlaues" and
then blame SCOTUS for ruling it unconstitutional, when they knew that it
could not pass constitutional muster.
zero K
Roger Glover <glo...@cray.com> wrote:
> MarkProbe wrote:
> >
> > In article <1997092805...@rotary428-pri.voicenet.com>,
> > zer...@demon.co.uk (zero K) writes:
> ^^
> !!!!
> !!!!!!
>
>
> > >If we do not supervise ourselves, the government may well step in to
> > >supervise things for us.
> >
> > I guess you did not hear, the CDA was ruled unconstitutional.
>
> It quite often happens that the British do not hear about
> American legal decisions. :^)
>
> -- Rog
Um, sorry for the confusion, but that's not my real address. I prefer
not to say where I am. I feel no need to justify myself. =;->
Tim Brown
mark...@aol.com (MarkProbe) writes:
>All those who cared to express themselves did so. No one supported Doyen
>in public. I received NO email from anyone who felt that he is right.
William Mullin supports Doyen, for what it's worth.
--
bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom
Annoy a Nazi -- say no to public school uniforms!
Read The Last Word -- It's your road atlas to freedom!
John Palmer
Right. . .in *YOUR* room, not in a public room, which is what a
Usenet newsgroup closely approximates.
Brian Leyton
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 05:11:32 -0400, zer...@demon.co.uk (zero K) wrote:
> Was Frager actually
>prosectued? The mere threat was probably enough to put him/her/it off,
>because impersonalting a doctor _is_ a crime, as it should be.
Well, it did, but only for a little while - he's back, as obnoxious as
ever, though I can't help but get the feeling that something's
different - his spelling seems sloppier, his wit doesn't seem quite as
sharp...
Brian Leyton
Brian Leyton
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 05:12:03 -0400, zer...@demon.co.uk (zero K) wrote:
>Tim Brown <bath...@iglou2.iglou.com> wrote:
>
>> Doyen does not scare me one bit. Unlike him, I am brave enough to use a
>> deliverable e-mail address and my real name and hometown.
>
>What do you do about spam?
>
>No real e-mail address. No way. No sir. Nope.
>
>zero K
Well, I complain.
A lot.
But it is worth it when the responses come back saying that the
account was nuked, or the server that was used to relay the spam has
been reconfigured to disallow relaying.
Plus, AOL does filter some of the bigger spamhouses out, so I don't
see a lot of it.
Brian Leyton
MarkProbe
>But then again, maybe not! Maybe the First Amendment was never meant
>to protect LIARS!!!!!!!!! Whether you're falsely shouting "Fire!" in a
>crowded auditorium, or falsely calling Ritalin poison. Maybe you ARE NOT
>supposed to be protected by a very sacred freedom which must NOT EVER be
>taken for granted.
The First Amendment was designed to protect the most repugnant speech,the
least popular speech, the speech of just one person.
Lies are speech.
Only when the lie rises to the level that there exists a clear and present
danger that a substantial harm that government has the authority to prevent
may occur, can there be a restraint on speech. The restraint must be the
minimum to prevent the substantial harm.
The cure for speech you do not like is more speech, not less.
zero K
As a denizen of the Keystone State, I have a bias towards Franklin.
If I'm wrong, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations is wrong.
;-)
zK
Don Stauffer <A...@Skyler.Com> wrote:
> While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all things
> on Sun, 28 Sep 1997 05:11:18 -0400, zer...@demon.co.uk (zero K) wrote:
>
> ><stan....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> <actual message snipped>
>
> >They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> >deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin
>
> Either Franklin said something remarkably similar to Jefferson (quite
> possible), or you got the quote and the attribution wrong:
>
> "Those who would give up liberty for a small security will have neither."
>
> -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> If these are accurate quotes I think I like Jefferson's wording better.
>
> Don Stauffer
>
> | Email is welcome except solicitation, which | will be forwarded to
> | domain Administrators. |
-- "Dying is boring."--The final words of Richard Feynman.
MarkProbe
>I suppose all denizens of this newsgroup voted?
>
>Defeat delayed.
All those who cared to express themselves did so. No one supported Doyen
in public. I received NO email from anyone who felt that he is right.
Not even a simple "you're wrong".
So, been there, done that.
zero K
I suppose all denizens of this newsgroup voted?
Defeat delayed.
zK
MarkProbe <mark...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <1997092805...@rotary428-pri.voicenet.com>,
> zer...@demon.co.uk (zero K) writes:
>
Cambela
Brian Leyton <ble...@spamsucks.worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<34302566...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 05:11:32 -0400, zer...@demon.co.uk (zero K)
wrote:
>
> > Was Frager actually
> >prosectued? The mere threat was probably enough to put him/her/it
off,
> >because impersonalting a doctor _is_ a crime, as it should be.
> Well, it did, but only for a little while - he's back, as obnoxious
as
> ever, though I can't help but get the feeling that something's
> different - his spelling seems sloppier, his wit doesn't seem quite
as
> sharp...
I think we have an impersonator. Its not him.
Cambela
zero K
Brian Leyton <ble...@spamsucks.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I've had no luck with that, myself, and my time is too precious to waste
it complaining about spammers . . . there are a lot more interesting
things to waste it on!
--
There is no evidence that life is supposed to be serious.
--Nickleodeon News Flash
zero K
MarkProbe <mark...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <1997092900...@rotary443-pri.voicenet.com>,
> zer...@east.ru (zero K) writes:
>
> >I suppose all denizens of this newsgroup voted?
> >
> >Defeat delayed.
>
> All those who cared to express themselves did so. No one supported Doyen
> in public. I received NO email from anyone who felt that he is right.
>
> Not even a simple "you're wrong".
>
> So, been there, done that.
--
The man drinks the first saki
The first saki drinks the second saki
Then the saki drinks the man
zero K
Usenet is a hoot. Mark and I are arguing with each other in one
sub-thread, and against each other in another. LOL!
zK
MarkProbe
In article <34302566...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
ble...@spamsucks.worldnet.att.net (Brian Leyton) writes:
>Well, it did, but only for a little while - he's back, as obnoxious as
>ever, though I can't help but get the feeling that something's
>different - his spelling seems sloppier, his wit doesn't seem quite as
>sharp...
Did you say he's a half wit?
zero K
<jen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1997092805...@rotary428-pri.voicenet.com>,
> zer...@demon.co.uk (zero K) wrote:
> >
> > Tim Brown <bath...@iglou2.iglou.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Doyen does not scare me one bit. Unlike him, I am brave enough to use a
> > > deliverable e-mail address and my real name and hometown.
> >
> > What do you do about spam?
> >
> > No real e-mail address. No way. No sir. Nope.
>
> I got a box at hotmail, as you can see. I have two private boxes on two
> separate servers. I give those addresses to people I know are not going
> to spam me.
>
> With Hotmail, the mail stays on their computer and I simply clean it out
> periodically by deleting obvious spam.....or I can let it ride and it
> will automatically be deleted when I go over 2 megs or something. They
> also have a "block sender" which will send all future messages from a
> particular address directly into a "trash can" folder, which is
> automatically dumped every night.
>
I don't even feel like taking the time to sort the meat from the spam.
Kill files are better. Now I have to make sure my 'puter doesn't delete
friends' messages by mistake!
>
> I like to use my real name because I want credit for everything I write,
> even if it's crap....it's all I have :-)
>
One can always PGP sign, but I like to think my personality always shows
through. But then, I like to think a lot of things.
;-)
zK
zero K
Doyen <anon-...@anon.twwells.com> wrote:
> That might be fine for them, but I live in America, and in America I have the
> right
yes
> and obligation
no
> to report illegal activity. If everyone was to turn a
> blind eye to crime or to even go further and DEFEND crime, then this country
> would turn into a cesspool of death and destruction.
>
yes
zK
zero K
MarkProbe <mark...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <1997092900...@rotary443-pri.voicenet.com>,
> zer...@east.ru (zero K) writes:
>
> >The Constitution can be amended.
> >
> >MarkProbe <mark...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1997092805...@rotary428-pri.voicenet.com>,
> >> zer...@demon.co.uk (zero K) writes:
> >>
> >> >If we do not supervise ourselves, the government may well step in to
> >> >supervise things for us.
> >>
> >> I guess you did not hear, the CDA was ruled unconstitutional.
>
> It may be amended, but it will not be amended. The CDA was just a peice of
> "feel good" right wing type legislation where the congresscritters can go
> back to their constituents and say that they were for "family vlaues" and
> then blame SCOTUS for ruling it unconstitutional, when they knew that it
> could not pass constitutional muster.
I'm sure they'll be back with more subtle methods next time. :-(
zK
MarkProbe
In article <343027bd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
ble...@spamsucks.worldnet.att.net (Brian Leyton) writes:
>Plus, AOL does filter some of the bigger spamhouses out, so I don't
>see a lot of it.
You can add an domain to your filter. I see no mor eposts from
enterprise.net.
Brian Leyton
On 30 Sep 1997 11:49:59 GMT, mark...@aol.com (MarkProbe) wrote:
>In article <34302566...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>ble...@spamsucks.worldnet.att.net (Brian Leyton) writes:
>
>>Well, it did, but only for a little while - he's back, as obnoxious as
>>ever, though I can't help but get the feeling that something's
>>different - his spelling seems sloppier, his wit doesn't seem quite as
>>sharp...
>
>Did you say he's a half wit?
Mark, Mark, Mark...
Always the one with the clever comeback.
Good one, though! :-)
Brian Leyton
zero K
Brian Leyton <ble...@spamsucks.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 05:11:32 -0400, zer...@demon.co.uk (zero K) wrote:
>
> > Was Frager actually
> >prosectued? The mere threat was probably enough to put him/her/it off,
> >because impersonalting a doctor _is_ a crime, as it should be.
> Well, it did, but only for a little while - he's back, as obnoxious as
> ever, though I can't help but get the feeling that something's
> different - his spelling seems sloppier, his wit doesn't seem quite as
> sharp...
>
> Brian Leyton
More's the pity. . . .
--
Once you go Mac you never go back!
Brian Leyton
On 30 Sep 1997 13:03:44 GMT, mark...@aol.com (MarkProbe) wrote:
>In article <343027bd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>ble...@spamsucks.worldnet.att.net (Brian Leyton) writes:
>
>>Plus, AOL does filter some of the bigger spamhouses out, so I don't
>>see a lot of it.
>
>You can add an domain to your filter. I see no mor eposts from
>enterprise.net.
Yeah, I should put that one in. I actually enjoy getting people nuked
though, so as long as it's only one or two a day, I can handle it.
The enterprise stuff just goes straight to the sh*tcan.
Sometimes if I get really bored, I log into another screen name that I
have which is unfiltered, and complain about the spam I get there...
Brian Leyton
MarkProbe
In article <1997093005...@rotary334-pri.voicenet.com>,
zer...@east.ru (zero K) writes:
>Usenet is a hoot. Mark and I are arguing with each other in one
>sub-thread, and against each other in another. LOL!
That makes you half right.
Give me a chance, and I make you alright (pun intended).
MarkProbe
>> It may be amended, but it will not be amended. The CDA was just a peice of
>> "feel good" right wing type legislation where the congresscritters can go
>> back to their constituents and say that they were for "family vlaues" and
>> then blame SCOTUS for ruling it unconstitutional, when they knew that it
>> could not pass constitutional muster.
>
>I'm sure they'll be back with more subtle methods next time. :-(
Not right away. They have more smoke and mirrors. I used to watch the
House and Senate when I was in DC.
Always got in trouble for dozing off. I asked why I was not allowed to
doze off in the gallery. The page told me that my snoring may actually wake
them up and they would have to do something.
Scary, eh?
stan....@mailexcite.com
In article <1997092900...@rotary443-pri.voicenet.com>,
zer...@east.ru (zero K) wrote:
>
> <stan....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
> > > <stan....@mailexcite.com> wrote:
> > > > I can tell you that any urgency in my postings is precisely out of a
> > > > militant defense of those who might actually take that bad advice. I am
> > > > *SO* afraid of the effect that such bullshit will have that I actually
> > > > have begun to think that, sometimes, the First Amendment must take a
> > > > backseat. I haven't decided where I stand on that issue exactly, but I
> > > > do know that, as left-ist as I usually am, I know firsthand what
> > > > untreated ADD can do and the WRECK it can make of someone's life, and
> > > > that sometimes even a "dirty" liberal like me must change his mind on
> > > > occasion.
> > > >
> > > --
> > > deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> > > --Benjamin Franklin
> >
For some folks, ADD means they'll never get into law school, or
college, or come anywhere close to being happy. Until they are treated.
And the first step in treatment is educating yourself. That's damend
hard (if not IMPOSSIBLE) to do when you're assaulted by liars like
Frager, etc.
> > I doubt Mr. Franklin had or would have had a problem with laws saying
> > that you cannot shout "Fire" in a crowded auditorium if there is in fact
> > no fire. It would be a LIE that would seriously jeopardize the safety
> > and freedom of those people in that theatre. And that law is all about
> > *SAFETY*.
> I thought it was about agrandizing politicians . . . ;-)
Well....... ;}
> >So - yes, sometimes safety does come first. AND, what about
> > the liberty of those theatre goers who do not wish to be trampled and
> > possibly hurt by the panic which could result as a result of such ABUSE
> > of our freedom? What about their freedom to enjoy a movie, their freedom
> > to go out in public without having to fear for their *safety*? Sometimes
> > safety and freedom go hand in hand.
> >
> Newsgroup readers are rarely in any _immediate_ danger to life or limb.
Keyword being *rarely*. It does happen however. Read on...
> > And, yes, I've given *a lot* of thought to priorities. And *still*, I
> > feel that sometimes the First Amendment takes *second* priority. I agree
> > that it should be rare, but sometimes it MUST!
> > But then again, maybe not! Maybe the First Amendment was never meant
> > to protect LIARS!!!!!!!!! Whether you're falsely shouting "Fire!" in a
> > crowded auditorium, or falsely calling Ritalin poison. Maybe you ARE NOT
> > supposed to be protected by a very sacred freedom which must NOT EVER be
> > taken for granted.
> >
>
> Calling Ritalin a poison is nowhere near the same as shouting fire in
> the proverbial theater.
Read on...
> No one's life will be directly endangered by not taking Ritalin.
Mine was.
-stan
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
stan....@mailexcite.com
> In article <1997092900...@rotary443-pri.voicenet.com>,
> zer...@east.ru (zero K) writes:
>
> >I suppose all denizens of this newsgroup voted?
> >
> >Defeat delayed.
>
> All those who cared to express themselves did so. No one supported Doyen
> in public. I received NO email from anyone who felt that he is right.
>
> Not even a simple "you're wrong".
>
> So, been there, done that.
Okay, the only reason I'm now deciding to respond is that I just can't
stand the assumption that I agree with EVERYTHING you've said.
I just want to repeat something said (by "Zero"?) earlier in this
thread: that Tim makes the choice not to treat his Schizophrenia. I
shouldn't have to pay for a choice in which my input was not considered.
Of course his body is his own choice - it's not a democracy where my
opinion counts.
But - everyone seems to be saying that that choice not to treat himself
has a DIRECT CAUSAL relationship with his conduct. So, where his conduct
effects me - I should have input - AND *INFLUENCE*. It's not fair that
he gets away with shit just because he is allegedly schizophrenic.
Yes - it is a free country. But even in a free country, if you're at a
concert, and a simple "harmless" heckler is in the back disrupting the
concert, he will be (AND SHOULD BE!!!!!) silenced and/or removed. And NO
ONE would be silly enough to say that that would be a violation of his
"free speech".
I want to enjoy a.s.a-d's concert. I should be able to expect that
I'll be able to do just that. Now - if the person next to me at such a
concert just had a heaping bowl of chili and is, um..., flatulent, then I
do not have the right to have him removed. If I don't wish to experience
his odor - then *I* must move. There is a fine line between what is
acceptable and what is not. A fart I must endure. A disruptive and
discourteous person, I must NOT.
I vote that Tim's conduct has been TOTALLY unacceptable. Fart all you
want Tim, but shut up unless you have a violin in your hand!
John Palmer
On 27 Sep 1997 23:18:45 -0400, anon-...@anon.twwells.com (Doyen)
wrote:
>I see this as them defending the activity that is NOT illegal under ASAD LAW.
>That's the law of 'whatever we say goes, and it doesn't matter if it is illegal,
>if you don't like it, too bad.'
Yes, if you ignore everything that's been said about the topic,
you COULD come to that conclusion. But wouldn't that be incredibly
prejudiced?
>That might be fine for them, but I live in America, and in America I have the
>right and obligation to report illegal activity.
You *DO NOT* believe that; you're making an emotionalistic
statement to dishonestly drum up support. Or DO you take down the
license plate numbers of people who pass you when you're driving at
the legal limit, to report them to the police? Guess you only take
that "duty" seriously when it gives you a chance to grandstand.
> If everyone was to turn a
>blind eye to crime or to even go further and DEFEND crime, then this country
>would turn into a cesspool of death and destruction.
Stand on top of Thoreau's grave and say that; maybe you can
measure the movement from his turning in the grave from that.
>I'm not just 'guessing' here, I'm not making it up. I researched and posted
>actual LEGAL citations regarding what I stated. I did NOT say a word until I
>had the documents to back me up. I'm not going to do what most idiots do and
>just say "No, that isn't illegal!" as if it makes any difference. They are no
>more a lawyer than I am, BUT it doesn't take a genius to read written law. I
>posted it more than once, and still people say "it's not illegal" as if them
>_saying_ it makes the law invalid.
Hey, it's ILLEGAL for a man and woman to have consensual
oral-gential relations in some states. Does that make it *RIGHT* if
they get arrested, and prosecuted?
>However, it is when a person uses deliberate deception in a way that is contrary
>to law, to add 'weight' to their 'opinions' that I become distressed.
Er, then why do you "persecute" (your word) Tim Brown?
zero K
<stan....@mailexcite.com> wrote: > > > > >and that there are
exceptions to EVERY > > > rule - even those that *SEEM* like "essential
liberties". To cite more > > > examples of laws which *seem* to
contradict the First Amendment, but > > > which in fact are laws that
are ESSENTIAL to our overall freedom and > > > quality of life, take a
look at Slander and Libel. You cannot lie about > > > someone verbally
- even with freedom of speech. And, you cannot lie > > > about someone
on paper - even with freedom of the press. Sorry, but > > > that's a
fact. > > > > No, you can lie all you want. Whether anyone will talk to
you > > afterwards is another bag of worms. Defamation (a.k.a Libel and
> > Slander) is "An _intentional_ false communication . . . that _injures_ >
> another's reputation or _good_ name." _Black's Law Dictionary_, and is > >
damned hard to prove in court. The US Supreme Court tends to favor the
> > First Amendment over defamation. Unlike Timmy, I aced Constitutional >
> Law at an acredited law school, while I was learning about ADD the hard >
> way . . . . > > For some folks, ADD means they'll never get into law
school, or > college, or come anywhere close to being happy. Until they
are treated. > And the first step in treatment is educating yourself.
That's damend > hard (if not IMPOSSIBLE) to do when you're assaulted by
first. AND, what about > > > the liberty of those theatre goers who do
not wish to be trampled and > > > possibly hurt by the panic which could
result as a result of such ABUSE > > > of our freedom? What about their
freedom to enjoy a movie, their freedom > > > to go out in public
without having to fear for their *safety*? Sometimes > > > safety and
freedom go hand in hand. > > > > > > Newsgroup readers are rarely in any
_immediate_ danger to life or limb. > > Keyword being *rarely*.
It does happen however. Read on... > > > > And, yes, I've given *a
lot* of thought to priorities. And *still*, I > > > feel that sometimes
the First Amendment takes *second* priority. I agree > > > that it
should be rare, but sometimes it MUST! > > > > But then again, maybe
not! Maybe the First Amendment was never meant > > > to protect
LIARS!!!!!!!!! Whether you're falsely shouting "Fire!" in a > > >
crowded auditorium, or falsely calling Ritalin poison. Maybe you ARE
NOT > > > supposed to be protected by a very sacred freedom which must
NOT EVER be > > > taken for granted. > > > > > > > Calling Ritalin a
poison is nowhere near the same as shouting fire in > > the proverbial
theater. > > Read on... > > > No one's life will be directly
endangered by not taking Ritalin. > > Mine was. > >
-stan
You're going to have to explain that one to convince anyone, stan.
zK
stan....@mailexcite.com
>>> No one's life will be directly endangered by not taking Ritalin.
>> Mine was.
>> -stan
> You're going to have to explain that one to convince anyone, stan.
Suicide attempts. Because of ADD. When the ADD was treated, with
Ritalin, the suicidal urges - the desperation, the thoughts that I'll
never ever ever ever make my life work - ended. Ritalin, thus, saved my
life.
Rd. Richard X. Frager
stan....@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
>>>> No one's life will be directly endangered by not taking Ritalin.
>
> >> Mine was.
>
> >> -stan
>
> > You're going to have to explain that one to convince anyone, stan.
>
> Suicide attempts. Because of ADD. When the ADD was treated, with
>Ritalin, the suicidal urges - the desperation, the thoughts that I'll
>never ever ever ever make my life work - ended. Ritalin, thus, saved my
>life.
Sorry, "Stan" or whatever your real name is, but we have seen through
your charade many moons ago. First off, Ritalin has not saved
anyones lives, especially not yours! That would be akin to stating
that aspirin saved someones life, or a band-aid!
But believe what you want to belive in, if it makes you feel better.
And keep on medicating yourself, if that is what you are
suppose to do. What you have written over the
many years shows to most of us that you may be beyond
conventional help, and may be a candidate for the loony-bin,
better known as an insane asylum. Don't get me wrong, "Stan"
or whoever you really are, this is a message of "support!"
Hey "Stan", don't take my word for it, ask Sara if you want to.
But I believe she will offer similar advice. Again, this
is a support message, we are concerned and caring people!!
Rd. R. X. F.
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
wrote:
><stan....@mailexcite.com> wrote: > > > > >and that there are
<SNIP>
>theater. > > Read on... > > > No one's life will be directly
>endangered by not taking Ritalin. > > Mine was. > >
>-stan
>
>You're going to have to explain that one to convince anyone, stan.
>
>zK
I second Stan's observation. Many people have posted to this group
describing impulsive, dangerous things AD/HD has made them or a family
member do. Medication curbs impulsivity and hyperactivity. One
person described a child who was bouncing on a bed because he couldn't
sit still, and bounced right through a 2nd floor window screen.
Luckily, only a broken arm resulted. I had a bicycle accident when I
was 18 that should have killed me. I don't do stuff like riding that
fast on a gravel road any more now that I'm being treated.
Ritalin saves lives.
Tim Brown
A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) writes:
>Ritalin saves lives.
Except it destroys them.
--
bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom
*** STOP PUBLIC SCHOOL UNIFORMS -- IT'S YOUR FIGHT, SILVER GROVE! ***
Read The Last Word -- It's your road atlas to freedom!
Listen to Tantrum 95.7 -- The station that takes on the titans of tyranny!
jen...@hotmail.com
In article <34421c3a....@news.dol.net>,
A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>
> Luckily, only a broken arm resulted. I had a bicycle accident when I
> was 18 that should have killed me. I don't do stuff like riding that
> fast on a gravel road any more now that I'm being treated.
I was so happy when I finally saved up enough money to get this 15speed
bicycle. I was about 13 years old. To test it out, I decided I'd ride to
this HUGE hill in a near by subdivision. I started down in the highest
gear and got going as fast as possible. It was *so* much fun! So, I close
my eyes and put my hands up like people do on roller-coasters.....next
thing I know I'm slamming into the curb and flying straight for a pole.
The front wheel of the bike was bent so terribly, it was
unusable/unfixable. I had a huge lump on my head and my neck hurt for
weeks. It was fun for a second I guess :-)
Tim Brown
jen...@hotmail.com writes:
>In article <34421c3a....@news.dol.net>,
> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>>
>> Luckily, only a broken arm resulted. I had a bicycle accident when I
>> was 18 that should have killed me. I don't do stuff like riding that
>> fast on a gravel road any more now that I'm being treated.
>I was so happy when I finally saved up enough money to get this 15speed
>bicycle. I was about 13 years old. To test it out, I decided I'd ride to
>this HUGE hill in a near by subdivision. I started down in the highest
>gear and got going as fast as possible. It was *so* much fun! So, I close
>my eyes and put my hands up like people do on roller-coasters.....next
>thing I know I'm slamming into the curb and flying straight for a pole.
>The front wheel of the bike was bent so terribly, it was
>unusable/unfixable. I had a huge lump on my head and my neck hurt for
>weeks. It was fun for a second I guess :-)
I had a Big Wheel when I was about 6 years old. I always rode it down the
sidewalk down a steep hill in the neighborhood at an amazing speed
previously thought unachievable by Big Wheels. Whenever I sped past a
mailbox, I stuck my arm out and pulled it away again right before it
slammed into the mailbox post. Of all the hundreds of times I performed
this death-defying feat, my arm never hit a mailbox. Is that cool or
what?
Joe Parsons
>jen...@hotmail.com writes:
>
>>In article <34421c3a....@news.dol.net>,
>> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>>>
>>> Luckily, only a broken arm resulted. I had a bicycle accident when I
>>> was 18 that should have killed me. I don't do stuff like riding that
>>> fast on a gravel road any more now that I'm being treated.
>
>>I was so happy when I finally saved up enough money to get this 15speed
>>bicycle. I was about 13 years old. To test it out, I decided I'd ride to
>>this HUGE hill in a near by subdivision. I started down in the highest
>>gear and got going as fast as possible. It was *so* much fun! So, I close
>>my eyes and put my hands up like people do on roller-coasters.....next
>>thing I know I'm slamming into the curb and flying straight for a pole.
>>The front wheel of the bike was bent so terribly, it was
>>unusable/unfixable. I had a huge lump on my head and my neck hurt for
>>weeks. It was fun for a second I guess :-)
>
>I had a Big Wheel when I was about 6 years old. I always rode it down the
>sidewalk down a steep hill in the neighborhood at an amazing speed
>previously thought unachievable by Big Wheels. Whenever I sped past a
>mailbox, I stuck my arm out and pulled it away again right before it
>slammed into the mailbox post. Of all the hundreds of times I performed
>this death-defying feat, my arm never hit a mailbox. Is that cool or
>what?
How about lane splitting (riding between the lines of cars on a
motorcycle) at 70 MPH? It's especially stimulating when one's
passenger is screaming in the intercom. :)
Joe Parsons
--
=====================================================================
Please remove the "!" from my address to send me mail. I do not
wish to receive *any* Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (UCE). I will
consider that altering my address for the purpose of sending such
unwanted mail is willful harassment. You *don't* want to do that.
Michael J. Frankel
In article <34477649...@news.dol.net>,
Don Stauffer <A...@Skyler.Com> wrote:
>While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>(Tim Brown) wrote:
>>
><Snip>
>>
>>I had a Big Wheel when I was about 6 years old. I always rode it down the
>>sidewalk down a steep hill in the neighborhood at an amazing speed
>>previously thought unachievable by Big Wheels. Whenever I sped past a
>>mailbox, I stuck my arm out and pulled it away again right before it
>>slammed into the mailbox post. Of all the hundreds of times I performed
>>this death-defying feat, my arm never hit a mailbox. Is that cool or
>>what?
>
>
Sorry Don, but if you have to ask...
-m
;-)
--
Michael Frankel (SayItRealFast)
m...@wwa.com
http://wwa.com/~mjf/
Tim Brown
com> <3441362b...@news.thecia.net>
ann...@thecia.net (Ann) writes:
>bath...@iglou2.iglou.com (Tim Brown) expounded:
>>jen...@hotmail.com writes:
>>
>>>In article <34421c3a....@news.dol.net>,
>>> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Luckily, only a broken arm resulted. I had a bicycle accident when I
>>>> was 18 that should have killed me. I don't do stuff like riding that
>>>> fast on a gravel road any more now that I'm being treated.
>>
>>>I was so happy when I finally saved up enough money to get this 15speed
>>>bicycle. I was about 13 years old. To test it out, I decided I'd ride to
>>>this HUGE hill in a near by subdivision. I started down in the highest
>>>gear and got going as fast as possible. It was *so* much fun! So, I close
>>>my eyes and put my hands up like people do on roller-coasters.....next
>>>thing I know I'm slamming into the curb and flying straight for a pole.
>>>The front wheel of the bike was bent so terribly, it was
>>>unusable/unfixable. I had a huge lump on my head and my neck hurt for
>>>weeks. It was fun for a second I guess :-)
>>
>>I had a Big Wheel when I was about 6 years old. I always rode it down the
>>sidewalk down a steep hill in the neighborhood at an amazing speed
>>previously thought unachievable by Big Wheels. Whenever I sped past a
>>mailbox, I stuck my arm out and pulled it away again right before it
>>slammed into the mailbox post. Of all the hundreds of times I performed
>>this death-defying feat, my arm never hit a mailbox. Is that cool or
>>what?
>Yes, that is cool :::smile:::. I still ride my bicycle with my
>husband, we go all over the place. Bike riding makes me feel about 10
>years old again!
I'm going to build a car out of 2 or 3 bicycles and be the proud owner of
the world's first car that doesn't need fuel. The oil companies are
shaking in their boots because of me.
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>In article <34421c3a....@news.dol.net>,
> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>>
>> Luckily, only a broken arm resulted. I had a bicycle accident when I
>> was 18 that should have killed me. I don't do stuff like riding that
>> fast on a gravel road any more now that I'm being treated.
>
>I was so happy when I finally saved up enough money to get this 15speed
>bicycle. I was about 13 years old. To test it out, I decided I'd ride to
>this HUGE hill in a near by subdivision. I started down in the highest
>gear and got going as fast as possible. It was *so* much fun! So, I close
>my eyes and put my hands up like people do on roller-coasters.....next
>thing I know I'm slamming into the curb and flying straight for a pole.
>The front wheel of the bike was bent so terribly, it was
>unusable/unfixable. I had a huge lump on my head and my neck hurt for
>weeks. It was fun for a second I guess :-)
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
You're giving me flashbacks. I had my Schwinn Varsity 10 speed wound
out in 10th gear (and these things are geared HIGH) on a _gravel road_
(yes, I know how stupid that sounds). About 50 feet before a very
sharp curve in front of a grove of somewhat mature trees I realized
there was no way I could slow down enough to make it around that
curve. I deliberately leaned to snowplow in the gravel. The bike
slid in front of me, and my foot hit the road. I flipped completely
over, landing on my shoulder, which broke my collarbone and pushed the
pieces together until they overlapped an inch or two, as they still do
to this day. I flipped over a half dozen more times, eventually
modulating it into a roll, and stopped halfway down the 6 foot bank,
within a dozen feet of the trees.
Oh, did I mention I was wearing only shorts and shoes? 17 years later
I still have scars from the brush burns on my back. I was able to
drag myself about 25 feet up the road before sitting, then lying down
to avoid passing out, barely. I spent the summer in a clavicle band.
I think I broke my kneecap too, but that wasn't noticed.
I should have died. Pure luck.
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>sidewalk down a steep hill in the neighborhood at an amazing speed
>previously thought unachievable by Big Wheels. Whenever I sped past a
>mailbox, I stuck my arm out and pulled it away again right before it
>slammed into the mailbox post. Of all the hundreds of times I performed
>this death-defying feat, my arm never hit a mailbox. Is that cool or
>what?
Ok, why did you do that?
Don Stauffer
Tim Brown
A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) writes:
>While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>things on Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:04:46 GMT, bath...@iglou2.iglou.com
>(Tim Brown) wrote:
>>
><Snip>
>>
>>I had a Big Wheel when I was about 6 years old. I always rode it down the
>>sidewalk down a steep hill in the neighborhood at an amazing speed
>>previously thought unachievable by Big Wheels. Whenever I sped past a
>>mailbox, I stuck my arm out and pulled it away again right before it
>>slammed into the mailbox post. Of all the hundreds of times I performed
>>this death-defying feat, my arm never hit a mailbox. Is that cool or
>>what?
>Ok, why did you do that?
Because it was fun!
jen...@hotmail.com
In article <EI06o...@iglou.com>,
bath...@iglou2.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>
> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) writes:
>
>
> >Ok, why did you do that?
>
> Because it was fun!
Then it *was* cool!!
Geez, Don, don't you know *anything?* :-)
:-)
Jim Manson
jen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>In article <34477649...@news.dol.net>,
> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>>
>> While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>> things on Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:04:46 GMT, bath...@iglou2.iglou.com
>> (Tim Brown) wrote:
>> >
>> <Snip>
>> >
>> >I had a Big Wheel when I was about 6 years old. I always rode it down the
>> >sidewalk down a steep hill in the neighborhood at an amazing speed
>> >previously thought unachievable by Big Wheels. Whenever I sped past a
>> >mailbox, I stuck my arm out and pulled it away again right before it
>> >slammed into the mailbox post. Of all the hundreds of times I performed
>> >this death-defying feat, my arm never hit a mailbox. Is that cool or
>> >what?
>>
>> Ok, why did you do that?
>
>Good question. Same reason I guess that some friends and I used to hang
>out the car window with a baseball bat aimed at the mailboxes. Only we
>didn't pull away at the last second :-)
>
>I was a good kid, really I was.
We had that problem in my neighborhood when I was younger. It stopped
suddenly.
My father was a principal engineer with the state dept. of
transportation, bridge inspection, and he obtained a steel I-beam
that weighed in at a few hundred pounds. It was set 4 feet down with
about 6 bags of cement.
One night there was a crash and we went out to see broken glass about
the post. Apparently they held a rod of some type out the window and
braced it. Not a good idea. The managed to dent the box a little.
The best part was about a week later. I heard a godawful crash outside
one night at about 1:00am. The kids involved apparently decided to
side swipe the post to get revenge. Luckily for them it had been
raining for 2 days so the ground was soft. The actually managed to
tilt the post a few degrees. We found broken glass, side moldings,
various pieces of twisted metal and what was left of the two
headlights (with brackets) on that side. The car managed to drive
away, slowly.
I wish I could have heard the explanation they gave their parents.
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>In article <EHyqp...@iglou.com>,
> bath...@iglou2.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to build a car out of 2 or 3 bicycles and be the proud owner of
>> the world's first car that doesn't need fuel. The oil companies are
>> shaking in their boots because of me.
>
>Actually, a guy down the street here has something similar. It's an
>enclosed bicycle that looks like a big bullet. I don't think it makes
>55mph or greater though. That's the trouble with "human powered"
>vehicles, they aren't fast enough and use up too much personal energy.
>What we really need is something that uses an alternate energy without
>losing speed and power. I know those type of vehicles already exist, but
>Corporate oil companies keep them from becoming a standard in America.
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
I think it's likely this is true. I heard a very believable story
about tires that never wear out. The patent was bought out in the
early part of this century and put on a shelf by one of the tire
giants. What would they sell if your tires never wore out?
Now the biggest new thing in tires is "unlimited treadlife warrantee".
Hmmm . . .
Tim Brown
jen...@hotmail.com writes:
>In article <EHyqp...@iglou.com>,
> bath...@iglou2.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to build a car out of 2 or 3 bicycles and be the proud owner of
>> the world's first car that doesn't need fuel. The oil companies are
>> shaking in their boots because of me.
>Actually, a guy down the street here has something similar. It's an
>enclosed bicycle that looks like a big bullet. I don't think it makes
>55mph or greater though. That's the trouble with "human powered"
>vehicles, they aren't fast enough and use up too much personal energy.
>What we really need is something that uses an alternate energy without
>losing speed and power.
Hemp can be made into fuel, and I support it 100%, just as Gatewood
Galbraith does. I sure hope to hell he runs for governor again in '99,
because I will be campaigning for him just as I did in '91 and '95.
>I know those type of vehicles already exist, but
>Corporate oil companies keep them from becoming a standard in America.
I've never seen such a vehicle, but I'd love to have one. I guess I won't
find any at the local car dealership.
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>In article <34467468...@news.dol.net>,
> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>>
>>
>> You're giving me flashbacks.
>
>All the fun things we did.......:-)
>
>
>> I still have scars from the brush burns on my back. I was able to
>> drag myself about 25 feet up the road before sitting, then lying down
>> to avoid passing out, barely. I spent the summer in a clavicle band.
>> I think I broke my kneecap too, but that wasn't noticed.
>
>I've got to ask, did it hurt?
It hurt, and it was frightening lying at the side of a country road
alone in midsummer feeling like passing out and with my shoulder
feeling _definitely very wrong_ and being unable to move it.
>I ask because every time I hurt myself I barely felt it....even when I
>had broken bones, other people had to suggest I tell my parents and go to
>the doctor. Of course, I rarely told them...I mean how could I have a
>broken bone if it didn't hurt? I've walked with a fractured kneecap, swam
>with broken ribs, calmly collected the other half of my finger when it
>was scliced off by a strom window, walked away from car accidents
>bleeding. Also, I've had gashes that should have been stitched that I
>only noticed because blood was running all over the place, even then I
>just threw a bandaid on it and went on my way.
I'm pretty able to ignore pain, but not the most severe pain.
>Anyway, that little accident you had was probably noticable, huh?
Noticable . . . yeah, you'd call it noticable! The part where I
couldn't even sit up but had to stay lying down on a dirt road in
danger of passing out - I noticed that! I was seriously afraid I
might die, not knowing what my injuries were.
>Sounds
>like it was pretty bad, I bet it was fun for a second though wasn't it?
>Sort of like, I think jumpimg from a sky scraper would be fun.....the
>jumping and falling part and not the hitting the ground part, ya know?
In an "adventure" sort of way, I guess. Not that I'd go looking for
trouble like that. If I had fallen slightly differently it would have
been my neck instead of collar bone. If I hadn't decided to snowplow,
I would have hit the grove of trees airborne at about 50 mph. I was
in an odd sort of way rather proud I wasn't dead!
>> I should have died. Pure luck.
>>
>> Don Stauffer
>>
>> | Email is welcome except solicitation, which |
>> | will be forwarded to domain Administrators. |
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Don Stauffer
Jim Manson
A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>I think it's likely this is true. I heard a very believable story
>about tires that never wear out. The patent was bought out in the
>early part of this century and put on a shelf by one of the tire
>giants. What would they sell if your tires never wore out?
>
Highly unlikely- the only way that they could never wear out is if
they were hard enough to not abrade on the road. The end result would
be the same as driving on stainless steel wheels- very, very little
traction. As abrasion goes down traction does also.
stan....@mailexcite.com
In article <61kmq4$aer$2...@host-3.cyberhighway.net>,
"Rd. Richard X. Frager" <smcq...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
> stan....@mailexcite.com wrote:
> >
> >>>> No one's life will be directly endangered by not taking Ritalin.
> >
> > >> Mine was.
> >
> > >> -stan
> >
> > > You're going to have to explain that one to convince anyone, stan.
> >
> >Ritalin, the suicidal urges - the desperation, the thoughts that I'll
> >never ever ever ever make my life work - ended. Ritalin, thus, saved my
> >life.
>
> Sorry, "Stan" or whatever your real name is,
Okay, folks, before I respond to Jerry's idiocy, I'll explain what's
going on here. I recently did an 'Author Profile' on "Frager" and found
a particularly disturbing post on alt.dreams in which he admonished a
woman to "get help" after revealing that she had had dream(s) of a
physical encounter with someone of the same gender. Frager/Jerry, again
exposing himself as an idiot, but also a homophobe, practically called
this poor woman a freak for daring to have such dreams. Gee, Kolnick, I
guess I must be "beyond all conventional help" because I have CONSCIOUS,
*WAKEFUL* thoughts of the same nature! You are pathetic.
So, anyway, this post of Jerry/Frager, and his putting my name in
quotes, is his petty attempt at getting back at me. Okay, Jerry, here's
your rattle back.
>but we have seen through your charade many moons ago.
What charade? And who, exactly, is "we"? Oh, *do* tell! I'm looking
forward to it! I have once already divulged my full name and address,
and was even bashed by Sara for it (I don't remember what her criticism
was - I guess it was *real* important!). But, I'll risk more of it and
repeat my deed:
Stanley William Shura/253 Appleton St/Apt 3A/Lowell, MA 01852.
I *DARE* you to give us the same look at yourself "Frager/Jerry". Would
we find out that Jerry is also an alias? Gees, even most murderers don't
go through this much trouble to hide.
> First off, Ritalin has not saved anyones lives, especially not yours!
You have one hell of a nerve telling me how my life has gone, and what
Ritalin has done to improve it. You weren't here three years ago, were
you? No? Well, then, shut your fucking hole. You know not about which
you speak.
>That would be akin to stating that aspirin saved someones life, or a band-aid!
Hey, clueless, aspirin DOES help save lives. Haven't you heard? Don't
you read? It has been shown to reduce the risk of a second heart attack
for many folks who take it daily. Hmm...I guesss they must be addicts -
right, Jerry? I mean, anyone who would pop a pill *EVERYDAY* (GASP!!!)
*just* to help save their own life, must be some hopeless, disgusting
addict, *RIGHT, JERRY*??
Tell you what, why don't you go have a heart attack (PLEASE!), and I
promise to give you plenty of TEA AND HERBS! Oh, what - that's
different? How? Ohhhhhh - because it's YOUR life, this time? Uh-huh.
That's right - it's different when it's your OWN life, isn't it? Yeah, I
thought so. Piss off, you hypocrite.
And, no one has ever died (or in some cases, attempted suicide) for
lack of a band-aid. The same can NOT be said about Ritalin. Bzzzt! You
*LOSE*!
> But believe what you want to belive in, if it makes you feel better.
I will do just that, thank you. I believe the truth. I believe in
asking questions. I believe in keeping an open mind. I believe in
research. I believe in placebo-controlled, double-blind studies. I
believe in educating oneself before spewing off garbage that makes no
sense. You obviously believe in no such thing.
By the way, I *DO* feel better *KNOWING* that there is hope for those
of us with ADD. I DO feel better that educated folks recognize the
efficacy of methylphenidate and the important role it can play in the
treatment of Attention Deficit Disorder. I *do* feel better when I am
able to function to the best of my ability - and this is ONLY so when I
am treating my ADD - in my case, with methylphenidate. It works. Too
bad you're so obsessed with yourself and your stupid games to even
CONSIDER educating yourself.
> And keep on medicating yourself, if that is what you are suppose to do.
I will. And, it is.
>What you have written over the many years shows to most of us that you may be
>beyond conventional help
You go right ahead and repost ANYTHING I have ever posted. I am very
willing and HAPPY to take credit for my words. I am *PROUD* of them.
>and may be a candidate for the loony-bin, better known as an insane asylum.
>Don't get me wrong, "Stan" or whoever you really are, this is a message of
>"support!"
You have not ONCE posted a message of support. And, I also took a look
at your posting past, going back a few years, just to refresh my memory.
I make my claim with proof. You do not.
> Hey "Stan", don't take my word for it, ask Sara if you want to.
> But I believe she will offer similar advice. Again, this
> is a support message, we are concerned and caring people!!
Watch out, everyone!!!! His nose is growing, growing, GROWING!!!
Lightning may strike him at any moment! LOOK OUT!!
-stan
> Rd. R. X. F.
Brian Leyton
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:22:33 GMT, A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>>What we really need is something that uses an alternate energy without
>>losing speed and power. I know those type of vehicles already exist, but
>>Corporate oil companies keep them from becoming a standard in America.
>>
>>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
>I think it's likely this is true. I heard a very believable story
>about tires that never wear out. The patent was bought out in the
>early part of this century and put on a shelf by one of the tire
>giants. What would they sell if your tires never wore out?
>
>Now the biggest new thing in tires is "unlimited treadlife warrantee".
>Hmmm . . .
I suppose it's nice to believe such things, but first of all, if there
was a patent on the concept, then it would have had to be registered
with the patent office, thus making it accessible to anyone. If it
really was discovered in the early part of the century, then the
patent would have expired long ago.
Besides, I have to believe that someone tinkering in their garage
would have re-discovered the concept by now.
Brian Leyton
Joe Parsons
Reposted to enter article into archives.
On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 01:12:50 GMT, A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer)
wrote:
[snip]
>While we'd very much like Tim to stop posting inaccurate assertions,
>and better yet to stop believing them, we don't feel it's appropriate
>or acceptable to prevent him from speaking if he wants to. As (I
>think) Benjamin Franklin said, "I disagree with what you're saying,
>but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As I see it,
That was Voltaire (François Marie Arouet) :) Ben Franklin, I'm
sure, agreed vigorously with the words.
>Tim's speech may be objectionable but it is and should be protected.
Objectionable speech is the *most* in need of protection. The
notion of "First Amendment rights" on Usenet is moot, however, for
a couple of reasons: First, Usenet is not an American entity; it
is international, and runs for the most part on privately-owned
computers.
Second, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says in part
"CONGRESS shall make no law..." That does not apply to an ISP's
deciding that he doesn't want to carry what *he* feels is
objectionable. All the ISP and the user have to do is to adhere
to their respective parts of their contract.
>I also think Tim's posts could be worse if, as "Frgr" did, he jumped
>on posts by newbies and offered incorrect statements and bad advice.
>Mostly, I just see him challenge opinions or facts posted by people
>who are not likely to be harmed as much as annoyed.
Yeah, but he's ours, and we like him. :)
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>In article <EI06o...@iglou.com>,
> bath...@iglou2.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>>
>> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) writes:
>>
>>
>
>> >Ok, why did you do that?
>>
>> Because it was fun!
>
>Then it *was* cool!!
>
>Geez, Don, don't you know *anything?* :-)
>
>:-)
>:-)
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
I guess I need freon. :-)
MarkProbe
In article <3444d08e....@news.dol.net>,
A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>
> I think it's likely this is true. I heard a very believable story
> about tires that never wear out. The patent was bought out in the
> early part of this century and put on a shelf by one of the tire
> giants. What would they sell if your tires never wore out?
An interesting story, but for one small factoid:
In the "early part of this century" there were no "tire giants".
There were too few tires to have giants. Maybe an oversized midget, but no
giants.
nospa...@istar.ca
>jen...@hotmail.com writes:
>
>>In article <34421c3a....@news.dol.net>,
>> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>>>
>>> Luckily, only a broken arm resulted. I had a bicycle accident when I
>>> was 18 that should have killed me. I don't do stuff like riding that
>>> fast on a gravel road any more now that I'm being treated.
>
>>I was so happy when I finally saved up enough money to get this 15speed
>>bicycle. I was about 13 years old. To test it out, I decided I'd ride to
>>this HUGE hill in a near by subdivision. I started down in the highest
>>gear and got going as fast as possible. It was *so* much fun! So, I close
>>my eyes and put my hands up like people do on roller-coasters.....next
>>thing I know I'm slamming into the curb and flying straight for a pole.
>>The front wheel of the bike was bent so terribly, it was
>>unusable/unfixable. I had a huge lump on my head and my neck hurt for
>>weeks. It was fun for a second I guess :-)
>
>I had a Big Wheel when I was about 6 years old. I always rode it down the
>sidewalk down a steep hill in the neighborhood at an amazing speed
>previously thought unachievable by Big Wheels. Whenever I sped past a
>mailbox, I stuck my arm out and pulled it away again right before it
>slammed into the mailbox post. Of all the hundreds of times I performed
>this death-defying feat, my arm never hit a mailbox. Is that cool or
>what?
I am in envy of your success Tim. I know sooner or later and probably
sooner, I would have wacked a pole and screwed up my arm. We never
could afford a Big Wheel before I got too big to ride one.
As for myself, I was about 7 and rode down the middle of the road on a
steep hill on a tricycle. Couldn't go fast enough with my bare feet on
the peddles so I took them off, course when it is time to stop before
hitting the moving van in the rode, the only option is too drag my
feet on the pavement.
Here's the ADD bit. After my Mom had washed the blood off in the bath
tub, put a disenfectant and bandaids on my feet, I went out and
(altogether now) bloody well did it again. I have scarring on the
inside balls of both feet
--
James
remove the nospam for my email address
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>In article <EI0uw...@iglou.com>,
> bath...@iglou2.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hemp can be made into fuel, and I support it 100%, just as Gatewood
>
>How would that work?
You smoke it, and then the wind moves you as you float upwards . . .
>> >I know those type of vehicles already exist, but
>> >Corporate oil companies keep them from becoming a standard in America.
>>
>> I've never seen such a vehicle, but I'd love to have one. I guess I won't
>> find any at the local car dealership.
>
>In Flint, I saw some test vehicles rolling out of the Engineering plants.
>I think they were running on Ethanol. I'm a little skeptical about that
>though since the biggest Corporate crook in America is supporting/funding
>it....that would be ADM, Archer Daniels Midland, the largest producer of
>Ethanol in America, and they make something like $700 *million*/year from
>it. Imagine the profits if our cars ran on it?
>
>I'm not sure the benefits to the environment are as great as they are
>trying to make it out to be. I think it's a lot of hype to make more
>money, and Dwayne Andreas doesn't give a shit about the environment or
>the people who live in it.
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Don Stauffer
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>In article <3444d08e....@news.dol.net>,
> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>>
>> I think it's likely this is true. I heard a very believable story
>> about tires that never wear out. The patent was bought out in the
>> early part of this century and put on a shelf by one of the tire
>> giants. What would they sell if your tires never wore out?
>
>Exactly, you get the idea. My father has been to Thialand three times in
>the last year and he says that they have many vehicles there which run on
>propane (I think, it was some kind of "alternate" fuel anyway).
Lots of fleets in the US currently run on propane.
>The thing I *like* though is that where I'm living now there is A LOT of
>strong wind, so people are using windmills to generate power. The law is
>written that the local utility company has to "buy back" any excess the
>windmills produce/harness. I still haven't figured out exactly how that
>works, but I like the idea.
>
>But the automobile industry is bigger than you could possibly imagine,
>it'll be a long, long time before we see alternate energies being used to
>power them.
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
wrote:
>In article <3444d08e....@news.dol.net>,
> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>>
>> I think it's likely this is true. I heard a very believable story
>> about tires that never wear out. The patent was bought out in the
>> early part of this century and put on a shelf by one of the tire
>> giants. What would they sell if your tires never wore out?
>
>An interesting story, but for one small factoid:
>
> In the "early part of this century" there were no "tire giants".
>There were too few tires to have giants. Maybe an oversized midget, but no
>giants.
A giant midget maybe? Or a jumbo shrimp?
OK, I heard this about 10 years ago, so it may have lost something in
my memory. I also have no idea where I heard it, or the quality of
the source. Maybe it wasn't so early, or maybe it wasn't a "giant",
or maybe this particular story wasn't even true.
What I do know is that stuff like this happens. The approach to buy
out patents for threatening research and put them on the shelf is one
way businesses protect their interests at the expense of consumers and
people in general. It's actually one of the more benign (and AFAIK,
legal) ways, compared with frivilous lawsuits for instance. Sort of
equivalent to a hostile takeover, but of a product instead of a
competitor.
John Palmer
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:13:42 -0600, jen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>The thing I *like* though is that where I'm living now there is A LOT of
>strong wind, so people are using windmills to generate power. The law is
>written that the local utility company has to "buy back" any excess the
>windmills produce/harness. I still haven't figured out exactly how that
>works, but I like the idea.
>
Well, basically, the windmill runs through your electric meter
and makes it run backwards when the windmill is running. (Or
"forwards more slowly") Since the electric company is charging you
for running current to your house, and how much you use, your sending
your own current through takes some of their load off.
>But the automobile industry is bigger than you could possibly imagine,
>it'll be a long, long time before we see alternate energies being used to
>power them.
There *ARE* such alternately fueled cars on the road; there are
propane cars, and you can modify just about any car to run on alcohol
if you change the gaskets and hoses so they won't deteriorate. The
problem is refueling (The natural gas cars belong to (surprise!) the
local gas company. . .)
John Palmer
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:23:56 GMT, A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>things on Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:13:47 -0600, jen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>In article <EI0uw...@iglou.com>,
>> bath...@iglou2.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hemp can be made into fuel, and I support it 100%, just as Gatewood
>>
>>How would that work?
>
>You smoke it, and then the wind moves you as you float upwards . . .
Actually, there's a hemp/cannibis FAQ that says that you *CAN*
make hemp into fuel oil (though it doesn't mention economy. . . )
That FAQ, if correct, makes hemp out to be a miracle plant . . .
Cambela
jen...@hotmail.com wrote in article <8769378...@dejanews.com>...
> Now that I'm really thinking about it, I think the not being able to
move
> thing has got to be the most frightening, awful feeling in the world.
> What would you do if you were paralized? I would surely commit
suicide,
> that'd just be *too* much.
>
>
I have a 42 year old patient with Lou Gerhig's (ALS) disease, she is
bedridden and can't move
a muscle except for her eyes, her vocal cords and her mouth to some
degree, speech is very
difficult. She has a twelve year old son and an eighteen year old.
Was divorced before being
stricken. Its a horrible disease, she would probably commit suicide if
she could lift her finger.
Her mind is pretty much all there, too, except that her anxiety is
sky-high and she is very, very
demanding of staff. She screams all day sometimes, sounds like a cat
howling. What a job.
I do try to help her though, I printed her a poem on the computer that
she likes, and I talk to her
when I can. But I think I would rather be eaten alive by ants than die
like she is, its the worst.
Cambela
--
To reply remove the beep (the lousy spammers figured it out!)
David Moisan
jen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>though since the biggest Corporate crook in America is supporting/funding
>it....that would be ADM, Archer Daniels Midland, the largest producer of
>Ethanol in America, and they make something like $700 *million*/year from
>it. Imagine the profits if our cars ran on it?
My motto: If Paul Harvey shills for them, they've got to be bad news!
ADM, Wal-Mart, Bose... (Well, Bose actually makes a good radio, just
way overpriced for what it is.) Anyone have a Select Comfort
mattress? :)
Dave
| David Moisan, N1KGH Email: dmo...@shore.net |
| WWW: http://www.shore.net/~dmoisan n1...@amsat.org |
| Invisible Disabilities Page: |
| http://www.shore.net/~dmoisan/invisible_disability.html |
| GE Superradio FAQ: |
| http://www1.shore.net/~dmoisan/faqs/superradio/gesr_faq.html |
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
<dab...@ix.beep.netcom.com> wrote:
My wife has some pretty nasty things to say about the intelligence
level of doctors who put ALS patients on respirators. Once you do,
you've sentenced them to decades of complete paralysis with complete
cognitive function, because you can't take them off legally.
I wrote a word processing program for use with a computer input device
called "IScan". The setup is targeted at ALS patients, among others.
The IScan hardware is an infrared light source and camera attached to
a pattern-recognition card in a PC. Once calibrated, the card can be
interrogated from a program to determine the screen location the
person is looking at. The program is a split screen - on the top is
the text the person is "typing"; on the bottom are icons the person
stares at to choose characters, phrases and functions (some of which
are nested in several levels of screens because of screen space
limitations).
The practical upshot is you can type while completely motionless
except for your eyeballs. It's the weirdest sensation - like the
computer can read your mind. It also attaches to a voice synthesizer,
and supports a keyboard/mouse emulator device for attachment to
another computer.
Don Stauffer
While I was dwelling on the fundamental interconnectedness of all
>In article <3443cc4c....@news.dol.net>,
> A...@Skyler.Com (Don Stauffer) wrote:
>>
>>
>> It hurt, and it was frightening lying at the side of a country road
>> alone in midsummer feeling like passing out and with my shoulder
>> feeling _definitely very wrong_ and being unable to move it.
>
>Yeah......I don't think I've ever been *not* able to move, if I were I'm
>sure I'd die trying. It must have been frightening, very frightening. Who
>helped you? How did you get home/to the hospital?
I was staying with a friend's parents in rural central PA the summer
after my first year of college. I was scheduled to leave a couple
days later to go to Chicago for a "Congress of Strings" (I was a music
major in college); I had tried out and won the place, all expenses
paid. I even had the plane tickets.
I had gotten around a mile away from their house when it happened, and
I wasn't in front of any houses. I tried to walk but didn't think I'd
make it, so I swallowed my embarrassment and called for help. Two
Amish girls, about 8 years old, heard me from a nearby farm, and
yelled back asking where I was. I told them I was in the road, and
about 5 minutes later they came running. They ran up the road to my
friend's house and his father drove over and took me to the hospital.
>Now that I'm really thinking about it, I think the not being able to move
>thing has got to be the most frightening, awful feeling in the world.
>What would you do if you were paralized? I would surely commit suicide,
>that'd just be *too* much.
I wouldn't, at least as near as I can tell not being in the situation.
It seems to me there are a nearly infinite number of things to do in
life. I already couldn't possibly do all the ones I'd be interested
in, so narrowing it down with a disability would still leave . . .
more than I could possibly do in a lifetime.
>> I'm pretty able to ignore pain, but not the most severe pain.
>
>The more severe it is, the less I feel it. <shrug>
>
>> Noticable . . . yeah, you'd call it noticable! The part where I
>> couldn't even sit up but had to stay lying down on a dirt road in
>> danger of passing out - I noticed that! I was seriously afraid I
>> might die, not knowing what my injuries were.
>
>I guess I *have* felt like that during asthma attacks. Obviously I knew
>what was wrong, but when you're out in the middle of nowhere and the
>medication isn't working......
I know _that_ feeling. While it's happening you do realize that
breathing can _stop entirely_, and what a terrible way to go!
>> In an "adventure" sort of way, I guess. Not that I'd go looking for
>> trouble like that.
>
>I don't actively look for it either, but I think about stuff like that
>all the time.
>
>>If I had fallen slightly differently it would have
>> been my neck instead of collar bone. If I hadn't decided to snowplow,
>> I would have hit the grove of trees airborne at about 50 mph. I was
>> in an odd sort of way rather proud I wasn't dead!
>
>You should be proud, you did good saving your life :-)
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Don Stauffer
Sara Freeman
you?
--
Start every day with a smile . . . and get it over with.
W.C. Fields
MarkProbe
In article <3444c4aa...@news.shore.net>, dmo...@shore.net (David
Moisan) writes:
>>though since the biggest Corporate crook in America is supporting/funding
>>it....that would be ADM, Archer Daniels Midland, the largest producer of
>>Ethanol in America, and they make something like $700 *million*/year from
>>it. Imagine the profits if our cars ran on it?
>
>My motto: If Paul Harvey shills for them, they've got to be bad news!
>ADM, Wal-Mart, Bose... (Well, Bose actually makes a good radio, just
>way overpriced for what it is.) Anyone have a Select Comfort
>mattress? :)
Nah. I prefer sleeping on the Bose.
MarkProbe
In article <34452c17...@news.thecia.net>, ann...@thecia.net (Ann) writes:
>The Big Three were basically the death of the railroad in this
>country. I don't know all the particulars, Hubby is the railroad nut
>around here, but the then owners of GM, Ford and Chrysler bought the
>railroads out in California, did away with them, and slowly did the
>same thing across the country. Who needs railroads when they can sell
>many trucks to haul the same articles???
The actual problem is that railroads could only go to certain areas, and
when they were saturated with people trucks had to carry goods away from
the RR. As time went by, trucks became bigger and more efficient and edged
out the railroads.
MarkProbe
>>The actual problem is that railroads could only go to certain areas, and
>>when they were saturated with people trucks had to carry goods away from
>>the RR. As time went by, trucks became bigger and more efficient and edged
>>out the railroads.
>
>Go talk to some railroad buffs. Their explanation is a bit
>different...and a little less politically correct.
Well, I am just following the course laid down by the Eisenhower
Interstate Highway System, which is what really lead to the RR's demise.
People were able toget from place to place a heck of a lot easier and more
direct on their own schedule.
When we lived in Europe, I always took the train if I was going any
distance (EXCEPT on the Autobahn, where 120 mph was not uncommon and my MB
500 series could handle it quite well).
Lachlan Davis
> But the automobile industry is bigger than you could possibly imagine,
> it'll be a long, long time before we see alternate energies being used to
> power them.
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
The new Honda's a good step forward though. It obviously still relies on the
combustion engine, but from the media snippets, it sounds like more than I
expected to see on the market in the near future.
Maybe we should get NASA on the project. I'm sure they could have us all
zipping around in plutonium powered cars in no time. :-)
--
lachla...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Lagoon/2446/
==============================================================
I never make mistakes. I thought I did once, but I was wrong.
==============================================================