Jihad needs scientists

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:13:06 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

snip
I think the problem (at least on sci.chem) is that people will
present a new idea as a fact, rather than as a speculation.
snip

I agree well with this particular comment.

But I'd add that I am sensitive to people who seem to believe that
everyone else should hang on every word of their own imaginations and
run with it. I happen to consider it lazy conceit and worse to not be
bothered to put one's own time into one's own ideas to at least do a
1st order check. "Do your own legwork and show me," is a good motto
here. Otherwise, expect to be ignored unless conceit prevents it.

On the other hand, I deeply respect imagination that is demonstrated
as coupled to a broad understanding of evidence.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:52:59 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:55:17 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

John, I've never seen a list for liberals to vote towards. Not ever.
Now you have:

http://www.emilyslist.org/

There are lots more... just look.

Please show me the list there.

Good grief, do I have to do all your web work for you?

https://secure1.emilyslist.org/Donation/index.cfm?event=initiative_showOne&initiativeID=12&mt=146

No, you just have to do YOUR OWN WORK. It was your point, after all.

I am beginning to put two and two together over this discussion to
gradually wonder that you may be the kind of boss who overly depends
upon people smarter than you to make good on your hand waving ideas.
I'm sure it isn't the case, but sometimes it seems that way.

Jon

 

[joseph2k]

Frank Bemelman wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht
news:j327j21u505vh814sag5r0rdekom79t5rp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:21:57 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:02:24 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Frank Bemelman wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> schreef

You seem to forget one tiny little detail, and that's that we
didn't
go after Saddam Hussein for the WTC, we went after him because of
his defiance of the UN, his refusal to comply with their sanctions
and inspections, and our belief that he was either developing, or
in
possession of, WMD.

As if the US gives a shit about the UN. Pot Kettle Black. So what
is left is only that wonderful belief in WMD crap.

Ironic isn't it ?

Wrt N Korea Bush comes over all smarmy and talks about the UN and the
'international community' as if he gave a damn. We all know he
doesn't.

---
You look through your blinders and you _think_ you know...

Bush doesn't give a damn about the UN. Even Bolton's no fan of it. It's
just
something convenient to use if you reckon they'll take 'your side'.

---
Don't you mean, ..."if you reckon they'll do the 'right thing'"?

It is not always clear what the right thing is. The UN tries, using
democratic principles, to reach concensus and then make a decision
that is supported by the majority.

The US clearly doesn't give a damn about the UN. They think they
know what is right and lost any capability of listening and
self critisism. They should be kicked out of the UN, their
membership is worth nothing.

It still surprises me why the American public hasn't put an
end to this insane government. Maybe they are too relaxed
about it, sipping their Chardonnays without being able to
pronounce it properly. They are as irresponsible as their
own leaders.

By damn, i think he's got it. And no, it does not make proud of my fellow
citizens. Disgusted with their willful ignorance is a little closer.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45355C57.28A8837D@earthlink.net...

The one where someone is
reported to have fired at the National Guard

Now *there's* a nice little bit of revisionist history.

Revisionist? It was report on local TV that way the day it happened.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Why do you equate playing music for an organization as endorsing their
political actions? I enjoy playing music, and I get a great deal of joy out
of sharing that music with others. I don't particularly care about the
politics or ethics of those I play for...and I'm sure they don't care about
mine.

Eric Lucas

If their acts bother you enough to publicly complain about them, why
do you want to be around them? That is hypocritical.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:879bj21r9ffat4i1pbkbjffvfb2bag6d5r@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:07:18 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:


They are prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and
that's reasonably well enforced.

Not in churches, they're not.

Churches may not donate money or substantial resources to political
candidates.

Don't for a minute fool yourself into thinking that they don't. Such money
does flow, through PACs and other legalized money laundering mechanisms.

Would you have a prohibition against members of a
congregation discussing politics?

Another strawman. Of course nobody is suggesting a prohibition against
members of a congregation discussing politics. However, whenever the Church
itself (not its congregation) endorses political candidates, that is
illegal.

Are you even capable of discussing issues honestly and openly, or do you
have to use disingenuous strawmen to make non sequitur points?

How about members of the Sierra
Club? The NRA? The ACLU? MADD?

See the above comment. Beyond that, those non-religious organizations are
different. None of those enjoy the Constitutional protection of the
separation of church and State. The Constitution rules that the government
is not to meddle in the church, and I believe the Supreme Court has ruled
that the prohibition goes the other way, too.

There have been some recent legal actions against churches that have
broken the no-politics rules, and against some secular nonprofits,
too.

As a musician in a group that happens to play
for church services a lot, I've been to services of quite a few
denominations...and many of them preach politics from the pulpit, to the
extent of telling their congregation for whom they should vote. That is
a
big problem, in my book.

Of course it is; you don't want their candidates to win.

I don't happen to make my ethical decisions on the basis of what gets my
favorite candidates elected. Do you? No, in fact, quite the opposite--I
choose my candidates based on which most closely matches my ethical center.
If you remember, I am fundamentally a centrist conservative, and I don't
have any preconceived notion of who I want to win. I make each decision
based on the individual merits. No, John, the endorsement of candidates by
religious organizations is a problem with me because I value the US
Constitution. I can't believe that, not only don't you value the
Constitution like I do, but you can't even admit or conceive of the fact
that I do.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

You are quite correct in that blaming the soldiers directly for their
actions is wrong. The blame rests squarely with the person who wants to
use guns and soldiers against their own people.

You could blame the US gun culture too.

I'm not sure I see the connection. The "gun culture" generally refers to
arms in the hands of civilians. Soldiers and police have guns in just about
every culture (I can't think of a single counterexample), and it was those
soldiers' guns that caused the deaths at KSU.

For comparison it would be very unusual to see guns used in a similar example
here in the UK and our military doesn't come out onto the streets as a rule
either ( most of our police are unarmed of course ).

Graham

 

[joseph2k]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:46:20 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

I'm not waiting for anything to occur. I'm telling you right now that
we're bringing *some* of the crap on ourselves.

And I am telling you that you are full of shit and blind to the fact
that that is bound to happen as we clean up this mess that these
extremist fucktards have started.

No... you cannot turn that table around to point at us... sorry,
chump!

Stupid fuckwit chump, the extremist fucktard idiots are at the very top of
our very own government. Dubyah still can't spell, or speak coherently,
worse than that twit Gore.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller

 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:irbbj21g2kpf26j9k453j93a17hpmei2ik@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:11:06 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe
unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to
scientific inquiry.

Generally speaking any belief system does no harm to scientific
exploration
in that manner.

Exactly.

The problem comes in when the belief tries to answer
scientific questions.

Science shouldn't be so fragile that it is threatened by peoples'
beliefs about stuff like this.

It isn't. However, considering the abysmal state of US primary science
education, we need to make sure it is taught where it belongs--in religion
classes, not in science classes (see below).

Until it is proven otherwise, the
universe may have originated in intelligent design, vacuum fluctuation
or (as one serious theory has it) time is an illusion and the universe
had no date of origin.

It may have, but you know darned well that what is taught in high school
science classes is generally very well-tested theory, as students at that
level don't have enough of a basis of understanding to evaluate untested
theories. I don't see anyone wanting to slip vacuum fluctuations or
illusory time into high school science classes, and teach it as "The Truth",
while relegating other explanations to "just theories". You know perfectly
well that that just plays off the difference between the scientific (a
hypothesis that has withstood tests and attempts at falsification) and lay
(unproven and probably false) definition of the word "theory."

By the way, the onus for providing evidence for a theory and making sure it
is a proper theory is not on its critics, it is on the authors of the
theory. Thus, "until it is proven otherwise" has no place in a discussion
of a theory...that would put it in the realm of science fiction at best.

Why are so many amateur scientists so hostile
to the idea that the universe was designed?

I wouldn't say "hostile" (that was be another strawman), but rather they
(correctly) insist that it not be taught as a scientific theory. Part of it
is precisely because those who are intent on teaching ID have acknowledged
that it is just a euphemism for Creationism, and is just an end-around on
the Constitution. As such, it is being used to close off scientific
discourse at a time when the US is suffering from some of the worst primary
science education in the developed world.

If you're suggesting that ID is a viable scientific theory, then the onus is
on *you* to come up with the experiments that will test that theory. You
must make a serious attempt to falsify the theory, as the very definition of
the appelation "theory" demands. Until then, it is a religious belief, and
has no place in a science class.

The Jesuits have a long history of science and mathematics. They
somehow didn't find them mutually exclusive to belief.

Another strawman. The Jesuits aren't dogmatically Creationist, and as such,
their beliefs aren't aimed at shutting down scientific inquiry.

Eric Lucas

 

[joseph2k]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:07:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

You don't understand what COMSEC is. You don't understand how it fits into
the security picture. It is "current" in some circles but, trust me, it is
depreciated.

You're an idiot. Also, the word you may have been attempting to use
is deprecated, not depreciated.

Still, either choice is incorrect as neither fits the reality.

You had better look them up you deprecated fool.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller

 

[joseph2k]

T Wake wrote:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:b9l2j2lrl75bpn74p86hf5670qmtuqjkla@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:07:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

You don't understand what COMSEC is. You don't understand how it fits
into the security picture. It is "current" in some circles but, trust me,
it is depreciated.

You're an idiot.

Seriously, compared to you I am a genius.

Also, the word you may have been attempting to use
is deprecated, not depreciated.

Ok, you caught a typo. Well done. Remember your response when I commented
on your typo?

Are you a hypocrite as well as a sycophant?


Still, either choice is incorrect as neither fits the reality.

Oh yes it does.

You also should look up those words. I declare you both deprecated and
depreciated.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller

 

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4535C5AC.4393B278@earthlink.net...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Why do you equate playing music for an organization as endorsing their
political actions? I enjoy playing music, and I get a great deal of joy
out
of sharing that music with others. I don't particularly care about the
politics or ethics of those I play for...and I'm sure they don't care
about
mine.

If their acts bother you enough to publicly complain about them, why
do you want to be around them?

No, the acts of a lot of people here bother me enough to publicly criticize
them, yet I still want to be "around" them in the context of this
discussion.

By the way, it is the church leadership of which I am critical. I have many
friends in several of the congregations, and I thoroughly enjoy being around
them, even though I deplore something their church does (that happens to be
illegal.)

That is hypocritical.

That may be your view--nice black-and-white worldview you've got there. I
don't have that luxury, I see good and bad in everybody and everything. I
get what I want out of the "relationship", and they appear to as well. We
don't have to love everything each other does, but we can certainly
appreciate each other for what we and they are worth.

Eric Lucas

 

In article <OziZg.13931$GR.6652@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453591FE.C2B3C58@hotmail.com...


David Bostwick wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic
fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back).

And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what?

Mad presumably.

And just because not all bad acts are caused by religious radicals doesn't
mean that no bad acts are caused by religious radicals.

Still, there is a far more important (non-violent) sense in which religious
(mostly Christian) radicals are a danger to the US.

Then start choosing Democrats who are willing to deal with reality.

/BAH

 

In article <453591FE.C2B3C58@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

David Bostwick wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic
fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back).

And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what?

Mad presumably.

Not necessarily. I suspect there will be more of this acting out.
If the world, as we know it, is going to end, a lot of people
are going to indulge in the secret desire which had been suppressed
by society's rules.

/BAH

 

In article <eh2qbu$c28$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article <eh2dme$8ss_004@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <egqd26$8qk_002@s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <ego03u$avm$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <q2lti217ub0ipoq590okcqphu8snt59nga@4ax.com>,
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:54:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in
message
news:YQtXg.270$di5.251@newsfe06.lga...
Eeyore wrote:


JoeBloe wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

JoeBloe wrote:

A "report" based on a guesstimate

No. Based on investigation. Something the USA hasn't done.

No. Folks over here, like Gary Sinese are sending books and
pencils
and such over there so our soldiers can give them to kids in school.
Something they NEVER had in the past.


You're now suggesting that Iraqi kids didn't previously have books
and
pencils ?

You're madder than ever.


Graham

sure they did, the books was Saddams desired religion and 101 ways
to
kill americans.

Unlikely in Iraq. In Iran maybe a variation (less Saddam and more ways
to
kill Americans), but not likely in Iraq. Prior to the early 1990s Iraq
was
almost a "liked" state in the region and they certainly had less
anti-western fervour than most other nations in that area.

Until Saddam totally fucked up and invaded the sovereignty of
another nation, the only thing we didn't like about him was that he
killed a lot of his own people. A ruthless regime which we
"tolerated" so as not to embroil the region.


Actually we sold him weapons,

What percentage of all Iraq's purchases were from the US
government?

What, if it's only 50% that makes it OK?

You dodged answering the question. What percentage? Be specific.


we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.



Rumsfield went over there and embraced him and told him he was our
friend.

What was the context of this visit?

Saddam had gassed the Kurds and was drawing world-wide criticism.

What year was this?


What is the custom of greeting
in that country?

What does this mean?

You dodged the question again. There are cultures where an
embrace is the normal greeting instead of a handshake.
Now, what is the custom of greeting in Iraq?

/BAH

Is telling someone they're still our friend after using poison gas a custom
too?

From the fact that you did not answer any of the questions, I'll
assume that you do know the context and are aware that answering
the questions will negate your argument.

/BAH

 

In article <vf7Zg.17257$6S3.12040@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eh2qip$c28$4@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <eh2jst$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161090357.909390.53800@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Actually we sold him weapons,

What percentage of all Iraq's purchases were from the US
government?

What, if it's only 50% that makes it OK?

You dodged answering the question. What percentage? Be specific.

we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.

Uh, no...that would be your paranoia acting up again. About the only thing
you'd be able to buy in a drugstore is isopropyl alcohol, and the same was
true in the 1980s.

Are you saying that it is impossible for me to make these
compounds? Are you saying that the only way these compounds
can be manufactured is by US companies? Are you saying that
the formulations are trade secrets of only US companies and
that nobody else in the world knows how to make them?

Exports of obvious CW precursors from US companies (and in theory their
overseas subsiduaries) were eventually blocked in March 1984 according
to the WSU article. That sounds about right to me.

And why did those ingredients get on the US' restriction list?

Why are you being deliberately obtuse? They got on the list because they
can be used to make CWs.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. When they got used,
they were banned from export. Yet you are claiming that it is
the US' fault that other people use common chemicals bought from
US companies to kill people. I cannot follow your logic.
<snip>

/BAH

 

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1161090357.909390.53800@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.

I doubt if you would find any of the reactive starting materials for CW
like phosphorous chloride, fluoride, oxychloride, thionyl chloride or
any of the other more complex intermediates like trimethyl phosphite
(some of which have legitimate use in plastics and insecticides) on any
drug store shelf.

I have my chemistry book, also known as the recipe book. Now specify
the ingredients needed to make those dishes you've just listed.

Are you a complete idiot?

The key component of all the nerve agents is a phosphorus atom in a
specific configuration. These are the basic bulk chemicals at the start
of the chain leading to nerve agents and anyone in the chemical
industry would have known that even 30 years ago.

Buying the bulk reagents from Western sources at high purity allowed
them to concentrate on the hard part of industrial scale synthesis and
improved yeilds.

These days even legitimate industrial users of
organophosphorous compounds are vetted.

But the poster wasn't talking about these days. He was talking
about 25 years ago.

Even 30 years ago it was well known. ISTR a lapse in MOD classified
patent maintainence allowed the synthesis of nerve agents to enter the
public domain in the 70's.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nerve-agent

The US even sold Iraq helicopters and heavy vehicles on a don't ask
don't tell basis. As did the UK, Germany and even Israel... see for
example the WSU website (and links).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Exports of obvious CW precursors from US companies (and in theory their
overseas subsiduaries) were eventually blocked in March 1984 according
to the WSU article. That sounds about right to me.

And why did those ingredients get on the US' restriction list?

In the end because the UN was kicking up a fuss about Iraqs use of CW
against the human wave tactics of the Iranian forces and the US
government didn't much like the idea of how it would play at home if US
companies were caught red-handed selling CW precursors to Iraq.

In essence they said to Iraq stop using CW and we will sell you some
other handy kit.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf

Exports of dual use and nuclear technology were still being approved
much later (although the US & UK governments tried damn hard to hide
it).

Define what "nuclear technology" is. I don't know what people
mean by this. I know what they want me to think.

Dual use nuclear technology is a euphemism for things that have
innocent peaceful uses but also have obvious military uses well beyond
what they were sold for. It includes exotic alloys, precision machine
tools, remote handling devices, centrifuges and mass spectrometers for
instance. And a host of other bits needed to make a thermonuclear
device.

Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK
government whitewash that followed its collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000/2
544355.stm

I ain't going to go look for that. I thought the guy was accusing
the United _States_ for handing free weapons and components over
to Iraq--not United Kingdom.

Same trick was used in the USA - they changed the export rules on the
quiet so as not to cause public concern (and then when dodgy kit was
found in Iraq tried to blame the companies who had been given export
licences on the quiet).

Or are you trying to get people to believe that everything the
UK did was also the US' fault?

The UK was only a bit player in this game. Matrix-Churchill kit was a
maker of high precision machine tools (capable of machining a nuclear
warhead or a non-cavitating submarine propeller).

Rumsfield went over there and embraced him and told him he was our
friend.

What was the context of this visit?

A promotional sales tour to help the Iraqis to win the Iran-Iraq war.

Win? I don't think so. In those days, most deals had to do with
keeping strengths equal with the Communists' (mostly fUSSR) satellites.

You didn't read the references I gave did you? The US hated Iran
massively at the time (and it still does) and saw Iraq as a useful
counterweight in the region. Preventing Iraq from losing was high on
the agenda. US foreign policy didn't get much beyond "My enemy's enemy
is my friend".

ISTR on his return from one trip about 1984-5 I think Rumsfeld said
words to the effect "Saddam is a bastard, but he is *our* bastard" -
can anyone find the exact phrase and date?

Now, what percentage of Iraq imports were from US companies?

Enough that the State Department paid a lot of attention to it (and was
promoting *more* trade in military hardware with Iraq on a don't ask
don't tell basis).

Europeans have hidden assumptions about US companies and how they
function because their environment is based on their socailist

Bollocks. Have you ever been to Europe? Or for that matter even out of
state?

All CoCom signatories had to comply with US rigged export regulations
on military or dual use technologies (including fast computers with
fancy graphics). It hit it's most ridiculous in the mid-80's when in
the same week an IBM salesman won a big export award for selling 2000
IBM PCs to Moscow University and a W German businessman was jailed for
5 years for selling 200 BBC micros to a school in East Germany (6502
CPU & cassette tape storage). ISTR Compaq PC's were "too fast" to be
exported under CoCom rules. Go figure.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

In article <vku9j29bus4nvqo1b6qoiks95vt03f88e2@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:32:56 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:



I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of
all these kinds of details when they're having things
we call summit meetings.


And if the world were run by historians, would it work any better?

I don't know. In my pre-9/11 days, I thought that businessmen
would make the world work better. I had a rude awakening and
was forced to examine thousands of assumptions I didn't even
know I had. My style is details. This is my approach to
figuring out past and current messes; then I can begin to
figure out preventive measures. However, I have to learn
about scope; I'm not very good at that so far.

/BAH


/BAH

 

In article <m-mdndl1z7UVvKjYRVnyhw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:vku9j29bus4nvqo1b6qoiks95vt03f88e2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:32:56 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:



I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of
all these kinds of details when they're having things
we call summit meetings.


And if the world were run by historians, would it work any better?



Be a lot more books published.....

I don't think so. They would be too busy to write.
And, apparently, not many will read them.

/BAH

 

In article <Ow7Zg.17265$6S3.622@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2g2k$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

I've found that the only way for people to learn how
not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they
already made.

And therein lies the problem...Bush will not be around to clean up, or even
take responsibility for, the mess he and his henchmen have created in Iraq.

This is your thinking blockage. YOu seem to have to be able
to assign blame of anything to one, and only one, human being.
This has never solved problems, found solutions, and is
usually anti-productive. There are people who think like you.
We had them at work. Our approach was to make them a boss of
something and get them out of our way so we could define
the problems and think of solutions. Our usual unwritten agreement
about having these fights was to never get personal. That helped
keep the focus on the problem rather than trying to find somebody
to blame.

I have cut the bullshit of a lot of these meetings by saying
it was my fault. Everybody, who had pumped themselves up
with all kinds of rhetoric about who did what to whom and when,
were immediately deflated, and the territorial leader would
grasp the moment, and start dealing with the real problem
and its solution.

Now, w.r.t. to the subject of this thread, most of you have
spent all of the writing time trying to blame one person
rather than hold a conversation about defining the problem
and possible solutions.


You all seem to assume that, when Bush is out of power, the
problem will magically disappear. It will not. It will get
worse because the Democrat party of the US has a platform
that specifically ignores this threat. They aren't even
dealing with the likely possibility that oil production
will stop as a tactic of the Islamic extremists. I have
yet to hear any one of them say the words, "nuclear power
plant". Only Bush is saying those words. Only Bush
is trying to get power companies to start building them.

And, when I say Bush, I mean that one, and only one, human
being is saying those words. Each US state's governor
and congressional (both fed and state) campaigns should be
talking about electric power and fuel independence. So far,
I haven't heard single one address these issues (my data is
sparse since I have not listened to all debates country-wide).

As for Europe, I'm not hearing much discussions about this
either. What I do hear is capitulations so that they
get their oil deliveries. Now this bais of the news may
be due to media bias; I don't know but I'll find out.

This should scare you. But it is not and I don't understand why
you prefer to not think about these things in favor of
finding one human male to blame for these threats to our national
security and civlization.

<snip>

Excuse my rant. I didn't intend to do one.

/BAH