OT: Cartoon

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:eX1kd.142$944.7362@news.xtra.co.nz...

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:nvRjd.5321$op3.200292@news.xtra.co.nz...

[snip]


There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice

of

words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to
think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene

etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.


http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3%2C4-Benz
pyrene

[snip]


I'll give you a hint:

"for your assertion to hold, smoking would need to be the ONLY cause
for
cancer. Best not to think about Benzene, Xylene or Toluene"

All of which are carcinogens we encounter daily (its in unleaded
petrol), in direct contradiction to the requirement for smoking to be
the ONLY cause of cancer. Likewise we probably better ignore
ultraviolet
radiation - skin cancer etc etc.

Although you are quite correct that none of the 3 would survive in
cigarette smoke as they are highly flammable. I just seemed to
remember
reading something about benzene-like nasties in cigarette smoke, hence
the aside which perhaps obfuscated the sentence, but thanks for the
info.

Cheers
Terry

Sorry about the confusion.

Benzine is a carcinogen according to the gov't.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts3.html

However, this is what the gov't has to say about xylene:
<<
How likely are xylenes to cause cancer?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined
that xylene is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.

Human and animal studies have not shown xylene to be carcinogenic, but
these studies are not conclusive and do not provide enough information
to conclude that xylene does not cause cancer.
This is what the gov't has to say about toluene:
<<
How likely is toluene to cause cancer?

Studies in humans and animals generally indicate that toluene does not
cause cancer.

The EPA has determined that the carcinogenicity of toluene can not be
classified.
>>

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:34:25 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:nvRjd.5321$op3.200292@news.xtra.co.nz...

[snip]


There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice

of

words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene

etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3%2C4-Benz
pyrene

[snip]


I'll give you a hint:

"for your assertion to hold, smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for
cancer. Best not to think about Benzene, Xylene or Toluene"

All of which are carcinogens we encounter daily (its in unleaded
petrol), in direct contradiction to the requirement for smoking to be
the ONLY cause of cancer. Likewise we probably better ignore ultraviolet
radiation - skin cancer etc etc.

Although you are quite correct that none of the 3 would survive in
cigarette smoke as they are highly flammable. I just seemed to remember
reading something about benzene-like nasties in cigarette smoke, hence
the aside which perhaps obfuscated the sentence, but thanks for the info.

Sick building syndrome was a big hoopla back in those days. With all
the energy conservation hysteria, they started sealing up air leaks,
which caused the air to become stale and stagnant, and _everything_
that goes into the air stays, and hangs there, forever. From alpha-
emitting radon to dust mite feces, the air was loading up with
carcinogenic pollutants.

So what do they do? In their zeal to "clean up the air," they banned
tobacco smoke.

This is exactly the wrong thing to do. What banning tobacco smoke
does is, it removes the best possible indicator of poor ventilation.
They got rid of the visible smoke, so the benzene, formaldehyde,
all manner of volatile organic hydrocarbons, bacterial spores,
fungal spores, viral spores, active viruses, live bacteria, carbon
monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, radon, dust mite feces, dust mites,
dust, human effluvia, etc, etc, etc, built up.

And the motherfuckers _still_ blame smoking for all their ills.

Stupid motherfucking nazi assholes.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 05:08:23 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
Remover" wrote:

Studies in humans and animals generally indicate that toluene does not
cause cancer.

The EPA has determined that the carcinogenicity of toluene can not be
classified.

Yeah, but toluene is the part of airplane glue that gets you high
when you sniff it. So, naturally they'll ban that. They hate anything
that even remotely has anything to do with pleasure.

A puritan is a guy who just can't accept the fact that he was _born_
in bed with a lady.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:21:24 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:
"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:eX1kd.142$944.7362@news.xtra.co.nz...

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:


"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:nvRjd.5321$op3.200292@news.xtra.co.nz...

[snip]



There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice

of


words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to

think

about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene

etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.



http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3%2C4-Benz

pyrene

[snip]


I'll give you a hint:

"for your assertion to hold, smoking would need to be the ONLY cause

for

cancer. Best not to think about Benzene, Xylene or Toluene"

All of which are carcinogens we encounter daily (its in unleaded
petrol), in direct contradiction to the requirement for smoking to be
the ONLY cause of cancer. Likewise we probably better ignore

ultraviolet

radiation - skin cancer etc etc.

Although you are quite correct that none of the 3 would survive in
cigarette smoke as they are highly flammable. I just seemed to

remember

reading something about benzene-like nasties in cigarette smoke, hence
the aside which perhaps obfuscated the sentence, but thanks for the

info.

Cheers
Terry


Sorry about the confusion.

Benzine is a carcinogen according to the gov't.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts3.html

However, this is what the gov't has to say about xylene:

How likely are xylenes to cause cancer?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined
that xylene is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.

Human and animal studies have not shown xylene to be carcinogenic, but
these studies are not conclusive and do not provide enough information
to conclude that xylene does not cause cancer.


This is what the gov't has to say about toluene:

How likely is toluene to cause cancer?

Studies in humans and animals generally indicate that toluene does not
cause cancer.

The EPA has determined that the carcinogenicity of toluene can not be
classified.

Perhaps I am mistaken re. Xylene and Toluene, but perhaps not. But I
knew Benzene was a nasty one. IMO all evil hydrocarbon solvents are to
be avoided - we are hydrocarbons .

I mentioned it here a while back, but in the late 70s a friend of mine
did a study for the NZ military on the effects of radar installations on
health. They looked at the medical history of pretty much the whole
military, and found no correlation at all to radar proximity. OTOH they
found that armourers didnt make it past 65, and painters fared little
better. Johns conclusion? Bugger the RF, stay the hell away from nasty
chemicals.

Almost every day we are discovering work-related illnesses - almost all
of which involve people handling nasty chemicals (hell, often with no
PPE at all, workers saturated in evil shit like DDT or 2,4,5T).

And of course recent studies have shown a HUGE increase in Leukaemia for
kids who live next door to petrol stations - 5x or so.

Musta been somebody smoking, even though they have all them signs

an' shit.

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Terry Given]

Robert Monsen wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


What is interesting is the correlation between schizophrenia and child
abuse - schizophrenics are 15x more likely to have been abused as
children than non-schizophrenics


Where does this statistic come from?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3589352&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=latest

to quote the amazingly brief article:
"Dutch and British studies have confirmed New Zealand findings of high
levels of child abuse among people diagnosed with psychotic disorders
such as schizophrenia. The September edition of the British Journal of
Psychiatry says a study of 8580 people has found that those with
psychotic disorders are three times more likely than people with less
severe disorders, and 15 times more likely than those with no disorder,
to have been sexually abused"

I seem to recall reading more on the new scientist website, but I cant
get to it right now.

IIRC what they are basically saying is that it seems these severe
psychotic conditions can be caused by sufficiently nasty childhood
experiences.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:07:52 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:09:28 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Funny, I could have sworn I knew what I meant when I wrote that sentence.


ROFL!



As did I. Actually thats precisely why I did not take English as a
subject in 7th form (final year in high school). In 6th form we studied
a poem by NZ poet Sam Hunt. Like all of his poems, it was simple and
direct, but our teacher disagreed with the entire class as to what the
poem was about. That year Sam Hunt visited our school (he is a great
live show - hilarious, with a unique, captivating voice) and spent 1/4
an hour with our 6th form class. Naturally we asked about the poem, and
he duly agreed with us - much to our delight, and our teachers chagrin.
Nevertheless after Sam Hunt left, when we begin to take the teacher to
task, he let rip with something along the lines of:

"well thats what he might think he meant, but subconsciously...."

which was greeted with hoots of derision, IIRC I got caned for saying
"fuck off" or words to that effect. But we wrote what the teacher wanted
to hear, and passed, and I concluded that it was all a load of bollocks
and concentrated on physics instead, leading me to a career of blowing
things up rather than that of a wordsmith.

ROFLMAOPIMP<*gasp*>LOL<*gasp*>ROFLMAOA<*gasp*>


Whew!
Rich

 

[Clarence]

"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jg5to0l6s7mugenhtn26uhdmspm399m9q7@4ax.com...

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:41:17 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote
in
message news:10os8oum8f1mh0a@corp.supernews.com...

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:rvnjd.4708$op3.178679@news.xtra.co.nz...
R. Steve Walz wrote:

[snip]
Having read your posts on this thread, I am inclined to agree with
your
own character assessment - you are dangerously unstable.

Welcome to the club.

I didn't reply because it got too personal.
There was the arrogance of my stepfather
facing me with the same line, "I have the right"

Explain, please, why you ignored and snipped the most relevant parts
of what I posted, and focussed on your own personal sore point.

Because it wasn't relevant to me.

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On 4 Nov 2004 13:51:13 -0800, jeffm_@email.com (JeffM) wrote:

exhorting the monied to do the right thing
has been shown, repeatedly, for thousands of years, to be futile.
Rich Grise

Not entirely accurate. In the not-so-distant past,
there was a concept called "noblis oblige" (nobility obligates)
where the richest guy in town was also the most generous,
using his money and influence to promote the general welfare.
The sharpest guys realized that if it wasn't for the serfs, little would get done.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=noblis-oblige

This social pressure (along with social graces??) has fallen by the wayside,
it appears.

Doesn't Bill Gates donate a lot of money to computer literacy
projects, etc. I know...it does promote his business.

Tom

I'm wondering how far the divide will have to get
before the Poor realize that the Wealthy are edible.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:41:59 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

Tom MacIntyre wrote:

No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
---------
YET!


But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
-------------------------
That's ONLY because he KNOWS that if EVERYONE had to serve they would
never tolerate idiots taking us to cultural urban wars. They'd vote
to nuke our enemies instead, as we SHOULD be doing.

So, you really think the whole world should be destroyed?

I didn't know you were _that_ fanatical.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 11:44:55 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

Tom MacIntyre wrote:


Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?

Tom

reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!


again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...

This isn't necessarily true. It would be extremely difficult to literally
starve to death in the US, unless one were to set out to do so, which
would be suicidal, so doesn't count.

Unless, of course, you categorize "standing on the street corner waiting
for alms" or "dumpster-diving" as "work."

It _does_ pay surprisingly well, however. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Dennis M. O'Connor]

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote ...

again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries. Pretty feeble argument. So I point out Israel has compulsory
military service (and sure as shit aint socialist; there are plenty of
european countries that do too IIRC), easily flattening the weak
implication. So DMO'C turns around with his "just because socialists do it
doesnt mean non-socialist cant" argument.

Bullshit. Especially that last, which someone else posted.

If I thought you were anything but an idiot troll,
I'd pull up the posts from the archives and prove
what a pathetic liar you are.
--
Dennis M. O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com

 

[Robert Monsen]

Terry Given wrote:

What is interesting is the correlation between schizophrenia and child
abuse - schizophrenics are 15x more likely to have been abused as
children than non-schizophrenics

Where does this statistic come from?

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Terry Given]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:40:15 +0000, Robert Monsen wrote:


Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:24:04 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:



Rich The Philosophizer wrote:



I was going to say something marginally similar, just more along the
lines of it's a correlation, which doesn't imply causation. They
could both be things that are caused by something else, like they're
symptoms of some underlying thing, or something.

But Smoking doesn't cause Cancer either, but almost everybody blames
it anyway.


I hope you're being sarcastic about the smoking comment.


Nope. I'm dead serious.

I coded documents in two, count'em, two, tobacco litigations. I have
seen the documents that refute the so-called "scientific studies" that
"proved" that smoking "causes" cancer. And I have seen the documents
that _show_ that the antis' reports are bogus. But they got buried,
because the antis had an agenda to push. These documtents used to be on
the internet, but they've apparently taken those pages down. They were
on the tobacco companies' websites, so they were probably forced to
take them down.

And that's still notwithstanding that smoking does not cause cancer.

One of the studied that got buried, which was published in the Lancet
or maybe the British Medical Journal, showed a correlation between
personality type and cancer that was so strong, that in the same
data set, the distribution of smokers/nonsmokers was below the noise
level. And it wasn't the only study that showed that correlation.

And the personality type that gives itself cancer is characterized
by rigidity of thinking and lack of emotional outlet, which is perfectly
logical, when you really look at the big picture.



Yes, it's a correlation with no causality indicated in the data
presented in the news report. Either the workers only found correlation
and just assumed a causal link, or there was more research than is being
reported.

Whenever you're dealing with humans it makes the double blind
experiments hard to get by the ethics panels.


Tell me about it!

Cheers!
Rich


Why do you think that everybody seems to believe these studies?


For the same reason so many people seem to think George W. Bush is
the best thing since Abe Lincoln.


Also, do you smoke? Is it possible that you are attempting to
rationalize your habit?


Of course not.

The blamers miss one very important fact:

If smoking _caused_ cancer, not only would there be no smoker
who ever escaped, but there would be no non-smoker who ever
got cancer.

There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice of
words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene etc.

And that simply is not true.

congratulations. One feeble straw man thoroughly demolished.

But they've never let the truth get in the way of their agenda.

that however is true, of all lobbyists.

Good Luck!
Rich

Sounds like a bit of rationalisation.....

The head of GlaxoSmithKline gave a speech earlier this year (cant be
arsed googling for it) in which he proudly announced that GSK products
DO NOT WORK FOR 2/3 OF THE PEOPLE WHO TAKE THEM. The reason? Individual
genetic makeup varies widely, and is incredibly important. Why did he
say such a thing? He's a pharmaco-geneticist, and was launching the
platform for pharmaco-genetics - the idea being you get a DNA test, and
that is used to determine what drugs will work on you (rather than, say,
the doctor prescribing the stuff sold by the company that took him to
Barbados for free)

The likelihood is extremely high that prolific smokers who dont get
cancer (I know some really old bastards who smoke like chimneys yet are
still quite fit; my grandfather died at 53 of lung cancer) have some
genetic advantages that reduce the susceptibility to carcinogens (or,
conversely, lack the genetic disadvantages which increase the
susceptibility)

The teratogenic nature of many compounds within tobacco smoke is well
known and relatively easy to demonstrate. Alas as someone else pointed
out in a different thread, double-blind trials in this area dont get
past ethics committees. Funnily enough many of the nasties in ciggy
smoke are due to the shit put in prefabricated ciggies by the
manufacturers - who btw will eventually be getting a hiding from the
fire department, as the accelerants they use to ensure cigarettes burn
rapidly are what makes them such a cause of house fires; roll-your-owns
simply do not do this (and are cheaper and a lot less toxic).

Mind you, when did american tampon manufacturers quit using asbestos?
not very long ago IIRC.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

<snip>

Sick building syndrome was a big hoopla back in those days. With all
the energy conservation hysteria, they started sealing up air leaks,
which caused the air to become stale and stagnant, and _everything_
that goes into the air stays, and hangs there, forever. From alpha-
emitting radon to dust mite feces, the air was loading up with
carcinogenic pollutants.

So what do they do? In their zeal to "clean up the air," they banned
tobacco smoke.

This is exactly the wrong thing to do. What banning tobacco smoke
does is, it removes the best possible indicator of poor ventilation.
They got rid of the visible smoke, so the benzene, formaldehyde,
all manner of volatile organic hydrocarbons, bacterial spores,
fungal spores, viral spores, active viruses, live bacteria, carbon
monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, radon, dust mite feces, dust mites,
dust, human effluvia, etc, etc, etc, built up.

And the motherfuckers _still_ blame smoking for all their ills.

Stupid motherfucking nazi assholes.

Same thing happened with commercial airliners; the smoke
used to concentrate in the inevitable aging cracks, making
them naked-eye visible. Kinda like Magnafluxing.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Terry Given]

Dennis M. O'Connor wrote:

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com
wrote...

"Dennis M. O'Connor" <dmoc@primenet.com> wrote ...

"hamilton" <hamilton@deminsional.com> wrote...

Here is truth:
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your

money.

Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your

life.

What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.

Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.


No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.

But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.

Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.


And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !

To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."


I see no meaning in your response.

Is Israel a socialist country?

Cheers
Terry

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:39:19 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<null@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:33:02 +0000, Tom MacIntyre wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:03:14 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:41:59 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

Tom MacIntyre wrote:

No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
---------
YET!


But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
-------------------------
That's ONLY because he KNOWS that if EVERYONE had to serve they would
never tolerate idiots taking us to cultural urban wars. They'd vote
to nuke our enemies instead, as we SHOULD be doing.

So, you really think the whole world should be destroyed?

I didn't know you were _that_ fanatical.

Thanks,
Rich
----------------------------
It wouldn't take a quarter of our early air-burst nuclear tests to
turn Islam into a meaningless religion of a few impoverished bedouins.
We survived those pretty well.

-Steve

Collateral damage?

That's not what's stopping them. What is stopping them is that they
wouldn't be able to get the oil for many years.

Notwithstanding the evil of mass murder on such an incomprehensible
scale.

There are precedents...

Tom

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:54:22 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Hi Rich,

I hope you dont mind if I pinch your
"ROFLMAOPIMP<*gasp*>LOL<*gasp*>ROFLMAOA<*gasp*>" line and claim it as my
own

But of course! You _are_ its Creator, after all. ;-)

[was gonna snip the rest, as I have no more comment other than
hysterical gut-busting laughter, but it's too good to throw away]

Thanks!
Rich

Honest though, thats what the guy said. We didnt get on very well. Once
after I got caned (6 of the best) for being disruptive, as I walked back
in somebody asked if it hurt - nah, I said, and was promptly marched
back outside for 6 more. I kept my mouth shut when I came back in, it
was starting to hurt by then

Still, it could have been worse. One of the woodwork teachers used to
take you outside, and make you bend over with your head sticking thru
the doorway whilst being caned, so the whole class looked at your face.
Another would make you bend over and stick your head underneath a desk,
so when you got caned you also smacked your head on the underside of the
desk. One teacher in particular, Harrison Ngatai (we used to call him
Nasty Harry) was banned from caning after managing to draw blood on one
poor bastard - big arms, thin cane. And my buddy Diz(zy Gillespie) got
caned in the back of the head, when Stock missed his arse. A week later
Diz was writing "stock is a wanker" on the blackboard when, unbeknownst
to Diz, Mr Stock walked in, and whacked Diz in the back of the head,
breaking his nose on the blackboard. That was 3rd form french, a real
fun class. One earthquake drill, instead of getting under our desks
(which Stock did) we threw our desks ontop of his, burying him under a
large pile. He used to swear underhis breath at the students, and
eventually left to take up a job at the all-girls school down the road.
6 months later he had a nervous breakdown, apparently the girls made us
look like amateurs

The summer break between my 6th and 7th form years, the government
banned corporal punishment in schools. A shame i think - I certainly
learned consequences - do what you must, but pay the price

Cheers
Terry

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:07:29 +0000, Clarence wrote:

"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j93qo0potq5la8jb5tb56o5olsh8c5gu4j@4ax.com...

snip

Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.

Tom

That was my stepfathers line, until I broke his nose!
His weapon of choice was a broom stick.
I just used my fist!

If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!

But, weren't you for Bush?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 09:13:10 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:12:08 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...

I was responding to "Everyone has to work to eat."

That is not true, unless you consider begging or dumpster-diving to
be "work."
----------------------------
In a decent society there are no "dumpsters" because everything is
owned, not cast-off,

So where do you toss your leftovers?
----------------

Into YOUR composter.

and diving is trespass/theft, and begging is
illegal because it is harrasment/intimidation/theft and because
it is seeking to live without working, which is a crime.

OK, your true stripes come out.
----------------------

Yes, all order, no chaos.

You believe that people should be forced to conform to the
fantasies of R. Steve Walz.

That's nazi.
------------------------

Nope, it's law and order.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------------------

Nope, merely that crime is crime and what isn't should not be even
vaguely permitted to be called that.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Mark Fergerson]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 04:08:51 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm

It's a matter of respective priorities. IOW for each, the
first is mandatory, the second if they can be bothered to
get around to it.

Nah. The conservatives see society as an anthill, and
the liberals
see it as a flower garden. ;-)

So, the former want to feed us sugar water and the latter
bullshit? Sounds about right.
---------------------
You're a swallower of the wealthy's disinformative bullshit.

You really ought to know better than that, especially
after all our previous discussions.

Maybe I compacted it a bit too far; I tend to see
cascades of consequences, like the fact that dentists would
just love all the potential work in such a case, like they
have now with "Officially Approved" dentifrices containing
massive amounts of sugar. Not to mention the other health
consequences of excess sugar consumption making work for
other branches of the "drug 'n' cut" medical types.

Besides, where does all the sugar come from? Don't
answer, as we all know that "banana republics" aren't built
solely on bananas.

Of course, that's a literal interpretation, but I meant
my statement to be taken allegorically. "Sugar water"
alludes to the Right's habit of painting everything in
shades of rose, while downplaying all the thorny
consequences of their agenda.

I won't bother explaining what I meant by the Left's
desires since you refuse to see their faults.

Mark L. Fergerson