My Usenet Postings (Sept-Oct 2001)
My Mysterynet Postings (since late Nov 2001)
Random FAQs
Web Forum
Links
Johnstexas website
DeSoto Texas USA
|
|
Return to Huda Thunkett
These are some of the Usenet postings I made last year circa Sept-Oct.
I haven't been around here much recently, but I did a check on "rachel*
baby* father" from 21 Sept, 2001 until 03 Oct, 2001 on Google groups and it
appears it hasn't been recently discussed here who the father of Rachel's
baby is. So, that is my question. Who do y'all think it is?
That guy she was going out with, the younger guy.. (What was his name?)
No, that would be too boring and obvious.
Joey? She was living with him and who knows? Things could have happened,
but I don't think that is who it is.
Ross would be a logical choice and I am tempted to think that, but he is my
second choice, not my first.
My number one pick for the father of Rachel's baby is the man who has
always had a crush on Rachel, and Rachel never seemed to notice him. And
that man is Gunther?
That is who I think will be the father of her baby.
How it happened, I mean when it happened, I don't know, (Yes, I actually
know how it happened.) but it should be interesting if it turns out to be
right. Any other obvious choices I could be missing (other than of course
Chandler, who it won't be)?
Lord Jubjub wrote in article
...
> I mean this as a serious question.
>
> Could anybody convicted and jailed for the recent terrorism without
> violating the 8th amendment?
>
> Or would their fellow prisoners just let them alone?
Well, if they got they death penalty, which I think most would agree they
deserve[1], then they would probably be kept in separate cell, until that
day.
[1]- Even many who opposed the death penalty in general favored the death
penalty for Timothy McVeigh. Something like 77% for Tim's execution to 62%
for the death penalty in general, IIRC, but it has been several months
since I heard that figure.
Al Yellon wrote in article
...
> If the article below is true, the entire Bush administration should
resign
> in disgrace:
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=94433
I think this is a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking. We can point out
how FDR should have known about the threat of a Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor just as easily as the WTC bombing (in fact, IIRC, the US intercepted
and decoded a Japanese message the night before the attack, but were unable
to get Pearl because of weather. Had they known the attack was going to be
the next day, I'm sure they would have tried harder and may have even sent
planes out of California to Hawaii to warn the Navy and Army. Had the Navy
known that the suicide sub they hit was the beginning of an attack and not
a whale and had the Army not though that a radar blip out of the Northwest
was a bunch of B-29s which they expected coming from California[1] but
instead a wave of Japanese bombers, then this could have been there would
have been plenty of time to scramble fighters and many lives could have
been saved. (this is my recollection from my History 102 post-1865 US
History class in college.[2]), but in reality, hindsight is 20/20. There
have always been threats of planes crashing into major buildings (the White
House, the Capitol, the WTC, the Empire State Building, the Pentagon, etc.)
or at least the concept of such as I noted in a previous post[3].
As the article noted, "There is nothing new about the fear that Mr bin
Laden and his organisation might strike against the United States at any
time. Particularly since the simultaneous bombing of the US embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, a crime the United States has laid
squarely at Mr bin Laden's door, there have been repeated alerts leading to
the temporary evacuation of American government buildings overseas." It's
tough to stay on the alert at all times. Had they know the threat would
come by air and not bombing, they probably would have taken much different
actions. Though it is hardly surprising that they would try to hijack a
plane and fly it into a major building, it is quite surprising that they
could pull it off with only box-cutters.
'Last January, just after Mr Bush took office, a bipartisan commission
chaired by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, issued a warning
that "the relative invulnerability of the US homeland to catastrophic
attack" was coming to an end.'
I think that Oklahoma City has already demonstrated that the US homeland is
vulnerable to a catastrophic attack.
'The report said: "A direct attack against American citizens on American
soil is likely over the next quarter century." A series of 50
recommendations was made, including a greater reliance on human
intelligence rather than espionage equipment and the creation of a new
domestic security agency marshalling the forces of the CIA, immigration,
the border patrol, the Coast Guard and the FBI.'
I'm not sure there would have been enough time to implement such a plan in
8 months in a way that would have necessarily made a difference this time.
[1]- Perhaps the next time you see planes coming from the wrong direction
it would be best to send up a plane to investigate whether they are friend
or foe if you can't make radio contact, and not to assume that they are
friendly, but then can any of us know for sure that we would have done the
right thing in those circumstances?
[2]- My History 101 instructor at Hill College (a JC in Hill County, Texas
near Hillsboro[4], about 30 miles north of Waco), Colonel Simpson was
really into the Civil War and the library actually has a mini Civil War
museum with various artifacts. My History 102 instructor at Cedar Valley
College[5], Dr. Christman, was a big WWII expert. Worked out best taking
those with those two instructors, rather than at the University of Texas at
Arlington (UTA)[6] which is where I transferred the next semester.
[3]-
[4]- The college is near Hillsboro, right on its edge I believe. The
county itself includes Hillsboro and in fact Hillsboro is its county seat.
[5]- In Lancaster, Texas, part of the Dallas County Community College
District (DCCCD), I've heard it refereed to as "Harvard by the Highway" and
"UCLA: the University on the Corner of Lancaster Avenue," though
technically it is on *Dallas* Avenue in Lancaster (which is called
Lancaster *Road* just north in Dallas). There is no Lancaster Avenue that
I know of, but then there's no point in overanalyzing a joke anyway. :)
[6]- artyw wrote in article
<611bbe0d.0109180843.7d5ca9d0@posting.google.com>...
> "Al Yellon" wrote in message
news:...
> > If the article below is true, the entire Bush administration should
resign
> > in disgrace:
> >
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=94433
>
> Well, I dont know about resigning, but maybe they will realize that
> they should have listened to the bi-partisan committee and that they
> should in the future.
> I had heard/read that one of the lessons Kennedy learned from the Bay
> of Pigs was that he had badly screwed up and that of cabinet of yes
> men is a terrible idea. Can Bush learn such lessons?
>
> BTW was the Gary Hart mentioned in the article the same Gary Hart
> whose chance to be president was ruined by his affair with Donna Rice?
I would assume so. It said former Senator Gary Hart and the "Monkey
Business" presidential candidate who got involved with Donna Rice was a
Senator from Colorado.
Mirhanda Sarko wrote in article
...
> Scratchie wrote in alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>
> > I just hope our local batch of "Free Market evangelists" and
> > libertarians will remember this incident the next time they're tempted
> > to start braying about privatizing everything and the "magic" of the
> > free market. Airport security is, of course, privatized and handled by
> > the airports themselves who, presumably, contract it out to the lowest
> > bidder.
>
> I heard a lady on television (forgot her name, sorry) saying we should
turn
> airport security over to the Coast Guard. Her arguments made sense.
What
> do y'all think about that idea?
I do agree with turning it over to the Federal governments, as opposed to
underpaid airport employees and the local authorities. I suppose the Coast
Guard is as good as any government agency. They are part of the Department
of Treasury, same as the Secret Service, right?
Amy Austin wrote in article
...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Al Yellon wrote:
>
> > And yet, despite initial scares, very little of this is actually
happening.
> > Gas price gouging was isolated. There have been a few bomb scares,
mostly
> > copycats, and mainly false alarms...
>
> Actually, there have been three bomb threats in Greater Lafayette alone
> (two at Purdue, at least, and one at the city/county building in
> Lafayette). I wish I could figure out what motivates people to do that.
>
> None of them were actual bombs.
We used to have constant bomb threats in Science Hall at UTA[1]. It would
mostly happen when there was a chemistry test (as if calling in a bomb
threat would keep you from having to take that test. This is while I was
in the physics department, after I had taken chemistry. I don't think we
had any bomb threats that I knew of while I was taking chemistry, but maybe
one fire alarm. I wonder if those Chemistry profs ever gave one of those
tests outside, but I guess they usually just found a new building.
We would also have a lot of fire alarms, to the point where we would just
ignore them and stay down in the basement[2] when they would occur and
once, Dr. Alex Weiss[2] said something to the effect of, "One day there's
going to be a fire and they're going to find a lot of burned up scientists
and they're going to scratch their head and say, 'I wonder why these guys
didn't get out.'"
[1]-
[2]- ,
Jean-Luc Dupont wrote in article
...
> This is the second show where we see Anderson eat something during the
> events. Yet we don't see him eat at the table during dinner. This is
kind
> of odd and my guess is that it means something. Tonight was a sandwich.
> Does anybody remember what he ate during the first show and who walked
by?
> Tonight, Darwin & Heather walked by as he was eating a sandwich. Maybe
that
> means they are not the mole? Why? I don't know but if this year's
"clues"
> are as insightful (sarcasm here) as last year's, anything is possible.
Any
> theories? Maybe this has something to do with Rob's favourite food being
> the cold cut trio...
It was a sandwich too and he was eating it while sitting down on the
bridge, just before Ali, the first participant to jump in the "Swing for
Life"[1], jumped and he said, "Looks scary." Someone on this group, I
think, noted that Anderson seems to take some pleasure in the contestants
suffering and I concur. He also said something sarcastic while he was
eating and Darwin and Heather walking by, but I forget exactly what it was.
Maybe it had to do with how they were dressed. It reminded me of when he
asked Kathryn on last season's Cartier watch challenge[2] in the French
village of Crest, when Kate, the bartender and Kathryn walked by if she
didn't wish she knew French and she socked him. He is like the hitchhiker
on that "Twilight Zone" episode, who would always appear wherever the woman
whom he was seeking would go[3].
[1]- Or "Swing for Death" as Anderson noted.
[2]- The one where she later said that they should just pull the trigger
and the bartender (whose name I forgot) said that there's no reason to
shoot the fake Cartier. They should just give it to him. The gold was the
real and silver one was the fake with the green paint that exploded out
when they shot it and won $20,000, instead of seeing red and losing
$20,000, the price of the watch. The same among is contest two, show two
in both series (+$20,000 or -$20,000. One time they made it; the other
time they didn't.)
[3]- Based on an Alfred Hitchcock story ("The Hitchhiker," IIRC), a woman
was in an automobile accident and started seeing a hitchhiker immediately
following it and he kept getting ahead of her on the road and she would see
him every few miles and she even tried to run him over and finally she
found out he was the Grim Reaper and that she had died.
R. Upton wrote in article
<9pgjuk$b1s$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> "\"Just Me\"" (JustMe317@prodigy.net) writes:
> > You are so on top of things!
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how few braincells it takes to rattle off a
> Usenet message...
>
> And yes I know, one might use my posting history as a classic example,
> however I have existed online since before AOL and all those other
> companies started making Internet easy for anyone and everyone to use.
I think you may have missed the humor in that message. It said:
<>
It's like one of those humorous "Coincidence? I think not." kind of things.MyLee wrote in article
<319ef253.0110051516.103cb790@posting.google.com>...
> "\"Just Me\"" wrote in message
news:...
> > These days... I don't know nuffin'!
> >
> > --
> > *Cheers*
> > ~Just Me~
> >
> > Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet
> > voice at the end of the day saying,"I will try again tomorrow."
> > (Author Unknown)
> >
> >
> > "R. Upton" wrote in message
> > news:9pinei$eke$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > > "\"Just Me\"" (JustMe317@prodigy.net) writes:
> > > > It wasn't sarcastic, it was direct. You attached your response to
me...
> > > > that's why I asked.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I'm not on the ball for interpretations. I was replying to
you, but
> > > about the original poster.
> > >
> > > Sorry for the confusion. Hey, you should know by now that I wouldn't
say
> > > something like that about your posts.
> > >
> > >
>
> So you were referring to me? I have quite a few brain cells. All in
> excellent shape. As far as my post is concerned, I do not see why it
> would be required for the only clues to be actually on The Mole.
Uh, Rachel, about what I was saying about MyLee just trying to make a
joke... Uh, maybe I was a bit hasty. Apparently MyLee actually believes
that.
R. Upton wrote in article
<9pls6t$809$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> "John Seeliger" (jseelige1@prodigy.net) writes:
> >
> > Uh, Rachel, about what I was saying about MyLee just trying to make a
> > joke... Uh, maybe I was a bit hasty. Apparently MyLee actually
believes
> > that.
>
> Hey cool you figured out what the R. stood for. (Actually to be honest, I
> don't remember if I signed my name or not, but someone I knew from
> elsewhere let that cat out of the bag in a previous post).
I read it in Laurie's message in this thread.
>
> Well I don't know if you were right to suggest to me it was a joke or
not,
> it's not important, so I'm not worried about it. I wasn't intending my
> reply to be offensive, I just get irritated with reading too many posts
> that don't make much sense.
Yeah, in these groups there is often a low signal-to-noise ratio at times,
so I know what you mean.
Mirhanda Sarko wrote in article
...
> Just seen on CNN (can't find it on the website yet, but I think there is
> some lag before it gets on the site) that the CDC is confirming a case of
> anthrax in South Florida. They are saying it is "an isolated case" and
> there have been no other cases. Still, it doesn't help my nerves any.
> Didn't a lot of the hijackers live in South Florida?
Yep. That's were they took their flight training, I think. Venice, which
is on the Florida Gulf Coast, about 50 miles south of Tampa Bay.
Sean Houtman wrote in article
<20010915142510.04173.00000145@mb-de.aol.com>...
> From: Michael mitchvis@image-link.com
>
> >John Seeliger wrote:
> >>
> >> ABC news reports it was told by Ari Fleisher that the plane that hit
the
> >> Pentagon was originally intended to hit the White House and that Air
Force
> >> One was also a target. Colin Powell confirmed in a briefing that he
had
> >> heard this too. ABC's Martha Raditz got the question in at the end as
he
> >> was leaving.
> >
> >I heard the same thing. That makes five targets. (Even substituting the
> >Pentagon for the White House) With *only* four hijackings, how could
> >that be? How were they going to get Air Force One?
> >
>
> Lessee, WTC1, WTC2, White house (diverted to Pentagon), AF1 (crashed in
PA).
> That only comes to 4. Which one was the fifth?
I think he was talking about:
1. 1WTC
2. 2WTC
3. White House
4. Pentagon
5. AF1
We don't know where the plane that crashed in PA was headed, but supposedly
the one that hit the Pentagon was destined for the White House and I've
heard the PA one was intended for the Pentagon, but when it didn't show up,
the White House one changed its target to the Pentagon. Also, one member
of Congress (Senate?) said it was his gut feeling that the PA plane was
headed for the Capitol. He didn't claim to have evidence, AFAIK, but just
his gut feeling. So, it he's right, the two targets were the White House
and the Capitol, but instead, neither got hit but the Pentagon did.
robgood@bestweb.net wrote in article ...
> On 2001-09-16 artyw@my-deja.com(artyw) said:
>
> >There was a recent editorial in Time on this very subject (Talking
> >about and justifying, for example Israel's use of assassination).
> >Perhaps there could be bounty hunters. ("Unsavory Covert Operators")
> >How much for the head of Bin Laden? Imagine using Capitalism as a
> >weapon against the terrorists. They wouldn't even have to kill them,
> >just "deliver them to the authorities" (Killing would be easier).
> >In the wild west, wanted posters were put up in post offices and
> >stores etc. Today you could put them up on the internet.
>
> And to think that just 2 weeks ago, or maybe less, I was ridiculed here
for
> suggesting such means of warfare as privateering.
I used to work with a guy named Bill Bunch and he is a Libertarian and he
used to always talk about how instead of taxing people, we show charge
"user fees," such as if you want to visit a national park, you would pay a
user fee. That way, only those who actually used a service would get
charged. I once asked him how he would pay for the army and he answered,
"Private donations." and I either let out a sigh or rolled my eyes or both
and had a look of exasperation and he laughed. That might work well it our
country is being threatened by the Lichtensteinian Navy, but for most other
foreign foes, I think we will need a lot more money than we are likely to
get. The problem with Bill's solution is that the governments does a lot
more than run national parks and build highways. What about if someone
commits murder? You need someone to arrest them, someone to try them and
if they are convicted, you need someone to guard them in prison (not to
mention, someone to build the prisons, jails and courtrooms and also to
feed and clothe the inmates, unless you are going to give the death penalty
to all inmates are force the inmates to pay their own way, either out of
pocket, or by making license plates.) How are you going to pay for this?
I have heard of fire departments in small rural communities that have the
coverees pay dues and then the fire department can be called by a
due-paying subscriber. They will come to a non-due-payer iff lives are at
stake. This though is not a really good system as it is unconscionable to
let someone's house burn to the ground just because they couldn't afford
fire insurance. I heard once of someone killed in a fire where the fire
department did not answer the call, at least in time, because it was not
from a subscriber. Had they known that lives were in danger they would
have come. All who can pay, should pay and all should be covered. And not
just for fire protection, but for police protection and military protection
as well.
ctcgag@hotmail.com wrote in article
<20010916173647.495$hx@newsreader.com>...
> artyw@my-deja.com (artyw) wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there could be bounty hunters. ("Unsavory Covert Operators")
> > How much for the head of Bin Laden? Imagine using Capitalism as a
> > weapon against the terrorists. They wouldn't even have to kill them,
> > just "deliver them to the authorities" (Killing would be easier).
> >
> > In the wild west, wanted posters were put up in post offices and
> > stores etc. Today you could put them up on the internet.
>
> You mean like the 5 million dollars that has been in Bin Laden for
> several years now?
Well, they haven't yet necessarily officially linked this attack to bin
Laden. If they do, maybe it will go up.
JmG wrote in article
<86paqt8p2brv7oavaqadeljkmgi93l9l2f@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 11:28:40 -0500, "Jason Quick"
wrote:
>
> >|> An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
> >|> Soon, we'll all be blind and toothless.
> >|
> >|Nahh - not all of us. We have more and longer fingers to poke with and
> >|better dentists.
>
> You're a fool to believe that.
>
> >|Which is it? Do you want to punish the people who did this, or not?
>
> Huh? Was this the question?
>
> >|Do you think it's a good idea to let survive an enemy who is determined
to
> >|fuck you up?
>
> Survive?
>
> >|What would you propose we do? I think we're well past the point of
having a
> >|trial here.
>
> We were trying terrorists under our laws before Tuesday, when did US
policy
> change?
This only works if we can catch them. The only way to stop the attempts by
bin Laden are to either catch him or to kill him. We could try
appeasement, but as Neville Chamberlain and WWII showed us, that is not the
best course.
:
'When Hitler began rearming anyway, new agreements were signed. Then when
Hitler began breaking even these agreements, Britain's Neville Chamberlain
began giving away chunks of Europe in vain hopes of appeasing the Nazis.
But as Churchill famously predicted when Chamberlain returned from Munich
proclaiming peace in his time: "You were given the choice between war and
dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."'
Much of the Arab world (the terrorists, at least) already hate us and will
pretty much hate us regardless. Why appease them? If you want the US to
be an economic, political and military superpower and to now follow the
path of isolationism, there will always be this threat. The best way to
deal with this threat is to root out the evil that is these terrorists.
You don't want to be a coward like these terrorists, do you? Because that
is what it would mean to follow a path of appeasement and isolationism.
JmG wrote in article
...
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:43:31 GMT, "John Seeliger"
> wrote:
>
> >|I have heard of fire departments in small rural communities that have
the
> >|coverees pay dues and then the fire department can be called by a
> >|due-paying subscriber.
>
> I am curious... where is this?
I'm not sure, but I believe I heard about this on the local (Dallas-Ft.
Worth) news. If I can get a definitive answer any time soon, I will post
it.
John Seeliger wrote in article
<01c13f46$0111f820$54d4fed1@adkins>...
> JmG wrote in article
> ...
> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:43:31 GMT, "John Seeliger"
> > wrote:
> >
> > >|I have heard of fire departments in small rural communities that have
> the
> > >|coverees pay dues and then the fire department can be called by a
> > >|due-paying subscriber.
> >
> > I am curious... where is this?
>
> I'm not sure, but I believe I heard about this on the local (Dallas-Ft.
> Worth) news. If I can get a definitive answer any time soon, I will post
> it.
BTW, I'm also thinking it was in an unincorporated area, which would
explain why the residents didn't have city taxes to pay for the fire
department. No city, no taxes.
JmG wrote in article
...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 05:27:23 GMT, "John Seeliger"
> wrote:
>
> >|Much of the Arab world (the terrorists, at least) already hate us and
will
> >|pretty much hate us regardless. Why appease them?
>
> I'm not talking "appeasement" though you are trying to make that case by
> putting those words into my mouth. I'm talking about understanding. We
need to
> find out what it is we've been doing that makes people hate us so much
and see
> if maybe they've got a point. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But, we've
not
> ever honestly assessed that.
Well, I don't know what they want for sure, but my guess is it includes
siding with the Palestinians (or at least stopping our support for Israel,
which I am against) and lifting sanctions against Iraq and no longer
meddling in the regions. Probably getting all of our forces out of the
region. Ironically, had we not intervened in the Gulf in 1990-1991, all of
the Arabian Peninsula would be speaking Iraqi (if there were such a
language). At least now, a Fascist dictator doesn't control the top two
Muslim holy sites, though I don't care about that, but I assume bin Laden
(assuming he is behind this attack) probably does.
Fred Simons wrote in article
...
....
> Anyway, for all the apologists and appeasers and isolationists out there
-
> they don't hate us because they've been wronged, we do them insufferable
> harm simply by being richer, more successful, more of anything than they
> are. They won't be satisfied by anything short of our destruction or
> complete subjugation. They don't hate us because of our meddling in
other
> world affairs, they hate us because we have the ability to do so, whether
we
> do or not. They hate us for simply existing and being what we are.
Amen. There is nothing that we can do to appease them, even if it were our
will to do so. So, since we can't be friends with the ultraradical
terrorist groups, the only thing we can do is root them out and kill them,
or else live with the threat of these attacks forever.
Greg Goss wrote in article
<15F1A3774740B1FD.B9B827EEACE004F8.697B4655B93E494A@lp.airnews.net>...
> "Jason Quick" wrote:
>
> >I dunno. I'm sincerely hoping there is a middle path here. What I'd
rather
> >see is a modified version of the Best-Case Scenario you present, one
where
> >we go in, get who we need to get, occupy for a short while, do some
> >infrastructure rebuilding, then get the hell out. After that, shovel
all
> >the aid at them we can, and help them to further rebuild. More like,
say,
> >post-war Japan, without the Cold War aspect to keep our asses there.
>
> Tomorrow the Afghan clerical council meets to decide what to do.
>
> If they then hand over bin Ladin to a neutral body for a fair trial,
> what do we do? There are rumours that they would be willing to hand
> bin Laden over to a moslem judicial system.
>
> So, if they hand over one man tomorrow to, say, Malaysia for trial,
> then what do we do? Regardless of whether the notoriously harsh
> Moslem judicial system punishes bin Laden enough for us, we cannot be
> satisfied with just one man. We need to contemplate what we want if
> they give us what we ask for.
>
> We need to be sure that we don't get caught in "Oh yeah, we also want
> ..."
First, I agree with you, that just catching one man is not necessarily
enough to stop the terrorists, since there is a network throughout the
world who will carry on without him. It was suggested that if we did
attack Afghanistan, local law enforcement agencies would sweep their
respective countries, trying to round up suspects and this would hopefully
reduce terrorism for a while. As for trying bin Laden in a Moslem court,
the attack was committed against Americans on American soil. When the
PanAm Lockerbie bombing trial was held, it was held under Scottish law in a
Scottish courtroom on Dutch land that had been declared Scottish soil for
the course of the trial (since it couldn't legally take place under
Scottish law, unless it was on Scottish soil), because the bombing was in
Scotland. This satisfied the United States, who had passengers on it.
This time, going by the same reasoning, the trial should be held under US
law in a US courtroom, since the hijackers violated federal law by
hijacking and detonating a weapon of mass destruction and bin Laden may
have conspired to detonate a weapon of mass destruction[1]. also, what if
the Moslem court finds him not guilty. Does the US still have a right to
try him under double jeopardy, or would we have to sign away that right
before he could be tried under the Moslem court. (I think it would likely
make no difference, but there might be some attempt to make a binding
agreement with the US to accept the Moslem court before the Moslem court
would try him, but I don't think the US would accept that.)
[1]- I remember from the Terry Nichols trial[2], he was convicted of
detonating a weapon of mass destruction and if this action causes death(s),
it is a capital offense[3], but he was only sentenced to life since not all
12 jury members could agree on death and Judge Richard Maitch(sp?) was
therefore obligated to sentence him to life.
[2]- I heard on TV during the WTC/Pentagon coverage that Oklahoma is
beginning to try Nichols, but I've heard little about this otherwise. I
know there was some talk about trying McVeigh on 160 counts of murder, so
that no crime of his would go unpunished, but later it was decided, since
he got the death penalty, that they wouldn't do so. Are they doing this in
Oklahoma so that they can get the death penalty? Has anyone else besides
me heard about this?
[3]- Maybe it's a capital offense even if it doesn't, but the jury has to
answer separately whether this action caused death(s) and iff the answer is
death, the death penalty is an option for the offense.
JmG wrote in article
...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:07:58 -0500, "Al Yellon"
> wrote:
>
> >|You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and obviously you have a
strongly
> >|held one.
> >|
> >|Give us an alternative.
>
> Why do you need yet another? What alternative are the yahoos giving me?
Go in with force (if necessary) and get OBL.K1912 wrote in article
<20011004120410.24862.00001064@mb-ch.aol.com>...
> ccsqgs wrote:
>
> >Found this interesting information on mens health, thought you might be
> >
> >interested as well, go to http://cockpower3.devil.ru
> >
> >
> >
> >Claims to add 3 inches to your penis, and guarantees this !
>
> Guarantees--smuarantees! A thirteen-inch penis would be bad luck.
And a twelve-inch penis would be a foot.Lalbert1 wrote in article
<20010920232349.26311.00000308@nso-mu.aol.com>...
> In article <9oe5di$ck9av$1@ID-108463.news.dfncis.de>, "Shawn Wilson"
> writes:
>
> >"kay w" wrote in message
> >news:20010920210303.08431.00000017@mb-fe.aol.com...
> >> Bush is getting ready to speak...is he gonna give Rudy a job as
Secretary
> >of
> >> Terrorism?
> >
> >
> >Nope, Gov. of Pennsylvania got it.
>
> I wonder if he has to give up his governorship?
Wow, Pennsylvania must be a rather extravagant state. I didn't know the
governor gets a ship.
Lalbert1 wrote in article
<20010920233048.26311.00000309@nso-mu.aol.com>...
> In article <01c1424d$898fc420$38d9fed1@adkins>, "John Seeliger"
> writes:
>
> >Lalbert1 wrote in article
> ><20010920232349.26311.00000308@nso-mu.aol.com>...
> >> In article <9oe5di$ck9av$1@ID-108463.news.dfncis.de>, "Shawn Wilson"
> >> writes:
> >> >Nope, Gov. of Pennsylvania got it.
> >>
> >> I wonder if he has to give up his governorship?
> >
> >Wow, Pennsylvania must be a rather extravagant state. I didn't know the
> >governor gets a ship.
>
> John, who writes your material?
I'm afraid I must claim responsibility.
Now, I can understand an admiral would have an admiralship, but a governor.
Of course, in Bushspeak, the world admiral is admirable, just as
subliminal is subliminal.
John Seeliger wrote in article
<01c1424f$80075ba0$38d9fed1@adkins>...
> Lalbert1 wrote in article
> <20010920233048.26311.00000309@nso-mu.aol.com>...
> > In article <01c1424d$898fc420$38d9fed1@adkins>, "John Seeliger"
> > writes:
> >
> > >Lalbert1 wrote in article
> > ><20010920232349.26311.00000308@nso-mu.aol.com>...
> > >> In article <9oe5di$ck9av$1@ID-108463.news.dfncis.de>, "Shawn Wilson"
> > >> writes:
> > >> >Nope, Gov. of Pennsylvania got it.
> > >>
> > >> I wonder if he has to give up his governorship?
> > >
> > >Wow, Pennsylvania must be a rather extravagant state. I didn't know
the
> > >governor gets a ship.
> >
> > John, who writes your material?
>
> I'm afraid I must claim responsibility.
>
> Now, I can understand an admiral would have an admiralship, but a
governor.
> Of course, in Bushspeak, the world admiral is admirable, just as
> subliminal is subliminal.
I can't believe I let my spellchecker "fix" that. Of course, it should
have read:
Now, I can understand an admiral would have an admiralship, but a governor.
Of course, in Bushspeak, the world admiral is admirable, just as
subliminal is subliminable.
UFO_Charlie wrote in article
<9oeciv$383$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> Lalbert1 wrote:
>
> >John, who writes your material?
>
> I'm seeing shades of David Brenner here.
I don't know who inspired me, but I probably have seen each episode of "Get
Smart" at least two or three times. Not sure if that joke was used there,
but it did have a lot of that similar kind of "cornball" humor[1]. In one
episode for example, there was an exchange (after Max mentioned he was
going to be travelling by banana boat) that went something like this:
99: Isn't that dangerous?
Max: Well, it can be. Once a banana boat collided with a boat carrying
corn flakes.
99: Oh, that's horrible!
Max: Not really because, because there was a sugar boat there.
I was, however, also inspired by Opus's no comment joke about cooking
Afghani..
[1]- There was one episode where Max tries to catch Kubacheck of the third
spy network, ACB (atrocities, Cruelties and Brutalities) that was a spoof
of "I Spy," with Max playing a ping pong player called the masked marvel,
trying to smoke out Kubacheck, because Kubacheck will not be able to resist
a game against the masked marvel who was the only person (IIRC) who ever
beat him. Anyway, all they knew about Kubacheck is that he was
ambidextrous, but since he had had plastic surgery, they didn't know what
he looked like, but when Samuels, supposedly a Control agent who was
accompanying Max, hit a ball with his left hand, Max and 99 knew he was
Kubacheck[2]. Anyway, Kubacheck told Max he'd let Max and 99 go if Max
could beat him; otherwise he would kill them. Max replied to the effect
of, "How about playing for a dollar on the side?" Kubacheck then replied,
"I'm tired of your 'cornball humor.'" (or "cornball jokes"). Anyway, the
summary from Carl Birkmeyer's site:
: "Die,Spy
Airdate: Saturday, March 30, 8:30 PM
Teleplay: Phil Hahn and Jack Hanrahan
Story: Gerald Gardner and Dee Caruso
Director: Gary Nelson
Carl's Rating: ****
At the funeral of a double agent, someone
attempts to kill the Chief and KAOS' Chief. Only one agency could be
responsible, the new third spy network, ACB (Atrocities, Cruelities,
Brutality). Its leader is Kubacheck, who is offering CONTROL agents the
choice of joining his network or dying. Kubacheck's one weakness is an
inability to get over a loss at ping pong to The Masked Marvel. Max goes
undercover as the marvel to smoke out Kubacheck, and he's accompanied by
Samuels, a new CONTROL agent. In Istanbul, Samuels reveals himself as
Kubacheck and he forces Max to play a game of ping pong and the winner gets
to live.
The ACB reference is for ABC, the third broadcast network (yes, there used
to only be three), which finally was starting to pick up in the ratings.
This episode is a brilliant parody of I Spy as Max plays Robert Culp and
Samuels plays Bill Cosby beautifully.
Robert Culp has an absolutely hysterical cameo as a waiter - "but me no
buts, sir.""
[2]- I know. How does that prove it's Kubacheck, but hey, this is TV and
exaggerated TV humor, at that.
Tease he us wrote in article
<20010921001329.16805.00001452@mb-ca.aol.com>...
> "John Seeliger" jseelige1@prodigy.net
> Date: 9/20/2001 11:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
> >Wow, Pennsylvania must be a rather extravagant state. I didn't know the
> >governor gets a ship.
>
> All governers get a ship. That's why they're gubernatorials. Duh.
Some are more goober than others.Geoduck wrote in article
<3bab7429.14727689@news.olywa.net>...
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:07:18 -0400, "Rick B."
> wrote:
>
> >Lalbert1 wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <9oe5di$ck9av$1@ID-108463.news.dfncis.de>, "Shawn Wilson"
> >> writes:
> >>
> >> >"kay w" wrote in message
> >> >news:20010920210303.08431.00000017@mb-fe.aol.com...
> >> >> Bush is getting ready to speak...is he gonna give Rudy a job as
Secretary
> >> >of
> >> >> Terrorism?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Nope, Gov. of Pennsylvania got it.
> >>
> >> I wonder if he has to give up his governorship?
> >
> >He has announced his resignation effective October 5. He was
> >term-limited and only had about 15 months left after that anyway.
>
> At least Bush didn't give the job to Slade Gorton.
He's not a governor, though.Al Yellon wrote in article
...
> "kay w" wrote in message
> news:20010920214304.08455.00000018@mb-fe.aol.com...
> > Previously:
> >
> > Me:
> > >> Bush is getting ready to speak...is he gonna give Rudy a job as
> Secretary
> > >of
> > >> Terrorism?
> >
> > Shawn:
> > >Half way through. Good speech, but no Gettysburg Address. (then
again,
> > >what is?)
> > >Officially blamed Al Qida terrorist organization, is making the
demands
> now
> > >(hand 'em all over, give US full access, no negotiation)
> >
> > Me:
> > Well, I gotta say, I think that was a fine speech. It'll be
interesting
> to
> > hear the reviews. Really, he did very well.
>
> This is kinda late, but I wanted to go on the record here, since I've
been
> critical of Bush many times in this group, to say that he seemed very
> presidential last night. For the first time, I saw him as a leader.
>
> We definitely need that now.
I agree, but then again, I'm not usually critical of Bush. OTOH, Gore,
whom I was often critical of, was Presidential during his concession speech
in December.
UFO_Charlie wrote in article
<9ogp99$8b$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> Kirk Is wrote:
>
> >I dunno. I think we need to put forth a certain amount of evidence in a
> >public forum, for the world to see. Not to convince the Taliban to hand
> >him over, (which probably won't work,) but to show the world that we are
> >dedicated to a rule of law, not just to tracking down one guy. The
> >strongest case we've put forth is that "all roads" line.
>
> Probably, but I suspect some of that evidence is classified. If making a
> case to the world means tipping our hand intelligence-wise, I'd just as
soon
> not make the case.
>
> >Other than some impressive (and maybe important) lip service in the
speech
> >the other night, it seems like the administration is doing a lousy job
> >convincing 3rd party nations that we're doing the right thing. It's so
> >crucial, for international relations in general, and to try not to be so
> >encouraging of the next generation of terrorists.
>
> True enough. I think the fanatic support of the US by other nations has
worn
> off as the shock of the tragedy has dissipated. I also don't think the
> administration's done a lot - or at least, not enough - to compensate for
> it.
Back in 98 or 99, when the US tried to get OBL extradited for the embassy
bombing, IIRC, the Taliban claimed that the US hadn't presented evidence
then either. Of course, the US said that it does not recognize the
Taliban. Afghanistan is not a state. It has no legitimate government.
Has OBL been indicted for the previous attacks? I say that if they have
evidence of OBL's involvement in the conspiracy to commit murder or use a
weapon of mass destruction, they should hand it over to a federal grand
jury and get the indictment, unless there is danger of losing OBL.
Another note: on ABC's "World News Tonight," it was reported that the
Vatican had been told that there would be no attack on Afghanistan until
after Pope John Paul II's visit to central Asia has concluded (and I think
they mentioned the middle of next week as being when that would be), though
I suppose that isn't much of a surprise. The US has to marshall all of its
forces to the region. You don't want to start the attack, generally,
without all of your necessary forces in the theater, unless there is an
advantage in the element of surprise, though I guess they could get a lot
of their forces in there quickly; just not that quickly, with reservists
still reporting to active duty.
Chuck Skinner wrote in article
...
> "John Seeliger" wrote in
> news:01c14309$1b5b00c0$23dafed1@adkins:
>
> > Back in 98 or 99, when the US tried to get OBL extradited for the
> > embassy bombing, IIRC, the Taliban claimed that the US hadn't
> > presented evidence then either. Of course, the US said that it
> > does not recognize the Taliban. Afghanistan is not a state. It
> > has no legitimate government. Has OBL been indicted for the
> > previous attacks? I say that if they have evidence of OBL's
> > involvement in the conspiracy to commit murder or use a weapon of
> > mass destruction, they should hand it over to a federal grand jury
> > and get the indictment, unless there is danger of losing OBL.
>
> According to CNN tonight, he has been indicted for the embassy
> bombings. The Taliban were presented with that indictment, and they
> refused to accept it.
Well, then, it seems like there's enough to get him already. Normally,
when we extradite someone from one country, do we normally have to show
them evidence, or just to show them the bill of indictment?
Bill Diamond wrote in article
...
> Good old Opus the Penguin wrote in
> alt.fan.cecil-adams back on 22 Sep 2001 07:04:43 GMT that ...
> >John Seeliger wrote:
> >
> >> Well, then, it seems like there's enough to get him already.
> >> Normally, when we extradite someone from one country, do we
> >> normally have to show them evidence, or just to show them the bill
> >> of indictment?
> >
> >I imagine that depends on the terms of our extradition treaty. I doubt
> >we have an extradition treaty of any sort with Afghanistan. But I could
> >be wrong.
>
> We have none.
How could we? We don't even recognize the Taliban, AIUI. (I believe this
was mentioned in a 99(?) _The Dallas Morning News_ story about the US
trying to get him extradited for the embassy bombing that took place on 7
Aug, 1998.
Tease he us wrote in article
<20011003112358.05020.00000440@mb-fn.aol.com>...
> Boron Elgar boron_elgar@"warm"mail.com
> Date: 10/3/2001 9:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
> >I wouldn't assume that anywhere near a 90% figure even knows what
> >gravity is.
>
> What is gravity, anyway? Is it just an artifact of acceleration viewed
from
> different frames of reference, or is it a force unto itself? Do you know?
It's the bending of space around massive objects, like when they found
confirmation of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (GR)[1] in 1919
(IIRC) when a solar eclipse let them find that a star appear in a different
place than would have been predicted in classical physics[2] because the
light passing close to the sun traveled on a bent path, not a straight one,
and therefore the star appeared to be in a different place. Not to mention
the precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun, which doesn't follow
classical physical predictions, but does agree with GR.
[1]- A theory published in 1915 by Albert Einstein[3] saying that
gravitation mass and inertial mass were equivalent of IOW, an observer in a
uniform gravitation field couldn't physically distinguish it from an
accelerating reference frame (ex. suppose the observer was in an elevator,
or for that matter a vomit comet. There would be no way to determine
whether the gravity or lack thereof, was produced by mass or an absence of
mass or by an acceleration of the frame of reference.)
I used to believe that the reason astronauts experienced zero gravity was
because of their distance from the Earth, but I was taught otherwise by a
PBS Kid's show called "3-2-1 Contact" (which had a catchy theme song, might
I add). I recall someone I knew in college who was majoring in electrical
Engineering who still had this misconception, but this is not as bad, but
at least it wasn't as bad as a girl I knew who thought that Hawaii was a
floating mass, not attached to the bottom of the ocean[4]. In any case,
you would not weigh much less if you were standing on top of a tower that
was 100 miles in altitude (or however high it is that the space shuttle
orbits the Earth).
In fact, since gravity will act in such a way that it is basically as if
all of the Earth's mass were concentrated at the Earth's center[5] and the
Earth's radius is about 4000 miles and Newton's Equation of Universal
Gravitation is F=G*m1*m2/r^2[6] and the altitude of the shuttles orbit is
maybe between 100 miles and 230 miles, depending on what the mission is,
the difference in gravity, were it not moving, would be only about a factor
of (4230/4000)^2 = 1.12, not very significant.
[2]- The physics that existed up until about 1900 which includes Classical
Mechanics (Newton, Galileo, Keppler, etc.) and Classical Electrodynamics
(James Clerk Maxwell, Faraday, Hans Christian Oersted, etc.). This is the
basis for all physics outside of General/Special Relativity, Quantum
Mechanics and particle physics (at least that I can think of).
[3]- In 1905, Einstein had published the Theory of Special Relativity (SR),
which, unlike GR, deals only with non-accelerating reference frames, aka
Inertial Reference Frames and had two postulates: "The speed of light in
free space is the same for all observers." and "The laws of physics are the
same for all observers in inertial reference frames." Two simple
statements that lead to time dilation and consequently length contraction
and also matter-energy equivalence (E=mc^2).
[4]-
[5]- I say "basically" since the Earth is not a perfect sphere, but an
oblate ellipsoid. Were it a sphere of uniform density, it would be
"exactly".
[6]- F_12(with arrow above F) is actually a vector and there is a unit
vector r_12(with circumflex[7] above r signifying it is a unit vector
(dimensionless and having a magnitude of 1)) where the F subscript 12 means
the force exerted on object 1 by object 2 and the subscript on the r mean
the force is directed from object 2 to object 1 (otherwise gravity would
repel). The m1 and m2 are the masses of objects 1 and 2 respectively, r is
the distance from about 1 to object 2 (this is technically only true for
particles, which have all mass located at a single point and have no
internal structure, but is close to being true when the distances are much
greater than the size of the object... Otherwise, you would have to use
integral calculus to compute the forces.) and G is a gravitation constant,
usually measured in N*m^2/kg^2 or m^3/(kg*s^2).
[7]- Example: ô is an o with a circumflex.Paul Guertin wrote in article
<1dkmrtg870uc7jueicuf39cu2oslbcoo6u@news.newsguy.com>...
> ctcgag@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Paul Guertin wrote:
> > > ctcgag@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, apparently over 60% of American don't believe in Evolution.
> > >
> > > What's the percentage of Americans who believe in Gravity?
> >
> > I assume >90% would say they believe in gravity if asked "Do
> > you believe that gravity exists". If asked "What do you believe in?"
> > I doubt even 1% would respond with "gravity".
>
> So were the people in the survey asked "Do you believe evolution
> happens?", "What do you believe in?", "Do you believe that a
> naturalistic theory of natural selection adequately explains the
> observed diversity and evolution of species?", or some other
> question? If we don't know what was asked, that 60% figure is not
> very informative.
The question asked is given. The way it's phrased, it seems that only
someone who believe with no significant doubt would answer "Yes." thus
justifying a number less than 100%. An agnostic might be unsure enough
about believing in God and believing in evolution that he or she might
answer "No." to both, but still consider both possible, just not yet proven
to his or her satisfaction yet.
David Zeiger wrote in article
<0F951B2DCFB16B06.72C3042E56F214D7.E4B72D49E407DB25@lp.airnews.net>...
> On 03 Oct 2001 15:23:58 GMT, Tease he us
wrote:
> >Boron Elgar boron_elgar@"warm"mail.com
> >Date: 10/3/2001 9:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
> >
> >>I wouldn't assume that anywhere near a 90% figure even knows what
> >>gravity is.
> >
> >What is gravity, anyway? Is it just an artifact of acceleration viewed
from
> >different frames of reference, or is it a force unto itself? Do you
know?
>
> Heh, yeah, that is kind of an odd thing about gravity. Answering
> that question of "I'm not really sure" either means you're an
> idiot or at least somewhat familiar with particle physics.
I think a non-idiot, non-particle physicist could be unsure of what gravity
is. A lot of people never take physics and thus are not particle
physicists, nor even do they necessarily know what gravity is, but they
aren't necessarily idiots.
GrapeApe wrote in article
<20011001161938.16722.00003489@mb-cg.aol.com>...
> >>What would the cause of death be? These people were murdered. Would the
> >>cause be listed as homicide?
>
> They will either be trauma, or smoke inhalation, for the doc that has to
fill
> out the paper work. Of course some may have suffocated, suffered three
degree
> burns, bled to death, starved to death, or died of other natural causes.
Which
> brings the catch all back to trauma. There isn't likely to be much of a
> differentiation made unless official autopsy is requested.
>
> If you really want to know, you might check in to how they Oklahoma
bombings
> medical records were handled.
I recall hearing from the OKC bombing trial of Timothy McVeigh[1] that
there was a stack of 168 death certificates that listed the cause of death
as "homicide," IIRC. This to me does not seem like a cause of death.
Poisoning, strangling, stabbing, shooting, blunt force trauma, etc. are all
causes of death, but murder or homicide do not tell what type of injury
resulted in death. A medical examiner would, I should think, be required
in a murder trial be required to say exactly what the cause of death was
(i.e. the injury that caused the death).
I remember watching the OJ Simpson murder preliminary hearing where the LA
County coroner was act about the wounds on Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and
whether this would and that would were mortal wounds. I recall him being
asked on one occasions, "Did you reach a conclusion on whether [a certain
wound] was a mortal wound?" and he answered, "Yes." to which he was asked,
"And what was your conclusion?" and he answered, "That it was a mortal
wound." in a voice that seemed somewhat surprised that the followup
question had been asked (since he apparently meant "Yes, I concluded that
it was a mortal wound," not "Yes, I reached a conclusion." This is like
the old "Do you know what time it is?" question to which the occasional
smart ass will look at his or her watch and then answer, "Yes."
The way I see it, all deaths are either suicides, homicides, accidents,
natural causes, diseases, starvations, natural disasters or perhaps animal
attacks (unless that is under natural disasters, which it probably isn't).
This doesn't tell you much about why the person died though. Saying he or
she was shot or poisoned would and either of those could be suicide,
homicide or accident, though.
[1]- I didn't follow the Terry Nichols trial too much, but I did hear he
lost his appeal to the USSC to get his conviction overturned because of the
failure by the FBI to turn over all documents to the defense related to the
bombing. I also heard about the time of the WTC attack (perhaps that
night) that OK was about to put him on trial for murder, perhaps so that
they could get the death penalty, though that wasn't mentioned, but I
haven't heard anything about that since, nor had I any time since his
federal court trial, that I recall. Has anyone else here heard about that?
Anny Middon wrote in article
<9papss$gkf$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> "John Seeliger" wrote in message
> news:01c14abb$f9857f60$1cd5fed1@adkins...
> >
> > I remember watching the OJ Simpson murder preliminary hearing where the
LA
> > County coroner was act about the wounds on Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman
> and
> > whether this would and that would were mortal wounds. I recall him
being
> > asked on one occasions, "Did you reach a conclusion on whether [a
certain
> > wound] was a mortal wound?" and he answered, "Yes." to which he was
asked,
> > "And what was your conclusion?" and he answered, "That it was a mortal
> > wound." in a voice that seemed somewhat surprised that the followup
> > question had been asked (since he apparently meant "Yes, I concluded
that
> > it was a mortal wound," not "Yes, I reached a conclusion." This is
like
> > the old "Do you know what time it is?" question to which the occasional
> > smart ass will look at his or her watch and then answer, "Yes."
> >
> My attorney friend says this is *exactly* how you're supposed to answer
the
> "do you know the time" question if you're ever on the witness stand. The
> idea is that you answer only what you've been asked. I've been tempted
to
> have him question me and then answer his questions accurately but with a
> different set of presuppositions. I envision it going like this:
>
> Q: Where do you live?
> A: In a house.
> Q: What town do you live in?
> A: I don't.
> Q: You don't live in a town?
> A: No.
> Q: What's your address?
> A: Anny at enteract dot com.
Sounds like you live in cyberspace. Me too, I think sometimes. Do you
have an answer to "What state do you live in?" Mine would be, "Various
states including contentment, annoyance, boredom, confusion and fear."
>
> etc., etc.
>
> But then being a smartass come naturally to me.
Same here.Al Yellon wrote in article
...
> "John Seeliger" wrote in message
> news:01c14abb$f9857f60$1cd5fed1@adkins...
> > I remember watching the OJ Simpson murder preliminary hearing where the
LA
> > County coroner was act about the wounds on Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman
> and
> > whether this would and that would were mortal wounds. I recall him
being
> > asked on one occasions, "Did you reach a conclusion on whether [a
certain
> > wound] was a mortal wound?" and he answered, "Yes." to which he was
asked,
> > "And what was your conclusion?" and he answered, "That it was a mortal
> > wound." in a voice that seemed somewhat surprised that the followup
> > question had been asked (since he apparently meant "Yes, I concluded
that
> > it was a mortal wound," not "Yes, I reached a conclusion." This is
like
> > the old "Do you know what time it is?" question to which the occasional
> > smart ass will look at his or her watch and then answer, "Yes."
>
> That's not a smart-ass answer when you are testifying under oath. Most
> witnesses are told to only answer the question asked, which in this case
> was, "Did you reach a conclusion?" That's a question that can only be
> answered with "Yes" or "No".
I agree. It's just that He though he had already answered the question (he
meant when he answered that he reached a conclusion as to whether it was a
mortal would that yes, he had concluded that it was, though I would agree
with the prosecutor, that the follow-up was necessary and I would think the
judge would expect it as well.)
Matt Beckwith wrote in article
<9pckue$gk9$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
> "Al Yellon" wrote
> >
> > What would the cause of death be? These people were murdered. Would the
> > cause be listed as homicide?
>
> On the death certificate, the death would be labeled "not by natural
> causes." Homicide is a legal term, not applicable to death certificates.
>
I recall hearing in the Oklahoma City bombing trial that on the 168 death
certificates of the victims, "homicide" was listed as the cause of death.
Not sure if it was the proximate cause or the ultimate cause, but according
to Mark Brader's post, I suppose it must have been the ultimate, not the
proximate cause.
> Regarding the medical cause of death, that's up to the doctor filling out
> the death certificate. Possibilities include:
>
> - Explosion
> - Plane crash
> - Fire
> - Collapse of building
The above do not sound like causes of death to me. Fire, for example, is
not medically a cause of death. "Smoke inhalation" and "Third degree
burns"[1] are examples of medical conditions that could potentially cause
death. "Fire" is not a medical condition, AFAIK, unless the person is on
fire and then burns would be the medical condition. (I suppose you could
try "spontaneous human combustion," but I doubt many medical examiners
would want to put that, even if that were their conclusion.) As for
"Explosion," "Plane Crash" and "Collapse of Building," I would think they
would put down what *medically* happened to the victim (ex. "blunt force
trauma," "decapitation," "laceration of the aorta," "first/second/third
degree burns," etc.[2]), rather that what event caused it.
[1]- I forgot. Are third degree burns worse than first degree burns or is
it the other way around?
[2]- I am not claiming to know the injuries that might result from an
explosion, a plane crash or a building collapse, but these are just guess
of some of the possible injuries.
David Wilton wrote in article
...
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:51:43 -0500, Amy Austin
> wrote:
>
> >Do all of those secretarys hang out in Washington DC? I mean, if the
> >destruction was widespread enough to kill all 17 of 'em, plus the
> >president, aren't we hosed anyway?
>
> They're all based in DC, but at any given time it would be highly
> unlikely that they all would be in town. And even if they were all in
> DC, nothing less than a major nuclear strike (several warheads) would
> get all of them. About the only time that they all are together is the
> State of the Union or other major presidential address to
> Congress--and then they take special precautions to ensure at least
> one is absent. The Speaker and President Pro Tem don't attend cabinet
> meetings. Even the Inauguration events are spread out around town.
I think a single nuclear warhead could completely destroy all of DC.Al Yellon wrote in article
...
> "Bill Diamond" wrote in message
> news:bl2iqto4iob7u3lmrqjo8kb6dduujl8h7b@4ax.com...
> >
> > Should the horrific and unthinkable occur, the remaining Governors and
> > State Legislatures would appoint a new Senate. The same legislatures
> > can appoint members to the House of Representatives. Whichever party
> > has the majority probably gets to determine who the Speaker would be.
> >
> > Following the order of succession, the duly elected Speaker becomes
> > President, and then nominates a Vice President who would then be
> > confirmed by the Senate.
>
> This sounds completely logical, but this would take quite a bit of time,
> wouldn't you say?
>
> Who's in charge *in the meantime*?
I suppose that the highest ranking living member of the Army is in charge
of the Army, the highest ranking living member of the Navy is in charge of
the Navy, the highest ranking living member of the Air Force is in charge
of the Air Force, the highest ranking living member of the Marines is in
charge of the Marines, etc. The same for the FBI, CIA, FDA, ATF, etc. In
the event of a tie, go with the one with seniority. If we are talking
about who has the "football" and can thus launch nuclear missiles, I say
the acting head of the Air Force, since, AIUI, the Air Force controls
nuclear weapons. Of course, it's all a matter of getting you underlings to
respect your authority. If they respect you authority, then you are in
charge, otherwise not. (Even if the President was alive and they obeyed
you when you are defying the President, which you shouldn't do, you are
still in charge.)
Does Greenspan attend the State of the Union? I would guess so, since the
President's budget is critical to the nation's economy and the Federal
Reserve Board's (FED's) economic policy. I guess the Fed could just
appoint a new member, if they weren't also killed in the attack.
Al Yellon wrote in article
...
> "Opus the Penguin" wrote in message
> news:Xns9121ACC535F44opusthepenguinnettax@127.0.0.1...
> > Al Yellon wrote:
> >
> > > This sounds completely logical, but this would take quite a bit of
> > > time, wouldn't you say?
> > >
> > > Who's in charge *in the meantime*?
> >
> > Al Haig.
>
> Still?
Yeah, I think Reagan should have recovered by now.Shawn Wilson wrote in article
<9oc4gn$c8v1m$1@ID-108463.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> "John Seeliger" wrote in message
> news:01c14162$c8368060$02d5fed1@adkins...
>
> > I suppose that the highest ranking living member of the Army is in
charge
> > of the Army, the highest ranking living member of the Navy is in charge
of
> > the Navy, the highest ranking living member of the Air Force is in
charge
> > of the Air Force, the highest ranking living member of the Marines is
in
> > charge of the Marines, etc.
>
> And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is in charge of all of
them.
Yes, but we had postulated that a plane had just crashed into a Joint
Session of Congress as the POTUS was giving the State of the Union address,
so the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is now dead, I'm sorry to say.
We have to go with the highest ranking, living members in each group.
Now, if the COTJCOS was missing, perhaps he was in the hospital for
surgery, he would still be alive and could take control once he gets
better.
Bob Moissonnier wrote in article
<8898eb74.0109220437.7c98689b@posting.google.com>...
> "Shawn Wilson" wrote in message
news:<9odotf$cbprq$1@ID-108463.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Al Yellon" wrote in message
> > news:tqkmupjcu3qv72@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > > The governors of the states are in charge of the state governments.
> > > > The under-secretary of blah is in charge of blah.
> > > > The Ojibawa field office of the FBI is in charge of the Ojibawa FBI
> > agents.
> > > > etc.
> > >
> > > Well, we know *that*. But if everyone in the line of succession is
dead,
> > > who's in charge of the federal government?
> >
> >
> >
> > By definition- no one. We can survive having no one in charge for a
while,
> > just so long as we can ravel the mess up again once someone is put in
> > charge. You'll run into budget problems though. Agencies aside from
the
> > Fed and IRS don't have their own sources of funds. Aren't you happy
knowing
> > that the entire government could disappear, but the IRS could keep
going on
> > its own?
>
>
> Dunno if anyone has already noted this, but back in the early 90s CNN
> reported that the gubmint indeed has a secret list of who would assume
> the Presidency should the 17 or so official folk be dead all at once,
> a list said to have been started under Reagan's administration in 1982
> under the Orwellian name of "National Program Office" (of course,
> Ollie North was supposedly involved in that endeavor). The official
> name was apparently the "Presidential Successor Support System," or
> "PS-cubed." According to the report (or rather, the report of the
> report I read), it had cost the US $8 billion by 1991.
It must be a huge list if it cost $8 billion to make.Opus the Penguin wrote in article
...
> John Seeliger wrote:
> >BigIron Bob
> >> Dunno if anyone has already noted this, but back in the early 90s
> >> CNN reported that the gubmint indeed has a secret list of who
> >> would assume the Presidency should the 17 or so official folk be
> >> dead all at once, a list said to have been started under Reagan's
> >> administration in 1982 under the Orwellian name of "National
> >> Program Office" (of course, Ollie North was supposedly involved in
> >> that endeavor). The official name was apparently the
> >> "Presidential Successor Support System," or "PS-cubed." According
> >> to the report (or rather, the report of the report I read), it
> >> had cost the US $8 billion by 1991.
> >
> > It must be a huge list if it cost $8 billion to make.
>
> Well, it did rank every single eligible US citizen. I was number
> 87,543,920 in the line of succession. (So I decided killing my way up
> to the presidency was more trouble than it was worth.)
The problem is that if it ever got to you, probably everyone who works in
the "National Program Office" would be dead anyway, so who would be there
to tell you that it was you?
Shawn Wilson wrote in article
<9oiuh1$daboh$1@ID-108463.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> "Opus the Penguin" wrote in message
> news:Xns9124791BC21BDopusthepenguinnettax@127.0.0.1...
>
> > Well, it did rank every single eligible US citizen. I was number
> > 87,543,920 in the line of succession. (So I decided killing my way up
> > to the presidency was more trouble than it was worth.)
>
>
> That's funny, I was 87,543,921.
I hope your not planning on bumping off Opus just to take his spot.Bill Diamond wrote in article
<0jbkqt8as7sjsiqtdid01ki1ic829mjlf7@4ax.com>...
> Good old RM Mentock wrote in
> alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:47:34 -0400 that ...
> >Bush - Iraq
> >Clinton - Monica
> >Bush - bin Laden
>
>
> Bush - "Read my lips"
> Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski"
> Bush - "edumacation"
Bush- "subliminable"StarChaser_Tyger wrote in article
<4oegqtkvsuvd832uf9m5e50b5143q917pe@4ax.com>...
> We get signal. What you say? It's raven@westnet.poe.com,
>
> >Becuase Cheney's expendable. He's only the VP. Actually, any one man
is
> >expendable in our system: Had Cheney been out and about and GWB been in
> >the white house, he'd likely been the one who stayed while Cheney was
> >rushed off to some secure facility. But someone get's to sit in the hot
> >seat unless it's fairly certain that that seat is about to be
obliterated.
>
> Say George and his sidekick were addressing a full house of Congress
> when a plane landed on them, and it took out the whole choir, the
> encore being a similar performance on the Senate.
>
> Who takes over? All of Congress is gone, all of the Senate is gone,
> and *.pres is gone as well. What is the chain of command?
Actually, I recall Peter Jennings mentioning (back in 1998, I believe)
during the State of the Union that so-and-so was the one member of Congress
chosen to stay away from the speech and that they traditionally always
choose one member to stay away, just in case there is a catastrophe, that
that member would be able to set up a new government and I told one of my
cow-orkers this and he wondered how they decide which one stays away and I
said, "Probably the one who built the bomb."
BTW, not only do you lose all of Congress (less one member), the President,
the VP and the Cabinet, but you also lose the Supreme Court. I suppose in
that tragic event, the new President would declare a state of emergency and
appoint a temporary Cabinet and the governors of the various states would
call into session their respective legislature (were they not already
meeting) and they would quickly appoint members of Congress (or may the
governors themselves could appoint members of Congress[1].) In fact, prior
to the Seventeenth Amendment (1913), which provided for direct election of
Senators[2], state legislatures traditionally selected US Senators from the
their states[3].
[1]- I know this can be done, sometimes on an interim basis, as the
Democratic guy who replaced Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen (when Clinton
appointed him Treasury Secretary), who was appointed by Texas Governor (D)
Ann Richards. There was a special election shortly afterwards and Texas
State Treasurer (R) Kay Bailey Hutchison was elected. Also, the governor
of Missouri appointed former Missouri Governor (D) Mel Carahan's widow to
serve as Senator, after the decease Mr. Carahan defeated the incumbent
Senator and now U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. This appointment is
permanent, as no special election is going to be called, esp. since voters
knew who they were really voting for. There was some thought of
challenging whether Mel Carahan could even be elected, since Article I
Section 3 of the _U.S. Constition_ says "No person shall be a Senator who
shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a
citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be *an
inhabitant of that state* for which he shall be chosen,"
() and they argued that a dead man is not an inhabitant of any state, but
John Ashcroft refused to challenge the election results.
[2]-
[3]- Article I Section 4: "Section 4. The times, places and manner of
holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in
each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by
law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing
Senators."
States could have held elections for Senators or Representatives, I
suppose, prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, but, AIUI, typically just
appointed a slate, just as they do with electors to the Electoral College
(I know that Florida's Legislature considered doing this to resolve the
Florida election crisis, but didn't have to. Prior to about 1824, that is
how all states did it. some even after that, until 1896, IIRC, when
Colorado was the last state to ever do it. Also, AIUI, the names of the
different slates of electors that are attached to a candidate (ex. the list
of Buchanan electors from Florida, the list of Bush electors from Florida,
the list of Gore electors from Florida, etc.) are appointed by the
legislature. (I suppose if you were extremely vicious, you could
manipulate this and make, say, all the Gore electors Republicans, who would
presumably be faithless and gore would therefore lose all of Florida's
electoral votes, even if he won the state and did so clearly, but that's
not much different than the legislature just naming the electors
themselves, which the USSC ruled in _McPherson v. Blacker_[4]). Some
states, however, require electors to sign pledges to vote for one
candidate[5]. They can even be fined or jailed, in theory, though this
has, AIUI, never been done (perhaps there have been no faithless electors
in those states, though in some states, there have been faithless
electors[6].). In some states, such as Michigan, you will note from [5],
the vote of the faithless elector is invalid and the elector is replaced.
[4]-
,
a case out of Michigan before the USSC in 1892 that involved how the
electors in Michigan for the Presidential Election would be name, it was
cited by the Bush team often during their cases before the USSC and IIRC,
the FSC and maybe other courts.
[5]-
[6]-
Matt Hall wrote in article
...
> In article <4oegqtkvsuvd832uf9m5e50b5143q917pe@4ax.com>,
> StarChaser_Tyger wrote:
>
> > Say George and his sidekick were addressing a full house of Congress
> > when a plane landed on them, and it took out the whole choir, the
> > encore being a similar performance on the Senate.
> >
> > Who takes over? All of Congress is gone, all of the Senate is gone,
> > and *.pres is gone as well. What is the chain of command?
>
> According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html
>
> Order of Presidential Succession
>
> * The Vice President
> * Speaker of the House
> * President pro tempore of the Senate
> * Secretary of State
> * Secretary of the Treasury
> * Secretary of Defense
> * Attorney General
> * Secretary of the Interior
> * Secretary of Agriculture
> * Secretary of Commerce
> * Secretary of Labor
> * Secretary of Health and Human Services
> * Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
> * Secretary of Transportation
> * Secretary of Energy
> * Secretary of Education
> * Secretary of Veterans Affairs
>
> Now then, let's revise your question: The executives are gone, the
> cabinet is gone, the Senate and Congrees are gone. Who's next? The
> governor of, say, California?
It's probably not defined, but I suggest an interim government, and that
the governors of each states should appoint temporary members of Congress,
until the state legislatures can be called into session or a special
election can be called. These temporary members will then appoint a
President. Probably the House will do so, since they would choose the
Speaker, anyway, who is the highest ranking member of the Federal
Government, barring a POTUS and a VP (stronger argument). Also, the House
choose the President when none of the candidates gets a majority of the
electoral votes (weaker argument). For appointing a VP, however, a
majority of both houses of Congress is required, as per the Twenty-fifth
Amendment of the _U.S. Constitution_[1].
[1]-
and
Mirhanda Sarko wrote in article
...
> "John Seeliger" wrote in alt.fan.cecil-adams:
[numerous long paragraphs deleted]
> This is what I'm talking about. Take a breath every once in a while.
I'm not obsessive-compulsive. I'm just overly-verbose. :)raven@westnet.poe.com wrote in article
<9oajgq$6me$5@mycroft.westnet.com>...
> JmG wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 07:03:23 GMT, Matt Hall
wrote:
>
> >>|Now then, let's revise your question: The executives are gone, the
> >>|cabinet is gone, the Senate and Congrees are gone. Who's next? The
> >>|governor of, say, California?
>
> > Actually, that's a good point. It would make sense to have the governor
of the
> > largest state (population wise) take control at least until we could
figure
> > out what to do next.
>
> Actually the first state to appoint a replacement senator would surf up
> the chain of succession and become president.
I'd say the first state to appoint a replacement set of House members would
get to pick the POTUS, since they could choose a Speaker of the House, who
would be President in the absence of a President or a Vice President. Of
course, I don't know that this would happen faster than a governor could
name one or two Senators. Furthermore, they would have to arrive in
Washington, D.C. and be sworn in. I believe, however, that unless the
state legislatures named the House and Senate member, that there would be a
call for special elections, though I think that in which states these occur
might depend on state laws. As I noted elsewhere, Texas Governor Ann
Richards named some guy whose name I don't remember and a special election
was called and then State Treasurer[1] Kay Bailey Hutchison was elected and
has served as Senator ever since, being re-elected in 1994 and 2000. I
believe I heard that the naming of the replacement was state law. I don't
know whether the calling of a special election is required by state law, or
if it is at the governor's discretion. When there was talk of Connecticut
Senator Joseph Lieberman resigning from his Senate seat in order to become
Vice President, if he was elected, it was pointed out that the Connecticut
governor, a Republican (I don't know his name.), would choose his
replacement and that it would almost certainly be permanent. Also, the was
some talk about GWB appointing Louisiana Democrat John Breaux(sp?)[2] as
Secretary of Energy and that the governor of Louisiana, a Republican
(sorry, don't know his name either.), would appoint the replacement, but
since Breaux is a powerful Democrat, leading the coalition of southern
"Blue Dog" Democrats, and since the Senate was split 50-50 at the time,
Breaux refused the notion.
[1]- Richards was Texas State Treasurer immediately before Hutchison.
[2]- He's one of those conservative "Blue Dog" DemocratsMirhanda Sarko wrote in article
...
> "John Seeliger" wrote in alt.fan.cecil-adams:
[long paragraph deleted]
> You're doing it again
Yeah, I know. Need to break those paragraphs down. Someone on AUE
mentioned that to me and then Connie-Lynne, too.
David Wilton wrote in article
<480iqt4dqmfh87kf6f0idm2vcic70oida5@4ax.com>...
> On 19 Sep 2001 17:09:46 GMT, raven@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
> >JmG wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 07:03:23 GMT, Matt Hall
wrote:
> >
> >>>|Now then, let's revise your question: The executives are gone, the
> >>>|cabinet is gone, the Senate and Congrees are gone. Who's next? The
> >>>|governor of, say, California?
> >
> >> Actually, that's a good point. It would make sense to have the
governor of the
> >> largest state (population wise) take control at least until we could
figure
> >> out what to do next.
> >
> >Actually the first state to appoint a replacement senator would surf up
> >the chain of succession and become president.
>
> Except representatives have to be elected. A state cannot appoint a
> replacement representative. A senator would be replaced before a
> special election for a representative could be held.
That might be the reason raven says the first state to appoint a
replacement Senator, since the governors of most (or all?) states can do
that immediately on the death or resignation of a Senator (ex. Lloyd
Bentsen and Mel Carnahan), if that is the law in that state. I don't know
whether the governor of, say, Vermont, which only has one Congressional
district can do so, since that representative is chosen at large anyway[1].
If no state had time to name or elect House members, then the President
Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate would be POTUS in the absence of a
President, VP and a Speaker of the House. This, I believe, is the reason
raven said the first senator appointed would become POTUS.
BTW, there is no law (AIUI) or U.S. Constitutional requirement that the
Speaker of the House be a member of the House. I don't think it's ever
happened, but an outside person could become Speaker of the House. It's
usually/always someone who has been in the House for a while and is fairly
senior in their party's caucus and who knows the House rules fairly well,
and of course, is pretty eloquent.
[1]- BTW, I am wondering if a state could be divided into two *U.S.
Senatorial districts* and each one elect one, as Nebraska and Maine split
up some of their *electoral votes* up according to the *House*
Congressional districts[2]. I would doubt it, but if they could and did, I
wonder if the governor would still be allowed to choose a replacement,
since the governor was chosen at large. He might have lost in the U.S.
Senatorial district where the successor being appointed is representing,
but won at large. It would be like allowing Bush, who lost California, to
be allowed to name a new governor of California, if California Governor
Gray Davis steps down. (I guess his successor would be the Lt. Governor of
California, though, if that office exists.)
[2]- Al Yellon wrote in article
...
> "Opus the Penguin" wrote in message
> news:Xns91218CE357E7opusthepenguinnettax@127.0.0.1...
> > Jason Quick wrote about Giuliani:
> >
> > > I think that if he ran in '04, he'd get pretty far towards winning.
> > > I'd imagine he could grab either of NY's Senate seats in a walk.
> >
> > WAY too early to make that kind of prediction. People may well not
> > remember or care in '04 what Giuliani did in '01. Remember how during
> > Desert Storm everybody thought Bush was a shoe-in for a second term and
> > the Dems might as well not bother running anyone?
>
> But that was the economy, and Bush was running for re-election rather
than
> the case in point here, which would be Giuliani running for higher office
> based on his performance in this crisis.
You think it would be easier for a non-incumbent to win than an incumbent.
Usually, they incumbent has an advantage and Americans generally want to
send the incumbent back. Since WWII, the only incumbents to lose were
Ford[1], Carter and Bush. Reelected (or returned to office) were Truman,
Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton and I bet had JFK lived, he
would have been sent back too. Furthermore, prior to the Twenty-second
Amendment to the _U.S. Constitution_[2], FDR was elected President four
consecutive times.
[1]- And that was to pay him back for pardoning Nixon.
[2]-
Carl Fink wrote in article
...
> In article <9oajgq$6me$5@mycroft.westnet.com>, raven@westnet.poe.com
wrote:
>
> > Actually the first state to appoint a replacement senator would surf up
> > the chain of succession and become president.
>
> Well, except for the need to have a quorum in order to elect the
> President _Pro Tempore_.
This is certainly something I thought about. You also need someone to
swear them all in. I'm not sure who that'd be. Normally, it's the VP,
right? No VP, no Senate. No Senate, no President. No President (to
appoint a VP), no VP. A catch-22 situation, but I guess they could find a
federal judge to administer the oath (either the federal judge whose
jurisdiction the Capital (and Capitol) is, or the highest ranking member of
the appropriate appeals court (the Ninth Circuit, right? I remember
hearing it over and over during the Elian Gonzales situation. I wonder how
EG is doing these days. I hope well to be at home.), if the USSC is no
longer existent. Also, no President to appoint (even temporarily any USSC
justice). But, with no House, the choice for a VP couldn't be confirmed
anyway[1]. But then again, there were no officers of the United States at
the beginning, so I guess there would be some way to do it anyway (pulling
the government up by its own bootstraps.)
[1]-
Michael Meissner wrote in article
...
> Matt Hall writes:
>
> > In article <4oegqtkvsuvd832uf9m5e50b5143q917pe@4ax.com>,
> > StarChaser_Tyger wrote:
> >
> > > Say George and his sidekick were addressing a full house of Congress
> > > when a plane landed on them, and it took out the whole choir, the
> > > encore being a similar performance on the Senate.
> > >
> > > Who takes over? All of Congress is gone, all of the Senate is gone,
> > > and *.pres is gone as well. What is the chain of command?
> >
> > According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html
> >
> > Order of Presidential Succession
> >
> > * The Vice President
> > * Speaker of the House
> > * President pro tempore of the Senate
> > * Secretary of State
> > * Secretary of the Treasury
> > * Secretary of Defense
> > * Attorney General
> > * Secretary of the Interior
> > * Secretary of Agriculture
> > * Secretary of Commerce
> > * Secretary of Labor
> > * Secretary of Health and Human Services
> > * Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
> > * Secretary of Transportation
> > * Secretary of Energy
> > * Secretary of Education
> > * Secretary of Veterans Affairs
> >
> > Now then, let's revise your question: The executives are gone, the
> > cabinet is gone, the Senate and Congrees are gone. Who's next? The
> > governor of, say, California?
>
> The first thought that popped into my head was "Al Haig", but that only
makes
> sense if you remember Watergate.
Watergate? Try the Reagan assassination attempt by John Hinkley Jr.Perry Farmer wrote in article
<1000934690@thefarm.tzo.com>...
>
> -> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 06:05:03 -0600, Erich wrote:
>
> -> >In article <1000874225@thefarm.tzo.com>,
> -> > perry.farmer@thefarm.tzo.com (Perry Farmer) wrote:
> -> >Why do people believe that the passengers flew the plane into the
> -> >ground? A more rational explanation is the hijackers crashed it when
> -> >the passengers were about to retake the plane.
> -> >
>
> -> Is there a significant difference in the two scenarios? In either
> -> case, if the passengers had not taken action, the hijackers would have
> -> continued toward their primary target. If the hijacker's plot was
> -> thwarted as a result of the passenger's actions, does it REALLY matter
> -> whose hands were on the controls at the point of impact?
>
> Not much, even if the plane was shot down.
Yeah, it doesn't make any difference. I think I heard last night on the
ABC News special at 10 Eastern/9 Central on the attack (in which they
interviewed family members of four on the flight) that one of the family
members thought that they probably killed the terrorist pilot and took over
the plane. I don't know that this is the case and if they did, the pilot
must have already initiated a dive, because, if it was level, esp. if it
was on auto-pilot, I think they would have been able to save it, esp. if
the real pilot and/or first officer were still alive. Even if not, I think
they would have used the planes radios, or their cell phones to try to get
instruction on how to land the plane. Has it even happen on a real
commercial flight, (I'm not talking about in the movie "Airplane"[1]), that
a passenger had to land the plane and did so successfully and what are the
chances of that happening?
[1]- "There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the
rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to
fly a plane?"
Richard Fontana wrote in article
...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Isabella Z wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 04:46:29 -0400, Richard Fontana
> > wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > >> I thought G. W. Bush was a Catholic?
> > >Good Lord, no.
> >
> > Thanks. I did have my facts wrong. I hope that is confined to the
> > President's confession.
> >
> > >The only Catholic president of the US thus far has been the
Irish-American
> > >John F. Kennedy.
> >
> > Yes, I knew that.
> >
> > >> Am I confusing him with his
> > >> brother Jeb?
> > >Yes. I think Jeb did convert to Catholicism after marrying his wife,
who
> > >AIUI is a Catholic of Latin American birth.
> >
> > I think I know what happened. I read about Jeb being a Catholic (now,
> > at least) and wrongly assumed that George W. must be, too. Never
> > assume, never presume. I'm sorry.
>
> You can't really assume much about an American's religion based on that
of
> his close relatives, particularly in the case of politicians. You can
make
> analogous generalizations about political party affiliation, however.
Are
> there any Republican members of the Kennedy family, or Democratic members
> of the Bush family?
Are the Roosevelts a democratic family or a Republican one. I know that
Theodore and Franklin Delano were related. I am thinking they were like
first or second cousins, once removed (with Theodore not surprisingly
belonging to the higher up generation).
John Seeliger wrote in article
<01c1408a$bc8e6e40$4adafed1@adkins>...
> Richard Fontana wrote in article
> ...
> > You can't really assume much about an American's religion based on that
> of
> > his close relatives, particularly in the case of politicians. You can
> make
> > analogous generalizations about political party affiliation, however.
> Are
> > there any Republican members of the Kennedy family, or Democratic
members
> > of the Bush family?
>
> Are the Roosevelts a democratic family or a Republican one. I know that
> Theodore and Franklin Delano were related. I am thinking they were like
> first or second cousins, once removed (with Theodore not surprisingly
> belonging to the higher up generation).
I was about to say that weren't the two Rockefeller brothers[1] of
different parties, but I now see that they weren't. Nelson Rockefeller,
former governor of New York (among other offices) and Winthrop Rockefeller,
former governor of Arkansas[3] were both Republicans as the Bushes are.
Also, Win Paul Rockefeller, son of the late(?) governor of Arkansas,
Winthrop Rockefeller, who is now the Lt. Governor of Arkansas, is also a
Republican. Note from [4] that the governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, is
a Republican as is Governor George Pataki of New York[5]. (Note, [5] also
lists him as a conservative. He favors "ballistic fingerprinting guns"
(i.e. firing each gun before they are sold and keep the bullet which will
have the ballistic signature (or a copy of such signature) so that if the
gun is used to commit a crime, the purchaser can be readily tracked down.),
which I do to, though I am also a Conservative Republican, and I'm sure the
NRA must hate this idea, but I think it could help catch many criminals and
save many lives. If you didn't commit the crime, you have nothing to
fear.)
[1]- The last time before Jeb Bush became governor of Florida, with George
W. Bush having already been governor of Texas for four years and being
elected to a second term as governor of Texas (both Republicans of course)
[2]-
[3]-
[4]-
[5]- Matthew M. Huntbach wrote in article
<9oa2s9$3el$1@beta.qmw.ac.uk>...
> AWILLIS957 (awillis957@aol.com) wrote:
>
> >The daftest thing about all this Christian-Muslim stuff is that no two
> >religions coulod be more similar in origins and obsessions. The Jihad
and the
> >Crusade amount to much the same thing, really.
>
> No, they do not.
>
> Firstly, there is nothing in the texts of the Christian religion that
> mentions "Crusades". Whereas "Jihad" is mentioned in the Koran as an
> obligation on a Mulsim.
Correct. Whereas Mohammed, the founder of Islam used military jihad in his
lifetime to take Mecca, Christians and those who called themselves
Christians (whether or not the were Christians[1]) did not use military
force until about 300 years later, when Constantine used military force to
conquer Maxamillian (or Maximanus?) and that wasn't to force his religion
on anyone, just to conquer another army. The first real Crusades,
committed under *the Name of Christ*, did not take place, AIUI, until after
Islam had already conquered much of the region itself.
>
> Secondly, whereas "Crusade" unarguably means real physical war, I have
> seen several commentators who suggest that "Jihad" should more correctly
> be seen as referring to a personal conflict with one's good and bad
sides,
> and it is an ignorant mistranslation by those with a political axe to
grind
> to see it as referring to a real physical war.
Nope, it does not. I have attended "Campus Crusade for Christ" meetings
and there was no bloodshed at them. (only talk of the shedding of the Blood
of Christ for our sins.) and I've seen "Billy Graham Crusades" on
television (though never been to one) and the same can be said about those.
[1]- As I noted my position and definition of the word Christian in the
Christians thread back in July.
RM <72242.3602@compuserve.com> wrote in article
...
> Anyone notice the odd disclaimer at the end of the show that said that
> the final vote and execution were "recreated" as they originally
> occurred? What's up with that?
They had several similar disclaimers last season for things "not effecting
the outcome of the game" or some words to the effect. For example, IIRC,
the scene around the dice table was reshot. This is, I suppose, to allow
Anderson to give Kathryn the special "Shave you head./Die your hair."
envelope without himself knowing that she was the mole. (Presumable the
producers gave a different set of envelopes to Anderson when Kathryn was
there, than when the other players were there. I don't know how they
arranged this, but they wanted her to get the "Shave you head./Die your
hair." and the roll a four, five or six, in order to have to shave her head
to win the money, which she would refuse since she had already told Wendy
the night before that she would not shave her head -- that that was one
thing she would not do. That was mentioned on the last episode.
Also, it's not a vote, but a quiz. Presumably, they would not have wanted
to put pressure on players taking the quiz by filming them at that time and
this also gave them the chance to perhaps tell players to just point to
several different answer, other than the one they were actually choosing as
the mole, since they could re-edit the footage to give us a different
perspective about who the players think the mole is, and thus who the mole
actually is.
Just Me wrote in article
<20010915024933.21112.00000215@mb-fx.aol.com>...
> >I dunno. I think she said something about giving too much of congress'
> >power to the president.
>
> Ok, so when I think about that, it makes me wonder how much power
Congress
> gives the President when they declare war. Does the President get to
make all
> the decisions, or does Congress still have a say? And how did this
affect the
> way the Korean and Vietnam Wars were handled (since Congress never
actually
> declared war in either case)?
Well, they can always impeach him. Furthermore, they can refuse to pass an
appropriations bill and it's hard to prosecute a war when you don't have
any money.
Kirk Is wrote in article
...
> raven@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> > Yes Dana, ignorance is not the solution. Let's hear all about
it.
> > We need to know what's possible. The passengers did not know or belive
> > that their hijacking could end with so many lives lost, while the
fourth
> > plane's passengers, having found out about the WTC knew what was coming
> > and managed to keep the plane from hitting it's target.
>
> > We need to know. All of it. The nasty details and so on so that we
can
> > take effective steps to counter it. Pulling the covers up over your
head
> > may be comforting, but it's not ultimately the best way to protect
> > ourselves.
>
> Slate had a good article, that basically that any attack we think of (or
> rather, don't think of but would consider) "unimaginable" is an attack we
> can't defend against.
>
> You got bad guys who are *really* thinking about this. We need the good
> guys, the good guys in authority, to be thinking as deviously as them.
Well, this is hardly something unimaginable. I had though of it. In fact,
in the movie "Air Force One," didn't the terrorists plan to crash the plane
into the White House? Also, on ABC's coverage of the events, I heard
someone (I believe it was a consultant with the network, but I can't recall
for sure. It may have been a Senator (I know they interviewed Senate
Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden D-Delaware. I don't think he was
the one who said this though.) or someone who is or was in the federal
government who back in the 60s, before the WTC towers had been built, asked
some prominent Israeli government minister or security person[1] something
to the effect of, "If the terrorists attack, where will it be and how?" and
the answer was that they would crash a plane into the Empire State
Building, and then he asked, "Why?" and the answer, IIRC, was basically
that it is a building everyone knows. Also, having read "Black Sunday"[2],
I have though out crashing a plane into a football or baseball stadium at a
significant sporting event, or setting off a large bomb there. Can you
imagine what it would be like if at the Super Bowl with 800 million people
watching worldwide if a plane crashed there? These attacks with 4 planes
maybe killed 5,000 people and that's sad and it's a high number, but at the
Super Bowl, it could be tens of thousands, maybe even 100,000. That would
really strike terror into the 800 million watching it live.
[1]- I believe it may have been the first Israeli Defense Minister, but I
don't remember the name of the person.
[2]- A book in which Middle Eastern terrorists get a non-Middle Eastern
American to try and fly a blimp loaded with a plastic explosives bomb over
the 50 yardline at the Super Bowl and detonate it. I won't let y'all know
how it turns out.
Paul wrote in article
...
> Don't hold your breath for Katie to get voted off. She is, after all,
the
> Mole.
Correct, (I think.) and even if she were not the mole, nobody ever gets
voted off on this show anyway. That would be Survivor®, Bib Brother® or
Boot Camp®.
>
> "jessie" wrote in message
> news:3BBE7F94.B17CBCD9@pacbell.net...
> I think it was stupid that everyone were complaining about Lisa & Dorothy
> getting the exmptions. I mean, I am sure whoever was offer an exemptions
> WOULD get jump at the chance. Whoever says they would not have taken the
> exemption is lying. Plus, no one forced them out of their room. Katie
is
> overacting to the whole thing. She tried to blame Lisa & Dorothy just
> because she voluntarily left her room. Her bickering is getting very
> annoying. I hoped she get voted off soon.
Jessie, please don't post in HTML. Please turn it off and use plain text.
I could read your message without looking at the message source under the
properties for your message.
a1a51640@sprint.ca wrote in article <3bb88e71.5701572@news.sprint.ca>...
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:09:37 +0200, trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
> wrote:
> >
> >Dip a dry oar into water. When does it become wet? When you put it in
> >the water, or when you take it out? I say 99.9999% of English speakers
> >would say it becomes wet when you put it into the water.
> >
> >--
> >Best --- Donna Richoux
>
> Then again, while we are all wet at conception not all remain so.
I'm wet on the inside, but I don't feel it. In fact, at times, I feel
quite dry on the inside now, so I just opened a soda[1].
[1]- RC Cola® to be exact. AFAIK, the only cola bottled by the Dallas/Fort
Worth Dr Pepper Bottling Company, Dallas, TX, 75265, who also bottles
Canada Dry® Ginger Ale, which is not Canadian, not Dry, contains no ale,
probably contains no ginger and is probably not related to Ginger Grant
either and has a large map of most of North America (except part of the
Arctic regions an Mexico and Central America) on the bottle.
Corwin2 wrote in article
<20011003224928.18604.00000405@mb-mo.aol.com>...
>
> >That guy she was going out with, the younger guy.. (What was
> >his name?) No, that would be too boring and obvious.
>
> It's something like Chad. Chip, maybe.
>
Yeah, Chad sounds about right, but it's been a while since he was on that
I've forgotten.
> >Joey? She was living with him and who knows? Things could have
> >happened, but I don't think that is who it is.
>
> Did Rachel ever get bombed?
She did in that what-if episode, while she was in Joey/Dr. Drake Romorey's
apartment with whom she was totally infatuated, but that doesn't really
count. (This was the episode where Phoebe was an investment banker and had
a heart attack.)
> >How it happened, I mean when it happened, I don't know, (Yes, I
> >actually know how it happened.) but it should be interesting
> >if it turns out to be right. Any other obvious choices I
> >could be missing (other than of course Chandler, who it won't be)?
>
> I guess Paul? could have blown into town. Bruce Willis played him.
Yeah, I remember that now. He was the father of Ross's student girlfriend,
right?
Al Yellon wrote in article
...
> "Sockpuppet2000" wrote in message
> news:3BA5208B.239FC74@earthlink.net...
> > I'm surprised managment did this so soon after the attack.
> >
> >
>
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/saturday/business_3.htm
> l
Yes. Who would find the American flag offensive? Do they have a lot of
Afghani employees?
Greg Goss wrote in article
<0CBA141EA55614AE.DDD7426F4677DA7E.7FEDB03C300C1267@lp.airnews.net>...
> "Al Yellon" wrote:
>
> >"Sockpuppet2000" wrote in message
> >news:3BA5208B.239FC74@earthlink.net...
> >> I'm surprised managment did this so soon after the attack.
> >>
> >>
>
>http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/saturday/business_3.ht
m
> >l
> >
> >What a complete moron.
> >
>
> It's gone now. What was it?
A company called NCCI Holdings, Inc. that handles workers compensation
claims told workers that they couldn't display flags at work because it was
potentially offensive to other workers (they had a policy against allowing
religious and patriotic symbols) and several workers were sent home on
Friday for refusing to comply with it. Mirhanda posted a follow-up message
in this thread citing a story (on the gopbi.com website???) saying that
after the company received 700 e-mails (forcing them to shut down their
website), and five protestors stood outside the company's headquarters on
Congress Avenue and hand out American flags to workers as they arrived and
Gov. Jeb Bush called on homeowner associations and business groups to lift
flag-flying restrictions, NCCI reversed its policy and was even handing out
red, white and blue ribbons to employees as they arrived for work.
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote in article
...
> arcadianrises@aol.com (Arcadian Rises) writes:
>
> > >From: Richard Fontana rf243@sparky.cs.nyu.edu
> >
> > >How far back does the patriotic "U.S.A! [pause] U.S.A.!" chant go?
> >
> > Is it the same chant you hear on international sports events? Then,
> > first time I heard it in Munich during the Olympics, I believe in
> > 1972, when I was in elementary school.
>
> I had thought it started at the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid,
> specifically during the hockey victory over the USSR, but perhaps
> before then. Are you sure that it started at an event outside the US?
> (My memories of Munich are extremely vague, being limited largely to
> Olga Korbut, Mark Spitz, and the hostage taking.)
That's what came to mind (the US-USSR hockey game) when I first saw the
question, but then I was 10 at the time and can't remember any earlier
Olympic Games than Lake Placid 1980. I do tend to associate it with the
Olympics.
Rowan Dingle wrote in article
...
> In alt.usage.english, John Seeliger wrote:
>
> >That's what came to mind (the US-USSR hockey game) when I first saw the
> >question, but then I was 10 at the time and can't remember any earlier
> >Olympic Games than Lake Placid 1980. I do tend to associate it with the
> >Olympics.
>
> Wasn't it chanted at the Fischer-Spassky match in 1972?
I didn't know they had chess at the 1972 Summer Olympic Games in Munich?
Or was this a winter sport in Sapporo(?)?
raven wrote in article
<_v2v7.15713$ng6.716079@brie.direct.ca>...
> Elyse wrote in message
> news:20011004150025.08555.00003472@mb-md.aol.com...
> > Anybody else notice a distinct lack of west wing posts today? I made
one
> first
> > thing in the morning and it's still not here, and no other comments.
> >
> > It's a conspiracy!!!
>
> Well, something must be wrong with your server, 'cause I've seen quite a
few
> West Wing posts.
She must be referring to this message:
"I'm surprised not to see any posts on the episode, but...
it was the preachiest thing I've seen on TV in a long time, save for Sunday
morning shows...
I'm honestly not sure what anybody sees in the show after watching this
episode.
E
"
Yep, I've got it here and six message in the thread that it began.Martin Ambuhl wrote in article
<3BA7C665.114325F8@earthlink.net>...
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > In the Danish language group there was a question about "I rest
> > my case". There are at least three different oppinions about its
> > basic meaning:
> >
> > 1) I have lost the discussion and will say no more.
> > 2) It's pointless to keep discussing. We'll never agree.
> > 3) I have nothing further to say. (neutral)
> >
> > I think that 1) is quite wrong and support 3), but can accept 2).
>
> All three fail to capture the meaning of this phrase. It is used,
> rather, to mean "I have made my case. I consider my position proven."
I agree and will note that in a real courtroom, I don't think a lawyer
would likely say, "I rest my case." (which is often said in an indignant
tone), but rather "The prosecution rests," "The defense rests." or "The
plaintiff rests," unless he or she were grandstanding[1].
[1]- Showing off or resorting to theatrics in the courtroom, often done for
the sake of the gallery[2] or in a televised case, for the television
audience. I know that during the O.J. Simpson murder trial, there were
some charges, perhaps valid, of grandstanding and theatrics by both
parties. Not to mention, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." What was
the other similar rhyming statement that Johnny Cochran had to go along
with that?
[2]- The spectators in a courtroom.David McMurray wrote in article
<1ezyttx.h4tzt3ojkgcgN%ik0583@kingston.net>...
> John Seeliger wrote:
> > I agree and will note that in a real courtroom, I don't think a lawyer
> > would likely say, "I rest my case." (which is often said in an
indignant
> > tone), but rather "The prosecution rests," "The defense rests." or "The
> > plaintiff rests," unless he or she were grandstanding[1].
> >
> > [1]- Showing off or resorting to theatrics in the courtroom,
>
> Also, larding a newsgroup posting with gratuitous footnotes.
>
> > often done for
> > the sake of the gallery[2] or in a televised case, for the television
> > audience.
>
> [...]
>
> > [2]- The spectators in a courtroom.
>
> I rest my case.
I don't think that's what I'm doing. I'm just a verbose person (and often
my thinking goes off on tangents).
Nick Spalding wrote in article
<7d2aqt84pl4mhffceja8tuhek3mnc7pinp@4ax.com>...
> ctcgag@hotmail.com wrote, in <20010916160516.754$Ox@newsreader.com>:
>
> > perry.farmer@thefarm.tzo.com (Perry Farmer) wrote:
> > > -> ctcgag@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > -> > Since US federal officials are going on and on about Acts of
War,
> > > will -> > that impede the victims from getting insurance payouts?
> > >
> > > -> Most insurance companies have already publicly (via ads in the
local
> > > -> mostly) stated they will pay out on their policies.
> > >
> > > In the case of the WTC itself, it was insured against terrorism.
> >
> > On one of the news sites, it said only one tower was insured.
>
> This was in the business section of The Times also. The possibility of
> both towers suffering catastrophic failure was deemed too improbable to
> be worth insuring against.
I wonder what they set the probability at and what the premiums were and
what the pay-out was. With terrorists, they act unpredictably and
irrationally, so you can't really forecast probabilities very well.
Opus the Penguin wrote in article
...
> Briar Rose wrote:
> > Opus the Penguin wrote:
> >>incandescent blue wrote:
> >>> Opus is acting suspicious! Quick, somebody call the Feds!
> >>> A. "I'll betcha he's mixed up with that Penguin Liberation
> >>> Organization..."
> >
> >>Penguin lust is natural and beautiful! There is nothing perverse
> >>about penguin lust!
> >
> > Shya, right. I hear penguins spend *all* their time hanging
> > out on nude beaches.
>
> Sssssshhhhhhhhhh.....
They aren't nude beaches. All of the beach-goers are wearing tuxes.Pat Durkin wrote in article
...
>
> "Richard Maurer" wrote in message
> news:01c148a2$77639000$c400510c@default...
> > Mohammed is called the "Last Prophet" in Islam.
> > Apparently it currently thought that he is the
> > final prophet. Why is that, was it something in the
> > Quran, or added by later commentators?
> > While he was alive, and seeing no other prophets around,
> > it would certainly make sense that he was the last in
> > the line, but why think there would be no more?
> >
> >
> I think that each major denomination has its own claim to a "last
prophet"
> or last word. Since LDS (Mormon) is not quite a "major" religion, and
since
> I don't know how Jos. Smith is referred to, I can't say he was a prophet,
> but the revealed story of Jesus' missing years is interesting. I don't
know
> the date of the founding of Mormonism, either.
>
> Then, another pretender to the 'latest' word is Baha'i (spelling!!) and
> the Baha'ullah, and his precursor the Baab.. or maybe I have that
backwards.
> I think the date there is 1848. I don't think either the Mormons or the
> Baha'is close the door on future revelations or prophets, however.
>
> And that, of course is all in line with the "People of the Book", in the
> tradition of Messiah/Prophet.
>
> Hey, since they are prophets, and don't predict a future prophet, there
> can't be one, of necessity!!
They only predict new prophets if sales are expected to be high during the
next few quarters and costs are low.
Asterbark wrote in article
<20010915013052.24216.00001919@mb-mj.aol.com>...
> "John Seeliger" jseelige1@prodigy.net wrote:
>
> >If I thought they existed and that they were worthy of my worship, I
would,
> >but I don't believe they exist. I'm not however saying that even if
they
> >did exist, they wouldn't be. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.
> >
>
> I guess you're a good Christian who tells the tested and faithless in
times of
> great tragedy that
> a) she couldn't be more wrong wrong wrong as you are right right right
> b) this great tragedy is so utterly small and meaningless to your god
> c) that an average of 70 years on earth, though it may be painful is
nothing,
> compared to the hell you are certain she will go to for millions and
millions
> of years
>
> Let's have at it. Your god doesn't exist to me, because I don't live in
your
> brain next to that figment. I'm not going to hell because there is no
hell. I'm
> entitled to experience my life on earth as the only go-round I get and
then
> Poof. I do not ask why, I do not try to make answers in times like these,
my
> faith in existence and occurrence is not tested.
>
> I think you're very judgmental and you use your bible to crush people
when
> they're already hurting, instead of uplifting them. What good is being a
> Christian if you're not going to follow the teacher's example?
Nope, I don't try to crush people, and this has been painful for us all.
Some more than other. Especially those who knew someone. I do however try
to look at the bigger picture and I don't think that getting angry at God,
even at a time like this, is better for one in the long run. But hey, I
accept my own humanity and yours and hers and I know I've gotten mad at God
in the past. I don't claim by any means to be perfect.
Asterbark wrote in article
<20010915015607.24216.00001925@mb-mj.aol.com>...
> "John Seeliger" jseelige1@prodigy.net wrote:
> >Asterbark wrote in article
> ><20010915013052.24216.00001919@mb-mj.aol.com>...
> >> "John Seeliger" jseelige1@prodigy.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >If I thought they existed and that they were worthy of my worship, I
> >would,
> >> >but I don't believe they exist. I'm not however saying that even if
> >they
> >> >did exist, they wouldn't be. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I guess you're a good Christian who tells the tested and faithless in
> >times of
> >> great tragedy that
> >> a) she couldn't be more wrong wrong wrong as you are right right right
> >> b) this great tragedy is so utterly small and meaningless to your god
> >> c) that an average of 70 years on earth, though it may be painful is
> >nothing,
> >> compared to the hell you are certain she will go to for millions and
> >millions
> >> of years
> >>
> >> Let's have at it. Your god doesn't exist to me, because I don't live
in
> >your
> >> brain next to that figment. I'm not going to hell because there is no
> >hell. I'm
> >> entitled to experience my life on earth as the only go-round I get and
> >then
> >> Poof. I do not ask why, I do not try to make answers in times like
these,
> >my
> >> faith in existence and occurrence is not tested.
> >>
> >> I think you're very judgmental and you use your bible to crush people
> >when
> >> they're already hurting, instead of uplifting them. What good is being
a
> >> Christian if you're not going to follow the teacher's example?
> >
> >Nope, I don't try to crush people, and this has been painful for us all.
> >Some more than other. Especially those who knew someone. I do however
try
> >to look at the bigger picture and I don't think that getting angry at
God,
> >even at a time like this, is better for one in the long run.
>
> According to what you said, a time like this is going to be the best time
of
> her eternal existence.
>
If that is the case, then it's very sad indeed, but that is something that
she will have to work out herself. I can certainly pray for her and indeed
I will, but I have already been rebuked by many here who felt I was trying
to proselytize (I was only responding to a message I disagreed with. I
held out little hope of changing her mind. If I expected to change
anyone's mind on religion or politics or anything I post about on the
Usenet, I would be disappointed most of the time. I merely make my post
for the sake of arguing, because I like debate, and to simply make my
point. I don't think anyone has changed religious, political or
philosophical beliefs based on them.) and if I did more, I would not only
get more rebuke but it would almost certainly be fruitless anyway.
>
> But hey, I
> >accept my own humanity and yours and hers and I know I've gotten mad at
God
> >in the past. I don't claim by any means to be perfect.
>
> I'm sorry you offended me by proxy. If you are dealing with trying times,
I
> won't do this.
I guess we are all, but thankfully, no one I personally know was involved.
> If you are going to make a habit out of yanking quotes from your
> manual by way of preaching at them (I understand Opus is your friend? He
comes
> on a little strong at times, but he's calm enough to remain fair without
> compromising his beliefs), I am going to continue to tell you why it's
> different that stating a belief.
I am stating my beliefs and what they are based on. Others are simply
stating their beliefs.
> Did you read my run-down of your post and
> kettir's head-to-head?
Yes and I was going to respond to it, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
>
> ObNipotent: Can a person make a statement so strong, it hurts even John
> Seeliger's god's feelings?
I don't know what hurts His feelings or not, but I do think a lot of things
that go on in the world disappoint Him.
Re: subject heading.
Hmmm. I guess I will have to pay more attention when my spell-check makes
suggestions.
Tease he us wrote in article
<20011013033002.08109.00001634@mb-ft.aol.com>...
> Tim McVeigh, convicted in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, had links to
> Christian Identity movements and placed two calls to an Oklahoma Identity
group
> just days before the bombing.
Are you implying Timothy McVeigh is a "Christian zealot"? I heard a Muslim
woman call into a radio show a few days after the 11 Sept. attacks
complaining about why people were getting upset with Islam and Muslims over
it (a valid concern) and then she pointed out that people don't get upset
with Christians for Hitler and for Timothy McVeigh, neither of whom were
Christians. What Hitler believed and practiced is not accepted as
Christianity by most Christians or even nominal Christians and is not what
Jesus Christ taught. Thus he is not a Christian, a follower of Christ.
Timothy McVeigh, up to the last interview he gave before his death[1], did
not believe in God and Christians believe in God (and that Jesus is the Son
of God). He had more in common with you, religiously speaking, than me,
assuming you are an atheist. I do understand that in the final hours
before his death, he, as a Catholic (though certainly non-practicing for
many years), received his last rites, but to me it seems more like a
couldn't hurt than a sincere faith in God. Otherwise he would have
acknowledged his grievous sin and apologized to the families and the nation
and perhaps asked their forgiveness and God's, publicly. He certainly
didn't believe in God when he blew up the building and was caught and went
on trial. He was very defiant up until that interview and even his death
with his Invictus poem. ("I am the captain of my destiny, etc." was his
last statement.) A Christian would acknowledge God as the Captain of his
or her destiny.
[1]- And I've yet to hear a post-death McVeigh interview, thus I strongly
suspect he has changed his mind on whether or not God exists by now.
Bing wrote in article
<3bbcb7e2.15627441@news.fu-berlin.de>...
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:23:06 -0500, "Kim M" wrote:
>
> > They guys didn't have the T&A, but they must have been doing
> > something those Russians liked.
>
> They were just yukking it up. I suppose Russians need every
> excuse they can find to party.
Yep, all they need is a bottle of vodka and that's enough reason right
there.
>
> > I still don't understand why they quit.
>
> Sort of. They spent 3 days hanging out waiting for the
> flight to Moscow. Then, when they got there, they were
> spent and had no energy to continue.
>
> I'm guessing that they figured they had wasted so much
> time to travel a relatively short distance towards their
> goal that must be so far behind that it wasn't worth
> trying.
>
> See now, if NBC offered each person $20,000 just for
> finishing, and $80,000 more if you finish in first, this
> quitting wouldn't have happened.
I would have been tempted to go to Beijing instead of Russia. That was
going in the wrong direction to get home. Beijing would be closer and
there is a railroad from Ulan Bator to Beijing, according to my Rand
McNally World Atlas Imperial Edition (Copyright 1968. It's quite old. I
need to get a new one.) Then they could try to do a sock puppet act in
Tienenman Square, just like Drew Carey... or not. It seems it would be a
lot easier to get home that way. Also, I would think that if I were in
Vladavostok, I would try to get to Alaska or Seattle, instead of going to
Japan or Korea. How come the blondes didn't go to Seoul on the freighter
after all. I though their plan was to flight out of Seoul and directly to
NYC. I would try to see if there was a flight from Vladavostok to Nome,
Anchorage or Seattle and if not, then see if I could get to Petropavlovsk
or Andyr on the Bering Sea or better Uelen, Cape Dezhney (East Cape) on the
Bering Strait and then it would just be a ferry ride over to Nome, I would
hope, but I've never been to western Alaska/ Eastern Russia, or for that
matter to anywhere in Alaska or Russia. Once on US soil, I think it would
be easier and I would try for Anchorage and the Seattle to NY. Heck, the
way they were travelling, it seems that they would have gone faster be dog
sled.
>
> > I agree that AR does try to make things equal....
> > Being young and cute is always an advantage.
>
> Mostly. But then, the top two teams now are Team Guido--a
> couple of bland-looking guys (who got minimal help from
> the locals and certainly not because of their looks)--
> and the Frat Boys, who are not cute by any stretch of the
> imagination.
>
> And the two African-American teams didn't seem to get any
> special help from the locals while in Africa.
Yes, but this wasn't their part of Africa. It was Berber Africa, not black
Africa.
KGename wrote in article
<20010919192407.16465.00001051@mb-fr.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Microwave question
> >From: missbeckett@aol.com (Beckett Graham)
> >Date: 9/19/01 2:33 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <20010919153358.18849.00000862@mb-dd.aol.com>
> >
> > Every morning for four years I have placed the same mug into the
> >microwave, pressed "Three-oh-oh enter" and have shortly enjoyed a nice
cup of
> >tea at the perfect temperature.
> > We have recently moved into a new house. It took a while to find
all of
> >the components (mug, tea, microwave), but today I got back on the
program.
> >3-0-0- enter..... And burned the bajezus out of my hand on the handle!
This
> >was
> >not just a little temperature difference, here. There is a MARK. :)
> > What could have caused the difference? Same mug, same microwave.
Is
> >there
> >is difference in electricity or chemical composition of the water? I
find it
> >hard to believe that it took me four years to find a hitherto unknown
"hot
> >spot" in the microwave, though I suppose it was possible.
> > Old place: Rhode Island. House built in 1810. Electricity: 100%
> >redone
> >in late 1990s. Water: the last house on the ciry water line.
> > New place: Kansas City. House built in 1913. Electricity: From
late 60s
> >or early 70s. Water: Municipal water supply (reservoir?)
> >
> > Beckett
> ----
> Possibly minerals in the new house's water supply caused things to heat
up more
> than in (relatively) pure water?
>
> Just a thought.
I don't think so. Microwaves heat food by heating water. Microwaves
primarily are absorbed by metals, water, graphite and also those crisping
sleeves (like used with Hot Pockets® and the material on which certain
microwave pizzas are heated, which btw, is made of the same or similar
material as the F-117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter[1] and I guess the B-2
Stealth Bomber.). I don't think adding ions to water would help too much.
It might increase the conductivity of the water and graphite and metals are
highly conductive and this helps them absorb microwaves with those free
electrons[2] and those heat up, but water has a resonant frequency that is
the same as where microwave ovens work, which is why it heats up so well,
and basically, if a food doesn't have any water in it, it won't heat up too
well.
[1]- AKA the F-117A Black Jet
[2]- it's called a sea of electrons. These electrons are weakly bound to
atoms and are free to move around. This also gives metal high heat
conductivity and high reflectivity, though most metals (not gold and
platinum which are considered noble metal and don't oxidize easily) since
they have loosely bound electrons oxidize[3] easily and this oxide dulls
the surface.
[3]- Meaning that they give up electrons and form compounds, often with
oxygen, but other elements, such as chlorine, fluorine, bromine, sulfur and
iodine can oxidize metals.
Briar Rose wrote in article
<9ocuvv$ma9@gap.cco.caltech.edu>...
> Bob Ward wrote:
> >clynne@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) wrote:
> >>My money is on the altitude change as culprit.
> >How would this work, exactly? As I recall, the new house is at a
> >higher altitude than the old one, which means that with lower air
> >pressure, water boils at a lower temperature. If it is boiling and
> >converting to steam, the water shouldn't get any hotter than its
> >boiling point.
>
> Because the water, in this case, is a red herring.
>
> Some physical component in the cup handle now
> also "boils" at a lower temperature. Ie, something
> now heats up faster than it used to because of
> the altitude difference.
The reason water boils faster at higher temperatures is not because it
heats up faster, but because it has a lower boiling point. For this
reason, it actually takes *longer* to cook food at high altitude, not
*shorter*. For example, on a package of Albertson's Thin Spaghetti
Spaghettini (Enriched Spaghetti Product), it says, "HIGH ALTITUDE - Above
3500 Feet: Cooking times may need to be increased slightly."[1] BTW, the
default cooking times are 7-8 minutes on a rolling boil[2] for firm and 8-9
minutes for tender. Stir occasionally.
[1]- How many people do you know with 3500 feet. Seem you would need at
least 1750 people. Maybe more if some of them had a foot or both feet
amputated.
[2]- Is this boil on one of your 3500 feet, or on one of your 1749 friends'
feet? How exactly would you roll the boil. Would you roll your foot? or
roll it across your foot? either way, it doesn't seem like a good or a
hygienic way to cook it and even if the boil is very hot, I still don't
think it would cook the spaghetti.
robgood@bestweb.net wrote in article ...
> On 2001-09-21 missbeckett@aol.com(BeckettGraham) said:
>
> >>Huh, mine's just getting warmed up. It's a little over a foot
> >>from the back of the Sharp Carousel II microwave oven I got from
> >>my dead friend Peter.
>
> >Are you kidding me?
>
> About what? About my 66 MHz 486 with 8M RAM? My Sharp Carousel II?
> Peter's being my friend or dead? It's all true.
>
> The microwave oven was one of 2 he'd used in his delicatessen, I guess.
I'm using a Packard-Bell Legend 205 CD®[1] Intel® 486 DX-2/66 MHz. with 16
MB RAM and a 14.4 kbps voice/fax/modem and I'm using Internet Mail and News
4.70.1155 Internet Explorer Version 3.0 (4.70.1158)[2]. I have a Cybermax
Cyrix® PR-266+ with 64 MB of SDRAM and a 56kbps K-flex voice/fax/modem and
Windows 95 Plus® and an EZ-C® AMD K6-2®/300 MHz with 32 MB RAM[3] and 56
kbps (K-flex also?) fax/modem and Windows 98®.
I have to use this one because Scandisk messed up my Cybermax computer to
where it won't boot to either Windows® or MS-DOS® and the AMD® I can't use
because, though it works fine when I can get it on, for some reason, I
haven't been able to do that for a long time. Some problem with the
switch, I think.
What's worse, this is the old version of Windows 95® and I miss a lot of
things from Windows 95 Plus®, like the ability to set up toolbars on my
taskbar. Would be easier to be able to open IE or Mail w/o being able to
use the start button, but the toolbar instead. Also, to be able to open
other programs that way (with the Quick Launch(?) toolbar or whatever it's
called.).
[1]- Dual CD unit, but neither of the 4x CD-ROM drives work on this
machine.
[2]- I would use a CD to upgrade to IE 4.x or 5.0 or OE 4.x or 5.x were it
not for the non-working CD-ROM drives and I would D/L them from Microsoft®
were it not for my really, really slow modem/connection.
[3]- Not sure if it's SDRAM or if it's PC-100 RAM, but it's a lot faster
than this computer, which is always trying to run a swap file with the hard
drive with its only 16 MB RAM. It's not the 66 Mhz processor which is
killing it, but it's the use of virtual memory.
Larry Palletti wrote in article
...
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 22:53:35 -0400, "UFO_Charlie"
> wrote:
>
> >My mom, for reasons that pass understanding, asked me today if I knew if
> >Lot's wife (the salty lady) had a first name. For reasons that pass
> >understanding even further, I'm curious now, too.
> >
> >So, what's the deal? Were Lot's Rosh Hashana cards addressed simply to
"Mr.
> >Lot & Wife," or did the significant other have a first name to call her
own?
> >
>
> Bambi, I think.
I think it was CammyAsterbark wrote in article
<20010923134559.20596.00000451@mb-cn.aol.com>...
> "John Seeliger" jseelige1@prodigy.net wrote:
> >
> >Larry Palletti wrote in article
> >...
> >> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 22:53:35 -0400, "UFO_Charlie"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >My mom, for reasons that pass understanding, asked me today if I knew
if
> >> >Lot's wife (the salty lady) had a first name. For reasons that pass
> >> >understanding even further, I'm curious now, too.
> >> >
> >> >So, what's the deal? Were Lot's Rosh Hashana cards addressed simply
to
> >"Mr.
> >> >Lot & Wife," or did the significant other have a first name to call
her
> >own?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Bambi, I think.
> >
> >I think it was Cammy
>
>
> Some possibilities:
>
> NaCl, the bible probably spells it "Nachal."
> (goes with Miriam, "bitter" and Naomi, "sweet")
>
> "Salty Spice"
My Bible dictionary has "obstinacy, rebellion" as the meaning for the
Hebrew "Miriam." Do you mean "Mara," which means "bitter," or is Miriam a
variant of Mara?
'She said to them, ""Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty
has dealt very bitterly with me.' (Ruth 1:20 NASB) (See footnotes at
.)
Here is a passage involving the words 'Massah' and 'Meribah.'
'He named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the sons
of Israel, and because they tested the LORD, saying, ""Is the LORD among
us, or not?''' (Exodus 17:7 NASB)
Note that it has the footnotes [7] and [8] for 'Massah' and 'Meribah'
respectively, which are 'quarrel' and '_said to_' respectively, which
doesn't make sense. I think that [7] should be 'test' (instead of [6]
being 'test') and [8] should be 'quarrel' (instead of [7] being quarrel),
but unfortunately, I don't have my NASB handy (See
for the NIV footnotes, which agree with me.). This means that 'Massah'
means 'test' (or 'testing' in NIV footnotes) and 'Meribah' means 'quarrel'
(or 'quarrelling' in the NIV footnotes).
Hence Meribah (cf. Miriam) is quarreling (or rebellion). But the
Israelites did drink a lot of bitter water, so 'Meribah 'and 'Mara' might
be related.
Now, the children of Israel reached a place called Kadesh (consecrated, cf.
Kodesh 'the Holy (One) or the Holy (Place)'.) and there they rebelled
against God by refusing to enter the Promised Land and God made them wander
through the wilderness for 40 years (the Hebrew name for the Book of
Numbers is 'Bambidbar'(sp?), which means 'In the Wilderness.') (Numbers
14:28-33
) and they even got Moses to rebel against the LORD
'In the first month the whole Israelite community arrived at the Desert of
Zin, and they stayed at Kadesh. There Miriam died and was buried. Now there
was no water for the community, and the people gathered in opposition to
Moses and Aaron. They quarreled with Moses and said, "If only we had died
when our brothers fell dead before the LORD! Why did you bring the LORD's
community into this desert, that we and our livestock should die here? Why
did you bring us up out of Egypt to this terrible place? It has no grain or
figs, grapevines or pomegranates. And there is no water to drink!" Moses
and Aaron went from the assembly to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and
fell facedown, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them. The LORD said
to Moses, "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the
assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour
out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so
they and their livestock can drink." So Moses took the staff from the
LORD's presence, just as he commanded him. He and Aaron gathered the
assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, "Listen, you
rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?" Then Moses raised his
arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the
community and their livestock drank. But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron,
"Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of
the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give
them." These were the waters of Meribah,[1] where the Israelites quarreled
with the LORD and where he showed himself holy among them.' (Num 20:1-13
NIV)
I don't know if there is any connection between the death of Miriam and the
rebellion that takes place there. Note again that Meribah means
quarrelling.
This place is also called Meribah-Kadesh:
"There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be gathered
to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was
gathered to his people. This is because both of you broke faith with me in
the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the
Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the
Israelites." (Deut. 32:50-51 NIV)
It's also called Kadesh-Barnea in Numbers 32:8; 34:4; Deut. 1:2, 19; 2:14;
9:23; Josh 10:41; 14:6, 7; 15:3, though "A Dictionary of the Bible," Fourth
Edition (by John D. Davis, 1925, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia) says
that the meaning of "Barnea" is not know.
Asterbark wrote in article
<20010923163814.20555.00000469@mb-cn.aol.com>...
> Great Gravy! Whatever! I read it in a baby-naming book once, certain it
said
> Miriam and not Mara.
It might be a variant in Hebrew. I don't know Hebrew well enough to know
for sure. I don't know which would be worse: being named 'bitter' or being
named 'rebellious.' I would think the latter but YMMV.
> What does your book say Lot's wife's name is?
Well, it doesn't say. It is a dictionary (more like a mini-encyclopedia)
where if you take a word or name of Biblical importance, you can look it up
and it will have anywhere from just a single sentence to several pages
about the subject. When I look under "Lot," it has two definitions, each
being about 13/ to 1/2 of a column (each page having two columns). For Lot
I, it just talks about the casting of lots to decide various things, like
diving the land (Josh. 14:2; 18:6) and choosing a replacement for Judas
(Acts 1:15-26). Under Lot II, it says the son of Haran, Arabaham's brother
and consequently the nephew of Abraham and lists him going down to Sodom,
after Abraham and Lot separate and then says, regarding the destruction of
Sodom: "Lot was saved from its overthrow; but his wife, looking back, was
killed, being overwhelmed by a shower of falling salt." Probably more
palatable than literally turning into a pillar of salt, and probably a
legitimate exegesis of the text anyway.
Asterbark wrote in article
<20010923180657.20587.00000398@mb-cn.aol.com>...
> "John Seeliger" jseelige1@prodigy.net wrote:
> >Asterbark wrote in article
> ><20010923163814.20555.00000469@mb-cn.aol.com>...
> >> Great Gravy! Whatever! I read it in a baby-naming book once, certain
it
> >said
> >> Miriam and not Mara.
> >
> >It might be a variant in Hebrew. I don't know Hebrew well enough to
know
> >for sure. I don't know which would be worse: being named 'bitter' or
being
> >named 'rebellious.' I would think the latter but YMMV.
> >
> >> What does your book say Lot's wife's name is?
> >
> >Well, it doesn't say. It is a dictionary (more like a
mini-encyclopedia)
> >where if you take a word or name of Biblical importance, you can look it
up
> >and it will have anywhere from just a single sentence to several pages
> >about the subject. When I look under "Lot," it has two definitions,
each
> >being about 13/ to 1/2 of a column (each page having two columns). For
Lot
> >I, it just talks about the casting of lots to decide various things,
like
> >diving the land (Josh. 14:2; 18:6) and choosing a replacement for Judas
> >(Acts 1:15-26). Under Lot II, it says the son of Haran, Arabaham's
brother
> >and consequently the nephew of Abraham and lists him going down to
Sodom,
> >after Abraham and Lot separate and then says, regarding the destruction
of
> >Sodom: "Lot was saved from its overthrow; but his wife, looking back,
was
> >killed, being overwhelmed by a shower of falling salt." Probably more
> >palatable than literally turning into a pillar of salt, and probably a
> >legitimate exegesis of the text anyway.
>
> Well, it neither answers the OP or is as clever as being named among the
other
> taste buds of the bible. Yes, Miriam is the Hebrew variation, according
to
> whatever I just looked at, although it also says Mara is a variation of
Mary,
> and the little Gerber pamphlet says that means "sympathetic."
I like "sympathetic" a lot better (no "Lot" pun intended).
I don't think (as other people have noted) that Lot's wife's name is
mentioned in the Bible. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
(which is based on the KJV) has thirty-five instances of the name "Lot" and
two of the possessive "Lot's". The two instances of "Lot's" are Gen. 13:7
and Luke 17:32, the latter being where Jesus says "Remember Lot's wife."
(Luke 17:32). The instances of "Lot" are found in Gen 11:27, 32; Gen 12:4,
5; 13:1-14[1]; 14:12, 16; 19:1-36[2]; Deut. 2:9, 19; Psalms 83:8; Luke
18:28, 29; II Peter 2:7. This is according to SEC, but it appears Mr.
Strong made a mistake and meant Genesis 11:31, instead of 11:32. None of
these passages, except in Gen 19[[3] and in Luke 17:32[4] seem to mention
Lot's wife and none of those say what her name is.
I was going to check the New American Standard Version of the Bible (NASB)
using the Unbounded Bible at , but it returned
115 verse, presumably including the use of "lot" as in a die. I also
checked the Addenda of the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,
but there were no instances of "Lot" or "Lot's" in there.
[1]- There are eight instances of "Lot" in Genesis 13:1-14, not counting
the instance of "Lot's" in Genesis 13:7..
[2]- There are fifteen instances of "Lot" in Genesis 19:1-36.
[3]-
NASB version
[4]-
NASB version
Sturla Molden wrote in article
<3ba256b3.8073634@newscache.ntnu.no>...
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 03:47:54 GMT, address.below.or@web.site
> www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
>
> >I expect the US and all others united against Muslim
> >terrorism to strike terrorist cells wherever they are
> >known to exist -- for instance, the terrorism training
> >schools in the terrorist states of Pakistan, Afghanistan,
> >Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Bangladesh and other Muslim countries.
>
> I'm afraid a strike against countries like Iran, Pakistan,
> Bangladesh, or Egypt will set off world war III. It is
> better to isolate and impose a full-scale economic
> embargo against these pariah countries.
Did he say Egypt? I didn't read it. Did you? Besides, Egypt is probably
the most pro-western country in the Middle East, except perhaps Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait (who owes it's very existence to the US). Why do you
think an attack against Bangladesh would start WWIII? They aren't that
major of a country.
As for economic sanctions, you should well know that will never work. That
didn't drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Military action did. And economic
sanctions haven't changed Saddam's actions for the better. He's still
defying the UN on the issue of inspections of his biological, chemical and
nuclear weapons productions facilities. Furthermore, economic sanctions
have hurt individual Iraqis, including babies who end up starving and are
denied medicine, not Hussein himself. It was even stated on the news that
it was in part the economic sanctions against Iraqi that have driven many
Arabs, including perhaps bin Laden, to hate the US and helped perhaps to
cause them to commit these acts of terror. Economic sanctions won't do
anything but infuriate them and hurt the wrong people.
R. Upton wrote in article
<9pm06n$di3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> I couldn't figure out who you were talking about, but for some weird
> reason I'm suspecting Bill. I don't know why I suspect him, but he's
> flying low under the radar and I think it's odd. I can see why you picked
> Patrick to be your suspect, you might be right. Since I'm not in the game
> and only watch it on TV, I'm not going to have any advantages when it
> comes to seeing how people act. I can't be sure if I'd build a single
> alliance, the fact is, if I were on the show (either as the mole or not),
> I'd probably act as though I confide in everyone at every opportunity I
> get alone with someone just to see what they think and what they notice,
> so I can be more observant. I'd probably share observations just to even
> the score, but that would be a good tactic for a mole. Throw suspicion on
> several other players and take attention away from yourself. Also if I
was
> the mole, I would take an exemption given the chance.
Yes, it would be extremely suspicious to not take an exemption if you were
the mole, especially this early. Later in the game, a player might refuse
an exemption to try and throw off the other players and since a player
might do that, the mole could too. It's all about mind games. Getting
inside their heads and messing with their minds and making them doubt what
they thought they knew. Steve was still doing it to Jim in the end of last
season and according to Jim in the last show, he seemed to still have had a
touch of doubt about whether Jim was deceiving him as well, but by then,
you have to answer all questions based on one person, since it would do no
good to answer 24 based on Kathryn and one based on Steve. Steve told Jim
that he would go as fast as he could, just in case there was a tie, so that
he would win, but he only did this to psyche Jim out. He went slow.
Making just one mistake negates any time advantage you could have gotten
from the tie-breaker anyway. You might finish faster, but will lose by one
question, whereas you otherwise would have tied. Similarly, answering on
question based on Steve being the mole would not have worked, unless Steve
was in fact the mole, in which case Jim would have been playing against
Kathryn, not Steve and she would have only needed to get two questions
about Steve right to win. Only if she and Jim suspected each other, or
were tremendously non-observant would Jim have had a chance, had Steve
actually been the mole.
It's a big gamble for a player to do that though and you would have to
think that you know who the mole is and at least think that one other
player doesn't or won't do well on the quiz to guarantee you will survive
the execution. still, one you get to the final four, I wouldn't pass on an
exemption if I were a player and by then, most likely, all of the player
would know who the mole.
Last season, Kate picked Kathryn from early on as the mole, but changed her
mind after Kathryn failed to do anything overtly molish and the tears at
the Protect the Bowl Fortress game really sealed it for Kate, as she didn't
pick Kathryn from then and lost on that quiz.
Charlie, a retired cop, had picked up on the fact that Kathryn was the mole
(and unfortunately, I don't think we were ever told how he discovered this
or decided that she was the mole. Unfortunately, since he was eliminated
before the eight and ninth shows -- the two-part finally -- he wasn't in
the last group of Jim, Steve and Kathryn to chat on the ABC go.com[1]
website and this question was never, AFAIK, answered, unless Jim, Steve and
Kathryn answered it. (I never read their chats.) He then told Steve,
since Steve was an undercover cop and Steve then double-crossed Charlie and
made a pact with Jim and thus the two of them worked together and knew it
all along and thus when you got down to four people, Charlie, Jim, Steve
and Kathryn, all four knew that Kathryn was the mole.
[1]-
Amy Austin wrote in article
...
>
> So, I went to the doctor today, and my leg is infected. I'm running a
> fever (100 F), and it's all ooky. They said that I'd done a great job
> cleaning it (thanks Jill), but that it's severe enough that infection was
> almost inevitable. They put me on 500 mg. of Keflex 3x a day, and they
> put Silvadene (sp) on the wound. They want to see me again tomorrow, and
> they gave me crutches (!) so that I don't keep re-injuring it.
>
> Fercryinoutloud!
>
> Thanks for all the advice. As usual, you were right.
>
> Icing and elevating,
> Amy
Sorry your leg is infected, but glad you got to see the doctor and got some
anti-biotics. Did they give you anything for the pain? does it still
hurt? Will keep you in my prayers.
-JohnTease he us wrote in article
<20010919150327.15015.00001118@mb-cf.aol.com>...
> azziza@bellsouthCAPITATE.net (Mirhanda Sarko)
>
> >No, that's not it. I can't find a pic of it. It's like an arch, but a
> >building. It's flat in the front and back. Not a very good
description,
> >but I can't think of how else to describe it. Looks like it's made of
glass
> >panes or bricks...
>
> Do you mean the Chrysler Building?
Are you talking about that last fragment of the WTC tower that hasn't
fallen yet? (or has it by now? I thought I heard it was being brought
down, but I keep seeing it anyway, I think, in pictures, or perhaps just
logos.) It is or was about 9 stories tall, I think.
A Texas Girl... wrote in article
<20010914110512.25494.00000296@mb-bh.aol.com>...
> >Aster wrote:
> >I think the part where you were advocating going out and getting some,
and
> >saying how easy it is to get a prescription might not have anything to
do
> >with
> >how useful it is in your case and how careful you know how to be. Just
> >saying.
>
> That is a good point, Karen. I know that most of the people here are
smart
> enough to know that drugs are a serious thing. A doctor won't give a
> prescription without talking to the patient and making sure that it is
the
> right drug for them. For me, it has been a tremendous help. If anyone is
> feeling depressed or overwhelmed by anxiety, there is help available
medically
> that can really help take things down a notch. That is all I was really
meaning
> to say.
Is Xanax part of that class of families that includes Prozac, Luvox, Paxil
and Anafrinil? I know there was a fifth member of that family of
MAO-inhibitors too. I used to take Prozac and Luvox for OCD. I wish I
still did.
Paul L. Madarasz wrote in article
...
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:06:50 GMT, "John Seeliger"
> wrote, perhaps among other things...:
>
> >Is Xanax part of that class of families that includes Prozac, Luvox,
Paxil
> >and Anafrinil? I know there was a fifth member of that family of
> >MAO-inhibitors too. I used to take Prozac and Luvox for OCD. I wish I
> >still did.
>
> You misplet Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.
Thanks. I remember SRIs (and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
(SSRI)) being refereed to for this class of anti-depressants/anti-OCD
drugs, but have forgotten it at the time I posted this. (I think I was
remembering that there was some name other than MAO-inhibitors, but
couldn't remember what it was at the time.) If those are SSRIs, then what
exactly are MAO-inhibitors? Is St. John Wort an MAO-inhibitor? I seem to
recall it listed as a quasi-MAOI or something like that. I tried taking
that for a while, but Prozac and Luvox, IMO, are much better
anti-depressant/anti-OCD medications. (at least at 900 mg SJW a day.)
Jose (JRDelirio) Diaz wrote in
article ...
>
> John Seeliger wrote in message <01c13e23$0f013780$8ddafed1@adkins>...
> >Paul L. Madarasz wrote in article
> >...
> >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:06:50 GMT, "John Seeliger"
> >> wrote, perhaps among other things...:
> >>
> >> >Is Xanax part of that class of families that includes Prozac, Luvox,
> >Paxil
> >> >and Anafrinil?
>
> No. Xanax is a benzodiazepine, in the family of Valium, Libruim,
> Ativan, etc. Anxiolitic agents.
OK, thanks. I knew there were five (at least) members of that family. I
guess the other one I was thinking of is Zoloft.
Briar Rose wrote in article
<9o1kk0$10o@gap.cco.caltech.edu>...
> Paul L. Madarasz wrote:
> > wrote, perhaps among other things...:
> >>Is Xanax part of that class of families that includes Prozac, Luvox,
Paxil
> >>and Anafrinil? I know there was a fifth member of that family of
> >>MAO-inhibitors too. I used to take Prozac and Luvox for OCD. I wish I
> >>still did.
> >You misplet Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.
>
> Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.
>
> And, no, Xanax is a tranquilizer, often prescribed
> *with* an SSRI to help with anxiety or sleep. It
> is either related to or a brand name of diazepam,
> and is related to temazepam, and many other drugs
> that end in "zepam." Mostly all sedatives.
OK, thanks. I didn't think it was Xanax. I knew there were five members
of that family I had seen on a list once, but I didn't think that Xanax was
one of them. I think I was thinking about Zoloft. I only knew about the
SSRI's as for use with OCD. They are also prescribed for use as
anti-depressants. When I was prescribed Luvox at first, it was only
allowed for OCD, but now it is available for depression too. There is
another class of anti-depressants (tri-cyclic, I believe. It's older than
SSRI's, IIUC, but they don't help with OCD.) I have used St. John's Wort
OTC which I thought was like the SSRI family, but I may have had SSRI and
MAOI confused or not known exactly the difference between them. I have
used Kava Kava root extract, which I thought was similar to valium, but
that was just because of the effect, not because I knew about the
biochemistry of either Kava Kava or of the Valium family. I also know that
5-HTP, which can be purchased OTC, supposedly is effective against OCD, but
I haven't taken it long enough to know. Now, is decreased serotonin
associated with OCD and depression and increased serotonin associated with
the lack of those things? What about melotonin, or is it significantly
different? Can you buy serotonin, or does it take a prescription or can it
not be taken orally? I had for a while taken vitamins B-6 and B-12 because
I though that they would help to increase serotonin levels in the body, but
that is something that might not be accurate. Supposedly, if your body
doesn't make enough serotonin in the first place, SSRI's will not help you
much anyway, because there's not much serotonin to inhibit the reuptake of,
anyway. At least this seems to be what I gleaned from a website I read
from two or three years ago.
Bill Diamond wrote in article
...
> Good old clynne-google@ofb.net (Briar Rose) wrote in
> alt.fan.cecil-adams back on 18 Sep 2001 19:21:28 -0700 that ...
> >"John Seeliger" wrote in message news
> >> What about melotonin, or is it significantly
> >> different?
> >
> >In a post that hasn't yet made it to google, I correct you
> >and say you mean "melanin." You actually mean "melatonin,"
> >so my correction is incorrect. Whoops.
> >
> >:) Connie-Lynne
>
>
> You two have me totally confused. Are we trying to sleep or are we
> trying to get that oompa-loompa sun tan thing happening?
I should be trying to sleep, as it's 3:22 am CDT here. Isn't
"oompla-loompa" an airport in Miami... Oh, wait, that's Opa Locka.
Boron Elgar wrote in article
...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:37:42 -0400, Bill Diamond
> |
.
Get your own
Free Website now!