Odd interaction with a road rager

[Ron McKinnon]

So here's an odd one for the books. I was cycling from work today along a
one-way street with enough clearance to avoid opening car doors. The
street was three lanes wide with one of the lanes reserved for buses at
rush hour. The middle lane was free.

A bus was slowing down to a stop in its lane and I was moving forward when
I heard the ubiquitous blare of a horn from a car in the (clear) middle
lane. Now the car had to pass between the bus and myself, but there was a
whole lane for him to do so, so I wasn't sure what was up.

I caught up to him at the next lights. The car was some souped-up muscle
car and the driver looked pretty tough so I debated whether or not to ask
him what was up. I thought "what the heck" and asked him if I could help
him with something.

He then yelled, very angrily I might add, that with me on one side and the
bus on the other side he barely had room to pass, and that I should have
been off to the side (riding over top of the parked cars I suppose). I was
about to tell him that his whole lane was clear but the light turned green
and he peeled rubber and took off like a bat out of hell.

I caught up two lights later and was going to ask him why he thought an
entire lane of traffic was not sufficient for him but he'd rolled up his
window and was staring straight ahead. That intersection has an advance
green for bikes and I left somewhat befuddled.

Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a
fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt
that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know
better I'd have thought he was scared.

How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for some
people?

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca

[Pete]

"Ron McKinnon" > wrote

[snip]

> I caught up to him at the next lights. The car was some souped-up muscle
> car...
and
> I caught up two lights later...

That's what got to him...:)

Pete

[Pete]

"Ron McKinnon" > wrote

[snip]

> I caught up to him at the next lights. The car was some souped-up muscle
> car...
and
> I caught up two lights later...

That's what got to him...:)

Pete

[Mitch Haley]

Ron McKinnon wrote:
>
> Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a
> fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt
> that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know
> better I'd have thought he was scared.

&*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even outrun
it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his
manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same.

I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline,
just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel.
I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap.

[Mitch Haley]

Ron McKinnon wrote:
>
> Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a
> fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt
> that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know
> better I'd have thought he was scared.

&*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even outrun
it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his
manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same.

I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline,
just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel.
I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap.

[Jorma]

"Mitch Haley" > wrote in message
...
> Ron McKinnon wrote:
> >
> > Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking
a
> > fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt
> > that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't
know
> > better I'd have thought he was scared.
>
> &*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even
outrun
> it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his
> manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same.
>
> I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline,
> just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel.
> I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap.

Probably was a cop.

[Jorma]

"Mitch Haley" > wrote in message
...
> Ron McKinnon wrote:
> >
> > Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking
a
> > fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later. I doubt
> > that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't
know
> > better I'd have thought he was scared.
>
> &*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even
outrun
> it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his
> manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same.
>
> I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline,
> just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel.
> I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap.

Probably was a cop.

[Leo Lichtman]

"Ron McKinnon" > wrote: (clip) I thought "what the
heck" and asked him if I could help him with something.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See, you didn't play by his "rules." He thought he was protected from
confrontation, which made him very "brave." But you faced him, and forced
him to justify his irrational behavior--which he could not do. What would
it do to your self-image to declare that you can't drive your car down a
standard lane?

I'd say you won that bout.

[Leo Lichtman]

"Ron McKinnon" > wrote: (clip) I thought "what the
heck" and asked him if I could help him with something.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See, you didn't play by his "rules." He thought he was protected from
confrontation, which made him very "brave." But you faced him, and forced
him to justify his irrational behavior--which he could not do. What would
it do to your self-image to declare that you can't drive your car down a
standard lane?

I'd say you won that bout.

[AustinMN]

Ron McKinnon wrote:
<road rage incident snipped>

> Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a
> fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later.

All road ragers are acting like babies. "I don't want things the way they
are, and I'm going to blame you!" is written into each road rager's
personality. Things like forgiveness and flexibility are not there.

> I doubt
> that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know
> better I'd have thought he was scared.

An immature person having a temper tantrum may in fact rely on him
intimidating you. When that didn't work, he may have felt like his "big
one" was taken away.

> How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for some
> people?

Judging by the number of cars I see in the ditch, especially in winter, I'd
say entire roads aren't enough for some people.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

[AustinMN]

Ron McKinnon wrote:
<road rage incident snipped>

> Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby. Taking a
> fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking later.

All road ragers are acting like babies. "I don't want things the way they
are, and I'm going to blame you!" is written into each road rager's
personality. Things like forgiveness and flexibility are not there.

> I doubt
> that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that imposing, but if I didn't know
> better I'd have thought he was scared.

An immature person having a temper tantrum may in fact rely on him
intimidating you. When that didn't work, he may have felt like his "big
one" was taken away.

> How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for some
> people?

Judging by the number of cars I see in the ditch, especially in winter, I'd
say entire roads aren't enough for some people.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

[Roger Zoul]

Ron McKinnon wrote:

|| Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby.
|| Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking
|| later. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that
|| imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared.
||
|| How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for
|| some people?

I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.

[Roger Zoul]

Ron McKinnon wrote:

|| Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby.
|| Taking a fit when things weren't going his way and then sulking
|| later. I doubt that I intimidated him, I'm don't look that
|| imposing, but if I didn't know better I'd have thought he was scared.
||
|| How much room does someone need anyway? Is one lane not enough for
|| some people?

I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.

[Jem Berkes]

> The car was some souped-up muscle car ...
> I caught up two lights later ...

You should have asked him, if his car is so powerful how come you were able
to catch up to him? If that's too subtle for him just tell him he has a
small penis.

[Jem Berkes]

> The car was some souped-up muscle car ...
> I caught up two lights later ...

You should have asked him, if his car is so powerful how come you were able
to catch up to him? If that's too subtle for him just tell him he has a
small penis.

[Raoul Duke]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...

> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.

I think this is REALLY good advice. Stupid people only get stupider and
possibly violent. Not worth it.

Dave

[Raoul Duke]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...

> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.

I think this is REALLY good advice. Stupid people only get stupider and
possibly violent. Not worth it.

Dave

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Ron McKinnon wrote:

> Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby.

Indeed. I prefer the term "traffic tantrum" to "road rage" as it more
accurately reflects the degree of maturity exhibited...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Ron McKinnon wrote:

> Basically, and I hate to say it, he was acting like a big baby.

Indeed. I prefer the term "traffic tantrum" to "road rage" as it more
accurately reflects the degree of maturity exhibited...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

[H]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message >...
> Ron McKinnon wrote:
>
>> [...]
> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
>


I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective)
to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else
in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage.

The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was
slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not
about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and
it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him
anything and risk more than you than expect.


-H.

[H]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message >...
> Ron McKinnon wrote:
>
>> [...]
> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
>


I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective)
to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else
in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage.

The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was
slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not
about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and
it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him
anything and risk more than you than expect.


-H.

[Mitch Haley]

Jorma wrote:
>
> Probably was a cop.

Definitely an asshole, and apparently a coward, so almost certainly not a cop.
Asshole cops never run in fear from confrontation with unarmed peasants.
An asshole cop would at least threaten to arrest him if he didn't get on the
sidewalk where he belongs.

Mitch.

[Mitch Haley]

Jorma wrote:
>
> Probably was a cop.

Definitely an asshole, and apparently a coward, so almost certainly not a cop.
Asshole cops never run in fear from confrontation with unarmed peasants.
An asshole cop would at least threaten to arrest him if he didn't get on the
sidewalk where he belongs.

Mitch.

[NYRides]

Sadly, I think the "other thing" that many people have going on in their
lives is an underlying frustration with bicyclists who constantly ignore the
rules of the road and are frequently a menace to drivers as they weave in
and out of traffic, ride on the wrong side of the road, and blow through
traffic lights.

Most of my riding is done out here on the roads of Long Island, where nobody
bothers to teach or learn the proper and safe way to ride a bicycle beyond
the end of the driveway. As a result, I am constantly on edge while driving
around town, waiting for yet another kid on a Mongoose to come flying off
the corner on the left side of the road - or worse, an experienced adult
rider with an expensive bike flying through a red light so as not to fall
short of yesterday's time.

It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding
techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York
City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks
a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle!

"H" > wrote in message
m...
> "Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
>...
> > Ron McKinnon wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> > I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second
encounters
> > with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
> > upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
> >
>
>
> I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective)
> to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else
> in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage.
>
> The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was
> slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not
> about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and
> it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him
> anything and risk more than you than expect.
>
>
> -H.

[NYRides]

Sadly, I think the "other thing" that many people have going on in their
lives is an underlying frustration with bicyclists who constantly ignore the
rules of the road and are frequently a menace to drivers as they weave in
and out of traffic, ride on the wrong side of the road, and blow through
traffic lights.

Most of my riding is done out here on the roads of Long Island, where nobody
bothers to teach or learn the proper and safe way to ride a bicycle beyond
the end of the driveway. As a result, I am constantly on edge while driving
around town, waiting for yet another kid on a Mongoose to come flying off
the corner on the left side of the road - or worse, an experienced adult
rider with an expensive bike flying through a red light so as not to fall
short of yesterday's time.

It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding
techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York
City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks
a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle!

"H" > wrote in message
m...
> "Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
>...
> > Ron McKinnon wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> > I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second
encounters
> > with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
> > upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
> >
>
>
> I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective)
> to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else
> in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage.
>
> The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was
> slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not
> about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and
> it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him
> anything and risk more than you than expect.
>
>
> -H.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Mike wrote:

>> Ken (NY)
>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"

> Actually, the reverse is true.

PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are
such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the
country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded...

Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad guys -
they were Republican donors!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Mike wrote:

>> Ken (NY)
>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"

> Actually, the reverse is true.

PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are
such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the
country after 9/11 while just about everything else was grounded...

Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad guys -
they were Republican donors!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

[Badger_South]

On 1 Sep 2004 05:59:58 -0700, (H) wrote:

>"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message >...
>> Ron McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
>> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
>> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
>>
>
>
>I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective)
>to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else
>in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage.
>
>The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was
>slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not
>about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and
>it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him
>anything and risk more than you than expect.
>
>
>-H.

One of the problems with maintaining one's cool, though is that when one is
riding all systems are in high gear, including the adrenaline, and as a
result there's the sense that you can take on the world.

However, I think Chris Carmichael says it best:

"Resist making an obscene gesture or shouting a profanity...You may think
you're doling out punisment but psychologists say otherwise. It actually
tells the driver that he succeeded, and this encourages the same behavior.
The best response is no response. Keep riding as if nothing happened."
-pg51
The Lance Armstrong Performance Program by Lance Armstrong, Chris
Carmichael.

The key phrase, for me, is 'this encourges the same behavior'...towards
other bikers, or towards yourself should you encounter the cager in the
future.

I try to tap into the aggressive counter-response and ride harder, which is
what I think most experienced road-riders do. (easier said than done, I
realize.) ;-)

-B
(Of course later, Chris advises that one should be prepared to get a
description and license number if necessary, and be prepared phone in a
report. When I'm going on a long ride I pack a pencil and pad and hope to
concentrate on getting the number and hope it helps defuse the anger with
postive action, etc.)

[Badger_South]

On 1 Sep 2004 05:59:58 -0700, (H) wrote:

>"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message >...
>> Ron McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
>> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
>> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
>>
>
>
>I agree. People are crazy. Its not even worth it (and not effective)
>to assert your rights to someone who is enraged about something else
>in their life and is taking it out on you with road rage.
>
>The fact that the guy had plenty of room to pass or at worst was
>slowed down for a couple of seconds demonstrates that this is not
>about traffic with the road-rager. He has something else going on, and
>it is best not to get involved in his problems. You won't "teach" him
>anything and risk more than you than expect.
>
>
>-H.

One of the problems with maintaining one's cool, though is that when one is
riding all systems are in high gear, including the adrenaline, and as a
result there's the sense that you can take on the world.

However, I think Chris Carmichael says it best:

"Resist making an obscene gesture or shouting a profanity...You may think
you're doling out punisment but psychologists say otherwise. It actually
tells the driver that he succeeded, and this encourages the same behavior.
The best response is no response. Keep riding as if nothing happened."
-pg51
The Lance Armstrong Performance Program by Lance Armstrong, Chris
Carmichael.

The key phrase, for me, is 'this encourges the same behavior'...towards
other bikers, or towards yourself should you encounter the cager in the
future.

I try to tap into the aggressive counter-response and ride harder, which is
what I think most experienced road-riders do. (easier said than done, I
realize.) ;-)

-B
(Of course later, Chris advises that one should be prepared to get a
description and license number if necessary, and be prepared phone in a
report. When I'm going on a long ride I pack a pencil and pad and hope to
concentrate on getting the number and hope it helps defuse the anger with
postive action, etc.)

[S o r n i]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
>>> Ken (NY)
>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>
>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>
> PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family
> who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed
> to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was
> grounded...
>
> Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
> interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad
> guys - they were Republican donors!

This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59
Deceits/ by Dave Kopel
(http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm):

"No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly
into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After
the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi
Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and
24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States
on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin
Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of
Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of
national airspace.
The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily
the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to
national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the
9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142
people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26
people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated
that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about
terrorist activity.

The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin
flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the
TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist
Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight
manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist.
There are no matches.

The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six
flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks,
or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To
date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion."



But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage?



Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S.

[S o r n i]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
>>> Ken (NY)
>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>
>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>
> PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family
> who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed
> to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was
> grounded...
>
> Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
> interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad
> guys - they were Republican donors!

This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59
Deceits/ by Dave Kopel
(http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm):

"No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly
into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After
the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi
Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and
24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States
on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin
Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of
Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of
national airspace.
The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily
the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to
national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the
9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142
people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26
people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated
that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about
terrorist activity.

The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin
flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the
TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist
Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight
manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist.
There are no matches.

The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six
flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks,
or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To
date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion."



But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage?



Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S.

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:35:58 GMT, "NYRides" >
wrote:

>It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding
>techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York
>City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks
>a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle!

I slightly disagree. In my experience, most drivers have very few
encounters with bikers. I've been driving for 35 years and have rarely
encountered a biker on the road, and never encountered one that irritated
me for any reason; much the same way we hardly ever see an accident
actually happen when driving, yet they're extremely common.

However I get your point and don't have an argument with that.

-B

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:35:58 GMT, "NYRides" >
wrote:

>It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding
>techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York
>City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks
>a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle!

I slightly disagree. In my experience, most drivers have very few
encounters with bikers. I've been driving for 35 years and have rarely
encountered a biker on the road, and never encountered one that irritated
me for any reason; much the same way we hardly ever see an accident
actually happen when driving, yet they're extremely common.

However I get your point and don't have an argument with that.

-B

[Bob in CT]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, S o r n i >
wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>>> Ken (NY)
>>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>
>>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>>
>> PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family
>> who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed
>> to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was
>> grounded...
>>
>> Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
>> interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad
>> guys - they were Republican donors!
>
> This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59
> Deceits/ by Dave Kopel
> (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm):
>
> "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly
> into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After
> the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly
> Saudi
> Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14
> and
> 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United
> States
> on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin
> Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of
> Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening
> of
> national airspace.
> The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials,
> primarily
> the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to
> national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to
> the
> 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142
> people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the
> 26
> people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
> flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated
> that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything
> about
> terrorist activity.
>
> The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin
> Ladin
> flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the
> TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist
> Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight
> manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF
> watchlist.
> There are no matches.
>
> The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six
> flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11
> attacks,
> or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To
> date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion."
>
>
>
> But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage?
>
>
>
> Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S.
>
>

While you may be right, anything that comes from the FBI has to be taken
with a grain of salt.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

[Bob in CT]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, S o r n i >
wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>>> Ken (NY)
>>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>
>>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>>
>> PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family
>> who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed
>> to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was
>> grounded...
>>
>> Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
>> interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been bad
>> guys - they were Republican donors!
>
> This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From /59
> Deceits/ by Dave Kopel
> (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm):
>
> "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly
> into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After
> the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly
> Saudi
> Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14
> and
> 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United
> States
> on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin
> Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of
> Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening
> of
> national airspace.
> The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials,
> primarily
> the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to
> national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to
> the
> 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142
> people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the
> 26
> people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
> flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated
> that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything
> about
> terrorist activity.
>
> The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin
> Ladin
> flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the
> TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist
> Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight
> manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF
> watchlist.
> There are no matches.
>
> The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six
> flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11
> attacks,
> or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To
> date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion."
>
>
>
> But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage?
>
>
>
> Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S.
>
>

While you may be right, anything that comes from the FBI has to be taken
with a grain of salt.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

[S o r n i]

Bob in CT wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, S o r n i >
> wrote:
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ken (NY)
>>>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>>
>>>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>>>
>>> PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family
>>> who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed
>>> to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was
>>> grounded...
>>>
>>> Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
>>> interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been
>>> bad guys - they were Republican donors!
>>
>> This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From
>> /59 Deceits/ by Dave Kopel
>> (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm):
>>
>> "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted
>> to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13,
>> 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142
>> people, mostly Saudi
>> Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September
>> 14 and
>> 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United
>> States
>> on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama
>> Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered
>> flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before
>> the reopening of
>> national airspace.
>> The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials,
>> primarily
>> the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a
>> threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI
>> with regard to the
>> 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the
>> 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including
>> 22 of the 26
>> people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
>> flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers
>> stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew
>> anything about
>> terrorist activity.
>>
>> The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin
>> Ladin
>> flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether
>> the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the
>> Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on
>> the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current
>> TIPOFF watchlist.
>> There are no matches.
>>
>> The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these
>> six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the
>> 9/11 attacks,
>> or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks.
>> To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this
>> conclusion."
>>
>>
>>
>> But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S.
>>
>>
>
> While you may be right, anything that comes from the FBI has to be
> taken with a grain of salt.

It comes from Dave Kopel, who hardly just accepts spoon-fed information, but
rather appears to really investigate hard facts from many sources.

Bill "anything that comes from MM has to be taken with a /pallet/ of salt"
S.

[S o r n i]

Bob in CT wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, S o r n i >
> wrote:
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ken (NY)
>>>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>>
>>>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>>>
>>> PArticularly if by "bin Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family
>>> who are such good and loyal friends of Dubya that they were allowed
>>> to flee the country after 9/11 while just about everything else was
>>> grounded...
>>>
>>> Apparently the CIA were none too happy that they were not allowed to
>>> interview these folks. But hey, they couldn't possibly have been
>>> bad guys - they were Republican donors!
>>
>> This was one of the first and easiest of MM's lies to expose. From
>> /59 Deceits/ by Dave Kopel
>> (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm):
>>
>> "No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted
>> to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13,
>> 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142
>> people, mostly Saudi
>> Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September
>> 14 and
>> 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United
>> States
>> on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama
>> Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered
>> flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before
>> the reopening of
>> national airspace.
>> The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials,
>> primarily
>> the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a
>> threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI
>> with regard to the
>> 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the
>> 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including
>> 22 of the 26
>> people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
>> flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers
>> stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew
>> anything about
>> terrorist activity.
>>
>> The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin
>> Ladin
>> flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether
>> the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the
>> Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on
>> the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current
>> TIPOFF watchlist.
>> There are no matches.
>>
>> The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these
>> six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the
>> 9/11 attacks,
>> or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks.
>> To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this
>> conclusion."
>>
>>
>>
>> But again, why let the truth intrude on your outrage?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill "read the rest of it while you're at it" S.
>>
>>
>
> While you may be right, anything that comes from the FBI has to be
> taken with a grain of salt.

It comes from Dave Kopel, who hardly just accepts spoon-fed information, but
rather appears to really investigate hard facts from many sources.

Bill "anything that comes from MM has to be taken with a /pallet/ of salt"
S.

[Dave Mount]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, "S o r n i" > wrote:

>Thirty of the 142
>people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26
>people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
>flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated
>that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about
>terrorist activity.

ROTFLMAO

Oh, so that's all right then.

It doesn't even say they stated that they *hadn't* had contact with Bin Laden,
or *didn't* know anything about terrorist activities.

Just that the didn't say they *had* (I wonder if they were actually asked).

ROTFLMAO some more.

I can just picture the scene:

Bush (to head of FBI) Just go and ask those Saudi folk about what they had for
breakfast (in detail), and if they don't actually admit to chatting to Osama in
the last few days, or engaging in terrorist activity, you can let them go.

Bugs Bunny said it best: "What a maroon".

--
Dave

[Dave Mount]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, "S o r n i" > wrote:

>Thirty of the 142
>people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26
>people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin
>flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated
>that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about
>terrorist activity.

ROTFLMAO

Oh, so that's all right then.

It doesn't even say they stated that they *hadn't* had contact with Bin Laden,
or *didn't* know anything about terrorist activities.

Just that the didn't say they *had* (I wonder if they were actually asked).

ROTFLMAO some more.

I can just picture the scene:

Bush (to head of FBI) Just go and ask those Saudi folk about what they had for
breakfast (in detail), and if they don't actually admit to chatting to Osama in
the last few days, or engaging in terrorist activity, you can let them go.

Bugs Bunny said it best: "What a maroon".

--
Dave

[S o r n i]

Dave Mount wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, "S o r n i"
> > wrote:
>
>> Thirty of the 142
>> people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of
>> the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the
>> Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the
>> passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin
>> Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> Oh, so that's all right then.

You snipped the claim that this was refuting. ("PArticularly if by "bin
Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal
friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while
just about everything else was grounded...")

It isn't true.

Bill "I know it doesn't please you to read facts" S.

[S o r n i]

Dave Mount wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:05:42 GMT, "S o r n i"
> > wrote:
>
>> Thirty of the 142
>> people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of
>> the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the
>> Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the
>> passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin
>> Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> Oh, so that's all right then.

You snipped the claim that this was refuting. ("PArticularly if by "bin
Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal
friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while
just about everything else was grounded...")

It isn't true.

Bill "I know it doesn't please you to read facts" S.

[Dave Mount]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:45:40 GMT, "S o r n i" > wrote:

>You snipped the claim that this was refuting. ("PArticularly if by "bin
>Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal
>friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while
>just about everything else was grounded...")

What I wrote had nothing to do with any claim.

It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.

Rather like the way they somberly ask you if you are intending to commit any
acts of terrorism when you enter the US.

Now, why didn't *that* one catch the 9/11 terrorists, I wonder?


Dave "You won't catch teorrorists by asking them if they're terrorists" Mount

[Dave Mount]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:45:40 GMT, "S o r n i" > wrote:

>You snipped the claim that this was refuting. ("PArticularly if by "bin
>Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal
>friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while
>just about everything else was grounded...")

What I wrote had nothing to do with any claim.

It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.

Rather like the way they somberly ask you if you are intending to commit any
acts of terrorism when you enter the US.

Now, why didn't *that* one catch the 9/11 terrorists, I wonder?


Dave "You won't catch teorrorists by asking them if they're terrorists" Mount

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:19:33 -0400,
>, Badger_South
> wrote:

>The key phrase, for me, is 'this encourges the same behavior'

So why add this dreck?
>...towards
>other bikers, or towards yourself should you encounter the cager in the
>future.

Scud jockeys give each other all the encouragement and reinforcement
they need to continue their loathsome detestable ways. The skanky
asswipes who threaten and menace cyclists behave the same toward other
drivers too.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:19:33 -0400,
>, Badger_South
> wrote:

>The key phrase, for me, is 'this encourges the same behavior'

So why add this dreck?
>...towards
>other bikers, or towards yourself should you encounter the cager in the
>future.

Scud jockeys give each other all the encouragement and reinforcement
they need to continue their loathsome detestable ways. The skanky
asswipes who threaten and menace cyclists behave the same toward other
drivers too.
--
zk

[NYRides]

>>>I slightly disagree. In my experience, most drivers have very few
encounters with bikers. I've been driving for 35 years and have rarely
encountered a biker on the road...<<<

I guess it depends on where you live. New York is a heavily populated
city - and its suburbs, especially here on Long Island, are pretty crowded,
too. My "little" town (population 20,000) is definitely an automobile
community. There are no bike lanes, no bike paths, and drivers have very
little patience for cyclists who try to share the road with them. To
survive a bike ride to the local Dunkin' Donuts means being an extremely
vigilant cyclist with a good sense of what the average auto driver is
thinking at any given time --especially now that one out of every three cars
in our town is driven by someone with a cell phone to his/her ear virtually
all the time.

All this said, there is no room for bicyclists who fly around town with the
attitude that they can go anywhere and do anything they please and, as long
as they make it to the other side of the road, they are OK. I watched a kid
get knocked at least 10 feet into the center of a very busy four lane
turnpike the other day. The driver was simply waiting at a red light. He
wasn't on the phone, wasn't talking to a passenger, and wasn't sipping a
Starbuck's. The light turned green, a young teenager who was zipping along
the sidewalk on the wrong side of the road made an uninformed decision about
his ability to beat all the cars through the intersection, the driver tapped
his gas pedal, and the next thing you know, cars are skidding and swerving
all over the road to avoid crushing the kid's head. The driver did nothing
wrong. The kid was coming from the wrong direction, on the wrong side of
the road, but he probably didn't know any better. It could have changed his
life forever - and it certainly could have changed the driver's life
forever.

Not to sound cold or unsympathetic to people who get injured on bicycles,
but I resent that my life as a driver can be altered in a split second by a
poorly trained or irresponsible cyclist. And, unfortunately, most of the
cyclists in my community are exactly that. As I said earlier, this being a
pretty bustling suburb, I see these guys, literally, every day. It wouldn't
matter to me as much if dangerous bicycling was something that only popped
up every once in a while.

Anyway, my point in the original post was that I think we should understand
that, among the many jerky, road-raging drivers out there, there are also
lots of people like me who are wound just a little bit tight when we get
behind the wheel and have to try to second-guess what the bicycles around us
will do next. I can't assume any other cyclist is going to ride the way I
do when I'm on the bike. And I can't assume that every bicyclist
understands what it takes to operate a car.

So when I'm driving and I see a cyclist do something that looks to be
dangerous or stupid, chances are I might slip into a momentary rage, too. I
might honk my horn or yell some kind of obscenity with my windows rolled all
the way up. Then it goes away, and by that time, the cyclist may have
caught up to me, as was the case with the guy who started this thread. And
by this point, I may have lost my urge to confront him, knowing that nothing
I can say or do will get through to him. That doesn't make me a baby or a
wimp, and it doesn't, by any means, make him right.

[NYRides]

>>>I slightly disagree. In my experience, most drivers have very few
encounters with bikers. I've been driving for 35 years and have rarely
encountered a biker on the road...<<<

I guess it depends on where you live. New York is a heavily populated
city - and its suburbs, especially here on Long Island, are pretty crowded,
too. My "little" town (population 20,000) is definitely an automobile
community. There are no bike lanes, no bike paths, and drivers have very
little patience for cyclists who try to share the road with them. To
survive a bike ride to the local Dunkin' Donuts means being an extremely
vigilant cyclist with a good sense of what the average auto driver is
thinking at any given time --especially now that one out of every three cars
in our town is driven by someone with a cell phone to his/her ear virtually
all the time.

All this said, there is no room for bicyclists who fly around town with the
attitude that they can go anywhere and do anything they please and, as long
as they make it to the other side of the road, they are OK. I watched a kid
get knocked at least 10 feet into the center of a very busy four lane
turnpike the other day. The driver was simply waiting at a red light. He
wasn't on the phone, wasn't talking to a passenger, and wasn't sipping a
Starbuck's. The light turned green, a young teenager who was zipping along
the sidewalk on the wrong side of the road made an uninformed decision about
his ability to beat all the cars through the intersection, the driver tapped
his gas pedal, and the next thing you know, cars are skidding and swerving
all over the road to avoid crushing the kid's head. The driver did nothing
wrong. The kid was coming from the wrong direction, on the wrong side of
the road, but he probably didn't know any better. It could have changed his
life forever - and it certainly could have changed the driver's life
forever.

Not to sound cold or unsympathetic to people who get injured on bicycles,
but I resent that my life as a driver can be altered in a split second by a
poorly trained or irresponsible cyclist. And, unfortunately, most of the
cyclists in my community are exactly that. As I said earlier, this being a
pretty bustling suburb, I see these guys, literally, every day. It wouldn't
matter to me as much if dangerous bicycling was something that only popped
up every once in a while.

Anyway, my point in the original post was that I think we should understand
that, among the many jerky, road-raging drivers out there, there are also
lots of people like me who are wound just a little bit tight when we get
behind the wheel and have to try to second-guess what the bicycles around us
will do next. I can't assume any other cyclist is going to ride the way I
do when I'm on the bike. And I can't assume that every bicyclist
understands what it takes to operate a car.

So when I'm driving and I see a cyclist do something that looks to be
dangerous or stupid, chances are I might slip into a momentary rage, too. I
might honk my horn or yell some kind of obscenity with my windows rolled all
the way up. Then it goes away, and by that time, the cyclist may have
caught up to me, as was the case with the guy who started this thread. And
by this point, I may have lost my urge to confront him, knowing that nothing
I can say or do will get through to him. That doesn't make me a baby or a
wimp, and it doesn't, by any means, make him right.

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:20:52 GMT, "NYRides" >
wrote:

>Not to sound cold or unsympathetic to people who get injured on bicycles,
>but I resent that my life as a driver can be altered in a split second by a
>poorly trained or irresponsible cyclist. And, unfortunately, most of the
>cyclists in my community are exactly that. As I said earlier, this being a
>pretty bustling suburb, I see these guys, literally, every day. It wouldn't
>matter to me as much if dangerous bicycling was something that only popped
>up every once in a while.
>
>Anyway, my point in the original post was that I think we should understand
>that, among the many jerky, road-raging drivers out there, there are also
>lots of people like me who are wound just a little bit tight when we get
>behind the wheel and have to try to second-guess what the bicycles around us
>will do next. I can't assume any other cyclist is going to ride the way I
>do when I'm on the bike. And I can't assume that every bicyclist
>understands what it takes to operate a car.
>
>So when I'm driving and I see a cyclist do something that looks to be
>dangerous or stupid, chances are I might slip into a momentary rage, too. I
>might honk my horn or yell some kind of obscenity with my windows rolled all
>the way up. Then it goes away, and by that time, the cyclist may have
>caught up to me, as was the case with the guy who started this thread. And
>by this point, I may have lost my urge to confront him, knowing that nothing
>I can say or do will get through to him. That doesn't make me a baby or a
>wimp, and it doesn't, by any means, make him right.

Right, but in a way, you -know- to expect this behavior and are less
susceptible to it. It's certainly not 'right', but if you're surrounded by
dumb kids in bikes, then that's your milieu, and you are more-or-less
prepared, or should be. Not to sound preachy, but it's just another thing
you have to add to your mental checklist, and be thankful that you're more
attentive than most.

If it is that bad though, maybe the people in your suburb should get more
police patrols so they can look at the problem?

-B

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:20:52 GMT, "NYRides" >
wrote:

>Not to sound cold or unsympathetic to people who get injured on bicycles,
>but I resent that my life as a driver can be altered in a split second by a
>poorly trained or irresponsible cyclist. And, unfortunately, most of the
>cyclists in my community are exactly that. As I said earlier, this being a
>pretty bustling suburb, I see these guys, literally, every day. It wouldn't
>matter to me as much if dangerous bicycling was something that only popped
>up every once in a while.
>
>Anyway, my point in the original post was that I think we should understand
>that, among the many jerky, road-raging drivers out there, there are also
>lots of people like me who are wound just a little bit tight when we get
>behind the wheel and have to try to second-guess what the bicycles around us
>will do next. I can't assume any other cyclist is going to ride the way I
>do when I'm on the bike. And I can't assume that every bicyclist
>understands what it takes to operate a car.
>
>So when I'm driving and I see a cyclist do something that looks to be
>dangerous or stupid, chances are I might slip into a momentary rage, too. I
>might honk my horn or yell some kind of obscenity with my windows rolled all
>the way up. Then it goes away, and by that time, the cyclist may have
>caught up to me, as was the case with the guy who started this thread. And
>by this point, I may have lost my urge to confront him, knowing that nothing
>I can say or do will get through to him. That doesn't make me a baby or a
>wimp, and it doesn't, by any means, make him right.

Right, but in a way, you -know- to expect this behavior and are less
susceptible to it. It's certainly not 'right', but if you're surrounded by
dumb kids in bikes, then that's your milieu, and you are more-or-less
prepared, or should be. Not to sound preachy, but it's just another thing
you have to add to your mental checklist, and be thankful that you're more
attentive than most.

If it is that bad though, maybe the people in your suburb should get more
police patrols so they can look at the problem?

-B

[H]

"NYRides" > wrote in message >...
>
> Sadly, I think the "other thing" that many people have going on in their
> lives is an underlying frustration with bicyclists who constantly ignore the
> rules of the road and are frequently a menace to drivers as they weave in
> and out of traffic, ride on the wrong side of the road, and blow through
> traffic lights.
>


It is true that unruly cyclist give everyone a bad name. But in this
case, the OP was not (at least did not say he was) breaking traffic
laws.

Peeling-out, unecessary horn-honking, aggressive lane changes are all
hallmarks of road-ragers especially if the cyclist does not impede the
travel of the car in any real way.

I don't think that road-ragers have a special thing for cyclists.
Slow, or temporarily stopped cars bring similar responses out of them.
The difference is that the cyclist is in a vastly more vulnerable
situation than a car.

As I said before, road-ragers have some personal conflict going on
that is unrelated to traffic. No one flys into a blood rage at a
stranger over trivial traffic issues unless something much deeper is
bugging them.

The typical advice that authorities give to potential victims of road
rage applies to cyclists too:

1) Don't provoke/escalate a confrontation by responding aggressively
2) Diffuse the situation by backing off, create distance, get out of
the way

[H]

"NYRides" > wrote in message >...
>
> Sadly, I think the "other thing" that many people have going on in their
> lives is an underlying frustration with bicyclists who constantly ignore the
> rules of the road and are frequently a menace to drivers as they weave in
> and out of traffic, ride on the wrong side of the road, and blow through
> traffic lights.
>


It is true that unruly cyclist give everyone a bad name. But in this
case, the OP was not (at least did not say he was) breaking traffic
laws.

Peeling-out, unecessary horn-honking, aggressive lane changes are all
hallmarks of road-ragers especially if the cyclist does not impede the
travel of the car in any real way.

I don't think that road-ragers have a special thing for cyclists.
Slow, or temporarily stopped cars bring similar responses out of them.
The difference is that the cyclist is in a vastly more vulnerable
situation than a car.

As I said before, road-ragers have some personal conflict going on
that is unrelated to traffic. No one flys into a blood rage at a
stranger over trivial traffic issues unless something much deeper is
bugging them.

The typical advice that authorities give to potential victims of road
rage applies to cyclists too:

1) Don't provoke/escalate a confrontation by responding aggressively
2) Diffuse the situation by backing off, create distance, get out of
the way

[Carmon]

Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist

Monday, February 09, 2004
By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A Monroeville bicyclist has been jailed on charges that he tried to kill a
pickup truck driver during a road rage incident Saturday afternoon near the
entrance to Monroeville Park.

The driver, William J. Nicoletti, was shot once in the arm in the
confrontation.
No injuries were reported to the bike rider, Robert T. Urick.

Nicoletti, 51, told Monroeville police that he was driving along Tillbrook
Road when Urick, 41, who was riding the bicycle, made an obscene gesture as
the truck passed him.

Urick later told police that he reacted that way because Nicoletti had told
him to get off the road.
Nicoletti said that he turned his truck around and drove toward Urick, who
pulled a pistol, pointed it at him and stated that Nicoletti had "five
seconds to get out [of the truck] or he would shoot," according to an
affidavit that supports Urick's arrest.

Nicoletti said that Urick then reached inside the truck and shot him in the
arm.

As Urick rode away, Nicoletti said that he pursued him in the truck, ramming
the bicycle from behind, forcing it off the road.

The two men then fought briefly until Urick fled.
Nicoletti was treated at Mercy Hospital for a bullet wound of the arm.

Under questioning at county police headquarters, Urick denied having
possessed or fired a weapon. He admitted that he had fought with Nicoletti,
ending the fight only after Nicoletti submitted, the affidavit said.

Urick was arraigned on charges of attempted homicide, aggravated assault and
two weapons violations.
He was being held last night in the Allegheny County Jail on $100,000 bond,
pending a preliminary hearing Feb. 17 at 1 p.m. before District Justice
Walter Luniewski in Monroeville.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04040/270970.stm

(Jim McKinnon can be reached at or 412-263-1939.)

[Carmon]

Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist

Monday, February 09, 2004
By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A Monroeville bicyclist has been jailed on charges that he tried to kill a
pickup truck driver during a road rage incident Saturday afternoon near the
entrance to Monroeville Park.

The driver, William J. Nicoletti, was shot once in the arm in the
confrontation.
No injuries were reported to the bike rider, Robert T. Urick.

Nicoletti, 51, told Monroeville police that he was driving along Tillbrook
Road when Urick, 41, who was riding the bicycle, made an obscene gesture as
the truck passed him.

Urick later told police that he reacted that way because Nicoletti had told
him to get off the road.
Nicoletti said that he turned his truck around and drove toward Urick, who
pulled a pistol, pointed it at him and stated that Nicoletti had "five
seconds to get out [of the truck] or he would shoot," according to an
affidavit that supports Urick's arrest.

Nicoletti said that Urick then reached inside the truck and shot him in the
arm.

As Urick rode away, Nicoletti said that he pursued him in the truck, ramming
the bicycle from behind, forcing it off the road.

The two men then fought briefly until Urick fled.
Nicoletti was treated at Mercy Hospital for a bullet wound of the arm.

Under questioning at county police headquarters, Urick denied having
possessed or fired a weapon. He admitted that he had fought with Nicoletti,
ending the fight only after Nicoletti submitted, the affidavit said.

Urick was arraigned on charges of attempted homicide, aggravated assault and
two weapons violations.
He was being held last night in the Allegheny County Jail on $100,000 bond,
pending a preliminary hearing Feb. 17 at 1 p.m. before District Justice
Walter Luniewski in Monroeville.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04040/270970.stm

(Jim McKinnon can be reached at or 412-263-1939.)

[Calm n Collected]

"NYRides" > wrote in message >...
> Sadly, I think the "other thing" that many people have going on in their
> lives is an underlying frustration with bicyclists who constantly ignore the
> rules of the road and are frequently a menace to drivers as they weave in
> and out of traffic, ride on the wrong side of the road, and blow through
> traffic lights.
>
> Most of my riding is done out here on the roads of Long Island, where nobody
> bothers to teach or learn the proper and safe way to ride a bicycle beyond
> the end of the driveway. As a result, I am constantly on edge while driving
> around town, waiting for yet another kid on a Mongoose to come flying off
> the corner on the left side of the road - or worse, an experienced adult
> rider with an expensive bike flying through a red light so as not to fall
> short of yesterday's time.
>
> It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding
> techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York
> City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks
> a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle!

Don't let it get you so upset. Many parents don't have their
priorities straight and don't teach resposibility. They aren't
themselves responsible
and either is their progeny. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world.

One neighborhood boy thought it was cute to ride his bike in the other
lane towards an oncoming car like you see in movies with two cars
racing towards
each other.

That's the big reason that we have bicycle helmets now.

Be thankful for each ride where you come home.

[Calm n Collected]

"NYRides" > wrote in message >...
> Sadly, I think the "other thing" that many people have going on in their
> lives is an underlying frustration with bicyclists who constantly ignore the
> rules of the road and are frequently a menace to drivers as they weave in
> and out of traffic, ride on the wrong side of the road, and blow through
> traffic lights.
>
> Most of my riding is done out here on the roads of Long Island, where nobody
> bothers to teach or learn the proper and safe way to ride a bicycle beyond
> the end of the driveway. As a result, I am constantly on edge while driving
> around town, waiting for yet another kid on a Mongoose to come flying off
> the corner on the left side of the road - or worse, an experienced adult
> rider with an expensive bike flying through a red light so as not to fall
> short of yesterday's time.
>
> It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding
> techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York
> City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks
> a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle!

Don't let it get you so upset. Many parents don't have their
priorities straight and don't teach resposibility. They aren't
themselves responsible
and either is their progeny. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world.

One neighborhood boy thought it was cute to ride his bike in the other
lane towards an oncoming car like you see in movies with two cars
racing towards
each other.

That's the big reason that we have bicycle helmets now.

Be thankful for each ride where you come home.

[Roger Zoul]

Carmon wrote:
|| Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist
||
|| Monday, February 09, 2004
|| By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
cyclist?

||
|| A Monroeville bicyclist has been jailed on charges that he tried to
|| kill a pickup truck driver during a road rage incident Saturday
|| afternoon near the entrance to Monroeville Park.
||
|| The driver, William J. Nicoletti, was shot once in the arm in the
|| confrontation.
|| No injuries were reported to the bike rider, Robert T. Urick.
||
|| Nicoletti, 51, told Monroeville police that he was driving along
|| Tillbrook Road when Urick, 41, who was riding the bicycle, made an
|| obscene gesture as the truck passed him.
||
|| Urick later told police that he reacted that way because Nicoletti
|| had told him to get off the road.
|| Nicoletti said that he turned his truck around and drove toward
|| Urick, who pulled a pistol, pointed it at him and stated that
|| Nicoletti had "five seconds to get out [of the truck] or he would
|| shoot," according to an affidavit that supports Urick's arrest.
||
|| Nicoletti said that Urick then reached inside the truck and shot him
|| in the arm.
||
|| As Urick rode away, Nicoletti said that he pursued him in the truck,
|| ramming the bicycle from behind, forcing it off the road.
||
|| The two men then fought briefly until Urick fled.
|| Nicoletti was treated at Mercy Hospital for a bullet wound of the
|| arm.
||
|| Under questioning at county police headquarters, Urick denied having
|| possessed or fired a weapon. He admitted that he had fought with
|| Nicoletti, ending the fight only after Nicoletti submitted, the
|| affidavit said.
||
|| Urick was arraigned on charges of attempted homicide, aggravated
|| assault and two weapons violations.
|| He was being held last night in the Allegheny County Jail on
|| $100,000 bond, pending a preliminary hearing Feb. 17 at 1 p.m.
|| before District Justice Walter Luniewski in Monroeville.
||
|| http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04040/270970.stm
||
|| (Jim McKinnon can be reached at or
|| 412-263-1939.)

[Roger Zoul]

Carmon wrote:
|| Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist
||
|| Monday, February 09, 2004
|| By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
cyclist?

||
|| A Monroeville bicyclist has been jailed on charges that he tried to
|| kill a pickup truck driver during a road rage incident Saturday
|| afternoon near the entrance to Monroeville Park.
||
|| The driver, William J. Nicoletti, was shot once in the arm in the
|| confrontation.
|| No injuries were reported to the bike rider, Robert T. Urick.
||
|| Nicoletti, 51, told Monroeville police that he was driving along
|| Tillbrook Road when Urick, 41, who was riding the bicycle, made an
|| obscene gesture as the truck passed him.
||
|| Urick later told police that he reacted that way because Nicoletti
|| had told him to get off the road.
|| Nicoletti said that he turned his truck around and drove toward
|| Urick, who pulled a pistol, pointed it at him and stated that
|| Nicoletti had "five seconds to get out [of the truck] or he would
|| shoot," according to an affidavit that supports Urick's arrest.
||
|| Nicoletti said that Urick then reached inside the truck and shot him
|| in the arm.
||
|| As Urick rode away, Nicoletti said that he pursued him in the truck,
|| ramming the bicycle from behind, forcing it off the road.
||
|| The two men then fought briefly until Urick fled.
|| Nicoletti was treated at Mercy Hospital for a bullet wound of the
|| arm.
||
|| Under questioning at county police headquarters, Urick denied having
|| possessed or fired a weapon. He admitted that he had fought with
|| Nicoletti, ending the fight only after Nicoletti submitted, the
|| affidavit said.
||
|| Urick was arraigned on charges of attempted homicide, aggravated
|| assault and two weapons violations.
|| He was being held last night in the Allegheny County Jail on
|| $100,000 bond, pending a preliminary hearing Feb. 17 at 1 p.m.
|| before District Justice Walter Luniewski in Monroeville.
||
|| http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04040/270970.stm
||
|| (Jim McKinnon can be reached at or
|| 412-263-1939.)

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:19:28 -0400, >,
"Roger Zoul" > wrote:

>
>So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
>cyclist?

"Nicoletti said that he turned his truck around and drove toward
Urick"

IOW, the cyclist didn't chase down the truck to shoot the driver and
I've never been satified that it was even the cyclist's gun.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:19:28 -0400, >,
"Roger Zoul" > wrote:

>
>So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
>cyclist?

"Nicoletti said that he turned his truck around and drove toward
Urick"

IOW, the cyclist didn't chase down the truck to shoot the driver and
I've never been satified that it was even the cyclist's gun.
--
zk

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:19:28 -0400, "Roger Zoul" >
wrote:

>Carmon wrote:
>|| Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist
>||
>|| Monday, February 09, 2004
>|| By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
>
>
>So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
>cyclist?

Yeah this sounds like a case of man bites dog. A paraffin test will tell
who fired the gun, though.

-B

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:19:28 -0400, "Roger Zoul" >
wrote:

>Carmon wrote:
>|| Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist
>||
>|| Monday, February 09, 2004
>|| By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
>
>
>So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
>cyclist?

Yeah this sounds like a case of man bites dog. A paraffin test will tell
who fired the gun, though.

-B

[Mitch Haley]

Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> Carmon wrote:
> || Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist
> ||
> || Monday, February 09, 2004
> || By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
>
> So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
> cyclist?

If you believe the cyclist's story, the driver was.
Somebody yelled at him, he responded in kind, the original
instigator then threatened him with a deadly weapon.
The cyclist then defended himself with a deadly weapon, and
shot the driver when the driver refused to relinquish his weapon.

In contrast, many police officers have jumped in front of moving
vehicles, and then shot the driver "in self defense" because the
vehicle was moving towards them. I've never heard of one of them
being charged with any crime whatsoever.

BTW, we went over this back in February, who drug it up again?

[Mitch Haley]

Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> Carmon wrote:
> || Truck driver is shot in face-off with cyclist
> ||
> || Monday, February 09, 2004
> || By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
>
> So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
> cyclist?

If you believe the cyclist's story, the driver was.
Somebody yelled at him, he responded in kind, the original
instigator then threatened him with a deadly weapon.
The cyclist then defended himself with a deadly weapon, and
shot the driver when the driver refused to relinquish his weapon.

In contrast, many police officers have jumped in front of moving
vehicles, and then shot the driver "in self defense" because the
vehicle was moving towards them. I've never heard of one of them
being charged with any crime whatsoever.

BTW, we went over this back in February, who drug it up again?

[Ron McKinnon]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:54:11 -0700, H wrote:
> It is true that unruly cyclist give everyone a bad name. But in this
> case, the OP was not (at least did not say he was) breaking traffic
> laws.

That I can guarantee. The lane I was in even has signs next to it
designating it as the preferred lane for cyclists to use on that street.

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca

[Ron McKinnon]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:54:11 -0700, H wrote:
> It is true that unruly cyclist give everyone a bad name. But in this
> case, the OP was not (at least did not say he was) breaking traffic
> laws.

That I can guarantee. The lane I was in even has signs next to it
designating it as the preferred lane for cyclists to use on that street.

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca

[Ron McKinnon]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:25:05 -0400, Mitch Haley wrote:
> &*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even outrun
> it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his
> manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same.

Lol! One can only hope.

> I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline,
> just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel.
> I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap.

Unfortunately where I live, the cops won't do anything unless you've been
hospitalized or killed, and even then it would likely get ruled as an
accident. :(

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca

[Ron McKinnon]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:25:05 -0400, Mitch Haley wrote:
> &*^$ bicycle, riding in the left lane, and his souped car can't even outrun
> it (at least not permanently). Scary, very scary. You done disgrace to his
> manhood, and then confronted him (twice). His ego may never be the same.

Lol! One can only hope.

> I'd have phoned his plate to the local drunk driver/road rager hotline,
> just to report general erratic and inept behavior behind the wheel.
> I wonder how much an armed cop would scare this clearly unbalanced chap.

Unfortunately where I live, the cops won't do anything unless you've been
hospitalized or killed, and even then it would likely get ruled as an
accident. :(

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca

[Ron McKinnon]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:44:44 -0400, Roger Zoul wrote:
> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.

Probably a good piece of advice. At least in that respect, being
hot-headed, the road rager and I have something in common. However I've
never instigated anything with a motorist in my life, but I do tend to
respond in kind more than is probably wise.

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca

[Ron McKinnon]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:44:44 -0400, Roger Zoul wrote:
> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.

Probably a good piece of advice. At least in that respect, being
hot-headed, the road rager and I have something in common. However I've
never instigated anything with a motorist in my life, but I do tend to
respond in kind more than is probably wise.

--
Ron McKinnon rmckin
spam > at sympatico
http://www.magma.ca/~ronmck dot ca

[Mitch Haley]

Calm n Collected wrote:
> One neighborhood boy thought it was cute to ride his bike in the other
> lane towards an oncoming car like you see in movies with two cars
> racing towards
> each other.
>
> That's the big reason that we have bicycle helmets now.
>

What reason?
With or without a helmet you need a closed casket funeral when a kid
gets splattered on the front of a car in a head-on.

Mitch.

[Mitch Haley]

Calm n Collected wrote:
> One neighborhood boy thought it was cute to ride his bike in the other
> lane towards an oncoming car like you see in movies with two cars
> racing towards
> each other.
>
> That's the big reason that we have bicycle helmets now.
>

What reason?
With or without a helmet you need a closed casket funeral when a kid
gets splattered on the front of a car in a head-on.

Mitch.

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:45:40 -0400, Ron McKinnon >
wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:44:44 -0400, Roger Zoul wrote:
>> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
>> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
>> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
>
>Probably a good piece of advice. At least in that respect, being
>hot-headed, the road rager and I have something in common. However I've
>never instigated anything with a motorist in my life, but I do tend to
>respond in kind more than is probably wise.

Thus you need to have a cue or mantra to tell yourself when this happens
again. Think of something when you're feeling cool and rational, and then
when you feel tempted during a ride to do this, you can recall the advice.

Even those of us who are non-confrontational get juiced up with adrenaline
and pumped from riding and lose that better judgement.

Then when you get home, think positive thoughts about your ability to
resist the urge to confront.

-B

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:45:40 -0400, Ron McKinnon >
wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:44:44 -0400, Roger Zoul wrote:
>> I suggest that, in the future, you do your best to avoid second encounters
>> with stupid people driving cars (assuming the first encounter was forced
>> upon you). It can't be good policy for a cyclist.
>
>Probably a good piece of advice. At least in that respect, being
>hot-headed, the road rager and I have something in common. However I've
>never instigated anything with a motorist in my life, but I do tend to
>respond in kind more than is probably wise.

Thus you need to have a cue or mantra to tell yourself when this happens
again. Think of something when you're feeling cool and rational, and then
when you feel tempted during a ride to do this, you can recall the advice.

Even those of us who are non-confrontational get juiced up with adrenaline
and pumped from riding and lose that better judgement.

Then when you get home, think positive thoughts about your ability to
resist the urge to confront.

-B

[Chris BeHanna]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 04:23:50 +0000, Jem Berkes wrote:

>> The car was some souped-up muscle car ...
>> I caught up two lights later ...
>
> You should have asked him, if his car is so powerful how come you were able
> to catch up to him? If that's too subtle for him just tell him he has a
> small penis.

Nah.

If you were canoeing, and an empty boat drifted across your path,
it wouldn't make any sense to get angry at it.

It makes no more sense to get angry at road raging morons than it
does to yell at an empty boat.

Just repeat to yourself, "Empty boat."

I admit I'm not 100% perfect at this, but when I am successful,
it's very gratifying to NOT have gotten angry, and to NOT have let the
asshole spoil my day.

--
Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer (Remove "allspammersmustdie" before responding.)

I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.

[Chris BeHanna]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 04:23:50 +0000, Jem Berkes wrote:

>> The car was some souped-up muscle car ...
>> I caught up two lights later ...
>
> You should have asked him, if his car is so powerful how come you were able
> to catch up to him? If that's too subtle for him just tell him he has a
> small penis.

Nah.

If you were canoeing, and an empty boat drifted across your path,
it wouldn't make any sense to get angry at it.

It makes no more sense to get angry at road raging morons than it
does to yell at an empty boat.

Just repeat to yourself, "Empty boat."

I admit I'm not 100% perfect at this, but when I am successful,
it's very gratifying to NOT have gotten angry, and to NOT have let the
asshole spoil my day.

--
Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer (Remove "allspammersmustdie" before responding.)

I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.

[Gawnsoft]

On 1 Sep 2004 14:21:57 -0700, (Calm n Collected) wrote (more or less):
....
>> It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding
>> techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York
>> City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks
>> a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle!
>
>Don't let it get you so upset. Many parents don't have their
>priorities straight and don't teach resposibility. They aren't
>themselves responsible
>and either is their progeny. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world.
>
>One neighborhood boy thought it was cute to ride his bike in the other
>lane towards an oncoming car like you see in movies with two cars
>racing towards
>each other.
>
>That's the big reason that we have bicycle helmets now.

I'm a little confused. You now have biccylcle helmets so you can ride
bikes towards oncoming cars?

Or you now have bicycle helmets because another cyclist has ridden
towards oncoming cars?


In either event, please realise that bicycle helmets are not designed
to withstand head-on impacts from motor vehicles, but are designed for
falling off your bike when cycling at low speed.





>
>Be thankful for each ride where you come home.




--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On 1 Sep 2004 14:21:57 -0700, (Calm n Collected) wrote (more or less):
....
>> It seems that most urban riders are much more aware of safe and legal riding
>> techniques, but I've certainly seen a lot of oblivious peddlers in New York
>> City. This ****es ME off -- and I'm a cyclist. I can't imagine how it irks
>> a driver who only wishes he/she had a bicycle!
>
>Don't let it get you so upset. Many parents don't have their
>priorities straight and don't teach resposibility. They aren't
>themselves responsible
>and either is their progeny. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world.
>
>One neighborhood boy thought it was cute to ride his bike in the other
>lane towards an oncoming car like you see in movies with two cars
>racing towards
>each other.
>
>That's the big reason that we have bicycle helmets now.

I'm a little confused. You now have biccylcle helmets so you can ride
bikes towards oncoming cars?

Or you now have bicycle helmets because another cyclist has ridden
towards oncoming cars?


In either event, please realise that bicycle helmets are not designed
to withstand head-on impacts from motor vehicles, but are designed for
falling off your bike when cycling at low speed.





>
>Be thankful for each ride where you come home.




--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[H]

Mitch Haley > wrote in message >...
> > [...]
> > So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
> > cyclist?
>
> If you believe the cyclist's story, the driver was.
> Somebody yelled at him, he responded in kind, [...]
>


"...he responded in kind..."

That's where the problem starts with road rage incidents.

If the victim of the initial act of road rage can just be cool and let
it pass, subsequent acts of stupidity do not occur. This true for both
motorists and cyclists.

In this case, if the cyclist had held his tounge for 2 seconds, he
would not be facing assault charges (which could be life-ruining), a
guy would not have been shot, multiple lawyers would not be 10's of
thousands of dollars richer, and this stupid avoidable case would not
be in the court system.

Responding to road rage just isn't worth it. Its not worth the risk to
your life, car, beater bike, or even your retro cycling apparel. Its
not even worth gritting your teeth for.

[H]

Mitch Haley > wrote in message >...
> > [...]
> > So the question here is: Who had road rage - the truck driver or the
> > cyclist?
>
> If you believe the cyclist's story, the driver was.
> Somebody yelled at him, he responded in kind, [...]
>


"...he responded in kind..."

That's where the problem starts with road rage incidents.

If the victim of the initial act of road rage can just be cool and let
it pass, subsequent acts of stupidity do not occur. This true for both
motorists and cyclists.

In this case, if the cyclist had held his tounge for 2 seconds, he
would not be facing assault charges (which could be life-ruining), a
guy would not have been shot, multiple lawyers would not be 10's of
thousands of dollars richer, and this stupid avoidable case would not
be in the court system.

Responding to road rage just isn't worth it. Its not worth the risk to
your life, car, beater bike, or even your retro cycling apparel. Its
not even worth gritting your teeth for.

[Calm n Collected]

Mitch Haley > wrote in message >...
> Calm n Collected wrote:
> > One neighborhood boy thought it was cute to ride his bike in the other
> > lane towards an oncoming car like you see in movies with two cars
> > racing towards
> > each other.
> >
> > That's the big reason that we have bicycle helmets now.
> >
>
> What reason?
> With or without a helmet you need a closed casket funeral when a kid
> gets splattered on the front of a car in a head-on.
>
> Mitch.

No, parents not teaching kids to be careful and paying attention is a
big reason people are wearing helmets. I have been riding 40 yrs
without a helmet, but then I am very careful and ride with the
assumption that all drivers are "challenged."

[Calm n Collected]

Mitch Haley > wrote in message >...
> Calm n Collected wrote:
> > One neighborhood boy thought it was cute to ride his bike in the other
> > lane towards an oncoming car like you see in movies with two cars
> > racing towards
> > each other.
> >
> > That's the big reason that we have bicycle helmets now.
> >
>
> What reason?
> With or without a helmet you need a closed casket funeral when a kid
> gets splattered on the front of a car in a head-on.
>
> Mitch.

No, parents not teaching kids to be careful and paying attention is a
big reason people are wearing helmets. I have been riding 40 yrs
without a helmet, but then I am very careful and ride with the
assumption that all drivers are "challenged."

[Mitch Haley]

Calm n Collected wrote:
> No, parents not teaching kids to be careful and paying attention is a
> big reason people are wearing helmets. I have been riding 40 yrs
> without a helmet, but then I am very careful and ride with the
> assumption that all drivers are "challenged."

So helmets are used by idiots as a substitute for riding properly
and proper parenting? I can agree with that. Of course, you could
say that about virtually any traffic safety device, they are all
just poor substitutes for human responsibility.

Mitch.

[Mitch Haley]

Calm n Collected wrote:
> No, parents not teaching kids to be careful and paying attention is a
> big reason people are wearing helmets. I have been riding 40 yrs
> without a helmet, but then I am very careful and ride with the
> assumption that all drivers are "challenged."

So helmets are used by idiots as a substitute for riding properly
and proper parenting? I can agree with that. Of course, you could
say that about virtually any traffic safety device, they are all
just poor substitutes for human responsibility.

Mitch.

[Frank Krygowski]

Ken [NY) wrote:

>
>
> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
> countries?

What?? Did we invade Saudi Arabia??

Damn! I must have missed the news last night!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

[Frank Krygowski]

Ken [NY) wrote:

>
>
> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
> countries?

What?? Did we invade Saudi Arabia??

Damn! I must have missed the news last night!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

[S o r n i]

Ken [NY) wrote:

> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"

He better hope the US catches him and not these hard-asses:

http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424964|oddlyenough|09-02-2004::09:09|reuters.html

Bill "Geneva Confection?" S.

[S o r n i]

Ken [NY) wrote:

> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"

He better hope the US catches him and not these hard-asses:

http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424964|oddlyenough|09-02-2004::09:09|reuters.html

Bill "Geneva Confection?" S.

[S o r n i]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Ken [NY) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
>> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
>> countries?
>
> What?? Did we invade Saudi Arabia??

Flaw in your logic there, Frank. Think about it.

Bill "we'll wait" S.

[S o r n i]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Ken [NY) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
>> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
>> countries?
>
> What?? Did we invade Saudi Arabia??

Flaw in your logic there, Frank. Think about it.

Bill "we'll wait" S.

[Doug Ventner]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:36:15 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>>>Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>"ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>
>>Actually, the reverse is true.
>
> Could be that he noticed that a third of his terror group is
>either room temperature or in a US prison camp and said, "Hey, I like
>this guy!"

Didn't you notice?

They are prepared to die for what they believe in, and every time the west
interfers in their region, it creates more potential martyrs.

The British did not start to win against IRA terrorism until someone had the
brilliant idea of addressing what was worrying the people from whom the IRA
recruited and gained funds *AS WELL AS* taking a hard line against the
terrorists.

Until that time, it was just a war against terrorism, with many casualties on
both sides.

Hold on a moment - where have I heard the expression "war against terrorism"
recently.

Oh, yes, that's Bush and his cohorts. They're quite rightly taking a very strong
line against the terrorists, but are completely ignoring the underlying problems
that allow people like Bin Laden to recruit more and more who are prepared to
die to harm the west.

> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
>streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
>countries?

Yup, and it's not just the democrats in the US that are saying it.

Anyone with any intelligence and without the blinkered view so beloved of the
extreme right could work it out for themselves.

Just think for a moment. What was the first thing anyone knew of the wake up
call the US got on 11/9?

When a bunch of people killed *themselves* as well as many others, because of
what they believed. They may well have been insane, but it just shows you what
you can create by ignoring the way people feel when you interfere in their
affairs.

> So tell me, shouldn't we then warn the Russians not to resist
>the Islamo-fascist terrorists in their country who have blown up
>planes, buildings, and are holding a school full of children hostage?
>Should they just let the terrorists do what they want to do so they
>won't get angry and do terroristic acts?

If the Russian have any sense, they will do what they can to address the
grievences of those from whom the terrorist garner support. If they can stop
them becoming terrorists they will win against those who already are. If they
can't it will go on and on and on.

Go the Bush way and the US will live in fear for decades.

I've no idea what Kerry would do, but he could hardly make a bigger pig's ear of
it than Bush and Blair have.

[Doug Ventner]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:36:15 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>>>Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>"ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>
>>Actually, the reverse is true.
>
> Could be that he noticed that a third of his terror group is
>either room temperature or in a US prison camp and said, "Hey, I like
>this guy!"

Didn't you notice?

They are prepared to die for what they believe in, and every time the west
interfers in their region, it creates more potential martyrs.

The British did not start to win against IRA terrorism until someone had the
brilliant idea of addressing what was worrying the people from whom the IRA
recruited and gained funds *AS WELL AS* taking a hard line against the
terrorists.

Until that time, it was just a war against terrorism, with many casualties on
both sides.

Hold on a moment - where have I heard the expression "war against terrorism"
recently.

Oh, yes, that's Bush and his cohorts. They're quite rightly taking a very strong
line against the terrorists, but are completely ignoring the underlying problems
that allow people like Bin Laden to recruit more and more who are prepared to
die to harm the west.

> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
>streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
>countries?

Yup, and it's not just the democrats in the US that are saying it.

Anyone with any intelligence and without the blinkered view so beloved of the
extreme right could work it out for themselves.

Just think for a moment. What was the first thing anyone knew of the wake up
call the US got on 11/9?

When a bunch of people killed *themselves* as well as many others, because of
what they believed. They may well have been insane, but it just shows you what
you can create by ignoring the way people feel when you interfere in their
affairs.

> So tell me, shouldn't we then warn the Russians not to resist
>the Islamo-fascist terrorists in their country who have blown up
>planes, buildings, and are holding a school full of children hostage?
>Should they just let the terrorists do what they want to do so they
>won't get angry and do terroristic acts?

If the Russian have any sense, they will do what they can to address the
grievences of those from whom the terrorist garner support. If they can stop
them becoming terrorists they will win against those who already are. If they
can't it will go on and on and on.

Go the Bush way and the US will live in fear for decades.

I've no idea what Kerry would do, but he could hardly make a bigger pig's ear of
it than Bush and Blair have.

[Delano DuGarm]

Chris BeHanna > wrote in message hanna.org>...
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 04:23:50 +0000, Jem Berkes wrote:
>
> >> The car was some souped-up muscle car ...
> >> I caught up two lights later ...
> >
> > You should have asked him, if his car is so powerful how come you were able
> > to catch up to him? If that's too subtle for him just tell him he has a
> > small penis.
>
> Nah.
>
> If you were canoeing, and an empty boat drifted across your path,
> it wouldn't make any sense to get angry at it.
>
> It makes no more sense to get angry at road raging morons than it
> does to yell at an empty boat.
>
> Just repeat to yourself, "Empty boat."
>
> I admit I'm not 100% perfect at this, but when I am successful,
> it's very gratifying to NOT have gotten angry, and to NOT have let the
> asshole spoil my day.

When I'm honked at, I put on my biggest smile and wave, figuring a)
maybe I know the motorist, and he is being friendly, or b) maybe I can
give the motorist an aneurism by not understanding why he is honking.

[Delano DuGarm]

Chris BeHanna > wrote in message hanna.org>...
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 04:23:50 +0000, Jem Berkes wrote:
>
> >> The car was some souped-up muscle car ...
> >> I caught up two lights later ...
> >
> > You should have asked him, if his car is so powerful how come you were able
> > to catch up to him? If that's too subtle for him just tell him he has a
> > small penis.
>
> Nah.
>
> If you were canoeing, and an empty boat drifted across your path,
> it wouldn't make any sense to get angry at it.
>
> It makes no more sense to get angry at road raging morons than it
> does to yell at an empty boat.
>
> Just repeat to yourself, "Empty boat."
>
> I admit I'm not 100% perfect at this, but when I am successful,
> it's very gratifying to NOT have gotten angry, and to NOT have let the
> asshole spoil my day.

When I'm honked at, I put on my biggest smile and wave, figuring a)
maybe I know the motorist, and he is being friendly, or b) maybe I can
give the motorist an aneurism by not understanding why he is honking.

[Bill Baka]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:53:10 GMT, Doug Ventner > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:36:15 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:
>
>>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>>
>>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>>
>> Could be that he noticed that a third of his terror group is
>> either room temperature or in a US prison camp and said, "Hey, I like
>> this guy!"
>
> Didn't you notice?
>
> They are prepared to die for what they believe in, and every time the
> west
> interfers in their region, it creates more potential martyrs.
>
> The British did not start to win against IRA terrorism until someone had
> the
> brilliant idea of addressing what was worrying the people from whom the
> IRA
> recruited and gained funds *AS WELL AS* taking a hard line against the
> terrorists.
>
> Until that time, it was just a war against terrorism, with many
> casualties on
> both sides.
>
> Hold on a moment - where have I heard the expression "war against
> terrorism"
> recently.
>
> Oh, yes, that's Bush and his cohorts. They're quite rightly taking a
> very strong
> line against the terrorists, but are completely ignoring the underlying
> problems
> that allow people like Bin Laden to recruit more and more who are
> prepared to
> die to harm the west.
>
>> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
>> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
>> countries?
>
> Yup, and it's not just the democrats in the US that are saying it.
>
> Anyone with any intelligence and without the blinkered view so beloved
> of the
> extreme right could work it out for themselves.
>
> Just think for a moment. What was the first thing anyone knew of the
> wake up
> call the US got on 11/9?
>
> When a bunch of people killed *themselves* as well as many others,
> because of
> what they believed. They may well have been insane, but it just shows
> you what
> you can create by ignoring the way people feel when you interfere in
> their
> affairs.
>
>> So tell me, shouldn't we then warn the Russians not to resist
>> the Islamo-fascist terrorists in their country who have blown up
>> planes, buildings, and are holding a school full of children hostage?
>> Should they just let the terrorists do what they want to do so they
>> won't get angry and do terroristic acts?
>
> If the Russian have any sense, they will do what they can to address the
> grievences of those from whom the terrorist garner support. If they can
> stop
> them becoming terrorists they will win against those who already are. If
> they
> can't it will go on and on and on.
>
> Go the Bush way and the US will live in fear for decades.
>
> I've no idea what Kerry would do, but he could hardly make a bigger
> pig's ear of
> it than Bush and Blair have.
>
I was going to stay out of this but to relate a bit of history, here goes.
Remember 1941 when the USA thought that WWII was someone elses' problem?
It took Pearl Harbor to wake us up, and information says that many warnings
before that were ignored. The American people only get going when something
big enough gets their attention. Had 9/11/01 not happened we might still be
hemming and hawwing around and ignoring the Middle East situation, which in
hindsight might have been better. I think we have another Vietnam here and
Bush will bury us deeper and the USA will be hated globally, but Kerry will
have his hands full too. Kerry is just the 'least incompetent' choice we
have.
Of course if Bush #1 had finished what he started we would not be there
today.
Bill Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

[Bill Baka]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:53:10 GMT, Doug Ventner > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:36:15 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:
>
>>>> Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>> "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>>
>>> Actually, the reverse is true.
>>
>> Could be that he noticed that a third of his terror group is
>> either room temperature or in a US prison camp and said, "Hey, I like
>> this guy!"
>
> Didn't you notice?
>
> They are prepared to die for what they believe in, and every time the
> west
> interfers in their region, it creates more potential martyrs.
>
> The British did not start to win against IRA terrorism until someone had
> the
> brilliant idea of addressing what was worrying the people from whom the
> IRA
> recruited and gained funds *AS WELL AS* taking a hard line against the
> terrorists.
>
> Until that time, it was just a war against terrorism, with many
> casualties on
> both sides.
>
> Hold on a moment - where have I heard the expression "war against
> terrorism"
> recently.
>
> Oh, yes, that's Bush and his cohorts. They're quite rightly taking a
> very strong
> line against the terrorists, but are completely ignoring the underlying
> problems
> that allow people like Bin Laden to recruit more and more who are
> prepared to
> die to harm the west.
>
>> So Mr. Bush is "creating" terrorists, as the Democrats in the
>> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
>> countries?
>
> Yup, and it's not just the democrats in the US that are saying it.
>
> Anyone with any intelligence and without the blinkered view so beloved
> of the
> extreme right could work it out for themselves.
>
> Just think for a moment. What was the first thing anyone knew of the
> wake up
> call the US got on 11/9?
>
> When a bunch of people killed *themselves* as well as many others,
> because of
> what they believed. They may well have been insane, but it just shows
> you what
> you can create by ignoring the way people feel when you interfere in
> their
> affairs.
>
>> So tell me, shouldn't we then warn the Russians not to resist
>> the Islamo-fascist terrorists in their country who have blown up
>> planes, buildings, and are holding a school full of children hostage?
>> Should they just let the terrorists do what they want to do so they
>> won't get angry and do terroristic acts?
>
> If the Russian have any sense, they will do what they can to address the
> grievences of those from whom the terrorist garner support. If they can
> stop
> them becoming terrorists they will win against those who already are. If
> they
> can't it will go on and on and on.
>
> Go the Bush way and the US will live in fear for decades.
>
> I've no idea what Kerry would do, but he could hardly make a bigger
> pig's ear of
> it than Bush and Blair have.
>
I was going to stay out of this but to relate a bit of history, here goes.
Remember 1941 when the USA thought that WWII was someone elses' problem?
It took Pearl Harbor to wake us up, and information says that many warnings
before that were ignored. The American people only get going when something
big enough gets their attention. Had 9/11/01 not happened we might still be
hemming and hawwing around and ignoring the Middle East situation, which in
hindsight might have been better. I think we have another Vietnam here and
Bush will bury us deeper and the USA will be hated globally, but Kerry will
have his hands full too. Kerry is just the 'least incompetent' choice we
have.
Of course if Bush #1 had finished what he started we would not be there
today.
Bill Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

[Ian]

On 2 Sep 2004 10:08:43 -0700, (Delano DuGarm) wrote:

>When I'm honked at, I put on my biggest smile and wave, figuring a)
>maybe I know the motorist, and he is being friendly, or b) maybe I can
>give the motorist an aneurism by not understanding why he is honking.

When someone honks me from behind, because they can't get past, I wait until it
is safe to do so, pull over a little, at the same time extending my hand and
bekoning them on with two fingers (together). They *hate* that.

When I'm honked by someone as they go past, I give them a great big smile and a
cheery wave. I figure if they realise I'm taking the **** they'll hate that, and
if they think I have misunderstood and thought they were being friendly, they'll
hate that as well.

You may have guessed that I don't like being honked at.

In fact, it happens very, very rarely - I think three time so far this year. I
find the vast majority of motorists to be careful and considerate, so I return
the favour, and there is little reason for anyone to honk. When they do it is
usually sheer impatience on their part (or some strange belief that I am not
entitled to use a piece of road if they want to use the same piece - which, I
suppose, amounts to the same thing).

--
Ian

[Ian]

On 2 Sep 2004 10:08:43 -0700, (Delano DuGarm) wrote:

>When I'm honked at, I put on my biggest smile and wave, figuring a)
>maybe I know the motorist, and he is being friendly, or b) maybe I can
>give the motorist an aneurism by not understanding why he is honking.

When someone honks me from behind, because they can't get past, I wait until it
is safe to do so, pull over a little, at the same time extending my hand and
bekoning them on with two fingers (together). They *hate* that.

When I'm honked by someone as they go past, I give them a great big smile and a
cheery wave. I figure if they realise I'm taking the **** they'll hate that, and
if they think I have misunderstood and thought they were being friendly, they'll
hate that as well.

You may have guessed that I don't like being honked at.

In fact, it happens very, very rarely - I think three time so far this year. I
find the vast majority of motorists to be careful and considerate, so I return
the favour, and there is little reason for anyone to honk. When they do it is
usually sheer impatience on their part (or some strange belief that I am not
entitled to use a piece of road if they want to use the same piece - which, I
suppose, amounts to the same thing).

--
Ian

[Jem Berkes]

> When I'm honked at, I put on my biggest smile and wave, figuring a)
> maybe I know the motorist, and he is being friendly, or b) maybe I can
> give the motorist an aneurism by not understanding why he is honking.

This is a good point, several times friends have spotted me on the road and
tried to get my attention. I am generally friendly to others on the roads.

On the other hand, when a pickup truck swerves in front of me and slams on
its brakes I know that it's not trying to make a new friend :(

--
Jem Berkes
http://www.sysdesign.ca/

[Jem Berkes]

> When I'm honked at, I put on my biggest smile and wave, figuring a)
> maybe I know the motorist, and he is being friendly, or b) maybe I can
> give the motorist an aneurism by not understanding why he is honking.

This is a good point, several times friends have spotted me on the road and
tried to get my attention. I am generally friendly to others on the roads.

On the other hand, when a pickup truck swerves in front of me and slams on
its brakes I know that it's not trying to make a new friend :(

--
Jem Berkes
http://www.sysdesign.ca/

[Claire Petersky]

"Ken [NY)" > wrote in message
...

> So Mr. Bush is creating terrorists, as the Democrats in the
> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
> countries?

Yes. I'm glad you understand this so well. Thank you for stating it so
plainly.

When we ignore the Geneva Convention for our prisoners of war, and when we
use torture, when we invade another country based on lies, we have no moral
ground to stand on, and we create more people who have good reason to hate
us.

I can tell you, if my comrades were being killed or held prisoner for
fighting for what they believed in, I would not be questioning my beliefs --
instead, I'd be fighting even harder -- wouldn't you? Did the attacks on
September 11 make you less patriotic? Did you feel more or less in
solidarity with other Americans? Why do you think it works differently for
others?

Meanwhile, our national resources are diverted into a useless war abroad and
to the wealthy who don't need the money. Causes that would make our nation
stronger -- devoting resources to lifelong learning so that we are
employable all our lives; ensuring that everyone has access to quality
health care, not just the rich, so that we are physically able to pursue our
dreams, materially and non-materially; putting money into infrastructure
such as roads and bridges so that we can be a more economically viable
country -- well, I could go on and on -- are starved. As the gap between
rich and poor widen, we look less like other developed nations which take
care of their citizens, and more like the Third World.

So, if you want to advance the cause of Osama Bin Laden, vote for George W.
Bush. He is the man who continues to antagonize both our enemies and our
allies, making us ineffective in the world, and weakens our nation at home.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[Claire Petersky]

"Ken [NY)" > wrote in message
...

> So Mr. Bush is creating terrorists, as the Democrats in the
> streets are saying? Just by fighting terrorists and their support
> countries?

Yes. I'm glad you understand this so well. Thank you for stating it so
plainly.

When we ignore the Geneva Convention for our prisoners of war, and when we
use torture, when we invade another country based on lies, we have no moral
ground to stand on, and we create more people who have good reason to hate
us.

I can tell you, if my comrades were being killed or held prisoner for
fighting for what they believed in, I would not be questioning my beliefs --
instead, I'd be fighting even harder -- wouldn't you? Did the attacks on
September 11 make you less patriotic? Did you feel more or less in
solidarity with other Americans? Why do you think it works differently for
others?

Meanwhile, our national resources are diverted into a useless war abroad and
to the wealthy who don't need the money. Causes that would make our nation
stronger -- devoting resources to lifelong learning so that we are
employable all our lives; ensuring that everyone has access to quality
health care, not just the rich, so that we are physically able to pursue our
dreams, materially and non-materially; putting money into infrastructure
such as roads and bridges so that we can be a more economically viable
country -- well, I could go on and on -- are starved. As the gap between
rich and poor widen, we look less like other developed nations which take
care of their citizens, and more like the Third World.

So, if you want to advance the cause of Osama Bin Laden, vote for George W.
Bush. He is the man who continues to antagonize both our enemies and our
allies, making us ineffective in the world, and weakens our nation at home.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[Mitch Haley]

"Ken [NY)" wrote:
> Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, remember?

All of whom were indoctrinated in puritanical state-run
religious schools, much like the Saudis are running in
other Arabic countries as a "humanitarian" gesture. When you
raise a guy from birth to be a fanatic, don't be surprised
if he isn't very tolerant of our right to disagree with
his views.


> So the whole notion of creating terrorists by fighting terrorists is
> hogwash.

That depends on whether your definition of "fighting terrorists" includes
arming men like Saddam and Usama and training their "soldiers" for them.
Seems like every time we help the enemy of our enemy like that, he turns
around and bites us on the backside within ten years.


> "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our
> troops dispersed through the world only at
> the directive of the United Nations."
> -Senator John F. Kerry, Harvard Crimson 1970

While that quote does not seem out of character, credit would
have to go to Lieutenant Kerry in 1970. I would suspect that
the date is wrong, as nobody ever quoted Lieutenant Kerry on
any subject as far as I can tell. He hung out with the Brooklyn
protesters, but never stood up and spoke for them until he
left the Navy in 1971 to become a politician. By October '71,
congresscritters like Ted Kennedy were praising him as a future
colleague and he was appearing in Doonbury comics.

BTW, I beg to differ with you on mass arrests. In a free country,
you can't just round up everybody you see who might or might not
be involved in crime.

Mitch.

[Mitch Haley]

"Ken [NY)" wrote:
> Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, remember?

All of whom were indoctrinated in puritanical state-run
religious schools, much like the Saudis are running in
other Arabic countries as a "humanitarian" gesture. When you
raise a guy from birth to be a fanatic, don't be surprised
if he isn't very tolerant of our right to disagree with
his views.


> So the whole notion of creating terrorists by fighting terrorists is
> hogwash.

That depends on whether your definition of "fighting terrorists" includes
arming men like Saddam and Usama and training their "soldiers" for them.
Seems like every time we help the enemy of our enemy like that, he turns
around and bites us on the backside within ten years.


> "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our
> troops dispersed through the world only at
> the directive of the United Nations."
> -Senator John F. Kerry, Harvard Crimson 1970

While that quote does not seem out of character, credit would
have to go to Lieutenant Kerry in 1970. I would suspect that
the date is wrong, as nobody ever quoted Lieutenant Kerry on
any subject as far as I can tell. He hung out with the Brooklyn
protesters, but never stood up and spoke for them until he
left the Navy in 1971 to become a politician. By October '71,
congresscritters like Ted Kennedy were praising him as a future
colleague and he was appearing in Doonbury comics.

BTW, I beg to differ with you on mass arrests. In a free country,
you can't just round up everybody you see who might or might not
be involved in crime.

Mitch.

[Quandon]

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:10:52 GMT, "S o r n i" > wrote:

>So let's see: you're Ken Case, Manny, AND Quandon?!? Hell, maybe you WERE
>Mike Beauchump, too! :)

No, not Mike.

This newsreader is configured for someone else (Quandon), and I forgot to log in
(long story).

>> And, I did not equate those two things at all.
>
>People can read the thread.

Well, I've just re-read it, and for the life of me, I can't see the two things
equated, *except* in that in each case, a perceived wrong will result in anger
and retalliation.

I wasn't commenting on who'se perception was the most accurate.

>>> LOL. I was using Manny's quote (exact language, which I see you
>>> snipped) to make a point. I'm not even a Republican. It's the
>>> mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant hypocrisy in
>>> the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up. I'm usually
>>> a-political to a fault (don't really give a crap; don't believe it
>>> really matters).
>>
>> There's nothing mean spirited about disagreeing about when and where
>> to go to war. Or the likely outcome of such a war.
>
>I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
>Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks -- often
>blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful -- rather than
>issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years now, too, not just
>last few months.

As I said, that's politics.

I wasn't there, so I've no idea about what Kerry did on his boat in Vietnam, but
I find it hard to believe the stories about the records being falsified - after
all, he wasn't a politician at the time.

And attacking someones war record is as mean spirited and disrespectful as you
can get. IMNSHO.

KC

[Quandon]

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:10:52 GMT, "S o r n i" > wrote:

>So let's see: you're Ken Case, Manny, AND Quandon?!? Hell, maybe you WERE
>Mike Beauchump, too! :)

No, not Mike.

This newsreader is configured for someone else (Quandon), and I forgot to log in
(long story).

>> And, I did not equate those two things at all.
>
>People can read the thread.

Well, I've just re-read it, and for the life of me, I can't see the two things
equated, *except* in that in each case, a perceived wrong will result in anger
and retalliation.

I wasn't commenting on who'se perception was the most accurate.

>>> LOL. I was using Manny's quote (exact language, which I see you
>>> snipped) to make a point. I'm not even a Republican. It's the
>>> mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant hypocrisy in
>>> the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up. I'm usually
>>> a-political to a fault (don't really give a crap; don't believe it
>>> really matters).
>>
>> There's nothing mean spirited about disagreeing about when and where
>> to go to war. Or the likely outcome of such a war.
>
>I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
>Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks -- often
>blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful -- rather than
>issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years now, too, not just
>last few months.

As I said, that's politics.

I wasn't there, so I've no idea about what Kerry did on his boat in Vietnam, but
I find it hard to believe the stories about the records being falsified - after
all, he wasn't a politician at the time.

And attacking someones war record is as mean spirited and disrespectful as you
can get. IMNSHO.

KC

[Frank Krygowski]

S o r n i wrote:

> I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
> Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks -- often
> blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful -- rather than
> issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years now, too, not just
> last few months.

Please. It's been going on since Thomas Jefferson ran for president.
Read some history.

And, more pertinent to today, it's really weird to selectively blame
people like Michael Moore for not being "respectful." Have you _really_
never heard Rush Limbaugh?


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

[Frank Krygowski]

S o r n i wrote:

> I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
> Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks -- often
> blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful -- rather than
> issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years now, too, not just
> last few months.

Please. It's been going on since Thomas Jefferson ran for president.
Read some history.

And, more pertinent to today, it's really weird to selectively blame
people like Michael Moore for not being "respectful." Have you _really_
never heard Rush Limbaugh?


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

[S o r n i]

Quandon wrote:

>>> There's nothing mean spirited about disagreeing about when and where
>>> to go to war. Or the likely outcome of such a war.
>>
>> I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people like Al Gore,
>> Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal
>> attacks -- often blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly
>> disrespectful -- rather than issue-oriented disagreements. Been
>> going on for years now, too, not just last few months.
>
> As I said, that's politics.
>
> I wasn't there, so I've no idea about what Kerry did on his boat in
> Vietnam, but I find it hard to believe the stories about the records
> being falsified - after all, he wasn't a politician at the time.

I have yet to see one person representing the Republican Party question his
service in Viet Nam. Hell, they're even afraid to bring up his anti-war
actions and congressional testimony AFTERWARDS (legitimate issues, IMO).
What they DO talk about is his voting record in the 3 decades since VN,
which Kerry never answers or addresses.

> And attacking someones war record is as mean spirited and
> disrespectful as you can get. IMNSHO.

Absolutely agree. The only ones with a right to do that are people who were
/actually there/, and even then they must be extremely careful.

Bill "JFK's the one who's going negative and personal from what I've seen"
S.

[S o r n i]

Quandon wrote:

>>> There's nothing mean spirited about disagreeing about when and where
>>> to go to war. Or the likely outcome of such a war.
>>
>> I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people like Al Gore,
>> Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal
>> attacks -- often blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly
>> disrespectful -- rather than issue-oriented disagreements. Been
>> going on for years now, too, not just last few months.
>
> As I said, that's politics.
>
> I wasn't there, so I've no idea about what Kerry did on his boat in
> Vietnam, but I find it hard to believe the stories about the records
> being falsified - after all, he wasn't a politician at the time.

I have yet to see one person representing the Republican Party question his
service in Viet Nam. Hell, they're even afraid to bring up his anti-war
actions and congressional testimony AFTERWARDS (legitimate issues, IMO).
What they DO talk about is his voting record in the 3 decades since VN,
which Kerry never answers or addresses.

> And attacking someones war record is as mean spirited and
> disrespectful as you can get. IMNSHO.

Absolutely agree. The only ones with a right to do that are people who were
/actually there/, and even then they must be extremely careful.

Bill "JFK's the one who's going negative and personal from what I've seen"
S.

[S o r n i]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> S o r n i wrote:
>
>> I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
>> Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks --
>> often blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful --
>> rather than issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years
>> now, too, not just last few months.
>
> Please. It's been going on since Thomas Jefferson ran for president.
> Read some history.

Right, but people USED to be able to take it as well as dish it out. I'm
sick to death of these whiny Dems saying how NEGATIVE and PERSONAL the 'Pubs
were. As you say, "please".

> And, more pertinent to today, it's really weird to selectively blame
> people like Michael Moore for not being "respectful." Have you
> _really_ never heard Rush Limbaugh?

Honestly? I've never heard more than about 3 minutes of him (probably less
than 20 minutes total). I just don't like arrogant, blustery people.

Bill "even when I /might/ agree with a lot of what they say" S.

[S o r n i]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> S o r n i wrote:
>
>> I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
>> Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks --
>> often blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful --
>> rather than issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years
>> now, too, not just last few months.
>
> Please. It's been going on since Thomas Jefferson ran for president.
> Read some history.

Right, but people USED to be able to take it as well as dish it out. I'm
sick to death of these whiny Dems saying how NEGATIVE and PERSONAL the 'Pubs
were. As you say, "please".

> And, more pertinent to today, it's really weird to selectively blame
> people like Michael Moore for not being "respectful." Have you
> _really_ never heard Rush Limbaugh?

Honestly? I've never heard more than about 3 minutes of him (probably less
than 20 minutes total). I just don't like arrogant, blustery people.

Bill "even when I /might/ agree with a lot of what they say" S.

[Frank Krygowski]

S o r n i wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>S o r n i wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
>>>Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks --
>>>often blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful --
>>>rather than issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years
>>>now, too, not just last few months.
>>
>>Please. It's been going on since Thomas Jefferson ran for president.
>>Read some history.
>
>
> Right, but people USED to be able to take it as well as dish it out. I'm
> sick to death of these whiny Dems saying how NEGATIVE and PERSONAL the 'Pubs
> were. As you say, "please".

I think it's foolish to say that any of this is anything new. I recall
my dear mother-in-law being outraged at all the terribly, terribly
negative things people were saying about President Nixon. And before
that, Nixon saying the press wouldn't be able to kick him around. I
think it's always been this way.

If there's been a change, it's that back in the days of Kennedy and
earlier, most journalists (and other politicians) felt a president's
extra- or quasi-marital escapades were a fairly minor issue. Now, we've
seen teams of philandering demagogues wanting to hang a man for his
philandering. But maybe I'm wrong; maybe fat demagogues have always
been two faced about things like marital affairs, drug addiction,
avoiding military service and the like.

>
>>And, more pertinent to today, it's really weird to selectively blame
>>people like Michael Moore for not being "respectful." Have you
>>_really_ never heard Rush Limbaugh?
>
>
> Honestly? I've never heard more than about 3 minutes of him (probably less
> than 20 minutes total). I just don't like arrogant, blustery people.

I wouldn't voluntarily listen for 20 seconds. But sadly, I have a
colleague at work who used to leave him on for hours a day. And my
wife's job takes her to ailing people's homes. She's had to listen to
that jackass while treating people.

Take it from us, he has not been "respectful." And IMHO, he's a lot
less fun than MM. Too much acid and bile in Limbaugh.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Frank Krygowski]

S o r n i wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>S o r n i wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm talking about people like Al Gore, Ted
>>>Kennedy, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, etc. Mean, personal attacks --
>>>often blatantly dishonest and ALWAYS blatantly disrespectful --
>>>rather than issue-oriented disagreements. Been going on for years
>>>now, too, not just last few months.
>>
>>Please. It's been going on since Thomas Jefferson ran for president.
>>Read some history.
>
>
> Right, but people USED to be able to take it as well as dish it out. I'm
> sick to death of these whiny Dems saying how NEGATIVE and PERSONAL the 'Pubs
> were. As you say, "please".

I think it's foolish to say that any of this is anything new. I recall
my dear mother-in-law being outraged at all the terribly, terribly
negative things people were saying about President Nixon. And before
that, Nixon saying the press wouldn't be able to kick him around. I
think it's always been this way.

If there's been a change, it's that back in the days of Kennedy and
earlier, most journalists (and other politicians) felt a president's
extra- or quasi-marital escapades were a fairly minor issue. Now, we've
seen teams of philandering demagogues wanting to hang a man for his
philandering. But maybe I'm wrong; maybe fat demagogues have always
been two faced about things like marital affairs, drug addiction,
avoiding military service and the like.

>
>>And, more pertinent to today, it's really weird to selectively blame
>>people like Michael Moore for not being "respectful." Have you
>>_really_ never heard Rush Limbaugh?
>
>
> Honestly? I've never heard more than about 3 minutes of him (probably less
> than 20 minutes total). I just don't like arrogant, blustery people.

I wouldn't voluntarily listen for 20 seconds. But sadly, I have a
colleague at work who used to leave him on for hours a day. And my
wife's job takes her to ailing people's homes. She's had to listen to
that jackass while treating people.

Take it from us, he has not been "respectful." And IMHO, he's a lot
less fun than MM. Too much acid and bile in Limbaugh.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Muttley]

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 21:44:47 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>
> I understand that many of those injuries were as a result of
>frantically digging up their loved ones from those thousands of mass
>graves and finding their dead women and babies with their hands tied.

Where do you get this drivel ?

Bush 5 deferments
Kerry 2 tours of duty

Have a nice day.

[Muttley]

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:00:41 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>>>
>>> I understand that many of those injuries were as a result of
>>>frantically digging up their loved ones from those thousands of mass
>>>graves and finding their dead women and babies with their hands tied.
>>
>>Where do you get this drivel ?
>
> A news source. Perhaps you've heard of the BBC?:

Having read your inserted reports, I will just make one observation.

There is no reference to anyone injuring themselves digging anyone up. This was
what I refered to as drivel.

>
>>Bush 5 deferments
>>Kerry 2 tours of duty
>
> OK, where did you get THAT drivel? Mr. Bush didn't ask for,
>and didn't get any deferments.

The little chimp, bush, whose daddy was pretty well placed at the time, funked
out of serving his country. He got off with a cushy number somewhere where he
didn't have to go anywhere near a war zone.

Kerry, on the other hand, did not duck his responsibilities, and served his
country, in a war zone, in a war, and was decorated for it.

Face it: Bush never went to war for the country he claims to love so much.

Kerry did.

Keep enjoying your day.

[Raoul Duke]

"Muttley" > wrote in message
...

> The little chimp, bush, whose daddy was pretty well placed at the time,
funked
> out of serving his country. He got off with a cushy number somewhere where
he
> didn't have to go anywhere near a war zone.

At least the "little chimp, bush" isn't a self-confessed war criminal.

"SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say
that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of
other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only
weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the
burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of
this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a
matter of written established policy by the government of the United States
from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men
who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed
off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law,
the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

Thirty five years ago you would have spit on him and called him a baby
killer. Now he's a hero?

The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze.

Dave

[Muttley]

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 11:08:22 -0700, "Raoul Duke" > wrote:

>
>"Muttley" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The little chimp, bush, whose daddy was pretty well placed at the time,
>funked
>> out of serving his country. He got off with a cushy number somewhere where
>he
>> didn't have to go anywhere near a war zone.
>
>At least the "little chimp, bush" isn't a self-confessed war criminal.

No, not self-confessed.

He's very good at sending others to die and kill on his behalf. He's very, very
brave when he's nice and safe in the good ole USA.

Kerry actually went out and put his life on the line for his country. Something
Bush should have done, but he did have a daddy who could get him a nice safe
billit, so why risk his neck?

>Thirty five years ago you would have spit on him and called him a baby
>killer. Now he's a hero?

No, if he was following the correct rules of engagement, I would have called the
people who drafted those rules "babykillers".

>The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze.

The majority of hypocracy I see comes from the extreme right. You can't argue
the fact that the chimp funked serving his country, so you have to resort to
attacking a decorated war veteran for doing what every other war veteran did:
Obey the orders he was given.

The fact that with hindsight he had the honesty and guts to admit that he
realized what he did was not in line with international law shows him to be an
honorable man.

Pity the same can't be said about the chimp.

[Raoul Duke]

"Muttley" > wrote in message
...

> The majority of hypocracy I see comes from the extreme right. You can't
argue
> the fact that the chimp funked serving his country, so you have to resort
to
> attacking a decorated war veteran for doing what every other war veteran
did:

Actually Bush did serve his country honorably, unless you consider service
in the National Guard less than honorable. Did Clinton serve in the
military? Did you whine about that when he was running?

> Obey the orders he was given.

As long as one is obeying orders he is absolved from any moral or legal
accountability for his actions? The concentration camp guards should never
have been prosecuted because they were merely obeying orders?

Dave

[Muttley]

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 12:24:45 -0700, "Raoul Duke" > wrote:

>
>"Muttley" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The majority of hypocracy I see comes from the extreme right. You can't
>argue
>> the fact that the chimp funked serving his country, so you have to resort
>to
>> attacking a decorated war veteran for doing what every other war veteran
>did:
>
>Actually Bush did serve his country honorably, unless you consider service
>in the National Guard less than honorable.

At the end of the day, Kerry put his life on the line serving his country in a
war zone. He was decorated for it.

Bush didn't.

He was cowering in a funk hole available to him because he had a daddy with
influence.

>> Obey the orders he was given.
>
>As long as one is obeying orders he is absolved from any moral or legal
>accountability for his actions?

The fact that he had the guts to admit that he had worked out, after the event,
that the orders he had obeyed did not comply with treaties and conventions that
the US has signed up to shows he is honest and courageous.

It is hardly his fault that at the time he was serving, he believed in the honor
of his country, and trusted his commanders to ensure that the orders he was
given were legal and fulfilled treaty and convention obligations.



Summary:

Kerry - Served his country in a war zone - got decorated
Bush - Didn't

[Mitch Haley]

Muttley wrote:
>
> Summary:
>
> Kerry - Served his country in a war zone - got decorated
> Bush - Didn't


Is that why you voted for Bob Dole over Bill Clinton?
Or is it only a factor when the Democrat was the one
who fought?

Another thing to think about:
Is it better to join the Naval Reserves in an attempt to
avoid draft into the Army, and ending up fighting (briefly)
despite that maneuver, than to join the National Guard to
avoid the draft and end up staying stateside? Would you punish
rich kid Bush for being successful at something that rich kid
Kerry attempted and wasn't fully successful at? Neither one
of these liars has ever had any interest in serving this
country, they just want the power to make this country
serve them.

The main reason that Kerry's limited battle record is an issue
is that he upset a lot of his fellow veterans by giving aid and
comfort to their enemy, and 33 years latter is running on his
war record, in hopes that we will ignore his Congressional record.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/8/prweb152390.htm

This year's election is the best reason to not vote Republicrat
that I've seen to date. Badnarick, Nader, & Peroutka are all
preferable to the two jerks that the major parties want to
shove down our throats.

Mitch.

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:33:48 GMT,
>,
(Muttley) wrote:

>Summary:
>
>Kerry - Served his country in a war zone - got decorated
>Bush - Didn't

Analysis:

It's a diversion so the electorate doesn't begin to ask the hard
questions. Keep up the stream of blather so nobody thinks about the
1000+ dead US troops in this latest illegal war.

Both the neo-liberal and neo-conservative imperialist agendas should
be abhorrent to anyone pretending to have a modicum of human decency.
--
zk

[Pete]

"Muttley" > wrote
>
> At the end of the day, Kerry put his life on the line serving his country
in a
> war zone. He was decorated for it.
>
> Bush didn't.

Flying an F-102 on nuclear alert was not an especially 'safe' duty.
Especially for a pilot of an aircraft that was in service in Vietnam. And in
a unit that did send pilots to Vietnam.

Would you belittle vast majority of military personnel
(Active/Guard/Reserve) at the time that did not see time in SouthEast Asia?
(Probably)

Want a nice, 'safe' duty? Be like Clinton.

> Summary:
>
> Kerry - Served his country in a war zone - got decorated
> Bush - Didn't

Kerry - Served his country
Bush - Served his country

Kerry - Came back and made statements that were used by North Vietnamese
jailors against US POWs
Bush - Didn't

Pete
[not that this will have any effect on your misconceptions]

[Muttley]

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:22:39 GMT, "Pete" >
wrote:

> blah, blah, blah

>[not that this will have any effect on your misconceptions]

No misconceptions.

Dress it up any which way you like.

Chase it round the houses, run it up the flag pole.

Keep that up till midnight if you want.

End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.

[Pete]

"Muttley" > wrote
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:22:39 GMT, "Pete"
>
> wrote:
>
> > blah, blah, blah
>
> >[not that this will have any effect on your misconceptions]
>
> No misconceptions.
>

Nor any rebuttal. Just mindless drivel.

Pete

[Mark Jones]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> It's a diversion so the electorate doesn't begin to ask the hard
> questions. Keep up the stream of blather so nobody thinks about the
> 1000+ dead US troops in this latest illegal war.
Except that it isn't illegal.

[Frank Krygowski]

Pete wrote:

>
>
> Would you belittle vast majority of military personnel
> (Active/Guard/Reserve) at the time that did not see time in SouthEast Asia?
> (Probably)

My family includes a multi-wounded, combat decorated, Viet Nam 'copter
duty vet.

He was not the lucky one in the family. His duty left him some deep
scars. He doesn't talk about it much, and when he does, it's a very
quiet, serious conversation.

His take on the Guard duty Bush did:

"****. It was standing room only to get in the Guard in those days.
The guys that made it were the ones with connections. It was all about
money and connections."

And later in the conversation, he said "How do you think the guy got
into Yale?"

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[S o r n i]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Pete wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Would you belittle vast majority of military personnel
>> (Active/Guard/Reserve) at the time that did not see time in
>> SouthEast Asia? (Probably)
>
> My family includes a multi-wounded, combat decorated, Viet Nam 'copter
> duty vet.
>
> He was not the lucky one in the family. His duty left him some deep
> scars. He doesn't talk about it much, and when he does, it's a very
> quiet, serious conversation.
>
> His take on the Guard duty Bush did:
>
> "****. It was standing room only to get in the Guard in those days.
> The guys that made it were the ones with connections. It was all
> about money and connections."
>
> And later in the conversation, he said "How do you think the guy got
> into Yale?"

Well, he earned the right to his opinion, at least. Don't forget that Bush
was (I believe) 3 years behind Kerry. The war and draft were much different
in, say, 1968 and '71. Who's to say what Kerry would have done later, as
HIS views on the war obviously changed dramatically by then. (Also, he
*did* enlist in the Naval Reserve I believe, which also wasn't a slam dunk
to go to VN and/or see combat. He had connections, too.)

I've got a feeling if Bush knew he'd run for President some day, he'd have
found a way to go to VN for 4 months, too -- and also with a film crew to
document it -- but probably wouldn't have betrayed the POWs /still back
there/ upon his return. (John McCain said as much in 1973, but he won't
repeat it now in order to be "VNC".)

Bill "it's Kerry's 30+ years AFTER Viet Nam that warrant scrutiny" S.

[Pete]

"S o r n i" > wrote
>
> Bill "it's Kerry's 30+ years AFTER Viet Nam that warrant scrutiny" S.

Exactly.
"What have you done for me lately?"

Pete

[Muttley]

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:42:56 GMT, "Pete" >
wrote:


>Nor any rebuttal. Just mindless drivel.


End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.

[Muttley]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 06:25:17 GMT, "Pete" >
wrote:

>
>"S o r n i" > wrote
>>
>> Bill "it's Kerry's 30+ years AFTER Viet Nam that warrant scrutiny" S.
>
>Exactly.
>"What have you done for me lately?"

End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.

[Mitch Haley]

Mark Jones wrote:
>
> "Zoot Katz" > wrote
> > 1000+ dead US troops in this latest illegal war.

> Except that it isn't illegal.

I have serious Constitutional problems with the way Congress
deferred their authority to declare war, but that's on them,
not on Bush. (I've got plenty of other reasons to hate Bush,
almost many as Kerry has given us to hate him)

I'll let Representative Paul explain:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

[Mitch Haley]

S o r n i wrote:
>
> I've got a feeling if Bush knew he'd run for President some day, he'd have
> found a way to go to VN for 4 months, too -- and also with a film crew to
> document it

No film crew, just his own little movie camera. He was rich and
self promoting even back then. I think the Purple Hearts were
planned from the beginning to get him out ASAP. (remember the M*A*S*H
episode where Frank Burns put himself in for a PH when he broke
an egg and got a piece of shell in his eye?) Bob Dole has one PH,
awarded long before I was born. He can show you the damage on his
body if he wants (he's practically lost the use of a limb) Kerry
has three PHs, but can't show you a single scar. At least two were
for wounds that could be compared to cutting yourself while shaving.

Kerry's wartime service is best summed up as:
He didn't want to serve, he didn't serve any longer than he had to,
and he did his job to the best of his ability for as long as he
was stuck in it. That probably applies to nearly any kid that was
dragged into the mess in Vietnam back then. He just happened to be
better at not serving than most every "normal" kid, and not as good
at it as Bush or Gore. (as far as Clinton is concerned, if we don't
give college deferrments to Rhodes Scholars, who should we give them
to? Calling that creep a draft dodger is one of the few things said
about him that is a low blow.)
Mitch.

[Mitch Haley]

Pete wrote:
>
> "What have you done for me lately?"

Kerry?
Cashed paychecks for a job he's refused to perform for
the last two years. Oughta be arrested for embezzlement.
Only shows up in DC if there's a chance to vote to disarm
the populace, and throws a hissy fit if they don't redo
the Senate schedule to vote on gun control the day he
graces them with his presence.
Mitch.

[Muttley]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 07:50:37 -0400, Mitch Haley > wrote:

>S o r n i wrote:
>>
>> I've got a feeling if Bush knew he'd run for President some day, he'd have
>> found a way to go to VN for 4 months, too -- and also with a film crew to
>> document it
>
>No film crew, just his own little movie camera. He was rich and
>self promoting even back then.

Glad you realise some of shrub's failings too.

>Kerry's wartime service is best summed up as:
>
> Blah blah blah

End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.

[Frank Krygowski]

Mitch Haley wrote:
> Pete wrote:
>
>>"What have you done for me lately?"
>
>
> Kerry?
> Cashed paychecks for a job he's refused to perform for
> the last two years.

To be fair, shouldn't you also mention Bush's time on "vacation"?

Then add the time Bush has spent out campaigning for reelection (as
opposed to doing executive office work.)

Then throw in time spent on politics while he was _supposed_ to be
flying jets to protect Texas from invasion...




--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Mitch Haley]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Mitch Haley wrote:
> > Pete wrote:
> >
> >>"What have you done for me lately?"
> >
> >
> > Kerry?
> > Cashed paychecks for a job he's refused to perform for
> > the last two years.
>
> To be fair, shouldn't you also mention Bush's time on "vacation"?

I don't see where he's taken more than any other President, more
than FDR during WWII, less than FDR's pre-war days (but FDR liked to
go to the hot springs for his bad legs), probably a little less than
the postwar average. He's spent less time on international travel than
most anybody else in the jet age, but I don't know whether that's
a plus or a minus. At least he hasn't puked on any Prime Ministers
lately.

> Then add the time Bush has spent out campaigning for reelection (as
> opposed to doing executive office work.)

No more than Clinton in '96. You can't begin to compare it to
Kerry showing up 10-15 times a year to vote in the Senate.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn Bush worked more hours in
the last year than I have in the last two. I wish he'd gone
on vacation more, he's the most productive socialist this
country has seen since FDR, and FDR didn't do it in four years.


> Then throw in time spent on politics while he was _supposed_ to be
> flying jets to protect Texas from invasion...

I have no idea what he was doing then, do you?
We can guess it's not favorable, based on the disappearing records,
but it's just a guess.

Mitch.

[Preston Crawford]

On 2004-09-06, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
> But as I see it, you've probably had no combat experience beyond
> computer games. You are insulting combat vets - including members of my
> family - with assinine innuendo. You are making yourself look like a fool.
>
> No, I take that back. You are demonstrating that you ARE a fool.

Good post. The thing that disgusts me most about this is that we're
reliving a war fought how many years ago? My dad had just gotten back from
patrolling the Korean DMZ (he was almost sent to Vietnam, he wanted to go
in fact, but didn't get sent because he went legally blind) a few years
later I was born. I was born late enough that even though I know the
history of all wars, including Vietnam, well. I really don't remember much
about the 70s. It was all just Star Wars to me.

And now we're reliving the Vietnam War for one man, detail by excruciating
detail. And this makes me so angry, not so much because of the
politics of Kerry's service, but because of what this means to
other soldiers. That's where your post is right on. For my part,
though, I'm angry because I got to avoid this the first time around. Now
I'm having to relive it. And my opinion is, if we're going to redo the
Vietnam War all over again, let's redo the whole thing.

Let's investigate Nixon and if he extended the bombing too long for
political purposes. Same with Johnson. Kissinger gets sent to the Hague.
Macnamara gets sent to the Hague. If we're going to pick apart one man's
service with tweezers then let's pick apart the decisions of the officials
who sent them there. Because to do otherwise is unfair and disgusting.

Preston

[Muttley]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:46:43 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:


>>The little chimp, bush, whose daddy was pretty well placed at the time, funked
>>out of serving his country. He got off with a cushy number somewhere where he
>>didn't have to go anywhere near a war zone.
>
> Mr. Bush volunteered for service in Viet Nam and was turned
>down because the F-102 fighter he was flying was becoming obsolescent.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will cover the factual correctness of this
new factoid.

*VERY* strange that if the chimp ever volunteered for service this is not common
knowledge, since it would go some way to placating those who think he spent the
time when he ought to have been in 'nam, in a funk hole back home.

Still:

End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.

[Muttley]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:49:46 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>>No, if he was following the correct rules of engagement, I would have called the
>>people who drafted those rules "babykillers".
>
> He performed just like a "good German", right? Nazi soldiers
>used that excuse.

He did what every good serviceman does. He implicitly trusted in the honor of
his country, and the ability of those placed in command over him to issue legal
orders.

He later, outsde the theatre of war, considered the actions that he had
undertaken at the behest of his country, and found the legality of those actions
wanting.

> If he witnessed all those atrocities, he should have
>reported them,

I thought that's what he did :)


Face it:

End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.

[Raoul Duke]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...

> Both the neo-liberal and neo-conservative imperialist agendas should
> be abhorrent to anyone pretending to have a modicum of human decency.

So should the agenda of the Islamic terrorists, and then some.

Dave

[Pete]

"Muttley" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:46:43 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Bush volunteered for service in Viet Nam and was turned
> >down because the F-102 fighter he was flying was becoming obsolescent.
>
> I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will cover the factual correctness of
this
> new factoid.
>
> *VERY* strange that if the chimp ever volunteered for service this is not
common
> knowledge, since it would go some way to placating those who think he
spent the
> time when he ought to have been in 'nam, in a funk hole back home.

It IS common knowledge to those who open their eyes, and actually delve into
the subject.

1Lt Bush inquired into the PALACE ALERT program. (a voluntary program
whereby ANG pilots were assigned to SEA for a 3-6 month tour of duty) He was
told he was not eligible, because he did not have enough flight hours.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200402190855.asp
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4271922/site/newsweek/

Pete

[Raoul Duke]

"Muttley" > wrote in message
...

> End of the day?
>
> Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
> Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war
zone.

We heard you the first, second, third and now the fourth time.

End of your babble?

Dave

[Muttley]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:47:43 -0700, "Raoul Duke" > wrote:

>
>"Muttley" > wrote in message
...
>
>Blah, blah, blah


End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.


(It goes on juat as long as you want it to)

[Muttley]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:45:57 GMT, "Pete" >
wrote:

>It IS common knowledge to those who open their eyes, and actually delve into
>the subject.
>
>1Lt Bush inquired into the PALACE ALERT program. (a voluntary program
>whereby ANG pilots were assigned to SEA for a 3-6 month tour of duty)

I don't want to tell you you're wrong, without any proof whatsoever.

What I will say is that I find it *very* hard to believe that if this
information was a matter of public record (which it would be if it existed), the
chimp's team at the time of the last, closely fought election, wouldn't have
made just the teeeeniest mention of it - all over every bit of media they could
get to publish or broadcast it.

So, let's just say I'm doubtful.



End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.

[Rick]

....stuff deleted
>
> To even _think_ that someone would go into combat and plot to get a
> minor wound is such absolute nonsense - it doesn't surprise me that it
> comes from someone who confuses a TV comedy with real life.
>
....more deleted

By the way, folks, the PBR's (aka. swift boats) posted the highest
injury and mortality rates of the war. 4 months was a particularly long
tour of duty on these craft due to the high mortality rates. Here is a
quote from one commander:

"McCann said Wednesday that he was shocked by the accusations. He
couldn't believe the group was talking about the same man he served with
in Vietnam in 1969; who joined him on missions in the Mekong Delta at a
time when he said Navy swift-boat forces had an 85 percent chance of
being killed or wounded."

My father was in the navy in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. If he was alive,
he would be calling Bush either AWOL, a deserter, or simply someone
guilty of dereliction of duty for his absenses during active duty. He
was able to do this simply because of his father's influence.

I'm not saying that Kerry is god's gift to humanity, but you cannot
question his war record. Anyone who crawled into one of those lumps of
plastic is a hero, IMO.

Rick

[Mitch Haley]

Muttley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:47:43 -0700, "Raoul Duke" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Muttley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >Blah, blah, blah
>
> End of the day?
>
> Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
> Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.
>

So every person who disagrees with you gets his words changed to "blah, blah, blah"
and you repeat the same pointless statement over and over again, until the
rest of the world allows your statement to be the last word on the subject?
Let me know when you graduate from 2nd grade.

Mitch.

[Mitch Haley]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Mitch Haley wrote:
>
> >
> > No film crew, just his own little movie camera. He was rich and
> > self promoting even back then. I think the Purple Hearts were
> > planned from the beginning to get him out ASAP. (remember the M*A*S*H
> > episode where Frank Burns put himself in for a PH when he broke
> > an egg and got a piece of shell in his eye?) Bob Dole has one PH,
> > awarded long before I was born. He can show you the damage on his
> > body if he wants (he's practically lost the use of a limb) Kerry
> > has three PHs, but can't show you a single scar. At least two were
> > for wounds that could be compared to cutting yourself while shaving.
>
> You know, Mitch, I don't have much of a problem with most of your posts.
> 'Course, most of them are about bicycles, I think.
>
> But what you are doing here is smarmy and dispicable and cowardly. You
> should be ashamed of your stupidity, if not your blatant bias.
>

What bias? I thought it pretty plain that I hate both of the
Republicrat Party's candidates almost equally. You're as bad
as Zaumen for accusing me of bias here. I really don't care
much about their war records, it's Kerry's voting record for
the last 30 years and Bush's record for the last 4 that disqualify
them for Commander in Chief.

Everything I said above has a fair bit of evidence to back it up.
Two out of three wounds were patched with Band-Aids, one of those
two also required tweezers to remove a foreign object (possibly
grenade casing fragment) and I'm pretty sure JFK wouldn't have put
in for PHs on them if he didn't intend to use the PHs to get out
of combat. I never claimed he got himself injured on purpose, that
was your idiotic straw man argument. (some have claimed that PH#1
was unintentionally self-inflicted, as the fragment could well have
been splash-back from the grenade launcher he was using)

I just pointed out the fact that he was overly eager to apply for
medals for himself. Comparing JFK's scratches to your relatives'
serious wounds is a despicable insult to your relatives.

JFK disputed his Army draft, then joined the Naval Reserves after
the protest failed. I don't see how anybody could claim that he was
more eager to see combat than GWB was.

Mitch.

[Pete]

"Muttley" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:45:57 GMT, "Pete"
>
> wrote:
>
> >It IS common knowledge to those who open their eyes, and actually delve
into
> >the subject.
> >
> >1Lt Bush inquired into the PALACE ALERT program. (a voluntary program
> >whereby ANG pilots were assigned to SEA for a 3-6 month tour of duty)
>
> I don't want to tell you you're wrong, without any proof whatsoever.

google for bush + "palace alert"

There is at least one pilot that specifically remembers he and 1Lt Bush
talking to their commander about volunteering for the program. And being
told they were still too junior.

> What I will say is that I find it *very* hard to believe that if this
> information was a matter of public record (which it would be if it
existed), the
> chimp's team at the time of the last, closely fought election, wouldn't
have
> made just the teeeeniest mention of it - all over every bit of media they
could
> get to publish or broadcast it.

I take it you didn't bother to follow the links I posted.
As for it being a 'matter of public record'...not every conversation you
have with your commanding officer goes into a log somewhere, to be brought
out 30 years later. Bush asked, was told he wasn't yet eligible. No
'official' application, no written request.

"Hey Boss...can I apply for this?"
"No, you don't have enough flight hours."
"OK"

End of story.

> So, let's just say I'm doubtful.

Only because you choose to be.

And in future, please do not denigrate service in the Reserve of National
Guard. Especially for a fighter pilot during the Cold War. Remember...there
was still a significant threat from the 'Evil Empire'. Many, many times did
ADC aircraft (which includes Guard and Reserve) launch to intercept USSR
bomber and recon aircraft exiting Cuba or going up and down the East Coast.
The Guard and Reserve at the time were primary suppliers of such intercept
flights.

Much as the ANG is a major (primary?) supplier of Homeland Defense flights
today.

Pete

[Hijo de la Changa]

"Muttley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:00:41 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:
> >>Bush 5 deferments
> >>Kerry 2 tours of duty
> >
> > OK, where did you get THAT drivel? Mr. Bush didn't ask for,
> >and didn't get any deferments.
>
> The little chimp, bush, whose daddy was pretty well placed at the time,
funked
> out of serving his country. He got off with a cushy number somewhere where
he
> didn't have to go anywhere near a war zone.

Right bleat, wrong guys. Cheney had the deferments.

Bush flew the F-102 in the TX Air National Guard. I know that he-man
warriors like you consider the National Guard a chicken-**** assignment, but
military aviation, in war and peace, kills people. Chimps don't fly
fighters, especially F-102 fighters whose fatality rate per hour flown
remains high among military aircraft.

The ****storm about Kerry's service in Vietnam is a distraction, and not the
most serious thing wrong with him as a candidate. It's his record since his
four months in Coastal Division 11 that everyone ought to be looking at --
his votes consistently favored gutting our defense and intelligence assets,
taking the money thus saved and buying votes to consolidate his power.

His team (and yours) lost the Cold War -- no thanks to him and those like
him -- and they have hopes that the country can be brought down by
terrorism.

[Hijo de la Changa]

"S o r n i" > wrote in message
...
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> (Also, he
> *did* enlist in the Naval Reserve I believe, which also wasn't a slam dunk
> to go to VN and/or see combat. He had connections, too.)

To be fair about it, Kerry DID volunteer for Swift boats -- which was
well-known to be an assignment involving combat and its attendant danger.
Joining the Naval Reserve bought you a year to stay home, during which time
you went to an abbreviated boot camp. Active duty was active duty, and you
went where you were sent and did as you were told -- unless you volunteered
for a combat assignment. In my MOS, an entire A-school class was selected
for assignment into an MOS that would yield a high probability of 13 months
pounding the ground with Marines. Reserve or regular, the Navy didn't give
a damn, they just assigned the whole company.

>
> I've got a feeling if Bush knew he'd run for President some day, he'd have
> found a way to go to VN for 4 months, too -- and also with a film crew to
> document it -- but probably wouldn't have betrayed the POWs /still back
> there/ upon his return. (John McCain said as much in 1973, but he won't
> repeat it now in order to be "VNC".)

That's an accurate appraisal.
>
> Bill "it's Kerry's 30+ years AFTER Viet Nam that warrant scrutiny" S.

And that's what's being missed. That, and the fact that Kerry doesn't
believe in America's sovereignty as regards toeing the line of the UN -- an
anachronistic and hopelessly corrupt organization from whom he'll seek
permission to defend the American people.

If he gets in, the world's best hope is that the Russians or the Israelis
get ****ed off enough to nuke the Hajj. Not a very appealing prospect.
>
>

[Hijo de la Changa]

"Muttley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:42:56 GMT, "Pete"
>
> wrote:

> End of the day?
>
> Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
> Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war
zone.

Bush: no Bronze Star.
Tim McVeigh: Bronze Star.

Like Pete said: "What have you done for us LATELY?"

Here's a rag. Wipe the purple kool-aid off your upper lip.

[Hijo de la Changa]

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> To be fair, shouldn't you also mention Bush's time on "vacation"?

Yeah. He gets away from the phone, the reporters, the daily briefings, and
most of all the "football" that connects him to the NCA.

After all, all he has to do is leave Washington D.C. and all the pressure
comes off. Pretty cushy job.

I wonder how Kerry "radios in" his attendance at the Senate Intelligence
Committee?

[Hijo de la Changa]

"Preston Crawford" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-09-06, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
> Good post.

It was. There are a lot of wounds that make no marks but leave a lifetime
of pain.

> The thing that disgusts me most about this is that we're
> reliving a war fought how many years ago?

Who brought that up? And who stood on the stage of the DNC and said that,
if we wanted to know about Kerry the man, all we had to do was ask the guys
who'd served with him? And when they told us, who said, "Hey, no fair!"?

> And now we're reliving the Vietnam War for one man, detail by excruciating
> detail. And this makes me so angry, not so much because of the
> politics of Kerry's service, but because of what this means to
> other soldiers.

Again -- who started it? After giving a sanctimonious speech during the
first Clinton campaign stating that one's service, or non-service, in
Vietnam should have no bearing on presidential politics all these years
hence?

AS it happens, I agree with you and with Kerry's utterances during the first
Clinton campaign. It's Kerry's consistent anti-US military and anti-US
intelligence actions since he served so honorably that speak so much louder
than his words, and, in my estimation, make him an object of scorn. I would
no more impugn his service than I would Frank's Dad's, or your uncle's.
It's his actions since Coastal Division 11 that make him unfit to serve.

[Pete]

"Rick" > wrote

>
> By the way, folks, the PBR's (aka. swift boats) posted the highest
> injury and mortality rates of the war. 4 months was a particularly long
> tour of duty on these craft due to the high mortality rates.

Actually, I think PBR's and 'Swift Boats' are two different classes
PBR's are fiberglass, Swift Boats are aluminum

Swift
http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2175/sort/1/cat/all/page/1
http://pcf45.com/

PBR
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii-b.htm
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii.htm

Pete

[Frank Krygowski]

Mitch Haley wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>Mitch Haley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Kerry?
>>>Cashed paychecks for a job he's refused to perform for
>>>the last two years.
>>
>>To be fair, shouldn't you also mention Bush's time on "vacation"?
>
>
> I don't see where he's taken more than any other President..

You may not see that. But, OTOH, if you actually _look_, you may see.


>>Then add the time Bush has spent out campaigning for reelection (as
>>opposed to doing executive office work.)
>
>
> No more than Clinton in '96.

Right - so what _is_ the standard? Do you really figure someone will be
a major party's official candidate for the presidency, yet spend 40
hours per week in their day job?

I think you should compare Kerry with, say, other senators running for
the presidency, and with governors of large southern states running for
the presidency.

Or will you pretend W spent 40 hours per week in Austin in the summer of
2000?


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Frank Krygowski]

Hijo de la Changa wrote:

> ..[Kerry's]
> votes consistently favored gutting our defense and intelligence assets...

Oh, please.

Have you checked into Cheney's record on this?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Muttley]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:13:22 GMT, "Hijo de la Changa"
> wrote:

>Bush: no Bronze Star.
>Tim McVeigh: Bronze Star.

End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.

[Muttley]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:55:24 GMT, "Pete" >
wrote:

>There is at least one pilot that specifically remembers he and 1Lt Bush
>talking to their commander about volunteering for the program. And being
>told they were still too junior.
>

>I take it you didn't bother to follow the links I posted.
>As for it being a 'matter of public record'...not every conversation you
>have with your commanding officer goes into a log somewhere, to be brought
>out 30 years later. Bush asked, was told he wasn't yet eligible. No
>'official' application, no written request.
>
>"Hey Boss...can I apply for this?"
>"No, you don't have enough flight hours."
>"OK"
>
So, basically, what you're saying is that "a person", has conveniently
remembered an unprovable incident that shows that the chimp uncharacteristicaly
enquired about volunteering?

Rock on.

He undoubtably knew perfectly well that he wasn't qualified. I know he's an
idiot, but you can bet your life that possibility of going to 'nam was an active
topic amongst the pilots. They'd know if they were qualified or not.

So the chimp knows full well he isn't, and goes and tries to score a brownie
point by asking his co if he can apply.

And that's if the incident ever took place at all.

>And in future, please do not denigrate service in the Reserve of National
>Guard. Especially for a fighter pilot during the Cold War. Remember...there
>was still a significant threat from the 'Evil Empire'. Many, many times did
>ADC aircraft (which includes Guard and Reserve) launch to intercept USSR
>bomber and recon aircraft exiting Cuba or going up and down the East Coast.
>The Guard and Reserve at the time were primary suppliers of such intercept
>flights.


End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.

[Raoul Duke]

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...

Have you checked into Cheney's record on this?

Is Cheney running for President?

Dave

[Muttley]

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 02:10:52 -0700, "Raoul Duke" > wrote:

>
>"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have you checked into Cheney's record on this?
>
>Is Cheney running for President?

Well, he's been pulling the chimp's strings for the last four years ;)

[Muttley]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:32:05 -0400, Mitch Haley > wrote:

> Blah, blah, Blah


End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.

[the black rose]

Muttley wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:13:22 GMT, "Hijo de la Changa"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Bush: no Bronze Star.
>>Tim McVeigh: Bronze Star.
>
>
> End of the day?
>
> Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
> Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.
>

*PLONK*

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts

[Frank Krygowski]

Raoul Duke wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Have you checked into Cheney's record on this?
>
> Is Cheney running for President?

He's running for re-election to Power Behind the Throne.

If someone complains that Kerry "consistently favored gutting our
defense and intelligence assets" they probably don't want to vote for
Cheney. Which means they probably don't want to vote for Bush.

http://www.polkonline.com/stories/060604/opi_cheneyrecord.shtml



"Cheney has styled himself as something of a super hawk, but when it
comes to opposing weapons, his advisers seem to be counting on no one
looking closely at his record. In his four-year stint as defense
secretary during the waning days of the Cold War, Cheney terminated more
weapons than every Democrat combined over the previous four decades."

"The depth and breadth of his cuts were so breathtaking that today the
military is still struggling to cope with some of the consequences."


" Cheney was the biggest unilateral disarmer in recent history, and
darnned proud of it."

Read the details at at the link.



--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

[Anton Jenis]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:47:19 GMT, the black rose >
wrote:

>
>*PLONK*

Thank goodness someone has used some intelligence at last.

He's only posting to wind up those in the Bush camp, and since what he's posting
is a simple fact - even though it has little relevance to today, trying to argue
that it it's not really what it seems is like trying to argue that black is
white.

What really gets up the nose of the undecided is that if people are going to
start trashing someone's war record because they disagree with their politics,
who might be next.

A lot of us have respected friends or relatives who served in various conflicts,
and seeing people trying to rubbish someone's service record does not do a lot
for the cause they are supporting. Kinda makes them look desparate and prepared
to sink to any level. And let's face it, *anyone* who goes to the trouble of
querying Kerry's war record is going to be assumed to be fighting the republican
cause, no matter how much they deny it.

Just follow black rose's example, and he'll have nothing to come back at.


--
Anton

[Muttley]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:44:05 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>>
>>*VERY* strange that if the chimp ever volunteered for service this is not common
>>knowledge, since it would go some way to placating those who think he spent the
>>time when he ought to have been in 'nam, in a funk hole back home.
>
> Funny, but I knew about Mr. Bush's request, as did my friends.
>It came up in 2000, but the Democrats did not push it since Bill
>Clinton spent the war studying in Europe. You need some better news
>sources.

??? Why would the democrats push it.

If it is true, which I find extremely doubful (unless bush knew full well that
he was not qualified *before* he made any attempt to 'volunteer'), then it would
have been the *repubs* who would have made it known, not the demos.

Nonetheless:

End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.

[Rick]

Pete wrote:
> "Rick" > wrote
>
>
>>By the way, folks, the PBR's (aka. swift boats) posted the highest
>>injury and mortality rates of the war. 4 months was a particularly long
>>tour of duty on these craft due to the high mortality rates.
>
>
> Actually, I think PBR's and 'Swift Boats' are two different classes
> PBR's are fiberglass, Swift Boats are aluminum
>
> Swift
> http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2175/sort/1/cat/all/page/1
> http://pcf45.com/
>
> PBR
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii-b.htm
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii.htm
>
> Pete
>
>
Pete,

The original swift boats were aluminum. They were replaced by the
fibreglass PBR version, also called "swift boats, IIRC," which were
built by a US sports boat builder (though I've forgotten the man's name)
in an extremely short time. By the time Kerry was in VN, I do believe
that the aluminum boats were already retired, though I could be wrong on
that. In either case, the aluminum boats were doing the same mission,
though were much less capable designs than the fibreglass ones. Serving
on those was considered to be much less safe.

Rick

[Rick]

Pete wrote:
> "Rick" > wrote
>
>
>>By the way, folks, the PBR's (aka. swift boats) posted the highest
>>injury and mortality rates of the war. 4 months was a particularly long
>>tour of duty on these craft due to the high mortality rates.
>
>
> Actually, I think PBR's and 'Swift Boats' are two different classes
> PBR's are fiberglass, Swift Boats are aluminum
>
> Swift
> http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2175/sort/1/cat/all/page/1
> http://pcf45.com/
>
> PBR
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii-b.htm
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii.htm
>
> Pete
>
>
Pete,

The original swift boats were aluminum. They were replaced by the
fibreglass PBR version, also called "swift boats, IIRC," which were
built by a US sports boat builder (though I've forgotten the man's name)
in an extremely short time. By the time Kerry was in VN, I do believe
that the aluminum boats were already retired, though I could be wrong on
that. In either case, the aluminum boats were doing the same mission,
though were much less capable designs than the fibreglass ones. Serving
on those was considered to be much less safe.

Rick

[Rick]

Pete wrote:
> "Rick" > wrote
>
>
>>By the way, folks, the PBR's (aka. swift boats) posted the highest
>>injury and mortality rates of the war. 4 months was a particularly long
>>tour of duty on these craft due to the high mortality rates.
>
>
> Actually, I think PBR's and 'Swift Boats' are two different classes
> PBR's are fiberglass, Swift Boats are aluminum
>
> Swift
> http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2175/sort/1/cat/all/page/1
> http://pcf45.com/
>
> PBR
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii-b.htm
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii.htm
>
> Pete
>
>
Pete,

The original swift boats were aluminum. They were replaced by the
fibreglass PBR version, also called "swift boats, IIRC," which were
built by a US sports boat builder (though I've forgotten the man's name)
in an extremely short time. By the time Kerry was in VN, I do believe
that the aluminum boats were already retired, though I could be wrong on
that. In either case, the aluminum boats were doing the same mission,
though were much less capable designs than the fibreglass ones. Serving
on those was considered to be much less safe.

Rick

[Rick]

....stuff deleted
>>
> Pete,
>
> The original swift boats were aluminum. They were replaced by the
> fibreglass PBR version, also called "swift boats, IIRC," which were
> built by a US sports boat builder (though I've forgotten the man's name)
> in an extremely short time. By the time Kerry was in VN, I do believe
> that the aluminum boats were already retired, though I could be wrong on
> that. In either case, the aluminum boats were doing the same mission,
> though were much less capable designs than the fibreglass ones. Serving
> on those was considered to be much less safe.
>
> Rick

After checking, the PBR's were not also called swift boats, though they
did the same role, though much more effectively. The swift boats were,
according to what I've read, even less capable and less survivable.

Rick

[Frank Krygowski]

Pete wrote:

>
> There is at least one pilot that specifically remembers he and 1Lt Bush
> talking to their commander about volunteering for the program. And being
> told they were still too junior.

:-) And there is at least one street person in Austin who specifically
remembers GWB stepping out of an alien spacecraft.

>
> I take it you didn't bother to follow the links I posted.

I wonder, did you even _read_ the first one?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm

That list of Bush's business dealings, special treatment, and political
tricks was all stuff I'd read before (well, most of it, anyway) but
still fascinating. Seems to me that if it weren't for family connection
after family connection, Bush would _be_ a street person in Austin!


To balance that bad publicity, the article has the unproven claims by a
few Bush buddies that he was actually a) smart, and b) willing to serve
in 'Nam.

Hmm. Wanna bet those guys are working on _their_ connections? ;-)


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Pete]

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote
>
> I wonder, did you even _read_ the first one?
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm
>
> That list of Bush's business dealings, special treatment, and political
> tricks was all stuff I'd read before (well, most of it, anyway) but
> still fascinating. Seems to me that if it weren't for family connection
> after family connection, Bush would _be_ a street person in Austin!
>
>
> To balance that bad publicity, the article has the unproven claims by a
> few Bush buddies that he was actually a) smart, and b) willing to serve
> in 'Nam.
>
> Hmm. Wanna bet those guys are working on _their_ connections? ;-)

Yes, I did read that one. And it's amazing that an article so predominantely
anti-Bush would comment on his trying to volunteer for combat duty, isn't
it?

Pete

[Muttley]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:51:38 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:51:43 GMT, (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 02:10:52 -0700, "Raoul Duke" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Have you checked into Cheney's record on this?
>>>
>>>Is Cheney running for President?
>>
>>Well, he's been pulling the chimp's strings for the last four years ;)
>
> Funny stuff. These folks sometimes forget whether Bush is
>supposed to be an evil, crafty dictator, or a puppet. Call it a
>problem of not getting their talking points straight.

Nobody said he was a dictator.

He damn nearly got elected!

The chimp is the figurehead for a small coterie of pretty nasty people. Not very
bright himself, he nonetheless had the talk to convince almost as many people to
vote for him as for his opponent.

Of course, in a democracy he wouldn't be president, but c'est la vie.

[Raoul Duke]

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...

> To balance that bad publicity, the article has the unproven claims by a
> few Bush buddies that he was actually a) smart, and b) willing to serve
> in 'Nam.

It always amazes me how the left claims President Bush isn't "smart". Yet
somehow he managed to rise to the position of - THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON ON
EARTH. Bill Clinton did exactly the same thing, and yet no one questions
his intelligence.

If you think you're so much smarter - and I'm sure you do - why don't YOU
run for President and show us how it's done.

Dave

[Raoul Duke]

"Muttley" > wrote in message
...

> The chimp is the figurehead for a small coterie of pretty nasty people.
Not very
> bright himself, he nonetheless had the talk to convince almost as many
people to
> vote for him as for his opponent.
>
> Of course, in a democracy he wouldn't be president, but c'est la vie.

If Gore were so much smarter, how come he didn't pull it off? And if you
are so much smarter than Bush, how come YOU aren't President?

Dave

[Muttley]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 01:02:09 -0700, "Raoul Duke" > wrote:

>
>"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
>
>> To balance that bad publicity, the article has the unproven claims by a
>> few Bush buddies that he was actually a) smart, and b) willing to serve
>> in 'Nam.
>
>It always amazes me how the left claims President Bush isn't "smart". Yet
>somehow he managed to rise to the position of - THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON ON
>EARTH.

There are always kingmakers, Raoul, always ;)

[Muttley]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 01:39:02 -0700, "Raoul Duke" > wrote:

>
>"Muttley" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The chimp is the figurehead for a small coterie of pretty nasty people.
>Not very
>> bright himself, he nonetheless had the talk to convince almost as many
>people to
>> vote for him as for his opponent.
>>
>> Of course, in a democracy he wouldn't be president, but c'est la vie.
>
>If Gore were so much smarter, how come he didn't pull it off?

Well, let me see.

He got more vote than the chimp.

He probably thought that the US was a democracy and that was all he needed.

Misguided faith in the democratic process of your country shouldn't really
indicate a lack of intelligence.


>And if you
>are so much smarter than Bush, how come YOU aren't President?

I've no interest in becoming a politician. That in and of itself says nothing
about the relatve intelligence of myself and the little chimp currently running
the whitehouse on behalf of Halliburton and the rest.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Raoul Duke wrote:

> It always amazes me how the left claims President Bush isn't "smart".
> Yet somehow he managed to rise to the position of - THE MOST POWERFUL
> PERSON ON EARTH. Bill Clinton did exactly the same thing, and yet no
> one questions his intelligence.

Maybe the independent evidence of Clinton's smartness (e.g. Rhodes scholar
at Oxford) is more convincing that the independent evidence of Bush's
smartness.

Reagan was a smart man who managed to play the "ordinary Joe" card very
effectively. I think Shrub tries for the same thing but his issues with use
of the English language, for example, make it impossible for him to carry it
off.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

[Muttley]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:16:15 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:54:45 GMT, (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:44:05 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>*VERY* strange that if the chimp ever volunteered for service this is not common
>>>>knowledge, since it would go some way to placating those who think he spent the
>>>>time when he ought to have been in 'nam, in a funk hole back home.
>>>
>>> Funny, but I knew about Mr. Bush's request, as did my friends.
>>>It came up in 2000, but the Democrats did not push it since Bill
>>>Clinton spent the war studying in Europe. You need some better news
>>>sources.
>>
>>??? Why would the democrats push it.
>
> I was referring to the 2000 Democrat attack on Bush's military
>record, until the GOP began to bring up Clinton's dodging of the
>draft, and Gore's rear etchelon job he got through his daddy. Then the
>subject died down quickly since none of the three was any kind of
>warrior.

Fair enough.

Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his life
on the line in a war zone.

[Muttley]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:25:32 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 07:53:50 GMT, (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>>>Well, he's been pulling the chimp's strings for the last four years ;)
>>>
>>> Funny stuff. These folks sometimes forget whether Bush is
>>>supposed to be an evil, crafty dictator, or a puppet. Call it a
>>>problem of not getting their talking points straight.
>>
>>Nobody said he was a dictator.
>
Alright then, *I* didn't say he was a dictator.

>A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
>
>We have crossed over into the first stage of a dictatorship when
>American citizens can no longer exercise their First Amendment rights
>in the presence of an unelected president who, by his own admission,
>prefers dictatorships to democracies.

They should learn to stop while they're ahead. If they had said:

>We have crossed over into the first stage of a dictatorship when
>American citizens can no longer exercise their First Amendment rights
>in the presence of the president

They would have been right on the money.

And, did you see what happened when he went to Britain?

Unlike any other president, republican or democrat, he had to be shielded from
the population because he is so universally reviled.

And yet they loved Regan, so it's not a left/right thing.

>>He damn nearly got elected!
>
> The Democrats love to say that since Bush got fewer popular
>votes, he lost the election.

You can't actually say he lost.

He won according to the rules.

Unfortunately the US is not a democracy, otherwise the candidate with the most
rules would get the job.

Let's hope that whoever wins this time, it's the person who gets the most votes.

[Raoul Duke]

"Muttley" > wrote in message
...

> There are always kingmakers, Raoul, always ;)

In this case the "kingmakers" happen to be the American people.

Dave

[S o r n i]

Muttley wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:25:32 GMT, "Ken [NY)" >
> wrote:

>> The Democrats love to say that since Bush got fewer popular
>> votes, he lost the election.
>
> You can't actually say he lost.
>
> He won according to the rules.
>
> Unfortunately the US is not a democracy, otherwise the candidate with
> the most rules would get the job.

Assumed typo.

> Let's hope that whoever wins this time, it's the person who gets the
> most votes.

You know, it's quite possible that Bush could get more votes this time and
Kerry win the election (he's still ahead in electoral college polls,
right?). Now THAT could spur some fun bitterness!

Bill "free ticket to hate for four years?" S.

[Muttley]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:45:24 -0700, "Raoul Duke" > wrote:

>
>"Muttley" > wrote in message
...
>
>> There are always kingmakers, Raoul, always ;)
>
>In this case the "kingmakers" happen to be the American people.

Yes, it's just a pity that more of American people wanted the Gore to be "king".

Still, as I said, c'est la vie!

[Muttley]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:53:19 GMT, "S o r n i" > wrote:


>You know, it's quite possible that Bush could get more votes this time and
>Kerry win the election (he's still ahead in electoral college polls,
>right?). Now THAT could spur some fun bitterness!

Oh, God help us, *don't* say that :(

The jibe about the US not being a democracy is just that, a jibe. A lot of so
called democracies could quite easily get themselves into a situation where the
person who got elected to the top job got less votes than another candidate.

It's an unfortunate result of the people who set the rules not trusting the
electorate.

It's just unfortunately very visible with the US system.

And, of course, what made it 10 times worse was that a lot of the problems were
in a state controlled by Bush's brother, where the officials responsible for the
election were demonstrably not professionaly disinterested.

[S o r n i]

Muttley wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:53:19 GMT, "S o r n i"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> You know, it's quite possible that Bush could get more votes this
>> time and Kerry win the election (he's still ahead in electoral
>> college polls, right?). Now THAT could spur some fun bitterness!
>
> Oh, God help us, *don't* say that :(
>
> The jibe about the US not being a democracy is just that, a jibe. A
> lot of so called democracies could quite easily get themselves into a
> situation where the person who got elected to the top job got less
> votes than another candidate.
>
> It's an unfortunate result of the people who set the rules not
> trusting the electorate.

Not sure it's that, but a flat out popular vote would be fine with me.

> It's just unfortunately very visible with the US system.
>
> And, of course, what made it 10 times worse was that a lot of the
> problems were in a state controlled by Bush's brother, where the
> officials responsible for the election were demonstrably not
> professionaly disinterested.

Weren't most of the elections officials in FL Democrats (INCLUDING the
person who designed the ballot)?!?

Bill "the whole world was watching" S.

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:54:49 GMT, (Muttley) wrote:

>Yes, it's just a pity that more of American people wanted the Gore to be "king".

When some networks announced (incorrectly as it turned out) that Gore
had won Florida and that the election would go to Gore, several areas
still open - including the Florida panhandle - experienced lower than
expected turnout from Republican voters. The effect evidently is that
when there is a winner announced, the supporters of the winner
continue to show up to vote to be part of the bandwagon, while the
supporters of the loser vote in far smaller numbers.

The difference in expected turnout in the Florida panhandle alone
could have made both the close vote in Florida and the total voters
much different. The result of the miscalled results for Gore could
easily created the situation that so fixates the Democrats to this
day.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:03:44 GMT, (Muttley) wrote:

>It's an unfortunate result of the people who set the rules not trusting the
>electorate.
>
>It's just unfortunately very visible with the US system.

More accurately, it is the result of the small states not trusting the
large ones. Pretty much an extension of the same rules that made the
Senate and the House, albeit later. Better than by the state
legislatures, which was the equivalent of a triple refined voting
system (relevant small subset of the population voting on members of
the 'ruling aristocracy' who then vote for the
President/Vice-President).

Its just too bad they got rid of the original rules that would permit
the President from one party and the Vice-President from another. That
would be fun today...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Muttley]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:31:09 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:54:49 GMT, (Muttley) wrote:
>
>>Yes, it's just a pity that more of American people wanted the Gore to be "king".
>
>When some networks announced (incorrectly as it turned out) that Gore
>had won Florida and that the election would go to Gore, several areas
>still open - including the Florida panhandle - experienced lower than
>expected turnout from Republican voters. The effect evidently is that
>when there is a winner announced, the supporters of the winner
>continue to show up to vote to be part of the bandwagon, while the
>supporters of the loser vote in far smaller numbers.
>
>The difference in expected turnout in the Florida panhandle alone
>could have made both the close vote in Florida and the total voters
>much different. The result of the miscalled results for Gore could
>easily created the situation that so fixates the Democrats to this
>day.

You could play what ifs all day long.


End of the day?

Gore got more votes than Bush and the US does not have a democratically elected
president.

[Pete]

"Muttley" > wrote
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his
life
> on the line in a war zone.

2/3 of the 9 million+ active duty force during the Vietnam era never saw
service in SEA.

And your dates of service were/are?

Pete

[Muttley]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:47:26 GMT, "Pete" >
wrote:

>> Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his
>> life on the line in a war zone.
>
>2/3 of the 9 million+ active duty force during the Vietnam era never saw
>service in SEA.

Fortunately it's documented that Kerry did, and saw action, and was decorated.

Bush stayed home.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Ken [NY)" >
wrote in message >:

>Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour

Are you saying that Kerry is bilingual? As opposed to Dubya who has
not even mastered English yet? ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Muttley]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:34:39 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:37:46 GMT, (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>> I was referring to the 2000 Democrat attack on Bush's military
>>>record, until the GOP began to bring up Clinton's dodging of the
>>>draft, and Gore's rear etchelon job he got through his daddy. Then the
>>>subject died down quickly since none of the three was any kind of
>>>warrior.
>>
>>Fair enough.
>>
>>Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his life
>>on the line in a war zone.
>
> Which the president has acknowledged repeatedly.

Congratulations.

See, once you stop trying to worm your way out of the facts, it will all go
away.

[Muttley]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:45:07 GMT, (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>And, did you see what happened when he went to Britain?
>>
>>Unlike any other president, republican or democrat, he had to be shielded from
>>the population because he is so universally reviled.
>
> Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan never had to have security when in
>crowds?

Of course they had to have security.

But the chimp wasn't allowed anywhere near crowds, because the crowds were all
hostile.

It wasn't that they were frightened that he would be attacked, it was because he
wanted the trip to show him as a popular world statesman, and if he had not been
shielded from the populace, it would have been made very obvious that was far
from the case.

And that would have suited neither him, nor his poodle, the British prime
minister.

[Muttley]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:45:28 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:26:20 GMT, (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>>>Fair enough.
>>>>
>>>>Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his life
>>>>on the line in a war zone.
>>>
>>> Which the president has acknowledged repeatedly.
>>
>>Congratulations.
>>
>>See, once you stop trying to worm your way out of the facts, it will all go
>>away.
>
> I didn't try to worm my way out of anything. The president has
>been saying that all along.

I meant that you and others of you ilk have been trying any tactic to try and
imply that the comparison between Bush and Kerry was not what it seemed, when it
clearly was, but is pretty much irrelevant today.

When you stop trying to do that no one can come back with "end of the day blah
blah blah".

[Muttley]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:50:57 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:09:22 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> claims:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Ken [NY)" >
>>wrote in message >:
>>
>>>Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour
>>
>>Are you saying that Kerry is bilingual? As opposed to Dubya who has
>>not even mastered English yet? ;-)
>
> I am saying that Mr. Kerry speaks French fluently.
> BTW, is another meaning of "bilingual" an ability to state a
>belief, then after a little while, flip-flop to an opposite belief?
>As in having "two tongues"?

No, that's called growing with experience.

Or, possibly, being a two faced hypocrite.

But that's something each person has to decide for themselves by taking a long
hard look at the circumstances. They shouldn't base their opinion simply on the
fact that someone has changed their mind.

[Muttley]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:55:38 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:30:38 GMT, (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>>>Unlike any other president, republican or democrat, he had to be shielded from
>>>>the population because he is so universally reviled.
>>>
>>> Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan never had to have security when in
>>>crowds?
>>
>>Of course they had to have security.
>>
>>But the chimp wasn't allowed anywhere near crowds, because the crowds were all
>>hostile.
>
> I think Mr. Bush will be happy enough with his growing lead in
>the polls. And it does not help your case to refer to Mr. Bush with an
>animal name. Rather juvenile, I think, worthy more of playground
>arguments.

Well, he does look like a chimp, (I quite like the look of chimps), and this is
a bit of a playground.

Still, if it makes you happy:

But the Bush wasn't allowed anywhere near crowds, because the crowds were all
hostile.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:50:57 GMT, "Ken [NY)" >
wrote in message >:

> is another meaning of "bilingual" an ability to state a
>belief, then after a little while, flip-flop to an opposite belief?
>As in having "two tongues"?

OK, by that definition they probably both are, then :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Benjamin Lewis]

wrote:
>
> I'm saying that Mr. Kerry speaks French fluently. BTW, is another
> meaning of "bilingual" an ability to state a belief, then after a little
> while, flip-flop to an opposite belief?

It's so sad when people cannot do this, isn't it? It renders debate pretty
much pointless.

--
Benjamin Lewis

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover

[Muttley]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:44:31 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

> Take a good look at your boy Lurch. "Why the long face, John?"
> See how silly we all can get yet settle nothing?

I wasn't trying to settle anything :)

That is up to the population of the United States of America.

Let's just hope that this time, the guy who gets most votes, gets the job.

[Muttley]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:39:36 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:50:17 GMT, (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:44:31 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:
>>
>>> Take a good look at your boy Lurch. "Why the long face, John?"
>>> See how silly we all can get yet settle nothing?
>>
>>I wasn't trying to settle anything :)
>>
>>That is up to the population of the United States of America.
>>
>>Let's just hope that this time, the guy who gets most votes, gets the job.
>
> Oh, I can guarantee that the candidate getting the most
>electoral votes will be raising his hand

Just a pity that you can't guarantee that it's the guy that most people cast
their votes for ;)

[Muttley]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:54:22 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:12:42 GMT, (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:39:36 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:50:17 GMT, (Muttley)
>>>claims:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:44:31 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Take a good look at your boy Lurch. "Why the long face, John?"
>>>>> See how silly we all can get yet settle nothing?
>>>>
>>>>I wasn't trying to settle anything :)
>>>>
>>>>That is up to the population of the United States of America.
>>>>
>>>>Let's just hope that this time, the guy who gets most votes, gets the job.
>>>
>>> Oh, I can guarantee that the candidate getting the most
>>>electoral votes will be raising his hand
>>
>>Just a pity that you can't guarantee that it's the guy that most people cast
>>their votes for ;)
>
> Sure I can guarantee that. Just not in the United States.
>Bolivia, for instance.

What a crying shame that the US has to look to Bolivia for lessons in democracy!

[Jack Dingler]

I thought the terrorists threatened to attack us again unless we voted
for Bush. Didn't Cheney make that clear in a recent speech?

I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were pro-Bush.

Jack Dingler

S o r n i wrote:

>Ken [NY) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>"ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>
>>
>
>He better hope the US catches him and not these hard-asses:
>
>http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424964|oddlyenough|09-02-2004::09:09|reuters.html
>
>Bill "Geneva Confection?" S.
>
>
>
>

[Jack Dingler]

Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:08:36 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>claims:
>
>
>
>
>>S o r n i wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ken [NY) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>>"ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>He better hope the US catches him and not these hard-asses:
>>>
>>>http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424964|oddlyenough|09-02-2004::09:09|reuters.html
>>>
>>>Bill "Geneva Confection?" S.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>I thought the terrorists threatened to attack us again unless we voted
>>for Bush. Didn't Cheney make that clear in a recent speech?
>>
>>I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were pro-Bush.
>>
>>Jack Dingler
>>
>>
>
> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
>all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
>members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
>Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.
>
>
>
The major news media has been reporting that the Taliban and Al Queda
have retaken much of Afghanistan with the US and the appointed
government staying in bases, near the oil infrastructure and protected
areas. They could be lying of course. You never know whta to believe in
the news, so much of it is invented political stuff.

The Northern Alliance of Poppy Growers and Heroin Producers that the US
backed, have been reported as funding the resistance.

But then at this point there seems to be an uneasy truce. They leave the
pipeles alone and we don't shell villages.

I think your info is just old, Ken.

I can't help but notice you have a derogatory sig line. Is this hate
speech against the French speaking peoples of the world?

Jack Dingler

>
>
> Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour.
>
>Ken (NY)
>
>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when
>the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact
>that we did disarm him."
> --John F. Kerry (ABC News, 5/4/03)
>
>email:
>http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>
>spammers can send mail to
>
>

[Elisa Francesca Roselli]

Dave Mount wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:45:40 GMT, "S o r n i" > wrote:
>
> >You snipped the claim that this was refuting. ("PArticularly if by "bin
> >Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal
> >friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while
> >just about everything else was grounded...")
>
> It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
> just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.

Osama's father has 20 wives and Osama himself is one of 56 brothers and sisters. As
far as we know he is the only terrorist. The mere fact of being a blood relative of
his does not suffice to incrimminate a family the size of a large village.

I have plenty of other issues with Bush. Not least a recent documentary I saw which
showed a 10-fold increase in Al Qaida recruitment since the invasion of
Afghanistan. But this is really off-topic.

EFR
Ile de France

[Muttley]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" > wrote:

>>I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were pro-Bush.
>
> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
>all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
>members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
>Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.

The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that he has
stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of people available
for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond their wildest dreams.

They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies, and provide
them with even more confused and hostile young men who can be sent to their
deaths while they sit safely in their caves.

[Dave Mount]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:46:33 +0200, Elisa Francesca Roselli >
wrote:

>Osama's father has 20 wives and Osama himself is one of 56 brothers and sisters. As
>far as we know he is the only terrorist. The mere fact of being a blood relative of
>his does not suffice to incrimminate a family the size of a large village.

Very fair point, but it doesn't really address what I said: i.e.

| It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
| just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.


Nothing to do with who, or how many.

[S o r n i]

Muttley wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" >
> wrote:
>
>>> I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were
>>> pro-Bush.
>>
>> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
>> all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
>> members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
>> Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.
>
> The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that
> he has stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of
> people available for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond
> their wildest dreams.
>
> They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
> and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
> can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.

What I love is the self-righteous indignation over Cheney's (admittedly
ham-fisted) remarks, yet "official" Dems can say stuff like this with total
impunity.

Bill "blatant hypocrisy" S.

[Muttley]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:08:49 GMT, "S o r n i" > wrote:

>Muttley wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were
>>>> pro-Bush.
>>>
>>> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
>>> all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
>>> members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
>>> Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.
>>
>> The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that
>> he has stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of
>> people available for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond
>> their wildest dreams.
>>
>> They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
>> and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
>> can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.
>
>What I love is the self-righteous indignation over Cheney's (admittedly
>ham-fisted) remarks, yet "official" Dems can say stuff like this with total
>impunity.

I seem to remember a while back, that you claimed that you were 'apolitical'.

Let me remind you what you said: (thank the lord for google!)

|I'm not even a Republican.
|It's the mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant hypocrisy
|in the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up.
|I'm usually a-political to a fault (don't really give a crap; don't believe it really matters)

Yet every time you *do* go against type and post something political, it is
always anti democrat. And your claim that you: "don't believe it really matters"
doesn't really ring true.

I find it odd that whenever anyone claims to be non-political, it is almost
always followed by something pretty partisan, and in 99% of cases anti-D or
pro-R. I wonder why that is.

When there are two major parties in your country, and you always seem to come
down for one, or against the other, you cannot really claim to be apolitical.

>Bill blatantly hypocritical" S.

[Raoul Duke]

"Muttley" > wrote in message
...

> They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies, and
provide
> them with even more confused and hostile young men who can be sent to
their
> deaths while they sit safely in their caves.

Are these "confused and hostile" young men kinda like John Kerry when HE
volunteered for combat?

Dave

[Jack Dingler]

Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:17:10 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>claims:
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>The major news media has been reporting that the Taliban and Al Queda
>>have retaken much of Afghanistan with the US and the appointed
>>government staying in bases, near the oil infrastructure and protected
>>areas. They could be lying of course. You never know whta to believe in
>>the news, so much of it is invented political stuff.
>>
>>The Northern Alliance of Poppy Growers and Heroin Producers that the US
>>backed, have been reported as funding the resistance.
>>
>>But then at this point there seems to be an uneasy truce. They leave the
>>pipeles alone and we don't shell villages.
>>
>>I think your info is just old, Ken.
>>
>>
>
> Is your "major news media" source the same folks who gave us
>the anti-Bush phoney memos done on Microsoft Word in the 1970s before
>Microsoft was founded?
>

I loved that one. Actually us old guys know that typewriters with
interchangeable font heads and proportional spacing were commonplace. In
fact, the proportional spacing that the experts claim was impossible to
do with a typewriter, was introduced by IBM in 1941. Back in the 1970s,
you could swap typefaces in the middle of letters and even use different
colored print ribbons. Was a heady time for the typewriter industry.

Them young-uns have no idea what was possible using 20th century technology.


>>I can't help but notice you have a derogatory sig line. Is this hate
>>speech against the French speaking peoples of the world?
>>
>>
>
> Of course not. I was remarking that Mr. Kerry speaks fluent
>French. Uh, do you view the fact that he speaks two languages as hate
>speech?
>
>
Was attempting to decipher the context as to why you used in a sig line.
I didn't know he was a fluent speaker of the French language. I thought
he would say 'Shalom'. :)

Jack Dingler

[Pete]

"Jack Dingler" > wrote

>
> I loved that one. Actually us old guys know that typewriters with
> interchangeable font heads and proportional spacing were commonplace. In
> fact, the proportional spacing that the experts claim was impossible to
> do with a typewriter, was introduced by IBM in 1941. Back in the 1970s,
> you could swap typefaces in the middle of letters and even use different
> colored print ribbons. Was a heady time for the typewriter industry.
>
> Them young-uns have no idea what was possible using 20th century
technology.

All highly unlikely to be done by an Air Guard Lt. Col. when typing up a
memo, even if the Guard sported the extra money for such a typewriter.

And the other teminology faults make this a nonstarter as far as validity.

Pete

[S o r n i]

Raoul Duke wrote:
> "Muttley" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
>> and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
>> can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.
>
> Are these "confused and hostile" young men kinda like John Kerry when
> HE volunteered for combat?

Does Al Qaeda have "reserves"?

Bill "naval, at that" S.

[Jack Dingler]

The IBM Selectrics were a staple Pete. Almost all typewriters had
proportional spacing. The fonts came on a plastic ball that snapped into
the typewriter. There was a lever on the typewriter that allowed you to
choose between fixed and proportional spacing.

My mom had an IBM selectric at home that could do this in 1971, and we
didn't have the budget of a National Guard unit..

This would be like arguing in the future that it would be unlikely for
someone in this day and age to own a cell phone.

Jack Dingler

Pete wrote:

>"Jack Dingler" > wrote
>
>
>
>>I loved that one. Actually us old guys know that typewriters with
>>interchangeable font heads and proportional spacing were commonplace. In
>>fact, the proportional spacing that the experts claim was impossible to
>>do with a typewriter, was introduced by IBM in 1941. Back in the 1970s,
>>you could swap typefaces in the middle of letters and even use different
>>colored print ribbons. Was a heady time for the typewriter industry.
>>
>>Them young-uns have no idea what was possible using 20th century
>>
>>
>technology.
>
>All highly unlikely to be done by an Air Guard Lt. Col. when typing up a
>memo, even if the Guard sported the extra money for such a typewriter.
>
>And the other teminology faults make this a nonstarter as far as validity.
>
>Pete
>
>
>
>

[Pete]

"Jack Dingler" > wrote in message
news:Jho2d.61692$D%.49575@attbi_s51...
> The IBM Selectrics were a staple Pete. Almost all typewriters had
> proportional spacing. The fonts came on a plastic ball that snapped into
> the typewriter. There was a lever on the typewriter that allowed you to
> choose between fixed and proportional spacing.
>
> My mom had an IBM selectric at home that could do this in 1971, and we
> didn't have the budget of a National Guard unit..

Personal budgets and military unit budgets are two completely different
animals. Especially for mundane stuff like typewriters. When I was a
programmer in the USAF, I *always* had a better, faster, more costly PC at
home than at work.

> This would be like arguing in the future that it would be unlikely for
> someone in this day and age to own a cell phone.

I was in the military a few years after the period in question.
And the probability of stopping midsentence (midWORD), to change balls for
two letters in superscript, and then changing back, just wasn't happening.

Assuming, of course, the Lt. Col. could locate the alternate ball without
asking his secretary.

Typing grp, when you mean gp, just didn't happen either. There is even a
regulation on acceptable abbreviations. As there is/was also a regulation on
fonts, proportional or fixed. (I'd bet at the time it stipulated fixed on a
typewriter)

All this is moot, because even Rather has his doubts now.
Whatever your thougts about Bush and his military service...don't hang them
on forged documents.

Pete

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:46:33 +0200, Elisa Francesca Roselli
> wrote:

>> It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
>> just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.
>
>Osama's father has 20 wives and Osama himself is one of 56 brothers and sisters. As
>far as we know he is the only terrorist. The mere fact of being a blood relative of
>his does not suffice to incrimminate a family the size of a large village.

Besides, real terrorists have those special terrorist license plates.

[Jack Dingler]

I don't see the proof here. The military would've had to have bought
typewriters that predated WWII to avoid getting these basic features.
Something that would've been costly in 1971.

I think to make you point that the military couldn't afford the cheapest
of student typewriters at the time, would be to argue that the military
couldn't afford typewriters at all. My mom certainly couldn't afford an
expensive one.

I never argued that the balls were changed mid-memo, I just argued that
it was easy to do.

The argument is that proportional spacing and alternate fonts were
impossible to produce on a typewriter in 1971. That's just false. In
fact the main argument that proportional spacing was impossible was also
false as even manual typewriters had had that feature for 30 years.

I think your best case here is just to say you don't believe it. And
that's cool. But the case that this was impossible, has to be false.

I'm curious though, which Micorosoft Font fades the top half of the
letters like in the memos, so it looks like it was written by a
typewriter? I don't think I've ever seen a computer typeface that fades
the top half of the letters. Would be something a programmer could
create though.

Jack Dingler

Pete wrote:

>"Jack Dingler" > wrote in message
>news:Jho2d.61692$D%.49575@attbi_s51...
>
>
>>The IBM Selectrics were a staple Pete. Almost all typewriters had
>>proportional spacing. The fonts came on a plastic ball that snapped into
>>the typewriter. There was a lever on the typewriter that allowed you to
>>choose between fixed and proportional spacing.
>>
>>My mom had an IBM selectric at home that could do this in 1971, and we
>>didn't have the budget of a National Guard unit..
>>
>>
>
>Personal budgets and military unit budgets are two completely different
>animals. Especially for mundane stuff like typewriters. When I was a
>programmer in the USAF, I *always* had a better, faster, more costly PC at
>home than at work.
>
>
>
>>This would be like arguing in the future that it would be unlikely for
>>someone in this day and age to own a cell phone.
>>
>>
>
>I was in the military a few years after the period in question.
>And the probability of stopping midsentence (midWORD), to change balls for
>two letters in superscript, and then changing back, just wasn't happening.
>
>Assuming, of course, the Lt. Col. could locate the alternate ball without
>asking his secretary.
>
>Typing grp, when you mean gp, just didn't happen either. There is even a
>regulation on acceptable abbreviations. As there is/was also a regulation on
>fonts, proportional or fixed. (I'd bet at the time it stipulated fixed on a
>typewriter)
>
>All this is moot, because even Rather has his doubts now.
>Whatever your thougts about Bush and his military service...don't hang them
>on forged documents.
>
>Pete
>
>
>
>

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:00:07 GMT, Jack Dingler >
wrote:

>Back in the 1970s,
>you could swap typefaces in the middle of letters and even use different
>colored print ribbons. Was a heady time for the typewriter industry.

Do that a lot when you typed your memos? Swapping font balls in the
middle of the page and all? Most of the extra font balls were in the
desks of the exectuive secretaries. And I don't remember one of them
doing anything like that, even if it could be done.

And back then the rest of us typed on plain typewriters or used pens
and memo pads.

Now that CBS is backing away, you may be the last line of defense on
this one.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:25:10 GMT, Jack Dingler >
wrote:

>I think your best case here is just to say you don't believe it. And
>that's cool. But the case that this was impossible, has to be false.

Interesting. Because that is exactly what several IBM Selectric
experts are saying. Do a google on this and you can find the follow-up
articles that lead to the apparently non-potical nerds that have tried
- and failed and then explained why it is probably a forgery. And this
is using the IBM Selectrics that they believe are best able to produce
the memo.

Word OTOH can produce it with little effort. I've done two myself and
the only problem was cleared up by someone else (I was comparing the
screen to the PDF and didn't print it - the superscript prints
differently - higher - than it appears on screen).

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:45:37 GMT, (Dave Mount)
wrote:

>>Osama's father has 20 wives and Osama himself is one of 56 brothers and sisters. As
>>far as we know he is the only terrorist. The mere fact of being a blood relative of
>>his does not suffice to incrimminate a family the size of a large village.
>
>Very fair point, but it doesn't really address what I said: i.e.
>
>| It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
>| just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.
>
>
>Nothing to do with who, or how many.

Except that it has been documented over and over that they did not
leave the country while everyone else was grounded and that the
securityt procedures in place at that moment were followed. If you are
either poster that brought up the Bin Laden flight, it isn't off
topic, but it is simply false. And you don't see it mentioned by
credible sources after it was brought up the first week and slapped
down.

You need a new conspiracy. Your old one is getting weak.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[S o r n i]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:45:37 GMT, (Dave Mount)
> wrote:
>
>>> Osama's father has 20 wives and Osama himself is one of 56 brothers
>>> and sisters. As far as we know he is the only terrorist. The mere
>>> fact of being a blood relative of his does not suffice to
>>> incrimminate a family the size of a large village.
>>
>> Very fair point, but it doesn't really address what I said: i.e.
>>
>>> It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave
>>> the country
>>> just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.
>>
>>
>> Nothing to do with who, or how many.
>
> Except that it has been documented over and over that they did not
> leave the country while everyone else was grounded and that the
> securityt procedures in place at that moment were followed. If you are
> either poster that brought up the Bin Laden flight, it isn't off
> topic, but it is simply false. And you don't see it mentioned by
> credible sources after it was brought up the first week and slapped
> down.
>
> You need a new conspiracy. Your old one is getting weak.

Except, of course, that it will live on indefinitely in Michael s'Moore's
hatchet piece. Then the audience will tell someone, and they'll tell
someone, and so on and so on...

Bill "false believers" S.

[Jack Dingler]

IBM Selectrics and other common typewriters of the time couldn't do
proportional spacing?

Jack Dingler

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:25:10 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>I think your best case here is just to say you don't believe it. And
>>that's cool. But the case that this was impossible, has to be false.
>>
>>
>
>Interesting. Because that is exactly what several IBM Selectric
>experts are saying. Do a google on this and you can find the follow-up
>articles that lead to the apparently non-potical nerds that have tried
>- and failed and then explained why it is probably a forgery. And this
>is using the IBM Selectrics that they believe are best able to produce
>the memo.
>
>Word OTOH can produce it with little effort. I've done two myself and
>the only problem was cleared up by someone else (I was comparing the
>screen to the PDF and didn't print it - the superscript prints
>differently - higher - than it appears on screen).
>
>Curtis L. Russell
>Odenton, MD (USA)
>Just someone on two wheels...
>
>

[Bill Baka]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:37:14 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:25:10 GMT, Jack Dingler >
> wrote:
>
> Interesting. Because that is exactly what several IBM Selectric
> experts are saying. Do a google on this and you can find the follow-up
> articles that lead to the apparently non-potical nerds that have tried
> - and failed and then explained why it is probably a forgery. And this
> is using the IBM Selectrics that they believe are best able to produce
> the memo.
>
Hey,
In 1974 I was going to buy a Selectric because I was the only engineer
who knew how to type and had to type test procedures for the techs to
test circuit boards for which I was the test engineer. It was high tech
at the time but it didn't last past about 1985 when printers (dot matrix)
became to some on the scene. The only reason I knew how to type is that I
took typing class in high school, the only boy in a class full of girls,
I am not stupid, I got lots of study dates, and more. I also took home
economics, same result, got **** from my guy pals, but lots of girlfriends.
Planning, even in High School, pays off, sometimes in the long run, now I
can type and cook and have some great memories of more female friends than
the jocks.
IBM Selectrics had a use to us dinosaurs.
Bill Baka
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

[S o r n i]

Jack Dingler wrote:
> IBM Selectrics and other common typewriters of the time couldn't do
> proportional spacing?

Dude, you've GOT to stop top-posting. It reveals your idiocy even more than
what you write.

Bill "and that's an accomplishment" S.

[Pete]

"Jack Dingler" > wrote in message
news:qjw2d.58641$MQ5.18065@attbi_s52...
> I don't see the proof here. The military would've had to have bought
> typewriters that predated WWII to avoid getting these basic features.
> Something that would've been costly in 1971.
>
> I think to make you point that the military couldn't afford the cheapest
> of student typewriters at the time, would be to argue that the military
> couldn't afford typewriters at all. My mom certainly couldn't afford an
> expensive one.

An IBM Selectric wasn't exactly "the cheapest of student typewriters".

>
> I never argued that the balls were changed mid-memo, I just argued that
> it was easy to do.

But for that particular memo to be real, thats exactly what would have had
to happen.

>
> The argument is that proportional spacing and alternate fonts were
> impossible to produce on a typewriter in 1971. That's just false. In
> fact the main argument that proportional spacing was impossible was also
> false as even manual typewriters had had that feature for 30 years.
>
> I think your best case here is just to say you don't believe it. And
> that's cool. But the case that this was impossible, has to be false.

Never said it was "impossible" to do. Earlier statements from me have said
jut the opposite, in fact.

Highly unlikely, though.

The secretary of the Lt Col in question said she didn't type it.
The ball change would have had to be done mid-word.
They were evidently faxed from a Kinko's in Abilene. Which happens to be the
closest Kinko's to the home of a former Texas Air Guard officer, who has
publicly stated allegations against the Bush and the TXANG in the past, and
then recanted those statements.
There are speecific regulations (which I'm not going to bother to look up)
regarding military abbreviations and fonts. Incorrect instances of both
appear in these docs.

You can swing at this windmill all you want, but that doesn't make those
docs real.

Pete

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:40:45 GMT, Jack Dingler >
wrote:

>IBM Selectrics and other common typewriters of the time couldn't do
>proportional spacing?

Get real. That isn't the only issue. It includes the centering on
margins, the superscript, and overall match with the memo. If you have
a Selectric and the one Times Roman type ball, you should be able to
match it up completely. The experts can't. OTOH, non-experts can match
it up exactly with Word in minutes.

Your defense is driven more by your political position, not logic. If
the reverse situation had occurred, you would have been attacking
these memos not only for their falsehood, but lining up stories about
how the Republic Party was behind each and everyone.

End of this part of the discussion. And pretty much everything else
has been covered as well.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Jack Dingler]

Really? In what way? Because the norm is bottom postion? I don't see a
clear defining reason to think I'm an idiot for doing this. Have you got
a rulebook handy?

I've alternated in top and bottom and mid posting, since 1981. You're
the first to say that I'm an idiot for doing it.

Jack Dingler

S o r n i wrote:

>Jack Dingler wrote:
>
>
>>IBM Selectrics and other common typewriters of the time couldn't do
>>proportional spacing?
>>
>>
>
>Dude, you've GOT to stop top-posting. It reveals your idiocy even more than
>what you write.
>
>Bill "and that's an accomplishment" S.
>
>
>
>

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:50:07 -0700, Bill Baka > wrote:

>The only reason I knew how to type is that I
>took typing class in high school, the only boy in a class full of girls,

I got thrown out. I and the other guy set the platen/carriage lock on
release, so when everyone was told to set up the typewriter to start
the day and hit the tab, all the carriages went flying, sort of. The
four at the end took the best part of six months to pay for.

We were going to look innocent, but we were laughing too hard to be
much of a success.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[S o r n i]

Jack Dingler wrote (placed where it makes sense to the reader):

> S o r n i wrote:

>> Dude, you've GOT to stop top-posting. It reveals your idiocy even
>> more than what you write.

> Really? In what way? Because the norm is bottom postion? I don't see a
> clear defining reason to think I'm an idiot for doing this. Have you
> got a rulebook handy?

I don't need a rule book to realize that a thread gets incoherent fast when
one person top-posts while all others are being logical and considerate.
Reading your posts is like joining a conversation in the middle, with no
clue what's being talked about.

> I've alternated in top and bottom and mid posting, since 1981. You're
> the first to say that I'm an idiot for doing it.

Guess we can add reading comprehension to your list of shortcomings. (Hint:
I didn't say that top-posting MADE you an idiot.)

Bill "btw, the fact that you don't always do it makes it that much more
perplexing" S.

[Dave Mount]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:45:58 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:45:37 GMT, (Dave Mount)
>wrote:
>
>>>Osama's father has 20 wives and Osama himself is one of 56 brothers and sisters. As
>>>far as we know he is the only terrorist. The mere fact of being a blood relative of
>>>his does not suffice to incrimminate a family the size of a large village.
>>
>>Very fair point, but it doesn't really address what I said: i.e.
>>
>>| It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
>>| just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.
>>
>>
>>Nothing to do with who, or how many.
>
>Except

Except nothing.

I'm not suggesting *anything* about who left when, or who, or how many. The
politics is immaterial to the joke!

What is funny is that (as they put it), they let some people leave the contry
*at some stage*, because they *said* they hadn't had anything to do with
something.

Please check you Republican Paranoia at the door.

[Jack Dingler]

What I saw on the news was a memo that looked typewritten to me,
especially with the top half of every letter faded out.

Could the memos be faked? Sure they could. But the public arguments
about proportional spacing and superscript made it clear to me that
those raising the concerns didn't know their subject matter well enough
to be experts.

In this topic like others, I haven't made up my mind. I don't have
access to the original records, and I don't trust folks like these
experts that say that proportional spacing couldn't be done with
typewriters.

You're convinced. That's cool. I have no problem with that. But in the
end it doesn't matter. In the scheme of the Bush / Kerry debate it rates
up there with arguing about the shade of colors in the team's uniforms.
No matter which team you root for, you get the same game. Bush and Kerry
don't differ as far as substance is concerned and this memo debate
demonstrates the difference are really about style and fashion.

Jack Dingler

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:40:45 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>IBM Selectrics and other common typewriters of the time couldn't do
>>proportional spacing?
>>
>>
>
>Get real. That isn't the only issue. It includes the centering on
>margins, the superscript, and overall match with the memo. If you have
>a Selectric and the one Times Roman type ball, you should be able to
>match it up completely. The experts can't. OTOH, non-experts can match
>it up exactly with Word in minutes.
>
>Your defense is driven more by your political position, not logic. If
>the reverse situation had occurred, you would have been attacking
>these memos not only for their falsehood, but lining up stories about
>how the Republic Party was behind each and everyone.
>
>End of this part of the discussion. And pretty much everything else
>has been covered as well.
>
>Curtis L. Russell
>Odenton, MD (USA)
>Just someone on two wheels...
>
>
>

[DRS]

"Jack Dingler" > wrote in message
news:svE2d.317173$8_6.218893@attbi_s04
> Really? In what way? Because the norm is bottom postion? I don't see a
> clear defining reason to think I'm an idiot for doing this. Have you
> got a rulebook handy?

Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm

http://www.fscked.co.uk/writing/top-posting-cuss.html

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[S o r n i]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:40:45 GMT, Jack Dingler >
> wrote:
>
>> IBM Selectrics and other common typewriters of the time couldn't do
>> proportional spacing?
>
> Get real. That isn't the only issue. It includes the centering on
> margins, the superscript, and overall match with the memo. If you have
> a Selectric and the one Times Roman type ball, you should be able to
> match it up completely. The experts can't. OTOH, non-experts can match
> it up exactly with Word in minutes.
>
> Your defense is driven more by your political position, not logic. If
> the reverse situation had occurred, you would have been attacking
> these memos not only for their falsehood, but lining up stories about
> how the Republic Party was behind each and everyone.

What cracks me up is watching the Dem Defenders on the talking heads shows.
When it's shown that the memos MUST be forgeries, they say stuff like, "We
should be talking about issues that affect us today, not things that
happened 30 years ago." Yet the DNC is running ads /featuring/ Dan Rather
(their "Fortunate Son" campaign). They've got balls, gotta give them that I
guess.

Can you imagine if someone produced forged documents disparaging Kerry?!?
Or if these ANG memos WERE real? Either way, their stance now is
hypocritical versus what they'd do in either of those cases.

Bill "almost funny" S.

[S o r n i]

Jack Dingler top-posted, so I'll delete the context:

> What I saw on the news was a memo that looked typewritten to me,
> especially with the top half of every letter faded out.
>
> Could the memos be faked? Sure they could. But the public arguments
> about proportional spacing and superscript made it clear to me that
> those raising the concerns didn't know their subject matter well
> enough to be experts.
>
> In this topic like others, I haven't made up my mind. I don't have
> access to the original records, and I don't trust folks like these
> experts that say that proportional spacing couldn't be done with
> typewriters.
>
> You're convinced. That's cool. I have no problem with that. But in the
> end it doesn't matter. In the scheme of the Bush / Kerry debate it
> rates up there with arguing about the shade of colors in the team's
> uniforms. No matter which team you root for, you get the same game.
> Bush and Kerry don't differ as far as substance is concerned and this
> memo debate demonstrates the difference are really about style and
> fashion.

Also about who forged government documents in an attempt to influence a
federal election; and what major "news network" ignored warnings, denials
and red flags and went ahead and broadcast an inflamatory piece 45 days
before a presidential election. Oh, and WHY.

Bill "you know, nothing major" S.

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:02:48 GMT, (Dave Mount)
wrote:

>What is funny is that (as they put it), they let some people leave the contry
>*at some stage*, because they *said* they hadn't had anything to do with
>something.
>
>Please check you Republican Paranoia at the door.

There is no paranoia reflected in my comments - I was simply stating
the facts without embellishment. There is some conspiracy paranoia
running around in your jokes.

BTW, I'll let you know if I ever register as a Republican. Being part
of a political party may be important to you and as some sort of
marker to recognize members of your herd and perceived enemies, but it
makes about as much sense to me as buying Ford or Chevy for no
discernable reason.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Rick]

....stuff deleted
>
> It was a clear attempt to manipulate a national election and
> smear a candidate with false information, all done by an anti-Bush
> newsman with a clear agenda to elect Kerry. Someone forged bogus
> government documents and now Rather and CBS are covering for the
> criminal forger. Wasn't it Rather who said "The coverup is usually
> worse than the original crime." when referring to Watergate?
>

This could easily have been forged and leaked by either party. Note that
since it is a copy, not an original, it is quite possible that someone
has duped the original and then made it look like a forgery to create a
diversion. The issue is fairly unclear as to whether it is a real copy,
a copy that was made and then altered, an original or copy that was
scanned and modified, etc. The real issue is who leaked it and why? I
can make a case for either party having the motivation and ability to do
so, for whatever reason there may be.

Frankly, I doubt it matters, overly, since this argument is fairly moot
and won't change anyone's mind. Personally, I fully believe that Bush
qualifies as a deserter. The reprimands, which are serious issues in the
military, are indicators that he wasn't playing by the rules. That the
reprimands did not result in punishment is a clear indicator that sons
of senators are, essentially, above the law, something which makes me
detest the man even more than the fact that he didn't fully perform his
obligations. We are not supposed to be a society based upon nepotism,
favoritism, and bias, yet it is clear that we are, always have been, and
always will be. Those of us who play by the rules are taken advantage of
by those who do not. This, more than anything else, is why I detest the
man.

This is, however, only my opinion. As such, it is worth no more than
Ken's (except to me, perhaps).

Rick

[Mitch Haley]

Jack Dingler wrote:
>
> I'll likely vote for a flip-flopping hypocritical liar, but I have
> (not) figured out which one yet.

Now that you've identified the culprits, you're going to vote for
one of them? If we keep voting for Republicrats, who do you think
we'll continue to be stuck with?
The One Party system lives on.
Mitch.

[Pete]

"Rick" > wrote
>
> This could easily have been forged and leaked by either party. Note that
> since it is a copy, not an original, it is quite possible that someone
> has duped the original and then made it look like a forgery to create a
> diversion. The issue is fairly unclear as to whether it is a real copy,
> a copy that was made and then altered, an original or copy that was
> scanned and modified, etc. The real issue is who leaked it and why? I
> can make a case for either party having the motivation and ability to do
> so, for whatever reason there may be.

Very true.
Shame on the republicans for creating the forgeries, and shame on the
democrats (and CBS) for falling all over themselves promoting forged memos
as real.
or
Shame on the democrats for creating the forgeries and promoting them as
real.

Either way....

> Frankly, I doubt it matters, overly, since this argument is fairly moot
> and won't change anyone's mind. Personally, I fully believe that Bush
> qualifies as a deserter. The reprimands, which are serious issues in the
> military, are indicators that he wasn't playing by the rules. That the
> reprimands did not result in punishment is a clear indicator that sons
> of senators are, essentially, above the law, something which makes me
> detest the man even more than the fact that he didn't fully perform his
> obligations. We are not supposed to be a society based upon nepotism,
> favoritism, and bias, yet it is clear that we are, always have been, and
> always will be. Those of us who play by the rules are taken advantage of
> by those who do not. This, more than anything else, is why I detest the
> man.

Reprimands? What reprimands?

Pete

[Rick]

...stuff deleted
>
> Reprimands? What reprimands?
>
> Pete
>

Pete,

This whole stink began because Bush's files contained several notations
that he'd missed certain key training dates and not reported to service
during the requisite time periods. These were explained by the Bush clan
as saying that he was working on his father's campaign. This didn't
exactly wash as an excuse to those who put the notations in his file. In
military terms, such notations are reprimands (though not the beginning
of a formal investigation). Such notations have led to individuals who
do not have parents in positions of power to active service. Failure at
that point leads to legal proceedings, for most individuals.

Rick

[The Real Bev]

Jack Dingler wrote:
>
> Ken [NY) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:17:10 GMT, Jack Dingler >
> >claims:
> >>>
> >>The major news media has been reporting that the Taliban and Al Queda
> >>have retaken much of Afghanistan with the US and the appointed
> >>government staying in bases, near the oil infrastructure and protected
> >>areas. They could be lying of course. You never know whta to believe in
> >>the news, so much of it is invented political stuff.
> >>
> >>The Northern Alliance of Poppy Growers and Heroin Producers that the US
> >>backed, have been reported as funding the resistance.
> >>
> >>But then at this point there seems to be an uneasy truce. They leave the
> >>pipeles alone and we don't shell villages.
> >>
> >>I think your info is just old, Ken.
> >
> > Is your "major news media" source the same folks who gave us
> >the anti-Bush phoney memos done on Microsoft Word in the 1970s before
> >Microsoft was founded?
>
> I loved that one. Actually us old guys know that typewriters with
> interchangeable font heads and proportional spacing were commonplace.

But not on government correspondence. That was always done with the
standard "typewriter" font. Making corrections on proportionally-spaced
typed copy was a real bitch if you had to replace an i with an m or vice
versa. And the feds used smaller paper to save money, and I'm pretty
sure that they would never have put that centered-at-the-top
"letterhead" on memos either.

I think the Selectric had the first interchangeable heads, but I typed
on an IBM Executive (proportional weighted type, beautiful output) at
least a decade before Selectrics. The type on the memo in question was
NOT weighted, just proportionally spaced. Cheap and ugly.

> In fact, the proportional spacing that the experts claim was impossible to
> do with a typewriter, was introduced by IBM in 1941. Back in the 1970s,
> you could swap typefaces in the middle of letters and even use different
> colored print ribbons. Was a heady time for the typewriter industry.

The feds wouldn't have done that, though. Everything they typed looked
cheesy. By design.

> Them young-uns have no idea what was possible using 20th century technology.

No ****. In 1963 I typed a 2-page right-justified brochure on my IBM
Executive. God, it was beautiful. It looked like real print. You had
to type it once, figure out how much space you had to add or subtract in
each line and then type it again. Kerning by hand, so to speak. It was
really fun. The alternative was paying somebody with a Varityper (I
think that's what it was) to crank it out at some exhorbitant cost per
word. I worked cheaper than that.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== =======
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
-- U.S. Supreme Court, McIntyre v Ohio Elections,1995

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Elisa Francesca Roselli > writes:

> But this is really off-topic.

I just had an epiphany (don't ask me how it was induced:)

Edgar Winter for Prez; Rick Derringer for VP.
Johnny Winter for Solicitor-General, or whatever
it is the Americans call the main legal guy.

That should rock the country out. And maybe let Lenny
Kravitz do some stuff, if he's not too noisy & shrill
about it. Maybe he could at least yell at Ted Nugent,
Charleton Heston, Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Donald Trump,
Bill Maher, Montel Williams, Tony Brown, Wolf Blitzer, and
all those puffed-up talking heads on network news and PBS.

Yeah. America needs a figure who'll yell at all those
irritants, and put them in their God-damned places -- for
the people, by the people, and of the people. Maybe Alice
Cooper could back him up.

If that's not possible, I'd hope Americans would then
just vote for the guy who best knows the lyrics to Bob
Dylan's 'A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall', and who can best
hold his liquor. Of the two obvious choices, I don't
believe either qualifies.


cheers,
Tom


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Bill Sornson]

Muttley wrote:

>> Bill "am I reall this dense" S.
>
> No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us
> what's good for us.
>
> It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.

Dishonest quoting (with a lame typo at that) suits you, Mutt. That's all I
need to know about you.

Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.

[Muttley]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:32:55 GMT, "Bill Sornson" >
wrote:

>Muttley wrote:
>
>>> Bill "am I reall this dense" S.
>>
>> No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us
>> what's good for us.
>>
>> It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.
>
>Dishonest quoting (with a lame typo at that) suits you, Mutt. That's all I
>need to know about you.
>
>Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.

Bill, that is one of the most egregious cases of the pot calling the kettle
black that I've ever seen.

You removed the significant part of the post I was responding to, placed your
own paragraph after the quote - a paragraph that made it look as if I was
refering to something _quite_ different to what I was actually refering to.

That was truly dishonest. A _big_ lie, if you like.

My misquote could not really be considered dishonest - it was in no way an
attempt to deceive anyone, because no one would ever believe for a momemnt that
you'd actually typed that.

I have thought that you're a dishonest poster for some time, mainly because you
maintain that you are not political, yet show a very definite political bias. I
had given you the benefit of the doubt up until now, but you tricky editing and
selective quoting that tried to make if look as if I'd intended something I
hadn't, now makes me reassess that attitude.

And having the effrontery to complain that a jokey and obvious misquote was some
kind of a lie, after you far more serious dishonesty really takes the biscuit.

Oh, and a typo isn't lame, or not lame, it's a typo.

[Doug Evans]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message >...
> Muttley wrote:
>
> >> Bill "am I reall this dense" S.
> >
> > No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us
> > what's good for us.
> >
> > It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.
>
> Dishonest quoting (with a lame typo at that) suits you, Mutt. That's all I
> need to know about you.
>
> Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.

Bill, you're a hypocrite. You edited his post to make it look as if he
was saying something quite different to what he did. Now you're
whining about a little bit of satire.

Doug

[Bill Sornson]

Muttley wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:32:55 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> > wrote:
>
>> Muttley wrote:
>>
>>>> Bill "am I reall this dense" S.
>>>
>>> No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us
>>> what's good for us.
>>>
>>> It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.
>>
>> Dishonest quoting (with a lame typo at that) suits you, Mutt.
>> That's all I need to know about you.
>>
>> Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.
>
> Bill, that is one of the most egregious cases of the pot calling the
> kettle black that I've ever seen.
>
> You removed the significant part of the post I was responding to,
> placed your own paragraph after the quote - a paragraph that made it
> look as if I was refering to something _quite_ different to what I
> was actually refering to.

I did not remove anything, liar. (I just re-read the thread to make sure.)
Maybe someone BEFORE that deleted some stuff, but I simply replied to your
post as was.

> That was truly dishonest. A _big_ lie, if you like.

"One of the most egregious cases of the pot calling the kettle black that
I've ever seen" -- Mutt.

Bill "can't improve on that" S.

[Bill Sornson]

Doug Evans wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Muttley wrote:
>>
>>>> Bill "am I reall this dense" S.
>>>
>>> No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us
>>> what's good for us.
>>>
>>> It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.
>>
>> Dishonest quoting (with a lame typo at that) suits you, Mutt.
>> That's all I need to know about you.
>>
>> Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.
>
> Bill, you're a hypocrite. You edited his post to make it look as if he
> was saying something quite different to what he did. Now you're
> whining about a little bit of satire.

Read it again, Doug (I've done it twice now). I DID NOT EDIT A THING.

Bill "the thread is right there, WTF?!?" S.

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:32:55 GMT,
>, "Bill Sornson"
> weaselled:
\whack

>Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.

Ain't that the truth.
--
zk

[Bill Sornson]

Zoot Katz weaseled (note correct spelling):
> Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:32:55 GMT,
> >, "Bill Sornson"
> > weaselled:
> \whack
>
>> Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.
>
> Ain't that the truth.

Haven't enough people told you to kiss their ass today, Zoot? :)

Bill "evidently not" S.

[Muttley]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:55:33 GMT, "Bill Sornson" >
wrote:

>> You removed the significant part of the post I was responding to,
>> placed your own paragraph after the quote - a paragraph that made it
>> look as if I was refering to something _quite_ different to what I
>> was actually refering to.
>
>I did not remove anything, liar. (I just re-read the thread to make sure.)
>Maybe someone BEFORE that deleted some stuff, but I simply replied to your
>post as was.

OK, You're correct. It wasn't you that removed stuff. What you did was ignore
what I was actually responding to, and precis the stuff that went before, then
sort of implied that I was refering to that. Which I'll accept was an honest
mistake (since I went right ahead and made a similar mistake myself).

I suggest we stop calling each other liars and dishonest.

It gets very hard to follow the ins and outs of a thread this size.

I was just trying to make a joke about the way Joe Public, in general, relies on
the idiot box and the politicos that appear on it to tell him what to think.

[Muttley]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:07:13 GMT, (Muttley) wrote:

>OK, You're correct. It wasn't you that removed stuff. What you did was ignore
>what I was actually responding to, and precis the stuff that went before, then
>sort of implied that I was refering to that. Which I'll accept was an honest
>mistake (since I went right ahead and made a similar mistake myself).

BTW, there is an apology in there, somewhere :)

[Bill Sornson]

Muttley wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:55:33 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> > wrote:
>
>>> You removed the significant part of the post I was responding to,
>>> placed your own paragraph after the quote - a paragraph that made it
>>> look as if I was refering to something _quite_ different to what I
>>> was actually refering to.
>>
>> I did not remove anything, liar. (I just re-read the thread to make
>> sure.) Maybe someone BEFORE that deleted some stuff, but I simply
>> replied to your post as was.
>
> OK, You're correct. It wasn't you that removed stuff. What you did
> was ignore what I was actually responding to, and precis the stuff
> that went before, then sort of implied that I was refering to that.
> Which I'll accept was an honest mistake (since I went right ahead and
> made a similar mistake myself).
>
> I suggest we stop calling each other liars and dishonest.
>
> It gets very hard to follow the ins and outs of a thread this size.
>
> I was just trying to make a joke about the way Joe Public, in
> general, relies on the idiot box and the politicos that appear on it
> to tell him what to think.

Well thank you for that (your other post, too). FWIW I wasn't all that
serious, either, as I hardly thought you /literally/ thought the USA had
adopted a Soviet system. (Yet, at least :) I even commented that the
thread had been snipped.

I still think Rather and CBS *were* trying to, in effect, tell Joe Public
what to think -- dishonestly, at that -- and got caught red-handed. (Or,
Xerox-ink handed?)

Bill "working on keeping trap shut" S.

[Doug Evans]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message >...
> Read it again, Doug (I've done it twice now). I DID NOT EDIT A THING.

Apologies. I had to read it again: twice!

I guess that some people around here need to get out on their bikes a bit more.

If I may use your idiom:

Doug "Why am I at my keyboard when I could be out on my bike" Evans