A thought-provoking metaphysical conundrum...

[Bill Sloman]

You can't win on this group! Perhpas I should be more like Bill Sloman
and simply despise *everyone*. :-/

I despise remarkably few people. Posting grossly inaccurate ad hominum
comments is a way to get yourself added to that short list. Don't make
a habit of it.

 

[Paul Burridge]

I despise remarkably few people. Posting grossly inaccurate ad hominum
comments is a way to get yourself added to that short list. Don't make
a habit of it.

I was under the impression I was already on your list, Bill. I'd only
been taking the group for a week or so when you told me to bugger off!
Something I'd said about the way the EU is run, I believe, upset you.
If you expect me to keep my trap shut on that subject then you'll be
disappointed and only yet more angry! Better to add me to your
killfile now before any further rises in your blood pressure occur. I
woudn't want to be held responsible for giving you a stroke!

 

[Winfield Hill]

John S. Dyson wrote...

It is amazing as to how far off your impressions have drifted
from reality. Perhaps you have confused literary fiction with
reality?

Really -- for 'suppression of discussion' in the US environment,
you really have to look at our left wing. This pressure to ...

Having fun with your insults, mudslinging, distortions and lies?
John, you don't know Jack. And don't you dare ever talk to me
about suppression of discussion, I don't believe in it, never
did, even for idiots like yourself, and will have none of it.

BTW, wrt to my mom's extensive library, which I devoured in my
youth, it contained not one work of fiction; that was her rule.
My exposure to literary fiction came much later.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

 

[Winfield Hill]

John S. Dyson wrote...

Waiting for your acknowledgement so that we can re-establish
your credibility on non-engineering subjects....

ROFLOL.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

 

[William Slomanski]

<snip>

Nah- let's put the quote back in there, moron.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

BTW, wrt to my mom's extensive library, which I devoured in my
youth, it contained not one work of fiction; that was her rule.
My exposure to literary fiction came much later.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

Was your mother a professional of some kind? It's fun have tons of books
in the house. When I was a kid, the family library was extensive, a
separate room in the house, contained an 1898 edition of leather bound
Harvard Classics-something like 70 volumes ( with little feathered ivory
page cutters), then old sets of turn-of-the-century "Books of
Knowledge", all of Dickens works, all of Kipling, all of Lord Byron,
tons of history sets, innumerable other single volumes.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Fred Bloggs wrote...

Was your mother a professional of some kind?

No, I think mostly she was a big fan of used bookstores. But
she was highly selective. :>)

It's fun have tons of books in the house.
Indeed!

When I was a kid, the family library was extensive, a separate
room in the house, contained an 1898 edition of leather bound
Harvard Classics-something like 70 volumes ( with little
feathered ivory page cutters), then old sets of turn-of-the-
century "Books of Knowledge", all of Dickens works, all of
Kipling, all of Lord Byron, tons of history sets, innumerable
other single volumes.

Wow, are you going to inherit any of that stuff?

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Fred Bloggs wrote...



No, I think mostly she was a big fan of used bookstores. But
she was highly selective. :>)




Wow, are you going to inherit any of that stuff?

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

Nope- my parents disinherited me They cashed out anyway- I can still
view some of their art sold to Hirshhorn in the Smithsonian.- but that's
as close as I get....

 

[Daniel Haude]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:42:47 +0000 (UTC),

SOME of the Europeans DO NOT realize that the American populace
GENERALLY knows that it is at war against terrorists (esp
Islamists & their supporters)), and those who support the enemy
become essentially the enemy.

To me (and a growing number of puzzled co-Europeans) the situation starts
to look as if an increasingly demented fraction of the US populace knows
it is at war against the rest of the world, albeit unsure of where and who
that might be.

--Daniel

 

[Bill Sloman]

I was under the impression I was already on your list, Bill. I'd only
been taking the group for a week or so when you told me to bugger off!
Something I'd said about the way the EU is run, I believe, upset you.
If you expect me to keep my trap shut on that subject then you'll be
disappointed and only yet more angry! Better to add me to your
killfile now before any further rises in your blood pressure occur. I
woudn't want to be held responsible for giving you a stroke!

No risk of that. The blood-pressure pills are working just as the
doctor ordered. Down to 125/62 a week or so ago ... though 135/65 is
more usual.

And who is angry? I just post corrections to erroneous information (as
is my civic duty), and try and contrive comic responses to insulting
replies (because it's fun).

 

[Paul Burridge]

No risk of that. The blood-pressure pills are working just as the
doctor ordered. Down to 125/62 a week or so ago ... though 135/65 is
more usual.

Same here! For the time being, anyway.

And who is angry? I just post corrections to erroneous information (as
is my civic duty), and try and contrive comic responses to insulting
replies (because it's fun).

Fair enough, Bill. I'm sure you're a perfectly decent fellow and I
meant you no disrespect. Your politics are different to mine, that's
all. It's a shame there's so much politics being discussed here, which
is really totally out of the remit of the group and causing all sorts
of unproductive flame wars to erupt willy-nilly.

 

[[email protected]]

Looking at the situation from the US populace standpoint, the French
are 'right on the edge' of being considered to be 'the enemy.'

I don't mean to be difficult, but there's an important point here. How
can one generalize about the state of mind of a population at large?

For example, I saw some hostility to France in the U.S. press, but no
one that I know has any ill feeling for France at all. Most see the
issue as one involving state relations, and they just don't feel they
have anything to do with that.

1. We have ever less confidence these days in the accuracy of the
press, and some have gone so far as to suggest that the press toadies
to whatever the state tells it to print or not to printl much of the
political news is planted or shaped by state agencies. So there's no
reason to assume that there's any hostility to France at all outside
Washington.

2. Further, there's no way of knowing public opinion except through a
poll, and as you know, they are very unreliable. Except under very
controlled circumstances, polls merely serve to lend legitimacy to
whatever nonsense we decide we want to put out.

3. Opinion undoubtedly differs according to gender, class, geographic
location, income level, race, etc. There is no single homogeneous
"public," but many quite different publics.

4. There are certain influential groups, and there are groups that are
marginal. The former may have impact on U.S. foreign policy, but not
the latter. Those who have some power or real control are much more
likely to acquire opinions on French foreign policy than those, the
vast majority, who have no real power. A significant portion of the
population sees no reason to vote, and most of the others only do so
out of duty or feel they must pick the evil lesser. None of this has
anything to do with "public opinion," which seems to be a figment of
the imagination.

5. If some group happens differs in their views from those of my peers
(however we define that term) that fact is of little significance to
me unless I naively assumed that there is majority rule. How the
public as a whole may think has no bearing on my own views, and since
the public as a whole is not privy to what's really going on and has
negligible influence over it anyway, the point about public opinion
becomes empty.

 

[Keith R. Williams]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:42:47 +0000 (UTC),


To me (and a growing number of puzzled co-Europeans) the situation starts
to look as if an increasingly demented fraction of the US populace knows
it is at war against the rest of the world, albeit unsure of where and who
that might be.

Not demented at all. We simply are beginning to see who our
friends really are. You may pretend, but that's all there is.
Many simply don't care about the EU, which is wrong. You'll again
be at each other's throats within my lifetime. You simply can't
resist, though perhaps your new bogeyman is Americans rather than
Jews (after every sane Jew has left).

BTW, I've vacationed in Canada every year for the past five,
except this one. They don't need my money either. I go around.

 

[Daniel Haude]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 22:31:59 -0400,

Many simply don't care about the EU, which is wrong. You'll again
be at each other's throats within my lifetime. You simply can't
resist, though perhaps your new bogeyman is Americans rather than
Jews (after every sane Jew has left).

Let's see -- it's not the Europeans who've been constantly at war in
places all over the world since WWII. Within your lifetime YOUR country
will be at a lot more of other's throats than all of Europe lumped
together. It's also not the Europeans who keep creating new bogeymen every
week ("Axis of Evil") to justify horrendous military spending. And it's
not THE EUROPEANS who've created the Jewish bogeymen for chrissake.

--Daniel

 

[Jeroen Vriesman]

Dear people,

bush: "If your're not with me you are against me"
Jesus: "If your're not against me you are with me"

big difference isn't it?

People can have different ideas and still respect each other. We could also
call everyone who doesn't agree with what we think an enemy, in that case
you will have a lot of enemy's.

But making enemy's just creates more enemy's, war creates more war, you
never really win anything, it's just a waste of resources. Imagine what the
world would look like if we would have put all the resoureces used by war
into food, organisation, medical care, education, art, science etc.

It's not poeple or religions we should fight, poverty, carelessness,
stupidity etc. are the real enemy's.

"An eye for an eye will eventually make the whole world blind".

Cheers,
Jeroen.

 

[John S. Dyson]

People can have different ideas and still respect each other.

We aren't JUST talking about ideas, but are talking about
self-protection. If you want to impede our attempts to
protect ourselves from an enemy that wants to kill us, then
you are essentially helping that enemy. This must only
be 'theoretical' to you -- and that is something that the
US populace has been starting to realize. Perhaps
that theoretical dehumanization of American life has
been an important 'wake-up' call for the American populace
to see.

Maybe the difference is that YOU aren't targeted in the
same way that we are. You probably see terror as a few
people being killed in a 1 pound C4 explosion. You also
probably see terror as a bunch of Jews being killed by
Arafat's people (Arafat is indeed too strongly supported
by Europe.)

We see terror (for example) as individuals who use our
relatively open and unguarded assets against us.
Anecdote: In the 1980's, as a private individual, I could
have easily ordered all kinds of 'dangerous' chemicals or
biological materials. We are losing some freedom
and sometimes lives because of evil individuals who
try to kill us by misusing our freedom and access to
technology/capital goods. Similar kinds of things
are happening in the computer world...

(Comment: it is good that we are strong enough
to learn how to handle the threats e.g. through the
internet. It is good that we weren't hurt fatally
so that we know which countries will support us
as strongly as we have might have supported/been loyal
to them... We now know
that France is definitely not an ally if we really
need them, and Germany isn't very useful either.)
We are now prepared to realize that when the chips
are down, France and Germany won't be there to help,
and will likely support our enemies (e.g. France's
ongoing support of Saddam.)

If you support those people who are trying to kill us, or
if you impede the mechanisms that we need to protect ourselves,
then you are effectively helping that side of chaos and
effectively joining the side of our enemy.

This is indeed a fairly 'binary' decision. It should have
been an obvious decision, except for the case of misplaced
ego (hopefully not, because that is an extreme character
flaw), or interests that devalue American lives.

It REALLY is a binary decision, and (as above) assuming
that a country wouldn't be making the decision because of
adolescent emotional reasons, then the resulting decision
is due to ongoing support of the terrorists themselves. The
reason for this support could be access to resources, perhaps
for perverse view of global politics, or maybe because
you agree with the terrorists.

In essence, the OBVIOUS devaluing of American lives WILL NOT
directly cause a tit-for-tat, but has caused a re-evaluation
for the future. At one time, a German or French life would
have been deemed practically equivalent to an American life.
It is probably true that the 'theoretical' attitude of
the French/Germans DO cause a very 'theoretical' attitude in
the US about French/German life. The initial response will
be 'they have done us wrong, and emotionally I feel dirty
if I am reminded of them.' This will likely morph into
a lack of interest, and any feeling at all (that is, without
any remedial action by the French, especially.) The
American people are smart enough to realize that the most
inept countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) try to do the TV commercial
thing. Well, France will probably have to change it's
way from effectively supporting the Islamists and Saddam-types.

Since it is now proven WITHOUT A DOUBT that American life
isn't valued in SOME places in Europe, then it is well known
that America has much less reason to be able to trust
France, Germany in the future. This isn't really an emotional
decision on the American side, but is only the realization
that it is best not to consider France and Germany as part
of a family anymore. There is little or no trust for France
(Germany is still in question) in the US anymore.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 22:31:59 -0400,


Let's see -- it's not the Europeans who've been constantly at war in
places all over the world since WWII.

Remember: it is the US who was attacked. Yes -- the VietNam war
was a continuation of the French/IndoChina conflict (thought that
we could solve it), do you really want Korea to all be like
North Korea? Was it better if Saddam took control of Kuwait?
(Maybe better for the France-types, with their intimate
relationships with the murderous regime.) Wasn't it important
to keep SOME check on the Soviets in the past?

For an example of how threatening
the US is when it isn't threated: Cuba is a terrible thorn
in the side of the US, but it is no longer threatening (for
now.) If the US made the silly emotional decisions that it
is claimed to, then Cuba would be an easy target... The
US is quite benign unless attacked, and loyal to its friends.
It is likely no longer loyal to France and probably not
very loyal (anymore) to Germany. The only thing that can
correct the problem is for France/Germany to convince the
American populace that it respects the American people and
the peoples' government. Accepting the murder of Americans
as 'theoretical' doesnt' show much respect.

The seductive lie of the left (and the perverse communism) was
a terrible problem. The screwups and aggressive responses of
the free (not socialist) west were also troublesome. Given
the fact that the US has been (successfully) trying to learn
to quit supporting little despots
and direct terror supporters like Saddam (whether or not AlQueda),
why did (supposedly wise) France/Germany try to continue to support
him? Geesh, France even sold him HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM for no
reason except to unnecessarily proliferate it... I could have
probably purchased the biological materials in the 1980's that
we gave to Saddam, but I CERTAINLY couldn't have purchased that
85% Enriched Uranium that France (Actually Chiraq himself) sold
Saddam.

The US learned their lesson about Saddam, but why did France/Germany
continue to support him in lieu of American lives (ans: money,
greed, envy, hatred against America, cultural arrogance, etc.)

Again: the US was attacked, and there are some horrible people
who have been trying to impede our self protection as much
as politically feasable. You can help us (or at least, not
impede us), or you can risk being considered to be an enemy. The
American populace has a long memory about these kinds of
issues. We are a very loyal family (amongst ourselves in the
US), and France used to be a member of it.

John

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Remember: it is the US who was attacked. Yes -- the VietNam war
was a continuation of the French/IndoChina conflict (thought that
we could solve it), do you really want Korea to all be like
North Korea? Was it better if Saddam took control of Kuwait?
(Maybe better for the France-types, with their intimate
relationships with the murderous regime.) Wasn't it important
to keep SOME check on the Soviets in the past?

For an example of how threatening
the US is when it isn't threated: Cuba is a terrible thorn
in the side of the US, but it is no longer threatening (for
now.)

Cuba has nothing the US wants or needs, apart from decent cigars, that
why it don't attack them.

If the US made the silly emotional decisions that it
is claimed to, then Cuba would be an easy target... The
US is quite benign unless attacked,

Rubbish. The US attacked Iraq because it is the 2nd biggest oiler. Its
that simple.

and loyal to its friends.

It is likely no longer loyal to France and probably not
very loyal (anymore) to Germany. The only thing that can
correct the problem is for France/Germany to convince the
American populace that it respects the American people and
the peoples' government. Accepting the murder of Americans
as 'theoretical' doesnt' show much respect.
{snip}


The US learned their lesson about Saddam, but why did France/Germany
continue to support him in lieu of American lives (ans: money,
greed, envy, hatred against America, cultural arrogance, etc.)

Again: the US was attacked,

What are you gabbing on about. Saddam didn't attack the US.

and there are some horrible people

who have been trying to impede our self protection as much
as politically feasable. You can help us (or at least, not
impede us), or you can risk being considered to be an enemy. The
American populace has a long memory about these kinds of
issues. We are a very loyal family (amongst ourselves in the
US),

No one does nothing but for their own interest. The US is only loyal to
itself.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Remember: it is the US who was attacked.

But not by Saddam. Nobody has ever established any sort of link
between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, and it seems unlikely that Saddam would
support a group that he could not cotrol.

Yes -- the VietNam was was a continuation of the French/IndoChina conflict > (we thought that we could solve it), do you really want Korea to all be like
North Korea? Was it better if Saddam took control of Kuwait?

No. But Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was an actual problem, rather than
a theoretical risk, and he was ejected by a genuinely international
force operating under a UN mandate.

(Maybe better for the France-types, with their intimate
relationships with the murderous regime.) Wasn't it important
to keep SOME check on the Soviets in the past?

Perhaps. By what you did with your military right hand, you undid with
your socio-economic left hand, by supporting oppressive right-wing
regimes who did not provide good government. Vietnam is the most
blatant example.

For an example of how threatening
the US is when it isn't threated: Cuba is a terrible thorn
in the side of the US, but it is no longer threatening (for
now.) If the US made the silly emotional decisions that it
is claimed to, then Cuba would be an easy target... The
US is quite benign unless attacked, and loyal to its friends.

As Kevin Aylward says, Cuba hasn't got any oil. As for "loyalty"
nation-states don't have friends, they have interests.

It is likely no longer loyal to France and probably not
very loyal (anymore) to Germany. The only thing that can
correct the problem is for France/Germany to convince the
American populace that it respects the American people and
the peoples' government. Accepting the murder of Americans
as 'theoretical' doesnt' show much respect.

Al-Qaeda has murdered quite a lot of Americans. Saddam might have been
planning how he might murder some Americans in the future, but the
U.N. weapons inspectors couldn't find any evidence that the had the
means to do so before the invasion, and your inspectors haven't found
any such evidence since.

The seductive lie of the left (and the perverse communism) was
a terrible problem. The screwups and aggressive responses of
the free (not socialist) west were also troublesome. Given
the fact that the US has been (successfully) trying to learn
to quit supporting little despots and direct terror supporters like Saddam
(whether or not AlQueda), why did (supposedly wise) France/Germany try to
continue to support him?

They weren't supporting him as such, but failing to support a poorly
justified invasion, which was likely to upset the Arab world and
certain to interrupt the flow of such oil as they were geting from
Irak.

Geesh, France even sold him HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM for no
reason except to unnecessarily proliferate it... I could have
probably purchased the biological materials in the 1980's that
we gave to Saddam, but I CERTAINLY couldn't have purchased that
85% Enriched Uranium that France (Actually Chiraq himself) sold
Saddam.

If the enriched uranium was such a threat, why didn't Saddam make
bombs out of it?

The US learned their lesson about Saddam, but why did France/Germany
continue to support him in lieu of American lives (ans: money,
greed, envy, hatred against America, cultural arrogance, etc.)

The U.S.was protecting their puppet state Kuwait, and hoped to turn
Irak into another. The French and Germans stood to loose what little
influence they had in Irak after any U.S. invasion. Since Saddam was
no real threat to French, German or American lives at the time, there
is no question of "American lives" coming into the picture.

Again: the US was attacked, and there are some horrible people
who have been trying to impede our self protection as much
as politically feasable.

The invasion of Irak wasn't self-protection, despite what Dubbya may
claim. His case didn't convince anybody before the invasion, and looks
even less convincing now.

You can help us (or at least, not impede us), or you can risk being
considered to be an enemy.

We've heard that rhetoric before - your unconvincing arguments are
being backed up by rather more convincing threats.

The American populace has a long memory about these kinds of
issues. We are a very loyal family (amongst ourselves in the
US), and France used to be a member of it.

Long memories, but stuffed full of low-grade propaganda. If your
loyalities can be undone by a brief media campaign based on
ill-supported allegations, how much is your loyalty worth?

Your own memory doesn't seem to be that good - de Gaulle took France
out of NATO in 1966, and while some sort of compromise seems to have
been patched up by 1969, France's membership of the NATO family was
not one of unconditional loyalty.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Bill Sloman wrote...

John S. Dyson wrote ...

If the enriched uranium was such a threat, why didn't Saddam
make bombs out of it?

Here's one answer: http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com