Discussion:
suggestion for a new middle hirearchy
(too old to reply)
redc1c4
2007-10-28 01:21:35 UTC
Permalink
us.national-security.*

possible groups:

us.national-security.immigration-issues
us.national-security.diplomacy
us.national-security.trade-export-policy

and yes, i realize they will attract large amounts of trolls, etc, but that's
why we have filters. at least the traffic will encourage servers to
carry them......

redc1c4,
(and now, off for another mimosa & more football! %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Adam H. Kerman
2007-10-28 05:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
With a group name like that, guaranteed to bias the discussion.
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.diplomacy
How about a general discussion of US foreign relations?
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
That's an incredibly narrow topic that's highly unlikely to have much
Usenet discussion.
redc1c4
2007-10-28 06:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
With a group name like that, guaranteed to bias the discussion.
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.diplomacy
How about a general discussion of US foreign relations?
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
That's an incredibly narrow topic that's highly unlikely to have much
Usenet discussion.
well, i was just trying to start some on topic discussion in a positive
manner.... in between football games.

if you've got different/better suggestions, i'm all eyes.

redc1c4,
who doesn't think "trade/export" is that narrow these days, but WTH? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Ace
2007-10-28 19:59:03 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Oct 2007 05:44:05 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman" <***@chinet.com> wrote:

I see you're back.

Are you hoping Empress Henrietta of us.* will die so you can fill her
shoes?
Adam H. Kerman
2007-10-28 20:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ace
I see you're back.
Are you hoping Empress Henrietta of us.* will die so you can fill her shoes?
No, Mien Fuhrer. I'm looking forward to your leadership.
Daryl Hunt
2007-10-29 21:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Ace
I see you're back.
Are you hoping Empress Henrietta of us.* will die so you can fill her shoes?
No, Mien Fuhrer. I'm looking forward to your leadership.
Leadership in USdotSplat? And from Ace, the Flaming Troll or the
404thk00ks? You can expect the next available Meteor to strike you at any
time.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Daryl Hunt
2007-10-29 21:14:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
With a group name like that, guaranteed to bias the discussion.
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.diplomacy
How about a general discussion of US foreign relations?
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
That's an incredibly narrow topic that's highly unlikely to have much
Usenet discussion.
Sheesh, and exactly how is this to be formed without the HM's support? Call
her a few more profane names, 404thk00ks, that should gain here support.
LOL
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
redc1c4
2007-10-30 05:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
With a group name like that, guaranteed to bias the discussion.
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.diplomacy
How about a general discussion of US foreign relations?
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
That's an incredibly narrow topic that's highly unlikely to have much
Usenet discussion.
Sheesh, and exactly how is this to be formed without the HM's support? Call
her a few more profane names, 404thk00ks, that should gain here support.
LOL
that all depends on who the HM is, doesn't it?

redc1c4,
sell any low speed bicycles lately? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Daryl Hunt
2007-10-31 18:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
With a group name like that, guaranteed to bias the discussion.
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.diplomacy
How about a general discussion of US foreign relations?
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
That's an incredibly narrow topic that's highly unlikely to have much
Usenet discussion.
Sheesh, and exactly how is this to be formed without the HM's support?
Call
her a few more profane names, 404thk00ks, that should gain here support.
LOL
that all depends on who the HM is, doesn't it?
I suggest you go to the clue store and pick one up. HKT is still the HM.
And I doubt (not speaking for HKT, only myself) that HKT would be totally
nutz to place any of the 2 groups you belong to as the new HM. But she
isn't always making sane judgement calls regarding your two bunches. So who
knows.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
redc1c4
2007-10-30 05:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
With a group name like that, guaranteed to bias the discussion.
how about *.immigration or *.borders ?
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.diplomacy
How about a general discussion of US foreign relations?
*.foreign-relations
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
That's an incredibly narrow topic that's highly unlikely to have much
Usenet discussion.
really? i'd have thought the debate over "free trade" vs. "tariffs", tech
export, out sourcing overseas etc. would drive significant discussion....

redc1c4,
(but hey, i could be wrong.... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Adam H. Kerman
2007-10-30 06:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
With a group name like that, guaranteed to bias the discussion.
how about *.immigration or *.borders ?
I can see how borders would relate to security; would there be enough
discussion to warrant a newsgroup?
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.diplomacy
How about a general discussion of US foreign relations?
*.foreign-relations
I'm experiencing deja vu. I vaguely recall having a lengthy discussion
of a foreign policy newsgroup that Henrietta was going to send a
newgroup message for immediately, oh, eight years ago.
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
That's an incredibly narrow topic that's highly unlikely to have much
Usenet discussion.
really? i'd have thought the debate over "free trade" vs. "tariffs", tech
export, out sourcing overseas etc. would drive significant discussion....
I thought you were talking about restrictions on the export of US
technology, given your use of the second-level hierarchy.
redc1c4
2007-10-30 08:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
With a group name like that, guaranteed to bias the discussion.
how about *.immigration or *.borders ?
I can see how borders would relate to security; would there be enough
discussion to warrant a newsgroup?
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.diplomacy
How about a general discussion of US foreign relations?
*.foreign-relations
I'm experiencing deja vu. I vaguely recall having a lengthy discussion
of a foreign policy newsgroup that Henrietta was going to send a
newgroup message for immediately, oh, eight years ago.
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
That's an incredibly narrow topic that's highly unlikely to have much
Usenet discussion.
really? i'd have thought the debate over "free trade" vs. "tariffs", tech
export, out sourcing overseas etc. would drive significant discussion....
I thought you were talking about restrictions on the export of US
technology, given your use of the second-level hierarchy.
*.trade-and-export-policy

redc1c4,
who was in a hurry the first time.... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
edward ohare
2007-10-30 22:04:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:45:44 -0800, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
That's an incredibly narrow topic that's highly unlikely to have much
Usenet discussion.
really? i'd have thought the debate over "free trade" vs. "tariffs", tech
export, out sourcing overseas etc. would drive significant discussion....
redc1c4,
(but hey, i could be wrong.... %-)
No, you're right, just too early. All of these national security
topics are necessarily framed within the context of the
policies/actions of the executive branch. But Bush and Co act
(actually react, mostly) without having a real policy, and so persons
supporting the Bush and Co inconsistencies are quickly backed into a
corner where the debate ends. So these groups probably would do
better after the next election.
redc1c4
2007-10-30 22:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by edward ohare
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:45:44 -0800, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
That's an incredibly narrow topic that's highly unlikely to have much
Usenet discussion.
really? i'd have thought the debate over "free trade" vs. "tariffs", tech
export, out sourcing overseas etc. would drive significant discussion....
redc1c4,
(but hey, i could be wrong.... %-)
No, you're right, just too early. All of these national security
topics are necessarily framed within the context of the
policies/actions of the executive branch. But Bush and Co act
(actually react, mostly) without having a real policy, and so persons
supporting the Bush and Co inconsistencies are quickly backed into a
corner where the debate ends. So these groups probably would do
better after the next election.
yup: i'm sure Fred Thompson is going to do a better j*b.

redc1c4,
(unless, of course, George decides to stay on... i'm okay with that too. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
edward ohare
2007-10-31 00:33:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:25:27 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
(unless, of course, George decides to stay on... i'm okay with that too. %-)
Which, I'm sure inadvertantly, neatly describes the Republican
problem. That problem is that what Bush and Co want comes first, and
any rules or principles or laws that get in the way are ignored.
edward ohare
2007-11-01 02:04:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:33:59 -0400, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:25:27 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
(unless, of course, George decides to stay on... i'm okay with that too. %-)
Which, I'm sure inadvertantly, neatly describes the Republican
problem. That problem is that what Bush and Co want comes first, and
any rules or principles or laws that get in the way are ignored.
So you have no further comment concerning your view that you wouldn't
have a problem if George ignored the Constitution and stayed on beyond
his elected term? Or have you, upon further consideration, decided
Bush and Company should follow the Constitution in this matter?

And if so, what level of illegality should be condoned in the
Executive Branch?
redc1c4
2007-11-01 02:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:33:59 -0400, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:25:27 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
(unless, of course, George decides to stay on... i'm okay with that too. %-)
Which, I'm sure inadvertantly, neatly describes the Republican
problem. That problem is that what Bush and Co want comes first, and
any rules or principles or laws that get in the way are ignored.
So you have no further comment concerning your view that you wouldn't
have a problem if George ignored the Constitution and stayed on beyond
his elected term? Or have you, upon further consideration, decided
Bush and Company should follow the Constitution in this matter?
And if so, what level of illegality should be condoned in the
Executive Branch?
my only further comment on this particular issue should be obvious to you....

redc1c4,
(how's that hook taste? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
edward ohare
2007-11-01 03:32:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:40:55 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:33:59 -0400, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:25:27 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
(unless, of course, George decides to stay on... i'm okay with that too. %-)
Which, I'm sure inadvertantly, neatly describes the Republican
problem. That problem is that what Bush and Co want comes first, and
any rules or principles or laws that get in the way are ignored.
So you have no further comment concerning your view that you wouldn't
have a problem if George ignored the Constitution and stayed on beyond
his elected term? Or have you, upon further consideration, decided
Bush and Company should follow the Constitution in this matter?
And if so, what level of illegality should be condoned in the
Executive Branch?
my only further comment on this particular issue should be obvious to you....
redc1c4,
(how's that hook taste? %-)
Baloney. I know you well enough to know there was only slight jest
and a lot of wishfullness in the George stays on comment. So, well,
all I can say is "I was just kidding" isn't going to sell with me.
Although I'll accept "I've thought about it further and decided my
reaction was wrong". <G>
Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
2007-11-01 12:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
(unless, of course, George decides to stay on... i'm okay with that too. %-)
And when Washington DC goes up in flames and an angry, armed populace
kicks in the doors of the White House and hangs him for trying it --
are you going to stand with him?

If you think it wouldn't happen then you have "misunderestimated" the
widespread hatred of your Dear Leader.

--
Dystopian USA
http://dystopianusa.blogspot.com/
Ruminations On A Nation In Decline
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-10-28 14:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
us.national-security.diplomacy
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
*.energy-independance
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
2007-10-30 18:44:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
us.national-security.diplomacy
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
How about us.national-security.civil-liberties-issues?

On second thought, that one probably wouldn't get much traffic, since
the Bush faction invariably pulls a "cut and run" when confronted with
these issues. See the "When are the soldiers coming home" thread for a
shining example of this.

http://tinyurl.com/2se7ac

Actually, considering the miserable Bush administration record on
immigration, diplomacy, and trade policies, the groups you suggested
would likely produce the same scenario -- the die-hard, goose-
stepping, torture-supporting, fucktard 24% going up against the
overwhelming majority of sane people -- being quickly humiliated into
submission, then running away to hide.

I can't see the hierarchy being of much use.

--
Dystopian USA
http://dystopianusa.blogspot.com/
Ruminations On A Nation In Decline
Ace
2007-10-30 19:43:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:21:35 -0700, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
us.national-security.diplomacy
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
us.national-security.failures
Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
2007-10-30 20:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ace
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:21:35 -0700, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
us.national-security.diplomacy
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
us.national-security.failures
us.national-security.policies.torture
us.national-security.policies.kidnapping
us.national-security.policies.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.policies.war-profiteering

--
Dystopian USA
http://dystopianusa.blogspot.com/
Ruminations On A Nation In Decline
Ace
2007-10-30 22:28:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:03:07 -0700, Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
Post by Ace
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:21:35 -0700, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
us.national-security.immigration-issues
us.national-security.diplomacy
us.national-security.trade-export-policy
us.national-security.failures
us.national-security.policies.torture
us.national-security.policies.kidnapping
us.national-security.policies.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.policies.war-profiteering
Being ingrained within the US national security, the third level
"policies" is superfluous for those groups.

us.national-security.torture
us.national-security.kidnapping
us.national-security.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.war-profiteering
edward ohare
2007-10-31 00:35:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:48 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Being ingrained within the US national security, the third level
"policies" is superfluous for those groups.
us.national-security.torture
us.national-security.kidnapping
us.national-security.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.war-profiteering
We could hope that is merely a temporary thing, a characteristic
unique to Bush and Co.
redc1c4
2007-10-31 18:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:48 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Being ingrained within the US national security, the third level
"policies" is superfluous for those groups.
us.national-security.torture
us.national-security.kidnapping
us.national-security.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.war-profiteering
We could hope that is merely a temporary thing, a characteristic
unique to Bush and Co.
which, of course, would deny the reality of recent history.....

redc1c4,
(but that's what lieberals do best. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
edward ohare
2007-10-31 20:03:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:40:40 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:48 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Being ingrained within the US national security, the third level
"policies" is superfluous for those groups.
us.national-security.torture
us.national-security.kidnapping
us.national-security.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.war-profiteering
We could hope that is merely a temporary thing, a characteristic
unique to Bush and Co.
which, of course, would deny the reality of recent history.....
Recent history meaning the Bush years? Or some older recent history,
say, the Nixon years.
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
(but that's what lieberals do best. %-)
So as long as you're throwing out such generalizations, what do
Libertarians do best?
redc1c4
2007-10-31 22:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by edward ohare
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:40:40 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:48 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Being ingrained within the US national security, the third level
"policies" is superfluous for those groups.
us.national-security.torture
us.national-security.kidnapping
us.national-security.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.war-profiteering
We could hope that is merely a temporary thing, a characteristic
unique to Bush and Co.
which, of course, would deny the reality of recent history.....
Recent history meaning the Bush years? Or some older recent history,
say, the Nixon years.
i was thinking of your blind spot: the Clinton years, where opponents and
detractors met untimely deaths, and national security was suborned for
cash from the Chinese government.....
Post by edward ohare
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
(but that's what lieberals do best. %-)
So as long as you're throwing out such generalizations, what do
Libertarians do best?
lose elections.

redc1c4,
keep it up & i'll call you on the phone. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
edward ohare
2007-10-31 21:27:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:06:13 -0800, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:40:40 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:48 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Being ingrained within the US national security, the third level
"policies" is superfluous for those groups.
us.national-security.torture
us.national-security.kidnapping
us.national-security.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.war-profiteering
We could hope that is merely a temporary thing, a characteristic
unique to Bush and Co.
which, of course, would deny the reality of recent history.....
Recent history meaning the Bush years? Or some older recent history,
say, the Nixon years.
i was thinking of your blind spot: the Clinton years, where opponents and
detractors met untimely deaths, and national security was suborned for
cash from the Chinese government.....
OK... let's hear your conspiracy theory...

(Wondering if you're going to get to the point of a co worker, ex
Navy, who blamed Clinton for the US defeat in Iraq.)
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
(but that's what lieberals do best. %-)
So as long as you're throwing out such generalizations, what do
Libertarians do best?
lose elections.
Not really relevant.
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
keep it up & i'll call you on the phone. %-)
Cool!
redc1c4
2007-11-01 02:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by edward ohare
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:06:13 -0800, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:40:40 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:48 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Being ingrained within the US national security, the third level
"policies" is superfluous for those groups.
us.national-security.torture
us.national-security.kidnapping
us.national-security.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.war-profiteering
We could hope that is merely a temporary thing, a characteristic
unique to Bush and Co.
which, of course, would deny the reality of recent history.....
Recent history meaning the Bush years? Or some older recent history,
say, the Nixon years.
i was thinking of your blind spot: the Clinton years, where opponents and
detractors met untimely deaths, and national security was suborned for
cash from the Chinese government.....
OK... let's hear your conspiracy theory...
(Wondering if you're going to get to the point of a co worker, ex
Navy, who blamed Clinton for the US defeat in Iraq.)
typical squid: we're winning.

redc1c4,
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
edward ohare
2007-11-01 03:41:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:39:24 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:06:13 -0800, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:40:40 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:48 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Being ingrained within the US national security, the third level
"policies" is superfluous for those groups.
us.national-security.torture
us.national-security.kidnapping
us.national-security.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.war-profiteering
We could hope that is merely a temporary thing, a characteristic
unique to Bush and Co.
which, of course, would deny the reality of recent history.....
Recent history meaning the Bush years? Or some older recent history,
say, the Nixon years.
i was thinking of your blind spot: the Clinton years, where opponents and
detractors met untimely deaths, and national security was suborned for
cash from the Chinese government.....
OK... let's hear your conspiracy theory...
(Wondering if you're going to get to the point of a co worker, ex
Navy, who blamed Clinton for the US defeat in Iraq.)
typical squid: we're winning.
What are you talking about? According to Bush, it was won 5 years,
$700 billion, and 3500 US deaths ago. Or haven't you noticed. At one
time Bush had claimed the liberation of all Iraq; now they're claiming
success over having reasonable security in one suburb.

What's next? An announcement of success based on "the rate of the
increase in our casualties is falling"?
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
Actually, no, the reason some media is backing off on war coverage is
that the people have lost interest. Media has to cover the news
people want to see. So the die hard Bush supporters watch Faux News
war coverage. The majority are just passing their time watching more
other news, as they've already made up their mind they're going to
elect an anti-war President next time.
redc1c4
2007-11-01 05:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by edward ohare
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:39:24 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:06:13 -0800, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:40:40 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:48 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Being ingrained within the US national security, the third level
"policies" is superfluous for those groups.
us.national-security.torture
us.national-security.kidnapping
us.national-security.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.war-profiteering
We could hope that is merely a temporary thing, a characteristic
unique to Bush and Co.
which, of course, would deny the reality of recent history.....
Recent history meaning the Bush years? Or some older recent history,
say, the Nixon years.
i was thinking of your blind spot: the Clinton years, where opponents and
detractors met untimely deaths, and national security was suborned for
cash from the Chinese government.....
OK... let's hear your conspiracy theory...
(Wondering if you're going to get to the point of a co worker, ex
Navy, who blamed Clinton for the US defeat in Iraq.)
typical squid: we're winning.
What are you talking about? According to Bush, it was won 5 years,
$700 billion, and 3500 US deaths ago. Or haven't you noticed. At one
time Bush had claimed the liberation of all Iraq; now they're claiming
success over having reasonable security in one suburb.
What's next? An announcement of success based on "the rate of the
increase in our casualties is falling"?
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
Actually, no, the reason some media is backing off on war coverage is
that the people have lost interest. Media has to cover the news
people want to see. So the die hard Bush supporters watch Faux News
war coverage. The majority are just passing their time watching more
other news, as they've already made up their mind they're going to
elect an anti-war President next time.
time for you to leave the swamp. you're losing your objectivity.

redc1c4,
next thing we know, you'll be wearing black socks with your shorts. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
edward ohare
2007-11-01 13:47:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:39:05 -0800, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:39:24 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:06:13 -0800, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:40:40 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:48 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Being ingrained within the US national security, the third level
"policies" is superfluous for those groups.
us.national-security.torture
us.national-security.kidnapping
us.national-security.illegal-wiretapping
us.national-security.war-profiteering
We could hope that is merely a temporary thing, a characteristic
unique to Bush and Co.
which, of course, would deny the reality of recent history.....
Recent history meaning the Bush years? Or some older recent history,
say, the Nixon years.
i was thinking of your blind spot: the Clinton years, where opponents and
detractors met untimely deaths, and national security was suborned for
cash from the Chinese government.....
OK... let's hear your conspiracy theory...
(Wondering if you're going to get to the point of a co worker, ex
Navy, who blamed Clinton for the US defeat in Iraq.)
typical squid: we're winning.
What are you talking about? According to Bush, it was won 5 years,
$700 billion, and 3500 US deaths ago. Or haven't you noticed. At one
time Bush had claimed the liberation of all Iraq; now they're claiming
success over having reasonable security in one suburb.
What's next? An announcement of success based on "the rate of the
increase in our casualties is falling"?
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
Actually, no, the reason some media is backing off on war coverage is
that the people have lost interest. Media has to cover the news
people want to see. So the die hard Bush supporters watch Faux News
war coverage. The majority are just passing their time watching more
other news, as they've already made up their mind they're going to
elect an anti-war President next time.
time for you to leave the swamp. you're losing your objectivity.
My analysis fits the facts.

Your last few posts have not addressed the topic but instead have
attempted to make alleged personal deficiencies of those who oppose
your views the topic. This is the same thing that happened in the
previous thread about when the troops were coming home.

So, as in the previous thread, I would guess its near time for the
Bushers to cut and run as they did before. However, before that
happens, please take time to explain your statement about "we're
winning" when, just for starters, the President stood on a carrier
deck five years ago and announced we had won. I have to conclude
everything bad that's happened since then was a surprise.

But there's no doubt the Bushers are people of faith. Half of them
don't believe in evolution and half believe we're winning in Iraq.
(Statistics will be available next week on the percentage who believe
in the tooth fairy.)
Colin Campbell
2007-11-02 01:05:55 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:41:25 -0400, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
Actually, no, the reason some media is backing off on war coverage is
that the people have lost interest.
This is an interesting excuse. It is so amazing that 'people lost
interest' every single time there was good news out of Iraq - and
people suddenly get interested as soon as there is some bad news.

Are you really that gullible?



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
edward ohare
2007-11-02 01:21:50 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:05:55 -0700, Colin Campbell
Post by Colin Campbell
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:41:25 -0400, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
Actually, no, the reason some media is backing off on war coverage is
that the people have lost interest.
This is an interesting excuse. It is so amazing that 'people lost
interest' every single time there was good news out of Iraq - and
people suddenly get interested as soon as there is some bad news.
Are you really that gullible?
Not at all.

I grew up watching news coverage of Viet Nam. You guys have no idea
what things were like when the media jumped to attention at bad news.

The media, in the Gulf War, and at the beginning of Iraq were, without
exception, cheerleaders for the government. Grossly irresponsible.
What we really needed was a good news figure like we had 20-30 years
ago asking some hard questions. But it didn't happen.

Why would people be interested in bad news anyway? People want to
feel succesful. They want to feel their country is successful. If
they aren't interested in Iraq news, its because they are tired of
truthful bad news. They're tired of a government that promised so
much and has been so wrong. And they figured that out even before
former commanders in Iraq came forth, once they were no longer
required to censor themselves, and said Bush and Rumsfeld screwed this
thing up big time.

I fail to understand why those who held the highest command positions
can say its a mess, and those lower down who participate here still
stick to the Bush line.
redc1c4
2007-11-02 15:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by edward ohare
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:05:55 -0700, Colin Campbell
Post by Colin Campbell
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:41:25 -0400, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
Actually, no, the reason some media is backing off on war coverage is
that the people have lost interest.
This is an interesting excuse. It is so amazing that 'people lost
interest' every single time there was good news out of Iraq - and
people suddenly get interested as soon as there is some bad news.
Are you really that gullible?
Not at all.
I grew up watching news coverage of Viet Nam. You guys have no idea
what things were like when the media jumped to attention at bad news.
The media, in the Gulf War, and at the beginning of Iraq were, without
exception, cheerleaders for the government. Grossly irresponsible.
What we really needed was a good news figure like we had 20-30 years
ago asking some hard questions. But it didn't happen.
Why would people be interested in bad news anyway? People want to
feel succesful. They want to feel their country is successful. If
they aren't interested in Iraq news, its because they are tired of
truthful bad news. They're tired of a government that promised so
much and has been so wrong. And they figured that out even before
former commanders in Iraq came forth, once they were no longer
required to censor themselves, and said Bush and Rumsfeld screwed this
thing up big time.
I fail to understand why those who held the highest command positions
can say its a mess, and those lower down who participate here still
stick to the Bush line.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22689634-5007146,00.html

redc1c4,
you were saying?
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
edward ohare
2007-11-03 01:25:50 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:40:29 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
I fail to understand why those who held the highest command positions
can say its a mess, and those lower down who participate here still
stick to the Bush line.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22689634-5007146,00.html
redc1c4,
you were saying?
Its opinion, just as former commanders in Iraq saying its a mess is
opinion. Now, who do you think is likely to have a more informed
opinion?

Most interestingly, it the Tibbets thread, its being argued that a
blockade of Japan, rendering it militarily and economically impotent,
was insufficient. Surrender, allowing the Allies control of all parts
of the country, or an invasion which, according to IJ plans, would
have resulted in the death of every Japanese, were the only acceptable
outcomes. Total control was the only answer, hence the justification
of the Tibbets mission.

Yet here, victory is being claimed based on control of **part** of
Baghdad and influence in other areas. Just noting here that since in
1940 France still controlled in name part of their country, that they
must have won against Germany.
Colin Campbell
2007-11-02 01:02:56 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:39:24 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
(Wondering if you're going to get to the point of a co worker, ex
Navy, who blamed Clinton for the US defeat in Iraq.)
typical squid: we're winning.
redc1c4,
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
I notice how all of the news media seems to be getting real quiet
about Iraq all of a sudden. This is a real good hint that things are
better than they want to admit to us.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
edward ohare
2007-11-02 01:26:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:02:56 -0700, Colin Campbell
Post by edward ohare
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:39:24 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
(Wondering if you're going to get to the point of a co worker, ex
Navy, who blamed Clinton for the US defeat in Iraq.)
typical squid: we're winning.
redc1c4,
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
I notice how all of the news media seems to be getting real quiet
about Iraq all of a sudden. This is a real good hint that things are
better than they want to admit to us.
A conspiracy in the media, eh?

I guess y'all can't stand it when not all the media is a cheerleader
for the war, as they all were when they started.
Colin Campbell
2007-11-03 01:27:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:26:07 -0400, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:02:56 -0700, Colin Campbell
Post by edward ohare
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:39:24 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
(Wondering if you're going to get to the point of a co worker, ex
Navy, who blamed Clinton for the US defeat in Iraq.)
typical squid: we're winning.
redc1c4,
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
I notice how all of the news media seems to be getting real quiet
about Iraq all of a sudden. This is a real good hint that things are
better than they want to admit to us.
A conspiracy in the media, eh?
Not as such.

The media has a habit of burying stories where they turned out to be
wrong.

Look at the media coverage on the Haditha massacre and what happened
to that coverage when it became obvious that the 'massacre' never
happened.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
edward ohare
2007-11-03 01:36:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:27:07 -0700, Colin Campbell
Post by Colin Campbell
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:26:07 -0400, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:02:56 -0700, Colin Campbell
Post by edward ohare
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:39:24 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
(Wondering if you're going to get to the point of a co worker, ex
Navy, who blamed Clinton for the US defeat in Iraq.)
typical squid: we're winning.
redc1c4,
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
I notice how all of the news media seems to be getting real quiet
about Iraq all of a sudden. This is a real good hint that things are
better than they want to admit to us.
A conspiracy in the media, eh?
Not as such.
The media has a habit of burying stories where they turned out to be
wrong.
Look at the media coverage on the Haditha massacre and what happened
to that coverage when it became obvious that the 'massacre' never
happened.
So they buried Iraq coverage when it became evident their reports five
years ago "we won" were wrong?
Colin Campbell
2007-11-03 16:43:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:36:41 -0400, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
Post by Colin Campbell
Look at the media coverage on the Haditha massacre and what happened
to that coverage when it became obvious that the 'massacre' never
happened.
So they buried Iraq coverage when it became evident their reports five
years ago "we won" were wrong?
Which reports were these? I have seen nothing but negative spin and
outright distortions coming from the news media regarding Iraq.

We had CNN running 24/7 in out TOC and what they were reporting was so
far removed from reality that it seemed like they were discussing a
different Iraq than the one we were in.




--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
2007-11-02 03:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by edward ohare
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:39:24 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
(Wondering if you're going to get to the point of a co worker, ex
Navy, who blamed Clinton for the US defeat in Iraq.)
typical squid: we're winning.
redc1c4,
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
I notice how all of the news media seems to be getting real quiet
about Iraq all of a sudden. This is a real good hint that things are
better than they want to admit to us.
Oh really? How about that situation on the border with Turkey? That
doesn't sound like very good news to me. What's your explanation for
why the American MSM isn't giving that wall-to-wall coverage? It's all
over the BBC and the Middle Eastern news networks.

--
Dystopian USA
http://dystopianusa.blogspot.com/
Ruminations On A Nation In Decline
redc1c4
2007-11-02 04:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
Post by edward ohare
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:39:24 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by edward ohare
(Wondering if you're going to get to the point of a co worker, ex
Navy, who blamed Clinton for the US defeat in Iraq.)
typical squid: we're winning.
redc1c4,
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
I notice how all of the news media seems to be getting real quiet
about Iraq all of a sudden. This is a real good hint that things are
better than they want to admit to us.
Oh really? How about that situation on the border with Turkey? That
doesn't sound like very good news to me. What's your explanation for
why the American MSM isn't giving that wall-to-wall coverage? It's all
over the BBC and the Middle Eastern news networks.
what situation on the Turkish border?

redc1c4,
who doesn't consider sabre rattling to be news.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
2007-11-02 05:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
Post by Colin Campbell
I notice how all of the news media seems to be getting real quiet
about Iraq all of a sudden. This is a real good hint that things are
better than they want to admit to us.
Oh really? How about that situation on the border with Turkey? That
doesn't sound like very good news to me. What's your explanation for
why the American MSM isn't giving that wall-to-wall coverage? It's all
over the BBC and the Middle Eastern news networks.
what situation on the Turkish border?
redc1c4,
who doesn't consider sabre rattling to be news.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/134093.html

Last I heard they had some 150,000 troops massed on the border and
their parliament has given them the go-ahead to invade. That's some
pretty serious sabre rattling. Apparently they're waiting until after
they talk to Bush and Rice (tomorrow I think) before they do anything.

--
Dystopian USA
http://dystopianusa.blogspot.com/
Ruminations On A Nation In Decline
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-11-02 11:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
Oh really? How about that situation on the border with Turkey? That
doesn't sound like very good news to me. What's your explanation for
why the American MSM isn't giving that wall-to-wall coverage?
I entered Turkey into the Google News search engine. Over 67,000 stories
today. So much for your theory. But don't let facts get in the way of a
hare brained theory - if you did, your winger friends might disown you.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Ace
2007-11-02 13:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
Oh really? How about that situation on the border with Turkey? That
doesn't sound like very good news to me. What's your explanation for
why the American MSM isn't giving that wall-to-wall coverage?
I entered Turkey into the Google News search engine. Over 67,000 stories
today. So much for your theory. But don't let facts get in the way of a
hare brained theory - if you did, your winger friends might disown you.
Funny. I did the same, specifying only US news pages and only 27
pages were returned, eight of which are about or related to the bird.
That implies that up to 66,973 of the pages you found originated
outside the US.
Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
2007-11-02 17:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
Oh really? How about that situation on the border with Turkey? That
doesn't sound like very good news to me. What's your explanation for
why the American MSM isn't giving that wall-to-wall coverage?
I entered Turkey into the Google News search engine. Over 67,000 stories
today. So much for your theory. But don't let facts get in the way of a
hare brained theory - if you did, your winger friends might disown you.
1) A Google News search is not representative of the _American_ MSM.

2) I didn't put forth any theory. Colin did. I was asking him to
explain it. I actually agree with you that the American MSM is profit-
driven. I've seen ten times the coverage of the Brittany slut's child
custody hearing as I have of this story.

3) Go fuck yourself.

That being said, Time Magazine does finally have an article out about
it -- an interview with Ambassador Crocker which also mentions the
stuff Red is talking about.

See http://tinyurl.com/ysjhqe

--
Dystopian USA
http://dystopianusa.blogspot.com/
Ruminations On A Nation In Decline
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-11-02 20:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
Oh really? How about that situation on the border with Turkey? That
doesn't sound like very good news to me. What's your explanation for
why the American MSM isn't giving that wall-to-wall coverage?
I entered Turkey into the Google News search engine. Over 67,000 stories
today. So much for your theory. But don't let facts get in the way of a
hare brained theory - if you did, your winger friends might disown you.
1) A Google News search is not representative of the _American_ MSM.
2) I didn't put forth any theory. Colin did. I was asking him to
explain it. I actually agree with you that the American MSM is profit-
driven. I've seen ten times the coverage of the Brittany slut's child
custody hearing as I have of this story.
Sorry for the misattribution.
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
3) Go fuck yourself.
I prefer my GF.
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
That being said, Time Magazine does finally have an article out about
it -- an interview with Ambassador Crocker which also mentions the
stuff Red is talking about.
See http://tinyurl.com/ysjhqe
These wingers will not admit their errors.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
2007-11-02 21:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
Oh really? How about that situation on the border with Turkey? That
doesn't sound like very good news to me. What's your explanation for
why the American MSM isn't giving that wall-to-wall coverage?
I entered Turkey into the Google News search engine. Over 67,000 stories
today. So much for your theory. But don't let facts get in the way of a
hare brained theory - if you did, your winger friends might disown you.
1) A Google News search is not representative of the _American_ MSM.
2) I didn't put forth any theory. Colin did. I was asking him to
explain it. I actually agree with you that the American MSM is profit-
driven. I've seen ten times the coverage of the Brittany slut's child
custody hearing as I have of this story.
Sorry for the misattribution.
Oh! No problem. Sorry for the reaction. ;)
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
3) Go fuck yourself.
I prefer my GF.
Heh.
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Cletus Awreetus Awrightus
That being said, Time Magazine does finally have an article out about
it -- an interview with Ambassador Crocker which also mentions the
stuff Red is talking about.
See http://tinyurl.com/ysjhqe
These wingers will not admit their errors.
I notice that Crocker, to his credit, while touting the recent
successes, doesn't go quite so far as to say that "we've won". Maybe
they have learned a few lessons about overstating their achievements.

--
Dystopian USA
http://dystopianusa.blogspot.com/
Ruminations On A Nation In Decline
Ace
2007-11-02 07:45:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:02:56 -0700, Colin Campbell
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by redc1c4
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
I notice how all of the news media seems to be getting real quiet
about Iraq all of a sudden. This is a real good hint that things are
better than they want to admit to us.
I doubt it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7042805.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/01/wirq101.xml

Iraq is an unmitigated disaster brought about by the incompetence of
the Bush regime, and exacerbated by the gung ho attitude of the US
military.

Having said that, I do not believe that, now the damage has been done,
immediate withdrawal is the answer. The US must stay the course to
clear up the mess they have created.
redc1c4
2007-11-02 15:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by edward ohare
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:02:56 -0700, Colin Campbell
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by redc1c4
you can tell because the MSM isn't covering it. %-)
I notice how all of the news media seems to be getting real quiet
about Iraq all of a sudden. This is a real good hint that things are
better than they want to admit to us.
I doubt it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7042805.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/01/wirq101.xml
Iraq is an unmitigated disaster brought about by the incompetence of
the Bush regime, and exacerbated by the gung ho attitude of the US
military.
Having said that, I do not believe that, now the damage has been done,
immediate withdrawal is the answer. The US must stay the course to
clear up the mess they have created.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22689634-5007146,00.html

redc1c4,
no one believes the BBC anymore, except maybe Pommies. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
edward ohare
2007-11-05 02:59:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:45:46 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Having said that, I do not believe that, now the damage has been done,
immediate withdrawal is the answer. The US must stay the course to
clear up the mess they have created.
Right about cleaning up the mess. You ought to send Tony Blair along
too, however.
Ace
2007-11-05 06:42:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:59:33 -0500, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:45:46 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Having said that, I do not believe that, now the damage has been done,
immediate withdrawal is the answer. The US must stay the course to
clear up the mess they have created.
Right about cleaning up the mess. You ought to send Tony Blair along
too, however.
The 'mess' in the four British administered provinces is close to
being cleaned up. Full control in three of the provinces has been
handed over to Iraqi civilian administration. In the final province,
Basra, the 5,000 British servicemen have left the city and are
garrisoned at the airport.

Loading Image...

A great many British special forces will remain in Iraq for some
considerable time supporting US forces throughout the country, but the
5,000 troops still in Basra should be withdrawn as soon as the Iraqi
military is able to offer military back up to the civilian
administration in Basra.

The 5,000 British troops + special services contrasts with 160,000 US
troops.

An anagram of Tony Blair is Bonty Liar.
redc1c4
2007-11-08 05:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ace
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:59:33 -0500, edward ohare
Post by edward ohare
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:45:46 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
Having said that, I do not believe that, now the damage has been done,
immediate withdrawal is the answer. The US must stay the course to
clear up the mess they have created.
Right about cleaning up the mess. You ought to send Tony Blair along
too, however.
The 'mess' in the four British administered provinces is close to
being cleaned up. Full control in three of the provinces has been
handed over to Iraqi civilian administration. In the final province,
Basra, the 5,000 British servicemen have left the city and are
garrisoned at the airport.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44093000/gif/_44093288_iraq_provences203.gif
A great many British special forces will remain in Iraq for some
considerable time supporting US forces throughout the country, but the
5,000 troops still in Basra should be withdrawn as soon as the Iraqi
military is able to offer military back up to the civilian
administration in Basra.
The 5,000 British troops + special services contrasts with 160,000 US
troops.
An anagram of Tony Blair is Bonty Liar.
a better anagram would be "Maggie Thatcher".

that's what "less than great britain" needs.

redc1c4,
but go ahead & build the 'great mosque" for the 2012 olympics instead. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Ace
2007-11-08 07:36:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:03:15 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by Ace
An anagram of Tony Blair is Bonty Liar.
a better anagram would be "Maggie Thatcher".
!?
Post by redc1c4
that's what "less than great britain" needs.
!?
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
but go ahead & build the 'great mosque" for the 2012 olympics instead. %-)
!?

You have exceeded yourself this time with three incomprehensible
burblings.
redc1c4
2007-11-08 20:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ace
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:03:15 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by Ace
An anagram of Tony Blair is Bonty Liar.
a better anagram would be "Maggie Thatcher".
!?
Post by redc1c4
that's what "less than great britain" needs.
!?
Post by redc1c4
redc1c4,
but go ahead & build the 'great mosque" for the 2012 olympics instead. %-)
!?
You have exceeded yourself this time with three incomprehensible
burblings.
i was emulating you.....

redc1c4,
a lot of things confuse you. life, for instance. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-11-02 11:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
I notice how all of the news media seems to be getting real quiet
about Iraq all of a sudden. This is a real good hint that things are
better than they want to admit to us.
The news media is owned by a wealthy elite who are interested in only
one thing: selling advertising.

If reporting good news frm Iraq would increase their advertising sales,
they would d it in a heartbeat.

The right-wing loonie idea that they would willingly lose revenues if
they could spread some particular viewpoint is naive.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
redc1c4
2007-11-02 15:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Colin Campbell
I notice how all of the news media seems to be getting real quiet
about Iraq all of a sudden. This is a real good hint that things are
better than they want to admit to us.
The news media is owned by a wealthy elite who are interested in only
one thing: selling advertising.
If reporting good news frm Iraq would increase their advertising sales,
they would d it in a heartbeat.
The right-wing loonie idea that they would willingly lose revenues if
they could spread some particular viewpoint is naive.
then i should look for this story on the evening news, or in tomorrow's
newspaper?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22689634-5007146,00.html

redc1c4,
who *won't* be expecting it.... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-11-02 16:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
The right-wing loonie idea that they would willingly lose revenues if
they could spread some particular viewpoint is naive.
then i should look for this story on the evening news, or in tomorrow's
newspaper?
No idea. If it will sell newspapers, you will see it.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
redc1c4
2007-11-02 18:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by redc1c4
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
The right-wing loonie idea that they would willingly lose revenues if
they could spread some particular viewpoint is naive.
then i should look for this story on the evening news, or in tomorrow's
newspaper?
No idea. If it will sell newspapers, you will see it.
give the market performance of the NYT, LAT and others recently, it seems the
meme is more important than the bottom line.

redc1c4,
the numbers don't back up your contention...... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
edward ohare
2007-11-03 01:35:00 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:29:30 -0800, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by redc1c4
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
The right-wing loonie idea that they would willingly lose revenues if
they could spread some particular viewpoint is naive.
then i should look for this story on the evening news, or in tomorrow's
newspaper?
No idea. If it will sell newspapers, you will see it.
give the market performance of the NYT, LAT and others recently, it seems the
meme is more important than the bottom line.
redc1c4,
the numbers don't back up your contention...... %-)
Oh, yes, more of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical silliness.

I suppose you've heard newspapers are taking a beating because of
other methods of news distribution.
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-11-08 11:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
Would anybody object if I were to send a cmsg for
us.national-security.general to kick things off?
Ace
2007-11-08 18:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
Would anybody object if I were to send a cmsg for
us.national-security.general to kick things off?
No.
edward ohare
2007-11-09 00:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
Would anybody object if I were to send a cmsg for
us.national-security.general to kick things off?
Yes. (But I'm just one vote in a non voting hierarchy. <G>)
redc1c4
2007-11-09 04:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
Would anybody object if I were to send a cmsg for
us.national-security.general to kick things off?
by all means.....

redc1c4,
here to help? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
K. A. Cannon
2007-11-09 05:49:54 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:45:38 GMT, redc1c4
Post by redc1c4
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
Would anybody object if I were to send a cmsg for
us.national-security.general to kick things off?
by all means.....
Why send a newgroup cmsg when it won't do a damn thing.

What I would really like to know is where is HKT?

If she doesn't show up soon......
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

http://www.insurgent.org/

#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-11-09 11:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by K. A. Cannon
Why send a newgroup cmsg when it won't do a damn thing.
Why wouldn't it do anything?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
K. A. Cannon
2007-11-10 01:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by K. A. Cannon
Why send a newgroup cmsg when it won't do a damn thing.
Why wouldn't it do anything?
If you have to ask ya don't know how UseNet workz.
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

http://www.insurgent.org/

#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-11-10 04:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by K. A. Cannon
Why send a newgroup cmsg when it won't do a damn thing.
Why wouldn't it do anything?
If you have to ask ya don't know how UseNet workz.
Please educate me.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Gary L. Burnore
2007-11-10 05:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by K. A. Cannon
Why send a newgroup cmsg when it won't do a damn thing.
Why wouldn't it do anything?
If you have to ask ya don't know how UseNet workz.
Please educate me.
You're really not kidding, are you? Heh.

Dude, managed groups like us.* use a PGPkey to identfy the person
sending the cmsg is valid. News admins won't be creating a group
without said signature. (Some wont' create it even WITH the key
unless their users request it).
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-11-10 13:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary L. Burnore
You're really not kidding, are you? Heh.
Dude, managed groups like us.* use a PGPkey to identfy the person
sending the cmsg is valid.
That is true, perhaps, in the big 8, but not true in many oter cases.


News admins won't be creating a group
Post by Gary L. Burnore
without said signature. (Some wont' create it even WITH the key
unless their users request it).
There are thousands of News Admins (shit - I could install the proper
software and become one myself if I were so incined) and hundreds of
hierarchies. Do you realy think that thngs are as neat and tidy as you
imagine?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Gary L. Burnore
2007-11-10 14:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Gary L. Burnore
You're really not kidding, are you? Heh.
Dude, managed groups like us.* use a PGPkey to identfy the person
sending the cmsg is valid.
That is true, perhaps, in the big 8, but not true in many oter cases.
us is more like the big 8 than alt.
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
News admins won't be creating a group
Post by Gary L. Burnore
without said signature. (Some wont' create it even WITH the key
unless their users request it).
There are thousands of News Admins (shit - I could install the proper
software and become one myself if I were so incined)
Anyone can install the software. That doesn't make you a news admin.
But feel free to try to prove anyone who tells you that.
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
and hundreds of hierarchies.
Not all are managed, dipshit.
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Do you realy think that thngs are as neat and tidy as you
imagine?
You have no idea what I do or do not immagine, dipshit. Kevin's
right, you don't understand and there's no sense telling you.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
K. A. Cannon
2007-11-11 03:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Gary L. Burnore
You're really not kidding, are you? Heh.
Dude, managed groups like us.* use a PGPkey to identfy the person
sending the cmsg is valid.
That is true, perhaps, in the big 8, but not true in many oter cases.
I don't know if there is a valid PGP key for us.*.
I do know Russ helped HKT.

I do know that isc.org won't acknowledge any cmsg sent by you to start
a new us.* newsgroup. I know the major well run news server will
ignore it. I know quit a few people who will cancel your cmsg, send
rmgroup msg's and netcop you.
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
News admins won't be creating a group
Post by Gary L. Burnore
without said signature. (Some wont' create it even WITH the key
unless their users request it).
There are thousands of News Admins (shit - I could install the proper
software and become one myself if I were so incined)
So could I.
Great...now you have a news server.
A stand alone server with no outbound feeds and no inbound feeds.
Do you really think Supernews or Highwinds are gonna peer with you?
Do you think anybody will just cause you have a server?

You don't understand Usenet...and I am not inclined to spend the time
to edumacate yer ass. Quit acting like Duharyl....you know
better...kindly act as ya do.
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
and hundreds of
hierarchies. Do you realy think that thngs are as neat and tidy as you
imagine?
You neither want to understand nor do you care to understand.

Go ahead....send the cmsg....waste some time and effort and fuck up
us.* just that much more.
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

http://www.insurgent.org/

#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
K. A. Cannon
2007-11-09 05:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
Would anybody object if I were to send a cmsg for
us.national-security.general to kick things off?
Won't mean anything.

Unless you have the correct PGP key...and I don't believe HKT ever
grok'ed PGP.
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

http://www.insurgent.org/

#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-11-09 11:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by K. A. Cannon
Unless you have the correct PGP key...and I don't believe HKT ever
grok'ed PGP.
Why do you think such a thing is necessary?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
K. A. Cannon
2007-11-10 01:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by K. A. Cannon
Unless you have the correct PGP key...and I don't believe HKT ever
grok'ed PGP.
Why do you think such a thing is necessary?
You don't understand Usenet...


And I know Panix would frown upon you sending cmsg's for a managed
hierarchy.

But go ahead....make us.* just like alt.*.
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

http://www.insurgent.org/

#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
Ace
2007-11-10 08:06:55 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:13:00 -0500, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
But go ahead....make us.* just like alt.*.
That might just work.
Gary L. Burnore
2007-11-10 14:40:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:06:55 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:13:00 -0500, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
But go ahead....make us.* just like alt.*.
That might just work.
It be better than it is now.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Ace
2007-11-10 20:30:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:40:01 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
Post by Gary L. Burnore
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:06:55 +0000, Ace
Post by Ace
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:13:00 -0500, K. A. Cannon
Post by K. A. Cannon
But go ahead....make us.* just like alt.*.
That might just work.
It be better than it is now.
Anything is better than the spam trap us.* has evolved into.
Adam H. Kerman
2007-11-10 22:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
Would anybody object if I were to send a cmsg for
us.national-security.general to kick things off?
Won't mean anything.
Unless you have the correct PGP key...and I don't believe HKT ever
grok'ed PGP.
No, she never implemented PGP signing.
K. A. Cannon
2007-11-11 02:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
Would anybody object if I were to send a cmsg for
us.national-security.general to kick things off?
Won't mean anything.
Unless you have the correct PGP key...and I don't believe HKT ever
grok'ed PGP.
No, she never implemented PGP signing.
I think Russ helped her in that respect....


But sending newgroup cmsg's for any new group in us.* isn't going to
do a damn thing.
You won't get the newsgroup on any decently run server.
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

http://www.insurgent.org/

#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
Adam H. Kerman
2007-11-11 04:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by K. A. Cannon
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by redc1c4
us.national-security.*
Would anybody object if I were to send a cmsg for
us.national-security.general to kick things off?
Won't mean anything.
Unless you have the correct PGP key...and I don't believe HKT ever
grok'ed PGP.
No, she never implemented PGP signing.
I think Russ helped her in that respect....
Perhaps he did try. For whatever reason, us.* isn't one of the
hierarchies listed in rone's unified control.ctl that had implemented
PGP signing.

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/control.ctl

I wasn't lurking in us.config around the time it was discussed, so I
don't know what happened.

I see Henrietta still hasn't done a damn thing about the Web site, which
has been down for what, six months?
Post by K. A. Cannon
But sending newgroup cmsg's for any new group in us.* isn't going to
do a damn thing.
You won't get the newsgroup on any decently run server.
Just checked 2Rowdy's propagation search tool. It's not even on any of
the indecently run servers.

Sorry, EskWIRED. No one is known to recognize your authority.

Loading...