Driver to drive?

[Jenn]

In article <uu9Ek.64375$E41.11880@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
"Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:

"hans" <anybutbush@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:935246f2-86d9-419b-a789-958e5b040c8a@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 7:51 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
DavidW wrote:
Paul wrote:
OH MY GOD, no wonder McCain is dropping in
the polls:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ

The debate this week will be fun.

The set up seems to be to declare Sarah Palin the winner if she speaks
in English.

--
Cheers,

vc

Well said.

the Americans do seem to have an awful lot of trouble trying to find
presidential and VP candidates with basic English skills.

Well, three out of four isn't bad. Actually, Palin's English skills
don't seem to be below par, she's simply unprepared to answer questions
regarding her proposed position.

 

[jdeluise]

On 29-Sep-2008, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com> wrote:

In article <uu9Ek.64375$E41.11880@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
"Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:

"hans" <anybutbush@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:935246f2-86d9-419b-a789-958e5b040c8a@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 7:51 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
DavidW wrote:
Paul wrote:
OH MY GOD, no wonder McCain is dropping in
the polls:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ

The debate this week will be fun.

The set up seems to be to declare Sarah Palin the winner if she speaks
in English.

--
Cheers,

vc

Well said.

the Americans do seem to have an awful lot of trouble trying to find
presidential and VP candidates with basic English skills.

Well, three out of four isn't bad. Actually, Palin's English skills
don't seem to be below par, she's simply unprepared to answer questions
regarding her proposed position.

I would agree with that assessment. I don't think she is stupid, but she is
clearly out of her element as a VP candidate.

 

[Iceberg]

<anything@contractorcom.com> wrote in message
news:m3k1e4l5iq1vmd3a0ttac389ghqndmr5l8@4ax.com...

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:25:08 GMT, "Iceberg"
big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:

anything@contractorcom.com> wrote in message
newsac1e4d2ma79q8jk1hh0ln0oqlfkqt6lca@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:51:36 -0700 (PDT), Paul <Quiller123@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sep 28, 10:48?pm, Norman Draper <normandra...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:56?am, Norman Draper <normandra...@verizon.net> wrote:





On Sep 28, 10:27?pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:

On 9/28/08 7:12 PM, in article
122e105c-db0d-49b1-9cda-c5035168d...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com,
"Paul"

Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:

? ?OH MY GOD, no wonder McCain is dropping in
the polls:

? ? ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ

? ? It's SO bad, that all Tina Fey had to do was copy
verbatim what Palin said, and it was hilarious.

? ? What's NOT hilarious, is the thought of this true
barbie doll getting a heart beat away from the
Presidency. ?At first I thought McCain was brilliant
choosing her, but now that we are seeing who she
really is, it's downright scary. ?Almost comical. ?A
political Farce really. ?Is this what the USA has been
reduced to?

? ? In fact, even the more intelligent Republicans
can now see how bad of a choice she is as a running
mate.

? ? ?My god, even her incredible beauty is NOT
going to save her come the debate this Thursday.

? ? ?She is GORGEOUS physically. ?No argument
there. ?And she no doubt loves America. ?But let's
get serious here......there is no way she's gonna
be fit for the white house.

? ? ? For the Love of Sweet Jesus, PLEASE
vote for Obama.

How about you display at least some low-level intelligence, and
tell
us just
what was so funny about what she said.

Can't do it can you? You're just a smear-monger idiot.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Don,

I agree... It's not funny. ?It's both sad and pathetic, but it's not
funny. ?If you need to have what's sad and pathetic about her
response, get back to me. ?But if you really don't understand it
now,
there may not be a way for me to put it into terms you could
understand.

You REALLY didn't see any humor in her response???

Norman (Not Even A Little Bit??) Draper- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's a longer version of the interview......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj6KviFGzng&feature=related

I have another adjective: scary.

Here main theme seems to be that the world should be as we want it to
be. Take note of the question that begins at 6:10.... ?It's right
after her statement about how we have to continue our nation building
effort. ?I think the cat is out of the bag as far as her lack of
knowledge of.... hell, practically everything.

Norman (It's Still Sad) Draper- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Oh My. Very scary indeed.

She can barely put a coherent sentence together,
with dangling catch phrases like "freedom" and "democracy",
strung together.

Someone described her as a high school
student who didn't study enough, struggling to
bullshit her way through a test. Good description
in my book......WOW

Heh...when I was a kid we used to live on the orther side of the road
from a guy who was head of personnel (as it was then called) for ICI.

He turned down Margaret Thatcher for a job because he thought she was
OK but 'not too bright'.

Plus ca change...

these types are the sort of morons that worked for Decca and hollered that
guitar bands were a thing of the past when The Beatles walked in and asked
to be signed.


There's a big difference between turning down a rock and roll band for
a record label and hiring someone with the destructive instincts of
Thatcher for a major chemical company.

destructive? she got rid of the most destructive, backwards thinking and
power hungry dictatorial morons in the country ie. the union bosses. We
actually *want* our kids working down coal pits in the 90's, let's wreck
Wapping and bring back the Caxton printing press rather than these modern
digital ones yay! etc.

 

[TheM]

"qrk" <SpamTrap@spam.net> wrote in message news:lm82e41i102d36mnj2d9shmlnrdod3hbdj@4ax.com...

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:53:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:


Notice how the Chinese space program advanced in the past decade?
China got a big boost from the US (thanks to Clinton) which gave them
analysis on their failures. When this news hit the streets, it was
quickly silenced by the Monica thing. Easy to dupe the 'merican pulic.

They got big boost from Russians rather than US.
Well, US provides the money by buying chinese crap,
Russians provide the technology.

Sure, they launched the Monica thing just to silence that.
Put your tinfoil hat back on

M

 

[Kris Krieger]

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in news:8285c707-1a8c-4152-8d0b-846cb8136689
@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 25, 11:38�pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com

Keynes long ago worked out how to stabilise the economy, but
monetarist economists didn't like his theory. Naomi Klein's "The Shock
Doctrine" spells out why.


Wasn't she on Bill Mahar's show the other night?
This one's on my reading list.
Thanks for the reminder...

-mpm

All of the cited books are on my Amazon wish list now. I don't usually have
sucess with just picking books blind, but I'd say that a good 95%+ of the
recommendations I've gotten in newsgroups have been eitehr very good, or
excellent.

 

[Kris Krieger]

default <default@defaulter.net> wrote in
news:j1opd49o9m7mvqa3polttokn2tposndfir@4ax.com:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:26:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

Good grief! Sick ideas emanating from a sick mind :-(

...Jim Thompson

One has to look no further than congress or candidates for sick minds.

In the past, I'd several times considered trying to run for office. Then I
realized that candidates are not elected ont eh basis of reasonable
intelligence and education and so on - they're elected on the basis of (1)
geniality and (2) how much mud they can smear all over the other candidate.
I've no social sense, and I'm too focuses on information to deal with lies,
so I'd be DOA.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in news:6k843kF6hqpfU1
@mid.individual.net:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:07:12 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
paul@hovnanian.com> wrote:

I think its the impending adoption of strict banking capital standards
recommended by the Basel Accords
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_Capital_Accords).

All of the US banks held their portfolios up against the strict
requirements and realized that much of them won't qualify. So they
started looking around for some patsy to buy their bad paper.

The best patsy money can buy: The Bush administration.

Paulson claims that banks won't lend money unless they can clean up
their portfolios. I think they are playing chicken with us. The number
of credit card and refinance offers I get in a week continue unabated.
That's loaning money, isn't it? The smart banks are busy getting better
loans onto their books, and holding onto them, rather than selling them
into the secondary market. The secondary market is getting pissed, what
with them sitting on a pile of bad paper and now no new product coming
in.

Right now the talks are stymied by Democrat requirements that ACORN be
funded and that union officials have to sit on all mortgage boards ;-)

So shove that up your ass and smoke it.

...Jim Thompson

So the Democrats are blocking your Republican Socialism?

This morning, 94 Dems voted against the Bill, and something like 114 (but
I'm trying to re-find my link...) REpubs voted against it.

One point. Poeple keep carping on "Wall Street Bailout". One of the
biggest problems weer multi-billion-dollar hedge funds that used naked
shorts (which technicly are illegal, but the law was not ennofreced over
the past few years) to drive various financials into teh dirt. Anotehr
aspect was that too many assest overall are backed by mortgages in some
form or another - but deregulation had allwoed brokers to merely selel
mortgages on commission, whereas the bankls etc. which bought the bundles
didn't/couldn't examine them in detail, and ended up holding the proverbial
bag. If anyone sould be living under bridges, it's the mortgage brokers
who wrote mortgages that were destined to fail, and mega-hedge-fund
managers.

The news media have propagated inaccurate information - people think
they'er against the bill, but they cannot accurately judge that becasue
they don't know what the actual situation is. And IMO, this perpetuation
of inaccuracy is allowed to occur because, if it deosn't pass and if teh
economy does go into a Depression, the rich/power-elite will merely be less
rich, whereas "merely" the middle and lower classes will be wiped out.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in news:C5054544.C54FD%
dbowey@comcast.net:

On 9/28/08 11:29 AM, in article
k--dnc0h3NttUULVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@earthlink.com, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

Let's hear it for fascism. Hovnanian thinks he'll be part of the
elite. He won't. He's a peasant. Once a peasant, always a peasant


If they lock him up in one of those newer, high security prisons,
will he be a peasant under glass?

What's wrogn with being a peasant? They're the ones who do all the actual
work in a society. Astiticrats (and/or aristo wannabes) can stick up their
noses as much as they want, but they'd be lost without their
servants/peasants to take care of them and their properties.

 

[Kris Krieger]

don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in
news:slrnge0oel.lhs.don@manx.misty.com:

In <MPG.234a124af0ae16bb98a231@news.individual.net>, krw wrote in part:

Do you blame them? If Congress wanted to stem that tide
(withdrawals of money from banks)
it would be easy. Simply up the FDIC limit temporarily.

Since that limit has been unchanged for something like 30 years or more,
should it not get a permanent raise?

I've heard that suggestion, and it's not all that bad.

If not, why not?

(* Because Americans still have low need to have over $100K in ordinary
bank accounts now that various mutual funds [including "prime" money
market funds as well as stock index funds] have a high rate of doing
better and being highly available to Americans who have $100K or even $10K
in a bank account with as little as $5K free to move to a greener pasture)

But it's "big money" which forms teh core/backbone of the bank - they get
higher rates of return. They are the bulk of the bank's capital, which is
used to obtain and give credit and stock the ATM machines.

(* Because the insurance premium detracts from interest rate by some
fraction of 1% APY - banks give more-competitive interest by some
fraction of 1% when money not covered by FDIC is in their hands)

More to the point, is that fraction significant enough to be important?

Should a permanent raise in FDIC coverage be a problem soon, I would
agree with a raise in FDIC insurance past 100K being temporary, at least
in terms of having a temporary raise that lacks increase of premium
payment at least temporarily.
And by temporary I mean having an overt expiration date. For a better
example of "temporary" being not-so, I would mention "temporary" taxes
and "temporary" tax increases that lack overt expiration dates.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Kris Krieger]

bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote in news:6a21f22d-0bcd-4b79-88b3-c67fc3bb3161
@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 28, 3:17 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
   Yawn.  Get a life, and a viable candidate.

We may not be yawning if this thing melts down as everyone predicts if
they don't do the bailout.

And we won't be yawning if they piss away 700 billion + if they do the
bailout.

Ron Paul is not the only one preditcting this. I have been reading
about this for 6 years. Lot's of people knew, nobody knew the time it
would happen though.

Also, people who did predict problems were descried, denegrated, defamed as
liars or 'mere kooks' - why? - because too many peole thought they were
'gaming the system', from the mrotgage brokers gettign fat commissions fro
selling mrotgages tehy knew weer untenable, to the bannks that jsut bought
all of this junk with eyes closed, to, yes, the too-many people who took on
mortgages whose monthly payments were too near to, or even exeeded, their
monthly income, because they beleived they would be able to flip teh house
for a huge profit - much the same way that many gamblers believe they will
beat the house if only they play one more hand or pull the lever one more
time - and bet their life-savings on their mere belief.

Looks like the time is now. Where is Greenspan when you need him?
(I actually think Greenspan will go down as the big enabler of this
mess)

Frankly, I'm not convinced that any of them did much (or any?) better than I
could have =:-o

 

[Kris Krieger]

HardySpicer <gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote in news:ce7a1de5-a02d-481e-9fe7-
8f523a6c0782@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 28, 9:04 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
HardySpicer wrote:
As engineers (I assume professional engineers), how do you react when
people ask you what your job is and you say you are an engineer? Do
they assume you drive a train?

Hardy

Absolutely!
Only *real* engineers drive trains.

Where the hell did the word engineer get mixed up with a train driver?
Even in the UK where engineers are classed as toilet cleaners things
are not that bad.

Hardy
I guess it's like "rocketeer" or "wagoneer" - the person who handles the

item. The engineer didn't work the train, but specifically, controlled the
engine.

I think it might be different from the origin of the otehr types of engineer.
Wht I found was this:
[Middle English enginour, from Old French engigneor, from Medieval Latin
ingenitor, contriver, from ingenire, to contrive, from Latin ingenium,
ability; see engine.]

HTH

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"TheM" <DontNeedSpam@test.com> wrote in message
newsF9Ek.3496$x84.89544@news.siol.net...

"qrk" <SpamTrap@spam.net> wrote in message
news:lm82e41i102d36mnj2d9shmlnrdod3hbdj@4ax.com...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:53:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:


Notice how the Chinese space program advanced in the past decade?
China got a big boost from the US (thanks to Clinton) which gave them
analysis on their failures. When this news hit the streets, it was
quickly silenced by the Monica thing. Easy to dupe the 'merican pulic.

They got big boost from Russians rather than US.
Well, US provides the money by buying chinese crap,
Russians provide the technology.

Sure, they launched the Monica thing just to silence that.
Put your tinfoil hat back on

Um how many people were caught selling our secrets or infiltrating our
government to/for china?

I guess for chinese it's easier for them to steal it then come up with it on
their own?

 

[Jenn]

In article <bo92e4hrgcan6vn6bq658vpd0ltiaa2k6p@4ax.com>,
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote:

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:12:08 -0700, Jenn <jennconducts@mac.com> wrote:


Man, no wonder we're so messed up. Do you like the result of the last 8
years with 2 non-lawyers in charge?


It appears that you ain't all that bright either, twit.

Gee Clem, thanks for your opinion.

 

[hank alrich]

Tony Weber <mycroftxxx@SOCKSspeakeasy.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:06:46 -0700 (PDT), bash <tbash@jrma.com> wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:03 pm, Tony Weber <mycroft...@SOCKSspeakeasy.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com
wrote:
OH MY GOD, no wonder McCain is dropping in
the polls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ
It's SO bad, that all Tina Fey had to do was copy
verbatim what Palin said, and it was hilarious.
The choice in this election is clear: two lawyers or two non-lawyers.
No contest: vote McCain.
John
Interesting. The Declaration of Independence, the United States
Constitution and the Bill of Rights were all written by Lawyers.

Why do you hate America?

TW- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I think my last post died, so I apologize if this went through 1/2 way

Washington was a surveyor/military man/farmer, Sam Adams dropped out
of Law School, John Hancock was a merchant, Jefferson was admitted to
the bar but spent most his time and made his living as a farmer and
spent more time building Monticello than practising law. No sane
person can compare the lawyers of the 18th century to the lawyers of
the 21st century


Modern lawyers (and I've dated a
few) are people of power.

Right. And I've dated a software engineer from Adobe, so I know
everything about the field of programming.

Sheesh.

Did you just love her to bits, or did y'all get pixilated?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

 

[George's ProSound Company]

"hans" <anybutbush@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc6573fd-a6d2-4900-b89e-9b0f83516b41@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 3:54 pm, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
<Zarathus...@thusspoke.org> wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:55:22 -0700 (PDT), Shy Picker <ShyPic...@aol.com
wrote:

...were all written by Lawyers.

? Bullshit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why would you call the The Declaration of Independence, the United
States Constitution and the Bill of Rights Bullshit?
Just following the lead of G W Bush

and I quote:

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to
meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial
USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period
immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that
liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces
with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose
renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous
provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the
President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet
Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the
Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that
the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just
a goddamned piece of paper!"

from
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_article_7779.shtml

George

 

[TheM]

"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:CDaEk.1883$Ws1.1073@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...

Sure, they launched the Monica thing just to silence that.
Put your tinfoil hat back on


Um how many people were caught selling our secrets or infiltrating our government to/for china?

I guess for chinese it's easier for them to steal it then come up with it on their own?

That might be, but Monica thing... come on.

M

 

[Kris Krieger]

The Great Attractor
<SuperM@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote in
news:lnd2e41jm8t62akvtppkv54h8fgvudf325@4ax.com:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:31:31 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
news:esr1e4hd81v8sn03tn3fpv13ie0fck6dq9@4ax.com:

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:32:56 -0700 (PDT), James Arthur
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com> wrote:


FWIW, that "group" you speak of is one guy, posting under various
guises. Corbomite, Jackie Gleason, AnimalMagic, SoothSayer,
FatBytestard, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt, Achimedes' Lever,
etc., = same.  You can recognize new nyms by the potty mouth.

Pretty industrious, isn't he?

Cheers,
James Arthur

Hmm, interesting.  Does he post on sci.elec otherwise?

To sci.electronics.design, yes. Sometimes even constructively.
Sometimes.


Gosh, I missed that.

John


I find it more than a little neurotic, that someone would go through all
of that "neonym"ing - demands attention, yet refuses to even try to
change the behaviors that get then plonked. Bizarre.

"neonym"? You're an idiot.

It is called a "PSEUDONYM", you dolt! Talk about bizarre!? I find it
bizarre that you would claim ANY modicum of intelligence.

Oh good grief, it's a play on words, that's why it was in quotes, duuuuuuh

 

[Kris Krieger]

default <default@defaulter.net> wrote in
news:rpb2e4tkofdv3f20vnvevf1ti7ncthfvab@4ax.com:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:52:38 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in
wrote:

default <default@defaulter.net> wrote in
news:80qnd4lqvnqccnubfiv7fsn0cqcal9fdsr@4ax.com:

[snip]
Have you read the text of the plan, and what do you think of it?


I'm reading the first draft, haven't yet gotten the link to the version
that COngress just rejected.

I'm bothered that the primary oversight committe (that's supposed to
evaluate the Treasury Secretary's actions and the effects thereof) is
made of 5 political appointees - nto one elected representative. And
worse!, has teh Sec.ty as one fo the members. WTF...? I've heard ti
suggeted that "it's to be sure he shows up for meetings", btu IMO, ther
needs to be some stipualtion that he simply is *required* to attend the
meetings, but has no vote or power. That's section 104 (b) .

So, althought Section 125 does set up and describe COngressional
oversight, teh above bit still bothers me.

Ever get the feeling the loopholes are planned and crafted? They just
need something in there to abdicate responsibility when things go
south.

You mean there was any doubt? =:-o

The Comptroller General has oversight (sect 116) but an audit as per
part 9b0 should me more tahn just annully - IMO, at least quarterly.
THe part aboutJudicial REview in Section 119 is brief; it seems OK but I
need to think about it more.

Monthly and with some consistent and constant ongoing review by an
unbiased un manipulated entity, and very serious penalties.

ThHat'd be good, yeah.

There is also a provision that allows the Sec.ty to collect stocks from
distressed companies that are being taken over, I have to re-find my
notation - but ther is no explanation as to how those stocks will be
handled. Does teh Sec.ty keep them? DO they go towards paying off teh
national debt...?


I don't know where I can get any questions answered, tho'.


I really don't think they have that (real oversight) in mind. You are
supposed to trust them to tell you it is OK.

I think it's part Machivellian/Rovian manipualtions such as that, and part
high-percentage-of-numbskulls...with a few "trying to serve the public"
types sprinkled in as window-dressing...

 

[Geezer]

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:Xns9B28AAC027119meadowmuffin@216.168.3.70...

The Great Attractor
SuperM@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote in
news:lnd2e41jm8t62akvtppkv54h8fgvudf325@4ax.com:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:31:31 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
news:esr1e4hd81v8sn03tn3fpv13ie0fck6dq9@4ax.com:

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:32:56 -0700 (PDT), James Arthur
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com> wrote:


FWIW, that "group" you speak of is one guy, posting under various
guises. Corbomite, Jackie Gleason, AnimalMagic, SoothSayer,
FatBytestard, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt, Achimedes' Lever,
etc., = same. You can recognize new nyms by the potty mouth.

Pretty industrious, isn't he?

Cheers,
James Arthur

Hmm, interesting. Does he post on sci.elec otherwise?

To sci.electronics.design, yes. Sometimes even constructively.
Sometimes.


Gosh, I missed that.

John


I find it more than a little neurotic, that someone would go through all
of that "neonym"ing - demands attention, yet refuses to even try to
change the behaviors that get then plonked. Bizarre.

"neonym"? You're an idiot.

It is called a "PSEUDONYM", you dolt! Talk about bizarre!? I find it
bizarre that you would claim ANY modicum of intelligence.


Oh good grief, it's a play on words, that's why it was in quotes, duuuuuuh

Wait! Cut him some slack. It's his first post without profanity.
Name-calling, yes, but no profanity.

I'm in awe...

Geezer

 

[Kris Krieger]

default <default@defaulter.net> wrote in
news:v1b2e4hd5vefvdoetkg9hbrloipv133tpl@4ax.com:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:10:24 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in
wrote:

default <default@defaulter.net> wrote in
news:j1opd49o9m7mvqa3polttokn2tposndfir@4ax.com:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:26:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

Good grief! Sick ideas emanating from a sick mind :-(

...Jim Thompson

One has to look no further than congress or candidates for sick minds.

In the past, I'd several times considered trying to run for office.
Then I realized that candidates are not elected ont eh basis of
reasonable intelligence and education and so on - they're elected on the
basis of (1) geniality and (2) how much mud they can smear all over the
other candidate. I've no social sense, and I'm too focuses on
information to deal with lies, so I'd be DOA.

Yes. The very people that would do the most good are the ones that
would have to be enlisted - taken kicking and screaming to serve.

Heh, funy you should say that. The thing is that I'd considered it
*despite* being an Introvert and having moderate Asperger's (have learned
tocope but, when younger, whoo boy...) - it's just that I'd had the
delusion for a while that whatever intelligence I have could be put to use.
I ended up working in the gov.t. In the end, no matter how good you are,
or what you achiecve, or influence, in the end, what matters most is how
well one kisses @$$. Same in politics. Poeple don't care if politicians
rob them blind, so long as it's done with a big ol' smile and a friendly
slap on the back.

The
ones that get elected are invariably the worst of the lot - the ones
with the money and connections. And if they have connections they are
probably already corrupted beyond redemption.

Or inherently susceptible thereto - more social as in more intrested in
stuff like social status, and also subject to social pressure.

We need engineers in public office, not politicians. People with
brains, open minds, analytical ability, without other agendas . . .

Yup. But, as above, the majority votes for those whom are perceived as
being most like them, and most "likeable". People tend to not like
"brainiacs".

not too likely is it? The career politician's first loyalty is to
himself, second to his bankroll, and, a distant third, his
constituency.

Sadly enough, I suspect that, in most cases, you're right.