Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht
news:qovetv0u3v0qgsv8iildj8pfr7tqe5444g@4ax.com...

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:14:08 +0000, Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[group sex
without the y on the end]> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:<6a34tv4veu6jl3es2c1mrt0p3c5q5v9aed@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:39:06 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
snipped

Agreed, especially early enough. The haranguing in the UN allowed
Saddam to see the noose slowly closing and bought him enough time to
allow him to escape with (as reported by the media) four _truckloads_
of
money worth about $1E9. Not a good thing.

You don't want to believe everything you read in the media, least of
all the U.S. media.

The removal of large quantities of cash in trucks was well documented
by many different media around the world. I can't be arsed to trace
every one to source - are they all reporting the same biased source?

I wouldn't say it was caused by the UN delays though, he would have
had time however the invasion progressed. Stealing cash takes hours or
days, invasions take months to prepare. It's not like it was an
overnight surprise.

---
You make my point; it should have been.

Had it not been for the haranguing at the UN we could have launched a
much more clandestinely planned and executed invasion, clearly giving us
the advantage of surprise in addition to the overwhelming advantage in
force. That surprise surely would have shortened Saddam's response time
and had he been able to escape with his life he may have made it with
just the shirt on his back. Hindsight and conjecture, of course, but
the right way to do it, IMO.

I can follow that kind of reasoning. But if we must believe John Dyson,
dear Saddam would then not have gotten enough time to smuggle his
whatever he stuffed with his WEAPON GRADE URANIUM and perhaps be
tempted to launch it.

No, this war sucks 100% and no less. Iraq was a *relative* peaceful
place, the last ten years. Nobody can argue that. If there were any
sincere reasons to attack Iraq, it must have been fear for new attacks
similar to 9/11. That would have been an honest reason, if it weren't
wrapped in other lies such as WMD, Al Quada connections and what have
you.

I don't think we will ever agree on this, that's okay. Do you remember
I once said that I felt the 1st Gulf War was an unfinished one? You
felt not, but I still believe so. Back then, there were much more
solid reasons, but not anymore after some 12-13 years.

If Bin Laden were caught in Afghanistan, it never had happened. It's
a wild goose chase. You can't expect the UN to support that with
great enthusiasm. Even the invasion of Afghanistan was barely
justified. While we don't like such regimes, that is not enough
reason to invade countries. It's very difficult to understand
such contries anyway, take Iraq, I believe some 15+ languages
are spoken there. Not easy to capture and impossible to control.

I think France would be an easier target Or the Netherlands

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Frank Bemelman
<fbemelx@euronet.invalid.nl> wrote (in <3fd78db4$0$4672$1b62eedf@news.eu
ronet.nl&gt about 'Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor', on Wed, 10 Dec
2003:

It's very difficult to understand such contries anyway, take
Iraq, I believe some 15+ languages are spoken there.

We can clock up that many, and more, in Britain these days. And I do
mean residents, not visitors.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <omretvs827if12k152bq7p0rctboo3nkhg@4ax.com&gt about
'Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor', on Wed, 10 Dec 2003:

Well, Bill, I don't believe _everything_ I read in the media, whoever
reports it, but it seems likely that since he didn't leave Iraq with his
pockets empty it's only a question of how much he took, not whether or
not he took.

You know that he's not in Iraq any more?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[Bill Sloman]

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message news:<rlKPf5Foz21$Ewrf@jmwa.demon.co.uk>...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org
wrote (in <7c584d27.0312101034.3c7198c0@posting.google.com&gt about
'Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor', on Wed, 10 Dec 2003:

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message news:<zeF5hSKURO1
$Ewr+@jmwa.demon.co.uk>...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org
wrote (in <7c584d27.0312081103.4e80ddcd@posting.google.com&gt about
'Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor', on Mon, 8 Dec 2003:

That is the
same lame argument you floated before the invasion, and it is still a
lead balloon.

Touch of the mexed mitaphors there, Bill. (;-)

Single metaphor. The argument as a (lead) balloon that persistently fails
to float.

Possibly over-mextended.

No, you have a 'lame argument' as well. Your lead balloon can't really
be described as 'lame', so you have a mix.

Right. I tend to see "lame argument" as sufficient of a cliche to rate
as an idiom, but my wife (who has published a significant paper on
"frozen idioms") assures me that since the phrase is morphologically
transparent it can't be an idiom, and you are entirely correct.
Thanks.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:24:04 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <omretvs827if12k152bq7p0rctboo3nkhg@4ax.com&gt about
'Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor', on Wed, 10 Dec 2003:

Well, Bill, I don't believe _everything_ I read in the media, whoever
reports it, but it seems likely that since he didn't leave Iraq with his
pockets empty it's only a question of how much he took, not whether or
not he took.

You know that he's not in Iraq any more?

---
LOL!!!

I do not; good one John!

--
John Fields

 

[Tim Auton]

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:
[snip]

I tend to see "lame argument" as sufficient of a cliche to rate
as an idiom, but my wife (who has published a significant paper on
"frozen idioms") assures me that since the phrase is morphologically
transparent it can't be an idiom [...]

Yeah, but has she got big tits?

;-)


Tim

***AlcoLimter Technology on the
InterTransHyperGlobo-ContinentalLinkDevice has deemed this message
booze induced with a BozzeOTron(tm) factor of 1792.2 - 1792.1 above
the suggested limit. The InterTransHyperGlobo-ContinentalLinkDevice
disavows any knowledge of this communication. This post will self
destruct in 5 seconds. Hopefully.***
--
The .sig is dead.

 

[Rich Grise]

Hey, Bill Sloman!

Normally I disagree with you strongly enough that I'm afraid to
post, but here I think we're, if not on the same page, at least
singing out of the same hymnal. ;-)

Did you know that George Dubya Bush is the reincarnation of Adolf
Hitler?

You can't specifically look it up, but there are works from
which that information can be derived.

Remember around the end of WWII time, when Hitler was a topic
for polite cocktail-hour conversation, and people would say,
"Why didn't somebody see what was coming and do something before
he got so danged powerful and insane?" Well, they didn't know
any better. They _adored_ him! He was going to make The Fatherland
Secure and make Freedom Safe from the Scourge of Zion! [that's a
paraphrase, and expresses a philosophy that I personally abhor.]

And that time is now.

Hope this helps!
Rich

Bill Sloman wrote:

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<br2nho$13nv$21@news.iquest.net>...
In article <9a2c3a75.0312081225.2ac9ef76@posting.google.com>,
Bassman59a@yahoo.com (Andy Peters) writes:
toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<bqr45m$1jcf$1@news.iquest.net>...

The ethical problem that you apparently have: the oil wasn't Saddam's
to give away. It was pretty much owned by the Iraqi people/government.
This is where the lefties tend to convieniently ignore the evils
of the despots that they love.

However, the despot in question, Saddam, was one of Reagan's lovers.

Remember -- the US smartened up, and never did apparently sell
WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM to Saddam. Even after all of the public
revelations against Saddam, the French continued with their horrible
enabling of the dictator.

The sale took place in 1974, which predated most of the revelations,
and a long period of U.S. collaboration with and support for Saddam.

It was irresponsible (in the least) to
sell WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM -- enough to make several bombs, to
Saddam. Chiraq(sic) wasn't just 'superficial' supporter, but also
comingled political funds.

Just jealousy on your part - the French under-cut your offer, didn't
they?

Times change, but when there is continued, ongoing support of
an ongoing murder/rapist/genocidal regime, even at the expense
of the now-ex-French-ally US, then there is something very very
wrong with France/Chiraq(sic).

And there is something very wrong with the U.S./Dubbya (sick) who
continue to collaborate with murderous rapist regimes in some twenty
other countries around the world.

Note that Carter has even shown respect to the actual terrorist
Yassar Arafat -- but that doesn't mean that they are friends like
Chiraq/Saddam (or are they?)

He has also shaken hands with Nelson Mandela who, unlike Arafat, was
actually convicted of being a member of a terrorist organisation and
spent a long time in prison for the crime.

Dubbya shakes hands with Sharron, whose state terrorism involves
assassinating anti-Israeli activitists with rockets that take out not
only the activists and their immediate families, but also the
occasional by-stander.

We don't hear a single moral peep out of you on that subject, creep.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Bill Sloman wrote:

Dubbya shakes hands with Sharron, whose state terrorism involves
assassinating anti-Israeli activitists with rockets that take out not
only the activists and their immediate families, but also the
occasional by-stander.

You undermine anything reasonable you might rarely have to say when you
use the term "anti-Israeli activists" to refer to leaders of terror
organizations who recruit suicide bombers to murder and maim as many
unsuspecting and non-combatant Israeli civilians as possible, and when
you refer to the most clear example of strategic self-defense by Israel
as "state terrorism"-and to think just a few posts ago you were whining
about the big bad IRA blowing away some informer weasel and the Anglican
minister with brain matter on his shoes being warned to leave the
country. I wager you wouldn't be saddened by any Irish collateral damage
in a military crackdown on that form of terrorist.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:39:39 +0000, Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[group sex
without the y on the end]> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:
[snip]
[...] I tend to see "lame argument" as sufficient of a cliche to rate
as an idiom, but my wife (who has published a significant paper on
"frozen idioms") assures me that since the phrase is morphologically
transparent it can't be an idiom [...]

Yeah, but has she got big tits?

---
Dunno, but for sure she's hooked up to a big ass...

--
John Fields

 

[Bill Sloman]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<cb8htvk9u2v841hiltil32g24va14tur5k@4ax.com>...

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:39:39 +0000, Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[group sex
without the y on the end]> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:
[snip]
[...] I tend to see "lame argument" as sufficient of a cliche to rate
as an idiom, but my wife (who has published a significant paper on
"frozen idioms") assures me that since the phrase is morphologically
transparent it can't be an idiom [...]

Yeah, but has she got big tits?

---
Dunno, but for sure she's hooked up to a big ass...

Impertinent curiousity, followed by ill-informed assertion. I'd have
expected better of Tim Auton, but John Fields manages to combine beng
smarter than John S. Dyson (no great distinction) with being even more
poorly informed (which puts him some five or six standard deviations
down the bell curve).

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Fields]

On 12 Dec 2003 05:24:49 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<cb8htvk9u2v841hiltil32g24va14tur5k@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:39:39 +0000, Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[group sex
without the y on the end]> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:
[snip]
[...] I tend to see "lame argument" as sufficient of a cliche to rate
as an idiom, but my wife (who has published a significant paper on
"frozen idioms") assures me that since the phrase is morphologically
transparent it can't be an idiom [...]

Yeah, but has she got big tits?

---
Dunno, but for sure she's hooked up to a big ass...

Impertinent curiousity, followed by ill-informed assertion. I'd have
expected better of Tim Auton, but John Fields manages to combine beng
smarter than John S. Dyson (no great distinction) with being even more
poorly informed (which puts him some five or six standard deviations
down the bell curve).

---

+-----------+ +----------------+ +-----------+
|Mrs. Sloman+------+Matrimonial Ties+------+Bill Sloman|
+-----------+ +----------------+ +-----------+
Hookup Mechanism Big Ass

Sigh...

--
John Fields

 

[Bill Sloman]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<t4ojtv4s5ivbi70s6bsmicc2g8aiovh3g6@4ax.com>...

On 12 Dec 2003 05:24:49 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<cb8htvk9u2v841hiltil32g24va14tur5k@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:39:39 +0000, Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[group sex
without the y on the end]> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:
[snip]
[...] I tend to see "lame argument" as sufficient of a cliche to rate
as an idiom, but my wife (who has published a significant paper on
"frozen idioms") assures me that since the phrase is morphologically
transparent it can't be an idiom [...]

Yeah, but has she got big tits?

---
Dunno, but for sure she's hooked up to a big ass...

Impertinent curiousity, followed by ill-informed assertion. I'd have
expected better of Tim Auton, but John Fields manages to combine beng
smarter than John S. Dyson (no great distinction) with being even more
poorly informed (which puts him some five or six standard deviations
down the bell curve).

---

+-----------+ +----------------+ +-----------+
|Mrs. Sloman+------+Matrimonial Ties+------+Bill Sloman|
+-----------+ +----------------+ +-----------+
Hookup Mechanism Big Ass

Sigh...

Like I said, ill-informed assertion - my wife is never known as
Mrs.Sloman. And a taste for even weaker jokes than John Woodgate
(which puts you some six or seven standard deviations down the bell
curve)...

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote (in <7c584d27.0312121131.14efa8cd@posting.google.com&gt about
'Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor', on Fri, 12 Dec 2003:

And a taste for even weaker jokes than John Woodgate

I hope that's a grammatical error, Bill.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[John Fields]

On 12 Dec 2003 11:31:16 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<t4ojtv4s5ivbi70s6bsmicc2g8aiovh3g6@4ax.com>...

+-----------+ +----------------+ +-----------+
|Mrs. Sloman+------+Matrimonial Ties+------+Bill Sloman|
+-----------+ +----------------+ +-----------+
Hookup Mechanism Big Ass

Sigh...

Like I said, ill-informed assertion - my wife is never known as
Mrs.Sloman.

---
Her choice, I'm sure...
---

And a taste for even weaker jokes than John Woodgate

---
Here's an old favorite of mine:

Q. Who was the first person to advocate asexual reproduction?

A. Your wife.

(which puts you some six or seven standard deviations down the bell
curve)...

Unfortunately, you've "forgotten" to consider the margin of error in the
placement of the three samples, so your evaluation is fatally flawed.

--
John Fields

 

[Bill Sloman]

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message news:<dRuCSEF2Ki2$EwXU@jmwa.demon.co.uk>...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org
wrote (in <7c584d27.0312121131.14efa8cd@posting.google.com&gt about
'Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor', on Fri, 12 Dec 2003:


And a taste for even weaker jokes than John Woodgate

I hope that's a grammatical error, Bill.

It was. The sentence should have been

"And a taste for even weaker jokes than those John Woodgate favours."

------------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen