Jihad needs scientists

Kurt Ullman · Oct 5, 2006

In article <Va9Vg.19654$Ij.16215@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2paa$8qk_011@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <PsRUg.57$45.150@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that
historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the
population is *dead*. Does this make it clear?

So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ?

I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I
pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with
history if you don't like it.

But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ?

Graham

Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need.

The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that
the extremists are already doing this to themselves.

Oh, the innumeracy. At the rate that they're doing that, it will take at
least an order of magnitude longer than all of recorded human history to
reach the stated endpoint. In the meantime, how about if we stop giving
them reasons to do so?

So, we just all capitulate and become Muslim states? That is pretty

the much the reason that those who are actually doing the planning get
themselves blown up are doing so.

Jim Thompson · Oct 5, 2006

On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:41:24 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[snip]

Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.

Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to involve
someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" for
certain key words and phrases.

[snip]

That's rarely the case, and not without warrant.

Yes, that is the case, and Bush claims he does not need a warrant; that he
has the inherent power as C-in-C.

What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_,
"To/From" data.

No, they were monitoring phone calls.

From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge.

Have you been in a coma? The issue is warrantless eavesdropping.

...Jim Thompson

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Keith · Oct 5, 2006

In article <45244E9E.D8DD822E@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:24:11 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ever wondered why it [international terrorism] happens to the USA
most btw ?

---
Nope. Losers want to blame everyone but themselves for their
predicaments and, so, take shots at the champ in an attemp to try to
convince themselves that they're not impotent.

Let me explain then.

It becasue America pokes its nose into stuff that's none of its business
all the time and just generally likes to kick the little guys around.

---
Translation:

Because America has the wherewithal and the will to do whatever it
wants to, and all the little guys resent that.

That too. Especially when it makes no sense.

What do you think about the Vincennes shooting down an Iranian Airbus then ?

Successful missile test?

--
Keith

Jim Thompson · Oct 5, 2006

On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:50:29 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <v2c8i2tp1kf97gkk922mmi6brvb9iibqql@4ax.com>,
Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
[snip]

Had the 9/11 attacks happened during the Bush inauguration
ceremony, would this have been because of Bush's negligence and
ineptitude? How about the day after the inauguration? The week
after? The month after? What would be a reasonable cut-off date
for any responsibility of the previous presidency?

Gordon

Bush was warned repeatedly OBL was a threat. He ignored them. Read
Woodward's book.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Keith · Oct 5, 2006

In article <B6CUg.49796$E67.42601@clgrps13>, nobody@nowhere.com
says...

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:mbq5i29hg2qgun7p1rm5fpbdb6fr31ogvs@4ax.com...

Where did the current terrorism financing and materials come
from?

From the USA (oil). Unlike most every other conflict, the US is paying for
both sides in this one.

....and only the USA buys middle east oil? You are as ignorant as
the stuffed donkey.

--
Keith

Jim Thompson · Oct 5, 2006

On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:51:29 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
[snip]
But I can record and then hand over to the government, no
sweat, no warrant, nada.

...Jim Thompson

And it can be thrown out.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Fields · Oct 5, 2006

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:47:29 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:lhn7i21h44h9s303rg8ru3q30g72nikg10@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:36:25 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Gordon wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:12:21 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:29:46 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

_Radical_ Islam has shown no qualms whatsoever about dispatching
other
*Muslims*, if it suits their ends. Well more than half of the
victims of
the insurgency in Iraq have been Iraqi (presumably Muslim)
citizens.

There is no entity known as radical Islam.

Graham

Graham, are you saying that the Muslims' inability to recognize
any behavior traits as being radical, accounts for the on-going
radical Muslim behavior that the rest of the world observes?

No. In fact 'radical Islam' is well recognised with the wider Muslim
community.
It is by varying degrees both loathed and feared by ordinary Muslims.

What I'd like to see is a concrete proposal to deal with these groups
that has
some actual substance and credibility.

Graham

I am convinced that the process which is currently under way will
achieve the outcome you specify, but it won't happen quickly.

There is no *process*. It's just a jumbled mess ! There has been ZERO
thought about
what we're doing.

---
LOL, you think that because you're in the dark as to what's going on
behind closed doors that nothing's being done? That's gotta be
pretty close to penultimate arrogance.

Oddly, while I agree with the main elements of what you are saying here, it
identifies a double standard in your way of thinking.

You are happy to accept that your Government is planning behind the scenes
to work against Terrorism and fight the global threat of [insert enemy
here], but when it comes to Islamic groups working behind the scenes to
reduce the levels of extremist activity - that can't be the case.

Strange.

---
You misunderstood my post.

Graham was pooh-poohing Gordon's claim that there's a process going
on to end terrorism, and I was pointing out that Graham has no clue
about what's being done in secret, just like most of the rest of us.

Notice that I made no reference to my government, his government, or
_any_ specific government, my belief being that pretty much everyone
involved who'd like to see terrorism end is working on the problem.

In secret, in order to keep it away from, primarily, the parasitic
goddam media.

How could it be done otherwise?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Keith · Oct 5, 2006

In article <eg2mp9$8qk_005@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <452390B0.7B5389D0@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find
the ones were posted by thoughtful people.

Yet another American dismisses non-American thing thinking as crap.

All you seem to do is post lines like this. You have no dialog
just a gut reaction that happens to be deemed to be politically
correct at the moment.

Yep! /BAH, this is the stuffed donkey. Stuffed donkey, this is
/BAH. The stuffed donky is one of SED's most prominent (and least
useful) anti-American Europeons.

You ppl are such a waste of space.

hmmm...sounds familiar.

--
Keith

John Larkin · Oct 5, 2006

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:56:31 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I find the humour too juvenile for my taste. It's like finding farts funny
and nothing else.

More likely you find it juvenile because you don't get the twists;
some of Brooks' stuff is fairly subtle. But there are a lot of
Americanisms and Jewish humor and Black (as in African, not as in
noire) humor you may not get.

What humor meets your standards?

Not much actually. I find much of it pretty banale. I'm not sure you'd know the
stuff either. Did you ever see Fawlty Towers ( John Cleese ) for example ? At
least there's a decent chance of that.

I didn't like FT;

Well it is very British.

it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I
Love Lucy"

In which case it didn't 'translate' well over your side of the pond.

, nowhere near Monte Python level. Wodehouse is my favorite
comedic writer... I laugh out loud when I read his stuff.

I find that dull.

You should laugh more... it might cheer you up.

Don't worry. I laugh a bit. There's not a heck of a lot to laugh about these days
though ( see thread ).

Beg to differ. The world is wonderful, and with a bit of conscious
effort one can learn to appreciate it. A rational creature could do no
less.

It really doesn't feel very wonderful right now.

From a rational perspective, it should. You and I have more freedom,
better health, better education, live longer, eat better, and have
vastly more choices about our lives and entertainments than 99% of the
people who ever lived. And we are educated enough to understand our
own psychies, certainly enough to be able to seize rational control of
our own destinies and *redesign* ourselves to be happy and productive.
A passing grade in Psychology 101 and a bit of effort is all it takes.

But many in the West are depressed, listless, and angry. And unable to
enjoy life or love. This ain't progress. I can appreciate the Islamic
claim that Western society is Godless and spiritually sterile, because
often it is. And I can see how Muslims might not want their kids to
grow up to be like many of our kids, who live for video games and
drugs and emotionless sex, who want to cheat their way through school
so they can get a job that pays enough for a cool apartment and a
Porsche.

Having a whole continent to yourselves may help your view.

Well, there are other countries attached, but in so much that most of
the USA is surrounded by more USA, why would cultural isolation make
people happier? Or to put it another way, why would familiarity with
other cultures make people unhappy? Heck, we USians were recently
ragged in this very group for ignorance of other cultures, and now the
ignorance turns out to make us happy? Nope, that's not it. The US is
seriously multicultural, Americans travel around the world a lot, and
tend to be happy and optimistic, mostly enjoy their jobs and families,
as polls repeatedly show; so there must be other reasons.

John

John Larkin · Oct 5, 2006

On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:58:50 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential
candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe.

/BAH
OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation.

Actually, it started with FDR invading another nation. France,
specifically.

John

Michael A. Terrell · Oct 5, 2006

YD wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:13:35 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4523D85F.43BBD99C@earthlink.net...
Jim Thompson wrote:

I should know shortly what low-life job Eric has at Battelle... my
guess is janitor ;-)

Are you sure they would give him that much responsibility?

It is interesting that instead of disagreeing with Eric's comments and
explaining why, the general response has been to criticise his imagined work
status.

Nothing I have seen in this thread seems to relate to his job and he has not
claimed professional authority based on his employment so what, on Earth,
does his job matter?

Unless this really is a pathetic attempt to "one up" on someone you think is
in a lower paid / less "exalted" job. If it is, you really should be ashamed
of yourselves.

It's just a bunch of obnoxious bitter old men and has-beens with no
real control over much of anything anymore. They've transferred their
lives to this ng. Their only way of one-upping is to degrade those not
espousing their POVs to below their level with name calling and
ridicule with no substance of fact.

Makes them look like school-yard bullies or teen-age gangs hanging out
on street corners.

Overall damn immature, and that goes for those bothering to keep it
going too.

Bitter? Are you sure? In truth, we enjoy watching morons prove
their stupidity, day by day, and hour by hour.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

John Fields · Oct 5, 2006

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:47:30 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist by
the west.

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. However
sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.

That's the point at which they've won.

Looks like they won in that case.

---
A skirmish, perhaps, but not the war.

Israel can only 'win' by erasing Lebanon.

---
Trying to set up another straw man?
---

Is that what you want ?

---
Nope, but since you state that that's the only way Israel can win,
it seems that if you don't want Israel destroyed, that's what
_you're_ advocating.

In reality, though, your preferred "solution" would be to see Israel
("The Real Demon" according to you) destroyed, and yet you pretend
to advocate non-violence.

How can you reconcile that hypocrisy?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Oct 5, 2006

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg32g6$okg$3@blue.rahul.net...

In article <f%jUg.19041$Ij.8532@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

What makes you think nuking Mecca would have anything but a very, very
negative effect on us?

Note that I said "theat". I was suggesting that the threat would work so
I don't need to respond to this.

Yes you do. Hollow threats are worthless.

Simply threatening to nuke Mecca would not work, the
Arab world is used to the usual propagandistic bluster from their own
leaders, and it would be easy to ignore as a bluff.

So, basically you are saying that a lack of credibility of the treat is
the problem. If the threat was believed it would be effective.

They're crazy, not stupid. They know that *we* wouldn't be stupid enough to
nuke anything, because the threat is too diffuse. It has long been
acknowledged in global politics that nuclear weapons are useless against
such a diffuse threat. In fact, this issue came up right after the fall of
the Berlin wall and the collapse of the USSR.

I strongly disagree. The second example of life in prison, I believe,
would work on many of them.

So how many prisons will we need to build, and what fraction of the GDP will
go into staffing/supporting/maintaining them, in order to imprison 100
million people? The threat of imprisonment is only as good as the
likelihood that a criminal will be caught, tried and convicted. That means
we'd need to drastically balloon our court system to try all of the
terrorist criminals. Oh, you say you want to hold them for life without a
trial? That's *certain* to get *us* nuked. In short order.

Eric Lucas

Keith · Oct 5, 2006

In article <45242AA5.4BB384D7@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:35:28 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:08:34 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Homer J Simpson wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote

I don't think Clinton was a very good moral example, but then again, there
are lots of things that are worse than getting an adulterous blowjob at
work

Carter sold arms to the Indonesians so they could massacre the East
Timorese. Compared to that a blowjob is nothing.

Heck, even the UK sold arms to the Idonesians. Jet fighters in fact..

That the US public could get so worked up over a minor sexual indiscretion yet
not give a damn about killing tens of thousands of foreigners is very telling
and a very depressing comment on the state of US society.

---
You pay _way_ too much attention to the media.

I'm imagining Ken Starr ?

---
Without the media's turning Clinton's sexual indiscretions into a
cause célebre, the Lewinski matter would have remained private, as
it should have stayed.

I don't recall Starr being a newsman.

Stoopid donkey, Starr never gave so much as an interview.

--
Keith

John Fields · Oct 5, 2006

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:48:51 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling
a criticism "unacceptable."

Which criticism was unacceptable?

I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't
think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about
something.

You can't have it both ways.

Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an
argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who
disagrees with you.

Criticism was considered unacceptable in 1930s Germany too.

---
If the parallel is valid, expect to hear someone knocking on your
door because of your antics here.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Keith · Oct 5, 2006

In article <nnWUg.13331$7I1.12003@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:hc38i2pmri56a6s84fsnmnklt06aihsves@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:35:28 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:08:34 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Homer J Simpson wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote

I don't think Clinton was a very good moral example, but then
again, there
are lots of things that are worse than getting an adulterous
blowjob at
work

Carter sold arms to the Indonesians so they could massacre the East
Timorese. Compared to that a blowjob is nothing.

Heck, even the UK sold arms to the Idonesians. Jet fighters in fact.

That the US public could get so worked up over a minor sexual
indiscretion yet
not give a damn about killing tens of thousands of foreigners is very
telling
and a very depressing comment on the state of US society.

You pay _way_ too much attention to the media.

I'm imagining Ken Starr ?

Without the media's turning Clinton's sexual indiscretions into a
cause célebre, the Lewinski matter would have remained private, as
it should have stayed.

That's rich. Democratic idiocies (Clinton's inappropriate sexual relations
in office) are the Democrats' fault, but Republican idiocies (attempting to
smear and impeach Clinton over something so ridiculously small) are the
fault of the press.

Rape, perjury, suborning perjury, are "ridiculously small" charges
My, you live in a different world.

--
Keith

John Fields · Oct 5, 2006

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:49:11 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:deDUg.49810$E67.34301@clgrps13...

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:69t5i2hpcjkq20p8tm1dv71ub7k2vpbon0@4ax.com...

Sounds like it. Wasn't there a recent suggestion that the Nazis and
the Brits should have made a deal?

The British were asked to help take out Hitler before WWII and refused.
Big mistake, since no heir would have been as bad.

No way of knowing that for sure. Hitler's insanity contributed heavily to
his forces defeats. If they had a competent, sane, commander in chief it may
have gone differently.

---
It certainly _would_ have.

Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Keith · Oct 5, 2006

In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78@News.Individual.NET...
In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh@4ax.com>, To-Email-
Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...
On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[snip]

Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.

Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to
involve
someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens"
for
certain key words and phrases.

[snip]

That's rarely the case, and not without warrant.

What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_,
"To/From" data.

From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge.

YEs, and the foreign "taps" were intercepted calls from
"interesting" foreign numbers. They were not taps on phones.

I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Your "demands" are silly. When the other end of the line is in a

mosque in Iran (number captured on a &bad_guy's_laptop), I _demand_
that your call be intercepted. Your "Constitutional rights" have
nothing to do with it.

--
Keith

Keith · Oct 5, 2006

In article <eg32hc$5l0$6@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...

In article
kurtullman-8700B9.17512004102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it.

Bush didn't get warrants!

Not needed for foreign intelligence.

--
Keith

Oct 5, 2006

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-0F836F.10021405102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a
Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets.

Define abuse, (seriously).

Well, verbal is frequently one of the forms of abuse the is acknowledged in
psychology. I'm not talking about occasionally getting into an argument and
yelling at your spouse, I'm talking about constant berating that causes
long-term psychological damage. I'm not a child psychologist, but I have
heard that physical abuse of children causes long-term extreme loss of
self-confidence and a host of other problems, apparently up to and including
schizophrenia and suicide. I have no idea what fraction of that amount of
damage can be caused by just talking about it, but I suspect if the sexual
overtones are there (and it appears they were in this case), seems to me a
good amount of damage would result. Still, I suspect you're absolutely
right, it isn't as bad as physical abuse.

Still, there's a good reason for the urban legend (?) that a person
convicted of inappropriate behavior with a child is likely to be killed in
jail. Apparently even murders, rapists and thieves view children as
untouchable (as they should).

I usually reserve that term for actual
physical contact (sexual, assaultive) and (so far at least) there is
nothing to indicate that either happened. Although I am the first to
suggest that the possibility it did happen is much more likely given
both the history of abuse and behaviors that got him into trouble.

I hear you, but I'm not willing to even suggest the possibility until there
is even a shred of evidence...innocent until proven guilty, and all.

Talkin' dirty is illegal, but I still say it is a couple orders of
magnitude below physical and sexual abuse.

Agreed, but those couple of orders of magnitude are made up by the fact that
the guy is a US Congressman, and in effect, the page's boss. They write the
laws that guide this nation...we're supposed to expect more of them. Add to
that the power imbalance (which is what consent laws are all about), and it
becomes even worse.

Eric Lucas

Jihad needs scientists

Kurt Ullman

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Keith

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Keith

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Keith

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Guest

Keith

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Keith

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Keith

Guest

Keith

Guest

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor