[OT] I hate being American

[Franz Heymann]

"Perion" <RazroRog@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zqydnfVKD4EFYk7cRVn-qw@comcast.com...

[snip]

Check
out France's embarrassing $175,000 national effort!

Acquire the correct figures and apologise. The last figure I know
about is is actually 120 M Euros. It is probably out of date by now.

They sure put their money
where their mouth is

They certainly do.

- namely, up their own a**. It's a damned shame Singleterry

and the rest of his ilk weren't born there.

You have just made an ill-mannered, ill-informed fool of yourself.

I am waiting for the apology.

Franz

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness>
wrote (in <zHzBd.41764$Cl3.32635@fed1read03&gt about '[OT] I hate being
American', on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <cojBd.39262$Cl3.4565@fed1read03&gt about '[OT] I hate being
American', on Fri, 31 Dec 2004:

I wrote:

The Reverend Ian Paisley has the same attitude as Yasser Arafat, and the
only solution may be the passage of time.

If it isn't solved ballistically first. But that would just be another
terrible (in some people's minds) thing to remember.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'ballistically'. The internal armed
conflict had been going on for around 40 years with no resolution, and
people are now sick of it. It's over for around 20 years, minimum, if
not for ever. If you mean external ballistic intervention, which
aggressor do you have in mind?

And it's said that British humor is too "dry" for
Americans to get.

I just meant that somebody might shoot him.

No-one managed to do that so far, any more than they did Arafat. That's

why I didn't see your meaning. That 'solution' would be very bad, which
is why it hasn't happened. A dead man is a dead man, but an assassinated
one is 'a martyr whose struggle will be continued for ever in his
memory'. And we know that Irish memories are very long indeed.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[robert j. kolker]

John Woodgate wrote:

You think it's OK to kill civilians in South Korea and China when you
nuke North Korea?

If we use small tac nukes on the No. Koreans no harm should come to
China. But we will have to check in with the Chinese before we do it.
They may not take it kindly. On the other hand if we could talk the
Chinese into doing the deed no one will be the worse for wear except the
North Koreans who are dying of starvation anyway. Nuking them will put
them out of their misery.

Bob Kolker

 

[Alex Hunsley]

robert j. kolker wrote:

Bob Stephens wrote:


No, you have the ordering wrong. We'll pay up front, for the duration of
the crisis, and on after everyone else has forgotten about it. Then you
eurotrash cunts will still find a way to blame it on us in the end.


That is about right. The Eurotrash have become the political eunichs of
the twentieth and twenty-first century. They have a grudge on anyone or
any nation that can still get it up.

Europe shot its wad in the Great War.

Interesting and revealing emphasis you put on power, and none on how
that power is used. I suppose metaphorical rape is ok for you then - as
long some country could 'get it up', eh?

 

[Franz Heymann]

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:33nhemF42ms6jU5@individual.net...

[snip]

The perceived threat from Saddam was that he would share WMD
technology
with the Jihadis or threaten to do so.

But we all know about those "perceived threats". Why do you risk
being ridicules by raising the issue now?

[snip]

Franz

 

[Franz Heymann]

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:33nh9tF42ms6jU4@individual.net...

Laura wrote:

America used to love those things, but signs of right-wing
nationalism are
growing steadily. The president is a religious nutcase with the IQ
and
language skills of an 8 year old. His cronies are profiteers and
corrupt to
the very core, but with minds that work somewhat better, so they
can whisper
in little Dubya's ear what to do next.

Bullshit. THe administration has made it easy for illegals from
Mexico
to stay and it is the Democrats who are shitting in their britches.

Try addressing Laura's point instead of bullshitting

Franz

 

[Franz Heymann]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:Zuoz9hCh3s1BFw2v@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson
nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <zHzBd.41764$Cl3.32635@fed1read03&gt about '[OT] I hate
being
American', on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson
nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <cojBd.39262$Cl3.4565@fed1read03&gt about '[OT] I hate
being
American', on Fri, 31 Dec 2004:

I wrote:

The Reverend Ian Paisley has the same attitude as Yasser Arafat,
and the
only solution may be the passage of time.

If it isn't solved ballistically first. But that would just be
another
terrible (in some people's minds) thing to remember.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'ballistically'. The internal armed
conflict had been going on for around 40 years with no
resolution, and
people are now sick of it. It's over for around 20 years,
minimum, if
not for ever. If you mean external ballistic intervention, which
aggressor do you have in mind?

And it's said that British humor is too "dry" for
Americans to get.

I just meant that somebody might shoot him.

No-one managed to do that so far, any more than they did Arafat.
That's
why I didn't see your meaning. That 'solution' would be very bad,
which
is why it hasn't happened. A dead man is a dead man, but an
assassinated
one is 'a martyr whose struggle will be continued for ever in his
memory'. And we know that Irish memories are very long indeed.

Never mind, all that is required is a little patience until he meets
his maker naturally. It can't be long now. And if it takes too long,
he will become so senile that even his own ilk will disown him.

Franz

 

[Franz Heymann]

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:sefDd.51953$Cl3.2560@fed1read03...

Franz Heymann wrote:

This thread has been immense fun, but it is beginning to
pall.

Franz, I've never seen you get so incensed over anything,
including various exceptional perpetrators of willful
repetitive stupidity on sci.physics. I had no idea your
anti-American feelings ran so deep.

I assure you that they run extremely deep. I would not have let my
anger come out in public if I had not been goaded into it by the
writings of one or two American jingoistic contributors to this
thread.

Transferred guilt over
_your_ government's rapacious colonial period, maybe?

No. I was born in a country which suffered from that greed.

Oh,
all right; that was mean.

Not at all. The British government indeed had a lengthy period during
which its welfare was fed essentially by imperial greed. That time, I
hope, is past.

Whatever, glad to see your rage is
back down to a simmer; makes it easier to think about
important stuff.

{)

How
about joining me in a belated new year resolution to call
it a day?

Oh. Well, all right. Ignore the above.

Gladly.

Unless you know of
a good place to debate whether governments are better or
worse at learning from their mistakes or those of others
than individuals are?

No,I don't. Also, I doubt if that would be a debate which would ever
come to a consensus.

I ask that because I've wondered if

there's a sensible way to compare the stages of
international behavior of governments based on their
relative ages (determining a nation's "E.Q.").

I doubt it.

Or, does the
general drift of international politics matter more than the
mindset of a given country's founders in setting its future
course; Nature vs. Nurture so to speak?

Probably.

I wonder the above because the U.S. is regularly dissed
on this basis; it's often claimed we "behave badly" because
we're so young compared to most other nations (although I
don't see how that excuses frinst much older Middle East
nations' Hatfield/McCoyisms or "ethnic cleansing" in former
S.S.R.'s).

I would prefer not to discuss that, because it would be entirely
nugatory.

Is that alleged relative youth a bad thing
experience-wise, or a good thing baggage-wise? Both/neither?
Irrelevant because of the current prominence of
ethnic/cultural diversity issues? Fun to think about but
hard to quantify.

Why not let us get back to talking physics?

Franz

 

[Jeffrey Turner]

Charles Edmondson wrote:

Yep, we have a government that has to keep re-formulating what is the
poverty level, since too many of our populace keep not needed the
government aid they use to buy votes. It is a sad, sad problem...

Stop regaling us with your fantasies. The poverty level has only been
adjusted for inflation - and rent and fuel are left out so it doesn't
even match _real_ inflation - yet one in eight Americans is now beneath
it. And the number is growing. You've got problems alright.

--Jeff

--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman

In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.
--Jose Narosky

The urge to save humanity is almost
always a false front for the urge to
rule.
--H.L. Mencken

 

[robert j. kolker]

You mean if al Qaeda sent armed groups of thugs across Amerika to kill
its political opponents that wouldn't be terrorism? I'm glad you
cleared that up for me.

No. It would be War. We should not treat al Quedah activities any other
way than acts of War. Al Islam requires a war and a jihad against the
dar al Harb (that is us) and the Jews. We just got a taste of War such
as we have not had since Pearl Harbor. The reaction should be the same:
utter destraction of our enemies. Eventually we will have to kill all or
most Moslems to have a minute's peace.

Bob Kolker

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Franz Heymann wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:sefDd.51953$Cl3.2560@fed1read03...

Franz Heymann wrote:

This thread has been immense fun, but it is beginning to
pall.

Franz, I've never seen you get so incensed over anything,
including various exceptional perpetrators of willful
repetitive stupidity on sci.physics. I had no idea your
anti-American feelings ran so deep.

I assure you that they run extremely deep. I would not have let my
anger come out in public if I had not been goaded into it by the
writings of one or two American jingoistic contributors to this
thread.

Not to set you off, but jingoism comes in many flavors,
pro _and_ anti. My Buddhist leanings make me want to find a
"middle way", which led to what's below.

Transferred guilt over
_your_ government's rapacious colonial period, maybe?

No. I was born in a country which suffered from that greed.

Heh. Name one that hasn't.

Oh,
all right; that was mean.

Not at all. The British government indeed had a lengthy period during
which its welfare was fed essentially by imperial greed. That time, I
hope, is past.

Maybe; depends largely on how its participation in the
European Union works out, I think.

Also, Britain itself (like other ex-Empires) could fairly
be said to have done considerable suffering, if only from
the after-effects of its own rapacity. Still is, AFAICT.

Whatever, glad to see your rage is
back down to a simmer; makes it easier to think about
important stuff.

{)

How
about joining me in a belated new year resolution to call
it a day?

Oh. Well, all right. Ignore the above.

Gladly.

Unless you know of
a good place to debate whether governments are better or
worse at learning from their mistakes or those of others
than individuals are?

No,I don't. Also, I doubt if that would be a debate which would ever
come to a consensus.

It might help if we could get our assorted jingoisms out
of the way.

I ask that because I've wondered if
there's a sensible way to compare the stages of
international behavior of governments based on their
relative ages (determining a nation's "E.Q.").

I doubt it.

Any specific reason? Do you consider the whole E.Q.
concept nebulous psychobabble, as I do? Or is it because the
debaters would have to eliminate their biases per above?

Or, does the
general drift of international politics matter more than the
mindset of a given country's founders in setting its future
course; Nature vs. Nurture so to speak?

Probably.

I tend to agree.

I wonder the above because the U.S. is regularly dissed
on this basis; it's often claimed we "behave badly" because
we're so young compared to most other nations (although I
don't see how that excuses frinst much older Middle East
nations' Hatfield/McCoyisms or "ethnic cleansing" in former
S.S.R.'s).

I would prefer not to discuss that, because it would be entirely
nugatory.

Well, I'm trying to determine if the argument is strictly
jingoistic, derived from psychobabble, or has any validity
at all, and on what basis. The fact that a given standard is
not universally applied does not bode well, as you seem to
have figured out.

Is that alleged relative youth a bad thing
experience-wise, or a good thing baggage-wise? Both/neither?
Irrelevant because of the current prominence of
ethnic/cultural diversity issues? Fun to think about but
hard to quantify.

Why not let us get back to talking physics?

If you insist. I only asked because you had very strong
opinions, and I know from your discussions in physics that
you don't usually take a position without a solid
foundation. I was hoping you had something a tad more
objective than the average anti-Americans have to work from
which could be applied more universally. Yes, I know a
political GUT will be harder to find than a physical one,
but ISTM it's high time to start looking.

Anyway, did you notice the thread (titled "right hand
rule" in sci.electronics.design) about why we have left- and
right-hand rules? I mentioned that a positive result of
Unc's Eotvos experiment might tell us something about that.
Any "opinion"?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:26:31 -0500, keith wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:02:19 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:00:15 +1100, Clifford Heath wrote:

Everett Hickey wrote:
Ideally, the ONLY purpose of tax dollars is to run the US - nothing else

No. Ideally, the ONLY purpose of any country's tax dollars should be to
create stability. Without stability, it's not possible to enjoy what you
make before it's wasted, stolen, etc. Foreign aid is necessary to create
global stability.

The only purpose of any tax is to enrich the ruling class at the expense
of the ruled. Always has been, and always will be, world without end, amen.

In an ethical society, there is no excuse for institutionalized theft.

OMG, I think Rich converted to the Republican party! ...at least the
vast-right-wing-conspiracy faction of it. Welcome aboard, Rich!

What? I notice that taxes are theft, and that makes me a nazi? Wake up,
dude.

And for the record, I never have been a "liberal" - I just made up the
monicker to make a point. I'm a very staunch Libertarian, thank you very
much.

And taxation is still theft.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 10:25:02 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:00:15 +1100, Clifford Heath wrote:


Everett Hickey wrote:

Ideally, the ONLY purpose of tax dollars is to run the US - nothing else

No. Ideally, the ONLY purpose of any country's tax dollars should be to
create stability. Without stability, it's not possible to enjoy what you
make before it's wasted, stolen, etc. Foreign aid is necessary to create
global stability.

The only purpose of any tax is to enrich the ruling class at the expense
of the ruled. Always has been, and always will be, world without end, amen.

True, _within a closed society_. But there are no such
things...

In an ethical society, there is no excuse for institutionalized theft.

The problem arises when the ethical society has to deal
with unethical ones. Providing for the common defense is
difficult to co-ordinate piecemeal.

Nothing to it! Just restore the Bill of Rights. An armed citizenry is
extremely difficult to conquer, as the US has demonstrated repeatedly
in the last 20 or 30 or so years, but still refuses to clue up.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Franz Heymann]

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:33qm40F428rvjU1@individual.net...

[snip]

It is NOT U.S. government policy to help the IRA.

It was. If that is not so, why did the US government allow the
collectors of funds for the IRA to retain charitable status?

[snip]

Franz

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Franz Heymann wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:2kZAd.24799$Cl3.6946@fed1read03...

Reg Edwards wrote:

The only terrorist attacks on the UK have been from the
IRA -
financed for
many years by the USA.

You mean "Irish-Americans". Not a penny of my taxes ever
went to support the IRA.

Then you do not realise that the organisations collecting
for the IRA
in your country are recognised charities with the usual tax
concessions for charities,

Yes, I know that.

so in fact you are contributing indirectly?

Does not follow. A tax not charged does not equal money
given. It equals a disbursement from their total budget not
made, not an increase in their total budget. Yes, I know it
tracks back to a tax deduction for the donors, but I'm not
giving them any money either. Ultimately, it amounts to a
smaller total tax collected, not monies transferred from me
to anyone.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Jeffrey Turner]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:32:11 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:


And, thankfully, the Cold War and its excesses are over. It's called
"progress."

You replace a cold war against "Communism" with a hot war
against "Terrorism" and call it progress? Not that the Cold War
was cold outside of Europe.

Perhaps. The last big bastions of dictatorship are Africa and the
Middle East. Even China is creeping towards some sort of democracy.

Oh yeah, China is headed for democracy sometime before the end of this
millennia, I'm sure. But I'm most concerned about the US, where the
elections don't meet international standards and the press doesn't play
the questioning role it should in a democracy.

Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are historical; but it remains to be
seen whether democracy can take root in those cultures.

I think you mean useless, or even hysterical. Karzai was hand-picked by
the Americans and doesn't really have authority outside of Kabul. The
warlords still run the country, and they got their people to vote for
Karzai. The Afghans are hopeful, but then again aren't most people?
If the Iraq elections happen, mostly without Sunni participation, in the
middle of a war - and again where the "government" doesn't have control
outside the capital - it's not going to mean much outside the USA. I
don't think most Iraqis are fooled about who is running their country.
If the "new" government doesn't ask the US to get its troops out then
we'll all know it's a sham.

--Jeff

--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman

In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.
--Jose Narosky

The urge to save humanity is almost
always a false front for the urge to
rule.
--H.L. Mencken

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 21:02:02 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:33qm40F428rvjU1@individual.net...

[snip]

It is NOT U.S. government policy to help the IRA.

It was. If that is not so, why did the US government allow the
collectors of funds for the IRA to retain charitable status?

Because the US government is not omnipotent. Actually, it's not even
very competent. That's one of things I like about this place; they
pass laws, and we ignore them.

John

 

In article <pWaCd.5805$5R.2666@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
"Clarence_A" <no@No.com> wrote:

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message news:crbbd9$9hm$6@hercules.btinternet.com...

"John Larkin" <john@spamless.usa> wrote in message
news:suvgt0d7bvh61s4p9mdnr1r4vrrku9tpt7@4ax.com...
On 2 Jan 2005 15:00:55 -0700, fburton@nyx.net (Francis Burton)
wrote:

[snip]
The reality is that in the US we are healthier,

According to our papers, you are a nation in which the wealthier
are
suffering from widespread obesity whilst a very large proportion
of
your population is ill-nourished.


Chinese philosophy.

"If you believe everything you read,
better not read."

There are some over-weight, about 25% by some figures, however the
medical people keep changing the weight tables. I was normal for
my age and height, now I am 30 pounds over the new value they have
decided on. Note that I also work out and have very little belly
fat. My doctor said I shouldn't diet, I am not really over a
reasonable weight.

I bet the study excluded those of us who are seriously, by
definition, underweight. If I ate everything the chart
of the basic food groups told me to eat, I'd be a blimp.
In addition, it is against the law for kids to work. Once
my nephew started "working" he dropped his fat immediately
and replaced it with muscle.

As to undernourished, I know there will always be some who would
rather spend their money on drugs or booze than food, but food is
not expensive here or in short supply. So besides the "chicken
littles" I know of no significant number with any difficulty
obtaining food a plenty. If your income falls below a certain
level you get food vouchers, or if you over retirement age you and
call a local number and three meals will be delivered free. To be
undernourished you would have to be stupid or mentally ill without
anyone to make the call for you.

Nope. We are undernourished because farmers don't use bullshit.
But this is a different problem.
<snip>

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[Gactimus]

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:33t5jtF43mbbaU1@individual.net:

Gactimus wrote:

With the exception of Christopher Reeves, who supported the harvesting
of humans for his own benefit.

Wrong. Embryos are not people. Zygotes are not people.

A human being, from the moment of fertilization, is genetically complete.
Zygote, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult all refer to stages of
a human being's life cycle.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:58:31 GMT, the renowned Bob Stephens
<stephensyomamadigital@earthlink.net> wrote:

On 03 Jan 2005 16:21:22 +0100, Torkel Franzen wrote:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> writes:

A human being, from the moment of fertilization, is genetically complete.

Absolutely! Each flake of skin that you shed is a human, wrongly
harvested by vacuum cleaners.

Anita Bryant had something similar to say regarding fellatio being akin to
cannibalism and therefore evil and abhorrent. Amazingly enough, she lost
50% of her supporters immediately

Bob

Maybe she was doing it wrong.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com