Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh

[Fred Bloggs]

Bill Sloman wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:<7i8n30d6aku58pq6r0q7ecd6n8557nrsk0@4ax.com>...

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:09:52 -0500, "Myron Samila"
myronx19@no.spam.sympatico.ca> wrote:


"Stephen J. Rush" <steverush@cox.net> wrote in message
news:njom309865k7c20n1qe3i3o5q8mv9n48qe@4ax.com...


It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.

You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two
atomic devices on two separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor
was a military target.

Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us
the solution ?

...Jim Thompson


If he's that smart, he might have been smart enough to stay out of
Iraq until he could stick the U.N. with working out the solution.

Any proposed solution that did not entail total military destruction and

elimination of the Saddam regime would have been unacceptable. The
*STUPID* UN is not capable of that kind of action- it is an idiot
organization sabotaged by thoroughly untrustworthy and corrupt scum
members like France, Germany, and Russia- all exposed for collaborating
with Saddam for financial gain! We live in a new world now- there will
be no more acceptance of deceitful pretense by corrupt Euro-peeon
riffraff- diplomacy will now be conducted by "dropping the hammer"- God
gave us the Tomahawk -and it's our responsibility to use it!

 

[Ross Matheson]

"Myron Samila" <myronx19@no.spam.sympatico.ca> reminisced in
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic<Auy_b.4123$ee3.213276@news20.bellglobal.com>,

: CNN is about as reliable as PRAVDA (anyone know what PRAVDA was/is??)

http://english.pravda.ru/

 

[Richard Henry]

"Ross Matheson" <rdm@orcon.net.zn> wrote in message
newstgp30tbfsrhhrni2topt18g04rh5tj990@4ax.com...

"Myron Samila" <myronx19@no.spam.sympatico.ca> reminisced in

alt.binaries.schematics.electronic<Auy_b.4123$ee3.213276@news20.bellglobal.c

om>,

: CNN is about as reliable as PRAVDA (anyone know what PRAVDA was/is??)

http://english.pravda.ru/

Truth.

 

[John Fields]

On 25 Feb 2004 07:02:19 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

And the basic German stupidy was invading Russia in the first place -
a silly idea that under-valued the Russians in accordance with
Hilter's stupid ideas about the superiority of the German "race"
(another stupid idea) and the congenital inferiority of the Slavs.
Western assistance, such as it was, was useful rather than decisive.

---
Ah, yes!

Obviously hindsight isn't 20-20 when you're Monday morning
quarterbacking six decades too late.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On 25 Feb 2004 07:05:08 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<7i8n30d6aku58pq6r0q7ecd6n8557nrsk0@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:09:52 -0500, "Myron Samila"
myronx19@no.spam.sympatico.ca> wrote:

"Stephen J. Rush" <steverush@cox.net> wrote in message
news:njom309865k7c20n1qe3i3o5q8mv9n48qe@4ax.com...

It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.

You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two atomic devices on two
separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a military target.

Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us the
solution ?

...Jim Thompson

If he's that smart, he might have been smart enough to stay out of
Iraq until he could stick the U.N. with working out the solution.

---
The smart thing is not to stick the UN with working out what they might,
years later, come to believe was a solution, it's to tell the UN to
stick it up their ass and then take care of business without having to
contend with the delaying tactics and agendas of assholes.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On 25 Feb 2004 06:55:38 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<kvhm30tofhq45bfdp3el3ntu4pcprmf043@4ax.com>...
On 24 Feb 2004 00:59:11 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:


U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

---
Neither are you, so I'm sure you've sifted through the "evidence"
carefully, rejecting anything factual which is at odds with your
opinions.

Nice to hear your impartial opinion.

---
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

--
John Fields

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <0mpp30t2q8qu3t4ct4tf5oc01mettbfcft@4ax.com&gt about
'Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh', on Wed, 25 Feb 2004:

Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

But facts are subject to an Uncertainty Principle, under which the
magnitude of uncertainty increases exponentially with elapsed time.
Opinions, OTOH, tend to be utterly resistant to change with elapsed
time.
--
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

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Fields wrote...

Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

Facts are usually selected and edited for the purpose of
making an opinion appear to be an impartial fact. Also,
some opinions may in reality be impartial evaluations of
an unbiased collection of facts. :&gt

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

 

[Richard Henry]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:0mpp30t2q8qu3t4ct4tf5oc01mettbfcft@4ax.com...

On 25 Feb 2004 06:55:38 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:<kvhm30tofhq45bfdp3el3ntu4pcprmf043@4ax.com>...
On 24 Feb 2004 00:59:11 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:


U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

---
Neither are you, so I'm sure you've sifted through the "evidence"
carefully, rejecting anything factual which is at odds with your
opinions.

Nice to hear your impartial opinion.

---
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

Unless you have some facts to back up your "fact", it's just another
opinionated opinion.

And mine doesn't smell.

 

[Brian Trosko]

In alt.primenet.recovery Mark J. <127.0.0.1> wrote:

So... the end justifies the means?

What else could possibly justify means if not the consequences of them?

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:11:18 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <0mpp30t2q8qu3t4ct4tf5oc01mettbfcft@4ax.com&gt about
'Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh', on Wed, 25 Feb 2004:

Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

But facts are subject to an Uncertainty Principle, under which the
magnitude of uncertainty increases exponentially with elapsed time.
Opinions, OTOH, tend to be utterly resistant to change with elapsed
time.

---
Ain't that the truth!

Still, facts remain impartial...

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On 25 Feb 2004 12:43:23 -0800, Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote...

Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

---
No, it's a fact.

"We orbit the sun." is a fact and is impartial.

"We should orbit the sun a little differently." is an opinion and is not
impartial since it carries a value judgement with it.

The fact that facts are impartial while opinions never are is a fact.
---

Facts are usually selected and edited for the purpose of
making an opinion appear to be an impartial fact.

---
That doesn't change the fact that a fact is impartial, is supports the
proposition that an opinion isn't.
---

Also, some opinions may in reality be impartial evaluations of
an unbiased collection of facts. :&gt

---
Is that a fact?^)

--
John Fields

 

[Fred]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
newscdq30d4gocvqmalpcu84c9mh40ro1ngdm@4ax.com...

On 25 Feb 2004 12:43:23 -0800, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote...

Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

---
No, it's a fact.

"We orbit the sun." is a fact and is impartial.

No not when it's a fact that we are the centre of the universe and to
suggest that we orbit the sun is heresy.

 

[Mark J.]

In newscdq30d4gocvqmalpcu84c9mh40ro1ngdm@4ax.com (John Fields):

On 25 Feb 2004 12:43:23 -0800, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote...

Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

---
No, it's a fact.

"We orbit the sun." is a fact and is impartial.

"We should orbit the sun a little differently." is an opinion and is not
impartial since it carries a value judgement with it.

Nooo... we *do* orbit the sun a "little differently" each cycle. Not only
does our orbit change in eccentricity, there is axial (Z) deviation
(oscillation) as well. It is estimated that the asteroid that wiped out the
dinosaurs was "picked up" as the earth moved into low-solar orbit (as it is
now), where many primordial stellar fragments still reside. This is also not
including the overall motion our solar system has relevant to our galaxy or
the rest of the universe. So to say "We orbit the sun," while true in a
basic sense, is omitting a ton of other data which may be very relevant
given the exact question. Wether that other data is unknown or witheld, that
can be partiality. For instance:

"We orbit the sun. Therefore, if we deploy a beacon in space, stationary to
the motion of our solar system, then we will see it at exactly the same
location in exactly 352.3 days."

The truth is, there are going to be deviations that cannot be attributed to
error. (The exact value of the solar year is a guess.) But you get the
point. Is it a fact if the "fact" ends up not being entirely true?

 

[Mark J.]

In news:c1j8th$l9h$1@reader2.panix.com (Brian Trosko):

In alt.primenet.recovery Mark J. <127.0.0.1> wrote:


So... the end justifies the means?

What else could possibly justify means if not the consequences of them?

Good question to ask Bush.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<403CBEE6.8060300@nospam.com>...

Bill Sloman wrote:
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:<7i8n30d6aku58pq6r0q7ecd6n8557nrsk0@4ax.com>...

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:09:52 -0500, "Myron Samila"
myronx19@no.spam.sympatico.ca> wrote:


"Stephen J. Rush" <steverush@cox.net> wrote in message
news:njom309865k7c20n1qe3i3o5q8mv9n48qe@4ax.com...


It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.

You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two
atomic devices on two separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor
was a military target.

Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us
the solution ?

...Jim Thompson


If he's that smart, he might have been smart enough to stay out of
Iraq until he could stick the U.N. with working out the solution.

Any proposed solution that did not entail total military destruction and
elimination of the Saddam regime would have been unacceptable.

To whom?

The *STUPID* UN is not capable of that kind of action- it is an idiot
organization sabotaged by thoroughly untrustworthy and corrupt scum
members like France, Germany, and Russia- all exposed for collaborating
with Saddam for financial gain!

The U.S. activity in support of Isreal isn't exactly making the U.N.
more effective either. And the U.S. can scarcely complain about
French, German and Russian collaboration with Saddam when we get to
see all those nice pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam as
part of the process of encouraging him to invade Iran.

We live in a new world now- there will be no more acceptance of deceitful
pretense by corrupt Euro-peeon riffraff- diplomacy will now be conducted
by "dropping the hammer"- God gave us the Tomahawk -and it's our
responsibility to use it!

God also gave you some intelligence (in the sense of processing
capacity, even if he short-changed you on military intelligence) and
one would have thought that you had a responsibility to use that too.

You've now had a chance to realise that it was a lot easier to invade
Iraq than it is to set up a government that is acceptable to the
population and still sufficiently pliable to be relied on to keep on
filling Haliburton's pockets.

Properly manipulated, the U.N. could have been stuck with the job of
cleaning up after Saddam - it is a pity that your administration was
too blinkered to see the advantage of using an ostensibly impartial
front man, in a postion to hire loads of cheap cannon-fodder from
third world countries to form the occupying army.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<403CBC99.6060202@nospam.com>...

Bill Sloman wrote:
Stephen J. Rush <steverush@cox.net> wrote in message news:<njom309865k7c20n1qe3i3o5q8mv9n48qe@4ax.com>...

On 24 Feb 2004 00:59:11 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:


"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message news:<8Fz_b.212$h23.62@fed1read06>...

"Dave VanHorn" <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote in message
news:z5ydnQpvj_V1XKfdRVn-ig@comcast.com...

"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:U4t_b.53$h23.42@fed1read06...

"Myron Samila" <myronx19@no.spam.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:51s_b.3883$ee3.171846@news20.bellglobal.com...

Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

Who is "we", and when?

Canada, War of 1812, the only time a foreign power torched the white

house.

Immortalized in song by "Three dead trolls in a baggie".

US history books count that war as a win for our side, since we were
fighting for freedom of pasage on the seas, not for preserving architecture.

U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

War isn't a zero-sum game. The Soviets wound up holding half of
Europe, but they took a lot of casualties and would have been overrun
without the combination of German stupidity, Western assistance, and
their old co-belligerant "Generalissimo Winter."

It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.


And Germany, on the same basis.

And the basic German stupidy was invading Russia in the first place -
a silly idea that under-valued the Russians in accordance with
Hilter's stupid ideas about the superiority of the German "race"
(another stupid idea) and the congenital inferiority of the Slavs.
Western assistance, such as it was, was useful rather than decisive.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Invading Russia was not stupid- the German army was highly mechanized
and was more than capable of annihilating Russia into a dust pile!

They certainly did well in the first months of the invasion, but this
had more to do with Stalin's purge of Russian army officers in the
1930's than any dramatic difference in the level of mechanisation -
the Germans were still using a lot of horse drawn transport at that
time.

The stupidity was waiting until fall and proceeding against the admonitions
of his military commanders. This is just another case of a lame-brained
theorist screwing up the people who know what they're doing!

Stalin's political purge of the Russian army officers being another
.... and Hitler had already shown that his military commanders were
over-cautious during the invasion of France. As it turned out, their
anxieties about invading Russia were justified, but would Russia have
been quite so unprepared to repel the invasion if it had been delayed
until spring? Stalin had had a lot of warnings that Hilter was
planning to invade, and he managed to ignore all of them - another six
months might have given time for the message to get through.

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

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:36:28 -0500, "Mark J." <127.0.0.1> wrote:

In newscdq30d4gocvqmalpcu84c9mh40ro1ngdm@4ax.com (John Fields):
On 25 Feb 2004 12:43:23 -0800, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote...

Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

---
No, it's a fact.

"We orbit the sun." is a fact and is impartial.

"We should orbit the sun a little differently." is an opinion and is not
impartial since it carries a value judgement with it.


Nooo... we *do* orbit the sun a "little differently" each cycle. Not only
does our orbit change in eccentricity, there is axial (Z) deviation
(oscillation) as well. It is estimated that the asteroid that wiped out the
dinosaurs was "picked up" as the earth moved into low-solar orbit (as it is
now), where many primordial stellar fragments still reside. This is also not
including the overall motion our solar system has relevant to our galaxy or
the rest of the universe. So to say "We orbit the sun," while true in a
basic sense, is omitting a ton of other data which may be very relevant
given the exact question. Wether that other data is unknown or witheld, that
can be partiality. For instance:

"We orbit the sun. Therefore, if we deploy a beacon in space, stationary to
the motion of our solar system, then we will see it at exactly the same
location in exactly 352.3 days."

The truth is, there are going to be deviations that cannot be attributed to
error. (The exact value of the solar year is a guess.) But you get the
point. Is it a fact if the "fact" ends up not being entirely true?

---
Whether each orbit around the sun is different from the previous orbit
doesn't change the fact that we orbit around the sun. That is entirely
true, factual, and incontrovertible. And impartial.

If, in your opinion, learning more about the characteristics of orbits
is important, then you may go on to learn more facts about orbits. What
you learn will be factual and impartial. Your opinions about what you
learn will not be impartial.
---

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:18:22 -0000, "Fred" <fred@abuse.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
newscdq30d4gocvqmalpcu84c9mh40ro1ngdm@4ax.com...
On 25 Feb 2004 12:43:23 -0800, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote...

Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

---
No, it's a fact.

"We orbit the sun." is a fact and is impartial.


No not when it's a fact that we are the centre of the universe and to
suggest that we orbit the sun is heresy.

---
Good point.

--
John Fields

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Bill Sloman wrote:

You've now had a chance to realise that it was a lot easier to invade
Iraq than it is to set up a government that is acceptable to the
population and still sufficiently pliable to be relied on to keep on
filling Haliburton's pockets.

The damned sewer is ungovernable and the present course is idiotic. We
should break it up into Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiitestan- it is that
simple- there is no such place as Iraq- a completely artificial creation
of the goddammed corrupt, arrogant, apathetic, and incompetent English.
Also the Sunnis do not seem very willing to cooperate so now is the time
to call on the Kurds natural inclination for genocide of opposing
tribes- the Turks used them effectively to take care of their Armenian
problem- now we can use them to take care of our Sunni problem.