Re: Be careful what you shoot at whom....
In a message dated 8/14/2003 7:59:57 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Julia > > > > who believes that paintball guns belong in *controlled* environments > > Be advised, everyone, that I'm from Pittsburgh, originally. > > Nick I've often been to Pittsburgh, and I've never known it to be a controlled anything. Now at this very time, twenty miles or so north of there, at the NW section of 422 and I-79, there's a hell of a big conglomeration of weapons that'd put the paintballs to shame. William Taylor - Morglay, Durendel, Querbiter, etc. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: shoelaces, concentration
Reggie Bautista wrote: > > Kevin wrote: > >My normal footwear I leave tied all the time, just push down on the back > >heel and step out. > > SO I'M NOT CRAZY! I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE! WOOHOO! > > (Sorry, I *always* catch flack about the fact that I do the same thing, and > it's nice to now be able to say "I can *prove* that I'm not the only one :-) > > Reggie Bautista My mom gets those elastic shoelaces, pulls out the regular laces, laces the shoes up with the elastic ones, getting them to the right tightness on her feet, and then she just uses a shoehorn to get her feet into them. Last week, I bought sneakers that didn't have laces. (They zip. I wanted Velcro, but there were no Velcro-fastening-only shoes in the Ladies section at Academy, which has the best athletic shoe selection I know of. And I sure as heck didn't want anything *besides* supportive, comfortable sneakers at this point) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of pricediscrimination
>-Original Message- >From: David Hobby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 6:57 PM >To: Killer Bs Discussion >Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price >discrimination > > >> >> No, David, you proved my much larger point. >> Congratulations, _you_ are the perfect example for why >> the left has no relevance to American politics today. >> You pegged it in one - I do say you're an extremist >> too. If you really feel that it's reasonable to call >> the American flag a symbol of hatred - which you have >> just repeatedly said you do - you have just proven my >> larger point about the collapse of the left far better >> than I ever could. Out of your own mouth. I couldn't >> have _asked_ for a better post to make my point. >> >> = >> Gautam Mukunda > > Yes, I feel it is reasonable to call the US flag a >"symbol of hatred", in the sense that many who wave it most >fervently do so partially out of hate. Wait a sec... I see 50% of all automobiles with at least an American Flag decal, and a fair percentage with an actual flag. Those that use the flag in hate are such a small percentage, it probably can't be measured ... If I didn't know any better, I would say you just accused me of being identified (call it stereotyped) as hateful because I "wave" a flag Or you just talking about the radical right-wing hate groups that happen to wave flags as well. Frankly, if we are stereotyping, I would say that most radical left-wing hate groups prefer to burn the Flag in effagy. Strangly enough, many protestors of American policy overseas do the same thing They make defilement a political statement. Could not this be thought of as hateful, or is it perhaps just behavior conducive of "Being Enlightened". OK OK OK . I understand what you meant (I think). Luckily you put enough ambuigity into it to not allow anyone to pin you down to the ground on this one... Perhaps some of the people who wave the flag have some hate in them, but flag waving and flag burning are a lot different. Those who hate the US and see the flag as a symbol of their hatred don't wave the flag, they burn it (or is that statement a bit stereotypical... ). To be honest, your statement made me mad... Nerd From Hell You seem to have >removed all of the modifiers from your restatement. > For comparison, part of my original post is quoted >below. > ---David > >P.S. Do you use "extremist" as more than a label for those you >disagree with? If you define it as "more than 3 sigma from the >mean", or something, then we could continue this discussion. But >if someone is an extremist just because you say so, I really have >no opportunity to reply. > > >Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols differently, >of course. But I saw many flying the flag who seemed to do so out >of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate. (Anyway, they would >say things like "Kill all Arabs!") >When others have contaminated a symbol with things one >does not believe in, one reasonable response is to avoid using >the symbol. (Another is to attempt to "reclaim" it, but either >should be fair.) >So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic position >doesn't seem too far out. >---David >- >___ >http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: I've done it again!
"Adam C. Lipscomb" wrote: > > Julia wrote: > > > > Aw, he looks just like a newborn! How cute! :) > > > > who bets that he *smells* like a newborn, too, and that is a very, > very > > nice smell > > He does indeed smell like a newborn, except when he's made one of his > substantial deposits at the First National Bank Of Diaper. Then he > smells like something else entirely. A week or so after Sammy was born, depending on how big a deposit he'd made, we'd say, "Captain Poop has been promoted!" There are worse things than infant poop. Toddler poop accelerated by too many sesame seeds comes to mind Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
32 weeks
I've made it to 32 weeks with this pregnancy. At this point, if I go into labor, I go to the hospital, they try to stop the labor for 48 hours, during which time they give me steroids to help artificially mature the babies' lungs, and then they let me go into labor again. If I make it to 34 weeks before I go into labor, the lungs should be mature enough that no such intervention will be necessary. So, I'm hoping I make it another 2 weeks, anyway. If I make it to 36 weeks, chances are that neither baby will have to spend time in the NICU and they ought to both be able to go home with me, which would probably be best for everyone involved. For twins, 37 weeks is considered "full term". 38 weeks is the point at which they intervene to cause birth one way or another. I think I'd just as soon go into labor sometime between 36 1/2 weeks and 37 1/2 weeks. At my checkup yesterday, there hadn't been any significant change since last week that would indicate I might give birth in the next couple of weeks, so that's good. (The only real changes noted were my weight, which went up some, and how big my uterus is from bottom to top, which went up about 1 cm.) Everything else had been fairly stable for the past 2 weeks, so I'm in decent shape for still being pregnant for awhile. (The only problem is that each week I'm more and more uncomfortable, and more and more fatigued. And this past week, one of the babies has decided to park a rump in the same spot that Sammy liked to park his in the last couple of months of *that* pregnancy, and that spot really doesn't appreciate it. But hey, at most it's 6 more weeks.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Author question
Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 05:53:18PM +0900, G. D. Akin wrote: P.S. Dang! I went off-subject on my own post. Do you know the etymology of the word "dang"? Alliteration of the word damn. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Be careful what you shoot at whom....
Chad Cooper wrote: > It used to be a kid could get a realistic looking gun that took caps and > made a lot of noise. > Nowadays, its practically illegal to let your children play with toy guns of > any type. It is certainly frowned upon, and can get you ostersized out of > some social circles. It's illegal to sell a replica of any machine gun, I believe. I have a friend who got a fake AK-47 for prop purposes before that law went into effect. Somewhere there's a photo of me wearing camoflauge that's too big for me, holding that fake gun (And an annoyingly cute cartoon based on the photo.) I'm not planning on buying any toy guns, but I hear that boys are good at picking up just about anything and treating it as a gun for play purposes. (I won't rule out toy guns the way I'm trying to rule out Barbie, I just figure it's a waste to spend money on something that a kid will find a substitute for *anyway*.) > When I was a kid, we used hand-made sling shots to fire projectiles at > moving cars or even more challenging... wet toilet paper (AKA > "Splatting") or snowballs. Kids have it so easy these days... We didn't bother with assisted propelling. We just threw stuff. Got yelled at when we threw rotting grapes at the wheels of a passing car; the driver backed up and bawled us out, telling us how dangerous it was, etc. and how we shouldn't be throwing rocks. (We would have *never* thrown rocks; those hurt! We'd thrown enough rotting grapes at each other to figure that there was a real limit as to what sort of damage *those* could do.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More Fiber
Robert SeebergerWrote: > > > Debbi > > who despises bran cereal, however good it is for her :P > > > Have you ever tried Cracklin' Oat Bran? > > I eat the stuff like candy. Its fairly sweet and quite tasty. > > Therefore it must be bad for you. > I used to eat it because it was (still is I'm sure), but it has more calories than most bran cereals and had more fat too, IIRC. I'm currently eating a lot of Honey Nut Mini-wheats. I also drink 4 ounces of prune juice a day . . . hey, I'm almost 53 and it HELPS! George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Did you catch the noon Paul Harvey, Debbi?
Jon Gabriel wrote: > > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Did you catch the noon Paul Harvey, Debbi? > >Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:59:42 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > > > > Contrary to rumors (which I started) the WB is not > > > planning to do a remake of Mr. Ed at a stud farm. > > > > > > > >Peanut Butter Breath Maru :) > > > > ?? I missed a joke or something. Peanut Butter? > There was a show recently on the top 20 TV animals, one of which was Mr. Ed. They reported that, contrary to common belief, the trainers did not use peanut butter to get the horse to make those faces, but rather a small string, which irritated the inside of its mouth slightly. That, and he was several horses since Mr. Ed had such a busy social calendar. (seriously!) -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: good olde fashioned bible burning
> From: The Fool [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Greenville Church Burns the Bible > > GREENVILLE -- A church in Greenville thinks the Harry Potter books are > part of an evil cult, so church leaders decided to have an > old-fashioned > book burning, but children's books were not the only things that went > into the fire. By incredible coincidence, I was listening to Sarah McLachlan's "Into the Fire" while reading this post. OK, not that incredible... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: shoelaces, concentration
At 07:47 PM 8/14/2003 -0500, you wrote: Kevin wrote: My normal footwear I leave tied all the time, just push down on the back heel and step out. SO I'M NOT CRAZY! I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE! WOOHOO! (Sorry, I *always* catch flack about the fact that I do the same thing, and it's nice to now be able to say "I can *prove* that I'm not the only one :-) Reggie Bautista I'm glad to be of help. But comparing yourself with me, to say your are not crazyyou know how tough it is to find tissue boxes in my size? Anyway quick glance: two pairs of bike shoes, grass cutting sneakers, two other pairs of sneakers, three pairs of dress shoes, wet weather dress shoesall tied. I've never had anyone see it as a problem. They are tight enough for me to run in. Like I said, I have one friend who's shoes are always united, and I think he looks like an idiot walking around like that, and so does his wife. I have another friend who also keeps his shoes always tied, even his half height work boots. But he has small feet ;-) Kevin T. - VRWC time for bed ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 6:48 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > Well, there are 50 or 60 million gunowners in the US. > Compared to those numbers the number of "rage" killings is pretty minute. But, just under half of murders with a known cause are murders during arguements. The majority of these involved a gun. That comes to >3000 gun induced deaths that resulted from an arguement. > "Rage" killings are still a small fraction of "reported" defense uses too. But, how about documented defense uses? The difficulty I have with reported defense use is that, if true, the crime rate against gun owners should be far lower than against non-gun owners. The claim for defense is higher than the total reported number of violent crimes, by a factor of two. Even if you agree that the total number of violent crimes is twice this, then its still only equal. Further, I'd argue that domestic violence and sexual abuse are the least likely to be reported. Guns in the home are really not a good solution for that type of problem. Indeed, it is likely that most violent crimes are domestic. I can do the #s if you like. Now, you could argue that the defense numbers reflected people using guns to stop crimes against property. There are, indeed, more than two million crimes against property. However, we both know that the vast majority of burgluries do not involve the potential for a confrontation between the owner and the thief. Further, when there is a confrontation, there has to be a number of times when the thief is also armed. Maybe you can scale up the won shootouts a factor of 10 or even 20, but I don't think it is reasonable to assume that there are hundreds of intruders who simply run away for every one who makes a stand. Reported gun defenses can be a very soft number..especially when touted by a pro-gun group. I'd really like to see the details of the analysis. Does it include people knowing that the noise in the bushes was a robber who was scared off by a gun? The question I am arguing is the handgun in the drawer for protection, not the hunting rifle that's safely stored. There is no evidence that the handgun in the drawer does any good. There is considerable evidence that it contributes to a significant number of deaths per year. Dan M ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:04 PM > > Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:00 PM > > > Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > > > > > > > > > > The molehill is not 100% fatal. Many people are shot each year and > > > survive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And many more don't. Your chances of surviving are extremely greater if > > > you > > > > don't get shot at all. > > > > > > > > > > Sure, and you don't die in traffic accidents if you don't hit others > > cars. > > > But more people are killed by cars every year than by firearms. > > > > And, many more people lose money in traffic accidents than from crimes > > every year. So, maybe we worry to much about crime in general. > > The real question is the relative merit of stopping crimes by arming > > oneself with a gun in the nightstand vs. the demerits of that action. > > > > Indeed, if you talk about assaults, both physical and sexual, one is much > > much more likely to be assaulted by a family member or a friend of the > > family than by a stranger. Incest is far far more prevalent than sexual > > assaults by strangers assaulting a woman on the street; and is > > overwhelmingly more likely than someone breaking into a house to rape a > > woman. > > > > I realize that folks talk about these folks being monsters and needing to > > seriously punish them. But, if the numbers used by people working with > > victims and survivors are right, roughly 1 in 20 men (maybe 1 in 25) are > > pedophiles. > > I would have to strongly disagree with this. This is sexist feminist crap! Right, and my wife wasn't really a victim of sexual assault, its just that she's a feminist liar. Both women and men have been surveyed and about 1 in 4 women have been the victim of a sexual assult, and about 1 in 7 men. Now, this is slightly old data, and I wouldn't be shocked if its down to 1 in 5 women or 1 in 10 men. But a casual statistical survey of my friends indicates that the official numbers look close. If there is anything sexist, it is the denial of the frequency with which women become perps. When Teri was working groups for Parents Annomous, she was the only one who asked if the mother did anything. That's not all children, so not all count as pedophile. > Even if you run off and get stats for this you will have to show what the > definition is. The definition is pretty plain, men who are sexually attracted to children. I can get the exact definition, but I know that attraction to youth 13 and over doesn't count as pedophile. > Do 1 in 20 hetero males find 17 year old females attractive? I would argue > the number is much higher than just 1 in 20. Doesn't count. > What about 18 year old males who find 14 year old females attractive? Nope, its grown men and children. > If we are talking about post pubecent males who find pre-pubesent females > attractive, I seriously doubt the numbers would be high enough to make enven > a percentage. Well, from my perspective, you won't accept anything that doesn't fit your presuppositions. > If we further restrict it to only those who act on it then we would have even > lower numbers. But, the reality is that a significant fraction of men and women endure the shame of being the victim of sexual abuse. You'll be surprised at how many people are willing to talk about it only when it is made safe for them. > It is certain that pedifiles exist and they certainly have serious problems > that society needs to find a solution for. But to sugest that so many men are > like that is sexist IMO. Why? With your attitude, I'd be shocked if people would be likely to admit that they were victims to you. No hard feelings, but that type of denial is a good portion of why victims of sexual assault tend to keep their mouths shut. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:57:24AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: > Why do you think that is? Good debating technique? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination
Jan Coffey wrote: Why do you think that 12 years of english is necisary? Did you really learn anything in 10th,11th or 12th grade you didn't already know in 9th? At my high school, in 9th, 10th, and 11th grade, we were required to do a research paper (10 to 20 pages) every year in English, and each year we used a different documentation style (footnotes, endnotes, and internal documentation). In 11th grade we could take a standard English course and then in 12th grade we had to take a one-semester English course, or in 11th we could start a two-year English AP or English IB course. During 9 through 12, we covered everything from basic grammer through literary analysis, poetry, creative writing, structural differences between short stories and novels, and general history of different writing styles of the past couple of hundred years, among other things. Math was set up in a similar way. After taking a year of Algebra in 8th grade and a year of Geometry in 9th, we could either take a year of Intermediate Algebra and then a one-semester course like Statistics, or we could take Advanced Algebra (with the option of going on to Pre-Calc and Trig and eventually Calculus -- I opted out of the year-long senior Calculus class to take the one-semester Statistics instead, which let me take another one-semester class I wanted). I learned a *lot* in English and Math in 10th through 12th grade that I didn't already know from 9th. I'm sorry to hear that you were not so lucky. Reggie Bautista _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fightthe evil of pricediscrimination
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (And no, I'm not going to purchase a gun until I feel a lot more > comfortable around one than I am. And generally, the rattlers just > kinda park themselves in the road, so there's time to get the ammo out > of the separate locked box, load the gun, and go back out to do it in. > And I've heard that rattlesnake tastes like chicken.) That gun belongs on your hip fully loaded. You live in one of the SANE states that allows LAW ABIDING citizes to balance their own power with that of the criminal. Do you think that rapists and murdererd keep their amo locked in a seperat box? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: Secret of walking on water uncovered
From: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/08/07/water.skimmers.reut/index.html or http://makeashorterlink.com/?T20026785 LONDON, England (Reuters) -- So that's how they do it. If you have ever wondered how insects like water striders walk on water or skim across the surface of ponds, rivers and oceans, scientists in the United States have the answer. Rather than move by creating waves, as some researchers had thought, the insects use one of their three sets of hairy legs like oars to create vortices or spirals in the water that propel them forward at speeds of up to 150 cm (60 inches) per second. Professor John Bush of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his colleagues who uncovered the secret said that although tiny waves were created, they were not the main driving force. "The momentum transfer is primarily in the form of subsurface vortices," Bush said in a report in the science journal Nature. more on site Reggie Bautista Fun Subject Heading Maru _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
> How about if we change Jan's statement to something like: > > C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a > violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] > should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. > > Can we all agree with that? > No. I would want them to demonstrate that they know how to handle the gun and have them pledge to keep it safely locked up except when being used for hunting, target practice, etc. I would also require them to purchase insurance against any misuse of the gun - by them or by anyone else. And I would increase the penalties for misuse of guns, even accidental. You have to have insurance to operate a car, and a license - surely we can and should require no less for guns. And I would still change the laws that make it possible for anyone to drive to Virginia, buy as many guns as they want, and then go home. Or to sell them at totally unregulated gun shows where they don't even check to see that the purchaser is not a criminal or mentally ill. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
A dead end for the Democrats
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1957167 A dead end for the Democrats Jul 31st 2003 >From The Economist print edition George Bush's opponents are attacking him from the wrong side REMEMBER those days when American foreign policy was a bipartisan affair -- and most Democrats could be counted on to line up behind George Bush over Iraq? That was another age. The new frontrunner for the party's presidential nomination is Howard Dean, a maverick former governor of Vermont whose main attraction to the party faithful is his undiluted opposition to the Iraq war. Most of his establishment rivals have followed him down this path, drawn on by the president's declining popularity. Dick Gephardt rails against Mr Bush's "utter disregard for diplomacy". John Kerry, another supporter of the war in Congress, is also now throwing everything he can at the president. Like Tony Blair, Mr Bush is under fire for supposedly sexing up the claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Democrats' favourite stick to beat Mr Bush is the now famous 16 words in his state-of-the-union address about Saddam Hussein trying to buy uranium from Niger -- something American intelligence says was untrue. Last weekend, Senator Bob Graham, another presidential candidate, talked about impeachment. Only Joe Lieberman has defended the war stoutly; coincidentally or not, his campaign is in the dumps. Our sympathies are with Mr Lieberman -- and not just because this newspaper supported the war. The Democrats' attacks on Mr Bush seem misguided, both in principle and tactically. And it so happens that, if they gave the matter any thought, they would find they had much better grounds than these for criticising Mr Bush. Focusing on the 16 words seems particularly foolish. Here is what Mr Bush actually said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". Well, the British stand by that judgment. If the CIA thought the British were wrong, it was a mistake for the White House to include their claim in the state-of-the-union speech (and the White House has admitted as much). But it hardly seems an impeachable lie -- or any kind of lie. Just as Mr Blair must be happy that his persecutors made so much of the "45-minute claim" about Iraqi preparedness, Mr Bush must be relieved that the Democrats are running TV-ads about Niger: these narrow charges distract attention from the broader criticism to which both governments might otherwise be vulnerable. There is evidence, for instance, that the White House was extremely selective in the intelligence that it cited about WMD, and even more so in its claims about the links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, an area the Democrats have largely ignored. Yet, even here, the Democrats would be wise to tread carefully, for three reasons. First, America had several excellent motives for removing Saddam Hussein -- and WMD was only one of them. Even with American troops dying and no WMD found, most Americans think that toppling Saddam was a success. Second, most people, including the intelligence agencies of European governments, believed at the time that those weapons existed. Third, it is still likely that evidence of WMD programmes will be found. Due to Mr Bush's poor decision to let the searching be done by American inspectors (something the Democrats again could have made more noise about), many of America's allies will regard any such discoveries as suspect. Most Americans will trust them. Look to the future, not the past With the American people already favouring the Republicans by wide margins on issues such as homeland security and national security, the Democrats' grandstanding could rebound horrifically at the polls next year. But there is more at stake than just party politics. By concentrating on the causes of war rather than its aftermath, the Democrats are doing the rest of the world a disservice. America's attempt to rebuild Iraq requires more troops and money than Mr Bush (or his party) seems willing to send there. It also requires the United Nations to play a stronger role.something conservative Republicans wrongly dislike. Mr Kerry, to be fair, has begun to make this case. With the Democratic rank and file screaming for the troops to be brought home, greater involvement in Iraq would be a bold cause for any Democratic presidential candidate to embrace. It is the right policy, nonetheless -- and if Democrats hope to be taken seriously they ought to be pressing for it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evilof price discrimination
Jan Coffey wrote: > No matter what laws get passed, no matter who can leagaly cary a gun and > who > can't Criminals will allways own and carry guns. > Right, and other criminals will always commit crimes, so why have any laws at all? > A much more interesting statistic would be the perentage of > non-law-enforcement people who carry a conceled weapons who are also > non-criminals. > > Personsly I would prefer there to be more non-criminals with concealed > weapons than criminals with concealed weapons, but proponents of gun control > laws seem to prefer it if ONLY criminals carry weapons. At 07:28 PM 8/6/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] answered: No we don't. We don't want anyone to have a gun who doesn't have a good reason to have one. [snip] Nobody really needs a gun. [snip] Guns are dangerous. Pure and simple. It may not be possible to get rid of them entirely, but that should be our society's goal. Meanwhile, let's settle for what limitations we can get. IOW, you (pl.) say you don't "prefer it if ONLY criminals carry weapons", you (pl.) just want to change the law so everyone who carries a weapon is by definition a criminal . . . As William James is reported to have said, "A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Update on Nick's friend/biz partner
My buddy Dave Land had brain surgery today and it went well. His type of tumor has well-defined margins, so surgery often gets all of it, and his surgeon feels confident that they got it all. Even if not, it is a very slow growing type that rarely is malignant, rarely metastasizes. So further treatment may be needed. He was out of it when we saw him, between the OR and the ICU, so we haven't talked yet since the operation. But they expect to move him out of ICU and into a regular bed sometime tomorrow, then home in a couple of days. Pretty amazing after brain surgery. Dave, his wife, everyone at the hospital and I were very optimistic, very positive throughout the last few days, after the initial shock and fear on Sunday, especially because Dave and his wife lost their first son to a brain tumor eight years ago. I've really felt uplifted by all the kind words, prayers and other support from literally hundreds of people, including many of the Brin-L community. Thank you! Nick -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of pricediscrimination
--- Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I thought it was people who fly the Confederate flag who were more > likely > > > to not only own firearms but to have a rifle on a rack in the back > window > > > of their truck . . . > > > > > > I Can Say That Because I Live Here Maru > > > >Well, the people who are going to have the strongest feelings one way or > >the other about the Confederate flag are more likely to be in the south, > >where general gun ownership is higher than it is in, say, the northeast. > > > >If you took *everyone* in the US who have very negative feelings about > >the US flag and calculated the percentage who own guns, I bet it would > >be smaller than the percentage of gun-owners among those who have very > >negative feelings about the Confederate flag. > > > > Julia > > > That's a tough call, to say in general gun ownership is less in the > northeast. I think if you throw out Philly, New York City and > Massachusetts, the percentages would pass the south. And please, throw out > all three. After Atlanta do any southern cities have restrictive gun laws? > Don't know if you are considering Florida as part of the south. > > I'd actually bet there are more gun owners who have negative feelings about > > the US flag than the Confederate flag. I just don't think there are that > many who have any strong feelings about the Con flag, period. > I think that relating the two is rediculous. In much the same way as relating poodle owners to persons who have marigolds in their front lawn. Or cell phone users to people who own a back-hoe. No matter what laws get passed, no matter who can leagaly cary a gun and who can't Criminals will allways own and carry guns. A much more interesting statistic would be the perentage of non-law-enforcement people who carry a conceled weapons who are also non-criminals. Personsly I would prefer there to be more non-criminals with concealed weapons than criminals with concealed weapons, but proponents of gun control laws seem to prefer it if ONLY criminals carry weapons. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Okay to execute the evil ham and cheese sandwich?
At 01:56 AM 8/14/2003 -0400, you wrote: In a message dated 8/13/2003 9:47:42 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Julia Thompson wrote: > > > How do you make a sandwich such that it's "evil"? > > :) (Or should that be >:) ?) > > Use deviled ham? ;-) On French bread? Oh...sorry. That's just rude, not evil. Write DCLXVI in mustard? 666 does not exist in the Bible. It only exists in standard Hollywood plotlines. William Taylor Really? What about Revelation 13:18? Kevin T. - VRWC Not that there's anything wrong with that ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
shoelaces, concetration, stingy reactions and Re: dyslexia andtintedlenses
Jan Coffey wrote: I also feel that it is necessary to note that there is a lot of quackery around learning "disabilities". FREX "The Gift of dyslexia" is a non scientific book with absolutely ridiculous notions like dyslexics shoes come untied more often, and that dyslexic are clumbsy. There are studies by ~real~ scientists such as Shaywitz shoing that this stuff is nonsense. Well, about those shoes. ;o) I remember that a while back I read about some research into tying shoe laces. It showed that there are many ways to tie your laces but there are only one or two ways that will result in laces that will not continuously come undone. Well that, and it helps if you knot the loops of your toddies shoelaces once you tied them. I don't have the link to it, but if it exist maybe a benevolent listee might provide it for our amusement. :o) One does not have to be autistic to have a heightened sense for such things as flickering lights or shrill electronics. The average person can only see "flicker" below some frequency (can't remember what it si just now) and the above average person can only here between 20 Htz and 20k Htz. There are individuals who can see and here better, and they are often distracted in learning environemnts that contain such noise. Thank you for the information. I personally have exceptionally good hearing but found that I can shut it down or more like totally screen my surroundings out while I work. It usually results in me being very concentrated, the more so, the noisier the environs I'm working in get. People have found that it then takes a considerable amount of effort to get my attention once I'm in that state. So I sort of use the noises around me to focus my thoughts and become very concentrated. Something I found totally impossible in a silent room, where I would jump at even the slightest of sounds. It is ridiculous to suggest that a student should wear dark red glasses when the lighting could simply be adjusted. Especialy if the student is autistic and is having a difficult enough time socialy anyway. Reading this (and Julia's response) I feel that I have to ask if either you or Julia for that matter read or even glanced at the sites I pointed to? The reason I'm asking is because f.i. information like below is on one of the sites and both your responses seem to be oddly out of sync with this and other things mentioned there. from http://www.read-eye.connectfree.co.uk/dyslexia.htm "Visual stress" is a condition that often contributes to reading difficulties in adults and children. The condition is related to light sensitivity in disorders such as migraine and epilepsy. It causes distortions on the printed page when black print contrasts sharply with a bright background. Visual stress is often a big part of the problem in Dyslexia, but can also affect other poor readers and may cause eyestrain and headaches in good readers. etc. I didn't say, nor did I attempt to say that this in any way applies to Jan, nor that it was _the_ solution to cure any or all dyslexic and/or autistic people, nor did I say that every dyslexic can become a normal reader by putting on dark red lenses, nor did I say that every dyslexic is autistic or that every autistic person is dyslexic, or a combination thereof. Nor did I as far as I know in any way speak negatively about autism, reading and or other disabilities. If I did I'm not aware of it and apologize. I feel that I have to put in this disclaimer because the to me apparently stingy reaction on this subject I got from Jan seemed a bit odd and undeserved. But since I'm a benign person and have to assume that the inadvertent connection I made between autism and dyslexia was what threw people off, I'll try to clarify and refine my position. What I attempted to mentioned was that there are people with sight difficulties (i.e. specifically people with visual dyslexia, like f.i. my mom who likes to wear yellow lenses but until now didn't know why) that benefit from this kind of simple and cheap solution. I aspired to deliver this (to me amazing) info together with source information and the circumstances under which I acquired the information. In general it used to be good brin-l practice to deliver information to the list in this form, usually resulting in nuanced replies of informed people who have taken (tense?) the trouble to glance through the material that the original poster pointed to. Additional surprising information can thus be acquired and it is even possible to have a discussion of the subject between polite, enthusiastic and inspired people. Generally broadening the horizon of the members on this list.. Sonja :o) GCU: Brevity versus complexity xGCU: Is there a limit to the number of subjects one can put in one subject line? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination
Jan Coffey wrote: > > --- Jon Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Subject: Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of > > _pricediscrimination > > >Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:13:49 -0500 > > > > > >Jan Coffey wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Then there is the matter of accidents. > > > > > > > > Simple solution, teach a class in gun safty in school. Replace the 10th > > > > >11th > > > > or 12th year of "english" those clases are a waste. > > > > > >1) I didn't consider any of those classes I took those years to be a > > >"waste", personally. > > > > Neither do I. In fact, the foundation of writing skills and language > > analysis they established probably allow me to do my job effectively. > > > > An observation: Just because a required class may not help you personally > > doesn't mean it's worthless. For example, I may never use the trigonometry > > > > that I learned about in HS in my daily life, but it's essential to > > everything from construction to chemistry. > > > > I wasn't saying to do away with all 3 years, just one. Besides no one made > you take 12 years of triginomotry, or 12 years of art history. or 12 years of > colour theory. > > Why do you think that 12 years of english is necisary? Did you really learn > anything in 10th,11th or 12th grade you didn't already know in 9th? > > The only difference in these classes was the publisher of the book, and the > words on the spelling tests. Granted for me, the spelling tests were like > automatic Fs due to my genetics, which I did find teribly unfair. But still, > for everyone else the rest of the information was 3 years of re-run. How many > times can you be tought to diagram a sentence before you just don't care > anymore. How many times can you go around a class reading shakespear aloud? > Is it really necisary to subject students to Beowofe 3 years in a row? How > many compare-contrast papers can one write? I'm sorry that's how your high school English classes went. I was studying very different things in 10th, 11th and 12th grades. 10th: Writing for half the year, followed the second half of the year by a course on writing research papers, a skill I hadn't quite got down pat -- but after that class, I did *very* well on research papers in college. 11th: English was combined with American History in an honors course that met for 2 periods a day. So everything we turned in was graded on content by the history teacher, and on English by the English teacher. Plus there were a lot of group projects; I learned a lot about working in a group, one of my weak points then. I drew on skills learned in that class very heavily in a couple of classes in college, most notably a *fun* course offered in the English department at UT one semester, "Artificial Intelligences in Literature". (Hey, _Neuromancer_ was on the required reading list. How cool is *that*?) 12th: A full year course "Themes in Literature" where we did all that compare/contrast stuff, but I honed my skills in writing papers, which helped in college courses later on. *Plus* I took a half-year course in "Speech and Communication", which at least got me over the panic I'd been feeling for the past year when it was apparent that there was no way I *wouldn't* be valedictorian. And I got exposed to a number of cool things in that course that I wouldn't have otherwise been exposed to, by other students picking topics interesting to them for various assignments. So, it wasn't 3 years of the same old thing for me, it was a lot of variety. After fulfilling basic freshman English requirements in college, I went for some eclectic courses *there*, as well. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: vv audits non profits that don't tow the ideological line
I didn't know you could tow an imaginary line. Sing it Doobies! "What a fool believes..." Kevin T. - VRWC Layin' it on the line ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Milky Way
Re: http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/milkyway.html From: "Reggie Bautista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > How accurate is that map with regards to the naming of the arms? If I'm > looking at it correctly, the Norma arm splits out to become the Cygnus and > Perseus arms, our own Orion arm vanishes into either the Perseus or > Saggitarius arm, and the Scutum-Crux arm splits in two like Norma but the > two separate parts don't have separate names. I'd seen other articles/papers which made it clear that Orion (our home arm) is actually just a spur of the grand arms like Perseus and Sagittarius. . > Would all of these be > symptoms of what it says farther down the page, "There is very little data > available about the far side of the Galaxy..."? I'm not an astronomer (and I don't even play one on TV) but it looks like the map in the middle of the page is backed up with data and the rest is a complete (but educated) guess. > Oh, and hey Joshua, what's up? Let's see... The munchkin (Caspian) is 10 months old now. On the verge of walking. He stands like a pro and has amazing balance (like the dog can come over and lick him and he flails about to avoid her but doesn't fall), and walks when you're holding on, but hasn't yet put it together. I tried a "training wheels" approach today - just pushing him slowly forward, not letting him hold on to me - and he squealed with glee. So any day now I bet. Verbally he's a whiz with "dhat" (for "what is that thing I'm pointing at?") and "muh muh muh" (for "I'm hungry and/or I want mommy!") and he seems to consistently say "dah! dah!" when I get home. I'm a manager @ MSFT now, with two people working for me. I think I mentioned the product I'm pouring my life-blood into before, but it's actually gotten news and a real name now so someone on the list may have heard of it - Microsoft Office InfoPath 2003. (Google it if you want the poop.) It's a forms package! No, it's an XML editor! No, it's a development platform. No, wait, it's all of the above! :) No free time otherwise, due to the aforementioned munchkin. Susan was unlucky enough to be in *two* car accidents recently; the second in a rental car *at the auto body shop* while her own car was in getting fixed from the first accident. Neither her fault. She's okay but doing physical therapy for her neck/back. She's also stressing a bunch about the general insanity of the current American government and Big Brother behavior. The Propaganda Remix - http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html - sums up her feelings and paranoia pretty well. As a Canadian, I'm somewhat unempowered, and am just crossing my fingers that sanity returns to this country soon. She's working on the Kucinich campaign (realizing it's a long shot). Joshua ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: shrubCo's faith-based prison program an absolute failure
> Your stance is to be expected since your positions are rather extreme when > it comes to religious issues. Unfortunately, since you sacrificed accuracy > in your pursuit to prove a point your position seems no different from the > Bush administration presenting this as an overwhelming success based on a > deliberately flawed reading of the data. > When an individual on a list makes an overstatement, it has very little consequence. When the Bush Administration makes an overstatement, it may have enormous consequences. To say that this person's position is no different from the Bush Administration totally ignores the fact that a person posting on a list most of the time has absolutely no responsibility to be anything more than opinionated. The Bush Administration has the responsibility to be truthful; a listee's failure to do so in no way is equal to or excuses the Bush Administration's failure in this regard. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Listref] Vitamin C and the Heart
--- Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > > (...) found that those women who took > > vitamin C supplements had lower risk of heart > disease. > > > So Linus Pauling was right, after all. Pity that's > too late for his third [or fourth?] Nobel But he advised 'megadoses' on the order of 6-7 *grams*/day; this study used ~ 500-700 milligrams/day. Megadosing can promote renal stones and a type of 'crystal arthritis' - I don't advise over a gram a day, except for during colds/flu when 2g is OK as long as you stay properly hydrated. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More Fiber
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > since the recommended daily dosage was recently > raised > > from 25 to a throat-choking 38 grams. The obvious > ... > > TOTAL: 9.5g > > Not even enough to get from the previous 25 to the > current 38. Do you eat 38g of fiber per day? Heck no, except on chick-pea-based-meals days; like taking stairs at the office instead of the elevator, this suggests ways to add fiber, on the basis of 'every extra gram of fiber, like every extra minute of exercise, helps" - even if you don't meet the "daily recommended." Debbi Oatmeal With Applesauce And Raisins And Almonds Maru ~9g __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: good olde fashioned bible burning
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:14:32AM +0530, Ritu wrote: > Take Delhi for instance. Each year, there are at least 3,000 dowry > deaths or bride burnings. That sounds pretty awful. What is this number as a percentage of marriages (or women giving birth) per year? > That is the official record, the real number is bound to be higher. How much higher, do you think? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
OT: Math and Science
Dimensionality is usually thought of mathematically, extending the metaphor of the number line into areas or volumes or complexities above volume. The number line represents a number, say c, where using linear distance we can map by analogy for a graphic visualization of a number. Well, we who are used to Euclid internalize distance and associate an intrinsic quality of a number, or a measure of the magnitude of the line segment or vector, which indeed a property of each member of the set real numbers becomes, namely distance, when we assign distance as an intrinsic quality for the set of real numbers. Any object oriented programmer will be quite familiar with what I am talking about. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, as we see classes defined in object oriented programming as being able to be deprived of intrinsic qualities. That is, we can remove as an intrinsic property from the class of real numbers the item 'distance', or perhaps substitute or fortify with the additional property of 'arc length'. The question had been asked of the terminology for dimensions greater than 'cubed', as in c, c-squared, c-cubed, etcetera. Simply it would be c^4 becomes c-quadricubed, c^5 corresponds to penticubed, c^6 corresponds to hexicubed, septa, octal, nonal, deci. We can then say than c, past the three dimensions we use as a graphic analogy and have assigned as intrinsic properties to our classes of real numbers in real space, back and forth, would be over and above c-cubed as c-plexicubed. An alternate form then becomes c-plexicubed to the nth, or c-plexicubed[n]. This seems to be the simplest and easiest way to go about the terminology. hth Mark ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Erik Reuter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:52:03PM +0530, Ritu wrote: > > > Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an > order, it would > > have read: 'Listen more and argue less...'. > > Bzzzt. Try again. Orders can begin with "try". Try means to > do something > but not necessarily expect complete success. "Try this" can > certainly be > an order. True. I guess it is a matter of perspective. Without obvious vocal and facial clues, I tend to interpret any sentence beginning with 'try' as a suggestion. So what made you interpret Ronn's statement as more of an order than a point/suggestion? Ritu GCU Curious ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: shoelaces, concetration, stingy reactions andRe:dyslexiaandtinted lenses
--- Sonja van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Sloan II wrote: > > > Sonja van Baardwijk wrote: > > > > But seriously, your verb tense there is perfect. > > Thank you. > > > I don't know about the colored lenses links, but the page about > > the family with the Aspergers kid was very interesting. I've > > suspected I might have Aspergers (or however you'd put it) since > > Michael first mentioned it several years back, and I went to the > > links he gave. > > You wouldn't happen to have some of those for me, now would you? > > > This adds more evidence to that, because my ears > > also turn bright, glowing red the way his do when I eat something > > my body doesn't agree with. > > I suspect that one of my legs is getting longer then the other here? > 8) Didn't even occur to me. guess mine is longer than yours.. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Dubya with Kung Fu Grip
And now... an action figure. http://makeashorterlink.com/?M11532885 Jon GSV Just Can't Make This Stuff Up Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Update on Nick's friend/biz partner
Nick Arnett wrote: Dave, his wife, everyone at the hospital and I were very optimistic, very positive throughout the last few days, after the initial shock and fear on Sunday, especially because Dave and his wife lost their first son to a brain tumor eight years ago. I've really felt uplifted by all the kind words, prayers and other support from literally hundreds of people, including many of the Brin-L community. Thank you! Great news, Nick. Wish him a speedy recovery for us. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Irregulars question: Animated GIFs
You will need a graphics program that specifically creates these files. In the past, you could use PaintShop Pro to do it. Front Page 2000 used to have a program that could do it. I am sure there are others. Bottom line, you'll need software to do it.. you can probably find some shareware to do it. Nerd From Hell >-Original Message- >From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:43 PM >To: Brin-L >Subject: Irregulars question: Animated GIFs > > >Okay, this may seem like a very elementary question, but I >can't seem to >find an answer, so I have to ask it. Given a bunch of stills, >how does one >create an animated GIF out of them? > > > >-- Ronn! :) > >___ >http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 8/2/2003 12:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Which of course is what > this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind > >> eye to Clinton's > perjury > > > >But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat > defended > > Clinton this. Not one said he was right > > > Au contraire a great many noted that "any man would lie > about adultery." Name a few then. And by the way be precise. I want the names of democrats who said it was ok to commit perjury. Not whether men lie about adultary. If memory serves me right several republicans had to fess up about previous affairs. Unless I am living under a ton of alzheimers and spending too much time looking at Gnewts of course. Here it is John. This is a perfect example of your republicans can do no wrong and democrats can do no right approach. Do you actually believe that democrats as a group approved of either Clinton's immoral behavior or his testimony? If yes than all is lost and by the way you might as well assume that since I have been a democrat in the past that I approve of such things. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot defend Bush by saying that it is just politics and then attack Clinton because he lies. In personal life an politics lying occurs all the time. It knows no party affiliation. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Be careful what you shoot at whom....
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Julia Thompson ... > http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/08132003_nw_paintball.html > > In Pittsburgh, 3 teenagers were shooting paintballs from a moving > vehicle, and someone living there decided to return fire with real > bullets > > Julia > > who believes that paintball guns belong in *controlled* environments Be advised, everyone, that I'm from Pittsburgh, originally. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re:_Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of price_discrimination
Jan Coffey wrote: C) everyone should have a gun. I don't want one and neither do a substantial number of people in the country, possibly approaching a majority. Are we all relegated to second class status because we refuse to carry a gun? Sorry Jan, but that's just loony fringe stuff. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: good olde fashioned bible burning
Erik Reuter wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:14:32AM +0530, Ritu wrote: > > > Take Delhi for instance. Each year, there are at least 3,000 dowry > > deaths or bride burnings. > > That sounds pretty awful. What is this number as a percentage of > marriages (or women giving birth) per year? It *is* awful. As far as the numbers are concerned, it would be about 6.2% of the number of women giving birth in Delhi each year. However, these are just the burning deaths. You also have the drowning and poisoning deaths in the category of 'Dowry related deaths'. A rough estimate of the numbers would suggest that 60% of the dowry deaths are caused by burnings and 40% by the other two methods. But the thing is that the figures for the last two get skewed even worse than the bride burning figures. Since the majority of the population is Hindu and the dead are burnt [usually before sunset on the day of the death], allegations of poison can't always be checked out through autopsies. The drowning deaths are gain the official numbers wherein the ead bodies are found. We have no way of knowing how many of the 'missing' brides end up in wells and lakes. > > That is the official record, the real number is bound to be higher. > > How much higher, do you think? About 40 - 65% higher than the official figures. Ritu GCU 'Tis Sick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: No. On the flip side, if I'm a law-abiding citizen who knows how to handle and use a gun, should I be relegated to second-class status because I choose to own and carry a gun? From an earlier post of mine: All that being said, there are too much a cult of arms in this country to make firearms illegal. Though the courts have ruled that the second amendment does not allow unlimited access to firearms people continue to believe that deadly force is their right. So be it. What we need to do is to encourage responsibility with the law. Weapons should be registered. Owners should be trained. Penalties for abuse should be persuasive. And the laws should be homogenous so that individuals can't skirt them by driving a few miles. How about if we change Jan's statement to something like: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? Subject to reasonable regulation, sure. I would hope we work diligently to create a society that doesn't feel it needs such deadly force, but obviously were a long way away from that. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:23:46 EDT > How about if we change Jan's statement to something like: > > C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a > violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] > should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. > > Can we all agree with that? > No. I would want them to demonstrate that they know how to handle the gun and have them pledge to keep it safely locked up except when being used for hunting, target practice, etc. I would also require them to purchase insurance against any misuse of the gun - by them or by anyone else. And I would increase the penalties for misuse of guns, even accidental. You have to have insurance to operate a car, and a license - surely we can and should require no less for guns. And I would still change the laws that make it possible for anyone to drive to Virginia, buy as many guns as they want, and then go home. Or to sell them at totally unregulated gun shows where they don't even check to see that the purchaser is not a criminal or mentally ill. I'm in complete agreement with this. Since someone had mentioned this, I thought I'd post it. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html Will give US accidental gun death statistics for years through 2000. For 2000 Number of Deaths 776 Population 275,264,999 Crude Rate 0.28 Age-Adjusted Rate** 0.28 Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:37:19PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: > Especially when "Try" can be equally viewed as a request. Try shutting up, Rob. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip
At 07:50 PM 8/9/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: "Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > > At 06:57 PM 8/8/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: > >The United States should NOT have action > >figures of a sitting president. > > No, an _action_ figure should be portrayed as standing. > > -- Ronn! :) I swear I've seen a big stone one of Lincoln, sitting down. You mean that it WON'T come to the defense of Liberty when a rabbi writes the word on its forehead? I dunno. Was Lincoln Jewish? If not, why would a statue of him pay any attention to what a rabbi does? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 1:46 PM > To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' > Subject: RE: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip > > At 02:07 AM 8/9/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >On > > > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > > > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 1:04 AM > > > To: Killer Bs Discussion > > > Subject: Re: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip > > > > > > Jon Gabriel wrote: > > > > And now... an action figure. > > > > > > > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?M11532885 > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > GSV Just Can't Make This Stuff Up > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wonder if it comes with drug paraphernalia, booze bottles and MPs in > > > hot pursuit. > > > >No, that's the _Teddy Kennedy_ action figure. For a little more money > >you can buy the car accessory containing a lifelike babe. Realistically > >steers off bridges unexpectedly. > > > >(OK, it's a low blow, I know.) > > > >Jon > >The President Clinton version is not appropriate for children Maru > > > > Not to mention that when they do the laundry most mothers will not > appreciate how it stains clothing. Not if you run it on the 'cold' cycle. :-P Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip
At 08:28 AM 8/10/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I swear I've seen a big stone one of Lincoln, sitting > >down. You mean that it WON'T come to the defense of Liberty > >when a rabbi writes the word on its forehead? > > I dunno. Was Lincoln Jewish? If not, why would a statue of him pay any > attention to what a rabbi does? > There is the 17th century Jewish legend of the Golem, an inanimate figure resembling a man (only bigger and stronger) that comes to life when a knowledgeable rabbi writes the secret name of God on a piece of parchment and affixes it to the Golem's forehead. The Golem then goes forth and fights against the Jews' oppressors. I know the legend. My question was, what if the figure is in the likeness of a Gentile? Are there goyim golems? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 09:01 PM 8/8/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: No. On the flip side, if I'm a law-abiding citizen who knows how to handle and use a gun, should I be relegated to second-class status because I choose to own and carry a gun? From an earlier post of mine: All that being said, there are too much a cult of arms in this country to make firearms illegal. Though the courts have ruled that the second amendment does not allow unlimited access to firearms people continue to believe that deadly force is their right. So be it. What we need to do is to encourage responsibility with the law. Weapons should be registered. Owners should be trained. Penalties for abuse should be persuasive. And the laws should be homogenous so that individuals can't skirt them by driving a few miles. How about if we change Jan's statement to something like: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? Subject to reasonable regulation, sure. I would hope we work diligently to create a society that doesn't feel it needs such deadly force, I agree wholeheartedly. So what do you (or anyone on the list) recommend that we do to prevent those who now choose to commit crimes from making that decision and acting on it in the first place, so the law-abiding, innocent citizens like Debbi won't need to defend themselves and their loved ones from criminals? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Polish, stupidity myth
Debbi who is taking ridiculous advantage of the opportunity to talk horses... :) Haha not to begrudge your chance to do so...! Of course what I meant by "large cavalry units" was of course traditional horse cavalry (which still had a role in WWII; both the Germans and the Soviets deployed divisions/brigades of horse cavalry, as well as some of the lesser allies. IIRC the last cavalry charge in history was done by the Italians...) Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." Now Building: Esci/Italeri's M60A1 Patton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jan Coffey wrote: > > > This -fear of rage- argument for not keeping a gun about is BS. > > OK, what about the "fear of alcohol-induced stupidity"? Sometime since > my son was born, maybe it was last year, a guy in Bastrop shot his buddy > dead. Both were drunk. The shooter was trying to keep the other guy > from driving drunk, so he shot at the pickup truck, and his buddy was > killed. > > Other drugs would have similarly bad effects on judgement, I'm sure. Durgs and guns do not mix any more than cars and guns do. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Gregory Hines died yesterday
AP: LOS ANGELES (Aug. 10) - Tony Award winner Gregory Hines, the tap-dancing actor who started on Broadway and in movies including ``White Nights'' and ``Running Scared,'' has died, his publicist says. He was 57. Hines died Saturday in Los Angeles of cancer, publicist Allen Eichorn said. The dancer, among the best in his generation, won a 1993 Tony for the musical ``Jelly's Last Jam.'' Hines became internationally known as part of a jazz tap due with his brother, Maurice, and the two danced together in the musical revue ``Eubie!'' in 1978. The brothers later performed together in Broadway's ``Sophisticated Ladies'' and on film in 1984's ``The Cotton Club.'' In ``The Cotton Club,'' Hines also had a lead acting role, which led to more work in film. He starred with Mikhail Baryshnikov in 1985's ``White Nights'' and with Billy Crystal in 1986's ``Running Scared,'' and he appeared with Whitney Houston and Angela Bassett in 1995's ``Waiting to Exhale,'' among other movies. On television, he had his own sitcom in 1997 called ``The Gregory Hines Show,'' as well as a recurring role on ``Will and Grace.'' This past March, he appeared in the spring television series ``Lost at Home.'' 08/10/03 11:56 EDT Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Hobby > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 6:58 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip > > Jon Gabriel wrote: > > > > And now... an action figure. > > > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?M11532885 > > > > Jon > > GSV Just Can't Make This Stuff Up > > I kept thinking that it MUST be made up. But I still > submitted the following review, which seemed to be a good line > of attack: > > This is unprecedented, and reduces the > dignity of the office of President. > The United States should NOT have action > figures of a sitting president. Period. One can only hope his action figure doesn't meet a fate similar to my GI Joes. Most of them were killed off in the Great Fireworks Wars in my backyard when I was a kid. Those that survived (usually missing a limb) were gnawed to death by my very large Akita. :) > I want the figure, and the plane, and the Evil Saddam Hussein > Underground Fortress, ... Yeah, yeah. They don't mean a thing without the sharks. Yes, Sharks. The Ones With Frickin' Laser Beams On Their Heads. :-D Jon Mini Me, You Complete Me Maru Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 12:40 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > (And, oh yes: Texas does not have less > > crime than other states.) > > For instance, the murder rate in Texas in 2000 was 5.9 > > http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/stattabs/crimeintexas/00CrimeSection_U.pdf > > While the rate in New York for the same year was 5.0 > > http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm > That can be attributed to more stringent NY state laws for gun ownership instituted in the '90's as well as a mayor who was serious about reducing crime. I was/am wholeheartedly in favor of both. I believe I posted a somewhat lengthy mail a few months back about NYS laws regarding gun control. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States, now "43 times"
Robert Seeberger wrote: ... > Evaluating the "43 times" fallacy ...a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the > June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. > 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is "43 times more > likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal > intruder. Most of the criticisms are valid, but there are a couple of flaws. (I've snipped all but the flaws.) ... > How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the > criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law > and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of > firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in > only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. But this isn't fair either, since the intent of the criminal is unknown. The factor of 1000 is used as if all of these were prevented homicides. A large fraction were probably "prevented burglaries", which should not be counted as high as human life. (Possessing a gun would have to foil MANY burglaries for that to be worth a sizable risk of killing a family member!) ... > "Reverse causation" is a significant factor that does not lend itself to > quantitative evaluation, although it surely accounts for a substantial > number of additional homicides in the home. A person, such as a drug dealer, > who is in fear for his life, will be more likely to have a firearm in his > home than will an ordinary person. Put another way, if a person fears death > he might arm himself and at the same time be at greater risk of being > murdered. Thus Kellermann's correlation is strongly skewed away from normal > defensive uses of firearms. His conclusion is thus no more valid than a > finding that because fat people are more likely to have diet foods in their > refrigerators we can conclude that diet foods "cause" obesity, or that > because so many people die in hospitals we should conclude that hospitals > "cause" premature death. Reverse causation thus further lowers the 0.006 > value, but by an unknown amount. This is often called a "confounding variable", one factor that increases the likelihood of both the "cause" (explanatory) and the "effect" (response) variables in a study. They seem to be proposing "fear of death by homicide" as a confounding variable, but it is not stated very clearly. One can successfully argue for some connection here. Certainly people at high risk of being killed by homicide tend to know this. And if one is "afraid of homicide", one is more likely to shoot people without carefully verifying they are strangers, leading to more accidental killings of family members. But it doesn't seem to me to be a very strong effect, and it could well be countered by people in an armed household knowing enough not to do things like "climb in the window when you forget your keys, rather than knock and wake everybody up". ---David Where was this when I was still teaching my Statistics class? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 1:04 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip > > Jon Gabriel wrote: > > And now... an action figure. > > > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?M11532885 > > > > Jon > > GSV Just Can't Make This Stuff Up > > > > > Wonder if it comes with drug paraphernalia, booze bottles and MPs in > hot pursuit. No, that's the _Teddy Kennedy_ action figure. For a little more money you can buy the car accessory containing a lifelike babe. Realistically steers off bridges unexpectedly. (OK, it's a low blow, I know.) Jon The President Clinton version is not appropriate for children Maru Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: shoelaces, concentration
Kevin wrote: My normal footwear I leave tied all the time, just push down on the back heel and step out. SO I'M NOT CRAZY! I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE! WOOHOO! (Sorry, I *always* catch flack about the fact that I do the same thing, and it's nice to now be able to say "I can *prove* that I'm not the only one :-) Reggie Bautista _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:44 am, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Homicides per 100,000, average per year from 1998-2000 Dallas TX - 20.42 New York NY - 8.77 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls If you are going to link to a site, it has to actualy exist. Sounds like an interesting article. too bad it can't be read. It is a spreadsheet. Are your MIME types set correctly? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:46:30 -0500 At 10:30 AM 8/11/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 02:11 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide > >> rates than the USA, > >> and much stricter gun control. > >> > >> -- > >> William T Goodall > > > > _But_, just to complicate things a bit (I'm an > > agnostic in this particular debate) it has higher > > levels of violent crime overall (a fairly recent > > phenomenon), and a far more homogenous population, > > with massive underreporting of crimes committed > > against minorities (i.e. Arabs in France). > > It's a fact that Europe has lower homicide rates than the USA. If we > accept that it actually is a more violent place overall then this is > excellent evidence that gun control works to reduce homicide is it not? > > And I would rather be mugged or get some broken ribs or whatever than > be shot dead. Persony I would rather have the lowlifes shooting eachother more and me not be the vitm of violent crime where the perp uses knives and clubs. And personally I would prefer they sober up and get a job rather than holding me up or robbing my house or place of business to buy drugs. Who has a suggestion for bringing about that state of affairs? Death by Firing Squad for first-time offenders? Jon Just Kidding Maru Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br_n: dimensions of the Streaker
In a message dated 8/11/2003 1:22:26 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Okay. That was _not_ the first thing I thought of when I saw the word > "Streaker" . . . > > > > Boogity Boogity Maru > > > > -- Ronn! :) > Well of course. The ship was exposed to a lot of alien beings. Those reality flanges do make it look a bit like a french tickler. And one time it got away only by first slipping on a trojan horse. Your thinking is right on target. Our good Dr. is that devious. William Taylor - Don't crush that dwarf, hand me a Tymbrimi. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: Most Dangerous States http://www.morganquitno.com/dang02.htm Nevada 7th most dangerous Texas 14th New York 24th You forgot to mention California is 13th. No, I didn't forget, I just didn't think it had any relevance in the current discussion. If anything, since California's rate is about the same as Texas and it is listed as less dangerous than Nevada, it falsifies Jan's implication that Nevada and Texas are much safer (or much more "polite"). Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Author question
At 05:59 PM 8/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At 04:51 PM 8/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: This post may contain spoilers for Lucifer's Hammer, so be forewarned. Or it may not, or you may not care. Your choice. ;-) [BIG flooping snip] Of course, after all this, Amazon.com has a picture of the paperback front cover. It says something like "The million copy bestseller about the end of the world." And IIRC either Niven or Pournelle or both said at the time it came out that what they had set out to do was to write the ultimate "end of the world" novel . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States--"43 times"
--- David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Minette wrote: > > ... > > > "Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which > burglars > > or > > > intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a > > firearm. > > > Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house > > known > > > to be armed are also not identified.A complete determination of firearm > > > risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known." > > > > And the best way to show how this is true is to show how the % of people > > who are victims of crimes and own guns are much lower than the % of > people > > who simply own guns. If owning guns is as much of a deterrant as this > > author suggests, than one should see a significantly lower crime rate for > > households that have guns vs. households that don't. > > That's certainly a good way to do the study. But one > should control for the amount of crime in the neighborhood as > well, since it could well be that gun ownership is higher in > high crime neighborhoods. BINGO! = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip
At 11:31 AM 8/10/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I know the legend. > > My question was, what if the figure is in the likeness of a Gentile? Are > there goyim golems? > > Well, the Golem is not actually "in the likeness" of _anyone_. It's just a clay figure. The rabbi formed it for the purpose, he didn't take an existing statue or something. True. However, this current subthread started with the following: At 07:50 PM 8/9/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: I swear I've seen a big stone one of Lincoln, sitting down. You mean that it WON'T come to the defense of Liberty when a rabbi writes the word on its forehead? prompting me to ask: At 06:38 AM 8/10/03 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I dunno. Was Lincoln Jewish? If not, why would a statue of him pay any attention to what a rabbi does? (Just be glad I didn't suggest that to make it work they might have to get a rabbi who is also a stonemason to perform a bris . . . ) -- Ronn! :~) "Humor...it is a difficult concept." --Lt. Saavik (Kirstie Alley) to Admiral Kirk (William Shatner) in _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn_ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: Most Dangerous States > http://www.morganquitno.com/dang02.htm > > Nevada 7th most dangerous > Texas 14th > New York 24th > You forgot to mention California is 13th. xponent Collect 'Em All Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 02:11 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the USA, and much stricter gun control. -- William T Goodall _But_, just to complicate things a bit (I'm an agnostic in this particular debate) it has higher levels of violent crime overall (a fairly recent phenomenon), and a far more homogenous population, with massive underreporting of crimes committed against minorities (i.e. Arabs in France). It's a fact that Europe has lower homicide rates than the USA. If we accept that it actually is a more violent place overall then this is excellent evidence that gun control works to reduce homicide is it not? And I would rather be mugged or get some broken ribs or whatever than be shot dead. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:40 am, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls The average homicides per 100,000 persons per year over 1998-2000 in the USA was 5.87. In England and Wales (where guns are pretty much unavailable) the rate was 1.50. In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the USA, and much stricter gun control. what about home invasion and rape? You were the one who wanted homicide numbers because they are reliable. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gregory Hines died yesterday
John Garcia wrote: Sigh, Celia Cruz, Compay Segundo, Kat Hepburn, and now Gregory Hines. What a shame Celia Cruz died? Reggie Bautista How Did I Miss That? Maru _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: shoelaces, concentration
--- Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01:27 PM 8/14/2003 -0700, you wrote: > > >--- "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > And to know the correct way to teach my kids! Not this weird > > > way > > > > > they are teaching in schools now... > > > > > > > > What weir way? Are they teaching the make two loops and tie > > > > them together way? That way makes a very loose knot. > > > > > > That's it. It definitely doesn't stay very well or for very long. > > > Don't know when my daughter will transition to "real" knots! > > > >A few years ago I tought my wife (and the rest of her family) to tie a > loop > >and follow square knot. > > > >They actualy didn't ~like~ laced shoes becouse of the shaby knot they were > >using. > > > >Teach her now. > > My normal footwear I leave tied all the time, just push down on the back > heel and step out. But I'll learn the new knots, nothing sucks worse than > boot laces coming undone and becoming muddy or worse frozen. > > I have a friend, he can never keep his shoes tied...but he also has > dyslexia, severely. Never knew there was a connection. There isn't. That was how this thread got started. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: neo-Cubism
The Fool wrote: > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/08/08/DD251010.DTL > > And I thought I was a nut over this kind of thing, but this guy is kinda > creepy. Besides he solves it backwards. The corners should be solved > first then the centers. Haven't read the full article (just skimmed the beginning), but I'm with you on the cube-solving technique. My father bought a 2 X 2 X 2 cube so we could all work on our corner-solving strategies. He was fairly strict about cube-solving -- we were NOT allowed to buy books on solving the cube (not even with our own money), but we were allowed to share techniques. He wanted us to figure things out, not memorize a cookbook approach. I ended up with the 2 X 2 X 2 cube, it's in this room. (Solved, of course -- I try not to pack puzzles unsolved, and I haven't touched it since the move, except to place it where it is now.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
At 10:30 AM 8/11/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 02:11 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide > >> rates than the USA, > >> and much stricter gun control. > >> > >> -- > >> William T Goodall > > > > _But_, just to complicate things a bit (I'm an > > agnostic in this particular debate) it has higher > > levels of violent crime overall (a fairly recent > > phenomenon), and a far more homogenous population, > > with massive underreporting of crimes committed > > against minorities (i.e. Arabs in France). > > It's a fact that Europe has lower homicide rates than the USA. If we > accept that it actually is a more violent place overall then this is > excellent evidence that gun control works to reduce homicide is it not? > > And I would rather be mugged or get some broken ribs or whatever than > be shot dead. Persony I would rather have the lowlifes shooting eachother more and me not be the vitm of violent crime where the perp uses knives and clubs. And personally I would prefer they sober up and get a job rather than holding me up or robbing my house or place of business to buy drugs. Who has a suggestion for bringing about that state of affairs? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:04 PM > Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:00 PM > > Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > > > > > > > The molehill is not 100% fatal. Many people are shot each year and > > survive. > > > > > > > > > > And many more don't. Your chances of surviving are extremely greater if > > you > > > don't get shot at all. > > > > > > > Sure, and you don't die in traffic accidents if you don't hit others > cars. > > But more people are killed by cars every year than by firearms. > > And, many more people lose money in traffic accidents than from crimes > every year. So, maybe we worry to much about crime in general. > The real question is the relative merit of stopping crimes by arming > oneself with a gun in the nightstand vs. the demerits of that action. > > Indeed, if you talk about assaults, both physical and sexual, one is much > much more likely to be assaulted by a family member or a friend of the > family than by a stranger. Incest is far far more prevalent than sexual > assaults by strangers assaulting a woman on the street; and is > overwhelmingly more likely than someone breaking into a house to rape a > woman. > > I realize that folks talk about these folks being monsters and needing to > seriously punish them. But, if the numbers used by people working with > victims and survivors are right, roughly 1 in 20 men (maybe 1 in 25) are > pedophiles. I would have to strongly disagree with this. This is sexist feminist crap! Even if you run off and get stats for this you will have to show what the definition is. Do 1 in 20 hetero males find 17 year old females attractive? I would argue the number is much higher than just 1 in 20. What about 18 year old males who find 14 year old females attractive? Are these people pedifiles? Where do you draw the lines? If we are talking about post pubecent males who find pre-pubesent females attractive, I seriously doubt the numbers would be high enough to make enven a percentage. If we further restrict it to only those who act on it then we would have even lower numbers. It is certain that pedifiles exist and they certainly have serious problems that society needs to find a solution for. But to sugest that so many men are like that is sexist IMO. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
In a message dated 8/11/2003 1:14:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > That would only hold true if the criminals were aware of who did and who did > not own guns ahead of time. > I think the gist of the argument is that legal gun ownership deters crime in > general and there are stats that support this. > > But nothing is ever going to grind crime to a halt. > > I think this type of discussion tends to get people thinking about the > extremes as opposed to the general tenor of the realities of life. > > There are many many millions of guns in the US, yet only a few thousand or > so deaths in a given year. A small percentage of deaths by > any cause. > Its a mountain made out of a molehill. Except the mountain is usually not fatal and the molehill is fatal. Detering crime is good but the cost may overwhelm the benefit if even a statistically small number of innocent individuals (in particular the owner or a family member is killed). After all the death rate in the mole hill is %100. If we had effective gun control then the death rate would go down for both the criminals and the victims. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: leave the constitution alone
> What it has to do with what she was talking about is that the same "leave > the Constitution alone" argument she used in the article could be used by > someone else for a different issue, such as the ones I used for > illustration. Her argument is not "Leave the Constitution alone, period" > as the headline of the article might suggest, but more like "Leave the > Constitution alone except for issues I agree with." I didn't say that a > Constitutional amendment defining marriage such as she describes in the > article is necessarily a good idea or a bad idea: I simply pointed out > that the same argument she makes against it in the article could have been > — and indeed has been — made by those opposed to such things as the > decision in _Roe v. Wade_, etc. > Except, those deal with interpretations of existing Amendments, rather than calls for adding new Amendments. Argument over what is already in the Constitution is unending, and there's nothing wrong with that. Disputing a particular interpretation is NOT the same thing as disputing a call to amend the Constitution anew, and should not be confused with opposing a proposed amendment. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Author question
This post may contain spoilers for Lucifer's Hammer, so be forewarned. From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Author question Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:19:22 -0500 At 04:01 PM 8/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Author question Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:42:49 -0500 At 12:23 PM 8/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: "G. D. Akin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Author question Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:30:50 +0900 Awhile back I picked up a book out of the Exchange bargain bin by Sarah Zettel, "The Quiet Invasion." It is still in pile of to read books. Has any one read anything by her. Worth the effort? Just finished reading "Lucifer's Hammer" by Larry Niven again. Still, IMO, the best end-of-the-world book ever. Agh! By horrifying coincidence, I'm 100 pages into Lucifer's Hammer, which I've never read before. Could we PLEASE refrain from discussing how books END(!!!) without some sort of warning? You had no idea what it was about before you started reading it? No. It's a hardcover book without a jacket that was on a friend's shelf. Okay. But, although admittedly there's a lot of threads with a lot of characters near the beginning, by page 100 you almost certainly have _some_ idea of what's going to happen . . . Yeah, cometary near-miss or impact. I can think of a dozen scenarios that involve a cometary near-miss (which is still thought extremely likely at this point in the novel) or a minor impact that don't involve killing off everyone on the planet. Out of curiosity, did you read all three (four) Lord of the Rings books? Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:53:10 -0500 At 05:21 PM 8/11/03 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:18 AM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > In a message dated 8/11/2003 1:14:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FWIW, if anyone knows where I can get a _Star Trek_-type phaser with a "stun" setting which will instantly stop anyone without causing permanent damage, I'd love to get one in preference to a firearm. www.phasers.net Jon well they would have 'em if they existed. Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:03 AM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 11:02 PM > Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:41 PM > > Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > > > > > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:02 PM > > > > Subject: Most Dangerous States > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>http://www.morganquitno.com/dang02.htm > > > >> > > > >>Nevada 7th most dangerous > > > >>Texas 14th > > > >>New York 24th > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > You forgot to mention California is 13th. > > > > > > > > > > No, I didn't forget, I just didn't think it had any relevance in the > > > current discussion. If anything, since California's rate is about > > > the same as Texas and it is listed as less dangerous than Nevada, it > > > falsifies Jan's implication that Nevada and Texas are much safer (or > > > much more "polite"). > > > > > This is a bit off on a tangent but deserves to be seen. > > > > > > Evaluating the "43 times" fallacy > > > > by David K. Felbeck > > Director, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners > > August 10, 2000 > > > > Those who oppose the use of firearms for self-defense have for fourteen > > years quoted a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in > the > > June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. > > 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is "43 times more > > likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a > criminal > > intruder. This "statistic" is used regularly by anti self-protection > groups > > which surely know better, and was even published recently without > question > > in a letter to the Ann Arbor News. Representative Liz Brater cited this > "43 > > times" number in a House committee hearing just a year ago. Thus the > > original study and its conclusion deserve careful analysis. If nothing > else, > > the repeated use of this "statistic" demonstrates how a grossly > inaccurate > > statement can become a "truth" with sufficient repetition by the > compliant > > and non-critical media. > > > > The "43 times" claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms > deaths > > in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period > > 1978-83. The authors state, > > > > "Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars > or > > intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a > firearm. > > Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house > known > > to be armed are also not identified.A complete determination of firearm > > risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known." > > And the best way to show how this is true is to show how the % of people > who are victims of crimes and own guns are much lower than the % of people > who simply own guns. If owning guns is as much of a deterrant as this > author suggests, than one should see a significantly lower crime rate for > households that have guns vs. households that don't. > That would only hold true if the criminals were aware of who did and who did not own guns ahead of time. I think the gist of the argument is that legal gun ownership deters crime in general and there are stats that support this. But nothing is ever going to grind crime to a halt. I think this type of discussion tends to get people thinking about the extremes as opposed to the general tenor of the realities of life. There are many many millions of guns in the US, yet only a few thousand or so deaths in a given year. A small percentage of deaths by any cause. Its a mountain made out of a molehill. xponent Effort Better Placed Elsewhere Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Animated GIFs
Okay, this may seem like a very elementary question, but I can't seem to find an answer, so I have to ask it. Given a bunch of stills, how does one create an animated GIF out of them? Install the GIMP, view each image separately, then copy each of them to a separate layer in the animated image. Name each layer according to the convention for creating animated GIFs. (RTFM) The process is not hard; I made a short animated GIF for the first time a few days ago. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Milky Way
--- Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Sloan II wrote: > > > > I also like the other name for the Milky Way that > I learned > > from Greg Benford, "Great Sky River". That one > makes a lot > > of sense. Kudos to the American Indians for coming > up with it. :-) > > > > There's also the very cool-sounding African > >"Backbone of Night", that I learned from Cosmos. > > > In the Tupi-Guarani mythology it's called "Caminho > da Anta", which means "Pathway of a > size-of-a-cow>". Sorry for not getting the name in > Tupi but in Portuguese O:-) Those sessions with the Time-Life Series nature books as a child were not wasted...I thought it might be "capybara," which is the biggest rodent in the world, and finally had time to look it up: http://www.k12.de.us/warner/capybara.htm Here are a bunch of pix: http://www.capybara.com/capybaras/Gallery/Gallery_1.html Reggie, wanna have a really *big* guinea pig?! :) Water Pig Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 11:15 pm, Doug Pensinger wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: I also suggest that given that the same site lists Nevada and NewYork as 7 & 8 respectivly for previous years the statistical significance given their method of rating is rather low. OK Jan, I give. I'll use your standards to prove my point: Armed societies aren't more polite because I said so. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls The average homicides per 100,000 persons per year over 1998-2000 in the USA was 5.87. In England and Wales (where guns are pretty much unavailable) the rate was 1.50. In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the USA, and much stricter gun control. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Author question
> Okay. But, although admittedly there's a lot of threads with a lot of > characters near the beginning, by page 100 you almost certainly have _some_ > idea of what's going to happen . . . > > > (Unlike Delaney's _Dhalgren_, where by page 100 most readers have given up > and thrown the book away in disgust . . . ) > Unlike John Varley's otherwise wonderful _Steel Beach_, in which the plot does not arrive until roughly page 400 (of a 480-page book), but when it arrives, it ALL arrives at once, like a cloudburst dumping 8 inches or rain in an hour. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: neo-Cubism
From: Kevin Tarr >A 2x2x2 cube? What in tarnation is that? (I forwarded the links to work, >but I did read the Fool's story). A normal cube is a 3x3x3 - so pretty much what you'd expect - its like solving just the corners of a regular cube. The coolest thing about a 2x2x2 is that there is a 3x3x3 burried inside! > In fact the book was so old that it talked about a top >down approach, do one side (the top), then the top rows around the top, >then the next ring, then the bottom (corners or middles, I don't know which). That's called the "Layers" approach - it's what I use. Nothing wrong with it! >So I'm assuming there is some starting position that is the worst, takes >the most moves to get it straight? The "antipode" - for the 3x3x3 it's still an open question. See http://www.geocities.com/jaapsch/puzzles/cube3.htm Joshua ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Author question
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Author question Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:42:49 -0500 At 12:23 PM 8/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: "G. D. Akin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Author question Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:30:50 +0900 Awhile back I picked up a book out of the Exchange bargain bin by Sarah Zettel, "The Quiet Invasion." It is still in pile of to read books. Has any one read anything by her. Worth the effort? Just finished reading "Lucifer's Hammer" by Larry Niven again. Still, IMO, the best end-of-the-world book ever. Agh! By horrifying coincidence, I'm 100 pages into Lucifer's Hammer, which I've never read before. Could we PLEASE refrain from discussing how books END(!!!) without some sort of warning? You had no idea what it was about before you started reading it? No. It's a hardcover book without a jacket that was on a friend's shelf. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:41 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:02 PM > > Subject: Most Dangerous States > > > > > > > >>http://www.morganquitno.com/dang02.htm > >> > >>Nevada 7th most dangerous > >>Texas 14th > >>New York 24th > >> > > > > > > You forgot to mention California is 13th. > > > > No, I didn't forget, I just didn't think it had any relevance in the > current discussion. If anything, since California's rate is about > the same as Texas and it is listed as less dangerous than Nevada, it > falsifies Jan's implication that Nevada and Texas are much safer (or > much more "polite"). > This is a bit off on a tangent but deserves to be seen. Evaluating the "43 times" fallacy by David K. Felbeck Director, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners August 10, 2000 Those who oppose the use of firearms for self-defense have for fourteen years quoted a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is "43 times more likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder. This "statistic" is used regularly by anti self-protection groups which surely know better, and was even published recently without question in a letter to the Ann Arbor News. Representative Liz Brater cited this "43 times" number in a House committee hearing just a year ago. Thus the original study and its conclusion deserve careful analysis. If nothing else, the repeated use of this "statistic" demonstrates how a grossly inaccurate statement can become a "truth" with sufficient repetition by the compliant and non-critical media. The "43 times" claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms deaths in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period 1978-83. The authors state, "Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified.A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known." Having said this, these authors proceed anyway to exclude those same instances where a potential criminal was not killed but was thwarted. How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in the home, then Kellermann's "43 times" is off by a factor of a thousand and should be at least as small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of firearms as defense against criminal assault should incorporate every event where a crime is either thwarted or mitigated; thus Kellermann's conclusion omits 999 non-lethal favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts only the one event in which the criminal is killed. With woeful disregard for this vital point, recognized by these authors but then ignored, they conclude, "The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned." In making this statement the authors have demonstrated an inexcusable non-scientific bias against the effectiveness of firearms ownership for self defense. This is junk science at its worst. This vital flaw in Kellermann and Reay's paper was demonstrated clearly just six months later, on Dec. 4, 1986 by David Stolinsky and G. Tim Hagen in the same journal (v. 315 n. 23, p. 1483-84), yet these letters have been ignored for fourteen years in favor of the grossly exaggerated figure of the original article. The continual use of the "43 times" figure by groups opposed to the defensive use of firearms suggests the appalling weakness of their argument. But there's more. Included in the "43 times" of Kellermann are 37 suicides, some 86 percent of the alleged total, which have nothing to do with either crime or defensive uses of firearms. Even Kellermann and Reay say clearly ".[that] the precise nature of the relation between gun availability and suicide is unclear." Yet they proceed anyway to include suicides, which comprise the vast majority of the deaths in this study, in their calculations. Omitting suicides further reduces the "43 times" number from 0.043 to 0.006. "Reverse causation" is a significant factor that does not lend itself
Re: Most Dangerous States
From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:28:45 +0100 On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:44 am, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Homicides per 100,000, average per year from 1998-2000 Dallas TX - 20.42 New York NY - 8.77 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls If you are going to link to a site, it has to actualy exist. Sounds like an interesting article. too bad it can't be read. It is a spreadsheet. Are your MIME types set correctly? It's an Excel file. Jan, if you need it converted to Adobe Acrobat PDF format and sent to you offlist, let me know. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Listref] Obesity - some encouraging news
Deborah Harrell wrote: > > --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I read something in the past week or so in some > > newspaper or another > > (gotta be either the Austin American-Statesman or > > the Wall Street > > Journal) that it's marginally better to be fat and > > fit than thin and > > unfit. I think the list from best to worst then > > goes: > > > > thin and fit > > fat and fit > > thin and unfit > > fat and unfit > > > More than marginally better, > actually. > > And once you're over 65 or so, it's better to have an > extra 10-15 pounds on-board as "metabolic reserve," > for recovering from severe illnesses like double > pneumonia, or major surgery. I also think it's better > for osteoporosis, as adipose cells produce some > estrogen (which does affect bones positively). Yeah. I've heard that people who weigh more are less likely to have problems with osteoporosis, partly because the stress of carrying extra weight with those bones helps strengthen them. Strenth exercising with weights, and not even terribly heavy ones (i.e., max 5 lbs. per handweight), will help a lot with that, as well. I'm sure that the Bowflexing I do (when I do it, anyway) doesn't hurt -- if you have extra muscle tissue, that's a fairly useable reserve if you get very sick, better in some ways than fat. Actually, if you're fat and fit, you could have just enough fat to be covering a good muscular physique! :) In which case, if the fat is distributed in a more healthy way, you could be in better shape in the long run than people who weigh less! > Debbi > who won't have to worry about lack of padding over her > seatbones either ;) Well, if the padding would actually stay under the seatbones when I sat, instead of spreading itself out, I'd be just a little more comfortable. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Did you catch the noon Paul Harvey, Debbi?
In a message dated 8/11/2003 7:52:32 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > William Taylor > > > > On, Tachabrun, on! > > OK, I give...couldn't find a single reference to > "Tachabrun" and none of my horse friends had any idea > either. What is it??? > > Does it mean "speed bear"?!? > > Debbi > Hang Your Hat On The Wind Maru Damn.I got it wrong Try "Tachebrun" But if your friends knew it, the wrong spelling wouldn't have mattered. Or just read below Germanic for 'brown spot' and was one of the named horses in The Song of Roland. Would "Vegliantino" have been easier? ---Don't let Peter Jackson think about The Song of Roland until after he's done Startide Rising. William Taylor Taking my oyster for walkies. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > - Original Message - > From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:40 PM > Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > > > > > > I wonder: if you looked at *areas* more likely to have guns in the > > household vs. *areas* less likely to have guns in the household, would > > you see a noticeable difference in the crime rate in those *areas*? > > That is an interesting, but seperate question. When I was talking about > areas, I was thinking less of broad areas in the state, but the difficulty > in getting data on units as small as neighborhoods. My reference is that > the Woodlands, an unincorporated area of about 70k people, has 7 different > official neighborhoods. So, with neighborhoods in the 5k-20k size, one > would get a lot of neighborhoods in any metro area. > > > >How about rural vs. urban areas with each characteristic? (I think that > gun > > deaths are less likely with the same %age of gun owners in rural areas > > than urban, but I may be wrong on that.) > > I would tend to agree. Guns that are used in hunting and are locked up, > with the ammo locked separately take more conscious thought to use than a > loaded gun in the drawer. One can kill someone in a split second of rage > with the other, the former takes at least a bit of obvious effort. > Well, there are 50 or 60 million gunowners in the US. Compared to those numbers the number of "rage" killings is pretty minute. "Rage" killings are still a small fraction of "reported" defense uses too. I think there is too much focus on the negative stats and probabilities and this blinds people to the reality of the situation. xponent More Facts Please Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Author question
At 12:23 PM 8/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: "G. D. Akin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Author question Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:30:50 +0900 Awhile back I picked up a book out of the Exchange bargain bin by Sarah Zettel, "The Quiet Invasion." It is still in pile of to read books. Has any one read anything by her. Worth the effort? Just finished reading "Lucifer's Hammer" by Larry Niven again. Still, IMO, the best end-of-the-world book ever. Agh! By horrifying coincidence, I'm 100 pages into Lucifer's Hammer, which I've never read before. Could we PLEASE refrain from discussing how books END(!!!) without some sort of warning? You had no idea what it was about before you started reading it? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: I've done it again!
Julia wrote: > > Aw, he looks just like a newborn! How cute! :) > > who bets that he *smells* like a newborn, too, and that is a very, very > nice smell He does indeed smell like a newborn, except when he's made one of his substantial deposits at the First National Bank Of Diaper. Then he smells like something else entirely. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the blog. Love the blog. http://aclipscomb.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Jan Coffey wrote: > > --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls > > > > If you are going to link to a site, it has to actualy exist. Sounds like an > interesting article. too bad it can't be read. It's there -- but look at the extension. It's an Excel spreadsheet that you have to download. My virus-protection software detected no virus. I have data now. I just don't feel like spending what little vertical time I have left today going over statistics. I'll be happy to send the .xls file to Jan if he requests. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Author question observations
> I'm not complaining, but it is interesting that this list can goes more > wildly off-subject than any other list I'm on (2 others). And not slowly > either, it happens FAST. > Your point? (:::giggles:::) By the way, nobody responded to my point about Zettel being someone who started off what became a pro career by writing fanfic and that she was one of a number of pro skiffy/fantasy/horror writers who went that track. Am I the only person on this list who reads/writes fanfic along with the "real" stuff? I know this is a book-oriented list, but I also know there are TV & movie fans somewhere here, so I'm just wondering. (OT enough for you, and/or quick enough, George? ) Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: I've done it again!
At 01:04 PM 8/12/2003 -0500, you wrote: Reproduced, that is. Alexander Norman Lipscomb (Alec) was born at 7:46 AM on Monday, August 11th. He weighed 9 lbs, 8 oz, and his mother is incredibly happy that someone else will be carrying him for the next while. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the blog. Love the blog. http://aclipscomb.blogspot.com Congratz! Kevin Tarr ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Okay to execute innocent?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Scouted: Okay to execute innocent? Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:14:44 EDT http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/national/12DEAT.html(note: free registration required) Alternatively you can use either list login: brin-l / brin-l or brinl / brinl Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Okay to execute innocent?
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:14:44PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I should think this one was a gimme: a SINGLE innocent person executed is an > affront to standards of decency at any time, any place. I'd like to hear > someone try to argue the opposite. While I tend to agree with you, Tom, due to lack of convincing evidence of death-penalty deterrent power, I have heard people make a reasonable argument. It it along the lines I just suggested -- the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide and thus saves the lives of a certain number of innocent people; if this number of lives saved is greater than the number of innocent people executed, then there is a net gain in innocent lives saved. However, as I said, I haven't seen any convincing data of the deterrent power of the death penalty. In contrast, we know for certain that if we abolish the death penalty, WE will not be directly responsible for killing innocent people. To me, it is a matter of extremely sketchy data that the death penalty might possibly be beneficial, compared to certainty that we can prevent some innocent people being killed by abolishing the death penalty. As an aside, life in jail with out the possibility of parole actually seems more abhorrent to me than a lethal injection. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 8/11/2003 1:14:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > That would only hold true if the criminals were aware of who did and who > did > > not own guns ahead of time. > > I think the gist of the argument is that legal gun ownership deters crime > in > > general and there are stats that support this. > > > > But nothing is ever going to grind crime to a halt. > > > > I think this type of discussion tends to get people thinking about the > > extremes as opposed to the general tenor of the realities of life. > > > > There are many many millions of guns in the US, yet only a few thousand > or > > so deaths in a given year. A small percentage of deaths by > > any cause. > > Its a mountain made out of a molehill. > > Except the mountain is usually not fatal and the molehill is fatal. > Detering crime is good but the cost may overwhelm the benefit if even a > statistically small number of innocent individuals (in particular the owner > or a family member is killed). After all the death rate in the mole hill is > %100. If we had effective gun control then the death rate would go down for > both the criminals and the victims. You don't know that. You have not shown sufficient corolation to the stats to say that with any certinty. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: I've done it again!
Adam C. Lipscomb said: > Alexander Norman Lipscomb (Alec) was born at 7:46 AM on Monday, August > 11th. He weighed 9 lbs, 8 oz, and his mother is incredibly happy that > someone else will be carrying him for the next while. Congratulations! Patrick Patrick Schlichtenmyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- "Be silly. Be honest. Be kind." -Ralph Waldo Emerson - Get your FREE email address at www.gogoworld.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The evil ham and cheese sandwich
On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 05:07 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: EVERYONE selectively quotes the Bible to support what they've already decided to believe. I don't :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: I've done it again!
- Original Message - From: "Adam C. Lipscomb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 1:04 PM Subject: I've done it again! > Reproduced, that is. > > Alexander Norman Lipscomb (Alec) was born at 7:46 AM on Monday, August > 11th. He weighed 9 lbs, 8 oz, and his mother is incredibly happy that > someone else will be carrying him for the next while. Congratulations. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ignorance is strength: the W administation Vs science, Report
> Levels as low as 2.5 have been found to have subtle > effects on cognition/intellectual functioning (I > forget the thread in which I posted several studies > WRT this, but they appeared to be decent science). > > Toxic effects of arsenic have also been shown at > levels that this administration wanted to set as > standards, and as more studies on dioxin are > completed, it too is a neurotoxin that affects > children. Articles about these have also been posted > previously. > > As for claims that condoms don't provide reasonable > protection against contracting HIV, they are false > (studies posted previously); my opinion on appointing > a man who wants women to "pray to Jesus" to alleviate > menstrual problems as head of the women's health > division at (HHS or NIH, sorry I forget which) is, > obviously, that this is an insult and a travesty. > > Don't get me started on snowmobiles in National Parks, > logging in old-growth forests, wetlands destruction... > Of course, the people who worship George W. Bush because they think he's saving Iraq don't seem to give a damn that he's destroying the United States... Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The evil ham and cheese sandwich
I'm reminded of a scene in "The West Wing" in which President Bartlet thunderously queries an extreme right-wing commentator about all the other laws in Leviticus that she DOESN'T espouse along with her supposedly Biblically-based condemnation of homosexuality. Tom Beck I want to throw my little disclaimer out here: I don't believe in anything*, I don't go to church, I'd even say religion is a "bad thing" in a lot of people's lives. But that episode of the west wing was plain silly. Bartlet's whole speech could have came from any number of editorial writers who were ranting about (a certain female radio host) views at the time. And I'd imagine in a number of households the viewers were cheering the scene as if it was the women herself being put down on national TV, something they all wanted to do. I was surprised they didn't try the same thing a few weeks later on a large middle aged man wearing a nice suit with a loud tie, smoking a cigar. I'm not going to use the word all here, because there probably is some fundamentalist in this world who takes all of the bible to heart including wearing non-blended fabric (amish?). But just because a person has some guiding principle, it doesn't mean they have to be bound to every single tenet that is laid before them. And I'm showing my ignorance here, maybe homosexuality is the only item in Leviticus** that she follows (but I seriously doubt that's they way it is, or was). I just feel the writers of the show were grandstanding about something they felt wasn't getting enough coverage. (I could go on for days, arguing both sides now that I think about it, I'll stop now.) Kevin T. - VRWC *except beer **spellchecker won't recognize this. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
