Re: Drugs
Dan Minette wrote: The disruption we've created in Columbia has torn that nation apart. Your suggesting that there would be no gurrillas if we just allowed the cocaine traffic to flourish? Wouldn't the drug czars just own the government and run it like the Mafia then? Yes. If cocaine were worth no more than coffee there wouldn't be any drug czars or any need for guerrillas. People have tried various forms of decriminalizing the use of hard drugs. The problem with them is that the tolerance tends to increase with usage. England tried to have regestered addicts who got regular limited amounts of heroin, for example, cheap or free from the government. Of course, they just used this as a subsidy of their total habit, and increased their usage by buying more on the street. Because the first and only thing you try doesn't work perfectly you stop trying? And if you can coat rural Columbia with Round-Up, why can't you do the same for Afghanistan? I'd like a source that shows that at least the majority of rural Columbia has been defoliated. Afganistan is a poor country that can barely feed itself. A cash crop like poppies can make a farmer relatively rich. It takes a very repressive regieme to keep virtually everyone from trying to better their financial position this way What I find troublesome with your position is that you seem to suggest that there is an easy answer to the drug problem. Just let people use whatever they want in whatever quantities they want. The difficulty with this is Where in hell did you get the idea that I think there is an easy answer? If there is an easiest answer, it's what we are doing now. Declare a prohibition and throw everyone and their brother in jail. 1) It interferes with the ability to work, so the money has to come from someplace else Just because drugs are decriminalized doesn't mean drug testing would cease or that drug usage - especially hard drugs - would become socially acceptable. Look how we've stigmatized cigarette smoking - and drastically reduced the number of people who smoke. 2) Unless subsidized by the government, it will still cost money. The government could do a hell of a lot of subsidizing with the money they save from ending interdiction. 3) If cheap, people will tend to keep on increasing their dosage until its near fatal, or at least its no longer cheap. Which people? All people? I admit that there are problems in this regard, but they are no greater than the problems we now face. How much better is it to just throw people in jail. 4) There is a strong association with hard drugs and other crimes. That's mostly because they are illegal and hard to get. There is a strong correlation between crack and violent behavior. Yea, crack is bad news. So is alcohol. Booze and grass are one thing, there is at least a significant fraction of folks who use/used those in a non-addictive manner. But, the fact that very liberal European countries have reversed the trend towards decriminalization of all drugs should be considered. My understanding is that, when Amsterdam decriminalized all behavior associated with drugs, the drug addicts overwhelmed the town. When New York cracked down, Time Square became someplace you could go with your teenage kids with at night. Pun not intended, I hope. 8^) My positiojn is not really supportive of the war on drugs; there are plenty of problems with it. As I stated before, drawing the line after instead of before grass seems very reasonable. But, I do think that the position that legalizing the sale of all addictive drugs would result in a far worse state of the nation than what we have now. Well then we agree. I wouldn't legalize. Not even pot. I would decriminalize and divert money spent on interdiction on education and rehab. I would control the source of drug plants such that their cultivation was no more or less profitable than other cash crops. I would enlist the considerable talents of our sales/advertising community to help educate the public and to stigmatize drug use. I would use the considerable talents of our medical community to take what we've learned about drug use - why we desire them, how they effect us, how the harm or don't harm us, and put the information and any more we can glean from a vigorous research program to use on solving the problem long term. Does that sound simple? No friggin way. It would be very difficult, but it's a damned sight better than what we're doing now to solve the problem, which is in many cases either counterproductive or worthless. And by the way, just in case someone has the impression that I am against current drug laws because I'm a user: caffeine (way too much) and alcohol (very little) are the only non medicinal drugs I use (and I use as little as the medicinal variety as I can). Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs
Dan Minette wrote: What I find troublesome with your position is that you seem to suggest that there is an easy answer to the drug problem. Don't worry, Doug, Dan insulting you in this way puts you in good company. He has told me and several others that our ideas were simplistic compared to his. That must mean that you are doing well! As I stated before, drawing the line after instead of before grass seems very reasonable. But, I do think that the position that legalizing the sale of all addictive drugs would result in a far worse state of the nation than what we have now. I agree completely. And we certainly shouldn't stop there. We all know that religion has many effects on the brain that are equal to or worse than drugs like cocaine or heroin. Religion certainly causes many people to lose their rational thinking, religion is highly addictive, and over the years, many many evil acts have been committed in the name of religion. Now, drawing the line after Buddhism and Quakerism is reasonable, I agree, but we definitely need to criminalize Christianity and Islamism due to all the evil acts that have been committed over the years in the names of those religions. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:12 AM Subject: Re: Drugs I agree completely. And we certainly shouldn't stop there. We all know that religion has many effects on the brain that are equal to or worse than drugs like cocaine or heroin. Religion certainly causes many people to lose their rational thinking, religion is highly addictive, and over the years, many many evil acts have been committed in the name of religion. Now, drawing the line after Buddhism and Quakerism is reasonable, I agree, but we definitely need to criminalize Christianity and Islamism due to all the evil acts that have been committed over the years in the names of those religions. I'd very much appreciate you providing a study showing that people who use cocaine have a greater chance of surviving life threatening illnesses, Erik. Also, indications that drug users have lower incidents of depression than non drug-users, and show other objective measures of superior mental health. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: insomnia
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Doesn't GNC have some kind of card or something you pay to get, and on certain days you get a %age off? I used to get papaya tablets there, to take if I got bruised badly. It helped some. I'd be very cautious about taking it right now, though. Julia trying to figure out if it's a dance routine or a fight going on inside right now (Plug for GNC not intended but..) GNC has a 30% off for the first 7 days of each month. You can also combine that with a buy 2 get 1 free offer, and it adds up to substantial discounts in vitamins. You need to pay a small membership fee, but you get it back in discounts and a cool magazine. :-) JJ _ 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: US notches world's highest incarceration rate
Doug Pensinger wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html The prison population has quadrupled since 1980. Much of that surge is the result of public policy, such as the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing. Nearly 1 in 4 of the inmates in federal and state prisons are there because of drug-related offenses, most of them nonviolent. Narcotic-related arrests New drug policies have especially affected incarceration rates for women, which have increased at nearly double the rate for men since 1980. Nearly 1 in 3 women in prison today are serving sentences for drug-related crimes. Wow, 25% of the men incarcerated and an incredible 33% of the women on drug related offenses! More evidence that the war on drugs is a miserable failure. Let's not forget the whole Tulia fiasco, either, where they took the word of a law enforcement officer who should have been stripped of the priviledge of a badge before the whole mess started, and arrested 46 (mostly minority) and threw something like 39 of them into jail, after blatantly unfair trials, because this yahoo with a badge managed to convince the right people that a fairly small community had a big-time drug ring operating. (I'm not sure what bothers me more, the woman taken away from her young children when she was documentably in another *state* on the day the jerk claimed she'd sold him drugs, or the elderly pig farmer being thrown in prison) Julia although the operators of the meth lab in my friend's old apartment complex *did* have it coming, IMO ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Dan Minette wrote: My positiojn is not really supportive of the war on drugs; there are plenty of problems with it. As I stated before, drawing the line after instead of before grass seems very reasonable. But, I do think that the position that legalizing the sale of all addictive drugs would result in a far worse state of the nation than what we have now. I've heard the argument that marijuana is a gateway drug. Of course, if it were legal to buy joints like you buy cigarettes, the folks interested in just smoking pot wouldn't do anything illegal to get their drug of choice, so they wouldn't be in contact with dealers of other illegal substances, making it harder to jump from legal to illegal if marijuana were the drug of interest. But I really wouldn't want the US cigarette companies getting into the business of producing joints, considering what kind of additive crap goes into tobacco cigarettes. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs
Erik Reuter wrote: I agree completely. And we certainly shouldn't stop there. We all know that religion has many effects on the brain that are equal to or worse than drugs like cocaine or heroin. Religion certainly causes many people to lose their rational thinking, religion is highly addictive, and over the years, many many evil acts have been committed in the name of religion. Now, drawing the line after Buddhism and Quakerism is reasonable, I agree, but we definitely need to criminalize Christianity and Islamism due to all the evil acts that have been committed over the years in the names of those religions. Hm. I thought that Quakerism was a sect of Christianity. How do you criminalize a set and *not* criminalize a subset of that set? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: insomnia
Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Doesn't GNC have some kind of card or something you pay to get, and on certain days you get a %age off? I used to get papaya tablets there, to take if I got bruised badly. It helped some. I'd be very cautious about taking it right now, though. Julia trying to figure out if it's a dance routine or a fight going on inside right now (Plug for GNC not intended but..) GNC has a 30% off for the first 7 days of each month. You can also combine that with a buy 2 get 1 free offer, and it adds up to substantial discounts in vitamins. You need to pay a small membership fee, but you get it back in discounts and a cool magazine. :-) OK. Wasn't sure how it worked *now*. I had a membership card in 1996 or 1997, anyway, but that's a few years ago. :) Thank you for the info. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... When are we going to wake up and realize that people want to get high? From the mild stimulus of caffeine, the outwardly innocuousness of nicotine and the destructiveness of alcohol. From legal stimulants and depressants to illegal hallucinogens, it seems like its human nature to want to alter ones mood. Not everyone of course, but what percent of the population do you think does none of the above? This has been rumbling around in my head for the last day. The problem with your premise is that illegal drugs stimulate production of endorphins, and so do all sorts of legitimate things, such as exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. The statement that its human nature to want to alter ones mood is the same to me as, people want to feel good. Most certainly! So the war on drugs is an attempt to stamp out human inclination by force. Why don't we spend the huge amounts of money we now waste trying to fight our inclinations on figuring out _why_ we want to get high and either eliminate the urge in a scientific manner or cater to it in a way that is less disruptive? This becomes very troublesome -- eliminating the urge would mean eliminating the urge to do anything that causes our bodies to produce endorphins. That would make us less than human. Addiction (which actually is a problem, unlike drugs, IMO) isn't about the urge to feel good, which is totally legitimate. Addiction has to do with producing endorphins by satisfying legitimate needs -- exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. -- in inappropriate ways. I don't think there's any question that rapists, for example, commit the act in part because the risk and the violence triggers production of lots of adrenaline and other neurochemicals. There's nothing wrong with wanting the satisfaction that comes from triggering that physiological reaction, but the means of doing so is beyond inappropriate. The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. I sure agree that our approach is generally wrong, but not for the reasons that you're putting forth here. For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I'm not sure why that doesn't change, but it seems clear that it delivers a lot of money and power to those who use sex, violence, etc. to attract our attention. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence
We've been led through the nosering, people. Read about the white paper of October 2002 in this article. Literary license my gluteus maximae -- that belongs in fiction writing, not official policy explanations But, to the war-is-wonderful crowd, all that fades down the memory hole. Now, the justification is (and ALWAYS HAS BEEN), Look, we got rid of Saddam Hussein! Nukuler weppins? We knew all along he never had no nukuler weppins. But he's a bad 'un, and we's gone 'n' got rid o' that ol' sumbitch. Now y'all stand back and shut the f*ck up while we hand out some more tax breaks to our billionaire friends and drill for six months worth of oil in Alaska and shred the Constitution into mulch. 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: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Julia wrote: Hm. I thought that Quakerism was a sect of Christianity. How do you criminalize a set and *not* criminalize a subset of that set? :) Good point. Better to be safe than sorry. Let's criminalize Quakerism as well. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Al Qaida claims responsibility for blackout
Well, glad that's settled. Better a terrorist attack than big business incompetence Terrorist 1 Americans shooting themselves in the foot 0 Nerd From Hell -Original Message- From: Robert Seeberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 7:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Al Qaida claims responsibility for blackout http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_5.html Al Qaida's Abu Hafs Brigades has claimed responsibility for the blackout last week in the Northeast and Midwest United States. A communique by the Abu Hafs Brigades made reference to Operation Quick Lightning in the Land of the Tyrant of this Generation. It was published as the third communique by the Brigades. In the first, they accepted responsibility for the downing of an airplane in Kenya. The second accepted responsibility for the Jakarta bombing of the Marriott hotel on August 5, 2003. The new communique says that in compliance with the orders of Osama bin Laden to strike at the American economy, the Brigades struck two important electricity supply targets on the East coast, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute. The Brigades say that they cannot reveal how they did it, because they will probably have to use the same method again soon. The communique also claimed that the operation was meant as a present for the Iraqi people. The Blackout was 'a Realization of Bin Laden's promise to offer the Iraqi people a present' A communique attributed to Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the power blackout that happened in the U.S. last Thursday, saying that the brigades of Abu Fahes Al Masri had hit two main power plants supplying the East of the U.S., as well as major industrial cities in the U.S. and Canada, 'its ally in the war against Islam (New York and Toronto) and their neighbors.' The communique assured that the operation 'was carried out on the orders of Osama bin Laden to hit the pillars of the U.S. economy,' as 'a realization of bin Laden's promise to offer the Iraqi people a present.' 'The Americans lived a black day they will never forget' The statement, which Al-Hayat obtained from the website of the International Islamic Media Center, didn't specify the way the alleged sabotage was carried out. The communique read: 'let the criminal Bush and his gang know that the punishment is the result of the action, the soldiers of God cut the power on these cities, they darkened the lives of the Americans as these criminals blackened the lives of the Muslim people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. The Americans lived a black day they will never forget. They lived a day of terror and fear. a state of chaos and confusion where looting and pillaging rampaged the cities, just like the capital of the caliphate Baghdad, and Afghanistan and Palestine were. Let the American people take a sip from the same glass.' 'The U.S. will not live in peace until our conditions are met' It added: 'we heard amazing statements made by the American and Canadian enemies which have nuclear physics universities and space agencies, that lightning hit and destroyed the two plants. And we are supposed to believe this nonsense. If the blackout occurred in one or two cities, their lie would have been credible. But the fact is that the blackout hit the entire East and part of Canada.' The communique continued: 'one of the benefits of this strike is that the U.S. will not live in peace until our conditions are met, such as releasing all the detainees including Sheikh Omar Abdulrahman, and getting out of the land of the Muslims, including Jerusalem and Kashmir.' The authors of the communique said that the strikes aimed at 'hitting the major pillar of the U.S. economy (the Stock Exchange). [and] the UN, which is opposed to Islam, and is based in New York. It is a message to all the investors that the U.S. is no longer a safe country for their money, knowing that the U.S. economy greatly relies on the trust of the investor.' 'The gift of Sheikh Osama Bin Laden is on its way to the White House' The communique mentioned that some economists said the blackout in the U.S. and Canada would cost the U.S. Treasury no less than ten billion U.S. dollars and in order to 'break the hearts of U.S. officials, just know that the cost paid by the Moujahideen to sabotage the power plants was a mere seven thousand dollars. Die of sorrow!' The communique ended with: 'we tell the Muslims that this is not the awaited strike, but it is called the war of skirmishes (to drain the enemy), and that the American snakes are enormous and need to be consumed and weakened to be destroyed. We tell the people of Afghanistan and Kashmir that the gift of Sheikh Osama bin Laden is on its way to the White House; then the gift of Al Aqsa, and do we know what is the gift of Al Aqsa, where and when? The answer is what you are seeing!' xponent The Obvious Tactic Maru rob
Re: Drugs
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 1:59 AM Subject: Re: Drugs Dan Minette wrote: Yes. If cocaine were worth no more than coffee there wouldn't be any drug czars or any need for guerrillas. The only way to do that would be to flood the market with drugs. The market for drugs is much more elastic than it is for coffee, so I don't really see the value in this. Because the first and only thing you try doesn't work perfectly you stop trying? No, many things have been tried in Europe, and this is just one example. Decriminalization of pot has been very successful in Amsterdam. Decriminalization of harder drugs has been tried and undone in Amsterdam because it was a failure. What I find troublesome with your position is that you seem to suggest that there is an easy answer to the drug problem. Just let people use whatever they want in whatever quantities they want. The difficulty with this is Where in hell did you get the idea that I think there is an easy answer? By the way you present your argument. When I argue for something that I think there are minuses as well as plusses, I usually try to acknowledge the minuses while trying to show that I honestly Because of the way you simply state that fighting drugs is obviously wrong without discussing the minuses of your position. Also, hints of sinister government plots that are behind the war on drugs seems to fall in this category. I chose my words with a decent amount of care. Now that you've clarified your position, you've provided meat to debate various possibilities. Before, I thought that you considered it a no-brainer. If there is an easiest answer, it's what we are doing now. Declare a prohibition and throw everyone and their brother in jail. 1) It interferes with the ability to work, so the money has to come from someplace else Just because drugs are decriminalized doesn't mean drug testing would cease or that drug usage - especially hard drugs - would become socially acceptable. Look how we've stigmatized cigarette smoking - and drastically reduced the number of people who smoke. And it is still rather large. Between a quarter and a third of high school students smoke, as of the late '90s very early '00s. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/aag/aag_osh.htm 2) Unless subsidized by the government, it will still cost money. The government could do a hell of a lot of subsidizing with the money they save from ending interdiction. Not as much as you might think. From a pro-legalization site, http://www.colombiareport.org/colombia150.htm I get the following figures: US drug interdiction budget: 18.2 billion Sale of cocaine in US: 52.8 billion Colombian farmer income from cocaine 1.2 billion Now, the US could probably go into the business of selling crack heroin, etc., but that would be legalizing, not decriminalizing. So, it would have to pay people to buy drugs? I'm not clear on how that would work. I think that the cost is associated with the legality of the sale and distribution of the drugs, not the use. So, decriminalization of the use of drugs should not decrease that cost. 3) If cheap, people will tend to keep on increasing their dosage until its near fatal, or at least its no longer cheap. Which people? All people? Addictions tend to follow patterns. Its true that there are various levels of addiction. One of the problems with a number of drugs that are illegal is that tolerance builds up and it takes increasing amounts to get the same effect. The tendency is to increase use to keep the feeling. Alcohol is different from that. It is fairly unique in how little difference there is between the amount it takes a social drinker to get as high as a late stage alcoholic. Grass, as far as I know, is less addictive than cocaine or alcohol, and its users are less likely to get out of control that the users of cocaine or heroin. I admit that there are problems in this regard, but they are no greater than the problems we now face. Market forces indicate that when price goes down and demand is elastic, use goes up. How much better is it to just throw people in jail. Just throwing people in jail is not much of a solution either. Realistically, it probably needs to be part of the range of possibilities, but I'd argue for more of a misdemeanor for hard drug use than a felony. There is no doubt that money spent on treatment would be far better than long jail sentences for use. But, the threat of a couple months in prison vs. treatment may still be a viable option. 4) There is a strong association with hard drugs and other crimes. That's mostly because they are illegal and hard to get. You are seriously arguing that illegal drugs are hard to get? There is a strong correlation between crack and violent behavior.
Re: Drugs
At 09:12 AM 8/19/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: I agree completely. And we certainly shouldn't stop there. We all know that religion has many effects on the brain that are equal to or worse than drugs like cocaine or heroin. Religion certainly causes many people to lose their rational thinking, religion is highly addictive, and over the years, many many evil acts have been committed in the name of religion. Now, drawing the line after Buddhism and Quakerism is reasonable, I agree, but we definitely need to criminalize Christianity and Islamism due to all the evil acts that have been committed over the years in the names of those religions. Hm. I thought that Quakerism was a sect of Christianity. How do you criminalize a set and *not* criminalize a subset of that set? :) Hate is irrational. When one decides to hate someone or something, logic is one of the first higher faculties to go out the window . . . ;-) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
At 07:28 AM 8/19/03 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... When are we going to wake up and realize that people want to get high? From the mild stimulus of caffeine, the outwardly innocuousness of nicotine and the destructiveness of alcohol. From legal stimulants and depressants to illegal hallucinogens, it seems like its human nature to want to alter ones mood. Not everyone of course, but what percent of the population do you think does none of the above? This has been rumbling around in my head for the last day. The problem with your premise is that illegal drugs stimulate production of endorphins, and so do all sorts of legitimate things, such as exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. The statement that its human nature to want to alter ones mood is the same to me as, people want to feel good. Most certainly! So the war on drugs is an attempt to stamp out human inclination by force. Why don't we spend the huge amounts of money we now waste trying to fight our inclinations on figuring out _why_ we want to get high and either eliminate the urge in a scientific manner or cater to it in a way that is less disruptive? This becomes very troublesome -- eliminating the urge would mean eliminating the urge to do anything that causes our bodies to produce endorphins. That would make us less than human. Addiction (which actually is a problem, unlike drugs, IMO) isn't about the urge to feel good, which is totally legitimate. Addiction has to do with producing endorphins by satisfying legitimate needs -- exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. -- in inappropriate ways. I don't think there's any question that rapists, for example, commit the act in part because the risk and the violence triggers production of lots of adrenaline and other neurochemicals. There's nothing wrong with wanting the satisfaction that comes from triggering that physiological reaction, but the means of doing so is beyond inappropriate. The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. I sure agree that our approach is generally wrong, but not for the reasons that you're putting forth here. For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I'm not sure why that doesn't change, but it seems clear that it delivers a lot of money and power to those who use sex, violence, etc. to attract our attention. So let's talk openly about them here. What are those legitimate needs which you believe are denied, and how do you think those needs should be met? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: insomnia
At 01:24 PM 8/19/03 +, Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Doesn't GNC have some kind of card or something you pay to get, and on certain days you get a %age off? I used to get papaya tablets there, to take if I got bruised badly. It helped some. I'd be very cautious about taking it right now, though. Julia trying to figure out if it's a dance routine or a fight going on inside right now (Plug for GNC not intended but..) GNC has a 30% off for the first 7 days of each month. You can also combine that with a buy 2 get 1 free offer, and it adds up to substantial discounts in vitamins. You need to pay a small membership fee, but you get it back in discounts and a cool magazine. :-) Plus how much spam when they have your name, address, etc., on their mailing list? JJ _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Talk about irony . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship So let's talk openly about them here. What are those legitimate needs which you believe are denied, and how do you think those needs should be met? I think I already gave a number of examples... but you've put words in my head by saying that they are denied. What I'm saying is that people, for various reasons, fail to learn how to see that their needs are met legitimately, and thus turn to other ways. This is not to imply that their eyes simply need to be opened. Habits are tough to change, especially when they're rewarded with endorphin production! I can't get specific about how to meet everyone's needs! Each person is an individual, with needs that differ. But I think it is a poor approach to start by trying to quell the urge to feel good. That's the wrong side of the equation to start with; it's better to first try to help people learn to meet their needs, I think. Of course, they often don't want to change... Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: insomnia
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:24 PM 8/19/03 +, Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Doesn't GNC have some kind of card or something you pay to get, and on certain days you get a %age off? I used to get papaya tablets there, to take if I got bruised badly. It helped some. I'd be very cautious about taking it right now, though. Julia trying to figure out if it's a dance routine or a fight going on inside right now (Plug for GNC not intended but..) GNC has a 30% off for the first 7 days of each month. You can also combine that with a buy 2 get 1 free offer, and it adds up to substantial discounts in vitamins. You need to pay a small membership fee, but you get it back in discounts and a cool magazine. :-) Plus how much spam when they have your name, address, etc., on their mailing list? Gotta be *less* what I get due to ordering from Victoria's Secret catalogs and from One Step Ahead, actually. And that's not enough to deter me from ordering from VS or OSA, so that wouldn't be so much of an issue for me. (What really bothers me is the catalogs for pricey children's clothing. Pricey children's toys are at least fun to *look* at.) What *would* deter me is that I can't for the life of me think of where there's a GNC within 30 minutes of my house (There's probably one in Pflugerville or Round Rock, east of I-35, but I don't know where it *is*.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
disinfopedia
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Disinfopedia_Main_Page Welcome to Disinfopedia, a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. We are already working on 1614 articles. Anyone, including you, can edit any article right now. See the Disinfopedia FAQ for more background information about the project. Read the help page and experiment in the sandbox to learn how you can use and contribute to the Disinfopedia. The content of Disinfopedia is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that it is free and will remain so forever. See Disinfopedia:Copyrights for the details and open content and free content for background. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
At 01:09 PM 8/19/03 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship So let's talk openly about them here. What are those legitimate needs which you believe are denied, and how do you think those needs should be met? I think I already gave a number of examples... but you've put words in my head by saying that they are denied. I apologize if that's what I did, but see below. What I'm saying is that people, for various reasons, fail to learn how to see that their needs are met legitimately, and thus turn to other ways. This is not to imply that their eyes simply need to be opened. Habits are tough to change, especially when they're rewarded with endorphin production! I can't get specific about how to meet everyone's needs! Each person is an individual, with needs that differ. But I think it is a poor approach to start by trying to quell the urge to feel good. That's the wrong side of the equation to start with; it's better to first try to help people learn to meet their needs, I think. Of course, they often don't want to change... You said in your earlier message: quote I sure agree that our approach is generally wrong, but not for the reasons that you're putting forth here. For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I'm not sure why that doesn't change, but it seems clear that it delivers a lot of money and power to those who use sex, violence, etc. to attract our attention. /quote (1) So if [I] put words in [your] head by saying that [their legitimate needs] are denied, by denial of legitimate needs do you mean self-denial by the person with the needs, or what? I honestly want to understand what you are saying. (2) You wrote For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I suggested that we start by openly talking about those things (whatever they are) here. You wrote: Habits are tough to change, especially when they're rewarded with endorphin production! Agree. Each person is an individual, with needs that differ. Strongly agree. But I think it is a poor approach to start by trying to quell the urge to feel good. Strongly agree. Feeling good, and its opposite of feeling bad, are really strong motivational forces. Most of us try to find ways to feel good as much as possible and to eliminate feeling bad as much as possible. Sometimes, of course, the only way to deal with things is to grit our teeth and work through the bad to get to the point where good things happen more often, but as you say later in the paragraph, often we don't want to change, because change is hard. That's the wrong side of the equation to start with; it's better to first try to help people learn to meet their needs, I think. So as I suggested above, if the problem (or part of it) is that we as a society are unwilling to talk openly about a number of things, why don't we start by talking openly about those things here? Of course, they often don't want to change... Strongly agree. Change is hard. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: B5 question
George wrote: To my surprise, To Dream in the City of Sorrows by Kathryn M. Drennan was on the shelf [snip] My question is this: should I read it now or wait until after I have watched season 3 or does it matter? Wait until after season 3, or at least until after the late third season two-part episode. You'll be glad you did. And that novel is very, very good. By the way, Kathryn Drennan is the same person who wrote the first season episode By Any Means Necessary (the one with the strike) and is also Joe Straczynski's spousal overunit (as he usually puts it). From the guide page for By Any Means Necessary on The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countries/master/guide/012.html Kathryn's last name is Drennan. Her full credit is Kathryn M. Drennan. Not Straczynski. Probably displaying considerable wisdom on her part. Ten thousand letters, no vowels. [snip] Kathryn Drennan, my Spousal Overunit, is also a writer, and has written for many other shows, primarily in animation, but with some forays into other areas. [snip] Anyway, she desperately wanted to write a B5 script. But because of my feelings about nepotism, I refused to give her an assignment. The rest of that story is on the website listed. Reggie Bautista _ bHelp protect your PC:/b Get a free online virus scan at McAfee.com. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: disinfopedia
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Fool Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:13 PM To: Brin-L Subject: disinfopedia http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Disinfopedia_Main_Page Welcome to Disinfopedia, a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. We are already working on 1614 articles. The site would have much more credibility in my eyes if it weren't associated with PRWatch. They vilify all PR professionals regardless of merit. Jon Vaguely Amused That I'm Not Listed Maru Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Worm Week
I had at least 5 attempts to infect my PC tonight. Anyone else getting hits? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16499-2003Aug19?language=printer New Fast-Spreading Sobig Worm Adds to 'Worm Week' A new mass e-mail worm that attempts to download files from the Internet and potentially leave computers vulnerable to further attack was spreading quickly around the world on Tuesday, anti-virus experts said. The new worm, dubbed Sobig.F, is at least the fourth new, major Internet worm to hit computers worldwide in the past week, prompting anti-virus vendor F-Secure to declare this the worst virus week ever. Sobig.F, a variant of an older worm, began spreading on Monday in Europe and has infected an estimated tens of thousands of Windows-based computers, said Patrick Hinojosa, chief technology officer at Panda Software, based in Madrid. It arrives in e-mail and includes a variety of subject lines, including Your details, Thank you!, Your application and Wicked screensaver. It has caused some corporate e-mail systems to grind to a halt, according to Sophos Inc. When the .pif or .scr attachment is opened, Sobig.F infects the computer and sends itself on to other victims using a random e-mail address from the address book. It also prepares the computer to receive orders and tries to download files from the Internet, said Hinojosa. It was unknown exactly what files they were, he said. If the infected computer is on a shared network, the worm tries to copy itself to the other computers on that network. The worm is programmed to stop spreading on Sept. 10. Network Associates Inc. has rated Sobig.F a medium risk because of the quick rate of spread, said Jimmy Kuo, research fellow at Network Associates, an anti-virus software vendor. Sobig.F was spreading at an alarming rate, accounting for nearly 80 percent of all infection reports recorded on Tuesday, according to anti-virus provider Central Command. Sobig.F comes on the heels of the Blaster, or LoveSan, worm which hit hundreds of thousands of computers worldwide last week, spreading to victims through a security hole in the Windows operating system and crashing them. On Monday, another worm surfaced that was written to remove Blaster from infected computers and patch the hole. That worm, dubbed Welchia or Nachi, was temporarily paralyzing many corporate networks, experts reported. In addition, an e-mail hoax was circulating, purporting to be a patch from Microsoft for the security hole Blaster exploits. But the e-mail instead contains a Trojan application that installs itself on the computer as a back door enabling an attacker remote access to the system. There has not been so much virus activity since the Code Red and Nimda worms hit about a year ago, experts said. xponent All Your Worms Are Ours Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Worm Week
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:15:53PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: I had at least 5 attempts to infect my PC tonight. Anyone else getting hits? I've had about 10 today on my Linux box. Stupid worms, don't they know they can't run on Linux? :-) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Worm Week
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:21 PM Subject: Re: Worm Week On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:15:53PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: I had at least 5 attempts to infect my PC tonight. Anyone else getting hits? I've had about 10 today on my Linux box. Stupid worms, don't they know they can't run on Linux? :-) LOL The worms are indiscriminate, to say the least. And an effort to overcome a worm can be a problem itself. LOL http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm A computer worm designed to eliminate an earlier virus brought computer networks to a standstill Tuesday, hindering efforts in Ontario to recover from last week's power outage and forcing Air Canada to check passengers in manually across the country. Vancouver International Airport reported huge delays and long line ups in the international departures terminal as the virus slowed Air Canada's check-in computer system. Air Canada spokeswoman Laura Cooke said the virus affected the airline's call centre in Toronto and check-in systems across the country. ``It is causing delays in processing customers at airports,'' she said. The worm also slowed Ontario's efforts to repair the hydro system from last week's blackout. ``The system is under attack from the virus, and we've had more problems with this particular virus this afternoon than any other previous virus in Ontario,'' said Terry Young, a spokesman for the Ontario's Independent Electricity Market Operator. Inside the terminal in Vancouver, passengers, some of whom have been stranded since the blackout-related problems of last Thursday, were frustrated. ``It's a nightmare,'' said one unidentified woman. ``The service is so bad; the management was so bad. The system is just a mess, just a mess. I had my luggage delivered to Toronto, I was told on Saturday, so I don't have anything.'' The worm targets computers running Windows 2000 and Windows XP and infected with the blaster worm. Once it deletes the blaster worm, the computer attempts to download a patch of the Microsoft update site, installs the patch and reboots the computer. It searches for active computers by sending a signal across the Internet, which results in significant increases in traffic. Internet security firm Symantec identified over 600,000 computers on Tuesday afternoon that were affected by one of the two worms. Telus, the country's second-biggest phone company, saw operations for 411 operators slowed as the worm infected a number of internal systems at the company, while Corus Entertainment's Web site was down until the company was able to clean up its system. The worm snarled the network at the CBC, slowing the broadcaster's Web site. The Blaster worm also affected some computers of Ontario's emergency response system dealing with the aftermath of last week's huge blackout across a swath of the province and eight U.S. states. Dr. James Young, the Ontario commissioner of public safety, said the problem was ``making our job more difficult.'' Symantec assessed the worm a ``Level 4'' threat, the second-highest, due to reports of severe disruptions on internal networks. ``Despite its original intent, the W32.Welchia.Worm is an insidious worm that is preventing IT administrators from cleaning up after the W32.Blaster.Worm,'' Vincent Weafer, senior director of Symantec Security Response, said. ``The worm is swamping network systems with traffic and causing denial of service to critical servers with organizations.'' It was not known where either of the worms originated. However, blaster, also known as lovsan because of a note it left on vulnerable computers _ ``I just want to say LOVE YOU SAN!'' _ also carried a hidden message to taunt Microsoft's chairman: ``billy gates why do you make this possible? Stop making money and fix your software!'' Blaster exploited a flaw in most current versions of Microsoft's Windows operating system for personal computers, laptops and server computers. Although Microsoft posted a software patch to fix the flaw on July 16, many users failed to download the patch, leaving them vulnerable to the worm, which first started hitting computers around the world on Monday. The worm caused computers to reboot frequently or disrupted browsing of the Internet. Last week, blaster forced Maryland's motor vehicle agency to close for the day and kicked Swedish Internet users offline as it spread, its instruction set triggering Windows computers to shut down and restart. It also packed a second punch: starting at midnight local time Aug. 16, infected computers that had not cleaned up the virus turned into a legion of zombies instructed to repeatedly call up a Microsoft Web site that houses the software patch. With so much traffic flooding the network, the site would be unreachable and computer users would be unable to access the patch. xponent The Cure Will Cure You Maru rob
Re: Worm Week
At 11:15 PM 8/19/03 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: I had at least 5 attempts to infect my PC tonight. Anyone else getting hits? Not yet. Just the usual offers to watch young virgins ing . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Offensive Bush Pic
See it at: http://www.drudgereport.com/bushgq.htm GQ MAG DEPICTS PRESIDENT BUSH AS 'JESUS' IN CONTROVERSIAL PHOTO SPREAD A coming edition of GQ magazine turns President Bush in to Jesus Christ -- in a full-page photo illustration! The controversial photo is set to run with an accompanied essay titled George W's Personal Jesus, publishing sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT. In the beginning, there was the call..., writer Guy Lawson opens in his essay on the president's religious convictions. The photo marks a dramatic entrance for new GQ editor Jim Nelson. xponent Questionable Taste For Some Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Worm Week
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:45 PM Subject: Re: Worm Week At 11:15 PM 8/19/03 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: I had at least 5 attempts to infect my PC tonight. Anyone else getting hits? Not yet. Just the usual offers to watch young virgins ing . . . Who in their right mind would want to watch the inexperienced, unless of course it is intended as a comedy? xponent Porn Spam On Rye Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Worm Week
In a message dated 8/19/2003 9:19:24 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: New Fast-Spreading Sobig Worm Adds to 'Worm Week' The Diet of Worms occurred in the month of April, 1521 How can the celebration have been moved to August? I think I smell politics. William Taylor - Talk about your three dreg weekend. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
