RE: christian dreams of murder...

[ritu]

Gautam Mukunda wrote:
 
> Because we are _at war_. 

But I thought the war was over in Afghanistan and IraqAnd in the
former, especially, rapid progress in nation buliding was going on -
things on which future text books would be written. So perhaps it's time
to try the detainees.

> We didn't give German POWs
> trials.  We didn't give North Korean POWs trials.  We
> were _at war_. 

Yes, but what happened when the war was declared over?

> These people were captured _on the
> battlefield_.  Because they weren't declared
> combatants, they actually have _fewer_ rights than
> POWs.

True enough, but even non declared combatants have a right to be tried
by an impartial tribunal.

> Yet the American government is supposed to worry about
> the rights of _Americans_ first.  That's its job.  I
> suppose that you, Erik, would have nice public trials
> on all of these guys, with lawyers, and published
> transcripts, and maybe the names and faces of CIA
> informants published?  That's what a full trial would
> require, after all.

Um, why? As you have said, the detainees were captured on battlefield in
Afghanistan - what intelligence agents are you going to endanger by
establishing a case for detention?

Ritu


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: christian dreams of murder...

[ritu]

Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> > > Out of curiosity, do you object to Tom Clancy novels?
> >
> > Oh, I do. The first book of his I read, one of his 
> characters implied,
> >
> But if that was the opinion of a _character_, it does not
> necessarily mean that it was the opinion of the _author_.

Oh, certainly. But sometimes, some characters irritate me so much that I
don't care to find out whom else the author has created. :)

> > somewhere in the first 50 pages, that Indira Gandhi was
> > assassinated because India is such an awful place that
> > her own security guards had no choice but to kill her.
> > The officer wound up his rumination with:  'I am
> > so glad I live in a country where I am not forced
> > into killing the man I swore to protect, where I
> > can take pride in my country and its leaders.'
> >
> And what did this officer do in the rest of the book? Did
> he try to kill the president of the USA? :-)

*g*

Who knows? I never reached that far. That particular comment got me so
irritated that I started reading something else. Mind you, I was
pregnant at the time and given to strong emotional reactions

Ritu, who'll try to look for the book and see if she still reacts the
same way


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation


> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > No, as I've never stated you were evil.  Did JDG ever call you evil?
> >
> > Dan M.
> >
> > No, but JDG does not post 20 times a day that you are evil.
> >
>
> How many times has he called you, personally, evil, as opposed to calling
> religion evil?

> Now I'm not excusing his excesses at all, but you can call drugs evil and
> not mean drug users are evil, right?

Technically you are right by my way of thinking.  For example, one could
not say that Stalin _was_ evil because he was created in the image and
likeness of God.  But, he _did_ evil, he supported evil, etc.

So, the Fool didn't technically personally call me evil; he just lumped me
in a group of evil people.  But, according to his book, I'm a disciple of
evil; I do evil; I teach our youth evil; I spread evil.  If one is not
speaking in terms of precise technicalities, that is calling me evil.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder...


>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 10:52 PM
> Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder...
>
>
> > Many of us that have
> > raised children or trained animals have come to the realization that
> > negative reinforcement doesn't work very well and in some cases it
works
> > very poorly indeed.
>
> Many folks probably do have that understanding, but a more common one
that
> I've seen is that enforcing boundaries is an absolute requirement in
> raising kids.  In fact, its a common understanding in the mental health
> profession that good boundaries are absolutely essential in developing
> relationships with other peopple.
>
> We've set very firm but broad boundaries for our kids.  When they stepped
> out of line, logical consequeces followed.  This seemed to have worked
very
> well.  Chores could slip, rooms could be messy.  They could convince us
to
> change our minds.  But, some things were just done.
>
> An example of this was the fact that we had no rules for our eldest
> concerning study habits.  When she procrastinated and still wrote A
papers
> in two hours, then we figured she earned the right to have her own style.
> But, when our youngest underperformed, he lost his TV, computer
recreation,
> and game privleges from Sunday night until after school on Friday.  As a
> high school Jr., he still needs to be nudged now and then, but pulling a
B
> intead of an A in an Advanced Placement Course due to lack of full focus
> rates a discussion of how this fits in his goals; not a withdrawl of
> privledges.
>
> I don't understand how parents who without boundaries suceed.
   ^^^
  work


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Explanation


>
> On 15 Nov 2003, at 9:34 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: Explanation
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On 15 Nov 2003, at 3:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: Explanation
> >>>
>  I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
>  religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones
>  from
>  the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
> >>>
> >>> In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a
> >>> particle.
> >>> ;-)
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't think so. A photon can be a wave and a particle in the sense
> >> that it behaves like a wave and it behaves like a particle.
> >>
> >> Clearly these are not mutually exclusive attributes.
> >
> > Actually they are.
>
> Not from where I sit.
>
> >
> >
> >> That it is true  that a photon is like a wave does not make it false
> >> that
> > it is like a
> >> particle.
> >
> > Literally speaking, it certainly does.
>
> What does literally have to do with anything? You view things through a
> physics lens and I view things through computer science lens.

Let me understand.  You are seriously suggesting that viewing physics
through a computer science lens is as valid as viewing physics through a
physics lens?  By definition, a particle is pointline.  When it exhibits
behavior that is not pointlike, it must be treated in another manner (e.g.
rigid body).  By definition, a wave is spread over a volumn.  These are
mutually contradicting.

Dan M.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder...


> Many of us that have
> raised children or trained animals have come to the realization that
> negative reinforcement doesn't work very well and in some cases it works
> very poorly indeed.

Many folks probably do have that understanding, but a more common one that
I've seen is that enforcing boundaries is an absolute requirement in
raising kids.  In fact, its a common understanding in the mental health
profession that good boundaries are absolutely essential in developing
relationships with other peopple.

We've set very firm but broad boundaries for our kids.  When they stepped
out of line, logical consequeces followed.  This seemed to have worked very
well.  Chores could slip, rooms could be messy.  They could convince us to
change our minds.  But, some things were just done.

An example of this was the fact that we had no rules for our eldest
concerning study habits.  When she procrastinated and still wrote A papers
in two hours, then we figured she earned the right to have her own style.
But, when our youngest underperformed, he lost his TV, computer recreation,
and game privleges from Sunday night until after school on Friday.  As a
high school Jr., he still needs to be nudged now and then, but pulling a B
intead of an A in an Advanced Placement Course due to lack of full focus
rates a discussion of how this fits in his goals; not a withdrawl of
privledges.

I don't understand how parents who without boundaries suceed.  I've seen
plenty fail.  I've also seen parents fail who are very strict and
controlling.  Finding the balance looks to be essential to me.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: List of Veterans on the List (was Re: Veterans (was Veterans Bushwhacked))

[Kevin Tarr]

Bad luck! 8^(.  Do you know what boat your Uncle was on?

I count the military as an excellent experience though I was ready to get 
back to the "real world" when my time was up.
--
Doug
My mother might know the sub names. He retired from the navy before I was 
born, with 20 or 25 years. He passed away 15 years ago from cancer.

There was a group of them from my little town that all served together down 
at newport news VA. The one still living was an airplane mechanic. He only 
went into a sub once at the dock and hated it; but one time he took my 
uncle for a plane ride down to Florida and back, and my uncle swore he'd 
never fly again and he never did.

Another weird thing, my uncle was at least 6'2", if not taller. I'm sure 
that was big for those subs during WWII and even later.

Heck, I only knew my father served in the coast guard during the war. When 
I took my mother to see Saving Private Ryan she said dad drove a landing 
ship during D-day. I have his personal stuff now and found a frameable 
notation when he crossed the equator. Mom said she never saw it before and 
knew nothing about it.

The services were the only way for me to go to college, I thought. My 
mother had re-married when I was 15 and my step father's income completely 
threw off my chances for low income loans and grants and stuff. I was in a 
college-bound program so I was able to get a late admission, but my first 
year was horrible, I practically flunked out. I just was not ready to be in 
college. I switched to a community college and got a AS, and now have a BS, 
but still know I messed myself up back then.

Kevin T. - VRWC
Just realized: that was half my life ago.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: List of Veterans on the List (was Re: Veterans (was Veterans Bushwhacked))

[Damon Agretto]

So its details youse wants? ;)

12K (tank Loader/Driver/Gunner), USANG, 28th ID(Mech).

Damon.

=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: [Listref] Cocoa antioxidants

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 07:49 PM 11/14/03 -0800, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> > Debbi
> > who found that, when camping, instant hot cocoa is
> > pretty good with a dollop of peppermint
> >schnapps... :}
> Don't tempt me.  :)
>
>   Julia
> off alcohol for awhile
Well, you can always take some fresh mint leaves and
pulp them in a mortar (of the "and pestle" kind,


Shopping list:

Mint leaves, fresh.
New mortar and pestle that hasn't been used for years of chemistry experiments.


 *not*
ordnance!


... or brick cement, or an academic hat ...



), and add _that_ to your cocoa.  With a dash
of cream, it'd be sort of a 'liquid York Peppermint
Patty.'  :)


But what would Charlie Brown say?



The Ski Lodges Are Opening Up Maru


Funny, the people down here are putting their ski boats away . . .



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

won't get polled again

[Kevin Tarr]

Thursday night got two phone calls, opinion polls. The first was general 
about TV viewing, how many night a week did I watch TV between 8-10, what 
channels did I mostly like, what types of shows.

The second was a long one about politics. I cannot say what organization it 
was from. Some of the questions may have been leading, but I'm looking at 
it through a strict filter. Asked about my "feelings" of political 
organizations, from the top two down through NRA and ACLU. They asked about 
four of the nine dwarfs, Dean, Clark, Gephart, and Edwards. They asked if I 
would vote for a hypothetical democratic candidate, Mr. Bill Ford, if he 
made certain statements, then if I'd vote for Dean after the caller stated 
some of his statements. Also he read paragraphs and asked what point meant 
the most to me. (taxes)

That's four TV polls I've done now, and one radio; and my second political 
poll.

The only thing I have to add is these people need to speak up. The 
political pollster had a sub-continent accent. I could understand him fine, 
but had to ask him to repeat his questions a few times because he spoke 
quietly. I have a great phone voice, I wonder if they are hiring.

Kevin T. - VRWC
I'm important! 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: List of Veterans on the List (was Re: Veterans (was Veterans Bushwhacked))

[Doug Pensinger]

Kevin Tarr wrote:

I'm jealous. I signed up for the early enlistment program at the 
earliest possible moment, 18 months before my ship out date. I got 
credit for three other classmates enlisting. I think the first meant I'd 
have extra service time credits and have been a higher pay-grade after 
boot camp and a straight money bonus for the other part.

I was planning for the Navy's nuclear technician school, and I wanted to 
be on a sub like my Uncle. There was another program that would either 
un-enlist you and you'd go to school through the ROTC, or you could 
still be full time Navy but go to college at the same time; I figured 
I'd apply for it once my first six year commitment was done for.

If everything had worked out I'd be three years away from 20 right now, 
maybe with a college degree, maybe not.

Five months before I graduated, seven months before I was to leave, I 
had an intestinal problem from a childhood accident which required 
surgery. A week after I graduated the Navy informed me, through my HS 
guidance councilor, that they didn't want me.

It's tough to look back now at what could have been. I'm happy with my 
life as it turned out so far, but I'll always wonder about the alternate 
universe where Things Were Different.
Bad luck! 8^(.  Do you know what boat your Uncle was on?

I count the military as an excellent experience though I was ready to get 
back to the "real world" when my time was up.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Doug Pensinger]

Gautam Mukunda wrote:


Here's a question for you, if you think the
Declaration should guide our actions.  You supported
Judge Roy Moore, right?  "Endowed _by their Creator_
with certain inalienable rights..."  Not so good for
separation of church and state, is it?
Sufficiently ambiguous.  Evolution is my creator.



If we let these people go, they will go back to
killing Americans.  If we try them in a fully-fledged
public trial, we will destroy our ability to protect
ourselves from their compatriots and distort our own
justice system.  If you choose the second, _then be
aware that you are choosing the second_.  I would
respect that.  I wouldn't agree, but I would respect
it.  When you make a choice, you choose all the
consequences of that choice (Lois Bujold, I believe).
So the consequence in this case will be simple.  Some,
perhaps many, innocents will die.  That is a virtual
certainty.  _Are you willing to accept that?_  Maybe
you are.  That's an absolutist position that has no
grounding in law or precedent - and I would say an
honest person would admit that as well.  But it's an
understandable one.


I'm not even sure that a fully fledged public trial will destroy our 
capability to protect ourselves.  I've heard this claim over and over 
again.  If Iraq is any indication, our intelligence sucks anyway at least 
when it comes to the middle east.  Can you substantiate the idea that 
trials would "destroy" our ability to protect ourselves.

Another point worth considering is that injustice causes more people to 
seek justice.  We may be keeping a few hundred people from attacking us by 
imprisoning them, but how many - their friends, relatives countrymen - are 
inspired by their captivity, and how many would be ideologically 
discouraged if we released those we can not easily prove are guilty?  I 
think that it's highly likely that we have created a greater threat by 
holding these people than we would have if we let them go.

This isn't going away.  Children close their eyes on
the world.  Adults have to live with their eyes open.
Adults have to realize that the world isn't black and white.  One might 
justify corporal punishment by saying it discourages misbehavior, but of 
course the answer is far more complicated than that.  Many of us that have 
raised children or trained animals have come to the realization that 
negative reinforcement doesn't work very well and in some cases it works 
very poorly indeed.  What doesn't work well with individuals in all 
probability, works even less well with larger groups.  I believe that our 
actions in Guantanamo and in Iraq are breeding much greater problems than 
those they are designed to solve.  We are breeding hate in every corner of 
the globe and it _will_ come back to haunt us.

So make your choice.  Choose to let them go, and
choose all the deaths springing from it.  Choose to
try them, and choose the deaths and defeats coming
from that.  Choose to hold them until a better
solution presents itself (and note that we have
already released some of the people there).  Or heck,
suggest a different choice - I'd love to hear it.  But
for God's sake admit what the choices are.
My choice would have been to treat them humanely and as prisoners of war 
except for those who could be tried for atrocities or other war crimes.  
You say the consequences would be dire, I say the consequences of 
suspending our principals has a much higher price.

--
Doug
ROU Let Freedom Ring
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Six Sigma

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 11:00 PM 11/15/03 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


>At 08:59 PM 11/14/03 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>In a message dated 11/13/2003 11:55:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > At 10:54 PM 11/13/03 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > >Can someone help me with a book or list of books to help me get a basic
>> > >understanding of Six Sigma principles/implementation.
>> >
>> >
>> > Agh - I am surrounded by sick sigmas. My hospital has a major deal with
>> GE to buy almost everything that uses electricity from them. Part of the
>> deal is that they teach us management skills so I am Six Sigmad CAP
>> (Change acceleration projected_ and Worked Out.
>
>
>Ronn wrote-
>FWIW, the quote about 3.4 errors/million came from the GE intro page which
>popped up in a Google search.
>
>Admittedly, I was wondering why you were looking for the info, given what I
>know of your profession.  I wondered if perhaps someone had come up with a
>six-sigma program for the medical profession, e,g., a goal that there would
>be no more than 3.4 negative outcomes per million hospital admissions, or
>something . . .
I am going to be doing some work for a company that uses Six Sigma,
and need to have a basic understanding of the principles/process.
Lately, I am not always in a place to be on the computer and have
several hours where a book fills the time nicely.


So much for my suggestion.



From what I have
read so far the Six Sigma approach can be applied to manufacturing,
admin or service sectors.


If you recall your basic statistics class, it is based on the idea that all 
errors less than six standard deviations ("six sigma") from the mean can be 
eliminated.



Healthcare is considered service sector
and reality is that it is a business.  Quality is harder to measure
in hospitals, etc- for instance it is difficult to determine productivity
all the time with people who are not predictable, or varying
perceptions of quality or patient care widgets are quite a bit
more predictable.  I don't usually work in conventional hospital
settings, and spend more time than the average PT "in" industry.
I had a chance to spend time doing some teaching this spring
at a hospital in Maryville, MO, where they did something neat.
They are the first health care group to receive the Baldrige Quality
Award (not that I knew what that was until they told me- it is
usually given to manufacturing, etc).  This is a small hospital,
but they were incredible- housekeepers making sure patients
were comfortable, ER with less than 15-30 min wait, and they
were starting "on demand meals" (think room service).
The staff didn't grumble or think this was out of the ordinary-
talk about a quality culture.  Maybe 3.4 is not such an
off the wall thing (grin).


My smart-aleck response was of course referring to "negative outcome" as it 
is used as a euphemism in the medical profession:  i.e., only 3.4 patients 
out of a million die or are not cured . . .



As Of This Month I've Been Waiting 22 Years For A "Cure" Or At Least An 
Effective Treatment Maru



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: List of Veterans on the List (was Re: Veterans (was Veterans Bushwhacked))

[Kevin Tarr]

At 10:07 PM 11/15/2003 -0600, you wrote:
At 04:41 PM 11/15/03 -0500, Bryon Daly wrote:
From: Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 04:36 PM 11/15/03 +0900, G. D. Akin wrote:
How many veterans on the list?

I'll start the count at 1.


2.
3
Not me.  (Though my wife, father, step-father, 2 brothers-in-law, and 
many of our friends and family are).  I'm just chiming in to suggest 
maybe adding what branch of the service you were in, as well.


How's this?  (Feel free to add names or details as appropriate):

1.  G. D. Akin

2.  Ronn! Blankenship

USAF, O1 - O2, 1976-1979, Systems Engineer (= "responsible for 
miscellaneous stuff no one could put a name to"), 6514th Test Squadron 
(later 6545th Test Group), which was responsible for the testing of 
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), including all three versions of cruise 
missiles (air-launched AGM-86/ALCM, sea-launched "Tomahawk", and 
ground-launched GLCM) as well as some early versions of some of the stuff 
used in Iraq in 1991 and recently.  Got out a bit early to go back to 
school and work on my doctorate after I determined that being in the USAF 
wasn't going to guarantee me a slot in the astronaut program, either . . .

3.  Doug Pensinger

Sub sailor, USS Narwhal, SSN 671, Nuke fast attack, based in New London 
and in the yards in Charlston. E6 Sonar Tech, 1974 to 1980.

4.  Damon Agretto

-- Ronn!


I'm jealous. I signed up for the early enlistment program at the earliest 
possible moment, 18 months before my ship out date. I got credit for three 
other classmates enlisting. I think the first meant I'd have extra service 
time credits and have been a higher pay-grade after boot camp and a 
straight money bonus for the other part.

I was planning for the Navy's nuclear technician school, and I wanted to be 
on a sub like my Uncle. There was another program that would either 
un-enlist you and you'd go to school through the ROTC, or you could still 
be full time Navy but go to college at the same time; I figured I'd apply 
for it once my first six year commitment was done for.

If everything had worked out I'd be three years away from 20 right now, 
maybe with a college degree, maybe not.

Five months before I graduated, seven months before I was to leave, I had 
an intestinal problem from a childhood accident which required surgery. A 
week after I graduated the Navy informed me, through my HS guidance 
councilor, that they didn't want me.

It's tough to look back now at what could have been. I'm happy with my life 
as it turned out so far, but I'll always wonder about the alternate 
universe where Things Were Different.

Kevin T. - VRWC
The rising road
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 06:47 PM 11/15/03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder...
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The
> Bush administration is doing a pretty good job
> > of this on their own.
> >
> >
> > xponent
> > In The News Maru
> > rob
>
> A claim for which you have _no_, as in zero, evidence.
>  A lot of people have _claimed_ that the
> Administration leaked that name - all of them
> liberals, oddly enough - but no one has provided even
> a jot of evidence on that topic.
I'm missing something.  Didn't Robert Novak claim that he got his info from
a high administration official?


High on what?

;-)

-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Ruby Ridge..

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:13 PM 11/15/03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Ruby Ridge..
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you saying that the report of the official
> > investigation was false, or
> > are you just interpreting it in a far different
> > manner than I do?
> >
> > http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby1.htm
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the orders were consistent
> > with SOP for Houston drug
> > enforcement.
> >
> > Dan M.
>
> Just from reading the introduction "the FBI's Hostage
> Rescue Team . . . instituted a shoot on sight policy .
> . .."  That's what I was referring to.
Rogers explained his initial thoughts about the Rules of Engagement:

In this particular situation, after hearing the description of what had
taken place, specifically the fire-fight, the loss of a marshal, it was
clear to me that there was a shooting situation taking place at this
location.


And had the marshal not fired first and killed the dog, who was hardly 
likely to have been pointing a firearm at him, he would not have gotten 
shot.  Nor would he have shot a teenage boy in the back.



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:24 PM 11/15/03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder...
> So, Erik, be a reasonable person.  How would you deal
> with the problem?  I have a solution - military
> tribunals.  Those are better than the people in
> Guantanamo have a right to.
Maybe not in all cases.  One of the problems the government appears to be
having in going to trials is that there isn't enough evidence on a lot of
the people.  So, its quite possible that there are still some people
detained who really deserve a fair trial and to be allowed to go home after
being found not guilty.
They are better than
> North Korean prisoners got in the 1950s (note, btw,
> that Congress did not declare war then - just so you
> know).  They are actually very fair, with extensive
> safeguards for the accused.  They are supported by
> legal scholars like Stuart Taylor, and, I believe,
> Akhil Ammar (not sure about that thought).  They are,
> interestingly enough, what the Administration has
> proposed.
Yes and no.  I've seen Rumsfeld state that no trials are neededthey can
be held indefinately without trial until the war on terror ends. The
problems with this, compared to a war like WWII, are obvious I think.  The
war on terror will not end until there are virtually no more terrorists.
So, the Rumsfeld is claiming the right to hold people without trial
indefinitely.


And if the people being held are indeed terrorists . . .

Sillygism 101 Maru

-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 04:43 PM 11/15/03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes and no.  I've seen Rumsfeld state that no trials
> are neededthey can
> be held indefinately without trial until the war on
> terror ends. The
> problems with this, compared to a war like WWII, are
> obvious I think.  The
> war on terror will not end until there are virtually
> no more terrorists.
> So, the Rumsfeld is claiming the right to hold
> people without trial
> indefinitely.
>
> Dan M.
And this is a real issue.  There are a lot of people
in that camp who have dedicated their lives to killing
Americans en masse.  I think there's a real
possibility that they are going to be held for a very,
very long time.  I don't see another solution to the
problem.  _But_ there is no right of habeas corpus for
battlefield captures.  Period.  None at all.  If these
guys were Americans, they would have Constitutional
protections.  They don't.  People like Erik can wave
their hands and make demands - but they aren't doing
the dying or the deciding.  Their hysteria is
fundamentally a product of immaturity - they are like
five years olds who want a diamond ring.  Adults have
to make choices and understand the consequences on
both sides of actions.  I _don't know_ for sure what
to do here.  I don't like keeping people indefinitely.
 I _really_ don't want to release Al Qaeda agents into
the world.  Military tribunals seem to me the best
compromise.  But either way they are prisoners
captured on a battlefield fighting without state
sponsorship - this makes them illegal combatants and
they _don't have_ even the rights of POWs, and nothing
even approaching the rights of American citizens.


Thus, one solution might be for some state (= country, not US state) to 
claim responsibility for them and their actions.  Does anyone think there 
will be any takers?  Particularly since that would mean that state was 
acknowledging that it had ordered its citizens to attack targets in the US, 
which would mean that that state would be at war with the US, and do you 
think any Middle Eastern state could stand up against the US in a regular 
(.ne. terrorist, .ne. guerrilla) war?



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:40 PM 11/15/03 +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
>
>> Alberto Monteiro - who would like to have all horoscopes
>> in the newspapers have their authors subject to being sued
>> when their predictions didn't come true >:-)
>
> But the ones I see are vague enough that there's be plenty of room for the
> defense to be reasonably successful.  :)
>
You *read* horoscopes??? Is there any listowner available so
that I can request that you are banned from the list???


I read 'em, too, on occasion.  They're on the comics page, after all, and I 
could always use another good laugh . . .



Why Was The "Special Personal Toll-Free Number Only For You" That Miss Cleo 
E-Mailed Me The Same Number My Friend Got? Maru



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:34 PM 11/15/03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation
>
> On 15 Nov 2003, at 3:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: Explanation
> >
> >> I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
> >> religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones
> >> from
> >> the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
> >
> > In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a
> > particle.
> > ;-)
> >
>
> I don't think so. A photon can be a wave and a particle in the sense
> that it behaves like a wave and it behaves like a particle.
>
> Clearly these are not mutually exclusive attributes.
Actually they are.

>That it is true  that a photon is like a wave does not make it false that
it is like a
> particle.
Literally speaking, it certainly does.

> On the other hand, with respect to the claims of religion, for certain
> claims to be true other claims of other religions do have to be false.
>
> So, I don't see the similarity :)
I appreciate that.  Let me start a description of the similarities with a
question:  how can a particle go through two different slits?


Umm . . . umm . . .



;-)

How Many Angels Can Sit On The Point Of A Pin? Maru



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Russell Chapman]

From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones
from
the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
Why does it have to be a false religion. I've always thought a cult was 
where the members no longer operated within the accepted norms of the 
community within which they live - whether it is a religious thing, a 
cyberpunk thing, a doomsday thing or even a political extremist thing...

Obviously the definition is a bit open...

Cheers
Russell C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

List of Veterans on the List (was Re: Veterans (was Veterans Bushwhacked))

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 04:41 PM 11/15/03 -0500, Bryon Daly wrote:
From: Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 04:36 PM 11/15/03 +0900, G. D. Akin wrote:
How many veterans on the list?

I'll start the count at 1.


2.
3
Not me.  (Though my wife, father, step-father, 2 brothers-in-law, and many 
of our friends and family are).  I'm just chiming in to suggest maybe 
adding what branch of the service you were in, as well.


How's this?  (Feel free to add names or details as appropriate):

1.  G. D. Akin

2.  Ronn! Blankenship

USAF, O1 - O2, 1976-1979, Systems Engineer (= "responsible for 
miscellaneous stuff no one could put a name to"), 6514th Test Squadron 
(later 6545th Test Group), which was responsible for the testing of 
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), including all three versions of cruise 
missiles (air-launched AGM-86/ALCM, sea-launched "Tomahawk", and 
ground-launched GLCM) as well as some early versions of some of the stuff 
used in Iraq in 1991 and recently.  Got out a bit early to go back to 
school and work on my doctorate after I determined that being in the USAF 
wasn't going to guarantee me a slot in the astronaut program, either . . .

3.  Doug Pensinger

Sub sailor, USS Narwhal, SSN 671, Nuke fast attack, based in New London and 
in the yards in Charlston. E6 Sonar Tech, 1974 to 1980.

4.  Damon Agretto



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Six Sigma

[Kanandarqu]

>At 08:59 PM 11/14/03 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>In a message dated 11/13/2003 11:55:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > At 10:54 PM 11/13/03 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > >Can someone help me with a book or list of books to help me get a basic
>> > >understanding of Six Sigma principles/implementation.
>> >
>> >
>> > Agh - I am surrounded by sick sigmas. My hospital has a major deal with 
>> GE to buy almost everything that uses electricity from them. Part of the 
>> deal is that they teach us management skills so I am Six Sigmad CAP 
>> (Change acceleration projected_ and Worked Out.
>
>
>Ronn wrote-
>FWIW, the quote about 3.4 errors/million came from the GE intro page which 
>popped up in a Google search.
>
>Admittedly, I was wondering why you were looking for the info, given what I 
>know of your profession.  I wondered if perhaps someone had come up with a 
>six-sigma program for the medical profession, e,g., a goal that there would 
>be no more than 3.4 negative outcomes per million hospital admissions, or 
>something . . .

I am going to be doing some work for a company that uses Six Sigma,
and need to have a basic understanding of the principles/process.  
Lately, I am not always in a place to be on the computer and have 
several hours where a book fills the time nicely.  From what I have
read so far the Six Sigma approach can be applied to manufacturing,
admin or service sectors.  Healthcare is considered service sector
and reality is that it is a business.  Quality is harder to measure
in hospitals, etc- for instance it is difficult to determine productivity
all the time with people who are not predictable, or varying
perceptions of quality or patient care widgets are quite a bit 
more predictable.  I don't usually work in conventional hospital 
settings, and spend more time than the average PT "in" industry.

I had a chance to spend time doing some teaching this spring
at a hospital in Maryville, MO, where they did something neat.
They are the first health care group to receive the Baldrige Quality 
Award (not that I knew what that was until they told me- it is 
usually given to manufacturing, etc).  This is a small hospital,
but they were incredible- housekeepers making sure patients
were comfortable, ER with less than 15-30 min wait, and they
were starting "on demand meals" (think room service).  
The staff didn't grumble or think this was out of the ordinary-
talk about a quality culture.  Maybe 3.4 is not such an
off the wall thing (grin).  

Dee
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Christian dreams of murder...

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:16 AM 11/15/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:


On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:03:07AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> > Oh, good.
> >
> > blow job = good
> >
> > blow up nose = bad
> >
> > Thank you for clearing that up for me.
>
> You're welcome. You may now return to your regularly scheduled blow job.
How many people have them regularly scheduled, anyway?


Don't people who visit the president in the Oval Office generally have 
appointments?



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:18 AM 11/15/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:


On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, John D. Giorgis wrote:

> Then again, maybe none of us are perfect.

Maybe?

I believe that nobody on this list is perfect.

I believe that a lot of people on this list are trying, anyway.  And some
are trying in the other sense of the word.  :)  And maybe some people are
trying in both senses, just not at the same time.


Hey!  I resemble that remark!



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where in the above does it say that you have to
> reside within certian 
> borders to deserve these rights?
> 
> Doug

Nowhere.  Which is why the Declaration is a wonderful
sentiment without force of law.  Everyone on earth
_should have_ those rights.  There are lots of people
who want to take them away.  Because of that we are
forced to make choices.  Pretending otherwise is
absurd, and arrogant fools can make all the claims of
bigotry they want (transferrence, perhaps?) but it
doesn't make it any less true.

Here's a question for you, if you think the
Declaration should guide our actions.  You supported
Judge Roy Moore, right?  "Endowed _by their Creator_
with certain inalienable rights..."  Not so good for
separation of church and state, is it?

_In fact_, the push to extend rights they do not have
to these people is a far greater threat to American
civil rights than anything done by the Administration.
 Make no mistake, these people will be contained.  No
responsible government would allow anything else.  If
we put them into the civilian justice system, then the
judges and lawyers involved will bend every law, every
procedure, to make sure they stay in jail.  Those will
become precedents that will redound throughout the
American justice system.

People have natural rights.  Those are rights in the
state of nature, unenforced and unenforceable.  They
have civil rights, rights that they get in exchange
for giving up their natural rights which are
guaranteed by the governments that the people created.
 Those civil rights are set out in constitutions, like
ours.  These constitutions have legitimacy when they
are created with the consent of the governed.  This is
why British subjects, for example, have far fewer
rights than American citizens (note the crucial
difference in wording), yet the British government is
no less legitimate than the American one (I suppose
Erik will want us to invade Britain next).

_In fact_ we have a problem.  We have a group of
people who are immensely motivated to kill Americans
and who have attempted to do so in the past.  Our
system of justice was not created with people like
that in mind.  _If it were, our rights would be much
smaller_.  As even a basic study of constitutional law
tells you, American civil rights have fluctuated over
time in response to threat.  Civil rights during the
Civil War were significantly curtailed (far more so
than in any period before or since) by the man now
hailed as the greatest of all Americans - and rightly
so.  During the Second World War the American press
was generally censored to prevent it from reporting
critical data to the enemy - and rightly so again. 
And this during a time when the press was not
adversarial to American interests.  Treating
terrorists captured on the field of battle in
Afghanistan like bank robbers in the US is the fastest
way I can think of to erode civil protections in the
_American_ judicial system.  

The reason that we treat them differently is that they
are, in fact, different.  Might some of them be
unjustly imprisoned?  Yes, they might well be.  Some
of them almost certainly are.  We undoubtedly killed
some innocent people in Afghanistan.  That didn't mean
the war was not worth fighting.  That was an injustice
greater than holding people in Guantanamo Bay for a
while.  But it didn't stop us from doing the necessary
thing.

If we let these people go, they will go back to
killing Americans.  If we try them in a fully-fledged
public trial, we will destroy our ability to protect
ourselves from their compatriots and distort our own
justice system.  If you choose the second, _then be
aware that you are choosing the second_.  I would
respect that.  I wouldn't agree, but I would respect
it.  When you make a choice, you choose all the
consequences of that choice (Lois Bujold, I believe). 
So the consequence in this case will be simple.  Some,
perhaps many, innocents will die.  That is a virtual
certainty.  _Are you willing to accept that?_  Maybe
you are.  That's an absolutist position that has no
grounding in law or precedent - and I would say an
honest person would admit that as well.  But it's an
understandable one.  

This isn't going away.  Children close their eyes on
the world.  Adults have to live with their eyes open.

So make your choice.  Choose to let them go, and
choose all the deaths springing from it.  Choose to
try them, and choose the deaths and defeats coming
from that.  Choose to hold them until a better
solution presents itself (and note that we have
already released some of the people there).  Or heck,
suggest a different choice - I'd love to hear it.  But
for God's sake admit what the choices are.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
__

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Doug Pensinger]

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people 
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, 
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal 
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a 
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should 
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, 
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to 
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their 
just powers from the consent of the governed,-- "

This is our credo, it is who we are.  Our rights trump any notion of 
safety and they certianly trump the protection of confidential sources.  
Because somebody somewhere says we don't _have_ to extend these rights to 
all human beings doesn't mean we shouldn't.  Anyone who has a good sense 
of history and understands why we are who we are and how we got to be here 
should understand that.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, 
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Where in the above does it say that you have to reside within certian 
borders to deserve these rights?

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Veterans (was Veterans Bushwhacked)

[Doug Pensinger]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:41:04 -0500, Bryon Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

From: Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 04:36 PM 11/15/03 +0900, G. D. Akin wrote:
How many veterans on the list?

I'll start the count at 1.


2.

3
Not me.  (Though my wife, father, step-father, 2 brothers-in-law, and 
many of our friends and family are).  I'm just chiming in to suggest 
maybe adding what branch of the service you were in, as well.
Sub sailor, USS Narwhal, SSN 671, Nuke fast attack, based in New London 
and in the yards in Charlston. E6 Sonar Tech, 1974 to 1980.

--
Doug
GSV We go up and we go down...
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> > Indeed, I am sure that the intelligence services
> of the rest of the world
> > were *shocked*,  shocked I tell you, to learn that
> the wife of an
> > ambassador was a spy.
> 
> That was sarcasm, right?
> 
> Just checking.
> 
> (4 hours sleep last night, and no nap today.)
> 
>   Julia

Actually, to be fair, I don't think Ambassador's wives
are actually intelligence agents all that often.  The
CIA generally tries to avoid sending families overseas
after some unfortunate experiences with the Russians,
I believe.  I think that Joe Wilson, although
possessing Ambassadorial rank, wasn't a real
ambassador, though - sort of like Alan Keyes.  Not
sure about that, to be fair.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, John D. Giorgis wrote:

> At 04:33 PM 11/15/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> > I would also point out that half of Washington has known
> >Valerie Plame was a CIA agent for years, so it's not
> >as if it's a major security breach either.  None of
> >this, of course, came out in the press.
> 
> Indeed, I am sure that the intelligence services of the rest of the world
> were *shocked*,  shocked I tell you, to learn that the wife of an
> ambassador was a spy.

That was sarcasm, right?

Just checking.

(4 hours sleep last night, and no nap today.)

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> Julia Thompson wrote:
> >
> >> Alberto Monteiro - who would like to have all horoscopes
> >> in the newspapers have their authors subject to being sued
> >> when their predictions didn't come true >:-)
> >
> > But the ones I see are vague enough that there's be plenty of room for the
> > defense to be reasonably successful.  :)
> >
> You *read* horoscopes??? Is there any listowner available so
> that I can request that you are banned from the list???

They're on the same page as other stuff I read.  Sometimes I accidentally
read the first sentence of one.  And I used to read them when I was 10 and
didn't really know any better.  By the time I was 12, I didn't pay any
attention to them.  Plus, you can read them for entertainment value, kinda
like Nostradamus.  :)  And sometimes a set of horoscopes can be
inconsistent, if some of them refer to other signs, and you can *really*
scoff and feel superior to the idiot who wrote it.

As for banning from the list, I think that people who claim that the Dean 
Drive really works are higher on the list than people who read horoscopes 
to laugh at them.  :)

Oh, wait, I'm a listowner.  Not sure I can ban myself.  Nick?

Julia

who doesn't ever again want to have a RL conversation with someone
claiming that the Dean Drive really works
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Week 11 Picks

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, John D. Giorgis wrote:

> NY Jets at Indianapolis - This is the injury bowl.  The Jets are banged
> up on defense, and without Wayne Chrebet.  The Colts have many holes on
> their offensive line, and are without Marvin Harrison and Marcus
> Pollard.  Ouch.
>   Still, Peyton Manning could probably make me look good at WR.  Pick: COLTS

Hey, if I could drop the remote when it landed right in my hand, not just 
*anyone* could look good at WR, Peyton Manning or not.  :)

(I told my father-in-law that it wasn't the QB's fault that it was an 
incomplete pass, that it was entirely the receiver's fault.)

Then again, most WRs aren't holding a baby when the pass is thrown

Julia

he was aiming for well away from the baby, and I'd've blocked it if it had 
gotten too close

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Doug Pensinger]

John D. Giorgis  wrote:

Secondly, I have begun a post once "Look, punk"   IIRC, I meant that
phrase to be a bit more humorous, in an albeit dark way,  than it ended 
up sounding
I'm not going to tell you what you were thinking when you posted, but as I 
recall you later described the depth of your anger when you had posted.

 but nevertheless, I should not have I done it, and I apologize for 
that.
Apology accepted.  For my part, I apologize for my part in said imbroglio.

Nevertheless, among the things I have not done is hold a grudge for 
years, and refused all attempts at an apology since then.
I have read no apologies, on list or off, until now.  And I believe I've 
read all your posts.  8^)

Then again, maybe none of us are perfect.
No, no one is perfect, nor are they expected to be.  As I said in my 
explanation, I have avoided directly responding to you for the benefit of 
the list and for my own mental health, not because I held a grudge.  In 
fact, I will continue this moratorium for any and all political 
discussions.

Look at it this way.  You always get the last word. 8^)

Peace
...and harmony.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 04:43:34PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:

> Their hysteria is fundamentally a product of immaturity - they are
> like five years olds who want a diamond ring.  Adults have to make
> choices and understand the consequences on both sides of actions.  I
> _don't know_ for sure what to do here.  I don't like keeping people
> indefinitely.  I _really_ don't want to release Al Qaeda agents into
> the world.  Military tribunals seem to me the best compromise.  But
> either way they are prisoners captured on a battlefield fighting
> without state sponsorship - this makes them illegal combatants
> and they _don't have_ even the rights of POWs, and nothing even
> approaching the rights of American citizens.

What a cowardly and thoughtless attitude. Did you even consider that
the US invaded another country, where obviously people were LIVING, and
quite likely took among the legitimate prisoners people who believed
they were just defending themselves, their families, and their homes? Or
maybe people who were hiding or fleeing?

I wonder how you would react if an army invaded the US and attacked
your home town and took you prisoner. Do you think you should be held
indefinitely without a fair trial? Tried by the army's military?

> What the hell do we do with these guys?  We can't demobilize them.

Keep telling yourself that. We can't give them a fair trial because
their lives aren't as important as American lives, we can't release
them because they are guilty until proven innocent, so OF COURSE we are
justified in denying them basic rights.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[John D. Giorgis]

At 04:33 PM 11/15/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> I would also point out that half of Washington has known
>Valerie Plame was a CIA agent for years, so it's not
>as if it's a major security breach either.  None of
>this, of course, came out in the press.

Indeed, I am sure that the intelligence services of the rest of the world
were *shocked*,  shocked I tell you, to learn that the wife of an
ambassador was a spy.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 15 Nov 2003, at 9:34 pm, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation

On 15 Nov 2003, at 3:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation
I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones
from
the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a
particle.
;-)
I don't think so. A photon can be a wave and a particle in the sense
that it behaves like a wave and it behaves like a particle.
Clearly these are not mutually exclusive attributes.
Actually they are.
Not from where I sit.



That it is true  that a photon is like a wave does not make it false 
that
it is like a
particle.
Literally speaking, it certainly does.
What does literally have to do with anything? You view things through a 
physics lens and I view things through computer science lens. To me it 
seems a 'photon' inherits from two abstract classes 'wave' and 
'particle' and exhibits polymorphism so that it can be one or the other 
in different contexts. Utterly unusual. [1]

On the other hand, with respect to the claims of religion, for certain
claims to be true other claims of other religions do have to be false.
So, I don't see the similarity :)
I appreciate that.  Let me start a description of the similarities 
with a
question:  how can a particle go through two different slits?
Because its 'wave' methods get called when it does that?

[1] Actually I don't like multiple inheritance, so lets say a photon 
instantiates two different protocols 'wave' and 'particle'  :) Or 
interfaces to use yet another variant of the terminology.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so 
few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping 
looks so silly." - Randy Cohen.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Alberto Monteiro]

Julia Thompson wrote:
>
>> Alberto Monteiro - who would like to have all horoscopes
>> in the newspapers have their authors subject to being sued
>> when their predictions didn't come true >:-)
>
> But the ones I see are vague enough that there's be plenty of room for the
> defense to be reasonably successful.  :)
>
You *read* horoscopes??? Is there any listowner available so
that I can request that you are banned from the list???

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Alberto Monteiro]

Steve Sloan II wrote:
>
> > I heard that Hubberd made up Scientology as a scam to make
> > lots of money, and didn't really believe at all. Does anyone
> > know how accurate/inaccurate this is?
>
> I remember reading somewhere that Hubbard made a bet with another
> SF writer about it. He bet that he could create a false religion
> to make money, "like psychology", not long before Scientology
> started. I wish I knew where I read it, though.
>
It doesn't make sense: if he believed that the new scam would
make him rich, there was no need to bet - unless he did
sometime make public that the whole thing was a scam.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm missing something.  Didn't Robert Novak claim
> that he got his info from
> a high administration official?
> 
> Dan M.

It has become rather vague since then.  We _don't
know_ if it was a political appointee, a career civil
servant (someone in the SES could also be referred to
as a high administration official, for example), or
someone else entirely.  All we know for sure is that
the CIA doesn't seem to have made any effort to
preserve her identity - because Novak himself has said
that if the CIA had asked him to keep her name
confidential (and he _called them to ask_) he would
have done so.  And they didn't.  The only reason, so
far as I can tell, that this became an issue at all is
that Joe Wilson is a pathetic publicity hound.  Which
matches the pretty much universal impression of him
that I've heard, so it's not exactly a shock.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes and no.  I've seen Rumsfeld state that no trials
> are neededthey can
> be held indefinately without trial until the war on
> terror ends. The
> problems with this, compared to a war like WWII, are
> obvious I think.  The
> war on terror will not end until there are virtually
> no more terrorists.
> So, the Rumsfeld is claiming the right to hold
> people without trial
> indefinitely.
> 
> Dan M.

And this is a real issue.  There are a lot of people
in that camp who have dedicated their lives to killing
Americans en masse.  I think there's a real
possibility that they are going to be held for a very,
very long time.  I don't see another solution to the
problem.  _But_ there is no right of habeas corpus for
battlefield captures.  Period.  None at all.  If these
guys were Americans, they would have Constitutional
protections.  They don't.  People like Erik can wave
their hands and make demands - but they aren't doing
the dying or the deciding.  Their hysteria is
fundamentally a product of immaturity - they are like
five years olds who want a diamond ring.  Adults have
to make choices and understand the consequences on
both sides of actions.  I _don't know_ for sure what
to do here.  I don't like keeping people indefinitely.
 I _really_ don't want to release Al Qaeda agents into
the world.  Military tribunals seem to me the best
compromise.  But either way they are prisoners
captured on a battlefield fighting without state
sponsorship - this makes them illegal combatants and
they _don't have_ even the rights of POWs, and nothing
even approaching the rights of American citizens.  

What the hell do we do with these guys?  We can't
demobilize them.  We're probably going to end up with
something like mental health hearings - like John
Hinckley, we're going to have to decide, at some
point, if they're still a danger or not.  The minimum
morally serious position is to understand that there
are serious issues on both sides of this debate.  To
do any less than that is to demonstrate that you
aren't even worth talking to on the topic.


=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder...


> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The
> Bush administration is doing a pretty good job
> > of this on their own.
> >
> >
> > xponent
> > In The News Maru
> > rob
>
> A claim for which you have _no_, as in zero, evidence.
>  A lot of people have _claimed_ that the
> Administration leaked that name - all of them
> liberals, oddly enough - but no one has provided even
> a jot of evidence on that topic.

I'm missing something.  Didn't Robert Novak claim that he got his info from
a high administration official?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The
Bush administration is doing a pretty good job
> of this on their own.
> 
> 
> xponent
> In The News Maru
> rob

A claim for which you have _no_, as in zero, evidence.
 A lot of people have _claimed_ that the
Administration leaked that name - all of them
liberals, oddly enough - but no one has provided even
a jot of evidence on that topic.  What I have heard is
that the CIA _itself_ leaked that information.  I
would also point out that half of Washington has known
Valerie Plame was a CIA agent for years, so it's not
as if it's a major security breach either.  None of
this, of course, came out in the press.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder...

> So, Erik, be a reasonable person.  How would you deal
> with the problem?  I have a solution - military
> tribunals.  Those are better than the people in
> Guantanamo have a right to.

Maybe not in all cases.  One of the problems the government appears to be
having in going to trials is that there isn't enough evidence on a lot of
the people.  So, its quite possible that there are still some people
detained who really deserve a fair trial and to be allowed to go home after
being found not guilty.


They are better than
> North Korean prisoners got in the 1950s (note, btw,
> that Congress did not declare war then - just so you
> know).  They are actually very fair, with extensive
> safeguards for the accused.  They are supported by
> legal scholars like Stuart Taylor, and, I believe,
> Akhil Ammar (not sure about that thought).  They are,
> interestingly enough, what the Administration has
> proposed.

Yes and no.  I've seen Rumsfeld state that no trials are neededthey can
be held indefinately without trial until the war on terror ends. The
problems with this, compared to a war like WWII, are obvious I think.  The
war on terror will not end until there are virtually no more terrorists.
So, the Rumsfeld is claiming the right to hold people without trial
indefinitely.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Ruby Ridge..

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Ruby Ridge..


> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you saying that the report of the official
> > investigation was false, or
> > are you just interpreting it in a far different
> > manner than I do?
> >
> > http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby1.htm
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the orders were consistent
> > with SOP for Houston drug
> > enforcement.
> >
> > Dan M.
>
> Just from reading the introduction "the FBI's Hostage
> Rescue Team . . . instituted a shoot on sight policy .
> . .."  That's what I was referring to.

Rogers explained his initial thoughts about the Rules of Engagement:

In this particular situation, after hearing the description of what had
taken place, specifically the fire-fight, the loss of a marshal, it was
clear to me that there was a shooting situation taking place at this
location. It appeared to me that it would have been irresponsible for me to
send my agents into the situation without at least giving them a set of
rules within the greater framework of the standard FBI rules, that would
allow them to defend themselves. With that in mind, I proposed that the
rules be that if any adult is seen with a weapon in the vicinity of where
this fire-fight took place, of the Weaver cabin, that this individual could
be the subject of deadly force... [A]ny child is going to come under
standard FBI rules, meaning that if an FBI agent is threatened with death
or some other innocent is threatened with death by a child, then clearly
that agent could use a weapon to shoot the child... that's the way it's
stated, but quite frankly, we try to prevent ourselves from being put in
positions where children can threaten us and where we would have to use
deadly force. [FN532]

When asked if he had considered the possibility that an adult might be seen
with a weapon slung on his shoulder or carried in a nonoffensive way,
Rogers replied:

I went down a bit and it was specifically giving permission to  shoot armed
adults.  This was after an agent got killed in a fire fight.


Yes, it was considered, and it's always my knowledge that my sniper
observers and my other team members are clearly going to make a judgmental
call as to whether to employ deadly force, and based upon the training,
based upon the experience of these men, I know that they have absolutely
the best judgment when it comes to use of deadly force. [FN533]

Rogers acknowledged that the Rules of Engagement he proposed specified that
any adult with a weapon observed in the vicinity of the Weaver cabin or in
the firefight area "could and should be the subject of deadly force."
[FN534] According to Rogers he discussed this rule with FBI Assistant
Director Larry Potts who concurred fully. [FN535]

[G.J.] [FN536]

Potts considered the information provided by the Marshals Service to be the
basis of the proposed Rules of Engagement. He recalled the proposed Rules
of Engagement as providing that:


Potts considered the information provided by the Marshals Service to be the
basis of the proposed Rules of Engagement. He recalled the proposed Rules
of Engagement as providing that:

Any adult with a weapon who was observed in the vicinity of Randall
Weaver's cabin or the fire fight area, COULD be the subject of deadly
force. All efforts should be made to avoid any confrontation with children,
but if such a confrontation became unavoidable, that faced with the threat
of death or grievous bodily harm, the standard FBI use of deadly force
policy would be in effect. [FN537]



I would agree that, even after an agent was killed in a firefight, this is
excessive.  I think that some way to address the possibility of a weapon
being present in a non-threatening position should have been in the orders.
But, that is not the same as a shoot to kill order.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder...


> , and maybe the names and faces of CIA
> informants published?

The Bush administration is doing a pretty good job of this on their own.


xponent
In The News Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Ruby Ridge..

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you saying that the report of the official
> investigation was false, or
> are you just interpreting it in a far different
> manner than I do?
> 
> http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby1.htm
> 
> As far as I can tell, the orders were consistent
> with SOP for Houston drug
> enforcement.
> 
> Dan M.

Just from reading the introduction "the FBI's Hostage
Rescue Team . . . instituted a shoot on sight policy .
. .."  That's what I was referring to.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Ruby Ridge..

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder...

> I actually don't blame the agent involved much at all.
>  I blame the orders he was given.  I don't remember
> the exact wording, but the HRT was given unique orders
> that basically told them to shoot to kill everyone
> they saw up there.  Which they did.

Are you saying that the report of the official investigation was false, or
are you just interpreting it in a far different manner than I do?

http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby1.htm

As far as I can tell, the orders were consistent with SOP for Houston drug
enforcement.

Dan M.

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Veterans (was Veterans Bushwhacked)

[Bryon Daly]

From: Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 04:36 PM 11/15/03 +0900, G. D. Akin wrote:
How many veterans on the list?

I'll start the count at 1.


2.

3
Not me.  (Though my wife, father, step-father, 2 brothers-in-law, and many 
of our friends and family are).  I'm just chiming in to suggest maybe adding 
what branch of the service you were in, as well.

_
Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $26.95.  
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation


>
> On 15 Nov 2003, at 3:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: Explanation
> >
> >> I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
> >> religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones
> >> from
> >> the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
> >
> > In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a
> > particle.
> > ;-)
> >
>
> I don't think so. A photon can be a wave and a particle in the sense
> that it behaves like a wave and it behaves like a particle.
>
> Clearly these are not mutually exclusive attributes.

Actually they are.


>That it is true  that a photon is like a wave does not make it false that
it is like a
> particle.

Literally speaking, it certainly does.

> On the other hand, with respect to the claims of religion, for certain
> claims to be true other claims of other religions do have to be false.
>
> So, I don't see the similarity :)

I appreciate that.  Let me start a description of the similarities with a
question:  how can a particle go through two different slits?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Veterans (was Veterans Bushwhacked)

[Damon Agretto]

--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 07:39:32 -0600, Ronn!Blankenship
> 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > At 04:36 PM 11/15/03 +0900, G. D. Akin wrote:
> >> How many veterans on the list?
> >>
> >> I'll start the count at 1.
> >
> >
> > 2.
> >
> 
> 3

4.

Damon.


=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 15 Nov 2003, at 3:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation
I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones 
from
the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a 
particle.
;-)

I don't think so. A photon can be a wave and a particle in the sense 
that it behaves like a wave and it behaves like a particle.

Clearly these are not mutually exclusive attributes. That it is true 
that a photon is like a wave does not make it false that it is like a 
particle.

On the other hand, with respect to the claims of religion, for certain 
claims to be true other claims of other religions do have to be false.

So, I don't see the similarity :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Those who study history are doomed to repeat it.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:21:34AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:

> See Erik, a key difference between you and me is I tend to say things
> like "reasonable people can differ on this issue" and you don't.

Actucally, the difference is that I don't think it is reasonable to hold
an attitude that people unlike me should be denied human rights. So,
Gautam, is bigotry reasonable? Is slavery reasonable? Is justice
reasonable?

> In either case, again, I don't believe that anyone has the right to
> try to kill me.  And I believe that I _do_ have the right to try to
> protect myself from them.

The problem is you lump together everyone sufficiently unlike you into
the sub-human category and assume, without proof, that they "tried to
kill you" and therefore you can treat them as sub-human. It may be
human nature ingrained through millions of years of evolution to treat
the "other" as evil, but we really should be reasonable enough now to
realize the problems with that.

> So, Erik, be a reasonable person.  How would you deal with the
> problem?

If it is impossible to give the prisoners are speedy, fair trial because
it will endanger US personnel, then the prisoners need to be released.

> Those are better than the people in Guantanamo have a right to.

Spoken like a true bigot. I certainly hope you are never in a position
of deciding justice, seeing as how innocent until proven guilty seems to
be a meaningless concept to you.

-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 15 Nov 2003, at 5:02 pm, Steve Sloan II wrote:

Dan Minette wrote:

> I heard that Hubberd made up Scientology as a scam to make
> lots of money, and didn't really believe at all. Does anyone
> know how accurate/inaccurate this is?
I remember reading somewhere that Hubbard made a bet with another
SF writer about it. He bet that he could create a false religion
to make money, "like psychology", not long before Scientology
started. I wish I knew where I read it, though.
He came up with Dianetics first though didn't he? Which is 'like 
psychology' :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my 
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my 
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember Ruby Ridge and the controversy
> surrounding it.  There was a lot
> of debate concerning exactly what happened.  The
> range of interpretations
> that I saw was anything from a mistake under fire to
> actions that should
> have ended up with the trial and conviction of the
> agent involved.

I actually don't blame the agent involved much at all.
 I blame the orders he was given.  I don't remember
the exact wording, but the HRT was given unique orders
that basically told them to shoot to kill everyone
they saw up there.  Which they did.

> I remember the standoff with the Branch Davidians,
> and how the government
> was chastised for being too hard on terrorists who
> were planning an action
> that would kill as many people as killed on 9-11.***
>  Second guessing the
> governments actions was fine; it was the anger at
> even trying to stop these
> terrorists that was amazing. Private militias,
> talking about actively
> opposing the government with illegal arms were
> defended as true loyal
> Americans.
> Dan M.

In the Waco case, I don't have a problem with them
going after the Branch Davidians, although, as seemed
to be routine under Janet Reno, the level of
incompetence involved was quite staggering.  David
Koresh was a bad guy, and there were some horrible
things going on out there.  What they _should have
done_, however, was grab him on his daily early
morning job outside the compound.  The only
explanation I can adduce for the massive raid was to
give Reno something to grandstand about.

Note, this isn't surprising.  Reno made her reputation
in Florida (IIRC) prosecuting ridiculous ritual
Satanic child abuse cases, all of which have, of
course, now been overturned.  I'm not sure whether she
was simply credulous and believed the claims, or was
actually willing to prosecute innocent people for
political benefit.  But something very wrong happened
there.  Reno's not alone in this - Jane Swift in
Massachusetts (a Republican) refused to pardon people
committed on similar spurious charges up there, and
that was a disgrace.

At any rate, Waco seems to me very different from Ruby
Ridge, where they seem to have gone in with a hunting
license.  

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > we are neither legally nor morally obligated to do
> and
> 
> Of course we are morally obligated to extend human
> rights to humans.
> That you consistently deny this is very sad.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/

See Erik, a key difference between you and me is I
tend to say things like "reasonable people can differ
on this issue" and you don't.  Reasonable people can
differ on this issue.  I'm not sure you _are_ at this
moment in time - you're not talking like one.  But I'm
open to being convinced.  Actually being civil would
be a start.

As someone with training in political philosophy, I'm
quite skeptical of the concept of human rights.  I
believe in natural rights.  I believe in civil rights.
 Human rights?  Not sure about those.  In either case,
again, I don't believe that anyone has the right to
try to kill me.  And I believe that I _do_ have the
right to try to protect myself from them.

So, Erik, be a reasonable person.  How would you deal
with the problem?  I have a solution - military
tribunals.  Those are better than the people in
Guantanamo have a right to.  They are better than
North Korean prisoners got in the 1950s (note, btw,
that Congress did not declare war then - just so you
know).  They are actually very fair, with extensive
safeguards for the accused.  They are supported by
legal scholars like Stuart Taylor, and, I believe,
Akhil Ammar (not sure about that thought).  They are,
interestingly enough, what the Administration has
proposed.  But that appears to not be good enough for
you.  _So suggest something_.  A trial would involve
compromising our intelligence sources and surely would
lead to the deaths of many people bravely trying to
protect the United States.  Perhaps that doesn't mean
anything to you - I'm not sure.  What would you do
about it?

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fanatics (was: christian dreams of murder...)

[Michael Harney]

From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> At 01:31 PM 11/14/2003 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote:
> >--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> <>
> >>
> >> Murder, Murder
> >>
> >> WASHINGTON-January 6, 2004. A paramilitary
> >> organization calling itself
> >> the Christian Liberation Front changed the balance
> >> of power in Washington
> >> by a pair of brutal attacks this afternoon.
> >
> >
> >
> >Please title such articles more accurately.  The vast
> >majority of Christians - I'd guess nearly 100% of
> >mainstreamers - would not support, condone or
> >'secretly applaud' such an act; in fact they'd
> >consider it their civic duty to report knowledge of
> >such action to the authorities.
>
> Of course, does anyone actually expect him to do this?

When people who *agree* with many of his positions are criticizing him, then
he should at least consider it.  I've tried to explain that what he does
(distortions, inacurate characterizations, over-generalizations,
over-playing facts, etc.) harms his stance more than it helps it, but he
fails to listen to that.  Apparantly he doesn't realize that presenting an
intelligent person with good facts that are not decorated with exagerations
and inflaming material is far more likely to convince the person than
presenting exagerations and inflaming material.  Posting exagerations and
inflaming materials only convinces the intelligent reader that the facts
enclosed are probably poor and should be taken with a very large grain of
salt.

Either he doesn't believe the advice given to him by myself and many others,
or he doesn't think that the people on the list are intelligent.  Either
assumption, IMO, is fatal to the positions he is arguing.

Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Steve Sloan II]

Dan Minette wrote:

> I heard that Hubberd made up Scientology as a scam to make
> lots of money, and didn't really believe at all. Does anyone
> know how accurate/inaccurate this is?
I remember reading somewhere that Hubbard made a bet with another
SF writer about it. He bet that he could create a false religion
to make money, "like psychology", not long before Scientology
started. I wish I knew where I read it, though.
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Alberto Monteiro]

JDG wrote:
>
> If people criticized The Fool for positing an article "Jewish
> dreams of world domination", would you feel the same way?
>
Why Jewish? Those who are taking steps in World Domination
are the Swiss People! They control the money, not the Jews.

Alberto Monteiro


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: [A4P] Change of address

[Medievalbk]

In a message dated 11/15/2003 8:44:17 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 02:05:54AM -0800, Matt Lundstrom wrote:
>  
>  > As of now the Alliance for Progress Encyclopedia is available at 
>  > http://www.geocities.com/allianceforprogress (update your bookmarks!).
>  
>  Done! It is good to know that you are keeping it going. Good work so
>  far!
>  
>  

And I do hope that more on the Rousit will become "canonical."

Though in all probability, David Brin will probably deny ever having read 
anything at all about the Ahp'Churezz.

And get the canon from the Jijo annex of the second edition of GURPS Uplift 
up ASAP.

William Taylor
--
And I hope the Krondesfire gets a bigger entry as well.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: christian dreams of murder...



> A government sting that ends in the murder by Federal
> agents of an American citizen holding her baby done at
> the behest of a liberal Democrat is a worthy exercise
> of government power protecting Americans.  Holding
> non-citizens captured fighting against American
> soldiers in Afghanistan prisoner, that's the first
> sign of fascism when done by a Republican.

I remember Ruby Ridge and the controversy surrounding it.  There was a lot
of debate concerning exactly what happened.  The range of interpretations
that I saw was anything from a mistake under fire to actions that should
have ended up with the trial and conviction of the agent involved.

However, during the time, I've also seen multiple times that cops busted
down doors looking for drugs, killing unarmed people.  It certainly didn't
get the news coverage that Ruby Ridge did.  I know in Houston, at least,
the cops never being convicted.  I remember statistics being gathered at
the time, but not the details of the statistics,

I remember the standoff with the Branch Davidians, and how the government
was chastised for being too hard on terrorists who were planning an action
that would kill as many people as killed on 9-11.***  Second guessing the
governments actions was fine; it was the anger at even trying to stop these
terrorists that was amazing. Private militias, talking about actively
opposing the government with illegal arms were defended as true loyal
Americans.

Indeed, as I mentioned before, I know a member of one of those militias who
stated "its too bad about the babies, but the agents had it coming" after
Oklahoma City.  The hostility I felt, not just from this man, against going
after terrorists like this amazed me at the time.  I don't doubt that you
can pull out some quotes from leftists who said the same thing, but this is
the sorta thing I heard at work from just regular folks.


Dan M.


*** Whether there plan would actually kill that many people, I don't know.
But, scores of gunmen with automatic weapons attacking a crowd coming out
of a packed football game does have the potential at least for thousands of
deaths.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

[SCOUTED] Dozen Killed On Queen Mary 2

[Jean-Marc Chaton]

We're all safe



A crowded gangway leading from the dock to the Queen Mary 2 \x{2014} the
world's largest passenger ship \x{2014} collapsed Saturday, killing 12
people and injuring 32 others, fire officials said.

Ten of the injured were in serious condition, according to the
Operational Center Fire and Rescue Center.

The victims were family members of workers given permission to visit the
vessel, local officials said. France-Info radio reported that children
were among the victims.

Dozens of people were on the gangway to access the Queen Mary 2 when the
passageway collapsed, according to the rescue workers.

It was not immediately known why the passage to the boat gave way.

The Queen Mary 2 is currently in dry dock at this Atlantic coastal
shipyard, where it remains under construction. Once completed, it will
feature a planetarium, 22 elevators and the world's largest floating
library.

The 150,000-ton trans-Atlantic liner recently finished its second test
run. The first was in September.

Families of workers were given permission to visit the vessel on
Saturday, and a crowd was on the gangway to access the QM2 when the
passageway collapsed, said Herve Malherbe, chief aid at the
Loire-Atlantic prefecture.

Up to 90 firefighters and rescue workers rushed to the scene of the
accident, setting up medical units to treat the injured.

Once completed, the $800 million QM2 \x{2014} the world's longest,
tallest and most expensive passenger ship \x{2014} will join an
illustrious list of massive passenger ships.

The Queen Elizabeth 2 \x{2014} whose trans-Atlantic route will be taken
over by the new ship in April \x{2014} was built in 1967; the original
Queen Mary was launched in 1934 and is now a hotel in Long Beach,
California.

In sheer size, the QM2 tops them all. It's 377 yards long and 79 yards
high \x{2014} or about the height of a 21-story building. It will weigh
more than twice the QE2's 70,000 tons.

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.'s Voyager-class ships, about 138,000 tons,
are currently the largest cruise ships in service.

The ship is being built by Alstom Marine's Chantiers de l'Atlantique for
the British ship operator Cunard Line, which is owned by Carnival Corp.

Some 800 companies, mostly French, have been involved in the
construction.

The QM2 has generated a lot of interest, with Chantiers de l'Atlantique
saying it had received at least 150,000 letters from people asking to
come aboard for a look.

-- 
Jean-Marc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fanatics (was: christian dreams of murder...)

[John D. Giorgis]

At 01:31 PM 11/14/2003 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote:
>--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> <>
>> 
>> Murder, Murder
>> 
>> WASHINGTON-January 6, 2004. A paramilitary
>> organization calling itself
>> the Christian Liberation Front changed the balance
>> of power in Washington
>> by a pair of brutal attacks this afternoon. 
>
>
>
>Please title such articles more accurately.  The vast
>majority of Christians - I'd guess nearly 100% of
>mainstreamers - would not support, condone or
>'secretly applaud' such an act; in fact they'd
>consider it their civic duty to report knowledge of
>such action to the authorities.

Of course, does anyone actually expect him to do this?

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Week 11 Picks

[John D. Giorgis]

Just like that, a 6-8 week drops me back to .500 at 72-72.   Maybe I should
just start flipping coins.

Arizona at Cleveland - Yes the Browns are in a bit of disarray after
unexpectedly cutting their best WR this week, but a second straight road
trip to the East for the Cardinals has to take its toll.   Pick: BROWNS

Atlanta at New Orleans - Wouldn't you know it, I *finally* pick against the
Falcons last week, and they finally win one.   Well, I'm going to do the
Falcons a favor and pick their opponent, who knows that if they can go on a
run, they can still make the playoffs.  Pick: SAINTS

Baltimore at Miami - The Fish have lost two big ones in a row behind the
ineffective Brian Griese, and are coming back home to face a Ravens team
led my Anthony Wright at QB.  This game may well be played like the old NFL
games of 30 years ago, with less than 20 passes from each side.   I like
the Ravens defense to generate more turnovers, but Miami is at home and is
more desperate.  Pick: DOLPHINS

Houston at Buffalo - This game is a lot like the Redskins game for the
Bills.The Texans have no defensive tackles to speak of, and are better
passing than running the ball.   That plays right into Buffalo's strengths,
and even if Eric Moulds does not play, they should run away with this one.
Pick: BILLS

Jacksonville at Tennessee - The Jaguars got their upset last week, but the
Colts had a lot of injuries and were on the road.   No way does Tennessee
give this one away at home.  Pick: TITANS

Kansas City at Cincinnati - The Bengals are te chic upset pick here, and I
have been touting the Bengals all year, but I have to give the edge to
Kansas City coming off the bye.Pick: CHIEFS

New York Giants at Philadelphia - The Eagles won Round 1 in New York, and
now the Giants are devastated with injuries.   The Eagles, as I was saying
despite the slow start, are still one of the best teams in the League.
Pick: EAGLES

St. Louis at Chicago - There is a lot to like about the Bears in this
one... the Rams are on grass, Marty Booker is getting healthy, the Bears
ostensibly should be able to hang with the Rams offensively (although they
haven't shown it this year), and Marshall Faulk still is not playing like
Marshall Faulk.   Well, last week I chickened out on all the upsets
Pick: BEARS UPSET SPECIAL

Washington at Carolina - I expect this to be a very interesting game.   The
Panthers' two losses have come from pass-first teams like Tennessee and
Houston that were able to spread out their questionable secondary.On
the other hand, the Panthers may have the League's best defensive line, and
the Redskins one of the worst offensive lines.   Still, the Redskins have
played like the Bills on the road this season., but what the hey Pick:
REDSKINS

NY Jets at Indianapolis - This is the injury bowl.   The Jets are banged up
on defense, and without Wayne Chrebet.   The Colts have many holes on their
offensive line, and are without Marvin Harrison and Marcus Pollard.   Ouch.
  Still, Peyton Manning could probably make me look good at WR.  Pick: COLTS

San Diego at Denver - Flutie magic lives again!!Still, I have to give
the edge to the Broncos at home, coming off a bye, and getting Jake Plummer
back but Denver's secondary could make Flutie look very good again.
Pick: BRONCOS

Detroit at Seattle - Not much reason to think that Detroit can win on the
road here.  Pick: SEAHAWKS 

Green Bay at Tampa Bay - I'm so happy that we don't have to hear any more
silliness about the Bucs having a "win one" and "lose one" streak, now that
they've lost two in a row.   Still, the Bucs won't drop three, will they?
Certainly not to a mediocre Packers team.  Pick: BUCS

Minnesota at Oakland - The Vikings are in California for the
second-straight week, but you can't like Rick Mirer's chanes against the
University of Minnesota, let alone the Vikings.  Pick: VIKINGS

Dallas at New England - The Tuna should make it a sweep against his former
teams.  Pick: COWBOYS

Pittsburgh at San Francisco - I don't like the Steelers on the West Coast
on a Monday night... and with their running game ineffective, I expect the
49ers to control the ball and keep things away from Hines Ward and Co.
Pick: 49ERS


___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: christian dreams of murder...

[Gary Nunn]

Julia wrote...
> Although I've heard of a case where someone got arrested 
> because he wrote 
> something in his private journal (on paper) along those lines.  Don't 
> remember how they got hold of his private journal to be reading that.


I remember the case you are talking about. I think this was here in
Ohio.  This guy was on probation for a sexual offense against a child
and his probation office ran across his journal during a routine home
check.  His attorney unsuccessfully tried to defend him with the
"freedom of speech" argument.

As a citizen, I can appreciate the freedom of speech argument (although
I don't condone his subject matter), but as a parent, I am glad they
found the journal and locked him back up. Perhaps that is hypocritical,
but if I had to choose a position, I choose the position of a concerned
parent.

Gary

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 06:22:13AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:

> If you don't think we're at war, there's a big hole in New York that
> would argue otherwise.

By your definition, which is apparently not the Congress has declared
war, but as far as I can tell appears to be that there are some people
hostile to the US in the world (or perhaps if there are any US troops
engaged in any hostilities overseas?), how many of the last 100 years
was America NOT at war?

> As is usual for people without responsibility - and as I pointed out
> earlier - you have, once again, ignored any consequences of your
> beliefs.

Ha!

>  It must be nice to be able to make every decision so easily.

It must be nice to not care about human rights for anyone who isn't
sufficiently like you.

> we are neither legally nor morally obligated to do and

Of course we are morally obligated to extend human rights to humans.
That you consistently deny this is very sad.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: [A4P] Change of address

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 02:05:54AM -0800, Matt Lundstrom wrote:

> As of now the Alliance for Progress Encyclopedia is available at 
> http://www.geocities.com/allianceforprogress (update your bookmarks!).

Done! It is good to know that you are keeping it going. Good work so
far!


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Scientology Re: Explanation

[John D. Giorgis]

At 09:22 AM 11/15/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>I heard that Hubberd made up Scientology as a scam to make lots of money,
>and didn't really believe at all.  Does anyone know how accurate/inaccurate
>this is?

He never said the above publicly, but years before founding Scientology he
made a comment about how founding a religion is the biggest tax break in
the world.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Veterans (was Veterans Bushwhacked)

[Doug Pensinger]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 07:39:32 -0600, Ronn!Blankenship 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

At 04:36 PM 11/15/03 +0900, G. D. Akin wrote:
How many veterans on the list?

I'll start the count at 1.


2.

3

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Julia Thompson]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Doug Pensinger wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, if someone posted a fantasy about molesting a
> child, saying that the darker parts of his mind imagined it but
> explaining carefully that he would never advocate such a thing and why,
> would that be just OK?

Posting it here would be inappropriate.  Posting it on the web, that might 
be a different story.

Although I've heard of a case where someone got arrested because he wrote 
something in his private journal (on paper) along those lines.  Don't 
remember how they got hold of his private journal to be reading that.

Anything on the web is available for scrutiny and for any reader to 
interpret it however they want.  (It's disingenuous to selectively quote 
to put a spin on what someone else has on the web, IMO.)

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, John D. Giorgis wrote:

> Then again, maybe none of us are perfect.

Maybe?

I believe that nobody on this list is perfect.

I believe that a lot of people on this list are trying, anyway.  And some 
are trying in the other sense of the word.  :)  And maybe some people are 
trying in both senses, just not at the same time.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:03:07AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> > Oh, good.
> > 
> > blow job = good
> > 
> > blow up nose = bad
> > 
> > Thank you for clearing that up for me.
> 
> You're welcome. You may now return to your regularly scheduled blow job.

How many people have them regularly scheduled, anyway?

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> Alberto Monteiro - who would like to have all horoscopes
> in the newspapers have their authors subject to being sued
> when their predictions didn't come true >:-)

But the ones I see are vague enough that there's be plenty of room for the 
defense to be reasonably successful.  :)

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation

> I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
> religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones from
> the true ones? And how can more than one be true?

In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a particle.
;-)

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation


> At 04:10 AM 11/15/03 +, Andrew Crystall wrote:
> >On 15 Nov 2003 at 1:22, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew Crystall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not you. I don't think either of the people I killfiled are that
> > > > regular posters anymore. (no-one else is quoting them anyway)
> > > >
> > > > I have a few on the culture list, because the individuals are
> > > > scientoligists and made them offensive to me off the list.
> > > >
> > > So you are also fanatically anti-religious, for some specific
> > > religions.
> > >
> > > I am surrounded by fanatics!!!
> >
> >Anti-religion? No.
> >Anti-scientolgist? YES.
> >
> >Scientology is a *dangerous* UFO Cult
>
>
> I didn't realize UFOs were involved.  But, then, I've not made a detailed
> study of it.

I heard that Hubberd made up Scientology as a scam to make lots of money,
and didn't really believe at all.  Does anyone know how accurate/inaccurate
this is?

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[John D. Giorgis]

O.k., I suppose that I have a moral obligation to step in to this
discussion, particularly following Dan's observation.

As perhaps the author of the most famous killfile in list history (in re: a
former listmember) I certainly am not going to bash anyone for setting up a
killfile.   I think there are many reasonable reasons for doing so.   For
example, in answer to Erik's question, yes I still have you in my killfile
(or more accurately, I have your posts filtered into my spam bin, where if
a reply to one of your post's interests me, I can go back and reference the
original.   As I stated at the time, I have a particular aversion to
reading the "f" word, particularly after a long day at work.   And this is
not just about you, the only novel I have ever stopped reading was one
where the author tossed around the "f" word like cand.   Its just something
I don't like, and since you have stated in the strongest possible terms
that you will not moderate your language, I have decided that the potential
benefit I get from regularly reading your posts is outweighed by the risk
and cost of the distaste I might feel from reading your posts.

Anyhow, this post is not about you, it is about Doug... and my point is
that I certainly defend Doug's right to determine that the distaste he may
feel from reading my posts, outweighs the benefits he may get from reading
them.

With that being said, I would like to apologize to the List for starting
this entire thread of discussion.   The tagline of mine that started this
whole thing was an expression of sheer frustration on my part.   Doug has
consistently made many posts that are critical of the Bush Administration
and its foreign policy, and unfortunately there are only two people on this
List who consistently support the Bush Administration and its foreign
policy, when Doug killfiles one of them, he effectively immunizes himself
from nearly 50% of the criticism that he is likely to receive.In this
particular case, I thought that I had some very powerful critiques of
Doug's ideas, and it was just very frustrating to realize that he would
never see these counterpoints to these ideas, and I cracked and expressed
my frustration at a perfectly acceptable publicly.   My apologies for that.

JDG

___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: [Listref] Cocoa antioxidants

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:29:10PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:
> 
> > > Have you ever met anyone who makes hot chocolate without SOME form
> > > of milk? Whole, 2%, skim, dry milk, something besides water? Darn
> > > ivory tower research! :-)
> >
> > I tried it once, actually.  I managed to drink half the mug's worth
> > I'd made.  I don't recommend it, but if anyone wants to find out
> > first-hand just why I wouldn't recommend it, go ahead, and then report
> > back to us. :)
> 
> I'll stand on your research, thank you! Actually, I was thinking after I
> posted it that maybe some Atkin's diet people may do it. Too many carbs
> in milk, you know.

But they might use heavy whipping cream, more fat, fewer carbs.  :)

Then again, hot cocoa tends to be sweetened with sugar.  Unless they got 
the diet version using an artificial sweetener, there would be all those 
sugar carbs.

Wonder if the trick of using vanilla extract to sweeten the whipping cream
instead of sugar (which is a trick I use if I'm actually buying cream and
whipping it myself, as opposed to buying Redi-whip) would work on that?

Julia

mind (at least, what's left of it) wandering...

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Adam C. Lipscomb]

Ronn wrote:
> blow job = good
>
> blow up nose = bad

Exactly.  I am fully, 100% in support of blow jobs.  I am unequivocably
opposed to cocaine.

Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://aclipscomb.blogspot.com

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fox News, we distort, you comply.

[Adam C. Lipscomb]

Gautam wrote:
> Well, most CEOs vote Republican, which suggests that
> competent, capable people vote Republican. :-)

Or that overpaid, pampered leeches vote Republican.

Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://aclipscomb.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[John D. Giorgis]

At 07:23 PM 11/14/2003 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>> I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore their
>> posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
>> religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
>> grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
>> righteous indignation.
>
>This is one of the most ill considered posts I've ever seen you post, 
>Dan.  I have no idea what religion or conservatism have to do with it.  I 
>do know that JDG has referenced Hilter in _several_ posts - is there a 
>greater insult than that?  Have I ever begun a post "Look, punk..."?

First, I do not think that merely "referencing" Hitler is an insult.   In
today's society, there is very little agreement on the definition of
"evil," so much so that many people believe that "evil" hardly or even
never exists in the world.   The one excpetion to that is that Hitler is a
nearly universally-accepted example of evil, so if one wishes to discuss
evil in the world of today, Hitler makes a good reference.

Secondly, I have begun a post once "Look, punk"   IIRC, I meant that
phrase to be a bit more humorous, in an albeit dark way,  than it ended up
sounding but nevertheless, I should not have I done it, and I apologize
for that.

Nevertheless, among the things I have not done is hold a grudge for years,
and refused all attempts at an apology since then.

Then again, maybe none of us are perfect.

Peace,

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

[A4P] Change of address

[Matt Lundstrom]

Change of address:
As most of you already know, Trent Shipley has transferred the Alliance for 
Progress Encyclopedia to me. The initial upload suffered from major problems 
with dead links, which was caused by the fact that filenames were in lower 
case (ie. filename.htm) while the URLs had both upper and lower case letters 
(ie. FileName.htm). That problem has now been fixed (I had to convert every 
URL to all lower case).

As of now the Alliance for Progress Encyclopedia is available at 
http://www.geocities.com/allianceforprogress (update your bookmarks!). It's 
also still available at Trent's own website, but it should disappear from 
there within a week or so, leaving only a link to the A4PE's new location.

Note that this was a non-exclusive transfer, which means that Trent has 
reserved the right "to copy, extend, or publish" his version of The Alliance 
for Progress Encyclopedia and that he has reserved the right to transfer the 
Alliance for Progress Encyclopedia to other parties as well. While I don't 
really expect this to actually happen, it does leave the possibility that 
you may find different versions of the Alliance for Progress Encyclopedia 
elsewhere on the Internet. Naturally, I cannot accept any responsibility for 
the contents of those other sites. (BTW, if you do find other copies 
elsewhere, please inform me of the URL.)

Updates:
I am still studying the structure and contents of the A4PE, so it may take a 
while before you will notice any changes. Contributions, bug reports and 
other comments are welcome at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or at 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Graphics:
I'd like to add a front page to the A4PE with some fancy logo. I'd also like 
something like a banner logo to go on top of at least the main page. If 
someone here would like to design such graphics, it would be much 
appreciated. I can not offer any payment for it, but you will be properly 
credited.

Live long and prosper!

Matt Lundstrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays!  Snappier product search... 
http://shopping.msn.com

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[John D. Giorgis]

At 11:25 PM 11/14/2003 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>> No, as I've never stated you were evil.  Did JDG ever call you evil?
>>
>> Dan M.
>>
>> No, but JDG does not post 20 times a day that you are evil.
>>
>
>How many times has he called you, personally, evil, as opposed to calling 
>religion evil?
>
>Now I'm not excusing his excesses at all, but you can call drugs evil and 
>not mean drug users are evil, right?

Are you doubting that The Fool thinks that all Christians, Republicans, and
conservatives are evil?In particular, are you doubting that The Fool
considers me evil?

The Fool, after all, has made it quite clear that some points can be made
with a "wink, wink, nod, nod."   

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know what a "nice" trial is, but the
> prisoners should receive
> the same right to a fair a speedy trial that all
> people are entitled to.
> Innocent until proven guilty, you may have forgotten
> in your war on all
> non-Americans zeal.
> 

> Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/

If you don't think we're at war, there's a big hole in
New York that would argue otherwise.

As is usual for people without responsibility - and as
I pointed out earlier - you have, once again, ignored
any consequences of your beliefs.  It must be nice to
be able to make every decision so easily.  How,
exactly, would you do this without destroying American
intelligence?  Or do you not care?  Your position, so
far as I can tell, is that we must do something that
we are neither legally nor morally obligated to do and
have never done in the past.  But we _must_ do it now,
everyone who disagrees with you is bigoted and evil,
and the consequences to these actions in our shattered
ability to defend ourselves should be ignored.  Have I
summarized you fairly?  POWs don't get trials.  These
people _don't even have the rights of POWs_ under
every international treaty. 

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[John D. Giorgis]

At 09:30 PM 11/14/2003 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So enough of this crap. Quit ganging up on the Fool (my god more of the
nasty conspiracy - now I am defending the fool)
>

If people criticized The Fool for positing an article "Jewish dreams of
world domination", would you feel the same way?

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[John D. Giorgis]

At 02:19 PM 11/14/2003 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
>how many religious people on list

Very free from my estimation.

>how many very non-religious people on list

Certainly more than the former.

>how many people have killfiles

Well, I would be interested in the results of Jon's proposed poll.

>if killfiles by religious people have primarily non-religious people
>if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily religious people

Don't know the answer to that one.   But I suppose that it is worth noting
that perhaps the most virulently anti-religious person on this List
obviously hasn't made it into my killfile - so I do not think that the
killfile function has a single determining variable.

JDG


___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:54:38AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:

> Because we are _at war_.  We didn't give German POWs

Yeah, right, Gautam. I won't even bother to argue the at war point,
which is laughable, but that you would argue that human rights should be
ignored during war is just sad.

> Yet the American government is supposed to worry about the rights of
> _Americans_ first.  That's its job.  I

Of course it is, but not by stamping on the rights of everyone else. The
means justify the ends doesn't hold water when the ends and the means
are not drastically different in human rights abuses employed.

> suppose that you, Erik, would have nice public trials on all of these
> guys, with lawyers, and published transcripts, and maybe the names and
> faces of CIA informants published?

I don't know what a "nice" trial is, but the prisoners should receive
the same right to a fair a speedy trial that all people are entitled to.
Innocent until proven guilty, you may have forgotten in your war on all
non-Americans zeal.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:03:07AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> Oh, good.
> 
> blow job = good
> 
> blow up nose = bad
> 
> Thank you for clearing that up for me.

You're welcome. You may now return to your regularly scheduled blow job.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 11/14/2003 9:54:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> All right, OK, very well then! --  face" with glasses and sits with chin on fist> 
> Play ball!
Ata girl
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:55 AM 11/15/03 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:50:43AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> Would that be anything like making a statement to the effect that "If
> you don't condemn getting blow jobs in the office from underlings, you
> tacitly endorse it, despite the fact that for the average person it
> can adversely affect your marriage and your job?"
No.


Oh, good.

blow job = good

blow up nose = bad

Thank you for clearing that up for me.



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:50:43AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> Would that be anything like making a statement to the effect that "If
> you don't condemn getting blow jobs in the office from underlings, you
> tacitly endorse it, despite the fact that for the average person it
> can adversely affect your marriage and your job?"

No.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:37:36AM -0800, Gautam
> Mukunda wrote:
> 
> > Well, I don't actually think that holding people
> who were fighting
> > against the United States prisoner _is_ wrong.
> 
> Exactly my point. How you can justify holding anyone
> without a fair
> trial and access to a lawyer is incredible.

Because we are _at war_.  We didn't give German POWs
trials.  We didn't give North Korean POWs trials.  We
were _at war_.  These people were captured _on the
battlefield_.  Because they weren't declared
combatants, they actually have _fewer_ rights than
POWs.

> > differ on this issue.  But it seems to me that the
> first (Ruby
> > Ridge, if anyone doesn't know what we are
> obliquely discussing) -
> > assassinating American citizens - is considerably
> worse than the
> > second - holding _non-Americans_ prisoner.  Yet,
> oddly enough, we
> > get hysterical condemnations of the second, and
> not a mention of the
> > first.  Let's just say that I think that's
> noticeable.
> 
> I'd say some incredible discrimination is noticable.
> All of them are
> human.
> 

> Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/

Yet the American government is supposed to worry about
the rights of _Americans_ first.  That's its job.  I
suppose that you, Erik, would have nice public trials
on all of these guys, with lawyers, and published
transcripts, and maybe the names and faces of CIA
informants published?  That's what a full trial would
require, after all.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Veterans (was Veterans Bushwhacked)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 04:36 PM 11/15/03 +0900, G. D. Akin wrote:
How many veterans on the list?

I'll start the count at 1.


2.

-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:17 AM 11/15/03 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 04:45:59AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:

> Just to be clear - he has never made any such admission.  He refused
> to answer the question as to whether he has or has not.
This would appear similar to your position on "if you don't condemn it,
then you tacitly endorse it". Why did he not say, "I have never used
cocaine becasue it is a dangerous drug that can destroy lives and I want
to make that clear. No one should use cocaine."


Would that be anything like making a statement to the effect that "If you 
don't condemn getting blow jobs in the office from underlings, you tacitly 
endorse it, despite the fact that for the average person it can adversely 
affect your marriage and your job?"



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:37:36AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:

> Well, I don't actually think that holding people who were fighting
> against the United States prisoner _is_ wrong.

Exactly my point. How you can justify holding anyone without a fair
trial and access to a lawyer is incredible.

> differ on this issue.  But it seems to me that the first (Ruby
> Ridge, if anyone doesn't know what we are obliquely discussing) -
> assassinating American citizens - is considerably worse than the
> second - holding _non-Americans_ prisoner.  Yet, oddly enough, we
> get hysterical condemnations of the second, and not a mention of the
> first.  Let's just say that I think that's noticeable.

I'd say some incredible discrimination is noticable. All of them are
human.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fox News, we distort, you comply.

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:38:23AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:

> Well, most CEOs vote Republican, which suggests that competent,
> capable people vote Republican. :-)

Dishonest, greedy, take advantage of shareholders people, you mean? :-)



-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 15 Nov 2003, at 4:10 am, Andrew Crystall wrote:

On 15 Nov 2003 at 1:22, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

Andrew Crystall wrote:
Not you. I don't think either of the people I killfiled are that
regular posters anymore. (no-one else is quoting them anyway)
I have a few on the culture list, because the individuals are
scientoligists and made them offensive to me off the list.
So you are also fanatically anti-religious, for some specific
religions.
I am surrounded by fanatics!!!
Anti-religion? No.
Anti-scientolgist? YES.
Scientology is a *dangerous* UFO Cult

I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false 
religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones from 
the true ones? And how can more than one be true?

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my 
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my 
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fox News, we distort, you comply.

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Most surveys say that upwards of _90%_ of
> reporters vote Democratic.
> > What does that say?
> 
> Inquisitive, well-informed people vote Democratic?
> :-)
> Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/

Well, most CEOs vote Republican, which suggests that
competent, capable people vote Republican. :-)

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:26:21AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> I didn't realize UFOs were involved.  But, then, I've not made a
> detailed study of it.

No one has. THAT's why their unidentified!


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: christian dreams of murder...

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wake up on the wrong side of bed, Gautam? Is it so
> difficult to admit
> that they are BOTH wrong? I haven't seen anyone here
> trying to excuse
> the former. The latter, however...
> 
> 
> -- 
> Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/

Well, I don't actually think that holding people who
were fighting against the United States prisoner _is_
wrong.  The stunning inability of critics of
Guantanamo Bay to suggest anything else that takes
into account the difficulties involved is marked.  I
understand, however, that reasonable people could
differ on this issue.  But it seems to me that the
first (Ruby Ridge, if anyone doesn't know what we are
obliquely discussing) - assassinating American
citizens - is considerably worse than the second -
holding _non-Americans_ prisoner.  Yet, oddly enough,
we get hysterical condemnations of the second, and not
a mention of the first.  Let's just say that I think
that's noticeable.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 15 Nov 2003, at 1:26 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

At 04:10 AM 11/15/03 +, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 15 Nov 2003 at 1:22, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> Andrew Crystall wrote:
> >
> > Not you. I don't think either of the people I killfiled are that
> > regular posters anymore. (no-one else is quoting them anyway)
> >
> > I have a few on the culture list, because the individuals are
> > scientoligists and made them offensive to me off the list.
> >
> So you are also fanatically anti-religious, for some specific
> religions.
>
> I am surrounded by fanatics!!!
Anti-religion? No.
Anti-scientolgist? YES.
Scientology is a *dangerous* UFO Cult


I didn't realize UFOs were involved.  But, then, I've not made a 
detailed study of it.

Body hairs are actually alien spies. Apparently, once you get inducted 
deep enough into Scientology to get told some of the special secrets :)

--
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: Explanation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 04:10 AM 11/15/03 +, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 15 Nov 2003 at 1:22, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> Andrew Crystall wrote:
> >
> > Not you. I don't think either of the people I killfiled are that
> > regular posters anymore. (no-one else is quoting them anyway)
> >
> > I have a few on the culture list, because the individuals are
> > scientoligists and made them offensive to me off the list.
> >
> So you are also fanatically anti-religious, for some specific
> religions.
>
> I am surrounded by fanatics!!!
Anti-religion? No.
Anti-scientolgist? YES.
Scientology is a *dangerous* UFO Cult


I didn't realize UFOs were involved.  But, then, I've not made a detailed 
study of it.



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l