> Dana wrote:
> I think I forgot to post a link about the Drake equation
Here's a CF generated article 'bout all that jazz:
SETI Institute astronomer Seth Shostak: "The lack of precision in
determining these parameters pales in comparison with our ignorance of
L." Similarly, Mars Society presiden
> Denny wrote:
> Maybe a better example, instead of the stuff I wrote, would be, what
> if you come up against a crack coin tosser.
That's the best thing about math - it can describe anything physical
so you could, in fact, describe the crack coin tosser.
But, yeah, that's the problem with statis
ya there are a lot of variables. However, if you really wanted to sit
down and enumerate them, then assign a probablility to each, you can
do that. It's not like trying to decide how likely it is that God
scratched his butt when he woke up this morning.
I think I forgot to post a link about the Dr
On 11/12/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Denny wrote:
> > Does math prove that just by counting, we're changing the outcome, or
> > am I conflating different maths?
> >
>
> The point Dana and Robert are making relates to independent events,
> e.g., each flip of a coin. In that case,
> Dana wrote:
> But even though your analogy doesn't prove it, being a bad analogy, I
> agree with your main point, which is that Iraq is a question of
> throwing good money after bad, and it isn't a situation that
> persistence is likely to help.
That what I like about you, you're not a quitter :
> Denny wrote:
> Does math prove that just by counting, we're changing the outcome, or
> am I conflating different maths?
>
The point Dana and Robert are making relates to independent events,
e.g., each flip of a coin. In that case, each flip is it's own event
with the same probability of the "fa
ok as far as I can see the who statistics thing starts here:
"Let's say you play poker at a casino.
It's a low probability bet, but there's a chance you might win. So
you play and you lose $1000. Do you stay at the table? Because your
odds go down the longer you stay."
The odds of a win in pok
the thing that is outstanding here is that you are still
condescendingly explaining where he is wrong ;) Crack a statistics
text, dude.
If the coin toss is a reference model, it's yours, and it sucks. Let
me scroll up and see what your exact argument is, and see if I can't
straighten this out. I t
> RoMunn wrote:
> No, no, no. if 1 in 167 people is killed each year,
Here's where you're stuck: There's a difference between the odds of a
favorable outcome in one iteration and that favorable outcome
**without losing** **multiple times in a row**. So the odds of death
do indeed double the lon
No, no, no. if 1 in 167 people is killed each year, that means each year
your odds of being killed are, at least numerically, 1 in 167. Those odds do
not change the following year. They don't all of a sudden become 1 in 83.5.
On 11/11/06, Gruss wrote:
>
> > G-man wrote:
> > .83^365=.993814 or
> G-man wrote:
> .83^365=.993814 or 99.3814% chance of living. That means a soldier has
>
> 1-.993814=.006186 or 0.6% chance of dying based on current statistics.
>
Oh! So let's see if my "theory" holds up ... the longer a soldier
stays in Iraq the higher I'm saying his probability of being
> RoMunn wrote:
> dude, you are so wrong. what is the desired result? not getting shot or
> blown up in combat?
*sigh* It's a reference model. But, since you're asking, just to
prove me right, let's actually use my "theory" and see what happens:
There's about 120,000 troops in Iraq and there's
Ok, this is going to be the last long one. I swear.
It's easy to be simplistic, as I'm wont to be... I think that in reality a lot
more is always going on. Generally.
Like, with the coin tosses or combat duty, there are issues like, maybe
the practice is making you better at it, maybe you noti
dude, you are so wrong. what is the desired result? not getting shot or
blown up in combat? by your calculations, every US service member would be
dead or injured by now, and that defies not just common sense, by reality.
On 11/11/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Dana wrote:
> > sti
> Dana wrote:
> still not, because whether someone shoots and hits is an entirely
> separate issue
LOL, take it to your math lab. I'm right.
The 50% number is only for analogy because it's supposed to be easy
for someone to understand the difference between the probability of
flipping a coin and
still not, because whether someone shoots and hits is an entirely
separate issue from whether someone else was shooting at you
yesterday. Also not sure if your off of getting hit are 50-50. I
suspect not. Sorry. Also, even if you were right the number would be
one half to the tenth power. I am too
> Dana wrote:
> now, your odds of getting a head six times in a row are
> ..5*.5*.5*.5*.5*.5, which is what you are talking about.
>
That's ALWAYS BEEN what I'm talking about!!
Here's the point: let's say a soldier has a 50% chance of being blown
up on any given day. That means she's got a 50% c
try looking at this.
http://shazam.econ.ubc.ca/flip/
On 11/11/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no it's still 50-50, sorry. The coin does not care how many times it's
> been heads already. It still has a fifty-fifty shot of being tails the
> next time.
>
> now, your odds of getting a head six
no it's still 50-50, sorry. The coin does not care how many times it's
been heads already. It still has a fifty-fifty shot of being tails the
next time.
now, your odds of getting a head six times in a row are
..5*.5*.5*.5*.5*.5, which is what you are talking about.
On 11/11/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL
> Dana wrote:
> I understand your point.
No you don't, but you think you do because you worked in a math lab or
something. I did the math for you and it's right on the page. What
you're pointing out is totally different.
You: The odds of the NEXT flip being heads is 50%. True.
Me: The odds of
I understand your point. I used to work in a community college math
lab once in another lifetime and every statistics student in the world
thinks this. But it is wrong.
if you flip a coin your odds are 50-50. Doesn't matter how many times
you have done it.
now if you flip it six times your odds o
> RoMunn wrote:
> but that is totally irrelevant to your odds of being successful or
> unsuccessful in any single event. you don't get hot or blown up ten days in
> a row, just once.
>
Ha, I know I'll take the odds one one day in combat over 100. But,
please, you go 1000 and prove me wrong.
but that is totally irrelevant to your odds of being successful or
unsuccessful in any single event. you don't get hot or blown up ten days in
a row, just once.
On 11/10/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > intuitively, you might think it works that way, but it just is
> RoMunn wrote:
> intuitively, you might think it works that way, but it just isn't the case.
> basic math.
>
I guess you missed the part where I actually did the basic math to
prove it to you:
> > The odds of flipping a heads in one toss of a coin is: 1 in 2 or 50%
> >
> > The odds of flipping 5
intuitively, you might think it works that way, but it just isn't the case.
basic math.
On 11/10/06, Gruss wrote:
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > More geek moments. Dana is right. Casinos make money on very, very small
> > margins (51% chance of the house winning at blackjack, is that right?)
> Each
> >
> RoMunn wrote:
> More geek moments. Dana is right. Casinos make money on very, very small
> margins (51% chance of the house winning at blackjack, is that right?) Each
> hand, each throw, each spin is a separate event and the house makes money on
> volume.
>
But only because she doesn't understan
More geek moments. Dana is right. Casinos make money on very, very small
margins (51% chance of the house winning at blackjack, is that right?) Each
hand, each throw, each spin is a separate event and the house makes money on
volume.
Further geek moment learned at MAX- the dealers want you to win.
ummm... I have never been in favor of national health care. I've seen it up
close and personal and I didn't like it. I might have said it would be better
than the mess we have now, but that isn't saying much.
I do like the small business insurance pool Richardson started over here, but
that is
No! Every throw is a separate event independent of previous events. Odds are
always 50-50 (assuming a fair throw).
You are using the formula for a sequence, the odds say off getting ttth.
>> Dana wrote:
>> negative, your odds do not improve if you stay at the table.
>
>Correct, they do not
> Dana wrote:
> negative, your odds do not improve if you stay at the table.
Correct, they do not improve. They decrease as it's a function of sample size.
For example, the probability of flipping a coin once and having it
come up heads is 1 in 2. The probability of 5 heads in a row is 1 in
32
negative, your odds do not improve if you stay at the table. Each bet
is a separate event. This has been a geek moment, brought to you by
Dana.
On 11/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > In my opinion this will make or break Bush, if he gives up on
> > democracy now then
On 11/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Like always your analogy doesn't fit.
> And the casino dealer claims victory when you lose a hand.
He most certainly does not. Have you ever played?
Does that
mean you play until you're bankrupt or go make a $1 billion elsewhere
and buy the casino
> Sam wrote:
> The insurgents declared victory yesterday when Rumsfeld quit.
>
And the casino dealer claims victory when you lose a hand. Does that
mean you play until you're bankrupt or go make a $1 billion elsewhere
and buy the casino?
Winning has nothing to do with emotions and
The insurgents declared victory yesterday when Rumsfeld quit.
On 11/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > They need a police force and right now we're it.
>
> So after 4 years the Iraqis can't build a police force?
>
> > We ne
> Sam wrote:
> They need a police force and right now we're it.
So after 4 years the Iraqis can't build a police force?
> We need to slap them around and force them to do the job themselves
> but not walk away.
>
Attacks on US troops started at 200/wk. They went up to 400/wk.
They're now over 8
On 11/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reality is clear: there's no way we can move forward via
> occupation because there's no battle for us anymore. We're caught
> between about 20 competing forces who all want us out of the way and
> have unlimited money and men.
Most Iraqi's
> Sam wrote:
> In my opinion this will make or break Bush, if he gives up on
> democracy now then this will have been a huge waste of lives, time and
> money
Well let's talk about waste. Let's say you play poker at a casino.
It's a low probability bet, but there's a chance you might win. So
you
They're not Murtha-esque
The ideas are to forget democracy and put in a strongman government or
let the Shiite take over. Make nice with Iran and Saudi Arabia and
force them to take on the problem.
This is the worse possible thing we could do. Remember Baker is the
one that pulled back support dur
On 11/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > gMoney wrote:
> > I'm more worried about the Dems domestic plans, which reads like a Dana
> wish
>
> Well the good news here is 2-fold:
>
> (1.) The Dems that got elected basically ran on a fiscally
> conservative platform. The Dems are well
> gMoney wrote:
> I'm more worried about the Dems domestic plans, which reads like a Dana wish
Well the good news here is 2-fold:
(1.) The Dems that got elected basically ran on a fiscally
conservative platform. The Dems are well placed to steal this issue
from the Republicans and, if they're sm
I'm more worried about the Dems domestic plans, which reads like a Dana wish
list: raise the minimum wage, raise everyone's taxes, make it too expensive
to operate a business, take my money and give it to someone else in the name
of "national healthcare", dogs and cats, living togethermass hyst
> RoMunn wrote:
> win votes in congress at the cost of american lives in iraq? i certainly
> hope not.
>
Their secret plan is this: Baker-Hamilton. Turns out that's Bush's
plan too. Otherwise why would he install Bob Gates?
~|
> Sam wrote:
> I think Baker and Gates will have opposite approaches to the war.
>
Well, apparently you're wrong because they've already put out ideas
that are unanimous to the group. And those ideas are very
Murtha-esque.
If the Dems are smart they'll sit back and wait for Baker-Hamilton,
let M
read your own comments.you are still assuming that the dems have a plan that
doesn't suck. they didn't have to run on a plan to win. does that mean they
have some secret killer plan that they withheld from the public in order to
win votes in congress at the cost of american lives in iraq? i certai
ah is that what that means. I suspected he was saying the current
regime was not extreme enough for him when he said there had not been
any partisanship in Washington for the past few years.
On 11/8/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RINO's (Republicans in name only)
>
>
> On 11/8/06, Dana <[EMA
RINO's (Republicans in name only)
On 11/8/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just looking at the Rush Limbaugh site. He says he didn't like
> the Repubicans anyway
>
> On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > RoMunn wrote:
> > > You are putting way too much faith in a Dem
I think Baker and Gates will have opposite approaches to the war.
On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Democrats will run behind the Baker-Hamilton plan which,
> SURPRISE!! calls BOB GATES a member! Does that name sound familiar?
> He's SecDef nominee!
>
~~
I was just looking at the Rush Limbaugh site. He says he didn't like
the Repubicans anyway
On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > You are putting way too much faith in a Democratic Party that has been
> > totally devoid of real ideas in this arena for years.
>
> T
On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > Okinawa would be surrender. Not going to happen.
>
> Every week! (you say something and I have no idea what you're talking about)
Do you even pay attention to your own comments?
You said they're going with Murtha's plan. His pla
> RoMunn wrote:
> You are putting way too much faith in a Democratic Party that has been
> totally devoid of real ideas in this arena for years.
THEY DIDN'T NEED TO RUN ON ANYTHING!
Let me restate that for clarity: The President's policy sucked so bad
that between the choice of the anything else
> Sam wrote:
> Okinawa would be surrender. Not going to happen.
>
Every week! (you say something and I have no idea what you're talking about)
If you're commenting on Bush, this lose means AT BEST he's a failure,
at worst he's a disaster. Here are the possibilities:
1.) Iraq improves due to th
You are putting way too much faith in a Democratic Party that has been
totally devoid of real ideas in this arena for years. You are assuming the
Democrats have a plan and that their plan is more competent than anything
the Republicans have fielded. Let's see it.
The only plans I have heard from D
Okinawa would be surrender. Not going to happen.
On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is President fighting to stay relevant. He had to send a message
> to the American people that he'd heard them and that he was changing.
> And he had to stay in the press.
>
> The Dems ran
> gMoney wrote:
> While I think he should have fired him months, maybe years ago, I find it
> hard to believe that he fired him at all. Knowing the way these cronies
> operate, I imagine it was one of those "mutual decisions".
>
This is President fighting to stay relevant. He had to send a messag
Rummy offered to resign twice in the past and Bush told him to stay. He
should have just gone regardless of what Bush wanted, but that says to me
that Rummy really wanted to stay before and the offers of resignation were
just pro forma. Does that mean Bush fired him this time? Who knows.
On 11/8/0
Bush would ;)
On 11/8/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bush said he planned it last week
>
> On 11/8/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i can't imagine that the election had nothing to do with it. On the
> > other hand, if he were operating for the good of the party, he should
> > have do
Bush said he planned it last week
On 11/8/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i can't imagine that the election had nothing to do with it. On the
> other hand, if he were operating for the good of the party, he should
> have done it weeks ago. For the good of the country, months ago. I
> think h
i can't imagine that the election had nothing to do with it. On the
other hand, if he were operating for the good of the party, he should
have done it weeks ago. For the good of the country, months ago. I
think he probably fell on his sword to make it look like Bush is
responsive
On 11/8/06, G Mon
While I think he should have fired him months, maybe years ago, I find it
hard to believe that he fired him at all. Knowing the way these cronies
operate, I imagine it was one of those "mutual decisions".
On 11/8/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The Post is saying that Bush fir
Linky?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:51 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Drudge reporting Rumsfeld to re-sign
>
> The Post is saying that Bush fired him..
>
> Post article
&
Subject:Re: Drudge reporting Rumsfeld to re-sign
> Mainly, I think Rummy didn't want to face a verbal beating by Nancy
Pelosi,
> et. al. on the floor of the House.
Can't really blame him, as well deserved as I fell that beating may be...
--
will
"If my life
> Mainly, I think Rummy didn't want to face a verbal beating by Nancy Pelosi,
> et. al. on the floor of the House.
Can't really blame him, as well deserved as I fell that beating may be...
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie F
No, and Democrats would be extremely foolish to pull a Murtha at this point.
Last night they were talking in very moderate terms about providing
"oversight", but not about taking any drastic action (like cutting off
funding for the war). We'll see.
Mainly, I think Rummy didn't want to face a verba
tigation into the snafu that is
the war in iraq - and in particular, how the president and Mr. rumsfeld
purposefully misled congress and the American people about the "imminent
threat" that Iraq posed to t
Robert Munn wrote:
> About time, I guess he figures it is better to re-sign than to get
> humiliated by the Dems in Congressional hearings...
>
It's not on drudge.com but it IS on cnn.com
rick
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authori
You think Bush is going to cave to the Dems and abandon Iraq?
Scary.
On 11/8/06, Robert Munn wrote:
> About time, I guess he figures it is better to re-sign than to get
> humiliated by the Dems in Congressional hearings...
~|
In
that is resign, not re-sign
On 11/8/06, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> About time, I guess he figures it is better to re-sign than to get
> humiliated by the Dems in Congressional hearings...
>
--
---
Robert Munn
www.funkymojo.com
~
About time, I guess he figures it is better to re-sign than to get
humiliated by the Dems in Congressional hearings...
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFusion informat
ary vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase
> output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting
> an order from the Army.
>
> U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the Army was working as
> fast as it can and supply is dictated by `
Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective
plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase
output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an
order from the Army.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
here is my question. The article says Rumsfeld "will work hard" on the
issue. My question is, why hasn't he worked hard on it already?
Dana
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:27:11 -0500, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It will be interesting since every day for the next
It will be interesting since every day for the next few weeks someone in the
press is going to ask "Where is Wilson today?"
And if the answer is "casualty", he will be added to the list of convenient
deaths alongside Vince Foster and Lady Di's bodyguard.
Jerry
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan
t: Re: Rumsfeld
>From the way the general sounded (man he sounded pissed - either at
Wilson or the press - or both) if there was a ultimate sh*t job in the
region, Wilson is a prime candidate for it.
larry
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:12:27 -0500, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I th
>From the way the general sounded (man he sounded pissed - either at
Wilson or the press - or both) if there was a ultimate sh*t job in the
region, Wilson is a prime candidate for it.
larry
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:12:27 -0500, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think his point was that
I think his point was that was already his assigned duty.
Jerry
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Company
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/09/04 02:13PM >>>
I wouldn't be too surprised if Wilson ends up guarding a roadblock in
the Sunni triangle without body armour and a large target painted on
hi
fwiw I was just listening to CSPAN radio - they were doing a live
broadcast of a press conference by the commander in the region. The
lt.general was getting a royal grilling by the press. From the tone of
the general's voice towards the end of the conference, I suspect that
Spc Wilson is not only i
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 07:35:39 -0400, Angel Stewart
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That poor guy is probably going to get reamed. :-\
> APC Wilson whatever.
Spc. Wilson, not APC. I repeated your mistake too. Doh!
For shits and giggles, look up Feres Doctrine.
-Kevin
I honestly don't know what Rumsfeld may know or not. It's unfathomable
to me that he doesn't know, but then the whole administration is such
a mental case about Iraq.
I can tell you that it's not just APC Wilson. I know guys that have
fine armament, and I know guys that are
Boy, it doesn't get any more real than that, does it?
Tim, you take care of yourself over there. Can't wait to welcome all you
guys and gals back home :/
> This article is making the rounds here. People are pretty upset about it.
> He talks about stop loss (the military making you >stay in e
That poor guy is probably going to get reamed. :-\
APC Wilson whatever.
"I dont know what the facts are, but somebody is certainly going to sit down
with him and find out what he knows that they may not
know, Rumsfeld said.
Rumsfeld gave no indication that the soldier would face any ki
ah! Thank you.
Dana
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:29:07 -0600, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After Action Report probably. Basically a post mortem of what happened
> in a situation, why, and what can be done to improve.
>
> -Kevin
>
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:40:44 -0700, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECT
After Action Report probably. Basically a post mortem of what happened
in a situation, why, and what can be done to improve.
-Kevin
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:40:44 -0700, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim! glad you are ok, take care. What's an AAR? Thanks for the input!
>
> Dana
~~~
e.
>
> Christ I wish the libertarian party could get some support.
>
> Anyway, greetings from afghanistan, I hope your holidays are better than mine.
>
> L8rs
> Tim
>
> > Rumsfeld fielded questions from soldiers, and they drilled him. His
> > responses wer
I wish the libertarian party could get some support.
>
> Anyway, greetings from afghanistan, I hope your holidays are better than mine.
>
> L8rs
> Tim
>
> > Rumsfeld fielded questions from soldiers, and they drilled him. His
> > responses were less than thrilling in my o
k does not substitute.
Dana
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:44:20 -0600, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rumsfeld fielded questions from soldiers, and they drilled him. His responses
> were less than thrilling in my opinion. The one that really makes me cringe?
> "You go to war with the arm
have voted democrat, but damned if I didn't this time.
Christ I wish the libertarian party could get some support.
Anyway, greetings from afghanistan, I hope your holidays are better than mine.
L8rs
Tim
> Rumsfeld fielded questions from soldiers, and they drilled him. His
> responses we
Rumsfeld fielded questions from soldiers, and they drilled him. His responses
were less than thrilling in my opinion. The one that really makes me cringe?
"You go to war with the army you have". Yikesi really don't like this guy,
and these troops deserve better:
http://m
Yes, but a lot of people don't know about it, and worse, don't care.
At least you seem to care.
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> Should I have known this already?
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
-- Carrie Fisher
[Todays Threads]
[This
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> I read a piece yesterday about Reagan, and learned that Donald
> Rumsfeld was something like Reagan's "Special Attache to the Middle
> East", and was personally and directly in charge of our sponsoring and
> support or Saddam and Iraq.
>
&g
I read a piece yesterday about Reagan, and learned that Donald Rumsfeld was something like Reagan's "Special Attache to the Middle East", and was personally and directly in charge of our sponsoring and support or Saddam and Iraq.
I thought it was only personal for George W.
I
C'mon Gel, that's completely unfair.
(We haven't heard more about Afghanistan because so few reporters can spell it)
=)
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/10/04 03:29PM >>>
Maybe no one took pictures in Afghanistan that's why this scandal isn't
larger.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
HYPERLINK
"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4934213/"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/493421
3/
"The conservative hard-liners at the Department of Justice have given
the secretary of Defense a lot of leeway. It does not violate the spirit
of the Geneva Conventions, the lawyers have told R
they think it is going to work again.
Dana
>Top story at all the news outlets. Bush is praising Rumsfeld for doing such
>a great job.
>
>"One difference between democracies and dictatorships," he said, is that
>free countries confront such behavior "openly and direct
Wesley who? Was he the young kid on that Star Trek show?
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/10/04 01:45PM >>>
>On Meet the Press, Wesley Clark gave 2:1 odds that our mission in Iraq will
>end in catastrophic failure because of this issue.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
Top story at all the news outlets. Bush is praising Rumsfeld for doing such
a great job.
"One difference between democracies and dictatorships," he said, is that
free countries confront such behavior "openly and directly."
The interesting thing about this Abu Ghraib situatio
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&e=1&u=/nm/20031201/od_nm/odd_rumsfeld_dc
- Original Message -
From: Jim Campbell
To: CF-Community
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:40 PM
Subject: Rumsfeld Quote
To distract from respectable tech questions an
To distract from respectable tech questions and Mr. And Mr. Howard Dean,
I'd like to offer the most beautiful quote I've ever heard from Mr.
Rumsfeld:
"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to
me, because as we know, there are known knowns; ther
highly suggestive isnt it :P
Dana
Kevin Graeme writes:
> Wheee. That article is chock-full of interesting read-between-the-lines
> stuff. A little squabble for power between Rumsfeld and Rice? Who gets to be
> the puppet master for Bush? I mean, it's pretty obvious when Rice is
Wheee. That article is chock-full of interesting read-between-the-lines
stuff. A little squabble for power between Rumsfeld and Rice? Who gets to be
the puppet master for Bush? I mean, it's pretty obvious when Rice is doing
press briefings that usurp what Bush would normally be doing. And the
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3574498
Judith Dinowitz writes:
> Perry Martel has done some interesting studies on job searching. David Perry did an article in issue 111 of FA (actually, we did a whole series of articles at that time about job searching) that
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
