Discussion:
PING: Londoners
(too old to reply)
Dena Jo
2005-07-07 15:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Do we have any Londoners in the group? If so, let us know you're okay.

--
Dena Jo

Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain.

Plonk the bastards: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
Bert Coules
2005-07-07 15:22:26 UTC
Permalink
I'm not now a Londoner (though I was born there and lived there for many
years) but by an awful coincidence I was in the capital yesterday doing some
publicity interviews for the BBC, and afterwards I strolled through several
of the areas covered by today's outrages. The latest counts are talking of
at least thirty dead and a lot more critically injured.

As usual after this sort of thing the population seems determined to get
back to normal as quickly as possible, with people saying, in effect, "If we
let the bastards affect our everyday lives, it means they've won".

It takes more than a few terrorist bombs to bring London to a halt. It
takes at least an inch of snow to do that.

Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk
b***@comcast.net
2005-07-07 15:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Glad you're safe.

God bless.
t***@askme.net
2005-07-07 16:54:16 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:22:26 +0000 (UTC), "Bert Coules"
<***@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:

>I'm not now a Londoner (though I was born there and lived there for many
>years) but by an awful coincidence I was in the capital yesterday doing some
>publicity interviews for the BBC, and afterwards I strolled through several
>of the areas covered by today's outrages. The latest counts are talking of
>at least thirty dead and a lot more critically injured.
>
>As usual after this sort of thing the population seems determined to get
>back to normal as quickly as possible, with people saying, in effect, "If we
>let the bastards affect our everyday lives, it means they've won".
>
>It takes more than a few terrorist bombs to bring London to a halt. It
>takes at least an inch of snow to do that.


Just don't let insanity sweep the country, like what is happening
here.

We didn;t quite "get back to normal." Instead congress rolled over
like a puppy dog and went for the "Patriot Act".

Nazi Germany happened because, among other things, of
an important building that got bombed.

That really frightened me.

tracy
Skipper
2005-07-07 17:20:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <dajmnn$bh7$***@reader2.panix.com>, <***@askme.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:22:26 +0000 (UTC), "Bert Coules"
> <***@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I'm not now a Londoner (though I was born there and lived there for many
> >years) but by an awful coincidence I was in the capital yesterday doing some
> >publicity interviews for the BBC, and afterwards I strolled through several
> >of the areas covered by today's outrages. The latest counts are talking of
> >at least thirty dead and a lot more critically injured.
> >
> >As usual after this sort of thing the population seems determined to get
> >back to normal as quickly as possible, with people saying, in effect, "If we
> >let the bastards affect our everyday lives, it means they've won".
> >
> >It takes more than a few terrorist bombs to bring London to a halt. It
> >takes at least an inch of snow to do that.
>
>
> Just don't let insanity sweep the country, like what is happening
> here.
>
> We didn;t quite "get back to normal." Instead congress rolled over
> like a puppy dog and went for the "Patriot Act".
>
> Nazi Germany happened because, among other things, of
> an important building that got bombed.
>
> That really frightened me.
>
> tracy

Something tells me you're frightened 24/7 in general.

It's a world war, stupid. Wake the fuck up.
Hammonds
2005-07-07 18:19:47 UTC
Permalink
>Something tells me you're frightened 24/7 in general.


It's a world war, stupid. Wake the fuck up. <

Too bad we're losing.
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-07 18:23:46 UTC
Permalink
"Hammonds" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in news:dajro3$qht$1
@reader2.panix.com:

>>Something tells me you're frightened 24/7 in general.
>
>
> It's a world war, stupid. Wake the fuck up. <
>
> Too bad we're losing.

S'okay, the U.S. can always build a barrier around itself and call it the
"Wall of Freedom". ;-)


jaybee
l***@nospam.net
2005-07-07 23:53:02 UTC
Permalink
In <dajro3$qht$***@reader2.panix.com>, on 07/07/2005
at 06:19 PM, "Hammonds" <***@yahoo.com> said:



>>Something tells me you're frightened 24/7 in general.


>It's a world war, stupid. Wake the fuck up. <

>Too bad we're losing.

Too bad we let the rightwingers and neocons lead us into it.

Too bad we can't draft them all and send them and their kids to their war
before others have to die.
t***@askme.net
2005-07-07 18:50:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 17:20:05 +0000 (UTC), Skipper
>
>Something tells me you're frightened 24/7 in general.

Like what, like the little bird that lives in your head?

>
>It's a world war, stupid. Wake the fuck up.

I tend not to take advice from people who haven't gotten
over their cult experiences, Skip. Thank you, I'm not
looking for advice in that area right now.
l***@nospam.net
2005-07-07 23:52:01 UTC
Permalink
In <dajo85$nv1$***@reader2.panix.com>, on 07/07/2005
at 05:20 PM, Skipper <***@charter.net> said:



>In article <dajmnn$bh7$***@reader2.panix.com>, <***@askme.net> wrote:

>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:22:26 +0000 (UTC), "Bert Coules"
>> <***@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not now a Londoner (though I was born there and lived there for many
>> >years) but by an awful coincidence I was in the capital yesterday doing some
>> >publicity interviews for the BBC, and afterwards I strolled through several
>> >of the areas covered by today's outrages. The latest counts are talking of
>> >at least thirty dead and a lot more critically injured.
>> >
>> >As usual after this sort of thing the population seems determined to get
>> >back to normal as quickly as possible, with people saying, in effect, "If we
>> >let the bastards affect our everyday lives, it means they've won".
>> >
>> >It takes more than a few terrorist bombs to bring London to a halt. It
>> >takes at least an inch of snow to do that.
>>
>>
>> Just don't let insanity sweep the country, like what is happening
>> here.
>>
>> We didn;t quite "get back to normal." Instead congress rolled over
>> like a puppy dog and went for the "Patriot Act".
>>
>> Nazi Germany happened because, among other things, of
>> an important building that got bombed.
>>
>> That really frightened me.
>>
>> tracy

>Something tells me you're frightened 24/7 in general.

>It's a world war, stupid. Wake the fuck up.

--If so, its one we can't afford, can't fight with the military and can't
win as we see in iraq.
DackJaniels
2005-07-08 00:01:30 UTC
Permalink
"Skipper" <***@charter.net> wrote in message
news:dajo85$nv1$***@reader2.panix.com...
>
> Something tells me you're frightened 24/7 in general.
>
> It's a world war, stupid. Wake the fuck up.
>

Terrorism ain't a world war, stupid. It's a fact of life. Which some people
just can't live with because they can't admit they'll never win.
Bed Sores
2005-07-08 15:44:26 UTC
Permalink
"DackJaniels" <***@hic.com> wrote in message
news:dakfoq$9so$***@reader2.panix.com...
>
> Terrorism ain't a world war, stupid. It's a fact of life. Which some
> people just can't live with because they can't admit they'll never win.

Exactly, just like muscular dystrophy, but Jerry Lewis won't listen to
reason.
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-07 17:29:16 UTC
Permalink
***@askme.net wrote in news:dajmnn$bh7$***@reader2.panix.com:

> Just don't let insanity sweep the country, like what is happening
> here.
>
> We didn;t quite "get back to normal." Instead congress rolled over
> like a puppy dog and went for the "Patriot Act".
>
> Nazi Germany happened because, among other things, of
> an important building that got bombed.
>
> That really frightened me.

And as if the blow to freedom wasn't bad enough, journalism took another
blow recently with Judith Miller going to jail for refusing to divulge her
sources.



jaybee
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-07 17:33:53 UTC
Permalink
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:dajopb$4b8$***@reader2.panix.com:

> And as if the blow to freedom wasn't bad enough, journalism took
> another blow recently with Judith Miller going to jail for refusing to
> divulge her sources.

Make that "freedom of the press".


jaybee
w***@yahoo.com
2005-07-19 18:44:46 UTC
Permalink
***@askme.net wrote:

> Just don't let insanity sweep the country, like what is happening
> here.
>
> We didn;t quite "get back to normal." Instead congress rolled over
> like a puppy dog and went for the "Patriot Act".
>
> Nazi Germany happened because, among other things, of
> an important building that got bombed.
>
> That really frightened me.
>
> tracy

Tracy, how does the Patriot Act negatively affect YOUR life, unless
you're a radical islamic terrorist? I'm a law abiding citizen here in
the US and the Patriot Act has NEVER disrupted, and will never disrupt,
my life. The only people concerned about having their so-called "civil
liberties" and "privacy" violated are those with something to hide.
WHY are you whiny liberals bent on letting more of these animals into
the country who hate civilized people? WHY do you care more about
their "civil rights" than the victims- our friends, mothers, sisters,
fathers, brothers- that they have disembowled?
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-19 19:14:04 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote in news:dbjhmu$rh8$***@reader2.panix.com:

> Tracy, how does the Patriot Act negatively affect YOUR life, unless
> you're a radical islamic terrorist? I'm a law abiding citizen here in
> the US and the Patriot Act has NEVER disrupted, and will never disrupt,
> my life. The only people concerned about having their so-called "civil
> liberties" and "privacy" violated are those with something to hide.
> WHY are you whiny liberals bent on letting more of these animals into
> the country who hate civilized people? WHY do you care more about
> their "civil rights" than the victims- our friends, mothers, sisters,
> fathers, brothers- that they have disembowled?

I agree! Segregation never affected me either! And women's lib is for pinko
commies. Never changed my life at all!

Arrumpf!


jaybee
RonB
2005-07-19 19:50:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue 19 Jul 2005 12:44:46p, , wrote:

> Tracy, how does the Patriot Act negatively affect YOUR life, unless
> you're a radical islamic terrorist? I'm a law abiding citizen here
> in the US and the Patriot Act has NEVER disrupted, and will never
> disrupt, my life. The only people concerned about having their
> so-called "civil liberties" and "privacy" violated are those with
> something to hide. WHY are you whiny liberals bent on letting more of
> these animals into the country who hate civilized people? WHY do you
> care more about their "civil rights" than the victims- our friends,
> mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers- that they have disembowled?

True. We should be *thankful* when the government grasps more and more
control, bypasses rights guaranteed by the Constitution and enables
themselves to arrest anyone without a warrant and hold them without
trial or charge. The Soviet Union got a bum rap. If you just kept your
nose clean, didn't associate with the wrong sort of "riff raff," and
did what you were told without mewling or murmuring, you could usually
get along okay and sometimes avoid torture. Unless you happened to have
the wrong name or looked suspicious. But a few government indiscretions
are a small price to pay for security. Freedom is way, *way* over
rated.

Huzzah! Huzzah! Long live Emperor Bush!

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
VNilsen
2005-07-20 22:00:48 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote in news:dbjhmu$rh8$***@reader2.panix.com:

> ***@askme.net wrote:
>
>> Just don't let insanity sweep the country, like what is happening
>> here.
>>
>> We didn;t quite "get back to normal." Instead congress rolled over
>> like a puppy dog and went for the "Patriot Act".
>>
>> Nazi Germany happened because, among other things, of
>> an important building that got bombed.
>>
>> That really frightened me.
>>
>> tracy
>
> Tracy, how does the Patriot Act negatively affect YOUR life, unless
> you're a radical islamic terrorist? I'm a law abiding citizen here in
> the US and the Patriot Act has NEVER disrupted, and will never disrupt,
> my life. The only people concerned about having their so-called "civil
> liberties" and "privacy" violated are those with something to hide.
> WHY are you whiny liberals bent on letting more of these animals into
> the country who hate civilized people? WHY do you care more about
> their "civil rights" than the victims- our friends, mothers, sisters,
> fathers, brothers- that they have disembowled?

You have a good point of course. And I agree that the patriot Act can be
a good thing, but only to a certain extent. We must not let the PA evolve
into something that we have to live by. You understand what I mean? Now
you can sit by your computer and ask yourself, "can I go into this site
without ending up as a suspicious person in the eyes of the "suits"?" It
shouldn't have to be like that.
I am all for setting up cameras at any public location, but if you are
made suspicios and arrested for borrowing a book on Islam at the Library,
things have gone to far.

Now, i am a lawbinding permanent resident here in the US. And being a
foreigner here I know that I am probably subject to a more "watchful
eye", but I don't have any problem with that at all.
I don't think people who are against the PA all have something to hide.
Some of course, but there are people who appreciate their privacy enough
to think the PA is a invasion upon it, which I can understand too. It's a
personal preference thing I guess.



--
V. Nilsen

"Yeah, that's right, or we'll tie you to a tree,
f*** you in the ass while we jerk you off!
That'll show you what we do to perverts around here!"
J.Simpson
2005-07-22 17:19:47 UTC
Permalink
> You have a good point of course. And I agree that the patriot Act can be
> a good thing, but only to a certain extent. We must not let the PA evolve
> into something that we have to live by. You understand what I mean? Now
> you can sit by your computer and ask yourself, "can I go into this site
> without ending up as a suspicious person in the eyes of the "suits"?" It
> shouldn't have to be like that.
> I am all for setting up cameras at any public location, but if you are
> made suspicios and arrested for borrowing a book on Islam at the Library,
> things have gone to far.


Why is it people didn't freak out over those Christians when TM and his crew
blew up the building in Oklahoma? Why didn't the government track people
who read the bible and attended fundamentalist Christian meetings? Why
didn't people get suspicious of blond haired fair skinned people? Why
weren't people fire bombing Christian churches?

Jay
Gene Harris
2005-07-22 18:02:17 UTC
Permalink
J.Simpson wrote:

> Why is it people didn't freak out over those Christians when TM and
> his crew blew up the building in Oklahoma? Why didn't the government
> track people who read the bible and attended fundamentalist Christian
> meetings? Why didn't people get suspicious of blond haired fair
> skinned people? Why weren't people fire bombing Christian churches?

Easy enough to understand. IMHO, McVeigh and Nichols and their ilk are
perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be part of a relatively small number of
crazies operating only in this country, who don't represent anything
close to mainstream Christianity, whereas the Islamist terrorists are
perceived to be a significant and influential segment of a major religion
who pose a dangerous threat to the entire western culture and way of
life. Whether these perceptions are correct is a matter for debate, of
course.

Gene
dano
2005-07-23 17:26:36 UTC
Permalink
In article <dbrcb9$iu5$***@reader2.panix.com>,
Gene Harris <***@comNOcastSPAM.net> wrote:

> J.Simpson wrote:
>
> > Why is it people didn't freak out over those Christians when TM and
> > his crew blew up the building in Oklahoma? Why didn't the government
> > track people who read the bible and attended fundamentalist Christian
> > meetings? Why didn't people get suspicious of blond haired fair
> > skinned people? Why weren't people fire bombing Christian churches?

And let's not forget Eric Rudolph and the christian fundamentalists who
believe it is okay to bomb and assassinate other people they don't agree
with.

> Easy enough to understand. IMHO, McVeigh and Nichols and their ilk are
> perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be part of a relatively small number of
> crazies operating only in this country, who don't represent anything
> close to mainstream Christianity, whereas the Islamist terrorists are
> perceived to be a significant and influential segment of a major religion
> who pose a dangerous threat to the entire western culture and way of
> life. Whether these perceptions are correct is a matter for debate, of
> course.

Perception is the problem, or, as JB pointed out, the lack of good
reportage in the US creates a lack of perception of the full truth, or
at least of a full representation of what is going on and what is being
said.

Yesterday (Friday, July 22) Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) had as his
guest Fareed Zakaria.

<http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002252.html#002252>

Mr. Zakaria is the international editor for Newsweek, but was also the
managing editor (iirc) for Foreign Affairs for several years and has a
PhD from Harvard in International Relations. I think this makes him
fairly atypical for a mainstream journalist in the US. He also has a
sense of humor (!).

Stewart let Zakaria go on at some length in his analysis of Islam
worldwide and the roots of Islamic terrorism (usually considered
fundamentalism) in particular. His comments make it plain that the
problem is partly the result of Islamic fundamentalism - especially
Wahhabism as exported from Saudi Arabia - but also due to the alienation
of young Arabs in countries where Arabs have migrated to.

One notable exception he pointed out is the Islamic community in the US.
It has integrated well into America - culturally and economically - and
deplored the attack. (They were public about it too, but the reaction of
the government, the public and the media against all Muslims and Arabs
did much to cause them to fall silent. Not because they deplored it
less, but because they didn't want to attract attention.) But in England
and France and even in many Arab and Muslim countries there are cultural
strains and tensions that are exacerbated when they seek relief in
religious fundamentalism, and then, as young men are wont to do all over
the world and across time, they strike out violently.

Zakaria pointed out the differences between the Muslim countries with
functioning democracies and how they uniformly vote against Muslim
fundamentalist parties, while in countries with entrenched, dominant and
unelected political hierarchies and large populations of disaffected
youth (notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan), there are these
problems of violent tendencies.

France is trying to deal with their problem of disaffected Muslim and
Arab populations. They are not doing as well as they could or should,
but they seem to be doing better than the Brits or the Spanish.

But I don't put it as well as Zakaria on TDS. Check the clip. It's good
information.

--
"Free Katie Holmes!" - Iggy Pop
Sam
2005-07-22 18:25:17 UTC
Permalink
J.Simpson wrote:
>>You have a good point of course. And I agree that the patriot Act can be
>>a good thing, but only to a certain extent. We must not let the PA evolve

> Why is it people didn't freak out over those Christians when TM and his crew
> blew up the building in Oklahoma? Why didn't the government track people
> who read the bible and attended fundamentalist Christian meetings? Why
> didn't people get suspicious of blond haired fair skinned people? Why
> weren't people fire bombing Christian churches?

Perhaps because except for a lunatic fringe, Christians universally
denounced the action. The inverse seems to be the case for the
Islamic institutions.

-sam
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-22 19:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Sam <***@comcast.net> wrote in
news:dbrdmd$f8s$***@reader2.panix.com:

> Perhaps because except for a lunatic fringe, Christians universally
> denounced the action. The inverse seems to be the case for the
> Islamic institutions.

Actually, there have been public declarations by Muslim religious leaders
the world over who denouce the acts of terrorism, although I couldn't find
any mention of it in the American news media.

Have the American news reported, incidentally, that the Patriot Act has
been extended for another ten years, and that 14 of the 16 resolutions
adopted after 9/11 are now permanent?



jaybee
RonB
2005-07-22 19:37:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri 22 Jul 2005 01:10:24p, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
<***@invalid.invalid>, wrote:

> Actually, there have been public declarations by Muslim religious
> leaders the world over who denouce the acts of terrorism, although I
> couldn't find any mention of it in the American news media.

How surprising! Who would have ever guessed it?

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-22 19:46:50 UTC
Permalink
RonB <***@bliz.org> wrote in news:dbrhul$afe$***@reader2.panix.com:

> On Fri 22 Jul 2005 01:10:24p, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
><***@invalid.invalid>, wrote:
>
>> Actually, there have been public declarations by Muslim religious
>> leaders the world over who denouce the acts of terrorism, although I
>> couldn't find any mention of it in the American news media.
>
> How surprising! Who would have ever guessed it?

This is what's so pernicious about the one-sided coverage in the states.
The media doesn't outright lie, it just "omits" to report a little news
here, a little news there, and much like the frog in boiling water, the
public doesn't realize that they're being greviously being misled and that
their civil liberties are being eroded.

And then one day you have frog soup, and everyone's wondering how it could
have happened.



jaybee
Mysti Berry
2005-07-25 16:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
> Sam <***@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:dbrdmd$f8s$***@reader2.panix.com:
>
>
>>Perhaps because except for a lunatic fringe, Christians universally
>>denounced the action. The inverse seems to be the case for the
>>Islamic institutions.
>
>
> Actually, there have been public declarations by Muslim religious leaders
> the world over who denouce the acts of terrorism, although I couldn't find
> any mention of it in the American news media.
>
> Have the American news reported, incidentally, that the Patriot Act has
> been extended for another ten years, and that 14 of the 16 resolutions
> adopted after 9/11 are now permanent?
>
>
>
> jaybee
>
Actually, I thought the House and Senate versions had yet to be
reconciled. I probably missed something, I've been taking care of 15
year old, James Bond obsessed, nephew for weekend....

Mysti
n***@virtual.com
2005-07-22 18:29:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:19:47 +0000 (UTC), "J.Simpson"
<***@uniserve.com> wrote:

>> You have a good point of course. And I agree that the patriot Act can be
>> a good thing, but only to a certain extent. We must not let the PA evolve
>> into something that we have to live by. You understand what I mean? Now
>> you can sit by your computer and ask yourself, "can I go into this site
>> without ending up as a suspicious person in the eyes of the "suits"?" It
>> shouldn't have to be like that.
>> I am all for setting up cameras at any public location, but if you are
>> made suspicios and arrested for borrowing a book on Islam at the Library,
>> things have gone to far.
>
>
>Why is it people didn't freak out over those Christians when TM and his crew
>blew up the building in Oklahoma? Why didn't the government track people
>who read the bible and attended fundamentalist Christian meetings? Why
>didn't people get suspicious of blond haired fair skinned people? Why
>weren't people fire bombing Christian churches?
>
>Jay

Because the "Christians" are the "good" guys and the large pot of oil
is located in another country.

Follow the mullah. Moola? --> $$$

Question: Why would terrorists fly planes into two buildings to kill
3000 people, when on that same afternoon there would probably be
125,000 people in the same buildings?

Maybe there's a "good" reason and I'm just not seeing it.

Doug

Just a virtual guy... in a virtual world
Alan Brooks
2005-07-22 19:13:07 UTC
Permalink
"***@virtual.com" <***@virtual.com> wrote:

> Question: Why would terrorists fly planes into two buildings to kill
> 3000 people, when on that same afternoon there would probably be
> 125,000 people in the same buildings?

Actually, 8 or 9am is a very good time to bomb a building in NYC. Most New
Yorkers start work very early -- my hours (when I had hours) were generally
7:30 until around 3:00pm. Lunch hours vary from noon until late-o'clock in
the afternoon. 10am might have been a better time to hit, but really, could
they have afforded to just hang in a holding pattern over Connecticut for
the extra hour?

Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood

-- 12 million of us arrive early
to avoid rush hour.

MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
n***@virtual.com
2005-07-23 02:21:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:13:07 +0000 (UTC), Alan Brooks
<***@panix.com> wrote:

>"***@virtual.com" <***@virtual.com> wrote:
>
>> Question: Why would terrorists fly planes into two buildings to kill
>> 3000 people, when on that same afternoon there would probably be
>> 125,000 people in the same buildings?
>
>Actually, 8 or 9am is a very good time to bomb a building in NYC. Most New
>Yorkers start work very early -- my hours (when I had hours) were generally
>7:30 until around 3:00pm. Lunch hours vary from noon until late-o'clock in
>the afternoon. 10am might have been a better time to hit, but really, could
>they have afforded to just hang in a holding pattern over Connecticut for
>the extra hour?
>
> Alan Brooks

I guess the point that I was getting at was that around the time of
the WTC tragedy, I had heard that on a typical day there would
probably be around 125,000 people *in the buildings* in the afternoon.

125,000 seems like an awful lot of people. Does this figure seem
reasonable? Alan?

Doug

Just a virtual guy... in a virtual world
Alan Brooks
2005-07-23 03:27:49 UTC
Permalink
"***@virtual.com" <***@virtual.com> wrote:

> I guess the point that I was getting at was that around the time of
> the WTC tragedy, I had heard that on a typical day there would
> probably be around 125,000 people *in the buildings* in the afternoon.
>
> 125,000 seems like an awful lot of people. Does this figure seem
> reasonable? Alan?

I think that was the bragging number used by the WTC management, so it was
roughly the high side of reasonable. Of course on any given day you were
going to have heaps of people out sick or off on vacation or late to work or
telecommuting or at off-site meetings, so I'd bet the actual number of
people in the buildings at any point in time would be about half that --
which is why the Mayor's office said we were lucky it wasn't 60,000 dead,
which was (I believe) the city's worst-case scenario number.

An interesting factoid I discovered after the 9/11 disaster was that the WTC
was the epicenter of coffee trading in the US. I found I knew 3 different
people who just made it out of the buildings, all of whom worked for
different coffee companies. One of the people (my cousin's husband's
sister) told me that just as there's a garment district, a plant district, a
diamond district, &tc, the WTC *was* the coffee district. Don't know where
they've gone to now that their stomping grounds (sic) are gone.

Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood

-- Grounds Zero.

MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
n***@virtual.com
2005-07-23 12:25:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:27:49 +0000 (UTC), Alan Brooks
<***@panix.com> wrote:

>"***@virtual.com" <***@virtual.com> wrote:
>
>> I guess the point that I was getting at was that around the time of
>> the WTC tragedy, I had heard that on a typical day there would
>> probably be around 125,000 people *in the buildings* in the afternoon.
>>
>> 125,000 seems like an awful lot of people. Does this figure seem
>> reasonable? Alan?
>
>I think that was the bragging number used by the WTC management, so it was
>roughly the high side of reasonable. Of course on any given day you were
>going to have heaps of people out sick or off on vacation or late to work or
>telecommuting or at off-site meetings, so I'd bet the actual number of
>people in the buildings at any point in time would be about half that --
>which is why the Mayor's office said we were lucky it wasn't 60,000 dead,
>which was (I believe) the city's worst-case scenario number.

Yeah. That's making a bit more sense to me. 60,000. Thanks for
clearing that up. It's been a sticking point in my mind for some time
now.

>An interesting factoid I discovered after the 9/11 disaster was that the WTC
>was the epicenter of coffee trading in the US. I found I knew 3 different
>people who just made it out of the buildings, all of whom worked for
>different coffee companies. One of the people (my cousin's husband's
>sister) told me that just as there's a garment district, a plant district, a
>diamond district, &tc, the WTC *was* the coffee district. Don't know where
>they've gone to now that their stomping grounds (sic) are gone.

Stomping grounds...

I did not know that! Logical though, I guess. Trading coffee
futures. I know there were many brokerages in the buildings.

Thanks!

Doug



Just a virtual guy... in a virtual world
Alan Brooks
2005-07-22 19:08:16 UTC
Permalink
"J.Simpson" <***@uniserve.com> wrote:

>> You have a good point of course. And I agree that the patriot Act can be
>> a good thing, but only to a certain extent. We must not let the PA evolve
>> into something that we have to live by. You understand what I mean? Now
>> you can sit by your computer and ask yourself, "can I go into this site
>> without ending up as a suspicious person in the eyes of the "suits"?" It
>> shouldn't have to be like that.
>> I am all for setting up cameras at any public location, but if you are
>> made suspicios and arrested for borrowing a book on Islam at the Library,
>> things have gone to far.
>
>
> Why is it people didn't freak out over those Christians when TM and his crew
> blew up the building in Oklahoma? Why didn't the government track people
> who read the bible and attended fundamentalist Christian meetings? Why
> didn't people get suspicious of blond haired fair skinned people? Why
> weren't people fire bombing Christian churches?

Um... Because much as we don't like to admit it, we're a country populated
by paranoid, jingoistic racists?

Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood

-- Send my prize money to MoveOn.org

MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
RonB
2005-07-22 19:20:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri 22 Jul 2005 11:19:47a, "J.Simpson" <***@uniserve.com>,
wrote:

> Why
> didn't people get suspicious of blond haired fair skinned people?

Were McVeigh and Nichols "closet" blonds? They were sneakier than I
thought!

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Paulo Joe Jingy
2005-07-22 19:44:44 UTC
Permalink
J.Simpson wrote:

> Why is it people didn't freak out over those Christians when TM and his crew
> blew up the building in Oklahoma? Why didn't the government track people
> who read the bible and attended fundamentalist Christian meetings? Why
> didn't people get suspicious of blond haired fair skinned people? Why
> weren't people fire bombing Christian churches?


If I remember correctly (and I think I do) the very first response to
Oklahoma City was to start rounding up "Arab looking" people.
J.Simpson
2005-07-22 22:20:26 UTC
Permalink
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <***@usa1776.com> wrote in message
news:dbribb$ndf$***@reader2.panix.com...
> J.Simpson wrote:
> If I remember correctly (and I think I do) the very first response to
> Oklahoma City was to start rounding up "Arab looking" people.


Indeed it was. Who says racial profiling isn't a viable law enforcement
tool? The feds could have rounded up some dark complexion types and beat a
confession out of them a lot faster than it took to find the real
perpetrators if it wasn't for those whiny liberal types always being on
their case about "civil rights' and "due process". This is America. Do you
want it done right or do you want it done fast?

Sure the Patriot act results in 99% of the people arrested and investigated
to be innocent, but it makes for great PR (who could protest something
called "the patriot act") and gets the job done fast. That's all that
matters, getting it done right doesn't really matter so long as it looks
like the government is doing something to keep America safe. Americans
would rather believe in a comforting lie than know a disturbing truth - The
Patriot Act only makes anti-government fringe groups more afraid and more
likely to act against the government. Invading Iraq only makes
anti-American and anti-western sentiments stronger and polarizes the middle
east until there are no moderates which makes the extremists more likely to
commit acts of terrorism against the USA. But we don't want to know that.
We want a comforting lie with a feel good name like "the patriot act" to
give us a false sense of security.

Jay
RonB
2005-07-23 01:20:50 UTC
Permalink
On Fri 22 Jul 2005 04:20:26p, "J.Simpson" <***@uniserve.com>,
wrote:

> But we don't want to know that.
> We want a comforting lie with a feel good name like "the patriot act"
> to give us a false sense of security.

Well, Yeah-AH!

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Mysti Berry
2005-07-25 17:00:54 UTC
Permalink
J.Simpson wrote a bunch of incorrect and racist nonsense in two posts:

I was going to respond, then I got to thinking, this guy is or is a tool
of Jay Stevens, and just needs filtering.

sigh.

Mysti
MC
2005-07-25 17:42:51 UTC
Permalink
In article <dc35s6$ha9$***@reader2.panix.com>,
Mysti Berry <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> J.Simpson wrote a bunch of incorrect and racist nonsense in two posts:
>
> I was going to respond, then I got to thinking, this guy is or is a tool
> of Jay Stevens, and just needs filtering.
>

Speaking of Jay, I came across this item today:

http://p2pnet.net/story/5687

I'm not advocating a thing... I'm just sayin'...

--

"Don't try to lay no boogie-woogie on the king of
Rock 'n' Roll!"
--Long John Baldry
Mysti Berry
2005-07-25 17:50:37 UTC
Permalink
MC wrote:

> In article <dc35s6$ha9$***@reader2.panix.com>,
> Mysti Berry <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>J.Simpson wrote a bunch of incorrect and racist nonsense in two posts:
>>
>>I was going to respond, then I got to thinking, this guy is or is a tool
>>of Jay Stevens, and just needs filtering.
>>
>
>
> Speaking of Jay, I came across this item today:
>
> http://p2pnet.net/story/5687
>
> I'm not advocating a thing... I'm just sayin'...
>
Wow! I thought only the good died young...

Mysti
n***@virtual.com
2005-07-25 22:45:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:42:51 +0000 (UTC), MC
<***@mapca.inter.net> wrote:

>http://p2pnet.net/story/5687

Thanks for posting this, MC.

As for the Jai/dead Russian guy thing -- Who knows what can/may
happen?

As for the p2pnet.net site. Cool! Looks like it has some interesting
articles, etc.

I did not know that...

Doug

Just a virtual guy... in a virtual world
Gene Harris
2005-07-25 18:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Mysti Berry wrote:

> J.Simpson wrote a bunch of incorrect and racist nonsense in two posts:
>
> I was going to respond, then I got to thinking, this guy is or is a
> tool of Jay Stevens, and just needs filtering.
>
> sigh.
>
> Mysti
>

I think you need to re-read his post, Mysti.

Gene
Mysti Berry
2005-07-25 21:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Gene Harris wrote:

> Mysti Berry wrote:
>
>
>>J.Simpson wrote a bunch of incorrect and racist nonsense in two posts:
>>
>>I was going to respond, then I got to thinking, this guy is or is a
>>tool of Jay Stevens, and just needs filtering.
>>
>>sigh.
>>
>>Mysti
>>
>
>
> I think you need to re-read his post, Mysti.
>
> Gene
>
I didn't need to read past the original post where he called a whole
class of people animals. Unless the attribution is wrong?

Mysti
Mysti Berry
2005-07-25 21:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Gene Harris wrote:

> Mysti Berry wrote:
>
>
>>J.Simpson wrote a bunch of incorrect and racist nonsense in two posts:
>>
>>I was going to respond, then I got to thinking, this guy is or is a
>>tool of Jay Stevens, and just needs filtering.
>>
>>sigh.
>>
>>Mysti
>>
>
>
> I think you need to re-read his post, Mysti.
>
> Gene
>

Ah, I did not mean J Simpson and I deeply apologize!!!

It was wc3player who was baiting folks with racist crap.

Thank you Gene for pointing out my error, and J Simpson, I'm a fool and
I'm sorry!

Mysti
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-25 21:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Mysti Berry <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:dc3kg7$bru$1
@reader2.panix.com:

> Ah, I did not mean J Simpson and I deeply apologize!!!
>
> It was wc3player who was baiting folks with racist crap.

I killfiled the mouth breather after his second post.


jaybee
J.Simpson
2005-07-26 17:31:01 UTC
Permalink
"Mysti Berry" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dc3kg7$bru$***@reader2.panix.com...
> Ah, I did not mean J Simpson and I deeply apologize!!!


'sall good.

Jay Simpson
newser
2005-07-23 00:19:28 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:19:47 +0000, J.Simpson wrote:

>> You have a good point of course. And I agree that the patriot Act can be
>> a good thing, but only to a certain extent. We must not let the PA evolve
>> into something that we have to live by. You understand what I mean? Now
>> you can sit by your computer and ask yourself, "can I go into this site
>> without ending up as a suspicious person in the eyes of the "suits"?" It
>> shouldn't have to be like that.
>> I am all for setting up cameras at any public location, but if you are
>> made suspicios and arrested for borrowing a book on Islam at the Library,
>> things have gone to far.
>
> Why is it people didn't freak out over those Christians when TM and his crew
> blew up the building in Oklahoma? Why didn't the government track people
> who read the bible and attended fundamentalist Christian meetings? Why
> didn't people get suspicious of blond haired fair skinned people? Why
> weren't people fire bombing Christian churches?
>
> Jay
Because TM and his crew were white males, ya know, our own kind. Remember
when Senator Arlen Spector invited a bunch of fanatical militia types to
testify before Congress after Oklahoma and ask them why they were so
angry? There was an uproar about that. Can you imagine Republicans
inviting Osama Bin Ladin to Washington to find out why he's so upset?
J.Simpson
2005-07-23 16:01:17 UTC
Permalink
"newser" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message Can you imagine
Republicans
> inviting Osama Bin Ladin to Washington to find out why he's so upset?
>

LOL.

Jay
dano
2005-07-21 06:01:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <dbjhmu$rh8$***@reader2.panix.com>, ***@yahoo.com wrote:

> ***@askme.net wrote:
>
> > Just don't let insanity sweep the country, like what is happening
> > here.
> >
> > We didn;t quite "get back to normal." Instead congress rolled over
> > like a puppy dog and went for the "Patriot Act".
> >
> > Nazi Germany happened because, among other things, of
> > an important building that got bombed.
> >
> > That really frightened me.
> >
> > tracy
>
> Tracy, how does the Patriot Act negatively affect YOUR life, unless
> you're a radical islamic terrorist? I'm a law abiding citizen here in
> the US and the Patriot Act has NEVER disrupted, and will never disrupt,
> my life.

Have you examined the Patriot Act? How can you know it will never
disrupt your life in the future? What have you been reading at the
library lately? What have you been saying on the phone lately?

And to hit closer to home, what if an executive which does not agree
with your thoughts comes into power and begins to surveil you for your
thoughts, and then comes after you and imprisons you for *months*
without charge?

It could happen. And yes, it could happen to you. It's now legal.


> The only people concerned about having their so-called "civil
> liberties" and "privacy" violated are those with something to hide.

That is not logical nor accurate. Anybody concerned about civil rights
for all is concerned about the encroachment and erosion of civil rights
for all.

> WHY are you whiny liberals bent on letting more of these animals into
> the country who hate civilized people?

Why do you characterize everybody outside your narrow and agitprop cabal
as "whiny liberals"? There are many traditional conservatives who are
outspoken and adamantly against this far-right wing authoritarian
administration. In fact some of those against it were in it - Clarke and
O'Neil - and some were in a previous iteration of a Bush administration
- Scowcroft and Baker.

In fact if you look around you'll find some serious militarists who are
adamantly against this administration - Shinseki, Odom and Zinni come to
mind. There are more, many more. Even Hackworth had finally begun to
denounce them.

> WHY do you care more about
> their "civil rights" than the victims- our friends, mothers, sisters,
> fathers, brothers- that they have disembowled?

This is where you and your small-minded clique really demonstrate your
ignorance. It's not about "their 'civil rights' ". It is about the civil
rights for ALL of us.

When they come to get you in the middle of the night, who will come to
help you?

--
"What we need now are killfiles that really kill." - anon poster on a.f.jwz
Richard
2005-07-07 22:56:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:22:26 +0000 (UTC), "Bert Coules"
<***@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:

>I'm not now a Londoner (though I was born there and lived there for many
>years) but by an awful coincidence I was in the capital yesterday doing some
>publicity interviews for the BBC, and afterwards I strolled through several
>of the areas covered by today's outrages. The latest counts are talking of
>at least thirty dead and a lot more critically injured.
>
>As usual after this sort of thing the population seems determined to get
>back to normal as quickly as possible, with people saying, in effect, "If we
>let the bastards affect our everyday lives, it means they've won".
>
>It takes more than a few terrorist bombs to bring London to a halt. It
>takes at least an inch of snow to do that.
>
>Bert
>http://www.bertcoules.co.uk
>

Made me laugh on that one! I'm a Londoner and I'm okay! I was in the
middle of the Brixton bomb in 99 and was really just greatly warmed
when people then, as now really showed llittle fear for people who
want to mindlessly bomb London. Then, in the minutes after the bomb
went off, noone cared that there may have been another bomb. Their
only concern was to tend to the sick.

I was really impressed with the ex Mayor of NY Guiliani(sp?) speaking
on BBC today. I agree that the city the size of London can never be
perfectly protected. We can only do our best to make it secure.

I was in the US right after 9/11 and the shock over the sheer scale of
what happened there can never I believe be truly comprehended.
In the UK, after years of terrorism of the IRA, Londoners understand
that London can grind to a halt just with an innocent handbag left in
the wrong place at the wrong time.

My heartfelt condolences to anyone who has lost anyone, and to anyone
who was injured in these blasts.


Richard
Tristán White
2005-07-11 17:12:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:04:30 +0000 (UTC), Dena Jo <***@privacy.net>
wrote:

>Do we have any Londoners in the group? If so, let us know you're okay.


I'm a Londoner and I'm fine. Was a little scary at one point as I was
in Kings Cross only about 50m from where it was all going on that
morning. But there was no panic or anything, everyone stayed calm and
the police and emergency services were outstanding, kept everything
under calm.

I just hope that there will be no racist reprisals against our Muslem
brothers and sisters here on this island - there are always a couple
of idiots who cannot realise that the vast majority of Muslims are
shocked and appalled at what happened.

As for apportioning blame, I am not in the least bit surprised. What
do you expect when you follow Bush blindly into a war that should
never have happened, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi
civillians. I hope that if anything good comes from this, however
trite that sounds right now, that it ends up with Blair going away in
the same way that it got rid of Aznar in Spain. We need a peaceful
leader, not a warmongerer like Bush or Blair.

Still 4 years to wait till the next general election though :-(

Heartfelt sympathies go out to all those caught up in this terrible
occasion, and I think now more than ever we must hope for peace and
forgiveness and try and put things back to normal. They already are
back to normal. Today the tube was running fine (apart from the Circle
line and a bit of the Piccadilly line) and the mood was pretty
relaxed.

Another thing I hope does not happen here is that the government
starts clamping down on everyone's civil liberties as a result, as
happened in the US. For example, I am against ID cards, and I think it
will be a terrible waste of 9 billion pounds or however much it will
be. And it didn't prevent what happened in Madrid where they *do* have
ID cards. People need to go on with their lives, and the easiest way
to defeat terrorism is by not bombing these countries out of existance
in the first place.

TRISTÁN
.
MC
2005-07-11 17:31:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <dau9a8$nsc$***@reader2.panix.com>,
Tristán White <***@rocketmail.com> wrote:

> I just hope that there will be no racist reprisals against our Muslem
> brothers and sisters here on this island - there are always a couple
> of idiots who cannot realise that the vast majority of Muslims are
> shocked and appalled at what happened.
>

Have many clerics condemned it publicly? All I ever hear from the Muslim
establishment is silence or vaguely equivocal statements.

Part of the problem is that Islam doesn't really have a hierarchical
priesthood in the way that Christianity does -- there's no Pope or
Archbishop of Canterbury to get up and state the position of the church.

But while I don't doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are shocked
and appalled, very, very, very few of them seem to want to say so loud
and proud. Which is fucking ridiculous, since Islam does not promulgate
murder and bombing and terrorism.

But do the clerics get up and say "if you kill innocents you will *not*
go to heaven?"

I haven't heard them do it.

And until that changes there will be enormous potential for racism and
reprisals.

Will it change? I think it will -- eventually -- because no one wants to
be the undeserving target of racism and there will be a groundswell of
mothers and fathers who don't want to see their children strap bombs
around themselves, and don't want to be ostracized and spat upon.

But the change has to come from them.

Rant off.

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
l***@nospam.net
2005-07-12 09:20:49 UTC
Permalink
In <dauadl$nj1$***@reader2.panix.com>, on 07/11/2005
at 05:31 PM, MC <***@mapca.inter.net> said:



>In article <dau9a8$nsc$***@reader2.panix.com>,
> Tristßn White <***@rocketmail.com> wrote:

>> I just hope that there will be no racist reprisals against our Muslem
>> brothers and sisters here on this island - there are always a couple
>> of idiots who cannot realise that the vast majority of Muslims are
>> shocked and appalled at what happened.
>>

>Have many clerics condemned it publicly? All I ever hear from the Muslim
>establishment is silence or vaguely equivocal statements.

How many American preachers have stood up and said that lying to make a
war is wrong. That spending more money then the rest of the world
combined on arms is wrong. That letting children go hungry while we give
the rich more money then they can ever spend is wrong...

How many have stood up and said supporting this kind of culture in arab
nations is what has lead to the anger of the terrorists. And maybe more
of us on this planet need to be angry...





>Part of the problem is that Islam doesn't really have a hierarchical
>priesthood in the way that Christianity does -- there's no Pope or
>Archbishop of Canterbury to get up and state the position of the church.

>But while I don't doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are shocked
>and appalled, very, very, very few of them seem to want to say so loud
>and proud. Which is fucking ridiculous, since Islam does not promulgate
>murder and bombing and terrorism.

>But do the clerics get up and say "if you kill innocents you will *not*
>go to heaven?"

>I haven't heard them do it.

>And until that changes there will be enormous potential for racism and
>reprisals.

>Will it change? I think it will -- eventually -- because no one wants to
>be the undeserving target of racism and there will be a groundswell of
>mothers and fathers who don't want to see their children strap bombs
>around themselves, and don't want to be ostracized and spat upon.

>But the change has to come from them.

>Rant off.
MC
2005-07-12 10:09:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <db021h$sjs$***@reader2.panix.com>, ***@nospam.net wrote:

> >Have many clerics condemned it publicly? All I ever hear from the Muslim
> >establishment is silence or vaguely equivocal statements.
>
> How many American preachers have stood up and said that lying to make a
> war is wrong. That spending more money then the rest of the world
> combined on arms is wrong. That letting children go hungry while we give
> the rich more money then they can ever spend is wrong...
>
> How many have stood up and said supporting this kind of culture in arab
> nations is what has lead to the anger of the terrorists. And maybe more
> of us on this planet need to be angry...
>
>
>

Not too many in the Red states, I'll bet.

But elsewhere? There's a *long* tradition of this in the Christian
church as a matter of fact. During Vietnam there was a chorus of such
voices in holy orders.

But you're right to qualify your question with "American" because those
opinions are pretty unpopular in these times.

But you know what? The more body bags that come home, the harder it's
going to be for the center to hold. Just like Vietnam.

Outside the states, *plenty* of Christian ministers of all denominations
have condemned the US for its politics.

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
Tristán White
2005-07-12 12:01:59 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:31:33 +0000 (UTC), MC
<***@mapca.inter.net> wrote:

>Have many clerics condemned it publicly? All I ever hear from the Muslim
>establishment is silence or vaguely equivocal statements.
<SNIP>


Errm, actually you should see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1525772,00.html?gusrc=rss
.
MC
2005-07-12 13:01:58 UTC
Permalink
In article <db0bfn$lhu$***@reader2.panix.com>,
Trist?n White <***@rocketmail.com> wrote:

> >Have many clerics condemned it publicly? All I ever hear from the Muslim
> >establishment is silence or vaguely equivocal statements.
> <SNIP>
>
>
> Errm, actually you should see
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1525772,00.html?gusrc=rss
> .

Thanks -- I hadn't seen that.

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
t***@askme.net
2005-07-13 23:00:35 UTC
Permalink
MC. I'd like to know how it is appropriate for you to make a politcal
post on this ng, which has British members, on July 11, when the dead
were still being counted, and people were still being notified that
they have lost friends and/or relatives.

Why is it appropriate for you to do it while the tragedy is still
going on, when you had a problem with it on the day it happened?

Why is it appropriate for the Mayor of Paris to say: "Today we are
all Londoners," and then stop thinking that way the very next day?
I guess the same would apply for when some French woman said
"We are all Americans today" on 9/11.

On the surface it seems magnamaous, but it's actually incredibly
shallow thinking.

So, I'd like to know: How is it appropriate for you to get political
on this ng while news of the dead is still rolling in, and people are
still finding out they have lost somebody? Especially after you
called me an asshole for doing so?

Could it just be incredibly phony and superficial of you?

tracy
t***@askme.net
2005-07-13 23:05:16 UTC
Permalink
PS: it wold seem that you either immediately forgot or stopped
thinking about the the people who died in London, or that you
only cared about it, on the day that it actually happened.

It would not seem that any british members of this ng actualluy lost
somebody, so clearly your stance was not directly about any concern
for those particular people. It was all about an idea.
MC
2005-07-14 02:32:17 UTC
Permalink
In article <db46nc$n7j$***@reader2.panix.com>, ***@askme.net wrote:

> PS: it wold seem that you either immediately forgot or stopped
> thinking about the the people who died in London, or that you
> only cared about it, on the day that it actually happened.

Unsupported assertion.

What is your *evidence* for this conclusion?

If you can't produce it I can only presume that you are talking
nonsense.

>
> It would not seem that any british members of this ng actualluy lost
> somebody, so clearly your stance was not directly about any concern
> for those particular people. It was all about an idea.
>
>

Why does my stance have to be on behalf of British members of a news
group who have lost someone?

That's idiotic.

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
t***@askme.net
2005-07-14 03:01:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:32:17 +0000 (UTC), MC
<***@mapca.inter.net> wrote:

>In article <db46nc$n7j$***@reader2.panix.com>, ***@askme.net wrote:
>
>> PS: it wold seem that you either immediately forgot or stopped
>> thinking about the the people who died in London, or that you
>> only cared about it, on the day that it actually happened.
>
>Unsupported assertion.
>
>What is your *evidence* for this conclusion?

It is my reasoning things out to their logical conclusion. Please
explain why it's ok for you to disrespect your fellow countrymen
while the dead are still being accounted for, and people are still
finding out that they have lost loved ones.

>
>If you can't produce it I can only presume that you are talking
>nonsense.

Ok, why is it sudenly ok, a couple days later, when all the dead have
not even been accounted for? Can you answer the question?

>
>>
>> It would not seem that any british members of this ng actualluy lost
>> somebody, so clearly your stance was not directly about any concern
>> for those particular people. It was all about an idea.
>>
>>
>
>Why does my stance have to be on behalf of British members of a news
>group who have lost someone?
>
>That's idiotic.


here's what you said:


>As one of the few Brits here, a former Londoner, I just want to remind
>everyone that while the sniping goes on in mwsm over various ideological
>positions that can fit on the head of a pin along with a few hundred
>thousand angels, that the mayor of Paris said today "we are all
>Londoners today."
>
>And that at least 50 people are dead.
>
>And that over 700 are injured.
>
>And that number inevitably includes muslims and jews and christians and
>republicans and democrats and Arabs and Italians and tourists and
>children.
>
>And they all have families.
>
>Meanwhile *YOU PUERILE ASSHOLES* are trying to score points off each
>other.
>
>If you can't stop, take it to email.

What this means is, it is the British people on the ng who would care,
because no one outside the ng would give a rat's ass, and that's why
you wanted it taken to e-mail.

yet here you are, making a political post while your own countrymen
were still counting the dead. I would say that, rather than you
having more of a right to do it than the rest of us, you should
instead have even more of a responsibility to show respect for the
dead Londoners.

I didn't see you checking with the other Brits on here to see if they
are still too upset about it to make political posts while the dead
are still being accounted for, but I certainly would be. It seems
clear that you don't have the wherewithall to care about it yourself,
except of course, on the first day of the event.
MC
2005-07-14 02:21:18 UTC
Permalink
In article <db46ej$86k$***@reader2.panix.com>, ***@askme.net wrote:

> MC. I'd like to know how it is appropriate for you to make a politcal
> post on this ng, which has British members, on July 11, when the dead
> were still being counted, and people were still being notified that
> they have lost friends and/or relatives.
>
> Why is it appropriate for you to do it while the tragedy is still
> going on, when you had a problem with it on the day it happened?
>
> Why is it appropriate for the Mayor of Paris to say: "Today we are
> all Londoners," and then stop thinking that way the very next day?
> I guess the same would apply for when some French woman said
> "We are all Americans today" on 9/11.
>
> On the surface it seems magnamaous, but it's actually incredibly
> shallow thinking.
>
> So, I'd like to know: How is it appropriate for you to get political
> on this ng while news of the dead is still rolling in, and people are
> still finding out they have lost somebody? Especially after you
> called me an asshole for doing so?
>
> Could it just be incredibly phony and superficial of you?

I'm British.

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
MC
2005-07-14 02:30:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <db46ej$86k$***@reader2.panix.com>, ***@askme.net wrote:

> MC. I'd like to know how it is appropriate for you to make a politcal
> post on this ng, which has British members, on July 11, when the dead
> were still being counted, and people were still being notified that
> they have lost friends and/or relatives.
>
> Why is it appropriate for you to do it while the tragedy is still
> going on, when you had a problem with it on the day it happened?
>
> Why is it appropriate for the Mayor of Paris to say: "Today we are
> all Londoners," and then stop thinking that way the very next day?
> I guess the same would apply for when some French woman said
> "We are all Americans today" on 9/11.
>
> On the surface it seems magnamaous, but it's actually incredibly
> shallow thinking.
>
> So, I'd like to know: How is it appropriate for you to get political
> on this ng while news of the dead is still rolling in, and people are
> still finding out they have lost somebody? Especially after you
> called me an asshole for doing so?
>
> Could it just be incredibly phony and superficial of you?

Could it be that you have some bug up your ass... scuse me, arse...
about this?

The actual answer is that if you had read what I posted you would have
notred that I mentioned that I am British and used to live in London.
Quite what it is that's got you so exercised I'm not sure, but a friend
of a friend of mine -- 22 years old -- is "missing" in London and it
doesn't look hopeful.

All of the above doesn't give me any *special* rights to comment, but
since this is an open forum and no subject is off limits, I have every
right in the world to comment as I see fit.

And you seem to have leapt to innumerable conclusions about what I said.

By the way, when did I call you an asshole? I just Googled groups and
couldn't locate the post.

And by the way,why do I have to meet *your* standards of what is or is
not appropriate? Are you the news group police?

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
t***@askme.net
2005-07-14 03:06:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:30:27 +0000 (UTC), MC
<***@mapca.inter.net> wrote:


>Could it be that you have some bug up your ass... scuse me, arse...
>about this?
>
>The actual answer is that if you had read what I posted you would have
>notred that I mentioned that I am British and used to live in London.

I did.

>Quite what it is that's got you so exercised I'm not sure, but a friend
>of a friend of mine -- 22 years old -- is "missing" in London and it
>doesn't look hopeful.

It's better to communicate by saying that you are concerned aobut
losing a missing friend, rather than by calling people assholes. I
hope she's all right, regardless of her connection to you.
>
>All of the above doesn't give me any *special* rights to comment, but
>since this is an open forum and no subject is off limits, I have every
>right in the world to comment as I see fit.

Does it give you a special right to be a hypocrite?

>
>And you seem to have leapt to innumerable conclusions about what I said.
>
>By the way, when did I call you an asshole? I just Googled groups and
>couldn't locate the post.

right here:

>Path: news1.west.cox.net!west.cox.net!filt01.west.cox.net!peer01.west.cox.net!cox.net!panix!not-for-mail
>From: MC <***@mapca.inter.net>
>Newsgroups: misc.writing.screenplays.moderated
>Subject: Re: OT -- London
>Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:03:16 +0000 (UTC)
>Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
>Lines: 50
>Approved: MWSM Moderators <***@panix.com>
>Message-ID: <dalq24$6d0$***@reader2.panix.com>
>References: <dajjvd$p4k$***@reader2.panix.com> <dajpfm$mft$***@reader2.panix.com> <dajq3i$kvi$***@reader2.panix.com> <dajrrv$hjp$***@reader2.panix.com> <dajsat$q9e$***@reader2.panix.com> <dajut1$2r2$***@reader2.panix.com> <dakag3$bbn$***@reader2.panix.com> <dakmo6$s23$***@reader2.panix.com> <dal2ol$o36$***@reader2.panix.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
>X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1120824196 6560 166.84.1.6 (8 Jul 2005 12:03:16 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: ***@panix.com
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:03:16 +0000 (UTC)
>X-MWSM-Policy: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/moderation.html
>X-MWSM-Info-1: Send submissions to ***@panix.com
>X-MSWM-Orig-Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:03:16 CST
>X-MSWM-Orig-Message-ID: <copespaz-***@news.snafu.de>
>X-Orig-X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de LyvnOwZ1xw/VxURWrBA7BQ6julb+tKihVBOayhMpmRRGLl
>X-Orig-Path: copespaz
>User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on
> mailcrunch1.panix.com
>X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=unavailable
> version=3.0.3
>Xref: cox.net misc.writing.screenplays.moderated:5886
>X-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:03:17 EDT (news1.west.cox.net)
>
>In article <dal2ol$o36$***@reader2.panix.com>, ***@askme.net wrote:
>
>> >> >
>>
>> >
>> >My comment was about gutless cowards who feel smug and safe and lovely
>> >opining behind modems about things they know nothing about.
>>
>> Look in the mirror dude.
>>
>> >
>> >I have a friend going over there soon to train police officers. I have
>> >another friend on the ground in Afghanistan. I hear from actual people
>> >actually there instead of getting my information from putzes like Bill
>> >Maher and his ilk.
>>
>> You have no actual information to offer. You don't even have a
>> position of any kind. You just want to insult people, and you do it
>> so very artlessly.
>>
>> Descending into insults is the surest sign of a mind that has lost
>> any grasp on logic or reason.
>
>As one of the few Brits here, a former Londoner, I just want to remind
>everyone that while the sniping goes on in mwsm over various ideological
>positions that can fit on the head of a pin along with a few hundred
>thousand angels, that the mayor of Paris said today "we are all
>Londoners today."
>
>And that at least 50 people are dead.
>
>And that over 700 are injured.
>
>And that number inevitably includes muslims and jews and christians and
>republicans and democrats and Arabs and Italians and tourists and
>children.
>
>And they all have families.
>
>Meanwhile *YOU PUERILE ASSHOLES* are trying to score points off each
>other.
>
>If you can't stop, take it to email.
>
>--
>
>"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
>Let everyone live."
>--Dimitris Ouzounidis


You posted that *as a direct reply* to my post, trying to get Skip
Press to shut up. That means you were talking to me, or at least me
first on the list, honey.

>
>And by the way,why do I have to meet *your* standards of what is or is
>not appropriate? Are you the news group police?

I just call it as I see it, especially when I see hypocrisy after
being called an asshole.
RonB
2005-07-14 03:34:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed 13 Jul 2005 09:06:54p, , wrote:

> I just call it as I see it, especially when I see hypocrisy after
> being called an asshole.

You have to understand MC's post in "context." Though he responded
specifically to your post, he was primarily speaking through it to
those engaged in the flame wars *above* your post. Note the use of
"assholes" (plural). I happened to agree with your post, but I also
understood MC's anger that the thread continued at that time.

What I don't understand is why you are starting this up again, several
days after the fact, when you would think that tempers had cooled. Did
you really think you were specifically singled out and attacked by MC,
who was obviously upset and concerned about his countrymen when he
wrote?

Again "context." Try to put yourself in MC's shoes at the time he
wrote. And try not to be so hypersensitive -- you were *not* personally
attacked.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
t***@askme.net
2005-07-14 05:25:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:34:07 +0000 (UTC), RonB <***@bliz.org>
wrote:

>On Wed 13 Jul 2005 09:06:54p, , wrote:
>
>> I just call it as I see it, especially when I see hypocrisy after
>> being called an asshole.
>
>You have to understand MC's post in "context." Though he responded
>specifically to your post, he was primarily speaking through it to
>those engaged in the flame wars *above* your post. Note the use of
>"assholes" (plural). I happened to agree with your post, but I also
>understood MC's anger that the thread continued at that time.
>
>What I don't understand is why you are starting this up again, several
>days after the fact, when you would think that tempers had cooled. Did
>you really think you were specifically singled out and attacked by MC,
>who was obviously upset and concerned about his countrymen when he
>wrote?
>
>Again "context." Try to put yourself in MC's shoes at the time he
>wrote. And try not to be so hypersensitive -- you were *not* personally
>attacked.


Ron, it is typically understood, on the internet, that if a person
replies directly to one's (mine) post, that means they are responding
to you. It is not crazy or hypersensitive to think so, when that is,
and has been, the commonly used custom. I understood that he used the
plural of asshole. Since he chose my post to refer to all the peurile
assholes, that typically means that I am not only included, but it was
my post that inspired it, and I'm first on the list.

He may feel free to refute that, and explain why he chose my
particular post as a starting point.

I borught it up again, when I saw that after he called me an asshole,
he could not wait until all the dead are accounted for, to make a
political post himself. My apologies to the Brits present who have
a little more respect for their countrymen.

I will now go write a screenplay about having more respect for one's
countrymen. Wait, that's too general a theme.
RonB
2005-07-14 06:30:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wed 13 Jul 2005 11:25:48p, , wrote:

> Ron, it is typically understood, on the internet, that if a person
> replies directly to one's (mine) post, that means they are responding
> to you. It is not crazy or hypersensitive to think so, when that
> is, and has been, the commonly used custom. I understood that he
> used the plural of asshole. Since he chose my post to refer to all
> the peurile assholes, that typically means that I am not only
> included, but it was my post that inspired it, and I'm first on the
> list.

Yes, but you've got to understand how some newsreaders are set up --
and this might help you to understand why MC *might* have specifically
responded to your post, even though yours was a benign message compared
to the others.

In Xnews, once I've read the last *unread* message in a thread, that
thread disappears... until another message is added to it. That's the
way I like it. I think most newsreaders can be set up to work this way.
So, suppose I had seen twenty sniping, political messages show up in a
thread designed to honor the dead, read them (getting more pissed off
all the time) but managed, somehow, to hold my "keyboard" and not
respond?

Then, going to Yahoo, I read the current news and saw that *more* Brits
were found dead, and meanwhile got a call from a friend who's friend
had gone missing and was presumed dead.

Then, in an effort to try to forget this crap for a bit, I went back
to my newsreader and found your message. That could quite easily be the
straw that breaks the back. It reminds me of all the other messages and
I'm just sick of it. So I write and post an angry response. Your post
is the only one currently available in my view -- so it's the one
quoted -- but I'm clearly pissed at *everyone* who brought this
chickenshit political crap in this particular thread. (I'm speaking
hypothetically.)

I'm guessing that's pretty much what happened when MC posted. I don't
think he intentionally meant to single you out. I think he had just had
enough and wanted it to stop.

You don't have to like the way he did it, but I think the charitable
thing to do would be to cut him slack and take a look at the
circumstances. If it were me (or Skip) you can pretty much expect that
we're going to "go off" on a fairly regular basis. This is definitely
*out of character* for MC, however.

> He may feel free to refute that, and explain why he chose my
> particular post as a starting point.
>
> I borught it up again, when I saw that after he called me an asshole,
> he could not wait until all the dead are accounted for, to make a
> political post himself. My apologies to the Brits present who have
> a little more respect for their countrymen.

"A little more respect for their countrymen." Now *you're* beginning to
piss me off, Tracy. It was out of respect for his countrymen that MC
wrote and posted his hurried messages. Even in the political message
you pretend to find so offensive, MC basically apologized for his
barely unchecked emotion. Just because you were incidentally insulted
in another of his posts, in the heat of emotional exchange, you decide
to question MC's intentions and love for his country? And you do this
after taking time to cool down and reflect? That's small-minded,
chickenshit and cowardly behavior in my estimation. Sorry, but I've got
to call it how I see it.

> I will now go write a screenplay about having more respect for one's
> countrymen. Wait, that's too general a theme.

Give me a break. Perhaps you should look into writing a screenplay
about "getting over one's self."

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
t***@askme.net
2005-07-14 17:40:56 UTC
Permalink
>
>I'm guessing that's pretty much what happened when MC posted. I don't
>think he intentionally meant to single you out. I think he had just had
>enough and wanted it to stop.

The way I felt about it was - that I understood he used asshole in the
plural, but that he did mean to include me in that group. Perhaps he
mistook my intention. It would be easy to think I was trying to get
some points on Skip, rather than trying to get him to shut up. In
fact, I think Skip is a little too far on the deranged end to bother
with what he thinks. In which case, it's better to communicate and
not just spew insults.

>
>You don't have to like the way he did it, but I think the charitable
>thing to do would be to cut him slack and take a look at the
>circumstances. If it were me (or Skip) you can pretty much expect that
>we're going to "go off" on a fairly regular basis. This is definitely
>*out of character* for MC, however.

No, I don't like the way he did it. I can handle being called an
asshole, if the person is right. However, if the person turns around
and does the same thing, that's hypocrisy. Now, after reading
jaybee's post, it seems that there is more evidence for what I
noticed.

Perhaps he has been upset about his missing friend, and took it out
on us. Some people are like that - when my mother broke her ankle,
and went into the hospital, she became even more nasty than her usual
self. She is somebody that I avoid anyway.

>
>> He may feel free to refute that, and explain why he chose my
>> particular post as a starting point.
>>
>> I borught it up again, when I saw that after he called me an asshole,
>> he could not wait until all the dead are accounted for, to make a
>> political post himself. My apologies to the Brits present who have
>> a little more respect for their countrymen.
>
>"A little more respect for their countrymen." Now *you're* beginning to
>piss me off, Tracy. It was out of respect for his countrymen that MC
>wrote and posted his hurried messages. Even in the political message
>you pretend to find so offensive, MC basically apologized for his
>barely unchecked emotion. Just because you were incidentally insulted
>in another of his posts, in the heat of emotional exchange, you decide
>to question MC's intentions and love for his country? And you do this
>after taking time to cool down and reflect? That's small-minded,
>chickenshit and cowardly behavior in my estimation. Sorry, but I've got
>to call it how I see it.

Ron, you're looking at it in terms of my being manipulative. I'm
looking at it in terms of using the same parameters that MC set down,
and staying within them. You're cutting him all kinds of slack for
calling me names and being hypocritical, and when I face his argument
within the parameters he defined, you insult me too. I'm looking at
it as an argument constructed by MC, with parameters set up by him.

The parameter he defined was that it is disrespectful to British
people on this ng to make a political post on this ng, on the day of
the bombing. I disagree with his differentiation between red/blue
sniping and things political, and that it had nothing to do with the
bombing. It had everything to do with the bombing. I think it's
clear that Tristan sees that. So, it's ok for him, when he makes a
"political" post, but it's not ok for others, because then it's
"red/blue sniping." Do you see what I'm getting at?

Perhaps, to call it all red/blue sniping assumes a certain shallowness
on the part of the participants, when such may not necessarily be the
case (although I would agree with that when it comes to Skip's
comments).


>
>> I will now go write a screenplay about having more respect for one's
>> countrymen. Wait, that's too general a theme.
>
>Give me a break. Perhaps you should look into writing a screenplay
>about "getting over one's self."


Ahem, that was a "tongue in cheek" thing. I don't even actually have a
lot of respect for my own countrymen, just because they're countrymen.
I'm way too busy writing a supernatural thriller right now.

At least there's a higher level of intelligence on this ng than in
other places I could think of.
RonB
2005-07-14 18:17:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thu 14 Jul 2005 11:40:56a, , wrote:

> Ron, you're looking at it in terms of my being manipulative. I'm
> looking at it in terms of using the same parameters that MC set
> down, and staying within them.

Tracy, I don't want to prolong this thread, so I'm snipping most of
your message. But I want to point one major difference between your
recent posts and MC's. MC was writing as the news of the bombing was
coming in. He was obviously upset. He didn't have three or four days to
reflect and carefully choose his words.

And again, MC didn't *specifically* call you "asshole." But even if he
had, would that be a first for you? Good grief, there are times in my
newsgroup life that I've been called "asshole" twenty times a week
(probably twenty times a day at some point). So what? It comes with the
territory, especially in political threads. I realize people are
different, some more sensitive than others -- and I also realize that
I'm much more belligerent than you so I *should* expect more of this
treatment (especially since I've also "dished it out") -- but still,
it's not something to brood over. It's definitely something to "get
over."

I'm trying to concentrate more on my writing and less on political
threads here -- I failed miserably yesterday -- but I'm trying.

Good luck with your screenplay. I'm also writing kind of a supernatural
thriller/romance thing. Probably utter crap, but at least I'm writing
again.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere(28)"
t***@askme.net
2005-07-14 18:32:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:17:21 +0000 (UTC), RonB <***@bliz.org>
wrote:

>On Thu 14 Jul 2005 11:40:56a, , wrote:
>
>> Ron, you're looking at it in terms of my being manipulative. I'm
>> looking at it in terms of using the same parameters that MC set
>> down, and staying within them.
>
>Tracy, I don't want to prolong this thread, so I'm snipping most of
>your message. But I want to point one major difference between your
>recent posts and MC's. MC was writing as the news of the bombing was
>coming in. He was obviously upset. He didn't have three or four days to
>reflect and carefully choose his words.
>
>And again, MC didn't *specifically* call you "asshole." But even if he
>had, would that be a first for you? Good grief, there are times in my
>newsgroup life that I've been called "asshole" twenty times a week
>(probably twenty times a day at some point). So what? It comes with the
>territory, especially in political threads. I realize people are
>different, some more sensitive than others -- and I also realize that
>I'm much more belligerent than you so I *should* expect more of this
>treatment (especially since I've also "dished it out") -- but still,
>it's not something to brood over. It's definitely something to "get
>over."

Agreed. This is not the best place for debate, and a real live formal
debate is actually kind of a nasty thing - much nastier than anything
that has gone on here.

>
>I'm trying to concentrate more on my writing and less on political
>threads here -- I failed miserably yesterday -- but I'm trying.
>
>Good luck with your screenplay. I'm also writing kind of a supernatural
>thriller/romance thing. Probably utter crap, but at least I'm writing
>again.

Thank you very much, I hope it turns out sort of well for a first
effort. I like it when I write something that amuses me, and I
wrote this exorcism scene yesterday that amsues me.

Good luck with yours too.

tracy
MC
2005-07-14 15:30:36 UTC
Permalink
In article <db4t0s$s51$***@reader2.panix.com>, ***@askme.net wrote:

> Ron, it is typically understood, on the internet, that if a person
> replies directly to one's (mine) post, that means they are responding
> to you.

Not necessarily -- see the message I just posted.

Grow up and get over it, for God's sake.

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
Tristán White
2005-07-14 12:06:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:00:35 +0000 (UTC), ***@askme.net wrote:

>MC. I'd like to know how it is appropriate for you to make a politcal
>post on this ng, which has British members, on July 11, when the dead
>were still being counted, and people were still being notified that
>they have lost friends and/or relatives.
<SNIP>
>So, I'd like to know: How is it appropriate for you to get political
>on this ng while news of the dead is still rolling in, and people are
>still finding out they have lost somebody? Especially after you
>called me an asshole for doing so?
<SNIP>
>Could it just be incredibly phony and superficial of you?


In defence of MC, I am British and I am not in the slightest bit
offended by what MC has written.

It is most certainly a political matter. The atrocities were caused
because (a) we invaded a country on the false premise of it having WMD
and with the USA and others we killed hundreds of thousands of
innocent civilians there, and because (b) the West's continual support
(and funding) of the Apartheid in Israel.

If we had tried harder to stop the USA invading Iraq (rather than join
in), if we had tried harder to condemn Israel for it's human rights
abuses, then this would not have happened. In fact, reading the paper
yesterday, one of the kids who blew himself up last week was
*originally* very moderate, not particularly religious, interested in
girls and cars and hanging out with his white friends, a kid like
anyone, but it was the injustice of the war on Iraq that tipped him
over the edge and he then became involved with a hardline crowd AS A
RESULT.

Blair has blood on his hand. I just spent 2 minutes in the street
having a 2 minute silence that was beautifully observed. I thought of
the poor people who died. And I was angry, but much more angry at the
terrorist who runs this country than the terrorists who blew
themselves up. Those terrorists who blew themselves up were cowards
and utter bastards. BUT the terrorist sitting smugly in Downing Street
is still at large and always will be.

Please MC don't worry about being too political for my sake!

As for Tracy's concern about whether such comments could offend us
Brits here in our period of mourning, we're not really like that.
Everyone's back to normal more or less, yesterday shops and pubs were
95% full as the same day last year. The day before 90%, the day before
that 75%. So today it'll be close to 100%. People get one with their
lives and we're not any more scared or worried as a whole. We've had
bombings before, and we just get on with things. It's a very British
thing to do. No one's scared of the stupid terrorists and no one is
going to live their life in any way differently to how they did. Or
that would be letting the terrorists win, wouldn't it!

There's going to be a big vigil in Trafalgar Square this PM from 6
which should be interesting, although I won't be at it as I'm seeing a
really good New Orléans-type jazz band on London Bridge.

TRISTÁN
.
MC
2005-07-14 15:28:09 UTC
Permalink
I'm not going to prolong this but let me address a couple of things to
Tracy before I draw a veil over it.

There is a big difference between me saying ³Tracy, you are an asshole²
- which is the way you've taken it - and saying, in effect ³Will all you
assholes knock it off.²

I was not objecting to the fact that it was off-topic or political. What
I was objecting to was the way a well-intentioned post of sympathy for
London and Londoners had degenerated in no time flat into another
Right/Left, Red/Blue, Is too/Is not dialectical battle that was very far
indeed from what had just happened in London.

You all -- and you know who you are -- were indulging in the usuaI,
tired sniping of cheap shots form one end of the ideological spectrum to
the other. A futile exercise at the best of times and an unseemly one at
this time. This is what passes for discussion in these confrontational
times.

I believed then, and I believe now that it was insensitive, petty and
stupid. And that applies to all the posts in that part of the thread. I
said, ³take it to email.² No one did. I didn't expect them to. I just
wanted it to get their attention.

It certainly seems to have got yours - but Tracy, it really isn't about
YOU and it never was. Not one of the others came back at me over it, but
you took it personally.

It was never personal. I could and would have responded to any of the
people in the thread with that post, I was not singling you out, I just
hit Reply to the latest in a long line of posts and it happened to be
one from you. That is something that just happens in newsgroups.

In fact it's happening with *this* post... I'm replying to someone who
is not Tracy with a message to Tracy -- just happens to be easier with
my software than dredging up previous posts.

So if you want the last word, Tracy, go for it. I don't have any
interest in arguing.

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-14 15:51:37 UTC
Permalink
MC <***@mapca.inter.net> wrote in
news:db60a9$lhc$***@reader2.panix.com:

> You all -- and you know who you are -- were indulging in the usuaI,
> tired sniping of cheap shots form one end of the ideological spectrum
> to the other. A futile exercise at the best of times and an unseemly
> one at this time. This is what passes for discussion in these
> confrontational times.

MC, give me a f*cking break. I've observed you prolong the (renamed) thread
with Skip long after I killfiled him and moved on to other things.

Don't do this holier-than-thou bullcrap, it doesn't become you. No one has
control over thread drift in MWSM.



jaybee
MC
2005-07-14 15:59:21 UTC
Permalink
In article <db61m8$1ln$***@reader2.panix.com>,
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > You all -- and you know who you are -- were indulging in the usuaI,
> > tired sniping of cheap shots form one end of the ideological spectrum
> > to the other. A futile exercise at the best of times and an unseemly
> > one at this time. This is what passes for discussion in these
> > confrontational times.
>
> MC, give me a f*cking break. I've observed you prolong the (renamed) thread
> with Skip long after I killfiled him and moved on to other things.
>
> Don't do this holier-than-thou bullcrap, it doesn't become you. No one has
> control over thread drift in MWSM.

Did you ever get into a thread you just wished would *end*?

The funny thing is, it's usually the ones you least expect to take on a
life of their own.

Anyway, I've said pretty much all I have to say in *this* one.

And I'm now going to go out and buy a taser so I can administer mass
quantities of volts to my person if I feel any urge to dive back in
after this.

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
Paulo Joe Jingy
2005-07-14 16:10:55 UTC
Permalink
MC wrote:
> In article <db61m8$1ln$***@reader2.panix.com>,
> "Jacques E. Bouchard" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>>You all -- and you know who you are -- were indulging in the usuaI,
>>>tired sniping of cheap shots form one end of the ideological spectrum
>>>to the other. A futile exercise at the best of times and an unseemly
>>>one at this time. This is what passes for discussion in these
>>>confrontational times.
>>
>>MC, give me a f*cking break. I've observed you prolong the (renamed) thread
>>with Skip long after I killfiled him and moved on to other things.
>>
>>Don't do this holier-than-thou bullcrap, it doesn't become you. No one has
>>control over thread drift in MWSM.
>
>
> Did you ever get into a thread you just wished would *end*?
>
> The funny thing is, it's usually the ones you least expect to take on a
> life of their own.
>
> Anyway, I've said pretty much all I have to say in *this* one.
>
> And I'm now going to go out and buy a taser so I can administer mass
> quantities of volts to my person if I feel any urge to dive back in
> after this.


Does that work? I've been looking for something like that.
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-14 16:51:24 UTC
Permalink
MC <***@mapca.inter.net> wrote in
news:db624p$74n$***@reader2.panix.com:

> Did you ever get into a thread you just wished would *end*?

Yes, and for that reason I've never scolded anyone for doing what I've done
several times.



jaybee
Samuel Murphy
2005-07-14 17:11:36 UTC
Permalink
MC wrote:

> In article <db61m8$1ln$***@reader2.panix.com>,
> "Jacques E. Bouchard" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>tired sniping of cheap shots form one end of the ideological spectrum
>>MC, give me a f*cking break. I've observed you prolong the (renamed) thread
> Did you ever get into a thread you just wished would *end*?
>
> And I'm now going to go out and buy a taser so I can administer mass
> quantities of volts to my person if I feel any urge to dive back in
> after this.

Do make a video.
MC
2005-07-14 17:38:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <db66c8$7n1$***@reader2.panix.com>,
Samuel Murphy <***@comcast.net> wrote:

> MC wrote:
>
> > In article <db61m8$1ln$***@reader2.panix.com>,
> > "Jacques E. Bouchard" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>tired sniping of cheap shots form one end of the ideological spectrum
> >>MC, give me a f*cking break. I've observed you prolong the (renamed) thread
> > Did you ever get into a thread you just wished would *end*?
> >
> > And I'm now going to go out and buy a taser so I can administer mass
> > quantities of volts to my person if I feel any urge to dive back in
> > after this.
>
> Do make a video.

http://www.personal-selfdefense-online.com/taser-video_center.htm

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
Bed Sores
2005-07-14 17:21:04 UTC
Permalink
"MC" <***@mapca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:db624p$74n$***@reader2.panix.com...
> Did you ever get into a thread you just wished would *end*?
>
> The funny thing is, it's usually the ones you least expect to take on a
> life of their own.
>
> Anyway, I've said pretty much all I have to say in *this* one.
>
> And I'm now going to go out and buy a taser so I can administer mass
> quantities of volts to my person if I feel any urge to dive back in
> after this.

Target the genitals, it's the only way you're going to learn.
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-14 17:31:44 UTC
Permalink
"Bed Sores" <***@hotmale.com> wrote in news:db66u0$t69$1
@reader2.panix.com:

>
> "MC" <***@mapca.inter.net> wrote in message
> news:db624p$74n$***@reader2.panix.com...
>> Did you ever get into a thread you just wished would *end*?
>>
>> The funny thing is, it's usually the ones you least expect to take on a
>> life of their own.
>>
>> Anyway, I've said pretty much all I have to say in *this* one.
>>
>> And I'm now going to go out and buy a taser so I can administer mass
>> quantities of volts to my person if I feel any urge to dive back in
>> after this.
>
> Target the genitals, it's the only way you're going to learn.

Whose genitals?



jaybee
Bed Sores
2005-07-14 18:27:28 UTC
Permalink
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:db67i0$2b5$***@reader2.panix.com...
> "Bed Sores" <***@hotmale.com> wrote in news:db66u0$t69$1
> @reader2.panix.com:
>
>>
>> "MC" <***@mapca.inter.net> wrote in message
>> news:db624p$74n$***@reader2.panix.com...
>>> Did you ever get into a thread you just wished would *end*?
>>>
>>> The funny thing is, it's usually the ones you least expect to take on a
>>> life of their own.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I've said pretty much all I have to say in *this* one.
>>>
>>> And I'm now going to go out and buy a taser so I can administer mass
>>> quantities of volts to my person if I feel any urge to dive back in
>>> after this.
>>
>> Target the genitals, it's the only way you're going to learn.
>
> Whose genitals?

I think it depends on what he wants to learn.
t***@askme.net
2005-07-14 16:36:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:51:37 +0000 (UTC), "Jacques E. Bouchard"
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>MC <***@mapca.inter.net> wrote in
>news:db60a9$lhc$***@reader2.panix.com:
>
>> You all -- and you know who you are -- were indulging in the usuaI,
>> tired sniping of cheap shots form one end of the ideological spectrum
>> to the other. A futile exercise at the best of times and an unseemly
>> one at this time. This is what passes for discussion in these
>> confrontational times.
>
>MC, give me a f*cking break. I've observed you prolong the (renamed) thread
>with Skip long after I killfiled him and moved on to other things.
>
>Don't do this holier-than-thou bullcrap, it doesn't become you. No one has
>control over thread drift in MWSM.



Thank you.
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-14 16:50:28 UTC
Permalink
***@askme.net wrote in news:db64ap$rqb$***@reader2.panix.com:

> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:51:37 +0000 (UTC), "Jacques E. Bouchard"
><***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>MC <***@mapca.inter.net> wrote in
>>news:db60a9$lhc$***@reader2.panix.com:
>>
>>> You all -- and you know who you are -- were indulging in the usuaI,
>>> tired sniping of cheap shots form one end of the ideological
>>> spectrum to the other. A futile exercise at the best of times and an
>>> unseemly one at this time. This is what passes for discussion in
>>> these confrontational times.
>>
>>MC, give me a f*cking break. I've observed you prolong the (renamed)
>>thread with Skip long after I killfiled him and moved on to other
>>things.
>>
>>Don't do this holier-than-thou bullcrap, it doesn't become you. No one
>>has control over thread drift in MWSM.
>
>
>
> Thank you.

Shut up, Tracy. I wasn't taking your defence or endorsing anything you
said.



jaybee
t***@askme.net
2005-07-14 17:56:36 UTC
Permalink
>> Thank you.
>
>Shut up, Tracy. I wasn't taking your defence or endorsing anything you
>said.


And yet it was inadvertently supportive.
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-14 18:00:09 UTC
Permalink
***@askme.net wrote in news:db690j$v5$***@reader2.panix.com:

>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>>Shut up, Tracy. I wasn't taking your defence or endorsing anything you
>>said.
>
>
> And yet it was inadvertently supportive.

No Tracy, it was not intended to be supportive of your own self-pitying
mewling for validation. MC is not your mother, and I'm not your friend.



jaybee
t***@askme.net
2005-07-14 18:07:44 UTC
Permalink
>MC is not your mother,

Now that is illogical.

>and I'm not your friend.


I already knew that.
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-14 19:29:28 UTC
Permalink
***@askme.net wrote in news:db69lg$2u8$***@reader2.panix.com:

>
>
>>MC is not your mother,
>
> Now that is illogical.

Is it?

"Some people are like that - when my mother broke her ankle,
and went into the hospital, she became even more nasty than her usual
self. She is somebody that I avoid anyway."

Perhaps that's why you take offence so easily at what people say?



jaybee
t***@askme.net
2005-07-16 00:59:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:29:28 +0000 (UTC), "Jacques E. Bouchard"
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Perhaps that's why you take offence so easily at what people say?


You need to work on not being so judgemental. Why don't you mind
your own business?
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-16 04:21:02 UTC
Permalink
***@askme.net wrote in news:db9m5v$ikm$***@reader2.panix.com:

> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:29:28 +0000 (UTC), "Jacques E. Bouchard"
><***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps that's why you take offence so easily at what people say?
>
>
> You need to work on not being so judgemental. Why don't you mind
> your own business?

This is your experiment in irony, isn't it? Or are oyu that dense?


jaybee
MC
2005-07-16 09:06:58 UTC
Permalink
In article <dba1vd$239$***@reader2.panix.com>,
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >>Perhaps that's why you take offence so easily at what people say?
> >
> >
> > You need to work on not being so judgemental. Why don't you mind
> > your own business?
>
> This is your experiment in irony, isn't it? Or are oyu that dense?
>

Tracy's British. The Brits know nothing about irony.

[My experiment in irony]

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
RonB
2005-07-16 10:15:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat 16 Jul 2005 03:06:58a, MC, wrote:

> Tracy's British. The Brits know nothing about irony.
>
> [My experiment in irony]

I didn't realize Tracy was British. That changes things a bit.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere(40)"
t***@askme.net
2005-07-16 16:51:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:15:03 +0000 (UTC), RonB <***@bliz.org>
wrote:

>On Sat 16 Jul 2005 03:06:58a, MC, wrote:
>
>> Tracy's British. The Brits know nothing about irony.
>>
>> [My experiment in irony]
>
>I didn't realize Tracy was British. That changes things a bit.


I'm not British, though there are some in my background. I have
however, revised my initial estimation of where MC was coming
from.
MC
2005-07-16 18:53:42 UTC
Permalink
In article <dbbdur$pe1$***@reader2.panix.com>, ***@askme.net wrote:

>
> >On Sat 16 Jul 2005 03:06:58a, MC, wrote:
> >
> >> Tracy's British. The Brits know nothing about irony.
> >>
> >> [My experiment in irony]
> >
> >I didn't realize Tracy was British. That changes things a bit.
>
>
> I'm not British, though there are some in my background. I have
> however, revised my initial estimation of where MC was coming
> from.

Oh, do tell...

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
t***@askme.net
2005-07-16 16:54:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 04:21:02 +0000 (UTC), "Jacques E. Bouchard"
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>***@askme.net wrote in news:db9m5v$ikm$***@reader2.panix.com:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:29:28 +0000 (UTC), "Jacques E. Bouchard"
>><***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps that's why you take offence so easily at what people say?
>>
>>
>> You need to work on not being so judgemental. Why don't you mind
>> your own business?
>
>This is your experiment in irony, isn't it? Or are oyu that dense?


Jaybee, go back and re-read the posts, carefully this time,
and think them through logically.
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-16 16:57:47 UTC
Permalink
***@askme.net wrote in news:dbbe49$7fo$***@reader2.panix.com:

> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 04:21:02 +0000 (UTC), "Jacques E. Bouchard"
><***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>***@askme.net wrote in news:db9m5v$ikm$***@reader2.panix.com:
>>
>>> You need to work on not being so judgemental. Why don't you mind
>>> your own business?
>>
>>This is your experiment in irony, isn't it? Or are oyu that dense?
>
>
> Jaybee, go back and re-read the posts, carefully this time,
> and think them through logically.

The posts where you're being judgemental, or the ones where you're not
minding your own business?



jaybee
t***@askme.net
2005-07-16 19:00:46 UTC
Permalink
>The posts where you're being judgemental, or the ones where you're not
>minding your own business?

Geez, think this through:

My problem was not in being called an asshole, it was being
called an asshole by a hypocrite. You didn't bother to understand
what I said at even the most elementary level.

I have not, to my knowldege, been hypoctricial, therefore there is
no irony here.

I'm eating your irony for breakfast, and I'm coming to Canada, right
to your town, so I can belch it out into the atmosphere there :).
MC
2005-07-16 19:21:04 UTC
Permalink
In article <dbblgt$p4j$***@reader2.panix.com>, ***@askme.net wrote:

>
> >The posts where you're being judgemental, or the ones where you're not
> >minding your own business?
>
> Geez, think this through:
>
> My problem was not in being called an asshole, it was being
> called an asshole by a hypocrite. You didn't bother to understand
> what I said at even the most elementary level.
>
> I have not, to my knowldege, been hypoctricial, therefore there is
> no irony here.
>
> I'm eating your irony for breakfast, and I'm coming to Canada, right
> to your town, so I can belch it out into the atmosphere there :).

Anything that gets rid of the smog is good by us.

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
Jacques E. Bouchard
2005-07-16 19:46:27 UTC
Permalink
***@askme.net wrote in news:dbblgt$p4j$***@reader2.panix.com:

> I have not, to my knowldege, been hypoctricial, therefore there is
> no irony here.

Ignorance is never a proper defence.


jaybee
MC
2005-07-16 19:52:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <dbbo6j$bvo$***@reader2.panix.com>,
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > I have not, to my knowldege, been hypoctricial, therefore there is
> > no irony here.
>
> Ignorance is never a proper defence.

Just for the record, I have never been hypoctricial either.

God, I hate hypoctrites. And Hippocrates, too, in spite of his oath.

I am however British, and therefore I am by definition hypocritical --
and hypercritical for that matter.

--

"Life is sweet and small. The rest is just talking.
Let everyone live."
--Dimitris Ouzounidis
Samuel Murphy
2005-07-14 17:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Tristán White wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:00:35 +0000 (UTC), ***@askme.net wrote:
>
>
>>MC. I'd like to know how it is appropriate for you to make a politcal
>>post on this ng, which has British members, on July 11, when the dead

>
>>Could it just be incredibly phony and superficial of you?

>
> In defence of MC, I am British and I am not in the slightest bit
> offended by what MC has written.

Tristán you realize that's because you are both black, ah metaphorically
speaking of course. Well I guess you both could have pigmentally
enhanced, but it is difficult to know from a posting. Be that as it may
you are both of a minority, and like folks of color using the n-word
in the USA is allowed; other in-group commentary may be found to be
offensive by folks of, ah, heightened sensibilities.

-sam
t***@askme.net
2005-07-14 17:50:47 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:06:31 +0000 (UTC), Tristán White
<***@rocketmail.com> wrote:


>In defence of MC, I am British and I am not in the slightest bit
>offended by what MC has written.
>
>It is most certainly a political matter. The atrocities were caused
>because (a) we invaded a country on the false premise of it having WMD
>and with the USA and others we killed hundreds of thousands of
>innocent civilians there, and because (b) the West's continual support
>(and funding) of the Apartheid in Israel.
>
>If we had tried harder to stop the USA invading Iraq (rather than join
>in), if we had tried harder to condemn Israel for it's human rights
>abuses, then this would not have happened. In fact, reading the paper
>yesterday, one of the kids who blew himself up last week was
>*originally* very moderate, not particularly religious, interested in
>girls and cars and hanging out with his white friends, a kid like
>anyone, but it was the injustice of the war on Iraq that tipped him
>over the edge and he then became involved with a hardline crowd AS A
>RESULT.

I wish that had happend, but I don't know if it would have had much
impact. The administration in power in the US doesn't care much what
anybody (other nations) thinks.

>
>Blair has blood on his hand. I just spent 2 minutes in the street
>having a 2 minute silence that was beautifully observed. I thought of
>the poor people who died. And I was angry, but much more angry at the
>terrorist who runs this country than the terrorists who blew
>themselves up. Those terrorists who blew themselves up were cowards
>and utter bastards. BUT the terrorist sitting smugly in Downing Street
>is still at large and always will be.


That is pretty much how I feel about things, only translated out for
the US. There are few in the US who can see it that way, which is also
a part of the problem, that prolongs the power of people like Bush.


>
>Please MC don't worry about being too political for my sake!
>
>As for Tracy's concern about whether such comments could offend us
>Brits here in our period of mourning, we're not really like that.
>Everyone's back to normal more or less, yesterday shops and pubs were
>95% full as the same day last year. The day before 90%, the day before
>that 75%. So today it'll be close to 100%. People get one with their
>lives and we're not any more scared or worried as a whole. We've had
>bombings before, and we just get on with things. It's a very British
>thing to do. No one's scared of the stupid terrorists and no one is
>going to live their life in any way differently to how they did. Or
>that would be letting the terrorists win, wouldn't it!

We said that too, and then it happened, and is happening.

>
>There's going to be a big vigil in Trafalgar Square this PM from 6
>which should be interesting, although I won't be at it as I'm seeing a
>really good New Orléans-type jazz band on London Bridge.

very cool.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...