EPO and Hobby Cyclists

John Forrest Tomlinson

On 23 Apr 2004 01:08:53 -0700, gwhite@ti.com (gwhite) wrote:


>
>I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
>information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
>and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
>check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
>and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
>time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
>citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
>you folks do your verification. Good luck.

Don't bullshit us. Much of Fox show, especially ones like the one in
question, are available as transcripts at their website. There is a
well-known instance of Rice mentioning Osama Bin-Laden that Fox played
repeatedly to show she "was well aware of Al Quaeda". That's the best
they could do because that's all their is. You've either
intentionally or unintentially fallen for their spin.

JT

Robert Chung

Stewart Fleming wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> I think that reflects a great deal more on your own ethics than
>> anything I can say.
>
> *stunned silence*
> Literally, words fail me.

I feel your pain. Sometimes aspirin helps.

Howard Kveck

In article <De1ic.3248$cY5.245871@news02.tsnz.net>,
Stewart Fleming <stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > "Stewart Fleming" <stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:RfDhc.2692$cY5.228677@news02.tsnz.net...

> >>Tom, what is there in someone's personal ethics and moral background
> >>that makes them unwilling or unable to lie for their country when
> >>ordered to do so?
> >
> >
> > I think that reflects a great deal more on your own ethics than anything I
> > can say.
>
> *stunned silence*
> Literally, words fail me.

Stewart, it's kind of funny that lying for the government is something to
be admired by Tom when the liar is named North, Oliver. When a 'lunatic
idea' has a 'certain strange genius'...

--
tanx,
Howard

Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

gwhite

John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message news:<8fth80ll57eukh8toctg7rjh72b711qfs5@4ax.com>...
> On 23 Apr 2004 01:08:53 -0700, gwhite@ti.com (gwhite) wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
> >information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
> >and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
> >check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
> >and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
> >time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
> >citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
> >you folks do your verification. Good luck.
>
> Don't bullshit us.

WTF? I know I heard what I reported I heard.

> Much of Fox show, especially ones like the one in
> question, are available as transcripts at their website.

So if you know how to find it, then do so.

> There is a
> well-known instance of Rice mentioning Osama Bin-Laden that Fox played
> repeatedly to show she "was well aware of Al Quaeda". That's the best
> they could do because that's all their is.

So? Why would I care either way? I could not care less if she and
Bush roast or survive well.

> You've either
> intentionally or unintentially fallen for their spin.

What spin are you referring to? I heard something on TV and referred
to it. That is was stated by FOX is likely true. Whether or not
their own citation is true or false is a matter for those who care to
go and investigate. I'm simply relating what I witnessed. I didn't
judge it one way or another, or make any indication of doing so.

As far as judgement goes, I'm not so sure having known about Osama
Bin-Laden and AQ is such a good thing. After all, that is what the
inquiry is about. If they (Rice, et al) knew about AQ before 9-11, I
can see how that could be viewed as negative. They knew and didn't do
enough. But I'll leave it for you guys who need one side or the other
to be "right" to argue it out.

gwhite

"Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote nothing:

Tom Kunich

"gwhite" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message
news:698b8866.0404230953.35e09955@posting.google.com...
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:<8fth80ll57eukh8toctg7rjh72b711qfs5@4ax.com>...
> > On 23 Apr 2004 01:08:53 -0700, gwhite@ti.com (gwhite) wrote:
> >
> > >I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
> > >information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
> > >and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
> > >check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
> > >and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
> > >time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
> > >citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
> > >you folks do your verification. Good luck.
> >
> > Don't bullshit us.
>
> WTF? I know I heard what I reported I heard.

Hmm sounds just like what I said and what the other's arguing with you said
that I couldn't possibly have heard.

> > You've either
> > intentionally or unintentially fallen for their spin.
>
> What spin are you referring to? I heard something on TV and referred
> to it. That is was stated by FOX is likely true. Whether or not
> their own citation is true or false is a matter for those who care to
> go and investigate. I'm simply relating what I witnessed. I didn't
> judge it one way or another, or make any indication of doing so.

Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
terrorism in the world. The same people who proclaim loudly that queers
should have the right to "marry" other queers (being a homosexual is a death
penalty in Islam), that women should have the right to wear anything that
they like, that pay big bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends"
demonstrating every possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations
of the world in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't
they French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground which has
brought about more social advancement in the Arab world than all past
history.

The very lifestyle that Liberals think they have improved the world with are
the root cause of terrorism. It isn't SUV's driving down American roads - it
is the sky black with airlines flying them all over the world to demonstrate
their "enlightenment" to the downtrodden populations of third world
countries.

What it all boils down to is the Liberal belief that they are right no
matter what history has to say about it. They will regale you with the dream
of how they stopped the war in Vietnam but never mention the 3 million
deaths the communists committed after the American pullout. Nor the 4
million deaths in Cambodia or the 2 million in Laos. To the Liberals,
pulling out of Vietnam was good regardless of the cost to anyone else. And
they truly don't believe that the blood is on their hands.

> As far as judgement goes, I'm not so sure having known about Osama
> Bin-Laden and AQ is such a good thing. After all, that is what the
> inquiry is about. If they (Rice, et al) knew about AQ before 9-11, I
> can see how that could be viewed as negative. They knew and didn't do
> enough. But I'll leave it for you guys who need one side or the other
> to be "right" to argue it out.

The problem doesn't require a commission. You only have to read Osama's
declaration of war against the USA. He said that when he saw that 10
Americans killed in Somalia and the Americans run away he knew that he could
win.

Funny thing that the Liberals aren't advertising that so much.

Robert Chung

gwhite wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
> news:<8fth80ll57eukh8toctg7rjh72b711qfs5@4ax.com>...
>> On 23 Apr 2004 01:08:53 -0700, gwhite@ti.com (gwhite) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
>>> information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
>>> and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
>>> check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
>>> and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
>>> time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
>>> citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
>>> you folks do your verification. Good luck.
>>
>> Don't bullshit us.
>
> WTF? I know I heard what I reported I heard.
>
>> Much of Fox show, especially ones like the one in
>> question, are available as transcripts at their website.
>
> So if you know how to find it, then do so.
>
>> There is a
>> well-known instance of Rice mentioning Osama Bin-Laden that Fox played
>> repeatedly to show she "was well aware of Al Quaeda". That's the best
>> they could do because that's all their is.
>
> So? Why would I care either way? I could not care less if she and
> Bush roast or survive well.
>
>> You've either
>> intentionally or unintentially fallen for their spin.
>
> What spin are you referring to? I heard something on TV and referred
> to it. That is was stated by FOX is likely true. Whether or not
> their own citation is true or false is a matter for those who care to
> go and investigate. I'm simply relating what I witnessed. I didn't
> judge it one way or another, or make any indication of doing so.
>
> As far as judgement goes, I'm not so sure having known about Osama
> Bin-Laden and AQ is such a good thing. After all, that is what the
> inquiry is about. If they (Rice, et al) knew about AQ before 9-11, I
> can see how that could be viewed as negative. They knew and didn't do
> enough. But I'll leave it for you guys who need one side or the other
> to be "right" to argue it out.

Wow. Amusing. Scary.

Benjamin Weiner

gwhite <gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

> Is the "misperception link" to FOX causal or simply correlative? If
> it is causal then there must be citations, and certainly some
> frequency to them.

> "The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly
> depending on their source of news."

> By implication of "depend," then the misstatements were made on FOX.
> To me, depend means causal.

Usually, in order to look for a correlation, one does something like
plot y against x. Frequently one calls y the "dependent variable" and
x the "independent variable," same use of "depends." Often one
chooses x as the presumed cause and y as the effect, but usually one
can demonstrate the existence of a correlation without calling it
cause/effect. (There are statistical methods which try to make sure
you get the same answer for fitting y against x or x against y.) It
could be the other way around, after all - perhaps people who have
misperceptions choose to get news from FOX because it makes them feel
good, or it's somehow correlated with whether they like checking out
the anchors. Oh sorry, that was the Gum thread.

Anyway, you're the engineer. You should know this crap.

Howard Kveck

In article <c6b5s9$a2ijn$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:

> Stewart Fleming wrote:
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> >> I think that reflects a great deal more on your own ethics than
> >> anything I can say.
> >
> > *stunned silence*
> > Literally, words fail me.
>
> I feel your pain. Sometimes aspirin helps.

Does aspirin help in cases of aberrant thinking?

--
tanx,
Howard

Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

gecwhite

Benjamin Weiner wrote:
>
> gwhite <gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

> ...Often one chooses x as the presumed cause
> and y as the effect, but usually one can
> demonstrate the existence of a correlation
> without calling it cause/effect.

Exactly -- that is what I was getting at. I don't so much doubt the
correlation, but I don't believe it is causal _based solely on what I've
heard on FOX_.

> ... perhaps people who have misperceptions choose
> to get news from FOX because it makes them feel
> good,...

Presuming the pipa report is not garbage, I think this is probably more
like it since the political bent would seem to be the correlation. I am
unconvinced those with the "misperceptions" acquired that specific
misinformation on FOX, but the pipa report made the strong implication
that this was indeed so. That was my problem with it. I don't (at
all) mind criticism of FOX, or any other network for that matter, but
actual facts would be nice.

I appreciate your response.

Howard Kveck

In article <698b8866.0404230008.6fdf8f1e@posting.google.com>,
gwhite@ti.com (gwhite) wrote:

> I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
> information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
> and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
> check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
> and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
> time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
> citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
> you folks do your verification. Good luck.


Greg, I don't doubt you saw what you say you did. I wonder if it was on
a news show, or one of the pundits, like Hannity... Of course, that may not
really matter, as the line between those kinds of shows is pretty blurry
over at FNC. (There's an interesting article on that over at Salon, if you
don't mind sitting through an ad to get a free day pass - yeah, it's a
little annoying, but the article is worth the hassle, imo. link is here:
<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/31/fox/index_np.html>)

Anyway, I think that what Fox was trying to do was a sort of "gotcha" on
Clarke. By taking one sentence out of context and showing something that
seemed to disprove it, they are trying to discredit everything he said.
What he seemed to mean was that when he asked her for a meeting to discuss
al Qaeda, she dismissed it in a way that indicated that they had much more
important things to think about. You know, "Huh? Why would you want to talk
about them?!?!"

I think you're right on the money when you say, "If they (Rice, et al)
knew about AQ before 9-11, I can see how that could be viewed as negative.
They knew and didn't do enough."

--
tanx,
Howard

Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck

In article <NIeic.6574$eZ5.5559@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
> doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
> terrorism in the world. The same people who proclaim loudly that queers
> should have the right to "marry" other queers (being a homosexual is a death
> penalty in Islam), that women should have the right to wear anything that
> they like, that pay big bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends"
> demonstrating every possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations
> of the world in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't
> they French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
> terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground which has
> brought about more social advancement in the Arab world than all past
> history.

You have -got- to be joking. If you spent the least amount of time
looking into the Islamic terrorist movement, you might discover that the
causes that are overwhelmingly listed are US foreign policy, US trade
policy and US support of Israel. Do the Islamic fundies hate western
culture? Of course they do! But so do Christian fundies. There is no way in
hell that the number one reason for Islamic terrorists is western culture.
Christ, think about why they attacked the World TRADE Center (twice,
remember?), and not Universal Studios or Tower Records. Don't you think
that building had some symbolism to them? Do you think Mohammed Atta yelled
out, "Take that, Rachel and Ross!" as the planes piled into the buildings
that day? To ascribe the motivations of al Qaeda or any other serious
terrorist organization to "Friends" is the most preposterous thing you've
come up with yet, even as a goddamn analogy.

So what's the solution to the culture issue, T? Women back in the home,
maybe even burqas? That worked wonders in Afghanistan.

Is it possible that by invading Iraq, Bush has inspired even more people
to take up the anti-US terorism cause? And he was able to supply them with
plenty of targets in Iraq, and they don't even have to do any sneaking into
the US to get those targets. Thoughtful.

Do you think that stunt Bush pulled last week where he gave Ariel Sharon
even more than he wanted won't have some effect? You know, Sharon seems to
be hinting that Arafat is the next to go - do you think that'll calm the
Palestinians down, Tom? (By the way, back in that Update on French
anti-Americanism thread, you tried to thoroughly lambaste me for saying
that the Iraqi people are glad that Saddam is gone, but that if we don't
leave soon, they'll take up arms against us. Soooo, after the events in
Fallujah a couple weeks ago (and in plenty of other places since), whattaya
say - maybe I wasn't so far off the mark, hmmm?)

Social advancement, in the Arab world? Sure, lots of US dough flows into
the Arab world due to the oil trade - how much positive effect does that
have on the general population of those countries? Or does it go to a
select few and the governments of those countries, who keep the population
in line with brutal and oppressive security? Ever consider why Osama bin
Laden has the house of Saud as one of his primary objectives?

You want root causes of terror against the west, that first, watershed
event? Try The Brits and US helping the Shah of Iran overthrow the
immensely popular Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953.


> The very lifestyle that Liberals think they have improved the world with are
> the root cause of terrorism. It isn't SUV's driving down American roads - it
> is the sky black with airlines flying them all over the world to demonstrate
> their "enlightenment" to the downtrodden populations of third world
> countries.
>
> What it all boils down to is the Liberal belief that they are right no
> matter what history has to say about it. They will regale you with the dream
> of how they stopped the war in Vietnam but never mention the 3 million
> deaths the communists committed after the American pullout. Nor the 4
> million deaths in Cambodia or the 2 million in Laos. To the Liberals,
> pulling out of Vietnam was good regardless of the cost to anyone else. And
> they truly don't believe that the blood is on their hands.

How many would have died if the war had continued the way it been fought
from the first? They never really tried to "win". It was always an attempt
to maintain the status quo. Suppose they had tried to actually win the way
Nixon suggested? You know, he wanted to drop an atomic bomb or several on
Hanoi. How many casualties from that? What about from the retaliation that
would have been inevitable from the North Vietnamese' allies/backers? Would
that blood be acceptable, or would it, too, be on "Liberal's hands"?

Is there any evidence that the US being in Vietnam had any restraining
effect on Pol Pot in Cambodia? Of course not.

Chile? Guatemala? Yeah, you said that Chile was "only about 30,000".
Guatemala seems to have been at least 200,000 - and that's just the ones
that died while Rios Mont was in charge. The deaths kept on rolling after
he was eased out. Did Liberals cause those? John Negroponte still asserts
that there were no death squads. Strange that CIA guys seem to disagree
with him there.

Since we supplied the weapons to the Afghan rebels when they were
fighting the Russians, and then said, "See ya" once the Russians were
defeated, don't the people who supported that effort have just a bit of
blood on their hands, courtesy the Taliban? Not all the muj turned into
Taliban, so perhaps if there'd been a little more support for the guys who
became the Northern Alliance, the Taliban wouldn't have got power... After
Russia was gone, the powers that be just didn't give a damn anymore.

> The problem doesn't require a commission. You only have to read Osama's
> declaration of war against the USA. He said that when he saw that 10
> Americans killed in Somalia and the Americans run away he knew that he could
> win.
>
> Funny thing that the Liberals aren't advertising that so much.

Whose voices were the loudest in clamoring for the admin. to withdraw
from Somalia after that, Tom? Conservatives. They said the cost outweighed
any benefit to the US. Clinton should have ignored them, since we were
already there.

Funny to read you going on about "Liberals not wanting to take
responsibility" for their actions in the causes of terrorism, as you seem
to do a pretty damn good job of that yourself. Thanks for the glimpse into
your twisted psyche, Tom.

--
tanx,
Howard

Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Kyle Legate

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <NIeic.6574$eZ5.5559@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these
>> people are doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no
>> responsibility for the terrorism in the world. The same people who
>> proclaim loudly that queers should have the right to "marry" other
>> queers (being a homosexual is a death penalty in Islam), that women
>> should have the right to wear anything that they like, that pay big
>> bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends" demonstrating every
>> possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations of the world
>> in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't they
>> French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
>> terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground
>> which has brought about more social advancement in the Arab world
>> than all past history.
>
> You have -got- to be joking. If you spent the least amount of time
> looking into the Islamic terrorist movement, you might discover that
> the causes that are overwhelmingly listed are US foreign policy, US
> trade
> policy and US support of Israel.
>
Howard,

While your points are all correct based on careful, distanced analysis of
the available FACTS, you'll never get through to a guy who thinks that all
terrorism is caused by a girl's ass crack.

Tom Kunich

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-7FF64C.21425224042004@netnews.comcast.net...
>
> You have -got- to be joking. If you spent the least amount of time
> looking into the Islamic terrorist movement, you might discover that the
> causes that are overwhelmingly listed are US foreign policy, US trade
> policy and US support of Israel. Do the Islamic fundies hate western
> culture? Of course they do! But so do Christian fundies. There is no way
in
> hell that the number one reason for Islamic terrorists is western culture.

Howard, cite some foreign policy that you believe causes the likes of Atta
to fly a plane into a building. That isn't someone that hates business,
that's someone that has a bitter abiding hatred for the basic fundamentals
of our culture.

> So what's the solution to the culture issue, T? Women back in the home,
> maybe even burqas? That worked wonders in Afghanistan.

I think you are missing my point. It isn't what we are doing to the Muslims
that is the problem. It is the fact that we exist at all.

Here's the long and the short of it - I'm not suggesting WE change anything.
But if you really believe that our putting gays on TV (Queer Eye?) having
string bikinis on 13 year old girls and advertising "women's hygene
products" in magazines isn't any of your or my business, then you have to
accept that you are part of cause of Islamic hatred.

> Is it possible that by invading Iraq, Bush has inspired even more
people
> to take up the anti-US terorism cause?

Is it possible that seeing war close up and personal will discourage a
greater number?

> Do you think that stunt Bush pulled last week where he gave Ariel
Sharon
> even more than he wanted won't have some effect? You know, Sharon seems to
> be hinting that Arafat is the next to go - do you think that'll calm the
> Palestinians down, Tom?

Well, do you really believe that leaving Arafat alive and planning his next
financial additions to his family terrorism business is calming anyone down?
You have to have a pretty blank mind not to have noticed that Hamas had
offices in Arafat's building.

> (By the way, back in that Update on French
> anti-Americanism thread, you tried to thoroughly lambaste me for saying
> that the Iraqi people are glad that Saddam is gone, but that if we don't
> leave soon, they'll take up arms against us. Soooo, after the events in
> Fallujah a couple weeks ago (and in plenty of other places since),
whattaya
> say - maybe I wasn't so far off the mark, hmmm?)

I'd say that while you're saying that the "Iraqi people" are rebelling that
isn't what the word is from people that are there. In fact they are saying
that there are a minute portion of the population and that there are more
members of the KKK in this country than the rebels in Fallujah. So why are
you implying that a tiny segment are representative of an entire country?

> Social advancement, in the Arab world? Sure, lots of US dough flows
into
> the Arab world due to the oil trade - how much positive effect does that
> have on the general population of those countries?

Real historian are you? Try this: Arabs now have a lifespan nearing
"normal". They don't die of diseases, starvation or inter-tribal strife at
an average age of 34 any longer. That is directly due to western money,
western medicine and western CULTURE.

> Ever consider why Osama bin
> Laden has the house of Saud as one of his primary objectives?

Because of tribal politics that go back 100 years to Ibn Saud himself?

> You want root causes of terror against the west, that first, watershed
> event? Try The Brits and US helping the Shah of Iran overthrow the
> immensely popular Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953.

Obvious reasons for Arabs who HATE the Iranians.

> How many would have died if the war had continued the way it been
fought
> from the first? They never really tried to "win". It was always an attempt
> to maintain the status quo.

I suggest you study the Vietnamese war before making such ignorant
statements. North Vietnam was BEATEN in the Tet Offensive. Any serious
military action against the North would have caused them to completely
crumble. They were not allowed to do so by the Liberals. Got that? The WAR
WAS WON and then handed back to the North Vietnamese who them murdered in
wholesale numbers.

But I have the gist of your claim "It isn't MEEEEEEE, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH IT!!! IT'S SOMEONE ELSE!"

Gotcha.