or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › VOTE today
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

VOTE today - Page 15

post #211 of 311

Re: VOTE today

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset wrote:


>>> This ain't no email exchange, dude.


>> Yet you address me direc---- OOPS. I mean, yet Mr. Sunset replies
>> directly in this case. Curious.


> Depends on the particular message and reply.


Last word (from me anyway) on the subject. When you're in an argument with,
say, Mark Hickey and the two of you debate an issue, it's lame to suddenly
jump to the narrative "Mark Hickey can't distinguish {yada yada yada}" when
the exchange was direct (personally involving) between the two of you before
that.

The only other persons I recall doing that /regularly/ like you do are Bill
Zaumen and Jay Flailor. Like I said before, it's like not looking someone
in the eye when talking to him or her. It seems sneaky or underhanded or
just plain juvenile ("Mom, Joey said my ears are too big!").

Usenet is a public forum, yes, but people have direct discussions all the
time on it. The "citizens of {insert group name here}" don't need YOU to
condescend to them and describe the action; they're reading it, too
(presumably).

I just find it strange and annoying, that's all, and I bet I'm not alone in
that.

Buh-bye, Mr. Sunset.

Bill S.
post #212 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Doug Taylor wrote:
> > On 12 Nov 2006 15:05:13 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
> > <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> but did NOT gainsay
> > >> "pure historical fact." I support Israel 100%.
> > >
> > >Why?

> >
> > Because they are a democratic nation consisting of mainly intelligent,
> > educated and civilized people. Coming for the USA, I would be loathe
> > to cast the first stone at them for the sins of their far right.
> >
> > On the other hand, their enemies are our enemies: crazed religious
> > fanatics who have ZERO tolerance for anybody who doesn't follow their
> > faith, and have no compunction against targeting, killing, or maiming
> > any "infidel" regardless of sex, age, or military status.
> >
> > If you think it is possible to reason with or appease Muslim fanatics,
> > you are deluded and naive. Iran, for example, is a grave threat to
> > world peace so long as the Shiite Mullahs and fanatics control their
> > government.

>
> Less informed on this subject than on the history of the 110mm BCD
> crank (etc), eh?
>
> Do some research - find out the history behind Muslim attitudes re: the
> USA. Here's a head start: US support of the Shah of Iran.


Just because Allen Dulles put the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil
Company ahead of Iranian freedom, democracy and right of the people to
benefit from the profits of oil extraction?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
post #213 of 311

Re: VOTE today

In article
<1163390979.325960.43570@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1163373013.075290.15450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > > > ,
> > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > >
> > > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > > president.
> > > >
> > > > Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> > > > military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> > > > substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> > > > lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.
> > >
> > > Mr. Press:
> > >
> > > Ah yes, another "I'm superior because I was in the military lecture"
> > > combined with implied insult. [Yawn]

> >
> > See my reply to Bill Sornson.
> >
> > > Do you deny the military requires unquestioning obedience to authority?

> >
> > You must obey a lawful order given by a police officer.
> > Commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers
> > have better things to do than micro-manage their troops.

>
> The authority of police officers is limited to enforcing laws. A
> commanding officer can control every minute of a subordinates life if
> he/she so desires.
>
> > > Try being open-minded enough to realize that those who prefer to
> > > maintain the option of thinking for themselves and self-determination
> > > also have something to offer to society.

> >
> > Everybody knows me as a dupe of the most recent special
> > interest group to persuade me with their program.
> >
> > You ever watch movies that trade in a subject you have
> > mastered? Sickening, is it not? You talk as if
> > everything you know about the military you got from
> > movies.

>
> I was never claiming to be an expert in military life. However, some
> things are evident based on deduction from available (and basically
> undisputed) facts.
>
> Do you dispute that there is little alternative but to obey an order
> given by a commanding officer when one is on active duty service?


Sure. That commanding officer is going to have trouble
when his efficiency reports are written and he comes up
for promotion.

> Is not the ultimate purpose of the military to settle disputes by
> violent means?


Yeah, whatever.

You deduce, argue, and dispute from your facts, but you
do not know.

--
Michael Press
post #214 of 311

Re: VOTE today

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 04:14:28 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:

>
>Last word (from me anyway) on the subject. When you're in an argument with,
>say, Mark Hickey and the two of you debate an issue, it's lame to suddenly
>jump to the narrative "Mark Hickey can't distinguish {yada yada yada}" when
>the exchange was direct (personally involving) between the two of you before
>that.
>
>The only other persons I recall doing that /regularly/ like you do are Bill
>Zaumen and Jay Flailor. Like I said before, it's like not looking someone
>in the eye when talking to him or her. It seems sneaky or underhanded or
>just plain juvenile ("Mom, Joey said my ears are too big!").
>
>Usenet is a public forum, yes, but people have direct discussions all the
>time on it. The "citizens of {insert group name here}" don't need YOU to
>condescend to them and describe the action; they're reading it, too
>(presumably).
>
>I just find it strange and annoying, that's all, and I bet I'm not alone in
>that.


LOL. You're the guy who questioned, with a curse, the entry of a new
person into an ongoing discussion some time ago, not seeming to
understand that usenet is a public discussion. You're the guy who
doesn't seem to understand that are are archives of past posts
available and weasel and shidt what you said, thinking you can't be
caught on it. You're the guy who thinks that someone reposting part of
what you said a few days after you say it is due to their carefully
storing what you wrote for just such an occasion (in fact, it's
generally done by using an archive). You're the guy who thinks that
someone *not* reposting the entirety of one of your posts is
ineherently depeptive.

And now you're lecturing on usenet.

LOL.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #215 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:

>
>Doug Taylor wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:28:01 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So I post an absolutely undeniable snippet of pure historical fact
>> >from a non-partisan (well, certainly almost never right-leaning)
>> >source, and suddenly my motivations are the issue? Weak, weak, weak
>> >(even for a sock puppet).

>>
>> You are cherry picking my post.
>>
>> I slammed your fundamentalist religious beliefs

>
>Mark may have bought the idea that "western style democracy" and
>capitalism will cure the world's ills, but he has never struck me a
>religious fundamentalist.
>
>Mark?


Well that depends - I do believe in the fundamentals of the Christian
religion (which by definition makes me a "fundamentalist") though I
bear no resemblence to the mindless blithering idiot that "Doug
Taylor" (aka Mr. Sunset's sock puppet) described.

But that's a common approach to "dealing with something" that you are
unequipped to consider rationally - convince yourself that anyone
having an opinion contrary to yours on the subject is an idiot and
bent on world domination.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
post #216 of 311

Re: Rummy is going

John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

>On 12 Nov 2006 14:02:40 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
><sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:

>
>>> I give up, Johnny. Go read your blogs.

>>
>>Citations for all the successfully opened schools and businesses in
>>post invasion Iraq, please.
>>
>>Explanation of how the Iraqi economy can be doing well with 70%
>>unemployment, and the middle classes fleeing the country by the
>>hundreds of thousands, please.

>
>Sorni -- where do you get your information about politics and current
>events? Can you provide information on any of the stuff Johnny Sunset
>is asking about -- or other examples of good news from Iraq?
>
>Or can Hickey?


http://www.midwestheroes.com/docs/progress/

First example I found on a quick google search... doesnt' go into the
infrastructure improvements as much as others I've seen, but it's a
start...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
post #217 of 311

Re: Rummy is going

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 06:14:55 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
wrote:

>
>http://www.midwestheroes.com/docs/progress/
>
>First example I found on a quick google search... doesnt' go into the
>infrastructure improvements as much as others I've seen, but it's a
>start...


Interesting that the news here is not newer than February of this
year. And the top story is one in which things have apparently gone
backwards since.

Also interesting that you speak of progress, "others [you've] seen"
but need to show us something you (apparently) hadn't seen. Any leads
on those "others"? What are your souces of information at least?

Oh, and today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #218 of 311

Re: Rummy is going

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 06:14:55 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
wrote:

[some stuff on Iraq]

Not directly related to that, but I'm reminded of what a
partisan/dumbass you are and thought this might be informative to you
who earlier said you're weren't aware of problems with electronic
voting and that complaints about it weren't more than nutty conspiracy
theories :

http://www.forbes.com/home/security/...3security.html
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #219 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 06:09:21 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
wrote:


>But that's a common approach to "dealing with something" that you are
>unequipped to consider rationally - convince yourself that anyone
>having an opinion contrary to yours on the subject is an idiot and
>bent on world domination.


Unintended irony: dealing with religion "rationally."

Come now.

As far as world domination, last time I checked BOTH your religion and
Islam consider themselves to have absolute monopolies on Truth, and
BOTH are evangelical.

Being "rational", I subscribe to Aristotle's Law of Noncontradiction.
I would submit that TWO evangelical religions inflexibly asserting
absolute truth is both irrational and dangerous. Their is no logical
resolution; they cannot coexist. Ergo, one must annihilate the other.

You think I'm exaggerating? Read the Koran; observe what Islamic
radicals do in fact. The only difference between Muslims and
Christians in the 21st century is that so far Christian do not TARGET
innocents; they just kill them "collaterally."
post #220 of 311

Re: Rummy is going

Mark Hickey wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12 Nov 2006 14:02:40 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
>> <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:

>>
>>>> I give up, Johnny. Go read your blogs.
>>>
>>> Citations for all the successfully opened schools and businesses in
>>> post invasion Iraq, please.
>>>
>>> Explanation of how the Iraqi economy can be doing well with 70%
>>> unemployment, and the middle classes fleeing the country by the
>>> hundreds of thousands, please.

>>
>> Sorni -- where do you get your information about politics and current
>> events? Can you provide information on any of the stuff Johnny
>> Sunset is asking about -- or other examples of good news from Iraq?
>>
>> Or can Hickey?

>
> http://www.midwestheroes.com/docs/progress/
>
> First example I found on a quick google search... doesnt' go into the
> infrastructure improvements as much as others I've seen, but it's a
> start...


Now tell The Flogger that I plonked his weasel self (gentler term than
"ass") many weeks ago and do not see his posts. Apparently he's still in
denial about this.

TYVM.
post #221 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

On 13 Nov 2006 08:07:27 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:

>> Being "rational", I subscribe to Aristotle's Law of Noncontradiction.
>> I would submit that TWO evangelical religions inflexibly asserting
>> absolute truth is both irrational and dangerous. Their is no logical
>> resolution; they cannot coexist. Ergo, one must annihilate the other.
>>

>
>If that were going to happen, it would have hasppened long ago, when
>the world was less "connected" and less secular, IMO.


Long ago, they did not have nuclear weapons, which are capable of
achieving the goal.

Do you think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who denies the holocaust, might
be insane enough to use them against another historical enemy, Israel,
WHEN (I do not say "if") Iran develops or acquires them? Tough call.
He's not stupid, but he's certainly an Islamic fundamentalist, at the
very least sympathetic to the goals and methods of other Islamic
terrorists (killing selves and other people for religious purposes).

Fundamentalist religion - whatever the brand - is the common enemy of
all sane and rational people. Religious claims of infallibility and
exclusivity of truth are neither logically, theologically, nor
philosophically sound. Those who believe that have THE TRUTH are
deluded, deranged, and dangerous. The more power and adherents they
have, the more dangerous they are to the sane and civilized.

Kudos to the American electorate for finally waking up to the fact
that 20% of our population should not run 100% of our government.

It's time for the sane and civilized to really wake up and confront
the dangers of fundamentalism - and not even limited to religious, but
also merely ideological. As Paul Krugman said in a column last week,
the danger of modern US ultraconservatism is that it "is fundamentally
undemocratic; its leaders don’t accept the legitimacy of opposition."

Therefore, the sane and civilized must become "intolerant of
intolerance" (although that very contradiction may bode ill if
misused).

Which means if you are any sort of "secular humanist" - whether
moderate of liberal - your enemies are all absolutist fundamentalists,
and in particular Muslims and Christians. Why them? Because they
have lots of adherents and lots of power and are a threat to you,
because if you have not been "assimilated" into them, you are
marginalized and expendable.
post #222 of 311

Re: VOTE today

In article <1163390312.026551.6370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
sunsetss0003@yahoo.com says...
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > >> Michael Press wrote:
> > >>> In article
> > >>> <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > >>> ,
> > >>> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > >>>> themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who
> > >>>> believe in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed
> > >>>> to run for president.
> > >>>
> > >>> Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> > >>> military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> > >>> substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> > >>> lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.
> > >>
> > >> I know, those of us that were really in the military giggle whe we
> > >> hear some civilans talk about it. Most would not make it in the
> > >> military, i suspect Johnny is one of them. Too late to find out now.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I would not have dealt well taking orders from people
> > > significantly less intelligent and informed than I am.

> >
> > Johnny, Peter is royally kicking your proverbial ass in these exchanges.
> > Time to STFU (that is, if you're anywhere near as intelligent as you
> > apparently believe yourself to be).
> >
> > HTH! LOL

>
> Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
>
> Really? Has Peter Chisholm convinced everyone that people without
> military service are second class citizens?


No. But he's convinced me that he's answering forthrightly.

I've never been in the military or even close to it. But I've worked in
a variety of organizations for 32 years, and military-trained managers
have consistently ranked among the best I've met. As one manager (a
retired officer) put it, any idiot can get people to move a filing
cabinet from A to B. It takes a real leader to get them to follow when
their lives are on the line.

Your back and forth with Peter has convinced me that your primary
interest is building straw men so you can beat the crap out of them.
post #223 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

On 12 Nov 2006 20:11:28 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:

>Do some research - find out the history behind Muslim attitudes re: the
>USA. Here's a head start: US support of the Shah of Iran.


While I agree that the US propping the Shah of Iran was another
example of bad and shortsighted foreign policy during the Cold War
that backfired (and there are many), back at ya:

Do some research - read the Quran:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...elty/long.html

The Muslims trump even the Christians in terms of their claim to
primacy and disdain of infidels, and that's saying a mouthful, eh?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm
post #224 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

> Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>wrote:
>
>>But that's a common approach to "dealing with something" that you are
>>unequipped to consider rationally - convince yourself that anyone
>>having an opinion contrary to yours on the subject is an idiot and
>>bent on world domination.

>
>Unintended irony: dealing with religion "rationally."
>
>Come now.
>
>As far as world domination, last time I checked BOTH your religion and
>Islam consider themselves to have absolute monopolies on Truth, and
>BOTH are evangelical.
>
>Being "rational", I subscribe to Aristotle's Law of Noncontradiction.
>I would submit that TWO evangelical religions inflexibly asserting
>absolute truth is both irrational and dangerous. Their is no logical
>resolution; they cannot coexist. Ergo, one must annihilate the other.


>You think I'm exaggerating? Read the Koran; observe what Islamic
>radicals do in fact. The only difference between Muslims and
>Christians in the 21st century is that so far Christian do not TARGET
>innocents; they just kill them "collaterally."


I must have missed the command to "target infidels", which is strange
'cuz I've read through the Bible a lot of times. I do seem to
remember "love your enemies".

I also am having trouble finding a country that's under the control of
the Christian church - other than the Vatican (which is really only a
city-state, but certainly hasn't dropped a bomb on anyone I'm aware
of).

I'd guess you have "issues" with Christianity for some reason (only
way to explain your rant). That's too bad, because it's a belief
system that works quite well for a lot of people. The fact they tend
to want to share it is a good thing - I'd hope that if you found a
method to ride your bike 50% faster (for example) that you'd share it
too.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
post #225 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

>Which means if you are any sort of "secular humanist" - whether
>moderate of liberal - your enemies are all absolutist fundamentalists,
>and in particular Muslims and Christians. Why them? Because they
>have lots of adherents and lots of power and are a threat to you,
>because if you have not been "assimilated" into them, you are
>marginalized and expendable.


.... and paranoid!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling Equipment
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › VOTE today