J
Fascism
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
N
On Dec 31, 2:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> Jobst Brandt
Happy 1984, Jobst!
[that before Sornson starts urinating on your leg for your post ;-)]
May the new year find you healthy, happy, and clocking beautiful
miles, both here and abroad.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> Jobst Brandt
Happy 1984, Jobst!
[that before Sornson starts urinating on your leg for your post ;-)]
May the new year find you healthy, happy, and clocking beautiful
miles, both here and abroad.
J
[image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>
------------------------------
January 2, 2008
Op-Ed Contributors
Stonewalled by the C.I.A. By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Washington
MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11
commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the
fullest possible account of the "facts and circumstances relating to
the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" — and to offer
recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation,
the president's chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies
to cooperate with the commission.
The commission's mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the
intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A.
destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to
conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for
information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those
videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our
investigation. rg
There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the
C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission's interest in any
and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11
plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of
the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.
When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the
C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least
two Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that
we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have
been contained in such videotapes.
The commission did not have a mandate to investigate how detainees
were treated; our role was to investigate the history and evolution of
Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plot. Beginning in June 2003, we requested all
reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had
been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals,
including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior
Qaeda operatives, portions of whose interrogations were apparently
recorded and then destroyed.
The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the
interrogations. But the reports raised almost as many questions as
they answered. Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific
questions, they would do all they could to answer them.
So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.'s
general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the
reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more
important in our view, asked for details about the translation process
in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way
the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees' stories;
the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported
information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of
questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the
credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported
statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators
themselves.
The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies.
The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been
recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any
form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to
question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few
other key captives.
In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A.
director, told us point blank that we would have no such access.
During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should
provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the
commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by
alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but
neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.
A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel,
the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice
Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the
detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.
As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some
of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission
concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the
commission never felt that its earlier questions had been
satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our
concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission
report.
As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.'s failure
to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What
we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a
lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to
investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We
call that obstruction.
Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice
chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.
--
Jobst Brandt
------------------------------
January 2, 2008
Op-Ed Contributors
Stonewalled by the C.I.A. By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Washington
MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11
commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the
fullest possible account of the "facts and circumstances relating to
the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" — and to offer
recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation,
the president's chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies
to cooperate with the commission.
The commission's mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the
intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A.
destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to
conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for
information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those
videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our
investigation. rg
There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the
C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission's interest in any
and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11
plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of
the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.
When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the
C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least
two Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that
we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have
been contained in such videotapes.
The commission did not have a mandate to investigate how detainees
were treated; our role was to investigate the history and evolution of
Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plot. Beginning in June 2003, we requested all
reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had
been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals,
including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior
Qaeda operatives, portions of whose interrogations were apparently
recorded and then destroyed.
The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the
interrogations. But the reports raised almost as many questions as
they answered. Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific
questions, they would do all they could to answer them.
So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.'s
general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the
reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more
important in our view, asked for details about the translation process
in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way
the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees' stories;
the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported
information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of
questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the
credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported
statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators
themselves.
The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies.
The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been
recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any
form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to
question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few
other key captives.
In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A.
director, told us point blank that we would have no such access.
During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should
provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the
commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by
alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but
neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.
A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel,
the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice
Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the
detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.
As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some
of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission
concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the
commission never felt that its earlier questions had been
satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our
concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission
report.
As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.'s failure
to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What
we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a
lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to
investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We
call that obstruction.
Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice
chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.
--
Jobst Brandt
N
R
Ron Wallenfang
Guest
On Dec 31 2007, 4:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> Jobst Brandt
FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> Jobst Brandt
FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
B
Bill Sornson
Guest
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> On Dec 31 2007, 4:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Jobst Brandt
> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
Wait till someone posts a /ride report/ and draws his ire! LOL
Bill "but at least he labeled it 'OT'...oh, wait" S.
> On Dec 31 2007, 4:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Jobst Brandt
> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
Wait till someone posts a /ride report/ and draws his ire! LOL
Bill "but at least he labeled it 'OT'...oh, wait" S.
J
Ron Wallenfang writes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not only
that, don't go to a web site that will give you information you don't
want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur did you?
Jobst Brandt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not only
that, don't go to a web site that will give you information you don't
want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur did you?
Jobst Brandt
R
Ron Wallenfang
Guest
On Jan 4, 11:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> > FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>
> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not only
> that, don't go to a web site that will give you information you don't
> want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur did you?
>
> Jobst Brandt
I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
degree.
> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> > FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>
> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not only
> that, don't go to a web site that will give you information you don't
> want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur did you?
>
> Jobst Brandt
I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
degree.
B
Bill Sornson
Guest
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> On Jan 4, 11:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>>
>>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>>
>> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not only
>> that, don't go to a web site that will give you information you don't
>> want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur did you?
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> degree.
Next thing you know they'll be telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use,
cars to drive, fats to eat, health care to buy, etc. etc, etc.
Oh, wait...
> On Jan 4, 11:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>>
>>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>>
>> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not only
>> that, don't go to a web site that will give you information you don't
>> want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur did you?
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> degree.
Next thing you know they'll be telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use,
cars to drive, fats to eat, health care to buy, etc. etc, etc.
Oh, wait...
O
Ozark Bicycle
Guest
On Jan 4, 10:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> > On Dec 31 2007, 4:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> Jobst Brandt
> > FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>
> Wait till someone posts a /ride report/ and draws his ire! LOL
>
> Bill "but at least he labeled it 'OT'...oh, wait" S.
Brandt can do as he pleases; after all, he owns the rec.bicycles.**
groups and graciously lets others use them. Right?
> Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> > On Dec 31 2007, 4:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> Jobst Brandt
> > FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>
> Wait till someone posts a /ride report/ and draws his ire! LOL
>
> Bill "but at least he labeled it 'OT'...oh, wait" S.
Brandt can do as he pleases; after all, he owns the rec.bicycles.**
groups and graciously lets others use them. Right?
J
Jym Dyer
Guest
> ... they'll be telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use ...
=v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
idiotic FUD about them.
HTH,
<_Jym_>
=v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
idiotic FUD about them.
HTH,
<_Jym_>
J
Ron Wallenfang writes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
>> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
>> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
>> did you?
> I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> degree.
OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
as emulating Lance Armstrong.
Jobst Brandt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
>> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
>> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
>> did you?
> I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> degree.
OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
as emulating Lance Armstrong.
Jobst Brandt
O
Ozark Bicycle
Guest
On Jan 6, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> >>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
> >> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
> >> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
> >> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
> >> did you?
> > I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> > rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> > degree.
>
> OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
> and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
> spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
> as emulating Lance Armstrong.
>
>
Why don't you just stick to telling folks to overtension their spokes?
> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> >>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
> >> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
> >> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
> >> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
> >> did you?
> > I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> > rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> > degree.
>
> OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
> and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
> spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
> as emulating Lance Armstrong.
>
>
Why don't you just stick to telling folks to overtension their spokes?
R
Ron Wallenfang
Guest
On Jan 6, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> >>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
> >> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
> >> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
> >> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
> >> did you?
> > I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> > rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> > degree.
>
> OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
> and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
> spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
> as emulating Lance Armstrong.
>
> Jobst Brandt
There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But rec.bicycles
isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and shouldn't be for
you either.
> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> >>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
> >> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
> >> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
> >> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
> >> did you?
> > I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> > rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> > degree.
>
> OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
> and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
> spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
> as emulating Lance Armstrong.
>
> Jobst Brandt
There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But rec.bicycles
isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and shouldn't be for
you either.
N
On Jan 6, 11:34 am, Ron Wallenfang <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> > >>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
> > >> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
> > >> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
> > >> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
> > >> did you?
> > > I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> > > rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> > > degree.
>
> > OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
> > and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
> > spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
> > as emulating Lance Armstrong.
>
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
> rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
> newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
> spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
> are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But rec.bicycles
> isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and shouldn't be for
> you either.
Provide people stick to the convention of using "OT:" to preface the
subject of an off-topic post, couldn't you simply filter out those
posts??
That's likely to be more effective, IMO.
> On Jan 6, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> > >>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
> > >> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
> > >> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
> > >> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
> > >> did you?
> > > I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> > > rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> > > degree.
>
> > OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
> > and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
> > spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
> > as emulating Lance Armstrong.
>
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
> rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
> newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
> spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
> are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But rec.bicycles
> isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and shouldn't be for
> you either.
Provide people stick to the convention of using "OT:" to preface the
subject of an off-topic post, couldn't you simply filter out those
posts??
That's likely to be more effective, IMO.
J
Ron Wallenfang writes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>>>>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>>>> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
>>>> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
>>>> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new
>>>> derailleur did you?
>>> I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
>>> rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
>>> degree.
>> OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the
>> like and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber
>> and low spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see
>> themselves as emulating Lance Armstrong.
> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
> rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
> newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
> spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
> are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But
> rec.bicycles isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and
> shouldn't be for you either.
So how is it that giving a link to a current political topic gets you
excited while all sorts of non bicycle items do not? As I said,
trolleys, heat pumps, windmills, wheelchairs and the like don't get
your critical comments. It appears that you are eager to let readers
of this newsgroup know where your politics lie rather than make a
specific complaint.
Jobst Brandt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>>>>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>>>> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
>>>> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
>>>> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new
>>>> derailleur did you?
>>> I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
>>> rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
>>> degree.
>> OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the
>> like and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber
>> and low spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see
>> themselves as emulating Lance Armstrong.
> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
> rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
> newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
> spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
> are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But
> rec.bicycles isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and
> shouldn't be for you either.
So how is it that giving a link to a current political topic gets you
excited while all sorts of non bicycle items do not? As I said,
trolleys, heat pumps, windmills, wheelchairs and the like don't get
your critical comments. It appears that you are eager to let readers
of this newsgroup know where your politics lie rather than make a
specific complaint.
Jobst Brandt
B
Bill Sornson
Guest
Jym Dyer wrote:
{I wrote, in part and in missing context:}
>> ... they'll be telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use ...
> =v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
> idiotic FUD about them.
So people who suffer from migraines and eye problems who are reporting
serious issues are just...liars?
Bill "they must all be Republicans, too" S.
{I wrote, in part and in missing context:}
>> ... they'll be telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use ...
> =v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
> idiotic FUD about them.
So people who suffer from migraines and eye problems who are reporting
serious issues are just...liars?
Bill "they must all be Republicans, too" S.
B
Bill Sornson
Guest
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> On Jan 6, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>>
>>>>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>>>> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
>>>> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
>>>> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
>>>> did you?
>>> I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
>>> rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
>>> degree.
>>
>> OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
>> and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and
>> low spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see
>> themselves as emulating Lance Armstrong.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
> rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
> newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
> spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
> are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But rec.bicycles
> isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and shouldn't be for
> you either.
Whaddya, new?!? Rules and polite conventions don't apply to liars,
hypocrites, bullies and ideologues. (Take your pick.)
Bill "HTH" S.
> On Jan 6, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>>
>>>>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>>>> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
>>>> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
>>>> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
>>>> did you?
>>> I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
>>> rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
>>> degree.
>>
>> OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
>> and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and
>> low spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see
>> themselves as emulating Lance Armstrong.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
> rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
> newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
> spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
> are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But rec.bicycles
> isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and shouldn't be for
> you either.
Whaddya, new?!? Rules and polite conventions don't apply to liars,
hypocrites, bullies and ideologues. (Take your pick.)
Bill "HTH" S.
S
Stephen Harding
Guest
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
> rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
> newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
> spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
> are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But rec.bicycles
> isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and shouldn't be for
> you either.
Politics unfortunately, increasingly, infiltrates all endeavors.
Rather nasty politics of the personal attack kind seem to be a
large part of it as well.
Perhaps with President Obama or Hillary things will lessen up a
bit. There will still be the right wing ideologues doing their
attack repertories, but I think there are fewer of them (at
least on this NG) than the Lefties.
Jobst is a good poster AFA bicycling topics go. He has a lot
of credibility to me. On political topics, I regard him as a
kook!
You also have a lot of credibility to my mind. You don't just
talk the bicycling life style, you act it out. How many bike
miles last year? 20K???!!!
And you're not a Lefty Kook (tm) as far as I can tell. Or
perhaps you are a Lefty Kook that just doesn't feel politics
belong in this NG.
Whatever. I'm glad you stop in from time to time!
SMH
> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
> rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
> newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
> spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
> are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But rec.bicycles
> isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and shouldn't be for
> you either.
Politics unfortunately, increasingly, infiltrates all endeavors.
Rather nasty politics of the personal attack kind seem to be a
large part of it as well.
Perhaps with President Obama or Hillary things will lessen up a
bit. There will still be the right wing ideologues doing their
attack repertories, but I think there are fewer of them (at
least on this NG) than the Lefties.
Jobst is a good poster AFA bicycling topics go. He has a lot
of credibility to me. On political topics, I regard him as a
kook!
You also have a lot of credibility to my mind. You don't just
talk the bicycling life style, you act it out. How many bike
miles last year? 20K???!!!
And you're not a Lefty Kook (tm) as far as I can tell. Or
perhaps you are a Lefty Kook that just doesn't feel politics
belong in this NG.
Whatever. I'm glad you stop in from time to time!
SMH
J
Jym Dyer
Guest
>> =v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
>> idiotic FUD about them.
> So people who suffer from migraines and eye problems who
> are reporting serious issues are just...liars?
=v= These issues are well-known and longstanding complaints
about old-technology fluorescents. CFLs represent a number
of technological advances over those, but some people just
lump them together and spread FUD.
<_Jym_>
>> idiotic FUD about them.
> So people who suffer from migraines and eye problems who
> are reporting serious issues are just...liars?
=v= These issues are well-known and longstanding complaints
about old-technology fluorescents. CFLs represent a number
of technological advances over those, but some people just
lump them together and spread FUD.
<_Jym_>
Similar threads
B
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 247
C
B
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 249
L
J
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 630
J
B
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 463
J
J
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 793
B
J
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 426
B
J
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 671
J