funny things to do on a bike

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>>
>It's funny that nearly 70% of Americans came to that conclusion.
>What's amazing is that you think it's merely some happy coincidence,
>that the Bushies didn't mean for anyone to get the wrong idea. Oh,
>and the fact that the connection has been denied since.

Denied since... when? I don't recall the administration denying the
link, since they never established it. I thought we had nailed that
down... guess not.

>> And quoting Paul O'Neill as a credible source is going to water down
>> your point.
>
>By all accounts, he's an honest, forthright guy. Why is he not
>credible? (Your ad hominem argument aside, that is.)

If you were to write a book about someone who fired you, why would I
believe it would be balanced? We end up with him painting one picture
of the administration, and the rest of the administration saying that
it's entirely inaccurate. We'll never know I suppose - but he DID
make a lot of money (a lot more than he would have had there been no
drama in the book).

>> It's well known there was a contingency plan for Iraq
>
>There's a difference between some plan on a shelf (invasion of Mexico,
>for instance) and the private foreign policy focus of "we need to take
>that ******* down." (A paraphrase of Bush's quote "**** Saddam.")

Again, you choose to believe a guy who is obviously upset at being
fired by GWB, and who made a lot of money writing a sensational book.
I tend to believe the accounts that have come from the rest of the
cabinet members (which all seem to agree).

>> >Your tap dancing is pathetic. It's LOL silly - I can't believe you
>> >keep up this stupid line of reasoning, clutching at it like it
>> >actually has any traction at all. Pure buffoonery.
>>
>> In other words, you can't find a single instance of the administration
>> tying 9/11 to Iraq. Thanks for making that clear.
>
>Explicitly, no (I've said as much) Implicitly, well, you'd have to be
>a total idiot, or have you head firmly up your ass not to see ANY
>implication.

Heh heh heh. So point one out. Show me the quote that forces people
to believe there is a direct connection. Or was it done through
subliminals or maybe hypnotism?

>> >> >LOL - you head-in-the-sand (-up-the-ass) conservatives really give me
>> >> >a chuckle.
>> >>
>> >> I'm glad. I'm chuckling over the fact you won't be able to give any
>> >> citations.
>> >
>> >Being a pedantic asshole doesn't improve your logic.
>>
>> Resorting to ad hominem attacks is the best proof that you've lost.
>
>It's not an ad hominem argument. It's a direct insult. They are two
>different things.

Either indicates you're nasty when backed into a corner.

>While you being an asshole is my opinion, you being pedantic is quite
>obvious. Hingeing your whole case on what was or was not implied
>means that you really don't have much of a case. And real world data
>suggest that you are in a small minority in your belief.

I have no case ? - and you can't provide a single quote to prove your
point. Heh.

>> >> On a related note, there ARE people who believe (after having studied
>> >> the facts) that there IS a connection.
>> >
>> >THere are also people who believe the moon landings were faked.
>> >Without EVIDENCE, their beliefs are just as wacky as those who think
>> >the ticket to heaven is slamming a passenger jet into an office
>> >building.
>> >
>> >> Personally I wouldn't doubt
>> >> it
>> >
>> >Of course you wouldn't. Ignoring facts is part and parcel of the
>> >conservative way of looking at the world. But your beloved Bushies
>> >have said on the record that there was no connection. Well after the
>> >"Mission" was "Accomplished", of course.
>>
>> Heh heh heh... you're sounding a little desparate there
>
>So, you're denying that the Administration said that there was no
>connection?

Heh heh heh... NOW how are you going to reconcile THAT with your
position that GWB was doing his best to imply there WAS a connection?
You're digging another hole here.

>[snip Liebermann quote]
>
>If two people, one from the Republican party, the other from the
>Democratic party, say that the moon is made of green cheese, does that
>make it true? Is it a fact then?

You really like strawmen. Do you really think that there's only one
Democrat who believes there was a connection between Iraq and Al
Qaeda?

>:shakes head:

Laughs.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> [email protected] (JP) writes:
>
>
>>Hussein did not have artillery capable of reaching the US (nor does
>>anyone else) so this shell could not have been a threat to us in the
>>USA.
>
>
> Canada?

Please, don't let W hear that! There's no telling what ideas it might
inspire!


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote

>> In fact, the Oregon Chapter, American College of Emergency
>Physicians
>> discuss the triage that might be necessary should sarin be
>sprayed
>> from a crop duster over a large group of people in their Winter
>2001
>> newsletter:
>>
>> http://www.ocep.org/epic-winter2001.pdf
>
>I would regard with great suspicion anything said by the Oregon
>Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians. I think
>they were one of the groups behind the MHL for kids in this
>state! They are terrorists themselves! -- Jay Beattie.

Hey - let's not have any bicycle content in this thread!!!

(I won't even mention the H-word)... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Mark Hickey wrote:

>
> Oh, BTW, what size howitzer was used in the sarin attack in the Tokyo
> subway?
>

Oh, and in that confined space, how many thousands were killed?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote ...
>> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>> OK... let's dig into that. According to the US Army and other sources
>> at: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/mr1018.5.appb.pdf
>>
>> ... discussing the solubility of sarin...
>>
>> "Miscible in both polar and nonpolar solvents"
>
>Indeed. Take a gallon of active ingredient and quadruple it's volume,
>then try and smuggle it under your coat.

I don't recall the need to bodily carry it to its dispersal point, but
even so it's not that hard to imagine (or maybe just send out four
people with a quart of sarin each).

<snip>
>> Sounds like it wouldn't be very hard at all to achieve sprayable
>> viscosity.
>
>Except that you still have to get a delivery system, and the extra
>volume of inert ingredients where they need to be.
>
>If you think that nobody has ever looked at this, you are a total
>idiot.

I missed the part where I said no one had ever looked at that. You
seem to have a habit of assuming people said things that never left
their lips or keyboards...

>> In fact, the Oregon Chapter, American College of Emergency Physicians
>> discuss the triage that might be necessary should sarin be sprayed
>> from a crop duster over a large group of people in their Winter 2001
>> newsletter:
>>
>> http://www.ocep.org/epic-winter2001.pdf
>
>Now we're talking about aircraft as the delivery system? A system
>designed to squirt organophosphorus pesticides?
>
>Chicken Little holding on line two...

Talk to the doctors involved. I'm sure they are all total idiots too.

>> I don't really feel the need to create a list.
>
>Then there really isn't much to discuss. If you don't believe that
>conservatives make mistakes, or the mistakes they make are ones of not
>acting extremely enough, then you lack enough common sense to hold a
>rational discussion.

Hmmm. There you go again. Care to point out where I said
conservatives don't make mistakes? Would it be rude of me to point
out that there seems to be a kind of consistent problem with your
reading comprehension. I think perhaps that has something to do with
your problem with some of the things GWB "said".

>> >> But the fact is, the only way to prevent making any mistakes is to do
>> >> nothing.
>> >
>> >Discretion is the better part of valor. Those who have served in the
>> >military know this.
>>
>> Appeasement isn't the answer. Those who have studied history know
>> this.
>
>Nice strawman. Look up what appeasement means and it's historical
>application. Instead of just parroting a word you heard from one of
>Bush's minions, actually find some instances of appeasement.

Let's start with Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter, then contrast
them to Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:...
>> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>> >In the real world, your scenario is pure Chicken Little fantasy.
>>
>> One small drop of sarin on your skin will kill you within minutes.
>>
>> You really can't imagine a way to disperse the stuff in a fine mist
>> over a crowd? I can think of dozens.
>
>Then there must be *something* about it that prevents terrorists from
>doing it.
>
>Access to sarin is not it - it's quite easy to acquire the precursors
>(not in the U.S. - organophosphorus compounds were pretty strictly
>regulated even before 9/11). So maybe you just don't know as much
>about it as you seem to think you do.

Look at the quality of the Al Qaeda terrorists and tell me you think
any of them could brew up a viable batch of sarin. Maybe you could
fill us all in on where they might go about picking up a few gallons
of the stuff, other than from a state-sponsored lab (directly or
indirectly).

The fact they haven't used it as a weapon yet doesn't prove anything
any more than the fact no one had flown airliners into skyscrapers did
prior to 9/11, even though it was obviously possible.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Chalo) wrote:

>It's just amazing the outrages you will accept as long as the
>misfortune is somebody else's.

Chalo, I really don't have a dog in this hunt. If DU is nasty stuff,
it is NOT a political issue (since it's been used by the military
across multiple administrations). The reading I have done on it
suggests that it's no more dangerous than lead projectiles.

Maybe, maybe not - but it is kind of ironic that I'm replying in
threads which state that spent bullets are dangerous, but sarin
isn't... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Frank Krygowski]

gwhite wrote:

>
>
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>

>> "Less" [taxes] referred to "less than they did before the tax cut." I'm
>> surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!
>
>
> Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to be
> paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.

Um... I'm sorry, but you're so deep into a non sequitur that you're
absolutely impossible to follow.

>> > What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
>>> less taxes?
>>
>> Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they
>> could ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some
>> sense of social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.
>
> I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description, of
> course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do.

Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
ages. Pay us no mind.

> I have no
> idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.

Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the personal
fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer history, Louis
XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not "spending in a
reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or small family)
really need?

There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly and
donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who live
quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.

You seem to admire the latter. Fine. But I don't think my kids and
grandkids should be facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.

> If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
> guvmint if one does not have to.

If _anything_ is wrong? That seems to say that paying taxes ranks close
to murder.

That's a foolish statement, indeed. And your (probably) deliberate
misspelling doesn't make it sound any more intelligent.

>> I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts back
>> from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for
>> school levies, library levies, etc.
>
> My inclination is *not* to do so...

I'm not surprised. Nor impressed.

>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
>> living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
>> have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
>> give any of their money to the community.
>
>
> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
> there

Absolutely false.

>>> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
>>> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
>>> the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.
>>
>>
>> I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."
>
>
> You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble.

Sorry, but I am not a socialist. You are once again jumping to
unwarranted conclusions.

It's clear to me that you are an ideologue who's not capable of rational
discussion. Little wonder you don't value education, when it did so
little for you.

Buzz off.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Hunrobe]

>Mark Hickey [email protected]

wrote in part:

>Look at the quality of the Al Qaeda terrorists and tell me you think
>any of them could brew up a viable batch of sarin.

It wasn't Al Qaeda but in a recent training session I attended on bomb threats
the instructor was a former ATF bomb and ordnance specialist. His portion of
the training included several videoed search warrants of bombmakers' workshops.
I'm far from an OED specialist but even I picked up on things in those videos
that were amazingly dumb. Picture a work bench with open acetone containers,
next to jars of picric acid, next to canisters of flashpowder, next to an
*ashtray*.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Hunrobe]

>Frank Krygowski [email protected]

wrote a rather long post that would be difficult to snip down fairly so:

You and I obviously disagree on not only the answers but the questions. The
questions I was addressing were, "Did the Administration claim or intimate that
Iraq was responsible for the planning and/or execution of the 9/11 attacks
knowing such claims to be untrue?" and "Did/do the majority of Americans buy
into that?". I think both answers are no. You believe differently. You won't
convince me and I won't convince you so argument is pointless.
As for your argument though that "they" (the people that "really" run the
country) are too smart to leave behind the equivalent of a smoking gun, that
reminds me of one of the central arguments offered regularly by conspiracy
buffs all over. "Well, of course there's no evidence of a conspiracy because
it's a really *good* conspiracy!"

Regards,
Bob Hunt

BTW- I'd guess that flag sales go up whenever the flag is lowered to halfmast
so I don't find increased flag sales persuasive of anything except maybe a
heightened sense of nationalism.

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>> And quoting Paul O'Neill as a credible source is going to water down
>>> your point.
>>
>>By all accounts, he's an honest, forthright guy. Why is he not
>>credible? (Your ad hominem argument aside, that is.)
>
> If you were to write a book about someone who fired you, why would I
> believe it would be balanced?

Depends on why he was fired, I guess.

> We end up with him painting one picture of the administration, and the
> rest of the administration saying that it's entirely inaccurate.
> We'll never know I suppose - but he DID make a lot of money (a lot
> more than he would have had there been no drama in the book).

He didn't write a book - Ron Suskind did.

[...]

> Again, you choose to believe a guy who is obviously upset at being
> fired by GWB, and who made a lot of money writing a sensational book.

If you're going to argue, at least get your facts right.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese."
- G.K. Chesterton

 

[Mark South]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:
>
> >It's just amazing the outrages you will accept as long as the
> >misfortune is somebody else's.
>
> Chalo, I really don't have a dog in this hunt.

Then call off your nonexistent dogs!

> If DU is nasty stuff,
> it is NOT a political issue (since it's been used by the military
> across multiple administrations). The reading I have done on it
> suggests that it's no more dangerous than lead projectiles.

Mark, this paragraph is well beneath you, and definitely out of place in a tech
group, even in an off-topic thread.

Lead is unpleasant stuff. DU is unpleasant stuff. There is no comparison.

> Maybe, maybe not - but it is kind of ironic that I'm replying in
> threads which state that spent bullets are dangerous, but sarin
> isn't... ;-)

Toxic substances are a bad idea anywhere anytime.
--
If the outdoors is a gym with dirt on the ground, or a place to
exercise, or to show off, and nothing more, you don't get it.
- Gary D. Schwartz in rec.backcountry

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote, re: depleted uranium:
>
> > David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <[email protected]>,
> > >[email protected] says...
> > >> Sounds like magnesium (or even titanium)
> > >
> > >Or aluminum, or many other finely powdered metals.
> >
> > Or corn...
>
> Please. It ain't corn:
>
> From http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9708/msg00394.html :
>
> Extinguishing Media: USE METAL-X TYPE EXTINGUISHER, DRY SAND, OR ****.
> Special Fire Fighting Proc: DON'T USE WATER.
> Unusual Fire And Expl Hazrds: AUTOIGNITION TEMP: 1472F. PYROPHORIC IN
> FINELY DIVIDED STATE AS A RESULT OF MACHINING OR GRINDING OPERATIONS.
> RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL CLASS 7.
>
> Dust autoignites at room temperature? Don't use water to extinguish
> it? Produces a radioactive ash particulate?

No, it autoigintes at 1472F, which is a bit above room temperature.
Except for the radioactivity, that description applies to many heavy
metals.

>
> That's not lead, or aluminum, or magnesium, or titanium, or any kind
> of cereal grain. It's nasty, and if any other country went slinging
> it around our house, it would get you in a furious uproar.

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[Mark Hickey]

Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:

>He didn't write a book - Ron Suskind did.
>
>[...]
>
>> Again, you choose to believe a guy who is obviously upset at being
>> fired by GWB, and who made a lot of money writing a sensational book.
>
>If you're going to argue, at least get your facts right.

It's a giant conspiracy. Why, I KNOW at least 70% of the people in
the US THINK he wrote that book. He must have said he did. I can't
find the quote, but it's because it was all a carefully crafted
deception.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Oh, BTW, what size howitzer was used in the sarin attack in the Tokyo
>> subway?
>
>Oh, and in that confined space, how many thousands were killed?

Seven. The sarin was impure, and it was "delivered" in the least
effective way possible - simply poured onto the floor.

Are you trying to say that sarin is NOT dangerous?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's start with Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter, then contrast
> them to Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan.

Yes, let's. What are you suggesting: that Britain go to war at the
point of the Munich crisis? That'd be smart: a Germany that had been
re-arming for several years takes on a Britain whose military was
ill-equipped even for the colonial wars it had been fighting through the
thirties.

What Chamberlain did was appease ****** for a couple of years while
embarking a massive rearmament programme. Where do you think all those
Hurricanes and Spitfires came from? Why do you think the whole British
coastline was filled with Chain Home radar? Why do you think that when
you look at a book of Royal Navy ships of the second world war, so many
were laid down in the late 1930s? Hell, entire _classes_ were designed
and laid down in the late 1930s --- why do you think the Bismark was
sunk by a task force including the King George V, when George V didn't
come to the throne until 1936? Do you think they knocked up a 16"
battleship between Churchill coming to power in 1940 and that action in
1941? Where do you think the contracts that built the Lancasters came
from?

Would you rather Britain had fought a brief war and lost in 1937?
Because there's absolutely no way that Britain before late 1939 could
have fought a war and won, and it was a damn close run thing until
America entered the war two years later.

Chamberlain did not act entirely honourably: ``this far off country of
which we know little'' is a shame this country still lives with. But by
delaying Britain's entry into a war by two to three years, years during
which the economy was placed on a war footing and arms were produced at
a massive rate, he probably ensured this country's survival.

I am always horrified at the anti-Americanism of some UK posters, and I
often point out that up behind Omaha beach are an awful lot of brave
American boys who would rather be buried fifty years later in Omaha.
Even if my fellow-countrymen don't, I understand the debt we owe to
American industry and American servicemen and servicewomen. However, to
blithely say ``Chamberlain just appeased ****** until Churchill came
along'' is simply laughable, showing the same American history expertise
as ``Wallis Simpson was just driven out because people didn't like
Americans.''

ian

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh, BTW, what size howitzer was used in the sarin attack in the Tokyo
>>>subway?
>>
>>Oh, and in that confined space, how many thousands were killed?
>
> Seven.

Seven thousand were killed?? I had no idea. I thought it was several
orders of magnitude lower.

Well, if it's seven thousand, you've convinced me, Mark. If that's
true, then a small amount of sarin with primitive dispersal _should_ be
considered a Weapon of MASS Destruction!

Of course, if you're misstating numbers...

> Are you trying to say that sarin is NOT dangerous?

Well, prior to this, I thought that it was dangerous to those
immediately next to it, but difficult to deploy effectively over a wide
area.

I thought it was analogous to the gasoline in a fuel-air (or aerosol)
bomb. Those are the bombs in which a liquid like gasoline is first
dispersed, but not ignited, into a large cloud of droplets. A second
explosion detonates the cloud.

If done exactly right, you can get an explosion of near-nuclear strength
from something as ordinary as gasoline, making it a true WMD. However,
if you merely spill gasoline on the drive, it's not a WMD.

See definition #1 at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aerosol bomb

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
> >>
> >It's funny that nearly 70% of Americans came to that conclusion.
> >What's amazing is that you think it's merely some happy coincidence,
> >that the Bushies didn't mean for anyone to get the wrong idea. Oh,
> >and the fact that the connection has been denied since.
>
> Denied since... when?

The connection between Iraq and al Qaeda? It has been quietly denied
by the Administration.

> >> And quoting Paul O'Neill as a credible source is going to water down
> >> your point.
> >
> >By all accounts, he's an honest, forthright guy. Why is he not
> >credible? (Your ad hominem argument aside, that is.)
>
> If you were to write a book about someone who fired you, why would I
> believe it would be balanced?

See, here's what is a classic case of ad hominem commentary. By
questioning the character and honesty of a person, rather than the
actual content of his writings.

Resorting to ad hominem commentary is a sure sign that you have lost.
Someone said that - I can't remember who...

> >> It's well known there was a contingency plan for Iraq
> >
> >There's a difference between some plan on a shelf (invasion of Mexico,
> >for instance) and the private foreign policy focus of "we need to take
> >that ******* down." (A paraphrase of Bush's quote "**** Saddam.")

[ad hominem snipped]

I notice you don't actually address my point.

> >> >Your tap dancing is pathetic. It's LOL silly - I can't believe you
> >> >keep up this stupid line of reasoning, clutching at it like it
> >> >actually has any traction at all. Pure buffoonery.
> >>
> >> In other words, you can't find a single instance of the administration
> >> tying 9/11 to Iraq. Thanks for making that clear.
> >
> >Explicitly, no (I've said as much) Implicitly, well, you'd have to be
> >a total idiot, or have you head firmly up your ass not to see ANY
> >implication.
>
> Heh heh heh. So point one out.

Already have. If you have a problem with the logic presented, you may
wish to bring up which part is not logical.

> Show me the quote that forces people
> to believe there is a direct connection.

Look up the definition of "implication," Mr. Strawman.

> >It's not an ad hominem argument. It's a direct insult. They are two
> >different things.
>
> Either indicates you're nasty when backed into a corner.

I agree that ad hominem commentary is a losing game. Insults are only
opinions, and have no bearing on the logic of the argument.

> >While you being an asshole is my opinion, you being pedantic is quite
> >obvious. Hingeing your whole case on what was or was not implied
> >means that you really don't have much of a case. And real world data
> >suggest that you are in a small minority in your belief.
>
> I have no case ? - and you can't provide a single quote to prove your
> point. Heh.

I have already proved my point logically. Maybe you just don't
understand what the conversation is about.

> >> >> On a related note, there ARE people who believe (after having studied
> >> >> the facts) that there IS a connection.
> >> >
> >> >THere are also people who believe the moon landings were faked.
> >> >Without EVIDENCE, their beliefs are just as wacky as those who think
> >> >the ticket to heaven is slamming a passenger jet into an office
> >> >building.
> >> >
> >> >> Personally I wouldn't doubt
> >> >> it
> >> >
> >> >Of course you wouldn't. Ignoring facts is part and parcel of the
> >> >conservative way of looking at the world. But your beloved Bushies
> >> >have said on the record that there was no connection. Well after the
> >> >"Mission" was "Accomplished", of course.
> >>
> >> Heh heh heh... you're sounding a little desparate there
> >
> >So, you're denying that the Administration said that there was no
> >connection?
>
> Heh heh heh... NOW how are you going to reconcile THAT with your
> position that GWB was doing his best to imply there WAS a connection?
> You're digging another hole here.

Between al Qaeda and Iraq. Maybe you are misunderstanding on purpose.

To be clear, and to forestall your obvious pedantic wordplay:

Bush implied a link between Iraq and 9/11. His minions have played up
the Salman Pak angle, and when that was found to be a complete
fabrication, the administration quietly said there was probably no
connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Despite your thickheaded
denials, the leap between the suggestion that Saddam supported al
Qaeda and the idea that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 is not all that
large. The fact that near 70% of Americans at one time thought as
much proves this point. You may wish to call all those folks stupid
if you like, or that it's merely a happy coincidence, but I don't see
that you have made any kind of convincing case for that POV. Many
Americans still believe Iraqis were among the hijackers. How would
they get that idea?

> >[snip Liebermann quote]
> >
> >If two people, one from the Republican party, the other from the
> >Democratic party, say that the moon is made of green cheese, does that
> >make it true? Is it a fact then?
>
> You really like strawmen.

This is called an "analogy." Look it up. Just because Bush and some
Democrat(s) think something doesn't make it true. Plenty of folks
used to think the world was the center of the universe, for example.

> Do you really think that there's only one
> Democrat who believes there was a connection between Iraq and Al
> Qaeda?

This is the perfect example of a strawman. Oh, I get it, you think I
like them, so you keep constructing them. Not the sharpest knife in
the drawer, are you?
--
Jonesy

 

[Nate]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh, BTW, what size howitzer was used in the sarin attack in the Tokyo
>>>> subway?
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, and in that confined space, how many thousands were killed?
>>
>>
>> Seven.

At worst, you are lying. At best, deceiving...Reminds me of a certain
administration.....

There were 12 individuals killed. Not the 7000 that you imply!

[
http://cfrterrorism.org/weapons/sarin.html
Have terrorists ever used sarin?
Yes. It was used in 1995 by Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese doomsday cult, in
a terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway system that killed 12 and sent
more than 5,000 people to hospitals. A year earlier, the cult killed
seven people in a sarin gas attack in the central Japanese city of
Matsumoto.

]
>
>
> Seven thousand were killed?? I had no idea. I thought it was several
> orders of magnitude lower.
>
> Well, if it's seven thousand, you've convinced me, Mark. If that's
> true, then a small amount of sarin with primitive dispersal _should_ be
> considered a Weapon of MASS Destruction!
>
> Of course, if you're misstating numbers...


>
>> Are you trying to say that sarin is NOT dangerous?
>
>
> Well, prior to this, I thought that it was dangerous to those
> immediately next to it, but difficult to deploy effectively over a wide
> area.
>
> I thought it was analogous to the gasoline in a fuel-air (or aerosol)
> bomb. Those are the bombs in which a liquid like gasoline is first
> dispersed, but not ignited, into a large cloud of droplets. A second
> explosion detonates the cloud.
>
> If done exactly right, you can get an explosion of near-nuclear strength
> from something as ordinary as gasoline, making it a true WMD. However,
> if you merely spill gasoline on the drive, it's not a WMD.
>
> See definition #1 at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aerosol bomb
>

 

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote ...
> >> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >> OK... let's dig into that. According to the US Army and other sources
> >> at: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/mr1018.5.appb.pdf
> >>
> >> ... discussing the solubility of sarin...
> >>
> >> "Miscible in both polar and nonpolar solvents"
> >
> >Indeed. Take a gallon of active ingredient and quadruple it's volume,
> >then try and smuggle it under your coat.
>
> I don't recall the need to bodily carry it to its dispersal point, but
> even so it's not that hard to imagine (or maybe just send out four
> people with a quart of sarin each).

Which increases the complexity of using it as a terror weapon. I told
you, it's not as simple as you would have people think.

> <snip>
> >> Sounds like it wouldn't be very hard at all to achieve sprayable
> >> viscosity.
> >
> >Except that you still have to get a delivery system, and the extra
> >volume of inert ingredients where they need to be.
> >
> >If you think that nobody has ever looked at this, you are a total
> >idiot.
>
> I missed the part where I said no one had ever looked at that.

Learn to read. See that "If" up there?

> You
> seem to have a habit of assuming people said things that never left
> their lips or keyboards...

Strawman.

> >> In fact, the Oregon Chapter, American College of Emergency Physicians
> >> discuss the triage that might be necessary should sarin be sprayed
> >> from a crop duster over a large group of people in their Winter 2001
> >> newsletter:
> >>
> >> http://www.ocep.org/epic-winter2001.pdf
> >
> >Now we're talking about aircraft as the delivery system? A system
> >designed to squirt organophosphorus pesticides?
> >
> >Chicken Little holding on line two...
>
> Talk to the doctors involved. I'm sure they are all total idiots too.

Non sequitur. I already told you that the difficulty was in delivery.
You're only supporting my point, and your strawman of idiot doctors
is just plain stupid. Knock it off.

> >> I don't really feel the need to create a list.
> >
> >Then there really isn't much to discuss. If you don't believe that
> >conservatives make mistakes, or the mistakes they make are ones of not
> >acting extremely enough, then you lack enough common sense to hold a
> >rational discussion.
>
> Hmmm. There you go again. Care to point out where I said
> conservatives don't make mistakes?

You seem to think that there are not many specific examples to list.
That somehow *I* should come up with what *you* think are conservative
mistakes. You tap-dance around the question but don't answer, so I
will ask again - what are some specific mistakes conservatives have
made?

> Would it be rude of me to point
> out that there seems to be a kind of consistent problem with your
> reading comprehension.

Strawman. It's a nice try to avoid the question, but I see through
it.

> I think perhaps that has something to do with
> your problem with some of the things GWB "said".

I have no problems at all with what Bush said. I do have problems
with some of the things Bush does. I also have difficulty with some
of the things that were implied.

Are you still building that strawman, by which someone is supposed to
find some quote somewhere where Dubya comes out and says Iraq + 9/11?
Let me help you out here, since you are obviously too dumb to read it
only once and get it:

Dumbya didn't say, at any time, DIRECTLY, that Iraq/Saddam had
anything at all to do with 9/11. In fact, they have denied any
connection.

Dumbya HAS *implied* that there was a connection, by his commentary
about al Qaeda and Iraq. Proof: nearly 70% of Americans believed
there was a connection.

> >> >> But the fact is, the only way to prevent making any mistakes is to do
> >> >> nothing.
> >> >
> >> >Discretion is the better part of valor. Those who have served in the
> >> >military know this.
> >>
> >> Appeasement isn't the answer. Those who have studied history know
> >> this.
> >
> >Nice strawman. Look up what appeasement means and it's historical
> >application. Instead of just parroting a word you heard from one of
> >Bush's minions, actually find some instances of appeasement.
>
> Let's start with Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter, then contrast
> them to Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan.

LOL. You have no clue about history, do you? Again, since you can't
seem to read:

Actually find some INSTANCES of appeasement. Vague references to your
conservative hero and trying to put him in the same league as
Churchill is laughable.

Here's another clue for you: UK armaments production from 1937-1939,
specifically aircraft. Apply this information to Summer 1940,
airspace over the English Channel and Great Britain. Reference the
phrase "buying time."

I'll expect your homework on my desk in the morning. Here endeth the
lesson.
--
Jonesy "never have so few..."