Goodbye

[Doug Taylor]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:24:35 -0500, "DI" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I get everything from assholes like you, then do just the opposite, can't go
>wrong by doing that..

My god. There IS another reader of these groups as intellectually
challenged as Sornsen.

Will wonders never cease?

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:43:58 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:


>Would anybody here argue with an amendment to the Constitution that the
>absolute minimum I.Q. to hold any office would be 110 or so?

If the I.Q. minimum to post on usenet were raised to room temperature,
we could get rid of Sornson

 

[John Kane]

On Apr 27, 10:56 pm, still me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:33:46 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >> IMO, many Americans are more appalled by Bush & Co. than are people in
> >> other parts of the world. It is, after all, our country and our
> >> national reputation which are in peril.
>
> >Yeah,
> >The father and son Bush act has pretty well screwed our reputation with
> >the 'civilized' world. I think we were actually fairly popular with
> >Clinton running the show, horndog or not.
> >Bill Baka
>
> Bush Sr was not a bad guy. Intelligent, not a puppet, did some good,
> did some bad. At least when he invaded Iraq, there was a legitimate
> reason. His overall foreign policy wasn't that horrible.

He didn't invade Iraq. The UN mandate was to get the Iraqis out of
Kuwait and that's what the coaliton did. Bush Sr. and his key
advisors were too intelligent and well-informed to want to invade
Iraq.

Even with a competent invasion it was clear that occupying Iraq woud
be a nightmare.
>
> Jr, OTOH, has destroyed decades of reasonable foreign policy by a
> variety of Presidents, Republican and Democrat.

Well, I'd quibble about "reasonable foreign policy" but Jr has
managed to do immense damage to US prestige and legitimacy.

 

[DI]

"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:24:35 -0500, "DI" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I get everything from assholes like you, then do just the opposite, can't
>>go
>>wrong by doing that..
>
> My god. There IS another reader of these groups as intellectually
> challenged as Sornsen.
>
> Will wonders never cease?

You have to consider who I was talking to, JT would not understand or
acknowledge anything sensible, he was baiting me into saying I watched Fox
News so he could jump on that. "Intellectually challenged"? dream on
Professor.

 

[Bill Sornson]

DI wrote:
> "Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:24:35 -0500, "DI" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I get everything from assholes like you, then do just the opposite,
>>> can't go
>>> wrong by doing that..
>>
>> My god. There IS another reader of these groups as intellectually
>> challenged as Sornsen.
>>
>> Will wonders never cease?
>
> You have to consider who I was talking to, JT would not understand or
> acknowledge anything sensible, he was baiting me into saying I
> watched Fox News so he could jump on that. "Intellectually
> challenged"? dream on Professor.

Dougie might be a druggie; would explain the irrational anger and hysteria.
(Of course, so would just being an asswipe ;-) )

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm a nitpicker, but in this case...
> >>
> >>> When an attribution line is at level n quotes deep, the writing
> >>> attributed to the author in the attribution line is quoted at
> >>> level n+1 quotes deep. sm did not attribute to you the line you
> >>> contend he did.
> >>
> >> His format was wrong (as above). You of all people should
> >> acknowledge that.
> >
> > What I am saying is that sm's posting did not attribute to you the
> > words `I deal with facts, not ideologies. So, here's a few.' and I
> > stand by that.
> >
> > It goes like this
> >
> > ________________________BEGIN________________________
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:43:21 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I deal with facts, not ideologies. So, here's a few.
> >
> >> I think he's been so /demonized/ by the left AND the media that
> > no one can
> >> objectively judge any more. HALIBURTON! (Even though he's been
> > away for
> >> many years.)
> > _________________________END________________________
> >
> >
> > Notice that the word 'I deal ...' are not one quote deeper than
> > the attribution line.
>
> All true. BUT -- it's generally accepted that one doesn't write new text
> below the sole attribution but above the quoted text. As I said (repeatedly
> now), it's about FORMAT not misquoting.

By rule, the words were not attributed to you. If you think that
sm was playing fast and loose, then so be it; the actual text is
not sufficient to support your assertion.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Apr 28, 12:36 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > Hmm. I see a logical problem. If no one is to make charges without
> > > proof, why would anyone investigate anything?
> >
> > Yes, that is how it is done.
> >
> > > The way things
> > > generally go is this: There's an accusation of some sort; people look
> > > for evidence for and against; the evidence is evaluated; and in
> > > certain cases, the accusation is proven. Proof does not generally
> > > come first.
> >
> > What you describe is persecution.
>
> Really? I thought I was describing the workings of the US legal
> system, and (more generally) the development of mathematical proofs,
> among other things.
>
> Do you really think that mathematical proofs come before conjectures,
> or that convictions come before legal charges?

The public prosecutor typically gathers evidence for a
prosecution after a crime has been proved. Gathering
of evidence on an individual before a crime is proved
is persecution. Not that the latter does not occur regularly.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Apr 28, 1:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Mark Hickey decided to reply at the 50th post.
> >
> > So again, if-I-recall-correctly, Mark Hickey didn't start political
> > threads and was not the first to shift a thread to politics. He
> > typically replied to posters who did so.
>
> Just out of curiosity I went back and looked at some threads that had
> both Hickey and myself in them. Without doing a count, it looked to me
> like roughly half of them had Hickey jumping in to argue politics
> before I did. H

It is up to you to provide proof.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Michael Press writes:
>
> >> Hmm. I see a logical problem. If no one is to make charges
> >> without proof, why would anyone investigate anything?
>
> > Yes, that is how it is done.
>
> Not in the world that I live in.
>
> >> The way things generally go is this: There's an accusation of some
> >> sort; people look for evidence for and against; the evidence is
> >> evaluated; and in certain cases, the accusation is proven. Proof
> >> does not generally come first.
>
> > What you describe is persecution.
>
> Oops, that's spelled "prosecution".

Are you being coy, or do you disagree with my point of view?
Gathering data on an individual with intent to prosecute _before_
a crime is proven is persecution.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 28, 1:07 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > You're right. I am going completely by memory.
>
> > If you've read my posts in the past, you'll know I'm big on data and
> > citations. But in this case, unfortunately, I know of no practical
> > way of proving or disproving what I recall....
>
> > Feel free to believe otherwise - that Mark never started a political
> > sidetrack to a discussion. That's OK by me.
>
> 1) I do not need your permission to believe as I choose.

Oh, good grief. Calm down. I didn't claim you did.
>
> 2) I resent you arrogating unto yourself the authority
> to dispense permission to me.

Sheesh! I'm sorry for trying to be gracious!

> 3) Do you imply that I already believe what you would
> permit me to believe?

At this point, I can't tell what's going through your mind. I was
attempting to say that, given the practical impossibility of proof, I
could see why someone might disagree with me.

If my phrasing was really so objectionable as to deserve a three-part
huff, I really do apologize. But you might consider the possibility
that you've misinterpreted my meaning - and attitude.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 28, 3:38 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> My intent, in frustration, is to help bury this thread.

People should realize: A thread they don't read is, for their
practical purposes, buried. IOW, nobody's force to read them all!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Sornson]

Michael Press wrote:

Whatever.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Apr 28, 1:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Mark Hickey decided to reply at the 50th post.
>>>
>>> So again, if-I-recall-correctly, Mark Hickey didn't start political
>>> threads and was not the first to shift a thread to politics. He
>>> typically replied to posters who did so.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity I went back and looked at some threads that had
>> both Hickey and myself in them. Without doing a count, it looked to
>> me like roughly half of them had Hickey jumping in to argue politics
>> before I did. H
>
> It is up to you to provide proof.

Prediction: someone else injected politics first, Mark spoke up (an
unforgiveable act because he's conservative), and then the Train Wrecked
Dough-for-Brains or some other vitriolic ideologue crudely flamed him while
in all likelihood attributing things to him that he never said/wrote/thought
or implied. Then if or when Mark responded -- especially if
dispassionaltely and factually -- they called him argumentative and
mean-spirited.

Just a guess.

Bill "voice of experience" S.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Michael Press wrote:

> Gathering data on an individual with intent to prosecute _before_
> a crime is proven is persecution.

I bet Patrick Fitzgerald's mouse ears are burning.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 28, 10:49 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 12:36 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]>,
>
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > Hmm. I see a logical problem. If no one is to make charges without
> > > > proof, why would anyone investigate anything?
>
> > > Yes, that is how it is done.
>
> > > > The way things
> > > > generally go is this: There's an accusation of some sort; people look
> > > > for evidence for and against; the evidence is evaluated; and in
> > > > certain cases, the accusation is proven. Proof does not generally
> > > > come first.
>
> > > What you describe is persecution.
>
> > Really? I thought I was describing the workings of the US legal
> > system, and (more generally) the development of mathematical proofs,
> > among other things.
>
> > Do you really think that mathematical proofs come before conjectures,
> > or that convictions come before legal charges?
>
> The public prosecutor typically gathers evidence for a
> prosecution after a crime has been proved. Gathering
> of evidence on an individual before a crime is proved
> is persecution. Not that the latter does not occur regularly.

ISTM you're quite confused on the process.

First, your phrase "a crime has been proved" makes little sense. In
most cases, the fact that a crime has been committed does not require
proof. The existence of most crimes is obvious, based on such things
as the broken window and missing valuables, the presence of a banned
substance in the pocket of the individual, the wounded or dead victim,
etc.

Also, the prosecutor doesn't even come into the picture until
investigators have acquired evidence and identified a prime suspect
(and rejected other suspects). And it _is_ necessary to gather
evidence before a person can be identified as a suspect.

If that person is charged, _then_ the process of proof (or disproof)
commences.

That's as I understand it, anyway. One of my best friends is a
Criminal Justice professor. If you like, I can run this by him.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 28, 3:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2007 03:48:42 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >On Apr 28, 1:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> Mark Hickey decided to reply at the 50th post.
>
> >> So again, if-I-recall-correctly, Mark Hickey didn't start political
> >> threads and was not the first to shift a thread to politics. He
> >> typically replied to posters who did so.
>
> >Just out of curiosity I went back and looked at some threads that had
> >both Hickey and myself in them. Without doing a count, it looked to me
> >like roughly half of them had Hickey jumping in to argue politics
> >before I did. He may not have started political threads but he was
> >quick to jump in when they came up, just as I usually am.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear SSTW,
>
> Just to clarify things . . .
>
> As I understand it, the topic was not who hit the buzzer first after
> someone else raised a political topic on the bike group.
>
> We were talking about whether Mark Hickey started political threads or
> changed them, not how quickly Mark replied to them.

That's correct. Checking back, it seems a poster named "bcrow..."
originally made the claim, and my recollection agreed with his.

Yes, I may have been wrong. As I've said, I was merely going by my
recollection. If I was wrong, I retract and apologize. (Sorry, but I
simply can't check every thread to which Mark posted to find out for
sure.)

It'll be interesting to see if the right-leaning members of the
discussion group will be as quick to forgive me as to forgive Alberto
"I don't recall" Gonzalez - and if the left-leaning members will now
attack me for my possibly faulty recall! Wouldn't that be an
interesting turn of events? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> The public prosecutor typically gathers evidence for a prosecution
> after a crime has been proved. Gathering of evidence on an
> individual before a crime is proved is persecution. Not that the
> latter does not occur regularly.

Last time I checked, proof happens in court. Therefore the public
prosecutor *always* gathers evidence before the crime has been proven.
Evidence is gathered after the crime is committed, but proof happens
through due process in a court of law.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Michael Press writes:
>>
>>>> Hmm. I see a logical problem. If no one is to make charges
>>>> without proof, why would anyone investigate anything?
>>
>>> Yes, that is how it is done.
>>
>> Not in the world that I live in.
>>
>>>> The way things generally go is this: There's an accusation of some
>>>> sort; people look for evidence for and against; the evidence is
>>>> evaluated; and in certain cases, the accusation is proven. Proof
>>>> does not generally come first.
>>
>>> What you describe is persecution.
>>
>> Oops, that's spelled "prosecution".
>
> Are you being coy, or do you disagree with my point of view?
> Gathering data on an individual with intent to prosecute _before_
> a crime is proven is persecution.

Sounds nice, but I think you have it wrong. In our era, most persecution
takes place without the benefit of further procedural niceties. Conviction
for criminal offenses is not a prime goal, whereas injury is.

Most crimes of the securities fraud, accounting irregularity, tax evasion,
are proven long after minute examination of questionable conduct has been
completed. For simpler crimes (all crimes of violence against a person's
body), the crime is evident, and the proof of the culpable party is achieved
only in court.

On the other hand, persecution is an apt description of the harm done
without the benefit of successfully concluded prosecutions. Often, without
any actual process being mounted at all. So, there is persecution in
bicycle racing all the time, because these accusations fail to culminate in
prosecutions.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[[email protected]]

On 28 Apr 2007 21:38:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Apr 28, 3:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 28 Apr 2007 03:48:42 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 28, 1:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> Mark Hickey decided to reply at the 50th post.
>>
>> >> So again, if-I-recall-correctly, Mark Hickey didn't start political
>> >> threads and was not the first to shift a thread to politics. He
>> >> typically replied to posters who did so.
>>
>> >Just out of curiosity I went back and looked at some threads that had
>> >both Hickey and myself in them. Without doing a count, it looked to me
>> >like roughly half of them had Hickey jumping in to argue politics
>> >before I did. He may not have started political threads but he was
>> >quick to jump in when they came up, just as I usually am.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Dear SSTW,
>>
>> Just to clarify things . . .
>>
>> As I understand it, the topic was not who hit the buzzer first after
>> someone else raised a political topic on the bike group.
>>
>> We were talking about whether Mark Hickey started political threads or
>> changed them, not how quickly Mark replied to them.
>
>That's correct. Checking back, it seems a poster named "bcrow..."
>originally made the claim, and my recollection agreed with his.
>
>Yes, I may have been wrong. As I've said, I was merely going by my
>recollection. If I was wrong, I retract and apologize. (Sorry, but I
>simply can't check every thread to which Mark posted to find out for
>sure.)
>
>It'll be interesting to see if the right-leaning members of the
>discussion group will be as quick to forgive me as to forgive Alberto
>"I don't recall" Gonzalez - and if the left-leaning members will now
>attack me for my possibly faulty recall! Wouldn't that be an
>interesting turn of events? ;-)
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Frank,

It's my recollection that you've done stuff like this before.

It isn't practical for me to prove or disprove this. Sorry, but I
simply can't check every thread to which you've posted to find out for
sure.

Frank Krygowski seems to be the master of the if-I-recall-correctly
function. If you can prove me wrong, I'll retract and apologize.

Carl Fogel

 

[Helmut Springer]

In rec.bicycles.tech Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gathering of evidence on an individual before a crime is proved is
> persecution. Not that the latter does not occur regularly.

Of curse it does, think about white-collar crime.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer