Goodbye

[[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

 

[_]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:01:37 -0700, Bill Sornson wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> Whatever.

By Bill Sornson's logic, the above is mis-attributed.

 

[Antti Salonen]

In rec.bicycles.tech [email protected] wrote:

> To relegate the thread to BS is a rude ploy.

It doesn't really matter if it's ******** or not, as long as it's in the
wrong place.

Usenet has thousands of groups in its official hierarchy, not counting
the alt-hierarchy or national groups. Even if most of active posters in
rec.bicycles.* might be from the US (ever wonder why?), US politics
should not be discussed here, but somewhere under sci or talk
hierarchies. When the discussion is clearly going off-topic the
follow-ups should be directed elsewhere - see the "Followup-to" NNTP
header.

I wonder if this really isn't apparent, but new users, no matter where
they're from, don't come here to discuss US politics. So as long as
this isn't a moderated forum, it is the responsibility of every poster
to keep it on-topic. Or is it just OK if a small number of old-time
posters hijack a newsgroup and make it their own personal playground?
Usenet newsgroups aren't private forums hosted on private web servers,
so I think this is actually very relevant.

And hopefully nobody will suggest killfiles again. In a media where one
contributes and thousands read, it doesn't make any sense to
categorically make the thousands to deal with the garbage.

Antti

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:07:13 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Prediction: someone else injected politics first, Mark spoke up (an
>unforgiveable act because he's conservative),

NOT a conservative. Bushie Jesus Freak Neo-Con Far Rightists often
are disavowed by the "true" Conservative Movement. See, e.g.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts185.html

> 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.

Not me. I flamed him on general principals just to get a rise out him
- an you - because I'm pretty much an opinionated, biased a-hole who
posts **** on usenet for ***** and giggles.

> Then if or when Mark responded -- especially if
>dispassionaltely and factually -- they called him argumentative and
>mean-spirited.

Not me. I never dumped on him for being argumentative. Just for being
a Jesus Freak with political views inconsistent with Christianity. Ask
JFT about torture, for example. Although, I suppose historically
Christians have been able somehow to justify torture of their fellow
humans, despite the fact that you can't find evidence of Jesus
teaching that in the New Testament. While we're on the subject of
"guessing", I would "guess" that if Jesus ever DID return, the
lightweight hypocrites who comprise the American Evangelical Christian
movement would be mighty surprised when they all get cast into the pit
instead of being lifted by the "Rapture" for completely blowing,
distorting and not getting the message.

>Just a guess.

You dump on everybody who does not provide "evidence" for their b.s.
and then you "guess." You are such a tool.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 28, 2:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2007 03:48:42 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >On Apr 28, 1:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
> 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 your interpretation of the topic. My view is that if you are
going to consider whether he started political threads or not, you
ought to also consider how enthusiastically and quickly he joined
them, because that is the more complete picture of the individual's
presence in this ng. It is somewhat absurd to suggest that he is
leaving rbt because other people start political threads that he just
can't help himself from participating in.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 28, 10:23 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> 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.

No it's not. I said it was my impression. If you want to prove my
impression wrong, go do the google yourself and count 'em up.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> Although, I suppose historically Christians have been able somehow to
> justify torture of their fellow humans, despite the fact that you
> can't find evidence of Jesus teaching that in the New Testament.

You mean, like, the Inquisition? The Crusades? Burning "heretics?"
Tormenting people falsely accused of witchcraft? Murdering people in
the name of God? Christianity has a 2000 year history of twisting the
teachings of Jesus for political reasons and out of sheer perverse
self-righteousness.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 27, 9:29 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:

> >> Until then, STFU.
>
> > Descending to foul acronyms? Well, at least it's consistent with your
> > 9th-grader taunts.
>
> Put up or shut up, Frank. "STFU" is just a silly acronym; sorry if it
> offended the delicate flower.

I can never quite recall: do words matter, or do they NOT matter?

Miss ya' like a boil.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 11:21 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:27:58 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:.
> >>> I need to get out and /ride/, man.
>
> > Doug Taylor wrote:
> >> Actually, you need to get laid.
>
> > hey, family newsgroup!
>
> > (anyone in mind? does she have a sister? )
>
> Taylor shouldn't believe everything Mr.Disabilitytells him; it's OLD
> information.

Just because I DO like working with /facts/ ...

Was this one directed at me, Dear Bill, or have you dug deep in your
heart to come up with this lovely term of endearment for another who
suffers from a disabling medical condition?

Do tell.

Thanks,
Neil

 

[Bill Sornson]

Helmut Springer wrote:
> 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.\

Nice typo! COURSES!