D
Dan Connelly
Guest
Tom Kunich wrote:
> (studies show testosterone has no short-term effect)
>
Can you post an example?
Dan
> (studies show testosterone has no short-term effect)
>
Can you post an example?
Dan
T
Tom Kunich
Guest
"need more sun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 28, 11:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news
[email protected]...
>>
>> > in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when they
>> >>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
>> >>choose to look at this one.
>>
>> > That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the
>> > colonies
>> > for hundreds of years.
>>
>> And if memory serves that came from Oliver Cromwell's morals. Before that
>> you were guilty when proclaimed so by anyone with money.
>
> Cromwell was a scumbag - I wouldn't reference him!!
You must be one of those Liberals.
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 28, 11:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news
[email protected]...>>
>> > in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when they
>> >>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
>> >>choose to look at this one.
>>
>> > That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the
>> > colonies
>> > for hundreds of years.
>>
>> And if memory serves that came from Oliver Cromwell's morals. Before that
>> you were guilty when proclaimed so by anyone with money.
>
> Cromwell was a scumbag - I wouldn't reference him!!
You must be one of those Liberals.
T
Tom Kunich
Guest
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> NOT saying Landis is guilty or innocent, cuz I and nobody else on the
> NG knows
Peter, Peter, Peter... surely you know by now that there are at least a
dozen people on this group that know the absolute truth of the universe and
they say that Floyd is guilty. After all, most of them ride one or two
hundred miles a year on recumbents and they know for a fact that no one
could ride the Tour de France without "help".
news:[email protected]...
>
> NOT saying Landis is guilty or innocent, cuz I and nobody else on the
> NG knows
Peter, Peter, Peter... surely you know by now that there are at least a
dozen people on this group that know the absolute truth of the universe and
they say that Floyd is guilty. After all, most of them ride one or two
hundred miles a year on recumbents and they know for a fact that no one
could ride the Tour de France without "help".
Q
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Guest
On Mar 1, 7:52 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > NOT saying Landis is guilty or innocent, cuz I and nobody else on the
> > NG knows
>
> Peter, Peter, Peter... surely you know by now that there are at least a
> dozen people on this group that know the absolute truth of the universe and
> they say that Floyd is guilty. After all, most of them ride one or two
> hundred miles a year on recumbents and they know for a fact that no one
> could ride the Tour de France without "help".
teehee...are you going to answer the poll about 'bents'
on .marketplace?
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > NOT saying Landis is guilty or innocent, cuz I and nobody else on the
> > NG knows
>
> Peter, Peter, Peter... surely you know by now that there are at least a
> dozen people on this group that know the absolute truth of the universe and
> they say that Floyd is guilty. After all, most of them ride one or two
> hundred miles a year on recumbents and they know for a fact that no one
> could ride the Tour de France without "help".
teehee...are you going to answer the poll about 'bents'
on .marketplace?
C
Curtis L. Russell
Guest
On 1 Mar 2007 07:21:16 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>teehee...are you going to answer the poll about 'bents'
>on .marketplace?
Best that I know, I am about the only publically admitted recumbent
rider on this list, at least as a regular, and I never took a position
on whether Floyd was guilty or not. Kunich simply makes up things as
he goes along. Back in Kansas, we would call him a liar, but I guess
rbr is more civilized than Kansas.
Hell, no we're not. Kunich is a liar.
And no, Kunich won't quote anywhere that I made any such statement -
he can't. But he will quote something that is somewhat remotely like
it, if you squint and ignore context and content simultaneously, and
then he will say that was what he meant all along, given that what he
claims is what I meant all along.
I know - confusing, but it is the price of admission to the Kunich
bot's alternate universe.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
<[email protected]> wrote:
>teehee...are you going to answer the poll about 'bents'
>on .marketplace?
Best that I know, I am about the only publically admitted recumbent
rider on this list, at least as a regular, and I never took a position
on whether Floyd was guilty or not. Kunich simply makes up things as
he goes along. Back in Kansas, we would call him a liar, but I guess
rbr is more civilized than Kansas.
Hell, no we're not. Kunich is a liar.
And no, Kunich won't quote anywhere that I made any such statement -
he can't. But he will quote something that is somewhat remotely like
it, if you squint and ignore context and content simultaneously, and
then he will say that was what he meant all along, given that what he
claims is what I meant all along.
I know - confusing, but it is the price of admission to the Kunich
bot's alternate universe.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
N
need more sun
Guest
On Mar 1, 3:48 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "need more sun" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 11:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news[email protected]...
>
> >> > in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when they
> >> >>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
> >> >>choose to look at this one.
>
> >> > That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the
> >> > colonies
> >> > for hundreds of years.
>
> >> And if memory serves that came from Oliver Cromwell's morals. Before that
> >> you were guilty when proclaimed so by anyone with money.
>
> > Cromwell was a scumbag - I wouldn't reference him!!
>
> You must be one of those Liberals.
You must be one of those fascists... Cromwell massacred people in the
interests of expanding his empire...hey, that sounds familiar! I guess
he is just your kind of guy, politically...
A quick search online for 'Cromwell and Drogheda' turned this up:
Cromwell set sail for Ireland on August 13, 1649. He arrived in Dublin
on the 15th and was greeted by the roar of cannons from the walls and
a great, enthusiastic crowd. Cromwell was received so favorably
because Dublin was the second city of the English empire and Colonel
Jones had expelled all Catholics from the city.
The Duke of Ormonde left Sir Arthur Aston, an English Catholic, at
Drogheda with 2,200 infantry and 20 cavalry to delay Cromwell from
marauding farther north. Aston was well aware of Cromwell's superior
numbers--8,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry--but he was confident that
Drogheda's superior position would enable him to survive the
Cromwellian onslaught even if he could not hope to take the Lord
Lieutenant in the field--or, as he put it, "He who could take Drogheda
could take Hell." He also expected war's partners, disease and famine,
to weaken the (Protestant) Parliamentary army.
The geography of Drogheda was crucial to the siege. The town was
totally contained within a formidable wall one and a half miles long,
20 feet high, and 6 feet wide at the base, narrowing to 2 feet on top.
The main town lay north of the River Boyne. To the south, still within
the impressive fortifications, was an additional urban area situated
on a hill that had to be tackled first by any army coming from the
south. In the extreme southeast corner, virtually embedded in the city
wall, stood St. Mary's Church. From its lofty steeple the defenders
not only had a fine view of the city but were in a good position to
fire upon their Protestant attackers.
Flanking the church on the town side was a steep ravine called the
Dale, then the heavily guarded Duleek Gate, the entrance to this
southern outpost, and behind that an imposing artificial mound called
the Mill Mount.
On September 10, Cromwell issued his first official summons to Sir
Arthur Aston:
"Having brought the army belonging to the Parliament of England before
this place, to reduce it to obedience, to the end the effusion of
blood may be prevented, I thought it fit to summon you to deliver the
same into my hands to their use. If this be refused you will have no
cause to blame me."
Aston refused to surrender, and Cromwell's cannons opened fire. The
walls of the city began to crumble. Aston quickly realized that he was
in danger. The (Protestant) Parliamentary fleet blockaded the harbor.
The Duke of Ormonde could send no more reinforcements, his arms and
provisions were running short. Worst of all, like all of Ireland,
Drogheda was not united. Some of those inside the walls preferred the
English Parliamentary force.
Knowing that there could be "no quarter" (no mercy) if he refused to
surrender, Aston decided to fight on, writing to the Duke of Ormonde
that his soldiers, at least, "were unanimous in their resolution to
perish rather than to deliver up the place."
The (Catholic) defenders fought bravely, at first turning back the
attackers, but eventually the Parliamentarians crashed through the
walls and seized St. Mary's Church. Aston and some defenders fled to
Mill Mount. Possessed by bloodlust, the Parliamentarians rushed up the
hill, and all defenders, including Aston, were killed by order of
Cromwell. The Parliamentarians swept through the streets with orders
to kill anyone in arms. Against orders, civilians also were killed in
the rush. Priests and friars were treated as combatants by Cromwell's
Puritans and executed. Even more horrible was the fate of the
defenders of St. Peter's Church in the northern part of the town; the
church was burned down around them. By nightfall, only small pockets
of resistance on the walls remained. When they managed to kill some
(Protestant) Parliamentarians, Cromwell ordered the captured
(Catholic) officers to be "knocked on the head" and every 10th soldier
(Catholic) executed. Nearly 4,000 (Catholic) Confederates died at
Drogheda.
Drogheda's being divided by the river caused some confusion and may
have led to the massacre. When forces on one side of the river
surrendered, it is alleged that Cromwell, still meeting resistance on
the other side, ordered the annihilation of the entire population. "I
do not think that thirty of the whole number escaped with their
lives," Cromwell later wrote. The survivors were sold as slaves to the
sugar plantations at Barbados.
After the massacre, Cromwell sought to explain his actions in a letter
to William Lenthall, speaker of the English Parliament:
"...I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgement of God upon
these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands in so much
innocent blood, and it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for
the future, which are satisfactory grounds to such actions, which
otherwise cannot but work remourse and regret...."
Nice guy, all right....
> "need more sun" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 11:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news
[email protected]...>
> >> > in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when they
> >> >>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
> >> >>choose to look at this one.
>
> >> > That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the
> >> > colonies
> >> > for hundreds of years.
>
> >> And if memory serves that came from Oliver Cromwell's morals. Before that
> >> you were guilty when proclaimed so by anyone with money.
>
> > Cromwell was a scumbag - I wouldn't reference him!!
>
> You must be one of those Liberals.
You must be one of those fascists... Cromwell massacred people in the
interests of expanding his empire...hey, that sounds familiar! I guess
he is just your kind of guy, politically...
A quick search online for 'Cromwell and Drogheda' turned this up:
Cromwell set sail for Ireland on August 13, 1649. He arrived in Dublin
on the 15th and was greeted by the roar of cannons from the walls and
a great, enthusiastic crowd. Cromwell was received so favorably
because Dublin was the second city of the English empire and Colonel
Jones had expelled all Catholics from the city.
The Duke of Ormonde left Sir Arthur Aston, an English Catholic, at
Drogheda with 2,200 infantry and 20 cavalry to delay Cromwell from
marauding farther north. Aston was well aware of Cromwell's superior
numbers--8,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry--but he was confident that
Drogheda's superior position would enable him to survive the
Cromwellian onslaught even if he could not hope to take the Lord
Lieutenant in the field--or, as he put it, "He who could take Drogheda
could take Hell." He also expected war's partners, disease and famine,
to weaken the (Protestant) Parliamentary army.
The geography of Drogheda was crucial to the siege. The town was
totally contained within a formidable wall one and a half miles long,
20 feet high, and 6 feet wide at the base, narrowing to 2 feet on top.
The main town lay north of the River Boyne. To the south, still within
the impressive fortifications, was an additional urban area situated
on a hill that had to be tackled first by any army coming from the
south. In the extreme southeast corner, virtually embedded in the city
wall, stood St. Mary's Church. From its lofty steeple the defenders
not only had a fine view of the city but were in a good position to
fire upon their Protestant attackers.
Flanking the church on the town side was a steep ravine called the
Dale, then the heavily guarded Duleek Gate, the entrance to this
southern outpost, and behind that an imposing artificial mound called
the Mill Mount.
On September 10, Cromwell issued his first official summons to Sir
Arthur Aston:
"Having brought the army belonging to the Parliament of England before
this place, to reduce it to obedience, to the end the effusion of
blood may be prevented, I thought it fit to summon you to deliver the
same into my hands to their use. If this be refused you will have no
cause to blame me."
Aston refused to surrender, and Cromwell's cannons opened fire. The
walls of the city began to crumble. Aston quickly realized that he was
in danger. The (Protestant) Parliamentary fleet blockaded the harbor.
The Duke of Ormonde could send no more reinforcements, his arms and
provisions were running short. Worst of all, like all of Ireland,
Drogheda was not united. Some of those inside the walls preferred the
English Parliamentary force.
Knowing that there could be "no quarter" (no mercy) if he refused to
surrender, Aston decided to fight on, writing to the Duke of Ormonde
that his soldiers, at least, "were unanimous in their resolution to
perish rather than to deliver up the place."
The (Catholic) defenders fought bravely, at first turning back the
attackers, but eventually the Parliamentarians crashed through the
walls and seized St. Mary's Church. Aston and some defenders fled to
Mill Mount. Possessed by bloodlust, the Parliamentarians rushed up the
hill, and all defenders, including Aston, were killed by order of
Cromwell. The Parliamentarians swept through the streets with orders
to kill anyone in arms. Against orders, civilians also were killed in
the rush. Priests and friars were treated as combatants by Cromwell's
Puritans and executed. Even more horrible was the fate of the
defenders of St. Peter's Church in the northern part of the town; the
church was burned down around them. By nightfall, only small pockets
of resistance on the walls remained. When they managed to kill some
(Protestant) Parliamentarians, Cromwell ordered the captured
(Catholic) officers to be "knocked on the head" and every 10th soldier
(Catholic) executed. Nearly 4,000 (Catholic) Confederates died at
Drogheda.
Drogheda's being divided by the river caused some confusion and may
have led to the massacre. When forces on one side of the river
surrendered, it is alleged that Cromwell, still meeting resistance on
the other side, ordered the annihilation of the entire population. "I
do not think that thirty of the whole number escaped with their
lives," Cromwell later wrote. The survivors were sold as slaves to the
sugar plantations at Barbados.
After the massacre, Cromwell sought to explain his actions in a letter
to William Lenthall, speaker of the English Parliament:
"...I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgement of God upon
these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands in so much
innocent blood, and it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for
the future, which are satisfactory grounds to such actions, which
otherwise cannot but work remourse and regret...."
Nice guy, all right....
T
Tom Kunich
Guest
"need more sun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 1, 3:48 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 28, 11:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> >> "Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> > in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <[email protected]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when
>> >> >>they
>> >> >>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
>> >> >>choose to look at this one.
>>
>> >> > That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the
>> >> > colonies for hundreds of years.
>>
>> >> And if memory serves that came from Oliver Cromwell's morals. Before
>> >> that
>> >> you were guilty when proclaimed so by anyone with money.
>>
>> > Cromwell was a scumbag - I wouldn't reference him!!
>>
>> You must be one of those Liberals.
>
> You must be one of those fascists.
You must be one of those guys who needs smilies added to every posting to
clue you into sarcasm.
> Cromwell massacred people in the interests of expanding
> his empire...hey, that sounds familiar! I guess he is just
> your kind of guy, politically.
Pretending that wasn't the situation normal of the time? Maybe you'd like to
quote a single head of government that wasn't doing the same thing? Not to
forgive Cromwell but we have to appreciate the good things he did at the
same time as deplore the awful things. After all, pretending that King
Charles wouldn't have done precisely the same thing had he not been
dethroned by the Parlimentarians is probably a false hope.
Remember that Cromwell was savagely attacked in the press of the time and
looked the other way. Cromwell was a General and hence had a General's view
of death at that time - a necessary evil. He was considered an authortarian
but in those times that was needed. Note today's Iraq which could probably
benefit from a completely honest authoritarian government.
news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 1, 3:48 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 28, 11:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> >> "Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> > in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <[email protected]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when
>> >> >>they
>> >> >>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
>> >> >>choose to look at this one.
>>
>> >> > That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the
>> >> > colonies for hundreds of years.
>>
>> >> And if memory serves that came from Oliver Cromwell's morals. Before
>> >> that
>> >> you were guilty when proclaimed so by anyone with money.
>>
>> > Cromwell was a scumbag - I wouldn't reference him!!
>>
>> You must be one of those Liberals.
>
> You must be one of those fascists.
You must be one of those guys who needs smilies added to every posting to
clue you into sarcasm.
> Cromwell massacred people in the interests of expanding
> his empire...hey, that sounds familiar! I guess he is just
> your kind of guy, politically.
Pretending that wasn't the situation normal of the time? Maybe you'd like to
quote a single head of government that wasn't doing the same thing? Not to
forgive Cromwell but we have to appreciate the good things he did at the
same time as deplore the awful things. After all, pretending that King
Charles wouldn't have done precisely the same thing had he not been
dethroned by the Parlimentarians is probably a false hope.
Remember that Cromwell was savagely attacked in the press of the time and
looked the other way. Cromwell was a General and hence had a General's view
of death at that time - a necessary evil. He was considered an authortarian
but in those times that was needed. Note today's Iraq which could probably
benefit from a completely honest authoritarian government.
K
Kurgan Gringioni
Guest
On Mar 1, 2:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> Note today's Iraq which could probably
> benefit from a completely honest authoritarian government.
Dumbass -
Such a thing has never known existence.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
> Note today's Iraq which could probably
> benefit from a completely honest authoritarian government.
Dumbass -
Such a thing has never known existence.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
K
Ken Prager
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > (studies show testosterone has no short-term effect)
> >
>
>
> Can you post an example?
>
> Dan
<crickets>
Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > (studies show testosterone has no short-term effect)
> >
>
>
> Can you post an example?
>
> Dan
<crickets>