USADA streak broken

[[email protected]]

On Dec 19, 11:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:30 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 10:06 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 7:09 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > By all means tell me what you actually know about Gitmo.
>
> > > I read the transcripts of the trials of Gitmo detainees.
> > > It didn't take long. Because there haven't been any
> > > trials and they won't release any transcripts.
>
> > I hate to point this out to you but prisoners-of-war are USUALLY held
> > until the end of the war before being released. They are NOT tried.
>
> > I know that someone that has never been outside of their highschool
> > playground might not realize this but Gitmo is a prisoner-of-war camp
> > IN THE USUAL sense.
>
> War Criminal Kunich,
>
> The whole point of Gitmo is that it is is not a
> prisoner-of-war camp in the usual sense, and the
> prisoners have been classified as "enemy combatants"
> rather than prisoners of war, and the administration
> has repeatedly claimed that the Geneva Convention
> does not apply to them or anybody at Gitmo. You
> could look it up. They do this so that "we" can
> do whatever we want to the prisoners and nobody
> will ever know or hear about it, especially after
> the tapes are erased. "We" used to be a country
> that tried not to abuse prisoners.

Look, if you don't understand how the thing works perhaps you ought to
go out and play in the sandbox. They have information that we need. Of
course we could always use your viewpoint that everyone else's life
save your own is unimportant and we shouldn't discomfort known
terrorists because it looks bad on the record - that is unless it is
your own life that might be at stake.

By the way, after the cry that there were a lot of simple mistaken
identities imprisoned there whom we released, these same people were
found fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course we could take the
Chung viewpoint that it was because we had falsely imprisoned and
enraged them, or you could take the viewpoint that we discovered them
fighting anyone they could fight, imprisoned them for awhile, released
them and they went back to doing precisely what they had been doing.
But that would probably require more brains than you possess.

> I'll shut up now.

That's so unlikely that I'd bet against it.

 

[RicodJour]

On Dec 20, 9:39 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 11:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 7:30 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 10:06 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18, 7:09 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > > By all means tell me what you actually know about Gitmo.
>
> > > > I read the transcripts of the trials of Gitmo detainees.
> > > > It didn't take long. Because there haven't been any
> > > > trials and they won't release any transcripts.
>
> > > I hate to point this out to you but prisoners-of-war are USUALLY held
> > > until the end of the war before being released. They are NOT tried.
>
> > > I know that someone that has never been outside of their highschool
> > > playground might not realize this but Gitmo is a prisoner-of-war camp
> > > IN THE USUAL sense.
>
> > War Criminal Kunich,
>
> > The whole point of Gitmo is that it is is not a
> > prisoner-of-war camp in the usual sense, and the
> > prisoners have been classified as "enemy combatants"
> > rather than prisoners of war, and the administration
> > has repeatedly claimed that the Geneva Convention
> > does not apply to them or anybody at Gitmo. You
> > could look it up. They do this so that "we" can
> > do whatever we want to the prisoners and nobody
> > will ever know or hear about it, especially after
> > the tapes are erased. "We" used to be a country
> > that tried not to abuse prisoners.
>
> Look, if you don't understand how the thing works perhaps you ought to
> go out and play in the sandbox. They have information that we need. Of
> course we could always use your viewpoint that everyone else's life
> save your own is unimportant and we shouldn't discomfort known
> terrorists because it looks bad on the record - that is unless it is
> your own life that might be at stake.
>
> By the way, after the cry that there were a lot of simple mistaken
> identities imprisoned there whom we released, these same people were
> found fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course we could take the
> Chung viewpoint that it was because we had falsely imprisoned and
> enraged them, or you could take the viewpoint that we discovered them
> fighting anyone they could fight, imprisoned them for awhile, released
> them and they went back to doing precisely what they had been doing.
> But that would probably require more brains than you possess.
>
> > I'll shut up now.
>
> That's so unlikely that I'd bet against it.

Let me paraphrase your comments to date, the responses and your follow
up:

That's the way it's done in prison camps.
No, it's not.
Big deal. If someone held a gun to your head you'd do it, too.

You really should have gone to a Jesuit school. You would have
learned a bit about logic, and they would have kicked some of the
copious **** out of you.

R

 

[Alex]

On Dec 18, 2:21 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> USADA, WADA, and Chateney-Malabry are quasi-governmental
> agencies and arguably have a duty of care which some
> shyster lawyer could argue has been breached. There is
> a difference between Fraud suing USADA and ASO suing, say,
> Vino, or Telekom suing Sinkabitch. (I think a team
> whose sponsor disappears is hurt more than ASO is hurt by
> the riders. If no one shows up to watch the Tour next July,
> you ccan tell me I was wrong.) That said, although
> I'd kind of like to see Fraud beat the rap, I wouldn't
> like to see him getting millions of bucks out of USADA for
> doing what they are more or less chartered to do.

Here in the US you are free to sue who ever you want. If it turns
out that Floyd wins on appeal, he should be free to sue who ever
he wants. I would not blame him if he did. The whole case was
based on results obtained with very sloppy work.

> In an ideal world, the outcome of this fiasco would be
> better practices at the labs rather than financial damages.

This makes no sense. The proper methods are known and
should have been followed all along. That they weren't points
to negligence which caused Floyd to lose a substantial amount
of income. So he should be compensated.

> However, that is unlikely to happen. Both because there
> is no real incentive for the labs to become un-sloppy,

If they get sued and lose, that will be plenty of incentive.
If WADA gets sued and also loses that will be incentive
for them to make sure the labs they use follow the proper
procedures.

> and because they can't admit there's a sloppiness
> problem or they're afraid they'll lose cases. That's
> what happens when you make science experiments serve
> as judicial prosecutions. Look at all the prosecutors
> who won't drop charges even after it's been shown that
> crime labs (for real crimes) relied on actually faked
> or unreliable evidence (a stepp beyond random LNDD
> sloppiness).

It just takes one solid hit the wallet to wake up the lab.
Then they will either clean up their act or get out of the
business. In either case you get the best results.
-----------------------
Alex

 

[Alex]

On Dec 20, 9:39 am, [email protected] wrote:

> Look, if you don't understand how the thing works perhaps you ought to
> go out and play in the sandbox. They have information that we need. Of
> course we could always use your viewpoint that everyone else's life
> save your own is unimportant and we shouldn't discomfort known
> terrorists because it looks bad on the record - that is unless it is
> your own life that might be at stake.

Torturing a prisoner is only going to get the them to tell you what
you
want to hear. You also have to wonder why behavior that is totally
unacceptable here on US soil is acceptable on foreign soil.

> By the way, after the cry that there were a lot of simple mistaken
> identities imprisoned there whom we released, these same people were
> found fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Can you blame them? You throw them in jail for years. Did you think
they were going to come back and thank us for the time they spent
in Cuba?


> Of course we could take the
> Chung viewpoint that it was because we had falsely imprisoned and
> enraged them, or you could take the viewpoint that we discovered them
> fighting anyone they could fight, imprisoned them for awhile, released
> them and they went back to doing precisely what they had been doing.
> But that would probably require more brains than you possess.

You may be right, but how do you know which is right?
------------------------
Alex

 

[DirtRoadie]

On Dec 19, 8:12 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yeah, I know... RBR is overwraught w/ political discussions, but for a
> brief moment it looked like there might be a thread that actually
> discussed a racing-related issue.

Would've been nice, huh?

Oh well, it probably would have just become the standard standoff:
"All the riders (and especially Floyd) are dopers/cheaters"
vs
"All the riders (and especially Floyd) are being screwed by the
unfair anti-doping system"

DR

 

[Bill C]

On Dec 20, 10:06 am, Alex <[email protected]> wrote:

<Bunch snipped>

>
> It just takes one solid hit the wallet to wake up the lab.
> Then they will either clean up their act or get out of the
> business. In either case you get the best results.
> -----------------------
> Alex

I'm more cynical. I figure if they actually do, finally, take a hit in
a suit the politicians move in and extend to them, since they are a
quasi-government operation, the same protections that government types
get. It's damned near impossible, no matter how ridiculous, to win a
private suit against a politician, or government agent in the course
of their "job". Seems like no matter how sloppy, negligent, and
irresponsible they are they are immune.
Bill C

 

[Donald Munro]

Alex wrote:
> If they get sued and lose, that will be plenty of incentive. If WADA gets
> sued and also loses that will be incentive for them to make sure the labs
> they use follow the proper procedures.

Speaking of procedure I see LNDD positive reader is back
from vacation and managed to get a positive for Mayo after
the Belgian and Australian labs couldn't.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 7:05 am, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 9:39 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 11:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 7:30 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18, 10:06 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 18, 7:09 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > By all means tell me what you actually know about Gitmo.
>
> > > > > I read the transcripts of the trials of Gitmo detainees.
> > > > > It didn't take long. Because there haven't been any
> > > > > trials and they won't release any transcripts.
>
> > > > I hate to point this out to you but prisoners-of-war are USUALLY held
> > > > until the end of the war before being released. They are NOT tried.
>
> > > > I know that someone that has never been outside of their highschool
> > > > playground might not realize this but Gitmo is a prisoner-of-war camp
> > > > IN THE USUAL sense.
>
> > > War Criminal Kunich,
>
> > > The whole point of Gitmo is that it is is not a
> > > prisoner-of-war camp in the usual sense, and the
> > > prisoners have been classified as "enemy combatants"
> > > rather than prisoners of war, and the administration
> > > has repeatedly claimed that the Geneva Convention
> > > does not apply to them or anybody at Gitmo. You
> > > could look it up. They do this so that "we" can
> > > do whatever we want to the prisoners and nobody
> > > will ever know or hear about it, especially after
> > > the tapes are erased. "We" used to be a country
> > > that tried not to abuse prisoners.
>
> > Look, if you don't understand how the thing works perhaps you ought to
> > go out and play in the sandbox. They have information that we need. Of
> > course we could always use your viewpoint that everyone else's life
> > save your own is unimportant and we shouldn't discomfort known
> > terrorists because it looks bad on the record - that is unless it is
> > your own life that might be at stake.
>
> > By the way, after the cry that there were a lot of simple mistaken
> > identities imprisoned there whom we released, these same people were
> > found fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course we could take the
> > Chung viewpoint that it was because we had falsely imprisoned and
> > enraged them, or you could take the viewpoint that we discovered them
> > fighting anyone they could fight, imprisoned them for awhile, released
> > them and they went back to doing precisely what they had been doing.
> > But that would probably require more brains than you possess.
>
> > > I'll shut up now.
>
> > That's so unlikely that I'd bet against it.
>
> Let me paraphrase your comments to date, the responses and your follow
> up:
>
> That's the way it's done in prison camps.
> No, it's not.

Excuse me but you don't understand. There are simply some levels of
enemies whom we cannot afford to treat as humanely as we would prefer.
I don't say this is a good thing. I say that sometimes it is a
necessary thing. There might be a good argument about what that LEVEL
is but don't give me that there is no level at all ****.

> Big deal. If someone held a gun to your head you'd do it, too.

It IS a big deal. And indeed you'd do it if someone held a gun to your
head as well. This doesn't make it good. It makes it very
unfortunately necessary.

> You really should have gone to a Jesuit school.

Exactly what makes you believe I haven't?

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 7:06 am, Alex <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2:21 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>
> > In an ideal world, the outcome of this fiasco would be
> > better practices at the labs rather than financial damages.
>
> This makes no sense. The proper methods are known and
> should have been followed all along. That they weren't points
> to negligence which caused Floyd to lose a substantial amount
> of income. So he should be compensated.

The real problem is that the French labs have CONTINUED these
practices despite being called on them many times.

> > However, that is unlikely to happen. Both because there
> > is no real incentive for the labs to become un-sloppy,
>
> If they get sued and lose, that will be plenty of incentive.
> If WADA gets sued and also loses that will be incentive
> for them to make sure the labs they use follow the proper
> procedures.

With any luck it would drive WADA and all of its labs out of business
and hence eliminate the problem. There are enough labs around that
follow procedures properly.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 7:19 am, Alex <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 9:39 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Look, if you don't understand how the thing works perhaps you ought to
> > go out and play in the sandbox. They have information that we need. Of
> > course we could always use your viewpoint that everyone else's life
> > save your own is unimportant and we shouldn't discomfort known
> > terrorists because it looks bad on the record - that is unless it is
> > your own life that might be at stake.
>
> Torturing a prisoner is only going to get the them to tell you what
> you want to hear. You also have to wonder why behavior that is totally
> unacceptable here on US soil is acceptable on foreign soil.

Here's the problem - what you are considering torture these guys
consider a slap on the wrist. Did you catch that report that said that
the Al Qaida operative started talking after 35 SECONDS of
waterboarding?

I hate to tell you this but when I was a kid there were plenty of
other kids that would hold you underwater a lot longer than that every
summer at the pool.

> > By the way, after the cry that there were a lot of simple mistaken
> > identities imprisoned there whom we released, these same people were
> > found fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> Can you blame them? You throw them in jail for years. Did you think
> they were going to come back and thank us for the time they spent
> in Cuba?

Maybe you missed my statement - they were fighting BEFORE being
imprisoned and it should be no surprise that they've returned as soon
as released.

 

[Andy Coggan]

On Dec 20, 9:29 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's damned near impossible, no matter how ridiculous, to win a
> private suit against a politician, or government agent in the course
> of their "job".

True 'dat.

Andy Coggan

 

[Howard Kveck]

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

> I never said I didn't want to hear about it. The point I was making
> is that Kunich, without fail, will go off topic and rant about who
> knows what, whenever the urge strikes him. You made one reference to
> Gitmo in the context of a discussion on justice, and that doofus
> insists on changing the topic from a discussion about Landis and the
> justice, or lack thereof, of the anti-doping crusaders actions, to one
> of a discussion about politics. YOU opened the door for it, and
> Kunich went storming right through.

You're correct in saying that we frequently bring on those OT but most rational
people would read Ben's reference to Gitmo, know what he meant and leave it that.
Kunich, on the other hand...

> Yeah, I know... RBR is overwraught w/ political discussions, but for a
> brief moment it looked like there might be a thread that actually
> discussed a racing-related issue. Oh, nooooo, not w/ Kunich looking
> for any opportunity to TRY to convince everyone how smart he is.
> Without fail I'm convinced he's the most argumentative MF'er I can
> imagine. Don't believe it, try this: agree with him on something.
> He'll change his position just so he can keep arguing.

All on the money, Scott.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <889318bc-6c2e-489c-bae3-1e6bae3c6c1f@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Dec 19, 11:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > War Criminal Kunich,
> >
> > The whole point of Gitmo is that it is is not a
> > prisoner-of-war camp in the usual sense, and the
> > prisoners have been classified as "enemy combatants"
> > rather than prisoners of war, and the administration
> > has repeatedly claimed that the Geneva Convention
> > does not apply to them or anybody at Gitmo. You
> > could look it up. They do this so that "we" can
> > do whatever we want to the prisoners and nobody
> > will ever know or hear about it, especially after
> > the tapes are erased. "We" used to be a country
> > that tried not to abuse prisoners.
>
> Look, if you don't understand how the thing works perhaps you ought to
> go out and play in the sandbox. They have information that we need.

"Information we need"? The overwhelming majority of the guys at Gitmo are either
nobodies in any organization or had nothing to do with any of it (many are there
because the US offered fairly big bounties and people turned in the neighbor that
they'd been feuding with for genereations).

> Of course we could always use your viewpoint that everyone else's life
> save your own is unimportant and we shouldn't discomfort known
> terrorists because it looks bad on the record - that is unless it is
> your own life that might be at stake.

Tom, just because they are in Gitmo does not mean they are "known terrorists".
That falls in to the category of "if they've been accused it's the same as a guilty
verdict". Which is something you frequently are thrilled to accuse posters in this
very group of when it comes to doping. That is hypocritical as hell.

> By the way, after the cry that there were a lot of simple mistaken
> identities imprisoned there whom we released, these same people were
> found fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course we could take the
> Chung viewpoint that it was because we had falsely imprisoned and
> enraged them, or you could take the viewpoint that we discovered them
> fighting anyone they could fight, imprisoned them for awhile, released
> them and they went back to doing precisely what they had been doing.
> But that would probably require more brains than you possess.

The idea that the inhuman treatment that those guys are subjected to at Gitmo
might radicalize them and lead to a thirst for vengeance seems to be too much for you
to comprehend. Tom, you *like* the idea of torturing people and locking them up
without charges (let alone trial) and will do and say anything to rationalize it.
Your suggestion that "prisoners of war" are held until the end of hostilities is
absurd because these hosilities will never end and the concept of a "war on
terrorism" was chosen simply because it can be used as an excuse to do as much
intrusive and un-American stuff as this administration wants. The simple fact is
this: you are a fan of authoritarianism at best and a fascist at least.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

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

> Scott wrote:
> > try this: agree with him on something. He'll change his
> > position just so he can keep arguing.
>
> That's just the way he's been programmed.
>
> BTW I wish SchwartzSoft would at least update the codebase
> locale bundles now and then. The standard
> "By all means tell me what you actually know about x"
> is getting boring and sounds a bit like Eliza.

I wonder if the use of the "by all means" phrase could be cured by waterboarding?

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Donald Munro]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Tom, just because they are in Gitmo does not mean they are "known
> terrorists".
> That falls in to the category of "if they've been accused it's the same as
> a guilty verdict". Which is something you frequently are thrilled to
> accuse posters in this very group of when it comes to doping. That is
> hypocritical as hell.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/3500156.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/11/nguan11.xml
http://www.desaparecidos.org/bbs/archives/003712.html

 

[Donald Munro]

Scott wrote:
>> > try this: agree with him on something. He'll change his position just
>> > so he can keep arguing.

Donald Munro wrote:
>> That's just the way he's been programmed.
>> BTW I wish SchwartzSoft would at least update the codebase locale
>> bundles now and then. The standard "By all means tell me what you
>> actually know about x" is getting boring and sounds a bit like Eliza.

Howard Kveck wrote:
> I wonder if the use of the "by all means" phrase could be cured by
> waterboarding?

Only if his circuitry is waterproof otherwise he might end
up sounding like a drowning version of HAL having his circuits
removed.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Dec 19, 11:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> War Criminal Kunich,
>
> The whole point of Gitmo is that it is is not a
> prisoner-of-war camp in the usual sense, and the
> prisoners have been classified as "enemy combatants"
> rather than prisoners of war, and the administration
> has repeatedly claimed that the Geneva Convention
> does not apply to them or anybody at Gitmo. You
> could look it up. They do this so that "we" can
> do whatever we want to the prisoners and nobody
> will ever know or hear about it, especially after
> the tapes are erased. "We" used to be a country
> that tried not to abuse prisoners.

Well I am glad you care about the guvmint obeying its own laws and the
treaties it makes. This is because it means that you'll now be
speaking out against the innumerable illegal things the enumnerated
powers US guvmint does. I like this because it means you're for
shutting down TANF, SS, MEDICAID, the Dept of Ed, the Dept of Ag, and
on and on and on and on. You get torture done away with in the
bargain, as it were.

It is good to know you care about the law, the guvmint following its
law, and limiting its powers to the scope it was granted. I know you
would never be the type to say "I just want the guvmint to follow the
laws I like, and break the ones I don't."

This is all very promising. Now if you can get your grisled brain
fellow leftists to demand the guvmint obey its own laws, I would very
much appreciate it.


"Our government is taking so steady a course as to show by what course
it will come to destruction, to wit by consolidation first, and then
corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation
will be the federal judiciary; the other two branches the corrupting
and corrupted instruments." -- Jefferson

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making
them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my
youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that
the more public provisions were made for the poor the less they
provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the
contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for
themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin Franklin, /The
Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766

"...the US government is growing stronger, not weaker, all things
considered. Perhaps the most important reason for this ongoing growth
of government is ideological; it is that so few people in the United
States today really give a damn about living as free men and women.
After a century of fighting a losing battle against their own
governments, the American people have finally accepted that the best
course open to them is simply to label their servitude as freedom and
to concentrate on enjoying the creature comforts that the government
still permits them to possess. They may be slaves, but they are
affluent slaves, and that condition is good enough for them." --
Robert Higgs

> Scott doesn't want to hear about it. That's fine.
> It is off topic, not to mention uncomfortable to
> think about.

Oh, what the hell. Whatever the topic originally was about bikes, it
shouldn't take more than 5 or 10 posts to describe. That's ben-been
done.

> But your rationalizations for it are
> factually wrong. Just remember what they're doing
> in your and my name.

They aren't in mine. I hardly think Tom is alone in rationalizing
illegal guvmint behavior. Somehow I suspect your real complaint isn't
a few hundred or so assholes held in gitmo.

In your name, ballots are bullets. You're buying in and are thus
responsible. I am not so sanguine about democracy as an ideological
concept put into practice.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski72.html
http://www.amazon.com/Ballots-Bullets-Joanne-Gowa/dp/0691070229/
http://www.amazon.com/Torture-Democracy-Darius-Rejali/dp/0691114226/


"We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of
democracy, with its own

weapons. ... If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and
salaries for this bear's

work, that is its affair. ... We do not come as friends, nor even as
neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we
come." -- Joseph Goebbels

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension,
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." -- Joseph Goebbels


> I'll shut up now.

Why?

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Dec 21, 2:31 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> Only if his circuitry is waterproof otherwise he might end
> up sounding like a drowning version of HAL having his circuits
> removed.

Why don't you tell us what you know about microcircuits?!

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 21, 11:01 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:31 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Only if his circuitry is waterproof otherwise he might end
> > up sounding like a drowning version of HAL having his circuits
> > removed.
>
> Why don't you tell us what you know about microcircuits?!

So you think you know something about microcircuits?
Let me explain this to you. Tom isn't built with
microcircuits. He runs on vacuum tubes. Because they
can't be damaged by EMP (electromagnetic pulse), so
even after a nuclear holocaust, Tom can still post to
the Internet. I worked at Fairchild when they invented
the vacuum tube for this very reason, but none of you
so-called geniuses are likely to understand that.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 19, 8:12 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

> I never said I didn't want to hear about it. The point I was making
> is that Kunich, without fail, will go off topic and rant about who
> knows what, whenever the urge strikes him. You made one reference to
> Gitmo in the context of a discussion on justice, and that doofus
> insists on changing the topic from a discussion about Landis and the
> justice, or lack thereof, of the anti-doping crusaders actions, to one
> of a discussion about politics. YOU opened the door for it, and
> Kunich went storming right through.

I don't disagree with what you say. I should have avoided
characterizing my presumptions about your attitude while
responding to Kunich, so I take that back.

Ben