Treason, 2pid, plain and simple [Archive]

Clyde Slick

July 10th 08, 02:00 AM

On 9 Iul, 20:40, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jul 9, 12:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > the judges who ordered these detainees be treated like
> > US citizens accused of a crime are treasonous, I agree.
>
> Let's look at a relevant legal reference:
>
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
> describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
> be seized."
>
> Doesn't specifically state "US citizens." Okay, how about another
> reference:
>
> "No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise
> infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
> Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
> Militia,
> when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> So how do you see that as irrelevant?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> *nor shall any
> person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
> life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
> witness
> against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
> without due
> process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
> without just compensation."
>
> This refers to "person," not "US citizen."
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> OMG...we should arrest every WWII vet.
> So Mr. Atkinson.
> If called upon per your oath
> I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure
> all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
> sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I
> will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of
> America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
> and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States
> when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed
> Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work
> of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
> that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of
> evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my
> signature.
>
> would you actually defend this country?
> We'll send you to the front, warrants in hand.
>

as required by law.
I think he would defend it as well as any other old coot.
Most immigrants are more atriotic than the average
born in the USA American. They usually worked hard just to get here
and
top staqy here. If they came from dire circumstances, they
are usually pretty grateful for the opportunity.

AS an example, Gov Schwartzenegger.
He gave up many millions for many films, at ht eheight
of his career, to serve the people of California.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 10th 08, 02:47 AM

On Jul 9, 8:24*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 9 Iul, 20:40, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > On Jul 9, 12:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > the judges who ordered these detainees be treated like
> > > US citizens accused of a crime are treasonous, I agree.
>
> > Let's look at a relevant legal reference:
>
> > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> > papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> > shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
> > probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
> > describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
> > be seized."
>
> > Doesn't specifically state "US citizens." Okay, how about another
> > reference:
>
> > "No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise
> > infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
> > Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
> > Militia,
> > when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > So how do you see that as irrelevant?
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > nor shall any
> > person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
> > life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
> > witness
> > against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
> > without due
> > process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
> > without just compensation."
>
> > This refers to "person," not "US citizen."
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > OMG...we should arrest every WWII vet.
> > So Mr. Atkinson.
> > If called upon per your oath
> > I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure
> > all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
> > sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that
> > I
> > will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of
> > America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
> > and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United
> > States
> > when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed
> > Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work
> > of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
> > that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose
> > of
> > evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my
> > signature.
>
> > would you actually defend this country?
> > We'll send you to the front, warrants in hand.
>
> as required by law.
> I think he would defend it as well as any other old coot.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Most would prefer a gun to a warrant.
>
> If the defense of our country is up to Atkinson or Joe Horn,
> I vote for Joe.

Then you are not for the rule of law, but for vigilante law.

I'm not surprised, BTW. That seems to fit in with your other warped
views perfectly.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 10th 08, 02:49 AM

On Jul 9, 8:28*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Jul 9, 12:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> the judges who ordered these detainees be treated like
> >> US citizens accused of a crime are treasonous, I agree.
>
> > Let's look at a relevant legal reference:
>
> > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> > papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> > shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
> > probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
> > describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
> > be seized."
>
> > Doesn't specifically state "US citizens." Okay, how about another
> > reference:
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*------------------------
> > All true. But I have a personal confession.
>
> *So you post it on usenet.......sigh.
> I shall recommend it to insomniacs the world over.

Do you suppose that it's your posts that keep them awake at night? Lol

MiNe 109

July 10th 08, 03:32 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
> After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
> we'll send Joe.
> Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
> nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back. Your
integrity would be better served by eschewing them.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

July 10th 08, 04:51 AM

On 9 Iul, 21:24, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
> If the defense of our country is up to Atkinson or Joe Horn,
> I vote for Joe.
>
>

If only our enemies would turn their backs!!!

MiNe 109

July 10th 08, 05:27 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
> > > After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
> > > *we'll send Joe.
> > > Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
> > > nuts.
> >
> > I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back.
>
> I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
> It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
> You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
> peril, not mine.

I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed. And one
doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of civilian
remedies is mistaken.

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 10th 08, 05:41 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
> > > > > After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
> > > > > *we'll send Joe.
> > > > > Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
> > > > > nuts.
> >
> > > > I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back.
> >
> > > *I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
> > > It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
> > > You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
> > > peril, not mine.
> >
> > I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.
>
> No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.

An opportunity to take the high ground.

> > And one
> > doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of civilian
> > remedies is mistaken.
> >
> > How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?
>
> So far so good. You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?

Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

Stephen

Jenn[_2_]

July 10th 08, 07:30 AM

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > >
> > > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > > Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
> > > > > > After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
> > > > > > *we'll send Joe.
> > > > > > Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
> > > > > > nuts.
> > >
> > > > > I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back.
> > >
> > > > *I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
> > > > It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
> > > > You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
> > > > peril, not mine.
> > >
> > > I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.
> >
> > No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.
>
> An opportunity to take the high ground.
>
> > > And one
> > > doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of civilian
> > > remedies is mistaken.
> > >
> > > How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?
> >
> > So far so good. You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?
>
> Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.
>
> Stephen

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/28/taliban-seen-as-resurgent/

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 10th 08, 08:19 AM

On Jul 10, 1:30*am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
>
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
>
> > > > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > > > Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
> > > > > > > After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
> > > > > > > *we'll send Joe.
> > > > > > > Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
> > > > > > > nuts.
>
> > > > > > I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back.
>
> > > > > *I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
> > > > > It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
> > > > > You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
> > > > > peril, not mine.
>
> > > > I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.
>
> > > No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.
>
> > An opportunity to take the high ground.
>
> > > > *And one
> > > > doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of civilian
> > > > remedies is mistaken.
>
> > > > How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?
>
> > > So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?
>
> > Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.
>
> > Stephen
>
> http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/28/taliban-seen-as-resurgent/-

June 28 is sooooo a couple of weeks ago....

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 10th 08, 08:19 AM

On Jul 9, 10:51*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 9 Iul, 21:24, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > If the defense of our country is up to Atkinson or Joe Horn,
> > I vote for Joe.
>
> If only our enemies would turn their backs!!!

LOL!

MiNe 109

July 10th 08, 12:34 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > > > Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
> > > > > > > After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
> > > > > > > *we'll send Joe.
> > > > > > > Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
> > > > > > > nuts.
> >
> > > > > > I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back.
> >
> > > > > *I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
> > > > > It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
> > > > > You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
> > > > > peril, not mine.
> >
> > > > I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.
> >
> > > No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.
> >
> > An opportunity to take the high ground.
>
> George is missing an opportunity?
> Who knew?

Is it better to play stupid or be stupid?

> > > > *And one
> > > > doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of civilian
> > > > remedies is mistaken.
> >
> > > > How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?
> >
> > > So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?
> >
> > Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.
>
> The media seems to have moved their negative light from
> Iraq to Afghanistan. But reality is the Taliban are routed
> wherever they are opposed.
> Now if all our nato "allies" would join the fight, more
> rapid progress could be made.

Ah, it's the media's fault. And after five years, rapid progress is no
longer an option.

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 10th 08, 12:35 PM

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> > > > How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?
> > >
> > > So far so good. You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?
> >
> > Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/28/taliban-seen-as-resurgent/

The "liberal media" at work!

Stephen

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 10th 08, 01:45 PM

On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> So Mr. Atkinson. If called upon per your oath
> "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely
> renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
> prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have
> heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend
> the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against
> all enemies, foreign and domestic;

I believe that I have been doing exactly what is required of
me with respect to this clause.

> "that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear
> arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will
> perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United
> States when required by the law; that I will perform work of
> national importance under civilian direction when required by the
> law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental
> reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In
> acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."
>
> would you actually defend this country?

Of course. Why would you suggest that I would not
do so? Surely not because I have repeatedly pointed
out to you that the US Constitution specifically
prohibits the actions you endorse? Remember, unlike
US-born citizens, I have actually sworn an oath to
"support and defend the Constitution...against all
enemies, foreign and domestic." There is no
exception mentioned in that oath relieving me of
that obligation in times of criminal terrorist activity.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Clyde Slick

July 10th 08, 02:23 PM

On 10 Iul, 08:45, John Atkinson > wrote:
> On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > So Mr. Atkinson. If called upon per your oath
> > "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely
> > renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
> > prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have
> > heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend
> > the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against
> > all enemies, foreign and domestic;
>
> I believe that I have been doing exactly what is required of
> me with respect to this clause.
>
> > "that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear
> > arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will
> > perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United
> > States when required by the law; that I will perform work of
> > national importance under civilian direction when required by the
> > law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental
> > reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In
> > acknowledgement whereof *I have hereunto affixed my signature."
>
> > would you actually defend this country?
>
> Of course. Why would you suggest that I would not
> do so? Surely not because I have repeatedly pointed
> out to you that the US Constitution specifically
> prohibits the actions you endorse? Remember, unlike
> US-born citizens, I have actually sworn an oath to
> "support and defend the Constitution...against all
> enemies, foreign and domestic." There is no
> exception mentioned in that oath relieving me of
> that obligation in times of criminal terrorist activity.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

you forget so easily.
Scott took the Hypocritic Oath.
never to examine for himself what he prescribes for others
to examine.

MiNe 109

July 10th 08, 10:21 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jul 10, 4:34*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > > > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
> > > > > > > > > After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
> > > > > > > > > *we'll send Joe.
> > > > > > > > > Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
> > > > > > > > > nuts.
> >
> > > > > > > > I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time
> > > > > > > > back.
> >
> > > > > > > *I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
> > > > > > > It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
> > > > > > > You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
> > > > > > > peril, not mine.
> >
> > > > > > I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.
> >
> > > > > No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.
> >
> > > > An opportunity to take the high ground.
> >
> > > * George is missing an opportunity?
> > > *Who knew?
> >
> > Is it better to play stupid or be stupid?
>
> I don't think you will pass on either opportunity.

IKYABWAI.

> > > > > > *And one
> > > > > > doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of
> > > > > > civilian
> > > > > > remedies is mistaken.
> >
> > > > > > How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?
> >
> > > > > So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?
> >
> > > > Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.
> >
> > > * The media seems to have moved their negative light from
> > > Iraq to Afghanistan. * But reality is the Taliban are routed
> > > wherever they are opposed.
> > > Now if all our nato "allies" would join the fight, more
> > > rapid progress could be made.
> >
> > Ah, it's the media's fault.
>
> For your negative perception.

My negative perception was formed from non-traditional media.

> > And after five years, rapid progress is no
> > longer an option.
>
> Obama's plan to invade Pakistan may speed things up
> a bit.

Still harping on that? He doesn't have one.

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 10th 08, 11:32 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jul 10, 2:21*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Jul 10, 4:34*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
> > > > > > > > > > > After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
> > > > > > > > > > > *we'll send Joe.
> > > > > > > > > > > Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal
> > > > > > > > > > > combatants is
> > > > > > > > > > > nuts.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some
> > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > back.
> >
> > > > > > > > > *I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
> > > > > > > > > It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
> > > > > > > > > You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
> > > > > > > > > peril, not mine.
> >
> > > > > > > > I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.
> >
> > > > > > > No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.
> >
> > > > > > An opportunity to take the high ground.
> >
> > > > > * George is missing an opportunity?
> > > > > *Who knew?
> >
> > > > Is it better to play stupid or be stupid?
> >
> > > *I don't think you will pass on either opportunity.
> >
> > IKYABWAI.
>
> Is it better to be known or leave doubt?

Mild props for a possible allusion, but you're chasing your tail again.

> > > > > > > > *And one
> > > > > > > > doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of
> > > > > > > > civilian
> > > > > > > > remedies is mistaken.
> >
> > > > > > > > How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?
> >
> > > > > > > So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?
> >
> > > > > > Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.
> >
> > > > > * The media seems to have moved their negative light from
> > > > > Iraq to Afghanistan. * But reality is the Taliban are routed
> > > > > wherever they are opposed.
> > > > > Now if all our nato "allies" would join the fight, more
> > > > > rapid progress could be made.
> >
> > > > Ah, it's the media's fault.
> >
> > > *For your negative perception.
> >
> > My negative perception was formed from non-traditional media.
> >
> > > > *And after five years, rapid progress is no
> > > > longer an option.
> >
> > > * Obama's plan to invade Pakistan may speed things up
> > > a bit.
> >
> > Still harping on that? He doesn't have one.
>
> He doesn't have a plan? How can that be?
>
> Obama without a plan is just Bush III.

No plan to invade Pakistan. Since you clearly don't like being talked
down to, why do you invite it?

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 10th 08, 11:35 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jul 10, 5:45*am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > Remember, unlike
> > US-born citizens, I have actually sworn an oath to
> > "support and defend the Constitution...against all
> > enemies, foreign and domestic."
>
> How that got turned into granting constitutional rights to
> all enemies, foreign and domestic,
> is something only your limited intellect can fathom.

That's what makes the US so special: rights for everyone.

> > There is no
> > exception mentioned in that oath relieving me of
> > that obligation in times of criminal terrorist activity.
>
> Anyone who wants to attack us without incurring
> the wrath of our military can do so simply by not
> wearing a uniform.
> Brilliant!

Who says that?

Stephen

Jenn[_2_]

July 10th 08, 11:53 PM

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 2:21*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Jul 10, 4:34*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
> > >
> > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ,
> > >
> > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > .c
> > > > > > > > > om>,
> > >
> > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
> > > > > > > > > > > > After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn
> > > > > > > > > > > > him
> > > > > > > > > > > > *we'll send Joe.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal
> > > > > > > > > > > > combatants is
> > > > > > > > > > > > nuts.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some
> > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > back.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > *I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
> > > > > > > > > > It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
> > > > > > > > > > You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
> > > > > > > > > > peril, not mine.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.
> > >
> > > > > > > > No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.
> > >
> > > > > > > An opportunity to take the high ground.
> > >
> > > > > > * George is missing an opportunity?
> > > > > > *Who knew?
> > >
> > > > > Is it better to play stupid or be stupid?
> > >
> > > > *I don't think you will pass on either opportunity.
> > >
> > > IKYABWAI.
> >
> > Is it better to be known or leave doubt?
>
> Mild props for a possible allusion, but you're chasing your tail again.
>
> > > > > > > > > *And one
> > > > > > > > > doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of
> > > > > > > > > civilian
> > > > > > > > > remedies is mistaken.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?
> > >
> > > > > > > > So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?
> > >
> > > > > > > Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.
> > >
> > > > > > * The media seems to have moved their negative light from
> > > > > > Iraq to Afghanistan. * But reality is the Taliban are routed
> > > > > > wherever they are opposed.
> > > > > > Now if all our nato "allies" would join the fight, more
> > > > > > rapid progress could be made.
> > >
> > > > > Ah, it's the media's fault.
> > >
> > > > *For your negative perception.
> > >
> > > My negative perception was formed from non-traditional media.
> > >
> > > > > *And after five years, rapid progress is no
> > > > > longer an option.
> > >
> > > > * Obama's plan to invade Pakistan may speed things up
> > > > a bit.
> > >
> > > Still harping on that? He doesn't have one.
> >
> > He doesn't have a plan? How can that be?
> >
> > Obama without a plan is just Bush III.
>
> No plan to invade Pakistan. Since you clearly don't like being talked
> down to, why do you invite it?
>
> Stephen

For the first time, I find myself in July wishing that school would
hurry up and start. The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 10th 08, 11:56 PM

On Jul 10, 6:16 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 10, 5:45 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > Remember, unlike US-born citizens, I have actually
> > sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution...
> > against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
>
> How that got turned into granting constitutional rights to
> all enemies, foreign and domestic, is something only
> your limited intellect can fathom.

Ah, what would a ScottW posting be without the inevitable
insult. :-) Putting that aside, ScottW, you are presupposing
that they are "enemies" in the first place. _That_ is what
gets decided by the courts. I assume, of course, that you
will now say that the lawyers representing the lost souls
in Gitmo are also guilty of treason. And the judges. And
the court reporters. And even the Supreme Court, with
their recent decision. :-)

> > There is no exception mentioned in that oath relieving
> > me of that obligation in times of criminal terrorist activity.
>
> Anyone who wants to attack us without incurring
> the wrath of our military can do so simply by not
> wearing a uniform. Brilliant!

Your sarcasm seems misplaced, ScottW. You may
be impressed by the "wrath of our military" but Osama
bin Laden has not yet been brought to trial. By contrast
those boring functionaries in the Clinton Justice Dept.
and in the UK who have correctly treated terrorist activity
as a criminal matter to be dealt with by the police and
courts have scored much success in putting terrorists
behind bars while observing the Constitutional niceties
you scorn, ScottW.

Oh yes, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to
gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Do you really think you are wiser than Benjamin Franklin,
ScottW?

>>> would you actually defend this country?
> >
> > Of course. Why would you suggest that I would not
> > do so?

No answer from ScottW. Perhaps he missed the question?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 11th 08, 12:20 AM

On Jul 9, 9:04 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> These usenet arguments are boring to me, because they
> always seem to be "out of history."

Study of history is he best guide to dealing with new
situations, Bob, a wisdom that has been sorely absent
in the Bush administration. Fred Kaplan's best-selling
book, for example, goes into some detail on the neocons'
collective ignorance of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz.

> The Bomb...could be lurking anywhere, perhaps in a
> basement in Queens or Brooklyn.

Then it would suicidal of us to vote for an administration
and its policies that have secured the ports, that have not
captured bin Laden, that would rather be politically correct
than pragmatically effective. Again, I recommend Fred
Kaplan's new book on the subject: "Daydream Believers."

> JA: I have your recording. I am simply looking for a chance
> to do it the honor. One doesn't uncork Napoleon for lunch :)

Ha! The Lee Hoiby work ("Last Letter Home") is the hard-core,
serious work, dealing as it does with the tragedy of the Iraq
conflict, Start with "Casey at the Bat" -- delightful stuff, or
Bill Joel's "Lullabye."

BTW, for everyone else, all the tracks on this new Cantus
album can be downloaded at
http://www.cantusonline.org/Store/mp3.html?category=events

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 11th 08, 12:33 AM

Jenn said:

> The average college student debates more logically
> and intelligently than do so many in this group,

You have debates in music class?

Jenn[_2_]

July 11th 08, 02:36 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > The average college student debates more logically
> > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
>
> You have debates in music class?

Yep, and many more outside of class.

Clyde Slick

July 11th 08, 03:32 AM

On 10 Iul, 21:36, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Jenn said:
>
> > > *The average college student debates more logically
> > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
>
> > You have debates in music class?
>
> Yep, and many more outside of class.

His educational experiences, valid as
they are, consisted of formulas and tests.

Isn't music just another form of engineering?

Jenn[_2_]

July 11th 08, 03:34 AM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 10 Iul, 21:36, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn said:
> >
> > > > *The average college student debates more logically
> > > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
> >
> > > You have debates in music class?
> >
> > Yep, and many more outside of class.
>
>
> His educational experiences, valid as
> they are, consisted of formulas and tests.
>
> Isn't music just another form of engineering?

No, not in the whole.

Clyde Slick

July 11th 08, 03:36 AM

On 10 Iul, 22:34, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Iul, 21:36, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > Jenn said:
>
> > > > > *The average college student debates more logically
> > > > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
>
> > > > You have debates in music class?
>
> > > Yep, and many more outside of class.
>
> > His educational experiences, valid as
> > they are, consisted of formulas and tests.
>
> > Isn't music just another form of engineering?
>
> No, not in the whole.-

you don't need to convince me.

Jenn[_2_]

July 11th 08, 03:38 AM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 10 Iul, 22:34, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 10 Iul, 21:36, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Jenn said:
> >
> > > > > > *The average college student debates more logically
> > > > > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
> >
> > > > > You have debates in music class?
> >
> > > > Yep, and many more outside of class.
> >
> > > His educational experiences, valid as
> > > they are, consisted of formulas and tests.
> >
> > > Isn't music just another form of engineering?
> >
> > No, not in the whole.-
>
> you don't need to convince me.

I know; just answering the question ;-)

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 11th 08, 03:41 AM

Jenn said:

> > > The average college student debates more logically
> > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,

> > You have debates in music class?

> Yep, and many more outside of class.

Poor Scottie. Left behind again.

MiNe 109

July 11th 08, 04:27 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jul 10, 3:32*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Jul 10, 2:21*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 10, 4:34*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ps.c
> > > > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > him
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *we'll send Joe.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > combatants is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nuts.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some
> > > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > back.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > *I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
> > > > > > > > > > > It started out in earnest with the throats of
> > > > > > > > > > > stewardesses.
> > > > > > > > > > > You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
> > > > > > > > > > > peril, not mine.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being
> > > > > > > > > > killed.
> >
> > > > > > > > > No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.
> >
> > > > > > > > An opportunity to take the high ground.
> >
> > > > > > > * George is missing an opportunity?
> > > > > > > *Who knew?
> >
> > > > > > Is it better to play stupid or be stupid?
> >
> > > > > *I don't think you will pass on either opportunity.
> >
> > > > IKYABWAI.
> >
> > > Is it better to be known or leave doubt?
> >
> > Mild props for a possible allusion, but you're chasing your tail again.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > *And one
> > > > > > > > > > doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > civilian
> > > > > > > > > > remedies is mistaken.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?
> >
> > > > > > > > > So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in
> > > > > > > > > charge?
> >
> > > > > > > > Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.
> >
> > > > > > > * The media seems to have moved their negative light from
> > > > > > > Iraq to Afghanistan. * But reality is the Taliban are routed
> > > > > > > wherever they are opposed.
> > > > > > > Now if all our nato "allies" would join the fight, more
> > > > > > > rapid progress could be made.
> >
> > > > > > Ah, it's the media's fault.
> >
> > > > > *For your negative perception.
> >
> > > > My negative perception was formed from non-traditional media.
> >
> > > > > > *And after five years, rapid progress is no
> > > > > > longer an option.
> >
> > > > > * Obama's plan to invade Pakistan may speed things up
> > > > > a bit.
> >
> > > > Still harping on that? He doesn't have one.
> >
> > > *He doesn't have a plan? *How can that be?
> >
> > > Obama without a plan is just Bush III.
> >
> > No plan to invade Pakistan.
>
> Really?

Really.

> But he said, "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who
> murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike
> again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value
> terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR200708010123
> 3.html
>
> So given that any actionable intelligence has a rather short shelf
> life, don't you think if he plans to invade when he gets some
> actionable intelligence he should have some sort of plan now?
> Or is he really that ill-prepared to carry out his campaign promises?

Act does not equal invade. Please cease repeating this canard.

> > Since you clearly don't like being talked
> > down to, why do you invite it?
>
> I like to see you fail.

You do seem constantly disappointed.

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 11th 08, 04:29 AM

Clyde Slick

July 11th 08, 05:06 AM

On 10 Iul, 23:31, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> >> In article
> >> >,
> >> *ScottW > wrote:
>
> >> No plan to invade Pakistan. Since you clearly don't like being talked
> >> down to, why do you invite it?
>
> >> Stephen
>
> > For the first time, I find myself in July wishing that school would
> > hurry up and start. *The average college student debates more logically
> > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
>
> Do you teach peanut gallery sniping in junior college?
>
> If Obama plans to act on actionable intelligence, he'd better have some
> form of a plan for action or that intelligence will go cold before he
> can act.
>
> You may now return to your delusional idol worship.
>
> ScottW-
LOL!
you are assuming he knows what future intelligence will be.
If he knows, why wait, he should act right now!

Clyde Slick

July 11th 08, 05:10 AM

On 10 Iul, 23:37, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Jul 10, 6:16 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> On Jul 10, 5:45 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> >> > On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > Remember, unlike US-born citizens, I have actually
> >> > sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution...
> >> > against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
>
> >> How that got turned into granting constitutional rights to
> >> all enemies, foreign and domestic, is something only
> >> your limited intellect can fathom.
>
> > Ah, what would a ScottW posting be without the inevitable
> > insult. :-) Putting that aside, ScottW, you are presupposing
> > that they are "enemies" in the first place. _That_ is what
> > gets decided by the courts.
>
> Lol. *In a war?
> Hello, Jenn...could you provide a Jr. College civics
> student to explain this to Atkinson?
>

In a war, the enemy are those upon whom we declare war.
In the run-up, I had said many times that we should declare
this war. We woldn't be having this problem.
we could hold them until we declared peace.

MiNe 109

July 11th 08, 05:17 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article
> > >,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > > Obama without a plan is just Bush III.
> >> >
> >> > No plan to invade Pakistan.
> >>
> >> Really?
> >
> > Really.
> >
> >> But he said, "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who
> >> murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike
> >> again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value
> >> terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
> >>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR200708010
> >> 123
> >> 3.html
> >>
> >> So given that any actionable intelligence has a rather short shelf
> >> life, don't you think if he plans to invade when he gets some
> >> actionable intelligence he should have some sort of plan now?
> >> Or is he really that ill-prepared to carry out his campaign promises?
> >
> > Act does not equal invade. Please cease repeating this canard.
>
> Not my fault that Obama consistently lacks specificity in his campaign
> pledges.
> So if invasion is out...what does he plan to do? Solicit money for Hillary
> from them?

What a wit. Do you think presidential candidates draw up military
contingency plans just in case they win? Are there no military options
short of invasion?

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 11th 08, 05:30 AM

MiNe 109 said:

> > > The average college student debates more logically
> > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
> >
> > You have debates in music class?
>
> You'd be surprised.

Are they about music or campus politics?

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 11th 08, 05:34 AM

MiNe 109 said:

> > So if invasion is out...what does he plan to do? Solicit money for Hillary
> > from them?
>
> What a wit. Do you think presidential candidates draw up military
> contingency plans just in case they win? Are there no military options
> short of invasion?

Obama is too thoughtful and methodical for Yapper's taste. Scottie is right
beside his spiritual leader Dumbya on how to decide the important stuff.

After the Rapture:

What could possibly be more terrifying than to suddenly realize
God has supernaturally removed his true believers from the
surface of the earth, and for whatever reason, he has found you
unprepared to enter into his Kingdom. The following letters were
written by Christians to help instruct, encourage, and guide you
through what will soon become some very difficult and dark
days. Before you do anything, you first need to fully turn your
life over to Jesus Christ. Because it's very doubtful this web site
will be around for any great length of time, I highly encourage
you to download and save any material you find helpful.

There's more, too:
http://www.raptureready.com/rap75.html

Clyde Slick

July 11th 08, 05:37 AM

On 11 Iul, 00:34, George M. Middius > wrote:

Because it's very doubtful this web site
> * * * * will be around for any great length of time, I

they must be following the pcabx business plan.
Now here is an interesting thought.
has anyone come up with a business plan for
a profitable post rapture enterprise?

Jenn[_2_]

July 11th 08, 05:42 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > The average college student debates more logically
> > > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
> > >
> > > You have debates in music class?
> >
> > You'd be surprised.
>
> Are they about music or campus politics?

Music in class (including societal issues involving music), all sorts of
things outside. Most colleges encourage critical thinking at every
opportunity.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 11th 08, 05:43 AM

Clyde Slick said:

> On 11 Iul, 00:34, George M. Middius > wrote:

> Because

I didn't write that, you pointy-headed dork.

Jenn[_2_]

July 11th 08, 06:11 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Jul 10, 6:16 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> On Jul 10, 5:45 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> >> > On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > Remember, unlike US-born citizens, I have actually
> >> > sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution...
> >> > against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
> >>
> >> How that got turned into granting constitutional rights to
> >> all enemies, foreign and domestic, is something only
> >> your limited intellect can fathom.
> >
> > Ah, what would a ScottW posting be without the inevitable
> > insult. :-) Putting that aside, ScottW, you are presupposing
> > that they are "enemies" in the first place. _That_ is what
> > gets decided by the courts.
>
> Lol. In a war?
> Hello, Jenn...could you provide a Jr. College civics
> student to explain this to Atkinson?

Well Scott, "civics" isn't taught at the college level, but perhaps
someone could point out that this isn't a war, and there is no enemy
army. Further, it might be pointed out that when an army is fighting an
"army" that wears no uniform, it might be a bad idea to pay the locals
to turn people in to the authorities when there are combating local
tribes.

>
> > I assume, of course, that you
> > will now say that the lawyers representing the lost souls
> > in Gitmo are also guilty of treason. And the judges. And
> > the court reporters. And even the Supreme Court, with
> > their recent decision. :-)
> >
> >> > There is no exception mentioned in that oath relieving
> >> > me of that obligation in times of criminal terrorist activity.
> >>
> >> Anyone who wants to attack us without incurring
> >> the wrath of our military can do so simply by not
> >> wearing a uniform. Brilliant!
> >
> > Your sarcasm seems misplaced, ScottW. You may
> > be impressed by the "wrath of our military" but Osama
> > bin Laden has not yet been brought to trial. By contrast
> > those boring functionaries in the Clinton Justice Dept.
> > and in the UK who have correctly treated terrorist activity
> > as a criminal matter to be dealt with by the police and
> > courts have scored much success in putting terrorists
> > behind bars while observing the Constitutional niceties
> > you scorn, ScottW.
>
> I'd like to see someone add up the Al Qaeda killed
> under Bush against the Al Qaeda jailed under Clinton.

Bush's numbers might be even better if he had heeded Clinton's advice
about Al Qaeda and the Taliban during the Presidential transition.

Jenn[_2_]

July 11th 08, 06:14 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > MiNe 109 > wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> >,
> >> ScottW > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> No plan to invade Pakistan. Since you clearly don't like being talked
> >> down to, why do you invite it?
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >
> > For the first time, I find myself in July wishing that school would
> > hurry up and start. The average college student debates more logically
> > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
>
> Do you teach peanut gallery sniping in junior college?

Do you teach debate at the cell phone factory or wherever you work
(honestly, I don't know where you work)?

>
> If Obama plans to act on actionable intelligence, he'd better have some
> form of a plan for action or that intelligence will go cold before he
> can act.

He's supposed to have a plan of action about actionable intelligence
that might happen 6 months from now?

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 11th 08, 07:12 AM

Jenn said:

> > > > > The average college student debates more logically
> > > > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
> > > >
> > > > You have debates in music class?
> > >
> > > You'd be surprised.
> >
> > Are they about music or campus politics?
>
> Music in class (including societal issues involving music), all sorts of
> things outside. Most colleges encourage critical thinking at every
> opportunity.

Supposedly, Scottie attended an institute of higher education. I wonder if he
squealed "treason" every time a teacher questioned conventional thought.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 11th 08, 07:16 AM

Jenn said:

> > If Obama plans to act on actionable intelligence, he'd better have some
> > form of a plan for action or that intelligence will go cold before he
> > can act.
>
> He's supposed to have a plan of action about actionable intelligence
> that might happen 6 months from now?

Of course he is. If not, he's short on specifics and long on empty speeches.

But wait -- if Obama does propose a definite plan of action, Scottie sneers at
it as rash or ill-advised or something (viz. The Idiot's hair-trigger reaction
to the imaginary commitment to invade Pakistan).

Maybe this is a situation where every possible prognostication by Obama, the
Democrat, is ludicrous or foolish. Naturally, that means every possible
proposal by McCain, the Republican, is sagacious and perspicacious. Funny how
that works, isn't it?

Arny Krueger

July 11th 08, 10:55 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> Most colleges
> encourage critical thinking at every opportunity.

Please list the schools you attended, Jenn, and which ones you feel
encouraged you to think critically.

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 11th 08, 12:04 PM

On Jul 10, 11:37 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Jul 10, 6:16 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> On Jul 10, 5:45 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> >> > On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > Remember, unlike US-born citizens, I have actually
> >> > sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution...
> >> > against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
> >>
> >> How that got turned into granting constitutional rights to
> >> all enemies, foreign and domestic, is something only
> >> your limited intellect can fathom.
> >
> > Ah, what would a ScottW posting be without the inevitable
> > insult. :-) Putting that aside, ScottW, you are presupposing
> > that they are "enemies" in the first place. _That_ is what
> > gets decided by the courts.
>
> Lol. In a war?

What war? The Iraq "war" ended in May 2003 with "Mission
Accomplished." The "Global War on Terror"? That's just
electioneering rhetoric. The "War on Nouns"? On the
Constitution?

> Hello, Jenn...could you provide a Jr. College civics
> student to explain this to Atkinson?

Yet the recent Supreme Court decision favored my
point of view, not yours, ScottW. Odd, that.

> >> Anyone who wants to attack us without incurring
> >> the wrath of our military can do so simply by not
> >> wearing a uniform. Brilliant!
> >
> > Your sarcasm seems misplaced, ScottW. You may
> > be impressed by the "wrath of our military" but Osama
> > bin Laden has not yet been brought to trial. By contrast
> > those boring functionaries in the Clinton Justice Dept.
> > and in the UK who have correctly treated terrorist activity
> > as a criminal matter to be dealt with by the police and
> > courts have scored much success in putting terrorists
> > behind bars while observing the Constitutional niceties
> > you scorn, ScottW.
>
> I'd like to see someone add up the Al Qaeda killed
> under Bush against the Al Qaeda jailed under Clinton.
> I think it will be over 1000 to 1 in favor of Bush.

I think the more informative tally is the number of
_Americans_ killed by Al Quaeda or in related events
under the two presidents' watches. Certainly Clinton
kept Americans safer. It's that Constitution thing
again, ScottW: "We the People of the United States,
in Order to...provide for the common defence..."

> Personally, I don't really feel compelled to provide
> lifetime room and board for Al Qaeda.

Again, your reasoning is circular: you call those in
custody "Al Qaeda" but the only evidence for them
being "Al Qaeda" is the fact that they are in custody,
something that the US government now appears to
admit by asking for more time (after 5 years) to
try to prepare cases against the prisoners.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Clyde Slick

July 11th 08, 01:00 PM

On 11 Iul, 00:43, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > On 11 Iul, 00:34, George M. Middius > wrote:
> > *Because
>
> I didn't write that, you pointy-headed dork.

where did i say that you did?

Clyde Slick

July 11th 08, 01:02 PM

On 11 Iul, 00:42, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > > *The average college student debates more logically
> > > > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
>
> > > > You have debates in music class?
>
> > > You'd be surprised.
>
> > Are they about music or campus politics?
>
> Music in class (including societal issues involving music), all sorts of
> things outside. *Most colleges encourage critical thinking at every
> opportunity.

I am glad you said most
think of Liberty U

Clyde Slick

July 11th 08, 01:03 PM

On 11 Iul, 05:55, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Most colleges
> > encourage critical thinking at every opportunity.
>
> Please list the schools you attended, Jenn, and which ones you feel
> encouraged you to think critically.

certainly not Oakland Univ.

Arny Krueger

July 11th 08, 01:53 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> Again, your reasoning is circular: you call those in
> custody "Al Qaeda" but the only evidence for them
> being "Al Qaeda" is the fact that they are in custody,

Classic Atkinsonian *log-ick"

John, these guys were taken into custody as part of a process. The details
of that process include a lot of relevant evidence. Do you know what that
process was?

> something that the US government now appears to
> admit by asking for more time (after 5 years) to
> try to prepare cases against the prisoners.

Compare and contrast the current situation with previous situations where
the U.S. captured enemy combatants.

There is a historical precedent for what was done, but apparently John, you
don't know what it is.

John Atkinson - apparently a prime example of one who does not know
history, and therefore faults others for not repeating it blindly.

The part that interests me is how John's naiveté and misapprehensions about
audio are also reflected in other parts of his life.

MiNe 109

July 11th 08, 02:09 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > The average college student debates more logically
> > > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
> > >
> > > You have debates in music class?
> >
> > You'd be surprised.
>
> Are they about music or campus politics?

Mostly the first, but the second is not unknown.

Stephen

Jenn[_2_]

July 11th 08, 03:28 PM

In article
>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Jul 9, 9:04 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> > These usenet arguments are boring to me, because they
> > always seem to be "out of history."
>
> Study of history is he best guide to dealing with new
> situations, Bob, a wisdom that has been sorely absent
> in the Bush administration. Fred Kaplan's best-selling
> book, for example, goes into some detail on the neocons'
> collective ignorance of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz.
>
> > The Bomb...could be lurking anywhere, perhaps in a
> > basement in Queens or Brooklyn.
>
> Then it would suicidal of us to vote for an administration
> and its policies that have secured the ports, that have not
> captured bin Laden, that would rather be politically correct
> than pragmatically effective. Again, I recommend Fred
> Kaplan's new book on the subject: "Daydream Believers."
>
> > JA: I have your recording. I am simply looking for a chance
> > to do it the honor. One doesn't uncork Napoleon for lunch :)
>
> Ha! The Lee Hoiby work ("Last Letter Home") is the hard-core,
> serious work, dealing as it does with the tragedy of the Iraq
> conflict, Start with "Casey at the Bat" -- delightful stuff, or
> Bill Joel's "Lullabye."
>
> BTW, for everyone else, all the tracks on this new Cantus
> album can be downloaded at
> http://www.cantusonline.org/Store/mp3.html?category=events
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Cool, John. I can't wait to hear the CD. I've done Salvation is
Created in three versions (choral, orchestral, wind band) several times,
and I love the Poulenc.

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 11th 08, 03:58 PM

On Jul 11, 8:53*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>
> > Again, your reasoning is circular: you call those in
> > custody "Al Qaeda" but the only evidence for them
> > being "Al Qaeda" is the fact that they are in custody,
>
> these guys were taken into custody as part of a process. The
> details of that process include a lot of relevant evidence. Do
> you know what that process was?

According to what I have read, Mr. Krueger, the problem with the
Guantanamo prisoners whose cases have now been permitted to
be heard in court is that there is very often _no_ evidence, let alone
incriminating evidence, that justifies them having been imprisoned
for several years. In some cases, orders have actually been issued
for the prisoners to have been released, yet they are still in
Guantanamo. There seems to have been no convincing reason for
them to have been taken into custody in the first place -- they were
rounded up in indiscriminate sweeps, or on the say-so of someone
whom it later transpired was a political enemy or creditor, etc.

As I said, it appears that the only evidence for many of these
prisoners'
guilt is the fact that they are in custody. Which is circular. This is
why
the right to habeas corpus, which, despite ScottW's disdain, goes back
to the Magna Carta, is so important.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 11th 08, 04:08 PM

On Jul 11, 10:28*am, Jenn > wrote:
> *I've done Salvation is Created in three versions (choral, orchestral,
> wind band) several times...

You can hear my recording of Cantus performing "Salvation is
Created" free on the NPR website:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16741721

>and I love the Poulenc.

Isn't it a gem!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 11th 08, 04:32 PM

John Atkinson said:

> As I said, it appears that the only evidence for many of these
> prisoners' guilt is the fact that they are in custody. Which is circular.

As a resident of New York, you should be proud of having more knowledge of the
law than many of the part-time "judges" who wear the robe in district courts.
"If you're not guilty, why do you keep getting arrested?"

> This is why the right to habeas corpus, which, despite ScottW's disdain,
> goes back to the Magna Carta, is so important.

That was before the invention of cell phones, so for Scoottie, it doesn't
count.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 11th 08, 04:33 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> > > On 11 Iul, 00:34, George M. Middius > wrote:
> > > *Because
> >
> > I didn't write that, you pointy-headed dork.
>
> where did i say that you did?

duh!

Arny Krueger

July 11th 08, 04:42 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Jul 11, 8:53 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>>
>>> Again, your reasoning is circular: you call those in
>>> custody "Al Qaeda" but the only evidence for them
>>> being "Al Qaeda" is the fact that they are in custody,
>>
>> these guys were taken into custody as part of a process.
>> The details of that process include a lot of relevant
>> evidence. Do you know what that process was?

> According to what I have read, Mr. Krueger, the problem
> with the Guantanamo prisoners whose cases have now been
> permitted to be heard in court is that there is very often _no_
> evidence, let alone incriminating evidence, that
> justifies them having been imprisoned for several years.

First off John, we know that you read a lot of crap and take it for reliable
knowledge. Look at what you believe about audio!

Secondly, what you just said John, contradicted what you said before. What
you said before is that there is no evidence other than their incarceration.
Now, you've changed your story, and say that there is evidence, but the
evidence is in somebody's opinion, insufficient for a conviction that would
justify the length of their incarceration.

What you don't seem to get John is that the notion of sufficient evidence to
justify the length of incarceration is irrelevant in the case of enemy
combatants. When an army captures an enemy combatant, their incarceration is
not usually based on their offense. In fact being a captured enemy soldier
is not an offense at all. It's one of the personal risks of being a
combatant in a war. You might get captured and spend years in a prison camp.
Normally, enemy combatants are incarcerated until hostilities cease, which
may take 3-5-8 years, or even more. Don't you just hate that? ;-)

As they say, "War Is hell".

This general logical problem that you have fallen into John, puts you in
good company. Your buddy Bill Clinton made the same mistake. Your general
problem is that you don't know the difference between law enforcement among
civilians, and the *slightly different* matter of fighting a war. In fact,
there is a huge difference.

We once had a president named Clinton with the same logical problem. He
apparently thought that we should get judicial approval for whatever we did
with Al Qaeda, because after all war is just like civilian justice back in
Arkansas. I guess he didn't get the idea that being President of the US is
not entirely a logical extension of being a state's attorney or civilian
state's governor.

If John Atkinson was running World War 2, it appears that he would have
immediately processed every captured Nazi soldier, and as part of a laudable
desire for swift justice, immediately tried them for their offenses. As I
pointed out before, many captured combatants have broken no applicable laws,
they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, John Atkinson would
recommend that almost all enemy combatants be immediately set free. We now
have the country of England at war with Germany, with thousands or 100's of
thousand of German soldiers roaming about freely.

Or for plan B, instead of letting the Nazi soldiers roam freely in the UK,
we repatriate them. Bingo, we solved Hitler's problems with a declining
supply of cannon fodder. Instead of fighting with teenagers and old me, we
now have battle-hardened soldiers to fight with, fresh from our own prison
camps where we might have even patched them up and made them again fit for
battle at no cost to the enemy.

Way to go, John Atkinson! ;-)

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 11th 08, 04:48 PM

On Jul 11, 11:42*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
< snip of alcohol- or recreational drug-inspired rambling by Mr.
Krueger >
>
> Way to go, John Atkinson!

Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Found that graph yet?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

July 11th 08, 05:30 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Jul 11, 11:42 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote: <

First off John, we know that you read a lot of crap and take it for reliable
knowledge. Look at what you believe about audio!

Secondly, what you just said John, contradicted what you said before. What
you said before is that there is no evidence other than their incarceration.
Now, you've changed your story, and say that there is evidence, but the
evidence is in somebody's opinion, insufficient for a conviction that would
justify the length of their incarceration.

What you don't seem to get John is that the notion of sufficient evidence to
justify the length of incarceration is irrelevant in the case of enemy
combatants. When an army captures an enemy combatant, their incarceration is
not usually based on their offense. In fact being a captured enemy soldier
is not an offense at all. It's one of the personal risks of being a
combatant in a war. You might get captured and spend years in a prison camp.
Normally, enemy combatants are incarcerated until hostilities cease, which
may take 3-5-8 years, or even more. Don't you just hate that?

As they say, "War Is hell".

This general logical problem that you have fallen into John, puts you in
good company. Your buddy Bill Clinton made the same mistake. Your general
problem is that you don't know the difference between law enforcement among
civilians, and the slightly different matter of fighting a war. In fact,
there is a huge difference.

We once had a president named Clinton with the same logical problem. He
apparently thought that we should get judicial approval for whatever we did
with Al Qaeda, because after all war is just like civilian justice back in
Arkansas. I guess he didn't get the idea that being President of the US is
not entirely a logical extension of being a state's attorney or civilian
state's governor.

If John Atkinson was running World War 2, it appears that he would have
immediately processed every captured Nazi soldier, and as part of a laudable
desire for swift justice, immediately tried them for their offenses. As I
pointed out before, many captured combatants have broken no applicable laws,
they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, John Atkinson would
recommend that almost all enemy combatants be immediately set free. We now
have the country of England at war with Germany, with thousands or 100's of
thousand of German soldiers roaming about freely.

Or for plan B, instead of letting the Nazi soldiers roam freely in the UK,
we repatriate them. Bingo, we solved Hitler's problems with a declining
supply of cannon fodder. Instead of fighting with teenagers and old me, we
now have battle-hardened soldiers to fight with, fresh from our own prison
camps where we might have even patched them up and made them again fit for
battle at no cost to the enemy.

>> Way to go, John Atkinson!

> Thank you, Mr. Krueger.

Have a nice day!

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 11th 08, 05:39 PM

On Jul 11, 12:30*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> > On Jul 11, 11:42 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote: <
>>> < snip of alcohol- or recreational drug-inspired rambling by Mr.
>>> Krueger >
>>>
>>> Way to go, John Atkinson!
> >
> > Thank you, Mr. Krueger.
>
> Have a nice day!

You have a nice day too, Mr. Krueger.

>> Found that graph yet?
>
> begin 666 wink.gif
> M1TE&.#EA#P`/`+,``````+^_O___````````````````````````````````
> M`````````````````````"'Y! $```$`+ `````/``\```0T,$@):ITX5,'Y
> MQ4 >PI;C9:YZYGOQK?C12<R8C%7P;7^60TEA0F`@`[`
> end

Oh dear. Every time I ask that question, Mr.
Krueger's browser goes into melt-down mode.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

July 11th 08, 05:41 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> On Jul 11, 11:42 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote: <
>>>> < snip of alcohol- or recreational drug-inspired
>>>> rambling by Mr. Krueger >
>>>>
>>>> Way to go, John Atkinson!
>>>
>>> Thank you, Mr. Krueger.
>>
>> Have a nice day!

> You have a nice day too, Mr. Krueger.

>>> Found that graph yet?

Well John, when you want me to look at something on the web, post the URL.

You do know how to post URLs, right? ;-)

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 11th 08, 06:00 PM

The Krooborg backs away from the truth.

> >>> Found that graph yet?

> Well John, when you want me to look at something on the web, post the URL.

He already did that, Turdy. Did you miss it or did your newsreader "lie" to
you?

MiNe 109

July 11th 08, 07:56 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> If he gets intelligence that is "actionable", it implies they will
> have discovered his location.

If it's "actionable," there's a plan in place. If not, it's not
actionable to begin with.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

July 11th 08, 07:59 PM

On 11 Iul, 13:00, George M. Middius > wrote:
> The Krooborg backs away from the truth.
>
> > >>> Found that graph yet?
> > Well John, when you want me to look at something on the web, post the URL.
>
> He already did that, Turdy. Did you miss it or did your newsreader "lie" to
> you?

Arny's new replacement website will be up a running n a few weeks.
http://tinyurl.com/5o2847

MiNe 109

July 11th 08, 09:23 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jul 11, 11:56*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > If he gets intelligence that is "actionable", it implies they will
> > > have discovered his location.
> >
> > If it's "actionable," there's a plan in place. If not, it's not
> > actionable to begin with.
>
> LoL.....so Obama can't possibly screw up in your opinion
> by making potentially actionable intelligence inactionable
> by lack of preparation.

If there's no plan in place on inauguration day, it's Bush's fault.

Stephen

> He is the messiah.
>
> ScottW

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 11th 08, 09:52 PM

On Jul 11, 12:41*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>
> > On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> >>> Found that graph yet?
> >>
> >> begin 666 wink.gif
> >> M1TE&.#EA#P`/`+,``````+^_O___````````````````````````````````
> >> M`````````````````````"'Y! $```$`+ `````/``\```0T,$@):ITX5,'Y
> >> MQ4 >PI;C9:YZYGOQK?C12<R8C%7P;7^60TEA0F`@`[`
> >> end
> >
> > Oh dear. Every time I ask that question, Mr.
> > Krueger's browser goes into melt-down mode.
>
> Well John, when you want me to look at something on the web,
> post the URL.

I did so, Mr. Krueger, but you couldn't find the site. I then
posted detailed instructions for you, explaining how to find it.
You complained that you still couldn't access the graph, even
though many others -- 80 at last count today -- found it without
any difficulty at all.

:-) (Laughing at you, Mr. Krueger, not with you.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jenn[_2_]

July 12th 08, 12:16 AM

In article
>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Jul 11, 10:28*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > *I've done Salvation is Created in three versions (choral, orchestral,
> > wind band) several times...
>
> You can hear my recording of Cantus performing "Salvation is
> Created" free on the NPR website:
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16741721

Excellent job! Most of the time I like it best like this; pure, simple,
understated. Other times, I like how it's set for the instrumental
groups. The largest distinction being that between the A and the B
sections, there is a timpani roll, then a cymbal crash on the downbeat
of the "B". The whole thing is more romantic in nature. I once had a
group memorize it and we played it surrounding the audience, in the
balcony, etc. Neat moment.

>
> >and I love the Poulenc.
>
> Isn't it a gem!
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Jenn[_2_]

July 12th 08, 01:45 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article
> > >,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 11, 11:56 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > >,
> >> >
> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> > > If he gets intelligence that is "actionable", it implies they will
> >> > > have discovered his location.
> >> >
> >> > If it's "actionable," there's a plan in place. If not, it's not
> >> > actionable to begin with.
> >>
> >> LoL.....so Obama can't possibly screw up in your opinion
> >> by making potentially actionable intelligence inactionable
> >> by lack of preparation.
> >
> > If there's no plan in place on inauguration day, it's Bush's fault.
>
> I don't recall Bush pledging to invade Pakistan
>
> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11 was primarily
> Clintons
> fault.
>
> ScottW

Man, that one gave me whiplash...

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 12th 08, 01:57 AM

On Jul 11, 8:45 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
> > Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11
> > was primarily Clintons fault.
>
> Man, that one gave me whiplash...

I was beginning to believe that ScottW didn't have a
sense of humor. :-)

After all, I really don't think that Bush 43 was
inaugurated as late as September 11.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 12th 08, 02:05 AM

On Jul 11, 7:16 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> John Atkinson > wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 10:28 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > I've done Salvation is Created in three versions (choral, orchestral,
> > > wind band) several times...
>
> > You can hear my recording of Cantus performing "Salvation is
> > Created" free on the NPR website:
> >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16741721
>
> Excellent job! Most of the time I like it best like this; pure, simple,
> understated.

Glad you liked it, Jenn. This was actually our second
attempt at recording the piece. We did 4 years ago,
but the performance didn't gel, so we left it in the can.
This time, it all worked out.

> Other times, I like how it's set for the instrumental
> groups. The largest distinction being that between
> the A and the B sections, there is a timpani roll, then
> a cymbal crash on the downbeat of the "B". The
> whole thing is more romantic in nature.

Doesn't it run the danger of being too melodramatic?
As I get older, I am increasingly drawn to understatement.
When I was in my 20s, I loved Berlioz overtures. Now
I found them overblown and unsubtle, despite the
tunes.

> I once had a group memorize it and we played it surrounding
> the audience, in the balcony, etc. Neat moment.

Shades of Palestrina, Gabrieli -- and Stockhausen! I
heard the latter's Gruppen in London in the round in
the 1970s. Extraordinary spatial effects.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

MiNe 109

July 12th 08, 02:29 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article
> > >,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 11, 11:56 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > >,
> >> >
> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> > > If he gets intelligence that is "actionable", it implies they will
> >> > > have discovered his location.
> >> >
> >> > If it's "actionable," there's a plan in place. If not, it's not
> >> > actionable to begin with.
> >>
> >> LoL.....so Obama can't possibly screw up in your opinion
> >> by making potentially actionable intelligence inactionable
> >> by lack of preparation.
> >
> > If there's no plan in place on inauguration day, it's Bush's fault.
>
> I don't recall Bush pledging to invade Pakistan

Neither has Obama.

> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11 was primarily
> Clintons
> fault.

Sorry, wrong again: Richard Clarke, "hair on fire" "Bin Laden determined
to strike in US" etc.

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 12th 08, 02:34 AM

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> Man, that one gave me whiplash...

I have a theory about Cognitive-dissonance Boy:

Kryten, on learning that he is to be replaced by a more advanced model,
tells Lister that he is resigned to his fate as he knows he will receive
his reward in Silicon Heaven. Lister's attempts to convince Kryten that
Silicon Heaven doesn't really exist meet with no success; although
Kryten later tells his replacement, Hudsen 10, that there is no Silicon
Heaven, causing Hudsen to break down when he attempts to cope with the
idea, he admits to Lister that he only said it to confuse Hudsen, and
that his own faith is still strong:

Kryten: "He's an android. His brain could not handle the concept of
there being no silicon heaven."
Lister: "So how come yours can?"
Kryten: "Because I knew something he didn't."
Lister: "What?"
Kryten: "I knew that I was lying. Seriously, sir. 'No silicon
heaven'? Where would all of the calculators go?"

--

Or Scott's just trolling.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

July 12th 08, 02:44 AM

On 11 Iul, 20:22, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11 was primarily Clintons
> fault.
>
> ScottW-

He was manning the security gate at Logan?

Arny Krueger

July 12th 08, 02:46 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Jul 11, 12:41 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>>
>>> On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> Found that graph yet?
>>>>
>>>> begin 666 wink.gif
>>>> M1TE&.#EA#P`/`+,``````+^_O___````````````````````````````````
>>>> M`````````````````````"'Y! $```$`+
>>>> `````/``\```0T,$@):ITX5,'Y MQ4
>>>> >PI;C9:YZYGOQK?C12<R8C%7P;7^60TEA0F`@`[`
>>>> end
>>>
>>> Oh dear. Every time I ask that question, Mr.
>>> Krueger's browser goes into melt-down mode.
>>
>> Well John, when you want me to look at something on the
>> web, post the URL.
>
> I did so, Mr. Krueger, but you couldn't find the site.

Never saw the link.

> I then posted detailed instructions for you, explaining how
> to find it.

Not in the mood for a fishing expedition.

> You complained that you still couldn't access
> the graph, even though many others -- 80 at last count
> today -- found it without any difficulty at all.

Good for them.

> :-) (Laughing at you, Mr. Krueger, not with you.)

John, you've got me confused with someone who cares about you and your RAO
cheering section. :-(

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 12th 08, 03:43 PM

On Jul 11, 9:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> > On Jul 11, 12:41 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> >>>>> Found that graph yet?
> >>>>
> >>>> begin 666 wink.gif
> >>>> M1TE&.#EA#P`/`+,``````+^_O___````````````````````````````````
> >>>> M`````````````````````"'Y! $```$`+
> >>>> `````/``\```0T,$@):ITX5,'Y MQ4
> >>>> >PI;C9:YZYGOQK?C12<R8C%7P;7^60TEA0F`@`[`
> >>>> end
> >>>
> >>> Oh dear. Every time I ask that question, Mr.
> >>> Krueger's browser goes into melt-down mode.
> >>
> >> Well John, when you want me to look at something
> >> on the web, post the URL.
> >
> > I did so, Mr. Krueger, but you couldn't find the site.
>
> Never saw the link.

I promised that I would post the URL on r.a.o, Mr.
Krueger, in response to your demand. I did so. Do
you really expect me to believe that you then
changed your mind, that you _lost_ interest in a
subject that _you_ raised on r.a.o. in the first place?

> > I then posted detailed instructions for you,
> > explaining how to find it.
>
> Not in the mood for a fishing expedition.

It wasn't a "fishing expedition," Mr. Krueger.
You complained about not being to find the URL,
meaning that you must have been interested.
You then complained that I can't have posted
the graph in which you were interested, so I
gave you exact instructions on how to access
it: go to www.stereophile.com; click on the
<galleries> link at the top of the page; scroll down.
Others on this newsgroup had no problem viewing
the graph from this information, yet you _still_
couldn't find it, Mr. Krueger.

> > You complained that you still couldn't access the
> > graph, even though many others -- 80 at last count
> > today -- found it without any difficulty at all.
>
> Good for them.

Well, they appear, unlike you Mr. Krueger, to be able
to use a Web browser.

> John, you've got me confused with someone who cares
> about you and your RAO cheering section. :-(

But it was in response to your demand that I posted
the graph in question in the first place, Mr. Krueger.
If I got you confused "with someone who cares,"
why did you demand to see the graph?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Clyde Slick

July 12th 08, 04:49 PM

On 12 Iul, 10:43, John Atkinson > wrote:

> If I got you confused "with someone who cares,"
> why did you demand to see the graph?
>

Au contraire
You got Arny confused with someone who thinks.

Clyde Slick

July 12th 08, 04:55 PM

On 12 Iul, 10:43, John Atkinson > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 9:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> > > On Jul 11, 12:41 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >
> > >>> On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >
> > >>>>> Found that graph yet?
>
> > >>>> begin 666 wink.gif
> > >>>> M1TE&.#EA#P`/`+,``````+^_O___````````````````````````````````
> > >>>> M`````````````````````"'Y! $```$`+
> > >>>> `````/``\```0T,$@):ITX5,'Y MQ4
> > >>>> >PI;C9:YZYGOQK?C12<R8C%7P;7^60TEA0F`@`[`
> > >>>> end
>
> > >>> Oh dear. Every time I ask that question, Mr.
> > >>> Krueger's browser goes into melt-down mode.
>
> > >> Well John, when you want me to look at something
> > >> *on the web, post the URL.
>
> > > I did so, Mr. Krueger, but you couldn't find the site.
>
> > Never saw the link.
>
> I promised that I would post the URL on r.a.o, Mr.
> Krueger, in response to your demand. I did so. Do
> you really expect me to believe that you then
> changed your mind, that you _lost_ *interest in a
> subject that _you_ raised on r.a.o. in the first place?
>
> > > I *then posted detailed instructions for you,
> > > explaining how to find it.
>
> > Not in the mood for a fishing expedition.
>
> It wasn't a "fishing expedition," Mr. Krueger.
> You complained about not being to find the URL,
> meaning that you must have been interested.
> You then complained that I can't have posted
> the graph in which you were interested, so I
> gave you exact instructions on how to access
> it: go towww.stereophile.com;click on the
> <galleries> link at the top of the page; scroll down.
> Others on this newsgroup had no problem viewing
> the graph from this information, yet you _still_
> couldn't find it, Mr. Krueger.
>
> > > You complained that you still couldn't access the
> > > graph, even though many others -- 80 at last count
> > > today -- found it without any difficulty at all.
>
> > Good for them.
>
> Well, they appear, unlike you Mr. Krueger, to be able
> to use a Web browser.
>
> > John, you've got me confused with someone who cares
> > about you and your RAO cheering section. :-(
>
> But it was in response to your demand that I posted
> the graph in question in the first place, Mr. Krueger.
> If I got you confused "with someone who cares,"
> why did you demand to see the graph?
>

I would suggest that you spoon feed the little baby,
but then again, he would just spit snot all over you.

Clyde Slick

July 12th 08, 05:02 PM

On 12 Iul, 11:55, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 12 Iul, 10:43, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 9:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > On Jul 11, 12:41 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > >>> On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > >>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > >>>>> Found that graph yet?
>
> > > >>>> begin 666 wink.gif
> > > >>>> M1TE&.#EA#P`/`+,``````+^_O___````````````````````````````````
> > > >>>> M`````````````````````"'Y! $```$`+
> > > >>>> `````/``\```0T,$@):ITX5,'Y MQ4
> > > >>>> >PI;C9:YZYGOQK?C12<R8C%7P;7^60TEA0F`@`[`
> > > >>>> end
>
> > > >>> Oh dear. Every time I ask that question, Mr.
> > > >>> Krueger's browser goes into melt-down mode.
>
> > > >> Well John, when you want me to look at something
> > > >> *on the web, post the URL.
>
> > > > I did so, Mr. Krueger, but you couldn't find the site.
>
> > > Never saw the link.
>
> > I promised that I would post the URL on r.a.o, Mr.
> > Krueger, in response to your demand. I did so. Do
> > you really expect me to believe that you then
> > changed your mind, that you _lost_ *interest in a
> > subject that _you_ raised on r.a.o. in the first place?
>
> > > > I *then posted detailed instructions for you,
> > > > explaining how to find it.
>
> > > Not in the mood for a fishing expedition.
>
> > It wasn't a "fishing expedition," Mr. Krueger.
> > You complained about not being to find the URL,
> > meaning that you must have been interested.
> > You then complained that I can't have posted
> > the graph in which you were interested, so I
> > gave you exact instructions on how to access
> > it: go towww.stereophile.com;clickon the
> > <galleries> link at the top of the page; scroll down.
> > Others on this newsgroup had no problem viewing
> > the graph from this information, yet you _still_
> > couldn't find it, Mr. Krueger.
>
> > > > You complained that you still couldn't access the
> > > > graph, even though many others -- 80 at last count
> > > > today -- found it without any difficulty at all.
>
> > > Good for them.
>
> > Well, they appear, unlike you Mr. Krueger, to be able
> > to use a Web browser.
>
> > > John, you've got me confused with someone who cares
> > > about you and your RAO cheering section. :-(
>
> > But it was in response to your demand that I posted
> > the graph in question in the first place, Mr. Krueger.
> > If I got you confused "with someone who cares,"
> > why did you demand to see the graph?
>
> I would suggest that you spoon feed the little baby,
> but then again, he would just spit snot all over you.-

Here is arny at web feeding time.
http://www.brilliantbreastfeeding.com/images/messy_baby.jpg

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 12th 08, 05:54 PM

On Jul 12, 11:36 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11
> >> was primarily Clintons fault.
> >
> > Sorry, wrong again: Richard Clarke, "hair on fire" "Bin Laden
> > determined to strike in US" etc.
>
> I don't recall Bush having actionable intelligence. Do you?

The outgoing Administration told the incoming in January that
Al Qaeda would be a major problem. That advice was ignored.
There were warnings throughout the next 8 months that
something was up. culminating in the "Bin Laden determined
to strike in US" memo in August mentioned by Stephen. That
was also ignored. No preventative action was taken, no
stepped-up security at airports, etc. Only on September 10
did the Bush administration decide to consider possible threats,
by which time it was too late.

Ignoring intelligence is not the same thing as there not being
"actionaable intelligence," ScottW. And ask yourself who was
president of the US on the morning of September 11: As Harry
Truman said, "the buck stops here."

> In fact, Atkinsons argues that habeous corpus and search
> and seizure rights are worth the loss of those killed on 9/11.
> Can't say I agree.

As I haven't said that, ScottW, nor anything like that, you have
nothing with which to agree or disagree. Again we see in action
your inability comprehend what others have written.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 12th 08, 07:10 PM

On Jul 12, 1:22 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The outgoing Administration told the incoming in January that
> > Al Qaeda would be a major problem. That advice was ignored.
> > There were warnings throughout the next 8 months that
> > something was up. culminating in the "Bin Laden determined
> > to strike in US" memo in August mentioned by Stephen.
>
> Clinton... Clintons watch...Cintons term...Clinton...
> Clinton...Clinton...Clinton's own comments...

Guess I touched a nerve there, eh, ScottW. :-)
But as I said, Clinton wasn't president on 9/11,
Bush 43 was.

> >> In fact, Atkinsons argues that habeous corpus and search
> >> and seizure rights are worth the loss of those killed on 9/11.
> >> Can't say I agree.
> >
> > As I haven't said that, ScottW, nor anything like that, you have
> > nothing with which to agree or disagree. Again we see in action
> >your inability comprehend what others have written.
>
> You completely lack the ability to comprehend the consequences
> of the positions you take.

The positions I have taken are those clearly described in the
Constitution of the United States, ScottW, which, as you
have pointed out, I swore an oath to defend when I became
a US citizen. As did Bush 43 on his inauguration day.

> you fail to see the consequences of your reckless positions.

"Reckless"? The US Constitution? I respectfully
suggest that you have taken leave of your senses,
ScottW. Unless you really do believe that "9/11 changed
everything," as the neocons declared our of pure
political expediency?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

MiNe 109

July 12th 08, 08:27 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article
> >> > >,
> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Jul 11, 11:56 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> >> >> > In article
> >> >> > >,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> > > If he gets intelligence that is "actionable", it implies they will
> >> >> > > have discovered his location.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If it's "actionable," there's a plan in place. If not, it's not
> >> >> > actionable to begin with.
> >> >>
> >> >> LoL.....so Obama can't possibly screw up in your opinion
> >> >> by making potentially actionable intelligence inactionable
> >> >> by lack of preparation.
> >> >
> >> > If there's no plan in place on inauguration day, it's Bush's fault.
> >>
> >> I don't recall Bush pledging to invade Pakistan
> >
> > Neither has Obama.
> >
> >> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11 was primarily
> >> Clintons
> >> fault.
> >
> > Sorry, wrong again: Richard Clarke, "hair on fire" "Bin Laden determined
> > to strike in US" etc.
>
> I don't recall Bush having actionable intelligence. Do you?

Ask Richard Clarke.

> In fact, Atkinsons argues that habeous corpus and search and seizure
> rights are worth the loss of those killed on 9/11.
> Can't say I agree.

It wasn't a trade. Bush gave it away.

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 12th 08, 08:32 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Jul 12, 1:22 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > The outgoing Administration told the incoming in January that
> >> > Al Qaeda would be a major problem. That advice was ignored.
> >> > There were warnings throughout the next 8 months that
> >> > something was up. culminating in the "Bin Laden determined
> >> > to strike in US" memo in August mentioned by Stephen.
> >>
> >> Clinton... Clintons watch...Cintons term...Clinton...
> >> Clinton...Clinton...Clinton's own comments...
> >
> > Guess I touched a nerve there, eh, ScottW. :-)
>
> No, what you did is touch some facts and then
> delete like a scared child afraid to face the truth.
>
>
> > But as I said, Clinton wasn't president on 9/11,
> > Bush 43 was.
> >
> >> >> In fact, Atkinsons argues that habeous corpus and search
> >> >> and seizure rights are worth the loss of those killed on 9/11.
> >> >> Can't say I agree.
> >> >
> >> > As I haven't said that, ScottW, nor anything like that, you have
> >> > nothing with which to agree or disagree. Again we see in action
> >> >your inability comprehend what others have written.
> >>
> >> You completely lack the ability to comprehend the consequences
> >> of the positions you take.
> >
> > The positions I have taken are those clearly described in the
> > Constitution of the United States, ScottW, which, as you
> > have pointed out, I swore an oath to defend when I became
> > a US citizen. As did Bush 43 on his inauguration day.
>
> Sorry John, but those positions are not clear and most Americans
> don't believe the rights spelled out in the constitution extend to
> our enemies in time of war.

The one against Eurasia or the one against Eastasia?

Stephen

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 12th 08, 08:53 PM

On Jul 12, 3:32 pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > On Jul 12, 1:22 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> You completely lack the ability to comprehend the consequences
> > >> of the positions you take.
> > >
> > > The positions I have taken are those clearly described in the
> > > Constitution of the United States, ScottW, which, as you
> > > have pointed out, I swore an oath to defend when I became
> > > a US citizen. As did Bush 43 on his inauguration day.
> >
> > Sorry John, but those positions are not clear...

Darned if I know how to make what I believe any
clearer to ScottW. Everything I have written makes
it obvious, I thought, that I believe in the US
Constitution and in the rule of law. Neither, I hold,
are to be casually set aside when found inconvenient
by politicians.

> > most Americans don't believe the rights spelled
> > out in the constitution extend to our enemies in
> > time of war.
>
> The one against Eurasia or the one against Eastasia?

"Zing" -- that's the sound of _that_ one going over
ScottW's head :-)

Remember when Tom Nousaine got thoroughly confused
when I wrote that "all amplifiers are created equal but some
sound more equal than others." "Does not compute..." he
spluttered. And, of course, the "most Americans..."
argument suggests ScottW is running out of "debating
trade" bullets. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

MiNe 109

July 12th 08, 09:06 PM

In article
>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Jul 12, 3:32 pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > On Jul 12, 1:22 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >> You completely lack the ability to comprehend the consequences
> > > >> of the positions you take.
> > > >
> > > > The positions I have taken are those clearly described in the
> > > > Constitution of the United States, ScottW, which, as you
> > > > have pointed out, I swore an oath to defend when I became
> > > > a US citizen. As did Bush 43 on his inauguration day.
> > >
> > > Sorry John, but those positions are not clear...
>
> Darned if I know how to make what I believe any
> clearer to ScottW. Everything I have written makes
> it obvious, I thought, that I believe in the US
> Constitution and in the rule of law. Neither, I hold,
> are to be casually set aside when found inconvenient
> by politicians.

Scott's litmus test is whether an act annoys Democrats or not. It's easy
to take him at his word that he's not a conservative because no real
conservative would set aside the Bill of Rights so casually.

> > > most Americans don't believe the rights spelled
> > > out in the constitution extend to our enemies in
> > > time of war.
> >
> > The one against Eurasia or the one against Eastasia?
>
> "Zing" -- that's the sound of _that_ one going over
> ScottW's head :-)
>
> Remember when Tom Nousaine got thoroughly confused
> when I wrote that "all amplifiers are created equal but some
> sound more equal than others." "Does not compute..." he
> spluttered. And, of course, the "most Americans..."
> argument suggests ScottW is running out of "debating
> trade" bullets. :-)

"At least" Arny knows Orwell's real name. :-)

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 12th 08, 09:19 PM

John Atkinson said:

> "Reckless"? The US Constitution? I respectfully
> suggest that you have taken leave of your senses,
> ScottW.

That's two votes for Scottie's insanity. Pretty soon we'll have enough for an
involuntary commitment.

Harry Lavo

July 12th 08, 11:26 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
...
> On Jul 12, 3:32 pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > On Jul 12, 1:22 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> > >> You completely lack the ability to comprehend the consequences
>> > >> of the positions you take.
>> > >
>> > > The positions I have taken are those clearly described in the
>> > > Constitution of the United States, ScottW, which, as you
>> > > have pointed out, I swore an oath to defend when I became
>> > > a US citizen. As did Bush 43 on his inauguration day.
>> >
>> > Sorry John, but those positions are not clear...
>
> Darned if I know how to make what I believe any
> clearer to ScottW. Everything I have written makes
> it obvious, I thought, that I believe in the US
> Constitution and in the rule of law. Neither, I hold,
> are to be casually set aside when found inconvenient
> by politicians.
>
>> > most Americans don't believe the rights spelled
>> > out in the constitution extend to our enemies in
>> > time of war.
>>
>> The one against Eurasia or the one against Eastasia?
>
> "Zing" -- that's the sound of _that_ one going over
> ScottW's head :-)
>
> Remember when Tom Nousaine got thoroughly confused
> when I wrote that "all amplifiers are created equal but some
> sound more equal than others." "Does not compute..." he
> spluttered. And, of course, the "most Americans..."
> argument suggests ScottW is running out of "debating
> trade" bullets. :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

What? You expect literary knowledge from Borgs and Conservatives? C'mon,
John....that's England, not the U.S. of A.

Jenn[_2_]

July 13th 08, 12:25 AM

In article
>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Jul 11, 7:16 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > On Jul 11, 10:28 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > I've done Salvation is Created in three versions (choral, orchestral,
> > > > wind band) several times...
> >
> > > You can hear my recording of Cantus performing "Salvation is
> > > Created" free on the NPR website:
> > >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16741721
> >
> > Excellent job! Most of the time I like it best like this; pure, simple,
> > understated.
>
> Glad you liked it, Jenn. This was actually our second
> attempt at recording the piece. We did 4 years ago,
> but the performance didn't gel, so we left it in the can.
> This time, it all worked out.
>
> > Other times, I like how it's set for the instrumental
> > groups. The largest distinction being that between
> > the A and the B sections, there is a timpani roll, then
> > a cymbal crash on the downbeat of the "B". The
> > whole thing is more romantic in nature.
>
> Doesn't it run the danger of being too melodramatic?

You bet! ;-) It's really a different work that way, but still very
rewarding for audiences and players. I'll try to dig out a recording
and post it.

> As I get older, I am increasingly drawn to understatement.
> When I was in my 20s, I loved Berlioz overtures. Now
> I found them overblown and unsubtle, despite the
> tunes.
>
> > I once had a group memorize it and we played it surrounding
> > the audience, in the balcony, etc. Neat moment.
>
> Shades of Palestrina, Gabrieli --

Yep, but without the polyphony. It WOULD be interesting to hear it in
St. Mark's or similar.

> and Stockhausen! I
> heard the latter's Gruppen in London in the round in
> the 1970s. Extraordinary spatial effects.

Wow, I bet!

>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

MiNe 109

July 13th 08, 12:27 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article
> >> >> > >,
> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Jul 11, 11:56 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> > >,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > If he gets intelligence that is "actionable", it implies they
> >> >> >> > > will
> >> >> >> > > have discovered his location.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If it's "actionable," there's a plan in place. If not, it's not
> >> >> >> > actionable to begin with.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> LoL.....so Obama can't possibly screw up in your opinion
> >> >> >> by making potentially actionable intelligence inactionable
> >> >> >> by lack of preparation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If there's no plan in place on inauguration day, it's Bush's fault.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't recall Bush pledging to invade Pakistan
> >> >
> >> > Neither has Obama.
> >> >
> >> >> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11 was primarily
> >> >> Clintons
> >> >> fault.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, wrong again: Richard Clarke, "hair on fire" "Bin Laden determined
> >> > to strike in US" etc.
> >>
> >> I don't recall Bush having actionable intelligence. Do you?
> >
> > Ask Richard Clarke.
>
> " If, indeed, fighting Al Qaeda was the Clinton administration's top
> priority,
> how was it that Al Qaeda's existence was so little known that Clarke felt he
> could not issue a credible public warning? “What would it say?” he writes, “A
> terrorist group you have never heard of may be planning to do something
> somewhere?”
>
> Asked of his proposals at the commission hearing, "assuming that [they] had
> all
> been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the remotest chance
> that
> it would have prevented 9/11?" Clarke's answer: "No."

Fine. Both Clinton and Bush are vindicated.

> Clarke apparently sees the need for more domestic surveillance in the U.S.,
> advocating doing the Patriot Act one better and creating a domestic
> intelligence
> agency.
>
> He explained, "And that took from February of '93 through the end of May. And
> it
> was done in a way that was reminiscent of a criminal process. At least the
> FBI
> case was. The CIA case was an intelligence case and had different sources of
> information, different standards for what was admissible, and a more lenient
> standard for making a determination. But I think beginning then, I was
> frustrated by that kind of evidentiary process."
>
> That is what Richard Clarke says.

You've covered your ass.

> Tommy Franks, “ I never received a single operational reccomendation,or a
> page
> of actionable intelligence from Richard Clarke.”

Have we moved the goalpost to "actionable intelligence?" There's plenty
of evidence the military was uncooperative and dragged its collective
heels when Clinton wanted to act. Think of the "wag the dog" heat he
took when he did.

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 13th 08, 12:30 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Jul 12, 3:32 pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> > > On Jul 12, 1:22 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>> > >> You completely lack the ability to comprehend the consequences
> >>> > >> of the positions you take.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The positions I have taken are those clearly described in the
> >>> > > Constitution of the United States, ScottW, which, as you
> >>> > > have pointed out, I swore an oath to defend when I became
> >>> > > a US citizen. As did Bush 43 on his inauguration day.
> >>> >
> >>> > Sorry John, but those positions are not clear...
> >>
> >> Darned if I know how to make what I believe any
> >> clearer to ScottW. Everything I have written makes
> >> it obvious, I thought, that I believe in the US
> >> Constitution and in the rule of law. Neither, I hold,
> >> are to be casually set aside when found inconvenient
> >> by politicians.
> >>
> >>> > most Americans don't believe the rights spelled
> >>> > out in the constitution extend to our enemies in
> >>> > time of war.
> >>>
> >>> The one against Eurasia or the one against Eastasia?
> >>
> >> "Zing" -- that's the sound of _that_ one going over
> >> ScottW's head :-)
> >>
> >> Remember when Tom Nousaine got thoroughly confused
> >> when I wrote that "all amplifiers are created equal but some
> >> sound more equal than others." "Does not compute..." he
> >> spluttered. And, of course, the "most Americans..."
> >> argument suggests ScottW is running out of "debating
> >> trade" bullets. :-)
>
> http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/31048/americans_reject_court_ruling_on_gu
> antanamo
>
> Poor John, he just doesn't know the truth.

Or an outlier. Ask if anyone wants KSM released in their city and you'll
get an overwhelming negative. I wish it were needless to say, but that
proposition is complete and total BS no matter how many Americans weigh
in against it.

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 13th 08, 12:59 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> > >,
> >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Jul 11, 11:56 am, MiNe 109 >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > >,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > If he gets intelligence that is "actionable", it implies they
> >> >> >> >> > > will
> >> >> >> >> > > have discovered his location.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > If it's "actionable," there's a plan in place. If not, it's not
> >> >> >> >> > actionable to begin with.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> LoL.....so Obama can't possibly screw up in your opinion
> >> >> >> >> by making potentially actionable intelligence inactionable
> >> >> >> >> by lack of preparation.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If there's no plan in place on inauguration day, it's Bush's
> >> >> >> > fault.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't recall Bush pledging to invade Pakistan
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Neither has Obama.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11 was
> >> >> >> primarily
> >> >> >> Clintons
> >> >> >> fault.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sorry, wrong again: Richard Clarke, "hair on fire" "Bin Laden
> >> >> > determined
> >> >> > to strike in US" etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't recall Bush having actionable intelligence. Do you?
> >> >
> >> > Ask Richard Clarke.
> >>
> >> " If, indeed, fighting Al Qaeda was the Clinton administration's top
> >> priority,
> >> how was it that Al Qaeda's existence was so little known that Clarke felt
> >> he
> >> could not issue a credible public warning? “What would it say?” he writes,
> >> “A
> >> terrorist group you have never heard of may be planning to do something
> >> somewhere?”
> >>
> >> Asked of his proposals at the commission hearing, "assuming that [they]
> >> had
> >> all
> >> been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the remotest chance
> >> that
> >> it would have prevented 9/11?" Clarke's answer: "No."
> >
> > Fine. Both Clinton and Bush are vindicated.
>
> No, Clarke's proposals wouldn't have done anything when the plot was that
> far advanced. Earlier action was required during Clinton's administration.

You're moving the goalposts in hindsight.

> >> Clarke apparently sees the need for more domestic surveillance in the
> >> U.S.,
> >> advocating doing the Patriot Act one better and creating a domestic
> >> intelligence
> >> agency.
> >>
> >> He explained, "And that took from February of '93 through the end of May.
> >> And
> >> it
> >> was done in a way that was reminiscent of a criminal process. At least the
> >> FBI
> >> case was. The CIA case was an intelligence case and had different sources
> >> of
> >> information, different standards for what was admissible, and a more
> >> lenient
> >> standard for making a determination. But I think beginning then, I was
> >> frustrated by that kind of evidentiary process."
> >>
> >> That is what Richard Clarke says.
> >
> > You've covered your ass.
> >
> >> Tommy Franks, “ I never received a single operational reccomendation,or a
> >> page
> >> of actionable intelligence from Richard Clarke.”
> >
> > Have we moved the goalpost to "actionable intelligence?"
>
> Ask Barack.

No, ask Bush.

> > There's plenty
> > of evidence the military was uncooperative and dragged its collective
> > heels when Clinton wanted to act.
>
> The commander who could not command. What a president.
> Where was the buck stopping back then?

Whatever Clinton wanted done was mired in Republican scandal-mongering.

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 13th 08, 01:00 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> >
> >> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> On Jul 12, 3:32 pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> >> >>> In article >,
> >> >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >>> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >...
> >> >>> > > On Jul 12, 1:22 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >>> > >> You completely lack the ability to comprehend the consequences
> >> >>> > >> of the positions you take.
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > The positions I have taken are those clearly described in the
> >> >>> > > Constitution of the United States, ScottW, which, as you
> >> >>> > > have pointed out, I swore an oath to defend when I became
> >> >>> > > a US citizen. As did Bush 43 on his inauguration day.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Sorry John, but those positions are not clear...
> >> >>
> >> >> Darned if I know how to make what I believe any
> >> >> clearer to ScottW. Everything I have written makes
> >> >> it obvious, I thought, that I believe in the US
> >> >> Constitution and in the rule of law. Neither, I hold,
> >> >> are to be casually set aside when found inconvenient
> >> >> by politicians.
> >> >>
> >> >>> > most Americans don't believe the rights spelled
> >> >>> > out in the constitution extend to our enemies in
> >> >>> > time of war.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The one against Eurasia or the one against Eastasia?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Zing" -- that's the sound of _that_ one going over
> >> >> ScottW's head :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Remember when Tom Nousaine got thoroughly confused
> >> >> when I wrote that "all amplifiers are created equal but some
> >> >> sound more equal than others." "Does not compute..." he
> >> >> spluttered. And, of course, the "most Americans..."
> >> >> argument suggests ScottW is running out of "debating
> >> >> trade" bullets. :-)
> >>
> >> http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/31048/americans_reject_court_ruling_on
> >> _gu
> >> antanamo
> >>
> >> Poor John, he just doesn't know the truth.
> >
> > Or an outlier. Ask if anyone wants KSM released in their city and you'll
> > get an overwhelming negative. I wish it were needless to say, but that
> > proposition is complete and total BS no matter how many Americans weigh
> > in against it.
>
> The will of the people is complete and total BS. Who knew?

Still enjoying pretending you can't read, I see.

Stephen

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 13th 08, 01:11 AM

On Jul 12, 7:25 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> John Atkinson > wrote:
> > and Stockhausen! I heard the latter's Gruppen in London
> > in the round in the 1970s. Extraordinary spatial effects.
>
> Wow, I bet!

Best "modern" music concert I ever heard was at the Royal
Albert Hall in the 1980s: a forgettable work by Luciano
Berio, but then Steve Reich's Music for 18 Musicians (wow!)
and Bernstein's Prelude, Fugue and Riffs (double wow!!).

The ultimate "modern" experience was watching Pierre Boulez
conduct Da Lied von der Erde from orchestra seats in the RAH
behind the brass. Triple wow!!!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jenn[_2_]

July 13th 08, 01:25 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> If KSM or other gitmo detainees cannot be convicted, and no country will
> accept
> them,
> what do you propose Osama do with them? It will very likely be
> his decision.
>
> ScottW

Really?

Jenn[_2_]

July 13th 08, 01:30 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> If KSM or other gitmo detainees cannot be convicted, and no country will
> >> accept
> >> them,
> >> what do you propose Osama do with them? It will very likely be
> >> his decision.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > Really?
>
> 47-45 chance. What do you think he should do?
>
> ScottW

He should die. Immediately. Slowly and painfully.

Clyde Slick

July 13th 08, 01:58 AM

On 12 Iul, 19:59, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> > In article >,
> > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> >> > In article >,
> > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > >> >> ...
> > >> >> >> > In article
> > >> >> >> > >,
> > >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >> On Jul 11, 11:56 am, MiNe 109 * >
> > >> >> >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> > In article
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > >,
>
> > >> >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> > > If he gets intelligence that is "actionable", it implies they
> > >> >> >> >> > > will
> > >> >> >> >> > > have discovered his location.
>
> > >> >> >> >> > If it's "actionable," there's a plan in place. If not, it's not
> > >> >> >> >> > actionable to begin with.
>
> > >> >> >> >> *LoL.....so Obama can't possibly screw up in your opinion
> > >> >> >> >> by making potentially actionable intelligence inactionable
> > >> >> >> >> by lack of preparation.
>
> > >> >> >> > If there's no plan in place on inauguration day, it's Bush's
> > >> >> >> > fault.
>
> > >> >> >> I don't recall Bush pledging to invade Pakistan
>
> > >> >> > Neither has Obama.
>
> > >> >> >> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11 was
> > >> >> >> primarily
> > >> >> >> Clintons
> > >> >> >> fault.
>
> > >> >> > Sorry, wrong again: Richard Clarke, "hair on fire" "Bin Laden
> > >> >> > determined
> > >> >> > to strike in US" etc.
>
> > >> >> I don't recall Bush having actionable intelligence. Do you?
>
> > >> > Ask Richard Clarke.
>
> > >> " If, indeed, fighting Al Qaeda was the Clinton administration's top
> > >> priority,
> > >> how was it that Al Qaeda's existence was so little known that Clarke felt
> > >> he
> > >> could not issue a credible public warning? “What would it say?” he writes,
> > >> “A
> > >> terrorist group you have never heard of may be planning to do something
> > >> somewhere?”
>
> > >> Asked of his proposals at the commission hearing, "assuming that [they]
> > >> had
> > >> all
> > >> been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the remotest chance
> > >> that
> > >> it would have prevented 9/11?" Clarke's answer: "No."
>
> > > Fine. Both Clinton and Bush are vindicated.
>
> > No, Clarke's proposals wouldn't have done anything when the plot was that
> > far advanced. *Earlier action was required during Clinton's administration.
>
> You're moving the goalposts in hindsight.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> Clarke apparently sees the need for more domestic surveillance in the
> > >> U.S.,
> > >> advocating doing the Patriot Act one better and creating a domestic
> > >> intelligence
> > >> agency.
>
> > >> He explained, "And that took from February of '93 through the end of May.
> > >> And
> > >> it
> > >> was done in a way that was reminiscent of a criminal process. At least the
> > >> FBI
> > >> case was. The CIA case was an intelligence case and had different sources
> > >> of
> > >> information, different standards for what was admissible, and a more
> > >> lenient
> > >> standard for making a determination. But I think beginning then, I was
> > >> frustrated by that kind of evidentiary process."
>
> > >> That is what Richard Clarke says.
>
> > > You've covered your ass.
>
> > >> Tommy Franks, *“ I never received a single operational reccomendation,or a
> > >> page
> > >> of actionable intelligence from Richard Clarke.”
>
> > > Have we moved the goalpost to "actionable intelligence?"
>
> > *Ask Barack.
>
> No, ask Bush.
>
> > > There's plenty
> > > of evidence the military was uncooperative and dragged its collective
> > > heels when Clinton wanted to act.
>
> > The commander who could not command. *What a president.
> > Where was the buck stopping back then?
>
> Whatever Clinton wanted done was mired in Republican scandal-mongering.
>
>
Whatever Clinton wanted done was mired in Clinton whore-mongering

Clyde Slick

July 13th 08, 02:00 AM

On 12 Iul, 20:27, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> If KSM or other gitmo detainees cannot be convicted, and no country will
> >> accept
> >> them,
> >> what do you propose Osama do with them? *It will very likely be
> >> his decision.
>
> >> ScottW
>
> > Really?
>
> 47-45 chance. *What do you think he should do?
>
> ScottW

what is the other 8% chance ????????

there must be some fairly but low level possible alternative i am not
aware of

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 13th 08, 02:12 AM

On Jul 12, 7:13 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/31048/americans_reject_court_rul...
>
> Poor John, he just doesn't know the truth.

There is no referendum on the Bill of Rights, ScottW.
Here is an essay on the need for the 4th Amendment
that irks you so:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/333

Perhaps you need to read the lyrics to "The Vicar
of Bray." Or read the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 13th 08, 02:20 AM

John Atkinson said:

> Perhaps you need to read the lyrics to "The Vicar
> of Bray." Or read the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller.

Reading distracts Scottie from forming 'opinions'.

Jenn[_2_]

July 13th 08, 02:29 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> If KSM or other gitmo detainees cannot be convicted, and no country will
> >> >> accept
> >> >> them,
> >> >> what do you propose Osama do with them? It will very likely be
> >> >> his decision.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > Really?
> >>
> >> 47-45 chance. What do you think he should do?
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > He should die. Immediately. Slowly and painfully.
>
> JC critical thinking on display again.
>
> ScottW

No, just giving you what you would give to others.

Jenn[_2_]

July 13th 08, 02:46 AM

In article
>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Jul 12, 7:25 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > and Stockhausen! I heard the latter's Gruppen in London
> > > in the round in the 1970s. Extraordinary spatial effects.
> >
> > Wow, I bet!
>
> Best "modern" music concert I ever heard was at the Royal
> Albert Hall in the 1980s: a forgettable work by Luciano
> Berio,

Most are, IMO ;-)

> but then Steve Reich's Music for 18 Musicians (wow!)

Yeah!

> and Bernstein's Prelude, Fugue and Riffs (double wow!!).

Yeah Yeah! I've played it and conducted it. Masterpiece!

>
> The ultimate "modern" experience was watching Pierre Boulez
> conduct Da Lied von der Erde from orchestra seats in the RAH
> behind the brass. Triple wow!!!

Color me jealous!

Short Boulez story: 6 years ago, I went to UCLA on a Saturday to do
what I do about 4 times a year (or more if needed): go to the second
best music library on the west coast to research and study. On the way
out of the library, which is inside the music building, I heard some
very contemporary and SUPER well played music coming from down the hall.
From the window in the door of the rehearsal room, I saw about 15
players from the L.A. Phil, but I couldn't see the conductor, whose back
was to the door, and whose position was too far offset from the small
window to see. During the playing, I stepped inside (quietly and
professionally, of course), smiled to my friend, principal 'bone Ralph
Sauer, and glanced to my left to find myself 8' away from Pierre
Freaking Boulez! I know that I looked startled, because Ralph laughed
at me later. lol I sat down in an open chair off to the side and
watched about a half hour of the most amazing rehearsal I've ever seen.
In the middle of super thick, super dissonant almost random sounding
music, Boulez could hear EVERYTHING; correcting tiny ensemble problems,
microscopic intonation differences, etc. I've never been so musically
impressed in my life.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Jenn[_2_]

July 13th 08, 02:50 AM

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > In article >,
> > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > >> >> ...
> > >> >> > In article >,
> > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > >> >> >> ...
> > >> >> >> > In article
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > >,
> > >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> On Jul 11, 11:56 am, MiNe 109 >
> > >> >> >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> > In article
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > om
> > >> >> >> >> > >,
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> > > If he gets intelligence that is "actionable", it implies
> > >> >> >> >> > > they
> > >> >> >> >> > > will
> > >> >> >> >> > > have discovered his location.
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > If it's "actionable," there's a plan in place. If not, it's
> > >> >> >> >> > not
> > >> >> >> >> > actionable to begin with.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> LoL.....so Obama can't possibly screw up in your opinion
> > >> >> >> >> by making potentially actionable intelligence inactionable
> > >> >> >> >> by lack of preparation.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > If there's no plan in place on inauguration day, it's Bush's
> > >> >> >> > fault.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> I don't recall Bush pledging to invade Pakistan
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Neither has Obama.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11 was
> > >> >> >> primarily
> > >> >> >> Clintons
> > >> >> >> fault.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Sorry, wrong again: Richard Clarke, "hair on fire" "Bin Laden
> > >> >> > determined
> > >> >> > to strike in US" etc.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I don't recall Bush having actionable intelligence. Do you?
> > >> >
> > >> > Ask Richard Clarke.
> > >>
> > >> " If, indeed, fighting Al Qaeda was the Clinton administration's top
> > >> priority,
> > >> how was it that Al Qaeda's existence was so little known that Clarke
> > >> felt
> > >> he
> > >> could not issue a credible public warning? “What would it say?” he
> > >> writes,
> > >> “A
> > >> terrorist group you have never heard of may be planning to do something
> > >> somewhere?”
> > >>
> > >> Asked of his proposals at the commission hearing, "assuming that [they]
> > >> had
> > >> all
> > >> been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the remotest
> > >> chance
> > >> that
> > >> it would have prevented 9/11?" Clarke's answer: "No."
> > >
> > > Fine. Both Clinton and Bush are vindicated.
> >
> > No, Clarke's proposals wouldn't have done anything when the plot was that
> > far advanced. Earlier action was required during Clinton's administration.
>
> You're moving the goalposts in hindsight.
>
> > >> Clarke apparently sees the need for more domestic surveillance in the
> > >> U.S.,
> > >> advocating doing the Patriot Act one better and creating a domestic
> > >> intelligence
> > >> agency.
> > >>
> > >> He explained, "And that took from February of '93 through the end of
> > >> May.
> > >> And
> > >> it
> > >> was done in a way that was reminiscent of a criminal process. At least
> > >> the
> > >> FBI
> > >> case was. The CIA case was an intelligence case and had different
> > >> sources
> > >> of
> > >> information, different standards for what was admissible, and a more
> > >> lenient
> > >> standard for making a determination. But I think beginning then, I was
> > >> frustrated by that kind of evidentiary process."
> > >>
> > >> That is what Richard Clarke says.
> > >
> > > You've covered your ass.
> > >
> > >> Tommy Franks, “ I never received a single operational reccomendation,or
> > >> a
> > >> page
> > >> of actionable intelligence from Richard Clarke.”
> > >
> > > Have we moved the goalpost to "actionable intelligence?"
> >
> > Ask Barack.
>
> No, ask Bush.
>
> > > There's plenty
> > > of evidence the military was uncooperative and dragged its collective
> > > heels when Clinton wanted to act.
> >
> > The commander who could not command. What a president.
> > Where was the buck stopping back then?
>
> Whatever Clinton wanted done was mired in Republican scandal-mongering.
>
> Stephen

You should hear conservative former House member from OK Mickey Edwards
on how stupid it was for Republicans to go after Clinton. He says that
it led to the problems the Party is in today.

Jenn[_2_]

July 13th 08, 02:52 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> .
> >> >> ..
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> If KSM or other gitmo detainees cannot be convicted, and no country
> >> >> >> will
> >> >> >> accept
> >> >> >> them,
> >> >> >> what do you propose Osama do with them? It will very likely be
> >> >> >> his decision.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Really?
> >> >>
> >> >> 47-45 chance. What do you think he should do?
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > He should die. Immediately. Slowly and painfully.
> >>
> >> JC critical thinking on display again.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > No, just giving you what you would give to others.
>
> No, you're just dodging a question you don't care to face.
>
> ScottW

I don't want to face it with you. That is correct.

Clyde Slick

July 13th 08, 03:34 AM

On 12 Iul, 21:23, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jul 12, 7:13 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/31048/americans_reject_court_rul...
>
> > Poor John, he just doesn't know the truth.
>
> :There is no referendum on the Bill of Rights, ScottW.
>
> Doesn't change what I said which you snipped and called
> a debating trade bullet. It was the truth.
>
> In any case, if the gitmo detainees are loosed on the American
> public by some wacko court decisions...yes, there will be
> referendums. Lots of amendment referendums declaring
> the right of habeus corpus is limited to US citizens
> or foreigners legally in US territory.
>

referendums are not part of us law r us constitution.
the california govt is not the us govt.

Clyde Slick

July 13th 08, 03:35 AM

On 12 Iul, 21:50, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> > In article >,
> > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >> >> > In article >,
> > > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >> >> ...
> > > >> >> >> > In article
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > >,
> > > >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> >> On Jul 11, 11:56 am, MiNe 109 >
> > > >> >> >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> > In article
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > om
> > > >> >> >> >> > >,
>
> > > >> >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> > > If he gets intelligence that is "actionable", it implies
> > > >> >> >> >> > > they
> > > >> >> >> >> > > will
> > > >> >> >> >> > > have discovered his location.
>
> > > >> >> >> >> > If it's "actionable," there's a plan in place. If not, it's
> > > >> >> >> >> > not
> > > >> >> >> >> > actionable to begin with.
>
> > > >> >> >> >> LoL.....so Obama can't possibly screw up in your opinion
> > > >> >> >> >> by making potentially actionable intelligence inactionable
> > > >> >> >> >> by lack of preparation.
>
> > > >> >> >> > If there's no plan in place on inauguration day, it's Bush's
> > > >> >> >> > fault.
>
> > > >> >> >> I don't recall Bush pledging to invade Pakistan
>
> > > >> >> > Neither has Obama.
>
> > > >> >> >> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11 was
> > > >> >> >> primarily
> > > >> >> >> Clintons
> > > >> >> >> fault.
>
> > > >> >> > Sorry, wrong again: Richard Clarke, "hair on fire" "Bin Laden
> > > >> >> > determined
> > > >> >> > to strike in US" etc.
>
> > > >> >> I don't recall Bush having actionable intelligence. Do you?
>
> > > >> > Ask Richard Clarke.
>
> > > >> " If, indeed, fighting Al Qaeda was the Clinton administration's top
> > > >> priority,
> > > >> how was it that Al Qaeda's existence was so little known that Clarke
> > > >> felt
> > > >> he
> > > >> could not issue a credible public warning? "What would it say?" he
> > > >> writes,
> > > >> "A
> > > >> terrorist group you have never heard of may be planning to do something
> > > >> somewhere?"
>
> > > >> Asked of his proposals at the commission hearing, "assuming that [they]
> > > >> had
> > > >> all
> > > >> been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the remotest
> > > >> chance
> > > >> that
> > > >> it would have prevented 9/11?" Clarke's answer: "No."
>
> > > > Fine. Both Clinton and Bush are vindicated.
>
> > > No, Clarke's proposals wouldn't have done anything when the plot was that
> > > far advanced. Earlier action was required during Clinton's administration.
>
> > You're moving the goalposts in hindsight.
>
> > > >> Clarke apparently sees the need for more domestic surveillance in the
> > > >> U.S.,
> > > >> advocating doing the Patriot Act one better and creating a domestic
> > > >> intelligence
> > > >> agency.
>
> > > >> He explained, "And that took from February of '93 through the end of
> > > >> May.
> > > >> And
> > > >> it
> > > >> was done in a way that was reminiscent of a criminal process. At least
> > > >> the
> > > >> FBI
> > > >> case was. The CIA case was an intelligence case and had different
> > > >> sources
> > > >> of
> > > >> information, different standards for what was admissible, and a more
> > > >> lenient
> > > >> standard for making a determination. But I think beginning then, I was
> > > >> frustrated by that kind of evidentiary process."
>
> > > >> That is what Richard Clarke says.
>
> > > > You've covered your ass.
>
> > > >> Tommy Franks, " I never received a single operational reccomendation,or
> > > >> a
> > > >> page
> > > >> of actionable intelligence from Richard Clarke."
>
> > > > Have we moved the goalpost to "actionable intelligence?"
>
> > > Ask Barack.
>
> > No, ask Bush.
>
> > > > There's plenty
> > > > of evidence the military was uncooperative and dragged its collective
> > > > heels when Clinton wanted to act.
>
> > > The commander who could not command. What a president.
> > > Where was the buck stopping back then?
>
> > Whatever Clinton wanted done was mired in Republican scandal-mongering.
>
> > Stephen
>
> You should hear conservative former House member from OK Mickey Edwards
> on how stupid it was for Republicans to go after Clinton. He says that
> it led to the problems the Party is in today.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afiºare text în citat -

Clyde Slick

July 13th 08, 03:38 AM

On 12 Iul, 21:50, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > *"ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> > In article >,
> > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >> >> > In article >,
> > > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >> >> ...
> > > >> >> >> > In article
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > >,
> > > >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> >> On Jul 11, 11:56 am, MiNe 109 * >
> > > >> >> >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> > In article
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > om
> > > >> >> >> >> > >,
>
> > > >> >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> > > If he gets intelligence that is "actionable", it implies
> > > >> >> >> >> > > they
> > > >> >> >> >> > > will
> > > >> >> >> >> > > have discovered his location.
>
> > > >> >> >> >> > If it's "actionable," there's a plan in place. If not, it's
> > > >> >> >> >> > not
> > > >> >> >> >> > actionable to begin with.
>
> > > >> >> >> >> *LoL.....so Obama can't possibly screw up in your opinion
> > > >> >> >> >> by making potentially actionable intelligence inactionable
> > > >> >> >> >> by lack of preparation.
>
> > > >> >> >> > If there's no plan in place on inauguration day, it's Bush's
> > > >> >> >> > fault.
>
> > > >> >> >> I don't recall Bush pledging to invade Pakistan
>
> > > >> >> > Neither has Obama.
>
> > > >> >> >> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11 was
> > > >> >> >> primarily
> > > >> >> >> Clintons
> > > >> >> >> fault.
>
> > > >> >> > Sorry, wrong again: Richard Clarke, "hair on fire" "Bin Laden
> > > >> >> > determined
> > > >> >> > to strike in US" etc.
>
> > > >> >> I don't recall Bush having actionable intelligence. Do you?
>
> > > >> > Ask Richard Clarke.
>
> > > >> " If, indeed, fighting Al Qaeda was the Clinton administration's top
> > > >> priority,
> > > >> how was it that Al Qaeda's existence was so little known that Clarke
> > > >> felt
> > > >> he
> > > >> could not issue a credible public warning? “What would it say?” he
> > > >> writes,
> > > >> “A
> > > >> terrorist group you have never heard of may be planning to do something
> > > >> somewhere?”
>
> > > >> Asked of his proposals at the commission hearing, "assuming that [they]
> > > >> had
> > > >> all
> > > >> been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the remotest
> > > >> chance
> > > >> that
> > > >> it would have prevented 9/11?" Clarke's answer: "No."
>
> > > > Fine. Both Clinton and Bush are vindicated.
>
> > > No, Clarke's proposals wouldn't have done anything when the plot was that
> > > far advanced. *Earlier action was required during Clinton's administration.
>
> > You're moving the goalposts in hindsight.
>
> > > >> Clarke apparently sees the need for more domestic surveillance in the
> > > >> U.S.,
> > > >> advocating doing the Patriot Act one better and creating a domestic
> > > >> intelligence
> > > >> agency.
>
> > > >> He explained, "And that took from February of '93 through the end of
> > > >> May.
> > > >> And
> > > >> it
> > > >> was done in a way that was reminiscent of a criminal process. At least
> > > >> the
> > > >> FBI
> > > >> case was. The CIA case was an intelligence case and had different
> > > >> sources
> > > >> of
> > > >> information, different standards for what was admissible, and a more
> > > >> lenient
> > > >> standard for making a determination. But I think beginning then, I was
> > > >> frustrated by that kind of evidentiary process."
>
> > > >> That is what Richard Clarke says.
>
> > > > You've covered your ass.
>
> > > >> Tommy Franks, *“ I never received a single operational reccomendation,or
> > > >> a
> > > >> page
> > > >> of actionable intelligence from Richard Clarke.”
>
> > > > Have we moved the goalpost to "actionable intelligence?"
>
> > > *Ask Barack.
>
> > No, ask Bush.
>
> > > > There's plenty
> > > > of evidence the military was uncooperative and dragged its collective
> > > > heels when Clinton wanted to act.
>
> > > The commander who could not command. *What a president.
> > > Where was the buck stopping back then?
>
> > Whatever Clinton wanted done was mired in Republican scandal-mongering.
>
> > Stephen
>
> You should hear conservative former House member from OK Mickey Edwards
> on how stupid it was for Republicans to go after Clinton. *He says that
> it led to the problems the Party is in today.-

strategically, it had a good deal to do with upping the
partisan wars, and i am not so sure that was a good thing.
but, it would comke about anyway, with the Bush/Gore election.

i was in favor of an impeachment (indictment)
and then dropping it in the Senate.
a just stain without persuing actual removal.
the bas should be higher for conviction than
indictment.

MiNe 109

July 13th 08, 05:12 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> > Still enjoying pretending you can't read, I see.
>
> If KSM or other gitmo detainees cannot be convicted, and no country will
> accept
> them,
> what do you propose Osama do with them? It will very likely be
> his decision.

I guess he can't live in an airport like Tom Hanks.

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 13th 08, 05:16 AM

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> > Whatever Clinton wanted done was mired in Republican scandal-mongering.

> You should hear conservative former House member from OK Mickey Edwards
> on how stupid it was for Republicans to go after Clinton. He says that
> it led to the problems the Party is in today.

I saw him and Douthat on Bill Moyers Journal. I thought Moyers did a
fine job helping them express their views without imposing his own.

Stephen

Jenn[_2_]

July 13th 08, 05:20 AM

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > Whatever Clinton wanted done was mired in Republican scandal-mongering.
>
> > You should hear conservative former House member from OK Mickey Edwards
> > on how stupid it was for Republicans to go after Clinton. He says that
> > it led to the problems the Party is in today.
>
> I saw him and Douthat on Bill Moyers Journal. I thought Moyers did a
> fine job helping them express their views without imposing his own.
>
> Stephen

Yep, I agree.

Arny Krueger

July 13th 08, 12:22 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Jul 11, 9:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> On Jul 11, 12:41 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Found that graph yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> begin 666 wink.gif
>>>>>> M1TE&.#EA#P`/`+,``````+^_O___````````````````````````````````
>>>>>> M`````````````````````"'Y! $```$`+
>>>>>> `````/``\```0T,$@):ITX5,'Y MQ4
>>>>>>> >PI;C9:YZYGOQK?C12<R8C%7P;7^60TEA0F`@`[`
>>>>>>> end
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear. Every time I ask that question, Mr.
>>>>> Krueger's browser goes into melt-down mode.
>>>>
>>>> Well John, when you want me to look at something
>>>> on the web, post the URL.
>>>
>>> I did so, Mr. Krueger, but you couldn't find the site.
>>
>> Never saw the link.

> I promised that I would post the URL on r.a.o, Mr.
> Krueger, in response to your demand. I did so. Do
> you really expect me to believe that you then
> changed your mind, that you _lost_ interest in a
> subject that _you_ raised on r.a.o. in the first place?

>>> I then posted detailed instructions for you,
>>> explaining how to find it.

>> Not in the mood for a fishing expedition.

> It wasn't a "fishing expedition," Mr. Krueger.

Says you.

> You complained about not being to find the URL,
> meaning that you must have been interested.

John quit pretending. If you wanted to, you could easily put the URL in any
of the many posts where you've obfuscated the location of the purported
evidence.

Until you reply to me with the URL in a relevant post, no dice.

Clyde Slick

July 13th 08, 02:45 PM

On 13 Iul, 07:22, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 9:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> >> message
>
> >>> On Jul 11, 12:41 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> >>>> message
>
> >>>>> On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, "Arny Krueger"
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> >>>>>> in message
>
> >>>>>>> Found that graph yet?
>
> >>>>>> begin 666 wink.gif
> >>>>>> M1TE&.#EA#P`/`+,``````+^_O___````````````````````````````````
> >>>>>> M`````````````````````"'Y! $```$`+
> >>>>>> `````/``\```0T,$@):ITX5,'Y MQ4
> >>>>>>> >PI;C9:YZYGOQK?C12<R8C%7P;7^60TEA0F`@`[`
> >>>>>>> end
>
> >>>>> Oh dear. Every time I ask that question, Mr.
> >>>>> Krueger's browser goes into melt-down mode.
>
> >>>> Well John, when you want me to look at something
> >>>> *on the web, post the URL.
>
> >>> I did so, Mr. Krueger, but you couldn't find the site.
>
> >> Never saw the link.
> > I promised that I would post the URL on r.a.o, Mr.
> > Krueger, in response to your demand. I did so. Do
> > you really expect me to believe that you then
> > changed your mind, that you _lost_ *interest in a
> > subject that _you_ raised on r.a.o. in the first place?
> >>> I *then posted detailed instructions for you,
> >>> explaining how to find it.
> >> Not in the mood for a fishing expedition.
> > It wasn't a "fishing expedition," Mr. Krueger.
>
> Says you.
>
> > You complained about not being to find the URL,
> > meaning that you must have been interested.
>
> John quit pretending. If you wanted to, you could easily put the URL in any
> of the many posts where you've obfuscated the location of the purported
> evidence.
>
> Until you reply to me with the URL in a relevant post, no dice.-

http://tinyurl.com/5a4mnz

Clyde Slick

July 13th 08, 02:48 PM

Jenn[_2_]

July 13th 08, 04:04 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> message
>
> > On Jul 11, 9:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> >> message
> >>
> >>> On Jul 11, 12:41 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, "Arny Krueger"
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> >>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Found that graph yet?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> begin 666 wink.gif
> >>>>>> M1TE&.#EA#P`/`+,``````+^_O___````````````````````````````````
> >>>>>> M`````````````````````"'Y! $```$`+
> >>>>>> `````/``\```0T,$@):ITX5,'Y MQ4
> >>>>>>> >PI;C9:YZYGOQK?C12<R8C%7P;7^60TEA0F`@`[`
> >>>>>>> end
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh dear. Every time I ask that question, Mr.
> >>>>> Krueger's browser goes into melt-down mode.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well John, when you want me to look at something
> >>>> on the web, post the URL.
> >>>
> >>> I did so, Mr. Krueger, but you couldn't find the site.
> >>
> >> Never saw the link.
>
> > I promised that I would post the URL on r.a.o, Mr.
> > Krueger, in response to your demand. I did so. Do
> > you really expect me to believe that you then
> > changed your mind, that you _lost_ interest in a
> > subject that _you_ raised on r.a.o. in the first place?
>
> >>> I then posted detailed instructions for you,
> >>> explaining how to find it.
>
> >> Not in the mood for a fishing expedition.
>
> > It wasn't a "fishing expedition," Mr. Krueger.
>
> Says you.
>
> > You complained about not being to find the URL,
> > meaning that you must have been interested.
>
> John quit pretending. If you wanted to, you could easily put the URL in any
> of the many posts where you've obfuscated the location of the purported
> evidence.
>
> Until you reply to me with the URL in a relevant post, no dice.

For crying out loud.... he put it in a post as clear as day. Here it
is AGAIN:
http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/1694

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 13th 08, 04:30 PM

Jenn said to Arnii Krybaby:

> > Until you reply to me with the URL in a relevant post, no dice.
>
> For crying out loud.... he put it in a post as clear as day.

No, Mistress, Arnii will not grow up upon your command. I'm sure you're going
to punish him for disobeying, right? ;-)

Clyde Slick

July 13th 08, 07:35 PM

On 13 Iul, 11:25, "ScottW" > wrote:

> but they will happen.http://www.cusdi.org/ratification_by_referendum.htm
>
>

I see, you want the Courts to make up wierd interpretations
just to support your position.
There is stuff in your link NOT highlighted in yellow
that counters the arguent. And it is solid,
based upon StRiCT interpretation of
the Constitution.
'

what is not clear about the word LEGISLATURE"
that would cause you to interpret it to mean 'referendum'????

Clyde Slick

July 13th 08, 07:36 PM

On 13 Iul, 11:04, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> > message
>
> > > On Jul 11, 9:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
> > >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> > >> message
> >
> > >>> On Jul 11, 12:41 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> > >>>> message
> >
> > >>>>> On Jul 11, 12:30 pm, "Arny Krueger"
> > >>>>> > wrote:
> > >>>>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > >>>>>> in message
> >
> > >>>>>>> Found that graph yet?
>
> > >>>>>> begin 666 wink.gif
> > >>>>>> M1TE&.#EA#P`/`+,``````+^_O___````````````````````````````````
> > >>>>>> M`````````````````````"'Y! $```$`+
> > >>>>>> `````/``\```0T,$@):ITX5,'Y MQ4
> > >>>>>>> >PI;C9:YZYGOQK?C12<R8C%7P;7^60TEA0F`@`[`
> > >>>>>>> end
>
> > >>>>> Oh dear. Every time I ask that question, Mr.
> > >>>>> Krueger's browser goes into melt-down mode.
>
> > >>>> Well John, when you want me to look at something
> > >>>> *on the web, post the URL.
>
> > >>> I did so, Mr. Krueger, but you couldn't find the site.
>
> > >> Never saw the link.
>
> > > I promised that I would post the URL on r.a.o, Mr.
> > > Krueger, in response to your demand. I did so. Do
> > > you really expect me to believe that you then
> > > changed your mind, that you _lost_ *interest in a
> > > subject that _you_ raised on r.a.o. in the first place?
>
> > >>> I *then posted detailed instructions for you,
> > >>> explaining how to find it.
>
> > >> Not in the mood for a fishing expedition.
>
> > > It wasn't a "fishing expedition," Mr. Krueger.
>
> > Says you.
>
> > > You complained about not being to find the URL,
> > > meaning that you must have been interested.
>
> > John quit pretending. If you wanted to, you could easily put the URL in any
> > of the many posts where you've obfuscated the location of the purported
> > evidence.
>
> > Until you reply to me with the URL in a relevant post, no dice.
>
> For crying out loud.... *he put it in a post as clear as day. *Here it
> is AGAIN: *http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/1694- Ascunde citatul -
>

Than k you, thank you thank you
sicne JA didn't want to change Arny's diaper,
I thought I was going to have to do it.
Luckily, you jumped in to do the dirty work.
But that's cool, because now Arny
let himself be shown up by a mere woman!.
but be prepared for his snot,
he will probably accuse you of fondling his weewee while
wrapping him in his new diaper.

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 13th 08, 07:38 PM

On Jul 13, 11:04*am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> > > You complained about not being to find the URL,
> > > meaning that you must have been interested.
>
> > John quit pretending. If you wanted to, you could easily put
> > the URL in any of the many posts where you've obfuscated
> > the location of the purported evidence. Until you reply to me
> > with the URL in a relevant post, no dice.
>
> For crying out loud.... *he put it in a post as clear as day. *Here
> it is AGAIN:
> http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/1694

Darn it, Jenn, didn't you see that Arny ordered _me_
to post the mystery URL? :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jenn[_2_]

July 13th 08, 07:41 PM

In article
>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Jul 13, 11:04*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > You complained about not being to find the URL,
> > > > meaning that you must have been interested.
> >
> > > John quit pretending. If you wanted to, you could easily put
> > > the URL in any of the many posts where you've obfuscated
> > > the location of the purported evidence. Until you reply to me
> > > with the URL in a relevant post, no dice.
> >
> > For crying out loud.... *he put it in a post as clear as day. *Here
> > it is AGAIN:
> > http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/1694
>
> Darn it, Jenn, didn't you see that Arny ordered _me_
> to post the mystery URL? :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

;-) You had already done so.

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 13th 08, 08:29 PM

On Jul 12, 1:22*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Jul 12, 11:36 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> Anyway, nice of you to agree that failure to prevent 9/11
> >> >> was primarily Clintons fault.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, wrong again: Richard Clarke, "hair on fire" "Bin Laden
> >> > determined to strike in US" etc.
> >>
> >> I don't recall Bush having actionable intelligence. Do you?
> >
> > The outgoing Administration told the incoming in January that
> > Al Qaeda would be a major problem. That advice was ignored.
> > There were warnings throughout the next 8 months that
> > something was up. culminating in the "Bin Laden determined
> > to strike in US" memo in August mentioned by Stephen. That
> > was also ignored. No preventative action was taken, no
> > stepped-up security at airports, etc. Only on September 10
> > did the Bush administration decide to consider possible threats,
> > by which time it was too late.
>
> Exactly what actionable intelligence was there?

From a new book, "The Dark Side", by Jane Mayer of The
New Yorker. profiled by Frank Rich in today's New York
Times: "In her telling, a major incentive for Mr. Cheney's
descent into the dark side was to cover up for the Bush
White House's failure to heed the Qaeda threat in 2001.
Jack Cloonan, a special agent for the F.B.I.'s Osama bin
Laden unit until 2002, told Ms. Mayer that Sept. 11 was 'all
preventable.' By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.'s
inspector general, '50 or 60 individuals' in the agency knew
that two Al Qaeda suspects - soon to be hijackers - were in
America. But there was no urgency at the top. Thomas Pickard,
the acting F.B.I. director that summer, told Ms. Mayer that when
he expressed his fears about the Qaeda threat to Mr. Ashcroft,
the attorney general snapped, 'I don't want to hear about that
anymore!' "

Seems clear enough. The FBI, the CIA, were both concerned
in early 2001 that Al Qaeda was planning some sort of attack.
But the Administration wasn't interested, ScottW. Or do you
think AG John Ashcroft meant something other than
incompetent indifference by "I don't want to hear about that
anymore!"?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

smrstrauss

July 13th 08, 08:45 PM

On Jul 12, 3:01 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Jul 12, 1:22 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ....
> >> > The outgoing Administration told the incoming in January that
> >> > Al Qaeda would be a major problem. That advice was ignored.
> >> > There were warnings throughout the next 8 months that
> >> > something was up. culminating in the "Bin Laden determined
> >> > to strike in US" memo in August mentioned by Stephen.
>
> >> Clinton... Clintons watch...Cintons term...Clinton...
> >> Clinton...Clinton...Clinton's own comments...
>
> > Guess I touched a nerve there, eh, ScottW. :-)
>
> No, what you did is touch some facts and then
> delete like a scared child afraid to face the truth.
>
>
>
> > But as I said, Clinton wasn't president on 9/11,
> > Bush 43 was.
>
> >> >> In fact, Atkinsons argues that habeous corpus and search
> >> >> and seizure rights are worth the loss of those killed on 9/11.
> >> >> Can't say I agree.
>
> >> > As I haven't said that, ScottW, nor anything like that, you have
> >> > nothing with which to agree or disagree. Again we see in action
> >> >your inability comprehend what others have written.
>
> >> You completely lack the ability to comprehend the consequences
> >> of the positions you take.
>
> > The positions I have taken are those clearly described in the
> > Constitution of the United States, ScottW, which, as you
> > have pointed out, I swore an oath to defend when I became
> > a US citizen. As did Bush 43 on his inauguration day.
>
> Sorry John, but those positions are not clear and most Americans
> don't believe the rights spelled out in the constitution extend to
> our enemies in time of war.
>
> ScottW

Re: most Americans don't believe the rights spelled out in the
constitution extend to
our enemies in time of war.

There is a semantic problem with the concept of “giving people their
rights.” Who wants to give terrorists, or even accused terrorists,
anything? In fact, the concept of rights of accused persons is simply
a way of finding out if they were arrested correctly (that they really
are criminals) or if they were arrested incorrectly. I think most
Americans would not want to “give accused terrorists” rights. BUT I
think that most Americans would want to find out whether the accused
terrorists are really terrorists or if there has been an error on the
part of the US government.

Few of us believe that any agency of the US government is always
right. And few believe that our president, any president, Bush,
McCain, Obama (even Washington or Lincoln) should have the right to
order any non-citizen picked up in any place other than the USA and
assert – with no evidence – that he is a terrorist, and hold him for
military commission trials. Habeas Corpus merely sets requirements
that there be SOME evidence that the guy really is a criminal.

More broadly, referring to “our enemies in time of war,” you are
confusing real wars with “the War on Terror.” The Supreme Court has
not extended habeas corpus to ordinary enemy POWs in Iraq or
Afghanistan, which would be unworkable if it were tried in any war. In
fact, all the POWs from those wars are still held in either Iraq or
Afghanistan. The only ones taken to Gitmo are those who are considered
more than POWs, so that they can be tortured and tried. In other
words, they are being held to be charged with crimes.

On the other hand, if you really believe that “the War on Terror” is
really a war, then our enemies in it are merely POWs in that war and
have to be treated as POWs. (No torturing, but NO trials either. You
can hold them for the duration of the war. But would you really want
to hold them without trials? After all, it is a real benefit to the
USA to show dramatically that these people are terrorists, criminals.)

If terrorists are criminals, then they can be tried – meaning treated
as the criminals that they are and the extent of their miserable acts
will be shown in a public court. Still, if they are accused
terrorists, not proven terrorists, then they have the right to prove
that they are not really terrorists.

Clyde Slick

July 13th 08, 09:25 PM

On 13 Iul, 14:41, "ScottW" > wrote:

> Do you think an initiative or referendum in a state cannot be put
> to a vote advising how the legislature shall respond to
> a US constitutional amendment.
>

depending on the particular state laws of referendum.
and, as you say, for purposes of advising the legislature

> What if a state choose to have a convention instead?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventions_within_the_states_to_ratify_...
>
> A referendum could force that as well.
>

I supposee, according to any particula states law on referendum.
it could cause a state convention

but a referendum is NOT ratification in and of itself.

Clyde Slick

July 13th 08, 09:49 PM

On 13 Iul, 16:34, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Iul, 14:41, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> Do you think an initiative or referendum in a state cannot be put
> >> to a vote advising how the legislature shall respond to
> >> a US constitutional amendment.
>
> > depending on the particular state laws of referendum.
> > and, as you say, for purposes of advising the legislature
>
> >> What if a state choose to have a convention instead?
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventions_within_the_states_to_ratify_....
>
> >> A referendum could force that as well.
>
> > I supposee, according to any particula states law on referendum.
> > it could cause a state convention
>
> > but a referendum is NOT ratification in and of itself.
>
> I never said it was. *All I said is there will be referendums.
> Probably two or three in Ca. alone.
>

why would they need more than 1?

MiNe 109

July 13th 08, 09:59 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.'s
> :inspector general, '50 or 60 individuals' in the agency knew
> :that two Al Qaeda suspects - soon to be hijackers - were in
> :America.

<snip>

> :Seems clear enough. The FBI, the CIA, were both concerned
> :in early 2001
>
> Didn't you just change the date? How convenient.

Bush hit the reset button and everyone forgot all about it, right?

Stephen

Arny Krueger

July 14th 08, 12:24 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> Seems clear enough. The FBI, the CIA, were both concerned
> in early 2001 that Al Qaeda was planning some sort of
> attack. But the Administration wasn't interested, ScottW.
> Or do you think AG John Ashcroft meant something other
> than incompetent indifference by "I don't want to hear about
> that anymore!"?

The interesting question is whether or not the cllamed even actually
happened, or whether it is just more noise and distortion from blogs,
issue-centric web sites, and posturing fools.

I searched for a legitmate, accredited source for this quote, and found
none.

Maybe John can find one.

Arny Krueger

July 14th 08, 12:28 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/1694

OK, I see it.

What is it supposed to prove or disprove?

smrstrauss

July 14th 08, 04:51 PM

On Jul 13, 4:02*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "smrstrauss" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jul 12, 3:01 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > > On Jul 12, 1:22 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> > The outgoing Administration told the incoming in January that
> > >> > Al Qaeda would be a major problem. That advice was ignored.
> > >> > There were warnings throughout the next 8 months that
> > >> > something was up. culminating in the "Bin Laden determined
> > >> > to strike in US" memo in August mentioned by Stephen.
>
> > >> Clinton... Clintons watch...Cintons term...Clinton...
> > >> Clinton...Clinton...Clinton's own comments...
>
> > > Guess I touched a nerve there, eh, ScottW. :-)
>
> > No, what you did is touch some facts and then
> > delete like a scared child afraid to face the truth.
>
> > > But as I said, Clinton wasn't president on 9/11,
> > > Bush 43 was.
>
> > >> >> In fact, Atkinsons argues that habeous corpus and search
> > >> >> and seizure rights are worth the loss of those killed on 9/11.
> > >> >> Can't say I agree.
>
> > >> > As I haven't said that, ScottW, nor anything like that, you have
> > >> > nothing with which to agree or disagree. Again we see in action
> > >> >your inability comprehend what others have written.
>
> > >> You completely lack the ability to comprehend the consequences
> > >> of the positions you take.
>
> > > The positions I have taken are those clearly described in the
> > > Constitution of the United States, ScottW, which, as you
> > > have pointed out, I swore an oath to defend when I became
> > > a US citizen. As did Bush 43 on his inauguration day.
>
> > *Sorry John, but those positions are not clear and most Americans
> > don't believe the rights spelled out in the constitution extend to
> > our enemies in time of war.
>
> > ScottW
>
> Re: most Americans don't believe the rights spelled out in the
> constitution extend to
> our enemies in time of war.
>
> There is a semantic problem with the concept of “giving people their
> rights.” Who wants to give terrorists, or even accused terrorists,
> anything? In fact, the concept of rights of accused persons is simply
> a way of finding out if they were arrested correctly (that they really
> are criminals) or if they were arrested incorrectly. I think most
> Americans would not want to “give accused terrorists” rights. BUT I
> think that most Americans would want to find out whether the accused
> terrorists are really terrorists or if there has been an error on the
> part of the US government.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> And where do illegal combatants fit into this picked up on
> foreign battlefields?
>
> :Few of us believe that any agency of the US government is always
> :right. And few believe that our president, any president, Bush,
> :McCain, Obama (even *Washington or Lincoln) should have the right to
> :order any non-citizen picked up in any place other than the USA and
> :assert – with no evidence – that he is a terrorist, and hold him for
> :military commission trials. Habeas Corpus merely sets requirements
> :that there be SOME evidence that the guy really is a criminal.
>
> *Which is a huge burden placed on our military conducting
> military operations. In effect, the result makes taking prisoners
> almost impossible.
>
> :More broadly, referring to “our enemies in time of war,” you are
> :confusing real wars with “the War on Terror.” The Supreme Court has
> :not extended habeas corpus to ordinary enemy POWs in Iraq or
> :Afghanistan, which would be unworkable if it were tried in any war. In
> :fact, all the POWs from those wars are still held in either Iraq or
> :Afghanistan. The only ones taken to Gitmo are those who are considered
> :more than POWs,
>
> Yet returning them to POW camps in Iraq or Afghanistan is
> not an option. In many cases the prisoners aren't Iraqi nor Afghani
> and those countries won't accept them.
> So now what?
>
> :On the other hand, if you really believe that “the War on Terror” is
> :really a war, then our enemies in it are merely POWs in that war and
> :have to be treated as POWs.
>
> Between terrorist and POW lies illegal combatants
> which you fail to address.
>
> : (No torturing, but NO trials either. You
> :can hold them for the duration of the war. But would you really want
> :to hold them without trials? After all, it is a real benefit to the
> :USA to show dramatically that these people are terrorists, criminals.)
>
> :If terrorists are criminals, then they can be tried – meaning treated
> :as the criminals that they are and the extent of their miserable acts
> :will be shown in a public court. Still, if they are accused
> :terrorists, not proven terrorists, then they have the right to prove
> :that they are not really terrorists.
>
> *Only a few will be tried. More would be released now except no
> country will have them. *The rest will be released to eventually
> be killed on the field of battle.
> Taking illegal combatants prisoner in this war is no longer viable.
>
> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: And where do illegal combatants fit into this picked up on
foreign battlefields?
The main problem, as I see it, relates to persons picked up in places
OTHER than battlefields. For example, Boumediene was picked up in
Bosnia.

It was the assumption of the Bush Administration that they could
arrest any non-citizen anywhere outside the USA and bring him to
Guantanamo (since they thought that was in effect not the USA), where
he would be subject to military justice. But clearly these people were
not caught fighting against the USA at the moment of their arrest. So
it is difficult to prove that they were combatants, much less “illegal
combatants.” So the logical charge is that they are terrorists, which
is a crime.

Now for the ones who were picked up on foreign battlefields. All of
that group who are charged with being “illegal combatants” are at the
very least combatants, meaning POWs. If you merely treat them as POWs,
then you do NOT have to try them before a commission, and they can be
left in Afghanistan or Iraq. And, if they are merely POWs, they can
even be brought to the USA or Gitmo, since they are not being held for
anything that is illegal. But, if the government asserts that they are
illegal combatants, naturally it has to prove that they are illegal.
And, as I said, the need to prove that someone committed a crime is
only in a semantic sense granting rights to the accused. It is simply
a process set up to determine whether the government was correct or
was making a mistake.

Re: Which is a huge burden placed on our military conducting
military operations. In effect, the result makes taking prisoners
almost impossible.
Yes. I agree with you that if the Supreme Court were addressing the
issue of whether POWs taken in a real war really were POWs, then it
would be a tremendous burden on our military. But this is NOT the
case. None of the folks held at Guantanamo are merely POWs. ALL are
being held for something that is alleged to be illegal.
Re: Yet returning them to POW camps in Iraq or Afghanistan is
not an option. In many cases the prisoners aren't Iraqi nor Afghani
and those countries won't accept them.
So now what?
Sadly, you are mistaken about your own side’s position on the so-
called problem of countries “not accepting” Guantanamo prisoners. For
example, in the case of the Chinese Moslem who was recently ruled to
be NOT a combatant against the USA by the US Court of Appeals (http://
www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/23/gitmo.chinese.muslim/) or (http://
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMGYLFEpaIYdDKnblerG5_TNg-_gD91G19H02),
China (the country where this guy is from) definitely wants him back
so that they can try him, and maybe execute him, and maybe torture him
along the way. But we are reluctant to send him back to China.
In the case of most of the detainees, the Bush administration has
never said that governments would not accept them back if they are
found to be innocent. What they are actually trying to do is to get
the governments to either try the accused themselves, or hold them
without trial. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-L-KX-
wfA4ZYyk22gBXb2cwQubgD91METUG0).
Then, referring specifically to non-Iraqis seized in Iraq and non-
Afghans seized in Afghanistan. In both cases the governments of those
countries consider that the accused are their enemies, and I assume
that they would be delighted to take them back and try them. Or, they
might just treat them as POWs, but that is their business. However, I
doubt that you can actually find an article actually saying that
Afghanistan and Iraq do not want these people back.
Between terrorist and POW lies illegal combatants
which you fail to address.
I have addressed this above. Let me add, that if we believe that
someone is a terrorist, a member of that class of dirty murderers, it
is weak and insipid to call him merely an “illegal combatant.” And, if
he cannot be proven to have been a combatant at all, it is self-
defeating. It would be a stronger charge, and probably easier to prove
(since all you have to do is prove that he was a member of the
organization or aided it) to charge him with being a terrorist. But,
though doing this is easier than “illegal combatant,” you still have
to do it.
Re: Taking illegal combatants prisoner in this war is no longer
viable.
This is not true, as I discussed before. Anyone who is really an
illegal combatant is at the very least a combatant. As a combatant, he
can be held as a POW without any interference from the Supreme Court,
and he can be held for the duration of the wars – Iraq or Afghanistan.
But once you add the combination of a charge of something being
illegal (such as illegal combatant) or terrorist, AND you bring that
guy to some place that is de facto USA territory, then the government
simply has to prove that it has not made a mistake. Unfortunately, it
makes a lot of mistakes, and it is sloppy in its keeping of records,
so some guilty guys may have to go free.

BUT that is not the court’s fault. It’s the stupid (thinking that
Gitmo is not USA territory for the purpose of US law is stupid),
sloppy government’s fault. In the future, we hope they will learn from
their mistakes. If the government had not been shown to have made
mistakes, they would never fix the situation.

smrstrauss

July 14th 08, 05:09 PM

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 14th 08, 07:05 PM

smrstrauss, Esq., said:

> Re: And where do illegal combatants fit into this picked up on
> foreign battlefields?
> The main problem, as I see it, relates to persons picked up in places
> OTHER than battlefields. For example, Boumediene was picked up in
> Bosnia.
[snip]

You're a lawyer, right? I'll have you know that Scottie has proclaimed
himself to be more knowledgeable about military matters than a retired
Army officer, more knowledgeable about publishing than the editor-in-chief
of a national magazine, more knowledgeable about music than two
professional musicians (one of whom is a full-time university professor),
and more knowledgeable about audio design than several people who design
commercially viable audio gear. Do you really think Witless will have any
difficulty asserting he's more knowledgeable about legal matters than a
lawyer is? I certainly don't think so.

smrstrauss

July 14th 08, 08:42 PM

On Jul 14, 2:05 pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> smrstrauss, Esq., said:
>
> > Re: And where do illegal combatants fit into this picked up on
> > foreign battlefields?
> > The main problem, as I see it, relates to persons picked up in places
> > OTHER than battlefields. For example, Boumediene was picked up in
> > Bosnia.
>
> [snip]
>
> You're a lawyer, right? I'll have you know that Scottie has proclaimed
> himself to be more knowledgeable about military matters than a retired
> Army officer, more knowledgeable about publishing than the editor-in-chief
> of a national magazine, more knowledgeable about music than two
> professional musicians (one of whom is a full-time university professor),
> and more knowledgeable about audio design than several people who design
> commercially viable audio gear. Do you really think Witless will have any
> difficulty asserting he's more knowledgeable about legal matters than a
> lawyer is? I certainly don't think so.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm a retired market research analyst.

Clyde Slick

July 14th 08, 10:17 PM

On 14 Iul, 15:42, smrstrauss > wrote:

>
> I'm not a lawyer. I'm a retired market research analyst.-
>

that's useless here because that is
the one area in which Scott is afraid to make claims of superiority.
Though he did suggest an idea that Stereophile should publish
DBT tests that hardly anyone is interested in. The one mag
that tried it went bust, and it was a very unknown minor player.

smrstrauss

July 14th 08, 10:46 PM

On Jul 14, 5:17 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 14 Iul, > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm not a lawyer. I'm a retired market research analyst.-
>
> that's useless here because that is
> the one area in which Scott is afraid to make claims of superiority.
> Though he did suggest an idea that Stereophile should publish
> DBT tests that hardly anyone is interested in. The one mag
> that tried it went bust, and it was a very unknown minor player.

I assume DBT means double blind tests. If so, I'm interested in them
too. I admit that I'm only interested in an academic way. After a
certain age you can't hear the difference. But still, DBT is a more
scientific way of evaluating things.

Clyde Slick

July 14th 08, 11:17 PM

On 14 Iul, 17:46, smrstrauss > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 5:17 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 14 Iul, > wrote:
>
> > > I'm not a lawyer. I'm a retired market research analyst.-
>
> > that's useless here because that is
> > the one area in which Scott is afraid to make claims of superiority.
> > Though he did suggest an idea that Stereophile should publish
> > DBT tests that hardly anyone is interested in. The one mag
> > that tried it went bust, and it was a very unknown minor player.
>
> I assume DBT means double blind tests. If so, I'm interested in them
> too. I admit that I'm only interested in an academic way. After a
> certain age you can't hear the difference. But still, DBT is a more
> scientific way of evaluating things.

but as a retired market research analyst, would
you suggest starting up an audio magazine featuring
such tests?

anyway, as far as the tests are concerned, one of the perceptual flaws
of the whole idea is that DBT's do NOT remove all listener bias.
The bias that things will NOT sound different is not removed by DBT.
Another flaw is that the test forces one to lie (or one could be noce
and say guess)
if the listenener does not hear a difference.
A thrid flaw is in relying on any test where the subject is anyone but
you.
You are a unique individual, your responses and perceptions
may not be the norm.
and the fourth flaw is the uses to which these tests are put,
and the erroneous interpretations of the derived statistics, in
respect to so called necessary confidence levels. We are
talking about personal choice of selecting audio systems.

anyway for the purpose of selecting
equipment for your personal use in listening to recorded music, it is
a matter of taste and perception, and it is not a scientific
exercise.

Clyde Slick

July 15th 08, 12:45 AM

On 14 Iul, 18:36, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 3:17*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Iul, 17:46, smrstrauss > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 5:17 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 14 Iul, > wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm not a lawyer. I'm a retired market research analyst.-
>
> > > > that's useless here because that is
> > > > the one area in which Scott is afraid to make claims of superiority..
> > > > Though he did suggest an idea that Stereophile should publish
> > > > DBT tests that hardly anyone is interested in. The one mag
> > > > that tried it went bust, and it was a very unknown minor player.
>
> > > I assume DBT means double blind tests. If so, I'm interested in them
> > > too. I admit that I'm only interested in an academic way. After a
> > > certain age you can't hear the difference. But still, DBT is a more
> > > scientific way of evaluating things.
>
> > but as a retired market research analyst, would
> > you suggest starting up an audio magazine featuring
> > such tests?
>
> > anyway, as far as the tests are concerned, one of the perceptual flaws
> > of the whole idea is that DBT's do NOT remove all listener bias.
> > The bias that things will NOT sound different is not removed by DBT.
>
> If things sound the same sighted, there is no point for a DBT.
> Unless you really want to have a DBT so bad that proving to a
> person they really hear a difference when they actually can't
> consciously perceive one is your thing....go for it.
>

You are making the same mistake again.
You are totally lacking any comprehension of
what I am saying.
If you do not hear a difference sighted, it may be an expectation
effect.
You need to invent another test, not
DBT's, to eliminate this bias, DBT's DO NOT WORK
in eliminating the expectation effect that you won't hear a
difference.
So, I AM NOT advocating you do a DBT if you don't hear a difference.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 15th 08, 01:00 AM

On Jul 10, 10:28*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> :His educational experiences, valid as
> :they are, consisted of formulas and tests.
>
> *You must have majored in ignorance and
> stereotyping if you have any education at all.

LOL!

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 15th 08, 01:02 AM

On Jul 10, 11:06*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 10 Iul, 23:31, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > > In article >,
> > > MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > >> In article
> > >> >,
> > >> *ScottW > wrote:
>
> > >> No plan to invade Pakistan. Since you clearly don't like being talked
> > >> down to, why do you invite it?
>
> > >> Stephen
>
> > > For the first time, I find myself in July wishing that school would
> > > hurry up and start. *The average college student debates more logically
> > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
>
> > Do you teach peanut gallery sniping in junior college?
>
> > If Obama plans to act on actionable intelligence, he'd better have some
> > form of a plan for action or that intelligence will go cold before he
> > can act.
>
> > You may now return to your delusional idol worship.

> LOL!
> you are assuming he knows what future intelligence will be.
> If he knows, why wait, he should act right now!

Clyde, I know you think calling him "2pid" is childish, but jesus.

Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Clyde Slick

July 15th 08, 01:26 AM

On 14 Iul, 20:02, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 11:06*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Iul, 23:31, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > In article >,
> > > > MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > >> In article
> > > >> >,
> > > >> *ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > >> No plan to invade Pakistan. Since you clearly don't like being talked
> > > >> down to, why do you invite it?
>
> > > >> Stephen
>
> > > > For the first time, I find myself in July wishing that school would
> > > > hurry up and start. *The average college student debates more logically
> > > > and intelligently than do so many in this group,
>
> > > Do you teach peanut gallery sniping in junior college?
>
> > > If Obama plans to act on actionable intelligence, he'd better have some
> > > form of a plan for action or that intelligence will go cold before he
> > > can act.
>
> > > You may now return to your delusional idol worship.
> > LOL!
> > you are assuming he knows what future intelligence will be.
> > If he knows, why wait, he should act right now!
>
> Clyde, I know you think calling him "2pid" is childish, but jesus.
>
> Don't say I didn't tell you so.-

we just finished having it out over another emotion based
demand that suddenly popped out of his mouth a few days ago.

he is not stupid, but he often fails to think things through to
their logical conclusions. He has trouble
visualizing the likely unintended consequences of his proposals.
or, it could be he realizes them a little later but sloughs them off
because he is already publicly boxed in by his proposal, and
he feels he has to fight to defend it.

But I can tell you that I am sure he is not stupid, he is intelligent.
But remember, intelligience has lots of facets, he does well
in areas I probably wouldn't do as well in, but there are other areas
where he might not
be so tuned in. That's no knock on him, its true for all of us.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 15th 08, 02:40 AM

Clyde Slick said:

> But I can tell you that I am sure he is not stupid, he is intelligent.

Of course. He's special.

smrstrauss

July 15th 08, 02:59 AM

On Jul 14, 7:01*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 14, > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 4:02*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > "smrstrauss" > wrote in message
>
> > > *Only a few will be tried. More would be released now except no
> > > country will have them. *The rest will be released to eventually
> > > be killed on the field of battle.
> > > Taking illegal combatants prisoner in this war is no longer viable.
>
> > > ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Re: And where do illegal combatants fit into this picked up on
> > foreign battlefields?
> > The main problem, as I see it, relates to persons picked up in places
> > OTHER than battlefields. For example, Boumediene was picked up in
> > Bosnia.
>
> * In many cases they were not even picked up by the US and
> evidence is lacking. *Many will be released which I reluctantly
> support. * I'm not sure the supreme court ruling clearly
> altered the outcome. *I think a tribunal would have released
> many as well.
>
>
>
> > It was the assumption of the Bush Administration that they could
> > arrest any non-citizen anywhere outside the USA and bring him to
> > Guantanamo (since they thought that was in effect not the USA), where
> > he would be subject to military justice. But clearly these people were
> > not caught fighting against the USA at the moment of their arrest. So
> > it is difficult to prove that they were combatants, much less “illegal
> > combatants.” So the logical charge is that they are terrorists, which
> > is a crime.
>
> > Now for the ones who were picked up on foreign battlefields. All of
> > that group who are charged with being “illegal combatants” are at the
> > very least combatants, meaning POWs. If you merely treat them as POWs,
> > then you do NOT have to try them before a commission, and they can be
> > left in Afghanistan or Iraq.
>
> *The ones who have been brought to gitmo and aren't Afghans or Iraqi
> can't be returned to those countries even though they were picked
> up there. *Where they will go, if not convicted, remains problematic.
>
> > And, if they are merely POWs, they can
> > even be brought to the USA or Gitmo, since they are not being held for
> > anything that is illegal.
>
> I can't find anything that says these combatants, once denied
> POW status, can be returned to POW status.
>
> > *But, if the government asserts that they are
> > illegal combatants, naturally it has to prove that they are illegal.
>
> *No uniform used to be a simple criteria. Sadly I expect the bar has
> been raised.
>
> *I can't find any useful breakdowns of all all the detainees.
> Only estimates that 40-50 will go to trial and the remainder
> released. *If you have more accurate info, I'd like to see it.
>
> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: “In many cases they were not even picked up by the US and evidence
is lacking. Many will be released which I reluctantly support. I'm
not sure the supreme court ruling clearly altered the outcome. I
think a tribunal would have released many as well.”

I think I agree with you on most of what you say above, especially
that evidence is lacking. Except, I think that that maybe Habeas
Corpus will speed up the process. Also, a recent report indicates that
the MCA process is being run pretty stupidly, and – I disagree with
the word “reluctantly.”

You understand, of course, that the Supreme Court has NOT (not yet
anyway) found that the military tribunals process is unconstitutional.
It has merely added habeas corpus in front of the trial process. So,
since it has not ruled on tribunals, in cases when the HC hearings
rule that there is enough evidence for trials, they go back to the MCA
process for the trials. Then, there will naturally be appeals, and if
the Supreme Court wants to knock down the MCA, it would occur then.
But so far it has not done that.

As for my comment about “pretty stupidly” See this article: (http://
www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1337899120080713). I cannot
imagine a civilian criminal court not providing defendants with paper
to write on, or the guards not carrying messages to the judge, or the
necessary papers in the case not being translated for the defendants,
or a judge saying that there was no requirement to provide the
translations, but that he would consider it.

Now, I’m not saying that providing the translations is a fundamental
right that all the alleged terrorists should get. No. Just think of it
as a necessary part of the process of finding out who really are
terrorists and who are not. If the accused cannot read the court
papers, you can never really be sure that in that trial an innocent
person was not convicted simply because he could not read a document.

As to the word “reluctantly.” You focus on the downside of the
government having to prove that a person is either a terrorist or an
illegal combatant. Think of the upside. The habeas corpus process will
reveal where the government has been stupid and inefficient (arresting
the wrong people, failing to get evidence, charging people with the
wrong crime). This process allows the government to learn about its
mistakes, so that it can be better in the future. If they were not
shown to have made mistakes, they would never fix the situation. So,
why not “enthusiastically”?!

Re: The ones who have been brought to gitmo and aren't Afghans or
Iraqi can't be returned to those countries even though they were
picked up there. Where they will go, if not convicted, remains
problematic.

Remember that the problem relates ONLY to the accused who have been
found to be NOT Guilty. The ones who are found guilty, we keep in jail
– so no problem.

AND, no problem for the innocent as well. There have been no reports
that any country has ever said that it will not take back its own
citizens if they are found to be not guilty. And if countries did say
that they would not take back their own citizens, well too bad, the
guy could just be found one day on the main street of the capital
city, and we’d say “so sorry.” This situation has been overblown by
the Bush Administration, which is attempting to get countries to try
their own citizens instead of us doing it. See the case of Yemen
(http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-L-KX-
wfA4ZYyk22gBXb2cwQubgD91METUG0.) But this does not refer to Guantanamo
prisoners who have been found NOT guilty.

Re: I can't find anything that says these combatants, once denied POW
status, can be returned to POW status.

In this you may be right. However, I do believe that the Bush
Administration can (and probably will) try to have persons who have
been shown not to be “unlawful combatants” revert to being ordinary
combatants, meaning POWs. Then it will be up to courts to find whether
this is legal. But, whichever way the courts rule on the issue of
unlawful combatants reverting to lawful combatants, if the combatants
had simply been treated as POWs from the very beginning the problem
would never have existed.

Re: No uniform used to be a simple criteria. Sadly I expect the bar
has been raised.

It’s not so much a question of “raising the bar” -- meaning setting
higher standards -- as a matter of military efficiency. If in a war
EVERYBODY that fights you isn’t wearing a uniform, you can either
decide to treat them all as unlawful, or you can say, “the hell with
it, we will treat them all as POWs.” If you remember, in Vietnam all
the VCs wore the same black pajamas as everyone else in the country,
and – sensibly – we didn’t treat them as “unlawful combatants.” The
same in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, there is a question that should be asked about the decision
to make someone, who COULD be considered a POW into an accused
unlawful combatant. That question is: what good does it do? Is the
penalty for being an unlawful combatant likely to be a prison term
longer than holding him as a POW for the duration of the Afghanistan
or Iraq wars? And, if not longer, why do it?

We are, by the way, trying a Canadian Moslem for killing a US soldier,
and in that case, if the guy is found to be both an unlawful combatant
and having killed the soldier, the penalty could be death. But, that
sentence is very unlikely. (He was a kid at the time.) So more likely
would be a life sentence, and the difference between that and staying
on forever in a POW camp in Afghanistan might not be very much.

Re: I can't find any useful breakdowns of all all the detainees. Only
estimates that 40-50 will go to trial and the remainder released. If
you have more accurate info, I'd like to see it.

I have not seen anything either.

The fact that the military are saying that they will probably release
the bulk of the 280 or so who are currently being held is surely not a
sign that the military is merciful. It is a sign that they do not have
evidence. In turn, not having evidence is not a sign that the legal
requirements of convicting terrorists is too hard for our military to
handle. It is merely a sign that they haven’t done good jobs in the
process of arresting people. When we arrest people in the future, we
should make sure we collect some evidence at the time.

smrstrauss

July 15th 08, 03:18 AM

On Jul 14, 6:17*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 14 Iul, > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 5:17 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 14 Iul, > wrote:
>
> > > > I'm not a lawyer. I'm a retired market research analyst.-
>
> > > that's useless here because that is
> > > the one area in which Scott is afraid to make claims of superiority.
> > > Though he did suggest an idea that Stereophile should publish
> > > DBT tests that hardly anyone is interested in. The one mag
> > > that tried it went bust, and it was a very unknown minor player.
>
> > I assume DBT means double blind tests. If so, I'm interested in them
> > too. I admit that I'm only interested in an academic way. After a
> > certain age you can't hear the difference. But still, DBT is a more
> > scientific way of evaluating things.
>
> but as a retired market research analyst, would
> you suggest starting up an audio magazine featuring
> such tests?
>
> anyway, as far as the tests are concerned, one of the perceptual flaws
> of the whole idea is that DBT's do NOT remove all listener bias.
> The bias that things will NOT sound different is not removed by DBT.
> Another flaw is that the test forces one to lie (or one could be noce
> and say guess)
> *if the listenener does not hear a difference.
> A thrid flaw is in relying on any test where the subject is anyone but
> you.
> You are a unique individual, your responses and perceptions
> may not be the norm.
> and the fourth flaw is the uses to which these tests are put,
> and the erroneous interpretations of the derived statistics, in
> respect to so called necessary confidence levels. We are
> talking about personal choice of selecting audio systems.
>
> anyway for the purpose of selecting
> equipment for your personal use in listening to recorded music, it is
> a matter of taste and perception, and it is not a scientific
> exercise.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was a market research analyst of computer network equipment and
software, so I cannot speculate on audio equipment. However, I know
methods of determining whether a possible article will have big or
small readership BEFORE you commision the article (readership surveys,
of course), and obviously magazines that want to make money should
tend to run articles with big readership and exclude articles with
small readership.

I will not get involved in whether DBTs themselves affect the results
in audio. DBTs are accepted as the gold standard in other types of
research, if I recall.

The one audio DBT that impressed me I recall from many years ago. In
it, the magazine comissioned an examination of whether there was any
audible difference between hearing music through a setup with Monster
cables (great bic, thick, copper wiring) and the exact same thing
using ordinary thin speaker wire. And the result was that the test
showed that people could not distinguish between the two, which I
think makes perfect sense, though the manufacturer of Monster wiring
will naturally object.

There have been somewhat similar tests on people who thought they
could distinguish between extraordinarily expensive wines and good
cheap wines, which show that by far most people cannot distinguish.

You ask would regular DBTs sell magazines? I'd be speculating to
answer that. However, I'd think that once every few years something
powerful like "people cannot distinguish between X and Y," would
increase readership simply because it is controversial and hence makes
people want to read it.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 15th 08, 03:33 AM

smrstrauss said:

> I will not get involved in whether DBTs themselves affect the results
> in audio. DBTs are accepted as the gold standard in other types of
> research, if I recall.

Well, there you go. They're RESEARCH tools. They have no applicability to
consumer choice.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 15th 08, 03:35 AM

smrstrauss said:

> You ask would regular DBTs sell magazines? I'd be speculating to
> answer that. However, I'd think that once every few years something
> powerful like "people cannot distinguish between X and Y," would
> increase readership simply because it is controversial and hence makes
> people want to read it.

Not true. That kind of propaganda makes Normals zone out.

Back in the '60s, when hifi was just starting to go mainstream and the
marketplace began filling with hype, DBTs had a sort of magic bullet
appeal. But we're past all that now.

Clyde Slick

July 15th 08, 05:25 AM

On 14 Iul, 22:18, smrstrauss > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 6:17*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Iul, > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 5:17 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 14 Iul, > wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm not a lawyer. I'm a retired market research analyst.-
>
> > > > that's useless here because that is
> > > > the one area in which Scott is afraid to make claims of superiority..
> > > > Though he did suggest an idea that Stereophile should publish
> > > > DBT tests that hardly anyone is interested in. The one mag
> > > > that tried it went bust, and it was a very unknown minor player.
>
> > > I assume DBT means double blind tests. If so, I'm interested in them
> > > too. I admit that I'm only interested in an academic way. After a
> > > certain age you can't hear the difference. But still, DBT is a more
> > > scientific way of evaluating things.
>
> > but as a retired market research analyst, would
> > you suggest starting up an audio magazine featuring
> > such tests?
>
> > anyway, as far as the tests are concerned, one of the perceptual flaws
> > of the whole idea is that DBT's do NOT remove all listener bias.
> > The bias that things will NOT sound different is not removed by DBT.
> > Another flaw is that the test forces one to lie (or one could be noce
> > and say guess)
> > *if the listenener does not hear a difference.
> > A thrid flaw is in relying on any test where the subject is anyone but
> > you.
> > You are a unique individual, your responses and perceptions
> > may not be the norm.
> > and the fourth flaw is the uses to which these tests are put,
> > and the erroneous interpretations of the derived statistics, in
> > respect to so called necessary confidence levels. We are
> > talking about personal choice of selecting audio systems.
>
> > anyway for the purpose of selecting
> > equipment for your personal use in listening to recorded music, it is
> > a matter of taste and perception, and it is not a scientific
> > exercise.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I was a market research analyst of computer network equipment and
> software, so I cannot speculate on audio equipment. However, I know
> methods of determining whether a possible article will have big or
> small readership BEFORE you commision the article (readership surveys,
> of course), and obviously magazines that want to make money should
> tend to run articles with big readership and exclude articles with
> small readership.
>
> I will not get involved in whether DBTs themselves affect the results
> in audio. DBTs are accepted as the gold standard in other types of
> research, if I recall.
>
> The one audio DBT that impressed me I recall from many years ago. In
> it, the magazine comissioned an examination of whether there was any
> audible difference between hearing music through a setup with Monster
> cables (great bic, thick, copper wiring) and the exact same thing
> using ordinary thin speaker wire. And the result was that the test
> showed that people could not distinguish between the two, which I
> think makes perfect sense, though the manufacturer of Monster wiring
> will naturally object.
>
> There have been somewhat similar tests on people who thought they
> could distinguish between extraordinarily expensive wines and good
> cheap wines, which show that by far most people cannot distinguish.
>
> You ask would regular DBTs sell magazines? I'd be speculating to
> answer that. However, I'd think that once every few years something
> powerful like "people cannot distinguish between X and Y," would
> increase readership simply because it is controversial and hence makes
> people want to read it.-

audio consumers would for the most part be turned off.if it were such
a good idea it would have been
done, OOPS! I forgot, it was done (aThe Audio Critic), it flopped.
It's defunct.

Arny Krueger

July 15th 08, 12:15 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> anyway, as far as the tests are concerned, one of the
> perceptual flaws of the whole idea is that DBT's do NOT
> remove all listener bias.

Art do try to make sense when you write.

Not removing *all* listener bias is not a flaw. Saying that is like saying
that water purification doesn't work because it still leaves some impurities
in the water.

DBTs address a major source of listener bias, but nobody with brain says
that they are perfect.

But of course Art you claim that any imperfection in DBTs are fatal flaws,
so you are revealing that you are not very smart, or just trying to be
deceptive again.

> The bias that things will NOT sound different is not
> removed by DBT.

Actually even this bias can be detected. If a person is biased towards not
hearing a difference, it can be detected by providing them with test samples
that do sound slightly different. If they fail to hear small differences
that are audible by a normal, well-motivated person, then that person should
be excluded. JJ described this sort of thing on RAO before the Middiot and
his posse ran JJ off of RAO.

> Another flaw is that the test forces one
> to lie (or one could be noce (sic) ans say guess)
> if the listenener does not hear a difference.

To call guessing or speculating lying takes a really small mind Art. You
really are one stupid, hateful ditz, aren't you?

> A thrid(sic) flaw is in relying on any test where the subject
> is anyone but you.

A straw man argument.

> You are a unique individual, your responses and
> perceptions may not be the norm.

The same invalid argument can be applied to any kind of test of a person.
Why bother to test people at all? Why have a concept of normal blood
pressure when we know that everybody's blood pressure is different? We all
know the reasons why and they apply to listening tests as well.

Why do you expose your hatred and fear of DBTs so clearly, Art?

That's all you are doing.

> and the fourth flaw is the uses to which these tests are
> put, and the erroneous interpretations of the derived
> statistics, in respect to so called necessary confidence
> levels. We are talking about personal choice of selecting audio systems.

The point is Art that DBTs don't take personal choice out of the selection
process, they just shed light on whether or not there are audible
differences. We all know (except apparently you Art) that people choose
partcular pieces of equipement for many reasons other than sound quality.
Why is it so wrong to identify which equipment sounds the same and which
sounds different?

> anyway for the purpose of selecting
> equipment for your personal use in listening to recorded
> music, it is a matter of taste and perception, and it is
> not a scientific exercise.

Obviously this belief is not widely held, because the application of science
to listening tests has been one of the most popular discussion items on
web-based audio forums as long as they have existed.

Thanks Art for proving that ABX is so popular and compelling by interjecting
OT posts about ABX into the middle of this thread about treason.

Clyde Slick

July 15th 08, 01:39 PM

On 15 Iul, 07:15, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > anyway, as far as the tests are concerned, one of the
> > perceptual flaws of the whole idea is that DBT's do NOT
> > remove all listener bias.
>
> Art do try to make sense when you write.
>
> Not removing *all* listener bias is not a flaw. Saying that is like saying
> that water purification doesn't work because it still leaves some impurities
> in the water.
>
> DBTs address a major source of listener bias, but nobody with brain says
> that they are perfect.
>
> But of course Art you claim that any imperfection in DBTs are fatal flaws,
> so you are revealing that you are not very smart, or just trying to be
> deceptive again.
>
> > The bias that things will NOT sound different is not
> > removed by DBT.
>
> Actually even this bias can be detected. If a person is biased towards not
> hearing a difference, it can be detected by providing them with test samples
> that do sound slightly different. If they fail to hear small differences
> that are audible by a normal, well-motivated person, then that person should
> be excluded. JJ described this sort of thing on RAO before the Middiot and
> his posse ran JJ off of RAO.
>
> > Another flaw is that the test forces one
> > to lie (or one could be noce (sic) ans say guess)
> > if the listenener does not hear a difference.
>
> To call guessing or speculating lying takes a really small mind Art. You
> really are one stupid, hateful ditz, aren't you?
>
> > A thrid(sic) flaw is in relying on any test where the subject
> > is anyone but you.
>
> A straw man argument.
>
> > You are a unique individual, your responses and
> > perceptions *may not be the norm.
>
> The same invalid argument can be applied to any kind of test of a person.
> Why bother to test people at all? Why have a concept of normal blood
> pressure when we know that everybody's blood pressure is different? *We all
> know the reasons why and they apply to listening tests as well.
>
> Why do you expose your hatred and fear of DBTs so clearly, Art?
>
> That's all you are doing.
>
> > and the fourth flaw is the uses to which these tests are
> > put, *and the erroneous interpretations of the derived
> > statistics, in respect to so called necessary confidence
> > levels. We are *talking about personal choice of selecting audio systems.
>
> The point is Art that DBTs don't take personal choice out of the selection
> process, they just shed light on whether or not there are audible
> differences. We all know (except apparently you Art) that people choose
> partcular pieces of equipement for many reasons other than sound quality.
> Why is it so wrong to identify which equipment sounds the same and which
> sounds different?
>
> > anyway for the purpose of selecting
> > equipment for your personal use in listening to recorded
> > music, it is a matter of taste and perception, and it is
> > not a scientific exercise.
>
> Obviously this belief is not widely held, because the application of science
> to listening tests has been one of the most popular discussion items on
> web-based audio forums as long as they have existed.
>
> Thanks Art for proving that ABX is so popular and compelling by interjecting
> OT posts about ABX into the middle of this thread about treason.

Clyde Slick

July 15th 08, 01:54 PM

On 15 Iul, 07:15, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > anyway, as far as the tests are concerned, one of the
> > perceptual flaws of the whole idea is that DBT's do NOT
> > remove all listener bias.
>
> Art do try to make sense when you write.
>
> Not removing *all* listener bias is not a flaw. Saying that is like saying
> that water purification doesn't work because it still leaves some impurities
> in the water.
>

that's like saying if your or saved from being killed
by one imperfection, but you are killed from another one, its ok.

> DBTs address a major source of listener bias, but nobody with brain says
> that they are perfect.
>
> But of course Art you claim that any imperfection in DBTs are fatal flaws,
> so you are revealing that you are not very smart, or just trying to be
> deceptive again.
>
> > The bias that things will NOT sound different is not
> > removed by DBT.
>
> Actually even this bias can be detected. If a person is biased towards not
> hearing a difference, it can be detected by providing them with test samples
> that do sound slightly different. If they fail to hear small differences
> that are audible by a normal, well-motivated person, then that person should
> be excluded. JJ described this sort of thing on RAO before the Middiot and
> his posse ran JJ off of RAO.
>

I have been considering that, not using exactly
the same source material you send through nuit through A as you send
through unit B
It doesn't really remove the bias at all, it just exposes it.

> > Another flaw is that the test forces one
> > to lie (or one could be noce (sic) ans say guess)
> > if the listenener does not hear a difference.
>
> To call guessing or speculating lying takes a really small mind Art. You
> really are one stupid, hateful ditz, aren't you?
>

One asks, 'does this sound like it is being played
through unti A or unit B?
the possible answers in the confines of the test are either A or B
In reality, the possible answers are A, B, or "I can't tell"

> > A thrid(sic) flaw is in relying on any test where the subject
> > is anyone but you.
>

when making a comparison for purposes of
selecting a product to purchase, it is NOT irrelevant
to use yourself as the liteneing subject, actually,
it is essential.

>
> > You are a unique individual, your responses and
> > perceptions *may not be the norm.
>
> The same invalid argument can be applied to any kind of test of a person.
> Why bother to test people at all? Why have a concept of normal blood
> pressure when we know that everybody's blood pressure is different? *We all
> know the reasons why and they apply to listening tests as well.
>

Well, we don't test the blood pressure of 25 strangers to determine
your
blood pressure,.

> Why do you expose your hatred and fear of DBTs so clearly, Art?
>
> That's all you are doing.
>

they are useless for purposes of selecting home audio equipment
for other uses in research fields, i have no problem.

> > and the fourth flaw is the uses to which these tests are
> > put, *and the erroneous interpretations of the derived
> > statistics, in respect to so called necessary confidence
> > levels. We are *talking about personal choice of selecting audio systems.
>
> The point is Art that DBTs don't take personal choice out of the selection
> process, they just shed light on whether or not there are audible
> differences. We all know (except apparently you Art) that people choose
> partcular pieces of equipement for many reasons other than sound quality.
> Why is it so wrong to identify which equipment sounds the same and which
> sounds different?
>

No problem, i find sighted listening preferable for identifying
differences.

> > anyway for the purpose of selecting
> > equipment for your personal use in listening to recorded
> > music, it is a matter of taste and perception, and it is
> > not a scientific exercise.
>
> Obviously this belief is not widely held, because the application of science
> to listening tests has been one of the most popular discussion items on
> web-based audio forums as long as they have existed.
>
> Thanks Art for proving that ABX is so popular and compelling by interjecting
> OT posts about ABX into the middle of this thread about treason.

and where is your abx website right now?

Clyde Slick

July 15th 08, 09:40 PM

On 15 Iul, 14:35, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 4:45*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Iul, 18:36, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 3:17*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 14 Iul, 17:46, smrstrauss > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 14, 5:17 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 14 Iul, > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I'm not a lawyer. I'm a retired market research analyst.-
>
> > > > > > that's useless here because that is
> > > > > > the one area in which Scott is afraid to make claims of superiority.
> > > > > > Though he did suggest an idea that Stereophile should publish
> > > > > > DBT tests that hardly anyone is interested in. The one mag
> > > > > > that tried it went bust, and it was a very unknown minor player..
>
> > > > > I assume DBT means double blind tests. If so, I'm interested in them
> > > > > too. I admit that I'm only interested in an academic way. After a
> > > > > certain age you can't hear the difference. But still, DBT is a more
> > > > > scientific way of evaluating things.
>
> > > > but as a retired market research analyst, would
> > > > you suggest starting up an audio magazine featuring
> > > > such tests?
>
> > > > anyway, as far as the tests are concerned, one of the perceptual flaws
> > > > of the whole idea is that DBT's do NOT remove all listener bias.
> > > > The bias that things will NOT sound different is not removed by DBT..
>
> > > If things sound the same sighted, there is no point for a DBT.
> > > Unless you really want to have a DBT so bad that proving to a
> > > person they really hear a difference when they actually can't
> > > consciously perceive one is your thing....go for it.
>
> > You are making the same mistake again.
> > You are totally lacking any comprehension of
> > what I am saying.
> > If you *do not hear a difference sighted, it may be an expectation
> > effect.
> > You need to invent another test, not
> > DBT's, to eliminate this bias, DBT's DO NOT WORK
> > in eliminating the expectation effect that you won't hear a
> > difference.
>
> But I am not interested in proving that this bias prevents
> people from hearing a difference.
> This is a different problem that I know of no one
> who is interested in solving but you.
>
> DBTs are fine for the purpose of proving people
> can hear differences they think they hear sighted.
>
> > So, I AM NOT advocating you do a DBT if you don't hear a difference.
>
> Then don't. *Problem solved.
>
if you want the bliss of ignoring your own problem, fine.