[Jenn[_2_]]

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_]]

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_]]

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_]]

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]

"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_]]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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_]]

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/mp...ategory=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_]]

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_]]

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/s...oryId=16741721

and I love the Poulenc.

Isn't it a gem!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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_]]

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]

"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_]]

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]

"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_]]

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?C12R8C%7P;7^60TE A0F`@`[`
end

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"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_]]

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]

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]

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]

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_]]

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?C12R8C%7P;7^60TE A0F`@`[`
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_]]

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/s...oryId=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_]]

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_]]

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_]]

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/s...oryId=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]

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]

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]

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]

"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?C12R8C%7P;7^60TE A0F`@`[`
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_]]

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?C12R8C%7P;7^60TE A0F`@`[`
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]

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]

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?C12R8C%7P;7^60TE A0F`@`[`
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]

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?C12R8C%7P;7^60TE A0F`@`[`
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.co...messy_baby.jpg

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

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_]]

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