golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main
Date: 18 Apr 2007 19:05:52
From: annika1980
Subject: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
At least 183 people were killed in Baghdad today by a number of car
bombs.
Boy, I'm glad that recent troop surge is making such a difference.

Gee, I wonder if the "Liberal Media" will cut into their non-stop
coverage of the VT shooting to report that?





 
Date: 26 Apr 2007 22:59:59
From: Dene
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 26, 10:56 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net >
wrote:
> In article <1177564539.420923.122...@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 2:58 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> > > In article <1177356620.986522.120...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com=
>,
>
> > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages,
> > > > > > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't=
appear
> > > > > > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy=
was
> > > > > > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once r=
uled.
>
> > > > > This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have su=
rprised
> > > > > even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting
> > > > > murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America =
in the
> > > > > last century is there for all to see.
>
> > > > Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were
> > > > trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. B=
ut
> > > > since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have playe=
d a
> > > > part in that.
>
> > > The US government is widely hated throughout the region for its massi=
ve
> > > support of terror operations, brutal dictators, coups against democra=
tic
> > > governments - not to mention outright invasions - over the decades. Y=
ou
> > > can see how much the US loves democracy by the speed with which it
> > > embraced the coup against Chavez in Venezuela.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The evidence that the US "embraced the coup against Chavez" lies
> > where????
>
> > -Greg
>
> It was hilariously obvious at the time. Various heads of state in Latin
> America immediately condemned the coup. Not so Bush, who blamed it all
> on Chavez, pretended that Chavez had resigned, etc. We know now Bush
> knew about the coup plans ahead of time. Two years after the coup Jorge
> Castaneda, the then Foreign Minister of Mexico under President Vicente
> Fox, said in an interview =B3Effectively, there was a proposition made by
> the United States and Spain, to issue a declaration with Mexico, Brazil,
> Argentina and France recognizing the government of Pedro Carmona."
> (Carmona was the businessman installed by the Venezuelan military junta
> as head of state after Chavez and his ministers were arrested; he lasted
> one day.)
>
> The following articles from Reuters, Newsday, and the Chicago Tribune
> are archived at Common Dreams:
>
> Reuters
> U.S. Regrets Hasty Embrace of Chavez Coup - Experts
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0416-03.htm
>
> Newsday
> CIA Knew of Plot Against Venezuela's Chavez
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1124-02.htm
>
> Chicago Tribune
> Bush's Response to Coup Criticized
>
> http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0417-01.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Interesting....thanks!

-Greg



 
Date: 27 Apr 2007 04:19:59
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:37:43 -0500, MnMikew wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:462ff1dd$0$9913$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:20:22 -0500, MnMikew wrote:
>>
>>> If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts.
>>
>> If you think Iraq Body Count doesnt (sic) have an agenda your (sic)
>> nuts.
>
> Pssst, everyone has an agenda.

I see. One group, lets call them statisticians, says 2+3=5. Another group,
lets call them laymen, says 2+3=4.


 
Date: 25 Apr 2007 22:16:48
From: Dene
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 23, 1:43 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com > wrote:

>
> What part have we played? I know of nothing tangible the US did to
> promote democracy in Latin America, which was never in danger of
> "turning into another Cuba."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Aid. Sometimes to the wrong set of fellas.

-Greg



 
Date: 25 Apr 2007 22:15:39
From: Dene
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 24, 2:58 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net >
wrote:
> In article <1177356620.986522.120...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> > > In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages,
> > > > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear
> > > > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was
> > > > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled.
>
> > > This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have surprised
> > > even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting
> > > murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America in the
> > > last century is there for all to see.
>
> > Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were
> > trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. But
> > since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have played a
> > part in that.
>
> The US government is widely hated throughout the region for its massive
> support of terror operations, brutal dictators, coups against democratic
> governments - not to mention outright invasions - over the decades. You
> can see how much the US loves democracy by the speed with which it
> embraced the coup against Chavez in Venezuela.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The evidence that the US "embraced the coup against Chavez" lies
where????

-Greg



  
Date: 26 Apr 2007 22:56:35
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
In article <1177564539.420923.122930@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

> On Apr 24, 2:58 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > In article <1177356620.986522.120...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages,
> > > > > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear
> > > > > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was
> > > > > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled.
> >
> > > > This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have surprised
> > > > even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting
> > > > murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America in the
> > > > last century is there for all to see.
> >
> > > Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were
> > > trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. But
> > > since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have played a
> > > part in that.
> >
> > The US government is widely hated throughout the region for its massive
> > support of terror operations, brutal dictators, coups against democratic
> > governments - not to mention outright invasions - over the decades. You
> > can see how much the US loves democracy by the speed with which it
> > embraced the coup against Chavez in Venezuela.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The evidence that the US "embraced the coup against Chavez" lies
> where????
>
> -Greg

It was hilariously obvious at the time. Various heads of state in Latin
America immediately condemned the coup. Not so Bush, who blamed it all
on Chavez, pretended that Chavez had resigned, etc. We know now Bush
knew about the coup plans ahead of time. Two years after the coup Jorge
Castaneda, the then Foreign Minister of Mexico under President Vicente
Fox, said in an interview ³Effectively, there was a proposition made by
the United States and Spain, to issue a declaration with Mexico, Brazil,
Argentina and France recognizing the government of Pedro Carmona."
(Carmona was the businessman installed by the Venezuelan military junta
as head of state after Chavez and his ministers were arrested; he lasted
one day.)

The following articles from Reuters, Newsday, and the Chicago Tribune
are archived at Common Dreams:

Reuters
U.S. Regrets Hasty Embrace of Chavez Coup - Experts

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0416-03.htm

Newsday
CIA Knew of Plot Against Venezuela's Chavez

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1124-02.htm

Chicago Tribune
Bush's Response to Coup Criticized

http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0417-01.htm


 
Date: 26 Apr 2007 00:27:09
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:20:22 -0500, MnMikew wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1177534149.078072.202510@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
>>
>> You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns
>> Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an
>> agenda, the other doesn't.
>>
> If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts.

If you think Iraq Body Count doesnt (sic) have an agenda your (sic) nuts.


  
Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:37:43
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:462ff1dd$0$9913$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:20:22 -0500, MnMikew wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1177534149.078072.202510@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
>>>
>>> You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns
>>> Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an
>>> agenda, the other doesn't.
>>>
>> If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts.
>
> If you think Iraq Body Count doesnt (sic) have an agenda your (sic) nuts.

Pssst, everyone has an agenda.




 
Date: 25 Apr 2007 13:49:09
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in messagenews:sU5Xh.3875$OJ1.1297@newsfe13.phx...
>
>
>
> > Do you think you can say "The numbers don't match the facts." I researched
> > it and I think that if you do the same thing about the people who are
> > questioning the study, you will find the same thing. I haven't seen any
> > credible refutations of the Johns Hopkins' study. If you'd like to post a
> > site, I'd read it. The numbers seem high to me, but that doesn't mean they
> > aren't true. The numbers in Vietnam were phony on the military side and we
> > know that, now. So far, all of Johns Hopkins' numbers have been accepted
> and
> > proven true through decades of work. Why would anyone reject them without
> > evidence, other than it is not poliltically expedient?
>
> There is ample evidence. Get your head out of the sand.
>
> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns
Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an
agenda, the other doesn't.



  
Date: 25 Apr 2007 14:51:19
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/research/iraq/wsj_response.html

This is a response to one critic of John's Hopkins study. I'm not sure if it
is the same group of musicans and librarians.




  
Date: 25 Apr 2007 16:20:22
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177534149.078072.202510@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
> wrote:
>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:sU5Xh.3875$OJ1.1297@newsfe13.phx...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Do you think you can say "The numbers don't match the facts." I
>> > researched
>> > it and I think that if you do the same thing about the people who are
>> > questioning the study, you will find the same thing. I haven't seen any
>> > credible refutations of the Johns Hopkins' study. If you'd like to post
>> > a
>> > site, I'd read it. The numbers seem high to me, but that doesn't mean
>> > they
>> > aren't true. The numbers in Vietnam were phony on the military side and
>> > we
>> > know that, now. So far, all of Johns Hopkins' numbers have been
>> > accepted
>> and
>> > proven true through decades of work. Why would anyone reject them
>> > without
>> > evidence, other than it is not poliltically expedient?
>>
>> There is ample evidence. Get your head out of the sand.
>>
>> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
>
> You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns
> Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an
> agenda, the other doesn't.
>
If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts.




   
Date: 25 Apr 2007 14:49:45
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:599v0nF2ir8mcU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1177534149.078072.202510@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:sU5Xh.3875$OJ1.1297@newsfe13.phx...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Do you think you can say "The numbers don't match the facts." I
>>> > researched
>>> > it and I think that if you do the same thing about the people who are
>>> > questioning the study, you will find the same thing. I haven't seen
>>> > any
>>> > credible refutations of the Johns Hopkins' study. If you'd like to
>>> > post a
>>> > site, I'd read it. The numbers seem high to me, but that doesn't mean
>>> > they
>>> > aren't true. The numbers in Vietnam were phony on the military side
>>> > and we
>>> > know that, now. So far, all of Johns Hopkins' numbers have been
>>> > accepted
>>> and
>>> > proven true through decades of work. Why would anyone reject them
>>> > without
>>> > evidence, other than it is not poliltically expedient?
>>>
>>> There is ample evidence. Get your head out of the sand.
>>>
>>> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
>>
>> You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns
>> Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an
>> agenda, the other doesn't.
>>
> If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts.

And where did you get the idea that JH has an agenda? Just make a statement
... any statement ... because you don't really care about the issue and this
is only a newsgroup.




    
Date: 25 Apr 2007 15:11:12
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
http://www.jhu.edu/jhumag/0207web/number.html

Another response by Johns Hopkins

People realize that the 600,000+ deaths was from all sources, not just
violent deaths, right? All deaths that occurred because of the many
consequences of the war. I assume that means lack of water, disease, lack of
hospital care, no electricity ... etc.

If you don't give a shit, just dont' respond. OK?





 
Date: 24 Apr 2007 00:59:26
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:50:23 -0500, the Moderator wrote:
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:XkeWh.149776$g24.73538@newsfe12.phx...
>>
>> I didn't see any serious challenges of their methodology. You're taling
>> about Johns Hopkins, whose work in similar questions in other parts of the
>> world, using the same methodology, were accepted without question. If you
>> read their methodology, you'll find that they put themselves at great risk
>> and apparently did everything they could and way beyond to get accurate
>> numbers. Their only mistake may have been to report the truth that no one
>> wants to hear.
>
> The numbers don't match the facts. How do you explain that there are no
> records for the number of wounded the study cites ever being treated by a
> physician? They would have to have lost 80-90% of hospital records. The
> number of death certificates actually issued is off by 1000%.
>
> A more realistic number is between 40,000 - 60,000.

:%s/realistic/convenient/g


  
Date: 01 May 2007 08:13:47
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On May 1, 10:56 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178029506.733502.7420@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I see. If you don't know about it, it can't be true, right? It does
> > get reported in the news. That's how I know. Most recently: NPR this
> > morning. Don't bother with your usual diatribe about the liberal
> > press. I've heard it all before.
>
> Oh, well if the deaths are being reported then there is no way the death
> toll can equal the numbers of the Lancet Report. The numbers published in
> even the most liberal press don't come close to the Lancet study.
>
> Thanks for playing.

Whatever you say, Mod.



  
Date: 01 May 2007 07:25:06
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On May 1, 10:02 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178025529.978063.33220@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I think people tend to think that the big suicide bombs and car bombs
> > that take out dozens or scores of people account for all the violent
> > deaths in Iraq. The fact is that individual people are murdered by the
> > dozens every day in Baghdad.
>
> Sure and nobody notices and it never gets reported in the news. How do you
> come up with this if nobody else knows about it?

I see. If you don't know about it, it can't be true, right? It does
get reported in the news. That's how I know. Most recently: NPR this
morning. Don't bother with your usual diatribe about the liberal
press. I've heard it all before.





   
Date: 01 May 2007 09:56:19
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1178029506.733502.7420@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> I see. If you don't know about it, it can't be true, right? It does
> get reported in the news. That's how I know. Most recently: NPR this
> morning. Don't bother with your usual diatribe about the liberal
> press. I've heard it all before.

Oh, well if the deaths are being reported then there is no way the death
toll can equal the numbers of the Lancet Report. The numbers published in
even the most liberal press don't come close to the Lancet study.

Thanks for playing.




  
Date: 01 May 2007 06:18:50
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 30, 6:18 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, Alan Murphy wrote:
> > You don't have much imagination, do you? It says that 650,000 deaths
> > over 4 years in Iraq is not an unreasonable number when there are
> > 200,000 violent deaths over the same period in a country at peace,
> > albeit with a larger population.
>
> > Look at it in another way. There have been about 3,500 deaths and about
> > 27,000 serious injuries to coalition forces in Iraq. Many of the
> > injuries would have resulted in death had it not been for the body
> > armour worn. These troops are heavily armed and protected and yet there
> > have been 30,000 deaths or serious casualties, a huge number for a
> > protected force. Consider the civil war in which Shias are pitted
> > against Sunnis as well as against coalition forces. Shooting and suicide
> > bombing each other must be like shooting fish in a barrel compared to
> > injuring coalition forces. 25 Iraqi deaths for each coalition casualty
> > is by no means an unreasonable number.
>
> > The Lancet/JH study viewed death certificates in 92% cases. The
> > methodology used is accepted by all authorities on the subject as being
> > the most suitable for the purpose. Why do you continue to deny the
> > findings?
>
> Because the numbers are inconvenient.- Hide quoted text -

I think people tend to think that the big suicide bombs and car bombs
that take out dozens or scores of people account for all the violent
deaths in Iraq. The fact is that individual people are murdered by the
dozens every day in Baghdad.



   
Date: 01 May 2007 09:02:49
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1178025529.978063.33220@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I think people tend to think that the big suicide bombs and car bombs
> that take out dozens or scores of people account for all the violent
> deaths in Iraq. The fact is that individual people are murdered by the
> dozens every day in Baghdad.

Sure and nobody notices and it never gets reported in the news. How do you
come up with this if nobody else knows about it?




    
Date: 01 May 2007 17:55:13
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:mNWdnSR0OKgX1arbnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1178025529.978063.33220@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I think people tend to think that the big suicide bombs and car bombs
>> that take out dozens or scores of people account for all the violent
>> deaths in Iraq. The fact is that individual people are murdered by the
>> dozens every day in Baghdad.
>
> Sure and nobody notices and it never gets reported in the news. How do
> you
> come up with this if nobody else knows about it?
>
What a fucking prat! He read the Lancet/JH report,
of course :-)





  
Date: 30 Apr 2007 22:18:34
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, Alan Murphy wrote:

> You don't have much imagination, do you? It says that 650,000 deaths
> over 4 years in Iraq is not an unreasonable number when there are
> 200,000 violent deaths over the same period in a country at peace,
> albeit with a larger population.
>
> Look at it in another way. There have been about 3,500 deaths and about
> 27,000 serious injuries to coalition forces in Iraq. Many of the
> injuries would have resulted in death had it not been for the body
> armour worn. These troops are heavily armed and protected and yet there
> have been 30,000 deaths or serious casualties, a huge number for a
> protected force. Consider the civil war in which Shias are pitted
> against Sunnis as well as against coalition forces. Shooting and suicide
> bombing each other must be like shooting fish in a barrel compared to
> injuring coalition forces. 25 Iraqi deaths for each coalition casualty
> is by no means an unreasonable number.
>
> The Lancet/JH study viewed death certificates in 92% cases. The
> methodology used is accepted by all authorities on the subject as being
> the most suitable for the purpose. Why do you continue to deny the
> findings?

Because the numbers are inconvenient.


  
Date: 28 Apr 2007 01:39:38
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:52:19 -0400, sfb wrote:
> "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:Uu6dnSj2JryE06_bRVnyvgA@bt.com...
>> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
>> news:ULOdne1nSKtAgq_bnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>>
>>> I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent
>>> people over from the University to do the study. You are trying to
>>> make martyrs out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet
>>> study, you are full bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction
>>> from someone who realizes they have supported a lie.
>>>
>> We do know for certain that there are about 50,000 violent
>> deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United States every year.
>> 200,000 over a 4 year period which is the duration of the Iraqi war.
>> Conditions in Iraq are unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose
>> that a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is
>> unreasonable?
>
> Yes. Iraq population is 26M, US is 300M.

I guess you haven't heard. Our failed invasion has ignited a civil war in
Iraq.

p.s. I fixed your top post.


  
Date: 27 Apr 2007 09:59:06
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 27, 12:07 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in messagenews:rr8Yh.8862$Fk2.3402@newsfe08.phx...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Okay, Moderator posted that the UN finds different figures ...
>
> > Here are the first 3 paragraphs:
>
> > BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 - The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than
> 34,000
> > Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the
> first
> > comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the
> > failure the Iraqi government and American military to provide security.
>
> > Numbers of civilian deaths have become the central indicator for the
> > trajectory of the war and are extremely sensitive for both Iraqi and
> > American officials. Both track the tallies but neither will release them.
>
> > This latest figure was the first attempt at hand-counting individual
> deaths
> > for an entire year. It was compiled using statistics from local morgues,
> > hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq and was nearly three times
> > higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by
> The
> > Associated Press earlier this month.
>
> > 1. It was for one year
> > 2. It only includes violent deaths
> > 3. It was done by body counts "attempt" from local morgues, hospitals, and
> > *municipal authorities* etc. which are under control of either Shia or
> > Sunni.
> > 4. The US and Iraq don't release their own figures
> > 5. It was 3 time higher than previously reported by AP
>
> > You can't argue with someone who doesn't care because they don't care if
> > they are wrong. It's just a bunch of people at a University who risked
> their
> > lives to go into Iraq and go to individual houses to ask about who died.
> And
> > why? To discredit who, Bush? That seems to have been done sufficiently to
> > not risk lives and the reputation of the most prestigious school of
> medicine
> > in the United States. The Red Cross is wrong, The Nobel Prizes are wrong,
> > John Hopkins is wrong. But George Bush, the intellectual giant who would
> > rather be knocking down weeds on his ranch and can't tell that his simple
> > minded loyalty for loosers is hurting the country ... Bush isn't to blame.
> > It's the Republican Party. Not Reagan Republicans, Not Eisenhower
> > Republicans, but Rove Cheney and the like. It's disgusting.
>
> You left off number six.
>
> 6. It shows the lancet study to be very, very improbable.
>
> I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent people
> over from the University to do the study. You are trying to make martyrs
> out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet study, you are full
> bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction from someone who realizes
> they have supported a lie.

A study you disagree with is not only wrong but "a lie"? Neither you
nor I nor anyone else here is competent to judge any of these studies.
I have no idea who's right and neither do you. If I said that, studies
aside, it's obvious that thousands, maybe tens of thousands, maybe
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed since the
start of the war, would you accuse me of lying?



  
Date: 24 Apr 2007 08:56:04
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:462d566e$0$4907$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> :%s/realistic/convenient/g

I know you conspiracy theorists are convinced you are right all the time.




   
Date: 24 Apr 2007 19:22:13
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
I saw your url and thought that there was some other source other than the
one I posted about before that is mostly musicians. It is the same group.
Their credentials (from their website) is below. If you have any other
sources, I 'd like to see them.

The "Iraq Body Count" :

1 freelance researcher/authors with no degree, apparently (1)
1 research psychologist (2)
1 retired librarian (3)
5 musicians (4, 6, 7, 13, 14)
2 computer experts (5, 11)
7 professors in fields non-closely related fields (8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17,
18)
1 lawyer (16
0 professors or graduate degreed individuals in closely related fields ( )

01 HAMIT DARDAGAN (Co-founder, principal researcher and site manager) is a
freelance researcher.
02 JOHN SLOBODA (Co-founder and press spokesperson) Professor of Psychology
03 KAY WILLIAMS a retired librarian
04 SCOTT LIPSCOMB, Associate Professor in the School of Music at
Northwestern
05 PETER BAGNALL, student studying computer science
06 JOSHUA DOUGHERTY, guitarist and private instructor
07 CHARLIE FORD, doctorate for his holistic critique of Mozart's Cosi fan
tutte in 1989
08 BÜLENT GÖKAY, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Keele
University
09 MARC HEROLD, Professor of Economic Development
10GLEN RANGWALA, doctorate, from Cambridge University, was in political and
legal rhetoric in the Arab Middle East
11 DAVID FLANAGAN, author of JavaScript: The Definitive Guide
12 JAMES KEMP, researcher on nuclear terrorism
13 ERIC CLARKE, professor of music
14 NIKKI DIBBEN, lecturer in music at Sheffield University
15 MARIANNE FILLENZ, senior research fellow in neuroscience
16 JORDANA LIPSCOMB, retired litigation attorney
17 DARELL WHITMAN, student in School of Politics
18 DROSILY HAMOURTZIADOU, doctorate on Nationalism in Bosnia




HAMIT DARDAGAN (Co-founder, principal researcher and site manager) is a
freelance researcher currently working in London. He has made an in-depth
study of the research methods of Professor Marc Herold, who pioneered a
media-based methodology for estimating civilian deaths in the Afghan war of
2001-2. He has written for Counterpunch, and has undertaken research for a
number of organisations, including Greenpeace. He has been chair of
"Kalayaan" a human rights campaign for overseas domestic workers in the UK,
which led to significant enhancement in their legal rights.

JOHN SLOBODA (Co-founder and press spokesperson) trained as a research
psychologist and is Professor of Psychology at the University of Keele, UK,
and an honorary research fellow in its School of Politics, International
Relations and the Environment (SPIRE). In 1999-2000 he worked with the
Committee for Peace in the Balkans, and researched effects on the civilian
population of the NATO bombing campaign. He is a founder member of the
Network of Activist Scholars of Politics and International Relations
(Naspir). He is currently Executive Director of Oxford Research Group, a
long-established peace and security NGO, promoting non-military approaches
to conflict resolution..

KAY WILLIAMS (Senior researcher and archivist) is a recently retired
librarian, who worked most recently as Head of Acquisitions in Keele
University Library.

SCOTT LIPSCOMB (Assistant researcher) is a co-founder of Musicians Opposing
War, a collective of Northwestern University faculty, staff, & students in
the United States who came together for the purpose of expressing opposition
to the War on Iraq, who believe that U.S. military aggression is likely to
increase - not deter - terrorism on American shores, and who advocate
seeking non-violent solutions to the world's problems through a consensus of
peace-minded nations. Scott is an Associate Professor in the School of Music
at Northwestern, where he teaches in the Music Education and Music Cognition
programs and carries out research related to the processes involved in music
listening and their affect upon the listener. He is also co-author of "Rock
and Roll: Its History and Stylistic Development" (2003, 4th edition,
Prentice-Hall) and has been extremely concerned about the lack of response
to this issue from the musical community. The recent appearance of
organizations like Musicians United to Win Without War (Russell Simmons,
Rosanne Cash, Michael Stipe, Dave Matthews, Peter Gabriel, Suzanne Vega, and
others) is a welcome occurrence and hopefully only the first of many more
that will follow.

PETER BAGNALL (Technical consultant) is currently a doctoral student at
Lancaster University studying computer science. He spent two years working
as a software design consultant in Silicon Valley, and before that four
years as a network research engineer for British Telecom. His professional
interest is using technology to provide real benefit to society, rather than
just to develop flashy gadgets. His thoughts on ethics, politics and
technology can be found on his website.

JOSHUA DOUGHERTY (Associate researcher) is a guitarist and private
instructor. He received his Masters Degree in Jazz Studies from the
University of the Arts in Philadelphia, PA, USA in 2004. His website can be
found here.

CHARLIE FORD (Associate researcher) was awarded a doctorate for his holistic
critique of Mozart's Cosi fan tutte in 1989 and has since published on
popular music. He is an active member of Amnesty International and an
occasional contributor to peaceuk mailings.

BÜLENT GÖKAY (Project consultant) is a Senior Lecturer in International
Relations at Keele University. He is co-founder and core researcher of the
Keele Southeast Europe Unit. He has authored many books and articles on
global politics, the Middle East, Balkans and Central Asia, including A
Clash of Empires: Turkey between Russian Bolshevism and British Imperialism
(1997), The Politics of Caspian Oil (2001), Eastern Europe Since 1970
(2002), and The Most Dangerous Game in the World: Oil, War, and US Global
Hegemony (2002), and is co-editor of the book, War, Terror and Judgement: 11
September 2001 (Feb 2003).

MARC HEROLD (Research consultant) is an Associate Professor of Economic
Development, International Affairs and Women's Studies at the University of
New Hampshire, USA, where he has taught since 1975. He holds a Master's
degree in international business and finance and a Ph.D in Economics from
the University of California in Berkeley, as well as an engineering degree
in electronics from the Swiss Federal Polytechnic University. He has focused
his writings upon social and economic changes in the Second and Third Worlds
and his current research interests are on Brazil and Afghanistan, including
the latter country's post-war situation. In December 2001 he released a
widely cited study of the human costs of the U.S. military campaign in
Afghanistan "A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing
of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting"), updates to which may be found
at: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold.

GLEN RANGWALA (Legal consultant) is a lecturer in politics at Newnham and
Trinity Colleges, Cambridge University. He is trained in political theory
and international law. His doctorate, from Cambridge University, was in
political and legal rhetoric in the Arab Middle East. He is also published
on a number of other themes, including international humanitarian law,
comparative human rights law, Iraq and nuclear weapons.

DAVID FLANAGAN (Technical consultant) is author of JavaScript: The
Definitive Guide (among other standard works) and wrote the JavaScript code
for Iraq Body Count that keeps our Web Counters updated while making them
easy for webmasters to install.

JAMES KEMP (Fundraising Adviser) is the Oxford Research Group's Research &
Fundraising Officer. Since joining ORG in 2001, James has undertaken
research on nuclear terrorism, MoD spending in the UK, government subsidies
to UK arms exporters, and funding for conflict prevention. He is currently
working on the security of civil nuclear power, and the evolution of the
EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. James has a BSc. (Hons.) in
Politics & Anthropology and an MA in Human Rights.

ERIC CLARKE (Assistant researcher) is professor of music at the University
of Sheffield, where he does research and teaching in the psychology of
music. He was an active member of Camden CND in the 1980s, and is a member
of Amnesty International.

NIKKI DIBBEN (Assistant researcher) is a lecturer in music at Sheffield
University where she carries out research into music perception, and gender
representations in popular music.

MARIANNE FILLENZ (Assistant researcher) is senior research fellow in
neuroscience at St Anne's College Oxford and retired University lecturer in
Physiology. She was a member of the national committee of Scientists against
Nuclear Arms (SANA) and is a present member of Scientists for Global
Responsibility.

JORDANA LIPSCOMB (Assistant researcher) is a retired litigation attorney and
mother of two. Supporting member and event coordinator of Musicians Opposing
War (MOW). She received her Bachelors of Arts degree from New York
University in Russian Language and her Juris Doctorate Degree from
Southwestern University School of Law. She is currently researching the
legalities and criminal implications of this war and welcomes information
and sources on this subject.

DARELL WHITMAN (Assistant researcher) is a post-graduate student with the
School of Politics, International Relations and the Environment at Keele
University. He holds a Master's degree in Government from California State
University, Sacramento, a Master's degree in Political Sociology from
Southern Oregon University, and a Juris Doctorate in law from the University
of Santa Clara. He is an attorney licensed to practice law in California and
U.S. federal courts. He has been a long-time peace and environmental in the
U.S., and served on the national organizing committee of the Emergency
Committee to Stop the War (Gulf War I) from 1991-1992.

DROSILY HAMOURTZIADOU (Assistant Researcher) is a Keele University graduate,
holding a doctorate on Nationalism in Bosnia. She worked part-time as a
tutor and lecturer before becoming a mother. Since 1998 she has published
several papers in books and journals, including 'Rational Fear; Real and
Suspected Threats to National Security: The Case of Bosnia', The South Slav
Journal, vol 22, Spring-Summer 2001 and 'The Bosniaks: From Nation to
Threat', Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, vol 4, November 2002.




    
Date: 01 May 2007 11:04:19
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On May 1, 12:20 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
>
> <afm...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >You don't have much imagination, do you?
> >It says that 650,000 deaths over 4 years in Iraq
> >is not an unreasonable number when there are
> >200,000 violent deaths over the same period in
> >a country at peace, albeit with a larger population.
>
> What nonsense. The study is rubbish.

As you continue to remind us, ad nauseum.



    
Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:59:32
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:QYyXh.179106$115.81191@newsfe10.phx...
> I saw your url and thought that there was some other source other than the
> one I posted about before that is mostly musicians. It is the same group.
> Their credentials (from their website) is below. If you have any other
> sources, I 'd like to see them.
>
So you are saying that you can refute their claims? How many death
certificates have been issued in Iraq? How many hospital admissions have
there been?




     
Date: 25 Apr 2007 13:09:47
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:UpSdnTUNXtxI8bLbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:QYyXh.179106$115.81191@newsfe10.phx...
>> I saw your url and thought that there was some other source other than
>> the
>> one I posted about before that is mostly musicians. It is the same group.
>> Their credentials (from their website) is below. If you have any other
>> sources, I 'd like to see them.
>>
> So you are saying that you can refute their claims? How many death
> certificates have been issued in Iraq? How many hospital admissions have
> there been?

List O n e other cite. George Bush quoted a bunch of musicans and one
credible academic to refute John's Hopkins University. Go with it. Believe
what suits your purpose. It seems to be the case. Or find another source ...
I'm not holding my breath.




      
Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:30:45
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:IBOXh.179161$115.48854@newsfe10.phx...
>
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
> news:UpSdnTUNXtxI8bLbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@centurytel.net...
> >
> > "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:QYyXh.179106$115.81191@newsfe10.phx...
> >> I saw your url and thought that there was some other source other than
> >> the
> >> one I posted about before that is mostly musicians. It is the same
group.
> >> Their credentials (from their website) is below. If you have any other
> >> sources, I 'd like to see them.
> >>
> > So you are saying that you can refute their claims? How many death
> > certificates have been issued in Iraq? How many hospital admissions
have
> > there been?
>
> List O n e other cite. George Bush quoted a bunch of musicans and one
> credible academic to refute John's Hopkins University. Go with it. Believe
> what suits your purpose. It seems to be the case. Or find another source
...
> I'm not holding my breath.
>

How about the United Nations?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/world/middleeast/16cnd-iraq.html?ex=1326603600&en=abe1dc4a8eb40533&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss




       
Date: 26 Apr 2007 14:00:35
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
Okay, Moderator posted that the UN finds different figures ...

Here are the first 3 paragraphs:

BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 - The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than 34,000
Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the first
comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the
failure the Iraqi government and American military to provide security.

Numbers of civilian deaths have become the central indicator for the
trajectory of the war and are extremely sensitive for both Iraqi and
American officials. Both track the tallies but neither will release them.

This latest figure was the first attempt at hand-counting individual deaths
for an entire year. It was compiled using statistics from local morgues,
hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq and was nearly three times
higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by The
Associated Press earlier this month.

1. It was for one year
2. It only includes violent deaths
3. It was done by body counts "attempt" from local morgues, hospitals, and
*municipal authorities* etc. which are under control of either Shia or
Sunni.
4. The US and Iraq don't release their own figures
5. It was 3 time higher than previously reported by AP

You can't argue with someone who doesn't care because they don't care if
they are wrong. It's just a bunch of people at a University who risked their
lives to go into Iraq and go to individual houses to ask about who died. And
why? To discredit who, Bush? That seems to have been done sufficiently to
not risk lives and the reputation of the most prestigious school of medicine
in the United States. The Red Cross is wrong, The Nobel Prizes are wrong,
John Hopkins is wrong. But George Bush, the intellectual giant who would
rather be knocking down weeds on his ranch and can't tell that his simple
minded loyalty for loosers is hurting the country ... Bush isn't to blame.
It's the Republican Party. Not Reagan Republicans, Not Eisenhower
Republicans, but Rove Cheney and the like. It's disgusting.




        
Date: 02 May 2007 01:31:01
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Tue, 01 May 2007 20:05:52 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:55:10 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>>> > What nonsense. The study is rubbish.
>>>
>>> That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you are the other
>>> village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics can publish a refutation.
>>
>>It must be remembered that all studies that show ANYTHING other than the
>>strict WH, neocon, line are "rubbish" to Jack. He hasn't read them,
>>can't reference them, but he just KNOWS they are rubbish a priori.
>>
>>We are dealing with a major intellect here.
>
> This is coming from someone who posted data on differences in IQ scores
> by state.

Surely an oversight, but you seem not to have addressed William's comment
in your off-topic reply.

On the other hand, maybe your response has proven him right. You care more
rejecting everything that doesn't conform to your Neocon political agenda
than you do about facts.


         
Date: 02 May 2007 06:49:54
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
In article <4637e9d5$0$16688$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 May 2007 20:05:52 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:55:10 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> > What nonsense. The study is rubbish.
> >>>
> >>> That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you are the other
> >>> village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics can publish a refutation.
> >>
> >>It must be remembered that all studies that show ANYTHING other than the
> >>strict WH, neocon, line are "rubbish" to Jack. He hasn't read them,
> >>can't reference them, but he just KNOWS they are rubbish a priori.
> >>
> >>We are dealing with a major intellect here.
> >
> > This is coming from someone who posted data on differences in IQ scores
> > by state.
>
> Surely an oversight, but you seem not to have addressed William's comment
> in your off-topic reply.
>
> On the other hand, maybe your response has proven him right. You care more
> rejecting everything that doesn't conform to your Neocon political agenda
> than you do about facts.

He never does address content, he simply goes after the messenger. That
is his style of "discussion".

Son of Karl Rove, I think. Or maybe father.

William Clark


        
Date: 27 Apr 2007 11:07:56
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:rr8Yh.8862$Fk2.3402@newsfe08.phx...
> Okay, Moderator posted that the UN finds different figures ...
>
> Here are the first 3 paragraphs:
>
> BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 - The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than
34,000
> Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the
first
> comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the
> failure the Iraqi government and American military to provide security.
>
> Numbers of civilian deaths have become the central indicator for the
> trajectory of the war and are extremely sensitive for both Iraqi and
> American officials. Both track the tallies but neither will release them.
>
> This latest figure was the first attempt at hand-counting individual
deaths
> for an entire year. It was compiled using statistics from local morgues,
> hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq and was nearly three times
> higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by
The
> Associated Press earlier this month.
>
> 1. It was for one year
> 2. It only includes violent deaths
> 3. It was done by body counts "attempt" from local morgues, hospitals, and
> *municipal authorities* etc. which are under control of either Shia or
> Sunni.
> 4. The US and Iraq don't release their own figures
> 5. It was 3 time higher than previously reported by AP
>
> You can't argue with someone who doesn't care because they don't care if
> they are wrong. It's just a bunch of people at a University who risked
their
> lives to go into Iraq and go to individual houses to ask about who died.
And
> why? To discredit who, Bush? That seems to have been done sufficiently to
> not risk lives and the reputation of the most prestigious school of
medicine
> in the United States. The Red Cross is wrong, The Nobel Prizes are wrong,
> John Hopkins is wrong. But George Bush, the intellectual giant who would
> rather be knocking down weeds on his ranch and can't tell that his simple
> minded loyalty for loosers is hurting the country ... Bush isn't to blame.
> It's the Republican Party. Not Reagan Republicans, Not Eisenhower
> Republicans, but Rove Cheney and the like. It's disgusting.

You left off number six.

6. It shows the lancet study to be very, very improbable.

I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent people
over from the University to do the study. You are trying to make martyrs
out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet study, you are full
bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction from someone who realizes
they have supported a lie.




         
Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:19:54
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:ULOdne1nSKtAgq_bnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:rr8Yh.8862$Fk2.3402@newsfe08.phx...
>> Okay, Moderator posted that the UN finds different figures ...
>>
>> Here are the first 3 paragraphs:
>>
>> BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 - The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than
> 34,000
>> Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the
> first
>> comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the
>> failure the Iraqi government and American military to provide security.
>>
>> Numbers of civilian deaths have become the central indicator for the
>> trajectory of the war and are extremely sensitive for both Iraqi and
>> American officials. Both track the tallies but neither will release them.
>>
>> This latest figure was the first attempt at hand-counting individual
> deaths
>> for an entire year. It was compiled using statistics from local morgues,
>> hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq and was nearly three
>> times
>> higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by
> The
>> Associated Press earlier this month.
>>
>> 1. It was for one year
>> 2. It only includes violent deaths
>> 3. It was done by body counts "attempt" from local morgues, hospitals,
>> and
>> *municipal authorities* etc. which are under control of either Shia or
>> Sunni.
>> 4. The US and Iraq don't release their own figures
>> 5. It was 3 time higher than previously reported by AP
>>
>> You can't argue with someone who doesn't care because they don't care if
>> they are wrong. It's just a bunch of people at a University who risked
> their
>> lives to go into Iraq and go to individual houses to ask about who died.
> And
>> why? To discredit who, Bush? That seems to have been done sufficiently to
>> not risk lives and the reputation of the most prestigious school of
> medicine
>> in the United States. The Red Cross is wrong, The Nobel Prizes are wrong,
>> John Hopkins is wrong. But George Bush, the intellectual giant who would
>> rather be knocking down weeds on his ranch and can't tell that his simple
>> minded loyalty for loosers is hurting the country ... Bush isn't to
>> blame.
>> It's the Republican Party. Not Reagan Republicans, Not Eisenhower
>> Republicans, but Rove Cheney and the like. It's disgusting.
>
> You left off number six.
>
> 6. It shows the lancet study to be very, very improbable.
>
> I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent people
> over from the University to do the study. You are trying to make martyrs
> out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet study, you are full
> bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction from someone who realizes
> they have supported a lie.

Johns Hopkins did send people over. Martyrs are people who are killed and
none of them were killed. You say that the UN thing makes the Lancet study
improbable but even the UN study says that 34,000 were killed in one year
and doesn't include a large part of the figures by design. I don't know for
sure that the Lancet study is right but it doesn't have any real detractors,
imo. And we know the Bush administration lies. I guess they justify it as
the work of God.

I don't blame anyone for disliking liberals. But couldn't they find someone
better than a guy who really doesn't understand the job of president or
really want to be doing it? His statement that the next administration would
get stuck with the war is probably a good statement of his frustration and
lack of engagement with the actual realities of the war.




          
Date: 30 Apr 2007 08:41:39
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:qXsYh.236561$JN6.204992@newsfe17.phx...
>
> Johns Hopkins did send people over. Martyrs are people who are killed and
> none of them were killed. You say that the UN thing makes the Lancet study
> improbable but even the UN study says that 34,000 were killed in one year
> and doesn't include a large part of the figures by design. I don't know
for
> sure that the Lancet study is right but it doesn't have any real
detractors,
> imo. And we know the Bush administration lies. I guess they justify it as
> the work of God.
>
> I don't blame anyone for disliking liberals. But couldn't they find
someone
> better than a guy who really doesn't understand the job of president or
> really want to be doing it? His statement that the next administration
would
> get stuck with the war is probably a good statement of his frustration and
> lack of engagement with the actual realities of the war.

Who did John Hopkins send?

So now you don't know if the Lancet study is correct, but last week you
wanted to bet $1,000 that it was correct.






           
Date: 30 Apr 2007 13:07:16
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:_4adnR-zRJKJb6jbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:qXsYh.236561$JN6.204992@newsfe17.phx...
>>
>> Johns Hopkins did send people over. Martyrs are people who are killed and
>> none of them were killed. You say that the UN thing makes the Lancet
>> study
>> improbable but even the UN study says that 34,000 were killed in one year
>> and doesn't include a large part of the figures by design. I don't know
> for
>> sure that the Lancet study is right but it doesn't have any real
> detractors,
>> imo. And we know the Bush administration lies. I guess they justify it as
>> the work of God.
>>
>> I don't blame anyone for disliking liberals. But couldn't they find
> someone
>> better than a guy who really doesn't understand the job of president or
>> really want to be doing it? His statement that the next administration
> would
>> get stuck with the war is probably a good statement of his frustration
>> and
>> lack of engagement with the actual realities of the war.
>
> Who did John Hopkins send?
>
> So now you don't know if the Lancet study is correct, but last week you
> wanted to bet $1,000 that it was correct.

It was 100 - 1000 and I'm still willing to bet. Probability. It's a good
bet. Lancet doesn't "know". I'll get back to you on who they sent. I don't
have a dog in this fight. I wish the numbers were lower. I wouldn't mind if
Guiliani or Mc Cain or Tommy Thompson got elected, although Rudy is sounding
kind of flakey lately. And I wish the "surge" would work. I've never voted
for a democrat for president or a Republican either, only Perot because I
thought he was outside the political game. If that makes me a nut, ok but
Perot was the one who got the deficit into the debates and he said we should
have a strong militiary because there were always going to be wars among
other things that were 99% right, including health care and NAFTA and the
WTO.

If you remember Perot got his people out of Iran when the US government
wouldn't or couldn't. Didn't he go to Iran himself? I think he did. Anyway,
George Bush is an idiot or at least not suited for the job of president, but
he is a perfect puppet for people who seem to hell bent on some religious or
other mission that is destructive to the US. I believe that there may be
some or a lot of insanity behind this. Our vice president voted against a
resolution commending Nelson Mandela, one of 3 or 4 people in the house or
senate ... ? ... Doesn't that bother you? (when he was either a
representative or senator). You Republicans had better get your act together
and get someone like Reagan to run and get rid of the stupid taz cuts for
the top 1% of the rich. That's as stupid as supporting partial birth
abortion on the other side. I don't know if K street isn't an addiction that
the Republicans will die from. Maybe. When the left gets religion and the
religious right realizes that the "conservatives" have no interest in
supporting real Christian principles and the left realizes that gay marriage
is a stupid issue to put in their platform, there may be a huge change.

I'll get back with you on what Americans went to Iraq to help with the
Lancet study.




            
Date: 01 May 2007 09:00:27
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:Y1sZh.20155$Fk2.19497@newsfe08.phx...
>
>
> It was 100 - 1000 and I'm still willing to bet. Probability. It's a good
> bet. Lancet doesn't "know". I'll get back to you on who they sent. I don't
> have a dog in this fight. I wish the numbers were lower. I wouldn't mind
if
> Guiliani or Mc Cain or Tommy Thompson got elected, although Rudy is
sounding
> kind of flakey lately. And I wish the "surge" would work. I've never voted
> for a democrat for president or a Republican either, only Perot because I
> thought he was outside the political game. If that makes me a nut, ok but
> Perot was the one who got the deficit into the debates and he said we
should
> have a strong militiary because there were always going to be wars among
> other things that were 99% right, including health care and NAFTA and the
> WTO.
>
> If you remember Perot got his people out of Iran when the US government
> wouldn't or couldn't. Didn't he go to Iran himself? I think he did.
Anyway,
> George Bush is an idiot or at least not suited for the job of president,
but
> he is a perfect puppet for people who seem to hell bent on some religious
or
> other mission that is destructive to the US. I believe that there may be
> some or a lot of insanity behind this. Our vice president voted against a
> resolution commending Nelson Mandela, one of 3 or 4 people in the house or
> senate ... ? ... Doesn't that bother you? (when he was either a
> representative or senator). You Republicans had better get your act
together
> and get someone like Reagan to run and get rid of the stupid taz cuts for
> the top 1% of the rich. That's as stupid as supporting partial birth
> abortion on the other side. I don't know if K street isn't an addiction
that
> the Republicans will die from. Maybe. When the left gets religion and the
> religious right realizes that the "conservatives" have no interest in
> supporting real Christian principles and the left realizes that gay
marriage
> is a stupid issue to put in their platform, there may be a huge change.
>
> I'll get back with you on what Americans went to Iraq to help with the
> Lancet study.

After that bizarre rant I can see why you have put all your trust in the
Lancet study.




         
Date: 27 Apr 2007 20:25:17
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:ULOdne1nSKtAgq_bnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> You left off number six.
>
> 6. It shows the lancet study to be very, very improbable.
>
> I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent people
> over from the University to do the study. You are trying to make martyrs
> out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet study, you are full
> bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction from someone who realizes
> they have supported a lie.
>
We do know for certain that there are about 50,000
violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United
States every year. 200,000 over a 4 year period which
is the duration of the Iraqi war. Conditions in Iraq are
unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that
a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is
unreasonable?






          
Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:15:10
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:25:17 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:

>We do know for certain that there are about 50,000
>violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United
>States every year.

There were about 17,000 homicides in the US in 2005.

>200,000 over a 4 year period which
>is the duration of the Iraqi war.

70,000 is a more accurate figure.

>Conditions in Iraq are
>unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that
>a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is
>unreasonable?


The Population of the US is almost 300 million. The population of
Iraq is around 27 million.

So much for your analysis Alan.


           
Date: 28 Apr 2007 04:32:00
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:48m433hgf5ifkmnpqr83ibdr6fai180o0c@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:25:17 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
> <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>We do know for certain that there are about 50,000
>>violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United
>>States every year.
>
> There were about 17,000 homicides in the US in 2005.
>
>>200,000 over a 4 year period which
>>is the duration of the Iraqi war.
>
> 70,000 is a more accurate figure.
>
>>Conditions in Iraq are
>>unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that
>>a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is
>>unreasonable?
>
>
> The Population of the US is almost 300 million. The population of
> Iraq is around 27 million.
>
> So much for your analysis Alan.

US Government statistics from the Centre for Disease Control
state that there were 49,639 violent deaths in the US in 2003.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5526a1.htm
This supports my figure of 200,000 violent deaths in the US
over a 4 year period.

We are all well aware that the population of the US is
about 10x that of Iraq but some of us are also aware
that, whilst the US is at peace, Iraq is in the midst of an
exceedingly violent and bloody civil war visited upon it
by the US. Killing methods, apart from those inflicted by
the military, range from suicide bombings to ethnic
cleansing carried out by heavily armed death squads.
On-the-ground media cover of this conflict is negligible
due to the hostile environment. Lancet/JH, on the other
hand, sent in researchers using standard statistical
methods and their findings were supported in 92% of
the cases by the actual death certificates. These were
similar to the methods used to estimate the death tolls in
Darfur and the Holocaust.

Why do you even attempt to obfuscate in the face of
these undeniable facts?





            
Date: 28 Apr 2007 10:57:00
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:32:00 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:

>Why do you even attempt to obfuscate in the face of
>these undeniable facts?

Counting suicide, what nonsense.

In any case, this has nothing relevant to say about the Lancet study
one way or the other.


             
Date: 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:43o6331dsq0rl3pbt77br0ft4kqtfhoaiv@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:32:00 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
> <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Why do you even attempt to obfuscate in the face of
>>these undeniable facts?
>
> Counting suicide, what nonsense.
>

Violent deaths include suicides. WTF do you think
happens to suicide bombers after the detonation.

> In any case, this has nothing relevant to say about the Lancet study
> one way or the other.

You don't have much imagination, do you?
It says that 650,000 deaths over 4 years in Iraq
is not an unreasonable number when there are
200,000 violent deaths over the same period in
a country at peace, albeit with a larger population.

Look at it in another way. There have been about
3,500 deaths and about 27,000 serious injuries to
coalition forces in Iraq. Many of the injuries would
have resulted in death had it not been for the body
armour worn. These troops are heavily armed and
protected and yet there have been 30,000 deaths
or serious casualties, a huge number for a protected
force. Consider the civil war in which Shias are
pitted against Sunnis as well as against coalition
forces. Shooting and suicide bombing each other
must be like shooting fish in a barrel compared to
injuring coalition forces. 25 Iraqi deaths for each
coalition casualty is by no means an unreasonable
number.

The Lancet/JH study viewed death certificates in 92%
cases. The methodology used is accepted by all
authorities on the subject as being the most suitable
for the purpose. Why do you continue to deny the
findings?




              
Date: 01 May 2007 12:20:44
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:

>You don't have much imagination, do you?
>It says that 650,000 deaths over 4 years in Iraq
>is not an unreasonable number when there are
>200,000 violent deaths over the same period in
>a country at peace, albeit with a larger population.

What nonsense. The study is rubbish.


               
Date: 01 May 2007 17:59:01
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:36qe339tj7clm6pq2dgp0m101hlh6cg4ek@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
> <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>You don't have much imagination, do you?
>>It says that 650,000 deaths over 4 years in Iraq
>>is not an unreasonable number when there are
>>200,000 violent deaths over the same period in
>>a country at peace, albeit with a larger population.
>
> What nonsense. The study is rubbish.

That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you
are the other village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics
can publish a refutation.




                
Date: 01 May 2007 17:55:10
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
In article <dZmdnS6kH4lI7KrbRVnyiwA@bt.com >,
"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:

> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:36qe339tj7clm6pq2dgp0m101hlh6cg4ek@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
> > <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>You don't have much imagination, do you?
> >>It says that 650,000 deaths over 4 years in Iraq
> >>is not an unreasonable number when there are
> >>200,000 violent deaths over the same period in
> >>a country at peace, albeit with a larger population.
> >
> > What nonsense. The study is rubbish.
>
> That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you
> are the other village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics
> can publish a refutation.

It must be remembered that all studies that show ANYTHING other than the
strict WH, neocon, line are "rubbish" to Jack. He hasn't read them,
can't reference them, but he just KNOWS they are rubbish a priori.

We are dealing with a major intellect here.

William Clark


                 
Date: 01 May 2007 20:05:52
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:55:10 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> > What nonsense. The study is rubbish.
>>
>> That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you
>> are the other village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics
>> can publish a refutation.
>
>It must be remembered that all studies that show ANYTHING other than the
>strict WH, neocon, line are "rubbish" to Jack. He hasn't read them,
>can't reference them, but he just KNOWS they are rubbish a priori.
>
>We are dealing with a major intellect here.

This is coming from someone who posted data on differences in IQ
scores by state.


                  
Date: 01 May 2007 22:18:27
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
In article <palf33ha3opbbviaverh6j29bd0iuciho6@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:55:10 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > What nonsense. The study is rubbish.
> >>
> >> That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you
> >> are the other village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics
> >> can publish a refutation.
> >
> >It must be remembered that all studies that show ANYTHING other than the
> >strict WH, neocon, line are "rubbish" to Jack. He hasn't read them,
> >can't reference them, but he just KNOWS they are rubbish a priori.
> >
> >We are dealing with a major intellect here.
>
> This is coming from someone who posted data on differences in IQ
> scores by state.

Oh, dear, Jack. Caught out by your own lack of a sense of humor, I see.

Tut, tut.

William Clark


            
Date: 27 Apr 2007 22:23:55
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
This guy said things I was afraid to think ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA

snip (sorry)




          
Date: 27 Apr 2007 19:59:47
From: Chuck Davis
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message
news:Uu6dnSj2JryE06_bRVnyvgA@bt.com...
> ....
> We do know for certain that there are about 50,000
> violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United
> States every year. 200,000 over a 4 year period which
> is the duration of the Iraqi war. Conditions in Iraq are
> unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that
> a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is
> unreasonable?
>
Since the Iraq population is a little over 8% of the U.S. population, an
equivalent number to 200,000 would be about 17,000 violent deaths in the 4
years. All of Iraq may be 40 times as dangerous as the U.S., I don't know,
but the number seems awfully high.

Good luck to everyone in resolving this.

Chuck Davis




           
Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:22:59
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"Chuck Davis" <Newsgroup@hiscastle.net > wrote in message
news:TCsYh.7378$B25.5545@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:Uu6dnSj2JryE06_bRVnyvgA@bt.com...
>> ....
>> We do know for certain that there are about 50,000
>> violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United
>> States every year. 200,000 over a 4 year period which
>> is the duration of the Iraqi war. Conditions in Iraq are
>> unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that
>> a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is
>> unreasonable?
>>
> Since the Iraq population is a little over 8% of the U.S. population, an
> equivalent number to 200,000 would be about 17,000 violent deaths in the 4
> years. All of Iraq may be 40 times as dangerous as the U.S., I don't
> know, but the number seems awfully high.
>
> Good luck to everyone in resolving this.
>
> Chuck Davis

The range is from 300,00+ - 900,000+
600,000+ is the most likely number according to their study. It's a bell
shaped curve for the probability, so there is a 50-50 chance that the number
is higher.




          
Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:52:19
From: sfb
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
Yes. Iraq population is 26M, US is 300M.


"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message
news:Uu6dnSj2JryE06_bRVnyvgA@bt.com...
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
> news:ULOdne1nSKtAgq_bnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>>
>> You left off number six.
>>
>> 6. It shows the lancet study to be very, very improbable.
>>
>> I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent people
>> over from the University to do the study. You are trying to make martyrs
>> out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet study, you are full
>> bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction from someone who realizes
>> they have supported a lie.
>>
> We do know for certain that there are about 50,000
> violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United
> States every year. 200,000 over a 4 year period which
> is the duration of the Iraqi war. Conditions in Iraq are
> unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that
> a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is
> unreasonable?
>
>
>
>




 
Date: 23 Apr 2007 13:43:03
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 23, 3:30 pm, Dene <gdst...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages,
> > > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear
> > > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was
> > > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled.
>
> > This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have surprised
> > even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting
> > murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America in the
> > last century is there for all to see.
>
> Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were
> trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. But
> since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have played a
> part in that.
>
What part have we played? I know of nothing tangible the US did to
promote democracy in Latin America, which was never in danger of
"turning into another Cuba."



 
Date: 23 Apr 2007 12:30:21
From: Dene
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net >
wrote:
> In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages,
> > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear
> > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was
> > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled.
>
> This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have surprised
> even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting
> murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America in the
> last century is there for all to see.

Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were
trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. But
since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have played a
part in that.

-Greg



  
Date: 24 Apr 2007 14:58:58
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
In article <1177356620.986522.120870@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

> On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages,
> > > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear
> > > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was
> > > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled.
> >
> > This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have surprised
> > even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting
> > murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America in the
> > last century is there for all to see.
>
> Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were
> trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. But
> since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have played a
> part in that.

The US government is widely hated throughout the region for its massive
support of terror operations, brutal dictators, coups against democratic
governments - not to mention outright invasions - over the decades. You
can see how much the US loves democracy by the speed with which it
embraced the coup against Chavez in Venezuela.


 
Date: 21 Apr 2007 21:51:23
From: dsc
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 20, 10:00 pm, "AKA gray asphalt"
<goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 19, 10:19 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
> >> > Better
> >> > their blood than that of your son or daughter.
>
> >> That is partly why I'm less concerned about civilian casualties than
> >> many people are... better that than our troops.
>
> > Unless you're an Iraqi, of course.
>
> > BTW, what is the current conversion rate?
> > 1 American life = how many Iraqis?

Let me put it this way... if we were under fire from a building
containing insurgents and non-insurgents... the answer would be
however many are in that building.




 
Date: 21 Apr 2007 10:24:20
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
Crap.

The over/under was 185.



 
Date: 20 Apr 2007 17:38:27
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 20, 1:12 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> > > BTW, what is the current conversion rate?
> > > 1 American life = how many Iraqis?
>
> > According to the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study there
> > were 650,000 Iraqi killed over six months ago.

> The Lancet study is not accurate at all. I would not quote it until you do
> some research

OK, so what are the correct numbers?




 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 22:17:32
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 10:19 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
> > Better
> > their blood than that of your son or daughter.
>
> That is partly why I'm less concerned about civilian casualties than
> many people are... better that than our troops.

Unless you're an Iraqi, of course.

BTW, what is the current conversion rate?
1 American life = how many Iraqis?



  
Date: 28 Apr 2007 01:35:10
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:12:10 -0700, AKA gray asphalt wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1177683956.611363.228240@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 27, 10:16 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, John B. wrote:
>>> > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete
>>> >> rubbish.
>>>
>>> > How the hell do you know?
>>>
>>> He doesn't, of course. Like all the other neocons here, Jack prefers
>>> the study with more convenient numbers. Even if it was written by
>>> musicians and librarians.
>>
>> This idea that conservatives have - that all public policy research
>> conducted at US universties is suspect because of the liberal
>> tendencies of academia - is incredibly stupid. It shows they have run
>> out of any intelligent arguments for their president and his policies.
>
> ... especially since the same people used the same methods in Darfur and
> other places and the statistics were accepted by the administration
> without question.

They obviously have -0- idea what the true numbers are. What a joke.


  
Date: 27 Apr 2007 07:25:56
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 27, 10:16 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, John B. wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a
> >> >university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness,
> >> >so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and
> >> >embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it?
>
> >> You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete rubbish.
>
> > How the hell do you know?
>
> He doesn't, of course. Like all the other neocons here, Jack prefers the
> study with more convenient numbers. Even if it was written by musicians
> and librarians.

This idea that conservatives have - that all public policy research
conducted at US universties is suspect because of the liberal
tendencies of academia - is incredibly stupid. It shows they have run
out of any intelligent arguments for their president and his policies.



   
Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:12:10
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177683956.611363.228240@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 27, 10:16 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, John B. wrote:
>> > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a
>> >> >university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness,
>> >> >so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and
>> >> >embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it?
>>
>> >> You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete rubbish.
>>
>> > How the hell do you know?
>>
>> He doesn't, of course. Like all the other neocons here, Jack prefers the
>> study with more convenient numbers. Even if it was written by musicians
>> and librarians.
>
> This idea that conservatives have - that all public policy research
> conducted at US universties is suspect because of the liberal
> tendencies of academia - is incredibly stupid. It shows they have run
> out of any intelligent arguments for their president and his policies.

... especially since the same people used the same methods in Darfur and
other places and the statistics were accepted by the administration without
question.




  
Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:16:21
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, John B. wrote:
> On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a
>> >university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness,
>> >so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and
>> >embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it?
>>
>> You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete rubbish.
>
> How the hell do you know?

He doesn't, of course. Like all the other neocons here, Jack prefers the
study with more convenient numbers. Even if it was written by musicians
and librarians.


  
Date: 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a
> >university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness,
> >so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and
> >embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it?
>
> You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete rubbish.

How the hell do you know?



   
Date: 27 Apr 2007 10:50:09
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a
>> >university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness,
>> >so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and
>> >embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it?
>>
>> You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete rubbish.
>
>How the hell do you know?

Here is the response to the article from the anti-war group Iraqi Body
Count which collects data on the same issue.

"Iraq Body Count Press Release 16 October 2006
Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates
Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty
Summary

A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating
over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates
published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things,
that:

1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every
single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them
being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other
serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than
a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already
been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected
areas covering most of central Iraq;
4. Half a million death certificates were received by families
which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than
in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe"
invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

* incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi
officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and
national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation
began;
* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a
small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
* the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and
respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban
areas;
* an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international,
to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported
during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month
for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational
alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn
conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the
magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the
invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy."

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php


In addition, the UN also collects data on deaths and casualties that
is nowhere near the figure quoted by the Lancet.

The study is rubbish.


    
Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:55:53
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:50:09 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
<clip >
>
>The study is rubbish.

My question to you is:
How the fuck do you know? No one knows for sure about anything in
Iraq, and you certainly aren't the expert. Wouldn't it be more
reasonable to at least add "in my opinion"? That's all this is you
know.
bk


     
Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:57:20
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:55:53 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:50:09 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
><clip>
>>
>>The study is rubbish.
>
> My question to you is:
>How the fuck do you know? No one knows for sure about anything in
>Iraq, and you certainly aren't the expert. Wouldn't it be more
>reasonable to at least add "in my opinion"? That's all this is you
>know.
>bk

There are a number of groups that collect this data. The UN
(certainly no friend of the US) has a figure that were about 15% of
the Lancet figure. The IBC group has a figure that is around 10% of
the Lancet figure. One month before the Lancet study was released,
the Institute for Policy Studies, a left wing group, published their
update on casualty figures and their top range was 100K.

"U.S. military killed in Iraq: 2,656
Number of U.S. troops wounded in combat since the war began: 19,773
Iraqi police and military deaths: 5,323
Iraqi civilians killed: Estimates range from 41,639 - 100,000"

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/cow9-06.pdf

So, when you see one study that is so far out of the range of every
other group that is doing the same work, you have to smell a rat.

I say again, the Lancet study is rubbish.

BTW, the Lancet also released a civilian casualties study in Oct 2004
one month before the election. It was rubbish as well.


  
Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:00:47
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 10:19 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>> > Better
>> > their blood than that of your son or daughter.
>>
>> That is partly why I'm less concerned about civilian casualties than
>> many people are... better that than our troops.
>
> Unless you're an Iraqi, of course.
>
> BTW, what is the current conversion rate?
> 1 American life = how many Iraqis?

How many Sudanese (Darfur) = 1 Iranian?
How many Sudanese = 1 Iranian if they didn't have oil?




  
Date: 20 Apr 2007 17:55:18
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> BTW, what is the current conversion rate?
> 1 American life = how many Iraqis?
>
According to the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study there
were 650,000 Iraqi killed over six months ago. About
3,500 American casualties to date. I'm so sickened by
the unbelievable nightmare that everyone in Iraq is
living through that I can't bring myself to do the math.
BTW not a mention of oil in this thread, not even by
Carbon. That's like discussing the Israel/Palestinian
situation without mentioning Zionism. Or Victorians
writing novels without mentioning sex - if you prefer
the late Kurt Vonnegut's take.




   
Date: 20 Apr 2007 21:47:47
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

>> William Clark
>
>What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun?

I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data.


    
Date: 21 Apr 2007 16:52:01
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >> William Clark
> >
> >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun?
>
> I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data.

Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose
data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as
one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it?

William Clark


     
Date: 23 Apr 2007 09:57:58
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-1021C0.16520121042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator"
> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> William Clark
> > >
> > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun?
> >
> > I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data.
>
> Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose
> data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as
> one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it?
>
> William Clark

I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are mistaken.




      
Date: 23 Apr 2007 15:50:34
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:57:58 -0500, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

>"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>news:clark.31-1021C0.16520121042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com>,
>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator"
>> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> William Clark
>> > >
>> > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun?
>> >
>> > I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data.
>>
>> Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose
>> data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as
>> one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it?
>>
>> William Clark
>
>I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are mistaken.

I can't find it either.


       
Date: 27 Apr 2007 07:57:07
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 26, 6:52 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33 -0400, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy
> ><p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled
> >>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's
> >>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year.
>
> >There is no SSTF.
>
> Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not
> Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding
> that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the
> general fund) that is collected for SS.
>
> Larry

Dead wrong. How unlike you. Anybody with even a passing interest in
the federal budget and who knows how to read has always known that
there is no discrete SS trust fund. How could you hide something like
that? It was not, as you claim, a secret until GW Bush came along and
proclaimed it. He didn't even know what SS was when he came to office.
He said during a debate w/Gore in 2000 that people talk about SS "as
if it were some kind of government program."



        
Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:04:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 27 Apr 2007 07:57:07 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>Dead wrong. How unlike you. Anybody with even a passing interest in
>the federal budget and who knows how to read has always known that
>there is no discrete SS trust fund. How could you hide something like
>that? It was not, as you claim, a secret until GW Bush came along and
>proclaimed it.

It's true that anyone who took the time to study the issue would soon
realize that there is no money in the SSTF. The government has been
taking the money from the SSTF from day one. However, GWB was the
first President who sent out people to tell the public that this is
the case. All his predecessors were not willing to be so open about
the mythical SSTF.


       
Date: 24 Apr 2007 08:41:58
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <lf3q23lihq1kp6hht31mguu69aneagevqb@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:57:58 -0500, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:clark.31-1021C0.16520121042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com>,
> >> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator"
> >> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> William Clark
> >> > >
> >> > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun?
> >> >
> >> > I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data.
> >>
> >> Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose
> >> data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as
> >> one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it?
> >>
> >> William Clark
> >
> >I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are mistaken.
>
> I can't find it either.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), How Many Guns? ATF News
Release FY-91-36, G.P.O., Washington, 1991.

Thank you.

William Clark


        
Date: 24 Apr 2007 15:39:07
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:41:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>> >I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are mistaken.
>>
>> I can't find it either.
>
>Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), How Many Guns? ATF News
>Release FY-91-36, G.P.O., Washington, 1991.
>
>Thank you.
>
>William Clark

I still don't see it Bill. Could you please post a hyperlink to the
original article, or perhaps to the article that you saw the 29%
figure.

Hopefully, it wasn't this piece of crap from an anti gun group.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm

You will see the 29% rate but it's not an ATF figure.


         
Date: 24 Apr 2007 21:31:31
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <hgms23h0vo8pe8u3rlhttej7ih0rejtit2@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:41:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are mistaken.
> >>
> >> I can't find it either.
> >
> >Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), How Many Guns? ATF News
> >Release FY-91-36, G.P.O., Washington, 1991.
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> I still don't see it Bill. Could you please post a hyperlink to the
> original article, or perhaps to the article that you saw the 29%
> figure.
>
> Hopefully, it wasn't this piece of crap from an anti gun group.
>
> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm
>
> You will see the 29% rate but it's not an ATF figure.

You know, not everything published has to be on the web. We have such
things as libraries (remember those?), so go get some exercise. I'm not
going to do it all for you.

Of course, you could also look at the figures in the current issue of
Newsweek, but then you wouldn't want to trust a "lefty" publication like
that, now would you?

William Clark


          
Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:28:10
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:31:31 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> Hopefully, it wasn't this piece of crap from an anti gun group.
>>
>> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm
>>
>> You will see the 29% rate but it's not an ATF figure.
>
>You know, not everything published has to be on the web. We have such
>things as libraries (remember those?), so go get some exercise. I'm not
>going to do it all for you.
>
>Of course, you could also look at the figures in the current issue of
>Newsweek, but then you wouldn't want to trust a "lefty" publication like
>that, now would you?
>
>William Clark

I waiting to see anything, from anywhere. However, if you're taking
the web site run by Tom Huppi seriously, then you need to reevaluate
your analytical abilities.

You know Bill, when I quote you crime statistcs, they come from the UK
Home Office and the UN. Then I get Tom Huppi in return.


           
Date: 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <v7lu23hi5sk97f1skgsq57uuhoeltiab25@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:31:31 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Hopefully, it wasn't this piece of crap from an anti gun group.
> >>
> >> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm
> >>
> >> You will see the 29% rate but it's not an ATF figure.
> >
> >You know, not everything published has to be on the web. We have such
> >things as libraries (remember those?), so go get some exercise. I'm not
> >going to do it all for you.
> >
> >Of course, you could also look at the figures in the current issue of
> >Newsweek, but then you wouldn't want to trust a "lefty" publication like
> >that, now would you?
> >
> >William Clark
>
> I waiting to see anything, from anywhere. However, if you're taking
> the web site run by Tom Huppi seriously, then you need to reevaluate
> your analytical abilities.
>
> You know Bill, when I quote you crime statistcs, they come from the UK
> Home Office and the UN. Then I get Tom Huppi in return.

Sorry - where did this Huppi notion come from? I gave you two hard copy
data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek.
I can give you a whole lot more, but you already have three sources to
read, and you still keep bleating that you are "waiting to see
anything". Pathetic. There are none so blind as those that will not see,
or who are too lazy to stir out of their comfortable neocon cocoon and
look at the world for what it is.

All you do in return is quote figures from the UK Govt. (which surprises
me, since it clearly falls in the dangerous "liberal" category).

Until you can actually do a little homework and come up with something
(anything) that constitutes a point of discussion supported by
verifiable data, I have no more time to waste on your thread. Childish
attempts at put downs are really getting boring.

William Clark


            
Date: 25 Apr 2007 21:47:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>I gave you two hard copy
>data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
>fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek.

I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only
source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from
the book "Where We Stand."

I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.


             
Date: 26 Apr 2007 10:17:13
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >I gave you two hard copy
> >data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
> >fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek.
>
> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only
> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from
> the book "Where We Stand."
>
> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.

For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember
those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.

Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.

William Clark


              
Date: 26 Apr 2007 16:22:41
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:17:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
>
>For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember
>those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
>
>Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
>
>William Clark

If I give you my fax number will you fax it to me?


               
Date: 27 Apr 2007 06:53:39
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <te2233d705tjqs2e4uda2bocfc5llv947a@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:17:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
> >> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
> >
> >For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember
> >those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
> >
> >Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> If I give you my fax number will you fax it to me?

Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big red
building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to
get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you
good.

In the meantime, please don't be so childish as to think that my refusal
to wet nurse you implies I do not have the articles. That's just too
Karl Roveian to be credible.

William Clark


                
Date: 27 Apr 2007 18:30:22
From: BAR
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <te2233d705tjqs2e4uda2bocfc5llv947a@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:17:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember
>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
>>>
>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
>>>
>>> William Clark
>> If I give you my fax number will you fax it to me?
>
> Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big red
> building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to
> get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you
> good.
>
> In the meantime, please don't be so childish as to think that my refusal
> to wet nurse you implies I do not have the articles. That's just too
> Karl Roveian to be credible.

Hey Billy give the guy a bone and go to Kinko's and fax him a page or two.


                 
Date: 28 Apr 2007 10:51:01
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <R4edncZpFZYc5K_bnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com >,
BAR <screwed@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <te2233d705tjqs2e4uda2bocfc5llv947a@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:17:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
> >>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
> >>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember
> >>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
> >>>
> >>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
> >>>
> >>> William Clark
> >> If I give you my fax number will you fax it to me?
> >
> > Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big red
> > building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to
> > get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you
> > good.
> >
> > In the meantime, please don't be so childish as to think that my refusal
> > to wet nurse you implies I do not have the articles. That's just too
> > Karl Roveian to be credible.
>
> Hey Billy give the guy a bone and go to Kinko's and fax him a page or two.

No, it's much more fun to leave him twisting in the wind.

William Clark


                  
Date: 28 Apr 2007 11:13:51
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:51:01 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>No, it's much more fun to leave him twisting in the wind.
>
>William Clark

It's not me who's twisting Bill.


                 
Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:43:09
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:30:22 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com > wrote:

>> In the meantime, please don't be so childish as to think that my refusal
>> to wet nurse you implies I do not have the articles. That's just too
>> Karl Roveian to be credible.
>
>Hey Billy give the guy a bone and go to Kinko's and fax him a page or two.

Hopefully he wouldn't have to go that far.


                
Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:32:25
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big red
>building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to
>get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you
>good.

LOL, I knew you didn't have it.


                 
Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:12:23
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <cdg433legog78a242k6r4vjp9q22pdq0ue@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big red
> >building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to
> >get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you
> >good.
>
> LOL, I knew you didn't have it.

There you go - typical Rovian sneering smear. You know, I would go to
the trouble of Xeroxing and faxing the article to you if I believed for
one second that you were actually interested in the content, but you
aren't. All you care about doing is protecting the neocon line, and
trashing anyone and anything that doesn't agree with it. That is what
you do in every discusision. Thus you are simply not worth the time of
day or the cost of a copy.

You can go ahead and call me a liar if you choose. It merely shows the
world the kind of person you really are.

William Clark


                  
Date: 27 Apr 2007 20:55:44
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:12:23 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>You can go ahead and call me a liar if you choose. It merely shows the
>world the kind of person you really are.
>
>William Clark

I'm the kind of person who knows when a person's been caught with his
pants down and tries to bullshit his way out of it.


BTW, Bill you posted this a few days back:

>"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.

I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs
from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but
never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source?


                   
Date: 30 Apr 2007 13:59:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 30, 3:58 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:08:00 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>
> <clark...@osu.edu> wrote:
> >> I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way
> >> or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide
> >> rate.
>
> >That's good - you don;t like the way the game is going, so you're taking
> >your ball and going home.
>
> >Fine with me.
>
> >William Clark
>
> The game is going fine. You're not even in the ball park.
>
> Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate
> is higher in Switzerland than the UK.

My God, Jack, do you really have nothing better to do than this? I'm
starting to think you're in prison and using the computer in the
library.



                    
Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:43:33
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177966780.976819.47460@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Apr 30, 3:58 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:08:00 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >
> > <clark...@osu.edu> wrote:
> > >> I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way
> > >> or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide
> > >> rate.
> >
> > >That's good - you don;t like the way the game is going, so you're taking
> > >your ball and going home.
> >
> > >Fine with me.
> >
> > >William Clark
> >
> > The game is going fine. You're not even in the ball park.
> >
> > Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate
> > is higher in Switzerland than the UK.
>
> My God, Jack, do you really have nothing better to do than this? I'm
> starting to think you're in prison and using the computer in the
> library.

Yup, it's pretty pathetic, isn't it? Actually, prison sounds like a good
guess, seeing as he is apparently unable to get to any of the data
references I keep giving him.

I wonder what he's there for?

William Clark


                   
Date: 28 Apr 2007 10:53:39
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <ne653392v3jmb7rmtqtmirb555pb0el3nq@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:12:23 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >You can go ahead and call me a liar if you choose. It merely shows the
> >world the kind of person you really are.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> I'm the kind of person who knows when a person's been caught with his
> pants down and tries to bullshit his way out of it.

Oh, you are, are you. Well, I'm the kind of person who knows who it is
worth spending time to exchange views with, and who isn't. Guess which
category you drop into?
>
>
> BTW, Bill you posted this a few days back:
>
> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.
>
> I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs
> from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but
> never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source?

And I referred you to more recent figures in this week's Newsweek. Did
you look at those?

William Clark


                    
Date: 28 Apr 2007 11:18:02
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
>> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.
>>
>> I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs
>> from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but
>> never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source?
>
>And I referred you to more recent figures in this week's Newsweek. Did
>you look at those?
>
>William Clark

So you're telling me that Newsweek reported that "Overall murder rates
shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, and Switzerland at
2.25."

I seriously doubt that.

Let me see them? Post a hyperlink. Until you do that you're just
posting unsubstantiated data. Credibility means being able to back up
what you say.


                     
Date: 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <a6p633ti5p0kfp4cevc0pq9h6g09e2f1nq@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> >> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.
> >>
> >> I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs
> >> from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but
> >> never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source?
> >
> >And I referred you to more recent figures in this week's Newsweek. Did
> >you look at those?
> >
> >William Clark
>
> So you're telling me that Newsweek reported that "Overall murder rates
> shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, and Switzerland at
> 2.25."
>
> I seriously doubt that.
>
> Let me see them? Post a hyperlink. Until you do that you're just
> posting unsubstantiated data. Credibility means being able to back up
> what you say.

No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31
per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at
6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08
(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most
recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh?

You can only hyperlink if you subscribe to Newsweek (xtra.Newsweek.com),
but you can toddle off to your local bookstore and buy a copy of the
magazine (April 30 edition) for $4.95. The numbers are on page 44 and 45.

Now whose credibility is sorely lacking?

William Clark


                      
Date: 28 Apr 2007 21:52:33
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31
>per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at
>6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08
>(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most
>recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh?

Different cultures will have different murder rates irrespective of
what tools they use. Hutus only needed machetes to wipe out the
Tutsis. The problem is criminality, not what tool each culture or
society chooses to use.


                       
Date: 29 Apr 2007 11:46:00
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:52:33 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov >
wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
><clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31
>>per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at
>>6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08
>>(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most
>>recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh?
>
>Different cultures will have different murder rates irrespective of
>what tools they use. Hutus only needed machetes to wipe out the
>Tutsis. The problem is criminality, not what tool each culture or
>society chooses to use.

Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue.


                        
Date: 29 Apr 2007 17:01:51
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:52:33 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>><clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>>No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31
>>>per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at
>>>6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08
>>>(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most
>>>recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh?
>>
>>Different cultures will have different murder rates irrespective of
>>what tools they use. Hutus only needed machetes to wipe out the
>>Tutsis. The problem is criminality, not what tool each culture or
>>society chooses to use.
>
> Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue.

I think both of you are making a binary either/or assumption where
none is warranted. Clearly firearms rate *is* relevant to the issue
even if it's not the only thing or even the most important thing
to be considered.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/


                         
Date: 29 Apr 2007 14:22:57
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <2T4257q7Ilg5N34@redshark.goodshow.net >,
Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:52:33 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >><clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >>>No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31
> >>>per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at
> >>>6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08
> >>>(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most
> >>>recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh?
> >>
> >>Different cultures will have different murder rates irrespective of
> >>what tools they use. Hutus only needed machetes to wipe out the
> >>Tutsis. The problem is criminality, not what tool each culture or
> >>society chooses to use.
> >
> > Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue.
>
> I think both of you are making a binary either/or assumption where
> none is warranted. Clearly firearms rate *is* relevant to the issue
> even if it's not the only thing or even the most important thing
> to be considered.

It isn't if you are a right wing neocon, whose only intent is to
maintain the party/NRA line, regardless of the evidence.

That's what we have here. It's called "being in denial".

William Clark


                          
Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:00:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:22:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>It isn't if you are a right wing neocon, whose only intent is to
>maintain the party/NRA line, regardless of the evidence.
>
>That's what we have here. It's called "being in denial".
>
>William Clark

The only denial around here is your denial to provide sources for what
you post.


                           
Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:23:13
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <g9ca3391rf9naaikgqiukt3dn12ohv7ps9@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:22:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >It isn't if you are a right wing neocon, whose only intent is to
> >maintain the party/NRA line, regardless of the evidence.
> >
> >That's what we have here. It's called "being in denial".
> >
> >William Clark
>
> The only denial around here is your denial to provide sources for what
> you post.

I have given you multiple sources for the information. You try to bury
those in this tissue of smears.

Whatever.

William Clark


                            
Date: 30 Apr 2007 16:06:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:23:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> The only denial around here is your denial to provide sources for what
>> you post.
>
>I have given you multiple sources for the information. You try to bury
>those in this tissue of smears.

Give me a specific reference. If you had the data you should know
where it came from beyond just the DoJ or ATF.


                             
Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:11:48
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <psic33t150unt1voq9cdk7sh5in1aube9a@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:23:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> The only denial around here is your denial to provide sources for what
> >> you post.
> >
> >I have given you multiple sources for the information. You try to bury
> >those in this tissue of smears.
>
> Give me a specific reference. If you had the data you should know
> where it came from beyond just the DoJ or ATF.

There you go, trying to fudge the issue again. Which "source" are you
after for which data? I have read so many dishonest claims from you,
that I have forgotten which particular source you are trying to smear -
you have so many.

William Clark


                         
Date: 29 Apr 2007 13:27:38
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:01:51 -0000, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>> Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue.
>
>I think both of you are making a binary either/or assumption where
>none is warranted. Clearly firearms rate *is* relevant to the issue
>even if it's not the only thing or even the most important thing
>to be considered.


The issue is to compare overall homicide rate. The per capita
homicide rate for the UK is almost double that of Switzerland. Now,
we know that gun ownership in Switzerland is very high and gun
ownership in the UK is very low. To point out that there are a
greater number of per capita homicides committed by guns in
Switzerland is irrelevant. Obviously, it's hard to commit a homicide
by gun in the UK because very few people have access to guns. As has
already been pointed out, the method of homicide is irrelevant to the
issue. It's the overall homicide arte that's important.

The UK versus Swiss comparison is often used by opponents of gun
control. The anti-gun groups can't deny the fact that overall
homicide rates are higher in the UK, so they present irrelevant data
to try to cloud the issue. I'm sure that some of them are aware of
their dishonesty and others are probably unable to discern that the
data is irrelevant.


                          
Date: 29 Apr 2007 14:55:25
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <iik933pabte8kom415pfu9konea2dv8n04@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:01:51 -0000, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue.
> >
> >I think both of you are making a binary either/or assumption where
> >none is warranted. Clearly firearms rate *is* relevant to the issue
> >even if it's not the only thing or even the most important thing
> >to be considered.
>
>
> The issue is to compare overall homicide rate. The per capita
> homicide rate for the UK is almost double that of Switzerland. Now,
> we know that gun ownership in Switzerland is very high and gun
> ownership in the UK is very low. To point out that there are a
> greater number of per capita homicides committed by guns in
> Switzerland is irrelevant. Obviously, it's hard to commit a homicide
> by gun in the UK because very few people have access to guns. As has
> already been pointed out, the method of homicide is irrelevant to the
> issue. It's the overall homicide arte that's important.

Well, if you want to change the goal posts at this stage, what is then
even more glaring is the fact that the Swiss, whose homicide is not
"double that of the UK", but actually almost exactly the same as England
and Wales at ~0.012 per 1,000 population, have a firearm homicide rate
so much higher than England & Wales. Seems to point out that the
presence of a much larger number of handguns in Switzerland (we will
assume the rifles are safely locked up, as Swiss law requires) leads to
a disproportionately high firearm homicide rate in an otherwise peaceful
country. Doesn't really help your case.
>
> The UK versus Swiss comparison is often used by opponents of gun
> control. The anti-gun groups can't deny the fact that overall
> homicide rates are higher in the UK, so they present irrelevant data
> to try to cloud the issue. I'm sure that some of them are aware of
> their dishonesty and others are probably unable to discern that the
> data is irrelevant.

Not true - as pointed out above homicide rates in the two countries are
almost identical, at about 0.012 per 1,000 (roughly one fifth of that in
the US). If you don't believe me, check the Department of Justice's own
study. The pro-gun lobby also uses Switzerland to try to make a case
that guns are safe in the house - the data suggests otherwise, even when
under much stricter controls than in the US.

Look at the data, and then tell us all that it is "dishonest" and
"irrelevant".

William Clark


                           
Date: 30 Apr 2007 15:55:12
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:55:25 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Well, if you want to change the goal posts at this stage, what is then
>even more glaring is the fact that the Swiss, whose homicide is not
>"double that of the UK", but actually almost exactly the same as England
>and Wales at ~0.012 per 1,000 population

First, I said that the overall homicide rate of the UK is almost
double that of Switzerland. Second, the UK is not England and Wales.
Both Scotland and NI have to be included in the UK statistics and both
have a higher homicide rate that England and Wales (nice try, it
didn't work.). Even so, the England and Wales homicide rate is higher
than Switzerland and if you look at the whole UK it's almost double.


                            
Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:03:32
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <s8hc33tjcd84ubqlitvpubd5sro63crjjp@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:55:25 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Well, if you want to change the goal posts at this stage, what is then
> >even more glaring is the fact that the Swiss, whose homicide is not
> >"double that of the UK", but actually almost exactly the same as England
> >and Wales at ~0.012 per 1,000 population
>
> First, I said that the overall homicide rate of the UK is almost
> double that of Switzerland. Second, the UK is not England and Wales.
> Both Scotland and NI have to be included in the UK statistics and both
> have a higher homicide rate that England and Wales (nice try, it
> didn't work.). Even so, the England and Wales homicide rate is higher
> than Switzerland and if you look at the whole UK it's almost double.

The homicide rate in NI is about 30 per year in a population of 1.67M.
The latest rate in Scotland is 108 in a population of 5M. If you combine
these with the figures for England & Wales, you get a total of just
under 900 homicides in a total population of just under 60,000,000. That
gives a rate of ~0.014 per 1,000, compared to the rate for E&W alone of
~0.012 per 1,000. Hardly any change, because of the relative sizes of
the populations of E&W, compared with Scotland and NI. So, I don't know
where you get your "figures" from, since you give no sources or actual
numbers (tut, tut, shame on you!), but they are wrong. Prove me
otherwise with real, recent, data if you can. Nice try, it didn't work.

So once again the simple fact is that the most recent DoJ data shows
that the homicide rates in Switzerland and E&W are essentially
identical, at about 0.012 per 1,000 population. You continue to deny
this, but you still have not produced any source to back up your claim.
Until you do, you are just blowing (rather dishonest) hot air.

William Clark


                             
Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:34:19
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:03:32 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>So, I don't know
>where you get your "figures" from, since you give no sources or actual
>numbers (tut, tut, shame on you!), but they are wrong. Prove me
>otherwise with real, recent, data if you can. Nice try, it didn't work.

UN study look it up.


                              
Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:38:59
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <h5oc331f4j411c5jqdjjri87ncol9rtstl@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:03:32 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >So, I don't know
> >where you get your "figures" from, since you give no sources or actual
> >numbers (tut, tut, shame on you!), but they are wrong. Prove me
> >otherwise with real, recent, data if you can. Nice try, it didn't work.
>
> UN study look it up.

Naughty, naughty, Jack. That's not a reference. For one who bleats so
loud and long about others and their sources, you'd better give a FULL
reference to yours if not to show yourself to be a charlatan. I don't
believe you can actually produce it, can you?

In any event, I would hold the DoJ "Cross National Studies in Crime and
Justice" to be a more reliable source of this information that the "UN
study".

William Clark


                               
Date: 01 May 2007 12:25:40
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:38:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>In article <h5oc331f4j411c5jqdjjri87ncol9rtstl@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:03:32 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >So, I don't know
>> >where you get your "figures" from, since you give no sources or actual
>> >numbers (tut, tut, shame on you!), but they are wrong. Prove me
>> >otherwise with real, recent, data if you can. Nice try, it didn't work.
>>
>> UN study look it up.
>
>Naughty, naughty, Jack. That's not a reference. For one who bleats so
>loud and long about others and their sources, you'd better give a FULL
>reference to yours if not to show yourself to be a charlatan. I don't
>believe you can actually produce it, can you?

LOL. Perhaps you should look up the word sarcasm.


                                
Date: 01 May 2007 15:51:44
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <cdqe335sk5v68gl9mtkmonhm5gamnpr1ni@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:38:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <h5oc331f4j411c5jqdjjri87ncol9rtstl@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:03:32 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So, I don't know
> >> >where you get your "figures" from, since you give no sources or actual
> >> >numbers (tut, tut, shame on you!), but they are wrong. Prove me
> >> >otherwise with real, recent, data if you can. Nice try, it didn't work.
> >>
> >> UN study look it up.
> >
> >Naughty, naughty, Jack. That's not a reference. For one who bleats so
> >loud and long about others and their sources, you'd better give a FULL
> >reference to yours if not to show yourself to be a charlatan. I don't
> >believe you can actually produce it, can you?
>
> LOL. Perhaps you should look up the word sarcasm.

LOL, perhaps you should look up the word "evasive". Once again, you
refuse to give references or numbers to back up your ludicrous claims.
Why? Because you don't have any.

I'm calling you out on your data, Jack. Produce it, reference it, or
else just butt out.

William Clark


                          
Date: 29 Apr 2007 17:55:35
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:01:51 -0000, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue.
>>
>>I think both of you are making a binary either/or assumption where
>>none is warranted. Clearly firearms rate *is* relevant to the issue
>>even if it's not the only thing or even the most important thing
>>to be considered.
>
> The issue is to compare overall homicide rate. The per capita
> homicide rate for the UK is almost double that of Switzerland.

UK: 1.97/100,000
Swiss: 2.25/100,000

Huh?

> Now,
> we know that gun ownership in Switzerland is very high and gun
> ownership in the UK is very low. To point out that there are a
> greater number of per capita homicides committed by guns in
> Switzerland is irrelevant.

Oh. The above numbers were handguns only. Got it.

> Obviously, it's hard to commit a homicide
> by gun in the UK because very few people have access to guns. As has
> already been pointed out, the method of homicide is irrelevant to the
> issue. It's the overall homicide arte that's important.

What if it's mass random homicide you're trying to address? I'm
actually probably in agreement with you on this because I think
that technology let that horse out of the barn and there are lots
of ways of killing lots of people that don't involve firearms.

However.

I also think that the high rate of gun ownership in this country
is completely enmeshed with its historically astronomical homicide
rate. But I also think that the cause/effect relationship isn't
nearly as clear as gun control advocates like to consider or admit.
Probably, though, if Americans were to collectively reach a point
where they were *willingly* ready to lay down their arms (as it
were), that would be part of a decline in the homicide rate both
as a cause and as an effect. I can't think of a way that this
could possibly be legislated, though.

See? I side with the conservatives about something, even though
I abhor handguns and would never own one myself.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/


                      
Date: 28 Apr 2007 19:46:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
>> >> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.
>> >>
>> >> I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs
>> >> from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but
>> >> never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source?
>> >
>> >And I referred you to more recent figures in this week's Newsweek. Did
>> >you look at those?
>> >
>> >William Clark
>>
>> So you're telling me that Newsweek reported that "Overall murder rates
>> shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, and Switzerland at
>> 2.25."
>>
>> I seriously doubt that.
>>
>> Let me see them? Post a hyperlink. Until you do that you're just
>> posting unsubstantiated data. Credibility means being able to back up
>> what you say.
>
>No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31
>per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at
>6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08
>(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most
>recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh?
>
>You can only hyperlink if you subscribe to Newsweek (xtra.Newsweek.com),
>but you can toddle off to your local bookstore and buy a copy of the
>magazine (April 30 edition) for $4.95. The numbers are on page 44 and 45.
>
>Now whose credibility is sorely lacking?
>
>William Clark

Thanks for the reference. However, I don't see the data on overall
homicide rate that you posted.

>> >> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
>> >> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.

Where did this come from? I don't see it above?


In any case the relationship between overall homicide rate and gun
ownership is not addressed by data on firearm death rate. Overall,
there are more per capita homicides in the UK than Switzerland. I
would expect that in a country with lots of guns that the percent of
homicides committed by guns would be higher that a country with very
few guns.

This is basically a way for gun control people to cloud the issue with
data that looks good but is meaningless. If you know this then you're
being dishonest if you don't then you need to reach a deeper
understanding of the issue. Either way, you're looking bad.


                       
Date: 28 Apr 2007 22:43:04
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <qim733pqred55sk2qnksb7hl8nujrvjc6h@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> >> >> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.
> >> >>
> >> >> I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs
> >> >> from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but
> >> >> never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source?
> >> >
> >> >And I referred you to more recent figures in this week's Newsweek. Did
> >> >you look at those?
> >> >
> >> >William Clark
> >>
> >> So you're telling me that Newsweek reported that "Overall murder rates
> >> shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, and Switzerland at
> >> 2.25."
> >>
> >> I seriously doubt that.
> >>
> >> Let me see them? Post a hyperlink. Until you do that you're just
> >> posting unsubstantiated data. Credibility means being able to back up
> >> what you say.
> >
> >No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31
> >per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at
> >6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08
> >(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most
> >recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh?
> >
> >You can only hyperlink if you subscribe to Newsweek (xtra.Newsweek.com),
> >but you can toddle off to your local bookstore and buy a copy of the
> >magazine (April 30 edition) for $4.95. The numbers are on page 44 and 45.
> >
> >Now whose credibility is sorely lacking?
> >
> >William Clark
>
> Thanks for the reference. However, I don't see the data on overall
> homicide rate that you posted.
>
> >> >> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> >> >> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.
>
> Where did this come from? I don't see it above?
>
>
> In any case the relationship between overall homicide rate and gun
> ownership is not addressed by data on firearm death rate. Overall,
> there are more per capita homicides in the UK than Switzerland. I
> would expect that in a country with lots of guns that the percent of
> homicides committed by guns would be higher that a country with very
> few guns.

Numbers? Sources?

>
> This is basically a way for gun control people to cloud the issue with
> data that looks good but is meaningless. If you know this then you're
> being dishonest if you don't then you need to reach a deeper
> understanding of the issue. Either way, you're looking bad.

Very good, Jack. Right on your usual mark - "I don't like what the data
tell me, so I will simply smear it any way I can so that I don't have to
bother with it".

And you wonder why I can't be bothered to fax you manuscripts?

And, seriously, there is only one of us looking bad right now, and it
isn't me. Your final paragraph is truly pathetic.

William Clark


                        
Date: 29 Apr 2007 11:48:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:43:04 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> This is basically a way for gun control people to cloud the issue with
>> data that looks good but is meaningless. If you know this then you're
>> being dishonest if you don't then you need to reach a deeper
>> understanding of the issue. Either way, you're looking bad.
>
>Very good, Jack. Right on your usual mark - "I don't like what the data
>tell me, so I will simply smear it any way I can so that I don't have to
>bother with it".

I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way
or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide
rate.


                         
Date: 29 Apr 2007 18:08:00
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <tef933h9a43l43ttlmb6pgk6hvo76t1ppi@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:43:04 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> This is basically a way for gun control people to cloud the issue with
> >> data that looks good but is meaningless. If you know this then you're
> >> being dishonest if you don't then you need to reach a deeper
> >> understanding of the issue. Either way, you're looking bad.
> >
> >Very good, Jack. Right on your usual mark - "I don't like what the data
> >tell me, so I will simply smear it any way I can so that I don't have to
> >bother with it".
>
> I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way
> or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide
> rate.

That's good - you don;t like the way the game is going, so you're taking
your ball and going home.

Fine with me.

William Clark


                          
Date: 30 Apr 2007 15:58:31
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:08:00 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way
>> or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide
>> rate.
>
>That's good - you don;t like the way the game is going, so you're taking
>your ball and going home.
>
>Fine with me.
>
>William Clark

The game is going fine. You're not even in the ball park.

Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate
is higher in Switzerland than the UK.


                           
Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:09:02
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <kfic33huahvggh3lsmgk1ocp848bnvdg8g@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:08:00 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way
> >> or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide
> >> rate.
> >
> >That's good - you don;t like the way the game is going, so you're taking
> >your ball and going home.
> >
> >Fine with me.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> The game is going fine. You're not even in the ball park.
>
> Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate
> is higher in Switzerland than the UK.

They are essentially the same. I already gave you the source, it's

"Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice", from the US DoJ, and
under the auspices of one of your pin-up boys, John Ashcroft.

The homicide charts are fig. 2f for each country. Let me know what you
find, but don't make me give you the reference a third time.

William Clark


                            
Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:36:21
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:09:02 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>> Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate
>> is higher in Switzerland than the UK.
>
>They are essentially the same. I already gave you the source, it's

Doesen't thics contradict the data that you posted?

> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> >and Switzerland at 2.25."


Which one is it. Are they the same or is Switzerland higher?


                             
Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:41:58
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <q7oc339j3295kih13uer4scrh7cuufv51d@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:09:02 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate
> >> is higher in Switzerland than the UK.
> >
> >They are essentially the same. I already gave you the source, it's
>
> Doesen't thics contradict the data that you posted?
>
> > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> > >and Switzerland at 2.25."
>
>
> Which one is it. Are they the same or is Switzerland higher?

Aaaah, same old tactic. The latter figures are from a 1992 reference,
the data at the top is from the more recent DoJ's 2004, "Cross National
. . . . ", but you know the rest.

I would be inclined to move to the 2004 figures - there, that gives you
E&W and Switzerland at parity.

Next excuse for not reading either?

William Clark


                              
Date: 01 May 2007 12:27:00
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:41:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>In article <q7oc339j3295kih13uer4scrh7cuufv51d@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:09:02 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate
>> >> is higher in Switzerland than the UK.
>> >
>> >They are essentially the same. I already gave you the source, it's
>>
>> Doesen't thics contradict the data that you posted?
>>
>> > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
>> > >and Switzerland at 2.25."
>>
>>
>> Which one is it. Are they the same or is Switzerland higher?
>
>Aaaah, same old tactic. The latter figures are from a 1992 reference,

What reference? I still haven't seen it.


                               
Date: 01 May 2007 15:56:14
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <shqe33hratv8nmsu4fvj742uefnq4n3jkm@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:41:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <q7oc339j3295kih13uer4scrh7cuufv51d@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:09:02 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate
> >> >> is higher in Switzerland than the UK.
> >> >
> >> >They are essentially the same. I already gave you the source, it's
> >>
> >> Doesen't thics contradict the data that you posted?
> >>
> >> > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> >> > >and Switzerland at 2.25."
> >>
> >>
> >> Which one is it. Are they the same or is Switzerland higher?
> >
> >Aaaah, same old tactic. The latter figures are from a 1992 reference,
>
> What reference? I still haven't seen it.

Yes you have - I gave it to you yesterday, it's Wolff et al that you
sneered at. You know, the pretty pictures.

Now I'm calling you out. Produce one set of reliable, referenced, data
that show that homicide rates in Switzerland and England&Wales (or the
UK, for that matter) are not essentially identical. In other words, that
is more valid than the DoJ "National Cross. . ." study of 2004 that I
keep trying to get you to admit exists. I dare you.

If not, then you will show everyone in the ng exactly what you are.

William Clark


                                
Date: 01 May 2007 19:05:08
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:56:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>Now I'm calling you out. Produce one set of reliable, referenced, data
>that show that homicide rates in Switzerland and England&Wales (or the
>UK, for that matter) are not essentially identical. In other words, that
>is more valid than the DoJ "National Cross. . ." study of 2004 that I
>keep trying to get you to admit exists. I dare you.

Already done. Actually I did that a few days ago but you missed it.
Probably too busy reading Wolff's book.


                                 
Date: 01 May 2007 21:08:43
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <krhf33l0s1pfp33r20ghoeobt840r3pkom@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:56:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Now I'm calling you out. Produce one set of reliable, referenced, data
> >that show that homicide rates in Switzerland and England&Wales (or the
> >UK, for that matter) are not essentially identical. In other words, that
> >is more valid than the DoJ "National Cross. . ." study of 2004 that I
> >keep trying to get you to admit exists. I dare you.
>
> Already done. Actually I did that a few days ago but you missed it.
> Probably too busy reading Wolff's book.

No you did not. You waffled on some vague item, but you NEVER provided
either hard data or a traceable reference. I am calling your bluff here
- you have a chance to clear yourself by simply giving them again.

How about it - or can we all see that you never really had a single
thing? Fine person to accuse others of poor data.

No frat house sneers this time, Jack. Any shred of credibility you have
is on the line.

William Clark


                                
Date: 01 May 2007 19:04:06
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:56:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>> What reference? I still haven't seen it.
>
>Yes you have - I gave it to you yesterday, it's Wolff et al that you
>sneered at. You know, the pretty pictures.

Who is this Wolf? What are his credentials. Where did he get his
data. Why haven't you hyper linked it so everyone can see it? Posting
an unsubstantiated reference from a book doesn't make it. Again, I'd
be happy to send you my fax number and you can send me the
information. That would clear this matter up.


                                 
Date: 01 May 2007 21:10:55
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <ljhf339hetgbrie3dpr4cj8d5dd2vrdk9f@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:56:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> What reference? I still haven't seen it.
> >
> >Yes you have - I gave it to you yesterday, it's Wolff et al that you
> >sneered at. You know, the pretty pictures.
>
> Who is this Wolf? What are his credentials. Where did he get his
> data. Why haven't you hyper linked it so everyone can see it? Posting
> an unsubstantiated reference from a book doesn't make it. Again, I'd
> be happy to send you my fax number and you can send me the
> information. That would clear this matter up.

Smoke, smoke, smoke. If you could get off your rear end, you could go
check for yourself, and "substantiate" the reference at any library (or
online inter-library loan service). Or do you have trouble reading?

The game's up - you are nothing but hot air.

William Clark


                      
Date: 28 Apr 2007 17:47:46
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-91686F.16325728042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31
> per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at
> 6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08
> (11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most
> recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh?



Are these Newsweek numbers or do they cite a source?

Otto




                       
Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:09:35
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <EhPYh.2123$F11.1498@bignews1.bellsouth.net >,
"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-91686F.16325728042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31
> > per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at
> > 6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08
> > (11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most
> > recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh?
>
>
>
> Are these Newsweek numbers or do they cite a source?
>
> Otto

They cite a variety of sources. Go read for yourself.

William Clark


                       
Date: 28 Apr 2007 18:17:53
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <EhPYh.2123$F11.1498@bignews1.bellsouth.net >,
"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-91686F.16325728042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31
> > per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at
> > 6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08
> > (11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most
> > recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh?
>
>
>
> Are these Newsweek numbers or do they cite a source?
>
> Otto

A whole range of sources, actually. Do you really think they made them
up?

You're getting as bad as Jack.

William Clark


                        
Date: 30 Apr 2007 06:07:10
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 28-Apr-2007, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

> A whole range of sources, actually. Do you really think they made them
> up?

Jason Blair on line 3

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.


                        
Date: 28 Apr 2007 18:27:19
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-D0C00F.18175328042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...

> "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Are these Newsweek numbers or do they cite a source?
> >
> > Otto


> A whole range of sources, actually. Do you really think they made them
> up?


And the sources are?

I figured you were so intimately familiar with the article that you would
have that information at your fingertips.

No--I'm not interested in buying a copy of Newsweek.

I would rather buy a golf ball.

Otto




                         
Date: 28 Apr 2007 22:45:14
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <JSPYh.18841$qB4.11456@bignews3.bellsouth.net >,
"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-D0C00F.18175328042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
> > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Are these Newsweek numbers or do they cite a source?
> > >
> > > Otto
>
>
> > A whole range of sources, actually. Do you really think they made them
> > up?
>
>
> And the sources are?
>
> I figured you were so intimately familiar with the article that you would
> have that information at your fingertips.

They are listed in the article. Go read for yourself.

>
> No--I'm not interested in buying a copy of Newsweek.
>
> I would rather buy a golf ball.

As I thought. You would hate to read anything that might conflict with
your preconceived prejudices. Surprise, surprise.
>
> Otto

Go talk to Jack. The two of you belong in the same intellectual
backwater.

William Clark


                          
Date: 29 Apr 2007 11:55:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:45:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Go talk to Jack. The two of you belong in the same intellectual
>backwater.
>
>William Clark


Talking about backwater, I've been wondering where you got this data
from for a few days now and haven't gotten an answer.

> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> >and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.

You posted this and never referenced where it came from. I have
posted data from the UK Home Office and the UN Crime Report that
differs from this and I just want to know where it came from?

It's normal practice when you post some data in a NG that you provide
some reference for it. You, Bill, as an academic, should understand
the necessity to reference material.


                           
Date: 29 Apr 2007 14:57:33
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <9jf933dsj0rlarphk4d6s1qgltvp1h4h1p@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:45:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Go talk to Jack. The two of you belong in the same intellectual
> >backwater.
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> Talking about backwater, I've been wondering where you got this data
> from for a few days now and haven't gotten an answer.
>
> > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> > >and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.
>
> You posted this and never referenced where it came from. I have
> posted data from the UK Home Office and the UN Crime Report that
> differs from this and I just want to know where it came from?
>
> It's normal practice when you post some data in a NG that you provide
> some reference for it. You, Bill, as an academic, should understand
> the necessity to reference material.

Well, go check out The Department of Justice's own published data. Let
us know what you find.

William Clark


                            
Date: 29 Apr 2007 19:58:11
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:57:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
>> > >and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.
>>
>> You posted this and never referenced where it came from. I have
>> posted data from the UK Home Office and the UN Crime Report that
>> differs from this and I just want to know where it came from?
>>
>> It's normal practice when you post some data in a NG that you provide
>> some reference for it. You, Bill, as an academic, should understand
>> the necessity to reference material.
>
>Well, go check out The Department of Justice's own published data. Let
>us know what you find.
>
>William Clark

Obviously you can't back up what you posted. It should be a simple
matter to provide the hyperlink to where you got this data. You're
looking like a fool Bill, someone who can't back up what he says. You
posted it so you should back it up.


                             
Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:28:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <a0ca3390hgghkvvleti9t5ptj59mhjr6ji@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:57:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> >> > >and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.
> >>
> >> You posted this and never referenced where it came from. I have
> >> posted data from the UK Home Office and the UN Crime Report that
> >> differs from this and I just want to know where it came from?
> >>
> >> It's normal practice when you post some data in a NG that you provide
> >> some reference for it. You, Bill, as an academic, should understand
> >> the necessity to reference material.
> >
> >Well, go check out The Department of Justice's own published data. Let
> >us know what you find.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> Obviously you can't back up what you posted. It should be a simple
> matter to provide the hyperlink to where you got this data. You're
> looking like a fool Bill, someone who can't back up what he says. You
> posted it so you should back it up.

Already posted, Jack, even you should be able to find it. Now it does
have rather a lot of tables and charts in, so if you have trouble
figuring it out (as you clearly do with finding sources on the web),
just let me know and I'll be happy to help you out. So you need to try
something else other than the lame smear attempts - they make you look
really foolish.

You might not like the data, though.

William Clark


                          
Date: 28 Apr 2007 23:26:11
From: Otto
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-F14B32.22451428042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> They are listed in the article. Go read for yourself.

I'd rather spend my money on a 32 oz big gulp or a golf ball.


> > No--I'm not interested in buying a copy of Newsweek.
> >
> > I would rather buy a golf ball.
>
> As I thought. You would hate to read anything that might conflict with
> your preconceived prejudices. Surprise, surprise.


I'll read anything for free. Conflict or not.

I'm not spending my life energy(after tax money) on any of it.

The real problem is you can't cite your sources.

The dogs bark and the caravan passes by.

Otto






                           
Date: 29 Apr 2007 14:58:40
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <UeUYh.15330$XU4.10854@bignews8.bellsouth.net >,
"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-F14B32.22451428042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > They are listed in the article. Go read for yourself.
>
> I'd rather spend my money on a 32 oz big gulp or a golf ball.
>
>
> > > No--I'm not interested in buying a copy of Newsweek.
> > >
> > > I would rather buy a golf ball.
> >
> > As I thought. You would hate to read anything that might conflict with
> > your preconceived prejudices. Surprise, surprise.
>
>
> I'll read anything for free. Conflict or not.
>
> I'm not spending my life energy(after tax money) on any of it.
>
> The real problem is you can't cite your sources.
>
> The dogs bark and the caravan passes by.
>
> Otto

Sources are cited everywhere. If you what Newsweek's - ask them. Also,
go look at the Department of Justice's own published studies - you can
get that for free.

William Clark


                            
Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:13:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:58:40 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> The real problem is you can't cite your sources.
>>
>> The dogs bark and the caravan passes by.
>>
>> Otto
>
>Sources are cited everywhere. If you what Newsweek's - ask them. Also,
>go look at the Department of Justice's own published studies - you can
>get that for free.
>
>William Clark


He's out on a limb and he can't get off it. Bill, all you have to do
is cite the exact DoJ study. Obviously, if it was a source for your
information, you must have the reference. Why is it so difficult to
post a link to it.

Also how about the ATF reference for the percent of households who own
handguns in the US, I haven't seen that yet either. Or did you admit
that the number was not from the ATF but from the 1991 book you cited.
I'm confused.


                             
Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:26:05
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <6qca3395jk3539r1leqcbnalm6e1ope89l@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:58:40 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> The real problem is you can't cite your sources.
> >>
> >> The dogs bark and the caravan passes by.
> >>
> >> Otto
> >
> >Sources are cited everywhere. If you what Newsweek's - ask them. Also,
> >go look at the Department of Justice's own published studies - you can
> >get that for free.
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> He's out on a limb and he can't get off it. Bill, all you have to do
> is cite the exact DoJ study. Obviously, if it was a source for your
> information, you must have the reference. Why is it so difficult to
> post a link to it.
>

Yes, I knew it would be too hard for you to find it.

Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics
September 2004.

Gosh, it is even signed off on by your poster boy, John Ashcroft. Must
be gold standard then, unless he didn't read it.

William Clark


                              
Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:28:34
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:26:05 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Yes, I knew it would be too hard for you to find it.
>
>Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice
>Bureau of Justice Statistics
>September 2004.


Looked at it. Don't see that data that you posted.

> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> >and Switzerland at 2.25."


In fact, there's no data for the UK at all.

Perhaps you made a mistake.


                               
Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <qonc33lahiarb99s9h00apbsft8a6vloq5@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:26:05 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Yes, I knew it would be too hard for you to find it.
> >
> >Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice
> >Bureau of Justice Statistics
> >September 2004.
>
>
> Looked at it. Don't see that data that you posted.
>
> > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> > >and Switzerland at 2.25."
>
>
> In fact, there's no data for the UK at all.
>
> Perhaps you made a mistake.

Good try again, Jack, but as pathetic as ever. Look up page 289 of Wolff
et als "Where We Stand", published in 1992. That is where the latter
sentence you so cunningly cut and pasted out of context is from. The
data is on a pretty picture graph, so even you should be able to read
it. However, that is old data compared to the "Cross National Studies .
. ", so I would move to the latter. See, I am happy that the data moves
closer to your point of view - it's integrity that counts.

Still shows E&W (or even the UK) the same as Switzerland. Prove me wrong
- I dare you.

William Clark


                                
Date: 01 May 2007 12:31:31
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Still shows E&W (or even the UK) the same as Switzerland. Prove me wrong
>- I dare you.
>
>William Clark

I already did. Both the UK Home Office data and the UN study show UK
homicide rate as considerable higher that Switzerland. You loose
again.

I already referenced both for you.


                                 
Date: 01 May 2007 16:00:35
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <hnqe33d2u0jimpsdopttpn18c7eavc5r7r@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Still shows E&W (or even the UK) the same as Switzerland. Prove me wrong
> >- I dare you.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> I already did. Both the UK Home Office data and the UN study show UK
> homicide rate as considerable higher that Switzerland. You loose
> again.
>
> I already referenced both for you.

No you did not.

Which UK Home Office Study is that? I have the Home Office Statistical
Bulletin "Crime in England & Wales" dated April 27, 2007, that carries
figures up to and including December 2006, and it shows no such thing as
you claim.

You know, I simply don't believe you have any "UK Home Office data", I
think you are just blowing a smokescreen. Same with the "UN Study". Give
me a reference to a page in an actual document, or we will will all have
to believe you are just lying again.

William Clark


                                  
Date: 01 May 2007 19:08:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 01 May 2007 16:00:35 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>In article <hnqe33d2u0jimpsdopttpn18c7eavc5r7r@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Still shows E&W (or even the UK) the same as Switzerland. Prove me wrong
>> >- I dare you.
>> >
>> >William Clark
>>
>> I already did. Both the UK Home Office data and the UN study show UK
>> homicide rate as considerable higher that Switzerland. You loose
>> again.
>>
>> I already referenced both for you.
>
>No you did not.

Yes I did. You're looking a bit foolish Prefessor.

Path:
be02.lga!hwmnpeer02.lga!hw-filter.lga!newsfe12.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Message-ID: <29qi23to104k5khskr885af79ojpghlaq2@4ax.com >
References: <dspa23dftjrou43cvv91a3pb8ilp6g84q1@4ax.com >
<1176859480.324611.25090@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >
<1176859897.900093.305150@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >
<911b231d46t17t51b5eudg9ibkrm6k8jcg@4ax.com >
<1176953807.399570.5610@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >
<aPGdnav4uIPs07rbnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com >
<ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpok3v@4ax.com >
<dvsh23hmtsifajvoje1jf7c6bu44b3g1up@4ax.com >
<clark.31-A76551.14094320042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu >
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 28
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:45:55 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.112.234.43
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net
X-Trace: newsfe12.lga 1177119913 69.112.234.43 (Fri, 20 Apr 2007
18:45:13 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:45:13 MST
Organization: Optimum Online
Xref: Hurricane-Charley rec.sport.golf:298624
X-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:45:13 MST (be02.lga)

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:09:43 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
>and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.


I'd like to see the source of this data. It is at variance with what
I've seen.

From the Home Office

Three year average homicides per 100,000 population (1999 - 2001)

England & Wales - 1.61
NI - 2.84
Scotland - 2.11

Switzerland 1.12

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf


Here's some data from the UN Survey on crime 1998 to 2000 which also
shows the per capita homicide rate in the UK as higher than.
Switzerland.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


                                   
Date: 01 May 2007 21:56:15
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <m0if331k61kppl5euhd3p9qvdd59ordh9c@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 May 2007 16:00:35 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <hnqe33d2u0jimpsdopttpn18c7eavc5r7r@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Still shows E&W (or even the UK) the same as Switzerland. Prove me wrong
> >> >- I dare you.
> >> >
> >> >William Clark
> >>
> >> I already did. Both the UK Home Office data and the UN study show UK
> >> homicide rate as considerable higher that Switzerland. You loose
> >> again.
> >>
> >> I already referenced both for you.
> >
> >No you did not.
>
> Yes I did. You're looking a bit foolish Prefessor.
>
> Path:
> be02.lga!hwmnpeer02.lga!hw-filter.lga!newsfe12.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mai
> l
> From: Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
> Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
> Message-ID: <29qi23to104k5khskr885af79ojpghlaq2@4ax.com>
> References: <dspa23dftjrou43cvv91a3pb8ilp6g84q1@4ax.com>
> <1176859480.324611.25090@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
> <1176859897.900093.305150@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
> <911b231d46t17t51b5eudg9ibkrm6k8jcg@4ax.com>
> <1176953807.399570.5610@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
> <aPGdnav4uIPs07rbnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com>
> <ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpok3v@4ax.com>
> <dvsh23hmtsifajvoje1jf7c6bu44b3g1up@4ax.com>
> <clark.31-A76551.14094320042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 28
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:45:55 -0400
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.112.234.43
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net
> X-Trace: newsfe12.lga 1177119913 69.112.234.43 (Fri, 20 Apr 2007
> 18:45:13 MST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:45:13 MST
> Organization: Optimum Online
> Xref: Hurricane-Charley rec.sport.golf:298624
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:45:13 MST (be02.lga)
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:09:43 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> >and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated.
>
>
> I'd like to see the source of this data. It is at variance with what
> I've seen.
>
> From the Home Office
>
> Three year average homicides per 100,000 population (1999 - 2001)
>
> England & Wales - 1.61
> NI - 2.84
> Scotland - 2.11
>
> Switzerland 1.12
>
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf
>
>
> Here's some data from the UN Survey on crime 1998 to 2000 which also
> shows the per capita homicide rate in the UK as higher than.
> Switzerland.
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Oh good, five year old data. And let me quote from page 24 of this gold
standard. It reads:

"The Home Office has been collecting and publishing data from other
countries on the number of crimes recorded by the police and the prison
population since 1993. The number of countries covered and the
incomparability of the data received has improved since then due to
closer liaison with foreign organisations. Although the information
received in double-checked with the countries supplying the data, the
Home Office cannot guarantee that the data presented is completely
accurate of comparable."

Pretty shaky at best. The most recent homicide figures (2005/2006) for
Scotland, for example are the lowest in 15 years, and show the homicide
rate to be 1.86 per 1,000,000, not the 2.11 you give. In England and
Wales the number is 820, for 1.54 per 100,000, not the out of date 1.61
you quote. Check them for yourself in:

"Violent Crime Overview, Homicide and Gun Crime 2004/05"
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf

However, the DoJ study is a) three years more recent, and more
comprehensive. It contains no such caveats about the quality of the
data. Nothing in any of these show the murder rate in England & Wales to
be "twice that of Switzerland".

Other studies from about that time show the rate in England&Wales at
1.41 per 100,000 (firearm homicide at 0.11), and in Switzerland at 1.32
(firearm homicide at 0.58, over 5 times that of E&W), again essentially
identical and certainly not a factor of two different.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf

So you produce a single, old, set of data, whose authors clearly warn
about its accuracy (or lack of). Spectacular.

And is the murder rate in England & Wales still "twice that of
Switzerland"? Not one shred of evidence for that in any of this.

William Clark


                                
Date: 01 May 2007 12:29:15
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Good try again, Jack, but as pathetic as ever. Look up page 289 of Wolff
>et als "Where We Stand", published in 1992.

Don't have the book, will you fax it to me?

BTW, the author is a regular contributor to the Guardian which tell me
that the book is rubbish. BTW, where did the author get his data
from?


                                 
Date: 01 May 2007 17:53:12
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <njqe33hfrm35tmu0l6qodc7kolrssad5q2@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Good try again, Jack, but as pathetic as ever. Look up page 289 of Wolff
> >et als "Where We Stand", published in 1992.
>
> Don't have the book, will you fax it to me?
>
> BTW, the author is a regular contributor to the Guardian which tell me
> that the book is rubbish. BTW, where did the author get his data
> from?

OK Jack, the homicide data come from The Wall Street Journal, Business
Week, International Crime Statistics (International Criminal Police
Organization), Statistical Abstract of the United States, "Experiences
of Crime Across the World", (Key findings from the 1989 international
crime survey).

The gun data is from "Experiences . . . " again, The New York Times.

But why am I bothering - you can't read, you can only try to sneer.

Remember, I am still waiting for even ONE real reference from you (but I
am not holding my breath).

William Clark


                                  
Date: 01 May 2007 19:18:15
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:53:12 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>OK Jack, the homicide data come from The Wall Street Journal, Business
>Week, International Crime Statistics (International Criminal Police
>Organization), Statistical Abstract of the United States, "Experiences
>of Crime Across the World", (Key findings from the 1989 international
>crime survey).
>
>The gun data is from "Experiences . . . " again, The New York Times.
>
>But why am I bothering - you can't read, you can only try to sneer.
>
>Remember, I am still waiting for even ONE real reference from you (but I
>am not holding my breath).
>
>William Clark


LOL the WSJ from 1989. Have you read the original articles?

Provide some hyperlinks to any of this stuff. Until then you're
credibility is zero quoting from some left-wing loon's 1991 book
that's out of print. Come up with some decent data with hyperlinks.

My opinion of Ohio State, not that it was very high to begin with, is
dropping fast.


                                   
Date: 01 May 2007 21:14:47
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <scif33hrqrtqr8pbd6mhlvqqr851gldjei@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:53:12 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >OK Jack, the homicide data come from The Wall Street Journal, Business
> >Week, International Crime Statistics (International Criminal Police
> >Organization), Statistical Abstract of the United States, "Experiences
> >of Crime Across the World", (Key findings from the 1989 international
> >crime survey).
> >
> >The gun data is from "Experiences . . . " again, The New York Times.
> >
> >But why am I bothering - you can't read, you can only try to sneer.
> >
> >Remember, I am still waiting for even ONE real reference from you (but I
> >am not holding my breath).
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> LOL the WSJ from 1989. Have you read the original articles?
>
> Provide some hyperlinks to any of this stuff. Until then you're
> credibility is zero quoting from some left-wing loon's 1991 book
> that's out of print. Come up with some decent data with hyperlinks.
>
> My opinion of Ohio State, not that it was very high to begin with, is
> dropping fast.

More BS, Jack. You haven't (can't) read thing, can you? What about the
more recent data from the 2004 DoJ "Cross-National Studies in Crime &
Justice"? I have already said that is more up to date and more
exhaustive.

You have been stone quiet on that one.

What, can't think of a silly jibe to throw at its authors? Dear. dear,
Jack is lost for insults, whatever next?

Oh, and Ohio State will be a far better institution for not being
endorsed by an embarrassment like you. Your lack of a decent education
is being demonstrated hourly.

William Clark


                                 
Date: 01 May 2007 16:04:17
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <njqe33hfrm35tmu0l6qodc7kolrssad5q2@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Good try again, Jack, but as pathetic as ever. Look up page 289 of Wolff
> >et als "Where We Stand", published in 1992.
>
> Don't have the book, will you fax it to me?
>
> BTW, the author is a regular contributor to the Guardian which tell me
> that the book is rubbish. BTW, where did the author get his data
> from?

Fax you a book? You must be joking - get off your a*** and walk to the
library. It might help clear your brain of the fog you are in on this
topic. I have the book at home, but I will pass his listed data sources
later this evening.

Also glad to know that you can tell a person's character simply by where
they publish. How very grown up and open minded. Do you operate the same
way with blacks and hispanics, like Larry does?

William Clark


                                  
Date: 01 May 2007 19:12:35
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 01 May 2007 16:04:17 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>> Don't have the book, will you fax it to me?
>>
>> BTW, the author is a regular contributor to the Guardian which tell me
>> that the book is rubbish. BTW, where did the author get his data
>> from?
>
>Fax you a book? You must be joking - get off your a*** and walk to the
>library. It might help clear your brain of the fog you are in on this
>topic. I have the book at home, but I will pass his listed data sources
>later this evening.


Just the pertinent pages to support your data will be enough. I
always provide hyperlinks for the convenience of other members.

BTW, where id Wolff get the data on homicide rates which showed
Switzerland higher than the UK? That's seriously suspect because I've
never seen any data like that.


                                   
Date: 01 May 2007 21:17:26
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <l4if33t58qjsdgfbkvnbppdhqgihc5ca1f@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 May 2007 16:04:17 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Don't have the book, will you fax it to me?
> >>
> >> BTW, the author is a regular contributor to the Guardian which tell me
> >> that the book is rubbish. BTW, where did the author get his data
> >> from?
> >
> >Fax you a book? You must be joking - get off your a*** and walk to the
> >library. It might help clear your brain of the fog you are in on this
> >topic. I have the book at home, but I will pass his listed data sources
> >later this evening.
>
>
> Just the pertinent pages to support your data will be enough. I
> always provide hyperlinks for the convenience of other members.
>
> BTW, where id Wolff get the data on homicide rates which showed
> Switzerland higher than the UK? That's seriously suspect because I've
> never seen any data like that.

Well, just because it doesn't ahow the the homicide rate in the UK is
"twice that of Switzerland" doesn't mean its wrong. However, the more
recent "Cross-National . . (you know the rest by now)" show the two
rates as essentially identical.

Now disprove that with a single, traceable, reference to data that does,
or else admit once and for all that you were simply lying.

Choice is yours.

William Clark


                  
Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:14:21
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-47D46B.15122327042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <cdg433legog78a242k6r4vjp9q22pdq0ue@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big
red
> > >building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to
> > >get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you
> > >good.
> >
> > LOL, I knew you didn't have it.
>
> There you go - typical Rovian sneering smear. You know, I would go to
> the trouble of Xeroxing and faxing the article to you if I believed for
> one second that you were actually interested in the content, but you
> aren't. All you care about doing is protecting the neocon line, and
> trashing anyone and anything that doesn't agree with it. That is what
> you do in every discusision. Thus you are simply not worth the time of
> day or the cost of a copy.
>
> You can go ahead and call me a liar if you choose. It merely shows the
> world the kind of person you really are.
>
> William Clark

You could have Xeroxed it and faxed it in the time it took you to reply.
Well if you actually have a copy I mean. I expect it would actually take you
much longer.




                   
Date: 28 Apr 2007 10:54:08
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <-YedneZA7tICxK_bnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-47D46B.15122327042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <cdg433legog78a242k6r4vjp9q22pdq0ue@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big
> red
> > > >building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to
> > > >get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you
> > > >good.
> > >
> > > LOL, I knew you didn't have it.
> >
> > There you go - typical Rovian sneering smear. You know, I would go to
> > the trouble of Xeroxing and faxing the article to you if I believed for
> > one second that you were actually interested in the content, but you
> > aren't. All you care about doing is protecting the neocon line, and
> > trashing anyone and anything that doesn't agree with it. That is what
> > you do in every discusision. Thus you are simply not worth the time of
> > day or the cost of a copy.
> >
> > You can go ahead and call me a liar if you choose. It merely shows the
> > world the kind of person you really are.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> You could have Xeroxed it and faxed it in the time it took you to reply.
> Well if you actually have a copy I mean. I expect it would actually take you
> much longer.

You've lost me here.

William Clark


              
Date: 26 Apr 2007 12:16:48
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> I gave you two hard copy
>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek.
>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only
>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from
>> the book "Where We Stand."
>>
>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
>
> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember
> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
>
> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
>
> William Clark

See the following:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)

USDOJ National Institute of Justice.

Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
12 pages long easy read. :)

Key findings:
44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
64% of the above owned a handgun
Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)

Joe





               
Date: 29 Apr 2007 15:01:00
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I gave you two hard copy
> >>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
> >>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek.
> >> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
> >> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only
> >> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from
> >> the book "Where We Stand."
> >>
> >> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
> >> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
> >
> > For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember
> > those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
> >
> > Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> See the following:
>
> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
>
> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
>
> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
> 12 pages long easy read. :)
>
> Key findings:
> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
> 64% of the above owned a handgun
> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
>
> Joe

Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults
per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual
ownership, or right in the ~30% area.

QED.

William Clark


                
Date: 29 Apr 2007 16:08:08
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I gave you two hard copy
>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek.
>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only
>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from
>>>> the book "Where We Stand."
>>>>
>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember
>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
>>>
>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
>>>
>>> William Clark
>> See the following:
>>
>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
>>
>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
>>
>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
>>
>> Key findings:
>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
>> 64% of the above owned a handgun
>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
>>
>> Joe
>
> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults
> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual
> ownership, or right in the ~30% area.
>
> QED.
>
> William Clark


You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study
material.

Do you really teach an Engineering course?

Joe



                 
Date: 29 Apr 2007 18:10:45
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
> >>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I gave you two hard copy
> >>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
> >>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's
> >>>>> Newsweek.
> >>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
> >>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only
> >>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from
> >>>> the book "Where We Stand."
> >>>>
> >>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
> >>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
> >>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember
> >>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
> >>>
> >>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
> >>>
> >>> William Clark
> >> See the following:
> >>
> >> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
> >> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
> >>
> >> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
> >>
> >> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
> >> 12 pages long easy read. :)
> >>
> >> Key findings:
> >> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
> >> 64% of the above owned a handgun
> >> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
> >>
> >> Joe
> >
> > Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults
> > per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual
> > ownership, or right in the ~30% area.
> >
> > QED.
> >
> > William Clark
>
>
> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study
> material.
>
> Do you really teach an Engineering course?
>
> Joe

Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't
like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
presumption) is wide of the mark.

And you question MY competence?

Holy smoke!

William Clark


                  
Date: 30 Apr 2007 16:02:17
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:10:45 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
>presumption) is wide of the mark.
>
>And you question MY competence?
>
>Holy smoke!
>
>William Clark

Please show us any data that supports your position that 29% of
households in the US own handguns.

I'm not even saying that it's not true. It seems a bit high, but all
I'd like to see is the source for you claim.

Also havent seen the reference for:

>"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> >and Switzerland at 2.25."


                   
Date: 30 Apr 2007 20:24:20
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:02:17 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>Please show us any data that supports your position that 29% of
>households in the US own handguns.
>
>I'm not even saying that it's not true. It seems a bit high, but all
>I'd like to see is the source for you claim.

Many studies I have seen have numbers much higher than that. I have
seen estimates of firearms in 80 million homes. But since there is no
National Gun Registry in USA; it's all just made up crap.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study: Study: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature
of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law),
1995. Accessed at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm.

a) The study states: “There are probably over 220 million guns in
private hands in the U.S. and 47,600,000 homes with firearms.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Americans own 200,000,000 guns, of which approximately 70,000,000 are
handguns.

USATODAY - March 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GUN AVAILABILITY AND VIOLENT CRIME: RESEARCH EVIDENCE Note by the
Crime and Criminal Justice Unit, Research and Statistics Directorate
of the Home Office available online at
http://www.dvc.org.uk/johnny/dunblane/homemain.html.

Gun Ownership Rate per 100K citizens
USA 85,000



                    
Date: 30 Apr 2007 20:47:29
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <vj1d33tujfuanr7pijo533ji2llfbnj26g@4ax.com >,
Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:02:17 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
> >Please show us any data that supports your position that 29% of
> >households in the US own handguns.
> >
> >I'm not even saying that it's not true. It seems a bit high, but all
> >I'd like to see is the source for you claim.
>
> Many studies I have seen have numbers much higher than that. I have
> seen estimates of firearms in 80 million homes. But since there is no
> National Gun Registry in USA; it's all just made up crap.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> Study: Study: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature
> of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of
> Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law),
> 1995. Accessed at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm.
>
> a) The study states: “There are probably over 220 million guns in
> private hands in the U.S. and 47,600,000 homes with firearms.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
> Americans own 200,000,000 guns, of which approximately 70,000,000 are
> handguns.
>
> USATODAY - March 2001

Agreed. 70 million handguns spread among 114,000,000 households would
put a handgun in 61% of households, if each household had just one
handgun. However, clearly that is not the case, and if 29% of households
only had handguns, that would mean they had 2.11 each. That seems not
unrealistic, allowing for those that do have just one handgun, and those
that have more than 2.

William Clark


                   
Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:50:22
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <9kic331n1seieolkr4e9q99e8t81r0pp5t@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:10:45 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
> >presumption) is wide of the mark.
> >
> >And you question MY competence?
> >
> >Holy smoke!
> >
> >William Clark
>
> Please show us any data that supports your position that 29% of
> households in the US own handguns.
>
> I'm not even saying that it's not true. It seems a bit high, but all
> I'd like to see is the source for you claim.
>
> Also havent seen the reference for:
>
> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97,
> > >and Switzerland at 2.25."

Reference for both - "Where we Stand" by Wolff et al (1992), page 288-89
for the murder rates, and page 294 for the handgun figures. As I said,
they are both set out as pretty graphics for the hard of thinking, but
even so, let me know if you still have difficulty and I'll try to help.

William Clark


                    
Date: 01 May 2007 12:32:38
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:50:22 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Reference for both - "Where we Stand" by Wolff et al (1992), page 288-89
>for the murder rates, and page 294 for the handgun figures. As I said,
>they are both set out as pretty graphics for the hard of thinking, but
>even so, let me know if you still have difficulty and I'll try to help.
>
>William Clark

That's not a reference it's an excuse. And the book is rubbish to
boot.


                     
Date: 01 May 2007 15:48:51
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <mrqe33t398rg3645jng6j2t2oo73qiksda@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:50:22 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Reference for both - "Where we Stand" by Wolff et al (1992), page 288-89
> >for the murder rates, and page 294 for the handgun figures. As I said,
> >they are both set out as pretty graphics for the hard of thinking, but
> >even so, let me know if you still have difficulty and I'll try to help.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> That's not a reference it's an excuse. And the book is rubbish to
> boot.

You've read it, of course? No, I thought not. Same old "trash the
messenger" lame tactic. I would have thought you could come up with
something new by now.

In any case, I have said several times that the "National Cross . . . "
survey is ten years more recent, and it appears to me more
comprehensive. Let's see you try and trash taht data. Oh, and by the
way, you are still mute on ANY of your sources that apparently disagree
with the numbers I have given.

Surprise, surprise.

William Clark


                      
Date: 01 May 2007 18:58:54
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:48:51 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>In any case, I have said several times that the "National Cross . . . "
>survey is ten years more recent, and it appears to me more
>comprehensive. Let's see you try and trash taht data. Oh, and by the
>way, you are still mute on ANY of your sources that apparently disagree
>with the numbers I have given.
>
>Surprise, surprise.

Nonsense I already posted this but I'm feeling generous.

From the Home Office

Three year average homicides per 100,000 population (1999 - 2001)

England & Wales - 1.61
NI - 2.84
Scotland - 2.11

Switzerland 1.12

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf


Here's some data from the UN Survey on crime 1998 to 2000 which also
shows the per capita homicide rate in the UK as higher than.
Switzerland.

UK - 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Switzerland - 0.00921351 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


Sorry you lose and you will also notice that I provide hyperlinks.
Quoting data without hyperlinks is bad form and will usually raise red
flags that someone is perhaps not being forthcoming.


                       
Date: 01 May 2007 22:16:51
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <t1hf3317k1ibpb25ur3lhko3iev59sja5v@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:48:51 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In any case, I have said several times that the "National Cross . . . "
> >survey is ten years more recent, and it appears to me more
> >comprehensive. Let's see you try and trash taht data. Oh, and by the
> >way, you are still mute on ANY of your sources that apparently disagree
> >with the numbers I have given.
> >
> >Surprise, surprise.
>
> Nonsense I already posted this but I'm feeling generous.
>
> From the Home Office
>
> Three year average homicides per 100,000 population (1999 - 2001)
>
> England & Wales - 1.61
> NI - 2.84
> Scotland - 2.11
>
> Switzerland 1.12
>
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf

And I have already shown you that this is a) out of date, b) by its own
compilers admission, liable to inaccuracies. You can find 2006 versions
of this data, and you can look at the "Cross-National . . " DoJ study
that you refuse to acknowledge.
>
>
> Here's some data from the UN Survey on crime 1998 to 2000 which also
> shows the per capita homicide rate in the UK as higher than.
> Switzerland.
>
> UK - 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
> Switzerland - 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
>
>
> Sorry you lose and you will also notice that I provide hyperlinks.
> Quoting data without hyperlinks is bad form and will usually raise red
> flags that someone is perhaps not being forthcoming.

Dimwit, you cannot give hyperlinks to data that is not on the web. Books
in a library cannot be hyperlinked to - they have to be walked to.

These figures are a two year window for which Switzerland is at 0.92 per
100,000 and the UK (note they include Northern Ireland) is at 1.4 per
100,000. Now the more recent figures (2005), and longer timescale
averages, that I gave you in a previous post show the two to be almost
the same. You took a snap shot and called it the norm - that's poor
statistics when you are dealing with datasets that are small and whose
numbers fluctuate significantly from sample to sample.

However, it is interesting to not that the very same web site also gives
"Murders with firearms" data. Once again, and consistent with all the
other figures I have shown you, the rate in the UK for homicides with
firearms is 0.102 per 100,000 (62 total), while that in Switzerland is
0.534 per 100,000 (40 total), a rate five times that of the UK.

Seems as though Switzerland is not a very good exemplar for the value of
domestic firearms. You might want to rethink your "sources".

So, sorry, but I don't lose. And I do apologize for the lack of
hyperlinks, but I mistook you for someone who was literate enough to
find a book.

William Clark


                  
Date: 29 Apr 2007 18:27:40
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy
>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's
>>>>>>> Newsweek.
>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only
>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from
>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember
>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> William Clark
>>>> See the following:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
>>>>
>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
>>>>
>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
>>>>
>>>> Key findings:
>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun
>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults
>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual
>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area.
>>>
>>> QED.
>>>
>>> William Clark
>>
>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study
>> material.
>>
>> Do you really teach an Engineering course?
>>
>> Joe
>
> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't
> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
> presumption) is wide of the mark.
>
> And you question MY competence?
>
> Holy smoke!
>
> William Clark

Billy,

I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements
based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions.

Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the money.

Again, did you read the study?

Joe


                   
Date: 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
> >>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy
> >>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
> >>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's
> >>>>>>> Newsweek.
> >>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
> >>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only
> >>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from
> >>>>>> the book "Where We Stand."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
> >>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
> >>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies
> >>>>> (remember
> >>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> William Clark
> >>>> See the following:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
> >>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
> >>>>
> >>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
> >>>>
> >>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
> >>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Key findings:
> >>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
> >>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun
> >>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe
> >>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults
> >>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual
> >>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area.
> >>>
> >>> QED.
> >>>
> >>> William Clark
> >>
> >> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study
> >> material.
> >>
> >> Do you really teach an Engineering course?
> >>
> >> Joe
> >
> > Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't
> > like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
> > presumption) is wide of the mark.
> >
> > And you question MY competence?
> >
> > Holy smoke!
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Billy,
>
> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements
> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions.
>
> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the money.
>
> Again, did you read the study?
>
> Joe

Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is
not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the
US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
verified.

So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do
you have any?

William Clark


                    
Date: 29 Apr 2007 19:29:58
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy
>>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
>>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's
>>>>>>>>> Newsweek.
>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
>>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only
>>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from
>>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
>>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
>>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies
>>>>>>> (remember
>>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> William Clark
>>>>>> See the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Key findings:
>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun
>>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults
>>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual
>>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area.
>>>>>
>>>>> QED.
>>>>>
>>>>> William Clark
>>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study
>>>> material.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course?
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't
>>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
>>> presumption) is wide of the mark.
>>>
>>> And you question MY competence?
>>>
>>> Holy smoke!
>>>
>>> William Clark
>> Billy,
>>
>> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements
>> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions.
>>
>> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the money.
>>
>> Again, did you read the study?
>>
>> Joe
>
> Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is
> not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the
> US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
> check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
> verified.
>
> So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do
> you have any?
>
> William Clark

The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data
1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data.

Joe


                     
Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:31:12
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
> >>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy
> >>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
> >>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's
> >>>>>>>>> Newsweek.
> >>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
> >>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only
> >>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be
> >>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
> >>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
> >>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies
> >>>>>>> (remember
> >>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> William Clark
> >>>>>> See the following:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
> >>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
> >>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Key findings:
> >>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
> >>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun
> >>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Joe
> >>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2
> >>>>> adults
> >>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual
> >>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> QED.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> William Clark
> >>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study
> >>>> material.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course?
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe
> >>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't
> >>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
> >>> presumption) is wide of the mark.
> >>>
> >>> And you question MY competence?
> >>>
> >>> Holy smoke!
> >>>
> >>> William Clark
> >> Billy,
> >>
> >> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements
> >> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions.
> >>
> >> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the
> >> money.
> >>
> >> Again, did you read the study?
> >>
> >> Joe
> >
> > Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is
> > not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the
> > US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
> > check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
> > verified.
> >
> > So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do
> > you have any?
> >
> > William Clark
>
> The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data
> 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data.
>
> Joe

Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221
million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That
equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses.

Why use out of date data?

William Clark


                      
Date: 30 Apr 2007 01:11:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:31:12 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221
>million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That
>equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses.
>
>Why use out of date data?

While that is more current data, it doesn't tell us much of import
without further details. All countries have firearms that are used
by the military, and states with military bases have more such
firearms than otherwise comparable states without military bases.

So what do those figures above include?


                       
Date: 29 Apr 2007 21:36:27
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <3gga33prmoe4028cjb4klhtmao1qmleqh1@4ax.com >,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:31:12 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221
> >million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That
> >equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses.
> >
> >Why use out of date data?
>
> While that is more current data, it doesn't tell us much of import
> without further details. All countries have firearms that are used
> by the military, and states with military bases have more such
> firearms than otherwise comparable states without military bases.
>
> So what do those figures above include?

These are personal firearms owned by the general public. The military
arsenal is, I presume, logged separately by the Pentagon.

William Clark


                        
Date: 30 Apr 2007 20:04:01
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:36:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>These are personal firearms owned by the general public. The military
>arsenal is, I presume, logged separately by the Pentagon.

There are no accurate numbers to reflect the number of gun owners or
the amount of firearms in the USA in private posession. People
publish bullshit numbers to serve their own purposes; but that's
about it.


                         
Date: 01 May 2007 12:33:20
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:04:01 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov >
wrote:

> People
>publish bullshit numbers to serve their own purposes; but that's
>about it.

Ain't that the truth and one of them is right here.


                          
Date: 01 May 2007 15:49:29
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <vtqe335jdui6d2m0er7obnj2g3n75cei43@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:04:01 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov>
> wrote:
>
> > People
> >publish bullshit numbers to serve their own purposes; but that's
> >about it.
>
> Ain't that the truth and one of them is right here.

Indeed, Jack, that does describe your contribution.

William Clark


                        
Date: 30 Apr 2007 02:46:13
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:36:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> So what do those figures above include?
>
>These are personal firearms owned by the general public. The military
>arsenal is, I presume, logged separately by the Pentagon.

How about police and guards?


                         
Date: 29 Apr 2007 23:02:44
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <t6ma33965ubli1seljs1h4lh92gdu20u77@4ax.com >,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:36:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> So what do those figures above include?
> >
> >These are personal firearms owned by the general public. The military
> >arsenal is, I presume, logged separately by the Pentagon.
>
> How about police and guards?

Not counted in these figures - unless they own their own personal
weapons.

William Clark


                      
Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:56:58
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>>>>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy
>>>>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a
>>>>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's
>>>>>>>>>>> Newsweek.
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
>>>>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only
>>>>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
>>>>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
>>>>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies
>>>>>>>>> (remember
>>>>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> William Clark
>>>>>>>> See the following:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Key findings:
>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun
>>>>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2
>>>>>>> adults
>>>>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual
>>>>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> QED.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> William Clark
>>>>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study
>>>>>> material.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't
>>>>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
>>>>> presumption) is wide of the mark.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you question MY competence?
>>>>>
>>>>> Holy smoke!
>>>>>
>>>>> William Clark
>>>> Billy,
>>>>
>>>> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements
>>>> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions.
>>>>
>>>> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the
>>>> money.
>>>>
>>>> Again, did you read the study?
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>> Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is
>>> not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the
>>> US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
>>> check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
>>> verified.
>>>
>>> So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do
>>> you have any?
>>>
>>> William Clark
>> The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data
>> 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data.
>>
>> Joe
>
> Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221
> million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That
> equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses.
>
> Why use out of date data?
>
> William Clark

Fast and loose again Billy. Simple division doesn't work given the
ownership distribution. How many handguns does Headshot have, just for
example? Clearly you did NOT read the material that I provided.

Joe


                       
Date: 29 Apr 2007 21:39:47
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <46353e1a$0$16707$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
> >>>>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >>>>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy
> >>>>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other
> >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's
> >>>>>>>>>>> Newsweek.
> >>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
> >>>>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The
> >>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be
> >>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand."
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
> >>>>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
> >>>>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies
> >>>>>>>>> (remember
> >>>>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> William Clark
> >>>>>>>> See the following:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
> >>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
> >>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Key findings:
> >>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
> >>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun
> >>>>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Joe
> >>>>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2
> >>>>>>> adults
> >>>>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual
> >>>>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> QED.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> William Clark
> >>>>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the
> >>>>>> study
> >>>>>> material.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Joe
> >>>>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't
> >>>>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
> >>>>> presumption) is wide of the mark.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And you question MY competence?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Holy smoke!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> William Clark
> >>>> Billy,
> >>>>
> >>>> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements
> >>>> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the
> >>>> money.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, did you read the study?
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe
> >>> Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is
> >>> not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the
> >>> US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
> >>> check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
> >>> verified.
> >>>
> >>> So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do
> >>> you have any?
> >>>
> >>> William Clark
> >> The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data
> >> 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >
> > Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221
> > million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That
> > equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses.
> >
> > Why use out of date data?
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Fast and loose again Billy. Simple division doesn't work given the
> ownership distribution. How many handguns does Headshot have, just for
> example? Clearly you did NOT read the material that I provided.
>
> Joe

Silly games again, Joe. Of course simple division gives a very good
picture of the average number of firearms per household for such a huge
sample. With a data set of this size, such abberrations as Headshot
owning fifteen weapons, and me owning none, wash out in the overall
numbers which converge on the average.

Clearly you did not take Statistics 101 in college.


                        
Date: 29 Apr 2007 22:15:28
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <46353e1a$0$16707$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newsweek.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking
>>>>>>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.
>>>>>>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies
>>>>>>>>>>> (remember
>>>>>>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> William Clark
>>>>>>>>>> See the following:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
>>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
>>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Key findings:
>>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
>>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun
>>>>>>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2
>>>>>>>>> adults
>>>>>>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual
>>>>>>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> QED.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> William Clark
>>>>>>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the
>>>>>>>> study
>>>>>>>> material.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't
>>>>>>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
>>>>>>> presumption) is wide of the mark.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you question MY competence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Holy smoke!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> William Clark
>>>>>> Billy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements
>>>>>> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the
>>>>>> money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, did you read the study?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>> Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is
>>>>> not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the
>>>>> US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
>>>>> check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
>>>>> verified.
>>>>>
>>>>> So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do
>>>>> you have any?
>>>>>
>>>>> William Clark
>>>> The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data
>>>> 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>> Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221
>>> million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That
>>> equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses.
>>>
>>> Why use out of date data?
>>>
>>> William Clark
>> Fast and loose again Billy. Simple division doesn't work given the
>> ownership distribution. How many handguns does Headshot have, just for
>> example? Clearly you did NOT read the material that I provided.
>>
>> Joe
>
> Silly games again, Joe. Of course simple division gives a very good
> picture of the average number of firearms per household for such a huge
> sample. With a data set of this size, such abberrations as Headshot
> owning fifteen weapons, and me owning none, wash out in the overall
> numbers which converge on the average.
>
> Clearly you did not take Statistics 101 in college.

Wrong on both counts.

The curve is NOT a normal distribution. I already pointed that out to
you above.

"http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
>>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
>>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Key findings:
>>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
>>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun"

In addition there are other demographic difference, as an example,
ownership is highest amongst middle aged males in the south.

In fact, people with post high school education had the highest
ownership rates.

I am really starting to wonder how you managed to get that advanced degree.

It is time for you to pony up and drop the hand waving.

Joe


                         
Date: 29 Apr 2007 23:31:29
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <46355080$0$16689$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <46353e1a$0$16707$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >>>>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Newsweek.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're
> >>>>>>>>>>>> talking
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies
> >>>>>>>>>>> (remember
> >>>>>>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> William Clark
> >>>>>>>>>> See the following:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
> >>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Key findings:
> >>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
> >>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun
> >>>>>>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Joe
> >>>>>>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2
> >>>>>>>>> adults
> >>>>>>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16%
> >>>>>>>>> individual
> >>>>>>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> QED.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> William Clark
> >>>>>>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the
> >>>>>>>> study
> >>>>>>>> material.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Joe
> >>>>>>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't
> >>>>>>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
> >>>>>>> presumption) is wide of the mark.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And you question MY competence?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Holy smoke!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> William Clark
> >>>>>> Billy,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements
> >>>>>> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the
> >>>>>> money.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Again, did you read the study?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Joe
> >>>>> Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is
> >>>>> not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the
> >>>>> US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
> >>>>> check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
> >>>>> verified.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do
> >>>>> you have any?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> William Clark
> >>>> The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data
> >>>> 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data.
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe
> >>> Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221
> >>> million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That
> >>> equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses.
> >>>
> >>> Why use out of date data?
> >>>
> >>> William Clark
> >> Fast and loose again Billy. Simple division doesn't work given the
> >> ownership distribution. How many handguns does Headshot have, just for
> >> example? Clearly you did NOT read the material that I provided.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >
> > Silly games again, Joe. Of course simple division gives a very good
> > picture of the average number of firearms per household for such a huge
> > sample. With a data set of this size, such abberrations as Headshot
> > owning fifteen weapons, and me owning none, wash out in the overall
> > numbers which converge on the average.
> >
> > Clearly you did not take Statistics 101 in college.
>
> Wrong on both counts.
>
> The curve is NOT a normal distribution. I already pointed that out to
> you above.
>
> "http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
> >>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Key findings:
> >>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
> >>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun"
>
> In addition there are other demographic difference, as an example,
> ownership is highest amongst middle aged males in the south.
>
> In fact, people with post high school education had the highest
> ownership rates.
>
> I am really starting to wonder how you managed to get that advanced degree.
>
> It is time for you to pony up and drop the hand waving.
>
> Joe

"Normal distribution" has nothing to do with it - fluctuations from the
mean in a large data set do.

This data is 2004 study, with data up to 1998. The numbers of guns in
private hands have gone up since 1994. You might want to modernize your
numbers. All the other points you try to obfuscate with are completely
irrelevant. You might also want to try reading more than just the potted
version on page 1 - for example, it makes a strong case that the value
of privately owned firearms in the prevention of crime is overrated, in
contrast to the claims of the pro-gun lobby. It also points out that
this is a telephone survey of only some 2500 households (out of over
100,000,000 in the US). And we all know how good telephone surveys are
at predicting, for example, the outcome of general elections. Worst of
all the survey was carried out under contract by a Stanford University
professor! Heavens, you tell us yourself over and over again that
academics know nothing and can't be trusted. Hoist with your own petard,
I would say.

And you accuse me of hand waving?

Wow.

William Clark


                          
Date: 30 Apr 2007 00:26:23
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <46355080$0$16689$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <46353e1a$0$16707$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newsweek.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (remember
>>>>>>>>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> William Clark
>>>>>>>>>>>> See the following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Key findings:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun
>>>>>>>>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2
>>>>>>>>>>> adults
>>>>>>>>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16%
>>>>>>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>>>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> QED.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> William Clark
>>>>>>>>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the
>>>>>>>>>> study
>>>>>>>>>> material.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't
>>>>>>>>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not
>>>>>>>>> presumption) is wide of the mark.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you question MY competence?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Holy smoke!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> William Clark
>>>>>>>> Billy,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements
>>>>>>>> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the
>>>>>>>> money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, did you read the study?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>> Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is
>>>>>>> not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the
>>>>>>> US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
>>>>>>> check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
>>>>>>> verified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do
>>>>>>> you have any?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> William Clark
>>>>>> The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data
>>>>>> 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>> Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221
>>>>> million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That
>>>>> equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why use out of date data?
>>>>>
>>>>> William Clark
>>>> Fast and loose again Billy. Simple division doesn't work given the
>>>> ownership distribution. How many handguns does Headshot have, just for
>>>> example? Clearly you did NOT read the material that I provided.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>> Silly games again, Joe. Of course simple division gives a very good
>>> picture of the average number of firearms per household for such a huge
>>> sample. With a data set of this size, such abberrations as Headshot
>>> owning fifteen weapons, and me owning none, wash out in the overall
>>> numbers which converge on the average.
>>>
>>> Clearly you did not take Statistics 101 in college.
>> Wrong on both counts.
>>
>> The curve is NOT a normal distribution. I already pointed that out to
>> you above.
>>
>> "http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
>> >>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994
>> >>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Key findings:
>> >>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population)
>> >>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun"
>>
>> In addition there are other demographic difference, as an example,
>> ownership is highest amongst middle aged males in the south.
>>
>> In fact, people with post high school education had the highest
>> ownership rates.
>>
>> I am really starting to wonder how you managed to get that advanced degree.
>>
>> It is time for you to pony up and drop the hand waving.
>>
>> Joe
>
> "Normal distribution" has nothing to do with it - fluctuations from the
> mean in a large data set do.
>
> This data is 2004 study, with data up to 1998. The numbers of guns in
> private hands have gone up since 1994. You might want to modernize your
> numbers. All the other points you try to obfuscate with are completely
> irrelevant. You might also want to try reading more than just the potted
> version on page 1 - for example, it makes a strong case that the value
> of privately owned firearms in the prevention of crime is overrated, in
> contrast to the claims of the pro-gun lobby. It also points out that
> this is a telephone survey of only some 2500 households (out of over
> 100,000,000 in the US). And we all know how good telephone surveys are
> at predicting, for example, the outcome of general elections. Worst of
> all the survey was carried out under contract by a Stanford University
> professor! Heavens, you tell us yourself over and over again that
> academics know nothing and can't be trusted. Hoist with your own petard,
> I would say.
>
> And you accuse me of hand waving?
>
> Wow.
>
> William Clark


                    
Date: 29 Apr 2007 18:58:51
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
> There are approximately 114,000 households in the
>US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
>check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
>verified.

There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone
the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there
Magellan.


                     
Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:32:33
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <jl8a339luuiso5m20127f3d0ebu251fmbq@4ax.com >,
Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> > There are approximately 114,000 households in the
> >US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
> >check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
> >verified.
>
> There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone
> the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there
> Magellan.

Sorry, of course, I meant 114,000,000 households.

At least you can point that out without questioning my parentage -
unlike some, who have no other response to make.

William Clark


                      
Date: 30 Apr 2007 20:13:31
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:32:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>In article <jl8a339luuiso5m20127f3d0ebu251fmbq@4ax.com>,
> Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>> > There are approximately 114,000 households in the
>> >US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
>> >check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
>> >verified.
>>
>> There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone
>> the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there
>> Magellan.
>
>Sorry, of course, I meant 114,000,000 households.
>
>At least you can point that out without questioning my parentage -
>unlike some, who have no other response to make.

Why would I question your parentage - I have great respect for you and
have no doubt that you are doing an excellent job raising your kids.
But I did not know you meant 114M - I suspected earlier you were
perhaps talking about a specific city.

With regard to knowing how many arms are in USA; nobody knows. NRA
has one guess, and Brady has another. Each group picks a number that
fits their needs. But even when they do come up with numbers; the
feed to that is always some small poll of a group (and then some
multiplication). For example, I own a Federal Firearms License
(Type 07) and collect military weapons of many countries from WW I
through Vietnam. I log them in my FFL book. BATFE has a right to
see the book whenever they want; but have never asked. All they can
be sure of is that I have 12 of the $200 Tax Stamps for automatic
weapons; attached to my photo, a few page form, and my fingerprints
(as well as a document signed by my local Sheriff). That's what they
have for each of the 300,000 NFA firearms in the BATFE Registry.
Anything else from the BATFE is just a guess. Also, any weapons that
are not in the C&R List are not in my book; which is how BATFE wants
it. Import controls did not exist back during WW I and WW II and
lots of weapons were "bring backs". There are also firearms companies
that went out of business without being required to give up their
production records (Randall Firearms is an example of a great company
that made 1911's back in the 70's). I have seen estimates from 220
million to 400 million not including illegal arms; but I would not be
surprised if there were 500 million firearms or more.


                       
Date: 30 Apr 2007 20:52:39
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <h11d33l0ejitdufe95h92967mlu5pkd0ll@4ax.com >,
Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:32:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <jl8a339luuiso5m20127f3d0ebu251fmbq@4ax.com>,
> > Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >> > There are approximately 114,000 households in the
> >> >US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
> >> >check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
> >> >verified.
> >>
> >> There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone
> >> the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there
> >> Magellan.
> >
> >Sorry, of course, I meant 114,000,000 households.
> >
> >At least you can point that out without questioning my parentage -
> >unlike some, who have no other response to make.
>
> Why would I question your parentage - I have great respect for you and
> have no doubt that you are doing an excellent job raising your kids.
> But I did not know you meant 114M - I suspected earlier you were
> perhaps talking about a specific city.

No offence meant - I was reaching the end of my tether dealing with
Jack's intellectual dishonesty and name calling. I understand why you
called my typo, but as I said, unlike Jack, you were able to do it with
questioning my fitness to be on this planet.

You also talked (and talk) actual numbers, another thing Jack seems to
be allergic to.
>
> With regard to knowing how many arms are in USA; nobody knows. NRA
> has one guess, and Brady has another. Each group picks a number that
> fits their needs. But even when they do come up with numbers; the
> feed to that is always some small poll of a group (and then some
> multiplication). For example, I own a Federal Firearms License
> (Type 07) and collect military weapons of many countries from WW I
> through Vietnam. I log them in my FFL book. BATFE has a right to
> see the book whenever they want; but have never asked. All they can
> be sure of is that I have 12 of the $200 Tax Stamps for automatic
> weapons; attached to my photo, a few page form, and my fingerprints
> (as well as a document signed by my local Sheriff). That's what they
> have for each of the 300,000 NFA firearms in the BATFE Registry.
> Anything else from the BATFE is just a guess. Also, any weapons that
> are not in the C&R List are not in my book; which is how BATFE wants
> it. Import controls did not exist back during WW I and WW II and
> lots of weapons were "bring backs". There are also firearms companies
> that went out of business without being required to give up their
> production records (Randall Firearms is an example of a great company
> that made 1911's back in the 70's). I have seen estimates from 220
> million to 400 million not including illegal arms; but I would not be
> surprised if there were 500 million firearms or more.

Yes, it's hard to call, but there are supposedly statistically
representative polls that try to get at these numbers. Most that I see
converge around the 200-220 million total, with 70+ million of these
handguns.

That's enough for me.

William Clark


                     
Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:22:09
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:58:51 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov >
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
><clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>> There are approximately 114,000 households in the
>>US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
>>check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
>>verified.
>
>There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone
>the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there
>Magellan.

The hole just gets deeper and deeper.


                      
Date: 29 Apr 2007 21:41:50
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <skda33pm0tj8dre4f61pqnjlnh044pm855@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:58:51 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> ><clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >> There are approximately 114,000 households in the
> >>US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can
> >>check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and
> >>verified.
> >
> >There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone
> >the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there
> >Magellan.
>
> The hole just gets deeper and deeper.

The evasion just gets sillier and sillier. Any idiot knows that this
typo should read 114,000,000 households.

But clutch onto any straw you can if it helps you avoid actually
addressing the issue with real facts.

William Clark


             
Date: 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the
> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.

Here's one.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled
benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's
2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/


              
Date: 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled
>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's
>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year.

There is no SSTF.


               
Date: 26 Apr 2007 15:52:34
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy
><puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled
>>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's
>>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year.
>
>There is no SSTF.

Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not
Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding
that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the
general fund) that is collected for SS.

Larry


                
Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:24:47
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:52:34 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy
>><puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled
>>>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's
>>>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year.
>>
>>There is no SSTF.
>
>Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not
>Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding
>that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the
>general fund) that is collected for SS.
>
>Larry

And then they have the gall to tell people that SS if funded until
2041. Anyone who believes that is clueless.


                 
Date: 27 Apr 2007 18:51:20
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:52:34 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy
>>><puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled
>>>>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's
>>>>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year.
>>>
>>>There is no SSTF.
>>
>>Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not
>>Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding
>>that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the
>>general fund) that is collected for SS.
>>
>>Larry
>
> And then they have the gall to tell people that SS if funded until
> 2041. Anyone who believes that is clueless.

How old are you?

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/


                  
Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:16:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:51:20 -0000, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>> And then they have the gall to tell people that SS if funded until
>> 2041. Anyone who believes that is clueless.
>
>How old are you?

Eleven months away from collecting my first SS benefit.


                   
Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:05:28
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:51:20 -0000, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> And then they have the gall to tell people that SS if funded until
>>> 2041. Anyone who believes that is clueless.
>>
>>How old are you?
>
> Eleven months away from collecting my first SS benefit.

Damn. Well, live to be old, Jack. I want you around to make fun
of in 35 years. :)

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/


                    
Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:36:56
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:05:28 -0000, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:51:20 -0000, Chris Bellomy
>> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> And then they have the gall to tell people that SS if funded until
>>>> 2041. Anyone who believes that is clueless.
>>>
>>>How old are you?
>>
>> Eleven months away from collecting my first SS benefit.
>
>Damn. Well, live to be old, Jack. I want you around to make fun
>of in 35 years. :)


By that time, they will have either reduced benefits in some way
and/or increased SS tax. Hopefully, they wont touch the people
already on SS, but I don't count on it. Luckily, I could do fine
without SS, but I did pay into the system and I deserve my benefits.
The beautiful thing is that I have three minor children. I'll get
benefits for all of them. My daughter is six months old. She's a
soon to be walking annuity until she's 18. Ironically, as it turned
out, I'm going to get a pretty good return on investment. My oldest
son is 12 and his brother is 10. I have to admit that I always hated
SS, but now I'm starting to like it.


BTW, Chris, here's an explanation of the SSTF from the Treasury Dept.


"When a trust fund invests in U.S. Treasury securities, it has, in
effect, loaned money to the rest of the government... The value of
the securities held is recorded in the budget as "debt held by
government accounts" and represents debt owed by one part of the
government to another. Just as with marketable securities (securities
sold to the public) a maturity date is set, interest is accrued at
established rates and the securities count as part of the overall
federal debt that is subject to a ceiling set by Congress. The
interest earned on the internal loan is credited to the trust fund
accounts in the form of additional Treasury securities. As such, the
securities constitute a liability for the Treasury as the loan must be
repaid when the trust funds need to redeem securities in order to make
benefit payments. As with marketable bonds, these special Treasury
securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.
government."

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/economic-policy/reports/budget_trust_fund_perspectives_2007.pdf


Thus you see that the SSTF is nothing other than government debt.


                     
Date: 28 Apr 2007 01:50:28
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> Thus you see that the SSTF is nothing other than government debt.

...which is already accounted for by the currency markets. That's
about as real as money gets in our system. It all goes back to
the definition of M.

See you in 35 years, codger. :)

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/


                      
Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:58:20
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:50:28 -0000, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Thus you see that the SSTF is nothing other than government debt.
>
>...which is already accounted for by the currency markets. That's
>about as real as money gets in our system. It all goes back to
>the definition of M.

You're hopeless :)

BTW Treasuries are only part of the money supply if they are held by
banks as part of their reserve.


                       
Date: 28 Apr 2007 07:28:42
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:50:28 -0000, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thus you see that the SSTF is nothing other than government debt.
>>
>>...which is already accounted for by the currency markets. That's
>>about as real as money gets in our system. It all goes back to
>>the definition of M.
>
> You're hopeless :)

We're both hopeless. Ha!

> BTW Treasuries are only part of the money supply if they are held by
> banks as part of their reserve.

I think I've already been over M3 here but it's a detail not even
worth further explanation. The bottom line is that the worth of our
currency is determined by the markets. The markets understand fully
well what the situation with Social Security is and will be. It's
all accounted for already. To maintain otherwise is essentially to
insist that the currency markets are stupid. I don't think they are.
Maybe you differ.

If I were to try to draw a classic accounting analogy here, it would
be that you are confusing cash flow with profitability. Yes, there
will be a negative cash flow situation over the next generation.
However, revenue has been deferred such that the bottom line will
remain healthy indefinitely into the future.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/


                
Date: 27 Apr 2007 02:08:58
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy
>><puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled
>>>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's
>>>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year.
>>
>>There is no SSTF.
>
> Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not
> Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding
> that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the
> general fund) that is collected for SS.

See, Jack, you're in league with Larry! Congrats!

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/


                 
Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:30:53
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:08:58 -0000, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>>>There is no SSTF.
>>
>> Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not
>> Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding
>> that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the
>> general fund) that is collected for SS.
>
>See, Jack, you're in league with Larry! Congrats!

I don't agree with everything he says, but the fact is that the SSTF
has no money in it. Starting in 2017, when the shortfall starts, the
money will have to come out of general revenues. The fact that the
money will go to redeem T-Bills rather than directly to benefits is
irrelevant.


               
Date: 26 Apr 2007 21:19:56
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled
>>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's
>>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year.
>
> There is no SSTF.

Of course.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/


        
Date: 24 Apr 2007 09:32:21
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-81EAEE.08415824042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <lf3q23lihq1kp6hht31mguu69aneagevqb@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:57:58 -0500, "the Moderator"
> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:clark.31-1021C0.16520121042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > >> In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com>,
> > >> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator"
> > >> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >> William Clark
> > >> > >
> > >> > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun?
> > >> >
> > >> > I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data.
> > >>
> > >> Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose
> > >> data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as
> > >> one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it?
> > >>
> > >> William Clark
> > >
> > >I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are
mistaken.
> >
> > I can't find it either.
>
> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), How Many Guns? ATF News
> Release FY-91-36, G.P.O., Washington, 1991.
>
> Thank you.
>
> William Clark

I found this:

In 1991, there were 211 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., which
then had a population of 252 million people. Of these firearms, about 71
million were handguns.(10)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm

I own four handguns. A lot of people who own handguns own multiple
handguns. It is a leap to suggest 29% of households have handguns. Does
not look like it is supported by the source.





         
Date: 24 Apr 2007 12:27:47
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <Vrudnbf27NdribPbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-81EAEE.08415824042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <lf3q23lihq1kp6hht31mguu69aneagevqb@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:57:58 -0500, "the Moderator"
> > > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> > > >news:clark.31-1021C0.16520121042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > >> In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com>,
> > > >> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator"
> > > >> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> William Clark
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data.
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose
> > > >> data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as
> > > >> one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it?
> > > >>
> > > >> William Clark
> > > >
> > > >I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are
> mistaken.
> > >
> > > I can't find it either.
> >
> > Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), How Many Guns? ATF News
> > Release FY-91-36, G.P.O., Washington, 1991.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> I found this:
>
> In 1991, there were 211 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., which
> then had a population of 252 million people. Of these firearms, about 71
> million were handguns.(10)
>
> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm
>
> I own four handguns. A lot of people who own handguns own multiple
> handguns. It is a leap to suggest 29% of households have handguns. Does
> not look like it is supported by the source.

Really? You have about 80 million households owning 71 million handguns.
I'd say 29% is very reasonable - it allows for each household to own 2-3
handguns.

Did you read the original the source? - "Where We Stand, Michael Wolff,
Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team
(New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289."

William Clark


          
Date: 25 Apr 2007 10:14:31
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-1DC375.12274724042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <Vrudnbf27NdribPbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@centurytel.net>,
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I found this:
> >
> > In 1991, there were 211 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S.,
which
> > then had a population of 252 million people. Of these firearms, about 71
> > million were handguns.(10)
> >
> > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm
> >
> > I own four handguns. A lot of people who own handguns own multiple
> > handguns. It is a leap to suggest 29% of households have handguns.
Does
> > not look like it is supported by the source.
>
> Really? You have about 80 million households owning 71 million handguns.
> I'd say 29% is very reasonable - it allows for each household to own 2-3
> handguns.
>
> Did you read the original the source? - "Where We Stand, Michael Wolff,
> Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team
> (New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289."
>
> William Clark

You said the source was the ATF. I knew you were grasping at straws.
Credibility = zero.




           
Date: 25 Apr 2007 11:35:56
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <WvydnYRl3KXF7bLbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-1DC375.12274724042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <Vrudnbf27NdribPbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@centurytel.net>,
> > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I found this:
> > >
> > > In 1991, there were 211 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S.,
> which
> > > then had a population of 252 million people. Of these firearms, about 71
> > > million were handguns.(10)
> > >
> > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm
> > >
> > > I own four handguns. A lot of people who own handguns own multiple
> > > handguns. It is a leap to suggest 29% of households have handguns.
> Does
> > > not look like it is supported by the source.
> >
> > Really? You have about 80 million households owning 71 million handguns.
> > I'd say 29% is very reasonable - it allows for each household to own 2-3
> > handguns.
> >
> > Did you read the original the source? - "Where We Stand, Michael Wolff,
> > Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team
> > (New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289."
> >
> > William Clark
>
> You said the source was the ATF. I knew you were grasping at straws.
> Credibility = zero.

No, there are two sources - one from the ATF that contains most of the
homicide data, and the second one that contains a lot of demographic
data. There is some overlap between the two, but since you haven't and
won''t read either, that is irrelevant.

Or don't you have more than one book in your library?

Literacy = zero.

William Clark


          
Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:05:09
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:27:47 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>Did you read the original the source? - "Where We Stand, Michael Wolff,
>Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team
>(New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289."
>
>William Clark

I thought you said the original source was the ATF?



           
Date: 25 Apr 2007 11:37:12
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <ieku231dvmpk0c70lv9s2r8bqkpudj3i6o@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:27:47 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Did you read the original the source? - "Where We Stand, Michael Wolff,
> >Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team
> >(New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289."
> >
> >William Clark
>
> I thought you said the original source was the ATF?

Just read the previous response.

God help us.

William Clark

PS: Why not just read either of them, and then you can actually make up
your own mind based on data, rather than prejudice.


     
Date: 21 Apr 2007 19:36:49
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:52:01 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as
>one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it?

You mean like the Home Office or UN report that showed that the UK has
a higher homicide rate than Switzerland. Where did you get your data
from that said that the UK homicide rate was lower than Switzerland?


     
Date: 21 Apr 2007 19:34:13
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:52:01 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose
>data it is.

Send me the link.


   
Date: 20 Apr 2007 13:18:01
From: sfb
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
There were serious challenges to the Hopkins/Lancet methodology by experts
in the field so the numbers might lack validity.

"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message
news:tIOdncW43vnzbbXbnZ2dnUVZ8sqjnZ2d@bt.com...
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> BTW, what is the current conversion rate?
>> 1 American life = how many Iraqis?
>>
> According to the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study there
> were 650,000 Iraqi killed over six months ago. About
> 3,500 American casualties to date. I'm so sickened by
> the unbelievable nightmare that everyone in Iraq is
> living through that I can't bring myself to do the math.
> BTW not a mention of oil in this thread, not even by
> Carbon. That's like discussing the Israel/Palestinian
> situation without mentioning Zionism. Or Victorians
> writing novels without mentioning sex - if you prefer
> the late Kurt Vonnegut's take.
>
>




    
Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:05:37
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

I didn't see any serious challenges of their methodology. You're taling
about Johns Hopkins, whose work in similar questions in other parts of the
world, using the same methodology, were accepted without question. If you
read their methodology, you'll find that they put themselves at great risk
and apparently did everything they could and way beyond to get accurate
numbers. Their only mistake may have been to report the truth that no one
wants to hear.

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:utudncS9KvVWaLXbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com...
> There were serious challenges to the Hopkins/Lancet methodology by experts
> in the field so the numbers might lack validity.
>
> "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:tIOdncW43vnzbbXbnZ2dnUVZ8sqjnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> BTW, what is the current conversion rate?
>>> 1 American life = how many Iraqis?
>>>
>> According to the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study there
>> were 650,000 Iraqi killed over six months ago. About
>> 3,500 American casualties to date. I'm so sickened by
>> the unbelievable nightmare that everyone in Iraq is
>> living through that I can't bring myself to do the math.
>> BTW not a mention of oil in this thread, not even by
>> Carbon. That's like discussing the Israel/Palestinian
>> situation without mentioning Zionism. Or Victorians
>> writing novels without mentioning sex - if you prefer
>> the late Kurt Vonnegut's take.
>>
>>
>
>




     
Date: 23 Apr 2007 08:50:23
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:XkeWh.149776$g24.73538@newsfe12.phx...
>
> I didn't see any serious challenges of their methodology. You're taling
> about Johns Hopkins, whose work in similar questions in other parts of the
> world, using the same methodology, were accepted without question. If you
> read their methodology, you'll find that they put themselves at great risk
> and apparently did everything they could and way beyond to get accurate
> numbers. Their only mistake may have been to report the truth that no one
> wants to hear.

The numbers don't match the facts. How do you explain that there are no
records for the number of wounded the study cites ever being treated by a
physician? They would have to have lost 80-90% of hospital records. The
number of death certificates actually issued is off by 1000%.

A more realistic number is between 40,000 - 60,000.




      
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:17:50
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:LLqdnYcHbJU9JLHbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:XkeWh.149776$g24.73538@newsfe12.phx...
>>
>> I didn't see any serious challenges of their methodology. You're taling
>> about Johns Hopkins, whose work in similar questions in other parts of
>> the
>> world, using the same methodology, were accepted without question. If you
>> read their methodology, you'll find that they put themselves at great
>> risk
>> and apparently did everything they could and way beyond to get accurate
>> numbers. Their only mistake may have been to report the truth that no one
>> wants to hear.
>
> The numbers don't match the facts. How do you explain that there are no
> records for the number of wounded the study cites ever being treated by a
> physician? They would have to have lost 80-90% of hospital records.
> The
> number of death certificates actually issued is off by 1000%.
>
> A more realistic number is between 40,000 - 60,000.

Do you think you can say "The numbers don't match the facts." I researched
it and I think that if you do the same thing about the people who are
questioning the study, you will find the same thing. I haven't seen any
credible refutations of the Johns Hopkins' study. If you'd like to post a
site, I'd read it. The numbers seem high to me, but that doesn't mean they
aren't true. The numbers in Vietnam were phony on the military side and we
know that, now. So far, all of Johns Hopkins' numbers have been accepted and
proven true through decades of work. Why would anyone reject them without
evidence, other than it is not poliltically expedient?




       
Date: 24 Apr 2007 08:53:06
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:sU5Xh.3875$OJ1.1297@newsfe13.phx...
>
> Do you think you can say "The numbers don't match the facts." I researched
> it and I think that if you do the same thing about the people who are
> questioning the study, you will find the same thing. I haven't seen any
> credible refutations of the Johns Hopkins' study. If you'd like to post a
> site, I'd read it. The numbers seem high to me, but that doesn't mean they
> aren't true. The numbers in Vietnam were phony on the military side and we
> know that, now. So far, all of Johns Hopkins' numbers have been accepted
and
> proven true through decades of work. Why would anyone reject them without
> evidence, other than it is not poliltically expedient?

There is ample evidence. Get your head out of the sand.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php




        
Date: 24 Apr 2007 13:25:38
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:WuKdnZV5aoVelrPbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:sU5Xh.3875$OJ1.1297@newsfe13.phx...
>>
>> Do you think you can say "The numbers don't match the facts." I
>> researched
>> it and I think that if you do the same thing about the people who are
>> questioning the study, you will find the same thing. I haven't seen any
>> credible refutations of the Johns Hopkins' study. If you'd like to post a
>> site, I'd read it. The numbers seem high to me, but that doesn't mean
>> they
>> aren't true. The numbers in Vietnam were phony on the military side and
>> we
>> know that, now. So far, all of Johns Hopkins' numbers have been accepted
> and
>> proven true through decades of work. Why would anyone reject them without
>> evidence, other than it is not poliltically expedient?
>
> There is ample evidence. Get your head out of the sand.
>
> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

Is there some way to make an actual wager, like escrow, say for maybe $100 -
$1000 about whether the Lancet estimate is closer to the truth than the bs
that you believe, no offense?




         
Date: 25 Apr 2007 10:00:37
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:tKtXh.8278$Fk2.6980@newsfe08.phx...
>
>
> Is there some way to make an actual wager, like escrow, say for maybe
$100 -
> $1000 about whether the Lancet estimate is closer to the truth than the bs
> that you believe, no offense?

Sure set up an escrow account and deposit your money.




   
Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:12:00
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message
news:tIOdncW43vnzbbXbnZ2dnUVZ8sqjnZ2d@bt.com...
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > BTW, what is the current conversion rate?
> > 1 American life = how many Iraqis?
> >
> According to the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study there
> were 650,000 Iraqi killed over six months ago. About
> 3,500 American casualties to date. I'm so sickened by
> the unbelievable nightmare that everyone in Iraq is
> living through that I can't bring myself to do the math.
> BTW not a mention of oil in this thread, not even by
> Carbon. That's like discussing the Israel/Palestinian
> situation without mentioning Zionism. Or Victorians
> writing novels without mentioning sex - if you prefer
> the late Kurt Vonnegut's take.

The Lancet study is not accurate at all. I would not quote it until you do
some research.




    
Date: 26 Apr 2007 20:18:30
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:IPSdndqSkcjDabXbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:tIOdncW43vnzbbXbnZ2dnUVZ8sqjnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > BTW, what is the current conversion rate?
>> > 1 American life = how many Iraqis?
>> >
>> According to the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study there
>> were 650,000 Iraqi killed over six months ago. About
>> 3,500 American casualties to date. I'm so sickened by
>> the unbelievable nightmare that everyone in Iraq is
>> living through that I can't bring myself to do the math.
>> BTW not a mention of oil in this thread, not even by
>> Carbon. That's like discussing the Israel/Palestinian
>> situation without mentioning Zionism. Or Victorians
>> writing novels without mentioning sex - if you prefer
>> the late Kurt Vonnegut's take.
>
> The Lancet study is not accurate at all. I would not quote it until you
> do
> some research.
>
>
There was also an excellent analysis of the Lancet/JHopkins
report published in The Guardian, link below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1925587,00.html
Quoted below:
"The researchers discovered that the death rate in the
period since the invasion has been 13.3 people per
1,000 per year. Before the war, their figures indicate
that the mortality rate was only 5.5 per 1,000 per year.
Therefore the death rate has risen by 7.8 per 1,000 per
year, and if you multiply this by the time elapsed and the
size of the entire Iraqi population, you arrive at a figure
of 655,000 additional deaths."

655,000 doesn't look at all unreasonable viewed this way
and may indeed be an underestimate.

Alan




     
Date: 26 Apr 2007 15:10:58
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message
news:K_OdneJiucGZZq3bnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
> >
> >
> There was also an excellent analysis of the Lancet/JHopkins
> report published in The Guardian, link below:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1925587,00.html
> Quoted below:
> "The researchers discovered that the death rate in the
> period since the invasion has been 13.3 people per
> 1,000 per year. Before the war, their figures indicate
> that the mortality rate was only 5.5 per 1,000 per year.
> Therefore the death rate has risen by 7.8 per 1,000 per
> year, and if you multiply this by the time elapsed and the
> size of the entire Iraqi population, you arrive at a figure
> of 655,000 additional deaths."
>
> 655,000 doesn't look at all unreasonable viewed this way
> and may indeed be an underestimate.
>
> Alan

Hmmm the title of this thread is 183 killed. One would assume that is
because 183 is higher than average. If the total of civilian deaths were
actually 655,000 that means the average daily war fatality rate is over 560
civilians every day.

655,000 doesn't look at all reasonable viewed this way. Do you think the
media is deliberately under reporting casualties?




      
Date: 26 Apr 2007 21:47:23
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:u4KdnWpE7p7LmqzbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:K_OdneJiucGZZq3bnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> >
>> >
>> There was also an excellent analysis of the Lancet/JHopkins
>> report published in The Guardian, link below:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1925587,00.html
>> Quoted below:
>> "The researchers discovered that the death rate in the
>> period since the invasion has been 13.3 people per
>> 1,000 per year. Before the war, their figures indicate
>> that the mortality rate was only 5.5 per 1,000 per year.
>> Therefore the death rate has risen by 7.8 per 1,000 per
>> year, and if you multiply this by the time elapsed and the
>> size of the entire Iraqi population, you arrive at a figure
>> of 655,000 additional deaths."
>>
>> 655,000 doesn't look at all unreasonable viewed this way
>> and may indeed be an underestimate.
>>
>> Alan
>
> Hmmm the title of this thread is 183 killed. One would assume that is
> because 183 is higher than average. If the total of civilian deaths were
> actually 655,000 that means the average daily war fatality rate is over
> 560
> civilians every day.
>
183 were killed on a very particular day in just a few incidents
which is why it was noteworthy. People are being killed in
individual incidents all over Iraq every day, not to speak of the
massacres at Fallujah, Najaf and elsewhere.
>
> 655,000 doesn't look at all reasonable viewed this way. Do you think the
> media is deliberately under reporting casualties?
>
The media have no idea how many are being killed since
they rarely venture outside the Green Zone.





      
Date: 26 Apr 2007 13:40:29
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:u4KdnWpE7p7LmqzbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:K_OdneJiucGZZq3bnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> >
>> >
>> There was also an excellent analysis of the Lancet/JHopkins
>> report published in The Guardian, link below:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1925587,00.html
>> Quoted below:
>> "The researchers discovered that the death rate in the
>> period since the invasion has been 13.3 people per
>> 1,000 per year. Before the war, their figures indicate
>> that the mortality rate was only 5.5 per 1,000 per year.
>> Therefore the death rate has risen by 7.8 per 1,000 per
>> year, and if you multiply this by the time elapsed and the
>> size of the entire Iraqi population, you arrive at a figure
>> of 655,000 additional deaths."
>>
>> 655,000 doesn't look at all unreasonable viewed this way
>> and may indeed be an underestimate.
>>
>> Alan
>
> Hmmm the title of this thread is 183 killed. One would assume that is
> because 183 is higher than average. If the total of civilian deaths were
> actually 655,000 that means the average daily war fatality rate is over
> 560
> civilians every day.
>
> 655,000 doesn't look at all reasonable viewed this way. Do you think the
> media is deliberately under reporting casualties?

The 600+ is not just civilian and not just killed by Americans. Read the
study.




    
Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:03:19
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:IPSdndqSkcjDabXbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:tIOdncW43vnzbbXbnZ2dnUVZ8sqjnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > BTW, what is the current conversion rate?
>> > 1 American life = how many Iraqis?
>> >
>> According to the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study there
>> were 650,000 Iraqi killed over six months ago. About
>> 3,500 American casualties to date. I'm so sickened by
>> the unbelievable nightmare that everyone in Iraq is
>> living through that I can't bring myself to do the math.
>> BTW not a mention of oil in this thread, not even by
>> Carbon. That's like discussing the Israel/Palestinian
>> situation without mentioning Zionism. Or Victorians
>> writing novels without mentioning sex - if you prefer
>> the late Kurt Vonnegut's take.
>
> The Lancet study is not accurate at all. I would not quote it until you
> do
> some research.

Imo, the Lancet study will prove to be as accurate as modern statistics can
be. Their main critics, quoted by the Bush administration, are mostly
musicians in England. I went to their website and checked their credentials.
Is that enough research for you?




  
Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:04:37
From: Blagovist
Subject: Re: Zurich Classic
Pickmaster wrote:
> Really sad with the plight of recovering New Orleans, and poor blacks
> especially effected, that Tiger Woods still has yet to attend the New
> Orleans venue since turning pro.

Probably doesn't like darkies.

Blago


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:49:23
From: Dene
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 9:23 pm, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 4:54 pm, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>
> >> This would be alright if ALL external influence in Iraq were kept out
> >> but you and I know that is not the current case nor would it be the
> >> future case.
>
> >> Power vacuums are always filled!
>
> >> The problem that I have with the left is they while they offer a desired
> >> result, the US out / Iraq to decide for itself, but no plan to get
> >> there. I think all sane Americans would love to see this but how do you
> >> propose to make it happen? Dialogue? With whom? How will you remove
> >> the existing external influences embedded there now? Be specific. How
> >> will you keep it that way?
>
> > You don't dialogue with anybody. We just leave and let them decide
> > the face of their nation. We dialogue with the "winner."
>
> > If the Iraqi people are not nationalistic enough to withstand foreign
> > influence, like the hated Persians, then they are another South
> > Vietnam. My belief is that they are nationalistic and the energy of
> > it is being directed at us....the perceived occupiers. We leave, then
> > this energy gets directed somewhere else, hopefully forming their own
> > country. If not, then their liberation was in vain. That's not our
> > fault...it's theirs.
>
> The flaw here is that Iraq as currently constituted, has no
> consequential history as a nation. It has been kicked from pillar to
> post, conquered, partitioned and plundered. Pretty much of what is now
> Iraq is a creation of western powers post WWI. The individuals are
> proud of who they are, generally identifying with an ethnic or religious
> group or a tribe. They may consider themselves as Iraqi but not first.
> The man in the street has no power here. You didn't offer a solution
> to the problem at all. We leave and Iran, Turkey and the Saudis will
> chop the nation up for there own ends.

The Kurds, Shiites, and Sunni's will chop up it up....and so be it.
If there is unity, it's the common opinion of the common Iraqi that
we're the enemy, so let's adios and let them hash it out.

> If that scenario is the expected outcome and it will be what happens,
> then a logical course of action would be for the US to sit with the
> major players right now and let them work out a new partition. I'm sure
> that could be accomplished amicably. :)

A plan could be drafted but it will only take effect when the last
player gets tired of fighting. Right now....there is plenty of tribal
and klan hatred which has to be blooded out first. Harsh
reality....but again, it's their problem, not ours.

> Read the history of Iraq and see how this might unfold.
>
> >> And the really big question for you folks, the giant elephant in the
> >> corner, what role does the US have in the world going forward? What
> >> does this nation stand for and what will we do to support our beliefs?
>
> > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages,
> > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear
> > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic.
>
> That is a concern about PC issues. You don't think that you will get
> the French to cooperate do you. Oh sure, maybe for a few months, until
> somebody turns up the heat a little. You are offering a lot of hand
> waving, not a plan.

The plan should be for us to get out....who cares about the French.
If you're referring to future conflicts, then again it has to be on
two grounds....our national interests (Grenada, Afghanistan, and
Panama....now which required other's approval) or a true coalition
(Kuwait's liberation).

> You also didn't address our role in the world, what our beliefs are or
> how we will really support them. What do you mean by promote democracy?
> How do you promote democracy in a nation that has NEVER in its
> history experienced it.
>
> We might try turning the Rappers loose on the problem, they have managed
> to change the "rules" in some communities in roughly a decade. :)

Betcha they vote for the Dems too. ; >

> This strategy was
>
> > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled.
>
> How is that working out down there right now?

Democracies in all with a couple of clowns in power....but they were
voted in.

> > We use unilateral force only in matters that directly involve our
> > national security (Panama, Grenada, the bombing of Libya,
> > Afghanistan).
>
> OK. That is one point.
>
> Extending this logic then we should unilaterally and immediately destroy
> the military infrastructure in Iran and Syria. Members of the radical
> Islamist hierarchy should be hunted down or killed where ever we find
> them.

If they pose a direct threat to our national security, then we overtly
act. Right now...neither country poses this threat, overtly. If Iran
builds a nuke and uses it, we turn Tehran into a parking lot. M.A.D.
definitely made the Russians think twice....and vice versa.

> We police when it's in cooperation with other
>
> > countries, like Kosovo. We do not police alone, as we did in Lebanon,
> > Somalia, and now in Iraq.
>
> In many cases you will not get any level of cooperation because of old
> scores to be settled, opportunities for power or just plain old "why
> should we care".

True....like in Africa. So we stay out!

> We are alone in Iraq now because the Euros don't have any balls. In
> twenty years it won't matter. France will be an Islamic Republic
> administered from Tehran. Or it will be a shattered nation rapidly
> sliding into the third world.

If France nationalism is that weak, then they will be
conquered....again. I don't see that happening.

> >> In fact, that is the question that you need to answer first. The rest
> >> will come a lot easier then. Reid's answer would be ....?
>
> >> I have yet to hear a coherent and direct statement in answer to any of
> >> these question by any senior member of the left wing party. Why is that?
>
> > I dunno. I'm a Republican. I identify more with the ass than I do
> > with the elephant. :>
>
> Please note that I never identified a party. I addressed the left
> thinking people. I mention Reid because he is so far left that he
> probably speak French at home.
>
>
>
> > -Greg
>
> Nothing personal intended in any of the above. We disagree on some
> things but that is part of life.

Agree. Ideas exchanged without rancor.

-Greg




  
Date: 20 Apr 2007 18:46:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:30:25 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On 20 Apr 2007 18:20:48 -0700, annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 20, 5:12 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
>>> ___,
>>> \o
>>>


   
Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:27:58
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 27, 3:35 pm, frank ross <f...@net.net > wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > As for your ridicule of Rob, he's is doing important research and
> > teaching, reflecting a life of work and study. In contrast to
> > you....a thrice married, adulterous, two bit, studio musician whose
> > productive and meaningful years are behind him.
> > -Greg
>
> You did it again!!! BK didn't even mention you, and you barge into this
> with low blows.

Uh swifty.....do these words from your butt buddy to Rob ring a bell,
"You've just defined yourself and Greg..."

I seem to remember someone mentioning your "trophy
> wife", which was uncalled for, but doesn't that mean you've had a
> divorce? How can you make it derogatory for someone else? Then you
> call him adulterous. You'd better have proof of a statement like that,
> underhanded, uncalled for, slur.

Prove otherwise.

> As I understand it, studio musicians are the elite in the world of
> recorded music....that isn't two bit.

Well....I've seen plenty of evidence about your ability to
understand. Regardless, here is some education. Studio musicians are
like actors....most are scrapping for work. Comparing his vocation to
Rob's is like comparing your intelligence to mine.....no comparison.

> You never fail to be an ass.

And you're quite fond of Bobby's Bum, aren't your Francis?

> Frank Ross
>
> P.S. You use a fake email address to post to RSG, and a fake name.
> Then you give me heat for being anonymous. Hypocrite.
> FR

Dene is my middle name. gdstrue@aol.com is legit. We know nothing
but lies about you.

You're fun...Francis.

-Greg



   
Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:18:08
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 27, 3:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net > wrote:
> In article <1177712406.932330.175...@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 2:12 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article <1177708027.659661.150...@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 27, 1:43 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > In article <1177706046.467539.126...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:54 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <1177703232.928891.116...@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > > > The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:46 pm, Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 10:22 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > We don't have to imagine what you look
> > > > > > > > > > like.http://www.delmardata.com/about.htm
>
> > > > > > > > > > Frankly, you even look like a sleaze.
>
> > > > > > > > > The link simply proves that Larry is doing something with his
> > > > > > > > > life,
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > contrast to you.
>
> > > > > > > > > -Greg
>
> > > > > > > > You know the drill in life. Some people do things. They talk
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > what they do. Some people don't do much, so they talk about what
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > people do, mainly out of spite and jealousy.
>
> > > > > > > Actually, if you really read the site from which the link comes it
> > > > > > > reveals that Larry's life as described by him is entirely a fraud.
>
> > > > > > You''re stating that his business web site is a fraud. Hmmmm....I'd
> > > > > > be careful about these public assertions, not that a ski bum has any
> > > > > > desirable assets.
>
> > > > > > -Greg
>
> > > > > On the contrary, I'm stating that his business website is accurate.
>
> > > > > It's his life as he describes it on here that's the fraud.
>
> > > > > Question: how many really rich businessmen list themselves as the sole
> > > > > contact for their business?
>
> > > > This demonstrates how little you know about business. Being a sole
> > > > proprietor is the most efficient way to run a business. Besides, he
> > > > may employ assistants or subcontracts but holds the purse strings in
> > > > terms of quotes for various jobs. Why not...it's his money.
>
> > > LOL
>
> > > So you agree that Larry is a small-timer.
>
> > Not at all. I'm a sole proprietor by choice too. My income is plenty
> > fine. He's probably in the same category unless you believe he can
> > afford San Diego, the neighborhood he lives in, country club, while
> > living in a single-wide.
>
> Why do you believe he lives in the neighbourhood he lives in? The
> "country club" he belongs to is a for pay business, not a club at all.
>
> You've already admitted he's a pompous asshole about golf. Why would he
> be any different about his personal life?
>

I would agree that some of his golf posting are arrogant, whether by
deliberate design remains to be seen. I would not make this
assumption about his personal life. Successful people, especially
those who are self made, tend to have it together in all phases of
life.

-Greg



    
Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:31:04
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177715888.911782.79780@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

> On Apr 27, 3:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article <1177712406.932330.175...@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 27, 2:12 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <1177708027.659661.150...@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 27, 1:43 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <1177706046.467539.126...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:54 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <1177703232.928891.116...@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > > > > The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:46 pm, Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 10:22 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > We don't have to imagine what you look
> > > > > > > > > > > like.http://www.delmardata.com/about.htm
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Frankly, you even look like a sleaze.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > The link simply proves that Larry is doing something with
> > > > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > life,
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > contrast to you.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > -Greg
> >
> > > > > > > > > You know the drill in life. Some people do things. They talk
> > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > what they do. Some people don't do much, so they talk about
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > people do, mainly out of spite and jealousy.
> >
> > > > > > > > Actually, if you really read the site from which the link comes
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > reveals that Larry's life as described by him is entirely a
> > > > > > > > fraud.
> >
> > > > > > > You''re stating that his business web site is a fraud.
> > > > > > > Hmmmm....I'd
> > > > > > > be careful about these public assertions, not that a ski bum has
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > desirable assets.
> >
> > > > > > > -Greg
> >
> > > > > > On the contrary, I'm stating that his business website is accurate.
> >
> > > > > > It's his life as he describes it on here that's the fraud.
> >
> > > > > > Question: how many really rich businessmen list themselves as the
> > > > > > sole
> > > > > > contact for their business?
> >
> > > > > This demonstrates how little you know about business. Being a sole
> > > > > proprietor is the most efficient way to run a business. Besides, he
> > > > > may employ assistants or subcontracts but holds the purse strings in
> > > > > terms of quotes for various jobs. Why not...it's his money.
> >
> > > > LOL
> >
> > > > So you agree that Larry is a small-timer.
> >
> > > Not at all. I'm a sole proprietor by choice too. My income is plenty
> > > fine. He's probably in the same category unless you believe he can
> > > afford San Diego, the neighborhood he lives in, country club, while
> > > living in a single-wide.
> >
> > Why do you believe he lives in the neighbourhood he lives in? The
> > "country club" he belongs to is a for pay business, not a club at all.
> >
> > You've already admitted he's a pompous asshole about golf. Why would he
> > be any different about his personal life?
> >
>
> I would agree that some of his golf posting are arrogant, whether by
> deliberate design remains to be seen. I would not make this
> assumption about his personal life. Successful people, especially
> those who are self made, tend to have it together in all phases of
> life.

Just not golf...

I've found that those who tend to exaggerate their accomplishments tend
to do so in every sphere.

Fact: delmardata.com is not the website of anything more than a very
small business.

Fact: only very small businesses list as their sole contact the owner of
the business.

Fact: mostly it is very small businesses that list an address that is
just a post office box and not an actual street address.

Fact: only very small businesses list the same address as the owner's
home address.

Fact: Larry's home/business address street number as listed in the
whitepages available on the web doesn't exist on the street named; not
at least according to Google Maps.

Fact: the backyard seen in the videos posted by Larry isn't the backyard
of the sort of house found on the street that purports to be his home
address, but it does match the backyard of the far more modest homes
found at his old address.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.


   
Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:04:15
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 27, 1:45 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net > wrote:
>
> > I'm not aligned with Larry....nor anyone. Cronyism is your silly
> > game. Furthermore, I'm hardly jealous of you. Assuming good, health,
> > I guarantee my retired life will be full of travel, golf, and
> > exploration.....not nitpicking on Usenet.
>
> > As for your ridicule of Rob, he's is doing important research and
> > teaching, reflecting a life of work and study. In contrast to
> > you....a thrice married, adulterous, two bit, studio musician whose
> > productive and meaningful years are behind him.
>
> > Isn't it time for your nap?
>
> > -Greg
>
> So...
>
> Is this an example of the civility you advocate?
>
> LOL
>

It's call tit for tat....or in your case, gnit for gnat.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

-Greg




    
Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:09:23
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177707855.871164.314490@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

> On Apr 27, 1:45 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not aligned with Larry....nor anyone. Cronyism is your silly
> > > game. Furthermore, I'm hardly jealous of you. Assuming good, health,
> > > I guarantee my retired life will be full of travel, golf, and
> > > exploration.....not nitpicking on Usenet.
> >
> > > As for your ridicule of Rob, he's is doing important research and
> > > teaching, reflecting a life of work and study. In contrast to
> > > you....a thrice married, adulterous, two bit, studio musician whose
> > > productive and meaningful years are behind him.
> >
> > > Isn't it time for your nap?
> >
> > > -Greg
> >
> > So...
> >
> > Is this an example of the civility you advocate?
> >
> > LOL
> >
>
> It's call tit for tat....or in your case, gnit for gnat.
>
> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
>
> -Greg

Ohhhhhhh...

So when you go tit for tat it's all good, but others are just being
uncivil (even when they don't actually say anything uncivil)!

That's call hypocrisy, and saying so isn't uncivil, although I'm sure
you cry that it is.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.


   
Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:31:47
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 27, 1:02 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2007 12:47:13 -0700, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 27, 12:46 pm, Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 27, 10:22 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> >> > We don't have to imagine what you look like.http://www.delmardata.com/about.htm
>
> >> > Frankly, you even look like a sleaze.
>
> >> The link simply proves that Larry is doing something with his life, in
> >> contrast to you.
>
> >> -Greg
>
> >You know the drill in life. Some people do things. They talk about
> >what they do. Some people don't do much, so they talk about what other
> >people do, mainly out of spite and jealousy.
>
> You've just defined yourself and Greg, you'd have to be jealous about
> my lifestyle. If LLLLarrry is as wealthy as he suggests, retirement
> could be a great lifestyle.
>
> I worked until the age of 68, retired, now living a great life with
> no complaints, and busy as I ever was. Plus, I never had tenure. I
> had to produce daily. Tenure has been described as having the
> ability to teach the same one hour classes for twenty years with no
> oversight.
>
> It's telling, and funny as hell, that you and the Snide Sniper have
> cast your lot alongside the likes of LLLLLarrrrry. - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm not aligned with Larry....nor anyone. Cronyism is your silly
game. Furthermore, I'm hardly jealous of you. Assuming good, health,
I guarantee my retired life will be full of travel, golf, and
exploration.....not nitpicking on Usenet.

As for your ridicule of Rob, he's is doing important research and
teaching, reflecting a life of work and study. In contrast to
you....a thrice married, adulterous, two bit, studio musician whose
productive and meaningful years are behind him.

Isn't it time for your nap?

-Greg



    
Date: 27 Apr 2007 17:35:59
From: frank ross
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Dene wrote:

> As for your ridicule of Rob, he's is doing important research and
> teaching, reflecting a life of work and study. In contrast to
> you....a thrice married, adulterous, two bit, studio musician whose
> productive and meaningful years are behind him.
> -Greg
>

You did it again!!! BK didn't even mention you, and you barge into this
with low blows. I seem to remember someone mentioning your "trophy
wife", which was uncalled for, but doesn't that mean you've had a
divorce? How can you make it derogatory for someone else? Then you
call him adulterous. You'd better have proof of a statement like that,
underhanded, uncalled for, slur.

As I understand it, studio musicians are the elite in the world of
recorded music....that isn't two bit.

You never fail to be an ass.

Frank Ross

P.S. You use a fake email address to post to RSG, and a fake name.
Then you give me heat for being anonymous. Hypocrite.
FR


    
Date: 27 Apr 2007 20:45:36
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177705907.673299.263930@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

> On Apr 27, 1:02 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> > On 27 Apr 2007 12:47:13 -0700, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Apr 27, 12:46 pm, Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> On Apr 27, 10:22 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> > We don't have to imagine what you look
> > >> > like.http://www.delmardata.com/about.htm
> >
> > >> > Frankly, you even look like a sleaze.
> >
> > >> The link simply proves that Larry is doing something with his life, in
> > >> contrast to you.
> >
> > >> -Greg
> >
> > >You know the drill in life. Some people do things. They talk about
> > >what they do. Some people don't do much, so they talk about what other
> > >people do, mainly out of spite and jealousy.
> >
> > You've just defined yourself and Greg, you'd have to be jealous about
> > my lifestyle. If LLLLarrry is as wealthy as he suggests, retirement
> > could be a great lifestyle.
> >
> > I worked until the age of 68, retired, now living a great life with
> > no complaints, and busy as I ever was. Plus, I never had tenure. I
> > had to produce daily. Tenure has been described as having the
> > ability to teach the same one hour classes for twenty years with no
> > oversight.
> >
> > It's telling, and funny as hell, that you and the Snide Sniper have
> > cast your lot alongside the likes of LLLLLarrrrry. - Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm not aligned with Larry....nor anyone. Cronyism is your silly
> game. Furthermore, I'm hardly jealous of you. Assuming good, health,
> I guarantee my retired life will be full of travel, golf, and
> exploration.....not nitpicking on Usenet.
>
> As for your ridicule of Rob, he's is doing important research and
> teaching, reflecting a life of work and study. In contrast to
> you....a thrice married, adulterous, two bit, studio musician whose
> productive and meaningful years are behind him.
>
> Isn't it time for your nap?
>
> -Greg

So...


Is this an example of the civility you advocate?

LOL

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.


     
Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:15:08
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:45:36 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net >
wrote:

>In article <1177705907.673299.263930@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I'm not aligned with Larry....nor anyone.

Sure you are. You'd kiss anyone's ass that posts negativity towards
me. That's because I, and others, outed you years ago as a sniveling
little prick, who's word isn't worth crap. You were such a fawning
sycophantic weasel that you did have us fooled for a while.

>>Cronyism is your silly game.

Are you so uneducated as to not know the meaning of the word crony?
Here, let me help you:
Main Entry: cro·ny
Pronunciation: 'krO-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural cronies
Etymology: perhaps from Greek chronios long-lasting, from chronos
time; a close friend especially of long standing.

Which means that I have friends, not your silly game. Well, not
long-lasting ones.


>>Furthermore, I'm hardly jealous of you. Assuming good, health,
>> I guarantee my retired life will be full of travel, golf, and
>> exploration.....not nitpicking on Usenet.

You're nitpicking on Usenet now, when you're supposedly working.

>> As for your ridicule of Rob, he's is doing important research and
>> teaching, reflecting a life of work and study. In contrast to
>> you....a thrice married, adulterous, two bit, studio musician whose
>> productive and meaningful years are behind him.

You have no idea what Rob does in his research. Neither do I, but my
ridicule was aimed at tenure, not to him....unless it fits.

As I remember, you've been married twice. Is there a magic number?

Adulterous? You have no idea what my private life has been, and this
is a statement that, if it caused me embarrassment, would lead to
problems for you. Fortunately for you, your word isn't worth crap to
anyone here and it can't hurt me. It's just a dishonest, and tawdry,
accusation from a morally bankrupt putz.

As far as my previous career; you'll never reach an equivalent level
in yours.

>
>So...
>
>
>Is this an example of the civility you advocate?
>
>LOL

Alan, he's so pitiful. Fifty years old and has carried a grudge for
several years because he was kicked out of the c-list. He'll carry
the situation at RSG Northwest for longer. He's an absolute loser,
and proves it over and over here.

___,
\o


   
Date: 26 Apr 2007 13:48:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 26, 12:53 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2007 18:15:26 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:23:56 GMT, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:07:16 -0700, larry <l...@delmardata.com>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:51:06 GMT, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net>
> >> >>wrote:
>
> >> >>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:42:33 -0700, larry <l...@delmardata.com>
> >> >>>wrote:
>
> >> >>>>Class shows. You just keep writing things that reveal yours. I
> >> >>>>would be ashamed. Obviously you are not-- but then that tells us
> >> >>>>all we need to know....
>
> >> >>>>larry
>
> >> >>>Right. Class shows. Now, tell us again that those kids at Va Tech
> >> >>>who were murdered were morons. THAT tells us all we need to know
> >> >>>about your sorry ass.
>
> >> >>If I had allowed myself to be trapped like a rat in one of those
> >> >>classrooms-- totally at the mercy of any slezeball who came along with
> >> >>a gun, or a flame-thrower, or a can of gasoline and a match, I would
> >> >>feel like a moron. I only have one life-- and am reluctant to just
> >> >>throw it away. Those parents should have insisted that their
> >> >>children have real campus security, not PC nonsense.
>
> >> >>Larry
>
> >> >Nice try...but the students weren't morons. I'm sure that you would
> >> >be a hero and put a stop to the murderer. Wrong!
>
> >> I guarantee that I would not huddle against the opposite wall like
> >> chickens or sheep waiting to be slaughtered. I would have organized
> >> everyone to attack him as he came through the door-- throwing desks,
> >> books, whatever was available.
>
> >Are you actually blaming the victims for their own deaths? Are you
> >implying that they died because they were a bunch of pussies, and that
> >if a real man like you were in the room, the slaughter wouldn't have
> >happened? If the answer is yes, then I have another question: do you
> >get out of bed every morning and ask yourself, what can I do today to
> >be more of a despicable pig?
>
> I am saying only that I would not have cowered in the corner opposite
> the door-- . I am amazed that so many did that--when only a few
> could have successfully charged him, throwing desks, books, whatever
> was at hand. I hope I would have done something like the men on
> United 93 did, "Lets roll!" I might have died, but I would not have
> died like a lamb.
>
So, in other words, yes, you're accusing the people who were killed of
being a bunch of pussies. You are truly repulsive.



    
Date: 26 Apr 2007 21:51:05
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 26 Apr 2007 13:48:53 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Apr 26, 12:53 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>> On 25 Apr 2007 18:15:26 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Are you actually blaming the victims for their own deaths? Are you
>> >implying that they died because they were a bunch of pussies, and that
>> >if a real man like you were in the room, the slaughter wouldn't have
>> >happened? If the answer is yes, then I have another question: do you
>> >get out of bed every morning and ask yourself, what can I do today to
>> >be more of a despicable pig?
>>
>> I am saying only that I would not have cowered in the corner opposite
>> the door-- . I am amazed that so many did that--when only a few
>> could have successfully charged him, throwing desks, books, whatever
>> was at hand. I hope I would have done something like the men on
>> United 93 did, "Lets roll!" I might have died, but I would not have
>> died like a lamb.
>>
>So, in other words, yes, you're accusing the people who were killed of
>being a bunch of pussies. You are truly repulsive.

He hasn't a clue.


   
Date: 21 Apr 2007 02:00:25
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:46:49 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:30:25 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 20 Apr 2007 18:20:48 -0700, annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 20, 5:12 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> ___,
>>>> \o
>>>>


    
Date: 23 Apr 2007 09:43:40
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:00:25 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >

>You're beneath contempt, a slug has more compassion and common sense
>that you. Being a liar, blowhard and scum bag sure comes easy to
>you.

one of these days someone you wrote gratuitous filthy names about or
to-- is going to meet you. He is going to know who you are, and you
are not going to know who he is-- With your history of insulting
others on RSG, I would strongly suggest you stay home for about 10
years.

Larry


     
Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:34:03
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 27, 4:31 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net > wrote:
> In article <1177715888.911782.79...@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 3:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article <1177712406.932330.175...@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 27, 2:12 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > In article <1177708027.659661.150...@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 27, 1:43 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <1177706046.467539.126...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:54 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > <1177703232.928891.116...@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > > > > > The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:46 pm, Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 10:22 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > We don't have to imagine what you look
> > > > > > > > > > > > like.http://www.delmardata.com/about.htm
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly, you even look like a sleaze.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The link simply proves that Larry is doing something with
> > > > > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > > life,
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > contrast to you.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > -Greg
>
> > > > > > > > > > You know the drill in life. Some people do things. They talk
> > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > what they do. Some people don't do much, so they talk about
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > people do, mainly out of spite and jealousy.
>
> > > > > > > > > Actually, if you really read the site from which the link comes
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > reveals that Larry's life as described by him is entirely a
> > > > > > > > > fraud.
>
> > > > > > > > You''re stating that his business web site is a fraud.
> > > > > > > > Hmmmm....I'd
> > > > > > > > be careful about these public assertions, not that a ski bum has
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > desirable assets.
>
> > > > > > > > -Greg
>
> > > > > > > On the contrary, I'm stating that his business website is accurate.
>
> > > > > > > It's his life as he describes it on here that's the fraud.
>
> > > > > > > Question: how many really rich businessmen list themselves as the
> > > > > > > sole
> > > > > > > contact for their business?
>
> > > > > > This demonstrates how little you know about business. Being a sole
> > > > > > proprietor is the most efficient way to run a business. Besides, he
> > > > > > may employ assistants or subcontracts but holds the purse strings in
> > > > > > terms of quotes for various jobs. Why not...it's his money.
>
> > > > > LOL
>
> > > > > So you agree that Larry is a small-timer.
>
> > > > Not at all. I'm a sole proprietor by choice too. My income is plenty
> > > > fine. He's probably in the same category unless you believe he can
> > > > afford San Diego, the neighborhood he lives in, country club, while
> > > > living in a single-wide.
>
> > > Why do you believe he lives in the neighbourhood he lives in? The
> > > "country club" he belongs to is a for pay business, not a club at all.
>
> > > You've already admitted he's a pompous asshole about golf. Why would he
> > > be any different about his personal life?
>
> > I would agree that some of his golf posting are arrogant, whether by
> > deliberate design remains to be seen. I would not make this
> > assumption about his personal life. Successful people, especially
> > those who are self made, tend to have it together in all phases of
> > life.
>
> Just not golf...
>
> I've found that those who tend to exaggerate their accomplishments tend
> to do so in every sphere.
>
> Fact: delmardata.com is not the website of anything more than a very
> small business.
>
> Fact: only very small businesses list as their sole contact the owner of
> the business.
>
> Fact: mostly it is very small businesses that list an address that is
> just a post office box and not an actual street address.
>
> Fact: only very small businesses list the same address as the owner's
> home address.
>
> Fact: Larry's home/business address street number as listed in the
> whitepages available on the web doesn't exist on the street named; not
> at least according to Google Maps.
>
> Fact: the backyard seen in the videos posted by Larry isn't the backyard
> of the sort of house found on the street that purports to be his home
> address, but it does match the backyard of the far more modest homes
> found at his old address.

Fact: You are obviously obsessed with Larry. Get help.

Bought an RV. Off to pick it up and take it to the coast.

Cya!

-Greg



      
Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:35:58
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177716843.054610.19740@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

> On Apr 27, 4:31 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article <1177715888.911782.79...@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 27, 3:27 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <1177712406.932330.175...@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 27, 2:12 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <1177708027.659661.150...@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 27, 1:43 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <1177706046.467539.126...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:54 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <1177703232.928891.116...@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:46 pm, Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 10:22 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We don't have to imagine what you look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > like.http://www.delmardata.com/about.htm
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly, you even look like a sleaze.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The link simply proves that Larry is doing something
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > > > life,
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > contrast to you.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -Greg
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > You know the drill in life. Some people do things. They
> > > > > > > > > > > talk
> > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > what they do. Some people don't do much, so they talk
> > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > people do, mainly out of spite and jealousy.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Actually, if you really read the site from which the link
> > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > reveals that Larry's life as described by him is entirely a
> > > > > > > > > > fraud.
> >
> > > > > > > > > You''re stating that his business web site is a fraud.
> > > > > > > > > Hmmmm....I'd
> > > > > > > > > be careful about these public assertions, not that a ski bum
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > desirable assets.
> >
> > > > > > > > > -Greg
> >
> > > > > > > > On the contrary, I'm stating that his business website is
> > > > > > > > accurate.
> >
> > > > > > > > It's his life as he describes it on here that's the fraud.
> >
> > > > > > > > Question: how many really rich businessmen list themselves as
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > sole
> > > > > > > > contact for their business?
> >
> > > > > > > This demonstrates how little you know about business. Being a
> > > > > > > sole
> > > > > > > proprietor is the most efficient way to run a business. Besides,
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > may employ assistants or subcontracts but holds the purse strings
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > terms of quotes for various jobs. Why not...it's his money.
> >
> > > > > > LOL
> >
> > > > > > So you agree that Larry is a small-timer.
> >
> > > > > Not at all. I'm a sole proprietor by choice too. My income is
> > > > > plenty
> > > > > fine. He's probably in the same category unless you believe he can
> > > > > afford San Diego, the neighborhood he lives in, country club, while
> > > > > living in a single-wide.
> >
> > > > Why do you believe he lives in the neighbourhood he lives in? The
> > > > "country club" he belongs to is a for pay business, not a club at all.
> >
> > > > You've already admitted he's a pompous asshole about golf. Why would he
> > > > be any different about his personal life?
> >
> > > I would agree that some of his golf posting are arrogant, whether by
> > > deliberate design remains to be seen. I would not make this
> > > assumption about his personal life. Successful people, especially
> > > those who are self made, tend to have it together in all phases of
> > > life.
> >
> > Just not golf...
> >
> > I've found that those who tend to exaggerate their accomplishments tend
> > to do so in every sphere.
> >
> > Fact: delmardata.com is not the website of anything more than a very
> > small business.
> >
> > Fact: only very small businesses list as their sole contact the owner of
> > the business.
> >
> > Fact: mostly it is very small businesses that list an address that is
> > just a post office box and not an actual street address.
> >
> > Fact: only very small businesses list the same address as the owner's
> > home address.
> >
> > Fact: Larry's home/business address street number as listed in the
> > whitepages available on the web doesn't exist on the street named; not
> > at least according to Google Maps.
> >
> > Fact: the backyard seen in the videos posted by Larry isn't the backyard
> > of the sort of house found on the street that purports to be his home
> > address, but it does match the backyard of the far more modest homes
> > found at his old address.
>
> Fact: You are obviously obsessed with Larry. Get help.

Nope. I'm *entertained* by him.

But since you believe I'm obsessed with Larry, that means you also
believe that you're obsessed with me by your own definition!

>
> Bought an RV. Off to pick it up and take it to the coast.

Riiiiiiight.

Be sure to show us all a few pics of it.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.


     
Date: 26 Apr 2007 20:15:01
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 26, 6:31 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:

>
> Let it go, Frank. I just read some of their posts, laugh, and move
> on. Why bother replying? I am the KING of RSG because they never
> know whether I have read any post for days, or weeks, or months. I
> am proudly NOT a RSG regular.
>

You're the king of RSG because Baker and B.O.B. keep feeding you.

-Greg



      
Date: 27 Apr 2007 09:55:15
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 26 Apr 2007 20:15:01 -0700, Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

>On Apr 26, 6:31 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Let it go, Frank. I just read some of their posts, laugh, and move
>> on. Why bother replying? I am the KING of RSG because they never
>> know whether I have read any post for days, or weeks, or months. I
>> am proudly NOT a RSG regular.
>>
>
>You're the king of RSG because Baker and B.O.B. keep feeding you.
>
>-Greg

Yep, and I MIGHT spend 15 minutes a week here. Amazing how I can
control them---when you consider both those guys sit at their computer
15+ hours every day-- just posting hateful invective on the Usenet.

Larry


     
Date: 26 Apr 2007 19:48:07
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <p9op235k0pati68sldg1dottgfn4hqeol3@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:00:25 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>
> >You're beneath contempt, a slug has more compassion and common sense
> >that you. Being a liar, blowhard and scum bag sure comes easy to
> >you.
>
> one of these days someone you wrote gratuitous filthy names about or
> to-- is going to meet you. He is going to know who you are, and you
> are not going to know who he is-- With your history of insulting
> others on RSG, I would strongly suggest you stay home for about 10
> years.
>
> Larry

Larry,

You *are* beneath contempt.

BK shows *compassion* by thinking about how others might be affected by
his sig. That's not PC, that's *human*.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.


      
Date: 28 Apr 2007 02:07:45
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


Dene wrote:

> On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> As for your ridicule of Rob, he's is doing important research and
> > >> teaching, reflecting a life of work and study. In contrast to
> > >> you....a thrice married, adulterous, two bit, studio musician whose
> > >> productive and meaningful years are behind him.
> >
> > You have no idea what Rob does in his research. Neither do I, but my
> > ridicule was aimed at tenure, not to him....unless it fits.
>
> Again, your ridicule is from a 2 bit studio musician. Yes I do know
> the nature of his research....and so do you, liar.
>

No one who made their money on clients like Comet Cursors has the moral
standing to be critical of any aspect of anyone else's life.



       
Date: 28 Apr 2007 02:42:41
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:07:45 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>
>
>Dene wrote:
>
>> On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> As for your ridicule of Rob, he's is doing important research and
>> > >> teaching, reflecting a life of work and study. In contrast to
>> > >> you....a thrice married, adulterous, two bit, studio musician whose
>> > >> productive and meaningful years are behind him.
>> >
>> > You have no idea what Rob does in his research. Neither do I, but my
>> > ridicule was aimed at tenure, not to him....unless it fits.
>>
>> Again, your ridicule is from a 2 bit studio musician. Yes I do know
>> the nature of his research....and so do you, liar.
>>
>
>No one who made their money on clients like Comet Cursors has the moral
>standing to be critical of any aspect of anyone else's life.

Comet Cursors has, nor had, nothing to do with the music business, so
this is what is known as a non sequitur. Since you have a problem
with English, that means it doesn't have a thing to do with the
preceding sentence.

I have enough moral standing to critical of you at any time Rob, as
does most anyone on this news group. You aren't the poster boy for
virtue.


___,
\o


      
Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:20:06
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 27, 4:00 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net > wrote:
> In article <1177713333.137374.307...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > > Sure you are. You'd kiss anyone's ass that posts negativity towards
> > > me. That's because I, and others, outed you years ago as a sniveling
> > > little prick, who's word isn't worth crap. You were such a fawning
> > > sycophantic weasel that you did have us fooled for a while.
>
> > Wow. Looks like B.O.B. took me out of his supposed kf and is
> > responding to me directly, instead of through his proxies.
>
> > Mighty brave of him.
>
> Actually, you're apparently not bright enough to have realized that he
> responded to you indirectly by what was quoted in *my* reply to you...

I admit that I'm not the expert on NG trees that you are....and I'm
glad about that.

-Greg



       
Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:32:20
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177716006.732442.55340@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

> On Apr 27, 4:00 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article <1177713333.137374.307...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Sure you are. You'd kiss anyone's ass that posts negativity towards
> > > > me. That's because I, and others, outed you years ago as a sniveling
> > > > little prick, who's word isn't worth crap. You were such a fawning
> > > > sycophantic weasel that you did have us fooled for a while.
> >
> > > Wow. Looks like B.O.B. took me out of his supposed kf and is
> > > responding to me directly, instead of through his proxies.
> >
> > > Mighty brave of him.
> >
> > Actually, you're apparently not bright enough to have realized that he
> > responded to you indirectly by what was quoted in *my* reply to you...
>
> I admit that I'm not the expert on NG trees that you are....and I'm
> glad about that.
>
> -Greg

LOL

You're not bright enough to figure out that if your words at two quote
symbols when you read his post then that means he was replying to a
reply to your post?

Wow. You're even less bright than I thought...

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.


      
Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:35:33
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:

> Sure you are. You'd kiss anyone's ass that posts negativity towards
> me. That's because I, and others, outed you years ago as a sniveling
> little prick, who's word isn't worth crap. You were such a fawning
> sycophantic weasel that you did have us fooled for a while. =20

Wow. Looks like B.O.B. took me out of his supposed kf and is
responding to me directly, instead of through his proxies.

Mighty brave of him.

> >>Cronyism is your silly game. =20
>
> Are you so uneducated as to not know the meaning of the word crony?
> Here, let me help you:
> Main Entry: cro=B7ny
> Pronunciation: 'krO-nE
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural cronies
> Etymology: perhaps from Greek chronios long-lasting, from chronos
> time; a close friend especially of long standing.

Uh....put them spectacles on and re-read the word I used. It's
called cronyism, defined as "favoritism shown to friends and
associates." This is your game, via e-mails and c-lists.

> Which means that I have friends, not your silly game. Well, not
> long-lasting ones.

I have real ones....not internet ones.

> >>Furthermore, I'm hardly jealous of you. Assuming good, health,
> >> I guarantee my retired life will be full of travel, golf, and
> >> exploration.....not nitpicking on Usenet.
>
> You're nitpicking on Usenet now, when you're supposedly working.

I have the flexibility in both time and income to play on Usenet.

> >> As for your ridicule of Rob, he's is doing important research and
> >> teaching, reflecting a life of work and study. In contrast to
> >> you....a thrice married, adulterous, two bit, studio musician whose
> >> productive and meaningful years are behind him.
>
> You have no idea what Rob does in his research. Neither do I, but my
> ridicule was aimed at tenure, not to him....unless it fits.

Again, your ridicule is from a 2 bit studio musician. Yes I do know
the nature of his research....and so do you, liar.

> As I remember, you've been married twice. Is there a magic number?

Final time for me.

> Adulterous? You have no idea what my private life has been, and this
> is a statement that, if it caused me embarrassment, would lead to
> problems for you. Fortunately for you, your word isn't worth crap to
> anyone here and it can't hurt me. It's just a dishonest, and tawdry,
> accusation from a morally bankrupt putz.

Better go look for another goat cuz I just got yours.

> As far as my previous career; you'll never reach an equivalent level
> in yours. =20

Emphasis on the word, previous. In fact, that describes your life
these days, doesn't it?

Time to walk dem doggies....

> Alan, he's so pitiful. Fifty years old and has carried a grudge for
> several years because he was kicked out of the c-list. He'll carry
> the situation at RSG Northwest for longer. He's an absolute loser,
> and proves it over and over here.

Fact is....we actually had a civil relationship after the C-list.
However you revealed your true nature when I left RSG and when I
returned. Therefore, I remain to get that goat of yours.

Plus....you're so easy!

-Greg

Ps. Francis....where are you?




       
Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:00:05
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177713333.137374.307300@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

> On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > Sure you are. You'd kiss anyone's ass that posts negativity towards
> > me. That's because I, and others, outed you years ago as a sniveling
> > little prick, who's word isn't worth crap. You were such a fawning
> > sycophantic weasel that you did have us fooled for a while.
>
> Wow. Looks like B.O.B. took me out of his supposed kf and is
> responding to me directly, instead of through his proxies.
>
> Mighty brave of him.

Actually, you're apparently not bright enough to have realized that he
responded to you indirectly by what was quoted in *my* reply to you...

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.


        
Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:07:22
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:00:05 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net >
wrote:

>In article <1177713333.137374.307300@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Sure you are. You'd kiss anyone's ass that posts negativity towards
>> > me. That's because I, and others, outed you years ago as a sniveling
>> > little prick, who's word isn't worth crap. You were such a fawning
>> > sycophantic weasel that you did have us fooled for a while.
>>
>> Wow. Looks like B.O.B. took me out of his supposed kf and is
>> responding to me directly, instead of through his proxies.
>>
>> Mighty brave of him.
>
>Actually, you're apparently not bright enough to have realized that he
>responded to you indirectly by what was quoted in *my* reply to you...

Too bad there's not a lifeguard at the gene pool. :-)
___,
\o


     
Date: 23 Apr 2007 19:54:27
From: BAR
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
larry wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:00:25 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>
>> You're beneath contempt, a slug has more compassion and common sense
>> that you. Being a liar, blowhard and scum bag sure comes easy to
>> you.
>
> one of these days someone you wrote gratuitous filthy names about or
> to-- is going to meet you. He is going to know who you are, and you
> are not going to know who he is-- With your history of insulting
> others on RSG, I would strongly suggest you stay home for about 10
> years.

Bobby is harmless.


      
Date: 24 Apr 2007 09:08:45
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:54:27 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com > wrote:

>larry wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:00:25 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>
>>> You're beneath contempt, a slug has more compassion and common sense
>>> that you. Being a liar, blowhard and scum bag sure comes easy to
>>> you.
>>
>> one of these days someone you wrote gratuitous filthy names about or
>> to-- is going to meet you. He is going to know who you are, and you
>> are not going to know who he is-- With your history of insulting
>> others on RSG, I would strongly suggest you stay home for about 10
>> years.
>
>Bobby is harmless.

Bobby is a typical bully, a personal coward. Someday I might take a
little trip to meet him. Be fun to watch him snivel.

Larry


       
Date: 28 Apr 2007 01:59:00
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:55:15 -0700, larry wrote:

> Yep, and I MIGHT spend 15 minutes a week here. Amazing how I can
> control them---when you consider both those guys sit at their computer
> 15+ hours every day-- just posting hateful invective on the Usenet.

Full of shit, as always. You've been one of the most prolific posters on
RSG for years.


       
Date: 24 Apr 2007 16:19:19
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:08:45 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:54:27 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com> wrote:
>
>>larry wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:00:25 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>>
>>>> You're beneath contempt, a slug has more compassion and common sense
>>>> that you. Being a liar, blowhard and scum bag sure comes easy to
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> one of these days someone you wrote gratuitous filthy names about or
>>> to-- is going to meet you. He is going to know who you are, and you
>>> are not going to know who he is-- With your history of insulting
>>> others on RSG, I would strongly suggest you stay home for about 10
>>> years.
>>
>>Bobby is harmless.
>
>Bobby is a typical bully, a personal coward. Someday I might take a
>little trip to meet him. Be fun to watch him snivel.
>
>Larry

You're a riot. I've seen your picture, and can't imagine anyone being
able to do anything but snicker at the thought of you being macho.
You won't even make a trip to get your ass kicked in golf, why would
you spend the time and money just to be laughed at?
--
___,
\o


        
Date: 24 Apr 2007 11:26:48
From: frank ross
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:08:45 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
/clip/
>> Bobby is a typical bully, a personal coward. Someday I might take a
>> little trip to meet him. Be fun to watch him snivel.
>>
>> Larry
>
> You're a riot. I've seen your picture, and can't imagine anyone being
> able to do anything but snicker at the thought of you being macho.
> You won't even make a trip to get your ass kicked in golf, why would
> you spend the time and money just to be laughed at?

You'll never get through to Larry Bobby. He's the typical blustery
braggart has no concept of how he's perceived. How many times has he
hinted physical confrontation to you already?

He's not the king of RSG, he's the clown of RSG.

Frank Ross


         
Date: 25 Apr 2007 00:28:08
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:26:48 -0500, frank ross <fross@net.net > wrote:

>You'll never get through to Larry Bobby. He's the typical blustery
>braggart has no concept of how he's perceived. How many times has he
>hinted physical confrontation to you already?
>
>He's not the king of RSG, he's the clown of RSG.

The question is - did he intentionally create this persona to make
people think Republicans are like him?



          
Date: 25 Apr 2007 00:55:06
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:28:08 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:26:48 -0500, frank ross <fross@net.net> wrote:
>
>>You'll never get through to Larry Bobby. He's the typical blustery
>>braggart has no concept of how he's perceived. How many times has he
>>hinted physical confrontation to you already?
>>
>>He's not the king of RSG, he's the clown of RSG.
>
>The question is - did he intentionally create this persona to make
>people think Republicans are like him?

One would have to be demented to intentionally create the persona that
LLLLarrry presents here.

I guess it's a toss up then. :-)
___,
\o


         
Date: 24 Apr 2007 16:38:42
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:26:48 -0500, frank ross <fross@net.net > wrote:

>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:08:45 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>> wrote:
>/clip/
>>> Bobby is a typical bully, a personal coward. Someday I might take a
>>> little trip to meet him. Be fun to watch him snivel.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>> You're a riot. I've seen your picture, and can't imagine anyone being
>> able to do anything but snicker at the thought of you being macho.
>> You won't even make a trip to get your ass kicked in golf, why would
>> you spend the time and money just to be laughed at?
>
>You'll never get through to Larry Bobby. He's the typical blustery
>braggart has no concept of how he's perceived. How many times has he
>hinted physical confrontation to you already?
>
>He's not the king of RSG, he's the clown of RSG.
>
>Frank Ross

It would be useless to try to get through to him, and I know that.

Even though there are a dozen here who have called him on his lies,
and referred to him in the same manner as I, he only responds with
threats to me. I'm not worried about him, and I enjoy getting his
goat.
___,
\o


      
Date: 23 Apr 2007 23:57:29
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:54:27 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com > wrote:

>larry wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:00:25 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>
>>> You're beneath contempt, a slug has more compassion and common sense
>>> that you. Being a liar, blowhard and scum bag sure comes easy to
>>> you.
>>
>> one of these days someone you wrote gratuitous filthy names about or
>> to-- is going to meet you. He is going to know who you are, and you
>> are not going to know who he is-- With your history of insulting
>> others on RSG, I would strongly suggest you stay home for about 10
>> years.
>
>Bobby is harmless.

As are most here. Threats like Larry's are amusing.


     
Date: 23 Apr 2007 17:10:47
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:43:40 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:00:25 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>
>>You're beneath contempt, a slug has more compassion and common sense
>>that you. Being a liar, blowhard and scum bag sure comes easy to
>>you.
>
>one of these days someone you wrote gratuitous filthy names about or
>to-- is going to meet you. He is going to know who you are, and you
>are not going to know who he is-- With your history of insulting
>others on RSG, I would strongly suggest you stay home for about 10
>years.
>
>Larry

To call those children that were murdered last week morons, makes you
the lowest sleaze ever. Those epithets that I listed for you weren't
gratuitous, but totally warranted.

I'll repeat some of them.

You're beneath contempt, a slug has more compassion and common sense
that you. Being a liar, blowhard and scum bag sure comes easy to
you.

Now, if you think that there's any fear of your pissy ass, think
again. You're a lowlife, lying, coward. Oh, you're ugly too.

bk


      
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:42:33
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:10:47 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:43:40 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:00:25 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>
>>>You're beneath contempt, a slug has more compassion and common sense
>>>that you. Being a liar, blowhard and scum bag sure comes easy to
>>>you.
>>
>>one of these days someone you wrote gratuitous filthy names about or
>>to-- is going to meet you. He is going to know who you are, and you
>>are not going to know who he is-- With your history of insulting
>>others on RSG, I would strongly suggest you stay home for about 10
>>years.
>>
>>Larry
>
>To call those children that were murdered last week morons, makes you
>the lowest sleaze ever. Those epithets that I listed for you weren't
>gratuitous, but totally warranted.
>
>I'll repeat some of them.
>
>You're beneath contempt, a slug has more compassion and common sense
>that you. Being a liar, blowhard and scum bag sure comes easy to
>you.
>
>Now, if you think that there's any fear of your pissy ass, think
>again. You're a lowlife, lying, coward. Oh, you're ugly too.

Class shows. You just keep writing things that reveal yours. I
would be ashamed. Obviously you are not-- but then that tells us
all we need to know....

larry


       
Date: 23 Apr 2007 17:51:06
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:42:33 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>Class shows. You just keep writing things that reveal yours. I
>would be ashamed. Obviously you are not-- but then that tells us
>all we need to know....
>
>larry

Right. Class shows. Now, tell us again that those kids at Va Tech
who were murdered were morons. THAT tells us all we need to know
about your sorry ass.

Do you deny posting that? If so, I'll be glad to point to it for you.

Sleaze ball!!!


        
Date: 23 Apr 2007 16:07:16
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:51:06 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:42:33 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Class shows. You just keep writing things that reveal yours. I
>>would be ashamed. Obviously you are not-- but then that tells us
>>all we need to know....
>>
>>larry
>
>Right. Class shows. Now, tell us again that those kids at Va Tech
>who were murdered were morons. THAT tells us all we need to know
>about your sorry ass.

If I had allowed myself to be trapped like a rat in one of those
classrooms-- totally at the mercy of any slezeball who came along with
a gun, or a flame-thrower, or a can of gasoline and a match, I would
feel like a moron. I only have one life-- and am reluctant to just
throw it away. Those parents should have insisted that their
children have real campus security, not PC nonsense.

Larry


         
Date: 23 Apr 2007 18:34:50
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <pqeq23pfagvh4ml3aca9ii704qqomm0n3v@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:51:06 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:42:33 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Class shows. You just keep writing things that reveal yours. I
> >>would be ashamed. Obviously you are not-- but then that tells us
> >>all we need to know....
> >>
> >>larry
> >
> >Right. Class shows. Now, tell us again that those kids at Va Tech
> >who were murdered were morons. THAT tells us all we need to know
> >about your sorry ass.
>
> If I had allowed myself to be trapped like a rat in one of those
> classrooms-- totally at the mercy of any slezeball who came along with
> a gun, or a flame-thrower, or a can of gasoline and a match, I would
> feel like a moron. I only have one life-- and am reluctant to just
> throw it away. Those parents should have insisted that their
> children have real campus security, not PC nonsense.
>
> Larry

That's just an idiot statement. When the criminal is more than willing
to die in the process of doing their crime, they will get it done. They
are the scariest of the criminals.


         
Date: 23 Apr 2007 23:23:56
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:07:16 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:51:06 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:42:33 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Class shows. You just keep writing things that reveal yours. I
>>>would be ashamed. Obviously you are not-- but then that tells us
>>>all we need to know....
>>>
>>>larry
>>
>>Right. Class shows. Now, tell us again that those kids at Va Tech
>>who were murdered were morons. THAT tells us all we need to know
>>about your sorry ass.
>
>If I had allowed myself to be trapped like a rat in one of those
>classrooms-- totally at the mercy of any slezeball who came along with
>a gun, or a flame-thrower, or a can of gasoline and a match, I would
>feel like a moron. I only have one life-- and am reluctant to just
>throw it away. Those parents should have insisted that their
>children have real campus security, not PC nonsense.
>
>Larry

Nice try...but the students weren't morons. I'm sure that you would
be a hero and put a stop to the murderer. Wrong!


          
Date: 24 Apr 2007 09:03:30
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:23:56 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:07:16 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:51:06 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:42:33 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Class shows. You just keep writing things that reveal yours. I
>>>>would be ashamed. Obviously you are not-- but then that tells us
>>>>all we need to know....
>>>>
>>>>larry
>>>
>>>Right. Class shows. Now, tell us again that those kids at Va Tech
>>>who were murdered were morons. THAT tells us all we need to know
>>>about your sorry ass.
>>
>>If I had allowed myself to be trapped like a rat in one of those
>>classrooms-- totally at the mercy of any slezeball who came along with
>>a gun, or a flame-thrower, or a can of gasoline and a match, I would
>>feel like a moron. I only have one life-- and am reluctant to just
>>throw it away. Those parents should have insisted that their
>>children have real campus security, not PC nonsense.
>>
>>Larry
>
>Nice try...but the students weren't morons. I'm sure that you would
>be a hero and put a stop to the murderer. Wrong!

I guarantee that I would not huddle against the opposite wall like
chickens or sheep waiting to be slaughtered. I would have organized
everyone to attack him as he came through the door-- throwing desks,
books, whatever was available.

Larry


           
Date: 26 Apr 2007 19:48:56
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <deas23ppri3iiu9dkc7st0f3ofj49kjq1l@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:23:56 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:07:16 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:51:06 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:42:33 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Class shows. You just keep writing things that reveal yours. I
> >>>>would be ashamed. Obviously you are not-- but then that tells us
> >>>>all we need to know....
> >>>>
> >>>>larry
> >>>
> >>>Right. Class shows. Now, tell us again that those kids at Va Tech
> >>>who were murdered were morons. THAT tells us all we need to know
> >>>about your sorry ass.
> >>
> >>If I had allowed myself to be trapped like a rat in one of those
> >>classrooms-- totally at the mercy of any slezeball who came along with
> >>a gun, or a flame-thrower, or a can of gasoline and a match, I would
> >>feel like a moron. I only have one life-- and am reluctant to just
> >>throw it away. Those parents should have insisted that their
> >>children have real campus security, not PC nonsense.
> >>
> >>Larry
> >
> >Nice try...but the students weren't morons. I'm sure that you would
> >be a hero and put a stop to the murderer. Wrong!
>
> I guarantee that I would not huddle against the opposite wall like
> chickens or sheep waiting to be slaughtered. I would have organized
> everyone to attack him as he came through the door-- throwing desks,
> books, whatever was available.
>
> Larry

You would have soiled yourself.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.


           
Date: 24 Apr 2007 16:16:54
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:03:30 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:


>>>If I had allowed myself to be trapped like a rat in one of those
>>>classrooms-- totally at the mercy of any slezeball who came along with
>>>a gun, or a flame-thrower, or a can of gasoline and a match, I would
>>>feel like a moron. I only have one life-- and am reluctant to just
>>>throw it away. Those parents should have insisted that their
>>>children have real campus security, not PC nonsense.
>>>
>>>Larry
>>
>>Nice try...but the students weren't morons. I'm sure that you would
>>be a hero and put a stop to the murderer. Wrong!
>
>I guarantee that I would not huddle against the opposite wall like
>chickens or sheep waiting to be slaughtered. I would have organized
>everyone to attack him as he came through the door-- throwing desks,
>books, whatever was available.
>
>Larry

As usual, you have delusions of grandeur.

He burst in and was in each room for just a few minutes, shooting from
the outset. Im sure that he would've stopped, and waited for you to
organize things.

The only ones that escaped were those that barricaded the door after
hearing many shots.
--
___,
\o


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 19:43:11
From: Dene
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 4:54 pm, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:

>
> This would be alright if ALL external influence in Iraq were kept out
> but you and I know that is not the current case nor would it be the
> future case.
>
> Power vacuums are always filled!
>
> The problem that I have with the left is they while they offer a desired
> result, the US out / Iraq to decide for itself, but no plan to get
> there. I think all sane Americans would love to see this but how do you
> propose to make it happen? Dialogue? With whom? How will you remove
> the existing external influences embedded there now? Be specific. How
> will you keep it that way?

You don't dialogue with anybody. We just leave and let them decide
the face of their nation. We dialogue with the "winner."

If the Iraqi people are not nationalistic enough to withstand foreign
influence, like the hated Persians, then they are another South
Vietnam. My belief is that they are nationalistic and the energy of
it is being directed at us....the perceived occupiers. We leave, then
this energy gets directed somewhere else, hopefully forming their own
country. If not, then their liberation was in vain. That's not our
fault...it's theirs.

> And the really big question for you folks, the giant elephant in the
> corner, what role does the US have in the world going forward? What
> does this nation stand for and what will we do to support our beliefs?

We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages,
preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear
that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was
successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled.
We use unilateral force only in matters that directly involve our
national security (Panama, Grenada, the bombing of Libya,
Afghanistan). We police when it's in cooperation with other
countries, like Kosovo. We do not police alone, as we did in Lebanon,
Somalia, and now in Iraq.

> In fact, that is the question that you need to answer first. The rest
> will come a lot easier then. Reid's answer would be ....?
>
> I have yet to hear a coherent and direct statement in answer to any of
> these question by any senior member of the left wing party. Why is that?

I dunno. I'm a Republican. I identify more with the ass than I do
with the elephant. : >

-Greg




  
Date: 22 Apr 2007 14:27:11
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
In article <1177036991.892102.120520@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

> We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages,
> preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear
> that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was
> successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled.

This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have surprised
even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting
murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America in the
last century is there for all to see.


  
Date: 20 Apr 2007 00:23:31
From: Joe
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
Dene wrote:
> On Apr 19, 4:54 pm, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>
>> This would be alright if ALL external influence in Iraq were kept out
>> but you and I know that is not the current case nor would it be the
>> future case.
>>
>> Power vacuums are always filled!
>>
>> The problem that I have with the left is they while they offer a desired
>> result, the US out / Iraq to decide for itself, but no plan to get
>> there. I think all sane Americans would love to see this but how do you
>> propose to make it happen? Dialogue? With whom? How will you remove
>> the existing external influences embedded there now? Be specific. How
>> will you keep it that way?
>
> You don't dialogue with anybody. We just leave and let them decide
> the face of their nation. We dialogue with the "winner."
>
> If the Iraqi people are not nationalistic enough to withstand foreign
> influence, like the hated Persians, then they are another South
> Vietnam. My belief is that they are nationalistic and the energy of
> it is being directed at us....the perceived occupiers. We leave, then
> this energy gets directed somewhere else, hopefully forming their own
> country. If not, then their liberation was in vain. That's not our
> fault...it's theirs.

The flaw here is that Iraq as currently constituted, has no
consequential history as a nation. It has been kicked from pillar to
post, conquered, partitioned and plundered. Pretty much of what is now
Iraq is a creation of western powers post WWI. The individuals are
proud of who they are, generally identifying with an ethnic or religious
group or a tribe. They may consider themselves as Iraqi but not first.
The man in the street has no power here. You didn't offer a solution
to the problem at all. We leave and Iran, Turkey and the Saudis will
chop the nation up for there own ends.

If that scenario is the expected outcome and it will be what happens,
then a logical course of action would be for the US to sit with the
major players right now and let them work out a new partition. I'm sure
that could be accomplished amicably. :)

Read the history of Iraq and see how this might unfold.

>> And the really big question for you folks, the giant elephant in the
>> corner, what role does the US have in the world going forward? What
>> does this nation stand for and what will we do to support our beliefs?
>
> We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages,
> preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear
> that the lone superpower is being imperialistic.

That is a concern about PC issues. You don't think that you will get
the French to cooperate do you. Oh sure, maybe for a few months, until
somebody turns up the heat a little. You are offering a lot of hand
waving, not a plan.

You also didn't address our role in the world, what our beliefs are or
how we will really support them. What do you mean by promote democracy?
How do you promote democracy in a nation that has NEVER in its
history experienced it.

We might try turning the Rappers loose on the problem, they have managed
to change the "rules" in some communities in roughly a decade. :)

This strategy was
> successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled.

How is that working out down there right now?

> We use unilateral force only in matters that directly involve our
> national security (Panama, Grenada, the bombing of Libya,
> Afghanistan).

OK. That is one point.

Extending this logic then we should unilaterally and immediately destroy
the military infrastructure in Iran and Syria. Members of the radical
Islamist hierarchy should be hunted down or killed where ever we find
them.


We police when it's in cooperation with other
> countries, like Kosovo. We do not police alone, as we did in Lebanon,
> Somalia, and now in Iraq.

In many cases you will not get any level of cooperation because of old
scores to be settled, opportunities for power or just plain old "why
should we care".

We are alone in Iraq now because the Euros don't have any balls. In
twenty years it won't matter. France will be an Islamic Republic
administered from Tehran. Or it will be a shattered nation rapidly
sliding into the third world.

>> In fact, that is the question that you need to answer first. The rest
>> will come a lot easier then. Reid's answer would be ....?
>>
>> I have yet to hear a coherent and direct statement in answer to any of
>> these question by any senior member of the left wing party. Why is that?
>
> I dunno. I'm a Republican. I identify more with the ass than I do
> with the elephant. :>

Please note that I never identified a party. I addressed the left
thinking people. I mention Reid because he is so far left that he
probably speak French at home.

>
> -Greg

Nothing personal intended in any of the above. We disagree on some
things but that is part of life.

Joe


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 19:19:06
From: dsc
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
> Better
> their blood than that of your son or daughter.

That is partly why I'm less concerned about civilian casualties than
many people are... better that than our troops. There is a them or us
component to the way you engage them.



 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:41:44
From: Dene
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 9:45 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176999032.575340.208700@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > America has plenty of resolve when the conflict directly involves our
> > national security, such as the invasion of Afghanistan. The trouble
> > with Iraq is that Saddam didn't directly threaten our security....WMD
> > was a sham. That's not to say some good hasn't come from the
> > invasion. The Kurds are deservedly stable and prosperous.
> > Eventually, the rest of Iraq will right itself. But....neither
> > scenarios should require American lives anymore.
>
> Bullshit! The left would sooner surrender than fight.

It's not a left or right decision....it's one of national security,
and ours is not threatened by Iraq anymore (nor was it ever).. The
mission is over. The dictator has been dethroned and hanged. It's
ultimately up to the Iraqi people to decide what their country looks
like. If that requires the blood from a civil war, so be it. Better
their blood than that of your son or daughter.

FWIW, virtually all Americans are proud of the work and sacrifice the
military has performed. But a lesson needs to be applied from
Vietnam. SV ultimately chose what kind of nation they wanted, by
yielding to NV despite superior firepower and manpower. Iraq is in a
similar situation.

The boys did their job. Time to come home as soldiers, not
policemen. The mission is completed!!

-Greg



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 19:54:47
From: Joe
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
Dene wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:45 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
> wrote:
>> "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176999032.575340.208700@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> America has plenty of resolve when the conflict directly involves our
>>> national security, such as the invasion of Afghanistan. The trouble
>>> with Iraq is that Saddam didn't directly threaten our security....WMD
>>> was a sham. That's not to say some good hasn't come from the
>>> invasion. The Kurds are deservedly stable and prosperous.
>>> Eventually, the rest of Iraq will right itself. But....neither
>>> scenarios should require American lives anymore.
>> Bullshit! The left would sooner surrender than fight.
>
> It's not a left or right decision....it's one of national security,
> and ours is not threatened by Iraq anymore (nor was it ever).. The
> mission is over. The dictator has been dethroned and hanged. It's
> ultimately up to the Iraqi people to decide what their country looks
> like. If that requires the blood from a civil war, so be it. Better
> their blood than that of your son or daughter.
>
> FWIW, virtually all Americans are proud of the work and sacrifice the
> military has performed. But a lesson needs to be applied from
> Vietnam. SV ultimately chose what kind of nation they wanted, by
> yielding to NV despite superior firepower and manpower. Iraq is in a
> similar situation.
>
> The boys did their job. Time to come home as soldiers, not
> policemen. The mission is completed!!
>
> -Greg
>
This would be alright if ALL external influence in Iraq were kept out
but you and I know that is not the current case nor would it be the
future case.

Power vacuums are always filled!

The problem that I have with the left is they while they offer a desired
result, the US out / Iraq to decide for itself, but no plan to get
there. I think all sane Americans would love to see this but how do you
propose to make it happen? Dialogue? With whom? How will you remove
the existing external influences embedded there now? Be specific. How
will you keep it that way?

And the really big question for you folks, the giant elephant in the
corner, what role does the US have in the world going forward? What
does this nation stand for and what will we do to support our beliefs?

In fact, that is the question that you need to answer first. The rest
will come a lot easier then. Reid's answer would be ....?

I have yet to hear a coherent and direct statement in answer to any of
these question by any senior member of the left wing party. Why is that?

Joe


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:34:00
From: Dene
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 3:17 pm, Blagovist <b...@ovist.com > wrote:
> dsc wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 9:37 am, Blagovist <b...@ovist.com> wrote:
> >> dsc wrote:
> >>>> WGaF - this is so OT and as such a waste of bandwidth.
> >>> I thing that anything golfer's might talk about on the range, putting
> >>> green, out on the course or in the 19th hole is fair game here. I know
> >>> for a fact that politics, the war, etc are things discussed by golfers
> >>> all the time.
> >> Not just golfers, but it's OT so shut here and keep it for the range
> >> (please don't be in the bay next to me!)
>
> >> Blago
>
> > If you don't like it... you don't have to participate... just skip
> > over it. Doesn't affect you one way or the other. No offense intended
> > or taken...
>
> It's a golf NG not a fucking morn the dead blah blah ng.
>
> Blago- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep....golf is the common denominator here.....and you are the latest
troll.

-Greg



  
Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:03:19
From: Blagovist
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
Dene wrote:
> On Apr 19, 3:17 pm, Blagovist <b...@ovist.com> wrote:
>> dsc wrote:
>>> On Apr 19, 9:37 am, Blagovist <b...@ovist.com> wrote:
>>>> dsc wrote:
>>>>>> WGaF - this is so OT and as such a waste of bandwidth.
>>>>> I thing that anything golfer's might talk about on the range, putting
>>>>> green, out on the course or in the 19th hole is fair game here. I know
>>>>> for a fact that politics, the war, etc are things discussed by golfers
>>>>> all the time.
>>>> Not just golfers, but it's OT so shut here and keep it for the range
>>>> (please don't be in the bay next to me!)
>>>> Blago
>>> If you don't like it... you don't have to participate... just skip
>>> over it. Doesn't affect you one way or the other. No offense intended
>>> or taken...
>> It's a golf NG not a fucking morn the dead blah blah ng.
>>
>> Blago- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yep....golf is the common denominator here.....and you are the latest
> troll.
>
> -Greg

I may be a troll, but nothing compared to the PRICK who keeps posting
this OT bullshit.

Blago
>


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:34:37
From: dsc
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 9:37 am, Blagovist <b...@ovist.com > wrote:
> dsc wrote:
> >> WGaF - this is so OT and as such a waste of bandwidth.
>
> > I thing that anything golfer's might talk about on the range, putting
> > green, out on the course or in the 19th hole is fair game here. I know
> > for a fact that politics, the war, etc are things discussed by golfers
> > all the time.
>
> Not just golfers, but it's OT so shut here and keep it for the range
> (please don't be in the bay next to me!)
>
> Blago

If you don't like it... you don't have to participate... just skip
over it. Doesn't affect you one way or the other. No offense intended
or taken...



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 23:17:20
From: Blagovist
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
dsc wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:37 am, Blagovist <b...@ovist.com> wrote:
>> dsc wrote:
>>>> WGaF - this is so OT and as such a waste of bandwidth.
>>> I thing that anything golfer's might talk about on the range, putting
>>> green, out on the course or in the 19th hole is fair game here. I know
>>> for a fact that politics, the war, etc are things discussed by golfers
>>> all the time.
>> Not just golfers, but it's OT so shut here and keep it for the range
>> (please don't be in the bay next to me!)
>>
>> Blago
>
> If you don't like it... you don't have to participate... just skip
> over it. Doesn't affect you one way or the other. No offense intended
> or taken...

It's a golf NG not a fucking morn the dead blah blah ng.

Blago


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:32:03
From: dsc
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 9:43 am, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 12:26 am, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 10:05 pm, annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > At least 183 people were killed in Baghdad today by a number of car
> > > bombs.
> > > Boy, I'm glad that recent troop surge is making such a difference.
>
> > > Gee, I wonder if the "Liberal Media" will cut into their non-stop
> > > coverage of the VT shooting to report that?
>
> > They didn't send enough to make any real difference. You'd have to
> > double or tipple what we have there now to be sure to make a
> > difference. Even then you'd have to quit pussyfooting around and get
> > down to business.
>
> Get down to business? I shudder to think what you mean by that.

I think I pretty much mean all out war. In my opinion that's the only
kind that's winable. Otherwise... stay home.

I'm not necessarily saying they should do it that way. I'm saying
that's probably the only way to get it done. War is ugly stuff... no
question about it.

I do still like the option of camping in the dessert at a safe
distance and observing what happens for a while... then maybe comming
home or getting down to business... whichever? I don't like the
current stay course bull crap. It won't ever work.



 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:21:29
From: dsc
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 12:10 pm, Dene <gdst...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 6:14 am, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 7:22 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:16:28 -0700, Dene wrote:
> > > > On Apr 18, 9:26 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> > > >> They didn't send enough to make any real difference. You'd have to
> > > >> double or tipple what we have there now to be sure to make a
> > > >> difference. Even then you'd have to quit pussyfooting around and get
> > > >> down to business.
>
> > > > ..........Or get out. Neither the American or Iraqi populace wants us
> > > > there. So let's leave....let them have their civil war and hope that
> > > > the winner will like us.
>
> > And if they don't... we could be back over there 10 years from now...
> > If at all possible... finish the job this time. Root out all the the
> > insurgents and eliminate them. But you've got to be a lot more
> > aggressive than we've been up to this point. The Nazis weren't
> > defeated by fighting nice. Radical Islam will not be defeated by
> > fighting nice either.
>
> > As much as anything it is America's inability to finish a war that
> > keeps getting us into them. The whole world knows if you just wait
> > long enough the spineless cowards (American public) will force the
> > government to pull out.
> > They know the American public just doesn't hav eth estomach to sustain
> > any prolonged war. That emboldens problem leaders (in North Korea,
> > Iran, etc.) to just thumb their noses at us and the world. They know
> > we won't follow through on anything for very long and they know that
> > noone else in the world will either. That gives them free reign.
>
> America has plenty of resolve when the conflict directly involves our
> national security, such as the invasion of Afghanistan.

I dont' agree. We were just lucky that the major fighting (what there
was of it) was over quickly. If it had drawn out for 4 or 5 years at
the level it first started... it would be Iraq all over again with the
American public, the media, etc. But don't forget it's not really over
yet and the final outcome may not be decided.



 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:17:55
From: dsc
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 10:34 am, annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:14 am, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And if they don't... we could be back over there 10 years from now...
> > If at all possible... finish the job this time. Root out all the the
> > insurgents and eliminate them. But you've got to be a lot more
> > aggressive than we've been up to this point. The Nazis weren't
> > defeated by fighting nice. Radical Islam will not be defeated by
> > fighting nice either.
>
> That's pretty simplistic. \ First, what is "the job?"

I know I'm over simplifying... but our commanders are over
complicating it. The job now is the removal (which often means death)
of all the insurgants... whether that's 50 or 500,000. So get on with
it... or quit.

> I thought the job was to get rid of Saddam and all his WMD's.
> That job is finished. Bring em home.
>
> Also, you make it sound like it's as easy as going over there and
> killing all the bad guys. Do the bad guys wear uniforms? No.
> Imagine going to your local mall and knowing that a third of the
> people there want to kill you. But how do you know which ones until
> it's too late?

You might not know and you would surely kill some of the so called
good people... I said you had to stop being nice. Tell them (loud
speaker) to give up and come out. If they don't... take 'em out. Let
them choose to live or die. If they do come out, process them and put
them somewhere out of the way until you can search the spot for
weapons stores, etc. If you aren't willing to wage this kind of war,
you have no business being in the war business and might just as well
come on home. Because our enemies are waging all out war to the best
of their abliity. We're playing war games.

It's not easy and it's not pleasant, but what they are doing now is
totally ineffective.

For sure they should have nipped that Al-Sadr (sp?) character in the
bud right from the start... (captured or dead should have been the
only two options for him). There's no way we would tolerate some jerk-
off having his own militia here in the states and there's now way we
should have tolerated this character either.
We had him cornered and let him go... unbelievable! :)



  
Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:18:52
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1177013875.797858.284440@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 10:34 am, annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 9:14 am, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > And if they don't... we could be back over there 10 years from now...
>> > If at all possible... finish the job this time. Root out all the the
>> > insurgents and eliminate them. But you've got to be a lot more
>> > aggressive than we've been up to this point. The Nazis weren't
>> > defeated by fighting nice. Radical Islam will not be defeated by
>> > fighting nice either.
>>
>> That's pretty simplistic. \ First, what is "the job?"
>
> I know I'm over simplifying... but our commanders are over
> complicating it. The job now is the removal (which often means death)
> of all the insurgants... whether that's 50 or 500,000. So get on with
> it... or quit.


Great, so assuming you can identify which 500,000 they are, you kill them.
(Another oversimplifaction.)

What about the 50-million others throughout the Arab world who aren't in
Iraq who want us dead? Do we go kill them, too?

Rooting out the terrorists is like trying to rid the world of cock roaches.
You'll never do it. They hide. And then they come out when you least
expect it.

The only was to really get rid of them all is to vaporize that entire
hemisphere. What worries me most is that the shit-for-brains president we
have just might do it.

Randy




 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:41:57
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
In article <1176948352.446129.288820@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >
annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>
> At least 183 people were killed in Baghdad today by a number of car
> bombs.
> Boy, I'm glad that recent troop surge is making such a difference.
>
> Gee, I wonder if the "Liberal Media" will cut into their non-stop
> coverage of the VT shooting to report that?

Why does this white house fear the words Dover, Delaware and why are no journalists allowed near the airfield. Rhetorical of course.





 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:10:32
From: Dene
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 6:14 am, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 7:22 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:16:28 -0700, Dene wrote:
> > > On Apr 18, 9:26 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> > >> They didn't send enough to make any real difference. You'd have to
> > >> double or tipple what we have there now to be sure to make a
> > >> difference. Even then you'd have to quit pussyfooting around and get
> > >> down to business.
>
> > > ..........Or get out. Neither the American or Iraqi populace wants us
> > > there. So let's leave....let them have their civil war and hope that
> > > the winner will like us.
>
> And if they don't... we could be back over there 10 years from now...
> If at all possible... finish the job this time. Root out all the the
> insurgents and eliminate them. But you've got to be a lot more
> aggressive than we've been up to this point. The Nazis weren't
> defeated by fighting nice. Radical Islam will not be defeated by
> fighting nice either.
>
> As much as anything it is America's inability to finish a war that
> keeps getting us into them. The whole world knows if you just wait
> long enough the spineless cowards (American public) will force the
> government to pull out.
> They know the American public just doesn't hav eth estomach to sustain
> any prolonged war. That emboldens problem leaders (in North Korea,
> Iran, etc.) to just thumb their noses at us and the world. They know
> we won't follow through on anything for very long and they know that
> noone else in the world will either. That gives them free reign.

America has plenty of resolve when the conflict directly involves our
national security, such as the invasion of Afghanistan. The trouble
with Iraq is that Saddam didn't directly threaten our security....WMD
was a sham. That's not to say some good hasn't come from the
invasion. The Kurds are deservedly stable and prosperous.
Eventually, the rest of Iraq will right itself. But....neither
scenarios should require American lives anymore.

> > There may have been a time when more troops would have brought a different
> > outcome.
>
> I agree that more troups in and of itself will not change anything.
> Sending another 25K troups was useless. There has to be a total change
> in policy and tactics. I just dont' see that ever happening.

It was a stab in the dark. Now it's time to come home.

> >But that opportunity has passed, if it ever existed at all. Now
> > the only thing the various warring factions in Iraq agree on is they don't
> > want us there. Quite the outcome for half a trillion bucks and 3300+ dead
> > troops.
>
> > I agree the only thing to do now is get out. We're going to do it anyway
> > sooner or later. Might as well be sooner so less people get killed.
>
> That will probably be one of the first official acts of the next
> president...
>
> Actually, I'd like to just pull way back into the dessert and watch
> the cival war from a distance for a while and see what happens. Do it
> now...

Agree!

-Greg



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 11:45:53
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1176999032.575340.208700@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> America has plenty of resolve when the conflict directly involves our
> national security, such as the invasion of Afghanistan. The trouble
> with Iraq is that Saddam didn't directly threaten our security....WMD
> was a sham. That's not to say some good hasn't come from the
> invasion. The Kurds are deservedly stable and prosperous.
> Eventually, the rest of Iraq will right itself. But....neither
> scenarios should require American lives anymore.

Bullshit! The left would sooner surrender than fight.




   
Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:23:12
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote
>
> Bullshit! The left would sooner surrender than fight.


I'm so sick of hearing this. Go to hell.

No one wants to surrender. It's just that the left (and most people on the
right, except for the hard-core 29-percenters who still support this
president and his war) realize, as most of the military men have already
admitted, that there is no path that leads to a military resolution of this
conflict. The conflict is broader than a mere military victory could ever
resolve.

I say we just declare victory and let these people kill each other for the
next fifty years like they've done for the last 2000 years and be done with
it.

What's left to "win?"

Randy




    
Date: 25 Apr 2007 07:45:36
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:zLudnRkctfYbJrPbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote
> >
> > Bullshit! The left would sooner surrender than fight.
>
>
> I'm so sick of hearing this. Go to hell.
>
> No one wants to surrender. It's just that the left (and most people on
the
> right, except for the hard-core 29-percenters who still support this
> president and his war) realize, as most of the military men have already
> admitted, that there is no path that leads to a military resolution of
this
> conflict. The conflict is broader than a mere military victory could ever
> resolve.
>
> I say we just declare victory and let these people kill each other for the
> next fifty years like they've done for the last 2000 years and be done
with
> it.
>
> What's left to "win?"
>
> Randy

Harry Reid already surrendered.




     
Date: 25 Apr 2007 11:19:12
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:-rCdndXZvfni0LLbnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:zLudnRkctfYbJrPbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote
>> >
>> > Bullshit! The left would sooner surrender than fight.
>>
>>
>> I'm so sick of hearing this. Go to hell.
>>
>> No one wants to surrender. It's just that the left (and most people on
> the
>> right, except for the hard-core 29-percenters who still support this
>> president and his war) realize, as most of the military men have already
>> admitted, that there is no path that leads to a military resolution of
> this
>> conflict. The conflict is broader than a mere military victory could
>> ever
>> resolve.
>>
>> I say we just declare victory and let these people kill each other for
>> the
>> next fifty years like they've done for the last 2000 years and be done
> with
>> it.
>>
>> What's left to "win?"
>>
>> Randy
>
> Harry Reid already surrendered.
>
Until he flip flops again.




   
Date: 19 Apr 2007 16:58:47
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:45:53 -0500, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

>
>"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1176999032.575340.208700@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> America has plenty of resolve when the conflict directly involves our
>> national security, such as the invasion of Afghanistan. The trouble
>> with Iraq is that Saddam didn't directly threaten our security....WMD
>> was a sham. That's not to say some good hasn't come from the
>> invasion. The Kurds are deservedly stable and prosperous.
>> Eventually, the rest of Iraq will right itself. But....neither
>> scenarios should require American lives anymore.
>
>Bullshit! The left would sooner surrender than fight.
>
Surrender what? We had no business going there in the first place.
I'll ask you what I asked Manco. Do you have loved ones over there
that you don't mind putting in harm's way? Of course not. It's a
lose/lose proposition for the U.S. any way it ends...so let's gtfo
now. Left or Right, if you don't see that you're blind to facts.


    
Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:39:42
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:gl7f23170mskh604m3c568np2e4uujru7m@4ax.com...
> >
> Surrender what? We had no business going there in the first place.
> I'll ask you what I asked Manco. Do you have loved ones over there
> that you don't mind putting in harm's way? Of course not. It's a
> lose/lose proposition for the U.S. any way it ends...so let's gtfo
> now. Left or Right, if you don't see that you're blind to facts.

You insulting piece of shit. My son just got out of the Marine Corps. He
was put in harms way. His wife is still in the Marine Corps and is
currently on a MEU over seas. Cowardly whiner.




     
Date: 19 Apr 2007 22:05:39
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:39:42 -0500, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:gl7f23170mskh604m3c568np2e4uujru7m@4ax.com...
>> >
>> Surrender what? We had no business going there in the first place.
>> I'll ask you what I asked Manco. Do you have loved ones over there
>> that you don't mind putting in harm's way? Of course not. It's a
>> lose/lose proposition for the U.S. any way it ends...so let's gtfo
>> now. Left or Right, if you don't see that you're blind to facts.
>
>You insulting piece of shit. My son just got out of the Marine Corps. He
>was put in harms way. His wife is still in the Marine Corps and is
>currently on a MEU over seas. Cowardly whiner.
>
There's no insult if you do have loved ones that you don't mind
putting in harm's way, but you're obviously too stupid to figure that
out. It's still a lose/lose proposition, and I fear for your wife's
safety, whether you do or not. If you don't, you're really an
asshole. If you do, then you'd see the wisdom of bringing her home.
bk


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 07:45:38
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:pkpf2355g9gkb8f2hjicpoooadi8b2stv7@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:39:42 -0500, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >news:gl7f23170mskh604m3c568np2e4uujru7m@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> Surrender what? We had no business going there in the first place.
> >> I'll ask you what I asked Manco. Do you have loved ones over there
> >> that you don't mind putting in harm's way? Of course not. It's a
> >> lose/lose proposition for the U.S. any way it ends...so let's gtfo
> >> now. Left or Right, if you don't see that you're blind to facts.
> >
> >You insulting piece of shit. My son just got out of the Marine Corps.
He
> >was put in harms way. His wife is still in the Marine Corps and is
> >currently on a MEU over seas. Cowardly whiner.
> >
> There's no insult if you do have loved ones that you don't mind
> putting in harm's way, but you're obviously too stupid to figure that
> out. It's still a lose/lose proposition, and I fear for your wife's
> safety, whether you do or not. If you don't, you're really an
> asshole. If you do, then you'd see the wisdom of bringing her home.
> bk

You are a small, bitter man. When I got home from the Marine Corps in the
70's people treated me like I had just gotten out of prison. You remind me
of the reaction I got from some people. You probably were one of those
people.




       
Date: 20 Apr 2007 08:41:27
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
In article <Gu6dnT-3T_lvKLXbnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:pkpf2355g9gkb8f2hjicpoooadi8b2stv7@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:39:42 -0500, "the Moderator"
> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> > >news:gl7f23170mskh604m3c568np2e4uujru7m@4ax.com...
> > >> >
> > >> Surrender what? We had no business going there in the first place.
> > >> I'll ask you what I asked Manco. Do you have loved ones over there
> > >> that you don't mind putting in harm's way? Of course not. It's a
> > >> lose/lose proposition for the U.S. any way it ends...so let's gtfo
> > >> now. Left or Right, if you don't see that you're blind to facts.
> > >
> > >You insulting piece of shit. My son just got out of the Marine Corps.
> He
> > >was put in harms way. His wife is still in the Marine Corps and is
> > >currently on a MEU over seas. Cowardly whiner.
> > >
> > There's no insult if you do have loved ones that you don't mind
> > putting in harm's way, but you're obviously too stupid to figure that
> > out. It's still a lose/lose proposition, and I fear for your wife's
> > safety, whether you do or not. If you don't, you're really an
> > asshole. If you do, then you'd see the wisdom of bringing her home.
> > bk
>
> You are a small, bitter man. When I got home from the Marine Corps in the
> 70's people treated me like I had just gotten out of prison. You remind me
> of the reaction I got from some people. You probably were one of those
> people.

I've heard those stories before, and of course, that was all the news in
those days. But I never saw it first hand. I wore my uniform most of
the time, on and off base, throughout my military career and never had a
problem.


        
Date: 20 Apr 2007 13:57:52
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:41:27 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <Gu6dnT-3T_lvKLXbnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@centurytel.net>,
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:

>> You are a small, bitter man. When I got home from the Marine Corps in the
>> 70's people treated me like I had just gotten out of prison. You remind me
>> of the reaction I got from some people. You probably were one of those
>> people.
>
>I've heard those stories before, and of course, that was all the news in
>those days. But I never saw it first hand. I wore my uniform most of
>the time, on and off base, throughout my military career and never had a
>problem.

I lived in L.A. at the end of Nam, and everyone that I knew had
nothing but thanks to give those veterans. I've heard the stories
too, but never saw any evidence of them...but they may have existed.
--
___,
\o


       
Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:55:15
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:45:38 -0500, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:


>You are a small, bitter man. When I got home from the Marine Corps in the
>70's people treated me like I had just gotten out of prison. You remind me
>of the reaction I got from some people. You probably were one of those
>people.
>

I'm neither small, nor bitter, unless you mean the bitter taste of
losing thousands of American lives, and many thousands maimed...for
this inane action of Dubya's.

As a matter of fact I support our Armed Services, and hope that they
can survive this stupidity.

I certainly didn't feel anything but pride over the way our soldiers
carried themselves in another idiotic "war" in Viet Nam, which was
also lose/lose proposition. You seem to love these situations.

No, Mr. Moderator, you're just grasping at straws. I'm happy that you
made it back from Nam, elated that your son was able to survive Iraq,
and hope like hell that your wife will return safely.

--
___,
\o


   
Date: 19 Apr 2007 16:54:10
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
the Moderator <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1176999032.575340.208700@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> America has plenty of resolve when the conflict directly involves our
>> national security, such as the invasion of Afghanistan. The trouble
>> with Iraq is that Saddam didn't directly threaten our security....WMD
>> was a sham. That's not to say some good hasn't come from the
>> invasion. The Kurds are deservedly stable and prosperous.
>> Eventually, the rest of Iraq will right itself. But....neither
>> scenarios should require American lives anymore.
>
> Bullshit! The left would sooner surrender than fight.

Yeah, look at WWII! No, wait...

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 07:34:59
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 9:14 am, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
>
> And if they don't... we could be back over there 10 years from now...
> If at all possible... finish the job this time. Root out all the the
> insurgents and eliminate them. But you've got to be a lot more
> aggressive than we've been up to this point. The Nazis weren't
> defeated by fighting nice. Radical Islam will not be defeated by
> fighting nice either.

That's pretty simplistic. First, what is "the job?"
I thought the job was to get rid of Saddam and all his WMD's.
That job is finished. Bring em home.

Also, you make it sound like it's as easy as going over there and
killing all the bad guys. Do the bad guys wear uniforms? No.
Imagine going to your local mall and knowing that a third of the
people there want to kill you. But how do you know which ones until
it's too late?




  
Date:
From:
Subject:


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 08:57:16
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1176948352.446129.288820@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> At least 183 people were killed in Baghdad today by a number of car
> bombs.
> Boy, I'm glad that recent troop surge is making such a difference.
>
> Gee, I wonder if the "Liberal Media" will cut into their non-stop
> coverage of the VT shooting to report that?

Your celebration is noted.




 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 06:43:03
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 12:26 am, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 10:05 pm, annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > At least 183 people were killed in Baghdad today by a number of car
> > bombs.
> > Boy, I'm glad that recent troop surge is making such a difference.
>
> > Gee, I wonder if the "Liberal Media" will cut into their non-stop
> > coverage of the VT shooting to report that?
>
> They didn't send enough to make any real difference. You'd have to
> double or tipple what we have there now to be sure to make a
> difference. Even then you'd have to quit pussyfooting around and get
> down to business.

Get down to business? I shudder to think what you mean by that.



 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 06:18:44
From: dsc
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

> WGaF - this is so OT and as such a waste of bandwidth.

I thing that anything golfer's might talk about on the range, putting
green, out on the course or in the 19th hole is fair game here. I know
for a fact that politics, the war, etc are things discussed by golfers
all the time.




  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 14:37:28
From: Blagovist
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
dsc wrote:
>> WGaF - this is so OT and as such a waste of bandwidth.
>
> I thing that anything golfer's might talk about on the range, putting
> green, out on the course or in the 19th hole is fair game here. I know
> for a fact that politics, the war, etc are things discussed by golfers
> all the time.

Not just golfers, but it's OT so shut here and keep it for the range
(please don't be in the bay next to me!)

Blago


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 06:14:39
From: dsc
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 7:22 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:16:28 -0700, Dene wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 9:26 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> >> They didn't send enough to make any real difference. You'd have to
> >> double or tipple what we have there now to be sure to make a
> >> difference. Even then you'd have to quit pussyfooting around and get
> >> down to business.
>
> > ..........Or get out. Neither the American or Iraqi populace wants us
> > there. So let's leave....let them have their civil war and hope that
> > the winner will like us.
>

And if they don't... we could be back over there 10 years from now...
If at all possible... finish the job this time. Root out all the the
insurgents and eliminate them. But you've got to be a lot more
aggressive than we've been up to this point. The Nazis weren't
defeated by fighting nice. Radical Islam will not be defeated by
fighting nice either.

As much as anything it is America's inability to finish a war that
keeps getting us into them. The whole world knows if you just wait
long enough the spineless cowards (American public) will force the
government to pull out.
They know the American public just doesn't hav eth estomach to sustain
any prolonged war. That emboldens problem leaders (in North Korea,
Iran, etc.) to just thumb their noses at us and the world. They know
we won't follow through on anything for very long and they know that
noone else in the world will either. That gives them free reign.

> There may have been a time when more troops would have brought a different
> outcome.

I agree that more troups in and of itself will not change anything.
Sending another 25K troups was useless. There has to be a total change
in policy and tactics. I just dont' see that ever happening.

>But that opportunity has passed, if it ever existed at all. Now
> the only thing the various warring factions in Iraq agree on is they don't
> want us there. Quite the outcome for half a trillion bucks and 3300+ dead
> troops.
>
> I agree the only thing to do now is get out. We're going to do it anyway
> sooner or later. Might as well be sooner so less people get killed.

That will probably be one of the first official acts of the next
president...

Actually, I'd like to just pull way back into the dessert and watch
the cival war from a distance for a while and see what happens. Do it
now...



  
Date: 20 Apr 2007 01:32:52
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On 19 Apr 2007 06:14:39 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:

>Radical Islam will not be defeated by fighting nice either.

True. And it won't be defeated by fighting nasty either.



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 14:45:38
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On 19 Apr 2007 06:14:39 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:

>On Apr 19, 7:22 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:16:28 -0700, Dene wrote:
>> > ..........Or get out. Neither the American or Iraqi populace wants us
>> > there. So let's leave....let them have their civil war and hope that
>> > the winner will like us.
>>
>
>And if they don't... we could be back over there 10 years from now...
>If at all possible... finish the job this time. <clip>

Right! Then we can take pics of Bush, standing on a carrier with a
large sign behind him saying "Mission Accomplished".

I sure hope they saved that banner...we may use it several more times,
in hope that it may be accurate.
--
___,
\o


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 05:24:49
From: dsc
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 19, 2:16 am, Dene <gdst...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 9:26 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> > They didn't send enough to make any real difference. You'd have to
> > double or tipple what we have there now to be sure to make a
> > difference. Even then you'd have to quit pussyfooting around and get
> > down to business.
>
> ..........Or get out. Neither the American or Iraqi populace wants us
> there. So let's leave....let them have their civil war and hope that
> the winner will like us.
>
> -Greg

In all honesty... if you aren't going there to win... don't go. If
you're there already and still won't fight to win... might just as
well come on home because you aren't going to win anyway. You just
can't make nice and fight a war at the same time. I've watched several
shows on the history and military channels that follow the troups in
action and they have their hands tied for the most part. Turn them
loose and let them do what they are trained to do... or bring 'em on
home.



 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:17:03
From: Blagovist
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
annika1980 wrote:
> At least 183 people were killed in Baghdad today by a number of car
> bombs.
> Boy, I'm glad that recent troop surge is making such a difference.
>
> Gee, I wonder if the "Liberal Media" will cut into their non-stop
> coverage of the VT shooting to report that?

WGaF - this is so OT and as such a waste of bandwidth.


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 03:20:39
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1176948352.446129.288820@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> At least 183 people were killed in Baghdad today by a number of car
> bombs.
> Boy, I'm glad that recent troop surge is making such a difference.
>
> Gee, I wonder if the "Liberal Media" will cut into their non-stop
> coverage of the VT shooting to report that?

Were the Sunni or Shia? If Sunni, were they Taliban or the anti-Taliban? If
Shia, which of the two *at least* warring factions, dedicated to the
destruction of the other Shia? Were they Iraqis or Iranian infiltrators? And
please advise who the 'insurgents' are. Are there both Sunni and Shia
insurgents? Do insurgents come from the country or from outside? When your
guide drive your tour bus into quicksand, maybe you need a new driver, even
if he doesn't have a magic plan to get out.




 
Date: 18 Apr 2007 23:16:28
From: Dene
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 18, 9:26 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:

> They didn't send enough to make any real difference. You'd have to
> double or tipple what we have there now to be sure to make a
> difference. Even then you'd have to quit pussyfooting around and get
> down to business.

..........Or get out. Neither the American or Iraqi populace wants us
there. So let's leave....let them have their civil war and hope that
the winner will like us.

-Greg



  
Date: 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 25, 5:20 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177534149.078072.202510@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:sU5Xh.3875$OJ1.1297@newsfe13.phx...
>
> >> > Do you think you can say "The numbers don't match the facts." I
> >> > researched
> >> > it and I think that if you do the same thing about the people who are
> >> > questioning the study, you will find the same thing. I haven't seen any
> >> > credible refutations of the Johns Hopkins' study. If you'd like to post
> >> > a
> >> > site, I'd read it. The numbers seem high to me, but that doesn't mean
> >> > they
> >> > aren't true. The numbers in Vietnam were phony on the military side and
> >> > we
> >> > know that, now. So far, all of Johns Hopkins' numbers have been
> >> > accepted
> >> and
> >> > proven true through decades of work. Why would anyone reject them
> >> > without
> >> > evidence, other than it is not poliltically expedient?
>
> >> There is ample evidence. Get your head out of the sand.
>
> >>http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
>
> > You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns
> > Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an
> > agenda, the other doesn't.
>
> If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a
university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness,
so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and
embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it?



   
Date: 26 Apr 2007 16:05:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a
>university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness,
>so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and
>embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it?

You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete rubbish.


   
Date: 26 Apr 2007 14:10:33
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177610903.162474.5710@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 25, 5:20 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177534149.078072.202510@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:sU5Xh.3875$OJ1.1297@newsfe13.phx...
>>
>> >> > Do you think you can say "The numbers don't match the facts." I
>> >> > researched
>> >> > it and I think that if you do the same thing about the people who
>> >> > are
>> >> > questioning the study, you will find the same thing. I haven't seen
>> >> > any
>> >> > credible refutations of the Johns Hopkins' study. If you'd like to
>> >> > post
>> >> > a
>> >> > site, I'd read it. The numbers seem high to me, but that doesn't
>> >> > mean
>> >> > they
>> >> > aren't true. The numbers in Vietnam were phony on the military side
>> >> > and
>> >> > we
>> >> > know that, now. So far, all of Johns Hopkins' numbers have been
>> >> > accepted
>> >> and
>> >> > proven true through decades of work. Why would anyone reject them
>> >> > without
>> >> > evidence, other than it is not poliltically expedient?
>>
>> >> There is ample evidence. Get your head out of the sand.
>>
>> >>http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
>>
>> > You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns
>> > Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an
>> > agenda, the other doesn't.
>>
>> If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a
> university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness,
> so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and
> embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it?
>
Hey you're pretty good.




  
Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:13:45
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
> On Apr 18, 9:26 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>> They didn't send enough to make any real difference. You'd have to
>> double or tipple what we have there now to be sure to make a
>> difference. Even then you'd have to quit pussyfooting around and get
>> down to business.


"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote ...
>
> ..........Or get out. Neither the American or Iraqi populace wants us
> there. So let's leave....let them have their civil war and hope that
> the winner will like us.
>
> -Greg



Bingo.

If we leave them alone, they'll kill each other. Problem solved. Our
soldiers don't need to be caught in the crossfire. It's not accomplishing a
damn thing.

Instead of claiming that the war isn't winnable, we should just declare
victory and get out. As much as we laughed at Bush for his "Mission
Accomplished" photo op, we should have just gone with it....and pulled out
right then and there. At least Bush 41 had the sense to know when enough
was enough.

What's left to win? We did what we set out to do. We disarmed Saddam and
removed him.

Fine. Game over. We won. Let's leave.

Anyone who thinks we can kill all the terrorists by staying there is
delusional. You're about as likely to kill all the terrorists as you are to
kill all the cock roaches in the world. Good luck with that.

More Americans have died in Iraq than died in the World Trade Center on
9/11, and we have killed about 20 times as many innocents in our war effort
than were killed on 9/11. So what's the point? Whoever kills the most
innocents gets to claim the moral high ground? I don't get it.

I'll tell you the point. Follow the money. There's too much profiteering
going on in the war effort to make it easy to stop it. The war isn't about
lives or freedom or any of that red, white and blue shit. It's about GREEN.
Period.

Randy




   
Date: 25 Apr 2007 02:51:44
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:13:45 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:

>Instead of claiming that the war isn't winnable, we should just declare
>victory and get out. As much as we laughed at Bush for his "Mission
>Accomplished" photo op, we should have just gone with it....and pulled out
>right then and there. At least Bush 41 had the sense to know when enough
>was enough.

And if the Right don't care for those conditions - let them state the
winning conditions that we are working towards, and how their strategy
is working to achieve them.

Wars have objectives. Our job isn't to be police - it is to win a
war. Tell us the criteria so we can judge our progress and know when
we have won.


   
Date: 24 Apr 2007 19:25:33
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

I don't see how you can think of this 'war' as anything but a victory for
Haliburton et al. Whatever et al means ... The oil companies are the only
business in history that can declare larger profits when their expenses have
risen with no other major change. The price of crude oil goes up, Oil
Company profits go up. It's like Walmart, if they had to pay 20% more for
their goods and increased their profits by 50%.




    
Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:37:09
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote ...
>
> I don't see how you can think of this 'war' as anything but a victory for
> Haliburton et al. Whatever et al means ... The oil companies are the only
> business in history that can declare larger profits when their expenses
> have risen with no other major change. The price of crude oil goes up, Oil
> Company profits go up. It's like Walmart, if they had to pay 20% more for
> their goods and increased their profits by 50%.


One of the little-known facts about Eisenhower's farewell address in 1960 in
which he warned America about the growing "Military-Industrial Complex" is
that in his original draft of that speech, which is revealed by his brother
in the film "Why We Fight," Eisenhower had intended to call it the
"Military-CONGRESSIONAL-Industrial Complex." But because Ike had enjoyed 8
years in office with relatively congenial relations with the members of
Congress on both sides of the aisle (imagine that!), he didn't want to leave
on a contentious note, so he crossed out "Congressional" from the term and
just went with "Military-Industrial Complex."

Go rent the movie "Why We Fight" and you'll understand why America will
ALWAYS be at war.

Randy <--- I Like Ike




     
Date: 24 Apr 2007 21:48:05
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:I7WdnSp0ENZWI7PbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote ...
>>
>> I don't see how you can think of this 'war' as anything but a victory for
>> Haliburton et al. Whatever et al means ... The oil companies are the only
>> business in history that can declare larger profits when their expenses
>> have risen with no other major change. The price of crude oil goes up,
>> Oil Company profits go up. It's like Walmart, if they had to pay 20% more
>> for their goods and increased their profits by 50%.
>
>
> One of the little-known facts about Eisenhower's farewell address in 1960
> in which he warned America about the growing "Military-Industrial Complex"
> is that in his original draft of that speech, which is revealed by his
> brother in the film "Why We Fight," Eisenhower had intended to call it the
> "Military-CONGRESSIONAL-Industrial Complex." But because Ike had enjoyed
> 8 years in office with relatively congenial relations with the members of
> Congress on both sides of the aisle (imagine that!), he didn't want to
> leave on a contentious note, so he crossed out "Congressional" from the
> term and just went with "Military-Industrial Complex."
>
> Go rent the movie "Why We Fight" and you'll understand why America will
> ALWAYS be at war.
>
> Randy <--- I Like Ike

I have no reason to like Ike other than the quote that you mention and that
he was an admirable part of the war effort, that no one has ever said a bad
word about him, AFAIK, and that governed a peaceful country in a low key and
efficient way. Anyway, the movie sounds interesting.




      
Date: 25 Apr 2007 13:42:37
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
In article <z5BXh.158670$g24.104507@newsfe12.phx >,
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:

> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:I7WdnSp0ENZWI7PbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote ...
> >>
> >> I don't see how you can think of this 'war' as anything but a victory for
> >> Haliburton et al. Whatever et al means ... The oil companies are the only
> >> business in history that can declare larger profits when their expenses
> >> have risen with no other major change. The price of crude oil goes up,
> >> Oil Company profits go up. It's like Walmart, if they had to pay 20% more
> >> for their goods and increased their profits by 50%.
> >
> >
> > One of the little-known facts about Eisenhower's farewell address in 1960
> > in which he warned America about the growing "Military-Industrial Complex"
> > is that in his original draft of that speech, which is revealed by his
> > brother in the film "Why We Fight," Eisenhower had intended to call it the
> > "Military-CONGRESSIONAL-Industrial Complex." But because Ike had enjoyed
> > 8 years in office with relatively congenial relations with the members of
> > Congress on both sides of the aisle (imagine that!), he didn't want to
> > leave on a contentious note, so he crossed out "Congressional" from the
> > term and just went with "Military-Industrial Complex."
> >
> > Go rent the movie "Why We Fight" and you'll understand why America will
> > ALWAYS be at war.
> >
> > Randy <--- I Like Ike
>
> I have no reason to like Ike other than the quote that you mention and that
> he was an admirable part of the war effort, that no one has ever said a bad
> word about him, AFAIK, and that governed a peaceful country in a low key and
> efficient way. Anyway, the movie sounds interesting.

Lots of bad stuff with Ike: CIA coups against democratic govs in Iran in
1953, Guatemala in 1954, in both cases leading to horrible consequences.
Laid the foundation for the Vietnam catastrophe, mealy-mouthed response
to deranged McCarthy, ...

Still, Ike could stand up - and did - to Pentagon generals and call them
on their BS. He called the so-called "missile gap" with the USSR
nonsense, although JFK campaigned on this huge lie.


       
Date: 25 Apr 2007 14:52:38
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !

"The World Wide Wade" <aderamey.addw@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:aderamey.addw-B7BFE7.13423725042007@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <z5BXh.158670$g24.104507@newsfe12.phx>,
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>> news:I7WdnSp0ENZWI7PbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> > "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote ...
>> >>
>> >> I don't see how you can think of this 'war' as anything but a victory
>> >> for
>> >> Haliburton et al. Whatever et al means ... The oil companies are the
>> >> only
>> >> business in history that can declare larger profits when their
>> >> expenses
>> >> have risen with no other major change. The price of crude oil goes up,
>> >> Oil Company profits go up. It's like Walmart, if they had to pay 20%
>> >> more
>> >> for their goods and increased their profits by 50%.
>> >
>> >
>> > One of the little-known facts about Eisenhower's farewell address in
>> > 1960
>> > in which he warned America about the growing "Military-Industrial
>> > Complex"
>> > is that in his original draft of that speech, which is revealed by his
>> > brother in the film "Why We Fight," Eisenhower had intended to call it
>> > the
>> > "Military-CONGRESSIONAL-Industrial Complex." But because Ike had
>> > enjoyed
>> > 8 years in office with relatively congenial relations with the members
>> > of
>> > Congress on both sides of the aisle (imagine that!), he didn't want to
>> > leave on a contentious note, so he crossed out "Congressional" from the
>> > term and just went with "Military-Industrial Complex."
>> >
>> > Go rent the movie "Why We Fight" and you'll understand why America will
>> > ALWAYS be at war.
>> >
>> > Randy <--- I Like Ike
>>
>> I have no reason to like Ike other than the quote that you mention and
>> that
>> he was an admirable part of the war effort, that no one has ever said a
>> bad
>> word about him, AFAIK, and that governed a peaceful country in a low key
>> and
>> efficient way. Anyway, the movie sounds interesting.
>
> Lots of bad stuff with Ike: CIA coups against democratic govs in Iran in
> 1953, Guatemala in 1954, in both cases leading to horrible consequences.
> Laid the foundation for the Vietnam catastrophe, mealy-mouthed response
> to deranged McCarthy, ...
>
> Still, Ike could stand up - and did - to Pentagon generals and call them
> on their BS. He called the so-called "missile gap" with the USSR
> nonsense, although JFK campaigned on this huge lie.

Interesting. I should look into it. Thanks




  
Date:
From:
Subject:


 
Date: 18 Apr 2007 21:26:18
From: dsc
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On Apr 18, 10:05 pm, annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> At least 183 people were killed in Baghdad today by a number of car
> bombs.
> Boy, I'm glad that recent troop surge is making such a difference.
>
> Gee, I wonder if the "Liberal Media" will cut into their non-stop
> coverage of the VT shooting to report that?

They didn't send enough to make any real difference. You'd have to
double or tipple what we have there now to be sure to make a
difference. Even then you'd have to quit pussyfooting around and get
down to business.



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 06:19:13
From: multi
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On 18 Apr 2007 21:26:18 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
> You'd have to
>double or tipple what we have there now to be sure to make a
>difference.

You could send a million soldiers there and it wouldn't make a
difference. We've already won everything we can win there. We beat
their army, we toppled their government, and we imprisoned or killed
their leaders. We even wrote a new constitution for them.

The only reason we are still there is because Bush refuses to abandon
his insane notion that if we kill enough of them, the survivors will
love us. Never going to happen.


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 03:29:46
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
Doesn't count. Those are brown people.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 02:19:47
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today !
On 18 Apr 2007 19:05:52 -0700, annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

>At least 183 people were killed in Baghdad today by a number of car
>bombs.
>Boy, I'm glad that recent troop surge is making such a difference.

We will win the War on Terrorism about the same time we win the War on
Poverty and the War on Drugs.

>Gee, I wonder if the "Liberal Media" will cut into their non-stop
>coverage of the VT shooting to report that?

It is interesting that mass killings in Iraq involve killers who
aren't using guns - among a population full of armed people. So
neither the American Right nor the American Left's "solutions" work
there.