golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main
Date: 16 Apr 2007 12:57:41
From: The_Professor
Subject: What's Really Important.
Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
growing number of these kinds of things.





 
Date: 29 Apr 2007 21:59:53
From: Vista
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


Will you trolls shut the fuck up.

Vista


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:41:03
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 19, 10:09 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "dsc" <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:1176953978.313598.234540@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the
> >> first
> >> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not
> >> the
> >> case.
>
> > Why? If the first two killings had happened in a home in a sub-
> > divison, the police would not generally lock down the whole
> > neighborhood... or city...
>
> > Hindsight is 20/20...
>
> Apples, oranges.
>
> We just went through a similar thing here at a UofM hall with a bomb threat
> yesterday. They evacuated the one hall and didnt notify anyone else. People
> are pissed. UofM is quite a bit larger that VT.

That'sa bit of an over reaction really. They surely needed to evac the
building in question and probalby those within a certain radius of it,
but probably not not the entire campus unless they had reason to
believe there might be more than one bomb.



  
Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:21:20
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1177015263.548137.253880@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 10:09 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "dsc" <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176953978.313598.234540@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the
>> >> first
>> >> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was
>> >> not
>> >> the
>> >> case.
>>
>> > Why? If the first two killings had happened in a home in a sub-
>> > divison, the police would not generally lock down the whole
>> > neighborhood... or city...
>>
>> > Hindsight is 20/20...
>>
>> Apples, oranges.
>>
>> We just went through a similar thing here at a UofM hall with a bomb
>> threat
>> yesterday. They evacuated the one hall and didnt notify anyone else.
>> People
>> are pissed. UofM is quite a bit larger that VT.
>
> That'sa bit of an over reaction really. They surely needed to evac the
> building in question and probalby those within a certain radius of it,
> but probably not not the entire campus unless they had reason to
> believe there might be more than one bomb.
>
Yes this is true. I believe they are pissed that they were not notified of
the incident till much later in the day. I hope they catch the Ahole who did
it and give him life without parole.




 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 08:22:15
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 19, 9:09 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:

> > Hindsight is 20/20...
>
> Apples, oranges.
>
> We just went through a similar thing here at a UofM hall with a bomb threat
> yesterday. They evacuated the one hall and didnt notify anyone else. People
> are pissed. UofM is quite a bit larger that VT.

Eight dorms were reported evacuated. Can you cite your source that
only one hall was evacuated?

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr18/0,4670,UMinnEvacuation,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/shooting.jitters.reut/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18181333/
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UMINN_EVACUATION?SITE=NCKIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT






 
Date: 18 Apr 2007 21:18:36
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 4:51 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ifydnSNHf_p1rbjbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > You don't think is right!! Most elementary schools are a single building
> > with only a few exits. A school like VT has dozens of buildings with
> > hundreds of exits.
>
> They can lock the entire capitol grounds down they can surely lock down VT.
> Just because it's big dosent make it impossible.

Sure they could... if they had a full compliment of secret service
agents on hand... ain't gonna happen. Logistically impossible.



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:12:13
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 18 Apr 2007 21:18:36 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:

>> They can lock the entire capitol grounds down they can surely lock down VT.
>> Just because it's big dosent make it impossible.
>
>Sure they could... if they had a full compliment of secret service
>agents on hand... ain't gonna happen. Logistically impossible.

It would be very difficult to lock down the entire campus, there's
just too much unfenced perimeter. However it would have been possible
to secure all the buildings. He still could have shot people, but I
doubt that he would have killed nearly as many.


   
Date: 19 Apr 2007 22:05:36
From: sfb
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
100 buildings or more, ten exits each. VT doesn't have that many police on
duty to lockdown the buildings.

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:ll4g23tc1u9vgo6dc8d0244fk18oas009i@4ax.com...
> On 18 Apr 2007 21:18:36 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>>> They can lock the entire capitol grounds down they can surely lock down
>>> VT.
>>> Just because it's big dosent make it impossible.
>>
>>Sure they could... if they had a full compliment of secret service
>>agents on hand... ain't gonna happen. Logistically impossible.
>
> It would be very difficult to lock down the entire campus, there's
> just too much unfenced perimeter. However it would have been possible
> to secure all the buildings. He still could have shot people, but I
> doubt that he would have killed nearly as many.




    
Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:22:25
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:z5OdnedXBYFpgrXbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 100 buildings or more, ten exits each. VT doesn't have that many police on
> duty to lockdown the buildings.
>
You could do it with a single push of a button with the right technology.




     
Date: 20 Apr 2007 15:44:01
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:22:25 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
>news:z5OdnedXBYFpgrXbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> 100 buildings or more, ten exits each. VT doesn't have that many police on
>> duty to lockdown the buildings.
>>
>You could do it with a single push of a button with the right technology.
>
But we've already discussed the fallacy of such a lockdown. You may
be locking victims in with the shooter, or out with the shooter.
Either could worsen the situation...or not. It just isn't the answer
to everything.
--
___,
\o


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 21:09:20
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:44:01 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>But we've already discussed the fallacy of such a lockdown. You may
>be locking victims in with the shooter, or out with the shooter.
>Either could worsen the situation...or not. It just isn't the answer
>to everything.

You've hit on a good point here Bobby. For some of the time between
the two shooting Cho was in his dorm room. A lock down could have
resulted in him being locked in a dorm full of students.


 
Date: 19 Apr 2007 03:51:31
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


dsc wrote:

> On Apr 18, 10:20 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
> >
> > news:46259aa9$0$25239$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
> >
> > > On 17-Apr-2007, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Locking all the buildings would be pretty easy
> >
> > > In 8 hours perhaps, they don't have an unlimited key supply, besides Mike,
> > > I
> > > think your just 20/20ing this (hindsight you know)
> >
> > I probably would take that long of one person did it.
>
> All of our custodians have keys to the buildings. There are custodians
> in almost every building. I have a key to our building. A high number
> of people have a key to the building they work in. There are lots of
> keys. If the word were to go out to lock the doors, it could be done
> pretty quickly. The hard part is getting the word out. But very few of
> the doors on a campus lock from the inside so you can still get out if
> someone isn't there to stop you.

We have magnetic locks on a lot of buildings that can be operated from a remote
location. We also have cameras in a lot of buildings.



 
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:48:22
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 18, 10:20 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>
> news:46259aa9$0$25239$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> > On 17-Apr-2007, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Locking all the buildings would be pretty easy
>
> > In 8 hours perhaps, they don't have an unlimited key supply, besides Mike,
> > I
> > think your just 20/20ing this (hindsight you know)
>
> I probably would take that long of one person did it.

All of our custodians have keys to the buildings. There are custodians
in almost every building. I have a key to our building. A high number
of people have a key to the building they work in. There are lots of
keys. If the word were to go out to lock the doors, it could be done
pretty quickly. The hard part is getting the word out. But very few of
the doors on a campus lock from the inside so you can still get out if
someone isn't there to stop you.



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 10:43:06
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 18 Apr 2007 20:48:22 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:

>On Apr 18, 10:20 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:46259aa9$0$25239$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>>
>> > On 17-Apr-2007, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Locking all the buildings would be pretty easy
>>
>> > In 8 hours perhaps, they don't have an unlimited key supply, besides Mike,
>> > I
>> > think your just 20/20ing this (hindsight you know)
>>
>> I probably would take that long of one person did it.
>
>All of our custodians have keys to the buildings. There are custodians
>in almost every building. I have a key to our building. A high number
>of people have a key to the building they work in. There are lots of
>keys. If the word were to go out to lock the doors, it could be done
>pretty quickly. The hard part is getting the word out. But very few of
>the doors on a campus lock from the inside so you can still get out if
>someone isn't there to stop you.


This should be a wake up call to America. One skinny guy easily
killed 32 and wounded 30+ with two pistols.

If it had been a determined team of Al Queda terrorists, they would
have used FAR more powerful weapons, likely bombs or small scale WMD,
chemical or biological weapons. They could have locked down that
entire campus and killed many thousands trapped like rats. We are
massively vulnerable.

Someone in those classrooms should have been armed. People should
have guns using "concealed carry" permits in every crowd. That has
saved dozens of people, most recently the Salt lake City Shopping
Center incident--which would have become a massacre except that an
off-duty cop pulled his pistol and took the shooter out.

Essentially NOBODY has ever been hurt by someone with a "concealed
carry" permit.

Larry


 
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:44:14
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

> I know of at least one situation where someone pulled a gun on
> students and the place was crawling with police for several hours. I
> just can't see how, after a double murder in a dorm, they could go on
> business as usual. I know of another case where a kid who had a
> started pistol was handled very severely. Guns are not allowed on a
> college campus.

There are exceptions... I took a gun class on campus once and we all
brought our weapons to class... as instructed by the instructor. Some
schools have rifle teams... that practice on campus. We used to have
such a team and a military looking barraks rifle range they practiced
in.

It would be more accurate if you had said they aren't allowed by
students in dorms...



 
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:39:38
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the first
> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not the
> case.

Why? If the first two killings had happened in a home in a sub-
divison, the police would not generally lock down the whole
neighborhood... or city...

Hindsight is 20/20...




  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:09:36
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1176953978.313598.234540@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the
>> first
>> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not
>> the
>> case.
>
> Why? If the first two killings had happened in a home in a sub-
> divison, the police would not generally lock down the whole
> neighborhood... or city...
>
> Hindsight is 20/20...

Apples, oranges.

We just went through a similar thing here at a UofM hall with a bomb threat
yesterday. They evacuated the one hall and didnt notify anyone else. People
are pissed. UofM is quite a bit larger that VT.




 
Date: 18 Apr 2007 18:37:04
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 18, 6:35 pm, BigPurdueFan <bigpu...@aol.com > wrote:
> > > To see the replies, to see what it really important to you. Not that I
> > > didn't know what the answer would be.
>
> I spent most of the day yesterday with each of my daughters in the
> hospital. I'm pretty sure I'm aware is important.

Yup. Contributing to the lives of others.



 
Date: 18 Apr 2007 16:35:06
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

> > To see the replies, to see what it really important to you. Not that I
> > didn't know what the answer would be.

I spent most of the day yesterday with each of my daughters in the
hospital. I'm pretty sure I'm aware is important.



 
Date: 18 Apr 2007 17:29:27
From: Blagovist
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
The_Professor wrote:
> Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
> growing number of these kinds of things.

Until you yanks stop selling guns like candy, it'll happen again and
again *sigh*.

Blago


 
Date: 17 Apr 2007 14:22:47
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 4:51 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ifydnSNHf_p1rbjbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > You don't think is right!! Most elementary schools are a single building
> > with only a few exits. A school like VT has dozens of buildings with
> > hundreds of exits.
>
> They can lock the entire capitol grounds down they can surely lock down VT.
> Just because it's big dosent make it impossible.

That is a ridiculous comparison. The Capitol grounds is a few hundred
acres and has a police force of more than 1,000. There is a Capitol
Hill Police Officer stationed at every entrance to every building in
the capital complex. If you walk around there, you see that they're
everywhere. And they are trained and primed for terrorist attacks and
other catastrophes -- which one might expect to occur on Capitol Hill.
The Capitol was the target of the plane that crashed in Pa. on 9/11.
Va Tech was not and has had no reason to expect that some student
would go postal and kill 32 people.




 
Date: 17 Apr 2007 16:49:36
From: Michael Anselmo
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1176753461.550546.80650@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
> growing number of these kinds of things.
>

Other than the first time something happens, each occurrence is "one in a
growing number."

VA Tech. Not, GA Tech.





 
Date: 17 Apr 2007 13:05:16
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 3:41 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176837790.215126.124890@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 1:25 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1176825454.350570.76590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the
> >> >> > > > real
> >> >> > > > laugh.
>
> >> >> > > Can't wait.
>
> >> >> > Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
> >> >> > was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
> >> >> > this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>
> >> >> A real person!
>
> >> >> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
> >> >> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
> >> >> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
> >> >> emergency response plan in place though!
>
> >> > So, the VT administration should have known that the A.M. shootings in
> >> > the dorm were the "first phase" of a massacre, and planned
> >> > accordingly? Is that your argument?
>
> >> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the
> >> first
> >> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not
> >> the
> >> case.
>
> > How do you "lock down" a 26,000-acre campus w/2,600 students coming
> > and going? It seems to me you'd have to call in the Natoinal Guard to
> > do that.
>
> I don't think it would have been that hard if a plan had been in place. My
> sons elementary school has lockdown drills at least a couple times a year.-

I'm guessing your son's elementary school is a little smaller than Va.
Tech. And I wonder how many universities have plans in place to deal
with a mass murderer on the loose. Va Tech is in Blacksburg, Va., not
Baghdad. No one there had any background or training in managing a
crisis of this proportion, and it's not reasonable to expect that they
should have. All this second-guessing that's going on in the press is
infuriating.








  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 15:34:56
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176840316.192441.216840@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 3:41 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176837790.215126.124890@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 17, 1:25 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1176825454.350570.76590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's
>> >> >> > > > the
>> >> >> > > > real
>> >> >> > > > laugh.
>>
>> >> >> > > Can't wait.
>>
>> >> >> > Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine
>> >> >> > he
>> >> >> > was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the
>> >> >> > office
>> >> >> > this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>>
>> >> >> A real person!
>>
>> >> >> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
>> >> >> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
>> >> >> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
>> >> >> emergency response plan in place though!
>>
>> >> > So, the VT administration should have known that the A.M. shootings
>> >> > in
>> >> > the dorm were the "first phase" of a massacre, and planned
>> >> > accordingly? Is that your argument?
>>
>> >> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the
>> >> first
>> >> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was
>> >> not
>> >> the
>> >> case.
>>
>> > How do you "lock down" a 26,000-acre campus w/2,600 students coming
>> > and going? It seems to me you'd have to call in the Natoinal Guard to
>> > do that.
>>
>> I don't think it would have been that hard if a plan had been in place.
>> My
>> sons elementary school has lockdown drills at least a couple times a
>> year.-
>
> I'm guessing your son's elementary school is a little smaller than Va.
> Tech. And I wonder how many universities have plans in place to deal
> with a mass murderer on the loose. Va Tech is in Blacksburg, Va., not
> Baghdad. No one there had any background or training in managing a
> crisis of this proportion, and it's not reasonable to expect that they
> should have. All this second-guessing that's going on in the press is
> infuriating.
>
Yes it's pretty sickening. You can bet a plan will be in place in the near
future though. Yes the elementary school is a bit smaller. :-)




   
Date: 17 Apr 2007 16:49:48
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
MnMikew wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176840316.192441.216840@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 17, 3:41 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1176837790.215126.124890@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 17, 1:25 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1176825454.350570.76590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>>>> laugh.
>>>>>>>>> Can't wait.
>>>>>>>> Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine
>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>> was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the
>>>>>>>> office
>>>>>>>> this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>>>>>>> A real person!
>>>>>>> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
>>>>>>> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
>>>>>>> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
>>>>>>> emergency response plan in place though!
>>>>>> So, the VT administration should have known that the A.M. shootings
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the dorm were the "first phase" of a massacre, and planned
>>>>>> accordingly? Is that your argument?
>>>>> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the
>>>>> first
>>>>> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was
>>>>> not
>>>>> the
>>>>> case.
>>>> How do you "lock down" a 26,000-acre campus w/2,600 students coming
>>>> and going? It seems to me you'd have to call in the Natoinal Guard to
>>>> do that.
>>> I don't think it would have been that hard if a plan had been in place.
>>> My
>>> sons elementary school has lockdown drills at least a couple times a
>>> year.-
>> I'm guessing your son's elementary school is a little smaller than Va.
>> Tech. And I wonder how many universities have plans in place to deal
>> with a mass murderer on the loose. Va Tech is in Blacksburg, Va., not
>> Baghdad. No one there had any background or training in managing a
>> crisis of this proportion, and it's not reasonable to expect that they
>> should have. All this second-guessing that's going on in the press is
>> infuriating.
>>
> Yes it's pretty sickening. You can bet a plan will be in place in the near
> future though. Yes the elementary school is a bit smaller. :-)
>
>
Do you have any thoughts on how such a plan, a workable plan, would be
constructed?

I don't know where you live but there must be a town nearby with 24-25
thousand residents that you could model a lock down plan for.

Joe


    
Date: 17 Apr 2007 15:55:49
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:4625325d$0$9925$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>> Yes it's pretty sickening. You can bet a plan will be in place in the
>> near future though. Yes the elementary school is a bit smaller. :-)
>>
>>
> Do you have any thoughts on how such a plan, a workable plan, would be
> constructed?
>
Since I'm not an expert on these matters I have no idea. You can bet a
workable plan will be in the works though.

> I don't know where you live but there must be a town nearby with 24-25
> thousand residents that you could model a lock down plan for.
>
I don't claim to have all the answers but way this unfolded, something has
to change.




 
Date: 17 Apr 2007 12:54:35
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 1:09 pm, "sfb" <s...@spam.net > wrote:
> VT has 8,000 students that don't live on campus many of whom were arriving
> for their 8 AM classes. How, why, and where do you lock them down?
>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:58ke8uF2h7u6vU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the first
> > shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not
> > the case.- Hide quoted text -
>

I know of at least one situation where someone pulled a gun on
students and the place was crawling with police for several hours. I
just can't see how, after a double murder in a dorm, they could go on
business as usual. I know of another case where a kid who had a
started pistol was handled very severely. Guns are not allowed on a
college campus.




 
Date: 17 Apr 2007 12:23:10
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 1:25 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176825454.350570.76590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the
> >> > > > real
> >> > > > laugh.
>
> >> > > Can't wait.
>
> >> > Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
> >> > was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
> >> > this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college this
> >> > fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>
> >> A real person!
>
> >> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
> >> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
> >> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
> >> emergency response plan in place though!
>
> > So, the VT administration should have known that the A.M. shootings in
> > the dorm were the "first phase" of a massacre, and planned
> > accordingly? Is that your argument?
>
> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the first
> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not the
> case.

How do you "lock down" a 26,000-acre campus w/2,600 students coming
and going? It seems to me you'd have to call in the Natoinal Guard to
do that.



  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 14:41:54
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176837790.215126.124890@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 1:25 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176825454.350570.76590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the
>> >> > > > real
>> >> > > > laugh.
>>
>> >> > > Can't wait.
>>
>> >> > Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
>> >> > was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
>> >> > this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college
>> >> > this
>> >> > fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>>
>> >> A real person!
>>
>> >> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
>> >> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
>> >> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
>> >> emergency response plan in place though!
>>
>> > So, the VT administration should have known that the A.M. shootings in
>> > the dorm were the "first phase" of a massacre, and planned
>> > accordingly? Is that your argument?
>>
>> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the
>> first
>> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not
>> the
>> case.
>
> How do you "lock down" a 26,000-acre campus w/2,600 students coming
> and going? It seems to me you'd have to call in the Natoinal Guard to
> do that.
>
I don't think it would have been that hard if a plan had been in place. My
sons elementary school has lockdown drills at least a couple times a year.




   
Date: 18 Apr 2007 21:15:20
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 18, 9:53 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2007 06:38:01 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 18, 8:12 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >>. Of course the Constitution isn't about
> >> hunting. I haven't seen anyone imply that. IMHO it also doesn't give
> >> citizens the right to bazookas either.
> >> -->Thanks, Bobby. It's true the Constitution isn't about hunting, but it
> >isn't about Glock 9MM's either. This kid walked into a gun store in
> >Roanoke, picked up a Glock and a box of shells, paid with a credit
> >card and walked out. Easy as that. I don't think that's what the 2nd
> >Amendment was designed to protect.
>
> We're in total agreement. The NRA shouts that guns don't kill people,
> people kill people. Cho Seung Hui would be hard pressed to do what he
> did without an automatic weapon. It's just too easy to buy such a
> gun.

He couldn't do exactly what he did without doing exactly what he did.

But he could easliy kill and mame 32+ people by running a car though a
large crowd... He could easily kill many people with homemade bombs.
In fact with several homemade bombs it could have been far worse.
Firearms aren't the only option...

And no... he didn't absolutely have to have a ***semi-automatic***
weapon... repeat ***semi-automatic***. Most any high repeating firearm
could have allowed him to kill 32 people. That could be a couple
revolvers that hold 6 to 8 rounds and can be reloaded (with a speed
loader) nearly as fast as a clip can be ejected and a new one rammed
home. His rate of fire would be reduce by roughly 1/2... but still
overwhelming to unarmed victims.



   
Date: 18 Apr 2007 04:13:29
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 17-Apr-2007, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> > How do you "lock down" a 26,000-acre campus w/2,600 students coming
> > and going? It seems to me you'd have to call in the Natoinal Guard to
> > do that.
> >
> I don't think it would have been that hard if a plan had been in place. My
>
> sons elementary school has lockdown drills at least a couple times a year.

a real valid comparison Mike......not.

--
bill-o

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


   
Date: 17 Apr 2007 16:41:10
From: sfb
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
You don't think is right!! Most elementary schools are a single building
with only a few exits. A school like VT has dozens of buildings with
hundreds of exits.

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:58km82F2hbfd4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> I don't think it would have been that hard if a plan had been in place. My
> sons elementary school has lockdown drills at least a couple times a year.
>




    
Date: 17 Apr 2007 15:51:22
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:ifydnSNHf_p1rbjbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> You don't think is right!! Most elementary schools are a single building
> with only a few exits. A school like VT has dozens of buildings with
> hundreds of exits.

They can lock the entire capitol grounds down they can surely lock down VT.
Just because it's big dosent make it impossible.





     
Date: 17 Apr 2007 21:07:07
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:51:22 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
>news:ifydnSNHf_p1rbjbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> You don't think is right!! Most elementary schools are a single building
>> with only a few exits. A school like VT has dozens of buildings with
>> hundreds of exits.
>
>They can lock the entire capitol grounds down they can surely lock down VT.
>Just because it's big dosent make it impossible.
>
>
No Mike. They can't lock down the entire 274 acres of the capitol
grounds. They can lock down the capitol building, senate and
congressional office buildings though.


     
Date: 17 Apr 2007 17:05:00
From: 3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:58kqaaF2hi2qaU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:ifydnSNHf_p1rbjbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> You don't think is right!! Most elementary schools are a single building
>> with only a few exits. A school like VT has dozens of buildings with
>> hundreds of exits.
>
> They can lock the entire capitol grounds down they can surely lock down
> VT. Just because it's big dosent make it impossible.
>
I would suspect that there is a bit more police protection in D.C. and New
York City than in Blacksburg, Va on US 460 in the rural hills.




   
Date: 17 Apr 2007 19:50:38
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:41:54 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:


>I don't think it would have been that hard if a plan had been in place. My
>sons elementary school has lockdown drills at least a couple times a year.
>
Your son's elementary school has 26,000 acres? 20,000 + students?

Apples and oranges Mike. Someone said it very well; get pissed at
the shooter. Looking for a scapegoat isn't applicable in every
instance. Stuff happens. There was little that could be done, with
the info that the police had, and the area and buildings to be
covered.
___,
\o


    
Date: 17 Apr 2007 15:32:50
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:ms8a23pn4ckkedeqspchebbmpsf932aloh@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:41:54 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think it would have been that hard if a plan had been in place. My
>>sons elementary school has lockdown drills at least a couple times a year.
>>
> Your son's elementary school has 26,000 acres? 20,000 + students?
>
> Apples and oranges Mike. Someone said it very well; get pissed at
> the shooter. Looking for a scapegoat isn't applicable in every
> instance. Stuff happens. There was little that could be done, with
> the info that the police had, and the area and buildings to be
> covered.
>
That's the way I see it BK. But the media is already looking for scapegoats.
Of course the crys from the gun control crowd are deafening. The shooter
obviously had issues and the blame rests entirely on him.




  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 15:42:06
From: 3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Where's Jessie and Sharpton?




   
Date: 17 Apr 2007 14:43:20
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina" <3putt@PawleysIslandSC > wrote in message
news:462522f4$0$9915$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Where's Jessie and Sharpton?
Give em time, they're still dealing with Imus. :-)




  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 15:42:07
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
John B. wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:25 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176825454.350570.76590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the
>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>> laugh.
>>>>>> Can't wait.
>>>>> Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
>>>>> was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
>>>>> this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college this
>>>>> fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>>>> A real person!
>>>> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
>>>> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
>>>> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
>>>> emergency response plan in place though!
>>> So, the VT administration should have known that the A.M. shootings in
>>> the dorm were the "first phase" of a massacre, and planned
>>> accordingly? Is that your argument?
>> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the first
>> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not the
>> case.
>
> How do you "lock down" a 26,000-acre campus w/2,600 students coming
> and going? It seems to me you'd have to call in the Natoinal Guard to
> do that.
>

John B is right in this matter. VT is the size of a mid sized town with
roughly 24,000 students and 26,000 acres of campus. In fact it is 60%
of the Blacksburg population.

If there is a domestic violence issue in your home town, do the police
"Lock Down" the town, close all the roads, lock all the buildings?
Besides the rights issue of such an occurrence, there simply is no way
to do that in an hour, probably not even in 48 hours.


Joe


   
Date: 17 Apr 2007 14:47:10
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:4625228e$0$8919$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> John B. wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 1:25 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1176825454.350570.76590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the
>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>> laugh.
>>>>>>> Can't wait.
>>>>>> Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
>>>>>> was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
>>>>>> this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>>>>> A real person!
>>>>> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
>>>>> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
>>>>> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
>>>>> emergency response plan in place though!
>>>> So, the VT administration should have known that the A.M. shootings in
>>>> the dorm were the "first phase" of a massacre, and planned
>>>> accordingly? Is that your argument?
>>> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the
>>> first
>>> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not
>>> the
>>> case.
>>
>> How do you "lock down" a 26,000-acre campus w/2,600 students coming
>> and going? It seems to me you'd have to call in the Natoinal Guard to
>> do that.
>>
>
> John B is right in this matter. VT is the size of a mid sized town with
> roughly 24,000 students and 26,000 acres of campus. In fact it is 60% of
> the Blacksburg population.
>
> If there is a domestic violence issue in your home town, do the police
> "Lock Down" the town, close all the roads, lock all the buildings? Besides
> the rights issue of such an occurrence, there simply is no way to do that
> in an hour, probably not even in 48 hours.
>
Locking all the buildings would be pretty easy.




    
Date: 18 Apr 2007 04:12:43
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 17-Apr-2007, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> Locking all the buildings would be pretty easy

In 8 hours perhaps, they don't have an unlimited key supply, besides Mike, I
think your just 20/20ing this (hindsight you know)

--
bill-o

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


     
Date: 18 Apr 2007 09:20:57
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:46259aa9$0$25239$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 17-Apr-2007, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Locking all the buildings would be pretty easy
>
> In 8 hours perhaps, they don't have an unlimited key supply, besides Mike,
> I
> think your just 20/20ing this (hindsight you know)
>
I probably would take that long of one person did it.




    
Date:
From:
Subject:


 
Date: 17 Apr 2007 12:07:59
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 2:03 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:MPmdnVxMnJPbkLjbnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@comcast.com...> VT has 8,000 students that don't live on campus many of whom were arriving
> > for their 8 AM classes. How, why, and where do you lock them down?
>
> You lock up the dorms and halls, all of em.

So that then NO ONE escapes. Keep in mind, you have just locked the
shooter in and the cops out. Nice call.



 
Date: 17 Apr 2007 10:40:41
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 12:25 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176825454.350570.76590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the
> >> > > > real
> >> > > > laugh.
>
> >> > > Can't wait.
>
> >> > Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
> >> > was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
> >> > this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college this
> >> > fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>
> >> A real person!
>
> >> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
> >> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
> >> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
> >> emergency response plan in place though!
>
> > So, the VT administration should have known that the A.M. shootings in
> > the dorm were the "first phase" of a massacre, and planned
> > accordingly? Is that your argument?
>
> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the first
> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not the
> case.- Hide quoted text -

Why is it no one seems to be angry with the fuck stick who actually
killed 32 people? You wingnuts are so quick to assign blame, you are
not unlike the jackal media. Be angry at the fucking killer of 32
young, promising, innocent students. Let the courts work out the
blame scenario. Jesus, some people...



 
Date: 17 Apr 2007 09:30:07
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 11:05 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net > wrote:

> > Whether he meant harm or not, he's a totally amoral, insensitive jackass.
>
> > When you first heard the news of the massacre, was your first reaction
> > to run to your computer to post to a golf newsgroup so quickly that you
> > couldn't even get the name of the school right in your quest to be first
> > to comment on a totally OT issue?
>
> Actually, I posted here after going through several discussions of the issue
> on other golf forums on the issue. I also went to the range to hit a few
> balls at lunch, and everyone was talking about it.

After going through "several discussions of the issue" and going to
the range where "everyone was talking about it" you still thought it
was Georgia Tech? Ya know, listening is the cornerstone to good
communication skills, Prof.



 
Date: 17 Apr 2007 08:57:34
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the real
> > > > laugh.
>
> > > Can't wait.
>
> > Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
> > was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
> > this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college this
> > fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>
> A real person!
>
> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
> emergency response plan in place though!
>

So, the VT administration should have known that the A.M. shootings in
the dorm were the "first phase" of a massacre, and planned
accordingly? Is that your argument?




  
Date: 18 Apr 2007 04:09:06
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 17-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> So, the VT administration should have known that the A.M. shootings in
> the dorm were the "first phase" of a massacre, and planned
> accordingly? Is that your argument?

I agree John! The hindsight syndrome strikes again. Can we blame ESPN?

--
bill-o

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


  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 12:25:50
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176825454.350570.76590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the
>> > > > real
>> > > > laugh.
>>
>> > > Can't wait.
>>
>> > Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
>> > was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
>> > this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college this
>> > fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>>
>> A real person!
>>
>> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
>> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
>> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
>> emergency response plan in place though!
>>
>
> So, the VT administration should have known that the A.M. shootings in
> the dorm were the "first phase" of a massacre, and planned
> accordingly? Is that your argument?
>
The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the first
shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not the
case.




   
Date: 18 Apr 2007 06:38:01
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 18, 8:12 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:59:41 GMT, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:11:17 GMT, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>>>The real idiocy is to allow anyone to have fully automatic weapons.
> >>>>Yeah, yeah, I know. The right to bear arms. That's bullshit when it
> >>>>comes to a weapon that has no use for hunting anything but humans.
>
> >>>Maybe so - but the Constitution isn't about hunting.
>
> >>What part of my post did not get through to you Howard? I can't
> >>expect you to read it again and comprehend that we agree I guess.
>
> >I won't argue, I won't put people down. But I will note, that I
> >re-read the quote above, and believe my reply was appropriate.
>
> It was a complete nonsequitur. Of course the Constitution isn't about
> hunting. I haven't seen anyone imply that. IMHO it also doesn't give
> citizens the right to bazookas either.
> --
Thanks, Bobby. It's true the Constitution isn't about hunting, but it
isn't about Glock 9MM's either. This kid walked into a gun store in
Roanoke, picked up a Glock and a box of shells, paid with a credit
card and walked out. Easy as that. I don't think that's what the 2nd
Amendment was designed to protect.



    
Date: 18 Apr 2007 13:53:01
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 18 Apr 2007 06:38:01 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Apr 18, 8:12 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>. Of course the Constitution isn't about
>> hunting. I haven't seen anyone imply that. IMHO it also doesn't give
>> citizens the right to bazookas either.

>> -->Thanks, Bobby. It's true the Constitution isn't about hunting, but it
>isn't about Glock 9MM's either. This kid walked into a gun store in
>Roanoke, picked up a Glock and a box of shells, paid with a credit
>card and walked out. Easy as that. I don't think that's what the 2nd
>Amendment was designed to protect.

We're in total agreement. The NRA shouts that guns don't kill people,
people kill people. Cho Seung Hui would be hard pressed to do what he
did without an automatic weapon. It's just too easy to buy such a
gun.

The fact that he scratched off the serial number seems to tell us that
this was planned well in advance.
___,
\o


     
Date: 18 Apr 2007 09:12:15
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:kr7c235ov58gtcr02ia3lc75qf1fp6nb1e@4ax.com...
> On 18 Apr 2007 06:38:01 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 18, 8:12 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>>. Of course the Constitution isn't about
>>> hunting. I haven't seen anyone imply that. IMHO it also doesn't give
>>> citizens the right to bazookas either.
>
>>> -->Thanks, Bobby. It's true the Constitution isn't about hunting, but it
>>isn't about Glock 9MM's either. This kid walked into a gun store in
>>Roanoke, picked up a Glock and a box of shells, paid with a credit
>>card and walked out. Easy as that. I don't think that's what the 2nd
>>Amendment was designed to protect.
>
> We're in total agreement. The NRA shouts that guns don't kill people,
> people kill people. Cho Seung Hui would be hard pressed to do what he
> did without an automatic weapon. It's just too easy to buy such a
> gun.
>
It was not automatic, semi.

> The fact that he scratched off the serial number seems to tell us that
> this was planned well in advance.
>
They are also tying him to the bomb threats earlier.




   
Date: 17 Apr 2007 14:09:08
From: sfb
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
VT has 8,000 students that don't live on campus many of whom were arriving
for their 8 AM classes. How, why, and where do you lock them down?

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:58ke8uF2h7u6vU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> The ENTIRE campus should have been locked down immediately after the first
> shooting. And remained locked down till the perp was found. This was not
> the case.
>




    
Date: 17 Apr 2007 14:03:10
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:MPmdnVxMnJPbkLjbnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@comcast.com...
> VT has 8,000 students that don't live on campus many of whom were arriving
> for their 8 AM classes. How, why, and where do you lock them down?
>
You lock up the dorms and halls, all of em.




     
Date: 18 Apr 2007 04:10:32
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 17-Apr-2007, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:MPmdnVxMnJPbkLjbnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@comcast.com...
> > VT has 8,000 students that don't live on campus many of whom were
> > arriving
> > for their 8 AM classes. How, why, and where do you lock them down?
> >
> You lock up the dorms and halls, all of em.

not possible...

--
bill-o

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


     
Date: 17 Apr 2007 19:13:06
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:03:10 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
>news:MPmdnVxMnJPbkLjbnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@comcast.com...
>> VT has 8,000 students that don't live on campus many of whom were arriving
>> for their 8 AM classes. How, why, and where do you lock them down?
>>
>You lock up the dorms and halls, all of em.
>
Then you'd be locking the majority of students OUT of buildings.

Since no on knew who, or where, the shooter was, he might have been
on top of a building and then those arriving students would be at
peril.

bk


      
Date: 17 Apr 2007 14:40:36
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:1q6a23d1ekaud0ap889et4g51nj904dvnn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:03:10 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
>>news:MPmdnVxMnJPbkLjbnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> VT has 8,000 students that don't live on campus many of whom were
>>> arriving
>>> for their 8 AM classes. How, why, and where do you lock them down?
>>>
>>You lock up the dorms and halls, all of em.
>>
> Then you'd be locking the majority of students OUT of buildings.
>
> Since no on knew who, or where, the shooter was, he might have been
> on top of a building and then those arriving students would be at
> peril.
>
There are alot more escape routes outside. After the first shooting the
place should have been swarming with cops outside.




 
Date: 17 Apr 2007 07:06:45
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Yeah.......people stink.

Haven't you been listening?



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 18:25:14
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 8:16 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2007 18:12:18 -0700, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 16, 4:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the real
> >> > laugh.
>
> >> Can't wait.
>
> >Actually, the shock would be if you ever posted on topic. Otherwise, I
> >could care less what you post. You couldn't even respond on the topic
> >of this thread!
>
> Spin, spin, spin. You were 180 degrees away from it all. Dummy.

I think he was talking about me. No worries, though, I've forgotten
more about golf than he will ever know.



  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 02:41:32
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 16 Apr 2007 18:25:14 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:

>I think he was talking about me. No worries, though, I've forgotten
>more about golf than he will ever know.

I've never quite agreed that this particular expression works.


   
Date: 17 Apr 2007 03:56:06
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


Howard Brazee wrote:

> On 16 Apr 2007 18:25:14 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I think he was talking about me. No worries, though, I've forgotten
> >more about golf than he will ever know.
>
> I've never quite agreed that this particular expression works.

I got a good laugh out of it!




 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 18:23:11
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 8:10 pm, The_Professor <d...@att.net > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:51 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm just waiting for you to break off the "midnight at the crossraods"
> > call. And they say "as long as I can play the blues"? Never heard
> > that one...
>
> I'll play what I feel like playing, and if you can't play the piece
> you describe, what you think doesn't mean much.

Settle down, settle down, Soul Man! No need to protest so much. It
was not so much a comment on your ability to play the guitar or any
song in the literal sense. I don't know and don't care. It was an
ironic statement on a Canadian (middle-aged?) white guy who considers
himself a bluesman. The only thing you have in common with blues
roots is that you live in the general vicinity of the cradle of its
origins.



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 18:12:18
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 4:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the real
> > laugh.
>
> Can't wait.

Actually, the shock would be if you ever posted on topic. Otherwise, I
could care less what you post. You couldn't even respond on the topic
of this thread!



  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 01:16:12
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 16 Apr 2007 18:12:18 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>On Apr 16, 4:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the real
>> > laugh.
>>
>> Can't wait.
>
>Actually, the shock would be if you ever posted on topic. Otherwise, I
>could care less what you post. You couldn't even respond on the topic
>of this thread!

Spin, spin, spin. You were 180 degrees away from it all. Dummy.
___,
\o


 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 18:10:06
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 7:51 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> I'm just waiting for you to break off the "midnight at the crossraods"
> call. And they say "as long as I can play the blues"? Never heard
> that one...

I'll play what I feel like playing, and if you can't play the piece
you describe, what you think doesn't mean much.



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 17:51:09
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 7:37 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net > wrote:

> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
> emergency response plan in place though!

Dude, you didn't even know what college it was, now you know the
intricacies of the situation? And FWIW, a VT student who escaped was
just interviewed by CNN summed this tragedy up as succinctly as
possible: "There's no reason to lay blame at the feet of anyone but
the guy who did this. He's responsible, and we should be mad at
him...no one else.

> I was glad I had learned to play some blues tunes and I got a goot
> feel for what they mean when they say "as long as I can play the
> blues...." in various songs about bad things happening when I went
> home for some lunch and turned on the TV. "How Long Blues" really
> worked for me.

I'm just waiting for you to break off the "midnight at the crossraods"
call. And they say "as long as I can play the blues"? Never heard
that one...




  
Date: 29 Apr 2007 06:55:19
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 28, 7:34 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:08:18 -0000, Chris Bellomy
>
> <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> >I'm just reaching for the most obvious example of how the
> >government can be exactly like individuals or businesses
> >here. There are many others.
>
> Unfortunately, for individuals and businesses, there is good debt and
> bad debt. I try to explain this to my wife. Spending money you don't
> have for things you don't need is exactly what the government does. In
> that way the government is like individuals. However, very little
> government debt ever produces a profit.


the only branch of the govt. that does this on a consistent basis is
the defense dept. it's the only one that has money to waste. all the
others havd been squeezed to the point that they can't afford to spend
money on things they don't need. non-defense discretionary spending as
a percentage of gdp has been declining for decades. the defense dept.
gets about a third of the federal budget. the state dept. gets less
than 1%.




   
Date: 29 Apr 2007 11:56:58
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 29 Apr 2007 06:55:19 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>all the
>others havd been squeezed to the point that they can't afford to spend
>money on things they don't need.


Yikes.


  
Date: 26 Apr 2007 06:07:55
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 25, 9:50 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2007 01:09:05 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >But the environment plays a huge role. If your family is wealthy and
> >powerful enough, you can spend half your life snorting coke and partying
> >and generally being a smirking dull normal loser and still end up
> >president.
>
> Al Gore was never President.

Not for not having been elected.



   
Date: 26 Apr 2007 10:03:02
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 26 Apr 2007 06:07:55 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Apr 25, 9:50 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2007 01:09:05 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >But the environment plays a huge role. If your family is wealthy and
>> >powerful enough, you can spend half your life snorting coke and partying
>> >and generally being a smirking dull normal loser and still end up
>> >president.
>>
>> Al Gore was never President.
>
>Not for not having been elected.

He lost the state that knew him best--his own home state of Tennessee.
Thank goodness, those good people saved this country from a disaster.

Larry


  
Date: 26 Apr 2007 11:11:17
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:50:48 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2007 01:09:05 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>But the environment plays a huge role. If your family is wealthy and
>>powerful enough, you can spend half your life snorting coke and partying
>>and generally being a smirking dull normal loser and still end up
>>president.
>
> Al Gore was never President.

Very good. :-)


  
Date: 26 Apr 2007 01:15:38
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:55:47 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:34:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:

>>> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
>>> rate.
>>
>>As for handguns, the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
>>at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
>>29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
>>US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
>>per 100,000 - the highest in Europe.
>
> Your responds is off the point Professor. Please read what I said
> carefully. I would suggest that you address the issue of gun
> ownership and homicide rate. There is no significant correlation. The
> stuff you posted is irrelevant to the issue.

You mean where the rate of gun ownership and the homicide rate are both
higher than most other first world countries?


   
Date: 27 Apr 2007 06:55:52
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <462ffd3a$0$9913$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:55:47 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:34:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
> >>> rate.
> >>
> >>As for handguns, the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
> >>at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
> >>29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
> >>US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
> >>per 100,000 - the highest in Europe.
> >
> > Your responds is off the point Professor. Please read what I said
> > carefully. I would suggest that you address the issue of gun
> > ownership and homicide rate. There is no significant correlation. The
> > stuff you posted is irrelevant to the issue.
>
> You mean where the rate of gun ownership and the homicide rate are both
> higher than most other first world countries?

Yes, but that's a little too difficult for them to grasp. Besides, the
NRA wouldn't allow it.

William Clark


  
Date: 26 Apr 2007 01:09:05
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:01:02 +0000, bill-o wrote:
> On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other things
>> leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't commit
>> violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
> Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty causes
> alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes nuculear
> bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People choose
> to commit crime or not.

But the environment plays a huge role. If your family is wealthy and
powerful enough, you can spend half your life snorting coke and partying
and generally being a smirking dull normal loser and still end up
president.


   
Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:48:40
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 26 Apr 2007 01:09:05 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:01:02 +0000, bill-o wrote:
>> On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>>> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>>> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other things
>>> leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't commit
>>> violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>>
>> Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty causes
>> alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes nuculear
>> bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People choose
>> to commit crime or not.
>
>But the environment plays a huge role. If your family is wealthy and
>powerful enough, you can spend half your life snorting coke and partying
>and generally being a smirking dull normal loser and still end up
>president.

That would be true if Gore had been elected. He did NOTHING before
riding his father's coattails to the Senate. He nearly flunked
Harvard undergrad, had to go in the Army as an enlisted man, flunked
Vanderbilt Law and even Divinity School. There are sworn affadavits
from his college neighbors saying all he did was smoke pot--fried his
brain-- which may account for why he talks like that.

In contrast, GW Bush had been a VERY hard working oil field worker,
out working in the humidity and sun with his hands and gaining the
respect of the laborers. Then he went to Yale undergrad, did well
enough to matriculate into Harvard MBA program (99% who apply are
rejected), and then graduated with a solid "B." Then he went into the
Air Force's flight training program-- was commissioned as an officer,
flew 500+ hours in the most dangerous jet fighter in the Air Force.
Then he ran for Governor of Texas against the very popular Ma
Richards--and beat her. He did such a good job that he was reelected
with 70% plurality-- ALL the Republicans and half the Democrats in
Texas voted for GW Bush.

Not quite lazy and stupid--and none of those things could have been
accomplished had he been drinking to excess or doing drugs.

GW Bush would be 70% popular today except for the Iraq war. He has
excelled in every other measure of a president's success. Our
economy is roaring, we have no inflation, no unemployment, the deficit
is going down while we are pouring money into Iraq and Afghanistan,
the stock market is reflecting his economic success.

Amazing that those who criticize him can never answer the question,
"what would you have done?" They know in their hearts that they
could have done no better-- and the most intelligent and responsible
among them would have done exactly what GW Bush did--even though they
would have known as he did that doing the right thing would trash
their popularity.

Larry


    
Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:36:57
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Here's a graph showing the National Debt. I thought Goldwater had
expressed great fiscal values. Too bad more politicians don't.

The deficit is a tax, and paying interest on the debt does not help
our economy.


     
Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:51:13
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:36:57 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>Here's a graph showing the National Debt. I thought Goldwater had
>expressed great fiscal values. Too bad more politicians don't.
>
>The deficit is a tax, and paying interest on the debt does not help
>our economy.

It's often said that the biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made was
to allow the government to borrow money for anything other than war.
There's no doubt that national debt is a deferred tax and an expensive
tax because there's interest payments associated with it.


      
Date: 28 Apr 2007 20:48:39
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:51:13 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>It's often said that the biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made was
>to allow the government to borrow money for anything other than war.
>There's no doubt that national debt is a deferred tax and an expensive
>tax because there's interest payments associated with it.

I would like to see a Constitutional amendment saying that when we
have a deficit - no department can have increased spending without the
same super majority vote that a declaration of war requires.

That allows for disaster relief.


       
Date: 28 Apr 2007 19:50:15
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:48:39 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:51:13 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>It's often said that the biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made was
>>to allow the government to borrow money for anything other than war.
>>There's no doubt that national debt is a deferred tax and an expensive
>>tax because there's interest payments associated with it.
>
>I would like to see a Constitutional amendment saying that when we
>have a deficit - no department can have increased spending without the
>same super majority vote that a declaration of war requires.
>
>That allows for disaster relief.

True. One of the things the the Republicans did when they controlled
Congress was to require a super majority (60%) to pass any tax bill.
Of course, the Democrats have ended that. It doesn't really matter
because they're going to need a 67% majority to pass any tax bill
because the President will veto any tax increase.


       
Date: 28 Apr 2007 21:13:20
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:51:13 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>It's often said that the biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made was
>>to allow the government to borrow money for anything other than war.
>>There's no doubt that national debt is a deferred tax and an expensive
>>tax because there's interest payments associated with it.
>
> I would like to see a Constitutional amendment saying that when we
> have a deficit - no department can have increased spending without the
> same super majority vote that a declaration of war requires.

Why stop there? Why not just pass a Constitutional amendment that
limits economic growth to 1% a year? Once that 1% is reached,
every business is required to shut down and everybody goes home.
Doesn't that sound great?

I realize that what you're proposing is essentially the same thing,
but as I see it it's better just to go straight to the desired
result.

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


        
Date: 28 Apr 2007 23:33:45
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:13:20 -0000, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>> I would like to see a Constitutional amendment saying that when we
>> have a deficit - no department can have increased spending without the
>> same super majority vote that a declaration of war requires.
>
>Why stop there? Why not just pass a Constitutional amendment that
>limits economic growth to 1% a year? Once that 1% is reached,
>every business is required to shut down and everybody goes home.
>Doesn't that sound great?
>
>I realize that what you're proposing is essentially the same thing,
>but as I see it it's better just to go straight to the desired
>result.

Improved economy from not over-taxing small businesses will increase
the tax revenues, so government will grow. Growing the government
from the increase of wealth of the people works quite well.


         
Date: 28 Apr 2007 23:56:40
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:13:20 -0000, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I would like to see a Constitutional amendment saying that when we
>>> have a deficit - no department can have increased spending without the
>>> same super majority vote that a declaration of war requires.
>>
>>Why stop there? Why not just pass a Constitutional amendment that
>>limits economic growth to 1% a year? Once that 1% is reached,
>>every business is required to shut down and everybody goes home.
>>Doesn't that sound great?
>>
>>I realize that what you're proposing is essentially the same thing,
>>but as I see it it's better just to go straight to the desired
>>result.
>
> Improved economy from not over-taxing small businesses will increase
> the tax revenues, so government will grow.

Well, one way not to over-tax them is to let them all go out of
business, so I guess you solved that problem!

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


      
Date: 28 Apr 2007 07:22:59
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:36:57 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Here's a graph showing the National Debt. I thought Goldwater had
>>expressed great fiscal values. Too bad more politicians don't.
>>
>>The deficit is a tax, and paying interest on the debt does not help
>>our economy.
>
> It's often said that the biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made was
> to allow the government to borrow money for anything other than war.
> There's no doubt that national debt is a deferred tax and an expensive
> tax because there's interest payments associated with it.

By that logic, borrowing to buy a house is always a mistake because
the interest is always so onerous. For that matter, borrowing to
build a business is always a mistake. Right?

Some things are worth paying the interest. It's really that simple.
Some things aren't and it's certainly a fair point of debate to
figure out what's what, but it's silly to blanketly condemn debt
when it obviously has been leveraged to such productive purposes
over and over again in our history.

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


       
Date: 28 Apr 2007 11:11:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:22:59 -0000, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>> It's often said that the biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made was
>> to allow the government to borrow money for anything other than war.
>> There's no doubt that national debt is a deferred tax and an expensive
>> tax because there's interest payments associated with it.
>
>By that logic, borrowing to buy a house is always a mistake because
>the interest is always so onerous. For that matter, borrowing to
>build a business is always a mistake. Right?


Individuals and businesses are not the same as the government. As has
been pointed out, deficit spending is really a deferred tax. The
government always has the ability to raise taxes to cover what
expenses it has. Incurring debt is not necessary. In times of war,
especially during poor economic times, the government can't raise
taxes to cover the war expenditures, In that case, borrowing becomes
necessary.

Business organizations borrow money for the purpose of making money.
Buying real property is one of the best investments an individual can
make and the bank also makes money lending it to them.


        
Date: 28 Apr 2007 16:08:18
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:22:59 -0000, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> It's often said that the biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made was
>>> to allow the government to borrow money for anything other than war.
>>> There's no doubt that national debt is a deferred tax and an expensive
>>> tax because there's interest payments associated with it.
>>
>>By that logic, borrowing to buy a house is always a mistake because
>>the interest is always so onerous. For that matter, borrowing to
>>build a business is always a mistake. Right?
>
> Individuals and businesses are not the same as the government.

Why not?

When the government purposely incurs debt to pump money
into a moribund economy and stimulate job growth, how is
that not a long-term positive for the public coffers?

I'm just reaching for the most obvious example of how the
government can be exactly like individuals or businesses
here. There are many others.

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


         
Date: 28 Apr 2007 19:34:56
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:08:18 -0000, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>I'm just reaching for the most obvious example of how the
>government can be exactly like individuals or businesses
>here. There are many others.

Unfortunately, for individuals and businesses, there is good debt and
bad debt. I try to explain this to my wife. Spending money you don't
have for things you don't need is exactly what the government does. In
that way the government is like individuals. However, very little
government debt ever produces a profit.


          
Date: 28 Apr 2007 23:55:58
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:08:18 -0000, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I'm just reaching for the most obvious example of how the
>>government can be exactly like individuals or businesses
>>here. There are many others.
>
> Unfortunately, for individuals and businesses, there is good debt and
> bad debt.

Also true for government.

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


           
Date: 29 Apr 2007 11:44:26
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:55:58 -0000, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:08:18 -0000, Chris Bellomy
>> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm just reaching for the most obvious example of how the
>>>government can be exactly like individuals or businesses
>>>here. There are many others.
>>
>> Unfortunately, for individuals and businesses, there is good debt and
>> bad debt.
>
>Also true for government.

To some extent, but if you look at the national debt, most of it is
bad. The government can stimulate the economy with spending, but
those dollars would do a lot more good if the government never had
them in the first place.


            
Date: 29 Apr 2007 16:58:07
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:55:58 -0000, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:08:18 -0000, Chris Bellomy
>>> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm just reaching for the most obvious example of how the
>>>>government can be exactly like individuals or businesses
>>>>here. There are many others.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, for individuals and businesses, there is good debt and
>>> bad debt.
>>
>>Also true for government.
>
> To some extent, but if you look at the national debt, most of it is
> bad.

Maybe. Maybe not. I think this is the point at which reasonable
can and should disagree. You and I certainly agree that at least
some government debt is wasteful, so we have that common basis.

Here's an example of good debt, though: The economy is stalled.
Inflation is low as are interest rates. Job and wage growth are
practically nonexistent. So the government pumps several billion
dollars of deficit spending into public works programs (roads,
bridges, various infrastructure stuff). This stimulates jobs
and wages, which stimulates economic growth which stimulates
interest rates which stimulates business lending which creates
a virtuous spiral of economic activity. Meanwhile, the loosening
of currency (deficit spending) creates enough inflation that
the dollars the government pays to retire the incurred debt are
cheaper than the ones it spent in the first place. (This is the
same phenomenon one sees in 30-year home loans, where the last
several years of payments are effectively trivial compared to
the first several years at the same amount because inflation
has made dollars cheaper.) Tax revenues rise, people are working
and prospering, everybody wins.

Some people think we need a Constitutional amendment to make sure
things like that never happen.

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


            
Date: 29 Apr 2007 16:27:55
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:44:26 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>>> Unfortunately, for individuals and businesses, there is good debt and
>>> bad debt.
>>
>>Also true for government.
>
>To some extent, but if you look at the national debt, most of it is
>bad. The government can stimulate the economy with spending, but
>those dollars would do a lot more good if the government never had
>them in the first place.

Businesses borrow with a business plan to use that money for an
economic benefit to the company. Politicians borrow without regard
to economic benefit of our country as a whole. They'll gladly
impoverish neighboring states to pay for boondoggles in their own
states.


             
Date: 30 Apr 2007 05:58:24
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 29-Apr-2007, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:

> >To some extent, but if you look at the national debt, most of it is
> >bad. The government can stimulate the economy with spending, but
> >those dollars would do a lot more good if the government never had
> >them in the first place.
>
> Businesses borrow with a business plan to use that money for an
> economic benefit to the company. Politicians borrow without regard
> to economic benefit of our country as a whole. They'll gladly
> impoverish neighboring states to pay for boondoggles in their own
> states.

The most urgent need that precipitates such "borrowing" is their own
re-election!

--
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 19:31:59
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:08:18 -0000, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>Why not?
>
>When the government purposely incurs debt to pump money
>into a moribund economy and stimulate job growth, how is
>that not a long-term positive for the public coffers?

The best way for the government to stimulate the economy is to cut
spending and reduce taxes.


          
Date: 28 Apr 2007 23:55:30
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:08:18 -0000, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Why not?
>>
>>When the government purposely incurs debt to pump money
>>into a moribund economy and stimulate job growth, how is
>>that not a long-term positive for the public coffers?
>
> The best way for the government to stimulate the economy is to cut
> spending and reduce taxes.

Ya know, if somebody could produce even one example of that ever
actually doing any good, it would be a lot easier to take seriously.

Every time FDR tried to trim spending during the New Deal, the
economy immediately lagged. There are times when deficit spending
is the best medicine.

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


           
Date: 29 Apr 2007 10:21:12
From: BAR
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:08:18 -0000, Chris Bellomy
>> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> When the government purposely incurs debt to pump money
>>> into a moribund economy and stimulate job growth, how is
>>> that not a long-term positive for the public coffers?
>> The best way for the government to stimulate the economy is to cut
>> spending and reduce taxes.
>
> Ya know, if somebody could produce even one example of that ever
> actually doing any good, it would be a lot easier to take seriously.

Would you care to define "actually doing any good?"

> Every time FDR tried to trim spending during the New Deal, the
> economy immediately lagged. There are times when deficit spending
> is the best medicine.

What about Kennedy's reduction of taxes? What about Reagan's reduction
of taxes? Did or did not the government's tax revenue increase
subsequent to those events?



            
Date: 29 Apr 2007 16:42:51
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
BAR <screwed@you.com > wrote:
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:08:18 -0000, Chris Bellomy
>>> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>>
>>>> When the government purposely incurs debt to pump money
>>>> into a moribund economy and stimulate job growth, how is
>>>> that not a long-term positive for the public coffers?
>>> The best way for the government to stimulate the economy is to cut
>>> spending and reduce taxes.
>>
>> Ya know, if somebody could produce even one example of that ever
>> actually doing any good, it would be a lot easier to take seriously.
>
> Would you care to define "actually doing any good?"

Results in job and wage growth.

>> Every time FDR tried to trim spending during the New Deal, the
>> economy immediately lagged. There are times when deficit spending
>> is the best medicine.
>
> What about Kennedy's reduction of taxes?

Kennedy lowered taxes for the middle class (not for the rich)
and didn't cut expenses. Results: so-so.

> What about Reagan's reduction of taxes?

Reagan raised taxes seven of his eight years in office. He also
raised spending even faster, sending the deficit into previously
unimagined territory.

> Did or did not the government's tax revenue increase
> subsequent to those events?

Under JFK: no. Under Reagan, yes, the seven tax increases did
increase tax revenue.

If you want a good example of an administration that tried cutting
taxes and spending to bring an economy around, you need look no
further than Jimmy Carter in 1978. How did that turn out?

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


    
Date: 26 Apr 2007 16:24:58
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:48:40 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>That would be true if Gore had been elected. He did NOTHING before
>riding his father's coattails to the Senate. He nearly flunked
>Harvard undergrad, had to go in the Army as an enlisted man, flunked
>Vanderbilt Law and even Divinity School. There are sworn affadavits
>from his college neighbors saying all he did was smoke pot--fried his
>brain-- which may account for why he talks like that.

Al Gore had to have dropped some acid along the way and fell in love
with a tree.


    
Date: 26 Apr 2007 11:50:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:48:40 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>GW Bush would be 70% popular today except for the Iraq war. He has
>excelled in every other measure of a president's success. Our
>economy is roaring, we have no inflation, no unemployment, the deficit
>is going down while we are pouring money into Iraq and Afghanistan,
>the stock market is reflecting his economic success.

Our economy would be roaring, inflation would be down, and the deficit
would be going down if it weren't for the huge tax of the war. (His
tax cut would have worked if it hadn't been combined with the deficit
(which is a tax)).

But "except for" cannot be ignored. The average person is finding
it harder to make ends meet. Small towns are dying.

And the war has not made us safer. He has not shared with us any
concept that we can win it. How will we know when we have won? When
the president declares "mission accomplished"? We have seen how
prepared our homeland defense has been - since one of its tasks is to
prepare for natural disasters. We aren't safer from the state
stretching our Constitutional safeguards.

With all of his business friends, he should know that the government
needs to run with objectives and standards. The war needs measurable
objectives.

Heck, my golf game needs measurable objectives.


     
Date: 26 Apr 2007 11:14:33
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:50:42 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:48:40 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>GW Bush would be 70% popular today except for the Iraq war. He has
>>excelled in every other measure of a president's success. Our
>>economy is roaring, we have no inflation, no unemployment, the deficit
>>is going down while we are pouring money into Iraq and Afghanistan,
>>the stock market is reflecting his economic success.
>
>Our economy would be roaring, inflation would be down, and the deficit
>would be going down if it weren't for the huge tax of the war. (His
>tax cut would have worked if it hadn't been combined with the deficit
>(which is a tax)).
>
>But "except for" cannot be ignored. The average person is finding
>it harder to make ends meet. Small towns are dying.
>
>And the war has not made us safer.

Every marine and soldier returning from Iraq or Afghanistan and seen
Al Queda close up- realizes the stark reality of their absolute
ruthless drive to kill us. They dread when Al Queda brings their act
to America. When Radical Islam starts suicide bombing in your town--
in the main office of where you work--on airlines, on subways, on 5th
and Broadway of NYC, you will realize that we were safe only as long
as they were fighting us in Iraq. Our media has allowed us to think
of Radical Islam only as an abstract concept-- that could not happen
here-again. But it will. They are in a "1000 year war" against
Infidels. Iraq is only a skirmish in that war.

"He has not shared with us any concept that we can win it. How
will we know when we have won?"

Because of the short attention span of Americans and political
realities in this country-- no president can be honest with the
American people and not lose political power for his party. The
people fed propaganda by the liberal media won't believe this is an
emergency until another 9/11 or worse happens. He cannot tell you
that we will not "win" against Radical Islam in our lifetime--not in
Afghanistan, not in Iraq, not in the PI, or around the world. Infidels
cannot "win" until at least the current generation of radicalized
mulims has been held at bay --until the next generations is less
radical--than those 22 educated Saudis who did 9/11. We are in a
holding action; we just want to prevent attacks day to day.


I can't imagine why anyone serious would want to be president-- and
almost certainly preside over our recovery from more 9/11 type
attacks--or much worse!

Larry


   
Date: 25 Apr 2007 21:50:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 26 Apr 2007 01:09:05 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com >
wrote:

>But the environment plays a huge role. If your family is wealthy and
>powerful enough, you can spend half your life snorting coke and partying
>and generally being a smirking dull normal loser and still end up
>president.

Al Gore was never President.


  
Date: 24 Apr 2007 07:59:18
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 23, 4:37 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177355692.395705.247330@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 2:16 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1177350565.421104.280440@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 23, 12:52 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:1177345524.973012.101440@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Apr 23, 11:26 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:462c216d$0$25234$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> >> >> >> > On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes
> >> >> >> >> hunger.
> >> >> >> >> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require
> >> >> >> >> money
> >> >> >> >> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> >> >> >> >> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> >> >> >> >> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
> >> >> >> > Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty
> >> >> >> > causes
> >> >> >> > alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes
> >> >> >> > nuculear
> >> >> >> > bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People
> >> >> >> > choose
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > commit crime or not.
> >> >> >> > --
>
> >> >> >> I just looked into my wallet and I only have $1. Therefore I need
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> rob
> >> >> >> somebody right after I score some crack. :-)
>
> >> >> > Ok, look at it this way. Where are you more likely to be robbed on
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > street -- the Suoth Bronx or the Upper East Side? Is someone who
> >> >> > robs
> >> >> > you or breaks into your house or steals your car more likely to be
> >> >> > rich or poor?
>
> >> >> In my neighborhood I would have to say rich.
>
> >> > That's the best you can do?
>
> >> It's all I need replying to your garbage.
>
> > In other words, yes, it's the best you can do. I thought so.
>
> You asked a question, I answered, what the hell do you want? Jesus you're
> dense.

Sorry, I should have specified an INTELLIGENT answer. My bad.



  
Date: 23 Apr 2007 12:14:52
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 23, 2:16 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177350565.421104.280440@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 12:52 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1177345524.973012.101440@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 23, 11:26 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:462c216d$0$25234$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> >> >> > On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes
> >> >> >> hunger.
> >> >> >> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require
> >> >> >> money
> >> >> >> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> >> >> >> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> >> >> >> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
> >> >> > Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty
> >> >> > causes
> >> >> > alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes
> >> >> > nuculear
> >> >> > bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People
> >> >> > choose
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > commit crime or not.
> >> >> > --
>
> >> >> I just looked into my wallet and I only have $1. Therefore I need to
> >> >> rob
> >> >> somebody right after I score some crack. :-)
>
> >> > Ok, look at it this way. Where are you more likely to be robbed on the
> >> > street -- the Suoth Bronx or the Upper East Side? Is someone who robs
> >> > you or breaks into your house or steals your car more likely to be
> >> > rich or poor?
>
> >> In my neighborhood I would have to say rich.
>
> > That's the best you can do?
>
> It's all I need replying to your garbage.

In other words, yes, it's the best you can do. I thought so.



   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 15:37:36
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177355692.395705.247330@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 2:16 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177350565.421104.280440@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 12:52 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1177345524.973012.101440@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Apr 23, 11:26 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:462c216d$0$25234$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>>
>> >> >> > On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes
>> >> >> >> hunger.
>> >> >> >> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require
>> >> >> >> money
>> >> >> >> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>> >> >> >> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>> >> >> >> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>>
>> >> >> > Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty
>> >> >> > causes
>> >> >> > alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes
>> >> >> > nuculear
>> >> >> > bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People
>> >> >> > choose
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > commit crime or not.
>> >> >> > --
>>
>> >> >> I just looked into my wallet and I only have $1. Therefore I need
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> rob
>> >> >> somebody right after I score some crack. :-)
>>
>> >> > Ok, look at it this way. Where are you more likely to be robbed on
>> >> > the
>> >> > street -- the Suoth Bronx or the Upper East Side? Is someone who
>> >> > robs
>> >> > you or breaks into your house or steals your car more likely to be
>> >> > rich or poor?
>>
>> >> In my neighborhood I would have to say rich.
>>
>> > That's the best you can do?
>>
>> It's all I need replying to your garbage.
>
> In other words, yes, it's the best you can do. I thought so.
>
You asked a question, I answered, what the hell do you want? Jesus you're
dense.




  
Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:30:13
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 23, 1:23 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:12:50 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >bill-o wrote:
>
> >> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
> >> > remain?
>
> >> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>
> >Depending on how you look at it, I would disagree. The arguement is a fine
> >line. Antisocial behavior leads to poverty, but poverty does not cause
> >antisocial behavior.
>
> Poor breeding, lack of class, etc. Same cause as the gratuitous
> personal insults we see posted here.
>
> Larry

Does it ever occur to you that the only person who falls victim to
these gratuitous, personal insults is you?



   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 16:15:51
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 23 Apr 2007 11:30:13 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Apr 23, 1:23 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:12:50 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >bill-o wrote:
>>
>> >> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>> >> > remain?
>>
>> >> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>>
>> >Depending on how you look at it, I would disagree. The arguement is a fine
>> >line. Antisocial behavior leads to poverty, but poverty does not cause
>> >antisocial behavior.
>>
>> Poor breeding, lack of class, etc. Same cause as the gratuitous
>> personal insults we see posted here.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Does it ever occur to you that the only person who falls victim to
>these gratuitous, personal insults is you?

Not one of the mindless RSG pack you say? Should I be ashamed of
that? Whew!

Larry (KING of RSG)


    
Date: 24 Apr 2007 08:42:42
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <0gfq23to6m0cetjckoqg1p41mg4nh128pt@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On 23 Apr 2007 11:30:13 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 23, 1:23 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:12:50 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >bill-o wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
> >> >> > remain?
> >>
> >> >> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
> >>
> >> >Depending on how you look at it, I would disagree. The arguement is a fine
> >> >line. Antisocial behavior leads to poverty, but poverty does not cause
> >> >antisocial behavior.
> >>
> >> Poor breeding, lack of class, etc. Same cause as the gratuitous
> >> personal insults we see posted here.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Does it ever occur to you that the only person who falls victim to
> >these gratuitous, personal insults is you?
>
> Not one of the mindless RSG pack you say? Should I be ashamed of
> that? Whew!
>
> Larry (KING of RSG)

I think Larry's gone off his medication again.

William Clark


   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 18:39:23
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 23 Apr 2007 11:30:13 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Apr 23, 1:23 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:12:50 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >bill-o wrote:
>>
>> >> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>> >> > remain?
>>
>> >> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>>
>> >Depending on how you look at it, I would disagree. The arguement is a fine
>> >line. Antisocial behavior leads to poverty, but poverty does not cause
>> >antisocial behavior.
>>
>> Poor breeding, lack of class, etc. Same cause as the gratuitous
>> personal insults we see posted here.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Does it ever occur to you that the only person who falls victim to
>these gratuitous, personal insults is you?

It doesn't occur to him that the word gratuitous is incorrect with
regard to insults toward him.. It means unwarranted. :-)


  
Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:29:13
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 23, 1:08 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2007 07:45:56 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
> >> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
> >> > remain?
>
> >> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>
> >> --
> >> bill-o
>
> >It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
> >Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
> >to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> >things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> >commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
> Actually you have it backward. A lack of industry causes poor grades
> and poor job performance. That causes poor income and that causes
> hunger, poor housing, etc. Those who work hard, prosper. Those who
> are lazy usually fail.

My orginal premise may have holes in it, but this is just plain
stupid. Poverty is simply a result of laziness? Do you live in a cave?



   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 16:14:53
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 23 Apr 2007 11:29:13 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Apr 23, 1:08 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>> On 21 Apr 2007 07:45:56 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>> >> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>> >> > remain?
>>
>> >> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> bill-o
>>
>> >It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>> >Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>> >to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>> >things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>> >commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>>
>> Actually you have it backward. A lack of industry causes poor grades
>> and poor job performance. That causes poor income and that causes
>> hunger, poor housing, etc. Those who work hard, prosper. Those who
>> are lazy usually fail.
>
>My orginal premise may have holes in it, but this is just plain
>stupid. Poverty is simply a result of laziness? Do you live in a cave?

Didn't you go to public school? Maybe you didn't notice that those
who didn't turn in their homework and those who didn't study failed
the classes-- and eventually they dropped out. Didn't you see those
same guys flipping burgers? You certainly didn't see them driving a
shiny new car-- unless they stole it.

Starting early in our lives there is nearly a 100% correlation between
our worth ethic and our success-- and our financial worth. Them that
work hard-- have "stuff." Them that didn't have little-- and I don't
care about them because their status is their own fault.

Larry


    
Date: 26 Apr 2007 01:00:09
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:23:32 -0700, larry wrote:

> Are you saying someone who became a jet pilot, then Governor of Texas
> (reelected with the largest plurality in history), then President of the
> US twice is a failure? He has risen above 300 MILLION other Americans.
> He didn't do that because he is lazy or stupid.

You're right. He's lazy AND stupid.


     
Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:30:30
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 26 Apr 2007 01:00:09 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com >
wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:23:32 -0700, larry wrote:
>
>> Are you saying someone who became a jet pilot, then Governor of Texas
>> (reelected with the largest plurality in history), then President of the
>> US twice is a failure? He has risen above 300 MILLION other Americans.
>> He didn't do that because he is lazy or stupid.
>
>You're right. He's lazy AND stupid.

Ridiculous reading posts of people who are not qualified to carry his
briefcase. You write seething invective about someone you could only
hope to emulate. GW Bush has achieved FAR more that anyone here--
even before he became Governor or President. And you have the gall
to call him lazy and stupid. If you don't have a Harvard PhD to
better his Harvard MBA, or if you haven't qualified to fly a more
difficult jet than his F-102, tell us what gives you the right to
call him "lazy and stupid?"

Larry


      
Date: 26 Apr 2007 12:53:15
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:mgk133dmrg3dsrbq6bh1ib31vlocmknb5o@4ax.com...
> On 26 Apr 2007 01:00:09 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:23:32 -0700, larry wrote:
>>
>>> Are you saying someone who became a jet pilot, then Governor of Texas
>>> (reelected with the largest plurality in history), then President of the
>>> US twice is a failure? He has risen above 300 MILLION other Americans.
>>> He didn't do that because he is lazy or stupid.
>>
>>You're right. He's lazy AND stupid.
>
> Ridiculous reading posts of people who are not qualified to carry his
> briefcase. You write seething invective about someone you could only
> hope to emulate. GW Bush has achieved FAR more that anyone here--
> even before he became Governor or President. And you have the gall
> to call him lazy and stupid. If you don't have a Harvard PhD to
> better his Harvard MBA, or if you haven't qualified to fly a more
> difficult jet than his F-102, tell us what gives you the right to
> call him "lazy and stupid?"
>
> Larry

You're right Larry. I don't get where these people believe this stuff. GWB
has worked VERY hard to fuck up this country.




       
Date: 26 Apr 2007 10:18:58
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:53:15 -0400, "BigPurdueFan"
<BigPurdueFan@insightbb.com > wrote:

>
>"larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote in message
>news:mgk133dmrg3dsrbq6bh1ib31vlocmknb5o@4ax.com...
>> On 26 Apr 2007 01:00:09 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:23:32 -0700, larry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you saying someone who became a jet pilot, then Governor of Texas
>>>> (reelected with the largest plurality in history), then President of the
>>>> US twice is a failure? He has risen above 300 MILLION other Americans.
>>>> He didn't do that because he is lazy or stupid.
>>>
>>>You're right. He's lazy AND stupid.
>>
>> Ridiculous reading posts of people who are not qualified to carry his
>> briefcase. You write seething invective about someone you could only
>> hope to emulate. GW Bush has achieved FAR more that anyone here--
>> even before he became Governor or President. And you have the gall
>> to call him lazy and stupid. If you don't have a Harvard PhD to
>> better his Harvard MBA, or if you haven't qualified to fly a more
>> difficult jet than his F-102, tell us what gives you the right to
>> call him "lazy and stupid?"
>>
>> Larry
>
>You're right Larry. I don't get where these people believe this stuff. GWB
>has worked VERY hard to fuck up this country.

Easy to say. What would you have done--knowing what he knew at the
time of the decisions???? Now we know exactly what he knew-- and we
know the reasons he decided to order the invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq. We know the president was told that Radical Islam was already
in the US in sleeper cells, just like those before 9/11--and that
other radicals were planning future 9/11 attacks. Ben Ladin had
written that future attacks would FAR overshadow the measly 3000
killed. So, it is your responsibility; you took the oath to "protect
and defend," what would you have done????

On every other measurement, GW Bush has excelled as President.

Larry


        
Date: 26 Apr 2007 12:54:00
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:18:58 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>Easy to say. What would you have done--knowing what he knew at the
>time of the decisions???? Now we know exactly what he knew-- and we
>know the reasons he decided to order the invasions of Afghanistan and
>Iraq.

We know that his intelligence was wrong. And that his responsibility
was to make sure it was right.

>On every other measurement, GW Bush has excelled as President.

There are a million other measurements. But I like the following:

Am I better off than I was 8 years ago?
Am I safer than I was 8 years ago?
Is the country more free than it was 8 years ago?
Are people confident about the future of the country?
Do I have reason to trust my government?
Are our Constitutional freedoms stronger than they were 8 years ago?
Do we have more enemies than we had 8 years ago?
Do we have more friends than we had 8 years ago?
Is our bureaucracy stifling small business or helping it (compared to
8 years ago)?

And:
Did he do a good enough job so that his policies will be embraced by
his successor?


         
Date: 26 Apr 2007 15:43:31
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:54:00 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:18:58 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Easy to say. What would you have done--knowing what he knew at the
>>time of the decisions???? Now we know exactly what he knew-- and we
>>know the reasons he decided to order the invasions of Afghanistan and
>>Iraq.
>
>We know that his intelligence was wrong. And that his responsibility
>was to make sure it was right.
>
>>On every other measurement, GW Bush has excelled as President.
>
>There are a million other measurements. But I like the following:
>
>Am I better off than I was 8 years ago?
>Am I safer than I was 8 years ago?
>Is the country more free than it was 8 years ago?
>Are people confident about the future of the country?
>Do I have reason to trust my government?
>Are our Constitutional freedoms stronger than they were 8 years ago?
>Do we have more enemies than we had 8 years ago?
>Do we have more friends than we had 8 years ago?
>Is our bureaucracy stifling small business or helping it (compared to
>8 years ago)?
>
>And:
>Did he do a good enough job so that his policies will be embraced by
>his successor?

So, regarding each of those questions, what would you have done,
knowing what he knew at the time???. You will have no
answer--because nobody has a sensible answer to that question-- you
criticize, but you have no answer-- because there were no good
choices. Bush asked the "best and the brightest" and they had no
answers other than what he did. He had to prevent a series of 9/11
attacks-- and the only way to do that was to launch intelligence
attacks against Al Queda and to invade Iraq to sap their energy there.
He knew they could not allow Iraq to become a free republic in the
middle of Arabia. Bush could NOT allow Syria and Iran to take over
Iraq and then with Russia control 80% of the world's oil. They would
have had us hostage. Bush SHOULD have been impeached if he had
allowed that to happen.

It is just silly to say the jpresident "should have known." He asked
his CIA director (a Clinton hold-over) and he was told the best
information from this and every free world government intelligence
service. They ALL thought Saddam had WMD and was planning attacks on
the US. If you had been president you would have known only what GW
Bush knew at the time. And if you are responsible, you would have
done what he did. Today you would be 30% popular.

Larry


          
Date: 27 Apr 2007 01:05:31
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <a9a233ppf3qm9201ktlhqf2mrslm0sf185@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:54:00 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:18:58 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Easy to say. What would you have done--knowing what he knew at the
> >>time of the decisions???? Now we know exactly what he knew-- and we
> >>know the reasons he decided to order the invasions of Afghanistan and
> >>Iraq.
> >
> >We know that his intelligence was wrong. And that his responsibility
> >was to make sure it was right.
> >
> >>On every other measurement, GW Bush has excelled as President.
> >
> >There are a million other measurements. But I like the following:
> >
> >Am I better off than I was 8 years ago?
> >Am I safer than I was 8 years ago?
> >Is the country more free than it was 8 years ago?
> >Are people confident about the future of the country?
> >Do I have reason to trust my government?
> >Are our Constitutional freedoms stronger than they were 8 years ago?
> >Do we have more enemies than we had 8 years ago?
> >Do we have more friends than we had 8 years ago?
> >Is our bureaucracy stifling small business or helping it (compared to
> >8 years ago)?
> >
> >And:
> >Did he do a good enough job so that his policies will be embraced by
> >his successor?
>
> So, regarding each of those questions, what would you have done,
> knowing what he knew at the time???. You will have no
> answer--because nobody has a sensible answer to that question-- you
> criticize, but you have no answer-- because there were no good
> choices. Bush asked the "best and the brightest" and they had no
> answers other than what he did. He had to prevent a series of 9/11
> attacks-- and the only way to do that was to launch intelligence
> attacks against Al Queda and to invade Iraq to sap their energy there.
> He knew they could not allow Iraq to become a free republic in the
> middle of Arabia. Bush could NOT allow Syria and Iran to take over
> Iraq and then with Russia control 80% of the world's oil. They would
> have had us hostage. Bush SHOULD have been impeached if he had
> allowed that to happen.
>
> It is just silly to say the jpresident "should have known." He asked
> his CIA director (a Clinton hold-over) and he was told the best
> information from this and every free world government intelligence
> service. They ALL thought Saddam had WMD and was planning attacks on
> the US. If you had been president you would have known only what GW
> Bush knew at the time. And if you are responsible, you would have
> done what he did. Today you would be 30% popular.
>
> Larry

Funny you didn't mention how he shouldn't have been listening to this
Clinton hold-over when you were insisting that he had to go into Iraq to
get the WMDs....

--
"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 00:51:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:43:31 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>It is just silly to say the jpresident "should have known." He asked
>his CIA director (a Clinton hold-over) and he was told the best
>information from this and every free world government intelligence
>service. They ALL thought Saddam had WMD and was planning attacks on
>the US. If you had been president you would have known only what GW
>Bush knew at the time. And if you are responsible, you would have
>done what he did. Today you would be 30% popular.

It could be. And I would have deserved such a failing grade.


    
Date: 24 Apr 2007 13:39:57
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:14:53 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>Didn't you go to public school? Maybe you didn't notice that those
>who didn't turn in their homework and those who didn't study failed
>the classes-- and eventually they dropped out. Didn't you see those
>same guys flipping burgers? You certainly didn't see them driving a
>shiny new car-- unless they stole it.
>
>Starting early in our lives there is nearly a 100% correlation between
>our worth ethic and our success-- and our financial worth. Them that
>work hard-- have "stuff." Them that didn't have little-- and I don't
>care about them because their status is their own fault.
>
>Larry

Them that went to public school and didn't learn English can buy shiny
new cars. Right?
--
___,
\o


   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 13:32:07
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177352953.272293.253960@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Apr 23, 1:08 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> > On 21 Apr 2007 07:45:56 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
> > >> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
> > >> > remain?
> >
> > >> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
> >
> > >> --
> > >> bill-o
> >
> > >It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
> > >Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
> > >to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> > >things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> > >commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
> >
> > Actually you have it backward. A lack of industry causes poor grades
> > and poor job performance. That causes poor income and that causes
> > hunger, poor housing, etc. Those who work hard, prosper. Those who
> > are lazy usually fail.
>
> My orginal premise may have holes in it, but this is just plain
> stupid. Poverty is simply a result of laziness? Do you live in a cave?

He pretty much does. Along with the "I've got mine, screw you" crowd.


    
Date: 23 Apr 2007 16:05:19
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:32:07 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>Along with the "I've got mine, screw you" crowd.

I'm in the "I worked hard to get what I got and if you didn't, you
deserve to be poor." crowd.


     
Date: 23 Apr 2007 18:32:30
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <p84q235k194ocjv5s83q4rp3mv341edmjj@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:32:07 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >Along with the "I've got mine, screw you" crowd.
>
> I'm in the "I worked hard to get what I got and if you didn't, you
> deserve to be poor." crowd.

How about those that work hard but still don't get much? There are lots
of them around. Many of them have jobs that are what they are capable
of doing, but don't pay much.

You see them every day. The guy picking up the trash, the janitor in
your office just to name a couple.

I have no sympathy for those that are poor that won't work, but for
those working poor, it is a different feeling.


      
Date: 23 Apr 2007 20:07:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:32:30 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <p84q235k194ocjv5s83q4rp3mv341edmjj@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:32:07 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Along with the "I've got mine, screw you" crowd.
>>
>> I'm in the "I worked hard to get what I got and if you didn't, you
>> deserve to be poor." crowd.
>
>How about those that work hard but still don't get much? There are lots
>of them around. Many of them have jobs that are what they are capable
>of doing, but don't pay much.
>
>You see them every day. The guy picking up the trash, the janitor in
>your office just to name a couple.
>
>I have no sympathy for those that are poor that won't work, but for
>those working poor, it is a different feeling.


It's sad to see people who try hard to get ahead but just don't have
the brains to do anything more than a menial job. Life isn't fair.
Half of the people in the world are of below average intelligence. Not
everyone can be rich. However, there are also a lot of poor people
who are there because of their own unwillingness to use the gifts that
God gave them. These people deserve to be poor.


       
Date: 23 Apr 2007 19:17:50
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <aqhq23tvvfii0m4838g0ro5i2gao4nv3vf@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:32:30 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <p84q235k194ocjv5s83q4rp3mv341edmjj@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:32:07 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> >> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Along with the "I've got mine, screw you" crowd.
> >>
> >> I'm in the "I worked hard to get what I got and if you didn't, you
> >> deserve to be poor." crowd.
> >
> >How about those that work hard but still don't get much? There are lots
> >of them around. Many of them have jobs that are what they are capable
> >of doing, but don't pay much.
> >
> >You see them every day. The guy picking up the trash, the janitor in
> >your office just to name a couple.
> >
> >I have no sympathy for those that are poor that won't work, but for
> >those working poor, it is a different feeling.
>
>
> It's sad to see people who try hard to get ahead but just don't have
> the brains to do anything more than a menial job. Life isn't fair.
> Half of the people in the world are of below average intelligence. Not
> everyone can be rich. However, there are also a lot of poor people
> who are there because of their own unwillingness to use the gifts that
> God gave them. These people deserve to be poor.

We are in complete agreement.

I'd like to see welfare changed to a temp safety net type thing except
for those that are really physically or mentally handicapped to the
point of not being able to work.

And no, I don't count having many illegitimate babies as a handicap.


        
Date: 25 Apr 2007 21:36:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:17:50 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>> It's sad to see people who try hard to get ahead but just don't have
>> the brains to do anything more than a menial job. Life isn't fair.
>> Half of the people in the world are of below average intelligence. Not
>> everyone can be rich. However, there are also a lot of poor people
>> who are there because of their own unwillingness to use the gifts that
>> God gave them. These people deserve to be poor.
>
>We are in complete agreement.
>
>I'd like to see welfare changed to a temp safety net type thing except
>for those that are really physically or mentally handicapped to the
>point of not being able to work.
>
>And no, I don't count having many illegitimate babies as a handicap.

The welfare reforms addressed many of those issues. In NYC, there's a
time limit on how long you can receive benefits and you can no longer
get an increase in benefits if you have a kid. Welfare recipients
have to do some work for their money and have to go to job training.
The welfare rolls have been reduced dramatically.


     
Date: 23 Apr 2007 16:20:54
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:05:19 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:32:07 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
><lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>Along with the "I've got mine, screw you" crowd.
>
>I'm in the "I worked hard to get what I got and if you didn't, you
>deserve to be poor." crowd.

I say give them a "hand up" instead of a "hand out." When I see
someone working and striving, I am the first to support him, I would
take a chance on him. I have helped many start their own businesses,
etc. But they must get off their backside and make the first
moves... They must demonstrate ambition and persistence.

Larry


      
Date: 23 Apr 2007 18:33:28
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <emfq23detdbqjctmle6dsh98848rt6njr4@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:05:19 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:32:07 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> ><lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Along with the "I've got mine, screw you" crowd.
> >
> >I'm in the "I worked hard to get what I got and if you didn't, you
> >deserve to be poor." crowd.
>
> I say give them a "hand up" instead of a "hand out." When I see
> someone working and striving, I am the first to support him, I would
> take a chance on him. I have helped many start their own businesses,
> etc. But they must get off their backside and make the first
> moves... They must demonstrate ambition and persistence.
>
> Larry

Good for you Larry, and I really mean that.

But there are many working poor in this country that are doing jobs that
are at their capability limit, they just don't pay well.


       
Date: 24 Apr 2007 09:06:38
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:33:28 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <emfq23detdbqjctmle6dsh98848rt6njr4@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:05:19 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:32:07 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>> ><lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Along with the "I've got mine, screw you" crowd.
>> >
>> >I'm in the "I worked hard to get what I got and if you didn't, you
>> >deserve to be poor." crowd.
>>
>> I say give them a "hand up" instead of a "hand out." When I see
>> someone working and striving, I am the first to support him, I would
>> take a chance on him. I have helped many start their own businesses,
>> etc. But they must get off their backside and make the first
>> moves... They must demonstrate ambition and persistence.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Good for you Larry, and I really mean that.
>
>But there are many working poor in this country that are doing jobs that
>are at their capability limit, they just don't pay well.

True, but there are a zillion examples of those who found a way to
earn more and made it happen-- going back to school, going into an
apprentice program for a job that does pay big (plumber, electrician,
etc). But he or she would need to sacrifice a few evenings in front
of the TV....

No doubt in America that those who are not successful have only
themselves to blame--assuming good health


Larry


       
Date: 24 Apr 2007 06:53:28
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 23-Apr-2007, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

> But there are many working poor in this country that are doing jobs that
> are at their capability limit, they just don't pay well.

This still does not condemn one to poverty. When I was in grad school @ UGA,
there was a woman that had worked there as a custodian for 35-40 years and
had recently passed away. Obviously she didn't run with the "spend my xmas
bonus @ Saks" crowd. And yet she left the university over $1millon in her
will. It is not the income that matters as much as the outgo (just ask your
congressman!).

--
bill-o

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


  
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:49:25
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 23, 12:52 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177345524.973012.101440@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 11:26 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>
> >>news:462c216d$0$25234$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> >> > On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
> >> >> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
> >> >> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> >> >> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> >> >> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
> >> > Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty
> >> > causes
> >> > alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes nuculear
> >> > bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People choose
> >> > to
> >> > commit crime or not.
> >> > --
>
> >> I just looked into my wallet and I only have $1. Therefore I need to rob
> >> somebody right after I score some crack. :-)
>
> > Ok, look at it this way. Where are you more likely to be robbed on the
> > street -- the Suoth Bronx or the Upper East Side? Is someone who robs
> > you or breaks into your house or steals your car more likely to be
> > rich or poor?
>
> In my neighborhood I would have to say rich.

That's the best you can do?



   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 13:16:10
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177350565.421104.280440@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 12:52 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177345524.973012.101440@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 11:26 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:462c216d$0$25234$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>>
>> >> > On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes
>> >> >> hunger.
>> >> >> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require
>> >> >> money
>> >> >> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>> >> >> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>> >> >> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>>
>> >> > Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty
>> >> > causes
>> >> > alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes
>> >> > nuculear
>> >> > bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People
>> >> > choose
>> >> > to
>> >> > commit crime or not.
>> >> > --
>>
>> >> I just looked into my wallet and I only have $1. Therefore I need to
>> >> rob
>> >> somebody right after I score some crack. :-)
>>
>> > Ok, look at it this way. Where are you more likely to be robbed on the
>> > street -- the Suoth Bronx or the Upper East Side? Is someone who robs
>> > you or breaks into your house or steals your car more likely to be
>> > rich or poor?
>>
>> In my neighborhood I would have to say rich.
>
> That's the best you can do?
>
It's all I need replying to your garbage.




  
Date: 23 Apr 2007 09:25:25
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 23, 11:26 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>
> news:462c216d$0$25234$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> > On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
> >> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
> >> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> >> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> >> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
> > Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty causes
> > alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes nuculear
> > bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People choose to
> > commit crime or not.
> > --
>
> I just looked into my wallet and I only have $1. Therefore I need to rob
> somebody right after I score some crack. :-)

Ok, look at it this way. Where are you more likely to be robbed on the
street -- the Suoth Bronx or the Upper East Side? Is someone who robs
you or breaks into your house or steals your car more likely to be
rich or poor?



   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:35:58
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 23 Apr 2007 09:25:25 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Apr 23, 11:26 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:462c216d$0$25234$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>>
>> > On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>> >> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>> >> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>> >> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>> >> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>>
>> > Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty causes
>> > alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes nuculear
>> > bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People choose to
>> > commit crime or not.
>> > --
>>
>> I just looked into my wallet and I only have $1. Therefore I need to rob
>> somebody right after I score some crack. :-)
>
>Ok, look at it this way. Where are you more likely to be robbed on the
>street -- the Suoth Bronx or the Upper East Side? Is someone who robs
>you or breaks into your house or steals your car more likely to be
>rich or poor?

Yeah, how often do we ask a poor guy for a job?

Larry


   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:52:37
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177345524.973012.101440@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 11:26 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:462c216d$0$25234$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>>
>> > On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>> >> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>> >> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>> >> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>> >> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>>
>> > Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty
>> > causes
>> > alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes nuculear
>> > bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People choose
>> > to
>> > commit crime or not.
>> > --
>>
>> I just looked into my wallet and I only have $1. Therefore I need to rob
>> somebody right after I score some crack. :-)
>
> Ok, look at it this way. Where are you more likely to be robbed on the
> street -- the Suoth Bronx or the Upper East Side? Is someone who robs
> you or breaks into your house or steals your car more likely to be
> rich or poor?
>
In my neighborhood I would have to say rich.




  
Date: 23 Apr 2007 09:22:08
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 23, 11:23 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177166756.896200.107230@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
> >> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
> >> > remain?
>
> >> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>
> >> --
> >> bill-o
>
> > It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
> > Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
> > to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> > things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> > commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
> This is just plain silly.

You have an unfortunate habit of dissing other people's posts without
explaining why.



   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:51:44
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177345328.427940.198230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 11:23 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177166756.896200.107230@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>> >> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the
>> >> > distinction
>> >> > remain?
>>
>> >> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> bill-o
>>
>> > It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>> > Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>> > to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>> > things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>> > commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>>
>> This is just plain silly.
>
> You have an unfortunate habit of dissing other people's posts without
> explaining why.
>
Don't really need one with your post.




   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 16:26:51
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 23 Apr 2007 09:22:08 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Apr 23, 11:23 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177166756.896200.107230@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>> >> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>> >> > remain?
>>
>> >> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> bill-o
>>
>> > It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>> > Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>> > to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>> > things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>> > commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>>
>> This is just plain silly.
>
>You have an unfortunate habit of dissing other people's posts without
>explaining why.

Do you really need an explanation for this?
bk


  
Date: 22 Apr 2007 12:10:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 22, 10:19 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:12:50 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Depending on how you look at it, I would disagree. The arguement is a fine
> >line. Antisocial behavior leads to poverty, but poverty does not cause
> >antisocial behavior.
>
> There is a percentage of antisocial people who are well off - who are
> deterred from crime by the possibility of losing what they have.


I'll admit that saying povetry causes crime was not a good choice
words. What I meant was that people who are poor are more likely to
commit crimes - particularly those with an economic motive - than
people who aren't. That seems like a no-brainer to me.



   
Date: 22 Apr 2007 15:36:21
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
John B. wrote:
> On Apr 22, 10:19 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:12:50 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Depending on how you look at it, I would disagree. The arguement is a fine
>>> line. Antisocial behavior leads to poverty, but poverty does not cause
>>> antisocial behavior.
>> There is a percentage of antisocial people who are well off - who are
>> deterred from crime by the possibility of losing what they have.
>
>
> I'll admit that saying povetry causes crime was not a good choice
> words. What I meant was that people who are poor are more likely to
> commit crimes - particularly those with an economic motive - than
> people who aren't. That seems like a no-brainer to me.
>
It may be a no-brainer to you, but it is wrong!

I would point to the very area that you use as your example. The people
committing the majority of the crime in DC have economic resources, wear
the jewelry, trade dope, etc. There are jobs for them if they choose.
They commit crimes for other reasons. The growing issue in the inner
cities is "Street Cred", something far move valuable than mere money.
That is a social problem.

Joe


  
Date: 22 Apr 2007 14:31:07
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


BigPurdueFan wrote:

> On Apr 21, 10:45 am, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
> > > > remain?
> >
> > > Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
> >
> > > --
> > > bill-o
> >
> > It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
> > Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
> > to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> > things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> > commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
> It's pretty simple. If you're a "have-not" and you look at the
> "haves", you are more likely to want what they have and more likely to
> commit a crime. Obviously the less that you have, the more that will
> have more than you, thus you are more likely to commit a crime. It
> isn't just lack of money for food for children. Almost every person
> has some degree of jealousy towards people who have something that
> they don't. Duh?

One could argue that that point is more meaningul the richer you get. Look at
current Home Depot commericals as an example. The richer you are, the more you
worry about having a Lexus. The poorer you are the more you realize the fact
that a car is a car. Just about anyone can own a car in the US.




  
Date: 21 Apr 2007 18:49:46
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 21, 10:45 am, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>
> > On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
> > > remain?
>
> > Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>
> > --
> > bill-o
>
> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.

It's pretty simple. If you're a "have-not" and you look at the
"haves", you are more likely to want what they have and more likely to
commit a crime. Obviously the less that you have, the more that will
have more than you, thus you are more likely to commit a crime. It
isn't just lack of money for food for children. Almost every person
has some degree of jealousy towards people who have something that
they don't. Duh?




   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 03:04:20
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 21-Apr-2007, BigPurdueFan <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:

> It's pretty simple. If you're a "have-not" and you look at the
> "haves", you are more likely to want what they have and more likely to
> commit a crime. Obviously the less that you have, the more that will
> have more than you, thus you are more likely to commit a crime. It
> isn't just lack of money for food for children. Almost every person
> has some degree of jealousy towards people who have something that
> they don't. Duh?

I'm sure there's a point in here somewhere

--
bill-o

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


  
Date: 21 Apr 2007 07:45:56
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org > wrote:
> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
> > remain?
>
> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>
> --
> bill-o
>

It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.



   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:08:56
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 21 Apr 2007 07:45:56 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>> > remain?
>>
>> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>>
>> --
>> bill-o
>>
>
>It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.

Actually you have it backward. A lack of industry causes poor grades
and poor job performance. That causes poor income and that causes
hunger, poor housing, etc. Those who work hard, prosper. Those who
are lazy usually fail.

Larry


   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:23:06
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177166756.896200.107230@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>> > remain?
>>
>> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>>
>> --
>> bill-o
>>
>
> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
This is just plain silly.




    
Date: 23 Apr 2007 15:26:21
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:23:06 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1177166756.896200.107230@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>>> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>>> > remain?
>>>
>>> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>>>
>>> --
>>> bill-o
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>>
>This is just plain silly.
>
He can't be serious...just trolling I guess.
--
___,
\o


   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 03:01:02
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.

Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty causes
alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes nuculear
bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People choose to
commit crime or not.
--
bill-o

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


    
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:33:09
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:01:02 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
wrote:

>
>On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
>Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty causes
>alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes nuculear
>bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People choose to
>commit crime or not.

The same people when young choose to either study and do their
homework--or not. Then when they enter the workplace, they choose to
either do a good job-- or not. Thus they make the choices that
deterimine whether they will have a comfortable income--or not. In
America the poor have only themselves to blame. Anyone can become
wealthy.

Larry


    
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:26:38
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:462c216d$0$25234$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 21-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
> Bullsh*t, you are confusing cause and effect. Saying that poverty causes
> alcoholism and drug addiction is like saying radiation causes nuculear
> bombs! Also where is a persons free will in your scheme? People choose to
> commit crime or not.
> --
I just looked into my wallet and I only have $1. Therefore I need to rob
somebody right after I score some crack. :-)




   
Date: 22 Apr 2007 00:19:18
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 21 Apr 2007 07:45:56 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.

When you're poor, the threat of life in prison isn't as much of a
deterrent as it is for people who have invested in their future.

But also we have seen - when you have money, you can afford better
legal representation when you are accused of crimes.


   
Date: 21 Apr 2007 19:32:44
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 21 Apr 2007 07:45:56 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>People who are not poor don't
>commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.

Or Italians.


   
Date: 21 Apr 2007 11:55:33
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
John B. wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>>> remain?
>> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>>
>> --
>> bill-o
>>
>
> It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
> Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
> to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
> things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
> commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.
>
I just can't resist !

Poverty does not cause lack of money. Poverty is defined as a lack of
financial resources.

Poverty does NOT cause drug addiction and alcohol addition.

The only time poverty causes crime is when you or your children are
starving and you see no other recourse.

Crime is caused by a breakdown of the social codes that constrain
behavior. Crime (as defined in most countries) ranges from violent
behaviors against people and property to "white collar crime" as
perpetrated by the folks at Enron et al. (They aren't poverty stricken
but the same kind of social code breakdown occurred.)

The problem in many high crime geographic or community areas has far
more to do with the "rules" of behavior, the mores, that a sub-group has
adopted. It grows out of many elements of our code of moral behavior
being lost because they are not being taught and supported any longer.

With respect to crime in the inner cities (nice euphemism that) it is my
opinion that the problem stems from the issue of "no way out". That is
simplistic but there exists a positive feedback loop that accelerates
the effect. The schools don't work. Consider that by 2015, 85% of all
new jobs in the US will require post high school education. (Conference
Board et al study 2006) US wide 72% of the kids graduate HS and only
32% of those are qualified to attend a 4 yr college. In the city
centers the numbers are way down from here.

Employers don't want the kids getting out of school because they can't
do the job. They can't read, write, do arithmetic or solve problems.
They have no way out! Post crime event action (prisons etc,) will not
solve the problem. The problem will be solved when the behavior rules
are changed and the negative influences and roles models are replaced.
That is an intended direct shot at the Rap culture, Jackson and
Sharpton,the ACLU and the lefties. The major difficulty is that the
change has to come from within the community and can not be perceived as
coming from the outside. This is the message that people like Cosby is
trying to get across.

Your answer to the problem, John, would seem based on your statements
above, to be to go into the inner city and hand hundred dollar bills to
everyone you meet. No more poverty no more crime.

Maybe Dr. D could explain all this to you better than I in an off line
email because he actually does understand this stuff.

Joe




    
Date: 22 Apr 2007 00:21:07
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:55:33 -0400, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org >
wrote:

>Poverty does not cause lack of money. Poverty is defined as a lack of
>financial resources.
>
>Poverty does NOT cause drug addiction and alcohol addition.
>
>The only time poverty causes crime is when you or your children are
>starving and you see no other recourse.

But poverty does give someone less to lose when they get caught. If
punishment works at all, it is more effective at deterring people with
more to lose.


   
Date: 21 Apr 2007 15:06:00
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 21 Apr 2007 07:45:56 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Apr 21, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>> > remain?
>>
>> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>>
>> --
>> bill-o
>>
>
>It doesn't? Poverty causes lack of money, which in turn causes hunger.
>Poverty also causes drug addiction and alcoholism, which require money
>to feed. The lack of money to buy food, drugs, alcohol and other
>things leads some people to crime. People who are not poor don't
>commit violent crimes, unless they're mentally ill like Cho.

Well, at least the rich are hard to prosecute. There's OJ, Cullen
Davis, Robert Blake, and it took twice for Claus Von Bulow to get off.
Now we'll just have to wait for Phil Spector's case. Plus, these are
the well-known rich...there are a lot of no-name, but weathy folks
that avoid being found guilty. All of this points to the idea that
the wealthy just might be as violent as the poor.

--
___,
\o


    
Date: 23 Apr 2007 03:01:48
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 21-Apr-2007, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:

> All of this points to the idea that
> the wealthy just might be as violent as the poor.

Humans are humans

--
bill-o

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


  
Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:12:45
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 20, 1:52 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:29:52 GMT, John Reddy
>
> <johnre...@contbuilding.com> wrote:
> >That doesn't mean that people of other races or descent are all
> >murderers. It means that there is a group of people who do not conform
> >to the rules of decency that white, European/American have established
> >over the course of hundreds of years. Call it cultural differences,
> >call it whatever you want, but the problem lies with nonwhites.
>
> >Even as I write this, I'm thinking how bigoted it sounds.
>
> If it's the truth then how is it bigoted? Black Americans commit
> homicide at a rate 7 to 8 times higher than whites.

Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
remain?



   
Date: 21 Apr 2007 04:27:27
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
> remain?

Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.

--
bill-o

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


    
Date: 22 Apr 2007 14:12:50
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


bill-o wrote:

> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
> > remain?
>
> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>

Depending on how you look at it, I would disagree. The arguement is a fine
line. Antisocial behavior leads to poverty, but poverty does not cause
antisocial behavior.




     
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:23:31
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:12:50 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>
>
>bill-o wrote:
>
>> On 20-Apr-2007, The_Professor <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>> > remain?
>>
>> Your premise, that poverty causes crime, does not wash.
>>
>
>Depending on how you look at it, I would disagree. The arguement is a fine
>line. Antisocial behavior leads to poverty, but poverty does not cause
>antisocial behavior.

Poor breeding, lack of class, etc. Same cause as the gratuitous
personal insults we see posted here.

Larry


     
Date: 22 Apr 2007 11:36:15
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:12:50 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>Depending on how you look at it, I would disagree. The arguement is a fine
>line. Antisocial behavior leads to poverty, but poverty does not cause
>antisocial behavior.

First crime is higher in the lower socioeconomic groups. Does this
explain away the 7 to 8 times higher homicide rate for blacks? No
way.


     
Date: 22 Apr 2007 14:19:09
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:12:50 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>Depending on how you look at it, I would disagree. The arguement is a fine
>line. Antisocial behavior leads to poverty, but poverty does not cause
>antisocial behavior.

There is a percentage of antisocial people who are well off - who are
deterred from crime by the possibility of losing what they have.


      
Date: 22 Apr 2007 14:42:57
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


Howard Brazee wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:12:50 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Depending on how you look at it, I would disagree. The arguement is a fine
> >line. Antisocial behavior leads to poverty, but poverty does not cause
> >antisocial behavior.
>
> There is a percentage of antisocial people who are well off - who are
> deterred from crime by the possibility of losing what they have.

To at least some extent, antisocial behavior, stealing from other people,
raping other people, assaulting other people and other antisocial behaviors,
are crimes. Some rich antisocial people have good lawyers, and get off,
irrespective of race.



   
Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:33:12
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 20 Apr 2007 12:12:45 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>On Apr 20, 1:52 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:29:52 GMT, John Reddy
>>
>> <johnre...@contbuilding.com> wrote:
>> >That doesn't mean that people of other races or descent are all
>> >murderers. It means that there is a group of people who do not conform
>> >to the rules of decency that white, European/American have established
>> >over the course of hundreds of years. Call it cultural differences,
>> >call it whatever you want, but the problem lies with nonwhites.
>>
>> >Even as I write this, I'm thinking how bigoted it sounds.
>>
>> If it's the truth then how is it bigoted? Black Americans commit
>> homicide at a rate 7 to 8 times higher than whites.
>
>Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>remain?

Such niceties don't matter if it is a life or death situation for you
and/or your wife and family. When threatened with a horrible risk,
you would do what I would do-- shoot first and let your heart bleed
about his poverty situation later.

If you wouldn't -- well, then I guess we can read about you in
tomorrow's paper.

larry


    
Date: 20 Apr 2007 22:07:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:33:12 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>>> If it's the truth then how is it bigoted? Black Americans commit
>>> homicide at a rate 7 to 8 times higher than whites.
>>
>>Correct your data for some measure of poverty and does the distinction
>>remain?
>
>Such niceties don't matter if it is a life or death situation for you
>and/or your wife and family. When threatened with a horrible risk,
>you would do what I would do-- shoot first and let your heart bleed
>about his poverty situation later.
>
>If you wouldn't -- well, then I guess we can read about you in
>tomorrow's paper.
>
>larry

The data shows that 87% of white homicide victims are killed by
another white person. Ninety-five percent of black murder victim are
killed by another black person. The perception that blacks are
murdering whites at an alarming rate is not really the case. If I
were a black leader, I'd be very concerned at the high homicide rate
for blacks, because it's black people who are the overwhelming number
of the victims.


  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 20:36:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 16 Apr 2007 17:51:09 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:

>"There's no reason to lay blame at the feet of anyone but
>the guy who did this. He's responsible, and we should be mad at
>him...no one else.

I agree, but the scumbag trial lawyers might not. Look for them to
try to take advantage of a tragic situation. After all that's their
bread and butter.


   
Date: 20 Apr 2007 18:19:42
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 20, 7:26 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:
>
> Noticing the ethic mix of countries (or US cities) is not racism. It
> is just pragmatic fact. I agree with Jesse Jackson; I too would be
> relieved hearing footsteps behind me in a dark alley-- to see that it
> was a white guy.

I hope he's South Korean.



   
Date: 20 Apr 2007 07:48:07
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 20, 7:34 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:09:29 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >John Reddy wrote:
>
> >> In article <ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpo...@4ax.com>,
> >> Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
> >> > rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
> >> > gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
> >> > strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.
>
> >> I know I'm going to take a beating for this but another factor has to be
> >> considered. The UK and the USA both have relatively high homicide rates
> >> compared to the rest of Europe.
>
> >> Take a closer look at the race and/or national origin of those involved
> >> in most of the homicides (gun-related and otherwise) in both countries.
> >> Quite simply, it ain't european or european descendent white folk.
>
> >Bobby Knight's buddy speaks out!
>
> Hmmmm. All that might make us buddies is this statement about you
> from him:
>
> >>I stand by my original statement..... It must suck to be you.
>

To be viewed as such by such greatly vindicates the choices that I
have made in my life. Just another reason to be happy to be me.



    
Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:52:44
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 20 Apr 2007 07:48:07 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>On Apr 20, 7:34 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:09:29 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
>> wrote:

>> >John Reddy wrote:

>>
>> >Bobby Knight's buddy speaks out!
>>
>> Hmmmm. All that might make us buddies is this statement about you
>> from him:
>>
>> >>I stand by my original statement..... It must suck to be you.
>>
>
>To be viewed as such by such greatly vindicates the choices that I
>have made in my life. Just another reason to be happy to be me.

You might want to check the last couple of days, and all of the flak
you got from a lot of posters here for your idiotic statements. It
isn't just Reddy and I. Your vapidity is only outdone by your
arrogance.
--
___,
\o


   
Date: 18 Apr 2007 00:59:14
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:36:32 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On 16 Apr 2007 17:51:09 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"There's no reason to lay blame at the feet of anyone but
>>the guy who did this. He's responsible, and we should be mad at
>>him...no one else.
>
>I agree, but the scumbag trial lawyers might not. Look for them to
>try to take advantage of a tragic situation. After all that's their
>bread and butter.

Who's going to be tried?
___,
\o


    
Date: 18 Apr 2007 15:59:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:59:14 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>>I agree, but the scumbag trial lawyers might not. Look for them to
>>try to take advantage of a tragic situation. After all that's their
>>bread and butter.
>
>Who's going to be tried?

VT has deep pockets. They may even have liability insurance that
would pick up the cost of a negative judgment.

They will be charged in a civil suit for damages due to their
negligence for failing to secure the campus after the initial
shooting. Trial lawyers know that grieving families on the stand
usually get rewards from juries even if there is no reason for it,
especially if they also know that an insurance company will bear the
costs.

I'm reminded of the trial of a woman who sued Dow Corning claiming
that her silicon breast implant caused her Lupus. Dow brought in a
number of scientists from Harvard and Johns Hopkins who said that
epidemiological studies showed that the breast implants had no
negative effects on the women who had them. The jury awarded the
woman $3 million.

A jury member was interviewed after the case finished. She was asked
why she decided to award the money after all the scientific evidence
concluded that the breast implants caused no damage. She said, "But
she suffered so much."


    
Date: 18 Apr 2007 12:10:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:59:14 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>>I agree, but the scumbag trial lawyers might not. Look for them to
>>try to take advantage of a tragic situation. After all that's their
>>bread and butter.
>
>Who's going to be tried?


The school for failure to act to secure the campus after the first
shooting. VT has deep pockets.

The trial lawyers know that the grieving families will make convincing
witnesses as they talk about their lost children. This is just the
type of testimony that juries fine compelling. Even if the case is a
weak one, juries often feel that these people's suffering deserves
some compensation.


    
Date: 18 Apr 2007 04:47:50
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 17-Apr-2007, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:

> >I agree, but the scumbag trial lawyers might not. Look for them to
> >try to take advantage of a tragic situation. After all that's their
> >bread and butter.
>
> Who's going to be tried?

They'll sue everyone they can think of (that has a buck) and see if anything
sticks is my guess

--
bill-o

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


     
Date: 18 Apr 2007 09:18:35
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:4625a2e4$0$25265$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 17-Apr-2007, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
>
>> >I agree, but the scumbag trial lawyers might not. Look for them to
>> >try to take advantage of a tragic situation. After all that's their
>> >bread and butter.
>>
>> Who's going to be tried?
>
> They'll sue everyone they can think of (that has a buck) and see if
> anything
> sticks is my guess
>
You can bet Glock will be on that list.




   
Date: 18 Apr 2007 00:55:10
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 16 Apr 2007 17:51:09 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"There's no reason to lay blame at the feet of anyone but
> >the guy who did this. He's responsible, and we should be mad at
> >him...no one else.
>
> I agree, but the scumbag trial lawyers might not. Look for them to
> try to take advantage of a tragic situation. After all that's their
> bread and butter.

These things are getting more frequent and more severe, or so it seems
to me anyways. We have an emphasis on "getting" people. You got a beef,
do some harm. Hurt someone. It's all over the media at all levels. Of
course, as we all hopefully well know, it's easy to do harm A city that
takes centuries to build can be destroyed in one day. The idea that if
you have a beef, go out and make take some positive action, interact
with people, build a consensus and get something done is considered lame
and ineffective at all levels. Saw a statement from the British
Ecological Society that leaders need to be made to understand
environmental issues from the BES perspective. No talk of tolerance of
other views, working together; only of imposing their views on others.
Rodney King might have looked a little pathetic saying it, but the
question looms, "why can't we all get along?". The answer, of course, is
that we are all totally intoewrant of each other. We have the best you
could imagine, but apparently it's not enough!

What's important? Get the other guy or work with the other guy, build
bridges and build the other guy up?



    
Date: 18 Apr 2007 12:04:07
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:55:10 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> On 16 Apr 2007 17:51:09 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"There's no reason to lay blame at the feet of anyone but
>> >the guy who did this. He's responsible, and we should be mad at
>> >him...no one else.
>>
>> I agree, but the scumbag trial lawyers might not. Look for them to
>> try to take advantage of a tragic situation. After all that's their
>> bread and butter.
>
>These things are getting more frequent and more severe, or so it seems
>to me anyways.

It does seem to be the case. If you look at incidents in the US only,
they seem to be more common in the last decade than they ever were.
Irocically, this is during the same time that overall crime has gone
down. Of course, the day to day small acts of violence and killing
are much more common than these tragice events of mass murder. In
reality, schools are much safer overall than they used to be.

It's similar to comparing car crashes to plane crashes. When a plane
crashes it's a spectacular event where hundreds of people die. It
gets national coverage for days. Meanwhile tens of thousands of
people die in car crashes every year with very little notice.


     
Date: 19 Apr 2007 02:12:13
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:04:07 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>It does seem to be the case. If you look at incidents in the US only,
>they seem to be more common in the last decade than they ever were.

One reason they might seem more common is because they make national
news more.

Certainly this kind of mass killings occurred when the weapon of
choice was a sword or a club.


      
Date: 19 Apr 2007 16:23:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:12:13 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>>It does seem to be the case. If you look at incidents in the US only,
>>they seem to be more common in the last decade than they ever were.
>
>One reason they might seem more common is because they make national
>news more.
>
>Certainly this kind of mass killings occurred when the weapon of
>choice was a sword or a club.


Actually, the media is incorrect when they say that this is the worst
mass killing in a school in the US.

"The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath
Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and
injured 58. Most of the victims were children in second to sixth
grades attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute
the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history. The
perpetrator was school board member Andrew Kehoe, who was upset by a
property tax that had been levied to fund the construction of the
school building."

No guns involved.


 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 17:37:28
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the real
> > > laugh.
>
> > Can't wait.
>
> Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
> was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
> this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college this
> fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)

A real person!

What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
emergency response plan in place though!

I was glad I had learned to play some blues tunes and I got a goot
feel for what they mean when they say "as long as I can play the
blues...." in various songs about bad things happening when I went
home for some lunch and turned on the TV. "How Long Blues" really
worked for me.



  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 09:06:30
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1176770248.271948.36760@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> What is amazing is the obvious administrative incompetence. The
> shooting had 2 phases separated by at least an hour, and no one was
> warned after the first phase! I'll bet they have a fully acredited
> emergency response plan in place though!

Great! Start piling on without knowing the facts. Blame, Blame, Blame.




 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 17:33:02
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 5:11 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:57 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
> > growing number of these kinds of things.
>
> Ok, ok, so we know about the attack at Georgia Tech (SIC). Your
> subject says "What's Really Important", yet you didn't clue us in.
> What, ummm, is really important?

Obviously it isn't getting the facts correct!



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 17:32:26
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 7:01 pm, bigoldc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the real
> > > > laugh.
>
> > > Can't wait.
>
> > Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
> > was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
> > this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college this
> > fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>
> Meant any harm...... this nut job just vowed in a post to run over any
> cyclists that dared get in his way.

Well, I've got to back him on that one. :-)



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 16:01:59
From:
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 6:00 pm, "dugjustdug" <prestigerea...@yvn.com > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the real
> > > laugh.
>
> > Can't wait.
>
> Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
> was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
> this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college this
> fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)

Meant any harm...... this nut job just vowed in a post to run over any
cyclists that dared get in his way.



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 15:00:08
From: dugjustdug
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 2:52 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the real
> > laugh.
>
> Can't wait.

Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college this
fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 19:13:50
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 19, 10:05 pm, "sfb" <s...@spam.net > wrote:
> 100 buildings or more, ten exits each. VT doesn't have that many police on
> duty to lockdown the buildings.
>

I was thinking of the buildings on our campus... I think 4 to 6 access
points would be the average. My building in particular has 16 doors...
in 4 places. It would take 4 guards for it alone.

One thing I should have thought of last night is that our dorms are
always locked. You have to swipe a card that allows you into YOUR
dorm. I guess that's a start.

One other thing. Eight or ten years ago, they installed cameras
everywhere on top of the buildings. Over time the system (or some
cameras) started breaking and they couldn't get them fixed. I notice
the one on our building is no longer there. A co-worker said he bought
one of the cameras off e-bay.



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 19:06:07
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 19, 9:12 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2007 21:18:36 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> >> They can lock the entire capitol grounds down they can surely lock down VT.
> >> Just because it's big dosent make it impossible.
>
> >Sure they could... if they had a full compliment of secret service
> >agents on hand... ain't gonna happen. Logistically impossible.
>
> It would be very difficult to lock down the entire campus, there's
> just too much unfenced perimeter. However it would have been possible
> to secure all the buildings. He still could have shot people, but I
> doubt that he would have killed nearly as many.

I think he could have killed however many were in the same building he
was locked up in???



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:37:23
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 19, 1:43 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2007 20:48:22 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 18, 10:20 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>
> >>news:46259aa9$0$25239$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> >> > On 17-Apr-2007, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Locking all the buildings would be pretty easy
>
> >> > In 8 hours perhaps, they don't have an unlimited key supply, besides Mike,
> >> > I
> >> > think your just 20/20ing this (hindsight you know)
>
> >> I probably would take that long of one person did it.
>
> >All of our custodians have keys to the buildings. There are custodians
> >in almost every building. I have a key to our building. A high number
> >of people have a key to the building they work in. There are lots of
> >keys. If the word were to go out to lock the doors, it could be done
> >pretty quickly. The hard part is getting the word out. But very few of
> >the doors on a campus lock from the inside so you can still get out if
> >someone isn't there to stop you.
>
> This should be a wake up call to America. One skinny guy easily
> killed 32 and wounded 30+ with two pistols.
>
> If it had been a determined team of Al Queda terrorists, they would
> have used FAR more powerful weapons, likely bombs or small scale WMD,
> chemical or biological weapons. They could have locked down that
> entire campus and killed many thousands trapped like rats. We are
> massively vulnerable.
>
> Someone in those classrooms should have been armed. People should
> have guns using "concealed carry" permits in every crowd. That has
> saved dozens of people, most recently the Salt lake City Shopping
> Center incident--which would have become a massacre except that an
> off-duty cop pulled his pistol and took the shooter out.
>
> Essentially NOBODY has ever been hurt by someone with a "concealed
> carry" permit.
>

Were you getting lonely under your rock, Larry? There have been
several cases of people being wrongly shot by someone with a legal
concealed weapon. I know of one where a woman sitting in a bar was
shot through the chest when a guy with a concealed handgun bent over
to pick something up, the gun fell to the floor and went off.

To think that colleges students should carry guns to class is a
thought so sickening that it could only come from you.




   
Date: 19 Apr 2007 16:15:04
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 19 Apr 2007 13:37:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>To think that colleges students should carry guns to class is a
>thought so sickening that it could only come from you.

If the college student were an off-duty cop, I would feel a LOT safer
were he allowed to bring his gun to class-- or to the mall, or to the
fair, or to the circus, in your local McDonald;'s etc. etc. Most do
that now, BTW. We need more guns with responsible people mixed in
crowds-- at least until you can guarantee that our ubiquitious
nutcases or criminals will NOT have their guns.

Larry


    
Date: 20 Apr 2007 01:24:46
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:15:04 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>If the college student were an off-duty cop, I would feel a LOT safer
>were he allowed to bring his gun to class-- or to the mall, or to the
>fair, or to the circus, in your local McDonald;'s etc. etc. Most do
>that now, BTW. We need more guns with responsible people mixed in
>crowds-- at least until you can guarantee that our ubiquitious
>nutcases or criminals will NOT have their guns.

If passengers on 9/11 were armed, things would have turned out
differently. But even though cell phones allowed passengers to
defeat one plane's plans - our state doesn't want them.


  
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:59:25
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

> The real idiocy is to allow anyone to have fully automatic weapons.
> Yeah, yeah, I know. The right to bear arms. That's bullshit when it
> comes to a weapon that has no use for hunting anything but humans.

It's not nearly as easy to legally own a full auto weapon... lots of
hoops to jump through and quite a bit of cost involved.

When was the last time a legally owned full-auto weapon was used in a
crime here in the states? I don't recall any off hand? Full autos are
pretty much a non-issue at the moment.



  
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:54:16
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
>But every criminal who ever
> >committed a crime with a handgun was a law-abiding citizen until he
> >pulled the trigger.

I can't prove it (don't have the data), but I bet in the vast majority
of cases you are completely wrong. I'd bet that most start off
commiting non-gun crimes and eventually graduate to gun crimes.

But in these specific types of cases, you probably are correct.



  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 02:12:53
From: John Reddy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1176760808.842814.163690@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
"dugjustdug" <prestigerealty@yvn.com > wrote:

> Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
> was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
> this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college this
> fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)

Whether he meant harm or not, he's a totally amoral, insensitive jackass.

When you first heard the news of the massacre, was your first reaction
to run to your computer to post to a golf newsgroup so quickly that you
couldn't even get the name of the school right in your quest to be first
to comment on a totally OT issue?

What kind of attention whore does that? Most of us are still, whether
we realize it or not, pretty numbed and in shock, our minds not wanting
to process the information that is blasting at us from our TV's. Those
of us that are reading this newsgroup are probably doing so as a respite
from the horror of real world events.

And then this asshole comes busting in breathlessly to scold us for not
being glued to the news and having skewed priorities.

Fuck off, Professor. It must suck to be you. You actually make MAT
less obnoxious.


   
Date: 17 Apr 2007 04:05:38
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


John Reddy wrote:

> In article <1176760808.842814.163690@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> "dugjustdug" <prestigerealty@yvn.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, come on, guys. I don't think he meant harm by it. I imagine he
> > was as horrified to read of this as I was when I got to the office
> > this morning. I'm gearing up to send my only daughter to college this
> > fall - he simply works at a university. (TIC)
>
> Whether he meant harm or not, he's a totally amoral, insensitive jackass.
>
> When you first heard the news of the massacre, was your first reaction
> to run to your computer to post to a golf newsgroup so quickly that you
> couldn't even get the name of the school right in your quest to be first
> to comment on a totally OT issue?

Actually, I posted here after going through several discussions of the issue
on other golf forums on the issue. I also went to the range to hit a few
balls at lunch, and everyone was talking about it. Given the basic definition
of the word "moral" as the accepted societal practice, my experieince has
been that it is you who are immoral here. I knew people like you here would
respond as you did however. Everything is some sort of political issue to
people like you, and you have to use every opportunity, including something
like this to run people down who you figure don't think correctly. The sad
thing is that no one cares. This is just a DB.



    
Date: 17 Apr 2007 09:15:12
From: John Reddy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <4624450E.C5265B12@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
wrote:

> Actually, I posted here after going through several discussions of the issue
> on other golf forums on the issue. I also went to the range to hit a few
> balls at lunch, and everyone was talking about it. Given the basic definition
> of the word "moral" as the accepted societal practice, my experieince has
> been that it is you who are immoral here. I knew people like you here would
> respond as you did however. Everything is some sort of political issue to
> people like you, and you have to use every opportunity, including something
> like this to run people down who you figure don't think correctly. The sad
> thing is that no one cares. This is just a DB.

First of all, why are you posting under two different names?

Sencondly, you obviously don't know the difference between amoral and
immoral.

Thirdly, you're the one who had to jump into a golf newsgroup with OT
material so how is it that everything is a political issue to me?

I stand by my original statement..... It must suck to be you.


     
Date: 17 Apr 2007 09:52:24
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


John Reddy wrote:

> In article <4624450E.C5265B12@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I posted here after going through several discussions of the issue
> > on other golf forums on the issue. I also went to the range to hit a few
> > balls at lunch, and everyone was talking about it. Given the basic definition
> > of the word "moral" as the accepted societal practice, my experieince has
> > been that it is you who are immoral here. I knew people like you here would
> > respond as you did however. Everything is some sort of political issue to
> > people like you, and you have to use every opportunity, including something
> > like this to run people down who you figure don't think correctly. The sad
> > thing is that no one cares. This is just a DB.
>
> First of all, why are you posting under two different names?
>
> Sencondly, you obviously don't know the difference between amoral and
> immoral.
>
> Thirdly, you're the one who had to jump into a golf newsgroup with OT
> material so how is it that everything is a political issue to me?
>
> I stand by my original statement..... It must suck to be you.

Your contrived outrage says all I need to know about you. I can imagine people
sitting in the lunchroom, the topic comes up, and you launch into your tirade. Of
course the issue is what's really important, and you answered that for your case
quite clearly.



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 14:52:08
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 4:49 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:

> Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the real
> laugh.

Can't wait.



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 05:00:36
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 19, 7:47 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net > wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2007 20:36:47 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Iraq has shown us that both "solutions" are insufficient.
>
> >> An armed populace hasn't made Iraq safe.
> >> And the mass killings are done with weapons other than guns. (keeping
> >> guns away from them won't help).
>
> >A counter point is Switzerland, which I beleive has a high rate of gun
> >ownership (assualt rifles in particular) and a low rate of them being
> >used in crimes.
>
> Which means that maybe we should look at some other feature of Swiss
> culture for an explanation.

So what you are saying is It isn't the gun... it's the people? Now
we're getting some where... :)



   
Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:55:07
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 19 Apr 2007 05:00:36 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:

>> Which means that maybe we should look at some other feature of Swiss
>> culture for an explanation.
>
>So what you are saying is It isn't the gun... it's the people? Now
>we're getting some where... :)

Yes, and it would also be interesting to look at the demographics of
homicides in the US.


   
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:07:23
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1176984036.487252.290640@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 7:47 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2007 20:36:47 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> Iraq has shown us that both "solutions" are insufficient.
>>
>> >> An armed populace hasn't made Iraq safe.
>> >> And the mass killings are done with weapons other than guns. (keeping
>> >> guns away from them won't help).
>>
>> >A counter point is Switzerland, which I beleive has a high rate of gun
>> >ownership (assualt rifles in particular) and a low rate of them being
>> >used in crimes.
>>
>> Which means that maybe we should look at some other feature of Swiss
>> culture for an explanation.
>
> So what you are saying is It isn't the gun... it's the people? Now
> we're getting some where... :)
>
Exactly!




 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 14:45:44
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 4:38 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2007 14:24:14 -0700, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 16, 4:20 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Ok, ok, so we know about the attack at Georgia Tech (SIC). Your
> >> > subject says "What's Really Important", yet you didn't clue us in.
> >> > What, ummm, is really important?
>
> >> To see the replies, to see what it really important to you. Not that I
> >> didn't know what the answer would be.
>
> >I _think_ I understand what you just wrote, though I'm not 100% sure.
> >Anyway, the standard stuff - family, home, da yob, recreational
> >activities. What were you looking for and why did it take a massacre
> >for you to pen a troll like that?
>
> His M.O.

Man, I'm glad you saw it that way - that I didn't mean troll in the
derogatory sense. He said he was looking for replies. To a post with
no question mark, no less. That's trolling for responses. No big
deal.



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:38:19
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 19, 10:06 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>
> news:luod23lfljdsq16vbcl3jg5t8674bn62rj@4ax.com...> On 18 Apr 2007 20:35:08 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> >>On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Unfortunately the kid was well within his rights as an
> >>> adult with a drivers license in the state of Virginia. No priors, no
> >>> waiting periods, thanks for your business.
>
> >>He apparently had been in court once before and found dangerous to
> >>himself and others... is that a prior?
>
> > No, he wasn't found dangerous. The judge said that the Psychiatrist's
> > findings were that he was depressed, but not dangerous.

Then that has been mis-reported... suprise, suprise I guess... :)



   
Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:46:10
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 19 Apr 2007 13:38:19 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:

>> > No, he wasn't found dangerous. The judge said that the Psychiatrist's
>> > findings were that he was depressed, but not dangerous.
>
>Then that has been mis-reported... suprise, suprise I guess... :)

In fact, it has been reported in several different ways. Whatever
happened, the shooter didn't get on the can't buy a gun list.


   
Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:46:19
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 19 Apr 2007 13:38:19 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:

>On Apr 19, 10:06 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:luod23lfljdsq16vbcl3jg5t8674bn62rj@4ax.com...> On 18 Apr 2007 20:35:08 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> Unfortunately the kid was well within his rights as an
>> >>> adult with a drivers license in the state of Virginia. No priors, no
>> >>> waiting periods, thanks for your business.
>>
>> >>He apparently had been in court once before and found dangerous to
>> >>himself and others... is that a prior?
>>
>> > No, he wasn't found dangerous. The judge said that the Psychiatrist's
>> > findings were that he was depressed, but not dangerous.
>
>Then that has been mis-reported... suprise, suprise I guess... :)

Here's the report from MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741/site/newsweek/page/2/

...a local psychiatric hospital doctor there reported that Cho was
"depressed" but “denies suicidal ideations" and did not "acknowledge
symptoms of a thought disorder,” according to records obtained by the
Richmond Times-Dispatch.
--
___,
\o


  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 06:49:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 18, 10:12 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:04:07 -0400, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It does seem to be the case. If you look at incidents in the US only,
> >they seem to be more common in the last decade than they ever were.
>
> One reason they might seem more common is because they make national
> news more.
>
> Certainly this kind of mass killings occurred when the weapon of
> choice was a sword or a club.

Can you tell me how one might kill 32 people with a sword or a club
before someone is able to subdue him?



  
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:36:47
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 10:38 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net > wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2007 18:31:37 -0700, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> We in the US live in a society that vehemently protects its right to
> >> own arms. It is my understanding that the assault weapons ban is now
> >> defunct.
>
> >Jusy to point out - I know Hui used handguns, this was just a
> >connected thought.
>
> Iraq has shown us that both "solutions" are insufficient.
>
> An armed populace hasn't made Iraq safe.
> And the mass killings are done with weapons other than guns. (keeping
> guns away from them won't help).

A counter point is Switzerland, which I beleive has a high rate of gun
ownership (assualt rifles in particular) and a low rate of them being
used in crimes.




   
Date: 20 Apr 2007 18:20:48
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 20, 5:12 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:56:35 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >> According to the Violence Policy Center it's 39% for a gun in the
> >> house, but it doesn't separate handguns.
>
> >>http://www.vpc.org/studies/norckey.htm
>
> >The VPC is VERY anti-gun but they're close. The DOJ says this:
>
> The fact that they show a larger percentage doesn't bear this out.
>
>
>
> >According a 1994 Department of Justice survey, about 35% of American
> >households own 192 million firearms. Some other estimates are slightly
> >higher. Handguns account for about 35% of this total
>
> ___,
> \o
>


    
Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:20:07
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
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.

-Greg



     
Date: 27 Apr 2007 22:27:36
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177712406.932330.175170@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@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?

--
"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: 25 Apr 2007 18:15:26
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
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?





     
Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:53:13
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 25 Apr 2007 18:15:26 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@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.

larry


      
Date: 26 Apr 2007 11:53:16
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:53:13 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>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.

Apparently, since 9/11 we have become a nation of cowards, encouraged
to do so by our leaders who don't trust us.

But I have no idea what I would have done without a weapon - except to
put my body in between the attacker and any women or children.


    
Date: 21 Apr 2007 01:30:25
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
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:
From:
Subject:


   
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:06:44
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1176953807.399570.5610@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 10:38 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On 17 Apr 2007 18:31:37 -0700, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> We in the US live in a society that vehemently protects its right to
>> >> own arms. It is my understanding that the assault weapons ban is now
>> >> defunct.
>>
>> >Jusy to point out - I know Hui used handguns, this was just a
>> >connected thought.
>>
>> Iraq has shown us that both "solutions" are insufficient.
>>
>> An armed populace hasn't made Iraq safe.
>> And the mass killings are done with weapons other than guns. (keeping
>> guns away from them won't help).
>
> A counter point is Switzerland, which I beleive has a high rate of gun
> ownership (assualt rifles in particular) and a low rate of them being
> used in crimes.
>
Yes, and full-auto to boot.




   
Date: 19 Apr 2007 11:47:12
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 18 Apr 2007 20:36:47 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:

>> Iraq has shown us that both "solutions" are insufficient.
>>
>> An armed populace hasn't made Iraq safe.
>> And the mass killings are done with weapons other than guns. (keeping
>> guns away from them won't help).
>
>A counter point is Switzerland, which I beleive has a high rate of gun
>ownership (assualt rifles in particular) and a low rate of them being
>used in crimes.

Which means that maybe we should look at some other feature of Swiss
culture for an explanation.


    
Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:53:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:47:12 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>Which means that maybe we should look at some other feature of Swiss
>culture for an explanation.

1. Very little poverty
2. No large urban areas.
3. Very few immigrants
4. Lots of local control at the Canton level.
5. The sewer for most of the dirty money in the world.

The Swiss have carved out a pretty nice place for themselves, but you
can't compare a nation like the US to Switzerland.


   
Date: 19 Apr 2007 07:11:49
From: BAR
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
dsc wrote:
> On Apr 17, 10:38 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On 17 Apr 2007 18:31:37 -0700, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> We in the US live in a society that vehemently protects its right to
>>>> own arms. It is my understanding that the assault weapons ban is now
>>>> defunct.
>>> Jusy to point out - I know Hui used handguns, this was just a
>>> connected thought.
>> Iraq has shown us that both "solutions" are insufficient.
>>
>> An armed populace hasn't made Iraq safe.
>> And the mass killings are done with weapons other than guns. (keeping
>> guns away from them won't help).
>
> A counter point is Switzerland, which I beleive has a high rate of gun
> ownership (assualt rifles in particular) and a low rate of them being
> used in crimes.

I believe that in Switzerland every male between the ages of 18 to 45 is
required by law to be in their militia and is further required to keep
their standard issue weapon, what some would call an assault rifle,
clean and function and they must remain proficient with it too.



    
Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:32:39
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:11:49 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com > wrote:

>I believe that in Switzerland every male between the ages of 18 to 45 is
>required by law to be in their militia and is further required to keep
>their standard issue weapon, what some would call an assault rifle,
>clean and function and they must remain proficient with it too.

There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.


     
Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:15:38
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:32:39 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:11:49 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com> wrote:
>
>>I believe that in Switzerland every male between the ages of 18 to 45 is
>>required by law to be in their militia and is further required to keep
>>their standard issue weapon, what some would call an assault rifle,
>>clean and function and they must remain proficient with it too.
>
>There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
>rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
>gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
>strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.

Of course nobody wants to touch the fact that the ethnic populations
of countries affects the amount of crime and violence there. Norway
and Switzerland have almost no crime. The UK and France had little
violent crime until the last 40 years (when they started allowing
large immigration from Muslim countries). Haiti and many African
countries, Nigeria, etc have always had so much crime they they are
impossible to govern.

Duh, bring increasing components from the high crime countries to
either Norway or Switzerland (or the US) -and their crime rate will
shoot up!

Like the US, their citizens will need guns to protect themselves.

Larry


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 21:18:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:15:38 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>Of course nobody wants to touch the fact that the ethnic populations
>of countries affects the amount of crime and violence there. Norway
>and Switzerland have almost no crime. The UK and France had little
>violent crime until the last 40 years (when they started allowing
>large immigration from Muslim countries). Haiti and many African
>countries, Nigeria, etc have always had so much crime they they are
>impossible to govern.

I lived in Holland back in the early 1970s and they had a very low
crime rate. Even so, almost all of the crime was committed by
immigrants, mostly from Suriname, Turkey and Morocco and the many
foreign visitors who spent their time in Amsterdam. I used to think
that the Dutch, if left on their own, could almost do without police.


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:09:43
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <dvsh23hmtsifajvoje1jf7c6bu44b3g1up@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:32:39 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:11:49 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I believe that in Switzerland every male between the ages of 18 to 45 is
> >>required by law to be in their militia and is further required to keep
> >>their standard issue weapon, what some would call an assault rifle,
> >>clean and function and they must remain proficient with it too.
> >
> >There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
> >rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
> >gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
> >strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.
>
> Of course nobody wants to touch the fact that the ethnic populations
> of countries affects the amount of crime and violence there. Norway
> and Switzerland have almost no crime. The UK and France had little
> violent crime until the last 40 years (when they started allowing
> large immigration from Muslim countries). Haiti and many African
> countries, Nigeria, etc have always had so much crime they they are
> impossible to govern.
>
> Duh, bring increasing components from the high crime countries to
> either Norway or Switzerland (or the US) -and their crime rate will
> shoot up!
>
> Like the US, their citizens will need guns to protect themselves.
>
> Larry

Do you read? If so you would have seen:

"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 might also have seen:

" . . the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
per 100,000 - the highest in Europe."

But never let actual data get in the way of good, racist, innuendo.

William Clark


       
Date: 20 Apr 2007 21:45:55
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
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: 20 Apr 2007 16:26:39
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:09:43 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>In article <dvsh23hmtsifajvoje1jf7c6bu44b3g1up@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:32:39 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:11:49 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I believe that in Switzerland every male between the ages of 18 to 45 is
>> >>required by law to be in their militia and is further required to keep
>> >>their standard issue weapon, what some would call an assault rifle,
>> >>clean and function and they must remain proficient with it too.
>> >
>> >There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
>> >rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
>> >gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
>> >strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.
>>
>> Of course nobody wants to touch the fact that the ethnic populations
>> of countries affects the amount of crime and violence there. Norway
>> and Switzerland have almost no crime. The UK and France had little
>> violent crime until the last 40 years (when they started allowing
>> large immigration from Muslim countries). Haiti and many African
>> countries, Nigeria, etc have always had so much crime they they are
>> impossible to govern.
>>
>> Duh, bring increasing components from the high crime countries to
>> either Norway or Switzerland (or the US) -and their crime rate will
>> shoot up!
>>
>> Like the US, their citizens will need guns to protect themselves.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Do you read? If so you would have seen:
>
>"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 might also have seen:
>
>" . . the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
>at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
>29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
>US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
>per 100,000 - the highest in Europe."
>
>But never let actual data get in the way of good, racist, innuendo.
>
>William Clark

Noticing the ethic mix of countries (or US cities) is not racism. It
is just pragmatic fact. I agree with Jesse Jackson; I too would be
relieved hearing footsteps behind me in a dark alley-- to see that it
was a white guy.

Larry


        
Date: 26 Apr 2007 19:50:20
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <gsii239onbgmehf15vu9da10h328di0ro0@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:09:43 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <dvsh23hmtsifajvoje1jf7c6bu44b3g1up@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:32:39 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:11:49 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>I believe that in Switzerland every male between the ages of 18 to 45 is
> >> >>required by law to be in their militia and is further required to keep
> >> >>their standard issue weapon, what some would call an assault rifle,
> >> >>clean and function and they must remain proficient with it too.
> >> >
> >> >There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
> >> >rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
> >> >gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
> >> >strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.
> >>
> >> Of course nobody wants to touch the fact that the ethnic populations
> >> of countries affects the amount of crime and violence there. Norway
> >> and Switzerland have almost no crime. The UK and France had little
> >> violent crime until the last 40 years (when they started allowing
> >> large immigration from Muslim countries). Haiti and many African
> >> countries, Nigeria, etc have always had so much crime they they are
> >> impossible to govern.
> >>
> >> Duh, bring increasing components from the high crime countries to
> >> either Norway or Switzerland (or the US) -and their crime rate will
> >> shoot up!
> >>
> >> Like the US, their citizens will need guns to protect themselves.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Do you read? If so you would have seen:
> >
> >"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 might also have seen:
> >
> >" . . the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
> >at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
> >29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
> >US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
> >per 100,000 - the highest in Europe."
> >
> >But never let actual data get in the way of good, racist, innuendo.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> Noticing the ethic mix of countries (or US cities) is not racism. It
> is just pragmatic fact. I agree with Jesse Jackson; I too would be
> relieved hearing footsteps behind me in a dark alley-- to see that it
> was a white guy.
>
> Larry

What do you call your implicit assumption that the spanish speaking
workers you pass in your neighbourhood are thieves?

--
"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: 21 Apr 2007 16:50:13
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <gsii239onbgmehf15vu9da10h328di0ro0@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:09:43 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <dvsh23hmtsifajvoje1jf7c6bu44b3g1up@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:32:39 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:11:49 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>I believe that in Switzerland every male between the ages of 18 to 45 is
> >> >>required by law to be in their militia and is further required to keep
> >> >>their standard issue weapon, what some would call an assault rifle,
> >> >>clean and function and they must remain proficient with it too.
> >> >
> >> >There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
> >> >rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
> >> >gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
> >> >strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.
> >>
> >> Of course nobody wants to touch the fact that the ethnic populations
> >> of countries affects the amount of crime and violence there. Norway
> >> and Switzerland have almost no crime. The UK and France had little
> >> violent crime until the last 40 years (when they started allowing
> >> large immigration from Muslim countries). Haiti and many African
> >> countries, Nigeria, etc have always had so much crime they they are
> >> impossible to govern.
> >>
> >> Duh, bring increasing components from the high crime countries to
> >> either Norway or Switzerland (or the US) -and their crime rate will
> >> shoot up!
> >>
> >> Like the US, their citizens will need guns to protect themselves.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Do you read? If so you would have seen:
> >
> >"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 might also have seen:
> >
> >" . . the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
> >at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
> >29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
> >US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
> >per 100,000 - the highest in Europe."
> >
> >But never let actual data get in the way of good, racist, innuendo.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> Noticing the ethic mix of countries (or US cities) is not racism. It
> is just pragmatic fact. I agree with Jesse Jackson; I too would be
> relieved hearing footsteps behind me in a dark alley-- to see that it
> was a white guy.
>
> Larry

The racism is one thing - simply quoting incorrect data as gospel is the
real issue.

William Clark


        
Date: 20 Apr 2007 21:58:44
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:26:39 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

> I agree with Jesse Jackson; I too would be
>relieved hearing footsteps behind me in a dark alley-- to see that it
>was a white guy.
>
>Larry

Up until this week, I would have been even more relieved if it was an
Asian guy.


         
Date: 22 Apr 2007 13:56:24
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


Jack Hollis wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:26:39 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Jesse Jackson; I too would be
> >relieved hearing footsteps behind me in a dark alley-- to see that it
> >was a white guy.
> >
> >Larry
>
> Up until this week, I would have been even more relieved if it was an
> Asian guy.

A black guy in gangsta gear would disturb me. A black guy in a business
suit wouldn't bother me at all. A white skinhead would disturb me. A white
guy who looked like some gnarly redneck would bother me. A white guy in a
business suit wouldn't bother me. A white guy in bermuda shorts and a loud
polo shirt in a Brooklyn alley would bother me! It's the more legitimate
application of the broken window idea. In any event, it's not a matter of
race, regardless of what comedians might want you to think.




        
Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:49:14
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:gsii239onbgmehf15vu9da10h328di0ro0@4ax.com...
> Noticing the ethic mix of countries (or US cities) is not racism. It
> is just pragmatic fact. I agree with Jesse Jackson; I too would be
> relieved hearing footsteps behind me in a dark alley-- to see that it
> was a white guy.
>
> Larry

Racist




       
Date: 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-A76551.14094320042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
> Do you read? If so you would have seen:
>
> "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 might also have seen:
>
> " . . the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
> at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
> 29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
> US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
> per 100,000 - the highest in Europe."
>
> But never let actual data get in the way of good, racist, innuendo.
>
> William Clark

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




        
Date: 26 Apr 2007 20:12:58
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 26, 12:48 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net > wrote:

>
> BK shows *compassion* by thinking about how others might be affected by
> his sig. That's not PC, that's *human*.

Compassion???? That's just ignorant bull, ski bum. I challenge to
you to read all of your hero's posts. Exclude the ones to Larry and
yet still half are anklebiting attacks to a wide variety of people in
this forum.

B.O.B.'s nothing but a Bitter Old Bastard who has way too much time on
his hands.

-Greg



         
Date: 27 Apr 2007 09:53:26
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 26 Apr 2007 20:12:58 -0700, Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

>On Apr 26, 12:48 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> BK shows *compassion* by thinking about how others might be affected by
>> his sig. That's not PC, that's *human*.
>
>Compassion???? That's just ignorant bull, ski bum. I challenge to
>you to read all of your hero's posts. Exclude the ones to Larry and
>yet still half are anklebiting attacks to a wide variety of people in
>this forum.
>
>B.O.B.'s nothing but a Bitter Old Bastard who has way too much time on
>his hands.

Greg

And BK spends way too much of his time here. One day the old fart is
going to clutch his chest and keel over! Likely he has high blood
pressure, diabetes, and poor circulation from too much sitting on his
can typing hateful messages to the Usenet. Whew!

But we reap what we sow-- and he sows gratuitous (unwarranted)
hatred-- not even thinly disguised. Everyone can read his posts and
discern what he probably looks like--and certainly that he is a bitter
old curmudgeon. I get the image of an old toad...

Larry


          
Date: 27 Apr 2007 17:22:33
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:53:26 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:


>
>And BK spends way too much of his time here. One day the old fart is
>going to clutch his chest and keel over! Likely he has high blood
>pressure, diabetes, and poor circulation from too much sitting on his
>can typing hateful messages to the Usenet. Whew!
>
I'm so glad that you've found a new cyber-buddy in Greg. You deserve
each other.

At only 4 years older than you, I am in great health, not overweight,
nor taking any medications other than aspirin daily.. I also play
golf three days a week, exercise with my dogs, and keep a healthy
lifestyle.

>But we reap what we sow-- and he sows gratuitous (unwarranted)
>hatred-- not even thinly disguised.

No, nothing I've ever said about you, or to you, was gratuitous...all
was warranted.

We do reap what we sow, and with the weight of criticism given you for
your gratuitous remarks about the V Tech students that were murdered,
should give you an example of what is thought of you here. Probably
the same as those that know you personally. You can't hide such moral
turpitude.


> Everyone can read his posts and discern what he probably looks like--and certainly that he is a bitter
>old curmudgeon. I get the image of an old toad...
>
>Larry

We don't have to imagine what you look like.
http://www.delmardata.com/about.htm

Frankly, you even look like a sleaze.


           
Date: 28 Apr 2007 06:10:08
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 27, 9:42 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:07:45 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@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.
>
>

I repeat; "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." I am the poster boy for virtue here.



            
Date: 28 Apr 2007 20:21:25
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 28 Apr 2007 06:10:08 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>On Apr 27, 9:42 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:07:45 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>

>
>I repeat; "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." I am the poster boy for virtue here.

That eliminates me. Never even heard of Comet Cursors. Nope, you are
NOT the paragon of virtue. Period.
--
___,
\o


             
Date: 29 Apr 2007 00:54:48
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


Bobby Knight wrote:

> On 28 Apr 2007 06:10:08 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 27, 9:42 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:07:45 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
>
> >
> >I repeat; "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." I am the poster boy for virtue here.
>
> That eliminates me. Never even heard of Comet Cursors. Nope, you are
> NOT the paragon of virtue. Period.
>

Comet Cursors apparently (as far as I know) once used spyware to collect
information from people's computers without their permission. If you have
never been in the position where anyone would register such a complaint
against your or yours businesswise, then I sit corrected, and I apologize.



              
Date: 29 Apr 2007 02:40:00
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:54:48 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>> On 28 Apr 2007 06:10:08 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 27, 9:42 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:07:45 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> >
>> >I repeat; "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." I am the poster boy for virtue here.
>>
>> That eliminates me. Never even heard of Comet Cursors. Nope, you are
>> NOT the paragon of virtue. Period.
>>
>
>Comet Cursors apparently (as far as I know) once used spyware to collect
>information from people's computers without their permission. If you have
>never been in the position where anyone would register such a complaint
>against your or yours businesswise, then I sit corrected, and I apologize.

Accepted. As I said, I never even heard of the company. It may well
be that Verio, the company I worked for, hosted their web site.
However, their policy was to sever any ties with customers who were
found to be tainted...and did so several times.
___,
\o


           
Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:29:26
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 27, 4:07 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:00:05 GMT, 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...
>
> Too bad there's not a lifeguard at the gene pool. :-)

Which means Alan is one of your sock puppets, brave guy.

-Greg



            
Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:34:14
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177716566.532235.100840@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

> On Apr 27, 4:07 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:00:05 GMT, 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...
> >
> > Too bad there's not a lifeguard at the gene pool. :-)
>
> Which means Alan is one of your sock puppets, brave guy.
>
> -Greg

Nope.

Anyone of even modest intelligence could figure out that's not true.

Which is beginning to look to me like that lets you out, sorry. :-(

--
"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 23:57:59
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:34:14 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net >
wrote:

>In article <1177716566.532235.100840@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:

>> Which means Alan is one of your sock puppets, brave guy.
>>
>> -Greg
>
>Nope.
>
>Anyone of even modest intelligence could figure out that's not true.
>
>Which is beginning to look to me like that lets you out, sorry. :-(

Yep. You're my sock puppet. I signed up for a dial-up account with
Telus (in Canada) and pay those long distance charges to post under
the name of Alan Baker. All this just to harangue LLLLLLarrry and
remind the Snide Sniper what a prick he is. :-)
___,
\o


        
Date:
From:
Subject:


        
Date: 20 Apr 2007 15:31:51
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <jK-dnT6f3tsEmLTbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-A76551.14094320042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >
> > Do you read? If so you would have seen:
> >
> > "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 might also have seen:
> >
> > " . . the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
> > at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
> > 29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
> > US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
> > per 100,000 - the highest in Europe."
> >
> > But never let actual data get in the way of good, racist, innuendo.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun?

Bureau of ATF statistics.

William Clark


         
Date: 20 Apr 2007 20:35:44
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:31:51 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>In article <jK-dnT6f3tsEmLTbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@centurytel.net>,
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
>> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark.31-A76551.14094320042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...

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


According to the Violence Policy Center it's 39% for a gun in the
house, but it doesn't separate handguns.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/norckey.htm


          
Date: 26 Apr 2007 01:24:04
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:26:48 -0500, frank ross 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.

He's the Rollen Stewart of RSG.


          
Date: 20 Apr 2007 15:56:35
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:rb8i23lq94pul956b0qcroke2ckld3bkse@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:31:51 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article <jK-dnT6f3tsEmLTbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@centurytel.net>,
>> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:clark.31-A76551.14094320042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
>>> What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun?
>>
>>Bureau of ATF statistics.
>>
>>William Clark
>
>
> According to the Violence Policy Center it's 39% for a gun in the
> house, but it doesn't separate handguns.
>
> http://www.vpc.org/studies/norckey.htm

The VPC is VERY anti-gun but they're close. The DOJ says this:

According a 1994 Department of Justice survey, about 35% of American
households own 192 million firearms. Some other estimates are slightly
higher. Handguns account for about 35% of this total




           
Date: 28 Apr 2007 01:50:58
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:22:33 +0000, Bobby Knight wrote:

> We don't have to imagine what you look like.
> http://www.delmardata.com/about.htm
>
> Frankly, you even look like a sleaze.


That's an old one. Here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0605/ten.spot/content.7.html


            
Date: 28 Apr 2007 02:03:45
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 28 Apr 2007 01:50:58 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:22:33 +0000, Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>> We don't have to imagine what you look like.
>> http://www.delmardata.com/about.htm
>>
>> Frankly, you even look like a sleaze.
>
>
>That's an old one. Here:
>
>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0605/ten.spot/content.7.html

Watch it Carbon, or LLLLLarrrry will threaten you, and the Snide
Sniper will ankle bite you at every turn. :-)
___,
\o


           
Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:07:07
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
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.

-Greg



            
Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:12:45
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177708027.659661.150670@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@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.

--
"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 13:34:06
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
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



            
Date: 27 Apr 2007 20:43:57
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177706046.467539.126690@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com >,
Dene <gdstrue@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?

--
"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 12:47:13
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
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.




            
Date: 27 Apr 2007 20:02:29
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 27 Apr 2007 12:47:13 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@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.



            
Date: 27 Apr 2007 19:54:59
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <1177703232.928891.116460@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
The_Professor <dbid@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.

--
"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 10:46:21
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
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




           
Date: 20 Apr 2007 22:08:16
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:56:35 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>According a 1994 Department of Justice survey, about 35% of American
>households own 192 million firearms. Some other estimates are slightly
>higher. Handguns account for about 35% of this total

If this data is correct, it's extremely unlikely that 29% of US
households own handguns.


           
Date: 20 Apr 2007 21:12:27
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:56:35 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message

>> According to the Violence Policy Center it's 39% for a gun in the
>> house, but it doesn't separate handguns.
>>
>> http://www.vpc.org/studies/norckey.htm
>
>The VPC is VERY anti-gun but they're close. The DOJ says this:

The fact that they show a larger percentage doesn't bear this out.
>
>According a 1994 Department of Justice survey, about 35% of American
>households own 192 million firearms. Some other estimates are slightly
>higher. Handguns account for about 35% of this total
>



___,
\o


            
Date: 26 Apr 2007 20:44:59
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 26, 8:32 pm, frank ross <f...@net.net > wrote:

> You two-faced, poor little man. You don't have enough on your plate
> other than to take up for the worst poster who ever came here...Larry.

Show me where I have directly defended Larry.

> Then you jump in every chance you get to stick your tongue up Hamilton's
> rear, only because someone who has made a fool of you does the same to
> him. You stalk Bobby, and have since the first time I came here..years now.

Liar. But repeat these lies for the reader. You've been here for
years but coincidently de-lurked to come to Butt Buddy Bobby's
defense, claiming you're real name is Frank Ross.

Uh huh.

> Now you've added Baker. But, you don't like it when someone does the
> same to you. Tough s***.
>
> RSG-NW has your number, as does Baker, BK, and others here. Live with it.

I do.....quite successfully. Part of successful living is
distinguishing character. You, Baker, and your butt buddy have
little.

> Oh yes. Marking your ball with the end of your putter is something that
> should be expected of you.

How would you know? Do you even golf?
Are my posts the only thing you read? That's some "life" you lead,
Francis.

> I use my real name, you don't.

Liar. I have asked you some direct questions and you've ignored them.

Have you posted your address or phone
> number? If you actually use your real email address, then you're as
> big a fool as Larry is. That is just dumb. Why am I anon and you
> aren't? Because you can't see yourself as you are, a hypocritical ass.

You're a coward. My name is known. I'm in the phone book.

Who are you??

-Greg



            
Date: 26 Apr 2007 20:08:03
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 26, 5:47 pm, frank ross <f...@net.net > wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 3:54 pm, frank ross <f...@net.net> wrote:
> >> Dene wrote:
> >>> On Apr 24, 9:38 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>> .......while feeding him in the process.
> >>> -Greg
> >> But that was what I was addressing before. Bobby is obviously getting
> >> his goat...because he seldom responds to the multitude of other posters
> >> who say, or agree, with what BK says.
>
> >> Frank Ross
>
> > In essence, an old goat is getting his goat.
>
> > -Greg
>
> You just can't keep from sniping. BK hasn't made any reference to you
> at all, so why do you persist? Because he got your goat before, which
> is apparent. What a wuss you are. Leave the guy alone. You only look
> simpid continuing this.
>
> Frank Ross- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Better question....why do you always rise to his defense?
Furthermore, why should I pay heed to the admonition of an anom.
coward who stalks my posts and Rob Hamiltons?

-Greg



             
Date: 26 Apr 2007 22:32:44
From: frank ross
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Dene wrote:
> On Apr 26, 5:47 pm, frank ross <f...@net.net> wrote:
>> Dene wrote:
>>> On Apr 25, 3:54 pm, frank ross <f...@net.net> wrote:

>> You just can't keep from sniping. BK hasn't made any reference to you
>> at all, so why do you persist? Because he got your goat before, which
>> is apparent. What a wuss you are. Leave the guy alone. You only look
>> simpid continuing this.
>>
>> Frank Ross- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Better question....why do you always rise to his defense?
> Furthermore, why should I pay heed to the admonition of an anom.
> coward who stalks my posts and Rob Hamiltons?
>
> -Greg
>

You two-faced, poor little man. You don't have enough on your plate
other than to take up for the worst poster who ever came here...Larry.
Then you jump in every chance you get to stick your tongue up Hamilton's
rear, only because someone who has made a fool of you does the same to
him. You stalk Bobby, and have since the first time I came here..years now.

Now you've added Baker. But, you don't like it when someone does the
same to you. Tough s***.

RSG-NW has your number, as does Baker, BK, and others here. Live with it.

Oh yes. Marking your ball with the end of your putter is something that
should be expected of you.

I use my real name, you don't. Have you posted your address or phone
number? If you actually use your real email address, then you're as
big a fool as Larry is. That is just dumb. Why am I anon and you
aren't? Because you can't see yourself as you are, a hypocritical ass.

As I said, live with it.
Frank Ross


            
Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:30:50
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 25, 3:54 pm, frank ross <f...@net.net > wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 9:38 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> > .......while feeding him in the process.
>
> > -Greg
>
> But that was what I was addressing before. Bobby is obviously getting
> his goat...because he seldom responds to the multitude of other posters
> who say, or agree, with what BK says.
>
> Frank Ross

In essence, an old goat is getting his goat.

-Greg



             
Date: 26 Apr 2007 19:47:45
From: frank ross
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Dene wrote:
> On Apr 25, 3:54 pm, frank ross <f...@net.net> wrote:
>> Dene wrote:
>>> On Apr 24, 9:38 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> .......while feeding him in the process.
>>> -Greg
>> But that was what I was addressing before. Bobby is obviously getting
>> his goat...because he seldom responds to the multitude of other posters
>> who say, or agree, with what BK says.
>>
>> Frank Ross
>
> In essence, an old goat is getting his goat.
>
> -Greg
>
You just can't keep from sniping. BK hasn't made any reference to you
at all, so why do you persist? Because he got your goat before, which
is apparent. What a wuss you are. Leave the guy alone. You only look
simpid continuing this.

Frank Ross


              
Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:04:19
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:47:45 -0500, frank ross <fross@net.net > wrote:

>Dene wrote:
<clip >
>> -Greg
>>
>You just can't keep from sniping. BK hasn't made any reference to you
>at all, so why do you persist? Because he got your goat before, which
>is apparent. What a wuss you are. Leave the guy alone. You only look
>simpid continuing this.
>
>Frank Ross

Frank,
I want to point out that I would never see these digs from him if you
didn't respond to his posts. Besides, who cares what the Snide
Sniper of RSG says anyway? :-)
--
___,
\o


              
Date: 26 Apr 2007 18:31:34
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:47:45 -0500, frank ross <fross@net.net > wrote:

>Dene wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 3:54 pm, frank ross <f...@net.net> wrote:
>>> Dene wrote:
>>>> On Apr 24, 9:38 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> .......while feeding him in the process.
>>>> -Greg
>>> But that was what I was addressing before. Bobby is obviously getting
>>> his goat...because he seldom responds to the multitude of other posters
>>> who say, or agree, with what BK says.
>>>
>>> Frank Ross
>>
>> In essence, an old goat is getting his goat.
>>
>> -Greg
>>
>You just can't keep from sniping. BK hasn't made any reference to you
>at all, so why do you persist? Because he got your goat before, which
>is apparent. What a wuss you are. Leave the guy alone. You only look
>simpid continuing this.
>
>Frank Ross

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.

Larry


            
Date: 25 Apr 2007 15:50:28
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 24, 9:38 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:


> 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.

.......while feeding him in the process.

-Greg



             
Date: 25 Apr 2007 17:54:41
From: frank ross
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
Dene wrote:
> On Apr 24, 9:38 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
> .......while feeding him in the process.
>
> -Greg
>
But that was what I was addressing before. Bobby is obviously getting
his goat...because he seldom responds to the multitude of other posters
who say, or agree, with what BK says.

Frank Ross


         
Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:56:53
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-63CEF8.15315120042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <jK-dnT6f3tsEmLTbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@centurytel.net>,
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:clark.31-A76551.14094320042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > >
> > > Do you read? If so you would have seen:
> > >
> > > "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 might also have seen:
> > >
> > > " . . the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
> > > at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
> > > 29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
> > > US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is
1.42
> > > per 100,000 - the highest in Europe."
> > >
> > > But never let actual data get in the way of good, racist, innuendo.
> > >
> > > William Clark
> >
> > What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun?
>
> Bureau of ATF statistics.
>
> William Clark

This information is not available in the ATF's statistics section or the
FAQ. Could you be more specific?




     
Date: 20 Apr 2007 08:34:14
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpok3v@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:11:49 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com> wrote:
>
> >I believe that in Switzerland every male between the ages of 18 to 45 is
> >required by law to be in their militia and is further required to keep
> >their standard issue weapon, what some would call an assault rifle,
> >clean and function and they must remain proficient with it too.
>
> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
> rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
> gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
> strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.

Only 32% of Swiss own guns - in the US, by comparison, that figure is
49%. And Swiss gun laws are not very liberal; the weapons are
long-barreled, must be kept locked up, with their ammunition sealed,
stored in a separate place, and strictly accounted for. I doubt the NRA
would settle for that.

As for handguns, the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
per 100,000 - the highest in Europe.

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


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 20:55:47
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:34:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
>> rate.
>
>As for handguns, the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
>at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
>29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
>US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
>per 100,000 - the highest in Europe.

Your responds is off the point Professor. Please read what I said
carefully. I would suggest that you address the issue of gun
ownership and homicide rate. There is no significant correlation. The
stuff you posted is irrelevant to the issue.


       
Date: 21 Apr 2007 16:59:45
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <ctni23p5nb59j4q7ulcu3b3d1d7b7751vr@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:34:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
> >> rate.
> >
> >As for handguns, the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
> >at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
> >29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
> >US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
> >per 100,000 - the highest in Europe.
>
> Your responds is off the point Professor. Please read what I said
> carefully. I would suggest that you address the issue of gun
> ownership and homicide rate. There is no significant correlation. The
> stuff you posted is irrelevant to the issue.

First, it's "response" not "responds". Second, what I posted were actual
numbers from the ATF, as opposed to the uninformed hearsay that was
being peddled in the thread to that point.

I could care less if you take or leave the numbers - I know it will make
not one whit of difference to your pre-conceived prejudice.

Finally, please do NOT cut and paste my posting to misrepresent what I
said. I did not say "There's no significant correlation between gun
ownership and homicide rate", as you try to make it look above. The
start of that post actually goes:

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:11:49 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com> wrote:
>
> >I believe that in Switzerland every male between the ages of 18 to 45 is
> >required by law to be in their militia and is further required to keep
> >their standard issue weapon, what some would call an assault rifle,
> >clean and function and they must remain proficient with it too.
>
> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
> rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
> gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
> strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.

To which I followed up. Suits your point to have it otherwise, I am
sure, but it is simply downright dishonest.

William Clark


        
Date: 22 Apr 2007 09:02:11
From: BAR
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <ctni23p5nb59j4q7ulcu3b3d1d7b7751vr@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:34:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
>>>> rate.
>>> As for handguns, the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
>>> at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
>>> 29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
>>> US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
>>> per 100,000 - the highest in Europe.
>> Your responds is off the point Professor. Please read what I said
>> carefully. I would suggest that you address the issue of gun
>> ownership and homicide rate. There is no significant correlation. The
>> stuff you posted is irrelevant to the issue.
>
> First, it's "response" not "responds". Second, what I posted were actual
> numbers from the ATF, as opposed to the uninformed hearsay that was
> being peddled in the thread to that point.
>
> I could care less if you take or leave the numbers - I know it will make
> not one whit of difference to your pre-conceived prejudice.
>
> Finally, please do NOT cut and paste my posting to misrepresent what I
> said. I did not say "There's no significant correlation between gun
> ownership and homicide rate", as you try to make it look above. The
> start of that post actually goes:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:11:49 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that in Switzerland every male between the ages of 18 to 45 is
>>> required by law to be in their militia and is further required to keep
>>> their standard issue weapon, what some would call an assault rifle,
>>> clean and function and they must remain proficient with it too.
>> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
>> rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
>> gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
>> strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.
>
> To which I followed up. Suits your point to have it otherwise, I am
> sure, but it is simply downright dishonest.
>
> William Clark

Billy! Glad you are back, we miss....no, just glad you are back.


        
Date: 21 Apr 2007 19:46:20
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:59:45 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> >> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
>> >> rate.
>> >
>> >As for handguns, the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
>> >at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
>> >29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
>> >US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
>> >per 100,000 - the highest in Europe.
>>
>> Your responds is off the point Professor. Please read what I said
>> carefully. I would suggest that you address the issue of gun
>> ownership and homicide rate. There is no significant correlation. The
>> stuff you posted is irrelevant to the issue.
>
>First, it's "response" not "responds".

This is about as lame as it comes. However, it seems to be the only
correct thing you've posted so far. Perhaps you should move to the
English department.

>Second, what I posted were actual
>numbers from the ATF, as opposed to the uninformed hearsay that was
>being peddled in the thread to that point.

The issue isn't the correctness of the numbers. It really doesn't
matter because they're irrelevant to the discussion. The point is
total homicide rate and gun ownership, not how many murders are
committed by guns. Surely you're bright enough to know the
difference.


>Finally, please do NOT cut and paste my posting to misrepresent what I
>said. I did not say "There's no significant correlation between gun
>ownership and homicide rate", as you try to make it look above. The
>start of that post actually goes:

Have you ever noticed the <<< marks when people quote text. Try to
figure out what they mean and perhaps you wont get confused.


         
Date: 24 Apr 2007 21:41:14
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <168l23plb9fopbf551vcretalir6ktkbub@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:59:45 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
> >> >> rate.
> >> >
> >> >As for handguns, the Swiss have the highest handgun ownership in Europe,
> >> >at 14% of households, but this is small compared to the US figure of
> >> >29%. Handgun murder rates are about 5.28 per 100,000 population in the
> >> >US (~13,500 a year); in the UK it is 0.06, but in Switzerland it is 1.42
> >> >per 100,000 - the highest in Europe.
> >>
> >> Your responds is off the point Professor. Please read what I said
> >> carefully. I would suggest that you address the issue of gun
> >> ownership and homicide rate. There is no significant correlation. The
> >> stuff you posted is irrelevant to the issue.
> >
> >First, it's "response" not "responds".
>
> This is about as lame as it comes. However, it seems to be the only
> correct thing you've posted so far. Perhaps you should move to the
> English department.
>
> >Second, what I posted were actual
> >numbers from the ATF, as opposed to the uninformed hearsay that was
> >being peddled in the thread to that point.
>
> The issue isn't the correctness of the numbers. It really doesn't
> matter because they're irrelevant to the discussion. The point is
> total homicide rate and gun ownership, not how many murders are
> committed by guns. Surely you're bright enough to know the
> difference.

Aaaah, the good old shifting goal posts. When your original
unsubstantiated opinions don't match with independent data, just make
out that wasn't the topic in the first place. Indeed, we are certainly
bright enough to know the difference.
>
>
> >Finally, please do NOT cut and paste my posting to misrepresent what I
> >said. I did not say "There's no significant correlation between gun
> >ownership and homicide rate", as you try to make it look above. The
> >start of that post actually goes:
>
> Have you ever noticed the <<< marks when people quote text. Try to
> figure out what they mean and perhaps you wont get confused.

No, the ONLY part of the previous posting you cleverly left in was not
mine, but then you put my name above it, rather than the original
posters, so it looks like it was. I understand that 90% of your argument
has to be based on trying to discredit those who actually produce data,
but that was a pretty childish and feeble attempt to do so.

Do have the decency to try to quote people accurately, and then YOU
won't get shown up.

I notice that, this time too, you have taken out the salient part of my
response. How very clever.

William Clark


          
Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:32:45
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:41:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>I notice that, this time too, you have taken out the salient part of my
>response.

In reality Bill there was no salient part.


     
Date: 20 Apr 2007 02:29:52
From: John Reddy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpok3v@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
> rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
> gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
> strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.

I know I'm going to take a beating for this but another factor has to be
considered. The UK and the USA both have relatively high homicide rates
compared to the rest of Europe.

Take a closer look at the race and/or national origin of those involved
in most of the homicides (gun-related and otherwise) in both countries.
Quite simply, it ain't european or european descendent white folk.

That doesn't mean that people of other races or descent are all
murderers. It means that there is a group of people who do not conform
to the rules of decency that white, European/American have established
over the course of hundreds of years. Call it cultural differences,
call it whatever you want, but the problem lies with nonwhites.

Even as I write this, I'm thinking how bigoted it sounds. But it only
sounds that way because we have been indoctrinated against telling the
truth. It doesn't mean that nonwhites are a bunch of savages by any
means. It means that there are certain populations among nonwhites who
follow a different set of rules than the rest of us follow.
Unfortunately, the are living among us.

I don't have a solution to this nor does anyone else. "Send them back to
where they came from" sounds good but is neither practical or fair to
the majority of people who simply want to better their lives. However,
I would think that a much more vigorous approach to law enforcement and
less concern for offending so-called protected groups would go a long
way to bringing us back to what used to be known as a law abiding
society.


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:52:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:29:52 GMT, John Reddy
<johnreddy@contbuilding.com > wrote:

>That doesn't mean that people of other races or descent are all
>murderers. It means that there is a group of people who do not conform
>to the rules of decency that white, European/American have established
>over the course of hundreds of years. Call it cultural differences,
>call it whatever you want, but the problem lies with nonwhites.
>
>Even as I write this, I'm thinking how bigoted it sounds.

If it's the truth then how is it bigoted? Black Americans commit
homicide at a rate 7 to 8 times higher than whites.


       
Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:30:06
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:52:48 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:29:52 GMT, John Reddy
><johnreddy@contbuilding.com> wrote:
>
>>That doesn't mean that people of other races or descent are all
>>murderers. It means that there is a group of people who do not conform
>>to the rules of decency that white, European/American have established
>>over the course of hundreds of years. Call it cultural differences,
>>call it whatever you want, but the problem lies with nonwhites.
>>
>>Even as I write this, I'm thinking how bigoted it sounds.
>
>If it's the truth then how is it bigoted? Black Americans commit
>homicide at a rate 7 to 8 times higher than whites.

And that is also the ratio of their population in prisons compared to
whites.

Larry


        
Date: 20 Apr 2007 21:59:59
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:30:06 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>>If it's the truth then how is it bigoted? Black Americans commit
>>homicide at a rate 7 to 8 times higher than whites.
>
>And that is also the ratio of their population in prisons compared to
>whites.
>
>Larry

One follows the other doesn't it?


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:18:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:29:52 GMT, John Reddy
<johnreddy@contbuilding.com > wrote:

>In article <ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpok3v@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
>> rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
>> gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
>> strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.
>
>I know I'm going to take a beating for this but another factor has to be
>considered. The UK and the USA both have relatively high homicide rates
>compared to the rest of Europe.
>
>Take a closer look at the race and/or national origin of those involved
>in most of the homicides (gun-related and otherwise) in both countries.
>Quite simply, it ain't european or european descendent white folk.
>
>That doesn't mean that people of other races or descent are all
>murderers. It means that there is a group of people who do not conform
>to the rules of decency that white, European/American have established
>over the course of hundreds of years. Call it cultural differences,
>call it whatever you want, but the problem lies with nonwhites.
>
>Even as I write this, I'm thinking how bigoted it sounds. But it only
>sounds that way because we have been indoctrinated against telling the
>truth. It doesn't mean that nonwhites are a bunch of savages by any
>means. It means that there are certain populations among nonwhites who
>follow a different set of rules than the rest of us follow.
>Unfortunately, the are living among us.
>
>I don't have a solution to this nor does anyone else. "Send them back to
>where they came from" sounds good but is neither practical or fair to
>the majority of people who simply want to better their lives. However,
>I would think that a much more vigorous approach to law enforcement and
>less concern for offending so-called protected groups would go a long
>way to bringing us back to what used to be known as a law abiding
>society.


As Jesse Jackson admitted, " I am relieved when I hear footsteps
behind me at night and it is a white guy."

Larry


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:09:29
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.


John Reddy wrote:

> In article <ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpok3v@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
> > rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
> > gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
> > strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.
>
> I know I'm going to take a beating for this but another factor has to be
> considered. The UK and the USA both have relatively high homicide rates
> compared to the rest of Europe.
>
> Take a closer look at the race and/or national origin of those involved
> in most of the homicides (gun-related and otherwise) in both countries.
> Quite simply, it ain't european or european descendent white folk.

Bobby Knight's buddy speaks out!

Hitler and Stalin were Nigerian! Milosovec was Chinese!



       
Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:34:02
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:09:29 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>
>
>John Reddy wrote:
>
>> In article <ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpok3v@4ax.com>,
>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
>> > rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
>> > gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
>> > strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.
>>
>> I know I'm going to take a beating for this but another factor has to be
>> considered. The UK and the USA both have relatively high homicide rates
>> compared to the rest of Europe.
>>
>> Take a closer look at the race and/or national origin of those involved
>> in most of the homicides (gun-related and otherwise) in both countries.
>> Quite simply, it ain't european or european descendent white folk.
>
>Bobby Knight's buddy speaks out!

Hmmmm. All that might make us buddies is this statement about you
from him:

>>I stand by my original statement..... It must suck to be you.

--
___,
\o


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:47:51
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:29:52 GMT, John Reddy
<johnreddy@contbuilding.com > wrote:

>I know I'm going to take a beating for this but another factor has to be
>considered. The UK and the USA both have relatively high homicide rates
>compared to the rest of Europe.
>
>Take a closer look at the race and/or national origin of those involved
>in most of the homicides (gun-related and otherwise) in both countries.
>Quite simply, it ain't european or european descendent white folk.

Although both countries have lots of Scots-Irish, who have had a
culture which has been described as belligerent.


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 00:59:05
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
John Reddy wrote:
> In article <ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpok3v@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>


A quick addition to my other post.

Regrading Homicide clearance rates:

"Young people from some of New York's toughest neighborhoods echo
Canada's assessment, calling the message not to help police "the rules"
and helping the police "a crime" in their neighborhoods. These "rules"
are contributing to a much lower percentage of arrests in homicide cases
-- a statistic known as the "clearance rate" -- in largely poor,
minority neighborhoods throughout the country, according to Prof. David
Kennedy of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "I work in
communities where the clearance rate for homicides has gone into the
single digits," says Kennedy. The national rate for homicide clearance
is 60 percent. "In these neighborhoods, we are on the verge of -- or
maybe we have already lost -- the rule of law," he tells Cooper."

Quote from an upcoming 60 minutes segment.

Joe


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 00:54:25
From: Joe
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
John Reddy wrote:
> In article <ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpok3v@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> There's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide
>> rate. As you point out, in Europe, the Swiss have the most liberal
>> gun laws and a very low homicide rate. On the other hand the UK has
>> strict gun laws and a comparatively high homicide rate.
>
> I know I'm going to take a beating for this but another factor has to be
> considered. The UK and the USA both have relatively high homicide rates
> compared to the rest of Europe.
>
> Take a closer look at the race and/or national origin of those involved
> in most of the homicides (gun-related and otherwise) in both countries.
> Quite simply, it ain't european or european descendent white folk.
>
> That doesn't mean that people of other races or descent are all
> murderers. It means that there is a group of people who do not conform
> to the rules of decency that white, European/American have established
> over the course of hundreds of years. Call it cultural differences,
> call it whatever you want, but the problem lies with nonwhites.
>
> Even as I write this, I'm thinking how bigoted it sounds. But it only
> sounds that way because we have been indoctrinated against telling the
> truth. It doesn't mean that nonwhites are a bunch of savages by any
> means. It means that there are certain populations among nonwhites who
> follow a different set of rules than the rest of us follow.
> Unfortunately, the are living among us.
>
> I don't have a solution to this nor does anyone else. "Send them back to
> where they came from" sounds good but is neither practical or fair to
> the majority of people who simply want to better their lives. However,
> I would think that a much more vigorous approach to law enforcement and
> less concern for offending so-called protected groups would go a long
> way to bringing us back to what used to be known as a law abiding
> society.
John

The data that is available suggests that you are on the right track in
that there are cultural issues at play. The vast majority of violent
crime is committed within the cultural group though.

If you or anyone else would like to see the facts, go to the FBI data
base at the URL below. In addition there is data on justifiable
homicide by private citizen information. (The killing of a felon, during
the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.) There were just 192
events and in 143 of them a firearm was used.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/
Crime in the United States 2005

Knock yourselves out. There is nothing PC about this data.

Joe


  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 19:12:07
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 9:08 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:29:32 -0700, John B. wrote:
> > In Canada, you can own all the rifles and shotguns you want, but to buy
> > a handgun you have to show that you need it. Canadians seem to be able
> > to live with that.
>
> The murder rate is roughly three times lower in Canada than in the States.
> In addition, about two-thirds of homicides in the United States involved a
> firearm, compared with one-third in Canada.
>
> http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

I wonder how much of that has to do with weather? Seriously. Murder
rates go down in the US in the winter, and in Canada, it's always
winter! :-)



  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 14:29:32
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 4:32 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ms8a23pn4ckkedeqspchebbmpsf932aloh@4ax.com...> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:41:54 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>I don't think it would have been that hard if a plan had been in place. My
> >>sons elementary school has lockdown drills at least a couple times a year.
>
> > Your son's elementary school has 26,000 acres? 20,000 + students?
>
> > Apples and oranges Mike. Someone said it very well; get pissed at
> > the shooter. Looking for a scapegoat isn't applicable in every
> > instance. Stuff happens. There was little that could be done, with
> > the info that the police had, and the area and buildings to be
> > covered.
>
> That's the way I see it BK. But the media is already looking for scapegoats.
> Of course the crys from the gun control crowd are deafening. The shooter
> obviously had issues and the blame rests entirely on him.

I'm not part of the "gun control crowd." I own firearms and I love to
shoot. But I don't know why handguns, which have no purpose other than
killing people, should be so easy to get. The NRA divides the world
into law-abiding citizens and criminals. But every criminal who ever
committed a crime with a handgun was a law-abiding citizen until he
pulled the trigger. Or, in the case of the Va. Tech killer, a law-
abiding legal resident alien. In Canada, you can own all the rifles
and shotguns you want, but to buy a handgun you have to show that you
need it. Canadians seem to be able to live with that.



   
Date: 18 Apr 2007 04:42:05
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

On 17-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> But every criminal who ever
> committed a crime with a handgun was a law-abiding citizen until he
> pulled the trigger.

pure BS, most already had a substantial rap sheet I would guess. This nut is
the exception, not the rule.

--
bill-o

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


   
Date: 18 Apr 2007 02:40:38
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 17 Apr 2007 14:29:32 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>I'm not part of the "gun control crowd." I own firearms and I love to
>shoot. But I don't know why handguns, which have no purpose other than
>killing people, should be so easy to get.

The Constitutional right to bear arms isn't about the right to hunt.
It is about the right to war against tyranny. If it's time to
change the Constitution - then do so. It is never time to pretend
what it says doesn't count.


   
Date:
From:
Subject:


   
Date: 17 Apr 2007 21:37:21
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 17 Apr 2007 14:29:32 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>I'm not part of the "gun control crowd." I own firearms and I love to
>shoot. But I don't know why handguns, which have no purpose other than
>killing people, should be so easy to get. The NRA divides the world
>into law-abiding citizens and criminals. But every criminal who ever
>committed a crime with a handgun was a law-abiding citizen until he
>pulled the trigger. Or, in the case of the Va. Tech killer, a law-
>abiding legal resident alien. In Canada, you can own all the rifles
>and shotguns you want, but to buy a handgun you have to show that you
>need it. Canadians seem to be able to live with that.

The real idiocy is to allow anyone to have fully automatic weapons.
Yeah, yeah, I know. The right to bear arms. That's bullshit when it
comes to a weapon that has no use for hunting anything but humans.
bk

bk


    
Date: 18 Apr 2007 09:08:16
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:29fa23dup0r4a6uckg3209qjo04dve38r7@4ax.com...
>>
> The real idiocy is to allow anyone to have fully automatic weapons.
> Yeah, yeah, I know. The right to bear arms. That's bullshit when it
> comes to a weapon that has no use for hunting anything but humans.
> bk
>
Full auto weapons are almost never used in crimes, are VERY expensive and
VERY hard to get.




    
Date: 18 Apr 2007 02:41:21
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:37:21 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>The real idiocy is to allow anyone to have fully automatic weapons.
>Yeah, yeah, I know. The right to bear arms. That's bullshit when it
>comes to a weapon that has no use for hunting anything but humans.

Maybe so - but the Constitution isn't about hunting.


     
Date: 18 Apr 2007 03:11:17
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:41:21 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:37:21 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The real idiocy is to allow anyone to have fully automatic weapons.
>>Yeah, yeah, I know. The right to bear arms. That's bullshit when it
>>comes to a weapon that has no use for hunting anything but humans.
>
>Maybe so - but the Constitution isn't about hunting.

What part of my post did not get through to you Howard? I can't
expect you to read it again and comprehend that we agree I guess.
--
___,
\o


      
Date: 18 Apr 2007 11:59:41
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:11:17 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>>>The real idiocy is to allow anyone to have fully automatic weapons.
>>>Yeah, yeah, I know. The right to bear arms. That's bullshit when it
>>>comes to a weapon that has no use for hunting anything but humans.
>>
>>Maybe so - but the Constitution isn't about hunting.
>
>What part of my post did not get through to you Howard? I can't
>expect you to read it again and comprehend that we agree I guess.

I won't argue, I won't put people down. But I will note, that I
re-read the quote above, and believe my reply was appropriate.


       
Date: 18 Apr 2007 12:12:18
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:59:41 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:11:17 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>>The real idiocy is to allow anyone to have fully automatic weapons.
>>>>Yeah, yeah, I know. The right to bear arms. That's bullshit when it
>>>>comes to a weapon that has no use for hunting anything but humans.
>>>
>>>Maybe so - but the Constitution isn't about hunting.
>>
>>What part of my post did not get through to you Howard? I can't
>>expect you to read it again and comprehend that we agree I guess.
>
>I won't argue, I won't put people down. But I will note, that I
>re-read the quote above, and believe my reply was appropriate.

It was a complete nonsequitur. Of course the Constitution isn't about
hunting. I haven't seen anyone imply that. IMHO it also doesn't give
citizens the right to bazookas either.
--
___,
\o


        
Date: 19 Apr 2007 02:23:52
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:31:48 -0400, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:

>Ah, OK. I can see your point there. But it hardly seems reasonable
>to me give a DQ playing out of order 1) Gives no advantage to either
>side, and 2) Is done to keep up pace.

People putt out all of the time on the Tour - even though they are not
away. They don't get disqualified for doing this.


         
Date: 19 Apr 2007 16:58:00
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:31:48 -0400, John van der Pflum
> <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Ah, OK. I can see your point there. But it hardly seems reasonable
>>to me give a DQ playing out of order 1) Gives no advantage to either
>>side, and 2) Is done to keep up pace.
>
>
> People putt out all of the time on the Tour - even though they are not
> away. They don't get disqualified for doing this.


Consider the intent of the Rule......see Decision 10-2b

"...Although condoning putting out of turn in stroke play may be
questionable in view of the explicit language of Rule 10-2b, there is no
penalty for doing so (Rule 10-2c), it is not in conflict with the intent
of Rule 10-2b, and it may tend to speed play. Accordingly it is
considered that the practice should not be discouraged....."

A tradition appears to have developed where players *will* putt out in
Strokeplay provided that in so doing there is no interference with any
other player's ball, line of play or strategy. Some players, pros
particularly, seem to insist on this as a right....but it isn't!. Of
course, if a competitor requires that a ball or marker be lifted under
Rule 22 because of perceived interference, then the player concerned can
play out of turn under the authority of that Rule.

cheers
david


        
Date: 19 Apr 2007 02:13:48
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:12:18 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>It was a complete nonsequitur. Of course the Constitution isn't about
>hunting. I haven't seen anyone imply that. IMHO it also doesn't give
>citizens the right to bazookas either.

It gives people the right to bear the type of arms that are suitable
to a militia.

I would vote to change it, but meanwhile I won't pretend it says
something it doesn't.


  
Date: 16 Apr 2007 21:49:37
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 16 Apr 2007 14:45:44 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:

>On Apr 16, 4:38 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On 16 Apr 2007 14:24:14 -0700, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 16, 4:20 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Ok, ok, so we know about the attack at Georgia Tech (SIC). Your
>> >> > subject says "What's Really Important", yet you didn't clue us in.
>> >> > What, ummm, is really important?
>>
>> >> To see the replies, to see what it really important to you. Not that I
>> >> didn't know what the answer would be.
>>
>> >I _think_ I understand what you just wrote, though I'm not 100% sure.
>> >Anyway, the standard stuff - family, home, da yob, recreational
>> >activities. What were you looking for and why did it take a massacre
>> >for you to pen a troll like that?
>>
>> His M.O.
>
>Man, I'm glad you saw it that way - that I didn't mean troll in the
>derogatory sense. He said he was looking for replies. To a post with
>no question mark, no less. That's trolling for responses. No big
>deal.

Just wait until he chastises someone for posting OT. That's the real
laugh.
___,
\o


 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 14:35:39
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 4:24 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:20 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ok, ok, so we know about the attack at Georgia Tech (SIC). Your
> > > subject says "What's Really Important", yet you didn't clue us in.
> > > What, ummm, is really important?
>
> > To see the replies, to see what it really important to you. Not that I
> > didn't know what the answer would be.
>
> I _think_ I understand what you just wrote, though I'm not 100% sure.
> Anyway, the standard stuff - family, home, da yob, recreational
> activities. What were you looking for and why did it take a massacre
> for you to pen a troll like that?

Troll? That's even more telling. You are what you are though, and I am
thankful I am not.



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 14:24:14
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 4:20 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net > wrote:

> > Ok, ok, so we know about the attack at Georgia Tech (SIC). Your
> > subject says "What's Really Important", yet you didn't clue us in.
> > What, ummm, is really important?
>
> To see the replies, to see what it really important to you. Not that I
> didn't know what the answer would be.

I _think_ I understand what you just wrote, though I'm not 100% sure.
Anyway, the standard stuff - family, home, da yob, recreational
activities. What were you looking for and why did it take a massacre
for you to pen a troll like that?




  
Date: 16 Apr 2007 21:38:34
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 16 Apr 2007 14:24:14 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:

>On Apr 16, 4:20 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> > Ok, ok, so we know about the attack at Georgia Tech (SIC). Your
>> > subject says "What's Really Important", yet you didn't clue us in.
>> > What, ummm, is really important?
>>
>> To see the replies, to see what it really important to you. Not that I
>> didn't know what the answer would be.
>
>I _think_ I understand what you just wrote, though I'm not 100% sure.
>Anyway, the standard stuff - family, home, da yob, recreational
>activities. What were you looking for and why did it take a massacre
>for you to pen a troll like that?
>
His M.O.
___,
\o


   
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:32:00
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
> juries often feel that these people's suffering deserves
> some compensation.

It probably does... question is... how much?



    
Date: 19 Apr 2007 16:27:00
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 18 Apr 2007 20:32:00 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:

>> juries often feel that these people's suffering deserves
>> some compensation.
>
>It probably does... question is... how much?

I don't see why a company like Dow Corning should pay compensation to
someone who has suffered from a disease that had nothing to do with
Dow Corning.


 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 14:20:39
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 4:11 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:57 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
> > growing number of these kinds of things.
>
> Ok, ok, so we know about the attack at Georgia Tech (SIC). Your
> subject says "What's Really Important", yet you didn't clue us in.
> What, ummm, is really important?

To see the replies, to see what it really important to you. Not that I
didn't know what the answer would be.



  
Date: 19 Apr 2007 06:54:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 18, 11:48 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 10:20 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message
>
> >news:46259aa9$0$25239$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> > > On 17-Apr-2007, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Locking all the buildings would be pretty easy
>
> > > In 8 hours perhaps, they don't have an unlimited key supply, besides Mike,
> > > I
> > > think your just 20/20ing this (hindsight you know)
>
> > I probably would take that long of one person did it.
>
> All of our custodians have keys to the buildings. There are custodians
> in almost every building. I have a key to our building. A high number
> of people have a key to the building they work in. There are lots of
> keys. If the word were to go out to lock the doors, it could be done
> pretty quickly. The hard part is getting the word out. But very few of
> the doors on a campus lock from the inside so you can still get out if
> someone isn't there to stop you.

I read somewhere that there are 465 bldgs. on the Va Tech campus.
Presumably, most of them have more than one entrance. Even if there
were someone in each bldg. with a key to the doors, think about how
long it would take to alert every one of them and then for each of
them to go around and lock all the doors.






   
Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:57:49
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 19 Apr 2007 06:54:22 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>I read somewhere that there are 465 bldgs. on the Va Tech campus.
>Presumably, most of them have more than one entrance. Even if there
>were someone in each bldg. with a key to the doors, think about how
>long it would take to alert every one of them and then for each of
>them to go around and lock all the doors.

I imagine that all VT Security guards carry radios.


    
Date: 19 Apr 2007 22:07:20
From: sfb
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
No way VT has enough police on duty to shutdown 465 buildings.

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:hd7g23d1ln0qlm7c6f8m22v78b1imgis62@4ax.com...
> On 19 Apr 2007 06:54:22 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I read somewhere that there are 465 bldgs. on the Va Tech campus.
>>Presumably, most of them have more than one entrance. Even if there
>>were someone in each bldg. with a key to the doors, think about how
>>long it would take to alert every one of them and then for each of
>>them to go around and lock all the doors.
>
> I imagine that all VT Security guards carry radios.




     
Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:17:17
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:07:20 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>No way VT has enough police on duty to shutdown 465 buildings.

And they were unarmed anyhow. If a campus police force had run into
this guy he would have mown them down.

Larry
>
>"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:hd7g23d1ln0qlm7c6f8m22v78b1imgis62@4ax.com...
>> On 19 Apr 2007 06:54:22 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I read somewhere that there are 465 bldgs. on the Va Tech campus.
>>>Presumably, most of them have more than one entrance. Even if there
>>>were someone in each bldg. with a key to the doors, think about how
>>>long it would take to alert every one of them and then for each of
>>>them to go around and lock all the doors.
>>
>> I imagine that all VT Security guards carry radios.
>


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:06:33
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <lbth23puope8eapch3m7d3g1c5jedvk7th@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:07:20 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
> >No way VT has enough police on duty to shutdown 465 buildings.
>
> And they were unarmed anyhow. If a campus police force had run into
> this guy he would have mown them down.
>
> Larry

Nonsense. Campus police are fully trained police, and are fully armed.
You must have had a run in with someone from Traffic & Parking.


       
Date: 20 Apr 2007 21:29:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:06:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:07:20 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >No way VT has enough police on duty to shutdown 465 buildings.
>>
>> And they were unarmed anyhow. If a campus police force had run into
>> this guy he would have mown them down.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Nonsense. Campus police are fully trained police, and are fully armed.
>You must have had a run in with someone from Traffic & Parking.

Not all campus police are armed. Do you know for a fact that they
are?


        
Date: 21 Apr 2007 17:04:54
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <dnpi23d3405sldj362552pe510v6326c89@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:06:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:07:20 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No way VT has enough police on duty to shutdown 465 buildings.
> >>
> >> And they were unarmed anyhow. If a campus police force had run into
> >> this guy he would have mown them down.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Nonsense. Campus police are fully trained police, and are fully armed.
> >You must have had a run in with someone from Traffic & Parking.
>
> Not all campus police are armed. Do you know for a fact that they
> are?

On this campus they are, for sure, and on every other large campus I
have visited in the US. If they are trained in the same way as regular
police, then they are armed. Besides, why should I have to justify what
I know for a fact from experience as opposed to what Larry is blowing
ignorant hot air about? Please question Larry with the same vigor as to
where he gets HIS information from, please. Otherwise your post looks
like just another neocon intervention intended to shore up an
unsubstantiated prejudice.

William Clark


         
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:16:24
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:04:54 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>In article <dnpi23d3405sldj362552pe510v6326c89@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:06:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:07:20 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >No way VT has enough police on duty to shutdown 465 buildings.
>> >>
>> >> And they were unarmed anyhow. If a campus police force had run into
>> >> this guy he would have mown them down.
>> >>
>> >> Larry
>> >
>> >Nonsense. Campus police are fully trained police, and are fully armed.
>> >You must have had a run in with someone from Traffic & Parking.
>>
>> Not all campus police are armed. Do you know for a fact that they
>> are?
>
>On this campus they are, for sure, and on every other large campus I
>have visited in the US. If they are trained in the same way as regular
>police, then they are armed. Besides, why should I have to justify what
>I know for a fact from experience as opposed to what Larry is blowing
>ignorant hot air about? Please question Larry with the same vigor as to
>where he gets HIS information from, please. Otherwise your post looks
>like just another neocon intervention intended to shore up an
>unsubstantiated prejudice.
>
>William Clark

Since then I have seen interviews with the VT and the GWU Chancellors.
Both stated that their campus is a "gun free" zone. NOBODY is armed,
and especially not the Campus Police. The perp of the VT massacre
absolutely knew he could walk between shootings with impunity. He
would have shot any campus policeman who tried to stop him. I hope
both change their policy.

Larry


          
Date: 23 Apr 2007 17:30:27
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:16:24 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:04:54 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>
>Since then I have seen interviews with the VT and the GWU Chancellors.
>Both stated that their campus is a "gun free" zone. NOBODY is armed,
>and especially not the Campus Police. The perp of the VT massacre
>absolutely knew he could walk between shootings with impunity. He
>would have shot any campus policeman who tried to stop him. I hope
>both change their policy.
>
>Larry


Read this:

http://www.police.vt.edu/crime%20statistics/Crime%20Reports/2004/MainCampus04.htm

Virginia Tech Police

The Virginia Tech Police Department is a nationally accredited
professional organization staffed by highly trained men and women. The
department consists of 39 sworn officers and a full time support staff
of 19 employees. Numerous seasonal employees supplement the support
staff during the academic year. Virginia Tech Police operate 24 hours
a day and provide full police service to the university community. The
officers are state-certified and empowered to enforce all federal,
state, and local laws on university property.

They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms. In
addition to patrol, investigation, and crime prevention, the
department answers calls for assistance such as vehicle breakdowns or
keys locked in vehicles.



           
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:45:03
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:30:27 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:16:24 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:04:54 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>>
>>Since then I have seen interviews with the VT and the GWU Chancellors.
>>Both stated that their campus is a "gun free" zone. NOBODY is armed,
>>and especially not the Campus Police. The perp of the VT massacre
>>absolutely knew he could walk between shootings with impunity. He
>>would have shot any campus policeman who tried to stop him. I hope
>>both change their policy.
>>
>>Larry
>
>
>Read this:
>
>http://www.police.vt.edu/crime%20statistics/Crime%20Reports/2004/MainCampus04.htm
>
>Virginia Tech Police
>
>The Virginia Tech Police Department is a nationally accredited
>professional organization staffed by highly trained men and women. The
>department consists of 39 sworn officers and a full time support staff
>of 19 employees. Numerous seasonal employees supplement the support
>staff during the academic year. Virginia Tech Police operate 24 hours
>a day and provide full police service to the university community. The
>officers are state-certified and empowered to enforce all federal,
>state, and local laws on university property.
>
>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms. In
>addition to patrol, investigation, and crime prevention, the
>department answers calls for assistance such as vehicle breakdowns or
>keys locked in vehicles.


"Since then I have seen interviews with the VT and the GWU
Chancellors.--both said there are no guns on their campus. "

Larry


>Both stated that their campus is a "gun free" zone


            
Date: 23 Apr 2007 17:52:01
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:45:03 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:


>>Read this:
>>
>>http://www.police.vt.edu/crime%20statistics/Crime%20Reports/2004/MainCampus04.htm
>>
>>Virginia Tech Police
>>
>>The Virginia Tech Police Department is a nationally accredited
>>professional organization staffed by highly trained men and women. The
>>department consists of 39 sworn officers and a full time support staff
>>of 19 employees. Numerous seasonal employees supplement the support
>>staff during the academic year. Virginia Tech Police operate 24 hours
>>a day and provide full police service to the university community. The
>>officers are state-certified and empowered to enforce all federal,
>>state, and local laws on university property.
>>
>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms. In
>>addition to patrol, investigation, and crime prevention, the
>>department answers calls for assistance such as vehicle breakdowns or
>>keys locked in vehicles.
>
>
>"Since then I have seen interviews with the VT and the GWU
>Chancellors.--both said there are no guns on their campus. "
>
>Larry
>
>
>>Both stated that their campus is a "gun free" zone

For all but the police force, dummy.


             
Date: 23 Apr 2007 16:10:06
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:52:01 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:45:03 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Read this:
>>>
>>>http://www.police.vt.edu/crime%20statistics/Crime%20Reports/2004/MainCampus04.htm
>>>
>>>Virginia Tech Police
>>>
>>>The Virginia Tech Police Department is a nationally accredited
>>>professional organization staffed by highly trained men and women. The
>>>department consists of 39 sworn officers and a full time support staff
>>>of 19 employees. Numerous seasonal employees supplement the support
>>>staff during the academic year. Virginia Tech Police operate 24 hours
>>>a day and provide full police service to the university community. The
>>>officers are state-certified and empowered to enforce all federal,
>>>state, and local laws on university property.
>>>
>>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms. In
>>>addition to patrol, investigation, and crime prevention, the
>>>department answers calls for assistance such as vehicle breakdowns or
>>>keys locked in vehicles.
>>
>>
>>"Since then I have seen interviews with the VT and the GWU
>>Chancellors.--both said there are no guns on their campus. "
>>
>>Larry
>>
>>
>>>Both stated that their campus is a "gun free" zone
>
>For all but the police force, dummy.

Check it out, "dummy." The VT and GWU University administrations were
bending over backward to be PC; they were PROUD that they had disarmed
their campus police, forced them to walk around without even a night
stick.

When you get the facts straight, please post your apology here.

Larry


             
Date: 23 Apr 2007 16:01:45
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:52:01 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms. In
>>>addition to patrol, investigation, and crime prevention, the
>>>department answers calls for assistance such as vehicle breakdowns or
>>>keys locked in vehicles.
>>
>>
>>"Since then I have seen interviews with the VT and the GWU
>>Chancellors.--both said there are no guns on their campus. "
>>
>>Larry
>>
>>
>>>Both stated that their campus is a "gun free" zone
>
>For all but the police force, dummy.

I see nothing that states that the VT campus police carry firearms.


              
Date: 23 Apr 2007 20:12:10
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:01:45 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:52:01 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms. In
>>>>addition to patrol, investigation, and crime prevention, the
>>>>department answers calls for assistance such as vehicle breakdowns or
>>>>keys locked in vehicles.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Since then I have seen interviews with the VT and the GWU
>>>Chancellors.--both said there are no guns on their campus. "
>>>
>>>Larry
>>>
>>>
>>>>Both stated that their campus is a "gun free" zone
>>
>>For all but the police force, dummy.
>
>I see nothing that states that the VT campus police carry firearms.

From their web site:

>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms.

Why on earth would they not exert that authority?


               
Date: 23 Apr 2007 16:22:50
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:12:10 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:01:45 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:52:01 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms. In
>>>>>addition to patrol, investigation, and crime prevention, the
>>>>>department answers calls for assistance such as vehicle breakdowns or
>>>>>keys locked in vehicles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Since then I have seen interviews with the VT and the GWU
>>>>Chancellors.--both said there are no guns on their campus. "
>>>>
>>>>Larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Both stated that their campus is a "gun free" zone
>>>
>>>For all but the police force, dummy.
>>
>>I see nothing that states that the VT campus police carry firearms.
>
>From their web site:
>
>>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms.
>
>Why on earth would they not exert that authority?

The campus police were forebidden to carry firearms when some
misguided PC moron decided VT would be a "guns free" campus. I just
wish that person had been in one of those classrooms when the perp
came in... I love "poetic justice."

Larry


                
Date: 26 Apr 2007 19:52:11
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <6rfq23ppf9i645pv4v4oehku8pmj0ccai9@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:12:10 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:01:45 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:52:01 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms. In
> >>>>>addition to patrol, investigation, and crime prevention, the
> >>>>>department answers calls for assistance such as vehicle breakdowns or
> >>>>>keys locked in vehicles.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>"Since then I have seen interviews with the VT and the GWU
> >>>>Chancellors.--both said there are no guns on their campus. "
> >>>>
> >>>>Larry
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Both stated that their campus is a "gun free" zone
> >>>
> >>>For all but the police force, dummy.
> >>
> >>I see nothing that states that the VT campus police carry firearms.
> >
> >From their web site:
> >
> >>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms.
> >
> >Why on earth would they not exert that authority?
>
> The campus police were forebidden to carry firearms when some
> misguided PC moron decided VT would be a "guns free" campus. I just
> wish that person had been in one of those classrooms when the perp
> came in... I love "poetic justice."
>
> Larry


You can support that claim, of course...

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: 23 Apr 2007 17:15:05
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:12:10 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>From their web site:
>
>>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms.
>
>Why on earth would they not exert that authority?

Because the campus is a gun free zone.

This just says they have the authority to carry guns, not that they do
carry guns.


                
Date: 23 Apr 2007 21:20:14
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:15:05 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:12:10 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>From their web site:
>>
>>>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms.
>>
>>Why on earth would they not exert that authority?
>
>Because the campus is a gun free zone.
>
>This just says they have the authority to carry guns, not that they do
>carry guns.

Hell, they even have a K-9 unit for drug searches...if they're
involved with drugs they'll damned sure have weapons.


             
Date: 23 Apr 2007 13:18:21
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:5fsp23p0ph1nrcr9fvo75f8qovknlav5vd@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:45:03 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Read this:
>>>
>>>http://www.police.vt.edu/crime%20statistics/Crime%20Reports/2004/MainCampus04.htm
>>>
>>>Virginia Tech Police
>>>
>>>The Virginia Tech Police Department is a nationally accredited
>>>professional organization staffed by highly trained men and women. The
>>>department consists of 39 sworn officers and a full time support staff
>>>of 19 employees. Numerous seasonal employees supplement the support
>>>staff during the academic year. Virginia Tech Police operate 24 hours
>>>a day and provide full police service to the university community. The
>>>officers are state-certified and empowered to enforce all federal,
>>>state, and local laws on university property.
>>>
>>>They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms. In
>>>addition to patrol, investigation, and crime prevention, the
>>>department answers calls for assistance such as vehicle breakdowns or
>>>keys locked in vehicles.
>>
>>
>>"Since then I have seen interviews with the VT and the GWU
>>Chancellors.--both said there are no guns on their campus. "
>>
>>Larry
>>
>>
>>>Both stated that their campus is a "gun free" zone
>
> For all but the police force, dummy.

And criminals.




         
Date: 22 Apr 2007 00:23:22
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:04:54 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Besides, why should I have to justify what
>I know for a fact from experience as opposed to what Larry is blowing
>ignorant hot air about?

One downside with trolling is that it is difficult for an admitted
troll to be taken seriously.


         
Date: 21 Apr 2007 19:59:15
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:04:54 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Besides, why should I have to justify what
>I know for a fact from experience as opposed to what Larry is blowing
>ignorant hot air about?


So you do know it for a fact. Well why don't you simply quote the
source of your knowledge. That should be simple.


>Please question Larry with the same vigor as to
>where he gets HIS information from, please. Otherwise your post looks
>like just another neocon intervention intended to shore up an
>unsubstantiated prejudice.
>
>William Clark

LOL. Unsubstantiated prejudice? The issue is if the VT campus
security is armed or not. I'll tell you Dr. Clark, you're looking
very foolish the last couple of days. You better hope that none of
your students run across this stuff. Of course, none of it tops what
you posted on the differences in IQ based on state. I wouldn't even
expect something like that from an undergraduate.


          
Date: 22 Apr 2007 01:17:55
From: Windsrfer2
Subject: Re: VT police carry guns

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:is8l2393lrhh25mu4sua5ncrq9kc69mc0i@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:04:54 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Besides, why should I have to justify what
>>I know for a fact from experience as opposed to what Larry is blowing
>>ignorant hot air about?
>
>
> So you do know it for a fact. Well why don't you simply quote the
> source of your knowledge. That should be simple.
>
>
>>Please question Larry with the same vigor as to
>>where he gets HIS information from, please. Otherwise your post looks
>>like just another neocon intervention intended to shore up an
>>unsubstantiated prejudice.
>>
>>William Clark
>
> LOL. Unsubstantiated prejudice? The issue is if the VT campus
> security is armed or not. I'll tell you Dr. Clark, you're looking
> very foolish the last couple of days. You better hope that none of
> your students run across this stuff. Of course, none of it tops what
> you posted on the differences in IQ based on state. I wouldn't even
> expect something like that from an undergraduate.


Good God man....You are on the Fricking internet every day and night, why
don't you look at the Virginia Tech police Dept.'s web page. It says right
there. If that's not good enough for you call the fricking number at the
bottom of the text below.

I know of only two large (or what I consider major) universities that do not
allow guns to be carried by their police. By next year I bet they will be
holstering guns. By the way, they are Iowa State and University of Iowa.

Virginia Tech Police

The Virginia Tech Police Department is a nationally accredited professional
organization staffed by highly trained men and women. The department
consists of 39 sworn officers and a full time support staff of 19 employees.
Numerous seasonal employees supplement the support staff during the academic
year. Virginia Tech Police operate 24 hours a day and provide full police
service to the university community. The officers are state-certified and
empowered to enforce all federal, state, and local laws on university
property. They have full authority to make arrests and carry firearms. In
addition to patrol, investigation, and crime prevention, the department
answers calls for assistance such as vehicle breakdowns or keys locked in
vehicles.

The Virginia Tech Police maintains a close working relationship
with the Virginia State Police, Blacksburg Police Department, Montgomery
County Sheriff's Office and Christiansburg Police Department as well as
other law enforcement agencies throughout the state. As a participant in the
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Virginia Crime Information
Network (VCIN), Virginia Tech Police are able to transmit and receive crime
information with other police agencies throughout the United States. Through
its membership in related professional organizations, the department is able
to keep abreast of new or developing ideas and has a medium for the exchange
of information on law enforcement issues. The Virginia Tech Police
Department has a news form "What's Happening" and is published each morning
(except Sat. and Sun.) that lists all incidents of crime within the past 24
hours. A copy is E-mailed to all administration with a need to know and to
the local media stations.

At times it may be necessary for "timely warnings" to be issued
to the university community. If a crime(s) occur and notification is
necessary to warn the university of a potential dangerous situation then the
Virginia Tech Police Department should be notified. The police department
will then prepare a release and the information will be disseminated to all
students, faculty and staff and to the local community.

For more information or for programming call 231-8123.




         
Date: 21 Apr 2007 19:50:56
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:04:54 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>On this campus they are, for sure, and on every other large campus I
>have visited in the US.

I'm happy to hear about Ohio State, However, the issue is if the
campus police at VT are armed. You claimed that they are, and I
wonder exactly how you know this. Is this something you know for
sure, or an assumption on your part. Sounds to me that you don't know
for sure.


          
Date: 24 Apr 2007 21:34:46
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
In article <gj8l235iu3m43g43g4l1439f4t5vpot3hm@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:04:54 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >On this campus they are, for sure, and on every other large campus I
> >have visited in the US.
>
> I'm happy to hear about Ohio State, However, the issue is if the
> campus police at VT are armed. You claimed that they are, and I
> wonder exactly how you know this. Is this something you know for
> sure, or an assumption on your part. Sounds to me that you don't know
> for sure.

Sorry, but it sounds to me like I don't actually give a toss what you
think.

William Clark


           
Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:31:07
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:34:46 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> I'm happy to hear about Ohio State, However, the issue is if the
>> campus police at VT are armed. You claimed that they are, and I
>> wonder exactly how you know this. Is this something you know for
>> sure, or an assumption on your part. Sounds to me that you don't know
>> for sure.
>
>Sorry, but it sounds to me like I don't actually give a toss what you
>think.
>
>William Clark

That's up to you, but I would expect someone like you not to post
things that you are not sure about or just wrong. Whatever happened
to academic discipline at OSU.


       
Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:23:45
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:06:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>In article <lbth23puope8eapch3m7d3g1c5jedvk7th@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:07:20 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >No way VT has enough police on duty to shutdown 465 buildings.
>>
>> And they were unarmed anyhow. If a campus police force had run into
>> this guy he would have mown them down.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Nonsense. Campus police are fully trained police, and are fully armed.
>You must have had a run in with someone from Traffic & Parking.

The news said the VT Campus police were not armed.

Larry


  
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:35:08
From: dsc
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 7:36 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On 16 Apr 2007 17:51:09 -0700, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >"There's no reason to lay blame at the feet of anyone but
> > >the guy who did this. He's responsible, and we should be mad at
> > >him...no one else.
>
> > I agree, but the scumbag trial lawyers might not. Look for them to
> > try to take advantage of a tragic situation. After all that's their
> > bread and butter.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I'm not a lawyer, but they would be setting a
> pretty huge precedent holding the VT administration at fault in a
> civil suit. I guess the most closely matched event is the Columbine
> massacre...w/ the differentiator being that Cho Seung-Hui apparently
> killed two people in a horrific preamble to the ultimate action plan,
> which is where a civil suit might possibly succeed. In the Columbine
> case, the parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold settled with
> families of the victims, not the school. Cho, OTOH, lived on campus,
> and not with his parents...and he was an adult.
>
> Bottom line, only an hour or two after the massacre, the media was
> leading the charge not against the horrific incident that had just
> occurred but against the administration for failing to prevent it from
> happening. It was infuriating listening to some self-righteous speck
> of fly shit journalist, a person who has no attachment to VT other
> than to exploit the tragic event for her network, basically yelling
> down these numb administrators...people who have given their lives to
> the university only to see it become the focal point for the worst
> massacre in US history - yeah, this is what they needed right about
> then. Shameful. And to see people here take the same attitude is
> sickening. The only person deserved of ire (at this point and until
> it is empirically shown that grievous neglect for safety was the case)
> is the shooter.
>
> We in the US live in a society that vehemently protects its right to
> own arms. It is my understanding that the assault weapons ban is now
> defunct. So not only can we bear arms, we can bear arms whose sole
> purpose are to kill other people. I am not arguing the law - it is
> what it is. But, as they say, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. If
> we allow this type of elgislation, we have to live with the inevitable
> consequences. Unfortunately the kid was well within his rights as an
> adult with a drivers license in the state of Virginia. No priors, no
> waiting periods, thanks for your business.

He apparently had been in court once before and found dangerous to
himself and others... is that a prior?



   
Date: 19 Apr 2007 03:38:04
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 18 Apr 2007 20:35:08 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:

>On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately the kid was well within his rights as an
>> adult with a drivers license in the state of Virginia. No priors, no
>> waiting periods, thanks for your business.
>
>He apparently had been in court once before and found dangerous to
>himself and others... is that a prior?

No, he wasn't found dangerous. The judge said that the Psychiatrist's
findings were that he was depressed, but not dangerous.
--
___,
\o


    
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:06:21
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:luod23lfljdsq16vbcl3jg5t8674bn62rj@4ax.com...
> On 18 Apr 2007 20:35:08 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately the kid was well within his rights as an
>>> adult with a drivers license in the state of Virginia. No priors, no
>>> waiting periods, thanks for your business.
>>
>>He apparently had been in court once before and found dangerous to
>>himself and others... is that a prior?
>
> No, he wasn't found dangerous. The judge said that the Psychiatrist's
> findings were that he was depressed, but not dangerous.
> --
Yes they really need to do better checking on this aspect and not just
felons.




  
Date: 18 Apr 2007 17:30:41
From: Blagovist
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
The_Professor wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:11 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 2:57 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
>>> growing number of these kinds of things.
>> Ok, ok, so we know about the attack at Georgia Tech (SIC). Your
>> subject says "What's Really Important", yet you didn't clue us in.
>> What, ummm, is really important?
>
> To see the replies, to see what it really important to you. Not that I
> didn't know what the answer would be.

I confess, I'm more worried about my swing - putting is great but I had
a little bit of a hook today.

Blago


  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 18:31:37
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 8:24 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> We in the US live in a society that vehemently protects its right to
> own arms. It is my understanding that the assault weapons ban is now
> defunct.

Jusy to point out - I know Hui used handguns, this was just a
connected thought.



   
Date: 18 Apr 2007 02:38:25
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 17 Apr 2007 18:31:37 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:

>> We in the US live in a society that vehemently protects its right to
>> own arms. It is my understanding that the assault weapons ban is now
>> defunct.
>
>Jusy to point out - I know Hui used handguns, this was just a
>connected thought.

Iraq has shown us that both "solutions" are insufficient.

An armed populace hasn't made Iraq safe.
And the mass killings are done with weapons other than guns. (keeping
guns away from them won't help).


    
Date: 20 Apr 2007 08:52:57
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 20, 10:36 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2007 08:25:39 -0700, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 20, 9:52 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >> You might want to check the last couple of days, and all of the flak
> >> you got from a lot of posters here for your idiotic statements. It
> >> isn't just Reddy and I. Your vapidity is only outdone by your
> >> arrogance.
>
> >People who make hostile, belittling comments on these forums are all
> >of the same sort. You, Reddy and the rest of your ilk do nothing but
> >make me happier to be me, and all the more thankful that I am not you.
>
> You're so predictable. Do you remember this?
>
> >>From now on, you can crow away without comment from me.
> >Wanna bet? :-)
>
> The rest of the ilk is growing too. Mainly because of statements from
> you like this:
>
> >There are a lots of things I don't understand because I don't want to.
>
> Anxiously waiting for the reply that you promised you wouldn't send
> again. :-)
> --

One must not keep the incontinent waiting! I replied to Reddy, not to
you. You then replied to me. I also stand by the statement that there
are many things I do not want to understand. I remain quite happy to
be me, and even happier to not be you or your ilk, regardless of your
numbers. Better head to the head because I have no more time for you.



     
Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:05:13
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 20 Apr 2007 08:52:57 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>One must not keep the incontinent waiting! I replied to Reddy, not to
>you. You then replied to me. I also stand by the statement that there
>are many things I do not want to understand. I remain quite happy to
>be me, and even happier to not be you or your ilk, regardless of your
>numbers. Better head to the head because I have no more time for you.


This is soooo easy. Of course you were replying to me. A little over
two hours ago.

Check this post: Subject: Re: What's Really Important, sent Date:
20 Apr 2007 08:25:39 -0700.

A direct reply to me.

I guess senility is setting in on you. You can't remember two hours
ago?

Might be tough on you, because your memory is so cluttered.

You'll find time for me, you always do because you're won't remember
that you've said that you wouldn't respond to me so many times
already.

You won't want to understand that though. :-)


--
___,
\o


      
Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:08:28
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:nloh23p8o3v0ej18krt4g9bl67ov4ib211@4ax.com...
>
> This is soooo easy. Of course you were replying to me. A little over
> two hours ago.
>
> Check this post: Subject: Re: What's Really Important, sent Date:
> 20 Apr 2007 08:25:39 -0700.
>
> A direct reply to me.
>
> I guess senility is setting in on you. You can't remember two hours
> ago?
>
> Might be tough on you, because your memory is so cluttered.
>
> You'll find time for me, you always do because you're won't remember
> that you've said that you wouldn't respond to me so many times
> already.
>
> You won't want to understand that though. :-)

What time do they pass out milk and cookies in this kindergarten of yours?




       
Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:09:35
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:08:28 -0500, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:nloh23p8o3v0ej18krt4g9bl67ov4ib211@4ax.com...
>>
>> This is soooo easy. Of course you were replying to me. A little over
>> two hours ago.
>>
>> Check this post: Subject: Re: What's Really Important, sent Date:
>> 20 Apr 2007 08:25:39 -0700.
>>
>> A direct reply to me.
>>
>> I guess senility is setting in on you. You can't remember two hours
>> ago?
>>
>> Might be tough on you, because your memory is so cluttered.
>>
>> You'll find time for me, you always do because you're won't remember
>> that you've said that you wouldn't respond to me so many times
>> already.
>>
>> You won't want to understand that though. :-)
>
>What time do they pass out milk and cookies in this kindergarten of yours?
>
You'll have to ask Frostback that.
--
___,
\o


  
Date: 17 Apr 2007 18:24:40
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 17, 7:36 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2007 17:51:09 -0700, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"There's no reason to lay blame at the feet of anyone but
> >the guy who did this. He's responsible, and we should be mad at
> >him...no one else.
>
> I agree, but the scumbag trial lawyers might not. Look for them to
> try to take advantage of a tragic situation. After all that's their
> bread and butter.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not a lawyer, but they would be setting a
pretty huge precedent holding the VT administration at fault in a
civil suit. I guess the most closely matched event is the Columbine
massacre...w/ the differentiator being that Cho Seung-Hui apparently
killed two people in a horrific preamble to the ultimate action plan,
which is where a civil suit might possibly succeed. In the Columbine
case, the parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold settled with
families of the victims, not the school. Cho, OTOH, lived on campus,
and not with his parents...and he was an adult.

Bottom line, only an hour or two after the massacre, the media was
leading the charge not against the horrific incident that had just
occurred but against the administration for failing to prevent it from
happening. It was infuriating listening to some self-righteous speck
of fly shit journalist, a person who has no attachment to VT other
than to exploit the tragic event for her network, basically yelling
down these numb administrators...people who have given their lives to
the university only to see it become the focal point for the worst
massacre in US history - yeah, this is what they needed right about
then. Shameful. And to see people here take the same attitude is
sickening. The only person deserved of ire (at this point and until
it is empirically shown that grievous neglect for safety was the case)
is the shooter.

We in the US live in a society that vehemently protects its right to
own arms. It is my understanding that the assault weapons ban is now
defunct. So not only can we bear arms, we can bear arms whose sole
purpose are to kill other people. I am not arguing the law - it is
what it is. But, as they say, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. If
we allow this type of elgislation, we have to live with the inevitable
consequences. Unfortunately the kid was well within his rights as an
adult with a drivers license in the state of Virginia. No priors, no
waiting periods, thanks for your business. But don't make the
administration into a straw man on Hui's bahalf and at the expense of
the dead, truth and logic - it's inexcusable. This is what happens
from time-to-time with laws protecting our rights to arm ourselves to
the tits. It's no one's fault but Cho Seung-Hui's - not the place
that sold the guns, not the administration, not his ex-girlfriend or
an uncle who molested him...and don't make the mistake in thinking
that it isn't.



   
Date: 20 Apr 2007 08:25:39
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 20, 9:52 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2007 07:48:07 -0700, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 20, 7:34 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:09:29 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >John Reddy wrote:
>
> >> >Bobby Knight's buddy speaks out!
>
> >> Hmmmm. All that might make us buddies is this statement about you
> >> from him:
>
> >> >>I stand by my original statement..... It must suck to be you.
>
> >To be viewed as such by such greatly vindicates the choices that I
> >have made in my life. Just another reason to be happy to be me.
>
> You might want to check the last couple of days, and all of the flak
> you got from a lot of posters here for your idiotic statements. It
> isn't just Reddy and I. Your vapidity is only outdone by your
> arrogance.

People who make hostile, belittling comments on these forums are all
of the same sort. You, Reddy and the rest of your ilk do nothing but
make me happier to be me, and all the more thankful that I am not you.



    
Date: 20 Apr 2007 15:36:36
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On 20 Apr 2007 08:25:39 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>On Apr 20, 9:52 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:

>> You might want to check the last couple of days, and all of the flak
>> you got from a lot of posters here for your idiotic statements. It
>> isn't just Reddy and I. Your vapidity is only outdone by your
>> arrogance.
>
>People who make hostile, belittling comments on these forums are all
>of the same sort. You, Reddy and the rest of your ilk do nothing but
>make me happier to be me, and all the more thankful that I am not you.

You're so predictable. Do you remember this?

>>From now on, you can crow away without comment from me.

>Wanna bet? :-)

The rest of the ilk is growing too. Mainly because of statements from
you like this:

>There are a lots of things I don't understand because I don't want to.

Anxiously waiting for the reply that you promised you wouldn't send
again. :-)
--
___,
\o


 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 14:11:06
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 2:57 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net > wrote:

> Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
> growing number of these kinds of things.

Ok, ok, so we know about the attack at Georgia Tech (SIC). Your
subject says "What's Really Important", yet you didn't clue us in.
What, ummm, is really important?



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 14:07:58
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 4:04 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 3:21 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> >> The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> >> > Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
> >> > growing number of these kinds of things.
>
> >> I'm beginning to think you should just move back to Mexico.
>
> > I'm Canadian, not Mexican.
>
> Really?

Obtuser.



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 14:07:17
From:
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 3:57 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net > wrote:
> Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
> growing number of these kinds of things.

You are simple minded.



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 13:59:22
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 3:21 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> > Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
> > growing number of these kinds of things.
>
> I'm beginning to think you should just move back to Mexico.
>

I'm Canadian, not Mexican. Pretty obtuse wit.



  
Date: 16 Apr 2007 21:04:19
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 3:21 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>> The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>> > Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
>> > growing number of these kinds of things.
>>
>> I'm beginning to think you should just move back to Mexico.
>
> I'm Canadian, not Mexican.

Really?

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


 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 13:52:18
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
On Apr 16, 3:12 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <no-...@nowhere.com > wrote:
> "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1176753461.550546.80650@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
> > growing number of these kinds of things.
>
> Why must you sprint to your keyboard to type up this post containing no
> content? Do you think you get points for being first around here or
> something?
> You didn't even identify the right school. It is Virginia Tech.

My bad. It's Virginia Tech.

Rob



 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 20:21:56
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.
The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:
> Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
> growing number of these kinds of things.

I'm beginning to think you should just move back to Mexico.

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


 
Date: 16 Apr 2007 16:12:19
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: What's Really Important.

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1176753461.550546.80650@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Some nut(s) kill(s) 30+ people at Georgia Tech; and it's one in a
> growing number of these kinds of things.
>

Why must you sprint to your keyboard to type up this post containing no
content? Do you think you get points for being first around here or
something?
You didn't even identify the right school. It is Virginia Tech.