Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh

[Jim Thompson]

Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh....

There was an accident report on a street in Scottsdale named:

Camino sin Nombre

ROTFLMAO!

...Jim Thompson

[Richard Crowley]

Post by Jim Thompson
Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh....
Camino sin Nombre

Isn't that where infamous film director Alan Smithee lives?
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000647/bio

[Don Bruder]

Post by Jim Thompson
Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh....
Camino sin Nombre
ROTFLMAO!

Well, it coulda been Caballo sin Nombre...

[maxfoo]

Post by Don Bruder

Post by Jim Thompson
Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh....
Camino sin Nombre
ROTFLMAO!

Well, it coulda been Caballo sin Nombre...

or...
asno del caballo



Remove "HeadFromButt", before replying by email.

[e***@bellatlantic.net]

Post by Don Bruder

Post by Jim Thompson
Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh....
Camino sin Nombre
ROTFLMAO!

Well, it coulda been Caballo sin Nombre...

I think he's already been to the desert ...

Post by Don Bruder
--
For info on this, see <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> Short
form: I'm trashing EVERYTHING that doesn't contain a specific, rotating phrase
in the subject line. Sorry, but spammers have forced me to take this action.

[Fred Bloggs]

Post by Jim Thompson
Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh....
Camino sin Nombre
ROTFLMAO!
...Jim Thompson

Maybe it's time to just throw in the towel and give southern California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and part of Texas "back" to Mexico:-)

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Fred Bloggs

Post by Jim Thompson
Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh....
Camino sin Nombre
ROTFLMAO!
...Jim Thompson

Maybe it's time to just throw in the towel and give southern California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and part of Texas "back" to Mexico:-)

I think just the opposite. Mexico is a great country, rich in
resources and great people, but with one of the most corrupt
governments in the world. Since Mexico is already pretty much a US
welfare state we should just seize the place. I doubt that more than
a handful of people would even attempt resistance.

...Jim Thompson

[Richard Henry]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Fred Bloggs

Post by Jim Thompson
Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh....
Camino sin Nombre
ROTFLMAO!
...Jim Thompson

Maybe it's time to just throw in the towel and give southern California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and part of Texas "back" to Mexico:-)

I think just the opposite. Mexico is a great country, rich in
resources and great people, but with one of the most corrupt
governments in the world. Since Mexico is already pretty much a US
welfare state we should just seize the place. I doubt that more than
a handful of people would even attempt resistance.

Gadsden blew it. He could have had Baja for pretty much the same price.

[Dan Richardson <@mendolink.com>]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:52:40 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Mexico is a great country, rich in
resources and great people, but with one of the most corrupt
governments in the world.

The only difference is the price tag.

[Myron Samila]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Fred Bloggs
Maybe it's time to just throw in the towel and give southern California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and part of Texas "back" to Mexico:-)

I think just the opposite. Mexico is a great country, rich in
resources and great people, but with one of the most corrupt
governments in the world. Since Mexico is already pretty much a US
welfare state we should just seize the place. I doubt that more than
a handful of people would even attempt resistance.
...Jim Thompson
--

Yeah, you're right..... The US took over Iraq, why can't the US just take anyone
else it wants.

Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

Does the US have a less corrupt government than any other in the world? I wasn't sure,
cuz I swore prez Bush said there WAS Weapons of Mass Destruction according to his
"intelligence".

Sorry, I hate to bring politics into an electronics newsgroup, but this post was OT anyhow
:)

Cheers

[Richard Henry]

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

Who is "we", and when?

[Dave VanHorn]

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

Who is "we", and when?

Canada, War of 1812, the only time a foreign power torched the white house.

Immortalized in song by "Three dead trolls in a baggie".

[Richard Henry]

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

Who is "we", and when?

Canada, War of 1812, the only time a foreign power torched the white house.
Immortalized in song by "Three dead trolls in a baggie".

US history books count that war as a win for our side, since we were
fighting for freedom of pasage on the seas, not for preserving architecture.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

Who is "we", and when?

Canada, War of 1812, the only time a foreign power torched the white

house.

Post by Dave VanHorn
Immortalized in song by "Three dead trolls in a baggie".

US history books count that war as a win for our side, since we were
fighting for freedom of pasage on the seas, not for preserving architecture.

U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[John Fields]

Post by Bill Sloman
U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

---
Neither are you, so I'm sure you've sifted through the "evidence"
carefully, rejecting anything factual which is at odds with your
opinions.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by John Fields

Post by Bill Sloman
U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

---
Neither are you, so I'm sure you've sifted through the "evidence"
carefully, rejecting anything factual which is at odds with your
opinions.

Nice to hear your impartial opinion.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[John Fields]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by John Fields

Post by Bill Sloman
U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

---
Neither are you, so I'm sure you've sifted through the "evidence"
carefully, rejecting anything factual which is at odds with your
opinions.

Nice to hear your impartial opinion.

---
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

[John Woodgate]

Post by John Fields
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

But facts are subject to an Uncertainty Principle, under which the
magnitude of uncertainty increases exponentially with elapsed time.
Opinions, OTOH, tend to be utterly resistant to change with elapsed
time.

[John Fields]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:11:18 +0000, John Woodgate

Post by John Woodgate

Post by John Fields
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

But facts are subject to an Uncertainty Principle, under which the
magnitude of uncertainty increases exponentially with elapsed time.
Opinions, OTOH, tend to be utterly resistant to change with elapsed
time.

---
Ain't that the truth!

Still, facts remain impartial...

[Winfield Hill]

John Fields wrote...

Post by John Fields
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

Facts are usually selected and edited for the purpose of
making an opinion appear to be an impartial fact. Also,
some opinions may in reality be impartial evaluations of
an unbiased collection of facts. :>)

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

[John Fields]

On 25 Feb 2004 12:43:23 -0800, Winfield Hill

Post by Winfield Hill
John Fields wrote...

Post by John Fields
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

---
No, it's a fact.

"We orbit the sun." is a fact and is impartial.

"We should orbit the sun a little differently." is an opinion and is not
impartial since it carries a value judgement with it.

The fact that facts are impartial while opinions never are is a fact.
---

Post by Winfield Hill
Facts are usually selected and edited for the purpose of
making an opinion appear to be an impartial fact.

---
That doesn't change the fact that a fact is impartial, is supports the
proposition that an opinion isn't.
---

Post by Winfield Hill
Also, some opinions may in reality be impartial evaluations of
an unbiased collection of facts. :>)

---
Is that a fact?^)

[Fred]

Post by John Fields
On 25 Feb 2004 12:43:23 -0800, Winfield Hill

Post by Winfield Hill
John Fields wrote...

Post by John Fields
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

---
No, it's a fact.
"We orbit the sun." is a fact and is impartial.

No not when it's a fact that we are the centre of the universe and to
suggest that we orbit the sun is heresy.

[John Fields]

Post by Fred

Post by John Fields
On 25 Feb 2004 12:43:23 -0800, Winfield Hill

Post by Winfield Hill
John Fields wrote...

Post by John Fields
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

---
No, it's a fact.
"We orbit the sun." is a fact and is impartial.

No not when it's a fact that we are the centre of the universe and to
suggest that we orbit the sun is heresy.

---
Good point.

[Mark J.]

Post by John Fields
On 25 Feb 2004 12:43:23 -0800, Winfield Hill

Post by Winfield Hill
John Fields wrote...

Post by John Fields
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

---
No, it's a fact.
"We orbit the sun." is a fact and is impartial.
"We should orbit the sun a little differently." is an opinion and is not
impartial since it carries a value judgement with it.

Nooo... we *do* orbit the sun a "little differently" each cycle. Not only
does our orbit change in eccentricity, there is axial (Z) deviation
(oscillation) as well. It is estimated that the asteroid that wiped out the
dinosaurs was "picked up" as the earth moved into low-solar orbit (as it is
now), where many primordial stellar fragments still reside. This is also not
including the overall motion our solar system has relevant to our galaxy or
the rest of the universe. So to say "We orbit the sun," while true in a
basic sense, is omitting a ton of other data which may be very relevant
given the exact question. Wether that other data is unknown or witheld, that
can be partiality. For instance:

"We orbit the sun. Therefore, if we deploy a beacon in space, stationary to
the motion of our solar system, then we will see it at exactly the same
location in exactly 352.3 days."

The truth is, there are going to be deviations that cannot be attributed to
error. (The exact value of the solar year is a guess.) But you get the
point. Is it a fact if the "fact" ends up not being entirely true?

[John Fields]

Post by Mark J.

Post by John Fields
On 25 Feb 2004 12:43:23 -0800, Winfield Hill

Post by Winfield Hill
John Fields wrote...

Post by John Fields
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

---
No, it's a fact.
"We orbit the sun." is a fact and is impartial.
"We should orbit the sun a little differently." is an opinion and is not
impartial since it carries a value judgement with it.

Nooo... we *do* orbit the sun a "little differently" each cycle. Not only
does our orbit change in eccentricity, there is axial (Z) deviation
(oscillation) as well. It is estimated that the asteroid that wiped out the
dinosaurs was "picked up" as the earth moved into low-solar orbit (as it is
now), where many primordial stellar fragments still reside. This is also not
including the overall motion our solar system has relevant to our galaxy or
the rest of the universe. So to say "We orbit the sun," while true in a
basic sense, is omitting a ton of other data which may be very relevant
given the exact question. Wether that other data is unknown or witheld, that
"We orbit the sun. Therefore, if we deploy a beacon in space, stationary to
the motion of our solar system, then we will see it at exactly the same
location in exactly 352.3 days."
The truth is, there are going to be deviations that cannot be attributed to
error. (The exact value of the solar year is a guess.) But you get the
point. Is it a fact if the "fact" ends up not being entirely true?

---
Whether each orbit around the sun is different from the previous orbit
doesn't change the fact that we orbit around the sun. That is entirely
true, factual, and incontrovertible. And impartial.

If, in your opinion, learning more about the characteristics of orbits
is important, then you may go on to learn more facts about orbits. What
you learn will be factual and impartial. Your opinions about what you
learn will not be impartial.
---

[Richard Henry]

Post by John Fields

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by John Fields

Post by Bill Sloman
U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

---
Neither are you, so I'm sure you've sifted through the "evidence"
carefully, rejecting anything factual which is at odds with your
opinions.

Nice to hear your impartial opinion.

---
Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

Unless you have some facts to back up your "fact", it's just another
opinionated opinion.

And mine doesn't smell.

[Stephen J. Rush]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

Who is "we", and when?

Canada, War of 1812, the only time a foreign power torched the white

house.

Post by Dave VanHorn
Immortalized in song by "Three dead trolls in a baggie".

US history books count that war as a win for our side, since we were
fighting for freedom of pasage on the seas, not for preserving architecture.

U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

War isn't a zero-sum game. The Soviets wound up holding half of
Europe, but they took a lot of casualties and would have been overrun
without the combination of German stupidity, Western assistance, and
their old co-belligerant "Generalissimo Winter."

It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

[Myron Samila]

Post by Stephen J. Rush
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.

You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two atomic devices on two
separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a military target.

[Roger Gt]

"Myron Samila" wrote
: "Stephen J. Rush" wrote
: > It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.
: The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
:
: You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two
atomic devices on two
: separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a military target.

"Japan" was a Military target! The two bombs saved the lives of
between 100,000 and 250,000 American service men. Good trade off!
Like the Japanese weren't torturing and murdering civilians all
along, we are just better at it!

[Stephen J. Rush]

Post by Roger Gt
: > It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.
: The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
: You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two
atomic devices on two
: separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a military target.
"Japan" was a Military target! The two bombs saved the lives of
between 100,000 and 250,000 American service men. Good trade off!
Like the Japanese weren't torturing and murdering civilians all
along, we are just better at it!

Those two nukes probably saved more _Japanese_ than they killed, given
the plans for an open-ended resistance to the invasion. There was,
for instance, a program to arm children with bamboo spears. The war
would have ground on well into the fifties.

[Mark J.]

Post by Stephen J. Rush

Post by Roger Gt

Post by Myron Samila

Post by Stephen J. Rush
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two atomic
devices on two separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a
military target.

"Japan" was a Military target! The two bombs saved the lives of
between 100,000 and 250,000 American service men. Good trade off!
Like the Japanese weren't torturing and murdering civilians all
along, we are just better at it!

Those two nukes probably saved more _Japanese_ than they killed, given
the plans for an open-ended resistance to the invasion. There was,
for instance, a program to arm children with bamboo spears. The war
would have ground on well into the fifties.

So... the end justifies the means?

Or is it the other way around?

[Roger Gt]

"Mark J." <127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:JtCdnXHmsvO2oKHdRVn-***@buckeye-express.com...
: In news:***@4ax.com (Stephen J.
Rush):
: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:52:05 GMT, "Roger Gt" <***@here.net>
wrote:
: >
: >>
: >> "Myron Samila" wrote
: >>> "Stephen J. Rush" wrote
: >>>> It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.
: >>> The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
: >>>
: >>> You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two
atomic
: >>> devices on two separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was
a
: >>> military target.
: >>
: >> "Japan" was a Military target! The two bombs saved the lives
of
: >> between 100,000 and 250,000 American service men. Good trade
off!
: >> Like the Japanese weren't torturing and murdering civilians
all
: >> along, we are just better at it!
: >
: > Those two nukes probably saved more _Japanese_ than they
killed, given
: > the plans for an open-ended resistance to the invasion. There
was,
: > for instance, a program to arm children with bamboo spears.
The war
: > would have ground on well into the fifties.
:
: So... the end justifies the means?
: Or is it the other way around?
:
Yes!

[John Fields]

Post by Mark J.

Post by Stephen J. Rush

Post by Roger Gt

Post by Myron Samila

Post by Stephen J. Rush
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two atomic
devices on two separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a
military target.

"Japan" was a Military target! The two bombs saved the lives of
between 100,000 and 250,000 American service men. Good trade off!
Like the Japanese weren't torturing and murdering civilians all
along, we are just better at it!

Those two nukes probably saved more _Japanese_ than they killed, given
the plans for an open-ended resistance to the invasion. There was,
for instance, a program to arm children with bamboo spears. The war
would have ground on well into the fifties.

So... the end justifies the means?
Or is it the other way around?

---
We didn't start it.
We won.

That's all that matters.

[Stephen J. Rush]

Post by Mark J.

Post by Stephen J. Rush

Post by Roger Gt

Post by Myron Samila

Post by Stephen J. Rush
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two atomic
devices on two separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a
military target.

"Japan" was a Military target! The two bombs saved the lives of
between 100,000 and 250,000 American service men. Good trade off!
Like the Japanese weren't torturing and murdering civilians all
along, we are just better at it!

Those two nukes probably saved more _Japanese_ than they killed, given
the plans for an open-ended resistance to the invasion. There was,
for instance, a program to arm children with bamboo spears. The war
would have ground on well into the fifties.

So... the end justifies the means?
Or is it the other way around?

Would killing many more people in smaller batches have been better?
Or should we have just called it all off and gone home, leaving Japan
to the Soviets? I'm sure that they would have put down the
resistance, by means that would have made the Nazis look like
gentlemen.

[Brian Trosko]

Post by Mark J.
So... the end justifies the means?

What else could possibly justify means if not the consequences of them?

[Mark J.]

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by Mark J.
So... the end justifies the means?

What else could possibly justify means if not the consequences of them?

Good question to ask Bush.

[Brian Trosko]

Post by Stephen J. Rush

Post by Roger Gt
: > It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.
: The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
: You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two
atomic devices on two
: separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a military target.
"Japan" was a Military target! The two bombs saved the lives of
between 100,000 and 250,000 American service men. Good trade off!
Like the Japanese weren't torturing and murdering civilians all
along, we are just better at it!

Those two nukes probably saved more _Japanese_ than they killed, given
the plans for an open-ended resistance to the invasion. There was,
for instance, a program to arm children with bamboo spears. The war
would have ground on well into the fifties.

And for point of comparison, in the final 5 months of the war,
conventional bombing of Japan claimed the lives of over 900,000 civilians.
Complaining about the nukes is silly.

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:09:52 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila

Post by Stephen J. Rush
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two atomic devices on two
separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a military target.

Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us the
solution ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

[John Fields]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:14:12 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us the
solution ?:-)

I think sometimes he has trouble with 'y's and 'o's...

[Spehro Pefhany >]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:14:12 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:09:52 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila

Post by Stephen J. Rush
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two atomic devices on two
separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a military target.

Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us the
solution ?:-)
...Jim Thompson

He could volunteer for Afghanistan where he'd have some (friendly)
company while being shot at.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:09:52 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila

Post by Stephen J. Rush
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two atomic devices on two
separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a military target.

Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us the
solution ?:-)
...Jim Thompson

If he's that smart, he might have been smart enough to stay out of
Iraq until he could stick the U.N. with working out the solution.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Fred Bloggs]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Jim Thompson
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:09:52 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila

Post by Stephen J. Rush
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two
atomic devices on two separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor
was a military target.

Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us
the solution ?:-)
...Jim Thompson

If he's that smart, he might have been smart enough to stay out of
Iraq until he could stick the U.N. with working out the solution.

Any proposed solution that did not entail total military destruction and
elimination of the Saddam regime would have been unacceptable. The
*STUPID* UN is not capable of that kind of action- it is an idiot
organization sabotaged by thoroughly untrustworthy and corrupt scum
members like France, Germany, and Russia- all exposed for collaborating
with Saddam for financial gain! We live in a new world now- there will
be no more acceptance of deceitful pretense by corrupt Euro-peeon
riffraff- diplomacy will now be conducted by "dropping the hammer"- God
gave us the Tomahawk -and it's our responsibility to use it!

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Fred Bloggs

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Jim Thompson
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:09:52 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila

Post by Stephen J. Rush
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two
atomic devices on two separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor
was a military target.

Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us
the solution ?:-)
...Jim Thompson

If he's that smart, he might have been smart enough to stay out of
Iraq until he could stick the U.N. with working out the solution.

Any proposed solution that did not entail total military destruction and
elimination of the Saddam regime would have been unacceptable.

To whom?

Post by Fred Bloggs
The *STUPID* UN is not capable of that kind of action- it is an idiot
organization sabotaged by thoroughly untrustworthy and corrupt scum
members like France, Germany, and Russia- all exposed for collaborating
with Saddam for financial gain!

The U.S. activity in support of Isreal isn't exactly making the U.N.
more effective either. And the U.S. can scarcely complain about
French, German and Russian collaboration with Saddam when we get to
see all those nice pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam as
part of the process of encouraging him to invade Iran.

Post by Fred Bloggs
We live in a new world now- there will be no more acceptance of deceitful
pretense by corrupt Euro-peeon riffraff- diplomacy will now be conducted
by "dropping the hammer"- God gave us the Tomahawk -and it's our
responsibility to use it!

God also gave you some intelligence (in the sense of processing
capacity, even if he short-changed you on military intelligence) and
one would have thought that you had a responsibility to use that too.

You've now had a chance to realise that it was a lot easier to invade
Iraq than it is to set up a government that is acceptable to the
population and still sufficiently pliable to be relied on to keep on
filling Haliburton's pockets.

Properly manipulated, the U.N. could have been stuck with the job of
cleaning up after Saddam - it is a pity that your administration was
too blinkered to see the advantage of using an ostensibly impartial
front man, in a postion to hire loads of cheap cannon-fodder from
third world countries to form the occupying army.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Fred Bloggs]

Post by Bill Sloman
You've now had a chance to realise that it was a lot easier to invade
Iraq than it is to set up a government that is acceptable to the
population and still sufficiently pliable to be relied on to keep on
filling Haliburton's pockets.

The damned sewer is ungovernable and the present course is idiotic. We
should break it up into Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiitestan- it is that
simple- there is no such place as Iraq- a completely artificial creation
of the goddammed corrupt, arrogant, apathetic, and incompetent English.
Also the Sunnis do not seem very willing to cooperate so now is the time
to call on the Kurds natural inclination for genocide of opposing
tribes- the Turks used them effectively to take care of their Armenian
problem- now we can use them to take care of our Sunni problem.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Fred Bloggs

Post by Bill Sloman
You've now had a chance to realise that it was a lot easier to invade
Iraq than it is to set up a government that is acceptable to the
population and still sufficiently pliable to be relied on to keep on
filling Haliburton's pockets.

The damned sewer is ungovernable and the present course is idiotic.

Nice to see you agreeing with me for once. Irak is - of course -
governable, because Saddam managed it for some decades. He didn't
provide a popular or a just government, but his government was
certainly effective.

Post by Fred Bloggs
We should break it up into Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiitestan - it

is that

Post by Fred Bloggs
simple - there is no such place as Iraq - a completely artificial creation
of the goddammed corrupt, arrogant, apathetic, and incompetent English.

Were the English all that incompetent? They did provide effective
government, and the monarchy they left behind lasted for a few years.

I'm sure that they thought about breaking up the country along ethnic
boundaries, but this would have left the Kurds in control of the
headwaters of the rivers, but as a very small and geographically
isolated group - the Turks would probably have annexed them if the
Sunni's or the Shiites hadn't got in first.

Post by Fred Bloggs
Also the Sunnis do not seem very willing to cooperate so now is the time
to call on the Kurds natural inclination for genocide of opposing
tribes - the Turks used them effectively to take care of their Armenian
problem - now we can use them to take care of our Sunni problem.

So you are now recommending Saddam-style genoicide as the solution to
the problems you took on - nice one Fred. Who do you want to
"liberate" next? Ex-Yugoslavia or Uganda?

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[John Fields]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Jim Thompson
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:09:52 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila

Post by Stephen J. Rush
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two atomic devices on two
separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a military target.

Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us the
solution ?:-)
...Jim Thompson

If he's that smart, he might have been smart enough to stay out of
Iraq until he could stick the U.N. with working out the solution.

---
The smart thing is not to stick the UN with working out what they might,
years later, come to believe was a solution, it's to tell the UN to
stick it up their ass and then take care of business without having to
contend with the delaying tactics and agendas of assholes.

[Fred Bloggs]

Post by Myron Samila

Post by Stephen J. Rush
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two atomic devices on two
separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a military target.

They were amply warned and given the opportunity to surrender
unconditionally-leaflets were dropped over the targets days in advance!
Those civilians were sacrificed for the emperor! But eventually even the
Japanese shaved apes could put two and two together: surrender or have
no people left. You're very typical of the modern day loudmouthed
ignoramus and weakling pussy- your kind wouldn't have lasted five
minutes in an island campaign- fellow squad members happy to see you put
out of your misery after putting up with the stench of you shitting all
over yourself- hell they would shoot you themselves! Burying you in a
spent latrine would be most fitting.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

Who is "we", and when?

Canada, War of 1812, the only time a foreign power torched the white

house.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Dave VanHorn
Immortalized in song by "Three dead trolls in a baggie".

US history books count that war as a win for our side, since we were
fighting for freedom of pasage on the seas, not for preserving architecture.

U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

War isn't a zero-sum game. The Soviets wound up holding half of
Europe, but they took a lot of casualties and would have been overrun
without the combination of German stupidity, Western assistance, and
their old co-belligerant "Generalissimo Winter."
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

And Germany, on the same basis.

And the basic German stupidy was invading Russia in the first place -
a silly idea that under-valued the Russians in accordance with
Hilter's stupid ideas about the superiority of the German "race"
(another stupid idea) and the congenital inferiority of the Slavs.
Western assistance, such as it was, was useful rather than decisive.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Fred Bloggs]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

Who is "we", and when?

Canada, War of 1812, the only time a foreign power torched the white

house.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Dave VanHorn
Immortalized in song by "Three dead trolls in a baggie".

US history books count that war as a win for our side, since we were
fighting for freedom of pasage on the seas, not for preserving architecture.

U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

War isn't a zero-sum game. The Soviets wound up holding half of
Europe, but they took a lot of casualties and would have been overrun
without the combination of German stupidity, Western assistance, and
their old co-belligerant "Generalissimo Winter."
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

And Germany, on the same basis.
And the basic German stupidy was invading Russia in the first place -
a silly idea that under-valued the Russians in accordance with
Hilter's stupid ideas about the superiority of the German "race"
(another stupid idea) and the congenital inferiority of the Slavs.
Western assistance, such as it was, was useful rather than decisive.
------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Invading Russia was not stupid- the German army was highly mechanized
and was more than capable of annihilating Russia into a dust pile! The
stupidity was waiting until fall and proceeding against the admonitions
of his military commanders. This is just another case of a lame-brained
theorist screwing up the people who know what they're doing!

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Fred Bloggs

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

Who is "we", and when?

Canada, War of 1812, the only time a foreign power torched the white

house.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Dave VanHorn
Immortalized in song by "Three dead trolls in a baggie".

US history books count that war as a win for our side, since we were
fighting for freedom of pasage on the seas, not for preserving architecture.

U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

War isn't a zero-sum game. The Soviets wound up holding half of
Europe, but they took a lot of casualties and would have been overrun
without the combination of German stupidity, Western assistance, and
their old co-belligerant "Generalissimo Winter."
It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

And Germany, on the same basis.
And the basic German stupidy was invading Russia in the first place -
a silly idea that under-valued the Russians in accordance with
Hilter's stupid ideas about the superiority of the German "race"
(another stupid idea) and the congenital inferiority of the Slavs.
Western assistance, such as it was, was useful rather than decisive.
------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Invading Russia was not stupid- the German army was highly mechanized
and was more than capable of annihilating Russia into a dust pile!

They certainly did well in the first months of the invasion, but this
had more to do with Stalin's purge of Russian army officers in the
1930's than any dramatic difference in the level of mechanisation -
the Germans were still using a lot of horse drawn transport at that
time.

Post by Fred Bloggs
The stupidity was waiting until fall and proceeding against the admonitions
of his military commanders. This is just another case of a lame-brained
theorist screwing up the people who know what they're doing!

Stalin's political purge of the Russian army officers being another
... and Hitler had already shown that his military commanders were
over-cautious during the invasion of France. As it turned out, their
anxieties about invading Russia were justified, but would Russia have
been quite so unprepared to repel the invasion if it had been delayed
until spring? Stalin had had a lot of warnings that Hilter was
planning to invade, and he managed to ignore all of them - another six
months might have given time for the message to get through.

---------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[John Fields]

Post by Bill Sloman
And the basic German stupidy was invading Russia in the first place -
a silly idea that under-valued the Russians in accordance with
Hilter's stupid ideas about the superiority of the German "race"
(another stupid idea) and the congenital inferiority of the Slavs.
Western assistance, such as it was, was useful rather than decisive.

---
Ah, yes!

Obviously hindsight isn't 20-20 when you're Monday morning
quarterbacking six decades too late.

[Richard Henry]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Dave VanHorn

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

Who is "we", and when?

Canada, War of 1812, the only time a foreign power torched the white

house.

Post by Dave VanHorn
Immortalized in song by "Three dead trolls in a baggie".

US history books count that war as a win for our side, since we were
fighting for freedom of pasage on the seas, not for preserving architecture.

U.S. history books are not known for being impartial ... on the
evidence available here, they also count WW2 as a win for the U.S.
rather than for Russia.

It's not just the books. We also ended up with two jingo-music classics:
"The Star-Spangled Banner" and "The Battle of New Orleans"

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/battleof.htm

"They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch'em".

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:55:31 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US have a less corrupt government than any other in the world?

Try bribing a cop or a judge here and see what happens.

John

[Robert C Monsen]

Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:55:31 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US have a less corrupt government than any other in the world?

Try bribing a cop or a judge here and see what happens.

True, you have to go right to Congress for your bribes to work here... I
think its called lobbying...

Regards

[Vlad]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:32:20 GMT, "Robert C Monsen"

Post by Robert C Monsen

Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:55:31 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US have a less corrupt government than any other in the world?

Try bribing a cop or a judge here and see what happens.

True, you have to go right to Congress for your bribes to work here... I
think its called lobbying...

That makes bribing, legal

Post by Robert C Monsen
Regards

[Richard Henry]

Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:55:31 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US have a less corrupt government than any other in the world?

Try bribing a cop or a judge here and see what happens.

My experience in Mexico (giving the $10 to the traffic cop so he could take
it to the station for me) was much more pleasant than my experience in
California (going to traffic court hoping the cop won't show up, then opting
for traffic school).

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:55:31 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Fred Bloggs
Maybe it's time to just throw in the towel and give southern California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and part of Texas "back" to Mexico:-)

I think just the opposite. Mexico is a great country, rich in
resources and great people, but with one of the most corrupt
governments in the world. Since Mexico is already pretty much a US
welfare state we should just seize the place. I doubt that more than
a handful of people would even attempt resistance.
...Jim Thompson
--

Yeah, you're right..... The US took over Iraq, why can't the US just take anyone
else it wants.

It probably could... just depends on our will to do it.

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US want Canada? Remember, we did beat the US once already.

What in the hell would we want Canada for? When was it you say you
beat us? The Brits won a battle or so, but we won the wars.

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US have a less corrupt government than any other in the world?

You have no clue about government corruption so bad that it feeds off
of the poor.

Post by Myron Samila
I wasn't sure,
cuz I swore prez Bush said there WAS Weapons of Mass Destruction according to his
"intelligence".

As soon as we find one we'll test it up your ass ;-)

Post by Myron Samila
Sorry, I hate to bring politics into an electronics newsgroup, but this post was OT anyhow
:)
Cheers

...Jim Thompson

[Richard Henry]

Post by Jim Thompson
What in the hell would we want Canada for?

Don't you live in Arizona? The water, of course.

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Jim Thompson
What in the hell would we want Canada for?

Don't you live in Arizona? The water, of course.

Actually Arizona has no shortage of water (at least for the near
future), but California does big-time.

...Jim Thompson

[Richard Henry]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Richard Henry

Post by Jim Thompson
What in the hell would we want Canada for?

Don't you live in Arizona? The water, of course.

Actually Arizona has no shortage of water (at least for the near
future), but California does big-time.

California has no shortage of water. California has a surplus of salt.

[Tim Williams]

Post by Richard Henry
California has no shortage of water. California has a surplus of salt.

Considering winter is almost over, you'd think the same of Wisconsin. ;o)

Tim

--
"I have misplaced my pants." - Homer Simpson | Electronics,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --+ Metalcasting
and Games: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

[John Fields]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:55:31 -0500, "Myron Samila"

Post by Myron Samila
Yeah, you're right..... The US took over Iraq, why can't the US just take anyone
else it wants.

---
We can.
---

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US want Canada?

---
No. Why would we? We're already dumb enough without annexing assholes
like you to drop our average IQ even further.
---

Post by Myron Samila
Remember, we did beat the US once already.

---
At what, hockey?
---

Post by Myron Samila
Does the US have a less corrupt government than any other in the world?

---
Less corrupt than _any_? I wouldn't know, but since you seem to think
you have some information about that how about if you post who we are
more corrupt than, and include some specifics?

Less corrupt than _most_? Probably.

Less corrupt than _some_? Surely.
---

Post by Myron Samila
I wasn't sure, cuz I swore prez Bush said there WAS Weapons of Mass Destruction according to his
"intelligence".

---
Do you have _evidence_ to the contrary?
--

Post by Myron Samila
Sorry, I hate to bring politics into an electronics newsgroup, but this post was OT anyhow

---
You're not sorry and you're not bringing politics into it, you're just a
stupid shit troll trying to start a fight.

[Tim Williams]

Post by John Fields

Post by Myron Samila
Remember, we did beat the US once already.

---
At what, hockey?

Probably refers to 1812. Or perhaps even earlier than that.

Tim

--
"I have misplaced my pants." - Homer Simpson | Electronics,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --+ Metalcasting
and Games: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

[Roger Gt]

"Tim Williams" wrote
: "John Fields" wrote

: > >Remember, we did beat the US once already.
: > ---
: > At what, hockey?
:
: Probably refers to 1812. Or perhaps even earlier than that.

No, it was a rebellion in Canada, the losers fled to the US.
1838 - 1840
Read about it at:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/patriots.htm

We got even when all the Draft Dodgers fled to Canada!

[Fred Bloggs]

Post by Roger Gt
: > >Remember, we did beat the US once already.
: > ---
: > At what, hockey?
: Probably refers to 1812. Or perhaps even earlier than that.
No, it was a rebellion in Canada, the losers fled to the US.
1838 - 1840
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/patriots.htm
We got even when all the Draft Dodgers fled to Canada!

Actually that rebellion of 1840 was how Thomas Edison got here- his
father was forced to flee across Lake Huron into the US with British in
hot pursuit. The Edisons were not really Canadian, they originally
settled in the New Jersey colony and were evicted into Canada after the
Revolution because they were Loyalists- then they cause trouble up
there, and back into US western territory they return.

[Roger Gt]

"Fred Bloggs" wrote
: Roger Gt wrote:
: > "Tim Williams" wrote
: > : "John Fields" wrote
: >
: > : > >Remember, we did beat the US once already.
: > : > --- At what, hockey?
: > : Probably refers to 1812. Or perhaps even earlier than that.
: >
: > No, it was a rebellion in Canada, the losers fled to the US.
: > 1838 - 1840
: > Read about it at:
: >
: > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/patriots.htm
: > We got even when all the Draft Dodgers fled to Canada!
:
: Actually that rebellion of 1840 was how Thomas Edison got here-
his
: father was forced to flee across Lake Huron into the US with
British in
: hot pursuit. The Edison's were not really Canadian, they
originally
: settled in the New Jersey colony and were evicted into Canada
after the
: Revolution because they were Loyalists- then they cause trouble
up
: there, and back into US western territory they return.

So there is some good from War after all!
He would have been only a refugee in Canada.

We got the best of the deal...... Really!

[JeffM]

Mexico is a great country, rich in resources and great people,

but with one of the most corrupt governments in the world.
Since Mexico is already pretty much a US welfare state
we should just seize the place. I doubt that more than
a handful of people would even attempt resistance.
Jim Thompson

Let's annex Canada while we're at it. All their best people are here anyway.
**Ducking before Speff, Boris, Black, et al start throwing ***@my.head.**

[Boris Mohar]

Post by JeffM
Mexico is a great country, rich in resources and great people,

but with one of the most corrupt governments in the world.
Since Mexico is already pretty much a US welfare state
we should just seize the place. I doubt that more than
a handful of people would even attempt resistance.
Jim Thompson

Let's annex Canada while we're at it. All their best people are here anyway.

Well I will take the dare. But in true canadian fashion I am required to
apologize first. Government made me do it.

Remember 1812? Well we cannot repeat that triumph again because we still
have the same weapons and most of them are still unregistered although our
government spent over a billion dollars inventing a gun registry.
But if you keep that up we will have to stop sending you our comedians.
Having said that now I am obliged to apologize. It is the Canadian way.
Instead of writing my own I shall recycle an apology by a Rick Mercer. He is
one of our top guns.

*******
Courtesy of Rick Mercer, from This Hour Has 22 Minutes, CBC Television...

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the
United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently
and for that, I am truly sorry. I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron.
He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any
consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the
people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than
you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better
than your own.

I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse
would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.

I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice
you've rebuilt it! It's Very Nice.

I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but,
we Feel your Pain.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against
a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it
took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but
that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly
apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a
thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this.

We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

Thank you.

**********


Regards,

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs http://www3.sympatico.ca/borism/

[Myron Samila]

Post by Boris Mohar

Post by JeffM
Mexico is a great country, rich in resources and great people,

but with one of the most corrupt governments in the world.
Since Mexico is already pretty much a US welfare state
we should just seize the place. I doubt that more than
a handful of people would even attempt resistance.
Jim Thompson

Let's annex Canada while we're at it. All their best people are here anyway.

Well I will take the dare. But in true canadian fashion I am required to
apologize first. Government made me do it.
Remember 1812? Well we cannot repeat that triumph again because we still
have the same weapons and most of them are still unregistered although our
government spent over a billion dollars inventing a gun registry.
But if you keep that up we will have to stop sending you our comedians.
Having said that now I am obliged to apologize. It is the Canadian way.
Instead of writing my own I shall recycle an apology by a Rick Mercer. He is
one of our top guns.
*******
Courtesy of Rick Mercer, from This Hour Has 22 Minutes, CBC Television...
On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the
United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently
and for that, I am truly sorry. I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron.
He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any
consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the
people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.
I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than
you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better
than your own.
I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse
would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.
I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice
you've rebuilt it! It's Very Nice.
I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but,
we Feel your Pain.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against
a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it
took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but
that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.
And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly
apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a
thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this.
We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.
Thank you.
**********
Regards,
Boris Mohar
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs http://www3.sympatico.ca/borism/

Thanks Boris ;)

I'm surprised that none of the other posters knew about the war in 1812, (one or two did),
and yes, ummmm, Canadians were originally British settlers eh! We were (we being me, I'm
Canadian) under the British Empire at the time, and yes, it was the Canadians/British who
did burn down the house which was later painted WHITE!! Hence, that is why it is called
the White House now, it was never white originally. Canada wasn't even really Canada as
we know it at the time, from what I recall we were Upper and Lower Canada, unfortunately
we took this land from the previous owners.

Canada (Kanata) in Native Indian meant the name of a specific village

Toronto in Native Indian means meeting place.


Funny, American text books show British soldiers burned down the White House, Canadian
text books show otherwise (because Canada was a British Empire) tells otherwise.

I know my history, ehehe, but I'm only here in this newsgroup for the electronics and the
occasional WTF post when something like this comes up ;)

Oh, and to the proof I have to come up with that Iraq doesn't have WMD? Ummmm, I don't
have any.

CNN reports one side of the story, if only some viewers would watch CBC and see what our
investigative reporters bring out:

Did you know that the Bush's were in the oil industry before politics?
Did you know that Bush Sr and the Bin Ladens (yes, of Osama fame) were in business
dealings with each other?
Did you know that the US helped Saddam in the Iraq/Iran conflict?!?
Did you know that when Bush jr was in that classroom, he already knew that the first plane
hit the WTC, he was informed about the second one. Later in an open forum, he said that
earlier before he went into that classroom, he saw the first plane hit the WTC, ummmm, no
one saw the first plane hit the WTC until a day later when that video tape surfaced (it
was a tape being shot about Firefighters from what I recall). He later retracted that
statement.


Again, I could care less about politics, I am one person, and my sole purpose here is to
discuss electronics, but, stop and think beyond what CNN tells you.

CNN is about as reliable as PRAVDA (anyone know what PRAVDA was/is??)

If any viewers in the US get to see our CBC check out This Hour has 22 Minutes, or the
Monday Report with Rick Mercer, you gotta see it.

Anyhow, I hope eventually the world gets along, we only have one earth and we're killing
it!!


And now onto more electronics discussion.

Myron Samila
Toronto, ON Canada
Samila Racing
http://204.101.251.229/myronx19

[Fred Bloggs]

Post by Myron Samila
I'm surprised that none of the other posters knew about the war in 1812, (one or two did),
and yes, ummmm, Canadians were originally British settlers eh! We were (we being me, I'm
Canadian) under the British Empire at the time, and yes, it was the Canadians/British who
did burn down the house which was later painted WHITE!! Hence, that is why it is called
the White House now, it was never white originally. Canada wasn't even really Canada as
we know it at the time, from what I recall we were Upper and Lower Canada, unfortunately
we took this land from the previous owners.
Canada (Kanata) in Native Indian meant the name of a specific village
Toronto in Native Indian means meeting place.
Funny, American text books show British soldiers burned down the White House, Canadian
text books show otherwise (because Canada was a British Empire) tells otherwise.
I know my history, ehehe, but I'm only here in this newsgroup for the electronics and the
occasional WTF post when something like this comes up ;)

Which history is that?- The one on the back of the cereal box? You come
across as a blithering idiot. Your upper Canada was a very sparsely
settled British territory administered by their military and with less
than 90,000 inhabitants at the time- a desolate outpost at best-and
definitely nowhere near being a nation. The native Canadian provincials
were very pro-American, engaged in heavy economic dealings with
Americans, and established a thriving trade in US goods to circumvent
the British trade ban. That incident in Washington was a minor foray and
they withdrew quickly before things got ugly for them. The British Army
ended up being annihilated yet again by Americans, they tried a
three-pronged invasion strategy and were soundly thrashed and decimated
quickly. The British could not enter into a peace treaty fast enough
after that. You're a simple minded and ignorant idiot to think that
Canada was anything other than a backwards cesspool frontier populated
by toothless illiterates who were drunk 100% of the time to cope with
their miserable existence.

[Spehro Pefhany >]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:26:27 GMT, the renowned Fred Bloggs

Post by Fred Bloggs
The native Canadian provincials
were very pro-American, engaged in heavy economic dealings with
Americans, and established a thriving trade in US goods to circumvent
the British trade ban.

The New England states, especially MA and VT were so against the war
they refused to lend the gov't money or send troops and continued to
trade. State (eg. NY and PA) militias refused to cross the border
under constitutional grounds, as this was clearly an offensive war,
and the founding fathers hadn't allowed for that kind of thing.

Post by Fred Bloggs
That incident in Washington was a minor foray and
they withdrew quickly before things got ugly for them. The British Army
ended up being annihilated yet again by Americans, they tried a
three-pronged invasion strategy and were soundly thrashed and decimated
quickly. The British could not enter into a peace treaty fast enough
after that. You're a simple minded and ignorant idiot to think that
Canada was anything other than a backwards cesspool frontier populated
by toothless illiterates who were drunk 100% of the time to cope with
their miserable existence.

Sounds like an excellent description of the Kentuckians. Slaughtered
at Frenchtown by the Potawatomi, and the remnants taken prisoner,
leading to the rapid and final retreat of Americans from Canadian
soil. And Isaac Brock's bluff that led to the surrender of Detroit
without a single shot being fired was nothing short of masterful.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

[Fred Bloggs]

Spehro Pefhany

Post by Spehro Pefhany >
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:26:27 GMT, the renowned Fred Bloggs

Post by Fred Bloggs
The native Canadian provincials
were very pro-American, engaged in heavy economic dealings with
Americans, and established a thriving trade in US goods to circumvent
the British trade ban.

The New England states, especially MA and VT were so against the war
they refused to lend the gov't money or send troops and continued to
trade. State (eg. NY and PA) militias refused to cross the border
under constitutional grounds, as this was clearly an offensive war,
and the founding fathers hadn't allowed for that kind of thing.

Post by Fred Bloggs
That incident in Washington was a minor foray and
they withdrew quickly before things got ugly for them. The British Army
ended up being annihilated yet again by Americans, they tried a
three-pronged invasion strategy and were soundly thrashed and decimated
quickly. The British could not enter into a peace treaty fast enough
after that. You're a simple minded and ignorant idiot to think that
Canada was anything other than a backwards cesspool frontier populated
by toothless illiterates who were drunk 100% of the time to cope with
their miserable existence.

Sounds like an excellent description of the Kentuckians. Slaughtered
at Frenchtown by the Potawatomi, and the remnants taken prisoner,
leading to the rapid and final retreat of Americans from Canadian
soil. And Isaac Brock's bluff that led to the surrender of Detroit
without a single shot being fired was nothing short of masterful.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Whatever- Madison and company apparently did not think it was important
to consider their military readiness prior to declaration of war. The
Federal army at the time consisted of wasted rabble and drunks- they
were actually doing a good job of emulating their English heritage that
way:-)

[Roger Gt]

"Spehro Pefhany wrote
: Fred Bloggs wrote:
:
: >The native Canadian provincials
: >were very pro-American, engaged in heavy economic dealings with
: >Americans, and established a thriving trade in US goods to
circumvent
: >the British trade ban.
:
: The New England states, especially MA and VT were so against the
war
: they refused to lend the gov't money or send troops and
continued to
: trade. State (eg. NY and PA) militias refused to cross the
border
: under constitutional grounds, as this was clearly an offensive
war,
: and the founding fathers hadn't allowed for that kind of thing.

The war of independence WAS an offensive war!
I saw nothing in my reading of the papers of the founders that
restrained action when it was needed to protect Americans.

: > That incident in Washington was a minor foray and
: >they withdrew quickly before things got ugly for them. The
British Army
: >ended up being annihilated yet again by Americans, they tried a
: >three-pronged invasion strategy and were soundly thrashed and
decimated
: >quickly. The British could not enter into a peace treaty fast
enough
: >after that. You're a simple minded and ignorant idiot to think
that
: >Canada was anything other than a backwards cesspool frontier
populated
: >by toothless illiterates who were drunk 100% of the time to
cope with
: >their miserable existence.
:
: Sounds like an excellent description of the Kentuckians.
Slaughtered
: at Frenchtown by the Potawatomi, and the remnants taken
prisoner,
: leading to the rapid and final retreat of Americans from
Canadian
: soil. And Isaac Brock's bluff that led to the surrender of
Detroit
: without a single shot being fired was nothing short of
masterful.

However IT was a British action, not Canadian!
Not sure about the Kentuckians, Notably Davy Crocket was elected
to the Congress, he was no dolt! Such broad brush descriptions
will always be wrong in some respect.

[Richard Henry]

Post by Roger Gt
: >The native Canadian provincials
: >were very pro-American, engaged in heavy economic dealings with
: >Americans, and established a thriving trade in US goods to
circumvent
: >the British trade ban.
: The New England states, especially MA and VT were so against the
war
: they refused to lend the gov't money or send troops and
continued to
: trade. State (eg. NY and PA) militias refused to cross the
border
: under constitutional grounds, as this was clearly an offensive
war,
: and the founding fathers hadn't allowed for that kind of thing.
The war of independence WAS an offensive war!

Fortunately, that took place before the Constitution was adopted.

[Roger Gt]

"Richard Henry" wrote
: "Roger Gt" wrote
: > "Spehro Pefhany wrote
: > : Fred Bloggs wrote:
: > :
: > : >The native Canadian provincials
: > : >were very pro-American, engaged in heavy economic dealings
with
: > : >Americans, and established a thriving trade in US goods to
: > circumvent
: > : >the British trade ban.
: > :
: > : The New England states, especially MA and VT were so against
the
: > war
: > : they refused to lend the gov't money or send troops and
: > continued to
: > : trade. State (eg. NY and PA) militias refused to cross the
: > border
: > : under constitutional grounds, as this was clearly an
offensive
: > war,
: > : and the founding fathers hadn't allowed for that kind of
thing.
: >
: > The war of independence WAS an offensive war!
:
: Fortunately, that took place before the Constitution was
adopted.
:
But the later adoption did not limit the power of the president to
ask for permission to go to war. The attitude did NOT change! Of
course the congress has the final word and bear all responsibility
for the acts they authorize!

[Mike Cowlishaw]

Post by Roger Gt
The war of independence WAS an offensive war!
I saw nothing in my reading of the papers of the founders that
restrained action when it was needed to protect Americans.

Um, they weren't 'Americans' then (any more than Mexicans or
Peruvians were or are). They were just revolting colonists :-))

mfc

[Roger Gt]

"Mike Cowlishaw"wrote
: > The war of independence WAS an offensive war!
: > I saw nothing in my reading of the papers of the founders that
: > restrained action when it was needed to protect Americans.
:
: Um, they weren't 'Americans' then (any more than Mexicans or
: Peruvians were or are). They were just revolting colonists :-))
: mfc

That matters how? "Those in America" or those citizens of THIS
land?"
My ancestors arrived on this continent in 1642.
They were the same people after the revolution as before.
Don't you mean colonists who revolted!

Being a thirteenth generation American might make me a "Native"
American too.
Since ALL came from somewhere else originally.

[Ross Matheson]

"Myron Samila" <***@no.spam.sympatico.ca> reminisced in
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic<Auy_b.4123$***@news20.bellglobal.com>,

: CNN is about as reliable as PRAVDA (anyone know what PRAVDA was/is??)

http://english.pravda.ru/

[Richard Henry]

alt.binaries.schematics.electronic<Auy_b.4123$***@news20.bellglobal.c
om>,

Post by Ross Matheson
: CNN is about as reliable as PRAVDA (anyone know what PRAVDA was/is??)
http://english.pravda.ru/

Truth.

[Wade Hassler]

Post by Jim Thompson
Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh....
Camino sin Nombre
ROTFLMAO!
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Gilroy, CA has a street named "Noname Uno"
Apparently, they are preparing for naming multiple unnmamed streets.
I prefer to pronounce it to rhyme with 'Besame Mucho.'
Wade