muttered something like: I’ve been lurking and reading and would love a copy.
Should be on the way. -Bertha — "My name’s already Selma Bouvier Terwilliger Hutz McClure. God knows it’s long enough without Nahasapeema-whatever." — Selma Bouvier Terwilliger Hutz McClure, "The Simpsons"
Hi Folks, During February and April 2003 there were a couple of threads on this NG about Christopher Perry , AKA ChrisPee, eBay Seller ID: Ensoll. This guy developed and sold an excell spreadsheet for calculating and recording ebay sales. Does anyone know what became of this author and his spreadsheet? I’d really like to get a copy of it. — Arty "Mindless violence causes computer games." A. Flinders
During February and April 2003 there were a couple of threads on this NG about Christopher Perry , AKA ChrisPee, eBay Seller ID: Ensoll. This guy developed and sold an excell spreadsheet for calculating and recording ebay sales. Does anyone know what became of this author and his spreadsheet? I’d really like to get a copy of it.
Apparently ebay told him to stop selling it. He had it available for free on his personal website for a while, but now his website is gone too. I can e-mail you a copy though. -Bertha — I know God won’t give me anything I can’t handle. I just wish He didn’t trust me so much. — Mother Teresa
During February and April 2003 there were a couple of threads on this NG about Christopher Perry , AKA ChrisPee, eBay Seller ID: Ensoll. This guy developed and sold an excell spreadsheet for calculating and recording ebay sales. Does anyone know what became of this author and his spreadsheet? I’d really like to get a copy of it. Apparently ebay told him to stop selling it. He had it available for free on his personal website for a while, but now his website is gone too. I can e-mail you a copy though. -Bertha
Thanks for the offer Bertha. I’d appreciate that. — Arty "Mindless violence causes computer games." A. Flinders
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – During February and April 2003 there were a couple of threads on this NG about Christopher Perry , AKA ChrisPee, eBay Seller ID: Ensoll. This guy developed and sold an excell spreadsheet for calculating and recording ebay sales. Does anyone know what became of this author and his spreadsheet? I’d really like to get a copy of it. Apparently ebay told him to stop selling it. He had it available for free on his personal website for a while, but now his website is gone too. I can e-mail you a copy though. -Bertha —
Why did eBay tell him to stop selling it ???????
"Disney Anna" Why did eBay tell him to stop selling it ???????
Only reason I can imagine is that it was an infringement of an early eBay product.
Could I also get a copy?? Thanks!
something like: Why did eBay tell him to stop selling it ???????
He didn’t go into details on his site; he just said ebay had said he couldn’t sell it there any more–so now he was GIVING it away from his own site. -Bertha — Sarah: Ow! It bit me! Hoggle: What’d you EXPECT fairies to do? Sarah: I thought they did nice things, like granting wishes! Hoggle: Shows what you know, don’t it?
muttered something like: Could I also get a copy?? Thanks!
On the way! -Bertha — God doesn’t make choices for me; why should I let you?
Can I have it too? Thanks, "Angriewoman"
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – muttered something like: Could I also get a copy?? Thanks! On the way! -Bertha — God doesn’t make choices for me; why should I let you?
I’ve been lurking and reading and would love a copy. deeveecoins at jangle dot us ALSO: I use Quickbooks for accounting .. any ebay software out there that works by exporting your ebay info to quickbooks. I am so tired of paying the SAPro ransom each month. Good program, but I wish i could use quickbooks to invoice and do it all .. Diane – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Can I have it too? Thanks, "Angriewoman" muttered something like: Could I also get a copy?? Thanks! On the way! -Bertha — God doesn’t make choices for me; why should I let you?
Diane aka JeWitch I’m going to Hell and, not the cool part of hell where all the murderers go either, but the lameass part, where the accountants are. www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com – *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike That’s a rhetorical question, isn’t it? You wouldn’t expect an intelligence-challenged type like Deano to have an answer to your question, would you? — Carl A. in FL
I don’t think he did but you on the otherhand should know better what with your incredibly huge IQ and everything. TOP TEN BUSH LIES THE LIST: After I finished writing a 300-page book detailing a wide assortment of George W. Bush lies-scores of deceptions, if not many more (I haven’t counted)-my publisher requested that I produce a top-ten list of Bush lies. It would be good for marketing, I was told. In my mind, the "top" lies numbered far more than ten. And after all, the book has fourteen chapters. A list of ten would have to leave out entire swaths of this work, including sections on such important subjects as global warming, missile defense, environmental standards, Bush’s failed energy plan, and Afghanistan reconstruction. It also would have to rely upon a false equivalency in order to provide a full flavor of the book. One could easily argue that the ten most significant lies of the Bush presidency all related to his campaign for war in Iraq. But such a list would not be much good from a sales perspective, for the point of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception is to show that Bush has lied his way through most serious policy matters (as well as through his bid for the presidency). Thus, I’m forced, as I brutally boil down 120,000 words to ten bullet items, to rely upon lies that represent larger body of lies. So here is a painfully constructed list-arranged in quasi-chronological order–that demonstrates the severity and range of Bush’s serial lying but that only skims the surface. For the complete picture-as well as for all the details that support the below accusations-please read the book. 10. "I have been very candid about my past." Bush said this during a press conference a few days before Election Day 2000. He was then in the middle of media firestorm that followed the revelation that he had once been arrested for drunken driving. Of course, this statement was untrue. He uttered it while he was trying to explain why he had not been "candid" about his arrest record. And during the campaign, he had not been "candid" about other significant matters, including what seemed to be a missing year in his National Guard service (which did not jibe with what he wrote about his service in his autobiography) and his apparent (though unacknowledged) shift from supporting abortion rights in the late-1970s to opposing them in the 1990s. He also was not "candid" about the tax plans he had pushed while governor of Texas. He always referred to them as "tax cuts" and did not mention that his major tax proposal included both tax cuts for property owners and an increase in the sales tax and the creation of a new business tax. 9. "I’m a uniter not a divider." This was a Bush catchphrase, a mantra. It was shorthand for his claim that he engaged in positive, not negative, politics and could heal a political culture ripped apart by the bitter ideological and partisan combat of the Clinton years. Yet during the 2000 presidential campaign and the Florida fracas, Bush and his lieutenants engaged in down-and-dirty and divisive political maneuvers. Just ask Senator John McCain, Bush’s main Republican opponent, whose record on veterans affairs was falsely attacked by a Bush surrogate and who was accused falsely by the Bush campaign of opposing research for breast cancer. As president-elect, Bush nominated one of the most divisive ideologues in Washington, former Senator John Ashcroft, to be attorney general. During a pre-inauguration interview, Bush acknowledged that he expected Ashcroft to be a lightning rod. But would-be uniters-not-dividers do not shove lightning rods up the backsides of their opponents. Another example: during the 2002 congressional campaign, Bush accused Democrats-who differed with him on employment rules for the new Department of Homeland Security-of sacrificing national security for their own petty purposes. He did this to help elect Republicans to office. Such a move was well within his rights as a political player, but not the action of a fellow who cares more about uniting than dividing. 8. "My plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans." All the available slots of this top-ten list could be filled by statements Bush made to sell his tax cuts at various points-on the campaign trail, in 2001 (for the first major tax-cuts battle), and in 2003 (for the second major tax-cuts battle). But I chose an assertion from 2001 that echoed statements from the campaign trail, that would be reprised in 2003, and that represented the best-sounding argument for his tax cuts. Bush frequently claimed his tax cuts would help low- and middle-income Americans, and in 2000 and 2001 he often spoke of a mythical single-mom waitress, making $22,000 or so, who would be guided into the middle-class by his tax cuts. The point was to make it seem as if he truly cared for hard-pressed Americans and that his tax cuts did indeed embody his promise of "compassionate conservatism." (By the way, I am not placing on this list Bush’s claim that he is a "compassionate conservative." That’s a rather relative term more suitable for judgment than truth-based evaluation.) But when the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche reviewed his tax plan for Time magazine during the 2000 campaign, it found that his beloved waitress would receive no reduction in her taxes. Zippo. In 2001, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that this waitress might gain $200 from Bush’s tax cuts if she managed to pull in $25,000 a year. But such a sum would not place her on the highway to the middle class. In fact, about 12 million low- and moderate-income families received no tax relief from Bush’s 2001 tax cuts (and millions of families were left out of his 2003 package). His plan unlocked few doors. Instead, about 45 percent of the 2001 package was slated to go to the top 1 percent of income earners. In 2003, Citizens for Tax Justice calculated that individuals earning between $16,000 and $29,000 would net about $99 from Bush’s proposed tax cuts. Again, not an amount that would cover the entrance fee for a middle-class life. 7. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research." That was what Bush said during an August 9, 2001, speech, announcing his decision to permit the federal funding of stem cell research that only used stem cells lines that existed before his speech. Bush was presenting his policy as a Solomon-like compromise. Religious right leaders and the Catholic Church were opposed to all stem cell research because it uses cells extracted from five-day old blastocysts (or embryos) in a process that destroys the embryos. (These embryos usually are leftovers created by in vitro fertilization at fertility clinics and no longer needed by the couples for which they were produced). But many prominent Republican donors and patient advocacy groups supported stem cell research, noting that scientists believed that studying stem cells (which have the potential to grow into any one of the more than 200 different types of human cells) could lead to treatments for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other terrible diseases. In his speech, Bush said that 60 stem cell lines already existed-"where the life and death decision has already been made"–and that these lines could support a vital and vibrant research effort. Consequently, he said, federally funding could be limited to underwriting research that employed only these lines. Bush was trying to have it both ways. He could appease his social conservative supporters by saying no to any federal support for new stem cell lines, and he could claim to support research that might potentially help millions of people. There was one problem. The 60 pre-existing lines did not exist. The number was closer to a dozen-if that-an amount that experts in the field did not consider sufficient for research purposes. And when scientists and media reports convincingly discredited Bush’s count-which Bush might have initially assumed to be correct-the Bush administration kept repeating its untruthful position. Sticking to the 60-lines fantasy (or lie) permitted Bush to avoid making an explicit decision to curtail stem cell research. But in effect that was what he had done without admitting it. 6. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." Bush said this in November 2002, as he appointed Henry Kissinger to be chairman of an independent 9/11 commission that Bush had orignially opposed. (Kissinger lasted two weeks in the job.) But Bush has not encouraged the uncovering of every detail. His administration did not turn over information to the congressional 9/11 inquiry about intelligence warnings the White House reviewed before 9/11. The administration also refused to say whether certain pre-9/11 intelligence warnings-including a July 2001 report noting that Osama bin Laden was poised to launch a "spectacular" attack "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests"-were shared with Bush and what he did in response, if he had received them. Moreover, the administration claimed that Bush’s awareness of these warnings (not the warnings themselves) was classified information-an argument unprecedented in the modern history of national security secrets. Bush also refused to let the congressional inquiry release the portion of its final report that concerned connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi citizens or officials. By resorting to such secrecy-which happened to keep hidden information that … read more »
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike Thanks for asking. Not just Bush but his entire administration is guilty…
You can demonstrate that NONE of those statements is a lie, as you well know. It should be clear to you that you can only establish something as a lie when you can prove that a statement, even if wrong, was KNOWN to be inaccurate at the time it was made. You cannot do that. cheers bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly September 12, 2002 Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention August 26, 2002 If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing December 2, 2002 We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing January 9, 2003 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush State of the Union Address January 28, 2003 We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council February 5, 2003 We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. George W. Bush Radio Address February 8, 2003 If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct. Colin Powell Interview with Radio France International February 28, 2003 So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not. Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council March 7, 2003 Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush Address to the Nation March 17, 2003 Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. Ari Fleisher Press Briefing March 21, 2003 There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference March 22, 2003 I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman Washington Post, p. A27 March 23, 2003 One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark Press Briefing March 22, 2003 We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview March 30, 2003 Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find — and there will be plenty. Neocon scholar Robert Kagan Washington Post op-ed April 9, 2003 But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing April 10, 2003 We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George W. Bush NBC Interview April 24, 2003 There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld Press Briefing April 25, 2003 We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 3, 2003 I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now. Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters May 4, 2003 We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld Fox News Interview May 4, 2003 I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein — because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 6, 2003 U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice Reuters Interview May 12, 2003 I just don’t know whether it was all destroyed years ago — I mean, there’s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago — whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they’re still hidden. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne Press Briefing May 13, 2003 Before the war, there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found. Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps Interview with Reporters May 21, 2003 Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff NBC Today Show interview May 26, 2003 They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer. Donald Rumsfeld Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations May 27, 2003 For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview May 28, 2003 It was a surprise to me then – it remains a surprise to me now – that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there. Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Press Interview May 30, 2003 Do I think we’re going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there’s a lot of information out there." Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency Press Conference
Oh hell, child’s play: http://www.sundayherald.com/35264 The highlights:
<biiiiiiiig snip of _allegations_ Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, disputes the claim, saying the CIA cleared the reference made by Bush. TB
Such "proof" is typical of Liberals. Lon
Thanks for asking. Not just Bush but his entire administration is guilty… Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly September 12, 2002
You may want to check the generally accepted definition of "lying." Knowingly telling a falsehood would qualify, expressing a conclusion based on misinformation is not. Or were all the people listed below guilty of "lying"? Weapons of Mass Destruction….. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…" Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …" Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 "Bush made up plan in Texas to help his oil buddies and now is paying bribes to world leaders for support in Iraq." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 18, 2003 (CNN, ABC and Others) Sen. Ted Kennedy, "explaining" his unsober comments about President Bush’s Iraq policy, including his claim that the president is "bribing" foreign officials: Asked by Fox News if he had evidence of his charge, Kennedy said Tuesday: "Just yesterday the administration announced a $8.5 billion loan to Turkey, and under the conditions of which they are going to be supportive of our troops in Iraq. Now you can say it’s an incentive, you can say it’s coercion, you can say bribery–you choose the word." Hey Teddy, how about "loan"? — Carl A. in FL Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
He’s got DNC Hq on speed dial though. LZ
ringring Hello, this is the DNC automated FactFone. Please concentrate on your question for 30 seconds, and then press the pound sign. Thank you. The answer to your question is, "It’s just commonsense." Have a warmfuzzy day, and please send your Bush tax rebate to the DNC. — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work.
The relevance is that until Bush picked up Clinton’s kicked can and stuck it up Saddam’s butt, Clinton and the Democrats also apparently thought Saddam had WMDs, but didn’t have the political balls to do the things they said needed to be done. Even as late as the SOTU address, the Democrats, in their response, concurred with there being WMDs. When it became apparent that Bush’s action was a spectacular success, the Democrats started backtracking and covering up their catholes, and whining, "Where are the WMD’s? Did Bush lie to us?" — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work.
And they are still whining the same whine. In the mean time Kerry continues to pick up vital endorsements. First Kim Jung Il, now Ramsey Clark. Can’t help but wonder when Osama will jump on board the train to elect Kerry. — Everyday I beat my own previous record for number of consecutive days I have stayed alive. http://www.bobhatch.com
Clinton also acted with numerous raids, just didn’t looking for war like Bush did. Yer right! Clinton was looking for distraction.
So he couldn’t win either way. Deano
Your evidence for this is? You seem to think in terms of political parties FAR more than I do. I didn’t have much respect for Bubba before he was caught with his pants down; but, the relevance of Clinton to the current discussion escapes me. In my lifetime we’ve had lots of liars, from both parties, in the White House. TB
The relevance is that until Bush picked up Clinton’s kicked can and stuck it up Saddam’s butt, Clinton and the Democrats also apparently thought Saddam had WMDs, but didn’t have the political balls to do the things they said needed to be done. Even as late as the SOTU address, the Democrats, in their response, concurred with there being WMDs. When it became apparent that Bush’s action was a spectacular success, the Democrats started backtracking and covering up their catholes, and whining, "Where are the WMD’s? Did Bush lie to us?" — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work.
Clinton also acted with numerous raids, just didn’t looking for war like Bush did.
Yer right! Clinton was looking for distraction.
Oh hell, child’s play: http://www.sundayherald.com/35264 The highlights: The Sunday Herald? They have more access to intel than the CIA and MI5?
LOL, it doesn’t take MI5 to figure this one out. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Niger and Iraq: the war’s biggest lie? The CIA, in what one British intelligence source described as a ‘wise attempt at an ass-saving manoeuvre’, also tried to have reference to Iraq’s uranium links to Niger deleted from Bush’s State of the Union address. CIA officials say they ‘communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence’. Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, disputes the claim, saying the CIA cleared the reference made by Bush. TB Sounds like a "he said-she said" case.
I quess you didn’t read the whole article. The thing was an obvious fake. If you can find anyone reasonably reliable who thought/thinks otherwise I’d love to see the evidence. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What intel did Clinton use when he bombed Iraq in 1998? President Clinton’s statement TEXT OF THE PRESIDENT’S BRIEFING ON IRAQI AIRSTRIKES. Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. [snip ya da ya da] Looks to me like the only difference was in adding ground troops and permanently getting rid of the trouble maker. It’s obvious that if Bush lied, Clinton lied. But you didn’t complain, THEN.
Your evidence for this is? You seem to think in terms of political parties FAR more than I do. I didn’t have much respect for Bubba before he was caught with his pants down; but, the relevance of Clinton to the current discussion escapes me. In my lifetime we’ve had lots of liars, from both parties, in the White House. TB
The Sunday Herald? They have more access to intel than the CIA and MI5?
Yes and apparently it’s more accurate. It’s obvious that if Bush lied, Clinton lied. But you didn’t complain, THEN. LZ
Clinton also acted with numerous raids, just didn’t looking for war like Bush did. Deano
Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike
Thanks for asking. Not just Bush but his entire administration is guilty… Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly September 12, 2002 Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention August 26, 2002 If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing December 2, 2002 We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing January 9, 2003 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush State of the Union Address January 28, 2003 We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council February 5, 2003 We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. George W. Bush Radio Address February 8, 2003 If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct. Colin Powell Interview with Radio France International February 28, 2003 So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not. Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council March 7, 2003 Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush Address to the Nation March 17, 2003 Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. Ari Fleisher Press Briefing March 21, 2003 There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference March 22, 2003 I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman Washington Post, p. A27 March 23, 2003 One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark Press Briefing March 22, 2003 We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview March 30, 2003 Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find — and there will be plenty. Neocon scholar Robert Kagan Washington Post op-ed April 9, 2003 But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing April 10, 2003 We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George W. Bush NBC Interview April 24, 2003 There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld Press Briefing April 25, 2003 We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 3, 2003 I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now. Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters May 4, 2003 We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld Fox News Interview May 4, 2003 I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein — because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 6, 2003 U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice Reuters Interview May 12, 2003 I just don’t know whether it was all destroyed years ago — I mean, there’s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago — whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they’re still hidden. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne Press Briefing May 13, 2003 Before the war, there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found. Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps Interview with Reporters May 21, 2003 Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff NBC Today Show interview May 26, 2003 They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer. Donald Rumsfeld Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations May 27, 2003 For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview May 28, 2003 It was a surprise to me then – it remains a surprise to me now – that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there. Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Press Interview May 30, 2003 Do I think we’re going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there’s a lot of information out there." Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency Press Conference
Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike
IMO Bush didn’t lie. I beleive he just isn’t smart "nuff to realize he was lied to by his handlers. Now thats really scary. Cecil
OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike That’s a rhetorical question, isn’t it? You wouldn’t expect an intelligence-challenged type like Deano to have an answer to your question, would you?
He’s got DNC Hq on speed dial though. LZ
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Found the perfect jail or Martha Stewart. It’s the Benton County Jail in Benton, AR. (www.co.benton.ar.us/Sheriff/Inmate.htm) This jail bills itself as the ONLY totally no frills jail in the nation. Some of the benefits for the inmates are: NO, TV, Radios, Cigarettes, Deodorant, Coffee, Tea, Milk, Razor Blades, Hair Cuts. Soft Drinks and No hot meals. Good Luck Martha. Now, I know if she gets any jail time it will be in one of those Country Club jails the Federal Government runs to the rich and famous. Bet if Jacko were to be confined there the rules would change fast. How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
Which Clinton? Where would Martha Stewart be today if she could have hidden her records in the White House for three years? Where can she go to jail? All the Federal Correctional Resorts are males only, aren’t they?
Oh hell, child’s play: http://www.sundayherald.com/35264 The highlights:
The Sunday Herald? They have more access to intel than the CIA and MI5? Niger and Iraq: the war’s biggest lie? The CIA, in what one British intelligence source described as a ‘wise attempt at an ass-saving manoeuvre’, also tried to have reference to Iraq’s uranium links to Niger deleted from Bush’s State of the Union address. CIA officials say they ‘communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence’. Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, disputes the claim, saying the CIA cleared the reference made by Bush. TB
Sounds like a "he said-she said" case. What intel did Clinton use when he bombed Iraq in 1998? President Clinton’s statement TEXT OF THE PRESIDENT’S BRIEFING ON IRAQI AIRSTRIKES. Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Looks to me like the only difference was in adding ground troops and permanently getting rid of the trouble maker. It’s obvious that if Bush lied, Clinton lied. But you didn’t complain, THEN. LZ
Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano
You mean like Clinton bombing Serbia? Did you notice that Kerry supported that although Clinton did not get UN permission? Yet NOW he faults Bush for not having UN permission to invade Iraq? Of course Kerry voted for us to invade Iraq but he now claims it didn’t count because he THOUGHT we would have UN permission. His ad also blames Bush for the troops lacking body armor. He must have forgotten that he voted against funding for the military. Stay tuned. He may have an updated version tomorrow. LZ
Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike
That’s a rhetorical question, isn’t it? You wouldn’t expect an intelligence-challenged type like Deano to have an answer to your question, would you? — Carl A. in FL Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
Oh Hell, here’s another one who’s been in a coma or visiting another planet during recent history… The Iraqi Liberation Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 360 to 38; the Senate vote was unanimous. Please note the content of the Act, and, most especially, its date and the name of the Chief Executive who signed it into law: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf
Thank you for the clarification. But then, what can one expect from a 119 scorer? — Carl A. in FL Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike
Oh hell, child’s play: http://www.sundayherald.com/35264 The highlights: Niger and Iraq: the war’s biggest lie? Well before the IAEA rained on the pro-war parade, the CIA was telling its masters in the Bush administration that the British intelligence on the Niger connection was nonsense. Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office received the forged evidence in 2002 — before Bush’s State of the Union address on January 28 this year — and passed it to the CIA. The CIA then dispatched former US ambassador Joseph C Wilson to Africa to check out the claim. Wilson came back saying the intelligence was unreliable and the CIA passed Cheney the assessment. Nevertheless, Bush kept the claim in his speech, and Cheney said, just days before the war began in March, that: ‘We know (Saddam’s) been absolutely trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.’ He also poured scorn on the IAEA for saying the documents were forged. ‘I think Mr El Baradei frankly is wrong … (The IAEA) has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.’ Wilson said it was Cheney who forced the CIA to try to come up with a credible threat from Iraqi nukes. ‘I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. A legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretences,’ he wrote. Wilson also said: ‘It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question: ‘What else are they lying about?” Wilson is no rogue official. He was lauded by George Bush Snr for ‘fighting the good fight’ after he became the last US diplomat to confront Saddam in the run-up to the first Gulf war. The irony isn’t lost on Wilson, who says: ‘I guess he didn’t realise that one of these days I would carry that fight against his son’s administration.’ Greg Thielmann, director of the State Department’s Office of Strategic, Proliferation and Military Issues, says the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research ruled the Niger connection implausible and told US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Thielmann also said Iraq posed no nuclear threat, and Team Bush distorted intelligence to fit its drive for war. Richard Kerr, a former CIA deputy director now leading a review of the agency’s pre-war intelligence on Iraqi WMDs, says intelligence was ambiguous and the CIA was under pressure from the Bush administration. The CIA, in what one British intelligence source described as a ‘wise attempt at an ass-saving manoeuvre’, also tried to have reference to Iraq’s uranium links to Niger deleted from Bush’s State of the Union address. CIA officials say they ‘communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence’. Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, disputes the claim, saying the CIA cleared the reference made by Bush. TB
How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL
Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano
Oh Hell, here’s another one who’s been in a coma or visiting another planet during recent history… The Iraqi Liberation Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 360 to 38; the Senate vote was unanimous. Please note the content of the Act, and, most especially, its date and the name of the Chief Executive who signed it into law: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano
How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano
OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Found the perfect jail or Martha Stewart. It’s the Benton County Jail in Benton, AR. (www.co.benton.ar.us/Sheriff/Inmate.htm) This jail bills itself as the ONLY totally no frills jail in the nation. Some of the benefits for the inmates are: NO, TV, Radios, Cigarettes, Deodorant, Coffee, Tea, Milk, Razor Blades, Hair Cuts. Soft Drinks and No hot meals. Good Luck Martha. Now, I know if she gets any jail time it will be in one of those Country Club jails the Federal Government runs to the rich and famous. Bet if Jacko were to be confined there the rules would change fast.
How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
Found the perfect jail or Martha Stewart. It’s the Benton County Jail in Benton, AR. (www.co.benton.ar.us/Sheriff/Inmate.htm) This jail bills itself as the ONLY totally no frills jail in the nation. Some of the benefits for the inmates are: NO, TV, Radios, Cigarettes, Deodorant, Coffee, Tea, Milk, Razor Blades, Hair Cuts. Soft Drinks and No hot meals. Good Luck Martha. Now, I know if she gets any jail time it will be in one of those Country Club jails the Federal Government runs to the rich and famous. Bet if Jacko were to be confined there the rules would change fast.
Thank you. It is more complicated than I imagined. I will seek the services of a local accountant. ~Chris
Good choice. Jim
Thank you. It is more complicated than I imagined. I will seek the services of a local accountant. ~Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello all, I just incorporated and am about to file form 2553 (S election). When I incorporated I used an online corporate filing service. I created 200 shares with a (somewhat arbitrary) par value of $50 each. I assume this means the company is (somewhat arbitrarily) valued at $10,000. My question is should I own all 200 shares? I am also recording the initial company minutes and to make things legal I need to purchase these shares. I am prepared to give the company $2000-3000 but not $10,000. Should I only own the fraction represented in cash? Or can I purchase the shares by transfering some of my personal assets (computer, desk, other equipment) and services rendered? Here are my proposed minutes. Does this look legal / typical? most "one owner" s-corps don’t even go this far, however many states tax the assets in an scorp (whether cash, furniture, etc.) so i wouldn’t be so quick to fund this corp without some definite business plan. You should seek the advice of a local accountant – I agree with Bob. Further, no sane CPA is going to provide a definitive answer to this question in a newsgroup. This is clearly a matter for paid professional advice. Jim Hudspeth, CPA
Hello all, I just incorporated and am about to file form 2553 (S election). When I incorporated I used an online corporate filing service. I created 200 shares with a (somewhat arbitrary) par value of $50 each. I assume this means the company is (somewhat arbitrarily) valued at $10,000. My question is should I own all 200 shares? I am also recording the initial company minutes and to make things legal I need to purchase these shares. I am prepared to give the company $2000-3000 but not $10,000. Should I only own the fraction represented in cash? Or can I opurchase the shares by transfering some of my personal assets (computer, desk, other equipment) and services rendered? Here are my proposed minutes. Does this look legal / typical? Upon motion duly made and seconded, the following preamble and resolution were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, (your name) has offered to purchase 200 shares of the common stock of the Corporation in consideration of $3000 cash, transfer of various items of personal property and services previously rendered to the Corporation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the offer of (your name) to purchase 200 common shares of the Corporation is hereby accepted, and that the proper officers be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute, issue and deliver in the name and, on behalf of the Corporation a certificate for 200 shares fully paid common shares to the order of (your name).
Hello all, I just incorporated and am about to file form 2553 (S election). When I incorporated I used an online corporate filing service. I created 200 shares with a (somewhat arbitrary) par value of $50 each. I assume this means the company is (somewhat arbitrarily) valued at $10,000. My question is should I own all 200 shares? I am also recording the initial company minutes and to make things legal I need to purchase these shares. I am prepared to give the company $2000-3000 but not $10,000. Should I only own the fraction represented in cash? Or can I purchase the shares by transfering some of my personal assets (computer, desk, other equipment) and services rendered? Here are my proposed minutes. Does this look legal / typical?
most "one owner" s-corps don’t even go this far, however many states tax the assets in an scorp (whether cash, furniture, etc.) so i wouldn’t be so quick to fund this corp without some definite business plan. You should seek the advice of a local accountant –
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello all, I just incorporated and am about to file form 2553 (S election). When I incorporated I used an online corporate filing service. I created 200 shares with a (somewhat arbitrary) par value of $50 each. I assume this means the company is (somewhat arbitrarily) valued at $10,000. My question is should I own all 200 shares? I am also recording the initial company minutes and to make things legal I need to purchase these shares. I am prepared to give the company $2000-3000 but not $10,000. Should I only own the fraction represented in cash? Or can I purchase the shares by transfering some of my personal assets (computer, desk, other equipment) and services rendered? Here are my proposed minutes. Does this look legal / typical? most "one owner" s-corps don’t even go this far, however many states tax the assets in an scorp (whether cash, furniture, etc.) so i wouldn’t be so quick to fund this corp without some definite business plan. You should seek the advice of a local accountant –
I agree with Bob. Further, no sane CPA is going to provide a definitive answer to this question in a newsgroup. This is clearly a matter for paid professional advice. Jim Hudspeth, CPA
Chris, This is not legal advice, just instructions, thoughts, and ideas. First, when stock is sold, it does not need to be sold at its $50 par value. If you bought 25 shares at $120 per share, you would show $50 per share going to the G/L Account of Common Stock and $70 per share going to the Capital Surplus account, for example. Note that different accountants use different account names. They might say Additional Paid in Capital instead of Capital Surplus. Second, why do you feel you have to have all of the shares issues at once? It is not necessary. What if you had authorized your company to issue 1 million shares at $.01 par? You wouldn’t need to issue a million shares to start your business. You could issue stock at $1 per share and put the $.99 into Capital Surplus. If you do not issue everything at once, you can issue shares later, when and if additional capital is raised. You can issue shares for putting assets into the company too. The exact amount is something you will want to determine by talking to a tax accountant. Receiving shares for services rendered is a little more complicated. If you receive shares as compensation, you my have a taxable event. But, why issue shares? If you already own 100% of the outstanding stock, issuing yourself more shares will not increase your ownership beyond 100%. If the company is worth more because of the services you rendered, then your 100% ownership is worth more. How many shares are outstanding are not a factor. Finally, what business are you starting? Are you forming a corporation for a reason? What is it your business will be doing? Good luck with your business, Arnold – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello all, I just incorporated and am about to file form 2553 (S election). When I incorporated I used an online corporate filing service. I created 200 shares with a (somewhat arbitrary) par value of $50 each. I assume this means the company is (somewhat arbitrarily) valued at $10,000. My question is should I own all 200 shares? I am also recording the initial company minutes and to make things legal I need to purchase these shares. I am prepared to give the company $2000-3000 but not $10,000. Should I only own the fraction represented in cash? Or can I opurchase the shares by transfering some of my personal assets (computer, desk, other equipment) and services rendered? Here are my proposed minutes. Does this look legal / typical? Upon motion duly made and seconded, the following preamble and resolution were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, (your name) has offered to purchase 200 shares of the common stock of the Corporation in consideration of $3000 cash, transfer of various items of personal property and services previously rendered to the Corporation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the offer of (your name) to purchase 200 common shares of the Corporation is hereby accepted, and that the proper officers be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute, issue and deliver in the name and, on behalf of the Corporation a certificate for 200 shares fully paid common shares to the order of (your name).
Hey folks, I’m curious to hear what everyone thinks on this subject. If a friend or family member was starting out for the first time, what type of ball would you give them to start playing with? Would you give them a distance ball or a softer spin ball?
(snip) I’m still looking for a ball that just says "Regular" on it. I’ll buy some. If the beginner doesn’t hit the ball very hard, some "distance" balls won’t go as far as a softer ball. The Precept Lady seems to be a reasonably priced ball that does well for both the short and long knockers. Less than 20$ a dozen if you look. Zane
Thinking back to my beginner days….I would recommend getting a distance ball that is not too hard (Top-Flite). Distance enhances a beginners confidence. Also, some of the distance balls can be bought for a lower price than the softer balls. Beginners will be losing a lot of balls and you don’t want to see a $3-$5 ball fly into the woods or worst…pond when you’re starting out. One le$$ thing to worry about. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey folks, I’m curious to hear what everyone thinks on this subject. If a friend or family member was starting out for the first time, what type of ball would you give them to start playing with? Would you give them a distance ball or a softer spin ball? (snip) I’m still looking for a ball that just says "Regular" on it. I’ll buy some. If the beginner doesn’t hit the ball very hard, some "distance" balls won’t go as far as a softer ball. The Precept Lady seems to be a reasonably priced ball that does well for both the short and long knockers. Less than 20$ a dozen if you look. Zane
I’m still looking for a ball that just says "Regular" on it. I’ll buy some.
Actually, nowadays I would consider a "professional" style ball to be a "regular" ball. In the old days, pros hit balata wound balls, and hackers hit 2 piece surlyn balls. Now there is a "compromise" ball. There are still high spin balls, and there are still hard distance balls. But "regular" balls would be 2 piece balls that are in between. For example, Wilson SmartCore Professional Distance (as opposed to Spin Distance or Straight Distance, in their line.)
I’m curious to hear what everyone thinks on this subject. If a friend or family member was starting out for the first time, what type of ball would you give them to start playing with?
The CHEAP ones! me
XXX-Outs, Walmart specials, used balls. It doesn’t matter what kind of ball a rank beginner uses when they’re slicing, topping, hooking, and hitting the ball fat! Depending on ability, lessons, and how much they play and practice, worry about distance vs. spin ball types a year or two into playing golf, IMO. — Regards Carl RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/index.html?rollcall=carl Anti-Spam Pledge: I pledge NOT to do business with any person or company that advertises in rec.sport.golf. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey folks, I’m curious to hear what everyone thinks on this subject. If a friend or family member was starting out for the first time, what type of ball would you give them to start playing with? Would you give them a distance ball or a softer spin ball? Personally, I would want to see them learn with the softer ball, even if that means that they have to deal with a more exagurated slice. These days, you can buy cleaper balls that are softer, like the XL2000 Extra Spin…and they’re no different in price to the comparable distance ball. I think if you learn to play with that softer feel ball, you’ll be better off. What does everyone else think? -Frank
Hey folks, I’m curious to hear what everyone thinks on this subject. If a friend or family member was starting out for the first time, what type of ball would you give them to start playing with? Would you give them a distance ball or a softer spin ball? Personally, I would want to see them learn with the softer ball, even if that means that they have to deal with a more exagurated slice. These days, you can buy cleaper balls that are softer, like the XL2000 Extra Spin…and they’re no different in price to the comparable distance ball. I think if you learn to play with that softer feel ball, you’ll be better off. What does everyone else think? -Frank
Personally, I would want to see them learn with the softer ball, even if that means that they have to deal with a more exagurated slice. These days, you can buy cleaper balls that are softer, like the XL2000 Extra Spin…and they’re no different in price to the comparable distance ball. I think if you learn to play with that softer feel ball, you’ll be better off.
Why?
I agree for the following reasons: 1) Using a softer ball gives them a softer feel when hitting irons (obvious, I know), there is no feed back on harder balls. 2) Beginners usually aim at the flag when chipping, (not taking the roll into account) 3) They will soon learn to hit down on the ball for extra bite, which is not a bad thing 4) Using a distance ball will only give them at most, 10 extra yards. 5) If they use premium priced balls, which usually are softer, they will be more aware of the OOB & hazards. 6) If a distance ball hits the flag stick, it is more likely to ricochet futher away that a softer ball (scraping barrel)
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey folks, I’m curious to hear what everyone thinks on this subject. If a friend or family member was starting out for the first time, what type of ball would you give them to start playing with? Would you give them a distance ball or a softer spin ball? Personally, I would want to see them learn with the softer ball, even if that means that they have to deal with a more exagurated slice. These days, you can buy cleaper balls that are softer, like the XL2000 Extra Spin…and they’re no different in price to the comparable distance ball. I think if you learn to play with that softer feel ball, you’ll be better off. What does everyone else think? -Frank
I agree for the following reasons: 1) Using a softer ball gives them a softer feel when hitting irons (obvious, I know), there is no feed back on harder balls.
Seems to me that a softer feeling would equate to less feedback, not more. The feedback that most beginners need is "high and straight" versus "never left the ground" or "high and slicing". 2) Beginners usually aim at the flag when chipping, (not taking the roll into account)
Soft balls roll, too. There’s no difference to a beginner in accounting for 15 feet of roll versus 10 feet of roll, is there? If you’re chipping (as opposed to hitting some sort of flop shot) you’ll adjust to whatever kind of ball you choose to learn with. Beginners won’t be hitting high-spin flop shots from around the green, which is the situation where a soft-cover ball would matter most. 3) They will soon learn to hit down on the ball for extra bite, which is not a bad thing
In my experience, "extra bite" comes from clean contact with a descending blow, not just from simply thinking "hit down on it". Besides, they’ll come up short 10 times as often as they fly too far anyway, so any extra bite just keeps the ball from bouncing up closer to the hole. 4) Using a distance ball will only give them at most, 10 extra yards.
Using a low-spin ball can give both a few yards more (carry) distance and a few yards less (carry) into the woods. Beginners are best served by playing courses with wide-open fairways. Unless you’re worried about rolling into trouble off a narrow fairway, extra roll (which is where most of a distance ball’s extra distance comes from, not extra carry) is generally a good thing for a beginner. Most beginners don’t get the ball in the air every time and overcoming distance is their worst obstacle. 5) If they use premium priced balls, which usually are softer, they will be more aware of the OOB & hazards.
I think everyone agrees that beginners should use cheap balls, the original question was about cheap spin balls (like XL2000 Exceptional Spin) versus cheap distance balls (like XL2000 Extra Long or similar). 6) If a distance ball hits the flag stick, it is more likely to ricochet futher away that a softer ball (scraping barrel)
The distance ball won’t bounce any farther but it will roll farther after it lands.
I agree for the following reasons: 1) Using a softer ball gives them a softer feel when hitting irons (obvious, I know)
OK , there is no feed back on harder balls.
Sure there is. 2) Beginners usually aim at the flag when chipping, (not taking the roll into account)
The amount of spin you generate from a chip stroke (little power) comes from technique. They won’t be spinning either ball much. The slightly softer ball might hit the ball a bit shorter, but this is an adjustment of range which is needed with either ball. If they don’t take roll into account (which is about 75% of the distance a chip goes) then they have more problems than their ball. 3) They will soon learn to hit down on the ball for extra bite, which is not a bad thing
It’s required for either ball to get iron shots to fly well. 5) If they use premium priced balls, which usually are softer, they will be more aware of the OOB & hazards.
Quite dubious. 6) If a distance ball hits the flag stick, it is more likely to ricochet futher away that a softer ball (scraping barrel)
Off the charts man! 
Being sarcastic,
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I agree for the following reasons: 1) Using a softer ball gives them a softer feel when hitting irons (obvious, I know) OK , there is no feed back on harder balls. Sure there is. 2) Beginners usually aim at the flag when chipping, (not taking the roll into account) The amount of spin you generate from a chip stroke (little power) comes from technique. They won’t be spinning either ball much. The slightly softer ball might hit the ball a bit shorter, but this is an adjustment of range which is needed with either ball. If they don’t take roll into account (which is about 75% of the distance a chip goes) then they have more problems than their ball. 3) They will soon learn to hit down on the ball for extra bite, which is not a bad thing It’s required for either ball to get iron shots to fly well. 5) If they use premium priced balls, which usually are softer, they will be more aware of the OOB & hazards. Quite dubious. 6) If a distance ball hits the flag stick, it is more likely to ricochet futher away that a softer ball (scraping barrel) Off the charts man!
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey folks, I’m curious to hear what everyone thinks on this subject. If a friend or family member was starting out for the first time, what type of ball would you give them to start playing with? Would you give them a distance ball or a softer spin ball? Personally, I would want to see them learn with the softer ball, even if that means that they have to deal with a more exagurated slice. These days, you can buy cleaper balls that are softer, like the XL2000 Extra Spin…and they’re no different in price to the comparable distance ball. I think if you learn to play with that softer feel ball, you’ll be better off. What does everyone else think? -Frank
the game is difficult enough to learn without adding to it, i’ve been learning it for 30+ years and still have much to learn. i would suggest that you start them out with a "straight distance" ball, wilson smart core, XL3000, et al, or even a magna ball. don’t worry about the fine points before they learn the basics, actually any ball that’s cheap and comes in a gross will do,we have to learn to walk before we can fall down, oops, i mean run 
still trying to figure out this game after all these years bud
Would you give them a distance ball or a softer spin ball?
Distance!!! Reason, beginners are overwhelmed with so many things while learning. They have no sense in their hands and need all the distance they can get when starting out. I’ve heard over and over from beginners about all the things one is trying to learn and brain overload. Softer balls require consistent contact to get reasonable distance. Around the greens, softer balls require lots of practice, so the beginner can understand what the ball will do under various circumstances. Short game is part of advanced learning.
Cheap!! Really, really cheap as the ball’s life expectancy is a hole, maybe two.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey folks, I’m curious to hear what everyone thinks on this subject. If a friend or family member was starting out for the first time, what type of ball would you give them to start playing with? Would you give them a distance ball or a softer spin ball? Personally, I would want to see them learn with the softer ball, even if that means that they have to deal with a more exagurated slice. These days, you can buy cleaper balls that are softer, like the XL2000 Extra Spin…and they’re no different in price to the comparable distance ball. I think if you learn to play with that softer feel ball, you’ll be better off. What does everyone else think? -Frank
Must get a bigger VDU…all I could see of the header was: Bassist wanted for Chic Most tempting : ) db
Perhaps. But, for example, you won’t find me responding a "newbie bass" post saying something to the effect "you suck for wanting to buy a cheap bass."
Isn’t that just that Mark Thomson’s got more guts? At least he says it to your face (would you be as offended if they weren’t your friends?). I suspect that reading your page (http://www.toddh.net/music/adult_musicians.html) felt just as much a slap in the face to me – a newbie at 34 – as you felt when you read Mark’s post. Have you considered the possibility that it’s people of a certain social class (maybe they live in the nw ‘burbs?) that learn musical instruments as kids? That maybe you just feel more conformtable with people like you? Pompous ass. Andrew
Perhaps. But, for example, you won’t find me responding a "newbie bass" post saying something to the effect "you suck for wanting to buy a cheap bass." Isn’t that just that Mark Thomson’s got more guts? At least he says it to your face (would you be as offended if they weren’t your friends?). I suspect that reading your page (http://www.toddh.net/music/adult_musicians.html) felt just as much a slap in the face to me – a newbie at 34 – as you felt when you read Mark’s post.
I personally wasn’t offended by Mark’s post. What bothered me was that his comments decreased the likelihood of an interested party speaking up in response to the solicitation, and added little value to the original request. However, this has become a rather interesting thread. I regret that you were offended by my page, but if it helps you avoid bands where you’re in copletely over your head, or gets you fired up to practice, then one of the tacit purposes for the page has fulfilled itself. Have you considered the possibility that it’s people of a certain social class (maybe they live in the nw ‘burbs?) that learn musical instruments as kids? That maybe you just feel more conformtable with people like you?
In Chicago, it’s more of a suburbs vs city thing. City bands look down their noses at the suburbs. Original bands look down their noses at cover bands. Typically, city:original as suburbs:cover in the Chicago market, so they kinda go hand in hand. It’s all a function of why you like playing music. If you value it as a creative outlet, or are trying to "make it," in music you gravitate to original music. If you you don’t care so much about creativity, aren’t trying to make a living as the next rock star, and like playing tunes for the masses that people know and like, you do covers. I’m in a band that does a mix of both and I’ve found the happy medium for me. I won’t pretend that it’s "the best" in general–because no such empirical "best" exists in these matters. Intolerance is a drag, though. Pompous ass.
Fair enough. Your candor is appreciated, and has been documented to enhance the page. — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/
2. It’s covers if you have a tape or CD player you have your home work. All you have to do is learn your songs.
Maybe not. Some "cover bands" do their own renditions of other people’s songs that can be quite different from any recorded version. — Jonathan Byrd Computer Software Engineering Technology (208) 282-4256 Pocatello, Idaho USA
Perhaps. But, for example, you won’t find me responding a "newbie bass" post saying something to the effect "you suck for wanting to buy a cheap bass." IMO, the difference is in the level of tolerance and the attitude towards it. No one argues that there are musicians of different levels. And no one will argue that it’s no fun to be the best musician in a band composed of folks of substantially lower ability. What I dislike is when a musician is narrow-minded enough to be completely intolerant of musicians of different ability. It’s one thing to note differences and choose not to play with such musicians, but it’s another respond to a "musicians wanted" ad and disparage anyone who would be interested in such a group. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – His post had quite a similar air to your comments at http://www.toddh.net/music/adult_musicians.html (imho). Pot. Kettle. Black? Andrew Allow me to clarify. I’m not "condescending" to all cover bands, or to all bands in the NW burbs. I AM "condescending" to this band. I have no grudge against any other band. Please don’t put words into my mouth. Since you had to open your chow pipe over my little joke I’ll clarify. At first I was giving the benefit of the doubt, but now I’m convinced. You really are a pompous ass. You correctly inferred that this band is not a good fit for a very-experienced, very-talented, or "serious" musician. But then, not everyone falls into that category, and yet I bet many are part of this newsgroup, still be part of the music scene, and still looking for bands to play in. If you need to condescend to such folk and make jabs at suburban cover bands to make yourself feel better, have at it…but don’t be surprised when your "this is the only way to play music" attitude gets noticed. — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/
– — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/
His post had quite a similar air to your comments at http://www.toddh.net/music/adult_musicians.html (imho). Pot. Kettle. Black? Andrew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Allow me to clarify. I’m not "condescending" to all cover bands, or to all bands in the NW burbs. I AM "condescending" to this band. I have no grudge against any other band. Please don’t put words into my mouth. Since you had to open your chow pipe over my little joke I’ll clarify. At first I was giving the benefit of the doubt, but now I’m convinced. You really are a pompous ass. You correctly inferred that this band is not a good fit for a very-experienced, very-talented, or "serious" musician. But then, not everyone falls into that category, and yet I bet many are part of this newsgroup, still be part of the music scene, and still looking for bands to play in. If you need to condescend to such folk and make jabs at suburban cover bands to make yourself feel better, have at it…but don’t be surprised when your "this is the only way to play music" attitude gets noticed. — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/
Allow me to clarify. I’m not "condescending" to all cover bands, or to all bands in the NW burbs. I AM "condescending" to this band. I have no grudge against any other band. Please don’t put words into my mouth. Since you had to open your chow pipe over my little joke I’ll clarify.
At first I was giving the benefit of the doubt, but now I’m convinced. You really are a pompous ass. You correctly inferred that this band is not a good fit for a very-experienced, very-talented, or "serious" musician. But then, not everyone falls into that category, and yet I bet many are part of this newsgroup, still be part of the music scene, and still looking for bands to play in. If you need to condescend to such folk and make jabs at suburban cover bands to make yourself feel better, have at it…but don’t be surprised when your "this is the only way to play music" attitude gets noticed. — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/
Oh, gawd…But that was a blast! ;) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yeah. It was at the Air Force Academy no less. Remember the scene from Spinal Tap…. — -NoizyCat
Allow me to clarify. I’m not "condescending" to all cover bands, or to all bands in the NW burbs. I AM "condescending" to this band. I have no grudge against any other band. Please don’t put words into my mouth. Since you had to open your chow pipe over my little joke I’ll clarify. 1. I’ll bet this band likes to kick back a few beers while they practice and or play out live. Not the most conducive way to run a practice or gig. My guess, 4 guys in burbs getting drunk reliving their 1975 glory days and not much music gets played because pretending to be a musician interferes with mowing their lawns. It makes them feel good to hang around the cubicles in accounting and tell all their friends "I’m in a rock band." I could be wrong though 2. It’s covers if you have a tape or CD player you have your home work. All you have to do is learn your songs. The music you described is not the most difficult in the world. I was hired to do a few shows in a Led Zeppelin Tribute Band (you see, I have nothing against cover bands) I learned the songs from my CD collection. I practiced once with the guitarist and singer for a couple of hours then we did one full band rehearsal for a 2 hour show. If you love to play and learn music from some great artists like the ones you mentioned it should be fun not rocket science. 3. They hired the previous loser in the first place. I question their judgment. Why didn’t they post the message. I’m sure easy going 40 year-olds from the NW burbs could figure out how these new fangled machines work. Does the internet scare them?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Condescending to all NW suburban bands, condescending to all cover bands, and unhelpful at the same time…. As most have inferred, I doubt they’d be practicing on gig weeks. Todd They practice Fri & Sat nights and only play out 1 or 2 times per month. Hmmm. I think I see a flaw in their scheduling. That’s quite a work load for covers. The nw burbs no less. Mark Greetings all, I’m helping out a buddy’s band with this (as I already have my own gig)…please forward this to anyone you think may be interested. Rock/blues bassist sought to complete a 4-piece (guitar/voc, guitar/voc, drums, and you) cover band based in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, IL. Covers include Allman Brothers, SRV, Doors, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Tragically Hip. Easygoing guys from early 30’s to early 40’s, looking to gig 1-2x/ month….practice together once weekly–usually Friday or Saturday evenings. Band has a nice PA, free rehearsal space, and is ready to start gigging once you’re on board. Why the opening? The previous bassist was dismissed…He was quite unreliable, playing with another band, never bothered to learn the songs from the tapes provided to him, and usually drank to the point of throwing up on the lawn after practice. :- If you’re comfortable picking up songs or working on your own off tapes to learn them, can show up for practices Fridays or Saturdays, and don’t vomit on the guitarist’s lawn, you can be part of band that already enjoys a big following! Email me if interested and I’ll get you in touch. Best Regards, — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/music/ — — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/
Condescending to all NW suburban bands, condescending to all cover bands, and unhelpful at the same time…. As most have inferred, I doubt they’d be practicing on gig weeks. Todd – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – They practice Fri & Sat nights and only play out 1 or 2 times per month. Hmmm. I think I see a flaw in their scheduling. That’s quite a work load for covers. The nw burbs no less. Mark Greetings all, I’m helping out a buddy’s band with this (as I already have my own gig)…please forward this to anyone you think may be interested. Rock/blues bassist sought to complete a 4-piece (guitar/voc, guitar/voc, drums, and you) cover band based in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, IL. Covers include Allman Brothers, SRV, Doors, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Tragically Hip. Easygoing guys from early 30’s to early 40’s, looking to gig 1-2x/ month….practice together once weekly–usually Friday or Saturday evenings. Band has a nice PA, free rehearsal space, and is ready to start gigging once you’re on board. Why the opening? The previous bassist was dismissed…He was quite unreliable, playing with another band, never bothered to learn the songs from the tapes provided to him, and usually drank to the point of throwing up on the lawn after practice. :- If you’re comfortable picking up songs or working on your own off tapes to learn them, can show up for practices Fridays or Saturdays, and don’t vomit on the guitarist’s lawn, you can be part of band that already enjoys a big following! Email me if interested and I’ll get you in touch. Best Regards, — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/music/
– — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/
They practice Fri & Sat nights and only play out 1 or 2 times per month. Hmmm. I think I see a flaw in their scheduling. That’s quite a work load for covers. The nw burbs no less. Mark
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings all, I’m helping out a buddy’s band with this (as I already have my own gig)…please forward this to anyone you think may be interested. Rock/blues bassist sought to complete a 4-piece (guitar/voc, guitar/voc, drums, and you) cover band based in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, IL. Covers include Allman Brothers, SRV, Doors, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Tragically Hip. Easygoing guys from early 30’s to early 40’s, looking to gig 1-2x/ month….practice together once weekly–usually Friday or Saturday evenings. Band has a nice PA, free rehearsal space, and is ready to start gigging once you’re on board. Why the opening? The previous bassist was dismissed…He was quite unreliable, playing with another band, never bothered to learn the songs from the tapes provided to him, and usually drank to the point of throwing up on the lawn after practice. :- If you’re comfortable picking up songs or working on your own off tapes to learn them, can show up for practices Fridays or Saturdays, and don’t vomit on the guitarist’s lawn, you can be part of band that already enjoys a big following! Email me if interested and I’ll get you in touch. Best Regards, — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/music/
Yeah. It was at the Air Force Academy no less. Remember the scene from Spinal Tap…. — -NoizyCat
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dass Juss Nasty!! ;) Y’ain’t lived until you’ve played a gig with a barf bucket behind your amp. — -NoizyCat hmmm, I knew a band where the drummer threw up in the corner of the basement,,,, actually it was the same corner that he would prop himself up in while he ‘played’ the drums. hmmm Can I throw up on the drummer’s lawn then??? — -rob O< "seriously tempted" /() ^^ Greetings all, I’m helping out a buddy’s band with this (as I already have my own gig)…please forward this to anyone you think may be interested. Rock/blues bassist sought to complete a 4-piece (guitar/voc, guitar/voc, drums, and you) cover band based in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, IL. Covers include Allman Brothers, SRV, Doors, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Tragically Hip. Easygoing guys from early 30’s to early 40’s, looking to gig 1-2x/ month….practice together once weekly–usually Friday or Saturday evenings. Band has a nice PA, free rehearsal space, and is ready to start gigging once you’re on board. Why the opening? The previous bassist was dismissed…He was quite unreliable, playing with another band, never bothered to learn the songs from the tapes provided to him, and usually drank to the point of throwing up on the lawn after practice. :- If you’re comfortable picking up songs or working on your own off tapes to learn them, can show up for practices Fridays or Saturdays, and don’t vomit on the guitarist’s lawn, you can be part of band that already enjoys a big following! Email me if interested and I’ll get you in touch. Best Regards, — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/music/
How come neither of you "brought this up" during our "Definition of a Pro" thread. That to me nails it. Too sick to play? Bullocks! — -rob O /() ^^
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Y’ain’t lived until you’ve played a gig with a barf bucket behind your amp. Been there..got the t-shirt:-) Aloha, Jerry
In thirty years I missed one gig…and that was from a grand-mal seizure from being a fucking drunk….cleaned me up:-) Aloha, Jerry
Y’ain’t lived until you’ve played a gig with a barf bucket behind your amp.
Been there..got the t-shirt:-) Aloha, Jerry
Dass Juss Nasty!! ;) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Y’ain’t lived until you’ve played a gig with a barf bucket behind your amp. — -NoizyCat hmmm, I knew a band where the drummer threw up in the corner of the basement,,,, actually it was the same corner that he would prop himself up in while he ‘played’ the drums. hmmm Can I throw up on the drummer’s lawn then??? — -rob O< "seriously tempted" /() ^^ Greetings all, I’m helping out a buddy’s band with this (as I already have my own gig)…please forward this to anyone you think may be interested. Rock/blues bassist sought to complete a 4-piece (guitar/voc, guitar/voc, drums, and you) cover band based in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, IL. Covers include Allman Brothers, SRV, Doors, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Tragically Hip. Easygoing guys from early 30’s to early 40’s, looking to gig 1-2x/ month….practice together once weekly–usually Friday or Saturday evenings. Band has a nice PA, free rehearsal space, and is ready to start gigging once you’re on board. Why the opening? The previous bassist was dismissed…He was quite unreliable, playing with another band, never bothered to learn the songs from the tapes provided to him, and usually drank to the point of throwing up on the lawn after practice. :- If you’re comfortable picking up songs or working on your own off tapes to learn them, can show up for practices Fridays or Saturdays, and don’t vomit on the guitarist’s lawn, you can be part of band that already enjoys a big following! Email me if interested and I’ll get you in touch. Best Regards, — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/music/
I don’t mind people drinking at rehearsal..if they can handle it…I like smoking dope..but I don’t on gigs or rehearsals! At jams….thats another story:-) Aloha, Jerry
Y’ain’t lived until you’ve played a gig with a barf bucket behind your amp. — -NoizyCat
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – hmmm, I knew a band where the drummer threw up in the corner of the basement,,,, actually it was the same corner that he would prop himself up in while he ‘played’ the drums. hmmm Can I throw up on the drummer’s lawn then??? — -rob O< "seriously tempted" /() ^^ Greetings all, I’m helping out a buddy’s band with this (as I already have my own gig)…please forward this to anyone you think may be interested. Rock/blues bassist sought to complete a 4-piece (guitar/voc, guitar/voc, drums, and you) cover band based in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, IL. Covers include Allman Brothers, SRV, Doors, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Tragically Hip. Easygoing guys from early 30’s to early 40’s, looking to gig 1-2x/ month….practice together once weekly–usually Friday or Saturday evenings. Band has a nice PA, free rehearsal space, and is ready to start gigging once you’re on board. Why the opening? The previous bassist was dismissed…He was quite unreliable, playing with another band, never bothered to learn the songs from the tapes provided to him, and usually drank to the point of throwing up on the lawn after practice. :- If you’re comfortable picking up songs or working on your own off tapes to learn them, can show up for practices Fridays or Saturdays, and don’t vomit on the guitarist’s lawn, you can be part of band that already enjoys a big following! Email me if interested and I’ll get you in touch. Best Regards, — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/music/
The old practice to you puke syndrome huh:-) Aloha, Jerry
The last band I was in drove me to drinking at rehearsals. When I got up to a 6 pack, I knew it was time to quit… the band. It may be the bands fault here too. — -rob O /() ^^
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The old practice to you puke syndrome huh:-) Aloha, Jerry
O< "seriously tempted" /() ^^
Go for it Rob. You ain’t getting any younger. Andrew Thompson
If you ask *REALLY* nice, they might even let you throw up on the drummer. : () oooooo8 Gupta
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Can I throw up on the drummer’s lawn then??? — -rob O< "seriously tempted" /() ^^ Greetings all, I’m helping out a buddy’s band with this (as I already have my own gig)…please forward this to anyone you think may be interested. Rock/blues bassist sought to complete a 4-piece (guitar/voc, guitar/voc, drums, and you) cover band based in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, IL. Covers include Allman Brothers, SRV, Doors, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Tragically Hip. Easygoing guys from early 30’s to early 40’s, looking to gig 1-2x/ month….practice together once weekly–usually Friday or Saturday evenings. Band has a nice PA, free rehearsal space, and is ready to start gigging once you’re on board. Why the opening? The previous bassist was dismissed…He was quite unreliable, playing with another band, never bothered to learn the songs from the tapes provided to him, and usually drank to the point of throwing up on the lawn after practice. :- If you’re comfortable picking up songs or working on your own off tapes to learn them, can show up for practices Fridays or Saturdays, and don’t vomit on the guitarist’s lawn, you can be part of band that already enjoys a big following! Email me if interested and I’ll get you in touch. Best Regards, — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/music/
hmmm, I knew a band where the drummer threw up in the corner of the basement,,,, actually it was the same corner that he would prop himself up in while he ‘played’ the drums. hmmm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Can I throw up on the drummer’s lawn then??? — -rob O< "seriously tempted" /() ^^ Greetings all, I’m helping out a buddy’s band with this (as I already have my own gig)…please forward this to anyone you think may be interested. Rock/blues bassist sought to complete a 4-piece (guitar/voc, guitar/voc, drums, and you) cover band based in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, IL. Covers include Allman Brothers, SRV, Doors, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Tragically Hip. Easygoing guys from early 30’s to early 40’s, looking to gig 1-2x/ month….practice together once weekly–usually Friday or Saturday evenings. Band has a nice PA, free rehearsal space, and is ready to start gigging once you’re on board. Why the opening? The previous bassist was dismissed…He was quite unreliable, playing with another band, never bothered to learn the songs from the tapes provided to him, and usually drank to the point of throwing up on the lawn after practice. :- If you’re comfortable picking up songs or working on your own off tapes to learn them, can show up for practices Fridays or Saturdays, and don’t vomit on the guitarist’s lawn, you can be part of band that already enjoys a big following! Email me if interested and I’ll get you in touch. Best Regards, — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/music/
Can I throw up on the drummer’s lawn then??? — -rob O< "seriously tempted" /() ^^
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings all, I’m helping out a buddy’s band with this (as I already have my own gig)…please forward this to anyone you think may be interested. Rock/blues bassist sought to complete a 4-piece (guitar/voc, guitar/voc, drums, and you) cover band based in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, IL. Covers include Allman Brothers, SRV, Doors, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Tragically Hip. Easygoing guys from early 30’s to early 40’s, looking to gig 1-2x/ month….practice together once weekly–usually Friday or Saturday evenings. Band has a nice PA, free rehearsal space, and is ready to start gigging once you’re on board. Why the opening? The previous bassist was dismissed…He was quite unreliable, playing with another band, never bothered to learn the songs from the tapes provided to him, and usually drank to the point of throwing up on the lawn after practice. :- If you’re comfortable picking up songs or working on your own off tapes to learn them, can show up for practices Fridays or Saturdays, and don’t vomit on the guitarist’s lawn, you can be part of band that already enjoys a big following! Email me if interested and I’ll get you in touch. Best Regards, — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/music/
Greetings all, I’m helping out a buddy’s band with this (as I already have my own gig)…please forward this to anyone you think may be interested. Rock/blues bassist sought to complete a 4-piece (guitar/voc, guitar/voc, drums, and you) cover band based in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, IL. Covers include Allman Brothers, SRV, Doors, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Tragically Hip. Easygoing guys from early 30’s to early 40’s, looking to gig 1-2x/ month….practice together once weekly–usually Friday or Saturday evenings. Band has a nice PA, free rehearsal space, and is ready to start gigging once you’re on board. Why the opening? The previous bassist was dismissed…He was quite unreliable, playing with another band, never bothered to learn the songs from the tapes provided to him, and usually drank to the point of throwing up on the lawn after practice. :- If you’re comfortable picking up songs or working on your own off tapes to learn them, can show up for practices Fridays or Saturdays, and don’t vomit on the guitarist’s lawn, you can be part of band that already enjoys a big following! Email me if interested and I’ll get you in touch. Best Regards, — Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/music/
Of course its warming up and has been since the end of the last Ice age. Think about it, if it hadn’t warmed up we’d be up to our asses in Ice….. Pete – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know a little about research. But that’s not the point. I think top atmospheric scientists know a lot about research. And I think they did there homework in this subject. I think Rush Limbaugh knows nothing about research. And I think you are just parroting what he says. Some people will cling to their old ideas about global warming forever and refuse to take into consideration any amount of scientific research that contradicts their dogma. I think you are one of them. you don’t know much about research do you? Let’s see now. A panel of 11 top atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a conservative president say global warmng is a real threat. Keyton and Rush Limbaugh say it’s a crock. I wonder who I’ll believe. I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…
And what is it that you know about research that would invalidate the conclusion of these 11 scientists? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you don’t know much about research do you? Let’s see now. A panel of 11 top atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a conservative president say global warmng is a real threat. Keyton and Rush Limbaugh say it’s a crock. I wonder who I’ll believe. I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…
Some people are just plain hard headed. 5 years ago the scientific evidence on global warming was mixed. It was hard to draw an objective conclusion. Since then the evidence in support of global waming’s reality has been steadily growing. The number of scientists that believe it is a real threat far outnumbers the ones who don’t. More data has been collected and more measurements have been taken and the preponderance of evidence shows that global warming is in fact mainly caused by human activity. This announcement by Bush’s panel of scientists is only getting a lot of attention because the Bush administration has incorrectly maintained global warming is unsubstantiated. And now they have to reverse their stand. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s see. Another tough decision. A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat. On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock. My my. A very difficult decision. When you can’t dispute facts, attack the messengers. Daly went after the facts. Your posts are nothing more than "dittos." I’m sure Limbaugh would be proud of your technique. But, hey, here ya go: http://www.marshall.org/globalwarming.htm Now, I realize it is difficult to get out of the rut, but do remember there are a few facts in there (real research by real scientists) that you’ll need to deal with. Eric
Let’s see. Another tough decision. A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat. On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock. My my. A very difficult decision. When you can’t dispute facts, attack the messengers.
Actually, Eric, it’s more like–"we can’t believe you are still pushin your ideas, after such research has been done". Of course, there’s always that .05% of a chance that you are actually right! :-) I’d say stick to your guns, Eric. You can’t make more of a fool out of yourself than you already have—right? Jerry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Daly went after the facts. Your posts are nothing more than "dittos." I’m sure Limbaugh would be proud of your technique. But, hey, here ya go: http://www.marshall.org/globalwarming.htm Now, I realize it is difficult to get out of the rut, but do remember there are a few facts in there (real research by real scientists) that you’ll need to deal with. Eric
I know a little about research. But that’s not the point. I think top atmospheric scientists know a lot about research. And I think they did there homework in this subject. I think Rush Limbaugh knows nothing about research. And I think you are just parroting what he says. Some people will cling to their old ideas about global warming forever and refuse to take into consideration any amount of scientific research that contradicts their dogma. I think you are one of them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you don’t know much about research do you? Let’s see now. A panel of 11 top atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a conservative president say global warmng is a real threat. Keyton and Rush Limbaugh say it’s a crock. I wonder who I’ll believe. I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…
I think the panel of 11 scientists produced the facts quite nicely. Since they are considered top atmospheric scientists and I am not, I trust they have done their homework. This Daly character is only a right wing columnist. He’s not a scientist. He only went after the facts that fit his beliefs and ignored the mountain of evidence to the contrary. He started from a conclusion and worked backwards, accepting only the evidence that supported his conclusion. Real scientists start with the facts and let the facts lead them to a conclusion. His prejudice has clouded his vision to the point where he will no longer accept any amount of scientific data that does not fit his view of the world. He’s an airbag just like your idol Rush Limbaugh who wrote books that are so full of misinformation they could fill a library. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s see. Another tough decision. A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat. On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock. My my. A very difficult decision. When you can’t dispute facts, attack the messengers. Daly went after the facts. Your posts are nothing more than "dittos." I’m sure Limbaugh would be proud of your technique. But, hey, here ya go: http://www.marshall.org/globalwarming.htm Now, I realize it is difficult to get out of the rut, but do remember there are a few facts in there (real research by real scientists) that you’ll need to deal with. Eric
you don’t know much about research do you? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s see now. A panel of 11 top atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a conservative president say global warmng is a real threat. Keyton and Rush Limbaugh say it’s a crock. I wonder who I’ll believe. I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…
*y a w n*…… did you say something? no, I didn’t think so. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Keyton, the king of mindless dittoheads. BWAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! a rebuke from you the KING of all fools?…. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! \ I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff\ Thanks for the brilliant commentary, idiot. -Muskie
\ Let’s see. Another tough decision. A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat. On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock. My my. A very difficult decision.\
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!
Let’s see. Another tough decision. A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat. On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock. My my. A very difficult decision.
When you can’t dispute facts, attack the messengers. Daly went after the facts. Your posts are nothing more than "dittos." I’m sure Limbaugh would be proud of your technique. But, hey, here ya go: http://www.marshall.org/globalwarming.htm Now, I realize it is difficult to get out of the rut, but do remember there are a few facts in there (real research by real scientists) that you’ll need to deal with. Eric
Eric, Eric, Eric, don’t you feel at least a little alone on this subject by now? Until the sun burns out, there will be reports disputing everything on Jerry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NRC report commentary by John L Daly. http://www.john-daly.com/ (Report can be found at http://www.junkscience.com/ ) "National Academy of Pseudo-Science"
What a pathetic opinion piece. Every time the results of a new scientific study are released there is always a small number of die hards who reject it out of hand and cling to their old beliefs. It’s the old "it doesn’t fit my mindset" syndrome. You can find it all through out history. There are still people who believe that the earth is flat. And a large number of people are convinced that the earth is only 10,000 years old. No matter how much scientific data is presented, no matter how many eminent scientists have reached the same conclusion there will always be those who bury their head in the sand and refuse to accept new concepts. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NRC report commentary by John L Daly. http://www.john-daly.com/ (Report can be found at http://www.junkscience.com/ ) "National Academy of Pseudo-Science" Today, radical environmentalists will be celebrating. The U.S. National Academy of Science (a somewhat devalued title by now) has just released a report by a selected committee of climatologists who were commissioned by President Bush to provide an independent U.S. assessment of the current state of climate science. While many in the climate community hoped for a more balanced or critical approach to the IPCC, the National Assessment, and an earlier report by an NAS panel on the surface-satellite conflict, all we got today was a 100% endorsement of the IPCC and its processes, including the infamous `Summary for Policymakers’, full endorsement for the discredited `National Assessment’ (which even most climatologists could not stomach) , and full endorsement for the earlier NAS report on surface-satellite temperatures conflict. This report contained no new science, no new evidence, and most critically – it did not address in any detail a single point of contention raised by global warming sceptics. Specific problems with this latest report are: "Temperatures are in fact rising" Only according to the surface record, mostly from third world instruments. The satellite record shows little or no warming, and the surface record from the U.S. shows a climate today little different to what it was 70 years ago. This remark confirmed the committee’s support for the surface record – no reason given. "There is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past twenty years." With this remark, the committee have clearly rejected the satellite temperature record outright, with not a single reason offered. Because the satellites show no strong warming `within the past twenty years’, the committee clearly have given 100% blessing to the disputed surface record – without so much as a reason to justify that choice. "The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WG1)scientific report." So they toss the ball back into the IPCC court, choosing not to raise a single point of criticism of that over-politicised UN body. This is hardly surprising as several committee members were themselves involved in the IPCC process. "The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WG 1) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary." The IPCC summary was also highly selective, choosing to summarise only those research activities which reinforced the IPCC mindset. That this NAS committee should find it so admirable clearly establishes them as ideologically pro-IPCC with no scientific justification offered. They gave no reasons for the selectivity exercised by IPCC reviewers, accepting some research studies, but ignoring others. "After analysis, the committee finds that the conclusions presented in the SPM and the Technical Summary (TS) are consistent with the main body of the report." Again no discussion of the numerous points of difference between the two IPCC documents raised many times by sceptics. The SPM and TS are clearly incompatible in many respects, but the committee again resorts to endorsement without justification. On sulfate aerosols, whose effects are highly disputed – "The monitoring of aerosol properties has not been adequate to yield accurate knowledge of the aerosol climate influence." This is an admission that little is known about these aerosols, but the committee did not proceed to find any fault with models which use those aerosols to prevent the models from over-heating their virtual earths beyond existing real climate. Those aerosols are used in the models like an accountants `balancing item’ in a balance sheet, and are assumed to be real only in order to keep the models in some kind of agreement with current climate. The committee should have been more detailed on this issue, given their admission that little is known about the effect of aerosols in the real world. On solar forcing, the direct effect of which the committee claims to be small (+0.3 w/m2) , they dismiss the well published secondary feedback effects of solar forcing – "Numerous possible indirect forcings associated with solar variability have been suggested. However, only one of these, ozone changes induced by solar UV irradiance variations, has convincing observational support." With these dismissive words, the entire body of published and peer-reviewed solar science built up over the last ten years is thrown out – without so much as an explanation. On the `National Assessment’ – "The U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts, augmented by a recent NRC report on climate and health, provides a basis for summarizing the potential consequences of climate change." The National Assessment has been one of the most criticised climate documents of recent times. It was attacked not merely by global warming sceptics, but also by scientists normally sympathetic to the IPCC and the global warming scenario. It was a manifestly political and alarmist document and exceeded even the alarmism normally associated with radical environmental groups. But this NAS committee endorses the National Assessment. More shame to them for doing so. On the delicate issue as to why the satellites and surface do not agree as to recent warming trends – "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere." With these mealy-mouthed words, the committee put themselves squarely in the business of pseudo-science, not science. Having admitted they could not understand why the satellites measuring the free atmosphere were producing a different trend to the surface record, this lack of understanding did not compel them to question the validity of the models which depend critically on an assumption that an enhanced greenhouse must warm the troposphere first, before the surface warms. What has been observed is quite the reverse. From this, it requires no great leap of thinking to conclude that either the models are working to a completely false premise, or else the surface record itself is wrong, or both. Either way, having endorsed the models without explanation, and having endorsed the surface record again without explanation, they could only pass off this fundamental conflict with the inane and worthless comment given above. In conclusion, the NAS committee made many assertions, none of which they chose to justify or explain other than to state it was `their view’ – as if their mere authority as representing the National Academy of Science were enough to prevail in the argument. Well it isn’t. The days when mere `authority’ could win an argument or debate are long gone. Such deference is more characteristic of a medieval priesthood, not a modern science where every important claim must be justified and explained. Only evidence counts in this modern world, and this committee have provided none, merely re-stated what has already been stated in politically contaminated documents by the IPCC and National Assessment. For that reason, the National Academy of `Science’ hardly deserve their name any more." (John L Daly, Still Waiting For Greenhouse)
A panel of top American scientists commissioned by the Bush administration announced a conclusion today that global warming is a real problem. "In a much-anticipated report from the National Academy of Sciences, 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including previous skeptics about global warming, reaffirmed the mainstream scientific view that the earth’s atmosphere was getting warmer and that human activity was largely responsible. "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the report said. "Temperatures are, in fact, rising." Panel Tells Bush Global Warming Is Getting Worse
A panel of top American scientists commissioned by the Bush administration announced a conclusion today that global warming is a real problem.
And you know that, deep down, George still doesn’t believe it.
A panel of top American scientists commissioned by the Bush administration announced a conclusion today that global warming is a real problem. And you know that, deep down, George still doesn’t believe it.
He’ll ask for a recount and, if the result is the same, a new election ( errr … panel).
A panel of top American scientists commissioned by the Bush administration announced a conclusion today that global warming is a real problem. And you know that, deep down, George still doesn’t believe it. He’ll ask for a recount and, if the result is the same, a new election ( errr … panel).
Seems to me that would be a GORE trick… Ruger9
Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…
I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…
\ I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff\ Thanks for the brilliant commentary, idiot. -Muskie
a rebuke from you the KING of all fools?…. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – \ I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff\ Thanks for the brilliant commentary, idiot. -Muskie
I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff
I certainly still have a lot of skepticism about it. Just looking at the graphs (at http://www.solcomhouse.com/nagw.htm), there is obviously an upward trend. But then if you look at the numbers at the side of graphs, you realize that there is something "fishy" there. You can make it look bad just by changing the scales of the graph. If you plotted the same graph using absolute temperatures, all you’d see is a flat line. I’ll start to believe it more when I see the Democrats and Republicans (and environmental groups) getting worried about US population doubling or quadrupling in the next couple of decades. Certainly the US isn’t going to be able to do much about it’s C-O2 emissions, when we have twice or four times as many people running around many more autos and SUV, etc. JW
NRC report commentary by John L Daly. http://www.john-daly.com/ (Report can be found at http://www.junkscience.com/ ) "National Academy of Pseudo-Science" Today, radical environmentalists will be celebrating. The U.S. National Academy of Science (a somewhat devalued title by now) has just released a report by a selected committee of climatologists who were commissioned by President Bush to provide an independent U.S. assessment of the current state of climate science. While many in the climate community hoped for a more balanced or critical approach to the IPCC, the National Assessment, and an earlier report by an NAS panel on the surface-satellite conflict, all we got today was a 100% endorsement of the IPCC and its processes, including the infamous `Summary for Policymakers’, full endorsement for the discredited `National Assessment’ (which even most climatologists could not stomach) , and full endorsement for the earlier NAS report on surface-satellite temperatures conflict. This report contained no new science, no new evidence, and most critically – it did not address in any detail a single point of contention raised by global warming sceptics. Specific problems with this latest report are: "Temperatures are in fact rising" Only according to the surface record, mostly from third world instruments. The satellite record shows little or no warming, and the surface record from the U.S. shows a climate today little different to what it was 70 years ago. This remark confirmed the committee’s support for the surface record – no reason given. "There is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past twenty years." With this remark, the committee have clearly rejected the satellite temperature record outright, with not a single reason offered. Because the satellites show no strong warming `within the past twenty years’, the committee clearly have given 100% blessing to the disputed surface record – without so much as a reason to justify that choice. "The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WG1)scientific report." So they toss the ball back into the IPCC court, choosing not to raise a single point of criticism of that over-politicised UN body. This is hardly surprising as several committee members were themselves involved in the IPCC process. "The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WG 1) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary." The IPCC summary was also highly selective, choosing to summarise only those research activities which reinforced the IPCC mindset. That this NAS committee should find it so admirable clearly establishes them as ideologically pro-IPCC with no scientific justification offered. They gave no reasons for the selectivity exercised by IPCC reviewers, accepting some research studies, but ignoring others. "After analysis, the committee finds that the conclusions presented in the SPM and the Technical Summary (TS) are consistent with the main body of the report." Again no discussion of the numerous points of difference between the two IPCC documents raised many times by sceptics. The SPM and TS are clearly incompatible in many respects, but the committee again resorts to endorsement without justification. On sulfate aerosols, whose effects are highly disputed – "The monitoring of aerosol properties has not been adequate to yield accurate knowledge of the aerosol climate influence." This is an admission that little is known about these aerosols, but the committee did not proceed to find any fault with models which use those aerosols to prevent the models from over-heating their virtual earths beyond existing real climate. Those aerosols are used in the models like an accountants `balancing item’ in a balance sheet, and are assumed to be real only in order to keep the models in some kind of agreement with current climate. The committee should have been more detailed on this issue, given their admission that little is known about the effect of aerosols in the real world. On solar forcing, the direct effect of which the committee claims to be small (+0.3 w/m2) , they dismiss the well published secondary feedback effects of solar forcing – "Numerous possible indirect forcings associated with solar variability have been suggested. However, only one of these, ozone changes induced by solar UV irradiance variations, has convincing observational support." With these dismissive words, the entire body of published and peer-reviewed solar science built up over the last ten years is thrown out – without so much as an explanation. On the `National Assessment’ – "The U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts, augmented by a recent NRC report on climate and health, provides a basis for summarizing the potential consequences of climate change." The National Assessment has been one of the most criticised climate documents of recent times. It was attacked not merely by global warming sceptics, but also by scientists normally sympathetic to the IPCC and the global warming scenario. It was a manifestly political and alarmist document and exceeded even the alarmism normally associated with radical environmental groups. But this NAS committee endorses the National Assessment. More shame to them for doing so. On the delicate issue as to why the satellites and surface do not agree as to recent warming trends – "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere." With these mealy-mouthed words, the committee put themselves squarely in the business of pseudo-science, not science. Having admitted they could not understand why the satellites measuring the free atmosphere were producing a different trend to the surface record, this lack of understanding did not compel them to question the validity of the models which depend critically on an assumption that an enhanced greenhouse must warm the troposphere first, before the surface warms. What has been observed is quite the reverse. From this, it requires no great leap of thinking to conclude that either the models are working to a completely false premise, or else the surface record itself is wrong, or both. Either way, having endorsed the models without explanation, and having endorsed the surface record again without explanation, they could only pass off this fundamental conflict with the inane and worthless comment given above. In conclusion, the NAS committee made many assertions, none of which they chose to justify or explain other than to state it was `their view’ – as if their mere authority as representing the National Academy of Science were enough to prevail in the argument. Well it isn’t. The days when mere `authority’ could win an argument or debate are long gone. Such deference is more characteristic of a medieval priesthood, not a modern science where every important claim must be justified and explained. Only evidence counts in this modern world, and this committee have provided none, merely re-stated what has already been stated in politically contaminated documents by the IPCC and National Assessment. For that reason, the National Academy of `Science’ hardly deserve their name any more." (John L Daly, Still Waiting For Greenhouse)
Let’s see. Another tough decision. A panel of 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a republican president all say that global warming is a real threat. On the other hand Keyton, Rush Limbaugh, Eric J. Anderson and someone named John L. Daly say it is a crock. My my. A very difficult decision. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – NRC report commentary by John L Daly. http://www.john-daly.com/ (Report can be found at http://www.junkscience.com/ ) "National Academy of Pseudo-Science" Today, radical environmentalists will be celebrating. The U.S. National Academy of Science (a somewhat devalued title by now) has just released a report by a selected committee of climatologists who were commissioned by President Bush to provide an independent U.S. assessment of the current state of climate science. While many in the climate community hoped for a more balanced or critical approach to the IPCC, the National Assessment, and an earlier report by an NAS panel on the surface-satellite conflict, all we got today was a 100% endorsement of the IPCC and its processes, including the infamous `Summary for Policymakers’, full endorsement for the discredited `National Assessment’ (which even most climatologists could not stomach) , and full endorsement for the earlier NAS report on surface-satellite temperatures conflict. This report contained no new science, no new evidence, and most critically – it did not address in any detail a single point of contention raised by global warming sceptics. Specific problems with this latest report are: "Temperatures are in fact rising" Only according to the surface record, mostly from third world instruments. The satellite record shows little or no warming, and the surface record from the U.S. shows a climate today little different to what it was 70 years ago. This remark confirmed the committee’s support for the surface record – no reason given. "There is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past twenty years." With this remark, the committee have clearly rejected the satellite temperature record outright, with not a single reason offered. Because the satellites show no strong warming `within the past twenty years’, the committee clearly have given 100% blessing to the disputed surface record – without so much as a reason to justify that choice. "The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WG1)scientific report." So they toss the ball back into the IPCC court, choosing not to raise a single point of criticism of that over-politicised UN body. This is hardly surprising as several committee members were themselves involved in the IPCC process. "The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WG 1) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary." The IPCC summary was also highly selective, choosing to summarise only those research activities which reinforced the IPCC mindset. That this NAS committee should find it so admirable clearly establishes them as ideologically pro-IPCC with no scientific justification offered. They gave no reasons for the selectivity exercised by IPCC reviewers, accepting some research studies, but ignoring others. "After analysis, the committee finds that the conclusions presented in the SPM and the Technical Summary (TS) are consistent with the main body of the report." Again no discussion of the numerous points of difference between the two IPCC documents raised many times by sceptics. The SPM and TS are clearly incompatible in many respects, but the committee again resorts to endorsement without justification. On sulfate aerosols, whose effects are highly disputed – "The monitoring of aerosol properties has not been adequate to yield accurate knowledge of the aerosol climate influence." This is an admission that little is known about these aerosols, but the committee did not proceed to find any fault with models which use those aerosols to prevent the models from over-heating their virtual earths beyond existing real climate. Those aerosols are used in the models like an accountants `balancing item’ in a balance sheet, and are assumed to be real only in order to keep the models in some kind of agreement with current climate. The committee should have been more detailed on this issue, given their admission that little is known about the effect of aerosols in the real world. On solar forcing, the direct effect of which the committee claims to be small (+0.3 w/m2) , they dismiss the well published secondary feedback effects of solar forcing – "Numerous possible indirect forcings associated with solar variability have been suggested. However, only one of these, ozone changes induced by solar UV irradiance variations, has convincing observational support." With these dismissive words, the entire body of published and peer-reviewed solar science built up over the last ten years is thrown out – without so much as an explanation. On the `National Assessment’ – "The U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts, augmented by a recent NRC report on climate and health, provides a basis for summarizing the potential consequences of climate change." The National Assessment has been one of the most criticised climate documents of recent times. It was attacked not merely by global warming sceptics, but also by scientists normally sympathetic to the IPCC and the global warming scenario. It was a manifestly political and alarmist document and exceeded even the alarmism normally associated with radical environmental groups. But this NAS committee endorses the National Assessment. More shame to them for doing so. On the delicate issue as to why the satellites and surface do not agree as to recent warming trends – "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere." With these mealy-mouthed words, the committee put themselves squarely in the business of pseudo-science, not science. Having admitted they could not understand why the satellites measuring the free atmosphere were producing a different trend to the surface record, this lack of understanding did not compel them to question the validity of the models which depend critically on an assumption that an enhanced greenhouse must warm the troposphere first, before the surface warms. What has been observed is quite the reverse. From this, it requires no great leap of thinking to conclude that either the models are working to a completely false premise, or else the surface record itself is wrong, or both. Either way, having endorsed the models without explanation, and having endorsed the surface record again without explanation, they could only pass off this fundamental conflict with the inane and worthless comment given above. In conclusion, the NAS committee made many assertions, none of which they chose to justify or explain other than to state it was `their view’ – as if their mere authority as representing the National Academy of Science were enough to prevail in the argument. Well it isn’t. The days when mere `authority’ could win an argument or debate are long gone. Such deference is more characteristic of a medieval priesthood, not a modern science where every important claim must be justified and explained. Only evidence counts in this modern world, and this committee have provided none, merely re-stated what has already been stated in politically contaminated documents by the IPCC and National Assessment. For that reason, the National Academy of `Science’ hardly deserve their name any more." (John L Daly, Still Waiting For Greenhouse)
Let’s see now. A panel of 11 top atmospheric scientists, including a nobel laureate, commissioned by a conservative president say global warmng is a real threat. Keyton and Rush Limbaugh say it’s a crock. I wonder who I’ll believe. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff Seems to me that would be a GORE trick…
Keyton, the king of mindless dittoheads. BWAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – a rebuke from you the KING of all fools?…. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! \ I certainly hope not – "global warming" is a crock of junk science fluff\ Thanks for the brilliant commentary, idiot. -Muskie
must not be in touch with real existance.
Pathetic really. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is what happens when these "number crunching-accountants" back in Sydney, oblivious to theier surroundings start cutting back on essential operations within the company. You dont know that. You have absolutely no idea what caused it yet. QF was once the world’s most prolific airline, That is just plain silly and completely meaningless. unblemished, Wrong. Again. but now, even though no fatalities, one must wonder how long it will be before there is one? Sure, its always possible. I seriously hope the Rome incident is not a result of cost cutting in QF engineering. You just claimed it was due to that. Cant have it both ways. Like other large companies, and QF, cutbacks will occur and we find ourselves being run by a ledger and accountants. And you have absolutely no idea whether thats what produced that particular result. At the end of the day, QF (and other companies) cannot operate without its most essential services ie engineering services and the like. Duh. I know it comes down to a question of "impressing" the shareholders, but how far do we have to go? Pathetic really. Might not be a bad idea to see first if that had anything at all to do with that particular result. Thats my view anyway! It should be flushed where it belongs.
Some silly little posturing child claiming to be just the usual childish posturing thats all it can ever manage.
My understanding of the incident is that the B747-300 had back-tracked down the runway to the TH and was conducting a "180" to line up for T.O. It may well have been caused by a too tight a turn during the "180" that
caused the U/C to collapse. Really no such thing as ‘too tight’ a turn. Full lock would have been applied, and maybe some outboard power, but that’s how it’s done. If you are doing a 180, you turn as tightly as possible. Failed or forgotten body gear steering, perhaps? Heavily loaded, would
that generate enough side loading to break parts? Opinions? Body gear steering problems would just stop the a/c from getting around the turn (and you would notice at the first turn on the taxyway). I doubt that you would get more than 90 degrees around before you ran out of tarmac. That would massively increase the turn radius, and would reduce the loads on the wing gear. We don’t know what broke. Which strut???? How and where? JB
My understanding of the incident is that the B747-300 had back-tracked down the runway to the TH and was conducting a "180" to line up for T.O. It may well have been caused by a too tight a turn during the "180" that
caused the U/C to collapse. Really no such thing as ‘too tight’ a turn. Full lock would have been applied, and maybe some outboard power, but that’s how it’s done. If you are doing a 180, you turn as tightly as possible. Failed or forgotten body gear steering, perhaps? Heavily loaded, would
that generate enough side loading to break parts? Opinions? Body gear steering problems would just stop the a/c from getting around the turn (and you would notice at the first turn on the taxyway). I doubt that you would get more than 90 degrees around before you ran out of tarmac. That would massively increase the turn radius, and would reduce the loads on the wing gear. We don’t know what broke. Which strut???? How and where? Just found a pic on the abc web site. Seems to show the left side engines very close to ground. That would indicate the left wing gear was the problem…wonder if the Airbus 340 gear problem has become contagious? JB
Hi All, I remember seeing the original story (with no pictures of it.)… The only thing that kept going through my mind was that it was luckier to have happened on takeoff than landing… I would have thought that the stresses could have been much greater on landing, and if it was that close to breaking, then on landing I would hazard a guess that it certainly would have gone… Yeah, I know I’m not familiar with why the gear broke, but I wonder how much damage to the plane and passengers would have occured if it broke when it touched down instead of while taxiing. Can a 747 Ground Loop? Regards David.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My understanding of the incident is that the B747-300 had back-tracked down the runway to the TH and was conducting a "180" to line up for T.O. It may well have been caused by a too tight a turn during the "180" that caused the U/C to collapse. Failed or forgotten body gear steering, perhaps? Heavily loaded, would that generate enough side loading to break parts? Opinions? JG
We don’t know what broke. Which strut???? How and where? Just found a pic on the abc web site. Seems to show the left side engines very close to ground. That would indicate the left wing gear was the problem…
It was the right wing gear. Published photos show the inboard right engine was on the ground. David Forsyth, described as Qantas aircraft operations general manager, is reported to have said "one of the four main undercarriages broke during that turning manoeuvre". "The outer cylinder — which is like a shock absorber on a car — sheared off about 18 inches from the top." The words might well have been put in his mouth by the reporter — but it might mean something to you.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi All, I remember seeing the original story (with no pictures of it.)… The only thing that kept going through my mind was that it was luckier to have happened on takeoff than landing… I would have thought that the stresses could have been much greater on landing, and if it was that close to breaking, then on landing I would hazard a guess that it certainly would have gone… Yeah, I know I’m not familiar with why the gear broke, but I wonder how much damage to the plane and passengers would have occured if it broke when it touched down instead of while taxiing. Can a 747 Ground Loop? Regards David.
Funnily enough, the taxy out with a heavy aircraft probably puts more strain on the gear than at any other time. On takeoff, there are no turns, and the wheel loading is progressively reduced as the speed increases. There should be little side load, and no twisting. On landing, there shouldn’t be much side load, and the weight is quite low. I can’t think of anything in normal ops that would stress the gear more than a heavy weight 180. JB
My understanding of the incident is that the B747-300 had back-tracked down the runway to the TH and was conducting a "180" to line up for T.O.
Is this usual or probable at Rome, backtracking an active runway, instead of arriving via a taxyway? Or is it more likely the result of missing a turn?
Aircraft in question is 747-300 VH-EBW
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The a/c in question was a 747-300 (EBS perhaps?). EBS is a 747-200……. Thanks for that John – very helpful. Before you buy.
Have not seen or heard a thing from the media but my sources report that a QF flight taxying for departure at Rome Halted prior to line up called for ground services to spray foam ( as a precaution ) as one of the trucks support legs failed.
Well THIS particular gem comes from NineMSN (which the browser install on my new computer set as my home page, and which I haven’t gotten around to changing yet): "Part of Flight QF16’s right wing undercarriage sheared off as the pilot made a 180 degree turn. One of the jet’s four engines struck the tarmac, causing hydraulic fuel to leak." Hydraulic FUEL? Does this particular aircraft run on a previously unknown propulsion system? 8^ "We don’ need no steenking subeditors…" 8^ "I hate to spoil the mood, but this is so much worse than you think." Xander Harris
There is no body steering on the Wing landing gear of a 747! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My understanding of the incident is that the B747-300 had back-tracked down the runway to the TH and was conducting a "180" to line up for T.O. It may well have been caused by a too tight a turn during the "180" that caused the U/C to collapse. Failed or forgotten body gear steering, perhaps? Heavily loaded, would that generate enough side loading to break parts? Opinions? JG
This is what happens when these "number crunching-accountants" back in Sydney, oblivious to theier surroundings start cutting back on essential operations within the company.
You dont know that. You have absolutely no idea what caused it yet. QF was once the world’s most prolific airline,
That is just plain silly and completely meaningless. unblemished,
Wrong. Agan. but now, even though no fatalities, one must wonder how long it will be before there is one?
Sure, its always possible. I seriously hope the Rome incident is not a result of cost cutting in QF engineering.
You just claimed it was due to that. Cant have it both ways. Like other large companies, and QF, cutbacks will occur and we find ourselves being run by a ledger and accountants.
And you have absolutely no idea whether thats what produced that particular result. At the end of the day, QF (and other companies) cannot operate without its most essential services ie engineering services and the like.
Duh. I know it comes down to a question of "impressing" the shareholders, but how far do we have to go?
Pathetic really. Might not be a bad idea to see first if that had anything at all to do with that particular result. Thats my view anyway!
It should be flushed where it belongs.
The a/c in question was a 747-300 (EBS perhaps?).
EBS is a 747-200……. This is what happens when these "number crunching-accountants" back in Sydney, oblivious to their surroundings start cutting back on essential operations within the company
Good bit of conclusion jumping here. How do you know that? Of course, you don’t…. You don’t even know exactly what the failure was, or what Boeing have to say about it. I seriously hope the Rome incident is not a result of cost cutting in QF engineering.
Hang on, I though you just told us that it was the problem, now you just hope it isn’t… JB
That happens when the passengers expect to travel to europe for a few hundred bucks. The first thing that will drop in quality is the maintenance and engineering. I once worked for Lauda air in the Engineering in Vienna and I have seen how far a company goes to cut costs. I could not believe that a company risks a major accident with hundreds of fatalities just to save a few bucks! But now I know better and quit the job because I don
Please help me locate a list on the web of mid-ranged accounting software companies. Have someone who wants to call around and talk to sales people. please sent me url or names and number of packages that help with medium sized business. Before you buy.
http://www.peachtree.com/ http://www.accpac.com/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please help me locate a list on the web of mid-ranged accounting software companies. Have someone who wants to call around and talk to sales people. please sent me url or names and number of packages that help with medium sized business. Before you buy.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Has anyone seen or heard of a program that effectively web-enables Quickbooks? (We currently use QB 99.) Because we are big believers in web-enabled solutions, we view QB as an interim solution unless we can find a solid third-party solution or we hear of Inuit’s intention of adding this capability. Although our company isn’t large enough to justify the expense of a web-enabled product such as Lawson’s Lotus Domino-based accounting solution, we still do enough business to make it a serious pain if we were to have to transition to a different package if we have to wait for more that another 3 – 6 months. I’ve also read with great interest much of the dialog regarding the issue of web-based accounting systems. As a mere mortal struggling to keep a fledging company afloat, may I suggest that, if you are in the process of developing mission-critical business software of any type, make it accessable over the web, or at least TCP/IP compliant! Not being able to access critcal data while away from the office is a serious handicap – one my much larger competitors don’t suffer with with their high-end accounting solutions. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! Best regards Steve Edwards Dad ‘O Twins+2 Rivercity Computer Group I know QB plans to add electronic bill paying to Quicken and QB. It should be in the next version around January. I also think you might want to look at Account Wizzard, which is listed on my QB Add-ons page. Mike Block, Tax Fighting C.P.A. World’s #1 QuickBooks Top Tester QB book/add-ons http://www.blocktax.com/ Ft Lauderdale FL 954-566-7540
To what Mike said, I would like to add the recommendation for you to contact Intuit and tell them you regard QuickBooks as an "interim solution." If enough people do this, perhaps we will have a web- enabled version of QuickBooks. I really believe, however, that Intuit is too bound by proprietary chains of its own making, and I expect that such functionality will come from somewhere else. Perhaps an open-source accounting program with code that can be modified as needed. Some people are working on open source, and I urge you to support them. Regards, Robert W. Scroggins, CPA A Texas CPA http://www.atexascpa.com Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Has anyone seen or heard of a program that effectively web-enables Quickbooks? (We currently use QB 99.) Because we are big believers in web-enabled solutions, we view QB as an interim solution unless we can find a solid third-party solution or we hear of Inuit’s intention of adding this capability. Although our company isn’t large enough to justify the expense of a web-enabled product such as Lawson’s Lotus Domino-based accounting solution, we still do enough business to make it a serious pain if we were to have to transition to a different package if we have to wait for more that another 3 – 6 months. I’ve also read with great interest much of the dialog regarding the issue of web-based accounting systems. As a mere mortal struggling to keep a fledging company afloat, may I suggest that, if you are in the process of developing mission-critical business software of any type, make it accessable over the web, or at least TCP/IP compliant! Not being able to access critcal data while away from the office is a serious handicap – one my much larger competitors don’t suffer with with their high-end accounting solutions. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! Best regards Steve Edwards Dad ‘O Twins+2 Rivercity Computer Group
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Has anyone seen or heard of a program that effectively web-enables Quickbooks? (We currently use QB 99.) Because we are big believers in web-enabled solutions, we view QB as an interim solution unless we can find a solid third-party solution or we hear of Inuit’s intention of adding this capability. Although our company isn’t large enough to justify the expense of a web-enabled product such as Lawson’s Lotus Domino-based accounting solution, we still do enough business to make it a serious pain if we were to have to transition to a different package if we have to wait for more that another 3 – 6 months. I’ve also read with great interest much of the dialog regarding the issue of web-based accounting systems. As a mere mortal struggling to keep a fledging company afloat, may I suggest that, if you are in the process of developing mission-critical business software of any type, make it accessable over the web, or at least TCP/IP compliant! Not being able to access critcal data while away from the office is a serious handicap – one my much larger competitors don’t suffer with with their high-end accounting solutions. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! Best regards Steve Edwards Dad ‘O Twins+2 Rivercity Computer Group
I know QB plans to add electronic bill paying to Quicken and QB. It should be in the next version around January. I also think you might want to look at Account Wizzard, which is listed on my QB Add-ons page. Mike Block, Tax Fighting C.P.A. World’s #1 QuickBooks Top Tester QB book/add-ons http://www.blocktax.com/ Ft Lauderdale FL 954-566-7540
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I N T E R N E T ‘ S M A O I S T BI-W E E K L Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = XX XX XXX XX XX X X XXX XXX XXX XXX X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X V X X X V X X X X X X X XX XXX X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X XXX X X X V XXX X XXX XXX = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = THE MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT MIM Notes 118 JULY 15, 1996 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SETBACK IN TEXAS In addition to a number of stupid comments from the court addressing a non-issue by arguing that race is not determinist in a student’s achievement or abilities, this case sets a clear precedent for an incorrect evaluation of affirmative action. Affirmative action is a minor reform in a country that has, for 500 years, discriminated against
Really? You mean that the "oppression" started in 1496? Prey tell – who was discriminated against? certain groups and favored other groups.
There is no fairness to inner city kids being harassed by pigs for walking the streets, or having to work while going to school, or going to schools that are poorly funded because their property taxes are lower because they can’t afford to live in the wealthy neighborhood. There is also no fairness in the SAT which is a better measure of one’s whiteness and maleness than one’s "intelligence".
Thats RIGHT. 2+2=4 is one of the most bigoted MALE concepts I’ve ever seen!
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I N T E R N E T ‘ S M A O I S T BI-W E E K L Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = XX XX XXX XX XX X X XXX XXX XXX XXX X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X V X X X V X X X X X X X XX XXX X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X XXX X X X V XXX X XXX XXX = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = THE MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT MIM Notes 118 JULY 15, 1996 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SETBACK IN TEXAS The verdict in a recent Texas case, **Hopwood et al. vs. The State of Texas,** continues the trend towards more reactionary cutbacks in affirmative action across the United Snakes. The circuit court pointed out the facts of affirmative action as if they were crimes: "With the best of intentions, in order to increase the enrollment of certain favored classes of minority students, the University of Texas School of Law discriminates in favor of those applicants by giving substantial racial preferences in its admissions program. The beneficiaries of this system are blacks and Mexican Americans, to the detriment of whites and non-preferred minorities."(1) MIM thinks that affirmative action that benefits Blacks and Latinos to the detriment of whites is a good thing. Whites have all the advantages in Amerika, so policies that force some small balancing of the scales are progressive.
Typical socialist thinking, take everything away from the people who worked hard to produce it and give it to those who did nothing. Why are Asians not classified as "non-preferred minorities"? Does non-preferred simply mean non-productive? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The plaintiffs, white applicants to the UT Law School, claimed their rights were violated when they were not admitted. The court said there is no justification that allows UT "to continue to elevate some races over others, even for the wholesome purpose of correcting perceived racial imbalance in the student body."(1) Of course they neglected to comment on the issue of why it is OK for UT to elevate the white race over others by considering only biased tests like the SAT and LSAT for admissions or by looking at grade point averages without accounting for the circumstances of the Black and Latino kids who lived in the projects and worked part- time all through high school compared to the white kids who had private tutors.
Most white kids do not have, nor do they need private tutors. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -In addition to a number of stupid comments from the court addressing a non-issue by arguing that race is not determinist in a student’s achievement or abilities, this case sets a clear precedent for an incorrect evaluation of affirmative action. Affirmative action is a minor reform in a country that has, for 500 years, discriminated against certain groups and favored other groups. There is no fairness to inner city kids being harassed by pigs for walking the streets, or having to work while going to school, or going to schools that are poorly funded because their property taxes are lower because they can’t afford to live in the wealthy neighborhood. There is also no fairness in the SAT which is a better measure of one’s whiteness and maleness than one’s "intelligence". As one UT student put it "Given that slavery lasted more than 200 years, shouldn’t we give affirmative action an equal time span to prove itself effective?"(1)
Slavery, as evil as it was, at least *produced* something in this country. There is nothing productive in affirmative action other than a socialistic method of punishing one group of people in favor of another group of people. The is NO guarantee that A.A. will lead to productivity or betterment of our society. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -A recent study by the University of Texas Press supports MIM’s understanding of discrimination in Amerika; it points out that Latino students who drop out of high school do so because of failures in the school system not because their family does not value education. For instance, the schools overestimated the educational and financial resources of the Latino parents in the study. Schools assumed that parents would make up for educational deficiencies in their children even though most of the parents of the Latino kids had less than a high school education themselves. One school consistently placed students who were having trouble into the low-level programs or other punishment environments where teacher help was hard to find.(2) This is just one small piece of a whole system that does not make growing up in Amerika a fair contest between different nationalities.
Basically what your saying is that the Latino segment of our society is either a bunch of crybabies, or they are all idiots. (A sentiment which I do not happen to agree with). Any parent without a high school education that cares about their children at all would be stressing, to the exclusion of all else, the importance of a good education. Again what about middle and upper class Blacks and Latinos? What about Asians at just about any income level? What about low income Whites? MIM thinks that all education should be available to all people who want it and that there should be no arbitrary admission "standards", especially none based on incorrect estimations of success like biased standardized tests.
Agreed, education should be available to all who want it, as long as we remove the disrujptive elements in our school system who simply do not wish to be there. While affirmative action is a progressive reform under capitalism that helps a few more members of oppressed nations get an education they can use to fight against this repressive system, we fight for the day when education will be open to everyone. MIM works toward an educational system that encourages growth and learning in everyone regardless of their nation, class or gender.
Oppressed nations? I though we were talking about Americans here. There are NO members of nations that are citizens of this country. If they are, then they are expatriots and I have no sympathy for their ability to even survive here. Until one considers themselves to be American ( no matter what hand they have been dealt) it will be almost impossible for them to succeed. As for an open educational system, we have tried bussing, we have thrown billions of dollars at it, we have tried the "Robin Hood" method of distributing money, we have the State Lotteries (Most voted in under the premise of increasing revenue for the State school system). When will you admit that it is just a fact of life or human nature that some will succeed, some will survive, and some will fail *regardless* of their socioeconomic, racial, or religious standing. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -NOTES: 1. The University Review, The Independent Student Journal at The University of Texas at Austin, May 15, 1996. 2. Arriba, June 14-June 27, 1996, p.5. MIM Notes is not copyrighted. Please credit MIM when redistributing or referring to this material. Subscriptions are $20 for 24 issues, U.S. mail or e-mail. Send cash, stamps or check made out to "MIM Distributors." Write: MIM Distributors, PO Box 3576, Ann Arbor MI http://ursula.blythe.org/mim — ## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT # # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106 — ## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT # # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
* My God……. * * It’s full of Stars! * * * * –David Bowman– *
I N T E R N E T ‘ S M A O I S T BI-W E E K L Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = XX XX XXX XX XX X X XXX XXX XXX XXX X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X V X X X V X X X X X X X XX XXX X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X XXX X X X V XXX X XXX XXX = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = THE MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT MIM Notes 118 JULY 15, 1996 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SETBACK IN TEXAS The verdict in a recent Texas case, **Hopwood et al. vs. The State of Texas,** continues the trend towards more reactionary cutbacks in affirmative action across the United Snakes. The circuit court pointed out the facts of affirmative action as if they were crimes: "With the best of intentions, in order to increase the enrollment of certain favored classes of minority students, the University of Texas School of Law discriminates in favor of those applicants by giving substantial racial preferences in its admissions program. The beneficiaries of this system are blacks and Mexican Americans, to the detriment of whites and non-preferred minorities."(1) MIM thinks that affirmative action that benefits Blacks and Latinos to the detriment of whites is a good thing. Whites have all the advantages in Amerika, so policies that force some small balancing of the scales are progressive. The plaintiffs, white applicants to the UT Law School, claimed their rights were violated when they were not admitted. The court said there is no justification that allows UT "to continue to elevate some races over others, even for the wholesome purpose of correcting perceived racial imbalance in the student body."(1) Of course they neglected to comment on the issue of why it is OK for UT to elevate the white race over others by considering only biased tests like the SAT and LSAT for admissions or by looking at grade point averages without accounting for the circumstances of the Black and Latino kids who lived in the projects and worked part- time all through high school compared to the white kids who had private tutors. In addition to a number of stupid comments from the court addressing a non-issue by arguing that race is not determinist in a student’s achievement or abilities, this case sets a clear precedent for an incorrect evaluation of affirmative action. Affirmative action is a minor reform in a country that has, for 500 years, discriminated against certain groups and favored other groups. There is no fairness to inner city kids being harassed by pigs for walking the streets, or having to work while going to school, or going to schools that are poorly funded because their property taxes are lower because they can’t afford to live in the wealthy neighborhood. There is also no fairness in the SAT which is a better measure of one’s whiteness and maleness than one’s "intelligence". As one UT student put it "Given that slavery lasted more than 200 years, shouldn’t we give affirmative action an equal time span to prove itself effective?"(1) A recent study by the University of Texas Press supports MIM’s understanding of discrimination in Amerika; it points out that Latino students who drop out of high school do so because of failures in the school system not because their family does not value education. For instance, the schools overestimated the educational and financial resources of the Latino parents in the study. Schools assumed that parents would make up for educational deficiencies in their children even though most of the parents of the Latino kids had less than a high school education themselves. One school consistently placed students who were having trouble into the low-level programs or other punishment environments where teacher help was hard to find.(2) This is just one small piece of a whole system that does not make growing up in Amerika a fair contest between different nationalities. MIM thinks that all education should be available to all people who want it and that there should be no arbitrary admission "standards", especially none based on incorrect estimations of success like biased standardized tests. While affirmative action is a progressive reform under capitalism that helps a few more members of oppressed nations get an education they can use to fight against this repressive system, we fight for the day when education will be open to everyone. MIM works toward an educational system that encourages growth and learning in everyone regardless of their nation, class or gender. NOTES: 1. The University Review, The Independent Student Journal at The University of Texas at Austin, May 15, 1996. 2. Arriba, June 14-June 27, 1996, p.5. MIM Notes is not copyrighted. Please credit MIM when redistributing or referring to this material. Subscriptions are $20 for 24 issues, U.S. mail or e-mail. Send cash, stamps or check made out to "MIM Distributors." Write: MIM Distributors, PO Box 3576, Ann Arbor MI http://ursula.blythe.org/mim — ## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT # # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106 — ## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT # # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106