MIT Radiation Lab series on CD-ROM?

[Jim Thompson]

Jim Thompson wrote...

Maybe, but that wasn't so much left-wing biased reporting as it
was a discussion of what the ramifications will be for Tony Blair
in England over the next few months.

Tony Blair will certainly take some heat, but to me, the "memo" had
all the ear-marks of another try at the infamous forged National Guard
letter.

Our neo-right-wing press
isn't paying attention over here, so we have to go over there to
get the facts. The Brits are PISSED about the lying, heads are
going to roll,

I doubt it. Their politics are much like ours... toothless dogs
yapping.

but we twiddle our thumbs and let Bush turn our
attention to a supposedly-urgent problem 20 to 30 years hence.

I gather you don't think there's a problem with Social Security? At
least not until your party is back in power?

We used to have a system of loyal opposition, retire to your corner
and lick your wounds, or go suck your thumb, depending on your
orientation.

Remember the Ev and Charley Show? That's the proper way to dissent...
NOT the yapping DOGS approach adopted by you left-wing loonies.

However I have hopes that the yapping DOGS approach will influence the
mid-term elections. Let's watch and see... would really piss you off
if the left-wing loonies lose seats ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

Actually no. I read that article long before Win brought it up. It
has a smell of mendacity.

You dispute it's accuracy, then. Apparently, Jim, Blair does NOT
dispute it. His comment about it was quite circumspect, saying that
there was "nothing new there."

At least, you considered looking at it.

Jon

 

[Jim Thompson]

You dispute it's accuracy, then. Apparently, Jim, Blair does NOT
dispute it. His comment about it was quite circumspect, saying that
there was "nothing new there."

That's usually the best response to hot potatoes... offer nothing
additional to cause it to blow all out of proportion.

Not like Bill, "I did not have sex with THAT woman." Not that I
care... I was rather amused that Bill got a blow-job from a bimbo ;-)

At least, you considered looking at it.

Jon

I read the whole article. It struck me as too well constructed...
like the National Guard letter... mix some well-known innocuous facts
with some garbage to give the semblance of authenticity to the whole
thing.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

That's usually the best response to hot potatoes... offer nothing
additional to cause it to blow all out of proportion.

Could be. But I believe that it's not the best way, if it is really
the case that it is false. And, in fact, Blair has reacted quite
strongly to other accusations and this particular response is NOT
consistent with that behavior, when he felt he was right. Frankly, I
don't believe past behavior matches your analysis here.

But I cannot say what is in his mind. Neither can you, I suppose.

Not like Bill, "I did not have sex with THAT woman." Not that I
care... I was rather amused that Bill got a blow-job from a bimbo ;-)

In that case, he simply made the same kind of stupid remark that a
great many other men in similar situations would have made, hoping
that the lie wouldn't blow up in their face. In fact, most guilty men
asked that question would probably have to fight a strong impulse to
lie and hope they didn't get caught.

He was ...human...

I read the whole article. It struck me as too well constructed...
like the National Guard letter... mix some well-known innocuous facts
with some garbage to give the semblance of authenticity to the whole
thing.

Could be just as you say. It plays into a general sense in Europe
that this is exactly the truth of the situation, so it may take some
time for it to get fully vetted through time and people will believe
it in the meantime.

Frankly, though, it is entirely consistent with my impressions at that
time about what was going on -- the Bush administration was pushing
pel-mel, come hell or high water, damn the torpedoes, towards this war
back then and it was patently obvious to me AT THE TIME that they had
a schedule to keep and they were going to keep it regardless. Anyone
with even a small amount of rational skepticism could see it, then.
It was clear as a bell that evidence didn't matter to them, at all.
And that they were NOT going to try and provide any support for their
own position, regardless of the seriousness of the situation and the
high standards that should have been met in such cases.

So anyway this "isn't anything new" to me, too.

Jon

P.S.
Similarly, by the way, with GW Sr in claiming there were 100's of
thousands of Iraqi soldiers and thousands of tanks lining up at the
border to the Saudis in 1990. Satelite photographs purchased by
satellite photo experts working outside the administration, taken from
several commercial satellite companies, consistently showed NOTHING
meaningful on the border at the very time all this was claimed to be
taking place. Later analysis over the intervening decade and a half
have shown that these photographs were authentic and accurate and so
has post-mortem examinations after the fact.

I don't dispute that Iraq was behaving badly then. But I don't like
lies from our administrations to goad behavior. Period.

 

[Bob Monsen]

Similarly, by the way, with GW Sr in claiming there were 100's of
thousands of Iraqi soldiers and thousands of tanks lining up at the
border to the Saudis in 1990. Satelite photographs purchased by
satellite photo experts working outside the administration, taken from
several commercial satellite companies, consistently showed NOTHING
meaningful on the border at the very time all this was claimed to be
taking place. Later analysis over the intervening decade and a half
have shown that these photographs were authentic and accurate and so
has post-mortem examinations after the fact.

I don't dispute that Iraq was behaving badly then. But I don't like
lies from our administrations to goad behavior. Period.

As was shown in the 90s, lying to congress (which is what these
allegations amount to) is considered an impeachable offense.

The kneejerk response from JT about Clinton seems to be a common one
whenever Bush is questioned. The fact that Clinton was a womanizer and
an asshole to his wife and daughter was really a private matter, and his
crimes were, frankly, trivial when compared to misrepresenting the
situation in Iraq in order to force a war that has already cost over 20
thousand civilian lives, and almost $200 billion.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://costofwar.com/

GHW Bush is buddies with Bill. "I like him" he was quoted as saying.
Barbera Bush called him their "New Son" in a speech. It's wierd, but I
think the Bushies may have gotten over their Clinton bashing.

 

[Jim Thompson]

[snip]

The kneejerk response from JT about Clinton seems to be a common one
whenever Bush is questioned.

You need to learn to read more carefully. I was citing Clinton's
comment as the way NOT to respond to loaded questions, not criticizing
him for being a womanizer... hell, my favorite President, after
Truman, was Kennedy.

The fact that Clinton was a womanizer and
an asshole to his wife and daughter was really a private matter,
Agreed.

and his
crimes were, frankly, trivial when compared to misrepresenting the
situation in Iraq in order to force a war that has already cost over 20
thousand civilian lives, and almost $200 billion.

Come on, now, stop spouting lame leftist weenie crap. If your a
pacifist (aka coward of the county , just say so, rather than
blaming someone else for your discomfort.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://costofwar.com/

GHW Bush is buddies with Bill. "I like him" he was quoted as saying.
Barbera Bush called him their "New Son" in a speech. It's wierd, but I
think the Bushies may have gotten over their Clinton bashing.

And learn how to spell... that's a weird "wierd" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Winfield Hill]

Jim Thompson wrote...

I read the whole article. It struck me as too well constructed...

To a person with his head in the sand, it would appear to be "too
well constructed." To those of us who were watching at the time
with jaw agape, it completely fits the rest of the facts we saw.
If it hasn't been already, it will soon be proved to be completely
true. What will your be attitude then, given your proclivity now
to reject it as a blatantly, presumably badly-damaging, falsehood?

like the National Guard letter... mix some well-known innocuous facts
with some garbage to give the semblance of authenticity to the whole
thing.

Evidently you didn't watch Dan Rather's interview with the woman
who was the admin assistant who would have typed the memo. While
she claimed she didn't type that "specific memo," she said she DID
type one for her boss that contained the same facts and conclusions
re Bush, that everything in the memo was true from her knowledge at
the time, and represented his often-stated angry opinion about Bush.
She only objected to certain phrases or constructions she said she
wouldn't have typed. As I watched her say this, it seemed to me she
was hesitant and could be mistaken in her turn-of-the-phrase-memory.
Perhaps she was accurate in saying that she didn't edit and type the
specific document that was handed to her to examine.

Yet as far as Bush was concerned the reporting was correct. Although
it's claimed someone re-created the specific memo Rather initially
reported on, it was in fact an accurate copy of a real missing memo.
Somebody took advantage of Rather in getting that memo's information
out, but the fact of the matter is the information was accurate and
correct. If you can't see what a wuss Bush actually is... Sheesh!

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:24:59 -0700, Jim Thompson

[snip]

Grammar correction, substitute "you're" for "your" in the line below
:-(

Come on, now, stop spouting lame leftist weenie crap. If your a
pacifist (aka coward of the county , just say so, rather than
blaming someone else for your discomfort.

[snip]

...Jim Thompson

 

[Dave Holford]

Tell it to the IEEE. My major professor and I have had many discussions about
how much of what didn't work should be included in journal papers, and his
experience (as a reviewer and occasional special sections editor) is that
spending anything more than a fleeting moment discussing techniques that
failed is a good way to get your paper rejected. There are notable exceptions
for authors who are recognized authorities in the field (i.e., they really
can't say "no" to them! ), at least.

---Joel Kolstad

You mean things like the ones the Wright brothers used: i.e. Wing warping, canards
and other nonsense; which have suddenly started to appear on advanced modern
aircraft? Some high performance aircraft use canards and wing warping looks like a
wave of the future. Probably a few other discarded things that didn't work in
electronics, pharmacy, maybe even some oddball ideas in engineering that work with
modern technology and materials. I would imagine there is a lot of money to be
made in data mining those ancient failures.

Dave

 

[Winfield Hill]

Winfield Hill wrote...

Keith Williams wrote...

I haven't been able to find the evidence.


To my mind that's a perversion of the language. With that
definition the fixed cost to register a car, get a hunting
license, pay annual corporation fees, etc., are poll taxes.
A stupid use of the word, really, and belittling the true
problem of a poll tax discouraging poor people from voting.

Furthermore, by that definition every state has poll taxes.

Jim, I'm still trying to learn, were you ever actually prevented
from voting in Massachusetts because of an unpaid "poll tax"?

 

[Jim Thompson]

Jim Thompson wrote...

To a person with his head in the sand, it would appear to be "too
well constructed." To those of us who were watching at the time
with jaw agape, it completely fits the rest of the facts we saw.
If it hasn't been already, it will soon be proved to be completely
true. What will your be attitude then, given your proclivity now
to reject it as a blatantly, presumably badly-damaging, falsehood?


Evidently you didn't watch Dan Rather's interview with the woman
who was the admin assistant who would have typed the memo. While
she claimed she didn't type that "specific memo," she said she DID
type one for her boss that contained the same facts and conclusions
re Bush, that everything in the memo was true from her knowledge at
the time, and represented his often-stated angry opinion about Bush.
She only objected to certain phrases or constructions she said she
wouldn't have typed. As I watched her say this, it seemed to me she
was hesitant and could be mistaken in her turn-of-the-phrase-memory.
Perhaps she was accurate in saying that she didn't edit and type the
specific document that was handed to her to examine.

Yet as far as Bush was concerned the reporting was correct. Although
it's claimed someone re-created the specific memo Rather initially
reported on, it was in fact an accurate copy of a real missing memo.
Somebody took advantage of Rather in getting that memo's information
out, but the fact of the matter is the information was accurate and
correct. If you can't see what a wuss Bush actually is... Sheesh!

Be a Dan Rather lover all you want, but that doesn't change the fact
that he's a bold-faced leftist weenie AND a LIAR. In case you haven't
noticed... he was CANNED.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Winfield Hill]

Jim Thompson wrote...

Be a Dan Rather lover all you want, but that doesn't change the fact
that he's a bold-faced leftist weenie AND a LIAR. In case you haven't
noticed... he was CANNED.

I'm not a Dan Rather lover, and I don't care if he was canned, except
to note the far-right-types loved it - potentially a bad sign - but I
DO care about the facts about Bush, what the woman was saying and what
I was paying attention to. And which you choose *not* to address.
She was the admin for Bush's military boss for Pete's sake. Doesn't
that mean anything to you?

BTW, I notice the hour, aren't you supposed to have supper with the
wife and quiet time after, not on the computer (it's much later here)?

 

[John Larkin]

Jim Thompson wrote...

Maybe, but that wasn't so much left-wing biased reporting as it
was a discussion of what the ramifications will be for Tony Blair
in England over the next few months. Our neo-right-wing press
isn't paying attention over here, so we have to go over there to
get the facts. The Brits are PISSED about the lying, heads are
going to roll, but we twiddle our thumbs and let Bush turn our
attention to a supposedly-urgent problem 20 to 30 years hence.

So, we should get mad and demand removal from office when high-level
politicians wag their finger at us and state something that's
absolutely not true?

John

 

[Winfield Hill]

Jim Thompson wrote...

I doubt it. Their politics are much like ours... toothless dogs
yapping.

Our leader LIES to us about something REALLY IMPORTANT and we
complain and you call that "toothless dogs yapping?" Believe
me, given this sorry scene, we're working on the teeth aspect.

 

[Jim Thompson]

Winfield Hill wrote...

Jim, I'm still trying to learn, were you ever actually prevented
from voting in Massachusetts because of an unpaid "poll tax"?

Of course not. Why would anyone in their "right" mind want to vote in
Massachusetts ?

That wasn't the point. Cambridge wanted to impose a tax on me that I
REFUSED to pay. (Not casually, I went to City Hall and told them to
go f..k themselves. They didn't take kindly to that So they
issued a warrant authorizing the Sheriff of Middlesex to seize ALL my
property, for failure to pay property tax. Their stupidity is
unparalleled to this day.

Actually I never voted in West Virginia either... who the f..k would
want to cast a vote for Byrd? (He was elected to the Senate the same
year I graduated from High School... 1958, and has been there ever
since.)

Last year I wrote a letter-to-the-editor of the Huntington Herald
Dispatch suggesting they should toss his ass. Amusingly, the same
day, my father wrote a similar letter, no synchronization between the
two of us, other than, maybe, telepathy

My first vote was in Arizona when I was 22 years old.

Remember, voting age was 21 back then.

I've never missed voting in an election ever since. In 1964, when I
was 24, I voted for Goldwater.

But I didn't vote for Nixon... what a scumbag!

I've always voted the man, not the party. But both Gore and Kerry are
first-class losers, so the choice was easy.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 12 May 2005 19:15:29 -0700, Winfield Hill

[snip]

I'm not a Dan Rather lover, and I don't care if he was canned, except
to note the far-right-types loved it - potentially a bad sign - but I
DO care about the facts about Bush, what the woman was saying and what
I was paying attention to. And which you choose *not* to address.
She was the admin for Bush's military boss for Pete's sake. Doesn't
that mean anything to you?

She was, to me, just about SENILE. But I guess you see what you want
to see.

BTW, I notice the hour, aren't you supposed to have supper with the
wife and quiet time after, not on the computer (it's much later here)?

"N" is at a Girl Scout Leader's meeting, which is why I'm still
lurking. With her Girl Scout and other charitable activities, she is
probably busier than I am. 'cept she has me conned into helping her
do art work and such for her adult volunteer's awards banquet coming
up in two weeks.

I even bought a Stika sign cutter (for creating stencils) and a
sand-blast cabinet for glass "etching" to create the awards.

I think I can use the Stika to make PCB patterns, thus I can write it
off ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jim Thompson]

Jim Thompson wrote...

Our leader LIES to us about something REALLY IMPORTANT and we
complain and you call that "toothless dogs yapping?" Believe
me, given this sorry scene, we're working on the teeth aspect.

I've never known a Demoncrat with teeth ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Winfield Hill]

Jim Thompson wrote...

Of course not. Why would anyone in their "right" mind want to vote
in Massachusetts ?

That wasn't the point. Cambridge wanted to impose a tax on me that I
REFUSED to pay. (Not casually, I went to City Hall and told them to
go f..k themselves. They didn't take kindly to that So they
issued a warrant authorizing the Sheriff of Middlesex to seize ALL my
property, for failure to pay property tax. Their stupidity is
unparalleled to this day.

OK, that's NOT a poll tax by my understanding, although I recognize
its use that way. That's an eye-opening story, probably a classic
example of old-time Cambridge townies out to get an MIT student,
really a travesty, something I mostly escaped but would like to
learn more about.

I was arrested in Belmont for "driving without a license" and taken
to the station holding tank, because the cop refused to recognize
my California driver's license. The judge threw it out of court
and freed me. But I soon saw the need for a Massachusetts license
to avoid harassment. They loved giving the students a bad time.
Stupid really, given the huge cash cow students are for the city.

[ snip other stuff ]

I've always voted the man, not the party.
Admirable.

But both Gore and Kerry are first-class losers, so the choice
was easy.

Too bad you can't recognize the same "quality" glaring in GWB.

 

[Bob Monsen]

[snip]

The kneejerk response from JT about Clinton seems to be a common one
whenever Bush is questioned.

You need to learn to read more carefully. I was citing Clinton's
comment as the way NOT to respond to loaded questions, not criticizing
him for being a womanizer... hell, my favorite President, after
Truman, was Kennedy.

Sorry, perhaps I misinterpreted your remarks. I thought it was the
standard kneejerk.

Come on, now, stop spouting lame leftist weenie crap. If your a
pacifist (aka coward of the county , just say so, rather than
blaming someone else for your discomfort.

I'm not a pacifist. I'm all for protecting our country. However, Bush's
vanity war in Iraq has made us far less secure. There was *never* a
threat from Iraq. We can't keep the real threats like Iran and North
Korea in line, or indeed bring in the guys who pulled off 9/11 to
justice, because all our cash and effort is expended fighting an
insurgency in a country that posed absolutely no threat to us.

Also, you may not know this, but you seem to think like a Democrat in
many ways. You apparently believe that religion has no place in
government. You believe that we should have a strong, well funded
military. You believe in fiscal responsibility and restraint for those
in government. You believe that government should stay out of personal
matters. Hell you probably support the recent proposal by Bush on social
security. Most democrats also believe these things. The social security
proposal Bush is currently pushing as an effort to save face was first
proposed by a Democrat in (horrors) Massachusetts! If you think about
it, the current Democrats are closer to, say, Reagan or Nixon, or even
Goldwater, than the current Republicans. The current Republicans are no
longer conservatives. They are radicals, they have a mission, and their
mission is apparently more important to them than mundane things like
ethics or honesty. How can you support that?

Why not just give in to your inner leftist weenie?

And learn how to spell... that's a weird "wierd" ;-)

"i before e, except after w"?... I'll learn how to spell when you learn
the difference between your and you're. ;-)

 

[Jim Thompson]

Jim Thompson wrote...

Of course not. Why would anyone in their "right" mind want to vote
in Massachusetts ?

That wasn't the point. Cambridge wanted to impose a tax on me that I
REFUSED to pay. (Not casually, I went to City Hall and told them to
go f..k themselves. They didn't take kindly to that So they
issued a warrant authorizing the Sheriff of Middlesex to seize ALL my
property, for failure to pay property tax. Their stupidity is
unparalleled to this day.

OK, that's NOT a poll tax by my understanding, although I recognize
its use that way. That's an eye-opening story, probably a classic
example of old-time Cambridge townies out to get an MIT student,
really a travesty, something I mostly escaped but would like to
learn more about.

I was arrested in Belmont for "driving without a license" and taken
to the station holding tank, because the cop refused to recognize
my California driver's license. The judge threw it out of court
and freed me. But I soon saw the need for a Massachusetts license
to avoid harassment. They loved giving the students a bad time.
Stupid really, given the huge cash cow students are for the city.

[ snip other stuff ]

I've always voted the man, not the party.
Admirable.

But both Gore and Kerry are first-class losers, so the choice
was easy.

Too bad you can't recognize the same "quality" glaring in GWB.

Lesser evil ;-)

...Jim Thompson