Seems the public has been exposed to X-Rays without thier knowledge or
consent.
It is well known that the effects of exposure to radiation is cumulative
and the risk for genetic damage increases with each
exposure as does the risk of developing cancer. Apparentley the public has
been
deemed expendable in the name of security. Makes one wonder why people
that have no known risk factors are developing cancer.

"American Science & Engineering, a company based in Billerica,
Massachusetts, has sold U.S. and foreign government agencies more than 500
backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that can be driven past
neighboring vehicles to see their contents, Joe Reiss, a vice president of
marketing at the company told me in an interview."

"The same technology, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has also
been rolling out on U.S. streets."

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenber...t-roving-vans/

Best Regards
Tom.

"azotic" wrote in message
...
Seems the public has been exposed to X-Rays without thier knowledge or
consent.
It is well known that the effects of exposure to radiation is cumulative
and the risk for genetic damage increases with each
exposure as does the risk of developing cancer. Apparentley the public has
been
deemed expendable in the name of security. Makes one wonder why people
that have no known risk factors are developing cancer.

"American Science & Engineering, a company based in Billerica,
Massachusetts, has sold U.S. and foreign government agencies more than 500
backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that can be driven past
neighboring vehicles to see their contents, Joe Reiss, a vice president of
marketing at the company told me in an interview."

"The same technology, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has
also been rolling out on U.S. streets."

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenber...t-roving-vans/

Best Regards
Tom.

see also:

http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/201...airport-scans/

"azotic" wrote in message
...
Seems the public has been exposed to X-Rays without thier knowledge or
consent.
It is well known that the effects of exposure to radiation is cumulative
and the risk for genetic damage increases with each
exposure as does the risk of developing cancer. Apparentley the public has
been
deemed expendable in the name of security. Makes one wonder why people
that have no known risk factors are developing cancer.

"American Science & Engineering, a company based in Billerica,
Massachusetts, has sold U.S. and foreign government agencies more than 500
backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that can be driven past
neighboring vehicles to see their contents, Joe Reiss, a vice president of
marketing at the company told me in an interview."

"The same technology, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has
also been rolling out on U.S. streets."

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenber...t-roving-vans/

Best Regards
Tom.


The correct word is "You're" at the start of the subject line. Sorry, but
it's like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

Garrett Fulton wrote:
The correct word is "You're" at the start of the subject line. Sorry, but
it's like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

How do you feel about "ect."?

Jon

"Garrett Fulton" wrote in message
...

"azotic" wrote in message
...
Seems the public has been exposed to X-Rays without thier knowledge or
consent.
It is well known that the effects of exposure to radiation is cumulative
and the risk for genetic damage increases with each
exposure as does the risk of developing cancer. Apparentley the public
has been
deemed expendable in the name of security. Makes one wonder why people
that have no known risk factors are developing cancer.

"American Science & Engineering, a company based in Billerica,
Massachusetts, has sold U.S. and foreign government agencies more than
500 backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that can be driven past
neighboring vehicles to see their contents, Joe Reiss, a vice president
of marketing at the company told me in an interview."

"The same technology, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has
also been rolling out on U.S. streets."

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenber...t-roving-vans/

Best Regards
Tom.


The correct word is "You're" at the start of the subject line. Sorry, but
it's like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

Jeez, everyone is an editor these days. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"azotic" wrote:

Seems the public has been exposed to X-Rays without thier knowledge or
consent.
It is well known that the effects of exposure to radiation is cumulative
and the risk for genetic damage increases with each
exposure as does the risk of developing cancer. Apparentley the public has
been
deemed expendable in the name of security. Makes one wonder why people
that have no known risk factors are developing cancer.



And don't forget if a G20 or what ever summit is held in your city, the police will use
sonic devices that can permanently damage your hearing. Left right whatever, freedom is
about dead in this country.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"azotic" wrote:

Seems the public has been exposed to X-Rays without thier knowledge or
consent.
It is well known that the effects of exposure to radiation is cumulative
and the risk for genetic damage increases with each
exposure as does the risk of developing cancer. Apparentley the public has
been
deemed expendable in the name of security. Makes one wonder why people
that have no known risk factors are developing cancer.



And don't forget if a G20 or what ever summit is held in your city, the
police will use
sonic devices that can permanently damage your hearing. Left right
whatever, freedom is
about dead in this country.

Wes
--

What i find particularley disturbing is the fact that a corporation is able
to
rome the streets of america and irradiate whatever it sees fit. Consider
these
devices in the hands of private security companies operated by minimum wage
employees, lets get a better look so they crank up the out put or at a stop
light
irradiating the family in the car next to them for several minutes. These
devices
ammount to portable, reusable, mobile dirty bomb. Its a well known fact that
corporations can be trusted to self regulate and do the right thing for
thier profits.

Best Regards
Tom.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:03:34 -0400, Wes
wrote:


And don't forget if a G20 or what ever summit is held in your city, the police will use
sonic devices that can permanently damage your hearing. Left right whatever, freedom is
about dead in this country.
Wes

Talk about dead......wait until you see what happens to those Federal
agents that are driving those X-ray vans. Those suckers are going to
get cooked from the inside out.

They're going to get chromosomes knocked off their sperm cells and
produced babies that look like the baby in that Eraserhead movie.

The only career those babies will be having is as a sideshow on the
carnival mid-way. The mid-way barker will call out, "See the baby with
four eyes. It walks. It talks. It crawls on its belly like a reptile."

Oh yeah, and the Feds will still be stupid enough to climb right into
those vans and keep on blasting the X-rays.
Dave

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:03:34 -0400, Wes
wrote:

"azotic" wrote:

Seems the public has been exposed to X-Rays without thier knowledge or
consent.
It is well known that the effects of exposure to radiation is cumulative
and the risk for genetic damage increases with each
exposure as does the risk of developing cancer. Apparentley the public has
been
deemed expendable in the name of security. Makes one wonder why people
that have no known risk factors are developing cancer.



And don't forget if a G20 or what ever summit is held in your city, the police will use
sonic devices that can permanently damage your hearing. Left right whatever, freedom is
about dead in this country.

Wes


The device itself ....is hardly bullet proof to anyone with a decent
caliber and scope.

And its on the roof of a vehicle, like a big big target.

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Garrett Fulton" wrote in message
...

The correct word is "You're" at the start of the subject line. Sorry,
but it's like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

Jeez, everyone is an editor these days. d8-)

The correct word is "proofreader".

G

--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

I feel your pain. I'm the son of an editor, and you're in good
company.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Garrett Fulton wrote:
The correct word is "You're" at the start of the subject line.
Sorry, but
it's like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

Ed Huntress wrote:to me.

Jeez, everyone is an editor these days. d8-)


No, some of us just paid a bit of attention when we
went to school even though it was over 60 years ago. :-)
...lew...

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Did the National Rifle Assoc. ever get to build their restaurant in NYC?

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/135/2...Hypocrisy.html

Wes

The NRA never submitted a plan, so it's pretty clear it was all a PR ploy.
The City Council voted against it in concept but there was no specific
proposal to vote *against*. Schumer was reduced to "urging" developers not
to rent to the NRA. But apparently none were asked.

Still, you're quite right, many people who are defending the Cordoba House
on principle probably are the same ones who objected to the NRA's megastore
idea. And the NRA got what they wanted -- a political score against certain
politicians. As the head of the local business association said, "I think it
was a great rallying stunt for the troops."

Howard Stern said it would lend new meaning to the phrase "buying a round
for the house." g

Well you are being fair and balanced. I don't much care for the Muslim center in the
former Burlington Coat factory but, my Libertarian bent and my respect for the
Constitution tells me I can't stop them from doing so past saying I don't really like it.

Now if some Rabbi wants to build a temple next door, I'll excercise some freedom of speach
via my wallet. Same for a gay bar, a bbq place, or a Church. I can't stop the cleric but
I'll help him understand tolerance or get his or his followers asses handed to them for
acting up.

Wes

Ed Huntress wrote:

American standard style, according to all major stylebooks, requires
that the final quotation mark be placed *outside* of periods and
commas. Thus, the period should be after the word "proofreader."

I had the impression that that was true only when actually quoting someone.
I also forgot the comma.


The same style is largely followed in Canada. British style is
complex, based upon the American style for some journalism (but not
_The Economist_) and fiction, but the so-called "logical" style for
formal works. In that, the period goes outside of any complete
quotation, but the strict version reverses the use of single (') and
double (") quotation marks.

Is that the other error? In this informal medium, then, the quotation marks
would not be reversed and the double quote is as correct as in U.S. English.
I'm assuming that "logical" and "strict" refer to the same thing.

I avoid using single quotes because I've run into problems with all the
different ANSI characters that look like single quotes. If you copy text
from anywhere it often has single quotes that are not the same chararacter
you get from the keyboard.


There is no logical reason, for example, not to allow comma splices.
In fact, the latest edition of the most authoritative stylebook in
the US (the Chicago manual of style) has dropped its objection.

That actually seems logical to me. When you have two sentences they should
be punctuated as such. That's what periods and semicolons are for.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

American standard style, according to all major stylebooks, requires
that the final quotation mark be placed *outside* of periods and
commas. Thus, the period should be after the word "proofreader."

I had the impression that that was true only when actually quoting
someone. I also forgot the comma.

If we're talking about the same comma, it wasn't necessary. But no, American
style requires that you put periods and commas inside of a right quotation
mark. That's NOT true with other punctuation; exclamation points, question
marks, colons and semicolons.

It's wacky, but that's the way it goes.



The same style is largely followed in Canada. British style is
complex, based upon the American style for some journalism (but not
_The Economist_) and fiction, but the so-called "logical" style for
formal works. In that, the period goes outside of any complete
quotation, but the strict version reverses the use of single (') and
double (") quotation marks.

Is that the other error?

I'm getting lost in this conversation. d8-) IIRC, I first thought there was
another error, in which you missed placing a comma before a coordinating
conjunction. But then I realized it was a subordinating conjunction, which
doesn't require one.

I forget. If you want me to go back and look it up, I'll do so. Having
raised this silly piece of pedantry I feel responsible, if you care, to get
it right.

In this informal medium, then, the quotation marks would not be reversed
and the double quote is as correct as in U.S. English. I'm assuming that
"logical" and "strict" refer to the same thing.

"Logical" just refers to British style. That's the term you'll sometimes see
in literature related to the subject. "Strict" is a term I'm using to refer
to the British style of using single quotes first, and then double quotes
inside of them. That's the opposite of American style. You'll see this
"strict" style in _The Economist_, for example.

In American style, the only uses of single quotes by themselves are
literary -- primarily in poetry. You'll see these uses explained in the
Modern Language Association (MLA) stylebook, and, IIRC, in the Chicago
stylebook.


I avoid using single quotes because I've run into problems with all the
different ANSI characters that look like single quotes. If you copy text
from anywhere it often has single quotes that are not the same chararacter
you get from the keyboard.

Right. I'm just talking about publishing style. Electronic communication
demands some modifications.



There is no logical reason, for example, not to allow comma splices.
In fact, the latest edition of the most authoritative stylebook in
the US (the Chicago manual of style) has dropped its objection.

That actually seems logical to me. When you have two sentences they
should be punctuated as such. That's what periods and semicolons are for.

Semicolons are a (re)invention of a 17th-century typesetter, who wanted a
pause longer than a comma but shorter than a colon. It had fallen into
disuse until he revived it.

Two independent clauses, or as you say, two sentences, are rarely punctuated
in speech with a pause as long as a semicolon. It sounds a bit melodramatic.
Thus, there are some well-regarded writers who refuse to use it. Kurt
Vonnegut had a lifelong, one-man crusade against them.

You'll see such clauses punctuated with commas from time to time, and the
pause feels right to me. If punctuation is intended to replicate the pauses
and emphases in speech (most linguists agree that it is), the comma is
closer to the way we actually say such sentences.

--
Ed Huntress



--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Ed Huntress wrote:
The same style is largely followed in Canada. British style is
complex, based upon the American style for some journalism (but
not _The Economist_) and fiction, but the so-called "logical"
style for formal works. In that, the period goes outside of any
complete quotation, but the strict version reverses the use of
single (') and double (") quotation marks.

Is that the other error?

I'm getting lost in this conversation. d8-) IIRC, I first thought
there was another error, in which you missed placing a comma before a
coordinating conjunction. But then I realized it was a subordinating
conjunction, which doesn't require one.

I didn't know there was any conjunction at all.


I forget. If you want me to go back and look it up, I'll do so. Having
raised this silly piece of pedantry I feel responsible, if you care,
to get it right.

Now I'm curious about the conjunction.

Here it is again: "The correct word is 'proofreader.'"

Is that right, even though single quotes now replace the double quotes?


Semicolons are a (re)invention of a 17th-century typesetter, who
wanted a pause longer than a comma but shorter than a colon. It had
fallen into disuse until he revived it.

Two independent clauses, or as you say, two sentences, are rarely
punctuated in speech with a pause as long as a semicolon. It sounds a
bit melodramatic. Thus, there are some well-regarded writers who
refuse to use it. Kurt Vonnegut had a lifelong, one-man crusade
against them.
You'll see such clauses punctuated with commas from time to time, and
the pause feels right to me. If punctuation is intended to replicate
the pauses and emphases in speech (most linguists agree that it is),
the comma is closer to the way we actually say such sentences.

I never thought of it as a matter of pause duration. The difference between
a sentence or clause and a phrase is more than that. Speech varies in speed
in so many ways, but we can't put periods or even semicolons everywhere
there's a long pause.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.