Bush just commuted the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents who
shot the unarmed drug dealer in the ass.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Democrats are like cats...
They'll take a dump behind your couch and then feign ignorance

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Bush just commuted the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents who
shot the unarmed drug dealer in the ass.

...Jim Thompson

Thank you president Bush.

Mike

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Bush just commuted the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents who
shot the unarmed drug dealer in the ass.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090119/...h/bush_pardons : "Bush's
decision to commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who tried
to cover up the shooting, was welcomed by both Republican and Democratic
members of Congress. They had long argued that the agents were merely doing
their jobs, defending the American border against criminals." -- Wow, covering
up a shooting is part of doing your job as a border patrol agent? That's sad.
(And AFAICT they really were being punished primarily for trying to cover up
the incident, not for the actual shooting itself.)

A ten year prison sentence does sound a little extreme when the guy they shot
wasn't killed or apparently even permanently injured, though -- Bush's
commutation seems reasonable here.

It shouldn't be any surprise that those who have to deal with scummy drug
dealers are often themselves not the most upstanding citizens.

---Joel

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:49:54 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Bush just commuted the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents who
shot the unarmed drug dealer in the ass.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090119/...h/bush_pardons : "Bush's
decision to commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who tried
to cover up the shooting, was welcomed by both Republican and Democratic
members of Congress. They had long argued that the agents were merely doing
their jobs, defending the American border against criminals." -- Wow, covering
up a shooting is part of doing your job as a border patrol agent? That's sad.
(And AFAICT they really were being punished primarily for trying to cover up
the incident, not for the actual shooting itself.)

A ten year prison sentence does sound a little extreme when the guy they shot
wasn't killed or apparently even permanently injured, though -- Bush's
commutation seems reasonable here.

It shouldn't be any surprise that those who have to deal with scummy drug
dealers are often themselves not the most upstanding citizens.

---Joel

Note that Bush commuted their sentences (rather than giving them
pardons), so they are left with serious criminal records. Seems
reasonable enough.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Bush just commuted the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents who
shot the unarmed drug dealer in the ass.

...Jim Thompson
--

Should make Lou Dobbs happy.
I feel these guys should have some immunity for the jobs that they do.
It sounds like they could easily get slaughtered running into the drug
smugglers.

Cheers

Jim Thompson wrote:

Bush just commuted the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents who
shot the unarmed drug dealer in the ass.

Oh, I though from the title that he'd been pardoned for starting the
most malicious war in recent history. Where DO libertarians stand on
that ?

Graham

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:55:35 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Bush just commuted the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents who
shot the unarmed drug dealer in the ass.

...Jim Thompson
--

Should make Lou Dobbs happy.
I feel these guys should have some immunity for the jobs that they do.
It sounds like they could easily get slaughtered running into the drug
smugglers.

Cheers



They should have shot him in the head. The U.S. government actually
let him out on bail where he proceeded to get caught AGAIN drug
smuggling.

If we shot anyone illegally crossing the border and tossed the bodies
back across the border, we'd soon have NO illegal immigrants.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

"Bungalow Bill" wrote in message
...
The drug dealer running had a gun, dumbass.

The court said they found no evidence of that, and even the border guys
admitted that while they *thought* he had a gun, they couldn't be 100% certain
of it. Now, perhaps he did have a gun and was just very good about getting
rid of it, but courts have to make rulings based on what can be reasonably
substantiated, not what *might* have been.

Secondly, border guard #1 *emptied his entire clip * at the guy -- missing him
every time -- before his buddy, border guard #2, shot the guy in the butt
*while he was fleeing*. You can bet that if this same scenario occurred
between a regular old set of U.S. cops and some drug dealers in the streets of
L.A., the cops wouldn't be getting much sympathy either -- shooting fleeing
suspects is generally considered poor form, unless you're *certain* they have
a gun in hand.

The entire case was a mess, with agents changing their stories while on the
stand and much of the case revolving around unprovable accusations of what was
or wasn't said or done (the incident was never formally reported, the border
guys said they verbally informed their supervisor about it -- as he'd be the
one to file the formal report -- he claimed they never did). Bush's pardon is
entirely reasonable, but I think it's a stretch to suggest that the two border
guards were any kind of upstanding guys who'd you want to hold out as someone
for your kids to look up to.

Jim is correct that if they'd shot him in the head, everything would have been
a whole lot simpler.

---Joel

Bungalow Bill wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:58:31 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Bush just commuted the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents
who shot the unarmed drug dealer in the ass.

...Jim Thompson


Well, I was there, and from what I saw, the drug dealer had a
gun.
He got rid of it before 'reporting' the 'heinous crime' that was
committed against him.

Were I the Justice department, I would have told them they had
no case.
Instead, the idiots charged our guys. Over ****ty Mexican weed
too.

If the USA had sensible drug laws, instead of the draconian ban of a
harmless weed that has medicinal value, the whole event would never
have happened.

Q

PA is y I've altered my email address.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:48:24 GMT, Bob Quintal
wrote:


If the USA had sensible drug laws, instead of the draconian ban of a
harmless weed that has medicinal value, the whole event would never
have happened.

---
Yup, and with sensible drug laws a lot less than 1% of our population
would be in jail for seeking the inalienable rights of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness supposed to be guaranteed to us by our
constitution.

Unfortunately, the powers that be don't want us to toke.

Why not?

Because, behind a good hit, their hypocrisy regarding "benevolent
control" is revealed for the ruse it really is, so they've gotten
violent and decided to take out the sources of whatever socially
enlightening material might be extant.

JF

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Bush just commuted the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents who
shot the unarmed drug dealer in the ass.

Gee, now that the important stuff's done, he can pursue that other dream:

http://www.slate.com/id/2186554/

Jim Thompson wrote:

Bush just commuted the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents who
shot the unarmed drug dealer in the ass.

Bloody well deserved shooting somewhere IMHO.

Graham

"Bungalow Bill" wrote in message
...
Are you someone for your kids to look up to?

Probably not. :-)

"flipper" wrote in message
...
The key word here is "reasonable" and the problem is all information
about the 'drug dealer' was withheld from the jury so they were unable
to asses the 'reasonableness' of the agent's belief he was armed or
the credibility of the 'drug dealers' claim to be unarmed.

I imagine the jury figured he may very well have been armed, but one the
points I was trying to make is that these days (unlike, say, the 1960s) it's
usually considered inappropriate to fire on fleeing suspects unless they are
or appear to imminently be about to fire at you. The details of this vary
depending on what state you're in, if you're a border guard, a security guard,
a police officer, etc., and I definitely don't know the details of the Texas
border patrol's policy on the issue, but it's not surprising to me that the
guys were charged and found guilty.

Inflammatory. "Emptied his entire clip" might have weight if it was
emptied into the person's helpless body but, in the heat of battle,
when one misses one generally tries again.

The point there is that the guards weren't just firing, e.g., warning shots --
their behavior gave the appearance that they were out to kill the guy.

I note that hearing an entire clip emptied in the 'drug dealers'
direction seemed to be no deterrent whatsoever.

Typically shooting at someone running just makes them run faster -- it seldom
makes them freeze.

You "100% certain" about that? Or was he just circling around their
flank for a better shot?

Well, that's what I've read, and the term "fleeing" comes from eye witnesses.
It's always a judgment call -- a defense's unarmed guy fleeing is a
prosecutor's clever man with hidden weapons who's just running to an
appropriate vantage point to use them from.

I'm curious how you ascertain "certain."

Relatively certain? :-)

Btw, the standard isn't "100% certain" even in that case.

Yeah, I know, it varies a lot depending on what else you know about the guy,
including if the illegal act was a felony, if it was violent, etc. That's why
we have courts -- to try to sort this all out; these days it's pretty much
guaranteed that any officer or guard shooting someone is going to have to
defend their actions in court... and this is not a bad thing.

This belies your first comment about "evidence" because criminal cases
often "revolv[e] around unprovable accusations of what was
or wasn't said or done," especially by "witnesses," and that's why
credibility is so important.

Fair point. It just seemed that in this case there was more uncertainty about
what really happened than in most.

If true then it would mean the. so called, "strict standards" are an
inducement to murder rather than the other way around.

That may be, but it could be more than balanced out by fewer would-be-murders
wanting to become guards in the first place.

I'm always amazed at how many cops seem to think that they'd be better off if
there weren't Internal Affairs departments -- it's little different than the
average man on the street saying he'd be better off if there weren't cops:
While cops/Internal Affairs may be annoying at times, without them the folks
with the most to gain are the bad guys.

---Joel

"flipper" wrote in message
...
It seems to me you are simply presuming the jury must have rendered a
correct verdict but the point I was making is that there was a
withholding of evidence.

They could have appealed and attempted to convince a court that the original
trial involved witholding of evidence.

The point there is that the guards weren't just firing, e.g., warning
shots --
their behavior gave the appearance that they were out to kill the guy.

"100% certain" again?

Nah, "gave the apperance."

How do you know it wasn't an "entire clip" of
warning shots?

The "reasonable observer" test, where I'm appointing myself as a reasonable
observer. :-)

And how do you arrive at the conclusion that the agent being a lousy
shot, necessitating repeated attempts that all failed, automatically
implies he was "out to kill the guy?" After all, trying to wing the
guy is a difficult shot and would "certainly" explain the dismal hit
rate.

Fair argument -- I suspect the rebuttal is something along the lines of, "if
you haven't been able to achieve your stated objective of winging the guy
after going through a significant fraction of your clip, the likelihood you'll
be able to with the remainder of your clip is slim, so overall the safer
approach for everyone involved is to quit shooting, and 'of course' you've
always been informed that safety is your first priority on this job."

Presumably in a real court there'd be plenty of back and forth
testimony/questioning along these lines. Plus I'm certain (yes, certain!
100%!) that border guards have plenty of detailed policies regarding when,
where, and how you're supposed to be shooting at someone.

I bet you could write a pretty good court drama out of all this...

So much for your theory on the utility of "warning shots" then.

Absolutely -- the observation that warning shots seldom result in a suspect
freezing was one a significant consideration back in the '60s that eventually
resulted in cops generally not shooting unarmed fleeing suspects.

And their expertise with 'drug dealers', gun fight strategy, and mind
reading comes from where?

Well, if they were other border guards, presumably they have the same sort of
training as the guys involved in the shooting. If they were illegal Mexcians
on the U.S. border, they probably have some experience with drug dealers and
gun fights as well. :-)

Or not. The idea is that you get someone up on the stand, they tell you their
background and what they saw, and the jury decides how credible the testimony
is.

Fair point. It just seemed that in this case there was more uncertainty
about
what really happened than in most.

Well, if that's true then one might think there'd be "reasonable
doubt" and a not guilty verdict.

I was saying the case *started out* with more uncertainty about what
transpired than most, but (apparently) the prosecutor did removed that
reasonable doubt from the juror's minds.

I'm always amazed at how many cops seem to think that they'd be better off
if
there weren't Internal Affairs departments

They don't like having to weigh, in a split second, the odds of being
killed by a drug crazed loony or second guessed put in jail for the
rest of their life.

No question, it's a tremendous amount of pressure -- but it's commensurate
with being given the authority to use deadly force in the first place.
Additionally, significant worry about IA belies trusting that your fellow
officers and those in IA are reasonable, fair-minded individuals. Granted,
just as some employers treat their employees like crap, I'm sure (certain!
100%!) that there are some IA departments who are anything *but* reasonable
and fair-minded... and in such cases the best option for a police officer is
to try to find employment elsewhere.

I rather suspect the "average man" would be just as upset about being
put in jail for defending themselves as officers are, with the
difference being the "average man" isn't sent into battle everyday as
a matter of routine..

The average man would be upset... that's why it's generally suggested that if
there's, e.g., a home invasion, you're better off killing the guy rather than
just wounding him. :-)

---Joel

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 03:14:09 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:35:41 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

[snip]

The average man would be upset... that's why it's generally suggested that if
there's, e.g., a home invasion, you're better off killing the guy rather than
just wounding him. :-)

Again, this belies a serious problem in the system of "justice."

Btw, I am just as concerned about 'rogue prosecutors' and I am about
'rogue cops'.

---Joel


Rogue prosecution seems to be going around. Fortunately they are
often such egomaniacs that they've been getting caught here in AZ.

Plus we're doing things, such as...

https://goldwaterinstitute.org/About...w.aspx?id=2071

to corral them a bit.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

"flipper" wrote in message
...
They did appeal but one has to 'know' the missing evidence in order to
explain it's missing and I don't think that was known as the time of
the appeal.

My understanding is that if you find significant new evidence at any point in
time while someone's serving their sentence, you can always ask for the case
to be reconsidered?

Sutton apparently believes a drug dealer but, even if so, the proper
terminology is "he claims" but not, as Sutton like to do, as a "fact."

Standard trick -- present things as fact that are, in acutality, an opinion,
hope no one calls you on it, and over time expect they'll be taken as fact.

Sutton states as 'fact' that the 'drug smuggler' was 'fleeing' but the
medical evidence obtained during removal of the bullet clearly
supports the agents contention that his body was twisted back in their
direction preparatory to (they thought) firing at them.

Yeah, but isn't this like the Kennedy assassination, where plenty of people
still maintain the shooter was in the grassy knoll? -- Ever with plenty of
good evidence, if the result isn't intuitively "obvious," it's difficult to
convince a jury of what "must" have happened.

so overall the safer
approach for everyone involved is to quit shooting, and 'of course' you've
always been informed that safety is your first priority on this job."

What? You're worried about collateral damage to a prairie squirrel?

More your partner, actually. If I were partnered with a guy who emptied a
clip without getting a hit whereas I got the guy in the butt on my first shot,
you can bet I'd be asking for a new partner. :-)

The man's own family said he's been running drugs since he was 14 and
never moves them without being armed.

Oh yeah, there's no question the drug dealer is a scummy guy that the world
would probably be better off without... bet he still deserves his due process
and all.

I think you've made a lot of good points for the defense here, flipper -- you
clearly have superior knowledge of the this case than I do, so I'll quit
arm-chair refereeing what might or might not have happened and concede that
it's not at all clear that justice was served. All the more reason that
Bush's commutation was a proper course of action.

No, the best option is to have a fair and competent IA

As a society, yes, but as an individual officer I'd personally just work on
finding a new job. :-)

---Joel

On 2009-01-27, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:29:55 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

You know, if it were the 'drug smuggler' on trial everyone would be
'outraged' if every last utterance wasn't referred to, or preceded by,
alleged, suspect, allegedly, suspected of, and so forth, but it's
apparently just fine to declare law enforcement officers guilty as a
matter of 'fact'.

What a weenie argument.

The standard is "Innocent until found guilty in a court of law."

which they were.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:57:51 -0800, Bungalow Bill
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:46:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:48:24 GMT, Bob Quintal
wrote:


If the USA had sensible drug laws, instead of the draconian ban of a
harmless weed that has medicinal value, the whole event would never
have happened.

---
Yup, and with sensible drug laws a lot less than 1% of our population
would be in jail for seeking the inalienable rights of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness supposed to be guaranteed to us by our
constitution.

Unfortunately, the powers that be don't want us to toke.

Why not?

Because, behind a good hit, their hypocrisy regarding "benevolent
control" is revealed for the ruse it really is, so they've gotten
violent and decided to take out the sources of whatever socially
enlightening material might be extant.

JF


Not to mention that they can't tax it if it's free. AND they would
have to admit that they have been wrong all this time.

---
Indeed, and having the balls to admit to having been wrong is something
our government doesn't have, since it wants to be viewed as omnipotent
and infallible and won't admit error even when the error is glaring.

the Prohibition era is a good example.

Shut down the supply of legal alcohol and what happens?

Illegal sources spring up everywhere and get together and organized
crime gets a foothold into controlling the system because people like to
get drunk and have a good time and our prohibitionist government says
"You can't do that."

What a bunch of ****ing idiots, Especially when they've been wrong
through so many administrations.

Want a good look at something shocking?

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/staffing.htm

From 1972 to 2007 their staff grew from 2775 to 10759, an increase of
about 4:1, while their budget grew from 65.2 million to 2.35 BILLION, an
increase of about 36:1.

Sounds to me like someone in the DEA'a got a little scam going on that
works like when they ask for money and anyone dares to "just say no",
then that bitcher gets labeled as pro-drug and, God knows, that's the
end of a career.

For all that money, however, have they been able to meet their goal of
drying up either the supply of dope coming into the country or that
being grown/made here?

Of course not, but they sure have inflated the prison population.
Another huge social and economic expense we can do without.

JF

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
From 1972 to 2007 their staff grew from 2775 to 10759, an increase of
about 4:1, while their budget grew from 65.2 million to 2.35 BILLION, an
increase of about 36:1.

I believe another significant increase in their funding came from the laws
passed that allow them to seize any property used in the commission of a drug
crime. Even a small-time dealer probably has $10k-$100k worth of assets that
the DEA can grab these days...

Bill,

Are you a relative of Jim Yanik by chance? :-)

Seriously, you make some good points though.

I imagine there are plenty of good cops left who are just as distressed by the
"punk" nature of some of their fellow officers as you are.

---Joel

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:12:31 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

Bill,

Are you a relative of Jim Yanik by chance? :-)

Seriously, you make some good points though.

I imagine there are plenty of good cops left who are just as distressed by the
"punk" nature of some of their fellow officers as you are.

---Joel


Joel,

You need to be more observant.

"Bill" is just another nym of AlwaysWrong.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
"Bill" is just another nym of AlwaysWrong.

Ah, thanks for the 'heads up,' Jim.

He sure has a lot of aliases...

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:58:02 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
"Bill" is just another nym of AlwaysWrong.

Ah, thanks for the 'heads up,' Jim.

He sure has a lot of aliases...


He constantly adds them.

When I was using NewsProxy as a frontend I was killing all his nyms by
just allowing the white list, then disposing of AlwaysWrong's IP
range.

NewsProxy is slow, and was hanging regularly. So, with the advent of
Agent v5.00, I just use Agent's filters.

I regularly nudge the Agent support team to add "References:", which
would allow killing the little SOB AND all follow-ups to the little
SOB... including those instituted by JL ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Only Jerks Need to Satisfy Their Woeful Egos by Feeding Trolls

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:58:02 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
"Bill" is just another nym of AlwaysWrong.

Ah, thanks for the 'heads up,' Jim.

He sure has a lot of aliases...


He constantly adds them.

When I was using NewsProxy as a frontend I was killing all his nyms by
just allowing the white list, then disposing of AlwaysWrong's IP
range.

NewsProxy is slow, and was hanging regularly. So, with the advent of
Agent v5.00, I just use Agent's filters.

I regularly nudge the Agent support team to add "References:", which
would allow killing the little SOB AND all follow-ups to the little
SOB... including those instituted by JL ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Only Jerks Need to Satisfy Their Woeful Egos by Feeding Trolls

Jim Thompson wrote:

He constantly adds them.

When I was using NewsProxy as a frontend I was killing all his nyms by
just allowing the white list, then disposing of AlwaysWrong's IP
range.

NewsProxy is slow, and was hanging regularly. So, with the advent of
Agent v5.00, I just use Agent's filters.


Did you have logging turned on? NewsProxy isn't bad with it turned
off. Logging tracks every dropped message ID.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:41:30 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

He constantly adds them.

When I was using NewsProxy as a frontend I was killing all his nyms by
just allowing the white list, then disposing of AlwaysWrong's IP
range.

NewsProxy is slow, and was hanging regularly. So, with the advent of
Agent v5.00, I just use Agent's filters.


Did you have logging turned on? NewsProxy isn't bad with it turned
off. Logging tracks every dropped message ID.

I'll try that. AlwaysWrong and his nyms are getting tiring.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:41:30 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

He constantly adds them.

When I was using NewsProxy as a frontend I was killing all his nyms by
just allowing the white list, then disposing of AlwaysWrong's IP
range.

NewsProxy is slow, and was hanging regularly. So, with the advent of
Agent v5.00, I just use Agent's filters.


Did you have logging turned on? NewsProxy isn't bad with it turned
off. Logging tracks every dropped message ID.

I'll try that. AlwaysWrong and his nyms are getting tiring.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state