On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:07:20 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ned Simmons wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:08:05 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:16:52 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

WHAT? ANY SUB is long range and ocean going! Never heard of WWII in
which a LOT of German subs (far less capable than the ones that North
Korea and China have now) did a lot of damage and threatened the WORLD.
Maybe you missed that little fact. How about a conventional missile
launched into D.C.! They have that ability NOW. Maybe you don't think
that the U.S. should stop that? How about if they decided to target a
few of the U.S. coastal bases? Think a few torpedoes into Groton might
cause a problem? Maybe another Pearl Harbor attack? All very possible
with the current crop of Diesel/Electrics that Russia has been building
and selling off.
Got any specifics on those claims? All I can find says North Korea's
sub fleet consists of approx 20 1950s technology Romeo class
diesel-electrics with a 9000 mile range, and a similar number of
smaller Sang-O coastal subs with a 1500 mile range - nowhere near
enough to reach Washington DC or Groton.
That 9000 mile range is without refueling, but that's what sub tenders
are for. In WW2, the way the Allies dealt with the Nazi Wolfpacks was
to find and destroy the tenders. Having broken the Enigma codes,
finding the sub tenders was pretty easy.

I poked around quite a bit last night and found no indication that
North Korea has tenders. In fact, they don't appear to have any ships
with a range as great as the subs. And even a later version than the
Korean's Romeo (Type 033 vs. 031) is described as "...generally
regarded as an ageing design, only suitable for coastal defence and
patrol duties. The submarine is very noisy, and incapable of operating
deep oceans far from its homeport..."
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type033romeo.asp

And a boat made from old inner tubes and plywood could NEVER make it to
the US from Cuba. How about those OLD wooden ships that sailed around
the world and were a LOT less able than a steel hulled ship built using
technology that is far superior. Take a look at what Germany did with a
far older design of sub. Those subs are also considered "an aging
design, very noisy and incapable of operation far from there home ports"


So, the way one gets to DC is to preposition a few tenders.

If the Koreans had such a thing, and if they could operate undetected.

Guess what a sub tender is! A simple ship that carries fuel, munitions
and food for the sub. The US tenders carry spare parts and can do some
repairs as well but for a limited attack they could use a converted
fishing trawler for the fuel and supply only food for the crew. Easy to do.


Diesel-electric boats running on electric can be damn hard to detect
unless someone has a reason to look in a particular place, and even then
it can be hard.

They can operate for a couple days at very low speeds.

Just because a boat is old doesn't mean it doesn't work.


And no mention of missile launching capability.
I have no idea if these old boats can launch missiles while submerged,
but probably not. If one is willing to surface for a launch, it's
pretty easy to cobble together a solution.

Wild speculation.

Nope. Russia developed an exterior mounted launching platform for the
633 class as a "test".
http://www.hazegray.org/features/russia/ss.htm
However that isn't really needed. A simple launch rack welded to the
hull can handle a TLAM or two easily.
Or they can use the launcher made for the YJ-8 missile which was
designed for the 033G class Romeos.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type033g.asp
Notice that the boat itself MAY be out of service but nobody knows for sure.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...rk/s-romeo.htm
However if they can find a few TLAMs those could be launched from the
torpedo tubes just like the UK and the US have done. The 033s have a 21"
tube and the TLAM will fit in a 20.5" tube.


The hard part was figuring
out where you were, but GPS has pretty much solved that problem.


And suppose that they cannot reach NYC or DC, so they take Los Angeles
out instead. Is that OK?

With luck, they could presumably reach the west coast on a suicide
torpedo attack. That's a long way from a missile strike on DC. There
may be a legitimate reason to carry on the sonar training, but it
ain't North Korea's sub capability.

No luck involved with the West Coast. 5200 miles or so from North Korea
to LA and San Fransisco. 9000 mile range gives them 3800 spare miles.
And that is IF they didn't carry any extra fuel on board.

Of course they could also contact a few nutcases and convince them to
make a suicide run at the US.

You've gone from "any sub" (your words) being able to steam from N.
Korea to the east coast and hitting Washington DC with a missile, to a
hypothetical Korean missile capable of surviving a 3 week, 5000 mile
undersea voyage scabbed on the outside of a WWII technology sub
striking LA. This proposed missile is attached to a "massive launcher
structure on the bow, for weapons tests" (quoted from your cite),
developed by the Soviets, with no indication that the contraption ever
went more than a few miles offshore, nevermind made a Pacific
crossing. And you haven't given any reason to think the Koreans ever
had such a launcher or attempted such a feat.

On top of that, I don't know of any credible authority who's warned
that Kim would like to attack us on our own soil. He seems to be
content destabilizing his own neighborhood with alternate shows of
cooperation, saber rattling, reneging on agreements, kidnaping and
spying. (Love the powder blue parka and oversized horn-rimmed glasses,
though.)

As I said, there may be pressing reasons to conduct the sonar
training, but you won't find them in N. Korea. Creating increasingly
speculative attack scenarios won't change that.

--
Ned Simmons

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:13:14 -0500, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Finger, not weapon. It's sooo..... gauche..... to have a gun!

Hey, what makes me wonder. Does GWB have the constitutional authority to
override other peoples laws?


The only thing worse for communication than a top-oster, is someone who
replies to an unknown post without any context at all.

Translation: WTF are you responding to?

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Finger, not weapon. It's sooo..... gauche..... to have a gun!

Hey, what makes me wonder. Does GWB have the constitutional authority to
override other peoples laws?


Technically, no. But in reality, yes. That's because he and his advisors
don't believe that the Constitution actually limits them in any way. So they
do whatever they want even though it's unconstitutional and then see if
anyone is willing to do anything to stop them. So far no one has so it works
out that Bush has had the authority to do anything he wants. It's not
constitutional but it seems that's besides the point. The Constitution only
limits the government if all the branches decide to abide by it. The
republicans have decided they only obey the Constitution when it's
convenient.

Hawke

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:15:40 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:



Technically, no. But in reality, yes. That's because he and his advisors
don't believe that the Constitution actually limits them in any way. So they
do whatever they want even though it's unconstitutional and then see if
anyone is willing to do anything to stop them. So far no one has so it works
out that Bush has had the authority to do anything he wants. It's not
constitutional but it seems that's besides the point. The Constitution only
limits the government if all the branches decide to abide by it. The
republicans have decided they only obey the Constitution when it's
convenient.

Hawke

so you are claiming that the Majority Democrats dont have the balls to
stop him? That they are utter and total pussies?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.archives .gov%2Ffederal-register%2Fexecutive-orders%2Fclinton.html&ei=FdKYR9XFIqiigQPi7920BA&us g=AFQjCNGS9qLjOskALwmvkQ_ndulKVx_b8w&sig2=ff7VjdKL F5OocPwAGZbgiA

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:15:40 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:



Technically, no. But in reality, yes. That's because he and his advisors
don't believe that the Constitution actually limits them in any way. So
they
do whatever they want even though it's unconstitutional and then see if
anyone is willing to do anything to stop them. So far no one has so it
works
out that Bush has had the authority to do anything he wants. It's not
constitutional but it seems that's besides the point. The Constitution
only
limits the government if all the branches decide to abide by it. The
republicans have decided they only obey the Constitution when it's
convenient.

Hawke

so you are claiming that the Majority Democrats dont have the balls to
stop him? That they are utter and total pussies?

Idiot. Having a majority doesn't let you override a veto, or a slam-dunk
threatened veto.

What you have is a bunch of dead-ender conservative Republicans from the
flaming red states who will jerk their knees in Bush's direction rather than
think for themselves. That's why you have deadlock on a lot of issues.

--
Ed Huntress

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:15:40 -0500, Stormin Mormon wrote:
After all, it's only a damn piece of paper?

Got a cite for that alleged quote? I've seen it repeated a lot but
never from any sort of primary source.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
After all, it's only a damn piece of paper?


That's right. The constitution is nothing but a piece of paper. It's no
different than a temporary restraining order and we have all seen how well
they work to protect women from abusive men. The truth is it's up to people
to make the rules mean something. With the Bush crowd in office they have
laid waste to the rules and no one has stood up and said no. Except when the
justice dept. stood up to him and told him no more warrantless wiretaps.
Half the leaders in the dept threatened to quit starting with the interim
attorney general and the FBI chief as well. That's what it takes to make a
piece of paper mean something. Men have to step up and make a difference. We
haven't seen much of that since the year 2001. Things will change next year.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:15:40 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:



Technically, no. But in reality, yes. That's because he and his advisors
don't believe that the Constitution actually limits them in any way. So
they
do whatever they want even though it's unconstitutional and then see if
anyone is willing to do anything to stop them. So far no one has so it
works
out that Bush has had the authority to do anything he wants. It's not
constitutional but it seems that's besides the point. The Constitution
only
limits the government if all the branches decide to abide by it. The
republicans have decided they only obey the Constitution when it's
convenient.

Hawke

so you are claiming that the Majority Democrats dont have the balls to
stop him? That they are utter and total pussies?

Idiot. Having a majority doesn't let you override a veto, or a slam-dunk
threatened veto.

What you have is a bunch of dead-ender conservative Republicans from the
flaming red states who will jerk their knees in Bush's direction rather
than
think for themselves. That's why you have deadlock on a lot of issues.

--
Ed Huntress

I was going to say that yes, the Democrats are pussies. Which is true. But
as you pointed out they have a very slim majority, which allows the
executive branch and a loyal republican minority to stop the Democrats from
accomplishing anything. It's just the way the system is set up. A small
number can thwart the majority time and time again, which is exactly what we
have seen all year. But the chances are good that after the election the
Democratic majority will grow sufficiently that it can't be blocked. That
won't be necessary though because we will finally be done with the worst
idiot ever to occupy the White House by then and will have a Democrat as
president.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
After all, it's only a damn piece of paper?


That's right. The constitution is nothing but a piece of paper. It's no
different than a temporary restraining order and we have all seen how well
they work to protect women from abusive men. The truth is it's up to
people
to make the rules mean something. With the Bush crowd in office they have
laid waste to the rules and no one has stood up and said no. Except when
the
justice dept. stood up to him and told him no more warrantless wiretaps.
Half the leaders in the dept threatened to quit starting with the interim
attorney general and the FBI chief as well. That's what it takes to make a
piece of paper mean something. Men have to step up and make a difference.
We
haven't seen much of that since the year 2001. Things will change next
year.

Hawke

Ever hear about Klinton exempting area 51 from federal environmental laws.
No? I though so.

Steve

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:54:12 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

That's one of the best descriptions I've ever heard.

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


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
After all, it's only a damn piece of paper?


That's right. The constitution is nothing but a piece of paper. It's no
different than a temporary restraining order and we have all seen how well
they work to protect women from abusive men. The truth is it's up to people
to make the rules mean something. With the Bush crowd in office they have
laid waste to the rules and no one has stood up and said no. Except when the
justice dept. stood up to him and told him no more warrantless wiretaps.
Half the leaders in the dept threatened to quit starting with the interim
attorney general and the FBI chief as well. That's what it takes to make a
piece of paper mean something. Men have to step up and make a difference. We
haven't seen much of that since the year 2001. Things will change next year.

Hawke

With a Democrat in the Oval Orifice, and a Dem congress..ayup...things
will change.

For the worse.
Democrats..the people that brought you Contelpro, Echelon and
Carnivore, not to mention Manzinar and most of the wars.

Gunner

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
After all, it's only a damn piece of paper?


That's right. The constitution is nothing but a piece of paper. It's no
different than a temporary restraining order and we have all seen how
well
they work to protect women from abusive men. The truth is it's up to
people
to make the rules mean something. With the Bush crowd in office they
have
laid waste to the rules and no one has stood up and said no. Except when
the
justice dept. stood up to him and told him no more warrantless wiretaps.
Half the leaders in the dept threatened to quit starting with the
interim
attorney general and the FBI chief as well. That's what it takes to make
a
piece of paper mean something. Men have to step up and make a
difference.
We
haven't seen much of that since the year 2001. Things will change next
year.

Hawke

Ever hear about Klinton exempting area 51 from federal environmental laws.
No? I though so.

Steve


Oh come off it. You actually think giving a military base an environmental
exemption is on par with spying on Americans, locking people up permanently
without rights, starting a war by lying, and ignoring the laws of Congress
and the Constitution? Oh wait, you probably do because to guys like you
anything Clinton ever did is worse than anything Bush could do. Talk about
Bush haters; well, remember the Clinton haters? You know, people like you. I
guess you're going to have to start your hating all over again because it's
looking more and more like Bill Clinton is going to be moving back into the
White House. It'll be so fun to see all the right wingers in agony when that
happens. I can't wait.

Hawke

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:54:12 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

That's one of the best descriptions I've ever heard.

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


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
After all, it's only a damn piece of paper?


That's right. The constitution is nothing but a piece of paper. It's no
different than a temporary restraining order and we have all seen how
well
they work to protect women from abusive men. The truth is it's up to
people
to make the rules mean something. With the Bush crowd in office they have
laid waste to the rules and no one has stood up and said no. Except when
the
justice dept. stood up to him and told him no more warrantless wiretaps.
Half the leaders in the dept threatened to quit starting with the interim
attorney general and the FBI chief as well. That's what it takes to make
a
piece of paper mean something. Men have to step up and make a difference.
We
haven't seen much of that since the year 2001. Things will change next
year.

Hawke

With a Democrat in the Oval Orifice, and a Dem congress..ayup...things
will change.

For the worse.
Democrats..the people that brought you Contelpro, Echelon and
Carnivore, not to mention Manzinar and most of the wars.

Gunner

You can be as scared as you want. But me, I'll take my chances with the
Democrats any day. We just saw eight years of Clinton and now eight years of
Bush. There is no comparison as to how much worse the last eight years have
been. I haven't seen the country in this bad of a condition since the
Vietnam War. Democrats are no angels, that's for sure. But they sure beat
the hell out of what we just had, and by a country mile.

Hawke

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:50:18 -0500, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I do not have a source for that. Like you, I've heard it a bunch of times.
I'll have to google it, I guess?

My point is, I've seen a bunch of claims that Bush dismissed the
Constitution as "Just a goddamned piece of paper", but I've never seen
any credible source which shows that he actually said it. I can't help
but think that before referencing a suspect quote, I for one, would make
sure it's legitimate. Otherwise you make your point of view look
suspect.

I'll ask again. Do you, or anyone else, have a credible source showing
that Bush ever said it?

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:53:28 -0500, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I did a quick Google,a nd this one seems credible:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7779.shtml

That passes your credibility filter, does it? When the "latest
headlines" includes "Why right-wingers can't get it up"?, and ads like
"Are you really gay" and "Ron Paul in 2008"?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:50:18 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:
I do not have a source for that. Like you, I've heard it a bunch of
times.
I'll have to google it, I guess?

My point is, I've seen a bunch of claims that Bush dismissed the
Constitution as "Just a goddamned piece of paper", but I've never seen
any credible source which shows that he actually said it. I can't help
but think that before referencing a suspect quote, I for one, would make
sure it's legitimate. Otherwise you make your point of view look
suspect.

I'll ask again. Do you, or anyone else, have a credible source showing
that Bush ever said it?


Jesus! What's with you? I see why you have to argue all the time. You never
seem to have the facts. Of course Bush never said he doesn't respect or
follow the constitution, he just acts that way. But I'll give you two
sources where the information can be had, both on TV. Frontline just showed
a program about Cheney's attempt to expand presidential power. By the way,
this isn't in dispute. Cheney himself has said he wanted the executive's
power expanded from what it was after Nixon was in office. But the whole
show was interviews with people in Washington in the administration and
without telling about how the constitution was subverted and avoided by the
Bush administration. This was an hour program and it gave chapter and verse
where the constitution was not being abided by.

Another one was a Bill Moyer's show where he had Bruce Fein as a guest. If
you don't know, Fein is long term right winger who worked in Reagan's
administration. He is a legal scholar/expert. He went on and on throughout
the show explaining how Bush has violated and subverted the constitution all
throughout his administration.

Those are just two places where unbiased sources have said unequivocally how
and where Bush has not followed the rules of the constitution. By not
following the constitution you are saying in effect that it's only a piece
of paper and not something you have to be bound by. I only gave you two
sources where many unbiased experts gave their views on Bush's noncompliance
with the constitution. You can believe it that there are scores more. If you
really want to verify what I just said is true it won't be hard for you to
look up. The bottom line is that Bush didn't say it but he did it.

Hawke

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:46:15 -0500, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I never thought I'd write this. But, the eight years of selling missile
secrets to the Chinese worry me less than the eight years of ignoring the
Constitution, and creation of concentration camps.

Just think if Clinton and his cronies had succeeded in "Mr. and Mrs.
America, turn them all in" in regards to guns, and _then_ Bush's (in
your mind) abuses happened. Do you want to be disarmed for the next
person to come in and be a tyrant?

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:46:57 -0500, Stormin Mormon wrote:
OK, so, what did YOU find?

I found a bunch of similar links. You're the one making the claim, it's
your task to back it up with hard data. Vague handwaving and "go google
it" is exactly the sort of thing that I always get when asking for hard
data on this sort of thing. Rather exposes the bias of the person (not)
answering the question.

all of those who believe that the second amendment guarantees them to keep
an arsenal at home so they can be armed to overthrow a tyrannical government
are just dreaming, and everyone knows it - look at the firepower the
insurgents are applying in Iraq to get us to leave - who has that level of
firepower in their home arsenal? No one would be a match for the military
using conventional arms, so the whole argument is moot - it's just people
who don't understand blustering in the wind.

note, the above is neither an arguement for or against arms, just an
arguement against obviously flawed logic.


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:46:15 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:
I never thought I'd write this. But, the eight years of selling missile
secrets to the Chinese worry me less than the eight years of ignoring the
Constitution, and creation of concentration camps.

Just think if Clinton and his cronies had succeeded in "Mr. and Mrs.
America, turn them all in" in regards to guns, and _then_ Bush's (in
your mind) abuses happened. Do you want to be disarmed for the next
person to come in and be a tyrant?




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:53:08 -0500, Stormin Mormon wrote:
OK, so tell me about my biasses, since they are so open.

First, why do you top-post? A standards-compliant newsreader, when
quoting your post, trims off your .sig (as it should), and then,
everything after it (which was my post). Is it that you want the last
word by making responding to points inconvenient, or are you just
oblivious of this ?

That said, I asked about global warming, got a pseudo-science link from
you, and when I asked for details you gave me the standard "Oh, it's
everywhere, open your eyes" kind of response. My point was and is, this
is typical. I've asked quite a few times for _real_ science and the
closest I came to a "cite" was a few youtube videos.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:46:12 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:

all of those who believe that the second amendment guarantees them to keep
an arsenal at home so they can be armed to overthrow a tyrannical government
are just dreaming, and everyone knows it - look at the firepower the
insurgents are applying in Iraq to get us to leave - who has that level of
firepower in their home arsenal? No one would be a match for the military
using conventional arms, so the whole argument is moot - it's just people
who don't understand blustering in the wind.


Do the insurgents look like Americans? Are they the brothers and
sisters of Americans. Do their parents and aunts and uncles work
within the US government?

The insurgents, quite frankly, cant shoot worth ****, hence their
ultimate dependance on suicide bombs and IEDs.

Are the American troops sympathetic with the insurgents cause?

Apples and oranges.

On the other hand..isnt it the left that is demanding a pullout
because the war against the insurgents is unwinnable?

Which is it William? Are we winning or losing?

Gunner

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:46:12 -0800, William Noble wrote:
all of those who believe that the second amendment guarantees them to keep
an arsenal at home so they can be armed to overthrow a tyrannical government
are just dreaming, and everyone knows it

You've already shown yourself to be unqualified to be a spokesman for
people who understand these things, why then to you try? Is it that you
are intentionally distorting it, or do you actually not know why what
you just wrote is wrong?

- look at the firepower the
insurgents are applying in Iraq to get us to leave - who has that level of
firepower in their home arsenal? No one would be a match for the military
using conventional arms, so the whole argument is moot - it's just people
who don't understand blustering in the wind.

Funny - seems to me they're doing pretty good against a very high-tech
army with rather low-tech arms.

note, the above is neither an arguement for or against arms, just an
arguement against obviously flawed logic.

You seem to have misspelled "of" as "against".

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:38:56
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:10:57 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines,


So when training to detect submarines, you suggest that we simply duct
tape some dixie cups to the operators ears, and somone in the room
makes some squeeky noises as a simulation of the real thing?

Then I, when I go to the range, should simply point my weapon at the
target, and shout Bang, Bang? This is good training..eco friendly
training, correct?

You don't even need to go to the range. You can just sit there at
your kitchen table, and imagine going to the range to say "bang bang".

I read recently, of an experiment where there were three groups.
One group was set to work practicing piano all day. The 'control'
group just sat in the room with the piano for the same number of
hours. The third group was in the room with the piano, but imagined
doing the same exercises as the first group. Brain scans were made
of all three groups. The first group saw the most change, the second
(control) group saw 'no' changes, but the third group saw change, more
than the control group, but not as much as the actual practices.
So there may be something to the "think about it" school of
practice.

tschus
pyotr


Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:38:56
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:10:57 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the
US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines,


So when training to detect submarines, you suggest that we simply duct
tape some dixie cups to the operators ears, and somone in the room
makes some squeeky noises as a simulation of the real thing?

Then I, when I go to the range, should simply point my weapon at the
target, and shout Bang, Bang? This is good training..eco friendly
training, correct?

You don't even need to go to the range. You can just sit there at
your kitchen table, and imagine going to the range to say "bang bang".

I read recently, of an experiment where there were three groups.
One group was set to work practicing piano all day. The 'control'
group just sat in the room with the piano for the same number of
hours. The third group was in the room with the piano, but imagined
doing the same exercises as the first group. Brain scans were made
of all three groups. The first group saw the most change, the second
(control) group saw 'no' changes, but the third group saw change, more
than the control group, but not as much as the actual practices.
So there may be something to the "think about it" school of
practice.

tschus
pyotr


Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, 'Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

Perhaps you need to re-view the movie/play by Meredith Wilson: "The Music
Man".