It's easy enough to filter out if you don't want to see it. See the "OT"
at
the beginning of the subject line?

I just took a crap in the middle of your dining room...

....but I did put a sign up saying, "I'm taking a crap in the middle of
your dining room - have a nice day".

So you haven't figured out how to use filters and killfiles either? It's
not
the same situation, Tom, and you know it.

Oh, come on now - that was pretty funny.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Tom Watson
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:17:02 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


It's easy enough to filter out if you don't want to see it. See the
"OT" at
the beginning of the subject line?

I just took a crap in the middle of your dining room...

....but I did put a sign up saying, "I'm taking a crap in the middle
of
your dining room - have a nice day".

So you haven't figured out how to use filters and killfiles either?
It's not
the same situation, Tom, and you know it.

IIUC, you have figured out how to use filters and killfiles but you
have not figured out how to find and post to a newsgroup where the
subject you wish to discuss is on-topic, right?

Or are you just plain afraid to discuss it with people who are
knowledgible in the subject area?

--

FF

In article om, wrote:

IIUC, you have figured out how to use filters and killfiles but you
have not figured out how to find and post to a newsgroup where the
subject you wish to discuss is on-topic, right?

Maybe you should review a few of those OT political threads and see how many
of them I started: none.

Or are you just plain afraid to discuss it with people who are
knowledgible in the subject area?

Like *you*? ROTFLMAO!

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

I asked a question. You failed to answer. About says it.

"Roy Blankenship" wrote in message
link.net...


Great response. This is the kind of intelligent discourse we can expect
from the right.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
"......Why are we so afraid of Nazism and heathenism?......"



Because the U.S. is a Christian Nation.

At least this is what I've been told repeatedly by the Religious Right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:31:53 GMT, "Tim and Steph" wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article nLJ0e.19564$I16.13281@trndny03, "Tim and Steph"
wrote:
And my dad can beat up both of your dads.

Can you two take this ****ing contest off-wreck?

It's easy enough to filter out if you don't want to see it. See the "OT"
at
the beginning of the subject line?

Indeed. I can read. Arguing on the internet is a lot like running in the
special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded. Neither of you
are going to change each other's minds, so what's the point? It's just a
lot of hot air being blown.

Jesus, don't go throwing a pail of water on what's shaping up to be a
nice little fire. It is, after all, early silly season.

JP
*************
Muddy.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article om,
wrote:

IIUC, you have figured out how to use filters and killfiles but you
have not figured out how to find and post to a newsgroup where the
subject you wish to discuss is on-topic, right?

Maybe you should review a few of those OT political threads and see
how many
of them I started: none.

That's the same as the number you shifted to an on-topic newsgroup.

Why is that you refuse to move the discusion to an on-topic newsgroup?


Or are you just plain afraid to discuss it with people who are
knowledgible in the subject area?

Like *you*? ROTFLMAO!


That's typical of what you seem to substitute for reasoning. After
all, you DO post in rec.woodworking where you know I'll read it
so clearly it is not *I* whom you are hiding your articles from.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "mp"
wrote:
Fine - substantiate those claims, then. Especially the one about
the US
government supposedly killing more Iraqis than Saddam. If you
really
believe
that, you're delusional, and you should seek help from a qualified
mental
health professional. [Tip for you in that regard: you won't have
to wait
nearly as long for an appointment if you phone a clinic in the
US.]

The combined results of both wars and the sanctions could easily be
responsible for over 1 million casualties, and according to Unicef
half of
these are children under 5.

As usual, when challenged to substantiate your ridiculous claims, you
start to
change the subject. I'm still waiting for substantiation.

When I challenge your rediculous claims you don't even reply.

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article om,
wrote:

IIUC, you have figured out how to use filters and killfiles but you
have not figured out how to find and post to a newsgroup where the
subject you wish to discuss is on-topic, right?

Maybe you should review a few of those OT political threads and see
how many
of them I started: none.

That's the same as the number you shifted to an on-topic newsgroup.

Why is that you refuse to move the discusion to an on-topic newsgroup?

Who died and made you king, anyway?


Or are you just plain afraid to discuss it with people who are
knowledgible in the subject area?

Like *you*? ROTFLMAO!


That's typical of what you seem to substitute for reasoning. After
all, you DO post in rec.woodworking where you know I'll read it
so clearly it is not *I* whom you are hiding your articles from.

I'm not "hiding" from anybody. You, OTOH, appear very eager to shift political
discussions away from the purview of those who disagree with your a priori
biases.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article .com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "mp"
wrote:
Fine - substantiate those claims, then. Especially the one about
the US
government supposedly killing more Iraqis than Saddam. If you
really
believe
that, you're delusional, and you should seek help from a qualified
mental
health professional. [Tip for you in that regard: you won't have
to wait
nearly as long for an appointment if you phone a clinic in the
US.]

The combined results of both wars and the sanctions could easily be
responsible for over 1 million casualties, and according to Unicef
half of
these are children under 5.

As usual, when challenged to substantiate your ridiculous claims, you
start to
change the subject. I'm still waiting for substantiation.

When I challenge your rediculous claims you don't even reply.

Clearly false; but after having observed you continually ducking and evading
Dave Hinz, I expected nothing less from you, and I was not disappointed.

Bye, Fred.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Doug Miller wrote:


As usual, when challenged to substantiate your ridiculous claims,
you
start to
change the subject. I'm still waiting for substantiation.

When I challenge your rediculous claims you don't even reply.

Clearly false;

No, that's true. For example you made the rediculous claim that
Saddam Hussein had more than ten years to hide WMD. I pointed out
that UN inspectors didn't leave Iraq until 1998 and returned in
2002. That's less than five years, to both manufacture and hide
WMD, not more than ten. You never replied to that.

but after having observed you continually ducking and evading
Dave Hinz, I expected nothing less from you, and I was not
disappointed.

That of course, is false and easily verified to be false by
reviewing the thread. OTOH, by way of example, I repeatedly
asked Mr Hinz why he thought hydrogen generators would be
anything other than conventional military assets and he NEVER
provided any answer that addressed the question. Maybe he
though Iraq was going to use the hydrogen for hydrogen bombs.
I dunno, your guess is as good as mine because he refused to
answer the question.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:


That's the same as the number you shifted to an on-topic newsgroup.

Why is that you refuse to move the discusion to an on-topic
newsgroup?

Who died and made you king, anyway?


Or are you just plain afraid to discuss it with people who are
knowledgible in the subject area?

Like *you*? ROTFLMAO!


That's typical of what you seem to substitute for reasoning. After
all, you DO post in rec.woodworking where you know I'll read it
so clearly it is not *I* whom you are hiding your articles from.

I'm not "hiding" from anybody. You, OTOH, appear very eager to shift
political
discussions away from the purview of those who disagree with your a
priori
biases.


I've kept you informed so you can follow the discussion where it is
posted.

You, OTOH refuse to post outside of a newsgroup where the number of
people interested discussing the subject is small. Why is that?
Why won't you post your views to people who are especially
interested in discussing these matters?

--

FF

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:31:53 GMT, Tim and Steph wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article nLJ0e.19564$I16.13281@trndny03, "Tim and Steph"
wrote:
And my dad can beat up both of your dads.

Can you two take this ****ing contest off-wreck?

It's easy enough to filter out if you don't want to see it. See the "OT"
at
the beginning of the subject line?

Indeed. I can read. Arguing on the internet is a lot like running in the
special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded. Neither of you
are going to change each other's minds, so what's the point? It's just a
lot of hot air being blown.

Well, it seems that you're going out of your way to read, and then
complain about it. Why would that be?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:31:53 GMT, Tim and Steph wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article nLJ0e.19564$I16.13281@trndny03, "Tim and Steph"

wrote:
And my dad can beat up both of your dads.

Can you two take this ****ing contest off-wreck?

It's easy enough to filter out if you don't want to see it. See the "OT"
at
the beginning of the subject line?

Indeed. I can read. Arguing on the internet is a lot like running in
the
special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded. Neither of you
are going to change each other's minds, so what's the point? It's just a
lot of hot air being blown.

Well, it seems that you're going out of your way to read, and then
complain about it. Why would that be?

Because, like the other retards, I can't help myself. I seem to think that
I can actually have some effect.

Tim and Steph wrote:


Because, like the other retards, I can't help myself. I seem to
think that
I can actually have some effect.

My poor excuse is that the trolls who start these OT threads, in
addition to being moral cowards for not posting where they know
they'll be rebutted, are also loathsome liars. It is sometimes
hard to sit still while they spew their foul, anti-American lies.

--

FF

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:04:54 GMT, Tim and Steph wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Well, it seems that you're going out of your way to read, and then
complain about it. Why would that be?

Because, like the other retards, I can't help myself. I seem to think that
I can actually have some effect.

Well, the effect you're having so far is to come across as someone
whining about something they could easily avoid, is that what you're
going for?

Well, the effect you're having so far is to come across as someone
whining about something they could easily avoid, is that what you're
going for?

Tim looks up, thinks to himself: "Hmm... Bait!", then swims on.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:48:53 GMT, Tim and Steph wrote:

Well, the effect you're having so far is to come across as someone
whining about something they could easily avoid, is that what you're
going for?

Tim looks up, thinks to himself: "Hmm... Bait!", then swims on.

Well, that's ironic. But thanks for moving on.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:55:39 +0100, "no spam" wrote:

Serious reading, folks!







HISTORY TEST
Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice
test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually
happened!!!

Do you remember?

-1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3.During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6.In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying
to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7.In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9.In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10.On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to
take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into
the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the
passengers.Thousands of
people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11.In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Nope, .....I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent
on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to
profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old
women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents
who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen
with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss,
but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty
of profiling.

Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds along
with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed
of themselves - if they have any such sense.

As the writer of the award winning story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it,
"Stupid is as stupid does."

Come on people wake up!!!
Keep this going. Pass it on to everyone in your address book.
Our Country and our troops need our support!

Kevin writes:
And by "formed" you mean "stole the land from existing tenants".

Really, so you obviously don't know that about 50% of Israelis are of
Middle Eastern origin, many having been summarily expelled from the
Arab lands where they had lived for generations.

Also you wouldn't know that there was a continuous Jewish presence in
Israel for thousands of years.
Even in Jerusalem, there has been a Jewish plurality for the past 150
years...

Or that the Holy Land was pretty much a barren wasteland in the
mid-19th century with only a small native Jewish and Arab population
(see Mark Twain's note on his 19th century visit)

Or that most modern day "Palestinians" actually came to the land in
the past 100 years, attracted by the wealth created by the parallel
Jewish immigration.

Or that until 1948, only the Jews were called Palestinians (and
today's "Jerusalem Post" was actually called the "Palestinian
Post"). The native Arabs identified with their brethren throughout the
Middle East and did not want to be called Palestinian

Facts -- they have a way of getting in the way of the truth

And by "...sane and democratic..." you mean a country which believes
it's existence is God's will, their God of course, and unless you
believe in their God you don't get to vote or enjoy full citizenship.


Tell that to the 20% of the country that is Arab and have full voting
rights (though they presumably believe in God).
Tell that to the 80-90% of the Jewish population that is non-religious
and only superficially believe in God in any real sense

And remind me of all the Arab states that even let women let alone
non-Muslims have full citizenship rights.

During the first Gulf War our US soldiers who were saving the Saudi
royalty's butts weren't even allowed to have Christmas services on
Saudi territory.

Guess you liked the Taliban too.
Non-Sequitur

The only reason we NEED Israel as an ally is BECAUSE we have Israel as
an ally.

Non-Sequitur

Why is the entire Arab world ****ed of at us? Ask yourself when was
the last time we bombed Tel Aviv for ignoring/violating a
U.N. resolution.

Because the resolutions against Israel, apart from being completely
biased and racist, are not passed under the article of the UN
requiring forceful compliance. Different resolutions have different
enforcing powers...


But then again you clearly know nothing about the Middle East other
than the bigoted views you hold towards Jews and Israel.

Nate Perkins writes:
Abu Nidal was a threat to Israel primarily. I don't think we ought to be
in the business of fighting wars by proxy for Israel.


Nate hard to know whether you are just ignorant or garden variety
anti-Semitic in your reflexive vilification of Israel.

However, according to the US Navy Web Site
(http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm), none of his major
attacks were directly against Israel and only one was against an
obvious "Jewish" target. Most of his attacks were against European and
US targets plus some against rivals in the PLO terrorist group. Also
he was directly supported by Iraq and lived there until his death in
200 (which by the way is after Sept 11, 2001 and supports the
contention that Iraq continued to support terrorism even after the
watershed events of Sept 11).

Here are some quotes from the Navy website.
--------

Activities
The ANO has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or
injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the United States, the
United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and
various Arab countries. Major attacks included the Rome and Vienna
airports in 1985, the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul, the hijacking
of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi in 1986, and the City of Poros
day-excursion ship attack in Greece in 1988. The ANO is suspected of
assassinating PLO deputy chief Abu Iyad and PLO security chief Abu Hul
in Tunis in 1991. The ANO assassinated a Jordanian diplomat in Lebanon
in 1994 and has been linked to the killing of the PLO representative
there. The group has not staged a major attack against Western targets
since the late 1980s.

Strength
Few hundred plus limited overseas support structure.

Location/Area of Operation
Al-Banna relocated to Iraq in December 1998, where the group maintains
a Al-Banna relocated to Iraq in December 1998 where the group
maintained a presence until Operation Iraqi Freedom, but its current
status in country is unknown. Known members have an operational
presence in Lebanon, including in several Palestinian refugee
camps. Authorities shut down the ANOs operations in Libya and Egypt
in 1999. The group has demonstrated the ability to operate over a wide
area, including the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. However, financial
problems and internal disorganization have greatly reduced the groups
activities and its ability to maintain cohesive terrorist capability.

External Aid
The ANO received considerable support, including safe haven, training,
logistical assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria
(until 1987), in addition to close support for selected operations.

Nate Perkins writes:

You've also made the claim that it was a terrorist base under Saddam.
You will have a hard time finding evidence for sponsorship of any
terrorism beyond anti-Israeli causes.

What would I consider acceptable evidence? Hmm. An official government
report. An official CIA report. A military intelligence report. A
report by an outside country; e.g. Interpol, the UN, etc. An article
describing specifics from a major news outlet. An online article
describing the evidence, from a site that is not a blog. Probably many
others.

What I wouldn't consider to be acceptable evidence are unsubstantiated
or vague statements from administration officials.

Well, the US Navy Web site that I quoted in my earlier post clearly
says that Iraq supported and hosted Abu Nidal until 2002 (i.e. after
Sept 11). Also, that website makes clear that while the group may be
ethnically Palestinian there targets extended to 20 countries many of
who are not even supporters of Israel. US interests appear to have
been the object of many of his attacks.

Now of course in your own twisted anti-Semitic views, it would be hard
to say that there is never an Israeli connection since we have already
established that:
A. The vast majority of modern day terrorist acts
(i.e. acts deliberately targeting civilians for death without
any legitimate defensive or military purpose) are
committed by extremist Muslims
B. Most extremist Muslims hate Israel
So of course any connection of terrorism to Iraq will always have at
least some collateral anti-Israel venom.

Rick Cook writes:

Since most terrorist groups include hatred for Israel among their
motivations, you can use that excuse to ignore virtually all terrorist
activity in the modern world.

It gets better... Bigoted anti-Semites like Nate Perkins see the world
this way:
1. If the terrorist group has Israel on its list of enemies, than
obviously it is Israel's fault

2. If by some miracle, there is a terrorist out there who doesn't
hate Israel, then the Mossad (and Israel) must be behind the
terrorist so again Israel is at fault.

So Israel is really in a catch-22. Either it is the victim of
terrorism and therefore at fault or if not the victim than obviously
it must be the colluder (witness the anti-Semitic libels that the Mossad
was behind 9/11 or that Jews knew about it in advance and stayed away).

Such is the twisted mind of the anti-Zionist, which is just
anti-Semitism with a twist. For the old European anti-Semitic canards
similarly put the Jew in a similar catch-22:
1. If a Jew was poor and downtrodden then he was a burden to
society and not fit for living.
2. If a Jew was wealthy and comfortable then he was obviously a
parasite on society and not fit for living.

However, for low life like Nate, calling yourself anti-Zionist sounds a
bit less crass than admitting to the same 2 thousand year old disease of
anti-Semitism that his relatives brought him up in. You can't teach an
old dog new tricks...

In article , says...
It gets better... Bigoted anti-Semites like Nate Perkins see the world
this way:

Apparently your thesis is that "anti-Israel" equals "anti-Semite".
Strange, since there are more people of semitic ancestry in Arab
countries than there are in Israel.

Me, I'm an equal opportunity anti-fanatic - Jew or Muslim. Let'en kill
each other, just leave us out of it.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

blueman wrote in
:

Nate Perkins writes:
Abu Nidal was a threat to Israel primarily. I don't think we ought
to be in the business of fighting wars by proxy for Israel.

Nate hard to know whether you are just ignorant or garden variety
anti-Semitic in your reflexive vilification of Israel.

I think your reply is a little out of date. The message you are quoting
out of context is about six months old.

A while back I finally figured out that debating politics in a woodworking
newsgroup is absolutely pointless. You want to debate baptism, or London
terrorism, or Iraq, supply side economics, or insult whoever by calling
them an anti-Semite ... then debate yourself. I'll be ignoring ya.