Searching \ for '[OT] London subway and bus bombings 9 am London ti' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=london+subway+bus
Search entire site for: 'London subway and bus bombings 9 am London ti'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] London subway and bus bombings 9 am London ti'
2005\07\07@070655 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Sumimasen.

9am UK time, 0800 GMT bombs were exploded on several London trains and
buses*.
Reports variable and sketchy at this stage. Some suggestions of 90 odd
dead in 1 train, plus bus casualties but reports inconsistent.
Presumably aimed at making people think thrice about attending the
Olympics in due course, but at this stage that's far from certain.

It'll be all through the news shortly no doubt - the point of posting
this is to direct the attention of people who may feel they can be
useful in some capacity or other at this early stage.

I'm sure the admin don't want a wide ranging discussion on the larger
issues (alas) but I imagine expressions of concern may be valid.
Whatever's happened, there are going to be sad, dead, injured,
bereaved, shocked and more people. The great hope is that this does
not cause the UK authorities to go into total paranoia mode and vastly
restrict the freedoms of their own citizens in an attempt to protect
them from a relatively futile threat. Thoughts, prayers or whatever
well appreciated I'm sure.

Please excuse the source - it's not meant to be inflammatory or even
ironic - just the best report easily to hand at present.

       http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/812224C7-006D-4424-B15B-EC3E8381A4D7.htm



       RM


* Other causes have been suggested but the odds of this being other
than a cowardly terrorist action are minimal.


2005\07\07@071850 by Mark Abbott

flavicon
face
So far only 2 confirmed deaths. One of these "possibly" a suicide bomber
suggesting an Al-Quaida attack timed to coincide with the G8 Summit.

Regards
Mark in the UK.

{Original Message removed}

2005\07\07@075614 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face
"A terror group linked to al Qaeda has claimed it carried out a series of terror attacks on London that have left a number of people dead and hundreds injured."

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1188265,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659093.stm

Regards

Mike (in the UK but well away from London)

>{Original Message removed}

2005\07\07@081518 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:55:40 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:

> 9am UK time, 0800 GMT bombs were exploded on several London trains and
> buses*.
> Reports variable and sketchy at this stage. Some suggestions of 90 odd
> dead in 1 train, plus bus casualties but reports inconsistent.

It was originally said to be a power surge on the Underground (which could have caused motors or other
components to explode) but about an hour afterwards a bus exploded (top deck completely destroyed), which was
obviously nothing to do with a power surge and indicated that there was a concerted attack underway.  It looks
something like the style of the Madrid attacks a while ago.

I've checked with my siblings and neither was travelling to London today, although some colleagues of my
sister were doing so, but their train was stopped en route.  If anyone sees photos showing Aldgate station,
about three years ago I used to travel there every day, and my desk was about 50 yards away on the other side
of the road, with a view of that station entrance.  I don't work in London any more, and I'm at home about 20
miles away.  But it brings it home how easily one could be involved in something like this.

My thoughts and best wishes go to the victims and their families.


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\07\07@102458 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I've checked with my siblings and neither was travelling to London
> today, although some colleagues of my
> sister were doing so, but their train was stopped en route.  If
> anyone sees photos showing Aldgate station,
> about three years ago I used to travel there every day, and my desk
> was about 50 yards away on the other side
> of the road, with a view of that station entrance.  I don't work in
> London any more, and I'm at home about 20
> miles away.  But it brings it home how easily one could be involved
> in something like this.
>
> My thoughts and best wishes go to the victims and their families.

I have friends who are safe but stuck in town by the train stoppage. A
very acceptable price to pay for being alive and well.

The sad thing is what is liable to come from this. While you can't
just let such people (whoever they are) act freely, the likely impact
is liable to be totally disproportionate to the damage done. Say there
were 100 deaths (and hopefully it's really more like the 3 or 4
reported so far). UK deaths per annum is about 600,000. So 100 would
be 1/6000 th or under 0.02% of the deaths in that year. While 100
deaths is absolutely unacceptable, people could easily reduce risks at
this level in many areas of their lives by taking sensible and minor
action. While the fear of being suddenly subject to force majeur of
this nature tends to be a psychologicaly daunting one (which is why it
tends to work) the danger to the average individual is in fact truly
trivial. Even if we considered only the central London, and guaranteed
an attack of this scale every year it would increase risk of death in
any given year by well under 1%. Not a nice feeling to live under such
a threat BUT one could still easily increase one's prospects of living
by a greater amount without much effort in other areas. Alas, the
human mind tends not to work that way and the terrorists have a
disproportionately long lever to do their work with.



       RM

2005\07\07@110811 by Shawn Tan Ser Ngiap

flavicon
face
On Thursday 07 July 2005 15:19, Russell McMahon wrote:
> were 100 deaths (and hopefully it's really more like the 3 or 4
> reported so far). UK deaths per annum is about 600,000. So 100 would

Latest numbers are 33, and an unknown number on the bus...

--
with metta,
Shawn Tan

2005\07\07@111633 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

I guess many of areas that you suggest that risks could be reduced are e.g. road deaths, public transport accidents etc.  These are risks that generaly people understand and knowingly expose themselves to everyday.  The trouble with terrorism, that despite that fact that the risks may be small, people are (understandably) very unwilling to be exposed to such risks if there is no perceived benefit.  Of course the benefit will only be recognised after it has been taken away, the relative freedom to travel without oppresive surveilance, ID cards etc.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2005\07\07@151553 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> From: piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu
> [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Rigby-Jones
>
> I guess many of areas that you suggest that risks could be
> reduced are e.g. road deaths, public transport accidents etc.
>  These are risks that generaly people understand and
> knowingly expose themselves to everyday.  The trouble with
> terrorism, that despite that fact that the risks may be
> small, people are (understandably) very unwilling to be
> exposed to such risks if there is no perceived benefit.  Of
> course the benefit will only be recognised after it has been
> taken away, the relative freedom to travel without oppresive
> surveilance, ID cards etc.

Very well said.

Another part of the problem is the difference between cold hard logic and
numbers and the human fault of emotion. People will react to what is new or
surprising disproportionately. Sort of the "deer in the headlights" thing.
And the nature of that is exploited by the news media (not that I'm blaming
them) when they decide what to report. So everybody knows not only about
terrorist attacks like this, but also when ever a jet crashes. It's "news"
when a plane crashes precisely because it doesn't happen every day, where
your neighbor down the street getting killed in a car accident is only known
to a few because it happens so often.

About 60,000 die every year on the roads in the USA. About the same number
that died (on the US side) in Viet Nam over the 7 or so years of the "police
action." And "only" 3,000 died in 911. A drop in the bucket compared to the
toll Ford and Firestone alone have taken.
http://www.massmind.org/techref/other/911.htm

People talk about how horrible it must be to have been in a war, and I can
tell you it is... And I had it easy.
www.massmind.org/techref/other/incompetence.htm
But it is also something you can get used to. Soldiers go through phases;
like the "am I going to kill him or is he going to kill me?" phase at the
beginning. The ones that make it past that one go on to other phases like
"am I going to be afraid every minute of the rest of my time here?" And the
amazing thing is that they stop being afraid. It becomes normal, accepted.
Go read "Catch 22" or rent the movie. Yossarian never accepts it and that
sets up the conflict in the story.

And when you meet the children who grew up in a war zone, they have
absolutely no concept that life could be otherwise. You can NOT believe what
it is like to hear a little 8 year old girl matter of factly describe how
her brother was selected to be a suicide bomber and how, yeah, she misses
playing with him, but now she doesn't have to share a room. See:
http://www.massmind.org/techref/other/peace.htm under the text "Lalo says:"

Then I come home and hear television commercials with kids talking matter of
factly about automotive accidents... "Mom broke the car" and they go on
about how everyone lived because it was a... Whatever the hell brand it was.
And my kids don't understand why I have to change the channel.


I guess I needed to write that... It always hurts really bad before it feels
ok again when something has been waiting to come out.


What really pisses me off is how the government uses the fear of the people
to control us. In the USA, we don't have MEN and WOMEN anymore, we have
Sheeple. Like people but actually sheep. No resolve. No... What do you Brits
call it? "Stiff upper lip"? Frightened, coddled children who beg for more
toys and never grow up and face the world.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/sheep_20001214.html <- Well worth reading.

I hope the British people devote themselves to hunting down and killing the
bastards who planted those bombs, but also not let it change them. Get on
with life. Face the facts and deal with it. Decide that the other guy is the
one who will die, and that you will NOT LIVE IN FEAR. We already have our
Patriot act... It's too late for us.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

Go look in Israel. Watch the mothers send their children off to school in
the morning with a lunch box, and another little box... With a gas mask in
it. And if you ask mom how she can do that she will tell you simply "We will
not allow them to win"

Having said all that, I should probably temper it with some mention of Mark
Twains finest work: The War Prayer. A collection of words so powerful that
it frightened even the author himself; he would not allow it to be published
until after his death.
http://www.massmind.org/techref/other/stories/mtwp.htm

And perhaps there is some hope... If we own our guilt and do something about
it. I'll leave it with that and get back to work...
http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/guilt.htm

---
James.


P.S. I sent this via BCC to my "Friends" list and I had recently added some
people to that list. If you don't want to receive "rants" like this from me
in the future, please just say so and I will respect that request.


2005\07\07@155734 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
I liked most of what James said, more or less.
But ...

> Having said all that, I should probably temper it with some mention
> of Mark
> Twains finest work: The War Prayer. A collection of words so
> powerful that
> it frightened even the author himself; he would not allow it to be
> published
> until after his death.
> http://www.massmind.org/techref/other/stories/mtwp.htm

I find this over-rated. Yes, it has some impact and some merit, but
you can pick too many holes in its arguments. The arguments for and
against war are seldom black and white, or zero sum games, where one
party's benefit is another's loss. I feel that, by trivialising the
arguments, Clemens does the subject a disservice. He was capable of
better than this.


       RM

2005\07\07@160912 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
> ---
> James.
>
> > P.S. I sent this via BCC to my "Friends" list and I had recently added
> > some
> people to that list. If you don't want to receive "rants" like this from
> me
> in the future, please just say so and I will respect that request.

I personally don't mind this sort of thing on the List, and I don't
understand people who get all worked up about Russell's [WOT] posts. You
don't have to read them if you don't want to - just mark the whole thread as
"read" and move on.

Having said that, I think James is being hypocritical. He is free to discuss
controversial topics - politics, war, even religion - while others get
"moderated" for doing exactly the same thing.

There has to be either consistency in enforcing the rules without exception,
or fairness in letting others express their views.

Regards,

Vitaliy

2005\07\07@162444 by Mike Hord

picon face
> Having said that, I think James is being hypocritical. He is free to discuss
> controversial topics - politics, war, even religion - while others get
> "moderated" for doing exactly the same thing.
>
> There has to be either consistency in enforcing the rules without exception,
> or fairness in letting others express their views.

As James will no doubt point out, it's his prerogative as list moderator
(in chief?  AIUI, he is) to say what he pleases, and to stop anyone else
saying what they please.

Frankly I'm impressed by his conduct.  "Benevolent dictatorship", as it
were, and he's done a much better job at the "benevolent" portion than
most in positions of power.

Mike H.

2005\07\07@164659 by Debbie

flavicon
face
--- James Newtons Massmind <EraseMEjamesnewtonspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmassmind.org> wrote:
>People talk about how horrible it must be to have been in a war, and I can
>tell you it is... And I had it easy.
>http://www.massmind.org/techref/other/incompetence.htm

Well said James but maybe it'd add a little perspective if folks in Western
countries remembered that many 3rd world countries have suffered massacres like
9/11, & now this subway bombing, regularly for decades at the hands of, mostly,
the US. And we are outraged when, sometimes, they hit back?

>What really pisses me off is how the government uses the fear of the people
>to control us.

I seem to recall one of the US generals in Iraq saying the reason why Saddam
wound up hiding in a hole while Bin Laden is still out there is that millions
of homes in the mid-east would offer OBL safe harbour. Bin Laden predicted that
democracy would not survive in the US after 9/11. He may well be proved right -
as you yourself imply re the Patriot Act. The British police will probably be
able to track down these bastards but you can bet that self serving politicians
will use the atrocity to drastically expand government surveillance of and
power over the People. After all, it's not terrorists governments are afraid of
- it's The People.

Hey, don't think I'm trying to single out the US, in particular. Other
democracit Western countries are perfectly willing to resort to terrorism when
it suits them and they figure they can get away with it. Yesterday, the day of
these London bombings, was ironically(?) a certain anniversary :-
www.greenpeace.org/international/rainbow-warrior-bombing/
Debbie


       

       
               
____________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Try Yahoo! Photomail Beta: Send up to 300 photos in one email!
http://au.photomail.mail.yahoo.com

2005\07\07@164941 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Having said that, I think James is being hypocritical. He is
> free to discuss
> controversial topics - politics, war, even religion - while
> others get
> "moderated" for doing exactly the same thing.

I think I might agree with you Vitaliy, but I would love to see more
such 'hypocrits' that devote a compareable amount of effort to the
piclist!

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\07\07@170148 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
> Having said that, I think James is being hypocritical. He is
> free to discuss controversial topics - politics, war, even
> religion - while others get "moderated" for doing exactly the
> same thing.
>
> There has to be either consistency in enforcing the rules
> without exception, or fairness in letting others express their views.


You may be surprised to hear that I agree and I feel badly at having sent
that sort of thing to the list in the past, and to some degree now.

I do use the fact that I can't keep my mouth shut to temper my handling of
others who share the weakness...

I do wish, however, that people would contact me OFF list if they have a
problem with what I do ... *cough*

And a lot of what I said is NOT politics or religion or "the unknowable" I
really don't have a problem with people discussing somewhat controversial
issues as long as they stick to knowable, proven, verifiable facts and
logical reasoning derived from that. I do realize that parts of what I said
are perhaps questionable, but I think there is some value in the bulk of it.

But I will try to be less the hypocrite in the future... Thanks for calling
me on it.

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
jamesnewtonspamspam_OUTpiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com



2005\07\07@173218 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
I think it was Alan Watts who talked about war in this way.  He talked about "human" emotions like greed and wars fought for greed.  The people invade, kill the men necessary to win, and then go home with their women and possessions.  

Now compare that with a war fought based on abstract ideas and principals such as "greed" or "democracy" or "morality" or any religion.  Compare the outcome:  they go in and kill women, men and children, burn the forests and houses and buildings and destroy everything. Litter the land with mines.  WMD's. How many times have you heard someone say, "Nuke the place into a parking lot."  

Listen to those beating the drums of war.  Are they trying to sucker you in by using words like "freedom" "liberty" "patriotism", words that cannot be defined, or are they being "honest" with you, saying, "They got oil (or other valuable stuff), we want it, let's go take their shit!"  

Listen to Bush and Blair (especially Bush) and the abstract nouns they use.  I don't mean to promote one side or the other, I mean only to say people can look at these things logically.  

I only ask the questions to try to understand.



{Original Message removed}

2005\07\07@174413 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
I think quite humbly, that this list is made up of a lot of really smart people who understand how things work... Like I would think of a college physics or EE professor.  (-:

I think their opinion is of great value in some circumstances.

IMHO, James just tries to stop discussions that go outside of that realm, like religion or politics, and especially when feeling can get hot one way or the other.  
James just pointed out things, potential discrepancies in ways of thinking.  He didn't promote any way of thinking or philosophy other than "think for yourself".  
Joseph Heller's logic in Catch-22 is logical at its best.  (-:  That is fiction while _Gödel, Escher, Bach_ isn't.    
{Original Message removed}

2005\07\07@174617 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
My bad.  I meant:

Now compare that with a war fought based on abstract ideas and principals such as "freedom" or "democracy" or "morality" or any religion.

-----Original Message-----

...

Now compare that with a war fought based on abstract ideas and principals such as "greed" or "democracy" or "morality" or any religion.  Compare the outcome:  they go in and kill women, men and children, burn the forests and houses and buildings and destroy everything. Litter the land with mines.  WMD's. How many times have you heard someone say, "Nuke the place into a parking lot."  



2005\07\07@184320 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
> I think I might agree with you Vitaliy, but I would love to see more
> such 'hypocrits' that devote a compareable amount of effort to the
> piclist!
>
> Wouter van Ooijen

> As James will no doubt point out, it's his prerogative as list moderator
> (in chief?  AIUI, he is) to say what he pleases, and to stop anyone else
> saying what they please.
>
> Frankly I'm impressed by his conduct.  "Benevolent dictatorship", as it
> were, and he's done a much better job at the "benevolent" portion than
> most in positions of power.
>
> Mike H.

I agree (in general) with both statements, and I truly appreciate what James
does (seriously - Thank You, James).

However, based on James's posts, I think he believes in democracy and
personal freedoms as much as anyone on this list, and I commend him for
admitting that perhaps he was, maybe, doing something contrary to his
beliefs.

I almost feel I shouldn't have replied in the first place, but as James put
it:

> I guess I needed to write that... It always hurts really bad before it
> feels
> ok again when something has been waiting to come out.

;)

I will try to do a better job of fighting the temptation to contribute to
topics of little "practical" value.

Best regards,

Vitaliy

2005\07\07@190712 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> I liked most of what James said, more or less.
> But ...
>
>> Having said all that, I should probably temper it with some mention of
>> Mark
>> Twains finest work: The War Prayer. A collection of words so powerful
>> that
>> it frightened even the author himself; he would not allow it to be
>> published
>> until after his death.
>> www.massmind.org/techref/other/stories/mtwp.htm
>
>
> I find this over-rated. Yes, it has some impact and some merit, but you
> can pick too many holes in its arguments. The arguments for and against
> war are seldom black and white, or zero sum games, where one party's
> benefit is another's loss. I feel that, by trivialising the arguments,
> Clemens does the subject a disservice. He was capable of better than this.

Clemens did have a knack for writing to the common man, however.  I
think he personally was capable of better, but knew that the masses
would never read it if he wrote it.  Common people can and do read this
poem, just like most of his other works.  Only the lovers of writing or
debate would have read a more "intellectual" version.  Clemens
understood this about his audience.

Nate

2005\07\07@203555 by Peter van Hoof

flavicon
face
> However, based on James's posts, I think he believes in democracy and
> personal freedoms as much as anyone on this list,

That is one of the things bothering me, James seems to believe in democracy

                 But NOT on HIS Piclist


Peter van Hoof

2005\07\07@212450 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
That is actually a really interesting discussion starter...

IF the bulk of the PICList membership decided that I was a crappy admin...

And they called for me to be removed... (any admin can do that BTW, I have
absolutely no way to stop it, or you could complain to MIT, etc... There are
ways to get rid of me just as there are ways to get rid of any leader)

Then wouldn't it be a democracy?

The problem comes when a few make decisions for the majority. Then it
becomes a dictatorship or... Err... Oligarchy? What is that word? Rule of
the masses by a few.

Now, if the bulk of the people let a few people or one person get away with
making decision for them, haven't they just voted those few or one into
power?

There is ONLY one form of government: Democracy. All the others are
democracies where the rulers have abdicated.

Come be an admin Peter... Then it will be YOUR PICList... Really...

I try to listen and enforce the will of the bulk of the members. If I have
any power, I'm sure it corrupts me to that degree, so I make mistakes and I
see things though what ever color my glasses are. I depend on people letting
me know when I've been a dick.

But I am a little concerned by your allegation that I think of the PICList
as "mine" Have I ever referred to the list as my property? If so, I hope it
was in the sense that "who can destroy a thing, owns a thing" (any admin can
delete the list, permanently, really...) or in the sense of "not on my
watch" or "not in my country"

And I would REALLY... REALLY... Appreciate it if people would express any
problem they have with ANY list member OR me.

OFF .....


LIST .....



---
James.



> {Original Message removed}

2005\07\07@212544 by Jinx

face picon face
And so yet another [OT] thread about world affairs turns to crap. Gee,
there's a shocker

> That is one of the things bothering me, James seems to believe in
> democracy
>
>                   But NOT on HIS Piclist

2005\07\07@213527 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
> I agree (in general) with both statements, and I truly
> appreciate what James does (seriously - Thank You, James).


Thank you.

---
James.



2005\07\07@213837 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
> I think I might agree with you Vitaliy, but I would love to
> see more such 'hypocrits' that devote a compareable amount of
> effort to the piclist!
>
> Wouter van Ooijen

Thanks Wouter...

But, in fact, there are lots of people who devote as much or more than I to
the list.

http://www.piclist.com/support Has the current "Hall of Fame" which I seem
to remember has a "Wouter" on it...
Feel free to nominate someone if I've missed any in that list.

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
@spam@jamesnewtonKILLspamspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com



2005\07\07@213935 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face

> Now compare that with a war fought based on abstract ideas and
> principals such as "freedom"* or "democracy" or "morality" or any
> religion.  Compare the outcome:  they go in and kill women, men and
> children, burn the forests and houses and buildings and destroy
> everything. Litter the land with mines.  WMD's. How many times have
> you heard someone say, "Nuke the place into a parking lot."
> (*amended)

   "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
   Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
   Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
   Tempers getting frayed, ...         "

I can see that song coming back into vogue, alas.

Even a "war" fought on abstract principles need not match your
description. This is essentially the complaint that I have re Clemen's
war prayer. You can always set up a 'straw man' and then argue against
it. Reality is usually less simple.

As two examples, which many may not call "wars", partially because
they do NOT match the above simplifications, consider Grenada and
Somalia. Grenada was "fought" over restoration of a democracy (of
soughts) that had been overthrown without use of due process. People
died, although not many. Any is too many, but the age old argument of
"greater good" probably applied more here than most places. Maybe not.

Somalia was about attempting to restore order in a country that
doesn't know, alas, the meaning of the word. (Somewhat like China pre
1930 ish). Especially in the latter case, the US stood to gain very
little indeed from it, apart from the plot for an interesting movie.

Moving on to somewhat more warlike wars, and ones which are more
contentious, Afghanistan, quite apart from 911, cried out to be freed
from vast oppression. There were surely better ways to do things
(armchair vision helps heaps) and many will cry 'vested interest',
quite apart from 911, but if you had to rank oppressors in order of
deserving to have the international World Police come calling, then
the Taliban would have rated highly.

I'll leave the Balkans in general and Kosovo in particular as an
exercise for the student. But do note that the "goodies" there of WW2
are the "baddies" nowadays.

Moving on to a very real (albeit now somewhat dated) war, WW2 was
fought principally over freedom and morality with a good dose of
democracy. There were many other factors of course, and vested
interests abounded. Hitler killed (indirectly of course) about 25% of
all Russians !!!! (not many people know that)(and many don't believe
it)(The very better part of 50 million people!). Without, initially,
UK assistance and later and very importantly, US, they would quite
possibly have been beaten. While some may not see that as having been
such a terrible thing, the % dead would probably have been even
higher.

You'd have to be an especially pure shade of Pacifist to argue against
the general role of the Allies in WW2. I'm not knocking Pacifism -
just noting that few would generally criticise the "moral" and
"freedom" aspects. Arguably the Russians did not fight for general
morality and not for anyone else's freedom, but that's secondary here.
Stalin does tend to skew any argument :-(.



       RM



2005\07\07@215441 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Generally happy in the lonnnnng term, as well I should be, but

>I depend on people letting me know when I've been a dick.

N.A.S.A.


       RM

2005\07\07@222221 by Peter van Hoof

flavicon
face
N.A.S.A = Nice And Safe Attitude (UK)???

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell McMahon" <KILLspamapptechKILLspamspamparadise.net.nz>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTspammit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] London subway and bus bombings 9 am London time


> Generally happy in the lonnnnng term, as well I should be, but
>
>>I depend on people letting me know when I've been a dick.
>
> N.A.S.A.
>
>
>        RM
> --

2005\07\07@230355 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> N.A.S.A = Nice And Safe Attitude (UK)???
Not in this instance. Specifically so :-)

   R

>> Generally happy in the lonnnnng term, as well I should be, but
>>
>>>I depend on people letting me know when I've been a dick.
>>
>> N.A.S.A.
>>
>>
>>        RM

2005\07\07@230757 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> [spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu] On Behalf Of Russell McMahon
>
> Generally happy in the lonnnnng term, as well I should be, but

Good, I'll say your welcome...

> >I depend on people letting me know when I've been a dick.
>
> N.A.S.A.


GRIN. Offlist please.

---
James.



2005\07\08@023821 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> But, in fact, there are lots of people who devote as much or
> more than I to the list.

I know, but you are the most public figure among the admins. Always take
my post through an 1,$s/James/all admins/g filter :)

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\07\08@023822 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> The problem comes when a few make decisions for the majority. Then it
> becomes a dictatorship or... Err... Oligarchy? What is that

Olinchargy?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\07\08@023822 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> That is one of the things bothering me, James seems to
> believe in democracy
>
>                   But NOT on HIS Piclist

I agree with your observation, but definitely not with your bothering.
BTW there is democracy, not within the piclist but you can vote with
your feet. That might seem a feeble way of voting but it is what brought
the berlin wall down.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\07\08@024308 by Electron

flavicon
face
At 07.31 2005.07.08 +0300, you wrote:
>On 7/7/05, James Newtons Massmind <TakeThisOuTjamesnewtonEraseMEspamspam_OUTmassmind.org> wrote:
>> What really pisses me off is how the government uses the fear of the people
>> to control us. In the USA, we don't have MEN and WOMEN anymore, we have
>> Sheeple. Like people but actually sheep. No resolve. No... What do you
>> Brits
>> call it? "Stiff upper lip"? Frightened, coddled children who beg for more
>> toys and never grow up and face the world.
>
>   Interesting. I think your government want to teach you how is to
>live in the comunism. With a 30 yers of experience under comunism you
>have to belive me.

Was it communism in the USSR? Or state-capitalism?

Is Blair really a left-winger (he is supposed to be a Laburist!).

Does Bush represent the interests of his people? and so on..

I think the world is full of impostors that, in the name of something,
do just the opposite.. so they keep both parts quiet. :-)




2005\07\08@032630 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> Hey, don't think I'm trying to single out the US, in
> particular. Other democracit Western countries are perfectly
> willing to resort to terrorism when it suits them and they
> figure they can get away with it. Yesterday, the day of these
> London bombings, was ironically(?) a certain anniversary :-
> www.greenpeace.org/international/rainbow-warrior-bombing/
> Debbie

My wife was just telling me about that... Amazing... I can see the issue
from both sides but I had no idea it got that serious.

<WHINE> Can't we all just get along </WHINE>

Guess not huh?

---
James.



2005\07\08@044941 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>Yesterday, the day of these London bombings, was ironically(?)
>> a certain anniversary :-
>>
>> http://www.greenpeace.org/international/rainbow-warrior-bombing/

> My wife was just telling me about that... Amazing... I can see the
> issue
> from both sides but I had no idea it got that serious.

Summary:
Twenty year retrospective. French President sends secret agents /
frogmen by yacht and campervan to bomb and sink Greenpeace boat in
Auckland harbour, not far from where I live.

________________________

Another example of how insular even well educated and knowledgeable
and even intelligent US citizens can (often) be.
You don't, of course, have sole rights to this :-)

The fact that the event is seared forever into my psyche is helped by
the fact that the bombing occurred less than 10 miles from my home.
For those who are unaware of what reads more like a bad movie plot, it
goes something like this. All this is true (or at least my perspective
on the truth).

Greenpeace send their ship "Rainbow Warrior" to protest French Nuclear
testing in the South Pacific. RW stops at Auckland to rally support.
VERY high up French officials decide that GP are a real threat and
decide to sink their boat. One theory is that the bomb was meant to go
off at sea so the ship would be lost in deep water, but nobody who's
talking knows. French send a team of frogmen by charter yacht from
Noumea to NZ Bay of islands (far North). They bring the identifiably
French made (duh) military issue limpet mine(s).  A man/woman pair of
French special agents posing a s a honeymoon couple enter Nz and hire
a campervan and drive north and collect the hardware. This probably
includes London sold rare and traceable zodiac type craft and military
closed cycle rebreather diving tanks. (duh)(duh)(d ...).
Honeymoon pair drive south and spend a night at a motel owned, as it
happens, by the country's Prime Minister :-).

In Auckland they all meet on waterfront near an area where hundreds of
yachts are moored in a bay amongst breakwaters etc. An ideal spot away
from prying eyes. They think. Unbeknown to them the yachties run a
watching system to help stop theft from yachts. A quiet pair of hidden
men note van number plate details etc. Froggie-men take their zodiac,
on their rebreathers and head for the RW parked about a mile away.
They attach a two (at least) limpet mines with delay fuses and leave.
Returning to their van they sink their identifiable special zodiac in
a backwater (duh) and abandon their military rebreather tanks in same
backwater. Exit stage right they hope. Frogmen head north to yacht and
honeymoon couple elope.

Bomb explodes with ship at wharf with crew aboard. Boat sinks rapidly
at wharf. Greenpeace photographer realises his more valuable than life
cameras are below and goes back for them. Second bomb goes off and he
dies. Now its murder.

Due to dark watching men police promptly catch honeymoon secret agent
couple. Yachties flee north. NZ sends detectives to interview them but
due process does not allow them to be arrested and they vanish into
the Pacific Ocean stage north. As does their yacht. The Ovea???. It
never returns to the hire company. Somewhere north of NZ the French
reclaim their own and the yacht vanishes forever. Some may have hoped
that a NZ frigate saw justice done but frogmen in due course surface
to be awarded high state honours for services rendered by the French
govt.

Honeymoon couple are put on trial for murder in elaborate high profile
multimillion dollar security to prevent either NZers, Greenpeaceans or
the French cleaners putting matters to rest.

After much expectation on day one couple plead guilty in exchange for
a truly wimpy sentence and it's all a great fizzer. public trotting
out of details not wanted by the French. Soon after sentence begins
French government lean very very heavily in public and obviously in
private to have sentences served instead on a French Atoll in sth
pacific (aka club med military division). Trade sanctions and more,
which the French have always been good at persuading the rest of
Europe to impose on NZ goods imported to Europe are just one of the
threats. NZ govt goes belly up and agrees. Agents exit for pacific
holiday. In no time flat lady agent becomes pregnant (presumably
husband has been allowed to visit) and is repatriated to grateful for
services rendered mother France for compelling medical reasons. (yeah
right). male agent soon follows. Not pregnant as far as I know. NZ
looks totally silly, justice is not done or seen to be done, French
rub everyone's noses in it and business continues as usual. Some sort
of compensation details are worked out but neither this or any apology
that may or may not have been made are blazoned far enough afield to
catch my eye.

70 miles odd from Auckland at the bottom of the Firth of Thames the
Godwits gather before flying north to Siberia for our winter. Many
other wading and mud loving birds also gather on the mudflats to rest
and feed. The medium sized town of Thames nestles at the bottom of the
Firth. On the foreshore there is a Spartan but well thought out bird
hide with a raised wooden walkway where one can go and watch the
wading birds and take photos and eat your lunch and even sleep the
night if brave. A plaque on the wall says it was paid for by
compensation money from the Rainbow Warrior. Not many people know
that.

In due course the Prime Minister sold his motel. he advertised it as
having been frequented by famous international clients :-).

It's 20 years but somehow the gross injustice, arrogant effrontery and
sheer not rightness of it all has left a scar in my psyche, and I'm
sure many others, that colours any first reaction I have to many
things French. I know it was high up arrogant officialdom (including
the then President who was utterly a power unto himself) who wrought
this deed, but it is still surprisingly hard to be rid of it's marks.
A decent known about, obvious, sincere, public apology would, I think,
somewhat to my surprise, go some way towards setting things right.




       RM










2005\07\08@132618 by Peter

picon face


On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Peter van Hoof wrote:

>> However, based on James's posts, I think he believes in democracy and
>> personal freedoms as much as anyone on this list,
>
> That is one of the things bothering me, James seems to believe in democracy
>
>                 But NOT on HIS Piclist

Democracy is defined as the power of the people. Considering whence it
comes from (Ancient Greek slave-holding State-Cities) the 'people' do
not necessarily mean what you think ;-)

Peter

2005\07\08@135902 by Mike Hord

picon face
> >> However, based on James's posts, I think he believes in democracy and
> >> personal freedoms as much as anyone on this list,
> >
> > That is one of the things bothering me, James seems to believe in democracy
> >
> >                 But NOT on HIS Piclist
>
> Democracy is defined as the power of the people. Considering whence it
> comes from (Ancient Greek slave-holding State-Cities) the 'people' do
> not necessarily mean what you think ;-)

I've heard it argued (and I agree) that all civilizations are at heart
democratic.
Power only exists with the consent of the ruled.

If you disagree, see the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the
Boxer Rebellion, the Bolshevik Revolution, and many, many others.

Mike H.

2005\07\08@144215 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 08:26 PM 7/8/2005 +0300, you wrote:


>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Peter van Hoof wrote:
>
>>>However, based on James's posts, I think he believes in democracy and
>>>personal freedoms as much as anyone on this list,
>>
>>That is one of the things bothering me, James seems to believe in democracy
>>
>>                 But NOT on HIS Piclist
>
>Democracy is defined as the power of the people. Considering whence it
>comes from (Ancient Greek slave-holding State-Cities) the 'people' do not
>necessarily mean what you think ;-)
>
>Peter

Women were not considered to be "persons" universally (federally, and for
all purposes) in Canada until the late 1920s (in a ruling by the British
Privy Council, highest court in the British empire at the time).

There's a nice monument to the "Famous Five" (women) who pursued the cause
(to be allowed to serve as Senators) that's recently been installed on
Parliament Hill.

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/04/042413/images/0424130102.jpg

In the US it was ratified as a constitutional amendment in 1920.

Now Canada has a female Governor General (of Chinese-HK origin), and 1/3 of
Senators are women, so times have certainly changed!

But not all males could vote before that. Here's the history in Britain:

http://www.britainusa.com/faq/showfaq.asp?SID=408

Only a hundred years or so ago, only a fraction of the UK population was
eligible to vote (male property holders).

And in Afghanistan, women didn't first get voting rights until 1964...

>Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
RemoveMEspeffspamTakeThisOuTinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->> Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2005\07\08@152844 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:26 AM, Peter wrote:

>> James seems to believe in democracy
>>
>>                 But NOT on HIS Piclist
>
> Democracy is defined as the power of the people.

Hmm.  PICList is a "representative democracy", not so dissimilar from
most
actual countries claiming to be democracies.  We put James (et al) in
charge, and for the most part are happy to let him make the day-to-day
decisions and solve the problems.  Occasionally he steps over some line
and there is grumbling from some segment of the "populace."  Overall, I
think his "approval rating" is probably higher than most recent US
presidents... :-)

Olin, OTOH, has achieved "Bush" status occasionally, with nearly half
the population on each side of "helpful expert" vs "annoying and nasty"
debate.  Democracy in general seems to be less than ideal when the
vote gets too even...

BillW

2005\07\08@172759 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:48:10 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

> Women were not considered to be "persons" universally (federally, and for
> all purposes) in Canada until the late 1920s (in a ruling by the British
> Privy Council, highest court in the British empire at the time).

That's odd, because I believe women in Britain got the vote in 1917.

Quick Quiz:  Which country was the first to give women the vote?...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer:

New Zealand, in 1893 !

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\07\08@183347 by Carey Fisher - NCS

face picon face


  > > Democracy is defined as the power of the people. Considering
  > whence it
  > > comes from (Ancient Greek slave-holding State-Cities) the 'people' do
  > > not necessarily mean what you think ;-)
  >
  > I've heard it argued (and I agree) that all civilizations are at heart
  > democratic.
  > Power only exists with the consent of the ruled.
  >
  > If you disagree, see the French Revolution, the American
  > Revolution, the
  > Boxer Rebellion, the Bolshevik Revolution, and many, many others.
  >

Pure Democracy, otherwise known as "majority rule" is something
to be mightily feared by people who appreciate individual
freedoms such as we have in the US.  In a democracy, the
majority can vote to take away your right to life, liberty
or the pursuit of happiness.  In a government of law (which
the US mostly still is), this generally doesn't happen due to
safeguards such as the Bill of Rights, three separate but equal
branches of government, etc.

Our form of government, however, doesn't stop such idiocies as
sending large chunks of money to Africa knowing that the corrupt
governments and warlords there will steal most of it and the
people will still starve.  And to top it off, the G8 was discussing
this matter while the (probably) Islamic terrorists were trying to kill
yet some more westerners.  Does the phrase "fiddle while Rome burns"
seem to fit the occasion?


All Your Bucks Are Belong To US Govt

2005\07\08@201514 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Olin, OTOH, has achieved "Bush" status occasionally, with nearly
> half
> the population on each side of "helpful expert" vs "annoying and
> nasty"
> debate.  Democracy in general seems to be less than ideal when the
> vote gets too even...


As with the war prayer, such stark categorisations fail to address
reality.
You have to allow, at leas, a third category of opinion, viz

           "(sometimes) annoying and nasty (often) helpful (usually)
expert"



       R "often annoying ..." M

2005\07\08@201515 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Quick Quiz:  Which country was the first to give women the vote?...

Guilty as charged, here down under, IIRC


       RM

2005\07\08@202000 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
I see that this thread is about to come to a sad and untimely end.
While it walks the path of discussing humanity, inhumanity and the
like it has a chance of living.
It's now turning to genuine politics and genuine religion. While such
matters may have merit. they are not allowed here and will surely
cause the thread to die.

That said,

> Pure Democracy, otherwise known as "majority rule" is something
> to be mightily feared by people who appreciate individual
> freedoms such as we have in the US.  In a democracy, the
> majority can vote to take away your right to life, liberty
> or the pursuit of happiness.  In a government of law (which
> the US mostly still is), this generally doesn't happen due to
> safeguards such as the Bill of Rights, three separate but equal
> branches of government, etc.

"Pure" democracies can institute rules which require more than
majority consent to change them and which are binding on the majority.
The US constitution is one such arrangement. It can be and has been
changed, for better or 9sometimes) worse.

> Our form of government, however, doesn't stop such idiocies as
> sending large chunks of money to Africa knowing that the corrupt
> governments and warlords there will steal most of it and the
> people will still starve.

While there are always great duifficulties in tagetting 'aid" , you
may or may not be aware that the G8 discussions on debt relief
addressed only those countries which could show good governance. Thos
where corruption is endemic were specifcally excluded. For some reason
Nigeria comes to mind as an example of the latter :-).

> And to top it off, the G8 was discussing
> this matter while the (probably) Islamic terrorists were trying to
> kill
> yet some more westerners.

Africa, or at least large portions of Africa are not predominantly
Muslim. In fact, some of the most needy areas in Africa are
predominantly Christian, fwiw.

> Does the phrase "fiddle while Rome burns"
> seem to fit the occasion?

No. But, as always, extremeprudence is in order.



       RM

>
>
> All Your Bucks Are Belong To US Govt
>
> --

2005\07\09@045819 by Electron

flavicon
face

>Quick Quiz:  Which country was the first to give women the vote?...
>.
>.
>.
>.
>Answer:
>
>New Zealand, in 1893 !

Oh my God.. that explains a lot of things!!


[ joking =) ]




2005\07\09@062358 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
Finland came in second.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspammit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Winter
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 23:28
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] London subway and bus bombings 9 am London time

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:48:10 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

> Women were not considered to be "persons" universally (federally, and for
> all purposes) in Canada until the late 1920s (in a ruling by the British
> Privy Council, highest court in the British empire at the time).

That's odd, because I believe women in Britain got the vote in 1917.

Quick Quiz:  Which country was the first to give women the vote?...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer:

New Zealand, in 1893 !

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\07\09@135346 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Carey Fisher - NCS wrote:

> Pure Democracy, otherwise known as "majority rule" is something to be
> mightily feared by people who appreciate individual freedoms such as we
> have in the US.  In a democracy, the majority can vote to take away your
> right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  In a government of
> law (which the US mostly still is), this generally doesn't happen due to
> safeguards such as the Bill of Rights, three separate but equal branches
> of government, etc.

When a US-American citizen affirms that the USA is not a democracy and that
democracy is something bad, almost evil, I always wonder why it is then
that the USA has gone to Iraq to bring democracy to the region. (According
to the president at least, that's the reason.)

Is this a sinister plot by the government to make them take away even the
few individual freedoms they have there? Is this the "hidden" agenda? Do we
need to consider this definition of "democracy" when listening to the
president, to understand what he is really talking about? :)

Gerhard

2005\07\09@135823 by Peter

picon face

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Mike Hord wrote:

> I've heard it argued (and I agree) that all civilizations are at heart
> democratic. Power only exists with the consent of the ruled.

When the ruled to not agree with power in a consistent and open manner
you have something called anarchy. A civil war comes pretty close.

Anyway the current sense of the word democracy does not coincide with
the old sense, but, sometimes amusingly, the new version seems much more
like the old meaning under everyday circumstances. Just as an example,
the people (de demos) in the ancient version implied only the free
citizens of *one* city, slaves and women not counted. Any modern
parallels are coincidental.

Peter

2005\07\09@143713 by Carey Fisher - NCS

face picon face
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu
  > [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamKILLspammit.edu]On Behalf Of Gerhard Fiedler
  > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 1:54 PM
  > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
  > Subject: Re: [OT] London subway and bus bombings 9 am London time
  >
  >
  > Carey Fisher - NCS wrote:
  >
  > > Pure Democracy, otherwise known as "majority rule" is something to be
  > > mightily feared by people who appreciate individual freedoms
  > such as we
  > > have in the US.  In a democracy, the majority can vote to
  > take away your
  > > right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  In a
  > government of
  > > law (which the US mostly still is), this generally doesn't
  > happen due to
  > > safeguards such as the Bill of Rights, three separate but
  > equal branches
  > > of government, etc.
  >
  > When a US-American citizen affirms that the USA is not a
  > democracy and that
  > democracy is something bad, almost evil, I always wonder why it is then
  > that the USA has gone to Iraq to bring democracy to the
  > region. (According
  > to the president at least, that's the reason.)
  >
  > Is this a sinister plot by the government to make them take
  > away even the
  > few individual freedoms they have there? Is this the "hidden"
  > agenda? Do we
  > need to consider this definition of "democracy" when listening to the
  > president, to understand what he is really talking about? :)
  >
  > Gerhard

You know, I wonder the same thing.  After thinking about it a while,
I think that the "democracy" part the president is referring to is that
the people, through elected representatives, will get to determine the
type of government they ultimately install whether it be a representative
democracy, a republic, a representative theocracy etc. I guess they
could even decide they're more secure under the slavery of a theocratic
or secular dictatorship, but at least we gave them a fighting chance.
You can lead a horse to water...

And the president did say we are bringing democracy to Iraq; but he also
said and I believe that it's important to engage the terrorists "over
there"
so as to lessen the chance of having to engage them here.  We fought
a similar protracted "cold war" against Soviet communism and eventually
won in spite of a world full of naysayers.  It's nice to have a president
that
actually takes action against our enemies.

Not that I agree 100% with Bush.  I'm mighty pissed that our borders are
still wide open and that he hasn't done anything about reducing Federal
spending.

And another thing...  No one brought this up yet but I'm in a mood!!!  This
was not a war for oil.  But, I wouldn't have a problem if it was.  Who
developed the oil fields in the first place?  Do you really think the
middle
east oil field would be pumping like crazy if the Brits and Yanks hadn't
developed them prior to them being "nationalized" (stolen) by the Mid
East countries.  And who put out the fires Saddam set in the oil fields
after the US and the Coalition threw Saddam out of Kuwait and liberated
that country?  "Liberated that country"... hmmm seems to be what the US
is becoming known for.  France, East Germany, the former Soviet states,
Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan.  Maybe Syria, Saudi Arabia and North Korea
are next!




2005\07\09@230129 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
>> Carey Fisher - NCS wrote:
>>
>>> Pure Democracy, otherwise known as "majority rule"

Actually, the point of my reply didn't seem to get through... :)  It was
meant to, in a way, ask where you get this from. Here where I am, "majority
rule" is one form of democracy (that may appear in still different forms),
"representative democracy" is another form of democracy (that may appear in
still different forms), and so on. I'm not quite sure "pure democracy" is a
well-defined term; it's probably as well-defined as "pure <anything>" and
primarily a point of view rather than a generally accepted definition.

Since I'm an ESL programmer (anyone who doesn't know what this is can ask
me about it and I'll tell the story how I learned what it means :), I have
the habit of checking out dictionaries.

Random House Webster's:
de-moc-ra-cy (di mok'ruh see)  n. pl. <-cies>
                 1.  government by the people; a form of
                      government in which the supreme power is
                      vested in the people and exercised
                      directly by them or by their elected
                      agents under a free electoral system.
                 2.  a state having such a form of government.
                 3.  a state of society characterized by
                      formal equality of rights and privileges.
                 4.  political or social equality; democratic
                      spirit.
                 5.  the common people, esp. with respect to
                      their political power.

Seems to me very compatible with representative and direct democracy.

There's also the always helpful Wikipedia, which finally shines some light
on the confusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy :

"The definition of the word 'democracy' from the time of ancient Greece up
to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term 'democracy'
refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or
representative.

"There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional
theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works
of the American "Founding Fathers." According to this usage, the word
'democracy' refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative
democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a
constitution is referred to as a 'republic.' This older terminology retains
some popularity in U.S. conservative and Libertarian debate."


I find the use of this quite old meaning ("historic usages", "Founding
Fathers") extremely confusing -- especially in discussions that go outside
of "U.S. conservative" circles. Come on -- the Founding Fathers did
something quite extraordinary, but language has moved on since then. You're
not a traitor when you say that the USA is a representative democracy. The
added advantage is that you get understood outside of US conservative
circles :)


> You know, I wonder the same thing.  After thinking about it a while, I
> think that the "democracy" part the president is referring to is ...

What I think he's referring to is the contemporary meaning of "democracy",
which includes representative forms. With which he obviously would include
the USA in his list of democracies. (There is a chance that this is the
result of him not being that tainted from reading constitutional
comments... :)  

Gerhard

2005\07\09@235228 by Carey Fisher - NCS

face picon face

  > >> Carey Fisher - NCS wrote:
  > >>
  > >>> Pure Democracy, otherwise known as "majority rule"
  >
  > Actually, the point of my reply didn't seem to get through...
  > :)  It was
  > meant to, in a way, ask where you get this from. Here where I
  > am, "majority
  > rule" is one form of democracy (that may appear in still
  > different forms),
  > "representative democracy" is another form of democracy (that
  > may appear in
  > still different forms), and so on. I'm not quite sure "pure
  > democracy" is a
  > well-defined term; it's probably as well-defined as "pure
  > <anything>" and
  > primarily a point of view rather than a generally accepted definition.
  >
  > Since I'm an ESL programmer (anyone who doesn't know what this

  >
  > Gerhard

Well, the real point is that in a democracy, the majority, whether it be
directly or through representatives, can arbitrarily vote to relieve you of
life, liberty,
property or the pursuit of happiness.  In our country, a republic, (Article
IV,
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union
a republican form of government...) that can't happen except by passing
laws which apply to everyone equally and which can be overturned only by
the Supreme Court on the basis they don't implement the Constitution.
So, you have two important processes in our country - people are treated
by an pre-existing written law, not a vote and all people are treated the
same under the same laws.  This is the "equal protection under the law"
clause of the Constitution - Amendment XIV, Section 1.

All Your Bucks Are Belong to US Govt


2005\07\10@030332 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>   > >> Carey Fisher - NCS wrote:
>   > >>> Pure Democracy, otherwise known as "majority rule"
can deprive ...


{Quote hidden}

You still *seem* to be missing his point and the point. "A Republic"
is a subset of democracy. People in it, largely, have equal rights to
participate in the processes of governance. The protections, in the
republic that you cite, are a result of democratic process and are
only maintained as a consequence of the undergirding democratic
principles. It is also important to note that these protections are a
phantasm, a convenience which has greater or lesser reality depending
on circumstance. A barrier to action whose only real (non-spiritual)
strength lies in the will of the people to have it upheld and to
uphold it. Where those in power wish to take more power to themselves,
more power will be taken, constitution or no (as eg has happened in
the example republic over the last few years) until a point of
resistance is reached where 'we the people' decide things have gone
too far. The much vaunted Supreme Court is both only an expression of
the people's will and also a perversion of it. How great a perversion
and how little an expression depends, again, on the people's
willingness to allow it. ((Entirely as an outside observer, it seems
that they allow it quite a lot in recent times. No doubt my perception
is flawed :-) )).

Democracy is the subset of anarchy where a majority of people are in
broad agreement and agree to formalise their consensus
A Republic is a Democracy established and maintained by bureaucrats.

Somewhat unrelated - but we may as well add it for good measure, since
this thread has the benison of the local higher power, and it's
generally apposite. A libertarian is a person who wants nothing from
government except a strong police force to protect her from her
slaves.



       RM

2005\07\10@115531 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> You still *seem* to be missing his point and the point.

That's my impression, too.

Since we're here on a technical mailing list <g>:

This introduces mathematical concepts in the discussion:

> "A Republic" is a subset of democracy. [...] Democracy is the subset of
> anarchy [...]

And this, in a sense, describes something like a (probably largely
non-linear) low-pass filter:

> The protections, in the republic that you cite, are a result of
> democratic process and are only maintained as a consequence of the
> undergirding democratic principles. It is also important to note that
> these protections are a phantasm, a convenience which has greater or
> lesser reality depending on circumstance. A barrier to action whose only
> real (non-spiritual) strength lies in the will of the people to have it
> upheld and to uphold it.

Things may not wiggle that much that quickly in such a construct, but in
the end they will go wherever the majority will let (or make) them go. This
includes anything from changing or abandoning constitutions to splitting up
countries (or merging them) -- or abandoning the concepts of constitutions
or countries altogether. It's the will of the people...

Gerhard

2005\07\10@121551 by D. Jay Newman
flavicon
face
> You still *seem* to be missing his point and the point. "A Republic"
> is a subset of democracy. People in it, largely, have equal rights to
> participate in the processes of governance. The protections, in the

As I understand it, a republic is a form of government where the
people elect the polititions that govern them.

One of the reasons that this is a popular form of democracy is
that a republic doesn't suffer from the communication problems
of a pure democracy. In other words, you need to get a smaller
group of people together to vote in laws.

In the US our elections are staged for the Senate such that only
one third of the senate may be changed every two years. This gives
us a safety margin in the case of sudden and unusual circumstances.

For example, the legislators are now questioning certain laws such
as the Patriot Act that they passed almost without question after
9/11.

There are many other forms of republic other than the US model.

> on circumstance. A barrier to action whose only real (non-spiritual)
> strength lies in the will of the people to have it upheld and to
> uphold it. Where those in power wish to take more power to themselves,

Yes. And this means that the people have to actually participate in
democratic process. They should at least vote. One thing our last
presidential election did was to bring out the voters. I may have
disagreed with the outcome of the election, but I haven't seen this
number of voters in my lifetime.

> Democracy is the subset of anarchy where a majority of people are in
> broad agreement and agree to formalise their consensus
> A Republic is a Democracy established and maintained by bureaucrats.

If you accept that definition of democracy, then *any* form of
government is a subset of anarchy.

> generally apposite. A libertarian is a person who wants nothing from
> government except a strong police force to protect her from her
> slaves.

I've always wondered why people get that impression of libertarionism.
All the libertarians I know would rather just be left alone by
the government. And as I understand it, the basic tenets of
libertarianism give liberty to *everybody*.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Polititions and civilations come and
RemoveMEjayTakeThisOuTspamspamsprucegrove.com     ! go but the engineers and machinists
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! make progress

2005\07\11@022512 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Carey Fisher - NCS wrote:

> You know, I wonder the same thing.  After thinking about it a while,
>  I think that the "democracy" part the president is referring to is that
>  the people, through elected representatives, will get to determine the
>  type of government they ultimately install whether it be a representative
>  democracy, a republic, a representative theocracy etc. I guess they
>  could even decide they're more secure under the slavery of a theocratic
>  or secular dictatorship, but at least we gave them a fighting chance.
> You can lead a horse to water...

Ahh, you know in your heart that if the people of Iraq really wanted to
re-elect a dictator, our government would never let them.

Actually I don't see us ever leaving anyway, we're building too many
permanent bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Look at the OMB numbers
and see where the money's going.

That's how this Administration works.  Down to their very core -- they
believe that the only way to win in the world is to use military might
to get their way.  They started writing about it late in the Regan era
and into Bush I.

(I'm not arguing for or against this, I'm just pointing out facts:
These guy's tune has never changed since 20 years ago... Rumsfeld and
friends all believe the same things.  There is even reference to "the
need for a Pearl Harbor style attack in order for the American people to
believe this strategy is the correct one" comment in a 1997 document
written by our current Assistant Defense Secretary -- he knew 9/11 had
to happen for his personal beliefs about the need for massive military
power to be justified.  He said so himself.)

> And the president did say we are bringing democracy to Iraq; but he also
>  said and I believe that it's important to engage the terrorists "over
> there"
>  so as to lessen the chance of having to engage them here.  We fought
>  a similar protracted "cold war" against Soviet communism and eventually
>  won in spite of a world full of naysayers.  It's nice to have a president
> that
>  actually takes action against our enemies.

He's given a number of reasons for the war.  Whichever one is convenient
for the occasion and time.

Watch speeches with Veterans vs speeches for Women's groups vs. speeches
for College Kids.

They're all different reasons, and that's how politics is played in
Washington.  Always has been, always will be.

> Not that I agree 100% with Bush.  I'm mighty pissed that our borders are
>  still wide open and that he hasn't done anything about reducing Federal
>  spending.

He can't reduce Federal spending and run a war and build a large number
of overseas bases in unfriendly territory all at the same time.

Why did (do?) people believe he can?  That's 3rd or 4th grade
mathematics right there.  Anyone that can balance a checkbook should get
that one.

(Of course it frightens me that there's a large percentage of our
population here that can NOT balance a checkbook.)

Everyone got all giddy about his "tax cuts" which amounted to about $300
bucks back to the "average working american".  And childless American's
got even less, although it's proven that we're more productive than
people with children.

As one comedian from New York City, David Cross put it, "Make sure you
vote for me if you want to buy that fancy foot massager!  The Democrats
want to take away your foot massager!"

Bush and his insiders are about a large military -- he's always been
about a large military.  His contemporaries for 25 years have been about
a large military.  His father was for a large military.

Large militaries require huge amounts of money to operate.

Blather about tax cuts is just there to suck in those who can't do the
math, because Democrats would never say those words.  Nice tactics on
the so-called Conservative's part, but it's in no way possible and they
know it.

Haliburton's contract for $5.6 billion in services in Iraq for next year
was just approved last week after their review of this year's
performance, which is typically nothing more than a formality.

I think they took my foot massager.

> And another thing...  No one brought this up yet but I'm in a mood!!!  This
>  was not a war for oil.  But, I wouldn't have a problem if it was.  Who
>  developed the oil fields in the first place?  Do you really think the
> middle
>  east oil field would be pumping like crazy if the Brits and Yanks hadn't
>  developed them prior to them being "nationalized" (stolen) by the Mid
>  East countries.  And who put out the fires Saddam set in the oil fields
> after the US and the Coalition threw Saddam out of Kuwait and liberated
> that country?

Not just the U.S., France, Germany, and Russia all have fields there.

Of course, with large multinational corporations paying the bills, who
really knows... ?  They're really running this show anyway.

Actually if you look at where troops are actually deployed... that new
pipeline out of Iraq through Afghanistan seems to have an unusually high
number of armed "guard posts" owned/operated by the U.S. military along
it.

Hint: We're really just building a pipeline and guarding it at this
point.  The Democracy is secondary to that.

(Again, I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just stating facts on these.)

Oil is all that's there.  If it weren't we wouldn't give a shit and we'd
let Saddam or anyone else do whatever the hell they wanted there.

Proof: Look at Africa if you don't think so.  We bailed out and came
home without "liberating" anything.  We only "liberate" people when
there's something there we want.

As far as the overall big-picture Middle East goes:

China's the next major power due into the theatre.  That'll be
interesting when they finally decide they strategically MUST have a
toe-hold there right in the Gulf.

My favorite bumper sticker idea right now:

"Turn off that SUV if you really want to Support Our Troops."

Nate

2005\07\11@082730 by Walter Banks

picon face
What democratic countries other than the UK, US and Canada can representatives get elected with less than a majority of the votes cast?





2005\07\11@090111 by Jinx

face picon face
> What democratic countries other than the UK, US and Canada can
> representatives get elected with less than a majority of the votes cast?

New Zealand. Coalition is sometimes required. In the election coming
up, neither Labour (left) nor National (right) are expected to have an
absolute majority and will need to cuddle up with a third and possibly
fourth party. A couple of elections ago, supporters of the New Zealand
First party were horrified that their leader (formerly booted out of the
NAtional party) formed a government with National, contrary to his
stance before the election. It all ended in tears

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/nz-a15.shtml

Once again, New Zealand First could be the "king maker"

As Germany also has proportional representation I assume coalitions
and power squabbles happen there too

2005\07\11@091357 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> What democratic countries other than the UK, US and Canada
> can representatives get elected with less than a majority of
> the votes cast?

This effect is inherent in any form of partitioned and/or indirect
election, so I think in almost any democracy (but the USA way of
electing a president might be the most visible form). In my country of
instance (Netherlands) the equivalent of the Senate is elected by the
provincial assemblies, so it has this effect. In Belgium there is some
form of District elections, which is complicated a lot by the bi-langual
issue. The issue of re-arranging (or not re-arranging) the boundaries of
a particular District almost blew the gouvernment.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\07\11@102018 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> What democratic countries other than the UK, US and Canada can
>> representatives get elected with less than a majority of the votes
>> cast?

> New Zealand. Coalition is sometimes required.

I don't think that's what he meant. Nowadays in NZ with our fully
proportional "MMP" system you NEED a majority and may form it by
coalition. About a decade ago we changed from a "first past the post"
system where candidates each had to win their seats and a majority of
seats gave you power. On a number of occasions the winner held less
votes (but more seats) than the opposition.

       RM

2005\07\11@102019 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> What democratic countries other than the UK, US and Canada
>> can representatives get elected with less than a majority of
>> the votes cast?

> This effect is inherent in any form of partitioned and/or indirect
> election,

Probably better put "in many or most ..."

You can have a partitioned el;ection (such as in NZ) where the
partitioning is done on a fully proportional basis. Ours is called MMP
fwiw. People vote both for indicvidual candidates and also for
parties. Half the seats are filled by local candidates. The other half
are "topped up" to bring the overall proportion to the ratios set by
the party vote.

An arguably fairer system is the STV (single transferable vote) system
where votes for candidates that fail to meet some lower (undemocratic)
threshold are able to be transferred to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... choices of
the voter's choosing. Australia has this system I believe. seems about
as fair as one could hope for. Most unusual considering :-).



       RM

2005\07\11@113101 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> > This effect is inherent in any form of partitioned and/or indirect
> > election,
>
> Probably better put "in many or most ..."
>
> You can have a partitioned el;ection (such as in NZ) where the
> partitioning is done on a fully proportional basis.

I would not call that a partitioned election, but that is arguing about
terms. There are indeed ways to make sure that each electioners vote is
represented as accurate as possible by a votee. There are also arguments
against this (the USA winner-takes-it-all system assures a powerfull
government. OTOH it does not assure a long-term stability of
gouvernment. I guess you just can't have it all).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2005\07\11@113341 by Walter Banks

picon face
There is a debate now in Canada about some form of proportional
representation. The options are something like Russell's description
of NZ, some form of run off election (vote until you have a majority).
there are several other possibilities so elected parties get some form
of electoral proportion weighted vote.

There is a push to increase the value of party platforms as part of
the election of a government.

In Canada currently the candidate with the most votes wins the seat
which means that frequently the candidate with the most votes
does not have the a major of the votes cast  and governments
with majorities of members can be created with less than a
majority of support. (Federally Canada has 4 real political parties)

w...

Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2005\07\11@115144 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 11:28 AM 7/11/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>There is a debate now in Canada about some form of proportional
>representation. The options are something like Russell's description
>of NZ, some form of run off election (vote until you have a majority).
>there are several other possibilities so elected parties get some form
>of electoral proportion weighted vote.
>
>There is a push to increase the value of party platforms as part of
>the election of a government.
>
>In Canada currently the candidate with the most votes wins the seat
>which means that frequently the candidate with the most votes
>does not have the a major of the votes cast  and governments
>with majorities of members can be created with less than a
>majority of support. (Federally Canada has 4 real political parties)
>
>w...

Why can't they just have fractional votes? The official opposition has
to maintain a shadow cabinet anyway. That would be a lot more fair. The
communist party can have their 0.001 vote, and so on..

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
EraseMEspeffspamspamspamBeGoneinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->> Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2005\07\11@185702 by p.cousens

flavicon
I have refrained so far from commenting on this
I am English born in Dorset currently living in London,
I know the Bus driver and also had a friend on the train with the most
carnage
(she was two carriages behind the one that exploded)  
However I think that this is Totally inappropriate for the PICList

No I don't condone this, but need to ask what the hell did anyone expect

You invade a country and kill innocent people.
If anybody did it to your country would not you be considering
revenge for your wife/child/brother/sister/best friend,
I'm sure what was left of your government would.
And if you include the fact that many people across the world
think it was orchestrated to steal their oil
Certainly WMD were not found

Just like to thank Russell for bringing this to the PICList and doubling
traffic once again
Will it ever end, don't think I can take OT much longer
 PC
 

2005\07\11@211404 by Michael Davidson

flavicon
face
At Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:19:15 +1200 Russell McMahon wrote;
> An arguably fairer system is the STV (single transferable vote)
> system
> where votes for candidates that fail to meet some lower
> (undemocratic)
> threshold are able to be transferred to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... choices of
> the voter's choosing. Australia has this system I believe. seems
> about
> as fair as one could hope for. Most unusual considering :-).

Yup, us Aussies have this. The basics of it work something like this...
We get a bloody big ballot sheet (~1.5m x ~0.5m) with two sections;
"Above the line" and "Below the line". You have two options when voting
you can place a 1 in one box above the line or number every box below
the line. If you vote "above the line" you're giving preferential
control to your selected member / party. Preferences have to be
registered with the Australian Electroral Commission and you can access
the preferences on the AEC website (http://www.aec.gov.au) before the
election.

When it comes to counting the votes they are sorted by primary
preference (ie. Who has the number 1 on your ballot). The member who
has the least number of votes then has their votes redistributed. If
you vote "below the line" it goes to the number 2 member. If you did
not it goes to your number 1's first preference (They basically number
all your boxes for you). This continues until you have a member with
the majority.

The transferral of votes can have some "interesting" situations; The
election before last an independant member got the preferences of the
other independant members and was able to win the seat with only a
small number of primary votes. (I wish I could remember  more details
about this so it didn't seem so anecdotal)

---
Michael Davidson

--
Fortune:

Lazlo's Chinese Relativity Axiom:
       No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats --
approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.


2005\07\11@221133 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
Then please unsubscribe from OT...


...and I will try to discourage this sort of thread in the future...

...I felt it important to allow people of intelligence to discuss it to some
degree in this case.


As per the list FAQ at
http://www.piclist.com/listfaq
"Please forward suggestion or complaints about the list or other list
members to the list admins at RemoveMEPICList-ownerKILLspamspamMIT.EDU rather than to all the
list members."


---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
jamesnewtonSTOPspamspamspam_OUTpiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com





> {Original Message removed}

2005\07\12@071200 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
FWIW

Posts on this thread 18 people + me
52 posts + mine

Median size = 4 kB
Average size /person ~ 12 kB

All OT since 7 July incl this thread 170+
Median size all OT 4 kB

Approx % of OT due to this thread 30%
Increase in OT volume and numbers due to this thread over this period.
~ 40%

So

> However I think that this is Totally inappropriate for the PICList

As you are entitled to. About 20 people actively don't seem to.
Multiply that by the (unknown & variable ) silent/lurker ratio.

Appropriateness of thread as it has become is not necessarily
appropriateness as it began. That it might become as it has was
reasonably probable.

I suspect you may not really care about motivations or cautions but,
fwiw. these are from the original post:

> It'll be all through the news shortly no doubt - the point of
> posting
> this is to direct the attention of people who may feel they can be
> useful in some capacity or other at this early stage.

and

> I'm sure the admin don't want a wide ranging discussion on the
> larger
> issues (alas) but I imagine expressions of concern may be valid.
> Whatever's happened, there are going to be sad, dead, injured,
> bereaved, shocked and more people.  ... Thoughts, prayers or
> whatever
> well appreciated I'm sure.

If you are upset by the concept of a "heads up" re the need for
'thoughts, prayers etc' then i can see that the thread may annoy you.

You might wish to look at the subjects that i have been posting on of
late.

___________________________

> No I don't condone this, but need to ask what the hell did anyone
> expect
> You invade a country and kill innocent people.
> If anybody did it to your country would not you be considering
> revenge for your wife/child/brother/sister/best friend,
> I'm sure what was left of your government would.

       All others: Read slowly, think long, shoot straight
       and in the right direction.

Absolutely. When the evil British, egged on by the warmonger
Churchill, stuck their noses into the busines of the nice Germans, who
after all were only after Liebesraum, in 1939 and said they'd declare
war on them if they didn't behave the way the interfering British
wanted them to, what did the British expect in return? If the british
were silly enough to have troops in France they could surely expect
that they might get in the way of German weaponry which was doing
things that surely were of no busines of the British. The Battle of
Britain (nicely and elegantly remembered yesterday with 3 magnificent
aircraft and 1,000,000 poppies), 'The Blitz' (civilian targetted
terror campaign, lest you forget) and more were only due response,
surely. When the interfering meddling US crossed the Atlantic to also
attempt to teach Hitler how to behave in matters that were surely none
of their business, what sort of response did they hope for other than
what they got?

And so now, when the British enter a country with the general approval
of the very significant majority [*1] who have been oppressed and
murdered and worse in their (literally) hundreds of thousands for
decades, when they move to protect minorities [2] who have previously
been destroyed en masse by means decried by all civilised persons (if
not by theior governments :-( )[3] and
not considered kosher by *ANY* civilised people for use against
military targets, let alone civilians in ones own country, and whose
lands have been re-engineered (in reprisals for their appeal for
freedom), on a scale that would make even Robert Mugabe cheer with
approval [4], when they face death and disfigurement while
representatives of the previous minority rulers seek to drive them out
and discredit their deeds so that (presumably) they can seek to return
to their rapine murderous domination of the majority, and when they so
fail to convey the very substantial merit in a mixed bag of actions to
intelligent minds in their own communities that said members can feel
it appropriate to ask questions like this answer is probably not
answering [5], then of course they can expect no less than that some
of their own citizens (probably), 3rd generation Englismen (probably)
who have come to the land because of what it has to offer, grown fat
on the benefits of their adopted country and then plotted to bite (and
kill and maim) the hand that feeds them.

Struth cobber!
(Borrowed from across the pond, since we don't have an exclamation of
sufficiently bemused wonderment).

> And if you include the fact that many people across the world
> think it was orchestrated to steal their oil

One would need to be terminally naive to exclude that possibility. One
would need to be terminally myopic to not also look at the greater
picture. It would be interesting to see a graph of the annual Iraqi
death rate. I imagine that it would be highly informative to know how
many of those in any period were either members of the elite militaery
(eg Republican Guard) or compelled cannon fodder who had to fight for
a cause that they fundamentally opposed. (Just as many Taleban
frontline fighters were people who had the choice of possibly dying at
the frontline or definitely dying, albeit possibly somewhat more
slowly and unpleasantly, in their villages.] [6] And how many in each
period were those who were silly enough or unlucky enough to be
considered anti-Bath.[7]

> Certainly WMD were not found

Indeed. And?

> Just like to thank Russell for bringing this to the PICList and
> doubling
> traffic once again

See above.  A similar surge occurs as each new major OT thread runs
its course.
This is one of the larger ones - but eg "police LADAR" ran to about
twice the vi=olume that this one has.

> Will it ever end,

Yes.

> don't think I can take OT much longer

Suggestion: Provided that you don't get the digest version, simply
filter to trash those subjects that disturb your world view or
whatever. If you do get digest version consider getting eg GMail
solely to handle this sort of thing.



       RM


[1] cf prior Sunni/Shiite population ratios and balance of power. Also
cf Bath 'party'
[2] Kurds, Marsh Arabs.
[3] Poison & "nerve" gas, in this instance used against Kurdish
civilians.
       FWIW things are never as clear cut as they may 1st seem - an
interesting read.
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

[4] Draining of swamps, home of 'Marsh Arabs' as reprisal for siding
with US during 'Desert Storm'. The US encouraged the civilian
population to rise up against SH but then provided no subsequent
support or protection. War is hell. 'Peace' can be too.
[5] Opp Cit
[6] Private discussions with a long time rsident. Also common
knowledge and common sense.
[7] If one doesn't know this then one can conclude anything one likes
about the situation in Iraq and feel justified.




2005\07\12@092112 by olin piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>> However I think that this is Totally inappropriate for the PICList
>
> As you are entitled to. About 20 people actively don't seem to.

Yes, that's human nature.  When someone makes a statement you feel strongly
about, you have the urge to respond, whether the forum is appropriate or
not.

> Multiply that by the (unknown & variable ) silent/lurker ratio.

And how do you know those silent lurkers weren't all grinding their teeth
waiting for yet another policital onslought to the PIClist to finally pass
(like I was doing)?

> It'll be all through the news shortly no doubt - the point of
> posting
> this is to direct the attention of people who may feel they can be
> useful in some capacity or other at this early stage.

This pissed me off the first time I read it, but I kept my mouth shut not
wanting to add to the inevitable noise.  I was also hoping (expecting) James
would put a stop to this long before now.  Now that you're proudly repeating
it and this is still going on 5 days leter, I just have to respond.

As you pointed out yourself, this was widely and quickly covered by the
normal news channels.  I heard about it within an hour of the event, and I'm
5 time zones away.  Very likely the word spread even faster near the event
where people were in a position to be useful "at an early stage".  There was
absolutely no reason to broadcast this on the PIClist.  The logic for that
is so absurd that I see this as just another excuse to once again have a
political discussion on the PIClist.  And the result should have been no
surprise to you either.  It's exactly what I assumed would happen when I
read your original post.

Yes, I have opinions about terrorism, democracy, and forms of government
too, but I'm not going to impose them on people who came here to talk about
PICs and related technology.

2005\07\12@133815 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Walter Banks wrote:

> What democratic countries other than the UK, US and Canada can
> representatives get elected with less than a majority of the votes cast?

This question seems to be imprecise.

The first thing is what you mean with "elected with less than a majority of
votes cast". There are many elections with more than two choices (an almost
foreign concept to most US voters, it seems :)  Some of them require a
second turn in case none of the candidates got what's called "absolute
majority", with only two candidates, thus guaranteeing that the winner will
have absolute majority. Others don't require absolute majority, and whoever
has the most votes (without having a majority of votes cast) wins the
election. That's a quite common scenario, and many elections outside the
USA result in a winner with less than a majority of the cast votes. This
doesn't seem to be too common in the USA, though, due to the fact that in
most public elections above the local level there are only two candidates.

Then there's the question which election you're talking about in the USA.
If you mean the presidential election: the president of the USA of course
does get elected with the majority of the votes cast -- the votes of the
electoral college, of course, and not of the so-called "public vote", which
is never really a vote for a president, but rather for a party and its
electoral college members.

If you talk about this difference between the "public vote" and the
electoral college, this is pretty much the same in any parliamentary
system. In a parliamentary system, the leader of the executive branch
(usually called "prime minister" or something the like) is elected by the
parliament. The members of the parliament are usually not required to vote
on any particular candidate, even though they may feel compelled to vote
for the one their party advertised during the campaign. (Very similar to
the electoral college members.) So the elected leader may be someone who
wouldn't have a majority of a "popular vote". Also, often the parliamentary
majority is not a single party but rather a coalition, because no party
reached absolute majority. In such a case, even when they elect the
advertised leader of the biggest coalition party, she doesn't have a
majority of the public vote.


To venture a guess, I think that there are more elections outside the USA
with a winner that has less than a majority of the cast votes than there
are in the USA. Seems to be pretty rare in the USA.

Gerhard

2005\07\12@140837 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Nate Duehr wrote:

> Actually I don't see us ever leaving anyway,

You know the USA still has troops in Germany... after 50 odd years. And
Germany was one of the "friendly", real "liberation" type cases.

Gerhard

2005\07\12@203803 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
Well said, Nate.  Weapons of Mass Destruction proved to be a false goal and
liberation seems to be a rather thin veil.

Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL, the original name) can only be about oil,
particularly if you understand anything about world oil supply.  At the
Offshore Technology Conference a couple of years ago, oil industry experts
debated "Peak Oil: Myth or Reality" and the Saudi Oil Minister spoke
afterwards to correct Matt Simmons' comment that the Saudis are pumping 50%
water in their oil.  The correction was that they are pumping 33%.  Why is
this important to the US?  Because it means that there is significant
reservoir management occurring ...  or the Saudis can no longer
independently drop oil prices by turning up the spigot.  It is widely
believed that Iraq has the second most plentiful supply of oil (and widely
misunderstood that neighboring countries were drilling horizontal wells to
tap Iraqi fields) with Iran holding the next most abundant reserves.

America uses 25% of the world's oil while importing more than half of it
http://www.bp.com/genericsection.do?categoryId=92&contentId=7005893  The
President's staff is largely from the Energy Industry, so securing oil is
not an unexpected goal.  It should also not surprise anyone that the prize
is almost constantly under attack: http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm

Most Americans, secure in our SUV's, rarely look at these issues - blatantly
obvious to most outsiders.  Hussein was a bad dictator to be sure, but
Nate's right, America would never have cared had its "national interests"
not been at risk.

The Koran is very explicit that Jihad can be declared on foreign occupiers.
Our viewpoint: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/990
Theirs: http://www.jihadunspun.com/home.php

As long as the world relies on oil as the basis for our economy, America or
some other country will secure their national interests and Jihad will
remain in place.  Whereas I strongly disagree with the methods, I doubt many
of us would behave differently if our country was occupied by a foreign
Superpower.  Long term, I believe the only answer for world peace is to find
an alternative energy source.  And, despite the hype, hydrogen is not an
energy source.

To preempt James, please answer me offline if you want to challenge my
opinion.  I've worked in and around the oil industry for over 25 years and,
while it doesn't make me an expert, it does give me some perspective others
might not have.

Nate Duehr wrote:

Carey Fisher - NCS wrote:


> And another thing...  No one brought this up yet but I'm in a mood!!!
This
>  was not a war for oil.  But, I wouldn't have a problem if it was.  Who
>  developed the oil fields in the first place?  Do you really think the
> middle east oil field would be pumping like crazy if the Brits and Yanks
hadn't
>  developed them prior to them being "nationalized" (stolen) by the Mid
>  East countries.  And who put out the fires Saddam set in the oil fields
> after the US and the Coalition threw Saddam out of Kuwait and liberated
> that country?

Not just the U.S., France, Germany, and Russia all have fields there.

Of course, with large multinational corporations paying the bills, who
really knows... ?  They're really running this show anyway.

Actually if you look at where troops are actually deployed... that new
pipeline out of Iraq through Afghanistan seems to have an unusually high
number of armed "guard posts" owned/operated by the U.S. military along
it.

Hint: We're really just building a pipeline and guarding it at this
point.  The Democracy is secondary to that.

(Again, I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just stating facts on these.)

Oil is all that's there.  If it weren't we wouldn't give a shit and we'd
let Saddam or anyone else do whatever the hell they wanted there.

Proof: Look at Africa if you don't think so.  We bailed out and came
home without "liberating" anything.  We only "liberate" people when
there's something there we want.

As far as the overall big-picture Middle East goes:

China's the next major power due into the theatre.  That'll be
interesting when they finally decide they strategically MUST have a
toe-hold there right in the Gulf.

My favorite bumper sticker idea right now:

"Turn off that SUV if you really want to Support Our Troops."


2005\07\12@215834 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> As you are entitled to. About 20 people actively don't seem to.

> Yes, that's human nature.  When someone makes a statement you feel
> strongly
> about, you have the urge to respond, whether the forum is
> appropriate or
> not.

>> Multiply that by the (unknown & variable ) silent/lurker ratio.

> And how do you know those silent lurkers weren't all grinding their
> teeth
> waiting for yet another policital onslought to the PIClist to
> finally pass
> (like I was doing)?

I don't KNOW that of course, But, with respect, that's entirely
orthogonal to what I was saying.
I was specifically noting that, for each one who was interested and
posting, there would be N who were interested and not posting. There
will also be M teeth-grinders (0.05 < M < ???), but that's another
issue.

>> the point of posting this ...

> ... Now that you're proudly repeating it

Sorry. Didn't mean to sound 'proud' about it. Was trying to explain
the motivation.

> .. Very likely the word spread even faster near the event
> where people were in a position to be useful "at an early stage".
> There was
> absolutely no reason to broadcast this on the PIClist.  The logic
> for that
> is so absurd ...

I disagree. And so, *we* disagree. If you read carefully what I said
you may perhaps see my point. I didn't want to wave it too violently.
But it seemed, and still seems to me, to have been worth doing. We
differ.

At the time I posted there were still people dying, or not, in London.

> that I see this as just another excuse to once again have a
> political discussion on the PIClist.

Absolutely not the intention.
But where it has gone was well within the realm of probability.
Note that such things do not HAVE to enter the realm of the political.
Unless you are asserting that bombing the London underground can only
be seen as a form of political expression and not viewed in any other
capacity.

> And the result should have been no
> surprise to you either.  It's exactly what I assumed would happen
> when I
> read your original post.

It's exactly what I assumed COULD happen. I presaged that in my
original post and then left it to others to decide how to deal with it
responsibly. The risk, to me, seemed worth the benefit. Some obviously
completely overlook or dismiss the benefits.

> Yes, I have opinions about terrorism, democracy, and forms of
> government
> too, but I'm not going to impose them on people who came here to
> talk about
> PICs and related technology.

However, OT is NOT intended to be about any of those topics, as you
know. I wouldn't dream of raising such ideas on the [PIC] thread, or
even on my beloved [EE] thread, where technology posts of any sort are
intended to be. The [OT] tag is intended for not-PIC,
not-Electrical_Engineering, not-technology, as I imagine you know.
This may be further OT than some OT threads, but I imagine that eg
Scott Dattalo is blissfully unaware of it. And even Bob Blick is
probably blissfully unperturbed about all this as well.







               Russell McMahon

2005\07\12@233747 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> You know the USA still has troops in Germany... after 50 odd years.
> And
> Germany was one of the "friendly", real "liberation" type cases.

Warning: Set history mode on.

Actually, with no intention of being ornery, that's about as far from
true as you can get.

When "The Allies" entered Germany it was as storming conquerors of a
vile enemy. The Allies' actions immediately prior to that had included
numerous purposeful mass killing of clustered civilian populations.
(This is a matter of historical fact - the motivations and
justifications will be forever debated.) Nothing of this magnitude has
been carried out against civilians by "the west" subsequently. (By
others, certainly). Compared to that the US treatment of eg North
Vietnam was benign. If they had treated North Vietnam as they had
Germany then victory would have been assured - but there would have
been far fewer losers to be victorious over. And the Russian's (part
of the same "Allies") attitude to the Germans was worse. Wherever
possible, all women were raped in the initial Russian advance through
Germany*. Civilian males' lives were at the whim of the invaders. Even
when things "settled down" over the next few years the "illegitimate"
birth rate in Berlin was for several years vastly greater due to the
commonness of rape. (If doubtful Google for "monument to the unknown
rapist" and "tomb of the unknown rapist" for comment on this).  This
is all historical fact, albeit you may need to read Western histories
but also read some German war histories written near the event (as I
have done) to get a balanced picture.

My point is, Germany became a great ally of the US, but it took some
years for this to happen. And the cold war events helped this happen
majorly.

The initial liberation was of Europe from the Germans. NOBODY was
there to liberate Germany from anything. Despite what Hitler had done,
the Allies policy of "unconditional surrender" had driven the Germans
to an all or nothing response. The friendship grew as the bona fides
of the 'invaders" were established by their long term deeds.

US troop presence 50 years on is NOT as a conqueror or occupier,
although a minority see it this way. Given time US presence may indeed
become so objectionable to those who forget that they will be required
to leave (as in eg the Philippines). Up until 1989 such an idea would
have been unthinkable. How quickly we forget :-(.


       RM

* A bit of digging will reveal that about 25% of all Russians -
approaching 50 million people (far more than usually claimed), died
around the time of WW2. A small part of these (say under 5 million?)
would have been part of Stalin's grand efforts but mixed up in WW2
figures BUT the Russians had vast reasons to hate the Germans as they
did. It matters not that Stalin would almost certainly attacked
Germany in due course if Hitler hadn't attacked first. Alternate
histories can be rererewritten forever).




2005\07\13@094627 by John Colonias

flavicon
face
I second Olin's concerns. Let us keep this PIClist for what it is
intended and reserve our political ideologies for a different forum.

I hope that James reverses his attitude as far as political issues and
PIClist are concerned.

John

{Original Message removed}

2005\07\13@102803 by olin piclist

face picon face
Ed Browne wrote:
> To preempt James, please answer me offline if you want to challenge my
> opinion.

In other words, "It's OK to end this thread now that I've had my say."?

*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\07\13@114734 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

>> You know the USA still has troops in Germany... after 50 odd years. And
>> Germany was one of the "friendly", real "liberation" type cases.
>
> Actually, with no intention of being ornery, that's about as far from
> true as you can get.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder, or something like that it goes... :)

I guess neither you nor me were there, and even the ones who were there
have somewhat different "truths". But it may be that you simply
misunderstood my point.

> When "The Allies" entered Germany it was as storming conquerors of a
> vile enemy.

No doubt about that. But, if you want to look at it from a German point of
view (which is what I did when I said "liberation type cases"), you can't
speak of "Allies". That's an allied point of view. From a German point of
view, there were always British, French, Russian and Americans, all quite
distinct, not "Allies".

> [...] This is all historical fact, albeit you may need to read Western
> histories but also read some German war histories written near the event
> (as I have done) to get a balanced picture.

No contest to any of that.

> My point is, Germany became a great ally of the US, but it took some
> years for this to happen. [...] NOBODY was there to liberate Germany
> from anything.

Also agreed. But compare that to Afghanistan or Iraq. It's been "some
years" since "major combat operations" stopped and both wars were won in
the sense that the government went down. Even though both were declared to
be and were started as liberation wars, in essence, if you look at the
population, the German occupation was perceived (after some years) as much
more of a liberation than, it seems, the two other occupations.

> Despite what Hitler had done, the Allies policy of "unconditional
> surrender" had driven the Germans to an all or nothing response.

I think you might be getting mixed up "the Germans" as a populace and the
German leadership (military, mostly); a common error in history books. What
the ones do and think does not always coincide with what the others do and
think. The populace, from all I've heard, had not much of an "all or
nothing" attitude -- mostly because they still had quite something to lose,
not the least of that their lives, and nobody wanted to end up with
"nothing", even though they knew they wouldn't end up with "all" (whatever
that is supposed to be).

> US troop presence 50 years on is NOT as a conqueror or occupier,

I didn't really mean to say it that way (and I didn't), but I wonder how
many countries (including NZ and the USA) would NOT consider an army of a
foreign nation on their territory a "conqueror or occupier". Don't forget
that none of the US military personnel there is subject to German laws or
can be touched by German law enforcement, even when outside their bases, on
private business, and doing such mundane things as speeding. And of course
also not when doing more serious things. For all I know, they are
cooperating mostly, but not because they have to; it's more of a goodwill
thing. Something of a "nice occupation".

Fact is that they are there. Fact is also that they are not there on
bilateral symmetric agreements. Fact is that they are not there to help
Germany, but to protect USA interests (of course). Does this make them
conquerors or occupiers? I don't know... you tell me.

> Up until 1989 such an idea would have been unthinkable.

You probably are surprised hearing this, but quite a few there indeed have
thought about this "unthinkable" before 1989. I'm old enough to remember
this personally. Check out the Pershing II incident ("crisis" as perceived
by a large portion of the Germans) in 1981 for a starting point. Of course,
much of the German POV you'll find only presented in German language; as
long as you are looking mainly for English language resources, you probably
are bound to miss some points (and thoughts that may have been unthinkable
in English :).

Gerhard

2005\07\13@115333 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

> Ed Browne wrote:
>> To preempt James, please answer me offline if you want to challenge my
>> opinion.
>
> In other words, "It's OK to end this thread now that I've had my say."?

I'm not Ed, but couldn't you also read this as "Since some don't like this
thread on the piclist, let's take it elsewhere" -- attending to your
suggestion? It seemed to me that you didn't like the proliferation of this
thread, and so any attempt to end it should be in your interest -- if I
understand you correctly.

But what you now seem to be saying is that as long as people want to have
their say, they just should continue to post in this thread... I can't get
this together with your earlier post about it.

Gerhard

2005\07\13@121526 by olin piclist

face picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> But what you now seem to be saying is that as long as people want to
> have their say, they just should continue to post in this thread... I
> can't get this together with your earlier post about it.

No, I think this thread should never have been started.  I was reacting to
"I've made my assertions publicly, but others should only rebut privately".
I was not encouraging others to respond to that, only inviting all to see
the unfairness and outright arrogance of the statement.  It was a
coincidence that it happened to be on a thread I previously objected to.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\07\13@135728 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
I'm sorry you read it that way.  I appreciated that this thread had run it's
course and should be ended, but I am an opinionated person and wanted to
give a little more balanced viewpoint than "why shouldn't we take their
oil".  I would welcome an opportunity to debate the OP, but it needn't
interfere with the PICLIST.  It was intended to be courteous to people like
you who object to digressions by allowing the debate to continue privately.
Moreover I don't think that it's right to make inflammatory remarks just
before the thread is closed without offering the chance for rebuttal.
That's what the statement was supposed to convey.

Flame me offline, because now we really are wasting bandwidth.

Olin Lathrop wrote:

No, I think this thread should never have been started.  I was reacting to
"I've made my assertions publicly, but others should only rebut privately".
I was not encouraging others to respond to that, only inviting all to see
the unfairness and outright arrogance of the statement.  It was a
coincidence that it happened to be on a thread I previously objected to.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\07\13@142650 by John Ferrell

face picon face
<Flame on...>
Most soldiers from most military organizations would rather not be away from
home in the first place. Maintaining a presence in a foreign country is an
economical burden to all except those who choose to loot the occupied. Most
citizens fail to see any benefit of foreign aid or unequal trading laws with
anyone.

How far back should we go to undo the wrongs? Would the French & British be
better off speaking German? Under Nazi rule which Germans would not be alive
today? Should the Congo have been allowed self rule? Should Israel been
allowed to take Egypt? Should the US not interfered with Libya? Should the
US stayed out of Iraq and left it to the spineless leech we know as the UN?
Should the US ignore the lack of support in Iraq from other major powers?
What was done at the critical time seemed to be the right decision at the
time. Some of it still seems OK to most Americans, but not all of it.

I am a Taxpaying US Citizen and proud of it. USA: Love it or Leave it. If
you don't like being occupied, quit bullying us. If you don't like the
current conditions, we can make them tougher.

It is within our power to simply take Iraq with or without the occupants and
consider it a possession. How many other political entities would resist the
trophy?
Fire when ready, but be advised I am weary of hearing the ungrateful...
Or better yet, shut this noise down while we still have a chance to get
along.

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2005\07\13@151036 by Alexandre Guimaraes

face picon face
Hi,

   I think that any thread that has ANY kind of political or religious
content should be taken off the list !!!

   No one has ever seen a message by me responding to any of the other
threads but if we read them sometimes it gets so unresistable to answer that
it is always asking for trouble to start ANY political or religious thread
!! I will answer this one....

   What is reasonable in engineering terms can be argued but never gets
passionate. Politics is NEVER argued in a reasonable way for a long time...
It can start mild but will turn to fire sooner ot later...


> I am a Taxpaying US Citizen and proud of it. USA: Love it or Leave it. If
> you don't like being occupied, quit bullying us. If you don't like the
> current conditions, we can make them tougher.

   It is not necesary to do any "bullying" with the USA to be occupied !!!
It just needs to have enough financial interest and your Country will invade
or make a military state takeover happen !! It has happened in all South
America.... Do not be so naive to believe that USA is a honest country... No
Country will ever be honest !!! All states want power and control over all
the economy that might be accessible, either by economical or military
force. It is the nature of the process and no one will ever change it unless
there are stronger multilateral organizations the can hold down the allmight
power of any "superpower"...

> It is within our power to simply take Iraq with or without the occupants
> and consider it a possession. How many other political entities would
> resist the trophy?
> Fire when ready, but be advised I am weary of hearing the ungrateful...
> Or better yet, shut this noise down while we still have a chance to get
> along.

   I think that you are being naive again.... All "empires" have fallen at
the right time.. The roman empire is a good example... If the US does not
review it's external politics it will fall just as any other "superpower"
will fall when it tries to reach further than it can... And the US is doing
just that.. Remember that anything has a price and the 9/11 should have
teached that... But is has not and the anger and fury to dominate is getting
bigger and bigger... Anything has a price..... It may take one decade or 100
years but it will happen.. And in the meantime it the external politics does
not change... The external debt of the US will grow bigger and bigger, the
Americans will be hated more and more, other countries will do anything to
make it fall, either at the military ot at the economics...

   Please do not take any of this as personal.. It is not... But in the way
it was put I just felt I have the right to answer..

   If we keep this kind of subjects inside the list it will always
deteriorate the relationships among members and bring all kinds of quarrel
and fights !!! Let's keep this out of the list... No one can resist to
answer once in a while and all answer will always be explosive because
politics and religious discussions are not rational !!!!

   Sorry James but I think that at the point it got it has to be discussed
here.. If anyone can say what anyone thinks I could not resist to answer to
the absurd "felling of superiority" that is almost "brain washed" in the
American people !!! All the system is done to make that felling almost
irressistable.. If we get this kind of discussion here in the list it will
always generate trouble.... And hate... And explosive discussions....

Best regards,
Alexandre Guimaraes

2005\07\13@190500 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>> You know the USA still has troops in Germany... after 50 odd
>>> years. And
>>> Germany was one of the "friendly", real "liberation" type cases.
>>
>> Actually, with no intention of being ornery, that's about as far
>> from
>> true as you can get.
>
> Truth is in the eye of the beholder, or something like that it
> goes... :)
>
> I guess neither you nor me were there, and even the ones who were
> there
> have somewhat different "truths". But it may be that you simply
> misunderstood my point.

All of that :-)

Thanks for the reasoned and reasonable reply.
I'll respond to it offlist sometime soonish as I don't wish to add
further onlist to what is getting increasingly unpleasant and raucous.
(I'm not referring to  Gerhard's posts which are always polite and
reasonable).
____________

I started this thread for reasons which seemed good at the time. and
which I'm still happy with. I wanted people who cared to know about
the events as soon as possible after they had happened, indeed, were
still happening, and not next day or later

I'm sorry that it's gone as it has BUT accept that that was a
reasonable possibility. I wouldn't have expected it to have been
allowed to become as it has - but that too was a reasonable
possibility, based on past precedent.



       Russell McMahon

2005\07\14@055340 by p.cousens

flavicon
So you knew and accepted that you would stir up a hornets nest, yet
decided to do it anyway

What other direction could it have gone in?
Was a PIC used, DIY HE manufacture, timer reliability?

You brought it to our attention so we could say prayers!

You did not give a damn about the consequences.
You did not give a damn about me, I have 12283 unread messages from the
PICList, this extra has not helped


{Quote hidden}

2005\07\14@092045 by olin piclist

face picon face
Alexandre Guimaraes wrote:
>    I think that any thread that has ANY kind of political or religious
> content should be taken off the list !!!

I totally agree.

>    No one has ever seen a message by me responding to any of the other
> threads but if we read them sometimes it gets so unresistable to answer
> that it is always asking for trouble to start ANY political or
> religious thread !!

Exactly, and I applaud your restraint.  Unfortunately the temptation is too
strong for many people here.

> I will answer this one....

That's unfortunate.  I certainly understand the temptation.  There have been
things said I would like to counter, but no, I'm not going to add to the
noise.

>    What is reasonable in engineering terms can be argued but never gets
> passionate. Politics is NEVER argued in a reasonable way for a long
> time... It can start mild but will turn to fire sooner ot later...

Yes, and the other things about politics is that there will never be a
resolution, at least on this list since I suspect most of us here don't have
any significant political power.  And little if anything is learned.  These
are issues most people have thought about and probably debated with others
before.  Opinions have largely been formed, probably entrenched in most
cases.  Such a discussion is therefore utterly pointless.  Everyone just
espouses their opinion but no opinions are changed.  In other words,
everyone talks but nobody listens.

People feel compelled to speak up when someone makes a point sharply against
their own point of view, causing an exponential runaway of posts.
Unfotunately critical mass is apparently only a single post.  Therefore the
only solution is to not allow the initial spark.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...