Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Bomb attacks in London England
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55453 is a reply to message #55449] |
Sat, 09 July 2005 04:25   |
erlilo
Messages: 405
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
the no-fly policy to try to provoke a
war. If the previous administration was part of that, then so be it. If
not, so be it. Either way, the allegation should be looked at.
We can hold ourselves to our professed high standard, and if we fall
short, admit our own mistakes. Of course, that does not mean we should
ignore mistakes from others in the world.
It doesn't make our policies better to pretend it's all about "hating"
this or that administration. It's really all about creating policies
that help us move toward goals we all agree are important.
> Certainly France, Germany and Russia were perfectly right to defy those
> sanctions to turn a profit in Iraq. Oh, that's right they aren't the US, so
> they can get away with it - they are politically correct by birthright - the
> US isn't.
If we criticize one country, that does not make every other country
perfect. The current situation, and situations previous, came about due
to actions from people all over the world and in Iraq. Finding faults in
others, easy as that is, does not make our mistakes go away. Recognizing
the entire range of contributing factors and acting on that information
is the only way to improve our success rate in the future.
Cheers,
-Jamie K
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
> On 7/8/05 1:38 PM, in article 42ced6d1$1@linux, "justcron"
> <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>
>
>>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
>>news:42cebcb2@linux...
>>
>>>Dear Uncle Ricky and Brother Bud,
>>>
>>>Please go back and read my posts carefully. They are not defending an
>>>attack
>>>due to WMD. I do think that it's possible that WMD did exist before we
>>>went
>>>in, but my posts are talking about violation of UN sanctions.
>>
>>BTW, the UN sanctions is the flimsiest excuse for a war EVER. (Nevermind
>>that those very UN sanctions destroyed the country anyway)
>>
>>*************************************************
>>
>> General admits to secret air war
>>
>> Jun 26, 2005
>>
>>
>> Michael Smith
>> Times Online (UK)
>>
>> THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq
>>war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers
>>that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle
>>of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
>>
>> Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war
>>Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied
>>aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully
>>selected targets" before the war officially started.
>> The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the allied
>>victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start
>>the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.
>>
>> If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly
>>zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W
>>Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.
>>
>> Moseley's remarks have emerged after reports in The Sunday Times that
>>showed an increase in allied bombing in southern Iraq was described in
>>leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as "spikes of activity to put
>>pressure on the regime".
>>
>> Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17,
>>2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern
>>no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic minorities.
>>
>> A leaked memo previously disclosed by The Sunday Times, detailing a
>>meeting chaired by the prime minister and attended by Jack Straw, the
>>foreign secretary, Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, and Admiral Sir
>>Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff, indicated that the US was carrying
>>out the bombing.
>>
>> But Moseley's remarks, and figures for the amount of bombs dropped in
>>southern Iraq during 2002, indicate that the RAF was taking as large a part
>>in the bombing as American aircraft.
>>
>> Details of the Moseley briefing come amid rising concern in the US at
>>the war. A new poll shows 60% of Americans now believe it was a mistake.
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55458 is a reply to message #55436] |
Sat, 09 July 2005 08:06 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
morality issue when it's an issue of
> survival... at that point there really is no right & wrong, you
> know? Is it wrong for the wolf to kill the deer in order to
> survive? No, the wolf can't farm crops, or go to the store to
> buy canned meat... killing the deer in order to survive isn't
> right or wrong, it just "is". The forebears of modern man & the
> Neanderthals lived in some of the same regions simultaneously
> for a LONG time... was it wrong for Cro-Magnon man to
> outcompete the Neanderthals so that the Neanderthals became
> extinct? No, it just was about survival. When one group
> threatens another to the point where one of those groups' way
> of life is on the verge of ending, then it's all about who has
> the resolve to win, or the means to win & the WILL to employ
> those means. Neanderthals. Rome. American Indians. Tsarist
> Russia, and then Soviet Russia... Just some examples of
> societies & ways of life that have come & gone through the
> ages... you wanna be included in that group?
>
> I'm serious, guys - those of you who think this is lightweight,
> pissy bullshit that's all about oil, or even something that's
> strictly political or about foregin policy are not seeing the
> big picture here. Winds of change DO indeed blow, and this is a
> big one... how long did the last Jihad last (you know, the one
> that started in 1095)?
>
> Neil***BUMP***
Wanted to make sure everyone got to see this link - what with
the rapidity of the way things are moving on "the main
thread" :)
"Neil" <OIUIOU@OUIIO.com> wrote:
>
>
>And it's FREE, too! (try the preset called "Ice Plate"):
>
>http://www.dasample.com/stats/download.php?id=21
>
>
>NeilI'm a bit confused as to what you are trying too do. The
DA-88 outputs 8 channels of T-DIF which is very similar to
AES. The IF442 only has a single 2 channel SPDIF input.
The two are not really compatible as far as a direct digital
transfer is concerned. Then if you want to "lock" the Paris
transport to the DA-88 to do multiple passes, you will need
a sync card (SY88) in the DA-88 to send MTC to the MIDI
interface on the Paris computer (you will need a MIDI
interface on your Paris Computer for this). Then you can
simply lock the Paris transport to the DA-88 as Andy
described in the other post.
Give us a little more detail on what it is you are trying to
do exactly.
David.
andrea perini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The only time I tried to record digitally from a TASCAM DA88 into the IF-442
> it's been a fiasco. I've even modified the 442 in order to get a 2.5 v p-p
> flow instead of the original 0.5 v p-p.
> Today I'm waiting a friend with his Tascam here, and we're gonna try again
> with the MEC, this time.
> I've read the Paris' manual more carefully, and (please tell me if I'm
> wrong) it seems that Paris can be properly ran in sync ONLY if the other
> digital device is able to send Midi Time Code.
> If that's the truth, it takes a "Smpte to MTC converter": anyone is using
> such device with success? What model would you suggest?
>
> Maaany thanks
>
>
>I know that there is a TDIF to ADAT lightpipe convertor that Tascam makes.
You could use that with the ADAT card to digitally transfer tracks. I don't
think it will do sync, though. So, you'd still need the MTC card.
Good luck!
Mike
"Dave(EK Sound)" <audioguy_nospam_@shaw.ca> wrote:
>I'm a bit confused as to what you are trying too do. The
>DA-88 outputs 8 channels of T-DIF which is very similar to
>AES. The IF442 only has a single 2 channel SPDIF input.
>The two are not really compatible as far as a direct digital
>transfer is concerned. Then if you want to "lock" the Paris
>transport to the DA-88 to do multiple passes, you will need
>a sync card (SY88) in the DA-88 to send MTC to the MIDI
>interface on the Paris computer (you will need a MIDI
>interface on your Paris Computer for this). Then you can
>simply lock the Paris transport to the DA-88 as Andy
>described in the other post.
>
>Give us a little more detail on what it is you are trying to
>do exactly.
>
>David.
>
>andrea perini wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The only time I tried to record digitally from a TASCAM DA88 into the
IF-442
>> it's been a fiasco. I've even modified the 442 in order to get a 2.5 v
p-p
>> flow instead of the original 0.5 v p-p.
>> Today I'm waiting a friend with his Tascam here, and we're gonna try
again
>> with the MEC, this time.
>> I've read the Paris' manual more carefully, and (please tell me if I'm
>> wrong) it seems that Paris can be properly ran in sync ONLY if the other
>> digital device is able to send Midi Time Code.
>> If that's the truth, it takes a "Smpte to MTC converter": anyone is using
>> such device with success? What model would you suggest?
>>
>> Maaany thanks
>>
>>
>>Not to worry. I've got a family here that keeps me quite happy to stick
around..........though I doubt I'll ever be half the man that my dogs think
I am.
;o)
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42cf9d1d$1@linux...
>
> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
> >and as for me.....I'm sometimes weary enough of this world to
> >feel like I wouldn't mind moving over to make room for someone else who's
> >not.
>
> OY! Not so fast amigo!
>
> Who's gonna make me jealous with ridiculous setups, and make me laugh with
> ridiculous pets, or less invited critters...
>
> I mean what's the point in me hosting this box here if there's no Deej for
> everyone to come and read about!!?!? ;o)
>
> Don't let that coffee coloured dishwashing liquid get you down dude. ;o)
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.No
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55459 is a reply to message #55438] |
Sat, 09 July 2005 08:25 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t nearly as sick as this.
http://www.karmafarms.com/twisty.htm
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
news:42cf6aa1$1@linux...
> Its f'n SICK.... sick I tell you... sick!!!!
>
>The Tascam would need a 9 pin ADAT sync input port and would have to be able
to slave to ADAT sync from the Paris system for this to work.
"Mike Audet" <mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com> wrote in message
news:42cff1bc$1@linux...
>
> I know that there is a TDIF to ADAT lightpipe convertor that Tascam makes.
> You could use that with the ADAT card to digitally transfer tracks. I
don't
> think it will do sync, though. So, you'd still need the MTC card.
>
> Good luck!
> Mike
>
>
>
> "Dave(EK Sound)" <audioguy_nospam_@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >I'm a bit confused as to what you are trying too do. The
> >DA-88 outputs 8 channels of T-DIF which is very similar to
> >AES. The IF442 only has a single 2 channel SPDIF input.
> >The two are not really compatible as far as a direct digital
> >transfer is concerned. Then if you want to "lock" the Paris
> >transport to the DA-88 to do multiple passes, you will need
> >a sync card (SY88) in the DA-88 to send MTC to the MIDI
> >interface on the Paris computer (you will need a MIDI
> >interface on your Paris Computer for this). Then you can
> >simply lock the Paris transport to the DA-88 as Andy
> >described in the other post.
> >
> >Give us a little more detail on what it is you are trying to
> >do exactly.
> >
> >David.
> >
> >andrea perini wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> The only time I tried to record digitally from a TASCAM DA88 into the
> IF-442
> >> it's been a fiasco. I've even modified the 442 in order to get a 2.5 v
> p-p
> >> flow instead of the original 0.5 v p-p.
> >> Today I'm waiting a friend with his Tascam here, and we're gonna try
> again
> >> with the MEC, this time.
> >> I've read the Paris' manual more carefully, and (please tell me if I'm
> >> wrong) it seems that Paris can be properly ran in sync ONLY if the
other
> >> digital device is able to send Midi Time Code.
> >> If that's the truth, it takes a "Smpte to MTC converter": anyone is
using
> >> such device with success? What model would you suggest?
> >>
> >> Maaany thanks
> >>
> >>
> >>
>"Neil" <IOUOI@OI.com> wrote:
>
>***BUMP***
>
>Wanted to make sure everyone got to see this link - what with
>the rapidity of the way things are moving on "the main
>thread" :)
>
>
>"Neil" <OIUIOU@OUIIO.com> wrote:
>>
Neil,
I’ve been playing with this for a few weeks, and I find it’s only really
useful as a special effects reverb. A little metallic for my tastes, but
a nice addition as a free effect. If you want to check out a good sounding
algorithmic reverb listen to:
http://tinyurl.com/8s7v2
It’s not free, but it is very high quality. Currently the VSS3 for Powercore
is my favorite algorithmic-based VST reverb plugin followed by the Eventide.
The R66 adds modulation, (missing from convolution units) at a good cost/quality
ratio.
GeneAslo good:
http://www.artsacoustic.com/Does PARIS support MIDI clock? Is MTC a better sync source?
respect
NappyMidi clock is basically a midi note sent eve
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55473 is a reply to message #55449] |
Sat, 09 July 2005 13:36 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
– and I still do – but these are very worrisome
>>times.
>>
>>My heart goes out to everyone who has been affected by this senselessness
>> - American, British, Canadian, Iraqi, and everyone else.
>>
>>All the best,
>>Mike Audet
>>
>>
>>
>>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>Kim,
>>>
>>>I hear your arguments and I respect your opinion. I do not, however, agree
>>>with your opinion. Waiting any longher would have done no good at all (my
>>>opinion of course) and despite the glee that those opposed to the war feel
>>>due to there having been no WMD's found, the delay could have easily
>>>provided the time for disposing of them across the border in Syria or in
>>the
>>>desolation of the Iraqi hinterland. I don't think this story is over yet.
>>I
>>>do think that those who dislike Bush desperately want it to be over so
>they
>>>can point fingers and trumpet their riteousness, all the while bellowing
>>>that the war was about WMD's and there weren't any found, therefore, the
>>war
>>>was unjustified. This is political spin at it's absolute lowest partisan
>>>level. This war was about justifiably enforcing UN resolutions and in doing
>>>so, removing a bloodthirsty monster who was a proven menace to stability
>>in
>>>the region. Would it have happened if 9-11 hadn't happened? I don't know,
>>>but I think eventually Sadaam would have succeeded in shooting down one
>>of
>>>our aircraft that was enforcing the no-fly zone and we would have done
>>>something. Obviously the EU, Russia and the UN didn't give a damn about
>>>anything but oil. It's blatantly obvious that keeping Sadaam in power was
>>>all about oil. If this was about oil to us, I guarantee we would have
>half
>>>a million men over there right now guarding the pipelines and infrastructure
>>>from border to border and we'd be sucking that teat dry as a bone as we
>>>speak. As you have so astutely noticed, Americans aren't subtle.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Deej
>>>
>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42cde2d0$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>> >and it's a shame that they are apparently the only ones on earth who
>>saw
>>>> any
>>>> >merit in enforcing UN resolutions
>>>>
>>>> That annoys me too. I'm still anti-bush because I *hate* the way they
>>went
>>>> about it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was clearly
>>>garbage).
>>>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted Saddam
>>>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they noticed
>>>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
>>them
>>>> more oil power.
>>>>
>>>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events, politically,
>>>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and
>>not
>>>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It was
>>>obviouly
>>>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from tyranny"
>>>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care
>>if
>>>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell them
>>>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
>>>would
>>>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
>>as
>>>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had
>>>waited
>>>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that eventually
>>>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
>>>*didn't
>>>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
>>>charge,
>>>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
>>>restructured.
>>>> That's my beleif anyhow. I
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55474 is a reply to message #55426] |
Sat, 09 July 2005 13:43 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
felt that it was only a matter of time before
>>>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only procrastinate
>>>for
>>>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
>>>countries
>>>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure it
>>was
>>>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it. The
>>>way
>>>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent on
>>war
>>>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would have
>>>made
>>>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N. actually
>>>ended
>>>> up behind it or not.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>>>>
>>>> This London thing is screwed.
>>>>
>>>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>>>>
>>>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Kim.
>>>
>>>
>>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>Kim,
>
>I hear your arguments and I respect your opinion. I do not, however, agree
>with your opinion. Waiting any longher would have done no good at all (my
>opinion of course) and despite the glee that those opposed to the war feel
>due to there having been no WMD's found, the delay could have easily
>provided the time for disposing of them across the border in Syria or in
the
>desolation of the Iraqi hinterland. I don't think this story is over yet.
I
>do think that those who dislike Bush desperately want it to be over so they
>can point fingers and trumpet their riteousness, all the while bellowing
>that the war was about WMD's and there weren't any found, therefore, the
war
>was unjustified. This is political spin at it's absolute lowest partisan
>level. This war was about justifiably enforcing UN resolutions and in doing
>so, removing a bloodthirsty monster who was a proven menace to stability
in
>the region. Would it have happened if 9-11 hadn't happened? I don't know,
>but I think eventually Sadaam would have succeeded in shooting down one
of
>our aircraft that was enforcing the no-fly zone and we would have done
>something. Obviously the EU, Russia and the UN didn't give a damn about
>anything but oil. It's blatantly obvious that keeping Sadaam in power was
>all about oil. If this was about oil to us, I guarantee we would have half
>a million men over there right now guarding the pipelines and infrastructure
>from border to border and we'd be sucking that teat dry as a bone as we
>speak. As you have so astutely noticed, Americans aren't subtle.
>
>Regards,
>
>Deej
In the 48 hours that bush gave Saddam before the invasion, there were satellite
photos showing Russian special forces trucks and transport aircraft moving
the stuff to Syria from the top suspected WMD site at that time. Prior to
this time, trucks were moving stuff to this site from all over Iraq. This
was on the national news, they showed the photos, but of corse the story
was squashed, never to be heard again. The WMD is probably sitting back
in Russia now, or in Syria. Maybe somebody can find some info on this on
the web.
It was clearly stated by president Bush, that he wanted to topple Saddam
and his regime before Iraq was invaded. WMD was not the only reason we went
in. We should have immediately gone in in 1997 when Saddam kicked the UN
weapons inspectors out, but somebody was too busy copping a hummer in the
white house and giving our pulse weapons technology to the Chinese.
Use your common sense, if they can hide tons and tons of explosives, isn't
it possible that they could still be hiding some WMD? WE did find some WMD,
although not a significant amount. it was about a hundred or so shells and
rockets, enough to kill thousands. They could not and would not account
for tons of WMD. Anyway I think they were moved out of Iraq, they had plenty
of time and they had help by other countries.
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42cde2d0$1@linux...
>>
>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >and it's a shame that they are apparently the only ones on earth who
saw
>> any
>> >merit in enforcing UN resolutions
>>
>> That annoys me too. I'm still anti-bush because I *hate* the way they
went
>> about it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was clearly
>garbage).
>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted Saddam
>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they noticed
>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
them
>> more oil power.
>>
>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events, politically,
>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and
not
>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It was
>obviouly
>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from tyranny"
>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care
if
>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell them
>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
>would
>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
as
>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had
>waited
>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that eventually
>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
>*didn't
>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
>charge,
>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
>restructured.
>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time before
>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only procrastinate
>for
>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
>countries
>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure it
was
>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it. The
>way
>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent on
war
>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would have
>made
>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N. actually
>ended
>> up behind it or not.
>>
>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>>
>> This London thing is screwed.
>>
>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>>
>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kim.
>
>> who for a moment will be ecstatic over their victory, til they realize
> there is no one left to share it with.
But at least they would have the satisfaction of knowing that they are
riteously and justifiably soon-to-be-extinct.
;o)
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6d0d1529i37648uh92mp51j1ddd64j517@4ax.com...
> it all stems from the hubris of nations that think they can create the
> ideal world. which could happen if you kill all but the last person
> who for a moment will be ecstatic over their victory, til they realize
> there is no one left to share it with.
>
> On 9 Jul 2005 18:01:28 +1000, "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dedric Terry <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote:
> >>No one understands a
> >>country they don't live in like a native
> >
> >This is kind of true, but really, it comes back to the beer point I made
> >earlier. Nobody understands their local beer like the locals, but
honestly,
> >if you want to know beer you have to taste 1,000 of them. Otherwise you
don't
> >have any perspective upon which to base your opinion. Without outside
influence
> >and experience you'll tend to just assume the way you're living is right
> >and normal. If you grow up where abuse is the norm, you will likely be
that
> >way too, and not understand how things could be different. Until you have
> >experienced many cultures you don't truly have any perspective upon which
> >to look at your own culture. Even though you know it, you know nothing
else,
> >hence you have no perspective upon it. This worries me a little about the
> >states, that the U.S. generally stays fairly self contained and
isolated...
> > I think not as much on this group as generally, but that is the
pattern.
> >If you look up figures on things like where people holiday, and as I said
> >before, what media people watch, you'll find that the U.S. tends to keep
> >to itself. I think generally people on this group are fairly broadminded
> >compared to their average countryman, possibly in part because
discussions
> >like this have been going for quite a while here. I would certainly admit
> >I've learned a lot about the perspectives of many in the process, and I'm
> >sure I'm not the only one.
> >
> >>Case in point: for us here in the US, Australia is where Crocodile
Dundee
> >>came from, and where the deadliest snakes, insects and ocean live dwell
> >-
> >>making for a very scary place, especially if you go on a walk-about
alone
> >in
> >>search of Kiwi and Koalas. ;-) (a little lightening of the mood).
> >
> >I can assure you that the b
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55475 is a reply to message #55376] |
Sat, 09 July 2005 13:45 |
JD
Messages: 15
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
iggest threat to me right now is that my
housemate
> >might get drunk and smash a bottle. ;o)
> >
> >
> >>As far as other brutal leaderships - perhaps you are referring to
> >
> >I'm not referring to anyone really... just that there's a long list, and
> >indeed some of the brutal leaderships are listed as allies by, well, lots
> >of people, as always. Turkey for one example, but I'm not really trying
to
> >make specific examples, just to say that I don't buy the good guy thing.
> >If I knew someone who constantly tripped up old ladies, and then one day
> >saw that person helping an old lady cross the street, well I wouldn't buy
> >the theory that this person was doing it because he was a good guy. I'd
be
> >asking questions like "Is this old lady rich?" and things like that. Now
> >I'm not blaming the U.S. here for being any worse than anyone else in
respect
> >to this. We live in a world where every country seems to trip up little
old
> >ladies when it suits, and help them across the road when it suits to do
that.
> >Point is when I see this pattern I don't buy any good guy stuff. Yes, it
> >was the right thing to do. No, I don't beleive it was done *because* it
was
> >the right thing to do, because that pattern just doesn't fit.
> >
> >>Again, is the US the only one responsible?
> >
> >No, and as above I'm not trying to blame the U.S. I'm merely pointing out
> >that in a world where everyone with no exceptions trips up some old
ladies
> >and helps others cross the road, I just don't buy it when someone asks me
> >to give them a good guy hat because of one example where they did good.
> >
> >>Thanks for the engaging and even tempered conversation. It is nice to
be
> >>able to converse with neighbors around the globe and learn from each
other.
> >
> >I too am enjoying these discussions, and thank you also. Here's hoping
that,
> >with experience at these discussions, we can all come to a better
understanding.
> >
> >I tend to think if everyone around the world had a little corner like
this
> >full of international friends with whom to exchange views, the world
would
> >become a better place. It's a shame more islamic countries don't have
internet
> >and speak English. While I'm sure discussions would start of fairly
chaotic,
> >I think the world would have a better chance of reahing peace through
such
> >avenues than, for example, through Neil's bomb plan. ;o)
> >
> >I think so anyhow.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Kim.
>bastard!!!there is that...good point. ;o)
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:07:26 -0600, "Mr Simplicity"
<animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>> who for a moment will be ecstatic over their victory, til they realize
>> there is no one left to share it with.
>
>But at least they would have the satisfaction of knowing that they are
>riteously and justifiably soon-to-be-extinct.
>
>;o)
>
>
>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b6d0d1529i37648uh92mp51j1ddd64j517@4ax.com...
>> it all stems from the hubris of nations that think they can create the
>> ideal world. which could happen if you kill all but the last person
>> who for a moment will be ecstatic over their victory, til they realize
>> there is no one left to share it with.
>>
>> On 9 Jul 2005 18:01:28 +1000, "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dedric Terry <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> >>No one understands a
>> >>country they don't live in like a native
>> >
>> >This is kind of true, but really, it comes back to the beer point I made
>> >earlier. Nobody understands their local beer like the locals, but
>honestly,
>> >if you want to know beer you have to taste 1,000 of them. Otherwise you
>don't
>> >have any perspective upon which to base your opinion. Without outside
>influence
>> >and experience you'll tend to just assume the way you're living is right
>> >and normal. If you grow up where abuse is the norm, you will likely be
>that
>> >way too, and not understand how things could be different. Until you have
>> >experienced many cultures you don't truly have any perspective upon which
>> >to look at your own culture. Even though you know it, you know nothing
>else,
>> >hence you have no perspective upon it. This worries me a little about the
>> >states, that the U.S. generally stays fairly self contained and
>isolated...
>> > I think not as much on this group as generally, but that is the
>pattern.
>> >If you look up figures on things like where people holiday, and as I said
>> >before, what media people watch, you'll find that the U.S. tends to keep
>> >to itself. I think generally people on this group are fairly broadminded
>> >compared to their average countryman, possibly in part because
>discussions
>> >like this have been going for quite a while here. I would certainly admit
>> >I've learned a lot about the perspectives of many in the process, and I'm
>> >sure I'm not the only one.
>> >
>> >>Case in point: for us here in the US, Australia is where Crocodile
>Dundee
>> >>came from, and where the deadliest snakes, insects and ocean live dwell
>> >-
>> >>making for a very scary place, especially if you go on a walk-about
>alone
>> >in
>> >>search of Kiwi and Koalas. ;-) (a little lightening of the mood).
>> >
>> >I can assure you that t
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55476 is a reply to message #55473] |
Sat, 09 July 2005 14:07 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
he biggest threat to me right now is that my
>housemate
>> >might get drunk and smash a bottle. ;o)
>> >
>> >
>> >>As far as other brutal leaderships - perhaps you are referring to
>> >
>> >I'm not referring to anyone really... just that there's a long list, and
>> >indeed some of the brutal leaderships are listed as allies by, well, lots
>> >of people, as always. Turkey for one example, but I'm not really trying
>to
>> >make specific examples, just to say that I don't buy the good guy thing.
>> >If I knew someone who constantly tripped up old ladies, and then one day
>> >saw that person helping an old lady cross the street, well I wouldn't buy
>> >the theory that this person was doing it because he was a good guy. I'd
>be
>> >asking questions like "Is this old lady rich?" and things like that. Now
>> >I'm not blaming the U.S. here for being any worse than anyone else in
>respect
>> >to this. We live in a world where every country seems to trip up little
>old
>> >ladies when it suits, and help them across the road when it suits to do
>that.
>> >Point is when I see this pattern I don't buy any good guy stuff. Yes, it
>> >was the right thing to do. No, I don't beleive it was done *because* it
>was
>> >the right thing to do, because that pattern just doesn't fit.
>> >
>> >>Again, is the US the only one responsible?
>> >
>> >No, and as above I'm not trying to blame the U.S. I'm merely pointing out
>> >that in a world where everyone with no exceptions trips up some old
>ladies
>> >and helps others cross the road, I just don't buy it when someone asks me
>> >to give them a good guy hat because of one example where they did good.
>> >
>> >>Thanks for the engaging and even tempered conversation. It is nice to
>be
>> >>able to converse with neighbors around the globe and learn from each
>other.
>> >
>> >I too am enjoying these discussions, and thank you also. Here's hoping
>that,
>> >with experience at these discussions, we can all come to a better
>understanding.
>> >
>> >I tend to think if everyone around the world had a little corner like
>this
>> >full of international friends with whom to exchange views, the world
>would
>> >become a better place. It's a shame more islamic countries don't have
>internet
>> >and speak English. While I'm sure discussions would start of fairly
>chaotic,
>> >I think the world would have a better chance of reahing peace through
>such
>> >avenues than, for example, through Neil's bomb plan. ;o)
>> >
>> >I think so anyhow.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >Kim.
>>
>Do you have a source for this theory?
Do you also have an explaination for why world trade center 7
fell on 9/11.
-Wes
>In the 48 hours that bush gave Saddam before the invasion, there were satellite
>photos showing Russian special forces trucks and transport aircraft moving
>the stuff to Syria from the top suspected WMD site at that time. Prior
to
>this time, trucks were moving stuff to this site from all over Iraq. This
>was on the national news, they showed the photos, but of corse the story
>was squashed, never to be heard again. The WMD is probably sitting back
>in Russia now, or in Syria. Maybe somebody can find some info on this on
>the web.
>
>It was clearly stated by president Bush, that he wanted to topple Saddam
>and his regime before Iraq was invaded. WMD was not the only reason we
went
>in. We should have immediately gone in in 1997 when Saddam kicked the UN
>weapons inspectors out, but somebody was too busy copping a hummer in the
>white house and giving our pulse weapons technology to the Chinese.
>
>Use your common sense, if they can hide tons and tons of explosives, isn't
>it possible that they could still be hiding some WMD? WE did find some
WMD,
>although not a significant amount. it was about a hundred or so shells
and
>rockets, enough to kill thousands. They could not and would not account
>for tons of WMD. Anyway I think they were moved out of Iraq, they had plenty
>of time and they had help by other countries.
>
>
>>
>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42cde2d0$1@linux...
>>>
>>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>> >and it's a shame that they are apparently the only ones on earth who
>saw
>>> any
>>> >merit in enforcing UN resolutions
>>>
>>> That annoys me too. I'm still anti-bush because I *hate* the way they
>went
>>> about it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was clearly
>>garbage).
>>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted Saddam
>>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they noticed
>>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
>them
>>> more oil power.
>>>
>>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events, politically,
>>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and
>not
>>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It was
>>obviouly
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55478 is a reply to message #55476] |
Sat, 09 July 2005 14:19 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t;>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from tyranny"
>>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care
>if
>>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell them
>>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
>>would
>>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
>as
>>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had
>>waited
>>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that eventually
>>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
>>*didn't
>>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
>>charge,
>>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
>>restructured.
>>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time before
>>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only procrastinate
>>for
>>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
>>countries
>>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure it
>was
>>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it. The
>>way
>>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent on
>war
>>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would have
>>made
>>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N. actually
>>ended
>>> up behind it or not.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>>>
>>> This London thing is screwed.
>>>
>>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>>>
>>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Kim.
>>
>>
>rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>bastard!!!
Why, thank you... that's the nicest thing anyone's called me
all day!
:)Hey guys,
Jumped back in to see how you all are doing, and it's the same dang
conversation we had last year...
heh heh
Here's what we know.
Rewarding terror brings more terror. (thanks Spain!)
Ghandi was wrong. Sometimes war brings peace.
And the beatings will continue until the terrorism stops...
It's easy to be an intellectual when someone else is doing the dying..
(Don's corollary:
It's easy to be an equipment snob with someone else's money...)
DC
BTW, what did the G8 just give the Palestinians? 50 billion??
Who says bombing innocent civilians doesn't pay?"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote:
>Jumped back in to see how you all are doing, and it's the same dang
>conversation we had last year...
Had wondered where you'd been. :o)
Honestly, it's been pretty quiet politically on the group until these attacks.
Cheers,
Kim.Hi andrea
I have transferred DAT to Paris digitally many times, and whilst I do have a
SMPTE -MIDI convertor, (Pro Tools SMPTE Slave Driver), it is not needed for
that process.
The digital clock of the dat is enough.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"andrea perini" <timeforeaction@interfree.it> wrote in message
news:42d0297e@linux...
> First of all, I wanna thank you all: I've been away this NG for much time
> but I'm happy to find back this warm, friendly, lively environment...
>
> Rod, I'm veeery sorry, the DAT was actually a Tascam DA 30 !! Anyway, my
> goal is to check if the 442 modified by an authorized (former) Ensoniq
> laboratory works or not, 'cause, as I wrote, the first attempt without a
> Smpte to MTC converter turned solely to crashes and noises...
> I've called right now a couple of pros here in my region : one said there
> would be no need of any converter because the sample rate signal passing
> through the spdif would be enough to record digital data; the other said
> that is very likely that the manual is right, because he said without the
> converter the square waves of the master and the slave wouldn't likely be
> in
> phase, turning to conflicts...
>
> I think #2 is right, and I'll look for the JL Cooper suggested by the
> friend
> Andy Pow
>
> Thank You
>
>
>
> Dave(EK Sound) <audioguy_nospam_@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> 42cff025@linux...
>> I'm a bit confused as to what you are trying too do. The
>> DA-88 outputs 8 channels of T-DIF which is very similar to
>> AES. The IF442 only has a single 2 channel SPDIF input.
>> The two are not really compatible as far as a direct digital
>> transfer is concerned. Then if you want to "lock" the Paris
>> transport to the DA-88 to do multiple passes, you will need
>> a sync card (SY88) in the DA-88 to send MTC to the MIDI
>> interface on the Paris computer (you will need a MIDI
>> interface on your Paris Computer for this). Then you can
>> simply lock the Paris transport to the DA-88 as Andy
>> described in the other post.
>>
>> Give us a little more detail on what it is you are trying to
>> do exactly.
>>
>> David.
>>
>> andrea perini wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > The only time I tried to record digitally from a TASCAM DA88 into the
> IF-442
>> > it's been a fiasco. I've even modified the 442 in order to get a 2.5 v
> p-p
>> > flow instead of the original 0.5 v p-p.
>> > Today I'm waiting a friend with his Tascam here, and we're gonna try
> again
>> > with the MEC, this time.
>> > I've read the Paris' manual more carefully, and (please tell me if I'm
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55479 is a reply to message #55475] |
Sat, 09 July 2005 14:21 |
Wes
Messages: 8
Registered: December 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
; > wrong) it seems that Paris can be properly ran in sync ONLY if the
>> > other
>> > digital device is able to send Midi Time Code.
>> > If that's the truth, it takes a "Smpte to MTC converter": anyone is
> using
>> > such device with success? What model would you suggest?
>> >
>> > Maaany thanks
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>Been working my butt off doing installs and writing and recording.
It's hard to avoid politics when something like this happens innit?
DC
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote:
>>Jumped back in to see how you all are doing, and it's the same dang
>>conversation we had last year...
>
>Had wondered where you'd been. :o)
>
>Honestly, it's been pretty quiet politically on the group until these attacks.
>
>Cheers,
>Kim."DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote:
>It's hard to avoid politics when something like this happens innit?
For sure, but 85% of the thread has stayed nice and civil, and most people
actually seem to be genuinely listening to each other which is good. :o)
So you still using Paris?
Cheers,
Kim.You bet I am. But I am really starting to hear the D-A convertors.
I want one of these:
http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/digital/dac1/index.html
DC
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So you still using Paris?
>
>Cheers,
>Kim."DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote:
>I want one of these:
>
>http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/digital/dac1/index.html
AHA!! Well, yes, don't we all. ;o) A D/A is high on my list too. I've got
some cash coming in soon which is going to something musical, and I've been
tossing up between a DAC-1 and a Digitech GNX-4 guitar effects unit and looper/recorder
for live use. At the moment the scales are balanced toward the GNX-4, partly
because Sakis told me that D/A's have some new technology on the horizon
which will mean a drop in price and give more channels per dollar...
....but there's still a little voice in the back of my head going "Buy a
DAC-1! Buy a DAC-1!". ;o) ...oh, no, sorry, just realised, it's not in my
head at all, it's just Deej. ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.Hi all.
I have and old Paris sesion, but actually don't have the hardware. It's possible
to transfer those session to somother software?
Thanks
RicardoYou must have one or you will die.
Hi Don.......welcome back
;o)
Deej
"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d06ee3$1@linux...
>
> You bet I am. But I am really starting to hear the D-A convertors.
>
> I want one of these:
>
> http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/digital/dac1/index.html
>
>
> DC
>
>
>
> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >So you still using Paris?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Kim.
>There is a software converter call PafWav. It should convert your Paris
audio files to.wav files. thing is, if your .paf's aren't linear from
00:00:00 to the end, you will have to reposition the audio files on the
timeline manually.
Deej
"Ricardo Gomez" <rcgs@tutopia.com> wrote in message news:42d09090$1@linux...
>
> Hi all.
> I have and old Paris sesion, but actually don't have the hardware. It's
possible
> to transfer those session to somother software?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ricardo"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>You must have one or you will die.
See? Hear that?!? Told you it wasn't in my head! ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.He, he, Don, you couldn't hold up;-) Good to see you back.
erlilo
"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55496 is a reply to message #55458] |
Sun, 10 July 2005 00:45 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
in
>>> leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as "spikes of activity to put
>>> pressure on the regime".
>>>
>>> Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17,
>>> 2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern
>>> no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic minorities.
>>>
>>> A leaked memo previously disclosed by The Sunday Times, detailing a
>>> meeting chaired by the prime minister and attended by Jack Straw, the
>>> foreign secretary, Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, and Admiral Sir
>>> Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff, indicated that the US was carrying
>>> out the bombing.
>>>
>>> But Moseley's remarks, and figures for the amount of bombs dropped in
>>> southern Iraq during 2002, indicate that the RAF was taking as large a part
>>> in the bombing as American aircraft.
>>>
>>> Details of the Moseley briefing come amid rising concern in the US at
>>> the war. A new poll shows 60% of Americans now believe it was a mistake.
>>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Dedric,
Thought this bit below here was well written, and very true. There's much
arguing about many things, but the truth is very much that you can't know,
at the time of the choice, what will happen as a consequence of either option,
in advance. You have to guess, and can, of course, be wrong.
One thing is for sure, and that is that Saddam wasn't likely to suddenly
become a nice guy and implement democracy and abolish torture etc himself,
so you're weighing up two bad options.
Cheers,
Kim.
Dedric Terry <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote:
>I don't know if we've made all the right decisions - war isn't a decision
>that makes sense at the time in light of the loss and devastation it brings
>- it only disrupts one course to put another in motion. The best we can
do
>before hand is speculate whether the current course is destined for tragedy
>or not. After the fact, only time will tell what the new course will bring,
>but we never know if left as-is what would have happened. So, we have no
>definitive answer - esp. when put on a human scale. We didn't have a chart
>that told us what number of Jews had to die before Hitler needed to be
>stopped. We didn't have a chart for Iraq either, and made the assumption
>there were direct threat dangers there - the true answer will never be known
>(WMD could be in Syria, or not at all; Saddam was working on building nukes,
>but whether that was destined to become a dire threat if left unchecked,
>with or without sanctions, we'll never know). What cost has to be paid
>before there is justification for force? No one really has the answer to
>that - it's an impossible question to answer from a personal perspective,
>and well grounded broad/global perspective is quite difficult to come by,
>and quite unpopular when it is there.Hi. That's what i'm doing.
I was looking for another solution but there's no one.
Thanks
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>There is a software converter call PafWav. It should convert your Paris
>audio files to.wav files. thing is, if your .paf's aren't linear from
>00:00:00 to the end, you will have to reposition the audio files on the
>timeline manually.
>
>Deej
>
>"Ricardo Gomez" <rcgs@tutopia.com> wrote in message news:42d09090$1@linux...
>>
>> Hi all.
>> I have and old Paris sesion, but actually don't have the hardware. It's
>possible
>> to transfer those session to somother software?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ricardo
>
>Thanks, Martin
yesterday I send a text "on the fly" to this guy tellin' him to stay home
and wait for me to buy the JL C., but at this point we can give anyway a
try...
Martin Harrington <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
42d06c63$1@linux...
> Hi andrea
> I have transferred DAT to Paris digitally many times, and whilst I do have
a
> SMPTE -MIDI convertor, (Pro Tools SMPTE Slave Driver), it is not needed
for
> that process.
> The digital clock of the dat is enough.
> --
> Martin Harrington
> www.lendanear-sound.com
>
> "andrea perini" <timeforeaction@interfree.it> wrote in message
> news:42d0297e@linux...
> > First of all, I wanna thank you all: I've been away this NG for much
time
> > but I'm happy to find back this warm, friendly, lively environment...
> >
> > Rod, I'm veeery sorry, the DAT was actually a Tascam DA 30 !! Anyway, my
> > goal is to check if the 442 modified by an authorized (former) Ensoniq
> > laboratory works or not, 'cause, as I wrote, the first attempt without a
> > Smpte to MTC converter turned solely to crashes and noises...
> > I've called right now a couple of pros here in my region : one said
there
> > would be no need of any converter because the sample rate signal passing
> > through the spdif would be enough to record digital data; the other said
> > that is very likely that the manual is right, because he said without
the
> > converter the square waves of the master and the slave wouldn't likely
be
> > in
> > phase, turning to conflicts...
> >
> > I think #2 is right, and I'll look for the JL Cooper suggested by the
> > friend
> > Andy Pow
> >
> > Thank You
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave(EK Sound) <audioguy_nospam_@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > 42cff025@linux...
> >> I'm a bit confused as to what you are trying too do. The
> >> DA-88 outputs 8 channels of T-DIF which is very similar to
> >> AES. The IF442 only has a single 2 channel SPDIF input.
> >> The two are not really compatible as far as a direct digital
> >> transfer is concerned. Then if you want to "lock" the Paris
> >> transport to the DA-88 to do multiple passes, you will need
> >> a sync card (SY88) in the DA-88 to send MTC to the MIDI
> >> interface on the Paris computer (you will need a MIDI
> >> interface on your Paris Computer for this). Then you can
> >> simply lock the Paris transport to the DA-88 as Andy
> >> described in the other post.
> >>
> >> Give us a little more detail on what it is you are trying to
> >> do exactly.
> >>
> >> David.
> >>
> >> andrea perini wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > The only time I tried to record digitally from a TASCAM DA88 into the
> > IF-442
> >> > it's been a fiasco. I've even modified the 442 in order to get a 2.5
v
> > p-p
> >> > flow instead of the original 0.5 v p-p.
> >> > Today I'm waiting a friend with his Tascam here, and we're gonna try
> > again
> >> > with the MEC, this time.
> >> > I've read the Paris' manual more carefully, and (please tell me if
I'm
> >> > wrong) it seems that Paris can be properly ran in sync ONLY if the
> >> > other
> >> > digital device is able to send Midi Time Code.
> >> > If that's the truth, it takes a "Smpte to MTC converter": anyone is
> > using
> >> > such device with success? What model would you suggest?
> >> >
> >> > Maaany thanks
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>
>Hey Mr.S
Where can one find sais PafWav converter...did a quick search and garbage
came up
Is this a batch converter?
Don
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42d0a549@linux...
> There is a software converter call PafWav. It should convert your Paris
> audio files to.wav files. thing is, if your .paf's aren't linear from
> 00:00:00 to the end, you will have to reposition the audio files on the
> timeline manually.
>
> Deej
>
> "Ricardo Gomez" <rcgs@tutopia.com> wrote in message
> news:42d09090$1@linux...
>>
>> Hi all.
>> I have and old Paris sesion, but actually don't have the hardware. It's
> possible
>> to transfer those session to somother software?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ricardo
>
>If you're running XP:
http://radio.hydrorecords.com/index.php?act=Attach&type= post&id=1580
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:42d135fb@linux...
> Hey Mr.S
>
> Where can one find sais PafWav converter...did a quick search and garbage
> came up
>
> Is this a batch converter?
>
> Don
>
>
> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:42d0a549@linux...
>> There is a software converter call PafWav. It should convert your Paris
>> audio files to.wav files. thing is, if your .paf's aren't linear from
>> 00:00:00 to the end, you will have to reposition the audio files on the
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55503 is a reply to message #55496] |
Sun, 10 July 2005 10:08 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt;>>BTW, the UN sanctions is the flimsiest excuse for a war EVER. (Nevermind
>>>>that those very UN sanctions destroyed the country anyway)
>>>>
>>>>*************************************************
>>>>
>>>> General admits to secret air war
>>>>
>>>> Jun 26, 2005
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Michael Smith
>>>> Times Online (UK)
>>>>
>>>> THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq
>>>>war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers
>>>>that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle
>>>>of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
>>>>
>>>> Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war
>>>>Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied
>>>>aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully
>>>>selected targets" before the war officially started.
>>>> The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the allied
>>>>victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start
>>>>the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.
>>>>
>>>> If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly
>>>>zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W
>>>>Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.
>>>>
>>>> Moseley's remarks have emerged after reports in The Sunday Times that
>>>>showed an increase in allied bombing in southern Iraq was described in
>>>>leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as "spikes of activity to put
>>>>pressure on the regime".
>>>>
>>>> Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17,
>>>>2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern
>>>>no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic minorities.
>>>>
>>>> A leaked memo previously disclosed by The Sunday Times, detailing a
>>>>meeting chaired by the prime minister and attended by Jack Straw, the
>>>>foreign secretary, Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, and Admiral Sir
>>>>Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff, indicated that the US was carrying
>>>>out the bombing.
>>>>
>>>> But Moseley's remarks, and figures for the amount of bombs dropped in
>>>>southern Iraq during 2002, indicate that the RAF was taking as large a part
>>>>in the bombing as American aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> Details of the Moseley briefing come amid rising concern in the US at
>>>>the war. A new poll shows 60% of Americans now believe it was a mistake.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>What;s Up Mr DC?
Good to see you here.
respect
Nappy
PS Thanks for the Organ Music
"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote:
>
>Hey guys,
>
>Jumped back in to see how you all are doing, and it's the same dang
>conversation we had last year...
>
>heh heh
>
>
>Here's what we know.
>
>Rewarding terror brings more terror. (thanks Spain!)
>
>Ghandi was wrong. Sometimes war brings peace.
>
>And the beatings will continue until the terrorism stops...
>
>
>It's easy to be an intellectual when someone else is doing the dying..
>
>
>(Don's corollary:
>
>It's easy to be an equipment snob with someone else's money...)
>
>
>DC
>
>BTW, what did the G8 just give the Palestinians? 50 billion??
>
>Who says bombing innocent civilians doesn't pay?
>
>
>Jamie,
There is alos thte argument to be made that those who ignore the lessons of
history are doomed to repeat them. As I have said in other posts to this
thread, I believe that our position in the world as the last standing
superpower is a reaction to our having been repeated called on put a stop to
events that were, for themost part, caused by the European proclivities for
nationalistic aggression, the policy of appeasement of that aggression and
the inevitable escalation of that aggression caused by said appeasement. We
see it happening today. The Brits learned from this and though many of their
citizens seem to have forgotten these lessons, many more have nort,
including those who run the government. I had this awful feeling when we had
to go into Bosnia while the EU sat on their hands and did nothing while a
genocide was in full swing, that, like it or not, we were going to need to
hang on to and pay the taxes for this big military industrial complex,
because we were going to have to keep cleaning up other people's messes.
Having such a potentand military force also tends toward a proclivity to use
it to stop something before it starts, as the Europeans should have done
with Hitler, but didn't do. They were both politically reluctant to be seen
as *the aggressors* and preempt him, an also psychologically unwilling to
fight. This led to the slaughter of millions. Though the Italian government,
the Danish government and other former eastern bloc governemnts have
contributed a lot to our efforts to confront terrorism in Iraq and
elsewhere, I think if we could see some sort of indication of *lessons
learned* on the part of the continental western Euro nations like France,
Spain and to a lesser extent Germany,we would feel a bit more comfortable
with trusting that history didn't repeat itself. The Euro citizenry is, to a
greater or lesser degree sticking their heads in the sand, as happened prior
to WWII. We, and the Brits, have not forgotten. I am not including Canadians
in this because as upset as I know they are, and as divided as they are
about these issues and their feelings towards us, they have, like us, been
dragged repeatedly into the never ending Euroquagmire, have suffered as we
have and I have to repect their feelings, whatever they may be.
Deej
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:42d147b4@linux...
>
> Hey Dedric, thanks for the thoughtful response.
>
> Most importantly, hiking a 14er would be great, let's keep in touch on
> that. Also, if you're going to be heading to Denver give me a shout. If
> I'm heading for the Springs I'll let you know.
>
> You're right about not knowing everything. A lot of arguments made here
> hinge on speculation. War is often sold as the price for freedom, but
> the sellers are not always correct or even sincere. As responsible
> voters we must be able to see through smoke screens, rationalizations
> and lies, but that's often hard except through hindsight.
>
> Past experience teaches us to carefully examine the many motivations for
> war, not all of which are in the same lofty category as "the price of
> freedom." There are other ways to help ensure freedom that are less
> destructive and have less damaging consequences and those, too, must be
> considered. Violence breeds violence and that consequence must be taken
> into account as we try to find the wisest, most effective course of
> action toward the better world we all want. Complacency is not an option.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
>
> > Hey Jamie,
> >
> > That was just a generalized response to the reactionary approach the
> > previous poster had taken. The point was, I really think (and did
before
> > the war talk started) that there is more to the story than has, or
probably
> > ever will be publicized - we'll never know for sure either way.
> >
> > The poster had come across sounding like Iraqis were doing just fine
before
> > we went in but are a mess now because of us and no one else - and the
poster
> > doesn't like Bush (to each their own of course). I'm sure the hundreds
of
> > thousands of Iraqis that were tortured or killed under Saddam's regime
might
> > disagree about their apparent well-being at the time. Certainly the
> > country's infrastructure and economy were better off before the war.
War is
> > devastating no matter how you look at it.
> >
> > Both sides of the circumstances sadden me - tyrannical rule is more than
> > anyone should have to endure, and certainly would be more than most
> > Americans could bear in our desire to have no one guide, much less
restrict
> > our personal decisions; and if war is the only way to be free (as our
> > predecessors found in the 1700's), freedom comes at a high price. As a
> > country we've paid such a price many times - Rev. War, Civil War, WWI,
WWII,
> > Korea, Veitnam, etc. It never gets easy. It is never glorious. My
hope
> > now is that the outcome for the Iraqi people is freedom to make their
own
> > decisions about who governs them and how - free from tyranny, and free
from
> > anarchist insurgents. I'm just not sure many people think there is any
cost
> > worth paying anymore. After all, $2.39 a gallon or which movie to go
see is
> > about the highest cost most people have to weigh out here in the US (by
> > comparison to many other countries with far greater struggles in their
> > pathes). With such a gift of opportunity for life here comes a great
> > responsibility, one that I think we are losing perspective on as a
country
> > (as much of the world is also). Sometimes we will take on too much
> > shouldering of that responsibility, and sometimes not enough, or not
enough
> > of the right things, or the right way.
> >
> > I don't know if we've made all the right decisions - war isn't a
decision
> > that makes sense at the time in light of the loss and devastation it
brings
> > - it only disrupts one course to put another in motion. The best we can
do
> > before hand is speculate whether the current course is destined for
tragedy
> > or not. After the fact, only time will tell what the new course will
bring,
> > but we never know if left as-is what would have happened. So, we have
no
> > definitive answer - esp. when put on a human scale. We didn't have a
chart
> > that told us what number of Jews had to die before Hitler needed to be
> > stopped. We didn't have a chart for Iraq either, and made the
assumption
> > there were direct threat dangers there - the true answer will never be
known
> > (WMD could be in Syria, or not at all; Saddam was working on building
nukes,
> > but whether that was destined to become a dire threat if left unchecked,
> > with or without sanctions, we'll never know). What cost has to be paid
> > before there is justification for force? No one really has the answer
to
> > that - it's an impossible question to answer from a personal
perspective,
> > and well grounded broad/global perspective is quite difficult to come
by,
> > and quite unpopular when it is there.
> >
> > Well, that's about enough philosophizing for me.
> >
> > Hey - sorry I haven't made it out your way yet - I'm in Co. Springs now.
If
> > you have a free afternoon after the first of August, drop me a line.
Ever
> > hike any 14'ers? I'm thinking of doing one before the summer ends.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dedric
> >
> >
> > On 7/9/05 9:06 AM, in article 42cfd9a1@linux, "Jamie K"
> > <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dedric Terry wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Clinton
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55505 is a reply to message #55503] |
Sun, 10 July 2005 10:51 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
d
> >>war and how it played out in regional conflicts over the years. Then
> >>there's oil, religious fundamentalism, competition between local
> >>countries, corporate interests, the list goes on. A lot of things
> >>happened to create the Iraq of Saddam.
> >>
> >>You should know that bringing up Clinton does not innoculate the
> >>following administration. Mistakes can and are propogated across
> >>multiple administrations. The allegation is that the current
> >>administration took advantage of the no-fly policy to try to provoke a
> >>war. If the previous administration was part of that, then so be it. If
> >>not, so be it. Either way, the allegation should be looked at.
> >>
> >>We can hold ourselves to our professed high standard, and if we fall
> >>short, admit our own mistakes. Of course, that does not mean we should
> >>ignore mistakes from others in the world.
> >>
> >>It doesn't make our policies better to pretend it's all about "hating"
> >>this or that administration. It's really all about creating policies
> >>that help us move toward goals we all agree are important.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Certainly France, Germany and Russia were perfectly right to defy those
> >>>sanctions to turn a profit in Iraq. Oh, that's right they aren't the
US, so
> >>>they can get away with it - they are politically correct by
birthright - the
> >>>US isn't.
> >>
> >>If we criticize one country, that does not make every other country
> >>perfect. The current situation, and situations previous, came about due
> >>to actions from people all over the world and in Iraq. Finding faults in
> >>others, easy as that is, does not make our mistakes go away. Recognizing
> >>the entire range of contributing factors and acting on that information
> >>is the only way to improve our success rate in the future.
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>-Jamie K
> >>http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 7/8/05 1:38 PM, in article 42ced6d1$1@linux, "justcron"
> >>><justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:42cebcb2@linux...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Dear Uncle Ricky and Brother Bud,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Please go back and read my posts carefully. They are not defending an
> >>>>>attack
> >>>>>due to WMD. I do think that it's possible that WMD did exist before
we
> >>>>>went
> >>>>>in, but my posts are talking about violation of UN sanctions.
> >>>>
> >>>>BTW, the UN sanctions is the flimsiest excuse for a war EVER.
(Nevermind
> >>>>that those very UN sanctions destroyed the country anyway)
> >>>>
> >>>>*************************************************
> >>>>
> >>>> General admits to secret air war
> >>>>
> >>>> Jun 26, 2005
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael Smith
> >>>> Times Online (UK)
> >>>>
> >>>> THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the
Iraq
> >>>>war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British
officers
> >>>>that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the
middle
> >>>>of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
> >>>>
> >>>> Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war
> >>>>Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003
allied
> >>>>aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391
"carefully
> >>>>selected targets" before the war officially started.
> >>>> The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the
allied
> >>>>victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to
start
> >>>>the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.
> >>>>
> >>>> If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly
> >>>>zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George
W
> >>>>Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted
illegally.
> >>>>
> >>>> Moseley's remarks have emerged after reports in The Sunday Times
that
> >>>>showed an increase in allied bombing in southern Iraq was described in
> >>>>leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as "spikes of activity
to put
> >>>>pressure on the regime".
> >>>>
> >>>> Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17,
> >>>>2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern
> >>>>no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic
minorities.
> >>>>
> >>>> A leaked memo previously disclosed by The Sunday Times, detailing a
> >>>>meeting chaired by the prime minister and attended by Jack Straw, the
> >>>>foreign secretary, Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, and Admiral
Sir
> >>>>Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff, indicated that the US was
carrying
> >>>>out the bombing.
> >>>>
> >>>> But Moseley's remarks, and figures for the amount of bombs dropped
in
> >>>>southern Iraq during 2002, indicate that the RAF was taking as large a
part
> >>>>in the bombing as American aircraft.
> >>>>
> >>>> Details of the Moseley briefing come amid rising concern in the US
at
> >>>>the war. A new poll shows 60% of Americans now believe it was a
mistake.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >Maybe when the ocean temperatures get warm enough to keep producing
hurricanes year around, we'll *get it*.
Hope you guys down there in Dixieland ride this one out OK. Get back to us
and let us know how you're doing when they getthe power grid back up.2mec,3 card system on WinMe...asus Cusl2c mobo,512mb ram,p3 733...system is
unstable..after fiew minutes of working ewerithing freeze with some crackle
noise...after that error 7/7 . when I replace cards in pci slots everithing
wofks fine but only few minutes,after that..everything again..I decde to
buy a new mobo,ram and cpu..please sugestions..I need sugestions right now
beacause i MUST buy that things tomorow..I have lot to work with my system...sory
for my English!
MOBO?
RAM?
CPU?"Ricardo Gomez" <rcgs@tutopia.com> wrote:
>
>Hi all.
>I have and old Paris sesion, but actually don't have the hardware. It's
possible
>to transfer those session to somother software?
>
>Thanks
>
>Ricardo
You can convert you paf files(or maybee sd2 files) with Vawelab 4.0...to
wav files ...if you have luck..files will be rendered from the begining and
then you can infort them in some other softwareit's design was responsible for it's structural failure. as the
joists started to sag from the heat the bolts holding the members to
the outside wall together failed. also the center stairwell structure
was not designed to withstand the forces applied. there was a whole
thing on this about 2 years ago on...that commie infiltrated leftie
lying scab sucking pbs...nova program.
On 10 Jul 2005 07:21:38 +1000, "Wes" <wexus6@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Do you have a source for this theory?
>Do you also have an explaination for why world trade center 7
>fell on 9/11.
>-Wes
>
>
>>In the 48 hours that bush gave Saddam before the invasion, there were satellite
>>photos showing Russian special forces trucks and transport aircraft moving
>>the stuff to Syria from the top suspected WMD site at that time. Prior
>to
>>this time, trucks were moving stuff to this site from all over Iraq. This
>>was on the national news, they showed the photos, but of corse the story
>>was squashed, never to be heard again. The WMD is probably sitting back
>>in Russia now, or in Syria. Maybe somebody can find some info on this on
>>the web.
>>
>>It was clearly stated by president Bush, that he wanted to topple Saddam
>>and his regime before Iraq was invaded. WMD was not the only reason we
>went
>>in. We should have immediately gone in in 1997 when Saddam kicked the UN
>>weapons inspectors out, but somebody was too busy copping a hummer in the
>>white house and giving our pulse weapons technology to the Chinese.
>>
>>Use your common sense, if they can hide tons and tons of explosives, isn't
>>it possible that they could still be hiding some WMD? WE did find some
>WMD,
>>although not a significant amount. it was about a hundred or so shells
>and
>>rockets, enough to kill thousands. They could not and would not account
>>for tons of WMD. Anyway I think they were moved out of Iraq, they had plenty
>>of time and they had help by other countries.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42cde2d0$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>> >and it's a shame that they are apparently the only ones on earth who
>>saw
>>>> any
>>>> >merit in enforcing UN resolutions
>>>>
>>>> That annoys me too. I'm still anti-bush because I *hate* the way they
>>went
>>>> about it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was clearly
>>>garbage).
>>>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted Saddam
>>>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they noticed
>>>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
>>them
>>>> more oil power.
>>>>
>>>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events, politically,
>>>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and
>>not
>>>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It was
>>>obviouly
>>>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from tyranny"
>>>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care
>>if
>>>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell them
>>>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
>>>would
>>>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
>>as
>>>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had
>>>waited
>>>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that eventually
>>>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
>>>*didn't
>>>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
>>>charge,
>>>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
>>>restructured.
>>>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time before
>>>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only procrastinate
>>>for
>>>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
>>>countries
>>>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure it
>>was
>>>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it. The
>>>way
>>>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent on
>>war
>>>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would have
>>>made
>>>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N. actually
>>>ended
>>>> up behind it or not.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>>>>
>>>> This London thing is screwed.
>>>>
>>>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>>>>
>>>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Kim.
>>>
>>>
>>Rick my man... he's talkin about WTC7... on Nova the owner of the lease
says they demolished it.
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8mq2d15681h8s7e6cq3284corc7912thdn@4ax.com...
> it's design was responsible for it's structural failure. as the
> joists started to sag from the heat the bolts holding the members to
> the outside wall together failed. also the center stairwell structure
> was not designed to withstand the forces applied. there was a whole
> thing on this about 2 years ago on...that commie infiltrated leftie
> lying scab sucking pbs...nova program.
>
> On 10 Jul 2005 07:21:38 +1000, "Wes" <wexus6@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Do you have a source for this theory?
>>Do you also have an explaination for why world trade center 7
>>fell on 9/11.
>>-Wes
>>
>>
>>>In the 48 hours that bush gave Saddam before the invasion, there were
>>>satellite
>>>photos showing Russian special forces trucks and transport aircraft
>>>moving
>>>the stuff to Syria from the top suspected WMD site at that time. Prior
>>to
>>>this time, trucks were moving stuff to this site from all over Iraq. This
>>>was on the national news, they showed the photos, but of corse the story
>>>was squashed, never to be heard again. The WMD is probably sitting back
>>>in Russia now, or in Syria. Maybe somebody can find some info on this on
>>>the web.
>>>
>>>It was clearly stated by president Bush, that he wanted to topple Saddam
>>>and his regime before Iraq was invaded. WMD was not the only reason we
>>went
>>>in. We should have immediately gone in in 1997 when Saddam kicked the UN
>>>weapons inspectors out, but somebody was too busy copping a hummer in the
>>>white house and giving our pulse weapons technology to the Chinese.
>>>
>>>Use your common sense, if they can hide tons and tons of explosives,
>>>isn't
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55509 is a reply to message #55479] |
Sun, 10 July 2005 11:42 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
bout it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was
>>>>> clearly
>>>>garbage).
>>>>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted
>>>>> Saddam
>>>>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they
>>>>> noticed
>>>>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
>>>them
>>>>> more oil power.
>>>>>
>>>>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events,
>>>>> politically,
>>>>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and
>>>not
>>>>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It
>>>>> was
>>>>obviouly
>>>>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from
>>>>> tyranny"
>>>>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care
>>>if
>>>>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell
>>>>> them
>>>>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
>>>>would
>>>>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
>>>as
>>>>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had
>>>>waited
>>>>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that
>>>>> eventually
>>>>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
>>>>*didn't
>>>>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
>>>>charge,
>>>>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
>>>>restructured.
>>>>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time
>>>>> before
>>>>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only
>>>>> procrastinate
>>>>for
>>>>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
>>>>countries
>>>>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure it
>>>was
>>>>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it.
>>>>> The
>>>>way
>>>>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent on
>>>war
>>>>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would have
>>>>made
>>>>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N.
>>>>> actually
>>>>ended
>>>>> up behind it or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>>>>>
>>>>> This London thing is screwed.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>>>>>
>>>>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Kim.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>hey, i just got called spam by a fiends e-mail...sure makes me wish i
had some bullets for my gun about now...;o)
On 10 Jul 2005 08:52:54 +1000, "Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote:
>
>rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>bastard!!!
>
>Why, thank you... that's the nicest thing anyone's called me
>all day!
>
>:)Sounds like it may be heat related or power supply related.
Deej
"Goran" <goran.stojiljkovic@os.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:42d16a28$1@linux...
>
> 2mec,3 card system on WinMe...asus Cusl2c mobo,512mb ram,p3 733...system
is
> unstable..after fiew minutes of working ewerithing freeze with some
crackle
> noise...after that error 7/7 . when I replace cards in pci slots
everithing
> wofks fine but only few minutes,after that..everything again..I decde to
> buy a new mobo,ram and cpu..please sugestions..I need sugestions right now
> beacause i MUST buy that things tomorow..I have lot to work with my
system...sory
> for my English!
> MOBO?
> RAM?
> CPU?that commie infiltrated leftie
lying scab sucking pbs...nova program.
Damn right.........and by God, we're gonna have to keep a close eye on
those prarie home companions. (First time I ever heard the term *prarie home
companion* the thought of a lonely housewives in a sod dwelling doing
unspeakable things with a grouse came to mind...........but that's was back
in the days when I was rollin' my own)
;oP
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8mq2d15681h8s7e6cq3284corc7912thdn@4ax.com...
> it's design was responsible for it's structural failure. as the
> joists started to sag from the heat the bolts holding the members to
> the outside wall together failed. also the center stairwell structure
> was not designed to withstand the forces applied. there was a whole
> thing on this about 2 years ago on...that commie infiltr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55510 is a reply to message #55509] |
Sun, 10 July 2005 11:44 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ated leftie
> lying scab sucking pbs...nova program.
>
> On 10 Jul 2005 07:21:38 +1000, "Wes" <wexus6@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Do you have a source for this theory?
> >Do you also have an explaination for why world trade center 7
> >fell on 9/11.
> >-Wes
> >
> >
> >>In the 48 hours that bush gave Saddam before the invasion, there were
satellite
> >>photos showing Russian special forces trucks and transport aircraft
moving
> >>the stuff to Syria from the top suspected WMD site at that time. Prior
> >to
> >>this time, trucks were moving stuff to this site from all over Iraq.
This
> >>was on the national news, they showed the photos, but of corse the story
> >>was squashed, never to be heard again. The WMD is probably sitting back
> >>in Russia now, or in Syria. Maybe somebody can find some info on this
on
> >>the web.
> >>
> >>It was clearly stated by president Bush, that he wanted to topple Saddam
> >>and his regime before Iraq was invaded. WMD was not the only reason we
> >went
> >>in. We should have immediately gone in in 1997 when Saddam kicked the
UN
> >>weapons inspectors out, but somebody was too busy copping a hummer in
the
> >>white house and giving our pulse weapons technology to the Chinese.
> >>
> >>Use your common sense, if they can hide tons and tons of explosives,
isn't
> >>it possible that they could still be hiding some WMD? WE did find some
> >WMD,
> >>although not a significant amount. it was about a hundred or so shells
> >and
> >>rockets, enough to kill thousands. They could not and would not account
> >>for tons of WMD. Anyway I think they were moved out of Iraq, they had
plenty
> >>of time and they had help by other countries.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42cde2d0$1@linux...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
> >>>> >and it's a shame that they are apparently the only ones on earth who
> >>saw
> >>>> any
> >>>> >merit in enforcing UN resolutions
> >>>>
> >>>> That annoys me too. I'm still anti-bush because I *hate* the way they
> >>went
> >>>> about it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was
clearly
> >>>garbage).
> >>>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted
Saddam
> >>>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they
noticed
> >>>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
> >>them
> >>>> more oil power.
> >>>>
> >>>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events,
politically,
> >>>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda,
and
> >>not
> >>>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It
was
> >>>obviouly
> >>>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from
tyranny"
> >>>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to
care
> >>if
> >>>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell
them
> >>>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I
*almost*
> >>>would
> >>>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
> >>as
> >>>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S.
had
> >>>waited
> >>>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that
eventually
> >>>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
> >>>*didn't
> >>>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
> >>>charge,
> >>>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
> >>>restructured.
> >>>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time
before
> >>>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only
procrastinate
> >>>for
> >>>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
> >>>countries
> >>>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure
it
> >>was
> >>>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it.
The
> >>>way
> >>>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent
on
> >>war
> >>>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would
have
> >>>made
> >>>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N.
actually
> >>>ended
> >>>> up behind it or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
> >>>>
> >>>> This London thing is screwed.
> >>>>
> >>>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
> >>>>
> >>>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Kim.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>Sounds like it may be heat related or power supply related.
>
>Deej
I vote for a new power supply.
-steve
>
>"Goran" <goran.stojiljkovic@os.htnet.hr> wrote in message
>news:42d16a28$1@linux...
>>
>> 2mec,3 card system on WinMe...asus Cusl2c mobo,512mb ram,p3 733...system
>is
>> unstable..after fiew minutes of working ewerithing freeze with some
>crackle
>> noise...after that error 7/7 . when I replace cards in pci slots
>everithing
>> wofks fine
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55513 is a reply to message #55509] |
Sun, 10 July 2005 11:58 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
and the forces applied. there was a whole
>> thing on this about 2 years ago on...that commie infiltrated leftie
>> lying scab sucking pbs...nova program.
>>
>> On 10 Jul 2005 07:21:38 +1000, "Wes" <wexus6@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Do you have a source for this theory?
>>>Do you also have an explaination for why world trade center 7
>>>fell on 9/11.
>>>-Wes
>>>
>>>
>>>>In the 48 hours that bush gave Saddam before the invasion, there were
>>>>satellite
>>>>photos showing Russian special forces trucks and transport aircraft
>>>>moving
>>>>the stuff to Syria from the top suspected WMD site at that time. Prior
>>>to
>>>>this time, trucks were moving stuff to this site from all over Iraq.
This
>>>>was on the national news, they showed the photos, but of corse the story
>>>>was squashed, never to be heard again. The WMD is probably sitting back
>>>>in Russia now, or in Syria. Maybe somebody can find some info on this
on
>>>>the web.
>>>>
>>>>It was clearly stated by president Bush, that he wanted to topple Saddam
>>>>and his regime before Iraq was invaded. WMD was not the only reason
we
>>>went
>>>>in. We should have immediately gone in in 1997 when Saddam kicked the
UN
>>>>weapons inspectors out, but somebody was too busy copping a hummer in
the
>>>>white house and giving our pulse weapons technology to the Chinese.
>>>>
>>>>Use your common sense, if they can hide tons and tons of explosives,
>>>>isn't
>>>>it possible that they could still be hiding some WMD? WE did find some
>>>WMD,
>>>>although not a significant amount. it was about a hundred or so shells
>>>and
>>>>rockets, enough to kill thousands. They could not and would not account
>>>>for tons of WMD. Anyway I think they were moved out of Iraq, they had
>>>>plenty
>>>>of time and they had help by other countries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:42cde2d0$1@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>>>> >and it's a shame that they are apparently the only ones on earth
who
>>>>saw
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> >merit in enforcing UN resolutions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That annoys me too. I'm still anti-bush because I *hate* the way they
>>>>went
>>>>>> about it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was
>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>garbage).
>>>>>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted
>>>>>> Saddam
>>>>>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they
>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
>>>>them
>>>>>> more oil power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events,
>>>>>> politically,
>>>>>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda,
and
>>>>not
>>>>>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It
>>>>>> was
>>>>>obviouly
>>>>>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from
>>>>>> tyranny"
>>>>>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to
care
>>>>if
>>>>>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
>>>>>would
>>>>>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
>>>>as
>>>>>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S.
had
>>>>>waited
>>>>>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that
>>>>>> eventually
>>>>>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
>>>>>*didn't
>>>>>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
>>>>>charge,
>>>>>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
>>>>>restructured.
>>>>>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only
>>>>>> procrastinate
>>>>>for
>>>>>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag
of
>>>>>countries
>>>>>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure
it
>>>>was
>>>>>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>way
>>>>>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent
on
>>>>war
>>>>>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would
have
>>>>>made
>>>>>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N.
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>ended
>>>>>> up behind it or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This London thing is screwed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Kim.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C5856A.93B6B760
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encodin
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55515 is a reply to message #55510] |
Sun, 10 July 2005 12:47 |
Wes
Messages: 8
Registered: December 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
;news:42d16a28$1@linux...
>>
>> 2mec,3 card system on WinMe...asus Cusl2c mobo,512mb ram,p3 =
733...system
>is
>> unstable..after fiew minutes of working ewerithing freeze with =
some
>crackle
>> noise...after that error 7/7 . when I replace cards in pci slots
>everithing
>> wofks fine but only few minutes,after that..everything again..I =
decde
to
>> buy a new mobo,ram and cpu..please sugestions..I need sugestions =
right
now
>> beacause i MUST buy that things tomorow..I have lot to work with my
>system...sory
>> for my English!
>> MOBO?
>> RAM?
>> CPU?
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C5856A.93B6B760
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Goran,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I vote for checking connections =
first. I=20
think 7/7 is</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>a Paris hardware issue not being =
seen. I have=20
corrected</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>7/7 a few times by sorting out which is =
the master=20
card</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>and/or changing/swapping out SCSI =
cables to and=20
from</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>the eds cards and Mecs. Also =
check=20
internal multipin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>connectors for proper links between=20
cards.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Don't buy anything until these things =
have been=20
thoroughly</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>checked.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Good luck!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tom</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"steve the artguy" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:artguy@svnartichokespittle.net">artguy@svnartichokespittle=
..net</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d17361$1@linux">news:42d17361$1@linux</A>...</DIV><BR>"Mr =
Simplicity" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:animix_spamless_@animas.net">animix_spamless_@animas.net</=
A>>=20
wrote:<BR>>Sounds like it may be heat related or power supply=20
related.<BR>><BR>>Deej<BR><BR>I vote for a new power=20
supply.<BR><BR>-steve<BR><BR><BR>><BR>> "Goran" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:goran.stojiljkovic@os.htnet.hr">goran.stojiljkovic@os.htne=
t.hr</A>>=20
wrote in =
message<BR>>news:42d16a28$1@linux...<BR>>><BR>>>=20
2mec,3 card system on WinMe...asus Cusl2c mobo,512mb ram,p3=20
733...system<BR>>is<BR>>> unstable..after fiew minutes of =
working=20
ewerithing freeze with some<BR>>crackle<BR>>> =
noise...after=20
that error 7/7 . when I replace cards in pci=20
slots<BR>>everithing<BR>>> wofks fine but only few =
minutes,after=20
that..everything again..I decde<BR>to<BR>>> buy a new mobo,ram =
and=20
cpu..please sugestions..I need sugestions right<BR>now<BR>>> =
beacause i=20
MUST buy that things tomorow..I have lot to work with=20
my<BR>>system...sory<BR>>> for my English!<BR>>>=20
MOBO?<BR>>> RAM?<BR>>>=20
CPU?<BR>><BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML >
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C5856A.93B6B760--I think a bigger powersupply (400-550w) with a better cooling system will
make the day for you. As Deej is saying, it can be heat or/and power supply
related.
erlilo
"Goran" <goran.stojiljkovic@os.htnet.hr> skrev i en meddelelse
news:42d16a28$1@linux...
>
> 2mec,3 card system on WinMe...asus Cusl2c mobo,512mb ram,p3 733...system
> is
> unstable..after fiew minutes of working ewerithing freeze with some
> crackle
> noise...after that error 7/7 . when I replace cards in pci slots
> everithing
> wofks fine but only few minutes,after that..everything again..I decde to
> buy a new mobo,ram and cpu..please sugestions..I need sugestions right now
> beacause i MUST buy that things tomorow..I have lot to work with my
> system...sory
> for my English!
> MOBO?
> RAM?
> CPU?On 7/10/05 11:08 AM, in article 42d147b4@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Dedric, thanks for the thoughtful response.
>
> Most importantly, hiking a 14er would be great, let's keep in touch on
> that. Also, if you're going to be heading to Denver give me a shout. If
> I'm heading for the Springs I'll let you know.
Absolutely - sounds great. I'll send you an email with my cell phone number.
Regards,
Dedric
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.comHi Jamie,
Ouch! Hey trust me on this, I wasn't calling *you* a
pampered intellectual or anything...
Howahhya?
You and I will always dispute the "violence breeds more violence"
line. I have been in too many personal situations that give the lie
to this canard, and history contradicts it on so many occasions, that
I cannot let the assertion of this belief go unchallenged since the
acceptance of it threatens my freedom as well as yours.
In the case of Islamofascism there are two possible responses:
Appeasement and slavery
Some option involving, well, violence. Hopefully as little as possible.
Those who will not rise up and resist murdering psychos who would
kill innocent civilians riding the subway will soon lose their freedom
unless others pay the price to secure it for them.
I'm on the side of freedom. As imperfect as it is.
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55524 is a reply to message #55521] |
Sun, 10 July 2005 17:13 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
nable people can disagree, even with the pope.
> But I am not Catholic.
>
> What's your take on him?
>
> Seems like the last guy will be a hard one to follow eh?
>
> DC
>
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>>whats your take on the Pope? Out to lunch because he's against the Iraq
>
>>war?
>>
>>"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d1a5a2@linux...
>http://www.coloriffic.com/
Send them an email and ask about custom guards.
DC
"Gary Flanigan" <gary_flangian@ce9.uscourts.gov> wrote:
>
>Let me know if you want to
>>try one, and I will give you the company who did it.
>>
>>DC
> I would love to know the company.Makes me want to get a good strat'esque axe just so it would complement the
pickguard. Right now, all I've got around here in the electric guitar
department is an old Fretlight FG200. Hardly worthy.
;o)
"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d1d142$1@linux...
>
> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
> >That's beautiful!
> >
> >;o)
>
> Thanks!
>
> I got tired of the typical guitar stuff. You know, pearloid, and
> vintage stuff for the old guys and spikes and skulls for the
> kids. yeccchhhh.
>
> So I tried something new, and I like the guitar much better now.
>
> DCHey Deej,
Every now and then, hit your return key twice. Makes it easier to read. :^)
You're absolutely correct that we need to know history and not repeat
our mistakes. If you're going to go back to Hitler, go back a little
farther and investigate why Germany was ripe for a despot to take
control. Could WWII have been prevented with wiser post WWI policies?
Could be.
Stopping something bad before it starts doesn't automatically mean going
in with guns blazing. It also means being very aware of what how past
policies contributed to bad situations and taking that into account when
formulating new policies.
The world is growing up. At some point in history, if war becomes really
necessary it's a de facto admission of failure to anticipate wisely. Are
we there yet?
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
PS. Canadians are cool. We have one in our comedy group. And a Brit. If
you're ever in the hood you should come see a show:
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55525 is a reply to message #55521] |
Sun, 10 July 2005 17:56 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>
http://www.acecomedy.com - http://www.acecomedy.com/orchestra
Mr Simplicity wrote:
> Jamie,
>
> There is alos thte argument to be made that those who ignore the lessons of
> history are doomed to repeat them. As I have said in other posts to this
> thread, I believe that our position in the world as the last standing
> superpower is a reaction to our having been repeated called on put a stop to
> events that were, for themost part, caused by the European proclivities for
> nationalistic aggression, the policy of appeasement of that aggression and
> the inevitable escalation of that aggression caused by said appeasement. We
> see it happening today. The Brits learned from this and though many of their
> citizens seem to have forgotten these lessons, many more have nort,
> including those who run the government. I had this awful feeling when we had
> to go into Bosnia while the EU sat on their hands and did nothing while a
> genocide was in full swing, that, like it or not, we were going to need to
> hang on to and pay the taxes for this big military industrial complex,
> because we were going to have to keep cleaning up other people's messes.
> Having such a potentand military force also tends toward a proclivity to use
> it to stop something before it starts, as the Europeans should have done
> with Hitler, but didn't do. They were both politically reluctant to be seen
> as *the aggressors* and preempt him, an also psychologically unwilling to
> fight. This led to the slaughter of millions. Though the Italian government,
> the Danish government and other former eastern bloc governemnts have
> contributed a lot to our efforts to confront terrorism in Iraq and
> elsewhere, I think if we could see some sort of indication of *lessons
> learned* on the part of the continental western Euro nations like France,
> Spain and to a lesser extent Germany,we would feel a bit more comfortable
> with trusting that history didn't repeat itself. The Euro citizenry is, to a
> greater or lesser degree sticking their heads in the sand, as happened prior
> to WWII. We, and the Brits, have not forgotten. I am not including Canadians
> in this because as upset as I know they are, and as divided as they are
> about these issues and their feelings towards us, they have, like us, been
> dragged repeatedly into the never ending Euroquagmire, have suffered as we
> have and I have to repect their feelings, whatever they may be.
>
> Deej
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:42d147b4@linux...
>
>>Hey Dedric, thanks for the thoughtful response.
>>
>>Most importantly, hiking a 14er would be great, let's keep in touch on
>>that. Also, if you're going to be heading to Denver give me a shout. If
>>I'm heading for the Springs I'll let you know.
>>
>>You're right about not knowing everything. A lot of arguments made here
>>hinge o
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 23 08:54:36 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03311 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
