In article <4a874a24@news.povray.org>,
Neeum Zawan wrote:

>> I don't think Rush Limbaugh is afraid he'll be left out.....
>
> 	Well, given his shape, I'm not sure he cares on way or another.
>
> --
> I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

I'm having the following idea right now. I could have a database of
quotes, and while I write my article, I somehow mark some words, or
just one, which I wish my signature to talk about; then a program
selects a quote that mentions that word; my client somehow removes the
mark. So you could have selected ``shape'' and hopefully something
that could be related to the shape discussed here would be funny. :-)

I think most of the time would be confusing and not funny, but that's
okay.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/16/09 07:51, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.
>
> I'm having the following idea right now. I could have a database of
> quotes, and while I write my article, I somehow mark some words, or
> just one, which I wish my signature to talk about; then a program
> selects a quote that mentions that word; my client somehow removes the
> mark. So you could have selected ``shape'' and hopefully something
> that could be related to the shape discussed here would be funny. :-)
>
> I think most of the time would be confusing and not funny, but that's
> okay.

	I got the random sig idea from the BBS days. They're called taglines, 
and any decent BBS messaging reader had that feature. I simply had it to 
select them randomly. However, some readers did more or less what you 
describe.

-- 
I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give them up, but it wouldn't make any 
difference. - Steven Wright


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a88113c$1@news.povray.org>,
Neeum Zawan wrote:

> 	I got the random sig idea from the BBS days. They're called taglines, 
> and any decent BBS messaging reader had that feature. I simply had it to 
> select them randomly. However, some readers did more or less what you 
> describe.

Bummer. I was already writing my patent.

-- 
I misspelled the subject. I, ~ Robot.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/15/09 14:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the
>>> majority of
>>> vocal ones do.
>>
>>
>> No one seems to have pointed out the obvious reasons why some of this is
>> happening.
> 
>     Yes, but you make it sound like a conspiracy. ;-)
> 
Some of it likely is. We are talking about the core leadership of a 
party that even many of its own members have started to say no longer 
reflect their own views. The is also still racism in the US, and a 
general feeling, even if not expressed *as* full blown racism, that 
certain people shouldn't be in charge of things. So, you have a 
tri-fecta for some of these people, reform of something they can't be 
bothered to fix themselves, proposed by a black man, who is a Democrat. 
You don't need a conspiracy when a lot of common crackpot ideas, 
delusions and fears coalesce all at one time, in a single place. All you 
need is a lot of fracking nuts, all with the same *general* political 
goals, who are all convinced, for their own desperate and crazy reasons, 
that something is happening they need to fight against.

And, it doesn't take a lot of people "in" those groups, to stir this up, 
if they know the right buttons to push. They have been pushing those 
buttons since before Obama was even elected. This is just an extension 
of the, "He is a Muslim", "His birth certificate is a fake.", "He is the 
anti-Christ, and this time we got this right, unlike the other 400 
people we said where.", "He plans to create death camps.", "He is going 
to let terrorists invade the country.", etc. The level of rhetoric has 
gone ballistic, and in nasty directions, right as half the right wing 
politicians and preachers are getting caught, literally, and 
figuratively, with their pants down. So, again, given that all such 
people tend to end up Republicans... Lets just say that there is a 
conspiracy going on here in the Republican party, in **exactly** the 
same way that there is a conspiracy in Gotham City's Arkham Asylum to 
dress the all inmates using the local costume party shops. You don't 
need one, when all too many of the members are seriously unhinged.

>     The actions you describe are typical of any controversial political 
> issue. I'm not sure I see your point.
> 
Uh.. Taken in isolation yes. But this isn't in isolation, this is a 
trend, one that most people outside the US see very clearly, and which 
we don't, for much the same reason that a lobster doesn't realize its 
being boiled to death, if you start out with room temperature water in 
the pot, and just slowly heat it. There are people conspiring, these 
people *are* stupid enough to hire the US equivalent of Al Queda to 
shoot at people in Muslim countries, because sending more real troops is 
making people unhappy, and the fact that its a dozen different groups, 
of which only 1-2 know what they are buying, while the rest are just 
looking at the books dust jacket, doesn't change the fact that they are 
all buying the same monotheist, white, 'but not like them old Klan 
people', dominionist, theocratic, 'Democracy only works when we win, 
otherwise its corrupted', library. One book, for every flavor of, "Well, 
those other people are nuts, but we only believe what is in the blue 
book, not the red, purple, green, orange, and silver ones, which are 
published by the same madmen."

>> 4. Major right wing religious groups, like Focus on the Family, which
>> was founded by the same "I will be King, or at least on of the rich,
>> powerful people that god gave political power too will.", Eric Prince
> 
>     Prince wasn't the founder of Focus on the Family.
> 
>     I fail to see why you're bringing him into this. Has he made 
> comments about health care?
> 
>     And just because he's a radical extremist doesn't mean he's wrong on 
> health care. ;-)
> 
> 
Wrong group then. I don't remember the specific one he was, but he did 
found one of the right wing loony groups like them. You however seem to 
have ignored my point that there are an unknown number of others, with 
similar ideas, who have *no interest* in helping poor people, except 
that, under a democracy, having a lot of poor people, who are stupid 
enough to do shit like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16gospel.html?_r=1

Which also think the best people to elect are assholes that have gone to 
ridiculous lengths to obfuscate and ignore a real problem, even while 
hand waving a lot and saying, "Ah, well.. maybe it is one, sort of."

In any case, I brought him up because he is an example of one of the 
types that is being "let in" to the inner circles in Washington, and 
even payed for being a total nut case. Or, do you *really* think that no 
one in the administration had the slightest clue how crazy this guy was 
before they picked "his" mercenary army to send to Iraq, instead of one 
of 50 other similar groups, some of which might have been vaguely saner? 
And, he shares many of their views. The idea that their god is under 
attack, that the end of the world is coming, that its their purpose to 
help it happen, that only right wing wackos deserve to rule, and will be 
at the right hand of god when the end comes, etc. You can't honestly 
look at Fox News coverage of this mess, and the blatant lies being told, 
look at all the people *saying it*, look at the same lies being 
repeated, verbatim, on right wing web sites, often before they are even 
brought up by the politicians, the back peddling committed by several 
Republicans when it suddenly looked like they where getting in trouble, 
or worse, supported Obama at all, the consistent message being floated 
by all the "top" Republicans on this, and the number of even other, but 
less prominently positioned Republicans looking at this and going, "What 
the hell are these people smoking?", and not wonder who the hell is 
pulling the strings, or if no one is, why they are not all being shipped 
to a mental ward.

Even Bush didn't get this kind of crazy directed at him, or for him. 
McCarthy though.. That has a very similar feel to the current trend from 
the right, and, guess what? That was a conspiracy. You honestly think 
there isn't one this time, given all the BS, and the number of people 
*caught* inciting false information at the town halls, who turn out to 
either *be* politicians, or people that work for a) insurance companies, 
or b) the Republican party?

Like I said. If there isn't something very disturbing going on here, 
then Arkham is buying its prison clothes from Party Express, and the 
Joker's (never mind the rest) only problem was that the *psychologists* 
dressed him in purple.

These are people that have been losing for centuries, and in the last 
50.. have seen themselves lose the hearts and minds of most of Europe, 
and are seeing a *massive* rise in people thinking they are nuts in the 
US too. 90% belief in something they could pretend was some form of 
literalist, creation based, dominionist, theology, to 70% who sort of 
still believe, but 80% of them discount literalism, are not 100% solid 
on whether the 6 days version of creation is correct, mostly think we 
don't have a right to impose our views on others, and barely go to 
church. Or, in other words, from these people's perspective, the number 
of "believers" isn't 70%, its more like 10%. They are scared out of 
their minds. And, what you get is lies about Obama, lies about health 
care, lies about European health care, lies about crime rates, pregnancy 
rates, drug use, etc., *in* Europe, over here. You even get idiots among 
them screaming that Japan, whose economy is so capitalist that you can 
buy sex toys from vending machines, is too **communist** and their 
health care is a perfect example of what happens when you *give up* on 
the free market.

Does it matter if they are intentionally working together, or just 
making shit up individually, and them repeating each other? Its still 
the political equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, while 
then insisting, "What? I meant tire! No one said fire! Who said fire? 
You must have misquoted what I and five other senators said the other 
night on national TV, with 10 million people watching it!" Yeah.. Sure..

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 08/16/09 15:10, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Yes, but you make it sound like a conspiracy. ;-)
>>
> Some of it likely is. We are talking about the core leadership of a
> party that even many of its own members have started to say no longer
> reflect their own views. The is also still racism in the US, and a

	I agree. My point was that very likely that's how things have been for 
most of the 20th century, if not the history of the US. Growing up, we 
didn't notice it or look for these aspects, and a lot of us have a 
romantic idea that things were better then (maybe not you).

	The US (and perhaps most major countries) have a long history of this 
kind of behavior. I guess it's just that when people use the word 
"conspiracy", everyone thinks he's a crackpot, so I unintentionally 
began to view anything that is demonstrably true as not being a 
conspiracy. ;-)

> buttons since before Obama was even elected. This is just an extension
> of the, "He is a Muslim", "His birth certificate is a fake.", "He is the

	I really enjoyed one of Jon Stewart's recent clips on this. It goes 
something like this (funnier if you see all the news clips he invokes)

"During his campaign, there were some concerns. Was he a Muslim? Was he 
... half a Muslim? Was he a reform Muslim? Or...was he Muslim?

But we soon learned that Obama was actually an angry militant black 
nationalist Christian (show Rev Wright clips).

Appeased, America voted him into office."

> Uh.. Taken in isolation yes. But this isn't in isolation, this is a
> trend, one that most people outside the US see very clearly, and which
> we don't, for much the same reason that a lobster doesn't realize its
> being boiled to death, if you start out with room temperature water in
> the pot, and just slowly heat it. There are people conspiring, these
> people *are* stupid enough to hire the US equivalent of Al Queda to
> shoot at people in Muslim countries, because sending more real troops is
> making people unhappy, and the fact that its a dozen different groups,
> of which only 1-2 know what they are buying, while the rest are just
> looking at the books dust jacket, doesn't change the fact that they are
> all buying the same monotheist, white, 'but not like them old Klan
> people', dominionist, theocratic, 'Democracy only works when we win,
> otherwise its corrupted', library. One book, for every flavor of, "Well,
> those other people are nuts, but we only believe what is in the blue
> book, not the red, purple, green, orange, and silver ones, which are
> published by the same madmen."

	Yes, but how is all this different from the actions in Latin America in 
the 80's? Or the stuff in Vietnam? Or the blacklisting of people with 
communist sympathies (nothing has come close to that yet - not even any 
anti-Muslim or anti-terrorist rhetoric). Or internment of the Japanese.

	Sure - they're different in minor ways. But they're all the "same 
difference".

> Even Bush didn't get this kind of crazy directed at him, or for him.
> McCarthy though.. That has a very similar feel to the current trend from
> the right, and, guess what? That was a conspiracy. You honestly think
> there isn't one this time, given all the BS, and the number of people
> *caught* inciting false information at the town halls, who turn out to
> either *be* politicians, or people that work for a) insurance companies,
> or b) the Republican party?

	Well, yes. That's my point. This isn't something special. It's been 
done before and will continually be done. Democracy is not much of an 
antidote.

	I think there are *much* more of these kinds of things going on. It's 
just that some of them seem big enough to fall under our radar (health 
issue, Prince, etc). I know this sounds cynical, but this is mostly just 
business as usual.


-- 
I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give them up, but it wouldn't make any 
difference. - Steven Wright

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the majority of
> vocal ones do.

I think it's the corporations who profit from a lack of nationalized health 
care that are most vocal. They become vocal by hiring or otherwise getting 
shills to show up and make a lot of noise.  The actual polls show a huge 
majority of the people asked are in favor. (Where something like 85% is a 
"huge majority" in this country.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it.  And maybe not communism, but 
> socialism.

I thought it was interesting to point out that insurance is, by definition, 
socialism.  You take a little bit from each person, put it in a pool, and 
then distribute that pool to those in need.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Do /you/ know the difference?

I have an old dictionary that defines communism as government ownership of 
businesses and socialism as government regulation of businesses. So, for 
example, the US postal service, or the regulated monopolies like water 
service, pre-divestiture phone service, etc, would be socialist.

Nowadays the dictionaries define those as political systems rather than 
economic ones.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:45:06 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it.  And maybe not communism, but
>> socialism.
> 
> I thought it was interesting to point out that insurance is, by
> definition, socialism.  You take a little bit from each person, put it
> in a pool, and then distribute that pool to those in need.

Yeah, that is interesting.... :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Question: What the **** is communism anyway? And why is it bad?

What would you call a capitalist form of democracy? One where the people 
with the most money and productive ability are the ones that make the rules?

Democracy is kind of like the counter-balance to capitalism - everyone gets 
one vote, rather than what they're worth.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message