On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:31:36 -0500, Warp wrote:

> alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> This post is goddamn important so if any of you don?t like it, TS, then
>> you are also part of the problem.
> 
>   Even at the risk of sounding like a jerk, maybe you might not want to
> use that kind of expression.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#Examples

That's a much more succinct way of saying what I was trying to say.

Thank you for your clarity. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

one more point here.

If that poor brain fried shooter has smoked a joint yesterday, he would have
stayed home. Absolutely!!!!!!!!!

http://home.earthlink.net/~beta-quadrant/Bill_Hicks-Mandatory.mp3


"THE ONE AND ONLY CORRECT ANSWER"

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:19:50 -0500, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

>  I don't believe Cho was on Prozac.

Ditto.  But even if she was, I have family members who have taken Prozac 
in the past, and they never went out and killed anyone.  It actually 
worked the way it was supposed to.

But people have different reactions to different drugs.  When I broke my 
leg, I was prescribed Hydrocodone for the pain.  I had an adverse 
reaction to it - it made me hallucinate.  I went for a week without any 
real sleep (I did rest, but after I was off of it and on something else, 
I realized that I'd been lying awake at night on the Hydrocodone).

My reaction is typical of < 0.1% of people who it is prescribed to.  That 
doesn't make it a bad drug, just bad for me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:58:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> if I give a known
> psychotic the means to go on a rampage in the full knowledge that's what
> he'll do is it still all his fault?

Suppose that psychotic purchased the weapon prior to their break?

Or they decided not to take their medications?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:30:17 -0500, alphaQuad wrote:

> These kind of vague comments are confusing the issue and I wonder if
> that is not your intent.

Oh, and it's probably worth mentioning, you don't do your cause any good 
by assuming that those who don't agree with you have an axe to grind or 
another agenda.  This isn't the first time you've turned a discussion on 
its head by getting frustrated/angry/whatever with those who didn't agree 
with you.  It gets old.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:09:22 +0100, alphaQuad  
<alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It doesn't do a cause much good to say "you are part of the problem if
>> you don't write to someone".
>
> I like you Jim, but that is not what I said.


"Now if you don't want to become partially responsible for that innocent  
girl
getting shot in the eye, then you must do the following."

How else is that to be interpreted?



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:33:02 +0100, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:09:22 +0100, alphaQuad
> <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> It doesn't do a cause much good to say "you are part of the problem if
>>> you don't write to someone".
>>
>> I like you Jim, but that is not what I said.
> 
> 
> "Now if you don't want to become partially responsible for that innocent
> girl
> getting shot in the eye, then you must do the following."
> 
> How else is that to be interpreted?

Exactly. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:web.47b5cc299d4c0fa78cbbb6920@news.povray.org...
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:27:20 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
> >
>
> > Agreed.  There is *always* personal responsibility, something that many
> > people are quick to give up by looking for someone else to blame for
> > their problems.
>
>
> What are you talking about? The lack of people taking personal
responsibility
> for their government?
>

The spate of people blaming others for situations where they are partially
or mostly af fault.

I'll take a local situation.
A student gets into univesity here on a nice fat subsity (read - he doesn't
pay much). Spends most of the year partying, drinking, engaging in political
rallys and avoiding classes. At the end of the year he writes exams and
fails. The university refuses re-admission on academic grounds.

The student blames the university, the department of education, the previous
government and several other people.

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> If that poor brain fried shooter has smoked a joint yesterday, he would have
> stayed home. Absolutely!!!!!!!!!

so, marijuana is a peace-inducing drug, that's good to know for crowd control.

But what if he's gone for crack?

Post a reply to this message

"Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:09:22 +0100, alphaQuad
> <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> It doesn't do a cause much good to say "you are part of the problem if
> >> you don't write to someone".
> >
> > I like you Jim, but that is not what I said.
>
>
> "Now if you don't want to become partially responsible for that innocent
> girl
> getting shot in the eye, then you must do the following."
>
> How else is that to be interpreted?
>
>
>
> --
> FE


that was the letter to media and you left out what to do.

find out what he had been given and report your findings.
written to the media ... come on people I know there is a brain in there
somewhere

Post a reply to this message