Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids

Jonathon Blake wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
> > dangerous people arround besides the government and the government is the

>         The _only_ difference between a gang of thugs, and a government,
>         is that the latter admit to being thugs, whilst the former deny
>         that.  They both operate on the same prinicple -- steal from
>         others, and kill those that oppose them.

The people of the USA fortunately disagree. Its no coincidence that Limbaugh
has been unable to continue his tv show after his coverage of the OKC bombing.

It is not socialy acceptable to call for the murder of Police officers in most
countries. By doing so you are discrediting yourself and those who support you.



> > only agency that is going to protect society from them. If you don't like
> 
>         Governments are the agencies _most_ likely to abuse one's
>         freedom.   << Take Northern Ireland, as an example of what
>         happens, when a government tries to pacify a region, by
>         prohibiting everything.  >>

Troops were sent into Northern Ireland originally to protect the Catholic 
minority from the protestants. The two communities have been murdering each
other for centuries and there are bigots on both sides who think that the
events of three hundred years ago "prove" that the other is evil incarnate.

Do you support the "punishment beatings" performed by the IRA. So far this
year they have committed grievous bodliy harm against 270 people. They have
also murdered 4 people. There have been no deaths from police or army use
of firearms in that period. Your assertion is therefore false.

If you want to discuss the politics of Ireland you should at least visit the
place. You will find remarkably less sympathy for your romantic visions of
bloodshed amongst the people who have to live with the consequences. The
British people have little sympathy for either side and would quite happily
leave the two sides to slaughter each other if it wasnt for the fact that
the majority of the population wish to remain British and have voted to
remain so in regular referenda and national elections.


		Phill

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Hallam-Baker wrote:

> Jonathon Blake wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > 
> > > dangerous people arround besides the government and the government is the
> 
> >         The _only_ difference between a gang of thugs, and a government,
> >         is that the latter admit to being thugs, whilst the former deny
> >         that.  They both operate on the same prinicple -- steal from
> >         others, and kill those that oppose them.
> 
> The people of the USA fortunately disagree. Its no coincidence that Limbaugh
> has been unable to continue his tv show after his coverage of the OKC bombing.
> 

NIce try at a segway, but this reasoning is nothing more than bullshit.

I get so tired of hearing the same press/DNC derived crap after 3 days...

Limbaugh is giving up the show because it is run in syndication. 
Syndication is not a profitable format with the ensuing satellite blitz 
on the horizon. 

Limbaugh is a buisnessman and a commentator. He earns a living. He will 
do what is necessary to leverage his marketability to make the most money.

Since you've gone to college, I'll have to explain it to you: It's called 
capitalism - look into it...

> It is not socialy acceptable to call for the murder of Police officers in most
> countries. By doing so you are discrediting yourself and those who support you.
> 
> 

So tell that to G. Gordon Liddy...

You fail to acknowledge the simple fact that a segment of society that 
feels not only disenfranchised, but that the system is irrepairable will 
stoop to whatever means they feel is necessary to make their point. They 
don't care what other people think - just what they believe in. 
Discrediting is a non issue.

> 
> > > only agency that is going to protect society from them. If you don't like
> > 
> >         Governments are the agencies _most_ likely to abuse one's
> >         freedom.   << Take Northern Ireland, as an example of what
> >         happens, when a government tries to pacify a region, by
> >         prohibiting everything.  >>
> 
> Troops were sent into Northern Ireland originally to protect the Catholic 
> minority from the protestants. The two communities have been murdering each
> other for centuries and there are bigots on both sides who think that the
> events of three hundred years ago "prove" that the other is evil incarnate.
> 
> Do you support the "punishment beatings" performed by the IRA. So far this
> year they have committed grievous bodliy harm against 270 people. They have
> also murdered 4 people. There have been no deaths from police or army use
> of firearms in that period. Your assertion is therefore false.
> 
> If you want to discuss the politics of Ireland you should at least visit the
> place. You will find remarkably less sympathy for your romantic visions of
> bloodshed amongst the people who have to live with the consequences. The
> British people have little sympathy for either side and would quite happily
> leave the two sides to slaughter each other if it wasnt for the fact that
> the majority of the population wish to remain British and have voted to
> remain so in regular referenda and national elections.
> 
> 
> 		Phill
> 

Welcome to Yugoslavia. The last riots on the tele over there didn't look 
any different than pictures the BBC showed of Serajevo during the early 
days of the country's demise. 

...Paul

>Limbaugh is giving up the show because it is run in syndication. 
>Syndication is not a profitable format with the ensuing satellite blitz 
>on the horizon. 


I find your argument only moderately less convincing than the average
political campaign ad.

Given Limbaugh's propensity for telling blatant fibs I don't credit anything
he says as being likely to bear any relation to the truth, particularly
when it would mean admitting failure and retreat.

Syndication is highly profitable for many, if its profitable to syndicate
drama with its astronomic production costs it is profitable to syndicate
Rush with his astronomic weight. 

>Limbaugh is a buisnessman and a commentator. He earns a living. He will 
>do what is necessary to leverage his marketability to make the most money.

>Since you've gone to college, I'll have to explain it to you: It's called 
>capitalism - look into it...

Its called failure and spin control. Rush has not announced a new TV show,
he has closed his only TV show. He has closed after his audience declined
and his contracts expired. That is the business decision of the local
stations who don;t see Rush as profitable business anymore and advertisers
who don't want to see their products associated with appologists for
the Oaklahoma bomb.


>You fail to acknowledge the simple fact that a segment of society that 
>feels not only disenfranchised, but that the system is irrepairable will 
>stoop to whatever means they feel is necessary to make their point. They 
>don't care what other people think - just what they believe in. 
>Discrediting is a non issue.

I know that facism has an appeal for many people but that does not mean
that they are not a minority. And I am not using the words Facism as a
casual insult but as an accurate description of a movement which is in
large part a vehicle for racism and has already caused 200 plus murders
at OKC. 

Every time an extreeme idological faction of the left or the right gains
power there are splinter groups from that side claiming that the failure
of the policies is due to them not being compromised and insufficiently 
ideal. Since right wing idealogues have been dominant in the US for some 
time it is the right wing extreemists who are to the fore.


		Phill

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> >Limbaugh is giving up the show because it is run in syndication. 
> >Syndication is not a profitable format with the ensuing satellite blitz 
> >on the horizon. 
> 
> 
> I find your argument only moderately less convincing than the average
> political campaign ad.

Your opinion. It's not an argument; it's the way it is.

> 
> Given Limbaugh's propensity for telling blatant fibs I don't credit anything
> he says as being likely to bear any relation to the truth, particularly
> when it would mean admitting failure and retreat.
> 

Again your opinion. 

> Syndication is highly profitable for many, if its profitable to syndicate
> drama with its astronomic production costs it is profitable to syndicate
> Rush with his astronomic weight. 
> 

Good straw man defense: Apples == Oranges.

Syndication is only profitable for those shows that can make the time 
slots garnered with the biggest advertisers. Drama wins because it's 
chewing gum for the mind - just like Clinton's saturday morning 
broadcast and the subsequent denials issued afterwards. Zero thought 
television appeals to the masses, ie: Bay Watch != Script.

Talk shows that attempt to stimulate active thought on reasonable premise 
generally do not survive long in syndication. With Limbaugh's show, it 
took a double hit as the markets it played to were for the most part late night. 
BTW, this comes from actually looking it up in past TV Guides - not 
mindlessly drooling over the radio - so put away the "he's lying" crap.

In addition, Limbaugh, like other TV hosts, has zero control over when 
the show airs and which episodes get aired. To screw someone in the 
Nielsons, you place the show in the low rate time bracket to guarantee 
bottom ratings, and do re-runs. It's doesn't matter how good the show is 
- it won't fly.

Following the shallow logic of your argument, Limbaugh is not a success 
because he does not broadcast on TV. That parallels the generally 
accepted myth (especially in academia) that one is not an expert in the 
field unless published.


> >Limbaugh is a buisnessman and a commentator. He earns a living. He will 
> >do what is necessary to leverage his marketability to make the most money.
> 
> >Since you've gone to college, I'll have to explain it to you: It's called 
> >capitalism - look into it...
> 
> Its called failure and spin control. Rush has not announced a new TV show,
> he has closed his only TV show. He has closed after his audience declined
> and his contracts expired. That is the business decision of the local
> stations who don;t see Rush as profitable business anymore and advertisers
> who don't want to see their products associated with appologists for
> the Oaklahoma bomb.
> 

Again, your opinion of the situation. Adverstisers are whores. That's 
what they get paid to do. IF they think going PC will sell more product, 
that's what happens. Watch and see the score of all the Clinton's business 
backing when Hillary is finally indicted.

> 
> >You fail to acknowledge the simple fact that a segment of society that 
> >feels not only disenfranchised, but that the system is irrepairable will 
> >stoop to whatever means they feel is necessary to make their point. They 
> >don't care what other people think - just what they believe in. 
> >Discrediting is a non issue.
> 
> I know that facism has an appeal for many people but that does not mean
> that they are not a minority. And I am not using the words Facism as a
> casual insult but as an accurate description of a movement which is in
> large part a vehicle for racism and has already caused 200 plus murders
> at OKC. 
> 
> Every time an extreeme idological faction of the left or the right gains
> power there are splinter groups from that side claiming that the failure
> of the policies is due to them not being compromised and insufficiently 
> ideal. Since right wing idealogues have been dominant in the US for some 
> time it is the right wing extreemists who are to the fore.
> 
> 

Right wing, left wing. It's all the same. Pigeon holes for unpopular 
ideas. 

The issue I take with this, is the constant spouting of King Bill's 
pronouncement of why OKC occured in the first place. We don't know WHY it 
took place - that's what a trial is for (if you actually believe that 
justice is blind and lawyers tell the truth always). We will NEVER really 
know - but it's damn fine political fodder to take an unconstitutional 
swipe at the populous with the anti-terrorist legislation.

If you firmly believe the premise that Fascism was the root cause behind 
OKC, then you have no choice but to look to the White House and Capital 
Hill. 

...Paul

>Talk shows that attempt to stimulate active thought on reasonable premise 
>generally do not survive long in syndication. With Limbaugh's show, it 
>took a double hit as the markets it played to were for the most part late night. 
>BTW, this comes from actually looking it up in past TV Guides - not 
>mindlessly drooling over the radio - so put away the "he's lying" crap.

And why did the networks put Rush on so late? Could it be that
he did not pull in the viewers?

>Following the shallow logic of your argument, Limbaugh is not a success 
>because he does not broadcast on TV. 

It is shallow logic, but it is Rush's own logic. He promotes the
idea that success is measured in ecconomic terms. The failure of his
TV show demonstrates the failure of his ideas under the criteria 
which he himself espouses.

>The issue I take with this, is the constant spouting of King Bill's 
>pronouncement of why OKC occured in the first place. We don't know WHY it 
>took place - that's what a trial is for (if you actually believe that 
>justice is blind and lawyers tell the truth always). We will NEVER really 
>know - but it's damn fine political fodder to take an unconstitutional 
>swipe at the populous with the anti-terrorist legislation.

That is not what the trial will decide. The question is who and what,
why is irrelevant given the nature of the offense.

>If you firmly believe the premise that Fascism was the root cause behind 
>OKC, then you have no choice but to look to the White House and Capital 
>Hill. 

Nope, I look to the millitas, Chritian Identity, the Klu Klux Klan 
and their appologists including Liddy and Limbaugh. If you read
the propaganda that the NAZIs used you will find it if anything 
less direct than Liddy or Buchannan. The NAZIs did not advertise their
intention to commit mass murder, they used code words. When Buchannan
refers to "Hose" he is using a codeword he knows will be understood.


		Phill

On Wed, 24 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:
> 
> >Talk shows that attempt to stimulate active thought on reasonable premise 
> >generally do not survive long in syndication. With Limbaugh's show, it 
> >took a double hit as the markets it played to were for the most part late night. 
> >BTW, this comes from actually looking it up in past TV Guides - not 
> >mindlessly drooling over the radio - so put away the "he's lying" crap.
> And why did the networks put Rush on so late? Could it be that
> he did not pull in the viewers?

     Not the networks, the local stations. Each station decides where to 
slot a specific non-network show. 

     In many time slots he was competing sucessfully with The Late Show, and 
The Other Idiot (sorry, it has been a long time since I watched TV, so I 
can't remember the other idiots name). 

     In one city he was place opposite Oprah Winfrey, and _still_ had decent
ratings, but the TV stations got a lot more complaints about him at 3 in the
afternoon, so they put him on after midnight.

> >Following the shallow logic of your argument, Limbaugh is not a success 
> >because he does not broadcast on TV. 
> 
> It is shallow logic, but it is Rush's own logic. He promotes the
> idea that success is measured in ecconomic terms. The failure of his
> TV show demonstrates the failure of his ideas under the criteria 
> which he himself espouses.

     His TV show did not suceed or fail because of what Limbaugh did, but 
rather on decesions that were totally out of his hands. That is why he
is not renewing his contracts. 

> >If you firmly believe the premise that Fascism was the root cause behind 
> >OKC, then you have no choice but to look to the White House and Capital 
> >Hill. 
> 
> Nope, I look to the millitas, Chritian Identity, the Klu Klux Klan 
> and their appologists including Liddy and Limbaugh. If you read
> the propaganda that the NAZIs used you will find it if anything 
> less direct than Liddy or Buchannan. The NAZIs did not advertise their
> intention to commit mass murder, they used code words. When Buchannan
> refers to "Hose" he is using a codeword he knows will be understood.

     Please do not lump all militias in with the Chistian Identity & Klan 
types, you just display more and more ignorance. 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

On Wed, 24 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> 
> >Talk shows that attempt to stimulate active thought on reasonable premise 
> >generally do not survive long in syndication. With Limbaugh's show, it 
> >took a double hit as the markets it played to were for the most part late night. 
> >BTW, this comes from actually looking it up in past TV Guides - not 
> >mindlessly drooling over the radio - so put away the "he's lying" crap.
> 
> And why did the networks put Rush on so late? Could it be that
> he did not pull in the viewers?

Syndicated shows are scheduled by the local broadcasters. They decide 
when and if to run them. It only makes sense that if you have control 
over your material but are at the mercy of the broadcaster, that is not a 
sound business position to remain in.

> 
> >Following the shallow logic of your argument, Limbaugh is not a success 
> >because he does not broadcast on TV. 
> 

I noticed you clipped the truism about academia...

> It is shallow logic, but it is Rush's own logic. He promotes the
> idea that success is measured in ecconomic terms. The failure of his
> TV show demonstrates the failure of his ideas under the criteria 
> which he himself espouses.
> 

Maybe in your book, but your above statement demonstrates that: a) you know 
very little about how the TV broadcast market works, b) you are confusing 
the issue of business with political stance, c) that you assume to 
understand what makes a person financially successful, when infact you have 
said nothing here to demonstrate such knowledge, and d) your bank account 
is much smaller than his, otherwise you wouldn't piss and moan about 
Limbaugh's financial status in the first place.

> >The issue I take with this, is the constant spouting of King Bill's 
> >pronouncement of why OKC occured in the first place. We don't know WHY it 
> >took place - that's what a trial is for (if you actually believe that 
> >justice is blind and lawyers tell the truth always). We will NEVER really 
> >know - but it's damn fine political fodder to take an unconstitutional 
> >swipe at the populous with the anti-terrorist legislation.
> 
> That is not what the trial will decide. The question is who and what,
> why is irrelevant given the nature of the offense.
> 

Maybe in the UK, but in the US there is the little thing called motive. 
It either helps or hurts one's final outcome in the court system.

> >If you firmly believe the premise that Fascism was the root cause behind 
> >OKC, then you have no choice but to look to the White House and Capital 
> >Hill. 
> 
> Nope, I look to the millitas, Chritian Identity, the Klu Klux Klan 
> and their appologists including Liddy and Limbaugh. If you read
> the propaganda that the NAZIs used you will find it if anything 
> less direct than Liddy or Buchannan. The NAZIs did not advertise their
> intention to commit mass murder, they used code words. When Buchannan
> refers to "Hose" he is using a codeword he knows will be understood.
> 

Well, that's your take on politcs, and a very narrow view that it is.

Obviously there is more to American Politics than Pat Buchanan, and 
frankly I would doubt very seriously he had anything to do with Fascism 
and the US Government. In a former life, he was a reporter and columnist 
in the press (one of the self-anonted guardians of free speech). He never 
set policy, just did his journalistic spin on it.

If anything, Buchanan is reminicient of the protectionist days of the 
1930's prior to US entry into WWII. Back then Hitler was a European 
problem that got out of hand quickly. And, if it wasn't for the fact that 
France and Great Brittain tried to beggar Germany after Kaiser Willhelm 
surrendered, Hitler and the NAZI's may not have come to power. 

I would suggest you study your American history more carefully and 
without the grandstanding and speeches of the revisionists who pass 
themselves off as educators and political analysts.

...Paul

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Wed, 24 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> It is shallow logic, but it is Rush's own logic. He promotes the
> idea that success is measured in ecconomic terms. The failure of his
> TV show demonstrates the failure of his ideas under the criteria 
> which he himself espouses.

Or maybe he is uping the ante.  Tell you what Phil, I'll bet you
US$50 aganist your L25 (in other words, I giving you odds at the
current rate of exchange) that Limbaugh have a nationally TV show
on or before 1 October 1996.

If you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, just
say you agree to these terms in a post to the list.  After that,
we can agree to appoint someone to declare a winner and hold the
money in the meantime.  Any volunteers for the honor?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                           SANDY SANDFORT
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> C'punks,
> On Wed, 24 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:
> > It is shallow logic, but it is Rush's own logic. He promotes the
> > idea that success is measured in ecconomic terms. The failure of his
> > TV show demonstrates the failure of his ideas under the criteria 
> > which he himself espouses.
> Or maybe he is uping the ante.  Tell you what Phil, I'll bet you
> US$50 aganist your L25 (in other words, I giving you odds at the
> current rate of exchange) that Limbaugh have a nationally TV show
> on or before 1 October 1996.
> If you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, just
> say you agree to these terms in a post to the list.  After that,
> we can agree to appoint someone to declare a winner and hold the
> money in the meantime.  Any volunteers for the honor?

     If you trust me, I'll hold the cash under the following stipulations: 

     1) The exact terms of the bet are spelled out in writing and digitally
        signed by both parties. 
 
     2) That an agreement on the term "nationally TV show" is reached.

     3) That the payment is in the form of a cashiers check made out to the 
        me, and that each person send a SASE with their cashiers check so 
        that I can send the winner their check, without having to deal with 
        it.

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, snow wrote:

>      If you trust me, I'll hold the cash under the following stipulations: 
> 
>      1) The exact terms of the bet are spelled out in writing and digitally
>         signed by both parties. 
>  
>      2) That an agreement on the term "nationally TV show" is reached.
> 
>      3) That the payment is in the form of a cashiers check made out to the 
>         me, and that each person send a SASE with their cashiers check so 
>         that I can send the winner their check, without having to deal with 
>         it.

Works for me.  Phil?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm still rather amused by the terms of your bet, $50 vs 25L.
At current exchange rates 25 Lire is more like 2 cents.

I thought I had already given my 2 cents.


Given that this is a public newsgroup, and the one most
likely to be read by spooks and the FBI I would have to be 
almost as stupid as Rush to accept any bets on it. Its called
illegal interstate gambling.


	Phill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punk,

On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu weasled:
> 
> I'm still rather amused by the terms of your bet, $50 vs 25L.
> At current exchange rates 25 Lire is more like 2 cents.

That's L25, not 25L.  I though Phil was a UK "subject," thus
I proposed a wager of 25 Pounds Sterling.  Clear enough?

If Phil wants to do it all in US dollars then I will bet US$50
against his US$45.  

> Given that this is a public newsgroup, and the one most
> likely to be read by spooks and the FBI I would have to be 
> almost as stupid as Rush to accept any bets on it. Its called
> illegal interstate gambling.

Yes, I know how it is when the mayors of cities with major league
ball clubs in the World Series make public wagers on the outcome 
of the game--hard time in Levenworth.

If Phil really believes he and I are at any credible legal risk 
for a making such a personal wager, he is a fool.  If he really
knows better (my best guess), then he is intellectually dishonest 
and a moral coward.

I again invite Phil to put up or shut up.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>That's L25, not 25L.  I though Phil was a UK "subject," thus
>I proposed a wager of 25 Pounds Sterling.  Clear enough?

The generaly accepted abreviation is GBP.

>If Phil wants to do it all in US dollars then I will bet US$50
>against his US$45.  

How about hard currency? I prefer Swiss francs (CHF).


>If Phil really believes he and I are at any credible legal risk 
>for a making such a personal wager, he is a fool.  If he really
>knows better (my best guess), then he is intellectually dishonest 
>and a moral coward.

The moral point is not that there is risk of being caught, it
is that society has made laws and unless there are exceptional
circumstances it is a duty to obey those laws.

I don't argue against breaking laws which are immoral, indeed 
I am still refusing to pay a Poll tax bill from the UK despite
the fact that the amount outstanding is inconsequential.


>I again invite Phil to put up or shut up.


You sound like an 18th century fop challenging someone to a duel.

I do not believe that Aristotle listed "challenging to a bet"
as one of his modes of reason.


Rush has been rejected by the very free market principles he
espouses which destroys his case through self contradiction.
On the other hand I have not asserted that premise, arguments
ad pecuniam are therefore irrelevant.


The fact remains that the lack of Rush on TV has an explanation
considerably less charitable than Rush's claim. Whether Rush 
returns to TV or not is of very little interest to me except
insofar as it would reduce the already sparse options for
TV entertainment in Cambridge.

Would you believe that Continental is so lame that they do not
offer either the Sci-Fi channel nor the comedy channel in the
home town of MIT and Harvard? If I had realised that NBC 
Olympic coverage would be as bad as it is I might have got a
satelite dish to pick up the feed from Astra.


		Phill

hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu writes:
> >That's L25, not 25L.  I though Phil was a UK "subject," thus
> >I proposed a wager of 25 Pounds Sterling.  Clear enough?
>
> The generaly accepted abreviation is GBP.

This is an ISO currency code (also a SWIFT code). SWIFT codes generally
coincide with ISO codes, but they have a few extra codes for precious
metals (XAU=gold, XAG=silver) which I think aren't in the ISO document.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu further weaseled:

> How about hard currency? I prefer Swiss francs (CHF).

Good idea, Phill.  But wait; when I wrote: 
 
> >If Phil really believes he and I are at any credible legal risk 
> >for a making such a personal wager, he is a fool.  If he really
> >knows better (my best guess), then he is intellectually dishonest 
> >and a moral coward.

Phill adroitly responded:
 
> The moral point is not that there is risk of being caught, it
> is that society has made laws and unless there are exceptional
> circumstances it is a duty to obey those laws.

[Nice try, Phill.]  The moral cowardice to which I was referring 
had nothing to do with obeying or disobeying a silly law.  It had 
to do with Phill's citing of same as a craven excuse to neither 
admit he was wrong nor to risk anything on the validity of his 
pronouncement.
 
> I don't argue against breaking laws which are immoral, indeed 
> I am still refusing to pay a Poll tax bill from the UK despite
> the fact that the amount outstanding is inconsequential.

Then his only stated objection to taking the bet has been removed.
Why do I doubt he will have the 'nads to take my generous wager?

> You sound like an 18th century fop challenging someone to a duel.

No, I am challenging Phill to benefit or lose based on his beliefs.
 
> I do not believe that Aristotle listed "challenging to a bet"
> as one of his modes of reason.

Phill invokes the classic straw man arguement.  What the bet does 
do is to test the courage of one's convictions.  I think it is 
obvious to all where Phill fits into this equation.  

Phill, can I assume then, that your answer to my proposed wager
is "no thank you"? 


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>Phill adroitly responded:
> 
>> The moral point is not that there is risk of being caught, it
>> is that society has made laws and unless there are exceptional
>> circumstances it is a duty to obey those laws.

>[Nice try, Phill.]  The moral cowardice to which I was referring 
>had nothing to do with obeying or disobeying a silly law.  It had 
>to do with Phill's citing of same as a craven excuse to neither 
>admit he was wrong nor to risk anything on the validity of his 
>pronouncement.

Actually the original reply I made was simply one of a number of 
objections to what is a very silly argument. I could have equally
answered that way had you actually proposed a duel or that we
"step outside". It is a very silly mode of argument and desrves
to be answered in the same manner (if at all).

The essential humourless of your reply is indicated by your
failure to realise that my conversion of your 25L into 2 cents
was satirical.


>Phill invokes the classic straw man arguement.  What the bet does 
>do is to test the courage of one's convictions.  I think it is 
>obvious to all where Phill fits into this equation.  

And precisely what does that demonstrate? We are debating the issue
of whether Rush's retreat from TV is a result of failure, or more
specifically whether we should believe Rush's spin on the matter.
The truth or falsehood of that argument is indifferent to the depth
of my belief that Rush is a big fat idiot or not. 


One of my friends left CERN to join Netscape a few years back. He
now worth probably $10 million plus as a result. I don't think that
his intelligence relative to Rush was in any way dependent on that
decision. He would still be way smarter than Rush either way and 
Marvin Minsky would be smarter than both. Only guy I have ever met
who was super rich who impressed me as an intellectual force was 
Bill Gates - apart that is from friends who inherited silly amounts
of money. 


		Phill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

Interestingly, Phill responded to my last message with both a
private one and a public one.  In the private one (which I 
mistakenly believed was sent to the list), he told me that he 
was declining the wager.  As his reasons, he mentioned that he 
was not as interested in money as I appeared to be.  To which I 
replied:

It's not about the money.  Phill knows that, I know that, and so
does everyone else.

He further chided that I could draw no other conclusions then
that he wasn't interested in the wager.  I responded:

Oh yes I can.  And fortunately, so can everyone else.  Better a 
live jackel than a dead lion, right? 

In Phill's recent public post he said:

> Actually the original reply I made was simply one of a number of 
> objections to what is a very silly argument. I could have equally
> answered that way had you actually proposed a duel or that we
> "step outside". It is a very silly mode of argument and desrves
> to be answered in the same manner (if at all).

Notice how Phil again proposes a straw man by making an implicit
analogy between trials by combat, and a wager, the outcome of
which would turn on the actual outcome of events forecast--in the
alternative--by Phil and myself.

> The essential humourless of your reply is indicated by your
> failure to realise that my conversion of your 25L into 2 cents
> was satirical.

Oh really?  Then how come you at first defended it with your
attempted face-saving "GBP" comment?

Really, Phill, have you know shame?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> The essential humourless of your reply is indicated by your
>> failure to realise that my conversion of your 25L into 2 cents
>> was satirical.

>Oh really?  Then how come you at first defended it with your
>attempted face-saving "GBP" comment?

Because your continued attempts to prop up what is a very
silly argument with even sillier ones is a source of amusement.
I had not at that point abandoned the satirical mode. Since
you can't take a hint and your arguments are now tiresome
rather than amusing I'll tell it to you straight:


As with Rush I don't have the slightest respect for your mode
of argument. You attempt to introduce "proof by wager" as a 
valid form of argument. You introduce irrelevant factors 
such whether Rush is richer than I am, something which you 
have no means of knowing and as it happens I don't know 
either. I don't know how rich you get by lying to the
American public and I haven't the foggiest idea what my 
portfolio is worth. There are only two levels of wealth 
"enough" and "not enough". I fall into the first category, 
Rush Limbaugh and yourself will fall into the latter 
regardless of how much money you earn.


In short your arguments are remarkably similar to those of
your hero Rush, fatuous, invalid logic, irrelevant facts and
gratuitous insults.

I think you are a fool, I think that Rush is a fool and I don't
consider that I need prove anything to you.


		Phill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> ...Since you can't take a hint and your arguments are now
> tiresome rather than amusing I'll tell it to you straight:

But I have made no arguments.  I have merely proposed a wager.
 
> As with Rush I don't have the slightest respect for your mode
> of argument.

Again, no argument was offered only a wager.  (Phill's respect
for my "mode of arguing" is certainly irrelevant to me as I
imagine it is to the bulk of readers of this list.)

> You attempt to introduce "proof by wager" as a valid form of
> argument.

This straw man was previously addressed.  No one but Phill has
suggested that wagers are a form of proof.  (If you can quote me
as suggesting otherwise, Phill, I'd be happy to explain to you
where you've gotten it wrong.)

> You introduce irrelevant factors such whether Rush is richer
> than I am,...

Apparently, Phill has lost track of which member of his enemies
list made which statements.  I, of course, never mentioned Rush's
wealth one way or the other.

> In short your arguments

I made none.  Phill should check his facts.

> are remarkably similar to those of your hero Rush,

Rush is not my hero. I never said he was.  Phill should check his 
facts.

> fatuous, invalid logic, irrelevant facts and gratuitous insults.
> I think you are a fool,

Res ipsa loquitur.

> I think that Rush is a fool and I don't consider that I need
> prove anything to you.

True, but without meaning to, Phill has proven quite a lot about
himself right here in front of god and everybody.  It ain't a
pretty picture is it?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>Res ipsa loquitur.

prospe tibi ut galia in tres partes dividaris.

On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:
> decision. He would still be way smarter than Rush either way and 
> Marvin Minsky would be smarter than both. Only guy I have ever met
> who was super rich who impressed me as an intellectual force was 
                                                         ^^^^^

> Bill Gates - apart that is from friends who inherited silly amounts
> of money. 


     You mis-spelled farce. HTH. HAND.


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:
> 
> I'm still rather amused by the terms of your bet, $50 vs 25L.
> At current exchange rates 25 Lire is more like 2 cents.
> 
> I thought I had already given my 2 cents.
> 
> Given that this is a public newsgroup, and the one most
> likely to be read by spooks and the FBI I would have to be
> almost as stupid as Rush to accept any bets on it. Its called
> illegal interstate gambling.

Perhaps you should consider joining the FBI?  I think we would
both agree that the net social benefits of this would be positive,
but perhaps for different reasons. :-)

BTW - 'L' is a common abbreviation for 'pounds'.

Gary
--
pub  1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22  Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com>
Key fingerprint =  0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D  1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

Phil,

are you saying that you're a better businessman than Rush Limbaugh?

Can we see some 1040's, please?