In a message dated 1/4/03 7:13:12 PM, ibook at lists.themacintoshguy.com writes: << Message-Id: <a05200f09ba3cfb3463ee@[209.86.216.208]> Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 13:18:17 -0800 From: bofus? <bofus at mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [P1] self-quotes hi all, I know these posts were off-topic to ibook but were very on topic as to the current climate. I thank these cats for giving voice to stuff you just won't hear on the ram-rod sideshow stuff most of us are exposed to. I know it's out of place here maybe but I'm still glad I got to read it - it gives me hope, a little. on both wheels, watt > >Message-Id: <200301041310.h04DAk7l070337 at mail.bendnet.com> >Subject: Re: [P1] self-quotes >Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 05:10:43 -0800 >From: George Slusher <gslusher at rio.com> > >[snip] > >To me, this is only fair. For many years, the burden of military service >has fallen disproportionately on the poor, uneducated, and >minorities--those with the least power. It would also personalize the war >decision for the President and Congress. I wonder if GW would be as >anxious to invade Iraq if he knew that his twins would be infantry >privates in the first landing party? > >George Slusher, Lt Col, USAF (Ret) >Eugene, OR >gslusher at rio.com > and > >Message-Id: <v03110700ba3cc8293b1d@[192.168.1.100]> >Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:26:47 -0600 >From: John Paul Moore <JohnPaulMoore at austin.rr.com> >Subject: Re: [P1] self-quotes > >At 10:38 AM -0600 1/4/03, Eric B. Richardson wrote: >> >>Finally, prior to this 'chicken hawk' had intimations of a pedophile, >>and using such language towards the president and his cabinet is >>shameful and reprehensible. The people that coined this term knew >>what they were doing and now you do too. Hopefully, now that you do, >>you will stop. > >Although this whole thread is way OT, I cannot let this go unchallenged. It >is by no means "shameful" and definitely not "reprehensible" to call the >president and any of the cabinet by whatever name fits, and for those who >are now advocating war but who managed conveniently to dodge their duty as >Americans during Vietnam, "chickenhawk" is a very good fit indeed. This is >not shameful behavior; it is instead in the proudest tradition of American >Democracy, a tradition some of us wore uniforms to defend, to call a spade >a soiled shovel. > >[snip] > -- -- -- -- mike watt's hoot page: http://hootpage.com/ -- hear watt on the web, the watt from pedro show: http://twfps.com/ -- -- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 15:27:33 -0600 Subject: Re: [P1] self-quotes From: Brian Olesky <brian4 at sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <BA3CADE5.2AA6%brian4 at sbcglobal.net> On 1/4/03 1:58 PM, "J Patrick Draine" <draine at attbi.com> wrote: > > Yow! I joined this list yesterday hoping to find discussions focussed > on the iBook. I take it there's no moderator on this list? <sigh> Oh > well .... > These off-topic threads pop up occasionally, and are often entertaining in a non-iBook kind of way. People on this list definitely do think differently, particularly from each other. At any rate, the rants go on for a few days, then subside and we're back on subject. > In the meantime I'm seriously considering adding an iBook to the > household's stable of Macs (333 MHz iMac, 500 MHz iMac). Even though > the local Apple stores are delightful places to briefly try out the > merchandise, I'm generally a refurb kind of guy. > I'm considering the refurb 600 MHz (20 gig HD, 128 meg RAM, CD only) > iBook, approx $799 at smalldog and sometimes the Apple Store. I've had tons of Macs over the years, desktop and notebook, even going back to the desktop sized original Mac Portable. I now use the 600 MHz iBook model you're considering (though mine has the DVD & CD burner drive) and I honestly think it's the best Mac I've ever owned. And I paid $700 more for it (new) just 7 months ago than the price you're looking at. My opinion? Go for it (along with some extra ram, which you can install yourself.) Brian ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 16:56:05 -0500 Subject: Re: [P1] self-quotes From: Jack Rodgers <jackrodgers at earthlink.net> Message-Id: <52E891AC-202F-11D7-9DC7-000393A567F0 at earthlink.net> On Saturday, January 4, 2003, at 02:54 PM, Eric B. Richardson wrote: > What I objected to has to do with the term 'chicken hawk' which is > long term standing slang for a pedophile that is decades old at least. > The people who appropriated this term for this debate are aware of > that meaning, and by doing so, implicating our national leaders with > such connotations, is shameful and reprehensible behavior. I did not > object to the criticism. If I did, it would be along the lines like > this: Hmm, I don't recall ever seeing chickenhawk applied to pedophiles but dictionary.com agrres with you. However, following some links I find that books have been published using that term for helicopter pilots in Vietnam. Like other words, such as redneck (!), various interpretations exist. It does have an an amusing way of clearly stating an idea. --- I propose that all elections for public office be advanced two years so that anyone elected to office can serve a two year jail term for the crimes they are about to commit and that we will probably find hard to prove. Jack Rodgers Email: jackrodgers at earthlink.net Web: www.jackrodgers.com iCal: coming soon iBlog: coming soon ------------------------------ Message-Id: <v03110701ba3d154458d5@[192.168.1.100]> Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:06:14 -0600 From: John Paul Moore <JohnPaulMoore at austin.rr.com> Subject: Re: [P1] self-quotes At 1:54 PM -0600 1/4/03, Eric B. Richardson wrote: > >What I objected to has to do with the term 'chicken hawk' which is >long term standing slang for a pedophile that is decades old at >least. The people who appropriated this term for this debate are >aware of that meaning, and by doing so, implicating our national >leaders with such connotations, is shameful and reprehensible >behavior. I did not object to the criticism. If I did, it would be >along the lines like this: These are public figures we are referring to here--among the chickenhawks are George Bush, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Spencer Abraham, Don Evans, Karl Rove, Andrew Card, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Mitch McConnell, Dick Armey, Phil Gramm, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Mark Racicot, Rudy Guliani, Charlton Heston, Wayne LaPierre, Bill Bennett, Jerry Falwell, George Will, Bill O'Reilly, Tony Snow, Britt Hume and Sean Hannity--and as such are subject to being called any name the public cares to put on them. I am not saying they are pedophiles, that is your construction. I am saying that insasmuch as they are promoting war, it serves us all to consider the roots of such advocacy. There are two kinds of people--those who served and those who did not. Among those who served, there are those who were put in a position to kill or be killed. And among these, there are the ones who survived and the ones who did not. Before we create any more of this last group, we should carefully consider ALL the options. Many of us believe the current impasse, as well as other problems afflicting our current body politic, are largely due to the Bush Administration's utter malfeasance in foreign affairs. People close to the current unelected administration who have survived combat have, to a man so far as I know, opposed the hair trigger, cowboy approach Bush advocates, going to war with or without provocation or international support. As has been autoritatitvely documented in the past several weeks, this administration has no policy apparatus as did every administration previous, instead making all policy decisions based on short term political considerations. Neither my children nor yours should die to advance a domestic political agenda. Just last week it was suggested by a London Guardian columnist that the better course to pursue would be to parachute English soldiers into swing states to hand out Bush Cheney brochuers, thus avoiding the "war" charade. They are not pedophiles, they are worse. They are craven cowards willing to sacrifice the blood and lives of your children and mine for the sake of political opportunism. George W. himself got into the National Guard because of who his daddy was and then, adding insult to injury, was awol his last year of obligation. You can yammer on as much as you like about this not being an unusual situation, but I urge you to check again. This is different and it is way wrong. John Paul Moore johnpaulmoore at austin.rr.com http://alllinked.com