Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
> [combination phone/PDA]
In fact what was being discussed was everything
in the one device, not just phone and PDA.
>> The problem with that approach is that it's a single point of potential failure.
>> The best way to handle that is to have another in the car etc.
> Buying two of something on the off-chance that one breaks
> isn't terribly cost-effective with personal electronics.
You dont need to do that for the convenience, just keep
the previous obsolete one in the car in case you need it etc.
> At least with my approach, owning two gizmos that do two different things
> means that I get my money's worth by using both of them all of the time.
Doesnt help when say the phone stops working, or the camera, you're still fucked.
And you have to fart around with the two separate devices,
particularly with basic stuff like multiple address books etc etc etc.
>> I already do that with the non portable stuff. I wouldnt dream
>> of being without spares/alternatives for anything that gets used
>> much and which is a nuisance when it inevitably stops working.
> But unless you have both of them with you at all times, there's
> still going to be the nuisance of being without the use of the
> thing until you go home and get the other one out of the other
> car, or wherever it's kept.
Most of us have the car with us most of the time. The other times arent
necessarily any big deal if the single device does fail and your approach
doesnt fix the problem since you are in precisely the same situation with
the device that has failed when you need that functionality.
And we get the convenience of just one device and not having to fart around with 3 etc.
> So I don't see that you gain much
More fool you.
> for the added expense.
There is no added expense if the previous one is the backup.
>> I have that with stuff as basic as the car and house keys etc too.
> I do it with really critical things like toilet paper and vermouth.
I do it with everything that is used much. In spades with the stuff
thats used every day like the PC, TV, cooking devices etc etc etc.
>>> A friend of mine has one of those gizmos that's a combination
>>> cell phone and PDA (a Treo or BlackBerry or something like that).
>>> When she had to have the thing repaired because she'd inadvertently
>>> dropped a heavy Cross ballpoint pen point-down (natch) on the PDA
>>> screen, she found herself without a PDA or a cell phone. Buying
>>> a device like that is an example of what's known in military aviation
>>> circles as "bad headwork."
>> The avaition system has used redundancy for a hell of a long time now.
> The government or airline can afford to.
It aint just the govt and airlines, private planes have redundancy too.
> Besides, it's trivial to have, say, a duplicate set of
> instruments in the context of the cost of the entire airplane.
Even more trivial to keep the previous now
obsolete single device as the backup too.
> With stuff like electrical and hydraulic systems (not to
> mention engines), it can literally be a matter of life and death.
And with stuff you use much, like even something as basic as
keys, it makes a hell of a lot of sense to have redundancy too.
Makes absolutely no sense to not have spare keyboards
and mice etc given that they are so cheap too.
>> Much more viable than dinosauring along the old way.
> I really don't see that having a separate cell phone,
> digital camera and PDA makes me a "dinosaur."
It does anyway.
> Those are all modern electronic devices, afer all.
> It isn't as though I'm using an abacus or something.
Stupid to be farting around with three
separate devices when one can do it all.
> The only reason I finally got a PalmPilot was because I got tired of
> stationery stores always being out of DayRunner pages in the size I needed.
You're clearly a dinosaur by nature.
> (The extortionate prices they charged for refills when
> they *did* have them in stock chapped my hide, too.)
> Did using a DayRunner make me a dinosaur?
Yep, farting about with bits of paper is dinosaur stuff.
I dont even bother with lists anymore, they get
loaded into the high capability single device instead.
Its also go stuff like lists of clothes etc sizes etc too, leaves
farting around with lists like that on paper for dead too.
> I don't see how; it's the same principle as a PDA.
Nope, much more farting around moving stuff
from piece of paper to piece of paper etc.
Bet you still pay for stuff with physical checks too.
> You have to admit, a lot of the attraction of any PDA is the geek factor.
Nope, for anyone with a clue its just much more convenient,
and no farting around hunting up refills etc too.
>>> I have a cell phone and a Palm Pilot, and never the twain shall
>>> meet, Mark. Oh, and a dedicated digital camera, too. I keep
>>> the phone in the customary belt holster, and the camera and
>>> PDA live in my backpack where they're always close at hand.
>> Mad, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to have it all
>> in one and have a spare if the use is that critical. That
>> way you can just ignore the spare until you actually
>> need it because the main one died or got lost etc and
>> dont have to fart around with the multiple items all the time.
> I can't imagine a scenario in which the
> use of any of those things were critical.
More fool you. And I said THAT CRITICAL.
> They're conveniences, not necessities.
So is your house and car and clothes using that mindlessly silly line.
> What's interesting is how conditioned people have
> become to think of those things as necessities.
I never said a word about necessitys.
>>>> And the camera is handy when shopping around to
>>>> record some individual offers that can be compared
>>>> with whatever new shows up until you buy it etc.
>>> Oh, I agree that they have plenty of uses. Having a camera
>>> available in the event of an auto accident comes to mind.
>>> But I buy a telephone primarily as a telephone.
>> Makes a lot more sense to have everything in the one device so
>> you can use the camera effortless when required and dont have to
>> cart a physical camera around on the off chance you might need it.
> It's always in my backpack, which is usually with me.
I dont bother with backpacks at all. Just a single device that goes in
my pocket, even in summer when I dont even wear shirts with pockets.
Leaves farting around with a backpack for dead.
> But not always. And admittedly, a car accident when I don't have the
> camera along would be an excellent time to have a camera in my phone.
Yep, a single device that can do everything you ever do, even
if its very rarely like with an accident leaves the alternatives
for dead, if only because it will always be with you.
Very handy to be able to check the basics on say model
numbers etc when you are out and about and find one that
looks like its the same model in a garage sale etc and its
so cheap that it would be useful for spares etc etc etc.
> Now, if I could just remember to re-read the owner's
> manual so I'll know how to use the goddamed thing...
Anyone with a clue buys devices that are properly designed so they are intuitive to use.
The most you might have to do with a Nokia is look in a different menu for something
that you have never used before but are aware that it can do like say a timer etc.
Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> writes:
: Why do you insist on reading so much negative BS into such a simple,
: straightforward term?
> Oh, I don't. I understand value. It's generally the rest of the
> world, populated by idiots and being manipulated by marketers, who
> have bastardized the meaning of the word "value" to mean "the lowest
> price thing we can still possibly call a thing".
And what did I say that gave you the impression that I'm one of those
people? If you could narrow that down to specific passage(s) of mine,
I'm sure it would prove illuminating.
> Well, Chevies aren't a value. They may be low priced--that is, the
> cost to acquire them is low--but they aren't a value.
Why not? And compared to what?
I've noticed that the articles by the Chevy-haters in this thread are
precious short on specifics. It gives me the impression that they're
spouting received "wisdom" that simply happens to be fashionable among
their peer group.
Geoff
--
"We are like genitals unto the gods; they play with us
for their amusement." -- Black Adder
: Buying a device like that is an example of what's known in
: military aviation circles as "bad headwork."
> If this is the same military who's doing such a lousy job in
> Iraq, I am not all that concerned with their opinion on handheld
> devices.
It isn't an opinion on handheld devices, you comprehension-deprived
little leftist nitwit. It's a figure of speech.
If you believe the military is doing a lousy job in Iraq, then
perhaps you, a noted expert on military strategy and tactics,
would be willing to edify the rest of us by offering some
suggestions?
I really hope the draft is reinstated someday. Universal military
experience would both diminish the frequency of trendy yet uninformed
anti-military twaddle such as yours, and increase the likelihood that
anyone who spouted it got his ass booted up between his shoulderblades.
: I have a cell phone and a Palm Pilot, and never the twain shall
: meet, Mark. Oh, and a dedicated digital camera, too. I keep
: the phone in the customary belt holster, and the camera and PDA
: live in my backpack where they're always close at hand.
> Good for you. About a year ago, I replaced my separate cell phone and
> Palm Pilot with a Palm Treo 700p smart phone and even after having it
> stolen from me this weekend, I would never go back to separate devices.
> When I had a separate Palm and cell phone, I ended up spending too much
> time duplicating address book info on both units. With my Treo 700p, I
> like the ability to keep all my data on one device and have it tied to
> my cell phone and my computer nearly effortlessly.
Good for you. Your mother must be very proud. I get around that problem
by not inputting any information into my cell phone in the first place,
hence no duplication of effort. If I need to look up a number, the Palm
Pilot is right there. And as I pointed out earlier, if one of the devices
breaks or is lost, I still have the use of the other until the lost one
can be replaced...later the same day.
Geoff
--
"We are like genitals unto the gods; they play with us
for their amusement." -- Black Adder
> The Daimler Chrysler merger hurt Mercedes the most, when
> Mercedes lost control of where the parts came from.
Are you implying that Chrysler-sourced parts were used in
Mercedes vehicles? I've heard of the reverse, e.g., the
E-class rear suspension used on the Chrysler 300 and the
previous-generatio SLK platform being used for the Crossfire,
but that's all.
Geoff
--
"We are like genitals unto the gods; they play with us
for their amusement." -- Black Adder
Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote
> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> writes
>> Buying a device like that is an example of what's
>> known in military aviation circles as "bad headwork."
>> If this is the same military who's doing such a lousy job in Iraq,
>> I am not all that concerned with their opinion on handheld devices.
> It isn't an opinion on handheld devices, you comprehension-deprived
> little leftist nitwit. It's a figure of speech.
> If you believe the military is doing a lousy job in Iraq, then perhaps
> you, a noted expert on military strategy and tactics, would be
> willing to edify the rest of us by offering some suggestions?
Let the stupid ragheads fight it out amoungst themselves.
They just aint worth first world country kid's lives.
Even the stupid japs and krauts had enough of a clue to get
on with it once they had lost. Not the stupid ragheads tho.
Its possible that it might be possible to prevail after 40 years or so given
that even the stupid irish managed to come to their senses eventually
but its doubtful that the stupid ragheads can even manage that.
> I really hope the draft is reinstated someday.
Taint gunna happen, you watch.
> Universal military experience would both diminish the frequency
> of trendy yet uninformed anti-military twaddle such as yours,
Odd that that didnt happen during Vietnam.
At least with the current approach, those getting killed in the
attempt to stop the stupid ragheads killing each other have
volunteered to go there. The public support would be MUCH
worse if it was their kids being shipped over there regardless.
> and increase the likelihood that anyone who spouted
> it got his ass booted up between his shoulderblades.
Just another mindless fantasy.
>> I have a cell phone and a Palm Pilot, and never the twain shall
>> meet, Mark. Oh, and a dedicated digital camera, too. I keep
>> the phone in the customary belt holster, and the camera and PDA
>> live in my backpack where they're always close at hand.
>> Good for you. About a year ago, I replaced my separate cell phone and
>> Palm Pilot with a Palm Treo 700p smart phone and even after having it
>> stolen from me this weekend, I would never go back to separate
>> devices. When I had a separate Palm and cell phone, I ended up
>> spending too much time duplicating address book info on both units.
>> With my Treo 700p, I like the ability to keep all my data on one device
>> and have it tied to my cell phone and my computer nearly effortlessly.
> Good for you. Your mother must be very proud. I get around that
> problem by not inputting any information into my cell phone in the
> first place, hence no duplication of effort. If I need to look up a
> number, the Palm Pilot is right there.
Wota dinosaur. MUCH more convenient to dial it when its on the cellphone.
> And as I pointed out earlier, if one of the devices breaks or is lost, I still have
> the use of the other until the lost one can be replaced...later the same day.
Pity that a camera doesnt work too well as a cellphone.
In article <137m5g1scj1rg17@corp.supernews.com>, geoffm@lava.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> writes:
>
> > The Daimler Chrysler merger hurt Mercedes the most, when
> > Mercedes lost control of where the parts came from.
>
> Are you implying that Chrysler-sourced parts were used in
> Mercedes vehicles? I've heard of the reverse, e.g., the
> E-class rear suspension used on the Chrysler 300 and the
> previous-generatio SLK platform being used for the Crossfire,
> but that's all.
>
I had heard that besides the numerous quality issues (door trim falling
off $100,000 cars, Chrysler was calling the shots for where parts came
from.
>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>: I also rented a Malibu sedan a few years back. It impressed me
>: also.
>
>> I guess you are easier to please than I am. 8)
>
>That's a strange thing to say to somebody whose last four cars have
>been Mercedes-Benzes.
Nope. Your being "impressed" by a Malibu is proof positive.
> American cars are, in my experience, generally not as good
> as Japanese cars of the same price, but there are exceptions.
My experience is similar to yours. I'm a Toyota fan, having
owned two Toyota pickups and a Supra. I'm partial to Hondas,
also (I used to own an '81 Accord sedan).
That being said, American cars have made great strides over the
last couple of decades. There are even a couple I consider
particularly desirable, the new Mustang and the Chrysler 300
(especially in SRT-8 form).
Geoff
--
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
-- Winston Churchill
: Are you implying that Chrysler-sourced parts were used in
: Mercedes vehicles?
> I had heard that besides the numerous quality issues (door
> trim falling off $100,000 cars, Chrysler was calling the
> shots for where parts came from.
That's highly unlikely, considering the well-documented fact
that the so-called "merger" between Chrysler and DBAG was
anything but a joining of equals. If you don't believe that,
then how do you explain Daimler-Benz's recent selling off of
Chrysler?
Geoff
--
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
-- Winston Churchill
: That's a strange thing to say to somebody whose last four
: cars have been Mercedes-Benzes.
> Nope. Your being "impressed" by a Malibu is proof positive.
Nope, yourself. Consider the context: I didn't say that the
Malibu was the equal of any Mercedes. I said I was impressed
by it. What impressed me was what the car offered for its price.
That's known as "value." Value doesn't imply that something has
to be the best in its class. It implies "bang for the buck," i.e.
offering a lot for its price.
Geoff
--
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
-- Winston Churchill
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:vhsk731l85l26bdkc0pv84qmag749b82p2@4ax.com...
> Justin wrote:
>
>>Rod Speed wrote on [Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:36:28 +1000]:
>>>
>>> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, fuckwit child.
>>
>>Do you feel like you won now?
>
> Well, he did, until you ruined it by responding again.
>
> Just let the kook have the last word.
>
Better yet, just killfile him like most of us have. Reading all the
pointless responses to Rod is almost as bad as reading Rod.
>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>>> I guess you are easier to please than I am. 8)
>
>: That's a strange thing to say to somebody whose last four
>: cars have been Mercedes-Benzes.
>
>> Nope. Your being "impressed" by a Malibu is proof positive.
>
>Nope, yourself.
Nope.
>Consider the context: I didn't say that the
>Malibu was the equal of any Mercedes.
No one thought that you had.
>I said I was impressed by it.
Yeah, we know that.
> What impressed me was what the car offered for its price.
That's not what you said.
>That's known as "value."
That's known as changing your story, and looking like a fscking idiot
who cannot tolerate a friendly " I guess you are easier to please than
I am. 8)"
You MUST be so superior, I guess... You just CAN'T be "easier to
please" than some stranger calling himself "chrisv" on usenet, and
you'll defend your honor to the end.
Asshole.
>Value doesn't imply that something has
>to be the best in its class. It implies "bang for the buck," i.e.
>offering a lot for its price.
It's clear that you are more-easily pleased than I am.
: I've noticed that the articles by the Chevy-haters in this thread are
: precious short on specifics. It gives me the impression that they're
: spouting received "wisdom" that simply happens to be fashionable among
: their peer group.
> That's funny, I have specifics.
Then lay 'em out for us.
"Put up or shut up" is, I believe, the expression.
Geoff
--
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
-- Winston Churchill
In article <137p3gh47r00g49@corp.supernews.com>, geoffm@lava.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> writes:
>
> : Are you implying that Chrysler-sourced parts were used in
> : Mercedes vehicles?
>
> > I had heard that besides the numerous quality issues (door
> > trim falling off $100,000 cars, Chrysler was calling the
> > shots for where parts came from.
>
>
> That's highly unlikely, considering the well-documented fact
> that the so-called "merger" between Chrysler and DBAG was
> anything but a joining of equals. If you don't believe that,
> then how do you explain Daimler-Benz's recent selling off of
> Chrysler?
>
They melded a lot of resources. Chrysler is a losing brand these days.
Mercedes regretted the merger.
:: That's a strange thing to say to somebody whose last four
:: cars have been Mercedes-Benzes.
>> Nope. Your being "impressed" by a Malibu is proof positive.
: Nope, yourself.
> Nope.
Nope yet again.
: Consider the context: I didn't say that the Malibu was the
: equal of any Mercedes.
> No one thought that you had.
You obviously did.
: I said I was impressed by it.
> Yeah, we know that.
That seems to be about all you know. Well, that and the
location of your ass, now that you were able to borrow a
flashlight and a Rand-McNally Road Atlas.
: What impressed me was what the car offered for its price.
> That's not what you said.
So what did I say, then?
: That's known as "value."
> That's known as changing your story, and looking like a fscking
> idiot who cannot tolerate a friendly " I guess you are easier to
> please than I am. 8)"
Expanding on my conception of value isn't changing my story.
'Course, you'd probably claim that anything at all that I'd
said subsequent to my original post was "changing my story"...
Calling someone a "fscking idiot" one exchange further into the
thread indicates that your comment was anything but friendly.
So when did I change my story? Please quote the relevant passages,
and provide the corresponding dates and message-IDs. I'm sure we
can clear this up in a metric heartbeat. Failure to coopetrate
will, of course, be taken as a tacit admission that you were
talking out your ass.
> You MUST be so superior, I guess... You just CAN'T be "easier
> to please" than some stranger calling himself "chrisv" on usenet,
> and you'll defend your honor to the end.
What does superiority have to do with it?
Do you really expect someone to take kindly to ane insinuation that
he has low standards, simply because he admits to being impressed by
a less-than-premium-priced automoble? If you don't want an exchange
of views about cars, then why are you here?
> Asshole.
Window-licking retard.
: Value doesn't imply that something has to be the best in its class.
: It implies "bang for the buck," i.e. offering a lot for its price.
> It's clear that you are more-easily pleased than I am.
What's clear is that you need to bolster your fragile sense of self-
esteem with pretentious snobbery.
Trundle along, now. The grownups are talking, and you'd only get
frightfully confused. There's a good lad...
Geoff
--
"Most autoerotic fatalities (wankers died in the line of duty) are
found with some interesting object in their bum and a smile obscured
by the dewey plastic bag over their heads." -- Steven Snedker
At 24 Jun 2007 02:20:24 +0000 Geoff Miller wrote:
> If you don't want an exchange
> of views about cars, then why are you here?
Interesting question for both of you, considering the thread is
ostensibly about the iPhone and is crossposted to posted to three
cellular and two computer groups...
>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>[alleged: I'm more easily impressed that he is]
>
>:: That's a strange thing to say to somebody whose last four
>:: cars have been Mercedes-Benzes.
>
>>> Nope. Your being "impressed" by a Malibu is proof positive.
>
>: Nope, yourself.
>
>> Nope.
>
>Nope yet again.
Nope.
>: Consider the context: I didn't say that the Malibu was the
>: equal of any Mercedes.
>
>> No one thought that you had.
>
>You obviously did.
Here you prove that you are a bald-faced liar in addition to being an
asshole.
How low are you willing to go?
>: I said I was impressed by it.
>
>> Yeah, we know that.
>
>That seems to be about all you know.
Wrong again, obviously, liar.
>Well, that and the
>location of your ass, now that you were able to borrow a
>flashlight and a Rand-McNally Road Atlas.
Oh, you are a wit.
>: What impressed me was what the car offered for its price.
>
>> That's not what you said.
>
>So what did I say, then?
"I also rented a Malibu sedan a few years back. It impressed me
also."
Nothing about "value".
And even if you HAD mentioned "value", I'd say that you're more easily
impressed than I am!
>: That's known as "value."
>
>> That's known as changing your story, and looking like a fscking
>> idiot who cannot tolerate a friendly " I guess you are easier to
>> please than I am. 8)"
>
>Expanding on my conception of value isn't changing my story.
That's not what you did, asshole. You changed your story to ADD the
concept of value.
And even if you HAD mentioned "value", I'd say that you're more easily
impressed than I am!
>'Course, you'd probably claim that anything at all that I'd
>said subsequent to my original post was "changing my story"...
You changed your story. Fact.
>Calling someone a "fscking idiot" one exchange further into the
>thread indicates that your comment was anything but friendly.
Oh, so you looked into your crystal ball, saw an unfriendly future
post from me, and decided to preemptively become an asshole who just
HAS to be the superior being, the one who is definately NOT more
"easily impressed" than the "chrisv" guy?
You're a fscking weasel, and you're just digging yourself in deeper.
>So when did I change my story? Please quote the relevant passages,
See above, asshole.
>and provide the corresponding dates and message-IDs. I'm sure we
>can clear this up in a metric heartbeat. Failure to coopetrate
>will, of course, be taken as a tacit admission that you were
>talking out your ass.
Go fsck yourself. I quoted what you wrote. The thread is still
intact. Everyone can see what we both wrote, asshole.
>> You MUST be so superior, I guess... You just CAN'T be "easier
>> to please" than some stranger calling himself "chrisv" on usenet,
>> and you'll defend your honor to the end.
>
>What does superiority have to do with it?
Acting stupid won't save your bacon, asshole.
>Do you really expect someone to take kindly to ane insinuation that
>he has low standards,
I never claimed that you had "low" standards, asshole. There is the
possibility, asshole, that the "chrisv" guy has unusually high
standards.
>simply because he admits to being impressed by
>a less-than-premium-priced automoble? If you don't want an exchange
>of views about cars, then
Provide evidence to support your implation that I didn't want "an
exchange of views about cars", asshole. You can't, because you are,
AGAIN, wrong.
I DID want a (friendly) exchange of views about cars. YOU just had to
be the "superior one", and not let my friendly comment, complete with
smiley, go.
>why are you here?
Why are you here, asshole?
>> Asshole.
>
>Window-licking retard.
Interesting, but baseless, claim, considering how I'm kicking your ass
here, as you continue with your dishonesty and incorrect claims pulled
from your arse.
>: Value doesn't imply that something has to be the best in its class.
>: It implies "bang for the buck," i.e. offering a lot for its price.
>
>> It's clear that you are more-easily pleased than I am.
>
>What's clear is that you need to bolster your fragile sense of self-
>esteem with pretentious snobbery.
LOL
That's very funny, Mr "last four cars have been Mercedes-Benzes"
The irony!
>Trundle along, now. The grownups are talking, and you'd only get
>frightfully confused. There's a good lad...
Nice closing flame. Completely devoid of substance, of course...
On Jun 21, 6:04 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote
>
> > Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> writes
> >> Buying a device like that is an example of what's
> >> known in military aviation circles as "bad headwork."
> >> If this is the same military who's doing such a lousy job in Iraq,
> >> I am not all that concerned with their opinion on handheld devices.
> > It isn't an opinion on handheld devices, you comprehension-deprived
> > little leftist nitwit. It's a figure of speech.
> > If you believe the military is doing a lousy job in Iraq, then perhaps
> > you, a noted expert on military strategy and tactics, would be
> > willing to edify the rest of us by offering some suggestions?
>
> Let the stupid ragheads fight it out amoungst themselves.
>
I don't like the fact that we are in Iraq to begin with (or the fact
that the US helped Saddam and
Osama to become what they were/are). Again, why are we involved there?
So far the WMDs haven't
been found yet.
> They just aint worth first world country kid's lives.
>
> Even the stupid japs and krauts had enough of a clue to get
> on with it once they had lost. Not the stupid ragheads tho.
>
> Its possible that it might be possible to prevail after 40 years or so given
> that even the stupid irish
The Irish got fucked over pretty badly when they first step foot on
this land.
> managed to come to their senses eventually
> but its doubtful that the stupid ragheads can even manage that.
>
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:28:42 -0700, zeez wrote
(in article <1182785322.374641.301600@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>):
> On Jun 21, 6:04 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote
>>
>>> Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> writes
>>>> Buying a device like that is an example of what's
>>>> known in military aviation circles as "bad headwork."
>>>> If this is the same military who's doing such a lousy job in Iraq,
>>>> I am not all that concerned with their opinion on handheld devices.
>>> It isn't an opinion on handheld devices, you comprehension-deprived
>>> little leftist nitwit. It's a figure of speech.
>>> If you believe the military is doing a lousy job in Iraq, then perhaps
>>> you, a noted expert on military strategy and tactics, would be
>>> willing to edify the rest of us by offering some suggestions?
>>
>> Let the stupid ragheads fight it out amoungst themselves.
>>
>
> I don't like the fact that we are in Iraq to begin with (or the fact
> that the US helped Saddam and
> Osama to become what they were/are). Again, why are we involved there?
> So far the WMDs haven't
> been found yet.
>
>> They just aint worth first world country kid's lives.
>>
>> Even the stupid japs and krauts had enough of a clue to get
>> on with it once they had lost. Not the stupid ragheads tho.
>>
>> Its possible that it might be possible to prevail after 40 years or so given
>> that even the stupid irish
>
> The Irish got fucked over pretty badly when they first step foot on
> this land.
>
>> managed to come to their senses eventually
>> but its doubtful that the stupid ragheads can even manage that.
>>
>
> Hitler is smiling at your racism :\
>
>
I wish somebody would come up with a more appropriate term than "racism",
since genetically and scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as
race, there is, by definition, no such thing as racism. I truly believe that
most objections that people have with those from a different ethnic
background has to do with objections to their culture, not to their skin
color, although often it's difficult to separate the two. An example would be
that the stupid, self destructive culture that American Negroes have
"constructed" for themselves (admittedly, this is largely the white man's
fault) is pretty much 100% identified with African-Americans. Few people of
other ethnicities have embraced it (mostly because its an obvious dead-end).
So do those who hate blacks hate them because they're black, or because they
have adopted characteristics of a bankrupt and sociopathic culture which
values crime and low social and academic achievement? As someone who numbers
among his close personal friends, several black men and women, I can tell you
that their skin color means nothing to me. These are intelligent, educated,
and erudite people who want no part of that artificial African-American
culture. They (and I) do look down on African Americans who have embraced
that culture of non-success and non-achievement, though. Does that make me a
"racist" does it make them racists? It does make me a "Culturist" in that I
tend to judge people on their cultural values, not their skin color or other
physical ethnic manifestations.
I think its true with Muslims too. Many call middle-eastern peoples
"ragheads" not because they are Arab or Persian, but because they represent a
dangerous religion who is at war with the western world. People see Muslims
in general as the enemy because there is no way for an individual to know
which Muslims are hostile and which are not. This tendency to lump them all
together because we cannot tell the good ones apart from the bad ones is
fairly normal behavior under these circumstances. The more alien the enemy's
culture, the more likely people are to react that way. That's one reason why
we interned Japanese-Americans during WWII and not German-Americans (although
many German nationals and recent immigrants living in the USA when the war
started were deported).
> If this is the same military who's doing such a lousy job in Iraq, I am
> not all that concerned with their opinion on handheld devices.
The military was put into an impossible situation. Under-staffed,
under-equipped, in a war that should never have happened. They are
probably doing the best that could be expected under the circumstances.
The people to blame aren't the one's getting killed, it's the State
Department people, and Bush's staff that were just so sure that all the
experts in foreign policy were wrong, and that the Iraqi's would just
love us to invade, destroy, and occupy their country.
What's needed in the U.S. is to reinstate the draft. Once you start
drafting the more highly educated middle and upper class teenagers,
rather than depending on volunteers, you'd suddenly see a lot more
outrage over these foolish military adventures.
zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote
>>> Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> writes
>>>> Buying a device like that is an example of what's
>>>> known in military aviation circles as "bad headwork."
>>>> If this is the same military who's doing such a lousy job in Iraq,
>>>> I am not all that concerned with their opinion on handheld devices.
>>> It isn't an opinion on handheld devices, you comprehension-deprived
>>> little leftist nitwit. It's a figure of speech.
>>> If you believe the military is doing a lousy job in Iraq, then
>>> perhaps you, a noted expert on military strategy and tactics, would
>>> be willing to edify the rest of us by offering some suggestions?
>> Let the stupid ragheads fight it out amoungst themselves.
> I don't like the fact that we are in Iraq to begin with
Sure, but its a bit late for that now.
> (or the fact that the US helped Saddam and
> Osama to become what they were/are).
No they didnt with bin Laden.
> Again, why are we involved there?
The stupid idea that getting rid of Saddam would see the stupid raghead
welcome that and get their act into gear after that. In practice the stupid
ragheads are so stupid that they just looted everything in sight as soon as
they could and then proceeded to kill each other very enthusiastically indeed.
Hell of a contrast to what the japs and the krauts
managed when their arseholes were disposed of.
Corse you can also claim that those country were fucked over much
more comprehensivey and so even the stupidest should have been
able to work out that they had better get their act into gear.
> So far the WMDs haven't been found yet.
That was always just an excuse, stupid.
Just like the lie about the attack on the navy was with Vietnam.
>> They just aint worth first world country kid's lives.
>> Even the stupid japs and krauts had enough of a clue to get
>> on with it once they had lost. Not the stupid ragheads tho.
>> Its possible that it might be possible to prevail after
>> 40 years or so given that even the stupid irish
> The Irish got fucked over pretty badly when they first step foot on this land.
Nothing like what happened back in Ireland.
>> managed to come to their senses eventually but its
>> doubtful that the stupid ragheads can even manage that.
> Hitler is smiling at your racism :\
Nope, he's been dead for quite a while now, stupid.
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:28:42 -0700, zeez wrote
> (in article <1182785322.374641.301600@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>):
>
>> On Jun 21, 6:04 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> writes
>>>>> Buying a device like that is an example of what's
>>>>> known in military aviation circles as "bad headwork."
>>>>> If this is the same military who's doing such a lousy job in Iraq,
>>>>> I am not all that concerned with their opinion on handheld
>>>>> devices.
>>>> It isn't an opinion on handheld devices, you comprehension-deprived
>>>> little leftist nitwit. It's a figure of speech.
>>>> If you believe the military is doing a lousy job in Iraq, then
>>>> perhaps you, a noted expert on military strategy and tactics,
>>>> would be willing to edify the rest of us by offering some
>>>> suggestions?
>>>
>>> Let the stupid ragheads fight it out amoungst themselves.
>>>
>>
>> I don't like the fact that we are in Iraq to begin with (or the fact
>> that the US helped Saddam and
>> Osama to become what they were/are). Again, why are we involved
>> there? So far the WMDs haven't
>> been found yet.
>>
>>> They just aint worth first world country kid's lives.
>>>
>>> Even the stupid japs and krauts had enough of a clue to get
>>> on with it once they had lost. Not the stupid ragheads tho.
>>>
>>> Its possible that it might be possible to prevail after 40 years or
>>> so given that even the stupid irish
>>
>> The Irish got fucked over pretty badly when they first step foot on
>> this land.
>>
>>> managed to come to their senses eventually
>>> but its doubtful that the stupid ragheads can even manage that.
>>>
>>
>> Hitler is smiling at your racism :\
> I wish somebody would come up with a more appropriate
> term than "racism", since genetically and scientifically
> speaking, there is no such thing as race,
Corse there is.
> there is, by definition, no such thing as racism.
There's plenty of words that make no sense if you get all anal about them.
> I truly believe that most objections that people have with those from
> a different ethnic background has to do with objections to their culture,
> not to their skin color, although often it's difficult to separate the two.
Sure, but its still racism if you proclaim that all jews
should be exterminated just because of their culture.
> An example would be that the stupid, self destructive
> culture that American Negroes have "constructed" for
> themselves (admittedly, this is largely the white man's fault)
No it isnt.
And a better example is the Japs.
> is pretty much 100% identified with African-Americans. Few people of
> other ethnicities have embraced it (mostly because its an obvious dead-end).
> So do those who hate blacks hate them because they're black,
Yep, mostly. Asians too.
Its harder with jews just because they arent as physically distinctive.
> or because they have adopted characteristics of a bankrupt and sociopathic
> culture which values crime and low social and academic achievement?
Nope, that doesnt explain the even more passionate hatred of the 'uppity' individuals.
> As someone who numbers among his close personal friends,
> several black men and women, I can tell you that their skin color
> means nothing to me. These are intelligent, educated, and erudite
> people who want no part of that artificial African-American culture.
> They (and I) do look down on African Americans who have
> embraced that culture of non-success and non-achievement,
> though. Does that make me a "racist" does it make them racists?
Nope.
> It does make me a "Culturist" in that I tend to judge people on their
> cultural values, not their skin color or other physical ethnic manifestations.
Yes, and that true in spades of those who sneer at the worst of the rabid fundys too.
> I think its true with Muslims too.
Nope, there's a lot of them that arent rabid fundys.
> Many call middle-eastern peoples "ragheads" not because
> they are Arab or Persian, but because they represent a
> dangerous religion who is at war with the western world.
Or because they are silly enough to put rags on their heads.
> People see Muslims in general as the enemy because there is no way
> for an individual to know which Muslims are hostile and which are not.
Only the fools are that mindlessly one eyed.
> This tendency to lump them all together because we
> cannot tell the good ones apart from the bad ones is
> fairly normal behavior under these circumstances.
Under any circumstances, and it happens with 'christians' too.
> The more alien the enemy's culture, the more likely people
> are to react that way. That's one reason why we interned
> Japanese-Americans during WWII and not German-Americans
The english did intern germans, and they are very close
historically with krauts as their most recent kings etc.
> (although many German nationals and recent immigrants
> living in the USA when the war started were deported).
So that claim about the alienness of the culture has imploded.
> Enough ranting for one day.
Thats not a rant, not enough foam about the lips, too rational by far.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> Shawn Hirn wrote
>> If this is the same military who's doing such a lousy job in Iraq, I am not all that concerned
>> with their opinion on handheld devices.
> The military was put into an impossible situation.
I doubt anything would have worked given the mentality of the inhabitants.
> Under-staffed, under-equipped, in a war that should never have happened. They are probably doing
> the best that could be expected under the circumstances.
Nope, too many stupid kids gunning down anything
that moved because they were loading their pant.
> The people to blame aren't the one's getting killed,
Yes.
> it's the State Department people,
Nope, its the inhabitants of that country. So stupid that once Saddam
is disposed of, they start killing each other very enthusiastically indeed.
Even the krauts and the japs werent actually that stupid.
> and Bush's staff that were just so sure that all the experts in foreign policy were wrong,
Hardly surprising given that they always were previously. In spades with vietnam.
> and that the Iraqi's would just love us to invade, destroy, and occupy their country.
There was fuck all of the country destroyed by the initial invasion.
> What's needed in the U.S. is to reinstate the draft.
Nope, that would just ensure that the voters wouldnt buy all those US corpses.
> Once you start drafting the more highly educated middle and upper class teenagers, rather than
> depending on volunteers, you'd suddenly see a lot more outrage over these foolish military
> adventures.
Wrong again, they would have been fine with the first gulf war.
Turns out that W's dad had enough of a clue to no invade Iraq.
Pity about all those dead Iraqis he produced with that policy tho.
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:51:38 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <5eakmcF3806o5U1@mid.individual.net>):
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:28:42 -0700, zeez wrote
>> (in article <1182785322.374641.301600@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>):
>>
>>> On Jun 21, 6:04 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Geoff Miller <geo...@lava.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> writes
>>>>>> Buying a device like that is an example of what's
>>>>>> known in military aviation circles as "bad headwork."
>>>>>> If this is the same military who's doing such a lousy job in Iraq,
>>>>>> I am not all that concerned with their opinion on handheld
>>>>>> devices.
>>>>> It isn't an opinion on handheld devices, you comprehension-deprived
>>>>> little leftist nitwit. It's a figure of speech.
>>>>> If you believe the military is doing a lousy job in Iraq, then
>>>>> perhaps you, a noted expert on military strategy and tactics,
>>>>> would be willing to edify the rest of us by offering some
>>>>> suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> Let the stupid ragheads fight it out amoungst themselves.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't like the fact that we are in Iraq to begin with (or the fact
>>> that the US helped Saddam and
>>> Osama to become what they were/are). Again, why are we involved
>>> there? So far the WMDs haven't
>>> been found yet.
>>>
>>>> They just aint worth first world country kid's lives.
>>>>
>>>> Even the stupid japs and krauts had enough of a clue to get
>>>> on with it once they had lost. Not the stupid ragheads tho.
>>>>
>>>> Its possible that it might be possible to prevail after 40 years or
>>>> so given that even the stupid irish
>>>
>>> The Irish got fucked over pretty badly when they first step foot on
>>> this land.
>>>
>>>> managed to come to their senses eventually
>>>> but its doubtful that the stupid ragheads can even manage that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hitler is smiling at your racism :\
>
>> I wish somebody would come up with a more appropriate
>> term than "racism", since genetically and scientifically
>> speaking, there is no such thing as race,<
Re: The great iPhone hunt of 2007 