"John Hyde" <EJhyd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:12k2lpng9f80i99@corp.supernews.com...
> on 10/25/2006 5:35 PM Dana said the following:
> > "Sebastian Gottschalk" <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
> > news:4qab7cFltvslU1@news.dfncis.de...
> >> Dana wrote:
> >>
> <SNIP>
> >> They're integrating DRM into the kernel. That's far away from security.
> >
> > That is how they are implementing security. Which the customers have
been
> > demanding.
>
> DRM is not about protecting my computer from the outside world, DRM is
> about preventing me from having control over my computer
optikl wrote:
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[snip]
>> there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
>> the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
>>
> Unless, of course, that 3rd party product is orders of magnitude better than
> what comes with the OS.
yes, but now that microsoft has managed to cripple their competition the
3rd party products aren't going to be that much better anymore...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12k2kqt17pd8p09@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Zfc0h.193666$5R2.68422@pd7urf3no...
>>
>> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:12k2hc9pliesa0d@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:AO90h.193116$5R2.83091@pd7urf3no...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Well no they are not. They are making their own features along those
>> >> > lines,
>> >> > heck they should have done that years ago to secure the OS a lot
> better
>> >> > than
>> >> > they did.
>> >> >
>> >> > > It was
>> >> >> 'wrong' then, and it is 'wrong' now.
>> >> >
>> >> > It was not wrong then and it is not wrong now.
>> >> > Only MS can say what is right or wrong for their product.
>> >> >
>> >> But you have missed the point
>> >> MS can say what is 'right' or wrong' for their product.
>> >> But a number of governments have the right and duty to say what is
>> >> appropriate for a marketplace free from monoply power and consistent
>> >> anti-competitive and illegal actions.
>> >
>> > And in regards to MS, the governments and the courts were wrong.
>> > What the governments and courts did was stifle competition and punish
>> > innovation.
>> >
>>
>> Those are some very broad and unsupported allegations
>> Can you provide any proof?
>> Which governments and courts were wrong?
>
> The Europeans and the US.
> The US because it was a political driven attack against MS
> The Europeans because they were upset with the dominance of an American
> company, so again it was all political.
>> In what way were they wrong?
>
> Because of the political nature of the bogus claims from the governments
>
>> How good is your knowledge of international trade laws?
>
> Has nothing to do with international trade, although the Europeans screw
> American companies every chance they get.
>> In what ways did they stifle competition?
>
> Showing the marketplace that big government can come in and squash you
> like
> a bug.
>
>
Nice analogy there MS as a bug
But they don't look very squished these days
And again, all unsupported allegations and no proof.
You have destroyed any credibility that you may have had.
> optikl wrote:
> > "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> [snip]
> >> there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
> >> the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
> >>
> > Unless, of course, that 3rd party product is orders of magnitude
> > better than what comes with the OS.
>
> yes, but now that microsoft has managed to cripple their competition
> the 3rd party products aren't going to be that much better
> anymore...
To use a car analogy, would you rather have the ability to purchase a
fire suppression system that was compatible with the ford Pinto gas
tank, or would rather not have a gas tank so prone to exploding in a
collision?
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but if they can build a more secure OS such
that it happens to keep applications from portions of the OS that no
application should be mucking with as a side effect, more power to
em.
Dana wrote:
> "ArtDent" <par@noyd.invalidname> wrote in message
> news:0Q80h.271$zf.247@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net...
> >
> > On 25-Oct-2006, comphelp@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
> >
> > > "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> writes:
> > To the OP, get your 'facts' right.
>
> My facts are right.
>
If your facts are right, prove them as already been asked before. Your
arguments are pure nonsense unless you can provide proof. What the EU
is doing, should have been done decades ago. You where saying earlier,
not to buy MS products. If you are not a hardware savy person, ever
tried to buy a pre-build pc without M$ on it, but rather with an
alternative OS? Close to impossible unless you know your way around.
> > They (MS) are now trying to do the
> > same thing with anti-virus / firewall / anti-spyware applications.
Hugh? No one ever wanted that there is one OS that does it all. We
should all be able to make our own decisions and should be allowed to
chose which browser, AV / FW /AS software we want to install. MS has no
right what so ever to force us into a particular decision. Only reason
why MS IE is still so widely spread is that companies have preinstalled
pc's delivered with MS XP Pro and IE pre-setup.
It is outright impudent to DRM their system to lock others out. You
will even have problems dual booting Vista and Linux, because MS is
trying to lock the competition out.
M$ monopoly has gotten me so far that I have already switched to MS XP
with only freeware on it and all unnecessary, insecure, resource-hoggy
crap to be moved off the system and a dual boot with Linux has made my
day. Suddenly the system runs much faster and things work better.
> It was not wrong then and it is not wrong now.
> Only MS can say what is right or wrong for their product.
>
Wrong again.
MS is a company, thus only interested in market shares and making
profit. MS does not know what is right or wrong in the consumers eyes.
To improve competition and to represent the interests of the average
consumer, the EU parliament does a great job and should just continue
the way they are going with M$ now....
"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:v0f3k2lahiu4ntm3i5at21h26q824a52v6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:28:45 -0800, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Would you give some examples of what you are talking about.
> >I may live in Alaska, but we are not that out of touch, I really have not
> >heard of anything close to what you describe.
>
> Perhaps you could use Google to research the following topics:
>
> Item 1:
>
> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when President
> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
> Item 2
>
> Peter Dicks, who resigned as chairman of Sportingbet two weeks ago,
> was arrested in New York on September 7 at John F Kennedy
> International Airport at the request of Louisiana state authorities.
So the State of Louisiana had a warrant for him,
>
> Item 3
>
> THE "NatWest Three", whose extradition to the US triggered a campaign
> to change the law, face almost a year of strict bail conditions as
> they await trial in Houston, Texas.
OK, some busted criminals
>
> Item 6
>
> On 4 July Home Secretary John Reid granted the US request to extradite
> Mr McKinnon for trial.
>
> The US authorites want to jail him for 70 years.
OK, so he broke the law, and now is being tried in court.
>
>
> >> Security of the individual against the state seems to be low
> >> on the agenda these days in the US.
>
> >And again I have seen nothing in the US to verify your above statement.
>
> Then its time to look a bit harder.
You posted nothing to change my view.
>
> NOTE:
>
> I am not employed by a gambling company, Natwest Bank, and do
> not look for evidence of UFO's on foreign computer networks.
>
> BUT thankfully do not to live in a country which allows extradition
> to rogue states on the say-so of a scumbag like John Reid.
"JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
news:dZh0h.14487$j4.11524@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Dana wrote:
> > Has nothing to do with international trade, although the Europeans screw
> > American companies every chance they get.
>
> Where as US companies have never done anything like that have they -
> Boeing anyone?
The US does not subsidize an industry like the Europeans do with airbus.
"Yourhighness" <yourhighness.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161927955.036629.98580@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...
> Dana wrote:
> > "ArtDent" <par@noyd.invalidname> wrote in message
> > news:0Q80h.271$zf.247@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net...
> > >
> > > On 25-Oct-2006, comphelp@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > To the OP, get your 'facts' right.
> >
> > My facts are right.
> >
>
> If your facts are right, prove them as already been asked before. Your
> arguments are pure nonsense unless you can provide proof. What the EU
> is doing, should have been done decades ago.
Yep, another socialist calling for more tyranny of the state.
> You where saying earlier,
> not to buy MS products. If you are not a hardware savy person, ever
> tried to buy a pre-build pc without M$ on it, but rather with an
> alternative OS? Close to impossible unless you know your way around.
You are not looking hard enough.
I advise people not to buy pre-builds.
>
> > > They (MS) are now trying to do the
> > > same thing with anti-virus / firewall / anti-spyware applications.
>
> Hugh? No one ever wanted that there is one OS that does it all. We
> should all be able to make our own decisions and should be allowed to
> chose which browser, AV / FW /AS software we want to install.
You can, no one is stopping you
> MS has no
> right what so ever to force us into a particular decision.
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12k3qrecot5ma7f@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when President
>> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
>
> I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
History would suggest that is not a safe position for citizens of a Republic
to take. If you acquiesce, you're part of the problem.
> Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
> Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we find
> it easier. Well look at the mess that made, especially in Europe, with their
> crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can and
> cannot make.
> Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
> thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
> europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
> Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
> STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
> there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
> the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
To answer your question, start here (particularly Page 1).
My new, favorite tome. Not your typical MS-bashing by 14-year old
script kiddies. I could not have said it better myself.
Overall, the major problem is that for most us, there is no choice.
Choice is good. See the telephone and cable companies for similar
frustrations. Speaking of telephone companies, MS and monopolies,
Even MS fanboys such as you have to admit that there is a _serious_
conflict of interest involved when Microsoft sells a defective,
unsecure product (XP, Vista), and then offers to secure it for $50.00
USD per year.
You are /correct/ about the socialists at the US DOJ. The only thing
that came out of the anti-trust lawsuit against MS, and the only thing
that could have come out of it, was that a tremendous amount of money
was taken from consumers and put into the pockets of lawyers,
politicians, bureaucrats, and other ne'er-do-wells.
You are /incorrect/ about Windows One Care Live. It is the principle
of the thing.
"optikl" <optikl@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ehsu5t$p3k$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:12k3qrecot5ma7f@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when President
> >> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
> >
> > I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
>
> History would suggest that is not a safe position for citizens of a
Republic
> to take. If you acquiesce, you're part of the problem.
You are absolutely correct.
But I have read the law in question, and I never see me being affected by
that law.
I recently flew through some airports in Europe, Frankfurt and the Amsterdam
Airports. Now they do security right, they do use profiling. When our flight
from Kuwait landed in both those Airports, leaving the airplane, the Arab
passengers where singled out and screened a bit more than other passengers.
Try to do that in America and people would scream bloody murder.
>
>
Dana wrote:
> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> news:dZh0h.14487$j4.11524@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>> Dana wrote:
>>> Has nothing to do with international trade, although the Europeans screw
>>> American companies every chance they get.
>> Where as US companies have never done anything like that have they -
>> Boeing anyone?
>
> The US does not subsidize an industry like the Europeans do with airbus.
>
>
As I expected you completely missed the point with the reference to
Boeing. I suggest you do some research on the 'dirty tricks' performed
in tenders with the explict help of US goverment bodies.
Also while we are here could you give me a description of the subsides
provided to Airbus - I ask this as I doubt you actually know what it is
so happy googling. Of course maybe you'll even come across other areas
such as farming which makes CAP look ok. Free trade I think America has
forgotten what it actually is.
Dana wrote:
>> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when President
>> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
>
> I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
Possible the most stupid statement I've heard in a long time ...
"Ron Lopshire" <notron@ovbl.org> wrote in message
news:UUp0h.13711$Lv3.13364@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> Dana wrote:
>
> > Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
> > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we
find
> > it easier. Well look at the mess that made, especially in Europe, with
their
> > crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can
and
> > cannot make.
> > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
> > thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
> > europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
> > Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
> > STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
> > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to
secure
> > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
>
> To answer your question, start here (particularly Page 1).
>
> http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
>
> My new, favorite tome. Not your typical MS-bashing by 14-year old
> script kiddies. I could not have said it better myself.
A very good read. Most I already knew, and some was catch up, as I long agao
stopped tracking MS problems.
>
> Overall, the major problem is that for most us, there is no choice.
> Choice is good. See the telephone and cable companies for similar
> frustrations. Speaking of telephone companies, MS and monopolies,
>
> http://voipinvancouver.wordpress.com...issues/page/2/
Another interesting read.
>
> Even MS fanboys such as you have to admit that there is a _serious_
> conflict of interest involved when Microsoft sells a defective,
> unsecure product (XP, Vista), and then offers to secure it for $50.00
> USD per year.
First off, I would like to restate that I am no fan of MS, yes I use their
products, but that does not mean I am a fan. Being that so many apps are
done with windows i.e. like office procucts, you need to run office
yourself. Yes there is some open source stuff out there. But to look at an
office doc or spreadsheet, it is best to use office.
I myself at work only use Unix servers and workstations, and would not trust
MS in the job I do.
MS cannot really say they have decent server products, as they do not on all
counts MS servers suck.
But yet we see many companies using MS servers, all because of the excellent
marketing that MS has.
>
> You are /correct/ about the socialists at the US DOJ. The only thing
> that came out of the anti-trust lawsuit against MS, and the only thing
> that could have come out of it, was that a tremendous amount of money
> was taken from consumers and put into the pockets of lawyers,
> politicians, bureaucrats, and other ne'er-do-wells.
Granted that MS has positioned itself to be a dominant force in the home,
and business for computer use, pretty much ensuring that you have to use MS
products.
That is why I say let MS bundle all these security apps into windows, as
hopefully it will be done in the kludge like way we know MS to do, and when
it fails and security is still an issue, if not worse, people will finally
say enough is enough.
I would love to see HP or SUN come up with a Unix based distro for home and
small business users, that is affordable to those users. Of course
applications would also be needed to enable users to get away from windows,
but until that happens windows really has the market by the balls.
Taking MS to court over anti trust and monopoly issues will always fail,
because it is the market that put MS where it is. The people knowing about
the security holes, knowing that windows is a resource hog and not very
stable when used as a server, still went out and bought the product.
I have to admitt that MS marketing is top notch, and that has done wonders
for MS.
>
> You are /incorrect/ about Windows One Care Live. It is the principle
> of the thing.
>
> Ron :)
"JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
news:iAq0h.53561$6C2.14365@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Dana wrote:
> > "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> > news:dZh0h.14487$j4.11524@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> >> Dana wrote:
> >>> Has nothing to do with international trade, although the Europeans
screw
> >>> American companies every chance they get.
> >> Where as US companies have never done anything like that have they -
> >> Boeing anyone?
> >
> > The US does not subsidize an industry like the Europeans do with airbus.
> >
> >
>
> As I expected you completely missed the point with the reference to
> Boeing. I suggest you do some research on the 'dirty tricks' performed
> in tenders with the explict help of US goverment bodies.
Nothing different than what other countries do.
>
> Also while we are here could you give me a description of the subsides
> provided to Airbus
It has been well documented. Airbus is pretty much a state run business
receiving all kinds of protections from the state.
I will add that the Airbus jets are quite nice though.
"JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
news:QDq0h.53567$6C2.12554@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Dana wrote:
> >> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when President
> >> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
> >
> > I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
>
> Possible the most stupid statement I've heard in a long time ...
Actually no. I have no problem with the state detaining those that seek to
do harm to mass numbers of people.
If some ignorant Arab wants to strap a bomb on himself to kill hundreds just
because his so called religious leader lied to him and said he will get 72
virgins in heaven, yes I want my government to get that guy and detain him,
if not eradicate him as he is a threat to many people. And we should not
stop there, heck we should be going after those so called religious leaders
who are sending these people out. These so called religious leaders of Islam
need to keep their people ignorant so they can find people to strap bombs to
themselves.
I say it is time for them to go, and for us to bring education to those in
Islamic countries.
Dana wrote:
> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> news:iAq0h.53561$6C2.14365@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>> Dana wrote:
>>> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dZh0h.14487$j4.11524@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>>> Dana wrote:
>>>>> Has nothing to do with international trade, although the Europeans
> screw
>>>>> American companies every chance they get.
>>>> Where as US companies have never done anything like that have they -
>>>> Boeing anyone?
>>> The US does not subsidize an industry like the Europeans do with airbus.
>>>
>>>
>> As I expected you completely missed the point with the reference to
>> Boeing. I suggest you do some research on the 'dirty tricks' performed
>> in tenders with the explict help of US goverment bodies.
>
> Nothing different than what other countries do.
>
So you basic argument has just fallen to pieces then - it's ok if other
countries do it is it? In that case Europe can be as anti-country/area
name here as other countries also do it. Oh and by the way you still
actually know which incident I'm talking about do you?
>> Also while we are here could you give me a description of the subsides
>> provided to Airbus
>
> It has been well documented. Airbus is pretty much a state run business
> receiving all kinds of protections from the state.
> I will add that the Airbus jets are quite nice though.
>
I thought you said subsides not protection - are you changing you
argument on this as well.
Conclusion:
1/10 for your debating skills must try harder. Hint - it's best to
actually have a grasp of the basic facts before you go wading in ...
> > > I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
> >
> > Possible the most stupid statement I've heard in a long time ...
>
> Actually no. I have no problem with the state detaining those that seek
> to do harm to mass numbers of people.
I don't either, but only if the state can prove it, in an open court of
law.
None of this 'detain them for x number of years just because we want to,
nevermind any *proof* nonsense, we are the government, we will do as we
please'.
Wait until the neighbor's kid, that you yelled at last week, calls the FBI
and tells them you are a terrorist, and based _solely_ on that call they
arrest you and keep you incommunicado for as long as they like. You still
beilieve that you are not affected by this? Heck, the police don't even
have to apologize if they break into the wrong address anymore. And
people don't believe we live in a police state already!
Just as a side note - back in the day (late fifties, early sixties) when I
was going to elementary school, we were taught how bad the Soviet Union
was with their 'snitch' society, how people were encouraged over there to
'tattle' on each other and how terrible such a society was. However,
nowadays, here in the 'good ole' USofA, we are now doing exactly the same
thing. Students are actually paid cash money by the police to 'rat out'
on their friends.
Remember what Ben Franklin said:
Those that give up freedom for security deserve neither. (something like
that)
--
Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses.
Arthur C. Clarke
"ArtDent" <par@noyd.invalidname> wrote in message
news:5is0h.603$zf.222@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net...
>
> On 27-Oct-2006, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
> > >
> > > Possible the most stupid statement I've heard in a long time ...
> >
> > Actually no. I have no problem with the state detaining those that seek
> > to do harm to mass numbers of people.
>
> I don't either, but only if the state can prove it, in an open court of
> law.
> None of this 'detain them for x number of years just because we want to,
> nevermind any *proof* nonsense, we are the government, we will do as we
> please'.
> Wait until the neighbor's kid, that you yelled at last week, calls the FBI
> and tells them you are a terrorist, and based _solely_ on that call they
> arrest you and keep you incommunicado for as long as they like. You still
> beilieve that you are not affected by this?
Yep, as your above with the neighbor kid would not happen, as the FBI would
know that it is a prank
> Heck, the police don't even
> have to apologize if they break into the wrong address anymore. And
> people don't believe we live in a police state already!
> Just as a side note - back in the day (late fifties, early sixties) when I
> was going to elementary school, we were taught how bad the Soviet Union
> was with their 'snitch' society, how people were encouraged over there to
> 'tattle' on each other and how terrible such a society was. However,
> nowadays, here in the 'good ole' USofA, we are now doing exactly the same
> thing. Students are actually paid cash money by the police to 'rat out'
> on their friends.
And their parents. But a lot of that especially snitching on your parents
were bought about by those on the left, like teacher unions, teachers, and
left leaning politicians.
> Remember what Ben Franklin said:
> Those that give up freedom for security deserve neither. (something like
> that)
Yes, but with the new world order of suitcase nukes, and deadly germs that
can be carried by a person, you have to accept that security measures are
needed, especially when states like Germany or France would be more than
happy to fund an Arab to come over to America and release a weapon like
that.
Not only do we have to be concerned about the intentions of radical moslems,
we need to watch our so called friends like Germany and France.
> --
> Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses.
> Arthur C. Clarke
Dana wrote:
> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> news:QDq0h.53567$6C2.12554@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>> Dana wrote:
>>>> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when President
>>>> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
>>> I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
>> Possible the most stupid statement I've heard in a long time ...
>
> Actually no. I have no problem with the state detaining those that seek to
> do harm to mass numbers of people.
> If some ignorant Arab wants to strap a bomb on himself to kill hundreds just
> because his so called religious leader lied to him and said he will get 72
> virgins in heaven, yes I want my government to get that guy and detain him,
> if not eradicate him as he is a threat to many people. And we should not
> stop there, heck we should be going after those so called religious leaders
> who are sending these people out. These so called religious leaders of Islam
> need to keep their people ignorant so they can find people to strap bombs to
> themselves.
> I say it is time for them to go, and for us to bring education to those in
> Islamic countries.
>
>
No honestly it was the second most stupid post I've seen in a long time.
I can't believe that any one person can be so sure they are right when
they are complete wrong. You're not strongly religious are you as you
seem to be stuck with dogma regardless on any facts they may be presented.
"JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
news:cOs0h.10652$t6.9930@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Dana wrote:
> > "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> > news:QDq0h.53567$6C2.12554@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >> Dana wrote:
> >>>> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when
President
> >>>> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
> >>> I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
> >> Possible the most stupid statement I've heard in a long time ...
> >
> > Actually no. I have no problem with the state detaining those that seek
to
> > do harm to mass numbers of people.
> > If some ignorant Arab wants to strap a bomb on himself to kill hundreds
just
> > because his so called religious leader lied to him and said he will get
72
> > virgins in heaven, yes I want my government to get that guy and detain
him,
> > if not eradicate him as he is a threat to many people. And we should not
> > stop there, heck we should be going after those so called religious
leaders
> > who are sending these people out. These so called religious leaders of
Islam
> > need to keep their people ignorant so they can find people to strap
bombs to
> > themselves.
> > I say it is time for them to go, and for us to bring education to those
in
> > Islamic countries.
> >
> >
>
> No honestly it was the second most stupid post I've seen in a long time.
> I can't believe that any one person can be so sure they are right when
> they are complete wrong. You're not strongly religious are you as you
> seem to be stuck with dogma regardless on any facts they may be presented.
The facts are that radical islamists are bent on causing harm to America and
her citizens.
If you want to avoid this truth, knock yourself out.
Dana wrote:
> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> news:cOs0h.10652$t6.9930@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>> Dana wrote:
>>> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
>>> news:QDq0h.53567$6C2.12554@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>> Dana wrote:
>>>>>> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when
> President
>>>>>> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
>>>>> I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
>>>> Possible the most stupid statement I've heard in a long time ...
>>> Actually no. I have no problem with the state detaining those that seek
> to
>>> do harm to mass numbers of people.
>>> If some ignorant Arab wants to strap a bomb on himself to kill hundreds
> just
>>> because his so called religious leader lied to him and said he will get
> 72
>>> virgins in heaven, yes I want my government to get that guy and detain
> him,
>>> if not eradicate him as he is a threat to many people. And we should not
>>> stop there, heck we should be going after those so called religious
> leaders
>>> who are sending these people out. These so called religious leaders of
> Islam
>>> need to keep their people ignorant so they can find people to strap
> bombs to
>>> themselves.
>>> I say it is time for them to go, and for us to bring education to those
> in
>>> Islamic countries.
>>>
>>>
>> No honestly it was the second most stupid post I've seen in a long time.
>> I can't believe that any one person can be so sure they are right when
>> they are complete wrong. You're not strongly religious are you as you
>> seem to be stuck with dogma regardless on any facts they may be presented.
>
> The facts are that radical islamists are bent on causing harm to America and
> her citizens.
> If you want to avoid this truth, knock yourself out.
>
>
Sorry you didn't seem to answer my question ... "You're not strongly
religious are you as you seem to be stuck with dogma regardless of any
facts they may be presented."
"JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
news:aEt0h.18520$gO3.5213@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> Dana wrote:
> > "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> > news:cOs0h.10652$t6.9930@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> >> Dana wrote:
> >>> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:QDq0h.53567$6C2.12554@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >>>> Dana wrote:
> >>>>>> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when
> > President
> >>>>>> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
> >>>>> I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
> >>>> Possible the most stupid statement I've heard in a long time ...
> >>> Actually no. I have no problem with the state detaining those that
seek
> > to
> >>> do harm to mass numbers of people.
> >>> If some ignorant Arab wants to strap a bomb on himself to kill
hundreds
> > just
> >>> because his so called religious leader lied to him and said he will
get
> > 72
> >>> virgins in heaven, yes I want my government to get that guy and detain
> > him,
> >>> if not eradicate him as he is a threat to many people. And we should
not
> >>> stop there, heck we should be going after those so called religious
> > leaders
> >>> who are sending these people out. These so called religious leaders of
> > Islam
> >>> need to keep their people ignorant so they can find people to strap
> > bombs to
> >>> themselves.
> >>> I say it is time for them to go, and for us to bring education to
those
> > in
> >>> Islamic countries.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> No honestly it was the second most stupid post I've seen in a long
time.
> >> I can't believe that any one person can be so sure they are right
when
> >> they are complete wrong. You're not strongly religious are you as you
> >> seem to be stuck with dogma regardless on any facts they may be
presented.
> >
> > The facts are that radical islamists are bent on causing harm to America
and
> > her citizens.
> > If you want to avoid this truth, knock yourself out.
> >
> >
>
> Sorry you didn't seem to answer my question ... "You're not strongly
> religious are you as you seem to be stuck with dogma regardless of any
> facts they may be presented."
Religion is not the issue here. And I am not stuck on any religious dogma.
I recognize the threat coming from those so called Islamic religious leaders
who are encouraging their ignorant followers to engage in violence against
western interests, especially American people.
Dana wrote:
> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> news:aEt0h.18520$gO3.5213@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>> Dana wrote:
>>> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cOs0h.10652$t6.9930@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>>> Dana wrote:
>>>>> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:QDq0h.53567$6C2.12554@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>> Dana wrote:
>>>>>>>> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when
>>> President
>>>>>>>> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
>>>>>>> I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
>>>>>> Possible the most stupid statement I've heard in a long time ...
>>>>> Actually no. I have no problem with the state detaining those that
> seek
>>> to
>>>>> do harm to mass numbers of people.
>>>>> If some ignorant Arab wants to strap a bomb on himself to kill
> hundreds
>>> just
>>>>> because his so called religious leader lied to him and said he will
> get
>>> 72
>>>>> virgins in heaven, yes I want my government to get that guy and detain
>>> him,
>>>>> if not eradicate him as he is a threat to many people. And we should
> not
>>>>> stop there, heck we should be going after those so called religious
>>> leaders
>>>>> who are sending these people out. These so called religious leaders of
>>> Islam
>>>>> need to keep their people ignorant so they can find people to strap
>>> bombs to
>>>>> themselves.
>>>>> I say it is time for them to go, and for us to bring education to
> those
>>> in
>>>>> Islamic countries.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No honestly it was the second most stupid post I've seen in a long
> time.
>>>> I can't believe that any one person can be so sure they are right
> when
>>>> they are complete wrong. You're not strongly religious are you as you
>>>> seem to be stuck with dogma regardless on any facts they may be
> presented.
>>> The facts are that radical islamists are bent on causing harm to America
> and
>>> her citizens.
>>> If you want to avoid this truth, knock yourself out.
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry you didn't seem to answer my question ... "You're not strongly
>> religious are you as you seem to be stuck with dogma regardless of any
>> facts they may be presented."
>
> Religion is not the issue here. And I am not stuck on any religious dogma.
> I recognize the threat coming from those so called Islamic religious leaders
> who are encouraging their ignorant followers to engage in violence against
> western interests, especially American people.
>
You couldn't even piece to an argument that managed to amount to half
decent in the other part of this thread. It seems unlikely you will do
any better with this topic.
"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:omp4k25n7p7hppt3qhr0tr1nvr90f9ihbn@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:21:39 -0800, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >You posted nothing to change my view.
>
> Then read this link
>
> http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/...ler_quote_3044
> --
Yes, yes, that is all very good.
But the fact remains that the procedures that the government is putting in
place has no effect on those that DO NOT WANT TO KILL MANY PEOPLE.
The only people worried about the direction of government in the war against
terror, is those that have something to hide.
"JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
news:cYt0h.55397$pa.49516@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> Dana wrote:
> > "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> > news:aEt0h.18520$gO3.5213@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> >> Dana wrote:
> >>> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:cOs0h.10652$t6.9930@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> >>>> Dana wrote:
> >>>>> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:QDq0h.53567$6C2.12554@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >>>>>> Dana wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when
> >>> President
> >>>>>>>> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
> >>>>>>> I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
> >>>>>> Possible the most stupid statement I've heard in a long time ...
> >>>>> Actually no. I have no problem with the state detaining those that
> > seek
> >>> to
> >>>>> do harm to mass numbers of people.
> >>>>> If some ignorant Arab wants to strap a bomb on himself to kill
> > hundreds
> >>> just
> >>>>> because his so called religious leader lied to him and said he will
> > get
> >>> 72
> >>>>> virgins in heaven, yes I want my government to get that guy and
detain
> >>> him,
> >>>>> if not eradicate him as he is a threat to many people. And we should
> > not
> >>>>> stop there, heck we should be going after those so called religious
> >>> leaders
> >>>>> who are sending these people out. These so called religious leaders
of
> >>> Islam
> >>>>> need to keep their people ignorant so they can find people to strap
> >>> bombs to
> >>>>> themselves.
> >>>>> I say it is time for them to go, and for us to bring education to
> > those
> >>> in
> >>>>> Islamic countries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> No honestly it was the second most stupid post I've seen in a long
> > time.
> >>>> I can't believe that any one person can be so sure they are right
> > when
> >>>> they are complete wrong. You're not strongly religious are you as you
> >>>> seem to be stuck with dogma regardless on any facts they may be
> > presented.
> >>> The facts are that radical islamists are bent on causing harm to
America
> > and
> >>> her citizens.
> >>> If you want to avoid this truth, knock yourself out.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Sorry you didn't seem to answer my question ... "You're not strongly
> >> religious are you as you seem to be stuck with dogma regardless of any
> >> facts they may be presented."
> >
> > Religion is not the issue here. And I am not stuck on any religious
dogma.
> > I recognize the threat coming from those so called Islamic religious
leaders
> > who are encouraging their ignorant followers to engage in violence
against
> > western interests, especially American people.
> >
>
> You couldn't even piece to an argument that managed to amount to half
> decent in the other part of this thread. It seems unlikely you will do
> any better with this topic.
Dana wrote:
> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
> news:cYt0h.55397$pa.49516@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> Dana wrote:
>>> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
>>> news:aEt0h.18520$gO3.5213@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>>>> Dana wrote:
>>>>> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:cOs0h.10652$t6.9930@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>>>>> Dana wrote:
>>>>>>> "JAB" <nochance@nohope.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:QDq0h.53567$6C2.12554@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>>> Dana wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Civil liberties suffered an historic setback this week, when
>>>>> President
>>>>>>>>>> Bush signed the un-American Military Commissions Act of 2006.
>>>>>>>>> I am not affected by this, hence my Civil Liberties are just fine
>>>>>>>> Possible the most stupid statement I've heard in a long time ...
>>>>>>> Actually no. I have no problem with the state detaining those that
>>> seek
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> do harm to mass numbers of people.
>>>>>>> If some ignorant Arab wants to strap a bomb on himself to kill
>>> hundreds
>>>>> just
>>>>>>> because his so called religious leader lied to him and said he will
>>> get
>>>>> 72
>>>>>>> virgins in heaven, yes I want my government to get that guy and
> detain
>>>>> him,
>>>>>>> if not eradicate him as he is a threat to many people. And we should
>>> not
>>>>>>> stop there, heck we should be going after those so called religious
>>>>> leaders
>>>>>>> who are sending these people out. These so called religious leaders
> of
>>>>> Islam
>>>>>>> need to keep their people ignorant so they can find people to strap
>>>>> bombs to
>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>> I say it is time for them to go, and for us to bring education to
>>> those
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> Islamic countries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
Re: Why does every one hate Microsoft 