| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2004/10/26 [Uncategorized] UID:34341 Activity:nil |
10/26 Americans burn U.N. flag
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41094 |
| 2004/10/26 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:34342 Activity:nil |
10/25 Action movie script for dorks:
http://mcsweeneys.net/2004/10/5keane.html |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34343 Activity:high |
10/25 How come no liberal magazine can put this so well?
Maybe I really am a Buchananite Conservative:
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_10_25/feature.html
\_ Buchanan has valid points about WWII. That said,
one can not project power in the Middle East from aircraft
carriers and repeated threats of enforcement become
ineffectual if they aren't backed up with force. Assymetrical
warfare necessitated a new strategy.
\_ Yes, it's preemptively invade Iraq before the UN inspectors
can assess Iraq had no WMDs or WMD programs, without enough
troops to win the peace, and then still say that we should have
still invaded even knowing what we know today! In the meantime,
because of our bungling in Iraq, we possess no credible military
threat to Iran or N. Korea as they continue building their nuke
capability. Yay!
\_ Iraq was a military fuckup based on political
considerations, just like Vietnam was; fucking up a
military action like that is as reprehensible as lying
about your reasons for doing so (or, if you choose, going
about it in an incompetent manner--they're both
unforgivable.) Getting rid of evil dictators, for whatever
reason, is not. -John |
| 2004/10/26-27 [ERROR, uid:34344, category id '18005#2.7' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34344 Activity:low |
10/26 "Stolen Honor" uploaded to /tmp for all those interested. You
may have silenced Sinclair but not the motd.
\_ All extremist trolling aside, the reason for not showing SH on
Sinclair just before the election was that it's propaganda on
public airwaves; there's nothing wrong with (and indeed much that's
laudable in) giving the general public the option of viewing the
film at some private venue (or online). Political speech is well
and truly a good thing; it was the time and place that marred the
Sinclair plan.
\_ I thought they might have been able to get away with it if
they at least showed advertising during the showing. With
no immediate profit motive, it looked really wierd.
\_ Does it bother you at all that Kitty Kelly got 3 full days of
free air time to push her anti-Bush book on TV? Was that wrong?
\_ Two things. 1) Your whine boils down to "The FACTS are
partisan!" and 2) Kitty Kelly is credible, and you'll
note her "anti-Bush" factual book has not gotten her sued.
Contrast with Carltoon Sherwood left to you, bitch. --aaron |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:34345 Activity:kinda low |
10/26 Any experiences with Zalman TNN500A cases? Are they worth the
huge gobs of cash they cost? -John
\_ Holy crap, that's over $1000 for a case...
\_ Have you tried the Antec Sonata case ($100) with Zalman CPU fan
and Zalman silent video card cooler? It runs pretty quiet.
\_ No, but thanks much for the tip. I have given up on finding
an external firewire-attached SATA RAID 5 array; the idea for
the Zalman was to have a server with about 6 big disks in it.
It's nice & solid too, but that Antec case looks nice. -John
\_ Arena |
| 2004/10/26 [Computer/Companies/Apple] UID:34346 Activity:nil |
10/26 please email me sodans working at apple computer corp. -dpetrou |
| 2004/10/26 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:34347 Activity:nil |
10/26 is it possible/difficult to create a new toolbar button for firefox?
I want the "up" button from the google toolbar back.
\_ nevermind I found one.
http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/goup |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34348 Activity:kinda low |
10/26 Insufficient trolling. Please insert troll to continue.
\_ I think all illegal aliens should be shot. What do you think?
\_ Would you raise taxes to buy the bullets?
\_ Here's a good one from OSC
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-10-17-2.html |
| 2004/10/26 [Uncategorized] UID:34349 Activity:low |
10/26 John Peel, RIP.
\_ Who?
\_ Siiiiiiiigh.
http://www.nme.com/features/110323.htm |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34350 Activity:high |
10/26 so i asked earlier what major media outlets have actually
endorsed bush this time around, besides the washington times
and ny post. I was accidentally watching oreilly last night
and he was touching on this topic too, and said that
the LA Times and NY Times had shockingly endorsed kerry but
that it really didn't matter since no one reads the
NY Times. Then I decided ilyas needs to rape oreilly with
a falafel. - danh
\_ Too squishy. -- ilyas
\_ Out of curiosity, dan, any liberal figures you think need
to be raped with a falafel? -- ilyas
\_ probably that coombs guy just for making everyone look
bad - danh
\_ Who?
\_ I've been watching H&C since they started. I've decided
Coombs is actually a really smart guy and is a real liberal
but he's also honest and has a good heart so he can't force
himself to spit out ridiculous DNC talking points like
Hannity does for the RNC. I think he's a good, smart and
honest man.
\_ I would agree with you, but if he were so good and
smart he would quit or get someone combative enough
to counteract hannity, or quit in disgust. - danh
\_ Most people have bills to pay. It's just a job, not
a religion. I think that's the difference between
him and, well, I won't slam anyone. I like Coombs
even though I disagree with 99% of what he says.
\_ Maybe Andrew Cockburn. Naomi Klein also comes to mind. That guy
on crossfire, too, for being such a shill. !danh
\_ I think the guy on crossfire just plays a liberal on TV.
-- ilyas
\_ Ilya: Why do you hate liberals?
\_ Why do you say 'Why do you hate liberals?'? -- ilyas
\_ My suspicion that ilyas is actually an eliza program
have been confirmed.
\_ Tell me about yermom. -- ilyas
\_ Poor ilyas can never tell when he's being baited.
\_ This is probably related to having no sense of humor.
\_ The LA Times hasn't endorsed any candidate (yet). They have not
since 1972, but there is discussion about doing it this year.
If he were an honest critic, he would mention the Post endorsement.
Maybe he did.
\_ Big shock, the LAT is going to endorse Bush!
\_ Big shock, the Washington Post and the New Republic both
endorsed Kerry!
\_ Andrew Sullivan also endorsed Kerry.
\_ Big shock!
\_ Apparently you know nothing about Sully.
\_ That he puts his sex politics above all else?
Nothing new there. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34351 Activity:low |
10/26 Creepy. Rat brain cells + computer control F-22 simulation
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041018/brain.html
\- ChimpBrain controls world's largest economy and military. --psb
http://csua.org/u/9ni
\_ You're one post too high troll boy.
\_ Is this the real psb? I didn't think he was this brain dead, and
he's supposed to end with "ok. tnx".
\_ Don't you know, psb is a 'kantian.'
\-IAJS,YSTL. --psb
\-Hello, ok tnx. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:34352 Activity:very high |
10/26 I haven't played any computer games in a very very long time. What is
a fun game to play in cooperative mode? I'm primarily looking for
first person shooter type games, but would be interested to hear
alternative suggestions.
\_ Bubble Bobble
\_ Star Wars Battlefront allows you to play coperatively, and you're
part of a massive group effort. It may start to lose appeal in
frequent replays, but right now it's a blast. Also, I just bought
Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, and I'm loving it. There's a multi-
player version, but I don't know if it's cooperative; if it were,
that would be tres sweet. (And why did this get overwritten?)
\_ Cooperative mode as in buddies vs AI or buddies vs other players
over the internets [sic]? I've had a lot of fun playing BattleField
1942 on the internets [sic] if you find a good server it's a nice
teamwork game (4 players per bomber, 4 per battleship, etc.)
\_ BF1942 AI is teh suck, don't bother with coop mode against the
computer, but yeah, the teamplay is really nice. Have yet to
try BF2. -John
\_ BF:Vietnam is fairly additive. With the latest patch, you
now have maps that have added tunnels and sewers. There is
also a mod that updates the BF:1942 maps to the newer engine
with is very fun. Another game thats fun multiplayer is
Unreal Tournament 2004 in Onslaught mode. -rollee
\_ If the last LAN co-op you played was Serious Sam 2, you haven't
missed anything. Not much else.
For online team v team co-op, CounterStrike: Source is fun.
Unreal Tournament looks fun against bots, but it looks too twitchy
to me. There is an Aliens UT mod strictly against the AI, kinda
fun.
\_ The last good co-op game I played was doom2, haha -!op
\_ I've heard co-op in Halo is great (on xbox--co-op isn't available on
the PC port).
\_ MMOs like world of warcraft are good for coop play. It's required
really, to avoid some of the tedious stuff. Still takes too long
to play though.
\_ Is WOW out yet?
\_ Not yet. Will be in open beta soon, I suspect. -geordan
\_ Alpha bastard. -- ilyas
\_ I know. -geordan
\_ MMOs are a niche market, imho. -- ilyas
\_ how do you figure? they have many millions of users among them
and make lots of money.
\_ Well, lots of koreans and japanese play. A typical
American kid/teenager/young adult doesn't strike me as
a MMO type. *shrug*. MMOs are built on timesinks and
'character-building-as-work.' I don't think that sort of
fun is very widespread in American culture. -- ilyas
\_ Your suppositions are belied by the facts:
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/000194.php
\_ Wtf? I am well aware of MMO demographics. What
does that have to do with my assertion that
most young people will not play everquest?
How many subscribers do you think everquest has?
Do you understand the difference between
'most people who play everquest are young males'
and
'most young males do not play everquest'?
-- ilyas
\_ Don't bring logic to a video game discussion.
\_ Video games are still basically a geek thing in
the popular culture. But would you consider Diablo
a niche market? MMOs have a lot wider appeal than
that with some of the same timewasting dynamics.
\_ Diablo is much more accessible than a typical
MMO. I think Diablo is pretty mainstream.
It's about as close to mainstream as an RPG
will come. -- ilyas
\_ Well I've only tried WoW but based on that you're
just wrong. I've seen a lot of interest from young
males (again, only a certain class of them even
play PC games and a further subset stray from the
FPS genre). WoW is very comparable to Diablo in
basic "get quest, go kill stuff, keep upgrading
weapons/armor/skills" gameplay. The combat is
slower paced and doesn't have the action-game
aspect of Diablo (frantically clicking and running
around). It's just a far more rich game world,
and has more to do besides just constant combat.
The social aspect is something you can't find in
regular games and appeals to a lot of people.
The Sims is the best seller and doesn't try to
target the teenage boy demographic, which Diablo
was all about.
\_ Blizzard is a good company, and WoW is a good
game. If any MMO has a chance at 'mainstream
status,' WoW is it. I don't think it will
reach it in the US, simply because most
US gamers aren't really into these kinds of
RPGs. Anyways, this entire thread is strung
out on dorkosterone. I am stopping, before
someone trolls me into a long rant about
MMO design, that I will later regret.
Guildwars is more likely to be mainstream
than WoW, I think. -- ilyas
\_ fwiw I don't plan to buy WoW and only played
a few days. just takes too much time to do
anything. Playing in teams is fun but you
have to play long periods to make the most
of that and find a good group. Or if you
make friends in the game you have to keep
up with them and regularly stay in touch.
I have a real life to attend to thanks.
It could work by scheduling times with a
friend so you keep in sync. Going solo is
unrewarding and the game punishes it. |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics] UID:34353 Activity:moderate |
10/26 Since yesterday's doonesbury link was deleted, here's a somewhat
more humorous one:
http://doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html
\_ I don't delete comic links but I don't see a point in posting
well known ones like doonesbury. He has a known and very clear
perspective that some like and others don't. His fan base is
static because he already has every reader he's going to get.
\_ Very true, but yesterday's deleted post was specifically about
that weird bulge, and how it's starting to get mainstream
attention. I wouldn't post it otherwise. |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34354 Activity:high |
10/26 BoingBoing has a list of news organizations that typically stay away
from political endorsements (or otherwise would predictably be in the
Bush camp) that are currently endorsing Kerry:
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/26/boingboing_endorses_.html
\_ My favorite are when they advertise articles from anti-Bush
conservatives but when you read closely and look up the authors
they're all card carrying libertarians. I got a big kick out of
the Cato Institutate article that Salon posted in full for free
because they felt the message was "so important". |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34355 Activity:high |
10/26 Why are you a Democrat? Why are you a Republican? What is the
top reason you belong to either party?
\_ I am independent but I hate Democrats because they want to decide
everything for you, except what happens in the bedroom.
\_ I am a democrat for exactly one reason: George W. Bush. I was always
an independent before.
\_ Yes, I am precisely democrat for the same reason. I was pretty
neutral before, but GWB truely showed me what Republicans
are made of.
\_ I wouldn't go that far. If anything, i've become much more
willing to listen to moderate republicans over the last
four years, and I have in fact found that I have far more
in common with them than I would have thought. It's
just that one man, and some of his more wingnut cabinet
members.
\_ You are right, it is also men like Tom Delay and Bill
First. The moderates are totally cowed by the extreme
wing of the party, and until that changes there is no
moderate republican party.
\_ I'm a Democrat because I want to work within the system to improve
it. The Republican Party is full of assholes who justify their
beliefs and actions with survival of the fittest - and who wants to
party with people like that? If Republicans were just about smaller
government and having a safety net for the poor without this asshole
attitude and the derived characteristics, I'd probably be a
Republican. Why not just be an independent? You can always vote
for the other guy or criticize other Democrats as a Democrat.
\_ Independents get no say in the primaries.
\_ I grew up poor, and I believe in the "democrat" policies that helped
poor families like mine and now my family is pretty well off.
I don't mind paying more taxes to paybackk for the government
services I received in school like financial aid. I am democrat.
\_ I am democrat because I hate Republicans. They tend to be arrogant
and have no respect for other people.
\_ Nice troll!
\_ http://www.slate.com/id/2108561
\_ I am a Republican because I am stupid and evil. Once, a long
time ago, I was smart and good and a Democrat just like you.
\_ I was ignorant and blandly neutral until I came to Cal. After a
few years of seeing the left completely unfiltered, I found them
deeply intellectually dishonest, hostile, angry, mean, bitter,
and unworthy of serious consideration. I vote Republican because
they're the other major party and I've never met Republicans as
vicious and mean spirited as the left I met at Cal.
\_ I didn't have this experience when I attended 92-97, but I would
say (like Affirmative Action by Any Means Necessary) they're
just stupid liberals, and stupidity is common to both parties,
and to independents as well. I would actually say my experience
(during Cal and since Cal) has actually been the opposite of
yours. -liberal
\_ I have the impression that states tend to be more strongly
polarized Repulican or Democratic. What are the top R and D
states? Do R or D states tend to do better (not in the fun-to-
live-in sense, but in the fiscal/crime/social services/education
sense)? CA is pretty screwed up. Is the equivalent Republican
state (TX?) equally screwed up? Does anyone know of relevant
research?
\_ I realize this is not exactly what you're talking about, but
it's interesting:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gspmap/mappage.asp
Blue states have higher per capita state domestic product.
If you broke it down by county, I think you'd see something
much more dramatic. When you actually look at the numbers,
it's the republicans who are the non-productive welfare
whores. Just look at the water projects in the western
states.
\_ Do you really need to ask motd?
\_ Most D states are along the coasts. R states are anywhere in
between. You be the judge.
\_ You don't know either, huh?
\_ What you have to understand is that there are really three
American political parties, the Republicans, Democrats
and Appropriators (to quote Dick Armey and Trent Lott). Most
Dems are Appropriators, and alot of Repubs (RINOs) are also.
The fiscal discipline (and other successes) of the 1990s
resulted when the small government conservative contingent
of Congress was able briefly take control in the 1994 elections,
aka the Contract with America. After Newt left, Congress
slowly returned to normal, although with a different letter in
charge.
\_ Fine. The question remains though. Which states are doing
better? Is TX as screwed up as CA? Is NY as screwed up as
GA? |
| 2004/10/26 [Recreation/Dating] UID:34356 Activity:high |
10/26 What's with this constant "my wife...." on Soda? This is the CSUA
for crying out loud. If you want to brag about the fact you have
a gf/wife, remember this, "A man is never complete until he gets
married, he is then finished!" Hahaha. -lonely sodan.
\_ I agree, enough about this "my wife blabla" shit. No offense
to anyone, but bragging about your wife is not welcome here.
\_ Well, if you live with someone and spend most of your spare
time with them, it can be difficult not to mention them.
Would you find it less offensive if we said "roommate", like
gay couples do when introducing their S/O to their asshole
conservative relatives?
\_ I haven't seen anyone "bragging" about a wife. What's your
problem?
\_ I wouldn't attack op like this myself, but I am curious what
has upset him. Could sb post a reference to a particularly
offending post or posts? Myself, I want to know whatever
happened to bdg.
\_ Trust me, your joke is accurate. If you had a wife, you'd know
that mentioning her in a post is not bragging; it's more like a
cry for help or for commiseration.
\_ BDG, is that you?! --BDG #3 fan
\_ I'd say I am the BMG, but then every married guy is a BMG...
\_ My wife and I don't see anything wrong with mentioning a wife if
it is in context. What does your wife think about it? Having a
wife isn't "bragging". It is a legal and social state that you'll
never find yourself in as long as you see a wife as an ownership
object and not a person you're sharing your life with. Why would
anyone want to share their life with a bitter person?
\_ Misery loves company.
\_ My wife says you're a moron.
\_ The wife part just makes the motd looks like some place
that old people hang out. We need more talks about how to
get girls, not my wife this and my wife that. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34357 Activity:nil |
10/26 Just to get away from the presidential trolling, what do people
think of Prop 1A? The counter arguments in my voter guide just
talk about lack of oversight for how the money is used, but I
don't really see how that applies to normal general use tax
funds. motd, Yea or Nay?
\_ When in *any* doubt I vote "nay" on everything. |
| 2004/10/26 [ERROR, uid:34358, category id '18005#8.67931' has no name! , , Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34358 Activity:nil |
10/26 <DEAD>www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933<DEAD> (NBC News, dated today) "At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ... Mohammed J. Abbas, a senior official at Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology, reporting the theft of the explosives. The materials were lost through 'the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security,' the letter said. The letter informed the IAEA that since Sept. 4, 2003, looting at Al-Qaqaa had resulted in the loss of 214.67 tons of HMX, 155.68 tons of RDX and 6.39 tons of PETN explosives. It was not clear how Iraqi authorities arrived at that date." "Reporter Lai Ling Jew ... embedded ... 'There wasn't a search ... The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers headed off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons nothing to keep looters away.'" \_ Woops, once again NYtimes and CBS are exposed as frauds http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/nytrogate.html \_ I can't tell if you are being ironic or not, please help me. - danh \_ "Cliff May over at the Corner writes ... Sent to me by a source in the government: 'The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. ...'" Uh, I think "government source" just saw the first NBC News article (incorrectly reporting HMX/RDX as already missing) and echoed that. |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34359 Activity:nil |
10/26 Media Watchdog: 'October Surprise' Blows Up in Faces of
NY Times
NyTimes pulls a CBS
http://csua.org/u/9no
\_ "Cybercast News Service"? Whoizzat?
\_ right-wing news outlet. Media Research Center is a right-wing
source as well. You better believe the right-wing is spinning
this as much as they can: Dubya lost 380 tons of HMX and RDX
(not just artillery shells and general-use explosives) at a site
we knew about and that the IAEA explicitly warned the U.S. about
before the invasion ("hey dumbshits, don't forget about the
Al-Qaqaa site with the stuff that can start a fissile reaction").
\_ Uhh, it is becoming increasingly clear that the NBC story
was wrong. The troops were jsut there for a resting stop
and no inspections were done. If there were 380 TONS of high
explosives taken from the facility in the month leading up to
the start of the war don't you think people would have known?
I mean shit you don't think we had every single satalite we could
looking at places like MAJOR AMMO DUMPS. you can spin away but
it might be better if you jsut faced facts for once. There was
NO postwar planning. Bush and co really thought that the iraqis
would rush to love us and everythin would be wonderful. The fact
that they are still refusing to admit their mistakes is leading
to disaster after disaster in Iraq.
\_ Like the Bush ANG memos eh? I should just believe the 'facts',
as in whatever the Jayson Blair says is a fact.
\_ NBC pulled the story. Get a grip.
\_ Uh, hardly any of the oil refineries were affected during the same
time period, unlike Al-Qaqaa; the "it was gone before we got there"
excuse is incredibly stupid.
\_ Of course it was gone before we got there. If you take your sweet
ass time guarding sites other than the oil ministry it gives the
bad guys plenty of time to steal explosives. The only alternative
"It was stolen right under our noses" makes no sense because if you
actually assigned people to guard the stuff nobody could have simply
waltzed off for it. Saying "It was gone before we got there" is a
bit like saying "Things are always in the last place you look".
\_ Uh, it was last seen before the war, like 5 years before. Do you
have any clue about this story at all? Let's blame Bush for
the missing gas Saddam used on the Kurds. After all, it could
have been there JUST before the Americans got there...
\_ What was last seen before the war, like 5 years before?
Are you talking about the RDX and HMX at Al-Qaqaa?
\_ No it was last seen shortly before gulf war 2. There were
inspectors in iraq shortly before the US told them to bug
out because war was coming. This was one of the sites they
had under inspection. |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34360 Activity:nil |
10/26 Discovered papers: Hanoi directed Kerry
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41106
\_ Yes, but what is Weekly World News' take on the story?
\_ KERRY IS A SPACE ALIEN!
\_ ALIENS ARE TAKING ORDERS FROM THE COMMIES!
\_ WWN >> WND |
| 2004/10/26 [Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:34361 Activity:moderate |
10/26 PC Computer Games? Xbox? PS2?
\_ Context?
\_ what do you prefer to play/buy.
\_ PC. I like turn-based strategy games which are few and far
between on consoles, and for non-action games, keyboard+mouse
input is really nice to have.
\_ Nectaris: military madness is an awesome PS1 turn-based
strategy game.
\_ Gamecube. My favorite system for get-togethers, with the most fun
4-player games (Super Smash Bros Melee, Mario Kart, etc)
\_ gamecube = teh gay
\_ whoops. sorry. lemme go back to my games where i blow shit
up and endlessly accumulate frags.
\_ You've been baited -troll
\_ Donkey Konga! |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Consumer/Audio] UID:34362 Activity:nil |
10/26 Might be lost amidst the hype over ipod photo and ipod U2, but the new
iTunes can locate duplicated music files and optionally delete them.
I think about 50% of my music files are duplicates.
\_ Oh, fuck this... it's just name id3 tag matching. I want MD5 hashes
(with and without consideration for id3/meta data) and heuristics
for determining how close a song is to a duplicate. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Computer/SW/OS/FreeBSD] UID:34363 Activity:nil |
10/26 I need a few standard icons for a small web app I'm doing (up/down
arrows, +/-, that sort of thing). Is there some sort of BSD-licensed
collection of these online?
\_ I'd just find some BSD app with ones you like and rip-off theirs.
When I needed something along these lines I just spent an hour or
so in an image editing program using simple geometry tools.
Also, have you considered just using the icons from Apache (which
has a BSD-style license)? |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:34364 Activity:nil |
10/26 Knesset approves Sharon plan to yank out the settlers:
http://csua.org/u/9nr (Bloomberg) |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34365 Activity:very high |
10/26 So now that almost every major newspaper has endorsed Kerry does
this prove the notion of a liberal media? Why would newspapers
controlled by mega-national corporations throw in with Kerry?
\_ No, and because Bush is a radical.
\_ Dude! I totally agree! Bush is gnarly!
\_ If you're not trolling, you may wish to look up the word
'radical'
\_ Try googling "define:joke"
\_ This will be only the 3rd time that the democrat presidential
candidate has had more endorsements from newspapers than the
republican, since Editor and Publisher magazine started tracking
them in 1940 (the other two were Johnson in 1964 and Clinton in
1992). At least 35 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 are endorsing
Kerry this time, while only four who endorsed Gore are endorsing
Bush. And this is despite a tendency of papers to endorse sticking
with incumbents. So no, it doesn't "prove the notion of a liberal
media," it helps demonstrate just how terrible Bush has been.
\_ Nooo! Do not you bring your facts here! They are not
compatible with my blind partisan indoctrination!!! -op
\_ Question: if Bush wins, does that mean the print media is out of
the mainstream? Shouldn't the paper endorsements roughly follow
the country's nearly-even split?
\_ Yes. No, unless you want the papers to tell the people
what they already think.
\_ BZZZT! on point 2. These are editorial opinions. If the
newspaper people are "just like the rest of us" then they
should have roughly the same opinion split. Unless of
course you feel newspaper people are somehow more
enlightened and posses superior intellect and moral
status. If you believe that you haven't met enough
newspaper people.
\_ newspaper editors have significantly more education
than the general population, and also pay more
attention to the news; therefore they should, on
average, have "better" opinions than the median
American. -tom
\_ Am I the only one who sees a certain circularity
to this argument?
\_ No, it's just a tom thing. At least he's honest
about his mistaken belief that newspaper people
are better than the rest of us.
\_ What is mistaken about my belief? Specifically,
I think newspaper editors have more education
and pay more attention to the news than the
median American. I think they are more likely
to know Kerry's and Bush's positions on the
issues, for example. I don't think they are
"better"; they just have a more educated and
informed opinion than the general population.
The same is probably true of computer
programmers. -tom
\_ Here tom, let me spell it out for you.
Newspaper editors help create the news we
see. Therefore, when the editors 'pay
attention to the news' as you say, they
are paying attention to something
that other newspaper editors helped create.
There is a circularity in this system.
\_ I gave a specific example; I think
newspaper editors are more likely
to know what Bush and Kerry's positions
on the issues really are. I don't have
a poll of newspaper editors to show you,
but there are a number which show that
the American public has no fucking clue.
-tom
\_ You guys should be arguing specifics,
say, the Washington Post.
I don't think you'll get anywhere talking
about "newspaper editors" and "the
median American", apart from irritating
each other.
\_ Link? Which papers? I don't care about the Podunk Review in
Lincoln, Nebraska. I disagree with the definition of 'major'
below but certainly it is not so wide as to have 35 papers
flipflop. I am not sure the universe includes 35 papers.
\_ You should care about the Podunk Review. Millions of people
read the PR across America and take it seriously.
\_ http://csua.org/u/9nv [editorandpublisher]
\_ Thanks. So what do you think a reasonable cut-off for
circulation is?
\_ Since the circulation numbers are being rigged (they're
outright fabrivations to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
outright fabrications to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
make sense to have a circulation based cut-off.
\_ The alternative? I imagine they are 'rigged'
equally. Only relative size matters, not
absolutes.
\_ Why do you imagine all newspapers are equally
criminal? But let's follow your reasoning
anyway: a newspaper with a real 100,000 readers
inflates by 10%, another one with 1,000,000
readers inflates by 10%. The first has created
10k non-existing people, the second has created
100k.
\_ Uh, so? The idea is to identify the
largest papers, not to guess at their
actual circulation.
\_ Your "universe" is small and tiny, as yermom described among
other things.
\_ Even if we grant that newspaper people
may know better what each candidate's
beliefs and policies are (which I
still dispute but enough on that), to
know more about a topic is not the
same as being correct about ones
conclusions on that topic. Having
knowledge does not make one's opinion
more "right". Don't confuse raw fact
oriented knowledge with wisdom.
\_ The major newspapers are:
The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,
USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal. (the latter three have not
made an endorsement)
\_ Don't forget The San Francisco Examiner and the Washington Times.
\_ These are tier 2 or lower, along with:
the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, and all the other
newspapers.
\_ Tribune owns the LA Times.
\_ These aren't even second tier. Neither one is in the top 100
papers in the country by circulation.
\_ The Washington *Times* has endorsed Kerry? Seriously?
\_ Follow the sub-thread, please! The topic is:
Identifying the major newspapers.
\_ funny, how most of these majors also called Kerry a crackpot
for making a link between Iran/Contra and CIA cocaine trading,
and after the CIA said it was true years later, put the news
well behind the front page. irony.
\_ What are you talking about? The CIA has never admitted
links to cocaine trafficking.
\_ CIA Inspector General Fred Hitz admitted that "there are
instances where the CIA did not, in an expeditious or
consistent fashion, cut off relations with individuals
supporting the contra program who were alleged to have
engaged in drug trafficking activity."
\_ Which is nothing like, "The CIA engaged in the cocaine
trade to fund secret off-book programs" which is what
the original accusation is about. The Cold War was a
dirty fight for survival. The CIA existed to do
exactly that sort of dirty work and deal with those
sorts of people. Lesser of two evils and all that.
\_ Shrug. The original thread was about how Kerry
was not off his rocker about there being a link.
It also directs evidence against the guy who wrote
"What are you talking about? The CIA has never
admitted links to cocaine trafficking".
\_ A "link"? Of course there was "a link". That
is who the CIA was created to deal with, duh.
Did you really prefer the Carter version of
Cold War intel where the CIA wasn't supposed to
talk to "bad people"? You're still mixing two
different issues: a "link" vs "selling" cocaine.
A "link" is meaningless FUD.
\_ You're off-topic, sodan. The comment was
directed toward the "CIA never admitted" guy.
\_ Isn't it obvious by now... based on Sandy Berger, Jayson Blair,
ANG Memos, SVFT, Kerry's post war activities and now this
'missing explosives' fraud??
\_ I can't see all that through the bottom of my kool aid glass.
\_ When the media pushes Kerry as hard to sign Form 180 as they
beat up Bush over his military records, I'll believe they're
something other than partisan left wing hacks. When they tell us
about Kerry meeting Madame Binh in Paris while still an active
duty officer for the US military, I'll believe. When they say
they're sorry and they fucked up with the bogus Bush documents
instead of spinning it into some bullshit "false but accurate"
which only an extreme leftish partisan finds acceptable, I'll
believe. When they stop write large print headlines in response
to positive Bush admin job news that say, "BONDS DROP ON JOBS
REPORT!", I'll believe. The list goes on, but my fingers are
getting sore. You get the idea.
\_ It's hard work. I know how hard it is.
\_ Yes, being an honest and unbiased media person is hard
work. Our mainstream media has failed miserably. Mostly,
because they're not even trying.
\_ Bush still has not signed his form 180 and Bush documents
are still leaking out.
\_ Thank you for making my point. The media has bashed the shit
out of Bush on this issue but has completely ignored it in
Kerry's case. In trying to attack Bush you have made my
point on this thread's topic which is about the biased Media.
\- Does anybody know how many papers that endorsed BUSH2000 are
endorsing KERRY04. Are there any papers that endorsed ALGOR
who are now endorsing BUSH? Even 1? [chicago?] --psb
\_ There are about 37 switches for kerry. i can't remember
how many for bush. one of the links above has the totals.
http://csua.org/u/9nv --scotsman
http://csua.org/u/9nv
Better: http://csua.org/u/9o7
--scotsman
\_ The Denver Post endorsed Gore and is endorsing Bush.
There are two others.
\_ Fortunately, the people decide, not newspaper editors in
this country. Endorsements will carry little weight as
most papers have a bias which leads to readship which
shares that bias. The SF Chron wouldn't survive in OC,
for example. The OC Register wouldn't make it in SF.
\_ you don't think nazi sympathizing and union busting
would play in OC? The SF Chron recently fired a
reporter for attending an anti-war rally; they are
not any kind of liberal bastion. -tom |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34366 Activity:high |
10/26 Awesome. Children's puppet show encourages massacre.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41091
\_ I love You, You love me
We'll murder the Zionist Enemy...
\_ that's hilarious, sad it's true.. sheesh..
\_ If your livelihood was an olive grove, maybe you'd want to shoot
the people ripping it out.
\_ Oh please. Did you catch the palestinians were using the
trees to hide rocket launchers?
\_ I knew that, but the people firing rockets from olive
groves are not the same people who live/work there. The
Israeli Army's distinct lack of sympathy for innocent
farmers is not exactly winning them friends.
\_ And how would you suggest an army deal with this
situation? Ask them to stop?
\_ Look, if they feel the need to destroy an olive grove
for security reasons, that's OK, but you need to pay
them a fair-market price if you're going to take away
their means of earning a living. From what I've
heard they just send in the buldozers and say
'tough shit'.
\_ Did you know that if the police destroy your
property while pursuing a suspect, etc. they are
not liable for damages? Sounds like you don't
know much about established law.
\_ From what you've heard? Still reading dailykos?
Or is that the PLO website?
\_ Wow, the governments on your planet must be
really fucking cool. Could you kindly cite an
actual example of any existing government
compensating individuals (in this case
non-citizens!) for property destroyed/seized
for security reasons within a reasonable
timeframe following the destruction/seizure?
\_ The US Army routinely reimburses non-citizens
for property damage incurred during training.
I know this for a fact, since I saw it happen
in Panama. -Vet
\_ I am unaware of any police department deciding
they are in the business of punishing people,
that is a matter for our correctional system.
\_ If the army flattened your house while persuing
terrorists in this country, you would probably
be reimbursed but it isn't guaranteed. If your
property was being used to hide weapons and you
didn't report it and the military destroyed your
house, tough shit.
\_ Actually, you probably wouldn't be reimbursed,
even in the case where you were just an
innocent bystander.
\_ There's no need to speak hypothetically
here. One word: Waco.
\_ But they were religious nutters so they
don't have any rights. Just because
Reno could have had Koresh picked up
in town when he made shopping trips,
usually alone, twice a week.
\_ yea, easy for you to say. report it, and
the next day, you will be killed by those
bastards for "collaborating with the
enemy". |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34367 Activity:insanely high |
10/26 Lawrence O'Donell exposes O'Neill of SVFT as a liar. This
must be what the media means when it says these guys have
been discredited.
http://64.91.230.181/~recycler/videos/windbag.WMV
\_ Well O'Donell is also the guy who has stated he doesn't
care if troops in Iraq become demoralized, that they should
shut up.
\_ This sounds like either a quote taken out of context,
or a very liberal paraphrase. Do you have a URL or decent
news source showing the quote and its surrounding context?
Honestly, both of those gentlemen strike me as partisan
mouthpieces furthering The Party's agenda with, at best,
coincidental regard for the truth.
\_ "MR. O'DONNELL: Look, it's not our job to lie about
war to make troops feel good. And I don't care what
they feel."
"MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care if they're demoralized.
They have to go to war and be prepared ..."
\_ gee I wonder why you didn't provide the context. -tom
\_ It's a McLauglin group transcript.. search for it,
I don't want to corrupt you with the link I'd give.
\_ what's so bad about
http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=434?
All he's saying is that you can't bury your head
in the sand and squash all debate about whether
the war is a good idea, just because you need to
"support the troops." Lying about the war
doesn't support the troops. -tom
\_ True, lying about the war doesn't support
the troops. Write a letter. Ask your media
to tell us both the good and the bad, not just
the bad.
\_ This is yucky, and really proves nothing -- aside from the fact
that both sides are pretty passionate.
\_ Well O'Donell is also the guy who has stated he doesn't
care if troops in Iraq become demoralized, that they should
shut up.
\_ This sounds like either a quote taken out of context,
or a very liberal paraphrase. Do you have a URL or decent
news source showing the quote and its surrounding context?
Honestly, both of those gentlemen strike me as partisan
mouthpieces furthering The Party's agenda with, at best,
coincidental regard for the truth.
\_ "MR. O'DONNELL: Look, it's not our job to lie about
war to make troops feel good. And I don't care what
they feel."
"MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care if they're demoralized.
They have to go to war and be prepared ..."
\_ gee I wonder why you didn't provide the context. -tom
\_ It's a McLauglin group transcript.. search for it,
I don't want to corrupt you with the link I'd give.
\_ what's so bad about
http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=434?
All he's saying is that you can't bury your head
in the sand and squash all debate about whether
the war is a good idea, just because you need to
"support the troops." Lying about the war
doesn't support the troops. -tom
\_ Wow. That O'Donnell is a fruitcake. When someone talks over his
opponent, it pretty much proves to me that he doesn't know what he's
talking about.
\_ Shrug. It suggests to me that the guy is too emotional at the
time to make a reasoned argument, unless he does it all the time.
\-Hmmmmm ... ok, I sort of agree LO'D went a little nuts there,
but your characterization of his comments on McL Groups is
preposterous [I saw the show]. If anything I think Bush's
comment during the 3rd debate:
BUSH: The best way to take the pressure off
our troops is to succeed in Iraq.
is more incoherent and insensitive. That comment is also
in line with his view "it's not a draft if we dont call
it a draft". The troops are not demoralized because of
Kerry suggesting Iraq has bogged down, or has suggested
our allies are few and far between, but because they are
being kept there longer than promised and are being blown up.
To be a little more charitable than LO'D: you are either a
liar or stupid. --psb
\_ The military vote is roughly 80% for Bush, that should
\- what %age of teachers vote for the "education
president" ?
\_ wrong question. "what %age of parents vote for
the education president?" is what you're looking
for.
\- the military is the group paid to deliver
"national security" ... everyone is a
comsumer of national security. similarly
parents are the consumers of ecucation,
not the agents to deliver it. anyway, my
point was that military number doesnt mean
much. --psb
\_ That's fine about the military number. My
point about parents still stands. I don't
care in particular if teachers like/dislike
the president as a block. They're a left
wing union group. I do care if parents are
happy with the education system. They are
not an organised political block. Parents
are real people, not an axe grinding PAC.
tell you something. The military is especially cognizant
that Kerry, in his antiwar antics and petitioning to
completey abandon Saigon, is a traitor. You can not
sign on to war and then say, 'oh that's not what I really
intended' - its a complete disgrace and is not behavior
befitting a CIC.Exactly which allies are you pining about?
The French, who in GWI sent an aircraft carrier
with no planes?
\- i am not pining for any allies. i think the un and the
rest of the world fairly reasonably see this as america's
mess to clean up. if a serviceman feels he can never
forgive kerry for his antiwar activities after vietnam
i think that is reasonable enough, just like i think
people are entitled to have been anti-clinton on the
grounds he was a draft-dodger who also cheated on his
wife. i just think it is odd they are not equally
disgusted with a coke addled rich kid who used family
connections to not even set foot "in country". --psb
\_ You were ok until the last line. At that point you
became "false, but accurate" as CBS would say.
\_ Could you post a URL for that 80%? All I found was this:
<DEAD>www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655<DEAD>
which gives 57% Rep among soldiers, in general (I think)
and 66% Rep among officers. Those show a stronger lean
than the country at large but far from 80%. The same
article also mentions that "Rep officers outnumber their
enlisted counterparts 9:1" according to "surveys" (no
source given) -- ulysses
\_ Why do Cons love to go over and over how they have "the
military vote"? Do soldiers count for more vote or
something? I think it is an implicit coup threat,
personally. If we have another Florida 2000 on our
hands, do you plan on calling out the troops to enforce
election results when half the country goes ballistic?
\_ Coup threat? Damn, dude, stop eating tinfoil! You're
supposed to wear it on your head. It is not a food
product.
\_ Why do Libs love to go over and over how they have the
"insert random small demographic here" vote? Does
"random small demographic" count for more vote or
something? The point is the military is just another
of those demographics. There isn't a plot. Stop
eating tinfoil. Wear it on your head for safety.
\_ You see, I remember a time when two people on a news show would not
shout over each other, when a moderator would not put up with such
behavior, when guests would not hog the mic, when longwinded
discourse actually lost you credibility, and when the integrity and
logic of your argument counted for more than the volume of your
voice. When did we agree to accept the opposite?
\_ When ratings went up with all the yelling on certain shows. I
agree they've gone way too far and I see it swinging back the
other way now.
\_ God, I hope you're right. |
| 2004/10/26 [Uncategorized] UID:34368 Activity:nil |
10/26 apple corp employees, please send me an email. -dpetrou
\_ why should they?
\_ Because King David has decreed it. MOTD rules do not apply. |
| 2004/10/26 [Uncategorized] UID:34369 Activity:nil |
10/26 estupid request for $company employees deleted until further
explanation produced. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [ERROR, uid:34370, category id '18005#6.21875' has no name! , ] UID:34370 Activity:nil |
10/26 Litigate the vote 2004!
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=2456879 |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34371 Activity:moderate |
10/26 Majority of Bush supporters believe things that simply
are not true:
http://www.pipa.org
\_ http://Pipa.org?
\_ Being a Bush supported would have to mean you at least partially
believe that "Bush is a good President", so you're already in a
world of make-believe! |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34372 Activity:very high |
10/26 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html (username / pw = bobbob) Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test. \_ The difference is that Kerry didn't spend his 20s and 30s doing blow. \_ That explains a lot. :-P \_ Boy, it sure is a good thing that IQ tests and ratings are such a meaningful and credible measure of an individual's intelligence. I'm glad I can estimate either candidate's intellectual fiber based on this decisive piece of information. -John \_ Whoops, there's a small problem here. Gottfredson, the psych. prof. who made the correlation, took the candidates' rankings on their respective Officer Qualifying Tests and directly correlated those ranks to IQ tests. Since Bush was in the 95th percentile of his class for the AFQT, Gottfredson extrapolated that he had an IQ of corresponding rank. However, the 1960s AFQT, like the ASVAB, was an aptitude test, not an IQ test. Drawing correlations between the two is more like comparing Fujis to Grannies than apples to oranges, but it's still prone to significant errors. What the AFQT does tell us, however, is that GWB is not a moron, but Bush-watchers already knew that; he's much too cunning to misunderestimate. \_ psb said Bush was a ChimpBrain. Surely, the great psb was not wrong. You have a fault in your reasoning somewhere. \- When Bush first emerged on the scene, I thought he looked like Alfred E. Newman. I have since decided he looks more like a Chimp. I do not believe he is an especially bright fellow, but I also dont believe most people are especially bright. I agree that he is smarter than a lot of the people who call him an idiot ... same goes for Rush Limbaugh. Most of the people calling them idiots could not give a 30min talk and a fair number of them probably could not tell you who Francois Mitterand was. Of the presidents since 1980, Bill Clinton is the only one I would call "really smart". BUSH's and RUSH have serious character defects but they arent idiots [which doesnt make them geniuses either]. It's actually fun to ask people ranting about how dumb Bush is "do you think he is dumber than <name some dull acquaintance>". As I asked on wall previously, "who would you rather have as president: bush or saarp?" --psb \-BTW, I also think intellectual curiosity counts for a lot. A friend of mine at Berkeley who used to get A+ in upper div physics classes [including from people like Steiner, if that means anything to you] once said "I thought Cambodia was in Africa ... because that is where all the starving people are." This guy was a genius when it came to physics problem sets but you dont want him running the world. I am not sure I want somebody who says "jesus is my favorite philosopher" or "sovereignty is sovereignty" running much of the planet. Yes, I know Bush understand legislative nuance and is being disingenuous with comments like "he voted for/against it". Yes I agree not one person in 50 who laughed at the sovereignty comment could have defined sovereignty. --psb \_ Wait, not being a moron somehow equates to not being a chimp- brain? Being smart is no defense against being wrong and morally bankrupt (cf. Richard Cheney). \_ I'm confused. I keep hearing Bush is stupid and incompetent. If so, how did he get the Whitehouse, is ahead in polls for a second term, foll John Kerry and others into voting for the war, fool millions of Americans and the media on a continuous basis and pack the supreme court with right wing partisans? \_ You *are* confused, but it has nothing to do with the fallacious "points" you bring up. \_ Could you please explain? Thank you. \_ Sure. You believe that getting into the White House, maintaining a good approval rating, and lying to a bunch of Senators about how he's only going to use war as a last resort somehow requires intelligence and the ability to be a good President. It doesn't. You can do much the same with a well-oiled political machine, a popular tough-guy image, and a heaping serving of arrogance and bravado. That's where you're confused. You're welcome. \_ Hey confused boy: Dubya delivered his GOP convention speech very well, spreading the gap as much as 51% Dubya, 39% Kerry. Yet, he looked like a total d00f during the debates, especially debate 1. Therein will you find your answer. \_ Who would win in a debate between W and PSB? \_ That's easy, PSB would just get thrown in Gitmo. As for "foll [sic] Kerry ... into voting for the war", Kerry voted for war authority, not for war. Purportedly only the President has the best intelligence and perspective to make the final call to take the country to war. Let me remind you that the Senate never saw conflicting reports on aluminum tubes from the Energy department, unlike the President. \_ Kerry wouldn't have seen any reports anyway since he hardly ever showed at any Senate Intelligence meetings. \_ Now I'm reaaaally confused. Since the polls you're implicitly citing changed their voter mix calculations at the same time as the debates and I keep reading that the polls don't mean anything anyway, at least when GWB is up. Please help! \_ Where do you keep reading this? Certainly not on the motd. Wherever you keep going to read misinformation, stop it. \_ It's standard (D) spin. I watch the news shows, I see the Kerry people saying the polls don't matter. The Kerry campaign is my source of misinformation. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34373 Activity:high |
10/26 Woops
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml
\_ I read it... didn't get it. What's noteworthy here?
\_ Meaning that someone who stockpiles large amounts of nerve
agent antidote and documents on how to "engage in chemical
warfare" is likely to possess large amounts of actual nerve
agent, which is likely to be floating around somewhere, and
is probably a whole lot easier to thieve or hide than 380 tons
of conventional explosives, meaning it's likely to be a Bad
Thing (tm). -John
\_ Sorry, are you suggesting that the 380 tons of conventional
explosives reportedly stolen may have actually been nerve
agent and that no one wants that out in public? That's scary.
\_ No, I think he's saying that there are stockpiles of Iraqi
WMD floating around somewhere that Bush never found.
\_ Sorry, the WMD that EVERY SINGLE REPORT says do not
exist?
\_ Look, the reports just say they never found any,
nor did they locate evidence to the contrary.
Relax, nobody is saying GWB & co. knew something
you didn't. But c'mon, we (or at least the Kurds
and Iranians) know that the Iraqis had poison gas
at some point, and this sort of thing sure makes
me wonder whether there still isn't a bunch of it
around somewhere. Plus, weren't the WMD inspectors
looking for some grand nukular bomb building
scheme? -John
\_ I thought you were on our side, John! WTF?!
\_ This was posted as evidence of NYTimes fraud on the missing
explosives as an exposition of the timeline. -op |
| 5/17 |