Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:October:02 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2006/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44620 Activity:very high
10/1    When a Democrat has oral sex with an intern, whatever. When a
        Republican writes gay letters to one underaged boy, he quits.
        \_ When a Democrat has oral sex with an intern, they spend $100
           million to investigate. When 3k people die in the worst mass
           murder in American history, whatever.
           \_ I wouldn't call two wars and a trillion dollars "whatever", but
              that's just me.
              \_ "I really don't spend that much time on him"
                 \_ Which is different than him not actually spending much time
                    or resources on him.
                    \_ Iraq is not about Osama bin Laden or Al Quaeda.  -tom
                       \_ Bin Laden and Al Qaeda disagree with you.
                       \_ Yes, yes, it's just about Bush Junior avenging his
                          daddy and HALIBURTON! and Blood For Big Oil! and
                          making the top 1% richer and Israel who actually
                          lew up the towers and turning the US into a
                          dictatorship and establishing and expanding American
                          Hegemony(tm) through the world and probably a few
                          others I forgot.  Please fill in where I left off.
                          \_ It's about the Project For a New American Century.
                             You know, the group including Cheney, Rumsfeld,
                             Wolfowitz, etc., who sent an open letter to
                             Clinton in 1998 that America should assert its
                             strength to remake the world to our best
                             interests, and that we should start by invading
                             Iraq.  This is not a secret conspiracy.
                             \_ That letter doesn't imply anything close
                                to what you assert. What it says is that
                                Saddam must be removed as a threat. Where
                                are you getting this "America should
                                assert its strength to remake the world to
                                our best interests, and that we should start
                                by invading Iraq" stuff? I never figured
                                Tom to be a tinfoil hat type.
                                \_ Statement of Principles, June 1997:
        "As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States
             stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the
             West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an
             opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have
             the vision to build upon the achievements of past
             decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape
             a new century favorable to American principles and
             interests?  ...  We seem to have forgotten the essential
             elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a
             military that is strong and ready to meet both present
             and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
             purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and
             national leadership that accepts the United States'
             global responsibilities."
        stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to
        victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a
        challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build
        upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States
        have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American
        principles and interests?
        We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan
        Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready
        to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy
        that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles
        abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United
        States' global responsibilities."
                                  You really need to open your eyes.  -tom
             \_ So now you are introducing an entirely different document
                and it *still* doesn't say what you said above, or even
                imply it.
                \_ You clearly aren't reading.  You don't think there's
                   any connection between the foundation started in 1997 by
                   the group of chicken hawks now in power to promote American
                   militarism, whose first open letter advocated the invasion
                   of Iraq, and the fact that the same group of chicken hawks
                   decided to invade Iraq on trumped-up evidence?  -tom
                   \_ Maybe, maybe not. You are reading into it what you
                      want to read into it. There's a lot of inferences
                      being made. The first letter just said that Saddam
                      should be removed from power. The second letter
                      advocates a string military, a global leadership
                      position, and foreign policy which puts US interests
                      first. You might be right that there's a conspiracy
                      to US global domination at all costs, but you can't
                      prove it based on the evidence you've presented.
                                  \_ I agree entirely with you.  It would be
                                     better if our nation did not take action
                                     to reshape the world to be favorable to
                                     American interests, but instead reshaped
                                     it to be unfavorable.  Er uh yeah!  So,
                                     back to reality for a moment: what is
                                     wrong with a nation attempting to reshape
                                     the world in a self-interested way?  That
                                     is the reason for being for all nations.
                                     Now then, if you're opposed to the
                                     existence of nations, that's another
                                     story, but any nation that does not try
                                     to serve self-interest will be tossed in
                                     history's trashcan.  You may disagree with
                                     their methods, you may disagree with the
                                     specifics of what is self interest and
                                     what is not, but railing against national
                                     self-interest is senseless.
                                     \_ It seems to me that there are many
                                        ways to define national self-interest,
                                        and that none of them apply to the
                                        Iraq debacle.  A stable middle east?
                                        Access to cheap oil?  Less power for
                                        Islamic extremists?  A stable and
                                        financially sound U.S. government?
                                        The spread of American values and
                                        diplomatic capital with other nations?
                                        It's a failure on all counts.  Unlike
                                        most motd liberals, I actually supported
                                        the invasion of Iraq.  But unlike the
                                        motd conservatives, I'm willing to admit
                                        I was wrong and that the present
                                        clusterfuck is worse for America and
                                        the world even than Saddam.
                                        \_ I agree the post-invasion was and
                                           continues to be screwed up.  But
                                           let's do a what-if.  What-if they
                                           had declared martial law on day 1,
                                           rounded up and destroyed the zillion
                                           tons of free floating weapons,
                                           sealed the borders to Iran+Syria,
                                           and then held elections of some sort
                                           once the country was stable and
                                           under control?  Same invasion, but
                                           very different post-invasion with
                                           a different "today".  If you can
                                           agree that this was a possible
                                           outcome of the invasion, then the
                                           invasion itself was in American
                                           self-interest, they just botched the
                                           aftermath.  And btw, yes, I'm
                                               \_ Ok, we agree.
                                           conservative in foreign affairs
                                           but generally leaning one way or
                                           the other doesn't require blind
                                           knee-jerk responses to real world
                                           issues and questions.  Even those
                                           evil conservatives can make
                                           rational evaluations.  You just
                                           won't find that kind of conservative
                                           on the freeper zones any more than
                                           you'll find rational liberals on
                                           \_ Nice straw man.  I noticed you
                                              completely stopped trying to
                                              address the point, which is
                                              that invading Iraq is part
                                              of a very specific plan by
                                              a very specific group of
                                              people, who had decided to
                                              do it before they were even
                                              in power.  -tom
                                              \_ That isn't a strawman.  It is
                                                 a direct response to "unlike
                                                 motd conservatives...".  And
                                                 what exactly is your point?
                                                 That some guys with no power
                                                 wanted to invade Iraq?  I have
                                                 no power and want a lot of
                                                 things, too.  So what?  What
                                                 is your point?  I'm dumb, so
                                                 if you spell it out for me,
                                                 I'll address it.
                                                 \_ You realize you're
                                                    responding to two different
                                                    people, right?
                                                    \_ Yup.  And one of them
                                                       called accused me of
                                                       strawmanning for
                                                       replying to the other.
                                                       I was clarifying.
                                                       \_ The guy to whom you
                                                          were clafifying
                                                          interrupted your
                                                          clarification to
                                                          agree with you, and
                                                          has returned to
                                                          attempting to do
                                                          useful engineering
                                                 \_ "Iraq is not about
                                                     Osama bin Laden or
                                                     Al Qaeda."  That's the
                                                     point I raised up above.
                                                     The Iraq invasion is
                                                     the culmination of a
                                                     strategy planned and
                                                     implemented in the open;
                                                     you do not have to posit
                                                     the existence of secret
                                                     conspiracies or anything
                                                     at all; you only need to
                                                     read what these people
                                                     wrote.  Whether you think
                                                     their strategy was a
                                                     good idea or not is
                                                     not really relevant to
                                                     my point.  -tom
                                                     \_ Uh, sure... who was
                                                        disputing these guys
                                                        wrote an *open* letter
                                                        in the 90s or claimed
                                                        there was a conspiracy
                                                        or whatever?  Me and
                                                        the other person
                                                        ignored that and went
                                                        on to other topics
                                                        because there was no
                                                        "there" there.  It was
                                                        an *open* letter.  What
                                                        was your point again?
                                                        Slowly for me this time
                                                        because I'm really
                                                        really dumb.  Thanks.
                                                        \_ I agree, you're
                                                           really dumb. -!tom
                                                           \_ If there's a
                point, you or tom or anyone else are welcome to make it.  As
                far as I can figure the point is "there was a public document
                and uhm...".  That's about it.  Personal attack is always a
                good substitute for substance.  Keep it up, you'll go far.
                \_ Tom's point: Iraq was not about UBL. Your response:
                   WDYHA? Yeah, you're a fricking debating genius.
                   \_ No one but tom was talking about that.  I'm not a
                      debating genius but I can stay on board as a conversation
                      shifts and moves on.  tom seems to get that.  Why don't
                      \_ See below.
                \_ Tom said Iraq was not about UBL or AQ but about the PfaNAC.
                   You then replied with a parody of conspiracy screeds, which
                   appeared to imply that Tom was a conspiracy nut. Tom then
                   elaborated on his point by suggesting that the PfaNAc was
                   behind the invasion of Iraq. He then provided a URL to a
                   letter from PfaNAC suggesting "that America should assert
                   its strength to remake the world to our best interests, and
                   that we should start by invading Iraq." You then said that
                   the letter did not say anything of the sort, and then you
                        \_ no sorry that was someone else.  i never said the
                           letter was anything but exactly what it looked
                           like which was a bunch of powerless guys who wanted
                           to invade iraq.  i didn't write anything at anytime
                           that disputed tom's take on their open letter.
                   implied that Tom was a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy nut.
                   Tom then posted a portion of the PfaNAC's Statement of
                   Principles that matches, closely, the policies of the
                   current administration; this would seem to suggest that the
                   PfaNAC, of which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other
                   architects of the invasion of Iraq are active participants,
                   dictated the policy that led to the invasion of Iraq. You
                   then switched tacts and chose to turn the debate to whether
                   the policy advocated was effective or not. When confronted
                        \_ no i was talking with someone else at this point
                           as previously mentioned.
                   on this, you denied disputing the point to begin with.
                                \_ because i didn't.  there was no dispute.
                   Now, I see you launching two ad hominem attacks against
                   Tom and then denying a position you held half a page up.
                        \_ no, i'm glad to see tom and i agreed on the basics
                           and were done which is about where someone else
                           stepped in with personal attacks on me.
                   That would appear to be the substitute for substance you
                   later mentioned. Per your own advice: "Keep it up, you'll
                   go far."
                        \_ thanks, i've done fine but the rest of your
                           analysis is based on a confusion as to who was
                           responding to what and who wrote what at various
                           points.  it was a pleasure chatting with you.
                           have a nice day.
                           \_ You do the same. In the meantime, would some
                              eager young CSUA member like to write a command
                              line tool for proper conversation threads on the
                              motd? TIA.
        \_ Let's see: oral sex between two consenting adults or solicitation
           (and possible corruption) of a minor, which one's illegal?
           Hell, which one's even potentially illegal?
           \_ Adultery and oral copulation are still on the books in many
              states.  Age of consent in DC is 16, isnt it?  That makes the
              IMs legal, does it not?  -devil's advocate
              \_ Is adultery and oral copulation illegal in DC?
                 \_ absolutely no idea, but just saying.... -da
              \_ From what I understand, it would be legal, but for legislation
                 that the guy himself backed specifically related to actions
                 done over the Internet.  The irony is piled high.
                 \_ Right on. Which legislation was this?
                    \_ The blah blah Child Protection and Welfare blah blah
                       Act.  I'm pretty sure he's in violation of his own law.
                 \_ Does anyone know if he has any previous anti-gay quotes?
                    It would seem like a southern republican should make some
                    asinine statements while stumping against gay marriage...
                    \_ No idea, but he sure did a lot of work for the Co$:
        \_ Clinton was impeached.  I also think making unwelcome advances toward
           a minor is rather different than receiving oral sex from a (by all
           accounts) willing adult.
        \_ This doesn't have to be partisan.  This guy's a scumbag.  The GOP
           leadership screwed up by not investigating this earlier.  And
           whoever leaked it saved it for an October surprise.  I'm not seeing
           any good guys here.
           \_ Your post already defines the good guys: anyone who didn't send
              the IMs, cover up the incident, or save the reveal for an
              election season surprise. Right now, there seem to be plenty of
              people on both sides of the aisle who fit that definition,
              including Nancy Pelosi.
              \_ Nice censorship for deleting my response.  Since we don't know
                 who was involved, how can you claim that Pelosi wasn't one of
                 \_ As for censorship, I'm using motdedit, so it wasn't me
                    deleting your post. As for Pelosi, yeahbuhwhaaat?
              \_ Yeah no kidding.  They're all politicians.  Anyone who got
                 themselves into Federal office and especially the repeat
                 offenders is almost certainly a slime and a "bad guy" in
                 more ways than their voters could stomach if they knew.
              \_ We don't know who saved and leaked the IMs.  How can you claim
                 Pelosi isn't involved when we simply don't know?
2006/10/2-3 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:44621 Activity:nil
10/2    Anybody run dual boot AND parallels virtualization on a macbook pro?
        I'm trying to figure out if it's possible for the dual boot and
        parallels to share one copy of windows XP.  Or do I need to keep
        two separate copies of windows XP of disk for this to work.  Thanks.
        \_ My understanding is that this is currently not possible:
           It is supposed to be available in the next version of Parallels.
        \_ You must use a separate partition for dual boot and for Parallels
2006/10/2-4 [Recreation/Food] UID:44622 Activity:nil
10/2    For a normal adult, what is the maximum amount of canned tuna that is
        safe to eat on a regular basis to avoid problems with mercury?
        \_ IIRC it's about a can/week and you're pushing it.  But really,
           mercury never leaves your system once you've got it so it builds up
           over time.  The Mad Hatter was insane because he was a hatter and
           they used mercury in the dying process for hats in that era.  Just
           something to think about when having your next tuna roll.
        \_ From consumer reports:
2006/10/2-4 [Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:44623 Activity:nil
10/1    Suppose the Iranians declared that it has launcheable nukes today
        and that it is willing to use it if any Western power interferes,
        what are some steps we can do to neutralize them?
        \_ "neutralize" them. Let me guess, you're a big white dick and you
           have the right to fuck whoever you please because you're a bad
           ass American and you are free to fuck whoever you want.
           \_ So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because
              pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes
        \_ Announce that we're going to saturation nuke them in 3 days to remove
           the threat unless they disarm, and if the civilians don't take
           matters into their own hands to remove the antagonistic leadership,
           they assume complicity.  Hope our missle defense works in case they
           retaliate.  Follow through.
           \_ I wonder whether we'd have our first born-and-bred coup
        \_ Enter detente just as we did with Soviet Union.
        \_ Of course, they might just be pulling a Saddam trying to make
           everyone think they have nukes when they really don't, to try to
           goad an invasion--remember, the Iranian pres. actually believes he
           needs to start a massive conflagration in order for the Mahdi to
2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44624 Activity:moderate
        Karl Rove says there will be an "October Surprise" to help GOP
        candidates.  What do you think it is, and how effective do you think
        it will be?
        \_ Karl Rove is brilliant and understands that election is never
           about issues but instead, personal characters. Having that said,
           I will bet $50 that the October Surprise will most likely be
           reports of certain Democrats saying bad things about God, or
           going to prostitutes, having affairs with interns, or anything of
           that sort. The average American doesn't care about the number of
           deaths in Iraq or Iran having nukes. The average American cares
           more about Jacko molesting children and such.
           \_ This is absolutely true, but I would classify Rove as
              sociopathically brilliant, not generally brilliant. He's got the
              morals and ethics of a cockroach: survival/domination at any
              \_ If he's a real sociopaths he'd know he's lying. But in
                 reality he believes he has high morals and ethics. By
                 supporting the R party he's getting rid of evil homosexual
                 that's polluting America and such. So no, he's not a
                 sociopath. He really believes in the righteous cause.
                 \_ His stepfather, whom he considers his real father, is
                    openly gay. Rove has never demonstrated an emotional
                    reaction to any of the things that moral Republicans seem
                    to object to. Also, sociopaths quite often describe
                    themselves as highly moral or ethical people because they
                    understand that other people seem to give them more if
                    they do so.
        \_ I'm thinking "terrorist assassination attempt".  For effect, Bush
           wrestles the guy to the ground shortly after his shirt is shredded
           by the guy's katana.  Oh, did I mention the terrorist is also a
           ninja?  Cuz he is.
        \_ A democratic rep will resign in disgrace after his emails and ims
           to a 16 year old male page are published, and the entire minority
           leadership who have been covering for him for years give up their
           leadership positions under massive pressure.  Oh, wait...
        \_  Bombing Iran within five days of the election, combined with
            large-scale vote fraud.  It'll work.
        \_ I predict that Karl Rove will admit that everything's his fault,
           that he was acting alone, and will then resign via a shotgun to
           the mouth. In mourning yet righteously angry at being deceived,
           Bush will sweep the GOP to victory by pulling out the troops.
           Oh, and NewsMax will feature a column by Rush on how nobody liked
           Rove anyway.
        \_  Bombing Iran within five days of the election, combined with
            large-scale vote fraud.  It'll work.
        \_ Err...Watch the news much?
        \_ replace Condi with Baker as sec state?
        \_ They're going to use Fuax news to transmit Karl Rove's mind
           warping hypnotize beam to convince the entire country Mark
           Foley is really democrat.
           Foley is really democrat.  It already worked to link Saddam
           Hussein to 9/11.
2006/10/2-4 [Uncategorized] UID:44625 Activity:nil
10/2    Republicans: You guys are K-SCREWED!   HAHA AHA HAH HAA PWNNN!!!!1one
        \_ but Karl Rove says there will be an "October Surprise"
        \_ Help Congressman Mark Foley PROTECT OUR CHILDREN:
2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44626 Activity:nil
10/2    I'm not a big fan of Ah-nold. However, Angelides hasn't wowed me at
        all. Is this because the Governator's campaign is strong or because
        there's really just nothing there to Angelides? Please, give me some
        reason to want to vote for this guy other than "He's not Ah-nold."
        \_ Ah-nold is a Socialist, Angelides is a Communist.
        \_ Angelides has no chance, it is sad.
        \_ What's wrong with Arnold? My impression is he actually got
           a lot done, other than his occasional sexist/insensitive
           \_ R == EVIL. Didn't you learn that on your first day of school
              at Cal?
           \_ consensus is that Ah-nold was screwing himself while under
              GOP guidance (this is when he took on the teachers/nurses/police/
              fire), but Maria showed him what makes libural Kaleefornians
              \_ If we had governor elections every year, I think Ah-nold
                 would be fine. I'm just not sure I want him as governor in a
                 non-election year.
           \_ There is nothing wrong w/ Ah-nold. He is a moderate who
              can work w/ a diverse range of people to reach balanced
              \_ I voted for most of his special-election initiatives. I guess
                 I would be an (R). I don't vote (R) nationally because of
                 their bastarditude and idiotica but I respect the California
                 (R)s. The (D)s here exhibit the worst stereotype liberal
                 pandering behavior: "voting themselves largess out of the
                 public treasury" and bowing to unions. As for Arnold, he may
                 be goofy but he seems to have good interests at heart. He
                 appears less likely to be corrupt.
                 \_ You resepect california republicans?  Are you saying you
                    think Arnold would have won a republican primary in
                    california?  It seems to me that the only way you ended up
                    with a republican governer who is a moderate as opposed
                    to a "kill di messikans and gays" neandrathal is that
                    Arnold got to avoid the california GOP primary.
                    \_ Which Cali Rs are neanderthals? I haven't seen that kind
                       of thing. But then I haven't paid that much attention.
                       I am Ind. but I voted in the R primary after looking
                       at both parties. There might be some "taking our jerbs"
                       types but they seem marginal.
                       types but they seem marginal. Actually that would as
                       likely be a Dem/Union line. Not too many religious
                       nut Rs here in Cali.
                 \_ I thought that in the recall election debates, the two
                    who made the most sense were Camejo and McClintock.  Damn
           \_ I'm not a fan of his policies, which seem to be centrist around
              election time, but then wander further off in (imo) the wrong
2006/10/2-4 [Uncategorized] UID:44627 Activity:nil
10/2    Dennis Hastert on the Mark Foley scandal:
        "No one could have anticipated a breach of the Levis"
        \_ LOL where's that from?
           \_ Dennis Hastert, can't you read?  Um, actually someone's comment
              on dailykos.
2006/10/2 [Uncategorized] UID:44628 Activity:nil
10/2    Sigh. Censorship is so petty.
2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44629 Activity:low
        Re-post from last year:
        "But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September
        11, we had a choice to make.  We could decide that the proximate cause
        was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and,
        therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and
        then our work would be done ... Or we could take a bolder approach, ...
        go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced
        there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East.  And there is no
        one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam
        Hussein still in power."
        Condi Rice is a fucking moron.
        \_ Just because you disagree with her she's a moron?  You're a
           \_ well, let's put it this way:
              in your honest opinion, is her position moronic or !moronic?
              \_ I don't think it's moronic.  And if you disagree I'd like to
                 see why. -pp
                 \_ idea = non-moronic (I agree with you to this extent).
                    status of the idea after being evaluated for feasibility
                    = should have been dead.  eventual plan & execution = teh
                    suck.  long-term damage to American interests and lives
                    affected = odious.  Saying, "It was a good idea!" after
                    piss-poor planning and execution and going with a
                    non-feasible idea to begin with = moronic.  IMO.  I can see
                    why people might disagree.
                    \_ I agree with that analysis more or less.  I think the
                       idea is still good, but the current implementation
                       sucks. -pp
        \_ The war on terror, war on drugs, war on poverty.  What these have
           in common is that the steps needed to "win" are either non-existant
           ,undesirable, or the cure is worse than the disease.  War on
           drugs: If we started executing all drug users and dealers the
           problem would eventually go away.  poverty: European welfare state
           would remove almost all poverty.  terror: I don't see any realistic
           way of getting there, but Bush has certainly done a good job to try
           and "lose" this war.
2006/10/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44630 Activity:nil 66%like:44631
        "And when he asked me to be secretary of state, I said, 'I think maybe
        - maybe you need new people.'" -Sec State Rice, after Dubya's 2004
        re-election, on her offer to leave the administration
2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44631 Activity:nil 66%like:44630
        "And when he asked me to be secretary of state, I said, 'I think maybe
        - maybe you need new people.'" -Sec State Rice, on her offer to leave
        the administration
        \_ I really, really find this hard to believe given the eagerness with
           which she accepted the SecState position. I think she'd always
           wanted to be SecState.
           \_ she was eager to accept the sec state position?
2006/10/2-5 [Recreation/Dating] UID:44632 Activity:kinda low
`10/1   So what exactly happened between that perverted 53-year old guy and
        the school girls in Colorado? Did he simply fondle their breasts?
        Were the girls fully undressed? Did they have oral sex? Did they
        have intercourse, and did they use lubricants or any other forms
        of protection?
        \_ Sorry, but what sort of twisted curiosity is impelling these
           \_ trolling perchance?
        \_ How about you send a SASE to the local PD there in CO and ask
           them to send you the full report and your interest in it?
           "CA Man Questioned By FBI In CO Shooting Case".
        \_ One of the hostages, Lynna Long, told the Rocky Mountain News that
           she was groped above the waist but believes Emily "got it worse."
           Lynna said that she was afraid to look, "but you could hear Emily
           saying, `No. Please don't."'
           Lynna said all the girls had been told to stand facing a wall, and
           she could not see what Morrison was doing, but she knew the other
           girls were being molested because "you could hear the rustling of
           clothes and elastic being snapped and zippers being opened and
           \_ Hm, isn't it kind of hard to rape when you're standing?
           \_ Ok thanks a lot.  That is exactly what I didn't need to read
              right after lunch.  Or any other time.
           \_ then he shot all 10 girls at close range, at least five of
              them in the head.  Five are still alive - all but one are in
              critical condition.
           \_ There's no way he could have had cum more than one time in that
              short a time period, so I'm guessing he only had sex with one
              of them and just fingerbanged the others.
        \_ You must be the same guy who wanted the Girls Gone Wild date rape
2006/10/2-4 [Uncategorized] UID:44633 Activity:nil
10/2    Bugzilla, Mantis, or SugarCRM?
        \_ Trac
        \_ AthenaRMS
           \_ Ooh, not the same thing, and $500 + $35 per seat isn't desirable.
2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44634 Activity:kinda low
10/2    Michael Scheuer (former head of the bin Laden unit) calls Clinton a
        flat-out liar.  (transcript and video clip)
        Last week, he also criticized Clinton's interview with Wallace (which
        Harry Smith of CBS was a bit flustered about):  (transcript and video clip)
        \_ i guess scheuer's views of the truth were insufficient to be
           included in the 9/11 report.  anyway, the report said Clinton had
           a "capture or kill" policy, and left it up to CIA (Tenet) to
           determine whether "capture" was feasible, and if not, the memo
           gave permission to kill.
           also note that the first opportunity to kill bin Ladin that Scheuer
           cites is one in which well over 200 innocent bystanders were
           estimated to have been killed, and that later intelligence appeared
           to show that bin Ladin left before the strike would have occurred.
           \_ The report was a political product.  I'm sure there's a fair
              amount of truth in it but you'll never get the whole truth from
              a public report like that.  Which is not to say that this guy
              is in any way honest or truthful.  I know nothing about him.
              But being included or excluded from the 9/11 commission report
              is insufficient to question his credibility.  --DA
              \_ Maybe he's been hanging out with Orson Scott Card,
                 Mr. "When Clinton Attempted to Kill Bin Laden, it was
                 Tryanny, but when Bush attempted it, it was awesome!!!!"
              \_ actually, he is in the report, as "Mike".  Search for
                 "wikipedia" in the first newsbusters link.
2006/10/2-4 [Uncategorized] UID:44635 Activity:nil
10/2    What language is this (it was in a spam (I think) I received):
        "Andreia deixou um recado para voce"
        \_ Portuguese, says
           \_ Yes, this is Portuguese.
           \_ cool website.
2006/10/2-4 [Computer/Networking] UID:44636 Activity:nil
10/2    My brother who lives in the city wants to get DSL. What are some
        good yet inexpensive DSL providers in SF? Thanks.
        \_ or Cyberonic.
           \_ Cyberonic support has pretty much disappeared since they
              moved from worldcom dsl lines.  I've had number of cases when
              I was down for several days at a time, and no personal contact
              can be made.  I'm now a happy customer.  But if your
              brother's not a geek and don't need static IP, he can go with
              pretty much any SBC/AT&T reseller(and sonic's one of them.)
              \_ I agree re Cyberonic's customer support. It is almost
                 non-existent. If your Cyberonic line works right the
                 first time, then you will not have problems. If it
                 doesn't work, then you are better off canceling the
                 line and going w/ someone else b/c Cyberonic will
                 not help you debug the problem.
                 I was a long time Sonic customer and I really liked
                 them. The ONLY reason I switched was b/c Sonic was
                 not offering a 6Mbps line at an affordable price.
                 I'm not sure if that has changed. If it has I would
                 would probably switch back.
2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:44637 Activity:nil
10/2    I knew somehow the Scientologists were involved
        in this Foley business:
2006/10/2-4 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:44638 Activity:nil
10/2    Anyone play online poker for money? Which site provides safest/stable
        gameplay on OSX?
        \_ You've got a week or two before online gambling is made illegal in
           the US.  Enjoy it.
2018/12/14 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:October:02 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>