Thrown out of an FBO...

Doug,

great shots...............Thanks,

Karl
I loved that movie!



"Doug Spencer" wrote in message
news:20061112153100.4b350cd4.usenetmail@securitybu lletins.com...
Yes, the Field of Dreams is still there. I got photos of it this past
summer and placed them at http://www.securitybulletins.com/fod/ . There
were players on the field and a game going on at the time I flew over.

Doug

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:42:52 -0800
"karl gruber" wrote:

Jay,

Carrying around 300 pounds of extra weight in Iowa (is the "Field of
Dreams"
still there?) may be OK, but it will (and does)KILL you in some of the

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:37:20 -0500, Gary Drescher wrote:
You are beneath contempt.

Thank you...

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

"Eventually" with respect to Hong Kong was just a few weeks after Pearl
Harbor's bombing.
....
No doubt about it, Iraq is a very tough situation, for a lot of
historical reasons. But by taking the fight of Al-Quaeda back to their
turf away from North America, a tide was turned. Remember that many of

The point is that regardless of the justification used, the attack on Iraq
was about racism and vengence. You have it, because in your mind moving the
war to Iraq put it on "their turf".

Iraq is not Al-Queda's turf. Afghanistan is. We should have flattened
Afghanistan, and dealt with Iraq separately, in cooperation with our
allies.

All Arabs are not the same.

these same countries that you claim we lost credibility with are also
the same nations that did NOTHING for years and years while their
neighbor was spitting on a peace treaty (...sounds familiar) and
building up a military, arms, strategic infrastructure, etc. That
eventually uncontained neighbor than caused unprecedented catastrophes
and human suffering. Today, technology does not require any such large
military or arms to create such catastrophes and human suffering. If
the UN would not enforce the cease-fire with Baghdad, who would ?

The UN WAS taking steps. GW just didn't think they were tough enough. When
he presented his case to the UN, they told him it wasn't time yet. He
didn't want to listen and did it anyway. Eventually, if Iraq really was to
become a threat, the UN reaction would have adjusted appropriately.

We also had intelligence, not only from our own agencies, but from
Russia, France, Germany, United Kingdom etc. that suggested that Iraq
was on its way to building such technology. Since then, we have found

Korea was closer to building such technology.

Keep in mind, during the 1990s, we had a New York World Trade Center
bombing, embassies attacked/bombed, ships attacked. etc. Terrorists
learned in Somalia that by attacking US forces (even under UN forces),
they will run away.

So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's country. How
is that any better. If I'm the terrorist, I'm laughing even harder.

Do not forget that Baghdad was bombed severely by the USA in 1998 (with
more bombs than the entire 1991 gulf war) and this accomplished nothing
but defiance and more spitting on the 1991 peace treaty (..sounds
familiar).

And were the results in 2003 really all that much different? It just moved
the enemy back underground and made them harder to find.

To me the only good terrorist is a good one, I don't care where they may
hail from. Perhaps it would be better to have a murdering dictator back
in power. But I'm glad he's offline.

Your racism is showing.

mike regish wrote:

You do realize I'm talking about breathing?

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


mike regish wrote:

When you stop, please do it for at least 5 minutes.

mike


mike regish wrote:

Agreed.

Please stop.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
--
Jay Honeck

Keep you sharing your version of so-called "tolerance," Mike, you are quite
the farcical one. And I'm the "bigot!" ;-)

Judah wrote:

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

"Eventually" with respect to Hong Kong was just a few weeks after Pearl
Harbor's bombing.
...
No doubt about it, Iraq is a very tough situation, for a lot of
historical reasons. But by taking the fight of Al-Quaeda back to their
turf away from North America, a tide was turned. Remember that many of

The point is that regardless of the justification used, the attack on Iraq
was about racism and vengence. You have it, because in your mind moving the
war to Iraq put it on "their turf".

Oh please. There's the R word again. Whenever a legitimate argument cannot be
made, I've noticed that "racism" charges seep out.



Iraq is not Al-Queda's turf. Afghanistan is.

Even if that was singularily true, you missed that Afghanistan was attacked (I
know, how "racist"), Al queada is in Iraq, and suicide bombers were funded by
Iraq, and terrorists did in fact exist in Iraq.



We should have flattened
Afghanistan, and dealt with Iraq separately, in cooperation with our
allies.

All Arabs are not the same.

Sure, but I never said otherwise. Nice strawman.



these same countries that you claim we lost credibility with are also
the same nations that did NOTHING for years and years while their
neighbor was spitting on a peace treaty (...sounds familiar) and
building up a military, arms, strategic infrastructure, etc. That
eventually uncontained neighbor than caused unprecedented catastrophes
and human suffering. Today, technology does not require any such large
military or arms to create such catastrophes and human suffering. If
the UN would not enforce the cease-fire with Baghdad, who would ?

The UN WAS taking steps. GW just didn't think they were tough enough. When
he presented his case to the UN, they told him it wasn't time yet. He
didn't want to listen and did it anyway. Eventually, if Iraq really was to
become a threat, the UN reaction would have adjusted appropriately.

We also had intelligence, not only from our own agencies, but from
Russia, France, Germany, United Kingdom etc. that suggested that Iraq
was on its way to building such technology. Since then, we have found

Korea was closer to building such technology.

I suspect you mean North Korea. So, what is your point, you wanted to see a
war against Korea first? Would that absolve your "racist" charges above.



Keep in mind, during the 1990s, we had a New York World Trade Center
bombing, embassies attacked/bombed, ships attacked. etc. Terrorists
learned in Somalia that by attacking US forces (even under UN forces),
they will run away.

So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's country. How
is that any better. If I'm the terrorist, I'm laughing even harder.

Laughing to the grave.



Do not forget that Baghdad was bombed severely by the USA in 1998 (with
more bombs than the entire 1991 gulf war) and this accomplished nothing
but defiance and more spitting on the 1991 peace treaty (..sounds
familiar).

And were the results in 2003 really all that much different? It just moved
the enemy back underground and made them harder to find.

If the enemy was so above ground and easy to find before 2003, why wasn't the
enemy found/destroyed in 1993? In 1996? In 1998? In 2000?



To me the only good terrorist is a good one, I don't care where they may
hail from. Perhaps it would be better to have a murdering dictator back
in power. But I'm glad he's offline.

Your racism is showing.

In other words you have no legitimate argument. Yes, favoring brutal murdering
dictators --who use rape rooms and ear lobbing for population control-- not
being in power is "racist." I'll bet I'm a xenophobe and a Nazi and a sexist
too!

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
When Pearl Harbor was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and
hunt them down and forget about anything else? No! We did realize
that
there
were other threats out there, and we better start to deal with them,
hastily.
And actually the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their
friends
in
Italy, Albania, etc. first.

But only after Japan's ally Germany declared war on the US immediately
after
Pearl Harbor. Iraq did not declare war on the US after Sept. 11 (and Iraq
had no alliance with al Qaeda; in fact, they were mutual enemies). Being
attacked by one party does not automatically entitle you to wage war on
other parties of your choice.

So you're saying that we only went to war with Germany b/c they declared
war on
USA? So if they had NOT formerly declared war on USA we wouldn't have
gone to
war with Germany or that we weren't "entitled?" Good luck advancing that
story.

There extensive alliance with Japan might have sufficed. But there was no
alliance between al Qaeda and Iraq; if anything, they were enemies.

So we should only go after our enemies if they have alliances first? By the
way, Iraq was in violation of its cease-fire agreement from 1991 many times
over. So they ended the cease-fire, not anyone else.

I'm sure you were just as outraged about the bombings of Iraq by USA in 1996 and
1998, right?

mike regish wrote:

No such thing as a non-radical in any religion AFAIC.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


mike regish wrote:

No such thing as a non-radical Muslim.

Nice generalization, Mike. But what would Pete say?


Define "radical" then. The Dalai Lama is in your same category as bin
Laden?

I don't believe the Dalai believes in an old guy in the clouds who watches
everything we do.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


Define "radical" then. The Dalai Lama is in your same category as bin
Laden?

Farcical...I like that.

mike

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
You certainly didn't identify any certain types of generalizations.

I absolutely did so. You just didn't bother to read it. Here is one such
post, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...ed72116dcbb99a

Peter: "blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place."
Peter: "I find it amazing that I should have to explain why a blanket
generalization is offensive"

So here is a blanket generalization: Spring flowers are pretty.
Can you actually support your statement that blanket generalizations (which you
carefully identified as a separate type of generalization) is offensive without
"finding it amazing" that you might actually be asked to explain your reasoning?



More generally, it has been plainly clear throughout this thread that the
kinds of generalizations at question here are the insulting sort that Jay
used.

Perhaps, but you said "generalizations are so offensive." Perhaps you meant to
say that "insulting ___ are offensive?" If that's the case, then the offensive
item is the insult, not the generalization as you stated above.


There is no reason to discuss any other kind of generalization, nor
should it be necessary for a person to qualify the kind of generalization
each and every time a generalization is mentioned.

It would certainly help you from making more of your false generalizations about
generalizations.



I can think of only two reasons for you to fail to understand this. Either
you are simply intellectually incapable of understanding it, or you are
intentionally being obtuse just for the sake of your own argument. In
either case, there's really not much point in wasting time explaining it to
you.

You keep falsely accusing me of not understanding something, yet you have been
unable to justify what you said. You said that generalizations are offensive.
You said blanket generalizations are so offensive. When I provide evidence to
the contrary, your response is to create another fallacy.
You are good at providing examples of fallacies though such as calling me
idiotic (Poisoning the Well fallacy), complex questions, begging the question,
and now the false dichotomy above.



[...]
If it makes you happy, you can have whatever in your mind that you please.
But you did claim that "you are the one who could not understand how
generalizations are offensive."

I did not "claim" that. I simply reiterated your own post.

I don't believe something is offensive just because it is a generalization. You
stated that generalizations are "so offensive." Again, that statement is not
always true.



You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
archived it.

I wrote what words, Pete?

From this post:


There are lots of words in the post, which ones are you discussing? If you take
the time to read what you cite, you will learn that I stated no such thing that
you claim, to wit that I "admitted" not understanding some concept....





"You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
so?"

When you ask why something is true, you are admitting that you do not know
yourself why it is true.

Absolutely not true, and another false dichotomy fallacy. I was admitting no
such thing, additionally your premise is false. I was asking you to explain
yourself. Instead of doing so, you prefer to claim I am "admitting" some of
your nonsense.

And as I said, if you do not comprehend this
fundamental aspect of common social respect, you are incapable of
understanding the more specific applications of the question. It would be
like trying to explain calculus to someone that doesn't know how to add.

I comprehend just fine, Peter. I am not the one who thinks blanket
generalizations need be offensive. Furthermore, I don't resort to just blindly
claiming that somebody said something which they clearly did not say or
manufacturer fallacies. .