Leaving the community

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:07:42 GMT, "Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com
wrote:

If a person really wants to kill me then that is criminal.


true.
and if he has no weapon at hand he/she first has to buy/steal one.

If a neighbor of
mine has "riffles" I should certainly think he has been drinking. I feel
safe (not save) knowing that the US has the military ability to thwart any
aggressor, sure.

it is ok for me that a country operates a military that is able to defend
itself from _agressors_.

The US and USSR played out a classic arms race. When one has to deal with
evil governments then one has to have a deterrant. Nukes were that
deterrant for both sides. (They of course felt we were evil, and I hope I
don't have to explain whose side was right)

it is always a matter of your viewpoint :-) oly winning the arms race
doesn't make you the one with the white hat automatically.

#m
--
Buck Fush!

Matt Whiting writes:
Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?

One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election. As a
pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant systems. The
exit poll data can give you an indication of a problem in the
electoral polling process.

If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it is
probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and the exit
poll to figure out the source of error...

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

My comments in text...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
. com...
I used to have a girlfriend

I'll bet you did,,, and then she realized you were a racist and off she
went - there's not much tolerance out here for mindless intolerance

I guess "off she went" is appropriate. She slid off a road and hit the end
of a concrete bridge. Yea, she left me, and a lot of other people who loved
her.

Asshole.



actually saw a black person was when
she went to Oakland. I'm afraid you may be a victim of that same
syndrome.

Not so,,, our former mayor (who kept getting reelected until he ran
against
term limits - he was one of our finest mayors and did great things for our
city) of San Francisco, was definitely quite black! Also, you've
obviously
never been in San Francisco for any appreciable length of time,,, I grew
up
here.

And Willie Brown dropped by your house how often? Just because you had a
black mayor doesn't mean you actually saw a black person. Or that your
conversation went beyond: "I'll have a Big Mac".

And what I wrote was not intended to be a literal statement. Good writers
can write that; good readers can recognize it.




One of my wife's coworkers related a story where she was attending a
college
in the South and was amazed to see on the public bulletin board notices
regarding KKK meetings. Being from L.A. and Northern California, she
developed friendships with the blacks on campus. Then one day, she
invited
two of her black girlfriends over to her dorm room. Her roommate wouldn't
say a word but would just glare at her guests. After her guests excused
themselves (clearly made uncomfortable by her roommate), her roommate went
on and told her "Don't you EVER bring one of THEM in this room".

My wife's friend finished the last few months of her semester and
transferred, elsewhere.

I didn't say there were NO racists in the South. I said that the South is
probably less racist than the rest of the nation.

And you didn't mention when your wife's coworker attended college. If it was
1955 I wouldn't find it surprising. But the next door neighbor of one of my
third cousin's best friends said it didn't happen anyway.




Have you not read anything lately? That stupid catch-phrase came out in
the
60's, when queers first started to come above ground as part of the queer
rights movement. It was bogus then and it is bogus now.

Wow,,, the 'Q' word rolls off of your tongue as the 'N' word, I'd guess.
What are you so afraid of? jeesh

I was around when the movement started; the term "gay" was not yet in wide
use. It was known as "Queer Rights". And "queer" and "******" are used
within their respective groups; if you are accepted by those groups you are
allowed to use the terms, also. So, sometimes in the early evening I'll come
out of my building and see four or five of my gay neighbors waiting for
cabs, and I'll say something like: "What's this? Queers night out?" And they
will usually respond with something like how much fun I'd have if I weren't
such a breeder.

And one funny: around the time that "gay" was beginning to "kick in", I was
having a drink with a homosexual friend of mine. I happened to use the term
"gay" and my friend just totally went off: "Gay? Gay? What the hell do you
mean by Gay? I'm not Gay, I'm a depressed queer!"





At this point, we don't know how many people are "born gay" and how many
adopt a gay lifestyle for whatever reason, including an inability to cope
with their straight sexuality.

I assume you like women, right? Just today,,,, without acting on it,,, I
want you to think about relating sexually with other males ------ WHAT ?
You can't do it? Sure ya can,,, it's a flexible 'choice' according to
you.
shaking my head

If you weren't so afraid of 'catching' being gay and actually spoke with
regular gay citizens, you would find that they are as hard-wired into
their
sexuality as you are (presumably) to women. I just don't get your 'fear'.

I resolved whatever sexuality issues I might have had a long time ago. And I
have spent enough time with homosexuals to have caught "being gay" a long
time ago if such a thing were possible. And actually, becoming a lesbian has
always seemed like an attractive prospect.




Showing the "gay lifestyle" as an attractive choice is probably not a
good
idea for a pubescent child who is wrestling
with their own sexuality.

It's not being presented as an attractive or unattractive. Rather it is
being presented as yet another variation of human interaction and just as
valid as a relationship. Realistically, since there are people like you
in
the world, why would anyone 'choose' (your word, not mine) to be gay - you
are made fun of, pointed at, called cruel names and in some parts of our
country killed by 'joe-bobs'. No one would CHOOSE to be gay, with all the
prejudice out there. They simply 'are' what they are. Just like you and I
can't 'help' our orientation.

"Will & Grace", "Ellen", "Elton John", "Ru Paul", "If These Walls Could
Talk" and many other entertainment personalities and programs portray a
"fun" side to homosexuality. I don't watch network TV but if I did I'm sure
I would find many more. And I'm sure you think these shows just happened to
show up on the networks when they did.




Since you find no perils in associating with gays, why don't you start
dropping your own child off in the Castro on Saturday afternoons. I'm
sure
some of the boys over there will be happy to teach him a lot of fun
things.

We bring him into the Castro, often, during celebrations and events. We
would no more leave our nine year old on the street corner in the Castro
anymore than we would leave him alone in any other part of town, by
himself.
Though we HAVE left him (without second thought) in the company of Gay &
Lesbian friends without a concern, because we knew the persons he was
with,
were fine people. I also want to point out that (with the exception of
Catholic Priests) the majority of child molesters of boys AND girls are
straight men married to women in heterosexual relationships.

Child molesters were not part of my discussion, as that has nothing to do
with homosexuality.




With regard to priests, always remember this: it's cheaper to pay than to
fight, and you don't get near as much publicity. And you will notice that
a
lot of these so-called "victims" suffer from a lot of mental problems.

REALLY????, they suffer from mental problems after having been sexually
assaulted as a child by a man they have been taught to trust - MY
GOODNESS,,,, what IS wrong with them jeesh .... (just shaking my head
at
your paragraph)

You wouldn't be shaking your head if you had actually done some research on
the subject. Research indicated that the molestation itself does not lead to
any mental health problems for the children. A child who is well-balanced
and stable prior to being molested will be well-balanced and stable after
being molested. Mental health issues develop when the parents and/or
caregivers overreact. In the case of children molested by priests, the
events are kept secret, so there is no overreaction and mental health issues
do not develop, in most cases. So a lot of these kids COME INTO the
molestation situation with a lot of mental health issues. Absent or abusive
fathers, incest and many other factors can lead to mental health issues and
drive a child to seek a male role model; and a priest makes a good prospect.

And you will notice that a disproportionate number of the kids molested by
priests are homosexual as teens and adults. A lot of these children are not
old enough to have a fully-developed concept of sexual orientation. Having a
man engage in sexual activity with them does not trigger the same emotional
reactions that would be triggered in an adult. To the child, it is just
something that feels good. So a MAN = PLEASURE dynamic develops, which the
child carries on into adulthood. Still want to tell me it's not catching?




--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
Matt Whiting writes:

Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?


One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election. As a
pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant systems. The
exit poll data can give you an indication of a problem in the
electoral polling process.

If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it is
probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and the exit
poll to figure out the source of error...

Chris


I disagree with this. Exit polls are not taken by every person that
votes. I don't participate in them for instance. They only exist so
that the media has something to report throughout the day instead of
just reminding everyone when the polls close and watching the clock in
anticipation. I for one believe the media should keeps its mouth shut
and not even talk about the election other than reminding everyone it is
election day until states are finalized.

Brooks Hagenow writes:

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
Matt Whiting writes:
Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?

One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election.
As a pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant
systems. The exit poll data can give you an indication of a
problem in the electoral polling process.

If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it
is probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and
the exit poll to figure out the source of error...

I disagree with this. Exit polls are not taken by every person that
votes. I don't participate in them for instance.

I'm confused -- what are you disagreeing with? Are you arguing that
any source of inaccuracy (no matter how small) in the polls
invalidates their usefulness as an indicator? Why?

If you can estimate or measure the potential error from people
refusing to participate then you can adjust your error bounds on the
polling data.

For example, lets say that the exit polls at my local firehouse showed
that 90% of folks voted for Joe the garbageman, and only 10% voted for
Bob the fireman for our new position of block captain. If the
election results showed that Bob the fireman won by a landslide, I
would want to know why! It may be a problem in the polls, but perhaps
something fishy was going on at the firehouse... Are you arguing that
when it looks like there may be a problem it is better to look the
other way?

They only exist so that the media has something to report throughout
the day instead of just reminding everyone when the polls close and
watching the clock in anticipation. I for one believe the media
should keeps its mouth shut and not even talk about the election
other than reminding everyone it is election day until states are
finalized.

I strongly agree that the media should not report any election results
(from polls or otherwise) until the election is complete. It is not
fair to the candidates if their reporting influences people's voting
decision.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:

Matt Whiting writes:

Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?


One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election. As a
pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant systems. The
exit poll data can give you an indication of a problem in the
electoral polling process.

If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it is
probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and the exit
poll to figure out the source of error...

I absolutely believe in redundant systems, but only if each system is
itself reliable. Exit polls simply aren't reliable enough for me to
consider them a redundant system.


Matt

In article ,
Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:

If you can estimate or measure the potential error from people
refusing to participate then you can adjust your error bounds on the
polling data.

and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
deliberately lying to the poll)?

--
Bob Noel

and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
deliberately lying to the poll)?

Yes.

You cannot "bound" the error in an absolute sense, except to say that it's no bigger than the total population, which is useless. However, if a poll is done right, you can estimate the likely error. For example, "95% of the time, the error will be
less than 1%. 98% of the time, the error will be less than 5%" (I'm making these numbers up since they depend on how well the poll is conducted, and how big the sample size is, etc). This is where the standard deviation of the mean comes in as an
estimate of how good your measurement is.

Of course it cannot be used as a "backup" to voting. However, it can (and should) be used as a screening to indicate whether this particular situation warrents closer investigation. IF the actual voting disagrees with the exit poll by enough
(depending on how the poll is conducted), then there is a good chance (though not a certanty) that there is funny business going on somewhere. It could be that the poll is incorrectly reflecting the actual intended (by the voters) results. However,
it could also be that the election incorrectly reports the voters' choices.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 11/6/04 10:35 PM, in article
, "Cecil Chapman"
wrote:

Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
in
order to further their agenda, I speak up.


But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. jeesh "paranoia WILL
destroy ya" grin. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!

I wasn't really accusing *you* of having an agenda. You did not try to
change the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment. But you were defending
the position of the poster that was doing so. Argue the 2nd Amendment all
you wish. I merely stand as a watchdog to the original intent.


Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
is
a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.

I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed"

I have issues just as you do with the Patriot Act. But that isn't the issue
under discussion.

As for your question, rationally yes, I do believe that is one of the
reasons. They stated as much in the Declaration of Independence: "When in
the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another..."
They were able to recognize that governments, even the one that they had
just created, might take a horrible change for the worse, and then: "...it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness."

They were not so foolish that they did not realize that abolishing and
instituting a new government would involve at least a few exchanges of
gunfire.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message


they haven't had such a thing for how long? 3000 years? and now you
truly believe that they want one? and you believe that they more
likely want one if it is shoved up their asses?

They'll institute the government of their choice. See, that's the
difference between what we intend versus what you perceive. Would it be
preferrable that a government is elected that is our new best friend in the
Middle East? Sure. Is that likely to happen? Only time will tell.

If they *choose* to elect another dictator, at least we can walk away saying
"we gave them their choice".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________