Leaving the community

I have been trying to have a discussion with you, and you have been trying
to prove that you are an asshole. You have succeeded.

Goodbye...


"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...

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.

Not likely, but a clever technique to use to turn the gist of a story,,,
almost believed you! Good try, though!

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

You've NEVER been to the city for any appreciable time then or you would
know the demographics of our area - pretty racially mixed - check it out
on
the U.S. census site.


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.

Nope,,, less than 11 years ago, she was working on a Masters degree.



And one funny: around the time that "gay" was beginning to "kick in", I
was
having a drink with a homosexual friend of mine.

YOU have a gay friend,,,,, snicker as if THAT would be very likely!


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

You just had said, to leave our nine year old in the castro - your
presumption was that someone there would take advantage of him and that,
as
far as I understand, would qualify as child molestation.


Research indicated that the molestation itself does not lead to
any mental health problems for the children.

Yep, right up there on the 'good ol' boy' list, that women really 'enjoy'
being raped. just shaking my head at you
You're either just plain hopeless or you are a troll,,,, I give up on you

bye bye....

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:39:43 GMT, "Cecil Chapman"
wrote:

The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to call,
in times of threat.
and
The average citizen has NO need to have . . .
an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
that.

--

Our forefathers believed that the People had natural and unalienable
rights. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. How's that for some
rights? But just so there was no misunderstanding, they specified &
enumerated certain critical rights.
There is a reason the 2nd Amendment wasn't the 4th or the 7th or 10th
- it's importance to the Founding Fathers was second in importance to
the freedom to speak!
That is because they had just removed an exisitng government, by
bloody revolution, that had become the enemy of the People. The
average American today seems to not understand how they were thinking,
or what was their sacrifice, but it is evident in the writings of
those times.
No matter how you choose to interpret or twist the wording to fit your
agenda, they intended for the People to be armed so that they could
again remove ANY government if or when it became an enemy of the
People.
You can say that it is now impossible for the citizens of the US to
ovethrow the government by force, and you are entirely right. Our only
hope in the face of mass disobedience, would be that the military
would refuse to fire upon and kill it's own citizens, and would turn
upon those who ordered them to do so. That is not something to be
proud of in my opinion. Slowly but surely over 200 years, we have
given up the right & duty to preserve the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights.
Just say what you really mean, that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
That the government is able to take care of us all, and there IS NO
NEED FOR citizens to own firearms any longer, except as a token
freedom. After all, the 4th Amendent appears to be obsolete, since the
US Border Patrol feels it's perfectly OK to set up roadblocks and
checkpoints to stop, detain and search US citizens without probable
cause, dozens of miles from any border, every day, at least here in
California.
Remember however, that in many communities in this country it would be
easy to get voters to approve a ban on flying by private citizens.
There is NO NEED for private citizens to be flying those dangerous
things. It's best left to the airlines and the military!

The word "regulated" was used at the time of the writing of the Bill of
Rights to mean "trained".

The militia was all the male citizens.

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:


He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged
to
three
shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?
He
prattles
about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban
semi-automatics,
knowing
full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.

I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
that
includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
ban
that,
and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.


Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
sort of thing?

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your paranoid
thoughts.


And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs in
my reasons for owning firearms.

Time and again we see that people with firearms have saved lives and stopped
more criminals from hurting innocent people. Unfortunately the media in the
US chooses to ignore those parts of the reports. For example, if there had
been an armed teacher in the Columbine school or a person on the train with
Colin Ferguson who knew something about handguns then there would be fewer
dead innocents. Unfortunately idiot 'liberals' (a contradition of the use
of the term, as libere means freedom) choose to disarm the law abiding
public, ensuring that ciminals have an easy time of it.

Get better soon!

And to you, I say, "Wake up soon."


--
--
=-----
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 -
"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
The word "regulated" was used at the time of the writing of the Bill of
Rights to mean "trained".

The militia was all the male citizens.

At the time it meant "efficient" and/or "accurate"

It derived from "regular", as in regularity...as in frequent bowel
movements...


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
paranoid
thoughts.


And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs
in
my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html

1. Neurosis
The definition of neurosis in this system is taken from Pavlov: it is the
stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more responses.

Neurosis will be better understood if we examine its probable origin. Then
two primal neuroses have been defined: the Fundamental Human Neurosis and
the Fundamental Female Neurosis.

The Fundamental Human Neurosis derives from the knowledge of impending
death. Every organism strives to survive: even a humble fly avoids death
because any creature which does not partake in "the eternal struggle for
life" fails to pass on its genes, loses its competition with others and its
characters disappear forever from the gene pool. Thus any creature which
does not so partake has long become extinct. Similarly, humans do not
generally contemplate death with happy expectation. This conflict, that we
do not wish to die, while at the same time being conscious of its
inevitability, is the Fundamental Human Neurosis. It accounts for the
evolution of religion, which resolves it.

The origin of the Fundamental Female Neurosis is (predictably, since females
are much more sexual than males) sex. The female, at least occasionally,
wants sex, yet her basic evolution strategy relies on raising its value.
(Recall that in this system sex is any non-monetary activity: any
non-business relationship is sex, and 'sex,' 'physical sex' and
'relationships' are all equivalent since their only ultimate purpose is
procreation.) Physical sex is the only amenity which females can provide
which males cannot: hence all female procedures reduce to raising the value,
i.e. the costs, of sex. Even though the female may desire sex, she denies it
to the male to make it into a scarce resource. Thus its value is raised and
her status increases.





2a. Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox
psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own
unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called
Freudian Projection.

a.. "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other
people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is
especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own
impulses and traits."


b.. "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or
emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels
subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not
acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect
others of being homosexual."


c.. "Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies,
e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."


d.. "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having
himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The
would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."


e.. "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An
individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may
then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."


f.. "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We
project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for
having thoughts that we really have."
2b. (General) Projection
Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly -
according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to be
undesirable or unconscious. Projection is probably inherent in social
animals and the single most important psychological mechanism. The following
are given as examples:

1.. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until
informed that B is colour-blind;


2.. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his
truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;


3.. ‘It takes one to know one’;


4.. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals
his fear and alerts others;


5.. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but
who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself
that his opponent feels and would act the same way.
Each of these examples involves an assumption that others exhibit an own
trait, but various "defence mechanisms" exist. Counter-strategies for Case 2
include (a) being conscious of a tendency to project and compensating with
increased scepticism, testing scientifically, and (b) lying as much as
everyone else. Case 3 could occur if an individual is honest about own
characteristics and inhibits his tendency to project, in which case he may
accurately recognize his own traits in another without error. Case 4 is an
interesting scenario left open for discussion.

In Case 5, offensive acts may occur when the projector (which may be an
individual or a group), erroneously believing that their adversary is about
to likewise, pre-empts the opponent - making the player of this so-called
defence mechanism into a protagonist. This illustrates just one of several
problems with the orthodox notion of projection. I hope to have demonstrated
that the conventional definition of projection, here dubbed Freudian
Projection, merely describes a specific instance of a more general, and
important, human mechanism. Projection, combined with features such as
denial of latent desires, accounts for a great deal of human behaviour and
attitudes.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
paranoid
thoughts.


And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs
in
my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html



WTF is this all about?
or as the canadans say, "aboot?"




1. Neurosis
The definition of neurosis in this system is taken from Pavlov: it is the
stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more responses.

Neurosis will be better understood if we examine its probable origin. Then
two primal neuroses have been defined: the Fundamental Human Neurosis and
the Fundamental Female Neurosis.

The Fundamental Human Neurosis derives from the knowledge of impending
death. Every organism strives to survive: even a humble fly avoids death
because any creature which does not partake in "the eternal struggle for
life" fails to pass on its genes, loses its competition with others and
its
characters disappear forever from the gene pool. Thus any creature which
does not so partake has long become extinct. Similarly, humans do not
generally contemplate death with happy expectation. This conflict, that we
do not wish to die, while at the same time being conscious of its
inevitability, is the Fundamental Human Neurosis. It accounts for the
evolution of religion, which resolves it.

The origin of the Fundamental Female Neurosis is (predictably, since
females
are much more sexual than males) sex. The female, at least occasionally,
wants sex, yet her basic evolution strategy relies on raising its value.
(Recall that in this system sex is any non-monetary activity: any
non-business relationship is sex, and 'sex,' 'physical sex' and
'relationships' are all equivalent since their only ultimate purpose is
procreation.) Physical sex is the only amenity which females can provide
which males cannot: hence all female procedures reduce to raising the
value,
i.e. the costs, of sex. Even though the female may desire sex, she denies
it
to the male to make it into a scarce resource. Thus its value is raised
and
her status increases.





2a. Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox
psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own
unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called
Freudian Projection.

a.. "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other
people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is
especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own
impulses and traits."


b.. "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or
emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels
subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not
acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to
suspect
others of being homosexual."


c.. "Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies,
e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."


d.. "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having
himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The
would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."


e.. "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An
individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies
may
then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."


f.. "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We
project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for
having thoughts that we really have."
2b. (General) Projection
Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly -
according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to
be
undesirable or unconscious. Projection is probably inherent in social
animals and the single most important psychological mechanism. The
following
are given as examples:

1.. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until
informed that B is colour-blind;


2.. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his
truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;


3.. 'It takes one to know one';


4.. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals
his fear and alerts others;


5.. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but
who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself
that his opponent feels and would act the same way.
Each of these examples involves an assumption that others exhibit an own
trait, but various "defence mechanisms" exist. Counter-strategies for Case
2
include (a) being conscious of a tendency to project and compensating with
increased scepticism, testing scientifically, and (b) lying as much as
everyone else. Case 3 could occur if an individual is honest about own
characteristics and inhibits his tendency to project, in which case he may
accurately recognize his own traits in another without error. Case 4 is an
interesting scenario left open for discussion.

In Case 5, offensive acts may occur when the projector (which may be an
individual or a group), erroneously believing that their adversary is
about
to likewise, pre-empts the opponent - making the player of this so-called
defence mechanism into a protagonist. This illustrates just one of several
problems with the orthodox notion of projection. I hope to have
demonstrated
that the conventional definition of projection, here dubbed Freudian
Projection, merely describes a specific instance of a more general, and
important, human mechanism. Projection, combined with features such as
denial of latent desires, accounts for a great deal of human behaviour and
attitudes.

Or as in a well regulated clock, meaning operating well and efficiently.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

The word "regulated" was used at the time of the writing of the Bill of
Rights to mean "trained".

The militia was all the male citizens.


At the time it meant "efficient" and/or "accurate"

It derived from "regular", as in regularity...as in frequent bowel
movements...


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 01:48:42 GMT, Jose
wrote:

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


Ahhhh... How about setting your line wrap to about 70 characters?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody. I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. :-)) They are definitely
going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
rich society.



Roger (some of my best friends are religious) Halstead (K8RI & ARRL
life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com