Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #154844 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-07 10:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 321 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-07 10:48 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-07 23:49 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-07 22:38 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-12-08 10:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2015-12-08 17:57 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-08 10:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 14:18 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-08 16:58 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 23:10 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-09 07:15 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 14:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-08 12:02 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-12-09 01:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-12-09 11:18 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-09 08:47 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:17 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-09 16:53 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-09 17:22 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-12-09 17:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-09 18:21 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-10 04:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:06 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-09 12:20 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 19:32 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-09 21:53 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-10 23:03 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-11 22:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:17 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-09 20:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-09 18:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-09 11:04 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-09 16:06 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-10 10:36 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-10 07:53 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-10 16:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-10 19:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:58 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-11 01:04 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-11 15:18 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-11 15:21 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-09 17:47 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-09 22:17 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Ranger" <r5432@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 17:20 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-11 08:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-10 01:41 -0400
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-10 10:44 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:51 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-10 16:45 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:26 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-11 14:29 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-11 15:31 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 08:11 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-12 16:58 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-12 11:32 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-13 15:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 10:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 16:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 17:12 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 20:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 06:13 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 10:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 09:58 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-04 21:16 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:16 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:51 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:20 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 06:48 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 10:17 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:29 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 09:51 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 19:04 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:30 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:24 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:30 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 05:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:19 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:22 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:38 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:35 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-06 07:49 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:26 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:36 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:00 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-01-07 23:56 -0400
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-08 07:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:32 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 20:42 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-08 11:03 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:14 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:48 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:50 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 10:49 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 12:51 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:40 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 11:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:56 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 19:01 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 09:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:12 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:38 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:35 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 02:00 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-09 11:48 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 20:45 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:37 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-05 14:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:46 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:17 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 20:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-05 12:50 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:02 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-06 15:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-06 10:53 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-07 14:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:58 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-08 14:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:03 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-08 14:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 09:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:14 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:56 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-07 20:22 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:19 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:42 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 10:45 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 05:29 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:39 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:18 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:28 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 13:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-07 14:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 20:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 08:16 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:57 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 15:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:14 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 19:59 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 08:28 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:33 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 09:56 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-07 08:25 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 08:06 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-07 08:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:24 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 16:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 22:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-06 15:04 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:22 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:29 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:10 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:29 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 19:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 20:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 20:12 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 20:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:28 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 18:00 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:10 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:49 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:51 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:36 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 13:24 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 13:52 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 16:22 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:51 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:31 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:44 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:13 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:16 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 15:59 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 08:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:09 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:09 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 09:49 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 18:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:47 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-06 11:01 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:06 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-07 20:46 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:49 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 05:48 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 06:21 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 13:21 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 13:05 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:15 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 05:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:57 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:42 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 16:01 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 13:05 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-07 03:42 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 07:45 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 08:30 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:55 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 17:01 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:52 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-11 12:34 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 10:22 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 16:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 23:01 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:14 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 23:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:57 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:14 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 12:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:39 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:32 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 11:33 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 06:11 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:28 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:57 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:12 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 18:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:59 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:58 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 18:04 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 23:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:59 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:45 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 04:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 08:05 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:38 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 16:09 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 18:10 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 11:21 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 20:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 21:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-04 21:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:24 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:44 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:21 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:32 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 04:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-04 15:03 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:34 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 16:53 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-04 18:12 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 21:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:35 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:43 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 11:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 13:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 16:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 17:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 07:02 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 13:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 09:17 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:42 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:53 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 21:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-08 21:25 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500
Page 14 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 Next page →
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 11:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6m7cp$6vs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156185 |
On 1/6/2016 10:32 PM, 879 wrote: > > > "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message > news:n6hfog$cl2$1@dont-email.me... >> On 1/5/2016 12:50 PM, Roger Blake wrote: >> >>> People who are intelligent and motivated rarely >>> stay poor for very long. >> >> Half the population is below average. > > But you don’t have to be intelligent to get a job. Didn't say anything about getting a job. Having a job doesn't mean you won't stay poor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 06:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df7rj5F6hs2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156210 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message news:n6m7cp$6vs$1@dont-email.me... > On 1/6/2016 10:32 PM, 879 wrote: >> >> >> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message >> news:n6hfog$cl2$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 1/5/2016 12:50 PM, Roger Blake wrote: >>> >>>> People who are intelligent and motivated rarely >>>> stay poor for very long. >>> >>> Half the population is below average. >> >> But you don’t have to be intelligent to get a job. > > Didn't say anything about getting a job. That is the main way of stopping being poor. Having a job doesn't mean you > won't stay poor. Usually does tho, particularly if it's a decent job that plenty of the unintelligent can do like meter reading, lawn mowing, caring for pets and children, driving trucks, buses, trains etc etc etc. So much so that those with quite low IQs do well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 13:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <df7sioF6qhkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156219 |
"879" wrote: > "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message > news:n6m7cp$6vs$1@dont-email.me... >> On 1/6/2016 10:32 PM, 879 wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message >>> news:n6hfog$cl2$1@dont-email.me... >>>> On 1/5/2016 12:50 PM, Roger Blake wrote: >>>> >>>>> People who are intelligent and motivated rarely >>>>> stay poor for very long. >>>> >>>> Half the population is below average. >>> >>> But you don’t have to be intelligent to get a job. >> >> Didn't say anything about getting a job. > > That is the main way of stopping being poor. > > Having a job doesn't mean you >> won't stay poor. > > Usually does tho, particularly if it's a decent job that > plenty of the unintelligent can do like meter reading, > lawn mowing, caring for pets and children, driving > trucks, buses, trains etc etc etc. So much so that > those with quite low IQs do well. My water meter was replaced 3 or 4 years ago. The new one transmits a reading to car driving down the street. Google is working on replacing the driver of the car. My Burger King has hired a low IQ woman to clean the table and seats. She is very energetic about it and means well. But I have been having trouble convincing her that the rag she uses shouldn't be so darn wet when she wipes down the seats.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 15:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df8sajFe8a3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156221 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:df7sioF6qhkU1@mid.individual.net... > "879" wrote: > >> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message >> news:n6m7cp$6vs$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 1/6/2016 10:32 PM, 879 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:n6hfog$cl2$1@dont-email.me... >>>>> On 1/5/2016 12:50 PM, Roger Blake wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> People who are intelligent and motivated rarely >>>>>> stay poor for very long. >>>>> >>>>> Half the population is below average. >>>> >>>> But you don’t have to be intelligent to get a job. >>> >>> Didn't say anything about getting a job. >> >> That is the main way of stopping being poor. >> >> Having a job doesn't mean you >>> won't stay poor. >> >> Usually does tho, particularly if it's a decent job that >> plenty of the unintelligent can do like meter reading, >> lawn mowing, caring for pets and children, driving >> trucks, buses, trains etc etc etc. So much so that >> those with quite low IQs do well. > > My water meter was replaced 3 or 4 years ago. The new one transmits a > reading to car driving down the street. Google is working on replacing > the driver of the car. Sure, and plenty of others like electricity and gas meters don’t even need anyone to drive past, they use the cellphone system to read the meters with no one driving anywhere. > My Burger King has hired a low IQ woman to clean the table and seats. She > is very energetic about it and means well. But I have been having trouble > convincing her that the rag she uses shouldn't be so darn wet when she > wipes down the seats. Sure, there will always be some downsides like that with the sort of low IQ employees who are prepared to do that sort of work for their entire working lives. Plenty are quite capable of doing a decent job of the quick turnaround of aircraft and doing hotel rooms etc tho and that sort of stuff isnt going to automated any time soon. We toyed with automats for food service for a while but ended up with a better system seen in fast food places instead, and with plenty of the less efficient stuff in restaurants etc too. We haven't been able to produce a decent robot that can shear sheep, let alone wipe little kid's and geriatric arses or even feed either of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 17:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f6146e68cf6956989d9c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155986 |
In article <20160105134231@news.eternal-september.org>, rogblake@iname.invalid says... > > On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, > > and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. > > Ah, so you are not willing to help people yourself, you expect someone > else to do it. (Heck, you can't be expected to be your brother's keeper, > right? No flies on you!)) I have no problem with helping people myself, however losing my job in order to drive someone else around just means that both of us are out of work. > > You are an example > > of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody who's barely > > hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. > > What a load of crap. People who are intelligent and motivated rarely > stay poor for very long. And how about people who are motivated but not intelligent. > There are plenty of ways to make a buck for > someone who is willing to go out and do so. Name three that are available to someone who is functionally illiterate and has no transportation. You typify the sort of people who simply cannot understand the issue because you think that everybody else has had your advantages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 17:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87r3hvpqnm.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #156026 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > In article <20160105134231@news.eternal-september.org>, > rogblake@iname.invalid says... >> > I have no problem with helping people myself, however losing my job in > order to drive someone else around just means that both of us are out of > work. I suspect nobody expects YOU to drive the bus -- but instead, next time there is a bond issue to buy busses, try voting "Yes". What is *most* frustrating to me -- many of the problems of today could be seriously mitigated (or even solved outright) with technology at hand. The only thing stopping us from substantially eliminating homelessness ( just one example of the fruits of poverty ) is this perverse need by citizens to see people punished for their bad decisions or bad luck. > You typify the sort of people who simply cannot understand the issue > because you think that everybody else has had your advantages. There it is -- that's the answer I was looking for before. The underlying belief that if YOU aren't as successful as I am, it is because you lack moral fiber. Not because you're stupid, or weak, or were born to parents who didn't nurture you, or were born into the wrong color or gender. People who were born into privilege (and I include myself in that group) do not *know* that we were born into privilege -- we were just born into the situation we were born into. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 18:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f621da6579aed1989d9e@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156030 |
In article <87r3hvpqnm.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so- tickle-me>, lawrence@senguio.mx says... > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > > > In article <20160105134231@news.eternal-september.org>, > > rogblake@iname.invalid says... > >> > > I have no problem with helping people myself, however losing my job in > > order to drive someone else around just means that both of us are out of > > work. > > I suspect nobody expects YOU to drive the bus -- but instead, next time > there is a bond issue to buy busses, try voting "Yes". I have the impression that that's exactly what he intended--not the bus but drive the guy around in my car. Note that many people working in social services do exactly that for a very low wage, but not to get people to and from work. > What is *most* frustrating to me -- many of the problems of today could > be seriously mitigated (or even solved outright) with technology at > hand. The only thing stopping us from substantially eliminating > homelessness ( just one example of the fruits of poverty ) is this > perverse need by citizens to see people punished for their bad decisions > or bad luck. Homelessness in the US is a separate issue--many of the hard-core homeless are mentally ill and resist efforts to assist them. If they run away and hide from people who are trying to provide them shelter there's not really much that can be done about it. There wes a time when many people who are now homeless would have been involuntarily institutionalized, however in 1975 the Supreme Court ruled that a person could not be involuntarily institutionalized unless he was danger to himself or others. This has since been expanded in such a manner that a person who prefers to subsist on what he pulls out of trash cans and sleep on a heating grate is not considered by the courts to be such a danger. The ruling was to some extent a result of the Rosenhan experiment in 1973 which showed that at that time psychiatrists could not reliably determine whether any given individual was or was not mentally ill. > > You typify the sort of people who simply cannot understand the issue > > because you think that everybody else has had your advantages. > > There it is -- that's the answer I was looking for before. The > underlying belief that if YOU aren't as successful as I am, it is > because you lack moral fiber. Not because you're stupid, or weak, or > were born to parents who didn't nurture you, or were born into the wrong > color or gender. > > People who were born into privilege (and I include myself in that group) > do not *know* that we were born into privilege -- we were just born into > the situation we were born into. And every once in a while it comes as a shock to one of us to find that that privilege can go away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 07:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <230dcc47-13c5-49f8-afe8-ed8edfa69a3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156033 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:49:10 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > There wes a time when many people who are now homeless would have been > involuntarily institutionalized, however in 1975 the Supreme Court ruled > that a person could not be involuntarily institutionalized unless he was > danger to himself or others. This has since been expanded in such a > manner that a person who prefers to subsist on what he pulls out of > trash cans and sleep on a heating grate is not considered by the courts > to be such a danger. This was, mostly, a very bad decision. Far too many people are left to die on the streets instead of being cared for. (but, see below). One problem was that care in state mental institutions was horrible. But they 'threw out the baby with the bath water' when they closed the facilities down. Unfortunately, there are people who truly need to be confined for their own safety. > The ruling was to some extent a result of the Rosenhan experiment in > 1973 which showed that at that time psychiatrists could not reliably > determine whether any given individual was or was not mentally ill. The flip side is that definitions of "mentally ill" vary greatly. For instance, I know someone who thinks his mother is actually legally incompetent because her home is a bit messy (not real messy, just a little). Lots of people think others who fail to act or live according to their own personal code just have to be seriously mentally ill. There was abuse where competent people were shoved into institutions to avoid "embarassing" a family with the resources to hire doctors to make it happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 18:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f7742ee37c7ecc989db1@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156116 |
In article <230dcc47-13c5-49f8-afe8-ed8edfa69a3f@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:49:10 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > > There wes a time when many people who are now homeless would have been > > involuntarily institutionalized, however in 1975 the Supreme Court ruled > > that a person could not be involuntarily institutionalized unless he was > > danger to himself or others. This has since been expanded in such a > > manner that a person who prefers to subsist on what he pulls out of > > trash cans and sleep on a heating grate is not considered by the courts > > to be such a danger. > > This was, mostly, a very bad decision. Far too many people are left > to die on the streets instead of being cared for. (but, see below). > > One problem was that care in state mental institutions was horrible. > But they 'threw out the baby with the bath water' when they closed > the facilities down. Unfortunately, there are people who truly need > to be confined for their own safety. > > > > The ruling was to some extent a result of the Rosenhan experiment in > > 1973 which showed that at that time psychiatrists could not reliably > > determine whether any given individual was or was not mentally ill. > > The flip side is that definitions of "mentally ill" vary greatly. > For instance, I know someone who thinks his mother is actually > legally incompetent because her home is a bit messy (not real messy, > just a little). Lots of people think others who fail to act or live > according to their own personal code just have to be seriously > mentally ill. There was abuse where competent people were shoved > into institutions to avoid "embarassing" a family with the resources > to hire doctors to make it happen. The Rosenhan experiment was quite systematic and not at all haphazard. A group of volunteers attempted to get admitted to various mental hospitals, ranging from bottom feeders to elite institutions. In each case they reported the same symptoms--auditory illusions that sounded vaguely like several words (there was a list they used, they all used the same words), which they reported that they had stopped hearing shortly after entering the institution. They were given a variety of diagnoses, were kept in the institution for anywhere from a week to several months, and none were allowed to leave until they both admitted that they were mentally ill and agreed to take antipsychotics. There was a second part--one institution stated that they could reliably determine if someone was faking and invited Rosenhan to send his volunteers. Approximately a third of the applicants for admission subsequently were turned away as Rosenhan volunteers. He sent no volunteers to that institution. The bottom line was that the mental health profession at the time was made to look ridiculous by one of their own in a careful and systematic experiment. When, two years later, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to rule, they ruled against the mental health profession.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2091143180.473878595.483598.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156162 |
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <230dcc47-13c5-49f8-afe8-ed8edfa69a3f@googlegroups.com>, > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:49:10 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>> There wes a time when many people who are now homeless would have been >>> involuntarily institutionalized, however in 1975 the Supreme Court ruled >>> that a person could not be involuntarily institutionalized unless he was >>> danger to himself or others. This has since been expanded in such a >>> manner that a person who prefers to subsist on what he pulls out of >>> trash cans and sleep on a heating grate is not considered by the courts >>> to be such a danger. >> >> This was, mostly, a very bad decision. Far too many people are left >> to die on the streets instead of being cared for. (but, see below). >> >> One problem was that care in state mental institutions was horrible. >> But they 'threw out the baby with the bath water' when they closed >> the facilities down. Unfortunately, there are people who truly need >> to be confined for their own safety. >> >> >>> The ruling was to some extent a result of the Rosenhan experiment in >>> 1973 which showed that at that time psychiatrists could not reliably >>> determine whether any given individual was or was not mentally ill. >> >> The flip side is that definitions of "mentally ill" vary greatly. >> For instance, I know someone who thinks his mother is actually >> legally incompetent because her home is a bit messy (not real messy, >> just a little). Lots of people think others who fail to act or live >> according to their own personal code just have to be seriously >> mentally ill. There was abuse where competent people were shoved >> into institutions to avoid "embarassing" a family with the resources >> to hire doctors to make it happen. > > The Rosenhan experiment was quite systematic and not at all haphazard. > A group of volunteers attempted to get admitted to various mental > hospitals, ranging from bottom feeders to elite institutions. In each > case they reported the same symptoms--auditory illusions that sounded > vaguely like several words (there was a list they used, they all used > the same words), which they reported that they had stopped hearing > shortly after entering the institution. They were given a variety of > diagnoses, were kept in the institution for anywhere from a week to > several months, and none were allowed to leave until they both admitted > that they were mentally ill and agreed to take antipsychotics. This would be a good safety precaution. If we had some way of making sure the mentally ill stayed on medication we could eliminate a huge percentage of the problems. I's too bad they can't develop a timed-release system that could last six months or a year. It would be relative simple to keep people up to date. > > There was a second part--one institution stated that they could reliably > determine if someone was faking and invited Rosenhan to send his > volunteers. Approximately a third of the applicants for admission > subsequently were turned away as Rosenhan volunteers. He sent no > volunteers to that institution. > > The bottom line was that the mental health profession at the time was > made to look ridiculous by one of their own in a careful and systematic > experiment. When, two years later, the Supreme Court has an opportunity > to rule, they ruled against the mental health profession. > > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 18:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f8b903437caad9989db9@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156208 |
In article <2091143180.473878595.483598.peter_flass- yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... > > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <230dcc47-13c5-49f8-afe8-ed8edfa69a3f@googlegroups.com>, > > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > >> > >> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:49:10 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > >> > >>> There wes a time when many people who are now homeless would have been > >>> involuntarily institutionalized, however in 1975 the Supreme Court ruled > >>> that a person could not be involuntarily institutionalized unless he was > >>> danger to himself or others. This has since been expanded in such a > >>> manner that a person who prefers to subsist on what he pulls out of > >>> trash cans and sleep on a heating grate is not considered by the courts > >>> to be such a danger. > >> > >> This was, mostly, a very bad decision. Far too many people are left > >> to die on the streets instead of being cared for. (but, see below). > >> > >> One problem was that care in state mental institutions was horrible. > >> But they 'threw out the baby with the bath water' when they closed > >> the facilities down. Unfortunately, there are people who truly need > >> to be confined for their own safety. > >> > >> > >>> The ruling was to some extent a result of the Rosenhan experiment in > >>> 1973 which showed that at that time psychiatrists could not reliably > >>> determine whether any given individual was or was not mentally ill. > >> > >> The flip side is that definitions of "mentally ill" vary greatly. > >> For instance, I know someone who thinks his mother is actually > >> legally incompetent because her home is a bit messy (not real messy, > >> just a little). Lots of people think others who fail to act or live > >> according to their own personal code just have to be seriously > >> mentally ill. There was abuse where competent people were shoved > >> into institutions to avoid "embarassing" a family with the resources > >> to hire doctors to make it happen. > > > > The Rosenhan experiment was quite systematic and not at all haphazard. > > A group of volunteers attempted to get admitted to various mental > > hospitals, ranging from bottom feeders to elite institutions. In each > > case they reported the same symptoms--auditory illusions that sounded > > vaguely like several words (there was a list they used, they all used > > the same words), which they reported that they had stopped hearing > > shortly after entering the institution. They were given a variety of > > diagnoses, were kept in the institution for anywhere from a week to > > several months, and none were allowed to leave until they both admitted > > that they were mentally ill and agreed to take antipsychotics. > > This would be a good safety precaution. What, making healthy people take antipsychotics because the "mental health profession" can't reliably diagnose them? Understand--these were not sick people, some of them were psychiatrists themselves. > If we had some way of making sure > the mentally ill stayed on medication we could eliminate a huge percentage > of the problems. You're still missing the point. > I's too bad they can't develop a timed-release system > that could last six months or a year. It would be relative simple to keep > people up to date. > > > > > There was a second part--one institution stated that they could reliably > > determine if someone was faking and invited Rosenhan to send his > > volunteers. Approximately a third of the applicants for admission > > subsequently were turned away as Rosenhan volunteers. He sent no > > volunteers to that institution. > > > > The bottom line was that the mental health profession at the time was > > made to look ridiculous by one of their own in a careful and systematic > > experiment. When, two years later, the Supreme Court has an opportunity > > to rule, they ruled against the mental health profession. > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 06:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f96dddfa03439b989dbc@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156228 |
In article <161660161.473945296.710027.peter_flass- yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... > > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <2091143180.473878595.483598.peter_flass- > > yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... > >> > >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> In article <230dcc47-13c5-49f8-afe8-ed8edfa69a3f@googlegroups.com>, > >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > >>>> > >>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:49:10 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> There wes a time when many people who are now homeless would have been > >>>>> involuntarily institutionalized, however in 1975 the Supreme Court ruled > >>>>> that a person could not be involuntarily institutionalized unless he was > >>>>> danger to himself or others. This has since been expanded in such a > >>>>> manner that a person who prefers to subsist on what he pulls out of > >>>>> trash cans and sleep on a heating grate is not considered by the courts > >>>>> to be such a danger. > >>>> > >>>> This was, mostly, a very bad decision. Far too many people are left > >>>> to die on the streets instead of being cared for. (but, see below). > >>>> > >>>> One problem was that care in state mental institutions was horrible. > >>>> But they 'threw out the baby with the bath water' when they closed > >>>> the facilities down. Unfortunately, there are people who truly need > >>>> to be confined for their own safety. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> The ruling was to some extent a result of the Rosenhan experiment in > >>>>> 1973 which showed that at that time psychiatrists could not reliably > >>>>> determine whether any given individual was or was not mentally ill. > >>>> > >>>> The flip side is that definitions of "mentally ill" vary greatly. > >>>> For instance, I know someone who thinks his mother is actually > >>>> legally incompetent because her home is a bit messy (not real messy, > >>>> just a little). Lots of people think others who fail to act or live > >>>> according to their own personal code just have to be seriously > >>>> mentally ill. There was abuse where competent people were shoved > >>>> into institutions to avoid "embarassing" a family with the resources > >>>> to hire doctors to make it happen. > >>> > >>> The Rosenhan experiment was quite systematic and not at all haphazard. > >>> A group of volunteers attempted to get admitted to various mental > >>> hospitals, ranging from bottom feeders to elite institutions. In each > >>> case they reported the same symptoms--auditory illusions that sounded > >>> vaguely like several words (there was a list they used, they all used > >>> the same words), which they reported that they had stopped hearing > >>> shortly after entering the institution. They were given a variety of > >>> diagnoses, were kept in the institution for anywhere from a week to > >>> several months, and none were allowed to leave until they both admitted > >>> that they were mentally ill and agreed to take antipsychotics. > >> > >> This would be a good safety precaution. > > > > What, making healthy people take antipsychotics because the "mental > > health profession" can't reliably diagnose them? Understand--these were > > not sick people, some of them were psychiatrists themselves. > > > >> If we had some way of making sure > >> the mentally ill stayed on medication we could eliminate a huge percentage > >> of the problems. > > > > You're still missing the point. > > No I'm not. Better over-medicate a few people than let crazies run loose > and kill people. I think we should put anti-psychotics in the water > supplies of some middle eastern countries. I think you really should seek a position in the Assad government.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <161660161.473945296.710027.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156228 |
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <2091143180.473878595.483598.peter_flass- > yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... >> >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In article <230dcc47-13c5-49f8-afe8-ed8edfa69a3f@googlegroups.com>, >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:49:10 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: >>>> >>>>> There wes a time when many people who are now homeless would have been >>>>> involuntarily institutionalized, however in 1975 the Supreme Court ruled >>>>> that a person could not be involuntarily institutionalized unless he was >>>>> danger to himself or others. This has since been expanded in such a >>>>> manner that a person who prefers to subsist on what he pulls out of >>>>> trash cans and sleep on a heating grate is not considered by the courts >>>>> to be such a danger. >>>> >>>> This was, mostly, a very bad decision. Far too many people are left >>>> to die on the streets instead of being cared for. (but, see below). >>>> >>>> One problem was that care in state mental institutions was horrible. >>>> But they 'threw out the baby with the bath water' when they closed >>>> the facilities down. Unfortunately, there are people who truly need >>>> to be confined for their own safety. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The ruling was to some extent a result of the Rosenhan experiment in >>>>> 1973 which showed that at that time psychiatrists could not reliably >>>>> determine whether any given individual was or was not mentally ill. >>>> >>>> The flip side is that definitions of "mentally ill" vary greatly. >>>> For instance, I know someone who thinks his mother is actually >>>> legally incompetent because her home is a bit messy (not real messy, >>>> just a little). Lots of people think others who fail to act or live >>>> according to their own personal code just have to be seriously >>>> mentally ill. There was abuse where competent people were shoved >>>> into institutions to avoid "embarassing" a family with the resources >>>> to hire doctors to make it happen. >>> >>> The Rosenhan experiment was quite systematic and not at all haphazard. >>> A group of volunteers attempted to get admitted to various mental >>> hospitals, ranging from bottom feeders to elite institutions. In each >>> case they reported the same symptoms--auditory illusions that sounded >>> vaguely like several words (there was a list they used, they all used >>> the same words), which they reported that they had stopped hearing >>> shortly after entering the institution. They were given a variety of >>> diagnoses, were kept in the institution for anywhere from a week to >>> several months, and none were allowed to leave until they both admitted >>> that they were mentally ill and agreed to take antipsychotics. >> >> This would be a good safety precaution. > > What, making healthy people take antipsychotics because the "mental > health profession" can't reliably diagnose them? Understand--these were > not sick people, some of them were psychiatrists themselves. > >> If we had some way of making sure >> the mentally ill stayed on medication we could eliminate a huge percentage >> of the problems. > > You're still missing the point. No I'm not. Better over-medicate a few people than let crazies run loose and kill people. I think we should put anti-psychotics in the water supplies of some middle eastern countries. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 23:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6hl8a116al@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156030 |
On 2016-01-05, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > >> In article <20160105134231@news.eternal-september.org>, >> rogblake@iname.invalid says... >> >> I have no problem with helping people myself, however losing my job in >> order to drive someone else around just means that both of us are out of >> work. > > I suspect nobody expects YOU to drive the bus -- but instead, next time > there is a bond issue to buy busses, try voting "Yes". If they give you a vote. Our provincial government would rather spend billions of dollars building fancy roads and bridges that will bring still more vehicles into a congested city that doesn't want them, than to apply the money to transit upgrades. And even when they do decide to fund transit projects, these - like their grandiose road-building schemes - turn out to be hugely expensive yet relatively ineffective "solutions" which serve mostly as monuments to themselves. (But they're so _sexy_!) > What is *most* frustrating to me -- many of the problems of today could > be seriously mitigated (or even solved outright) with technology at > hand. The only thing stopping us from substantially eliminating > homelessness ( just one example of the fruits of poverty ) is this > perverse need by citizens to see people punished for their bad decisions > or bad luck. Yes, the stick is much more fun to apply than the carrot - even if the result is worse. Referring back to the transit vs. cars point above, the city of Vancouver has always preferred to punish people for bringing cars downtown than to make it advantageous to leave them at home. The result is that a journey that takes 30 minutes by car during off hours and 60 minutes during rush hour can easily take 90 minutes using transit at any hour of the day. The cheapest thing in the world is other people's time. >> You typify the sort of people who simply cannot understand the issue >> because you think that everybody else has had your advantages. > > There it is -- that's the answer I was looking for before. The > underlying belief that if YOU aren't as successful as I am, it is > because you lack moral fiber. Not because you're stupid, or weak, or > were born to parents who didn't nurture you, or were born into the wrong > color or gender. > > People who were born into privilege (and I include myself in that group) > do not *know* that we were born into privilege -- we were just born into > the situation we were born into. When I were a lad, reading "Gone with the Wind" was an epiphany. I think that's the first time I realized that people like Scarlett O'Hara, brought up in a life of luxury surrounded by squalor, take it for granted simply because it's the only thing they've ever known. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 15:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df69lfFojr6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156030 |
"Lawrence Statton" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message news:87r3hvpqnm.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me... > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > >> In article <20160105134231@news.eternal-september.org>, >> rogblake@iname.invalid says... >>> >> I have no problem with helping people myself, however losing my job in >> order to drive someone else around just means that both of us are out of >> work. > > I suspect nobody expects YOU to drive the bus -- but instead, next time > there is a bond issue to buy busses, try voting "Yes". > > > What is *most* frustrating to me -- many of the problems of today could > be seriously mitigated (or even solved outright) with technology at > hand. The only thing stopping us from substantially eliminating > homelessness ( just one example of the fruits of poverty ) is this > perverse need by citizens to see people punished for their bad decisions > or bad luck. Fuck all of the homeless are homeless because of that except in the sense that those who choose to spend what they get on grog or drugs or both do that because of their bad decisions, and you can certainly say that those who used to be kept in locked wards are that way because of bad luck. But neither of those groups can be eliminated by technology at hand. >> You typify the sort of people who simply cannot understand the issue >> because you think that everybody else has had your advantages. > > There it is -- that's the answer I was looking for before. > The underlying belief that if YOU aren't as successful as > I am, it is because you lack moral fiber. Nope, because you have made different choices. > Not because you're stupid, or weak, or were > born to parents who didn't nurture you, The absolute vast bulk of those of working age have jobs. > or were born into the wrong color or gender. Neither of those stops you from getting a job. > People who were born into privilege (and I include myself in that group) > do not *know* that we were born into privilege -- we were just born into > the situation we were born into. Plenty of us know people who are not in that situation who do fine anyway. In fact the only one I know personally who is actually homeless is quite literally barking mad, and can be heard quite literally barking at times. He does live quite well and can be seen buying what he needs to eat from the local supermarket just like I do. I bet he prefers that to the locked wards we used to keep them in. In fact I know he does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <714806530.473732298.047984.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156026 |
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <20160105134231@news.eternal-september.org>, > rogblake@iname.invalid says... >> >> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, >>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. >> >> Ah, so you are not willing to help people yourself, you expect someone >> else to do it. (Heck, you can't be expected to be your brother's keeper, >> right? No flies on you!)) > > I have no problem with helping people myself, however losing my job in > order to drive someone else around just means that both of us are out of > work. > >>> You are an example >>> of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody who's barely >>> hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. >> >> What a load of crap. People who are intelligent and motivated rarely >> stay poor for very long. > > And how about people who are motivated but not intelligent. > >> There are plenty of ways to make a buck for >> someone who is willing to go out and do so. > > Name three that are available to someone who is functionally illiterate > and has no transportation. > > You typify the sort of people who simply cannot understand the issue > because you think that everybody else has had your advantages. > Landscaping seems to be a growth industry that you don't need to be a genius to break into. Many people start off working for someone else to get money to buy an old truck and some tools and go off on their own. Maid/janitorial work is a good entry job. None of these are great jobs, but it is possible to move up through hard work. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 20:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f63bdbe5fb6b61989da0@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156043 |
In article <714806530.473732298.047984.peter_flass- yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... > > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <20160105134231@news.eternal-september.org>, > > rogblake@iname.invalid says... > >> > >> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, > >>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. > >> > >> Ah, so you are not willing to help people yourself, you expect someone > >> else to do it. (Heck, you can't be expected to be your brother's keeper, > >> right? No flies on you!)) > > > > I have no problem with helping people myself, however losing my job in > > order to drive someone else around just means that both of us are out of > > work. > > > >>> You are an example > >>> of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody who's barely > >>> hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. > >> > >> What a load of crap. People who are intelligent and motivated rarely > >> stay poor for very long. > > > > And how about people who are motivated but not intelligent. > > > >> There are plenty of ways to make a buck for > >> someone who is willing to go out and do so. > > > > Name three that are available to someone who is functionally illiterate > > and has no transportation. > > > > You typify the sort of people who simply cannot understand the issue > > because you think that everybody else has had your advantages. > > > > Landscaping seems to be a growth industry that you don't need to be a > genius to break into. So how do you start a landscaping business when you live in an inner city and don't have a vehicle? > Many people start off working for someone else to > get money to buy an old truck and some tools and go off on their own. They're fortunate if they find someone who will come pick them up at their home and take them home at night and pay them enough to be able to afford to buy a truck and mower and all the other stuff they need to run a landscaping business. > Maid/janitorial work is a good entry job. But to be a maid or janitor you have to be able to get to where the job is, which you can't if you don't have transportation. > None of these are great jobs, > but it is possible to move up through hard work. "Moving up through hard work" is a fantasy. Yes, it's possible, but only if there are openings to move up into. In a business that is not undergoing significant growth those openings only become available when somebody dies, quits, or retires. Everybody doesn't get to move up no matter how hard they work, one person does, and then everybody else waits until he dies, quits, or retires (or gets promoted after somebody else dies, quits, or retires).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 04:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6i42a01civ@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156049 |
On 2016-01-06, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > "Moving up through hard work" is a fantasy. Yes, it's possible, but > only if there are openings to move up into. In a business that is not > undergoing significant growth those openings only become available when > somebody dies, quits, or retires. Everybody doesn't get to move up no > matter how hard they work, one person does, and then everybody else > waits until he dies, quits, or retires (or gets promoted after somebody > else dies, quits, or retires). And that one person might be parachuted in from head office, so nobody in the local office gets a shot at the position anyway. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 08:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160106080504.5fb57fc94e80e8e7f960d729@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156043 |
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:24:27 -0500 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Landscaping seems to be a growth industry that you don't need to be a > genius to break into. Many people start off working for someone else to > get money to buy an old truck and some tools and go off on their own. Yes I know people who have done that, the only trouble is that that is where the upward path stops. I'm not sure it's much of a growth industry though, there's a limit to how much land there is to be scaped. Handyman used to be a similar option but now a great deal of the work they used to get must be performed by registered professionals (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, roofers, bricklayers ...), at least on this side of the pond. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 15:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df68e4FobitU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156026 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.30f6146e68cf6956989d9c@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <20160105134231@news.eternal-september.org>, > rogblake@iname.invalid says... >> >> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> > So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, >> > and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. >> >> Ah, so you are not willing to help people yourself, you expect someone >> else to do it. (Heck, you can't be expected to be your brother's keeper, >> right? No flies on you!)) > > I have no problem with helping people myself, however losing my job in > order to drive someone else around just means that both of us are out of > work. > >> > You are an example >> > of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody who's >> > barely >> > hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. >> >> What a load of crap. People who are intelligent and motivated rarely >> stay poor for very long. > > And how about people who are motivated but not intelligent. Clearly with an unemployment rate of just 4.x%, they get jobs too. >> There are plenty of ways to make a buck for >> someone who is willing to go out and do so. > > Name three that are available to someone who is functionally illiterate > and has no transportation. Child minding, house cleaning, ironing, pet walking, feeding pets in people's houses while they are away, etc etc etc. Obviously using public transport or getting real radical and walking or riding a bike. And it doesn't cost much to get an older car to drive. > You typify the sort of people who simply cannot understand the issue > because you think that everybody else has had your advantages. I know that all those illegals didn't and do fine anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web