Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #485936 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-25 03:21 +0000 |
| Last post | 2019-01-25 22:16 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 165 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: Satan's Playground — New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 03:21 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-25 07:03 -0600
Expecting to get facts from a fruit is pure insanity Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 05:24 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 13:33 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-25 09:19 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-25 15:27 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 16:18 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 20:15 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-25 13:59 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 22:02 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-25 14:18 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 22:39 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-25 15:10 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 23:23 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-25 16:22 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-26 07:19 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-26 17:36 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-30 07:22 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-30 14:45 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-30 09:14 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-30 15:56 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 08:02 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-30 16:13 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 08:16 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:25 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-30 10:19 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-30 16:00 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-31 07:05 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-30 10:18 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-30 10:24 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-30 16:01 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:27 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 08:34 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-30 15:59 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-03 19:25 -0700
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-30 15:56 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-03 19:23 -0700
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:23 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:21 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-30 15:53 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-31 07:20 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 16:22 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:20 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 22:07 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-26 21:51 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 07:31 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-25 10:06 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 09:10 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 16:17 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-25 12:33 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 20:12 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-25 16:44 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 23:17 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-28 08:11 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 20:04 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-25 16:42 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 21:50 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 23:11 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 23:25 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 23:29 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-26 22:03 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 04:13 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-27 05:49 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 07:44 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-27 09:40 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-27 09:54 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 10:27 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-27 18:43 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-27 15:16 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 16:45 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-28 04:33 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 08:17 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-28 10:05 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 12:44 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-28 18:21 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 20:00 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-29 03:32 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-29 08:41 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-29 17:45 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 08:14 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-29 09:44 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 10:44 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-29 20:25 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 07:58 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-30 09:42 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 11:04 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-31 05:19 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 06:50 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 06:58 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-31 08:58 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 10:39 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-31 11:33 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 11:58 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 12:23 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-31 12:31 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-31 21:11 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-31 13:20 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-01-31 21:47 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 22:48 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 06:52 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 07:25 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-01 11:08 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 11:36 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 11:50 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-01 13:24 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 11:15 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 11:52 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-03 19:27 -0700
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-03 19:28 -0700
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-01 20:25 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-01 14:31 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-01 13:28 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 13:56 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-01 22:04 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 14:27 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Tommy B <riceornice8p@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 23:11 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 15:15 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 21:48 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:42 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-04 07:11 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York flyer <snowflyer09o@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:53 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-02 04:49 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 05:22 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-02 16:06 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 08:29 -0800
You can't forge the "Path:" line. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-02 10:51 -0800
Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-02 10:57 -0800
Re: Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 11:21 -0800
Re: Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 12:08 -0800
Re: Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-05 00:20 -0600
Re: Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 22:49 -0800
Re: Google Groups users don't have to worry about getting banned. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 23:52 -0800
ProtonMail. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-04 23:05 -0800
Re: PutinMail. Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-02-05 01:07 -0600
Re: ProtonMail. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 23:21 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-02 12:16 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 12:39 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-02 20:58 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-02-02 14:12 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 14:29 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-03 18:46 +0000
Google Groups doesn't let you alter the IP adress. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-02 10:45 -0800
Re: Google Groups doesn't let you alter the IP adress. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-02 19:02 +0000
You can't forge the "Path:" line, grasshopper. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-02 11:06 -0800
Re: You can't forge the "Path:" line, grasshopper. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-02-02 19:08 +0000
_YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-02 11:28 -0800
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-05 00:29 -0600
_YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-04 22:58 -0800
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-05 14:11 -0600
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-05 13:16 -0500
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 13:59 -0800
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-05 17:31 -0500
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2019-02-05 22:47 +0000
Re: _YOU_ can't forge the "Path:" line, idiot. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 14:54 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 12:54 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-31 17:48 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-31 22:32 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-28 12:16 -0700
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-27 23:39 +0000
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 08:31 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-28 07:18 -0600
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-25 12:31 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground New York silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-25 12:26 -0500
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2019-01-25 14:09 -0800
Re: OT: Satan's Playground — New York Amanda KoXXX <iscariot694me@simplivr4.org> - 2019-01-25 22:16 +0000
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 09:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <0577af41-e43d-4959-9262-abf5f87eb5ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486128 |
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 11:14:24 AM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:32:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11:00:17 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 7:21:37 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > > Steve wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What's wrong is that both you & RonB don't understand how laws > > > > > > are written and implemented. Those "missing" details you're > > > > > > both complaining about will come about as the regulations are > > > > > > drafted & codified to implement the law. > > > > > > > > > > ??? Have you actually read it? > > > > > > > > How can anyone read implimentation regulations which > > > > haven’t been written yet? > > > > > > ??? The "implimentation" (implementation) *has* been written > > > as far as what is being complained about here is concerned, > > > which is why so many people are so vocal about this issue. > > > > Cite them then. > > I'm referring to the OP's complaint, so unless you're aware > of a forthcoming detail that's going to remove *that* detail > you're tossing red herrings again. Which was addressed in my very first post in this thread: "...there’s the law and then there’s the regulations which is where the details of implementation are defined. As such, to claim “no doctor involved” is false until such time that the implementing regs have been written, undergone public review/comment, & finalized." Still waiting for RonB as the OP to substantiate his claim. > > > One thing they'd better be looking > > > at is how to deal with the increased number of lawsuits > > > based on the rise in abortion mills run by midwives and > > > the like. If there's one thing New Yorkers are good at > > > it's filing a lawsuit. They just might catch up to New > > > Jersey in malpractice suits with this in play ;) > > > > Speculation. > > Of course, but you don't see the potential for an increase? The potential also exists that the eventual implementation regulations are going to preclude liability & malpractice claims. How much more time do you want to waste on speculation? > > > > > Apparently you're not familiar with the Comstock laws, either. > > > > > > > > Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it: > > > > Legislators attempting to impose “Christian” morals > > > > in a secular Nation; found unconstitutional. > > > > > > I read that as a 'no'. > > > > What part of the KISS summary above is incorrect? > > So it is a 'no', got it ;) False. > > > > >> > ... but even if it did, it'd be based on 'the will of the people' > > > > >> > through their duly elected reps so we'd have to live with it until > > > > >> > another change was made. Some Muslims have an agenda to install > > > > >> > Sharia Law here... everyone has an agenda <shrug>. > > > > >> > > > > >> Not quite, since Representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution > > > > >> and until we change the Constitution, we're not a tyranny of mere > > > > >> majority rule. > > > > > > > > > > Being that you're more than fine with states thumbing > > > > > their noses at federal law as they encourage sanctuary > > > > > cities, why would this bother you? > > > > > > > > Because you’ve chosen to mischaracterize what I’ve said about that. > > > > > > Bull, you're clearly picking and choosing laws to follow. > > > > My understanding has been that the Sanctuary Cities are merely choosing > > to not perform an ****optional courtesy **** to ICE. > > What activist judge did you get that one from? ;) I'll see > yours and raise a different reality: "frustrate effectuation". That's certainly one of the current motivations, but you've still failed to show that their choice of (in)action is patently illegal. > > But I could be wrong. So then, just what specific laws > > are Sanctuary Cities failing to follow? Be specific & cite > > the legal code, chapter & verse. > > That some activist judges are seeking to legislate this issue > from the bench doesn't mean these cities are complying with > federal law. Unsubstantiated claim. > Seems you read too much far left propaganda, > and being that it's so pervasive now, no one can blame you. > I suggest trying some alternative perspective now and then: > > <https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov/27/steve-daines/sanctuary-jurisdictions-violate-laws-our-nation-s-/> From your own choice of citation: "The Justice Department has flagged jurisdictions that "potentially violate" Section 1373. But neither Daines’ office nor the Justice Department provided a list of jurisdictions decidedly in violation of federal law." Strike One. > Then there's what you'll label 'the far right': > > <https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/sanctuary-cities-thats-constitutional-hell-no> "As the court pointed out, §1373 does not compel “state and local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program." Strike Two. > And there are judges who are aware of (and doing more than > merely adhering to) the superficial, anti-fed agenda on this: > > -- > The City's sovereignty argument asks us to turn the Tenth > Amendment's shield against the federal government's using > state and local governments to enact and administer federal > programs into a sword allowing states and localities to > engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs. > If Congress may not forbid states from outlawing even > voluntary cooperation with federal programs by state and > local officials, states will at times have the power to > frustrate effectuation of some programs. Absent any > cooperation at all from local officials, some federal > programs may fail or fall short of their goals unless > federal officials resort to legal processes in every routine > or trivial matter, often a practical impossibility. For > example, resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. > 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), was often in the > nature of a refusal by local government to cooperate until > under a court order to do so. Citation of quote absent. Meantime, from your second cite: "We can only hope that the current nullification crisis will also be resolved once and for all when all of the lawsuits being filed by the states to prevent the enforcement of federal immigration law reach the Supreme Court." which shows that this topic is *NOT* settled law to support your claim that States are deliberately performing illegal acts. Plus the obvious solution to this is simply for the Feds to have offered to pay the State/Local expenses in order to remove the premise of 'unfunded mandate'. The topic has been around for more than a few budget cycles, so there's some reason why the Feds decided to instead resort to strong-arm. > So while 'the left', including activist judges, are playing games > by using this as a political football of sorts, we can expect to > see more and larger caravans from our southern border. Last > I heard this latest one is over 12,000 strong and counting. So? Keep in mind that tossing out numbers without context plays into people's ignorance and fear of the unknown. Case in point, do these 12,000 represent a safety threat to US Citizens being murdered? If so, just how many more murders does it represent? For some context, there were over 300 killed just in mass shootings in 2018, overwhelmingly perpetrated by US Citizens: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2018> But are there any new policy initiatives to reduce this *actual* threat to the safety of US Citizens? If there is none then what does that actually mean? Is it anything other than the current Administration accepting those deaths of these innocents as the cost or consequence of their policy choices? Similarly, there's roughly 50,000 who died from opioid overdoses in 2018 in the USA, yet the HHS got only a $2.3B funding increase over last year in response. If we divide, we can notionally say that each life saved from OD'ing (if the funds were 100% effective) is therefore worth $46,000. Applying that "value of a life" to the context of the $5.7B being asked for the Mexico Wall, the Wall would only be justified as a higher funding priority if it can save more than 123,913 American lives per year. Good luck! -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 10:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <cabdeb98-9bf4-417d-8db2-bd6f9a85a5e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486132 |
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:44:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 11:14:24 AM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:32:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11:00:17 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 7:21:37 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > > > Steve wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's wrong is that both you & RonB don't understand how laws > > > > > > > are written and implemented. Those "missing" details you're > > > > > > > both complaining about will come about as the regulations are > > > > > > > drafted & codified to implement the law. > > > > > > > > > > > > ??? Have you actually read it? > > > > > > > > > > How can anyone read implimentation regulations which > > > > > haven’t been written yet? > > > > > > > > ??? The "implimentation" (implementation) *has* been written > > > > as far as what is being complained about here is concerned, > > > > which is why so many people are so vocal about this issue. > > > > > > Cite them then. > > > > I'm referring to the OP's complaint, so unless you're aware > > of a forthcoming detail that's going to remove *that* detail > > you're tossing red herrings again. > > Which was addressed in my very first post in this thread: > > "...there’s the law and then there’s the regulations which is > where the details of implementation are defined. As such, to claim > “no doctor involved” is false until such time that the implementing > regs have been written, undergone public review/comment, & finalized." > > Still waiting for RonB as the OP to substantiate his claim. ?? The existing law this attaches to specifically states that a doctor needn't be on the premises, which I can see as a potentially troublesome aspect. This 'new' law is really some stuff that changes things fundamentally but it's still bound by a bunch of pre-existing regulation, that's one of them. > > > > One thing they'd better be looking > > > > at is how to deal with the increased number of lawsuits > > > > based on the rise in abortion mills run by midwives and > > > > the like. If there's one thing New Yorkers are good at > > > > it's filing a lawsuit. They just might catch up to New > > > > Jersey in malpractice suits with this in play ;) > > > > > > Speculation. > > > > Of course, but you don't see the potential for an increase? > > The potential also exists that the eventual implementation > regulations are going to preclude liability & malpractice claims. LOL! Talk about out of touch with reality. So you don't think there'll be some push back there, eh? This I gotta hear... > How much more time do you want to waste on speculation? The larger point in the discussion is the OP's concern isn't based on speculation: -- § 2599-BB. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITHIN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH. -- Here's more recognition of these impatient, unreasonable people that are wondering why the state of N.Y. didn't do a better job when it's clear they're going to have 'caravans' of women streaming over their border ;) -- The Reproductive Health Act ensures that medical practitioners who are licensed, certified, and trained to provide abortion care may lawfully do so, thereby improving access to care. At present, because of amendments from 1970, a “justifiable abortion” is an abortion performed by “duly licensed physicians” within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy. While this language does not prohibit other health care providers from performing abortions, it has generated confusion among providers, their lawyers, and their insurers as to whether advanced practice clinicians (e.g., nurse practitioners, physician assistants, licensed midwives) may legally provide abortion care. -- <https://www.nyclu.org/en/legislation/reproductive-health-act> At least they were good enough to 'woman-splain' things for those with a financial interest who are left scratching their heads: "The Reproductive Health Act clarifies that licensed, trained advanced practice clinicians may provide early and safe abortion care consistent with their scope of practice." It clarified the sh*t outta that one <eyeroll>. > > > > > > Apparently you're not familiar with the Comstock laws, either. > > > > > > > > > > Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it: > > > > > Legislators attempting to impose “Christian” morals > > > > > in a secular Nation; found unconstitutional. > > > > > > > > I read that as a 'no'. > > > > > > What part of the KISS summary above is incorrect? > > > > So it is a 'no', got it ;) > > False. > > > > > > >> > ... but even if it did, it'd be based on 'the will of the people' > > > > > >> > through their duly elected reps so we'd have to live with it until > > > > > >> > another change was made. Some Muslims have an agenda to install > > > > > >> > Sharia Law here... everyone has an agenda <shrug>. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Not quite, since Representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution > > > > > >> and until we change the Constitution, we're not a tyranny of mere > > > > > >> majority rule. > > > > > > > > > > > > Being that you're more than fine with states thumbing > > > > > > their noses at federal law as they encourage sanctuary > > > > > > cities, why would this bother you? > > > > > > > > > > Because you’ve chosen to mischaracterize what I’ve said about that. > > > > > > > > Bull, you're clearly picking and choosing laws to follow. > > > > > > My understanding has been that the Sanctuary Cities are merely choosing > > > to not perform an ****optional courtesy **** to ICE. > > > > What activist judge did you get that one from? ;) I'll see > > yours and raise a different reality: "frustrate effectuation". > > That's certainly one of the current motivations, but you've still > failed to show that their choice of (in)action is patently illegal. I've shown that there is law that is being ignored. > > > But I could be wrong. So then, just what specific laws > > > are Sanctuary Cities failing to follow? Be specific & cite > > > the legal code, chapter & verse. > > > > That some activist judges are seeking to legislate this issue > > from the bench doesn't mean these cities are complying with > > federal law. > > Unsubstantiated claim. LOL! > > Seems you read too much far left propaganda, > > and being that it's so pervasive now, no one can blame you. > > I suggest trying some alternative perspective now and then: > > > > <https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov/27/steve-daines/sanctuary-jurisdictions-violate-laws-our-nation-s-/> > > From your own choice of citation: > > "The Justice Department has flagged jurisdictions that "potentially > violate" Section 1373. But neither Daines’ office nor the Justice > Department provided a list of jurisdictions decidedly in violation > of federal law." > > Strike One. And that's what those on 'the left' are largely resting on. > > Then there's what you'll label 'the far right': > > > > <https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/sanctuary-cities-thats-constitutional-hell-no> > > "As the court pointed out, §1373 does not compel “state and local > governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program." > > Strike Two. Not quite, keep reading that paragraph (which leads to the one I cited below, words from Judge Winter). > > And there are judges who are aware of (and doing more than > > merely adhering to) the superficial, anti-fed agenda on this: > > > > -- > > The City's sovereignty argument asks us to turn the Tenth > > Amendment's shield against the federal government's using > > state and local governments to enact and administer federal > > programs into a sword allowing states and localities to > > engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs. > > If Congress may not forbid states from outlawing even > > voluntary cooperation with federal programs by state and > > local officials, states will at times have the power to > > frustrate effectuation of some programs. Absent any > > cooperation at all from local officials, some federal > > programs may fail or fall short of their goals unless > > federal officials resort to legal processes in every routine > > or trivial matter, often a practical impossibility. For > > example, resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. > > 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), was often in the > > nature of a refusal by local government to cooperate until > > under a court order to do so. > > Citation of quote absent. ?? There's a link in the article a few lines above the quote you focused on as you claimed a 'win' ;) > Meantime, from your second cite: > > "We can only hope that the current nullification crisis will > also be resolved once and for all when all of the lawsuits > being filed by the states to prevent the enforcement of > federal immigration law reach the Supreme Court." > > which shows that this topic is *NOT* settled law A law is still a law prior to the SCOTUS ruling on some aspect of it or other. In any event, this isn't the only issue you've shown you'll overlook, there's also the issue of identity theft. You pointed to everything you could think of to ignore the reality of how those laws are being broken en-masse. > to support your claim > that States are deliberately performing illegal acts. > > Plus the obvious solution to this is simply for the Feds to > have offered to pay the State/Local expenses in order to > remove the premise of 'unfunded mandate'. The topic has been > around for more than a few budget cycles, so there's some > reason why the Feds decided to instead resort to strong-arm. Tell it to Roger Stone. > > So while 'the left', including activist judges, are playing games > > by using this as a political football of sorts, we can expect to > > see more and larger caravans from our southern border. Last > > I heard this latest one is over 12,000 strong and counting. > > So? Keep in mind that tossing out numbers without context > plays into people's ignorance and fear of the unknown. I'm just stating what I've heard, it could be 40,000. > Case in point, do these 12,000 represent a safety threat to > US Citizens being murdered? Not for you, a person who disagrees with all manner of border experts that hold a contrary opinion to yours. (snip whataboutisms and additional BS)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 20:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <1dc846af-1230-44bc-be93-80cbcb1c2071@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486136 |
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 1:44:58 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:44:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > ... > > Still waiting for RonB as the OP to substantiate his claim. > > ?? The existing law this attaches to specifically states that > a doctor needn't be on the premises, which I can see as > a potentially troublesome aspect. YMMV, but I'm not concerned, because of what you've finally quoted: " 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITHIN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, ..." That "within...lawful scope of practice" is what settles it, by deferring to professional qualifications instead of legislative micromanagement and outside-of-profession meddling. And this "nothing less than an MD!" that RonB and you have been going on about is in actuality an uncalled for attempt to increase the minimum standards in a fashion not justified by their professionals, which means that it is an impediment to access. And case in point: there's today now FDA approved, oral pill-based abortificants: how are you going to show that it is medically necessary and justified to have nothing less than the fully credentialed MD watch someone go swallow a pill? Does the FDA's release require that? Here it is ... point it out to us: <https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm111323.htm> BTW, note that it uses the same "certified healthcare provider" language as the NY State Law, not 'medical doctor' or "physician". > > > > Speculation. > > > > > > Of course, but you don't see the potential for an increase? > > > > The potential also exists that the eventual implementation > > regulations are going to preclude liability & malpractice claims. > > LOL! Talk about out of touch with reality. Nope, just being as pedantic as you are. BTW, the risk that the sun is going to supernova tonight and destroy the entire Earth went up today too. > Here's more recognition of these impatient, unreasonable > people that are wondering why the state of N.Y. didn't do > a better job when it's clear they're going to have 'caravans' > of women streaming over their border ;) > > -- > The Reproductive Health Act ensures that medical practitioners who are licensed, certified, and trained to provide abortion care may lawfully do so, thereby improving access to care. At present, because of amendments from 1970, a “justifiable abortion” is an abortion performed by “duly licensed physicians” within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy. While this language does not prohibit other health care providers from performing abortions, it has generated confusion among providers, their lawyers, and their insurers as to whether advanced practice clinicians (e.g., nurse practitioners, physician assistants, licensed midwives) may legally provide abortion care. Which is merely stating that the old law was found to have not been sufficiently clear before, not that the law is now choosing to significantly change who's a permitted practitioner. > I've shown that there is law that is being ignored. No, you've failed to do so...and within your own citations: > > From your own choice of citation: > > > > "The Justice Department has flagged jurisdictions that "potentially > > violate" Section 1373. But neither Daines’ office nor the Justice > > Department provided a list of jurisdictions decidedly in violation > > of federal law." > > > > Strike One. > > And that's what those on 'the left' are largely resting on. Which is still being legally sustained. Until it is overturned and the appeals are over, you have no basis for your claim...all you do have is an uphill battle to fight to *maybe* win. But even if you do eventually win, that's a change, not what representative of today's legal status. > > > Then there's what you'll label 'the far right': > > > > > > <https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/sanctuary-cities-thats-constitutional-hell-no> > > > > "As the court pointed out, §1373 does not compel “state and local > > governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program." > > > > Strike Two. > > Not quite, keep reading that paragraph (which leads to > the one I cited below, words from Judge Winter). > > > > And there are judges who are aware of (and doing more than > > > merely adhering to) the superficial, anti-fed agenda on this: > > > > > > -- > > > The City's sovereignty argument asks us to turn the Tenth > > > Amendment's shield against the federal government's using > > > state and local governments to enact and administer federal > > > programs into a sword allowing states and localities to > > > engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs. > > > If Congress may not forbid states from outlawing even > > > voluntary cooperation with federal programs by state and > > > local officials, states will at times have the power to > > > frustrate effectuation of some programs. Absent any > > > cooperation at all from local officials, some federal > > > programs may fail or fall short of their goals unless > > > federal officials resort to legal processes in every routine > > > or trivial matter, often a practical impossibility. For > > > example, resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. > > > 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), was often in the > > > nature of a refusal by local government to cooperate until > > > under a court order to do so. And yet: > > which shows that this topic is *NOT* settled law > > A law is still a law prior to the SCOTUS ruling on some > aspect of it or other. And the current status is that SCOTUS has not overturned it to the ruling you need in order for your claim to be true. > > > So while 'the left', including activist judges, are playing games > > > by using this as a political football of sorts, we can expect to > > > see more and larger caravans from our southern border. Last > > > I heard this latest one is over 12,000 strong and counting. > > > > So? Keep in mind that tossing out numbers without context > > plays into people's ignorance and fear of the unknown. > > I'm just stating what I've heard, it could be 40,000. Why golly, I done heard from my Uncle Seymour that it could be EIGHT BILLION!!! And his Uncle sez they could be all armed with Bazookas! Run! Hide! PANIC!!! ...but seriously, what's one mythical 40,000 caravan? Historically, the context is that you could have TWO such caravans of 40K each arrive **every** month for all of 2019 and your grand total would still fall short of a record. Indeed, you would not even break into the Top 20 worst years. > > Case in point, do these 12,000 represent a safety threat to > > US Citizens being murdered? > > Not for you, a person who disagrees with all manner of > border experts that hold a contrary opinion to yours. I'm not debating a so-called border expert: I'm debating you. > (snip whataboutisms and additional BS) Snip all you want, but you've still dodged producing relevant metrics which support your case. And to that end, here's a pretty good write-up: <https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/27/a-simple-data-analysis-disproves-the-argument-for-building-a-border-wall/> BTW, note the part where they commented that the average annual agent apprehension rate of illegal immigrants has declined to only 16/yr today. Compared to just 2005, when the Agents' average annual apprehension rate was over 100/yr, that's a 85% decline. Something to think about, if you can. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 07:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <41d17734-c4fa-4864-b636-7c2b99a08fa2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486142 |
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 9:25:28 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 1:44:58 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:44:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Still waiting for RonB as the OP to substantiate his claim.
> >
> > ?? The existing law this attaches to specifically states that
> > a doctor needn't be on the premises, which I can see as
> > a potentially troublesome aspect.
>
> YMMV, but I'm not concerned, because of what you've finally quoted:
>
> " 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR
> AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW,
> ACTING WITHIN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, ..."
>
> That "within...lawful scope of practice" is what settles it,
As it's the change in their scope that is part of what people
are left scratching their heads about, how has anything been
'settled'?
> by deferring
> to professional qualifications instead of legislative micromanagement
> and outside-of-profession meddling.
>
> And this "nothing less than an MD!" that RonB and you have been
> going on about
I pointed out it was also monied interests ("providers, their
lawyers, and their insurers") who have expressed concern,
as acknowledged by the NYCLU article I linked to.
> is in actuality an uncalled for attempt to increase the
> minimum standards in a fashion not justified by their professionals,
> which means that it is an impediment to access.
(snip stuff that doesn't deal with late term abortion)
> > > > > Speculation.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, but you don't see the potential for an increase?
> > >
> > > The potential also exists that the eventual implementation
> > > regulations are going to preclude liability & malpractice claims.
> >
> > LOL! Talk about out of touch with reality.
>
> Nope, just being as pedantic as you are. BTW, the risk that the
> sun is going to supernova tonight and destroy the entire Earth
> went up today too.
Speaking of "today":
"§ 14. This act shall take effect immediately."
You're arguing that there's no need for "providers, their
lawyers, and their insurers" to be concerned despite the
fact that even *you* are pointing out a glaring issue of
"eventual implementation regulations" that have *not*
been included in this bill.
It actually makes sense to you that these things wouldn't
have been considered in advance knowing how many
abortions are going to take place in N.Y. (women will come
from all over the U.S. in the interim? Doesn't that seem a
tad irresponsible to not have covered that up front along
with the changes? It's clear we're coming from 2 different
places, I'm looking at reality, you're looking at an agenda
being fulfilled and it being done in a manner that leaves
some gaping holes and you appear to be fine with that.
You can stick your fingers in your ears on this subject, too
but you can't deny this is a potentially huge and totally
avoidable issue with a straight face.
> > Here's more recognition of these impatient, unreasonable
> > people that are wondering why the state of N.Y. didn't do
> > a better job when it's clear they're going to have 'caravans'
> > of women streaming over their border ;)
> >
> > --
> > The Reproductive Health Act ensures that medical practitioners who are licensed, certified, and trained to provide abortion care may lawfully do so, thereby improving access to care. At present, because of amendments from 1970, a “justifiable abortion” is an abortion performed by “duly licensed physicians” within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy. While this language does not prohibit other health care providers from performing abortions, it has generated confusion among providers, their lawyers, and their insurers as to whether advanced practice clinicians (e.g., nurse practitioners, physician assistants, licensed midwives) may legally provide abortion care.
>
> Which is merely stating that the old law was found to have not been
> sufficiently clear before, not that the law is now choosing to significantly
> change who's a permitted practitioner.
And doing so without considering all the ramifications,
that even you are tacitly acknowledging exist.
(snip rehash and I agree it has not been Constitutionally settled)
> And the current status is that SCOTUS has not overturned it
> to the ruling you need in order for your claim to be true.
It always depends on the question being asked of the court,
for example, not every pertinent question has been asked of
them with respect to things like the 16th amendment or how
the Fed was created and paper money introduced. Notably,
cases that get close to asking some question somehow get
'dispatched' without running their course because to do so
would bring down this house of cards. In any event, you're
still ignoring your wink/nod to identity theft for 'the cause' ;)
> > > > So while 'the left', including activist judges, are playing games
> > > > by using this as a political football of sorts, we can expect to
> > > > see more and larger caravans from our southern border. Last
> > > > I heard this latest one is over 12,000 strong and counting.
> > >
> > > So? Keep in mind that tossing out numbers without context
> > > plays into people's ignorance and fear of the unknown.
> >
> > I'm just stating what I've heard, it could be 40,000.
>
> Why golly, I done heard from my Uncle Seymour that it could be EIGHT BILLION!!!
> And his Uncle sez they could be all armed with Bazookas! Run! Hide! PANIC!!!
>
> ...but seriously, what's one mythical 40,000 caravan?
>
> Historically, the context is that you could have TWO such caravans of 40K each
> arrive **every** month for all of 2019 and your grand total would still fall short of
> a record. Indeed, you would not even break into the Top 20 worst years.
Faulty thinking that doesn't consider a saturation point.
For the record, this is probably your goofiest 'whataboutism'.
Note: No smiley.
> > > Case in point, do these 12,000 represent a safety threat to
> > > US Citizens being murdered?
> >
> > Not for you, a person who disagrees with all manner of
> > border experts that hold a contrary opinion to yours.
>
> I'm not debating a so-called border expert: I'm debating you.
Sticking your finger in your ears isn't "debating" ;)
> > (snip whataboutisms and additional BS)
>
> Snip all you want, but you've still dodged producing relevant metrics
> which support your case. And to that end, here's a pretty good
> write-up:
>
> <https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/27/a-simple-data-analysis-disproves-the-argument-for-building-a-border-wall/>
For me it boils down to letting the people who actually *do*
border security inform. For you this is a political thing, period.
We know this because the Dems *have* given money for walls/
fences/barriers, they *have* expressed many of the same ideas
that Trump has, for years and years. All of a sudden it's Trump
and those arguments disappear... doesn't pass the laugh test.
> BTW, note the part where they commented that the average annual agent
> apprehension rate of illegal immigrants has declined to only 16/yr today.
>
> Compared to just 2005, when the Agents' average annual apprehension rate
> was over 100/yr, that's a 85% decline. Something to think about, if you can.
I think it's great... I also think we need to listen to the people
who *made* it great... your border security folks. If they're
telling us they need more/better barriers in areas they should
have it but they can't because Trump derangement syndrome
is so prevalent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 09:42 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <b95aa65f-296d-423b-82ca-e797c8a546e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486155 |
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 10:58:52 AM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 9:25:28 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 1:44:58 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:44:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > > > ... > > > > Still waiting for RonB as the OP to substantiate his claim. > > > > > > ?? The existing law this attaches to specifically states that > > > a doctor needn't be on the premises, which I can see as > > > a potentially troublesome aspect. > > > > YMMV, but I'm not concerned, because of what you've finally quoted: > > > > " 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR > > AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, > > ACTING WITHIN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, ..." > > > > That "within...lawful scope of practice" is what settles it, > > As it's the change in their scope ... No, it isn't a change in scope: its an explicit clarification of what the scope has been since the 1970's. > > is in actuality an uncalled for attempt to increase the > > minimum standards in a fashion not justified by their professionals, > > which means that it is an impediment to access. > > (snip stuff that doesn't deal with late term abortion) But it does deal with the "nothing less than an MD!" that RonB & you have been going on about. That "MD!" call is a deliberate attempt to limit access. That's why you deleted how I pointed out that it is clearly absurd to require nothing less than a full MD to watch someone swallow a pill. > > > > > > Speculation. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, but you don't see the potential for an increase? > > > > > > > > The potential also exists that the eventual implementation > > > > regulations are going to preclude liability & malpractice claims. > > > > > > LOL! Talk about out of touch with reality. > > > > Nope, just being as pedantic as you are. BTW, the risk that the > > sun is going to supernova tonight and destroy the entire Earth > > went up today too. > > Speaking of "today": > "§ 14. This act shall take effect immediately." > > You're arguing that there's no need for "providers, their > lawyers, and their insurers" to be concerned despite the > fact that even *you* are pointing out a glaring issue of > "eventual implementation regulations" that have *not* > been included in this bill. When the scope is clarification and codification of existing practices, there are no valid concerns. > It actually makes sense to you that these things wouldn't > have been considered in advance knowing how many > abortions are going to take place in N.Y. (women will come > from all over the U.S. in the interim? Doesn't that seem a > tad irresponsible to not have covered that up front along > with the changes? So NY is now the bad guy who's responsible for how other States have deliberately restricted & denied healthcare services access to their own citizens? No, not buying it. > It's clear we're coming from 2 different places, Yup. > I'm looking at reality, Nope. > you're looking at an agenda being fulfilled ... Where this so-called "agenda" is to continue to allow the Status Quo...golly, how radical!! /S > Your so-called "reality" believes that it is perfectly fine > to try to create backdoor bans of legal procedures, False. Hint: don't conflate reporting with endorsing. > > > I'm just stating what I've heard, it could be 40,000. > > > > Why golly, I done heard from my Uncle Seymour that it > > could be EIGHT BILLION!!! And his Uncle sez they could > > be all armed with Bazookas! Run! Hide! PANIC!!! > > > > ...but seriously, what's one mythical 40,000 caravan? > > > > Historically, the context is that you could have TWO such > > caravans of 40K each arrive **every** month for all of 2019 > > and your grand total would still fall short of a record. > > Indeed, you would not even break into the Top 20 worst years. > > Faulty thinking that doesn't consider a saturation point. Move those goalposts! So then, if you're going to claim that the USA has reached a so-called "saturation point", just what does this mean and how has it manifested itself in our Economy? Be specific. For example, if we supposedly have "too many people" already, then why is the Unemployment Rate so low? Similarly, if we supposedly have "too many people" already, then why did the 2017 Tax bill increase the incentives to have more kids? Good luck. FYI, the US rate of Population growth is a mere +0.7%/yr, which is causing an aging of our population & risks long term sustainability. Even if the current rate of 300K "caught" illegal immigrants per year were immediately all made legal to add to our population, the change in population growth would be only +0.09%, which falls well short of restoring our population growth rate to our pre-2008 Great Recession rate. > For the record, this is probably your goofiest 'whataboutism'. > Note: No smiley. Of course there's no smiley, because you're just trying to sling another Ad Hominem insult. > > > > Case in point, do these 12,000 represent a safety threat > > > > to US Citizens being murdered? > > > > > > Not for you, a person who disagrees with all manner of > > > border experts that hold a contrary opinion to yours. > > > > I'm not debating a so-called border expert: I'm debating you. > > Sticking your finger in your ears isn't "debating" ;) So then take your fingers out of your ears, Steve. > > > (snip whataboutisms and additional BS) > > > > Snip all you want, but you've still dodged producing relevant metrics > > which support your case. And to that end, here's a pretty good > > write-up: > > > > <https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/27/a-simple-data-analysis-disproves-the-argument-for-building-a-border-wall/> > > For me it boils down to letting the people who actually *do* > border security inform. So then, when are you going to start to actually listen to me? FYI, not everyone who supports the mission pedantically works in only DHS. > > BTW, note the part where they commented that the average annual agent > > apprehension rate of illegal immigrants has declined to only 16/yr today. > > > > Compared to just 2005, when the Agents' average annual apprehension rate > > was over 100/yr, that's a 85% decline. Something to think about, if > > you can. > > I think it's great... I also think we need to listen to the people > who *made* it great... your border security folks. So then start to finally listen to what I've been telling you. > If they're telling us they need more/better barriers in areas > they should have it ... Try looking at just who's been actually saying that. Do note that before the political rhetoric revved up, Kirstjen Nielsen's official position for DHS was for a holistic system approach: <https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/10/kirstjen-nielsen-says-border-wall-more-just-physic/> ...which is why Trump's been threatening to fire her ever since. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 11:04 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <f88b1a5b-c8b2-445f-a338-d6e0824ecbd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486165 |
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 10:42:10 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > When the scope is clarification and codification of > existing practices, there are no valid concerns. So... all these "providers, their lawyers, and their insurers" don't know what you know... and they should stop worrying because you've OK'd everything? I'm sure that'll make 'em all feel much better ;) > > It actually makes sense to you that these things wouldn't > > have been considered in advance knowing how many > > abortions are going to take place in N.Y. (women will come > > from all over the U.S. in the interim? Doesn't that seem a > > tad irresponsible to not have covered that up front along > > with the changes? > > So NY is now the bad guy Nah... but N.Y. is gonna be 'the busy guy'. > > > ...but seriously, what's one mythical 40,000 caravan? > > > > > > Historically, the context is that you could have TWO such > > > caravans of 40K each arrive **every** month for all of 2019 > > > and your grand total would still fall short of a record. > > > Indeed, you would not even break into the Top 20 worst years. > > > > Faulty thinking that doesn't consider a saturation point. > > Move those goalposts! No moving, just recognizing the fact that even people as far to the left as you will be forced to realize this is not sustainable. > So then, if you're going to claim that the USA has reached a > so-called "saturation point", I think that the conditions in CA amply prove we already have, not to your, of course, but to anyone who is reasonable. > Be specific. I have, you ignore/dismiss every point I've ever made in all our previous discussions. > For example, if we supposedly have "too many people" already, > then why is the Unemployment Rate so low? So you base it on the Republican yardstick of employment, not the Democratic yardstick of housing, healthcare, quality of services/education, drinking water, etc.? Why am I not surprised... > Similarly, if we supposedly have "too many people" already, then why > did the 2017 Tax bill increase the incentives to have more kids? > > Good luck. Good luck explaining why you turn into a RINO when you need to be. > > For the record, this is probably your goofiest 'whataboutism'. > > Note: No smiley. > > Of course there's no smiley, because you're just trying to sling > another Ad Hominem insult. No, it's a goofy 'whataboutism'... and you've followed it up with hypocritical RINOism. > > > > > Case in point, do these 12,000 represent a safety threat > > > > > to US Citizens being murdered? > > > > > > > > Not for you, a person who disagrees with all manner of > > > > border experts that hold a contrary opinion to yours. > > > > > > I'm not debating a so-called border expert: I'm debating you. > > > > Sticking your finger in your ears isn't "debating" ;) > > So then take your fingers out of your ears, Steve. > > > > > > (snip whataboutisms and additional BS) > > > > > > Snip all you want, but you've still dodged producing relevant metrics > > > which support your case. And to that end, here's a pretty good > > > write-up: > > > > > > <https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/27/a-simple-data-analysis-disproves-the-argument-for-building-a-border-wall/> > > > > For me it boils down to letting the people who actually *do* > > border security inform. > > So then, when are you going to start to actually listen to me? In your case it'd be when you to start making sense but I'll bite: How long and in what capacity have you worked in border security? > FYI, not everyone who supports the mission pedantically works in only DHS. > > > > > BTW, note the part where they commented that the average annual agent > > > apprehension rate of illegal immigrants has declined to only 16/yr today. > > > > > > Compared to just 2005, when the Agents' average annual apprehension rate > > > was over 100/yr, that's a 85% decline. Something to think about, if > > > you can. > > > > I think it's great... I also think we need to listen to the people > > who *made* it great... your border security folks. > > So then start to finally listen to what I've been telling you. > > > > If they're telling us they need more/better barriers in areas > > they should have it ... > > Try looking at just who's been actually saying that. Saying it and *not* providing the funding for it are 2 different things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 05:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <4e2e9e70-bb28-4999-a3df-23bb660579bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486166 |
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:04:35 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > -hh wrote: > > > When the scope is clarification and codification of > > existing practices, there are no valid concerns. > > So... all these "providers, their lawyers, and their insurers" > don't know what you know... and they should stop worrying > because you've OK'd everything? I'm sure that'll make 'em > all feel much better ;) Lawyers have simply never been "Ambulance Chasers" to drum up business for themselves, don't ya know? /S > > > It actually makes sense to you that these things wouldn't > > > have been considered in advance knowing how many > > > abortions are going to take place in N.Y. (women will come > > > from all over the U.S. in the interim? Doesn't that seem a > > > tad irresponsible to not have covered that up front along > > > with the changes? > > > > So NY is now the bad guy > > Nah... but N.Y. is gonna be 'the busy guy'. > > > > > ...but seriously, what's one mythical 40,000 caravan? > > > > > > > > Historically, the context is that you could have TWO such > > > > caravans of 40K each arrive **every** month for all of 2019 > > > > and your grand total would still fall short of a record. > > > > Indeed, you would not even break into the Top 20 worst years. > > > > > > Faulty thinking that doesn't consider a saturation point. > > > > Move those goalposts! > > No moving, just recognizing the fact that even people > as far to the left as you will be forced to realize this > is not sustainable. Vague. With a sufficiently long timeline, nothing's ever sustainable. Case in point, the sun is going to blow & destroy Earth in only 5.4 billion years from now...we're all dooooomed!! > > So then, if you're going to claim that the USA has reached a > > so-called "saturation point", > > I think that the conditions in CA amply prove we already have, > not to your, of course, but to anyone who is reasonable. Just what conditions are these? Its not California's unemployment rate, as that's at only 4.2%. > > Be specific. > > I have, you ignore/dismiss every point I've ever made in all our > previous discussions. If true, then it will be trivial for you to cite where you've substantiated this "saturation" claim as something that's not only not new to this conversation, but you've previously provided the relevant metrics with proof. Cite, please. > > For example, if we supposedly have "too many people" already, > > then why is the Unemployment Rate so low? > > So you base it on the Republican yardstick of employment, > not the Democratic yardstick of housing, healthcare, quality > of services/education, drinking water, etc.? Why am I not > surprised... No, I left it completely open for you, but provided some examples. > > Similarly, if we supposedly have "too many people" already, then why > > did the 2017 Tax bill increase the incentives to have more kids? > > > > Good luck. > > Good luck explaining why you turn into a RINO when you need to be. And Steve is 2 for 2 in dodging. > > > For the record, this is probably your goofiest 'whataboutism'. > > > Note: No smiley. > > > > Of course there's no smiley, because you're just trying to sling > > another Ad Hominem insult. > > No, it's a goofy 'whataboutism'... and you've followed it up > with hypocritical RINOism. YA distraction attempt. Let the record show that Steve's claim of "saturation point" is just scaremongering. > > > > > > Case in point, do these 12,000 represent a safety threat > > > > > > to US Citizens being murdered? > > > > > > > > > > Not for you, a person who disagrees with all manner of > > > > > border experts that hold a contrary opinion to yours. > > > > > > > > I'm not debating a so-called border expert: I'm debating you. > > > > > > Sticking your finger in your ears isn't "debating" ;) > > > > So then take your fingers out of your ears, Steve. > > > > > > > > > (snip whataboutisms and additional BS) > > > > > > > > Snip all you want, but you've still dodged producing relevant metrics > > > > which support your case. And to that end, here's a pretty good > > > > write-up: > > > > > > > > <https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/27/a-simple-data-analysis-disproves-the-argument-for-building-a-border-wall/> > > > > > > For me it boils down to letting the people who actually *do* > > > border security inform. > > > > So then, when are you going to start to actually listen to me? > > In your case it'd be when you to start making sense but > I'll bite: How long and in what capacity have you worked > in border security? Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for literature searches. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 06:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <973ce1bb-2ab5-4f73-88f7-ab23ec5a20f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486199 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:19:57 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:04:35 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > -hh wrote: > > > > > When the scope is clarification and codification of > > > existing practices, there are no valid concerns. > > > > So... all these "providers, their lawyers, and their insurers" > > don't know what you know... and they should stop worrying > > because you've OK'd everything? I'm sure that'll make 'em > > all feel much better ;) > > Lawyers have simply never been "Ambulance Chasers" to drum up > business for themselves, don't ya know? /S So... because *some* lawyers might do that, in your mind, this means a glaring oversight like this is good government? > > > > It actually makes sense to you that these things wouldn't > > > > have been considered in advance knowing how many > > > > abortions are going to take place in N.Y. (women will come > > > > from all over the U.S. in the interim? Doesn't that seem a > > > > tad irresponsible to not have covered that up front along > > > > with the changes? > > > > > > So NY is now the bad guy > > > > Nah... but N.Y. is gonna be 'the busy guy'. > > > > > > > ...but seriously, what's one mythical 40,000 caravan? > > > > > > > > > > Historically, the context is that you could have TWO such > > > > > caravans of 40K each arrive **every** month for all of 2019 > > > > > and your grand total would still fall short of a record. > > > > > Indeed, you would not even break into the Top 20 worst years. > > > > > > > > Faulty thinking that doesn't consider a saturation point. > > > > > > Move those goalposts! > > > > No moving, just recognizing the fact that even people > > as far to the left as you will be forced to realize this > > is not sustainable. > > Vague. With a sufficiently long timeline, nothing's ever > sustainable. Ah... so allowing for the eventual demise we hasten that outcome. Got it! Things sure are 'funny' in Utopia <shaking head in disbelief>. > > > So then, if you're going to claim that the USA has reached a > > > so-called "saturation point", > > > > I think that the conditions in CA amply prove we already have, > > not to your, of course, but to anyone who is reasonable. > > Just what conditions are these? I've talked about them many times, you don't see them as problems so there's no point in going over them again. > > > Be specific. > > > > I have, you ignore/dismiss every point I've ever made in all our > > previous discussions. > > If true, then it will be trivial for you to cite where you've > substantiated this "saturation" claim as something that's not > only not new to this conversation, but you've previously provided > the relevant metrics with proof. Cite, please. Done, you ignore it... but the point isn't whether or not anyone proves to anyone else that a saturation point has been reached, the point is to underscore the shortsighted nature of your position of 'we have less that we once had'' or some such. That's child-like thinking... and were you to take a step back and be honest, you'd admit it. But you can't, you're too invested in a pseudo reality you believe exists and you're hell bent on selling to whomever you come across. > > > For example, if we supposedly have "too many people" already, > > > then why is the Unemployment Rate so low? > > > > So you base it on the Republican yardstick of employment, > > not the Democratic yardstick of housing, healthcare, quality > > of services/education, drinking water, etc.? Why am I not > > surprised... > > No LOL! That's the thing you went to... I figure you somehow thought that it would mirror the 'right wing beast' in me. > > > Similarly, if we supposedly have "too many people" already, then why > > > did the 2017 Tax bill increase the incentives to have more kids? > > > > > > Good luck. > > > > Good luck explaining why you turn into a RINO when you need to be. > > And Steve is 2 for 2 in dodging. Irony. > > > > For the record, this is probably your goofiest 'whataboutism'. > > > > Note: No smiley. > > > > > > Of course there's no smiley, because you're just trying to sling > > > another Ad Hominem insult. > > > > No, it's a goofy 'whataboutism'... and you've followed it up > > with hypocritical RINOism. > > YA distraction attempt. Yes, and you got called on it, again. > Let the record show that Steve's claim of > "saturation point" is just scaremongering. Said a rep for Utopia Central as he ignores one glaring issue after another. > > > > > > > Case in point, do these 12,000 represent a safety threat > > > > > > > to US Citizens being murdered? > > > > > > > > > > > > Not for you, a person who disagrees with all manner of > > > > > > border experts that hold a contrary opinion to yours. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not debating a so-called border expert: I'm debating you. > > > > > > > > Sticking your finger in your ears isn't "debating" ;) > > > > > > So then take your fingers out of your ears, Steve. > > > > > > > > > > > > (snip whataboutisms and additional BS) > > > > > > > > > > Snip all you want, but you've still dodged producing relevant metrics > > > > > which support your case. And to that end, here's a pretty good > > > > > write-up: > > > > > > > > > > <https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/27/a-simple-data-analysis-disproves-the-argument-for-building-a-border-wall/> > > > > > > > > For me it boils down to letting the people who actually *do* > > > > border security inform. > > > > > > So then, when are you going to start to actually listen to me? > > > > In your case it'd be when you to start making sense but > > I'll bite: How long and in what capacity have you worked > > in border security? > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for literature searches. Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the ground.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 06:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <ab7cfe4f-d089-4fd2-9a7a-474351d7b32c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486210 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 7:50:09 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for literature searches. > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the > ground. <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 08:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <af481a45-a922-41ef-825e-b338c42b043d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486214 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 9:58:46 AM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 7:50:09 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for > > > literature searches. > > > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you > > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the > > ground. > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> > > That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, > and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out. Your DTIC search was incomplete, as it was limited to only those pubs which are "DIST-A" (approved for public release). -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 10:39 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <37dc10af-ed30-484f-afec-f021ba53cfa7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486225 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 9:58:36 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 9:58:46 AM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 7:50:09 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for > > > > literature searches. > > > > > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you > > > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the > > > ground. > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> > > > > That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, > > and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out. > > Your DTIC search was incomplete, as it was limited to only those > pubs which are "DIST-A" (approved for public release). LOL! You sent me on this search... now you tell me all I've found were items "approved for public release", as if I could somehow gain access to the stuff that *isn't*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 11:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <6c9db287-c1fc-42a4-86fc-f4605c57984a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486249 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 1:39:24 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > -hh wrote: > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for > > > > > literature searches. > > > > > > > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you > > > > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the > > > > ground. > > > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> > > > > > > That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, > > > and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out. > > > > Your DTIC search was incomplete, as it was limited to only those > > pubs which are "DIST-A" (approved for public release). > > LOL! You sent me on this search... To which you've now provided independent confirmation that I do indeed have publications in DTIC. > ...now you tell me all I've found were items "approved > for public release", as if I could somehow gain access > to the stuff that *isn't*. Incorrect, for I made no assumptions on your credentials, or lack thereof. For you to now complain that you lack sufficient credentials to access all of their documents just isn't my problem. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 11:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <8aa8fb59-0139-4d27-a283-03c7cabd9d0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486258 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 12:33:14 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 1:39:24 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > -hh wrote: > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for > > > > > > literature searches. > > > > > > > > > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you > > > > > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the > > > > > ground. > > > > > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> > > > > > > > > That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, > > > > and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out. > > > > > > Your DTIC search was incomplete, as it was limited to only those > > > pubs which are "DIST-A" (approved for public release). > > > > LOL! You sent me on this search... > > To which you've now provided independent confirmation that > I do indeed have publications in DTIC. Not quite, what I've provided is a link to a couple of irrelevant docs that bear a name for which you're *claiming* the identity. You were asked to back your claim and those 2 docs don't cut it... even if you were involved with them. > > ...now you tell me all I've found were items "approved > > for public release", as if I could somehow gain access > > to the stuff that *isn't*. > > Incorrect, for I made no assumptions on your credentials As I'm not the person who suggested he 'does' border security, your new 'whataboutism' here is just as irrelevant as most of what you've posted. (snip other silliness)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 12:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <e302c23b-fa55-4119-86d1-194c13668dd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486262 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 12:59:02 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 12:33:14 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 1:39:24 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > -hh wrote: > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for > > > > > > > literature searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you > > > > > > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the > > > > > > ground. > > > > > > > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> > > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> > > > > > > > > > > That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, > > > > > and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out. > > > > > > > > Your DTIC search was incomplete, as it was limited to only those > > > > pubs which are "DIST-A" (approved for public release). > > > > > > LOL! You sent me on this search... > > > > To which you've now provided independent confirmation that > > I do indeed have publications in DTIC. > > Not quite, what I've provided is a link to a couple of > irrelevant docs that bear a name for which you're > *claiming* the identity. You were asked to back > your claim and those 2 docs don't cut it... even if > you were involved with them. > > > > ...now you tell me all I've found were items "approved > > > for public release", as if I could somehow gain access > > > to the stuff that *isn't*. > > > > Incorrect, for I made no assumptions on your credentials > > As I'm not the person who suggested he 'does' > border security, your new 'whataboutism' here is > just as irrelevant as most of what you've posted. > > (snip other silliness) Regardless of my own feelings about Ubuntu, I still continue to install it for newbies who've had trouble with Windows 10. How Jeremy decides when to use the stupid flood script for maximum impact http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snit_flood. My position: Even if a person was just stealing classes from colleges, the feeling that obtaining expertise as being one of having "not anything" to show for it doesn't make any sense because you will have the intelligence to show for it and know-how is something you can show off. What's Jeremy's poison for the flooding nonsense? AppleScript? That is the only language he knows, at least that I have seen. He must be abusing it to write these goofy "group-killer" idiotic threads. Here is my guess, Jeremy took the chatbot that he stole and pretended was his... he is feeding it Just Wondering's posts, grabbing random paragraphs, then mangling those using the Bellman–Ford algorithm and then he annoyingly posts them because his lack of work enables him to do that practically endlessly. I'm not going to pretend Just Wondering did not save my skin with my choice of distro and I appreciate his knowledge. Jeremy has Just Wondering to examine and might start to appear like he knows something about it from here on out ;) Jeremy can't get anything else to work, either. Proof Jeremy accuses everyone of being Snit http://sandman.net/files/snit_circus.png. Unfortunately there are too many "lowest common denominator is fine" Linux users and not enough programers with the time to help the people with Android. -- E-commerce Simplified https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZNxaaKD7-c https://youtu.be/iztSc_msHuo Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 12:31 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <652d4976-6d2c-4110-9573-e7d91fb539c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486262 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:59:02 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > -hh wrote: > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > -hh wrote: > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for > > > > > > > literature searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you > > > > > > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the > > > > > > ground. > > > > > > > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> > > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> > > > > > > > > > > That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, > > > > > and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out. > > > > > > > > Your DTIC search was incomplete, as it was limited to only those > > > > pubs which are "DIST-A" (approved for public release). > > > > > > LOL! You sent me on this search... > > > > To which you've now provided independent confirmation that > > I do indeed have publications in DTIC. > > Not quite, what I've provided is a link to a couple of > irrelevant docs that bear a name for which you're > *claiming* the identity. Because posting from the domain that's been registered to that name for the last decade+ suddenly isn't good enough! Shocking! /S > You were asked to back > your claim and those 2 docs don't cut it... even if > you were involved with them. Just because you don't know enough to know of applicability doesn't mean that there is none. > > > ...now you tell me all I've found were items "approved > > > for public release", as if I could somehow gain access > > > to the stuff that *isn't*. > > > > Incorrect, for I made no assumptions on your credentials > > As I'm not the person who suggested he 'does' > border security, your new 'whataboutism' here is > just as irrelevant as most of what you've posted. No, you're just complaining that you lack the credentials to be allowed to see anything more than just a narrow slice. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 21:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <szb003g0ga.3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #486265 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:59:02 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> > Steve Carroll wrote: >> > > -hh wrote: >> > > > Steve Carroll wrote: >> > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for >> > > > > > > literature searches. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you >> > > > > > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the >> > > > > > ground. >> > > > > >> > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> >> > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> >> > > > > >> > > > > That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, >> > > > > and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out. >> > > > >> > > > Your DTIC search was incomplete, as it was limited to only those >> > > > pubs which are "DIST-A" (approved for public release). >> > > >> > > LOL! You sent me on this search... >> > >> > To which you've now provided independent confirmation that >> > I do indeed have publications in DTIC. >> >> Not quite, what I've provided is a link to a couple of >> irrelevant docs that bear a name for which you're >> *claiming* the identity. > > Because posting from the domain that's been registered to that > name for the last decade+ suddenly isn't good enough! Shocking! /S > Imagine usenet headers not being good enough! Shocking! /S
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 13:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <3fb13c44-fa04-4eca-bb26-210959ec3278@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486266 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 4:11:39 PM UTC-5, owl wrote: > -hh wrote: > > Steve Carroll wrote: > >> -hh wrote: > >> > Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > > -hh wrote: > >> > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for > >> > > > > > > literature searches. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you > >> > > > > > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the > >> > > > > > ground. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> > >> > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, > >> > > > > and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out. > >> > > > > >> > > > Your DTIC search was incomplete, as it was limited to only those > >> > > > pubs which are "DIST-A" (approved for public release). > >> > > > >> > > LOL! You sent me on this search... > >> > > >> > To which you've now provided independent confirmation that > >> > I do indeed have publications in DTIC. > >> > >> Not quite, what I've provided is a link to a couple of > >> irrelevant docs that bear a name for which you're > >> *claiming* the identity. > > > > Because posting from the domain that's been registered to that > > name for the last decade+ suddenly isn't good enough! Shocking! /S > > > > Imagine usenet headers not being good enough! Shocking! /S Because of course, there's NEVER been any COLA luzer who has ever tried this sort of line before! <http://huntzinger.com/photo/2014/brac/IMG_6868-cola.jpg> QED -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 21:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <zxb80803ga.g3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #486267 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 4:11:39 PM UTC-5, owl wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> > Steve Carroll wrote: >> >> -hh wrote: >> >> > Steve Carroll wrote: >> >> > > -hh wrote: >> >> > > > Steve Carroll wrote: >> >> > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for >> >> > > > > > > literature searches. >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you >> >> > > > > > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the >> >> > > > > > ground. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> >> >> > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, >> >> > > > > and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Your DTIC search was incomplete, as it was limited to only those >> >> > > > pubs which are "DIST-A" (approved for public release). >> >> > > >> >> > > LOL! You sent me on this search... >> >> > >> >> > To which you've now provided independent confirmation that >> >> > I do indeed have publications in DTIC. >> >> >> >> Not quite, what I've provided is a link to a couple of >> >> irrelevant docs that bear a name for which you're >> >> *claiming* the identity. >> > >> > Because posting from the domain that's been registered to that >> > name for the last decade+ suddenly isn't good enough! Shocking! /S >> > >> >> Imagine usenet headers not being good enough! Shocking! /S > > Because of course, there's NEVER been any COLA luzer who has > ever tried this sort of line before! > > <http://huntzinger.com/photo/2014/brac/IMG_6868-cola.jpg> > > QED > A domain does not prove identity. Neither does having (or pretending to have) the same name as someone else make you that person.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 22:48 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <13c68eea-203b-4181-baeb-a12e3208c46c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486267 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:20:04 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 4:11:39 PM UTC-5, owl wrote: > > -hh wrote: > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > >> -hh wrote: > > >> > Steve Carroll wrote: > > >> > > -hh wrote: > > >> > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > >> > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for > > >> > > > > > > literature searches. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you > > >> > > > > > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the > > >> > > > > > ground. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> > > >> > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, > > >> > > > > and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Your DTIC search was incomplete, as it was limited to only those > > >> > > > pubs which are "DIST-A" (approved for public release). > > >> > > > > >> > > LOL! You sent me on this search... > > >> > > > >> > To which you've now provided independent confirmation that > > >> > I do indeed have publications in DTIC. > > >> > > >> Not quite, what I've provided is a link to a couple of > > >> irrelevant docs that bear a name for which you're > > >> *claiming* the identity. > > > > > > Because posting from the domain that's been registered to that > > > name for the last decade+ suddenly isn't good enough! Shocking! /S > > > > > > > Imagine usenet headers not being good enough! Shocking! /S > > Because of course, there's NEVER been any COLA luzer who has > ever tried this sort of line before! > > <http://huntzinger.com/photo/2014/brac/IMG_6868-cola.jpg> > > QED > > > -hh Just brainless trolling. And I am replying to that trolling. THAT is what the "Rudy Canoza circus" is. Why do you keep rephrasing yourself? I shan't ask Rudy Canoza how any part of Snit's body tastes no matter how habitually Rudy Canoza kisses it. Rudy Canoza and Snit both lie endlessly and flagrantly and continue to do so. So no point in showing any further respect or control. Having to put up with the use of C++ is too much for Rudy Canoza to deal with. I am well aware the stuff I link to from Snit is complete amateur level; that said, it accomplished what I want. -- E-commerce Simplified https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4xD43Khhkw https://www.facebook.com/jenny.eklund Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 06:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Satan's Playground ? New York |
| Message-ID | <8c2ee1c8-7218-41c7-bf84-52e19c260336@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #486265 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 1:31:16 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:59:02 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > -hh wrote: > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > -hh wrote: > > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since ~2008; Area/Access Denial SME; go use DTIC for > > > > > > > > literature searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proof? And even if you did prove it, this doesn't mean you > > > > > > > are intimately familiar with issues facing the people on the > > > > > > > ground. > > > > > > > > > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034816.pdf> > > > > > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032098.pdf> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's all I saw by searching on your name, if there's more, > > > > > > and it's actually relevant, you're going to have to point it out. > > > > > > > > > > Your DTIC search was incomplete, as it was limited to only those > > > > > pubs which are "DIST-A" (approved for public release). > > > > > > > > LOL! You sent me on this search... > > > > > > To which you've now provided independent confirmation that > > > I do indeed have publications in DTIC. > > > > Not quite, what I've provided is a link to a couple of > > irrelevant docs that bear a name for which you're > > *claiming* the identity. > > Because posting from the domain that's been registered to that > name for the last decade+ suddenly isn't good enough! Shocking! /S That presumes I believe you're the same person as the name being used. I'm thinking back to when we had a discussion of me proving my usenet 'lineage' back to 2003 or so, you poo poo'd without really looking at the arguments I made. Had you, you'd have seen how silly your position is. > > You were asked to back > > your claim and those 2 docs don't cut it... even if > > you were involved with them. > > Just because you don't know enough to know of applicability > doesn't mean that there is none. Why don't you draw that connection for readers who may not "know of applicability" towards your claim that you are doing border security. > > > > ...now you tell me all I've found were items "approved > > > > for public release", as if I could somehow gain access > > > > to the stuff that *isn't*. > > > > > > Incorrect, for I made no assumptions on your credentials > > > > As I'm not the person who suggested he 'does' > > border security, your new 'whataboutism' here is > > just as irrelevant as most of what you've posted. > > No, you're just complaining that you lack the credentials > to be allowed to see anything more than just a narrow slice. LOL! Do you really think this red herring fools anyone? *You* suggested I search for something that you lead me to believe would prove you 'do' border security. I go do that and come up with things that don't convince me of your expertise on matters that too many people doing the job have asked for more/better fencing/barrier/wall. Now, you're trying yet another 'whataboutism' that points away from the fact that you failed to prove your claim. The only question left: Is anyone surprised by this? I doubt it...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web