Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #435028 > unrolled thread

OT: Shocking news

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-11 23:34 -0500
    Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-11 22:30 -0800
      Re: OT: Shocking news Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 09:37 +0000
        Re: OT: Shocking news Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 09:59 +0000
        Re: OT: Shocking news Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 10:23 +0000
          Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 07:06 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 12:21 +0000
      Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 03:54 -0800
        Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 07:14 -0500
          Re: OT: Shocking news "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-12 11:35 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 12:51 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 18:26 -0500
          Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 09:50 -0800
            Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 13:02 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-13 13:48 -0800
                Re: OT: Shocking news whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 21:07 -0800
        Re: OT: Shocking news Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2016-11-12 17:19 +0000
        Re: OT: Shocking news bulegoge@columbus.rr.com - 2016-11-12 14:50 -0800
      Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 07:40 -0500
        Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 08:33 -0800
          Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 13:13 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-12 16:09 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 19:29 -0800
                Re: OT: Shocking news M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-13 12:07 -0500
                  Re: OT: Shocking news Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2016-11-13 21:00 +0000
          Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 13:15 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 10:53 -0800
              Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 19:34 -0800
      Re: OT: Shocking news bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 06:35 -0800
        Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 08:38 -0800
          Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 13:23 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 18:29 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-13 12:10 -0500
                Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:30 -0500
      Re: OT: Shocking news "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 13:46 -0500
        Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 10:58 -0800
          Re: OT: Shocking news bulegoge@columbus.rr.com - 2016-11-12 14:51 -0800
            Re: OT: Shocking news "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-18 18:27 -0500
          Re: OT: Shocking news "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-18 18:25 -0500
        Re: OT: Shocking news Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-12 13:30 -0800
          Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 13:36 -0800
            Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 16:44 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 14:07 -0800
                Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 17:18 -0500
                Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 17:26 -0500
                  Re: OT: Shocking news "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 01:48 -0800
                    Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-13 07:01 -0800
                    Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-13 11:11 -0500
                      Re: OT: Shocking news M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-13 12:28 -0500
                      Re: OT: Shocking news "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 17:11 -0800
                        Re: OT: Shocking news JW <none@dev.null> - 2016-11-14 06:43 -0500
                          Re: OT: Shocking news Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2016-11-14 23:06 +0000
                            Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-14 17:51 -0800
                Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 15:25 -0800
                  Re: OT: Shocking news Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-12 15:39 -0800
                    Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 19:19 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 21:56 +0000
            Re: OT: Shocking news Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-11-12 17:09 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 17:59 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 18:31 -0500
                Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 19:01 -0500
                  Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 19:51 -0500
                    Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 19:52 -0800
                      Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-13 11:53 -0500
                        Re: OT: Shocking news M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-13 12:13 -0500
                          Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-13 12:31 -0500
                          Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:33 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 19:07 -0500
          Re: OT: Shocking news "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-18 18:28 -0500
      Re: OT: Shocking news Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-12 13:35 -0800
    Re: OT: Shocking news Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-11-12 17:04 -0500
      Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 18:09 -0500
        Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 18:21 -0500
        Re: OT: Shocking news Bill Martin <wwm@wwmartin.net> - 2016-11-12 19:54 -0800
      Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 15:28 -0800
        Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 20:02 -0800
      Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 19:59 -0800

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#435240

On 11/12/2016 06:31 PM, krw wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:09:17 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
> <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:36:32 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:30:38 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
>>> <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 19.46.55 UTC+1 skrev Michael Terrell:
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>>>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>>>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>>>>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>>>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>>>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
>>>>> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
>>>>> how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
>>>>> what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
>>>>> will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
>>>>> doesn't always work.
>>>>at
>>>> Cheating on the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that
>>>> the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to
>>>> go vote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think a lot of votes were deliberate middle-finger-salutes to the
>>> mudstream press. The flyover, uneducated, working-class people got
>>> tired of being mocked and exploited by the coastal elites that they
>>> feed.
>>
>> It's *almost* as if, when you keep labeling people who disagree with
>> you racist, homophobic, sexist Nazi pigs, they'll eventually turn on
>> you. Hmmm.
>
> Which is exactly what the lefties in this group are doing.
>

You seem to conflate harsh words with thinly-veiled threats to fire off 
a few rounds in retaliation for them. Perhaps that's one of the few 
methods of self-expression you're familiar with, but I assure you 
they're not really in the same ballpark.

I would say that whatever words liberals say that offend you, my best 
guess is that the overwhelming majority of us don't go to bed thinking 
"Gosh, I wonder what I can do tomorrow to make Conservatives suffer a 
bit more." While you probably feel his methods were misguided, if Obama 
woke up tomorrow and every jobless Conservative had suddenly become 
employed by a new business I'm sure there would be few people more 
pleased than he would be.

Conversely, a large fraction of the anti-Left posts I see here are chock 
full of violent, vengeful fantasies. Sadly, I can only conclude that the 
main reason for the rage is simply because it's an amusing pastime; 
because it's fun.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435250

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:01:33 -0500, bitrex
<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 11/12/2016 06:31 PM, krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:09:17 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
>> <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:36:32 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
>>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:30:38 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
>>>> <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 19.46.55 UTC+1 skrev Michael Terrell:
>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>>>>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>>>>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>>>>>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>>>>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>>>>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
>>>>>> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
>>>>>> how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
>>>>>> what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
>>>>>> will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
>>>>>> doesn't always work.
>>>>>at
>>>>> Cheating on the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that
>>>>> the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to
>>>>> go vote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think a lot of votes were deliberate middle-finger-salutes to the
>>>> mudstream press. The flyover, uneducated, working-class people got
>>>> tired of being mocked and exploited by the coastal elites that they
>>>> feed.
>>>
>>> It's *almost* as if, when you keep labeling people who disagree with
>>> you racist, homophobic, sexist Nazi pigs, they'll eventually turn on
>>> you. Hmmm.
>>
>> Which is exactly what the lefties in this group are doing.
>>
>
>You seem to conflate harsh words with thinly-veiled threats to fire off 
>a few rounds in retaliation for them. Perhaps that's one of the few 
>methods of self-expression you're familiar with, but I assure you 
>they're not really in the same ballpark.

Ah, the little snowflake is scareded.
>
>I would say that whatever words liberals say that offend you, my best 
>guess is that the overwhelming majority of us don't go to bed thinking 
>"Gosh, I wonder what I can do tomorrow to make Conservatives suffer a 
>bit more." While you probably feel his methods were misguided, if Obama 
>woke up tomorrow and every jobless Conservative had suddenly become 
>employed by a new business I'm sure there would be few people more 
>pleased than he would be.

Bullshit.  You go to bed thinking about how you can control
(everyone).  If you don't those you support *certainly* do. The ends
justify the means (which you do believe in).
>
>Conversely, a large fraction of the anti-Left posts I see here are chock 
>full of violent, vengeful fantasies. Sadly, I can only conclude that the 
>main reason for the rage is simply because it's an amusing pastime; 
>because it's fun.
>
You're full of shit but I'm not telling anyone anything new.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435277

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 11:51:32 AM UTC+11, krw wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:01:33 -0500, bitrex
> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >On 11/12/2016 06:31 PM, krw wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:09:17 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
> >> <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:36:32 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
> >>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:30:38 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> >>>> <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 19.46.55 UTC+1 skrev Michael Terrell:
> >>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
> >>>>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
> >>>>>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
> >>>>>>>> seriously, who knew?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
> >>>>>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
> >>>>>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
> >>>>>> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They 
> >>>>>> know how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until 
> >>>>>> they get what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their 
> >>>>>> tricks, that will cause some undecided to vote the way they want 
> >>>>>> people to vote. It doesn't always work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheating at the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that
> >>>>> the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to
> >>>>> go vote.

Probably not the whole story.

> >>>> I think a lot of votes were deliberate middle-finger-salutes to the
> >>>> mudstream press. The flyover, uneducated, working-class people got
> >>>> tired of being mocked and exploited by the coastal elites that they
> >>>> feed.
> >>>
> >>> It's *almost* as if, when you keep labeling people who disagree with
> >>> you racist, homophobic, sexist Nazi pigs, they'll eventually turn on
> >>> you. Hmmm.
> >>
> >> Which is exactly what the lefties in this group are doing.

Not that I've noticed. I've certainly spent time pointing out that Clinton labelled half of Trumps's supporters as deplorable, which was only a quarter of the population, at most.

> >You seem to conflate harsh words with thinly-veiled threats to fire off 
> >a few rounds in retaliation for them. Perhaps that's one of the few 
> >methods of self-expression you're familiar with, but I assure you 
> >they're not really in the same ballpark.
> 
> Ah, the little snowflake is scared.

That kind of threat has been made here from time to time, but never acted on. Nobody in their right mind would be scared about it, but one has to wonder about the mental health standards that make it any kind of remotely tolerable behaviour. Making that kind of threat doesn't make you a dangerous nutter, but there are dangerous nutters who have made that kind of threat before delivering on it.

> >I would say that whatever words liberals say that offend you, my best 
> >guess is that the overwhelming majority of us don't go to bed thinking 
> >"Gosh, I wonder what I can do tomorrow to make Conservatives suffer a 
> >bit more." While you probably feel his methods were misguided, if Obama 
> >woke up tomorrow and every jobless Conservative had suddenly become 
> >employed by a new business I'm sure there would be few people more 
> >pleased than he would be.
> 
> Bullshit.  You go to bed thinking about how you can control
> (everyone).  If you don't those you support *certainly* do. The ends
> justify the means (which you do believe in).

Krw is confident enough about what he knows to make that kind of assertion. If he had a working brain in his head he'd realise that that it had to be total nonsense - he's merely articulated what he believes to be the communist agenda (not that any communist would have expressed it quite that way). The fact that he thinks that socialists think that way is pure ignorance - the socialists kicked Marx out of the movement in 1870 precisely because they thought that that particular aberration would lead to tyranny, which it did.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney
> >
> >Conversely, a large fraction of the anti-Left posts I see here are chock 
> >full of violent, vengeful fantasies. Sadly, I can only conclude that the 
> >main reason for the rage is simply because it's an amusing pastime; 
> >because it's fun.
> >
> You're full of shit but I'm not telling anyone anything new.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435356

On 11/12/2016 10:52 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

>>> I would say that whatever words liberals say that offend you, my best
>>> guess is that the overwhelming majority of us don't go to bed thinking
>>> "Gosh, I wonder what I can do tomorrow to make Conservatives suffer a
>>> bit more." While you probably feel his methods were misguided, if Obama
>>> woke up tomorrow and every jobless Conservative had suddenly become
>>> employed by a new business I'm sure there would be few people more
>>> pleased than he would be.
>>
>> Bullshit.  You go to behd thinking about how you can control
>> (everyone).  If you don't those you support *certainly* do. The ends
>> justify the means (which you do believe in).
>
> Krw is confident enough about what he knows to make that kind of assertion. If he had a working brain in his head he'd realise that that it had to be total nonsense - he's merely articulated what he believes to be the communist agenda (not that any communist would have expressed it quite that way). The fact that he thinks that socialists think that way is pure ignorance - the socialists kicked Marx out of the movement in 1870 precisely because they thought that that particular aberration would lead to tyranny, which it did.
>

He doesn't believe it, because to his mind it's a totally ridiculous 
notion that anyone in the world isn't constantly pondering how they can 
control him, as it's clear that's what _he_ thinks about a great 
majority of the time. If someone tells him different, the only 
"rational" explanation must be that they're simply lying to him.

In psychology, this is known as "projection."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435365

In article <8U0Wz.33634$Uz2.25709@fx29.iad>, 
bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net says...
> >> pleased than he would be.
> >>
> >> Bullshit.  You go to behd thinking about how you can control
> >> (everyone).  If you don't those you support *certainly* do. The ends
> >> justify the means (which you do believe in).
> >
> > Krw is confident enough about what he knows to make that kind of assertion. If he had a working brain in his head he'd realise that that it had to be total nonsense - he's merely articulated what he believes to be the communist agenda (not that any communist would have expressed it quite that way). The fact that he thinks that socialists think that way is pure ignorance - the socialists kicked Marx out of the movement in 1870 precisely because they thought that that 
particular aberration would lead to tyranny, which it did.
> >
> 
> He doesn't believe it, because to his mind it's a totally ridiculous 
> notion that anyone in the world isn't constantly pondering how they can 
> control him, as it's clear that's what _he_ thinks about a great 
> majority of the time. If someone tells him different, the only 
> "rational" explanation must be that they're simply lying to him.
> 
> In psychology, this is known as "projection."
> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:53:23 -0500
> 
> 

 Conspiring with Slow-Man will get you a lot of popularity points.

Jamie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435369

On 11/13/2016 12:13 PM, M Philbrook wrote:
> In article <8U0Wz.33634$Uz2.25709@fx29.iad>,
> bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net says...
>>>> pleased than he would be.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.  You go to behd thinking about how you can control
>>>> (everyone).  If you don't those you support *certainly* do. The ends
>>>> justify the means (which you do believe in).
>>>
>>> Krw is confident enough about what he knows to make that kind of assertion. If he had a working brain in his head he'd realise that that it had to be total nonsense - he's merely articulated what he believes to be the communist agenda (not that any communist would have expressed it quite that way). The fact that he thinks that socialists think that way is pure ignorance - the socialists kicked Marx out of the movement in 1870 precisely because they thought that that
> particular aberration would lead to tyranny, which it did.
>>>
>>
>> He doesn't believe it, because to his mind it's a totally ridiculous
>> notion that anyone in the world isn't constantly pondering how they can
>> control him, as it's clear that's what _he_ thinks about a great
>> majority of the time. If someone tells him different, the only
>> "rational" explanation must be that they're simply lying to him.
>>
>> In psychology, this is known as "projection."
>> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:53:23 -0500
>>
>>
>
>  Conspiring with Slow-Man will get you a lot of popularity points.
>
> Jamie

Pretty sure I wasn't particularly popular already. ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435446

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:13:54 -0500, M Philbrook
<jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <8U0Wz.33634$Uz2.25709@fx29.iad>, 
>bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net says...
>> >> pleased than he would be.
>> >>
>> >> Bullshit.  You go to behd thinking about how you can control
>> >> (everyone).  If you don't those you support *certainly* do. The ends
>> >> justify the means (which you do believe in).
>> >
>> > Krw is confident enough about what he knows to make that kind of assertion. If he had a working brain in his head he'd realise that that it had to be total nonsense - he's merely articulated what he believes to be the communist agenda (not that any communist would have expressed it quite that way). The fact that he thinks that socialists think that way is pure ignorance - the socialists kicked Marx out of the movement in 1870 precisely because they thought that that 
>particular aberration would lead to tyranny, which it did.
>> >
>> 
>> He doesn't believe it, because to his mind it's a totally ridiculous 
>> notion that anyone in the world isn't constantly pondering how they can 
>> control him, as it's clear that's what _he_ thinks about a great 
>> majority of the time. If someone tells him different, the only 
>> "rational" explanation must be that they're simply lying to him.
>> 
>> In psychology, this is known as "projection."
>> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:53:23 -0500
>> 
>> 
>
> Conspiring with Slow-Man will get you a lot of popularity points.

Did you expect differently?  Communists of a feather...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435242

On 11/12/2016 05:09 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:36:32 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:30:38 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
>> <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 19.46.55 UTC+1 skrev Michael Terrell:
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>>>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
>>>> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
>>>> how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
>>>> what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
>>>> will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
>>>> doesn't always work.
>>>
>>> Cheating on the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that
>>> the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to
>>> go vote
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think a lot of votes were deliberate middle-finger-salutes to the
>> mudstream press. The flyover, uneducated, working-class people got
>> tired of being mocked and exploited by the coastal elites that they
>> feed.
>
> It's *almost* as if, when you keep labeling people who disagree with
> you racist, homophobic, sexist Nazi pigs, they'll eventually turn on
> you. Hmmm.
>
> --sp

I have literally talked to parents who had their own children shot to 
death by gang members who were far less angry at the assailants than 
some of the posters here seem to be over...mean names someone somewhere 
called them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#436204

Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 19.46.55 UTC+1 skrev Michael Terrell:
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>
>>
>>      The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
>> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
>> how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
>> what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
>> will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
>> doesn't always work.
>
> Cheating on the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that
> the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to
> go vote


    Have you ever worked in broadcast or printed news? I have.


-- 
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435190

Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 07.30.33 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt 
> >Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean 
> >seriously, who knew?
> >
> 
> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
> 

Michael Moore of all people said that Trump would win and even made 
a powerful speech as to why. 

https://youtu.be/wxDRqeuLNag

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435200

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, the renowned bitrex
<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt 
>Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean 
>seriously, who knew?
>
>It seems they just unpack him from his suspended animation pod every 
>decade or so, replace whatever preservative substance is in his veins 
>with real blood, and shock him back into action like Dr. Frankenstein.
>
>I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that the true loss to 
>America from this administration's cabinet will be to the rolls of AARP.

I was invited to an event here in the Toronto area with Speaker Newt
at the end of September. He (along with Laura Ingram) did a reasonable
and fairly articulate job defending Trump. He wouldn't be the worst
possible choice for Sec. State. 

What role do you suggest for Pat Buchanan? 

--sp 

-- 
Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition:            http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435224

On 11/12/2016 05:04 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, the renowned bitrex
> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>> seriously, who knew?
>>
>> It seems they just unpack him from his suspended animation pod every
>> decade or so, replace whatever preservative substance is in his veins
>> with real blood, and shock him back into action like Dr. Frankenstein.
>>
>> I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that the true loss to
>> America from this administration's cabinet will be to the rolls of AARP.
>
> I was invited to an event here in the Toronto area with Speaker Newt
> at the end of September. He (along with Laura Ingram) did a reasonable
> and fairly articulate job defending Trump. He wouldn't be the worst
> possible choice for Sec. State.
>
> What role do you suggest for Pat Buchanan?
>
> --sp
>

If I absolutely had to pick, Secretary of Defense, probably.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435226

On 11/12/2016 06:09 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 11/12/2016 05:04 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, the renowned bitrex
>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>
>>> It seems they just unpack him from his suspended animation pod every
>>> decade or so, replace whatever preservative substance is in his veins
>>> with real blood, and shock him back into action like Dr. Frankenstein.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that the true loss to
>>> America from this administration's cabinet will be to the rolls of AARP.
>>
>> I was invited to an event here in the Toronto area with Speaker Newt
>> at the end of September. He (along with Laura Ingram) did a reasonable
>> and fairly articulate job defending Trump. He wouldn't be the worst
>> possible choice for Sec. State.
>>
>> What role do you suggest for Pat Buchanan?
>>
>> --sp
>>
>
> If I absolutely had to pick, Secretary of Defense, probably.

Reason being is that he's finally right, it's not worth facing down a 
nuclear conflict over the Ukraine or Georgia. What some of the other 
Conservative hawks available for the job would suggest in that situation 
is definitely anyone's guess.

The question is would Russia be satisfied with that. Unfortunately, 
probably not. Maybe we'll all be uploaded into computers before we have 
to worry about it. Probably not.

As it sees is popular to say these days: least-worst option.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435279

On 11/12/2016 03:09 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 11/12/2016 05:04 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, the renowned bitrex
>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>
>>> It seems they just unpack him from his suspended animation pod every
>>> decade or so, replace whatever preservative substance is in his veins
>>> with real blood, and shock him back into action like Dr. Frankenstein.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that the true loss to
>>> America from this administration's cabinet will be to the rolls of AARP.
>>
>> I was invited to an event here in the Toronto area with Speaker Newt
>> at the end of September. He (along with Laura Ingram) did a reasonable
>> and fairly articulate job defending Trump. He wouldn't be the worst
>> possible choice for Sec. State.
>>
>> What role do you suggest for Pat Buchanan?
>>
>> --sp
>>
>
> If I absolutely had to pick, Secretary of Defense, probably.

Oh no! Buchanan-fodder?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435229

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:04:33 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, the renowned bitrex
><bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt 
>>Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean 
>>seriously, who knew?
>>
>>It seems they just unpack him from his suspended animation pod every 
>>decade or so, replace whatever preservative substance is in his veins 
>>with real blood, and shock him back into action like Dr. Frankenstein.
>>
>>I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that the true loss to 
>>America from this administration's cabinet will be to the rolls of AARP.
>
>I was invited to an event here in the Toronto area with Speaker Newt
>at the end of September. He (along with Laura Ingram) did a reasonable
>and fairly articulate job defending Trump. He wouldn't be the worst
>possible choice for Sec. State. 
>

Wow, imagine meetings between Newt and some EC bigwigs. What fun.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435282

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:28:42 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:04:33 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
> <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, the renowned bitrex
> ><bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt 
> >>Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean 
> >>seriously, who knew?
> >>
> >>It seems they just unpack him from his suspended animation pod every 
> >>decade or so, replace whatever preservative substance is in his veins 
> >>with real blood, and shock him back into action like Dr. Frankenstein.
> >>
> >>I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that the true loss to 
> >>America from this administration's cabinet will be to the rolls of AARP.
> >
> >I was invited to an event here in the Toronto area with Speaker Newt
> >at the end of September. He (along with Laura Ingram) did a reasonable
> >and fairly articulate job defending Trump. He wouldn't be the worst
> >possible choice for Sec. State. 
> >
> 
> Wow, imagine meetings between Newt and some EC bigwigs. What fun.

They'd give him money, and both sides would emerge happy. The US national interest might not. What did you think being censured for ethics violations actually means?

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435281

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 9:04:37 AM UTC+11, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, the renowned bitrex
> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt 
> >Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean 
> >seriously, who knew?
> >
> >It seems they just unpack him from his suspended animation pod every 
> >decade or so, replace whatever preservative substance is in his veins 
> >with real blood, and shock him back into action like Dr. Frankenstein.
> >
> >I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that the true loss to 
> >America from this administration's cabinet will be to the rolls of AARP.
> 
> I was invited to an event here in the Toronto area with Speaker Newt
> at the end of September. He (along with Laura Ingram) did a reasonable
> and fairly articulate job defending Trump. He wouldn't be the worst
> possible choice for Sec. State.

Anybody who has been censured for an ethics violation isn't a good choice for dealing with people who might bribe him. 
 
> What role do you suggest for Pat Buchanan? 

Since they shut Bedlam to the public there haven't been any obvious options.

The house of Representatives has a minority leader, but there's no post of rabid minority leader, because there's no official rabid minority party - the Tea Party is merely a rabid faction of the Republican Party.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web