A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows ME » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Recent subjects I brought up



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 25th 07, 02:22 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 480
Default Recent subjects I brought up

Since I've brought it up now, Harry, I think I better add one last point,
since the worse afflicted will dismiss me as some 'do-gooder' trying to help
people who con themselves. No, its everyone else I'n trying to help. The
point of self-deceit (as a survival aid) is to enable people to be
hypocrites. I want them to stop it. Like, for instance, talking about caring
about others but supporting 100% selfish policys. Okay, be selfish, but stop
pretending you're not! Self-deception is for feeling noble while acting like
a greedy, gutless little s***. If people didn't deceive themselves they'd
actually *feel* like greedy, gutless little s***s.


Shane


Shane wrote:
Thanks Harry. I think self deception is the no. one problem facing
the race, but the amount of people I could convince you can count on
one hand. After a grenade goes off while holding it. It's the last
thing people want to admit to. It's easy to prove - all you have to
do is have been head-over-heels in love with someone you eventually
broke up with.
It impacts on the survival of the race because it serves a species
that hasn't evolved since the savannah and is no more capable of
conceiving of destroying life on Earth than it is of picturing 5000
bottles of beer. Which calls for a drink!

Shane


webster72n wrote:
You deserve a medal, Shane, or a doctorate at least, for Philosophy.
Your reasoning is totally realistic and it offers workable solutions.
Hope Eric gets a glimpse of this.
My only wish, your wisdom could spread far beyond the borders of this
forum, but there doens't lie much promise in that, does it?
Thanks for your *eye-opening* contribution.

Harry.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Quite apart from the fact those posts are a different one broken
down into paragraphs in order to try to discover why the original
failed to make it to the servers, and Heather's paragraphs were
mostly removed for that purpose and so it will obviously be taken
out of context...and which, having completed the exercise I
'cancelled', so they weren't supposed to still be there to argue
about anyway...and apart from the fact that one does not intend to
unblock a particular poster who appears to have a habit of not
merely misunderstanding one's words - which is fair enough, I'm not
especially eloquent - but embellishing them, which isn't...

...nonetheless I'll say this: it is irresponsible to give a drunk
his car keys. Is it not then irresponsible to give the same man (or
woman) - who wants to drive, drunk - a handgun?

Wanting to drive, drunk, is adopting the position that your pleasure
or convenience is more important than, say, a child's life. But it'd
be okay to give them their gun back? Or doesn't anyone who owns a
handgun drink too much? Do only responsible people own guns? This is
what I mean by rights clashing and gun advocates who put theirs
first.

Actually - reading about Job's Ruger - I read about key locks for
the hammer mechanism which, because I've been out of the loop so
long, I was unaware of. What a good idea! As a gun advocate, I'm all
for those (I don't like the idea of weapons that can only be fired
by the owner though). Not that either stop an irresponsible gun
owner causing the death of a third party.

Democracy - quite apart from the fact I doubt true democracy exists
anywhere - has nothing to do with taking legislator's words for what
is right or wrong. That's laziness or craven cowardice and probably
both. You make your own mind up about ethics - that's what democracy
is about. That's (part of) what Consciousness is about. And growing
up.

Waiting until the next election to change what's morally wrong
doesn't work, or nowhere near reliably enough, because doing nothing
until then sends the signal that you'll accept what ever it is
actually you'd rather not accept (such as, here, the Poll Tax) - so
even the opposition will likely adopt the contentious issue, for
expediency; but also who is voted in or out will come down to more
than just one issue. If society seems to be working otherwise,
likely the Government will be re-elected. What do you do now, wait
until the *next* election? You already waited for one. What most
people would do is just forget about it, and so society evolves
unchallenged for the worse.

The People decide. It doesn't mean if neither serious contender for
office understands ethics then it must be *you* who 'fails to get
it'. They're supposed to represent you, not manipulate you. If they
say black is white, they're wrong, full stop.

The political classes of the Western World today are dominated by
professional liars - mostly lawyers. To know that and continue to
trust them even to the extent of telling one what to think is that
kind of irresponsibility that 'The Right To Bear Arms' precludes. If
you let them tell you what to think then of course you will never,
ever bear arms against them when they go too far! You'll believe the
lies. That's what the lies are for.

Stanley Milgram already demonstrated all you need to know, decades
ago. But he's far from the only one.

Norman. I expect - if I was looking for an argument - I could argue
with you until natural causes intervened. The rest of the world
disagrees with the US, much of the time. In part that relates to
Americans who don't think we have the right to - which is only
satisfactorily explained by the 'bully syndrome' by which Might
equals Right. At which times your having the bomb is frightening. I
have more sympathy with the French independent nuclear deterrence
than our own 'at-the-beck-and-call-of-the-US' version (though not
doing atmospheric testing until the 90's! That was crass, much as,
in some ways, I'd love to see one).

Meanwhile, we began what ended up as Trinity and we designed and
built our own A- and then H-bombs and the only reason we didn't end
up producing them to this day is (likely that) you blackmailed us as
part payment for supplying us when we were the only ones standing
against Hitler. Like a bank foreclosing on you home.

We began almost everything. The jet, of course (though the Germans
may have independently come up with that one) which we then gave you
and then our government sabotaged our own efforts to break the Sound
Barrier by forcing Miles (iirc) to give you our designs in the sort
of sharing that only goes one way - then forcing Miles to give up
pursuing it. Almost as if strong hints that the US wanted to be
first had been given.

Our brilliant Lightning interceptor didn't get sold to Germany
because our government secretly briefed the Germans against it in
favour of the iconic-but-generally-agreed-to-be-otherwise-awful
Phantom. The only reasonable explanation for that - because it
happened almost everywhere else in Defence and Technology arenas too
- is we were blackmailed by the US following WWII.

It is extremely tempting to believe that the prevailing view of
Americans pre-war was that they'd happily have done business with
Nazi Germany if we were destroyed. There are Americans I have
tremendous respect for, and Americans I am profoundly grateful for,
and FDR is one of them.

We may not have started colonialism but we certainly made it ours!
And one way or another we gave up or lost the Empire. And that is
good, because it was morally wrong. Invading other nations is wrong.
Justifying it because they were naive enough to 'sell' us vast
tracts of land for beads does not make it alright, it makes it about
as honourable as 'stealing candy from a child'. Justifying it
because we gave them a lifestyle more like our own is at best
questionable. Yet this is what US foreign policy is - Cultural
Imperialism - Free Enterprise, a phrase too many Americans hear and
stop thinking thereafter, that encompasses blackmail and flim-flam
and plying entire nations with temptations that natural greed and
laziness makes their voters ripe for - that's why kids everywhere
want to be American, not because they love the thought of freedom -
they don't even know what it means - but because they do little but
watch mindless American TV that tempts them in the name of selling
them stuff. Like the way advertisers increasingly target children
because they'll nag the parents.

If you think 'whatever you can get away with' is therefore
justified, you *are* in league with the devil like various people
think! I mean, the Middle East has a very, very strong case, which
it's unthinking hotheads, just like everyone else's, go and ruin.
Just because the gangster (like your old friend Saddam) in charge is
happy to 'give' his people's property to the US whether they like it
or not, in exchange for expensive toys and status symbols akin to
the bigger dick American spammers hope to sell us, because *he* is a
megalomaniac, doesn't make it okay, but that would appear to be
exactly what supporters of peacetime US Foreign Policy think. It
makes it look as if Organised Crime is so successful in the US
because the US is run and supported by people without morals; that
the way the Mafia runs *is* The American Way.

You know what amazes me, increasingly (as I get older)? How recent
history is. By which I mean how much was metaphorically 'just
yesterday'. Along with the assertion that 'history repeats itself' -
which doesn't mean what it is taken to mean, because we are always
at somewhere new, because the technology is so advanced on a
generation previous and there are subtle differences in what we now
want. I'm still only middle-aged. I was born as the Space Age began
and the Jet Age took off (pun not intended). Look at where we are
today? World War II seemed a lifetime ago when I was a kid, but more
time has passed now since I rode a Jota than between the end of
hostilities and my coming into the mix!

Look where we were a century ago. Less than a century! I've been
telling my sister about the Tuskogee Airmen recently. I was actually
alive when Americans you'd respect for fighting in Viet Nam, or Eric
would allow to have a gun *and* bullets until proven unfit, were
pulling coloureds up into the trees by the neck! It's not that long
ago, is it. A lot of those Americans are still alive - and voting.
You think you deserve to tell the world what to do? You still
haven't meaningfully compensated the Native Americans! Or do the
whites tell themselves they're happy running their casinos so
everything's okay?

Almost nobody has an open mind. Not just American, all
nationalities. That's part of being human, just like normal
perception misses so very much because the point of it is to help us
survive rather than to help us have fun. But we're not animals - or
if we are, if it's each person for themselves, then I've got a few
people to kill before they get me. You know? I'm sure you do; if you
were in Viet Nam you must know what people are really like. I mean,
unless it traumatised you so much you're in denial now.

About Viet Nam, I liked the movie with Eric Roberts - To Heal A
Nation - about the Memorial. The attitude that movie advances is the
right one, imo. If you didn't like that movie I would consider you
just too angry to think straight, but I really hope you liked that
movie.

Do you think Kent State was justifiable? If you do, you justify the
protests, at least from your opponent's pov. It doesn't matter which
came first, because what came first was the willingness to shoot
unarmed protesters, and *that's* really what the protests were about
(just not on the surface where most people's minds remain). But all
mass movements are dominated by the unthinking, left or right. There
is no actual difference when you come down to it. Like left wing
dictatorships and right wing dictatorships are the same thing,
people who murder and imprison political opponents and treat the
rest of us as valueless beyond as cheap labour or other means to an
end. Labelling them 'Left Wing' or 'Right Wing' rather misses the
point.

People who vote for whoever their parents voted for, never having
really thought about switching. People who think that changing your
mind is a sign of fickleness. Authoritarians are the ones who just
do what they're told, even if its murder; even if its mass murder.
It is alarming that mainstream political groups still encourage
authoritarianism and do things like 'play the Race card', it implys
that those vying for power don't care about 'collateral damage' -
such as encouraging genocide elsewhere - but is entirely consistent
with the current notion of politics as a career rather than a public
service, in other words too often it doesn't seem to be the public
that comes first, its the politician - and sometimes only the
politician. Short-termism is widely recognised as the problem of the
Human Race.

I believed what I heard about global warning as a kid, and watched
as people discredited, with no justification beyond that doing
anything about it would be bad for their particular business, the
scientists who warned about it. Ah, but you're an American, you'll
be deluding yourself because the American way of life depends on
burning all that - our - fossil fuel - so we all choke for you.

What I believe in is acting honourably. You do too, don't you,
Norman? And, as an example, you don't think villages burnt and
farmers machine-gunned was excusable do you? I'd rather you thought
the people responsible should have done hard time, that it brought
shame upon the US. I found it reassuring that there were
prosecutions, though wasn't the soldier convicted then released?
True he was probably a scapegoat - like Lindy or whatever her name
is. England? - who actually I feel kind of sorry for. Certainly in
the UK murder or torture while in uniform (or, indeed, plain
clothes) gets tacit approval by virtue of lack of consequences.

But if Viet Nam was so Just, how come the North won and yet Viet Nam
is a pretty good country now? And why would you expect the Soviet
Union to have shrugged it's shoulders and moved on when the US
developed the A-bomb and kept it to themselves? I'll grant that
there were valid reasons for so doing, but like hawks everywhere you
seem to blame your enemy for acting exactly as you would were the
positions reversed. In other words you don't appear to step back and
look at yourself - which is required except for being a hothead.

You probably thought Oliver North was a hero? But how can the US
expect respect from the Middle East (or anywhere not already in it's
pocket like the UK) when it deals with total hypocrisy? Its like the
supporters of such enterprises think no-one else is smart enough to
see the inconsistences. You don't deal with terrorists. You don't
appease dictatorships. Unless all its really about is business. Do
you think supporting death squads in Central America was a good
thing? What is Law for? Just something to keep your own people under
control - along with that 'opium of the masses' known as television?
If that's what it's about, there's no Democracy there, it's just a
way to be totalitarian by stealth. But isn't Democracy what you
fought for? Maybe you confused 'Democracy' with 'America'.

Anyway, this was a series of posts taken out of context and I don't
want to spend the rest of my life on the computer. I believe we're
going to hell in a handcart because of partisanship, because almost
no-one thinks 'one step beyond'.

I don't kid myself, or not for long. Ceasing it requires admitting
you *can* kid yourself, instead of believing yourself infallible. My
contribution to the world, if ever I convince anyone at all, will be
to make them really beware of self deception, not think that because
they gave the issue five minutes thought as a teenager they've been
immune ever since. But as long as people believe what they want to
believe, big business - and their politician partners - will kill us
for short term profit.

Shane





Shane wrote:
Surprised that one got through. 7th:

We do have it pretty good with our National Healthcare
System.....so don't complain. And I do believe ours is better
than the UK. Had a lot of time to investigate that one.


Yes. Probably wasn't until recently, but I almost died because of
what ours has become (under Thatcher, Major and Blair. Must figure
out some time how to sue the f**ker for it!).

Off to bed.....getting as bad as Shane and Mike!!

Night.....Figgs

Hope you haven't slept all this time, Figgs!


Shane



Shane wrote:
6th paragraph:

However, here we're seeing the consequences of a politician
banning handguns. Whether he started out meaning well or was
always a megalomaniac is moot, the point is *we* need weapons to
protect against tyrannical government! Our freedoms are being
removed piece by piece, relentlessly, and a police state being
established. Someone wrote a letter (to the Independent?)
recently asking (something like) if when Blair is no longer PM,
will he continue to work for the Republican Party? That is not
really a joke. Shane wrote:
Hmm again. Not only has every thing but the first paragraph got
through so far, I just e-mailed the post to myself, so it
wouldn't have got through if it was, say, the British Government
doing the censoring.
Next paragraph:

Yes, the psychopaths and organised crime have so many guns that
it makes sense for anyone who doesn't think there'll always be a
policeman to protect you to have one to, but mostly they'll only
shoot you if you interfere with business. The crazies are, imo, a
better argument for having a gun yourself (if you're in the US.
That isn't really an issue here, nor presumably in Canada?).




Shane wrote:
4th paragraph:

Meanwhile the US of course has the right to bear arms in the
constitution, a fact that has frequently been cited as the
reason they must be allowed to do so - to defend against
tyranny from their own government. Unfortunately the only ones
who use that argument I ever saw who would bear arms against
the government - as opposed to just letting freedom be
encroached on out of existence - are the crazies who do
basically want to shoot the weak and anyone who tries to
protect them. The rest are just like the British citizens, who
can't help defining what is right as whatever the government of
the day tells them it is. Shane wrote:
Hmm. 3rd paragraph:

Anyway, I say yes to gun control. Because we're not living on
the frontier - or most of us aren't anyway. Maybe those in the
rural mid-west should just lobby to leave the Union - or stop
pretending to care about Americans rather than just America.
However, handguns are a fact of life. I say better to live with
it, responsibly, than to pretend they don't exist. They're like
the atomic bomb, it would be nicer if the technology had never
been dreamt of, but it was and they're here to stay.


Shane wrote:
2nd paragraph:

But the world over, people are lazy thinkers and don't look
beyond the first conclusion. So its like we're living in a
world ruled by children. And the politicians pander to them,
of course.

There are Pro-gun lobbyists who deny irrefutable fact the way
some deny the Holocaust (another parallel!). Now, say they
were at a dance - and the polite thing to do was hand your
firearm in at the cloakroom. Handing it back at the end of
the evening would be akin, responsibility-wise, to giving
back a drunk their car keys (I'm drowning in parallels
here!). There are certain rights that conflict with other
people's rights, aren't there. But those Pro-gun supporters
think theirs always comes first. Maybe that comes in growing
up in the mid-West, miles from anyone else and they do still
think they're on their own on the frontier. Shane wrote:
I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and don't
get through.


Shane wrote:
I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an
inserted oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in
which I now see I repeat quite a lot and its not quite as
incisive as I originally meant). The first two got through,
the last hasn't (I've reset the group twice). The last one
gives my reasons for no longer believing in a law passed
here some years ago now, allusions to which I've made
before. The question is: who would censor it? Because these
days it wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why
I justified my current position on the emotive subject. If
this gets through and *it* hasn't I'll repost it in various
forms.



  #22  
Old January 25th 07, 06:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
webster72n
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,526
Default Recent subjects I brought up

Couldn't agree with you more, Shane, the trouble is, there are sooo few
takers. People seem to be indulging in *self deception*, especially where
they are not supposed to, i.e. the USA. No use trying to change them, the
various drugs/medications and *vaccinations* have already done the dirty
work they were designed or used for. Too bad we have to suffer along with
them. H.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Since I've brought it up now, Harry, I think I better add one last point,
since the worse afflicted will dismiss me as some 'do-gooder' trying to

help
people who con themselves. No, its everyone else I'n trying to help. The
point of self-deceit (as a survival aid) is to enable people to be
hypocrites. I want them to stop it. Like, for instance, talking about

caring
about others but supporting 100% selfish policys. Okay, be selfish, but

stop
pretending you're not! Self-deception is for feeling noble while acting

like
a greedy, gutless little s***. If people didn't deceive themselves they'd
actually *feel* like greedy, gutless little s***s.


Shane


Shane wrote:
Thanks Harry. I think self deception is the no. one problem facing
the race, but the amount of people I could convince you can count on
one hand. After a grenade goes off while holding it. It's the last
thing people want to admit to. It's easy to prove - all you have to
do is have been head-over-heels in love with someone you eventually
broke up with.
It impacts on the survival of the race because it serves a species
that hasn't evolved since the savannah and is no more capable of
conceiving of destroying life on Earth than it is of picturing 5000
bottles of beer. Which calls for a drink!

Shane


webster72n wrote:
You deserve a medal, Shane, or a doctorate at least, for Philosophy.
Your reasoning is totally realistic and it offers workable solutions.
Hope Eric gets a glimpse of this.
My only wish, your wisdom could spread far beyond the borders of this
forum, but there doens't lie much promise in that, does it?
Thanks for your *eye-opening* contribution.

Harry.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Quite apart from the fact those posts are a different one broken
down into paragraphs in order to try to discover why the original
failed to make it to the servers, and Heather's paragraphs were
mostly removed for that purpose and so it will obviously be taken
out of context...and which, having completed the exercise I
'cancelled', so they weren't supposed to still be there to argue
about anyway...and apart from the fact that one does not intend to
unblock a particular poster who appears to have a habit of not
merely misunderstanding one's words - which is fair enough, I'm not
especially eloquent - but embellishing them, which isn't...

...nonetheless I'll say this: it is irresponsible to give a drunk
his car keys. Is it not then irresponsible to give the same man (or
woman) - who wants to drive, drunk - a handgun?

Wanting to drive, drunk, is adopting the position that your pleasure
or convenience is more important than, say, a child's life. But it'd
be okay to give them their gun back? Or doesn't anyone who owns a
handgun drink too much? Do only responsible people own guns? This is
what I mean by rights clashing and gun advocates who put theirs
first.

Actually - reading about Job's Ruger - I read about key locks for
the hammer mechanism which, because I've been out of the loop so
long, I was unaware of. What a good idea! As a gun advocate, I'm all
for those (I don't like the idea of weapons that can only be fired
by the owner though). Not that either stop an irresponsible gun
owner causing the death of a third party.

Democracy - quite apart from the fact I doubt true democracy exists
anywhere - has nothing to do with taking legislator's words for what
is right or wrong. That's laziness or craven cowardice and probably
both. You make your own mind up about ethics - that's what democracy
is about. That's (part of) what Consciousness is about. And growing
up.

Waiting until the next election to change what's morally wrong
doesn't work, or nowhere near reliably enough, because doing nothing
until then sends the signal that you'll accept what ever it is
actually you'd rather not accept (such as, here, the Poll Tax) - so
even the opposition will likely adopt the contentious issue, for
expediency; but also who is voted in or out will come down to more
than just one issue. If society seems to be working otherwise,
likely the Government will be re-elected. What do you do now, wait
until the *next* election? You already waited for one. What most
people would do is just forget about it, and so society evolves
unchallenged for the worse.

The People decide. It doesn't mean if neither serious contender for
office understands ethics then it must be *you* who 'fails to get
it'. They're supposed to represent you, not manipulate you. If they
say black is white, they're wrong, full stop.

The political classes of the Western World today are dominated by
professional liars - mostly lawyers. To know that and continue to
trust them even to the extent of telling one what to think is that
kind of irresponsibility that 'The Right To Bear Arms' precludes. If
you let them tell you what to think then of course you will never,
ever bear arms against them when they go too far! You'll believe the
lies. That's what the lies are for.

Stanley Milgram already demonstrated all you need to know, decades
ago. But he's far from the only one.

Norman. I expect - if I was looking for an argument - I could argue
with you until natural causes intervened. The rest of the world
disagrees with the US, much of the time. In part that relates to
Americans who don't think we have the right to - which is only
satisfactorily explained by the 'bully syndrome' by which Might
equals Right. At which times your having the bomb is frightening. I
have more sympathy with the French independent nuclear deterrence
than our own 'at-the-beck-and-call-of-the-US' version (though not
doing atmospheric testing until the 90's! That was crass, much as,
in some ways, I'd love to see one).

Meanwhile, we began what ended up as Trinity and we designed and
built our own A- and then H-bombs and the only reason we didn't end
up producing them to this day is (likely that) you blackmailed us as
part payment for supplying us when we were the only ones standing
against Hitler. Like a bank foreclosing on you home.

We began almost everything. The jet, of course (though the Germans
may have independently come up with that one) which we then gave you
and then our government sabotaged our own efforts to break the Sound
Barrier by forcing Miles (iirc) to give you our designs in the sort
of sharing that only goes one way - then forcing Miles to give up
pursuing it. Almost as if strong hints that the US wanted to be
first had been given.

Our brilliant Lightning interceptor didn't get sold to Germany
because our government secretly briefed the Germans against it in
favour of the iconic-but-generally-agreed-to-be-otherwise-awful
Phantom. The only reasonable explanation for that - because it
happened almost everywhere else in Defence and Technology arenas too
- is we were blackmailed by the US following WWII.

It is extremely tempting to believe that the prevailing view of
Americans pre-war was that they'd happily have done business with
Nazi Germany if we were destroyed. There are Americans I have
tremendous respect for, and Americans I am profoundly grateful for,
and FDR is one of them.

We may not have started colonialism but we certainly made it ours!
And one way or another we gave up or lost the Empire. And that is
good, because it was morally wrong. Invading other nations is wrong.
Justifying it because they were naive enough to 'sell' us vast
tracts of land for beads does not make it alright, it makes it about
as honourable as 'stealing candy from a child'. Justifying it
because we gave them a lifestyle more like our own is at best
questionable. Yet this is what US foreign policy is - Cultural
Imperialism - Free Enterprise, a phrase too many Americans hear and
stop thinking thereafter, that encompasses blackmail and flim-flam
and plying entire nations with temptations that natural greed and
laziness makes their voters ripe for - that's why kids everywhere
want to be American, not because they love the thought of freedom -
they don't even know what it means - but because they do little but
watch mindless American TV that tempts them in the name of selling
them stuff. Like the way advertisers increasingly target children
because they'll nag the parents.

If you think 'whatever you can get away with' is therefore
justified, you *are* in league with the devil like various people
think! I mean, the Middle East has a very, very strong case, which
it's unthinking hotheads, just like everyone else's, go and ruin.
Just because the gangster (like your old friend Saddam) in charge is
happy to 'give' his people's property to the US whether they like it
or not, in exchange for expensive toys and status symbols akin to
the bigger dick American spammers hope to sell us, because *he* is a
megalomaniac, doesn't make it okay, but that would appear to be
exactly what supporters of peacetime US Foreign Policy think. It
makes it look as if Organised Crime is so successful in the US
because the US is run and supported by people without morals; that
the way the Mafia runs *is* The American Way.

You know what amazes me, increasingly (as I get older)? How recent
history is. By which I mean how much was metaphorically 'just
yesterday'. Along with the assertion that 'history repeats itself' -
which doesn't mean what it is taken to mean, because we are always
at somewhere new, because the technology is so advanced on a
generation previous and there are subtle differences in what we now
want. I'm still only middle-aged. I was born as the Space Age began
and the Jet Age took off (pun not intended). Look at where we are
today? World War II seemed a lifetime ago when I was a kid, but more
time has passed now since I rode a Jota than between the end of
hostilities and my coming into the mix!

Look where we were a century ago. Less than a century! I've been
telling my sister about the Tuskogee Airmen recently. I was actually
alive when Americans you'd respect for fighting in Viet Nam, or Eric
would allow to have a gun *and* bullets until proven unfit, were
pulling coloureds up into the trees by the neck! It's not that long
ago, is it. A lot of those Americans are still alive - and voting.
You think you deserve to tell the world what to do? You still
haven't meaningfully compensated the Native Americans! Or do the
whites tell themselves they're happy running their casinos so
everything's okay?

Almost nobody has an open mind. Not just American, all
nationalities. That's part of being human, just like normal
perception misses so very much because the point of it is to help us
survive rather than to help us have fun. But we're not animals - or
if we are, if it's each person for themselves, then I've got a few
people to kill before they get me. You know? I'm sure you do; if you
were in Viet Nam you must know what people are really like. I mean,
unless it traumatised you so much you're in denial now.

About Viet Nam, I liked the movie with Eric Roberts - To Heal A
Nation - about the Memorial. The attitude that movie advances is the
right one, imo. If you didn't like that movie I would consider you
just too angry to think straight, but I really hope you liked that
movie.

Do you think Kent State was justifiable? If you do, you justify the
protests, at least from your opponent's pov. It doesn't matter which
came first, because what came first was the willingness to shoot
unarmed protesters, and *that's* really what the protests were about
(just not on the surface where most people's minds remain). But all
mass movements are dominated by the unthinking, left or right. There
is no actual difference when you come down to it. Like left wing
dictatorships and right wing dictatorships are the same thing,
people who murder and imprison political opponents and treat the
rest of us as valueless beyond as cheap labour or other means to an
end. Labelling them 'Left Wing' or 'Right Wing' rather misses the
point.

People who vote for whoever their parents voted for, never having
really thought about switching. People who think that changing your
mind is a sign of fickleness. Authoritarians are the ones who just
do what they're told, even if its murder; even if its mass murder.
It is alarming that mainstream political groups still encourage
authoritarianism and do things like 'play the Race card', it implys
that those vying for power don't care about 'collateral damage' -
such as encouraging genocide elsewhere - but is entirely consistent
with the current notion of politics as a career rather than a public
service, in other words too often it doesn't seem to be the public
that comes first, its the politician - and sometimes only the
politician. Short-termism is widely recognised as the problem of the
Human Race.

I believed what I heard about global warning as a kid, and watched
as people discredited, with no justification beyond that doing
anything about it would be bad for their particular business, the
scientists who warned about it. Ah, but you're an American, you'll
be deluding yourself because the American way of life depends on
burning all that - our - fossil fuel - so we all choke for you.

What I believe in is acting honourably. You do too, don't you,
Norman? And, as an example, you don't think villages burnt and
farmers machine-gunned was excusable do you? I'd rather you thought
the people responsible should have done hard time, that it brought
shame upon the US. I found it reassuring that there were
prosecutions, though wasn't the soldier convicted then released?
True he was probably a scapegoat - like Lindy or whatever her name
is. England? - who actually I feel kind of sorry for. Certainly in
the UK murder or torture while in uniform (or, indeed, plain
clothes) gets tacit approval by virtue of lack of consequences.

But if Viet Nam was so Just, how come the North won and yet Viet Nam
is a pretty good country now? And why would you expect the Soviet
Union to have shrugged it's shoulders and moved on when the US
developed the A-bomb and kept it to themselves? I'll grant that
there were valid reasons for so doing, but like hawks everywhere you
seem to blame your enemy for acting exactly as you would were the
positions reversed. In other words you don't appear to step back and
look at yourself - which is required except for being a hothead.

You probably thought Oliver North was a hero? But how can the US
expect respect from the Middle East (or anywhere not already in it's
pocket like the UK) when it deals with total hypocrisy? Its like the
supporters of such enterprises think no-one else is smart enough to
see the inconsistences. You don't deal with terrorists. You don't
appease dictatorships. Unless all its really about is business. Do
you think supporting death squads in Central America was a good
thing? What is Law for? Just something to keep your own people under
control - along with that 'opium of the masses' known as television?
If that's what it's about, there's no Democracy there, it's just a
way to be totalitarian by stealth. But isn't Democracy what you
fought for? Maybe you confused 'Democracy' with 'America'.

Anyway, this was a series of posts taken out of context and I don't
want to spend the rest of my life on the computer. I believe we're
going to hell in a handcart because of partisanship, because almost
no-one thinks 'one step beyond'.

I don't kid myself, or not for long. Ceasing it requires admitting
you *can* kid yourself, instead of believing yourself infallible. My
contribution to the world, if ever I convince anyone at all, will be
to make them really beware of self deception, not think that because
they gave the issue five minutes thought as a teenager they've been
immune ever since. But as long as people believe what they want to
believe, big business - and their politician partners - will kill us
for short term profit.

Shane





Shane wrote:
Surprised that one got through. 7th:

We do have it pretty good with our National Healthcare
System.....so don't complain. And I do believe ours is better
than the UK. Had a lot of time to investigate that one.


Yes. Probably wasn't until recently, but I almost died because of
what ours has become (under Thatcher, Major and Blair. Must figure
out some time how to sue the f**ker for it!).

Off to bed.....getting as bad as Shane and Mike!!

Night.....Figgs

Hope you haven't slept all this time, Figgs!


Shane



Shane wrote:
6th paragraph:

However, here we're seeing the consequences of a politician
banning handguns. Whether he started out meaning well or was
always a megalomaniac is moot, the point is *we* need weapons to
protect against tyrannical government! Our freedoms are being
removed piece by piece, relentlessly, and a police state being
established. Someone wrote a letter (to the Independent?)
recently asking (something like) if when Blair is no longer PM,
will he continue to work for the Republican Party? That is not
really a joke. Shane wrote:
Hmm again. Not only has every thing but the first paragraph got
through so far, I just e-mailed the post to myself, so it
wouldn't have got through if it was, say, the British Government
doing the censoring.
Next paragraph:

Yes, the psychopaths and organised crime have so many guns that
it makes sense for anyone who doesn't think there'll always be a
policeman to protect you to have one to, but mostly they'll only
shoot you if you interfere with business. The crazies are, imo, a
better argument for having a gun yourself (if you're in the US.
That isn't really an issue here, nor presumably in Canada?).




Shane wrote:
4th paragraph:

Meanwhile the US of course has the right to bear arms in the
constitution, a fact that has frequently been cited as the
reason they must be allowed to do so - to defend against
tyranny from their own government. Unfortunately the only ones
who use that argument I ever saw who would bear arms against
the government - as opposed to just letting freedom be
encroached on out of existence - are the crazies who do
basically want to shoot the weak and anyone who tries to
protect them. The rest are just like the British citizens, who
can't help defining what is right as whatever the government of
the day tells them it is. Shane wrote:
Hmm. 3rd paragraph:

Anyway, I say yes to gun control. Because we're not living on
the frontier - or most of us aren't anyway. Maybe those in the
rural mid-west should just lobby to leave the Union - or stop
pretending to care about Americans rather than just America.
However, handguns are a fact of life. I say better to live with
it, responsibly, than to pretend they don't exist. They're like
the atomic bomb, it would be nicer if the technology had never
been dreamt of, but it was and they're here to stay.


Shane wrote:
2nd paragraph:

But the world over, people are lazy thinkers and don't look
beyond the first conclusion. So its like we're living in a
world ruled by children. And the politicians pander to them,
of course.

There are Pro-gun lobbyists who deny irrefutable fact the way
some deny the Holocaust (another parallel!). Now, say they
were at a dance - and the polite thing to do was hand your
firearm in at the cloakroom. Handing it back at the end of
the evening would be akin, responsibility-wise, to giving
back a drunk their car keys (I'm drowning in parallels
here!). There are certain rights that conflict with other
people's rights, aren't there. But those Pro-gun supporters
think theirs always comes first. Maybe that comes in growing
up in the mid-West, miles from anyone else and they do still
think they're on their own on the frontier. Shane wrote:
I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and don't
get through.


Shane wrote:
I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an
inserted oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in
which I now see I repeat quite a lot and its not quite as
incisive as I originally meant). The first two got through,
the last hasn't (I've reset the group twice). The last one
gives my reasons for no longer believing in a law passed
here some years ago now, allusions to which I've made
before. The question is: who would censor it? Because these
days it wouldn't necessarily be MS and such is precisely why
I justified my current position on the emotive subject. If
this gets through and *it* hasn't I'll repost it in various
forms.





  #23  
Old January 31st 07, 05:06 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Norman
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 87
Default Recent subjects I brought up

Been offline for awhile. You have good points. interleave below
"Eric" wrote in message
...

"Norman" wrote in message
...
I have to wonder if such off topic is an effort to kill ME, since this is

a
wME group.

It was actually started with the premise of keeping wME alive, hoping that
even OT posts will keep the forum alive, and keep knowledgeable ME users
around in case someone does have an actual question.

That said here goes. Populace has to have guns in the event it is
necessary
to revolt against mind control of Hitler types. Otherwise you get Sadam
and
minions overlording the populace. You can find many examples of such
around
the world like in Africa. Besides, guns won't kill wME.

Indeed. If we are to believe the movie Blood Diamond, Africa is in the
midst of a bloody revolution.
I'm guessing Saddam's people did not have guns where they convicted him of
genocide.
The Jews apparently could have used a few more guns in Hitler's day but
still, Hitler was a good guy compared to Stalin.

And something else to chew on. (Vietnam Veteran) We didn't lose that

Fing
war. The war was lost by the same types that today are saying Iraq is
another Vietnam. White House tapes prove it was hampered by diplomacy
because of nuclear concerns. No one can say that the push at the end if

at
other time would not have proven concerns correct. Although peace

monkeys
likely brought that push about, they should weigh their actions against
the
millions of lives lost after the peace. That sums the many years of the
war,
except the end when the push occurred. (when I served). From 68 to 72,
much
control had been handed to RVN, especially in air control, albeit with

old
antiquated planes and equipment. Major offensive launched by NVA,

Easter
of
'72, moving massive amounts of arms and troops south of border, large
numbers of Marines and Marine air wing moved back into Vietnam to stop
their
advance. Peacenik pressure against Vietnam moved most of us to support
areas, within flying distance. With winning or losing forced to
foreground,
Linebacker I and II were exercised. We finally did what could have been
done
earlier if not for the diplomacy thing. We took it to Hanoi and forced
them
to meet in Paris. But because of traitors like John F Kerry who held
unauthorized meetings with them, they renigged, resulting in Linebacker
II.
They signed that time. It is the Kerry types that would rather have you,
us,
lose wars. Maybe it would put most diplomats out of a job.
Lose, no way, we won the peace and that is what going to war is about.
We are disgraced by the fact that the peaceniks have not had to wear the
scars of what they did, yet we are constantly forced to wear the

albatross
they created. They and the Capitol monkeys of the same mind. RVN lost in
the
end because the Capitol monkeys, in a single stroke, cut all money for

the
promised weapons and support to RVN. If someone takes away your guns,

how
long can you last against a well armed force that is being resupplied by
Russia and China?

Vietnam should never be compared to Iraq, just for the reason that it

was
about Communist dominoes and this one is about a bunch of fanatics
indoctrinated in getting to Allah quickly via nuclear, biological, and
chemical. You have to know if they were handed a bomb that would

vaporize
Earth, they'd hold a party and detonate it. KEEP THAT IN MIND!

I was going to mention that Iraq should not be compared to Vietnam, but I

do
have a couple of points to add.

People willing to blow themselves up is not a difference. Vietnam had
people strapping bombs to women and children to kill our troops. That is
why Kerry accused our troops of being baby killers. Sometimes they leave
you no choice. Troops shoot people in Iraq all the time when those people
appear to be suicide bombers.

Yes they did, but thankfully not to the level in the Moslem terrorist world.

The other thing those wars have in common is the US fighting to bring
democracy to them. The big difference there is Vietnam never asked for

it.
We declared communism to be evil after seeing what became of it in places
like Russia (under Stalin) and decided to remove the Vietnamese government
whether they liked it or not. To this day, as far as I'm aware, the
Vietnamese are still content to live with communism.

It is my understanding that Uncle Ho approached us for support and we were
leaning his direction, but then abandoned him to back the French. He then
went to the communists for support and thus didn't really get what he wanted
but instead a deal with the devil. Did you know that the first American
killed in Vietnam was shot because gate guards thought he was French?
And not very content from what I hear. Efforts continue to recover our MIA
and humanitarian efforts to help them. Recent guest speakers for vietnam
vets told of the corruption within the government and having to pay off a
lot of them to gain access to build schools, distribute food and goods, or
search for missing. And the most recent speaker got to know some very high
ups from that time. One of them a high ranking general and his private
statement was, "I fought for the wrong side." Life is not so great
overthere. Aside from the millions killed after we left, most are still very
poor and living off the land.

The Vietnam War was largely considered lost, but I suppose you could
consider it a win for both sides, since we got our troops out and they are
now at peace. We didn't accomplish what we went there to do, but we
shouldn't have tried to do that to begin with.
The people of Iraq wanted revolution. They were obviously not happy with
Saddam, as confirmed recently by his execution, and could not remove him
from power peacefully. The people of Vietnam did not want revolution. If
they decide they want one, and cannot attain it by peaceful means, and do
not have the power to revolt, then super power nations like the USA should
step in. China has been communist. They are not happy with their
government which still tries to censor their media. They are shifting
toward democracy, and getting there by peaceful means. War should always

be
a last resort.

Last thought, and something for the Brits to chew over, Geneva

Convention.
That Armed Forces Geneva Convention Card troops carry is a bunch of
baloney
created post the big one. If it had been in place during WWII, England
would
have lost, US likely would have lost. At the top and bottom of that

Geneva
document it should have in very large letters, "YOU BREAK THESE RULES,

SO
DO
WE, WITH PAYBACK!" You don't win wars by tying hands behind back.

Norman


Which rule(s) should we break?
The big one in the news is torture. We should not be able to torture our
captives by "cruel and unusual" means as our constitution prohibits. We
cannot "win" this war by sinking to their level. It may sound like a good
idea to be hypocritical and torture those we labeled terrorists in ways

that
we would never use on our own people, to obtain information on their plans
or their leaders, but hypocrisy in a war on terror is always a bad idea.
When others hear about that, it simply breeds more terror. They are
following an idea, not a leader. If we could capture Bin Laden, they

could
simply declare a new leader.


Consititution? First, they are not citizens. Only rule that applies here is
the Geneva convention. That is why troops carry the Geneva convention card.
And the point of my previous meandering. Thankfully our leaders have ignored
the whims of other countries that want us dragged into some international
court. Like justice real exists around the world. Troops mainly answer to
the UCMJ.
Norman


  #24  
Old January 31st 07, 07:58 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Norman
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 87
Default Recent subjects I brought up

One more point. As so many others, you just don't get it. Our rules mean
nothing to them and it is a win or lose situation. Winning we could
indoctrinate towards a better humanity over years. Losing, you face similar
to the Jews under Hitler. Or maybe a blinding flash and instant
vaporization. We are not dealing with people that think like us. It is
closer to the gold lusting Spaniards being befriended by American Indians.
Tricked and then slaughtered, and if we don't wake up to the reality of who
or what we are dealing with we might have a fate similar to the Indians.
Make it simple. You and your family are stranded on an isolated
island(pretend you are vegitarians). There is one other family of similar
strength (they are carnivores). They have weaponry used for hunting. You
have it but never used it, more civilized and never needed to hunt or
defend. While out gathering fruit near the other tribes home, you overhear a
plot to wipe you from the island in 3 days, maybe eat you. What do you do?
Norman
"Norman" wrote in message
...
Been offline for awhile. You have good points. interleave below
"Eric" wrote in message
...

"Norman" wrote in message
...
I have to wonder if such off topic is an effort to kill ME, since this

is
a
wME group.

It was actually started with the premise of keeping wME alive, hoping

that
even OT posts will keep the forum alive, and keep knowledgeable ME users
around in case someone does have an actual question.

That said here goes. Populace has to have guns in the event it is
necessary
to revolt against mind control of Hitler types. Otherwise you get

Sadam
and
minions overlording the populace. You can find many examples of such
around
the world like in Africa. Besides, guns won't kill wME.

Indeed. If we are to believe the movie Blood Diamond, Africa is in the
midst of a bloody revolution.
I'm guessing Saddam's people did not have guns where they convicted him

of
genocide.
The Jews apparently could have used a few more guns in Hitler's day but
still, Hitler was a good guy compared to Stalin.

And something else to chew on. (Vietnam Veteran) We didn't lose that

Fing
war. The war was lost by the same types that today are saying Iraq is
another Vietnam. White House tapes prove it was hampered by diplomacy
because of nuclear concerns. No one can say that the push at the end

if
at
other time would not have proven concerns correct. Although peace

monkeys
likely brought that push about, they should weigh their actions

against
the
millions of lives lost after the peace. That sums the many years of

the
war,
except the end when the push occurred. (when I served). From 68 to 72,
much
control had been handed to RVN, especially in air control, albeit with

old
antiquated planes and equipment. Major offensive launched by NVA,

Easter
of
'72, moving massive amounts of arms and troops south of border, large
numbers of Marines and Marine air wing moved back into Vietnam to stop
their
advance. Peacenik pressure against Vietnam moved most of us to support
areas, within flying distance. With winning or losing forced to
foreground,
Linebacker I and II were exercised. We finally did what could have

been
done
earlier if not for the diplomacy thing. We took it to Hanoi and forced
them
to meet in Paris. But because of traitors like John F Kerry who held
unauthorized meetings with them, they renigged, resulting in

Linebacker
II.
They signed that time. It is the Kerry types that would rather have

you,
us,
lose wars. Maybe it would put most diplomats out of a job.
Lose, no way, we won the peace and that is what going to war is about.
We are disgraced by the fact that the peaceniks have not had to wear

the
scars of what they did, yet we are constantly forced to wear the

albatross
they created. They and the Capitol monkeys of the same mind. RVN lost

in
the
end because the Capitol monkeys, in a single stroke, cut all money for

the
promised weapons and support to RVN. If someone takes away your guns,

how
long can you last against a well armed force that is being resupplied

by
Russia and China?

Vietnam should never be compared to Iraq, just for the reason that it

was
about Communist dominoes and this one is about a bunch of fanatics
indoctrinated in getting to Allah quickly via nuclear, biological, and
chemical. You have to know if they were handed a bomb that would

vaporize
Earth, they'd hold a party and detonate it. KEEP THAT IN MIND!

I was going to mention that Iraq should not be compared to Vietnam, but

I
do
have a couple of points to add.

People willing to blow themselves up is not a difference. Vietnam had
people strapping bombs to women and children to kill our troops. That

is
why Kerry accused our troops of being baby killers. Sometimes they

leave
you no choice. Troops shoot people in Iraq all the time when those

people
appear to be suicide bombers.

Yes they did, but thankfully not to the level in the Moslem terrorist

world.

The other thing those wars have in common is the US fighting to bring
democracy to them. The big difference there is Vietnam never asked for

it.
We declared communism to be evil after seeing what became of it in

places
like Russia (under Stalin) and decided to remove the Vietnamese

government
whether they liked it or not. To this day, as far as I'm aware, the
Vietnamese are still content to live with communism.

It is my understanding that Uncle Ho approached us for support and we were
leaning his direction, but then abandoned him to back the French. He then
went to the communists for support and thus didn't really get what he

wanted
but instead a deal with the devil. Did you know that the first American
killed in Vietnam was shot because gate guards thought he was French?
And not very content from what I hear. Efforts continue to recover our MIA
and humanitarian efforts to help them. Recent guest speakers for vietnam
vets told of the corruption within the government and having to pay off a
lot of them to gain access to build schools, distribute food and goods, or
search for missing. And the most recent speaker got to know some very high
ups from that time. One of them a high ranking general and his private
statement was, "I fought for the wrong side." Life is not so great
overthere. Aside from the millions killed after we left, most are still

very
poor and living off the land.

The Vietnam War was largely considered lost, but I suppose you could
consider it a win for both sides, since we got our troops out and they

are
now at peace. We didn't accomplish what we went there to do, but we
shouldn't have tried to do that to begin with.
The people of Iraq wanted revolution. They were obviously not happy

with
Saddam, as confirmed recently by his execution, and could not remove him
from power peacefully. The people of Vietnam did not want revolution.

If
they decide they want one, and cannot attain it by peaceful means, and

do
not have the power to revolt, then super power nations like the USA

should
step in. China has been communist. They are not happy with their
government which still tries to censor their media. They are shifting
toward democracy, and getting there by peaceful means. War should

always
be
a last resort.

Last thought, and something for the Brits to chew over, Geneva

Convention.
That Armed Forces Geneva Convention Card troops carry is a bunch of
baloney
created post the big one. If it had been in place during WWII, England
would
have lost, US likely would have lost. At the top and bottom of that

Geneva
document it should have in very large letters, "YOU BREAK THESE RULES,

SO
DO
WE, WITH PAYBACK!" You don't win wars by tying hands behind back.

Norman


Which rule(s) should we break?
The big one in the news is torture. We should not be able to torture

our
captives by "cruel and unusual" means as our constitution prohibits. We
cannot "win" this war by sinking to their level. It may sound like a

good
idea to be hypocritical and torture those we labeled terrorists in ways

that
we would never use on our own people, to obtain information on their

plans
or their leaders, but hypocrisy in a war on terror is always a bad idea.
When others hear about that, it simply breeds more terror. They are
following an idea, not a leader. If we could capture Bin Laden, they

could
simply declare a new leader.


Consititution? First, they are not citizens. Only rule that applies here

is
the Geneva convention. That is why troops carry the Geneva convention

card.
And the point of my previous meandering. Thankfully our leaders have

ignored
the whims of other countries that want us dragged into some international
court. Like justice real exists around the world. Troops mainly answer to
the UCMJ.
Norman




  #25  
Old January 31st 07, 08:29 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Eric
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 216
Default Recent subjects I brought up


"Norman" wrote in message
...
Been offline for awhile. You have good points. interleave below
"Eric" wrote in message
Last thought, and something for the Brits to chew over, Geneva

Convention.
That Armed Forces Geneva Convention Card troops carry is a bunch of
baloney
created post the big one. If it had been in place during WWII, England
would
have lost, US likely would have lost. At the top and bottom of that

Geneva
document it should have in very large letters, "YOU BREAK THESE RULES,

SO
DO
WE, WITH PAYBACK!" You don't win wars by tying hands behind back.

Norman


Which rule(s) should we break?
The big one in the news is torture. We should not be able to torture our
captives by "cruel and unusual" means as our constitution prohibits. We
cannot "win" this war by sinking to their level. It may sound like a
good
idea to be hypocritical and torture those we labeled terrorists in ways

that
we would never use on our own people, to obtain information on their
plans
or their leaders, but hypocrisy in a war on terror is always a bad idea.
When others hear about that, it simply breeds more terror. They are
following an idea, not a leader. If we could capture Bin Laden, they

could
simply declare a new leader.


Consititution? First, they are not citizens. Only rule that applies here
is
the Geneva convention. That is why troops carry the Geneva convention
card.
And the point of my previous meandering. Thankfully our leaders have
ignored
the whims of other countries that want us dragged into some international
court. Like justice real exists around the world. Troops mainly answer to
the UCMJ.
Norman

I understand you want to treat our citizens nice and do whatever we want to
our captives, but that's not how our current government sees it. They want
to apply the "no cruel and unusual means" clause of our constitution to our
captives as well, to avoid the hypocrisy. They don't want us to torture our
own citizens, so they don't want us to torture our enemies, in the hopes
that if our enemies capture our citizens they won't torture them either.
That most likely would not be the reality, but it might help convince other
nations to support us if indeed our enemies torture our people. Our
government and media has recently attacked our military for using such
torture methods on captured al Quaeda as water-boarding and sensory
deprivation. Next they got in trouble for handing over our prisoners to
other countries that didn't have laws against cruel torture methods.
Besides what other countries might think of us, or intend to do to our
people, we have to worry about what to do with our prisoners who are
suspected of terrorist acts and later found to be innocent.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
'tweaking' placesbar in tweakui :-) (history vs recent) [email protected] General 0 November 10th 05 04:31 PM
Recent installation of System Recovery of ME christina General 1 September 1st 05 04:46 AM
Recent "Blue Screen" problems TomYoung General 7 March 21st 05 06:46 AM
Delete from recent docs list and it no longer holds 15 items jersie0 General 1 June 24th 04 05:24 PM
Protection Error after download recent security patches willis smith General 1 June 3rd 04 09:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.