Discussion:
Quotes from the stage...
(too old to reply)
Tim Scott
2005-03-29 10:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Had a female vocalist on stage the other night. Odd show, in that she
doesn't want it to be loud, so everything is acoustic - which in itself
wouldn't be a problem, but the room is so acoustically dead, that
everything gets lost in a mush. (Piano is C-Ducered, and I have a feed
from the keybs for stringy stuff, but the 4 piece brass section and
very quiet drums are just as they are. Bass has onstage amp, which
overpowers things sometimes.) Basically it sounds a mess and there is
not much i can do about it.

Anyways, that's not what I wanted to say!

About half way through the show, After an uptempo 'loud' song, she
looks over at the brass section, after the audience have applauded, and
says over the mic,
"You've got to give the boys a good blow, haven't you?!"

Well, me and the LX both collapsed into our desk in stitches, the
audience and band completely silent.

We were videoing the show, as the sea was rough, and thought she may
fall over. So have it all nicely archived ... once i've got it on
computer you can see it happen!

Anyone else got any onstage quotes?
Peter F
2005-03-29 13:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Scott
About half way through the show, After an uptempo 'loud' song, she
looks over at the brass section, after the audience have applauded, and
says over the mic,
"You've got to give the boys a good blow, haven't you?!"
Anyone else got any onstage quotes?
Yes.
Some years ago we did an Asian Mela.
Compere spoke broken English.
Pretty girl completes her dance piece,
compere picks up mike and uttered the unforgettable,
"Can everyone now give this girl the clap."

Peter
George Gleason
2005-03-29 13:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Scott
About half way through the show, After an uptempo 'loud' song, she
looks over at the brass section, after the audience have applauded, and
says over the mic,
"You've got to give the boys a good blow, haven't you?!"
Anyone else got any onstage quotes?
Well FUCK YOU were gonna keep playing
I heard that just before I put on Polka Richie(mains & monitors) at full
blast
George
ted
2005-03-29 15:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Scott
Anyone else got any onstage quotes?
not so much of a freudian slip , but instead rather cheeky stage patter:

after the first number from the band, the guitarist waited for the clapping
to settle down before saying "thanks very much, its always nice to have a
warm hand on ones opening!"

ted
Lord Valve
2005-03-29 16:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by ted
Post by Tim Scott
Anyone else got any onstage quotes?
after the first number from the band, the guitarist waited for the clapping
to settle down before saying "thanks very much, its always nice to have a
warm hand on ones opening!"
ted
Martin Mull once said (at the end of his standup routine)

"I'd like to thank you all for coming, or however else it
was that you reacted."

LV
Pooh Bear
2005-03-29 19:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Valve
Post by ted
Post by Tim Scott
Anyone else got any onstage quotes?
after the first number from the band, the guitarist waited for the clapping
to settle down before saying "thanks very much, its always nice to have a
warm hand on ones opening!"
ted
Martin Mull once said (at the end of his standup routine)
"I'd like to thank you all for coming, or however else it
was that you reacted."
LOL !

Is the sensation enhanced by having a gun in your pocket ?


Graham ( non gun owner )
Lord Valve
2005-03-30 07:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by Lord Valve
Post by ted
Post by Tim Scott
Anyone else got any onstage quotes?
after the first number from the band, the guitarist waited for the clapping
to settle down before saying "thanks very much, its always nice to have a
warm hand on ones opening!"
ted
Martin Mull once said (at the end of his standup routine)
"I'd like to thank you all for coming, or however else it
was that you reacted."
LOL !
Is the sensation enhanced by having a gun in your pocket ?
Graham ( non gun owner )
Which sensation might that be, slave?

Would that be the sensation of freedom, of safety, of the
right to personal security and self-defense?

In that case, the answer is "yes." Free men own
weapons. Slaves do their bidding.

Lord Valve
Armed American
Bmoas
2005-03-30 15:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Oh I forgot what the Dear Departed Warren Zevon said across the pa to
the lighting company I hired in for his show

HEY SHITHEAD can you find a fucking light you like and just leave it
the fuck on
George
Ian McKeown
2005-03-31 00:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bmoas
Oh I forgot what the Dear Departed Warren Zevon said across the pa to
the lighting company I hired in for his show
HEY SHITHEAD can you find a fucking light you like and just leave it
the fuck on
George
I was working on a christmas event a few years ago and they displayed the
words for the carols on screens. "O come all ye faithful" contained the
immortal line of "SIN in exaltation" rather than SING.

Another gig the singer announced that for the first verse the keyboard
player would play with himself and the rest of the band would join in later.
Reminds me of Derek Bell of the Chieftains who released a solo album where
he played all the instruments. It was called "Derek Bell plays with himself"
Phildo
2005-03-30 16:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Valve
Post by Pooh Bear
Is the sensation enhanced by having a gun in your pocket ?
Which sensation might that be, slave?
Would that be the sensation of freedom, of safety, of the
right to personal security and self-defense?
In that case, the answer is "yes." Free men own
weapons. Slaves do their bidding.
Lord Valve
Armed American
A very good post from the last time we had this argument followed by some
facts and figures:

"Patrick Forcelli" <***@bc.edu> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

Can Anyone answer me this?

Why is it so HARD for gun advocates to accept what is seen around the
world?

Compared to the United States in 1985, the combined numbers of murders
in which handguns were used in Japan, Great Britain, Switzerland,
Canada, Israel, and Australia were 113, versus 8092 in the US

And i know that i will hear from someone that "oh, well they probably
had murderers using other weapons" valid point, except that the numbers
dont show that. They had lower murder rates overall.

Why does gun control work for the World but not for the US?

While armed citizens may be able to better defend themselves from
armed attackers, they run a 43 times greater risk of killing a family
member. In addition, for every 1 act of self defence there are 38.3
acts of accidental death or suicide (Aitkens 78).

And how many of you actually know what the consistent interpretation
of the meaning of the second amendment - here is a little education

It reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to security of a
free statethe right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed"

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger feels that the second amendment is,
"the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud" (1121). The
fraud stems from the initial line of the amendment being ignored. The
Second amendment, consistently, since it was first addressed in 1876,
has been interpreted as saying, "The government shall not limit a
states right to an efficient militia" not as saying, "everyone can own
a gun". The 1879 case of United States v. Cruishank carried the
opinion, "the right to bear arms is not a right granted by the
Constitution" (Worsnop 512). In addition, most state constitutions
share similar language, the key element being militia; California,
Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York however do not
have "right to keep and bear arms" amendments in their state
constitutions (NRA).

Food for thought...

patrick


Gun Death - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01(1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun
Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and
HELP Network

Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World report on violence
and health, published by the World Health Organization on 3rd October 2002.
Jeff Foster
2005-03-30 17:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Compared to the United States in 1985, the combined numbers of murders
in which handguns were used in Japan, Great Britain, Switzerland,
Canada, Israel, and Australia were 113, versus 8092 in the US
I haven't seen where those numbers came from but I have to say that wherever
it was, it was a very lopsided study.

What is the overall violent crime rate in those countries like compared to
the US where citizens have a right to defend themselves? In England, for
example, it is much higher.

Here in Texas, and every other state that has Concealed weapon laws, the
violent crime rate went DOWN after the institution of concealed weapon laws.
Simply put, criminals like easy targets. If they think their target might
be armed, they don't initiate any attack.

In the US, the assault weapon ban signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994
was meant to reduce violent crime in the US by reducing and restricting
certain types of "violent" weapons. At the end of the 10 years that the law
was in effect, 2004, there was shown to be NO reduction in any sort of
criminal offense that this law was supposed to affect.

Jeff
A former Cop and and advocate of gun rights for law-abiding citizens.
Phildo
2005-03-30 20:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Foster
Post by Phildo
Compared to the United States in 1985, the combined numbers of murders
in which handguns were used in Japan, Great Britain, Switzerland,
Canada, Israel, and Australia were 113, versus 8092 in the US
I haven't seen where those numbers came from but I have to say that
wherever it was, it was a very lopsided study.
What is the overall violent crime rate in those countries like compared to
the US where citizens have a right to defend themselves? In England, for
example, it is much higher.
That is complete and utter bollocks. The US has a MUCH higher violent crime
rate than the UK.
Post by Jeff Foster
Here in Texas, and every other state that has Concealed weapon laws, the
violent crime rate went DOWN after the institution of concealed weapon
laws. Simply put, criminals like easy targets. If they think their target
might be armed, they don't initiate any attack.
Doesn't change the fact that the US has a much higher crime rate, far more
people die as a result of firearms be it malicious or accidental. Just look
at how many kids die through playing with guns they find in their parents
houses.
Post by Jeff Foster
In the US, the assault weapon ban signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994
was meant to reduce violent crime in the US by reducing and restricting
certain types of "violent" weapons. At the end of the 10 years that the
law was in effect, 2004, there was shown to be NO reduction in any sort of
criminal offense that this law was supposed to affect.
That's because you still have guns and guns kill people. They do not have
any other function. They are designed for killing and nothing more. What was
that commandment again?

Phildo
Jeff Foster
2005-03-30 21:52:32 UTC
Permalink
What was that commandment again?
If you're going to bring the Bible into your argument, you should at least
have a good idea of what it actually says on matters relating to this issue.
This link has a copy of a very good article relating to this issue from a
Biblical perspective.

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=364980

Also, I agree with the other poster who said that since this is not a Sound
related topic, we should take it to a more appropriate forum. May I suggest
the general forums on the website that I posted above or the
talk.politics.guns newsgroup.

Jeff
Joel Farris
2005-04-01 21:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
That's because you still have guns and guns kill people. They do not have
any other function. They are designed for killing and nothing more. What was
that commandment again?
Phildo
The commandment you're thinking of is:

"Thou shalt not lead thy neighbor astray of the topic at hand"

That one.
--
Joel Farris | AIM: FarrisJoel

** Their Web. Your Way. http://getfirefox.com **
psalter
2005-04-02 01:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Okay back to the original subject.
A country crooner thanking the sound company for his vasectomy. A
bluegrasser telling the audience he was going to go clean out his pants
after a cable to a phantom powered mic crapped out while he was
adjusting the stand. The Hall of Famer telling the audience that if
they heard shots ring out it would be him killing the sound guy. The
cajun band not realizing the engineer had cut his hair saying they
hoped he was better than the other guy. The banjo player introducing a
new act with the gel haired guitar player saying he looked like he'd
just been raped. You know, I should have been writing this down all of
these years.
Marc
2005-03-31 10:25:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:19:57 GMT, "Jeff Foster"
Post by Jeff Foster
Post by Phildo
Compared to the United States in 1985, the combined numbers of murders
in which handguns were used in Japan, Great Britain, Switzerland,
Canada, Israel, and Australia were 113, versus 8092 in the US
I haven't seen where those numbers came from but I have to say that wherever
it was, it was a very lopsided study.
What is the overall violent crime rate in those countries like compared to
the US where citizens have a right to defend themselves? In England, for
example, it is much higher.
numbers please if you say that!
Post by Jeff Foster
Here in Texas, and every other state that has Concealed weapon laws, the
violent crime rate went DOWN after the institution of concealed weapon laws.
Simply put, criminals like easy targets. If they think their target might
be armed, they don't initiate any attack.
or they might initiate one the military way that makes sure the target
has no way of defending against, i.e. use more violent ways to obtain
your wallet. the end could be that we all have to wear a bullet prove
vest and an m16 rifle
Post by Jeff Foster
In the US, the assault weapon ban signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994
was meant to reduce violent crime in the US by reducing and restricting
certain types of "violent" weapons. At the end of the 10 years that the law
was in effect, 2004, there was shown to be NO reduction in any sort of
criminal offense that this law was supposed to affect.
One could presume that signing an act like that does not sort effect
for the first two decades, it does not reduce firearms that are al
ready in possession.
However waving a gun against another gun does not reduce the risk of
being killed by one.
Having been treatened by a punk with a handgun i can attest that i
would have no use for one my self in the occasion, it would only have
escalated the situation.

Sure i don't live in the states, i live in Amsterdam and Holland has
perhaps the most strict gun laws in the world. We do have however gun
related crime rates that are amongst the lowest in the world.
Having these laws makes it easy to discriminate people walking around
with (*unlicensed) guns.. you commit a crime if you do, and you will
be severely punished ( ten years imprisoning)


* unlicensed, not registered, no gun license, OR! licensed but
carried at hands reach/loaded
Post by Jeff Foster
Jeff
A former Cop and and advocate of gun rights for law-abiding citizens.
Lord Valve
2005-03-31 16:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:19:57 GMT, "Jeff Foster"
Post by Jeff Foster
Post by Phildo
Compared to the United States in 1985, the combined numbers of murders
in which handguns were used in Japan, Great Britain, Switzerland,
Canada, Israel, and Australia were 113, versus 8092 in the US
I haven't seen where those numbers came from but I have to say that wherever
it was, it was a very lopsided study.
What is the overall violent crime rate in those countries like compared to
the US where citizens have a right to defend themselves? In England, for
example, it is much higher.
numbers please if you say that!
Post by Jeff Foster
Here in Texas, and every other state that has Concealed weapon laws, the
violent crime rate went DOWN after the institution of concealed weapon laws.
Simply put, criminals like easy targets. If they think their target might
be armed, they don't initiate any attack.
or they might initiate one the military way that makes sure the target
has no way of defending against, i.e. use more violent ways to obtain
your wallet. the end could be that we all have to wear a bullet prove
vest and an m16 rifle
Post by Jeff Foster
In the US, the assault weapon ban signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994
was meant to reduce violent crime in the US by reducing and restricting
certain types of "violent" weapons. At the end of the 10 years that the law
was in effect, 2004, there was shown to be NO reduction in any sort of
criminal offense that this law was supposed to affect.
One could presume that signing an act like that does not sort effect
for the first two decades, it does not reduce firearms that are al
ready in possession.
However waving a gun against another gun does not reduce the risk of
being killed by one.
Having been treatened by a punk with a handgun i can attest that i
would have no use for one my self in the occasion, it would only have
escalated the situation.
Sure i don't live in the states, i live in Amsterdam and Holland has
perhaps the most strict gun laws in the world. We do have however gun
related crime rates that are amongst the lowest in the world.
Having these laws makes it easy to discriminate people walking around
with (*unlicensed) guns.. you commit a crime if you do, and you will
be severely punished ( ten years imprisoning)
* unlicensed, not registered, no gun license, OR! licensed but
carried at hands reach/loaded
Oh, yeah - Scandinavian countries are *real* peaceful.

Here, chew on this, Sparky:

_________________________________________________



http://blogs.salon.com/0001561­/2003/09/08.html


Violent Sweden


You may have the impression that the Scandinavian
countries are a peaceful oasis in a world of violent
crime. That may to some extent still be true about
the others, but Sweden has experienced a soaring
increase in violent crimes, including murder, in
the last few years.


According to statistics from Interpol, there was
an amazing 892 murders in Sweden in 2001, which with
its 9M population gives it a murder rate of 10.01 per
100K population. To compare, England & Wales has less
total murders at 850, giving it a rate of 1.63. Norway's
murder rate is 2.66, almost a quarter of its neighbour,
and the US, which has long been considered the most
murderous country in the western world, has a murder
rate of 5.61.


The increase in murder is not an isolated case, though,
as this brief table over violent crimes per 100,000
population shows (Interpol statistics is compiled every
two years. All data is from 2001, except Norway which is
from 2000):


Murder:
Sweden - 10.01
Norway - 2.66
Eng/Wal - 1.63
USA - 5.61


Serious assault:
Sweden - 667.42
Norway - 77.43
Eng/Wal - 30.07
USA - 318.55


Rape/sex ass.:
Sweden - 102.84
Norway - 66.59
Eng/Wal - 71.64
USA - 31.77*


There is hardly a single reason for the soaring violent
crime rate in Sweden. There is one reason, however, which
Swedish authorities will be reluctant to mention. Lasse
Wierup, crime journalist in Sweden's largest newspaper
Dagens Nyheter, points out that immigrants are grossly
over-represented in crime statistics, both as criminals
and victims.

About half of all murder victims in Sweden were immigrants.
He doesn't mention any exact statistics for murderers.


Crimenologist Mikael Rying with the Swedish police does
not recognise these figures, and says they must be somewhat
exaggarated, as many suicides in Sweden have been reported
as murder. Yet, he admits even corrected figures look very
bad for Sweden.


* Statistics for USA seem to list only rape, not other
sexual assault, so figures are not comparable.



Lord Valve
American (and fuck you if you don't like it)
Hubert Barth
2005-03-31 17:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Valve
Post by Marc
Sure i don't live in the states, i live in Amsterdam and Holland has
perhaps the most strict gun laws in the world. We do have however gun
related crime rates that are amongst the lowest in the world.
Oh, yeah - Scandinavian countries are *real* peaceful.
ROTFL Now you´ve shot yourself in the foot Valvey.
--
Hubert
Lord Valve
2005-03-31 17:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Read the stats in the article, putz. Mind your own goddamn smelly feet.

Lord Valve
American (and fuck you if you don't like it)
Post by Hubert Barth
Post by Lord Valve
Post by Marc
Sure i don't live in the states, i live in Amsterdam and Holland has
perhaps the most strict gun laws in the world. We do have however gun
related crime rates that are amongst the lowest in the world.
Oh, yeah - Scandinavian countries are *real* peaceful.
ROTFL Now you´ve shot yourself in the foot Valvey.
--
Hubert
Marc
2005-03-31 19:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Valve
Post by Marc
Sure i don't live in the states, i live in Amsterdam and Holland has
perhaps the most strict gun laws in the world. We do have however gun
related crime rates that are amongst the lowest in the world.
Having these laws makes it easy to discriminate people walking around
with (*unlicensed) guns.. you commit a crime if you do, and you will
be severely punished ( ten years imprisoning)
* unlicensed, not registered, no gun license, OR! licensed but
carried at hands reach/loaded
Oh, yeah - Scandinavian countries are *real* peaceful.
like many americans thinking of thmeselves being the center of the
universe, you think holland is scandinavian.

get a fucking education!
Pooh Bear
2005-03-31 20:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc
Post by Lord Valve
Post by Marc
Sure i don't live in the states, i live in Amsterdam and Holland has
perhaps the most strict gun laws in the world. We do have however gun
related crime rates that are amongst the lowest in the world.
Having these laws makes it easy to discriminate people walking around
with (*unlicensed) guns.. you commit a crime if you do, and you will
be severely punished ( ten years imprisoning)
* unlicensed, not registered, no gun license, OR! licensed but
carried at hands reach/loaded
Oh, yeah - Scandinavian countries are *real* peaceful.
like many americans thinking of thmeselves being the center of the
universe, you think holland is scandinavian.
get a fucking education!
Oh c'mon ! He got the right Continent ( and general area ) which is more
than can be said for some Americans.


Graham
Marc
2005-04-01 08:41:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:57:45 +0100, Pooh Bear
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by Marc
Post by Lord Valve
Post by Marc
Sure i don't live in the states, i live in Amsterdam and Holland has
perhaps the most strict gun laws in the world. We do have however gun
related crime rates that are amongst the lowest in the world.
Having these laws makes it easy to discriminate people walking around
with (*unlicensed) guns.. you commit a crime if you do, and you will
be severely punished ( ten years imprisoning)
* unlicensed, not registered, no gun license, OR! licensed but
carried at hands reach/loaded
Oh, yeah - Scandinavian countries are *real* peaceful.
like many americans thinking of thmeselves being the center of the
universe, you think holland is scandinavian.
get a fucking education!
Oh c'mon ! He got the right Continent ( and general area ) which is more
than can be said for some Americans.
Maybe you want to drink the water between lets say Holland and Norway?
( swimming is also allowed...)

Europe is quite a big continent with on the far west side iceland and
on the east side Russia and the Ukraine
north is Norway and the most south point lays in greece ( kreta )

Now i know its not near as huge as the american continent but hey at
least most of the europeans get a general idea that the Rocky
mountains are in the east, and that there's a world of difference
between the people comming from NYC and Dallas and that virginia is
north of north Carolina ( last got its name from a small town in the
south of holland anyway


Now given today's US foreign politics one could say that there's
still a lot to learn about the world for American's and, if done so it
might lead to better understanding among people in the world .

Now i know you know, and hoping Lord Valve has a tiny little more
brains than Dobia i just hope it might sink in.... one down 100
million to go.

Having stated that, i can fairly say that there is no general idea
about europe ( that what the damn quirrel is about in the first place)
Par Example Belgium is an hours drive south from Amsterdam and has non
restrictive gun laws, unfortunately there a many many gun related
deaths in belgium, many of them children playing with daddy's gun ( to
come back on the originating subject of this tread)
Another distinguishing fact between Holland and Belgium
is the transportation of high value good like money etc)
In holland they rely on having a vault to drive in, then the money is
in a case that can explode couloring the money blue and worthless, etc
but strictly no guns
belgium has about the same techniques but the personnel caries guns.

results

Holland no deaths

Belgium high mortality under value transport personnel, ALL firearm
related


Now there's you general idea about europe and remember that's only an
hours drive by car
Post by Pooh Bear
Graham
Marc
2005-04-01 08:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:57:45 +0100, Pooh Bear
adding to that

http://www.yourchildlearns.com/europe_map.htm
Lord Valve
2005-04-01 09:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc
Now i know its not near as huge as the american continent but hey at
least most of the europeans get a general idea that the Rocky
mountains are in the east
Yeah, Euro-peons are all fuckin' rocket scientists.

You betcha.


Lord Valve
American (and fuck you if you don't like it)
Pooh Bear
2005-04-01 21:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:57:45 +0100, Pooh Bear
Post by Pooh Bear
Oh c'mon ! He got the right Continent ( and general area ) which is more
than can be said for some Americans.
Maybe you want to drink the water between lets say Holland and Norway?
( swimming is also allowed...)
You don't need to go quite that far - Denmark would do. :-)


Graham
Pooh Bear
2005-03-31 20:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Foster
Post by Phildo
Compared to the United States in 1985, the combined numbers of murders
in which handguns were used in Japan, Great Britain, Switzerland,
Canada, Israel, and Australia were 113, versus 8092 in the US
I haven't seen where those numbers came from but I have to say that wherever
it was, it was a very lopsided study.
I've seen those figures too ( or similar ones ) when I've looked into this area.
Post by Jeff Foster
What is the overall violent crime rate in those countries like compared to
the US where citizens have a right to defend themselves? In England, for
example, it is much higher.
I keep hearing Americans saying this but simply can't beleieve where they get
the numbers from. Violent crime in the UK includes 'domestic disputes' for
example now so I doubt that the recording method is likely to be comparable.
Post by Jeff Foster
Here in Texas, and every other state that has Concealed weapon laws, the
violent crime rate went DOWN after the institution of concealed weapon laws.
Simply put, criminals like easy targets. If they think their target might
be armed, they don't initiate any attack.
Sounds like dog eat dog to me.
Post by Jeff Foster
In the US, the assault weapon ban signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994
was meant to reduce violent crime in the US by reducing and restricting
certain types of "violent" weapons. At the end of the 10 years that the law
was in effect, 2004, there was shown to be NO reduction in any sort of
criminal offense that this law was supposed to affect.
Jeff
A former Cop and and advocate of gun rights for law-abiding citizens.
In the UK, gun deaths have fallen since much stricter regulations were
introduced on their ownership and use following several 'high profile incidents'
a decade or more ago.


Graham
Dale Farmer
2005-03-30 19:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Post by Lord Valve
Post by Pooh Bear
Is the sensation enhanced by having a gun in your pocket ?
Which sensation might that be, slave?
Would that be the sensation of freedom, of safety, of the
right to personal security and self-defense?
In that case, the answer is "yes." Free men own
weapons. Slaves do their bidding.
Lord Valve
Armed American
A very good post from the last time we had this argument followed by some
Can Anyone answer me this?
I was starting to prepare a point by point rebuttal, but then I realized
that this has absolutely nothing to do with live sound, so I direct your
attention to talk.politics.guns, where you are free to post your
misinformation and be corrected by folks with all the data at their
fingertips.

--Dale
Gordon 101
2005-03-31 08:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Gun Death - International Comparisons
Homicide Suicide Unintentional
USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01(1997)
* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun
Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and
HELP Network
Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World report on violence
and health, published by the World Health Organization on 3rd October 2002.
Hi Phildo
Gun related crimes have dropped 50% in the last decade here in Canada.
This coincides with new more strict gun registry laws.

Embarrassingly, Canada leads the world at the rate it incarcerates it's
young people yet juvenile crime continues to climb. Still some would
encourage us to increase punishment?

The U.S. has the highest percentage of it's population behind bars and
crime rates soar!

Phildo, your dealing with a symptom of a much deeper problem. The
extremist right wing evangelistic baptist movement that spearheads the
gun lobby threatens to drive the planet back to the Dark Ages.
They actually believe that it is their destiny to start Armageddon and
let the rapture begin.

The first time I heard the term "moral majority" I laughed, I'm not
laughing anymore. :-(

The lunatics really do run the asylum.

Gordo

I am starting to re-think this whole 'God' concept as there is pretty
good evidence that George Bush is 'The Antichrist'.
Lord Valve
2005-03-31 16:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon 101
Post by Phildo
Gun Death - International Comparisons
Homicide Suicide Unintentional
USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01(1997)
* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun
Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and
HELP Network
Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World report on violence
and health, published by the World Health Organization on 3rd October 2002.
Hi Phildo
Gun related crimes have dropped 50% in the last decade here in Canada.
This coincides with new more strict gun registry laws.
Embarrassingly, Canada leads the world at the rate it incarcerates it's
young people yet juvenile crime continues to climb. Still some would
encourage us to increase punishment?
The U.S. has the highest percentage of it's population behind bars and
crime rates soar!
Phildo, your dealing with a symptom of a much deeper problem. The
extremist right wing evangelistic baptist movement that spearheads the
gun lobby threatens to drive the planet back to the Dark Ages.
They actually believe that it is their destiny to start Armageddon and
let the rapture begin.
The first time I heard the term "moral majority" I laughed, I'm not
laughing anymore. :-(
The lunatics really do run the asylum.
Gordo
I am starting to re-think this whole 'God' concept as there is pretty
good evidence that George Bush is 'The Antichrist'.
OK, hoser -

First, we debunk your bullshit:

___________________________________________________

From: Thomas Zinck (***@wftzh07f.ca.nortel.com)
Subject: Violent Crime US vs Canada
Newsgroups: can.talk.guns
Date: 1999/04/09


10. What about violent crime rates?

In 1962, the US per capita violent crime rate was about 185
(violent crimes per 100,000 persons) and Canada's was around
250. The US rate has been lower than Canada's ever since,
and as can been seen below, the gap is widening. Note that
even though the violent crime rate indicies include homicides,
the US rates are still lower.

Year US Canada
1962 ~185 ~250

1967 ~250 ~390

1972 401 507
1973 417 534
1974 461 564
1975 488 597
1976 468 596
1977 476 583
1978 498 591
1979 549 621
1980 597 648
1981 594 666
1982 571 686
1983 538 686
1984 539 715
1985 557 751
1986 618 808
1987 610 856
1988 637 898
1989 663 947
1990 732 1013
1991 758 1099

1994 716 1037
1995 685 995

More info can be found at:
http://www.statcan.ca/Documents/English/Pgdb/State/justic.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/

The violent crime rate is calculated by adding up the number of
homicides, attempted murders, assaults, sexual assaults, other
sexual offences, abductions, and robberies, and dividing by the
mean population (times 100,000). The definitions for the US
offences are a bit different (e.g. they have "rape" whereas
Canada has "aggravated sexual assault") which is one reason
some people note that violent crime rates in different countries
should not be directly compared. (Other differences include
criminal law, legal systems, and the way data are collected and
calculated.)

However, it's easy to see that Canada's violent crime rate has
been increasing rapidly -- in spite of increasingly strict gun
laws -- and it has increased faster than the US rate. While
the Canadian rate has been decreasing since 1991, the same is
true of the US rate. (Besides, a 4% decrease hardly compensates
for a 400+% increase!)

Example:
- Canada's "tough gun laws" came info effect on Jan 1, 1978.
- Increase in Canada's violent crime rate 1977 to 1991: 89%
- Increase in USA's violent crime rate 1977 to 1991: 58%
Also, note that Canada's violent crime rate was dropping 1975
to 1977, and started climbing sharply after Bill C-51 was
passed in 1978. "Gun control" doesn't seem to have decreased
violent crime. In addition, Canadian break and enter rates were
greater than US rates in 1983 and the difference has only
increased since.

US and Canadian residential burglary rates were very similar
until 1991 when Canadian rates surpassed the US rates. In
1992, the Canadian residential burglary rate was 896 (per
100,000 persons) and the US rate was 774.

"...our 1992 residential/commercial burglary and property
crime rates were 33% and 25% higher, respectively, than our
southern neighbours, and have remained consistently higher
than the US for over ten years." ([68]Observations on a One
Way Street, 1994, p. 71)

Since 1982, the residential and commercial burglary rate in
the US has been lower than Canada's. It's also interesting
to note that since 1982, Canada's rates have been lower than
in England/Wales. [StatCan, the FBI UCRs, the US DoJ crime
surveys, and the UK Home Office]

The rate of violent crime in Canada increased 60% between
1982 and 1991, twice as high as all other Criminal Code
offenses combined[2]. Canadian women are as likely as as
men to be victims of crime; however, weapons were used
against 31% of men compared to 19% of women [3]. The majority
of women are victimized in their own home by individuals they
know (particularly husbands or ex-husbands), while men are
victimized by strangers[4]. The common weapons are "other"
weapons (such as motor vehicles, fire, poison, hot water),
followed by sharp instruments[5]. Gun control legislation
(Bill C-51) was introduced in 1978 in an attempt to reduce
violent crime. Current research indicates that C-51 had
virtually no perceptible impact on violent crime, suicide,
or accidental deaths[6]. The American states bordering
Canada have homicide rates similar to ours despite easier
legal access to firearms and liberal handgun laws[7].

There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that the
types and availability are directly related to increasing
rates of either violent crime or the criminal misuse of
firearms. In the absence of firearms, criminals switch to
other weapons or other sources of weapons. No gun law in
any city, state, or nation, has ever reduced violent crime
or slowed its rate or growth compared to similar jurisdictions
without such laws[8].

[2] Juristat Service Bulletin Vol. 12 No 21, "Gender Differences
Among Violent Crime Victims", (Statistics Canada, Circulation
Centre for Justice Statistics, Nov. 1992) p.4
[3] Ibid, p.5, p.9
[4] Ibid, pp.8-9
[5] Ibid.
[6] Robert J. Mundt, "Gun Control and Rates of Firearms
Violence in Canada and the United States", Canadian Journal of
Criminology, Vol. 32 No. 1 (Jan 1990), pp 137-154; and Paul
Blackman, "The Canadian Gun Law, Bill C-51: Its Effectiveness
and Lessons for Research on the Gun Control Issue", American
Society of Criminology, (Nov. 1984)
[7] Gary Kleck and Brett Patterson, "The Impact of Gun Control
and Gun Ownership on City Violence", (1989)
[8] David B. Kopel, op. cit., examined the effectiveness of the
firearms control policies of Japan, Canada, Britain,
Switzerland, Jamaica, Austraila, New Zealand, and the United
States, from a historical and sociological perspective.
Additional source references are: Gary Kleck and Brett
Patterson, op. cit; Joseph P. Magadin and Marshal Medoff, "An
Empirical Analysis of Federal and State Firearms Control Laws",
(1984); Douglas R. Murray, "Handguns, Gun Control Laws and
Firearms Violence", Social Problems, Vol. 23 (1975), Matthew R.
Dezee, "Gun Control Legislation: Impact and Ideology", Law and
Policy Quarterly Vol. 5 (1983), p.367; J. Killias, "Gun
Ownership and Violent Crime", Security Journal, Vol.1 No.3
(1990), p.171; Peter H. Rossi and James D. Wright, "Weapons,
Crimes, and Violence in America: Executive Summary", (US
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1981);
Solicitor General of Canada, "Firearms Control in Canada: An
Evaluation", (Ministry of Supply and Services Canada, 1983);
Don B. Kates Jr., "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics
Speak Out", (North River Press, 1979); and B. Bruce-Briggs,
"The Great American Gun War", The Public Interest, No. 45

_____________________________________________________

Next, a little reading material, just for fun:

http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html


Plenty more where this came from, hoser. Next time you
feel like pissing on Uncle Sam, you let me know, OK?

Lord Valve
American (and fuck you if you don't like it)
Gordon 101
2005-04-01 10:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Valve
OK, hoser -
A quote from a pro gun newsgroup and two links that don't work, there
is proof! I can't argue with that!
Post by Lord Valve
___________________________________________________
Subject: Violent Crime US vs Canada
Newsgroups: can.talk.guns
Date: 1999/04/09
http://www.statcan.ca/Documents/English/Pgdb/State/justic.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/
When I found these sites I also found nothing to substantiate your
position!

Try these


http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/factsheets/canus/default_e.asp

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

http://www.carleton.ca/Capital_News/06111998/g3.htm
Post by Lord Valve
_____________________________________________________
http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html
Some bigots rant proves what? The level of American education. (hurry
look up some more stats, yes our education system is better as well)
Post by Lord Valve
Plenty more where this came from, hoser. Next time you
feel like pissing on Uncle Sam, you let me know, OK?
Sorry, your right
USA IS God's country
Americans ARE the superior race
George Bush IS the saviour
Guns DO make your penis feel larger
Sadam does have WMD's
Fox news IS the greatest source of unbiased journalism today
Prescott Bush (George Sr. dad) didn't finance his son and grandson
with money he made as managing director of Union Bank.
(Hitler's bank)
AS well as being an active White Supremacist.
Criminals DO consider the penalty before committing the crime.
USA IS the safest place in the world
Canada ISN'T bigger than the USA
Capital punishment Does work
Guns DO make you safer
Bombing someone for something they may or may not do in the future
IS justifiable homicide
Land mines ARE moral
USA intent to exploit oil reserves in the Antarctic IS a good idea
The world IS flat
And Last but not least, Lord Valve isn't a idiot.

Forgive me, I rescind, I am no longer a doubter. How could I have been
so wrong? I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!! I strive only to follow in your
footsteps.
U S A U S A U S A...
Post by Lord Valve
Lord Valve
Now that were buddies, we need to talk about this Lord Valve stuff.
There are no Lords in the USA and "valve" is a very British as well.
I am starting to doubt the voracity of your beliefs. You aren't some
kind of turncoat are you? Certainly sounds UN-American. Where is your
pride.
Post by Lord Valve
American (and fuck you if you don't like it)
You have disturbing homosexual tendencies! Or is that just a draft
dodge?

The New Patriot ;-)
Gordo
Phildo
2005-04-02 00:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Valve
http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html
Plenty more where this came from, hoser. Next time you
feel like pissing on Uncle Sam, you let me know, OK?
Lord Valve
American (and fuck you if you don't like it)
Methinks Valveykins needs to watch "Bowling for Columbine" a few more times.

Have you ever actually seen it LV? If not then you should. Will open your
eyes a bit.

Phildo
Dale Farmer
2005-04-03 05:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Post by Lord Valve
http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html
Plenty more where this came from, hoser. Next time you
feel like pissing on Uncle Sam, you let me know, OK?
Lord Valve
American (and fuck you if you don't like it)
Methinks Valveykins needs to watch "Bowling for Columbine" a few more times.
Have you ever actually seen it LV? If not then you should. Will open your
eyes a bit.
If I wanted to watch propaganda films, I'd choose to watch ones
made by a filmmaker who is a lot better at his art form.

--Dale
Phildo
2005-04-03 05:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Farmer
Post by Phildo
Post by Lord Valve
http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html
Plenty more where this came from, hoser. Next time you
feel like pissing on Uncle Sam, you let me know, OK?
Lord Valve
American (and fuck you if you don't like it)
Methinks Valveykins needs to watch "Bowling for Columbine" a few more times.
Have you ever actually seen it LV? If not then you should. Will open your
eyes a bit.
If I wanted to watch propaganda films, I'd choose to watch ones
made by a filmmaker who is a lot better at his art form.
Truth hurts too much for you to watch it eh?

Phildo
Joel Farris
2005-04-06 04:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Truth hurts too much for you to watch it eh?
Uhh, I've seen everything that guy has made, and I do believe he's one of
the most talentless hacks in all of Hollywood.
--
Joel Farris
Born in Hollywood
Lord Valve
2005-04-03 08:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Farmer
Post by Phildo
Post by Lord Valve
http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html
Plenty more where this came from, hoser. Next time you
feel like pissing on Uncle Sam, you let me know, OK?
Lord Valve
American (and fuck you if you don't like it)
Methinks Valveykins needs to watch "Bowling for Columbine" a few more times.
Have you ever actually seen it LV? If not then you should. Will open your
eyes a bit.
If I wanted to watch propaganda films, I'd choose to watch ones
made by a filmmaker who is a lot better at his art form.
--Dale
"Bowling" has been debunked on so many levels it's beyond ridiculous.

Even the title is fake. Wake up.

Lord Valve
American
Phildo
2005-04-04 01:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Valve
"Bowling" has been debunked on so many levels it's beyond ridiculous.
Yeah, by gun nuts desperate to be able to keep their penis-extensions.

Phildo
Lord Valve
2005-04-04 04:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Post by Lord Valve
"Bowling" has been debunked on so many levels it's beyond ridiculous.
Yeah, by gun nuts desperate to be able to keep their penis-extensions.
Phildo
If you think guns have anything to do with dicks, you should see a shrink.

My friend, you have been had, and in a *major* way.
At least Leni Reifenstahl made good movies. Other
than that, there's damn little difference between the
two. Chew on these...I know you won't like 'em, but
sometimes you just have to face facts. While you're
at it - I *live* where Columbine happened. I saw the
shit go down on live TV, heard interviews, talked to
people who were there. Moore is a big fat liar, plain
and simple. The sooner he chokes to death on a bag
of potato chips, the better

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://bowlingfortruth.com/
http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/f911
http://moorelies.com/
http://michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Lord Valve
Gun Owner

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud, "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis", 1952-
Phildo
2005-03-31 18:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon 101
Hi Phildo
Gun related crimes have dropped 50% in the last decade here in Canada.
This coincides with new more strict gun registry laws.
I did love the way the Canadians came out in Bowling for Columbine. Says a
hell of a lot about the Americans who can't bear to get rid of their
penis-extension guns.
Post by Gordon 101
Embarrassingly, Canada leads the world at the rate it incarcerates it's
young people yet juvenile crime continues to climb. Still some would
encourage us to increase punishment?
Increasing punishment won't do much good. What is needed is grass roots
measures. In the UK they closed down a lot of the youth clubs so kids had
nowhere to go. Youth crime went up. Then the bleeding-heart loony liberals
decided to ban corporal punsishment in schools. Youth crime went up. They
then decided that the police weren't allowed to touch kids so the vast
majority of them walked away scot free from anything except the most serious
crimes. Youth crime went up. The kids have lost any respect for authority
and have no fear of the law. It all begins with bad parenting from the first
lot of kids who grew up with no respect and who pass that on to their kids.
Girls get pregnant just so they can get an apartment from the government and
not have to work. There are way more child biths now and the family unit
doesn't mean anything any more. Kids are not brought up, they are mostly an
annoyance and a means to extra money from the government and normally spend
most of their time plonked in front of a TV for the first few years of their
life with no sense of right and wrong being instilled in them.
Post by Gordon 101
The U.S. has the highest percentage of it's population behind bars and
crime rates soar!
Yet another poster just said the UK has higher rates then the US. He
probably believes what he sees on the TV news as well.
Post by Gordon 101
Phildo, your dealing with a symptom of a much deeper problem. The
extremist right wing evangelistic baptist movement that spearheads the
gun lobby threatens to drive the planet back to the Dark Ages.
They actually believe that it is their destiny to start Armageddon and
let the rapture begin.
Now THAT is scary. How anyone in this enlightened day and age can still be
taken in by the biggest con-trick in history is way beyond me but they still
take some fairy stories from 2000 years ago and waste their entire lives on
the promise that when they die they will go to a better place, despite the
fact the people making that promise cannot possibly prove it, do not have
one single shred of tangible evidence and yet continue to fleece their
victims out of money.
Post by Gordon 101
The first time I heard the term "moral majority" I laughed, I'm not
laughing anymore. :-(
I agree with some of the things they stand for. There needs to be more
social structure, respect for the family unit and certain moral attitudes
need to be respected. What is so wrong with helping someone else out just
for the sake of doing something good and not expecting anything in return?
Trouble is the rich have it, the poor want it and none of it ever flows
between the two.
Post by Gordon 101
The lunatics really do run the asylum.
Over there I can well believe it. How the majority [1] of an entire nation
can be so gullible is beyond me. Brainwashing from an early age I suppose.
Post by Gordon 101
I am starting to re-think this whole 'God' concept as there is pretty
good evidence that George Bush is 'The Antichrist'.
He's certainly an idiot but to believe he is the antichrist would mean
accepting the con-trick as real. He's just a con-artist himself.

Phildo

[1] Please note I said the majority. I know there are decent, intelligent
Americans out there who can think for themselves but sadly they do seem to
be very much in the minority.
Marc
2005-04-01 09:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
Hi Phildo
Gun related crimes have dropped 50% in the last decade here in Canada.
This coincides with new more strict gun registry laws.
I did love the way the Canadians came out in Bowling for Columbine. Says a
hell of a lot about the Americans who can't bear to get rid of their
penis-extension guns.
Moore just could not believe walking straight in to someone's home and
not being shot at.
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
Embarrassingly, Canada leads the world at the rate it incarcerates it's
young people yet juvenile crime continues to climb. Still some would
encourage us to increase punishment?
Increasing punishment won't do much good. What is needed is grass roots
measures. In the UK they closed down a lot of the youth clubs so kids had
nowhere to go. Youth crime went up. Then the bleeding-heart loony liberals
decided to ban corporal punsishment in schools. Youth crime went up. They
then decided that the police weren't allowed to touch kids so the vast
majority of them walked away scot free from anything except the most serious
crimes. Youth crime went up. The kids have lost any respect for authority
and have no fear of the law. It all begins with bad parenting from the first
lot of kids who grew up with no respect and who pass that on to their kids.
Girls get pregnant just so they can get an apartment from the government and
not have to work. There are way more child biths now and the family unit
doesn't mean anything any more. Kids are not brought up, they are mostly an
annoyance and a means to extra money from the government and normally spend
most of their time plonked in front of a TV for the first few years of their
life with no sense of right and wrong being instilled in them.
unfortunatly the same goes on here, we have the right wing so called
"cristians" to thank for ( out PM calles himself a freind of Bush....
now that scares me!!)
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
The U.S. has the highest percentage of it's population behind bars and
crime rates soar!
Yet another poster just said the UK has higher rates then the US. He
probably believes what he sees on the TV news as well.
well it was on Fox.......
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
Phildo, your dealing with a symptom of a much deeper problem. The
extremist right wing evangelistic baptist movement that spearheads the
gun lobby threatens to drive the planet back to the Dark Ages.
They actually believe that it is their destiny to start Armageddon and
let the rapture begin.
Now THAT is scary. How anyone in this enlightened day and age can still be
taken in by the biggest con-trick in history is way beyond me but they still
take some fairy stories from 2000 years ago and waste their entire lives on
the promise that when they die they will go to a better place, despite the
fact the people making that promise cannot possibly prove it, do not have
one single shred of tangible evidence and yet continue to fleece their
victims out of money.
Being brought up a Katholic i can only say that is "true believe",
Yet i stil recognize many values from cristianity ( and for that
matter the islam as well) i just wish theid stop making such a damn
fuzz about it an live the part instead of bothering me with it
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
The first time I heard the term "moral majority" I laughed, I'm not
laughing anymore. :-(
I agree with some of the things they stand for. There needs to be more
social structure, respect for the family unit and certain moral attitudes
need to be respected. What is so wrong with helping someone else out just
for the sake of doing something good and not expecting anything in return?
Trouble is the rich have it, the poor want it and none of it ever flows
between the two.
Post by Gordon 101
The lunatics really do run the asylum.
Over there I can well believe it. How the majority [1] of an entire nation
can be so gullible is beyond me. Brainwashing from an early age I suppose.
Post by Gordon 101
I am starting to re-think this whole 'God' concept as there is pretty
good evidence that George Bush is 'The Antichrist'.
He's certainly an idiot but to believe he is the antichrist would mean
accepting the con-trick as real. He's just a con-artist himself.
auch said the nail!
Post by Phildo
Phildo
[1] Please note I said the majority. I know there are decent, intelligent
Americans out there who can think for themselves but sadly they do seem to
be very much in the minority.
[2] the minority seems to outnumber the majority in the us...
Phildo
2005-04-02 04:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc
Post by Phildo
Increasing punishment won't do much good. What is needed is grass roots
measures. In the UK they closed down a lot of the youth clubs so kids had
nowhere to go. Youth crime went up. Then the bleeding-heart loony liberals
decided to ban corporal punsishment in schools. Youth crime went up. They
then decided that the police weren't allowed to touch kids so the vast
majority of them walked away scot free from anything except the most serious
crimes. Youth crime went up. The kids have lost any respect for authority
and have no fear of the law. It all begins with bad parenting from the first
lot of kids who grew up with no respect and who pass that on to their kids.
Girls get pregnant just so they can get an apartment from the government and
not have to work. There are way more child biths now and the family unit
doesn't mean anything any more. Kids are not brought up, they are mostly an
annoyance and a means to extra money from the government and normally spend
most of their time plonked in front of a TV for the first few years of their
life with no sense of right and wrong being instilled in them.
unfortunatly the same goes on here, we have the right wing so called
"cristians" to thank for ( out PM calles himself a freind of Bush....
now that scares me!!)
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people just live a
good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up in mumbo-jumbo fairy
stories? The whole point of a religion as such was to make people lead good
lives, to give them some sort of guidence. Surely in these more enlightened
times we do not need the scare tactics made up by the leaders of the time
that we would burn in hell when we die? Those leaders knew full well they
could never prove anything but also that the people were gullible and
superstitious enough to fall for it. "LIve a good life and you will get your
reward in heaven"was the old line but of course they could never prove it
and nobody ever came back asking for a refund. Great con-trick that they
couldn't lose with.
Post by Marc
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
Phildo, your dealing with a symptom of a much deeper problem. The
extremist right wing evangelistic baptist movement that spearheads the
gun lobby threatens to drive the planet back to the Dark Ages.
They actually believe that it is their destiny to start Armageddon and
let the rapture begin.
Now THAT is scary. How anyone in this enlightened day and age can still be
taken in by the biggest con-trick in history is way beyond me but they still
take some fairy stories from 2000 years ago and waste their entire lives on
the promise that when they die they will go to a better place, despite the
fact the people making that promise cannot possibly prove it, do not have
one single shred of tangible evidence and yet continue to fleece their
victims out of money.
Being brought up a Katholic i can only say that is "true believe",
Yet i stil recognize many values from cristianity ( and for that
matter the islam as well) i just wish theid stop making such a damn
fuzz about it an live the part instead of bothering me with it
Again, why can't people just lead good lives for the sake of it without
having to waste time and money on a load of fairy stories?
Post by Marc
[2] the minority seems to outnumber the majority in the us...
No, the problem is the majority are too dumb to realise how they are being
conned by both their government and their church. Sadly now though they are
pretty much one and the same. If only they could see things from the outside
they would understand. I'm in the lucky position of having lived in both the
US and the UK and can well see how the corporation controlled media has the
US people believing anything they want them to believe.

Makes me very afraid for the world to have someone so evil/stupid in a
position of such power.

Phildo
Marc
2005-04-02 21:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people just live a
good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up in mumbo-jumbo fairy
stories? The whole point of a religion as such was to make people lead good
lives, to give them some sort of guidence. Surely in these more enlightened
times we do not need the scare tactics made up by the leaders of the time
that we would burn in hell when we die? Those leaders knew full well they
could never prove anything but also that the people were gullible and
superstitious enough to fall for it. "LIve a good life and you will get your
reward in heaven"was the old line but of course they could never prove it
and nobody ever came back asking for a refund. Great con-trick that they
couldn't lose with.
well i'm not bringing it in, it was merely an observation on how thing
work these day's, unfortunately
I disagree with your statement that leaders do not use the scare
tacticts of hel and damnation in today's world, they just have given
it a new name, Islam, and we better be scared. for the bearded long
knives that come to our western society to slit our troats......
Post by Phildo
Post by Marc
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
Phildo, your dealing with a symptom of a much deeper problem. The
extremist right wing evangelistic baptist movement that spearheads the
gun lobby threatens to drive the planet back to the Dark Ages.
They actually believe that it is their destiny to start Armageddon and
let the rapture begin.
Now THAT is scary. How anyone in this enlightened day and age can still be
taken in by the biggest con-trick in history is way beyond me but they still
take some fairy stories from 2000 years ago and waste their entire lives on
the promise that when they die they will go to a better place, despite the
fact the people making that promise cannot possibly prove it, do not have
one single shred of tangible evidence and yet continue to fleece their
victims out of money.
Being brought up a Katholic i can only say that is "true believe",
Yet i stil recognize many values from cristianity ( and for that
matter the islam as well) i just wish theid stop making such a damn
fuzz about it an live the part instead of bothering me with it
Again, why can't people just lead good lives for the sake of it without
having to waste time and money on a load of fairy stories?
duuh i think you misunderstand me in being religious, just state that
many of the value's used in the bible or the koran or the tora or
whatever is your flavor are universal, and agains that modern day
religious leaders are still abusing them in interperting them for
their own good ( that is about the whoel Bush administration in a
nutshell)
Post by Phildo
Post by Marc
[2] the minority seems to outnumber the majority in the us...
No, the problem is the majority are too dumb to realise how they are being
conned by both their government and their church. Sadly now though they are
pretty much one and the same. If only they could see things from the outside
they would understand. I'm in the lucky position of having lived in both the
US and the UK and can well see how the corporation controlled media has the
US people believing anything they want them to believe.
just somewhere in tha back of my head zappa starts playing flakes :-)
Post by Phildo
Makes me very afraid for the world to have someone so evil/stupid in a
position of such power.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former" -- Albert Einstein.
Post by Phildo
Phildo
Phildo
2005-04-03 14:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc
Post by Phildo
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people just live a
good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up in mumbo-jumbo fairy
stories? The whole point of a religion as such was to make people lead good
lives, to give them some sort of guidence. Surely in these more enlightened
times we do not need the scare tactics made up by the leaders of the time
that we would burn in hell when we die? Those leaders knew full well they
could never prove anything but also that the people were gullible and
superstitious enough to fall for it. "LIve a good life and you will get your
reward in heaven"was the old line but of course they could never prove it
and nobody ever came back asking for a refund. Great con-trick that they
couldn't lose with.
well i'm not bringing it in, it was merely an observation on how thing
work these day's, unfortunately
I didn't say you brought it in, it was just an observation on the sorry
state of the world today that we still believe in something with as much
evidence for it's existance as santa claus and the tooth fairy. Hell, even
the loch ness monster has more solid evidence going for it than any religion
on the planet.
Post by Marc
I disagree with your statement that leaders do not use the scare
tacticts of hel and damnation in today's world, they just have given
it a new name, Islam, and we better be scared. for the bearded long
knives that come to our western society to slit our troats......
Last time I watched your evangelical TV shows they were VERY heavy on the
fire and brimstone bit. Those shows are just ridiculous but people are still
stupid enough to send them money, buying off their guilt at not being good
people. Yes, your government has painted Islam to be far worse than it
actually is and 9/11 was a blessing in disguise for Bush and his cronies in
that it gave them huge amounts of power and allowed them to bring in
legislation that would never have been stood for by the American people
pre-9/11. Because it was part of TWAT (The War Against Terrorism) then
people all assumed it was well and good where in reality these new bills
seriously eroded the rights of the US people.
Post by Marc
Post by Phildo
Again, why can't people just lead good lives for the sake of it without
having to waste time and money on a load of fairy stories?
duuh i think you misunderstand me in being religious, just state that
many of the value's used in the bible or the koran or the tora or
whatever is your flavor are universal, and agains that modern day
religious leaders are still abusing them in interperting them for
their own good ( that is about the whoel Bush administration in a
nutshell)
Which is exactly what I said. It's not just xtianity but most of the major
religions. They were created for a purpose when the masses were not as
educated as they are today. In out enlightened times there is no need for
religion but people's lives are so empty that they need the emotional crutch
that they'll get something better when they die. Yes, religions give hope
and encourage people to lead better lives but is all the
'god-you-can't-see-who-never-shows-himself-and-has-never-given-us-one-shred-of-evidence-he-even-exists-but-is-really-there-we-promise-yes-he-is-and-he-talks-to-me-so-you-should-do-what-I-say-because-if-you-don't-then-you-will-get-toasty-testicles-and-devils-shoving-hot-pitchforks-up-the-chocolate-chute-when-you-die"
bollocks really necessary?

Needless to say nobody has ever come back for a refund so the religious
leaders are on to a sure thing and people still fall for the biggest
con-trick in history.

Phildo
Joey
2005-04-06 18:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Post by Marc
Post by Phildo
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people just live a
good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up in mumbo-jumbo fairy
stories? The whole point of a religion as such was to make people lead good
lives, to give them some sort of guidence. Surely in these more enlightened
times we do not need the scare tactics made up by the leaders of the time
that we would burn in hell when we die? Those leaders knew full well they
could never prove anything but also that the people were gullible and
superstitious enough to fall for it. "LIve a good life and you will get your
reward in heaven"was the old line but of course they could never prove it
and nobody ever came back asking for a refund. Great con-trick that they
couldn't lose with.
well i'm not bringing it in, it was merely an observation on how thing
work these day's, unfortunately
I didn't say you brought it in, it was just an observation on the sorry
state of the world today that we still believe in something with as much
evidence for it's existance as santa claus and the tooth fairy. Hell, even
the loch ness monster has more solid evidence going for it than any religion
on the planet.
Again, your lack of knowledge on the subject reduces your credibility to
less than zero.
Post by Phildo
Post by Marc
I disagree with your statement that leaders do not use the scare
tacticts of hel and damnation in today's world, they just have given
it a new name, Islam, and we better be scared. for the bearded long
knives that come to our western society to slit our troats......
Last time I watched your evangelical TV shows they were VERY heavy on the
fire and brimstone bit. Those shows are just ridiculous but people are still
stupid enough to send them money, buying off their guilt at not being good
people. Yes, your government has painted Islam to be far worse than it
actually is and 9/11 was a blessing in disguise for Bush and his cronies in
that it gave them huge amounts of power and allowed them to bring in
legislation that would never have been stood for by the American people
pre-9/11. Because it was part of TWAT (The War Against Terrorism) then
people all assumed it was well and good where in reality these new bills
seriously eroded the rights of the US people.
Post by Marc
Post by Phildo
Again, why can't people just lead good lives for the sake of it without
having to waste time and money on a load of fairy stories?
duuh i think you misunderstand me in being religious, just state that
many of the value's used in the bible or the koran or the tora or
whatever is your flavor are universal, and agains that modern day
religious leaders are still abusing them in interperting them for
their own good ( that is about the whoel Bush administration in a
nutshell)
Which is exactly what I said. It's not just xtianity but most of the major
religions. They were created for a purpose when the masses were not as
educated as they are today. In out enlightened times there is no need for
religion but people's lives are so empty that they need the emotional crutch
that they'll get something better when they die. Yes, religions give hope
and encourage people to lead better lives but is all the
'god-you-can't-see-who-never-shows-himself-and-has-never-given-us-one-shred-of-evidence-he-even-exists-but-is-really-there-we-promise-yes-he-is-and-he-talks-to-me-so-you-should-do-what-I-say-because-if-you-don't-then-you-will-get-toasty-testicles-and-devils-shoving-hot-pitchforks-up-the-chocolate-chute-when-you-die"
bollocks really necessary?
Needless to say nobody has ever come back for a refund so the religious
leaders are on to a sure thing and people still fall for the biggest
con-trick in history.
Phildo
Phildo
2005-04-06 23:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey
Post by Phildo
I didn't say you brought it in, it was just an observation on the sorry
state of the world today that we still believe in something with as much
evidence for it's existance as santa claus and the tooth fairy. Hell,
even the loch ness monster has more solid evidence going for it than any
religion on the planet.
Again, your lack of knowledge on the subject reduces your credibility to
less than zero.
OK then, you think you are so clever, show me one single piece of tangible
evidence that there is or has ever been a god.

As I said, it's about as likely as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Phildo
Lawrence Lucier
2005-04-02 21:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people just live a
good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up in mumbo-jumbo fairy
stories?
FWIW, my thoughts exactly.
Steve White
2005-04-03 01:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people just live a
good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up in mumbo-jumbo fairy
stories?
And a good life would include being accomodating to those whose beliefs
differ from your own and not feeling so insecure or intolerant that you see
a need to attack their beliefs.

Steve W
Phildo
2005-04-03 05:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve White
Post by Phildo
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people just
live
a
Post by Phildo
good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up in mumbo-jumbo
fairy
Post by Phildo
stories?
And a good life would include being accomodating to those whose beliefs
differ from your own and not feeling so insecure or intolerant that you see
a need to attack their beliefs.
I did not attack their beliefs, just stated my opinion as to how outdated
they are and irrelevant to the enlightened society we live in today.

If you said you believed in the tooth fairy and santa clause I would say you
were an idiot. Religion is exactly the same thing.

Phildo
Steve White
2005-04-03 09:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
If you said you believed in the tooth fairy and santa clause I would say you
were an idiot. Religion is exactly the same thing.
You branded them all fools and belittled what they believe in.

Steve W
Phildo
2005-04-04 01:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve White
Post by Phildo
If you said you believed in the tooth fairy and santa clause I would say
you
Post by Phildo
were an idiot. Religion is exactly the same thing.
You branded them all fools and belittled what they believe in.
Yes, because what they believe in is so obviously a crock it's untrue.
Brainwashing is brainwashing, religions just legitimise it.

Phildo
Steve White
2005-04-04 17:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Yes, because what they believe in is so obviously a crock it's untrue.
Brainwashing is brainwashing, religions just legitimise it.
Phildo
Hmmm. That's pretty much what you've said, 4 times now and you've still
completely missed my point. Maybe it's best we stick to discussing live
sound.

Steve W
Joey
2005-04-06 18:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people just live a
good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up in mumbo-jumbo fairy
stories?
LOL. Jesus lived, had a ministry and was Crucified at Calvary. There are
quite a number of non-religious, non Christian historical sources to
back this up. To mention just a few:

o Cornelius Tacitus: Roman Historian, born A.D. 54
o Lucian of Samosata: Christ detractor, second century.
o Flavius Josephus: Jewish Historian
o Plinius Secondus: ”Pliny the Younger” AD 112 (who actually wrote the
Emperor because he felt guilty about killing so many Christians)

The calendar year that you live by is based upon His date of birth.
Jesus' ministry preached AGAINST the teachings of the 'leaders of the
time'.

The only thing you have to debate is whether Jesus was divine or just a
man. From your posts you seem to think that His existence is a myth.

Your woeful lack of education on the subject is both disheartening and
apparent. You might stick to live sound or something else that you have
more than 'best guesses' about.

You're not really Micheal Moore are you?

...Joey
Post by Phildo
The whole point of a religion as such was to make people lead good
lives, to give them some sort of guidence. Surely in these more enlightened
times we do not need the scare tactics made up by the leaders of the time
that we would burn in hell when we die? Those leaders knew full well they
could never prove anything but also that the people were gullible and
superstitious enough to fall for it. "LIve a good life and you will get your
reward in heaven"was the old line but of course they could never prove it
and nobody ever came back asking for a refund. Great con-trick that they
couldn't lose with.
Again, why can't people just lead good lives for the sake of it without
having to waste time and money on a load of fairy stories?
Phildo
jakdedert
2005-04-07 14:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey
Post by Phildo
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people
just live a good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up
in mumbo-jumbo fairy stories?
LOL. Jesus lived, had a ministry and was Crucified at Calvary. There
are quite a number of non-religious, non Christian historical sources
o Cornelius Tacitus: Roman Historian, born A.D. 54
o Lucian of Samosata: Christ detractor, second century.
o Flavius Josephus: Jewish Historian
o Plinius Secondus: ”Pliny the Younger” AD 112 (who actually wrote the
Emperor because he felt guilty about killing so many Christians)
However, there are no--and you haven't cited any above--sources actually
contemporary with the life of Christ.
Post by Joey
The calendar year that you live by is based upon His date of birth.
Jesus' ministry preached AGAINST the teachings of the 'leaders of the
time'.
I see you say 'based on' as opposed to 'is' the date...not very precise,
which is exactly the point. No one really knows; and there is no
contemporary corroboration.

jak
Joey
2005-04-07 17:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by jakdedert
Post by Joey
Post by Phildo
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people
just live a good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up
in mumbo-jumbo fairy stories?
LOL. Jesus lived, had a ministry and was Crucified at Calvary. There
are quite a number of non-religious, non Christian historical sources
o Cornelius Tacitus: Roman Historian, born A.D. 54
o Lucian of Samosata: Christ detractor, second century.
o Flavius Josephus: Jewish Historian
o Plinius Secondus: ”Pliny the Younger” AD 112 (who actually wrote the
Emperor because he felt guilty about killing so many Christians)
However, there are no--and you haven't cited any above--sources actually
contemporary with the life of Christ.
Are you arguing the Jesus of Nazareth did not exist?

...Joey
Post by jakdedert
Post by Joey
The calendar year that you live by is based upon His date of birth.
Jesus' ministry preached AGAINST the teachings of the 'leaders of the
time'.
I see you say 'based on' as opposed to 'is' the date...not very precise,
which is exactly the point. No one really knows; and there is no
contemporary corroboration.
jak
jakdedert
2005-04-07 18:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey
Post by jakdedert
Post by Joey
Post by Phildo
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people
just live a good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up
in mumbo-jumbo fairy stories?
LOL. Jesus lived, had a ministry and was Crucified at Calvary. There
are quite a number of non-religious, non Christian historical
o Cornelius Tacitus: Roman Historian, born A.D. 54
o Lucian of Samosata: Christ detractor, second century.
o Flavius Josephus: Jewish Historian
the Emperor because he felt guilty about killing so many Christians)
However, there are no--and you haven't cited any above--sources
actually contemporary with the life of Christ.
Are you arguing the Jesus of Nazareth did not exist?
Not exactly. I'm ascerting that there is no contemporary (to the purported
time of that existance) documentary proof that he did. The Romans recorded
*everything*. Granted much--if not most--of that documentation has been
destroyed; but does it not bother you, at least a little, that absolutely
none from the period in question has been uncovered despite a concerted
search of over 2000 years?

jak
Post by Joey
...Joey
Post by jakdedert
Post by Joey
The calendar year that you live by is based upon His date of birth.
Jesus' ministry preached AGAINST the teachings of the 'leaders of
the time'.
I see you say 'based on' as opposed to 'is' the date...not very
precise, which is exactly the point. No one really knows; and there
is no contemporary corroboration.
jak
Phildo
2005-04-07 18:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey
Are you arguing the Jesus of Nazareth did not exist?
He existed OK but he was an ordinary human, a political activist of his day
whose name was hijacked to start a religion to give hope to the oppressed
people of the time.

Man invented god not the other way round. There is more tangible evidence
for the loch ness monster, aliens and yetis than there is for the existence
of any deity.

You're just pissed you wasted your life on a bunch of fairy stories. Try
thinking for yourself for once instead of blindly believing what you've been
told by someone else.

Phildo

Phildo
2005-04-06 23:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey
Post by Phildo
Why do people have to bring religion into this? Why can't people just
live a good life for the sake of without having to wrap it up in
mumbo-jumbo fairy stories?
LOL. Jesus lived, had a ministry and was Crucified at Calvary. There are
quite a number of non-religious, non Christian historical sources to back
You never answered my question, just tell everyone that Jesus existed which
I fully agree with you. He was a documented historical character but if you
read past the lies and hype you'll find he was nothing more than a political
activist of his time (part of the Essene tribe) whose name was hijacked
after his "death" to start a religion.
Post by Joey
o Cornelius Tacitus: Roman Historian, born A.D. 54
o Lucian of Samosata: Christ detractor, second century.
o Flavius Josephus: Jewish Historian
o Plinius Secondus: ”Pliny the Younger” AD 112 (who actually wrote the
Emperor because he felt guilty about killing so many Christians)
The calendar year that you live by is based upon His date of birth.
Jesus' ministry preached AGAINST the teachings of the 'leaders of the
time'.
Still doesn't mean he was anything more than an ordinary man.
Post by Joey
The only thing you have to debate is whether Jesus was divine or just a
man. From your posts you seem to think that His existence is a myth.
Not at all. He existed. He just wasn't what you want him to be. You think
about it though - if he existed as you believe and was to come back today he
would be mightily pissed at all the things done in his name. You should
think about that one for a while.
Post by Joey
Your woeful lack of education on the subject is both disheartening and
apparent. You might stick to live sound or something else that you have
more than 'best guesses' about.
Actually I have researched the topic in great depth but, unlike you
blinkered know-it-all xtians, I didn't limit my research to that book of
fairy tales you call the bible.

Now then, how about answering my question?

Phildo
Gordon 101
2005-04-01 11:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Phildo wrote:
us to increase punishment?
Post by Phildo
Increasing punishment won't do much good.
As you point out the problem is best treated at its beginnings.
I don't know what role punishment plays in a justice system but it is
not preventative.

My generations philosophy of 'not raising our children like their
parents did them' didn't find a much better idea.
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
The first time I heard the term "moral majority" I laughed, I'm not
laughing anymore. :-(
I agree with some of the things they stand for. There needs to be more
social structure, respect for the family unit and certain moral attitudes
need to be respected. What is so wrong with helping someone else out just
for the sake of doing something good and not expecting anything in return?
Trouble is the rich have it, the poor want it and none of it ever flows
between the two.
I don't believe that these thoughts are the exclusive domain of the
'Moral Majority' no matter how much they claim them as their own.
It's like religions claiming Good to be a product of their beliefs.
All was chaos and anarchy before their god stuff.
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
The lunatics really do run the asylum.
Over there I can well believe it. How the majority [1] of an entire nation
can be so gullible is beyond me. Brainwashing from an early age I suppose.
Here is your most important point. Simply education. I believe
criminals should be required to get an education before they graduate.
If we all educated our young better I think we would be well served.

This is not brain washing but a reflection of the education we are
given

Maybe in Canada our own history is so boring we actually learn some
world history. Sadly in the States this is not the case.
We like to joke that Americans can not find their home state on an
unmarked map. Most cannot find Canada even though we are a larger
country. Most Americans don't ever know we are larger!
They actually teach that World War Two started Dec. 9 1942, with the
bombing of Pearl Harbour.
Sorry the blitz on London wasn't part of world war II!! Nor the
invasion of Europe etc. It's true.
Also it was the American fleet in Pearl Harbour that was attacked not
Pearl Harbour. Why is this important, Hawaii did not become part of the
USA till AFTER the war. But then many Americans don't even know how many
states there are in the union.

If you think I exaggerate

http://home.comcast.net/~wwwstephen/americans/
Post by Phildo
Phildo
John Halliburton
2005-04-03 03:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon 101
They actually teach that World War Two started Dec. 9 1942, with the
bombing of Pearl Harbour.
What's that date again?
Post by Gordon 101
Sorry the blitz on London wasn't part of world war II!! Nor the
invasion of Europe etc. It's true.
They at least know when it ended...
Post by Gordon 101
Also it was the American fleet in Pearl Harbour that was attacked not
Pearl Harbour. Why is this important, Hawaii did not become part of the
USA till AFTER the war. But then many Americans don't even know how many
states there are in the union.
Hawaii was U.S. property, and you're splitting semantics at this point.
jakdedert
2005-04-04 15:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Halliburton
Post by Gordon 101
Also it was the American fleet in Pearl Harbour that was attacked not
Pearl Harbour. Why is this important, Hawaii did not become part of the
USA till AFTER the war. But then many Americans don't even know how many
states there are in the union.
Hawaii was U.S. property, and you're splitting semantics at this point.
Not only that, but the airfields were actually the first targets of the
attack...so more properly, I guess one could say that Hawaii was the actual
target...the military installations thereon, at least. It's much easier to
say Pearl Harbor, since that was the main focus.

jak
Dale Farmer
2005-04-04 16:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by jakdedert
Post by John Halliburton
Post by Gordon 101
Also it was the American fleet in Pearl Harbour that was attacked not
Pearl Harbour. Why is this important, Hawaii did not become part of the
USA till AFTER the war. But then many Americans don't even know how many
states there are in the union.
Hawaii was U.S. property, and you're splitting semantics at this point.
Not only that, but the airfields were actually the first targets of the
attack...so more properly, I guess one could say that Hawaii was the actual
target...the military installations thereon, at least. It's much easier to
say Pearl Harbor, since that was the main focus.
jak
The primary targets were the US fleet capitol ships. Carriers and
battleships.
The reason the airfields were struck first was to destroy the fighters based
there,
to keep them from interfering with the main attack.
The Japanese could have done far more long lasting damage by diverting some
of the planes to attacking base support areas. oil tankage, repair facilities,
particularly the dry docks and so on.

--Dale
And this has even less to do with live sound.
Gordon 101
2005-04-06 06:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Halliburton
Post by Gordon 101
They actually teach that World War Two started Dec. 9 1942, with the
bombing of Pearl Harbour.
What's that date again?
Post by Gordon 101
Sorry the blitz on London wasn't part of world war II!! Nor the
invasion of Europe etc. It's true.
They at least know when it ended...
Post by Gordon 101
Also it was the American fleet in Pearl Harbour that was attacked not
Pearl Harbour. Why is this important, Hawaii did not become part of the
USA till AFTER the war. But then many Americans don't even know how many
states there are in the union.
Hawaii was U.S. property, and you're splitting semantics at this point.
The date was wrong intentionally, congrats on being the ONLY one to
notice ;-)
The reason for the distinction of Pear Harbour is the demonstration of
the American unwillingness to enter the war until they were attacked.
At least they attacked a military target, quite different than the
civilian targets that ended the war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh Well, as long as it saved one American life.

Gordo
Glenn Dowdy
2005-04-06 14:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon 101
The reason for the distinction of Pear Harbour is the demonstration of
the American unwillingness to enter the war until they were attacked.
And where was the UK during the Anschluss or the annexation of the
Sudetenland?

So all that Lend-Lease stuff prior to that date were figments of the UK's
imagination? 40 destroyers in 1940 alone. Providing aid to one side in a
time of war is in itself an act of war, so it isn't like the US was totally
sitting on our hands.

And the war didn't start on September 1, 1939, either, you Eurocentrist.
Japan had been in China (Manchuria) since 1931. Didn't see any British
outrage then.

Glenn D.
Gavin Ramsay
2005-04-06 16:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Dowdy
Post by Gordon 101
The reason for the distinction of Pear Harbour is the demonstration of
the American unwillingness to enter the war until they were attacked.
snippety-snip
Post by Glenn Dowdy
And the war didn't start on September 1, 1939, either, you Eurocentrist.
Japan had been in China (Manchuria) since 1931. Didn't see any British
outrage then.
mmm? What have we done? Gordo's Canuckian, isn't he?

Anyway, the whole game of setting start dates for these things is so
bound up in historiography and PC nonsense sometimes. Sept 39 is a
better date than many for when the prospect of a world-spanning conflict
became pretty unstoppable. None of this belittles what went on to create
Manchukuo - it's just labels, not history.

Gavin
Glenn Dowdy
2005-04-06 17:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gavin Ramsay
Post by Glenn Dowdy
Post by Gordon 101
The reason for the distinction of Pear Harbour is the demonstration of
the American unwillingness to enter the war until they were attacked.
snippety-snip
Post by Glenn Dowdy
And the war didn't start on September 1, 1939, either, you Eurocentrist.
Japan had been in China (Manchuria) since 1931. Didn't see any British
outrage then.
mmm? What have we done? Gordo's Canuckian, isn't he?
Missed that. Sorry.
Post by Gavin Ramsay
Anyway, the whole game of setting start dates for these things is so
bound up in historiography and PC nonsense sometimes.
Quite. Not black and white at all.
Post by Gavin Ramsay
Sept 39 is a
better date than many for when the prospect of a world-spanning conflict
became pretty unstoppable.
That's a good a date as any.

Glenn D.
Phildo
2005-04-06 22:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Dowdy
So all that Lend-Lease stuff prior to that date were figments of the UK's
imagination? 40 destroyers in 1940 alone. Providing aid to one side in a
time of war is in itself an act of war, so it isn't like the US was
totally sitting on our hands.
No, it was trying to turn a profit.

Don't forget they were also supplying the nazi war machine at the same time.
The grandfather of your current president ended up going to jail because of
it.

Phildo
Glenn Dowdy
2005-04-07 03:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Post by Glenn Dowdy
So all that Lend-Lease stuff prior to that date were figments of the UK's
imagination? 40 destroyers in 1940 alone. Providing aid to one side in a
time of war is in itself an act of war, so it isn't like the US was
totally sitting on our hands.
No, it was trying to turn a profit.
Don't forget they were also supplying the nazi war machine at the same
time. The grandfather of your current president ended up going to jail
because of it.
One was the government, in accordance with duly passed legislation. The
other was a private party, and as you say, he was gaoled for it.

There is a difference.

Glenn D.
Dale Farmer
2005-04-06 19:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon 101
Post by John Halliburton
Post by Gordon 101
They actually teach that World War Two started Dec. 9 1942, with the
bombing of Pearl Harbour.
What's that date again?
Post by Gordon 101
Sorry the blitz on London wasn't part of world war II!! Nor the
invasion of Europe etc. It's true.
They at least know when it ended...
Post by Gordon 101
Also it was the American fleet in Pearl Harbour that was attacked not
Pearl Harbour. Why is this important, Hawaii did not become part of the
USA till AFTER the war. But then many Americans don't even know how many
states there are in the union.
Hawaii was U.S. property, and you're splitting semantics at this point.
The date was wrong intentionally, congrats on being the ONLY one to
notice ;-)
The reason for the distinction of Pear Harbour is the demonstration of
the American unwillingness to enter the war until they were attacked.
At least they attacked a military target, quite different than the
civilian targets that ended the war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are lots of different dates for the start of WW2. Depends on
whose ox is being gored. The chinese date it back to around 1930 or
so. ( Don't have a reference handy for the date. ) when the japanese
started invading china. They consider all the europeans to have been
latecomers to the war. The Austrians got invaded long before the
British got involved. *shrugs* Everything is relative.

--Dale
Joe Kotroczo
2005-04-06 20:11:25 UTC
Permalink
On 06/04/05 21:13, in article ***@cybercom.net, "Dale Farmer"
<***@cybercom.net> wrote:

(...)
Post by Dale Farmer
There are lots of different dates for the start of WW2. Depends on
whose ox is being gored. The chinese date it back to around 1930 or
so. ( Don't have a reference handy for the date. ) when the japanese
started invading china. They consider all the europeans to have been
latecomers to the war. The Austrians got invaded long before the
British got involved. *shrugs* Everything is relative.
Austria never got invaded, is was an annexation. Resulting in a political
Union with Germany. Austria had a National-Sozialist government in 1938.

The first invasion was Poland in 1939, if I remember correctly...

The seizure of Manchuria was in September 1931, by the way.


Joe
--
Joe Kotroczo ***@mac.com
Gavin Ramsay
2005-04-06 22:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Kotroczo
The Austrians got invaded long before the British got involved.
*shrugs* Everything is relative.
Austria never got invaded, is was an annexation. Resulting in a political
Union with Germany. Austria had a National-Sozialist government in 1938.
Absolutely.
Post by Joe Kotroczo
The first invasion was Poland in 1939, if I remember correctly...
Well, I think the actions of the Poles and Hungarians to Czech territory
in 1938 after the Sudetenland was given up to Germany might be seen as
that... but again, not exactly destined to start a world conflict like
the invasion of Poland did.
Post by Joe Kotroczo
The seizure of Manchuria was in September 1931, by the way.
Joe
Gav (in Confusion now)
Phildo
2005-04-03 05:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon 101
us to increase punishment?
Post by Phildo
Increasing punishment won't do much good.
As you point out the problem is best treated at its beginnings.
But have things deteriorated past the point where it can be fixed?
Post by Gordon 101
I don't know what role punishment plays in a justice system but it is
not preventative.
It can be. If they were to introduce a mandatory 20 year sentence for
everyone caught with an illegal firearm then gun crime would go down
dramatically.
Post by Gordon 101
My generations philosophy of 'not raising our children like their
parents did them' didn't find a much better idea.
Maybe our parents were right? Kids need to have a sense of right and wrong
instilled in them and it is only the parents that can do that. Teachers and
the police also need to have the powers to punish given back to them. How
can the kids respect authority if they know full well they can do whatever
they want and authority cannot do anything about it? Fines and prison
sentences for parents to fail to control their kids would be a good idea as
well and will give the parents some motivation to bring their kids up
properly. A bit draconian maybe but desperate times call for desperate
measures and the bleeding-heart liberal brigade have only served to make the
problem far worse than it ever was. Their methods have failed miserably so
it's time to go back to harsher but more effective methods.
Post by Gordon 101
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
The first time I heard the term "moral majority" I laughed, I'm not
laughing anymore. :-(
I agree with some of the things they stand for. There needs to be more
social structure, respect for the family unit and certain moral attitudes
need to be respected. What is so wrong with helping someone else out just
for the sake of doing something good and not expecting anything in return?
Trouble is the rich have it, the poor want it and none of it ever flows
between the two.
I don't believe that these thoughts are the exclusive domain of the
'Moral Majority' no matter how much they claim them as their own.
They are not but it gets votes.
Post by Gordon 101
It's like religions claiming Good to be a product of their beliefs.
All was chaos and anarchy before their god stuff.
Hardly. Religion has been the cause of more pain, suffering, war and death
than anything else throughout history.
Post by Gordon 101
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
The lunatics really do run the asylum.
Over there I can well believe it. How the majority [1] of an entire nation
can be so gullible is beyond me. Brainwashing from an early age I suppose.
Here is your most important point. Simply education. I believe
criminals should be required to get an education before they graduate.
If we all educated our young better I think we would be well served.
I have to agree but education is no good if those being educated do not
respect the educators.
Post by Gordon 101
This is not brain washing but a reflection of the education we are
given
And yet our governments proudly claim education is the best it has ever
been. Complete bullshit. They may teach more subjects but the standards have
gone way down and there is no discipline in schools any more.
Post by Gordon 101
Maybe in Canada our own history is so boring we actually learn some
world history. Sadly in the States this is not the case.
The septics aren't interested in anything outside their own borders unless
they have something they want.
Post by Gordon 101
We like to joke that Americans can not find their home state on an
unmarked map. Most cannot find Canada even though we are a larger
country. Most Americans don't ever know we are larger!
I still shudder when I think of some states teaching creation as fact and
not covering evolution at all.
Post by Gordon 101
They actually teach that World War Two started Dec. 9 1942, with the
bombing of Pearl Harbour.
You're kidding right?
Post by Gordon 101
Sorry the blitz on London wasn't part of world war II!! Nor the
invasion of Europe etc. It's true.
Brainwashing from an early age.
Post by Gordon 101
Also it was the American fleet in Pearl Harbour that was attacked not
Pearl Harbour. Why is this important, Hawaii did not become part of the
USA till AFTER the war. But then many Americans don't even know how many
states there are in the union.
Sad but true.
Post by Gordon 101
If you think I exaggerate
http://home.comcast.net/~wwwstephen/americans/
That site is hysterical.

Phildo
Lumpy
2005-04-03 06:51:03 UTC
Permalink
...If they were to introduce a mandatory
20 year sentence for everyone caught with
an illegal firearm then gun crime would
go down dramatically.
Boy are you confused about
what goes on in prison.


Lumpy
--
In Your Ears for 40 Years
http://www.lumpymusic.com
Phildo
2005-04-04 01:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lumpy
...If they were to introduce a mandatory
20 year sentence for everyone caught with
an illegal firearm then gun crime would
go down dramatically.
Boy are you confused about
what goes on in prison.
And how the hell do you work that out Sherlock?? The whole point of a
mandatory 20 year sentence is to stop people carrying firearms for fear of
such a long stretch. What goes on in prison has absolutely no bearing on it
whatsoever as the whole idea is to put people off going there in the first
place.

Jeez, some people really don't have a clue.

Phildo
Gordon 101
2005-04-06 07:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
Sorry the blitz on London wasn't part of world war II!! Nor the
invasion of Europe etc. It's true.
Brainwashing from an early age.
It just not included, If there is no significant American involvement
it just doesn't seem to matter. It is not malicious or a conspiracy,
they just don't believe it important.
Post by Phildo
Post by Gordon 101
If you think I exaggerate
http://home.comcast.net/~wwwstephen/americans/
That site is hysterical.
Phildo
The only time I have seen punishment work is when it is administered
immediately. Like rubbing a dogs nose in it to train it. Our Judicial
system seems to take a little longer. ;-)

There is a judicial system that was part of the original 'Democratic'
philosophy. It involved the victim which seems a popular demand in most
places.

Simply, the victim chooses the punishment. The judges job is to
determine if it is appropriate. If the punishment fails to 'suit the
crime' it is applied to the victim instead of the guilty party.
Sort of a self checking system.

Confucius had interesting thoughts on crime and punishment.
If a man stole, the community in which he lived was held responsible for
not seeing the man's illness and preventing the crime. A criminal is
turned back into society for rehabilitation. Those beyond rehabilitation
(repeat offenders) were often killed.
Almost eliminates prisons.

Just some different ideas
Gordo
Glenn Dowdy
2005-04-06 14:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon 101
Confucius had interesting thoughts on crime and punishment.
If a man stole, the community in which he lived was held responsible for
not seeing the man's illness and preventing the crime. A criminal is
turned back into society for rehabilitation. Those beyond rehabilitation
(repeat offenders) were often killed.
Almost eliminates prisons.
And in the same system, if one person accused the other of a crime, both
were tortured to arrive at the truth.

Glenn D.
Saxology
2005-03-31 20:32:00 UTC
Permalink
<Snip>
Post by Phildo
Why does gun control work for the World but not for the US?
It works in the US, you just don't know it. The murder capital of the US is
Washington, DC, which has a total gun ban. New York city also has a total
gun ban and is ranked #2.

You forget that the US isn't the same as the rest of the world. In Russia
there ia a total ban on alcohol. They have the highest rate of substance
abuse in the world.

Just because you attack a sympton doesn't mean you found a cure.
Post by Phildo
And how many of you actually know what the consistent interpretation
of the meaning of the second amendment - here is a little education
It reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to security of a
free statethe right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed"
A little education for you.... when this was written the belief was that the
rights of individuals were higher than that of the state. The state's
rights were higher than that of the federal govt. Therefore, the fed has no
right, under the constitution to ban guns. With the exception of the
American Indian and African slave population, the rest of us came from
countries where we fled from poverty, war, and persecution (some religious
and some not). Our forefathers wanted to be sure that this never happened
to them. In a socialized society the needs of the state outweight the needs
of the individuals.

Buy the way, you can elimiante deaths by car accidents by banning cars.
Hey, with the price of gas in the EU it is no wonder that many people use
bikes as their primary mode of transportation.

Bottom line, the US is not the rest of the world. Each place is somewhat
different and their cultures are different. We have aunique culture. I
like the US over every place I have ever been. We have it very good here.
Post by Phildo
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger feels that the second amendment is,
"the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud" (1121). The
fraud stems from the initial line of the amendment being ignored. The
Second amendment, consistently, since it was first addressed in 1876,
has been interpreted as saying, "The government shall not limit a
states right to an efficient militia" not as saying, "everyone can own
a gun". The 1879 case of United States v. Cruishank carried the
opinion, "the right to bear arms is not a right granted by the
Constitution" (Worsnop 512). In addition, most state constitutions
share similar language, the key element being militia; California,
Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York however do not
have "right to keep and bear arms" amendments in their state
constitutions (NRA).
Very few states keep a militia any more. When I lived in PA they still had
one. It's primary purpose: To keep the federal gov't from overstepping!

By the way, you right to drive a car isn't expressly protected in the
constitution. Well, unless your right to life, liberty and happiness comes
into play.

Personally, I think if you like the way the rest of the world runs you
should move there.... you are free to leave here. You can't say that in
every country that I have been in.

-sax
Gavin Ramsay
2005-04-01 09:37:49 UTC
Permalink
In Russia there ia a total ban on alcohol.
WTF?? Don't believe everything you read on the internet, Sax!

Usenet arguments like this are *always* about entertainment and *never*
about education... which kind of brings the whole thing back on topic ;)

Gavin
Saxology
2005-04-01 13:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gavin Ramsay
In Russia there ia a total ban on alcohol.
WTF?? Don't believe everything you read on the internet, Sax!
Usenet arguments like this are *always* about entertainment and *never*
about education... which kind of brings the whole thing back on topic ;)
Gavin
Actually, I worked with a bunch of Russians.... the stories are wild. They
drink perfume to get alcohol! Nasty! But it just goes to show you that
human beings have some self destructive gene in the pool. Maybe we just
need to do some things that aren't "safe" and "godly". Drugs are a huge
problem there as well. Their culture, their problems.

LAst night I was listening to the radio in the car and they claimed that
there were 330,000 car accidents due to cell phones in 2004. I don't like
cell phones, or many drivers for that matter, but in the US it is about
freedoms. While I don't smoke, I uphold your freedom to smoke. Does
everything people do impact other people? Yes! To have freedoms we must
learn to get along better. Laws banning everything someone doesn't like or
use isn't the answer.

Life holds no guarantees, no safety nets. It is simply what you make of it.
Personally, I like a bourbon every now and then. I really don't want to
drink "skin bracer". Thanks, but I don't need that!

-Sax
Chad Wahls
2005-04-01 14:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Saxology
Post by Gavin Ramsay
In Russia there ia a total ban on alcohol.
WTF?? Don't believe everything you read on the internet, Sax!
Usenet arguments like this are *always* about entertainment and *never*
about education... which kind of brings the whole thing back on topic ;)
Gavin
Actually, I worked with a bunch of Russians.... the stories are wild.
They drink perfume to get alcohol! Nasty! But it just goes to show you
that human beings have some self destructive gene in the pool.
GEORGE!!!!!!!!!!!

Check it, follow this advice and your Methane WMD device sould have a
pleasant smell!!!!!! Covert!!!!!

Chad
Bmoas
2005-04-01 15:32:25 UTC
Permalink
I did not deliver the smell, that was GASter, I just provided the
thunder
as Mike sneaked his out through heavy cordaroy
I simply showed him how to announe its coming!
Chad Wahls
2005-04-01 16:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bmoas
I did not deliver the smell, that was GASter, I just provided the
thunder
as Mike sneaked his out through heavy cordaroy
I simply showed him how to announe its coming!
Ooooh corduroy, an excellent time release medium, why go for fast release
when you can spread the wealth :)

Chad
Gavin Ramsay
2005-04-01 16:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Saxology
In Russia there ia a total ban on alcohol.
WTF??
Actually, I worked with a bunch of Russians....
Yeah, me too, and in Russia as well ;) I can assure you there's no ban
on alcohol! In fact I've hardly ever been anywhere that you could buy
alcohol in so many places, and see so many people who've obviously been
taking advantage of that particular constitutional right...

I wasn't getting at ya, Sax. It's just that any usenet argument about
guns, religion or (in this group apparently) root beer soon brings out a
bunch of facts in the "but didn't you know they banned cheese in
Lesotho, and within a year they'd all become catholics?" style...

It's great entertainment though ;)

Gavin
Bmoas
2005-04-01 15:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Saxology
By the way, you right to drive a car isn't expressly protected in the
constitution. Well, unless your right to life, liberty and happiness comes
into play.
You do not have ANY "Right" to drive a car
driving is a priveledge granted to you by your government
George
Richard Crowley
2005-04-01 15:37:49 UTC
Permalink
"Bmoas" wrote ...
Post by Bmoas
You do not have ANY "Right" to drive a car
driving is a priveledge granted to you by your government
Driving is a right. The government cannot arbitrarily deny
your right to drive They must have just cause (revocation
of your license because of DUI, refusal to license because
of blindness etc.)

It is a dangerous shift to think that priveleges are *granted*
by the government. They are innate and *protected* by the
government . Go back and read the Declaration and the
Constitution. Assuming you are in the USA. If you are
somewhere else, different parameters may apply.
Bmoas
2005-04-01 20:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Driving is not a RIGHT, it is a priveledge
you must qualify and adhere to a licesing regulation
try driving without a license
you will get schooled on what is and isn't a RIGHT
Pooh Bear
2005-04-01 21:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Crowley
"Bmoas" wrote ...
Post by Bmoas
You do not have ANY "Right" to drive a car
driving is a priveledge granted to you by your government
Driving is a right.
Don't you have to pass a driving test to get a license there ?

Graham
Richard Crowley
2005-04-02 05:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by Richard Crowley
"Bmoas" wrote ...
Post by Bmoas
You do not have ANY "Right" to drive a car
driving is a priveledge granted to you by your government
Driving is a right.
Don't you have to pass a driving test to get a license there ?
Licenses, permits, title deeds, etc. have nothing to do with
rights vs. priveleges.
Pooh Bear
2005-04-04 03:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Crowley
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by Richard Crowley
"Bmoas" wrote ...
Post by Bmoas
You do not have ANY "Right" to drive a car
driving is a priveledge granted to you by your government
Driving is a right.
Don't you have to pass a driving test to get a license there ?
Licenses, permits, title deeds, etc. have nothing to do with
rights vs. priveleges.
So what happens to your *right* when it's revoked for example for a DUI
case ?

Graham
Bmoas
2005-04-04 14:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by Richard Crowley
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by Richard Crowley
"Bmoas" wrote ...
Post by Bmoas
You do not have ANY "Right" to drive a car
driving is a priveledge granted to you by your government
Driving is a right.
Don't you have to pass a driving test to get a license there ?
Licenses, permits, title deeds, etc. have nothing to do with
rights vs. priveleges.
So what happens to your *right* when it's revoked for example for a DUI
case ?
Your priveledge can be revoked for non criminal acts such as parking
offenses, or failure to renew your license
John Halliburton
2005-04-03 03:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Saxology
Very few states keep a militia any more. When I lived in PA they still
had one. It's primary purpose: To keep the federal gov't from
overstepping!
PA is not a state, it's a commonwealth.
No Spam
2005-04-03 17:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Halliburton
Post by Saxology
Very few states keep a militia any more. When I lived in PA they still
had one. It's primary purpose: To keep the federal gov't from
overstepping!
PA is not a state, it's a commonwealth.
Pure bullshit. PA, MA, KY, and VA are all states, just
like the other 46. The legal names of those states are
a little different from the others, but that is a mere
formality and has no legal consequences. Rhode Island,
likewise.
John Halliburton
2005-04-04 00:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by No Spam
Pure bullshit. PA, MA, KY, and VA are all states, just
like the other 46. The legal names of those states are
a little different from the others, but that is a mere
formality and has no legal consequences. Rhode Island,
Yes I know.
Paul Matthews
2005-04-02 20:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Valve
"I'd like to thank you all for coming, or however else it
was that you reacted."
I think I might steal that!
--
Paul Matthews
***@cattytown.me.uk
http://www.hepcats.co.uk
Marc
2005-03-29 20:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Scott
Had a female vocalist on stage the other night. Odd show, in that she
doesn't want it to be loud, so everything is acoustic - which in itself
wouldn't be a problem, but the room is so acoustically dead, that
everything gets lost in a mush. (Piano is C-Ducered, and I have a feed
from the keybs for stringy stuff, but the 4 piece brass section and
very quiet drums are just as they are. Bass has onstage amp, which
overpowers things sometimes.) Basically it sounds a mess and there is
not much i can do about it.
Anyways, that's not what I wanted to say!
About half way through the show, After an uptempo 'loud' song, she
looks over at the brass section, after the audience have applauded, and
says over the mic,
"You've got to give the boys a good blow, haven't you?!"
Well, me and the LX both collapsed into our desk in stitches, the
audience and band completely silent.
We were videoing the show, as the sea was rough, and thought she may
fall over. So have it all nicely archived ... once i've got it on
computer you can see it happen!
Anyone else got any onstage quotes?
Guitar player, through the mike; i'm gonna kill that sound ass if he
doesn't turn the guitar up in the monitors

Drummer through the overheads, clearly heard by the handful of
attendants; i'm gonna buy him a beer if he doesn't.
Phildo
2005-03-29 15:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Scott
Anyone else got any onstage quotes?
US metal band in Moscow. The singer decided it would be a good idea to talk
to the audience in Russian so got some translations done. Didn't realise the
rest of the band had decided to play a joke on him. He comes on stage and
says "Good evening Moscow, I like to have sex with goats".

"We're sorry about the feedback. Satan is in our sound system tonight" -
London Community Gospel Choir making excuses for the fact they've got a real
zero running the monitor board for them (son of one of the choir leaders if
I remember rightly).

Phildo
Jon Dayton
2005-03-30 03:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Scott
Had a female vocalist on stage the other night. Odd show, in that she
doesn't want it to be loud, so everything is acoustic - which in itself
wouldn't be a problem, but the room is so acoustically dead, that
everything gets lost in a mush. (Piano is C-Ducered, and I have a feed
from the keybs for stringy stuff, but the 4 piece brass section and
very quiet drums are just as they are. Bass has onstage amp, which
overpowers things sometimes.) Basically it sounds a mess and there is
not much i can do about it.
Anyways, that's not what I wanted to say!
About half way through the show, After an uptempo 'loud' song, she
looks over at the brass section, after the audience have applauded, and
says over the mic,
"You've got to give the boys a good blow, haven't you?!"
Well, me and the LX both collapsed into our desk in stitches, the
audience and band completely silent.
We were videoing the show, as the sea was rough, and thought she may
fall over. So have it all nicely archived ... once i've got it on
computer you can see it happen!
Anyone else got any onstage quotes?
From a lighting guy, but it's a doozer:
French LD in NY getting ready to focus a show off broadway had tried to
pick up some U.S. theatre slang, "OK eevreebodee, let's get reedy to
fuckus. Evreebodee grab your bananas and get ready to come on my face"

Somebody had told him that banana was slang for wrench, turing "aim for
my face" into "come on my face" and "focus" into "fuckus" were his own
doing. Once the master electrician was able to breathe again he
straightened him out. Except for the part about the bananas.

Jon Dayton
BNB Sound
BOB URZ
2005-03-30 22:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Scott
Had a female vocalist on stage the other night. Odd show, in that she
doesn't want it to be loud, so everything is acoustic - which in itself
wouldn't be a problem, but the room is so acoustically dead, that
everything gets lost in a mush. (Piano is C-Ducered, and I have a feed
from the keybs for stringy stuff, but the 4 piece brass section and
very quiet drums are just as they are. Bass has onstage amp, which
overpowers things sometimes.) Basically it sounds a mess and there is
not much i can do about it.
Anyways, that's not what I wanted to say!
About half way through the show, After an uptempo 'loud' song, she
looks over at the brass section, after the audience have applauded, and
says over the mic,
"You've got to give the boys a good blow, haven't you?!"
Well, me and the LX both collapsed into our desk in stitches, the
audience and band completely silent.
We were videoing the show, as the sea was rough, and thought she may
fall over. So have it all nicely archived ... once i've got it on
computer you can see it happen!
Anyone else got any onstage quotes?
Quote from a mumbling famous toaster repair man working on equipment down
under a stage:

Why does nobody in the whole world know everything but me!

Bob




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
bigamps
2005-04-02 11:54:24 UTC
Permalink
A college music festival is delayed by rain but the headliner agrees to
go on just after the dinner hour and the band before them is still on
stage playing. The head of the student group comes out to the house
console and tells the system engineer 'We're not going to get you guys
dinner, we hadn't planned to, you'll just have to eat after the last
band finishes and you're packed up.'

The system engineer leans over the band's engineer, mutes all the
crossover outputs in the middle of a song and says 'This is what it
sounds like without dinner.' The crossover stays muted for about ten
seconds, then the system engineer unmutes everything and turns his back
on the student.

Pizzas arrive twenty five minutes later and the next year the students
have breakfast, lunch and dinner for all the crew.
Marc
2005-04-02 21:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigamps
A college music festival is delayed by rain but the headliner agrees to
go on just after the dinner hour and the band before them is still on
stage playing. The head of the student group comes out to the house
console and tells the system engineer 'We're not going to get you guys
dinner, we hadn't planned to, you'll just have to eat after the last
band finishes and you're packed up.'
The system engineer leans over the band's engineer, mutes all the
crossover outputs in the middle of a song and says 'This is what it
sounds like without dinner.' The crossover stays muted for about ten
seconds, then the system engineer unmutes everything and turns his back
on the student.
Pizzas arrive twenty five minutes later and the next year the students
have breakfast, lunch and dinner for all the crew.
Yeah that rock's
Mark
2005-04-02 23:17:31 UTC
Permalink
As Dr RUTH is being introduced to lecture...., the MC says very
straight faced.....,

OK now before we bring Dr Ruth out to talk, can we all please put our
pagers into VIBRATE.

Mark
Tim Scott
2005-04-06 13:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Same woman, doing same show last night, and after one of the songs,
looks over to her MD and says "It's good when we come together, and we
usually manage it, don't we Peter"
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...