Original Usenet thread from alt.ascii-art, started 26 Nov 2004.
_ _ _ _ _ _ | | | |___ ___ _ __ ___| |_ / \ _ __ ___| |__ (_)_ _____ | | | / __|/ _ \ '_ \ / _ \ __| / _ \ | '__/ __| '_ \| \ \ / / _ \ | |_| \__ \ __/ | | | __/ |_ / ___ \| | | (__| | | | |\ V / __/ \___/|___/\___|_| |_|\___|\__| /_/ \_\_| \___|_| |_|_| \_/ \___|
ASCII Art Fart for Thu, 2004 Nov 25
alt.ascii-art
· 121 messages · 26 Nov 2004 - 12 Dec 2004
Faux_Tran wrote: > #1981 LOGICAL REASONING > > > _ > , L\ LOOK IF GOD DIDN'T WANT ME TO HIT THEM THEN > \/OO\ HE WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM TITS > |/ \ > /_\ ` END OF DISCUSSION > _\ |_ AP > > Taken from <url:http://www.asciiartfarts.com/> Fuck you tran. It was UN Day for stopping violence against women yesterday, and this attitude is totally unacceptable even in the sick joke fashion that has become your trade mark. Anyone who says "It's just a joke" or has nothing to say about it: your a bystander and you support the status quo and your part of the problem. Don't be a victim. Don't be a perpetrator. Don't be a bystander. ^^^ -=- =-= ___-=-___OA -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
On 2004-11-26 Faux_Tran wrote:
> #1981 LOGICAL REASONING
>
> _
> , L\ LOOK IF GOD DIDN'T WANT ME TO HIT THEM THEN
> \/OO\ HE WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM TITS
> |/ \
> /_\ ` END OF DISCUSSION
> _\ |_ AP
>
> Taken from <url:http://www.asciiartfarts.com/>
.|||||. All right, Tran...you pathetic little
.||||||||| piece of yellow, slanted-eyed Gook
|||||| \ trash...remember what I told you about
.|||||| `> that male chauvinist crap?
||||||| = /
|||||!!'-'
|||!!'_\`.
!!// ( ).\
/| / / ) ,
\ \ \_\`-' ` '
\)_ )_)| . //// .
/------) o ,
| | - ?
\_\____| '-|\.
) \ | / '\
/ ) ) (/ |_\
|~~~/ | |__. |
\ |~~~| / )
) \ | /_ /
(|\_) | /___/
`` (|\_`-. ===
`` """
.|||||. \ ' | ' /
.||||||||| , ,
|||||| \ -- B L A M ! --
.|||||| `> ' '
||||||| - / , | , \ ,,,
|||||!!'-' x ,
|||!!'_\`. \ , / -_ ?
!!// ( ).\ ,__________, ' ~-/\_.
| / / )~(_________--' , / , |
\ \_\`-'---) ,/_) / , \ / \| |
)_ )_)|---/__8 / / |__\
/------| __\' / (_\
| ) \/__\/
\_\____| \/
) \ | \ ' | ' /
/ ) ) , ,
|~~~/ | -- P O W ! --
\ |~~~| ' '
) \ | / , | , \
(|\_) |
`` (|\_`-.
`` """
.|||||. Stupid Saigon sewer-rat. Your green
.||||||||| card has just been cancelled, Paco.
|||||| <- Hehehe!
.|||||| > /
||||||| `-
|||||!!'-'
|||!!'_\`.
!!// ( ).\
/| / / )
\ \ \_\`-'
\)_ )_)|
/------)
| |
\_\____|
) \ | .
/ ) ) (
|~~~/ | )
\ |~~~|
) \ | ,#>,.
(|\_) | o\__x;.
`` (|\_`-. ---/\;-x,
`` """
On 26/11/2004, around 10:12, The Ultimate Artist wrote: TUA> .|||||. Stupid Saigon sewer-rat. Your green TUA> .||||||||| card has just been cancelled, Paco. TUA> |||||| <- Hehehe! A /much/ better reply than ABCGi's. Nicely done. -- Stuart See headers for PGP Key. Bakers trade bread recipes on a knead-to-know basis.
Stuart Hemming (via DFN-CIS NetNews Service) wrote: > On 26/11/2004, around 10:12, The Ultimate Artist wrote: > > > TUA> .|||||. Stupid Saigon sewer-rat. Your green > TUA> .||||||||| card has just been cancelled, Paco. > TUA> |||||| <- Hehehe! > A /much/ better reply than ABCGi's. Nicely done. > And our reply's both kicked your's asseseses... ;> .,.,.,.,.,. .,.,.,.,.,. .,.,.,.,.,. .,.,.,.,.,. OA -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Faux_Tran wrote: >> #1981 LOGICAL REASONING >> >> >> _ >> , L\ LOOK IF GOD DIDN'T WANT ME TO HIT THEM THEN >> \/OO\ HE WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM TITS >> |/ \ >> /_\ ` END OF DISCUSSION >> _\ |_ AP >> >> Taken from <url:http://www.asciiartfarts.com/> > >Fuck you tran. > >It was UN Day for stopping violence against women yesterday, and this >attitude is totally unacceptable even in the sick joke fashion that has >become your trade mark. > >Anyone who says "It's just a joke" or has nothing to say about it: your >a bystander and you support the status quo and your part of the problem. > >Don't be a victim. >Don't be a perpetrator. >Don't be a bystander. > > ^^^ > -=- > =-= > ___-=-___OA You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. obascii: ____ __ __ _ ____ _ __ __ __ ___ / ___| | \/ | / \ / ___| | |/ / \ \ / / / _ \ \___ \ | |\/| | / _ \ | | | ' / \ V / | | | | ___) | | | | | / ___ \ | |___ | . \ | | | |_| | |____/ |_| |_| /_/ \_\ \____| |_|\_\ |_| \___/ ____ ___ _____ ____ _ _ _ _ ____ | __ ) |_ _| |_ _| / ___| | | | | | | | | | _ \ | _ \ | | | | | | | |_| | | | | | | |_) | | |_) | | | | | | |___ | _ | | |_| | | __/ |____/ |___| |_| \____| |_| |_| \___/ |_|
Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote: > You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: > violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. Violence against _anyone_ is fundamentally a bad thing... wonder why we get more excited when it's based on sex, race or religion? /\ /oo\ _|_ _\^^/____ | / ,__ |PB | | \| | ||. ,| | ==== `|' `| | | | | | | ^^^^^^ -- ._____. |[LD8]! SIMON WILLIAMS :: LUDDITE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED | (O) | 68K MACINTOSH SERVER http://luddite.no-ip.com !__!__! FAILURE RECORDS http://failurerecords.no-ip.com
Simon Williams wrote: > Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote: > >>You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: >>violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There is nothing PC about it. > Violence against _anyone_ is fundamentally a bad thing... wonder why we > get more excited when it's based on sex, race or religion? > > /\ > /oo\ _|_ > _\^^/____ | > / ,__ |PB > | | \| | > ||. ,| > | ==== > `|' `| > | | > | | > | | > ^^^^^^ One idea raised by the UN day for stopping violence against women is that the majority of men, who don't think it is ok, speak up more so that that minority doesn't get the mistaken idea that it is perhaps socially acceptable. I have now officially done my part of that. ^ ^ /---\ / * * \ \ ^ / v=v {+++} ( ) ObA -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In article <co8a9v$49c$1...@domitilla.aioe.org> "The Ultimate Artist" <ult...@artistic.net> wrote: > > > On 2004-11-26 Hom...@SpringfieldBB.com.INVALID said: > > > Slamming sexism with racism. Excellent! > > > > Oh, the irony....... ;-) > > .|||||. Hey...when you're dealing with Gooks, > .||||||||| you have to communicate in a way that > |||||| <. they understand. > .|||||| > > ||||||| `- Because in spite of all the 'politically > |||||!!'-' correct' crap that you were taught in > |||!!'_\`. school, people are NOT "all the same," > !!// ( ).\ and they're NOT all "equal." > /| / / ) > \ \ \_\`-' A quick glance at the niggah 'hip-hop' > \)_ )_)| culture should show you THAT, man. > /------) > | | You think an illiterate doper thug like > \_\____| Tupac was "equal" to a straight white > ) \ | suburban-dweller? Get REAL, d00d. You > / ) ) KNOW that's a lie. Hehe! > |~~~/ | > \ |~~~| > ) \ | ,#>,. > (|\_) | o\__x;. > `` (|\_`-. ---/\;-x, > `` """ What three things do nigger and a pussy have in common? 1. They both have big lips 2. They both have nappy hair 3. They both begin to smell a half hour after you wash them.
_.-In alt.ascii-art, ABCGi wrote the following -._
> Fuck you tran.
Would you have responded the same way if it had said:
#1981 LOGICAL REASONING
_
, L\ LOOK IF GOD DIDN'T WANT ME TO RAPE THEM THEN
\/OO\ HE WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM COCKS
|/ \
/_\ ` END OF DISCUSSION
_\ |_ AP
Taken from <url:http://www.asciiartfarts.com/>
Is gay rape a worse offense than hitting a woman? If given the two
strips and asked to point out which one was a Tran I think most would
have picked the one I just edited.
Point being that Tran does not discriminate. I can't even take his
comments about demeaning women as a "serving suggestion" since Tran is
probibly the least qualified man on Earth to to offer any advise on
women.
Just for the record "my woman"[0] is not abused, unless she has it
comming to her[1].
[0] note the possessiveness of that phrase. I never call her that.
But she always call me "my man".
[1] but I did acciedntly stab her once. Well twice if you count the
time with the fork. Well I guess I should include all the times I
stabed her with pins. But she was asking for it then. You should
have seen the blood.
/* All comments about my girlfriend (5824) are taken out of context for
/* effect. I was previously in a relatoinship with X2of3 who had been
/* badly abused in her previous relationships and she was the kind of
/* psychotic mess that didn't feel happy unless she was being abused
/* which caused a great many problems because I wouldn't abuse her.
/* People[2] who abuse women should just be put on trial and shot if
/* found guilty. And I say this as someone who has been presented as
/* an abuseive person because of the already mentioned psycho[3].
So even with my history I will still have to say "It was just a joke".
No topic is safe from humor. Not even this one. Especialy not from
Tran. Can't wait till Matt and Tray make lite of the subject on South
Park.
[2] I have interveined into lesbian couples who had abuse issues so
don't ever think that it is just men who abuse women.
[3] If anyone doubts that she was psycho you can ask the .gov
She had more 5150s than anyone else I have met.
--
.-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that
' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to
((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word.
((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
ABCGi wrote: > Faux_Tran wrote: >> #1981 LOGICAL REASONING >> >> >> _ >> , L\ LOOK IF GOD DIDN'T WANT ME TO HIT THEM THEN >> \/OO\ HE WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM TITS >> |/ \ >> /_\ ` END OF DISCUSSION >> _\ |_ AP >> >> Taken from <url:http://www.asciiartfarts.com/> > > Fuck you tran. > > It was UN Day for stopping violence against women yesterday, and this > attitude is totally unacceptable even in the sick joke fashion that has > become your trade mark. > > Anyone who says "It's just a joke" or has nothing to say about it: your > a bystander and you support the status quo and your part of the problem. > > Don't be a victim. > Don't be a perpetrator. > Don't be a bystander. > > ^^^ > -=- > =-= > ___-=-___OA > You sound like the type of gal who proves Tran's point :P -- "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." --Mark Twain
Faux_Pseudo wrote: > _.-In alt.ascii-art, ABCGi wrote the following -._ > >>Fuck you tran. > > Would you have responded the same way if it had said: > > #1981 LOGICAL REASONING > > _ > , L\ LOOK IF GOD DIDN'T WANT ME TO RAPE THEM THEN > \/OO\ HE WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM COCKS > |/ \ > /_\ ` END OF DISCUSSION > _\ |_ AP > > Taken from <url:http://www.asciiartfarts.com/> To be honest I would of found it objectional but would not of posted about it. > Is gay rape a worse offense than hitting a woman? If given the two > strips and asked to point out which one was a Tran I think most would > have picked the one I just edited. Gay rape is of course not ok. But if we work on the prolific problem of violence against women I don't think that precludes us from working against other forms of violence? It might even set an example. Did you know that in recent official govt stats in NSW, Australia only 0.4% of women who are sexually assaulted will have the perpetrator(s) convicted? Even if you try to most favorably work the stats and make a bunch of assumptions the best conviction rate possible is 5% - which is still appalling. All defence lawyers will tell you off the record that defending the accused in a rape trail is "easy money". > Point being that Tran does not discriminate. I can't even take his > comments about demeaning women as a "serving suggestion" since Tran is > probibly the least qualified man on Earth to to offer any advise on > women. He does... each cartoon taken by itself is entirely discriminatory by its very nature. And on a broader scale (which is what you are probably referring to) I can think of at least one global discrimination - but I hesitate to mention it since it might lead to a Tranism on it. But otherwise that is a point. > Just for the record "my woman"[0] is not abused, unless she has it > comming to her[1]. > > [0] note the possessiveness of that phrase. I never call her that. > But she always call me "my man". > [1] but I did acciedntly stab her once. Well twice if you count the > time with the fork. Well I guess I should include all the times I > stabed her with pins. But she was asking for it then. You should > have seen the blood. :O !!! :) > /* All comments about my girlfriend (5824) are taken out of context for > /* effect. I was previously in a relatoinship with X2of3 who had been > /* badly abused in her previous relationships and she was the kind of > /* psychotic mess that didn't feel happy unless she was being abused > /* which caused a great many problems because I wouldn't abuse her. > /* People[2] who abuse women should just be put on trial and shot if > /* found guilty. And I say this as someone who has been presented as > /* an abuseive person because of the already mentioned psycho[3]. Indeed - the "battered woman" or "battered wife" syndrome. > So even with my history I will still have to say "It was just a joke". > No topic is safe from humor. Not even this one. Especialy not from > Tran. Can't wait till Matt and Tray make lite of the subject on South > Park. But it was a great opportunity to make a timely point since the UN day was yesterday then. > [2] I have interveined into lesbian couples who had abuse issues so > don't ever think that it is just men who abuse women. > [3] If anyone doubts that she was psycho you can ask the .gov > She had more 5150s than anyone else I have met. This is not really about sexism, although that is part of it. Many people have reduced sexism to something not very serious so its misleading to some to attach it as the only issue here. The sort of sexism involved in the beating of women by men is the brutal deadly kind of sexism, not the "oh that's a funny joke about the blonde chick" kind of sexism. I refer you also to my previous point in another part of the thread; "Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There is nothing PC about it. " But otherwise you make some good points. Finally no-one is/I'm not trying to say other kinds of violence are somehow ok by omission, and that it is the UN Day of Stopping Violence Against Women - notice no mention of Men, but everyone opposed assumes the "of Men" against Women there... one should ask oneself why is that and reflect. Or not. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Iconoclast wrote: > ABCGi wrote: > > >>Faux_Tran wrote: >> >>> #1981 LOGICAL REASONING >>> >>> >>> _ >>>, L\ LOOK IF GOD DIDN'T WANT ME TO HIT THEM THEN >>>\/OO\ HE WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM TITS >>> |/ \ >>> /_\ ` END OF DISCUSSION >>>_\ |_ AP >>> >>>Taken from <url:http://www.asciiartfarts.com/> >> >>Fuck you tran. >> >>It was UN Day for stopping violence against women yesterday, and this >>attitude is totally unacceptable even in the sick joke fashion that has >>become your trade mark. >> >>Anyone who says "It's just a joke" or has nothing to say about it: your >>a bystander and you support the status quo and your part of the problem. >> >>Don't be a victim. >>Don't be a perpetrator. >>Don't be a bystander. >> >> ^^^ >> -=- >> =-= >> ___-=-___OA >> > > You sound like the type of gal who proves Tran's point :P Your attitude is not ok, it is not acceptable in society, or to the majority of us men - in short "it's not cool dude". I like jokes, but this is no joke now. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In <41a909f8$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >Iconoclast wrote: >> ABCGi wrote: >> >> >>>Faux_Tran wrote: >>> >>>> #1981 LOGICAL REASONING >>>> >>>> >>>> _ >>>>, L\ LOOK IF GOD DIDN'T WANT ME TO HIT THEM THEN >>>>\/OO\ HE WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM TITS >>>> |/ \ >>>> /_\ ` END OF DISCUSSION >>>>_\ |_ AP >>>> >>>>Taken from <url:http://www.asciiartfarts.com/> >>> >>>Fuck you tran. >>> >>>It was UN Day for stopping violence against women yesterday, and this >>>attitude is totally unacceptable even in the sick joke fashion that has >>>become your trade mark. >>> >>>Anyone who says "It's just a joke" or has nothing to say about it: your >>>a bystander and you support the status quo and your part of the problem. >>> >>>Don't be a victim. >>>Don't be a perpetrator. >>>Don't be a bystander. >>> >>> ^^^ >>> -=- >>> =-= >>> ___-=-___OA >>> >> >> You sound like the type of gal who proves Tran's point :P > >Your attitude is not ok, it is not acceptable in society, or to the >majority of us men - in short "it's not cool dude". I like jokes, but >this is no joke now. Women were put on this earth to cater to a mans every need. Get over yourself, d00d!
Sharky wrote: > In <41a909f8$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > > >>Iconoclast wrote: >> >>>ABCGi wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Faux_Tran wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>#1981 LOGICAL REASONING >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _ >>>>>, L\ LOOK IF GOD DIDN'T WANT ME TO HIT THEM THEN >>>>>\/OO\ HE WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM TITS >>>>> |/ \ >>>>>/_\ ` END OF DISCUSSION >>>>>_\ |_ AP >>>>> >>>>>Taken from <url:http://www.asciiartfarts.com/> >>>> >>>>Fuck you tran. >>>> >>>>It was UN Day for stopping violence against women yesterday, and this >>>>attitude is totally unacceptable even in the sick joke fashion that has >>>>become your trade mark. >>>> >>>>Anyone who says "It's just a joke" or has nothing to say about it: your >>>>a bystander and you support the status quo and your part of the problem. >>>> >>>>Don't be a victim. >>>>Don't be a perpetrator. >>>>Don't be a bystander. >>>> >>>> ^^^ >>>> -=- >>>> =-= >>>> ___-=-___OA >>>> >>> >>>You sound like the type of gal who proves Tran's point :P >> >>Your attitude is not ok, it is not acceptable in society, or to the >>majority of us men - in short "it's not cool dude". I like jokes, but >>this is no joke now. > > Women were put on this earth to cater to a mans every need. Err that's not what we are talking about. > Get over yourself, d00d! Same to you friend... OA: || || *()* --_-_-_-- *()* \/ ~ ~ \/ ' -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >> Women were put on this earth to cater to a mans every need. > >Err that's not what we are talking about. Nah, you were just going on about what a "stand-up guy" you are when it comes to the hypocritical UNO Womens blah blah day but when it comes to any other "feel good about me" cause, then "stuff it! I've done my part by posting about a bullshit topic on an ascii-art newsgroup". ObAscii ^ / \ / \ | T | | | T | | | Y | | | L | | | | | |___| ----|---------------- | TTYLnuke \ |_____________________\ (oo) (oo) (oo) (oo) -- Sharky
Sharky wrote: > In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > >>>Women were put on this earth to cater to a mans every need. >> >>Err that's not what we are talking about. > > Nah, you were just going on about what a "stand-up guy" you are when it > comes to the hypocritical UNO Womens blah blah day but when it comes to any > other "feel good about me" cause, then "stuff it! I've done my part by > posting about a bullshit topic on an ascii-art newsgroup". I seem to be doing better than you :) > Get over yourself, d00d! Same to you friend... -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== bears repeating =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > > Get over yourself, d00d! > >Same to you friend... Did I tell you what a male chauvinist pig Kofi Annan is? ObAscii _ ____ \ \ \ \ \ \ __\___\___ \_LMAOplane___\ \ \ \___\ -- Sharky
Sharky wrote: > In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > >>>Get over yourself, d00d! >> >>Same to you friend... > > Did I tell you what a male chauvinist pig Kofi Annan is? No, not yet, pray do tell? In support of Tranism: evokes commentary. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== !!!ITS ALIVE!!! =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In <41a9422b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >> Did I tell you what a male chauvinist pig Kofi Annan is? > >No, not yet, pray do tell? Ok, you asked for it... Kofi Annan�s New Sex Scandal - Center for Individual Freedom You would think that with managing the Oil for Food scandal, working to undermine U.S. foreign policy, pushing for global taxes and advocating a sweeping restructuring of the Security Council, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan would be going out of his way to avoid creating more problems for himself and the world body. Not so much. On October 28, a report from the U.N.�s in-house watchdog revealed that Annan personally dismissed sexual harassment charges made by an American female U.N. staffer against the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, overruling the independent U.N. investigative panel that had backed the woman�s claims. According to spokesman Fred Eckhard, the Secretary General "found the allegations unsustainable on a legal basis." An Agence France-Presse wire story reports that when "pressed to explain what that meant, a visibly irritated Eckhard replied: �Legal basis, legal basis, legal basis.�" (Is it just us, or does this sound an awful lot like "no controlling legal authority?" Maybe Eckhard attended the Al Gore school of public relations.) In response, Edward Patrick Flaherty, the attorney representing the accuser, told The New York Times, "This demonstrates that there are two sets of rules at the U.N., one for the protected class and one for the rest. [The High Commissioner] is part of that class. My client is not." That sounds about right. The first class, of which the High Commissioner is a distinguished member, includes those U.N. employees and officials who engage in nepotism, corrupt activities and abusive behavior. The second, apparently shrinking class, includes those U.N. employees who work hard trying to pursue the world body�s ideals and objectives. It�s increasingly clear that, like his allegedly lecherous colleague, Kofi Annan is part of the corrupt class. In this case, Annan went to a great deal of trouble to pardon a senior U.N. official who, at least according to the U.N.�s investigative panel for such matters, was guilty of sexual harassment and was quite possibly a repeat offender. Previously, the senior U.N. official in charge of the U.N.-Iraq Oil for Food program allegedly took bribes from Saddam Hussein�s regime. Meanwhile, Annan�s son helped an outside contractor win a lucrative Oil for Food contract from the world body. The stories out of the United Nations are sounding like a broken record, with one report of corruption following another. The U.N. leadership increasingly appears to be little better than a multinational kleptocracy. And it�s clear that no matter how Herculean the efforts of the committed, hard-working U.N. employees, the world body is doomed to fail in anything � and everything � it pursues. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/annan_sex_scandal.htm ObAscii - Lemur with machinegun ,_, <##. /_O \. `# ___\,)\ ,# o====[_=/m/, ) ,##' V~`( ,*###' __\_> snark^ -- Sharky
Sharky wrote: > In <41a9422b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > > >>>Did I tell you what a male chauvinist pig Kofi Annan is? >> >>No, not yet, pray do tell? > > > Ok, you asked for it... > > Kofi Annan�s New Sex Scandal > > - Center for Individual Freedom > > You would think that with managing the Oil for Food scandal, working to > undermine U.S. foreign policy, pushing for global taxes and advocating a > sweeping restructuring of the Security Council, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi > Annan would be going out of his way to avoid creating more problems for > himself and the world body. > > Not so much. > > On October 28, a report from the U.N.�s in-house watchdog revealed that > Annan personally dismissed sexual harassment charges made by an American > female U.N. staffer against the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, > overruling the independent U.N. investigative panel that had backed the > woman�s claims. > > According to spokesman Fred Eckhard, the Secretary General "found the > allegations unsustainable on a legal basis." An Agence France-Presse wire > story reports that when "pressed to explain what that meant, a visibly > irritated Eckhard replied: �Legal basis, legal basis, legal basis.�" > > (Is it just us, or does this sound an awful lot like "no controlling legal > authority?" Maybe Eckhard attended the Al Gore school of public relations.) > > In response, Edward Patrick Flaherty, the attorney representing the > accuser, told The New York Times, "This demonstrates that there are two > sets of rules at the U.N., one for the protected class and one for the > rest. [The High Commissioner] is part of that class. My client is not." > > That sounds about right. The first class, of which the High Commissioner is > a distinguished member, includes those U.N. employees and officials who > engage in nepotism, corrupt activities and abusive behavior. The second, > apparently shrinking class, includes those U.N. employees who work hard > trying to pursue the world body�s ideals and objectives. > > It�s increasingly clear that, like his allegedly lecherous colleague, Kofi > Annan is part of the corrupt class. In this case, Annan went to a great > deal of trouble to pardon a senior U.N. official who, at least according to > the U.N.�s investigative panel for such matters, was guilty of sexual > harassment and was quite possibly a repeat offender. > > Previously, the senior U.N. official in charge of the U.N.-Iraq Oil for > Food program allegedly took bribes from Saddam Hussein�s regime. Meanwhile, > Annan�s son helped an outside contractor win a lucrative Oil for Food > contract from the world body. > > The stories out of the United Nations are sounding like a broken record, > with one report of corruption following another. The U.N. leadership > increasingly appears to be little better than a multinational kleptocracy. > And it�s clear that no matter how Herculean the efforts of the committed, > hard-working U.N. employees, the world body is doomed to fail in anything � > and everything � it pursues. > > http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/annan_sex_scandal.htm > > > ObAscii - Lemur with machinegun > > > ,_, <##. > /_O \. `# > ___\,)\ ,# > o====[_=/m/, ) ,##' > V~`( ,*###' > __\_> snark^ > > -- > Sharky <in_our_opinion> Well clearly the UN is a total sham and therefore I've been completely wrong about violence against women, clearly it's a good thing, and more of it. </in_our_opinion> <fact> That Lemur is good. </fact> -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >Well clearly the UN is a total sham[...] Now we're getting somewhere... ><fact> >That Lemur is good. ></fact> ObAscii - Lemur with Jetpack. ,_, /_0 \,o) ,#> |.|o\ ,##' m=/-| | ,#' ( /\/##' _>> snark^ -- Sharky
Sharky wrote: > In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > >>Well clearly the UN is a total sham[...] > > Now we're getting somewhere... The UN is a sham and violence against women is wrong? >><fact> >>That Lemur is good. >></fact> > > > ObAscii - Lemur with Jetpack. > > ,_, > /_0 \,o) ,#> > |.|o\ ,##' > m=/-| | ,#' > ( /\/##' > _>> snark^ > > -- > Sharky Nice Lemur, poor snipping. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
> > ObAscii - Lemur with machinegun > > > > > > ,_, <##. > > /_O \. `# > > ___\,)\ ,# > > o====[_=/m/, ) ,##' > > V~`( ,*###' > > __\_> snark^ > > > > -- > > Sharky al Qaeda Lemur ,.... ,-' `-. _ < -. .;;_;; / | ||_ `\\ | | (C.-.C) `- ';. | | =(O O)= ___ || | `| =\o/= ' `'-. :: | | '"` / / | ,'| ___'________________`_ ______/.' / |.,::'_______________ | /uu----'__|_ /'''' _ / `....,' / .----"----. WSHADO .--'._________.`--. OWSHADOWS / __ \DOWSHADOWSH ( _\/_ CUL8Rnuke )OWSHADOWSHA \ \_ \/\/ _/DOWSHADOWSHAD :-----------------:ADOWSHADOWSHADOW. :-----------------'ADOWSHADOWSHADOWS / sHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWS SHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWS SHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOW SHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADO sSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHA hWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWS aDOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWS . ADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHA ADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADO DOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOWSHADOW bblkbye
_.-In alt.ascii-art, ABCGi wrote the following -._ > To be honest I would of found it objectional but would not of posted > about it. Thats what I though. > Did you know that in recent official govt stats in NSW, Australia only > 0.4% of women who are sexually assaulted will have the perpetrator(s) > convicted? That is a bit missleading. Less than 0.4% of pot smokers in America are convicted. Their are key stats missing from that number to give it meaining. Like what percentage of Au women actually file charges. The info you provided says > official govt stats .. only .. 0.4% of women who are sexually > assaulted .. perpetrator(s) convicted Which is not at all the same as: Did you know that in recent official govt stats in NSW, Australia only 0.4% of sexual assault charges result in conviction? Normally the biggest issue in dealing with domestic violance (which was the topic before sexual assault) is getting people to report it. The second biggest problem is getting the abused person to file charges. > But otherwise you make some good points. Danka Educating men on not being assholes doesn't fix that. Educating victems on how to stop being victems does fix that. Twenty minute waiting periods for women to buy fire arms also help. :) -- .-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that ' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to ((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word. ((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
Faux_Pseudo wrote: > _.-In alt.ascii-art, ABCGi wrote the following -._ > >>To be honest I would of found it objectional but would not of posted >>about it. > > Thats what I though. > >>Did you know that in recent official govt stats in NSW, Australia only >>0.4% of women who are sexually assaulted will have the perpetrator(s) >>convicted? > > That is a bit missleading. Less than 0.4% of pot smokers in America > are convicted. Their are key stats missing from that number to give > it meaining. Like what percentage of Au women actually file > charges. The info you provided says > >> official govt stats .. only .. 0.4% of women who are sexually >> assaulted .. perpetrator(s) convicted > > Which is not at all the same as: > Did you know that in recent official govt stats in NSW, Australia > only 0.4% of sexual assault charges result in conviction? > > Normally the biggest issue in dealing with domestic violance (which > was the topic before sexual assault) is getting people to report it. > The second biggest problem is getting the abused person to file > charges. > >>But otherwise you make some good points. > > Danka > > Educating men on not being assholes doesn't fix that. Educating > victems on how to stop being victems does fix that. Twenty minute True but we should be careful not to blame the victim, and as you see below, we need to make it worthwhile for them to goto court and do something about it. > waiting periods for women to buy fire arms also help. :) To avoid being misleading I can go into further detail, however there is no escaping that our system(s) is/are doing a horrible job of protecting women. The issue for sexual assault against women, and this is the same in the UK (their rate is about 5% from stats a few years back), I imagine it is a similar problem in the states, is the following; About 2.5% of those that go to court can expect a conviction (in Australia). At best 10% of those that accuse men of sexual assault are actually lying. This leaves at least 80% of offenders getting off. In return the woman has to go through a very unfriendly process, straight after being violated, and then in court has her entire sexual history brought into disrepute whereas the accused can of committed and been convicted of rape 5 times before, and this is *not* admissible. etc etc probably heard all this before... Due to many such reasons only 20% of assaulted women will make it to court. Even if you only counted the 20% that made it to court the conviction rate in NSW, Australia is still only 2.5%!!! -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Sharky wrote: > In <41a9422b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > > >>>Did I tell you what a male chauvinist pig Kofi Annan is? >> >>No, not yet, pray do tell? > > > Ok, you asked for it... > > Kofi Annan�s New Sex Scandal > > - Center for Individual Freedom > > You would think that with managing the Oil for Food scandal, working to > undermine U.S. foreign policy, pushing for global taxes and advocating a > sweeping restructuring of the Security Council, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi > Annan would be going out of his way to avoid creating more problems for > himself and the world body. > I don't think there is much point reading any further than this. This introductory paragraph quite clearly shows the partisanship of the authors, and reduces the credibility of the article by as much. If you want to report some fact (e.g. "Kofi Annan is a male chauvinist pig"), please stick to the facts and keep your opinion for yourself. ObAscii: .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. l l l Given that I lack the ability to draw (let l l alone ASCII-draw), I will stick to this view l l of the Earth from the Sun. l l l .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. . .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. l l l Nice, huh? l l l .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. -- Bertrand
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:32:38 -0800, Bertrand Mollinier Toublet <ber...@enst-bretagne.fr> wrote: >Sharky wrote: >> In <41a9422b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >> >> >>>>Did I tell you what a male chauvinist pig Kofi Annan is? >>> >>>No, not yet, pray do tell? >> >> >> Ok, you asked for it... >> >> Kofi Annan�s New Sex Scandal >> >> - Center for Individual Freedom >> >> You would think that with managing the Oil for Food scandal, working to >> undermine U.S. foreign policy, pushing for global taxes and advocating a >> sweeping restructuring of the Security Council, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi >> Annan would be going out of his way to avoid creating more problems for >> himself and the world body. >> >I don't think there is much point reading any further than this. You're posting from a french address so that tells me you are most likely french, which in turn means that you are extremely narrow-minded about anything that challenges your "Le Monde" view of the world. You obviously have nothing of any value to add here. ObAscii - frog in a blender _____.-._____ '-------------' | (o)(0) | | o.(.--).o | \ O` ) : `o / | o.( _).O | \O' `- 'o / | >|< | \_______/ .'==========='. / o o o o o o o \ LGB '-----------------' -- Sharky
Sharky wrote: > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:32:38 -0800, Bertrand Mollinier Toublet > <ber...@enst-bretagne.fr> wrote: > >>Sharky wrote: >>> >>>You would think that with managing the Oil for Food scandal, working to >>>undermine U.S. foreign policy, pushing for global taxes and advocating a >>>sweeping restructuring of the Security Council, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi >>>Annan would be going out of his way to avoid creating more problems for >>>himself and the world body. >>> >> >>I don't think there is much point reading any further than this. > > <snip a bunch of French-hating rant> In response to the post by Sharky that triggered my own answer, ABCGi wrote: > > <in_our_opinion> > Well clearly the UN is a total sham and therefore I've been completely > wrong about violence against women, clearly it's a good thing, and more > of it. > </in_our_opinion> > > <fact> > That Lemur is good. > </fact> > Oh my gosh! I am just realizing that ABCGi was trying to make exactly the same point as I was, and that it was as hopelessly lost on Sharky as mine was. My apologies to the group for the extra noise. I shall now drop the subject and killfile Sharky to ensure I will not be tempted by his flamebaits again. ObAscii: .-. |U| | | Let's try and cool it down, _| | shall we? | | | |-. And let's get our Babelfish /| ` | translators rolling: | | | Sharky, pauv' attarde, va te | | faire mettre. \ / | | VK/VK | | -- Bertrand
ABCGi wrote: > Faux_Pseudo wrote: > To avoid being misleading I can go into further detail, however there is > no escaping that our system(s) is/are doing a horrible job of protecting > women. Perhaps they should quit whining and start protecting themselves? Even if a woman is outweighed by her husband by 200lbs (and let's face it, few women are these days), they can still use a large stick, a kitchen knife, a broken bottle, etc to even the odds. Or, if we're talking about a random incidence of violence rather than habitual beatings from a partner or spouse, there are still many options for women to protect themselves. She can carry a bottle of pepper spray, a pistol (US only), a large knife or dagger, put a brick or a horseshoe in the bottom of her purse, etc. I'm sick of sitting here listening to bleeding heart liberal crap about how women are helpless. Women are just as capable of defending themselves as men, all it takes is the right attitude and a big enough stick. -- "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." --Mark Twain
In <311...@uni-berlin.de>, Bertrand Mollinier Toublet wrote: >Oh my gosh! I am just realizing that ABCGi was trying to make exactly >the same point as I was, and that it was as hopelessly lost on Sharky as >mine was. My apologies to the group for the extra noise. I shall now >drop the subject and killfile Sharky to ensure I will not be tempted by >his flamebaits again. Typical gutless frog running away and leaving an Australian to fight his battles. > >ObAscii: > .-. > |U| > | | Let's try and cool it down, > _| | shall we? Va te faire voir, conasse. ObAscii: � � ^ � � � / \ � � � � | | � � � � |.| � � � � |.| � � � � |:| � � �__ � � � ,_|:|_, � / �) � � � (Oo � �/ _I_ <snicker> � � � �+\ \ �|| __| / � � � � � \ \||___| � � � � � � \ /.:.\-\ � � � � � � � � � � �|.:. /-----\ � � � � � � � � �|___|::oOo::| � � � � � � �/ � |:<_T_>:| � � � � � � |_____\ ::: / � � � � � � �| | �\ \:/ � � � � � � � �| | � | | � � � � �[nosig] \ / � | \__ � � � � � � � �/ | � \____\ � � � � � � �`-' -- Sharky
Iconoclast wrote: > ABCGi wrote: > >>Faux_Pseudo wrote: >>To avoid being misleading I can go into further detail, however there is >>no escaping that our system(s) is/are doing a horrible job of protecting >>women. > > Perhaps they should quit whining and start protecting themselves? Even if a > woman is outweighed by her husband by 200lbs (and let's face it, few women > are these days), they can still use a large stick, a kitchen knife, a > broken bottle, etc to even the odds. > > Or, if we're talking about a random incidence of violence rather than > habitual beatings from a partner or spouse, there are still many options > for women to protect themselves. She can carry a bottle of pepper spray, a > pistol (US only), a large knife or dagger, put a brick or a horseshoe in > the bottom of her purse, etc. I'm sick of sitting here listening to > bleeding heart liberal crap about how women are helpless. Women are just as > capable of defending themselves as men, all it takes is the right attitude > and a big enough stick. I'm just being scientific. The statistics do not bear out your impressions, and I dare say your suggested solution would also be flawed in solving this problem. However, as you say, one should also not be a victim if at all possible. In NSW, Australia you are not supposed to carry weapons or wear body armour (this includes pepper spray, capsicum spray, tear gas, tasers and knives). I think this is mostly for gangs but applies to everyone. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Sharky wrote: > In <311...@uni-berlin.de>, Bertrand Mollinier Toublet wrote: > >>Oh my gosh! I am just realizing that ABCGi was trying to make exactly >>the same point as I was, and that it was as hopelessly lost on Sharky as >>mine was. My apologies to the group for the extra noise. I shall now >>drop the subject and killfile Sharky to ensure I will not be tempted by >>his flamebaits again. You probably missed it due to aggressive snipping by a Shark. > Typical gutless frog running away and leaving an Australian to fight his > battles. > >>ObAscii: >> .-. >> |U| >> | | Let's try and cool it down, >> _| | shall we? > > > Va te faire voir, conasse. I prefer the term "Aussie" or "Aboriginal conquering, Refugee hating, Bush lovin', War'n'sanction supportin', Reactionary Rednecks" as we are these days known. Saw a bumper sticker at the lights the other day with an Australian flag and the words "Love it or Leave it". Surely one protests because one cares about the country? ObA: wwwww | N | | U | | K | | E | | M | | | v Hey you! Don't be a victim! .@@, ____||_____________________ _________ /\ hiroshima -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >Sharky wrote: >> Typical gutless frog running away and leaving an Australian to fight his >> battles. > >I prefer the term "Aussie" or "Aboriginal conquering, Refugee hating, >Bush lovin', War'n'sanction supportin', Reactionary Rednecks" as we are >these days known. Well, heck! I could just call you a Cockroach... unless of course you're really a Mexican, Crow Eater, or Banana Bender? ;) >Saw a bumper sticker at the lights the other day with an Australian flag >and the words "Love it or Leave it". Surely one protests because one >cares about the country? The way in which some people seem overjoyed about bad news - from any side - in order to advance their cause is not an overly thoughtful thing to do. As far as people protesting because they "care" about their country - I think many people care more about their cause than they do about the possible negative consequences their actions might have for their countrymen. ObAscii: france ;) ' ______ __,-~~/~ " `---. " _/_~~~( '" \ ~`~ )\__ ' __/ * < '|** / ) \__ ------===(((((====------------------===))))===----- \/ ~~~"""~~~"""''() ...')~/ ((( ' (_ ( \ ( > ' . \) ))) " " \_(__ < *' " . ~~ >_>' ~ `-|' *:>|--"---~/ ' ((( * ||~`".| * ))) |'|.|.| ' (( | ".|.| ))* ' *|| :|*|`. __________________((((( |jro|~| )))))_________________ -- Sharky
Sharky wrote: > In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > > >>Sharky wrote: > > >>>Typical gutless frog running away and leaving an Australian to fight his >>>battles. >> >>I prefer the term "Aussie" or "Aboriginal conquering, Refugee hating, >>Bush lovin', War'n'sanction supportin', Reactionary Rednecks" as we are >>these days known. > > > Well, heck! I could just call you a Cockroach... unless of course you're > really a Mexican, Crow Eater, or Banana Bender? ;) Or Cane Toad :) > >>Saw a bumper sticker at the lights the other day with an Australian flag >>and the words "Love it or Leave it". Surely one protests because one >>cares about the country? > > > The way in which some people seem overjoyed about bad news - from any side > - in order to advance their cause is not an overly thoughtful thing to do. > As far as people protesting because they "care" about their country - I > think many people care more about their cause than they do about the > possible negative consequences their actions might have for their > countrymen. And the negative consequences of inaction? The history of all countries is full of times when the protest was the "right thing to do". > > > ObAscii: france ;) > > > > > ' ______ > __,-~~/~ " `---. > " _/_~~~( '" \ ~`~ )\__ ' > __/ * < '|** / ) \__ > ------===(((((====------------------===))))===----- > \/ ~~~"""~~~"""''() ...')~/ > ((( ' (_ ( \ ( > ' . \) ))) " > " \_(__ < *' " . ~~ >_>' > ~ `-|' *:>|--"---~/ ' > ((( * ||~`".| * ))) > |'|.|.| > ' (( | ".|.| ))* ' > *|| :|*|`. > __________________((((( |jro|~| )))))_________________ > > -- > Sharky -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Simon Williams wrote: > >> Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote: >> >>>You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: >>>violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. > >Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There is >nothing PC about it. Priority in problem solving? Violence is ONE problem not two. You are the one who needs to examine the stats. If you want to split it into sexes then you are focussing on the lesser problem. Go to any E.R. or police station and ask them who is more often seriously injured or killed by violent acts. The answer is overwhelmingly "men." To be as wrong as you are about this you must be ignorant, stupid, or sexist. >> Violence against _anyone_ is fundamentally a bad thing... wonder why we >> get more excited when it's based on sex, race or religion? >> >> /\ >> /oo\ _|_ >> _\^^/____ | >> / ,__ |PB >> | | \| | >> ||. ,| >> | ==== >> `|' `| >> | | >> | | >> | | >> ^^^^^^ > >One idea raised by the UN day for stopping violence against women is >that the majority of men, who don't think it is ok, speak up more so >that that minority doesn't get the mistaken idea that it is perhaps >socially acceptable. > >I have now officially done my part of that. You have attempted to draw attention away from the more pressing problem. You have also perpetuated the myth that there is no problem of violence against men by pretending that the comparably tiny amount of violence against women is the most violence anyone is suffering. > ^ ^ > /---\ > / * * \ > \ ^ / > v=v > {+++} > ( ) ObA
Warning! The previous post contains statistics that feminists have admitted to making up. ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Faux_Pseudo wrote: >> _.-In alt.ascii-art, ABCGi wrote the following -._ >> >>>Fuck you tran. >> >> Would you have responded the same way if it had said: >> >> #1981 LOGICAL REASONING >> >> _ >> , L\ LOOK IF GOD DIDN'T WANT ME TO RAPE THEM THEN >> \/OO\ HE WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM COCKS >> |/ \ >> /_\ ` END OF DISCUSSION >> _\ |_ AP >> >> Taken from <url:http://www.asciiartfarts.com/> > >To be honest I would of found it objectional but would not of posted >about it. > >> Is gay rape a worse offense than hitting a woman? If given the two >> strips and asked to point out which one was a Tran I think most would >> have picked the one I just edited. > >Gay rape is of course not ok. But if we work on the prolific problem of >violence against women I don't think that precludes us from working >against other forms of violence? It might even set an example. > >Did you know that in recent official govt stats in NSW, Australia only >0.4% of women who are sexually assaulted will have the perpetrator(s) >convicted? Even if you try to most favorably work the stats and make a >bunch of assumptions the best conviction rate possible is 5% - which is >still appalling. All defence lawyers will tell you off the record that >defending the accused in a rape trail is "easy money". > >> Point being that Tran does not discriminate. I can't even take his >> comments about demeaning women as a "serving suggestion" since Tran is >> probibly the least qualified man on Earth to to offer any advise on >> women. > >He does... each cartoon taken by itself is entirely discriminatory by >its very nature. And on a broader scale (which is what you are probably >referring to) I can think of at least one global discrimination - but I >hesitate to mention it since it might lead to a Tranism on it. But >otherwise that is a point. > >> Just for the record "my woman"[0] is not abused, unless she has it >> comming to her[1]. >> >> [0] note the possessiveness of that phrase. I never call her that. >> But she always call me "my man". >> [1] but I did acciedntly stab her once. Well twice if you count the >> time with the fork. Well I guess I should include all the times I >> stabed her with pins. But she was asking for it then. You should >> have seen the blood. > >:O !!! :) > >> /* All comments about my girlfriend (5824) are taken out of context for >> /* effect. I was previously in a relatoinship with X2of3 who had been >> /* badly abused in her previous relationships and she was the kind of >> /* psychotic mess that didn't feel happy unless she was being abused >> /* which caused a great many problems because I wouldn't abuse her. >> /* People[2] who abuse women should just be put on trial and shot if >> /* found guilty. And I say this as someone who has been presented as >> /* an abuseive person because of the already mentioned psycho[3]. > >Indeed - the "battered woman" or "battered wife" syndrome. > >> So even with my history I will still have to say "It was just a joke". >> No topic is safe from humor. Not even this one. Especialy not from >> Tran. Can't wait till Matt and Tray make lite of the subject on South >> Park. > >But it was a great opportunity to make a timely point since the UN day >was yesterday then. > >> [2] I have interveined into lesbian couples who had abuse issues so >> don't ever think that it is just men who abuse women. >> [3] If anyone doubts that she was psycho you can ask the .gov >> She had more 5150s than anyone else I have met. > >This is not really about sexism, although that is part of it. Many >people have reduced sexism to something not very serious so its >misleading to some to attach it as the only issue here. The sort of >sexism involved in the beating of women by men is the brutal deadly kind >of sexism, not the "oh that's a funny joke about the blonde chick" kind >of sexism. I refer you also to my previous point in another part of the >thread; > >"Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There is >nothing PC about it. " > >But otherwise you make some good points. > >Finally no-one is/I'm not trying to say other kinds of violence are >somehow ok by omission, and that it is the UN Day of Stopping Violence >Against Women - notice no mention of Men, but everyone opposed assumes >the "of Men" against Women there... one should ask oneself why is that >and reflect. > >Or not.
Bateau wrote: > ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Simon Williams wrote: >> >>>Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote: >>> >>>>You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: >>>>violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. >> >>Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >>addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >>priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There is >>nothing PC about it. > > Priority in problem solving? Violence is ONE problem not two. > You are the one who needs to examine the stats. If you want to split it > into sexes then you are focussing on the lesser problem. Go to any E.R. > or police station and ask them who is more often seriously injured or > killed by violent acts. The answer is overwhelmingly "men." To be as > wrong as you are about this you must be ignorant, stupid, or sexist. The above is anecdotal not statistical, do you have any studies or statistics? And again, the point was not that violence against men is better/worse than violence against women. >>>Violence against _anyone_ is fundamentally a bad thing... wonder why we >>>get more excited when it's based on sex, race or religion? >>> >>> /\ >>> /oo\ _|_ >>> _\^^/____ | >>>/ ,__ |PB >>>| | \| | >>>||. ,| >>>| ==== >>>`|' `| >>> | | >>> | | >>> | | >>> ^^^^^^ >> >>One idea raised by the UN day for stopping violence against women is >>that the majority of men, who don't think it is ok, speak up more so >>that that minority doesn't get the mistaken idea that it is perhaps >>socially acceptable. >> >>I have now officially done my part of that. > > You have attempted to draw attention away from the more pressing > problem. You have also perpetuated the myth that there is no problem of > violence against men by pretending that the comparably tiny amount of > violence against women is the most violence anyone is suffering. I have never insinuated anything of the sort IIRC. For instance, war, has a great number of men suffering violence. > >> ^ ^ >> /---\ >> / * * \ >> \ ^ / >> v=v >> {+++} >> ( ) ObA Ok lets say you are correct, shall we now move on and solve violence against women *and* violence against men (less war would help)? To labour on the above point is specious. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Sharky <sha...@hellsgates.cor> wrote: > The way in which some people seem overjoyed about bad news - from any side > - in order to advance their cause is not an overly thoughtful thing to do. > As far as people protesting because they "care" about their country - I > think many people care more about their cause than they do about the > possible negative consequences their actions might have for their > countrymen. Even though I'm a lefty/peacenik/anarchist, I still have to agree wholeheartedly with the above statement. Look at any protest/political action, be it a peace march or terrorist attack and you'll find about 10% who have a vague idea what it's all about and the balance are hangers-on who just want to belong to something, or opportunists looking for a bit of a thrill. That's my opinion. The only thing worse than having an opinion, is having the gall to believe your opinion is right. ''''''' |xxxxx| |__ __| <(_/^\_)> \|+++|/ |\_^_/| #| |# \___/ -- ._____. |[LD8]! SIMON WILLIAMS :: LUDDITE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED | (O) | 68K MACINTOSH SERVER http://luddite.no-ip.com !__!__! FAILURE RECORDS http://failurerecords.no-ip.com
Simon Williams wrote: > Sharky <sha...@hellsgates.cor> wrote: > >>The way in which some people seem overjoyed about bad news - from any side >>- in order to advance their cause is not an overly thoughtful thing to do. >>As far as people protesting because they "care" about their country - I >>think many people care more about their cause than they do about the >>possible negative consequences their actions might have for their >>countrymen. > > Even though I'm a lefty/peacenik/anarchist, I still have to agree > wholeheartedly with the above statement. Look at any protest/political > action, be it a peace march or terrorist attack and you'll find about > 10% who have a vague idea what it's all about and the balance are > hangers-on who just want to belong to something, or opportunists looking > for a bit of a thrill. It probably is a good idea to acknowledge any progress that has already been made. > That's my opinion. > > The only thing worse than having an opinion, is having the gall to > believe your opinion is right. True, perhaps I have been a little too forcefully opined. It is good to take some kind of action rather than be apathetic I suppose. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
> > ObAscii: Ya know I think the idea of the ObAscii is to add something new (even if it is a fairly pitiful praying mantis), not just to repost stuff... . \/ . oo . \/\ . \ \ . /\_\ \ . /\ \ . / /\ \ . / /\ \ . / \ 3ch "We love the Swanky Modes"
ABCGi wrote: > Iconoclast wrote: > >> ABCGi wrote: >> >>>Faux_Pseudo wrote: >>>To avoid being misleading I can go into further detail, however there is >>>no escaping that our system(s) is/are doing a horrible job of protecting >>>women. >> >> Perhaps they should quit whining and start protecting themselves? Even if >> a woman is outweighed by her husband by 200lbs (and let's face it, few >> women are these days), they can still use a large stick, a kitchen knife, >> a broken bottle, etc to even the odds. >> >> Or, if we're talking about a random incidence of violence rather than >> habitual beatings from a partner or spouse, there are still many options >> for women to protect themselves. She can carry a bottle of pepper spray, >> a pistol (US only), a large knife or dagger, put a brick or a horseshoe >> in the bottom of her purse, etc. I'm sick of sitting here listening to >> bleeding heart liberal crap about how women are helpless. Women are just >> as capable of defending themselves as men, all it takes is the right >> attitude and a big enough stick. > > I'm just being scientific. The statistics do not bear out your > impressions, and I dare say your suggested solution would also be flawed > in solving this problem. However, as you say, one should also not be a > victim if at all possible. I believe the problem is that women are told that they're weak so often by society and culture that eventually they start to believe it. Statistics aside, what we really need to solve this problem is less little girls hearing fairy tales about damsels in distress and more watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer. > In NSW, Australia you are not supposed to carry weapons or wear body > armour (this includes pepper spray, capsicum spray, tear gas, tasers and > knives). I think this is mostly for gangs but applies to everyone. Bummer. What do they expect you to do if you're attacked? -- "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." --Mark Twain
Iconoclast wrote: > ABCGi wrote: > >>Iconoclast wrote: >> >>>ABCGi wrote: >>> >>>>Faux_Pseudo wrote: >>>>To avoid being misleading I can go into further detail, however there is >>>>no escaping that our system(s) is/are doing a horrible job of protecting >>>>women. >>> >>>Perhaps they should quit whining and start protecting themselves? Even if >>>a woman is outweighed by her husband by 200lbs (and let's face it, few >>>women are these days), they can still use a large stick, a kitchen knife, >>>a broken bottle, etc to even the odds. >>> >>>Or, if we're talking about a random incidence of violence rather than >>>habitual beatings from a partner or spouse, there are still many options >>>for women to protect themselves. She can carry a bottle of pepper spray, >>>a pistol (US only), a large knife or dagger, put a brick or a horseshoe >>>in the bottom of her purse, etc. I'm sick of sitting here listening to >>>bleeding heart liberal crap about how women are helpless. Women are just >>>as capable of defending themselves as men, all it takes is the right >>>attitude and a big enough stick. >> >>I'm just being scientific. The statistics do not bear out your >>impressions, and I dare say your suggested solution would also be flawed >>in solving this problem. However, as you say, one should also not be a >>victim if at all possible. > > I believe the problem is that women are told that they're weak so often by > society and culture that eventually they start to believe it. Statistics > aside, what we really need to solve this problem is less little girls > hearing fairy tales about damsels in distress and more watching Buffy the > Vampire Slayer. Yeah BtVS rocks. The above does sound like part of the problem to me. >>In NSW, Australia you are not supposed to carry weapons or wear body >>armour (this includes pepper spray, capsicum spray, tear gas, tasers and >>knives). I think this is mostly for gangs but applies to everyone. > > Bummer. What do they expect you to do if you're attacked? Well, of course, we have no hand guns to carry around either. I think the idea is we just scream like little babies, or call the cops so they can show up 20 minutes later to scrape us off the pavement and take our statement :) -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== FLEAS =-+-=> |---------------------|'
ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip> > .... It is good to > take some kind of action rather than be apathetic I suppose. Depending on the circumstances... If the uninformed were more apathetic democracy would probably work a whole lot better. I can't even begin to count the number of times my redneck friends (God bless 'em) have vehemently defended their chosen candidate on the grounds of some issue they _assume_ he/she must be in favour of. Luckily Canadian politics is such that none of the national parties stray too far from center on the political/social spectrum, so there's little chance of anything really frightening coming of it. _ / ` __/` /_ ________________/ / / \ | / / / \___ | Liberal / / /\ | | | Conserva.. \/__/_' | | | Alliance.. /(_____ | | | Social C.. / / `--__|__| | Green Pa.. \_/ | | ' | | N.O.T.A. X | | | |_________________________| -- ._____. |[LD8]! SIMON WILLIAMS :: LUDDITE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED | (O) | 68K MACINTOSH SERVER http://luddite.no-ip.com !__!__! FAILURE RECORDS http://failurerecords.no-ip.com
Simon Williams wrote: > ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >>.... It is good to >>take some kind of action rather than be apathetic I suppose. > > Depending on the circumstances... If the uninformed were more apathetic > democracy would probably work a whole lot better. I can't even begin to > count the number of times my redneck friends (God bless 'em) have > vehemently defended their chosen candidate on the grounds of some issue > they _assume_ he/she must be in favour of. Luckily Canadian politics is > such that none of the national parties stray too far from center on the > political/social spectrum, so there's little chance of anything really > frightening coming of it. > > _ > / ` > __/` /_ > ________________/ / / \ > | / / / \___ > | Liberal / / /\ | | > | Conserva.. \/__/_' | | > | Alliance.. /(_____ | | > | Social C.. / / `--__|__| > | Green Pa.. \_/ | > | ' | > | N.O.T.A. X | > | | > |_________________________| > I've heard the idea that one earns a right to vote somehow, by demonstrating awareness or whatever. I thought as the internet rose the level of "informed" people would grow, but it seems to have gone the other way if anything. Canada and New Zealand appear to have some pretty good politics IMO. I think the bigger problem is the return of "retro"... I don't need to see the 80's again ;> -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In <1go06qd.ewxl9f1l4oewmN%email@DELETE_THIS.luddite.no-ip.com>, Simon Williams wrote: >Sharky <sha...@hellsgates.cor> wrote: > >> The way in which some people seem overjoyed about bad news - from any side >> - in order to advance their cause is not an overly thoughtful thing to do. >> As far as people protesting because they "care" about their country - I >> think many people care more about their cause than they do about the >> possible negative consequences their actions might have for their >> countrymen. > >Even though I'm a lefty/peacenik/anarchist, I still have to agree >wholeheartedly with the above statement. Look at any protest/political >action, be it a peace march or terrorist attack and you'll find about >10% who have a vague idea what it's all about and the balance are >hangers-on who just want to belong to something, or opportunists looking >for a bit of a thrill. I consider myself to be a "classic liberal" in that I believe that freedom is not free and requires constant vigilance by any society that wishes to remain free. Liberty is limited only by the amount of freedom your society chooses to oppress - the less oppression one has the greater their Liberty. As a classic liberal, I believe in the pursuit of the maximum amount of Liberty for all peoples of the world. That said, I'd also like to add that It pains me to see so many people rallying against the institution of Democratic Governments in places that have seen only dictators that have ruthlessly oppressed the people of their society to the point that they dared not protest against its rule. It is my opinion that only through a democratic form of government can a society achieve adequate liberty for its people... that and a complete ban on any form of Nanny Stateism. >That's my opinion. > >The only thing worse than having an opinion, is having the gall to >believe your opinion is right. As my optometrist used to say - "Opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one". ;) ObAscii - the all seeing d'ohnut hole _ . - = - . _ . " \ \ / / " . , \ / . . \ _,.--~=~"~=~--.._ / . ; _.-" / \ ! ! / \ "-._ . / ," / ,` .---. `, \ ". \ /.' `~ | /:::::\ | ~` '.\ \`. `~ | \:::::/ | ~` ~ .'/ \ `. `~ \ `, `~~~' ,` / ~`.' / . "-._ \ / ! ! \ / _.-" . ./ "=~~.._ _..~~=`" \. ,/ "" \, LGB . _/ \_ . " - ./. .\. - " -- Sharky
On 2004-12-01, Sharky <sha...@hellsgates.cor> sputtered: > In <gXbrd.26524$Rf1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, Iconoclast wrote: > >>All girls should get mandatory crossbow training by 4th grade > > I'm going to add this 'cause it will probably make some people think I'm a > thick fuggin redneck, which is FAF. > > "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people > always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use > them." - Richard Henry Lee > > "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are > neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make > things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they > serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed > man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." > - Cesare Beccaria "An armed society is a polite society." - George Will -- Swen - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
ABCGi wrote: >> I believe the problem is that women are told that they're weak so often >> by society and culture that eventually they start to believe it. >> Statistics aside, what we really need to solve this problem is less >> little girls hearing fairy tales about damsels in distress and more >> watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer. > > Yeah BtVS rocks. The above does sound like part of the problem to me. All girls should get mandatory crossbow training by 4th grade >>>In NSW, Australia you are not supposed to carry weapons or wear body >>>armour (this includes pepper spray, capsicum spray, tear gas, tasers and >>>knives). I think this is mostly for gangs but applies to everyone. >> >> Bummer. What do they expect you to do if you're attacked? > > Well, of course, we have no hand guns to carry around either. I think > the idea is we just scream like little babies, or call the cops so they > can show up 20 minutes later to scrape us off the pavement and take our > statement :) There's always the old roll of quarters (or whatever the australian equivilent of a quarter is). We used to use them back in high school. No cop could ever bust you for carrying change :) -- "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." --Mark Twain
In <41ac1727$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >> The way in which some people seem overjoyed about bad news - from any side >> - in order to advance their cause is not an overly thoughtful thing to do. >> As far as people protesting because they "care" about their country - I >> think many people care more about their cause than they do about the >> possible negative consequences their actions might have for their >> countrymen. > >And the negative consequences of inaction? The history of all countries >is full of times when the protest was the "right thing to do". In a free society, If the protest is just, there is only the need to bring the truth to the public. If the public is well enough informed to make a judgement about the validity of the protesters concerns, there is a good chance that the protest may have a positive impact. What I see in many protests these days is a rabid hatred driven affront on anything to do with "cause's" adversary, and there is the unmistakable stench of the socialist movement in many of the most violent of protests. ObAscii: * .--. / / ` + | | ' \ \__, * + '--' * + /\ + .' '. * * /======\ + ;:. _ ; |:. (_) | |:. _ | + |:. (_) | * ;:. ; .' \:. / `. / .-'':._.'`-. \ |/ /||\ \| jgs _..--"""````"""--.._ _.-'`` ``'-._ -' '- -- Sharky
In <gXbrd.26524$Rf1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, Iconoclast wrote:
>All girls should get mandatory crossbow training by 4th grade
I'm going to add this 'cause it will probably make some people think I'm a
thick fuggin redneck, which is FAF.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use
them." - Richard Henry Lee
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Cesare Beccaria
ObAscii:
.-.
{{@}}
<> 8@8
.::::. 888
@\\/W\/\/W\//@ 8@8
\\/^\/\/^\// _ )8( _
\_O_<>_O_/ (@)__/8@8\__(@)
____________________ `~"-=):(=-"~`
|<><><> | | <><><>| |.|
|<> | | <>| |S|
|<> | | <>| |'|
|<> .--------. <>| |.|
| | () | | |P|
|_____| (O\/O) |_____| |'|
| \ /\ / | |.|
|------\ \/ /------| |U|
| '.__.' | |'|
| | | | |.|
: | | : |N|
\<> | | <>/ |'|
\<> | | <>/ |.|
\<> | | <>/ |K|
`\<> | | <>/' |'|
jgs `-.| |.-` \ /
'--' ^
--
Sharky
ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip> > > I've heard the idea that one earns a right to vote somehow, by > demonstrating awareness or whatever. I thought as the internet rose the > level of "informed" people would grow, but it seems to have gone the > other way if anything. Unfortunately, the www seems more efficient as a tool of misinformation, or simply reinforcing falsehoods. Any misguided belief will have at least one web site that supports it, so if you turn to the internet for proof that the earth is flat you will most surely find what you seek. > Canada and New Zealand appear to have some pretty > good politics IMO. I think our political system is more dynamic than some of our southern neighbours' (I mention no names). For example the Progressive Conservative party which dominated the governments of the 1980s has lost so much support that they are essentially no more, whereas new upstart parties like the Reform Party can very quickly rise to the level of official opposition. Personally I find this more in keeping with the spirit of democracy than a system where you have two opposing "super power" parties taking turns in office. > I think the bigger problem is the return of "retro"... I don't need to > see the 80's again ;> Reaganomics... Moral Majority... televangelism... bad dance music... why wouldn't you want all that again? ___________________________________________ | _______________________________________ | | / .-----------------------------------. \ | | | | /\ : HUEY LEWIS - SPORTS 90 min| | | | | |/--\:....................... NR [ ]| | | | | `-----------------------------------' | | | | //-\\ | | //-\\ | | | | ||( )|| |_________| ||( )|| | | | | \\-// :....:....: \\-// | | | | _ _ ._ _ _ .__|_ _.._ _ | | | | (_(_)| |(_(/_| |_(_||_)(/_ | | | | low noise | | | | `______ ____________________ ____ ______' | | / [] [] \ | | / () () \ | !______/_____________________________\______! -- ._____. |[LD8]! SIMON WILLIAMS :: LUDDITE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED | (O) | 68K MACINTOSH SERVER http://luddite.no-ip.com !__!__! FAILURE RECORDS http://failurerecords.no-ip.com
Sharky <sha...@hellsgates.cor> wrote: > "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are > neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make > things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they > serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed > man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." > - Cesare Beccaria Compare US murder stats to those of countries like Canada and the UK. This argument sounds logical, but I don't believe the facts support it. _______________ _______________ _______________ |\ /||\ /||\ /| | ,-----------. || ,-----------. || ,-----------. | | | , q_p | || | | || | /| | | | | (c d-b | || | control | || | \| | | | `-----------' || `-----------' || `-----------' | |/_____________\||/_____________\||/_____________\| -- ._____. |[LD8]! SIMON WILLIAMS :: LUDDITE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED | (O) | 68K MACINTOSH SERVER http://luddite.no-ip.com !__!__! FAILURE RECORDS http://failurerecords.no-ip.com
Simon Williams wrote: > Sharky <sha...@hellsgates.cor> wrote: > >>"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are >>neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make >>things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they >>serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed >>man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." >>- Cesare Beccaria > > Compare US murder stats to those of countries like Canada and the UK. > This argument sounds logical, but I don't believe the facts support it. > > _______________ _______________ _______________ > |\ /||\ /||\ /| > | ,-----------. || ,-----------. || ,-----------. | > | | , q_p | || | | || | /| | | > | | (c d-b | || | control | || | \| | | > | `-----------' || `-----------' || `-----------' | > |/_____________\||/_____________\||/_____________\| > Yes it is anecdotal presupposition, a hole we humans have a habit of falling into on a few "logical" issues every time. Bowling for Columbine anybody? -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== !!!STRIKE!!!! =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Sharky wrote: > In <41ac1727$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > >>>The way in which some people seem overjoyed about bad news - from any side >>>- in order to advance their cause is not an overly thoughtful thing to do. >>>As far as people protesting because they "care" about their country - I >>>think many people care more about their cause than they do about the >>>possible negative consequences their actions might have for their >>>countrymen. >> >>And the negative consequences of inaction? The history of all countries >>is full of times when the protest was the "right thing to do". > > In a free society, If the protest is just, there is only the need to bring > the truth to the public. If the public is well enough informed to make a > judgement about the validity of the protesters concerns, there is a good > chance that the protest may have a positive impact. What I see in many > protests these days is a rabid hatred driven affront on anything to do with > "cause's" adversary, and there is the unmistakable stench of the socialist > movement in many of the most violent of protests. Maybe as we approach the utopian "free and fair" society protests will become less frequent? -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Simon Williams wrote: > ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >>I've heard the idea that one earns a right to vote somehow, by >>demonstrating awareness or whatever. I thought as the internet rose the >>level of "informed" people would grow, but it seems to have gone the >>other way if anything. > > Unfortunately, the www seems more efficient as a tool of misinformation, > or simply reinforcing falsehoods. Any misguided belief will have at > least one web site that supports it, so if you turn to the internet for > proof that the earth is flat you will most surely find what you seek. Indeed! http://www.flat-earth.org/ http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm .... >>Canada and New Zealand appear to have some pretty >>good politics IMO. > > I think our political system is more dynamic than some of our southern > neighbours' (I mention no names). For example the Progressive > Conservative party which dominated the governments of the 1980s has lost > so much support that they are essentially no more, whereas new upstart > parties like the Reform Party can very quickly rise to the level of > official opposition. Personally I find this more in keeping with the > spirit of democracy than a system where you have two opposing "super > power" parties taking turns in office. I do like the USA's "only two terms" for president rule. In Aus we have had Howard 4 times! >>I think the bigger problem is the return of "retro"... I don't need to >>see the 80's again ;> > > Reaganomics... Moral Majority... televangelism... bad dance music... > why wouldn't you want all that again? Shuddar... > > ___________________________________________ > | _______________________________________ | > | / .-----------------------------------. \ | > | | | /\ : HUEY LEWIS - SPORTS 90 min| | | > | | |/--\:....................... NR [ ]| | | > | | `-----------------------------------' | | > | | //-\\ | | //-\\ | | > | | ||( )|| |_________| ||( )|| | | > | | \\-// :....:....: \\-// | | > | | _ _ ._ _ _ .__|_ _.._ _ | | > | | (_(_)| |(_(/_| |_(_||_)(/_ | | > | | low noise | | | > | `______ ____________________ ____ ______' | > | / [] [] \ | > | / () () \ | > !______/_____________________________\______! > > -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In <1go34nb.t2y6c714sn8hsN%email@DELETE_THIS.luddite.no-ip.com>, Simon Williams wrote: >Sharky <sha...@hellsgates.cor> wrote: > >> "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are >> neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make >> things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they >> serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed >> man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." >> - Cesare Beccaria > >Compare US murder stats to those of countries like Canada and the UK. >This argument sounds logical, but I don't believe the facts support it. The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast majority of these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a little deeper on that topic. ObAscii: Gollum... _.. .' `", ; \ .---._; ^, ; .-' ;{ : .-. ._; .--"" \*' o/ o/ / , / : _`"; ; \; `. `"+' | } / _.'T"--"\ : / .'.--""-,_ \ ; \ / /_ `,\ ; : / / `-.,_ \`. : |; { .' `- ; `, \ : \ `; { `-,__..-' \ `}+=, : \ ; `. `, `-,\" ! |\ `; \}?\|} .-' | \ ; .'}/ i.' \ `, fsc ``''-' / \ /J|/{/ -- Sharky
In <41ad58e1$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >Sharky wrote: > >> In <41ac1727$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >> >>>>The way in which some people seem overjoyed about bad news - from any side >>>>- in order to advance their cause is not an overly thoughtful thing to do. >>>>As far as people protesting because they "care" about their country - I >>>>think many people care more about their cause than they do about the >>>>possible negative consequences their actions might have for their >>>>countrymen. >>> >>>And the negative consequences of inaction? The history of all countries >>>is full of times when the protest was the "right thing to do". >> >> In a free society, If the protest is just, there is only the need to bring >> the truth to the public. If the public is well enough informed to make a >> judgement about the validity of the protesters concerns, there is a good >> chance that the protest may have a positive impact. What I see in many >> protests these days is a rabid hatred driven affront on anything to do with >> "cause's" adversary, and there is the unmistakable stench of the socialist >> movement in many of the most violent of protests. > >Maybe as we approach the utopian "free and fair" society protests will >become less frequent? You and I will be long dead before that will happen. ObAscii - trilobite _____ .'` ,-. `'. / ([ ]D \ /.-""`(`)`""-.\ <'```(.)```'> <'```(.)```'> <'``(.)``'> sk <``\_/``> `'---'` -- Sharky
In <200...@bunrab.ronnet.moc>, col...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> ObAscii: >Ya know I think the idea of the ObAscii is to add something new (even if >it is a fairly pitiful praying mantis), not just to repost stuff... > > >. \/ >. oo >. \/\ >. \ \ >. /\_\ \ >. /\ \ >. / /\ \ >. / /\ \ >. / \ > > > > 3ch >"We love the Swanky Modes" I think the idea of ObAscii is to add a bit of ASCII-Art to an otherwise off-topic post. YMMV ObAscii: _^_^ =v= | *MEOW* \J_/`. |5000\ ||| ( \ ||| _\|`-' ------- / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / __ \ / {{@@ ARGHH! \ / //-| \ / bb | \ / o o \ / o o \ / o o \ / o o \ ~ ~ ~~ / ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ \ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ / ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ \ ~~~~ Sharky/JG
Sharky wrote: > In <1go34nb.t2y6c714sn8hsN%email@DELETE_THIS.luddite.no-ip.com>, Simon > Williams wrote: > >>Sharky <sha...@hellsgates.cor> wrote: >> >>>"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are >>>neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make >>>things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they >>>serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed >>>man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." >>>- Cesare Beccaria >> >>Compare US murder stats to those of countries like Canada and the UK. >>This argument sounds logical, but I don't believe the facts support it. > > The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are > committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast majority of > these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession > of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, > law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with > places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the > overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a little > deeper on that topic. Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? Death by guns in the USA by *far* outstrips any other country any way you slice it - was my impression of the stats. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Sharky wrote: > In <41ad58e1$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > > >>Sharky wrote: >> >> >>>In <41ac1727$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>The way in which some people seem overjoyed about bad news - from any side >>>>>- in order to advance their cause is not an overly thoughtful thing to do. >>>>>As far as people protesting because they "care" about their country - I >>>>>think many people care more about their cause than they do about the >>>>>possible negative consequences their actions might have for their >>>>>countrymen. >>>> >>>>And the negative consequences of inaction? The history of all countries >>>>is full of times when the protest was the "right thing to do". >>> >>>In a free society, If the protest is just, there is only the need to bring >>>the truth to the public. If the public is well enough informed to make a >>>judgement about the validity of the protesters concerns, there is a good >>>chance that the protest may have a positive impact. What I see in many >>>protests these days is a rabid hatred driven affront on anything to do with >>>"cause's" adversary, and there is the unmistakable stench of the socialist >>>movement in many of the most violent of protests. >> >>Maybe as we approach the utopian "free and fair" society protests will >>become less frequent? > > > You and I will be long dead before that will happen. > > ObAscii - trilobite > > _____ > .'` ,-. `'. > / ([ ]D \ > /.-""`(`)`""-.\ > <'```(.)```'> > <'```(.)```'> > <'``(.)``'> > sk <``\_/``> > `'---'` > -- > Sharky true dat -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
ABCGi wrote: > Sharky wrote: > >> In <1go34nb.t2y6c714sn8hsN%email@DELETE_THIS.luddite.no-ip.com>, Simon >> Williams wrote: >> >>> Sharky <sha...@hellsgates.cor> wrote: >>> >>>> "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are >>>> neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make >>>> things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they >>>> serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed >>>> man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." >>>> - Cesare Beccaria >>> >>> >>> Compare US murder stats to those of countries like Canada and the UK. >>> This argument sounds logical, but I don't believe the facts support it. >> >> >> The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are >> committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast >> majority of >> these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession >> of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, >> law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with >> places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the >> overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a >> little >> deeper on that topic. > > > Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? Death by guns in > the USA by *far* outstrips any other country any way you slice it - was > my impression of the stats. > Oh I c, you are using the term "unjustified homicides" - which means self-defence doesn't count. Still, the proliferation of guns in the US and the attitude toward them can hardly be said to make the US a safer place to live given to the enormous number of gun deaths? -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
>> The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA >> are committed in violation of some law. a-duh! ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Oh I c, you are using the term "unjustified homicides" - which means > self-defence doesn't count. > > Still, the proliferation of guns in the US and the attitude toward them > can hardly be said to make the US a safer place to live given to the > enormous number of gun deaths? An interesting side-effect is that the vast majority of gun-related crimes occuring in Canada are committed with guns that originated in the USofA... make what you will of that. ___ |[ ]| |...| \___/ -- ._____. |[LD8]! SIMON WILLIAMS :: LUDDITE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED | (O) | 68K MACINTOSH SERVER http://luddite.no-ip.com !__!__! FAILURE RECORDS http://failurerecords.no-ip.com
ABCGi wrote: > Bateau wrote: > >> ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Simon Williams wrote: >>> >>>> Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: >>>>> violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. >>> >>> Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >>> addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >>> priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There >>> is nothing PC about it. >> >> Priority in problem solving? Violence is ONE problem not two. >> You are the one who needs to examine the stats. If you want to split it >> into sexes then you are focussing on the lesser problem. Go to any E.R. >> or police station and ask them who is more often seriously injured or >> killed by violent acts. The answer is overwhelmingly "men." To be as >> wrong as you are about this you must be ignorant, stupid, or sexist. > > The above is anecdotal not statistical, do you have any studies or > statistics? And again, the point was not that violence against men is > better/worse than violence against women. Another issue for priority is that sexual assault in the courts has the lowest conviction rate by far of any crime, clearly this makes it first on the list of things to correct. Also looking statistically at X and Y's - if; X -> X = 50v X -> Y = 49.8v Y -> X = 0.2v Then I'd say the priority is to protect Y. >>>> Violence against _anyone_ is fundamentally a bad thing... wonder why we >>>> get more excited when it's based on sex, race or religion? >>>> /\ >>>> /oo\ _|_ >>>> _\^^/____ | >>>> / ,__ |PB >>>> | | \| | >>>> ||. ,| >>>> | ==== >>>> `|' `| >>>> | | >>>> | | >>>> | | >>>> ^^^^^^ >>> >>> One idea raised by the UN day for stopping violence against women is >>> that the majority of men, who don't think it is ok, speak up more so >>> that that minority doesn't get the mistaken idea that it is perhaps >>> socially acceptable. >>> >>> I have now officially done my part of that. >> >> You have attempted to draw attention away from the more pressing >> problem. You have also perpetuated the myth that there is no problem of >> violence against men by pretending that the comparably tiny amount of >> violence against women is the most violence anyone is suffering. I asked a friend at university to look up figures on this, the study is a bit dated and doesn't include war I don't think but victims of violence is actually about half - half, certainly nothing like "comparably tiny" for women, obviously this is a bit of a misconception or myth (not the other way around). Of course if you talking just the sexual assault category then the victims are almost all women and the perpetrator is a man (99.9% of the time). > I have never insinuated anything of the sort IIRC. For instance, war, > has a great number of men suffering violence. >> >>> ^ ^ >>> /---\ >>> / * * \ >>> \ ^ / >>> v=v >>> {+++} >>> ( ) ObA > > > Ok lets say you are correct, shall we now move on and solve violence > against women *and* violence against men (less war would help)? To > labour on the above point is specious. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Sharky wrote: > In <gXbrd.26524$Rf1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, Iconoclast wrote: > >>All girls should get mandatory crossbow training by 4th grade > > I'm going to add this 'cause it will probably make some people think I'm a > thick fuggin redneck, which is FAF. > > "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people > always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use > them." - Richard Henry Lee > > "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are > neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make > things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they > serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed > man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." > - Cesare Beccaria > Nice. I wholeheartedly agree. -- "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." --Mark Twain
In <41ad71cd$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >> The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are >> committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast majority of >> these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession >> of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, >> law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with >> places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the >> overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a little >> deeper on that topic. > >Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? Death by guns in >the USA by *far* outstrips any other country any way you slice it - was >my impression of the stats. "Any" other country? You can't really be looking at reliable statistics. Did you know that the USA is composed of only ~ 280 million people? China alone has over 1.2 Billion people (if you can really believe the estimates coming from a closed socialist dictatorship). Maybe if you provided the source of your statistics I could have a gander? ObAscii: Mesoamerican[1] Abacus (Aztec) ________________________________________________________ / ____________________________________________________ \ | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | | |_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__| | | ____________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | | |<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_| | \___________________________________________________LGB__/ [1] Mesoamerica, region extending from north central No. America to Nicaragua (from Spanish Mesoam�rica, from meso- mes- + Am�rica America) + English -an - "mesoamerican." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (1 Dec. 2004). May I also say, that lgbeard is the best technical ASCII Artist I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. -- Sharky
_.-In alt.ascii-art, Iconoclast wrote the following -._
> All girls should get mandatory crossbow training by 4th grade
Long bow. Builds stronger arm muscles and puts hair on their chest[0].
[0] yes the hair on the chest comment is stolen from Willow
--
.-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that
' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to
((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word.
((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >>> The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are >>> committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast >>> majority of >>> these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession >>> of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, >>> law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with >>> places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the >>> overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a >>> little >>> deeper on that topic. >> >> >> Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? Death by guns in >> the USA by *far* outstrips any other country any way you slice it - was >> my impression of the stats. >> > >Oh I c, you are using the term "unjustified homicides" - which means >self-defence doesn't count. Self defense does indeed "count", at least as far as this classic liberal is concerned. My belief is that all people are endowed with the freedom to defend their very life from any and all assailants. >Still, the proliferation of guns in the US and the attitude toward them >can hardly be said to make the US a safer place to live given to the >enormous number of gun deaths? As off'd in a previous post, you really have to delve a bit deeper to understand the problems attributed to "guns". The right to arm oneself against unjust aggression has been one of the cornerstones of Democratic Governments from the time of first world prominence of its politic. Blaming the deaths of people on the (otherwise inanimate object) "gun" is kinda silly, IMHO. ObAscii - Say hola to my leetle friend, muchacho. _________ /' /| / / |_ / / //| /_________/ ////| | _ _ | 8o////| | /'// )_ | 8///| |/ // // ) | 8o///| / // // //,| / 8//| / // // /// | / 8//| / // // ///__|/ 8//| /.(_)// /// | 8///| (_)' `(_)//| | 8////|___________ (_) /_\ (_)'| | 8/////////////// (_) \"/ (_)'|_| 8///////////// (_)._.(_) d' Hb 8oooooooopb' `(_)' d' H`b d' `b`b d' H `b d' `b `b d' `b d' `b [unknown] -- Sharky
In <1go3wl4.vusuxu16adq4wN%email@DELETE_THIS.luddite.no-ip.com>, Simon Williams wrote: >>> The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA >>> are committed in violation of some law. > >a-duh! Exactly! ObAscii: South Park (_) *Bwahahaha* |_____________________________________ |&&&&&& &&&&&&| \o/ |&&&&&& &&&&&&| _O |&&&&&& &&&&&&| ~ *traf*~ | |&&&&&& .\^/. &&&&&&| |&&&&&& . | | . &&&&&&| |&&&&&& |\| |/| &&&&&&| |&&&&&& .--' '--. &&&&&&| |&&&&&& \ / &&&&&&| |&&&&&& > < &&&&&&| |&&&&&& '~|/~~|~~\|~' &&&&&&| |&&&&&& | &&&&&&| |&&&&&& &&&&&&| |&&&&&& &&&&&&| |&&&&&&_________________________&JGS&&| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Sharky
In <41ad71cd$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >> The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are >> committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast majority of >> these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession >> of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, >> law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with >> places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the >> overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a little >> deeper on that topic. > >Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? Damn! I hate it when people doubt my veracity and THEN ask ME for information that they have already been prejudged. ;) Check out http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ and look at the death rates for the UK, france, Germany, Russia... etc. Where it is true that the death rate for Australia and Canada are lower than the USA, the USA comes in below the worlds average for the number of deaths per 1000 persons. However, there are other socioeconomic factors (such as over-crowding) that effect the statistical models for violent crime. If you're not familiar with the subject, you might be interested in the theory that man, as a primate, is far more prone to violence when herded into dense groups, with other primates. It is only a theory when applied towards man, though. ObAscii - Earth -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- . _..::__: ,-"-"._ |7 , _,.__ _.___ _ _<_>`!(._`.`-. / _._ `_ ,_/ ' '-._.---.-.__ >.{ " " `-==,',._\{ \ / {) / _ ">_,-' ` mt-2_ \_.:--. `._ )`^-. "' , [_/( __,/-' '"' \ " _L oD_,--' ) /. (| | ,' _)_.\\._<> 6 _,' / ' `. / [_/_'` `"( <'} ) \\ .-. ) / `-'"..' `:.# _) ' ` \ ( `( / `:\ > \ ,-^. /' ' `._, "" | \`' \| ?_) {\ `=.---. `._._ ,' "` |' ,- '. | `-._ | / `:`<_|h--._ ( > . | , `=.__.`-'\ `. / | |{| ,-.,\ . | ,' \ / `' ," \ | / |_' | __ / | | '-' `-' \. |/ " / \. ' ,/ ______._.--._ _..---.---------._ ,-----"-..?----_/ ) __,-'" " ( -.._( `-----' `- -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Map (C) 1998 Matthew Thomas. Freely usable if this line is included. <- -- Sharky
Sharky wrote: > In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > >>>>The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are >>>>committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast >>>>majority of >>>>these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession >>>>of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, >>>>law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with >>>>places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the >>>>overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a >>>>little >>>>deeper on that topic. >>> >>>Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? Death by guns in >>>the USA by *far* outstrips any other country any way you slice it - was >>>my impression of the stats. >> >>Oh I c, you are using the term "unjustified homicides" - which means >>self-defence doesn't count. > > Self defense does indeed "count", at least as far as this classic liberal > is concerned. My belief is that all people are endowed with the freedom to > defend their very life from any and all assailants. I mean "self-defence" doesn't count toward the unjustified homicides stat. >>Still, the proliferation of guns in the US and the attitude toward them >>can hardly be said to make the US a safer place to live given to the >>enormous number of gun deaths? > > As off'd in a previous post, you really have to delve a bit deeper to > understand the problems attributed to "guns". The right to arm oneself > against unjust aggression has been one of the cornerstones of Democratic > Governments from the time of first world prominence of its politic. > Blaming the deaths of people on the (otherwise inanimate object) "gun" is > kinda silly, IMHO. Indeed it is the culture behind the proliferation of guns that has led to the situation. M.Moore offers up two possible cultural causes in Bowling for Columbine that are sufficiently different in the US to other countries that have lots of guns (eg Canada): the culture of fear, the violent example set by the government where the justification remains in the hands of the one delivering the violence. > ObAscii - Say hola to my leetle friend, muchacho. > > > _________ > /' /| > / / |_ > / / //| > /_________/ ////| > | _ _ | 8o////| > | /'// )_ | 8///| > |/ // // ) | 8o///| > / // // //,| / 8//| > / // // /// | / 8//| > / // // ///__|/ 8//| > /.(_)// /// | 8///| > (_)' `(_)//| | 8////|___________ > (_) /_\ (_)'| | 8/////////////// > (_) \"/ (_)'|_| 8///////////// > (_)._.(_) d' Hb 8oooooooopb' > `(_)' d' H`b > d' `b`b > d' H `b > d' `b `b > d' `b > d' `b [unknown] > Looks like a little daemon in the barrel. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Sharky wrote: > In <41ad71cd$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > > >>>The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are >>>committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast majority of >>>these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession >>>of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, >>>law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with >>>places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the >>>overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a little >>>deeper on that topic. >> >>Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? Death by guns in >>the USA by *far* outstrips any other country any way you slice it - was >>my impression of the stats. > > "Any" other country? You can't really be looking at reliable statistics. > Did you know that the USA is composed of only ~ 280 million people? China > alone has over 1.2 Billion people (if you can really believe the estimates > coming from a closed socialist dictatorship). Maybe if you provided the > source of your statistics I could have a gander? I asked first. or I'll show you mine if you show me yours? Even per capita the USA still is by far the number one in all types of gun deaths (excluding war I think). > ObAscii: Mesoamerican[1] Abacus (Aztec) > > > ________________________________________________________ > / ____________________________________________________ \ > | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | > | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | > | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | > | |_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__| | > | ____________________________________________________ | > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | > | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | > | |<_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> <_> | | > | |<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_<_>_| | > \___________________________________________________LGB__/ > > > > [1] Mesoamerica, region extending from north central No. America to > Nicaragua (from Spanish Mesoam�rica, from meso- mes- + Am�rica America) + > English -an > - "mesoamerican." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. > Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (1 Dec. 2004). > > > May I also say, that lgbeard is the best technical ASCII Artist I have ever > had the pleasure of viewing. > > -- > Sharky -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Sharky wrote: > In <41ad71cd$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > > >>>The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are >>>committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast majority of >>>these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession >>>of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, >>>law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with >>>places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the >>>overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a little >>>deeper on that topic. >> >>Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? > > Damn! I hate it when people doubt my veracity and THEN ask ME for > information that they have already been prejudged. ;) > > Check out http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ and look > at the death rates for the UK, france, Germany, Russia... etc. > > Where it is true that the death rate for Australia and Canada are lower > than the USA, the USA comes in below the worlds average for the number of > deaths per 1000 persons. However, there are other socioeconomic factors > (such as over-crowding) that effect the statistical models for violent > crime. Hmmm, well I didn't prejudge. I saw stats on gun deaths. Its an interesting site, but those stats are for all deaths - so that is not as useful. However the overall death rate is not too staggering, but that could be for any number of reasons; http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ US 8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) Aus 7.38 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) > If you're not familiar with the subject, you might be interested in the > theory that man, as a primate, is far more prone to violence when herded > into dense groups, with other primates. It is only a theory when applied > towards man, though. Although there are countries that share these conditions but do not exactly share the same level of violence, so clearly a lot more factors are involved. > ObAscii - Earth > > -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- > . _..::__: ,-"-"._ |7 , _,.__ > _.___ _ _<_>`!(._`.`-. / _._ `_ ,_/ ' '-._.---.-.__ > >>.{ " " `-==,',._\{ \ / {) / _ ">_,-' ` mt-2_ > > \_.:--. `._ )`^-. "' , [_/( __,/-' > '"' \ " _L oD_,--' ) /. (| > | ,' _)_.\\._<> 6 _,' / ' > `. / [_/_'` `"( <'} ) > \\ .-. ) / `-'"..' `:.# _) ' > ` \ ( `( / `:\ > \ ,-^. /' ' > `._, "" | \`' \| ?_) {\ > `=.---. `._._ ,' "` |' ,- '. > | `-._ | / `:`<_|h--._ > ( > . | , `=.__.`-'\ > `. / | |{| ,-.,\ . > | ,' \ / `' ," \ > | / |_' | __ / > | | '-' `-' \. > |/ " / > \. ' > > ,/ ______._.--._ _..---.---------._ > ,-----"-..?----_/ ) __,-'" " ( > -.._( `-----' `- > -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- > Map (C) 1998 Matthew Thomas. Freely usable if this line is included. <- > > -- > Sharky -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Iconoclast wrote: > Sharky wrote: > >>In <gXbrd.26524$Rf1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, Iconoclast wrote: >> >>>All girls should get mandatory crossbow training by 4th grade >> >>I'm going to add this 'cause it will probably make some people think I'm a >>thick fuggin redneck, which is FAF. >> >>"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people >>always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use >>them." - Richard Henry Lee >> >>"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are >>neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make >>things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they >>serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed >>man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." >>- Cesare Beccaria > > Nice. I wholeheartedly agree. Yes but experience does not bear the statements to be true, at least in our age. Bit like the theory of nuclear deterrents during the Cold War which put us within a bees dick of a nuclear strike with the Cuban missile crisis. Sounds logical but in practice not true, that's why we use science to test things rather than our gut instinct. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >Sharky wrote: > >> In <41ad71cd$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >> >> >>>>The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are >>>>committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast majority of >>>>these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession >>>>of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, >>>>law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with >>>>places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the >>>>overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a little >>>>deeper on that topic. >>> >>>Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? >> >> Damn! I hate it when people doubt my veracity and THEN ask ME for >> information that they have already been prejudged. ;) >> >> Check out http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ and look >> at the death rates for the UK, france, Germany, Russia... etc. >> >> Where it is true that the death rate for Australia and Canada are lower >> than the USA, the USA comes in below the worlds average for the number of >> deaths per 1000 persons. However, there are other socioeconomic factors >> (such as over-crowding) that effect the statistical models for violent >> crime. > >Hmmm, well I didn't prejudge. I saw stats on gun deaths. Its an >interesting site, but those stats are for all deaths - so that is not as >useful. However the overall death rate is not too staggering, but that >could be for any number of reasons; You seem preoccupied with the idea that death by a "gun" is somewhat more important than any other form of death. If you want to approach the problem logically you're going to have to consider all manners of death - that is if the object of the exploration of the subject is to find a positive solutions. > >http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ > >US 8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) >Aus 7.38 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) >> If you're not familiar with the subject, you might be interested in the >> theory that man, as a primate, is far more prone to violence when herded >> into dense groups, with other primates. It is only a theory when applied >> towards man, though. > >Although there are countries that share these conditions but do not >exactly share the same level of violence, so clearly a lot more factors >are involved. As a tribute to your heroic defense of women's right at the start of this thread, I offer you the following quote: "European police met in The Hague to look at ways of tackling the rising phenomenon of "honour killings". They aim to set up a pan-European unit to combat the killings and crack down on related issues such as trafficking. Police are re-opening murder files related to families of Turkish, Middle Eastern, Asian, Arabic and Eastern European origin over the past 10 years. Many victims of "honour killings" are women involved in relationships their family felt brought dishonour on them. I think we've been unaware, we've been ignorant of the crimes going on, said Andy Baker, a UK police commander. Experts say such killings are on the rise in Europe, but as the issue remains largely hidden from public view, exact numbers are unknown. A 26-year-old Kurd, Fadime was shot dead two years ago near Stockholm, allegedly by her father because of her relationship with a Swedish man. The murder triggered calls for urgent action to protect young immigrants who fall out with their families." http://www.rowzane.com/000_etelayeha/2407/240718-Bulletin%2026.htm Clearly there are some discrepancies in the violent crime rate towards women being reported by a number of countries, eh? What does that say about the overall credibility of the crime rates published by said countries? You have to wonder. ObAscii: Lebonease Divorce . ((),). . ( ))) 6(6 ) . ((c` _e/ ( . , ) )))'( ) ) ) ( .((( , \ ,. (' ) ) ( . )\ \ _o___,-. ' . ( ), ) ( )\.__,-._\ ( ', ) .' ) ( . / -/ \ |( ) ( . ). , ( . (( /_)\ \' ( , ) (_,) . ), ) _ '.__,' \_\ '. ) ,. (' ) jgs^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^joris -- Sharky
In <41ae9b3d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >Yes but experience does not bear the statements to be true, at least in >our age. ObAscii: Study history, know the future. - Mr. Fixit
ABCGi wrote: > Sharky wrote: >> Self defense does indeed "count", at least as far as this classic liberal >> is concerned. My belief is that all people are endowed with the >> freedom to defend their very life from any and all assailants. I should of mentioned I agree with your statement above. > I mean "self-defence" doesn't count toward the unjustified homicides stat. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== RAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Sharky wrote: > In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > >>Sharky wrote: >> >>>In <41ad71cd$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >>> >>>>>The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are >>>>>committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast majority of >>>>>these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession >>>>>of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, >>>>>law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with >>>>>places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the >>>>>overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a little >>>>>deeper on that topic. >>>> >>>>Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? >>> >>>Damn! I hate it when people doubt my veracity and THEN ask ME for >>>information that they have already been prejudged. ;) >>> >>>Check out http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ and look >>>at the death rates for the UK, france, Germany, Russia... etc. >>> >>>Where it is true that the death rate for Australia and Canada are lower >>>than the USA, the USA comes in below the worlds average for the number of >>>deaths per 1000 persons. However, there are other socioeconomic factors >>>(such as over-crowding) that effect the statistical models for violent >>>crime. >> >>Hmmm, well I didn't prejudge. I saw stats on gun deaths. Its an >>interesting site, but those stats are for all deaths - so that is not as >>useful. However the overall death rate is not too staggering, but that >>could be for any number of reasons; > > You seem preoccupied with the idea that death by a "gun" is somewhat more > important than any other form of death. If you want to approach the problem > logically you're going to have to consider all manners of death - that is > if the object of the exploration of the subject is to find a positive > solutions. This is a classicly specious/spurious. Take a specific problem and then generalise it to a larger and more difficult to solve problem, or in other cases take an example to extremes in order to attempt to invalidate it. Gun deaths form a disproportionately high factor of violence in the USA (from what I have seen) and so is an excellent area to focus on in order to reduce violence. It seems, based on the death rates you showed me, that the USA must be doing something else right in terms of death. But that doesn't stop gun deaths being a legitimate problem in its own right. >>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ >> >>US 8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) >>Aus 7.38 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) > >>>If you're not familiar with the subject, you might be interested in the >>>theory that man, as a primate, is far more prone to violence when herded >>>into dense groups, with other primates. It is only a theory when applied >>>towards man, though. >> >>Although there are countries that share these conditions but do not >>exactly share the same level of violence, so clearly a lot more factors >>are involved. > > As a tribute to your heroic defense of women's right at the start of this > thread, I offer you the following quote: > > "European police met in The Hague to look at ways of tackling the rising > phenomenon of "honour killings". They aim to set up a pan-European unit to > combat the killings and crack down on related issues such as trafficking. > > Police are re-opening murder files related to families of Turkish, Middle > Eastern, Asian, Arabic and Eastern European origin over the past 10 years. > Many victims of "honour killings" are women involved in relationships their > family felt brought dishonour on them. I think we've been unaware, we've > been ignorant of the crimes going on, said Andy Baker, a UK police > commander. > > Experts say such killings are on the rise in Europe, but as the issue > remains largely hidden from public view, exact numbers are unknown. A > 26-year-old Kurd, Fadime was shot dead two years ago near Stockholm, > allegedly by her father because of her relationship with a Swedish man. The > murder triggered calls for urgent action to protect young immigrants who > fall out with their families." > http://www.rowzane.com/000_etelayeha/2407/240718-Bulletin%2026.htm > > Clearly there are some discrepancies in the violent crime rate towards > women being reported by a number of countries, eh? What does that say > about the overall credibility of the crime rates published by said > countries? You have to wonder. I'd have to agree. Your quote also points out that violence against women (particularily sexual assault) is a pandemic that crosses borders and cultures. The stats I used were recently published for NSW, Australia, were official govt. stats and were also quite conservative. Its enough to show that there is a problem, that it's not right, and our system/cultures are not doing enough to combat it. However a judge here is kicking up a stink about improving the prosecution of sexual assault and I see other positive signs (like the day of stopping violence against women). > ObAscii: Lebonease Divorce > > . ((),). . > ( ))) 6(6 ) > . ((c` _e/ ( . > , ) )))'( ) > ) ) ( .((( , \ ,. (' ) ) > ( . )\ \ _o___,-. ' . > ( ), ) ( )\.__,-._\ ( ', ) > .' ) ( . / -/ \ |( ) ( . > ). , ( . (( /_)\ \' ( , ) > (_,) . ), ) _ '.__,' \_\ '. ) ,. (' ) > jgs^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^joris I saw a shocking story on a woman who was cut up by her semi-deranged husband for talking to another man inside their house (a cousin I think). She had her nose, ears and I think lips cut off. To do such a think you'd have to consider the woman less than human. The documentary showed her sent to the States for incredible plastic surgery which was done gratis by the doctor. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In <41ae984c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > M.Moore offers up two possible cultural causes in >Bowling for Columbine that are sufficiently different in the US to other >countries that have lots of guns (eg Canada): the culture of fear, the >violent example set by the government where the justification remains in >the hands of the one delivering the violence. Are you seriously considering M. Moore a credible source for a sociological theory? You've got to be yanking my chain here, man. ObAscii - An insult to shit ( ) ( ) ( ) _ ) ( \_ _(_\ \)__ (____\___)) Michael Moore -- Sharky
In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >ABCGi wrote: >> Sharky wrote: >>> Self defense does indeed "count", at least as far as this classic liberal >>> is concerned. My belief is that all people are endowed with the >>> freedom to defend their very life from any and all assailants. > >I should of mentioned I agree with your statement above. At least we can agree on that. :-) ObAscii 8-} {-8 {-8 8-} 8-} {-8 {-8 8-} -- sharky
In <41A...@yahoo.com>, ABCGi wrote: >Sharky wrote: > >> In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >> >>>Sharky wrote: >>> >>>>In <41ad71cd$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >>>> >>>>>>The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are >>>>>>committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast majority of >>>>>>these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession >>>>>>of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, >>>>>>law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with >>>>>>places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the >>>>>>overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a little >>>>>>deeper on that topic. >>>>> >>>>>Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? >>>> >>>>Damn! I hate it when people doubt my veracity and THEN ask ME for >>>>information that they have already been prejudged. ;) >>>> >>>>Check out http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ and look >>>>at the death rates for the UK, france, Germany, Russia... etc. >>>> >>>>Where it is true that the death rate for Australia and Canada are lower >>>>than the USA, the USA comes in below the worlds average for the number of >>>>deaths per 1000 persons. However, there are other socioeconomic factors >>>>(such as over-crowding) that effect the statistical models for violent >>>>crime. >>> >>>Hmmm, well I didn't prejudge. I saw stats on gun deaths. Its an >>>interesting site, but those stats are for all deaths - so that is not as >>>useful. However the overall death rate is not too staggering, but that >>>could be for any number of reasons; >> >> You seem preoccupied with the idea that death by a "gun" is somewhat more >> important than any other form of death. If you want to approach the problem >> logically you're going to have to consider all manners of death - that is >> if the object of the exploration of the subject is to find a positive >> solutions. > >This is a classicly specious/spurious. Take a specific problem and then >generalise it to a larger and more difficult to solve problem, or in >other cases take an example to extremes in order to attempt to >invalidate it. I am in no way invalidating deaths by firearms in the overall death rate. Your unrealistic assumption that an inanimate object can be the cause of death is narrow minded, IMO. >Gun deaths form a disproportionately high factor of violence in the USA >(from what I have seen) and so is an excellent area to focus on in order >to reduce violence. It seems, based on the death rates you showed me, >that the USA must be doing something else right in terms of death. But >that doesn't stop gun deaths being a legitimate problem in its own right. And what would you propose to solve the problem of gun related crime? Should the people of the USA give up the freedom to arm themselves with weapons of self defense, like so many Kingdoms of this world? If yes, there's an old saying here in America that goes something like this "Suck my big fat choad, you fascist fuck"...or something like that. >>>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ >>> >>>US 8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) >>>Aus 7.38 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) >> >>>>If you're not familiar with the subject, you might be interested in the >>>>theory that man, as a primate, is far more prone to violence when herded >>>>into dense groups, with other primates. It is only a theory when applied >>>>towards man, though. >>> >>>Although there are countries that share these conditions but do not >>>exactly share the same level of violence, so clearly a lot more factors >>>are involved. >> >> As a tribute to your heroic defense of women's right at the start of this >> thread, I offer you the following quote: >> >> "European police met in The Hague to look at ways of tackling the rising >> phenomenon of "honour killings". They aim to set up a pan-European unit to >> combat the killings and crack down on related issues such as trafficking. >> >> Police are re-opening murder files related to families of Turkish, Middle >> Eastern, Asian, Arabic and Eastern European origin over the past 10 years. >> Many victims of "honour killings" are women involved in relationships their >> family felt brought dishonour on them. I think we've been unaware, we've >> been ignorant of the crimes going on, said Andy Baker, a UK police >> commander. >> >> Experts say such killings are on the rise in Europe, but as the issue >> remains largely hidden from public view, exact numbers are unknown. A >> 26-year-old Kurd, Fadime was shot dead two years ago near Stockholm, >> allegedly by her father because of her relationship with a Swedish man. The >> murder triggered calls for urgent action to protect young immigrants who >> fall out with their families." >> http://www.rowzane.com/000_etelayeha/2407/240718-Bulletin%2026.htm >> >> Clearly there are some discrepancies in the violent crime rate towards >> women being reported by a number of countries, eh? What does that say >> about the overall credibility of the crime rates published by said >> countries? You have to wonder. > >I'd have to agree. Your quote also points out that violence against >women (particularily sexual assault) is a pandemic that crosses borders >and cultures. > >The stats I used were recently published for NSW, Australia, were >official govt. stats and were also quite conservative. Its enough to >show that there is a problem, that it's not right, and our >system/cultures are not doing enough to combat it. However a judge here >is kicking up a stink about improving the prosecution of sexual assault >and I see other positive signs (like the day of stopping violence >against women). >> ObAscii: Lebonease Divorce >> >> . ((),). . >> ( ))) 6(6 ) >> . ((c` _e/ ( . >> , ) )))'( ) >> ) ) ( .((( , \ ,. (' ) ) >> ( . )\ \ _o___,-. ' . >> ( ), ) ( )\.__,-._\ ( ', ) >> .' ) ( . / -/ \ |( ) ( . >> ). , ( . (( /_)\ \' ( , ) >> (_,) . ), ) _ '.__,' \_\ '. ) ,. (' ) >> jgs^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^joris > >I saw a shocking story on a woman who was cut up by her semi-deranged >husband for talking to another man inside their house (a cousin I >think). She had her nose, ears and I think lips cut off. To do such a >think you'd have to consider the woman less than human. The documentary >showed her sent to the States for incredible plastic surgery which was >done gratis by the doctor. Well, thank fuck they didn't use a gun on the poor woman!
Sharky wrote: > In <41ae984c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > >>M.Moore offers up two possible cultural causes in >>Bowling for Columbine that are sufficiently different in the US to other >>countries that have lots of guns (eg Canada): the culture of fear, the >>violent example set by the government where the justification remains in >>the hands of the one delivering the violence. > > Are you seriously considering M. Moore a credible source for a sociological > theory? You've got to be yanking my chain here, man. I thought it was an interesting angle. Its a hypothesis that can stand on its own without MM. > ObAscii - An insult to shit > > > ( ) > ( ) ( > ) _ ) > ( \_ > _(_\ \)__ > (____\___)) > Michael Moore > > -- > Sharky -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Sharky wrote: > In <41A...@yahoo.com>, ABCGi wrote: > >>Sharky wrote: >> >>>In <41a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >>> >>>>Sharky wrote: >>>> >>>>>In <41ad71cd$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>The facts are that all the unjustified homicides committed in the USA are >>>>>>>committed in violation of some law. More importantly, the vast majority of >>>>>>>these unjustified homicides are committed by people who are in possession >>>>>>>of arms that have been attained illegally and committed against unarmed, >>>>>>>law abiding citizens. You can compare the "murder" rate in the USA with >>>>>>>places that doctor their statistics all you want, the meat is in the >>>>>>>overall death rate of a country's citizens - you might want to dig a little >>>>>>>deeper on that topic. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sharky I doubt this is true, do you have some stats? >>>>> >>>>>Damn! I hate it when people doubt my veracity and THEN ask ME for >>>>>information that they have already been prejudged. ;) >>>>> >>>>>Check out http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ and look >>>>>at the death rates for the UK, france, Germany, Russia... etc. >>>>> >>>>>Where it is true that the death rate for Australia and Canada are lower >>>>>than the USA, the USA comes in below the worlds average for the number of >>>>>deaths per 1000 persons. However, there are other socioeconomic factors >>>>>(such as over-crowding) that effect the statistical models for violent >>>>>crime. >>>> >>>>Hmmm, well I didn't prejudge. I saw stats on gun deaths. Its an >>>>interesting site, but those stats are for all deaths - so that is not as >>>>useful. However the overall death rate is not too staggering, but that >>>>could be for any number of reasons; >>> >>>You seem preoccupied with the idea that death by a "gun" is somewhat more >>>important than any other form of death. If you want to approach the problem >>>logically you're going to have to consider all manners of death - that is >>>if the object of the exploration of the subject is to find a positive >>>solutions. >> >>This is a classicly specious/spurious. Take a specific problem and then >>generalise it to a larger and more difficult to solve problem, or in >>other cases take an example to extremes in order to attempt to >>invalidate it. > > I am in no way invalidating deaths by firearms in the overall death rate. > Your unrealistic assumption that an inanimate object can be the cause of > death is narrow minded, IMO. No I don't make that assumption, or if I did so misleadingly, I withdraw it. I agree with the statement "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". >>Gun deaths form a disproportionately high factor of violence in the USA >>(from what I have seen) and so is an excellent area to focus on in order >>to reduce violence. It seems, based on the death rates you showed me, >>that the USA must be doing something else right in terms of death. But >>that doesn't stop gun deaths being a legitimate problem in its own right. > > And what would you propose to solve the problem of gun related crime? > Should the people of the USA give up the freedom to arm themselves with > weapons of self defense, like so many Kingdoms of this world? In terms of Iraq, their "disarming" only got them their ass kicked. > If yes, there's an old saying here in America that goes something like > this "Suck my big fat choad, you fascist fuck"...or something like that. No I don't propose stripping you of your right to bear arms. But, like sexual assault, the statistics identify a problem. The first step would be to acknowledge the problem. Finding an effective solution, that retains people's rights, seems a lot more difficult but worthy of tribulation. >>>>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ >>>> >>>>US 8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) >>>>Aus 7.38 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.) >>> >>>>>If you're not familiar with the subject, you might be interested in the >>>>>theory that man, as a primate, is far more prone to violence when herded >>>>>into dense groups, with other primates. It is only a theory when applied >>>>>towards man, though. >>>> >>>>Although there are countries that share these conditions but do not >>>>exactly share the same level of violence, so clearly a lot more factors >>>>are involved. >>> >>>As a tribute to your heroic defense of women's right at the start of this >>>thread, I offer you the following quote: >>> >>>"European police met in The Hague to look at ways of tackling the rising >>>phenomenon of "honour killings". They aim to set up a pan-European unit to >>>combat the killings and crack down on related issues such as trafficking. >>> >>>Police are re-opening murder files related to families of Turkish, Middle >>>Eastern, Asian, Arabic and Eastern European origin over the past 10 years. >>>Many victims of "honour killings" are women involved in relationships their >>>family felt brought dishonour on them. I think we've been unaware, we've >>>been ignorant of the crimes going on, said Andy Baker, a UK police >>>commander. >>> >>>Experts say such killings are on the rise in Europe, but as the issue >>>remains largely hidden from public view, exact numbers are unknown. A >>>26-year-old Kurd, Fadime was shot dead two years ago near Stockholm, >>>allegedly by her father because of her relationship with a Swedish man. The >>>murder triggered calls for urgent action to protect young immigrants who >>>fall out with their families." >>>http://www.rowzane.com/000_etelayeha/2407/240718-Bulletin%2026.htm >>> >>>Clearly there are some discrepancies in the violent crime rate towards >>>women being reported by a number of countries, eh? What does that say >>>about the overall credibility of the crime rates published by said >>>countries? You have to wonder. >> >>I'd have to agree. Your quote also points out that violence against >>women (particularily sexual assault) is a pandemic that crosses borders >>and cultures. >> >>The stats I used were recently published for NSW, Australia, were >>official govt. stats and were also quite conservative. Its enough to >>show that there is a problem, that it's not right, and our >>system/cultures are not doing enough to combat it. However a judge here >>is kicking up a stink about improving the prosecution of sexual assault >>and I see other positive signs (like the day of stopping violence >>against women). > > >>>ObAscii: Lebonease Divorce >>> >>> . ((),). . >>> ( ))) 6(6 ) >>> . ((c` _e/ ( . >>> , ) )))'( ) >>> ) ) ( .((( , \ ,. (' ) ) >>> ( . )\ \ _o___,-. ' . >>> ( ), ) ( )\.__,-._\ ( ', ) >>> .' ) ( . / -/ \ |( ) ( . >>> ). , ( . (( /_)\ \' ( , ) >>> (_,) . ), ) _ '.__,' \_\ '. ) ,. (' ) >>> jgs^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^joris >> >>I saw a shocking story on a woman who was cut up by her semi-deranged >>husband for talking to another man inside their house (a cousin I >>think). She had her nose, ears and I think lips cut off. To do such a >>think you'd have to consider the woman less than human. The documentary >>showed her sent to the States for incredible plastic surgery which was >>done gratis by the doctor. > > Well, thank fuck they didn't use a gun on the poor woman! Point taken. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
In <41aebb6d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >Sharky wrote: >> In <41ae984c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >> >>>M.Moore offers up two possible cultural causes in >>>Bowling for Columbine that are sufficiently different in the US to other >>>countries that have lots of guns (eg Canada): the culture of fear, the >>>violent example set by the government where the justification remains in >>>the hands of the one delivering the violence. >> >> Are you seriously considering M. Moore a credible source for a sociological >> theory? You've got to be yanking my chain here, man. > >I thought it was an interesting angle. Its a hypothesis that can stand >on its own without MM. LMFAO! It's truly amazing to see people so blinded by bullshit that they begin to believe in an absolute fraud. Are you even remotely aware that MM is a comedian? FFS, he grew up not more than 100 clicks from where I sit. He knows damn well that he's making the most of dumb shits who don't have the capacity to realize the irony he inflicts. I have to admit that MM has made me laugh at all the sheep he's sucked in with his conspiracy theories and half baked horseshit. ObAscii - a sheep _ \"-.-"""""-.---.---. "-. .-".' ; ; _, ;-" : : 's / ; : / / : :s_.-" : ; \ ; : bug j ;.'; ; :'.__. : ; ; : :; ; : : : ; :; : ; ; : ; ;: :; ; ; : : : : :: : ; : | | :_; ; ; ; : :_; | | '-' :_; -- sharky
Sharky wrote: > In <41aebb6d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: > > >>Sharky wrote: >> >>>In <41ae984c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, ABCGi wrote: >>> >>> >>>>M.Moore offers up two possible cultural causes in >>>>Bowling for Columbine that are sufficiently different in the US to other >>>>countries that have lots of guns (eg Canada): the culture of fear, the >>>>violent example set by the government where the justification remains in >>>>the hands of the one delivering the violence. >>> >>>Are you seriously considering M. Moore a credible source for a sociological >>>theory? You've got to be yanking my chain here, man. >> >>I thought it was an interesting angle. Its a hypothesis that can stand >>on its own without MM. > > LMFAO! It's truly amazing to see people so blinded by bullshit that they > begin to believe in an absolute fraud. Are you even remotely aware that MM > is a comedian? FFS, he grew up not more than 100 clicks from where I sit. > He knows damn well that he's making the most of dumb shits who don't have > the capacity to realize the irony he inflicts. > > I have to admit that MM has made me laugh at all the sheep he's sucked in > with his conspiracy theories and half baked horseshit. Ok, fair enough, he's a turd, let us forget him. But, assuming the US has way higher gun deaths rate than the rest of the world (we have debated it, but assuming it is true), what would you attribute it to socially/culturally? > > ObAscii - a sheep > > _ > \"-.-"""""-.---.---. > "-. .-".' ; > ; _, ;-" : > : 's / ; > : / / : > :s_.-" : ; > \ ; : > bug j ;.'; ; > :'.__. : ; ; > : :; ; : : : > ; :; : ; ; : > ; ;: :; ; ; : > : : : :: : ; : > | | :_; ; ; ; : > :_; | | '-' > :_; > > -- > sharky -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA =-+-=> |---------------------|'
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:21:35 +1100, ABCGi wrote: > > Sharky wrote: >> >> As off'd in a previous post, you really have to delve a bit deeper to >> understand the problems attributed to "guns". The right to arm oneself >> against unjust aggression has been one of the cornerstones of >> Democratic Governments from the time of first world prominence of its >> politic. Blaming the deaths of people on the (otherwise inanimate >> object) "gun" is kinda silly, IMHO. > > Indeed it is the culture behind the proliferation of guns that has led > to the situation. M.Moore offers up two possible cultural causes in > Bowling for Columbine that are sufficiently different in the US to other > countries that have lots of guns (eg Canada): the culture of fear, the > violent example set by the government where the justification remains in > the hands of the one delivering the violence. As enjoyable as "Bowling for Columbine" was (especially putting asswipe blowhard Charlton Heston on the spot), I thought Moore's scene just over the border from Detroit, when he kept stopping people on the street and asking about how safe they felt, backfired on him and his pet theories about violence in North America. What was amusing was that the black folks he stopped all lived in over the border in the U.S. IIRC, Canada is something like 88% White. It certainly looks that way when you travel there, very white. (One might say, um, bland.) One thing I never appreciated about the United States until I started traveling elsewhere is just how extraordinarily diverse the U.S. is in comparison to just about anywhere else -- at least, anywhere else I've been. Whether or not one values diversity (personally, I do), it goes hand-in-hand with conflict, and often with violence. Homogeneous societies don't have to deal with the pressures diversity brings, nor do they get the benefits. I keep seeing peoples who can't get along with their neighbors when there are only two conflicting groups (in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in northern Ireland, in Palestine, in the Sudan, etc., etc.), resulting in wanton slaughter and destruction. The U.S., which AFAIK is unique in its cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, seems to me to be doing rather well by comparison -- "rather well" both in terms of continuing to encourage and support diversity more vigorously than any nation on Earth (and recognizing that the strength and resiliency of the U.S. experiment derives from its diversity) and in terms of managing the inevitable conflict that arises. There are lots of grand sentiments the U.S. has, at various times in its history, failed to live up to, and some it still does. But one it has by-and-large done well by is "Give us your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses...". Those words, btw, were penned by Emma Lazarus, a descendant of some of the first Jewish immigrants to New York. They came here because the Portuguese expelled them from Brazil -- apparently, even Brazil was not far enough away from the mother country for the Portuguese to abide the Jews. But then, most Europeans have a long history of not abiding anyone they can't enslave or exploit or plunder. By comparison, the U.S. has been generally more enlightened and still is. (Look, for example, at how Germany treats its Turkish immigrants.) There's really very little comparison to a relatively monolithic society like Canada's, as Michael Moore (perhaps inadvertently) demonstrated in his film. -- Michael M. ~~ hfr...@msbx.net ~~ New York, NY USA "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..." --S. Jackson
Michael M. wrote: > On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:21:35 +1100, ABCGi wrote: > >>Sharky wrote: >> >>>As off'd in a previous post, you really have to delve a bit deeper to >>>understand the problems attributed to "guns". The right to arm oneself >>>against unjust aggression has been one of the cornerstones of >>>Democratic Governments from the time of first world prominence of its >>>politic. Blaming the deaths of people on the (otherwise inanimate >>>object) "gun" is kinda silly, IMHO. >> >>Indeed it is the culture behind the proliferation of guns that has led >>to the situation. M.Moore offers up two possible cultural causes in >>Bowling for Columbine that are sufficiently different in the US to other >>countries that have lots of guns (eg Canada): the culture of fear, the >>violent example set by the government where the justification remains in >>the hands of the one delivering the violence. > > As enjoyable as "Bowling for Columbine" was (especially putting asswipe > blowhard Charlton Heston on the spot), I thought Moore's scene just over > the border from Detroit, when he kept stopping people on the street and > asking about how safe they felt, backfired on him and his pet theories > about violence in North America. What was amusing was that the black > folks he stopped all lived in over the border in the U.S. IIRC, Canada is > something like 88% White. It certainly looks that way when you travel > there, very white. (One might say, um, bland.) One thing I never > appreciated about the United States until I started traveling elsewhere is > just how extraordinarily diverse the U.S. is in comparison to just about > anywhere else -- at least, anywhere else I've been. > > Whether or not one values diversity (personally, I do), it goes > hand-in-hand with conflict, and often with violence. Homogeneous > societies don't have to deal with the pressures diversity brings, nor do > they get the benefits. I keep seeing peoples who can't get along with Good point. > their neighbors when there are only two conflicting groups (in Rwanda, in > Bosnia, in northern Ireland, in Palestine, in the Sudan, etc., etc.), > resulting in wanton slaughter and destruction. The U.S., which AFAIK is > unique in its cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, seems to me to be > doing rather well by comparison -- "rather well" both in terms of > continuing to encourage and support diversity more vigorously than any > nation on Earth (and recognizing that the strength and resiliency of the > U.S. experiment derives from its diversity) and in terms of managing the > inevitable conflict that arises. I would go along with that. One thing I noticed on my visit to the States, though, was how a large percentage of the cities and places were quite homogeneous and lacked variety - as opposed to Europe, but this is also a function of a much longer history. > There are lots of grand sentiments the U.S. has, at various times in its > history, failed to live up to, and some it still does. But one it has True. > by-and-large done well by is "Give us your tired, your poor, / Your > huddled masses...". Those words, btw, were penned by Emma Lazarus, a > descendant of some of the first Jewish immigrants to New York. They came > here because the Portuguese expelled them from Brazil -- apparently, even > Brazil was not far enough away from the mother country for the Portuguese > to abide the Jews. But then, most Europeans have a long history of not > abiding anyone they can't enslave or exploit or plunder. By comparison, > the U.S. has been generally more enlightened and still is. (Look, for > example, at how Germany treats its Turkish immigrants.) Europe and Australia are currently cracking down on refugees. Australia detained (ie jailed) a group of refugees for up to 3 years and at the end of this "processing" 95% of them were determined to be 'real' refugees. > There's really very little comparison to a relatively monolithic society > like Canada's, as Michael Moore (perhaps inadvertently) demonstrated in > his film. That sounds reasonable, cultural diversity should be added to the list of possibilities to be explored. I wonder what other countries would qualify as diverse but have low per capita violence/gun deaths in comparison? -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
News server fucked up. ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >ABCGi wrote: >> Bateau wrote: >> >>> ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Simon Williams wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: >>>>>> violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. >>>> >>>> Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >>>> addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >>>> priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There >>>> is nothing PC about it. >>> >>> Priority in problem solving? Violence is ONE problem not two. >>> You are the one who needs to examine the stats. If you want to split it >>> into sexes then you are focussing on the lesser problem. Go to any E.R. >>> or police station and ask them who is more often seriously injured or >>> killed by violent acts. The answer is overwhelmingly "men." To be as >>> wrong as you are about this you must be ignorant, stupid, or sexist. >> >> The above is anecdotal not statistical, do you have any studies or >> statistics? Wow. I thought it was so obvious that even my reference to the anecdotal evidence of experts was overkill. I thought merely pointing out something so obvious would force you to abandon your sexist position but you made the unexpected move of denying something that is beyond question to every other person on Earth. It takes me back to my days of debating on religious newsgroups. But anyway.. In 1998 the National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published their findings into violence against women. Some excerpts: "52 percent of surveyed women and 66 percent of surveyed men said they were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker and/or as an adult by any type of perpetrator." "1.9 percent of surveyed women and 3.4 percent of surveyed men said they were physically assaulted in the previous 12 months. These estimates equate to approximately 1.9 million women and 3.2 million men who are physically assaulted annually in the United States" "approximately 5.9 million physical assaults perpetrated against women and 7.9 million physical assaults perpetrated against men in the 12 months preceding the survey" And from a 1995 Bureau of Justice Statistics report: "A greater percentage of victimizations against males than females were committed by multiple offenders. Multiple offenders committed 27% of the violent victimizations against men and 16% of those against women." "Homicides in 1992 Female victims Male victims 5,001 17,835" What these studies tell us is that: Most victims of violence are male. Most people injured by violence are male. Most assaults are perpetrated against men. Most victims of violence by multiple people are men. Most victims of homicide are men. You said: >Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There is >nothing PC about it. Wow. Now I think the most interesting thing about this discussion is how you could be so completely wrong. What the hell were you thinking? >> And again, the point was not that violence against men is >> better/worse than violence against women. I never said violence against men was worse. I said it was more prevalent and a bigger problem. >Another issue for priority is that sexual assault in the courts has the >lowest conviction rate by far of any crime, clearly this makes it first >on the list of things to correct. You are looking at the ratio of accusations to convictions, not the ratio of crimes to convictions. Sexual assault also has the highest false accusation rate of any crime by far. Some experts have put the figure at 40%. >Also looking statistically at X and Y's - if; > >X -> X = 50v >X -> Y = 49.8v >Y -> X = 0.2v > >Then I'd say the priority is to protect Y. Number of men assaulted per year: 3.2 million. Number of women assaulted per year: 1.9 million. So how does someone with a knowledge of statistics get it so wrong? >>>>> Violence against _anyone_ is fundamentally a bad thing... wonder why we >>>>> get more excited when it's based on sex, race or religion? >>>>> /\ >>>>> /oo\ _|_ >>>>> _\^^/____ | >>>>> / ,__ |PB >>>>> | | \| | >>>>> ||. ,| >>>>> | ==== >>>>> `|' `| >>>>> | | >>>>> | | >>>>> | | >>>>> ^^^^^^ >>>> >>>> One idea raised by the UN day for stopping violence against women is >>>> that the majority of men, who don't think it is ok, speak up more so >>>> that that minority doesn't get the mistaken idea that it is perhaps >>>> socially acceptable. >>>> >>>> I have now officially done my part of that. >>> >>> You have attempted to draw attention away from the more pressing >>> problem. You have also perpetuated the myth that there is no problem of >>> violence against men by pretending that the comparably tiny amount of >>> violence against women is the most violence anyone is suffering. > >I asked a friend at university to look up figures on this, the study is >a bit dated and doesn't include war I don't think but victims of >violence is actually about half - half, certainly nothing like >"comparably tiny" for women, obviously this is a bit of a misconception >or myth (not the other way around). That will teach you to do your own research then because your friend is as stupid as you. Older national surveys showed that the number of male and female victims of violence PERPETRATED BY INTIMATE PARTNERS was rougly equal. Even among women that is only 25% of the total number of victims. It would be no indicator of the number of male and female victims of violence even if it hadn't been refuted by two more recent and thorough surveys. I thought you knew something about statistics? And if they were equal why would you say that violence against women was "by far, the most pressing problem"? >Of course if you talking just the sexual assault category then the >victims are almost all women and the perpetrator is a man (99.9% of the >time). Your statistical errors are just amusing now. The 1998 survey found that approximately 76% of the people who are forcibly raped each year are women. Other studies which give higher numbers have included things like "verbal threats of a sexual nature" in their results. But you are just trying to narrow the debate down to sexual assault in order to focus on female victims of violence. That is probably a consequence of "politically correct" feminist social conditioning. Sexual assault is just a fraction of the violence suffered by men and women each year. The sex of the perpetrator is irrelevant to this discussion of whether most victims of violence are ignored because they are not female. It is only useful in a pointless "women vs men" argument which this probably is in a mind like yours that is twisted by feminist propoganda. >> I have never insinuated anything of the sort IIRC. For instance, war, >> has a great number of men suffering violence. You wrote: >Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote: > >>You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: >>violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. > >Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. Tell me how you can claim that violence against 37% of victims is a bigger problem than the same crime against the remaining 63% without making people believe that the first group is the larger one? >>>> ^ ^ >>>> /---\ >>>> / * * \ >>>> \ ^ / >>>> v=v >>>> {+++} >>>> ( ) ObA >> >> >> Ok lets say you are correct, shall we now move on and solve violence >> against women *and* violence against men (less war would help)? To >> labour on the above point is specious. I am correct. If this debate has shown anything it is that you can not trust your own judgement. So take my word for it when I say you will do nothing to solve violence against men. You are too feminist for that. BTW in these government studies you can find a clue to why there is an irrational focus on violence against females. There is evidence of a vicious circle. The aim of a particular study is to find out about violence against women. So they disregard the evidence of violence against males when making their recommendations, so their recommendations are violence prevention policies focussed on female demographics. Then, because the new policies are focussed on women, subsequent studies are made with the aim to find out about violence against women etc. It all started in the 1970s when feminists decided that they were the most important people in the world and everyone should only pay attention to them. If someone had done a study on violence against males they would have gone nuts.
Michael M. <hfr...@msbx.net> wrote: > IIRC, Canada is > something like 88% White. It certainly looks that way when you travel > there, very white. (One might say, um, bland.) Certainly not in our major centres like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal... we have a good deal of cultural diversity kicking about here... for some reason we "officially" like to refer to Canada as a cultural "mosaic" as opposed to a "melting pot"... I think that just means that our minorities aren't expected to assimilate into the mainstream... > Whether or not one values diversity (personally, I do), it goes > hand-in-hand with conflict, and often with violence. Are you insinuating that cultural diversity is largely to blame for the USA's abundance of shooting deaths? `..' ( ) "" -- ._____. |[LD8]! SIMON WILLIAMS :: LUDDITE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED | (O) | 68K MACINTOSH SERVER http://luddite.no-ip.com !__!__! FAILURE RECORDS http://failurerecords.no-ip.com
_.-In alt.ascii-art, Sharky wrote the following -._ > You seem preoccupied with the idea that death by a "gun" is somewhat more > important than any other form of death. He might be taking the view that death-by-gun is a preventable form of death. > "European police met in The Hague to look at ways of tackling the rising > phenomenon of "honour killings". They aim to set up a pan-European unit to > combat the killings and crack down on related issues such as trafficking. If these women were properly mutilated during childhood then they wouldn't be so likely to indanger their honour in the first place. ObAscii: A monocle usable for removing the clitorus of a child ____ (____) / \ (____) :F_P: /* yes this is a horid joke in very bad taste for a horid practice */ Please trim your posts. And please post original ascii. -- .-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that ' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to ((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word. ((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
_.-In alt.ascii-art, ABCGi wrote the following -._ > Gun deaths form a disproportionately high factor of violence in the USA > (from what I have seen) and so is an excellent area to focus on in order > to reduce violence. It seems, based on the death rates you showed me, > that the USA must be doing something else right in terms of death. But > that doesn't stop gun deaths being a legitimate problem in its own right. The increased number of gun deaths is offset by the world class medical coverage that no one in America and afford and that the rest of the world can't offer. Please trim your posts. -- .-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that ' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to ((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word. ((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:18:10 GMT, Faux_Pseudo <Fau...@yahoo.comERCIAL>
wrote:
> And please post original ascii.
WTF? Did you even bother to look at the "original" ASCII art that was in
my post you just responded to? I hardly ever sign any of my work, but I
will give credit to other artists if I use elements of their art in my
original creations.
Jeeez! You just can't win with art snobs.
ObAscii:
*snort*
Faux_Pseudo wrote: > _.-In alt.ascii-art, ABCGi wrote the following -._ > >>Gun deaths form a disproportionately high factor of violence in the USA >>(from what I have seen) and so is an excellent area to focus on in order >>to reduce violence. It seems, based on the death rates you showed me, >>that the USA must be doing something else right in terms of death. But >>that doesn't stop gun deaths being a legitimate problem in its own right. > > The increased number of gun deaths is offset by the world class > medical coverage that no one in America and afford and that the rest > of the world can't offer. > > Please trim your posts. I will honour thine request... ObA: Don't Tran "TRIM!" "DON'T TRIM" P, Q, `& -+ ^ () -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Bateau wrote: > News server fucked up. > > ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>ABCGi wrote: >> >>>Bateau wrote: >>> >>>>ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Simon Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: >>>>>>>violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. >>>>> >>>>>Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >>>>>addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >>>>>priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There >>>>>is nothing PC about it. >>>> >>>>Priority in problem solving? Violence is ONE problem not two. >>>>You are the one who needs to examine the stats. If you want to split it >>>>into sexes then you are focussing on the lesser problem. Go to any E.R. >>>>or police station and ask them who is more often seriously injured or >>>>killed by violent acts. The answer is overwhelmingly "men." To be as >>>>wrong as you are about this you must be ignorant, stupid, or sexist. >>> >>>The above is anecdotal not statistical, do you have any studies or >>>statistics? > > Wow. I thought it was so obvious that even my reference to the anecdotal > evidence of experts was overkill. I thought merely pointing out > something so obvious would force you to abandon your sexist position but > you made the unexpected move of denying something that is beyond > question to every other person on Earth. It takes me back to my days of > debating on religious newsgroups. Yeah well I'm a scientist, there are plenty of examples in man's history of things at the time that were thought to be "obvious" and "common sense" or "natural" that were wrong. I think we get fooled into because about 90 to 95% of "obvious" things turn out to be true, but the other 5 to 10% is dangerously misunderstood - and thus unsolvable. A first step to solving any problem is identify and understand it. > But anyway.. > In 1998 the National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease > Control and Prevention published their findings into violence against > women. Some excerpts: > > "52 percent of surveyed women and 66 percent of surveyed men said they > were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker and/or as an > adult by any type of perpetrator." > > "1.9 percent of surveyed women and 3.4 percent of surveyed men > said they were physically assaulted in the previous 12 months. These > estimates equate to approximately 1.9 million women and 3.2 million > men who are physically assaulted annually in the United States" > > "approximately 5.9 million physical assaults perpetrated against women > and 7.9 million physical assaults perpetrated against men in the 12 > months preceding the survey" > > And from a 1995 Bureau of Justice Statistics report: > > "A greater percentage of victimizations against males than females were > committed by multiple offenders. Multiple offenders committed 27% of the > violent victimizations against men and 16% of those against women." > > "Homicides in 1992 > Female victims Male victims > 5,001 17,835" > > What these studies tell us is that: > Most victims of violence are male. > Most people injured by violence are male. > Most assaults are perpetrated against men. > Most victims of violence by multiple people are men. > Most victims of homicide are men. Interesting, thanks. But not the insignificant number of female victims that you had earlier claimed. > You said: > >>Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >>addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >>priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There is >>nothing PC about it. > > Wow. > Now I think the most interesting thing about this discussion is how you > could be so completely wrong. What the hell were you thinking? Again priority was discussed below. >>>And again, the point was not that violence against men is >>>better/worse than violence against women. > > I never said violence against men was worse. I said it was more > prevalent and a bigger problem. As stated below there are issues where the priority is the other way around. >>Another issue for priority is that sexual assault in the courts has the >>lowest conviction rate by far of any crime, clearly this makes it first >>on the list of things to correct. > > You are looking at the ratio of accusations to convictions, not the > ratio of crimes to convictions. Sexual assault also has the highest > false accusation rate of any crime by far. Some experts have put the > figure at 40%. Still puts the conviction rate hopelessly low. And I would question that figure and its source, that is a classically false arguement. If women who are really raped find the system too difficult, why would that number who weren't be encouraged? >>Also looking statistically at X and Y's - if; >> >>X -> X = 50v >>X -> Y = 49.8v >>Y -> X = 0.2v >> >>Then I'd say the priority is to protect Y. > > Number of men assaulted per year: 3.2 million. > Number of women assaulted per year: 1.9 million. > So how does someone with a knowledge of statistics get it so wrong? You missed the point of the above analysis, it shows women don't assault men. And it was based on my source that put victims of violence at around 50/50. Using your figures above would still show that the priority would be to protect Y - indeed your figures make it look even more like Lions X in a cage with Rabbits Y. >>>>>>Violence against _anyone_ is fundamentally a bad thing... wonder why we >>>>>>get more excited when it's based on sex, race or religion? >>>>>> /\ >>>>>> /oo\ _|_ >>>>>>_\^^/____ | >>>>>>/ ,__ |PB >>>>>>| | \| | >>>>>>||. ,| >>>>>>| ==== >>>>>>`|' `| >>>>>>| | >>>>>>| | >>>>>>| | >>>>>>^^^^^^ >>>>> >>>>>One idea raised by the UN day for stopping violence against women is >>>>>that the majority of men, who don't think it is ok, speak up more so >>>>>that that minority doesn't get the mistaken idea that it is perhaps >>>>>socially acceptable. >>>>> >>>>>I have now officially done my part of that. >>>> >>>>You have attempted to draw attention away from the more pressing >>>>problem. You have also perpetuated the myth that there is no problem of >>>>violence against men by pretending that the comparably tiny amount of >>>>violence against women is the most violence anyone is suffering. >> >>I asked a friend at university to look up figures on this, the study is >>a bit dated and doesn't include war I don't think but victims of >>violence is actually about half - half, certainly nothing like >>"comparably tiny" for women, obviously this is a bit of a misconception >>or myth (not the other way around). > > That will teach you to do your own research then because your friend is > as stupid as you. ad hominem > Older national surveys showed that the number of male and female victims > of violence PERPETRATED BY INTIMATE PARTNERS was rougly equal. Even > among women that is only 25% of the total number of victims. It would be > no indicator of the number of male and female victims of violence even > if it hadn't been refuted by two more recent and thorough surveys. I > thought you knew something about statistics? > And if they were equal why would you say that violence against women was > "by far, the most pressing problem"? I grant you that may not of been a convincing arguement, and I withdraw it. Given that can we agree that violence against men *and* violence against women are worthy of being worked on? >>Of course if you talking just the sexual assault category then the >>victims are almost all women and the perpetrator is a man (99.9% of the >>time). > > Your statistical errors are just amusing now. The 1998 survey found that > approximately 76% of the people who are forcibly raped each year are Sorry yes, I meant to say that where the victim is a woman and perpetrator is a man. > women. Other studies which give higher numbers have included things like > "verbal threats of a sexual nature" in their results. > But you are just trying to narrow the debate down to sexual assault in > order to focus on female victims of violence. That is probably a Like you are trying to broaden it to dismiss it? > consequence of "politically correct" feminist social conditioning. > Sexual assault is just a fraction of the violence suffered by men and Fine, do you still agree it is a bad thing? Or are you using your arguments out of some other kind of motivation? > women each year. The sex of the perpetrator is irrelevant to this > discussion of whether most victims of violence are ignored because they > are not female. It is only useful in a pointless "women vs men" argument > which this probably is in a mind like yours that is twisted by feminist > propoganda. It is you who are totally wrong, as my position that it is a problem is backed up by many intellectuals. Taking all your stats as true there is still a problem, if it were a computer program I would call it buggy. >>>I have never insinuated anything of the sort IIRC. For instance, war, >>>has a great number of men suffering violence. > > You wrote: > >>Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote: >> >>>You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: >>>violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. >> >>Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >>addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >>priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. > > Tell me how you can claim that violence against 37% of victims is a > bigger problem than the same crime against the remaining 63% without > making people believe that the first group is the larger one? Because men are the ones perpetrating all the violence on the women and none the other way around. Because men can get better justice in the courts in some cases. >>>>> ^ ^ >>>>> /---\ >>>>> / * * \ >>>>> \ ^ / >>>>> v=v >>>>> {+++} >>>>> ( ) ObA >>> >>> >>>Ok lets say you are correct, shall we now move on and solve violence >>>against women *and* violence against men (less war would help)? To >>>labour on the above point is specious. > > I am correct. If this debate has shown anything it is that you can not > trust your own judgement. So take my word for it when I say you will do > nothing to solve violence against men. You are too feminist for that. Not true, I have in my time intervened to help those being assaulted, whether male or female. And I don't believe in either type of violence. > BTW in these government studies you can find a clue to why there is an > irrational focus on violence against females. There is evidence of a > vicious circle. The aim of a particular study is to find out about > violence against women. So they disregard the evidence of violence > against males when making their recommendations, so their > recommendations are violence prevention policies focussed on female > demographics. Then, because the new policies are focussed on women, > subsequent studies are made with the aim to find out about violence > against women etc. I will grant you we should not ignore the problem of male on male violence, or war violence. But it wasn't really the problem I was tackling and is another issue. And you make some other points that I don't object to, too bad its laced in vitriol. > It all started in the 1970s when feminists decided that they were the > most important people in the world and everyone should only pay > attention to them. If someone had done a study on violence against males > they would have gone nuts. Who's the victim of propaganda now? The conservative government stats I stated were only just released, were totally accurate, and any way you slice it identify a problem to be solved. Bringing sexism into it is specious and distracting from problem solving. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== ******BONK******** =-+-=> |---------------------|'
_.-In alt.ascii-art, Sharky wrote the following -._ >> And please post original ascii. > > WTF? Did you even bother to look at the "original" ASCII art that was in > my post you just responded to? I wasn't talking about one post. I was talking about the gestalt of posts where you used others work for your Ob Ascii. I just hadn't replied directly to you so I hadn't brought it up before now. > ObAscii: From another group where I posted this earlier. Don't take it personally: .-------------------------------------------------. |____________________________________________O_-_X| | File Options Tools Help | `_-_____-________-______-____________________:F_P:' | Alert |__________ | *Plonk* ' Subject |____________ `----------. *Sender* ' *Troll* | `----------. Idiot | | Moron | | Twit | | Imbecile | | Changeling | | Cretin | | Asshole | | Weird | | Dunce | | Kook | | Eerie | | Morph | `------------' ######################################Thu Dec 2 2004################# -- .-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that ' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to ((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word. ((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
Faux_Pseudo wrote: > _.-In alt.ascii-art, Sharky wrote the following -._ > >>>And please post original ascii. >> >>WTF? Did you even bother to look at the "original" ASCII art that was in >>my post you just responded to? > > I wasn't talking about one post. I was talking about the gestalt of > posts where you used others work for your Ob Ascii. I just hadn't > replied directly to you so I hadn't brought it up before now. > >>ObAscii: > > From another group where I posted this earlier. Don't take it > personally: > > .-------------------------------------------------. > |____________________________________________O_-_X| > | File Options Tools Help | > `_-_____-________-______-____________________:F_P:' > | Alert |__________ > | *Plonk* ' Subject |____________ > `----------. *Sender* ' *Troll* | > `----------. Idiot | > | Moron | > | Twit | > | Imbecile | > | Changeling | > | Cretin | > | Asshole | > | Weird | > | Dunce | > | Kook | > | Eerie | > | Morph | > `------------' > > > ######################################Thu Dec 2 2004################# I love that AA! What's a "Morph" do? OA: Look sideways -()-. =()-()= =+= -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:46:56 +1100, ABCGi wrote: > Michael M. wrote: > >> their neighbors when there are only two conflicting groups (in Rwanda, >> in Bosnia, in northern Ireland, in Palestine, in the Sudan, etc., >> etc.), resulting in wanton slaughter and destruction. The U.S., which >> AFAIK is unique in its cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, seems >> to me to be doing rather well by comparison -- "rather well" both in >> terms of continuing to encourage and support diversity more vigorously >> than any nation on Earth (and recognizing that the strength and >> resiliency of the U.S. experiment derives from its diversity) and in >> terms of managing the inevitable conflict that arises. > > I would go along with that. One thing I noticed on my visit to the > States, though, was how a large percentage of the cities and places were > quite homogeneous and lacked variety - as opposed to Europe, but this > is also a function of a much longer history. I'm curious about what cities you visited and what, exactly, was lacking in "variety." Europe is a continent with many small countries, the U.S. is one large country, so if you mean that there's more variation between, say, Paris and Barcelona than St. Louis and Dallas ... well, d'uh. :-) One thing I liked about living in London was how easy it was to get to numerous other countries. But those countries, as self-contained units, struck me as much more homogeneous than the U.S. -- even London itself, which aside from New York City is probably the most wide-ranging and diverse place I've been (let alone lived), is more segregated and compartmentalized than NYC (my home now). With the notable exception of London, none of the European capitals I spent time in could hold a candle to New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, and perhaps even Chicago in terms of ethnic and cultural diversity. That's not to say they aren't "more different" from each other than many American cities are, but none are in and of themselves as diverse. The depressing trend here in North America (and I say that because I've talked to Torontonians and Vancouverans who feel the same way) is the "mallization" of our cities. When I first moved to NYC, it was full of oddball quirky clothing stores and hole-in-the-wall cafes and cool little independent bookstores -- now it's full of Gaps, Starbucks's and Barnes & Noble superstores. Once I took a friend visiting from France to dinner at a Vietnamese restaurant down in Chinatown. We decided to walk back to my neighborhood -- roughly a three-mile walk that took us through what's left of Little Italy, SoHo, the West Village, and Chelsea. We passed -- I kid you not -- 14 separate Banana Republic stores. Now that a Home Depot has opened in Manhattan, I fear all hope is lost -- can Wal-Mart be far behind? > That sounds reasonable, cultural diversity should be added to the list > of possibilities to be explored. I wonder what other countries would > qualify as diverse but have low per capita violence/gun deaths in > comparison? What other countries would qualify as diverse -- or rather, "as diverse as" the U.S.? -- Michael M. ~~ hfr...@msbx.net ~~ New York, NY USA "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..." --S. Jackson
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:41:17 +0000, Simon Williams wrote: > Michael M. <hfr...@msbx.net> wrote: > >> IIRC, Canada is >> something like 88% White. It certainly looks that way when you travel >> there, very white. (One might say, um, bland.) > > Certainly not in our major centres like Vancouver, Toronto and > Montreal... we have a good deal of cultural diversity kicking about > here... for some reason we "officially" like to refer to Canada as a > cultural "mosaic" as opposed to a "melting pot"... I think that just > means that our minorities aren't expected to assimilate into the > mainstream... You mean when Canada chooses to let non-white immigrants in? Didn't Canada institute a complete ban on all Chinese immigrants in the 1920s? Didn't Canada impose a half-million dollar savings requirement on anyone seeking to emigrate from Hong Kong before the handover to China? Doesn't Canada currently have hundreds (thousands?) of would-be refugees locked up? I'm not *that* conversant with Canada's immigration policies, but its been my impression that Canada is generally less welcoming -- historically and in the present day -- than the U.S. Yes, Toronto certainly has ethnic neighborhoods and publications and restaurants, and Vancouver too. But Toronto is still something like 60% White. New York, where I live, is 35% White, 27% Hispanic, 24% Black, and about 10% Asian/Pacific Islander. You'll forgive me if I'm not overwhelmed by Toronto's "diversity." I can hear more languages and dialects and encounter people from more countries on a two-block trip to and from the supermarket here than in a long weekend in Toronto. At least, that was the case the last time I was in Toronto -- but, I admit, I was visiting a friend with a new baby (White! <g>), so I didn't get around as much as I otherwise would have. Still, really -- there's no comparison. >> Whether or not one values diversity (personally, I do), it goes >> hand-in-hand with conflict, and often with violence. > > Are you insinuating that cultural diversity is largely to blame for the > USA's abundance of shooting deaths? No, I'm saying that ethnic and cultural diversity is a cause of violence, tension and strife. A country that is largely homogeneous is going to be less violent than another that is more diverse, other factors being equal. I think it is a much larger factor than the "culture of fear" Michael Moore posited in his movie, when trying to explain the rates of gun violence in Canada vs. the U.S, and it's a factor he ignored. -- Michael M. ~~ hfr...@msbx.net ~~ New York, NY USA "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..." --S. Jackson
_.-In alt.ascii-art, ABCGi wrote the following -._ >> | Morph | >> `------------' > > I love that AA! What's a "Morph" do? A morph is a person who changes one or more of their headers to constantly escape a killfile. They differ from changlings in that changlings will pretend to be different people. RM from the sports groups and alt.os.linux.slackware is a morpher. Glenn from talk.origins is a changling. -- .-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that ' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to ((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word. ((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 04:51:23 GMT, Faux_Pseudo <Fau...@yahoo.comERCIAL> wrote: >_.-In alt.ascii-art, Sharky wrote the following -._ >>> And please post original ascii. >> >> WTF? Did you even bother to look at the "original" ASCII art that was in >> my post you just responded to? > >I wasn't talking about one post. I was talking about the gestalt of >posts where you used others work for your Ob Ascii. I just hadn't >replied directly to you so I hadn't brought it up before now. You didn't look close enough to the ones posted that weren't other's work. As stated before - I rarely (almost never) sign anything I do. The reason is that I couldn't give a rats ass if other people use it. In the number of years I've posted and read posts here, this is the only time I've ever seen you take such a stand (or possibly I just was too disinterested in that viewpoint to care.) >> ObAscii: > From another group where I posted this earlier. Don't take it >personally: I don't take any of Usenet personally - only sad no-lifers do. > .-------------------------------------------------. > |____________________________________________O_-_X| > | File Options Tools Help | > `_-_____-________-______-____________________:F_P:' > | Alert |__________ > | *Plonk* ' Subject |____________ > `----------. *Sender* ' *Troll* | > `----------. Idiot | <snigger> I don't use killfiles either - they're for the weak-minded. Cheers, Sharky
_.-In alt.ascii-art, Sharky wrote the following -._
><snigger> I don't use killfiles either - they're for the weak-minded.
I am all about the killfile. Not because it kills trolls. But
because it kills spam and prioritizes things I might have an interest
in that might otherwise get lost in a 5 second glance at 300 posts.
I found I could go through 5 groups in 2 hours without a killfile.
With one I can go through 20 groups in half that time. The spam
section of my killfile is 107 lines long and can nail about 90% of
spam in binarie groups. Add that to some automation and it keeps
bandwidth down and and time use at its best.
--
.-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that
' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to
((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word.
((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
Michael M. <hfr...@msbx.net> wrote: <snip> > > You mean when Canada chooses to let non-white immigrants in? Didn't > Canada institute a complete ban on all Chinese immigrants in the 1920s? Possibly, we also killed off a lot of our natives with smallpox... but we didn't have slavery so... > Didn't Canada impose a half-million dollar savings requirement on anyone > seeking to emigrate from Hong Kong before the handover to China? That rings a bell... and don't get the impression that I'm at all condoning our government or its policies. > Doesn't > Canada currently have hundreds (thousands?) of would-be refugees locked > up? I doubt it... even illegal immigrants who have been officially deported usually end up wandering the streets at will. Keeping people locked up costs money. > I'm not *that* conversant with Canada's immigration policies, but its > been my impression that Canada is generally less welcoming -- historically > and in the present day -- than the U.S. Where I live (on the godforsaken prairie) we have a relatively large Central American population (which includes my in-laws)... almost without exception these are people who fled Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s and were then denied citizenship in the US. At least in this case we were more welcoming... (yeah, I know that's an isolated bit of anecdotal evidence, but it's what I _know_). According to the US .gov, on the other hand, Canada is far too lax in welcoming all manner of riff-raff to our terrorist haven. Maybe our immigration policies favour the rich and murderous... I don't know. <snip> > I can hear more languages and dialects and > encounter people from more countries on a two-block trip to and from the > supermarket here than in a long weekend in Toronto... Okay, you win. USA #1 I've only been (briefly) to Washington state and Montana. Didn't see _any_ non-whites... though we did see a lot of gun-toting rednecks. It really was quite scary. Seattle seemed to be more black and white compared to Vancouver which is predominantly white/asian, but again this is just a passing observation. > > >> Whether or not one values diversity (personally, I do), it goes > >> hand-in-hand with conflict, and often with violence. > > > > Are you insinuating that cultural diversity is largely to blame for the > > USA's abundance of shooting deaths? > > No, I'm saying that ethnic and cultural diversity is a cause of violence, > tension and strife. A country that is largely homogeneous is going to be > less violent than another that is more diverse, other factors being equal. > I think it is a much larger factor than the "culture of fear" Michael > Moore posited in his movie, when trying to explain the rates of gun > violence in Canada vs. the U.S, and it's a factor he ignored. Haven't seen the movie... but I don't think you can discount the "culture of fear" angle entirely. I know a lot of gun owners here in .ca, and I've never heard anyone talk about using their weapon in self-defence. OTO, almost every US gun proponent I've spoken to will bring up the self-defense argument within a few seconds. It seems logical to me that if the society is more violent (due to its diversity, or any other reason) then there will be more fear of violence in the society at large. Of course, having not seen the movie, I might just be whistling up my own ass here... _ _ ' `-' ` / .*, \ / /(_)\ \ "Actual ass may differ from illustration" -- ._____. |[LD8]! SIMON WILLIAMS :: LUDDITE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED | (O) | 68K MACINTOSH SERVER http://luddite.no-ip.com !__!__! FAILURE RECORDS http://failurerecords.no-ip.com
_.-In alt.ascii-art, Simon Williams wrote the following -._ > I've only been (briefly) to Washington state and Montana. Didn't see > _any_ non-whites... You can't get any more white than thos to places. Next time go down to California or to someplace south of the mason-dixon line. California is the second non-whitest state of them all. HI is first but it doesn't really count. -- .-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that ' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to ((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word. ((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
Faux_Pseudo wrote: > _.-In alt.ascii-art, ABCGi wrote the following -._ >>> | Morph | >>> `------------' >> >> I love that AA! What's a "Morph" do? > > A morph is a person who changes one or more of their headers to > constantly escape a killfile. They differ from changlings in that > changlings will pretend to be different people. RM from the sports > groups and alt.os.linux.slackware is a morpher. Glenn from > talk.origins is a changling. > Jesus H Christ, you guys must spend a /lot/ of time on newsgroups -- "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." --Mark Twain
In <vo_rd.2301$Fp.1998@lakeread05>, Faux_Pseudo wrote: >_.-In alt.ascii-art, Sharky wrote the following -._ >><snigger> I don't use killfiles either - they're for the weak-minded. > >I am all about the killfile. Not because it kills trolls. But >because it kills spam and prioritizes things I might have an interest >in that might otherwise get lost in a 5 second glance at 300 posts. Ok, ya got me there. I certainly have my own spam software for email and my usual method for Usenet is to screen a dead group in the alt.* hierarchy and set a global kill on the subject posted there. I guess that makes me weak-minded too...Damn! :-) Actually, the previous post about "weak-minded" was really meant to describe people who spend their time on Usenet reading only the opinion of people they agree with, and therefore they seldom have an opportunity to explore other sides of issues being discussed. IMHO, Usenet would be an extremely boring place without opposing viewpoints. ObAscii _.-.. ./ `. / \ / \ / \ | | |###############| ._ `.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.` `-. `. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,' .. `-._ `.~ ~ ~,' `-._ `.. '.,,' `-. `-._ // `-._ `._/' `-._ `-. `.. `-._ `-._ `.. `-. `-. `-._ ' -- Sharky
_.-In alt.ascii-art, Sharky wrote the following -._ > Actually, the previous post about "weak-minded" was really meant to > describe people who spend their time on Usenet reading only the opinion of > people they agree with, I will prioratize people I find informative. But I don't killfile those I don't. I killfile those that time after time have wasted my time and have robbed me of part of my life because they have nothing to offer but stupidity. Normally it is the same stupidity over and over again. If they can be uniquly stupid time after time then I might even mark them up for a good laugh. > IMHO, Usenet would be an > extremely boring place without opposing viewpoints. As my father once said "People agree on 90% of things. So I like to find the 10% we dissagree on and talk about that." -- .-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that ' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to ((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word. ((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
Faux_Pseudo wrote: > _.-In alt.ascii-art, Sharky wrote the following -._ > >>Actually, the previous post about "weak-minded" was really meant to >>describe people who spend their time on Usenet reading only the opinion of >>people they agree with, > > I will prioratize people I find informative. But I don't killfile > those I don't. I killfile those that time after time have wasted my > time and have robbed me of part of my life because they have nothing > to offer but stupidity. Normally it is the same stupidity over and > over again. If they can be uniquly stupid time after time then I > might even mark them up for a good laugh. Do you use something like XNews - score system? Thanks for the info on Morph's btw - learnt something new :) >>IMHO, Usenet would be an >>extremely boring place without opposing viewpoints. > > As my father once said "People agree on 90% of things. So I like to > find the 10% we dissagree on and talk about that." :^ :V -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Michael M. wrote: > On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:46:56 +1100, ABCGi wrote: > >>Michael M. wrote: >> >>>their neighbors when there are only two conflicting groups (in Rwanda, >>>in Bosnia, in northern Ireland, in Palestine, in the Sudan, etc., >>>etc.), resulting in wanton slaughter and destruction. The U.S., which >>>AFAIK is unique in its cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, seems >>>to me to be doing rather well by comparison -- "rather well" both in >>>terms of continuing to encourage and support diversity more vigorously >>>than any nation on Earth (and recognizing that the strength and >>>resiliency of the U.S. experiment derives from its diversity) and in >>>terms of managing the inevitable conflict that arises. >> >>I would go along with that. One thing I noticed on my visit to the >>States, though, was how a large percentage of the cities and places were >> quite homogeneous and lacked variety - as opposed to Europe, but this >>is also a function of a much longer history. > > I'm curious about what cities you visited and what, exactly, was lacking > in "variety." Europe is a continent with many small countries, the U.S. > is one large country, so if you mean that there's more variation between, > say, Paris and Barcelona than St. Louis and Dallas ... well, d'uh. :-) One > thing I liked about living in London was how easy it was to get to > numerous other countries. But those countries, as self-contained units, > struck me as much more homogeneous than the U.S. -- even London itself, > which aside from New York City is probably the most wide-ranging and > diverse place I've been (let alone lived), is more segregated and > compartmentalized than NYC (my home now). With the notable exception of > London, none of the European capitals I spent time in could hold a candle > to New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, and perhaps even Chicago > in terms of ethnic and cultural diversity. That's not to say they aren't > "more different" from each other than many American cities are, but none > are in and of themselves as diverse. That's true and I would agree about London, I didn't enjoy staying there as much as the continent. I loved Manhattan. Miami Florida had some character too, and I enjoyed California - San Fran reminded me of Sydney. Chicago, Los Angeles, Orlando, cities in Ohio and other such cities I felt a little samey. Malls, you drive everywhere, all the buildings are modern, the commerce all seemed the same, all had the same franchises etc. But it was only a holiday visit so we're really only talking first impressions - to be fair, I'm sure living in any of those places would give a more accurate feel. I did also notice a shift in culture from the North to the South - language, attitude, education (and temperature!). I traveled down the East coast and back up inland, I did California and some of the West Coast, but not much of the mid-west (the furthest in was Nevada - Las Vegas - which again had a different character). So on reflection I guess there is quite a bit of difference, not withstanding a lot of the big cities feeling a bit homogeneous (apart from tourist attractions). > The depressing trend here in North America (and I say that because I've > talked to Torontonians and Vancouverans who feel the same way) is the > "mallization" of our cities. When I first moved to NYC, it was full of Yeah I noticed this. > oddball quirky clothing stores and hole-in-the-wall cafes and cool little > independent bookstores -- now it's full of Gaps, Starbucks's and Barnes & > Noble superstores. Once I took a friend visiting from France to dinner at Yeah lots of the same franchises everywhere I went... Dendy's etc > a Vietnamese restaurant down in Chinatown. We decided to walk back to my > neighborhood -- roughly a three-mile walk that took us through what's left > of Little Italy, SoHo, the West Village, and Chelsea. We passed -- I kid > you not -- 14 separate Banana Republic stores. Now that a Home Depot has > opened in Manhattan, I fear all hope is lost -- can Wal-Mart be far > behind? Oh yeah there are a lot of Wal-Mart stores aren't there! We have a K-Mart and Westfield here that is not quite as bad, but we seem to copy a lot of US ideas - and tend to be 10 to 20 years behind your development in such areas. Malls continue to grow here, we just don't have the population to support too much of it (20 million total). >>That sounds reasonable, cultural diversity should be added to the list >>of possibilities to be explored. I wonder what other countries would >>qualify as diverse but have low per capita violence/gun deaths in >>comparison? > > What other countries would qualify as diverse -- or rather, "as diverse > as" the U.S.? Yeah its a good question! I'm still wondering. There probably are examples of diverse people getting along in history, but it certainly doesn't stand out as a trend to me - as you were pointing out. -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Faux_Pseudo wrote: > Simon Williams wrote: > >> I've only been (briefly) to Washington state and Montana. Didn't >> see _any_ non-whites... > > You can't get any more white than thos to places. Next time go down > to California or to someplace south of the mason-dixon line. > California is the second non-whitest state of them all. HI is first > but it doesn't really count. I know he's white, but their governor *is* Austrian. Considering "naturalised" Presidents are illegal - he's doing alright for *legal* power :-P Rowe -- I am a hat of justice perched upon the heads of the wicked. Feel my soft felt lining and quiver, villain!
Faux_Pseudo <Fau...@yahoo.comERCIAL> wrote: > _.-In alt.ascii-art, Simon Williams wrote the following -._ > > I've only been (briefly) to Washington state and Montana. Didn't see > > _any_ non-whites... > > You can't get any more white than thos to places. Next time go down > to California or to someplace south of the mason-dixon line. > California is the second non-whitest state of them all. HI is first > but it doesn't really count. Just realized I typo'd there... I meant to say Montana was all white... Seattle seemed a bit more diverse, though the mall at Bellingham was the whitest place (conceptually speaking) I've ever been in my life... even the Chinese tourists were white. """""" ( ^(..)^ ) `--' -- ._____. |[LD8]! SIMON WILLIAMS :: LUDDITE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED | (O) | 68K MACINTOSH SERVER http://luddite.no-ip.com !__!__! FAILURE RECORDS http://failurerecords.no-ip.com
_.-In alt.ascii-art, ABCGi wrote the following -._
> Do you use something like XNews - score system?
Slrn.
--
.-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that
' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to
((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word.
((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Bateau wrote: >> News server fucked up. >> >> ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>ABCGi wrote: >>> >>>>Bateau wrote: >>>> >>>>>ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Simon Williams wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: >>>>>>>>violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >>>>>>addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >>>>>>priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There >>>>>>is nothing PC about it. >>>>> >>>>>Priority in problem solving? Violence is ONE problem not two. >>>>>You are the one who needs to examine the stats. If you want to split it >>>>>into sexes then you are focussing on the lesser problem. Go to any E.R. >>>>>or police station and ask them who is more often seriously injured or >>>>>killed by violent acts. The answer is overwhelmingly "men." To be as >>>>>wrong as you are about this you must be ignorant, stupid, or sexist. >>>> >>>>The above is anecdotal not statistical, do you have any studies or >>>>statistics? >> >> Wow. I thought it was so obvious that even my reference to the anecdotal >> evidence of experts was overkill. I thought merely pointing out >> something so obvious would force you to abandon your sexist position but >> you made the unexpected move of denying something that is beyond >> question to every other person on Earth. It takes me back to my days of >> debating on religious newsgroups. > >Yeah well I'm a scientist, there are plenty of examples in man's history >of things at the time that were thought to be "obvious" and "common >sense" or "natural" that were wrong. I think we get fooled into because >about 90 to 95% of "obvious" things turn out to be true, but the other 5 >to 10% is dangerously misunderstood - and thus unsolvable. A first step >to solving any problem is identify and understand it. So where did you go wrong? >> But anyway.. >> In 1998 the National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease >> Control and Prevention published their findings into violence against >> women. Some excerpts: >> >> "52 percent of surveyed women and 66 percent of surveyed men said they >> were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker and/or as an >> adult by any type of perpetrator." >> >> "1.9 percent of surveyed women and 3.4 percent of surveyed men >> said they were physically assaulted in the previous 12 months. These >> estimates equate to approximately 1.9 million women and 3.2 million >> men who are physically assaulted annually in the United States" >> >> "approximately 5.9 million physical assaults perpetrated against women >> and 7.9 million physical assaults perpetrated against men in the 12 >> months preceding the survey" >> >> And from a 1995 Bureau of Justice Statistics report: >> >> "A greater percentage of victimizations against males than females were >> committed by multiple offenders. Multiple offenders committed 27% of the >> violent victimizations against men and 16% of those against women." >> >> "Homicides in 1992 >> Female victims Male victims >> 5,001 17,835" >> >> What these studies tell us is that: >> Most victims of violence are male. >> Most people injured by violence are male. >> Most assaults are perpetrated against men. >> Most victims of violence by multiple people are men. >> Most victims of homicide are men. > >Interesting, thanks. But not the insignificant number of female victims >that you had earlier claimed. In other words "You were right but you exaggerated, so I am going to focus on that rather than acknowledge that I was arguing the EXACT opposite of the truth you provided me with." When you claim to have logically arrived at a position which is actually completely illogical, based on no facts and clearly wrong you have no place criticizing my methods. >> You said: >> >>>Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >>>addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >>>priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There is >>>nothing PC about it. >> >> Wow. >> Now I think the most interesting thing about this discussion is how you >> could be so completely wrong. What the hell were you thinking? > >Again priority was discussed below. I want to know what you were thinking when you got the situation completely backwards and said this: >Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There >is nothing PC about it. >>>>And again, the point was not that violence against men is >>>>better/worse than violence against women. >> >> I never said violence against men was worse. I said it was more >> prevalent and a bigger problem. > >As stated below there are issues where the priority is the other way around. The issue that has always been under discussion is "violence". The separation of that issue into sexes that you insist on would make combatting violence against males a priority. I wonder what issues you are going to pretend we have been discussing if not "violence"? >>>Another issue for priority is that sexual assault in the courts has the >>>lowest conviction rate by far of any crime, clearly this makes it first >>>on the list of things to correct. >> >> You are looking at the ratio of accusations to convictions, not the >> ratio of crimes to convictions. Sexual assault also has the highest >> false accusation rate of any crime by far. Some experts have put the >> figure at 40%. > >Still puts the conviction rate hopelessly low. Because it is difficult to prove. Therefor possible victims should take more care. I'm guessing you think the answer is to require less proof to decide someone's life should be destroyed. >And I would question that >figure and its source, that is a classically false arguement. Says the man who claimed violence against women was more common than violence against men. Your track record proves that you are incapable of judging the validity of an argument. >If women >who are really raped find the system too difficult, why would that >number who weren't be encouraged? How should the system be made easier? Oh, wait, you're stupid so don't bother. >>>Also looking statistically at X and Y's - if; >>> >>>X -> X = 50v >>>X -> Y = 49.8v >>>Y -> X = 0.2v >>> >>>Then I'd say the priority is to protect Y. >> >> Number of men assaulted per year: 3.2 million. >> Number of women assaulted per year: 1.9 million. >> So how does someone with a knowledge of statistics get it so wrong? > >You missed the point of the above analysis, it shows women don't assault >men. > >And it was based on my source that put victims of violence at >around 50/50. Using your figures above would still show that the >priority would be to protect Y - indeed your figures make it look even >more like Lions X in a cage with Rabbits Y. I don't know what to say. Is this your programmers' logic at work again? It will probably take me a few minutes to describe what a complete idiot you just made of yourself. I can't imagine there is anyone stupider than you reading this group so this isn't even to make you look like an imbecile. Everyone can see that already. It is to help you. I should have known you were going in this direction when you insisted on separating the issue of violence into men and women. You are a true sexist. So this is basically what is wrong with you: You are blaming male victims of violence for violence against women perpetrated by OTHER males. >>>X -> Y = 49.8v This X... >>>X -> X = 50v ... is NOT the same as this X... >>>Y -> X = 0.2v ... OR this X. Those 2 Xs are victims too. They are not perpetrators. You are saying male VICTIMS of violence deserve less help because of what male PERPETRATORS do. Even in your example you imply that there are more male victims of violence. But you dismiss the problem they represent because they are the same sex as their attackers. Sorry if I'm repeating myself but I have heard that is how you teach mentally disabled people. >>>>>>>Violence against _anyone_ is fundamentally a bad thing... wonder why we >>>>>>>get more excited when it's based on sex, race or religion? >>>>>>> /\ >>>>>>> /oo\ _|_ >>>>>>>_\^^/____ | >>>>>>>/ ,__ |PB >>>>>>>| | \| | >>>>>>>||. ,| >>>>>>>| ==== >>>>>>>`|' `| >>>>>>>| | >>>>>>>| | >>>>>>>| | >>>>>>>^^^^^^ >>>>>> >>>>>>One idea raised by the UN day for stopping violence against women is >>>>>>that the majority of men, who don't think it is ok, speak up more so >>>>>>that that minority doesn't get the mistaken idea that it is perhaps >>>>>>socially acceptable. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have now officially done my part of that. >>>>> >>>>>You have attempted to draw attention away from the more pressing >>>>>problem. You have also perpetuated the myth that there is no problem of >>>>>violence against men by pretending that the comparably tiny amount of >>>>>violence against women is the most violence anyone is suffering. >>> >>>I asked a friend at university to look up figures on this, the study is >>>a bit dated and doesn't include war I don't think but victims of >>>violence is actually about half - half, certainly nothing like >>>"comparably tiny" for women, obviously this is a bit of a misconception >>>or myth (not the other way around). >> >> That will teach you to do your own research then because your friend is >> as stupid as you. > >ad hominem Don't tell me how to argue Mr "Y2 < X2 = X1 = Y2". >> Older national surveys showed that the number of male and female victims >> of violence PERPETRATED BY INTIMATE PARTNERS was rougly equal. Even >> among women that is only 25% of the total number of victims. It would be >> no indicator of the number of male and female victims of violence even >> if it hadn't been refuted by two more recent and thorough surveys. I >> thought you knew something about statistics? >> And if they were equal why would you say that violence against women was >> "by far, the most pressing problem"? > >I grant you that may not of been a convincing arguement, Because it was completely illogical and untrue. How could a your programmers' logic fail you? Why did you ever believe it? >and I withdraw >it. Given that can we agree that violence against men *and* violence >against women are worthy of being worked on? No let's use your logic and ignore female victims! If Y < 50% let Y = 0! >>>Of course if you talking just the sexual assault category then the >>>victims are almost all women and the perpetrator is a man (99.9% of the >>>time). >> >> Your statistical errors are just amusing now. The 1998 survey found that >> approximately 76% of the people who are forcibly raped each year are > >Sorry yes, I meant to say that where the victim is a woman and >perpetrator is a man. I still disagree with "Of course if you [are] talking [about] the sexual assault category where the victims are almost all women and the perpetrators is a man (99.9% of the time)." Like I said 76% is not "almost all". >> women. Other studies which give higher numbers have included things like >> "verbal threats of a sexual nature" in their results. >> But you are just trying to narrow the debate down to sexual assault in >> order to focus on female victims of violence. That is probably a > >Like you are trying to broaden it to dismiss it? When have I tried to broaden the debate from "victims of violence" in order to dismiss female victims? Except those times I have done it insincerely to hold a mirror to your own beliefs. >> consequence of "politically correct" feminist social conditioning. >> Sexual assault is just a fraction of the violence suffered by men and > >Fine, do you still agree it is a bad thing? Or are you using your >arguments out of some other kind of motivation? I must have done a good job demolishing your arguments if you are this desperate to find something to oppose me on. My point in saying that sexual assault is just a fraction of the total violence committed against people was not to dismiss it as a "lesser problem" the way you would. It was to point out that your anti male sexism has made you attempt to narrow the debate to a slice of the violence pie which has mostly female victims and then use it to represent the whole issue. >> women each year. The sex of the perpetrator is irrelevant to this >> discussion of whether most victims of violence are ignored because they >> are not female. It is only useful in a pointless "women vs men" argument >> which this probably is in a mind like yours that is twisted by feminist >> propoganda. > >It is you who are totally wrong, as my position that it is a problem is >backed up by many intellectuals. Taking all your stats as true there is >still a problem, if it were a computer program I would call it buggy. Don't try to be witty back. You're not good at it. All people who tend to make crazy irrational statements should avoid trying to sound clever really. Your position isn't that "it's a problem". It's that "it's the most pressing problem". I don't understand that last sentence at all. Did I say that because there are more male victims of violence than female victims of violence there is no problem? So what am I meant to be "totally wrong" about anyway? >>>>I have never insinuated anything of the sort IIRC. For instance, war, >>>>has a great number of men suffering violence. >> >> You wrote: >> >>>Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote: >>> >>>>You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission: >>>>violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. >>> >>>Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are >>>addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of >>>priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. >> >> Tell me how you can claim that violence against 37% of victims is a >> bigger problem than the same crime against the remaining 63% without >> making people believe that the first group is the larger one? > >Because men are the ones perpetrating all the violence on the women and >none the other way around. Or to restate that without lying - some men are perpetrating most of the violence that some women suffer, and a little the other way around, and even more men are perpetrating even more violence which is suffered by some other men, and a few women are perpetrating violence on a few men. Could you point out the "biggest problem" in there please? And could you please explain why you think a lot of same sex violence is less of a problem than much less violence between the sexes? >Because men can get better justice in the >courts in some cases. If that was true it's certainly not enough because male victims of violence are still so much more common than female victims of violence. It's still 63% being ignored so you can give special treatment to 37% who, by your own reasoning, do not represent as pressing a problem. >>>>>> ^ ^ >>>>>> /---\ >>>>>> / * * \ >>>>>> \ ^ / >>>>>> v=v >>>>>> {+++} >>>>>> ( ) ObA >>>> >>>> >>>>Ok lets say you are correct, shall we now move on and solve violence >>>>against women *and* violence against men (less war would help)? To >>>>labour on the above point is specious. >> >> I am correct. If this debate has shown anything it is that you can not >> trust your own judgement. So take my word for it when I say you will do >> nothing to solve violence against men. You are too feminist for that. > >Not true, I have in my time intervened to help those being assaulted, >whether male or female. And I don't believe in either type of violence. So where are your usenet posts encouraging others not to be a bystander when males are being victimized? >> BTW in these government studies you can find a clue to why there is an >> irrational focus on violence against females. There is evidence of a >> vicious circle. The aim of a particular study is to find out about >> violence against women. So they disregard the evidence of violence >> against males when making their recommendations, so their >> recommendations are violence prevention policies focussed on female >> demographics. Then, because the new policies are focussed on women, >> subsequent studies are made with the aim to find out about violence >> against women etc. > >I will grant you we should not ignore the problem of male on male >violence, or war violence. I have a funny feeling you are blaming the high stats for male victims of violence on war but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. And now you are completely disregarding female on male violence. Sexism is a hard habit to kick. >But it wasn't really the problem I was >tackling Why not? When do you tackle it and give it special treatment? >and is another issue. It is? You couldn't have included men in your little "discourage violence and don't be a bystander" speech? I think a unisex campaign against violence would be seen as more noble and therefor be more effective. >And you make some other points that I >don't object to, too bad its laced in vitriol. That's the price you pay for being stupid where people can spend as long as they like typing nasty replies. >> It all started in the 1970s when feminists decided that they were the >> most important people in the world and everyone should only pay >> attention to them. If someone had done a study on violence against males >> they would have gone nuts. > >Who's the victim of propaganda now? The conservative government stats I >stated were only just released, You stated some stats? That 50/50 thing? Not only did you fail to mention your source (apart from "some guy who got a better education than me") but I fairly accurately identified those sources and provided you with a refutation of them. >were totally accurate, and any way you >slice it identify a problem to be solved. Bringing sexism into it is >specious and distracting from problem solving. ... Then why are you being sexist about it?
Bateau wrote:
> In other words "You were right but you exaggerated, so I am going to
> focus on that rather than acknowledge that I was arguing the EXACT
> opposite of the truth you provided me with."
> When you claim to have logically arrived at a position which is
> actually completely illogical, based on no facts and clearly wrong you
> have no place criticizing my methods.
Well you are exaggerating again: my position is hardly "completely
illogical" or "based on no facts" nor is it "clearly wrong". Nor did I
criticise your method in this particular instance I simply pointed out
that you claimed the amount of violence against women was statistically
insignificant compared to men, but when we later reviewed your stats it
turned out that it was not insignificant. Which is fine, I've made
mistakes (as you've pointed out!) in this thread, which is off my
initial point, and we both learnt something.
I think either I have not expressed myself clearly or some other
problem, because your assumptions about my position and message are not
what I intended (particularly the pseudo math! funny!), as I have tried
to make clear. I am certainly no "idiot" so that can not be the
explanation. My position is based on different sources of information
than you and comes from a different view point, I can understand that
about you - and I take your point about the problem of violence against
men and about sexism - so how about some quid pro quo?
PS I won't be continuing this thread unless you can agree with me that
both violence against women and violence against men is wrong. Otherwise
we are fundamentally opposed and will only argue, and its likely to be
circular from here on out (if not already!).
ObASCII: A circle
O
--
ABCGi - Atomic ______________________
<===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------||
Chemical Infantrymen <=========== ***RESPECT*** =-+-=>
|---------------------|'
ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Bateau wrote: > > > In other words "You were right but you exaggerated, so I am going to > > focus on that rather than acknowledge that I was arguing the EXACT > > opposite of the truth you provided me with." > > When you claim to have logically arrived at a position which is > > actually completely illogical, based on no facts and clearly wrong you > > have no place criticizing my methods. > >Well you are exaggerating again: my position is hardly "completely >illogical" or "based on no facts" nor is it "clearly wrong". Nor did I >criticise your method in this particular instance I simply pointed out >that you claimed the amount of violence against women was statistically >insignificant compared to men, but when we later reviewed your stats it >turned out that it was not insignificant. Which is fine, I've made >mistakes (as you've pointed out!) in this thread, which is off my >initial point, and we both learnt something. > >I think either I have not expressed myself clearly or some other >problem, because your assumptions about my position and message are not >what I intended (particularly the pseudo math! funny!), as I have tried >to make clear. I am certainly no "idiot" so that can not be the >explanation. My position is based on different sources of information >than you and comes from a different view point, I can understand that >about you - and I take your point about the problem of violence against >men and about sexism - so how about some quid pro quo? > >PS I won't be continuing this thread unless you can agree with me that >both violence against women and violence against men is wrong. Otherwise >we are fundamentally opposed and will only argue, and its likely to be >circular from here on out (if not already!). That's what I said in my very first post you sexist bitch. >ObASCII: A circle > > O
Bateau wrote: > ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Bateau wrote: >> >>>In other words "You were right but you exaggerated, so I am going to >>>focus on that rather than acknowledge that I was arguing the EXACT >>>opposite of the truth you provided me with." >>>When you claim to have logically arrived at a position which is >>>actually completely illogical, based on no facts and clearly wrong you >>>have no place criticizing my methods. >> >>Well you are exaggerating again: my position is hardly "completely >>illogical" or "based on no facts" nor is it "clearly wrong". Nor did I >>criticise your method in this particular instance I simply pointed out >>that you claimed the amount of violence against women was statistically >>insignificant compared to men, but when we later reviewed your stats it >>turned out that it was not insignificant. Which is fine, I've made >>mistakes (as you've pointed out!) in this thread, which is off my >>initial point, and we both learnt something. >> >>I think either I have not expressed myself clearly or some other >>problem, because your assumptions about my position and message are not >>what I intended (particularly the pseudo math! funny!), as I have tried >>to make clear. I am certainly no "idiot" so that can not be the >>explanation. My position is based on different sources of information >>than you and comes from a different view point, I can understand that >>about you - and I take your point about the problem of violence against >>men and about sexism - so how about some quid pro quo? >> >>PS I won't be continuing this thread unless you can agree with me that >>both violence against women and violence against men is wrong. Otherwise >>we are fundamentally opposed and will only argue, and its likely to be >>circular from here on out (if not already!). > > That's what I said in my very first post you sexist bitch. Well given that common ground I can say that, on review, I absolutely agree with your position, and you've been right all along. Except for the biatch... >>ObASCII: A circle >> >> O -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<41b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>... > Bateau wrote: > > ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>Bateau wrote: > >> ------------------8<--------SNIP!----------------- > > > > That's what I said in my very first post you sexist bitch. > > Well given that common ground I can say that, on review, I absolutely > agree with your position, and you've been right all along. Except for > the biatch... > ok, where is a football ref when ya need one to toss a flag on this whole thread. 1) Not enough ASCII (s/n ratio is way off) 2) Not enough verifiable data quoted from reliable sources 3) Missing key logical points 4) NO FUCKING SOLUTIONS OFFERED, just a bunch of pseudo-intelectual drivel that is based on guess and wishful thinking. My solution as far as this thread goes: 1) Shut Up 2) Post more ASCII 3) Develope a well rounded solution (Heck even a partial one) 4) Decorate your solution with ASCII if you want to post it here. 5) Go outside, see whats happening, take a nap, get laid for once. obascii:Ref ,.. /___\___ ((( o\ ) `-'=o <-- TWEET! .--' `--. / # #\_/# # \ / #/| # # |\# \ \ #\| # # |/# / )))[_|_|_]((( | | | | | | ( | ) | | | __|__|__|__ (____) (____)
_.-In alt.ascii-art, MJP wrote the following -._
> 2) Post more ASCII
That part I can agree with. But it should be:
2) Post more original ASCII
__.
_..------..__.-' \
/ ___ /-'--'. \
\ -..--'' // o | \
\ \ /| , o| |
\ \ .|| \_ / |
\ \ / /\__./ |
`. ( | / |
\ \_./ / /
\ \ |\
| | `-.| \
\/ | |
|o | \ !
\ _/ \ o | `.
`-' \.__./ |
\ | /
\ / /
\ | /
| / /\
| / / `\
/ __.-' / \
| ' _/ \
/ //// \
.' \ / |
/ /-\ \
.' / \ |
/ / \ |
/ / \:F_P:
######################################Sun Dec 5 2004#################
--
.-')) asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that
' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to
((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word.
((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
Faux_Pseudo wrote: > _.-In alt.ascii-art, MJP wrote the following -._ > >>2) Post more ASCII > > > That part I can agree with. But it should be: > 2) Post more original ASCII > > > __. > _..------..__.-' \ > / ___ /-'--'. \ > \ -..--'' // o | \ > \ \ /| , o| | > \ \ .|| \_ / | > \ \ / /\__./ | > `. ( | / | > \ \_./ / / > \ \ |\ > | | `-.| \ > \/ | | > |o | \ ! > \ _/ \ o | `. > `-' \.__./ | > \ | / > \ / / > \ | / > | / /\ > | / / `\ > / __.-' / \ > | ' _/ \ > / //// \ > .' \ / | > / /-\ \ > .' / \ | > / / \ | > / / \:F_P: > > ######################################Sun Dec 5 2004################# I concur hole heart Ed Lee ! And apologise pro fuse Lee. ObA: Flip Flop __-, +-- __- `+-- -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Bateau wrote: >> ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>Bateau wrote: >>> >>>>In other words "You were right but you exaggerated, so I am going to >>>>focus on that rather than acknowledge that I was arguing the EXACT >>>>opposite of the truth you provided me with." >>>>When you claim to have logically arrived at a position which is >>>>actually completely illogical, based on no facts and clearly wrong you >>>>have no place criticizing my methods. >>> >>>Well you are exaggerating again: my position is hardly "completely >>>illogical" or "based on no facts" nor is it "clearly wrong". Nor did I >>>criticise your method in this particular instance I simply pointed out >>>that you claimed the amount of violence against women was statistically >>>insignificant compared to men, but when we later reviewed your stats it >>>turned out that it was not insignificant. Which is fine, I've made >>>mistakes (as you've pointed out!) in this thread, which is off my >>>initial point, and we both learnt something. >>> >>>I think either I have not expressed myself clearly or some other >>>problem, because your assumptions about my position and message are not >>>what I intended (particularly the pseudo math! funny!), as I have tried >>>to make clear. I am certainly no "idiot" so that can not be the >>>explanation. My position is based on different sources of information >>>than you and comes from a different view point, I can understand that >>>about you - and I take your point about the problem of violence against >>>men and about sexism - so how about some quid pro quo? >>> >>>PS I won't be continuing this thread unless you can agree with me that >>>both violence against women and violence against men is wrong. Otherwise >>>we are fundamentally opposed and will only argue, and its likely to be >>>circular from here on out (if not already!). >> >> That's what I said in my very first post you sexist bitch. > >Well given that common ground I can say that, on review, I absolutely >agree with your position, and you've been right all along. Except for >the biatch... The problem of your sexism remains. I'm sure you still blame all men for the actions of some. You are a twat EOF.
Bateau wrote: > ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Bateau wrote: >> >>>ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Bateau wrote: >>>> >>>>>In other words "You were right but you exaggerated, so I am going to >>>>>focus on that rather than acknowledge that I was arguing the EXACT >>>>>opposite of the truth you provided me with." >>>>>When you claim to have logically arrived at a position which is >>>>>actually completely illogical, based on no facts and clearly wrong you >>>>>have no place criticizing my methods. >>>> >>>>Well you are exaggerating again: my position is hardly "completely >>>>illogical" or "based on no facts" nor is it "clearly wrong". Nor did I >>>>criticise your method in this particular instance I simply pointed out >>>>that you claimed the amount of violence against women was statistically >>>>insignificant compared to men, but when we later reviewed your stats it >>>>turned out that it was not insignificant. Which is fine, I've made >>>>mistakes (as you've pointed out!) in this thread, which is off my >>>>initial point, and we both learnt something. >>>> >>>>I think either I have not expressed myself clearly or some other >>>>problem, because your assumptions about my position and message are not >>>>what I intended (particularly the pseudo math! funny!), as I have tried >>>>to make clear. I am certainly no "idiot" so that can not be the >>>>explanation. My position is based on different sources of information >>>>than you and comes from a different view point, I can understand that >>>>about you - and I take your point about the problem of violence against >>>>men and about sexism - so how about some quid pro quo? >>>> >>>>PS I won't be continuing this thread unless you can agree with me that >>>>both violence against women and violence against men is wrong. Otherwise >>>>we are fundamentally opposed and will only argue, and its likely to be >>>>circular from here on out (if not already!). >>> >>>That's what I said in my very first post you sexist bitch. >> >>Well given that common ground I can say that, on review, I absolutely >>agree with your position, and you've been right all along. Except for >>the biatch... > > The problem of your sexism remains. I'm sure you still blame all men for > the actions of some. You are a twat EOF. I totally agree with you (except for the twat bit of course), no problem. Thankyou for setting me straight. OA: (0) | -^- -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Above the din in alt.ascii-art, Faux_Pseudo could be heard to say: > _.-In alt.ascii-art, ABCGi wrote the following -._ > > [0] note the possessiveness of that phrase. I never call her that. > But she always call me "my man". Well, you are. :-) > [1] but I did acciedntly stab her once. Well twice if you count the > time with the fork. Well I guess I should include all the times I > stabed her with pins. But she was asking for it then. You should > have seen the blood. You forgot the part about how, after stabing me in the head with a knife, you said you did it to protect me. To save me from the water on the beach. ;-) Mari ~~qsi -- You'll either become an expert on reinstalling from scratch, or develop a morbid fear of the 'rm' commmand! From: Andy McDowell -- Slackware Mod Quote - Vol. V
ABCGi wrote: > Bateau wrote: > >> ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Bateau wrote: >>> >>>> ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bateau wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In other words "You were right but you exaggerated, so I am going to >>>>>> focus on that rather than acknowledge that I was arguing the EXACT >>>>>> opposite of the truth you provided me with." >>>>>> When you claim to have logically arrived at a position which is >>>>>> actually completely illogical, based on no facts and clearly wrong >>>>>> you >>>>>> have no place criticizing my methods. >>>>> >>>>> Well you are exaggerating again: my position is hardly "completely >>>>> illogical" or "based on no facts" nor is it "clearly wrong". Nor >>>>> did I criticise your method in this particular instance I simply >>>>> pointed out that you claimed the amount of violence against women >>>>> was statistically insignificant compared to men, but when we later >>>>> reviewed your stats it turned out that it was not insignificant. >>>>> Which is fine, I've made mistakes (as you've pointed out!) in this >>>>> thread, which is off my initial point, and we both learnt something. >>>>> >>>>> I think either I have not expressed myself clearly or some other >>>>> problem, because your assumptions about my position and message are >>>>> not what I intended (particularly the pseudo math! funny!), as I >>>>> have tried to make clear. I am certainly no "idiot" so that can not >>>>> be the explanation. My position is based on different sources of >>>>> information than you and comes from a different view point, I can >>>>> understand that about you - and I take your point about the problem >>>>> of violence against men and about sexism - so how about some quid >>>>> pro quo? >>>>> >>>>> PS I won't be continuing this thread unless you can agree with me >>>>> that both violence against women and violence against men is wrong. >>>>> Otherwise we are fundamentally opposed and will only argue, and its >>>>> likely to be circular from here on out (if not already!). >>>> >>>> That's what I said in my very first post you sexist bitch. >>> >>> Well given that common ground I can say that, on review, I absolutely >>> agree with your position, and you've been right all along. Except for >>> the biatch... >> >> The problem of your sexism remains. I'm sure you still blame all men for >> the actions of some. You are a twat EOF. > > I totally agree with you (except for the twat bit of course), no > problem. Thankyou for setting me straight. > > OA: > (0) > | > -^- Oh and I should of thanked you for finally agreeing with me that violence against women is a problem, very fair minded of you. I will keep in mind sexism in the future too :) -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Bateau wrote: > ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>ABCGi wrote: >> >> >>>Bateau wrote: >>> >>> >>>>ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Bateau wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Bateau wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In other words "You were right but you exaggerated, so I am going to >>>>>>>>focus on that rather than acknowledge that I was arguing the EXACT >>>>>>>>opposite of the truth you provided me with." >>>>>>>>When you claim to have logically arrived at a position which is >>>>>>>>actually completely illogical, based on no facts and clearly wrong >>>>>>>>you >>>>>>>>have no place criticizing my methods. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well you are exaggerating again: my position is hardly "completely >>>>>>>illogical" or "based on no facts" nor is it "clearly wrong". Nor >>>>>>>did I criticise your method in this particular instance I simply >>>>>>>pointed out that you claimed the amount of violence against women >>>>>>>was statistically insignificant compared to men, but when we later >>>>>>>reviewed your stats it turned out that it was not insignificant. >>>>>>>Which is fine, I've made mistakes (as you've pointed out!) in this >>>>>>>thread, which is off my initial point, and we both learnt something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think either I have not expressed myself clearly or some other >>>>>>>problem, because your assumptions about my position and message are >>>>>>>not what I intended (particularly the pseudo math! funny!), as I >>>>>>>have tried to make clear. I am certainly no "idiot" so that can not >>>>>>>be the explanation. My position is based on different sources of >>>>>>>information than you and comes from a different view point, I can >>>>>>>understand that about you - and I take your point about the problem >>>>>>>of violence against men and about sexism - so how about some quid >>>>>>>pro quo? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>PS I won't be continuing this thread unless you can agree with me >>>>>>>that both violence against women and violence against men is wrong. >>>>>>>Otherwise we are fundamentally opposed and will only argue, and its >>>>>>>likely to be circular from here on out (if not already!). >>>>>> >>>>>>That's what I said in my very first post you sexist bitch. >>>>> >>>>>Well given that common ground I can say that, on review, I absolutely >>>>>agree with your position, and you've been right all along. Except for >>>>>the biatch... >>>> >>>>The problem of your sexism remains. I'm sure you still blame all men for >>>>the actions of some. You are a twat EOF. >>> >>>I totally agree with you (except for the twat bit of course), no >>>problem. Thankyou for setting me straight. >>> >>>OA: >>> (0) >>> | >>> -^- >> >>Oh and I should of thanked you for finally agreeing with me that >>violence against women is a problem, very fair minded of you. I will >>keep in mind sexism in the future too :) > > The argument ended a week ago. Stop being desperate or I'll give you > another spanking. Just wanted to say thanks ;), glad we could reach an accommodation, kind regards, -- ABCGi - Atomic ______________________ <===> Bacterial Genetic |---------------------|| Chemical Infantrymen <=========== http://abcgi.fly.to =-+-=> |---------------------|'
Related ASCII art in the Gallery
Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:
Make your own ASCII art
Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.
About this thread.
These messages were posted publicly to the newsgroup
alt.ascii-art
in 2004 and are mirrored here unchanged as part of the Historic Archives – only email addresses are masked.
The artwork and text belong to their original authors: if you copy a piece, keep the artist's initials or signature intact and credit them where you can.
Are you one of the authors? Contact us to get your posts attributed, connected to your artist profile, or removed.
Report this message
Help us keep the archive clean and accurate. Reports are reviewed by a person – nothing is changed automatically.