From: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org (angry-psychos-digest) To: angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Subject: angry-psychos-digest V7 #167 Reply-To: angry-psychos@smoe.org Sender: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "angry-psychos-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. angry-psychos-digest Monday, June 10 2002 Volume 07 : Number 167 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: NPR: Online Diarys [Kevin Intoen ] Re: Or How I learned to love the bomb. [Kevin Intoen ] Re: Song [Spidersrcute2@aol.com] Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR [Kevin Intoen ] Re: npr - ABOUT WAR [Kevin Intoen ] Re: npr - ABOUT WAR , now its about DeeDee [NoisyPollution@aol.com] Re: npr - ABOUT WAR , now its about DeeDee ["Bad Bender" Subject: Re: NPR: Online Diarys I have to comment here on Blogger. Bad, bad, bad. Very insecure. For the more technical minded of you: You give it the username/password to your web page area, which is oftentimes the same username/password that you use for, say, your ISP, or Yahoo. It then FTPs in and uploads the changes every time you submit a new entry. Not only is this bad for you because you are giving someone else your password, but anybody in between could easily gain your password since it is transmitted in an unencrypted format. That is the way it worked the last time I checked, about six months ago, they may have switched to using Javascript or something to include HTML from their web server now; I don't know. While I haven't heard of Blogger.com ever being compromised or abused, I would personally never trust a service like that. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 06:43:59 -0400 From: Kevin Intoen Subject: Re: Or How I learned to love the bomb. On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 12:55:56AM -0400, Pierce, Marshall wrote: [snip] > I think that if Pakistan, and India don't get there shit together, > that your argument will be mute, because a crime of far greater magnitude > will be wrought against the world. Oh, and on an aside, it is a fact that > Japanese 'civilians' would have fought, and died to a man, if we had A fact according to...? > invaded. While I would argue at a Japanese memorial, so as not be > disrespectful to those who suffered the tragedy of being the first victims > of atomic warfare of my stance, the use of the bomb might have, in fact, > saved thousands of Japanese lives. Back to the current nuclear soap opera, I > believe the total outright dead from the 2 bombs we dropped was around > 50,000 or so , counting the thousands that died or > those later that were born disfigured, the higher cancer rate...Yadda yadda, What evidence do you have to back this? If you're going to say 'we saved thousands of Japanese lives', I'd like to see projections comparing how many people they WOULD have lost (not counting the civilians who supposedly would have fought back) versus the body count of the two cities and casualties related to its aftereffects. > all this will pale to a partial or full nuclear exchange between Pakistan > and India. I would expect the causality's to be in the millions, and that > both countries could be made totally uninhabitable. Then you will have a > great displacement of refugee's to where? Hope the UN doesn't move'em to I agree. I'd like to think that both sides are fully conscious of the consequences and that they are just using them as bargaining tools, however you always have to assume the worst when it comes to these things. > Israel, look how THAT turned out. Israel has nukes to btw, which should, but > apparently doesn't make any Arab state nervous, hell, it makes me nervous. > Oh, your both right btw, because your expressing opinion, yours, don't > confuse that for thinking you know the truth. For like the now famous 'there > is no spoon' line, there is in fact no truth If there is no truth, then how can one's opinion that is wrong or right? :) [snip] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 11:41:13 EDT From: Spidersrcute2@aol.com Subject: Re: Song I don't know offhand which song you are referring to, but there is Coldplay and The White Stripes that both have those high guitars in them.. I really like The White Stripes, they're kind of insane which is good. And for those of you who were complaining about quiet on the list....look what's been started now. Tracie ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 06:31:43 -0400 From: Kevin Intoen Subject: Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 10:17:12AM -0500, Bad Bender wrote: [snip] > We also sat here and ordered out soliders to storn the beaches of Normandy > and fight in the French country side. Yeah, against other soldiers. We didn't send them to systematically eradicate all enemy civilians. [snip] > Then we'd piss off the enviromental activists because we killed some > penguins! : ) Haha. True, but I don't believe in animal rights anyway so I wouldn't be one of them :) [snip] > Sure, then before they could complain I'd point out all the aid and > rebuilding the US did for Japan and how now so many years later they are > better because they don't have to spend money on a military, we take care of > em'. Oh, right, so that makes everything okay then, I suppose. [snip] > I am unable to answer that question. I'm not a terrorist, I don't have that > mindset. I don't believe that another country is the "great satan". No one > can answer it because the motivations are so varied. Is it Israel? Is it the > US? Is it the US in Saudi? Patriotism , I'll admit, does shade my view. I've > lived abroad and seen how others live, even in our allies countries, we have > it best. Note the part about 'context removed'...my point was simply that both of you are justifying attacks on civilians because it will (or in the case of the bombers, think it will) benefit your cause. [snip] > I don't know about that, the founding fathers were fanatics and they did > some good with it. No. They were no fanatics. Fanatics do not make allowances for the opinions of other people, only their own. Obviously this is untrue; I suggest you read the Constitution sometime or read up on its history and make note of the various compromises each man had to make while drafting it. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 06:57:51 -0400 From: Kevin Intoen Subject: Re: npr - ABOUT WAR Enlighten me. How exactly is it 'disrespectful' to Dee Dee? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 11:39:44 EDT From: NoisyPollution@aol.com Subject: Re: npr - ABOUT WAR , now its about DeeDee In a message dated 6/8/02 11:48:46 PM Central Daylight Time, thegeneral@knology.net writes: > He was a druggie huh? You play you pay. I hope it serves as a warning to > They're still not sure if he died of a drug overdose yet. I read his book and he claimed to quit doing drugs and it's still a possibility that maybe the paraphenelia found was his wife's. If you read his book, Surviving the Ramones, you can understand why he started doing junk in the first place. I'm not condoning it, but when something that seems deadly and stupid might appear as an escape for someone who literally had nothing when he started doing it. Anyway, without Dee Dee there would have been barely ANY Ramones songs, because he basically wrote most of them. Without the Ramones you wouldn't hear a lot of bands influenced by them today, or they wouldn't sound the same. Dee Dee may have done drugs but he was a person, and even if he did drugs doesn't mean that he's a nothing. He means a lot to many and deserves respect for having an impact on the music he inspired. Peace, }}Y{{eLissA Free spirits have always suffered violent opposition from mediocre minds- Albert Einstein ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 13:16:43 -0500 From: "Bad Bender" Subject: Re: npr - ABOUT WAR , now its about DeeDee > > He was a druggie huh? You play you pay. I hope it serves as a warning to > > > > They're still not sure if he died of a drug overdose yet. I read his > book and he claimed to quit doing drugs and it's still a possibility that > maybe the paraphenelia found was his wife's. If you read his book, Surviving > the Ramones, you can understand why he started doing junk in the first place. > I'm not condoning it, but when something that seems deadly and stupid might > appear as an escape for someone who literally had nothing when he started > doing it. Anyway, without Dee Dee there would have been barely ANY Ramones > songs, because he basically wrote most of them. Without the Ramones you > wouldn't hear a lot of bands influenced by them today, or they wouldn't sound > the same. Dee Dee may have done drugs but he was a person, and even if he did > drugs doesn't mean that he's a nothing. He means a lot to many and deserves > respect for having an impact on the music he inspired. That's the thing though, he meant a lot to many people, fans, friends, family. He had success and a way of life few will ever know and he threw it away. Plenty of people have stress and hard times but they don't resort to drugs. He knew what he was doing and knew it would kill him. He deserves respect for the career he had but how much can be given for having a weak will? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 23:03:18 -0400 From: "Kung Gene" Subject: npr a suggestion for this whole WW II debate I don't want to clog up the list with another argument about this, so I'm just going to give a recommendation that I think that those arguing about this - as well as others, if they're interested - should read. It's "Japan At War," by Theodore and Haryuo Cook. an oral history of the Japanese experience in WW II, seen from civilian and military, both in the homeland and in the farthest reaches of the supposed "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." It's a very well put together book that I think would be fairly enlightening to those who read it. Despite what I said, I have one small point to make, and that is that if the U.S. had invaded Japan, I BELIEVE we could have expected many more casualties than the bombs caused, due to the various Japanese philosophies - bushido and gyokusai, among others - exampled by the invasion of Okinawa where many Japanese civilians killed themselves in order to escape what they believed to be "the American devils" who would rape and torture them. This would have undoubtedly gotten worse as the U.S. got closer and closer to the main islands. As well, the Japanese military would not let them surrender - giving each civilian two grenades, one to throw and one to kill themselves with - and would shoot any of their own who attempted to do so. I don't condone the use of the bomb - I think it was a horrible thing that I wish we could have avoided - but the other viable alternative was not a cakewalk either. that's it, Kung-Gene "Leon, what exactly do you do?" "Cleaner." "You mean you're a hitman?" "Yeah." "Cool." _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 23:10:33 -0400 From: JewlyaINAP@aol.com Subject: Re: another tab request hey tom....are you EVER gonna give me my tape and video? what about my pictures? I've been waiting over a year! Sharmel ------------------------------ End of angry-psychos-digest V7 #167 ***********************************