Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:54:37 -0400, Marty said:

Well, when it comes to Dave's aphorisms, Alice in Wonderland provides a
reasonable contextual background.

Close, but no cigar. It's from Through the Looking-glass.


Missed my meaning?

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On 11 Mar 2009 18:35:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:54:37 -0400, Marty said:

Well, when it comes to Dave's aphorisms, Alice in Wonderland provides a
reasonable contextual background.

Close, but no cigar. It's from Through the Looking-glass.

Clopse but no cigar. You are looking in a fun house mirror.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On 11 Mar 2009 11:31:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:12:50 -0400, said:

Not as complicated as that. Hornbook law. The 14th Amendment applies to
States, not to the federal government.

I give up. Which states are not part of the United States?

Not sure whether I should recommend you read a basic civics book, or a
grammar book. Which part of "federal government" do you not understand?

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States
Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments
that was first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was
proposed on June 13, 1866 and ratified on July 9, 1868.

The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves and their
descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. The amendment
requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all
people within their jurisdictions ....

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:17:47 -0400, Marty said:

Now, do you think it is, or isn't acceptable, in some
situations? Torture that is.

When did you stop beating your mother?


I rather think that you regard circumlocution as one of your strong
points. If you are going to refuse to answer simple questions, then
having a meaningful discussion becomes impossible.

Cheers
Martin
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:

Calling waterboarding "torture" is definitely not an adequate substitute for
reasoned discussion.

OK, solet me make sure I've got your point straight...

Forcefully holding a person's head under water until they believe they
are going to die... and in some cases, actually die... does not fall
within the definition of "torture." Is that it?

Now, what about other things, like giving prisoners electric shocks,
having them attacked by killer dogs, or using "pressure positions" (a
widely used one is to hang them from their arms, remarkably like Roman
crucifixion)... again, many times "interrogators" using these methods
have killed prisoners in US custody... documented by the US military
who had custody of the prisoners but did not carry out the
interrogations.


It's simply trying to attach a label in the hope that
substantive discussion will be foreclosed.

Why do you find this concept so hard to grasp?

Saying that I don'tgrasp your concept is a simple way to divert
attention with a little insult.... while totally failing to answer any
of the points I have made about the serious flaws in your logic... not
to mention your moral position.

Just to make it clear, you are in favor of inflicting pain, fear, and
bodily harm, on US prisoners... to the point of death in many cases...
for the sake of almost-certanly-useless information. To you, the
slight possibility of gaining useful info is worth BOTH the risk of
losing any chance of gaining further info from that prisoner, and
sacrificing the moral position of the whole country. That's it in a
nutshel, right?

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Stephen Trapani wrote:
Then why don't we take reasonable measures to find out what we need to
find out to stop these mass murderers!

Sure... I got nothing against that.

..... The moral high ground includes
and excludes many things, but one thing it includes is putting the well
being of innocents ahead of the rights of mass murderers!


Does this have anything to do with the issue at hand (tortureof
prisoners)?

The main point that you (and Dave, and other pro-torture people) have
failed to make is that using torture actually accomplishes anything at
all to prevent terrorists. Instead, you blame -us- for failing to use
torture.... sorry, but terrorism is not my fault. You can take
responsibility yourself if you like. But you can't just change the
laws of our nation to suit your own moral perceptions (just like I
can't).

Furthermore, a group of people who -were- in a position to change the
laws of our nation (or, more accurately, temporarily change a few and
ignore a lot of others) agree with your moral perceptions....
specifically, that torturing prisoners is OK... and they don't really
seem to have gotten such great results.

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:10:45 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

Now, do you think it is, or isn't acceptable, in some
situations? Torture that is.
When did you stop beating your mother?

I rather think that you regard circumlocution as one of your strong
points. If you are going to refuse to answer simple questions, then
having a meaningful discussion becomes impossible.

So you won't tell me when you stopped beating her?

Still waiting for an answer to a simple question......

Do try and display a modicum of intellegence and refrain from reposting
another puerile response.

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:10:45 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

Now, do you think it is, or isn't acceptable, in some situations?
Torture that is.
When did you stop beating your mother?

I rather think that you regard circumlocution as one of your strong
points. If you are going to refuse to answer simple questions, then
having a meaningful discussion becomes impossible.

So you won't tell me when you stopped beating her?

Still waiting for an answer to a simple question......

Do try and display a modicum of intellegence and refrain from reposting
another puerile response.

Cheers
Martin


You sure are asking a lot! Sheesh..

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT), said:

OK, solet me make sure I've got your point straight...

Forcefully holding a person's head under water until they believe they
are going to die... and in some cases, actually die... does not fall
within the definition of "torture." Is that it?

Sigh...you still don't get it. I'm not saying it is or is not properly
labeled "torture." I'm saying the label you stick on it is no more than an
expression of your conclusion that it's a "bad thing." Expressing that
conclusion isn't going to persuade any rational person that your conclusion
is correct. Only that you believe it.

Ok, since you insist on this exercise in sophistry, let's return to
first principles and move to a more Socratic level.

Please define what the term "torture" means.

I will keep this to one question at a time to avoid confusing anyone.

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT), said:

OK, solet me make sure I've got your point straight...

Forcefully holding a person's head under water until they believe they
are going to die... and in some cases, actually die... does not fall
within the definition of "torture." Is that it?

Sigh...you still don't get it. I'm not saying it is or is not properly
labeled "torture." I'm saying the label you stick on it is no more than
an
expression of your conclusion that it's a "bad thing." Expressing that
conclusion isn't going to persuade any rational person that your
conclusion
is correct. Only that you believe it.

Ok, since you insist on this exercise in sophistry, let's return to first
principles and move to a more Socratic level.

Please define what the term "torture" means.

I will keep this to one question at a time to avoid confusing anyone.

Cheers
Martin

It means whatever we want it to, silly. If we want it to mean birthday cake
and puppies and merry-go-rounds, it doesn't have to mean just "bad things"
after all. It's just a word, after all.

I think Dave needs to brush-up on his S.I. Hayakawa.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT), said:

OK, solet me make sure I've got your point straight...

Forcefully holding a person's head under water until they believe they
are going to die... and in some cases, actually die... does not fall
within the definition of "torture." Is that it?

Sigh...you still don't get it. I'm not saying it is or is not properly
labeled "torture." I'm saying the label you stick on it is no more than
an
expression of your conclusion that it's a "bad thing." Expressing that
conclusion isn't going to persuade any rational person that your
conclusion
is correct. Only that you believe it.

Ok, since you insist on this exercise in sophistry, let's return to first
principles and move to a more Socratic level.

Please define what the term "torture" means.

I will keep this to one question at a time to avoid confusing anyone.

Cheers
Martin

It means whatever we want it to, silly. If we want it to mean birthday
cake
and puppies and merry-go-rounds, it doesn't have to mean just "bad things"
after all. It's just a word, after all.

I think Dave needs to brush-up on his S.I. Hayakawa.

Whoa... I haven't heard that name bandied about it a while. :)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

KLC Lewis wrote:

I think Dave needs to brush-up on his S.I. Hayakawa.


Hmmm, were you perhaps thinking: "I'm going to speak my mind because I
have nothing to lose." ?

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
Doug, you must learn to read what's written

Actually, I learned that a long time ago.

The problem here is that you did not write what you later pretend to
have; of course the pretense gives you greater stature (in your
imagination)



Just to make it clear, you are in favor of inflicting pain, fear, and
bodily harm, on US prisoners... to the point of death in many cases...
for the sake of almost-certanly-useless information. To you, the
slight possibility of gaining useful info is worth BOTH the risk of
losing any chance of gaining further info from that prisoner, and
sacrificing the moral position of the whole country. That's it in a
nutshel, right?


Dave wrote:
Nope. Not even close.

I regret to say that you have not convinced me that you've reversed
your position on the matter, Dave.

In the past, you've been a pretty serious Bush/Cheney apologist and
that includes strongly-worded denial that any torture (just to keep it
clear, let's define it as NOT cookies & kittens but rather inflicting
pain, fear, and
bodily harm, on US prisoners... to the point of death in many
cases...for the sake of a slight possibility of gaining useful info)
was being carried out.

Regards- Doug King

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:

I think Dave needs to brush-up on his S.I. Hayakawa.


Hmmm, were you perhaps thinking: "I'm going to speak my mind because I
have nothing to lose." ?

Cheers
Martin

Usually. :-)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
I think Dave needs to brush-up on his S.I. Hayakawa.

Hmmm, were you perhaps thinking: "I'm going to speak my mind because I
have nothing to lose." ?

Cheers
Martin

Usually. :-)



Hayakawa was Canadian, his views on bilingualism would be considered
heresy in his native country. However I agree with him, over the last
century we have expended more money on bilingualism than we have on
National Defence and Health care combined,,,

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
I think Dave needs to brush-up on his S.I. Hayakawa.

Hmmm, were you perhaps thinking: "I'm going to speak my mind because I
have nothing to lose." ?

Cheers
Martin

Usually. :-)

Hayakawa was Canadian, his views on bilingualism would be considered
heresy in his native country. However I agree with him, over the last
century we have expended more money on bilingualism than we have on
National Defence and Health care combined,,,

Cheers
Martin

Hey, he gave-up his Canuckness when he became a US Citizen. ;-D

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
I think Dave needs to brush-up on his S.I. Hayakawa.
Hmmm, were you perhaps thinking: "I'm going to speak my mind because I
have nothing to lose." ?

Cheers
Martin
Usually. :-)
Hayakawa was Canadian, his views on bilingualism would be considered
heresy in his native country. However I agree with him, over the last
century we have expended more money on bilingualism than we have on
National Defence and Health care combined,,,

Cheers
Martin

Hey, he gave-up his Canuckness when he became a US Citizen. ;-D



Canadian law, like that of Great Britain, (our mother) does not
recognize this..as far as we're concerned he had dual citizenship ..
not that we are going to send down a team of heavily armed beavers to
bring his corpse back... :-)

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:16:36 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Ok, since you insist on this exercise in sophistry, let's return to
first
principles and move to a more Socratic level.

Please define what the term "torture" means.

I will keep this to one question at a time to avoid confusing anyone.

Cheers
Martin

It means whatever we want it to, silly. If we want it to mean birthday
cake
and puppies and merry-go-rounds,

I think you may be starting to get the point, Karin. If you want to argue
about whether puppies or merry-go-rounds are a good thing, then talk about
puppies or merry-go rounds, rather than arguing about whether puppies or
merry-go-rounds are among the things denoted by the word "torture."

Since it seems clear that Jon, Not-At-All, Marty et. al. think one wins an
argument solely by having the last word, I'll end my participation in the
thread by having underlined that point and let them continue to squabble
should they so desire.

If your map is faulty, you'll never find your way through the territory.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:

Since it seems clear that Jon, Not-At-All, Marty et. al. think one wins an
argument solely by having the last word,


You do have a penchant for making invalid conclusions based on scanty
evidence. Hell, I haven't even started an argument, merely politely
asked you to define your terms.

I'll end my participation in the
thread by having underlined that point and let them continue to squabble
should they so desire.


You forgot to ad, "Without having made a single valid point."

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Richard Casady wrote:

Hanging was invented to be less cruel than boiling in oil or breaking
on the wheel. It achieved that at least.

The state of Utah used to offer the choice of hanging or shooting,
Nobody ever picked hanging.

Casady

I used to think that beheading was barbaric.
By ax, saber or guillotine. And I'm sure it sometimes was - when the
executioner had to take several swipes before the neck was severed.
But a clean cut through the spinal column, specially if the major blood
vessels were severed, was faster than the long drop. I think that was
likely a humane end in the best case.

Brian W

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
...
Richard Casady wrote:

Hanging was invented to be less cruel than boiling in oil or breaking
on the wheel. It achieved that at least.

The state of Utah used to offer the choice of hanging or shooting,
Nobody ever picked hanging.

Casady

I used to think that beheading was barbaric.
By ax, saber or guillotine. And I'm sure it sometimes was - when the
executioner had to take several swipes before the neck was severed.
But a clean cut through the spinal column, specially if the major blood
vessels were severed, was faster than the long drop. I think that was
likely a humane end in the best case.

Brian W

If the end is to devise and use the most humane form of execution, it's hard
to beat nitrogen asphyxiation. The condemned simply falls asleep and dies,
with no sense of panic from CO2 buildup. They don't even have to know it's
coming. Put them in a sealed chamber and gradually replace the oxygen with
nitrogen. They could fall asleep and die watching The Sopranos. The kindest
thing would be to tell them they'll be released in the morning, here's a
special waiting room while we do the paperwork...

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:25:20 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
.. .
Richard Casady wrote:

Hanging was invented to be less cruel than boiling in oil or breaking
on the wheel. It achieved that at least.

The state of Utah used to offer the choice of hanging or shooting,
Nobody ever picked hanging.

Casady

I used to think that beheading was barbaric.
By ax, saber or guillotine. And I'm sure it sometimes was - when the
executioner had to take several swipes before the neck was severed.
But a clean cut through the spinal column, specially if the major blood
vessels were severed, was faster than the long drop. I think that was
likely a humane end in the best case.

Brian W

If the end is to devise and use the most humane form of execution, it's hard
to beat nitrogen asphyxiation. The condemned simply falls asleep and dies,
with no sense of panic from CO2 buildup. They don't even have to know it's
coming. Put them in a sealed chamber and gradually replace the oxygen with
nitrogen. They could fall asleep and die watching The Sopranos. The kindest
thing would be to tell them they'll be released in the morning, here's a
special waiting room while we do the paperwork...



Or just reduce the air pressure. I understand that is how some of the
vets put dogs down these days. No panic, just pass out.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:06:36 -0500, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:

Hanging was invented to be less cruel than boiling in oil or breaking
on the wheel. It achieved that at least.

The state of Utah used to offer the choice of hanging or shooting,
Nobody ever picked hanging.

Casady

I used to think that beheading was barbaric.
By ax, saber or guillotine. And I'm sure it sometimes was - when the
executioner had to take several swipes before the neck was severed.
But a clean cut through the spinal column, specially if the major blood
vessels were severed, was faster than the long drop. I think that was
likely a humane end in the best case.

Brian W

Never do it with one blow from a saber. They are far too light. You
can recognise a executioner's sword by the lack of a point. Basically,
a two handed broadsword, heavy, somewhat like a claymore.

Casady

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
...
Richard Casady wrote:

Hanging was invented to be less cruel than boiling in oil or breaking
on the wheel. It achieved that at least.

The state of Utah used to offer the choice of hanging or shooting,
Nobody ever picked hanging.

Casady
I used to think that beheading was barbaric.
By ax, saber or guillotine. And I'm sure it sometimes was - when the
executioner had to take several swipes before the neck was severed.
But a clean cut through the spinal column, specially if the major blood
vessels were severed, was faster than the long drop. I think that was
likely a humane end in the best case.

Brian W

If the end is to devise and use the most humane form of execution, it's hard
to beat nitrogen asphyxiation. The condemned simply falls asleep and dies,
with no sense of panic from CO2 buildup. They don't even have to know it's
coming. Put them in a sealed chamber and gradually replace the oxygen with
nitrogen. They could fall asleep and die watching The Sopranos. The kindest
thing would be to tell them they'll be released in the morning, here's a
special waiting room while we do the paperwork...


Hmmm...this is a strangely topical note. There has been recent police
action directed to a group that sets out to aid the incurables and
unconsolables to end their lives.
The method they adopted was a plastic bag over the intended suicide,
with a stream of helium admitted to it.

The police action centered on the active nature of the assistance - they
assert the helpers were holding down the victims' hands. The helpers
insist they were holding hands with the suicide as a gesture of support.

Brian W

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
...
Hmmm...this is a strangely topical note. There has been recent police
action directed to a group that sets out to aid the incurables and
unconsolables to end their lives.
The method they adopted was a plastic bag over the intended suicide,
with a stream of helium admitted to it.

The police action centered on the active nature of the assistance - they
assert the helpers were holding down the victims' hands. The helpers
insist they were holding hands with the suicide as a gesture of support.

Brian W

I believe it is the absolute right of a free person to end their own life if
they so choose. But "assisting" in this manner strikes me as homicide.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Vic Smith wrote:

If the "helpers" aren't family members and are indeed holding down the
hands of the suicide in a restraining manner, it doesn't look good.
But you might need a qualified stationary engineer to turn the helium
valve due to union rules. Do you know if it's a union shop?

--Vic

Talk about dark humor.
And YES I laughed....

:-)

B

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:45:36 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

Or just reduce the air pressure. I understand that is how some of the
vets put dogs down these days. No panic, just pass out.

I have been high enough in an unpressurized aircraft to die fast
without oxygen equipment. Watch my Stuka impression if the oxygen gear
fails. Basically you pass out often without noticing anything wrong.

You want to gas someone carbon monoxide is painless, unlike cyanide
which may not be. The gas chamber starts out with a breath holding
contest.

Casady

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
If the "helpers" aren't family members and are indeed holding down the
hands of the suicide in a restraining manner, it doesn't look good.
But you might need a qualified stationary engineer to turn the helium
valve due to union rules. Do you know if it's a union shop?

--Vic

It could work kinda like a Shabbat elevator... ;-)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:05:05 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
.. .
Hmmm...this is a strangely topical note. There has been recent police
action directed to a group that sets out to aid the incurables and
unconsolables to end their lives.
The method they adopted was a plastic bag over the intended suicide,
with a stream of helium admitted to it.

The police action centered on the active nature of the assistance - they
assert the helpers were holding down the victims' hands. The helpers
insist they were holding hands with the suicide as a gesture of support.

Brian W

I believe it is the absolute right of a free person to end their own life if
they so choose. But "assisting" in this manner strikes me as homicide.


If the "helpers" aren't family members and are indeed holding down the
hands of the suicide in a restraining manner, it doesn't look good.
But you might need a qualified stationary engineer to turn the helium
valve due to union rules. Do you know if it's a union shop?

--Vic

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Hmmm...this is a strangely topical note. There has been recent police
action directed to a group that sets out to aid the incurables and
unconsolables to end their lives.
*The method they adopted was a plastic bag over the intended suicide,
with a stream of helium admitted to it.

The police action centered on the active nature of the assistance - they
assert the helpers were holding down the victims' hands. The helpers
insist they were holding hands with the suicide as a gesture of support.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:13:39 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
If the "helpers" aren't family members and are indeed holding down the
hands of the suicide in a restraining manner, it doesn't look good.
But you might need a qualified stationary engineer to turn the helium
valve due to union rules. Do you know if it's a union shop?

--Vic

It could work kinda like a Shabbat elevator... ;-)

Had to look that one up.
Some rituals are absolutely inane.
Maybe the Amish will get mechanical horses.
Sort of "car-like" but covered with horse-hair.

--Vic

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:39:04 -0400, Marty said:

You forgot to ad, "Without having made a single valid point."

Hmm. Having said I was ending participation in the thread, I now see that
although I referred to the "Cliff Notes" version in a couple of earlier
posts,

You got lonely at home all by yourself,,


discussion relates to the use of torture by agencies of the

Still waiting for you to define the term "torture".


Squabble on.

Translation, "I'm taking my ball and going home to mommy"

Cheers
Martin