This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > July 2005 > OT - Things on't news
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT - Things on't news
|
|
| DoobieDo 2005-07-22, 7:17 pm |
| It would appear from tonight's news (ch4 - 7pm) our colonial cousins are
a little bit worried about the shooting of a muslim guy who's been
followed by special branch for a few days, challenged to stop and then
ran off.
BBC radio ran a small piece this morning about an asian chap on the tube
this morning complaining that because he had a rucksack tucked between
his legs everyone moved to the next carriage or got off.
| |
| GreyWyvern 2005-07-22, 7:17 pm |
| And lo, DoobieDo didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> It would appear from tonight's news (ch4 - 7pm) our colonial cousins are
> a little bit worried about the shooting of a muslim guy who's been
> followed by special branch for a few days, challenged to stop and then
> ran off.
>
> BBC radio ran a small piece this morning about an asian chap on the tube
> this morning complaining that because he had a rucksack tucked between
> his legs everyone moved to the next carriage or got off.
Are you sure? I heard the ethnicities were the other way around...
Grey
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-22, 7:18 pm |
| DoobieDo wrote
> It would appear from tonight's news (ch4 - 7pm) our colonial cousins
are
> a little bit worried about the shooting of a muslim guy who's been
> followed by special branch for a few days, challenged to stop and then
> ran off.
>
> BBC radio ran a small piece this morning about an asian chap on the
tube
> this morning complaining that because he had a rucksack tucked between
> his legs everyone moved to the next carriage or got off.
Sadly, thanks to the cunt Blair, this is the Britain we live in today.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| arccos 2005-07-22, 7:18 pm |
| DoobieDo wrote:
> It would appear from tonight's news (ch4 - 7pm) our colonial cousins are
> a little bit worried about the shooting of a muslim guy who's been
> followed by special branch for a few days, challenged to stop and then
> ran off.
>
> BBC radio ran a small piece this morning about an asian chap on the tube
> this morning complaining that because he had a rucksack tucked between
> his legs everyone moved to the next carriage or got off.
Over here in the US, it's being reported pretty much as you posted
(can't remember ethnicities personally to verify or deny), but things
are probably a bit different here police-wise. An officer cannot shoot
someone for running, unless the officer believes the officer or
bystanders are in immediate danger. That's why the folks here are a bit
unhappy about the way this was handled. It also reminds us of the
all-to-common white cop shooting black suspect not carrying a gun. I
haven't watched a ton of coverage on the issue, but why did the cops
decide to do the stop right where they did? Why not someplace a little
safer for all?
-Arccos
---
http://www.landoflyrics.com - Land Of Lyrics
| |
|
| On 22 Jul 2005 13:44:09 -0700, "arccos" <arccos@hotpop.com> scrawled:
>Over here in the US, it's being reported pretty much as you posted
>(can't remember ethnicities personally to verify or deny), but things
>are probably a bit different here police-wise. An officer cannot shoot
>someone for running, unless the officer believes the officer or
>bystanders are in immediate danger. That's why the folks here are a bit
>unhappy about the way this was handled. It also reminds us of the
>all-to-common white cop shooting black suspect not carrying a gun. I
>haven't watched a ton of coverage on the issue, but why did the cops
>decide to do the stop right where they did? Why not someplace a little
>safer for all?
If you believe that someone is a suicide bomber and is wearing a vest
full of explosives, you want to stop him before he can set it off.
That means killing, since a wounded person can still set off a
trigger. And it's probably safer (or at least as safe) to shoot the
person in the station than to have the bomb go off in a crowded train
car.
Given that the guy was wearing a heavily padded coat in warm summer
weather, I can imagine why they thought he was a bomber. I imagine
that if he'd stopped and put his hands over his head so that they
could be sure he couldn't set anythign off, they would not have felt
the need to shoot him.
--
MGW
| |
| venomx@gmail.com 2005-07-22, 7:18 pm |
| Yewah chuckie you support he murder of millions of innocent men, women,
and CHILDREN! Wonder if you got the baslls to say that on TV.
| |
| venomx@gmail.com 2005-07-22, 7:18 pm |
| Yeah but people like Chuckie and arccos support terror. They want the
guy to make it to a train and blow people up. They get their jollies
off that way!
| |
| arccos 2005-07-22, 7:18 pm |
|
MGW wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2005 13:44:09 -0700, "arccos" <arccos@hotpop.com> scrawled:
>
>
> If you believe that someone is a suicide bomber and is wearing a vest
> full of explosives, you want to stop him before he can set it off.
> That means killing, since a wounded person can still set off a
> trigger. And it's probably safer (or at least as safe) to shoot the
> person in the station than to have the bomb go off in a crowded train
> car.
>
> Given that the guy was wearing a heavily padded coat in warm summer
> weather, I can imagine why they thought he was a bomber. I imagine
> that if he'd stopped and put his hands over his head so that they
> could be sure he couldn't set anythign off, they would not have felt
> the need to shoot him.
>
> --
>
> MGW
I agree that if they suspect he's packing explosives, they've gotta do
it. I thought, and I'm probably wrong in this, but that they were
following him pretty closely. If so, as soon as he walked out of his
house with that jacket, he's cuffed. And if he's watched 24/7, they
know exactly what is or isn't in the coat. But we aren't getting full
coverage over here, and like I said I haven't been following it too
closely here, so maybe it's not that simple.
-Arccos
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-22, 7:18 pm |
| wrote
> Yewah chuckie you support he murder of millions of innocent men, women,
> and CHILDREN!
I do?
The things you learn.
I had you bozoed, did you change your handle just for me?
Retract that libel, now.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-22, 7:18 pm |
| wrote
> Yeah but people like Chuckie and arccos support terror.
Libel.
As far as I can make out, you are in a minority of those who support the
killing of innocents.
Having said that, you are a known thief, so your comments have no worth.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-07-22, 7:18 pm |
| MGW wrote:
> If you believe that someone is a suicide bomber and is wearing a vest
> full of explosives, you want to stop him before he can set it off.
And what happens when you find out later that they weren't explosives?
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
|
| On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:22:20 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
scrawled:
>MGW wrote:
>
>
>And what happens when you find out later that they weren't explosives?
I wasn't saying you should do this if you aren't sure. Believe me,
I'm not a "shoot first and ask questions later" person. I should
probably have phrased what I wrote as "If you are sure that someone
is...", but I'm extremely sleep deprived right now.
I imagine we'll have more information in tomorrow's news - I don't see
any point castigating the police for what they did until we have more
information. For example, we don't yet know if the police gave him a
chance to surrender.
I was just trying to explain why - if you are certain the person is a
suicide bomber with explosives on his person - there are reasons why
one might shoot first. It's different from dealing with a gunman, for
example, where wounding him is more likely to keep him from being able
to effectively use the gun to kill any people.
--
MGW
| |
| Norman L. DeForest 2005-07-22, 11:21 pm |
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, MGW wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:22:20 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> scrawled:
>
>
> I wasn't saying you should do this if you aren't sure. Believe me,
> I'm not a "shoot first and ask questions later" person. I should
> probably have phrased what I wrote as "If you are sure that someone
> is...", but I'm extremely sleep deprived right now.
>
> I imagine we'll have more information in tomorrow's news - I don't see
> any point castigating the police for what they did until we have more
> information. For example, we don't yet know if the police gave him a
> chance to surrender.
>
> I was just trying to explain why - if you are certain the person is a
> suicide bomber with explosives on his person - there are reasons why
> one might shoot first. It's different from dealing with a gunman, for
> example, where wounding him is more likely to keep him from being able
> to effectively use the gun to kill any people.
Hmmmm, thinking[1]. What if the police had something like a
double-barrelled crossbow that fired bolas(sp), a pair of weights with
a rope or net between them. Aimed correctly, one weight would go to the
left of the person fleeing and one to the right and then would wind around
him[2] and immobilize him[3]. Then the suspect could be examined at
leisure -- if necessary from an armoured vehicle with waldos[4] to untie
and immobilize the suspect.
[1] Stop that snickering.[5]
[2] or her.
[3] See [2].
[4] If you don't know what a waldo is, you haven't read enough by
Robert A. Heinlein.
[5] I said "Stop that snickering." I can hear you there in the back.
--
Windows is *not* a "Toy OS". A screenshot of my current desktop:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/My...Jun-22-2005.gif
| |
| venomx@gmail.com 2005-07-22, 11:23 pm |
| No sorry I am in the majority that supports FREEDOM from killing
innocents. Remember Bush and Blair were voted BACK into office.
| |
| venomx@gmail.com 2005-07-22, 11:23 pm |
| uhh who cares? He should have stoped when asked to stop. He was killed
because he couldnt follow orders. Enough said.
What if he did have some and set it off on a train while being watched
by the police?
| |
| William Tasso 2005-07-22, 11:23 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the ISINet, Nova Scotia cafeteria
Norman L. DeForest <af380@chebucto.ns.ca> said:
> ...
> [5] I said "Stop that snickering."
Sure that wasn't a mars-bar?
> I can hear you there in the back.
Marianne Faithfull ?
--
William Tasso
** Business as usual
| |
| wayne 2005-07-22, 11:23 pm |
| MGW wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:22:20 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> scrawled:
>
>
>
>
> I wasn't saying you should do this if you aren't sure. Believe me,
> I'm not a "shoot first and ask questions later" person. I should
> probably have phrased what I wrote as "If you are sure that someone
> is...", but I'm extremely sleep deprived right now.
>
> I imagine we'll have more information in tomorrow's news - I don't see
> any point castigating the police for what they did until we have more
> information. For example, we don't yet know if the police gave him a
> chance to surrender.
>
> I was just trying to explain why - if you are certain the person is a
> suicide bomber with explosives on his person - there are reasons why
> one might shoot first. It's different from dealing with a gunman, for
> example, where wounding him is more likely to keep him from being able
> to effectively use the gun to kill any people.
>
> --
>
> MGW
I suppose you've also been reading the news where a suspected car theif
ran the vehicle into a building, jumped out and ran away, then an off
duty deputy working a second job started chasing him. There were also
uniformed officers chasing the suspect. The off duty officer was a
black man wearing a black t-shirt with "Police" in white letters across
the front.
The official record is that one of the uniformed officers ordered the
deputy to "halt", when the deputy turned around with a gun in his hand,
the uniformed policeman, feeling threatened, fired 16 shoots at the
deputy killing him.
The only fly in the ointment is that the deputy was shot in the back 4
times, none in the front.
Still trust the "official" version?
--
Wayne
http://www.glenmeadows.com
| |
|
| On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:38:31 GMT, wayne <wdh@swbell.net> scrawled:
>MGW wrote:
>
>I suppose you've also been reading the news where a suspected car theif
>ran the vehicle into a building, jumped out and ran away, then an off
>duty deputy working a second job started chasing him. There were also
>uniformed officers chasing the suspect. The off duty officer was a
>black man wearing a black t-shirt with "Police" in white letters across
>the front.
>
>The official record is that one of the uniformed officers ordered the
>deputy to "halt", when the deputy turned around with a gun in his hand,
>the uniformed policeman, feeling threatened, fired 16 shoots at the
>deputy killing him.
>
>The only fly in the ointment is that the deputy was shot in the back 4
>times, none in the front.
>
>Still trust the "official" version?
Not always, no. I didn't say that I did. If you read what I wrote, I
said that it's too soon to tell what happned - we don't have enough
information. I also said that *if* they were sure they were correct,
they didn't have the same level of choice they would have with someone
who wasn't wired to blow himself up.
I wasn't saying that they were right, just that they weren't
necessarily wrong - i.e., that there are circumstances that would
justify their actions. I did not say whether or not these particular
circumstances fit that description, because we don't know enough about
what happened.
I am well aware of situations like the one you described. I just try
to avoid jumping to conclusions in *either* direction when there's
very little information available.
--
MGW
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-07-23, 4:14 am |
| MGW wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2005 13:44:09 -0700, "arccos" <arccos@hotpop.com> scrawled:
>
>
>
>
> If you believe that someone is a suicide bomber and is wearing a vest
> full of explosives, you want to stop him before he can set it off.
> That means killing, since a wounded person can still set off a
> trigger. And it's probably safer (or at least as safe) to shoot the
> person in the station than to have the bomb go off in a crowded train
> car.
>
> Given that the guy was wearing a heavily padded coat in warm summer
> weather, I can imagine why they thought he was a bomber. I imagine
> that if he'd stopped and put his hands over his head so that they
> could be sure he couldn't set anythign off, they would not have felt
> the need to shoot him.
>
> --
>
> MGW
I can understand their point. While I don't like their response, I think it may
have been appropriate in this case.
Of course, the guy would probably still be alive if he would have just stopped
and put his empty hands in the air.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
|
| On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:34:35 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> scrawled:
>
>I can understand their point. While I don't like their response, I think it may
>have been appropriate in this case.
>
>Of course, the guy would probably still be alive if he would have just stopped
>and put his empty hands in the air.
That's exactly what I wrote at the end of my post (see above).
--
MGW
| |
| Leonard Blaisdell 2005-07-23, 4:14 am |
| In article <jp83e1tlaio4668iio832tukkarg4c0fos@4ax.com>,
MGW <mgw1979@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am well aware of situations like the one you described. I just try
> to avoid jumping to conclusions in *either* direction when there's
> very little information available.
I expect that tomorrow will tell the tale. London has leaped on
information and released it to the public far quicker than I expected
regarding the first act. They were lucky in the second attack that
failed, but I'm sure they'll capitalise on it.
If the police made an error, there will be moral outrage from a certain
percent of the population. There will be the other percent that applauds
their resolve. Such are the feelings of the democracies.
leo
--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/
| |
| DoobieDo 2005-07-23, 4:14 am |
| In article <dbrqu4$16l$3@ratbert.glorb.com>, sjsobol@JustThe.net says...
> MGW wrote:
>
>
> And what happens when you find out later that they weren't explosives?
>
>
you empty his pockets of the cash and drugs and walk away whistling
happily ;p
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-07-23, 4:14 am |
| Once upon a time, far far away Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com>
muttered
>DoobieDo wrote
>
>are
>tube
>
>Sadly, thanks to the cunt Blair, this is the Britain we live in today.
>
It did seem rather inappropriate for a country without capital
punishment, that this man, should be thrown to the ground and then
shot 5 times at point-blank range. That's an execution, not an arrest.
And of course he was never tried and convicted. Never will be now
either.
Matt
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-07-23, 7:14 am |
| Once upon a time, far far away MGW <mgw1979@hotmail.com> muttered
>I imagine we'll have more information in tomorrow's news - I don't see
>any point castigating the police for what they did until we have more
>information. For example, we don't yet know if the police gave him a
>chance to surrender.
Eye witness reports said he was "bundled to the ground" and then "five
shots fired into him". It's clearly a shoot to kill policy, which is
not appropriate under our current laws.
Matt
| |
| William Tasso 2005-07-23, 7:14 am |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the NTL cafeteria
Matt Probert <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> said:
> Once upon a time, far far away MGW <mgw1979@hotmail.com> muttered
>
>
> Eye witness reports said he was "bundled to the ground" and then "five
> shots fired into him". It's clearly a shoot to kill policy, which is
> not appropriate under our current laws.
Of course it is right to question the policies and procedures executed by
law enforcement officers, but please don't give our information starved
media sharks any slack. They'd report "sprouts ate my car" if you gave in
the appropriate spin.
--
William Tasso
** Business as usual
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-07-23, 7:14 pm |
| Once upon a time, far far away "William Tasso"
<SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> muttered
>Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the NTL cafeteria
>Matt Probert <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> said:
>
>
>Of course it is right to question the policies and procedures executed by
>law enforcement officers, but please don't give our information starved
>media sharks any slack. They'd report "sprouts ate my car" if you gave in
>the appropriate spin.
>
Sorry? I don't get you, William.
I see the Daily Express is calling for all terrorists to be executed
after the "execution" of a suspect yesterday - indeed several of the
appers revel in what they see as "an execution of a terrorist by SAS
trained marksmen"
I simply question if it's appropriate in a country which does not have
the death penalty.
That said, it's completely irrelevant to a web master news group, and
perhaps should be better renegated to the bar?
Matt
| |
| Baho Utot 2005-07-23, 7:14 pm |
| begin On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:51:19 -0700, venomx wrote:
> uhh who cares? He should have stoped when asked to stop. He was killed
> because he couldnt follow orders. Enough said.
What if he doesn't understand english and was confused by the orders?
>
> What if he did have some and set it off on a train while being watched
> by the police?
What is he didn't have anything harmfull?
--
Tayo'y Mga Pinoy
| |
| 12 good men and true! 2005-07-23, 7:14 pm |
| For those who haven't caught the full report this may help
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm
I would like to quote for those who just use selected tiny portions of what
they have read merely to support THEIR thoughts, this part of the report
from a civilian not a police officer:
Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man
appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".
Innocent men, women and CHILDREN were on that train - he HAD to be stopped
and was stopped in the quickest, safest way to protect the lives of the
passengers and of the officers!
Incidentally an innocent person would have had no need to jump the barriers
and run .....
| |
|
| Matt Probert wrote:
> Once upon a time, far far away Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com>
> muttered
>
>
>
>
> It did seem rather inappropriate for a country without capital
> punishment, that this man, should be thrown to the ground and then
> shot 5 times at point-blank range. That's an execution, not an arrest.
> And of course he was never tried and convicted. Never will be now
> either.
>
> Matt
>
The young man was "Asian" and was being pursued by "plain clothes"
policemen.
How many of you would heed shouts to stop from armed men in plain
clothes? Any of you a minority in the area you live in?
I agree with Matt, this was an execution and the officers involved
should be prosecuted. I, for one, do not want that kind of policeman on
the streets. Once the man was caught, he could easily been overpowered
without injury.
Wearing bulky clothing should not be a crime.
--
Wayne
http://www.glenmeadows.com
| |
| Matt-the-Hoople 2005-07-23, 7:14 pm |
| after careful consideration, wrote in alt.www.webmaster
> Yewah chuckie you support he murder of millions of innocent men, women,
> and CHILDREN! Wonder if you got the baslls to say that on TV.
>
baslls? Isn't that in pesto?
Nice maneuver around the bozo bin. Too bad it only worked once, and for a worthless troll post at that. Glad to see that you're
living up to your [lack of] reputation.
*plonk*
--
Got lint?
| |
| DoobieDo 2005-07-23, 7:14 pm |
| In article <42e25215$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, abc@def.com
says...
> For those who haven't caught the full report this may help
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm
>
> I would like to quote for those who just use selected tiny portions of what
> they have read merely to support THEIR thoughts, this part of the report
> from a civilian not a police officer:
>
> Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man
> appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".
>
> Innocent men, women and CHILDREN were on that train - he HAD to be stopped
> and was stopped in the quickest, safest way to protect the lives of the
> passengers and of the officers!
>
> Incidentally an innocent person would have had no need to jump the barriers
> and run .....
>
>
>
Is there something different about innocent men, women and CHILDREN?
Do CHILDREN need capitalising to make them any more innocent then men or
women?
Is a life not a life whether it be men, women or indeed CHILDREN ?
Is is any simpler if the person is 90+, middle aged or a CHILD?
And I agree entirely, innocent people woudn't do a runner when
challenged by someone with a gun saying "police stop" even if they were
foreigners who supposedly may not understand English.
| |
| Baho Utot 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| begin On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:40:46 +0000, DoobieDo wrote:
[putulin]
>
> And I agree entirely, innocent people woudn't do a runner when
> challenged by someone with a gun saying "police stop" even if they were
> foreigners who supposedly may not understand English.
If one don't understand english then what do you suppose the words meant
to them??? It could have been interpreted as robbery stop etc.
Put yourself into the foreigners position, someone comes running after you
with a gun shouting unintelligible words.
Suppose I had a gun and starting after you shouting Under Sa Asawa or
magt韌il sa pagnan醟aw . Would you run or risk be shot?
What would you do?
--
Tayo'y Mga Pinoy
| |
| DoobieDo 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| In article <pan.2005.07.23.16.25.00.607824@columbus.rr.com>, baho-
utot@columbus.rr.com says...
> Suppose I had a gun and starting after you shouting Under Sa Asawa or
> magt=EDgil sa pagnan=E1kaw . Would you run or risk be shot?
>=20
> What would you do?
>=20
>=20
when in Rome.....
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| wayne wrote
> The young man was "Asian" and was being pursued by "plain clothes"
> policemen.
>
> How many of you would heed shouts to stop from armed men in plain
> clothes?
Yep, I was thinking the same thing earlier. Also, although the police
have released very little information, it appears the guy was from South
America, so he may not have even understood the language being shouted
at him by these three guys in plain clothes.
He probably thought they were thugs trying to attack him due to his
appearance, as a reprisal for the London bombs. The eye witness said
the guy looked terrified. The way I imagine a stranger to this country,
being chased by three guys, would look.
So he got a good scaring, topped off with five bullets in the back of
the head when he tripped.
> Wearing bulky clothing should not be a crime.
Particularly not one punishable by instant execution.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| 12 good men and true! wrote
> Incidentally an innocent person would have had no need to jump the
> barriers and run .....
Unless they are being chased by three thugs, which is what might have been
the thinking of the guy in question. The officers were in plain clothes.
The guy may not have understood English.
We await the full details.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| DoobieDo wrote
> And I agree entirely, innocent people woudn't do a runner when
> challenged by someone with a gun saying "police stop" even if they
> were foreigners who supposedly may not understand English.
That's if they did say "police stop". So even if they don't understand
English, they should still understand "police stop"????????
What if he thought they were three thugs? Three thugs shouting anything to
make him stop? They were in plain clothes remember.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| Baho Utot wrote
> begin On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:40:46 +0000, DoobieDo wrote:
>
> [putulin]
>
>
> If one don't understand english then what do you suppose the words
> meant to them??? It could have been interpreted as robbery stop etc.
> Put yourself into the foreigners position, someone comes running after
> you with a gun shouting unintelligible words.
> Suppose I had a gun and starting after you shouting Under Sa Asawa or
> magt韌il sa pagnan醟aw . Would you run or risk be shot?
Precisely. We await full details, but the scenario you describe, looks
most likely to me. Particularly bearing in mind the witness who said
the guy looked terrified.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| DoobieDo wrote
> In article <pan.2005.07.23.16.25.00.607824@columbus.rr.com>, baho-
> utot@columbus.rr.com says...
>
> when in Rome.....
I'll try to remember that when I am in Rome, and three guys in plain
clothes come running after me shouting stuff. (I wouldn't know the
Italian for "police stop").
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> DoobieDo wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I'll try to remember that when I am in Rome, and three guys in plain
> clothes come running after me shouting stuff. (I wouldn't know the
> Italian for "police stop").
I don't, either, but in any of the Romance languages, "police" would
probably be similar to English "police"; in Italian, probably someting
similar to "poliezi".
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I don't, either, but in any of the Romance languages, "police" would
> probably be similar to English "police"; in Italian, probably someting
> similar to "poliezi".
(The point being that despite language-specific spelling, it would
still sound pretty recognizable. But like with the bombing thing, I'm
talking about language-related things, not emotional reactions.)
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| Blinky the Shark wrote
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't, either, but in any of the Romance languages, "police" would
> probably be similar to English "police"; in Italian, probably someting
> similar to "poliezi".
Thank you, I'll try to remember that. Suppose three guys wanted to mug
me, and pretended they were police officers, should I stop?
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Thank you, I'll try to remember that. Suppose three guys wanted to mug
> me, and pretended they were police officers, should I stop?
I believe I just said I was only responding about the language, but I
realize you probably haven't yet seen that piggyback reply I made to
clarify my own post.
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| Blinky the Shark wrote
> I believe I just said I was only responding about the language, but I
> realize you probably haven't yet seen that piggyback reply I made to
> clarify my own post.
OK, understood.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
|
|
| robert blake 2005-07-23, 7:15 pm |
| Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in
news:Xns969CE24578B2Amecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4:
> Charles Sweeney wrote
>
>
> Latest. The guy was a 27-year-old Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
I felt at the time that there was something very wrong about the murder of
this man.
And so it seems, that he was someone who happened to be dark skinned, who
most probably had little or no understanding of the english language, who
was as fearful of the crisis in London as everyone else, who was probably
suspicious and very nervous of a number of men (in plain clothes) following
him for some time......and then who started chasing him with guns.
If a number of men chase a foreigner, trip him up, and before a word can be
exchanged, pump five bullets into the back of his head.....hell, that is
evil.
Our thoughts have to go out to the man's friends and loved ones.
| |
| Dylan Parry 2005-07-25, 7:37 am |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, William Tasso scraped:
>
> good advice.
Indeed. They are very over priced, and there are many other brands of
media player that are much better, both in quality and technology, at
much more affordable prices!
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-25, 7:37 am |
| robert blake wrote
> Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in
> news:Xns969DEE66E5A4mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4:
>
of[color=darkred]
man[color=darkred]
was[color=darkred]
>
>
> making mental note
>
> don't have a tan
>
> don't wear overcoat
>
> don't carry any excess weight around gut
>
> don't run when gun wielding hoods track you around London and chase
you
> into a tube station
>
> don't have an ipod
>
> don't have earphones or any such wires on your body
>
> don't have a mobile phone
Don't carry a table leg.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| William Tasso 2005-07-25, 7:37 am |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! cafeteria
robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> said:
> ...
> don't have earphones or any such wires on your body
What did you say?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4706923.stm
--
William Tasso
** Business as usual
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-25, 7:37 am |
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in news:op.sugqudtvm9g4qz-
wnt@tbdata.com:
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! cafeteria
> robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
>
> What did you say?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4706923.stm
yikes
mental note - don't be deaf
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-25, 7:57 pm |
| Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote
> you
>
> Don't carry a table leg.
good point - i had forgot that one
given how buckeyed our coppers are, one cannot safely carry a table leg,
nor anything else that does not compute on their limited brain processors
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-07-25, 7:58 pm |
| Once upon a time, far far away Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com>
muttered
>you
>
>Don't carry a table leg.
>
Don't stop at a red light.
Matt
| |
| DoobieDo 2005-07-25, 7:58 pm |
| In article <42e4f5a6.7884066@news.ntlworld.com>,
comments@probertencyclopaedia.com says...
> Once upon a time, far far away Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com>
> muttered
>
>
> Don't stop at a red light.
>
> Matt
>
>
unless you have the correct money
| |
| Edwin van der Vaart 2005-07-25, 7:58 pm |
| Matt Probert wrote:
> Once upon a time, far far away Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com>
> muttered
>
>
>
> Don't stop at a red light.
District
--
Edwin van der Vaart
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Under construction
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-26, 7:52 pm |
| Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
news:pan.2005.07.25.20.31.38.471146@columbus.rr.com:
> begin On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:59:27 +0000, Matt Probert wrote:
>
>
> What I don't understand was why he wasn't stopped before he got to the
> station?
maybe the hunt wanted to give him a sporting chance.
| |
| Baho Utot 2005-07-26, 7:53 pm |
| begin On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:44:49 +0000, robert blake wrote:
> Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2005.07.25.20.31.38.471146@columbus.rr.com:
>
>
>
> maybe the hunt wanted to give him a sporting chance.
Ahh, maybe so
--
Tayo'y Mga Pinoy
| |
|
|
"Matt Probert" <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
news:42e1f426.2925486@news.ntlworld.com...
>
> Eye witness reports said he was "bundled to the ground" and then "five
> shots fired into him". It's clearly a shoot to kill policy, which is
> not appropriate under our current laws.
>
Point Of Order: It was a perfectly legal kill. They were following the
correct procedures (Operation Kratos).
Whether they were morally right to do is a different question [I was going
to say 'a whole different shooting match'].
This is fantastic copy for the media. "Police execute innocent man in
pre-mediticated operation!"
However, it arguably could have been worse: "Police stand by & watch, as
suicide bomber takes out Stockwell station".
This is one of the reasons I chose not to become an armed copper. The other
reason is that if I'd aimed 8 shots to his head I'd have grazed his toe and
taken out 7 other commuters.
Chris
| |
| William Tasso 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the cafeteria
CJM <cjmnew04@REMOVEMEyahoo.co.uk> said:
> ...
> if I'd aimed 8 shots to his head I'd have grazed his toe and
> taken out 7 other commuters.
Which would have sold many more papers.
--
William Tasso
** Business as usual
| |
|
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969CDC04DCEBCmecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4...
>
> Thank you, I'll try to remember that. Suppose three guys wanted to mug
> me, and pretended they were police officers, should I stop?
>
Yes.
Stop. Piss yourself. Hand over everything.
Then breathe a sigh of relief when they go.
Running from a crook with a gun is arguably more dangerous than running away
froma cop with a gun, I should say.
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| CJM wrote
>
> "Matt Probert" <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
> news:42e1f426.2925486@news.ntlworld.com...
>
> Point Of Order: It was a perfectly legal kill.
What are we talking about here, a deer, a pheasant?
> They were following the
> correct procedures (Operation Kratos).
Point Of Order: Until we get the report from the PCC, we don't know if
they adhered to those procedures. There is also debate as to whether
these procedures are legal.
> Whether they were morally right to do is a different question [I was
> going to say 'a whole different shooting match'].
>
> This is fantastic copy for the media. "Police execute innocent man in
> pre-mediticated operation!"
"pre-mediticated"? lol. I didn't see any headlines like that.
> However, it arguably could have been worse: "Police stand by & watch,
> as suicide bomber takes out Stockwell station".
"takes out"? For a meal? Oh I see, I think you are using the modern
military parlance for killing people.
Worse? Killing one innocent is not better than killing fifty innocents.
They are equally wrong.
It could have been far better if the young Brazilian was not executed.
> This is one of the reasons I chose not to become an armed copper.
My main reason for not being a copper is that I don't have the arrogance
and condescending genes.
> The
> other reason is that if I'd aimed 8 shots to his head I'd have grazed
> his toe and taken out 7 other commuters.
Your treatment of this man's barbaric killing as a joke is noted.
"taken out"? If you mean "killed", say so.
You don't play computer games do you?
You weren't brought up in front of a TV screen were you?
You weren't allowed to watch violent videos were you?
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| robert blake wrote
> You really feel for th ebloke, when yoiu read of others in the train
> saying that he jumped in and looked distraught and like a cornered
> rabbit.
Yes, by another eye-witness account from a few yards away, he said the guy
looked terrified.
He was obviously running in fear.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| CJM wrote
>
> "Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns969CDC04DCEBCmecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4...
>
> Yes.
>
> Stop. Piss yourself. Hand over everything.
>
> Then breathe a sigh of relief when they go.
That's assuming I'm not stabbed. In which rural idyll of which home
county do you live?
> Running from a crook with a gun is arguably more dangerous than
> running away froma cop with a gun, I should say.
lol! Considering the police only kill people who are pinned to the
ground, or otherwise stationary, I don't know if that situation has
arisen.
The trouble is, at the time you don't know if they are cops or crooks.
In the recent case it looks like they were both.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A09B224CA74mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4:
> robert blake wrote
>
>
> Yes, by another eye-witness account from a few yards away, he said the
> guy looked terrified.
>
> He was obviously running in fear.
exactly.....just like most of us would have done
I imagine that he probably was maybe only initially suspicious of some
man/men following him on the bus into London. His paranoia would grow and
grow as the bus went further and then when the men started to follow him
down the street (after he got off the bus).
By the time he went into the tube station, he would be literally peeing
himself when the men followed, drawing guns and starting to run after him.
His worst fears would have been confirmed....that these men were after him.
| |
| William Tasso 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the No thank you cafeteria
Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> said:
> ...
> Your treatment of this man's barbaric
> killing as a joke is noted.
Lighten up a little - please. Any and every untimely death is shocking
and terrible in its own way. I think all here know that.
If there is no levity - there will be no recovery.
What's the collective noun for pathologists?
- A body of pathologists.
funny? yes, well a bit, providing you are not the one grieving right now.
Don't misunderstand me (I don't think you will) anger is a natural and
necessary response to recent event including the death of the young man at
Stockwell.
I've never been to funeral where there were no jokes - it really is an
important part of the process.
--
William Tasso
** Business as usual
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A09C982CDDCmecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4:
>
>
> lol! Considering the police only kill people who are pinned to the
> ground, or otherwise stationary, I don't know if that situation has
> arisen.
from now on, no-one should turn their back on a copper.
especially an armed one
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in news:op.suks15zvm9g4qz-
wnt@tbdata.com:
>
>
> I've never been to funeral where there were no jokes - it really is an
> important part of the process.
>
i look back with embarrassment at the day when I was at a funeral, and the
coffin had started to make it's way along the lane of the farmhouse....with
mourners all in tow.
Anyway, on seeing a familiar face, i happened to open conversation with
'That's a great day'
My remark was obviously related to the weather, but I subconsciously
thought - oh jeepers a funeral is not a great day, by any means
| |
| William Tasso 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! cafeteria
robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> said:
> Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96A09C982CDDCmecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4:
>
>
>
> from now on, no-one should turn their back on a copper.
>
> especially an armed one
what do you call a gorilla with a machine gun?
- sir
I am becoming terrified that this incident is the one that pushes
'society' away from common curtesy and into the land of 'might is right' -
a process started by Margaret Thatcher.
It's a short step from losing the moral high ground to completely losing
the respect of your peers. Without respect our governments only have
force to rely on.
Quiet, easy going folk have allowed ourselves to become enslaved by
governments. The entire process of voting in a government is a sham.
I'm sure there are many dedicated, hard working folk in the police force
and the government who believe in what they're doing. Their leaders (I am
no longer able to refer to them as 'our' leaders) are embracing
armageddon. I want no part of it.
--
William Tasso
** Business as usual
| |
| William Tasso 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! cafeteria
robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> said:
> "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in news:op.suks15zvm9g4qz-
> wnt@tbdata.com:
>
> i look back with embarrassment at the day when I was at a funeral, and
> the
> coffin had started to make it's way along the lane of the
> farmhouse....with
> mourners all in tow.
>
> Anyway, on seeing a familiar face, i happened to open conversation with
> 'That's a great day'
>
> My remark was obviously related to the weather, but I subconsciously
> thought - oh jeepers a funeral is not a great day, by any means
humour at funerals is as much dependent (if not more so) as any other
place on
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
good timing
--
William Tasso
** Business as usual
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| robert blake wrote
> exactly.....just like most of us would have done
>
> I imagine that he probably was maybe only initially suspicious of some
> man/men following him on the bus into London. His paranoia would grow
> and grow as the bus went further and then when the men started to
> follow him down the street (after he got off the bus).
>
> By the time he went into the tube station, he would be literally
> peeing himself when the men followed, drawing guns and starting to run
> after him. His worst fears would have been confirmed....that these
> men were after him.
Precisely. The natural human reaction is "fight or flight", that's why we
have adrenaline, to help with either. His natural reaction was to flee.
The guys (who we now know were police officers) could have shouted anything
at the guy (reportedly they shouted "clear the station") but in his state
of adrenaline fuelled fearful flight, it wouldn't have registered with him.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in news:op.suktr7jmm9g4qz-
wnt@tbdata.com:
>
>
> what do you call a gorilla with a machine gun?
>
> - sir
>
LOL
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A0A00468520mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4:
>
>
> Precisely. The natural human reaction is "fight or flight", that's
> why we have adrenaline, to help with either. His natural reaction was
> to flee. The guys (who we now know were police officers) could have
> shouted anything at the guy (reportedly they shouted "clear the
> station") but in his state of adrenaline fuelled fearful flight, it
> wouldn't have registered with him.
exactly
I hope Panorama (or some such program) do a special on this terrible
event
I hope that there isn't a massive coverup.
Every person on that train car should be asked for a statement...as
should every witness on the bus, in the street, and in the tube station.
If there were repeated warnings, alerting the man to the fact they were
cops, then we will have plenty of witnesses to confirm it.
But what makes me very suspicious, is the fact that very few eye witness
statements have been published in the newspapers or on tv programs.
Surely there have to be scores of eyewitnesses. I just wonder why it is
so quiet. My rule of thumb is that when things go quiet - be very
suspicious.
| |
| William Tasso 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! cafeteria
robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> said:
> "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in news:op.suktr7jmm9g4qz-
> wnt@tbdata.com:
>
>
> LOL
yes, I know, but the point is that with the gun nothing else matters. A
gutter-tramp or police commisioner, a common hustler or a ballet dancer
when they have that gun pointed at you they are king (queen) of the land
and all they survey. You'd better bow and curtsey right away, tug that
forelock worthless prole - get back to work, the fires of enterprise need
stoking.
--
William Tasso
** Business as usual
| |
| William Tasso 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! cafeteria
robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> said:
> ...
> My rule of thumb is that when things go quiet - be very
> suspicious.
Are you a parent?
--
William Tasso
** Business as usual
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in
news:op.sukul6mom9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com:
>
>
> yes, I know, but the point is that with the gun nothing else matters.
> A gutter-tramp or police commisioner, a common hustler or a ballet
> dancer when they have that gun pointed at you they are king (queen)
> of the land and all they survey. You'd better bow and curtsey right
> away, tug that forelock worthless prole - get back to work, the fires
> of enterprise need stoking.
>
very true
Massah is king, if he has da power
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in news:op.sukuolbcm9g4qz-
wnt@tbdata.com:
>
>
> Are you a parent?
>
LOL
nope...but the rule holds true for that too, i bet
| |
|
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96A09A8C44ED6mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4...
> Point Of Order: Until we get the report from the PCC, we don't know if
> they adhered to those procedures. There is also debate as to whether
> these procedures are legal.
>
It's true we don't know if the procedures were adhered to, but it's equally
true that we don't know they weren't.
>
> "pre-mediticated"? lol. I didn't see any headlines like that.
>
Yeah, you got me there.
> "takes out"? For a meal? Oh I see, I think you are using the modern
> military parlance for killing people.
>
Yes I was.
> Worse? Killing one innocent is not better than killing fifty innocents.
> They are equally wrong.
>
I disagree (partially).
Killing one innocent is bad. Killing 50 is worse. Killing 500 is worse
still.
Losing my wife would be devastating. Losing my wife AND daughter would be
even more devastating.
> It could have been far better if the young Brazilian was not executed.
>
True.
And I hope to god, I lose neither my wife or my daughter.
>
> My main reason for not being a copper is that I don't have the arrogance
> and condescending genes.
>
It appears you have both.
Some coppers are arrogant and condescending. Many are not.
The same applies to webmasters.
>
> Your treatment of this man's barbaric killing as a joke is noted.
If you re-use the joke, at least give me credit for it.
> "taken out"? If you mean "killed", say so.
>
Just to be clear, I mean killed.
> You don't play computer games do you?
>
Yes (though time is scarce these days).
> You weren't brought up in front of a TV screen were you?
>
I do own a television.
> You weren't allowed to watch violent videos were you?
We didn't have a video as a child, but I'm allowed to watch them now.
Charles, you are the ultimate rebel without a cause. Itching to feel
indignant about something. Anything.
I'm sure in your binary world, you are a crusader, a champion of the
righteous.
But it's not so easy for me. My shades-of-grey world isn't so clear-cut. I
can't do the same knee-jerk reactions that you do. I can't invent the same
'insight' that you can. I can't make the same snap-judgements that you do
without considering more sides to the same story. It's a limitation I fear
I'll never overcome.
Still at least you can console yourself with the fact that you are making
the world a better place, righting wrongs etc. Oh? What's that? You're just
spouting off on Usenet just like the rest of us. Maybe we have more in
common after all.
Chris
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| William Tasso wrote
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the No thank you cafeteria
> Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> said:
>
>
> Lighten up a little - please.
Sorry, no can do. (that could have been an interesting approach for the
defence in the Nuremburg trials)
> Any and every untimely death is
> shocking and terrible in its own way. I think all here know that.
Doesn't look that way.
> What's the collective noun for pathologists?
>
> - A body of pathologists.
>
> funny?
Not bad.
> I've never been to funeral where there were no jokes - it really is an
> important part of the process.
I agree (the young Brazilian hasn't had his yet) the last thing I would
want at my funeral is a bunch of miserable people! There will be a
chorus of "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" with mandatory
whistling at the whistly bits.
I also quite fancy the line from the same song "You come from nothing,
you go back to nothing, what have you lost?...Nothing!" as an
inscription on my tombstone.
Levity is one thing, but to consider this death as a scene from a video
game is no laughing matter.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| William Tasso 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! cafeteria
robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> said:
> ...
> We can't have dangerous men roaming the streets of the capital.
Goes to show just how thin the veneer of 'civilisation' really is.
Men are pack-hunters by instinct and design, but we are also selfish and
greedy. This will become more aparent as our environment becomes more
hostile.
After the demise of mankind, only 100 years later there will be no
obviously visible sign that we were ever here. Even the M25 will be
reclaimed by nature. The fight against Global Warming is by definition a
campaign of retreats. Mankind cannot win. During the transition, our
basic survival instincts will resurface.
--
William Tasso
** Business as usual
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A0A3B4F6B8Fmecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4:
>
> I also quite fancy the line from the same song "You come from nothing,
> you go back to nothing, what have you lost?...Nothing!" as an
> inscription on my tombstone.
interesting
let's see, some funny tombstone words (all genuine)
Here lies Lester Moore.
Four slugs
From a forty-four.
No Les
No More.
from Boot Hill Cemetery, Tombstone, Arizona
Here lays Butch.
We planted him raw.
He was quick on the trigger
But slow on the draw.
from a gravestone in Silver City, Nevada
Here lies a man named Zeke.
Second fastest draw in Cripple Creek
Winterborn Steepleton Cemetery, Dorsetshire, England
Here lies the body
Of Margaret Bent
She kicked up her heels
And away she went.
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in
news:op.suku3dwtm9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com:
>
> After the demise of mankind, only 100 years later there will be no
> obviously visible sign that we were ever here. Even the M25 will be
> reclaimed by nature. The fight against Global Warming is by
> definition a campaign of retreats. Mankind cannot win. During the
> transition, our basic survival instincts will resurface.
>
excatly
mankind is only here for a very short period of time (in the life of the
planet)
when our time is up (most likely fried when the earth gets too hot, or when
we are hit by an asteroid), within a hundred years, all that we created
will be grown over or gone
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Once upon a time, far far away "CJM" <cjmnew04@REMOVEMEyahoo.co.uk>
muttered
>
>"Matt Probert" <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
>news:42e1f426.2925486@news.ntlworld.com...
>
>Point Of Order: It was a perfectly legal kill. They were following the
>correct procedures (Operation Kratos).
>
When did the death penalty in the UK get extended beyond treason?
Matt
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| robert blake wrote
> Every person on that train car should be asked for a statement...as
> should every witness on the bus, in the street, and in the tube
station.
>
> If there were repeated warnings, alerting the man to the fact they
were
> cops, then we will have plenty of witnesses to confirm it.
>
> But what makes me very suspicious, is the fact that very few eye
witness
> statements have been published in the newspapers or on tv programs.
There's some here:
http://tinyurl.com/bhszo
I heard Mark Whitby on the radio shortly after the event.
The article above is interesting because it says:
"INNOCENT Jean Charles de Menezes might have fled armed cops in panic
because of police brutality in his native Brazil."
And goes on to talk about police corruption etc in Brazil.
This all assumes that he knew they were coppers, which is far from clear
just now, and to my mind is unlikely.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
|
|
"Matt Probert" <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
news:42e7a91c.9765592@news.ntlworld.com...
>
> When did the death penalty in the UK get extended beyond treason?
>
Come on Matt... That's a weak rebuttal.
We're talking about rules of engagement, not punishments.
The police are allowed to kill in a number of circumstances. Whether they
followed all the rules on this occasion will come during the investigation.
And more importantly, you already know this.
| |
| William Tasso 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! cafeteria
robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> said:
> "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in
> news:op.sukul6mom9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com:
>
>
> very true
>
> Massah is king, if he has da power
But only while he has that power.
Aside: peaceful protest (example: American negro sit down protest of
~30/40 years ago) has been shown to work but only when we are still
clinging on to our belief in 'civilisation'.
Only the Vicar of Bray will survive.
--
William Tasso
** Business as usual
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A0A80A89086mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4:
> robert blake wrote
>
> station.
> were
> witness
>
> There's some here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bhszo
>
> I heard Mark Whitby on the radio shortly after the event.
>
> The article above is interesting because it says:
>
> "INNOCENT Jean Charles de Menezes might have fled armed cops in panic
> because of police brutality in his native Brazil."
>
> And goes on to talk about police corruption etc in Brazil.
>
> This all assumes that he knew they were coppers, which is far from
> clear just now, and to my mind is unlikely.
yes, i think unlikely too
the person who offered that view (ie that he may have panicked based on
his knowledge of what cops are like in brazil) just doesn't cut any ice.
And I note that the person who came out with it is supposedly a
"counter-terrorism insider" As the old saying goes - he would say that,
wouldn't he.
Why would any innocent, sane person run from gun wielding London police
men. It doesn't make any sense to me.
The only real things that appear to have came out in the aftermath, is
that all the things we were told by cops, appear to be untrue (eg he was
of heavy build, he vaulted the ticket machine; and that he had a heavy
jacket on).
What other things have we not been told?
We're the good guys, right? We're the ones who believe in laws and
rights for the individual. We're the ones who believe in innocent until
proven guilty. We're a democracy, right?
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in news:op.sukxlrigm9g4qz-
wnt@tbdata.com:
>
>
> But only while he has that power.
>
> Aside: peaceful protest (example: American negro sit down protest of
> ~30/40 years ago) has been shown to work but only when we are still
> clinging on to our belief in 'civilisation'.
>
> Only the Vicar of Bray will survive.
LOL
On the topic of protest, we need much more protests at higher levels.
The lib dems need t oget their finger out of their arse, and start
protesting in a much more in-yer-face manner....ala greenpeace.
Bliar launched an illegal war. Why the hell are lib dems (and tories)
allowing the XXXXXXX to speak in the chamber. Why don't the shout him
down, or turn their backs, every time he gets to his feet.
We need to install democratic institutions in this country again.
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> I also quite fancy the line from the same song "You come from nothing,
> you go back to nothing, what have you lost?...Nothing!" as an
> inscription on my tombstone.
http://blinkynet.net/stuff/sweeney.jpg
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*
| |
| DoobieDo 2005-07-27, 8:19 pm |
| In article <slrndefo5u.4sp.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
no.spam@box.invalid says...
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
>
> http://blinkynet.net/stuff/sweeney.jpg
>
>
he's not that good a golfer!
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-27, 11:19 pm |
| robert blake wrote
> Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96A0F145F89AAmecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4:
>
>
> nope, still doesn't add up
>
>
>
> exactly
>
> he'll never be able to tell us what was going thru his thoughts in
those
> awful final minites of his life. But I suspect that he was maybe
> desperately thinking - "Who the hell are those guys?"
>
> It is the stuff of nightmares......being chased by gun wielding thugs,
> them tripping you up as you managed to jump on a train that is idle;
and
> fellow passengers looking at you as if you are dirt and moving away
from
> you, and maybe ignoring your pleas.
>
>
>
>
> i don't think that it had a thing to do with the visa
>
>
>
>
> yip, i feel for so sorry for him, and it makes me emotional when i
> relive what it must have been like for him in those final minutes.
>
>
>
>
those[color=darkred]
>
> scary, charles....to be filmed at a demonstration.
>
> this nation is ruled by regular cctv cameras (as well as police ones)
>
> We are the most spied upon nation on earth (fact)
>
> It's all about control.
>
> I only hope and pray that this is merely a period of time that we are
> going thru, and that some new govt will reverse this trend and give us
> our rights back again.
>
> But with the massive advances in technological capabilities, i do fear
> the worst.
>
> The technological genie is out of the bottle. And bad men in the
darker
> places in governments, will use it for th eultimate control of the
> population.
>
> Bliar is creating a chinese type society...........where the state has
> total control....and it maintains control by spying on us, getting
> neighbour to report neighbour; and spreading fear/scaremongering.
>
> I have no doubts what bliar and bush are up to. My only doubts
surround
> whether this period is a blip; and whether other democratic nations
> (especially english speaking ones like canada, australia and new
> zealand) will follow us down this awful orwellian road.
A lot of good stuff there Robert.
I (belive it or not) am an optomist. The only constant in life is
change, so the situation today will not prevail. One can only hope
things change for the better. I think they will, eventually if not in
my lifetime.
Everything in life is in equilibrium. There's a natural balance. For
every positive there's a negative, for every action there's a reaction.
If you push people too much in a direction they don't want to go, they
will push back.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-27, 11:20 pm |
| Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A172F8FB01mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4:
>
> A lot of good stuff there Robert.
thanks, charles
> I (belive it or not) am an optomist. The only constant in life is
> change, so the situation today will not prevail. One can only hope
> things change for the better. I think they will, eventually if not in
> my lifetime.
>
> Everything in life is in equilibrium. There's a natural balance. For
> every positive there's a negative, for every action there's a reaction.
> If you push people too much in a direction they don't want to go, they
> will push back.
you have filled me with some hope (with the above).
Objectively speaking, it is only ratyional that there will always be change
and that there is always a natural equilibrium.
And surely, despite the spinning and deception of this era, surely we will
all, as a nation, start to see through all the lies and deceit....and treat
the campbells of this world withthe contempt they so richly deserve.
Spin-doctoring has to be a passing thing. Spinning does not not have a
long shelf life.
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-27, 11:20 pm |
| robert blake wrote
> Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96A172F8FB01mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4:
>
>
> thanks, charles
>
>
>
>
> you have filled me with some hope (with the above).
>
> Objectively speaking, it is only ratyional that there will always be
> change and that there is always a natural equilibrium.
>
> And surely, despite the spinning and deception of this era, surely we
> will all, as a nation, start to see through all the lies and
> deceit....and treat the campbells of this world withthe contempt they
> so richly deserve.
>
> Spin-doctoring has to be a passing thing. Spinning does not not have
> a long shelf life.
Absolutely.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2005-07-27, 11:20 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote
[color=darkred]
> nothing,
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> LOL!
> (nice pic btw - thank you for not putting any dates on it!)
I have information, but I didn't want to spook you. :)
BTW: http://www.jjchandler.com/tombstone/
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*
| |
|
|
| Charles Sweeney 2005-07-28, 7:41 am |
| Blinky the Shark wrote
> http://www.jjchandler.com/tombstone/
Thanks for the link! Great concept. Popular too, according to this from
their site:
"There are currently 89 people making tombstones
Over 167,683 tombstones generated since 1005"
Those 89 people were online at 10am UK time, which is the dead of night in
the US. (pardon the pun)
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-28, 7:32 pm |
| DoobieDo <dave@bytext.co.uk> wrote in news:MPG.1d52aac9307432059898d0@news-
text.blueyonder.co.uk:
> In article <op.sugqudtvm9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com>, SpamBlocked@tbdata.com
> says...
>
>
> Better still...
>
> http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/Tr...entBackpack.jpg
LOL
very good
| |
|
|
| DoobieDo 2005-07-28, 7:32 pm |
| In article <Xns96A18ED2DF3F7mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4>,
me@charlessweeney.com says...
> DoobieDo wrote
>
>
> God, that must be all over the internet. I got sent it yesterday.
>
>
shame that you're so slow off the mark to share it then...
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-07-28, 7:32 pm |
| Once upon a time, far far away "CJM" <cjmnew04@REMOVEMEyahoo.co.uk>
muttered
>
>"Matt Probert" <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
>news:42e7a91c.9765592@news.ntlworld.com...
>
>Come on Matt... That's a weak rebuttal.
>
>We're talking about rules of engagement, not punishments.
>
>The police are allowed to kill in a number of circumstances. Whether they
>followed all the rules on this occasion will come during the investigation.
>
>And more importantly, you already know this.
>
No, I don't know this. As far as I understand it we, the people of the
United Kingdom, democratically rebuked capital punishment and have
never agreed to allow the police to kill suspects or convicts.
It's bad enough with SAS death squads and MI5 without Dixon of Dock
Green becoming Judge Dredd
Matt
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-07-28, 7:32 pm |
| Once upon a time, far far away "William Tasso"
<SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> muttered
>Aside: peaceful protest (example: American negro sit down protest of
>~30/40 years ago) has been shown to work but only when we are still
>clinging on to our belief in 'civilisation'.
No it didn't. They were water cannoned, beaten and murdered! The USA
still has terrible race-relations (and don't even talk about
genocide).
Matt
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-07-28, 7:32 pm |
| Once upon a time, far far away robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> muttered
>On the topic of protest, we need much more protests at higher levels.
>
>The lib dems need t oget their finger out of their arse, and start
>protesting in a much more in-yer-face manner....ala greenpeace.
Brave talk. Remember the Rainbow Warrior ?
Matt
| |
| robert blake 2005-07-28, 7:32 pm |
| comments@probertencyclopaedia.com (Matt Probert) wrote in
news:42e90e4c.38567256@news.ntlworld.com:
> Once upon a time, far far away robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> muttered
>
>
> Brave talk. Remember the Rainbow Warrior ?
true.....french secret service did the killing, from memory...........the
ship was in docks in new zealand IIRC
But in the commons, the lib dems should stop feathering their own
establishment beds and get much more radical.
They should walk out of the commons when Bliar gets up to speak.
Or at least turn their backs on him.
The country at large could identify and support that type of action.
| |
|
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96A0E4678F6DEmecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4...
>
> Thank you for your considered reply Chris. I did march against Bush in
> Glasgow. Whilst it's unlikely to have caused many ripples in the
> Whitehouse, it is a stage further than spouting off on usenet. But what
> more can an individual do?
>
Well fair play to you for doing *something*, which is more than many did/do.
|
|
|
| |