And spend the extra couple of bux for the carbide bit. If you cheap out and try to use the high speed steel bits you'll only end up burning and chipping the arborite
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
#2
Discover Seattle! / Re: I am Glad that DV banned Me
Mar 18 06 09:42
I was hoping someone else would point it out, since Adam doesn't like my pointers at the best of time.
Given the nature of DV and the lack of any registration, I doubt you'd be able to convince a Judge that it wasn't your own negligence that invited someone to use your name.
The other side of the coin is in getting a judge or prosecuter to care. I mean you havn't really lost anything except perhaps your reputation on a board at which reputation is not in the least relevant.
The other side of the coin (yes i know it's two many sides) is how do you prove who did it. Even if you did manage to get the ISP to tell you what account held that particular IP at that particular time, you'd still have to prove which actual person was sitting at the keyboard. If it were a case where you actually lost a huge amount of money, you might be able to get the assistance of the RCMP, but since it's just an anonymous message board which no one takes seriously anyways, it's more likely they'd just tell you to go home and get over it.
Libel and slander really only apply when actual damage results. Trying to sue because your feelings are hurt is likely to just get you laughed out of court.
Given the nature of DV and the lack of any registration, I doubt you'd be able to convince a Judge that it wasn't your own negligence that invited someone to use your name.
The other side of the coin is in getting a judge or prosecuter to care. I mean you havn't really lost anything except perhaps your reputation on a board at which reputation is not in the least relevant.
The other side of the coin (yes i know it's two many sides) is how do you prove who did it. Even if you did manage to get the ISP to tell you what account held that particular IP at that particular time, you'd still have to prove which actual person was sitting at the keyboard. If it were a case where you actually lost a huge amount of money, you might be able to get the assistance of the RCMP, but since it's just an anonymous message board which no one takes seriously anyways, it's more likely they'd just tell you to go home and get over it.
Libel and slander really only apply when actual damage results. Trying to sue because your feelings are hurt is likely to just get you laughed out of court.
#3
Discover Seattle! / Re: Defend America's Democracy
Mar 18 06 11:48
Adam_Fulford wrote:
Bev Harris and other members of Black Box Voting [A href="vny!://www.blackboxvoting.org/"]www.blackboxvoting.org[/A] are very reputable and honest people.
Witch replies:[/DIV]So you say. However, you saying they are honest is an opinion, not a fact. What crooked politician has ever claimed to be crooked? What used car salesman has ever claimed to be dishonest? What conspiracy theorist has ever cautioned people to be careful how much of his rhetoric to believe?
People who misrepresent speculation as fact, and who hold up unverifiable evidence as "proof" don't strike me as being very honest. Even if they were honest, as such, there's no way to tell. They could be telling the truth as they believe it to be, but yet be completely wrong due to their bias. Their obvious bias and almost religious hatred of the other side makes them unreliable as a source of factual imformation. That's why I, and most reasonable people, perfer top form our opinions from unbiased sources.
Adam_Fulford wrote:[/DIV]They have to be super careful to back up what they assert, when dealing with the vast fascist apparatus trying to hijack America's Democracy, including Diebold, a huge criminal corporation that has gone into legal attack mode several times against Black Box Voting and LOST in courts of law every time.
Witch replies:[/DIV]Balderdash. Conspiracy sites on the web are a dime a dozen. All of them claim to have the "truth". All of them claim that their existence is proof of their veracity because otherwise the "guv'mint" would sue them and shut them down.
The only thing it shows is that the more whacked out you are and the less verifiable your conspiracy theories are the less likely it is that your "enimies" will care what you say on the web.
Adam_Fulford wrote:[/DIV]Diebold was successfully sued by the state of California, using the evidence that whistle blower hero Stephen Heller bravely provided to protect America's democracy. The California Secretary of State at the time, Kevin Shelley, called Diebold's conduct "[A href="vny!://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/08/BAGN68L64F1.DTL"]reprehensible[/A]" and said "[A href="vny!://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/national/01VOTE.html?ex=1398744000&en=322af40499b8657e&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND"]their performance, their behavior, is despicable[/A]," and that "if that's the kind of deceitful behavior they're going to engage in, they can't do business in California."
Witch replies:[/DIV]But that's not exactly what the unbiased reports say... is it? In essence you have taken stories, added your own speculation and opinion to what those stories mean, and are now trying to pass off those speculations and opinions as facts and proof. That doesn't make you very reliable as a source of information. Since you get your information from peopl who are likely to be doing the same thing, it makes it even less likely. Add to that your use of religious rhetoric phraseeology like "whistle blower hero", "vast fascist apparatus", "hijack America's Democracy", "huge criminal corporation", etc (not to mention the obvious overuse of bolding, underlining, ancd color, kind of like an email hoax) and it's obvious that you are more likely to be dealing in fallacy of appeal to emotion than to be giving us reliable information.
Unbiased and trustworthy sources don't have to resort to cliche's and tugging at our heartstrings to get us to believe them.
Once again, just so you can't try to shut me up by the use of ad hominem, I'm not defending Diebold in any way. I'm simply pointing out how unreasonable and illogical it is to come to a conclusion about one biased and untrustworthy side based solely on the empty rhetoric of the other biased and untrustworthy side.[/DIV]
Bev Harris and other members of Black Box Voting [A href="vny!://www.blackboxvoting.org/"]www.blackboxvoting.org[/A] are very reputable and honest people.
Witch replies:[/DIV]So you say. However, you saying they are honest is an opinion, not a fact. What crooked politician has ever claimed to be crooked? What used car salesman has ever claimed to be dishonest? What conspiracy theorist has ever cautioned people to be careful how much of his rhetoric to believe?
People who misrepresent speculation as fact, and who hold up unverifiable evidence as "proof" don't strike me as being very honest. Even if they were honest, as such, there's no way to tell. They could be telling the truth as they believe it to be, but yet be completely wrong due to their bias. Their obvious bias and almost religious hatred of the other side makes them unreliable as a source of factual imformation. That's why I, and most reasonable people, perfer top form our opinions from unbiased sources.
Adam_Fulford wrote:[/DIV]They have to be super careful to back up what they assert, when dealing with the vast fascist apparatus trying to hijack America's Democracy, including Diebold, a huge criminal corporation that has gone into legal attack mode several times against Black Box Voting and LOST in courts of law every time.
Witch replies:[/DIV]Balderdash. Conspiracy sites on the web are a dime a dozen. All of them claim to have the "truth". All of them claim that their existence is proof of their veracity because otherwise the "guv'mint" would sue them and shut them down.
The only thing it shows is that the more whacked out you are and the less verifiable your conspiracy theories are the less likely it is that your "enimies" will care what you say on the web.
Adam_Fulford wrote:[/DIV]Diebold was successfully sued by the state of California, using the evidence that whistle blower hero Stephen Heller bravely provided to protect America's democracy. The California Secretary of State at the time, Kevin Shelley, called Diebold's conduct "[A href="vny!://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/08/BAGN68L64F1.DTL"]reprehensible[/A]" and said "[A href="vny!://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/national/01VOTE.html?ex=1398744000&en=322af40499b8657e&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND"]their performance, their behavior, is despicable[/A]," and that "if that's the kind of deceitful behavior they're going to engage in, they can't do business in California."
Witch replies:[/DIV]But that's not exactly what the unbiased reports say... is it? In essence you have taken stories, added your own speculation and opinion to what those stories mean, and are now trying to pass off those speculations and opinions as facts and proof. That doesn't make you very reliable as a source of information. Since you get your information from peopl who are likely to be doing the same thing, it makes it even less likely. Add to that your use of religious rhetoric phraseeology like "whistle blower hero", "vast fascist apparatus", "hijack America's Democracy", "huge criminal corporation", etc (not to mention the obvious overuse of bolding, underlining, ancd color, kind of like an email hoax) and it's obvious that you are more likely to be dealing in fallacy of appeal to emotion than to be giving us reliable information.
Unbiased and trustworthy sources don't have to resort to cliche's and tugging at our heartstrings to get us to believe them.
Once again, just so you can't try to shut me up by the use of ad hominem, I'm not defending Diebold in any way. I'm simply pointing out how unreasonable and illogical it is to come to a conclusion about one biased and untrustworthy side based solely on the empty rhetoric of the other biased and untrustworthy side.[/DIV]
#4
Discover Seattle! / Re: U.S. wants to charge Canadians to look at their trash
Mar 18 06 09:09
Seems the US only wants free trade when it's free for them.
#5
Discover Seattle! / Re: I am Glad that DV banned Me
Mar 18 06 09:07
I agree. Although I wasn't banned from DV, I left for the same sort of reasons.
I am curious about one statement of your Adam, perhaps you could expand on it?
"I'd rather not have to sic lawyers on identity thieves, though I wouldn't be shy to do so."
Are you suggesting that you would have a legitimate cause for action against a handle jacker? If so, how would you propose to actually action it?
I am curious about one statement of your Adam, perhaps you could expand on it?
"I'd rather not have to sic lawyers on identity thieves, though I wouldn't be shy to do so."
Are you suggesting that you would have a legitimate cause for action against a handle jacker? If so, how would you propose to actually action it?
#6
Discover Seattle! / Re: Defend America's Democracy
Mar 18 06 08:52
TehBorken wrote:
Witch asks:[SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic"]What evidence? So far we have seen no actual evidence.[/SPAN]
And what would you consider evidence? What would it take to make you say, "Hmmm, something looks wrong here..."?
[/DIV]
Witch replies:
I've already said "something looks wrong here". I have under no illusion that the voting machines are reliable. I know Adam wants to paint me as a planted advocate for the "enemy", but I had hoped you wouldn't fall into that trap.
All I'm saying, in general (and certainly in response to the original post in which a person who is under investigation by authorities is being painted as the poor, persecuted, bullied innocent) , is that just as one should be suspicious of the declarations of absolute innocence from the one very biased side, one should also be suspicious of the declarations of absolute evil from the other very biased side.
blackboxvoting.org has an agenda. That much is very, very clear from reading their site and from reading Adam's posts. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they may not be as trustworthy as they try to portray themselves. Remember, if the company and the government can lie, so can blackboxvoting. When you get speculations being offered as if they were proven fact, you need to be suspicious. When you get letters supposedly written by someone in authority, but which bear no signature, seal, or other identifying mark being presented as proof of a conspiracy, you need to be suspicious. When people post reams of links as evidence, which end up coming from sites just as biased and unverified as their own, you need to be supicious.
I am suspicious of the Government and the company in this situation. I don't trust them and there appears to be something very wrong going on. However, intellectual honesty compels me to be equally suspicious of the conspiracy mongers on the other side who use the same tactics of misrepresentation and skewing of the evidence, and abuse and ad hominem attack of anyone who disagrees or questions them. That is why intellectual honesty compels me to question the motives of both extremes, and to search for evidence from unbiased sources to form an honest opinion.
If both sides are wrong, which is most often the case in these things, are you more vindicated if you have blindly believed either one over the other?
Witch asks:[SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic"]What evidence? So far we have seen no actual evidence.[/SPAN]
And what would you consider evidence? What would it take to make you say, "Hmmm, something looks wrong here..."?
[/DIV]
Witch replies:
I've already said "something looks wrong here". I have under no illusion that the voting machines are reliable. I know Adam wants to paint me as a planted advocate for the "enemy", but I had hoped you wouldn't fall into that trap.
All I'm saying, in general (and certainly in response to the original post in which a person who is under investigation by authorities is being painted as the poor, persecuted, bullied innocent) , is that just as one should be suspicious of the declarations of absolute innocence from the one very biased side, one should also be suspicious of the declarations of absolute evil from the other very biased side.
blackboxvoting.org has an agenda. That much is very, very clear from reading their site and from reading Adam's posts. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they may not be as trustworthy as they try to portray themselves. Remember, if the company and the government can lie, so can blackboxvoting. When you get speculations being offered as if they were proven fact, you need to be suspicious. When you get letters supposedly written by someone in authority, but which bear no signature, seal, or other identifying mark being presented as proof of a conspiracy, you need to be suspicious. When people post reams of links as evidence, which end up coming from sites just as biased and unverified as their own, you need to be supicious.
I am suspicious of the Government and the company in this situation. I don't trust them and there appears to be something very wrong going on. However, intellectual honesty compels me to be equally suspicious of the conspiracy mongers on the other side who use the same tactics of misrepresentation and skewing of the evidence, and abuse and ad hominem attack of anyone who disagrees or questions them. That is why intellectual honesty compels me to question the motives of both extremes, and to search for evidence from unbiased sources to form an honest opinion.
If both sides are wrong, which is most often the case in these things, are you more vindicated if you have blindly believed either one over the other?
#7
Discover Seattle! / Re: Defend America's Democracy
Mar 18 06 08:38
Adam_Fulford wrote:
You sound like those tobacco lobbyists who denied that there was any evidence directly linking tobacco smoking to disease.
Witch replies:[/DIV]Fallacy of poisoning the well. You are now trying to discredit me by association with a lobby which lies and represents a biased view that very much needs their one way view to be taken as truth. That is ingenuine in that I have not lied inasmuch as I have not promoted any opinion on the issue at all.
If one looks critically at this conversation one sees that all I've been doing is reminding and advocating the use of unbiased sources to form an opinion and reminding people that only getting information from an obviously biased source, especially one which constantly appeals to "the truth" without offering objective evidence, misrepresents other sources as supporting their view, and disparages anyone who refuses to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon.
In fact, if we look at those particular attributes, especially the misrepresenting and the disparaging of anyone who questions your conclusions, it would appear that you are much more similar to the tobacco lobby than I am.
Adam Fulford:[/DIV]The evidence against the US electronic voting machines from credible sources is a abundant and easily found by any intellectually honest person who seriously wants to know. Just go to [A href="vny!://www.blackboxvoting.org"]www.blackboxvoting.org[/A] to find it, neatly compiled. Also, check out [A href="vny!://www.bradblog.com"]www.bradblog.com[/A] for a list of articles and sources.[/DIV]
Witch Replies:[/DIV]Anyone can spuriously appeal to "intellectual honesty" in order to advance their agenda. True intellectual honesty lies in being honest about bias and looking for evidence from sources which do not benefit from the outcome. The sites you keep advocating are certainly not unbiased, and certainly not detached from the outcome.
All I've done is asked for sources which are honest, open, unbiased, present objective evidence rather than speculation, and who do not misrepresent speculation as if it were actual evidence. For that I have been subjected to derision and abuse at your hand. Does that sound like "intellectual honesty" on your part, Adam?
Why is honest debate and investigation so threatening to you Adam?
You sound like those tobacco lobbyists who denied that there was any evidence directly linking tobacco smoking to disease.
Witch replies:[/DIV]Fallacy of poisoning the well. You are now trying to discredit me by association with a lobby which lies and represents a biased view that very much needs their one way view to be taken as truth. That is ingenuine in that I have not lied inasmuch as I have not promoted any opinion on the issue at all.
If one looks critically at this conversation one sees that all I've been doing is reminding and advocating the use of unbiased sources to form an opinion and reminding people that only getting information from an obviously biased source, especially one which constantly appeals to "the truth" without offering objective evidence, misrepresents other sources as supporting their view, and disparages anyone who refuses to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon.
In fact, if we look at those particular attributes, especially the misrepresenting and the disparaging of anyone who questions your conclusions, it would appear that you are much more similar to the tobacco lobby than I am.
Adam Fulford:[/DIV]The evidence against the US electronic voting machines from credible sources is a abundant and easily found by any intellectually honest person who seriously wants to know. Just go to [A href="vny!://www.blackboxvoting.org"]www.blackboxvoting.org[/A] to find it, neatly compiled. Also, check out [A href="vny!://www.bradblog.com"]www.bradblog.com[/A] for a list of articles and sources.[/DIV]
Witch Replies:[/DIV]Anyone can spuriously appeal to "intellectual honesty" in order to advance their agenda. True intellectual honesty lies in being honest about bias and looking for evidence from sources which do not benefit from the outcome. The sites you keep advocating are certainly not unbiased, and certainly not detached from the outcome.
All I've done is asked for sources which are honest, open, unbiased, present objective evidence rather than speculation, and who do not misrepresent speculation as if it were actual evidence. For that I have been subjected to derision and abuse at your hand. Does that sound like "intellectual honesty" on your part, Adam?
Why is honest debate and investigation so threatening to you Adam?
#8
Discover Seattle! / Re: Defend America's Democracy
Mar 17 06 01:23
TehBorken wrote:
Marik wrote:
[SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic"]Way too long to read...[/SPAN]
Yeah, incriminating evidence about how the elections were stolen should be limited to a paragraph or two.
Witch asks:
What evidence? So far we have seen no actual evidence. We have seen a lot of speculation and a lot of writing that is being purported to be evidence...
But so far we have seen no evidence.
Marik wrote:
[SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic"]Way too long to read...[/SPAN]
Yeah, incriminating evidence about how the elections were stolen should be limited to a paragraph or two.
Witch asks:
What evidence? So far we have seen no actual evidence. We have seen a lot of speculation and a lot of writing that is being purported to be evidence...
But so far we have seen no evidence.
#9
Thank GOD for faith based charities...
#10
Discover Seattle! / Re: HELP!!!
Mar 15 06 03:33
You might lose some info. RTF doesn't always do tables correctly. But it should work.
#11
Discover Seattle! / Patrick's Day
Mar 15 06 10:43
Just so you folks know, I won't be online on Patrick's Day, 17 Mar. Along with True Irish everywhere, I will be in mourning for the murders committed by Patrick, and the destruction of Irish Culture.
#12
Discover Seattle! / Re: Disappearing Penis Syndrome Hits Nigeria
Mar 15 06 09:55
"The phenomenon is often, but not always, associated with [A title=Occult href="vny!://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult"][FONT color=#000000]occult[/FONT][/A] belief, such as [A title=Witchcraft href="vny!://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft"][FONT color=#000000]witchcraft[/FONT][/A]. "
Geez, we get blamed for everything.
Geez, we get blamed for everything.
#13
Discover Seattle! / Re: Court says "no fundamental right" to sex toys
Mar 15 06 09:50
Sportsdude wrote:
yeah Switzerland is a giant fortress and each home must have a bunker and the govt. supplies you with ak-47s.[/DIV]
Witch replies:
ak-47's are not machine guns. Should people who don't know what guns are be allowed to own them?
yeah Switzerland is a giant fortress and each home must have a bunker and the govt. supplies you with ak-47s.[/DIV]
Witch replies:
ak-47's are not machine guns. Should people who don't know what guns are be allowed to own them?
#14
Discover Seattle! / Re: The Perfectly Equal Society
Mar 14 06 03:56
Keep in mind that the commission has only been authorised to consider the claim. If I claim that my paperboy should be paid the same as my neurosurgeon the commission could consider the claim. Doesn't mean they have to find any merit in that claim.
#15
Discover Seattle! / Re: Caption this at your own risk
Mar 13 06 10:43
Arkansas Militia Terrorists practice suicide bombing techniques using the dreaded but highly ineffectual ITPB (Improvised Toilet Plunger Bomb)