| erniegalts |
On 16 Apr 2003 14:24:44 GMT, ignoramus12212@NOSPAM.12212.invalid
(Ignoramus12212) wrote:
>Doug Kanter <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
>> news:3e9c9d33_1@binaries.vphos.net...
>> > "erniegalts"> wrote
>> > > Why would anyone buying this for a legitimate reason object to such a
>> > > track? I don't suppose that the average American or Australian buys
>> > > much ammonium nitrate in his lifetime. If you wanted some as a
>> > > fertilizer, why would you object to providing proof of identity?
>
>BTW ammonium nitrate is a very common fertilizer to which I am used
>to. I would like to buy some for my garden. Won't do it this year but
>for next year I want to build a nice garden.
>
>ignoramus
Usually isn't the best choice as a general fertilizer as contains no
phosphates. No restrictions on purchase here that I know of. Do you
have to produce identification in your state? ....And, if so, why
would you have any reason to object to doing so?
|
|
|
| Bob Peterson |
"erniegalts" <erniegalts@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:6urr9vkkg02p127q2fjd8u05gvjot18vgu@4ax.com...
> On 16 Apr 2003 14:24:44 GMT, ignoramus12212@NOSPAM.12212.invalid
> (Ignoramus12212) wrote:
>
> >Doug Kanter <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3e9c9d33_1@binaries.vphos.net...
> >> > "erniegalts"> wrote
> >> > > Why would anyone buying this for a legitimate reason object to such
a
> >> > > track? I don't suppose that the average American or Australian
buys
> >> > > much ammonium nitrate in his lifetime. If you wanted some as a
> >> > > fertilizer, why would you object to providing proof of identity?
> >
> >BTW ammonium nitrate is a very common fertilizer to which I am used
> >to. I would like to buy some for my garden. Won't do it this year but
> >for next year I want to build a nice garden.
> >
> >ignoramus
> Usually isn't the best choice as a general fertilizer as contains no
> phosphates. No restrictions on purchase here that I know of. Do you
> have to produce identification in your state? ....And, if so, why
> would you have any reason to object to doing so?
>
Its not that commonly used except for agricultural purposes. It is not
typically used in home gardening at all, as it is missing some vital
ingredients.
|
|
|
| Mark Browne |
<snip>
> It also depends on the level of perceived threat. Don may worry about
> being asked for identification for purchases of ammonium nitrate but
> I really don't think that most people would. Most people don't use it
> at all, and most of those who do wouldn't have any objection to
> providing identification when they purchased it.
<snip>
Mostly, I object because it places additional burdens on law abiding
citizens without doing any good. Criminals can obtain just about anything
they want by stealing it or using a dummy buyer. For the chance possibility
that some bomber wont be able to get his chemical of first choice countless
thousands of ordinary people will be shuffling papers, dealing with
harassment because of false positives, and supporting more useless
government bureaucracy.
Worse, the law abiding citizens may actually think that this does some good.
It is so ridiculously easy to make something that will blow up that there is
no practical way to prevent it. Off the top of my head, you can make
destructive explosions from any of these common materials: natural gas,
propane, butane, acetylene, gasoline, flour, fine hardwood sawdust, charcoal
and oxygen, water and electricity (Two entirely different ways!), pool
chemicals and sugar or Vaseline, gun powder, plastic plumbing pipes and
nitrious oxide, hexamine cooking fuel tablets, well, you get the idea. I
suspect that every reader of this list can figure out how to make a powerful
device from at least one of these ingredients.
The knowledge of the rapid release of energy is taught to every college
level chemist and engineer. You can't prevent an educated man from making an
explosive device. Any attempts to legislate safety are doomed to failure.
For that matter, our own government teaches soldiers how to make this stuff
in TM-31210: Improvised Munitions. This knowledge leave the military with
the departing soldier.
Mark Browne
|
|
|
| Don |
<Empress Otku> wrote in message
news:7f2r9v8cabamjiqpur1f55t4fnmmq3nrcf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:08:03 -0400, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've never known anyone to hallucinate on MJ, TS or hash, ever.
> >Are you sure the TS wasn't laced with LSD?
>
> I doubt it; this stuff was from Turkey. Some Airman we met in Greece
> had it; I regretted smoking it almost immediately. So who knows.
>
> (Disclaimer: We were all a bunch of damn idiots, I can only imagine
> what would have happened had we been busted. "Young and Dumb", back
> then.)
>
> Still, if you think about it, even the most mundane activities on THC
> are kind of... well... trippy.
>
> ~Empress, (Drug-Free for 18 years, Now Officially High on Life)
Same here. I wouldn't know how to buy the stuff if I wanted to.
|
|
|
| Don |
"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:4Adna.2337$1w3.996@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:3e9c9d33_1@binaries.vphos.net...
> > "erniegalts"> wrote
> > > Why would anyone buying this for a legitimate reason object to such a
> > > track? I don't suppose that the average American or Australian buys
> > > much ammonium nitrate in his lifetime. If you wanted some as a
> > > fertilizer, why would you object to providing proof of identity?
> >
> > Because they don't want their purchases tracked for any reason and they
do
> > not want to be placed in a gov't database.
> > Why is this concept foreign to you?
> >
>
> When my 13 year old son and his buddies are playing video games or
watching
> a movie, they'll go hungry and get headaches rather than stop playing for
10
> minutes to make sandwiches or stick some chicken nuggets in the microwave.
> Many American adults want security, but with little or no cost to them. I
> see similarities between the two. I think quite a few people know there's
a
> line the government had better not cross, and they apparently haven't
> crossed it yet.
Good analogy.
|
|
|
| Don |
"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:FZdna.3790$NR3.1540@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> "Ignoramus12212" <ignoramus12212@NOSPAM.12212.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnb9qptb.i51.ignoramus12212@nospam.invalid...
> > Doug Kanter <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> > > "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3e9c9d33_1@binaries.vphos.net...
> > > > "erniegalts"> wrote
> > > > > Why would anyone buying this for a legitimate reason object to
such
> a
> > > > > track? I don't suppose that the average American or Australian
buys
> > > > > much ammonium nitrate in his lifetime. If you wanted some as a
> > > > > fertilizer, why would you object to providing proof of identity?
> >
> > BTW ammonium nitrate is a very common fertilizer to which I am used
> > to. I would like to buy some for my garden. Won't do it this year but
> > for next year I want to build a nice garden.
> >
> > ignoramus
>
> Regarding store-bought fertilizers, save your money. Start composting this
> year.
But that won't help me NOW.
My sod was just laid last Aug and in the past 2 weeks I have put prolly 40
lbs of high nitro content Scotts on it.
Its starting to green up nicely.
|
|
|
| Don |
"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:6Udna.2340$Sv3.2118@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:3e9d568b_1@binaries.vphos.net...
> >
> > "Bob Peterson"> wrote
> > > "Doug Kanter"> wrote
> > > > Using SS as an example, I have a theory: Since way too many people
> > invest
> > > > poorly, SS actually saves the country money in the long run. We'd
end
> up
> > > > supporting the knuckleheads who invest in nothing but CDs from the
> time
> > > > they're 20 years old, and end up dirt poor when they retire because
> > > > inflation ate away at their assets.
> > >
> > > So what? That does not make an organized system of theft right.
> >
> > Agreed, SS has created an air of dependency on the fedgov by the elderly
> and
> > others.
>
> I spent 5 years with one of the major brokerage firms. If I had a buck for
> every customer who could understand the most basic investments, I'd still
be
> there, getting paid to try and explain. I'm not talking about people who
> aren't smart. I met brilliant scientists from Kodak & Xerox (here in
> Rochester) who couldn't fathom the simplest investment concepts. Many
ended
> up keeping their money in CDs, after a year of tossing around ideas.
>
> I left the business because I was able to disconnect emotion from money,
but
> clients were not. Emotion will lead people to do bizarre things with their
> money, and end up broke. That might be funny if you're 26 years old, but
not
> when you're 65. I think social security is a pretty good idea, even if
some
> skilled investors find it boring.
>
> Who's going to support millions of people who've day-traded their
retirement
> plan into the ground?
>
> > > > But, the real bottom line here is simpler: How many times have you
> > written
> > > > to or met with your representatives in the last year, to call the SS
> > > system into question? Done any petitioning? Organized anything at all?
> >
> > Why bother, nothing will change.
> >
>
> Well, that's that, I guess. Why bother whining?
I was whining?
Here's an analogy for you.
My brother pays into the income tax scam every week at his job. At the end
of the year he gets a couple grand back as a refund. I asked him why he does
this and he says he likes getting that big chunk every year so he can a new
big screen or take the family on a vacation. I said, why don't you do
payroll deduction into an interest bearing account instead and get even more
back. He told me it is too much of a pain in the ass. The average american
is way to lazy for his own good.
With millions of people running around with that kind of attitude will my
*whining* cause any change? I doubt it.
|
|
|
| Jack |
Empress Otku wrote in message news:<7f2r9v8cabamjiqpur1f55t4fnmmq3nrcf@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:08:03 -0400, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've never known anyone to hallucinate on MJ, TS or hash, ever.
> >Are you sure the TS wasn't laced with LSD?
>
> I doubt it; this stuff was from Turkey. Some Airman we met in Greece
> had it; I regretted smoking it almost immediately. So who knows.
>
> (Disclaimer: We were all a bunch of damn idiots, I can only imagine
> what would have happened had we been busted. "Young and Dumb", back
> then.)
>
> Still, if you think about it, even the most mundane activities on THC
> are kind of... well... trippy.
>
> ~Empress, (Drug-Free for 18 years, Now Officially High on Life)
>
Not even wine, beer, coffee ?
|
|
|
| Calif Bill |
We never had a tradition of keeping religion out of government. The
constitution only states there will be no state religion. e.g. Church of
England. God is even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
Bill
"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:LfFma.1969$oF3.744@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> "Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> news:rb7m9vc740o3gsvevmir8u9vnqb5sab9hn@4ax.com...
> > "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >
> > >"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> > >news:ouul9vkvl25ubtn01g49i9v0o8d2hnp604@4ax.com...
> > >> "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >Given the choice of the WIC program, or religious charities, many of
> > >which
> > >> >will be missionary in nature, which will be more likely to violate
the
> > >> >Constitution, blending the functions of church and state?
> > >>
> > >> The governmental ones of course. The religious ones have no
> > >> Constitutional restrictions as they dont use force to extract their
> > >> operating capital from people.
> > >>
> > >
> > >I see. So, if a woman and her kids are desperately hungry, and the
local
> WIC
> > >office has vanished (which may very happen shortly), you think it's
> > >appropriate for her to seek out a government authorized church?
> > >
> > Government authorized church? Oh..you must be referring to IIRC the
> > Bush suggestion to fund any existing organization already set up to
> > provide charity work, and observing funding guidelines, to make sure
> > the aid gets to the people.
>
> So, they will receive funding from the federal government, if they meet
> certain guidelines? First of all, it violates our tradition of separation
of
> church & state. Second, I don't trust the clergy any more than anyone
else.
> Perhaps less. Who watches the money? And do the "guidelines" specify no
> missionary work, so people in need don't need to listen to a line of crap?
>
>
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On 16 Apr 2003 19:10:29 -0700, davahm2003@yahoo.com (Jack) wrote:
>> ~Empress, (Drug-Free for 18 years, Now Officially High on Life)
>>
>
> Not even wine, beer, coffee ?
Oh. Does that count? In that case and in the interest of full
disclosure:
~Empress, (Mostly Drug-Free except for beer, wine, the occasional
glass of champagne, margaritas with Mexican food and two to three cups
of coffee every day, but Generally High on Life, with the Occasional
Thrill from Usenet.)
(I hope chocolate doesn't count.)
|
|
|
| Don |
"Mark Browne" <mbrowne@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:b_mna.214969$OV.276526@rwcrnsc54...
> <snip>
> > It also depends on the level of perceived threat. Don may worry about
> > being asked for identification for purchases of ammonium nitrate but
> > I really don't think that most people would. Most people don't use it
> > at all, and most of those who do wouldn't have any objection to
> > providing identification when they purchased it.
> <snip>
>
> Mostly, I object because it places additional burdens on law abiding
> citizens without doing any good. Criminals can obtain just about anything
> they want by stealing it or using a dummy buyer. For the chance
possibility
> that some bomber wont be able to get his chemical of first choice
countless
> thousands of ordinary people will be shuffling papers, dealing with
> harassment because of false positives, and supporting more useless
> government bureaucracy.
>
> Worse, the law abiding citizens may actually think that this does some
good.
> It is so ridiculously easy to make something that will blow up that there
is
> no practical way to prevent it. Off the top of my head, you can make
> destructive explosions from any of these common materials: natural gas,
> propane, butane, acetylene, gasoline, flour, fine hardwood sawdust,
charcoal
> and oxygen, water and electricity (Two entirely different ways!), pool
> chemicals and sugar or Vaseline, gun powder, plastic plumbing pipes and
> nitrious oxide, hexamine cooking fuel tablets, well, you get the idea. I
> suspect that every reader of this list can figure out how to make a
powerful
> device from at least one of these ingredients.
>
> The knowledge of the rapid release of energy is taught to every college
> level chemist and engineer. You can't prevent an educated man from making
an
> explosive device. Any attempts to legislate safety are doomed to failure.
> For that matter, our own government teaches soldiers how to make this
stuff
> in TM-31210: Improvised Munitions. This knowledge leave the military with
> the departing soldier.
That is the long reason, and you stated it well.
The short reason is that I simply don't like to be forced to carry a state
issued identification card which I must pay for.
My identification is *mine*.
|
|
|
| Jack |
Empress Otku wrote in message news:<mfbs9vktufgahe5nc8rvnft75d2drsp4q3@4ax.com>...
> On 16 Apr 2003 19:10:29 -0700, davahm2003@yahoo.com (Jack) wrote:
>
> >> ~Empress, (Drug-Free for 18 years, Now Officially High on Life)
> >>
> >
> > Not even wine, beer, coffee ?
>
> Oh. Does that count? In that case and in the interest of full
> disclosure:
Does smoking an ocassional joint qualify as mostly drug free?
Or do you treat those people as "druggies"?
>
> ~Empress, (Mostly Drug-Free except for beer, wine, the occasional
> glass of champagne, margaritas with Mexican food and two to three cups
> of coffee every day, but Generally High on Life, with the Occasional
> Thrill from Usenet.)
All politically correct but still mind altering, brain damaging,
baby deforming drugs. I don't think pot qualifies on any of those
except one.
>
> (I hope chocolate doesn't count.)
Has the same effect on the brain as a small amount of thc - does
that count?
Sorry to call you on the "drug free" buzz word of the times but it
smacks of
great hypocrisy when we punish soo many people for doing politically
incorrect drugs which are no more harmful and in most cases less
harmful than the politically correct drugs. There has to be a better
way to deal with this part
of human behavior than the brutal, hypocritical way we are doing at
this time.
Jack (just doing my part educating the people on high horses claiming,
out of
pride or ignorance, that they are politically correct and
therefor good
citizens when in reality they are just like everyone else in
this world)
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"erniegalts" <erniegalts@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:m8kr9vkijjutuq57bs8nuqj8mdm2qsjj7q@4ax.com...
>
> If you don't trust my anecdotal evidence am sure that you can find
> others on the net who have visited Nepal in late sixties, early
> seventies. It was a pretty popular tourist destination.
>
> Or if you are willing to take the word of the government on the issue,
> following extract from:
>
> Drug Category Profile
> Cannabis
>
> "Animated behavior, loud talking, followed by sleepiness
> Dilated pupils, bloodshot eyes
> Distortions in perception; hallucinations
> Distortions in depth and time perception; loss of coordination"
>
> Above and much more profile info on this and other drugs at:
> <http://www.health.org/govpubs/rpo926/>
>
Interesting link, but you left out something important when you quoted it:
The page included the words "Indications of Possible Misuse". And, there's
no explanation of the research group used to determine the results shown.
> So, Doug, IMHO so far you haven't given any convincing evidence that
> marijuana should be considered anything other than a hallucinogen.
>
I can only speak my personal experience, and that of 25 other guys on my
dorm floor, with product of varying potency. If you asked me whether I
might've laughed if the building caught fire, I'd say "yes". But
hallucinations, no. Fatigue, silliness, consuming disgusting combinations of
snacks, yes. Yes, there were times when we did way too much and decided that
driving to the donut shop was not a good idea (and where we got THAT sense
of responsibility at that age, I have no idea. Thank you, parents,maybe?)
But, these excessive evenings were absolutely no different than what our
frat neighbors did with booze.
As you say, legality isn't related to the classification of a drug, but my
point is to highlight the similarity of pot to alcohol, and point out the
absurdity of the former being illegal when the latter is not. With the
exception of lung damage, this paragraph, from the web site, easily applies
to booze:
"Euphoria followed by relaxation; loss of appetite; impaired memory,
concentration, knowledge retention; loss of coordination; more vivd sense of
taste, sight, smell, hearing; stronger doses cause fluctuating emotions,
fragmentary thoughts, disoriented behavior, psychosis; may cause irritation
to lungs, respiratory system; may cause cancer"
We can substitute "liver damage" and "may cause bladder cancer".
So...why is one legal while the other is not? (The "gateway drug" argument
isn't allowed here, by the way).
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:3e9dfc56_1@binaries.vphos.net...
>
> <Empress Otku> wrote in message
> news:7f2r9v8cabamjiqpur1f55t4fnmmq3nrcf@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:08:03 -0400, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I've never known anyone to hallucinate on MJ, TS or hash, ever.
> > >Are you sure the TS wasn't laced with LSD?
> >
> > I doubt it; this stuff was from Turkey. Some Airman we met in Greece
> > had it; I regretted smoking it almost immediately. So who knows.
> >
> > (Disclaimer: We were all a bunch of damn idiots, I can only imagine
> > what would have happened had we been busted. "Young and Dumb", back
> > then.)
> >
> > Still, if you think about it, even the most mundane activities on THC
> > are kind of... well... trippy.
> >
> > ~Empress, (Drug-Free for 18 years, Now Officially High on Life)
>
> Same here. I wouldn't know how to buy the stuff if I wanted to.
>
A friend recently told me what the stuff costs now. It's ridiculous - so
much money for something that you can grow as easily as pole beans. Now, I
get stoned big time from kisses and fishing. :-) The fishing is far more
expensive than the pot, but I'm very careful not to keep track of it.
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
<Empress Otku> wrote in message
news:mfbs9vktufgahe5nc8rvnft75d2drsp4q3@4ax.com...
> On 16 Apr 2003 19:10:29 -0700, davahm2003@yahoo.com (Jack) wrote:
>
> >> ~Empress, (Drug-Free for 18 years, Now Officially High on Life)
> >>
> >
> > Not even wine, beer, coffee ?
>
> Oh. Does that count? In that case and in the interest of full
> disclosure:
>
> ~Empress, (Mostly Drug-Free except for beer, wine, the occasional
> glass of champagne, margaritas with Mexican food and two to three cups
> of coffee every day, but Generally High on Life, with the Occasional
> Thrill from Usenet.)
>
> (I hope chocolate doesn't count.)
Chocolate? Turn around - hands against the car, ma'am.
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:3e9dfe1d_1@binaries.vphos.net...
>
> "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:FZdna.3790$NR3.1540@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> > "Ignoramus12212" <ignoramus12212@NOSPAM.12212.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:slrnb9qptb.i51.ignoramus12212@nospam.invalid...
> > > Doug Kanter <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> > > > "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3e9c9d33_1@binaries.vphos.net...
> > > > > "erniegalts"> wrote
> > > > > > Why would anyone buying this for a legitimate reason object to
> such
> > a
> > > > > > track? I don't suppose that the average American or Australian
> buys
> > > > > > much ammonium nitrate in his lifetime. If you wanted some as a
> > > > > > fertilizer, why would you object to providing proof of identity?
> > >
> > > BTW ammonium nitrate is a very common fertilizer to which I am used
> > > to. I would like to buy some for my garden. Won't do it this year but
> > > for next year I want to build a nice garden.
> > >
> > > ignoramus
> >
> > Regarding store-bought fertilizers, save your money. Start composting
this
> > year.
>
> But that won't help me NOW.
> My sod was just laid last Aug and in the past 2 weeks I have put prolly 40
> lbs of high nitro content Scotts on it.
> Its starting to green up nicely.
>
Oh....when you said "garden", I thought you meant vegetables and flowers. If
you intend to grow these things next year, then NOW is absolutely the time
to go out and buy two of those brown plastic compost bins. Try this: For one
week, save all your vegetable & fruit trimmings from the kitchen. Doesn't
matter where. Stick 'em in a big black trash bag (but keep it outside).
Notice how heavy it is at the end of a week? That's next year's fertilizer,
going to waste. It takes that long to make the good stuff. Do it.
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Mark Browne" <mbrowne@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:b_mna.214969$OV.276526@rwcrnsc54...
> <snip>
>
> Worse, the law abiding citizens may actually think that this does some
good.
> It is so ridiculously easy to make something that will blow up that there
is
> no practical way to prevent it.
Hell....yesterday, the NY Times had a story of a sign shop owner in lower
Manhattan who was incorrectly storing chemicals related to molding/adhering
plastics, alongside some stuff the previous tenant had left behind. (You'll
need to create a user name and PW to access the link, but the Times sends no
spam).
"...nitric acid, a highly volatile compound left over from a previous
manufacturing operation, was poured into a 55-gallon drum into which workers
had been dumping various chemicals, including lacquer thinner.
"It was a real witch's brew," said Stephen Selk, the lead investigator for
the chemical board, an independent federal agency that will issue its
preliminary report on the explosion today.
Things happened fast after the chemicals were mixed, according to the
report. The drum began hissing and the workers for the company, Kaltech
Industries Group, ran.
A few seconds later, the drum exploded, blasting up from the basement
through the stairwells and elevator shafts of the 11-story building at
111-121 West 19th Street, blowing out windows and doors and sending debris
and glass flying into the street from a hole in the facade. At least 42
people were injured, 12 of them critically."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/n.../16CHEM.html?th
Anyway....it doesn't take much.
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:3e9e0130_1@binaries.vphos.net...
>
> > > Why bother, nothing will change.
> > >
> >
> > Well, that's that, I guess. Why bother whining?
>
> I was whining?
> Here's an analogy for you.
> My brother pays into the income tax scam every week at his job. At the end
> of the year he gets a couple grand back as a refund. I asked him why he
does
> this and he says he likes getting that big chunk every year so he can a
new
> big screen or take the family on a vacation. I said, why don't you do
> payroll deduction into an interest bearing account instead and get even
more
> back. He told me it is too much of a pain in the ass. The average american
> is way to lazy for his own good.
> With millions of people running around with that kind of attitude will my
> *whining* cause any change? I doubt it.
>
Don, I was listening to a George Carlin DVD last night, and he proved that
you were correct. He questioned the concept that if you don't vote, you have
no right to complain. His logic: If you vote, it's your fault we have these
assholes in public office. You chose them. What right do you have to
complain? :-) If you don't vote, you're blameless, and have every right to
complain. :-)
Gotta love the guy. ROFL!
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On 17 Apr 2003 05:45:17 -0700, davahm2003@yahoo.com (Jack) wrote:
>Empress Otku wrote in message news:<mfbs9vktufgahe5nc8rvnft75d2drsp4q3@4ax.com>...
>> On 16 Apr 2003 19:10:29 -0700, davahm2003@yahoo.com (Jack) wrote:
>>
>> >> ~Empress, (Drug-Free for 18 years, Now Officially High on Life)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not even wine, beer, coffee ?
>>
>> Oh. Does that count? In that case and in the interest of full
>> disclosure:
>
> Does smoking an ocassional joint qualify as mostly drug free?
> Or do you treat those people as "druggies"?
"Those People"?
Lets just stop right here, Jack. I'm a counselor who's worked in
alcohol and drug recovery programs for many years. "Those People" are
"We, the People", as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less about
someone who smokes occasionally, but a lot of people's lives are
terribly damaged by addiction, and that includes pot. And I've
noticed that many of us who dabbled in our younger years decided we'd
had enough and moved on; that's all I meant to convey - that my drug
stories don't mean I support the abuse of drugs, for a number of
reasons.
>> ~Empress, (Mostly Drug-Free except for beer, wine, the occasional
>> glass of champagne, margaritas with Mexican food and two to three cups
>> of coffee every day, but Generally High on Life, with the Occasional
>> Thrill from Usenet.)
>
> All politically correct but still mind altering, brain damaging,
>baby deforming drugs. I don't think pot qualifies on any of those
>except one.
Only if you abuse them. I, for example, didn't drink alcohol when I
was pregnant, but then I'm not an alcoholic. And if you don't think
pot is addictive and can ruin peoples' lives, you haven't been Paying
Attention. Not only that but THC is concentrated in the fatty
tissues, including the gonads. What that means I leave to you to
Google.
>> (I hope chocolate doesn't count.)
>
> Has the same effect on the brain as a small amount of thc - does
>that count?
You'd have to eat kilos of chocolate at one sitting to get the same
effect, though.
> Sorry to call you on the "drug free" buzz word of the times but it
>smacks of great hypocrisy
Oh, buzz off. (Ooh, "Buzz", get it? he he)
>when we punish soo many people for doing politically
>incorrect drugs which are no more harmful and in most cases less
>harmful than the politically correct drugs. There has to be a better
>way to deal with this part of human behavior than the brutal, hypocritical
>way we are doing at this time.
I agree with you, actually. Alcohol is far more damaging to in many
ways than pot.
>Jack (just doing my part educating the people on high horses claiming,
>out of
> pride or ignorance, that they are politically correct and
>therefor good
> citizens when in reality they are just like everyone else in
>this world)
Do you feel better now?
~Empress
P.S. I stashed the Vicodin from my son's wisdon teeth removal
surgery, does that count? Hee!
~Empress
|
|
|
| Ignoramus17358 |
I am proud to have never taken any recreational drugs, despite
numerous opportunities. I once had a psychologist/counselor friend
with whom we went on bike rides, and almost every time he offered me
various drugs in form of pills. Many of my friends smoked pot etc. But
I said, I have enough fun even without drugs.
ignoramus
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On 17 Apr 2003 15:15:20 GMT, ignoramus17358@NOSPAM.17358.invalid
(Ignoramus17358) wrote:
>I am proud to have never taken any recreational drugs, despite
>numerous opportunities. I once had a psychologist/counselor friend
>with whom we went on bike rides, and almost every time he offered me
>various drugs in form of pills. Many of my friends smoked pot etc. But
>I said, I have enough fun even without drugs.
You don't need drugs to alter your perception of reality, anyway,
Igor...
~Empress
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:44:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Chocolate? Turn around - hands against the car, ma'am.
I'm not going there, Doug. Nope. No jokes about frisking, body
searches, handcuffs or "spread em", no way.
Heh.
~Empress
|
|
|
| Ignoramus17358 |
Empress Otku <EmpressOtku> wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2003 15:15:20 GMT, ignoramus17358@NOSPAM.17358.invalid
> (Ignoramus17358) wrote:
>
> >I am proud to have never taken any recreational drugs, despite
> >numerous opportunities. I once had a psychologist/counselor friend
> >with whom we went on bike rides, and almost every time he offered me
> >various drugs in form of pills. Many of my friends smoked pot etc. But
> >I said, I have enough fun even without drugs.
>
> You don't need drugs to alter your perception of reality, anyway,
I understand you rirony, but seriously, I never felt a need to take
chemicals to alter my perception of reality.
ignoramus
|
|
|
| J. Brian Chamberlin |
On 17 Apr 2003 15:15:20 GMT, ignoramus17358@NOSPAM.17358.invalid
(Ignoramus17358) wrote:
>I am proud to have never taken any recreational drugs, despite
>numerous opportunities. I once had a psychologist/counselor friend
>with whom we went on bike rides, and almost every time he offered me
>various drugs in form of pills. Many of my friends smoked pot etc. But
>I said, I have enough fun even without drugs.
>
>ignoramus
Well then I suppose you're just better then the rest of us.
--Brian
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
<Empress Otku> wrote in message
news:mvht9v0236qd122667pi3mn52agl4iadlf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:44:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> >Chocolate? Turn around - hands against the car, ma'am.
>
> I'm not going there, Doug. Nope. No jokes about frisking, body
> searches, handcuffs or "spread em", no way.
>
> Heh.
>
Hmm. Resisting? Big jail time! :-)
|
|
|
| erniegalts |
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:40:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>"erniegalts" <erniegalts@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
>news:m8kr9vkijjutuq57bs8nuqj8mdm2qsjj7q@4ax.com...
>>
>> If you don't trust my anecdotal evidence am sure that you can find
>> others on the net who have visited Nepal in late sixties, early
>> seventies. It was a pretty popular tourist destination.
>>
>> Or if you are willing to take the word of the government on the issue,
>> following extract from:
>>
>> Drug Category Profile
>> Cannabis
>>
>> "Animated behavior, loud talking, followed by sleepiness
>> Dilated pupils, bloodshot eyes
>> Distortions in perception; hallucinations
>> Distortions in depth and time perception; loss of coordination"
>>
>> Above and much more profile info on this and other drugs at:
>> <http://www.health.org/govpubs/rpo926/>
>>
>
>Interesting link, but you left out something important when you quoted it:
>The page included the words "Indications of Possible Misuse".
Didn't think it important. When provide a link, usually only quote
enough to give an indication of what is there. If readers are
interested, doesn't take them long to check.
> And, there's
>no explanation of the research group used to determine the results shown.
Just quoting from the page, didn't write it. If you don't think there
is enough info, take it up with the government. :-)
>> So, Doug, IMHO so far you haven't given any convincing evidence that
>> marijuana should be considered anything other than a hallucinogen.
>>
>
>I can only speak my personal experience, and that of 25 other guys on my
>dorm floor, with product of varying potency. If you asked me whether I
>might've laughed if the building caught fire, I'd say "yes". But
>hallucinations, no. Fatigue, silliness, consuming disgusting combinations of
>snacks, yes. Yes, there were times when we did way too much and decided that
>driving to the donut shop was not a good idea (and where we got THAT sense
>of responsibility at that age, I have no idea. Thank you, parents,maybe?)
>But, these excessive evenings were absolutely no different than what our
>frat neighbors did with booze.
Again, I don't know the potency of your product. LSD [Lysergic acid
diethylamide-25 is generally regarded as the most potent hallucinogen,
but if take a small enough dose of it you would probably only get
heightened color sensations.
Others have assured you that it is a hallucinogen, but you don't have
to believe any of us if you don't want to.
>
>As you say, legality isn't related to the classification of a drug, but my
>point is to highlight the similarity of pot to alcohol, and point out the
>absurdity of the former being illegal when the latter is not. With the
>exception of lung damage, this paragraph, from the web site, easily applies
>to booze:
>
>"Euphoria followed by relaxation; loss of appetite; impaired memory,
>concentration, knowledge retention; loss of coordination; more vivd sense of
>taste, sight, smell, hearing; stronger doses cause fluctuating emotions,
>fragmentary thoughts, disoriented behavior, psychosis; may cause irritation
>to lungs, respiratory system; may cause cancer"
You get a more vivid sense of taste, sight, smell & hearing from
alcohol? Must admit have never heard that claim before. Anyone else
in the group agree with Doug? :-)
>
>We can substitute "liver damage" and "may cause bladder cancer".
>
>So...why is one legal while the other is not? (The "gateway drug" argument
>isn't allowed here, by the way).
You expect all law to be logical? :-) Why do some US states have laws
against "sodomy" and others don't? Why do some states use the word to
describe other forms of sexual behaviour such as oral sex? Why do the
penalties vary from a fine to a heavy prison sentence? Why aren't
beaches in the US topless as they are here? Why do most of your
states restrict slot machines? [Here they are called "poker" machines,
incidentally.]
It is interesting to observe that in many cases countries that allow
alcohol tend to forbid or restrict other psychoactive drugs, and many
of those who forbid or restrict alcohol allow psychoactive drugs or
turn a blind eye to their use. [Not that this necessarily applies to
tourists, of course!]
Perhaps it is for the very simple reason that the US once tried the
"noble experiment" of banning alcohol and found that it simply wasn't
enforceable. That it had the negative effects of turning a lot of
previously law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers, greatly expanding
organized crime, etc.
However, whether a law is "logical" or not, the authorities expect you
to obey it or pay the penalty if you get caught. The blokes drinking
beer in the frat house may have been breaking university rules, state
law, etc. but if they got caught no one would probably take the
offense very seriously.
Get caught using illegal drugs and the offense will probably be taken
more seriously.
The US has a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any
other country in the world, and a large percentage are there on drug
charges. Probably for more than just smoking pot, though.
>
erniegalts
[Australia]
[misc.survivalism]
|
|
|
| erniegalts |
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:44:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
><Empress Otku> wrote in message
>news:mfbs9vktufgahe5nc8rvnft75d2drsp4q3@4ax.com...
>> On 16 Apr 2003 19:10:29 -0700, davahm2003@yahoo.com (Jack) wrote:
>>
>> >> ~Empress, (Drug-Free for 18 years, Now Officially High on Life)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not even wine, beer, coffee ?
>>
>> Oh. Does that count? In that case and in the interest of full
>> disclosure:
>>
>> ~Empress, (Mostly Drug-Free except for beer, wine, the occasional
>> glass of champagne, margaritas with Mexican food and two to three cups
>> of coffee every day, but Generally High on Life, with the Occasional
>> Thrill from Usenet.)
>>
>> (I hope chocolate doesn't count.)
>
>Chocolate? Turn around - hands against the car, ma'am.
>
This might not seem so amusing in the future when governments decide
to declare a "war on fat" to go along with the "war on drugs" :-)
erniegalts
[Australia]
[misc.survivalism]
|
|
|
| erniegalts |
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 21:06:30 -0400, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
wrote:
>
>"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:FZdna.3790$NR3.1540@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
>> "Ignoramus12212" <ignoramus12212@NOSPAM.12212.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:slrnb9qptb.i51.ignoramus12212@nospam.invalid...
>> > Doug Kanter <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>> > > "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:3e9c9d33_1@binaries.vphos.net...
>> > > > "erniegalts"> wrote
>> > > > > Why would anyone buying this for a legitimate reason object to
>such
>> a
>> > > > > track? I don't suppose that the average American or Australian
>buys
>> > > > > much ammonium nitrate in his lifetime. If you wanted some as a
>> > > > > fertilizer, why would you object to providing proof of identity?
>> >
>> > BTW ammonium nitrate is a very common fertilizer to which I am used
>> > to. I would like to buy some for my garden. Won't do it this year but
>> > for next year I want to build a nice garden.
>> >
>> > ignoramus
>>
>> Regarding store-bought fertilizers, save your money. Start composting this
>> year.
>
>But that won't help me NOW.
>My sod was just laid last Aug and in the past 2 weeks I have put prolly 40
>lbs of high nitro content Scotts on it.
>Its starting to green up nicely.
>
The usual choice of fertlizer to green up lawns is ammonium sulfate.
erniegalts
[Australia]
[misc.survivalism]
|
|
|
| erniegalts |
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:53:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>"Mark Browne" <mbrowne@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:b_mna.214969$OV.276526@rwcrnsc54...
>> <snip>
>>
>> Worse, the law abiding citizens may actually think that this does some
>good.
>> It is so ridiculously easy to make something that will blow up that there
>is
>> no practical way to prevent it.
>
>Hell....yesterday, the NY Times had a story of a sign shop owner in lower
>Manhattan who was incorrectly storing chemicals related to molding/adhering
>plastics, alongside some stuff the previous tenant had left behind. (You'll
>need to create a user name and PW to access the link, but the Times sends no
>spam).
They might not send any spam, but they are collecting information for
some purpose or they wouldn't bother to do it.
Some companies do this so they can gather data from internet users for
later selective marketing.
However, no need to play their silly games. A quick search on Google
News revealed several other sources.
Interesting event, though. Thanks for posting it.
Mixing chemicals at random can be a quick way to injury or death.
>"...nitric acid, a highly volatile compound left over from a previous
>manufacturing operation, was poured into a 55-gallon drum into which workers
>had been dumping various chemicals, including lacquer thinner.
>
>"It was a real witch's brew," said Stephen Selk, the lead investigator for
>the chemical board, an independent federal agency that will issue its
>preliminary report on the explosion today.
>
>Things happened fast after the chemicals were mixed, according to the
>report. The drum began hissing and the workers for the company, Kaltech
>Industries Group, ran.
Ah well, at least they had sense enough to do that.:-)
>
>A few seconds later, the drum exploded, blasting up from the basement
>through the stairwells and elevator shafts of the 11-story building at
>111-121 West 19th Street, blowing out windows and doors and sending debris
>and glass flying into the street from a hole in the facade. At least 42
>people were injured, 12 of them critically."
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/n.../16CHEM.html?th
>
>Anyway....it doesn't take much.
>
Nope. One of the greatest non-nuclear explosions in US history was
when the freighter "Grandcamp" containing 2,300 tons of ammonium
nitrate blew up due to the ignorance of the captain. The ammonium
nitrate was in bags, and some caught fire from some unknown cause.
The crew started to put the fire out with water, but the captain
protested that this would damage the cargo. He ordered the hold
sealed and pressurised it with high pressure steam. A conventional
way of firefighting aboard ships, but definitely not a good way to
extinguish burning ammonium nitrate.
"The explosion had been heard as far as 150 miles away. The mushroom
cloud rose 2,000 feet.
Pieces of the Grandcamp were hurled several thousand feet in the air.
Some of the heavy debris landed on pipelines and storage tanks,
igniting secondary explosions. Other pieces landed on houses and
people.
Hundreds were killed instantly: the curious bystanders, the ship's
crew, the town's entire volunteer firefighter corps, save for one
volunteer who was making deliveries on his beer route near Kemah.
The Grandcamp's 1.5 ton anchor was flung two miles and was embedded 10
feet into the ground at the Pan American refinery."
<http://www.chron.com/content/chroni...xcity/main.html>
"On April 16, 1947 the town of Texas City had 16,000 registered
inhabitants but by the time the last body was found a month later, six
hundred were known dead. The exact number will never be known as many
of the victims were incinerated in the blast and there were no remains
to be found.
The explosions devastated the town of Texas City. Some reports say
there wasn’t a family in the town that didn’t suffer in some way from
the disaster, be it a family member’s death, injury or even damage to
their home or business.
The fires would continue to burn for a full week and of the six
hundred dead, sixty-three would never be identified. Most of these
were too badly burned for anyone to recognize them. For these
unclaimed bodies, local mortuaries donated cypress caskets and on June
22, 1947 they were laid to rest by various pastors in the area in
numbered graves that the city provided. Their pallbearers were members
of the veteran’s organizations, labor unions and volunteer firemen.
Today there is a monument in honor of the dead."
<http://www.rmstitanichistory.com/gr.../grandcamp.html>
Searched the web for
grandcamp ammonium nitrate texas
Results 1 - 10 of about 315. Search took 0.16 seconds.
One question that could be asked about many such incidents is whether
we should call them "accidents" or "criminal negligence".
They are "accidents" in the sense that they were not "deliberately
planned". However, most people tend to think of "accidents" as being
somehow "unavoidable".
Most aren't. When a drunken driver kills someone, I wouldn't consider
the incident as an "accident", just criminal carelessness.
In the case of the "Grandcamp" the captain didn't know what he was
doing and is responsible for killing over 600 people. Could he have
known? Why not?
All he had to do was use the ships radio to seek advice from the coast
guard or a number of other sources. The fact that ammonium nitrate is
unstable at high temperatures was widely known at the time.
As most of you probably know, spent several months on an ambulance.
We picked up a lot of "accident" victims.
IMHO, most would have been avoidable if people had been so damned
optimistic and careless.
Some accident victims couldn't have done anything themselves to
prevent injury or death, but almost all of these cases were due to the
criminal carelessness or negligence of someone else.
If you die as the result of a head-on collision with some drunk or
stupid asshole passing when he shouldn't there is probably nothing you
could have done to prevent it.
Except, of course, by possibly backing legislation to try to keep such
people off the road....
It is possible to deal harshly with drunken drivers. Scandanavian
countries do. If anyone gets caught over the limit, mandatory
suspension of license for one year. Automatic, no exceptions for
anyone for any reason.
Get caught driving while suspended, or get caught on a second "over
the limit" offense and an automatic lifetime suspension.
Tough? Yep, but certainly discourages driving when over the limit.
I for one am getting damn tired of drunken drivers killing innocent
people then whining that "it was an accident. I didn't mean to do
it."
Personally, I wouldn't care if the government immediately executed
anyone found guilty of drunken driving. And, yes, I do feel that
strongly about the issue.
erniegalts
[Australia]
[misc.survivalism]
|
|
|
| Carole |
erniegalts <erniegalts@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:<rkqr9vo7rjfnlj8nhe5sb76g5nj71lq7tp@4ax.com>...
> IMHO, if the threat gets high enough, people anywhere will not only
> support security measures but will actually demand that the government
> introduce them. [ Just as most Australians demanded tougher gun
> regulations as a result of the Port Arthur Massacre.]
>
>
> erniegalts
> [Australia]
> [misc.survivalism]
Yes but the Port Arthur Massacre was a psychological operation, or
'psyop' or conspiracy - NOT as we've been told to improve safety - BUT
to introduce gunlaws legislation.
see
Australia's Port Arthur Massacre
Government and Media Lies Exposed
http://www.aia.net.au/freedom/palies1.html
Government coverup at Port Arthur
http://www.2012.com.au
Carole
|
|
|
| Mark Browne |
<snip>
> You get a more vivid sense of taste, sight, smell & hearing from
> alcohol? Must admit have never heard that claim before. Anyone else
> in the group agree with Doug? :-)
<snip>
I believe he was referring to the negative effects. The best "positive
effects" that booze provide do is euphoria , reduce your inhibitions and
make you sleepy.
One of my favorite thing about a trip to Amsterdam is loading up and then
snacking at a doughnut shop. My goodness them snacks taste yummy! It is a
shame that I can't do this here at home. Food, music and sex are all greatly
enhanced by doobie.
Mark Browne
|
|
|
| Don |
"erniegalts"> wrote
> Perhaps it is for the very simple reason that the US once tried the
> "noble experiment" of banning alcohol and found that it simply wasn't
> enforceable. That it had the negative effects of turning a lot of
> previously law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers, greatly expanding
> organized crime, etc.
That same logic should be applied to all things.
Gov'ts aren't about logic though, they are about force.
|
|
|
| Don |
"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:ufyna.4890$nh.4031@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:3e9dfe1d_1@binaries.vphos.net...
> >
> > "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> > news:FZdna.3790$NR3.1540@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> > > "Ignoramus12212" <ignoramus12212@NOSPAM.12212.invalid> wrote in
message
> > > news:slrnb9qptb.i51.ignoramus12212@nospam.invalid...
> > > > Doug Kanter <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> > > > > "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3e9c9d33_1@binaries.vphos.net...
> > > > > > "erniegalts"> wrote
> > > > > > > Why would anyone buying this for a legitimate reason object to
> > such
> > > a
> > > > > > > track? I don't suppose that the average American or
Australian
> > buys
> > > > > > > much ammonium nitrate in his lifetime. If you wanted some as
a
> > > > > > > fertilizer, why would you object to providing proof of
identity?
> > > >
> > > > BTW ammonium nitrate is a very common fertilizer to which I am used
> > > > to. I would like to buy some for my garden. Won't do it this year
but
> > > > for next year I want to build a nice garden.
> > > >
> > > > ignoramus
> > >
> > > Regarding store-bought fertilizers, save your money. Start composting
> this
> > > year.
> >
> > But that won't help me NOW.
> > My sod was just laid last Aug and in the past 2 weeks I have put prolly
40
> > lbs of high nitro content Scotts on it.
> > Its starting to green up nicely.
> >
>
> Oh....when you said "garden", I thought you meant vegetables and flowers.
If
> you intend to grow these things next year, then NOW is absolutely the time
> to go out and buy two of those brown plastic compost bins. Try this: For
one
> week, save all your vegetable & fruit trimmings from the kitchen. Doesn't
> matter where. Stick 'em in a big black trash bag (but keep it outside).
> Notice how heavy it is at the end of a week? That's next year's
fertilizer,
> going to waste. It takes that long to make the good stuff. Do it.
I agree. But with 20 irons in the fire, now is not the time.
I'm not going anywhere, have vacant lots all around, and will eventually
have a huge and constant compost going.
Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
| Don |
"erniegalts" <erniegalts@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:occu9vgdencl820ghvg30r46c3rifuqn6t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 21:06:30 -0400, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> >news:FZdna.3790$NR3.1540@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> >> "Ignoramus12212" <ignoramus12212@NOSPAM.12212.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:slrnb9qptb.i51.ignoramus12212@nospam.invalid...
> >> > Doug Kanter <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >> > > "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> >> > > news:3e9c9d33_1@binaries.vphos.net...
> >> > > > "erniegalts"> wrote
> >> > > > > Why would anyone buying this for a legitimate reason object to
> >such
> >> a
> >> > > > > track? I don't suppose that the average American or Australian
> >buys
> >> > > > > much ammonium nitrate in his lifetime. If you wanted some as a
> >> > > > > fertilizer, why would you object to providing proof of
identity?
> >> >
> >> > BTW ammonium nitrate is a very common fertilizer to which I am used
> >> > to. I would like to buy some for my garden. Won't do it this year but
> >> > for next year I want to build a nice garden.
> >> >
> >> > ignoramus
> >>
> >> Regarding store-bought fertilizers, save your money. Start composting
this
> >> year.
> >
> >But that won't help me NOW.
> >My sod was just laid last Aug and in the past 2 weeks I have put prolly
40
> >lbs of high nitro content Scotts on it.
> >Its starting to green up nicely.
> >
> The usual choice of fertlizer to green up lawns is ammonium sulfate.
Not totally sure of the chemical composition at the moment, I just buy what
the Scotts website recommends.
Lawn's looking good.
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:3e9fe9ee_1@binaries.vphos.net...
> "erniegalts"> wrote
> > Perhaps it is for the very simple reason that the US once tried the
> > "noble experiment" of banning alcohol and found that it simply wasn't
> > enforceable. That it had the negative effects of turning a lot of
> > previously law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers, greatly expanding
> > organized crime, etc.
>
> That same logic should be applied to all things.
> Gov'ts aren't about logic though, they are about force.
>
Well...I don't know about force, but gov't is definitely rooted religious
nonsense here in the U.S. Quite a few laws are based on someone's idea of
what's a sin, or what's good for you. In NY State, I can walk into a store
and buy beer 24x7, almost. Can't buy it until noon on Sunday.
Other laws are based on fantasies, lack of research, or research which would
make a *real* researcher cringe. Matter of fact, some drug research makes
undergrads cringe if you discuss it with them. (See my reply from this
morning, to erniegalt's message).
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"erniegalts" <erniegalts@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:gocu9v8giahj8qecmhmbd8pebeemee7huk@4ax.com...
>
> They are "accidents" in the sense that they were not "deliberately
> planned". However, most people tend to think of "accidents" as being
> somehow "unavoidable".
>
> Most aren't. When a drunken driver kills someone, I wouldn't consider
> the incident as an "accident", just criminal carelessness.
>
About 5 years ago, in the county south of mine, a drunken woman got onto a
highway at night going in the wrong direction. She hit another car head on,
killing two people. The district attorney successfully tried her for murder,
not vehicular manslaughter or whatever drunks are normally charged with when
they kill someone. Some legal organization went to bat for the woman, saying
the murder charge was unfair, and the judge backed down the sentence a
little, but she'll still be an old woman when she's released.
It was a very interesting case. The DA said that because NY State has been
saturated with ads and information about the dangers of drunk driving, and
because the woman described her reading and TV/radio habits as being pretty
much average, she clearly knew the consequences of her actions. He
established that she had been drinking for years, long enough to know the
effects. He convinced the jury that the moment she began drinking that
night, she intended to drive drunk, and kill. They bought the argument.
It was obviously considered a risky legal strategy, but at the time, DWI was
as emotionally charged an issue as gay Boy Scout leaders. I wonder if other
prosecutors have tried the same thing elsewhere.
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"erniegalts" <erniegalts@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:jpbu9vgvaki5ie3dofvidp2gm9701tfnia@4ax.com...
> >
> >Interesting link, but you left out something important when you quoted
it:
> >The page included the words "Indications of Possible Misuse".
> Didn't think it important. When provide a link, usually only quote
> enough to give an indication of what is there. If readers are
> interested, doesn't take them long to check.
>
> > And, there's
> >no explanation of the research group used to determine the results shown.
>
> Just quoting from the page, didn't write it. If you don't think there
> is enough info, take it up with the government. :-)
There's no need to! Now, don't get sweaty about my next comment. It's not
intended as one of those posts which assumes that nothing is true without a
web link. You know...the guys who say "Cite, please" because they don't
believe Ronald Reagan was connected with the Iran-Contra scandal. :-)
Onward: Although I'm sure they exist, I am not personally aware of any
studies which were done in a way that would not make an experienced
researcher laugh. In other words, done the way any other pharmaceutical
study would be done. Controlled population, checked for other illnesses,
conditions, drug use, sleep patterns, psych issues, etc. Controlled drug
supply, a tough thing to do with a leafy plant whose potency may vary from
one branch to the next. If you grind it up enough to homogenize it, you may
create a consistency which is nothing like what the typical user smokes.
>
> Others have assured you that it is a hallucinogen, but you don't have
> to believe any of us if you don't want to.
Again, it's all anecdotal. My experience says it's not a hallucinogen.
Others here say they've experienced hallucinations, but with product from
Nepal, which may be genetically different from what we get here. I know
three people, aged 22 to 28 who smoke pot a couple of times a month. They
report no hallucinations. My fiancée is a grad student who has taught
courses in research standards. To her, reports like the ones you've shown on
the web are like fingernails on a blackboard. (I showed them to her, by the
way). Could some peoples' hallucinations be due to holding the smoke in
longer than other people? I had friends who did so for 30-45 seconds, and
got dizzy enough to fall off their chairs. This is all too random.
> You get a more vivid sense of taste, sight, smell & hearing from
> alcohol? Must admit have never heard that claim before. Anyone else
> in the group agree with Doug? :-)
Taste, certainly. Many people feel wine has this effect on a meal.
> >So...why is one legal while the other is not? (The "gateway drug"
argument
> >isn't allowed here, by the way).
>
> You expect all law to be logical? :-) Why do some US states have laws
> against "sodomy" and others don't? Why do some states use the word to
> describe other forms of sexual behaviour such as oral sex? Why do the
> penalties vary from a fine to a heavy prison sentence? Why aren't
> beaches in the US topless as they are here? Why do most of your
> states restrict slot machines? [Here they are called "poker" machines,
> incidentally.]
Well...don't get me started about the influence of religion on legal
systems.... :-)
> However, whether a law is "logical" or not, the authorities expect you
> to obey it or pay the penalty if you get caught. The blokes drinking
> beer in the frat house may have been breaking university rules, state
> law, etc. but if they got caught no one would probably take the
> offense very seriously.
I'm not disputing the idea that we have to accept the consequences of our
actions. I was pointing out the foolishness of a legal system which ignores
the behavioral effects of alcohol, while treating the effects of pot as a
bigger threat to public safety. This is especially obnoxious now that the
"gateway drug" theory has been disproven by researchers with actual data.
> The US has a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any
> other country in the world, and a large percentage are there on drug
> charges. Probably for more than just smoking pot, though.
>
New York State's so-called "Rockefeller drug laws" are interesting in this
regard:
"Enacted in 1973 when Nelson Rockefeller was governor, the Rockefeller Drug
Laws require harsh prison terms for the possession or sale of relatively
small amounts of drugs. The harshest provision of this statute mandates that
a judge impose a prison term of no less than 15 years to life for anyone
convicted of selling 2 ounces or possessing 4 ounces of a narcotic
substance. The penalties apply without regard to the circumstances of the
offense or the individual's character or background, making it irrelevant
whether the person is a first-time or repeat offender."
More at:
http://www.droptherock.org/
|
|
|
| Bob Peterson |
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:3e9feb29_1@binaries.vphos.net...
>
<snip>
> > >
> > The usual choice of fertlizer to green up lawns is ammonium sulfate.
>
> Not totally sure of the chemical composition at the moment, I just buy
what
> the Scotts website recommends.
> Lawn's looking good.
>
My theory is that if I fertilize the lawn, it will grow faster and I will
have to mow it more often. Therefore, I do not fertilize it at all.
|
|
|
| erniegalts |
On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 05:03:30 GMT, "Bob Peterson" <petersonra@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:189u8vcokbobutjev4fotukh3polce8jhj@4ax.com...
>> ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid (Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>>
>> >The Dave© <no@no.com> wrote:
>> >> "Ignoramus28588" wrote
>> >> > > Did you mention the billions of dollars from oil that
>> >> > > Saddam stashed away in his private accounts while
>> >> > > his people suffered?
>> >> >
>> >> > I have yet to hear some evidence of that.
>> >>
>> >> Do you believe it to not be true?
>> >
>> >I believe that Saddam does not have "billions" in his private
>> >accounts, yes. He is not that type of person. I am sure that he has
>> >some money stashed away, but less than 2 billion.
>> >
>
>Well, 60 minutes had a piece on saddams financial network. it was described
>as encompassing billions of dollars.
Have heard estimates as high as US$10 billion, think would be safe to
assume at least $2 billion. However, it might be difficult to trace
it all.
>
>> >ignoramus
>>
>> "He is not that type of person". So..you on a first name basis with
>> him? Got any good words for his gasing the Kurds? Or are you claiming
>> it never happened?
>>
>> I guess you must like the boys also. I guess when Uday ran over that
>> guy, when running a red light, then stopping to shoot the maimed
>> victim in the head for obstructing traffic, it was a simple mercy
>> killing, correct?
>>
>> Aptly named indeed.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>> If ignorance was bliss, then most liberals would have,
>> by now, achieved nirvana. (and the remainder of the world would be better
>> for their having moved to a different plane of existence.)
>> Harold Burton
>
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 00:07:09 -0500, "Don" <one-if-by-land.concord.com>
wrote:
>Got any good words for Reno gassing the Davidians?
>The US holds no moral high ground here.
Wrong. There's a big difference between what happened at Waco, a
*violation* of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and what's proven to be a
*consistent policy* of human rights abuses and atrocities taking place
in Iraq under Hussein.
~Empress
|
|
|
| Deacon Joe |
"Mark Browne" <mbrowne@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:rcPja.30982$ug3.56130@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
> > > It is my fear that someday *all* other cultures will be swept away and
> > > everyone will be reduced mindless TV watching dolts, waiting for
someone
> > to
> > > tell them what to think and want.
> >
> > Why are you afraid of this scenario for these cultures that you so
admire?
> > It hasn't happened in the West. It won't happen in the East.
> > Your self-hatred is pitiful.
>
> Odd conclusion. Please enlighten me and explain how my concerns are
> self -hatred.
You are afreaid that the "bad" western culture will infect the "good"
eastern cultures.
Self-hatred.
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Bob Peterson" <petersonra@aol.com> wrote in message
news:SAOja.30536$ug3.54670@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> I note this piece comes out of the NY Times. Hardly a bastion of truth
and
> honest reporting.
>
Here we go again! What is YOUR opinion of a "bastion of truth and honest
reporting"? Any of the Gannett chain of 4th grade reading material?
|
|
|
| Fredo |
IMHO, You will find that most posters in this NG are extremely opinionated and not very objective. ;-)
Fredo
"Mark Browne" <mbrowne@attbi.com> wrote in message news:rcPja.30982$ug3.56130@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "Deacon Joe" <deaconjoe@nspmmaryimmaculate.net> wrote in message
> news:agOja.39998$B8.12235142@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > "Mark Browne" <mbrowne@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:BVNja.379684$S_4.450192@rwcrnsc53...
> > >
> > > It is my fear that someday *all* other cultures will be swept away and
> > > everyone will be reduced mindless TV watching dolts, waiting for someone
> > to
> > > tell them what to think and want.
> >
> > Why are you afraid of this scenario for these cultures that you so admire?
> > It hasn't happened in the West. It won't happen in the East.
> > Your self-hatred is pitiful.
>
> Odd conclusion. Please enlighten me and explain how my concerns are
> self -hatred.
>
> Also, please explain how Asian cultures have survived untouched by western
> values. In particular, read some of the Chinese classics, and then travel
> through China for awhile and see if you notice any differences. I have.
>
> >
> > >None of these mindless boobs will know
> > > what the are missing anything.
> >
> > You carry a great burden, don't you? I mean, after all, being one of the
> few
> > thinkers left in Western culture - yours is a great responsibility!
> > Self-important jackass.
> >
> >
> No burden. I speak the truth as I see it. You take it whatever way you will.
> Concerned bystanders will draw their own conclusions.
>
> BTW, What does your personal attack add to the value of your rebuttal? If
> you have a point to make, make it. You argument will stand or fall on its
> own merits, regardless of your personal opinion of me.
>
> See:
> http://members.aol.com/MacedonPg/tmaod.htm
>
> Mark Browne
>
>
|
|
|
| Bob Peterson |
"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:fBfka.2004$3k5.235@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> "Bob Peterson" <petersonra@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:SAOja.30536$ug3.54670@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > I note this piece comes out of the NY Times. Hardly a bastion of truth
> and
> > honest reporting.
> >
>
> Here we go again! What is YOUR opinion of a "bastion of truth and honest
> reporting"? Any of the Gannett chain of 4th grade reading material?
>
The gannet chain is also not well known for truth and honest reporting. My
comment on the NYT was that during the Clinton era they repeatedly lied
about what Clinton was doing, so their history is that they are politically
very biased, as all news media are. I am unaware of any news media that
does not have some bias. Its just the way it is.
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Bob Peterson" <petersonra@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9Ahka.356510$L1.101313@sccrnsc02...
>
> "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:fBfka.2004$3k5.235@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> > "Bob Peterson" <petersonra@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:SAOja.30536$ug3.54670@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > > I note this piece comes out of the NY Times. Hardly a bastion of
truth
> > and
> > > honest reporting.
> > >
> >
> > Here we go again! What is YOUR opinion of a "bastion of truth and honest
> > reporting"? Any of the Gannett chain of 4th grade reading material?
> >
>
> The gannet chain is also not well known for truth and honest reporting.
My
> comment on the NYT was that during the Clinton era they repeatedly lied
> about what Clinton was doing, so their history is that they are
politically
> very biased, as all news media are. I am unaware of any news media that
> does not have some bias. Its just the way it is.
>
Logic bomb: Then they are all roughly equal. There are only two ways you can
be guaranteed totally honest reporting. Cameras running without commentary,
or be there yourself. Both are unlikely to happen.
|
|
|
| Bob Peterson |
"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:WKhka.2022$LR5.1407@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> "Bob Peterson" <petersonra@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:9Ahka.356510$L1.101313@sccrnsc02...
> >
> > "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> > news:fBfka.2004$3k5.235@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> > > "Bob Peterson" <petersonra@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:SAOja.30536$ug3.54670@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > > > I note this piece comes out of the NY Times. Hardly a bastion of
> truth
> > > and
> > > > honest reporting.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Here we go again! What is YOUR opinion of a "bastion of truth and
honest
> > > reporting"? Any of the Gannett chain of 4th grade reading material?
> > >
> >
> > The gannet chain is also not well known for truth and honest reporting.
> My
> > comment on the NYT was that during the Clinton era they repeatedly lied
> > about what Clinton was doing, so their history is that they are
> politically
> > very biased, as all news media are. I am unaware of any news media that
> > does not have some bias. Its just the way it is.
> >
>
> Logic bomb: Then they are all roughly equal. There are only two ways you
can
> be guaranteed totally honest reporting. Cameras running without
commentary,
> or be there yourself. Both are unlikely to happen.
I am not sure that they can all be categorized as "roughly equal". For the
most part, mainstream US news sources are actually pretty good about
reporting facts. They are usually sourced pretty well, and documented, and
can usually be trusted. What can not be trusted is the commentary and
opinion that pervades what passes for news. Much of what is printed, and
reported on TV is not facts but commentary and opinion.
However, virtually all of what is reported on Iraqi media, and most of what
is reported on Al Jazeera is blatantly false. So while there are some media
that are "roughly equal", there are others that are far less reliable.
Look at the war reporting. Virtually all the talking heads talked about the
"war plan", and how well/bad the plan was faring. Yet NONE of them was/is
in on the plan, so how could they possibly know anything about it? It
was/is all speculation.
Quite frankly there is no way any individual can make a decent judgment
about such things, so you need to look at what is reported and separate out
the facts from the rest of the reporting. Often you will find a few
sentences of a long story are all the facts that are reported, the rest is
"experts say", or "officials warn", or "sources report".
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Bob Peterson" <petersonra@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8Ykka.118871$Zo.23798@sccrnsc03...
> Look at the war reporting. Virtually all the talking heads talked about
the
> "war plan", and how well/bad the plan was faring. Yet NONE of them was/is
> in on the plan, so how could they possibly know anything about it? It
> was/is all speculation.
>
I agree about the speculation. To a certain extent, any war necessitates
keeping some secrets. In this particular situation, some of the speculation
comes from having very little feel for what Bush is thinking. He hasn't said
much over the past week, other than to repeat the same mantra, "We will stop
at nothing....blah blah..."
|
|
|
| Bob Peterson |
"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:vxlka.2$Ip.0@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> "Bob Peterson" <petersonra@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8Ykka.118871$Zo.23798@sccrnsc03...
>
> > Look at the war reporting. Virtually all the talking heads talked about
> the
> > "war plan", and how well/bad the plan was faring. Yet NONE of them
was/is
> > in on the plan, so how could they possibly know anything about it? It
> > was/is all speculation.
> >
>
> I agree about the speculation. To a certain extent, any war necessitates
> keeping some secrets. In this particular situation, some of the
speculation
> comes from having very little feel for what Bush is thinking. He hasn't
said
> much over the past week, other than to repeat the same mantra, "We will
stop
> at nothing....blah blah..."
>
Which seems to me to be a wise course of action. A good dose of
misdirection is also a good thing. keeps the enemy wondering what is next.
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Bob Peterson" <petersonra@aol.com> wrote in message
news:tNlka.358276$L1.101444@sccrnsc02...
>
> "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:vxlka.2$Ip.0@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> > "Bob Peterson" <petersonra@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:8Ykka.118871$Zo.23798@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > > Look at the war reporting. Virtually all the talking heads talked
about
> > the
> > > "war plan", and how well/bad the plan was faring. Yet NONE of them
> was/is
> > > in on the plan, so how could they possibly know anything about it? It
> > > was/is all s | | | |
