If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
In message , Larry Thong
writes Do you really believe that the Bush administration "kept us safe" after 9-11? Yes.... There are so many Americans to kill just next door in Iraq and Afghanistan they don't need to travel to the US to do it. Now the US is coming out of Iraq there are a lot of people who will not have Americans just down the street to kill. So they may start moving further afield to find targets. A country the size of the US with the boarders it has will never be impenetrable. Screening airports and road crossings is only spot defence. Look how many Mexicans get into the US... Have you ever driven around DC, Baltimore, or any large city and their airports noticing all the glaring security holes and opportunities for terrorists? Most places can only put up token defences. Cities and large installations like civil airports and ports are indefensible. Most Americans really believe that if the terrorists really "want to get us" and pull off something spectacular they can do it at their leisure. It is true. I assume you are monitoring ALL water reservoirs for all forms of biological hazard? You have to admire Obama's drive for wanting to roll up his sleeves and shovel out the **** Bush and the Republicans created. I You do indeed. A Brave man to try and sort out the mess left by GWB. know Obama wouldn't have gone into Iraq to let us get our asses kicked. He would have caught Bin Laden in the first year after 9-11. OBL was found 3 times after the invasion of Afghanistan. That was with Mk1 eyeball and a real human recce team not a drone. Each time the team asked for permission to shoot they were told "no shoot" and no capture.... very strange. Obama wouldn't have wasted all this money on nation building leading the US into financial destitute. I do agree that while on the campaign trail Obama didn't realize the full scope of the hole Bush dug the US into. Did anyone? I know he will do a better job digging us out than any Republican could ever do. Possibly.... we will see. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
Larry Thong wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: You have a very interesting POV. In reality, government in the US (and I suspect every country) is driven of things other than laws, and international agreements. I suspect than when Obama found out just how things REALLY are at his National Security and other classified briefings, his reaction was "What have I gotten myself into?" I suspect it is the same for each president. It's a job no sane person would ever willingly take, which tells you a lot about presidents in general. Bush had his 9-11, and Obama has an economic meltdown. I only hope that Obama does as well with his crisis as Bush did with his. If so, then by the end of his first year, we will all be safe from any further economic woes. Somehow I suspect that will NOT happen because Democrats just don't understand economics. Do you really believe that the Bush administration "kept us safe" after 9-11? Have you ever driven around DC, Baltimore, or any large city and their airports noticing all the glaring security holes and opportunities for terrorists? Most Americans really believe that if the terrorists really "want to get us" and pull off something spectacular they can do it at their leisure. You have to admire Obama's drive for wanting to roll up his sleeves and shovel out the **** Bush and the Republicans created. I know Obama wouldn't have gone into Iraq to let us get our asses kicked. He would have caught Bin Laden in the first year after 9-11. Obama wouldn't have wasted all this money on nation building leading the US into financial destitute. I do agree that while on the campaign trail Obama didn't realize the full scope of the hole Bush dug the US into. I know he will do a better job digging us out than any Republican could ever do. I disagree, but I hope you are right. BTW, I don't think Obama is qualified to go hunting for Bin Laden... Grin. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
Paul Arthur wrote:
On 2009-02-22, DRS wrote: "Ron Hunter" wrote in message tony cooper wrote: On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:55:21 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote: It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same, what's the difference? Sigh. You teach? Not English, I hope. The above paragraph is full of punctuation errors. You need to brush up on the use of commas. I usually use too many commas. Did you find it hard to understand? Comma rules are a bit 'fuzzy', and greatly different than they were 55 years or so, when I learned English. The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your sentence cited above should read: "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?" No, it should read 'It seams that modern righters, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory "if it sounds the same, what's the difference?"' You added a missing comma and removed a necessary one. The original sentence wasn't particularly unreadable, and writing for usenet doesn't need to be taken as seriously as professional writing. An occasional lapse in grammar or spelling is quite forgivable. You put something in quotes that wasn't a quotation, but something from my own mind. It's MINE, so I don't have to put in in quotes. Current rules are often downright WRONG, such as putting ending punctuation inside quotation marks if the sentence ends in a quotation. NOTHING goes in quotation marks but the exact quotation. For instance; Did Patrick Henry really say, "Give me liberty or give me death?" This changes the whole meaning of the statement. Better: Did Patrick Henry really say, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"? Again, in the 1970s, those penny-pinching newspapers decided to save ink by eliminating the 'extraneous' ending punctuation. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
DRS wrote:
"Paul Arthur" wrote in message om On 2009-02-22, DRS wrote: [...] The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your sentence cited above should read: "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?" No, it should read 'It seams that modern righters, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory "if it sounds the same, what's the difference?"' You added a missing comma and removed a necessary one. The original I disagree that the one I removed was necessary, but adding the one to properly delineate the subordinate clause was. sentence wasn't particularly unreadable, and writing for usenet doesn't need to be taken as seriously as professional writing. An occasional lapse in grammar or spelling is quite forgivable. I ordinarily don't comment on grammar or punctuation errors in Usenet but in this instance it was relevant. I find that spelling of 'seems' as 'seams', and 'writers' as 'righters' in the message seriously weakens the argument about comma usage, which I already corrected. Grin. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
Ron Hunter wrote:
...Current rules are often downright WRONG, such as putting ending punctuation inside quotation marks if the sentence ends in a quotation. NOTHING goes in quotation marks but the exact quotation. That always looks wrong to me too, unless it's part of the quote, it just looks sloppy inside the quote mark. I put the period outside unless it's critical for the meaning. self-consciously checking my comma usage For instance; Did Patrick Henry really say, "Give me liberty or give me death?" This changes the whole meaning of the statement. Better: Did Patrick Henry really say, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"? Again, in the 1970s, those penny-pinching newspapers decided to save ink by eliminating the 'extraneous' ending punctuation. -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:46:44 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: ...Current rules are often downright WRONG, such as putting ending punctuation inside quotation marks if the sentence ends in a quotation. NOTHING goes in quotation marks but the exact quotation. That always looks wrong to me too, unless it's part of the quote, it just looks sloppy inside the quote mark. I put the period outside unless it's critical for the meaning. self-consciously checking my comma usage ....that's strict AP Stylebook, guys. I learned it going through school and now what *you* think looks right looks terribly wrong to me. *But* it IS just a journalistic interpretation; however (heh) just open any given novel and what do you find? cg For instance; Did Patrick Henry really say, "Give me liberty or give me death?" This changes the whole meaning of the statement. Better: Did Patrick Henry really say, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"? Again, in the 1970s, those penny-pinching newspapers decided to save ink by eliminating the 'extraneous' ending punctuation. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message ... We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "DRS" saying something like: The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your sentence cited above should read: "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?" "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that, 'If it sounds the same what's the difference?'." I've cleared that up a bit for you. Me, I'd slip in an extra comma and move the full-stop, thusly: It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that, 'If it sounds the same, what's the difference?'" . |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
"Father Guido Sarducci" wrote in message ... In message , "Deep Reset" said: "Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message ... We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "DRS" saying something like: The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your sentence cited above should read: "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?" "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that, 'If it sounds the same what's the difference?'." I've cleared that up a bit for you. Me, I'd slip in an extra comma and move the full-stop, thusly: It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that, 'If it sounds the same, what's the difference?'" . It's so reassuring to know that some mother****ers **** in the wind about semantics whilst Gordon Brown sodomizes (sodomises) you all day long. Die violently. "semantics" - sp. "punctuation" Well, better than being butt-****ed by an ignorant cowboy for eight years, I guess. Have a nice day. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
Deep Reset wrote:
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message ... We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "DRS" saying something like: The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your sentence cited above should read: "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the difference?" "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that, 'If it sounds the same what's the difference?'." I've cleared that up a bit for you. Me, I'd slip in an extra comma and move the full-stop, thusly: It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees, subscribe to the theory that, 'If it sounds the same, what's the difference?'" . If you're going to "nit pick" over punctuation: the least you could do is to have a quotation mark at the beginning, rather than just at the end. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
"Chris H" wrote in message
... In message , J. Clarke writes Under what US statute do you believe that Clive Ponting could even have been given a ticket, let alone arrested? The ones used for Quntanamo? If it might help to get things back on topic (but doubt it will)... There was no "US Statute" used "for Guantánamo" -- I'm making the reasonable assumption that you mean the laws by which the US State illegally imprisoned human beings without trial, the abiulity to confront their accusers, reasonable rules of evidence, and a myriad of other legal rights they claim to be defending when they invaded Iraq. I say "illegally" because they did so in defiance of their own Cnstitution, Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, and Intenrational Law. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is alive and well as long as you're middle American, white, and don't look liek a 'raghead' -- and not a 14-year old Canadian Muslim boy in the wrong place at the wrong time! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 872 | January 29th 05 11:45 PM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Mike Henley | 35mm Photo Equipment | 234 | January 7th 05 11:13 AM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 4th 05 09:02 PM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 4th 05 12:34 AM |