Apple watch burns guy's wrist

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:14:15 -0500, "PAS" wrote:


Snipping a lot, but I assume you remember what has been discussed.

There's a lot more to this than just a kid who made a clock. The
school
and plice overreacted, IMO, they took the bait.

Your cites show that you are taking the bait. In none of the three
articles cited is there any mention that the father had an agenda in
sending his son to school with the clock, that the father was
"hoping
to elicit a response", or than any reaction was planned or
anticipated
by the father.

What the father did and said *after* the boy's arrest, is
attributable
to a father's reaction to the treatment his son received. He may be
an Islamist, and may have capitalized on the over-reaction to his
son's treatment, but that does not mean he planned anything in
advance.

As a father, and now a grandfather, I fully understand how a father
can over-react to ill-treatment of a son or daughter. It's just
that
his background led to over-reaction in a way that you or I would not
pursue. Put my son in handcuffs over something this silly and I'd
be
attacking those responsible just as the boy's father did, but over
different issues.

I don't expect to change your mind. People who want to see
conspiracies are non-tractable. They mold the "facts" to what they
want to see.

Wanting to see a conspiracy? Rather, it's recognizing that there is
more to the story. The boy's father is in, as some say, "the
grievance
business" - just as Jesse Jackson and his ilk are. It's situations
like
this that allows him to promote his grievance agenda and it's not a
stretch to think he encouraged it. The police reported that the boy
wasn't very forthcoming in ansering any questions, as if he'd been
coached as to how to handle any questioning.

Now *that* makes me laugh. The idea, that is, that a 15 year-old boy
is less than forthcoming when being questioned by the police being
suspicious. Having raised a son (and a daughter), the report that a
15 year-old is not particularly forthcoming when being questioned by
any adult - parent, teacher, or policeman - seems about the most
normal of all possible things to me. Especially, under the
conditions.

At that age, it's hard to get them to express themselves coherently
when it's about ordinary things, let alone the situation the boy was
in.

We are at the end of this, though. Your biases are not my biases
whether it's about those of a different religion or of a different
race. The choice of the word "ilk" pretty much establishes your
position.

It probably won't go down well with you, but I do think that there are
people who are "in the grievance business" that do have cause for
grievance.

The sad thing, to me, is that this is country founded by people who
left their own country to escape persecution for being of a particular
ilk, but now we are one where we distrust and are willing to persecute
the newer ilks for being what they are, and not what they do.

A country, also, where the population got into the "grievance
business" big time and rebelled forcibly because of their grievances.
We are country where we constantly quote our rebellious Founding
Fathers and their speeches airing their grievances, but we don't want
anyone doing that now.

Comparing the Founding Fathers to Jesse Jackson and people of his "ilk"
is ridiculous.

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:51:26 -0500, "PAS" wrote:

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:14:15 -0500, "PAS"
wrote:


Snipping a lot, but I assume you remember what has been discussed.

There's a lot more to this than just a kid who made a clock. The
school
and plice overreacted, IMO, they took the bait.

Your cites show that you are taking the bait. In none of the
three
articles cited is there any mention that the father had an agenda
in
sending his son to school with the clock, that the father was
"hoping
to elicit a response", or than any reaction was planned or
anticipated
by the father.

What the father did and said *after* the boy's arrest, is
attributable
to a father's reaction to the treatment his son received. He may
be
an Islamist, and may have capitalized on the over-reaction to his
son's treatment, but that does not mean he planned anything in
advance.

As a father, and now a grandfather, I fully understand how a
father
can over-react to ill-treatment of a son or daughter. It's just
that
his background led to over-reaction in a way that you or I would
not
pursue. Put my son in handcuffs over something this silly and I'd
be
attacking those responsible just as the boy's father did, but over
different issues.

I don't expect to change your mind. People who want to see
conspiracies are non-tractable. They mold the "facts" to what
they
want to see.

Wanting to see a conspiracy? Rather, it's recognizing that there is
more to the story. The boy's father is in, as some say, "the
grievance
business" - just as Jesse Jackson and his ilk are. It's situations
like
this that allows him to promote his grievance agenda and it's not a
stretch to think he encouraged it. The police reported that the boy
wasn't very forthcoming in ansering any questions, as if he'd been
coached as to how to handle any questioning.

Now *that* makes me laugh. The idea, that is, that a 15 year-old
boy
is less than forthcoming when being questioned by the police being
suspicious. Having raised a son (and a daughter), the report that a
15 year-old is not particularly forthcoming when being questioned by
any adult - parent, teacher, or policeman - seems about the most
normal of all possible things to me. Especially, under the
conditions.

At that age, it's hard to get them to express themselves coherently
when it's about ordinary things, let alone the situation the boy was
in.

We are at the end of this, though. Your biases are not my biases
whether it's about those of a different religion or of a different
race. The choice of the word "ilk" pretty much establishes your
position.

It probably won't go down well with you, but I do think that there
are
people who are "in the grievance business" that do have cause for
grievance.

The sad thing, to me, is that this is country founded by people who
left their own country to escape persecution for being of a
particular
ilk, but now we are one where we distrust and are willing to
persecute
the newer ilks for being what they are, and not what they do.

A country, also, where the population got into the "grievance
business" big time and rebelled forcibly because of their
grievances.
We are country where we constantly quote our rebellious Founding
Fathers and their speeches airing their grievances, but we don't
want
anyone doing that now.

Comparing the Founding Fathers to Jesse Jackson and people of his
"ilk"
is ridiculous.

Why? They are all people who, at their time, had very real grievances
about the way they were treated. They all stood up for their rights
to be treated fairly.

The only difference is that you agree with the positions and actions
of the Founding Fathers, and have some problem with the positions and
actions of the people of Jesse Jackson's "ilk".

Read that document that starts out:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

The grievance is that the Founding Fathers felt that the government
ruling the country did not treat the people in the colonies with
"equal station" or with "decent respect".

Can you argue that the American Negroes have been treated as people of
"equal station" or with "decent respect"?

What I am arguing is that Jesse Jackson in no way compares to the
Founding Fathers. Jesse Jackson is a fraud, a huckster, a shake-down
artist.

Jackson, King, and others went about airing their grievances
differently, but armed rebellion was not their method. Rhetoric was
Jackson's form of rebellion and rhetoric and marches were King's. And,
to some extent, it has worked.

Jesse Jackson is not in the class of MLK. Jackson is a phony. Like Al
Sharpton, he uses racial tension to enrich himself.

The only difference between "taxation without representation" and the
denial of voting rights, integration in schools and other public
places, and the ability to sit at a lunch counter is the specifics of
the denial of equality.

To me, the great hypocrisy is that we revere and support the Founding
Fathers for taking rebellious - and violent - action to achieve
equality and to pursue their own personal desires, but when a black
person wants to treated as an equal or a gay person want to have the
equal ability to marry, we (some of us) consider them troublemakers
and to be doing something wrong. The great double-standard.

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 14:04:27 -0500, "PAS" wrote:

What I am arguing is that Jesse Jackson in no way compares to the
Founding Fathers. Jesse Jackson is a fraud, a huckster, a shake-down
artist.

Jackson, King, and others went about airing their grievances
differently, but armed rebellion was not their method. Rhetoric was
Jackson's form of rebellion and rhetoric and marches were King's.
And,
to some extent, it has worked.

Jesse Jackson is not in the class of MLK. Jackson is a phony. Like
Al
Sharpton, he uses racial tension to enrich himself.

That depends on your own outlook. I'm no fan of Jackson, and
certainly not of Sharpton, but I'm not in the group that they
represent.

The Founding Fathers, and others, used the means available to them at
the time. There was no television, radio, or other form of mass media
to get their message across. Newspapers and broadsheets existed, but
distribution was slow and limited, and public literacy was not
universal. They brought their message to the public by meetings,
rallies, and other public forums.

Jackson uses the means available to him today, and takes advantage of
mass communication. We denigrate that today as being a publicity
stunt, but it's simply using the tools that are currently available.

Jackson has accumulated a net worth estimated at $10 million, so you
can legitimately claim that he does enrich himself. Thomas Jefferson
died broke. However, the means weren't available to Jefferson to
enrich himself by public appearances, book sales, and fund-raising
ventures. Had those means been available, he might not have lost the
farm to bankruptcy.

What counts, though, is what each did to advance the cause of the
people they represented. Like it or not, Jackson has spearheaded the
cause of the people he represents. He's helped to bring change for
that group.

What you may not understand is that I can dislike the man (Jackson or
Sharpton) or techniques used but still recognize that he has helped
his own group in their grievances.

Jackson and Sharpton helping their group is a by-product of their
actions but not their real goal. Their goal is to enrich themselves
personally. Like a phony evangelist, they have found a niche to exploit
in order to enrich themselves. This is in no way comparable to someone
who has an honorable goal, like the Founders did. They were imperfect
but no frauds and hucksters. Like a phony evangelist tainting all
evangelists as frauds in the eyes of some, I have to question whether a
fraud like Jackson and Sharpton really do, in the end, help their group.
All the honorable ones who do help the group can be tainted by the
frauds and looked upon themselves as frauds.

On 11/30/2015 2:15 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

Driving too fast skidding and coming off the road, slipping with a knife
and cuttign your finger is an accident too.

both are definitely *not* an accident. it's negligence and stupidity.

yep no such thing as an accident, no accident has ever occured in this
universe so far, yes we know, it's hardly news.

straw man.

edited

Well, then, "nospam" -- how would you define the word "accident?"

John

On 11/30/15 9:45 AM, in article , "PAS"
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , George Kerby
wrote:

Not that cars, planes, drones or any other device uses high energy
batteries.
What I suggest happend that he was fiddling with some electrical
device
and
it shorted to his watch strap. Those drone batteries can suply
400+ amps
for
a few seconds. Or if he was messing with a car a similar thing
could
happen.
Drop a spanner across a car batter and see what happens. Yes I
know car
batteries have no external terminals any nore than boats, planes
or drones
do. But that doesn't make it impossible to short out those
batteries if
yuo'r
working on the device.

car batteries absolutely do have external terminals. how do you
think
it connects to the car??

wearing metal jewelry when working with batteries is stupid.

he's trying to blame apple for his own ****up.

Just like clock boi and his ****ed up family...

clock boy didn't **** up at all, nor is his family ****ed up.

the school system and police ****ed up big time and they're going to
be
paying for their mistakes.

Clock Boy's father is a bit of an activist and just may have had his son
bring the clock in order to provoke a reaction.


DING _ DING _ DING

Give the man the Teddy Bear!!!

On 11/30/15 10:10 AM, in article ,
"Tony Cooper" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:45:15 -0500, "PAS"
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , George Kerby
wrote:

Not that cars, planes, drones or any other device uses high energy
batteries.
What I suggest happend that he was fiddling with some electrical
device
and
it shorted to his watch strap. Those drone batteries can suply
400+ amps
for
a few seconds. Or if he was messing with a car a similar thing
could
happen.
Drop a spanner across a car batter and see what happens. Yes I
know car
batteries have no external terminals any nore than boats, planes
or drones
do. But that doesn't make it impossible to short out those
batteries if
yuo'r
working on the device.

car batteries absolutely do have external terminals. how do you
think
it connects to the car??

wearing metal jewelry when working with batteries is stupid.

he's trying to blame apple for his own ****up.

Just like clock boi and his ****ed up family...

clock boy didn't **** up at all, nor is his family ****ed up.

the school system and police ****ed up big time and they're going to
be
paying for their mistakes.

Clock Boy's father is a bit of an activist and just may have had his son
bring the clock in order to provoke a reaction.

We need to have the father appointed to Head of Homeland Security

Sorry, he is on the OTHER side, Tony.

However, anyone might be better than the POTUS and his band of fools...

On 11/30/15 2:31 PM, in article ,
"Tony Cooper" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:46:28 -0500, "PAS"
wrote:

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:45:15 -0500, "PAS"
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , George Kerby
wrote:

Not that cars, planes, drones or any other device uses high
energy
batteries.
What I suggest happend that he was fiddling with some
electrical
device
and
it shorted to his watch strap. Those drone batteries can suply
400+ amps
for
a few seconds. Or if he was messing with a car a similar thing
could
happen.
Drop a spanner across a car batter and see what happens. Yes I
know car
batteries have no external terminals any nore than boats,
planes
or drones
do. But that doesn't make it impossible to short out those
batteries if
yuo'r
working on the device.

car batteries absolutely do have external terminals. how do you
think
it connects to the car??

wearing metal jewelry when working with batteries is stupid.

he's trying to blame apple for his own ****up.

Just like clock boi and his ****ed up family...

clock boy didn't **** up at all, nor is his family ****ed up.

the school system and police ****ed up big time and they're going to
be
paying for their mistakes.

Clock Boy's father is a bit of an activist and just may have had his
son
bring the clock in order to provoke a reaction.

We need to have the father appointed to Head of Homeland Security if
he is smart enough to predict that the school and the police would
react to a simple electronic project as a threat to national security.
Being an activist only works when the school and police officials go
into Chicken Little mode as they did.

The father was hoping to elicit a response, he has an agenda which is to
point out "Islamaphobia". He suceeded, that school and police fail.
FWIW, the boy was being very coy and not forthcoming in answering any
questions. He knew what he doing and he was well-coached. It was a
setup and they got what they wanted. The boy and his father aren't
innocent in this. The father has claimed that this incident will help
to spread Islam and he's a 9/11 "Truther". There is far more to this
than an overreaction by the school and police.

When you make a claim like the above, it really should be supported by
some outside source reference. You may hold the opinion that the
father was hoping to elicit a response, but you have presented this as
fact instead of your own opinion.

Good to see that you and nospam can agree on something!

Even if it is totally WRONG...

On 12/2/2015 12:31 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:51:26 -0500, "PAS" wrote:

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:14:15 -0500, "PAS" wrote:


Snipping a lot, but I assume you remember what has been discussed.

There's a lot more to this than just a kid who made a clock. The
school
and plice overreacted, IMO, they took the bait.

Your cites show that you are taking the bait. In none of the three
articles cited is there any mention that the father had an agenda in
sending his son to school with the clock, that the father was
"hoping
to elicit a response", or than any reaction was planned or
anticipated
by the father.

What the father did and said *after* the boy's arrest, is
attributable
to a father's reaction to the treatment his son received. He may be
an Islamist, and may have capitalized on the over-reaction to his
son's treatment, but that does not mean he planned anything in
advance.

As a father, and now a grandfather, I fully understand how a father
can over-react to ill-treatment of a son or daughter. It's just
that
his background led to over-reaction in a way that you or I would not
pursue. Put my son in handcuffs over something this silly and I'd
be
attacking those responsible just as the boy's father did, but over
different issues.

I don't expect to change your mind. People who want to see
conspiracies are non-tractable. They mold the "facts" to what they
want to see.

Wanting to see a conspiracy? Rather, it's recognizing that there is
more to the story. The boy's father is in, as some say, "the
grievance
business" - just as Jesse Jackson and his ilk are. It's situations
like
this that allows him to promote his grievance agenda and it's not a
stretch to think he encouraged it. The police reported that the boy
wasn't very forthcoming in ansering any questions, as if he'd been
coached as to how to handle any questioning.

Now *that* makes me laugh. The idea, that is, that a 15 year-old boy
is less than forthcoming when being questioned by the police being
suspicious. Having raised a son (and a daughter), the report that a
15 year-old is not particularly forthcoming when being questioned by
any adult - parent, teacher, or policeman - seems about the most
normal of all possible things to me. Especially, under the
conditions.

At that age, it's hard to get them to express themselves coherently
when it's about ordinary things, let alone the situation the boy was
in.

We are at the end of this, though. Your biases are not my biases
whether it's about those of a different religion or of a different
race. The choice of the word "ilk" pretty much establishes your
position.

It probably won't go down well with you, but I do think that there are
people who are "in the grievance business" that do have cause for
grievance.

The sad thing, to me, is that this is country founded by people who
left their own country to escape persecution for being of a particular
ilk, but now we are one where we distrust and are willing to persecute
the newer ilks for being what they are, and not what they do.

A country, also, where the population got into the "grievance
business" big time and rebelled forcibly because of their grievances.
We are country where we constantly quote our rebellious Founding
Fathers and their speeches airing their grievances, but we don't want
anyone doing that now.

Comparing the Founding Fathers to Jesse Jackson and people of his "ilk"
is ridiculous.

Why? They are all people who, at their time, had very real grievances
about the way they were treated. They all stood up for their rights
to be treated fairly.

The only difference is that you agree with the positions and actions
of the Founding Fathers, and have some problem with the positions and
actions of the people of Jesse Jackson's "ilk".

Read that document that starts out:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

The grievance is that the Founding Fathers felt that the government
ruling the country did not treat the people in the colonies with
"equal station" or with "decent respect".

Can you argue that the American Negroes have been treated as people of
"equal station" or with "decent respect"?

Jackson, King, and others went about airing their grievances
differently, but armed rebellion was not their method. Rhetoric was
Jackson's form of rebellion and rhetoric and marches were King's. And,
to some extent, it has worked.

Most, like Dr. King, went about advocating their cause, in a manner
designed to help the people. Other's like Jesse Jackson, and Al
Sharpton, while advocating their cause, do so in a manner designed to
line their pockets. There is a big difference. Yes black people have a
plethora of legitimate grievances. Too many of these so called leaders
are taking unfair advantage by attempting a shake down, that if they
were not black, could well be subject to criminal prosecution. I know of
one situation where a black person was undergoing a lack of performance
discussion with her manager. She told the manager that the only reason
this discussion was happening was because she was black, and they were
seeking to build a file so they could legally fire her. The manager
asked her if she was black when the manager hired her. End of race card
discussion.
As to this PC of "African American," which was imposed by a pocket
liner: most of the black people I know from the West Indies, hate that
label.




The only difference between "taxation without representation" and the
denial of voting rights, integration in schools and other public
places, and the ability to sit at a lunch counter is the specifics of
the denial of equality.

To me, the great hypocrisy is that we revere and support the Founding
Fathers for taking rebellious - and violent - action to achieve
equality and to pursue their own personal desires, but when a black
person wants to treated as an equal or a gay person want to have the
equal ability to marry, we (some of us) consider them troublemakers
and to be doing something wrong. The great double-standard.


Hopefully those with the double standard, are a vocal minority. I would
like to think that most people are only interested in living peacefully,
getting a small share of the pie, and are willing to work for it, while
contributing to society.



--
PeterN

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:00:13 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

Can you argue that the American Negroes have been treated as people
of
"equal station" or with "decent respect"?

Jackson, King, and others went about airing their grievances
differently, but armed rebellion was not their method. Rhetoric was
Jackson's form of rebellion and rhetoric and marches were King's.
And,
to some extent, it has worked.

Most, like Dr. King, went about advocating their cause, in a manner
designed to help the people. Other's like Jesse Jackson, and Al
Sharpton, while advocating their cause, do so in a manner designed to
line their pockets. There is a big difference.

I attended the events following the Travon Martin shooting in Sanford
FL. (My interest was in journalistic photography of the event) Al
Sharpton flew in, made a speech, and flew out.

It's easy - and mostly accurate - to write off Sharpton and Jackson as
publicity seekers who benefit monetarily. However, that discounts the
viewpoint of the people most directly involved: African Americans.

Sharpton was cheered and he galvanized the crowd. While some of us,
mostly white Americans, might see Sharpton and Jackson as
rabble-rousers out to line their own pockets, their target group
doesn't necessarily see them that way.

I've seen people happily give money to thieving, charlatan evangelists.
They are deceived. That they don't see it that way doesn't change the
fact that they are. It also doens't change the fact that they are
deceived by hucksters. It's the same with Sharpton's and Jackson's
supporters.

Change doesn't happen unless the people affected by conditions get
stirred up and make their grievances known. Sharpton and Jackson do
do this. Some of us may not like their methods, but they aren't doing
it to become popular with the rest of us.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 12/2/2015 7:08 PM, John Turco wrote:
On 11/30/2015 2:15 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

Driving too fast skidding and coming off the road, slipping with a
knife
and cuttign your finger is an accident too.

both are definitely *not* an accident. it's negligence and stupidity.

yep no such thing as an accident, no accident has ever occured in this
universe so far, yes we know, it's hardly news.

straw man.

edited

Well, then, "nospam" -- how would you define the word "accident?"


Don't hold your breath waiting for a rational answer. He has stated that
there is no such thing.


--
PeterN