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 /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

"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?'" .

"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.

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.

"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!