Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning no more nukes

One thing that has fallen out of all this is there is good news -- the
United States (unless conquered by sadistic fundamentalists) will never
again use a nuclear weapon.

In fact, not only are nuclear weapons not even being developed in the US,
the ones we do have are not being maintained and would not work even if we
launched them.

This is great because, although our fusion weapons were clean and didn't
leave radiation behind like Chinese, North Korean and Russian nukes, nuclear
weapons are very politically unpopular. They are also let's face it -- not
necessary -- and the final act of desparation, as they were when used
inappropriately against nonmilitary civilian cities at the end of WWII.

It's also been pretty clever how we've distracted a lot of people into
thinking nukes were important and lured Chinese and other spies into
facilities such as Los Alamos where they gleefully stole secrets and charged
up personal expenses like furs and diamonds on government issued credit
cards. At least it kept them busy just as it kept the Chinese physicists
stocked to the gills with oodles of confounding and useless information to
analyze and futilely attempt to make sense of.

A brilliant strategy. Kudos to those who architected it.

Nukes are totally irrelevant. They are the product of a bygone era.

Nukes were relevant 60 years ago. 60 years! Wow.

Let's see - 60 years ago:

There were no computers.
There were no transistors.
There was no internet.
No one had a cell phone.
There was no space shuttle.
No one had walked on the moon.
Most of the world didn't know what a telephone was.
Smallpox and polio were big problems.
Most people were living in grass huts and the ones who weren't were sitting
in caves eating raw meat with their bare hands.

Such was the barbarous glory of the golden age of nuclear weapons.

Those days are past.

As hard as it is to realize, weapons development in the United States has
matched the pace of technology over the last 60 years.

Nuclear weapons are an irrelevant footnote. A momentary blip in history.
Nuclear weapons are dead.

- Jeff

🔗Dante Rosati <dante.interport@...>

🔗X. J. Scott <xjscott@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <dante.interport@...>

"fundys" see things in black and white, like "we're the good guys, they're
the bad guys", so Dubya certainly fits the bill, methodist or not. AS for
sadistic: how many people do you have to ordered killed to be considered
"sadistic"? Between "desert storm" Sr. and "war on terror" Jr, I'd hate to
try and do a tally.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: X. J. Scott [mailto:xjscott@...]
> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 4:28 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [metatuning] no more nukes
>
>
> on 12/15/02 4:21 PM, Dante Rosati wrote:
>
> > Doesn't the Bush dynasty fit this bill?
>
> Methodists aren't really fundamentalists and they're not sadistic.
> I chose the terms carefully since I knew this would come up.
>
> - Jeff
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

🔗X. J. Scott <xjscott@...>

on 12/15/02 6:31 PM, Dante Rosati wrote:

> "fundys" see things in black and white, like "we're the good guys, they're
> the bad guys", so Dubya certainly fits the bill, methodist or not. AS for
> sadistic: how many people do you have to ordered killed to be considered
> "sadistic"? Between "desert storm" Sr. and "war on terror" Jr, I'd hate to
> try and do a tally.
>
> Dante

I haven't seen any evidence that the President is a sadistic fundamentalist
Dante.

The word sadistic comes from the Marquis de Sade whdo enjoyed torturing
people and actually wrote some books on the subject, which were actually
quite pornographic.

Although there are many reliable reports that the Hussein's like to torture
people and even watch videotapes of peoplo whom they have tortured and
killed, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Bush does the same. You
are saying you have some information about this? I am quite skeptical. I
have never seen evidence that Bush has tortured anyone, has ordered the
torture of anyone, has watched videos of torture, or any of these things.
But you seem to think he does. Do you have any references? Because if these
accusations you are making have any credibility, they should be brought out
and examined.

- Jeff

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

george and ashcroft love to torture and kill , what do you think their play
house in Cuba is
some weren't even Al Quada and they sent them back. Oh so sorry, but we do what
we want.

"X. J. Scott" wrote:

> on 12/15/02 6:31 PM, Dante Rosati wrote:
>
> > "fundys" see things in black and white, like "we're the good guys, they're
> > the bad guys", so Dubya certainly fits the bill, methodist or not. AS for
> > sadistic: how many people do you have to ordered killed to be considered
> > "sadistic"? Between "desert storm" Sr. and "war on terror" Jr, I'd hate to
> > try and do a tally.
> >
> > Dante
>
> I haven't seen any evidence that the President is a sadistic fundamentalist
> Dante.
>
> The word sadistic comes from the Marquis de Sade whdo enjoyed torturing
> people and actually wrote some books on the subject, which were actually
> quite pornographic.
>
> Although there are many reliable reports that the Hussein's like to torture
> people and even watch videotapes of peoplo whom they have tortured and
> killed, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Bush does the same. You
> are saying you have some information about this? I am quite skeptical. I
> have never seen evidence that Bush has tortured anyone, has ordered the
> torture of anyone, has watched videos of torture, or any of these things.
> But you seem to think he does. Do you have any references? Because if these
> accusations you are making have any credibility, they should be brought out
> and examined.
>
> - Jeff
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

"X. J. Scott" wrote:

>
>
> I haven't seen any evidence that the President is a sadistic fundamentalist
> Dante.
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

🔗X. J. Scott <xjscott@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

What do expect the press to say. I am sure it was one of the conditions of their
release.
Do they look happy to you, barely being able to walk and that is th footage
they show you

"X. J. Scott" wrote:

> on 12/15/02 10:21 PM, Kraig Grady wrote:
>
> > george and ashcroft love to torture and kill , what do you think their play
> > house in Cuba is
> > some weren't even Al Quada and they sent them back. Oh so sorry, but we do
> > what
> > we want.
>
> The article I read was that the guys who we sent back to Afghanistan were
> talking up a storm about how well they were treated.
>
> - Jeff
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

🔗X. J. Scott <xjscott@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

> From: "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 6:05 PM
> Subject: [metatuning] sadism
>
>
> on 12/15/02 6:31 PM, Dante Rosati wrote:
>
> > "fundys" see things in black and white, like "we're the good guys,
they're
> > the bad guys", so Dubya certainly fits the bill, methodist or not. AS
for
> > sadistic: how many people do you have to ordered killed to be considered
> > "sadistic"? Between "desert storm" Sr. and "war on terror" Jr, I'd hate
to
> > try and do a tally.
> >
> > Dante
>
> I haven't seen any evidence that the President is a sadistic
fundamentalist
> Dante.
>
> The word sadistic comes from the Marquis de Sade whdo enjoyed torturing
> people and actually wrote some books on the subject, which were actually
> quite pornographic.
>
> Although there are many reliable reports that the Hussein's like to
torture
> people and even watch videotapes of peoplo whom they have tortured and
> killed, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Bush does the same.
You
> are saying you have some information about this? I am quite skeptical. I
> have never seen evidence that Bush has tortured anyone, has ordered the
> torture of anyone, has watched videos of torture, or any of these things.
> But you seem to think he does. Do you have any references? Because if
these
> accusations you are making have any credibility, they should be brought
out
> and examined.
>
> - Jeff

from
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sadism

saï¿½dism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sdzm, sdz-)
n.
The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency
to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain
or emotional abuse on others. The deriving of pleasure,
or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty.
Extreme cruelty.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[After SadeComte, Donatien Alphonse Franï¿½ois de.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
sadist n.
saï¿½distic (s-dstk) adj.
saï¿½distiï¿½calï¿½ly adv.

Source: The American Heritageï¿½ Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright ï¿½ 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
All rights reserved.

sadism

n : sexual pleasure obtained by inflicting harm
(physical or psychological) on others

Source: WordNet ï¿½ 1.6, ï¿½ 1997 Princeton University

anyway, Dante's simply equating Dubya's readiness
to execute alleged criminals with the glee a true
sadist would derive from the experience. is there
any video of Dubya's reaction at execution time?

-monz

🔗John Starrett <jstarret@...> <jstarret@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

> From: <jstarret@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 9:27 AM
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: sadism
>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> <snip>
> > anyway, Dante's simply equating Dubya's readiness
> > to execute alleged criminals with the glee a true
> > sadist would derive from the experience. is there
> > any video of Dubya's reaction at execution time?
> >
> > -monz
>
> Somewhere there is video of Bush mocking Karla Faye Tucker
> on the Larry King show. You can bet he gets big laffs in
> private all the time over this kind of stuff.

Bush's mockery of Tucker was in during interview with _Talk_
magazine; here's a newspaper story about it:

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2525/talkmagclip.jpg

here's the official Karla Faye Tucker website:

http://www.straightway.org/karla/karla.htm

-monz

🔗John Starrett <jstarret@...> <jstarret@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > From: <jstarret@c...>
> > To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 9:27 AM
> > Subject: [metatuning] Re: sadism
> >
> >
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > anyway, Dante's simply equating Dubya's readiness
> > > to execute alleged criminals with the glee a true
> > > sadist would derive from the experience. is there
> > > any video of Dubya's reaction at execution time?
> > >
> > > -monz
> >
> > Somewhere there is video of Bush mocking Karla Faye Tucker
> > on the Larry King show. You can bet he gets big laffs in
> > private all the time over this kind of stuff.
>
>
> Bush's mockery of Tucker was in during interview with _Talk_
> magazine; here's a newspaper story about it:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2525/talkmagclip.jpg
<snip>

Thanks for straightening me out, Joe. I had read the story so many times quoted from other sources that I completely muffed a proper attribution.

John Starrett

🔗X. J. Scott <xjscott@...>

on 12/17/02 2:15 AM, John Starrett <jstarret@...> wrote:

>> Bush's mockery of Tucker was in during interview with _Talk_
>> magazine; here's a newspaper story about it:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2525/talkmagclip.jpg
> <snip>
>
> Thanks for straightening me out, Joe. I had read the story so many times
> quoted from other sources that I completely muffed a proper attribution.

Ok, so is there not a video? Is the reporter's accounting the sole witness
to Bush's mockery of Mrs. Tucker? If such is the case, it's possible it
could be an issue that reporter has with him. Are there other accounts?
Should we look for other situations where he made have had a reaction - was
that what you were getting at Monzo? Clearly a video would have been much
better as if so this would be more clear cut.

thanks,

Jeff

🔗monz <monz@...>

> From: "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [metatuning] Re: sadism
>
>
> on 12/17/02 2:15 AM, John Starrett <jstarret@...> wrote:
>
> >> Bush's mockery of Tucker was in during interview with _Talk_
> >> magazine; here's a newspaper story about it:
> >>
> >> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2525/talkmagclip.jpg
> > <snip>
> >
> > Thanks for straightening me out, Joe. I had read the story so many times
> > quoted from other sources that I completely muffed a proper attribution.
>
> Ok, so is there not a video? Is the reporter's accounting the sole witness
> to Bush's mockery of Mrs. Tucker? If such is the case, it's possible it
> could be an issue that reporter has with him. Are there other accounts?
> Should we look for other situations where he made have had a reaction -
was
> that what you were getting at Monzo? Clearly a video would have been much
> better as if so this would be more clear cut.
>
> thanks,
>
> Jeff

well ... now, in order to encourage others to maintain
healthy standards of skepticism, i find myself defending
the person i just the other day called "our idiot president".

be careful, Jeff ... in this age of digital
anything-is-possible manipulation, and also considering
the fact that Dubya is already the butt of many millions
of jokes, a video of precisely this kind of thing could
easily turn out to be a fake.

don't trust anything unless you see it with your own
eyes or hear it with your own ears ... and even then,
remain skeptical.

-monz

🔗X. J. Scott <xjscott@...>

on 12/17/02 4:23 AM, monz wrote:

> don't trust anything unless you see it with your own
> eyes or hear it with your own ears ... and even then,
> remain skeptical.

Ak! So maybe there is a video now but it could be a fake?

Thanks Monz...

I've been thinking about this a bit and it seems like what is going on here
is there was this single article by a single reporter making a claim about
his/her personal interpretation of Bush's voice and expression during an
interview (at which no one else was present?? squeeky voice could have been
nervousness from regret at having been unable to stop the execution?). A lot
of people read the article and it went around and because of the whole
confabulation/memory phenomenon that creates such problems for eyewitness
accounts, many reasonable, well-educated people actually not only remember
having seen the video (which never existed it seems since this was a print
reporter's interview and not a TV one...) but remember in great detail very
particular details of what they saw in the video. This is a pretty common
human phenomenon and nothing to be ashamed of. But anyway, then a lot of
people 'remembering' the video, erroneously use that to establish substance
within a general theory that becomes widespread that the president derives
sick pleasure from inflicting pain. So far this is what I see. i understand
the source of the theories about the sadism now. I guess its still possible
he and/or anybody else we don't know personally could be sadistic but it
seems like the current situation is a sort of misunderstanding based on a
uncollaborated report.

- Jeff

🔗monz <monz@...>

----- Original Message -----
From: "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@...>
To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: [metatuning] Re: sadism

> on 12/17/02 4:23 AM, monz wrote:
>
> > don't trust anything unless you see it with your own
> > eyes or hear it with your own ears ... and even then,
> > remain skeptical.
>
> Ak! So maybe there is a video now but it could be a fake?
>
> Thanks Monz...
>
> I've been thinking about this a bit and it seems like what is going on
here
> is there was this single article by a single reporter making a claim about
> his/her personal interpretation of Bush's voice and expression during an
> interview (at which no one else was present?? squeeky voice could have
been
> nervousness from regret at having been unable to stop the execution?). A
lot
> of people read the article and it went around and because of the whole
> confabulation/memory phenomenon that creates such problems for eyewitness
> accounts, many reasonable, well-educated people actually not only remember
> having seen the video (which never existed it seems since this was a print
> reporter's interview and not a TV one...) but remember in great detail
very
> particular details of what they saw in the video. This is a pretty common
> human phenomenon and nothing to be ashamed of. But anyway, then a lot of
> people 'remembering' the video, erroneously use that to establish
substance
> within a general theory that becomes widespread that the president derives
> sick pleasure from inflicting pain. So far this is what I see. i
understand
> the source of the theories about the sadism now. I guess its still
possible
> he and/or anybody else we don't know personally could be sadistic but it
> seems like the current situation is a sort of misunderstanding based on a
> uncollaborated report.

that's why i went thru the trouble to find out exactly what happened.

i don't like it one bit that Bush is our president, and was glad
to find the evidence i did find, even tho i agree with you that
it's far less credible than a video would have been. but considering
my _caveat_ about digital video trickery, what "evidence" is there
really, in the end?

something we should be more concerned about is the isolationism
that's beginning to blanket America, as was pointed out in another
post yesterday.

at a time when most of the rest of the nations on this planet
are realizing that we must all learn to cooperate, it's very
wrong for the Bush administration to steer America into this
"we'll do whatever we like and the hell with the rest of you"
national policy.

-monz