I don't understand...

Why wasn't this on the news?

We finally heard it on BBC radio last night and now the news is making
it onto the 'net, but we checked CNN and Fox last night when we first
heard and there is no word:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat...ws&Number=2950
02651#Post295002651
or

http://tinyurl.com/y66wjw

Also here:

http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/.../12/5939.shtml

I have friends in Bagdad I need to e-mail. :-(
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> Why wasn't this on the news?
>
> We finally heard it on BBC radio last night and now the news is making
> it onto the 'net, but we checked CNN and Fox last night when we first
> heard and there is no word:
>
> http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat...ws&Number=2950
> 02651#Post295002651
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y66wjw

This isn't what I'd call a reasonable source. Seriously, this guy is a
whackjob. You noticed that, right? Taking his "reporting" as fact is
like asking Mr. Hankie to explain building engineering to you.

The first thing I noticed is that he took "casualty" to mean "death". I
went and check and there's no spike in deaths for that day.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

> Also here:
>
> http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/.../12/5939.shtml

Propaganda, pure and simple. Geez, Om, think.

> I have friends in Bagdad I need to e-mail. :-(

Do that. It sure sucks to be them. Here's why:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...pats_birthday/

Now take a look at what has happened to OUR country. Wouldn't you go to
war to defend us from an invading country that suspended habeous corpus?
These guys took an oath to do that, and now they're being controlled
by the same sort of despot that they swore to defend us from.

Dally

In article <4qh3u7Fn1i3oU1@individual.net>, Dally <Dally@myself.com>
wrote:

> Propaganda, pure and simple. Geez, Om, think.

While I won't argue with that, the situation was broadcast on BBC news...
Are you saying that they are not reliable?

I just don't understand why our own news is not covering such a serious
item.

>
> > I have friends in Bagdad I need to e-mail. :-(
>
> Do that. It sure sucks to be them. Here's why:
>
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...pats_birthday/
>
> Now take a look at what has happened to OUR country. Wouldn't you go to
> war to defend us from an invading country that suspended habeous corpus?
> These guys took an oath to do that, and now they're being controlled
> by the same sort of despot that they swore to defend us from.
>
> Dally

Quite an anti-establishment website. ;-)

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about that whole mess.
I don't know how to feel or what to think about it anymore...

I just wish it was over with.

I think also that media coverage should be better.
Use people deserve to know the truth, especially since our
brothers/sisters/husbands/wives/sons/daughters are dying over there.

The two friends I have in Iraq are civilians on rebuilding projects.
They went because they needed the money.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> Why wasn't this on the news?
>
Because it was picked up from Iran news and the crap reported here is
way exaggerated. Think or be as stupid as Hankie. Your choice.

On Oct 28, 7:48 am, OmManiPadmeOmelet <omp_ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>While I won't argue with that, the situation was broadcast on BBC news...
> Are you saying that they are not reliable?

The BBC may be better at reporting the world situation, but that doesnt
mean they cant be duped into reporting a false situation nor a biased
story. In an effort for 'news' that relates to their news hungry agenda
they sometimes jump too readily and report stuff before they verify its
sources. Happens to CNN all the time so why would the BBC be any
different? Its 'news' but dont believe everything you hear or read.

> I just don't understand why our own news is not covering such a serious item.

CNN news is so very limited. US news hardly ever reports unbiased
worldwide info and when they do its only in reference as to how it
affects your gasoline or US relations with that particular country.
Did you read about Dafur? Rawanda? Mass killings you'd think would make
the news. Oh just a few hundred thousand Africans isnt 'newsworthy'.
Its like they dont report 'too accurately' lest we all have a reality
check that there is a real world outside of the US continent.


joanne

In article <eK-dncdARqY9CN7YnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote:

> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> > Why wasn't this on the news?
> >
> Because it was picked up from Iran news and the crap reported here is
> way exaggerated. Think or be as stupid as Hankie. Your choice.

Actually, the radio report was even worse.

I was told that they suspected a tactical nuke was used...

;-)

I don't always believe everything I hear on the news and certainly not
everything I read on the 'net, I'm just surprised that our own news
media is not saying anything.

They might have to now.

I've noted in the past that a _lot_ of local news I hear is about 24
hours behind BBC.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <1162057262.490392.189600@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups .com>,
"joanne" <jgrrl2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I just don't understand why our own news is not covering such a serious
> > item.
>
> CNN news is so very limited. US news hardly ever reports unbiased
> worldwide info and when they do its only in reference as to how it
> affects your gasoline or US relations with that particular country.
> Did you read about Dafur? Rawanda? Mass killings you'd think would make
> the news. Oh just a few hundred thousand Africans isnt 'newsworthy'.
> Its like they dont report 'too accurately' lest we all have a reality
> check that there is a real world outside of the US continent.
>
>
> joanne

I've been following the situation in Darfur for a long time now.
It totally sucks that it's been allowed to continue for so long.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote in message

> I've noted in the past that a _lot_ of local news I hear is about 24
> hours behind BBC.
> --

Perhaps the BBC doesn't like to waste valuable time with all that
'verification' stuff.

In article <Ue2dnaDdScY5Ot7YnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"ranieri" <not now> wrote:

> "OmManiPadmeOmelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > I've noted in the past that a _lot_ of local news I hear is about 24
> > hours behind BBC.
> > --
>
> Perhaps the BBC doesn't like to waste valuable time with all that
> 'verification' stuff.

Neither does our own news a lot of the time... ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:

> I don't always believe everything I hear on the news and certainly not
> everything I read on the 'net, I'm just surprised that our own news
> media is not saying anything.
>
> They might have to now.
>
> I've noted in the past that a _lot_ of local news I hear is about 24
> hours behind BBC.

I have been looking on an off today for a refutation of this article and
I can't find any. It's hard to prove a negative so at the moment I'm
wondering if it's actually true.

But neither can I find anyone who is a first person witness to the 300
casualty names being dead, or a first person account on a blog.

The list of specific names and regiments provides a bunch of leads. I
tried various websites for the regiments listed and haven't had any
luck, though I didn't do that avenue very exhaustively. But since
they've made it so clear exactly who is dead, we ought to find a local
news source mentioning the death somehow.

Dally

In article <4qhrkqFmuso8U1@individual.net>, Dally <Dally@myself.com>
wrote:

> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
>
> > I don't always believe everything I hear on the news and certainly not
> > everything I read on the 'net, I'm just surprised that our own news
> > media is not saying anything.
> >
> > They might have to now.
> >
> > I've noted in the past that a _lot_ of local news I hear is about 24
> > hours behind BBC.
>
> I have been looking on an off today for a refutation of this article and
> I can't find any. It's hard to prove a negative so at the moment I'm
> wondering if it's actually true.

Hard to say... The woman that sent me the original notice posted several
more websites, but since most of them were mid-eastern, I did not bother
to post them.

I get the NYT by e-mail every morning and I saw no mention of it there.

>
> But neither can I find anyone who is a first person witness to the 300
> casualty names being dead, or a first person account on a blog.
>
> The list of specific names and regiments provides a bunch of leads. I
> tried various websites for the regiments listed and haven't had any
> luck, though I didn't do that avenue very exhaustively. But since
> they've made it so clear exactly who is dead, we ought to find a local
> news source mentioning the death somehow.
>
> Dally

They may or may not show up in the obits.

There is a Youtube video but that does not mean anything.

It's also on this website but it's a whacko conspiracy site, if you want
a good laugh on the contents of the upper part of the page. The relevant
article is down a few scrolls:

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2547.htm

Not a reliable reference site for sure. ;-)

Now here is a page from the BBC website with several references. I've
not looked at them yet:

http://tinyurl.com/y25ell
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

>> There is a Youtube video but that does not mean anything.

Agreed on this one. .There is a ton of unreliable stuff on YouTube. I'd
be extra cautious!

Cheers,

Ira


===========================
Random Tourist Link:
http://www.haciendabarbudva.com/photo-gallery.html
===========================

Dally <Dally@myself.com> wrote:

>OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
>
>> I don't always believe everything I hear on the news and certainly not
>> everything I read on the 'net, I'm just surprised that our own news
>> media is not saying anything.
>>
>> They might have to now.
>>
>> I've noted in the past that a _lot_ of local news I hear is about 24
>> hours behind BBC.
>
>I have been looking on an off today for a refutation of this article and
>I can't find any. It's hard to prove a negative so at the moment I'm
>wondering if it's actually true.
>
>But neither can I find anyone who is a first person witness to the 300
>casualty names being dead, or a first person account on a blog.

Reuters reported this the day after it happened, but the spokesman for
the Fourth Infantry reported ZERO casualties:

"Oct 11, 2006 — By Ross Colvin

"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Militiamen firing mortars detonated a U.S.
ammunition dump in Baghdad on Tuesday night, sparking a barrage of
explosions that continued to shake the capital on Wednesday morning, a
U.S. military spokesman said.

"Residents said the blasts were reminiscent of the aerial bombardment
of Baghdad that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"A mortar round fired from the Abu Dsheer area of southern Baghdad
caused the fire in an ammunition holding area in Camp Falcon, a
forward operating base for U.S. troops, that ignited tank, artillery
and small-arms ammunition, the spokesman said.

"'Intelligence indicates that civilians aligned with a militia
organization were responsible for last night's mortar attack,' said
Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Withington, spokesman for the U.S. 4th
Infantry Division.

"Withington said there were no reports of casualties among soldiers on
the base or Iraqi civilians in neighboring districts."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2552679

Sounds like Islamist propaganda that was seized upon by the barking
moonbats. Nothing new there. Welcome to The World According to Henry
Hansteen.

"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote
> Dally <Dally@myself.com> wrote:
>>OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
>>
>>> I don't always believe everything I hear on the news and certainly not
>>> everything I read on the 'net, I'm just surprised that our own news
>>> media is not saying anything.
>>>
>>> They might have to now.
>>>
>>> I've noted in the past that a _lot_ of local news I hear is about 24
>>> hours behind BBC.
>>
>>I have been looking on an off today for a refutation of this article and
>>I can't find any. It's hard to prove a negative so at the moment I'm
>>wondering if it's actually true.
>>
>>But neither can I find anyone who is a first person witness to the 300
>>casualty names being dead, or a first person account on a blog.
>
> Reuters reported this the day after it happened, but the spokesman for
> the Fourth Infantry reported ZERO casualties:
>
> "Oct 11, 2006 - By Ross Colvin
>
> "BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Militiamen firing mortars detonated a U.S.
> ammunition dump in Baghdad on Tuesday night, sparking a barrage of
> explosions that continued to shake the capital on Wednesday morning, a
> U.S. military spokesman said.
>
> "Residents said the blasts were reminiscent of the aerial bombardment
> of Baghdad that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
>
> "A mortar round fired from the Abu Dsheer area of southern Baghdad
> caused the fire in an ammunition holding area in Camp Falcon, a
> forward operating base for U.S. troops, that ignited tank, artillery
> and small-arms ammunition, the spokesman said.
>
> "'Intelligence indicates that civilians aligned with a militia
> organization were responsible for last night's mortar attack,' said
> Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Withington, spokesman for the U.S. 4th
> Infantry Division.
>
> "Withington said there were no reports of casualties among soldiers on
> the base or Iraqi civilians in neighboring districts."
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2552679
>
> Sounds like Islamist propaganda that was seized upon by the barking
> moonbats. Nothing new there. Welcome to The World According to Henry
> Hansteen.

The hundreds of casualties were taken to the secret base out here near Las
Vegas at Area 51, where the passengers of the airliners that did not hit the
Twin Towers and did not hit the Pantagon are being held.

The socks that disappear from the drier go there, too.

David

In article <1162087465.982825.22870@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
Ira.Kovac@gmail.com wrote:

> >> There is a Youtube video but that does not mean anything.
>
> Agreed on this one. .There is a ton of unreliable stuff on YouTube. I'd
> be extra cautious!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ira

I don't think there are any rules to post videos there?
I've never tried so am not sure.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <gs48k2hp96in756pn5pu28f5q34cvesvb1@4ax.com>,
JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> Reuters reported this the day after it happened, but the spokesman for
> the Fourth Infantry reported ZERO casualties:
>
> "Oct 11, 2006 — By Ross Colvin
>
> "BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Militiamen firing mortars detonated a U.S.
> ammunition dump in Baghdad on Tuesday night, sparking a barrage of
> explosions that continued to shake the capital on Wednesday morning, a
> U.S. military spokesman said.
>
> "Residents said the blasts were reminiscent of the aerial bombardment
> of Baghdad that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
>
> "A mortar round fired from the Abu Dsheer area of southern Baghdad
> caused the fire in an ammunition holding area in Camp Falcon, a
> forward operating base for U.S. troops, that ignited tank, artillery
> and small-arms ammunition, the spokesman said.
>
> "'Intelligence indicates that civilians aligned with a militia
> organization were responsible for last night's mortar attack,' said
> Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Withington, spokesman for the U.S. 4th
> Infantry Division.
>
> "Withington said there were no reports of casualties among soldiers on
> the base or Iraqi civilians in neighboring districts."
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2552679
>
> Sounds like Islamist propaganda that was seized upon by the barking
> moonbats. Nothing new there. Welcome to The World According to Henry
> Hansteen.

Thanks John. :-)

Now I can mail this back to the original people that started it with us
and network it back.

Appreciated......
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <34W0h.16775$Y24.16153@newsread4.news.pas.earthlin k.net>,
"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2552679
> >
> > Sounds like Islamist propaganda that was seized upon by the barking
> > moonbats. Nothing new there. Welcome to The World According to Henry
> > Hansteen.
>
> The hundreds of casualties were taken to the secret base out here near Las
> Vegas at Area 51, where the passengers of the airliners that did not hit the
> Twin Towers and did not hit the Pantagon are being held.
>
> The socks that disappear from the drier go there, too.
>
> David

And here I thought my house gnomes were using them as sleeping bags???

The secret govt. owes me some damned socks!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Ira.Kovac@gmail.com wrote:
>>>There is a Youtube video but that does not mean anything.
>
>
> Agreed on this one. .There is a ton of unreliable stuff on YouTube. I'd
> be extra cautious!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ira

Apparently it was uploaded in May, 2006. Not likely to be an October
2006 event.

Dally

In article <4qkfptFng9nrU1@individual.net>, Dally <Dally@myself.com>
wrote:

> Ira.Kovac@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>There is a Youtube video but that does not mean anything.
> >
> >
> > Agreed on this one. .There is a ton of unreliable stuff on YouTube. I'd
> > be extra cautious!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Ira
>
> Apparently it was uploaded in May, 2006. Not likely to be an October
> 2006 event.
>
> Dally

No, this one was uploaded October 20th:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq082HmtPEM

There is no doubt that the explosions took place, (I have a close friend
that is in the military and is posted in Washington and he confirmed it)
but what is in question is the amount of damage and the death toll. :-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:48:37 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
<omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <4qh3u7Fn1i3oU1@individual.net>, Dally <Dally@myself.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Propaganda, pure and simple. Geez, Om, think.
>
>While I won't argue with that, the situation was broadcast on BBC news...
>Are you saying that they are not reliable?
>
>I just don't understand why our own news is not covering such a serious
>item.

Because our news reporters fucked up during Vietnam. Now the US
government keeps them on a short leash on matters of war. I don't
know if you remember the Peter Arnett scandal a while back. They
have to watch what they say now.

In article <592ak29d4t4lijjstjloj4h65o8k24mjlv@4ax.com>,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:48:37 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4qh3u7Fn1i3oU1@individual.net>, Dally <Dally@myself.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Propaganda, pure and simple. Geez, Om, think.
> >
> >While I won't argue with that, the situation was broadcast on BBC news...
> >Are you saying that they are not reliable?
> >
> >I just don't understand why our own news is not covering such a serious
> >item.
>
> Because our news reporters fucked up during Vietnam. Now the US
> government keeps them on a short leash on matters of war. I don't
> know if you remember the Peter Arnett scandal a while back. They
> have to watch what they say now.

No I don't. I'll have to google it thanks.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <592ak29d4t4lijjstjloj4h65o8k24mjlv@4ax.com>,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

> I don't
> know if you remember the Peter Arnett scandal a while back. They
> have to watch what they say now.

Just google it... Oops. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 14:44:36 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
<omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <592ak29d4t4lijjstjloj4h65o8k24mjlv@4ax.com>,
> Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Because our news reporters fucked up during Vietnam. Now the US
>> government keeps them on a short leash on matters of war. I don't
>> know if you remember the Peter Arnett scandal a while back. They
>> have to watch what they say now.
>
>No I don't. I'll have to google it thanks.

Well in short he Peter was a journalist with a long history of new
coverage. He ran a story about using nerve gas during the gulf war
which he couldn't back up. One of the persons under him was fired for
the report and it created a lot of controversy with everyone pointing
fingers. Then I guess he ended up getting fired for making comments
recently about the war.

Here is a link on how few reporters we have over there:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003254981

Here is an old report on some of the restrictions they face:
http://web1.duc.auburn.edu/~benjadp/gulf/gulf.html

Maybe you can find some more stuff on the restrictions then I could.
I am sure they must be different during wartime as opposed to the
occupation.

In article <bj5ak2dacfg6m3d6dc7bbdvftg7tta8k1d@4ax.com>,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 14:44:36 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <592ak29d4t4lijjstjloj4h65o8k24mjlv@4ax.com>,
> > Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Because our news reporters fucked up during Vietnam. Now the US
> >> government keeps them on a short leash on matters of war. I don't
> >> know if you remember the Peter Arnett scandal a while back. They
> >> have to watch what they say now.
> >
> >No I don't. I'll have to google it thanks.
>
> Well in short he Peter was a journalist with a long history of new
> coverage. He ran a story about using nerve gas during the gulf war
> which he couldn't back up. One of the persons under him was fired for
> the report and it created a lot of controversy with everyone pointing
> fingers. Then I guess he ended up getting fired for making comments
> recently about the war.

Yeah. I did a quick google and read up on it.

>
> Here is a link on how few reporters we have over there:
> http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea...?vnu_content_i
> d=1003254981
>
> Here is an old report on some of the restrictions they face:
> http://web1.duc.auburn.edu/~benjadp/gulf/gulf.html
>
> Maybe you can find some more stuff on the restrictions then I could.
> I am sure they must be different during wartime as opposed to the
> occupation.

I believe a lot of those restrictions are in place for security
reasons...

One of the biggest problems I think we may have is the internet. Those
people over there (the insurgents) have access to it, and if you google
the right websites, they can use satellite photos. There was a mention
once of a problem with "Google Earth":

http://earth.google.com/

I can see a security problem with this as far as troop movements go?
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:19:50 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
<omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>I believe a lot of those restrictions are in place for security
>reasons...

Yes but they use them censor the news. Just like other branches of
government take away our freedom for "security" reasons. You must
have heard the expression you give someone an inch and they take a
mile.

>One of the biggest problems I think we may have is the internet. Those
>people over there (the insurgents) have access to it, and if you google
>the right websites, they can use satellite photos. There was a mention
>once of a problem with "Google Earth":
>
>http://earth.google.com/
>
>I can see a security problem with this as far as troop movements go?

You can't stop technology. You can only delay it for a time. Google
has had complaints before like when you could search phone numbers.
They used to black out certain government sites but when I just did a
search for one I could see the whole map. They used restrict gps
locations more than they currently do. What are they supposed to do
though? There is a high demand for information so it is being made
available to the general public.

In article <m4pak2l72440j64blgcjk3pfgi8hpmkjhs@4ax.com>,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:19:50 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I believe a lot of those restrictions are in place for security
> >reasons...
>
> Yes but they use them censor the news. Just like other branches of
> government take away our freedom for "security" reasons. You must
> have heard the expression you give someone an inch and they take a
> mile.

Who was it that said "Anyone who will give up Liberty for Security
deserves neither"? I think it was Franklin or Jefferson?

>
> >One of the biggest problems I think we may have is the internet. Those
> >people over there (the insurgents) have access to it, and if you google
> >the right websites, they can use satellite photos. There was a mention
> >once of a problem with "Google Earth":
> >
> >http://earth.google.com/
> >
> >I can see a security problem with this as far as troop movements go?
>
> You can't stop technology. You can only delay it for a time. Google
> has had complaints before like when you could search phone numbers.
> They used to black out certain government sites but when I just did a
> search for one I could see the whole map. They used restrict gps
> locations more than they currently do. What are they supposed to do
> though? There is a high demand for information so it is being made
> available to the general public.

I know... but privacy is beginning to be a serious issue!
There is just some information that should NOT be available to the
public!

Too many psychos out there, (and here).

That's proven by the number of people that use the internet as their own
private litter boxes. :-(
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:20:11 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
<omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Who was it that said "Anyone who will give up Liberty for Security
>deserves neither"? I think it was Franklin or Jefferson?

I don't know but I have heard it quoted recently. I can never
remember the words when I try to repeat it.

>I know... but privacy is beginning to be a serious issue!
>There is just some information that should NOT be available to the
>public!
>
>Too many psychos out there, (and here).
>
>That's proven by the number of people that use the internet as their own
>private litter boxes. :-(

It is beginning for you. As I stated before I took even more
precautions when I first came online. That was over ten years ago and
people are just "beginning" to have concerns I had then. I have now
suffered to the fact I can't hide everything. So I try to limit the
value of the information they get. That is difficult when the
government takes all my personal information and stores it in an
insecure format.

People like Robert are easily tricked into believing you have
something to hide. The man who invented PGP had some nice things to
say about that. He points out that you wouldn't send a letter through
the mail without putting it into an envelope first. So why send an
unencrypted email which can be intercepted. Of course he was
arrested just for releasing PGP and refusing to give the government a
master key. They watched him like a hawk for five years. Then when
Clinton was in office they made it legal to enter someone's house and
disable the encryption without their knowledge.

I personally find it disturbing that I am being filmed everywhere I go
now. Even just sitting down at McDonalds there are cameras on me.

In article <6o2bk21cuuhac21fc1pn2j32kbngafbbj7@4ax.com>,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >I know... but privacy is beginning to be a serious issue!
> >There is just some information that should NOT be available to the
> >public!
> >
> >Too many psychos out there, (and here).
> >
> >That's proven by the number of people that use the internet as their own
> >private litter boxes. :-(
>
> It is beginning for you. As I stated before I took even more
> precautions when I first came online. That was over ten years ago and
> people are just "beginning" to have concerns I had then. I have now
> suffered to the fact I can't hide everything. So I try to limit the
> value of the information they get. That is difficult when the
> government takes all my personal information and stores it in an
> insecure format.

I just wish that I'd known in the beginning that Usenet was archived...
Even now I probably post things I should not.

>
> People like Robert are easily tricked into believing you have
> something to hide. The man who invented PGP had some nice things to
> say about that. He points out that you wouldn't send a letter through
> the mail without putting it into an envelope first. So why send an
> unencrypted email which can be intercepted. Of course he was
> arrested just for releasing PGP and refusing to give the government a
> master key. They watched him like a hawk for five years. Then when
> Clinton was in office they made it legal to enter someone's house and
> disable the encryption without their knowledge.

My only hope is that they lack the manpower to really track the little
guy that is just living a normal life and not being a criminal but may
say things that look odd from time to time. I'm reminded of an
aquaintence on another list that actually got visited by the secret
police after making a snide comment about the president would be better
off <insert theoretical threat here> and it was perfectly innocent in
our view.

Take about paranoia.

>
> I personally find it disturbing that I am being filmed everywhere I go
> now. Even just sitting down at McDonalds there are cameras on me.

Yeah, but in places of business, the problem with robberies is quite
real. My only comfort on that score is that the media is re-used on a
regular basis. AFAIK it's not permanently archived.

Unlike usenet. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Shute wrote:
[...]
>
> I personally find it disturbing that I am being filmed everywhere I go
> now. Even just sitting down at McDonalds there are cameras on me.

Yes, you should be ashamed!!!



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:20:57 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Shute wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> I personally find it disturbing that I am being filmed everywhere I go
>> now. Even just sitting down at McDonalds there are cameras on me.
>
>Yes, you should be ashamed!!!

No I save that for the cameras in the strip clubs.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:46:24 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
<omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>I just wish that I'd known in the beginning that Usenet was archived...
>Even now I probably post things I should not.

If you can get someone else to do it you can tinker with PGP. There
is still a free GNU version of it out there. You use it similar to
the ROT13 encryption you used the other day except it is a lot more
secure.

>My only hope is that they lack the manpower to really track the little
>guy that is just living a normal life and not being a criminal but may
>say things that look odd from time to time. I'm reminded of an
>aquaintence on another list that actually got visited by the secret
>police after making a snide comment about the president would be better
>off <insert theoretical threat here> and it was perfectly innocent in
>our view.
>
>Take about paranoia.

Someone in my state was visited by men with straight jackets. I guess
he was in a college dorm and said some weird things back an forth with
his girlfriend via email. When he left to go visit her his dorm
mates looked through his emails. They told the dorm manager and he
called the police. When he got back the took him away in an ambulance
wearing a straight jacket. He had a hard time explaining he was just
a weird guy with a weird sense of humor.

In my experience technology for gathering information has improved at
a much faster rate then for studying it. So say they have a video
tape recording 24 hours a day. It would take too long to sit and
watch all that tape so it isn't used unless events arise which warrant
it. One day someone will invent technology to scan the recording for
what they are looking for. But by then the gathering technology will
have advanced even further.

>> I personally find it disturbing that I am being filmed everywhere I go
>> now. Even just sitting down at McDonalds there are cameras on me.
>
>Yeah, but in places of business, the problem with robberies is quite
>real. My only comfort on that score is that the media is re-used on a
>regular basis. AFAIK it's not permanently archived.
>
>Unlike usenet. ;-)

These where just pointed at me eating my meal. We will never have
peace from cameras because they have been allowed on celebrities for
too long. If they can be filmed getting naked on the beach than so
can we.

In article <r89ck29eha2v2mbhtl07vmptnimj2pp4d7@4ax.com>,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:20:57 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
> wrote:
>
> >Shute wrote:
> >[...]
> >>
> >> I personally find it disturbing that I am being filmed everywhere I go
> >> now. Even just sitting down at McDonalds there are cameras on me.
> >
> >Yes, you should be ashamed!!!
>
> No I save that for the cameras in the strip clubs.

And the ones in the arcade booths at the adult bookstores?
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <qb9ck251akd3i042pstqeq74l0j5rt6u3c@4ax.com>,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:46:24 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I just wish that I'd known in the beginning that Usenet was archived...
> >Even now I probably post things I should not.
>
> If you can get someone else to do it you can tinker with PGP. There
> is still a free GNU version of it out there. You use it similar to
> the ROT13 encryption you used the other day except it is a lot more
> secure.

Thanks!

I have a good friend on the internet that might be able to do that.

> >Talk about paranoia.
>
> Someone in my state was visited by men with straight jackets. I guess
> he was in a college dorm and said some weird things back an forth with
> his girlfriend via email. When he left to go visit her his dorm
> mates looked through his emails. They told the dorm manager and he
> called the police. When he got back the took him away in an ambulance
> wearing a straight jacket. He had a hard time explaining he was just
> a weird guy with a weird sense of humor.

Man! They could have a field day with some of the stuff that's written
on _this_ group! ;-)

I'm glad that my computer is locked with a password. Granted if the
right disk was inserted into the hard drive on startup, they could get
past it but not many PC nerds know much about macs.

My system asks for a password on startup before the operating screen
comes up. Oddly enough, I did not set it up that way. My brother in law
did when he first set this system up for me.

> In my experience technology for gathering information has improved at
> a much faster rate then for studying it. So say they have a video
> tape recording 24 hours a day. It would take too long to sit and
> watch all that tape so it isn't used unless events arise which warrant
> it. One day someone will invent technology to scan the recording for
> what they are looking for. But by then the gathering technology will
> have advanced even further.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if and when Chicago really does
install security cameras on every street corner. I wonder if they are
really going to do it or if it was another vote getting campaign lie?

>
> >> I personally find it disturbing that I am being filmed everywhere I go
> >> now. Even just sitting down at McDonalds there are cameras on me.
> >
> >Yeah, but in places of business, the problem with robberies is quite
> >real. My only comfort on that score is that the media is re-used on a
> >regular basis. AFAIK it's not permanently archived.
> >
> >Unlike usenet. ;-)
>
> These where just pointed at me eating my meal. We will never have
> peace from cameras because they have been allowed on celebrities for
> too long. If they can be filmed getting naked on the beach than so
> can we.

<snort> Indeed...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:56:48 -0600, ompOmelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <qb9ck251akd3i042pstqeq74l0j5rt6u3c@4ax.com>,
> Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:46:24 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
>> <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I just wish that I'd known in the beginning that Usenet was archived...
>> >Even now I probably post things I should not.
>>
>> If you can get someone else to d