Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Video Editor goes hungry?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 9:46:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

While driving between my office early this morning I was listening to
KFWB, a local news/weather station here in Los Angeles. A story came on
about people going hungry everyday in this country, and the decision
to pay bills or not eat..

I didn't fully hear the news story, because It didn't have my full
attention, but it was something about a "food bank" being set up
somewhere for people to eat. Of course the local reporter did a
"on-the-spot" radio interview with a patron of the food bank, who
happened to say that his profession was, "video editor". He went on to
state that he has multiple degrees, but just can't seam to find work..

I'm sure people saw me swerve in my lane, as I practically spit out my
Starbucks coffee onto my front windshield..

I'm a film editor myself, but do it part time. How can this be??
There's hundred more channels of media these days on the TV, how is it
that video editors are down at our local food bank, unemployable?

-Richard

More about : video editor hungry

Anonymous
June 3, 2004 10:11:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Richard Ragon <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in
news:KtJvc.5864201$iA2.677412@news.easynews.com:

> While driving between my office early this morning I was listening
> to KFWB, a local news/weather station here in Los Angeles. A
> story came on
> about people going hungry everyday in this country, and the
> decision
> to pay bills or not eat..
>
> I didn't fully hear the news story, because It didn't have my full
> attention, but it was something about a "food bank" being set up
> somewhere for people to eat. Of course the local reporter did a
> "on-the-spot" radio interview with a patron of the food bank, who
> happened to say that his profession was, "video editor". He went
> on to state that he has multiple degrees, but just can't seam to
> find work..
>
> I'm sure people saw me swerve in my lane, as I practically spit
> out my Starbucks coffee onto my front windshield..
>
> I'm a film editor myself, but do it part time. How can this be??
> There's hundred more channels of media these days on the TV, how
> is it that video editors are down at our local food bank,
> unemployable?
>
> -Richard
>
>

Maybe he lives in the wrong city, maybe he's not very good at his
job, maybe he is over 47 years of age, maybe he has a drug or other
psychiatric problem, maybe he was lying about his field, and so on.

The age thing: well, the specific number "47" was a joke, but often
in my field (software, now retired), older people are less desirable
in the job market. Of course, I doubt if it's unique to software
engineering.

You did say it was local to you, so I guess "wrong city" doesn't
apply in this case, but maybe they were actually interviewing in
Barstow or somewhere...

In any case, I don't really mean to blame the victim, but still, it
could be him, and of course it could instead be circumstances well
beyond his control.

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) phone 650.966.8481
Call me letters find me at domain blochg whose dot is com
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 10:58:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
news:KtJvc.5864201$iA2.677412@news.easynews.com...
> While driving between my office early this morning I was listening to
> KFWB, a local news/weather station here in Los Angeles. A story came on
> about people going hungry everyday in this country, and the decision
> to pay bills or not eat..
>
> I didn't fully hear the news story, because It didn't have my full
> attention, but it was something about a "food bank" being set up
> somewhere for people to eat. Of course the local reporter did a
> "on-the-spot" radio interview with a patron of the food bank, who
> happened to say that his profession was, "video editor". He went on to
> state that he has multiple degrees, but just can't seam to find work..
>
> I'm sure people saw me swerve in my lane, as I practically spit out my
> Starbucks coffee onto my front windshield..
>
> I'm a film editor myself, but do it part time. How can this be??
> There's hundred more channels of media these days on the TV, how is it
> that video editors are down at our local food bank, unemployable?
>
> -Richard
>

This should not be a surprise.

First of all Los Angeles has a FCP/AVID room on every corner. You can hire a
capable editor for $500/wk. Even less. EVERYONE has a system in their house.
And there are SO MANY editors in Los Angeles.. or people who 'call '
themesleves editors.. that the market is flooded and rarely will you find
work for a decent salary on a permanent basis. Try paying rent and living in
LA for $500/week... and not every week either.. not possible. So for the
time being at least, the cost of the tools has provided for a flooded market
of editors andn would be editors. The latter of which will suffice for just
about any infomercial, doc, reality show or whatever.. Mostly porn
actually.. in the Valley at least. And they don'y pay much either.

Fact is.. most editors never work steady gigs. They go from place to place
or client to client. In the commercial world they are cheap and fast and
some of them achieve superstar status with idiot agency people. Until the
next month when they are nobodies again because some stupid add got a lot of
people fired.. seen it all.

And yes.. That magic age of 47 where you can no longer live and work for
peanuts and most people in Los Angeles will pass you by in a hearbeat. Some
of them get what they deserve.. some of them get good, cheap, hungry young
labor. At 47.. if you are competing with that crowd it can be an inspiration
to do something else or be part of a ground floor opportunity of some kind..
call the shots rather than cut them..
Related resources
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 2:07:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Maybe he lives in the wrong city, maybe he's not very good at his
> job, maybe he is over 47 years of age, maybe he has a drug or other
> psychiatric problem, maybe he was lying about his field, and so on.

Or, alternately, maybe, just maybe, it could be another case of what's
become routine, for the mainstream media to bias their reporting to
advance their socialistic agenda. Nooooooo, not possible, right?

Happens every day.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 11:16:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

CriticalMass wrote:
>
>
>
>> Maybe he lives in the wrong city, maybe he's not very good at his job,
>> maybe he is over 47 years of age, maybe he has a drug or other
>> psychiatric problem, maybe he was lying about his field, and so on.
>
>
> Or, alternately, maybe, just maybe, it could be another case of what's
> become routine, for the mainstream media to bias their reporting to
> advance their socialistic agenda. Nooooooo, not possible, right?

Not very likely, because the majority of the mainstream media have a
conservative agenda.

>
> Happens every day.
>
June 10, 2004 1:50:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:voSdnZdkmZrcB1rdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> CriticalMass wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Maybe he lives in the wrong city, maybe he's not very good at his job,
> >> maybe he is over 47 years of age, maybe he has a drug or other
> >> psychiatric problem, maybe he was lying about his field, and so on.
> >
> >
> > Or, alternately, maybe, just maybe, it could be another case of what's
> > become routine, for the mainstream media to bias their reporting to
> > advance their socialistic agenda. Nooooooo, not possible, right?
>
> Not very likely, because the majority of the mainstream media have a
> conservative agenda.

Even though, statistically, more than 80% are Democrats. Interesting.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 7:24:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:voSdnZdkmZrcB1rdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> CriticalMass wrote:
>

> Not very likely, because the majority of the mainstream media have a
> conservative agenda.
>

that's a bad guess.. I know it is a guess because a study was just released
a couple of weeks ago that put the leaders of the newsrooms and journalists
at around 70-80% liberal democrats. It is so easy to see this when you tune
into just about ANY local news or ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN.. Now sure why
they felt the need for a study.
June 10, 2004 7:24:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:o 2%xc.69014$L46.32828@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:voSdnZdkmZrcB1rdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> > CriticalMass wrote:
> >
>
> > Not very likely, because the majority of the mainstream media have a
> > conservative agenda.
> >
>
> that's a bad guess.. I know it is a guess because a study was just
released
> a couple of weeks ago that put the leaders of the newsrooms and
journalists
> at around 70-80% liberal democrats. It is so easy to see this when you
tune
> into just about ANY local news or ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN.. Now sure why
> they felt the need for a study.

Any chance you have a link for that one? Or at least remember the source?

Last I remember, the numbers were closer to 90%. Maybe the media IS getting
more conservative, then...
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 9:33:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:10cgvfrnh6vj80e@corp.supernews.com...
> "nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
> news:o 2%xc.69014$L46.32828@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:voSdnZdkmZrcB1rdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> > > CriticalMass wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Not very likely, because the majority of the mainstream media have a
> > > conservative agenda.
> > >
> >
> > that's a bad guess.. I know it is a guess because a study was just
> released
> > a couple of weeks ago that put the leaders of the newsrooms and
> journalists
> > at around 70-80% liberal democrats. It is so easy to see this when you
> tune
> > into just about ANY local news or ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN.. Now sure
why
> > they felt the need for a study.
>
> Any chance you have a link for that one? Or at least remember the source?
>
> Last I remember, the numbers were closer to 90%. Maybe the media IS
getting
> more conservative, then...
>
>

LOL!
Anonymous
June 11, 2004 4:33:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

nappy wrote:
> "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>Not very likely, because the majority of the mainstream media have a
>>conservative agenda.
>>
>
>
> that's a bad guess.. I know it is a guess because a study was just released
> a couple of weeks ago that put the leaders of the newsrooms and journalists
> at around 70-80% liberal democrats. It is so easy to see this when you tune
> into just about ANY local news or ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN.. Now sure why
> they felt the need for a study.

It is true that working journalists -- reporters -- tend to be more
liberal than the average person. I think that's because they are out
where it's happening and have substantial experience with the real world.

OTOH the owners of the stations and newspapers -- their bosses -- are
overwhelmingly conservative.

The net effect is a conservative bias, as documented by a study from the
Pew Charitable Trusts Project for Excellence in Journalism. The study
examined 1,149 stories from seventeen leading news sources, covering the
2000 presidential election. Of the stories about Gore, 56% were negative
as opposed to 49% for Bush. Only 13% of the stories about Gore were
positive, as opposed to 24% about Bush.
June 11, 2004 3:57:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Dave Haynie" <dhaynie@jersey.net> wrote in message
news:40c9b5f7.386465818@news.jersey.net...
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:50:39 -0700, "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:voSdnZdkmZrcB1rdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> >> CriticalMass wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Maybe he lives in the wrong city, maybe he's not very good at his
job,
> >> >> maybe he is over 47 years of age, maybe he has a drug or other
> >> >> psychiatric problem, maybe he was lying about his field, and so on.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Or, alternately, maybe, just maybe, it could be another case of
what's
> >> > become routine, for the mainstream media to bias their reporting to
> >> > advance their socialistic agenda. Nooooooo, not possible, right?
> >>
> >> Not very likely, because the majority of the mainstream media have a
> >> conservative agenda.
> >
> >Even though, statistically, more than 80% are Democrats. Interesting.
>
> You're confused -- the actors, er, talking heads on the television
> don' set editorial policy. The Mainstream Media is entirely controlled
> by a few large multinationals. Is Rupert Murdoch a registered Democrat
> (as an Australian, I would guess no)? Sumner Redstone? Richard
> Parsons? Mark Mays? Michael Eisner? See who owns what here:
> http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

Murdoch is a Republican, and the bent of Fox news is well known.
June 11, 2004 3:58:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:Xmjyc.745$Wl1.132@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
> That's because as you become responsible for thousands opf peoples jobs
you
> tend to look at things in a less idealistic and more realistic way. Most
of
> the people I know who are millionares are not left wingers.

You actually KNOW millionaires? we have to talk...

>
> >
> > The net effect is a conservative bias, as documented by a study from the
> > Pew Charitable Trusts Project for Excellence in Journalism. The study
> > examined 1,149 stories from seventeen leading news sources, covering the
> > 2000 presidential election. Of the stories about Gore, 56% were negative
> > as opposed to 49% for Bush. Only 13% of the stories about Gore were
> > positive, as opposed to 24% about Bush.
>
>
> Conservative Bias? You need to read a few more studies. with over 80% of
the
> journalists on television and in print being liberals the bias is most
> definately NOT conservative. One hour of CNN, ABC, NBC, and especially CBS
> is proof of that.

NBC is actually the most balanced network I've seen. It strikes a decent
center ground between ABC and FOX.
Anonymous
June 12, 2004 12:44:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:10ck06oen1lnlfb@corp.supernews.com...
> "nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
> news:Xmjyc.745$Wl1.132@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > That's because as you become responsible for thousands opf peoples jobs
> you
> > tend to look at things in a less idealistic and more realistic way. Most
> of
> > the people I know who are millionares are not left wingers.
>
> You actually KNOW millionaires? we have to talk...
>
I know millionaires, but they don't want to share with you, or anybody else.

Regan was a democrat until he started taking in some good money
then he switched sides. That is the usual scenario.

You don't get rich by shareing, and the Democrats love to take money
from the wealthy and give it to the folks at the bottom. The Republicans
like to have their friends hang on to their money and let the people in the
middle pick up the tab for everything. The wealthy don't benifit from social
programs, and they see no need to contribute their money to such causes.

>
> NBC is actually the most balanced network I've seen. It strikes a decent
> center ground between ABC and FOX.
>
as much as both sides refuse to admit it, the media id predominately
centrist or moderate as they prefer to call themselves.

The problem is that moderates are right of the liberals that can't do
anything
but bash Republicans at every turn, and the moderates are to the left of the
conservatives who can't do anything but bash the liberals for being
liberals.

As a result, no matter which side you happen to be on, the media will always
be a bit toward the opposite side. If you are far to one side or the other,
then
the media will seem to be even farther toward the other side.

Bottom line. If a media outlet allows anything to be said that is negative
about Bush, then they must be Liberal. It doesn't matter that they say
positive
or neutral things too. Conversely, if a network allows anything that is not
derogatory to be said about Bush, then they must be right wing conspirators,
because everybody knows there is nothing good about any Republican.

In my experience, you get pretty much the same news no matter which outlet
you watch. They are all talking about Regan this week. They are all talking
about the cease fire in Faludgia (SP) being broken yesterday, They ALL
talked about Clinton's indiscretion with Monica, and not a one said it was
a good thing for him to have done.

I find the differences between FOX and CNN's coverage to be very marginal.
They do lean, but nowhere near as far as people seem to think.

David
Anonymous
June 12, 2004 12:46:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:10ck06oen1lnlfb@corp.supernews.com...
> "nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
> news:Xmjyc.745$Wl1.132@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > That's because as you become responsible for thousands opf peoples jobs
> you
> > tend to look at things in a less idealistic and more realistic way. Most
> of
> > the people I know who are millionares are not left wingers.
>
> You actually KNOW millionaires? we have to talk...
>
I know millionaires, but they don't want to share with you, or anybody else.

Regan was a democrat until he started taking in some good money
then he switched sides. That is the usual scenario.

You don't get rich by shareing, and the Democrats love to take money
from the wealthy and give it to the folks at the bottom. The Republicans
like to have their friends hang on to their money and let the people in the
middle pick up the tab for everything. The wealthy don't benifit from social
programs, and they see no need to contribute their money to such causes.

>
> NBC is actually the most balanced network I've seen. It strikes a decent
> center ground between ABC and FOX.
>
as much as both sides refuse to admit it, the media id predominately
centrist or moderate as they prefer to call themselves.

The problem is that moderates are right of the liberals that can't do
anything
but bash Republicans at every turn, and the moderates are to the left of the
conservatives who can't do anything but bash the liberals for being
liberals.

As a result, no matter which side you happen to be on, the media will always
be a bit toward the opposite side. If you are far to one side or the other,
then
the media will seem to be even farther toward the other side.

Bottom line. If a media outlet allows anything to be said that is negative
about Bush, then they must be Liberal. It doesn't matter that they say
positive
or neutral things too. Conversely, if a network allows anything that is not
derogatory to be said about Bush, then they must be right wing conspirators,
because everybody knows there is nothing good about any Republican.

In my experience, you get pretty much the same news no matter which outlet
you watch. They are all talking about Regan this week. They are all talking
about the cease fire in Faludgia (SP) being broken yesterday, They ALL
talked about Clinton's indiscretion with Monica, and not a one said it was
a good thing for him to have done.

I find the differences between FOX and CNN's coverage to be very marginal.
They do lean, but nowhere near as far as people seem to think.

David
June 12, 2004 4:40:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"david.mccall" <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kQoyc.10697$2i5.5257@attbi_s52...
>
> "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:10ck06oen1lnlfb@corp.supernews.com...
> > "nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xmjyc.745$Wl1.132@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > That's because as you become responsible for thousands opf peoples
jobs
> > you
> > > tend to look at things in a less idealistic and more realistic way.
Most
> > of
> > > the people I know who are millionares are not left wingers.
> >
> > You actually KNOW millionaires? we have to talk...
> >
> I know millionaires, but they don't want to share with you, or anybody
else.
>
> Regan was a democrat until he started taking in some good money
> then he switched sides. That is the usual scenario.
>
> You don't get rich by shareing, and the Democrats love to take money
> from the wealthy and give it to the folks at the bottom. The Republicans
> like to have their friends hang on to their money and let the people in
the
> middle pick up the tab for everything. The wealthy don't benifit from
social
> programs, and they see no need to contribute their money to such causes.

I guess that explains why Ted Turner, Barbra Streisand, Matthew Perry,
Steven Spielberg, etc. are all Republicans, right?

Oh, wait -

The actual fact is that the rich give plenty of money away, for various
reasons. And it has been shown that when their taxes are lower, they give
more.

Also you are NEVER going to find a POOR investor to put money into a
business. Where do you think "Angel" investors come from?

> >
> > NBC is actually the most balanced network I've seen. It strikes a decent
> > center ground between ABC and FOX.
> >
> as much as both sides refuse to admit it, the media id predominately
> centrist or moderate as they prefer to call themselves.
>
> The problem is that moderates are right of the liberals that can't do
> anything
> but bash Republicans at every turn, and the moderates are to the left of
the
> conservatives who can't do anything but bash the liberals for being
> liberals.
>
> As a result, no matter which side you happen to be on, the media will
always
> be a bit toward the opposite side. If you are far to one side or the
other,
> then
> the media will seem to be even farther toward the other side.
>
> Bottom line. If a media outlet allows anything to be said that is negative
> about Bush, then they must be Liberal. It doesn't matter that they say
> positive
> or neutral things too. Conversely, if a network allows anything that is
not
> derogatory to be said about Bush, then they must be right wing
conspirators,
> because everybody knows there is nothing good about any Republican.

By your definition, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are both Liberals.

What makes a media outlet biased is the choice of stories it covers, how it
covers the stories, and the words used to report the coverage. A media
outlet that uses, for example, the phrase "right-wing radical" 40 times in a
week, but over a one-month period NEVER uses the phrase "left-wing radical"
is showing a bias. A media outlet that refuses to report on how a gun was
used to prevent a violent crime, but consistently reports when a gun is used
to commit a crime is showing a bias. A media outlet that always refers to
abortion protesters as "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life", and the
supporters as "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion" is showing a bias.

> In my experience, you get pretty much the same news no matter which outlet
> you watch. They are all talking about Regan this week. They are all
talking
> about the cease fire in Faludgia (SP) being broken yesterday, They ALL
> talked about Clinton's indiscretion with Monica, and not a one said it was
> a good thing for him to have done.

Yes, they ARE all talking about Reagan. Some are simply covering the
funeral, others are talking about Iran-Contra. No bias there at all.

> I find the differences between FOX and CNN's coverage to be very marginal.
> They do lean, but nowhere near as far as people seem to think.

You're not watching the same news channels I am, then.
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 5:32:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:23:47 -0700, "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>The excuses are exactly that. They hate us because we are infidels, and
>infidels must die. It's radical religious fundamentalism.

They don't hate you solely because you are infidels, but they hate you
because you take your infidelity into their country. A big difference.

>I don't think we "put on airs". We ARE, as a country, better, in many ways

You call yourselves a beacon of freedom and democracy in this world,
however, freedom and democracy is about the right to make choices.
Those countries which oppose you in going into war made their choices
in that light, but you can't forgive them for that. That makes you
narrow-minded and is typical in line with the "democracy, American
style".

>You mean like it's OK for the Police and Military to own and use whatever
>weapons they want, but apply a different standard to everybody else (the
>rest of the people?)

No, he meant it's ok for the Americans to go and do as they please,
but not for other countries.

>The open democracy we have makes it difficult to do, as does the general
>respect for human rights this country has.

Tell that to the 3000 or so prisoners of this war on terror, who are
constantly shipped around, to evade inspection by human right
organisations, so they can get tortured to extract information. I'm
not exactly sure they would agree with you.

>Of course - it threatens their power base, which is built on keeping their
>people hungry and angry.

Silly observation.

> They don't WANT their people to aspire to live like
>we do, because you can't train a terrorist out of someone who is living
>well.

Bzzztt, wrong. A lot of terrorists are actually from well of families,
and have turned against the west, after studying there, and being
shocked by the western lifestyle.

>God forbid that women be allowed to be anything other than property.

Matter of fact, a few muslim-countries are striving towards equal
rights for women. It's just a matter of how the clerics interpret the
Quran, whether women have rights in their society or not.

rr
June 14, 2004 5:32:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm not even going to try to argue - you can't argue with someone who won't
accept the facts, and prefers to live in a fantasy world.

"Rata Rioja" <redratt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p g5qc0hofk0lprmnve0ne4dqecoar4s3qq@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:23:47 -0700, "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The excuses are exactly that. They hate us because we are infidels, and
> >infidels must die. It's radical religious fundamentalism.
>
> They don't hate you solely because you are infidels, but they hate you
> because you take your infidelity into their country. A big difference.
>
> >I don't think we "put on airs". We ARE, as a country, better, in many
ways
>
> You call yourselves a beacon of freedom and democracy in this world,
> however, freedom and democracy is about the right to make choices.
> Those countries which oppose you in going into war made their choices
> in that light, but you can't forgive them for that. That makes you
> narrow-minded and is typical in line with the "democracy, American
> style".
>
> >You mean like it's OK for the Police and Military to own and use whatever
> >weapons they want, but apply a different standard to everybody else (the
> >rest of the people?)
>
> No, he meant it's ok for the Americans to go and do as they please,
> but not for other countries.
>
> >The open democracy we have makes it difficult to do, as does the general
> >respect for human rights this country has.
>
> Tell that to the 3000 or so prisoners of this war on terror, who are
> constantly shipped around, to evade inspection by human right
> organisations, so they can get tortured to extract information. I'm
> not exactly sure they would agree with you.
>
> >Of course - it threatens their power base, which is built on keeping
their
> >people hungry and angry.
>
> Silly observation.
>
> > They don't WANT their people to aspire to live like
> >we do, because you can't train a terrorist out of someone who is living
> >well.
>
> Bzzztt, wrong. A lot of terrorists are actually from well of families,
> and have turned against the west, after studying there, and being
> shocked by the western lifestyle.
>
> >God forbid that women be allowed to be anything other than property.
>
> Matter of fact, a few muslim-countries are striving towards equal
> rights for women. It's just a matter of how the clerics interpret the
> Quran, whether women have rights in their society or not.
>
> rr
>
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 10:47:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:10:02 -0700, "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>I'm not even going to try to argue - you can't argue with someone who won't
>accept the facts, and prefers to live in a fantasy world.

Oh yeah, the fantasy-land called America huh? :) 

rr
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 8:01:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

SNIP
A media outlet that refuses to report on how a gun was
> used to prevent a violent crime, but consistently reports when a gun is used
> to commit a crime is showing a bias.

That is prehaps the single sloppiest piece of thinking I've read in months.

If the RATIO of the number of guns used to commit violent crimes is, in
fact, vastly greater than the number of times one is used to prevent one,
than the "BIAS" is not only non-existent, but not "bias" at all.

It's simple truth.

In urban areas where most of the population is concentrated, when guns are
used, it typically gets reported.

We watch the aftermath on the news each day.

Out here in the conservative gun-adoring Southwest, our media LOVES
nothing more than stories of how some rugged armed individualist protects
themselves and/or their family from harm with a firearm.

Those stories pull HUGE ratings and the stations trumpet them long and loud.

Even then, we get one or two of those stories a YEAR.

Sadly, stories where a firearm figures in a crime or personal tragedy?
Those are about one or two a WEEK.

The paranoid and the gun-obsessed will consider it a conspiracy. The
police and others will tell you it's simply a reflection of the FACTS.

In essense, there's only "BIAS" if the actual facts of such useage are
mis-represented NOT if the outcome simply doesn't match your pre-conceived
position on the subject.

(Sorry, this is off-topic and I typically don't participate in these
threads, but this was just SO ill-reasoned that I had to jump in)

--
Bill Davis
NewVideo


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 11:27:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:42:33 GMT, "nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote:

>Rata's Dream world brought to you courtesy of the internet.

I already said before, I don't live in the USA.

>There is no poll that says so.. There are polls that say the opposite. And
>.. who cares we'll be out of there soon

There are plenty of Iraqi's, who in vox-pops say they were better off
under Saddam. Could you maybe point me out to where I could find those
polls?


>You probably don' even know what Haliburton is doing over there.

I was talking about what Halliburton was doing there while the
Oil-for-food program was running, you know, the program to help the
Iraqi-people. I know that Halliburton are in there now to start-up the
oil-production (they have a tough one, fixing the Kirkuk-pipeline
now), because they "won" a non-bid contract, because of their
expertise. This expretise is heavily disputed by their competitors
by the way. Oh, and they supplied overpirzed oil to the American
military, for which they "apologised". Did I leave anything out?

>1. Michael Moore is a fat terd of a lying son of a bitch and anyone who
>refers to him as an arbiter of truth is a nutcase.

I rather be a nutcase then.

>2. Libraries. Haven't been to one in years. And if I do go .. I could care
>less iof they want to know what books I borrowed.

You will, if the black helicopters are hovering around your house.

>3. YOu have never even read the Patriot Act.

The one which takes away so many of your freedoms? No, not fully.

>4. Europe is free because we have been protecting them for 60 years.

The only reason you are interested in "protecting" Europe is because
it is a nice market with a lot of governments interested in buying
your high-tech war-products.

>5. I can tell exactly where you are spoonfed your facts. It might be a good
>idea to develop some of your own ideas. Based on truth if possible.

Point me out to where I'm lying, if you have the truth...

>KoolAid.

What's that?

>They chose to fight outside the GC. So they get what they deserve. You've
>never read the GC either I suppose. It does NOT say that non-uniformed
>combatants with no country are to be treated as formal POWs. You don't like
>that? Then don't pick up a gun

So, then don't whinge if American citizens and soldiers are not
treated according to the GC :) 


>Their wealth is irrelevant. The Kennedys are rich too and their idiots.

You missed the point I was trying to make about who a lot of those
terrorists are. Nothing to do with money.

>You mean voting and being a CEO ... that's the pinnacle of freedom for a
>woman? I would think that laughing in public,

It's the real test of how equal they are in the civilised world.

> wearing what you want,

But not wearing nothing at all, that's not allowed in your hood. And
of course, the great 60's liberated the women to wear what they want.

> being able to drive,

In our society it took a long time too before dricing women were seen
as equal.

> go to school,

Ouch you got me there.

> not be stoned to death for having an affair,

Really? What about Clinton, who got nearly virtually stoned?

> to name just a few..

You have to do your best better to convince me.

>and all the other freedoms you apparently take for
>granted are a bit higher priority for women in Afghanistan, for instance,
>than being a CEO. That's pretty simple, 'man'

Can't deny that, but I was only relativating.

>Um... yeah... there are no fundamentalists in Egypt.

Yes there are. But at least the Egyptians are dealing themselves with
the problem, while as son as you start interfering, whole nations
descend into chaos.

>The more you post the easier it is to tell how shallow your thinking is..
>And how thin your facts are .

Really? I haven't seen you being able to really dispute one thing I
said.

rr
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 11:27:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Sorry... Rata.. I suppose you probably DO live in the US. From what you
have posted here about women CEOs etc.. it is typical American leftwing
thinking. I also assume your name is not your real name.

top posted 'cause the rest is hot air.



"Rata Rioja" <redratt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f30d0tbrnlkfocmh9hrt865cpiqf4m3ti@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:42:33 GMT, "nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote:
>
> >Rata's Dream world brought to you courtesy of the internet.
>
> I already said before, I don't live in the USA.
>
> >There is no poll that says so.. There are polls that say the opposite.
And
> >.. who cares we'll be out of there soon
>
> There are plenty of Iraqi's, who in vox-pops say they were better off
> under Saddam. Could you maybe point me out to where I could find those
> polls?
>
>
> >You probably don' even know what Haliburton is doing over there.
>
> I was talking about what Halliburton was doing there while the
> Oil-for-food program was running, you know, the program to help the
> Iraqi-people. I know that Halliburton are in there now to start-up the
> oil-production (they have a tough one, fixing the Kirkuk-pipeline
> now), because they "won" a non-bid contract, because of their
> expertise. This expretise is heavily disputed by their competitors
> by the way. Oh, and they supplied overpirzed oil to the American
> military, for which they "apologised". Did I leave anything out?
>
> >1. Michael Moore is a fat terd of a lying son of a bitch and anyone who
> >refers to him as an arbiter of truth is a nutcase.
>
> I rather be a nutcase then.
>
> >2. Libraries. Haven't been to one in years. And if I do go .. I could
care
> >less iof they want to know what books I borrowed.
>
> You will, if the black helicopters are hovering around your house.
>
> >3. YOu have never even read the Patriot Act.
>
> The one which takes away so many of your freedoms? No, not fully.
>
> >4. Europe is free because we have been protecting them for 60 years.
>
> The only reason you are interested in "protecting" Europe is because
> it is a nice market with a lot of governments interested in buying
> your high-tech war-products.
>
> >5. I can tell exactly where you are spoonfed your facts. It might be a
good
> >idea to develop some of your own ideas. Based on truth if possible.
>
> Point me out to where I'm lying, if you have the truth...
>
> >KoolAid.
>
> What's that?
>
> >They chose to fight outside the GC. So they get what they deserve. You've
> >never read the GC either I suppose. It does NOT say that non-uniformed
> >combatants with no country are to be treated as formal POWs. You don't
like
> >that? Then don't pick up a gun
>
> So, then don't whinge if American citizens and soldiers are not
> treated according to the GC :) 
>
>
> >Their wealth is irrelevant. The Kennedys are rich too and their idiots.
>
> You missed the point I was trying to make about who a lot of those
> terrorists are. Nothing to do with money.
>
> >You mean voting and being a CEO ... that's the pinnacle of freedom for a
> >woman? I would think that laughing in public,
>
> It's the real test of how equal they are in the civilised world.
>
> > wearing what you want,
>
> But not wearing nothing at all, that's not allowed in your hood. And
> of course, the great 60's liberated the women to wear what they want.
>
> > being able to drive,
>
> In our society it took a long time too before dricing women were seen
> as equal.
>
> > go to school,
>
> Ouch you got me there.
>
> > not be stoned to death for having an affair,
>
> Really? What about Clinton, who got nearly virtually stoned?
>
> > to name just a few..
>
> You have to do your best better to convince me.
>
> >and all the other freedoms you apparently take for
> >granted are a bit higher priority for women in Afghanistan, for instance,
> >than being a CEO. That's pretty simple, 'man'
>
> Can't deny that, but I was only relativating.
>
> >Um... yeah... there are no fundamentalists in Egypt.
>
> Yes there are. But at least the Egyptians are dealing themselves with
> the problem, while as son as you start interfering, whole nations
> descend into chaos.
>
> >The more you post the easier it is to tell how shallow your thinking is..
> >And how thin your facts are .
>
> Really? I haven't seen you being able to really dispute one thing I
> said.
>
> rr
>
June 16, 2004 11:27:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Rata Rioja" <redratt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f30d0tbrnlkfocmh9hrt865cpiqf4m3ti@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:42:33 GMT, "nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote:
>
> >Rata's Dream world brought to you courtesy of the internet.
>
> I already said before, I don't live in the USA.
>
> >There is no poll that says so.. There are polls that say the opposite.
And
> >.. who cares we'll be out of there soon
>
> There are plenty of Iraqi's, who in vox-pops say they were better off
> under Saddam. Could you maybe point me out to where I could find those
> polls?

Can you point to the ones saying they were better off under Hussein? I can't
help but wonder what they were doing then.

Just wondering how ANYONE can think Iraq was better off under Hussein.

I suppose if a place where the government thugs can rape women not only with
impunity but with the endorsement of the government, where hundreds of
thousands of people are slaughtered and thrown into mass graves a la Nazi
Germany, and where children are imprisoned because the government doesn't
like what their parents believe is a good place to live, then I would have
to agree that Iraq was a good place under Hussein.

If you can believe that, then it is quite clear that facts have no meaning,
and you base your beliefs on what you WANT to be true, rather than what is.

It also pretty much supports that, like Moore, most of what you say is
probably nonsense and not worth bothering with.
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 4:43:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:44:29 GMT, "nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote:

>Sorry... Rata.. I suppose you probably DO live in the US. From what you
>have posted here about women CEOs etc..

No, I live in Euro-land.

> it is typical American leftwing thinking.

No. It's how even America tries to prove they are going with times.

> I also assume your name is not your real name.

And, "nappy" is your real name?

>top posted 'cause the rest is hot air.

C'mon nappy, this is weak. I asked you for a few explanations on what
you wrote, but your not giving them to me. Don't tell me you made up
what you wrote??!?!?!

rr
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 12:43:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:30:32 -0700, "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>It also pretty much supports that, like Moore, most of what you say is
>probably nonsense and not worth bothering with.

The way in which Saddam took power is debatable, but nothing uncommon
for the area or times in which this occured. In the beginning they had
at least free education and free health-care (unlike Americans
nowadays, where both are rotten). Like any dictator, he worked on his
personal wealth too obviously. Everything went quite well in the
little socialist paradise, untill the Iran-Iraq-war and from then on
it was all down-hill. Topping was the failed CIA-organised coup
attempt after Gulf War I, when he took revenge and captured, tortured
and killed the people from his political opposing tribes, the Shiites
nd Kurds. Then the years of UN-controlled isolation, where he
obviously put most of his money in his army, just in case America
would attack (not that he didn't feel threatened).
Then, all those debilitating bombings done by the Americans, destroyed
the whole infrastructure in the country. Now, the Iraqi-people have
been let down plenty by America, and now they are there to re-build
the country, do you really think the Iraqi-people all of a sudden
believe that you are there to make their life better?
Maybe you should do a bit more fact-finding, before you declare what
Moore or I say, nonsense. If someone here says something, I take
at least the time to do some researching, to see if they got their
facts straight, or are talking non-sense.

rr
June 18, 2004 6:13:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Bill Davis" <newvideo@amug.org> wrote in message
news:newvideo-1606041601250001@d183-osel-phx.fastq.com...
> SNIP
> A media outlet that refuses to report on how a gun was
> > used to prevent a violent crime, but consistently reports when a gun is
used
> > to commit a crime is showing a bias.
>
> That is prehaps the single sloppiest piece of thinking I've read in
months.
>
> If the RATIO of the number of guns used to commit violent crimes is, in
> fact, vastly greater than the number of times one is used to prevent one,
> than the "BIAS" is not only non-existent, but not "bias" at all.
>
> It's simple truth.

But the problem is the ratio you describe ISN'T "vastly greater". There are
sources where you can get the information, and when you add it up, it
supports the bias.

> In urban areas where most of the population is concentrated, when guns are
> used, it typically gets reported.
>
> We watch the aftermath on the news each day.
>
> Out here in the conservative gun-adoring Southwest, our media LOVES
> nothing more than stories of how some rugged armed individualist protects
> themselves and/or their family from harm with a firearm.

And that, too, is a bias.

> Those stories pull HUGE ratings and the stations trumpet them long and
loud.
>
> Even then, we get one or two of those stories a YEAR.
>
> Sadly, stories where a firearm figures in a crime or personal tragedy?
> Those are about one or two a WEEK.
>
> The paranoid and the gun-obsessed will consider it a conspiracy. The
> police and others will tell you it's simply a reflection of the FACTS.
>
> In essense, there's only "BIAS" if the actual facts of such useage are
> mis-represented NOT if the outcome simply doesn't match your pre-conceived
> position on the subject.
>
> (Sorry, this is off-topic and I typically don't participate in these
> threads, but this was just SO ill-reasoned that I had to jump in)

I'm not going to get into this particular one any more, but if you're
willing to look at a different POV, check out the book "More Guns, Less
Crime".
Anonymous
June 18, 2004 7:19:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Rata Rioja" <redratt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ii1d09na8irdul8o87v0mcu5rtl4r3qch@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:30:32 -0700, "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It also pretty much supports that, like Moore, most of what you say is
> >probably nonsense and not worth bothering with.
>
> The way in which Saddam took power is debatable, but nothing uncommon
> for the area or times in which this occured.


debatable? Never heard anyone debate the fact that he was part of an
assaination.


In the beginning they had
> at least free education and free health-care (unlike Americans
> nowadays, where both are rotten).

Right. America's education system has indeed been ruined by liberal idiots
but I will pass on any European model for health care, thanks.


Like any dictator, he worked on his
> personal wealth too obviously. Everything went quite well in the
> little socialist paradise, untill the Iran-Iraq-war and from then on
> it was all down-hill. Topping was the failed CIA-organised coup
> attempt after Gulf War I, when he took revenge and captured, tortured
> and killed the people from his political opposing tribes, the Shiites
> nd Kurds. Then the years of UN-controlled isolation, where he
> obviously put most of his money in his army, just in case America
> would attack (not that he didn't feel threatened).

> Then, all those debilitating bombings done by the Americans, destroyed
> the whole infrastructure in the country.

Which bombings would that be. Destroyed the whole infrastructure?
Brainwashed. YOu must mean the infrastructure we are spending billions to
rebuild beyond where it was when Saddam was in power.. ? That one?


Now, the Iraqi-people have
> been let down plenty by America, and now they are there to re-build
> the country, do you really think the Iraqi-people all of a sudden
> believe that you are there to make their life better?

Let down by America? Brainwashed.. DEsperate. They were let down by Saddam.
We're cleaning up the mess.



> Maybe you should do a bit more fact-finding, before you declare what
> Moore or I say, nonsense. If someone here says something, I take
> at least the time to do some researching, to see if they got their
> facts straight, or are talking non-sense.

Fact finding is not one of your strong points Rat. YOu are brainwashed.
Desperate. As I have said before.. If you want Saddam back so badly ..
please go there and face the US army. Anyone who thinks Michael Moore is
anything but a slovenly, dirty lying traitor with blood on his hands and
profiting from death... is desperate . Brainwashed.
Anonymous
June 18, 2004 7:19:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Bill Davis" <newvideo@amug.org> wrote in message
news:newvideo-1606041601250001@d183-osel-phx.fastq.com...
> SNIP
> A media outlet that refuses to report on how a gun was
> > used to prevent a violent crime, but consistently reports when a gun is
used
> > to commit a crime is showing a bias.
>
> That is prehaps the single sloppiest piece of thinking I've read in
months.

You never read your own posts?

>
> If the RATIO of the number of guns used to commit violent crimes is, in
> fact, vastly greater than the number of times one is used to prevent one,
> than the "BIAS" is not only non-existent, but not "bias" at all.

You may think that because crime prevention with handguns is not reported.
Add in the police to that and your statement is completely erroneous.

>
> It's simple truth.
>
> In urban areas where most of the population is concentrated, when guns are
> used, it typically gets reported.
>
> We watch the aftermath on the news each day.
>
> Out here in the conservative gun-adoring Southwest, our media LOVES
> nothing more than stories of how some rugged armed individualist protects
> themselves and/or their family from harm with a firearm.
>
> Those stories pull HUGE ratings and the stations trumpet them long and
loud.
>

Haven't seen a single one.


> Even then, we get one or two of those stories a YEAR.
>
> Sadly, stories where a firearm figures in a crime or personal tragedy?
> Those are about one or two a WEEK.
>
> The paranoid and the gun-obsessed will consider it a conspiracy. The
> police and others will tell you it's simply a reflection of the FACTS.
>
> In essense, there's only "BIAS" if the actual facts of such useage are
> mis-represented NOT if the outcome simply doesn't match your pre-conceived
> position on the subject.
>
> (Sorry, this is off-topic and I typically don't participate in these
> threads, but this was just SO ill-reasoned that I had to jump in)
>

So you don't own a gun. Fine. Those of us that do... leave us alone.

Part of the reason you don't NEED a gun in Arizona is because most of your
neighbors have them.



> --
> Bill Davis
> NewVideo
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 7:26:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> I'm not going to get into this particular one any more, but if you're
> willing to look at a different POV, check out the book "More Guns, Less
> Crime".

Actually, I saw that book at Borders recently. It was on the lunatic shelf
right next to Mein Kampf.
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 1:35:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:19:28 GMT, "nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote:

>No Ed.. Rata is an American.

No, I am not. See how wrong you are with your claims :) 

> How many female CEOs are there in Europe?

I bet a small country like Luxemburg, has twice the amount of CEO's
than the US of A.

rr
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 1:52:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:19:30 GMT, "nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote:

>debatable? Never heard anyone debate the fact that he was part of an
>assaination.

English is my second language, so sometimes I think I found the right
word, but I didn't. I meant "questionable".

>Right. America's education system has indeed been ruined by liberal idiots

And it is even further ruined by budget cuts by the Reps.

>but I will pass on any European model for health care, thanks.

So, you are in favour of letting the poor ones suffer for your
personal gain? Then why the hell do you care so much about the
liberation of the Iraqi's?

>Which bombings would that be. Destroyed the whole infrastructure?

Water, electricity, bridges etc. If I'm not mistaken, there was an
attempt to save them this time, to keep the trust of the Iraqi's, but
that didn't happen the previous times, when Clinton sent his rockets.

>Brainwashed. YOu must mean the infrastructure we are spending billions to
>rebuild beyond where it was when Saddam was in power.. ? That one?

Yup, those.

>Let down by America? Brainwashed.. DEsperate. They were let down by Saddam.
>We're cleaning up the mess.

You forget that just after Gulf War 1, the CIA helped organising an
uprising against Saddam, but when the ball really started rolling, the
Shiites were let down. So, they had no reason to believe America was
serious this time, and part of America's campaign was to show the
Iraqi's that they were serious this time. Seems that it not's me who
is brainwashed, but you who has either a short memory, or is short
on facts.

>Fact finding is not one of your strong points Rat. YOu are brainwashed.

cough cough.

>Desperate. As I have said before.. If you want Saddam back so badly ..
>please go there and face the US army.

I don't want Saddam back. America's attitude towrads him made him a
dangerous wounded animal.

> Anyone who thinks Michael Moore is
>anything but a slovenly, dirty lying traitor with blood on his hands and
>profiting from death... is desperate . Brainwashed.

At least he is defending America's values, what they stood for,
because now they are being torn down by a bunch of money-hungry
crooks.

rr
June 19, 2004 4:48:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Addy Dominguez" <Addie332@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:_nOAc.1526$O43.1071@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > I'm not going to get into this particular one any more, but if you're
> > willing to look at a different POV, check out the book "More Guns, Less
> > Crime".
>
> Actually, I saw that book at Borders recently. It was on the lunatic shelf
> right next to Mein Kampf.

Of course you would dismiss it and ridicule it without reading it. Why am I
not surprised?
Anonymous
June 23, 2004 1:38:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

SNIP>
> I'm not going to get into this particular one any more, but if you're
> willing to look at a different POV, check out the book "More Guns, Less
> Crime".


Oh sure. How silly of me.

Lets see.

England very few guns in private hands.

America is absolutely AWASH in private gun ownership.

So according to your theory.

England must be INNUNDATED with amazing amounts of unstopped violent crimes.

While America has almost none.

I don't suppose you see ANYTHING even slightly wrong with this
particularly brilliant form of reasoning, do you?

Didn't think so.

(sigh)

--
Bill Davis
NewVideo


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
June 23, 2004 6:11:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Bill Davis" <newvideo@amug.org> wrote in message
news:newvideo-2206042138280001@d78-osel-phx.fastq.com...
> SNIP>
> > I'm not going to get into this particular one any more, but if you're
> > willing to look at a different POV, check out the book "More Guns, Less
> > Crime".
>
>
> Oh sure. How silly of me.
>
> Lets see.
>
> England very few guns in private hands.
>
> America is absolutely AWASH in private gun ownership.
>
> So according to your theory.
>
> England must be INNUNDATED with amazing amounts of unstopped violent
crimes.
>
> While America has almost none.
>
> I don't suppose you see ANYTHING even slightly wrong with this
> particularly brilliant form of reasoning, do you?
>
> Didn't think so.

England is suffering a rise in gun crime. As it stands right now, the cops
in England have to run when faced by an armed criminal.

Instead of ridiculing, why don't you try actually READING the book. Look
over the statistics and the information it presents?

Somehow I don't expect you want your own world-view shaken up.
Anonymous
June 23, 2004 8:34:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <newvideo-2206042138280001@d78-osel-phx.fastq.com> Bill Davis,
newvideo@amug.org writes:
In article <newvideo-2206042138280001@d78-osel-phx.fastq.com> Bill Davis,
newvideo@amug.org writes:
>SNIP>
>> I'm not going to get into this particular one any more, but if you're
>> willing to look at a different POV, check out the book "More Guns, Less
>> Crime".
>
>
>Oh sure. How silly of me.

Silly if you let your predjudices keep you from seeing real information.

>
>Lets see.
>
>England very few guns in private hands.

Yes, England is shadow of it's former self. Even self defense is banned.
Can you imagine what Churchill would say about modern day England?
>
>America is absolutely AWASH in private gun ownership.

Only in the free states. Many states strictly limit it.

>
>So according to your theory.
>
>England must be INNUNDATED with amazing amounts of unstopped violent
crimes.

Actually, the crime rates per capita for violent crimes are higher in
England than in most of America. And they have risen sharply since the
last round of gun control was imposed. A similar upsurge in violent crime
is occuring in Australia now since their last round of disarmament of
citizens.

That only makes sense, if there is no fear of the homeowner being able to
respond with arms, and the police (perhaps more properly called "Crime
Historians") are relatively easy to dodge, there's little disincentive to
commit burglaries and other crimes against people. In England, so called
'hot robberies', robbery of occupied dwellings by 3-4 young toughs, are
*much* more common than the same crime in America - where an attempt
might be met at the door with a loaded 12 guage. Surveys of incarcerated
criminals showed that they feared running into an armed homeowner 5 times
as much as they feared being caught by police. (interestingly, you're 5
times more likely to be shot accidently by the police than by a citizen -
this probably reflects the frequency with which police arrive on scene
not knowing who's doing what to whom and wade in. Also their very limited
marksmanship training. )

If you subtract the urban, drug driven turf battle shootings from the
mix, what the police in my area call 'misdemeanor murders' where one
druggie takes out another, the american gun crime rate falls below that
of england, france, and several other european countries.

>
>While America has almost none.

In flyover country, that's pretty much true. It's only in the large
cities, where gun ownership is discouraged that we see very high violent
crime rates. Out in rural gunowning america, violent crime is pretty
rare. The highest rates of crime are where gun ownership is most
restricted - NYC, LA, Chicago, DC. In Vermont, where anyone over 18 can
own a gun if they aren't a felon or mentally ill, they have the lowest
crime rate - despite having the longest border with a high crime state,
NY.

Again, that makes sense - if as a criminal you have a 1 in ten chance of
being shot dead or captured by an armed victim, pretty soon you are going
to leave the violent criminal business. You'll either smarten up and
quit, get captured and handed over to the crime historians in blue, or
leave feet first. Your choice.


>
>I don't suppose you see ANYTHING even slightly wrong with this
>particularly brilliant form of reasoning, do you?

Well, lets see. Where do we find massacres - in school zones where all
the good folks have been disarmed by the law, or in office buildings
where employees are not allowed to bring in their weapons.

Where do we *never* see them, or even armed robberies, despite the
presences of lots of guns? Gun shows? nope. Target shooting competitions?
nope. Shooting ranges? nope. Gun stores? nope.

A gun is only useful for bad purposes when it operates in a vaccuum - in
the land of the blind, the one eye'd man is King. In a town or city or
school where everyone else has been disarmed, a gun in the hands of a mad
or evil man confers great power. But in a town or city or school where
others are discreetly armed, it is almost useless. You might get off a
shot or two before being put down, or maybe not. Even crazies aren't
stupid. They might be willing to go down in so called 'blaze of glory'
after accomplishing some terrible goal - but they generally aren't
willing to be shot down like dogs making a failed attempt. The israelis
learned this with their school outings years ago. Schools and busses
would get attacked and shot up, until they started arming the teachers
and parents and students who had taken their military training, on
outings. After a dozen attackers were shot down without accomplishing
much, they gave up that tactic.

As far as the plague of urban crime and the killings that go with it, if
we'd get rid of the damned catch and release program we're running on
gang bangers and locked them up for good, or paid a bounty on them when
an armed citizen shot one dead, the problem would go away in a year. But
that would be too sensible, or maybe take money from the mouths of the
people who run the system. Till then, we're stuck with it. But don't
blame it on the guns, guns were here and being used sensibly long before
that part of the social experiment got started.


>
>Didn't think

That's pretty clear.

>so.

We educated you some. Do I think it will take?
>
>(sigh)
>

No, probably not for you, but someone else might learn something so it's
worth it.

>--
>Bill Davis
>NewVideo
>

Cloud dancer - ex Brady supporter who got educated and learned he'd been
lied to.

www. gun owners .org
www.rkba.org/
www.jpfo.org
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 2:07:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Rata Rioja" <redratt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ii1d09na8irdul8o87v0mcu5rtl4r3qch@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:30:32 -0700, "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> Then, all those debilitating bombings done by the Americans, destroyed
> the whole infrastructure in the country. Now, the Iraqi-people have
> been let down plenty by America, and now they are there to re-build
> the country, do you really think the Iraqi-people all of a sudden
> believe that you are there to make their life better?

The only thing destroying the infrastructure right now is militants that
will stand for nothing but an oppressive extremist Islamic regime. You know
that as well as I do. One huge reason the people don't trust the US is
because it isn't safe for anyone who would extend a helping hand in the name
of the coalition or western world and demonstrate the sincerity of the US
efforts. You know that as well as I do.
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 10:07:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:07:44 GMT, "FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not
not)notmail.com> wrote:

>The only thing destroying the infrastructure right now is militants that
>will stand for nothing but an oppressive extremist Islamic regime.

If you're talking about the oilfields, they are the obvious choice to
harass the west.

> You know that as well as I do.

Yep.

> One huge reason the people don't trust the US is
>because it isn't safe for anyone who would extend a helping hand in the name
>of the coalition or western world and demonstrate the sincerity of the US
>efforts. You know that as well as I do.

That is a reason too, but not the only one. It's maybe the reason for
most of the common people, but the leaders of the pre-invasion
resistance, didn't trust the Americans because of failed coup-support.

Oh, here something you might like to hear: I was reading the other day
an article about that two fundamentalist leaders in Saudi-Arabia, were
condoning the recent violence against westerners there, and more
muslims were turning against the terrorists. But opposed to that, new
support came up as well, so the writer concluded that there was no
sign of a significant trend yet.

rr
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 12:37:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Bill Davis" <newvideo@amug.org> wrote in message
news:newvideo-2206042138280001@d78-osel-phx.fastq.com...
> SNIP>
> > I'm not going to get into this particular one any more, but if you're
> > willing to look at a different POV, check out the book "More Guns, Less
> > Crime".
>
>
> Oh sure. How silly of me.
>
> Lets see.
>
> England very few guns in private hands.
>
> America is absolutely AWASH in private gun ownership.
>
> So according to your theory.
>
> England must be INNUNDATED with amazing amounts of unstopped violent
crimes.
>
> While America has almost none.
>
> I don't suppose you see ANYTHING even slightly wrong with this
> particularly brilliant form of reasoning, do you?
>
> Didn't think so.
>
> (sigh)
Stop sighing and start thinking straight Bill.. Maybe a nap would do...
works for me ;) 

You neglected to offer us proof that England is crime free and that, my
friend, is because if you were to offer such proof you would have to falsify
it.. And you never do that right?

So I assume that's why you were sighing.. but for some reason you send the
post anyway. ..

<sigh >
!