From: Bill Todd on
Del Cecchi wrote:
> "Bill Todd" <billtodd(a)metrocast.net> wrote in message
> news:f_-dnW0eXbLiu8zYnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)metrocastcablevision.com...
>> Del Cecchi wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> I think Nick might be one of the folks who like to make snarky little
>>> remarks about the folks who are trying to protect us from other folks
>>> who would like to kill as many of us as possible.
>> I suspect it's more likely that he's inclined to make snarky little
>> remarks about the people who concentrate on lining their own pockets
>> and entrenching their power while doing their best to convince us that
>> they're protecting us from other folks who are just plain nasty rather
>> than expressing entirely legitimate grievances in the few remaining
>> ways they have available that haven't already proved completely
>> fruitless.
>>
>> But that's just a guess...
>>
>> - bill
> So the folks that blow up subways and fly airplanes into office buildings
> are the poor victims, eh? Thanks for clearing up where you stand.

No problem. Just in case there should be any remaining possible hint of
doubt, until we clean up our act, I'm all for that: if we won't keep
ourselves under control, it's high time someone else did.

- bill
From: BDH on
> > So the folks that blow up subways and fly airplanes into office buildings
> > are the poor victims, eh? Thanks for clearing up where you stand.
>
> No problem. Just in case there should be any remaining possible hint of
> doubt, until we clean up our act, I'm all for that: if we won't keep
> ourselves under control, it's high time someone else did.

I for one think it's awesome how even computer architecture theory can
be about US federal politics. Next year can we do existentialism?

From: Bill Todd on
BDH wrote:
>>> So the folks that blow up subways and fly airplanes into office buildings
>>> are the poor victims, eh? Thanks for clearing up where you stand.
>> No problem. Just in case there should be any remaining possible hint of
>> doubt, until we clean up our act, I'm all for that: if we won't keep
>> ourselves under control, it's high time someone else did.
>
> I for one think it's awesome how even computer architecture theory can
> be about US federal politics.

While the discussion here can get fairly eclectic at times, you appear
to be a bit confused about its exact nature in this instance. Politics
wasn't mentioned at all: rather, these are questions about national
behavior, its motivation, and its consequences, both internal and external.

Of course, there are plenty of people who would like to try to make the
discussion about politics, because that confuses any debate on the
actual merits of the situation with issues of personal political
identity and allegiance. Or, to put it another way, as is all too often
the case politics obfuscates rather than clarifies matters - and many
politicians of both major U.S. political parties (and probably elsewhere
in the world as well) like it that way.

- bill
From: Nick Maclaren on

In article <4550dc5e$1(a)darkstar>, eugene(a)cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:
|>
|> Well tell us every thing you know about your MI organizations and GCHQ?

Sorry. I am too far from the Library of Congress, which is the best
place to look up that sort of thing.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
From: Andy Freeman on
Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <4550dc5e$1(a)darkstar>, eugene(a)cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:
> |> Well tell us every thing you know about your MI organizations and GCHQ?
>
> Sorry. I am too far from the Library of Congress, which is the best
> place to look up that sort of thing.

Why would the US be the best place to research the UK's security and
intelligence agencies?