SFF Net Newsgroup Archive
sff.discuss.heinlein-forum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 2003
http://www.sff.net/

Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 05:52:06
============================================================

Article 21812
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 4 Oct 2002 14:29:22 GMT
Subject: Lost Website
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

A year or two ago, I found an amusing site that I now cannot locate. The
author claimed to admire the brilliant work of the Holocaust deniers, and
claimed that their wonderful techniques for proving the Holocaust fake should
be more broadly used. He then went on to prove, for example, that the Parthenon
was a fake, and the Moon is an optical illusion, with astronomers and NASA
exploiting it for their own purposes.

Unfortunately, I have completely lost the site, and cannot find it. Anybody
have any suggestions?
-- 
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21813
From: SpaceCadet 
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 10:47:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Lost Website
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Looks like it's at http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/

Carol

filksinger@earthling.net wrote:
> 
> A year or two ago, I found an amusing site that I now cannot locate. The
> author claimed to admire the brilliant work of the Holocaust deniers, and
> claimed that their wonderful techniques for proving the Holocaust fake should
> be more broadly used. He then went on to prove, for example, that the Parthenon
> was a fake, and the Moon is an optical illusion, with astronomers and NASA
> exploiting it for their own purposes.
> 
> Unfortunately, I have completely lost the site, and cannot find it. Anybody
> have any suggestions?
> --
> Filksinger
> AKA David Nasset, Sr.
> Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21814
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 4 Oct 2002 16:35:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Lost Website
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

The Mad Revisionist. Yup, that's him.
-- 
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21815
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 4 Oct 2002 21:02:45 GMT
Subject: Ignoble
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

The Ignoble prizes are out! Given to those whose scientific research either
cannot or should not be repeated.

www.improbable.com

-- 
Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21816
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:13:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3d99f297.11347036@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett 
writes...

> It is also a fallacy that all UN resolutions are created equal.  As I
> understand the system, only Security Council resolutions are binding
> on the member nations, and only Chapter VII resolutions can be
> enforced militarily, according to the UN Charter.

I am not claiming that Israel should be invaded for consistency if Iraq 
is.  I am arguing that invading Iraq is a mistake.

I wonder if Chapter VI, rather than Chapter VII, resolutions were passed 
regarding Israel because the Palestinians, unlike the Kuwaitis, did not 
have a state.  This would be an ironic basis for claiming that 
resolutions against Israel were weaker, since it is the very basis of the 
dispute.
....
> >I take it your position is that any country that meets these three
> >conditions should be preemptively attacked, if possible?  
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  And besides, you ignore my, "And more else
> besides?"  Of the nations which have WMD, which to some extent is
> almost all of them, only Iraq has actually used them, afaik, in the
> recent past.  Only Iraq has invaded one neighbor and rained missiles
> down on another with whom it was not formally at war, again in the
> recent past,

I am not sure what "in the recent past" adds to your argument.  If, in 
the not-so-recent past, such actions did not draw preemptive strikes, why 
should they do so now?  
....
> My position is that, if we must indeed have a war against Iraq, and
> I'm pretty sure we must, then it makes sense, to save lives on both
> sides, but especially ours, to do it before he has nuclear weapsons
> and better means of delivering any WMD.

I agree with your hypothetical.  What I don't see is exactly why we must 
have a war with Iraq.  I especially don't see why we should have such a 
war without U.N. support.
....
> >"All I know is what I read in the papers."
> 
> There is much more to the world than what you read in the papers.

Sad, but that is the Achilles Heel of democracy.
.... 
> I have no current access to "special" information, and if I did, I
> couldn't share it.  But I can say that we know, for a fact, from the
> papers, that Iraq supports Islamic terrorist groups.  We also know,
> for a fact, from the papers (and books, etc) that ALL of the Islamic
> terrorists are interconnected for funding, weapons, and logistical
> support.  Putting the two together is more than plausible.

Many thing are more than plausible.  What I want to see are the links 
between Iraq and 9/11.     

> The
> president, nsa, or secdef telling me it is so makes it MORE plausible,
> not less.  You may argue that they should not be believed because they
> have alterior motives.  Seems to me you are the one who rejects valid
> information because it doesn't fit what you WISH to be true.

I'm not sure what you think I WISH to be true or how you came to know it.  
What I want to see are confirmations of an Iraq-9/11 link that do not 
come directly from the Bush administration or from Bush's British 
Bulldog.
....
> Assuming I understand what you're asking, anyone's "global" reach is
> "the most troublesome."  But in any case, imho, 9/11 proved that all
> terrorists have global reach.  Period.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to fight on all fronts at once.  Right 
now, while we focus on Iraq, my understanding is that a large part of 
Afghanistan has slipped from Karsai's control, making it a suitable home 
once again for Al Qaida.
....
> >>  But by all means, let's wait until he has "the bomb" too.
> >> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
> >
> >It seems to make sense to, say, France, Germany, Russia, and China.  But
> >perhaps all these countries have irrational leaders who prefer to be the
> >targets of WMD, while only the clear-thinking members of the Bush Marketing
> >Team... I mean Administration... see the real dangers?
> 
> I am not a fan or even supporter of Mr Bush, except in the sense that
> he is commander-in-chief and president.  I probably wouldn't even vote
> for him tomorrow, if he were running and depending who was running
> against him.  But I see the "real dangers."  I don't even understand
> your point about the rest of the nuclear neighborhood.

My point was that these countries are not calling for an invasion of 
Iraq.

>  Altho I will
> point out, Germany does not, afaik, have nucs.

I did not say that it did.
....
> >In general, there isn't.  I believe in trade with all nations and alliances
> >with none.  This policy is not perfect (no policy is), but it does not take
> >great genius to implement - a required quality obviously missing from past
> >U.S. foreign policy: support for the Shah of Iran, support for Iraq(!) over
> >Iran, etc.
> 
> Do you think government action should only be taken if it can be
> administered without error, and with 20/20 hindsight, every time?

No.  Lacking a reasonable question to respond to, I'll just repeat what I 
said: I believe in trade with all nations and alliances with none.  That 
does not imply that governments should take no actions.  It does not even 
imply that we should not invade Iraq.  But if we had followed the policy, 
we would not now have to be considering whether to invade. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21817
From: noone" 
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:56:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Ignoble
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

well! two interesting, amusing and entertaining websites back to back, very
good carol and david, thank you.
"gunner"
-------------------
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3d9e01f5.0@news.sff.net...
> The Ignoble prizes are out! Given to those whose scientific research
either
> cannot or should not be repeated.
>
> www.improbable.com
>
> --
> Filksinger



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21818
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 17:05:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:54:30 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>> >My understanding is that the U.S. has tradition that does not support
>> >preemptive attack.  Am I wrong, or is the tradition?
>>
>> You are wrong.  US military is well trained and always prepared for
>> preemptive strike orders.
>
>The U.S. military is not the same as the U.S government.

Ummm..., yes it is.

> Hopefully, the
>U.S. military is well trained and prepared to do many things that it will
>never be called on to do.

True, but I think you have a different conception of what it means
when the US military plans and trains for an operation.  There are
specific national security documents, signed by the "national command
authority" (President and/or SecDef) which direct what operations will
be planned for.  Then forces are allocated for their execution and
money apportioned for their training, by Congress.  A VERY expensive
endeavor, even if never used.  If the military is training for a
pre-emptive strike, it very well is an official part of US policy.

>> And depending on how you define
>> "preemptive," there are a number of cases where preemptive military
>> intervention has been used.  Starting with, probably, the Philippines.
>
>Do you think that a single case undermines a tradition, or do you have
>others in mind?  

Yes, I think "a single case" proves that US tradition supports a
preemptive attack.  But I did say "starting with..." There have been
others.

>I am willing to take "preemptive" somewhat broadly so as
>not to be unfair regarding the burden of proof.

Actually, a little research reminds me that the US military actually
began intervening overseas before the Phillipines.  Hawaii while it
was still an independent kingdom, sort of.  Samoa.  Maybe even Cuba
(the Spanish-American War), if you consider that the administration
probably knew that Spain did not sink the Maine.  But maybe that's
merely modern hind-sight, or not even correct.

But in 1914, we stationed warships in the Mexican ports Tampico and
Vera Cruz, and then occupied Vera Cruz with Marines because we opposed
the faction that had taken over during the Mexican Revolution/Civil
War.  We didn't leave until that faction resigned.  Actually, not that
far removed from the situation in Iraq today.

We also invaded Mexico two years later because Pancho Villa was
raiding accross the border and the Mexican govt could not or would not
stop them.  Granted the action was not unprovoked, but Villa's
"banditos" were not formally agents of the Mexican govt, and it was a
violation of Mexican soverignty.  Not something Americans worried
about much back then.

We entered WWI ostensibly because the Germans sank a British passenger
ship, thus threatening the safety of US shipping and access to the sea
lanes.  The Brits were not our allies at the time and there was never
a direct German attack on the US, but a fear that there might be, and
an unwillingness to accept that a hostile foreign power should posess
such a capability.  Another fairly good analogy to Iraq, imho.

One could argue, altho it's a weak argument I'll grant you, that our
entire involvement in VietNam was "pre-emptive" as no NVA regular
forces had attacked the South, iirc, when Eisenhower sent the first
military in in 1954 or Kennedy the first uniformed forces in the
1960s.  Granted, NVA was involved in the fall of Dien Bien Phu, but
that was against the French.

We employed a naval blockade (an act of war by international law) to
prevent the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba.  Those missiles had
not been used against us.  The Soviets had never attacked us.  We were
trying to stop them from having that capability.  Preemptively.

We intervened militarily in the Dominican Civil War in 1965 to prevent
a Cuba-like regime from coming to power in that country.

Panama, which Eli mentioned, is another good example.  The Noriega
govt had not attacked our forces in the Canal Zone, and the Canal was
due to revert to Panamanian control anyway.  Or maybe it already
had--I forget.

Haiti fits too.

I'm not arguing that all of these military actions were good ideas, or
legal, or even conducted with the approval of the American people.
Only that our "tradition" does not preclude the use of preemptive
military force.

>> Perhaps the policy of preemption has never been articulated in the
>> top-level national security documents--I'm not sure.  But I do know
>> the US has always, formally and in writing, reserved the right to
>> first use of nuclear weapons.  That sounds pretty "preemptive" to me.
>> Of course, we haven't had to exercise that right in the last 50 years.
>
>I would not call reserving the right to use a particular weapon "preemptive"
>if it would be used only after an initial attack.  

But US "first use" policy is NOT reserved for use after an initial
attack.  That was my point--and the basis of MAD.  Hit us anywhere,
with conventional forces, or threaten us too closely with nuclear
ones, and we claimed the right to strike preemptively.  

>Thus, the use of atomic
>weapons against Japan - quite literally the real "first use" - was not
>preemptive.

No, that case was not.  I only argue that official US policy, after
WWII, included a preemptive option.

>With regard to M.A.D., stability was achieved by each side
>/threatening/ to use nuclear weapons, not by their actual use, first or
>otherwise.

Not much point in threatening if the other side does not believe that
you will do it.  We never had to, but it was always our policy.  No
way to know whether we would have or not.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21819
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 17:34:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:13:33 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>I am not claiming that Israel should be invaded for consistency if Iraq 
>is.  I am arguing that invading Iraq is a mistake.

Noted.  I just used that as an example, perhaps because I've heard it
repeatedly of late.

>I wonder if Chapter VI, rather than Chapter VII, resolutions were passed 
>regarding Israel because the Palestinians, unlike the Kuwaitis, did not 
>have a state.  This would be an ironic basis for claiming that 
>resolutions against Israel were weaker, since it is the very basis of the 
>dispute.

I doubt it.  Actually, I believe the second SC resolution on Israel
dates to 1967 and involves Jordan, which owned the disputed
territories at the time.  Well, along with Syria (the Golan) and Eqypt
(the Sinai and Gaza).  Had nothing to do with the Palestinians, which
did not really exist (as a defined entity).  Still don't, really.  But
that's another argument <g>.  In any case, Israel has since negotiated
peace treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.

>> >I take it your position is that any country that meets these three
>> >conditions should be preemptively attacked, if possible?  
>> 
>> No, I didn't say that.  And besides, you ignore my, "And more else
>> besides?"  Of the nations which have WMD, which to some extent is
>> almost all of them, only Iraq has actually used them, afaik, in the
>> recent past.  Only Iraq has invaded one neighbor and rained missiles
>> down on another with whom it was not formally at war, again in the
>> recent past,
>
>I am not sure what "in the recent past" adds to your argument.  If, in 
>the not-so-recent past, such actions did not draw preemptive strikes, why 
>should they do so now?  

Because the world was different during the Cold War.  Any thought of
preemption carried a different set of potentialities.

Actually, I think the only use of WMD before Iraq was Germany in WWI
(no longer and issue) and us in WWII.  There have, of course, been
cases of one nation attacking another without warning since, but not
with all the other factors in place.

<snip> (I don't think we're in disagreement on anything snipped)

>> I have no current access to "special" information, and if I did, I
>> couldn't share it.  But I can say that we know, for a fact, from the
>> papers, that Iraq supports Islamic terrorist groups.  We also know,
>> for a fact, from the papers (and books, etc) that ALL of the Islamic
>> terrorists are interconnected for funding, weapons, and logistical
>> support.  Putting the two together is more than plausible.
>
>Many thing are more than plausible.  What I want to see are the links 
>between Iraq and 9/11.     
>
>> The
>> president, nsa, or secdef telling me it is so makes it MORE plausible,
>> not less.  You may argue that they should not be believed because they
>> have alterior motives.  Seems to me you are the one who rejects valid
>> information because it doesn't fit what you WISH to be true.
>
>I'm not sure what you think I WISH to be true or how you came to know it.  
>What I want to see are confirmations of an Iraq-9/11 link that do not 
>come directly from the Bush administration or from Bush's British 
>Bulldog.

Well, I can't give it to you.   But I don't see the need.  What we
have "proof" of is more than adequate.  In my humble opinion.

>Unfortunately, it is difficult to fight on all fronts at once.  Right 
>now, while we focus on Iraq, my understanding is that a large part of 
>Afghanistan has slipped from Karsai's control, making it a suitable home 
>once again for Al Qaida.

All the more reason to attack the roots of the problem, and not go
piecemeal after every little terror cell that pops up on the horizon.

Not that I think Sadaam is the "root" of all terrorism, but he is a
major part in their operational sustainability.  And a good first
step.

Fwiw, I don't think Karsai's control is any less than it was when he
was first elected.  Afghanistan is a big place, and there are many
places to hide.  Many allies to support Al Qaida (or whomever).  It
will be a long, long time before it is terrorist-free.  If ever.
Heck, the US isn't even terrorist-free.  Not even of the Islamic
fundamentalist brand.

<another snip> (still in disagreement here, but getting repetative)

>> Do you think government action should only be taken if it can be
>> administered without error, and with 20/20 hindsight, every time?
>
>No.  Lacking a reasonable question to respond to, I'll just repeat what I 
>said: I believe in trade with all nations and alliances with none.  That 
>does not imply that governments should take no actions.  It does not even 
>imply that we should not invade Iraq.  But if we had followed the policy, 
>we would not now have to be considering whether to invade. 

There is no way to know that, and very little reason to believe it.

In any case, the issue is not what we should have done, or not done,
in the past, but where will we be in the future if we do not take
action now.  There's no way to "know" that either, but there are
relative probabilities.  Someone once said, if it can't be expressed
in numbers, it's only opinion (owtte).  Well, this is all opinion, but
it may be all we have.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21820
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 17:39:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:33:34 -0500, "Dee" <ke4lfgDELETETHIS@amsat.org>
wrote:

>"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:3d874ea3.37873924@news.sff.net...
>> I certainly think it's encouraging too.  And pardon me if I'm just
>> eleaborating on your point (as I think I am).
>
>    Yes, yoou are, and no pardon required.
>
>> It's not because of
>> these particular guys so much.  Yeah, it's good to get them, but there
>> are so many more.  But, taking these guys will probably lead us to at
>> least some of the others.  And maybe, just maybe, more of the good,
>> innoscent, patriotic American Muslims will realize they can make a
>> difference.  Maybe many of them already are, and we just don't know it
>> yet.  I hope so.
>
>    Agreed, the real encouragement is not this particular batch of arrests
>nearly as much as it is that we are seeing news of American Muslims who are
>taking a stand.  Maybe it has been happening all along, and held close for
>security reasons, but it is a good time to get some news of it.  And as you
>say, maybe it will encourage others.

And interesting Newsweek article on this topic:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/811234.asp

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21821
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 8 Oct 2002 20:20:19 GMT
Subject: Dread Plush Cthulhu
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

All who live will die in chaos and madness! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

http://www.logicalcreativity.com/jon/plush/01.html

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21822
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:19:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Dread Plush Cthulhu
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

FS:    Maybe the general anesthesia hasn't worked it's way out of my
system yet, But:  I missed something here.  (I may be of the wrong
SF generation or F&SF genre to comprehend.)  Please enlighten, so
that I may share in this.

Ed J    ;-)

On 8 Oct 2002 20:20:19 GMT, filksinger@earthling.net wrote:

>All who live will die in chaos and madness! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
>
>http://www.logicalcreativity.com/jon/plush/01.html


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21823
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:48:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Dread Plush Cthulhu
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:19:13 -0400, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@comcast.spamthis.net > wrote:

>FS:    Maybe the general anesthesia hasn't worked it's way out of my
>system yet, 

ED!    Glad to see your phosphors.  Been thinking about you for the
last week.  Hope all is well.

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21824
From: postmaster@sff.net
Date: 28 Sep 2002 11:52:07 GMT
Subject: No articles presently in newsgroup.
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This newsgroup has no articles yet; however, if
you were to post something, it would.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21825
From: webnews@sff.net
Date: 10 Oct 2002 04:59:58 GMT
Subject: SpamGuard
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

One or more articles in this newsgroup have been cancelled by the sysops
for being spammed across multiple newsgroups, being commercial adverts,
or for violating SFF Net's Policies and Procedures.

To avoid seeing this notice in the future, set your newsreader to filter
out articles with SpamGuard in the subject.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21826
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:28:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Dread Plush Cthulhu
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT:  Thanks for thinking of me.  
 So far, so good.  Post surgical  prognosis looks very, very
promising for long term survival.  The pathologist's report was
excellent.  (the HMO bean counters would have had the hospital
discharge me 48 hours after major surgery. Onfgneqf!
I went in 10-02 and spent 5 days hospitalized all told and I hope to
be back at work full time by mid November.
   I am sore in places I didn't even know you could be sore in and
I'm in pain in places I'd rather not mention.  The staples came out
today and catheter next week.  
   This is the same thing that my dad survived by only 15 months:  I
hope to beat those odds.

Ed J

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:48:40 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:19:13 -0400, Ed Johnson
><eljohn2@comcast.spamthis.net > wrote:
>
>>FS:    Maybe the general anesthesia hasn't worked it's way out of my
>>system yet, 
>
>ED!    Glad to see your phosphors.  Been thinking about you for the
>last week.  Hope all is well.
>
>JT


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21827
From: Eli Hestermann 
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:48:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Dread Plush Cthulhu
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Good to hear the pathologist is optimistic, Ed!

Also the first time in awhile I've seen ROT13 used to such good effect.
[g]

--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa."  -Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21828
From: Dee" 
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:27:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Dread Plush Cthulhu
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ed--
    Somehow I failed to realize there was anything wroong until you
mentioned anesthesia.  I am so glad the reports are good, and I am fully
planning on your beating your father's record.  Go Ed!
    Lost of good thoughts going your way.
--Dee



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21829
From: jrfranks@USA.NET (J. Robert Franks)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 18:57:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Lost Website
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Dear Carol-
   Just looked at the site: it's a scream! Especially about the masons
being involved in the moon hoax.

--
bob
J. Robert Franks   <><
Goldsboro, NC
jrfranks@USA.NET

On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 10:47:12 -0500, SpaceCadet
<cadozo@planet-save.com> wrote:

>Looks like it's at http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/
>
>Carol
>
>filksinger@earthling.net wrote:
>> 
>> A year or two ago, I found an amusing site that I now cannot locate. The
>> author claimed to admire the brilliant work of the Holocaust deniers, and
>> claimed that their wonderful techniques for proving the Holocaust fake should
>> be more broadly used. He then went on to prove, for example, that the Parthenon
>> was a fake, and the Moon is an optical illusion, with astronomers and NASA
>> exploiting it for their own purposes.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, I have completely lost the site, and cannot find it. Anybody
>> have any suggestions?
>> --
>> Filksinger
>> AKA David Nasset, Sr.
>> Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21830
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:59:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Dread Plush Cthulhu
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Thanks Dee.     I am optimistic.  I never got the full details on
the extent of my Dad's cancer as I was not in close contact with him
when it was diagnosed.  Back in 1980 I went with him for moral
support for his full body radiation treatments once it had spread to
his bones.  He lasted a few months after that.
  I have a long and sad family history of losing those I love the
most to cancer: father, mother. wife.  Two weeks to the day after my
wife's funeral my GP told me 'we've discovered a lump, you should
get it checked out'.
   
Ed


On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:27:43 -0500, "Dee"
<ke4lfgDELETETHIS@amsat.org> wrote:

>Ed--
>    Somehow I failed to realize there was anything wroong until you
>mentioned anesthesia.  I am so glad the reports are good, and I am fully
>planning on your beating your father's record.  Go Ed!
>    Lost of good thoughts going your way.
>--Dee
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21831
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:02:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Dread Plush Cthulhu
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli:   The pathology report came in while I was still in the
Hospital.  Terms like 'totally encapsulated' and 'it didn't seem to
have spread to the lymphs' and 'we think that we got it all' are the
words that I hope to live by.

Ed

On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:48:27 -0400, Eli Hestermann
<Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote:

>Good to hear the pathologist is optimistic, Ed!
>
>Also the first time in awhile I've seen ROT13 used to such good effect.
>[g]


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21832
From: David M. Silver" 
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 03:07:37 -0700
Subject: Re: Dread Plush Cthulhu
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ed Johnson wrote:
> Eli:   The pathology report came in while I was still in the
> Hospital.  Terms like 'totally encapsulated' and 'it didn't seem to
> have spread to the lymphs' and 'we think that we got it all' are the
> words that I hope to live by.
> 
> Ed
> 
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:48:27 -0400, Eli Hestermann
> <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Good to hear the pathologist is optimistic, Ed!
>>
>>Also the first time in awhile I've seen ROT13 used to such good effect.
>>[g]
> 
> 

Those are good words, Ed. Heard them myself in 1991. They had to take 
part of a lung, but they were right about the conclusions they made. 
Good luck.

David


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21833
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 23:06:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Dread Plush Cthulhu
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Dave:   Sorry to hear about losing part of a lung, glad to hear that
are still here to tell us about it.  It sounds to me like you are
counting your blessings instead of the days.  May you have many more
days and blessings both.

BTW: my dad had part of a lung removed in 1961; continued to smoke
heavily until he died of Prostate cancer in 1980. Go figure.


Ed J (on the road to recovery) 


On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 03:07:37 -0700, "David M. Silver"
<ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>
>Those are good words, Ed. Heard them myself in 1991. They had to take 
>part of a lung, but they were right about the conclusions they made. 
>Good luck.
>
>David


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21834
From: noone" 
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 00:14:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Lost Website/and another
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

somewhere out there in "cyberspace" there's a website that, among other
things carefully details how to make an aluminium foil beanie, (propellor
optional i think), that would go nicely with the website listed below but i
can't remember where i found it either.
"gunner"
--------------------------
"J. Robert Franks" <jrfranks@USA.NET> wrote in message
news:3da71e86.23331137@news.sff.net...
> Dear Carol-
>    Just looked at the site: it's a scream! Especially about the masons
> being involved in the moon hoax.
>
> --
> bob
> J. Robert Franks   <><
> Goldsboro, NC
> jrfranks@USA.NET
>
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 10:47:12 -0500, SpaceCadet
> <cadozo@planet-save.com> wrote:
>
> >Looks like it's at http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >filksinger@earthling.net wrote:
> >>
> >> A year or two ago, I found an amusing site that I now cannot locate.
The
> >> author claimed to admire the brilliant work of the Holocaust deniers,
and
> >> claimed that their wonderful techniques for proving the Holocaust fake
should
> >> be more broadly used. He then went on to prove, for example, that the
Parthenon
> >> was a fake, and the Moon is an optical illusion, with astronomers and
NASA
> >> exploiting it for their own purposes.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, I have completely lost the site, and cannot find it.
Anybody
> >> have any suggestions?
> >> --
> >> Filksinger
> >> AKA David Nasset, Sr.
> >> Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined
>
>



------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 05:52:06
First article in this archive:  21812
Last article in this archive:   21834
Oldest article in this archive: 4 Oct 2002 14:29:22 GMT
Newest article in this archive: 14 Oct 2002 20:22:50 GMT