|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et... Kim W5TIT wrote: Oh, and by the way, Dwight. In the event that you would be (and I don't think you would) as childish as Larry, *if* you took the above to think that I was including the story of your brother in my "hilarious" comment, then you would be wrong; however I apologize to you if I implied that. Sure is what it looked like, but okay, I'll accept that you didn't mean that. What did you mean? - Mike KB3EIA - Oh, fer cryin' out loud. Take out the last paragraph, the one about Dwight's brother-in-law. The reaction to the Michael Jackson story, as depicted by Dwight in *all but* his relay about his brother's death, is way too much. In contrast, there is the Catholic Church stories around the same issue. While I haven't read this newsgroup very often over the past year or so, *except* for about the last what--three/four months--I don't recall seeing any "I'm Shocked" posts on those rapes and abuses. Leave the story about Dwight's brother out of it. And, this is the last I'll say about that part of it--it has nothing to do with what my comments were about. I don't think there's anyone I've seen post in this newsgroup that is *that* heartless. Nearly, but not quite. Kim W5TIT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... Whether you've noticed it by now or not, Kim, I have already acknowledged the fact that you could have made a mistake in the use of the word "hilarious" in it's given context. However, your reaction is, as usual, to go on the defensive, not accept responsibility for your mistake, and attempt to backpedal your way to a position of good standing. Did it ever occur to simply take responsibility for your mistake, offer Dwight and the rest of the newsgroup a simple, heartfelt apology, and take your fat little fingers off the keyboard for a while? I didn't think so -- and the results were as predictable as ever. 73 de Larry, K3LT Y'know what, Larry? Phuck (HansTM) you and your patriarchal high horse you ride around on. I owe *you* nor anyone else, *but* possibly Dwight, an apology. I can nearly guarantee you that Dwight would know that I was not commenting on the part about his brother. Now sit the phuck down and shut the phuck up. Kim W5TIT |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
... Kim, There is a lot of ongoing coverage of the problems with the Church. What I don't understand is how Michael Jackson keeps having kids over at Neverland - and he has admitted having them in his bed (which is not a crime in itself, but raises a lot of doubt). Yes, but Jim, don't you think there is a potential for an inordinate amount of fanaticism from both sides of the fence on the Michael Jackson story? For instance, true or not I can't tell ya, but when they were interviewing Jackson on that special back a few months ago, with one of those kids who visits him all the time, he was asked about the kids sleeping "with" him. Even his initial answers were far too direct for me. Openly stating that he always sleeps with kids, etc. BUT, something finally clicked with Michael when something was said about the whole thing and he "caught on" to question was the interviewer talking about kids being *in bed* with him. The kid next to him *and* Michael both stated that they never were in bed together. Michael lets the kid up into his bed, and he (Michael) sleeps on the floor--not much different than having a sleep-over, if you will. Now, both of them may be lying through their teeth, I don't know. But all I have to go on is what I heard. Yes, that raises doubt by the way. I am even doubtful. BUT, I don't think any of us has the right to indict through having doubt...goodness imagine if we did that with everything we doubt? Jackson probably "deserves" whatever he gets for living life as he lives; but it's uniquely his choice to live as he sees fit. He *does not* uniquely have the right to hurt anyone or even to do anything illegal (to cancel out any misery from Larry or others about me supporting Michael Jackson raping kids--SIGH), but I don't any of us knows for sure whether he has done anything illegal or not. Also, I see nothing wrong at all with kids being in bed with adults. I wouldn't like it myself, never even let my own kids in bed with me--but only because that was beyond *my* comfort level. I have no problem with kids and adults sleeping together. We've become overtly sensitive to the issue. And, I am speaking from the perspective even of having been raped on more than one occasion as a child--so it's not because I "haven't been there" so to speak. Been there, done that, threw away the tee-shirt because who'd want a souvenir? Priests are not known for being rich; Michael Jackson is. I'm not sure why you brought this up. Yes, problems were swept under the carpet for a long time as the Church is big, but the individual parashes and priests didn't have the wherewithal to keep it hidden forever. Hmmmm, not sure I'm grasping the introduction of this train of thought. Neither has Michael Jackson been able to sweep things under the carpet. While I've not paid much attention, hasn't there been news stories about Jackson and this for the past 3-4 years anyway; and even a court trial that's already happened once? I also don't think the individual priests would have kept their 'secrets' for any length of time had they had the visibility that Jackson has. Ah, duh. I could've read that before I made my comment above, but I'll still leave it in. BUT, would people be so inclined to be as vociferous on the topic of the Catholic Church? I think I mean by that, that we jump on the bandwagon quicker with the Jackson story because of the reasons I mentioned above: fanaticism. Love 'im or hate 'im, you know what I mean? Speaking of news stories - whatever happened to that pharmacist that diluted the cancer drugs down to 1% and got rich doing it? Sure didn't hear about that much more, did we? Personally, I'd trust drugs out of Canada more than drugs in the USA. Too much leeway and welfare for big business. I notice that the drug companies can force the government as to how they buy drugs. Let a small company try that LOL. Just my opinion. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA I wish I could figure out a way to get my prescriptions from Canada. I won't do things illegally and if there is even the slightest chance that it's illegal, I don't want to even try. 'Cause I am with you, I trust the drugs coming from there just as much as I do from here--they are all the same companies (for the most part). There isn't another "recipe" just because it's a Canadian drug. :) Kim W5TIT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote'
I listen to radio talk show and degreed, licensed family counsellor Dr. Laura Schlessinger all the time, and she has addressed this issue many times, always stating the same thing I did. Larryl, Don't believe everything you hear on the radio. Dr. Laura is wrong, and you're wrong. Colleen and I have 5 great, well adjusted children who prove you flat wrong. You're a sibling, not a parent, and you don't have even a trace of a clue. Sunuvagun. 73, de Hans (no "L" in Hans) |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote
degreed, licensed family counsellor Dr. Laura Schlessinger all the time OBTW, Larryl, I should point out that one of our daughters, Gretchen, is also a "degreed, licensed" child counsellor, and she actually practices in the real world as opposed to chatting about it on the radio. And her three little tykes are regularly found in the same bed with their parents. Sorry, Larryl, but in this discussion you're kinda like someone arguing about Morse code but has never learned it themselves. Sunuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Is Michael a ham? I think not.
GOT DRUGS??? http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa...sp/BN=03058540 http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa...x=UYGPYIXIGBGI http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa...sp/bn=03035679 http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/BookPhot...03035679&WC U Kim W5TIT wrote: "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... Kim, There is a lot of ongoing coverage of the problems with the Church. What I don't understand is how Michael Jackson keeps having kids over at Neverland - and he has admitted having them in his bed (which is not a crime in itself, but raises a lot of doubt). Yes, but Jim, don't you think there is a potential for an inordinate amount of fanaticism from both sides of the fence on the Michael Jackson story? For instance, true or not I can't tell ya, but when they were interviewing Jackson on that special back a few months ago, with one of those kids who visits him all the time, he was asked about the kids sleeping "with" him. Even his initial answers were far too direct for me. Openly stating that he always sleeps with kids, etc. BUT, something finally clicked with Michael when something was said about the whole thing and he "caught on" to question was the interviewer talking about kids being *in bed* with him. The kid next to him *and* Michael both stated that they never were in bed together. Michael lets the kid up into his bed, and he (Michael) sleeps on the floor--not much different than having a sleep-over, if you will. Now, both of them may be lying through their teeth, I don't know. But all I have to go on is what I heard. Yes, that raises doubt by the way. I am even doubtful. BUT, I don't think any of us has the right to indict through having doubt...goodness imagine if we did that with everything we doubt? Jackson probably "deserves" whatever he gets for living life as he lives; but it's uniquely his choice to live as he sees fit. He *does not* uniquely have the right to hurt anyone or even to do anything illegal (to cancel out any misery from Larry or others about me supporting Michael Jackson raping kids--SIGH), but I don't any of us knows for sure whether he has done anything illegal or not. Also, I see nothing wrong at all with kids being in bed with adults. I wouldn't like it myself, never even let my own kids in bed with me--but only because that was beyond *my* comfort level. I have no problem with kids and adults sleeping together. We've become overtly sensitive to the issue. And, I am speaking from the perspective even of having been raped on more than one occasion as a child--so it's not because I "haven't been there" so to speak. Been there, done that, threw away the tee-shirt because who'd want a souvenir? Priests are not known for being rich; Michael Jackson is. I'm not sure why you brought this up. Yes, problems were swept under the carpet for a long time as the Church is big, but the individual parashes and priests didn't have the wherewithal to keep it hidden forever. Hmmmm, not sure I'm grasping the introduction of this train of thought. Neither has Michael Jackson been able to sweep things under the carpet. While I've not paid much attention, hasn't there been news stories about Jackson and this for the past 3-4 years anyway; and even a court trial that's already happened once? I also don't think the individual priests would have kept their 'secrets' for any length of time had they had the visibility that Jackson has. Ah, duh. I could've read that before I made my comment above, but I'll still leave it in. BUT, would people be so inclined to be as vociferous on the topic of the Catholic Church? I think I mean by that, that we jump on the bandwagon quicker with the Jackson story because of the reasons I mentioned above: fanaticism. Love 'im or hate 'im, you know what I mean? Speaking of news stories - whatever happened to that pharmacist that diluted the cancer drugs down to 1% and got rich doing it? Sure didn't hear about that much more, did we? Personally, I'd trust drugs out of Canada more than drugs in the USA. Too much leeway and welfare for big business. I notice that the drug companies can force the government as to how they buy drugs. Let a small company try that LOL. Just my opinion. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA I wish I could figure out a way to get my prescriptions from Canada. I won't do things illegally and if there is even the slightest chance that it's illegal, I don't want to even try. 'Cause I am with you, I trust the drugs coming from there just as much as I do from here--they are all the same companies (for the most part). There isn't another "recipe" just because it's a Canadian drug. :) Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote
In some of those cases you mention above, I am not so certain there weren't reasons (inside reasons we'll never know about) for the things happening the way they did. You're being brainwashed. As for me, I'm sick and ph**king tired of "inside reasons". For "inside reasons", Zacarias Moussaoui will probably suffer nothing more than deportation on immigration charges. Robert Hanssen, a long time trusted FBI agent, spied on his own agency for the Soviet Union. Dozens of agents, many of them Americans, were executed as a result of his treason. Instead of a quick and merciful administration of a lethal injection, for "inside reasons" he sits in a nice comfy federal facility, and his family lives on a comfortable federal pension at our expense. (If I'm ever convicted of a felony --- ANY felony, let alone TREASON --- my family will see zippo-squat-nothing of my federal pension.) I don't want to hear about any "inside reasons". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Jim Hampton" wrote:
I almost agree with you except on that "clear and present danger". I wouldn't want my kid to go near that place; then again, you mention there is no law against stupidity. Sigh ... Note we're talking about the subject (young boy) of the current legal proceedings. Since there were no actual criminal charges in the first incident ten years ago, and nothing actually proven, it would be difficult to prove a clear and present danger existed for this boy. However, since criminal charges now exist and are widely known, it should be easier to prove a clear and present danger existed when it comes to parents who allow their kids to sleep with MJ in the future. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
Any adult, other than a parent, sleeping with a child is just plain sick -- period, End Of Story. (snip) You may think that, but it doesn't necessarily make it a crime. Something more has to exist before it reaches that level. In the case of Michael Jackson, it appears that something more did exist (making that a criminal matter). Even in the case of parents, it is definitely not a good idea and should be discouraged to the greatest extent possible, although there are occasional, and rare, times when it may be OK to comfort the child in unusual circumstances causing emotional stress. I have to agree with the others on this. I just don't see any real risks associated with a young child sleeping a parent or parents. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Jim Hampton" wrote: 'cmon. Read the headers. You just fed a troll :) Those who have known me over the last five or six years in this newsgroup also know I don't troll, Jim. This topic has received massive coverage in the news over the last few days. Because of that, I thought it was an interesting topic to introduce in the newsgroup (something different to talk about). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Alun" wrote:
I don't know what to say, Dwight. You have my sympathy, FWIW. It was a long time ago, Alun. Thanks anyway, though. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"KØHB" wrote:
The US legal system has made a mockery of itself, without any help from Larry & Dwight. (snip) Amen, Hans. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
KØHB wrote:
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote' I listen to radio talk show and degreed, licensed family counsellor Dr. Laura Schlessinger all the time, and she has addressed this issue many times, always stating the same thing I did. Larryl, Don't believe everything you hear on the radio. Dr. Laura is wrong, and you're wrong. Colleen and I have 5 great, well adjusted children who prove you flat wrong. You're a sibling, not a parent, and you don't have even a trace of a clue. Dr Laura is an entertainer. I was entertained by her show for about 2 weeks. Gotta wonder about the people that call her. (if indeed they are real people) If they are real, the first diagnosis is that they are masochists. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
(snip) My point is that in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty. (snip) One is innocent under the law until proven guilty in a court of law. That does not suggest even for a moment that people cannot have their own opinions or beliefs concerning the guilt or innocence of a person, or voice those opinions or beliefs. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in
link.net: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: Any adult, other than a parent, sleeping with a child is just plain sick -- period, End Of Story. (snip) You may think that, but it doesn't necessarily make it a crime. Something more has to exist before it reaches that level. In the case of Michael Jackson, it appears that something more did exist (making that a criminal matter). Even in the case of parents, it is definitely not a good idea and should be discouraged to the greatest extent possible, although there are occasional, and rare, times when it may be OK to comfort the child in unusual circumstances causing emotional stress. I have to agree with the others on this. I just don't see any real risks associated with a young child sleeping a parent or parents. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ I agree with the latter, although it is a nuisance when you can't get the kids out of your bed, so not a good idea to encourage them. Any harm is likely to be to the parents, not the kids! Now, if one spouse is not a biological parent, that's potentially a different ball game, but I won't go there. I don't necessarily think that a child sleeping with a non-parent is always a problem, but in Jacko's case the circumstances are highly worrying and suspicious. |
And it's connection to ham radio policy is...
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Jim Hampton" wrote: 'cmon. Read the headers. You just fed a troll :) Those who have known me over the last five or six years in this newsgroup also know I don't troll, Jim. This topic has received massive coverage in the news over the last few days. Because of that, I thought it was an interesting topic to introduce in the newsgroup (something different to talk about). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Uh, 'scuse me. Knock knock. Larry just made race the issue from his perspective? Helloooooo. (snip) Do try to separate the discussion in this newsgroup from potential court proceedings, Kim. Larry was talking about the use of race as part of the defense of Michael Jackson in any eventual court proceedings. I responded to that. Since I seriously doubt either Larry or myself will be involved in any court proceedings against Michael Jackson, any mention of race here is not going to make race an issue there (in that court room). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Alun" wrote
Now, if one spouse is not a biological parent, that's potentially a different ball game, but I won't go there. Hell, I'll go there, because to not "go there" just panders to people with twisted dirty little minds who think "something must be going on there". Just to make it interesting, let's say that the child is adopted. Those of us who are parents (and I think most who aren't parents) understand the unconditional love parents have for their children, be they "natural", "step", or "adopted". Until the very recent past, perhaps less than 150 years in this country, and much more recent than that in less developed parts of the world, families didn't live in 3 and 4 bedroom homes where each person had their own "space". Not only did Dad and Mom and the kids sleep in the same place, but also Grandpa and Grandma and the occasional cousin or Auntie or Uncle who might be without their own nuclear family to spend the night with. Dr. Laura would likely have a heart attack if she saw how some people live today in places outside her privileged neighborhood. Sunuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Oh, and by the way, Dwight. In the event that you would be (and I don't think you would) as childish as Larry, *if* you took the above to think that I was including the story of your brother in my "hilarious" comment, then you would be wrong; however I apologize to you if I implied that. No apology needed, Kim. I interpreted that as you thinking it hilarious that I would mention my brother's death in a discussion about Michael Jackson. And perhaps it was not the best place to bring the subject up. However, since Larry had mentioned race-riots, it gave me a very rare opportunity to point out the wider impact of these riots (consequences far outside the immediate area). I took advantage of that opportunity. In my brother's case, the consequences were felt all the way across the country in Florida. This message gives me an opportunity to also point out that these wider consequences are rarely reported in the news. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
KØHB wrote:
"Alun" wrote Now, if one spouse is not a biological parent, that's potentially a different ball game, but I won't go there. Hell, I'll go there, because to not "go there" just panders to people with twisted dirty little minds who think "something must be going on there". Just to make it interesting, let's say that the child is adopted. Those of us who are parents (and I think most who aren't parents) understand the unconditional love parents have for their children, be they "natural", "step", or "adopted". Until the very recent past, perhaps less than 150 years in this country, and much more recent than that in less developed parts of the world, families didn't live in 3 and 4 bedroom homes where each person had their own "space". Not only did Dad and Mom and the kids sleep in the same place, but also Grandpa and Grandma and the occasional cousin or Auntie or Uncle who might be without their own nuclear family to spend the night with. Dr. Laura would likely have a heart attack if she saw how some people live today in places outside her privileged neighborhood. I wonder how they had all those kids if they shared the bed? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
(snip) In contrast, there is the Catholic Church stories around the same issue. While I haven't read this newsgroup very often over the past year or so, *except* for about the last what-- three/four months--I don't recall seeing any "I'm Shocked" posts on those rapes and abuses. (snip) Actually, if I remember correctly, there have been several discussions in this newsgroup over the last couple of years about the sexual abuse of young men within the Catholic Church. Of course, since this situation involves a widely known person, it is natural for this situation to garnish far more public attention. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote: N8WWM wrote: i wish i could sleep over jackos house. Too old? He acts childish enough at times, Mike. Since Michael Jackson thinks of himself as a kid, perhaps N8WWM can also convince Michael Jackson that he's a kid too. I'll certainly vouch for you, N8WWM. ;-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: (snip) My point is that in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty. (snip) One is innocent under the law until proven guilty in a court of law. That does not suggest even for a moment that people cannot have their own opinions or beliefs concerning the guilt or innocence of a person, or voice those opinions or beliefs. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Nope, sure doesn't. Moreover if it meets with one's agenda... Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote
I wonder how they had all those kids if they shared the bed? Damn, Mike, you sure lack imagination! |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Oh, and by the way, Dwight. In the event that you would be (and I don't think you would) as childish as Larry, *if* you took the above to think that I was including the story of your brother in my "hilarious" comment, then you would be wrong; however I apologize to you if I implied that. No apology needed, Kim. I interpreted that as you thinking it hilarious that I would mention my brother's death in a discussion about Michael Jackson. And perhaps it was not the best place to bring the subject up. However, since Larry had mentioned race-riots, it gave me a very rare opportunity to point out the wider impact of these riots (consequences far outside the immediate area). I took advantage of that opportunity. In my brother's case, the consequences were felt all the way across the country in Florida. This message gives me an opportunity to also point out that these wider consequences are rarely reported in the news. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Well.... I am quite refreshed, Dwight. I would have lost all hope of sanity for you if you'd pandered off the same crap Larry handed out... Thanks... Kim W5TIT |
What the hell does this bull**** have to do with ham radio? Ever heard
of a FAQ for this group? Kim W5TIT wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Oh, and by the way, Dwight. In the event that you would be (and I don't think you would) as childish as Larry, *if* you took the above to think that I was including the story of your brother in my "hilarious" comment, then you would be wrong; however I apologize to you if I implied that. No apology needed, Kim. I interpreted that as you thinking it hilarious that I would mention my brother's death in a discussion about Michael Jackson. And perhaps it was not the best place to bring the subject up. However, since Larry had mentioned race-riots, it gave me a very rare opportunity to point out the wider impact of these riots (consequences far outside the immediate area). I took advantage of that opportunity. In my brother's case, the consequences were felt all the way across the country in Florida. This message gives me an opportunity to also point out that these wider consequences are rarely reported in the news. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Well.... I am quite refreshed, Dwight. I would have lost all hope of sanity for you if you'd pandered off the same crap Larry handed out... Thanks... Kim W5TIT |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "Alun" wrote Now, if one spouse is not a biological parent, that's potentially a different ball game, but I won't go there. Hell, I'll go there, because to not "go there" just panders to people with twisted dirty little minds who think "something must be going on there". Just to make it interesting, let's say that the child is adopted. Those of us who are parents (and I think most who aren't parents) understand the unconditional love parents have for their children, be they "natural", "step", or "adopted". Yup. Of course, there are a notorious few who abuse children. They are the rare exception, not the rule. Until the very recent past, perhaps less than 150 years in this country, and much more recent than that in less developed parts of the world, families didn't live in 3 and 4 bedroom homes where each person had their own "space". Not only did Dad and Mom and the kids sleep in the same place, but also Grandpa and Grandma and the occasional cousin or Auntie or Uncle who might be without their own nuclear family to spend the night with. Yup. And due to all sorts of diseases and the risks of childbirth, "blended families" were extremely common. In some cases, the youngest children in a family would have no blood relation to the oldest ones. The concept of the "nuclear family" is extremely new. Here's another situation for you: Lots of people I know go tent camping with their kids. One tent per family. Bunch of sleeping bags on the floor of the tent, or in the back of the minivan. Not exactly "the same bed" but not much privacy either. Are all those folks damaging their kids? I don't think so! Dr. Laura would likely have a heart attack if she saw how some people live today in places outside her privileged neighborhood. "Dr." Laura would likely have a heart attack if she saw how some people live today in places *inside* her privileged neighborhood. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Arf! Arf!" wrote
What the hell does this bull**** have to do with ham radio? Ever heard of a FAQ for this group? I think it's located at http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
Now back to Michael Jackson....
KØHB wrote: "Arf! Arf!" wrote What the hell does this bull**** have to do with ham radio? Ever heard of a FAQ for this group? I think it's located at http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
Hell Hans probaly blew the pedophile..
KØHB wrote: "Arf! Arf!" wrote What the hell does this bull**** have to do with ham radio? Ever heard of a FAQ for this group? I think it's located at http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
"K=D8HB" wrote in message
[Robert Hanssen's] family lives on a comfortable federal pension at o= ur expense. (If I'm ever convicted of a felony --- ANY felony, let al= one TREASON --- my family will see zippo-squat-nothing of my federal pens= ion.) Remember that a civilian pension is an annuity that the employee BUYS (is not "given") with after-tax money contributions. After five years of service, the employee is entitled to the annuity based on number of years of service and last 3-year high salary. UNLESS the employee is convicted of treason, the Federal Civil Service pension annuity must be paid regardless of other criminal convictions and penalties. If Hanssen was convicted of treason, the annutity would not be paid whether he was granted probation/parole, served time or was executed. If he was executed for some crime other than treason the annutity would be have to be paid to his surviving spouse. Your military pension may be different (you may not have been required to make contributions, for instance) and may have different terms of retention. I don't want to hear about any "inside reasons". I agree though - Hanssen got off very easy - probably because he knew where important counter-espionage bones were buried and a plea bargain was the only legal way to get the info from him. So much for "inside reasons". Now back to our regular code/nocode bashing..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Jim Hampton" wrote:
Although way off topic (as are many threads here), I couldn't resist this one. Obviously, I couldn't resist the topic either (it appears the same is true for others). And, yes, it is certainly off-topic. However, I hope there is room in this newgroup for less formal discussions also. After all, as ham operators, we do like to talk, in some way or another, with others. However, for those who are not interested, I made sure the topic was very clear in the subject line so they can easily skip the discussion. (snip) I'll grant the one arguement that will come up - there will be folks out to make money. (snip) Oh, you can bet your bottom dollar on that. Lawyer fees. Advertising for the news organizations. Lawsuits. Book deals. Interviews. The lecture circuit. Paparazzi. The tabloids. Money is going to be flying everywhere. Personally, I think the guy is right off his rocker, but the name of the game should be to protect society (especially kids). (snip) Yep. That's why I tried to avoid anything outside that in my original message. If the guy wants to sleep in an oxygen tent (or not), more power to him (even if I do think it's a little strange). (snip) I believe, and please correct me if I am wrong, that he was never married until that mess 10 years ago or so. Suddenly, he gets married. And divorced. And ... so on and so on. I also found his sudden desire to get married somewhat questionable. I totally agree with your accessment as to classic symptoms of a pedophile. Neverland should be renamed Never - Ever land. Why just the kids and not the whole family? (snip) I've always been interested in detective mysteries (in the Sherlock Holmes style), so have read a lot (both fiction and non-fiction) on the subject of criminals and law enforcement. Based on what I've read, Michael Jackson seems to fit the classic picture of a pedophile. Sorry for the long ramblings. I suspect, as do you, that this case is going to be another media circus court case. (snip) What you wrote was well thought out, so was a joy to read. As for the media circus, this case may reach an all time high (or low depending on your perspective). If he isn't convicted, how old do these characters get before their libido finally slows down? (snip) Based on what I've read, quite old. Note that we're talking about a diverse group here. Not all pedophiles seek actual sexual intercourse with children. Some limit their activities to just looking at images of, or photographing, young children. Others prefer to touch or fondle children or have children touch or fondle them, but may never go beyond that. And, of course, some are seeking sexual intercourse. Whatever the case, the sex drive tends to mirror the sex drive of a normal person. In general, attempts at actual sexual intercourse tends to slow down by the late thirties to early fifties, but fondling and touching may continue for many years after that. Some pedophiles have been arrested in their seventies or even eighties. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
WA8ULX wrote:
So far, everyone except Bruce, Kim, and yourself has recognized that fact and has replied accordingly. Who cares Larry, the guy is a FRUIT CAKE. I think you just insulted the fruit cake. |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Y'know what, Larry? Phuck (HansTM) you and your patriarchal high horse you ride around on. I owe *you* nor anyone else, *but* possibly Dwight, an apology. I can nearly guarantee you that Dwight would know that I was not commenting on the part about his brother. Now sit the phuck down and shut the phuck up. Kim W5TIT Kim: I neither stand nor speak while I'm typing at my computer keyboard. And you're still a childish, boorish, ignorant person. You screwed up and you'll never admit it, because you are totally self-centered. Whether Dwight took offense or not, others have -- and that is what you should be apologizing for. However, you're too self-centered to ever be able to figure that out. You're pitiful. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote degreed, licensed family counsellor Dr. Laura Schlessinger all the time OBTW, Larryl, I should point out that one of our daughters, Gretchen, is also a "degreed, licensed" child counsellor, and she actually practices in the real world as opposed to chatting about it on the radio. And her three little tykes are regularly found in the same bed with their parents. Sorry, Larryl, but in this discussion you're kinda like someone arguing about Morse code but has never learned it themselves. Sunuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB Well, Hansl, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 73 de Larryl, K3LT |
Well, I notice you keep reading...
Kim W5TIT "Arf! Arf!" wrote in message .. . What the hell does this bull**** have to do with ham radio? Ever heard of a FAQ for this group? |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article .net, "KØHB" writes: Dr. Laura would likely have a heart attack if she saw how some people live today in places outside her privileged neighborhood. "Dr." Laura would likely have a heart attack if she saw how some people live today in places *inside* her privileged neighborhood. 73 de Jim, N2EY Whew! Definitely. That woman is so far detached from reality it's scarey... Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et... Alun wrote: Well, you know, we go camping all in one tent. There are partitions, but they are only made of canvas. It's private enough when the kids are asleep, though. For that matter, even if you are in different tents you can hear everything. I imagine that where everyone shares one room it's a matter of waiting until everyone is asleep and being very quiet. Oy! I had to chuckle when I read that, Alun! Quiet? I mean I guess that must happen, but I think I'll opt for privacy. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - ROFLMAO! TMI, Mike, TMI!!!! Kim W5TIT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com