sugarloaf gradient

On 11 Sep 2004 02:25:44 -0700, [email hidden]

(Chalo) said:

Quoted message said:

(Chalo) said:

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> "Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > I live at 400 feet elevation, and I'm only 2 miles from Puget
> > Sound. And I don't live on a mountain.
>
> Dang, Chalo, Queen Anne hill would be like the Everest of
> Florida. )

But I don't live there anyway, and I was somewhat mistaken about the
elevation at my place on Capitol Hill. I misread a cluttered topo
map's contour line to read "400", which I interpreted as feet, when it
was actually 100 meters-- that's 330 feet.

I've made so many typos and miscalculations lately (I missed
Sugarloaf Mountain by a mile or so!) that I'm delighted to
point out that 100 meters is 394 feet, so your original 400
foot estimate turns out to be darned good anyway, a margin
of error of slightly less than plus or minus one Chalo.

I hate to break it to you Carl, but you are using decimal feet, a
/faux pas/ in France and far too rational to belong in a British
measurement system. 100m is definitely 3,937 inches, but the Brits
must have learned to count their inches on their woefully inbred
king's superfluity of toes. Hence 3937/12 or 328.083 feet.

Chalo Colina

Dear Chalo,

Aaargh!

But thanks for the nicest correction for an imbecility that
I've received lately.

Too much time spent lately converting more reasonable units
back and forth.

Carl "Six-toes" Fogel

On 11 Sep 2004 02:25:44 -0700, [email hidden]

(Chalo) said:

Quoted message said:

(Chalo) said:

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> "Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > I live at 400 feet elevation, and I'm only 2 miles from Puget
> > Sound. And I don't live on a mountain.
>
> Dang, Chalo, Queen Anne hill would be like the Everest of
> Florida. )

But I don't live there anyway, and I was somewhat mistaken about the
elevation at my place on Capitol Hill. I misread a cluttered topo
map's contour line to read "400", which I interpreted as feet, when it
was actually 100 meters-- that's 330 feet.

I've made so many typos and miscalculations lately (I missed
Sugarloaf Mountain by a mile or so!) that I'm delighted to
point out that 100 meters is 394 feet, so your original 400
foot estimate turns out to be darned good anyway, a margin
of error of slightly less than plus or minus one Chalo.

I hate to break it to you Carl, but you are using decimal feet, a
/faux pas/ in France and far too rational to belong in a British
measurement system. 100m is definitely 3,937 inches, but the Brits
must have learned to count their inches on their woefully inbred
king's superfluity of toes. Hence 3937/12 or 328.083 feet.

Chalo Colina

Dear Chalo,

Aaargh!

But thanks for the nicest correction for an imbecility that
I've received lately.

Too much time spent lately converting more reasonable units
back and forth.

Carl "Six-toes" Fogel

S o r n i said:

Jim Smith said:

S o r n i said:

Jim Smith wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email hidden]> writes:
>
>> Bill "haven't seen even one person support your view of Tillman,
>> by the way, and there are LOTS of lefties around" S.
>
> Consensus is not truth.

Didn't say or imply that it was. Do you agree with Chalo? (Google
it if unsure; got quite a response IIRC.)

I have read the thread. I don't know anything about Tillman or his
motives.

Thank you for being honest.

What I believe is that Pat Tillman was so moved by the events of 9/11
that he gave up millions of dollars and an NFL lifestyle to go fight
those he (and nearly everyone) thought responsible for the attacks.
A better man than I, no doubt.

I don't understand Chalo's position (calling Tillman a gutless
murderer and worse). I mean, if the US doesn't have the right to
retaliate against those responsible for killing close to 3,000
innocent people on its soil and severely disrupting its economy, then
he must think it's NEVER justified to go to war. I remember asking
him that, and don't recall ever seeing a reply.

Also, let's say someone is an avowed pacifist. No war is ever OK, no
matter what. I can accept that (although not agree with it,
obviously). What motivates that person to single out one (obviously
idealistic) soldier for vitriol, ridicule and scorn? Doesn't such
hatred and meanness betray the very point of being a pacifist?

I have a dime-store psychological theory in this particular case, but
since it involves that someone's morbid obesity as an excuse to be
hateful and contrary to overwhelming public opinion just to garner
attention I won't go into it.

Bill "that's what I think" S.

Chalo sent me a private e-mail -- perhaps by mistake? -- reiterating his
incomprehensible (to me) position. How fitting it came while CNN was
showing an hour special recounting the absolute horror of the 9/11 attacks.

Bill "I truly pity the {too many invectives to chose just one}" S.

S o r n i said:

Jim Smith said:

S o r n i said:

Jim Smith wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email hidden]> writes:
>
>> Bill "haven't seen even one person support your view of Tillman, by
>> the way, and there are LOTS of lefties around" S.
>
> Consensus is not truth.

Didn't say or imply that it was. Do you agree with Chalo? (Google
it if unsure; got quite a response IIRC.)

I have read the thread. I don't know anything about Tillman or his
motives.

Thank you for being honest.

What I believe is that Pat Tillman was so moved by the events of 9/11 that
he gave up millions of dollars and an NFL lifestyle to go fight those he
(and nearly everyone) thought responsible for the attacks. A better man
than I, no doubt.

I don't understand Chalo's position (calling Tillman a gutless murderer and
worse). I mean, if the US doesn't have the right to retaliate against those
responsible for killing close to 3,000 innocent people on its soil and
severely disrupting its economy, then he must think it's NEVER justified to
go to war. I remember asking him that, and don't recall ever seeing a
reply.

Also, let's say someone is an avowed pacifist. No war is ever OK, no matter
what. I can accept that (although not agree with it, obviously). What
motivates that person to single out one (obviously idealistic) soldier for
vitriol, ridicule and scorn? Doesn't such hatred and meanness betray the
very point of being a pacifist?

I have a dime-store psychological theory in this particular case, but since
it involves that someone's morbid obesity as an excuse to be hateful and
contrary to overwhelming public opinion just to garner attention I won't go
into it.

As I said, I don't know what motivated Tillman. You claim that you
do, that Tillman was "obviously idealistic." How you know this I have
no idea.

When it comes to ethics there is a nice dividing line between those
who feel that ones motivation for committing an act is important and
those who feel that motivation is irrelevant. Both camps agree that
there are some acts which, by their very nature, are not ethical, but
the virtue ethic camp also allows the possibility that it is unethical
for one to do the "right thing" for the wrong reasons.

I suppose there are some folks who are attracted to the military
because they hope for a legal way to kill people. I got the feeling
reading Chalo's post that he felt Tillman was one of these folks. How
he could know this I have no idea.

Anyways, the fun thing is that there is a consistent way to support
the military action in Afghanistan and still feel that an individual
soldier is a cowardly murderous toady. I have no idea if Chalo feels
this way.

Jim "lots of options besides pacifist" S.

Jim Smith said:

S o r n i said:

Jim Smith said:

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> writes:

> Jim Smith wrote:
>> "S o r n i" <[email hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> Bill "haven't seen even one person support your view of Tillman,
>>> by the way, and there are LOTS of lefties around" S.
>>
>> Consensus is not truth.
>
> Didn't say or imply that it was. Do you agree with Chalo? (Google
> it if unsure; got quite a response IIRC.)

I have read the thread. I don't know anything about Tillman or his
motives.

Thank you for being honest.

What I believe is that Pat Tillman was so moved by the events of
9/11 that he gave up millions of dollars and an NFL lifestyle to go
fight those he (and nearly everyone) thought responsible for the
attacks. A better man than I, no doubt.

I don't understand Chalo's position (calling Tillman a gutless
murderer and worse). I mean, if the US doesn't have the right to
retaliate against those responsible for killing close to 3,000
innocent people on its soil and severely disrupting its economy,
then he must think it's NEVER justified to go to war. I remember
asking him that, and don't recall ever seeing a reply.

Also, let's say someone is an avowed pacifist. No war is ever OK,
no matter what. I can accept that (although not agree with it,
obviously). What motivates that person to single out one (obviously
idealistic) soldier for vitriol, ridicule and scorn? Doesn't such
hatred and meanness betray the very point of being a pacifist?

I have a dime-store psychological theory in this particular case,
but since it involves that someone's morbid obesity as an excuse to
be hateful and contrary to overwhelming public opinion just to
garner attention I won't go into it.

As I said, I don't know what motivated Tillman. You claim that you
do, that Tillman was "obviously idealistic." How you know this I have
no idea.

I heard interviews he gave (BEFORE enlisting, I believe; he didn't seek
publicity or glory for his decision at all AFAIK). It's certainly more
reasonable to take a man at his word -- especially when it's corroborated by
many others and by the simple facts of his circumstances -- than to just
throw out a bunch of hatefull accusations with no basis whatsoever.

Quoted message said:

When it comes to ethics there is a nice dividing line between those
who feel that ones motivation for committing an act is important and
those who feel that motivation is irrelevant. Both camps agree that
there are some acts which, by their very nature, are not ethical, but
the virtue ethic camp also allows the possibility that it is unethical
for one to do the "right thing" for the wrong reasons.

I suppose there are some folks who are attracted to the military
because they hope for a legal way to kill people. I got the feeling
reading Chalo's post that he felt Tillman was one of these folks. How
he could know this I have no idea.

Neither does he.

It would be interesting to see how Chalo feels about policemen who died
trying to save people in NYC on 9/11. Maybe he thinks THEY were all cowards
and such, too? (After all , we all know his opinion of cops, right?)

Quoted message said:

Anyways, the fun thing is that there is a consistent way to support
the military action in Afghanistan and still feel that an individual
soldier is a cowardly murderous toady. I have no idea if Chalo feels
this way.

Based on what? Did he read something about Tillman? Know him? Know
someone who knew him? Or did he just decide that, since "everyone" is
calling him a hero and glorifying his story, he (Chalo) would just trash him
to get a rise out of the poor, ignorant masses.

Quoted message said:

Jim "lots of options besides pacifist" S.

Bill "yeah, like bitter unhappy attention-seeker" S.

PS: Chalo, why don't you post the e-mail you sent me for all to see?
Nothing really NEW in it...

Jim Smith said:

I suppose there are some folks who are attracted to the military
because they hope for a legal way to kill people.

I have to assume by this statement that you don't have much experience with
the military. In any population there are going to be some unstable
individuals that make it through the screening processes, but it's doubtful
that anyone who's primary motivation is homicide would make it too far in
the military. In Tillman's case, he chose one of the most physically,
mentally, and emotionally demanding career paths that the military offers.
Achieving what Tillman achieved in the Army takes a degree of character and
mental fortitude that few in the US could live up to. Homicidal urges are
not sufficient to carry one through the training he endured. In fact, such
motivations would probably be a detriment.

Quoted message said:

I got the feeling
reading Chalo's post that he felt Tillman was one of these folks. How
he could know this I have no idea.

Chalo is a sad little creature who can't conceive what makes guys like
Tillman tick. As he has no clue what it means to subjugate personal goals
for service toward a higher goal, he can only ascribe some other motive.
Rather than take Tillman at his word, he chooses to ignore his stated
reasons and ascribe base motives to his actions. That's just downright ugly
IMO, particularly for someone who risks their life for something they
believe in (obviously a concept Chalo can't grasp.) That he takes so degree
of self-righteous satisfaction from Tillman's death, that he demonstrates
such scorn for the death of an American serviceman, is absolutely
disgusting.

Quoted message said:

Anyways, the fun thing is that there is a consistent way to support
the military action in Afghanistan and still feel that an individual
soldier is a cowardly murderous toady. I have no idea if Chalo feels
this way.

The question is why anyone would choose to "feel" that a soldier is a
"cowardly murderous toady", let alone take joy from it. There are probably
a few cowardly murderous toadies in the military today. They typically
don't make it to far in the military, as those sorts of character flaws
become quite evident in a culture that demands discipline, prinicipled
conduct, and the ability to operate under pressure. It's highly doubtful
that they would ever become US Army Rangers.

Tom

S o r n i said...

Quoted message said:

Bill "yeah, like bitter unhappy attention-seeker" S.

PS: Chalo, why don't you post the e-mail you sent me for all to see?
Nothing really NEW in it...

Sorni, you have to understand that Lefties don't bother to reflect on
their inconsistencies, because being a Lefty is all about flinging snot
to tear somebody else down so that they can get over on their victims.
Pacifism is a perfect example. It goes like this: everyone who fights is
bad, I would never fight, therefore I am superior and I should rule and
control. Peace, love, equality, and freedom for all, but let the 'bad'
people (and they will let us know who they are) get what they deserve.

And believe me, I ain't no right-winger either. I find their way of
doing business just as alarming and self-centered as the left. I find
myself constantly butting heads with real conservatives on a wide
variety of issues and all of them I know swear up and down that I am a
liberal, but I don't see it in myself. I think for myself, something
which the vast majority of people never bother to do.

tcmedara said:

Jim Smith said:

I suppose there are some folks who are attracted to the military
because they hope for a legal way to kill people.

I have to assume by this statement that you don't have much experience with
the military.

That is true. I expect the recruiters will start calling my senior year.

Quoted message said:

In any population there are going to be some unstable
individuals that make it through the screening processes, but it's doubtful
that anyone who's primary motivation is homicide would make it too far in
the military. In Tillman's case, he chose one of the most physically,
mentally, and emotionally demanding career paths that the military offers.
Achieving what Tillman achieved in the Army takes a degree of character and
mental fortitude that few in the US could live up to. Homicidal urges are
not sufficient to carry one through the training he endured. In fact, such
motivations would probably be a detriment.

Quoted message said:

I got the feeling
reading Chalo's post that he felt Tillman was one of these folks. How
he could know this I have no idea.

Chalo is a sad little creature who can't conceive what makes guys like
Tillman tick. As he has no clue what it means to subjugate personal goals
for service toward a higher goal, he can only ascribe some other motive.
Rather than take Tillman at his word, he chooses to ignore his stated
reasons and ascribe base motives to his actions. That's just downright ugly
IMO, particularly for someone who risks their life for something they
believe in (obviously a concept Chalo can't grasp.) That he takes so degree
of self-righteous satisfaction from Tillman's death, that he demonstrates
such scorn for the death of an American serviceman, is absolutely
disgusting.

I tend to agree. Tillman deserves the same honor and respect as a
window washer who falls to his death or an Afghani or Iraqi soldier
killed in battle. No more, no less.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyways, the fun thing is that there is a consistent way to

support

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the military action in Afghanistan and still feel that an individual
soldier is a cowardly murderous toady. I have no idea if Chalo feels
this way.

The question is why anyone would choose to "feel" that a soldier is a
"cowardly murderous toady", let alone take joy from it. There are probably
a few cowardly murderous toadies in the military today.

This does not make sense. By "feel" I meant "believe." First you
wonder why anyone would think that a soldier is a CMT, then you
continue on to claim that there probably are a few CMTs in the
military. This seems internally inconsistent to me. Perhaps you need
to check your beliefs and assure yourself that you can explain why you
believe what you believe? I am just a little concerned because you
sound confused.

Quoted message said:

They typically
don't make it to far in the military, as those sorts of character flaws
become quite evident in a culture that demands discipline, prinicipled
conduct, and the ability to operate under pressure. It's highly doubtful
that they would ever become US Army Rangers.

Interest. Here you seem to be claiming that it is possible, although
unlikely for a CMT to become an Army Ranger. That actually sounds
about right to me.

From: [email hidden] (Steve Blankenship)

Quoted message said:

Never been there, but living in east
Tennessee I couldn't resist looking for
what passes for a mountain in FL... ;-)

Quoted message said:

A quick look at it on TopoUSA says the
west side's 7% avg, east and south are
6% avg. Very short max bits on the west
at 12%, east at 15%. Topo's not the
most accurate source in the world, as
slight errors in the road overlay can
result in big errors on gradient, but with
dead-straight roads like those it's less
likely to be off by much. The hill gains
about 200ft in .52mi. from the west.

Quoted message said:

SB

TopoUSA (DeLorme) uses a vector method of plotting roads. ie, a set of
points that look like a connect-the-dots picture. This means that what
looks like a straight climb on the screen, may actually be a curve in
RL. since this is obviously a shorter route to the top, gradients are
exaggerated.

DeLorme also makes a mapping software called TopoQuads. To trace a
route, you have to actually trace the road, which is an image of an
actual USGS topo map. Since you are following the actual path of the
road, the gradient readings are more accurate.

- -

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:06:14 -0400, [email hidden]

(Chris Zacho 'The Wheelman') said:

From: [email hidden] (Steve Blankenship)

Quoted message said:

Never been there, but living in east
Tennessee I couldn't resist looking for
what passes for a mountain in FL... ;-)

Quoted message said:

A quick look at it on TopoUSA says the
west side's 7% avg, east and south are
6% avg. Very short max bits on the west
at 12%, east at 15%. Topo's not the
most accurate source in the world, as
slight errors in the road overlay can
result in big errors on gradient, but with
dead-straight roads like those it's less
likely to be off by much. The hill gains
about 200ft in .52mi. from the west.

Quoted message said:

SB

TopoUSA (DeLorme) uses a vector method of plotting roads. ie, a set of
points that look like a connect-the-dots picture. This means that what
looks like a straight climb on the screen, may actually be a curve in
RL. since this is obviously a shorter route to the top, gradients are
exaggerated.

DeLorme also makes a mapping software called TopoQuads. To trace a
route, you have to actually trace the road, which is an image of an
actual USGS topo map. Since you are following the actual path of the
road, the gradient readings are more accurate.

- -

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

Dear Chris,

I expect that your description is true.

However, like other maps mentioned in this thread, the
Topozone map uses 5-foot vertical contours in the Sugarloaf
Mountain area.

I think that Topozone uses around 100 meters to the inch,
while the Terraserver topo map goes to 200 yards to the
inch in the Florida area.

If you switch to the aerial photograph view of the same
area, at 1 meter resolution, you can see if a car was
driving on the road in question:

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?t=2&s=12&x=535&y=3962&z=17&w=2

Carl Fogel

Jim Smith said:

tcmedara said:

Jim Smith said:

I suppose there are some folks who are attracted to the military
because they hope for a legal way to kill people.

I have to assume by this statement that you don't have much
experience with the military.

That is true. I expect the recruiters will start calling my senior
year.

Good luck.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In any population there are going to be some unstable
individuals that make it through the screening processes, but it's
doubtful that anyone who's primary motivation is homicide would make
it too far in the military. In Tillman's case, he chose one of the
most physically, mentally, and emotionally demanding career paths
that the military offers. Achieving what Tillman achieved in the
Army takes a degree of character and mental fortitude that few in
the US could live up to. Homicidal urges are not sufficient to
carry one through the training he endured. In fact, such
motivations would probably be a detriment.

Quoted message said:

I got the feeling
reading Chalo's post that he felt Tillman was one of these folks.
How he could know this I have no idea.

Chalo is a sad little creature who can't conceive what makes guys
like Tillman tick. As he has no clue what it means to subjugate
personal goals for service toward a higher goal, he can only ascribe
some other motive. Rather than take Tillman at his word, he chooses
to ignore his stated reasons and ascribe base motives to his
actions. That's just downright ugly IMO, particularly for someone
who risks their life for something they believe in (obviously a
concept Chalo can't grasp.) That he takes so degree of
self-righteous satisfaction from Tillman's death, that he
demonstrates such scorn for the death of an American serviceman, is
absolutely disgusting.

I tend to agree. Tillman deserves the same honor and respect as a
window washer who falls to his death or an Afghani or Iraqi soldier
killed in battle. No more, no less.

It's sad that you think that way. Listen to what the recruiters have to
say, read some on your own, learn what it means to serve, then you may want
to re-examine that statement.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyways, the fun thing is that there is a consistent way to

support

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the military action in Afghanistan and still feel that an individual
soldier is a cowardly murderous toady. I have no idea if Chalo
feels this way.

The question is why anyone would choose to "feel" that a soldier is a
"cowardly murderous toady", let alone take joy from it. There are
probably a few cowardly murderous toadies in the military today.

This does not make sense. By "feel" I meant "believe." First you
wonder why anyone would think that a soldier is a CMT, then you
continue on to claim that there probably are a few CMTs in the
military. This seems internally inconsistent to me. Perhaps you need
to check your beliefs and assure yourself that you can explain why you
believe what you believe? I am just a little concerned because you
sound confused.

There are weasels in the military, that's just a fact, however they are few
and far between. Unless you are talking about specific individuals or
specific instances of "cowardly murderous toady" behavior then such labels
are inconsistent with the values and ethics that the military strives to
uphold. What is it about certain people that constantly seek to
deconstruct and highlight flaws, as if anything less than absolute
perfection is a basis for scorn? I'm not confused, I merely asked a
question -- why is the existence of "cowardly murderous toady" soldiers
even relevent to a discussion of Pat Tillman. There are more than a few
crappy humans in the military. Much less than in normal society, but to
"believe" they exist and make them part of a discussion like this is off the
mark. And if they do exist in the US military today, why would that be a
source of fun in any discussion of US policy? I dislike the fact that pigs
like Chalo can sit back in their own ignorance and spew idiocy under the
guise of intelligent discourse. That you suggest it's fun is a bit odd.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They typically
don't make it to far in the military, as those sorts of character
flaws become quite evident in a culture that demands discipline,
prinicipled conduct, and the ability to operate under pressure.
It's highly doubtful that they would ever become US Army Rangers.

Interest. Here you seem to be claiming that it is possible, although
unlikely for a CMT to become an Army Ranger. That actually sounds
about right to me.

As I said before, the mental, physical, and emotional challenge needed to
join the ranks of elite warriors (in any service) tend to rule out all but
the best our country has to offer. Tillman chose that path and succeeded.
That, in and of itself, qualifies him as a unique citizen. In light of what
he gave up to proceed on that path makes him a remarkable individual.
Chalo's incoherent blathering are more a reflection of his own deficit of
character than anything to do with Tillman. He mocks what he is incapable
of understanding. I hope you are not similiarly handicapped.

Tom

tcmedara said:

Jim Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I tend to agree. Tillman deserves the same honor and respect as a
window washer who falls to his death or an Afghani or Iraqi soldier
killed in battle. No more, no less.

It's sad that you think that way. Listen to what the recruiters have to
say, read some on your own, learn what it means to serve, then you may want
to re-examine that statement.

What do you find sad? Do you feel that the lives of window washers
are not worth respect? Perhaps you feel that the value of a human
life should be determined by occupation? or income? or something else?
Maybe participation in a particular church?

Or do you feel that there is no honor in being an Afghani soldier?
Perhaps you feel that the tens of thousands of enemy soldiers we have
killed were all evil people? (I am not arguing that we should not kill
them, just that they might not be monsters).

"But must my sons be slaughtered in the streets
for valiant doings in their country's cause?
O, if to fight for king and commonwealth
were piety in thine, it is in these."

Quoted message said:

There are weasels in the military, that's just a fact, however they are few
and far between.

OK. sounds reasonable.

Quoted message said:

Unless you are talking about specific individuals or
specific instances of "cowardly murderous toady" behavior then such labels
are inconsistent with the values and ethics that the military strives to
uphold.

This makes no sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Quoted message said:

What is it about certain people that constantly seek to
deconstruct and highlight flaws, as if anything less than absolute
perfection is a basis for scorn?

I am lost again. To what are you referring?

Quoted message said:

I'm not confused, I merely asked a
question -- why is the existence of "cowardly murderous toady" soldiers
even relevent to a discussion of Pat Tillman.

We were talking about possible motivations for disparaging remarks
directed at Tillman. I am not saying Tillman was a CMT, I know
nothing about him.

Quoted message said:

There are more than a few
crappy humans in the military. Much less than in normal society, but to
"believe" they exist and make them part of a discussion like this is off the
mark.

Why the quotes around "believe?" Again, what you wrote makes almost
no sense, What are you trying to say?

Quoted message said:

And if they do exist in the US military today, why would that be a
source of fun in any discussion of US policy?

First, I am not discussing US policy. What made you think I was?
Second, the fun is in no way contingent on the existence of CMTs, it
derives directly from the structure of the argument in the abstract.
I am not sure how you missed that, I guess some people just need
things spelled out for them.

Quoted message said:

I dislike the fact that pigs
like Chalo can sit back in their own ignorance and spew idiocy under the
guise of intelligent discourse.

Aha! What do you propose? Perhaps a death penalty for dissent? Or
would a short period of incarceration suffice? Seriously, what you
like to see?

Quoted message said:

That you suggest it's fun is a bit odd.

Life is fun. Maybe you should get out more? Just kidding. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They typically
don't make it to far in the military, as those sorts of character
flaws become quite evident in a culture that demands discipline,
prinicipled conduct, and the ability to operate under pressure.
It's highly doubtful that they would ever become US Army Rangers.

Interest. Here you seem to be claiming that it is possible, although
unlikely for a CMT to become an Army Ranger. That actually sounds
about right to me.

As I said before, the mental, physical, and emotional challenge needed to
join the ranks of elite warriors (in any service)

Inclusive of the infamous "Republican Guard," correct?

Quoted message said:

tend to rule out all but
the best our country has to offer. Tillman chose that path and succeeded.
That, in and of itself, qualifies him as a unique citizen. In light of what
he gave up to proceed on that path makes him a remarkable individual.

He gave up money and a chance to play football, right? Sounds like
you view one of these with great esteem. Which was the greater
sacrifice, giving up the money or the football?

Apparently you value them more than Tillman did. Different strokes
and all that, I guess.

Quoted message said:

Chalo's incoherent blathering are more a reflection of his own deficit of
character than anything to do with Tillman. He mocks what he is incapable
of understanding.

I have no opinion one way or the other regarding Tillman.

Quoted message said:

I hope you are not similiarly handicapped.

Me too!

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Chris Zacho 'The Wheelman') said:

TopoUSA (DeLorme) uses a vector method of plotting roads. ie, a set of
points that look like a connect-the-dots picture. This means that what
looks like a straight climb on the screen, may actually be a curve in
RL. since this is obviously a shorter route to the top, gradients are
exaggerated.

TopoUSA can be quite accurate or wildly inaccurate, depending on the
topography. It does the worst in a narrow canyon, since the
digitized road estimate ends up climbing and descending the walls of
the canyon. I did a ride last weekend along a canyon road called Del
Puerto to the Central Valley town of Patterson and back. Polar bike
computer recorded 11,116 feet of climbing, TopoUSA had predicted
over 25,000 feet.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

S o r n i said:

PS: Chalo, why don't you post the e-mail you sent me for all to see?
Nothing really NEW in it...

OK, since you ask...

[Begin text of email to Bill S.]

S o r n i said:

Tomorrow's the 3rd anniversary of 9/11, Chalo. Many brave Americans --
among them Patrick Tillman -- gave their lives (*IN AFGHANISTAN*) fighting
those who harbored and supported the murderous, terrorist slimeballs who
perpetrated that vile act.

Man, it must have really touched a nerve for you when I aired my views about
that retarded goon. You should give it a rest!

It doesn't surprise me that the stooge was too stupid to act in his own self
interest-- lots of folks are that stupid. Nor am I surprised that he was
morally bankrupt enough to try to wash blood with blood, because there are
others who make that mistake. And I'm only a little taken aback that he
passed up a fortune (which he could have put to a lot more use in support of
his cause, evil though it was) for his ideals, because there are a select
few who do that.

What surprises me is that he made all those obviously errant choices just so
he wouldn't miss the chance to go a-murdering without the legal hassles.
That's a twisted piece of work if you ask me.

Even worse is the fact that there are so many people who are so hornswoggled
by the naked emperor and his minions that they think Tillman is heroic!
Maybe a large dose of "friendly fire" is the only thing that can cure that
level of foolishness.

Quoted message said:

Bill "haven't seen even one person support your view of Tillman, by the
way,
and there are LOTS of lefties around" S.

Oh yeah? There is the guy whose apt term "pendejo" I quoted in my first
reply about the ex-moron:
http://media.dailycollegian.com/pages/tillman_lobandwidth.html

And then there are lots of others, if you bother to dig through the pile of
reactionary swill :
http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2004/05/03/
http://tinyurl.com/3m4qt
http://www.nypress.com/17/17/news&columns/taibbi.cfm
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2004/04/103900.shtml (comments)

Maybe you just don't hang around insightful folk, or maybe they don't waste
their breath on you.

Chalo Colina

[End text of email to Bill S.]

Jim Smith said:

tcmedara said:

Jim Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I tend to agree. Tillman deserves the same honor and respect as a
window washer who falls to his death or an Afghani or Iraqi soldier
killed in battle. No more, no less.

It's sad that you think that way. Listen to what the recruiters
have to say, read some on your own, learn what it means to serve,
then you may want to re-examine that statement.

What do you find sad? Do you feel that the lives of window washers
are not worth respect? Perhaps you feel that the value of a human
life should be determined by occupation? or income? or something else?
Maybe participation in a particular church?

I find it sad that you don't see the difference between an accidental death
and the death of an American soldier in combat. It's not about the value of
human life, it's about the sacrifice and who it's made for.

Quoted message said:

Or do you feel that there is no honor in being an Afghani soldier?
Perhaps you feel that the tens of thousands of enemy soldiers we have
killed were all evil people? (I am not arguing that we should not
kill them, just that they might not be monsters).

"But must my sons be slaughtered in the streets
for valiant doings in their country's cause?
O, if to fight for king and commonwealth
were piety in thine, it is in these."

I never offered an opinion of the honor of enemy soldiers, so I can't
comment on your speculation. If by Afghani soldier you are referring to a
Taliban conscript, no there's probably not much honor there. If you are
referring to the Taliban leadership, then yes, I would call them evil
people. I don't buy into the moral equivalence [censored]. There is good and
evil int he world. We might not always be the most virtuous, but I continue
to believe that we are the good guys. I think the objective record backs
that up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are weasels in the military, that's just a fact, however they
are few and far between.

OK. sounds reasonable.

Quoted message said:

Unless you are talking about specific individuals or
specific instances of "cowardly murderous toady" behavior then such
labels are inconsistent with the values and ethics that the military
strives to uphold.

This makes no sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Oh well, it's not pertinent anyway -- that's really the point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is it about certain people that constantly seek to
deconstruct and highlight flaws, as if anything less than absolute
perfection is a basis for scorn?

I am lost again. To what are you referring?

I'm saying that there is a segment of the population that will criticize and
find fault no matter what the circumstances. Chalo strikes me as one of
those guys. I don't understand the motivation whereby anything less than
perfection is derided as failure. Perhaps you haven't witnessed that yet in
life. In this case to refer to "cowardly murderous toady" soldiers struck
me as just another attempt to deconstruct and criticize. If not, then I
misunderstood your point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not confused, I merely asked a
question -- why is the existence of "cowardly murderous toady"
soldiers even relevent to a discussion of Pat Tillman.

We were talking about possible motivations for disparaging remarks
directed at Tillman. I am not saying Tillman was a CMT, I know
nothing about him.

But it came up in the context of Chalos remarks. By offering the comment
you seemed to give some creedence to his point of view. I think his point
of view is unprincipled and ugly. You said: "Anyways, the fun thing is
that there is a consistent way to support
the military action in Afghanistan and still feel that an individual
soldier is a cowardly murderous toady."

I asked what you found fun about feeling/believing individual soldiers were
can be described as a "cowardly murderous toady. What's the point? Where's
the fun?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are more than a few
crappy humans in the military. Much less than in normal society,
but to "believe" they exist and make them part of a discussion like
this is off the mark.

Why the quotes around "believe?" Again, what you wrote makes almost
no sense, What are you trying to say?

Merely to emphasize your own comment -- feel/believe vs know/think. Feel
and believe denote faith, emotion, and opinion vice fact and logic. I
prefer the latter. What you feel and believe are usually best left out of
intellectual endeavors

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And if they do exist in the US military today, why would that be a
source of fun in any discussion of US policy?

First, I am not discussing US policy. What made you think I was?
Second, the fun is in no way contingent on the existence of CMTs, it
derives directly from the structure of the argument in the abstract.
I am not sure how you missed that, I guess some people just need
things spelled out for them.

You made direct reference to support for "the military action in
Afghanistan". You went on to suggest it's fun to support said policy while
"feeling" that an individual soldier can be considered a "cowardly murderous
toady." I didn't miss anything -- that's what you wrote. I question why
you choose to link the two issues and where the fun comes in. The first
issue is serious, the second is unfortunate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I dislike the fact that pigs
like Chalo can sit back in their own ignorance and spew idiocy under
the guise of intelligent discourse.

Aha! What do you propose? Perhaps a death penalty for dissent? Or
would a short period of incarceration suffice? Seriously, what you
like to see?

I'd like to a wave of responses to Chalos drivel calling him for the weak,
unprincipled, miserable creature that he is. Dissent is fine, but that
doesn't mean everything he spews is somehow sacrosanct. His ideas suck.
He's entitled to regurgitate them at will, and I'm entitled to call him what
I choose. I choose to call him a traitorous, unprincipled scumbag. In my
mind he has crossed an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That you suggest it's fun is a bit odd.

Life is fun. Maybe you should get out more? Just kidding. 🙂

Some thing I don't find funny. Conduct of our military members in combat is
one that I don't find humorous. Of course this is USENET, so go figure.....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> They typically
> don't make it to far in the military, as those sorts of character
> flaws become quite evident in a culture that demands discipline,
> prinicipled conduct, and the ability to operate under pressure.
> It's highly doubtful that they would ever become US Army Rangers.

Interest. Here you seem to be claiming that it is possible, although
unlikely for a CMT to become an Army Ranger. That actually sounds
about right to me.

As I said before, the mental, physical, and emotional challenge
needed to join the ranks of elite warriors (in any service)

Inclusive of the infamous "Republican Guard," correct?

(More moral equivilance....ouch) Not at all. They were well trained and
well equipped, but inclusion was based on ethnic background, political and
family connections. The best RG unit in Iraq was no match for our basic
equivilent mech infantry unit. That was demonstrated in at least two wars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tend to rule out all but
the best our country has to offer. Tillman chose that path and
succeeded. That, in and of itself, qualifies him as a unique
citizen. In light of what he gave up to proceed on that path makes
him a remarkable individual.

He gave up money and a chance to play football, right? Sounds like
you view one of these with great esteem. Which was the greater
sacrifice, giving up the money or the football?

Apparently you value them more than Tillman did. Different strokes
and all that, I guess.

It's not what I valued. It's that he gave up a successful career and lots
of money to serve his country and risk his life for others. He would have
had a very comfortable and easy life if he'd stayed on his current path. He
felt strongly enough to give up what *he* valued in order to serve his
country. He ended up paying for that decision with his life. That kind of
sacrifice should be honored, not derided by idiots like Chalo who can't
grasp the idea of service and therefore must create disparaging motives for
his decision.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Chalo's incoherent blathering are more a reflection of his own
deficit of character than anything to do with Tillman. He mocks
what he is incapable of understanding.

I have no opinion one way or the other regarding Tillman.

I hope that you don't remain that way. He should be commended for what he
did. Hopefully your neutrality is a result of a lack of knowledge rather
than indifference.

Quoted message said:

tcmedara said:

I hope that you don't remain that way. He should be commended for what he
did. Hopefully your neutrality is a result of a lack of knowledge rather
than indifference.

Well, I am just thankfull that all the evil people are not in my back
yard. I think my neutrality derives more from a lack of jingoism than
a lack of knowledge, certainly not indifference. I have a basis for
what I believe.

Anyhoo, I agree, that Taliban conscript who killed Tillman is
certainly an evil person. What was I thinking.

--
"There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can
attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on." GWB

Jim Smith said:

tcmedara said:

I hope that you don't remain that way. He should be commended for
what he did. Hopefully your neutrality is a result of a lack of
knowledge rather than indifference.

Well, I am just thankfull that all the evil people are not in my back
yard. I think my neutrality derives more from a lack of jingoism than
a lack of knowledge, certainly not indifference. I have a basis for
what I believe.

Anyhoo, I agree, that Taliban conscript who killed Tillman is
certainly an evil person. What was I thinking.

Unfortunately it appears his death was the result of a friendly fire
incident -- another little data point in which Chalo seemed to take some
sort of smug satisfaction. Fog of war, I guess. Just that much more tragic
IMO.

....And the evil people won't stay out of your backyard from an excess of
neutrality. Whatever basis you have for your belief, don't fall into the
trap that any and all expression of patriotism is a form of jingoism. It's
a great pejorative term, but gets bandied about a bit much in this NG. It
seems that failure to condemn the US at every turn and not accepting blame
for all the ills in the world is somehow jingoistic.

Some things are worth believing in. Whatever warts the US may have, I've
yet to see anywhere better. Despite idiots like Chalo, we are the good
guys. If you don't believe that, then you have to look at the alternatives.
On some issues choosing sides is the right thing to do.

Tom

tcmedara said:

Unfortunately it appears his death was the result of a friendly fire
incident

Oh my goodness! how horrible! 🙂

--
"There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can
attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."

Jim Smith said:

tcmedara said:

Unfortunately it appears his death was the result of a friendly fire
incident

Oh my goodness! how horrible! 🙂

I guess I'll just have to chalk that up to immaturity and youthful
ignorance. Either that or you're just a pinhead.

tcmedara said:

Jim Smith said:

tcmedara said:

Unfortunately it appears his death was the result of a friendly fire
incident

Oh my goodness! how horrible! 🙂

I guess I'll just have to chalk that up to immaturity and youthful
ignorance. Either that or you're just a pinhead.

Oh, there are other possibilities, for sure.

--
"There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can
attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."