Multiple interceptor ABMs

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:52:41 -0700 (PDT), Neil Gerace
wrote:

Baseball, being all over in a few hours, was a Sunday afternoon game
for working people, IIRC.

,,,Actually, Baseball is played pretty much any day of the week, with
something like 180 games played by each team per season. In the 1920s
thru the 1940s, for Major League teams located in the really big
cities - New York, Chicago and to some extent Boston and DC - it was
not uncommon for an employer to allow his employess an occasional
afternoon off to see a game. Especially if they also got the boss a
ticket to come along! This couldn't happen every game, or no business
would get done, but enough businesses had enough fans to where teams
could get a fair amount of seats filled for each game during the week.
The only real problems from what I've been able to gather happened
when the Yankees played the Brooklyn Dodgers, because *everyone*
wanted off in order to see "Dem Bums" play one another.

....This sort of support sort ot tapered off starting in the 1950s,
with Baseball being televised for the first time. Radio had always
been an option, but TV showed you the actual pitch, hit and crowds
cheering as opposed to the possibility that the sounds you heard were
mechanically reproduced. And if your boss allowed a TV in the office,
you could watch the game, keep working somewhat, and save yourself the
price of a ticket, popcorn, beer and hot dog.

....But Baseball being a five-day game? Could you see today's
overpriced steroid-addicted drug thugs playing for more than five
*innings*? Hey, when it comes to long games, Cricket holds the crown
on that scam, uncontested!

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were
generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile
laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by
intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence
information.”

That "intelligence information" turned out to be false. Not that I'm
blaming anybody....

Dale

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Corruption? Going to war under false pretense is corrupt.

Let us know when that actually happens:

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=141

"
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were
generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile
laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by
intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence
information.”
"

I'm reluctant to follow up again, but I just don't get your point.
I guess you're excusing the president's "non-factual" statements
because he had assembled an incompetent intelligence community?
I guess the "buck stopped" at the HR department or something?

Many, many people have died and a great deal of our national treasury
has been depleted by all of this. I'd like to think that had I been
president, and I'd presided over such an event, I'd at least have the
courage to take responsibility. Not that your are speaking for the
president, of course. But you certainly seem to be trying to evade
responsibilty on his behalf. I guess you don't expect much from him.
Sad.

Dale

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:47:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dale
Carlson made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Corruption? Going to war under false pretense is corrupt.

Let us know when that actually happens:

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=141

"
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were
generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile
laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by
intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence
information.”
"

I'm reluctant to follow up again, but I just don't get your point.
I guess you're excusing the president's "non-factual" statements
because he had assembled an incompetent intelligence community?
I guess the "buck stopped" at the HR department or something?

Actually, he had simply kept an incompetent intelligence community
"assembled" by the previous president. Which I thought was a bad idea
at the time, but I don't recall many others criticizing him for it.
Tenant was a Clinton appointee.

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:16:49 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:


I'm reluctant to follow up again, but I just don't get your point.
I guess you're excusing the president's "non-factual" statements
because he had assembled an incompetent intelligence community?
I guess the "buck stopped" at the HR department or something?

Actually, he had simply kept an incompetent intelligence community
"assembled" by the previous president. Which I thought was a bad idea
at the time, but I don't recall many others criticizing him for it.
Tenant was a Clinton appointee.

OK, I'll assume that's entirely true. But it's still not an excuse.
Being caught with a lame holdover team in September 2001 is
understandable. But we're talking about Spring 2003. Halfway though
his first term. I'm not sure how one can justify this- assuming that
you're trying to- which I suspect you're not.

We (hopefully) gain wisdom with age and experience. Should president
Obama prove to be so incompetent... well, I may not volunteer that
fact here, but I promise to acknowledge it when and if you should
rightly point it out

Dale

Hoping the need doesn't arise

On Jun 15, 5:00 pm, OM wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:52:41 -0700 (PDT), Neil Gerace

wrote:
Baseball, being all over in a few hours, was a Sunday afternoon game
for working people, IIRC.

,,,Actually, Baseball is played pretty much any day of the week, with
something like 180 games played by each team per season.

I was talking about when baseball was workers' recreation and players
had to work for a living - six days a week. Thanks for the history
lesson (snipped) though.

...But Baseball being a five-day game? Could you see today's
overpriced steroid-addicted drug thugs playing for more than five
*innings*? Hey, when it comes to long games, Cricket holds the crown
on that scam, uncontested!

The recent innovation of Twenty20 cricket (20 overs per side, even
shorter than one-dayers) is renewing interest in the game in places
like India and I think the West Indies too.

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
Cricket did have a reputation of being a game for gentlemen, of the
upper, middle, and working classes : perhaps America had an inadequate
supply even then. OTOH, a land originally peopled (aboriginals apart)
by convicts does have an annoying habit of winning its games.


I still remember Sadu, our friend from India, explaining the basic
concept of cricket to our "Distressed Gentlefolk's Wine Appreciation
and Free-Thought Society":
"Gentlemen, you must understand that this game is not about winning or
losing...it is about _drinking_. If the sun sets while the game is going
on, it's a tie."
We immediately fully supported the concept of the game, particularly
since we tended to start any games at around 7 PM, after the barbecue
was over - and any bad feeling about winning or losing teams could be
completely avoided in this manner.
We never were able to get the DGWA & FS cricket team going though, due
to the lack of any ready source of supplies for it in Jamestown, North
Dakota...although thought was given to buying wooden canoe paddles and
cutting them down into cricket bats.
Two-piece plastic oars for inflatable rafts were actually closer in
shape, but the thought of using them was considered to be too gauche to
be allowed.
In the end though, croquette stayed the official DGWA & FS game - and
the way we played it, it also was a lot more about drinking than winning
or losing*. The lads and Sadu would make frequent stops in the game to
refresh themselves with gin and tonics due to the heat....even on cool
evenings. And the lack of any indigenous rattlesnakes near Jamestown did
not make the need for gin less, as one might have swum across the
Missouri River from the western part of the state and hitched a ride
into Jamestown on a train...better safe than sorry when it comes to
those terrors.
The same went for scurvy and malaria...the gin and tonics were seen as
the sovereign cure for any threats that might wait for those bold enough
to leave the bar and head into God-knows-what sort of perils on the
croquette field.

* It was considered extremely bad form to knock your opponent's ball as
far as you could into some area that he would have a difficult time
returning from ...say down the steps that went up into the yard or into
the street where it would roll downhill for half a block or so - as it
was also to chase the person around who had done this to you while
attempting to urinate on them...but I must admit that such lapses of
taste and decorum did occur on occasion, and indeed the latter may have
discouraged the former from occurring more often.
An attempt at lawn bowling involving empty beer bottles and a croquette
ball was not successful, particularly when the resulting shattered glass
was hurled around by the lawnmower at the next lawn trimming.


Pat

On Jun 15, 4:47 am, Dale Carlson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
Corruption? Going to war under false pretense is corrupt.

Let us know when that actually happens:

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=141

"
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were
generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile
laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by
intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence
information.”
"

I'm reluctant to follow up again, but I just don't get your point.
I guess you're excusing the president's "non-factual" statements
because he had assembled an incompetent intelligence community?


I am "excusing" Bush saying things that were wrong because a *lot* of
intelligence services were wrong.

If you turn on CNN, MSNBC, ABCCBSNBC abd they're all screamign about
"London just got nuked," and you decide to call up your dad and say
"London just got nuked," you're not a liar if it turns out that London
has, instead, just suffered a power outage coupled with a really
spiffy fireworks show.



Many, many people have died and a great deal of our national treasury
has been depleted by all of this.

Think back to 2002-2003. Many people died and a great deal of national
treasure had just been lost due to the actions of 19 dumbasses with
boxcutters.... and here's the CIA telling the President that an enemy
nation that has actively supported terrorism is working on nuclear
bombs and biowarfare agents.

On Jun 15, 5:30 am, Dale Carlson wrote:

Being caught with a lame holdover team in September 2001 is
understandable. But we're talking about Spring 2003. Halfway though
his first term. I'm not sure how one can justify this- assuming that
you're trying to- which I suspect you're not.

How exactly would Bush have gone about completely repalcing the CIA?
Not just the political appointees at the top, but also the mid-level
managers and all the way down to the analysts and guys in the field?
Oh, and how would Bush have gone about completely reworking Britains
MI6?

Much of the intelligence support of the case against Saddam came from
info and events from the late 90's. Was Bush at fault for the CIA not
having a time machine by 2003?

Many valid complaints can be made against Bush. But please base them
on facts, not lame-ass partisan nonsense.


We (hopefully) gain wisdom with age and experience. Should president
Obama prove to be so incompetent...

Twenty years in a whackadoodle racist church? Yeah, I don't think
"determining that Obama is incompetant to lead" is a job for the
*future.* "Guilt by association" is not a valid concept for the court
of law. But it's *perfectly* appropriate for the court of common sense.

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:30:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dale
Carlson made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:16:49 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:


I'm reluctant to follow up again, but I just don't get your point.
I guess you're excusing the president's "non-factual" statements
because he had assembled an incompetent intelligence community?
I guess the "buck stopped" at the HR department or something?

Actually, he had simply kept an incompetent intelligence community
"assembled" by the previous president. Which I thought was a bad idea
at the time, but I don't recall many others criticizing him for it.
Tenant was a Clinton appointee.

OK, I'll assume that's entirely true. But it's still not an excuse.
Being caught with a lame holdover team in September 2001 is
understandable. But we're talking about Spring 2003. Halfway though
his first term. I'm not sure how one can justify this- assuming that
you're trying to- which I suspect you're not.

I'm not. I said I criticized him for it at the time. I think that
not replacing Tenant immediately (and doing a thorough house cleaning
at the CIA) was one of the biggest blunders of his presidency, that
has cost the nation, and his presidency, dearly. But that doesn't
mean he lied, or committed any crimes.

We (hopefully) gain wisdom with age and experience. Should president
Obama prove to be so incompetent... well, I may not volunteer that
fact here, but I promise to acknowledge it when and if you should
rightly point it out

I think that a President Obama will prove incompetent in vastly
different ways, assuming that such a creature instantiates itself. I
consider it quite unlikely.