This is the question that Eva ducked out on...


Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?


supermann

A poster named supermann posited:
----"Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?"----


Reply:
Does anyone even care? Did lawyers exist on that planet;even if they
did,(the movie) did Ra (or in the series),the Goa'uld even care?
Hypothetical postulating nonsense.....

SAC 441 wrote:

> A poster named supermann posited:
> ----"Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?"----
>
>
> Reply:
> Does anyone even care? Did lawyers exist on that planet;even if they
> did,(the movie) did Ra (or in the series),the Goa'uld even care?
> Hypothetical postulating nonsense.....
>


I could have helped!

Atlas Bugged <atlasbugedBYspam@gmail.com> wrote:
> SAC 441 wrote:
>
>> A poster named supermann posited:
>> ----"Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?"----
>>
>>
>> Reply:
>> Does anyone even care? Did lawyers exist on that planet;even if they
>> did,(the movie) did Ra (or in the series),the Goa'uld even care?
>> Hypothetical postulating nonsense.....
>>
>
>
> I could have helped!

Hah.
If you'd been defending him, he'd've got a death sentence when the maximum
penalty before the trial started was a $50 fine.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

"Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
news:nrtvh5-au6.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
> Atlas Bugged <atlasbugedBYspam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> SAC 441 wrote:
>>
>>> A poster named supermann posited:
>>> ----"Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?"----
>>>
>>>
>>> Reply:
>>> Does anyone even care? Did lawyers exist on that planet;even if they
>>> did,(the movie) did Ra (or in the series),the Goa'uld even care?
>>> Hypothetical postulating nonsense.....
>>>
>>
>>
>> I could have helped!
>
> Hah.
> If you'd been defending him, he'd've got a death sentence when the maximum
> penalty before the trial started was a $50 fine.


I am sure Flippy would have fared better, LOL!

Ponder.sky.com? - have you defected? ;-)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> I am sure Flippy would have fared better, LOL!
>
> Ponder.sky.com? - have you defected? ;-)

I moved to sky last august when I moved house.
It's a tenner a month for 8meg. Better than 20odd quid a month for 10meg.
:)
(OK. I know nthell/virgin went to 20meg but still... I went for the cheap
option... Theoretical limit on sky for a tenner is 16, it's just the
distance from the exchange that makes it 8)
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

Eva wrote:
> "Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
> news:nrtvh5-au6.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
>
>> Atlas Bugged <atlasbugedBYspam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> SAC 441 wrote:
>>>
>>>> A poster named supermann posited:
>>>> ----"Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?"----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reply:
>>>> Does anyone even care? Did lawyers exist on that planet;even if they
>>>> did,(the movie) did Ra (or in the series),the Goa'uld even care?
>>>> Hypothetical postulating nonsense.....
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I could have helped!
>>
>>
>> Hah.
>> If you'd been defending him, he'd've got a death sentence when the
>> maximum
>> penalty before the trial started was a $50 fine.
>
>
>
> I am sure Flippy would have fared better, LOL!
>
> Ponder.sky.com? - have you defected? ;-)
>
> Eva


Hi Eva!

----"Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?"----

Reply:
Does anyone even care? Did lawyers exist on that planet;even if they
did,(the movie) did Ra (or in the series),the Goa'uld even care?
Hypothetical postulating nonsense.....

I could have helped!

Hah.
If you'd been defending him, he'd've got a death sentence when the
maximum
penalty before the trial started was a $50 fine.




I take all this to mean "no", O'Niel did nothing legal in invading
Abbydos with an atom bomb.


supermann

supermann wrote:
>
> ----"Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?"----

>
> I take all this to mean "no", O'Niel did nothing legal in invading
> Abbydos with an atom bomb.

Are you that dense or are you purposefully obfuscating the obvious?

Colonel Jonathan 'Jack' O'Neill was -following orders-.

He was also a little on the suicidal side of life, after having just
losing his son to a gun accident and a divorce from the mother of that
son. Enter Daniel Jackson (as played by David Spade), and Jack O'Neill
develops a conscience, they send the nuke-bomb up to Ra's ship, Jack
goes back to Earth, Daniel stays behind and marries Sha'rah, and back on
earth, a couple of years later, Jack O'Neill is recalled from retirement
back to the Stargate program, because us arrogant foolish militarized
humans thought that the only critter out there with glowing eyes was
killed on (above, as it were) Abydos.

Obviously, it wasn't the only being out there with glowing eyes, and the
enemy is cast for the series, which went for 10 years.

You should really pay more attention to a program, before you come into
a newsgroup trying to dispel the very show it represents.

Although your original post was probably nothing more than flame-bait,
the explanation is there. If you just want to refute it to start a
flame-fest, then there'll be no more replies from me, as you will be
killfiled (ie: deemed not worthy of my time)

In article <4850823b$0$4105$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Justin Kase <no@way.jose.ca> wrote:

> supermann wrote:
> >
> > ----"Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?"----
>
> >
> > I take all this to mean "no", O'Niel did nothing legal in invading
> > Abbydos with an atom bomb.
>
> Are you that dense or are you purposefully obfuscating the obvious?
>
> Colonel Jonathan 'Jack' O'Neill was -following orders-.
>
> He was also a little on the suicidal side of life, after having just
> losing his son to a gun accident and a divorce from the mother of that
> son. Enter Daniel Jackson (as played by David Spade)

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Are you that dense or are you purposefully obfuscating the obvious?
>>
>> Colonel Jonathan 'Jack' O'Neill was -following orders-.
>>
>> He was also a little on the suicidal side of life, after having just
>> losing his son to a gun accident and a divorce from the mother of that
>> son. Enter Daniel Jackson (as played by David Spade)
>
> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????
>
Who the feck's david spade?
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Are you that dense or are you purposefully obfuscating the obvious?
>>>
>>> Colonel Jonathan 'Jack' O'Neill was -following orders-.
>>>
>>> He was also a little on the suicidal side of life, after having just
>>> losing his son to a gun accident and a divorce from the mother of that
>>> son. Enter Daniel Jackson (as played by David Spade)
>> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????
>>
> Who the feck's david spade?

David Spade, James Spader, same different. Short, skinny blonde nerds
that are piss-poor actors... easy mistake to make.

In article <48511b0f$0$3353$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Justin Kase <no@way.jose.ca> wrote:

> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> > Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> Are you that dense or are you purposefully obfuscating the obvious?
> >>>
> >>> Colonel Jonathan 'Jack' O'Neill was -following orders-.
> >>>
> >>> He was also a little on the suicidal side of life, after having just
> >>> losing his son to a gun accident and a divorce from the mother of that
> >>> son. Enter Daniel Jackson (as played by David Spade)
> >> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????
> >>
> > Who the feck's david spade?
>
> David Spade, James Spader, same different. Short, skinny blonde nerds
> that are piss-poor actors... easy mistake to make.

That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard a Canadian say.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <48511b0f$0$3353$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Justin Kase <no@way.jose.ca> wrote:

>>>>
>>> Who the feck's david spade?
>> David Spade, James Spader, same different. Short, skinny blonde nerds
>> that are piss-poor actors... easy mistake to make.
>
> That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard a Canadian say.

damn good thing I don't live in Canada, genius!

In article <4851376e$0$3356$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Justin Kase <no@way.jose.ca> wrote:

> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <48511b0f$0$3353$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > Justin Kase <no@way.jose.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>>
> >>> Who the feck's david spade?
> >> David Spade, James Spader, same different. Short, skinny blonde nerds
> >> that are piss-poor actors... easy mistake to make.
> >
> > That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard a Canadian say.
>
> damn good thing I don't live in Canada, genius!

Then it's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard a non-Canadian say,
which is a lower standard, but still.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

On Jun 7, 1:05 pm, supermann <bryanttill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is the question that Eva ducked out on...
>
> Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?
>

I can't believe you keep going at this, "Supermann". I also though
we pushed you off the mountain you were standing on. It seems you
managed to climb back up...

Did he do anything *legal*? What, are you saying that everything he
did there was *il*legal and so we have to try and figure out the rare
occasions when he did something *legal*? Or is that a goof? Either
way,
the laws of the people of Abydos were never mentioned, so there is
no way to tell.

Justin Kase wrote:
> Enter Daniel Jackson (as played by David Spade)

Who???

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Jun 11, 9:21 am, supermann <bryanttill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  ----"Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?"----
>
>  Reply:
>  Does anyone even care? Did lawyers exist on that planet;even if they
>  did,(the movie) did Ra (or in the series),the Goa'uld even care?
>  Hypothetical postulating nonsense.....
>
>  I could have helped!
>

How's that?

>  Hah.
> If you'd been defending him, he'd've got a death sentence when the
> maximum
>  penalty before the trial started was a $50 fine.
>

Where do you get that from?

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>  Hah.
>> If you'd been defending him, he'd've got a death sentence when the
>> maximum
>>  penalty before the trial started was a $50 fine.
>>
>
> Where do you get that from?
>

Get what from?
Bugged defending someone? Hah!
Bugged was the one who said "I could've helped"
I was the one who said "If you'd been defending..."
Your attribution is all over the place and totally inaccurate.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

On Jun 14, 6:02 pm, Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>  Hah.
> >> If you'd been defending him, he'd've got a death sentence when the
> >> maximum
> >>  penalty before the trial started was a $50 fine.
>
> > Where do you get that from?
>
> Get what from?

Where did Supermann get the idea that O'Neill had gotten a death
sentence
when the maximum penalty before the trial started was a $50 fine?

> Bugged defending someone? Hah!
> Bugged was the one who said "I could've helped"
> I was the one who said "If you'd been defending..."
> Your attribution is all over the place and totally inaccurate.


I thought I was responding to Supermann's post? That's what it said,
""supermann"
wrote"...

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 6:02 pm, Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
>> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>  Hah.
>> >> If you'd been defending him, he'd've got a death sentence when the
>> >> maximum
>> >>  penalty before the trial started was a $50 fine.
>>
>> > Where do you get that from?
>>
>> Get what from?
>
> Where did Supermann get the idea that O'Neill had gotten a death
> sentence
> when the maximum penalty before the trial started was a $50 fine?

HE DIDN'T. I SAID THAT.
That's what I meant when I said your attribution was all over the place.
I was INSULTING bugged.
I was simply deriding his lawyering abilities.
>> Bugged defending someone? Hah!
>> Bugged was the one who said "I could've helped"
>> I was the one who said "If you'd been defending..."
>> Your attribution is all over the place and totally inaccurate.
>
>
> I thought I was responding to Supermann's post? That's what it said,
> ""supermann"
> wrote"...

On Jun 11, 9:21 am, supermann <bryanttill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----"Did O'Neill do anything legal on Abbydos?"----

--- That was supermann's..

> Reply:
> Does anyone even care? Did lawyers exist on that planet;even if they
> did,(the movie) did Ra (or in the series),the Goa'uld even care?
> Hypothetical postulating nonsense.....
>
> I could have helped!

--- That was atlas bugged


How's that?

--- That was you

The next lines...
> Hah.
> If you'd been defending him, he'd've got a death sentence when the
> maximum
> penalty before the trial started was a $50 fine.

--- That was me...

As I said, you're attribution went right up the swannea with that post, it
was all over the place. Dunno how you did it either, unless you have some
incredibly badly setup newsreader or you copied and pasted out of multiple
usenet articles without remembering to note down who said what to whom.

The correct means of attribution is using chevrons.
(slightly appropriate for a usenet group about stargate)
one chevron "> " indicates the person you're replying to
Two chevrons "> > " indicate the person THAT person replied to, etc.
That's how it's meant to work anyway.
And of course, when you get to 7 chevrons, it means you need to learn to
snip.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |

"Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
news:bie0i5-94q.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
> Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> I am sure Flippy would have fared better, LOL!
>>
>> Ponder.sky.com? - have you defected? ;-)
>
> I moved to sky last august when I moved house.
> It's a tenner a month for 8meg. Better than 20odd quid a month for 10meg.
> :)
> (OK. I know nthell/virgin went to 20meg but still... I went for the cheap
> option... Theoretical limit on sky for a tenner is 16, it's just the
> distance from the exchange that makes it 8)


My choice is rather limited if I want a decent connection, so cable it is
still, all glorious 20Mb of it now, after VM made me an offer I couldn't
refuse. <g> And I get it, too, most of the time, so I cannot complain about
that. As for the rest of the problems with VM, that's another matter
altogether. I am waiting for the LLU in my area (whenever that will be!) and
then I might consider Be but, until then, cable it is.

What is Sky's connection like?

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Atlas Bugged" <atlasbugedBYspam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Wpg3k.319$cm.10@trndny09...

> Hi Eva!


Hi, Flippy! I see you are causing mischief again.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
news:u05ii5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:


<snip>

You guys know that Flipper Mike is posting as Atlas Bugged, right? ;-) If
the headers don't give it away already, surely the fact that nobody could
even remotely imitate the pompousness of the Bugged should help...

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> My choice is rather limited if I want a decent connection, so cable it is
> still, all glorious 20Mb of it now, after VM made me an offer I couldn't
> refuse. <g> And I get it, too, most of the time, so I cannot complain about
> that. As for the rest of the problems with VM, that's another matter
> altogether. I am waiting for the LLU in my area (whenever that will be!) and
> then I might consider Be but, until then, cable it is.
>
> What is Sky's connection like?

Very good. So far, no problems.
And unlike NTL, I've only had to reset the router once.
AND... they don't have a limit which triggers throttling if you break it
during peak times.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> "Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
> news:u05ii5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
>> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> You guys know that Flipper Mike is posting as Atlas Bugged, right? ;-)

No... No I didn't.
Must've missed that... I just thought he'd gone slightly more mental than
last time.

If
> the headers don't give it away already, surely the fact that nobody could
> even remotely imitate the pompousness of the Bugged should help...

He was doing a VERY good job of it.
I couldn't tell the difference...
:)
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spike1@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

>
> You guys know that Flipper Mike is posting as Atlas Bugged, right? ;-)  If
> the headers don't give it away already, surely the fact that nobody could
> even remotely imitate the pompousness of the Bugged should help...
>


You guys always in the habit of pitching your tee-pee's outside the
reservation like this? You all sound like whack jobs w/ too much time
on your hands...but that's OK, I still like you ....

The first question, " did O'Niell do anything legal on Abbydos",
was a simple exercise in ethics. That is, "are we worthy in our wisdom
to judge others in the field", as did O'Niell on Abbydos. The answer
is "No", O'Niel didn't do anything legal in invading an unsuspecting
world with an atom bomb and expecting Ra to react in any other manner
than he did.

The second question is: What was it that told you that Ra was "the
bad guy", and was *that* impression correct? While we're at it, I
kinda like to know what told you that O'Niell, in spite of everything
he did, was/is considered the hero?

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The first question, " did O'Niell do anything legal on Abbydos",

Which is a pretty silly question...
He did lots of legal things on abydos.
The question would've made more sense if it'd been "Did O'Niell do anything
ILLEGAL on abydos...?"
>
> The second question is: What was it that told you that Ra was "the
> bad guy", and was *that* impression correct? While we're at it, I
> kinda like to know what told you that O'Niell, in spite of everything
> he did, was/is considered the hero?

How about the slave labour? Posing as a god? Kidnapping people? Using
stormtrooper tactics to keep the populace in line?
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |

On Jun 17, 4:06 pm, Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >   The first question, " did O'Niell do anything legal on Abbydos",
>
> Which is a pretty silly question...
> He did lots of legal things on abydos.
> The question would've made more sense if it'd been "Did O'Niell do anything
> ILLEGAL on abydos...?"

Everything O'niell did on Abbydos was illegal because he did it all
in secret.
>
> >   The second question is: What was it that told you that Ra was "the
> > bad guy", and was *that* impression correct? While we're at it, I
> > kinda like to know what told you that O'Niell, in spite of everything
> > he did, was/is considered the hero?
>
> How about the slave labour? Posing as a god? Kidnapping people? Using
> stormtrooper tactics to keep the populace in line?


Odd enough, he had those people for over 8 millenium and they don't
look the worse for wear for it. Happy and well fed...often without Ra
looking over their shoulders all the time.

But I won't dick with you, you're right, they could do better than
Ra...but let me ask you this, "Are the Abbydossians now free?" I don't
think they are. If the stargate requires minerals to operate it, and
the americans now control Abbydos...as well as a goodly portion of the
gate network, what's the most cost effective way of getting the
mineral out of the ground without tipping off congress?

Answer: violate the fourteenth amendment and keep it all under
wraps.



supermann

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Everything O'niell did on Abbydos was illegal because he did it all
> in secret.

Breathing and walking about is illegal now?
WOW, news to me.
So, everything SG1 has done has been illegal because "It was in secret"?

>> How about the slave labour? Posing as a god? Kidnapping people? Using
>> stormtrooper tactics to keep the populace in line?
>
> Odd enough, he had those people for over 8 millenium and they don't
> look the worse for wear for it. Happy and well fed...often without Ra
> looking over their shoulders all the time.
>
> But I won't dick with you, you're right, they could do better than
> Ra...but let me ask you this, "Are the Abbydossians now free?" I don't
> think they are. If the stargate requires minerals to operate it,

It doesn't.

> and
> the americans now control Abbydos...

They don't. And never did. They only visited there a few times. Usually at
the behest OF the abydonians.

> as well as a goodly portion of the
> gate network, what's the most cost effective way of getting the
> mineral out of the ground without tipping off congress?

The abydonians are all free. Utterly, freer than any other race encountered
by SG1 apart from the ancients, now.

They all ascended.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

"Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
news:e17ki5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
>> news:u05ii5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
>>> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You guys know that Flipper Mike is posting as Atlas Bugged, right? ;-)
>
> No... No I didn't.
> Must've missed that... I just thought he'd gone slightly more mental than
> last time.

I am not sure he could! <g>

> If
>> the headers don't give it away already, surely the fact that nobody could
>> even remotely imitate the pompousness of the Bugged should help...
>
> He was doing a VERY good job of it.
> I couldn't tell the difference...
> :)

LOL, if I was Flippy, I would be offended by that. ;-)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
news:tu6ki5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> My choice is rather limited if I want a decent connection, so cable it is
>> still, all glorious 20Mb of it now, after VM made me an offer I couldn't
>> refuse. <g> And I get it, too, most of the time, so I cannot complain
>> about
>> that. As for the rest of the problems with VM, that's another matter
>> altogether. I am waiting for the LLU in my area (whenever that will be!)
>> and
>> then I might consider Be but, until then, cable it is.
>>
>> What is Sky's connection like?
>
> Very good. So far, no problems.
> And unlike NTL, I've only had to reset the router once.
> AND... they don't have a limit which triggers throttling if you break it
> during peak times.


We don't trigger STM very often (we work around it) but, as it happens,
tonight I did. It's a pain when it happens.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

Eva wrote:
> "Atlas Bugged" <atlasbugedBYspam@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Wpg3k.319$cm.10@trndny09...
>
>> Hi Eva!
>
>
>
> Hi, Flippy! I see you are causing mischief again.
>
> Eva

I am very disappointed that Spike1 didn't catch on sooner. You guys can
thank me for getting rid of Bugged.

FM...

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Atlas Bugged <atlasbugedBYspam@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am very disappointed that Spike1 didn't catch on sooner. You guys can
> thank me for getting rid of Bugged.
>
> FM...

Thank you.
:)
--
| spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >   Everything O'niell did on Abbydos was illegal because he did it all
> > in secret.
>
> Breathing and walking about is illegal now?
> WOW, news to me.
> So, everything SG1 has done has been illegal because "It was in secret"?

Yes, that's correct. Even if all he did was "breathing and walking".
For example, how would you feel if Col. Jack O'Niell is found
breathing and walking around in your home without congressional
oversight...heavily armed?


> >> How about the slave labour? Posing as a god? Kidnapping people? Using
> >> stormtrooper tactics to keep the populace in line?
>
> >  Odd enough, he had those people for over 8 millenium and they don't
> > look the worse for wear for it. Happy and well fed...often without Ra
> > looking over their shoulders all the time.
>
> >  But I won't dick with you, you're right, they could do better than
> > Ra...but let me ask you this, "Are the Abbydossians now free?" I don't
> > think they are. If the stargate requires minerals to operate it,
>
> It doesn't.

No? Ok, but mineral rights in general is reason enough for some.
>
> > and
> > the americans now control Abbydos...
>
> They don't. And never did. They only visited there a few times. Usually at
> the behest OF the abydonians.

The Abbydonians are in no position to say no. The whole point of the
original movie is a battle for "victory". The americans killed the
legal ruler so they are in control. Ra is the legal ruler because no
legal authority desinated him otherwise....prior to, or even
afterward, his death.


>
> > as well as a goodly portion of the
> > gate network, what's the most cost effective way of getting the
> > mineral out of the ground without tipping off congress?
>
> The abydonians are all free. Utterly, freer than any other race encountered
> by SG1 apart from the ancients, now.
>
> They all ascended.

Free? Where are the children (the few that survived) now? Are they
free to further their education? Do they have access to earth colleges
and resources? Are they even allowed to legal accesses in case there
is a legal challenge to their authority? Can SGC commit to developing
Abbydonian resources without jepardizing secrecy? Say, for example,
one of the native mothers develop a healthy resentment against
O'Niel's illegal recruitment of her now dead son to battle Ra to
uphold american interests.She should be able to sue thru public
courts...would SGC allow a public trial if it is *THEY* who control
the stargate?

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
>> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >   Everything O'niell did on Abbydos was illegal because he did it all
>> > in secret.
>>
>> Breathing and walking about is illegal now?
>> WOW, news to me.
>> So, everything SG1 has done has been illegal because "It was in secret"?
>
> Yes, that's correct. Even if all he did was "breathing and walking".
> For example, how would you feel if Col. Jack O'Niell is found
> breathing and walking around in your home without congressional
> oversight...heavily armed?

I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH congressional
oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power over me
thankyouverymuch.

>> They don't. And never did. They only visited there a few times. Usually at
>> the behest OF the abydonians.
>
> The Abbydonians are in no position to say no. The whole point of the
> original movie is a battle for "victory". The americans killed the
> legal ruler so they are in control.

No they are NOT.
They handed power back to the people. They didn't leave behind someone to
rule them.

>> The abydonians are all free. Utterly, freer than any other race encountered
>> by SG1 apart from the ancients, now.
>>
>> They all ascended.
>
> Free? Where are the children (the few that survived) now?

Ascended.

> Are they
> free to further their education? Do they have access to earth colleges
> and resources?

They NEVER had access to "colleges and resources", they don't live on earth.
Though, now, if they so wished, they can learn whatever they like.
They're ascended, they have free reign over the galaxy. OK, they have to
abide by the "no meddling" rule imposed by the original ascended beings, but
they're better off now than they ever were in corporeal form.

> Are they even allowed to legal accesses in case there
> is a legal challenge to their authority? Can SGC commit to developing
> Abbydonian resources without jepardizing secrecy?

Look up the word ascended.
The tau'ri are NEVER likely to meet up with abydonians again, apart from the
odd visitation by Skara, perhaps.
--
| spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

Andrew Halliwell wrote:

> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Atlas Bugged <atlasbugedBYspam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I am very disappointed that Spike1 didn't catch on sooner. You guys can
>>thank me for getting rid of Bugged.
>>
>>FM...
>
>
> Thank you.
> :)


MY PLEASURE, Andrew.

FM...

supermann wrote:

> The Abbydonians are in no position to say no. The whole point of the
> original movie is a battle for "victory". The americans killed the
> legal ruler so they are in control. Ra is the legal ruler because no
> legal authority desinated him otherwise....prior to, or even
> afterward, his death.

Legal ruler? That's like condoning the ritualistic killing of millions
of Jews by Hitler.

Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of who's causing it.

The Goa'uld are parasitic snake-like creatures which invade an
involuntary host and then takes control of the unwilling (but powerless)
hosts motor functions, as well as gives the host super-human strength
and power to carry out the collective evil plans of all Goa'uld.

All Goa'uld are born with the collective memories of all other Goa'uld
that came before it.


>> The abydonians are all free. Utterly, freer than any other race encountered
>> by SG1 apart from the ancients, now.
>>
>> They all ascended.
>
> Free? Where are the children (the few that survived) now?

Ascended to a higher plane of existence. They've slipped the surly
bounds of their planet, and have shed their mortal coils. No longer are
their bodies to be burdened as slaves to the Goa'uld, either a miners or
hosts.

That act of kindness towards fellow humans is enough, in and of itself,
to warrant the fracturing of a few 'rules and regulations'.

In article <uitni5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>,
Andrew Halliwell <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
>In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
>>> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >   Everything O'niell did on Abbydos was illegal because he did it all
>>> > in secret.
>>>
>>> Breathing and walking about is illegal now?
>>> WOW, news to me.
>>> So, everything SG1 has done has been illegal because "It was in secret"?
>>
>> Yes, that's correct. Even if all he did was "breathing and walking".
>> For example, how would you feel if Col. Jack O'Niell is found
>> breathing and walking around in your home without congressional
>> oversight...heavily armed?
>
>I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH congressional
>oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power over me
>thankyouverymuch.

I'd be very happy. I'd love to get to meet him! At the moment, I even
have beer in the frig.

There are many things done in the US 'in secret' that aren't illegal.
I don't remember if it was in place during the movie, but for the most
part the SGC acted with permission of the president and various
congress people.

Jill
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
jill@tuells.org

On Jun 18, 5:54 pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:

> >I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH congressional
> >oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power over me
> >thankyouverymuch.

that is incorrect. the people endowed congress with the consent to
represent.


>
> There are many things done in the US 'in secret' that aren't illegal.

name one.

> I don't remember if it was in place during the movie, but for the most
> part the SGC acted with permission of the president and various
> congress people.
>
> Jill

Jill, I parse that down to an illegal act commited by either the
department of energy, whom I believe shares some responsibility in
maintaining military ordinanence, O'Niel's immeadiate superiors, or
anyone who shares O'Neil's state of mind who is capable of removing a
single nuke from the stockpile without public knowledge.

I ask you. Should your goverment remove a nuke from the stockpile for
strictly military purposes and not tell you?

On Jun 18, 3:31 pm, Justin Kase <n...@way.jose.ca> wrote:

> Legal ruler?  That's like condoning the ritualistic killing of millions
> of Jews by Hitler.
>
> Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of who's causing it.
>
> The Goa'uld are parasitic snake-like creatures which invade an
> involuntary host and then takes control of the unwilling (but powerless)
> hosts motor functions, as well as gives the host super-human strength
> and power to carry out the collective evil plans of all Goa'uld.
>
> All Goa'uld are born with the collective memories of all other Goa'uld
> that came before it.
>
> >> The abydonians are all free. Utterly, freer than any other race encountered
> >> by SG1 apart from the ancients, now.
>
> >> They all ascended.
>
> >   Free? Where are the children (the few that survived) now?
>
> Ascended to a higher plane of existence.  They've slipped the surly
> bounds of their planet, and have shed their mortal coils.  No longer are
> their bodies to be burdened as slaves to the Goa'uld, either a miners or
> hosts.
>
> That act of kindness towards fellow humans is enough, in and of itself,
> to warrant the fracturing of a few 'rules and regulations'.

OK, this guy's ****ed up on something...will somebody tell me what the
hell he's talking about? What does he mean by "ascended"?

"Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of who's causing it."

exactly the point I'm trying to make.

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 5:54 pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:
>
>> >I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH congressional
>> >oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power over me
>> >thankyouverymuch.
>
> that is incorrect. the people endowed congress with the consent to
> represent.

We did not!
Congress can go **** themselves if they decide to try to impose their rules
on me. And there's not a thing they can do about it.

Apart from invade. And we all know america's track record in THAT respect,
don't we?
--
| spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK, this guy's ****ed up on something...will somebody tell me what the
> hell he's talking about? What does he mean by "ascended"?

Might I recommend you actually WATCH the show?
You might begin to have a CLUE then.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |

"supermann" <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8c93a8db-c0a2-429c-9ac3-f057683a12d3@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 18, 5:54 pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:

> >I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH congressional
> >oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power over
> >me
> >thankyouverymuch.

that is incorrect. the people endowed congress with the consent to
represent.


>
> There are many things done in the US 'in secret' that aren't illegal.

name one.


Uh, how about voting?

> I don't remember if it was in place during the movie, but for the most
> part the SGC acted with permission of the president and various
> congress people.
>
> Jill

Jill, I parse that down to an illegal act commited by either the
department of energy, whom I believe shares some responsibility in
maintaining military ordinanence, O'Niel's immeadiate superiors, or
anyone who shares O'Neil's state of mind who is capable of removing a
single nuke from the stockpile without public knowledge.

I ask you. Should your goverment remove a nuke from the stockpile for
strictly military purposes and not tell you?

What other use do tactical nukes have other than military purposes?

"Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
news:1c3ri5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
> supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> OK, this guy's ****ed up on something...will somebody tell me what the
>> hell he's talking about? What does he mean by "ascended"?
>
> Might I recommend you actually WATCH the show?
> You might begin to have a CLUE then.


I don't think he's made it past the movie. Just as well; imagine all the
questionable deeds he would find in the show! :-))

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Doug Brown <doug.brown@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
> "supermann" <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8c93a8db-c0a2-429c-9ac3-f057683a12d3@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 18, 5:54 pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:
>
>> >I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH congressional
>> >oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power over
>> >me
>> >thankyouverymuch.
>
> that is incorrect. the people endowed congress with the consent to
> represent.

No we didn't.

--
| spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

On Jun 19, 7:07 pm, "Doug Brown" <doug.br...@sasktel.net> wrote:

> What other use do tactical nukes have other than military purposes?

They make lovely ashtrays.

himiko

On Jun 19, 10:07 pm, "Doug Brown" <doug.br...@sasktel.net> wrote:

> I ask you. Should your goverment remove a nuke from the stockpile for
> strictly military purposes and not tell you?
>
> What other use do tactical nukes have other than military purposes?

Diplomacy, of the "Cuban Missile" type. Maybe I should rephrase
this....

What O'Niel did on Abbydos, *you*, as a taxpayer, weren't supposed
to know.... would you like to have been told?

OK, I'm getting a little beyond myself, here. This is the basic
thing: I have fantasies like the next guy, right? Sometimes I, as do
the rest of us, allow filmakers to manufacture surrogate "fantasies"
for me, in the form of films. For the most part, the makers of these
films or stories, are regular people just like you and me....and tend
to have a simular moral/ ethical bearing when they are designing their
characters for casting.
All the heroes I have ever seen in movies tend to be like me in the
sense that their concept of good and evil is close enough to my own
that I tend to extend a "pass" on those "good guys", even when they
stretch the rules a bit...(how far they can stretch those rules
usually depends on how bad the "bad guy" is.)
Now where I come from, what constitute a "bad guy" is an individual
who pre-emptively does bad things to people and/ or is defined as
"bad" by the sum results of deeds committed against the innocent. That
is to say, if the "hero" was to take action against an individual,
using violence, the observing audience- (this is theater-) has to be
reassured that the targeted individual has demonstrated that not only
he is the "bad guy", but that the particulate "good guy" has every
right to kung fu kick the **** out of him on the behalf of the
observing audience -(this is now the jury box; "good and evil" is
being judiciated.)
As I said a minute ago, we all supposed to share a common moral
standard...when we sit down and watch a film...or work behind the
camera to make one.
To be honest, I don't know where I came up with that crap....the
honest truth....people are as morally and ethically diverse as the
diversity of fishes in a hotel lobby aquarium. There are good people,
doing good things...and there are individuals, totally laquered in
evil. Good people find strength and fellowship in like-minded
company....evil folks, much to my chagrin, do the same.

To keep this short...I did not enjoy Stargate. This film, unlike
others, weren't tailored to my particular moral bearing, nor to the
best of my reckoning, to even that of anyone I even know. I could not
identify myself with the actor designated as "hero"...he didn't even
act like a hero...he looked and acted like a cheap fascist cutthroat.
Totally beyond the scope of the law. I do not have fantasies where I
envision commiting human rights abuses against non-combatant children
in order to exercise my passions toward "heroic acts" against an enemy
who fought defensively against O'Niel's incursion into his territory
of residence.

How is this possible? I'm Black. An african-american, you see. I am
also a part-time school bus driver in an african- american
neighborhood. That means that, 99 cents to a dollar, I have more in
common, culturally and racially, with the kids that O'Niel had either
a weapon pointed at, or illegally issued a weapon to, than I could
ever muster for O'Niel himself. I cart those exact same tykes back and
forth to school each day. It would not even occur to me that there are
human beings in this world who would do the the things to them for
material or political gain that Kurt Russell simulated doing to them
for simple entertainment.

I am the descendant of africans whose continent was over-run by
Col. Jack O'Niells, by the boatloads, over the pass three
centuries....so what I saw in Stargate came as little ontological
surprise to me. Sometimes an animal can't help but reveal itself.

I fight evil where I find it. I found enough here to outline and
define an illegal war....*any* illegal war.



So I ask you again, "What did O'Niel do on Abbydos that you
consider "legal"?

On Jun 18, 1:34 pm, Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:

>
> >  The Abbydonians are in no position to say no. The whole point of the
> > original movie is a battle for "victory". The americans killed the
> > legal ruler so they are in control.
>
> No they are NOT.
> They handed power back to the people. They didn't leave behind someone to
> rule them.


again, you are incorrect. You've forgotten Dr. Denial Jackson.

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 1:34 pm, Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >  The Abbydonians are in no position to say no. The whole point of the
>> > original movie is a battle for "victory". The americans killed the
>> > legal ruler so they are in control.
>>
>> No they are NOT.
>> They handed power back to the people. They didn't leave behind someone to
>> rule them.
>
>
> again, you are incorrect. You've forgotten Dr. Denial Jackson.

He didn't rule them, he MARRIED one of them. And it's not Deniel, it's
Daniel. Besides. He left. Only returning for the odd visit after his wife
was kidnapped and goa'oulded.
--
| spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

"Atlas Bugged" <atlasbugedBYspam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oX96k.2405$ul.406@trndny08...
> Eva wrote:
>> "Atlas Bugged" <atlasbugedBYspam@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Wpg3k.319$cm.10@trndny09...
>>
>>> Hi Eva!
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, Flippy! I see you are causing mischief again.
>>
>> Eva
>
> I am very disappointed that Spike1 didn't catch on sooner. You guys can
> thank me for getting rid of Bugged.


Oh, do elaborate, how did you manage to do that?

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

Supermann: The movie is an exercise in PURE fantasy.As
such,contemplating the ethos of the overall gestalt of this fantasy is a
total waste of mental energy.
One point you seem to overlook however is that Ra
*****WAS NOT***** an Abydonian any more than those he captured as slaves
and made them work for him.
Abydos,even for him was an outpost that he used to mine the mineral
that supplied him power.
He had no more moral right to that planet than anyone on Earth did
either.
When the human slaves revolted on Abydos at
Sha'ure's urging,they explained that he was just an alien from a far off
galaxy whose species was dying and was trying to find a way to cheat
death.So he USED the human species for that purpose because he found
their physiology easy to repair.
In essence,Ra was a PARASITE feeding off of human misery.And he was not
an Abydonian!!
If anything,NOBODY involved cared anything about ethics in this
situation....only their own selfish interests.There are no good guys OR
bad guys here.

In article <8c93a8db-c0a2-429c-9ac3-f057683a12d3@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 18, 5:54=A0pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:
>
>> >I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH congressional
>> >oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power over =
>me
>> >thankyouverymuch.

Just to be picky, the above was not said by me.

>that is incorrect. the people endowed congress with the consent to
>represent.

I believe the point the person was making was that they are not
a US citizen and, thus, are not bound by Congress in any way.

I, however, _am_ a US citizen and have done my duty to vote in
people I feel represent my interests best. And so, given that is
how our system works, I trust them to look after my best interests
or I vote them out.

>> There are many things done in the US 'in secret' that aren't illegal.
>
>name one.

Well, I am a therapist and have the right to keep client information
secret and private. I am legally _required_ to keep secrets.

>> I don't remember if it was in place during the movie, but for the most
>> part the SGC acted with permission of the president and various
>> congress people.
>>
>> Jill
>
>Jill, I parse that down to an illegal act commited by either the
>department of energy, whom I believe shares some responsibility in
>maintaining military ordinanence, O'Niel's immeadiate superiors, or
>anyone who shares O'Neil's state of mind who is capable of removing a
>single nuke from the stockpile without public knowledge.

I'm not sure how much public knowledge there is on the movement of
arms in the US. Warheads and missles are moved on and off air
craft carriers all the time (onto subs, onto planes, into
storage, whatever) and I seriously doubt we, the public, know
what is going on.

In this case, taking one nuke with them on the mission would have
most likely fallen into the same category as putting a nuke
tipped missle onto a sub 'just in case' and then sending that sub
on a routine mission.

Granted, _someone_ knows what is going on with all of this in a
much more direct way than people were told about the stargate
project, but I argue that none of it is unusual in terms of it
being 'public' knowledge.

So, really I think it comes down to how secret was the stargate
project overall and how different is this from reality? What is
being developed in general by our government that is secret and
who, if anyone, has oversight?

>I ask you. Should your goverment remove a nuke from the stockpile for
>strictly military purposes and not tell you?

Yes. Well, yes I'm sure it's done all the time because quite frankly
telling everyone in the US everytime a nuke was moved would be
quite cumbersome. Now, should this be done this way?... On the one
hand, that is how it's done and how it's always been done. Does
that mean it should be changed?

Personally, I think our government has lots of room for improvement
in many many areas. This one isn't any more/less important than
many other areas.

But to specifically talk about the specific instance of O'Neil taking
a nuke with him to Abydos... I think that was 'poetic license' and
a bit silly on the surface. Clearly, something more sinister was at
work on the part of the government.

Jill
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
jill@tuells.org

In article <6c14b6F3eqll7U1@mid.individual.net>,
Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>"Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
>news:1c3ri5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
>> supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> OK, this guy's ****ed up on something...will somebody tell me what the
>>> hell he's talking about? What does he mean by "ascended"?
>>
>> Might I recommend you actually WATCH the show?
>> You might begin to have a CLUE then.
>
>
>I don't think he's made it past the movie. Just as well; imagine all the
>questionable deeds he would find in the show! :-))
>
>Eva

It's been a while for me... did they not ascend in the movie? Was that
in the episode? It all blurs together in my head :)

Oh, and to answer the question: ascended means one leaves the
corporeal body and becomes a higher level being. Sort of like what
buddhists aspire to and The Buddha achieved. The Abydonians all
managed to do this. As a society, they ascended and are no longer
living on this plane of existence.

Jill
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
jill@tuells.org

In article <760a2e47-dd4e-4927-b1ec-89a9d293c69e@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 19, 10:07=A0pm, "Doug Brown" <doug.br...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
>> I ask you. Should your goverment remove a nuke from the stockpile for
>> strictly military purposes and not tell you?
>>
>> What other use do tactical nukes have other than military purposes?
>
>Diplomacy, of the "Cuban Missile" type. Maybe I should rephrase
>this....
>
> What O'Niel did on Abbydos, *you*, as a taxpayer, weren't supposed
>to know.... would you like to have been told?
>
> OK, I'm getting a little beyond myself, here. This is the basic
>thing: I have fantasies like the next guy, right? Sometimes I, as do
>the rest of us, allow filmakers to manufacture surrogate "fantasies"
>for me, in the form of films. For the most part, the makers of these
>films or stories, are regular people just like you and me....and tend
>to have a simular moral/ ethical bearing when they are designing their
>characters for casting.
> All the heroes I have ever seen in movies tend to be like me in the
>sense that their concept of good and evil is close enough to my own
>that I tend to extend a "pass" on those "good guys", even when they
>stretch the rules a bit...(how far they can stretch those rules
>usually depends on how bad the "bad guy" is.)
> Now where I come from, what constitute a "bad guy" is an individual
>who pre-emptively does bad things to people and/ or is defined as
>"bad" by the sum results of deeds committed against the innocent. That
>is to say, if the "hero" was to take action against an individual,
>using violence, the observing audience- (this is theater-) has to be
>reassured that the targeted individual has demonstrated that not only
>he is the "bad guy", but that the particulate "good guy" has every
>right to kung fu kick the **** out of him on the behalf of the
>observing audience -(this is now the jury box; "good and evil" is
>being judiciated.)
> As I said a minute ago, we all supposed to share a common moral
>standard...when we sit down and watch a film...or work behind the
>camera to make one.
> To be honest, I don't know where I came up with that crap....the
>honest truth....people are as morally and ethically diverse as the
>diversity of fishes in a hotel lobby aquarium. There are good people,
>doing good things...and there are individuals, totally laquered in
>evil. Good people find strength and fellowship in like-minded
>company....evil folks, much to my chagrin, do the same.
>
> To keep this short...I did not enjoy Stargate. This film, unlike
>others, weren't tailored to my particular moral bearing, nor to the
>best of my reckoning, to even that of anyone I even know. I could not
>identify myself with the actor designated as "hero"...he didn't even
>act like a hero...he looked and acted like a cheap fascist cutthroat.
>Totally beyond the scope of the law. I do not have fantasies where I
>envision commiting human rights abuses against non-combatant children
>in order to exercise my passions toward "heroic acts" against an enemy
>who fought defensively against O'Niel's incursion into his territory
>of residence.
>
> How is this possible? I'm Black. An african-american, you see. I am
>also a part-time school bus driver in an african- american
>neighborhood. That means that, 99 cents to a dollar, I have more in
>common, culturally and racially, with the kids that O'Niel had either
>a weapon pointed at, or illegally issued a weapon to, than I could
>ever muster for O'Niel himself. I cart those exact same tykes back and
>forth to school each day. It would not even occur to me that there are
>human beings in this world who would do the the things to them for
>material or political gain that Kurt Russell simulated doing to them
>for simple entertainment.
>
> I am the descendant of africans whose continent was over-run by
>Col. Jack O'Niells, by the boatloads, over the pass three
>centuries....so what I saw in Stargate came as little ontological
>surprise to me. Sometimes an animal can't help but reveal itself.
>
> I fight evil where I find it. I found enough here to outline and
>define an illegal war....*any* illegal war.
>
>
>
> So I ask you again, "What did O'Niel do on Abbydos that you
>consider "legal"?

Maybe the term you are using, 'legal', is getting in the way. I
see more as moral, ethical, basic human decency.

In this movie O'Neil liberated a people from slavery. He toppled
a ruling dictator who was breeding people to be used in ways that
would lead to their death. This dictator was not even acknowledging
that these people _were_ people. They didn't even know they had a
right to anything else. O'Neil gave them back their sense of humanity.

I agree some/many of his ways were 'illegal'. But the overall good
was more important. If I see a child trapped in a burning building and
I have to break windows (vandalism) and enter the building
(trespassing) to save that child, I will do so. What I do is 'illegal'
but I do it for a greater good.

And of course, this was a movie. It was supposed to be action
packed and adventurous and all that. It wasn't supposed to be
reality. Bringing the nuke was over the top. But that doesn't make
it O'Neil's fault. It makes it the fault of the people who told him
to bring the nuke.

Jill
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
jill@tuells.org

In article <xN-dnVGA1-l-tsDVnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@rockynet.com>,
jill@tuells.org (jill) wrote:

> In this movie O'Neil liberated a people from slavery. He toppled
> a ruling dictator who was breeding people to be used in ways that
> would lead to their death.

He was?

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

"jill" <jill@tuells.org> wrote in message
news:z5ednZKYfb7GosHVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@rockynet.com ...
> In article <6c14b6F3eqll7U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message

<snip>

>>> Might I recommend you actually WATCH the show?
>>> You might begin to have a CLUE then.
>>
>>
>>I don't think he's made it past the movie. Just as well; imagine all the
>>questionable deeds he would find in the show! :-))
>
> It's been a while for me... did they not ascend in the movie? Was that
> in the episode? It all blurs together in my head :)

No ascending in the movie (no Ancients in the movie either, just good old
Ra), that's the series' invention.

> Oh, and to answer the question: ascended means one leaves the
> corporeal body and becomes a higher level being. Sort of like what
> buddhists aspire to and The Buddha achieved. The Abydonians all
> managed to do this. As a society, they ascended and are no longer
> living on this plane of existence.

It was a cheat really, as they were ascended en mass, rather than through
each individual's personal enlightenment.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

On Jun 20, 7:33 pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:

> >> There are many things done in the US 'in secret' that aren't illegal.
>
> >name one.
>
> Well, I am a therapist and have the right to keep client information
> secret and private. I am legally _required_ to keep secrets.

well actually, I was refering to the actions of the goverment in
regards to the law, not the actions of private citizens whose "right
to privacy" is sacrosanct.

> >> I don't remember if it was in place during the movie, but for the most
> >> part the SGC acted with permission of the president and various
> >> congress people.

It wasn't outlined in the movie. One 'assumed' O'Neel would have
'permission', but the chain of responsibility was never made plain.

> >> Jill
>
> >Jill, I parse that down to an illegal act commited by either the
> >department of energy, whom I believe shares some responsibility in
> >maintaining military ordinanence, O'Niel's immeadiate superiors, or
> >anyone who shares O'Neil's state of mind who is capable of removing a
> >single nuke from the stockpile without public knowledge.
>
> I'm not sure how much public knowledge there is on the movement of
> arms in the US. Warheads and missles are moved on and off air
> craft carriers all the time (onto subs, onto planes, into
> storage, whatever) and I seriously doubt we, the public, know
> what is going on.
>
> In this case, taking one nuke with them on the mission would have
> most likely fallen into the same category as putting a nuke
> tipped missle onto a sub 'just in case' and then sending that sub
> on a routine mission.

No No No, Goddammit! Don't let anybody hear you say something as
stupid as that!! There is no semblence whatsoever. Yhere is nothing
routine about mass murder and pre-emtive strikes on unsoliciting
territorries. Jesus on a stick!!! People may be developing policy
based on what the public may or may not understand about nuclear war.
If you can't properly judge simple right from wrong, then **** knows
what would come and take advantage of your ignorance.

And I don't say this because I don't like you or whatever...actually
I rather appreciate the time you took to rebutt some of my
statements....I really do...but swear on your *** that you will NEVER
regard pre-empt nucular terrorism against an african state as a
routine act. I mean, essentially, that's what it is...Ra doesn't
change anything...alien or not.



> Granted, _someone_ knows what is going on with all of this in a
> much more direct way than people were told about the stargate
> project, but I argue that none of it is unusual in terms of it
> being 'public' knowledge.
>
> So, really I think it comes down to how secret was the stargate
> project overall and how different is this from reality? What is
> being developed in general by our government that is secret and
> who, if anyone, has oversight?

In real life, there is the armed services commitee, and/or closed
congressional commitees. Maybe people would think that the general
public would wig out...if the truth were to get out, but what
difference would that make if all they decided to do is go to Abbydos
with the intent to kill every body there anyway? Isn't that the worse
case scenario in such a disclosure?


> >I ask you. Should your goverment remove a nuke from the stockpile for
> >strictly military purposes and not tell you?
>
> Yes. Well, yes I'm sure it's done all the time because quite frankly
> telling everyone in the US everytime a nuke was moved would be
> quite cumbersome. Now, should this be done this way?... On the one
> hand, that is how it's done and how it's always been done. Does
> that mean it should be changed?
>
> Personally, I think our government has lots of room for improvement
> in many many areas. This one isn't any more/less important than
> many other areas.
>
> But to specifically talk about the specific instance of O'Neil taking
> a nuke with him to Abydos... I think that was 'poetic license' and
> a bit silly on the surface. Clearly, something more sinister was at
> work on the part of the government.

Well that's what I was talking about, in terms of this being a
"scenario". It *is* sinister, there's no way around it.

In article <67c9cb56-a28a-432b-91f6-04d1e6247295@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 20, 7:33=A0pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:
>
>> >> There are many things done in the US 'in secret' that aren't illegal.
>>
>> >name one.
>>
>> Well, I am a therapist and have the right to keep client information
>> secret and private. I am legally _required_ to keep secrets.
>
> well actually, I was refering to the actions of the goverment in
>regards to the law, not the actions of private citizens whose "right
>to privacy" is sacrosanct.

Oh, ok. I know for a fact that the government tells various
organizations to do stuff in secret and this is legal. I know this is
all cloak and dagger but seriously, the government can legally do all
sorts of secret things for 'homeland security' or 'in the best
interests of the public' or what not.

>> >> I don't remember if it was in place during the movie, but for the most
>> >> part the SGC acted with permission of the president and various
>> >> congress people.
>
> It wasn't outlined in the movie. One 'assumed' O'Neel would have
>'permission', but the chain of responsibility was never made plain.
>
>> >> Jill
>>
>> >Jill, I parse that down to an illegal act commited by either the
>> >department of energy, whom I believe shares some responsibility in
>> >maintaining military ordinanence, O'Niel's immeadiate superiors, or
>> >anyone who shares O'Neil's state of mind who is capable of removing a
>> >single nuke from the stockpile without public knowledge.
>>
>> I'm not sure how much public knowledge there is on the movement of
>> arms in the US. Warheads and missles are moved on and off air
>> craft carriers all the time (onto subs, onto planes, into
>> storage, whatever) and I seriously doubt we, the public, know
>> what is going on.
>>
>> In this case, taking one nuke with them on the mission would have
>> most likely fallen into the same category as putting a nuke
>> tipped missle onto a sub 'just in case' and then sending that sub
>> on a routine mission.
>
> No No No, Goddammit! Don't let anybody hear you say something as
>stupid as that!! There is no semblence whatsoever. Yhere is nothing
>routine about mass murder and pre-emtive strikes on unsoliciting
>territorries. Jesus on a stick!!! People may be developing policy
>based on what the public may or may not understand about nuclear war.
>If you can't properly judge simple right from wrong, then **** knows
>what would come and take advantage of your ignorance.
>
> And I don't say this because I don't like you or whatever...actually
>I rather appreciate the time you took to rebutt some of my
>statements....I really do...but swear on your *** that you will NEVER
>regard pre-empt nucular terrorism against an african state as a
>routine act. I mean, essentially, that's what it is...Ra doesn't
>change anything...alien or not.

I didn't say I regard it as routine, simply as something that has
prescedent in reality. What they did with Ra is very much the same
as what used to be done during the end of the cold war. We used to
routinely patrol with nukes in subs 'just in case'. It really is
the same thing.

The government (whomever it was supposed to be, the president, some
secret agency, whatever) sent SG1 to Abydos with a nuke 'just in
case'. Of course O'Neil was told to use it on Ra to make sure things
went our way. I personally might think this is a really bad idea,
but our government has a history of doing this sort of thing so it
was believable to me that it happened in the movie.

And, fwiw, I don't think it will be against an African state. I
think it's going to be against the middle east somewhere if it
happens. Again, stupid as all hell but totally believable given our
history.

>> Granted, _someone_ knows what is going on with all of this in a
>> much more direct way than people were told about the stargate
>> project, but I argue that none of it is unusual in terms of it
>> being 'public' knowledge.
>>
>> So, really I think it comes down to how secret was the stargate
>> project overall and how different is this from reality? What is
>> being developed in general by our government that is secret and
>> who, if anyone, has oversight?
>
> In real life, there is the armed services commitee, and/or closed
>congressional commitees. Maybe people would think that the general
>public would wig out...if the truth were to get out, but what
>difference would that make if all they decided to do is go to Abbydos
>with the intent to kill every body there anyway? Isn't that the worse
>case scenario in such a disclosure?

The problem with public disclosure is that then the people might try
to stop it. If the government is pretty sure they know what is best
they would really rather not have the disheveled masses get in the
way. Look at Iraq :P

>> >I ask you. Should your goverment remove a nuke from the stockpile for
>> >strictly military purposes and not tell you?
>>
>> Yes. Well, yes I'm sure it's done all the time because quite frankly
>> telling everyone in the US everytime a nuke was moved would be
>> quite cumbersome. Now, should this be done this way?... On the one
>> hand, that is how it's done and how it's always been done. Does
>> that mean it should be changed?
>>
>> Personally, I think our government has lots of room for improvement
>> in many many areas. This one isn't any more/less important than
>> many other areas.
>>
>> But to specifically talk about the specific instance of O'Neil taking
>> a nuke with him to Abydos... I think that was 'poetic license' and
>> a bit silly on the surface. Clearly, something more sinister was at
>> work on the part of the government.
>
> Well that's what I was talking about, in terms of this being a
>"scenario". It *is* sinister, there's no way around it.

Yep and we can only hope it is just over the top enough to be not
possible in reality. Because otherwise I can see it happening.

Jill
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
jill@tuells.org

In article <xN-dnVGA1-l-tsDVnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@rockynet.com>,
jill@tuells.org says...
> In article <760a2e47-dd4e-4927-b1ec-89a9d293c69e@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 19, 10:07=A0pm, "Doug Brown" <doug.br...@sasktel.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I ask you. Should your goverment remove a nuke from the stockpile for
> >> strictly military purposes and not tell you?
> >>
> >> What other use do tactical nukes have other than military purposes?
> >
> >Diplomacy, of the "Cuban Missile" type. Maybe I should rephrase
> >this....
> >
> > What O'Niel did on Abbydos, *you*, as a taxpayer, weren't supposed
> >to know.... would you like to have been told?
> >
> > OK, I'm getting a little beyond myself, here. This is the basic
> >thing: I have fantasies like the next guy, right? Sometimes I, as do
> >the rest of us, allow filmakers to manufacture surrogate "fantasies"
> >for me, in the form of films. For the most part, the makers of these
> >films or stories, are regular people just like you and me....and tend
> >to have a simular moral/ ethical bearing when they are designing their
> >characters for casting.
> > All the heroes I have ever seen in movies tend to be like me in the
> >sense that their concept of good and evil is close enough to my own
> >that I tend to extend a "pass" on those "good guys", even when they
> >stretch the rules a bit...(how far they can stretch those rules
> >usually depends on how bad the "bad guy" is.)
> > Now where I come from, what constitute a "bad guy" is an individual
> >who pre-emptively does bad things to people and/ or is defined as
> >"bad" by the sum results of deeds committed against the innocent. That
> >is to say, if the "hero" was to take action against an individual,
> >using violence, the observing audience- (this is theater-) has to be
> >reassured that the targeted individual has demonstrated that not only
> >he is the "bad guy", but that the particulate "good guy" has every
> >right to kung fu kick the **** out of him on the behalf of the
> >observing audience -(this is now the jury box; "good and evil" is
> >being judiciated.)
> > As I said a minute ago, we all supposed to share a common moral
> >standard...when we sit down and watch a film...or work behind the
> >camera to make one.
> > To be honest, I don't know where I came up with that crap....the
> >honest truth....people are as morally and ethically diverse as the
> >diversity of fishes in a hotel lobby aquarium. There are good people,
> >doing good things...and there are individuals, totally laquered in
> >evil. Good people find strength and fellowship in like-minded
> >company....evil folks, much to my chagrin, do the same.
> >
> > To keep this short...I did not enjoy Stargate. This film, unlike
> >others, weren't tailored to my particular moral bearing, nor to the
> >best of my reckoning, to even that of anyone I even know. I could not
> >identify myself with the actor designated as "hero"...he didn't even
> >act like a hero...he looked and acted like a cheap fascist cutthroat.
> >Totally beyond the scope of the law. I do not have fantasies where I
> >envision commiting human rights abuses against non-combatant children
> >in order to exercise my passions toward "heroic acts" against an enemy
> >who fought defensively against O'Niel's incursion into his territory
> >of residence.
> >
> > How is this possible? I'm Black. An african-american, you see. I am
> >also a part-time school bus driver in an african- american
> >neighborhood. That means that, 99 cents to a dollar, I have more in
> >common, culturally and racially, with the kids that O'Niel had either
> >a weapon pointed at, or illegally issued a weapon to, than I could
> >ever muster for O'Niel himself. I cart those exact same tykes back and
> >forth to school each day. It would not even occur to me that there are
> >human beings in this world who would do the the things to them for
> >material or political gain that Kurt Russell simulated doing to them
> >for simple entertainment.
> >
> > I am the descendant of africans whose continent was over-run by
> >Col. Jack O'Niells, by the boatloads, over the pass three
> >centuries....so what I saw in Stargate came as little ontological
> >surprise to me. Sometimes an animal can't help but reveal itself.
> >
> > I fight evil where I find it. I found enough here to outline and
> >define an illegal war....*any* illegal war.
> >
> >
> >
> > So I ask you again, "What did O'Niel do on Abbydos that you
> >consider "legal"?
>
> Maybe the term you are using, 'legal', is getting in the way. I
> see more as moral, ethical, basic human decency.
>
> In this movie O'Neil liberated a people from slavery. He toppled
> a ruling dictator who was breeding people to be used in ways that
> would lead to their death. This dictator was not even acknowledging
> that these people _were_ people. They didn't even know they had a
> right to anything else. O'Neil gave them back their sense of humanity.
>
> I agree some/many of his ways were 'illegal'. But the overall good
> was more important. If I see a child trapped in a burning building and
> I have to break windows (vandalism) and enter the building
> (trespassing) to save that child, I will do so. What I do is 'illegal'
> but I do it for a greater good.

Depends on the child - may be a mass murderer

In article <uitni5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
says...
> Congress has absolutely no power over me
> thankyouverymuch.
>
>

That's what you think

In article <7a3ri5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
says...
> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 5:54 pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:
> >
> >> >I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH congressional
> >> >oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power over me
> >> >thankyouverymuch.
> >
> > that is incorrect. the people endowed congress with the consent to
> > represent.
>
> We did not!

The grownups before you did. When you are born the law dictates you
accept that until you are legally an adult - at which time you accept or
leave the country.

> Congress can go **** themselves if they decide to try to impose their rules
> on me. And there's not a thing they can do about it.

I take it there are still some years left before you can leave.

In article <0m5si5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
says...
> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Doug Brown <doug.brown@sasktel.net> wrote:
> >
> > "supermann" <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:8c93a8db-c0a2-429c-9ac3-f057683a12d3@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 18, 5:54 pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:
> >
> >> >I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH congressional
> >> >oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power over
> >> >me
> >> >thankyouverymuch.
> >
> > that is incorrect. the people endowed congress with the consent to
> > represent.
>
> No we didn't.

He ment to write the grownups.

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> In article <uitni5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
> says...
>> Congress has absolutely no power over me
>> thankyouverymuch.
>>
>>
>
> That's what you think
>

I choose to defy any power they might try to claim over me.
(as long as I don't travel to the USA, they can screw themselves)
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spike1@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> In article <7a3ri5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
> says...
>> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Jun 18, 5:54 pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH congressional
>> >> >oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power over me
>> >> >thankyouverymuch.
>> >
>> > that is incorrect. the people endowed congress with the consent to
>> > represent.
>>
>> We did not!
>
> The grownups before you did. When you are born the law dictates you
> accept that until you are legally an adult - at which time you accept or
> leave the country.

Errrr...
Explain to me again how congress has power over me again?

>> Congress can go **** themselves if they decide to try to impose their rules
>> on me. And there's not a thing they can do about it.
>
> I take it there are still some years left before you can leave.

Leave where?
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> In article <0m5si5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
> says...
>> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Doug Brown <doug.brown@sasktel.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > "supermann" <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:8c93a8db-c0a2-429c-9ac3-f057683a12d3@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jun 18, 5:54 pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH congressional
>> >> >oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power over
>> >> >me
>> >> >thankyouverymuch.
>> >
>> > that is incorrect. the people endowed congress with the consent to
>> > represent.
>>
>> No we didn't.
>
> He ment to write the grownups.

I'm 41 years old. That's grownup enough for ANYONE.
Too grown up for my liking.
:-p
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22d362ca3afba2b398c058@news.usenetserver. com...
> In article <7a3ri5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
> says...
>> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Jun 18, 5:54 pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH
>> >> >congressional
>> >> >oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power
>> >> >over me
>> >> >thankyouverymuch.
>> >
>> > that is incorrect. the people endowed congress with the consent to
>> > represent.
>>
>> We did not!
>
> The grownups before you did. When you are born the law dictates you
> accept that until you are legally an adult - at which time you accept or
> leave the country.
>
>> Congress can go **** themselves if they decide to try to impose their
>> rules
>> on me. And there's not a thing they can do about it.
>
> I take it there are still some years left before you can leave.
>
>

Godd you're dense! Halliwell is posting from the United Kingdom, which I
beleive, is still a sovereign country and not subject to the whims or
decisions of the Congress of the United States of America (had to put that
in there in case there would be any confusion with the United States of
Mexico).

The USA is not the only country in the world with access to computers or the
internet/usenet.

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Doug Brown <doug.brown@sasktel.net> wrote:
> Godd you're dense! Halliwell is posting from the United Kingdom, which I
> beleive,

Awww, spoilsport. I wanted to see how long it'd take for him to twig, from
my replies.
:)

"Move? where from?"
:)
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:33:09 -0600, in alt.tv.stargate-sg1, "Doug Brown"
<doug.brown@sasktel.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

...
... The USA is not the only country in the world with access to computers or the
... internet/usenet.

What are you talking about?? It's the only country in the whole effing universe!!

(For some, at least...! ;))


=====
It sounds much better in French, but then, everything does.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:45:32 +0100, in alt.tv.stargate-sg1, Andrew Halliwell
<spike1@ponder.sky.com> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
... > In article <uitni5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
... > says...
... >> Congress has absolutely no power over me
... >> thankyouverymuch.
... >>
... >>
... >
... > That's what you think
... >
...
... I choose to defy any power they might try to claim over me.
... (as long as I don't travel to the USA, they can screw themselves)

They do. Every single day.


=====
It sounds much better in French, but then, everything does.

In article <r0unj5-le9.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
says...
> > I take it there are still some years left before you can leave.
>
> Leave where?
>

The country.

In article <0eWdnVZoWLek8PTVnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@posted.sasktel>,
doug.brown@sasktel.net says...
>
> "Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22d362ca3afba2b398c058@news.usenetserver. com...
> > In article <7a3ri5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
> > says...
> >> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 supermann <bryanttillman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jun 18, 5:54 pm, j...@tuells.org (jill) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >I'd be offended if I found him walking around my home WITH
> >> >> >congressional
> >> >> >oversight, but that's irrelevant. Congress has absolutely no power
> >> >> >over me
> >> >> >thankyouverymuch.
> >> >
> >> > that is incorrect. the people endowed congress with the consent to
> >> > represent.
> >>
> >> We did not!
> >
> > The grownups before you did. When you are born the law dictates you
> > accept that until you are legally an adult - at which time you accept or
> > leave the country.
> >
> >> Congress can go **** themselves if they decide to try to impose their
> >> rules
> >> on me. And there's not a thing they can do about it.
> >
> > I take it there are still some years left before you can leave.
> >
> >
>
> Godd you're dense! Halliwell is posting from the United Kingdom,

How would I know? He comes across as your typical red neck.

> which I
> beleive, is still a sovereign country and not subject to the whims or
> decisions of the Congress of the United States of America (had to put that
> in there in case there would be any confusion with the United States of
> Mexico).

Not subject to the law surely, but not the whims? Where have you been
lately.

In article <r3unj5-le9.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
says...
> I'm 41 years old. That's grownup enough for ANYONE.
> Too grown up for my liking.
> :-p
>

Yeah :-/

In article <c8tnj5-le9.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
says...
> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> > In article <uitni5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
> > says...
> >> Congress has absolutely no power over me
> >> thankyouverymuch.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That's what you think
> >
>
> I choose to defy any power they might try to claim over me.
> (as long as I don't travel to the USA, they can screw themselves)

Ah but the UK US Extradition Treaty of 2003 makes it fairly easy for the
US to get you handed over - so don't post anything nasty about Bush ;-)

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> In article <r0unj5-le9.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
> says...
>> > I take it there are still some years left before you can leave.
>>
>> Leave where?
>>
>
> The country.
>

Which country?
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>> > I take it there are still some years left before you can leave.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Godd you're dense! Halliwell is posting from the United Kingdom,
>
> How would I know? He comes across as your typical red neck.

Try learning what TLDs mean...
You know... things like .co.uk

No, I don't sound like a "typical redneck". I sound like someone who isn't
in your country and is therefore not under the juristiction of your
"congress". So if they DID try to impose rules on me I'd be totally within
my rights to say sod off.


--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spike1@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> In article <c8tnj5-le9.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
> says...
>> In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>> > In article <uitni5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
>> > says...
>> >> Congress has absolutely no power over me
>> >> thankyouverymuch.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > That's what you think
>> >
>>
>> I choose to defy any power they might try to claim over me.
>> (as long as I don't travel to the USA, they can screw themselves)
>
> Ah but the UK US Extradition Treaty of 2003 makes it fairly easy for the
> US to get you handed over - so don't post anything nasty about Bush ;-)
>
Bush is an evil dimwitted subhuman imbecile...
You mean like that?
What're they going to charge me with? Patriot act only covers US citizens,
cos I don't have to show any patriotism to them.
:)
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |

In article <g9ej64h9tglq7kg75fpkme2gunavpolael@4ax.com>, Magda <> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:45:32 +0100, in alt.tv.stargate-sg1, Andrew Halliwell
><spike1@ponder.sky.com> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
>
> ... In alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> ... > In article <uitni5-ofl.ln1@ponder.sky.com>, spike1@ponder.sky.com
> ... > says...
> ... >> Congress has absolutely no power over me
> ... >> thankyouverymuch.
> ... >
> ... > That's what you think
> ... >
> ...
> ... I choose to defy any power they might try to claim over me.
> ... (as long as I don't travel to the USA, they can screw themselves)
>
>They do. Every single day.

Hey! We aren't that self centered, some days we screw other countries.

Seriously, the countdown is on. Not too much longer before we
get rid of the shrub!!! Don't blame _me_, _I_ didn't vote for
him, _either_ time!!!

Jill
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
jill@tuel