com_dotnet

[Jim Carlock]

phpinfo() has a "com_dotnet" section.

It's kind of odd.

Here it says...

COM Support: enabled
DCOM Support: disabled
.net Support: enabled

What exactly is COM support?
What exactly is DCOM support?
And what exactly is .net support? And why would it say
enabled when .NET is not installed?

DCOM means an ActiveX file gets used. COM pretty much
means the same thing. Those files tend to be based upon
an object model and have a few extra functions there to
help with various programming environments.

ordinal hint RVA name

1 0 000017A6 DllCanUnloadNow
2 1 0000177A DllGetClassObject
3 2 00001790 DllRegisterServer
4 3 00001764 DllUnregisterServer

Other than that COM is not much different than standard
libraries.

And DCOM... that one seems like it might be a COM file put
into a publicly accessible folder, but I'll need some more
help here, if such is available, because something is not
sitting too well here.

Thanks.

--
Jim Carlock
Swimming Pool, Spa And Water Feature Builders
http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jim Carlock wrote:

phpinfo() has a "com_dotnet" section.

It's kind of odd.

Here it says...

COM Support: enabled
DCOM Support: disabled
.net Support: enabled

What exactly is COM support?
What exactly is DCOM support?
And what exactly is .net support? And why would it say
enabled when .NET is not installed?

Those are all Microsoft thingies.
COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows Foundation
Classes.
DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
implications.
..NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
everything-to-everybody architecture.

And DCOM... that one seems like it might be a COM file put
into a publicly accessible folder, but I'll need some more
help here, if such is available, because something is not
sitting too well here.

[Jim Carlock]

Here it says...

>
COM Support: enabled
DCOM Support: disabled
.net Support: enabled

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote...
: Those are all Microsoft thingies.
:
: COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows
: Foundation Classes.

COM was originally called OLE (object linking and embedding).
Basically any regular libary DLL can become COM if it includes
some extra OLE functions to handle object creation, and letting
the system know that it can create classful objects. Microsoft
adopted new words like, ActiveX and COM to replace OLE (it sounds
so much better!). The ActiveX libraries (files) were later branded
into two different types of COM, called distributed COM and COM.

: DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that
: was added because when 95 came out, MS had not considered
: certain internet implications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distrib...t_Object_Model

DCOM was originally called network OLE. And it's based upon RPC.
Does it have a place in PHP? As far as communicating via HTTP,
does anyone use it and can anyone provide an example of it's use?
I've used GET and POST to get things accomplished with PHP, I'm
curious as to how to use DCOM with PHP.

: .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
: everything-to-everybody architecture.

And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
which fill a few folders.
--
Jim Carlock
Swimming Pool, Spa And Water Feature Builders
http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jim Carlock wrote:

And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
which fill a few folders.

I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something they hope
to have PHP doing in the future.

It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge should be.

[Steve]

"Jim Carlock" <an*******@127.0.0.1wrote in message
news:46***********************@roadrunner.com...

>Here it says...

COM Support: enabled
DCOM Support: disabled
.net Support: enabled

And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
.net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
which fill a few folders.

..net support has nothing to do with .net being installed on a system,
actually. it means that the ability for php to interact with .net has been
enabled. the php source code that handles such interactions comes in the
form of a c/c++ module that gets included in php when 1) the module exists
and 2) is included as an argument when php is compiled before its use as an
A) executable cgi, B) dll, or C) other module (as commonly used in
conjunction with apache).

whether or not .net itself is installed is a seperate issue. php .net
support enabled simply means that you have the ability to use .net through
php...of course, .net must be installed unless you intend to have php throw
errors at you when you do try to use .net and the framework isn't there.

btw, the .net framework is well over 50MB.

does all that make sense?

[Jerry Stuckle]

Steve wrote:

"Jim Carlock" <an*******@127.0.0.1wrote in message
news:46***********************@roadrunner.com...

>>Here it says...

COM Support: enabled
DCOM Support: disabled
.net Support: enabled

And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
.net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
which fill a few folders.

.net support has nothing to do with .net being installed on a system,
actually. it means that the ability for php to interact with .net has been
enabled. the php source code that handles such interactions comes in the
form of a c/c++ module that gets included in php when 1) the module exists
and 2) is included as an argument when php is compiled before its use as an
A) executable cgi, B) dll, or C) other module (as commonly used in
conjunction with apache).

whether or not .net itself is installed is a seperate issue. php .net
support enabled simply means that you have the ability to use .net through
php...of course, .net must be installed unless you intend to have php throw
errors at you when you do try to use .net and the framework isn't there.

btw, the .net framework is well over 50MB.

does all that make sense?

Nope. By your argument, MySQL support would be enabled whether or not
the MySQL libraries are installed or not. But it isn't.

PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But
obviously, since the extension is experimental, they still have some
bugs to work out.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Steve]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:3_******************************@comcast.com. ..

Steve wrote:

>"Jim Carlock" <an*******@127.0.0.1wrote in message
news:46***********************@roadrunner.com.. .

>>>Here it says...

COM Support: enabled
DCOM Support: disabled
.net Support: enabled

And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
.net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
which fill a few folders.

.net support has nothing to do with .net being installed on a system,
actually. it means that the ability for php to interact with .net has
been enabled. the php source code that handles such interactions comes in
the form of a c/c++ module that gets included in php when 1) the module
exists and 2) is included as an argument when php is compiled before its
use as an A) executable cgi, B) dll, or C) other module (as commonly used
in conjunction with apache).

whether or not .net itself is installed is a seperate issue. php .net
support enabled simply means that you have the ability to use .net
through php...of course, .net must be installed unless you intend to have
php throw errors at you when you do try to use .net and the framework
isn't there.

btw, the .net framework is well over 50MB.

does all that make sense?

Nope. By your argument, MySQL support would be enabled whether or not the
MySQL libraries are installed or not. But it isn't.

perhaps i'm just not being clear enough. i can build php with or without
mysql support. and on my system, mysql may or may not be installed. if i
don't build in mysql support, i cannot use mysql calls to a mysql db. if i
do compile php with mysql support yet do not mysql installed, i can make the
mysql calls from php but they will all fail...mysql is not installed on my
system (assuming i'm connecting on the same pc). however, if i both compile
php with mysql support *and* have mysql installed, then things should go
smoothly. this assumes that mysql is compilable in its entirety into php and
doesn't have to be loaded into php whenever php is used (this assumption is
not due to my lack of understanding on how php and mysql work, but is to
more relate to how .net support is provided by php).

while php may very well provide mysql libraries, it certainly has no
relationship to microsoft such that it would warrant providing the .net
framework especially given how bulky it is and the frequency at which it is
updated and outdated.

PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But obviously,
since the extension is experimental, they still have some bugs to work
out.

yes, which is what i was trying to state...i just didn't go into the
'experimental' part of it. if i need to use .net developed source in php, i
just compile it to a standard COM object and use php's COM function to
consume it. works for me.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Steve wrote:

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:3_******************************@comcast.com. ..

>Steve wrote:

>>"Jim Carlock" <an*******@127.0.0.1wrote in message
news:46***********************@roadrunner.com. ..
Here it says...
>
COM Support: enabled
DCOM Support: disabled
.net Support: enabled
>
And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
.net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
which fill a few folders.
.net support has nothing to do with .net being installed on a system,
actually. it means that the ability for php to interact with .net has
been enabled. the php source code that handles such interactions comes in
the form of a c/c++ module that gets included in php when 1) the module
exists and 2) is included as an argument when php is compiled before its
use as an A) executable cgi, B) dll, or C) other module (as commonly used
in conjunction with apache).

whether or not .net itself is installed is a seperate issue. php .net
support enabled simply means that you have the ability to use .net
through php...of course, .net must be installed unless you intend to have
php throw errors at you when you do try to use .net and the framework
isn't there.

btw, the .net framework is well over 50MB.

does all that make sense?

Nope. By your argument, MySQL support would be enabled whether or not the
MySQL libraries are installed or not. But it isn't.

perhaps i'm just not being clear enough. i can build php with or without
mysql support. and on my system, mysql may or may not be installed. if i
don't build in mysql support, i cannot use mysql calls to a mysql db. if i
do compile php with mysql support yet do not mysql installed, i can make the
mysql calls from php but they will all fail...mysql is not installed on my
system (assuming i'm connecting on the same pc). however, if i both compile
php with mysql support *and* have mysql installed, then things should go
smoothly. this assumes that mysql is compilable in its entirety into php and
doesn't have to be loaded into php whenever php is used (this assumption is
not due to my lack of understanding on how php and mysql work, but is to
more relate to how .net support is provided by php).

Have you ever tried to build PHP with mysql support if you don't have
mysql on the system? It doesn't work. The build will fail.

And have you tried building PHP with mysql support on another system,
then load it on a system which doesn't have mysql? That doesn't work,
either. PHP won't load.

while php may very well provide mysql libraries, it certainly has no
relationship to microsoft such that it would warrant providing the .net
framework especially given how bulky it is and the frequency at which it is
updated and outdated.

Check again. PHP does not supply mysql libraries any longer.

>PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But obviously,
since the extension is experimental, they still have some bugs to work
out.

yes, which is what i was trying to state...i just didn't go into the
'experimental' part of it. if i need to use .net developed source in php, i
just compile it to a standard COM object and use php's COM function to
consume it. works for me.

I just don't use OS-specific code. Works for me.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Steve]

Have you ever tried to build PHP with mysql support if you don't have

mysql on the system? It doesn't work. The build will fail.

And have you tried building PHP with mysql support on another system, then
load it on a system which doesn't have mysql? That doesn't work, either.
PHP won't load.

you're missing the point entirely! think of how most people install php on a
windows system. they use the windows binary installed. that means php is
pre-compiled on a system that meets all the requirements of your first
statement...1) compiled mysql support into php on a 2) system that has mysql
on said system. however even though support is compiled into the .exe, the
use of mysql on a target system where mysql isn't installed will bark when
you try to use it.

what i'm saying is that this exactly parallels ".net support enabled". php
does NOT do/provide any additional features to ensure that third party
applications are installed, nor should it. php either has the extensions
compiled in or loads them when executed. these extensions/modules determine
whether support is enabled/disabled which has nothing to do with the
existence of the actual third-party application on a target system...the
question pondered by the op.

>while php may very well provide mysql libraries, it certainly has no
relationship to microsoft such that it would warrant providing the .net
framework especially given how bulky it is and the frequency at which it
is updated and outdated.

Check again. PHP does not supply mysql libraries any longer.

again, you're missing the point. it used to as a module but now is compiled
in...which was not my point anyway, which i was careful to point out when
following the "by your argument" line of comparison. whether a compiled
feature of php or a loadable module, it is the code that provided the
support to use external tools such as .net and this support is *completely*
independent of whether that external tool is actually installed on a target
system.

>>PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But
obviously, since the extension is experimental, they still have some
bugs to work out.

yes, which is what i was trying to state...i just didn't go into the
'experimental' part of it. if i need to use .net developed source in php,
i just compile it to a standard COM object and use php's COM function to
consume it. works for me.

I just don't use OS-specific code. Works for me.

i'm glad you've got that leeway. as for me, i build what my
paycheck-provider asks. ;^)

[Jerry Stuckle]

Steve wrote:

>Have you ever tried to build PHP with mysql support if you don't have
mysql on the system? It doesn't work. The build will fail.

And have you tried building PHP with mysql support on another system, then
load it on a system which doesn't have mysql? That doesn't work, either.
PHP won't load.

you're missing the point entirely! think of how most people install php on a
windows system. they use the windows binary installed. that means php is
pre-compiled on a system that meets all the requirements of your first
statement...1) compiled mysql support into php on a 2) system that has mysql
on said system. however even though support is compiled into the .exe, the
use of mysql on a target system where mysql isn't installed will bark when
you try to use it.

Not at all. OK, on a Windows system MySQL support is supplied by
php_mysql.dll. And if MySQL isn't installed, the DLL won't load and
phpinfo() will show MySQL support isn't enabled.

The MySQL interface is NOT compiled into PHP on the distributed Windows
binaries - or you'd never be able to run PHP unless you had MySQL installed.

what i'm saying is that this exactly parallels ".net support enabled". php
does NOT do/provide any additional features to ensure that third party
applications are installed, nor should it. php either has the extensions
compiled in or loads them when executed. these extensions/modules determine
whether support is enabled/disabled which has nothing to do with the
existence of the actual third-party application on a target system...the
question pondered by the op.

Nope, it's just the opposite.

>>while php may very well provide mysql libraries, it certainly has no
relationship to microsoft such that it would warrant providing the .net
framework especially given how bulky it is and the frequency at which it
is updated and outdated.

Check again. PHP does not supply mysql libraries any longer.

again, you're missing the point. it used to as a module but now is compiled
in...which was not my point anyway, which i was careful to point out when
following the "by your argument" line of comparison. whether a compiled
feature of php or a loadable module, it is the code that provided the
support to use external tools such as .net and this support is *completely*
independent of whether that external tool is actually installed on a target
system.

No, it is not. It is a dll loaded dynamically at startup, if the
php.ini file says to load it and the MySQL libraries are properly installed.

>>>PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But
obviously, since the extension is experimental, they still have some
bugs to work out.
yes, which is what i was trying to state...i just didn't go into the
'experimental' part of it. if i need to use .net developed source in php,
i just compile it to a standard COM object and use php's COM function to
consume it. works for me.

I just don't use OS-specific code. Works for me.

i'm glad you've got that leeway. as for me, i build what my
paycheck-provider asks. ;^)

So do I. :-)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

Erwin Moller wrote:

>
Hi Jerry,

I am not sure what is wrong, but I only see your postings in
comp.lang.php while it is clear you're having a conversation with more
people involved.
Hard to follow the discussion this way.

Is something screwed up at my side, or are you alone posting to
comp.lang.php for some reason?

Regards,
Erwin Moller

Hi, Erwin,

No, I'm talking to Steve. Looks like you or your news server is
filtering him out.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Actually, didn't DCOM come out in W4W? Seems to me it did.

No, it began with Win95 - in an "extras" folder, or somesuch.
Win95 was the "MS doesn't get networking" release of Win32.
Prior to that, it was just something they were tinkering with.
.... acutally, that's what it was afterwards, too, wasn't it? :)

I recently saw a guest lecture series on the Paul Allen network (U-Dub)
in which they interview Microsofties. It was kinda funny watching this
old guy talk about the headaches he had as a mucky-muck - trying to
pretend that the engineering form WFC/COM/Com+/DCOM and several others
was really in synch with the marketing... the poor guy didn't even
believe it himself.

But that's what ya gotta do when your a manager of cubicle rats.

So right now they're locked into the more expensive hosting (which also
runs more slowly and has more problems) because the cost of conversion
would be several years worth of the price difference.

Hey, that's like the War Against Iraq. The original benefits didn't pan
out, but the cost of upgrading to peacetime is considered too expensive.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Actually, didn't DCOM come out in W4W? Seems to me it did.

No, it began with Win95 - in an "extras" folder, or somesuch.
Win95 was the "MS doesn't get networking" release of Win32.
Prior to that, it was just something they were tinkering with.
... acutally, that's what it was afterwards, too, wasn't it? :)

I recently saw a guest lecture series on the Paul Allen network (U-Dub)
in which they interview Microsofties. It was kinda funny watching this
old guy talk about the headaches he had as a mucky-muck - trying to
pretend that the engineering form WFC/COM/Com+/DCOM and several others
was really in synch with the marketing... the poor guy didn't even
believe it himself.

But that's what ya gotta do when your a manager of cubicle rats.

>So right now they're locked into the more expensive hosting (which
also runs more slowly and has more problems) because the cost of
conversion would be several years worth of the price difference.

Hey, that's like the War Against Iraq. The original benefits didn't pan
out, but the cost of upgrading to peacetime is considered too expensive.

The difference is - if we weren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, we'd be
fighting them here.

Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa. And they want to do it
again. The only thing keeping them from doing it is we're taking their
havens away from them.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The difference is - if we weren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, we'd be
fighting them here.

That's what the entertainers and televangelists say.

Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa.

What an idiot.

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa. And they want to do it
again. The only thing keeping them from doing it is we're taking their
havens away from them.

I'm sorry.
Once just isn't enough.
I gotta say it again.
What an idiot!

BT

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>The difference is - if we weren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, we'd be
fighting them here.

That's what the entertainers and televangelists say.

>Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa.

What an idiot.

Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:

1968 - Bobby Kennedy assassinated
1972 - Munich Olympics, 11 Israeli athletes murdered
1979 - US Embassy in Tehran taken over and hostages held for 444 days
1980's - Multiple Americans in Lebanon kidnapped
1983 - Marine Corps barracks in Beirut bombed
1985 - Cruise ship Achille Lauro hijacked and a 70 year old American
thrown overboard in his wheelchair
1985 - TWA flight 847 hijacked in Athens and a U.S. Navy diver killed
1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 bombed
1993 - First bombing of the World Trade Center
1998 - US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed
2001 - 4 airliners hijacked, killing over 3,000 people
2002 - Reporter Daniel Pearl kidnapped and murdered

Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists have
vowed to destroy our civilization.

I have nothing against most Muslims. They are only interested in living
in peace. But there are a few who have twisted their religion to meet
their own ends. And these are the problems.

Get your head out of your ass, Sanders. You should be glad we finally
have a President with the balls to stand up to them. If we would have
had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.

And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas, you
can be assured they would be here. Or maybe you want to see IED's along
the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times Square.
Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and our
civilians killed.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Steve]

"Sanders Kaufman" <bu***@kaufman.netwrote in message
news:eS*****************@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa. And they want to do it
again. The only thing keeping them from doing it is we're taking their
havens away from them.

I'm sorry.
Once just isn't enough.
I gotta say it again.
What an idiot!

yes, sanders, you certainly are.

where'd my killfile go...oh, there it is.

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas, you
can be assured they would be here. Or maybe you want to see IED's along
the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times Square.
Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and our
civilians killed.

We didn't go after them in Iraq.
We lured them into Iraq.
The Iraqis did not deserve that.
If we were to *go after* them, we would be invading Pakistan.

Where you go wrong here is in taking the Abramoff Republicans' word of
honor about what they're up to. They are not honorable people.

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Or maybe you want to see IED's along
the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times Square.
Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and our
civilians killed.

We've already had a lot of that.
In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Or maybe you want to see IED's along the roads. Maybe you'd like to
see suicide bombers in Times Square. Maybe you'd like to see our
bridges and buildings blown up and our civilians killed.

We've already had a lot of that.
In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.

Yea, right. Name EVEN ONE.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas,
you can be assured they would be here. Or maybe you want to see IED's
along the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times
Square. Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and
our civilians killed.

We didn't go after them in Iraq.
We lured them into Iraq.

ROFLMAO! Listing to "Billary" again? And actually eating that shit?
Saddam was one of the worst terrorists in the world. He killed many
more people than bin Laden did.

Your head is further up your ass than I thought.

The Iraqis did not deserve that.
If we were to *go after* them, we would be invading Pakistan.

At least Pakistan is working WITH us in the war on terror.

Where you go wrong here is in taking the Abramoff Republicans' word of
honor about what they're up to. They are not honorable people.

Where you are going wrong is you're listening to those who are
supporting the terrorists for their own political purposes.

They depend in the naivety (or stupidity - take your pick) of people
like you to stay in power.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[John Hosking]

Erwin Moller wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Steve wrote:

>>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote ...
Steve wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote ...
>Steve wrote:
>>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote ...
>>>Steve wrote:
>>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote ...
>>>>>Steve wrote:
>>>>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote ...
>>>>>>>Steve wrote:

[back-and-forth snipped]

Hi Jerry,

I am not sure what is wrong, but I only see your postings in
comp.lang.php while it is clear you're having a conversation with more
people involved.
Hard to follow the discussion this way.

Is something screwed up at my side, or are you alone posting to
comp.lang.php for some reason?

It's not just you; I can't see Steve's posts either on news.bluewin.ch
(except for <xJ*************@newsfe06.lga>, which came later). But over
on news.individual.net I see what seem to be all his posts, so it's not
just Jerry talking to himself or an imaginary friend.
--
John

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:
[...]

How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?

What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?

>Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists have
vowed to destroy our civilization.

There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I don't
support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.

Some people just get what they deserve. The only problem and real
tragedy is: It's always the little guy from the streets, the usual
civilian, who has to pay the biggest price for the government's
mistakes, for their egoism and arrogance. It always hits the innocent,
never the real guilty.

>I have nothing against most Muslims. They are only interested in living
in peace. But there are a few who have twisted their religion to meet
their own ends. And these are the problems.

Get your head out of your ass, Sanders. You should be glad we finally
have a President with the balls to stand up to them.

Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.

>If we would have
had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.

Correct. It could be even worse.

>And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas, you
can be assured they would be here.

The only reason to invade Iraq was the oil. When was the war finished
"officially"? What's the situation now? Worse than ever.

But what does this all have to do with PHP? Bush wouldn't even know how
to spell it.

A curious side note: Our biggest telco "Deutsche Telekom" is known for
ruthlessly protecting their "intellectual properties" and tradamarks,
suing everyone who even thinks about using something colored magenta
(their brand color) or using anything that starts with "T-", because of
their brand names T-Com, T-Mobile, T-Systems etc. They grab all domain
names with "t-" at the beginning - they even own "t-errorist.de" ...

Micha

[ay beecee]

As a programmer, you might be exptected to
associate these events in a more logical way.

Sure, Saddam was a bad guy.
And yes, we were attacked by muslim extremists.
But Saddam was not the only bad guy in the
world, and was not in cahoots with Al Queda.
He did not attack us. There was no Al Queda in
Iraq until after the war started.

We had a golden opportunity to kick ass in Afganistan,
rebuild a country and make some allies. But we scewed
it up bigtime. We gave Osama his best christmas present
possible: the world's greatest recruiting tool,
wrapped in an impossible-to-win civil war.

Bush is a moron. The only remaining excuse for
starting this war (they've changed motivations a
half a dozen times now) is nation building. By
creating a land-of-milk-and-honey democracy in
Iraq, we will indirectly defeat Al Queda. That's
nation building, which Bush promised we would not do.

And it's a building construction project with little
hope of success. We might be stuck with it now,
whether we like it or not. But it's important to remember
the fools who got us into this mess in the first place.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Michael Fesser wrote:

.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:
[...]

How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?

How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day by
the terrorists.

What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?

We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.

>Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists have
vowed to destroy our civilization.

There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I don't
support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.

Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
that means you support terrorism.

Some people just get what they deserve. The only problem and real
tragedy is: It's always the little guy from the streets, the usual
civilian, who has to pay the biggest price for the government's
mistakes, for their egoism and arrogance. It always hits the innocent,
never the real guilty.

Yea, right.

>I have nothing against most Muslims. They are only interested in living
in peace. But there are a few who have twisted their religion to meet
their own ends. And these are the problems.

Get your head out of your ass, Sanders. You should be glad we finally
have a President with the balls to stand up to them.

Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.

ROFLMAO! We finally have a President with enough balls to stand up to
the terrorists. The previous one sure didn't.

>If we would have
had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.

Correct. It could be even worse.

Nope, it would be much better.

>And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas, you
can be assured they would be here.

The only reason to invade Iraq was the oil. When was the war finished
"officially"? What's the situation now? Worse than ever.

You really believe that, huh? It was NOTHING about oil. Or, maybe you
can prove it.

But what does this all have to do with PHP? Bush wouldn't even know how
to spell it.

A curious side note: Our biggest telco "Deutsche Telekom" is known for
ruthlessly protecting their "intellectual properties" and tradamarks,
suing everyone who even thinks about using something colored magenta
(their brand color) or using anything that starts with "T-", because of
their brand names T-Com, T-Mobile, T-Systems etc. They grab all domain
names with "t-" at the beginning - they even own "t-errorist.de" ...

Micha

So?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

ay beecee wrote:

As a programmer, you might be exptected to
associate these events in a more logical way.

Sure, Saddam was a bad guy.
And yes, we were attacked by muslim extremists.
But Saddam was not the only bad guy in the
world, and was not in cahoots with Al Queda.
He did not attack us. There was no Al Queda in
Iraq until after the war started.

Yep, and every major intelligence agency in the world though Saddam had
WMD's - not just the U.S. and Britain, but Russia, France, Germany,
Japan... And that he was not only going to use them against his own
people, he was going to provide them to terrorists to destroy the
western world. He hated us as much as Al Queda does.

We had a golden opportunity to kick ass in Afganistan,
rebuild a country and make some allies. But we scewed
it up bigtime. We gave Osama his best christmas present
possible: the world's greatest recruiting tool,
wrapped in an impossible-to-win civil war.

Sure, and we did it. We didn't screw it up. We got rid of the Taliban
(something which came about because the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan
without completing the job) and got a much better government installed.

Sure, there are still some pockets of resistance - you can expect that
in a country as remote and rugged as Afghanistan, where warlords are
used to not having to answer to anyone, and have been attacking each
other for centuries. But overall it's much more peaceful than before.

Bush is a moron. The only remaining excuse for
starting this war (they've changed motivations a
half a dozen times now) is nation building. By
creating a land-of-milk-and-honey democracy in
Iraq, we will indirectly defeat Al Queda. That's
nation building, which Bush promised we would not do.

Bush finally said "Enough is Enough!". And after defeating a mass
murderer, it's our responsibility to help the people of Iraq rebuild.

Note I said "Help the people of Iraq rebuild". That's just what we're
doing. We're not installing a puppet government. And by taking yet
another haven away from the terrorists, we are defeating them.

And yes, the motivation has changed. I disagree. Rather, the objective
has changed. And that's normal. When you accomplish one objective, you
look at the next one.

And it's a building construction project with little
hope of success. We might be stuck with it now,
whether we like it or not. But it's important to remember
the fools who got us into this mess in the first place.

The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Rik Wasmus]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
<js*******@attglobal.netwrote:

>>Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some
reminders:
[...]

How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?

How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day by
the terrorists.

Which entirely depends on who you call 'terrorists'. It's become a buzz
word to justify a lot of actions that would otherwise not condoned. The
confederates would have called the yanks terrorists and vice-versa. Wether
you agree or disagree with a governments actions, always be very sceptical
about their propaganda.

>What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?

We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.

And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto you
untill the bubble bursts :).

>>Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists
have vowed to destroy our civilization.

There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I
don't
support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.

Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
that means you support terrorism.

That old argument is flawed in so many ways it doesn't even justify an
answer.

But this is getting way to offtopic for me....
--
Rik Wasmus

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:iP******************************@comcast.com. ..

The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.

I guess that statement just about sums up your level of naivete of world
events.

Shelly

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.

Yep, like you were succeeding in Vietnam.
You know the song "Deja Vu" by John Fogerty?

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/jo...ver_again.html

Micha

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:

>.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>>Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:
[...]

How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?

How many innocent civilians?

Not many. Just some millions. Nothing special.

>Far fewer than those killed every day by
the terrorists.

Sure.

>What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?

We've made it safer.

With war. Sure.

Just like we did in WW II.

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely safe after it was all over.

>Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.

ROFLMAO! We finally have a President with enough balls to stand up to
the terrorists.

Elected by courts, not by the people. Started at least two new wars.
Tries to restrict even _our_ European civil rights. Spits on freedom and
personal rights. Failed to support his own people during natural
disasters, at the same time ignores or even suppresses environmental
protection issues. And many more ...

Wow, what a president. You can be really proud of him.

>>If we would have
had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.

Correct. It could be even worse.

Nope, it would be much better.

You mean then the US would even more rule the world than they do now.
Maybe they would already have taken over and "freed" old Europe?

>The only reason to invade Iraq was the oil. When was the war finished
"officially"? What's the situation now? Worse than ever.

You really believe that, huh? It was NOTHING about oil.

Of course it was all just about a little ugly dictator and his WMD toys.
But OK, oil was not the _only_ reason.

>Or, maybe you
can prove it.

You can find enough resources in the web if you _want_ to find them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

And before you laugh at Wikipedia or deny their credibility - there are
more than 150 references for all the claims and statements made in that
article. "Oil" is a major section in it - and it is proved.

I wonder if you really mean what you say or if you're just trolling and
stress testing our irony detectors.

Micha

[ay beecee]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.

.......and a cow jumped over the moon.
and widespread use of global variables makes debugging code easier
and...

[Jerry Stuckle]

Rik Wasmus wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
<js*******@attglobal.netwrote:

>>>Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some
reminders:
[...]
How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?

How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day by
the terrorists.

Which entirely depends on who you call 'terrorists'. It's become a buzz
word to justify a lot of actions that would otherwise not condoned. The
confederates would have called the yanks terrorists and vice-versa.
Wether you agree or disagree with a governments actions, always be very
sceptical about their propaganda.

Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
non-combatants, especially civilians. Those taken against the military,
like the confederates, and yanks, would not be terrorists.

Neither would those fighting the British during the Revolutionary war -
although I think you could call the Boston Tea Party a "terrorist act".

>>What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?

We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.

And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto you
untill the bubble bursts :).

Yea, and we love every minute of it!

>>>Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists
have vowed to destroy our civilization.
There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I
don't
support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.

Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
that means you support terrorism.

That old argument is flawed in so many ways it doesn't even justify an
answer.

But this is getting way to offtopic for me....

No, I say that because he is supporting those who are helping the
terrorists - politically, if no other way.

Those who argue that we need to get out if Iraq before the job is done
are doing just what that terrorists want them to do. They're either too
stupid to realize that, or consciously supporting terrorists. Which is it?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

Michael Fesser wrote:

.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:

>>.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:
[...]
How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?

How many innocent civilians?

Not many. Just some millions. Nothing special.

Yes? And you have some proof of that? Or are you just talking out your
ass? I suspect the latter.

>Far fewer than those killed every day by
the terrorists.

Sure.

>>What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?

We've made it safer.

With war. Sure.

> Just like we did in WW II.

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely safe after it was all over.

Yep, we kicked your buts but good. And the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki saved lives. Estimates were to invade the Japanese homeland
would have cost over 1M lives on each side.

>>Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.

ROFLMAO! We finally have a President with enough balls to stand up to
the terrorists.

Elected by courts, not by the people. Started at least two new wars.
Tries to restrict even _our_ European civil rights. Spits on freedom and
personal rights. Failed to support his own people during natural
disasters, at the same time ignores or even suppresses environmental
protection issues. And many more ...

Sorry, you're wrong again. Every recount, even those taken by the NY
Times and CNN after the election showed that Bush won Florida in 2000.
And he beat Kerry's butt in 2004.

Try again - with some real facts.

And he isn't doing a thing to _your_ European civil rights. And all the
rest of your statements are full of even more crap.

I really suggest you get some facts before you pull your head out of
your ass again.

Wow, what a president. You can be really proud of him.

You're damn right I'm proud of him.

>>>If we would have
had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.
Correct. It could be even worse.

Nope, it would be much better.

You mean then the US would even more rule the world than they do now.
Maybe they would already have taken over and "freed" old Europe?

We rule 50 states and a half dozen territories. That's it. Not Europe,
not Iraq, no place else.

>>The only reason to invade Iraq was the oil. When was the war finished
"officially"? What's the situation now? Worse than ever.

You really believe that, huh? It was NOTHING about oil.

Of course it was all just about a little ugly dictator and his WMD toys.
But OK, oil was not the _only_ reason.

Nope, oil wasn't even part of it. Your ass is talking again.

>Or, maybe you
can prove it.

You can find enough resources in the web if you _want_ to find them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

And you think that's the truth? ROFLMAO. It's ONE PERSON'S (or maybe a
few people's) opinion.

I could write an article in wikipedia saying Michael Fesser is a horses
ass. It would have more creditability that what you're pointing out.

But I forget - you believe everything you read on the internet.

And before you laugh at Wikipedia or deny their credibility - there are
more than 150 references for all the claims and statements made in that
article. "Oil" is a major section in it - and it is proved.

Yep, and how "accurate" are those references? Most are other websites
with just as little credibility.

I wonder if you really mean what you say or if you're just trolling and
stress testing our irony detectors.

Micha

As Lenin once said - "Repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth".
Well, your lies are not going to become the truth.

And hey - I didn't bring up the topic. And no one asked you to stick
your fat ass in here.

If there's anyone who's a troll, it's you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

Shelly wrote:

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:iP******************************@comcast.com. ..

>The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.

I guess that statement just about sums up your level of naivete of world
events.

Shelly

Yep. You just watch.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

Michael Fesser wrote:

.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.

Yep, like you were succeeding in Vietnam.
You know the song "Deja Vu" by John Fogerty?

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/jo...ver_again.html

Micha

Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I suggest
you go back and study your history.

Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.

Crawl back in your hole, troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

ay beecee wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.

......and a cow jumped over the moon.
and widespread use of global variables makes debugging code easier
and...

Just watch.

They already have a democratically elected government. Peace doesn't
come overnight, but we're getting there.

Heck - it took over 30 years after the American Revolution for our
country to settle down. No one in their right mind expects Iraq to do
it overnight.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Rik Wasmus]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:52:49 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
<js*******@attglobal.netwrote:

Rik Wasmus wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
<js*******@attglobal.netwrote:

>>>>Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some
reminders:
[...]
How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and
poverty
because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day by
the terrorists.

Which entirely depends on who you call 'terrorists'. It's become a
buzz word to justify a lot of actions that would otherwise not
condoned. The confederates would have called the yanks terrorists and
vice-versa. Wether you agree or disagree with a governments actions,
always be very sceptical about their propaganda.

Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
non-combatants, especially civilians.

And the use of more and more 'smart weapons' (which are everything but)
has meant almost every military action of the united states could be
classified as terrorist acts. It's sementantics, I grant you. But the word
'terrorism' and everything related has been abused to many times to hold
any kind of justification. Every fighter with no or a not acknowledged
government has been called a terrorist, allthough some independance
struggles (like the Kurds for instance) seem to me entirely justified.

Those taken against the military, like the confederates, and yanks,
would not be terrorists.

There might be a language issue here. The definition here would be "those
who commit violant acts for political gain". (Which would mean almost
every government in the world is a terrorist government incidentally :P)
With todays weaponry, civil casualties always turn out very high.

>>>What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?

We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.

And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto
you untill the bubble bursts :).

Yea, and we love every minute of it!

Don't get me wrong, I love the consuming, we're just more debt-aware for
some reason. The mere existance of credit cards and their huge interest
rates still baffles me.

>>>>Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists
have vowed to destroy our civilization.
There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I
don't
support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.
Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
that means you support terrorism.

That old argument is flawed in so many ways it doesn't even justify an
answer.
But this is getting way to offtopic for me....

No, I say that because he is supporting those who are helping the
terrorists - politically, if no other way.

I see no support whatsoever here. It's the old argument 'if you are not
with us you are against us', which is and has always been a flawed
argument. A disagreement with no interference is perfectly possible.
Actually, it's the way most people and governments disagree: some moaning
without action.

Those who argue that we need to get out if Iraq before the job is done
are doing just what that terrorists want them to do. They're either too
stupid to realize that, or consciously supporting terrorists. Which is
it?

Well, you're committed to Iraq now. I was against it from the start, but
the moment the US decided to invade it they made a commitment to leave it
socially at least as good as it was, preferably better. In Africa the US
has a history of fast military actions, and pulling out before anything
real was accomplished. I certainly hope that allthough the process is
going to be quite long an painfull, they'll ride this one out to the end.
--
Rik Wasmus

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>>Or maybe you want to see IED's along the roads. Maybe you'd like to
see suicide bombers in Times Square. Maybe you'd like to see our
bridges and buildings blown up and our civilians killed.

We've already had a lot of that.
In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.

Yea, right. Name EVEN ONE.

Oh, gosh - you got me. I'm busted. You're right.

Ultra-right wing, White Militant Christians have always been men among
men; the ones to look to for spiritual guidance and heroic virtue.

I doff my Yamulkah to ya on that one.

Sheesh!

[Sanders Kaufman]

Rik Wasmus wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle

>We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.

And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto you
untill the bubble bursts :).

Perhaps the US should change it's slogan from "United We Stand" to "Do
you want fries with that?".

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I suggest
you go back and study your history.

Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.
Crawl back in your hole, troll.

I've noticed that the low-lifes who behaved so poorly during that
illegal war are the same ones who insist the Iraqis must be slaughtered
as well.

I just thank GOD y'all are a dying breed, and that your leaders are
being tried and convicted for what they do.

[Ulf Kadner]

Michael Fesser wrote:

Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.

FULL ACK

So long, Ulf

--
_,
_(_p Ulf [Kado] Kadner
\<_)
^^

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>>>Or maybe you want to see IED's along the roads. Maybe you'd like to
see suicide bombers in Times Square. Maybe you'd like to see our
bridges and buildings blown up and our civilians killed.

We've already had a lot of that.
In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.

Yea, right. Name EVEN ONE.

Oh, gosh - you got me. I'm busted. You're right.

Ultra-right wing, White Militant Christians have always been men among
men; the ones to look to for spiritual guidance and heroic virtue.

I doff my Yamulkah to ya on that one.

Sheesh!

ROFLMAO! You make an outrageous claim, then when you're called on it,
can't even show one example.

It makes all the rest of the crap you espouse even less credible.

You really should learn to think for yourself, instead of letting others
to do the thinking for you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Rik Wasmus wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle

>>We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.

And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto
you untill the bubble bursts :).

Perhaps the US should change it's slogan from "United We Stand" to "Do
you want fries with that?".

Yea, or maybe we should just kill all the idiots like you and make this
world a better place.

"Would you like to be fried with that"?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I
suggest you go back and study your history.

Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.
Crawl back in your hole, troll.

I've noticed that the low-lifes who behaved so poorly during that
illegal war are the same ones who insist the Iraqis must be slaughtered
as well.

I just thank GOD y'all are a dying breed, and that your leaders are
being tried and convicted for what they do.

Got it wrong again, idiot. We never said anything about slaughtering
Iraqis. In fact, we saved them from being slaughtered by a tyrant - one
who was convicted of killing millions of his own citizens.

And by who's definition is this war illegal? Yours? We already know
where your head is. The U.S.? Which laws. The U.N.? Why haven't they
charged us?

Just more bullshit, Sanders.

We are the strongest country in the world because we are the best
country in the world. And unlike your chicken-shit leaders, we will
stand up to terrorists.

Every time you post a message here you're sounding more and more like
the terrorists. So maybe we need to hold you responsible for the
bombings in Madrid, London, New York....

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:

>You know the song "Deja Vu" by John Fogerty?

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/jo...ver_again.html

Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I suggest
you go back and study your history.

I suggest you go back and study the lyrics.

>Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.

The artist _also_ knows first hand about it. Otherwise he wouldn't have
written the song (which BTW was written after the Iraq war began).

Micha

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:

>.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>>How many innocent civilians?

Not many. Just some millions. Nothing special.

Yes? And you have some proof of that? Or are you just talking out your
ass? I suspect the latter.

Of course you do, because offending people is the only you can do. Not
only here, but in nearly every third thread. Everyone who doesn't agree
with you or doesn't want to sleep with your president in his Or^Hval
Office is a troll, an ass hole or something like that.

When God handed out social competence, was it you who shouted the
loudest "Not me, not me!"?

>Try again - with some real facts.

And he isn't doing a thing to _your_ European civil rights. And all the
rest of your statements are full of even more crap.

I really suggest you get some facts before you pull your head out of
your ass again.

As I said - you could find proof if you _want_ to find it (for all the
things I said). There are enough resources available. But of course
since they are just websites written by one person or maybe a few, they
don't have any credibility and are not worth the bytes. In fact the only
real source of truth is whitehouse.gov. Sorry, I should have known that.

Just wondering - if the US would ever get a black president - would he
leave the White House as it is?

>You can find enough resources in the web if you _want_ to find them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

And you think that's the truth? ROFLMAO. It's ONE PERSON'S (or maybe a
few people's) opinion.

I wouldn't call 150 references "a few people's opinions". And obviously
you think that even Amnesty International, Washington Post, CNN, BBC,
CBS, UN and whatever they're called don't have any credibility.

>I could write an article in wikipedia saying Michael Fesser is a horses
ass. It would have more creditability that what you're pointing out.

Of course you can do that, I don't have a problem with that.
Of course you would also have to accept the consequences.

>But I forget - you believe everything you read on the internet.

Obviously you believe everything you see on TV. And just in case you
still live back in the 1850's - even reputable and credible news paper
magazines, scientific articles and such are available on the net. You
just have to know _where_ to search.

>And before you laugh at Wikipedia or deny their credibility - there are
more than 150 references for all the claims and statements made in that
article. "Oil" is a major section in it - and it is proved.

Yep, and how "accurate" are those references? Most are other websites
with just as little credibility.

I knew you would say that.

>And hey - I didn't bring up the topic.

Neither did I. I just can't stand your damn arrogance and egoism.

>And no one asked you to stick
your fat ass in here.

If there's anyone who's a troll, it's you.

Thanks for that, old man. If arrogance would squeak, you would have to
walk around with an oil can all day.

Micha

[The Natural Philosopher]

ay beecee wrote:

>

Bush is a moron.

What took you so long?

[Jerry Stuckle]

Michael Fesser wrote:

.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:

>>.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

How many innocent civilians?
Not many. Just some millions. Nothing special.

Yes? And you have some proof of that? Or are you just talking out your
ass? I suspect the latter.

Of course you do, because offending people is the only you can do. Not
only here, but in nearly every third thread. Everyone who doesn't agree
with you or doesn't want to sleep with your president in his Or^Hval
Office is a troll, an ass hole or something like that.

Yea, right. I call them like I see them. It has nothing to do with not
agreeing with my President. It has everything to do with the likes of
you arguing things like the Russians taking over East Germany and trying
to compare that to the war in Iraq.

But if you don't see the difference, it shows your lack of intelligence.

And people who butt into a thread with that kind of shit are trolls.

OTOH, I don't mind a real conversation with real facts.

When God handed out social competence, was it you who shouted the
loudest "Not me, not me!"?

>Try again - with some real facts.

And he isn't doing a thing to _your_ European civil rights. And all the
rest of your statements are full of even more crap.

I really suggest you get some facts before you pull your head out of
your ass again.

As I said - you could find proof if you _want_ to find it (for all the
things I said). There are enough resources available. But of course
since they are just websites written by one person or maybe a few, they
don't have any credibility and are not worth the bytes. In fact the only
real source of truth is whitehouse.gov. Sorry, I should have known that.

You made the claim. You show the proof. And do it with real facts, not
claims made on some web site.

Just wondering - if the US would ever get a black president - would he
leave the White House as it is?

Another irrelevant remark.

>>You can find enough resources in the web if you _want_ to find them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

And you think that's the truth? ROFLMAO. It's ONE PERSON'S (or maybe a
few people's) opinion.

I wouldn't call 150 references "a few people's opinions". And obviously
you think that even Amnesty International, Washington Post, CNN, BBC,
CBS, UN and whatever they're called don't have any credibility.

Let's see..

Amnesty International - a liberal organization.

The Washington ComPost - a junk paper. I know first hand - I get it
every day. 1/2 the stuff they print about the war and the president is
misleading or just plain wrong.

CNN - another liberal "source" full of inaccuracies - which can be proven.

BBC - no idea, I don't listen to them.

CBS - more of the same.

UN - a bunch of wimps.

For instance - CNN and the NY Times (another liberal paper) did a
complete recount of Florida after the 2000 election. Guess what? Bush
still won. But did they say anything about it? Not a chance.

When you only look at one side, you get a biased opinion. Try the other
side for a change - Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, for instance. Facts
you never hear "reported" by the liberal media.

>I could write an article in wikipedia saying Michael Fesser is a horses
ass. It would have more creditability that what you're pointing out.

Of course you can do that, I don't have a problem with that.
Of course you would also have to accept the consequences.

What consequences? It's on the internet. It must be the truth.

>But I forget - you believe everything you read on the internet.

Obviously you believe everything you see on TV. And just in case you
still live back in the 1850's - even reputable and credible news paper
magazines, scientific articles and such are available on the net. You
just have to know _where_ to search.

Not at all. However, unlike you, I listen to *both sides*. And I've
seen just how "credible" some of your "sources" are.

>>And before you laugh at Wikipedia or deny their credibility - there are
more than 150 references for all the claims and statements made in that
article. "Oil" is a major section in it - and it is proved.

Yep, and how "accurate" are those references? Most are other websites
with just as little credibility.

I knew you would say that.

>And hey - I didn't bring up the topic.

Neither did I. I just can't stand your damn arrogance and egoism.

So? Tough shit. You know what? I really don't give a damn.

>And no one asked you to stick
your fat ass in here.

If there's anyone who's a troll, it's you.

Thanks for that, old man. If arrogance would squeak, you would have to
walk around with an oil can all day.

Micha

And if you needed a brain to go around the world, you wouldn't be able
to get around the block.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

Michael Fesser wrote:

.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:

>>You know the song "Deja Vu" by John Fogerty?

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/jo...ver_again.html

Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I suggest
you go back and study your history.

I suggest you go back and study the lyrics.

>Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.

The artist _also_ knows first hand about it. Otherwise he wouldn't have
written the song (which BTW was written after the Iraq war began).

Micha

So? And what makes him an expert on politics, terrorism or war? He's
just a so-so singer who wrote a song. Hardly what I call credible.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Yea, or maybe we should just kill all the idiots like you and make this
world a better place.

Like you did to Osama, eh?