Skip to content
Weblog About Jim Jim's Resume Discussion Mailing List Search
  You are not logged in Link icon Log in Link icon Join
You are here: Adolfcroft
Twitter Updates
    follow me on Twitter
    Pro Services

    Jim Roepcke specializes in iPhone and Cocoa (Objective-C), WebObjects (Java), and Python.

    • consultation
    • development
    • documentation
    • mentoring

    Contact Jim for more information.

    Python Tutorial

    I presented the Introduction to Python for Plone developers tutorial at the first Plone conference in October 2003. Slides and Video are available to all on the plone.org site.

    Badges

    Proud Member of the ACM

    Proud Member of the Association for Computing Machinery

    RSS reader for Mac OS X

    NetNewsWire: More news, less junk. Faster

    Fantasy Trading of HBWT at:

    Listed on BlogShares

    Site Powered by:

    Site Managed with Conversant

    Design by:

    Powered by Plone
    Blog Directory - Blogged
    Log in
    Name

    Password

     
    I forgot my password; please send me a new one.
     
    Link icon New user?

    Messages in thread: 180.

    Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    Dave Winer: Pearl Harbor, Cuban Missle Crisis, or..? Dave frames a great view of
    Reply
        RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    "On March 2, Hitler was asked by a corespondent of the Daily Express whether the
    Reply
           RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Greg Pierce Politics
    On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 12:58:18 -0500, Donald W. Larson wrote: >Even with the new
    Reply
              RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson None.
    Greg said: The fact that _you_ do not feel threatened really isn't the issue. You're
    Reply
                 RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell None.
    At 01:29 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Don Larson wrote: >1) Comparing the dictatorial
    Reply
                    RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson None.
    Brian said: Why didn't he just ask when Ashcroft was going to stop beating his wife?
    Reply
                    RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Mark Morgan None.
    I really haven't been following this thread but... +1 (again!) in The Game to Dave
    Reply
                 RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    It was mentioned on PI last night that the reason they go for a military tribunal
    Reply
                    RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:12 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Jim wrote: >It was mentioned on PI last night that
    Reply
                       Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 11:20 AM, Brian Carnell wrote: > At 02:12 PM
    Reply
                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Seth Dillingham Politics
    On 12/7/2001 at 2:27 PM, Jim Roepcke wrote: >> Why are military tribunals
    Reply
                             Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Seth said: How about, "Because they have no history or experience trying anything
    Reply
                                Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:43 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Don wrote: >Perhaps you heard of the Nazi and Japanese
    Reply
                             Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 11:30 AM, Seth Dillingham wrote: > On 12/7/2001
    Reply
                                Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jodi Ivy Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 12:39 PM, Jim Roepcke wrote: > On Friday, December
    Reply
                                   Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 11:52 AM, Jodi Ivy wrote: > I'm sort of jumping
    Reply
                                      Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Greg Pierce Politics
    On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 15:03:00 -0500, Jim Roepcke wrote: >If the fact that America's
    Reply
                                         Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 12:07 PM, Greg Pierce wrote: > On Fri, 07 Dec
    Reply
                                            Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 03:17 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Jim Roepcke wrote: > > After making specious
    Reply
                                               Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 12:26 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: > Had they managed
    Reply
                                                  Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 03:33 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Jim wrote: >On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 12:26
    Reply
                                                     Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Brian said: I think Bush made a political mistake on this one. He would have been
    Reply
                                                        Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 03:54 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Don Larson wrote: >I think it's better to have a
    Reply
                                                           Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Brian said: Plus, frankly it makes them look a bit too eager to get around normal
    Reply
                                                              Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 04:16 PM, Donald W. Larson wrote: > What are
    Reply
                                                                 Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Peter said: Are you suggesting that handling prisoners of war is new legal ground?
    Reply
                                                              Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 04:16 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Don Larson wrote: >What are the normal procedures
    Reply
                                                                 Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Brian said: ...from a president who campaigned on the them that he trusted the people,
    Reply
                                                                    Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 04:33 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Don Larson wrote: >And the PEOPLE, by a large majority,
    Reply
                                                                       Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Brian said: I thought Bush was going to govern based on principles, not polls. Brian,
    Reply
                                                                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Seth Dillingham Politics
    On 12/7/2001 at 4:54 PM, Donald W. Larson wrote: >If anyone thinks they can do
    Reply
                                                                             Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Seth said: "But for goodness sake, don't try to change anything through old-fashioned
    Reply
                                                                                Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Seth Dillingham Politics
    On 12/7/2001 at 5:13 PM, Donald W. Larson wrote: >Isn't that part of the elective
    Reply
                                                                                   Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Seth said: I didn't realize you were telling us to either "start a revolution or
    Reply
                                                                                      RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Don - Curious to get your reaction. Have you seen the video of the 2 CIA guys interrogating
    Reply
                                                                                         Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    Hi Richard, I haven't heard about this yet. Where did you see it? Is it available
    Reply
                                                                                            RE: Adolfcroft - 12/8/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    They are showing it on BBC. Someone in the fort had a video camera and when Spann
    Reply
                                                                                               Re: Adolfcroft - 12/8/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 08:47 PM, Richard Knox wrote: > They are showing
    Reply
                                                                                                  RE: Adolfcroft - 12/8/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Independent. 8 December 2001. Video shows CIA threatened to let prisoner be killed.
    Reply
                                                                                                     RE: Adolfcroft - 12/8/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 12:03 AM 12/8/2001 -0500, Richard wrote: Quoting from the Independent: >The
    Reply
                                                                                                        RE: Adolfcroft - 12/8/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    I disagree on this point; new kind of war, new rules. Throw the old rules out since
    Reply
                                                                                               RE: Adolfcroft - 12/8/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 11:47 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, you wrote: >They are showing it on BBC. Someone
    Reply
                                                                                                  RE: Adolfcroft - 12/8/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    Feedroom.com had a report about the video, but not the video itself. Apparently
    Reply
                                                                                         RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Richard said: Don - Curious to get your reaction. Have you seen the video of the
    Reply
                                                                                            RE: Adolfcroft - 12/8/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Don - you're absolutely right. I must admit my prejudice got to me. It seems we
    Reply
                                                                                               RE: Adolfcroft - 12/8/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Richard, Thanks for the explanation and your point of view. Yes, we probably disagree
    Reply
                                                  Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    > On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 12:26 PM, Brian Carnell > wrote: > >>
    Reply
                                                     Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Peter said: Timothy McVeigh was tried in a criminal court. I can imagine another
    Reply
                                            Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Jim said: So what's the difference? Adolfcroft wasn't the Attorney General back
    Reply
                                         Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 03:07 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Greg Pierce wrote: >Many European countries already
    Reply
                                            Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 12:18 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: > At 03:07 PM
    Reply
                                      Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Jim said: And maybe this voting snafu last year will make us realize voting doesn't
    Reply
                                         Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 12:31 PM, Donald W. Larson wrote: > As for buying
    Reply
                                            Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Jim said: The defense rests. Good. Because now the Microsoft monopoly matter in
    Reply
                                            Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Greg Pierce Politics
    On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 15:34:32 -0500, Jim Roepcke wrote: >>As for buying the
    Reply
                                            Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 03:34 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Jim wrote: >One word: Microsoft. > >The defense
    Reply
                                               Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Greg Pierce Politics
    On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 15:41:37 -0500, Brian Carnell wrote: >I wish Microsoft would
    Reply
                                                  Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Greg said: Yea...and life would be a lot simpler for everyone if we could do away
    Reply
                                                     Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 12:59 PM, Donald W. Larson wrote: > We are rapidly
    Reply
                                                        Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Jim said: But now I don't have that luxury. :-( My new apartment faces the wrong
    Reply
                                                           Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 02:01 PM, Donald W. Larson wrote: > Jim said:
    Reply
                                                              Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 03:05 PM, Jim Roepcke wrote: >>> But now
    Reply
                                                                 Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Jim said: It has been suggested this was a joke I didn't get. Um. "ha". Jim, It
    Reply
                                                  Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 03:44 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Greg wrote: >Yea...and life would be a lot simpler
    Reply
                             Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:30 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Seth Dillingham wrote: >How about, "Because they
    Reply
                                Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 11:42 AM, Brian Carnell wrote: > At 02:30 PM
    Reply
                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:27 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Jim Roepcke wrote: > > Why are military tribunals
    Reply
                       Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 02:20 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: > Why are military
    Reply
                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:46 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Peter wrote: >On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 02:20
    Reply
                    RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Jim said: It was mentioned on PI last night that the reason they go for a military
    Reply
                       Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 11:30 AM, Donald W. Larson wrote: > But, short
    Reply
                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:36 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Jim wrote: >The majority are scared shitless. So
    Reply
                             Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 12:00 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: > At 02:36 PM
    Reply
                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Jim, No, just bypass them Jim, The only effort I see to bypass due process is in
    Reply
                       Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    The design of the US government specifically recognizes that the wishes of the majority
    Reply
                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:40 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Peter wrote: >The design of the US government specifically
    Reply
                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Peter said: Just because you're in the majority of people polled yesterday doesn't
    Reply
                             Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Seth Dillingham Politics
    On 12/7/2001 at 3:47 PM, Donald W. Larson wrote: >Just because you're in the
    Reply
                                Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Seth said: I'm with Twain on this one: the majority is almost never right. Seth,
    Reply
                                   Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 04:19 PM, Donald W. Larson wrote: > Seth said:
    Reply
                                   ad hominem - 12/7/2001 - by Seth Dillingham Politics
    On 12/7/2001 at 4:19 PM, Donald W. Larson wrote: >Seth said: > >>I'm
    Reply
                                      Re: ad hominem - 12/7/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 04:30 PM, Seth Dillingham wrote: > http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm
    Reply
                                      RE: ad hominem - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Seth said: Don, please read this: Seth, A great link. What does it have to do with
    Reply
                                      RE: ad hominem - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Seth pointed out a mistake in logic today. He didn't spend enough time tracking
    Reply
                                         Re: ad hominem - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 06:43 PM, Donald W. Larson wrote: > My favorite
    Reply
                                            Re: ad hominem - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 10:40 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, JIm wrote: > > My favorite is:<http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/lanum.htm>.
    Reply
                                               Re: ad hominem - 12/8/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Jim and Brian said: >I feel it's only fair to point out that being critical of the
    Reply
                                         RE: ad hominem - 12/8/2001 - by Seth Dillingham Politics
    On 12/7/2001 at 9:43 PM, Donald W. Larson wrote: >Seth pointed out a mistake
    Reply
                                            RE: ad hominem - 12/8/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Seth said: I responded to that one because the Mark Twain comment was mine. Seth,
    Reply
                       RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:30 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Jim wrote: >Johnny Cochrane: "If the turban doesn't
    Reply
                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 12:23 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: > At 02:30 PM
    Reply
                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 12:23 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: > BTW, Bin Laden
    Reply
                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 03:23 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: > BTW, Bin Laden
    Reply
                             Re: Chewbacca - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 01:31 PM, Peter M. Jansson wrote: > > On Friday,
    Reply
                             Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 04:31 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Peter wrote: >I never read Tony Blair's "presentation
    Reply
                                Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 04:42 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: > Is there enough
    Reply
                                   Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Seth Dillingham Politics
    On 12/7/2001 at 5:05 PM, Peter M. Jansson wrote: >You're probably right, that
    Reply
                                      Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 05:08 PM, Seth Dillingham wrote: > Which is pretty
    Reply
                                   Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 05:05 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Peter wrote: >I'm not really even asking for enough
    Reply
                                      Re: Adolfcroft - 12/9/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Brian Carnell wrote: > The FBI has said that the money trail
    Reply
                                         Opinion of Former Attorney General - 12/10/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Here's a famous US citizen who is less than enamoured with the way the system works.
    Reply
                                            Re: Opinion of Former Attorney General - 12/10/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 11:50 PM 12/9/2001 -0500, Richard wrote: >Here's a famous US citizen who is
    Reply
                                               Re: Opinion of Former Attorney General - 12/10/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    Excuse me Seth: does Brian's argument fall under the category of "ad hominem"? Or
    Reply
                                                  Re: Opinion of Former Attorney General - 12/10/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 01:14 AM 12/10/2001 -0500, Jim wrote: Excuse me Seth: does Brian's argument fall
    Reply
                                                     Re: Opinion of Former Attorney General - 12/10/2001 - by Seth Dillingham Politics
    I think the logical fallacies are mainly to be used for guidelines, and there are
    Reply
                                                        Re: Opinion of Former Attorney General - 12/10/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    I recently did a stint on jury duty, and when I think of listening to the evidence
    Reply
                                                        Re: Opinion of Former Attorney General - 12/10/2001 - by Ed Leafe Politics
    On Monday, December 10, 2001, at 11:14 AM, Seth Dillingham wrote: > I think the
    Reply
                                               RE: Opinion of Former Attorney General - 12/10/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Brian - No doubt Ramsey Clark has wandered over a lot of philosophical ground. Interesting
    Reply
                                                  RE: Opinion of Former Attorney General - 12/10/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 11:51 AM 12/10/2001 -0500, Richard Knox wrote: >Clark has represented a lot
    Reply
                                                     RE: Opinion of Former US Official - 12/11/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Brian - I am sure that you have followed Ramsey Clark closer than I have since he
    Reply
                                                        RE: Opinion of Former US Official - 12/11/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 10:51 AM 12/11/2001 -0500, Richard wrote: >his opinions are supported by the
    Reply
                                                           RE: Opinion of Former US Official - 12/11/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Brian - please excuse me for misquoting you, and I believe I now understand what
    Reply
                                                              RE: Opinion of Former US Official - 12/12/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Richard said: I'm so disappointed with the current state of our government that
    Reply
                                                                 RE: [how] Opinion of Former US Official - 12/12/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Don said: "...I can make the opposite mistake that you claim. I am happy with the
    Reply
                                                     RE: Opinion of Former Attorney General - 12/12/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Brian - you got me curious about Ramsey Clark - went looking on the web and found
    Reply
                                                        Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/12/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Discussion re Bush and the international criminal court. http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=109586
    Reply
                                                           Re: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/12/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Wednesday, December 12, 2001, at 09:27 AM, Richard Knox wrote: > To some in
    Reply
                                                              RE: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/12/2001 - by Greg Pierce Politics
    On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:54:46 -0500, Jim Roepcke wrote: >>To some in Europe
    Reply
                                                                 RE: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/12/2001 - by Seth Dillingham Politics
    On 12/12/2001 at 12:59 PM, Greg Pierce wrote: >Mind you, I'm not pretending to
    Reply
                                                                    RE: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/12/2001 - by Greg Pierce Politics
    On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:06:55 -0500, Seth Dillingham wrote: >>Mind you, I'm
    Reply
                                                                       RE: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/12/2001 - by Seth Dillingham Politics
    On 12/12/2001 at 3:28 PM, Greg Pierce wrote: >>Come on Greg, join the fun,
    Reply
                                                                          RE: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/13/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 04:04 PM 12/12/2001 -0500, Seth wrote: >Brian, do you have a list somewhere
    Reply
                                                                       RE: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/12/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 03:28 PM 12/12/2001 -0500, Greg wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:06:55 -0500, Seth
    Reply
                                                                          Re: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/12/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Wednesday, December 12, 2001, at 05:12 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: >>>>
    Reply
                                                                             Re: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/13/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Jim said: When defending against being called a know-it-all, quoting latin word
    Reply
                                                           Re: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/12/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 12:27 PM 12/12/2001 -0500, Richard Knox wrote: >Senator Jesse Helms was against
    Reply
                                                              Re: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/13/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Brian said: In most criminal systems in the free world, if a jury or judge finds
    Reply
                                                              RE: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/13/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Brian – quick response – limited time. Understand all that follows should be qualified
    Reply
                                                                 RE: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/13/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:47 PM 12/13/2001 -0500, Richard wrote: >D. Double jeopardy ­ absolutely
    Reply
                                                                 RE: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/13/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:47 PM 12/13/2001 -0500, Richard Knox wrote: >4. Whole foundations ­ funded
    Reply
                                                                    RE: [how] Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/13/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Brian - I am sure you are not saying that this treaty is being promoted by left
    Reply
                                                                       RE: [how] Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/14/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Richard said: Lets talk about civil rights. None of these countries allows execution,
    Reply
                                                                          RE: [how] Why Bush should let the US join theinternational criminal court. - 12/14/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Don said: "Unless you know of another Congressional Act giving citizenship to Native
    Reply
                                                                             civil liberties - 12/14/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USApalmerR.htm http://www.webcorp.com/mccarthy/mccarthypage.htm
    Reply
                                                                                Re: civil liberties - 12/14/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 11:44 AM 12/14/2001 -0500, you wrote: >http://www.webcorp.com/mccarthy/mccarthypage.htm
    Reply
                                                                                RE: civil liberties - 12/14/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Those were interesting references. They fail to sway my current thinking. Maybe
    Reply
                                                                                   RE: civil liberties - 12/14/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:03 PM 12/14/2001 -0500, Don Larson wrote: >Those were interesting references.
    Reply
                                                                                      RE: civil liberties - 12/14/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Brian said: When Ashcroft says that people who disagree with him about civil liberties
    Reply
                                                                                      RE: civil liberties - 12/14/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    http://www.truthinjustice.org/salvati.htm
    Reply
                                                                                         Interesting piece of history - 12/14/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/secret_history/index1.shtml
    Reply
                                                                                            Does anyone know the white house spin on this? - 12/14/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/348/nation/Bush_denies_Congress_papers_for _FBI_probe+.shtml
    Reply
                                                                                               Re: Does anyone know the white house spin on this? - 12/14/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 08:07 PM 12/14/2001 -0500, Richard wrote: >Subject: [hbwt] Does anyone know
    Reply
                                                                                                  RE: Does anyone know the white house spin on this? - 12/14/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Brian - help me - take a stab - why are they doing this? What do you suppose xxx
    Reply
                                                                                                     RE: Does anyone know the white house spin on this? - 12/15/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 10:20 PM 12/14/2001 -0500, Richard wrote: >Brian - help me - take a stab -
    Reply
                                                                                            Re: Interesting piece of history - 12/14/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 07:17 PM 12/14/2001 -0500, Richard wrote: >http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/secret_history/index1.shtml
    Reply
                                                                                               RE: Interesting piece of history - 12/14/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Brian - If you haven't read it yet - Body of Secrets - subtitle Anatomy of the Ultra-secret
    Reply
                                                                                                  RE: Interesting piece of history - 12/14/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 10:24 PM 12/14/2001 -0500, Richard wrote: >Brian - If you haven't read it
    Reply
                                                                                                     RE: Interesting piece of history - 12/15/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Brian - Fantastic - I did not know the site existed! "... the documents about faking
    Reply
                                                                                                        US military lands in Philippines - 12/15/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1710000/1710366.s tm
    Reply
                                                                                                           Re: US military lands in Philippines - 12/15/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    On Saturday, December 15, 2001, at 06:30 AM, Richard Knox wrote: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-
    Reply
                                                                                                        Discussion re legitimacy of the tape - 12/15/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,619188,00.html Sean Broughton,
    Reply
                                                                                                           UN VETO 12:1 - 12/15/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=EKVG1BNOVLWEMCRBAEOCFEY KEEARKIWD?type=topnews&StoryID=457176
    Reply
                                                                                                              Re: UN VETO 12:1 - 12/15/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    This is the text of the resolution. The problematic paragraph for the U.S. was the
    Reply
                                                                                                           Re: Discussion re legitimacy of the tape - 12/15/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 09:40 AM 12/15/2001 -0500, Richard Knox wrote: >Mr Broughton said that while
    Reply
                                                                             international law - 12/14/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Is anyone here an expert on internatinal law? If this is true, is it a violation?
    Reply
                                                                                Re: international law - 12/14/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 11:51 AM 12/14/2001 -0500, Richard Knox wrote: >Is anyone here an expert on
    Reply
                                                                                Re: international law - 12/14/2001 - by Peter M. Jansson Politics
    The Taliban are trying to set the terms of surrender in such a way that they will
    Reply
                                                                                RE: international law - 12/14/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Richard said: Is anyone here an expert on international law? If this is true, is
    Reply
                                                                                   RE: international law - 12/14/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 01:57 PM 12/14/2001 -0500, Don Larson wrote: >I think that concept tries to
    Reply
                                                                             RE: [how] Why Bush should let the US join theinternational criminal court. - 12/14/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Richard, Thanks for that extra information. I am better informed now about the citizenship
    Reply
                                                                 RE: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. - 12/13/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 02:47 PM 12/13/2001 -0500, Richard wrote: >Whole foundations ­ funded by
    Reply
           RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 12:58 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Don Larson wrote: >It's considered to be a fact
    Reply
              RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson None.
    Brian said: You really feel safer? I feel safer since the Taliban has been defeated,
    Reply
                 RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Greg Pierce None.
    On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 13:34:33 -0500, Donald W. Larson wrote: >You really feel
    Reply
                    RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson None.
    Greg said: Will the courts eventually sort it out? Hopefully...but I've got concerns
    Reply
                       RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Greg Pierce None.
    On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:39:10 -0500, Donald W. Larson wrote: >The Senate confirms
    Reply
              Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by James Spahr Politics
    rrOn 12/7/01 01:16 PM, "Brian Carnell" <brian@carnell.com> wrote: > You
    Reply
                 Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    James said: I've worked for politicians. I don't trust them. I get a knee jerk reaction
    Reply
                    Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Greg Pierce Politics
    On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:13:52 -0500, Donald W. Larson wrote: >Just to be clear.
    Reply
                       Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Greg said: Democrats, Republicans -- it doesn't matter. They're both just as bad.
    Reply
                          Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 04:05 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Don Larson wrote: >I agree we need campaign finance
    Reply
                             Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Brian said: That's just another form of censorship. I don't want my gov't telling
    Reply
                                Re: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 04:27 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Don Larson wrote: >In some ways I guess the c-word
    Reply
           RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Don - don't you mean the Russians and their allies won WWII? -----Original Message-----
    Reply
              RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Richard said: Don - don't you mean the Russians and their allies won WWII? Richard,
    Reply
                 RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Richard Knox Politics
    Has to do with where the war was fought, how many of that countries people were
    Reply
                    RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Richard said: Has to do with where the war was fought, how many of that countries
    Reply
                 RE: Adolfcroft - 12/8/2001 - by Brian Carnell Politics
    At 08:41 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Don wrote: >It could be told that way too, and be
    Reply
        RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Jim Roepcke Politics
    Weblog page readers: In case you haven't already noticed, the Adolfcroft thread
    Reply
           RE: Adolfcroft - 12/7/2001 - by Donald W. Larson Politics
    Jim said: Weblog page readers: In case you haven't already noticed, the Adolfcroft
    Reply


    July 2009
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
    5 6 7 8 9 10 11
    12 13 14 15 16 17 18
    19 20 21 22 23 24 25
    26 27 28 29 30 31  
    Jun Aug
     
    Sponsors
    Research

    Jim Roepcke is Willing to Fail

    Books

    I'm currently reading:

    I'm currently reading Programming Erlang

    I co-authored:

    I co-authored this book
    This web site copyright 1999-2007, Jim Roepcke. All rights reserved.
     
    Powered by Plone
    This site (ab)uses Plone's default skin, part of the awesome Plone CMS. Plone is Copyright 2000-2007 by Alexander Limi, Alan Runyan, Vidar Andersen.

    Disclaimer etc: Jim Roepcke is not responsible for the content outside of the roepcke.com domain. You do not have permission to republish, syndicate or aggregate any content on this site without express written permission from the owner of this site. You may scrape/index this site only to provide search services, not to repurpose the content, or any other reason. Please contact jim@roepcke.com if you'd like to discuss an exception to this rule.