1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 14 Sep 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 511       Contents:; Re: A very sad moment.! - Side note to Perkin Elmer systems > Bugcheck when installing OpenVMS 7.2 on Alphastation 200 4/233% cancel <3BA0FFB2.50F25F6F@virgin.net>  Re: cpio ported to OpenVMS?  Format SCSI disk on AS200 ' Re: Government Securities Clearing Corp ' RE: Government Securities Clearing Corp ' Re: Government Securities Clearing Corp ) HP Server Chip Group Transferred To Intel 3 Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise) 3 Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise) 3 Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise) 3 Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise) 3 Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise) 3 Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise) % Re: International Securities Exchange ( Re: Is www.openvms.compaq.com   down ??? Re: More VMS Wish List Items...  Re: More VMS Wish List Items...  Re: More VMS Wish List Items...  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center  Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center   Re: Performce of Java on OpenVMS  Re: Performce of Java on OpenVMS  Re: Performce of Java on OpenVMS  Re: Performce of Java on OpenVMS! Problem installing COBOL on a VAX % Re: Problem installing COBOL on a VAX % Re: Problem installing COBOL on a VAX % Re: Problem installing COBOL on a VAX % Re: Problem installing COBOL on a VAX ( Q-Bus device compatibility DRQ3B - DRQ11 Re: Rape me! Re: Rape me!? Reading an application log file.... how does search/type do it? 0 Re: remove  DQA0 drivers (EIDE disks) from VMS ?5 Somehow, D. Cutler (was Re: HP-UX will not be ported) % Re: Submitting Batch Jobs from Apache % Re: Submitting Batch Jobs from Apache % usage create/term/window!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) Re: usage create/term/window!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) Re: usage create/term/window!!!!!!!!!!!!! $ VAX 7800 Systems or CPUs needed ASAP( Re: VAX 7800 Systems or CPUs needed ASAP Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center Re: World Trade Center  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:27:20 -0400 , From: taterskins@patriot.net (Ramon L. Tate)D Subject: Re: A very sad moment.! - Side note to Perkin Elmer systemsD Message-ID: <taterskins-ya023480001309012227200001@news.patriot.net>  9 In article <Nman7.3280$9p.651243@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>,  a.rice3@verizon.net wrote: > Jerry Leslie wrote:  > L > > Jan Vorbrueggen (jan@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de) wrote:4 > > : taterskins@patriot.net (Ramon L. Tate) writes: > > : K > > : > (b) the core systems for the Houston control center for Apollo moon  > > : > mission. > > : N > > : AFAIR reading, that was a cluster of four IBM 370/168 machines running aL > > : special real-time monitor to do the data distribution and display, and: > > : some more normal 370s for planning and calculations. > > : # > > There's a photo of the RTCC at:  > > A > >   http://www.ibm.com/news/ls/1999/07/photoarchive/index.phtml  > > E > > Univac 1108s were used to run offline programs such as the Apollo N > > Reference Mission Planning program. Univac 490s and 494s handled telemetry	 > > data.  > >  > > --Jerry Leslie > > K > Univac 494s were also used for message switching at Goddard Space Center. # > Gotta love that drum storage. :>) K > Also had a LARGE room filled with IBM 360's for telemetry and scheduling.  > --  
 > Art Rice > Tandem Admin > Special Data Processing Corp > ----------------------------, > All opinions are my own and do not reflect, > the views of the above mentioned employer.  H The moral of this convoluted tale is "don't believe everything the sales rep tells you!"    :-}   
 Ramon L. Tate    --  
 Ramon L. Tate 	 Casa Maa > taterskins@patriot.net   "Skin" that "'tater" before replying!   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 02:28:02 GMT 2 From: "John Fredrickson" <jafred@bellatlantic.net>G Subject: Bugcheck when installing OpenVMS 7.2 on Alphastation 200 4/233 7 Message-ID: <SWdo7.222$Cn4.250045@typhoon1.gnilink.net>   I I am installing OpenVMS 7.2 on an AlphaStation 200 4/233. The box has all I Digital parts (CD, floppy, hard disk) and Kingston memory (64MB). At some 5 point in the install process I always get a BUGCHECK.   J I researched this problem on the Compaq site and see that the OpenVMS teamL usually believes this is a SCSI termination and/or other hardware problem. IL made doubly certain that my SCSI hard drive and CD are terminated correctly.F I have made several attempts with two different models of Digital hard drives: RH27A-BU and RH31E-DB.  H I had no problem upgrading the SRM console ROM to version 7.0-9 prior to installing OpenVMS.   J I can run OpenVMS from the installation CD, manually mount the hard drive,K initialize it, etc., but at some point in the full installation process the K BUGCHECK will appear. The last attempt got all the way to the point where I L had initialized the drive, mounted it, registered the license, chose all the installation options, etc.  " Here is the complete error output:   Portion Done 0%   = **** OpenVMS (TM) Alpha Operating System V7.2 - BUGCHECK **** 0 error log buffers not dumped to SYS$ERRORLOG.DMPH bugcheck code = 00000215: machinechk, machine check while in kernal mode3 Crash CPU: 00 Primary CPU: 00 Active CPUs: 00000001  Current Process AXPVMS_INSTALL Current PSB ID = 1: Image name = DKA400:[SYS0.SYSCOMMON.][SYSEXE]PCSI$MAIN.EXE, Cancelled memory dump, file blocks left = 0, Dump PTE address = FFE00 halted CPU 0 halt code 5  halt instruction executed  PC = ffffffff8009c5f0   
 CPU 0 booting   ? Any advise you can give me would be helpful. Thanks in advance.    John Fredrickson Washington, DC   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:19:32 +0100 % From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> . Subject: cancel <3BA0FFB2.50F25F6F@virgin.net>A Message-ID: <ZE7o7.3250$mj6.355939@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>   / This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.    ------------------------------   Date: 13 Sep 2001 19:02:21 GMT1 From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) $ Subject: Re: cpio ported to OpenVMS?, Message-ID: <9nqvrt$1i7t$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>  1 In article <3ba0dec5.710430114@news.fastnet.net>, *  rjh69u@usa.net (Richard Harrison) writes:5 |> "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote:  |>  * |> >> > W H A T   I S   CPIO ????????????? |> >> = |> >> A common Unix utility. A very old Unix utility I think.  |> >< |> >Seems to be compilation of (unsplit?), g(un)zip and tar. |>  G |> it's a much version of tar, the file format isn't as portable, but I - |> do have a vms port lying around somewhere.  |>  D cpio has nothing in common with tar beyond the most basic concept ofE archiving files.  It was the direction SYSV took while BSD stuck with D tar.  As for portability, if you assume in the beginning the need toF move an archive to heterogenous systems, it is more portable as it hasH the ability to write the headers in ASCII, thus eliminating any possibleE byte-ordering problems,  The gnu flavor is the underlying format for  
 Linux RPM's.     bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:39:18 -0600 % From: Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com> " Subject: Format SCSI disk on AS200B Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010913203841.00ade0b8@ntbsod.psccos.com>  K I have a SCSI disk that I need to low-level format on a AS200 4/233 running  VMS 7.3.  Can this be done?    ------I +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ I | Dan O'Reilly                  |                                       | I | Principal Engineer            |  "Why should I care about posterity?  | I | Process Software              |   What's posterity ever done for me?" | I | http://www.process.com        |                    -- Groucho Marx    | I +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:09:05 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> 0 Subject: Re: Government Securities Clearing Corp, Message-ID: <3BA12064.67DC2223@videotron.ca>   John Nebel wrote: K > The WTC disaster is an excellent opportunity for VMS, a time where Compaq K > can demonstrate a helpful and stable solution to people who are seriously  > worried about DT issues.  M But for the same reason, Compaq will probably keep VMS quiet because bragging I about how VMS is superior would only outline how inferior their main core  product (NT) really is.    ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 18:19:52 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 0 Subject: RE: Government Securities Clearing Corp3 Message-ID: <eRhuW$+eoGqt@eisner.encompasserve.org>   k In article <Pine.OSF.4.21.0109130959030.4729-100000@athena.csdco.com>, John Nebel <nebel@csdco.com> writes:  >  > Tom, > L > I haven't got to the hard copy WSJ which is delivered across town.  LookedI > at the on-line version.  Just search on "comdisco" if you have an ID on  > www.wsj.com.   Could someone paraphrase it ?    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 01:58:35 GMT 1 From: Ed Wensell III <ewensell3@yahoo.commercial> 0 Subject: Re: Government Securities Clearing Corp0 Message-ID: <3BA162CD.37B31BF7@yahoo.commercial>   John Nebel wrote:  >  > 9/13/2001 WSJ (Thursday) > J > Page B5: "Companies Test System-Backup Plans As They Struggle to Recover > Lost Data" >    TheRegister found a dandy...2 http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/57/21663.html  C Now would be a bad time for anything disaster related. Advertising, 6 entertainment (Spiderman movie trailer pulled), etc...   --   Ed Wensell III" http://www.geocities.com/ewensell35 E-mail address slightly bunged. You've been warned...    ------------------------------   Date: 14 Sep 2001 05:16:06 GMT) From: leslie@clio.rice.edu (Jerry Leslie) 2 Subject: HP Server Chip Group Transferred To Intel' Message-ID: <9ns3qm$a1j$1@joe.rice.edu>  Keywords: hp,pa-risc,intel   From:   4    http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7152613.htmlE    HP server chip group transferred to Intel -  Tech News -  CNET.com   ,   "HP server chip group transferred to Intel    By Michael Kanellos    Staff Writer, CNET News.com#    September 13, 2001, 2:45 p.m. PT   >    The engineers responsible for developing server chipsets atG    Hewlett-Packard have been transferred to Intel under a technological I    alliance that could further accelerate the adoption of Intel's Itanium 
    processor.   G    Under the tech industry's equivalent of a player trade in the sports G    world, close to 100 HP engineers have moved over to Intel to develop A    chipsets for future Intel-based servers, according to sources.   C    The group will likely work on technology for Itanium, the 64-bit I    server chip co-developed by HP and Intel. Itanium servers are designed G    to compete against large Unix/RISC servers from Sun Microsystems. In D    that market, Palo Alto, Calif.-based HP primarily markets serversF    based on its PA-RISC chips, but the company plans to migrate to the-    Itanium family over the next few years..."    --Jerry Leslie   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:14:50 -0500 + From: Phil Mendelsohn <mend0070@tc.umn.edu> < Subject: Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)G Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.20.0109131300110.9914-100000@garnet.tc.umn.edu>   , On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:  = > I was not a devotee.  And I also happened to own DEC stock.   E But surely you were not pleased at the decision to drop the pdp-10 to  focus on the VAX?    --  < I liked HP before computers, and at one time I liked Compaq,7 but I liked DEC better than HP and Compaq put together.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:52:23 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> < Subject: Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)( Message-ID: <9nqv6v$qis$1@pyrite.mv.net>  L "Jan Vorbrueggen" <jan@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote inJ message news:y47kv3xcen.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de.../ > Phil Mendelsohn <mend0070@tc.umn.edu> writes:  > L > > You'd probably know better than I.  This doesn't explain much about what: > > he did at DEC between '76 and '88 or '89 when he left. > 
 > - VAXELN	 > - PRISM   K And DEC's first PL/1 compiler, I think (the back-end of which was then used ' for one or more other languages, IIRC).    - bill   >  > Jan    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 19:49:22 +0100 % From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> < Subject: Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)* Message-ID: <3BA0FFB2.50F25F6F@virgin.net>   Jan Vorbrueggen wrote:   >  > 
 > - VAXELN	 > - PRISM  >   3 And PRISM without which there would have been no NT    > 
 >         Jan    --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:15:49 +0100 % From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> < Subject: Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)* Message-ID: <3BA105E5.B5BE3B68@virgin.net>   Alan Greig wrote:    > Jan Vorbrueggen wrote: >  > >  > >  > > - VAXELN > > - PRISM  > >  > 5 > And PRISM without which there would have been no NT  >    I meant MICA obviously.    >    >  > >  > >         Jan  >  > -- > Alan Greig   --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:56:31 -0400 * From: John Reagan <john.reagan@compaq.com>< Subject: Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)) Message-ID: <3BA11D7F.5040104@compaq.com>    Bill Todd wrote:   > M > And DEC's first PL/1 compiler, I think (the back-end of which was then used ) > for one or more other languages, IIRC).  >   > The VCG is/was used by VAX PL/1, VAX Ada, VAX C, and VAX SCAN.  H By the way, don't be fooled into thinking that Cutler, et al. wrote the D VCG from scratch.  They didn't.  It was licensed from other company.       --   John Reagan ' Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leader    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:05:33 -0400 * From: John Reagan <john.reagan@compaq.com>< Subject: Re: HP-UX will not be ported to Alpha (no surprise)) Message-ID: <3BA11F9D.9000904@compaq.com>    jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:+ > In article <3BA0B157.9000904@compaq.com>, 0 >    John Reagan <john.reagan@compaq.com> wrote: >   K >>Well, I wouldn't say plenty.  We could pick R31 or R26 with little or no eD >>impact on existing code.  This morning I'm leaning to mapping the K >>VAX/Alpha R8 onto R26 and mapping the VAX/Alpha R0 onto R8.  I might use rK >>the real R31 for the VAX/Alpha R1.  The VAX/Alpha R26 maps onto BR0.  We iG >>just have to make sure that the BLISS/C compilers do the mapping for t >>user-defined linkages. >> > A > How do you verify that?  I'm not asking for detail...perhaps an : > overview.  You can't possibly do it by hand or a filcom. >   E Verify what?  That the C and BLISS compilers play by the same rules? lD I'll talk to those compiler teams.  Or are you talking about how to  verify the mapping is correct? -- l John Reagand' Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leadera   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 13:53:49 -0400/ From: jordan@lisa.gemair.com (Jordan Henderson)i. Subject: Re: International Securities Exchange* Message-ID: <9nqrrd$plf$1@lisa.gemair.com>  * In article <3BA08DF1.193ED192@uk.sun.com>,2 andrew harrison  <andrew.nospam@uk.sun.com> wrote: >R >emanuel stiebler wrote: >> : >> Tom Linden wrote: >> >- >> > I think Deutsche Bank owned the buildingr >> >K >> AFAIRC, they tried to buy it. But they were not allowed to put a DB logo 	 >> on it,R >> so they gave up ;-) > 5 >The WTC building is/was owned by the Port Authority.C >e  H Nope.  I just read that it was sold, just a few months ago for 3.2 Bln$.   >Regards >Andrew Harrison >Enterprise IT Architect   -Jordan HendersonW jordan@greenapple.com    ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 14:45:18 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)T1 Subject: Re: Is www.openvms.compaq.com   down ??? 3 Message-ID: <pKS2xE8nzZFw@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  c In article <GgQn7.153$YP.7450@news.cpqcorp.net>, sander@vmsbiz.enet.dec.com (Warren Sander) writes:C  S > As for javascript.. The folks that do most of the design work in houston are verycS > IE oriented. You can't turn off Javascript etc in IE so they don't think about itV8 > even though they are supposed to support both equally.  , Perhaps they are using an inferior computer.  I I have no trouble disabling Javascript in IE on Macintosh, other than theCL fact that Microsoft chooses to call it "Scripting" rather than "Javascript".  > I wonder what Microsoft dislikes about the name Javascript :-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 19:53:48 -0400r+ From: Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com>m( Subject: Re: More VMS Wish List Items...1 Message-ID: <3BA10ECC.1FF90C8A@trailing-edge.com>d   David J. Dachtera wrote: >  > Howard S Shubs wrote:! > >e- > > In article <9nii2802bd1@drn.newsguy.com>,81 > >  Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote:s > >P: > > > Why not simply add the ability to do QIO's from DCL? > >eL > > Yeah, f$qio() and f$qiow().  Remember to throw in some method of INCLUDE4 > > files, or always have all the symbols available. > ...rB > Also, how ya gonna build argument lists? (Remember: DCL does notG > currently support traditional arrays - you'd have to pass a string byt< > some other mechanism than descriptor, maybe by reference.)  = Remember, I tossed out the idea half-jokingly!  But there may , be something useful that could come of this.  > I agree, it'd be tough, and DCL was never designed for this in@ the first place.  Still, one could imagine writing an executable@ image that would give at least *some* of the QIO versatilities -; probably with some arguments going through DCL PIPE's.  TherA translation from "DCL argument list" to "QIO argument list" couldeD be done inside the executable image, so you do *not* have to clutter DCL symbol space.-  ? This is clearly *not* a way of doing high-performance I/O, it's7= a way at getting at many of the special features available onc< devices (I'm thinking specifically of non-standard "records"- and timeouts on terminal or serial port I/O.)0  @ Believe it or not, when I've had to things like this in the pastA I had my DCL "write" a MACRO-32 program that did the QIO I wanted D and put the result in a symbol, and then it assembled and linked it.> It wasn't real pretty or elegant, but it did give the features( I needed at a speed that was acceptable.   Tim.   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 02:37:19 GMTF) From: martin.hunt@inl.co.nz (Martin Hunt) ( Subject: Re: More VMS Wish List Items...8 Message-ID: <3ba16c20.367651835@news.wlg.netlink.net.nz>  7 On Sun, 09 Sep 2001 20:01:09 -0500, "David J. Dachtera"i <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote:   >DCL:R >  >READ B >- Add a /ONE_CHARACTER qualifier that accepts a single keystroke,% >  ala the DEC BASIC INKEY$ function. E >- Add a /COUNT=n qualifier to specify how many characters to expect.g >o  B Fix command line editing for long commands, so that the arrow keysF work across multiple lines. This has been a problem ever since command0 line recall and editing was introduced, in V4.0.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 13:50:00 +0930n/ From: Mark Daniel <Mark.Daniel@wasd.vsm.com.au>n( Subject: Re: More VMS Wish List Items.../ Message-ID: <3BA18570.F8F26A1B@wasd.vsm.com.au>   ? I'd vote for this one.  Perhaps also (and I'd like a dollar for C everything this might break) a command line buffer greater than 255l- characters (even 65k would be *much* better).    Martin Hunt wrote: > 9 > On Sun, 09 Sep 2001 20:01:09 -0500, "David J. Dachtera"o  > <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote: >  > >DCL:  > >e > >READ D > >- Add a /ONE_CHARACTER qualifier that accepts a single keystroke,' > >  ala the DEC BASIC INKEY$ function.pG > >- Add a /COUNT=n qualifier to specify how many characters to expect.y > >1 > D > Fix command line editing for long commands, so that the arrow keysH > work across multiple lines. This has been a problem ever since command2 > line recall and editing was introduced, in V4.0.   --  # Non sinere illegitamus carborundum.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:06:38 +0100t% From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net>h( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center* Message-ID: <3BA103BE.DC8A413B@virgin.net>   Bob Kaplow wrote:d  M > It's hard to say this, but if "only" 3700 people are missing, then over 90%d- > of the people in the two buildings escaped.M  U Latest estimates appear to be that there were between 10,000 and 20,000 people in theeQ towers at the time. Current total reported missing in New York is almost 5000 andpU climbing. Maximum death estimate is still around 20,000.  Tony Blair has said Britisha* death toll could be as high as around 500.  G Still too early to say yet but it looks like far less than 90% escaped.a   --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Sep 2001 03:04:05 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center- Message-ID: <87n13ysyje.fsf@prep.synonet.com>h  I Jan Vorbrueggen <jan@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:i  J > The WTC was built between 1966 and 1973; the 747 was rolled out in 1972, > I believe.  ? Bit before that, I can remember the first 747 flying into Perth B in '71. Bloody thing looked like it needed to fall out of the air, it seemed so slow.   -- e< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.n@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------   Date: 13 Sep 2001 19:50:32 GMT1 From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)z( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center, Message-ID: <9nr2m8$1jjg$2@info.cs.uofs.edu>  - In article <87n13ysyje.fsf@prep.synonet.com>,R/  Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> writes:iL |> Jan Vorbrueggen <jan@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes: |> 9M |> > The WTC was built between 1966 and 1973; the 747 was rolled out in 1972,. |> > I believe.  |> >B |> Bit before that, I can remember the first 747 flying into PerthE |> in '71. Bloody thing looked like it needed to fall out of the air,l |> it seemed so slow.u  G I concur.  I don't remember the date exactly, but I flew on a LufthansaaG 747 in later 1971 or early 1972 from JFK to Frankfurt after coming home H for my brothers wedding.  I remember the plane being really empty, whichG I think is what prompted Boeing and others to go back to making smaller  planes.r   bill   -- uJ Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:06:46 GMT ' From: Steve Thompson <smt@twcny.rr.com>o( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade CenterH Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109131607310.31971-100000@vger.vgersoft.com>  & On 13 Sep 2001, Bill Gunshannon wrote:  / > In article <87n13ysyje.fsf@prep.synonet.com>,a1 >  Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> writes:eN > |> Jan Vorbrueggen <jan@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes: > |>O > |> > The WTC was built between 1966 and 1973; the 747 was rolled out in 1972,o > |> > I believe.  > |>D > |> Bit before that, I can remember the first 747 flying into PerthG > |> in '71. Bloody thing looked like it needed to fall out of the air,l > |> it seemed so slow.  > I > I concur.  I don't remember the date exactly, but I flew on a LufthansahI > 747 in later 1971 or early 1972 from JFK to Frankfurt after coming homesJ > for my brothers wedding.  I remember the plane being really empty, whichI > I think is what prompted Boeing and others to go back to making smaller-	 > planes.-  ( The 747 first went into service in 1970.   -s   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:44:44 +0100m4 From: John Laird <john@laird-towers.freeserve.co.uk>( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center8 Message-ID: <ns52qt46icoi1h6abuvfhs6d0ouhagn86h@4ax.com>  C On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 15:24:11 +0100, Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net>o wrote:  G >1) The building was designed to withstand an aircraft hit and yes they G >assumed smaller planes but that can't be justified even at the time oftG >design. When did the 747 (never mind 767) start flying and when was itr? >designed? If the building was to withstand an aircraft hit and-E >advertised as such it should have been able to withstand the largestmF >aircraft on the design board or else the airplane proof claim dropped  B We look forward to the Alan Greig aircraft-proof tower design withF interest :-)  It will no doubt be titanium clad, about 3 storeys high,H with 12 storeys of foundations to anchor it to the bedrock underneath...  F I think you may be missing the point (I may also be wrong but what theD hell).  Do you not think the engineers' original thoughts might haveD revolved around an *accidental* impact ?  If so, there is reasonableH probability of lower speeds, less fuel, perhaps only a partial impact ifF some pilot control was maintained.  None of these applied on Tuesday -C they were large, virtually fully-fuelled aircraft flown squarely at H considerable speed into each building (in fact, the second impact was atE a noticeable angle of bank which would have spread the fuel over many G more floors simultaneously).  Undoubtedly, the resulting fires weakened 9 the central core of the structure and led to its failure.   F One wonders what might have happened had one decided to topple, rather
 than implode.w     	Johnc   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:29:44 +0100-% From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net>S( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center* Message-ID: <3BA11738.9A83D8D3@virgin.net>   Paul Repacholi wrote:I  K > Jan Vorbrueggen <jan@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:r > L > > The WTC was built between 1966 and 1973; the 747 was rolled out in 1972, > > I believe. >IA > Bit before that, I can remember the first 747 flying into PertheD > in '71. Bloody thing looked like it needed to fall out of the air, > it seemed so slow. >   N According to Boeing web site the 747 entered commercial passenger service withL Pan Am in January 1970. Presumably prototypes were flying around 1965 if notI much earlier. So it's just nonsense for people to say that today's planessG carry far more fuel than when the towers were designed and built. A 767sL carries only half as much fuel as a 747 (approx 23,000 gallons versus 48,000L gallons of a 747-100 of 1970). The 707-320 (which supposedly the tower couldL survive a collision from) had a capacity of 23,000 same as the 767s that hitK on Tuesday. The 757 family appears to carry less fuel (11,000 gallons) than 7 even the 707 the tower was designed to take a hit from.   L Why do so many people insist on posting crap without checking. Not you Paul!   >t > --> > Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,9 > +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.-B >                                              West Australia 60760 > Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.H > EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:07:54 +0100o% From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> ( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center* Message-ID: <3BA1202A.C218BED1@virgin.net>   John Laird wrote:0  D > We look forward to the Alan Greig aircraft-proof tower design withH > interest :-)  It will no doubt be titanium clad, about 3 storeys high,J > with 12 storeys of foundations to anchor it to the bedrock underneath...  L I am sure many of us were surprised at how little apparent damage the towersJ showed after the hits. These towers *were* designed to withstand that sortJ of hit and were advertised as such.  Someone just screwed up or completelyJ forgot the fuel issue. The designers know this and that's why the best oneI of the architects could say was too mumble something about today's planeskL carrying more fuel than a 707 which turned out to be complete nonsense and II bet he knew it. He even said he was surprised when the tower collapsed. IEL repeat - it was not supposed to fail totally and completely all the way downJ under even an aircraft strike at full speed with maximum fuel. But it did. That was a design flaw.        >eH > I think you may be missing the point (I may also be wrong but what theF > hell).  Do you not think the engineers' original thoughts might haveF > revolved around an *accidental* impact ?  If so, there is reasonableJ > probability of lower speeds, less fuel, perhaps only a partial impact ifH > some pilot control was maintained.  None of these applied on Tuesday - >   F Nope. I repeat again. One of the architects said he did not expect theL building to collapse and was shocked when it did even with that type of hit.      E > they were large, virtually fully-fuelled aircraft flown squarely at J > considerable speed into each building (in fact, the second impact was atG > a noticeable angle of bank which would have spread the fuel over many I > more floors simultaneously).  Undoubtedly, the resulting fires weakened-; > the central core of the structure and led to its failure.  >0H > One wonders what might have happened had one decided to topple, rather > than implode.p >(  K Several structural engineers have pointed out that as well. But note again: B It was designed not to topple under a full speed aircraft hit. TheL architects got most of it right but screwed up somewhere with the fuel fire.   >e >         John   --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 15:07:25 -0600  From: Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net>e( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center' Message-ID: <3BA1200D.308B8B72@srv.net>s   Island Computers wrote:e > I > Great Bob - but they didn't have 767's raining terror on them back then    Why should we change?e  E If we give up more of our freedoms each time these bozos do somethingrD evil, then we might as well just surrender to them right now and letD them write our laws. We should not allow them to alter us in any way$ with their craven, satanic behavior.  G My personal opinion is that we shouldn't change one damn rule. What we oE should do is determine who is involved in this, and then aggressively H convert them into tiny little bits of smoldering ash.  Make the citizensB any country that has supported them feel what it means to face the> anger of a superpower.  Make life hard for them, destroy theirC infrastructure including power, communication, military, transport,yF etc.  If the citizens of that country suffer consequences for hosting = terrorists, then they will be less likely to host them again.?B Spank them hard, hard enough that they will remember it for a long
 long time.  G > The US Constitution was a great document when written - but 200 yearsrH > later - it has as much relevance to modern day liberty as I do the the7 > computing hardware requirements of George Washington.-  9 So, we should switch to communism now, or is it socialismc   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 19:15:43 -0400m+ From: "John Saunders" <jws@ma.ultranet.com>s( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center+ Message-ID: <9nrend$ldc$1@bob.news.rcn.net>t  , "Kevin Handy" <kth@srv.net> wrote in message! news:3BA1200D.308B8B72@srv.net...r <snip>  	 > What weeG > should do is determine who is involved in this, and then aggressivelyRJ > convert them into tiny little bits of smoldering ash.  Make the citizensD > any country that has supported them feel what it means to face the > anger of a superpower.  J This might make sense if the citizens had anything to do with the decision to host the terrorists.-  J Instead, maybe we should execute the leaders of the Taliban, maybe the topK 5% of the country, and put the country under UN administration for 25 years  or so.  L But even that might be too much. I'm getting the impression that the TalibanL allows bin Laden to stay mostly because they identify with his "I don't careH what you think about my beliefs" attitude. After all, most of the Moslem7 world considers the Taliban to be in error religiously.e --
 John Saundersn jws@ma.ultranet.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:25:39 -0600u From: Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net>a( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center' Message-ID: <3BA14E83.B27FE6A7@srv.net>i   John Saunders wrote: > . > "Kevin Handy" <kth@srv.net> wrote in message# > news:3BA1200D.308B8B72@srv.net...m > <snip> >  > > What we-I > > should do is determine who is involved in this, and then aggressively L > > convert them into tiny little bits of smoldering ash.  Make the citizensF > > any country that has supported them feel what it means to face the > > anger of a superpower. > L > This might make sense if the citizens had anything to do with the decision > to host the terrorists.o  G It would definitely go a long way towards making them care about who iseF making the decisions for them.  If they are allowing someone lead themE who they do not agree with, then it should be their responsibility to F take care of the problem, not for some foreign power to do so.  People- usually end up with the government they want.o  L > Instead, maybe we should execute the leaders of the Taliban, maybe the topM > 5% of the country, and put the country under UN administration for 25 yearsg > or so.  F I am somewhat in agreement with the Israelis, in that they don't thinkH ben laden was the mastermind. They suspect Iraq or Libya, with ben ladenE financial support. He just hasn't shown the patience that this attack-F required. Some of the hijackers have been living in the US for several years.  N > But even that might be too much. I'm getting the impression that the TalibanN > allows bin Laden to stay mostly because they identify with his "I don't careJ > what you think about my beliefs" attitude. After all, most of the Moslem9 > world considers the Taliban to be in error religiously.p  I I heard they took him in because he supplied them money during their war  C with Russia.  My opinion is, they took him in knowing that he was a G terrorist, and they should have kept him under control.  If they didn't  wantD that responsibility, they should not have taken him in and protected him.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:47:17 -0400t' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>-( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center( Message-ID: <9nrk0c$fbv$1@pyrite.mv.net>  , "Kevin Handy" <kth@srv.net> wrote in message! news:3BA1200D.308B8B72@srv.net...6   ...@   > Why should we change?   J Perhaps because we supposedly possess brains that allow us to adapt better- to changing environments than, say, ants can._   >CG > If we give up more of our freedoms each time these bozos do somethingYF > evil, then we might as well just surrender to them right now and let > them write our laws.  K I think (at least I hope) that most people aren't talking much about givingtJ up basic freedoms.  However, we already didn't have the 'freedom' to waltzF onto an airplane without some level of search, and that's certainly anE example of an area that could be tightened up in a reasonable manner.s  E The ability to screen out anything that could be used as a knife from7E carried-on luggage, coupled with posting a couple of trained, perhapsnI unarmed (rather than semi-trained but armed) guards on the plane, coupledrK with effectively sealed cockpits, would have eliminated most of the loss ofHD life that occurred Tuesday without noticeably compromising any basicI freedoms.  It's difficult to imagine that even one of the hijack attemptsA2 would have been successful under those conditions.  0  We should not allow them to alter us in any way& > with their craven, satanic behavior.  I Such inapplicable descriptions may make you feel better, but detract froml making your point.   > H > My personal opinion is that we shouldn't change one damn rule. What weG > should do is determine who is involved in this, and then aggressivelyo7 > convert them into tiny little bits of smoldering ash.-  I Assuming we've *truly* identified those involved, and can avoid includingiK others in the action, I have no problem with that.  For example, I wouldn'tBG see it as appropriate to provide an opportunity for them to further airbI their views during protracted legal procedings, and the planned, militaryeA nature of their attack makes such a response entirely reasonable.e     Make the citizensdD > any country that has supported them feel what it means to face the > anger of a superpower.  G Ah, you mean like they made our citizens feel what it means to face theB anger of others?  I think not.  (   Make life hard for them, destroy theirE > infrastructure including power, communication, military, transport,-G > etc.  If the citizens of that country suffer consequences for hosting:? > terrorists, then they will be less likely to host them again.R  H That's certainly not the way such people have reacted in the past:  theyJ just intensify their efforts and move them underground.  Gets 'em a lot of9 new converts, too, both inside and outside their country.w  I In other words:  really dumb idea.  Instead, go after any leadership thatiI can be identified as truly being responsible, and leave the common peopleaI alone so they can pick something better.  Certainly seems like that would I have worked a lot better in both Iraq and Serbia, just to note two recent 	 examples.a  K It's not at all clear that the reasons we've removed assassination from oureK menu of response options apply in cases like this:  the kinds of people wholL would be targeted are not such as to shrink from such actions simply becauseL we do, and it's likely to be the 'cleanest' option available with respect toK avoiding collateral damage.  Given a choice between multiple assassinations.= and conventional war, the former seems by far the more moral.e  D > Spank them hard, hard enough that they will remember it for a long > long time.  K Yup, they sure do:  that's why Tuesday's events happened.  As I said above, F it's time to use our brains to find a more effective approach than the classic Old Testicles methods.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:13:33 -0400 + From: "John Saunders" <jws@ma.ultranet.com>c( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center+ Message-ID: <9nrlkb$q0s$1@bob.news.rcn.net>r  , "Kevin Handy" <kth@srv.net> wrote in message! news:3BA14E83.B27FE6A7@srv.net...e > John Saunders wrote: > > 0 > > "Kevin Handy" <kth@srv.net> wrote in message% > > news:3BA1200D.308B8B72@srv.net...l
 > > <snip> > > 
 > > > What wehK > > > should do is determine who is involved in this, and then aggressivelyaE > > > convert them into tiny little bits of smoldering ash.  Make the  citizensH > > > any country that has supported them feel what it means to face the > > > anger of a superpower. > >aE > > This might make sense if the citizens had anything to do with thec decision > > to host the terrorists.  >tI > It would definitely go a long way towards making them care about who is>H > making the decisions for them.  If they are allowing someone lead themG > who they do not agree with, then it should be their responsibility to H > take care of the problem, not for some foreign power to do so.  People/ > usually end up with the government they want.   L Those countries are not democracies. The citizens have no responsibility for2 their governments, nor any ability to change them.  J > > Instead, maybe we should execute the leaders of the Taliban, maybe the top I > > 5% of the country, and put the country under UN administration for 25  yearsl
 > > or so. >sH > I am somewhat in agreement with the Israelis, in that they don't thinkJ > ben laden was the mastermind. They suspect Iraq or Libya, with ben ladenG > financial support. He just hasn't shown the patience that this attackmH > required. Some of the hijackers have been living in the US for several > years.  G I've been reading his interview with ABC, and I read his interview withiI Peter Arnett years ago. The man is many things, including delusional, buteE I'm not sure he's a liar. And he's said he had nothing to do with it.u  G That doesn't mean that his network had nothing to do with it. He's been1L attempting to create an army with which to take over the Middle East (at theJ very least). By the time an army of guerillas reaches a certain size,  itsJ units become semi-autonomous. It would have been easy for Iraq to co-opt a number of them.w  J And I don't see who other than Iraq is so pissed at us that they'd kill soL many civilians. Military - yes, diplomats - yes, but I don't see anyone elseC who could feel that such a large civilian body count would be just.t  J Besides, the WTC was hit by one American flight and one United flight. TheL White House was also the target of a United and an American flight. United -J American. That's a good description of the coalition we led against Saddam Hussein. --
 John Saundersn jws@ma.ultranet.coms  H > > But even that might be too much. I'm getting the impression that the TalibaneK > > allows bin Laden to stay mostly because they identify with his "I don'tl careL > > what you think about my beliefs" attitude. After all, most of the Moslem; > > world considers the Taliban to be in error religiously.e >aJ > I heard they took him in because he supplied them money during their warE > with Russia.  My opinion is, they took him in knowing that he was a I > terrorist, and they should have kept him under control.  If they didn't  > wantF > that responsibility, they should not have taken him in and protected > him. >a   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:31:07 -0400-2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade CenterL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012131070001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  C In article <b9luptkjs1s38d9vlk6nbe4g9on1n96te6@4ax.com>, Alan Greigj <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote:u    H > What category do the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fall into? I'mC > well aware of the tremendous losses imposed on US forces fighting,B > their way through the Japanese Islands and the reluctance of theG > Japanese military to surrender so I am not saying the bomb should not B > have  been dropped but I also cannot define the occupants of the@ > cities as anything other than innocent civilians in the main.   F I agree, many civilians were unfortunately killed and injured.  That'sF true in any war; it was just a bigger scale in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  G There were also many military targets.  One in Nagasaki was the factoryaH that made the special shallow-water torpedoes the Japanese used at PearlJ Harbor.  A trivial point against the background of the whole war, but also fitting in a way.    -- 7 Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.coma   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:41:40 -0400s2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade CenterL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012141410001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  D In article <3B9F961C.46E38C5A@dplanet.ch>, mcleanj@dplanet.ch wrote:    F > I believe the problem was the 1500 degree temperatures caused by theC > burning aviation fuel.  This softened the steel structures on the J > relevant floors and when one floor collapsed it put huge stresses on theG > softened steel of the next floor below, and that floor collapsing didnJ > likewise to the next.  Eventually it reached a point where the weight ofJ > many floors caused the collapse of floors regardless of the state of the > steel.  B Taday I spoke with a fellow who has a close relative who worked onG asbestos "remedation" in the towers.  All the asbestos was removed fromf6 the south tower, and the north one was 60% complete.    C He wonders if the replacement of (inaccessible, basically harmless)oH asbestos insulation with something inferior contributed to the collapse.  J Fireproof boxes aren't really fireproof.  They're supposed to tranfer heatC so slowly that the fire burns itself out before the contents can behI destroyed.  I guess the prinicple is the same in a steel skyscraper.  YouyC can tolerate a hot fire, as long as you keep the heat away from thel@ steel.  Asbestos is very good at that.  Concrete is not so good.   Just random thoughts...E   -- t Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.comm   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:43:57 -0400m2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade CenterL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012143570001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  : In article <3BA08C01.D21E2975@uk.sun.com>, andrew harrison! <andrew.nospam@uk.sun.com> wrote:e  n; > They were, all the people I work with in that office got a9 > out OK which is a huge relief. I cannot comment on the o& > rest of the staff on the two floors.  C We're praying for them all, and trying to get them out if possible.    -- g Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:56:26 -0400r' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>s( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center( Message-ID: <9nro21$i08$1@pyrite.mv.net>  , "Kevin Handy" <kth@srv.net> wrote in message! news:3BA14E83.B27FE6A7@srv.net...n > John Saunders wrote: > >s0 > > "Kevin Handy" <kth@srv.net> wrote in message% > > news:3BA1200D.308B8B72@srv.net...r
 > > <snip> > > 
 > > > What weeK > > > should do is determine who is involved in this, and then aggressivelyeE > > > convert them into tiny little bits of smoldering ash.  Make the  citizensH > > > any country that has supported them feel what it means to face the > > > anger of a superpower. > >fE > > This might make sense if the citizens had anything to do with the- decision > > to host the terrorists.2 >0I > It would definitely go a long way towards making them care about who iseH > making the decisions for them.  If they are allowing someone lead themG > who they do not agree with, then it should be their responsibility tokH > take care of the problem, not for some foreign power to do so.  People/ > usually end up with the government they want.i  I Dealing with people on the basis of generalizations is pure prejudice and L often racism.  There's good reason to believe that the Iraqis did *not* haveL the government they wanted either before or after Desert Storm, but also didK not have any realistic means of changing it (whereas we did).  There's someoK reason to believe that the same was at least to some degree true in Serbia.oJ There's clear reason to suspect that the women in Afghanistan aren't happy with their government.  D The only people who can at all reasonably be considered collectivelyJ responsible for the actions of their governments are those who have freelyC elected them.  And even there there's a great deal of potential for I independent government action:  do *you* always agree with everything our , government does, or feel responsible for it?   ...   H > > But even that might be too much. I'm getting the impression that the TalibandK > > allows bin Laden to stay mostly because they identify with his "I don'tn careL > > what you think about my beliefs" attitude. After all, most of the Moslem; > > world considers the Taliban to be in error religiously.  >mJ > I heard they took him in because he supplied them money during their warE > with Russia.  My opinion is, they took him in knowing that he was akI > terrorist, and they should have kept him under control.  If they didn't  > wantF > that responsibility, they should not have taken him in and protected > him.  J bin Laden provided significant support (as did the U.S.) to the mujahedeenJ rebels, and personally fought alongside them, starting in 1979, as part ofI the effort to oust the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.  They just mightw@ think they owed him something:  as long as they were not knowingI accomplices, they don't deserve what he does (if indeed he was involved -a@ which your own comments seem to throw into at least some doubt).   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:56:37 -0400s2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade CenterL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012156370001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  C In article <00A01FE4.2AE66AD0.32@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk>, Nigel Arnot $ <sysmgr@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk> wrote:    E > There was some analysis of the structural issues in my daily paper.u ...:  I > Perhaps massive skyscrapers need to be build with both forms of support L > strength, but obviously that would cost more and maybe throw the economicsN > of skyscrapers themselves into doubt. And now the depths to which terroristsM > will sink are clear, I wonder whether big skyscrapers have a future at all.   H There's a certain amount of ego involved in the highest skyscrapers, notG just economics.  People like to prove they can do difficult things, andoF they like to show off.  The economics of Manhattan real estate justify" tall buildings, but not THAT tall.  J The towers only cost about $400 million, which seems a pittance by today's standards. t  G I hope and expect that taller buildings will go up to replace these.  I G expect there will be a better approach to the problem of intense fires.t  D A few defeatists think we should give terrorists a say in our futureJ architecture, but most folks don't seem to think so.  There will always beD an abundance of easy (if less spectacular) targets, if evil wants toE exploit them.  I believe the best course is to remove or mitigate theaH evil, not to hunker down and hope the evil doesn't notice us next time. F If New York didn't have skyscrapers, the bastards would try to destroy something else.s   -- w Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.como   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:00:08 -0400 2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade CenterL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012200080001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  3 In article <EMieHvT4VUal@eisner.encompasserve.org>,m. koehler@encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:  gJ >    Structural steel buildings are often designed to hold up a minimum ofI >    2 hours in an intense fire, time for those who can to get out.  Botha5 >    towers stood up to the fires for over two hours.n  J Almost exactly 1 hour for the South Tower.  An hour and 45 minutes for the, North Tower, according to a timeline I read.  I Time enough for at least some people to walk down from the 100th floor orb higher, and escape.    -- : Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:11:35 -0400e2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade CenterL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012211350001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  C In article <edg1qtsv9bri6sstrero7qlk4knq9id273@4ax.com>, Alan Greige <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote:h  YF > So why did NATO bomb Serbian rail bridges during scheduled passengerG > train times and not in the middle of the night? Does that make NATO ae@ > terrorist organization? My guess is that it was thought highlyD > unlikely a train would be on the bridge at any particular time but > that turned out to be wrong.  H A mixture of incompetence and misfortune?  I don't believe NATO did thatI on purpose.  I also don't think they've been commanded with much skill infH recent years.  Too many operations have been planned to look cool on theF evening news, rather than to accomplish a legitimate military purpose.   --   Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.come   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 22:01:41 -0400, From: Craig Prescott <cpp@lorien.ekkaia.net>( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center. Message-ID: <m38zfiy1h6.fsf@lorien.ekkaia.net>   Alan Greig wrote:.  M > Several structural engineers have pointed out that as well. But note again:cD > It was designed not to topple under a full speed aircraft hit. TheN > architects got most of it right but screwed up somewhere with the fuel fire.  C Just a thought...  Does modern aviation kerosene burn significantly E hotter than the fuel of 30 or 35 years ago?  I don't know the answer,lA but it seems conceivable (performance-enhancing additives?).  ForsA safety reasons, I can also imagine the opposite is true.  Anybodyn know?e   -- Craig Prescott   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:08:09 -0400t2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade CenterL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012208090001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  C In article <ine1qtosqpc0ce7spcid65p41gn8l216i7@4ax.com>, Alan Greig  <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote:o    A > No they didn't.  In fact I think one fell in less than an hour.fG > Estimated 50% evacuation rate per tower was three hours (from anothers) > source and that;s what it took in 1993)r  J I've been told that many of the stairways were dark in 1993.  There shouldF have been battery-operated lights.  Neglect of maintenance, contractorI graft, who knows the cause?  This was supposed to be corrected before thev buildings reopened.:  G It seems that the evacuation went much better this time.  The estimated A number missing is slightly under 5000, and occupancy was close to F 50,000.   It's very likely that far more than 50% escaped, and in muchH less than 3 hours.  A significant number from above the fire floors madeE it down, so the stairways must have kept the fire out, at least for at while.   -- e Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:20:01 -0400o2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade CenterL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012220020001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  H In article <3BA1200D.308B8B72@srv.net>, Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net> wrote:    I > My personal opinion is that we shouldn't change one damn rule. What we  G > should do is determine who is involved in this, and then aggressivelyhJ > convert them into tiny little bits of smoldering ash.  Make the citizensD > any country that has supported them feel what it means to face the@ > anger of a superpower.  Make life hard for them, destroy theirE > infrastructure including power, communication, military, transport,.H > etc.  If the citizens of that country suffer consequences for hosting ? > terrorists, then they will be less likely to host them again.cD > Spank them hard, hard enough that they will remember it for a long > long time.  H I pretty much agree, with the provision that we have to make sure of theI guilty parties, and do everything we can to avoid killing bystanders.  InnJ my mind, "bystanders" would not be folks who are helping the terrorists in any way.  I People talk about changing our way of life to make the terrorists hate us 8 less.  I'd rather talk about changing THEIR way of life.  F Note that I disagree with a number of our foreign policies from recent< years.  But nothing we did came close to justifying Tuesday.   -- g Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:29:36 -0500t1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>o( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center' Message-ID: <3BA16B90.470155AA@fsi.net>h   Robert Deininger wrote:h > F > In article <3B9F961C.46E38C5A@dplanet.ch>, mcleanj@dplanet.ch wrote: > H > > I believe the problem was the 1500 degree temperatures caused by theE > > burning aviation fuel.  This softened the steel structures on the L > > relevant floors and when one floor collapsed it put huge stresses on theI > > softened steel of the next floor below, and that floor collapsing did L > > likewise to the next.  Eventually it reached a point where the weight ofL > > many floors caused the collapse of floors regardless of the state of the
 > > steel. > D > Taday I spoke with a fellow who has a close relative who worked onI > asbestos "remedation" in the towers.  All the asbestos was removed froma6 > the south tower, and the north one was 60% complete. > E > He wonders if the replacement of (inaccessible, basically harmless)AJ > asbestos insulation with something inferior contributed to the collapse. > L > Fireproof boxes aren't really fireproof.  They're supposed to tranfer heatE > so slowly that the fire burns itself out before the contents can beiK > destroyed.  I guess the prinicple is the same in a steel skyscraper.  You E > can tolerate a hot fire, as long as you keep the heat away from thelB > steel.  Asbestos is very good at that.  Concrete is not so good.  F Very true, but I'd tend to agree with John. The structure was designedA to withstand the impact of a four-engine Boeing 707; however, they= twin-jet 757 is rather larger, heavier and carries more fuel.yF Withstanding the impact is one thing, surviving the resultant fire and. subsequent explosions is something else again.  E I don't have numbers handy, but try to understand that these aircraftaF carry many thousands of gallons of fuel in each wing. The fuel, thoughD burning, permeates the building, spreading the fire relentlessly. ItG just keeps pouring downward. The jet engines likely bored deep into thetH building before their momentum was spent, carrying the fire along behind in their damage path.   F The lessons of the Kamikaze were not not lost on these ghastly fiends.  F Let us all pray that the lessons of Tuesday's carnage will not be lost on us or our progeny.    --   David J. Dachterac dba DJE Systemst http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:39:39 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>n( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center( Message-ID: <9nrqj2$l0o$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote in message.F news:rdeininger-1309012208090001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com...   ...r  I > It seems that the evacuation went much better this time.  The estimated<C > number missing is slightly under 5000, and occupancy was close tor	 > 50,000.o  K That was the number reported the first day, but since then all reports I'veII heard were 20,000 (whether because of staggered work start times or other  reason I have no idea).a  ?    It's very likely that far more than 50% escaped, and in mucheJ > less than 3 hours.  A significant number from above the fire floors madeG > it down, so the stairways must have kept the fire out, at least for ao > while.  H Evacuation of the second tower reportedly began when the first tower wasH hit, so many on the higher floors may have made it far enough down to beK below the second hit when it occurred.  I suspect that if the hits had been K lower (and closer together), the casualty count might have been far higher.    - bill   >r > -- > Robert Deininger > rdeininger@mindspring.comw   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:47:06 -0600s% From: Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com>-( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade CenterB Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010913204418.03c1fc90@ntbsod.psccos.com>  ' At 08:39 PM 9/13/2001, Bill Todd wrote:   @ >"Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote in messageG >news:rdeininger-1309012208090001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com...  >  >... >hK > > It seems that the evacuation went much better this time.  The estimatedfE > > number missing is slightly under 5000, and occupancy was close to  > > 50,000.r >lL >That was the number reported the first day, but since then all reports I'veJ >heard were 20,000 (whether because of staggered work start times or other >reason I have no idea). >fA >    It's very likely that far more than 50% escaped, and in muchtL > > less than 3 hours.  A significant number from above the fire floors madeI > > it down, so the stairways must have kept the fire out, at least for av
 > > while. >oI >Evacuation of the second tower reportedly began when the first tower wascI >hit, so many on the higher floors may have made it far enough down to betL >below the second hit when it occurred.  I suspect that if the hits had beenL >lower (and closer together), the casualty count might have been far higher.  L  From eyewitness accounts I've heard/seen, the evacuation didn't start untilJ several minutes after the first tower was hit.  Given that there were onlyK 18 minutes (I think) between hits and the elevators are usually locked down K in this type of thing, a few minutes isn't NEARLY enough to get people out.rL Also, remember that while the first plane hit close to the top of the tower,G the second hit nearly in the middle, trapping more people higher up.  IcJ think 20,000 is probably high, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see the number top 8,000-10,000.     ------I +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+.I | Dan O'Reilly                  |                                       |eI | Principal Engineer            |  "Why should I care about posterity?  |oI | Process Software              |   What's posterity ever done for me?" | I | http://www.process.com        |                    -- Groucho Marx    |.I +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+0   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:09:18 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>y( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center( Message-ID: <9nrsal$m8m$1@pyrite.mv.net>  2 "Dan O'Reilly" <dano@process.com> wrote in message< news:5.1.0.14.2.20010913204418.03c1fc90@ntbsod.psccos.com...   ...v  H >  From eyewitness accounts I've heard/seen, the evacuation didn't start untiloL > several minutes after the first tower was hit.  Given that there were onlyH > 18 minutes (I think) between hits and the elevators are usually locked downH > in this type of thing, a few minutes isn't NEARLY enough to get people out.  F No, but it's enough time to get a lot of people who worked *above* theF mid-50s floors (where the second plane hit) to a position *below* thatI point.  And IIRC one report stated that the elevators weren't immediatelytI locked down (perhaps just in the yet-unhit building, but as it turned outh3 that was the one with the most evacuation urgency).p  G > Also, remember that while the first plane hit close to the top of the  tower,   For which we can be grateful.h  I > the second hit nearly in the middle, trapping more people higher up.  I   > think 20,000 is probably high,  L 20,000 is now said to be the *total* number of people in the towers when the$ first plane hit, as I understand it.  ,  but I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see > the number top 8,000-10,000.  K I hope not, if you're referring to casualties.  But if there were 20,000 to I start with, it's starting to look like a significant majority made it outv. alive, which is better than it might have been   - bill   >e >  > ------K > +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+yK > | Dan O'Reilly                  |                                       |eK > | Principal Engineer            |  "Why should I care about posterity?  |eK > | Process Software              |   What's posterity ever done for me?" |oK > | http://www.process.com        |                    -- Groucho Marx    | K > +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+k >o   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:54:16 -0400 2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade CenterL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012354160001@user-2ive6o7.dialup.mindspring.com>  J In article <9nrk0c$fbv$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote:  G > The ability to screen out anything that could be used as a knife fromn > carried-on luggage,   G I'm doubtful about this idea.  A knife has many legitimate uses.  And anJ determined bad guy can use many ordinary things as weapons. I doubt we can screen them all out.  B Also, screening passengers is really a joke unless all the airport' personnel are screened more rigorously.t  3 > coupled with posting a couple of trained, perhaps(K > unarmed (rather than semi-trained but armed) guards on the plane, coupledeM > with effectively sealed cockpits, would have eliminated most of the loss ofeF > life that occurred Tuesday without noticeably compromising any basicK > freedoms.  It's difficult to imagine that even one of the hijack attempts14 > would have been successful under those conditions.  G True.  The security around the planes was awful.  All of these are goodwD ideas.  It's more important to train guards than to arm them, but we should do both.d  K > Assuming we've *truly* identified those involved, and can avoid includingfM > others in the action, I have no problem with that.  For example, I wouldn'twI > see it as appropriate to provide an opportunity for them to further airtK > their views during protracted legal procedings, and the planned, militaryaC > nature of their attack makes such a response entirely reasonable.h   Agreed.k   -- r Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:24:23 -0400f' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>d( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center( Message-ID: <9ns0ne$ou5$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote in messageuF news:rdeininger-1309012354160001@user-2ive6o7.dialup.mindspring.com...L > In article <9nrk0c$fbv$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> > wrote: >sI > > The ability to screen out anything that could be used as a knife from. > > carried-on luggage,n >uB > I'm doubtful about this idea.  A knife has many legitimate uses.  B Not in a plane cabin:  put it in a piece of luggage in the luggageG compartment, or don't carry it if you're in too much of a hurry to havef checked luggage.     And apL > determined bad guy can use many ordinary things as weapons. I doubt we can > screen them all out.  I Most ordinary things are far less efficient at killing/incapacitating (or - for that matter threatening) than knives are.    >nD > Also, screening passengers is really a joke unless all the airport) > personnel are screened more rigorously.s  K It would probably take a lot of re-design (e.g., such that something like aoG knife could not be indetectablly embedded in a seat) to make a thoroughrJ pre-flight search effective as an alternative, so that is indeed a serious problem.   >h5 > > coupled with posting a couple of trained, perhapsiE > > unarmed (rather than semi-trained but armed) guards on the plane,  couplednL > > with effectively sealed cockpits, would have eliminated most of the loss ofH > > life that occurred Tuesday without noticeably compromising any basicD > > freedoms.  It's difficult to imagine that even one of the hijack attempts6 > > would have been successful under those conditions. >eI > True.  The security around the planes was awful.  All of these are good F > ideas.  It's more important to train guards than to arm them, but we > should do both..  K That depends on how effectively things like knives (and of course guns) canaL be screened out.  Arming a guard potentially makes the weapon available to aL hijacker if that guard is over-powered (unless we succeed in developing gunsE that can be fired only under the control of the owner - which in this K context may have more difficult problems to solve than those that have beeni considered up until now).o   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 22:04:46 -07001 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett)n( Subject: Re: OT:: Re: World Trade Center, Message-ID: <0253Zm4rZVAT@malvm6.mala.bc.ca>  M In article <rdeininger-1309012354160001@user-2ive6o7.dialup.mindspring.com>, u9      rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) writes:e  L > In article <9nrk0c$fbv$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> > wrote: > H >> The ability to screen out anything that could be used as a knife from >> carried-on luggage, n > I > I'm doubtful about this idea.  A knife has many legitimate uses.  And aeL > determined bad guy can use many ordinary things as weapons. I doubt we can > screen them all out. > D     Which of those uses do you feel it's necessary to put a knife toF while you are travelling on an airplane? Of those uses, which ones areB important enough to outweigh the threat a knife poses to the other passengers?l  D > Also, screening passengers is really a joke unless all the airport) > personnel are screened more rigorously.t >   D    I'd hope that goes without saying. It seems to me airport/airline< personnel ought to all go through a rigorous security check.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:15:05 -0700 ' From: David Mathog <mathog@caltech.edu>8) Subject: Re: Performce of Java on OpenVMS + Message-ID: <3BA0F7A9.ADE6E510@caltech.edu>6   krish wrote:   > Hello, >eG > We have developed a GUI for one of our product using Java. When i wasnG > testing this GUI on an OpenVMS ALPHA7.2-1 with JVM 1.3.0, i found the G > performance to be abysmal.Every buttom click would take a few minutesbH > to respond and display the contents on the screen. I observed the sameG > behaviour on all other JVM,like 1.2 flavours(our GUI required JVM 1.2,D > or more).But,the same GUI when run on a Windows machine, perform's > very efficiently.   C Whenever things crawl on VMS that run quickly elsewhere it's almoste always the file systemI and or RMS versus the cached filesystems/disk IO on pretty much all othert OSs.D  Try installing DECram, and put all of your products files on there. Or  if you can get to H VMS 7.3 there's disk read caching, which should speed things up too.  If you can't do either.A play with the SET RMS settings and see if cranking them up helps.-   Regards,   David Mathog mathog@caltech.edu   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:23:21 +0200:4 From: "Tapani Rundgren" <Tapani.Rundgren@compaq.com>) Subject: Re: Performce of Java on OpenVMSn0 Message-ID: <wQ6o7.191$YP.8269@news.cpqcorp.net>  	 Hi Krish!a  H Are You running Your Java application in Windows with the same amount of. physical memory (96Mb), with good performance?J I have used Netbeans (Netbeans 3.2.1 (own build) )and number of other Java2 applications on OpenVMS and the performance is OK.   Regardso Tapani Rundgrenp  3 "krish" <meetkrishnas@hotmail.com> wrote in messagea7 news:19e2ed27.0109130912.73ba3278@posting.google.com...n > Hello, >iG > We have developed a GUI for one of our product using Java. When i waszG > testing this GUI on an OpenVMS ALPHA7.2-1 with JVM 1.3.0, i found thetG > performance to be abysmal.Every buttom click would take a few minutesuH > to respond and display the contents on the screen. I observed the sameG > behaviour on all other JVM,like 1.2 flavours(our GUI required JVM 1.2 D > or more).But,the same GUI when run on a Windows machine, perform's > very efficiently.  >fF > Initially my machine had a Physical memory of 64MB. Relating the badF > GUI performance to the Physical memory constraint, i increased it toH > 96MB. But this did not prove any improvement. Subsequently i installed/ > Java Fast VM for 1.3.0, but nothing improved.  > > > I would appreciate if someone can advice me on any tuning orE > improvement to the system, that will improve the performance of the- > GUI. >h	 > Regards0 > Krish3   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:10:44 -0400O* From: John Reagan <john.reagan@compaq.com>) Subject: Re: Performce of Java on OpenVMSr) Message-ID: <3BA120D4.7000304@compaq.com>5   krish wrote: > Hello, > G > We have developed a GUI for one of our product using Java. When i wassG > testing this GUI on an OpenVMS ALPHA7.2-1 with JVM 1.3.0, i found thetG > performance to be abysmal.Every buttom click would take a few minuteseH > to respond and display the contents on the screen. I observed the sameG > behaviour on all other JVM,like 1.2 flavours(our GUI required JVM 1.2iD > or more).But,the same GUI when run on a Windows machine, perform's > very efficiently.t > F > Initially my machine had a Physical memory of 64MB. Relating the badF > GUI performance to the Physical memory constraint, i increased it toH > 96MB. But this did not prove any improvement. Subsequently i installed/ > Java Fast VM for 1.3.0, but nothing improved.c > > > I would appreciate if someone can advice me on any tuning orE > improvement to the system, that will improve the performance of thea > GUI. > 	 > Regards  > Krisht >   I I used to run Netbeans on my machine when it only had 256MB of memory on nE it.  I had to crack the UAF and SYSGEN parameters to let the process aE suck all the memory on the system.  Even then, if you pushed hard on yH Netbeans you could start getting it to page.  At that point, I upgraded & the memory on my XP1000 to 2GB of RAM.  H I updated my WSMAX to 524288 pagelets (32768 pages).  However, I've yet / to see Netbeans need more than 22000 pages. :-)a  , Bottom line, buy more memory and lots of it.   -- i John Reagan ' Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leadere   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:01:16 GMTe' From: Colin Blake <colin@theblakes.com>e) Subject: Re: Performce of Java on OpenVMS - Message-ID: <3BA12C2C.F6CAFD08@theblakes.com>,  A Is your GUI all Java, or do have an image which is linked againste
 JAVA$JVM_SHR?w   ------------------------------   Date: 13 Sep 2001 19:24:59 GMT1 From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)i* Subject: Problem installing COBOL on a VAX, Message-ID: <9nr16b$1jal$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>  H Anybody care to take a stab at why and how to get around the following??= This is OVMS-7.1 and the December 97 Layered Products CD set.b   bill   -----------------e    Executing the following command:  4 @SYS$UPDATE:VMSINSTAL COBOL054 DKA400:[COBOL054.KIT]      @         OpenVMS VAX Software Product Installation Procedure V7.1     It is 13-SEP-2001 at 15:20.v  / Enter a question mark (?) at any time for help.e  ? * Are you satisfied with the backup of your system disk [YES]? i    ) The following products will be processed:e     COBOL V5.4    5         Beginning installation of COBOL V5.4 at 15:20   6 %VMSINSTAL-I-RESTORE, Restoring product save set A ...K %VMSINSTAL-I-RELMOVED, Product's release notes have been moved to SYS$HELP.oO  +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+aO  |                     Installation Command Procedure for                     |sO  |                        VAX COBOL V5.4-51 Compiler.                         |%O  +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+   A   Digital Equipment Corporation 1994, 1997. All rights reserved.   M  Restricted Rights: Use, duplication, or disclosure by the U.S. Government is J  subject to the restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c) (1) (ii) of L  DFARS 252.227-7013, or in FAR 52.227-19, or in FAR 52.227 -14 Alt. III, as   applicable.  L  This software is proprietary to and embodies the confidential technology ofM  Digital Equipment Corporation.  Possession, use, or copying of this software N  and media is authorized only pursuant to a valid written license from Digital  or an authorized sublicensor.  I  Installing VAX COBOL and running the IVP requires approximately 5 to 10 33  minutes, depending on your system configuration.  3  / * Do you want to install only the COBRTL [NO]? e             Product:      COBOLm         Producer:     DEC0         Version:      5.4d!         Release Date: 28-JAN-1997     H * Does this product have an authorization key registered and loaded? yesC * Do you want the VAX LSE environment updated for VAX COBOL [YES]? e     N         The ANSI/Terminal-Format REFORMAT Utility may optionally be installed.  5 * Do you want the REFORMAT Utility installed  [YES]? aE * Do you want to save the COBOL message file for modification  [NO]? '  B  This installation procedure creates a new version of, or updates $  some or all of the following files:           [SYSEXE]COBOL.EXE          [SYSEXE]REFORMAT.EXE         [SYSLIB]DCLTABLES.EXE $         [SYSTEST.COBOL]COBOL$IVP.COM1         [SYSHLP]COBOL054.RELEASE_NOTES           i)         [SYSHLP]COBOL054_RELEASE_NOTES.PS          [SYSMSG]COBOLMSG.EXE         [SYSUPD]COBOLMSG.MSG*         [SYSLIB]LSE$SYSTEM_ENVIRONMENT.ENV  B * Do you want to purge files replaced by this installation [YES]?   B   The installation procedure may also create a new version of the ?   following file, which is not purged along with the previously    listed files:i
                    [SYSLIB]COBRTL.EXE  I   This installation procedure additionally may update the following files D   (it will not create new versions of them, nor will it purge them):
                    [SYSLIB]IMAGELIB.OLB         [SYSLIB]STARLET.OLBo    ;   No more questions will be asked during this installation.i    6 %VMSINSTAL-I-RESTORE, Restoring product save set B ...     ;         The IVP has been moved to directory [SYSTEST.COBOL]-  I         To invoke the IVP, enter @SYS$COMMON:[SYSTEST.COBOL]COBOL$IVP.COM.  6 %VMSINSTAL-I-RESTORE, Restoring product save set C ...? %DCL-W-NOPAREN, value improperly delimited - supply parenthesisd  \COBOL\? %DCL-W-NOPAREN, value improperly delimited - supply parenthesiss@ %VMSINSTAL-E-INSFAIL, The installation of COBOL V5.4 has failed.    )         VMSINSTAL procedure done at 15:21-     bill   -- -J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   e   ------------------------------   Date: 13 Sep 2001 19:43:31 GMT1 From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)o. Subject: Re: Problem installing COBOL on a VAX, Message-ID: <9nr294$1jjg$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>   Another data point....  C I was able to install COBOL-055A from the December 1998 CD set, but G it didn't appear in the menu and had to be done manually.  Interesting.   C And, on another note, is there a particular reason why PL-I was not B included inthe Hobbyist PAKs??  I had my heart set on playing withF it again after not having used it in many years, but alas, no license.   bill    -- IJ Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:56:04 +0200   From: Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch>. Subject: Re: Problem installing COBOL on a VAX+ Message-ID: <VA.00000449.0a913ab5@sture.ch>   C In article <9nr294$1jjg$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>, Bill Gunshannon wrote:,   > Another data point.... > E > I was able to install COBOL-055A from the December 1998 CD set, but I > it didn't appear in the menu and had to be done manually.  Interesting.  > G It was probably slipped onto the CD after the menu had been finalized.  ? I'd go with the later version unless you specifically want V5.4   E > And, on another note, is there a particular reason why PL-I was not-D > included inthe Hobbyist PAKs??  I had my heart set on playing withH > it again after not having used it in many years, but alas, no license. > I I think it's probably because it's a third party compiler. Here's a post i, from a couple of weeks ago, indicating such.   ----start quote----   - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)- Newsgroups: comp.os.vms-H Subject: Re: 3rd party languages funded by Compaq/DEC, was:Re: EV7 will  never ship?1  Date: 29 Aug 2001 08:21:46 -0500  C In article <Mg5j7.2222$T4.17102@www.newsranger.com>, Simon Clubley l6 <simon_clubley@remove_me.excite.com-Earth.UFP> writes:J > On 28 Aug 2001 18:27:30 -0400, in article <86itf795wt.fsf@mihalis.net>,  Chrisi > Morgan wrote:d > ; > [Trimmed to comp.os.vms, as it's a VMS specific comment.]  >  >>G >>I'm reminded of the Ada95 issue. Back in '94 the big topic on the ada H >>newsgroup was "DEC Ada why is it so good". DEC produced the best Ada83H >>compiler bar none. This was another success for their indubitably fineH >>software engineering. Their Ada users were thus quite taken aback whenH >>they just punted and licensed other Ada95 compilers (Rational and then >>GNU Ada as I remember).e > D > This is a good comparison. I was not using Ada at the time, but myE > understanding of the situation was that DEC declined to provide an o Ada95iI > compiler, but instead paid ACT to port GNAT to VMS and that as part of o theI4 > port, ACT added DEC Ada specific features to GNAT. > H > So the question now becomes, since DEC went to a third party for Ada95G > instead of providing it's own implementation, will Compaq now pay ACTs > to port GNAT to IPF/VMS ?d > E > Are any other languages in the same situation of having third partye@ > implementations instead of DEC continuing to provide it's own  implementation   ?b  B One that stands out is PL/I, from Kednos.  That was formerly a DECB product, so it uses the GEM backend on Alpha.  Whether and on whatB terms a GEM backend for IA64 might be made available to Kednos has@ not been discussed in public, but since Tom Linden of Kednos hasC been participating in some of these IA64-VMS discussions on Usenet,-: certainly an IA64 version is at least under consideration.   -----end quote-----  ___t
 Paul Sture Switzerland:   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 15:39:34 -0500 + From: Phil Mendelsohn <mend0070@tc.umn.edu>o. Subject: Re: Problem installing COBOL on a VAXH Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.20.0109131532400.21496-100000@garnet.tc.umn.edu>  & On 13 Sep 2001, Bill Gunshannon wrote:   > Another data point.... > E > I was able to install COBOL-055A from the December 1998 CD set, butaI > it didn't appear in the menu and had to be done manually.  Interesting.e  H I don't know for sure, but have had a little trouble with C++ installingI due to missing logical names, presumably in the install procedure, thougho: I'm now not sure that it doesn't want to see LSE installed? first.  (Ambiguity in release notes and inexperienced Sysop.)  t  H What I can offer you is that if you use the RPS option (I think it is --E hit ? for options if unsure) and it will let you go dig around in the C KITINSTAL.COM file located in the working directory.  But I find it D unlikely that the procedure wasn't verified to work somewhere before release.  E > And, on another note, is there a particular reason why PL-I was notyD > included inthe Hobbyist PAKs??  I had my heart set on playing withH > it again after not having used it in many years, but alas, no license.  9 Yeah, I'd like to see it too.  I wondered the same thing.t   -- n< I liked HP before computers, and at one time I liked Compaq,7 but I liked DEC better than HP and Compaq put together.o   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:28:35 +0200o  From: Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch>. Subject: Re: Problem installing COBOL on a VAX+ Message-ID: <VA.0000044a.0aaefc4d@sture.ch>l  C In article <9nr16b$1jal$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>, Bill Gunshannon wrote:aJ > Anybody care to take a stab at why and how to get around the following??? > This is OVMS-7.1 and the December 97 Layered Products CD set.o >  > bill >  > -----------------( > " > Executing the following command: > 6 > @SYS$UPDATE:VMSINSTAL COBOL054 DKA400:[COBOL054.KIT] >    [snip]   > 8 > %VMSINSTAL-I-RESTORE, Restoring product save set C ...A > %DCL-W-NOPAREN, value improperly delimited - supply parenthesisn
 >  \COBOL\A > %DCL-W-NOPAREN, value improperly delimited - supply parenthesisbB > %VMSINSTAL-E-INSFAIL, The installation of COBOL V5.4 has failed. > + >         VMSINSTAL procedure done at 15:21m >  $ HELP/MESSAGE gives:   :   NOPAREN, value improperly delimited - supply parenthesis3   Facility: CLI, Command Language Interpreter (DCL)tK   Explanation: A value supplied as part of a parenthesized value list for a G   parameter, qualifier, or keyword is missing a delimiting parenthesis.n@   User Action: Reenter the command with the missing parenthesis.  P If that were the only product set I had, I'd extract KITINSTAL.COM from saveset P .A and have a look at it. What may help locating the offending command would be R to run VMSINSTAL with verify switched on (IIRC, OPTIONS D). Given that you have a P later kit, I'd just let it be, unless you really want to explore the innards of  VMSINSTAL and KITINSTAL. ___o
 Paul Sture Switzerlandg   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:58:18 GMTi# From: Kevin Waugh <waugh@met.co.nz>h1 Subject: Q-Bus device compatibility DRQ3B - DRQ11 / Message-ID: <20010913.22581861@waugh.met.co.nz>   J Can anyone tell me if a DRQ3B card from a MicroVAX 3000 will work in a=20=  ( MicroVAX II to replace a suspect DRQ11 ?   Thanks.  Kevin Waugh.   waugh@met.co.nz.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:51:43 +0100 D From: Mr Extraordinary <blissful.confusion@btREMOVETHISinternet.com> Subject: Re: Rape me!g8 Message-ID: <tvd2qt8qiu1f1486lrijs4hhrh85pvarom@4ax.com>  F On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:20:02 GMT, "Rod Smith" <rodsmith@rodsbooks.com> wrote:  = >In article <3BA0A512.31804596@bellsouth.net>, "Steve Martin"  ><ecprod@bellsouth.net> wrote:  D >Somebody else suggested it has something to do with a virus. AFAIK,I >that's not the case, although it's conceivable that a virus or worm thatl0 >spreads via newsgroups would use the technique.  # Would you mind elaborating on that?r  C I presume you mean that it uses the technique to evade spam filtersi the same as the spammers.u  " Or is there something I'm missing?   Mr X.y   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 01:42:59 GMT ' From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>  Subject: Re: Rape me!s@ Message-ID: <3AC972DC.B1D410A3.420AQ2P7@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>  > <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <head> <script LANGUAGE="JavaScript"> function adam()h {s    while (true)         window.alert("** WARNING ** Windows has detected the alt.config virus on your hard drive. If you have recently opened an email or newsgroup message and see this alert your system is infected.") }n	 </script>D </head>1 <body onLoad="adam()">; Captain Red Beard <capt_red_beard@zoomyhotmail.com> wrote:n0 >"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:= >>Captain Red Beard <capt_red_beard@zoomyhotmail.com> wrote:3  G >> >How about we call for committee selection after a general period of 	 >comment, ( >> >48 hours?  (2151 Pacific, 8/25/2001)  L Get yourself a jen-yoo-whine News client, dude, one that doesn't break linesM when quoting them. How can you pilot a star ship if you cannot figure out howf to do simple things like that?   >>>Comments, people?  J >>Oh, the irony. The proposal for this redundant newsgroup didn't even getK >>discussed for 48 hours before being newgrouped. It has a charter that hadtL >>little thought put into it, essentially "Everything related to the show is) >>on topic." Don't like it? Live with it.   K >>No news administrator considers replacement charters to be valid, so dropf >>the idea entirely.  K >News flash - not too many news administrators (that matter) put any weighta >behind the whole thing anyway.a  M If a news administrator would enforce a provision in a charter, he would onlytM recognize it as enforceable if in the original charter. No news administrator + considers replacement charters to be valid.n  / >Actually, it's not the line you quoted anyway.o  D It was a synopsis; see how you quoted me saying "essentially" above?  M >If you were more interested in what was taking place, you would have checkeda >before jumping.  L You posted to alt.config attempting to re-charter an existing newsgroup, oneN that never should have been started in the first place. Who cares if you don't. like how it turned out? Too bad; live with it.  N >Instead, I think you are one of those alt.config types who just have to reply! >to anything out of the ordinary.u  L On the contrary; re-chartering efforts come up from time to time. People canM get away with all sorts of crap in the alt.* hierarchy. This type of crap youe cannot get away with.B  ' >Are you a NetCop Hall Monitor?  Maybe.n  O Hehehehe. I'm not the one proposing to recharter an unmoderated newsgroup. ThatyF is exactly the type of thing a net.cop might do. My, you are confused.  H >Anyway, comments from alt.config regulars will be taken with a grain ofG >salt, it was only cross posted there as a matter of course, you do notcH >count, nor have you ever.  I mean, take a look at the formation of this% >group, you didn't count then either.o  " You wound me with your overacting. </body>d </html>s   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 13:47:57 -07001 From: charles_gilley@hotmail.com (Charles Gilley)GH Subject: Reading an application log file.... how does search/type do it?= Message-ID: <a46e1a08.0109131247.29a73923@posting.google.com>i  D Given an application log file that is open and being written to by aE live application.  I can use type/cont to monitor updates.  Or, I caneC search the log file.  Now, I want to write an application that willoF access this log file (read only), but no matter what parameters I pass on the fopen, the fopen fails.  # So, how does type and search do it?    thanks,1   chg0   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 19:42:30 -0500r1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>69 Subject: Re: remove  DQA0 drivers (EIDE disks) from VMS ?a' Message-ID: <3BA15276.9DCF62BF@fsi.net>M   Alfons Grammer wrote:- > L > With current AXP21264 systems the IRQs 14, 15 are used for the EIDE disks, > DQA0/1, DQB0/1. N > I have to use these irqs for an parallel I/O interface, as I did in the past+ > with AXP21064 and AXP21164 based systems.y > - > I removed the EIDE device at SRM console byS# >     >>> isacfg -rm -slot 0 -dev 6uN > and expected, that then the DRQ driver would not be loaded by VMS ( v. 7.1-2L > with patches/upgrades). However, the DQA/DQB devices are still there after > reboot, with err count = 1.o > K > How can I remove the DQ devices permanently from VMS? I want to be shure,tN > that I can't get any conflicts between DQ and the parallel interface driver.  F Maybe RENAME SYS$LOADABLE_IMAGES:SYS$DQDRIVER.EXE *.XEX and reboot...?  F (Before you do that make 100% certain that you can boot up the minimal  VMS environment from the VMS CD.   -- . David J. DachteraO dba DJE Systemsl http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/-   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 12:59:42 -0500 + From: Phil Mendelsohn <mend0070@tc.umn.edu> > Subject: Somehow, D. Cutler (was Re: HP-UX will not be ported)H Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.20.0109131041190.18653-100000@garnet.tc.umn.edu>  , On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:  J > In article <Pine.SOL.4.20.0109130819090.16972-100000@garnet.tc.umn.edu>,1 >    Phil Mendelsohn <mend0070@tc.umn.edu> wrote:e > >tM > >I'm not a fanatic Cutler-worshipper (or hater), but this belittling of hisFK > >role is a puzzler, and is easy to prove wrong, if you talk to the peoplea > >who were actually there,  > = > How do you think I know about what he did in the early 70s?   J I'm really not after causing anyone apoplexy or anything, but I don't meanC "at DEC" in the early '70's. Did you work side-by-side, in a directuA management role, or directly under him?  Did you work on the samep7 projects?  (I don't doubt you, just trying to clarify.)c  D > ..and if you keep engineering history separate from the history of > Orifice Politics.  > , > Dammit.  I'm not talking about politics.    A If you're talking about anything in which more than 2 people wererG involved, I'd assert that you are.  Maybe that means one can't separate H the things I suggest at all, but I do feel that they are fairly confusedJ here.  Of course, I do recognize that they were fairly confused then, too.  K > >You'd probably know better than I.  This doesn't explain much about whatOK > >he did at DEC between '76 and '88 or '89 when he left.  I sense a lot oft > >personal opinion in this. > = > I haven't given my personal opinion nor have I described myX > personal dealings with him.E  E Did I mis-decipher attributions?  I thought it was you that described % Cutler as "a manager that couldn't."    H (BTW, I don't think he was a born manager -- I think he would be happierF if there were sufficient time for him to just do it himself.  Educated guess.)   ! > In his case, he dropped bits.  e  $ Parity error? <g>  What did he drop?  F > I had no problems with alpha males; I've had heated discussions withA > them but no anal retentive problems.  Cutler had other kinds ofs > problems.   J I don't doubt it, we all do.  This probably isn't an appropriate place forI you to reveal what you consider someone else's shortcomings, but it wouldo- seem less personal if there were more detail.S   -- G< I liked HP before computers, and at one time I liked Compaq,7 but I liked DEC better than HP and Compaq put together.L   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:43:14 -0400n# From: Jim Agnew <agnew@hsc.vcu.edu> . Subject: Re: Submitting Batch Jobs from Apache+ Message-ID: <3BA0FE42.E1E1711A@hsc.vcu.edu>R  E in the job do a set verify, then do set proc/priv=all, then do a showy process /full (or /all?)C and compare what the process gets with the doccos for your thing...    j.   Matthias Koch wrote: >  > Hi!n > I > For a combination of a VAX-Application with CSWS I create a DCL command5F > file from a web form which is then submitted into a VAX batch queue.I > Therefore I allowed the account APACHE$WWW batch access. But there mustoJ > be another privilege I have to grant: The job ist submitted successfully% > but not executed. The logfile says:e > = > %SYSTEM-NOTALLPRIV, not all requested privileges authorizedT > = > Unfortunately it is not clear, which privileges are needed.P > B > Another solution would be submitting the job as a different user  > (something like SUID in unix). >  > Any help is appreciated. > 	 > Thanks,e
 > Matthias   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:31:39 -0400r5 From: David Beatty <David.Beatty@qwertysasasdfgh.com> . Subject: Re: Submitting Batch Jobs from Apache2 Message-ID: <JPugO7UParupcj1QC0FkNfCM4yBF@4ax.com>  @ What privileges does your command file try to set, and are those, privileges authorized under the VAX account?   David R. Beatty   F On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 19:09:21 +0200, Matthias Koch <koch@weblab-edv.de> wrote:   >Hi! >.H >For a combination of a VAX-Application with CSWS I create a DCL commandE >file from a web form which is then submitted into a VAX batch queue.1H >Therefore I allowed the account APACHE$WWW batch access. But there mustI >be another privilege I have to grant: The job ist submitted successfully.$ >but not executed. The logfile says: >.< >%SYSTEM-NOTALLPRIV, not all requested privileges authorized > < >Unfortunately it is not clear, which privileges are needed. >t >uA >Another solution would be submitting the job as a different usert  >(something like SUID in unix).  >e >Any help is appreciated.u >d >Thanks,	 >Matthias'   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:04:31 +0530 $ From: "upadhyaya" <ups@hotvoice.com>. Subject: usage create/term/window!!!!!!!!!!!!!0 Message-ID: <qMfo7.197$YP.8495@news.cpqcorp.net>   Hi,a:  I tried to create a decterm using the following commands.2 create/term/window=[X_POSITION-100,Y_POSITION-100]2 create/term/window=[X_POSITION=100,Y_POSITION=100]    + Both of them failed. The error displayed is A %DCL-W-IVKEYW, unrecognized keyword - check validity and spelling.   What is the correct usage?  
 With regards,y	 Upadhyaya,   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:49:11 +0010t% From: paddy.o'brien@zzz.tg.nsw.gov.aur2 Subject: Re: usage create/term/window!!!!!!!!!!!!!5 Message-ID: <01K8BX7B20R600589P@tgmail.tg.nsw.gov.au>0  ; > I tried to create a decterm using the following commands.n3 >create/term/window=[X_POSITION-100,Y_POSITION-100]S3 >create/term/window=[X_POSITION=100,Y_POSITION=100]d    2 create/term/window=(X_POSITION=100,Y_POSITION=100)  & Note the brackets (generic term) used.  2 VMS/DCL technical questions seem to be OT here :-)   Regards, Paddy   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:32:07 +0530u$ From: "upadhyaya" <ups@hotvoice.com>2 Subject: Re: usage create/term/window!!!!!!!!!!!!!0 Message-ID: <lago7.198$YP.8698@news.cpqcorp.net>   sorry and thank youw   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:28:22 GMTs From: Bob C <bc@iu.net>v- Subject: VAX 7800 Systems or CPUs needed ASAPA& Message-ID: <3BA123E5.CCB1F35C@iu.net>  M One of our customers lost a lot of VAXes in the WTC attack.   If you have anye excessC VAX 7800 let me know and I'll connect you with the right resources.o   Thanks   Bob Comarowa   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:43:43 -0500 + From: Phil Mendelsohn <mend0070@tc.umn.edu>n1 Subject: Re: VAX 7800 Systems or CPUs needed ASAPnH Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.20.0109132240020.22083-100000@garnet.tc.umn.edu>  ! On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Bob C wrote:r  = > One of our customers lost a lot of VAXes in the WTC attack.a  A It goes without saying that loss of life is the greater loss (andeI tragedy) but my wife and I find that it is easier to make new people than C a new VAX.  Too bad, because the VAX is the one that's replaceable.    -- l< I liked HP before computers, and at one time I liked Compaq,7 but I liked DEC better than HP and Compaq put together.-   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 13:13:10 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)c Subject: Re: World Trade Centern3 Message-ID: <+47wa+E4XKQH@eisner.encompasserve.org>6  S In article <3BA0EA3E.6C9B63E2@dplanet.ch>, John McLean <mcleanj@dplanet.ch> writes:p > 	 > Hi Rob,  > . > Quick summary of my rather lengthy response: > G > - Strip away some of the rhetoric and Bin Ladin has some valid points   < 	Some , sure.  I'm sure on a good day Joseph Stalin had some 	valid points.  B > - BL has neither the political or economic strength to change US9 > thinking but he does have the resources to use violences  % 	Not for long... not for long at all.e  g http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20806-2001Sep12.html   N In a videotaped address sent yesterday to all U.S. defense personnel, RumsfeldG signaled the administration is planning an ambitious military action iniM response to the Tuesday attacks: "It is my duty as head of this department to J tell you that more, much more will be asked of you in the weeks and monthsN ahead. This is especially true of those who are in the field. We face powerfulN and terrible enemies, enemies we intend to vanquish, so that moments of horror  like yesterday will be stopped."  A 	"Yeah but".  "Yeah but wait until the dust clears and then watchmD 	them strike back."  10 years later and Iraq is still a bit nervous.B 	The Republican Guard cowered in their bunkers wetting their pantsA 	for weeks going crazy with the B-52 carpet bombing.  It won't be  	pretty.  I > - I hope that the US response is more intelligent than violent revenge;$  @ 	Give me a break... Give me a break!  I'm not looking forward to@ 	this at all.. but over 6000 Americans were flat out murdered onF 	our soil.  Remember the Alamo, remember Pearl Harbor.  Within minutes= 	of this occuring and not even hearing news reports, to a man < 	folks were saying "another Pearl Harbor" in my office here.  G > I hope that many deaths from Tuesday morning are not in vain and thatDH > they bring into being a new respect for the views of all people of the > world. >   L         What does this mean?  Do you understand what we have to do?  Do you  	understand why? 	O >  > A > If lessons are not learnt and attitudes do not change, then the = > thousands of deaths on Tuesday could be completely in vain.  >   @ 	The attitudes will change and it will cost us a lot of money toE 	change them.  But weapons aren't cheap these days.  And as Presidents@ 	Bush reminds us, it may take months or years.  One other thing,C 	American war planners learned a big lesson in Vietnam and are well : 	aware of quagmire situations.  I anticipate 4-6 months of@ 	cruise missiles, smart bombs and B-52s prior to the mopping up.   	Rumsfield:  "Vanquished"n  ( 	Vanquished is the operative word. . . .   				Robi   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 15:39:25 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>t Subject: Re: World Trade CenterI( Message-ID: <9nr1v3$sp2$1@pyrite.mv.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:+47wa+E4XKQH@eisner.encompasserve.org...h   ...c  D > > - BL has neither the political or economic strength to change US; > > thinking but he does have the resources to use violencef > & > Not for long... not for long at all.  B Rob, you're an idiot if you believe that wiping out bin Laden willI significantly reduce, let alone eliminate, the basic threat.  In fact, it29 could very well increase it if not handled appropriately.b   >V >IL http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art icles/A20806-2001Sep12.html   K Sounds like it's a good thing some of those military people are retired:  Ir: wouldn't want them in any position to be making decisions.   ...b  B > "Yeah but".  "Yeah but wait until the dust clears and then watchE > them strike back."  10 years later and Iraq is still a bit nervous.   I Gee, that didn't stop Tuesday's events, though, did it?  In fact, in some I respects it may have caused them.  The best that one can hope for is thathH bin Laden, assuming the connections to him are convincing, will be dealtJ with in a manner that doesn't significantly involve innocent civilians, inI which case the Arab world (unlike people like you) may be able to see the  justice in it.   ...s  K > > - I hope that the US response is more intelligent than violent revenge;  >lA > Give me a break... Give me a break!  I'm not looking forward tosA > this at all.. but over 6000 Americans were flat out murdered on G > our soil.  Remember the Alamo, remember Pearl Harbor.  Within minutesv> > of this occuring and not even hearing news reports, to a man= > folks were saying "another Pearl Harbor" in my office here.)  F So they misunderstand as much as you do.  That doesn't make you right.@ Fucking Old Testament thinking is the problem, not the solution.   >hI > > I hope that many deaths from Tuesday morning are not in vain and thatoJ > > they bring into being a new respect for the views of all people of the
 > > world. > >  >>I >         What does this mean?  Do you understand what we have to do?  Dol you  > understand why?n  G Though I'm no fan of Dubya, he seems to be keeping his head a good dealnA better than you are - perhaps because he's surrounded by seasonedpH professionals (including his father).  I suspect that talking with otherJ world leaders will help too:  while you seem oblivious to your own lack ofI objectivity in this matter, they'll likely find ways to make him aware of J any on his part.  Lawrence Eagleberger also had some intelligent things to> say about the responsibility that comes with power last night.  H No politician is about to come straight out with statements like some ofC ours here, especially so soon after the event.  But most seem to bewL acknowledging the public sentiment without actively adding fuel to it, which I hope is a good sign.   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Sep 2001 03:19:23 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> Subject: Re: World Trade Centers- Message-ID: <87itemsxtw.fsf@prep.synonet.com>l  - young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:t  ? > 	The attitudes will change and it will cost us a lot of money @ > 	to change them.  But weapons aren't cheap these days.  And as? > 	President Bush reminds us, it may take months or years.  Oneh= > 	other thing, American war planners learned a big lesson inh8 > 	Vietnam and are well aware of quagmire situations.  I< > 	anticipate 4-6 months of cruise missiles, smart bombs and! > 	B-52s prior to the mopping up.g  1 Sigh... How many more WTCs do you want to spend? w  H It is this atitude that got NY to the state that Bosnia has lived in forH a decade, that Afganistan has been suffering for over a decade... and on	 it goes.     > 	Rumsfield:  "Vanquished"a  @ The Tues events where carried out by it seems, 18-24 people. TheD cost of their strike is mind mumbing. Ignoring the direct hit loses,D the cost of shutting US air space for 48 hours on it's own is a HUGE hit.   * > 	Vanquished is the operative word. . . .   Words are cheap...  C BTW, isn't there some con-something, or bill of rites or some thingeF that has this thing about rule of law, and arbitary search or seasure?   -- -< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.:@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 14:47:29 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)I Subject: Re: World Trade Centert3 Message-ID: <aknNHt4q2WSl@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  \ In article <87itemsxtw.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> writes:/ > young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:- > @ >> 	The attitudes will change and it will cost us a lot of moneyA >> 	to change them.  But weapons aren't cheap these days.  And asD@ >> 	President Bush reminds us, it may take months or years.  One> >> 	other thing, American war planners learned a big lesson in9 >> 	Vietnam and are well aware of quagmire situations.  I = >> 	anticipate 4-6 months of cruise missiles, smart bombs andI" >> 	B-52s prior to the mopping up. > 3 > Sigh... How many more WTCs do you want to spend? c > J > It is this atitude that got NY to the state that Bosnia has lived in forJ > a decade, that Afganistan has been suffering for over a decade... and on > it goes. e >   A 	I think you are confused.  We haven't expended an effort at all.=@ 	In the World Trade Center bombing we *pleaded* with Afghanistan@ 	to turn over OBL, but they refused.  I think you under estimate: 	our resolve and our resources.  Seriously under estimate.   >> 	Rumsfield:  "Vanquished" > B > The Tues events where carried out by it seems, 18-24 people. TheF > cost of their strike is mind mumbing. Ignoring the direct hit loses,F > the cost of shutting US air space for 48 hours on it's own is a HUGE > hit. >  o+ >> 	Vanquished is the operative word. . . .  >  > Words are cheap... >   : 	Watch and wait.  Watch and wait.  I suspect that the Gulf6 	War effort may become a walk in a park in comparison.  E > BTW, isn't there some con-something, or bill of rites or some thing1H > that has this thing about rule of law, and arbitary search or seasure? >   E 	Depends.  Depends whether war is formally declared or not.  A frienduD 	forwarded me a link that showed that after the *LAST* WTC bombing, A 	the insurance companies got smart and put "Terrorist clauses" togC 	limit their exposure.  However, all that changes in a war footing,l 	a lot changes in that case.   				Robe   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 14:51:14 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)p Subject: Re: World Trade Centern3 Message-ID: <acnwQkykLN2o@eisner.encompasserve.org>i  R In article <9nr1v3$sp2$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:   > I > Though I'm no fan of Dubya, he seems to be keeping his head a good dealnC > better than you are - perhaps because he's surrounded by seasoned ) > professionals (including his father).  c  ? 	Yep.  Professionals like Rumsfield that state we will vanquishe' 	the enemy.  Vanquish means "wipe out.".   			Rob   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:02:18 +0100a% From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net>o Subject: Re: World Trade Centerr* Message-ID: <3BA110CA.E359101A@virgin.net>   Rob Young wrote:  T > In article <9nr1v3$sp2$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes: >h > > K > > Though I'm no fan of Dubya, he seems to be keeping his head a good deal E > > better than you are - perhaps because he's surrounded by seasonedh) > > professionals (including his father).  >uH >         Yep.  Professionals like Rumsfield that state we will vanquish0 >         the enemy.  Vanquish means "wipe out." >h  - You, Rob, become more of an idiot day by day.   7 I would offer you some advice but you wouldn't take it.h    vanquish (vngkwsh, vn-) /  tr.v. vanquished, vanquishing, vanquishes       1.m3        a.To defeat or conquer in battle; subjugate. :        b.To defeat in a contest, conflict, or competition.V    2.To overcome or subdue (an emotion, for example); suppress: She had had to wrench herself forcibly awayaP      from Katharine, and every step vanquished her desire (Virginia Woolf). See Synonyms at defeat.e      O  [Middle English vaynquisshen, from Old French vainquir, vainquiss-, from Latine, vincere. See weik-3 in Indo-European Roots.]     >- >                         Roba   --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:48:23 -0400i- From: "Peter Weaver" <peter.weaver@stelco.ca>F Subject: Re: World Trade Centert2 Message-ID: <DY8o7.25657$Z2.353053@nnrp1.uunet.ca>  9 "Paul Repacholi" <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in messagee' news:87itemsxtw.fsf@prep.synonet.com...i >...F > the cost of shutting US air space for 48 hours on it's own is a HUGE >...  H And Canadian airspace too. Canadian airspace for some commercial flightsI opened last night, Canadian airspace for GA (General Aviation, i.e. yours J truly ) opened late this morning. But if I go to my local airport tonight,H jump in a Piper and fly 6 nm east, I will get to meet a couple of pilotsJ flying F16's or F15's and for the first time in my life I will see weapons8 attached to those fighters that are not painted blue. :(   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:21:30 -0400 + From: "John Saunders" <jws@ma.ultranet.com>  Subject: Re: World Trade Centerh+ Message-ID: <9nr819$i7m$1@bob.news.rcn.net>-  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:acnwQkykLN2o@eisner.encompasserve.org...uL > In article <9nr1v3$sp2$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:@ >. > > K > > Though I'm no fan of Dubya, he seems to be keeping his head a good dealsE > > better than you are - perhaps because he's surrounded by seasonedp) > > professionals (including his father).e >b@ > Yep.  Professionals like Rumsfield that state we will vanquish( > the enemy.  Vanquish means "wipe out."   Vanquish means "defeat". --
 John Saundersa jws@ma.ultranet.comT   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 15:20:10 -07001 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett)t Subject: Re: World Trade Centert, Message-ID: <Wzo7YrVib0P4@malvm6.mala.bc.ca>  4 In article <aknNHt4q2WSl@eisner.encompasserve.org>, 0    young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:  F >> BTW, isn't there some con-something, or bill of rites or some thingI >> that has this thing about rule of law, and arbitary search or seasure?u >>     > G > 	Depends.  Depends whether war is formally declared or not.  A friend1F > 	forwarded me a link that showed that after the *LAST* WTC bombing, C > 	the insurance companies got smart and put "Terrorist clauses" topE > 	limit their exposure.  However, all that changes in a war footing,m > 	a lot changes in that case. >   B     It was my understanding that for years most insurance policies> have had clauses that say damage caused by acts of war, either' declared or undeclared, is not covered.i   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 15:25:37 -07001 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett)r Subject: Re: World Trade Centerr, Message-ID: <A7k6xsEqEnMq@malvm6.mala.bc.ca>  b In article <DY8o7.25657$Z2.353053@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "Peter Weaver" <peter.weaver@stelco.ca> writes:; > "Paul Repacholi" <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in message ) > news:87itemsxtw.fsf@prep.synonet.com...I >>...SG >> the cost of shutting US air space for 48 hours on it's own is a HUGEi >>..._ >  > And Canadian airspace too.  J   The economic cost of slowing transborder traffic to a crawl is likely toJ be huge too. Who knows how long this "high alert" state will be maintained, or how many dollars it will ultimately cost.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:51:13 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>r Subject: Re: World Trade Center ( Message-ID: <9nrk7q$fju$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote in messageXF news:rdeininger-1309012040270001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com...L > In article <9npq56$q7t$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> > wrote: >s< > > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message1 > > news:WSCLr82dtF9W@eisner.encompasserve.org...- > >- > > ...- > >a$ > > > "Calm and rational discussion" > > I > > Yup.  Are you saying you won't participate?  Then don't complain whenU otherd< > > avenues of expression take its place, such as Tuesday's. >n- > You call Tuesday an "avenue of expression"?o  I Of course.  Do you in any way believe that it was not meant as a message?g     I can't think of a suitableiL > response to that.  It might be calm (or catatonic), but it isn't rational.  I No one claimed it was calm or rational.  Calm and rational discussion washE advanced as the way to avoid such other means, and Rob appeared to bee
 rejecting it.,   > 8 > And yes, I'm complaining about Tuesday's perpetrators.  G Then I hope you're more interested than Rob is in finding other ways ton! approach the underlying problems.    - bill   >r > -- > Robert Deininger > rdeininger@mindspring.comm   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:40:27 -0400c2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) Subject: Re: World Trade CenterrL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012040270001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  J In article <9npq56$q7t$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote:  : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:WSCLr82dtF9W@eisner.encompasserve.org...r >  > ...v > " > > "Calm and rational discussion" > M > Yup.  Are you saying you won't participate?  Then don't complain when otherd: > avenues of expression take its place, such as Tuesday's.  H You call Tuesday an "avenue of expression"?  I can't think of a suitableJ response to that.  It might be calm (or catatonic), but it isn't rational.  6 And yes, I'm complaining about Tuesday's perpetrators.   -- y Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.comi   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:02:51 -0400t2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) Subject: Re: World Trade CenterhL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012102510001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  < In article <87itemsxtw.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote:  / > young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:  > F > >       The attitudes will change and it will cost us a lot of moneyG > >       to change them.  But weapons aren't cheap these days.  And as F > >       President Bush reminds us, it may take months or years.  OneD > >       other thing, American war planners learned a big lesson in? > >       Vietnam and are well aware of quagmire situations.  IoC > >       anticipate 4-6 months of cruise missiles, smart bombs andv( > >       B-52s prior to the mopping up. > 2 > Sigh... How many more WTCs do you want to spend?  J You seem to have things confused.  Hidden within your words there seems toE be an assumption that Tuesday was the teeniest bit justified.  If you 4 really think that, then you are part of the enemy.    rJ > It is this atitude that got NY to the state that Bosnia has lived in forJ > a decade, that Afganistan has been suffering for over a decade... and on > it goes. y  F Nope.  The attitude that people responsible for Tuesday have ANY validC point to make from now on is the dangerous one.  Whoever did it has H forever lost any moral claim or point of discussion.  If they ever had aB valid complaint, it went away on Tuesday.  Destruction is the only appropriate response.     I Nothing would ever satisfy the like of Osama bin Laden, short of the U.S. E dropping all our own bombs on ourselves and ceasing to exist.  What'sh there to discuss with him?  H If you want to cower in your pretty ideas and let the likes of bin LadenH tell you how to arrange your life, go ahead.  America won't cower, won'tJ be influenced by evil fiends, and won't apologize.  Get used to it.  We'reG hard to piss off, but we don't like being attacked.  We do NOT tolerateE such events.  E It is also a mistake to think that Tuesday was enough damage to deternH America in the slightest.  It the grand scheme of things, it didn't evenI scratch our paint.  It just made us mad.  There are many things AmericansnG might not understand about the rest of the world, but this is somethingeJ the world seems to forget about America.  A reminder is forthcoming.  WhenG the bad guys fight back, we'll fight harder.  We'll win.  We're bigger,hH meaner, and more determined.  You might prefer a world where people like4 bin Laden could come out on top.  If so, tough luck.  1 > >       Vanquished is the operative word. . . .m >  > Words are cheap...   Expect more than words.   E > BTW, isn't there some con-something, or bill of rites or some thingsH > that has this thing about rule of law, and arbitary search or seasure?  F All the proper procedures are being obeyed.  There's nothing arbitraryE about the searching and seizing that's underway.  If you really thingiJ hunting down those responsible for Tuesday is "arbitrary", you are a sick, sick excuse for a human being.  K There are also conventions of war.  You ought to start reading up on those.e  G Please excuse my excited tone, if I've misunderstood your meaning.  I'mt low on patience today.   -- e Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:13:48 -0400u2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) Subject: Re: World Trade CentermL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012113480001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  A In article <DY8o7.25657$Z2.353053@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "Peter Weaver"  <peter.weaver@stelco.ca> wrote:d   > J > And Canadian airspace too. Canadian airspace for some commercial flightsK > opened last night, Canadian airspace for GA (General Aviation, i.e. yoursrL > truly ) opened late this morning. But if I go to my local airport tonight,J > jump in a Piper and fly 6 nm east, I will get to meet a couple of pilotsL > flying F16's or F15's and for the first time in my life I will see weapons: > attached to those fighters that are not painted blue. :(  J My friends in NYC are also seeing live military weapons for the first timeE in their lives.  They like what they see, and feel it is appropriate.a  F A week ago they would have been protesting if the air force was flying around over Manhattan.  F Did any sane people really expect that our response would be somethingH like, "gosh, maybe Mr. bin Laden has some valid points after all.  Let'sC hand him Israel on a platter and maybe he'll donate a few sheets of % plywood to rebuild lower Manhattan."?   G I'm not hearing any calls for lobbing bombs willy-nilly.  But I do hearvD nearly universal agreement that those repsonsible must be destroyed.   -- l Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.coms   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:19:20 -0400:+ From: "John Saunders" <jws@ma.ultranet.com>o Subject: Re: World Trade Centere+ Message-ID: <9nrlva$rj8$1@bob.news.rcn.net>n  ? "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote in messageTF news:rdeininger-1309012102510001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com...> > In article <87itemsxtw.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi  > <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote: >t1 > > young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:a > > H > > >       The attitudes will change and it will cost us a lot of moneyI > > >       to change them.  But weapons aren't cheap these days.  And asBH > > >       President Bush reminds us, it may take months or years.  OneF > > >       other thing, American war planners learned a big lesson inA > > >       Vietnam and are well aware of quagmire situations.  IeE > > >       anticipate 4-6 months of cruise missiles, smart bombs and * > > >       B-52s prior to the mopping up. > >p4 > > Sigh... How many more WTCs do you want to spend? >gL > You seem to have things confused.  Hidden within your words there seems toG > be an assumption that Tuesday was the teeniest bit justified.  If youo4 > really think that, then you are part of the enemy.  L It's not a question of whether we think it was justified. It's a question of( whether _they_ thought it was justified.  L > > It is this atitude that got NY to the state that Bosnia has lived in forL > > a decade, that Afganistan has been suffering for over a decade... and on > > it goes. >0   <snip>  K > Nothing would ever satisfy the like of Osama bin Laden, short of the U.S. G > dropping all our own bombs on ourselves and ceasing to exist.  What'se > there to discuss with him?  K Assuming it was him then according to his interviews he would be satisified  with  A 1) A complete Western withdrawal from the soil of Islamic nationsx: 2) A removal of any Western influence from Islamic nationsF 3) Removal of all pro-Western governments of Islamic nations and their. replacement with a government like the Taliban1 4) And needless to say, the destruction of Israel'  K He doesn't ask for much, he just wants things back the way they were before  the 20th century.	 --
 John Saundersa jws@ma.ultranet.comd   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 20:18:51 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)i Subject: Re: World Trade Center23 Message-ID: <D39jbY3ZsKaH@eisner.encompasserve.org>r  Y In article <9nr819$i7m$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "John Saunders" <jws@ma.ultranet.com> writes: : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:acnwQkykLN2o@eisner.encompasserve.org... M >> In article <9nr1v3$sp2$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> 	 > writes:  >> >> >L >> > Though I'm no fan of Dubya, he seems to be keeping his head a good dealF >> > better than you are - perhaps because he's surrounded by seasoned* >> > professionals (including his father). >>A >> Yep.  Professionals like Rumsfield that state we will vanquish ) >> the enemy.  Vanquish means "wipe out."o >  > Vanquish means "defeat".  ? 	It means a lot of things.  In the context he was talking about ! 	it certainly could mean crush...    Entry Word: vanquish Function: verbI Text: Synonyms CONQUER 1, bear down, beat down, crush, defeat, overpower,  reduce, subdue, subjugatel  H "This is especially true of those who are in the field. We face powerfulN and terrible enemies, enemies we intend to vanquish, so that moments of horror  like yesterday will be stopped."  / 	A defeat would leave them to live another day.    				Rob    ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 20:26:21 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)e Subject: Re: World Trade Centerr3 Message-ID: <LRtOtQhH2qol@eisner.encompasserve.org>g  ` In article <Wzo7YrVib0P4@malvm6.mala.bc.ca>, nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett) writes:6 > In article <aknNHt4q2WSl@eisner.encompasserve.org>, 2 >    young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes: > G >>> BTW, isn't there some con-something, or bill of rites or some thingvJ >>> that has this thing about rule of law, and arbitary search or seasure? >>>  >  >> eH >> 	Depends.  Depends whether war is formally declared or not.  A friendG >> 	forwarded me a link that showed that after the *LAST* WTC bombing, )D >> 	the insurance companies got smart and put "Terrorist clauses" toF >> 	limit their exposure.  However, all that changes in a war footing, >> 	a lot changes in that case.  >> 0 > D >     It was my understanding that for years most insurance policies@ > have had clauses that say damage caused by acts of war, either) > declared or undeclared, is not covered.2 >    	Yes.. no coverage for war.l  : 	For what it is worth, here is what my buddy sent me as we8 	had this very discussion and he used this to drive home 	his point:   O http://slate.msn.com/code/explainer/explainer.asp?Show=9/11/2001&idMessage=8269s    A What Liabilities Do Insurance Companies Face From Terrorist Acts?  By Timothy Noah / Posted Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, at 3:29 p.m. PT         D Are insurers on the hook for the collapse of the World Trade Center?  K In general, yes. Today's disaster is sure to require billions of dollars iniH payments from insurance companies to the businesses and individuals (andO survivors of deceased individuals) who occupied the twin towers. These paymentsoF will come out of property insurance policies, life insurance policies,M workmen's compensation policies, even automobile insurance policies--no doubt K many a car in the vicinity was demolished. There might even be claims underiL liability insurance policies if it can be proved that any of the World TradeN Center's tenants failed to engage in proper safety precautions that might haveM minimized the damage wrought by the terrorists. And, of course, there will be0M massive payments from reinsurers, which are in effect insurance companies for:0 insurance companies, to the insurers themselves.  J The World Trade Center disaster is being widely compared to the bombing ofN Pearl Harbor, an act of war. Acts of war are typically excluded from insuranceL policies. Generally, though, a mishap can only be categorized an act of war,K for insurance purposes, if it involves a declared war between nations. ThataI obviously isn't the case here. But there's another catch: During the lastmL decade or so, some insurers have inserted into their policies exclusions forB acts of terrorism. That the World Trade Center was the target of aJ well-publicized earlier attack in 1993 may mean that at least a few of theG building's tenants had terrorism exclusions in their property insuranceaO policies. And since today's disaster was clearly an act of terrorism, that will + leave some would-be claimants high and dry.D  K Explainer thanks Sean McManamy, director of public affairs for the Americanr Insurance Association.  > 	That piqued my curiousity and I stumbled upon something along= 	the lines whereby the government can fork over money somehow.? 	in a war footing... but I apologize in that I can't find that s 	reference.d   				Robe   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 20:42:19 -05009 From: kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow)i Subject: Re: World Trade Centere3 Message-ID: <Wtn4p14Iega+@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  a In article <+47wa+E4XKQH@eisner.encompasserve.org>, young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:-B > 	The attitudes will change and it will cost us a lot of money toG > 	change them.  But weapons aren't cheap these days.  And as PresidentWB > 	Bush reminds us, it may take months or years.  One other thing,E > 	American war planners learned a big lesson in Vietnam and are well < > 	aware of quagmire situations.  I anticipate 4-6 months ofB > 	cruise missiles, smart bombs and B-52s prior to the mopping up.  L Last B-52s I saw were at the "boneyard" being smashed up as part of the SALTI treaties. We've got much more modern methods of delivering our message toL the perpetrators.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:00:33 -0400m' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>n Subject: Re: World Trade Centerc( Message-ID: <9nro9o$i7r$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote in messagesF news:rdeininger-1309012102510001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com...> > In article <87itemsxtw.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi  > <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote: >m1 > > young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:: > >dH > > >       The attitudes will change and it will cost us a lot of moneyI > > >       to change them.  But weapons aren't cheap these days.  And asoH > > >       President Bush reminds us, it may take months or years.  OneF > > >       other thing, American war planners learned a big lesson inA > > >       Vietnam and are well aware of quagmire situations.  I E > > >       anticipate 4-6 months of cruise missiles, smart bombs andd* > > >       B-52s prior to the mopping up. > >W4 > > Sigh... How many more WTCs do you want to spend? >nL > You seem to have things confused.  Hidden within your words there seems toG > be an assumption that Tuesday was the teeniest bit justified.  If youd4 > really think that, then you are part of the enemy.  B No, you're the one who's confused:  identifying a cause-and-effect3 relationship doesn't in any way imply condoning it.3   >0L > > It is this atitude that got NY to the state that Bosnia has lived in forL > > a decade, that Afganistan has been suffering for over a decade... and on > > it goes. >sH > Nope.  The attitude that people responsible for Tuesday have ANY valid1 > point to make from now on is the dangerous one.l  K The fact that an underlying point *does* exist means that if we continue to 2 ignore it we'll continue to reap the consequences.     Whoever did it hasJ > forever lost any moral claim or point of discussion.  If they ever had aD > valid complaint, it went away on Tuesday.  Destruction is the only > appropriate response.i  @ That's only true in the limited sense of dealing with the actualG perpetrators.  Refusing also to respond to the underlying problems willdH eventually cause others to react in whatever ways are available to them.   > K > Nothing would ever satisfy the like of Osama bin Laden, short of the U.S.eG > dropping all our own bombs on ourselves and ceasing to exist.  What'se > there to discuss with him?  C Nothing, if he's indeed the ring-leader (another post that's hardlyrI sympathetic to him suggests that the Israelis believe otherwise).  And if1J he's involved at all, he deserves to be exterminated.  But Rob's post (andF Paul's response to it) were discussing mass exterminations rather than selective ones.m   >rJ > If you want to cower in your pretty ideas and let the likes of bin LadenJ > tell you how to arrange your life, go ahead.  America won't cower, won'tL > be influenced by evil fiends, and won't apologize.  Get used to it.  We'reI > hard to piss off, but we don't like being attacked.  We do NOT toleratea > such events.  H Speak for yourself (and in that context, exactly what are you personallyH planning to do in this regard?).  While in fact I can agree with most ofK your statements if interpreted purely literally, I'm in violent (literally,oE if necessary) disagreement with the implications I believe are there.   I No one has talked of cowering, nor of tolerance of what happened Tuesday.-J People like you seem to think it's more important to beat your chests thanI to deal with the problem in a manner that will not only punish the guiltye, but also create better hopes for the future.   >oG > It is also a mistake to think that Tuesday was enough damage to deter@J > America in the slightest.  It the grand scheme of things, it didn't even* > scratch our paint.  It just made us mad.  ; By all appearences, it made a lot of people stupid as well.t  !   There are many things AmericansdI > might not understand about the rest of the world, but this is somethingeL > the world seems to forget about America.  A reminder is forthcoming.  WhenI > the bad guys fight back, we'll fight harder.  We'll win.  We're bigger,i > meaner, and more determined.  L Why does such language remind me of Vietnam?  It wasn't true then, and seemsK even less likely to be true now.  And, should you have any doubt, AmericansHJ like me will help ensure that, should this country move in that direction, just as we did then.  ,   You might prefer a world where people like6 > bin Laden could come out on top.  If so, tough luck.  K Nope:  we just want a world where there aren't enough people who feel, withnJ at least some basis, that they have a desperate score to settle with us toL fuel the activities of someone like bin Laden.  And your approach seems very$ unlikely to be the way to get there.   ...o  I > Please excuse my excited tone, if I've misunderstood your meaning.  I'm  > low on patience today.  I You indeed misunderstood Paul's meaning, and in a manner that merited the K response I gave it.  Hope you're more patient tomorrow:  if what you reallyrF want is punishment of those directly responsible for Tuesday's events,C there's no fundamental point of disagreement, and room for rationali: discussion of what *other* reactions would be appropriate.   - bill   >' > -- > Robert Deininger > rdeininger@mindspring.com    ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 20:59:24 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)e Subject: Re: World Trade Center 3 Message-ID: <az4yR6ySeqYE@eisner.encompasserve.org>c  o In article <Wtn4p14Iega+@eisner.encompasserve.org>, kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) writes: c > In article <+47wa+E4XKQH@eisner.encompasserve.org>, young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes: C >> 	The attitudes will change and it will cost us a lot of money to H >> 	change them.  But weapons aren't cheap these days.  And as PresidentC >> 	Bush reminds us, it may take months or years.  One other thing,oF >> 	American war planners learned a big lesson in Vietnam and are well= >> 	aware of quagmire situations.  I anticipate 4-6 months ofhC >> 	cruise missiles, smart bombs and B-52s prior to the mopping up.e > N > Last B-52s I saw were at the "boneyard" being smashed up as part of the SALTK > treaties. We've got much more modern methods of delivering our message toT > the perpetrators.a  : http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html   Current as of March 2001 o   Date Deployed: February 1955/ Inventory: Active force, 85; ANG, 0; Reserve, 9a   				Rob    ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 20:50:51 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)' Subject: Re: World Trade Center'3 Message-ID: <b7F30ubBOPg0@eisner.encompasserve.org>   R In article <9nrk7q$fju$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes: > A > "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote in messageuH > news:rdeininger-1309012040270001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com...M >> In article <9npq56$q7t$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>u	 >> wrote:e >>= >> > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in messagen2 >> > news:WSCLr82dtF9W@eisner.encompasserve.org... >> > >> > ... >> >% >> > > "Calm and rational discussion"r >> >J >> > Yup.  Are you saying you won't participate?  Then don't complain when > otherr= >> > avenues of expression take its place, such as Tuesday's.m >>. >> You call Tuesday an "avenue of expression"? > K > Of course.  Do you in any way believe that it was not meant as a message?a >   F 	Absolutely.  And we received a very similar message December 7, 1941.   >   I can't think of a suitablerM >> response to that.  It might be calm (or catatonic), but it isn't rational.e > K > No one claimed it was calm or rational.  Calm and rational discussion was G > advanced as the way to avoid such other means, and Rob appeared to be  > rejecting it.e >    	Here's a few for you....n  B 	Conneticut's own Joe Lieberman today quoted Roosevelt's "Day that@ 	will live in Infamy" speech to declare that the U.S. will bringC 	"its righteous might" to bear to right this event.  Lieberman alsov@ 	pledged a unanimous vote in Congress to approve whatever action 	might be taken.    1 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34331,00.html-  H "We will go after that group, that network and those that have harbored,F supported and aided that network, to rip that network up," Powell saidI Thursday. "When we are through with that network, we will continue with an. global assault against terrorism in general."   K The U.S. moved one step closer to that action Thursday when Powell, for thewN first time, publicly named bin Laden as the suspected mastermind of the deadlyI attacks. Prior to Thursday, the administration had not spoken publicly ofi
 suspects.   J [When asked if he was actually referring to bin Laden, Powell said "yes."]  E Powell's statements indicated that should the U.S. conclude bin Ladens= orchestrated the attacks, the U.S. could strike Afghanistan. ,  M Those strikes would take the form of a sustained military campaign, Deputy ofa0 Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday.   K "It's going to unfold over time," Wolfowitz told reporters at the Pentagon. O "One thing that is clear is you don't do it with just a single military strike,g no matter how dramatic."    M When asked what targets U.S. military action might strike, Wolfowitz said "itaL will be a campaign, not a single action. And we're going to keep after these9 people and the people who support them until this stops."n     > I > Then I hope you're more interested than Rob is in finding other ways to # > approach the underlying problems.  >   C 	Hey... don't pick on me.  Pick up a newspaper or turn on the radioeD 	or cruise a few web sites.  The time for talk has long since passed 	or so it appears.   				Robt   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:11:23 -0500s1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>r Subject: Re: World Trade Centerg' Message-ID: <3BA1674B.E447B425@fsi.net>e   John Saunders wrote: > _ > Assuming it was him (Osama bin Laden) then according to his interviews he would be satisifiede > with > C > 1) A complete Western withdrawal from the soil of Islamic nationsf< > 2) A removal of any Western influence from Islamic nationsH > 3) Removal of all pro-Western governments of Islamic nations and their0 > replacement with a government like the Taliban3 > 4) And needless to say, the destruction of Israelu > M > He doesn't ask for much, he just wants things back the way they were before  > the 20th century.   ) Like Nancy Kerrigan(?), I must ask "Why?"c  D What I would have to ask is for someone to show me in the Quran(sic)D where it says that this is the way Allah wishes his faithful to dealH with those perceived as an enemy, or where it says that anyone should beE viewed as an enemy. Even Christ taught that one should love those who>B persecute them and "shake the dust of their land from your feet in0 testimony against them" you leave their place...  G It's no great secret that the "Holy" Roman Empire wrought such havoc onnD the people of the day as makes WTC pale in comparison. Is it perhapsH that they feel they are fulfilling some misconstrued prophecy by reapingH for us that which they perceive as the harvest sown by our predecessors?  ) Like Nancy Kerrigan(?), I must ask "Why?"o  E Understand, I'm an as enraged as anyone by the events of Tuesday. I'meC just trying to find the error of their ways in the hope that futureCB generations can learn the lessons of this time which will be their+ "past", lest they be doomed to repeat them.e   -- s David J. Dachterae dba DJE Systemsf http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/l   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:20:01 -0600o% From: Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com>  Subject: Re: World Trade Center B Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010913201658.00addec0@ntbsod.psccos.com>  ( At 07:42 PM 9/13/2001, Bob Kaplow wrote:5 >In article <+47wa+E4XKQH@eisner.encompasserve.org>, .. >young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:I > >       The attitudes will change and it will cost us a lot of money to N > >       change them.  But weapons aren't cheap these days.  And as PresidentI > >       Bush reminds us, it may take months or years.  One other thing,uL > >       American war planners learned a big lesson in Vietnam and are wellC > >       aware of quagmire situations.  I anticipate 4-6 months ofrI > >       cruise missiles, smart bombs and B-52s prior to the mopping up.u >cM >Last B-52s I saw were at the "boneyard" being smashed up as part of the SALT J >treaties. We've got much more modern methods of delivering our message to >the perpetrators.  M The USAF still flies about 100 or so of them (of course, like everything elsesM in the military, only about 50% are mission-capable, due to the WAY excessivetH cutbacks of the last 8 years, but that's for another time).  The B-52 isK a very effective carpet-bomber (84 500# bombs per load will just plain ruins/ your day) or standoff bomber (cruise missiles).c     ------I +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ I | Dan O'Reilly                  |                                       |eI | Principal Engineer            |  "Why should I care about posterity?  |rI | Process Software              |   What's posterity ever done for me?" |eI | http://www.process.com        |                    -- Groucho Marx    |nI +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+l   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:30:34 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>e Subject: Re: World Trade Centere( Message-ID: <9nrq21$kvv$1@pyrite.mv.net>  < "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message! news:3BA1674B.E447B425@fsi.net...u   ...o  + > Like Nancy Kerrigan(?), I must ask "Why?"d  I A cnn.com article suggests that it's because he's a religious fanatic whoiL got really upset that U.S. forces were stationed near the Saudi Arabian holy places during Desert Storm.f  L You can't deal with someone like that on a rational basis.  But you can dealF with the people who support him because they have other, more rationalJ reasons for hating us - so that people like him will lack an adequate base? from which to take action, regardless of how weird they may be.o   >aF > What I would have to ask is for someone to show me in the Quran(sic)F > where it says that this is the way Allah wishes his faithful to dealJ > with those perceived as an enemy, or where it says that anyone should beG > viewed as an enemy. Even Christ taught that one should love those whorD > persecute them and "shake the dust of their land from your feet in2 > testimony against them" you leave their place...  J Religious fanatics are often selective in the parts of their doctrine theyL choose to embrace (Rob, for example, hardly seems inclined to turn the other- cheek).  So one shouldn't expect consistency.d   > I > It's no great secret that the "Holy" Roman Empire wrought such havoc onaF > the people of the day as makes WTC pale in comparison. Is it perhapsJ > that they feel they are fulfilling some misconstrued prophecy by reapingJ > for us that which they perceive as the harvest sown by our predecessors?  G While old memories sometimes run deep, I suspect their main reasons for2L hatred are very recent:  Israel's reversal (after Rabin was assassinated) ofJ a peace process that appeared to be nearing the brink of a real resolutionF (which must have been inconceivably frustrating after so many years ofI effort), the past decade of unnecessary suffering in Iraq due to economicdI sanctions (it may not have been visibly unnecessary when it began, but itaG was clearly so after a few years of ineffectiveness in causing Saddam'soG removal) - hell, I'm no expert, but even I can see those, and there are J likely other reasons at least indirectly associated with the U.S.  There'sF no obvious reason to believe that they hold any significant hatred forI Christians per se, though where their governments are religious in natureoK they may prohibit proselytization (which one may consider unenlightened buts+ is hardly in the same league as terrorism).-   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:50:35 -0400d+ From: "John Saunders" <jws@ma.ultranet.com>e Subject: Re: World Trade Centeri+ Message-ID: <9nrraa$p1s$1@bob.news.rcn.net>m  < "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message! news:3BA1674B.E447B425@fsi.net...o > John Saunders wrote: > >wJ > > Assuming it was him (Osama bin Laden) then according to his interviews he would be satisified > > with > >uE > > 1) A complete Western withdrawal from the soil of Islamic nationso> > > 2) A removal of any Western influence from Islamic nationsJ > > 3) Removal of all pro-Western governments of Islamic nations and their2 > > replacement with a government like the Taliban5 > > 4) And needless to say, the destruction of Israel  > > H > > He doesn't ask for much, he just wants things back the way they were before > > the 20th century.s >s+ > Like Nancy Kerrigan(?), I must ask "Why?"o >eF > What I would have to ask is for someone to show me in the Quran(sic)F > where it says that this is the way Allah wishes his faithful to dealJ > with those perceived as an enemy, or where it says that anyone should be > viewed as an enemy.k  . Take the time to read this interview with him:L http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/transcript_binladen1_981228.hH tml. He constantly quotes the Koran. His points are that the presence ofE Western troops on Islamic soil represents an attack against Islam. HesJ considers the US to be part of a Jewish-Crusader alliance with the obviousK purpose of destroying Islam. After all, what other possible reason could weo have for supporting Israel?e  I Since we're attacking Islam, he feels that enables the parts of the Koran J which make it a duty for Moslems to fight to defend Islam - whether or not they feel like it. --
 John Saundersc jws@ma.ultranet.comu   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:42:05 -0400s2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) Subject: Re: World Trade CentersL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012242050001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  J In article <9nrk7q$fju$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote:    / > > You call Tuesday an "avenue of expression"?l > K > Of course.  Do you in any way believe that it was not meant as a message?l  H I dunno.  Maybe they were nuts enough to think in terms of actual damageI inflicted.  As a signigicant hurt, a way to lessen our influence in theiro part of the world.  I If it was meant as a message, what range of possible answers do you thinko they expected?  H I'm just confused by your choice of euphemism.  Your language is usuallyF rather precise.  If you think of Tuesday as an "avenue of expression",E then you can likely describe _anything_ with the same words.  It justg1 seems to me a misplaced phrase in this situation.   : > > And yes, I'm complaining about Tuesday's perpetrators. > I > Then I hope you're more interested than Rob is in finding other ways toT# > approach the underlying problems.o  B There are various underlying problems.  Can we find better ways toG interact with the rest of the world?  Without doubt.  Should we pretendrI that there are not good and bad forces in the world, and just let the badf* ones do as they please?  I don't think so.  @ But whoever planned and supported Tuesday has no right to expectI discussion or any say in international affairs.  The "underlying problem" B of the moment is to smash them, and hopefully as few bystanders as	 possible.i  F I suspect we agree on many points.  But I'm not willing to discuss andH seek some perfect solution to the world's problems, until more importantI matters are taken care of.  I think killing these bastards is important. dF They will keep destroying innocents as long as they draw breath.  TheyE might have had some valid complaints on Monday.  They don't any more.   G I'm not lumping everyone with a grudge against the U.S. together.  Just * the ones who act against us with violence.   -- c Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.coma   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:55:26 -0400r2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) Subject: Re: World Trade CentereL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012255280001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  ; In article <9nrlva$rj8$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "John Saunders"u <jws@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:    aN > It's not a question of whether we think it was justified. It's a question of* > whether _they_ thought it was justified.  E On Monday, I would have been inclined to listen to their opinions andn grievances.  No longer.a  D It's possible to avoid a fight, or seek a fight.  Somebody damn wellJ sought a war with us, and now they have to learn the full meaning of that.  M > > Nothing would ever satisfy the like of Osama bin Laden, short of the U.S.oI > > dropping all our own bombs on ourselves and ceasing to exist.  What'sd > > there to discuss with him? > M > Assuming it was him then according to his interviews he would be satisifiedt > with > C > 1) A complete Western withdrawal from the soil of Islamic nationst< > 2) A removal of any Western influence from Islamic nationsH > 3) Removal of all pro-Western governments of Islamic nations and their0 > replacement with a government like the Taliban3 > 4) And needless to say, the destruction of Israel  > M > He doesn't ask for much, he just wants things back the way they were beforeu > the 20th century.e  ) Well, f*ck him.  That's the short answer.c  H I grant there's something valid in wanting to avoid Western influcence. J Do you think attacking the U.S. is a way to accomplish that?  Do you thinkC any sane person would expect less Western "influence" after such anuJ attack?  When people discuss his goals, his grievances, and his actions inI the same paragraph, they seem to suggest there is some valid connection. i I can't see it.m  G Even if you sympathize with his wishes, does it bother you that a greatpJ many of the people in the Islamic nations don't share his goals?  Since heJ and like-minded thugs happen to have power over there, should they controlG all the people who lack thout the power to resist?   Does morality haveoD ANYTHING to say about his actions within his "own" country?  Can ourJ "interference", our defense of his enemies, in any way justify his attack,# or weaken our claim of retribution?_   -- t Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:00:47 -0400e2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) Subject: Re: World Trade Center0L Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012300470001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com>  3 In article <Wtn4p14Iega+@eisner.encompasserve.org>, : kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:  N > Last B-52s I saw were at the "boneyard" being smashed up as part of the SALTK > treaties. We've got much more modern methods of delivering our message tos > the perpetrators.r  H I think we still have a goodly number of B-52s.  Have we added more SALT6 since 1991?  We surely had a lot of B-52s active then.  I I don't think we have anything else that can deliver large loads at great H distances.  Newer systems are good at precision, and light loads.  To beG frank, most were designed to deliver nuclear weapons, which don't weigh : much.  Carrying anything else, they don't pack much punch.   --   Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com?   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:10:21 -0500s1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>s Subject: Re: World Trade Center ' Message-ID: <3BA1751D.9ED205BE@fsi.net>s   Bill Todd wrote: > > > "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message# > news:3BA1674B.E447B425@fsi.net...  >  > ...l > - > > Like Nancy Kerrigan(?), I must ask "Why?"c > K > A cnn.com article suggests that it's because he's a religious fanatic who N > got really upset that U.S. forces were stationed near the Saudi Arabian holy > places during Desert Storm.   H I surmised that the "burr up his ass" runs considerably deeper than thatF - perhaps enough to have facilitated, if not orchestrated, the assault on WTC.e   -- i David J. Dachtera. dba DJE Systemsf http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/a   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:06:40 -0400w+ From: "John Saunders" <jws@ma.ultranet.com>  Subject: Re: World Trade Centert* Message-ID: <9nrs8f$kf$1@bob.news.rcn.net>  ? "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote in messagewF news:rdeininger-1309012255280001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com...= > In article <9nrlva$rj8$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "John Saunders"d > <jws@ma.ultranet.com> wrote: >y >iD > > It's not a question of whether we think it was justified. It's a question of", > > whether _they_ thought it was justified. >lG > On Monday, I would have been inclined to listen to their opinions ands > grievances.  No longer.s  C I didn't suggest that we listen to them and consider adopting theiroH position. I suggest we listen to them and understand why they hold those3 opinions. And then use that knowledge against them.g  F > It's possible to avoid a fight, or seek a fight.  Somebody damn wellL > sought a war with us, and now they have to learn the full meaning of that. > J > > > Nothing would ever satisfy the like of Osama bin Laden, short of the U.S.K > > > dropping all our own bombs on ourselves and ceasing to exist.  What'su  > > > there to discuss with him? > >pD > > Assuming it was him then according to his interviews he would be
 satisified > > with > >sE > > 1) A complete Western withdrawal from the soil of Islamic nations > > > 2) A removal of any Western influence from Islamic nationsJ > > 3) Removal of all pro-Western governments of Islamic nations and their2 > > replacement with a government like the Taliban5 > > 4) And needless to say, the destruction of IsraelR > >rH > > He doesn't ask for much, he just wants things back the way they were before > > the 20th century.  > + > Well, f*ck him.  That's the short answer.v >sI > I grant there's something valid in wanting to avoid Western influcence.o> > Do you think attacking the U.S. is a way to accomplish that?  / Do I think that? No. Does _he_ think that? Yes.r  J And he's not about "avoiding" Western influence. He's about removing it by force.   >  Do you think)E > any sane person would expect less Western "influence" after such anfL > attack?  When people discuss his goals, his grievances, and his actions inJ > the same paragraph, they seem to suggest there is some valid connection. > I can't see it.o  K His goal is to fight Americans and to win the battles (with God's help). He < simply wants to fight us until we're defeated. Nothing more.  I > Even if you sympathize with his wishes, does it bother you that a great B > many of the people in the Islamic nations don't share his goals?  C Most of them don't. That's why he feels their governments should be.	 replaced.   
 > Since heL > and like-minded thugs happen to have power over there, should they control4 > all the people who lack thout the power to resist?  J I don't think the Taliban are actually "like-minded". They keep him aroundF because he's a hero to them for his role in the war against the SovietK Union, and because he believes in rule by Islamic law. But I've never heardy= about the Taliban suggesting that Americans should be killed.t --
 John Saundersp jws@ma.ultranet.coma   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:46:34 -0400t2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) Subject: Re: World Trade CenterwL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1309012346340001@user-2ive6o7.dialup.mindspring.com>  J In article <9nro9o$i7r$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote:    D > No, you're the one who's confused:  identifying a cause-and-effect5 > relationship doesn't in any way imply condoning it.t  J But to talk about addressing the cause, does appear to lend the cause some5 validity.  If there was ever validity, it's gone now.a  E > Nothing, if he's indeed the ring-leader (another post that's hardlytK > sympathetic to him suggests that the Israelis believe otherwise).  And ifcL > he's involved at all, he deserves to be exterminated.  But Rob's post (andH > Paul's response to it) were discussing mass exterminations rather than > selective ones.t  I I'm not suggesting mass exterminations.  Sorry if I gave that impression.o  L > > If you want to cower in your pretty ideas and let the likes of bin LadenL > > tell you how to arrange your life, go ahead.  America won't cower, won'tN > > be influenced by evil fiends, and won't apologize.  Get used to it.  We'reK > > hard to piss off, but we don't like being attacked.  We do NOT toleratef > > such events. >  > Speak for yourself r  F I think I am well in the middle of the vast majority of opinion here. H Kill the ones who did this.  Don't tolerate such violence, even "little" attacks, in the future.4  7 > (and in that context, exactly what are you personallya$ > planning to do in this regard?).    H I'm planning nothing in particular.  I'm no sort of vigilante.  I'm justI utterly unwilling to turn the other cheek, to entertain the complaints of E whoever did this, even if those complaints were once valid.  If othertF parties have similar complaints about the U.S., it needs to be crystalI clear that they must find a better way to deal with it.  It seems most ofuA the country feels about the same way.  And you likely do as well.-  < To this end, I'll do whatever I can, and whatever I'm asked.  ( > While in fact I can agree with most ofM > your statements if interpreted purely literally, I'm in violent (literally, G > if necessary) disagreement with the implications I believe are there.t  H I'm in a cranky mood, and probably sound hotter than I am.  I'm reactingD harshly to what appears to be something like sympathy for the fiendsA behind Tuesday's attack.  I realize that many people don't intend.H sympathy, but they _appear_ to be offering it.  Perhaps it's just an oldG habit of bashing America, which is a favorite passtime for some.  Can'tu4 folks see that it's a poor time for such sentiments?  K > No one has talked of cowering, nor of tolerance of what happened Tuesday.iL > People like you seem to think it's more important to beat your chests thanK > to deal with the problem in a manner that will not only punish the guiltyi. > but also create better hopes for the future.  I I disagree.  Some folks seem to looking for nice things to say about some J really rotten people around the world.  Some folks seem to think we shouldG back down, in subtle ways.  (Let's not build tall buildings.  Let's nottJ hit the terrorists, because then they'll hit us again.) Some folks seem toG think we shouldn't take direct action against bad guys, just because wed aren't perfect ourselves.r  O There's a time to try to find the good in everyone, but I don't think it's now.u  H If I'm "beating my chest", it's only meant as a warning.  I don't expectH anyone to pay attention to ME beating my chest.  I'm just surprised thatH folks in some parts of the world act like we can be pushed and poked and we'll never really hit back.  I > > It is also a mistake to think that Tuesday was enough damage to deter?L > > America in the slightest.  It the grand scheme of things, it didn't even, > > scratch our paint.  It just made us mad. > = > By all appearences, it made a lot of people stupid as well.   O I wish you wouldn't call people who disagree with you stupid.  It's not polite.t  # >   There are many things AmericanseK > > might not understand about the rest of the world, but this is something N > > the world seems to forget about America.  A reminder is forthcoming.  WhenK > > the bad guys fight back, we'll fight harder.  We'll win.  We're bigger,n  > > meaner, and more determined. > N > Why does such language remind me of Vietnam?  It wasn't true then, and seemsM > even less likely to be true now.  And, should you have any doubt, AmericansrL > like me will help ensure that, should this country move in that direction, > just as we did then.  O I think I see what you meant, though a phrase or two seems to have gotten lost.a  F The present situation doesn't remind me of Vietnam.  Any similarity ofE language is probably an accident.  It reminds me of Pearl Harbor.  WeeE responded to that attack by attacking.  That's what I forsee now.  WerF didn't attack randomly then, and we shouldn't now.  We should fight to win, and then stop fighting.  . >   You might prefer a world where people like8 > > bin Laden could come out on top.  If so, tough luck. > M > Nope:  we just want a world where there aren't enough people who feel, withfL > at least some basis, that they have a desperate score to settle with us to1 > fuel the activities of someone like bin Laden. r  I Do you ever consider that they might be WRONG?  (Yes, I suspect you do.)  E If America has any blame for Tuesday, I think it is that we tolerated ) lesser attacks without a strong response.t  D What to do about all the other folks who don't like us is a separateE question, I think.  They don't have to like us, and perhaps we should I change some of our policies.  But they mustn't attack us.  Is that in thei% general vicinity of your own opinion?t   > And your approach seems very& > unlikely to be the way to get there.  I Well, I haven't specified any particular approach, except to not tolerate  those who attack us.   What approach to you suggest?a  K > > Please excuse my excited tone, if I've misunderstood your meaning.  I'm  > > low on patience today. > K > You indeed misunderstood Paul's meaning, and in a manner that merited theSM > response I gave it.  Hope you're more patient tomorrow:  if what you reallynH > want is punishment of those directly responsible for Tuesday's events,E > there's no fundamental point of disagreement, and room for rationalp< > discussion of what *other* reactions would be appropriate.  I If by "other", you mean "in addition" then I agree with you.  If you mean@ "instead of", then I don't.-   -- - Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com0   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:08:07 -0400W' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>e Subject: Re: World Trade Centeri( Message-ID: <9nrvov$od8$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote in message F news:rdeininger-1309012242050001@user-2ive7ie.dialup.mindspring.com...   ...   K > If it was meant as a message, what range of possible answers do you thinkr > they expected?  A When you're sufficiently upset (a phrase that is likely pitifullywG inadequate) at someone who refuses to listen, delivering a message thatnF can't be ignored may seem better than doing nothing, regardless of the
 consequences.t  J The main difference between what happened Tuesday and what have been dailyG occurrences off and on for decades in many parts of the world (NorthernlK Ireland, Israel and the occupied territories, Chechnya and Moscow, parts ofaH Africa that I'm not familiar with in any detail, and likely other placesK that I can't think of at the moment or never even heard about) is locality:iE we're not used to terrorism on American soil, and seem to think we're I entitled to some kind of exemption from it rather than understanding that L we're simply geographically separated from those who might wish us harm to aD degree that makes us a more difficult target.  The flip side of thatF situation, however, is that if someone decides to go to the trouble ofE hitting us, they're more likely to try to make that hit really count.    >"0 > I'm just confused by your choice of euphemism.   It wasn't a euphemism.     Your language is usuallyH > rather precise.  If you think of Tuesday as an "avenue of expression",> > then you can likely describe _anything_ with the same words.  H You just about can - and we often do.  How many times have people talkedJ about 'sending a message' to people like Saddam or Milosevic by means that differ markedly from words?o  	   It justo3 > seems to me a misplaced phrase in this situation.o  I That's the problem with such messages:  the recipients (and others in theuH world) often don't take them in the way they were intended.  Exactly theL same problem exists with the kind of 'message' several people here have been advocating sending in return.b   >e< > > > And yes, I'm complaining about Tuesday's perpetrators. > >-K > > Then I hope you're more interested than Rob is in finding other ways to8% > > approach the underlying problems.  >sD > There are various underlying problems.  Can we find better ways toI > interact with the rest of the world?  Without doubt.  Should we pretenduK > that there are not good and bad forces in the world, and just let the bad , > ones do as they please?  I don't think so.  J You and others keep saying things like your last two sentences above as ifL someone, somewhere had been advocating such a course.  Could you please find5 a single such example to quote before doing it again?S   > B > But whoever planned and supported Tuesday has no right to expectK > discussion or any say in international affairs.  The "underlying problem"gD > of the moment is to smash them, and hopefully as few bystanders as > possible.h  F No, that's not the underlying problem at all:  it's just the immediateI objective.  And we need to do considerably more than 'hope' that we don'tfJ smash bystanders:  we need to make every *reasonable* effort (and possiblyD just a bit more, to make sure other reasonable people perceive it as reasonable) not to do so.n   >iH > I suspect we agree on many points.  But I'm not willing to discuss andJ > seek some perfect solution to the world's problems, until more important > matters are taken care of.  F Exactly why is that?  Do you feel you have more important things to doL during the interval necessary to identify the culprits and move to deal withD them?  Or are you just afraid that if people think about such thingsE *before* action can be taken, they might start to incline more toward.J justice - harsh and military though it may be - than toward blind revenge?  .   I think killing these bastards is important.H > They will keep destroying innocents as long as they draw breath.  TheyG > might have had some valid complaints on Monday.  They don't any more.   D The validity of the complaints hasn't changed, just the right of theL perpetrators to be heard.  But there are plenty of other people left to talk with.e   > I > I'm not lumping everyone with a grudge against the U.S. together.  Justt, > the ones who act against us with violence.  I Let's focus just on those responsible for Tuesday's events to start with, K since there seems to be very little controversy about what should happen toCB them.  As soon as you move beyond that, further discussion becomesI necessary:  I can certainly imagine supporting an international effort toaF address terrorism world-wide, but only as long as that effort includedA significant efforts to deal with the causes of terrorism as well.    - bill   >v > -- > Robert Deininger > rdeininger@mindspring.come   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 23:28:39 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)  Subject: Re: World Trade Centeri3 Message-ID: <2ylLkYJ6CNeB@eisner.encompasserve.org>c  R In article <9nrvov$od8$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes: > K > Let's focus just on those responsible for Tuesday's events to start with, M > since there seems to be very little controversy about what should happen to D > them.  As soon as you move beyond that, further discussion becomesK > necessary:  I can certainly imagine supporting an international effort toaH > address terrorism world-wide, but only as long as that effort includedC > significant efforts to deal with the causes of terrorism as well.h >   < 	But from what I read... we are already past "moving beyond" 	the perpatrators:  1 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34331,00.html"  M When asked what targets U.S. military action might strike, Wolfowitz said "itiL will be a campaign, not a single action. And we're going to keep after these9 people and the people who support them until this stops."     C 	As for the "controversy" this might cause, I suspect Congress willhD 	have 2, maybe 3 dissenters.  And yes, probably a handful of whiners 	on FondaVision.  E 	The long-range goal (help me if I'm reading into this but I honestlyp= 	am seeing it pop up everywhere) is to stamp out terrorism as-@ 	we know it.  Granted, it is going to take a whole lot more thanE 	the initially allocated $20 billion for this campaign but should be n 	well worth the effort.$   				Robw   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:35:06 -0600g% From: Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com>e Subject: Re: World Trade Center.B Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010913223426.00ad9cc0@ntbsod.psccos.com>  . At 09:00 PM 9/13/2001, Robert Deininger wrote:4 >In article <Wtn4p14Iega+@eisner.encompasserve.org>,; >kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:. >lL > > Last B-52s I saw were at the "boneyard" being smashed up as part of the  > SALTM > > treaties. We've got much more modern methods of delivering our message ton > > the perpetrators.u >sI >I think we still have a goodly number of B-52s.  Have we added more SALTu7 >since 1991?  We surely had a lot of B-52s active then.o >aJ >I don't think we have anything else that can deliver large loads at greatI >distances.  Newer systems are good at precision, and light loads.  To berH >frank, most were designed to deliver nuclear weapons, which don't weigh; >much.  Carrying anything else, they don't pack much punch.   J Actually, the B-1 and B-2 can both carry a substantial load - although the/ B-1 is still mostly rated for nuclear delivery.i   ------I +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ I | Dan O'Reilly                  |                                       |oI | Principal Engineer            |  "Why should I care about posterity?  | I | Process Software              |   What's posterity ever done for me?" |tI | http://www.process.com        |                    -- Groucho Marx    |kI +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+T   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:50:00 -0400t' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>i Subject: Re: World Trade Center ( Message-ID: <9ns27f$pp1$1@pyrite.mv.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:2ylLkYJ6CNeB@eisner.encompasserve.org...o   ...   K > When asked what targets U.S. military action might strike, Wolfowitz said  "itaH > will be a campaign, not a single action. And we're going to keep after these ; > people and the people who support them until this stops."d >n >tD > As for the "controversy" this might cause, I suspect Congress willE > have 2, maybe 3 dissenters.  And yes, probably a handful of whinerse > on FondaVision.m  J That's about the level of support the spurious Tonkin Gulf resolution had,H and how the protests against the Vietnam war began.  We'll be out in theL streets again if that happens again, and, eventually, we'll prevail - again.   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Sep 2001 00:04:13 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)h Subject: Re: World Trade Center'3 Message-ID: <GrZwjt4fIzkZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>k  R In article <9ns27f$pp1$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes: > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:2ylLkYJ6CNeB@eisner.encompasserve.org...  >  > ...h > L >> When asked what targets U.S. military action might strike, Wolfowitz said > "it-I >> will be a campaign, not a single action. And we're going to keep aftero > these < >> people and the people who support them until this stops." >> >>E >> As for the "controversy" this might cause, I suspect Congress willoF >> have 2, maybe 3 dissenters.  And yes, probably a handful of whiners >> on FondaVision. > L > That's about the level of support the spurious Tonkin Gulf resolution had,J > and how the protests against the Vietnam war began.  We'll be out in theN > streets again if that happens again, and, eventually, we'll prevail - again. >   C 	No, for a couple reasons.  First off, this effort has very serious = 	U.S. public support.  Across party lines... and even for thesA 	most part, tree-hugging Libruls are surprisingly outraged (takesd3 	quite a bit apparently but it eventually happens):   f http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/4m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28252-2001Sep13.html  M Three in four said they would support going to war even if it meant "innocentaL civilians in other countries might be hurt or killed." Seven in 10 said theyM would support the United States taking aggressive military action even if thepL result was "a long war with large numbers of U.S. troops killed or injured."  : 	Second, wars are fought quite a bit differently than they9 	were in 1964.  Kuwait/Iraq and the potentially much morev. 	dangerous Yugoslavia campaign went like this:  - 		1)  Bomb like crazy and then bomb some morel9 		2)  Roll in heavy ground troops with heavy air support.   > 	(Of course, skip 2) above in Yugoslavia's case.. but they had1 	more than enough of number 1), so what the hey.)   > 	And this won't be much different.  The difference is that theA 	bombs can be dropped to within a few feet and have been improvedh" 	quite a bit since 1990 even, ref:  6 http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/AGM_65_Maverick.html  = 	Finally, I had a heated back and forth with a manager (ofteneB 	argued with this fellow) over the Gulf War.  I was of the opinion> 	it would be little more than a mopping up operation when theyB 	eventually moved in.  He insisted there would be heavy casualties 	on our side.  I got that one.   				Robr   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Sep 2001 22:32:11 -07001 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett)' Subject: Re: World Trade Centers, Message-ID: <0mp9wpSoLw4n@malvm5.mala.bc.ca>  4 In article <GrZwjt4fIzkZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>, 1     young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:  > ? > 	Finally, I had a heated back and forth with a manager (often D > 	argued with this fellow) over the Gulf War.  I was of the opinion@ > 	it would be little more than a mopping up operation when theyD > 	eventually moved in.  He insisted there would be heavy casualties  > 	on our side.  I got that one. >   B      Was he perhaps thinking of how things might have been if we'dA actually finished the job ( ie deposed Saddam rather than leavingg= him in power and trying to slowly destroy the country througha? sanctions? ). How different would things be if we'd installed amB democratic government in Iraq and provided support to repair theirD economy ( like we did with Germany and Japan after WWII ). Of course< things are more complicated than that, but one has to wonder< how effective a "bomb them back into the stone age" approach really is in the long run.  D      Aren't we going to feel awfully stupid if it comes out now thatC Iraq was a major player behind this attack? Would you then hold thenF alliance at least partly responsible for not taking him out back then?   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.511 ************************orld act like we can be pushed and poked and we'll never really hit back.  I > > It is  LɆh	Do	\ 5DxmVBy+m}`xkZߍx#Qr~?8c qe)y	>NB	R4L#MfjNuF(׎d\5xɷ]^ȰXV
+]9Ev>ooNJyOXdiBb_kHl|JmP{}P_a3{:rfzm@yc(]X uC8~HP%2w 'gǛdV&Q,7uLREơ :v]Ciwd8oz͐٢s"d%*aPZ*		!j
nbt?g^ĳ5O1$3=FU		ta{rLeJ"Kfٝڇ2e@$(_
0CaE?齄+Lnݡ ~S2(%]1yݹ}