More bicyclists behaving badly

On 9/22/2020 6:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 5:15:10 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 07:27:24 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
Career politician! The guy never worked in private industry -- one government job after another. Drain the swamp!

-- Jay Beattie.

You're walking in the dark, Jay. When Churchill wasn't serving in the Army, he was a highly successful journalist and war correspondent, and an investor on the stock exchange. Later in life he was one of the best-selling and highest paid writers of history.

What are you going on about? Check your facts, man; you're looking like an idiot.

Andre Jute
Christ, even Wikipedia gets more right than the Donkey Party members of RBT

That's not working in industry -- that's being part of the Liberal elite. Writing stories for Lamestream Media and investing money. Plus, he was not an American. In fact, I've been told that he hated America -- people have told me that. Plus, he got captured. I like the guys who didn't get captured. And he got captured by boring people. And so what if he escaped. I escape boring people all the time. It's easy, really, really easy. I don't know why people think he's a hero.

-- Jay Beattie.

Careful, Jay. I hear irony got cancelled last week.

Mark J.

On Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 3:10:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 9:56:06 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op vrijdag 18 september 2020 om 17:54:44 UTC+2 schreef :
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 8:15:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 8:34:54 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/17/maine-...ans-mailboxes/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Some folks really don't like Trump

Deacon Mark
Joe Biden walks into a bar and sits next to a pretty young woman. He looks over at her and says, "Do I come here often?"
Tom, how old are you?
I am 75 years old, 2 years younger than Joe Biden, and I have watched a couple of members of our riding group die from Alzheimers. They were at the stage that Biden is now and within days they died. It isn't in the least funny that they have put some demented doofus who has never done one single thing in his entire life as a politicians that wasn't wrong and they run him as the best that the Democrats can produce. Then after the communist Bernie Sanders loses to Biden because no one wants a communist, Biden takes on the entire communist platform of Sanders.,

Tell us Lou - what do you think would happen to the world if Biden were to be elected? This country and the entire world would be mired in permanent war. The dollar would be reduced to nothing and the food supply for half of the world would disappear. Is that something you think should happen?

Trump is 74. Three years younger than Biden, one year younger than you. They are both old. And you too. Now I am sure you will claim that 2 or 3 years difference in age is an enormous amount. Its not. My parents are three years difference in age. I consider them to be the same age more or less. They lived in the exact same age. Now Melania... She is only 50 years old.

Why do you think Biden would send the USA to war?

No, the WORLD would be mired in permanent war -- not just the US. Because, as you know, Trump has brought world peace, I mean apart from all the wars..

I'm also wondering why we would lose half the world's food supply. Does Joe Biden eat a lot? Farm welfare has been big for both parties -- although much of that welfare is supporting ethanol, which I enjoy drinking but does not comprise the world's food supply. Plus, I prefer potato vodka. We must support the potato farmers! And thank god for NAFTA 2.0 -- maybe we can unload some of the government cheese on the Canadians, eh?

-- Jay Beattie.

Writing from the anarchist jurisdiction of Portland, Oregon (AJPO). https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...violence-texts

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:01:14 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:26:03 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:00:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I believe that the practice of purchase of commissions was abolished
as part of the 1871 Cardwell reforms.

Correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_of_commissions_in_the_British_Army

But, it might be noted that Sir Arthur Wellesley, who starting his
career in 1787 as a commissioned officer in the infantry, purchased
his first 4 commissions. As was the practice at that time.

Most armies (and governments) tend to be top heavy with those unfit to
lead. A good example is the book "Eminent Victorian Soldiers, Seekers
of Glory" by Byron Farwell, 367 pages, Norton 1985. It covers eight
leading Victorian generals, including some from the Boer War, explains
how the system of purchasing commissions actually worked, and how some
really odd soldiers floated to the top:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Eminent+Victorian+Soldiers
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=Eminent+Victorian+Soldiers%3A+S eekers+of+Glory

Do you imply that Sir Arthur Wellesley was not, probably, the
greatest general of his generation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington
He's not in the book since his time was before Queen Victoria's rule.
As for greatness, he did better than most of his contemporaries.
However, I don't consider myself qualified to judge greatness.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:01:14 +0700, John B.
wrote:
Do you imply that Sir Arthur Wellesley was not, probably, the
greatest general of his generation?

Well, he did make the 100 Greatest Britons list as #15.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons
Along with Mongomery, they're the only other military generals on the
list.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 08:59:56 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


And you argue that had Singapore only been supplied that it could have
successfully fought the Japanese army?

The critiscism was made of Churchills decision to starve the Far East and
send everything to North Africa.

Foolishness. Or perhaps daydreams.

Seriously, people need to really look at the fairy tales they are
fed.

As above. You need to do a bit of deep reading about the full picture,
not just the glossy version they taught in school. OTOH, I had the
advantage of hearing directly from a few people who were there.


I've never met a Boer War veteran, Have you?

Not that I can recall immediately. While none of my direct ancestors
served there, some of their siblngs may have and i've met afew of them
in my early years,

Back to Singapore and the people i've met and discussed it with were both
Australian and British soldiers . Shrug

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:01:14 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:26:03 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:00:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I believe that the practice of purchase of commissions was abolished as
part of the 1871 Cardwell reforms.

Correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Purchase_of_commissions_in_the_British_Army

But, it might be noted that Sir Arthur Wellesley, who starting his
career in 1787 as a commissioned officer in the infantry, purchased his
first 4 commissions. As was the practice at that time.

Most armies (and governments) tend to be top heavy with those unfit to
lead. A good example is the book "Eminent Victorian Soldiers, Seekers
of Glory" by Byron Farwell, 367 pages, Norton 1985. It covers eight
leading Victorian generals, including some from the Boer War, explains
how the system of purchasing commissions actually worked, and how some
really odd soldiers floated to the top:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Eminent+Victorian+Soldiers
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?
keyword=Eminent+Victorian+Soldiers%3A+Seekers+of+G lory

Do you imply that Sir Arthur Wellesley was not, probably, the greatest
general of his generation?

Well, you seem to have some doubts and I'm sure no matter which viewpoint
you have, there will be points to support it.

The truth is ALL "great people" have their 'faults. Discussing them keeps
the plebs amused.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 19:06:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:01:14 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:26:03 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:00:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I believe that the practice of purchase of commissions was abolished
as part of the 1871 Cardwell reforms.

Correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_of_commissions_in_the_British_Army

But, it might be noted that Sir Arthur Wellesley, who starting his
career in 1787 as a commissioned officer in the infantry, purchased
his first 4 commissions. As was the practice at that time.

Most armies (and governments) tend to be top heavy with those unfit to
lead. A good example is the book "Eminent Victorian Soldiers, Seekers
of Glory" by Byron Farwell, 367 pages, Norton 1985. It covers eight
leading Victorian generals, including some from the Boer War, explains
how the system of purchasing commissions actually worked, and how some
really odd soldiers floated to the top:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Eminent+Victorian+Soldiers
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=Eminent+Victorian+Soldiers%3A+S eekers+of+Glory

Do you imply that Sir Arthur Wellesley was not, probably, the
greatest general of his generation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington
He's not in the book since his time was before Queen Victoria's rule.
As for greatness, he did better than most of his contemporaries.
However, I don't consider myself qualified to judge greatness.


Errr... and what is your background, education, experience, etc., that
qualifies you to judge a military action, or the managers of such
events?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 5:22:39 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/18/2020 4:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op vrijdag 18 september 2020 om 19:46:07 UTC+2 schreef :
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 9:56:06 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op vrijdag 18 september 2020 om 17:54:44 UTC+2 schreef :
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 8:15:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 8:34:54 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/17/maine-...ans-mailboxes/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Some folks really don't like Trump

Deacon Mark
Joe Biden walks into a bar and sits next to a pretty young woman. He looks over at her and says, "Do I come here often?"
Tom, how old are you?
I am 75 years old, 2 years younger than Joe Biden, and I have watched a couple of members of our riding group die from Alzheimers. They were at the stage that Biden is now and within days they died. It isn't in the least funny that they have put some demented doofus who has never done one single thing in his entire life as a politicians that wasn't wrong and they run him as the best that the Democrats can produce. Then after the communist Bernie Sanders loses to Biden because no one wants a communist, Biden takes on the entire communist platform of Sanders.,

Tell us Lou - what do you think would happen to the world if Biden were to be elected? This country and the entire world would be mired in permanent war. The dollar would be reduced to nothing and the food supply for half of the world would disappear. Is that something you think should happen?
How are so sure that would happen?

Because that is what they have promised to do. I guess that you aren't exposed to their garbage day in and day out.

Judge for yourself:
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

(it's over 100 pages so plan for that. Few people have read
the whole damned thing)

Amazingly while many recoil in horror others cheer them on.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
The list of bald-faced lies in that document seems not to bother anyone in that party. They will say absolutely anything to gain power.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 10:53:51 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 19:06:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:01:14 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:26:03 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:00:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I believe that the practice of purchase of commissions was abolished
as part of the 1871 Cardwell reforms.

Correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_of_commissions_in_the_British_Army

But, it might be noted that Sir Arthur Wellesley, who starting his
career in 1787 as a commissioned officer in the infantry, purchased
his first 4 commissions. As was the practice at that time.

Most armies (and governments) tend to be top heavy with those unfit to
lead. A good example is the book "Eminent Victorian Soldiers, Seekers
of Glory" by Byron Farwell, 367 pages, Norton 1985. It covers eight
leading Victorian generals, including some from the Boer War, explains
how the system of purchasing commissions actually worked, and how some
really odd soldiers floated to the top:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Eminent+Victorian+Soldiers
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=Eminent+Victorian+Soldiers%3A+S eekers+of+Glory

Do you imply that Sir Arthur Wellesley was not, probably, the
greatest general of his generation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington
He's not in the book since his time was before Queen Victoria's rule.
As for greatness, he did better than most of his contemporaries.
However, I don't consider myself qualified to judge greatness.

Errr... and what is your background, education, experience, etc., that
qualifies you to judge a military action, or the managers of such
events?

My past military adventures during the early 1970's would not qualify
me to pass any form of judgment. I do not wish to disclose the exact
nature of my past military service.

About half of the discretionary part of the US federal budget goes to
the military:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/
The non-discretionary parts are all entitlements and not really
subject to voter influence. As in most countries, voters do not elect
their military leaders or war lords. Under present circumstances,
each citizen is entitled to exactly one vote in the matter of electing
civilian political leaders who fund the military. Should the voters
find something lacking in the performance of its military, one might
expect their displeasure to be displayed in their voting preferences.
While my one vote does not have any direct effect on the actions of
the military, it does require that I know something about the military
in order to cast an intelligent vote.

Assuming little has changed in the past 150 years, I can see that
first hand knowledge of our present military might have some benefit
in evaluating the performance of 19th century military leaders.
However, that's probably a bad assumption. For example, any recent
military service would probably offer little understanding of how the
commissions were purchased and how generals and field marshals were
selected in the Victorian era British military.

So, what are your minimum requirements for someone to have an opinion
on purchasing military commissions in the Victorian era British
military? Perhaps reading the book I recommended might improve your
qualifications?



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

rOn Thu, 24 Sep 2020 10:20:31 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 10:53:51 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 19:06:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:01:14 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:26:03 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:00:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I believe that the practice of purchase of commissions was abolished
as part of the 1871 Cardwell reforms.

Correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_of_commissions_in_the_British_Army

But, it might be noted that Sir Arthur Wellesley, who starting his
career in 1787 as a commissioned officer in the infantry, purchased
his first 4 commissions. As was the practice at that time.

Most armies (and governments) tend to be top heavy with those unfit to
lead. A good example is the book "Eminent Victorian Soldiers, Seekers
of Glory" by Byron Farwell, 367 pages, Norton 1985. It covers eight
leading Victorian generals, including some from the Boer War, explains
how the system of purchasing commissions actually worked, and how some
really odd soldiers floated to the top:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Eminent+Victorian+Soldiers
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=Eminent+Victorian+Soldiers%3A+S eekers+of+Glory

Do you imply that Sir Arthur Wellesley was not, probably, the
greatest general of his generation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington
He's not in the book since his time was before Queen Victoria's rule.
As for greatness, he did better than most of his contemporaries.
However, I don't consider myself qualified to judge greatness.

Errr... and what is your background, education, experience, etc., that
qualifies you to judge a military action, or the managers of such
events?

My past military adventures during the early 1970's would not qualify
me to pass any form of judgment. I do not wish to disclose the exact
nature of my past military service.

About half of the discretionary part of the US federal budget goes to
the military:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/
The non-discretionary parts are all entitlements and not really
subject to voter influence. As in most countries, voters do not elect
their military leaders or war lords. Under present circumstances,
each citizen is entitled to exactly one vote in the matter of electing
civilian political leaders who fund the military. Should the voters
find something lacking in the performance of its military, one might
expect their displeasure to be displayed in their voting preferences.
While my one vote does not have any direct effect on the actions of
the military, it does require that I know something about the military
in order to cast an intelligent vote.


I would ask, what if any part of that military budget flows back into
the local economies and or industries? Without doing a lot of research
I find that in 2019 budget that pay and allowances for military and
civilian was $268.5 billion, that "procurement" amounted to some $147
billion, Research and Development was $95 billion and so on. Money
that largely flows from the military back into the civilian economy.
Military spending supported some 578,000 jobs in N.Carolina, for
example.

Assuming little has changed in the past 150 years, I can see that
first hand knowledge of our present military might have some benefit
in evaluating the performance of 19th century military leaders.
However, that's probably a bad assumption. For example, any recent
military service would probably offer little understanding of how the
commissions were purchased and how generals and field marshals were
selected in the Victorian era British military.

So, what are your minimum requirements for someone to have an opinion
on purchasing military commissions in the Victorian era British
military? Perhaps reading the book I recommended might improve your
qualifications?

I don't have any opinion on purchasing commissions in the early
English/British military. I had assumed that the argument was whether
or not Wellesley was a good general.

But that aside a comparison of battles won or lost from 1683 until
1871 and post 1871 (the date that purchasing commissions was ended)
might be enlightening.
--
Cheers,

John B.