From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #657 Dead-Flames Digest #657, Volume #48 Mon, 24 Oct 05 10:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Carlisle") Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? (JC Martin) Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? ("Sparky the Wonder Dog") What's the Release Date on the Fillmore 10 CD Box Set? ("RandyStoner") Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? ("Carlisle") Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? ("garciyalater@hotmail.com") Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? ("Sparky the Wonder Dog") Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions (JC Martin) Re: who buys this? (band beyond description) Re: Listen to the new Garcia plays Dylan disc here! ("imsjry") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (band beyond description) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (JC Martin) Re: who buys this? (band beyond description) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (kpnnews@yahoo.com) Re: who buys this? ("Randy G") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Carlisle") Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Brad Greer) Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? (JC Martin) Re: Blues for Vassar (ndc) (leftie) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Brad Greer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 24 Oct 2005 08:39:15 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > Richard Morris wrote: > > > >>"Carlisle" wrote in message > >>news:1130074508.988782.166000@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > >>snip > >> > >> > >>>Hey R, > >>> Mkay. > >>>If any laws were broken even if there is no way that national security > >>>and/or anyone's personal safety was at stake, then due punishment > >>>should be applied. The perps should take their lumps. The rule of law > >>>is the rule of law. How's that for reasonin' y'all?! > >>>peace & awe, > >>>Carlisle > >>> > >> > >>Okay, now that is just half the pie though. > >> > >>The other half is, how do you feel about an administration that would use > >>these kind of tactics, which appear to be unlawful (we will know after the > >>jury makes a decision), in order to discredit someone who was critical of > >>their propoganda machine? > >> > >>Remember, this was about yellow cake uranium, weapons of mass destruction, > >>and the reasons we invaded Iraq. Remember that? > >> > >>Reason that, please. > >> > >>Richard > > > > > > Well Richard since you want to make me out to be the poster child for > > the "vast right-wing conspiracy", I'll answer like this. They got > > arrogant and played hardball. It's not just republicans or > > conservatives that this happens to. "Power corrupts, absolute power > > corrupts absolutely."...You want a scandle?! You're getting it with the > > weekly casualty lists that come back from Iraq. Did you remember that I > > was against our invasion and occupation of Iraq?? IMHO, it was/is not > > in our national interest and it sets a bad precedent. Howard Dean > > rightly criticized both Kerry and Edwards for voting to give the "Bush > > propaganda machine" the authorization to do this. > > > No, Dean was playing politics at the time, and frankly he's just another > in a long line of political opportunists. Both Kerry and Edwards voted > to give the President of the U.S. the ability to take out Saddam IF he > did not comply with UN inspections and under the conditions put forth by > a hyperbolic and lying executive branch. Let's not resort to Limbaugh > spin again. All parties abuse power. But very few administrations > create a national security red alert out of thin air and use the > resulting fear created to launch an occupation of foreign territory. > And to blame Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority to take out > Saddam under the conditions I gave above (I would have voted the same > way myself given the circumstances)? Come on now. Wrong target. > There's no political moral equivalency here. There are vast degrees of > separation between the neo-cons and the rest of the politicians out there. > > -JC Here's a new one WIIWRLAYP,aka: What Is It With Rush Limbaugh And You People? As long as Bush was popular, the Democrats that you are defending wanted to look strong and belligerent on national defense. They wanted to have it both ways. They had to know good and well that Saddam Hussein would not comply properly with UN mandates. They helped set us up for war. The *intel* was the same that was given by the CIA of the Clinton years, btw. The Bush Administration played them like fiddles. Now they want to come off as all anti-war. Well it's a little late for that, huh? Oh boy, JC..I hope you have your jock strap from junior high school on today, brutha!! Game ON. CC ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:40:58 GMT Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > Kurt--why do you think she is so unelectable? Too left-wing for the > country? Too right-wing for Democrats? She doesn't have a warm personality and isn't very convincing as a salesperson. And she's seen by moderates as slippery. Without moderates, the Democrats can't win a national election. Heck, Hillary is the most divisive Democrat out there. Kurt is right. Condi can't win the Republican nomination at this point either. A near agnostic, single, black woman who acted as Bush's lap dog? No way. Why do people take Dick Morris seriously anyway? -JC ------------------------------ From: "Sparky the Wonder Dog" Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: 24 Oct 2005 08:43:49 -0700 Kurt, I like her myself. She has very high approval ratings in NY, last I heard. Ex-cokehead? I know we've heard the rumors and the tantalizing clues from GWB and the refusal to release medical records (I thnk) but I think ex-cokehead is a little harsh. My impression is that maybe he finished off a line or two to top-off an alcoholic buzz. ------------------------------ From: "RandyStoner" Subject: What's the Release Date on the Fillmore 10 CD Box Set? Date: 24 Oct 2005 08:46:13 -0700 I'm getting anxious. ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: 24 Oct 2005 08:46:59 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > > Kurt--why do you think she is so unelectable? Too left-wing for the > > country? Too right-wing for Democrats? > > > She doesn't have a warm personality and isn't very convincing as a > salesperson. And she's seen by moderates as slippery. Without > moderates, the Democrats can't win a national election. Heck, Hillary > is the most divisive Democrat out there. Kurt is right. > > Condi can't win the Republican nomination at this point either. A near > agnostic, single, black woman who acted as Bush's lap dog? No way. Why > do people take Dick Morris seriously anyway? > > -JC Dick Morris has an obsession with Hillary. She dissed him. Good for her, he's a shameless snake. He speaks with alot of confidence, but he's wrong about half the time. On this one-JC is right. Senator Carlisle (I, rmgd) ------------------------------ From: "garciyalater@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: 24 Oct 2005 08:48:55 -0700 She doesn't have a warm personality and isn't very convincing as a salesperson.>>>> bush got reelected being easily the worst public speaker of any president to serve while I have been alive/old enough to know of such things. Anyone who refers to the texas supreme court(or highest court if thats the wrong name), as "these folks" is about as convincing a salesman as a knife dealer with 3 missing fingers.....his stammering thorugh the apology when they crashed the japanese fishing boat was an embarrassment to this entire country..... I think bush has the personality of a soap dish....those conservative jesus freaks are about as warm as day old dog poop on the lawn.... Chuck ------------------------------ From: "Sparky the Wonder Dog" Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: 24 Oct 2005 08:53:06 -0700 JC: Hillary does sometimes get shrill--like when she is addressing a partisan crowd and feels she has to make a dramatic point--her voice rises into this very uncomfortable register--dogs start howling for blocks. But I think she could work on that part of things. And that killer-glare when she feels she is being questioned by a lackey of the vast right-wing consipracy. She could work on that, too. ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:56:29 GMT pbuzby2002@yahoo.com wrote: > JC Martin wrote: > >>Ohhhh Pat, please don't..... > > > Please don't what? As Billie sang, "Don't Explain". Understand that Bill believes rock musicians have the same level of chops as jazz musicians. When a guy believes a Jimmy Page or Jerry Garcia has more chops than Bill Frisell or that Billy K. has more chops than Tony Williams, there's no use explaining. -JC ------------------------------ From: band beyond description <123@456.com> Subject: Re: who buys this? Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:57:50 +0900 On 2005-10-24 22:31:22 +0900, "Sparky the Wonder Dog" said: > bbd: my faux paux if such it be. So, what have you bought from GMD? > Anything? Did you ever have a GD t-shirt? that GD almanac merchandising's been going on for most of the past decade; sometimes they have had stuff worth getting, like T-shirts/stickers, etc., and before Internet commerce kicked into full gear it was a good outlet for Dick's Picks and other CDs. -- Peace, Steve ------------------------------ From: "imsjry" Subject: Re: Listen to the new Garcia plays Dylan disc here! Date: 24 Oct 2005 09:06:38 -0700 mr rapidan wrote: > imsjry wrote: > > This is so sweet! > > > > http://music.aol.com/songs/new_releases_full_cds.adp > > I was/am tempted, but AOL wants to load some Active-X stuff on my > system. It works fine, don't worry. It's just a player. ------------------------------ From: band beyond description <123@456.com> Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:11:52 +0900 On 2005-10-24 05:01:40 +0900, "Richard Morris" said: > > "Carlisle" wrote in message > news:1130091109.084412.193270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > snip > >> Well Richard since you want to make me out to be the poster child for >> the "vast right-wing conspiracy", I'll answer like this. They got > > Eh? I posed a general question. You elected yourself to answer it. > So if anyone made you a poster child, it was you. > >> arrogant and played hardball. It's not just republicans or >> conservatives that this happens to. "Power corrupts, absolute power >> corrupts absolutely."...You want a scandle?! You're getting it with the >> weekly casualty lists that come back from Iraq. Did you remember that I >> was against our invasion and occupation of Iraq?? IMHO, it was/is not >> in our national interest and it sets a bad precedent. Howard Dean >> rightly criticized both Kerry and Edwards for voting to give the "Bush >> propaganda machine" the authorization to do this. But alas at the time, >> Bush's poll numbers were very high. It's a shame. I hope for the best >> possible outcome for the Bush dream now, if only for the fallen >> soldiers and so their sacrifice won't be in vain. >> Good DAY, sir- > > Bush dream? I wonder what that is/was .... > > You can divide gummint policy into foreign policy and domestic policy. > > Please tell me in which area of the two, Bush is making a positive > difference, and cite a specific or two. > > Otherwise, my question remains ... what does it take for conservative > types to come to the conclusion that their boy Bush is a disaster? > > R. well, like their alcoholic poster boy (wasn't it "once an alky, always an alky," for those who buy into that addiction stuff?), first the conservative types have to admit there's a problem before they seek help. in some, disparate quarters, it's actually starting to happen. but i still think a criminal indictment (better yet, conviction!) or two is the only thing that'll really wake them up. -- Peace, Steve ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:13:32 GMT Carlisle wrote: > JC Martin wrote: > >>Carlisle wrote: >> >>>Richard Morris wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Carlisle" wrote in message >>>>news:1130074508.988782.166000@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>>snip >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hey R, >>>>> Mkay. >>>>>If any laws were broken even if there is no way that national security >>>>>and/or anyone's personal safety was at stake, then due punishment >>>>>should be applied. The perps should take their lumps. The rule of law >>>>>is the rule of law. How's that for reasonin' y'all?! >>>>>peace & awe, >>>>>Carlisle >>>>> >>>> >>>>Okay, now that is just half the pie though. >>>> >>>>The other half is, how do you feel about an administration that would use >>>>these kind of tactics, which appear to be unlawful (we will know after the >>>>jury makes a decision), in order to discredit someone who was critical of >>>>their propoganda machine? >>>> >>>>Remember, this was about yellow cake uranium, weapons of mass destruction, >>>>and the reasons we invaded Iraq. Remember that? >>>> >>>>Reason that, please. >>>> >>>>Richard >>> >>> >>>Well Richard since you want to make me out to be the poster child for >>>the "vast right-wing conspiracy", I'll answer like this. They got >>>arrogant and played hardball. It's not just republicans or >>>conservatives that this happens to. "Power corrupts, absolute power >>>corrupts absolutely."...You want a scandle?! You're getting it with the >>>weekly casualty lists that come back from Iraq. Did you remember that I >>>was against our invasion and occupation of Iraq?? IMHO, it was/is not >>>in our national interest and it sets a bad precedent. Howard Dean >>>rightly criticized both Kerry and Edwards for voting to give the "Bush >>>propaganda machine" the authorization to do this. >> >> >>No, Dean was playing politics at the time, and frankly he's just another >>in a long line of political opportunists. Both Kerry and Edwards voted >>to give the President of the U.S. the ability to take out Saddam IF he >>did not comply with UN inspections and under the conditions put forth by >>a hyperbolic and lying executive branch. Let's not resort to Limbaugh >>spin again. All parties abuse power. But very few administrations >>create a national security red alert out of thin air and use the >>resulting fear created to launch an occupation of foreign territory. >>And to blame Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority to take out >>Saddam under the conditions I gave above (I would have voted the same >>way myself given the circumstances)? Come on now. Wrong target. >>There's no political moral equivalency here. There are vast degrees of >>separation between the neo-cons and the rest of the politicians out there. >> >>-JC > > > Here's a new one WIIWRLAYP,aka: What Is It With Rush Limbaugh And You > People? Rush is usually the source of most of the spin you hear from the right. That's a fact. He's a very powerful Republican point man and a master spinner supreme. The dittohead tag Limbaugh made up isn't just for fun. >As long as Bush was popular, the Democrats that you are > defending wanted to look strong and belligerent on national defense. > They wanted to have it both ways. They had to know good and well that > Saddam Hussein would not comply properly with UN mandates. They helped > set us up for war. The *intel* was the same that was given by the CIA > of the Clinton years, btw. The Bush Administration played them like > fiddles. Now they want to come off as all anti-war. Liberals by and large are a consortium of pacifists and and non-pacifists, most who aren't so quick to invade other countries. Liberals are also by and large more wholistic and see mono-solutions as ineffective long-term. Kerry and Edwards voted their conscience on this issue (well, maybe not Kerry), as I would have. If Saddam did indeed force inspectors out a second time, if indeed he was involved in acquiring nuclear weapons and if indeed he was in cahoots with Bin Laden---all those conditions combined would warrant a decision by the president to invade Iraq (though certainly many liberal pacifists wouldn't agree). Those were the conditions Kerry and Edwards were presented. They're not to blame really, and that you would focus on them points to a bit of denial on your part. That's your right. But the campaign really is over. What's the point in continuing with Limbaugh spin? Liberals aren't all pacifists and some of us recognize that war as a LAST resort could be effective in cases of immediate national security emergencies. >Well it's a little > late for that, huh? Oh boy, JC..I hope you have your jock strap from > junior high school on today, brutha!! > Game ON. I'm getting muh cup on for this round. ;-) Peas, JC ------------------------------ From: band beyond description <123@456.com> Subject: Re: who buys this? Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:18:42 +0900 On 2005-10-25 00:57:50 +0900, band beyond description <123@456.com> said: > On 2005-10-24 22:31:22 +0900, "Sparky the Wonder Dog" > said: > >> bbd: my faux paux if such it be. So, what have you bought from GMD? >> Anything? Did you ever have a GD t-shirt? > > that GD almanac merchandising's been going on for most of the past > decade; sometimes they have had stuff worth getting, like > T-shirts/stickers, etc., and before Internet commerce kicked into full > gear it was a good outlet for Dick's Picks and other CDs. i meant to say T-shirts, stickers and other "accessories" generally exclusively available there, so it's occasionally worth checking to see what they are carrying for sale... -- Peace, Steve ------------------------------ From: kpnnews@yahoo.com Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 24 Oct 2005 09:20:15 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > JC Martin wrote: > > > >>Carlisle wrote: > >> > >>>Richard Morris wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>"Carlisle" wrote in message > >>>>news:1130074508.988782.166000@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >>>> > >>>>snip > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Hey R, > >>>>> Mkay. > >>>>>If any laws were broken even if there is no way that national security > >>>>>and/or anyone's personal safety was at stake, then due punishment > >>>>>should be applied. The perps should take their lumps. The rule of law > >>>>>is the rule of law. How's that for reasonin' y'all?! > >>>>>peace & awe, > >>>>>Carlisle > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Okay, now that is just half the pie though. > >>>> > >>>>The other half is, how do you feel about an administration that would use > >>>>these kind of tactics, which appear to be unlawful (we will know after the > >>>>jury makes a decision), in order to discredit someone who was critical of > >>>>their propoganda machine? > >>>> > >>>>Remember, this was about yellow cake uranium, weapons of mass destruction, > >>>>and the reasons we invaded Iraq. Remember that? > >>>> > >>>>Reason that, please. > >>>> > >>>>Richard > >>> > >>> > >>>Well Richard since you want to make me out to be the poster child for > >>>the "vast right-wing conspiracy", I'll answer like this. They got > >>>arrogant and played hardball. It's not just republicans or > >>>conservatives that this happens to. "Power corrupts, absolute power > >>>corrupts absolutely."...You want a scandle?! You're getting it with the > >>>weekly casualty lists that come back from Iraq. Did you remember that I > >>>was against our invasion and occupation of Iraq?? IMHO, it was/is not > >>>in our national interest and it sets a bad precedent. Howard Dean > >>>rightly criticized both Kerry and Edwards for voting to give the "Bush > >>>propaganda machine" the authorization to do this. > >> > >> > >>No, Dean was playing politics at the time, and frankly he's just another > >>in a long line of political opportunists. Both Kerry and Edwards voted > >>to give the President of the U.S. the ability to take out Saddam IF he > >>did not comply with UN inspections and under the conditions put forth by > >>a hyperbolic and lying executive branch. Let's not resort to Limbaugh > >>spin again. All parties abuse power. But very few administrations > >>create a national security red alert out of thin air and use the > >>resulting fear created to launch an occupation of foreign territory. > >>And to blame Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority to take out > >>Saddam under the conditions I gave above (I would have voted the same > >>way myself given the circumstances)? Come on now. Wrong target. > >>There's no political moral equivalency here. There are vast degrees of > >>separation between the neo-cons and the rest of the politicians out there. > >> > >>-JC > > > > > > Here's a new one WIIWRLAYP,aka: What Is It With Rush Limbaugh And You > > People? > > > Rush is usually the source of most of the spin you hear from the right. > That's a fact. He's a very powerful Republican point man and a master > spinner supreme. The dittohead tag Limbaugh made up isn't just for fun. > > > > >As long as Bush was popular, the Democrats that you are > > defending wanted to look strong and belligerent on national defense. > > They wanted to have it both ways. They had to know good and well that > > Saddam Hussein would not comply properly with UN mandates. They helped > > set us up for war. The *intel* was the same that was given by the CIA > > of the Clinton years, btw. The Bush Administration played them like > > fiddles. Now they want to come off as all anti-war. > > > Liberals by and large are a consortium of pacifists and and > non-pacifists, most who aren't so quick to invade other countries. > Liberals are also by and large more wholistic and see mono-solutions as > ineffective long-term. Kerry and Edwards voted their conscience on this > issue (well, maybe not Kerry), as I would have. If Saddam did indeed > force inspectors out a second time, if indeed he was involved in > acquiring nuclear weapons and if indeed he was in cahoots with Bin > Laden---all those conditions combined would warrant a decision by the > president to invade Iraq (though certainly many liberal pacifists > wouldn't agree). Those were the conditions Kerry and Edwards were > presented. You forgot 9/11 and the fact that Saddam subsidized the same type of terrorism against Israel, and he was sympathetic to anti-American sentiment (duh!). Kurt ------------------------------ From: "Randy G" Subject: Re: who buys this? Date: 24 Oct 2005 09:21:52 -0700 I am holding out for the Deborah Koons-Garcia voodoo doll...... ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 24 Oct 2005 09:24:20 -0700 ;) Rush is an entertainer...he gets is stuff from others, namely the WSJ, National Review, Cato, Heritage Foundation, AEI and the White House. Write that down. The man is given too much credit, really. Ditto THAT! > I'm getting muh cup on for this round. ;-) > > > Peas, > JC peazz, CC ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:24:36 -0400 On 22 Oct 2005 18:19:35 -0700, "grtflmark" wrote: >>This whole thread really highlights a problem unique to our modern >>society. Why do we tolerate employers owning the biggest portions of >>our souls? > >>>I don't know this is unique to modern society. Early >>generations had slavery, indentured servants and feudal lords. > > >......... makes drug testing look reasonable, or a worst - a minor but >equal inconvenience for all employees of companies that require >them...... While I would agree that compared to the way people literally were "owned" in years gone by the issue of drug testing is still wrong, IMO. Just because things sucked worst in the past doesn't mean we should be happy they suck less now. >Frankly, there are some jobs that I think SHOULD require drug testing: > >Teachers >Cops >Oil Barge Drivers >Cabbies >Railroad Engineers >Airline Pilots > >...... you get the idea. Obviously politicans aren't on the list or >Teddy Kennedy would've been out of the Senate years ago.... Why would what any of these people do in their free time matter? Performing their jobs while under the influence is a whole 'nother matter, but I see nothing wrong with people doing what they want on their free time. Maybe you make an exception on cops because they are sworn to uphold the law. If you want to test people who operate heavy machinery for intoxication *at the time they are working* I'm okay with that. The minute you start worrying about what they do in their own time you've gone too far. ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:25:02 GMT garciyalater@hotmail.com wrote: > She doesn't have a warm personality and isn't very convincing as a > salesperson.>>>> > > bush got reelected being easily the worst public speaker of any > president to serve while I have been alive/old enough to know of such > things. Anyone who refers to the texas supreme court(or highest court > if thats the wrong name), as "these folks" is about as convincing a > salesman as a knife dealer with 3 missing fingers.....his stammering > thorugh the apology when they crashed the japanese fishing boat was an > embarrassment to this entire country..... Out of the two parties though, the Republican Party is the majority party in America. That means more Americans are registered Republican than Democrat. The Republicans have a very solid base and Bush played to that base masterfully, despite what you may think about his speaking skills. It's not about speaking skills really. It's about attracting a solid majority. The Democratic base is much smaller in comparison, so in order to win a national election, a Democratic candidate must appeal to moderates and liberal Republicans (they need 2/3 of moderates to win essentially...Republicans need only 1/3). Hillary is not favored by that electorate, despite her many efforts to move towards the center. > I think bush has the personality of a soap dish....those conservative > jesus freaks are about as warm as day old dog poop on the lawn.... Yeah, but they're a solid voting base. Winning elections is a numbers game, not personality test. -JC ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: Blues for Vassar (ndc) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:25:36 -0700 Blues For Vassar appears on the latest Acoustic Disc collection, Tone Poets. On it, a whole slew of great pickers each play the same instruments: the guitarists all play a 1930s era Martin, while the mandolinists all play a 1920s Gibson. Disc one is all solos, while disc two is all duets. Extremely sweet addition to the Tone Poems series. Blues For Vassar features Tony Rice and Dawg, btw. ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:26:00 -0400 On 22 Oct 2005 22:47:21 -0700, "grtflmark" wrote: >>Frankly, there are some jobs that I think SHOULD require drug testing: > >>Even though drug testing is used to detect past use and not >current intoxication? > >........ ahhhh, newsflash sparky: those breathalyzer tests identify >people's blood alcohol level - which means is detects people who ARE >drunk - as well as people who were very recently drunk..... the same >thing is true of the blood tests - ifyou smoked a joint before you came >to work in the morning, they'll catch it.... > >so - your point is not only dumb - it's flat wrong....... Mark - a standard urine test for drug use doesn't tell the users current status - under the influence or not. Please, don't embarass yourself by maintaing a urine test (standard pre-employment drug screening method) and a breathalizer are the same. ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .