Ingot54

Yes ... it is ... and I avoid it :rofl:

Thanks CB ... I note an oxymoron in the story: Sporting rifles? The terms don't belong together.

Take note, Steven ... you make sure you too hear these words. You are not happy because I keep pointing you away from violence - I keep pointing you away from your "rights" to be fascinated by violent objects of power - some kind of fetish you seem to have with these killing instruments. Yet in another breath you talk of prayer, of God, of examining "your own heart." But as soon as someone asks you to do exactly that, you become all narky! You want others to change ... just not YOU! What is it with guns, that people have no problem defending them in the same breath they speak of God? Don't you know that God is LOVE? What a repugnant idea - the idea that somehow guns have a place in the House of prayer! I am not a church goer - and I am not catholic - I am nothing. But I, and my ideas, will not quickly go away - there are many people working to get rid of the violence perpetrated on us by those who have the responsibility to care for us. Don't make yourself an enemy of those whose only weapon against your foolish ideas is ... love ... and prayer. Not sure how you can marry that heartfelt plea to congress by Darrell Scott that embodies the right to pray and the right to communicate with God along with your personal sacred cows that really are quite the opposite of what Scott was trying to say. The bit you quote was merely to stop pointing the finger at the NRA and their ilk ... and to look within. His comments were NOT an endorsement of the NRA, as you so like to point out. The argument is a little too inconsistent here, and I suggest you need to reexamine you pet theories about 0the kind of life you hope to achieve by arming every man, woman and child, their dogs and cats. It will never add up.

Which one are you glorifying ... justifying ... asking us to choose? Introducing a red herring (abortion) instead of staying with the topic is not a legitimate tool of debate - it wins debates ... yes, but the intent of the discussion is then lost - and the ego wins again. How is bringing in the topic of abortion going to address the topic of putting assault weapons in the hands of school teachers ... effectively encouraging violence as a response to violence? It does not address this issue, and cannot - the issue of death-by-abortion is an attempt to introduce a sub-topic and I cry foul! Get back to the topic.

In a word ... fear. Fear of "them" Fear of the future Fear of the delirious scenario Fear of loss ... of the consequences of not being "prepared" Fear of not being superior to any and all threats, perceived or real Fear of being humbled Fear of not winning Fear of the "bad guy" laughing at us Yes, Smmatrix, those who want to carry guns for ANY of those reasons, is already dumbed down to the concept that a violent response will overcome a violent offense. Now that is dumb. You didn't ever get back to me with the answer to the question: "Have you ever tried love?" ... except to take the cheap shot at me (paying attention) and thus appear to have answered something ... (answered what? ... I do not know). I think you are afraid of intimacy, and the guns provide you with a way to prevent those closest to you from engaging you intimately. Your guns always empower you ... not your intellect. If you had your guns taken from you, and had to stand up and justify your use of violence to counter perceived violence ... you could not do it. Your cellar is empty - devoid of intelligent and even emotional engagement at a level that could take the very first, tiny step towards ridding society of the need to even remember what a gun used to be. In a world that I strive for, I want no one to carry a weapon, save for his brain and his ears and occasionally his mouth, but certainly he will require his good heart. Right now that world is only a concept, but I think it is a worthwhile goal. And if there are enough Ingot54's out there, we can achieve it, though some Ingot54's may pay a price for it. I am willing to die for such a dream, my dream. Just as you seem suicidally bent on dying for yours. At the end of the day, one of us will achieve our dream. You'd better hope it is me. In the meantime, going back to the quote above ... don't talk to me of "humanity" - you wouldn't have the first idea of the word.

Not only are you fearful yourself, Smmatrix, but you have no qualms about spreading that fear to others who really did not deserve to go through their lives carrying such baggage. Now look at those around you who "know you are armed to the hilt." Are they living in peace ... or fear ... of you ... or better still ... fear ... of your guns ... or ... fear that you might one day become so intoxicated with your own pretend power, and really decide to try out exactly what those guns of yours were truly designed to do best! You didn't respond to my question, and it is a sincere question that deserves an answer: You seriously need some love man ... not to be a continuing perpetrator of fear, a teacher of fear, one who is to be feared as opposed to being respected. I repeat my challenge to you: "Try it." I think both of Tam's Videos prove the point conclusively - your case for carrying is lost.

I am unsure what the gaol term is for use/possess pot in the USA .. but I do know that it carries a larger gaol term than betting $2 billion against your clients, while urging them to take the side of the trade that will tip their money into your account (Goldman Sachs' "muppets") Mark Gongloff: Greg Smith Book: Goldman's Transactions Became 'Morally Ambiguous' ... and it carries a greater gaol term than mysteriously hiding $1.6 billion of client's money No Criminal Case Is Likely in Loss at MF Global - NYTimes.com ... or ... you get the idea ... unless you are Bernie Madoff .... then you become a scapegoat for all that is still wrong on Wall Street.

It is clear that you perceive a threat to your security already - even when that threat has not been enumerated. So instead of shortening your life through fear, stress and worry, why not work in a civilised way to remove that perceived threat, long before it ever has an opportunity to mature and materialise to harm you ... as you think. If that threat is the Government, work to reduce the opportunity the government has to harm you in the way you fear. If that threat is some bunch of crazies, then work to overcome the opportunity the crazies might have to harm you, before they get that opportunity. Sitting back waiting for "them" to come for you ... whereupon you will "protect your family to the end" guarantees only one thing - it will be the end ... for you. Do you think that one person armed with any amount of weaponry can take down a group of similarly armed and perhaps trained adrenalin-charged and driven crazies, then you have far too much testosterone than is good for you! I have seen it before - in drunks in hotels wanting to take on and beat the whole team of bouncers ... and at the other end of the scale ... officers in prisons dressed in CERT gear, pumped with so much adrenalin that they go and provoke an incident with a prisoner, just so they can beat up on him and get their testosterone load off. I think there are serious issues revealed in some of those statements of yours, Smmatrix. Personally I find that your reasoning seems right to you, but to a casual bystander (me) it looks way over the top, and out of balance. Why not set out to teach love and tolerance in the years you have left, and fight to restore what the politically correct drop-kicks have taken from us ... sanity and common sense, and the right to discipline a child lovingly and firmly, without the sheriff getting involved! There is NO other way - love conquers all. Try it.

Salient points, Predictor. Perhaps you could review your opinion of Kids and Violent Movies: A Scary Trend Worldwide think-tank warns parents: Violent images in movies, TV or computer games CAN act as triggers for aggression | Mail Online The Influence Of Violent Media On Children & Adolescents | LIVESTRONG.COM In fact there are many sources stating the same thing. And the message has been unchanged for 30 years: "Limit the exposure of children to violence" ... why would they say that, if it does not have any role in perpetuating violence, and spawning violent acts in young people?

Who would you sell to?Who would buy them and why? For the record, I sold my .303, a .22 magnum and a 12G shotty back in the 70's. We also have a fascist government today - a mere extension of business, making corporate crime legal. That wasn't nearly the case back when the constitutional amendment was made. You fight these enemies with idea and votes ... not physical weapons. You have meetings and you take back control, which is your right. I am not a US citizen, and visiting the USA is not on my bucket list. I like being free. But this seems to me to be a tenet of the US Constitution: ... this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Seems the gun lobby is cherry picking which part of the Constitution is important! They insist on the "right to bear arms" ... but do not insist on democracy. Piss weak ... like my fellow Aussies - so piss weak ... that they won't protest even the slightest over some of the open rorts of government! We are a push-over here ... and the Aussie government(s) knows we are. Does this (USA) government represent a threat to its citizens ... yes. To the extent that owning an arsenal of small arms is going to be any sort of defense? No. Can a pocket of citizens of "justified resistance" to any civil military pressure, withstand CF gas, RPG's, and so on? No. You just have to see what the USA does to "insurgents" in other countries to see what they could do at home if a civil war occurred. (The "if" is another topic). The difference is they would do it "legally." I didn't intend for the discussion to gravitate to the right or the need to carry or own a weapon. The OP was more to point out the imbecility of attempting to get your local school marm to face up to a crazed and driven maniac with an automatic assault arsenal strapped to his torso, hell-bent on taking out anything that moves within 50 feet. To even suggest that the brave school principal could have done anything at all is conjecture, knee-jerk, and futile. What is needed in societies of all kinds, is a change of heart. While we still give kids guns as toys ... provide them with Playstation/X-Box army "games" and so on at an early age, we are actually reenforcing the very behaviour that needs to be banished from society if we want to get rid of violence. I have worked in a prison for 3 years ... some time ago ... and some of the worst crimes were committed after the assailant had spent hours playing with some of these "games." This and stuff like it ... sold to youth for nothing other than commercial gain ... is at the heart of our problems. But you can not legislate these changes - they have to be taught from an early age.

I don't expect to be arguing the pro's and con's of the position NRA or the Gun Lobby here, but today there was an interview of Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). He said that an armed teacher or principal could have taken the killer’s “head off before he can kill those precious kids." GOHMERT: Having been a judge and reviewed photographs of these horrific scenes and knowing that children have these defensive wounds, gun shots through their arms and hands as they try to protect themselves, and, hearing the heroic stories of the principal, lunging, trying to protect, Chris, I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids. This is so ridiculous, I couldn't think of anywhere to post it! It really belongs on "Jackass ... Part 27" http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/16/1342281/gop-rep-suggests-teachers-should-be-armed-with-assault-rifles/?mobile=nc There is so much wrong with that turkey's reasoning, that I won't even begin to go there. But here is the fantasy he is alluding to. It goes like this: "Doris ... do we have some one with a birthday today ... is that balloons popping?" "Don't think so, Beryl. I'll go check." Pop! Pop! Pop! "Now where the hell is Doris." Popopop! Pop! Pop! (sound of screams ... yelling...) "OMG! Those are not balloons popping." "Time to swing into action. Now where is the key to the gun cupboard. It must be taped underneath the top drawer of my desk. Hmmm. Nope. It is taped inside the filing cabinet." Beryl begins to walk towards the filing cabinet ... secures the key just as the door bursts open. Pop! Pop! Popopop! Beryl's last thoughts ... "I knew I should have attended the monthly AK47/Glock training." Gunman takes keys from Beryl's lifeless and bloodied hand, opens gun cupboard, and re-arms himself with something ... aaahhh ..."appropriate" ... for his mission! This post is not meant to offend anyone in light of the tragedy that has happened. It is designed to show the absurdity of the mentality that thinks school marms should be trained and ready to use an assault rifle against a maniac charged with adrenalin and focused to destroy. And it shows that there is another offense than should be taken - the idea that more guns can somehow prevent another of these situations. That people who are ordinary citizens, school teachers, should somehow be capable of taking another life when faced with a decision to pull a trigger. It is time for the gun lobby to relinquish their position on assault weapons. It is time for the registration and criminal background checks on anyone who feels they have the right and the need to carry a weapon at all. The very fact that people feel they need to carry, belies some sort of mental imbalance in the first place, and should be considered as a factor in any decision to license them. We are a hair's breadth from 2013 ... and we are still behaving like the Wild West is next door to Manhatton! That is offensive to anyone who is working hard to build a civilisation, and a caring society. I don't buy the paranoia that the government is conspiring to disarm its citizens. If you believe something strongly enough, be prepared to die for it - don't be prepared to kill for it. (Please do not post "like" underneath these posts.)

Well, it just serves America right for buying all their eggs from Zimbabwe. Let me see - reportedly they have over $16 trillion in debts, and over $126 trillion in "unfunded liabilities" for the future, give or take a hundred billion here and there - chump change! So I guess they have bought a few boxes of eggs from the wrong place! And I heard they have placed them all in Ben Bernanke's basket ... he'll save us! In Ben ... and eggs ... we trust!

The blatant stacking of the ticket to exclude Ron Paul ... How the Republican Party Stole the Nomination from Ron Paul « Free Words ... is an identical situation to the one Goldman Sachs and HCBC have pulled. Goldman took the short side of the housing market, against their "official" advice ("go long the housing market") to their "muppet" clients: Goldman Sachs 'muppet' trader says unsophisticated clients targeted | Business | guardian.co.uk ... fined $USD550 million ... still getting fed bailout funds HSBC laundered money from North Korea, Iran and mexican Drug lords, to the tune of $USD billions, despite being warned about it. HSBC money-laundering fine: key players | Business | The Guardian HSBC fined $USD1.92 billion ... but executives have all disappeared, retired, "moved on" ... "no longer in management"... "learned form mistakes" ... "won't do it again" ... What was the Government response to this? What did the US Attorney General do about it? How many of their executives are doing gaol time over it. Will any of the "fine" money really ever be paid, or were these finings "just for public consumption" and now it's back to "business" as usual? How could anyone determine whether any money has been handed over as "fines" at all?

MM - while I have a lot of respect for most of your views, I am struggling with this one right now. I imagine you would know better than an Australian what happened during the JFK years ... or more precisely what might have happened, had Kennedy had the morals of Bush and Obama today ... with their "executive decree" over-riding your constitution these days. America should be very glad they had JFK for as long as they did. Unlike the warmongers of today, he was very mindful of just what war does to people. I believe he captained a ship of some kind in the Pacific during WW II? Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated within the United States government in 1962, but were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[2] The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.[3] One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated: The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere. Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. It shows clearly how out of control those in power were then, and do you think they are more accountable today ... or less so? In the light of Northwoods, would you say that the 911 blame game on Al Qaeda was true ... likely to be true, possibly true, not true, or something outside these possibilities?

The source I found and posted above in post #6 is not the only one. And the USA is not the only western nation to use this tactic. Further, the USA is not alone in abusing its relationships with its allies. If you look at the Australian and New Zealand (ANZACS) attack/assault on Turkey at the beach at Gallipoli, you will see how utterly futile that exercise was, and the treatment of those troops as fodder for the cannons! As an Australian I know this story only too well. My maternal grandfather was there as a machine gunner, before being lucky enough to be amongst the survivors, and sent to France. Gallipoli Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It should be clear to all that the evidence from that Wikipedia quote is pointing to the use by the British, of men under their command, to prop up their "prestige." This is a more honest appraisal: Dr Peter Stanley speaks about Gallipoli myths The point of posting the above, is to show that despite all the rhetoric and hand-wringing at the respective times of our National Memorial Days, people need to remember that their governments - the "servants of the people" quite often had an agenda to satisfy their own prestige as commanders, as well as satisfy the debt they owed to the financiers who helped get them elected. What role did the Rubber and Tin Companies play in the decision to "fight the spread of communism" in Vietnam? What role did the multi-national Halliburton play in the decision(s) to invade Iraq in 1992 and 2003? Halliburton (with the Vice-president of the USA Dick Cheney as a former CEO) This is the same Dick Cheney who "served" as Defense Secretary whilst actively involved in the running of Halliburton! Imagine that - you make the policy, you make the bombs, you outfit the soldiers, and you get the contracts to rebuild, as well as the contracts to provide "security" during the aftermath! I am not making this stuff up. just Google "Halliburton and Iraq" and "Dick Cheney and Halliburton" and you will see the corruption and filth associated with this company and the politicians who condoned it in full knowledge of the game. Yet GW Bush - the President of the USA did nothing to protect the interests of his own people against this predatory man and his company. So don't try to make some lolly story about Pearl Harbor (there - spelled "right" for the pedantic). PH was no more and no less another "Anzac Cove" to give the people an excuse to emotionally back Roosevelt in drawing the nation into a war it had no business fighting, just as has always been the case. I think people now need to question the motives and facts a little more closely. The "weapons of mass destruction" myth proves that! I should add, that without the involvement of the US, the WW II was going rather precariously for the Allies. But that does not give anyone any reason to believe fairy stories. If Roosevelt had been an honest person, he would have faced the people and said: "Our Allies are in trouble. It's time we rolled up our sleeves and lent a hand." What reasonable person would have denied that as an honourable thing to do? Politicians have no respect for, and no faith in their constituents. They believe the people are there to be used, and while the people allow it, it will continue. I don't buy the rhetorical: "They are only there until the next election" ... to be replaced with ... ???

Finally ... an emotional response from a yank ... Touché ! I guessed it would strike a nerve from the purist warmongers, who always like to say they are "peace-keeping" :rofl::rofl: I s'pose you are referring to me as "some nut from Australia" ... coming from a yank (small "y" ) I will accept the compliment! Thank you, marine. You missed Australia in your conquest of the world ... and we have oil, gas, copper, gold, iron, bauxite, zinc, coal, uranium, and a few Brit-born politicians. There is a big red stone out in the middle, but the sisters and the brothers might want it back. No, it is not made of gold, and there is no oil underneath it. Don't even think about it! What we try to keep out, is ... no prizes for guessing, because we have had a degree of success here ... the yanks! Sadly, they have Pine Gap, and recently took over Darwin, so I guess the end is nigh. .................................................................................... :helloooo: ....... :helloooo: .......:helloooo: Be nice to us nuts, yank, when you come for us. :helloooo: :rofl: :helloooo: :rofl: :helloooo: :rofl: :helloooo:

Well guys, I am interested in getting to the truth of this. We hear stories about the CIA involvement in the Arab Spring uprisings and so on - all wonderful stuff ... but lacking in documentation. Until of course, that is, until someone like Wikileaks breaks ranks with Mainstream media, and spills four or five beans! So I think the only thing I can do is look at sources that have written about it, and see if they are believable. I apologise that I I spell with "s" instead of "z" - or keep the old forms of spelling. I use "bour" for "neighbour" and "harbour" and "iour" for words like "behaviour". I don't think it detracts from the essence of what I write. It belies the fact of my Australian English education, which still resists the Americanisation of everything that threatens to dumb us down. I mean we are still wondering what kind of expressions "I ain't no muv-vucker, man" are, where I live, and thankfully so. It is not educated English - it is creole I think. But that's another topic for another day. I found an interesting item by Robert Higgs here, during my search for truth - but like all things, it is just a part of a larger picture: How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor - Robert Higgs - Mises Daily Note the spelling of "Harbor" for the purists. I am expecting that as soon as some notice where this item was published, they will immediately throw the baby out with the bathwater, without following the 17 mins presentation. He quotes his sources, which have been documented since the 1940's and are on the public record. FDR got his way - they goaded the Japanese into an untenable position whereby they "fired the first shot" ... and more than 2400 Americans lost their lives on that fateful day, December 7th 1941. Attack on Pearl Harbor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sacrificed for political aims ... or the greater good?

Bump! There is a great vid attached to this link, and I have added it below - well worth your time: Creature from Jekyll Island (softbound book)

MM - as a midwife I can tell you that hospitalisation is the only option for some cases of hyperemesis gravidarum, which while it resembles morning sickness, is a rarer complication. (These days I work more in ICU or Emerg Dept. but keep "my hand in" with occasional obstetrics nursing) Look it up. The viability of the pregnancy is threatened, and the risk to the mother is high. (This is not just a case of the privileged being cotton-wool-coddled because of a bit of vomiting.) Depletion of potassium being the major one, which can lead to cardiac arrest, and/or stroke in an otherwise fit and healthy individual. There are other consequences ... and treatment is usually the replacement of electrolytes and rehydration via intravenous fluids. Some doctors add vitamin B6, but results vary, and there is so far little else that can prevent morning sickness, or treat it, that would not also pose a risk to any developing foetus. Just fyi ... I also take on board your feelings about the ongoing fact of the monarchy - perhaps another thread?

I appreciate all of your commentary, Siuya. Certainly none of what you say is outside of what I have considered. If the two DJ's did nothing wrong, then why would they be more upset than anyone else over this tragedy? If they did nothing wrong, then there is nothing to worry about ... right? No, we should not be charging me with manslaughter "if one of those DJs becomes so depressed they then kill themselves." These two actually perpetrated a fraud. They made false representations in order to obtain something that they were not entitled to. That is, the private property - information - that belonged to someone else, and which they had no right to. The law says that is fraud, and fraud is a crime. Am I wrong so far? The intention (a prank ... or to to steal further property) is only considered by a court in determining the severity of the sentence - the fact of the crime remains. A conviction might be recorded with a probation or no penalty yada yada. My crime is that I have stood back with indignation and outrage, and pointed the finger in anger. That is because I AM angry. If they didn't make that fraudulent call, that woman lives. The mention of manslaughter may have been over the top in the OP ... yet an unintended death as a result of a crime can be construed that way by a court. Look - to stand by and say nothing can also be construed as condoning an action. If people do not stand up when serious issues arise, then these things proceed to a point where lines get crossed and people seriously get hurt. If you want to take the mickey out of someone, then their innocence needs to be considered, as well as the consequences. It was very reasonable to foresee that someone might lose their job at that hospital. Is that funny? Then what follows a dismissal from employment? That is also not funny. Five minutes of fun to result in a possible unemployment ... that was foreseeable. Is this one of those points of reference? I believe now is a good time to draw a line in the sand. DJ's and others in public life need to learn to become a little more creative if they wish to entertain and amuse with comic relief. Cheap shots really are not funny. Personally I object to my taxes being used by the ABC (Australia) to fund such drivel as "The Chasers." It is unwatchable and a waste of resources.

Did the US provoke Japan into attacking the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour? What foreknowledge did Allies (Britain and the USA) have of the impending attack? Was this a case of sacrificing the men and ships of the Pacific Fleet, in order to give reason for the USA to come into the war? The following is an excerpt from: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm Is it a convenient write-up of history, of how it would like to be remembered, rather than how it should be remembered - truthfully? When the attack ended shortly before 10:00 a.m., less than two hours after it began, the American forces has paid a fearful price. Twenty-one ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were sunk or damaged: the battleships USS Arizona (BB-39), USS California (BB-44), USS Maryland (BB-46), USS Nevada (BB-36), USS Oklahoma (BB-37), USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), USS Tennessee (BB-43) and USS West Virginia (BB-48); cruisers USS Helena (CL-50), USS Honolulu (CL-48) and USS Raleigh (CL-7); the destroyers USS Cassin (DD-372), USS Downes (DD-375), USS Helm (DD-388) and USS Shaw (DD-373); seaplane tender USS Curtiss (AV-4); target ship (ex-battleship) USS Utah (AG-16); repair ship USS Vestal (AR-4); minelayer USS Oglala (CM-4); tug USS Sotoyomo (YT-9); and Floating Drydock Number 2. Aircraft losses were 188 destroyed and 159 damaged, the majority hit before the had a chance to take off. American dead numbered 2,403. That figure included 68 civilians, most of them killed by improperly fused anti-aircraft shells landing in Honolulu. There were 1,178 military and civilian wounded. Today would be a good opportunity to review what happenens in war - truth being the first casualty - but unfortunately after the smoke clears, the truth is not always as clear.

Perfect response, OT - couldn't have put it better myself.

During the week and Australian Radio Station, (reported by the ABC to be Southern Cross Austereo (SCA) and 2Day FM) phoned the London Hospital where Prince William's wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, is being treated for a minor pregnancy complication, morning sickness. Fraudulently, they pretended to be HRH Queen Elizabeth, the Queen of Australia. (It was fraud - check the definition) Through this fraud, they obtained something that was not intended for them - private information, from which they hoped to gain status, and ratings for their programme. The London Hospital was embarrassed, the nurse was embarrassed, and reprimanded. The nurse at the switch board was embarrassed and reprimanded. The Board of the hospital was embarrassed. All around, people suffered loss of face, and as well, information that is a private family matter was strewn all over the world. Childish and intellectually retarded behaviour by the Australians doing this. Today I am ashamed to be called an Australian, and I distance myself diametrically from any such behaviour and mentality. The Radio station apologised because of the immense public backlash yesterday, Friday 7th December 2012. Yet on their web page, it was reported that they were still congratulating themselves with virtual back-slapping and high-fives for the "coup." Some apology! This morning it is with great grief and anger that I report that the unfortunate nurse, who took that call, has been found dead. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-08/nurse-who-took-kate-prank-call-found-dead/4416348 I am angry beyond words. This person at the switchboard, took the call, and put it through to the nurse's station. The nurse took the call, believing what she was told - the Queen is inquiring about Kate. She gave out general information, in good faith. This is a simple case of unintended consequences. An act of fraud has resulted in a death. That is manslaughter, in my view. I seriously doubt there will be justice done here. We will see damage control measures ... but life will go on, and I expect the perpetrators will be allowed to do these stunts again. After all we live in a society where money and status are valued above human life. If you doubt this, then simply observe what now ensues. We have fraud ... leading to a crime ... leading to manslaughter ... leading ... ?Justice? Charges? And who will now support that young family? I hope the two DJ's are very proud of their wanking work. Cheap laughs. Fun. Tragedy. Heartless, opportunistic parasites who sought to profit at the embarrassment of others, obtained information by fraud, leading to a death. I can't add more - maybe you can.

Prayers will not help you (in trading matters). And I can not. You are better to converse directly with God than to waste time on His disciples! Aides toi et le ciel t'aidera! No one is more unhappy than I, about missing this contest - it is what I asked for ... and I could have entered using the standard platform. account. But I didn't want to have 2 entries under different names - that would have been construed as an attempt to cheat. No one wants that to happen. Anyway - I might trade along with a shadow account myself, once I find out how to access the platform under my other username (that Oanda forced me to register). They will not allow you to operate a MT4 practice account as well as a standard practice account, by using the same username. It's just how they do it, and I don't think they could have foreseen this.

It's a bit conflicting ... the posting was in this thread: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/forex-trading-laboratory/14629-trading-contest-discussion-2.html It's Tuesday here (4th December) in Oz. See posts #23 and #39 and #41 Post #23 says "The start t date will be:Mon. 12/4" Post #39 says "The next contest starts Dec 1 and runs for 2 months." Post #41 says " I am in EST so the new contest will start on the evening of Sunday Dec.2" In Oz ... it is 1107 Australian Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday 4th December 2012 as I type. I clearly missed the cut ... and Oanda still has not responded to my email, other than a standard automated business response. It's all cool. Just hoping to road test the MT4 platform for the contest.