Aeronautics Industry

Eric Chomko · Guest

On Apr 27, 10:36 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On Apr 27, 10:36 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> ::Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Perhaps, but the system should have indicated that he was in fact
:> :> :screwed up despite what he indicated on his applications.
:> :>
:> :> And just how does that work, exactly, Eric?
:> :
:> :In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter, the indications of "a
:> :threat to himself and others", via several psychological evaluations,
:> :ends up in the database for gun purchase background checks other than
:> :just whether he was a felon or not.
:>
:> Well, that would be handy but that's not what they apparently found.
:> Otherwise he wouldn't have been walking around loose.
:>
:> Hint: What I've seen says he was found to NOT be a threat to others.
:
:Freddy, what you've seen was a flaw in the system, but because you
:deem the system infallible, you can't really believe what you saw. Cho
:should have been treated. He never got it. Cho should never have been
:able to buy a gun. He did. Twice.

I note you ignore the simple fact that he was found to NOT be a threat
to others by the psychiatric professionals evaluating him.

:>
:> The real question is when we'll get around to charging mental health
:> professionals for malpractice when they make such errors.
:
:The mental health profession did not err. There was a disconnect
:between the mental health reports and law enforcement to render
:anything the mental health professionals did as being serious and
:worthy of merit.

So just how was it that Cho *WAS* a threat to others when the mental
health professionals who evaluated him said that he *WAS NOT* a threat
to others?

You don't consider that they erred? Perhaps this comes with your
failure to understand why being 'right' is better than being 'wrong'.

:
:Same happened with 9-11. The Clinton administration had warned Bush
:and Co. about Al Qeada, etc. Did they listen or ignore it?
:

The mental health professionals did *NOT* warn that Cho was a threat
to others. Quite the opposite, in fact.

:> :Are you saying the system was just fine WRT which Cho purchased his
:> :weapons, despite what was known about him?
:>
:> Apparently you don't know "what was known about him".
:
:More and more is coming out about what we already knew about Cho. It
:was quite clear that Cho was a problem and that was ignored due to a
:problem with how the gun lobby can and has influenced law
:enforcement.

Does reality ever manage to intrude on your thinking, Eric?

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 7, 11:56 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On May 7, 11:56 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On Apr 27, 10:36 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> ::Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Perhaps, but the system should have indicated that he was in fact
:> :> :> :screwed up despite what he indicated on his applications.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> And just how does that work, exactly, Eric?
:> :> :
:> :> :In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter, the indications of "a
:> :> :threat to himself and others", via several psychological evaluations,
:> :> :ends up in the database for gun purchase background checks other than
:> :> :just whether he was a felon or not.
:> :>
:> :> Well, that would be handy but that's not what they apparently found.
:> :> Otherwise he wouldn't have been walking around loose.
:> :>
:> :> Hint: What I've seen says he was found to NOT be a threat to others.
:> :
:> :Freddy, what you've seen was a flaw in the system, but because you
:> :deem the system infallible, you can't really believe what you saw. Cho
:> :should have been treated. He never got it. Cho should never have been
:> :able to buy a gun. He did. Twice.
:>
:> I note you ignore the simple fact that he was found to NOT be a threat
:> to others by the psychiatric professionals evaluating him.
:
:Could you be more vague?

What's vague about it? It seems to me to be a simple declarative
sentence in the English language. I'm sorry this is to complex for
you.

:Or do you have an actual cite for this?

See statements by the head of the Cook Counseling Center and by Dr Roy
Crouse (on the Montgomery County Court record).

:
:>
:> :>
:> :> The real question is when we'll get around to charging mental health
:> :> professionals for malpractice when they make such errors.
:> :
:> :The mental health profession did not err. There was a disconnect
:> :between the mental health reports and law enforcement to render
:> :anything the mental health professionals did as being serious and
:> :worthy of merit.
:>
:> So just how was it that Cho *WAS* a threat to others when the mental
:> health professionals who evaluated him said that he *WAS NOT* a threat
:> to others?
:
:What mental health professionals?
:

See above.

:> You don't consider that they erred? Perhaps this comes with your
:> failure to understand why being 'right' is better than being 'wrong'.
:
:You're wrong and failed.
:

Try again. I'm right and the only thing I seem to perpetually fail at
is pulling your head out of your ass so that you can smell reality.

:> :
:> :Same happened with 9-11. The Clinton administration had warned Bush
:> :and Co. about Al Qeada, etc. Did they listen or ignore it?
:> :
:>
:> The mental health professionals did *NOT* warn that Cho was a threat
:> to others. Quite the opposite, in fact.
:
:The opposite? Proof Freddy...
:I'm amazed to see what level you will stoop to exonerate the gun laws
Surprised

f this country.
:

My statement has to do with THE FACTS. It's got nothing to do with
gun laws.

:
:Face it, the system screweed up WRT to Cho. Blame the fact that he was
:minority if you want. That's what most conservatives are doing that I
:have talked to.
:

How would you know? You've already shown that you don't hear anything
said by anyone you consider to be a conservative.

:> :> :Are you saying the system was just fine WRT which Cho purchased his
:> :> :weapons, despite what was known about him?
:> :>
:> :> Apparently you don't know "what was known about him".
:> :
:> :More and more is coming out about what we already knew about Cho. It
:> :was quite clear that Cho was a problem and that was ignored due to a
:> :problem with how the gun lobby can and has influenced law
:> :enforcement.
:>
:> Does reality ever manage to intrude on your thinking, Eric?
:
:The reality that you're an NRA stooge? Yeah, that's obvious enough.
:

This is the best you can do? Poor Eric. Too stupid to know anything
at all about what he's talking about.

Bottom line, Eric, whether you like it or not, Cho underwent court
ordered psychiatric evaluation and the court determined that he was
not a threat to others.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 9, 11:21 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On May 9, 11:21 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 7, 11:56 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On Apr 27, 10:36 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> ::Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> :Perhaps, but the system should have indicated that he was in fact
:> :> :> :> :screwed up despite what he indicated on his applications.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> And just how does that work, exactly, Eric?
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter, the indications of "a
:> :> :> :threat to himself and others", via several psychological evaluations,
:> :> :> :ends up in the database for gun purchase background checks other than
:> :> :> :just whether he was a felon or not.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Well, that would be handy but that's not what they apparently found.
:> :> :> Otherwise he wouldn't have been walking around loose.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Hint: What I've seen says he was found to NOT be a threat to others.
:> :> :
:> :> :Freddy, what you've seen was a flaw in the system, but because you
:> :> :deem the system infallible, you can't really believe what you saw. Cho
:> :> :should have been treated. He never got it. Cho should never have been
:> :> :able to buy a gun. He did. Twice.
:> :>
:> :> I note you ignore the simple fact that he was found to NOT be a threat
:> :> to others by the psychiatric professionals evaluating him.
:> :
:> :Could you be more vague?
:>
:> What's vague about it? It seems to me to be a simple declarative
:> sentence in the English language. I'm sorry this is to complex for
:> you.
:>
:> :Or do you have an actual cite for this?
:>
:> See statements by the head of the Cook Counseling Center and by Dr Roy
:> Crouse (on the Montgomery County Court record).
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> The real question is when we'll get around to charging mental health
:> :> :> professionals for malpractice when they make such errors.
:> :> :
:> :> :The mental health profession did not err. There was a disconnect
:> :> :between the mental health reports and law enforcement to render
:> :> :anything the mental health professionals did as being serious and
:> :> :worthy of merit.
:> :>
:> :> So just how was it that Cho *WAS* a threat to others when the mental
:> :> health professionals who evaluated him said that he *WAS NOT* a threat
:> :> to others?
:> :
:> :What mental health professionals?
:> :
:>
:> See above.
:>
:> :> You don't consider that they erred? Perhaps this comes with your
:> :> failure to understand why being 'right' is better than being 'wrong'.
:> :
:> :You're wrong and failed.
:> :
:>
:> Try again. I'm right and the only thing I seem to perpetually fail at
:> is pulling your head out of your ass so that you can smell reality.
:>
:> :> :
:> :> :Same happened with 9-11. The Clinton administration had warned Bush
:> :> :and Co. about Al Qeada, etc. Did they listen or ignore it?
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> The mental health professionals did *NOT* warn that Cho was a threat
:> :> to others. Quite the opposite, in fact.
:> :
:> :The opposite? Proof Freddy...
:> :I'm amazed to see what level you will stoop to exonerate the gun laws
:> Surprised

f this country.
:> :
:>
:> My statement has to do with THE FACTS. It's got nothing to do with
:> gun laws.
:>
:> :
:> :Face it, the system screweed up WRT to Cho. Blame the fact that he was
:> :minority if you want. That's what most conservatives are doing that I
:> :have talked to.
:> :
:>
:> How would you know? You've already shown that you don't hear anything
:> said by anyone you consider to be a conservative.
:>
:> :> :> :Are you saying the system was just fine WRT which Cho purchased his
:> :> :> :weapons, despite what was known about him?
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Apparently you don't know "what was known about him".
:> :> :
:> :> :More and more is coming out about what we already knew about Cho. It
:> :> :was quite clear that Cho was a problem and that was ignored due to a
:> :> :problem with how the gun lobby can and has influenced law
:> :> :enforcement.
:> :>
:> :> Does reality ever manage to intrude on your thinking, Eric?
:> :
:> :The reality that you're an NRA stooge? Yeah, that's obvious enough.
:> :
:>
:> This is the best you can do? Poor Eric. Too stupid to know anything
:> at all about what he's talking about.
:>
:> Bottom line, Eric, whether you like it or not, Cho underwent court
:> ordered psychiatric evaluation and the court determined that he was
:> not a threat to others.
:
:No the bottom line is that you are mistaken once again. Read here:
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/06/AR2007050601403.html?hpid=moreheadlines
:
:which states at the top:
:Seung Hui Cho never received the treatment ordered by a judge who
:declared him dangerously mentally ill less than two years before his
:rampage
:
:The first two sentences, Freddy!
:

They're wrong. If the judge had declared him "dangerously mentally
ill" he would not have been let go to be treated on an out patient
basis.

The court found that he was *NOT* a danger to others, hence he was
released with an order to get out patient treatment (which he never
went to get).

Try actually thinking and investigating for yourself rather than
eating predigested sensation pap from the newsies, El Chimpko.

The bottom line is that you are mistaken once again.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 10, 9:31 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On May 10, 9:31 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 9, 11:21 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On May 7, 11:56 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :On Apr 27, 10:36 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> ::Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> :> :Perhaps, but the system should have indicated that he was in fact
:> :> :> :> :> :screwed up despite what he indicated on his applications.
:> :> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :> And just how does that work, exactly, Eric?
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> :In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter, the indications of "a
:> :> :> :> :threat to himself and others", via several psychological evaluations,
:> :> :> :> :ends up in the database for gun purchase background checks other than
:> :> :> :> :just whether he was a felon or not.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Well, that would be handy but that's not what they apparently found.
:> :> :> :> Otherwise he wouldn't have been walking around loose.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Hint: What I've seen says he was found to NOT be a threat to others.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Freddy, what you've seen was a flaw in the system, but because you
:> :> :> :deem the system infallible, you can't really believe what you saw. Cho
:> :> :> :should have been treated. He never got it. Cho should never have been
:> :> :> :able to buy a gun. He did. Twice.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> I note you ignore the simple fact that he was found to NOT be a threat
:> :> :> to others by the psychiatric professionals evaluating him.
:> :> :
:> :> :Could you be more vague?
:> :>
:> :> What's vague about it? It seems to me to be a simple declarative
:> :> sentence in the English language. I'm sorry this is to complex for
:> :> you.
:> :>
:> :> :Or do you have an actual cite for this?
:> :>
:> :> See statements by the head of the Cook Counseling Center and by Dr Roy
:> :> Crouse (on the Montgomery County Court record).
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> The real question is when we'll get around to charging mental health
:> :> :> :> professionals for malpractice when they make such errors.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :The mental health profession did not err. There was a disconnect
:> :> :> :between the mental health reports and law enforcement to render
:> :> :> :anything the mental health professionals did as being serious and
:> :> :> :worthy of merit.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> So just how was it that Cho *WAS* a threat to others when the mental
:> :> :> health professionals who evaluated him said that he *WAS NOT* a threat
:> :> :> to others?
:> :> :
:> :> :What mental health professionals?
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> See above.
:> :>
:> :> :> You don't consider that they erred? Perhaps this comes with your
:> :> :> failure to understand why being 'right' is better than being 'wrong'.
:> :> :
:> :> :You're wrong and failed.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Try again. I'm right and the only thing I seem to perpetually fail at
:> :> is pulling your head out of your ass so that you can smell reality.
:> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Same happened with 9-11. The Clinton administration had warned Bush
:> :> :> :and Co. about Al Qeada, etc. Did they listen or ignore it?
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> The mental health professionals did *NOT* warn that Cho was a threat
:> :> :> to others. Quite the opposite, in fact.
:> :> :
:> :> :The opposite? Proof Freddy...
:> :> :I'm amazed to see what level you will stoop to exonerate the gun laws
:> :> Surprised

f this country.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> My statement has to do with THE FACTS. It's got nothing to do with
:> :> gun laws.
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Face it, the system screweed up WRT to Cho. Blame the fact that he was
:> :> :minority if you want. That's what most conservatives are doing that I
:> :> :have talked to.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> How would you know? You've already shown that you don't hear anything
:> :> said by anyone you consider to be a conservative.
:> :>
:> :> :> :> :Are you saying the system was just fine WRT which Cho purchased his
:> :> :> :> :weapons, despite what was known about him?
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Apparently you don't know "what was known about him".
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :More and more is coming out about what we already knew about Cho. It
:> :> :> :was quite clear that Cho was a problem and that was ignored due to a
:> :> :> :problem with how the gun lobby can and has influenced law
:> :> :> :enforcement.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Does reality ever manage to intrude on your thinking, Eric?
:> :> :
:> :> :The reality that you're an NRA stooge? Yeah, that's obvious enough.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> This is the best you can do? Poor Eric. Too stupid to know anything
:> :> at all about what he's talking about.
:> :>
:> :> Bottom line, Eric, whether you like it or not, Cho underwent court
:> :> ordered psychiatric evaluation and the court determined that he was
:> :> not a threat to others.
:> :
:> :No the bottom line is that you are mistaken once again. Read here:
:> :http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/06/AR200...
:> :
:> :which states at the top:
:> :Seung Hui Cho never received the treatment ordered by a judge who
:> :declared him dangerously mentally ill less than two years before his
:> :rampage
:> :
:> :The first two sentences, Freddy!
:> :
:>
:> They're wrong. If the judge had declared him "dangerously mentally
:> ill" he would not have been let go to be treated on an out patient
:> basis.
:
:They are wrong? Huh, believe Freddy or a Washington Post article?
:Freddy or WP? Freddy or WP? Gee, I guess you win Freddy... LOL!
:
:>
:> The court found that he was *NOT* a danger to others, hence he was
:> released with an order to get out patient treatment (which he never
:> went to get).
:
:Why don't you rebut the article? Until then I'll stick with the paper
:and treat you as the average (very) denizen on the street with an
:opinion. Sorry, I actually have a back-up for my claim and you?
:
:> Try actually thinking and investigating for yourself rather than
:> eating predigested sensation pap from the newsies, El Chimpko.
:
:I did some research. And you? Pedantry. Here, I'll give you a chance
:to even the score. Why don't you find anything other than your opinion
:about Cho's mental health that backs up your claim. Anything. Even an
:NRA rag...
:
:>
:> The bottom line is that you are mistaken once again.
:
:No, I have a reference and you do not. Claim anything about me that
:you want, but the facts back me up and you have nothing but your
:opinion. That may work in the average bar but not in the world of real
:thinking. Sorry Freddy, once again I have you on the defensive.
:
:Get a reference if you want to continue this debate otherwise crawl
:back under your rock...
:

I already told you what the court found, what the mental health
professionals said, etc.

You go with your newspaper, El Chimpko. Just don't be surprised if
people call you stupid or a liar when you stupidly lie about events.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 11, 11:21 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote: